REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the enforcement and effectiveness of plant health measures relating to imports into the Union territory
Date: 2021-12-10
Institutions: Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety, European Commission
Subjects: health certificate, import (EU), import restriction, pest, plant disease, plant health control, plant health treatment, surveillance concerning imports

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 10.12.2021  COM(2021) 786 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the enforcement and effectiveness of plant health measures relating to imports into the Union territory  
 
 
Table of Contents 

1 

2 

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 3 

IMPORT PROCEDURES ............................................................................................... 5 

3  PHYTOSANITARY CERTIFICATES ............................................................................ 6 

4  PROHIBITIONS ............................................................................................................ 7 

5  OFFICIAL CONTROLS ................................................................................................ 9 

6  CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................... 11 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
ABBREVIATIONS 

BCP: Border Control Post 

BTSF: Better Training for Safer Food 

CA: Competent Authority 

CP: Control Point 

DG SANTE: Directorate General for Health and Food Safety 

EFSA: European Food Safety Authority 

EU: European Union 

EUROPHYT: European Union Notification System for Plant Health Interceptions 

HRP: High Risk Plants, plant products and other objects 

IPPC: International Plant Protection Convention 

NPPO: National Plant Protection Organisation 

OCR: Official Controls Regulation (EU) 2017/625 

PC: Phytosanitary Certificate 

PRM: Plant Reproductive Material 

RNQP: Regulated Non-Quarantine Pest 

TRACES-NT: Trade Control and Expert System 

2 

 
 
 
 
INTRODUCTION 

1 
Import  measures  for  plant  health  aim  to  protect  the  European  Union  (EU)  from  the 
introduction of pests. The EU legislative framework for those measure was based on Council 
Directive 2000/29/EC1, until 2019. It established a risk-based and World Trade Organisation 
(WTO)-Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) compliant system, in general open to imports, with 
some  restrictions  such  as  the  need  for  a  phytosanitary  certificate  (PC),  specific  import 
requirements, and certain prohibitions. It also established the system for official controls on 
plant health organised and carried out by EU Member States. 

Following  the  evaluation  report  of  the  plant  health  regime  in  2010,  the  need  to  replace  the 
previous  legislation  was  identified.  Regulation  (EU)  2016/2031  (‘Regulation’)  was  adopted 
in 2016 and started applying from 14 December 2019. This Regulation maintained the risk-
based  approach  and  compliance  with  the  WTO-SPS  agreement,  but  in  light  of  experience, 
measures were introduced to reinforce the protection of the Union territory, and enhance pro-
active preparedness for crisis management.  

In  light  of  the  significant  changes  to  the  EU  plant  health  import  regime,  the  co-legislators 
introduced in Article 50 of the Regulation the obligation for the Commission to present by 14 
December  2021,  a  report  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  with  the  objective  to 
assess  the  enforcement  and  effectiveness  of  measures  relating  to  imports  into  the  EU, 
including  a  cost-benefit  analysis,  and,  where  appropriate,  to  also  present  a  legislative 
proposal to address any need for amendments. 

The  scope  of  this  report  includes  the  main  changes  brought  forward  by  the  Regulation,  i.e. 
main changes  in  the import measures  and the organisation  of the official  controls  for those 
measures.  

The  report  assesses  (i)  the  impact  of  the  inclusion  in  the  Regulation  of  Regulated  Non 
Quarantine  Pests  (RNQPs)  previously  covered  by  the  legislation  on  the  production  and 
marketing of plant reproductive material2(‘PRM legislation’), on import measures and control 
systems; (ii) the enforcement and effectiveness of the measures to deal with newly identified 
risks, for which different measures could be envisaged ranging from post import quarantine 
to  temporary  prohibition;  (iii)  the  enforcement  and  effectiveness  of  the  extension  of  the 
obligation  of  a  PC  for  plants  and  plant  products  presented  at  import  to  new  commodities 
(with  a  minimum  1%  of  controls  at  the  borders)  and  to  plants  brought  in  with  passengers’ 
luggage; (iv) the current procedures for granting derogations from import prohibitions as well 
as  the  provisions  for  a  temporary  prohibition  of  certain  plants,  plant  products  and  other 
objects  identified  as  high  risk,  the  import  of  which  is  allowed  after  a  commodity  risk 
assessment  has  been  carried  out  by  the  European  Food  Safety  Authority  (EFSA)  on  a 
technical dossier submitted by the interested country of origin, followed by an EU legal act 
with the import conditions for the commodity; (v) the changes introduced with regard to the 
import conditions for material for official testing, scientific and other related purposes as well 
as  the  changes  introduced  for  the  use  of  quarantine  stations  and  confinement  facilities;  (vi) 
the  impact  on  the  enforcement  and  effectiveness  of  the  import  controls  as  a  result  of  the 
significant changes brought forward by the Regulation, with the inclusion of the plant health 

