COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on protective measures against pests of plants
Date: 2013-05-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: biodiversity, destruction of crops, import (EU), marketing standard, plant health control, plant health treatment, plant propagation

EUROPEAN 
COMMISSION 

Brussels, 6.5.2013  
SWD(2013) 168 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

Accompanying the document 

Proposal for a  

REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 

on protective measures against pests of plants 

{COM(2013) 267 final} 
{SWD(2013) 169 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

Accompanying the document 

Proposal for a  

REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 

on protective measures against pests of plants 

1. 

PROBLEM DEFINITION 

Background 

Plant  health  is  a  key factor  for sustainable and competitive agriculture, horticulture 
and forestry. Healthy seeds and propagating material are required for profitable crops 
and ensuring jobs, plant innovation and food security. In the case of trees and shrubs, 
protecting  plant  health  is  essential  for  the  preservation  of  the  Union's  forests, 
landscape  and  public  and  private  green.  As  a  rule,  organisms  (insects,  fungi, 
nematodes, bacteria, viruses) that are injurious to plants (pests of plants) co-evolved 
with  host  plant  species  on  their  own  continent,  where  they  cause  mild  damage  and 
can be managed by good agricultural practices such as crop diversification, rotation, 
resistant  plant  varieties  and  the  use  of  plant  protection  products  (pesticides). 
However, these approaches are often insufficient to address pests and diseases from 
other  continents,  against  which  European  plants  and  trees  usually  lack  genetic 
resistance  (no  co-evolution)  and  for  which  no  natural  enemies  occur  in  Europe. 
When  introduced  into  Europe,  such  pests  and  diseases  cause  severe  economic 
damage and reduce the growth of agriculture: they jump to previously unaffected and 
even entirely new host species, spread fast across countries, and cause lasting yield 
reduction  and  permanently  increased  costs  for  production  and  control.  The  often 
severe  economic  losses  undermine  the  profitability  and  competitiveness  of 
agriculture  and  forestry  and  put  additional  burden  on  Member  State  (MS) 
expenditures.  In  addition,  the  establishment  of  new  pests  and  diseases  often  elicits 
trade  bans  from  third  countries,  causing  further  damage  (economic,  jobs)  to  EU 
exports. 

Therefore,  the  first  objective  of  the  EU  plant  health  regime  (PHR)  is  to  protect 
European agriculture and forestry by preventing the entry and  spread of non-native 
harmful organisms (pests and pathogenic micro-organisms). The main tool hereby is 
Council Directive 2000/29/EC, which also reflects international trade agreements in 
this  area.  The  PHR  secures  safe  trade  by  the  establishment  of  EU  import 
requirements  and  intra-EU  movement  conditions  for  plants  and  plant  products. 
Outbreaks  of  the  listed  organisms  have  to  be  eradicated  or,  if  that  is  impossible, 
contained to protect the rest of the EU territory. A second objective of the regime is 
to  ensure  the  availability  and  use  of  healthy  plant  material  at  the  beginning  of  the 
chain of plant production by preventing the spread of harmful organisms with seeds 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
and  planting  material.  This  objective  is  shared  with  the  EU  regime  for  plant 
reproductive  (planting)  material.  Healthy  planting  material  is  critical  for  organisms 
(e.g.  viruses)  against  which  no  pesticides  are  available.  Where  available,  pesticide 
use is mainly restricted to agriculture, horticulture (applications in forestry are very 
limited) and gardens and may bring along environmental and human health risks. 

In the  absence of the  PHR, the Union's agriculture, horticulture  and  forestry  would 
suffer severe economic damage (outlined in Annex VII). A range of internationally 
regulated  pests  threatens  the  cultivation  of  e.g.  wheat  (EU  export  value  to  third 
countries  EUR  9  billion),  potato  (EU  production  value  EUR  9  billion)  and  tomato 
(production  value  EUR  9-12  billion).  For  example,  regulated  pests  of  tomato  may 
cause up to 70% production losses and may trigger trade bans. Citrus production in 
the EU (EUR 4 billion) would suffer severe damage if citrus canker would reach the 
Union,  a  pest  recently  introduced  into  the  US  which  subsequently  spent  EUR  800 
mio on compensation and control costs. Pine wood nematode outbreaks in Portugal 
since 1999 are under strict, albeit costly control as spread of the pest across southern 
Europe would result in 50-90% mortality of coniferous forest (valued at EUR 39 to 
49  billion).  Outbreaks  of  the  mountain  pine  beetle,  which  currently  kills  80%  of 
16 mio  hectare  pine  forest  in  western  Canada,  would  threaten  EU  pines  which 
amount to 20% of the EU productive forest area. In general, the cost:benefit balance 
of the PHR is estimated to be at least 1:500.  

