M IN ISTRST VO ZA K M ETIJST VO , GO ZD ARSTVO IN PREH RAN O                              Fitosanitarna uprava Republike S...
Uvod Zdravje rastlin je javna dobrina. Ureditev sistema, ki omogoča:  – Preventivo  – Nadzor in obvladovanje tveganj  – ...
Organizacijska shema             Fitosanitarna uprava Republike Slovenije
Mednarodni fitosanitarni predpisi Fitosanitarno področje je izrazito  mednarodno umeščeno Zdravstveno varstvo rastlin = ...
Varstvo rastlin - fitosanitarno področje         zdravstveno varstvo rastlin:            – ukrepi za preprečevanje vnosa ...
Skupni režim zdravja rastlin v EU Namen skupnostnega režima je varstvo   ozemlja EU pred škodo, ki nastane z vnosom   in š...
Zakaj rastlinske vrste izumrejo? Naravna katastrofa (komet pred 65 mio let)2. Najpogostejši vzroki iztrebljenja: Prehran...
Kam investiramo?    7,3 milijard USD za zdravje ljudi              http://www.worldometers.info/    5,8 milijard USD za ...
Uradni nadzor v EU   24 DČ porabi ~ 208 mio € za:    Nujne ukrepe 148.799.204 € /leto    Uradni nadzor (uvoz, RPL, poseb...
Delujmo lokalno !   Zaključki konzorcija EU za oceno režima varstva rastlin od     1993 – 2010:    Fitosanitarni ukrepi n...
Bilanca uradnega nadzora Skupen strošek uradnega nadzora v  Sloveniji v 2008 je bil 1.287.108 €, od tega so 1.065.140 € ...
Ekvivalenti fitos. inšpektorjev  in fitos. preglednikov (2008)Pooblaščeni RPL           2,69                              ...
Stroški ukrepov v Sloveniji140.000                                                     Posebni120.000                     ...
Odškodnina 112.786 € / leto                 Izplačana odškodnina za uničene rastlineHrušev ožig                           ...
Izbruhi v Sloveniji                                                                                          NADZOR       ...
Hrušev ožig še ni ustaljen v območju  glavne pridelave v Sloveniji 5-8 let do polne  napadenosti v SLO, če ne  bi izvaja...
Zlata trsna rumenica Grapevine flavescence  dorée prva najdba FD leta 2005 5 let do polne napadenosti  v SLO, če ne bi ...
Koruzni hrošč Diabrotica virgifera  virgifera prva najdba leta 2003;  glavni cilj je obdržati  majhno populacijo pod  pr...
Vretenatost krompirja SI - najdbe PSTVd na krompirju  ali paradižniku do sedaj še ni  bilo; 2006 na okrasnih rastlinah  ...
Fitoftorna sušica vejic Phytophthora ramorum v SLO še ni bila  najdena v gozdu 2003 na rastlinah Rhododendron in  Viburn...
Fitosanitarna uprava Republike SlovenijeProf. Clive Brasier, Forest research UK
Fitosanitarna uprava Republike SlovenijeProf. Clive Brasier, Forest research UK
Phytophthora ramorum     20% škoda na gozdu € 230.586.075         PN 34.994 € letno (0,007 %)                  Fitosanitar...
Borova ogorčica20% škoda na gozdu € 591.123.825    PN 48.813 € letno (0,008 %)                            Fitosanitarna up...
Kostanjeva šiškarica                                                        Dryocosmus                                   ...
Kostanjeva šiškaricaLeto   Stroški PN (EUR)               EU solidarity                                          sistem200...
Koristi sistema varstva rastlin   Kmetijstvo        Prepreči/zmanjša izgube v pridelavi (manjši pridelki)   Konkurenčnost ...
Rjavenje pušpana povzročatujerodna gliva Cylindrocladium buxicola                        Foto: M. Žerjav,                ...