1OJ L 169, 10.07.2000, p. 1. 
2 https://ec.europa.eu/food/plants/plant-reproductive-material/legislation/specific-legislation_en  

3 

 
 
                                                
controls under Regulation (EU) 2017/6253, the Regulation on Official Controls (OCR), which 
took effect the same time as the Regulation.  

Methodology  

In order to answer the requirements of the report, the Commission set up a methodology that 
included the evaluation of all available evidence. The Commission undertook a stakeholder4 
consultation  using  questionnaires  on  four  main  areas  where  the  legislation  introduced 
changes: (i) phytosanitary import procedures, (ii) the use of the PC, (iii) import prohibitions 
and  (iv)  plant  health  provisions  of  OCR.  The  questionnaires,  which  were  developed  in 
consultation  with  EU  NPPOs  and relevant  EU-level  associations, aimed to  get  feedback on 
policy aspects of enforcement and implementation as well as on costs, benefits and impacts, 
to carry out the cost-benefit analysis. Invitations to respond to the questionnaires were sent to 
the  27  Member  State-EU  NPPOs,  Certification  competent  authorities  (‘CAs’),  and  customs 
authorities,  to  2  EU  institutions,  to  48  relevant  EU-level  associations  and  to  178  non-EU 
NPPOs.  Member-State-level  associations,  operators,  laboratories,  research  institutions  and 
the general public could access the questionnaires via the DG SANTE website. In the latter 
case,  the  Commission  and  EU  NPPOs  helped  advertise  the  questionnaires  via  social  media 
and  other  channels.  A  total  of  386  replies  were  received.  The  level  of  participation  varied 
amongst  the  different  categories  of  stakeholders  and  the  different  questionnaires,  with  the 
questionnaire on OCR having the lowest participation of the EU plant authorities (15 out of 
the  27  EU  NPPOs)  and  an  overall  low  participation  of  EU  and  Member  State  level 
associations, non-EU NPPOs, operators and general public.   

In addition, publicly available data, for which a statistical analysis was carried out, was used 
from  two  sources:  (i)  data  on  interceptions  of  plants  and  plant  products  imported  into  or 
traded  within  the  EU  were  obtained  from  EUROPHYT  and  TRACES-NT  for  the  period 
2019-2020 and (ii) trade data were analysed for the period 2013-2020. Since the commodities 
in  the  Regulation  do  not  correspond  to  individual  trade  nomenclatures,  comparison  on 
interception  and  trade  dynamics  was  made  for  groups  of  commodities,  affected  by  the 
legislative change. 

To  support  this  report,  the  Commission  produced  four  technical  reports5 with  information 
about the feedback received and an extensive analysis of that feedback.  

Finally, for the assessment of the measures related to OCR, the results of the first 5 audits on 
import controls in Member States were also considered. The reports of all relevant audits are 
publicly available6. 

The Commission analysis is hampered by three  factors: first, the partial contribution of EU 
and non-EU NPPOs and associations in certain cases, which affected the representativeness 

3 OJ L 95, 7.4.2017, p.1. 
4 European Union (EU)- and non-EU National Plant Protection Organisations (NPPOs), Authorities responsible 
for  Marketing  Directives  (Certification  Competent  Authorities),  Associations  at  EU  and  Member  State  level 
(EU and MS associations), operators and general public  
5  https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC126792 
    https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC126791 
    https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC126695 
    https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC126790 
6  https://ec.europa.eu/food/audits-analysis/audit_reports/index.cfm  

4 

 
 