The EU PHR is unique in that it is an open regime: movements of plants and plant 
products  into  and  within  the  EU  are  allowed  on  condition  that  specific  restrictions 
and requirements are respected (e.g. provenance from a pest free area or appropriate 
treatment).  The  high  volumes  of  imports  from  other  continents  (Annex  VI) 
nevertheless imply a high probability of future outbreaks of alien harmful organisms. 
The  PHR  is  therefore  indispensable  both  for  protecting  the  health,  economy  and 
competitiveness  of  the  EU  plant  production  sector  as  well  as  for  maintaining  the 
Union's open trade policy.  

Furthermore,  the  Commission  on  3  May  2011  announced  in  its  'EU  Biodiversity 
strategy to 2020' the integration of additional biodiversity concerns into the plant and 
animal health  regimes and the  development of a dedicated legislative instrument to 
fill  policy  gaps  in  combating  invasive  alien  species  (organisms  that  are  introduced 
accidentally  or  deliberately  into  the  EU  where  they  are  not  native).  The  current 
review of the PHR aims to reinforce the Union's protection against invasive pests and 
pathogens, while where possible contributing to wider biodiversity goals.  

The review of the PHR is part of a package of four reviews relating to the health of 
plants, health of animals, quality of planting material and official control of food and 
feed.  Certain  aspects  of  the  official  control  Regulation  (882/2004)  already  apply  to 
the  plant  health  sector.  The  Regulation  in  future  will  fully  cover  the  PHR.  The 
present  impact  assessment  addresses  the  changes  in  the  traditional  "pillars"  of  the 
PHR,  also  if  specific  provisions  (e.g.  fees,  import)  will  be  absorbed  by  that 
Regulation.  This  is  essential  since  the  PHR  review  concerns  the  functioning  of  the 
regime as a whole. Links exist to the plant reproductive material regime as concerns 
the  certification  of  seed  and  propagating  material  for  the  absence  of  harmful 
organisms.  Changes  to  improve  the  coherence  between  the  two  regimes  are 
addressed in the present impact assessment. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
Problem identification 

Since  its  creation  in  1977,  the  PHR  successfully  protected  the  EU  against  the 
introduction and spread of many pests (e.g. potato and citrus pests). The situation has 
however  changed  due  to  the  ongoing  globalisation  of  trade,  resulting  in  ever 
increasing imports from new parts of the world. This has led to a sharply increased 
influx  of  new  harmful  organisms,  especially  in  the  last  decade.  The  problems  are 
being exacerbated by climate change, which allows new pests to establish and thrive 
that previously did not survive in the EU as well as higher vulnerability of EU crops 
and forests to alien pests. The EU is thus confronted with an increased risk of entry 
of  pests,  increased  opportunities  for  their  establishment  and  spread,  and  increased 
vulnerability  of  agricultural  and  natural  ecosystems  (including  forests).  The 
enlargement  of  the  EU  has  moreover  resulted  in  a  wider  diversity  of  climates, 
agricultural  cropping  systems,  forest  types,  landscapes  and  natural  habitats,  often 
differing in sensitivity or resilience to harmful organisms which leads to even more 
significant and wider impacts at EU level. 

The evaluation of the PHR (2010) has shown that the regime has to adapt in order to 
be able to fully address these increased risks. Major outbreaks in the past decade of 
dangerous  import-related  harmful  organisms  affecting  forestry  (e.g.  pine  wood 
nematode, citrus longhorn beetle, red palm weevil) have raised societal and political 
awareness  of  the  costs  and  impacts  of  inadequate  protection.  The  main  problems 
identified relate to insufficient focus on prevention in relation to increased imports of 
high-risk  commodities,  the  need  for  prioritising  harmful  organisms  at  EU  level 
across  all  27  MS,  the  need  for  better  instruments  for  controlling  the  presence  and 
natural spread of pests in case they eventually reach the Union territory, and a need 
for  modernising  and  upgrading  the  instruments  concerning  intra-EU  movements 
(plant passports and protected zones), and a need to foresee additional resources. The 
science base of the regime (research, laboratories) also needs to be reinforced. These 
problems  should  be  addressed  to  reinforce  the  positive  cost-benefit  balance  of  the 
current regime in the long term. Failure of regulatory action against outbreaks would 
undermine the credibility of those actions, discourage investments in the regime and 
stimulate  MS  to  give  priority  to  short-term  national  interests  above  EU  priorities 
(vicious circle). This would damage the EU economy as a whole. 