Globalna trgovinastrmo narašča        WTO-SPS            Fitosanitarna uprava Republike Slovenije
Smo v EU res razsvetljeni ?               Fitosanitarna uprava Republike Slovenije
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Vpliv novih bolezni in škodljivcev rastlin na pridelavo in naravo

490
-1

Published on

An influence of newly occurred pests and diseases to production and nature in Slovenia

Preventive phytosanitary measures are the first element of sustainable production if they are implemented in consistent manner. Despite fact, that harmful organisms (HOs), listed in annexes of directive 2000/29/EC, pose known threat to the Community plant health, present regime allows for continuous introductions from risky areas aiming not to disturb trade in plants and plant products. Such setting a side of plant health in rural and natural environment only partly ensures food security and competitiveness of agriculture or safeguarding the natural environment. Hopefully review of the plant health system in EU will meet better general objectives like: Contributing to plant health protection through sustainable production; Ensuring competitiveness of producers; Ensuring food security; Safeguarding the natural environment (forests, public and private green, landscape, biodiversity). Specific objectives of phytosanitary legislation are: Providing protection against HOs that so far do not occur in the EU, Controlling HOs of still limited distribution which are so harmful that strict control on further spread is needed; Ensuring the availability and use of healthy plant material at the beginning of the plant production chain; Controlling the spread of HOs through movement of host plants/plant products. With increased trade unknown risks arise daily, which should be identified before outbreaks occur in EU. Neither EU pest risk analysis nor spread-risk and cost-benefit analysis are available for better decision making. All these are done mainly at national level at the occasion of necessity. Phytosanitary actions including mandatory surveillance of listed HO and laboratory or scientific support against some important HOs in Slovenia will be analysed in respect of cost-benefit.

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
490
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • “ Zdravje rastlin je javna dobrina,” je izjavil komisar za zdravje in potrošnike John Dalli septembra 2010 na konferenci o prenovi EU režima varstva rastlin pred škodljivimi organizmi. Prenova naj že v letu 2012 dala novo regulativo na tem področju. “ The new plant health law will step up prevention, surveillance and rapid action upon outbreaks. It will reinforce the plant passport system for intra-EU movements of plant materials and improve the protected zone system. The possibility to introduce financial incentives will be examined ” The International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) is an international treaty whose purpose is to secure a common and effective action to prevent the spread and introduction of pests of plants and plant products, and to promote appropriate measures for their control. The Convention extends to the protection of natural flora and plant products. It also includes both direct and indirect damage by pests, thus including weeds. The provisions extend to cover conveyances, containers, storage places, soil and other objects or material capable of harbouring plant pests. , FAO has 187 member countries plus one member organization, the European Community.
  • CPHR Evaluation: varovanje zdravja rastlin skozi trajnostno pridelavo; zagotavljanje konkurenčnosti proizvajalcev; zagotavljanje prehranske varnosti; varovanje naravnega okolja (gozdovi, javni in zasebni parki, pokrajina in biodiverziteta).