                                                
of the responses, and the very limited contribution from general public and operators which 
did not allow for a triangulation of the findings; second, the very short time between the entry 
into  application  of  the  different  provisions  and  the  request  for  feedback  which  affected  the 
sample  size  for  the  analysis;  and  last,  the  impact  of  the  COVID-19  pandemic  on  trade  and 
relevant activities despite the existence of Regulation (EU) 2020/4667 on temporary measures 
to contain risks during certain serious disruption of the Member States’ control systems due 
to COVID-19. 

the  abovementioned 

limitations,  conclusions  on 

Because  of 
the  enforcement  and 
effectiveness of the import measures could not be drawn in certain cases. The assessment of 
the costs and benefits was carried out to the extent possible because of the scattered feedback 
on  the  quantitative  data  requested,  or  surveyed  through  economic  literature.  An  in-depth 
qualitative  analysis  of  the  costs  and  benefits  was  undertaken  instead.  Finally,  for  these 
reasons,  the  Commission  has  restricted  itself  to  identifying  topics  that  merit  further 
discussions. 

2 

IMPORT PROCEDURES 

Since  the  inclusion  in  the  Regulation  of  rules  on  RNQPs,  NPPOs  have  taken  over  the 
responsibility  for  official  controls  on  RNQPs  from  Certification  CAs.  While 
the 
implementation  of  the  RNQP  rules  at  import  could  be  considered  as  effective  in  terms  of 
achieving  their  goal  of  ensuring  the  compliance  with  the  RNQP  requirements,  25%  of 
NPPOs, 41% of operators and 5 out of 6 Certification CAs gave a negative rating because of 
the lack of coherence between the plant health and the PRM legislation. Views were divided 
as  to  whether  compliance  with  the  measures  on  RNQPs  should  also  be  included  under  the 
heading ‘Additional Declaration’ of the PC, a provision not covered by Article 71(2) of the 
Regulation.  

A clear benefit of the Regulation is the increase in efficiency of official controls, as indicated 
by  the  responses.  Almost  two  thirds  of  NPPOs  and  Certification  CAs  started  carrying  out 
simultaneous  controls  for  RNQPs  and  quarantine  pests  since  the  implementation  of  the 
Regulation,  whereas  only  30%  were  already  doing  so  in  the  past.  The  impact  of  the 
Regulation on financial resources of carrying out those controls seems to be minimal, as the 
majority  of  CAs  declared  that  costs  had  not  increased.  This  situation  is  also  confirmed  by 
private operators.  

There  seems  to  be  a  lack  of  clarity  regarding  the  actions  in  case  of  RNQP-related  non-
compliances.  Over  half  of  respondents  reject  non-compliant  consignments  and  inform  the 
non-EU  country  concerned.  Very  few  consult  the  operator  about  special  treatments.  Some 
respondents  would  welcome  the  development  of  relevant  guidelines.  Almost  75%  of 
respondents would be in favour of notifying RNQP-related non-compliances to TRACES-NT 
for the purpose of transparency. However, the Regulation does not cover such notification.  

An  assessment  on  the  usefulness  of  Article  49  for  measures  on  newly  identified  pest  risks 
could not be carried out because of the poor feedback. 

7 OJ L 98, 31.03.2020, p.98. 

5 

 
 
                                                
3  PHYTOSANITARY CERTIFICATES 

The  extension  of  the  obligation  for  a  PC  to  the  commodities  of  Part  B  of  Annex  XI  of 
Regulation (EU) 2019/2072 (hereafter ‘new commodities’), introduced with Article 73 of the 
Regulation (hereafter ‘PC extension’) could be considered beneficial for the protection of the 
EU  against  pests.  Clear  benefits  have  been  recorded:  increased  traceability,  enhanced 
protection  against  pests,  and  increased  accountability  of  non-EU  NPPOs.  Moreover,  about 
33%  of  non-EU  NPPOs  declared  an  improvement  in  their  capacity  to  detect  pests  in  pre-
export inspections.  

In addition, operators mostly declared that the PC extension had not affected the level playing 
field,  or  that  there  have  been  positive  changes  because  of  increased  awareness,  equal  rules 
and increased number of controls.  

