Regional cooperation in PRA

1. Regional cooperationinPRA Muriel SUFFERT EPPO Secretariat www.eppo.org International Plant Health Risk Analysis WorkshopNiagara Falls, October 2005

2. What is EPPO ? • Intergovernmental organization responsible for European cooperation in plant health • Regional Plant Protection Organization • Founded in 1951 by 15 countries, now 47 members • For more information: www.eppo.org

3. International context • Phytosanitary measures should be technically justified • ISPMs on Pest Risk Analyses have been developed (ISPM 11, ISPM 21) What role for an RPPO in PRA?

4. EPPO Standards in PRA • PM 5/1(1) Check-list of information required for pest risk analysis (PRA)- 1992 • PM 5/2(2) Pest risk analysis on detection of a pest in an imported consignment – 1992, revised in 2001 • PM 5/3(1) Pest risk assessment scheme –1997, revised in 2005 • PM 5/4(1) Pest risk management scheme – 2000, revised in 2005

5. EPPO decision making scheme for PRA • Added value: logic sequence of questions addressing all elements of ISPM 11 • Revised to follow the structure of ISPM 11 • Combine pest risk assessment and pest risk management • Include specific elements for invasive alien plants

6. EPPO lists of regulated pests • Any request for addition to the EPPO lists must be supported by a PRA performed according to the scheme. • PRA schemes used in EPPO and EU framework

7. Presentation of EPPO scheme • Initiation • Pest Risk Assessment • Section A: Pest categorization: qualitative assessment in the form of a binary decision tree (Eliminate quickly pest that do not qualify as QP) • Section B: Assessment of probability of introduction, spread and economic consequences: series of questions with choice of an appropriate phrase out of a set of 5 alternatives (e.g. very unlikely, unlikely, moderately likely, likely, very likely)

8. Examples of questionsSection A 10 Does the pest occur in the PRA area? • if yes Go to 11 • if no Go to 12 12Does at least one host-plant species (for pests directly affecting plants) or one suitable habitat (for non parasitic plants) occur in the PRA area (outdoors, in protected cultivation or both)? • if yes Go to 13 • if no Go to 17 17The pest does not qualify as a QP for the PRA area and the assessment for this pest can stop(summarize the main reason for stopping the analysis)

9. Examples of questionsSection B • Probability of transfer to a suitable host or habitat 1.11. In the case of a commodity pathway, how widely is the commodity to be distributed throughout the PRA area? Note: the more scattered the destinations, the more likely it is that the pest might find suitable habitats. very limited, limited, moderately widely, widely, very widely Go to 1.12 1.12.In the case of a commodity pathway, do consignments arrive at a suitable time of year for pest establishment? Note: introduction at many different times of the year will increase the probability that entry of the pest will occur at a life stage of the pest or the host which is suitable for establishment or when habitat or environmental conditions are favourable. if yesGo to 1.13 if no Go to 1.15

10. Presentation of EPPO scheme (2)Pest risk management • Steps are followed successively for each of the major pathways likely to carry the pest (or, for a commodity-initiated analysis, for each of the pests likely to be associated with the pathway) • Pest risk management • Identification of risk management options • Evaluation of options

11. Examples of questions: Management Detection of the pest in consignments by inspection or testing 3.11 Can the pest be reliably detected by a visual inspection of a consignment at the time of export, during transport/storage or at import? If yes possible measure: visual inspection. Go to 3.12 3.12 Can the pest be reliably detected by testing (e.g. for pest plant seeds in a consignment)? If yes possible measure: specified testing. Go to 3.13 3.13 Can the pest be reliably detected during post-entry quarantine? If yes possible measure: import under special licence/permit and post-entry quarantine. Go to 3.14

12. Further developments • EPPO Panel on tools for PRA will carry on working on the decision scheme. A new version will be adopted every year • New standard under development: Format for reports of PRA • Computer version of the scheme under development

14. EPPO Structure for European PRA • Modification of the existing structure A single body will perform all PRAs Share cost and workload • Objectives: • Perform risk assessment • Identify the endangered area • Identify risk management options

15. EPPO Panel for PRA • Core membership Consistency • Ad hoc membership Experts called upon for specific pests

16. GIS and Climex Risk management EPPO Scheme EPPO Panel for PRA Suggested expertise

17. Selection of pests • Alert List + propositions from EPPO countries • Prioritization by EPPO bodies where all members are represented

18. Communication • Available on EPPO website: • Datasheets • Reports of PRA • Restricted to EPPO Members: • Collection of all existing PRAs • Working documents

20. Conclusion The new working-procedures should provide to EPPO member countries appropriate information for the technical justification of phytosanitary measures established by for certain pests.