Furthermore,  expectations  of  society  on  governance  have  changed.  The  current 
regime  defines  obligations  to  stakeholders,  obliges  them  to  pay  fees  for  mandatory 
controls,  but  involves  them  only  to  a  limited  extent  in  the  policy  development  and 
implementation.  This  is  no  longer  seen  as  appropriate;  a  new  balance  needs  to  be 
struck as concerns costs and responsibility sharing (partnership development). With 
the  Better  Regulation  (SMART)  agenda,  and  exacerbated  by  the  current  financial 
crisis, there is a strong need to increase effectiveness and reduce unnecessary costs 
and  administrative  burden.  A  need  for  modernisation  of  the  regime  furthermore 
exists in terms of incentives for compliance. 

When  the  regime  was  created,  agricultural  productivity  and  food  security  were  the 
global objectives of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). A need for "greening" 
of  the  CAP  has  since  emerged  and  objectives  relating  to  the  natural  environment 
have  gained  importance.  This  impacts  on  the  intervention  logic,  also  in  terms  of 
financing, of the PHR, which is moving from a private good regime for agriculture to 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
a mixed public/private good regime for agriculture, forestry, natural environment and 
landscape.  

A need also exists for a framework to regulate invasive species. As announced in the 
Commission's  Biodiversity  Strategy,  it  should  be  investigated  in  how  far  invasive 
species could be included in the scope of the plant and animal health regimes in order 
to  optimise  the  use  of  resources  and  infrastructures,  while  avoiding  duplication  of 
requirements under the future general invasive alien species legislation.  

Finally,  the  current  text  of  the  Plant  Health  Directive,  the  product  of  34  years  of 
amendments  to  the  text  of  1977,  is  highly  complex  and  needs  simplification. 
Misunderstandings and differences in interpretation of the Directive are an important 
cause  of  non-compliances  and,  therefore,  failure  to  achieve  the  objectives  of  the 
regime. 

How would the problem evolve if no action was taken? 

The  increasing  influx  of  harmful  organisms  new  to  the  EU  would  cause  new 
epidemics  in  EU  agriculture  and  forestry.  The  losses  from  new  plant  pests  would 
affect the economic viability of agriculture and forestry, undermining food security 
and  damaging  the  landscape  and  natural  environment.  Eradication  and  containment 
would  fail  due  to  lack  of  resources  and  erosion  of  confidence  in  the  regime.  There 
would  be  growing  opposition  from  private  sector  to  carry  the  costs  of  the  regime, 
given  its  lack  of  effectiveness  and  the  limited  sharing  of  costs  and  responsibilities 
between  authorities  and  operators.  As  a  consequence  of  ongoing  outbreaks  and 
spread of dangerous pests, exports of plant materials to third countries would decline 
due  to  recurrent  trade  bans.  As  can  be  seen  in  Annex  VII  and  VIII,  the  negative 
impact could range up to billions of Euros per year. The impact on forests could be 
disastrous:  some  common  conifer  and  deciduous  tree  species  might  disappear,  as 
happened before in Europe and elsewhere to other once common tree species. 

2. 

ANALYSIS OF SUBSIDIARITY 

The PHR is based on TFEU Article 43 on the Common Agricultural Policy. In the 
framework  of  the  current  review,  it  is  considered  to  widen  the  legal  basis  to  also 
include TFEU Articles 114 (internal market) and 191 (environment). 

Regulating  plant  health  at  EU  level  allows  for  coordinated  and  in  the  long  run 
cheaper  action  on  EU  priorities,  making  it  more  effective  and  less  expensive  than 
actions by individual MS. For example, border controls for differing national lists of 
harmful  organisms  would  be  highly  inefficient  and  ineffective,  given  the  free 
movement  of  commodities  on  the  single  EU  internal  market  after  import. 
Furthermore,  plant  pests  are  mobile  by  themselves  and  cross-border  effects  will 
occur  not  only  through  intra-EU  movement  of  commodities  but  also  via  natural 
spread.  Inevitably  therefore  pests  and  diseases  of  EU  significance  need  to  be 
addressed jointly. Inaction in one MS may however result in spread to others. Third 
country trade partners might also implement restrictions on imports from the EU as a 
whole if an outbreak in one of the MS is not properly eradicated. The membership of 
the  EU  (not  only  of  the  individual  MS)  to  the  International  Plant  Protection 
Convention and the WTO Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement further implies the 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
EU  responsibility  to  maintain  an  adequate  legal  framework  ensuring  international 
plant health standards. 

