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)
on the basis of comparison with the costs of the measures in place. The criteria that have been
quoted include:
the level of spread in the Community;
economic impact;
relevance of host plant;
cropping area;
potential for introduction;
and potential for establishment.
Several MS suggested that a revision of the current list should be undertaken on the basis of
PRAs and taking into account international lists (EPPO lists 82 ). Although a PRA is the basis and
pre-requisite for regulating pests according to the existing IPPC standards 83 , therefore for
inclusion in the lists of the base Directive, for the reasons noted above not all of the currently
listed HOs have been subject to a formal PRA 84 , and for some of these the level of phytosanitary
risk may no longer justify measures. It is also suggested that the role of revising the list should
again be taken up by technical experts within the EC, and in particular within the Annexes
Working Group, a WG which was operational in the past and has recently been re-established 85 .
Furthermore, since the inception of the CPHR, the dimension and patterns of trade for the EU
have significantly increased as well as changed. The EU is currently confronted with new
problems, as new countries and areas have emerged and become major trading partners. This
may justify a revision of the current approach, which is considered to be appropriate but also to
have limitations, at least in some cases, as was also highlighted during the EPPO Colloquium of
cinerescens, Phytophthora fragariae, Phytophthora fragariae var. fragariae, Phytoplasma mali (apple
proliferation), Phytoplasma pyri (pear decline), Plum Pox Virus, Puccinia horiana, Quadraspidiotus perniciosus,
Raspberry leaf curl virus, Raspberry ringspot virus, Rhagoletis cingulata, Scirrhia pini, Trogoderma granarium,
Viteus vitifoliae, Xanthomonas fragariae.
82 EPPO A1 and A2 Lists of pests recommended for regulation as quarantine pests. EPPO Action List of A1 and A2
pests recommended for regulation, but not yet included in EPPO member countries' phytosanitary regulations. EPPO
Alert list of pests possibly presenting a risk to EPPO member countries.
83 A PRA is the IPPC guideline for regulating both quarantine and non quarantine pests (RNQPs). Undertaking a
PRA in connection with RNQPs is discussed in the following section.
84
They all had an assessment of pest risk, see EPPO (1997), which covers all the pests of the EPPO A1 and A2 lists
and of Annexes I and II of EU Directive 77/93.
85 In the past the Annexes Working Group did the preparatory work for the Standing Committee on Plant Health
(SCPH) to reduce discussion time. This also included a discussion on Risk Assesment. It is understood that the
Annexes Working Group is to take up its work again, and the ToR for the WG were adopted by the SCPH on the 15
December 2009. The Annexes Working Group will only consider risk management, no longer risk assessment.The
new strategy would be to have a written consultation on the draft recommendation made by SANCO, which would
be put on CIRCA for comment. If comments are substantial, the draft recommendation would go back to the WG for
revision of the recommendation. The work of the WG would be restricted to a limited and feasible set of tasks with
quick deadlines. The work of the WG would include the analysis of EUROPHYT data, outbreak data reported by the
MS, monitoring developments outside the EU and recommendations from the EPPO foresight activity. The EPPO
tracks the evolution of pests (MS members have to notify). The EPPO is a member of the Annexes WG.
Food Chain Evaluation Consortium 64