  • Most of the species that have ever lived on Earth are now extinct. Extinction and endangerment can occur naturally. It can be the result of a catastrophic disturbance, such as the collision of an asteroid with Earth some 65 million years ago. The impact brought about the extinction of almost 50 percent of plant species and 75 percent of animals species then living on Earth, including the dinosaurs. Disease, a change in climate, and competition between species also can result in natural extinction Human consumption, habitat degradation, diseases, and predation are factors that have caused extinction in the past, and continue to impose stresses on surviving species today and in the future. Read more: http://www.brighthub.com/environment/science-environmental/articles/30548.aspx#ixzz1EuE65mGQ
  • 40 mio je 0,8% vrednosti borovih gozdov v EU. CPHR Evaluation: The impacts of plant diseases can be as devastating as animal diseases. Based on existing studies, past cases of HOs introduced and established in the EU, as well as estimates of potential impacts, the costs associated with plant diseases can be substantial, and ultimately the scale of the impact can potentially reach those recorded in the case of animal diseases. For example, in the case of Bursaphelenchus xylophilus (PWN) the control costs of the disease in PT have reached some 40 million € in the period 1999-2008 (including solidarity funding); the potential economic impact of failure to act could reach some 5 billion €/year from the potential destruction of some 10-13 million ha of susceptible coniferous trees (50-90% mortality rate). Other cases not specific to the EU, but that have occurred elsewhere, are an example of the potential scale of impact that could be reached. Ultimately, in value terms, in the EU, the share of production and exports of plants and plant products in the total value of agricultural production and exports is comparable to that of animals and animal products. Anoplophora; Bursaphelenchus  invazivne tujerodne vrste There is currently a lack of common understanding, leading to considerable confusion, on both the definition of Invasive Alien Species (IAS) and the extent to which IAS are covered by the scope of the Directive. The defining characteristic of IAS, according to the CBD definition, is their wider environmental impact on ecosystems. Historically, this has been considered as an indirect impact for the purposes of Directive 2000/29, but in recent years there has been a de facto shift in implementation, due to major pest incursions with significant indirect, non-commercial or purely environmental impacts. In practice, many regulated pests are IAS which are already listed in the Directive (recent examples include Anoplophora spp ., Phytophthora Ramorum ). There have also been international developments in considering IAS at the level of IPPC and EPPO, and a more general EU strategy on Invasive Species (IS), following the CBD definition, has been developed. There are Evaluation of the Community Plant Health Regime: Final Report DG SANCO Evaluation Framework Contract Lot 3 (Food Chain) Food Chain Evaluation Consortium VI therefore extensive calls for clarification of the CPHR on this issue. The potential effects of climate change in terms of altering patterns of alien species invasion in the EU also need to be taken into account. Consequently, options for the future regarding the inclusion of IAS in the CPHR were explored.
  • CPHR Evaluation=Zaključki ocene režima: The evaluation has also addressed the question of the deadweight effects of the CPHR (‗What if no Community financing was in place‘). The analysis of the CPHR costs and benefits during the period from 1993 to date demonstrates that: a) the budget devoted to the CPHR to date remains relatively limited; and b) on a case by case basis, the CPHR has had clear benefits (as discussed in particular in the context of 5 HOs ** : Anoplophora (chinensis and glabripennis) , Ceratocystis (fagacearum and fimbriata) , Erwinia amylovora , Grapevine flavescence dorée and Phytophthora ramorum ). In conclusion, through the measures adopted in all these cases, the CPHR has contributed either to the avoidance of the introduction of potentially injurious HOs or to slow down their spread, resulting in significant overall benefits. Notwithstanding its successes, the CPHR can nonetheless be improved to maximise the effectiveness and efficiency of the measures taken. ** HOs selected out of a total 203 combinations (MS x HO) for which the benefits of the CPHR were widely attributed by respondents to the specific cost survey, although not necessarily representing absolute success cases across the EU-27.
  • v uradni nadzor ni všteta režija (uprava, administrativno delo, izobraževanje in druga podporna dela) ter odškodnine imetnikom za uničene rastline (ki se šteje kot državna pomoč)
  • preračunano v polni delovni čas je čisti fitosanitarni nadzor v letu 2008 opravljalo 31,33 ljudi (inšpektorjev in fitosanitarnih preglednikov v kmetijstvu in gozdarstvu)
  • povprečno 1682 laboratorijskih preskusov na leto V letu 2008 je bilo 392.000 EUR porabljenih za uradni posebni nadzor. Od tega je bilo 38% namenjenih laboratorijskim analizam, 62% pa fitosanitarnim pregledom na terenu.