The  specific  added  value  of  the  EU  co-financing  of  the  PHR  is  that  it  provides 
incentives to MS who put in place eradication and surveillance actions which are in 
the  long-term  interest  of  the  Union  as  a  whole.  Large-scale  eradication  actions  by 
MS  for  outbreaks  could  be  difficult  without  EU  support  in  view  of  the  large  costs 
incurred  by  the  individual  MS  to  the  benefit  of  the  EU,  even  if  the  overall 
cost/benefit  for  the  Union  as  a  whole  would  be  clearly  positive.  This  requires 
solidarity between MS in sharing the costs and burden. The current example of the 
pine  wood  nematode  outbreaks  in  Portugal  demonstrates  that  EU  plant  health  co-
financing  budget  is  crucial  to  implement the  eradication  and  containment  measures 
which cause damage to Portuguese forestry, however are essential to protect forestry 
in the other 26 MS. 

3. 

POLICY OBJECTIVES 

The overall objectives of the revision are to ensure a future PHR which:  

– 

– 

– 

Supports  the  Union's  agricultural  policy  (TFEU  Art.  43)  and  environment 
policy (TFEU Art. 191) by protective measures against  harmful organisms of 
plants, with prevention at the source as important principle. 

Allows  a  smooth  functioning  of  the  Union's  internal  market  with  fair 
competition  (TFEU  Art.  114,  while  respecting  the  need  for  a  high  level  of 
protection of health and the environment, based on scientific facts). 

Contributes to the harmonious development of world trade (TFEU Art. 206, by 
adopting legislation which complies with the WTO-SPS Agreement). 

The intermediate objectives of the revision are: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

To ensure that the EU territory remains free from harmful organisms that are 
not yet present in the Union. 

To ensure that the Union areas affected by priority organisms do not increase. 

To modernise the regime in terms of governance and incentives. 

To ensure adequate support for the regime. 

The specific objectives of the revision are: 

(1)  To  define  EU  priorities  (recognition  of  priority  harmful  organisms  for  the 
Union territory as a whole; easier transfer of posteriority organisms to the plant 
reproductive material regime). 

(2)  To  improve  prevention  at  import  (increased  protection  against  high-risk  trade 
imported  into  the  EU  and  passenger  luggage  associated  risks;  increased 
preparedness and surveillance for outbreaks of new and priority organisms). 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
(3)  To improve eradication and containment capacities (upgraded instrumentation 

and incentivised action). 

(4)  To  restore  and  modernise  the  regime  for  intra-EU  movements  (restored 
reliability  and  credibility;  rebalanced  responsibilities  of  competent  authorities 
and private sector; reduced administrative burden; a level playing field). 

(5) 

Improved  support  for  the  regime  (Union  co-financing  of  costs  incurred  for 
public  good  interests;  full  cost  recovery  from  operators  for  controls  by 
competent authorities (these relate to private good interests); robust diagnostic 
and  scientific  support;  public  awareness  of  the  relevance  of  the  regime  and 
public support). 

4. 

POLICY OPTIONS 

Four options were developed to improve the regime. In all options, horizontal aspects 
in  common  with  other  Union  food  chain  legislation  are  transferred  to  Regulation 
(882/2004) on official controls. The present assessment addresses the changes in the 
existing  pillars  of  the  PHR,  whether  or  not  specific  provisions  (e.g.  certification 
requirements,  plant  passport  fees,  import  requirements)  will  be  absorbed  by  that 
Regulation. The options are: 

Option  1:  Improve  only  the  legal  form  and  clarity  of  the  regime.  The  legislation 
would be converted from a Directive into a Regulation, and simplified and clarified. 
The status quo is maintained in terms of substance.  

Option  2:  Prioritise,  modernise  and  step  up  prevention.  Additional  to  Option  1, 
prioritisation would be improved by transforming the Directive's current Annexes I 
and II, which list regulated pests according to technical features irrespective of their 
priority  for  the  Union,  into  Annexes,  of  future  implementing  acts  under  the 
Regulation, based on intervention logic and priority. The plant passport and protected 
zone  systems  would  be  modernised  (responsibility  sharing  with  operators)  and 
upgraded  (plant  passport  scope,  format,  mandatory  cost-recovery  based  plant 
passport fees as already exist for import, rules for outbreaks in protected zones). The 
coherence  between  the  PHR  and  plant  reproductive  material  regimes  would  be 
improved to increase effectiveness and reduce costs for operators. Prevention would 
be reinforced by introducing a new category of high-risk plant materials that are not 
authorised  for  import  until  completion  of  a  risk  analysis,  and  by  removing 
exemptions  for  passenger  luggage  (to  be  subject  to  low  frequency  controls  to 
minimise the cost impacts; see Annex IX).  

