Suchergebnisse

The European Commission requested EFSA to facilitate the Member States in the planning and execution of their survey activities. In particular, EFSA is asked to provide scientific and technical guidelines in the context of the new plant health regime (Regulation (EU) 2016/2031), in which prevention and risk targeting are given an extra focus, and the European Commission co‐financing programme of the annual Member State survey activities for pests of EU relevance (Regulation (EU) No 652/2014). In order to address this mandate EFSA is requested to deliver by the end of 2019: (i) 47 pest survey cards that contain practical information required for preparing survey design; (ii) survey guidelines for 3 different pests that will be case studies to be developed in collaboration with the EU Member States; and, (iii) support to the Member States on the underpinning statistical methods and use of the EFSA WEB‐based tools RiBESS+ and SAMPELATOR to inform sampling strategy design, including sample size calculations. This technical report describes the methodological approach and the work‐plan EFSA will implement to deliver the requested outputs.

A new method for pest risk assessment and the identification and evaluation of risk‐reducing options is currently under development by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) Plant Health Panel. The draft method has been tested on pests of concern to the European Union (EU). The method is adaptable and can focus either on all the steps and sub‐steps of the assessment process or on specific parts if necessary. It is based on assessing changes in pest population abundance as the major driver of the impact on cultivated plants and on the environment. Like other pest risk assessment systems the method asks questions about the likelihood and magnitude of factors that contribute to risk. Responses can be based on data or expert judgment. Crucially, the approach is quantitative, and it captures uncertainty through the provision by risk assessors of quantile estimates of the probability distributions for the assessed variables and parameters. The assessment is based on comparisons between different scenarios, and the method integrates risk‐reducing options where they apply to a scenario, for example current regulation against a scenario where risk‐reducing options are not applied. A strategy has been developed to communicate the results of the risk assessment in a clear, comparable and transparent way, with the aim of providing the requestor of the risk assessment with a useful answer to the question(s) posed to the EFSA Plant Health Panel. The method has been applied to four case studies, two fungi, Ceratocystis platani and Cryphonectria parasitica, the nematode Ditylenchus destructor and the Grapevine flavescence dorée phytoplasma. Selected results from these case studies illustrate the types of output that the method can deliver.

Utility functions in the form of tables or matrices have often been used to combine discretely rated decision‐making criteria. Matrix elements are usually specified individually, so no one rule or principle can be easily stated for the utility function as a whole. A series of five matrices are presented that aggregate criteria two at a time using simple rules that express a varying degree of constraint of the lower rating over the higher. A further nine possible matrices were obtained by using a different rule either side of the main axis of the matrix to describe situations where the criteria have a differential influence on the outcome. Uncertainties in the criteria are represented by three alternative frequency distributions from which the assessors select the most appropriate. The output of the utility function is a distribution of rating frequencies that is dependent on the distributions of the input criteria. In pest risk analysis (PRA), seven of these utility functions were required to mimic the logic by which assessors for the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization arrive at an overall rating of pest risk. The framework enables the development of PRAs that are consistent and easy to understand, criticize, compare, and change. When tested in workshops, PRA practitioners thought that the approach accorded with both the logic and the level of resolution that they used in the risk assessments.

A new method for pest risk assessment and the identification and evaluation of risk-reducing options is currently under development by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) Plant Health Panel. The draft method has been tested on pests of concern to the European Union (EU). The method is adaptable and can focus either on all the steps and sub-steps of the assessment process or on specific parts if necessary. It is based on assessing changes in pest population abundance as the major driver of the impact on cultivated plants and on the environment. Like other pest risk assessment systems the method asks questions about the likelihood and magnitude of factors that contribute to risk. Responses can be based on data or expert judgment. Crucially, the approach is quantitative, and it captures uncertainty through the provision by risk assessors of quantile estimates of the probability distributions for the assessed variables and parameters. The assessment is based on comparisons between different scenarios, and the method integrates risk-reducing options where they apply to a scenario, for example current regulation against a scenario where risk-reducing options are not applied. A strategy has been developed to communicate the results of the risk assessment in a clear, comparable and transparent way, with the aim of providing the requestor of the risk assessment with a useful answer to the question(s) posed to the EFSA Plant Health Panel. The method has been applied to four case studies, two fungi, Ceratocystis platani and Cryphonectria parasitica, the nematode Ditylenchus destructor and the Grapevine flavescence dorée phytoplasma. Selected results from these case studies illustrate the types of output that the method can deliver. ; SCOPUS: ar.j ; info:eu-repo/semantics/published

PRATIQUE is an EC-funded 7th Framework research project designed to address the major challenges for pest risk analysis (PRA) in Europe. It has three principal objectives: (a) to assemble the datasets required to construct PRAs valid for the whole of the EU, (b) to conduct multi-disciplinary research that enhances the techniques used in PRA and (c) to provide a decision support scheme for PRA that is efficient and user-friendly. The research will be undertaken by scientists from 13 institutes in the EU and one each from Australia and New Zealand with subcontractors from institutes in China and Russia. They will produce a structured inventory of PRA datasets for the EU and undertake targeted research to improve existing procedures and develop new methods for (a) the assessment of economic, environmental and social impacts, (b) summarising risk while taking account of uncertainty, (c) mapping endangered areas (d) pathway risk analysis and systems approaches and (e) guiding actions during emergencies caused by outbreaks of harmful organisms. The results will be tested and provided as protocols, decision support systems and computer programs with examples of best practice linked to a computerised European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO) PRA scheme.