  • CPHR Evaluation The total administrative and other operational costs of the CPHR were estimated on the basis of a purpose-built cost model (applying the methodology of the EC Standard Cost Model), with data provided by MS through the specific cost survey. In total, based on the data provided for 24 MS7, the total costs associated with the 13 CPHR obligations selected for the analysis amount to €148,799,204 on average per year, of which €57,191,859 are administrative costs and €91,607,345 are compliance costs. The total average annual costs for the 24 MS CAs amount to €59,218,314 (net of fees), of which 8.5% are administrative costs). These costs cover the three most important obligations of the CPHR, which are: import inspections. inspections at the place of production; and, the compulsory annual surveys of HOs regulated under the emergency measures and the Control Directives. The total amount recovered by the 24 MS CAs through fees charged to the private operators pursuant to Article 13d(1) of Directive 2000/29/EC is estimated at €36,914,993. In addition to the above costs, based on data provided by 18 MS CAs, the costs of eradication and control measures amounted to €132,139,696 in total during 1993-2008. The total administrative costs for private operators (same 24 MS) amount to € 51,445,518 on average per year, with the obligation to keep records representing 80.42% of the total.
  • Environmental benefits The host range of host plants which occur in the natural or semi-managed environment is very wide. There are many suitable habitats including: woodland, heathland, maquis, shrubland, and managed gardens, parks and public greens. Environmental risks are thus major. The presence of Phytophthora ramorum impacts the quality of plants in managed parks, gardens and public greens. Shrubs and trees in woodlands have become locally affected with some tree death, for example the coastal woodland environment of California where massive tree death had a major impact on the environment. Knock-on effects resulting from loss of tree are amongst others the disruption to the ecology of the area, loss of recreational areas in woodland, dead trees increasing the risk of accelerated water run off, and, resultant soil erosion and sedimentation, endangering of certain plant species, and risk from forest fires due to dead trees.
  • KIS - M. Žerjav: Bolezni, ki jo povzroča Cylindrocladium buxicola je agresivna in se naglo razširi na pušpane na stalnem rastišču. Tako se je v 2009 razširila na strižene meje v Mozirskem gaju. Imeli so jo tudi že v Arboretumu na novo sajenih pušpanih, v francoski park pa se za enkrat še ni razširila. V torek (2010) sem bila na pregledu v parku Brdo pri Kranju. Poleg vhoda gradu so pred kratkim zasadili nove pušpane, ki so zdaj že močno okuženi (danes pozitiven vzorec pri lab. pregledu), žalostno pa je, da se je okužba pojavila tudi že na starem oblikovanem nasadu na terasi gradu (pozitiven vzorec). Svetovala bom sesanje odpadlega listja in škropljenje s fungicidom. Tako škodo je težko finančno ovrednotiti je pa po mojem mnenju velika. Prilagam fotografijo z Brda. Ni dvoma, da se bolezen širi z okuženimi sadikami. Okužene rastline vsekakor ne bi smele v prodajo. Za rastline, ki niso deležne rednega tretiranja s fungicidi je bolezen lahko usodna ali pa postanejo estetsko nesprejemljive in jih je treba zamenjati. Se pa tu pojavi problem, da okužba pri vizualnem pregledu ni opazna in se simptomi pojavijo, ko so razmere za razvoj bolezni ugodne in če rastline niso škropljene. To bi se lahko reševalo le z daljšim držanjem sadik v karanteni pri nas in pregledom ter vzorčenjem pred prodajo, saj države dobaviteljice nimajo posebnih ukrepov za varstvo pred to boleznijo. Zgolj priporočilo, naj rastline izločijo iz prodaje in uničijo je različno učinkovito in mislim, da jo večina tistih, ki nimajo lastne pridelave ne bo jemala preveč resno.
  • Posnete NASA – ali je v Evropi res prižgana luč?