Option  3:  Prioritise,  modernise,  step  up  prevention  and  reinforce  actions  against 
outbreaks. Additional to Option 2, obligations would be introduced for surveillance 
and  contingency  planning.  In  analogy  with  the  arrangements  in  the  animal  health 
regime, EU co-financing would be made available for surveillance for new harmful 
organisms and priority organisms and for financial compensation of direct losses of 
operators  for  those  priority  organisms.  The  legal  instruments  for  eradication  and 
containment  would  be  further  developed.  The  exclusion  of  natural  spread  related 
measures would be removed.  

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
Option  4:  Prioritise,  modernise,  step  up  prevention,  reinforce  actions  against 
outbreaks  and  expand  the  scope  to  invasive  plants.  Additional  to  Option  3,  the 
regime  would  also  cover  invasive  plants,  in  terms  of  legal  provisions  for  measures 
and EU co-financing. Invasive plants (other than parasitic plants) are not covered in 
Options 1, 2 and 3. 

5. 

ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS 

Each option was assessed for its total costs compared to the baseline scenario and its 
economic, social and environmental impacts. According to the evaluation report, the 
baseline costs of the regime incurred in the reference year 2008  were  EUR  59  mio 
for the Competent Authorities, EUR 88 mio for the operators and EUR 2 mio for the 
EU budget, the total costs of the regime being EUR 149 mio. These figures include 
the  costs  of  official  controls  (incurred  by  the  competent  authorities  but  partly 
recovered from the operators through fees1) and the costs of surveillance, eradication 
and containment measures. It should be noted that the baseline figure of EUR 2 mio 
EU budget is based on the official figure for 2008. Given the EUR 10-20 mio higher 
level of claims for 2010 and 2011, annual MS and EU expenditures will currently be 
EUR 10-20 mio higher.  

The costs of the policy options differed substantially. Option 1 had no cost impacts. 
Option  2  resulted  in  significantly  reduced  costs  for  MS  and  significantly  increased 
costs for operators (due to full cost recovery for controls), while the costs for the EU 
and  the  total  costs  of  the  regime  remained  largely  unaltered.  Option  3  resulted  in 
significantly  decreased  costs  for  MS  (due  to  full  cost  recovery  for  controls), 
unaltered  costs  for  operators  (due  to  EU  co-financing  of  losses  from  eradication 
activities equalling the cost increase from full cost recovery for controls), and higher 
EU co-financing costs, but only slight overall costs increases for the regime. Option 
4 resulted in nearly unaltered overall costs for MS and operators, but very significant 
cost  increases  for  the  EU  and  for  the  regime  as  a  whole  (due  to  the  costs  for 
surveillance and eradication of invasive plants).  

Overall compliance costs (including 
administrative burden and fees) 

Competent 
Authorities 

Operators 

Baseline scenario:  
-- Prior to levying of fees 
-- After levying of fees 

Option 1 

Option 2 

Option 3 

Option 4 

€ 96 mio 
€ 59 mio 

€ 59 mio 

€ 45 mio 

€ 51 mio 
€ 88 mio 

€ 88 mio 

€ 106.8 mio 

EU 
budget 

€ 2 mio 
€ 2 mio 

€ 2 mio 

€ 3 mio 

Total 

€ 149 mio 
€ 149 mio 

€ 149 mio 

€ 154.8 mio 

€ 44.3 mio 

€ 89.8 mio 

€ 26.7 mio 

€ 160.8 mio 

€ 64.7 mio 

€ 89.8 mio 

€ 47.1 mio 

€ 201.6 mio 

1 

The PHR obliges MS to levy fees for import controls. It does not require fees for plant passport controls 
and registration of operators, for which fees are levied in some but not all MS. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
The assessment of the economic, social and environmental impacts of the regime was 
that  Option  1  had  neutral  to  very  slightly  positive  impacts,  Option  2  had  slightly 
positive environmental impacts but negative economic impacts, while Options 3 and 
4  had  significantly  positive  economic,  social  and  environmental  impacts  (although 
the  overall  costs  of  the  regime  would  increase,  the  benefits  would  increase  even 
more):  

Areas 

Impacts 

Economic impacts 

Reduction of cost/burden to operators 
Productivity, profitability, competitiveness 

Social impacts 

Employment 
Food security and safety 

Option 1Option 2Option 3 Option 4

0 
0 

0 
0 

−− 
− 

0 
+++ 

0 
+++ 

− 
+ 

++ 
++ 

++ 
++ 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Environmental impacts 

Sustainability 
Biodiversity and ecosystems conservation 
Health of forests, landscape, public and private green 

+ 
0 
+ 

+ 
+ 
+ 

+++ 
+ 
+++ 

+++ 
+++ 
+++ 

In  order  to  measure  its  usefulness,  each  option  was  also  rated  against  the  initial 
objectives of the review to examine which option best met the aims of the review: 