Based  on  the  survey,  22%  of  respondents  considered  that  the  overall  situation  of  the  PC 
system  had  improved  and  35%  considered  that  the  situation  had  remained  the  same,  while 
15%, mainly operators, declared it had worsened due to the lack of proportionality of the new 
obligation with the associated risks. It was not possible to assess if the transition to the new 
requirement was smooth, as 42% of respondents considered it smooth while 38% considered 
it problematic (different requirements between commodities of Part A and Part B of Annex 
XI  which  are  difficult  to  explain  to  operators,  e.g.  only  Part  A  commodities  have  to  be 
prenotified at Border Control Posts (BCP); distinguishing between Parts A and B; detecting 
seeds  sold  by  distance  sales).  Non-EU  NPPOs  consider  that  it  is  now  more  complex  to 
identify  the  new  commodities,  especially  the  intended  use  which  determines  the  need  for  a 
PC.  However,  the  criteria  to  distinguish  those  commodities  in  the  past  when  they  did  not 
require a PC have remained the same. 

The  PC  extension  could  also  be  considered  beneficial  for  the  overall  functioning  of  trade. 
Private stakeholders experience a decrease in fraudulent practice, an increase of the level of 
trust  among  actors  in  the  supply  chain,  an  improved  capacity  to  monitor  contracts  and  an 
overall reduction of risk. 

Furthermore,  the  PC  extension  seems  to  have  increased  awareness  regarding  plant  health 
issues amongst operators, citizens and CAs. 

On  the  negative  side,  PC  extension  seems  to  have  increased  the  administrative  burden  and 
associated costs. EU-wide associations rated increased workload as equally important. Three 
Member States adapted their IT systems with a limited cost, and one improved its facilities to 
undertake inspections. Four Member States increased the level of sampling and testing for the 
detection of potential newly identified pest risks, but below 5%.   

The  PC  extension  generated  some  costs  for  non-EU  NPPOs  as  well,  mainly  because  they 
increased the number of staff and upgraded facilities and laboratories. 

While it seems that the time and costs to complete the controls at the EU points of entry for 
the additional commodities have increased (as declared by the majority of the private sector - 
44%), the capacity to make long-term investments or strategic decisions has not been majorly 
impacted, as 17% of the respondents considers that that capacity is affected.  

6 

 
 
Very few rejections of consignments, mainly seeds, fruits and cut flowers, were reported due 
to lack of or incomplete PC for the new commodities. All EU stakeholders consulted declared 
that they had not detected any major change in volumes of imports to the EU, EU production 
or prices for the new commodities. The responses of non-EU NPPOs, although limited, could 
confirm that there were neither changes to volumes of exports to the EU nor increased costs 
for exporters. The responses provided by stakeholders are in line with the conclusion reported 
in Soto el al. (2021), that the change in legislation has had a negligible effect on overall trade 
of  plants.  Checking  the  compulsory  1  %  of  the  new  commodities  at  import  was  by  many 
respondents  not  experienced  as  complex,  while  almost  as  many  respondents  experienced 
difficulties to distinguish the ‘new’ from the ‘old’ regulated commodities, as well as a lack of 
uniform procedures across Member States. 

With regard to the provision of Article 71(2) of the Regulation to include in the PC the full 
wording  of  the  specific  requirement  that  is  fulfilled,  whenever  the  respective  implementing 
act allows for different  options, over half of the respondents find it rather clear, while 32% 
find it  rather unclear. Both  the EU  and non-EU  NPPOs consider the requirement clear, but 
private stakeholders consider the opposite. Despite the endorsement by all 27 Member States 
of  the  clarifications  provided  by  the  Commission  ,  operators  and  their  representatives 
mentioned in their responses that the implementation of the requirement was not homogenous 
across the EU and those different approaches were difficult to follow. However, that was the 
case only for the beginning of the implementation of that requirement.  

The  extension  of  the  PC  requirement  for  plants  brought  by  passengers  is  also  considered 
beneficial, as, according to over 80% of the stakeholders, it has led to increased protection of 
the EU against pests. Responses obtained from the general public (17) were too few to make 
any assessment.  