  • Vpliv novih bolezni in škodljivcev rastlin na pridelavo in naravo

    1. 1. M IN ISTRST VO ZA K M ETIJST VO , GO ZD ARSTVO IN PREH RAN O Fitosanitarna uprava Republike SlovenijeREPU B L IK A SL O VE N IJA www.furs.si, e: furs.mkgp@gov.si Einspielerjeva 6, 1000 Ljubljana t: 059 152 930, f: 059 152 959 Vpliv novih rastlinskih bolezni in škodljivcev na pridelavo ter naravo v Sloveniji V. Knapič, E. Orešek, P. Pajk, S. Mavsar, M. Celar MKGP FURS Sektor za zdravstveno varstvo rastlin Ljubljana, 5. 4. 2011
    2. 2. Uvod Zdravje rastlin je javna dobrina. Ureditev sistema, ki omogoča: – Preventivo – Nadzor in obvladovanje tveganj – Hiter odziv služb za varstvo rastlin na izbruhe Mednarodna konvencija o varstvu rastlin ureja globalni sistem Fitosanitarna uprava Republike Slovenije
    3. 3. Organizacijska shema Fitosanitarna uprava Republike Slovenije
    4. 4. Mednarodni fitosanitarni predpisi Fitosanitarno področje je izrazito mednarodno umeščeno Zdravstveno varstvo rastlin = zdravje rastlin (Plant Health) Organizacija, postopki, izrazi itd. morajo biti prilagojeni mednarodni ravni (mednarodni zakoni): – Sporazum WTO-SPS, – Konvencija IPPC, standardi ISPM – Konvencija CBD Fitosanitarna uprava Republike Slovenije
    5. 5. Varstvo rastlin - fitosanitarno področje  zdravstveno varstvo rastlin: – ukrepi za preprečevanje vnosa in širjenja ter – zatiranje rastlinskih škodljivih organizmov  fitofarmacevtska sredstva: – registracija, promet, uporaba in nadzor FFS ter – ostanki teh sredstev v rastlinah  področje semenskega materiala: – kakovost in sortnost pri pridelavi in prometu s semenskim materialomFitosanitarna služba zagotavlja pridelavo zdravih rastlin in trgovanje z njimi ob hkratnem varovanju okolja in potrošnikov. Fitosanitarna uprava Republike Slovenije
    6. 6. Skupni režim zdravja rastlin v EU Namen skupnostnega režima je varstvo ozemlja EU pred škodo, ki nastane z vnosom in širjenjem rastlinskih škodljivih organizmov. Glavni cilji:  Z varstvom zdravja rastlin prispevati k trajnostni pridelavi.  Zagotavljanje konkurenčnosti proizvajalcev  Prispevati k varstvu narave (gozdovi, pokrajina, javni in zasebni parki).  Zagotavljanje prehranske varnosti. Fitosanitarna uprava Republike Slovenije
    7. 7. Zakaj rastlinske vrste izumrejo? Naravna katastrofa (komet pred 65 mio let)2. Najpogostejši vzroki iztrebljenja: Prehrana ali druga človekova raba Uničenje habitatov Rastlinske bolezni Škodljivci Medsebojna tekmovalnost vrst Fitosanitarna uprava Republike Slovenije
    8. 8. Kam investiramo?  7,3 milijard USD za zdravje ljudi http://www.worldometers.info/  5,8 milijard USD za izobraževanje  3,2 milijard USD za vojaške zadeve  x za varstvo zdravja rastlin ?  y za obstoj rastlin ? Borova ogorčica v EU Stroški ukrepov 1999-2008 so 40 milijonov €Potencialna škoda v gozdovih 5 milijard € / leto Fitosanitarna uprava Republike SlovenijeBy EU-FCEC
