2454 final report.pdf - Agra CEAS Consulting

Evaluation of the Community Plant Health Regime: Final Report
DG SANCO Evaluation Framework Contract Lot 3 (Food Chain)
2.3. Are there HOs which present an important phytosanitary risk and/or economic impact in your
country but on which your plant protection services cannot sufficiently focus on at present?
The majority of MS CAs (13 out of 25) do not sufficiently focus at present on HOs which present an
important phytosanitary risk and/or economic impact. 11 stakeholders consider focus is not sufficient
(out of 28, 7 do not know).
The main reason (11 out of 35) is the insufficient staff (out of 35), and other reasons (10), for the
majority financial resources.
2.4. Do the plant protection services in your country experience difficulties in effectively dealing
with all the regulated HOs (many of which are non-European), in terms of:
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
a. The expertise required for
inspection?
b. Staff resources required for
inspection?
c. The expertise required for
diagnostics?
Generally yes
Sometimes
Generally no
d. Staff resources required for
diagnostics?
Note: results based on responses of MS CAs
According to the results of the general survey, the majority of MS CAs consider that some
revision to the lists of the base Directive is needed, on the basis that certain HOs that are listed
should possibly be delisted, while there may be HOs not currently listed but which should
possibly be listed (Q 2.1).
MS have provided suggestions for HOs which should be included in the lists 80 ; indicating that
without common approach at EU level, the current situation is that MS take action against nonlisted
HOs on a national basis. In many cases it has been suggested that at least those which are
currently regulated by emergency measures should be listed. Similarly, MS have provided
suggestions for HOs that should be removed from the lists 81 , on the basis of different criteria and
80 HOs suggested for inclusion in lists are: Ambrosia artemisifolia, Chalarafraxinea, Cameraria ohridella,
Dryocosmus kuriphilus, Eichhornia crassipes, Fusarium foetens, Gibberella (Fusarium) circinata, Hydrocotyle
ranunculoides, Ips subelongatus, PepMV, Phytophthora fragariae var. rubi, Phytophthora kernoviae, Phytophthora
ramorum, PSTVd, Pueraria lobata, Rhynchophorus ferrugineus, Saperda candida, Sirex ermak, Tuta absoluta,
Xanthomonas axonopodis pv dieffenbachiae.
81 Apple Proliferation phytoplasma, Cacoecimorpha pronubana, Cacyreus marshalli, Ciborinia camelliae,
Cryphonectria parasitica, Daktulosphaira vitifoliae, Diabrotica virgifera, Diaporthe vaccinii, Dickeya (Erwinia)
chrysanthemi, Ditylenchus destructor, Ditylenchus dipsaci, Erschoviella musculana, European Stone Fruit
Phytoplasma, Globodera spp., Frankliniella occidentalis, Heliothis armigera, Impatiens necrotic spot virus,
Leptinotarsa decemlineata, Liriomyza huidobrensis, Liriomyza trifolii, Pepino Mosaic Virus, Phialophora
Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 63