4  PROHIBITIONS 

Introduction  into  Union  territory  of  certain  commodities  is  prohibited  according  to  the 
provisions  of  Article  40  of  the  Regulation.  The  current  procedure  for  granting  derogations 
from  import  prohibitions,  i.e.  allowing  imports  of  otherwise  prohibited  commodities,  based 
on  information  submitted  by  the  interested  countries,  has  been  working  relatively  well. 
Nevertheless,  further  standardisation  of  that  procedure  could  be  envisaged.  The  current 
procedure for granting derogations from import prohibitions, was considered satisfactory by 
47%  of  the  respondents  and  unsatisfactory  by  another  30%.  Dissatisfaction  prevails  among 
EU-  and  Member  State-  level  associations  due  to  lengthy  processes,  lack  of  transparency, 
limited scientific basis, and increased administrative and financial efforts.  

Article 42 of the Regulation on high risk plants, plant products and other objects (HRP), can 
be considered as an effective provision in terms of enhancing the protection of the EU against 
pests, as confirmed by 61% of respondents who also find the HRP list included in the Annex 
to Regulation (EU) 2018/20198 and the procedures included in Regulation (EU) 2018/20189 
clear. This is also confirmed by the evaluation of the impact of the HRP list on the probability 
of outbreaks, with only one association considering it has increased. Respondents overall also 

8 OJ L 323, 19.12.2018, p. 10–15. 
9 OJ L 323, 19.12.2018, p. 7–9. 

7 

 
 
                                                
agreed that the stringency of the ban is adequate. Seven associations and 4 NPPOs declared 
the opposite. Finally, there was a call for more transparency on the procedure used to develop 
the HRP list. 

Besides  the  increased  protection  of  the  EU  against  pests  and  the  increased  preparedness 
against potential newly identified pest risks, cited by most respondents (69%) (the latter was 
attributed  to  the  commodity  risk  assessments  carried  out),  the  increased  awareness  of  the 
need to  protect  the EU  against pests, was an  additional benefit, cited  by  more than 50% of 
respondents.  

The negative impact most cited, was the increase in the administrative burden. In fact, 29 of 
the  77  stakeholders  consider  that  the  administrative  burden  had  increased  due  to  the 
complexity of controls at border, inspections and surveillance measures. At the same time the 
additional resources allocated, have increased the capacity to trace the commodities included 
in the HRP list and to identify the already delisted HRP.  

Besides  the  targeted  training  on  plant  health  topics  organised  by  the  Commission  under 
BTSF, other stakeholders, mainly NPPOs, undertook additional training activities to facilitate 
the  implementation  of  the  import  ban  on  HRP.  DG  SANTE,  EFSA  and  13  of  the  21  EU 
NPPOs,  declared  to  have  significantly  increased  their  dissemination  activities.  Private 
stakeholders  overall  rated  positively  those  dissemination  efforts,  especially  those  by  EFSA 
and NPPOs.  

The ban on imports of HRP did not have a significant impact on the domestic market in terms 
of  domestic  production,  prices  and  sales  or  on  operators’  capacity  to  export  HRP  or  to 
undertake long-term investments or on the actual number of operators in the sector. However, 
operators,  Member  State-  and  EU-  level  associations,  consider  that  HRP  trade  is  more 
complex mainly due to the need for suppliers of new plants. Nevertheless, they have managed 
to replace the prohibited HRP species with others. Results of the trade analysis presented in 
Soto et al. (2021) confirms the feedback obtained from stakeholders. 

The four non-EU NPPOs that declared they had submitted a dossier to lift the import ban of 
HRP  from  their  country  consider  the  process  complex,  with  too  specific  information 
requested and no detailed guidelines available. They also consider that inspections and their 
capacity  to  certify  delisted  HRPs  were  complex,  but  increased  training  helped  address  that 
complexity. Data on quantification of costs were too limited to perform any assessment. 

The  provisions  of  Articles  8  and  48  of  the  Regulation  on  material  for  official  testing, 
scientific and other related purposes, seem to have been simplified compared to the past, as 
confirmed by the majority of respondents, but 11 out of the 31 respondents, of which 3 out of 
the 4 laboratories which are the main users, consider the opposite. The experience with  the 
Letter  of  Authority  was  rated  unsatisfactory  by  the  majority  of  respondents  (32%),  due  to 
problems with the endorsement of the letter by non-EU NPPOs, administrative burden, lack 
of clarity of the provision,  lack of harmonisation amongst Member States, and the repeated 
request for such a letter to the same consignor. 