    9. 9. Uradni nadzor v EU 24 DČ porabi ~ 208 mio € za:  Nujne ukrepe 148.799.204 € /leto  Uradni nadzor (uvoz, RPL, posebni nadzor) 59.218.314 € / leto Podatki za 18 DČ: V eradikacijo ŠO vloženo 132.139.696 € (1993-2008)  povp. 8,8 mio € letnoVir: EU-FCEC Fitosanitarna uprava Republike Slovenije
    10. 10. Delujmo lokalno ! Zaključki konzorcija EU za oceno režima varstva rastlin od 1993 – 2010:  Fitosanitarni ukrepi na nacionalnem nivoju pomembno prispevajo – K preprečitvi vnosa ŠO – Upočasnitvi širjenja ŠO  To se v analizi stroškov in koristi jasno odrazi: proračun, namenjen za varstvo rastlin je majhen, a koristi prepoznavne  KŠO: Anoplophora, Ceratocystis, Erwinia amylovora, Grapevine flavescence dorée in Phytophthora ramorum  Priporočila za izboljšanje sistema  večja učinkovitost  večja uspešnost ukrepov.Vir: EU-FCEC Fitosanitarna uprava Republike Slovenije
    11. 11. Bilanca uradnega nadzora Skupen strošek uradnega nadzora v Sloveniji v 2008 je bil 1.287.108 €, od tega so 1.065.140 € pokrili uporabniki storitev – uvozniki, izvozniki, pridelovalci primanjkljaj fitosanitarnega nadzora je znašal ~ 222.000 € + stroški uprave + odškodnine Fitosanitarna uprava Republike Slovenije
    12. 12. Ekvivalenti fitos. inšpektorjev in fitos. preglednikov (2008)Pooblaščeni RPL 2,69 Σ 31,5 FT Posebni nadzor 1,19 gozd Posebni nadzor 5,92 negozd FSI ostalo 10,66 FSI izvoz 6,14 FSI uvoz 4,87 1 FT = 1700 ur Fitosanitarna uprava Republike Slovenije
    13. 13. Stroški ukrepov v Sloveniji140.000 Posebni120.000 nadzori 2008100.000 80.000 63.771 60.000 40.000 7.493 PN nacionalni ukrepi 20.000 PN krompir EUR- PN nujni ukrepi EU Fitosanitarni pregledi Stroški lab. analiz Fitosanitarna uprava Republike Slovenije
    14. 14. Odškodnina 112.786 € / leto Izplačana odškodnina za uničene rastlineHrušev ožig Hmeljeva P. ramorum uvelost 234.465 € 216.462 € Hrušev ožig 152.593 € 165.647 € 26.462 € 36.217 € 38.332 € 32.100 € 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Vir: FURS Fitosanitarna uprava Republike Slovenije
    15. 15. Izbruhi v Sloveniji NADZOR Razno1.139 € OD PSTVd 7.717 € 2006 Dryocosmus 9.633 € 2005 Flavescence doree 61.388 € 2005 Pear decline 20.909 € 2002Xanthomonas arboricola 49.793 € 2006 Šarka, ESFY 82.952 € 1999 Verticilij_hmelj 154.048 € 1999 P_ramorum 155.176 € 2004 Hrušev ožig 359.535 € 2003 Izplačana odškodnina 2003 - 2010 Vir: FURS Fitosanitarna uprava Republike Slovenije
    16. 16. Hrušev ožig še ni ustaljen v območju glavne pridelave v Sloveniji 5-8 let do polne napadenosti v SLO, če ne bi izvajali zakonodaje 20% škoda na jablanah in hruškah 7.168.699 € letno PN 68.230 € letno (1,3 %) Fitosanitarna uprava Republike Slovenije Foto: FSI
    17. 17. Zlata trsna rumenica Grapevine flavescence dorée prva najdba FD leta 2005 5 let do polne napadenosti v SLO, če ne bi izvajali zakonodaje 20% škoda na vinski trti 12.460.215 € letno PN 62.295 € letno(0,4 %) Foto: G. Seljak Fitosanitarna uprava Republike Slovenije