Option 1  Option 2  Option 3  Option 4 

l
a
r
e
n
e
G

s
e
v
i
t
c
e
j
b
o

j

s
e
v
i
t
t
c
e
b
o
c
i
f
i
c
e
p
S

Ensuring that the regime effectively 
protects the Union against harmful 
organisms of EU priority 

Modernising the regime as concerns 
incentives, costs and responsibilities, 
including the removal of competition 
distortion and the reduction of burden 

Definition of EU priorities 
-- Recognition of priority pests 
-- Improved ability to smoothly declassify 
harmful organisms  

Improved prevention at import 
-- Increased protection against high-risk 
trade 
-- Increased preparedness and surveillance 

Strengthened eradication and 
containment capacities 
-- Upgraded instruments 
-- Incentivised notification, eradication and 
containment of outbreaks of priority pests 

Restoration and modernisation of the 
regime for intra-EU movements 
-- Restored credibility of plant passports and 
protected zones 
-- Rebalanced MS/operator responsibilities, 
reduced burden/costs, level playing field 

Improved support for the regime 
-- Full cost recovery for controls of operators 
and Union co-financing for public interest 
-- Good diagnostic and scientific support 
-- Public awareness and support 

0 

0 

0 
0 

0 

0 

0 
0 

0 

0 

0 

N.A. 
0 

+ 

+ 

+++ 
+++ 

++ 

++ 

+ 
0 

+++ 

+ 

++ 

N.A. 
+ 

+++ 

+++ 

+++ 
+++ 

++ 

+++ 

+++ 
+++ 

+++ 

+++ 

+++ 

N.A. 
++ 

+++ 

(also 
invasive 
plants) 
+++ 

+++ 
+++ 

+++ 

++ 

++ 
++ 

+++ 

+++ 

+++ 

N.A. 
++ 

Magnitude  of  impact:  ++  strongly  positive;  +  positive;  −−  strongly  negative;  −  negative;  0  none.  N.A.:  not 
applicable (to be addressed by the revised Regulation 882/2004 and through the Horizon 2020 programme). 

6. 

COMPARISON OF OPTIONS 

Option 1 did not meet the objectives of the review. 

Option  2  improved  the  regime  in  so  far  as  possible  without  additional  EU 
engagement,  by  responsibilising  operators  (including  full  cost  recovery)  and 
strengthening  prevention.  Given  the  current  financial  crisis,  Option  2  might  be  the 
default candidate for the future PHR. The assessment however revealed that its cost-
effectiveness is poor.  

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Stricter  import  provisions  should  help  to  reduce  the  influx  of  regulated  harmful 
organisms into the Union. The high volumes of imports from other continents where 
those  pests  are  widespread  nevertheless  imply  that  sooner  or  later  some  regulated 
organisms will slip through and cause outbreaks, unless the open approach of the EU 
concerning import of plant material is given up (which option was discarded from the 
start, also politically, because of the damage it would cause to the Union's economy). 
These outbreaks need to be timely detected and effectively addressed if the open EU 
approach  is  to  be  maintained.  The  quintessence  of  Option  2,  avoiding  further  EU 
engagement, implies that the necessary additional expenditures for surveillance and 
early  action  against  such  outbreaks  can  be  generated  only  partially,  through  the 
increased cost recovery related to intra-EU movements of plant material. This would 
help  only  in  some  MS  (those  with  incomplete  cost  recovery  at  present).  It  would 
increase the burden for operators (stricter import provisions, temporary suspension of 
high-risk  trade)  without  offering  reinforced  long-term  protection  against  harmful 
organisms  from  third  countries,  as  incentives  for  early  notification  by  operators 
would  not  be  provided  and  in  many  MS  budget  for  surveillance  and  early  action 
would remain insufficient. This is a risk since harmful organisms do not respect MS 
borders.  

The main advantage of Option 2 is the modernisation and rebalancing of the role and 
responsibilities  of  operators  versus  MS  competent  authorities  (as  well  as  better 
arrangements  between  the  PHR  and  planting  material  regimes  and  a  more  level 
playing field). While this was one of the general objectives of the review, the other 
general objective (improved prevention and early action) would only be partly met. 
The  harmful  organism  influx  into  the  EU  would  at  best  be  slowed  down  and  the 
damage  would  continue  to  increase.  Option  2  supposes  that  MS  and  operators  are 
best placed to deal with plant health problems, which conflicts with the outcome of 
the  regime's  evaluation  and  with  the  preference  of  most  stakeholders  and  MS  to 
move  to  stronger  EU  engagement.  It  neglects  market  failure  and  the  existence  of 
significant  public  good  aspects,  and  rather  reflects  the  original  PHR  logic  that  the 
regime is about agriculture and movements in trade. 