Following a request from the European Commission, in this scientific opinion the EFSA Panel on Plant Health evaluates the risk of entry into the European Union of harmful organisms associated with soil or growing medium attached to plants for planting, as commodities, and as contaminants on imported consignments. The Panel compared several definitions of soil and growing media and used, in this opinion, the current definition for growing media of the International Plant Protection Convention. In Council Directive 2000/29/EC, no specific definition of soil and growing media is provided but growing media are described in two different ways. From the soil and growing media and/or components thereof identified through extensive literature searches, the Panel distinguished eight groups of soil and growing media and assessed the probability of association of these groups with harmful organisms. A total of 207 scientific publications were reviewed by the Panel in order to identify and rate the effectiveness of options that could reduce the risk of entry of pests posed by the import of soil and growing media. A detailed description and evaluation of the requirements for soil and growing media laid down in current EU legislation on plant health and in a few other regions of the world is provided. The Panel found that the 'prohibition of import' is the only phytosanitary measure with a very high effectiveness and a low uncertainty. The effectiveness of the phytosanitary measures 'pest free production site and preparation of consignment' is rated as moderate to high with an uncertainty rated as medium to high. Although several phytosanitary measures in these categories of risk reduction options could be highly effective, EU legislation does not provide clear formulation and guidance on their implementation.

The EFSA Panel on Plant Health was requested by the European Commission to assess the risk to plant health in 8the European Union if the Australian bud-galling wasp Trichilogaster acaciaelongifoliae was released for the 9control of the invasive alien plant Acacia longifolia in Portugal. T. acaciaelongifoliae feeds on A. longifolia and 10A. floribunda. In South Africa, following its intentional introduction in 1982 and 1983, the wasp is now present 11throughout the range of A. longifolia in that country, with most plants showing galls and seed set reductions of, 12initially, up to 95 %. Climatic conditions in the EU are largely suitable for establishment wherever A. longifolia13and A. floribunda are present. T. acaciaelongifoliae is moderately likely to establish and spread in the EU, by 14natural means, but particularly if it is intentionally moved to control populations of A. longifolia other than those 15present in Portugal. The effects on native biodiversity and ecosystems resulting from invasive populations of 16A. longifolia are likely to be reduced by the wasp. A. longifolia is grown as an ornamental plant in some EU 17countries. A. floribunda is not an invasive plant in the EU and is cultivated as an ornamental plant on a small 18scale in France, Greece and Italy. Any effects on cultivated ornamental A. longifolia and A. floribunda a re rated 19as moderate, although likely to be transient, as the industry could switch to the cultivation of other Acacia spp. 20For plant species other than A. longifolia and A. floribunda, consequences are expected to be minor, with low 21uncertainty except for A. retinodes and Cytisus striatus, where further investigation is required. No risk-reducing 22options in the plant health context are considered necessary, except for monitoring, sentinel planting, and care 23with regard to quarantine facilities and release protocols to prevent accidental release in situations and locations 24other than those intended

The Panel on Plant Health performed a pest categorisation of Circulifer tenellus (Ct) and C. haematoceps (Ch) (Hemiptera, Cicadellidae) for the European Union (EU) territory. They are well‐defined insect species that can be identified on the basis of external morphology and male genitalia. Ch and Ct are considered to originate from the Old World; Ct is also present in North America and the Caribbean. In the EU, Ch is reported in 11 Member States, mostly in southern or central Europe, and Ct is reported in Spain, France, Italy and Greece. Neither species is harmful by itself, but they are vectors of Spiroplasma citri, the causal agent of, for example, citrus stubborn disease. The major impact of Ct in North America results from the transmission of Beet curly top virus to sugarbeet. Ct also transmits 'Candidatus Phytoplasma trifolii' and Ch transmits 'Ca P. asteris'. There is no transovarial transmission of the pathogens. Ch and Ct are regulated harmful organisms in the EU and listed in Annex II, Part A, Section II, of Council Directive 2000/29/EC together with Spiroplasma citri and with respect to plants of Citrus Fortunella Poncirus and their hybrids, other than fruit and seeds, despite the fact that Ct and Ch have a larger host range. Ch and Ct are likely to be disseminated by plants for planting (the eggs are laid into the leaf veins and petioles), they have also been observed to hitch‐hike on terrestrial vehicles, and Ct is known for its very high flight capacity. Both species have many hosts, in particular in the Chenopodiaceae, Brassicaceae and Asteraceae. Ecological conditions in the risk assessment area are suitable for the establishment and spread of S. citri, at least where citrus is currently grown.