    18. 18. Koruzni hrošč Diabrotica virgifera virgifera prva najdba leta 2003; glavni cilj je obdržati majhno populacijo pod pragom škodljivosti 5-6 let do škode, če ne bi izvajali zakonodaje 20% škoda na koruzi 15.618.774 € letno PN 41.913 € letno(0,3 %) Foto: Š. Modic Fitosanitarna uprava Republike Slovenije
    19. 19. Vretenatost krompirja SI - najdbe PSTVd na krompirju ali paradižniku do sedaj še ni bilo; 2006 na okrasnih rastlinah Brugmansia in Solanum jasminoides 10 let do polne napadenosti v SLO, če ne bi izvajali zakonodaje 20% škoda na krompirju 2.925.600 € letno PN 34.994 € letno (1,2 %) Fitosanitarna uprava Republike Slovenije
    20. 20. Fitoftorna sušica vejic Phytophthora ramorum v SLO še ni bila najdena v gozdu 2003 na rastlinah Rhododendron in Viburnum, 2006 v parku Obstaja stalna nevarnost za nove izbruhe in nove grožnje križanja z drugimi sevi/vrstami Phytophthora spp. Fitosanitarna uprava Republike Slovenije
    21. 21. Fitosanitarna uprava Republike SlovenijeProf. Clive Brasier, Forest research UK
    22. 22. Fitosanitarna uprava Republike SlovenijeProf. Clive Brasier, Forest research UK
    23. 23. Phytophthora ramorum 20% škoda na gozdu € 230.586.075 PN 34.994 € letno (0,007 %) Fitosanitarna uprava Republike Slovenije
    24. 24. Borova ogorčica20% škoda na gozdu € 591.123.825 PN 48.813 € letno (0,008 %) Fitosanitarna uprava Republike Slovenije
    25. 25. Kostanjeva šiškarica  Dryocosmus kuriphilus PUPAE  20% škoda JUN JUL vrednosti kostanja IMAGO  EGGSLARVAE MAY AUG 218.250.000 € MAR DEC SEP  Tolerantne sorte Latent new infestation  Biotično varstvo - Torymus sinensis Fitosanitarna uprava Republike Slovenije
    26. 26. Kostanjeva šiškaricaLeto Stroški PN (EUR) EU solidarity sistem2005 2,365 02006 35,020 02007 41,308 50%2008 86,625 45%2009 78,832 45%2010 80,000 (0,04 %) 0 Fitosanitarna uprava Republike Slovenije
    27. 27. Koristi sistema varstva rastlin Kmetijstvo Prepreči/zmanjša izgube v pridelavi (manjši pridelki) Konkurenčnost Primerjalne prednosti lahko izvirajo iz zagotovljenega proizvoda brez tveganja (za ŠO) Ekosistemi Prepreči/zmanjša škodo v ekosistemih zaradi aplikacije FFS Biotska razno- Prepreči/zmanjša negativni vpliv na biotsko raznovrstnost zaradi vrstnost kvarjenja habitatov in iztrebljenje vrst Podeželje Prepreči/zmanjša propadanje podeželskih skupnosti zaradi zmanjšanja zaslužkov ali opuščanja kmetovanja Naravna Prepreči/zmanjša izgube nacionalne naravne dediščine dediščina Rekreacija Prepreči/zmanjša uničenje vrtnih rastlin Vizualni užitki Prepreči/zmanjša spremembe v naravni krajini ali v urbanih Fitosanitarna uprava Republike SlovenijeVir: EU-FCEC zasaditvah/zelenih površinah
    28. 28. Rjavenje pušpana povzročatujerodna gliva Cylindrocladium buxicola Foto: M. Žerjav, Fitosanitarna uprava Republike Slovenije KIS
    29. 29. Globalna trgovinastrmo narašča WTO-SPS Fitosanitarna uprava Republike Slovenije
    30. 30. Smo v EU res razsvetljeni ? Fitosanitarna uprava Republike Slovenije
    1. A particular slide catching your eye?

      Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

    ×