INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONS > KEY COMPARITIVE CRITERIA Australia New Zealand New Zealand Canada European Union Japan Brazil APVMA EPA MPI PMRA VDD Plant Protection FAMIC Products Time frame 1-25 calendar 10-100 working 40 working days 80-737 calendar 2-300 calendar 2.5 to 3.5 years Up to 2 years 120 days (min – max) months days days days (912.5-1277 days) (up to 730 (30-750 days) days) Location Statutory Statutory Statutory Policy Statutory Statutory Statutory Statutory Third parties Regulatory Registration Grower Consultants consultants consultants Requested Own Panel appointed Accredited Use (GROU) assessors Assessors Committee Performance 100% 100% 100% 90% 100% 100% 100% 100% target Recent 69% 100% 55% (approx.) Category A 87% Within service EFSA: 75% (2016) Can be up to 6 performance 2016/17 2015/16 June 2017 Category B 88% delivery standard RMS: “delays are years² Category C 95% for 7/9 application commonplace” ¹ Backlog of 6 2015/16 types 2015/16 those evaluated Pre- Administrative Administrative Administrative assessment and technical and technical Reporting Quarterly Annual As required Annual Annual requirements Reporting Industry focussed Parliament Annual Report Parliament Parliament mechanism newsletter Extension of time Clock stops Clock stops Clock stops Clock stops Clock stops for Rejected if issue clock for requests for Can request requests for not addressed information extensions information within 1 month Review period Risk based 15 year cycle Risk based not Risk based triggers Overview Report on a Series of Audits C 017 in Order to Evaluat arried Out In EU Member States in 2016 and 2 e the Systems in Place for t Protection Products 1 ² Chemlinked, Brazilian Pesticide Regulation Overview, March 13, 2017 rPslan
INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONS > KEY COMPARITIVE CRITERIA Australia APVMA New Zealand EPA New Zealand MPI Canada PMRA VDD European Union Plant Protection Products Japan FAMIC Brazil Time frame (min – max) 1-25 calendar months (30-750 days) 10-100 working days 40 working days 80-737 calendar days 2-300 calendar days 2.5 to 3.5 years (912.5-1277 days) Up to 2 years (up to 730 days) 120 days Location Statutory Statutory Statutory Policy Statutory Statutory Statutory Statutory Third parties Regulatory consultants Panel appointed assessors Registration consultants Accredited Assessors Grower Requested Own Use (GROU) Committee Consultants Performance target 100% 100% 100% 90% 100% 100% 100% 100% Recent performance 69% 2016/17 100% 2015/16 55% (approx.) June 2017 Category A 87% Category B 88% Category C 95% 2015/16 Within service delivery standard for 7/9 application types 2015/16 EFSA: 75% (2016) RMS: “delays are commonplace” ¹ Can be up to 6 years² Backlog of 6 those evaluated Pre- assessment Administrative Administrative and technical Administrative and technical Reporting requirements Quarterly Annual As required Annual Annual Reporting mechanism Parliament Annual Report Industry focussed newsletter Parliament Parliament clock Extension of time for requests for information Clock stops Can request extensions Clock stops Clock stops Clock stops Clock stops for requests for information Rejected if issue not addressed within 1 month Review period 1 Overview Report Risk based on a Series of Audits C arried Out In EU Member States in 2016 and 2 15 year cycle 017 in Order to Evaluat e the Systems in Place for Risk based not rPslan t Protection Products Risk based triggers ² Chemlinked, Brazilian Pesticide Regulation Overview, March 13, 2017
28811-final_apvma_report_20171222.docx