The  provisions  of  Articles  60-64  of  the  Regulation  regarding  the  use  of  quarantine  stations 
and confinement facilities, can be considered satisfactory, as confirmed by the vast majority 

8 

 
 
of respondents. The procedure for release of material from quarantine conditions seems to be 
clear and effective for all respondents.  

5  OFFICIAL CONTROLS 

The plant health sector has been included within the scope of the OCR, and import controls 
are now carried out along the same procedures as for other sectors of the food chain, with few 
exceptions.  

Related to the limitations outlined in the introduction, it is worth noting that the questionnaire 
for the OCR had lower participation rate.  

Conclusions  could  not  be  drawn  on  the  level  of  effectiveness  and  harmonisation  of  import 
controls: 35 out of the 65 responding stakeholders considered the implementation of the new 
regime for import controls as effective and harmonised, while initial feedback from the first 5 
out  of  a  series  of  15-20  Commission  audits  on  the  implementation  of  the  OCR,  revealed 
shortcomings,  with  Member  States  not  ensuring  that  the  minimum  requirements  for  BCPs 
and CPs are met. Audit and verification procedures, documented procedures, monitoring and 
sampling  plans  to  ensure  consistency  of  physical  checks,  all  are  at  different  stages  of 
development. TRACES-NT is operational, but shortcomings still exist in Member States with 
the  implementation  of  the  requirements  for  personal  consignments  and  wood  packaging 
material. 

The use of TRACES-NT can be considered an important improvement brought by the OCR. 
In  fact,  the  functionality  offered  to  notify  non-compliances  at  import  was  declared  as 
effective  by  80%  of  the  respondents.  The  NPPOs  also  rated  positively  the  interconnection 
with other systems, the user-friendliness and the availability of information. 

The OCR introduced new rules for controls at control points (CP) and for risk-based controls 
on  commodities  in  transit.  Despite  being  in  place  for  a  short  period  of  time,  those  controls 
could  be  considered  efficient,  as  declared  by  47  out  of  52  and  31  out  of  36  respondents 
respectively.  

The  establishment  of  harmonised  rules  for  the  sampling  for  physical  checks  performed  by 
visual  inspection  (Annex  III  to  Regulation  (EU)  2019/2130 10 )  has  been  an  important 
improvement  of  the  system  of  official  controls.  In  fact,  previous  audit  series  had  identified 
significant variation in the sampling for physical checks and this has been seen as a weakness 
by the Commission and Member States. According to the responses, the sample size is now 
decided  more  uniformly,  because  of  clearer  requirements.  However,  some  stakeholders 
reported  that  the  sample  size  of  consignments  with  small  lots  of  different  commodities  is 
disproportionally high in order to reach the minimum accepted confidence level established 
in the legislation, and 33% of them ask for more harmonization, with regard to the minimum 
quantities  to  be  exempted  from  controls.  Regulation  (EU)  2019/2130  also  introduced  new 
provisions regarding sampling and testing for latent infections. According to the feedback of 
the questionnaire, these new provisions did not affect the costs but allowed for those tests to 
be routinely implemented. 

10 OJ L 321, 12.12.2019, p. 128-138. 

9 

 
 
                                                
Most NPPOs did not increase their staff or the workload to implement the changes resulting 
from the OCR. The Commission’s BTSF programme included a dedicated section on the new 
OCR  for  plant  health  inspectors.  In  addition,  nearly  half  of  the  respondents  undertook 
training and awareness raising activities for the OCR.  

Moreover, the changes in legislation led to very limited changes in the number of BCPs and 
CPs,  compared  to  the  past.  Four  NPPOs  closed  points  of  entry  and  three  closed  approved 
places  of  destination  mainly  because  of  lower  import  volumes,  cost-effectiveness  and 
financial reorganization.  

According to 25% of the responses provided by operators and their associations, the benefits 
from the changes resulting from the OCR have come at a cost as the capacity to import plants 
and  plant  products  has  been  reduced.  The  decline  of  the  import  capacity  is  mainly  because 
currently  goods  are  cleared  based  on  the  PC,  while  before  clearance  was  based  on  the 
transport  document,  which  covered  different  PCs.  Moreover,  nearly  1  out  of  3  respondents 
from  the  private  sector  declared  that  costs  of  controls  had  increased,  although  by  less  than 
10%. For a similar number of respondents costs remained the same.  