Option  3  differed  from  Option  2  in  the  increased  EU  co-financing  for  surveillance 
and outbreak eradication. This proved to result in a series of synergies which seem 
critical  to  ensure  a  better  functioning  of  the  PHR  as  concerns  prevention  and  early 
detection  of  and  action  against  outbreaks,  necessary  to  achieve  the  desired  socio-
economic and environmental benefits. 

EU financial support for surveillance for new and priority pests would help to timely 
detect  and  eradicate  outbreaks,  more  than  in  Option  2  where  it  is  questionable 
whether MS will have the resources to meet new obligations to carry out intensified 
surveys. Eradication actions would also likely be implemented more robustly. EU co-
financing  of  compensation  by  MS  to  growers  for  direct  losses  from  eradication  of 
priority  organisms  would  remove  disincentives  to  hide  outbreaks.  By  making  any 
compensations  conditional  to  demonstrated  adherence  to  good  biosecurity  practices 
and timely notification of outbreaks, an incentive for prevention would be introduced 
that  is  absent  from  Option  2.  Supporting  operators  as  concerns  their  direct  losses 
from  outbreaks  would  encourage  them  to  become  a  partner  in  the  EU  plant  health 
regime,  as  they  have  asked  to  be.  As  long  as  operators  do  not  receive  100% 
compensation  at  national  level  (normally  not  the  case),  it  is  unlikely  that  EU  co-
financing  of  operator  losses  would  act  as  a  perverse  incentive  for  recklessness. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
Moreover, the eligibility for EU co-financing would be restricted to the direct value 
losses,  consequential  losses  remaining  for  the  grower;  these  may  be  insured  or 
covered under mutual funds under the Common Agricultural Policy. EU co-financing 
of  direct  losses  is  likely  to  stimulate  the  necessary  development  of  national  mutual 
funds.  The  legal  proposal  of  the  Commission  on  support  for  rural  development 
(communicated on 12  October 2011)  foresees support  for financial contributions to 
farmers  for  insurances  and  mutual  funds  providing  compensation  for  damages, 
including those caused by outbreaks of regulated harmful organisms of plants. 

Option 3 balances costs and benefits for all parties involved. Other than in Option 2, 
costs  for  operators  remain  stable  and  MS  costs  decrease,  while  the  economic  and 
environmental  benefits  are  much  higher.  This  however  requires  increased  EU 
expenditures. This is justified to address the market failures related to plant health, in 
particular lack of support for public good objectives. By accepting EU responsibility 
for  environmental  protection  also  financially,  the  entire  regime  can  function  better. 
There  are  moreover  economies  of  scale  at  EU  level.  It  should  be  noted  that  the 
overall costs of Option 3 are just slightly higher than in Option 2, while the benefits 
are much  higher.  With limited  investments in early detection and eradication, large 
savings  can  be  made  as  concerns  eventual  losses  from  outbreaks  and  curative 
measures against outbreaks in agriculture and the natural environment. The improved 
cost/benefit ratio is due to a redistribution of costs of operators, MS and the Union. 
This  allows  introducing  incentives  and  creating  synergies.  Option  3  converts  MS 
"subsidies"  on  fees  into  compliance  incentives  (compensation  for  losses  from 
eradication  measures).  It  thus  responsibilises  the  operators  for  bio-security  and 
covers  part  of  their  risks,  but  only  for  EU  priority  organisms  and  conditional  to 
compliance with the EU legislation. 

Option 4 adds to Option 3 that invasive plants (other than parasitic plants) are also 
covered.  This  would  result  in  additional  benefits  to  the  environment,  however  with 
potentially high costs to the MS and the EU. As long as invasive plants are not yet 
present in the EU, the costs of including them in the regime would be minimal. Once 
outbreaks  occur,  the  costs  for  surveys  and  eradication  measures  would  increase 
significantly,  to  the  order  of  magnitude  of  forest  pest  outbreaks.  Large-scale 
outbreaks  could  lead  to  a  higher  level  of  costs  than  incurred  for  the  plant  health 
regime  within  its  current  scope.  Under  the  SPS  Agreement,  it  is  not  allowed  to 
prohibit  import  of  invasive  plants  from  third  countries  without  equal  domestic 
measures.  Regulating  invasive  plants  thus  brings  along  the  risk  of  unexpected  high 
costs for the EU budget. In so far as the budget is limited, the coverage of invasive 
plants would be detrimental to the needs of the regime in its current form, unless a 
different intervention logic is applied for invasive plants (but then it is questionable 
to  include  them  in  the  PHR).  By  lifting  out  invasive  plants  from  the  new  invasive 
alien  species  policy,  Option  4  might  in  due  course  result  in  policy  inconsistencies 
with the overall invasive alien species policy objectives, due to inappropriateness of 
a  stamping-out  approach  in  natural  habitats  of  environmental  importance.  The 
management of IAS plants may require accepting limited local release for gardening, 
where  release  has  to  be  categorically  prohibited  for  harmful  organisms.  The  main 
tools for ensuring safe international movement of plants, the phytosanitary certificate 
and the plant passport, are of no use for regulating the movement of IAS plants. The 
management of IAS plants thus likely requires a legal instrument of its own. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
Preferred option 

