IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/ssefpa/v8y2016i1p71-75.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Linking science and policy to better protect Canada from plant pests

Author

Listed:
  • Robert Favrin
  • Lesley Cree

Abstract

Pest Risk Analysis (PRA) is a science-based process for determining the likelihood and magnitude of pest risks and evaluating options for mitigating them. Pest Risk Analysis is used by national plant protection organizations (NPPOs) to support phytosanitary decision-making. The design of a PRA process reflects an NPPO’s policy on risk, whereas the content or data that informs the PRA process is a reflection of its use of science. A well-designed and implemented PRA process can serve as a bridge between science and policy and inform decision-making. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) has undertaken steps to integrate its pest risk assessment and pest risk management processes in ways that improve efficiency and transparency while continuing to preserve the scientific integrity of the science advice under-pinning the design of its plant protection programs. Copyright Crown Copyright 2016

Suggested Citation

  • Robert Favrin & Lesley Cree, 2016. "Linking science and policy to better protect Canada from plant pests," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 8(1), pages 71-75, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:ssefpa:v:8:y:2016:i:1:p:71-75
    DOI: 10.1007/s12571-015-0531-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s12571-015-0531-0
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s12571-015-0531-0?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:ssefpa:v:8:y:2016:i:1:p:71-75. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.