Over  half  of  NPPOs  agreed  that  the  cost  of  consumables  to  undertake  controls  was  not 
affected. However, 67% of NPPOs indicated that the time needed to undertake controls either 
remained the same as before or it increased by less than 10%. No additional cost was reported 
by NPPOs and the same was declared both for costs of controls at BCPs and for total costs as 
reported by operators and associations.  

The cost for putting in place a monitoring plan for wood packaging material and updating the 
inspection protocols is considered to have increased by 2 NPPOs, and the additional cost is 
less than 10%.  

In  order  to  implement  the  requirements  of  the  OCR  for  controls  on  passenger  luggage,  the 
majority  of  NPPOs  kept  using  the  risk–based  approach  they  were  using  before  the 
implementation  of  the  OCR.  However,  the  majority  of  NPPOs  delegated  the  documentary 
checks  of  the  PCs  to  custom  authorities  and  few  had  to  upgrade  their  facilities  to  perform 
those checks. 

The requirement for post-import controls for plants for planting entering the EU in dormant 
stage had been in place for just over half a year when the questionnaires were launched. This 
may  explain  why  61.1%  of  respondents  had  no  opinion.  However,  22.3%  of  respondents 
rated the measure as effective. Half of the respondent NPPOs highlighted the complexity for 
tracing imports of commodities via other Member States. Regarding the organisation of the 
post-import  checks,  most  NPPOs  considered  the  procedure  simple  but  an  important  share 
rated it as not easy at all. Too few data were obtained on the number and costs of post-import 
inspections carried out for plants for planting imported in dormant stage to draw conclusions.  

When  asked  about  the  controls  of  the  commodities  sold  through  e-commerce,  most 
respondents agree that the controls for distance sale should be implemented the same way as 
those for the traditional supply-chain, to ensure a level playing field in maintaining the level 
of protection against plant health risks. 

10 

 
 
6  CONCLUSIONS 
Based on the assessed data, it could be considered that the Regulation and the inclusion of the 
plant  health  controls  within  the  scope  of  the  OCR  have  contributed  towards  achieving  the 
objectives  to  enhance  phytosanitary  protection  of  the  EU  and  to  increase  proactive  action 
against  pests  while  being  in  compliance  with  IPPC,  through  risk-based  and  transparent 
approaches.  NPPOs’ views were positive on provisions that provided clarity in  plant health 
controls  and  on  provisions  that  further  enhanced  protection  of  the  EU  against  pests. 
Provisions,  the  introduction  of  which  was  perceived  to  have  caused  difficulties  in  already 
established trade were perceived negatively by EU- and Member State- level associations. 

Furthermore,  the  analysis  of  the  feedback  gathered  from  stakeholders  on  changes  to  PC 
requirements, changes due to the OCR and the introduction of the temporary import ban for 
HRPs, together with the analysis of the available trade data (Soto et al. 2021) point towards a 
situation where benefits outweigh costs. A major aspect that might have led to this positive 
assessment  is  the  training  and  dissemination  activities.  The  situation  is  less  clear-cut  for 
changes in procedures upon import and in particular for RNQPs. EU and non-EU authorities 
highlight more the benefits of the legislative changes than private operators. The latter tend to 
identify  a  higher  number  of  minor  shortcomings  in  the  implementation  of  the  legislative 
changes and signal areas where more fine-tuning is needed.  

To enhance the effectiveness and practical implementation of the Regulation and OCR rules 
and to achieve better usefulness, some areas might be considered for further discussion. This 
applies  to  (1)  the  improvement  of  the  coherence  of  the  provisions  for  RNQPs  and  their 
controls, (2) the procedures for granting derogations from import prohibitions under Article 
40  of  the  Regulation,  (3)  reinforcing  transparency  on  the  procedures  for  high  risk  plants 
under  Article  42,  and  (4)  targeted  official  controls  on  plants  and  plant  products  imported 
through  distance  sales.  Any  putative  amendment  however  should  be  limited  in  scope,  as  it 
would mainly relate to adjustments to an already functioning system. 

11