In the light of the assessment above, it is considered that Option 3 provides the best 
way forward to achieve the objectives with the best cost-benefit level and an optimal 
balance of inputs from MS, operators and Union. Option 3 should have a significant 
positive impact on profitability and economic growth of the sectors involved; it was 
also  the  closest  reflection  of  the  outcome  of  the  stakeholder  and  MS  consultation. 
The  EU  budget  necessary  to  implement  Option  3  has  been  secured  in  the 
Commission  proposal  for  the  Multi-Annual  Financial  Framework  (MFF)  for  2014-
2020.  

The concerns on invasive alien species can be resolved by creating the possibility in 
Regulation 882/2004 for MS to utilise Border Control Posts for official controls on 
import  of  IAS  plants  and  animals  (similar  to  current  arrangements  for  the 
implementation of CITES). This will allow MS to utilise the synergies of plant (and 
animal) health controls and IAS plants controls at the border. Territorial surveillance 
and eradication provisions will be set up in dedicated invasive species legislation, in 
line with the set-up for sectoral plant and animal health legislation. 

7. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

The  review  of  the  EU  plant  health  regime  first  of  all  aims  to  improve  its 
effectiveness. Most objectives concern improved measures against the entry into, and 
establishment  and  spread  of  harmful  organisms  within  the  EU.  Others  target  the 
modernisation of the regime's functioning and governance, by more efficient use of 
scarce  resources,  rebalancing  responsibilities  and  costs  between  competent 
authorities and private operators, reducing administrative burden and ensuring a level 
playing field. 

The  following  progress  indicators  could  be  used  as  regards  the  objectives  of  the 
review  (regardless  of  whether  the  legal  provisions  are  positioned  in  the  new  plant 
health Regulation or the future Regulation on official controls):  

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Number  of  regulated  harmful  organisms  that  are  present  /  not  present  in  the 
Union. 

Total areas in the Union affected by priority organisms. 

Numbers of import inspections and tests carried out by the MS. 

Numbers  of  surveillance  inspections  and  tests  carried  out  by  the  MS  for 
organisms  not  known  to  occur  in  the  EU  and  for  harmful  organisms  listed  as 
EU priority. 

Numbers  of  eradicated  /  non-eradicated  outbreaks  in  the  EU  territory  of 
harmful organisms listed as EU priority. 

Elapsed  time  from  the  detection  of  regulated  harmful  organisms  to  their 
notification; 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Elapsed time from the detection of the presence of priority organisms to their 
eradication. 

Interceptions  by  MS  of  listed  regulated  harmful  organisms  in  consignments 
from other MS (in absolute numbers and in percentages of the trade volume). 

Numbers of eradicated / non-eradicated outbreaks in protected zones. 

Degree to which operators are satisfied with the regime's functioning and cost 
level. 

Percentages of cost recovery by MS for import and plant passport inspections. 

Number of national and EU reference laboratories. 

Degree to which citizens are aware of the existence of the regime and support 
it. 

Despite foreseen methodological difficulties, work is foreseen also on development 
of  parameters  on  avoided  losses,  which  may  then  serve  as  more  direct  measure  of 
regime efficiency. 

The  indicators  listed  above  are  a  part  of  the  existing  general  reporting  obligations 
under Regulation 882/2004 and Directive 2000/29/EC, albeit without reference to the 
above  specific  indicators.  The  legislation  will  contain  provisions  for  the  Member 
States to annually collect the data pertinent to the above-mentioned indicators in so 
far  as  they  relate  to  concrete  parameters  linked  to  official  activities.  The 
measurement of the degree to which operators are content with the functioning and 
cost level of the regime, and the degree to which citizens are aware of the regime and 
support  it,  are  a  new  element.  Those  measurements  should  not  be  carried  out 
annually,  but  will  be  a  part  of  the  recurrent  future  evaluation  of  the  regime,  along 
with the evolution of the above-mentioned indicators and the financial expenditures.  

EN 

14 

   EN