Search

The European Commission requested the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to provide a scientific opinion on the report “Mortality verification of pinewood nematode from high temperature treatment of shavings” provided by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).The pinewood nematode, Bursaphelenchus xylophilus (Steiner and Buhrer) Nickle, is listed in Community plant health legislation and protective measures include a requirement that wood shavings of coniferous wood (except that of Thuja L.) originating in the United States (US) must be heat treated to achieve a minimum core temperature of 56 °C for at least 30 minutes.The USDA, through the United Kingdom (UK) Authorities, requested the recognition of an alternative treatment by the European Community. The request was supported by a report of an experiment entitled "Mortality verification of pinewood nematode from high temperature treatment of shavings" and additional explanatory information. This report (and additional explanatory information) presents a treatment process whereby wood shavings are exposed to high temperatures (398 °C) for a short time (3 minutes). The report was submitted to EFSA’s Scientific Panel on Plant Health for evaluation with regard to the reliability and effectiveness of the proposed treatment method, as an alternative to the current heat treatment requirement. A scientific opinion was requested to assist risk managers in considering the technical justification for derogation from the current treatment requirement for wood shavings of coniferous wood listed in Annex IV, Part A, Section 1, point 1.2 of the Council Directive 2000/29/EC[2].The Panel examined the report and supporting information in detail and based its conclusions on the following:* An analysis of the cited references, and the extent to which they support the statements made in the introduction and discussion sections of the USDA report;* Evaluation of the materials, methods and results presented in the report and* A statistical analysis performed by the Panel to test the hypothesis of a mortality estimate after the heat treatment lower than 100%.No comparison is made of the effectiveness and reliability of the proposed treatment method in relation to the current treatment requirement.The scope of this opinion is restricted to one species of Pinus “white pine” (Pinus strobus) as no wider species testing of other coniferous wood has been undertaken. Although the Panel is requested to consider the proposed treatment as an alternative to the current requirement for coniferous wood shavings, this extrapolation of the findings of the report cannot be made since no species other than white pine have been tested.According to the Panel, the references cited do not provide adequate evidence to support the effectiveness of the high temperature treatment proposed, are in some cases incorrectly interpreted and do not sufficiently validate the premise behind the treatment as stated in the USDA report. In particular, the relationship between lethal temperature and duration of exposure was not accurately established and no conclusion can, therefore, be derived about the appropriateness of the proposed temperature/time combination.The Panel considers that the accuracy of the results is difficult to assess due to missing data in the report for the control samples. The report claims that the treatment results in 100% mortality, but a statistical analysis is not included in the report to specify the statistical level of confidence supporting these results. The Panel performed a statistical analysis of the data provided in the USDA report and cannot exclude that the mortality estimate is lower than 99.85%.Uncertainties relating to the experimental design are identified by the Panel. These include:* The effect of the high temperature treatment alone, independent of the shredding process cannot be derived from this experiment.* After the shredding process, shavings are expelled onto a mesh conveyer, which allows dust and particles to fall before the material enters the dryer. The possibility of B. xylophilus contamination from untreated waste material is not discussed.* Only one temperature-time combination has been tested. Therefore the safety margins and reliability of routine operational application of the proposed high temperature treatment cannot be derived from this experiment. This is noted as particularly important in relation to the short exposure time of 3 minutes proposed.* A temperature of 115 °C is recorded at the end of the high temperature treatment. Thus, a continuous exposure to 398 °C for 3 minutes cannot be confirmed from the experiment described.The Panel considers that several elements of the experiment were also not adequately described:* The temperature of the wood shavings in the experiment is unknown. Further information on temperature measurement and placement of thermal sensors would enable more accurate evaluation of the temperature exposure over time.* A number of factors that may influence the results of the experiment are unknown. These include: the volume of the wood shavings relative to the air volume inside the dryer, the homogeneity of the distribution of the shavings in the dryer and wood moisture levels at the start of the treatment.* No information is provided to confirm the identity and the frequency of occurrence of the most resistant life stages of B. xylophilus in the treated samples. The storage conditions of the control samples are unknown, which may affect the natural mortality over time.The Panel agrees that there is potential for development of an alternative treatment protocol based on exposure of wood shavings to high temperatures for a short duration. The Panel however, does not consider that the evidence presented in this report demonstrates the effectiveness and reliability of the proposed temperature/time regime as an alternative to the heat treatment requirement for coniferous wood shavings set out in Annex IV Part A Section I Point 1.2. of Council Directive 2000/29/EC.

The European Food Safety Authority requested the Panel on Plant Health to produce a guidance document on the evaluation of documents prepared by EU Member States or third parties to justify requests for phytosanitary measures to be considered under Council Directive 2000/29/EC[3]. The Panel reviewed the 36 opinions published in the period 2006-2008, and in particular considered the evaluation process for 30 pest risk analysis documents prepared by France on organisms considered harmful for the overseas Departments of Guadeloupe, French Guiana, Martinique and Reunion. It also considered the International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPMs) and the evaluation process is presented with reference to the elements of ISPM No. 11: Pest risk analysis for quarantine pests including analysis of environmental risks and living modified organisms[4]. This guidance confirms the criteria used by the Panel in evaluating whether the evidence presented in the submitted documents supports the conclusion that an organism may pose a risk to plant health and therefore be considered as a harmful organism. The following elements are used as the basis of the conclusions reached by the Panel: •the potential for consequences to cultivated and managed plants and environmental consequences following the introduction of the organism to a specified area •the likelihood of establishment and spread •the likelihood of entry by analysis of the potential pathways presented •the uncertainties which may influence the conclusions reached. If requested, the Panel may also identify and evaluate the effectiveness of potential risk management options a) in reducing the risk of entry and b) in reducing the magnitude of the potential consequences following the introduction of an organism considered to pose a risk to plant health in the European Community.

Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Plant Health was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on a pest risk analysis for Thaumetopoea processionea L. prepared by the UK. The Panel was also asked to consider in its opinion the plant health risk of T. processionea to the whole EU territory.The oak processionary moth, Thaumetopoea processionea, is established in Europe and feeds primarily on deciduous oak (Quercus) species. The insect has one generation per year and overwinters as eggs laid on branches of oak trees. After emergence, the larvae feed gregariously and from the 5th instar form a communal silken nest on the tree from which they typically migrate in procession to feed. Feeding may result in partial or complete tree defoliation. From the third instar, the larvae produce urticating hairs which may cause allergic reactions in humans and animals.The Panel examined in detail the UK document to determine whether the evidence presented in the document supports the conclusions reached for the assessment area of the UK, including Northern Ireland and the Channel Islands.To consider the risks posed to the whole area of the European Community, the Panel analysed additional information obtained from a review of the literature and from consultation with experts in the EU. The Panel conducted a preliminary climatic analysis to explore the establishment in the whole EU area, based on temperature accumulation.Based on the above, the Panel reaches the following conclusions:1.With regard to the evaluation of the UK document:•the Panel agrees that the probability for entry on the plants for planting pathway is moderate to high. It further agrees that the probability of entry of T. processionea on the oak roundwood pathway is low;•the Panel agrees that the probability of establishment of T. processionea in the southern area of the UK is high given the presence of breeding populations in London and Jersey, the widespread distribution of oak trees and the favourable climatic conditions in the southern part of the assessment area;•in the UK document evidence is not presented to support the statement that the impact of the oak processionary moth on oak trees is major. Pest management measures applied in areas where the pest is established relate primarily to human health effects and thus are not considered to be a reliable indicator of the magnitude of plant health impact of T. processionea;•the Panel concludes from an evaluation of the risk assessment provided for the assessment area of the UK and review of additional information, that T. processionea may enter, establish and spread in the UK and has the potential to cause negative effects on the health of Quercus spp. although there is a high level of uncertainty relating to the magnitude of the effects on wood yield and quality which are directly attributed to T. processionea;•for the plants for planting pathway, visual inspection, pest surveillance and the establishment of pest free areas or places of production are proposed as risk management options in the UK document. The Panel agrees that uncertainties relating to adult dispersal and the absence of tested surveillance methods may influence the effectiveness and practical implementation of the management options proposed. Further analysis on natural dispersal by flight would assist in evaluation of entry pathways and risk management measures, including those taken in the area of the UK where the pest is present and under official control;•the Panel agrees that the management options proposed for the roundwood pathway can reduce the risk of introduction i.e. removal of bark, restriction of time of year of felling and export of roundwood. There are uncertainties regarding the effectiveness of visual inspection for the presence of nests and the practicality of bark removal for oaks.2.With regard to the risk assessment conducted for the whole EU territory:•T. processionea occurs in many Member States of the EU territory, but the Panel found no reports to suggest that the pest is established in Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta or Sweden;•the presence of the pest in many areas of the EU territory provides opportunity for natural dispersal of T. processionea into adjacent areas where it is not currently established. Natural dispersal of adults may be restricted by geographic barriers (e.g. sea, mountains);•the results from the exploratory analysis conducted by the Panel indicate that spring and summer temperatures are suitable for larval and pupal development in parts of all EU member states where the pest is currently absent. Overwintering survival is not considered to be a key factor in defining the northern limits to the distribution. Limited availability of host plants (Quercus spp.) and low summer temperatures are likely to restrict the potential area of establishment to southern areas of the most northern EU member states;•reports of the plant health impact of T. processionea range from low to high. Due to the high level of variation in the level of plant health impact in the pest’s current area of distribution, more detailed analysis is required to assess the consequences of further spread in areas where it is not currently established in the EU;•the Panel considers that the degree of uncertainty is high. The main uncertainties relate to:■differences in the magnitude of the pest effects reported from different areas of the EU where the pest is established,■the plant health impact directly attributed to T. processionea alone and in combination with other stress factors contributing to tree mortality,■factors affecting the health status and susceptibility of Quercus spp. to defoliation by T. processionea,■the current distribution of T. processionea in the EU territory and lack of biological data needed to estimate the potential expansion of the range of T. processionea,■natural dispersal capabilities of T. processionea females and effectiveness of surveillance methods.Phytosanitary measures are unlikely to prevent natural dispersal of the pest. Phytosanitary measures aimed at plants for planting could, however, reduce the probability of introduction of the pest into areas of the EU territory where the pest is currently absent, or present but under official control. Therefore, the Panel concludes that T. processionea may be considered as a harmful organism and hence is potentially eligible for addition to the list of harmful organisms in Council Directive 2000/29/EC

Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Plant Health was asked to provide a scientific opinion on the report “Evaluation of Strawberry Nursery Plant Cold Treatments on Survival of the Whitefly, Bemisia tabaci” submitted to the European Commission by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) as technical justification for a derogation from requirements listed in Annex IV, Part A, Section 1, point 46 of the Council Directive 2000/29/EC[2].The Panel reviewed the report to indicate methodological issues of concern and evaluated the effectiveness of the treatment proposed for the elimination of B. tabaci whiteflies from consignments to be shipped to the EU. In addition, the Panel clarified which viruses listed in the Annexes of Council Directive 2000/29/EC can be transmitted by strawberry plants and by B. tabaci.The Panel concludes that due to the poor quality of the report submitted and to serious shortcomings in the experimental design the report does not demonstrate the effectiveness of the cold treatment proposed. Although there is potential for the development of a cold treatment protocol for the elimination of B. tabaci from strawberry plant consignments, reliable mortality estimates for the proposed cold treatment of 28 degrees Fahrenheit (-2.2 degrees Celsius) for 2 weeks cannot be derived from this study.No B.tabaci-transmitted viruses are currently known to infect strawberry and no viruses of Fragaria spp. listed in Directive 2000/29/EC are known to be transmitted by B. tabaci. However, adult whiteflies of B. tabaci on strawberry consignments can carry plant viruses irrespective of whether strawberry is a host plant for these viruses and thus represent a pathway for the introduction of non-European viruses. There is also some uncertainty concerning the extent to which known or unknown B. tabaci-transmitted viruses could infect strawberry. Two whitefly-transmitted viruses have been recently confirmed as associated with strawberry pallidosis disease occurring in the US: Beet pseudo-yellows virus (BPYV) and Strawberry pallidosis associated virus (Spiv) but are only known to be transmitted by the greenhouse whitefly Trialeurodes vaporariorum and not by B. tabaci.Strawberry plants for planting are vegetatively propagated and are thus subject to infection by viruses. Irrespective of the presence of B. tabaci, strawberry transplants from US may represent a pathway for the introduction of any non-European viruses (and other potentially harmful organisms) of Fragaria. This applies for example to SPaV, which is not reported as present in the EU and, if introduced, could be further spread by its vector, the glasshouse whitefly T. vaporariorum, which is widely established in the EU.

Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Plant Health was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on 30 pest risk assessments made by France on organisms which are considered by France as harmful in four French overseas departments, i.e. French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique and Réunion. In particular, the Panel was asked whether these organisms can be considered as harmful organisms for the endangered area of the above departments, in the meaning of the definition mentioned in Article 2.1.(e) of Directive 2000/29/EC and thus potentially eligible for addition to the list of harmful organisms in Directive 2000/29/EC.This document presents the opinion of the Panel on Plant Health on the simplified[1] pest risk assessment conducted by France on Prays endocarpa with French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique and Réunion considered as endangered area.Prays endocarpa Meyrick (Insecta: Lepidoptera: Yponomeutidae), the citrus rind borer or citrus pock caterpillar, is usually found on Citrus, but has also been reported to attack other Rutaceae, including the bael tree Aegle marmelos. The larva feeds on the rind of different citrusfruit, causing gall-like swellings (pocks). Larval development is completed within these galls and the larvae never enter the endocarp. This species is distributed in parts of the Indian subcontinent, South-East Asia and the Pacific.The Panel examined in detail the risk assessment provided, and considered the accuracy and quality of the information provided and methods applied for pest risk assessment purposes. The review was based on the principles of the International Standard on Phytosanitary Measures ISPM No. 11[2]: Pest risk analysis for quarantine pests including analysis of environmental risks and living modified organisms (2004) by the International Plant Protection Convention (FAO, 2007).The Panel concludes that:* Many statements in this simplified risk assessment are neither substantiated by references nor supported by verifiable data. This applies to, amongst others, i) the possible introduction pathways, ii) the climatic similarities between the PRA area[3] and the area where the pest is currently distributed, iii) the size of the area under cultivation with susceptible hosts and the economic importance of these hosts in the PRA area, iv) current or potential control strategies, and v) the potential impact in the PRA area.* Information given in the pest risk assessment on the related species Prays endolemma, reported from the Philippines, is irrelevant for the pest risk assessment on P. endocarpa. It is recommended that this species be treated in a separate pest risk assessment.* The Panel considers the probability of entry to be very low, given the lack of trade in citrus fruit between the area of current distribution of P. endocarpa and the PRA area. Moreover, symptoms of infested fruit are very conspicuous and contaminated batches of citrus fruits could easily be detected prior to export. For the same reason, it is unlikely that passengers would carry infested citrus fruit the long distances from countries where P. endocarpa occurs into the PRA area.* The Panel agrees that the probability of establishment is very high, should the pest gain entry in the PRA area, given the presence of suitable host plants (citrus) and the fact that the pest is currently distributed in areas with similar climatic conditions to those in the PRA area.* The conclusion of the pest risk assessment that economic impacts would be "moderate to high" cannot be supported by the information given in the French document or that available in the literature. There is only sparse evidence of the harmfulness of P. endocarpa to citrus crops in its area of current distribution. In the majority of its current range, the organism is considered a minor pest of citrus and evidence of economic damage is confined to a limited number of reports in Indonesia. Varieties of citrus may differ in their susceptibility to the pest, but the pest risk assessment does not provide any information on cultivars of the different citrus crops grown in the PRA area.The degree of uncertainty is high, given the lack of data provided in the assessment and available in the scientific literature on the biology and impact of the organism.The Panel, based on the information provided in the document and on additional literature consulted, concludes that P. endocarpa is not appropriate for evaluation of pest risk management options for the French overseas departments of French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique and Réunion and is thus not potentially eligible for addition to the list of harmful organisms in Directive 2000/29/EC

Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Plant Health was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on 30 pest risk assessments made by France on organisms, which are considered by France as harmful in four French overseas departments of French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique and Réunion. In particular, the Panel was asked whether these organisms can be considered as harmful organisms for the endangered area of the above departments, in the meaning of the definition mentioned in Article 2.1.(e) of Directive 2000/29/EC and thus potentially eligible for addition to the list of harmful organisms in Directive 2000/29/EC.This document presents the opinion of the Panel on Plant Health on the simplified[1] pest risk assessment conducted by France on“Ralstonia sp.bacterium responsible for banana blood disease” with French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique and Réunion considered as endangered area.Ralstonia sp. responsible for banana blood disease – also called blood disease bacterium (BDB) – is the causal agent in Indonesia of a lethal disease of dessert banana (Musa spp.), plantain (Musa spp.) and cooking banana, known as blood disease of banana.The Panel examined in detail the risk assessment provided, and considered the accuracy and quality of the information and methods applied for pest risk assessment purposes. The review was based on the principles and terminology of the International Standard on Phytosanitary Measures ISPM No. 11[2]: Pest risk analysis for quarantine pests including analysis of environmental risks and living modified organisms (2004) by the International Plant Protection Convention (FAO, 2007).The Panel observes that:*The pest risk assessment provides a very limited amount of information supported by scientific data to justify the conclusions reached. The probabilities of entry, establishment and spread and the potential impacts of BDB in the PRA area[3] should have been assessed separately for each department, due to the differing importance of banana crops in each of the departments. Furthermore, the new situation in the PRA area, in case the current phytosanitary regulations governing the imports of banana plant material are lifted, should have been taken into account in the document.*The entry pathways should have been considered and assessed in the document in terms of importance and risk,*French Guiana, which is part of the PRA area in the document, is not mentioned in the assessor’s general conclusion.The Panel concludes that:*The identity of the pathogen can be defined as “Ralstonia sp. agent of banana blood disease”, also called blood disease bacterium (BDB). Although the taxonomical position of the pathogen is not yet assigned by the International Committee on Taxonomy of Plant Pathogenic Bacteria, BDB can be identified by cultural and molecular methods*The entry of BDB into the French overseas departments through natural dispersal is not likely due to their great distance from the areas of the pathogen’s present distribution.*Under thecurrent regulations, the probability of entry of BDB on Musa (and ornamental Heliconia if proven a natural host) plant propagation material (other than vitroplants), banana fruit and soil would be low for French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique and Réunion due to the import restrictions.*Should the current regulations governing the imports of banana plant material be lifted, the probability of entry of BDB on Musa (and ornamental Heliconia if proven a natural host) plant propagation material (other than vitroplants), banana fruit and soil would be moderate.*The probability of BDB entering the PRA area on vitroplants would be very low, as such production systems are characterised by high sanitation practices that ensure pathogen-free propagation material, provided that mother plants are carefully screened prior to collection of material for in vitro multiplication.*The probability of establishment and spread, should BDB gain entry into the PRA area, would be high, given that most of the endangered area has a climate similar to that of the pathogen’s present distribution, and that Musa host plants are present in the PRA area.*Within commercial plantations of bananas the disease effects could be mitigated by existing practices of de-budding and bagging of male flowers. However, additional routine sanitation measures would be necessary at extra costs. With the possibility of continuous re-infestation from the environment, the production costs would be structurally increased. The additional control costs may reduce the competitiveness of the banana industry in Guadeloupe and Martinique. As a result, employment may be reduced causing negative social impacts. There is uncertainty regarding the level of the cost increase.*Plantain and other cooking bananas are an important staple food and a large fraction is household-produced. Since the disease is likely not to be readily controllable in smallholdings and family gardens, high yield losses and a potential disruption of subsistence production and consumption patterns would occur. This may also cause negative social impacts. There is uncertainty regarding the availability and the costs of substitution foods, should the yield of cooking banana and plantain be substantially reduced. Similar effects are envisaged for Guiana, where the banana crop is an element of shifting cultivation.*Uncertainties of a moderate degree are related to the (i) host range of BDB, in particular the clarification of the status of Heliconia as a natural host (ii) the flower characteristics (bract dehiscence, sugar content of male flowers) of the banana cultivars grown in the French overseas departments, that may influence the spread by insects of BDB, (iii) the ability of the BDB to spread in the environment from fruit waste, (iv) the level of cost increase due to routine sanitation practices in commercial banana plantations, in case of BDB introduction, (v) the availability and the costs of substitution foods, should the yield of cooking banana and plantain be substantially reduced by the BDB introduction, (vi) the potential environmental impact (e.g. soil erosion, changes in biodiversity, etc) of the BDB in the PRA areaThe Panel, based on the information provided in the document and on additional literature consulted, concludes that BDB is appropriate for evaluation of pest risk management options for the endangered areas of Guadeloupe, Martinique and Réunion as stated in the conclusion of the document, and the panel reaches the same conclusion for French Guiana. Therefore, the panel concludes that BDB is potentially eligible for addition to the list of harmful organisms in Directive 2000/29/EC for all French overseas departments

Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Plant Health was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on 30 pest risk assessments made by France on organisms which are considered by France as harmful in four French overseas departments, i.e. French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique and Réunion. In particular, the Panel was asked whether these organisms can be considered as harmful organisms for the endangered area of the above departments, in the meaning of the definition mentioned in Article 2.1.(e) of Directive 2000/29/EC and thus potentially eligible for addition to the list of harmful organisms in Directive 2000/29/EC.This document presents the opinion of the Panel on Plant Health on the full[1] the pest risk assessment conducted by France on Panonychus citri with French Guiana and Martinique considered as endangered areas.The citrus red mite Panonychus citri (McGregor) is a species distributed in all regions of the world. It primarily feeds on the upper surface of mature leaves, fruit and young branches, and may cause heavy leaf drop, twig dieback and fruit drop. P. citri has a wide host range including all species of citrus, apple, pear, peach, plum, carambola, papaya, loquat and grapevines. Citrus is the major host, and although P. citri is polyphagous, the above effects have only been recorded on the major host (CABI, 2007). P. citri has a short generation time: up to 16 generations may occur within one year, with the majority of these (10-11) in spring/summer (Jeppson et al., 1975). It relies on wind for long-distance dispersal (Jeppson et al., 1975). Natural enemies are important for the biocontrol of P. citri wherever it occurs. Existing control programs (IPM, application of petroleum spray oil) may control P. citri but effective biocontrol strategies exist (New South Wales, Australia, Smith et al., 1997).The Panel examined in detail the risk assessment provided, and considered the accuracy and quality of the information provided and methods applied for pest risk assessment purposes. The review was based on the principles of the International Standard on Phytosanitary Measures ISPM No. 11[2]: Pest risk analysis for quarantine pests including analysis of environmental risks and living modified organisms (2004) by the International Plant Protection Convention (FAO, 2007b).The pest risk assessment concludes that the risk of introduction into French Guiana and Martinique is moderate for the citrus fruits pathway, high for the citrus plants for planting (whole plants and budwood for grafting). The risk of establishment is very high, and the potential economic impact is moderate.The Panel judges that the probability of the pest to enter the PRA area[3] is higher than moderate because:* Normal pre-packing procedures should eliminate the pest from the fruit but not all imported citrus fruit undergoes this treatment,* The pest may occur in the calyx and not be detected during inspection,* The current restrictions limit the probability of entry through the citrus plant pathway (including propagation material), but* Other host plants, including ornamentals, can carry the pest, and* The passenger pathway, although unknown, can seriously increase the probability of entryFurther, the Panel agrees that P. citri has a high probability of establishment, due to its polyphagous nature, the presence of suitable environmental conditions, widely dispersed host plants in the PRA area, and the high dispersal ability of the pest. Once established, the pest can spread rapidly.The Panel disagrees with the rating of economic consequences in the pest risk assessment. There is only limited evidence of the harmfulness of P. citri to citrus crops in its area of current distribution and no evidence of harm to other host plants. Further, effective management methods exist to control the pest (pesticides and biological control methods).Additionally, citrus fruits are not grown extensively for commercial purposes in the PRA area, therefore the economic consequences of the presence of the pest, as also pointed out in the pest risk assessment, are not expected to be serious.Uncertainty exists about the absence of the pest from the PRA area, quality and reliability of treatment of fruit transported from areas where the pest is present, and the efficacy of existing biological control agents in the PRA area. These, however, are not expected to influence the overall conclusion.The Panel disagrees with the conclusion of the French document, and does not consider P. citri as appropriate for pest risk management. Therefore, the Panel concludes that P. citri is not potentially eligible for addition to the list of harmful organisms of Directive 2000/29 EC

Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Plant Health was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on 30 pest risk assessments made by France on organisms which are considered by France as harmful in four French overseas departments, i.e. French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique and Réunion. In particular, the Panel was asked whether these organisms can be considered as harmful organisms for the endangered area of the above departments, in the meaning of the definition mentioned in Article 2.1.(e) of Directive 2000/29/EC and thus potentially eligible for addition to the list of harmful organisms in Directive 2000/29/EC.This document presents the opinion of the Panel on Plant Health on the simplified[2] pest risk assessment conducted by France on Xanthomonas campestris pv. musacearumwith French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique and Réunion considered as endangered area.The bacterium Xanthomonas campestris pv. musacearum is the causal agent of an emerging disease of bananas, called Xanthomonas wilt. The disease, which results in wilting and eventually in death of plants, already causes serious phytosanitary problems in some Eastern African countries.The Panel examined in detail the risk assessment provided, and considered the accuracy and quality of the information provided and methods applied for pest risk assessment purposes. The review was based on the principles of the International Standard on Phytosanitary Measures ISPM No. 11[3]: Pest risk analysis for quarantine pests including analysis of environmental risks and living modified organisms (2004) by the International Plant Protection Convention (FAO, 2007c).The Panel concludes that the following information were not sufficiently taken into consideration nor adequately documented in the pest risk assessment prepared by France:*specificities related to the geographic location of each of the four French overseas departments,*potential pathways of entry,*climatic similarities between the PRA area[4] and the areas where the bacterium is present,*area of land cultivated with banana and the distribution of banana plantations and/or private gardens in each of the French overseas departments,*banana cultivars grown in the PRA area and the characteristics concerning their flower phenology,*economic importance of banana crop for each of the French overseas departments,*banana cropping system in the PRA area including present or future control strategies, and*potential impacts (economic, social, environmental) in the PRA area.The Panel recognizes that X. campestris pv. musacearum is a recently emerging bacterium of banana and, therefore, most of the information regarding the taxonomy and host range of the bacterium and the epidemiology and impacts of the disease has been published subsequent to the date the document was compiled (July 2003). However, greater inference could have been made from information available on Ralstonia solanacearum race 2 (Moko disease), which appears to have a similar epidemiology and management strategies.The Panel notes that French Guiana, which is part of the PRA area in the document, is not mentioned in the assessor’s general conclusion.The Panel concludes that:*Under current regulations banning the import of banana host plant material, the entry of the pathogen into French Guiana, Guadeloupe and Martinique would be unlikely, whilst its probability would be higher for Réunion through uncontrolled/illegal trade and passengers transportation of banana and enset plant material, due to its geographic relative proximity to East Africa, where the pathogen is present and widespread.*If the current regulations were rescinded, the Panel considers that the market globalization would increase the probability of entry of the bacterium through trade of banana and enset vegetative propagation material and fruit originating from contaminated areas.*The widespread presence of the disease in East Africa increases the probability of entry of the bacterium into Réunion through local trade and tourism. Risk seems to be lower for the other three French overseas departments, which are located far from Africa. Due to the geographical distance, the probability of X. campestris pv. musacearum entering into the four French overseas departments via vectors, such as nectar- and/or fruit-feeding insects, birds or bats, is estimated as low.*The probability of entry of the bacterium into the French overseas departments by trade on commodities other than Ensete spp. and Musa spp. would be low, considering that the only other hosts (i.e. Canna orchoides, C. indica and maize) were reported under artificial inoculations.*In agreement with the document, should the bacterium enter the PRA area, the probability of establishment and spread would be high for all French overseas departments.*Within commercial plantations of dessert bananas the disease effects would be high in the absence of any control strategy, but they would be mitigated by the existing practices of bagging and de-budding. Sanitation and eradication would be necessary at extra costs and these costs might reduce the competitiveness of the banana industry in Guadeloupe and Martinique. As a result, employment might be reduced causing negative social impacts.*Plantain and cooking banana are an important staple food and a large fraction is household-produced. Since the disease is not readily controllable in smallholdings and family gardens, high yield losses and a potential disruption of subsistence production and consumption patterns would occur. This may also cause negative social impacts. There is uncertainty regarding the availability and the costs of substitution foods, should the yield of cooking banana and plantain be substantially reduced. Similar effects are envisaged for French Guiana, where the banana crop is an element of shifting cultivation.*The degree of uncertainty concerning the host range of the bacterium, its survival in soil and plant debris, its airborne vectors, the control strategies and the economic impact cannot be considered as low, as estimated in the document. The Panel considers those uncertainties as moderate due to the limited information available on the bacterium and on the disease, both in the document and in the literature.The Panel, based on the information provided in the document and on additional literature consulted, concludes that X. campestris pv. musacearum is appropriate for evaluation of pest risk management options for the endangered areas of Guadeloupe, Martinique and Réunion, as stated in the conclusion of the document, and the Panel reaches the same conclusion for French Guiana. Therefore, the panel concludes that X. campestris pv. musacearum is potentially eligible for addition to the list of harmful organisms in Directive 2000/29/EC for all French overseas departments.

Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Plant Health was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on 30 pest risk assessments made by France on organisms which are considered by France as harmful in four French overseas departments, i.e. French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique and Réunion. In particular, the Panel was asked whether these organisms can be considered as harmful organisms for the endangered area of the above departments, in the meaning of the definition mentioned in Article 2.1.(e) of Directive 2000/29/EC and thus potentially eligible for addition to the list of harmful organisms in Directive 2000/29/EC.This document presents the opinion of the Panel on Plant Health on the full[1] pest risk assessment conducted by France on Mycosphaerella citri with Réunion considered as endangered area.Mycosphaerella citri is responsible for greasy spot and greasy spot rind blotch disease of citrus. The organism affects leaves and fruit resulting in defoliation and fruit blemishes. Yield losses of up to 45% have been reported for this disease.Grapefruit, lemon, early oranges and tangelos are most susceptible to greasy spot. The disease has also been noted on other genera of the family Rutaceae.The disease is spread by ascospores ejected by pseudothecia which have developed on decaying leaf litter. The life cycle of the disease is slow allowing considerable scope for control. High humidity and temperature favour disease development but the organism can complete its life cycle in arid regions also.The Panel examined in detail the risk assessment provided, and considered the accuracy and quality of the information provided and methods applied for pest risk assessment purposes. The review was based on the principles of the International Standard on Phytosanitary Measures ISPM No. 11[2]: Pest risk analysis for quarantine pests including analysis of environmental risks and living modified organisms (2004) by the International Plant Protection Convention (FAO, 2007b).The Panel concludes that:* If the current restrictions are rescinded, the probability of entry of M. citri into the PRA area[3] would be moderate to high on leafy propagation material but otherwise would be low.* The occurrence of family gardens containing host plants and the favourability of the climate would facilitate establishment and that therefore the probability of establishment would be moderate to high.* The probability of spread would be high due to the dispersal mechanism of the fungus, the likely occurrence of a large number of small holdings and family gardens cultivating citrus, where control measures are not usually undertaken, and the movement of leafy propagation material within the PRA area.* In agreement with the French document, the economic, social and environmental impacts would be moderate but only if disease control measures currently used against other citrus foliar pathogens in the PRA area were also effective against M. citri. Otherwise the Panel considers that additional control measures would be necessary leading to additional costs and that under these circumstances a rating of high would be appropriate.* Uncertainties remain regarding the geographical distribution of the pest, the host range of the pest and the effectiveness against M. citri of control measures currently employed in the PRA area against other citrus diseases.The Panel concludes that M. citri can be considered as a harmful organism for the French overseas department of Réunion in the meaning of the definition mentioned in Article 2.1.(e) of Directive 2000/29/EC and thus eligible for addition to the list of harmful organisms in Directive 2000/29/EC

Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Plant Health was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on 30 pest risk assessments made by France on organisms which are considered by France as harmful in four French overseas departments, i.e. French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique and Réunion. In particular, the Panel was asked whether these organisms can be considered as harmful organisms for the endangered area of the above departments, in the meaning of the definition mentioned in Article 2.1.(e) of Directive 2000/29/EC and thus potentially eligible for addition to the list of harmful organisms in Directive 2000/29/EC.This document presents the opinion of the Panel on Plant Health on the full[1] pest risk assessment conducted by France on Prays citri with French Guiana, Guadeloupe and Martinique considered as endangered area.P. citri Millière (Insecta: Lepidoptera: Yponomeutidae), the citrus flower moth, is usually found on Citrus. In addition, it has been reported to attack other Rutaceae and species of Sapotaceae (Manilkara zapota, Casimiroa edulis) and Oleaceae (Ligustrum lucidum). Damage may vary depending on the citrus crop attacked. Its major host is Citrus aurantiifolia (lime), but important damage can be inflicted also to Citrus limon (lemon) and occasionally to other citrus fruits, including sweet orange (Citrus sinensis). The larva feeds both internally and externally on flowers, flower buds and fruits; it will occasionally also feed on leaves and young shoots.The Panel examined in detail the risk assessment provided, and considered the accuracy and quality of the information provided and methods applied for pest risk assessment purposes. The review was based on the principles of the International Standard on Phytosanitary Measures ISPM No. 11[2]: Pest risk analysis for quarantine pests including analysis of environmental risks and living modified organisms (2004) by the International Plant Protection Convention (FAO, 2007b).Many statements in the French document are not referenced or supported by verifiable scientific data. The ratings for the probability of entry, establishment and impact given in the pest risk assessment are difficult to interpret, due to the lack of evidence presented and inconsistent judgments by the assessors. This particularly applies to: the possible introduction pathways, available strategies to control the pest, and the potential economic impact of the pest in the PRA area[3].Based upon information provided in the pest risk assessment and the relevant literature on the current distribution of the pest and the relative importance of pathways, the Panel judges the probability of entry to be low for fruits but moderate for plants for planting (including potted ornamental plants). The Panel disagrees with the document that the probability of establishment is moderate and considers it to be high, based on the presence of suitable host plants and the climatic adaptability of the pest.The information provided in the pest risk assessment for the economic impact assessment is limited and conflicting, and does not allow a reliable evaluation of the ratings given within this section. A review of the literature by the Panel suggests that the economic importance of this pest varies considerably, depending on the citrus species, cultivars and geographic area. The organism appears to cause economic damage particularly in lemon and lime crops with extended flowering or multiple bloom periods, where flowering may coincide with population peaks of adults. In some areas, repeated control measures may be required to prevent economic damage, whereas in other areas, no control measures are considered necessary. The French document, however, does not provide any information on cultivars of lemon and lime (Tahiti and Mexican lime) grown in the PRA area or on the number of crops produced per year, which makes an accurate judgement by the Panel on the potential economic impacts in lemon and lime difficult. Further information obtained by the Panel suggests that although limited in area, lime represents around 50% of the citrus area under production in French Guiana and Guadeloupe. In addition, sweet orange represents 82% of citrus production in Martinique, and damage has also been recorded for that crop, albeit to a lesser extent than for lemon and lime.The conclusion of the French document on Prays citri is that the species qualifies as a quarantine pest for French Guiana, Guadeloupe and Martinique. The Panel agrees that the organism may enter and can establish in the PRA area, and considers that the economic impact of P. citri in the PRA area is highly uncertain, and may range from low to high. Because of the high level of uncertainty, further research is recommended to estimate the direct pest effects on crop yield and quality, and the availability and feasibility of control options under the specific conditions of the PRA area.The Panel, therefore, concludes that P. citri is appropriate for evaluation of pest risk management options for the French overseas departments of French Guiana, Guadeloupe and Martinique, and isthus potentially eligible for addition to the list of harmful organisms in Directive 2000/29/EC

Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Plant Health was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on 30 pest risk assessments made by France on organisms which are considered by France as harmful in four French overseas departments, i.e. French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique and Réunion. In particular, the Panel was asked whether these organisms can be considered as harmful organisms for the endangered area of the above departments, in the meaning of the definition mentioned in Article 2.1.(e) of Directive 2000/29/EC and thus potentially eligible for addition to the list of harmful organisms in Directive 2000/29/EC.This document presents the opinion of the Panel on Plant Health on the full[2] with French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique and Réunion considered as endangered area. pest risk assessment conducted by France on Banana streak virus (BSV)BSV is a virus in the genus Badnavirus, family Caulimoviridae, which infects banana and plantain. Banana streak virus is no longer the name for a unique virus since several distinct species, in what is now a BSV-complex, have recently been identified. In this document BSV covers all known species and strains in the BSV-complex.The Panel examined in detail the risk assessment and considered the accuracy and quality of the information provided and methods applied for pest risk assessment purposes. The review was based on the principles of the International Standard on Phytosanitary Measures ISPM No. 11[3]: Pest risk analysis for quarantine pests including analysis of environmental risks and living modified organisms (2004) by the International Plant Protection Convention (FAO, 2007b).Although the information provided in the French risk assessment required updating with additional information available since the assessment was carried out, the Panel agrees that BSV, now recognised as a species complex of banana streak viruses, is a serious pathogen of banana, and poses a potential risk to banana production in the French overseas departments.The French document concludes that the phytosanitary risk associated with BSV is extremely high particularly due to the risk of activated virus pathogens in the M. balbisiana genome during import or production of vitroplants. However, analytical methods for virus indexing developed since the French assessment, now enable detection of the endogenous nature (of BSV) in the Musa balbisiana genome. In addition, the Panel considers the phytosanitary risk overrated.The Panel agrees that BSV has a high probability of entry and a high probability of establishment in the French overseas departments, in the absence of existing controls. It agrees that the international movement of large quantities of vitroplants represents the most important entry pathway. The Panel further considers that virus indexing of mother plants used for vitroplant production provides an effective means to prevent entry of BSV.Uncertainties are noted particularly regarding the role of mealybug vectors in BSV transmission and dissemination of the disease, and on the potential economic impact of BSV in the PRA area[4]. However, the Panel regards BSV as a serious pathogen of banana and the economic impact of the disease increasing with the percentage of BSV occurring in the field. Hence in the absence of virus indexing, the importation of large quantities of BSV-infected vitroplants is likely to have a serious economic impact especially for Guadeloupe and Martinique, where banana production represents a very significant proportion of agricultural activities.The overall conclusion of the Panel is that BSV is appropriate for analysis of risk management options and is thus potentiallyeligible for addition to the list of harmful organisms of Directive 2000/29/EC.

Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Plant Health was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on 30 pest risk assessments made by France on organisms which are considered by France as harmful in four French overseas departments, i.e. French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique and Réunion. In particular, the Panel was asked whether these organisms can be considered as harmful organisms for the endangered area of the above departments, in the meaning of the definition mentioned in Article 2.1.(e) of Directive 2000/29/EC and thus potentially eligible for addition to the list of harmful organisms in Directive 2000/29/EC.This document presents the opinion of the Panel on Plant Health on the simplified[1] pest risk assessment conducted by France on Citrus yellow mosaic virus or Citrus mosaic badnavirus, with French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique and Réunion considered as endangered area. The Panel will use the internationally accepted name of Citrus mosaic virus (CMBV) in the following text.CMBV is a member of the family Caulimoviridae, genus Badnavirus, which causes a mosaic disease in citrus that has been termed citrus mosaic disease or citrus yellow mosaic disease. This virus is currently restricted to India. The causal agent is transmitted by grafting and experimentally, by mechanical inoculation and by the citrus mealybug Planococcus citri (Risso). CMBV causes mosaic and yellow flecking along the veins of the leaves. Trees affected by the disease not only show significant yield reduction, but also a decrease in the quality of fruits (less juice and ascorbic acid). The virus can infect and cause symptoms in almost all citrus species and cultivars.The Panel examined in detail the risk assessment provided, and considered the accuracy and quality of the information provided and methods applied for pest risk assessment purposes. The review was based on the principles and terminology of the International Standard on Phytosanitary Measures ISPM No. 11[2] [Pest risk analysis for quarantine pests including analysis of environmental risks and living modified organisms (2004)] and the terminology of ISPM No. 5 [Glossary of Phytosanitary Terms (2007)] by the International Plant Protection Convention (FAO, 2007b).The French document concludes that the phytosanitary risk associated with CMBV and citrus mosaic disease is low to moderate. The Panel notes that the main concern highlighted in the French document relates to the uncertainty in the regulatory status of CMBV, caused by past confusion in taxonomy.An analysis of the French document, the references cited in it and additional literature consulted by the Panel, has allowed the Panel to reach to following conclusions:* Citrus mosaic virus (CMBV) is the causal agent of a mosaic disease in citrus that has been termed citrus mosaic disease or citrus yellow mosaic disease. It is listed (Annex IIAI) in Directive 2000/29/EC as Citrus mosaic virus but has been previously known as Citrus yellow mosaic virus or Citrus mosaic badnavirus.* CMBV is a well characterised Badnavirus and there are reliable molecular methods available to distinguish it from another virus causing mosaic symptoms in citrus, Satsuma dwarf virus (SDV), a Sadwavirus which was previously referred to as Citrus mosaic virus (CiMV) and is also listed in Directive 2000/29/EC.* CMBV occurs in India, but not in the PRA area[3] nor in other citrus-growing regions worldwide.* The known host range of the CMBV is limited to Citrus spp.* The main pathway of entry in the PRA area is through the import from India of citrus plants or budwood for multiplication.* There is no demonstration that CMBV is spread in nature by its experimental vector P. citri. Mealybugs are generally considered to be inefficient vectors and spread of CMBV in the PRA area by P. citri is therefore estimated to be of limited potential impact. Substantial uncertainty is however attached to this evaluation.* If CMBV is introduced in the PRA area in infected citrus material, it will remain for at least as long as the infected material is cultivated and propagated.* Citrus mosaic disease can cause severe losses in sweet orange, mandarins, pummelo and grapefruit orchards and in ornamental citrus plants, but not in lime. It therefore has the potential to cause significant damage to the citrus growing industry of the various French overseas departments under consideration.The overall conclusion of the Panel is that CMBV could pose a risk to citrus production in the French overseas departments and that this pathogen is listed (in Annex IIAI) of Directive 2000/29/EC as Citrus mosaic virus

Following a request from the European Commission, the Scientific Panel on Plant Health was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on 30 pest risk assessments made by France on organisms which are considered by France as harmful in four French overseas departments, i.e. French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique and Réunion. In particular, the Panel was asked whether these organisms can be considered as harmful organisms for the endangered area of the above departments, in the meaning of the definition mentioned in Article 2.1.(e) of Directive 2000/29/EC and thus potentially eligible for addition to the list of harmful organisms in Directive 2000/29/EC.This document presents the opinion of the Panel on Plant Health on the full[1] pest risk assessment conducted by France on Brevipalpus californicus (Banks, 1904), Brevipalpus phoenicis (Geijskes, 1939) and Brevipalpus obovatus (Donnadieu, 1875)(Acari: Tenuipalpidae) with Guadeloupe and Martinique considered as endangered area.B. californicus, B. phoenicis and B. obovatus occur in tropical and subtropical climates. They also survive in greenhouse conditions beyond their natural range. These mites are polyphagous and their host range comprises over 900 plant species, including citrus. These three Brevipalpus species are considered to be the most economically important within the genus.B. californicus, B. phoenicis and B. obovatus cause chlorosis, blistering, bronzing or necrotic areas on leaves, fruits, stems, twigs and bud tissues of the infested host. However, mites of the genus Brevipalpus are of primary concern as virus vectors, particularly of citrus leprosis virus. Citrus leprosis virus (CiLV) causes one of the most serious virus diseases of citrus, associated with premature fruit drop, defoliation, and death of the twigs or branches. The damage caused by CiLV on citrus crops may lead to 100% yield loss.The Panel examined in detail the risk assessment provided, and considered the accuracy and quality of the information provided and methods applied for pest risk assessment purposes. The review was based on the principles of the International Standard on Phytosanitary Measures ISPM No. 11: Pest risk analysis for quarantine pests including analysis of environmental risks and living modified organisms (2004) by the International Plant Protection Convention (FAO, 2007b).Many statements in the French document are not referenced or supported by verifiable scientific data. Many referenced sources are quoted incorrectly which creates doubt about the accuracy of the information presented in the assessment. Transmission of CiLV by B. californicus, B. phoenicis and B. obovatus is highlighted as important, but information on the virus is not clearly presented nor taken fully into account in the analysis of entry pathways and assessment of the economic impact.The Panel agrees that the B. californicus, B. phoenicis and B. obovatus may enter, and can establish in the PRA area[2]. However, the Panel considers the ratings of “moderate” for the probability of entry and establishment in the PRA area to be higher, as additional ornamental and passenger pathways have not been investigated in the risk assessment and due to the cosmopolitan distribution of the species including areas of similar climate to the PRA area.The Panel agrees that the economic impact of the three Brevipalpus mites can be considered “moderate”, due to the importance of these species in transmission of CiLV and the presence of susceptible citrus species in the PRA area, particularly in Martinique where sweet orange represents a high proportion of the citrus produced. However, a high level of uncertainty is noted by the Panel with regard to whether these species are absent from the PRA area. Since the time the French assessment was undertaken, B. phoenicis has been reported from Guadeloupe. A survey is recommended to determine the extent to which Brevipalpus species may be present in the PRA area.On the basis that B. californicus, B. phoenicis and B. obovatus are not present in the PRA area, or are present but not widely distributed and under official control, the Panel concludes that the evaluation of pest risk management options are appropriate for Guadeloupe and Martinique and thus B. californicus, B. phoenicis and B. obovatus are potentially eligible for addition to the list of harmful organisms in Directive 2000/29/EC

Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Plant Health was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on 30 pest risk assessments made by France on organisms which are considered by France as harmful in four French overseas departments, i.e. French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique and Réunion. In particular, the Panel was asked whether these organisms can be considered as harmful organisms for the endangered area of the above departments, in the meaning of the definition mentioned in Article 2.1.(e) of Directive 2000/29/EC and thus potentially eligible for addition to the list of harmful organisms in Directive 2000/29/EC.This document presents the opinion of the Panel on Plant Health on full[1] the pest risk assessment conducted by France on Parlatoria ziziphi with French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique and Réunion considered an endangered area.Parlatoria ziziphi (Lucas) (Insecta: Hemiptera: Diaspididae), the black parlatoria scale, feeds on citrus; major hosts are Citrus aurantiifolia (lime), Citrus aurantium (sour orange), Citrus hystrix (mauritius bitter orange), Citrus limon (lemon), Citrus nobilis (tangor), Citrus reticulata (mandarin), Citrus sinensis (navel orange), Citrus × paradisi (grapefruit) and other Rutaceae, and to a lesser extent on other plants, some of which are used in the ornamental trade. Heavy infestations of P. ziziphi on citrus cause premature senescence and leaf drop, reducing yield. However, there are only two old or unconfirmed reports of economic losses caused by this insect, which is widely distributed throughout the world, particularly in the tropics.The Panel examined in detail the risk assessment provided, and considered the accuracy and quality of the information provided and methods applied for pest risk assessment purposes. The review was based on the principles of the International Standard on Phytosanitary Measures ISPM No. 11[2]: Pest risk analysis for quarantine pests including analysis of environmental risks and living modified organisms (2004) by the International Plant Protection Convention (FAO, 2007b).Many statements in the French document are not referenced or supported by verifiable scientific data. The ratings for the probability of entry, establishment and impact given in the pest risk assessment are difficult to interpret, due to the lack of evidence presented and inconsistent judgments by the assessors. This particularly applies to: the possible introduction pathways, available strategies to control the pest, and the potential economic impact of the pest in the PRA area.The conclusion of the French assessment is that P. ziziphi (Lucas) qualifies as a quarantine organism for French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique and Réunion. However, the Panel cannot support this conclusion on the basis of the evidence provided in the assessment.After seeking additional information, the Panel agrees that the organism can enter and establish in the PRA area[3]. However, the Panel found scarce evidence that the species can cause serious economic impacts once introduced and therefore considers the rating of “moderate to high” for economic impacts to be over-estimated. Despite its wide tropical distribution, including regions with similar climates to the PRA area, there are only two old or unconfirmed reports of negative impacts in the literature.The Panel, based on the information provided in the document and on additional literature consulted, concludes that P. ziziphi (Lucas) is not appropriate for evaluation of pest risk management options for the endangered areas of French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique and Réunion and thus is not potentially eligible for addition to the list of harmful organisms in Directive 2000/29/EC

Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Plant Health was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on 30 pest risk assessments made by France on organisms which are considered by France as harmful in four French overseas departments, i.e. French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique and Réunion. In particular, the Panel was asked whether these organisms can be considered as harmful organisms for the endangered area of the above departments, in the meaning of the definition mentioned in Article 2.1. (e) of Directive 2000/29/EC and thus potentially eligible for addition to the list of harmful organisms in Directive 2000/29/EC.This document presents the opinion of the Panel on Plant Health on the full[2] pest risk assessment conducted by France on Fusarium oxysporum Schlecht. f. sp. cubense (E.F. Smith) W.C. Snyder & H.S. Hansen with French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique and Réunion considered as endangered area.F. oxysporum f. sp. cubense is responsible for Fusarium wilt (also known as Panama disease), which is one of the most destructive diseases of banana world-wide. Control of the disease is restricted to husbandry measures and cultivar resistance.F. oxysporum f. sp. cubense has been divided into races based on its pathogenicity on reference host cultivars. Among the most significant races of F. oxysporum f. sp. cubense pathogenic to edible banana, race 1 affects mainly the cultivar ‘Gros Michel’, race 2 affects bananas of the Bluggoe sub-group, race 4 affects all cultivars in the Cavendish sub-group grown in subtropical climates plus cultivars susceptible to races 1 and 2. F. oxysporum f. sp. cubense race 4 is commonly known as ‘subtropical race 4’. F. oxysporum f. sp. cubense ‘tropical race 4’ (hereinafter T4) is a new variant, which was recognised in the early 1990s and is responsible for serious losses of cultivars in the Cavendish subgroup in some areas of tropical South East Asia.Both races 1 and 2 are reported to be endemic in the PRA area[3], while races 4 and T4 are not known to be present. Race 4 has been under quarantine regulation since 1992 for French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique and Réunion.The Panel examined in detail the risk assessment provided, and considered the accuracy and quality of the information provided and methods applied for pest risk assessment purposes. The review was based on the principles of the International Standard on Phytosanitary Measures ISPM No. 11[4]: Pest risk analysis for quarantine pests, including analysis of environmental risks and living modified organisms (2004) by the International Plant Protection Convention (FAO, 2007b).Following a detailed analysis of the material provided in the pest risk assessment and after additional study of published information on the pathogen and the disease it causes, the Panel observes that:*The document only cites one reference, which is a review article. As a consequence, statements in the pest risk assessment are not individually referenced or supported by verifiable scientific data.*The risk assessor identifies the pest as F. oxysporum f.sp. cubense, which implies that all races are under consideration. However most of the document focuses only on races4 and T4. This confuses the identity of the subject organism of the pest risk assessment.*F. oxysporum f.sp. cubense, races 1 and 2 are reported to be present in most departments defined as the PRA area (i.e. French Guiana, Guadeloupe and Martinique) and are not reported to be under official control in the document. Races 4 and T4 are not known to be present in the PRA area.The Panel concludes that:*Only the races 4 and T4 fulfil the criteria for a quarantine pest[5], as they are not known to occur in the PRA area and have the potential for establishment and spread and for negative economic consequences in the PRA area.*In agreement with the document, the probability of entry of F. oxysporum f.sp. cubense races 4 and T4 into the PRA area on conventional planting material, from countries where the disease is present, would be high if present import restrictions were rescinded.*In agreement with the document, the probability of establishment for F. oxysporum f.sp. cubense race 4, which attacks Cavendish cultivars in the subtropics, would be low, except for those parts of the PRA area with subtropical climate, where the probability for establishment of race 4 would be high.*The probability of establishment for F. oxysporum f.sp. cubense race T4, which is able to attack Cavendish cultivars in the tropics, would be high (rather than “moderate”), as most of the endangered area has a tropical climate and no commercial Cavendish cultivars resistant to race T4 have yet been developed or tested in the French overseas departments.*In agreement with the document, the potential economic impacts of races 4 and T4 would be ’high’. Plantations of dessert bananas for export and smallholdings and family gardens producing fruit for the local market or for home-consumption would suffer severe yield losses. Concerning social impacts, for Guadeloupe and Martinique there could be a reduction in employment in commercial plantations, whilst a potential disruption of subsistence production and consumption patterns could occur among smallholders and family gardens.The Panel, based on the information provided in the document and on additional literature consulted, concludes that F. oxysporum f.sp. cubense races 4 and T4 are appropriate for evaluation of pest risk management options for the endangered areas of French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique and Réunion, and thus potentially eligible for addition to the list of harmful organisms in Directive 2000/29/EC.

Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Plant Health was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on 30 pest risk assessments made by France on organisms which are considered by France as harmful in four French overseas departments, i.e. French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique and Réunion. In particular, the Panel was asked whether these organisms can be considered as harmful organisms for the endangered area of the above departments, in the meaning of the definition mentioned in Article 2.1.(e) of Directive 2000/29/EC and thus potentially eligible for addition to the list of harmful organisms in Directive 2000/29/EC.This document presents the opinion of the Panel on Plant Health on the simplified[2] pest risk assessment conducted by France on Nacoleia octasema with French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique and Réunion considered as endangered area.Nacoleia octasema Meyrick, the banana scab moth, (Insecta: Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) is primarily a pest of bananas and plantains (Musa spp.). In addition, it has been reported to attack, as minor hosts, Heliconia spp., Nypa fruticans (the Nypa palm), Pandanus spp. and maize. The larvae feed on the skin of the banana fruit creating black scars that may greatly reduce their market value. In some parts of its range, primarily the East Indies, it does not feed on bananas. Since no intraspecific taxonomic characteristics have been identified, it is suggested that this is due to races with different host ranges. Serious economic damage has been recorded in Queensland and Fiji. Its distribution is restricted to Australasia, south-east Asia and the Pacific islands.The Panel examined in detail the risk assessment provided, and considered the accuracy and quality of the information provided and methods applied for pest risk assessment purposes. The review was based on the principles of the International Standard on Phytosanitary Measures ISPM No. 11[3]: Pest risk analysis for quarantine pests including analysis of environmental risks and living modified organisms (2004) by the International Plant Protection Convention (FAO, 2007b).The pest risk assessment is short and based very strongly on the CABI Crop Protection Compendium datasheet (2001) but it does provide sufficient evidence to support the conclusions reached.The Panel agrees with the pest risk assessment which states that entry is very unlikely since the pupa is the only stage that could be transported. Any pupae in the fruit bunches are likely to be washed off and plant debris from the base of infested banana trees is very unlikely to occur with young plants. Even if the current ban on banana imports is lifted, the pest will have a very low probability of surviving the specific conditions of transport and trade with countries where the pest occurs. Imports are very unlikely since these countries are so far from the French overseas departments and home-produced fruit is readily available. Passengers are also very unlikely to carry banana fruit that might contain N. octasema the long distances from countries where the pest occurs into the French overseas departments.The Panel agrees that the potential for establishment is very high due to the similarities in climate between the pest’s current area of distribution and the French overseas departments and the abundance of suitable hosts in the PRA area[4]. The Panel agrees with the high risk rating of impacts for Guadeloupe and Martinique because of the potential loss of export markets. However, the impacts in French Guiana and Réunion, that do not have export markets, are likely to be minor.In summary, therefore, N. octasema poses a risk of high impact to Guadeloupe and Martinique and low impact to French Guiana and Réunion but the probability of the impacts occurring is very low. It is very difficult to come to a firm conclusion in situations of very low probability and high impact but the Panel agreed that, on balance, an analysis of risk management options would be appropriate because it could be used to determine whether the very unlikely risk of entry could be reduced to negligible with simple measures. The Panel therefore concludes that N. octasema does have the characteristics of a quarantine pest[5] for Guadeloupe and Martinique and that the analysis of risk management options is appropriate for these two French overseas departments. Using the terminology in Directive 2000/29/EC, this means that the Panel concludes that this species is a harmful organism for Guadeloupe and Martinique and is therefore potentially eligible for listing in Directive 2000/29/EC.

Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Plant Health was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on 30 pest risk assessments made by France on organisms which are considered by France as harmful in four French overseas departments, i.e. French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique and Réunion. In particular, the Panel was asked whether these organisms can be considered as harmful organisms for the endangered area of the above departments, in the meaning of the definition mentioned in Article 2.1.(e) of Directive 2000/29/EC and thus potentially eligible for addition to the list of harmful organisms in Directive 2000/29/EC.This document presents the opinion of the Panel on Plant Health on the full[2] pest risk assessment conducted by France on Banana bunchy top virus (BBTV) with French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique and Réunion considered as endangered area.Banana bunchy top virus (BBTV) is a well-characterised virus of the family Nanoviridae, which infects banana and plantain.The Panel examined in detail the risk assessment provided, and considered the accuracy and quality of the information provided and methods applied for pest risk assessment purposes. The review was based on the principles of the International Standard on Phytosanitary Measures ISPM No. 11[3]: Pest risk analysis for quarantine pests including analysis of environmental risks and living modified organisms (2004) by the International Plant Protection Convention (FAO, 2007b).Although the pest risk assessment could be improved, and additional information provided to substantiate the statements made and ratings given in the assessment, the Panel agrees with the conclusion of the French document that the phytosanitary risk associated with BBTV is extremely high.BBTV is a highly pathogenic agent for banana, and thus the Panel concludes that the negative economic consequences of its introduction are very high, both for commercial plantations of dessert bananas in Guadeloupe and Martinique and production of plantain and cooking banana in small holdings and private gardens throughout the PRA area[4]. The Panel concludes that BBTV has a high probability of entry and a high probability of establishment in the French overseas departments, and that the international movement of large quantities of vitroplants represents the most important entry pathway. The Panel further considers that virus indexing of mother plants used for vitroplant production, provides an effective means to prevent entry of BBTV.The overall conclusion of the Panel is that BBTV is appropriate for evaluation of pest risk management options for the endangered areas of French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique and Réunion and thus potentially eligible for addition to the list of harmful organisms in Directive 2000/29/EC.

Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Plant Health was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on 30 pest risk assessments made by France on organisms which are considered by France as harmful in four French overseas departments, i.e. French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique and Réunion. In particular, the Panel was asked whether these organisms can be considered as harmful organisms for the endangered area of the above departments, in the meaning of the definition mentioned in Article 2.1.(e) of Directive 2000/29/EC and thus potentially eligible for addition to the list of harmful organisms in Directive 2000/29/EC.This document presents the opinion of the Panel on Plant Health on the simplified[2] pest risk assessment conducted by France on Trachysphaera fructigena (Tabor & Bunting) with French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique and Réunion considered as endangered area.Trachysphaera fructigena (Tabor and Bunting) is an oomycete, causing cigar-end rot of banana fruit. It was first described on coffee berries (Coffea liberica) and cocoa pods (Theobroma cacao) by Tabor and Bunting (1923). On banana, T. fructigena can attack green and ripening fruit causing a dry rot at the flower end that produces an ash grey wrinkled lesion, similar to the burnt end of a cigar. T. fructigena is present in West and Central African countries, and also in Madagascar (EPPO, 2005). It is not known to occur in the PRA area.The Panel examined in detail the risk assessment provided, and considered the accuracy and quality of the information provided and methods applied for pest risk assessment purposes. The review was based on the principles of the International Standard on Phytosanitary Measures ISPM No. 11[3]: Pest risk analysis for quarantine pests including analysis of environmental risks and living modified organisms (2004) by the International Plant Protection Convention (FAO, 2007b).After analysing the information provided in the simplified pest risk assessment made by France on T. fructigena, which is considered by France as potentially harmful to banana crops in Guadeloupe, Martinique and Réunion, and after considering published information on T. fructigena, the Panel concludes that:The pest risk assessment does not provide sufficient detailed information to justify its conclusions. The information provided was in the main accurate and precise, but many issues have not been dealt with detail, despite the availability of relevant information at the time of conducting the original assessment. As a consequence, statements in the pest risk assessment are not individually referenced or supported by verifiable scientific data.Under thecurrent regulations, the probability of entry of T. fructigena on banana fruit would be very low for the French overseas departments, due to import restrictions. Should the current regulations governing the imports of banana fruit be lifted, the Panel considers that the probability of entry of T. fructigena with trade of commercially-grown banana fruit would be low. Symptoms of T. fructigena on banana fruit are obvious; it is likely that infections are recognized and such fruit would be removed during existing management procedures. In consequence it is unlikely that spores of T. fructigena from imported fruit would get in contact with host plants and initiate an infection in the field. Advances in production methods and post harvest technologies of the last decades are not considered in the pest risk assessment and might explain why in recent years there have been no reports of T. fructigena in international trade. The probability of entry with banana fruit selected from back gardens or small plots with less management inputs would be only marginally higher. Individuals selecting fruit for a journey overseas would not take bananas and avocados with symptoms. The probability of entry through fruit carried by travellers would be very low for French Guiana, Guadeloupe and Martinique. Due to its proximity to Madagascar, where the disease is reported to occur, the probability of T. fructigena entering Réunion on fruit carried by travellers or locally traded would be higher. The probability of entry through coffee and cocoa trade would be very low.The Panel agrees in principle with the pest risk assessment that the potential for establishment would be moderate should T. fructigena gain entry to the French overseas departments. In particular in the rainiest geographical areas of Guadeloupe and Martinique, T. fructigena might have the potential to establish, since susceptible Cavendish bananas are abundant and many private plantations/gardens may constitute a source of inoculum. Other host plants are also reported as present, although with limited distribution. The Panel considers that the spread of the disease in well managed commercial plantations would be low, while in poorly managed smallholdings and private gardens would be higher. The spread of T. fructigena would probably be restricted to high rainfall areas.The pest risk assessment concludes that the economic impact of T. fructigena would be moderate, but this estimate is not supported by the limited information provided in the document. The Panel considers that the establishment of T. fructigena in commercial banana plantations in the Guadeloupe and Martinique is unlikely to cause economic losses any greater than those caused by existing pre- and post-harvest banana fruit diseases. Measures, such as the deflowering and bagging of banana bunches at an early stage, which are already systematically applied in the PRA area[4], are likely to give sufficient control of T. fructigena. However, it is possible that the establishment of T. fructigena in the PRA area may cause damage to fruit grown in poorly managed family gardens and smallholdings in high rainfall areas, if cultural control practices are not applied.The pest risk assessment estimates the degree of uncertainty as low to moderate. The Panel identified uncertainties related to the potential of entry, establishment and economic impact and considers the uncertainties as moderate.The Panel concludes that, on the basis of the information provided in the pest risk assessment and on additional literature consulted, T. fructigena is not appropriate for evaluation of pest risk management options, and thus not potentially eligible for addition to the list of harmful organisms of Directive 2000/29 EC.

Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Plant Health was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on 30 pres risk assessments made by France on organisms which are considered by France as harmful in four French overseas departments, i.e. French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique and Réunion. In particular, the Panel was asked whether these organisms can be considered as harmful organisms for the endangered area of the above departments, in the meaning of the definition mentioned in Article 2.1.(e) of Directive 2000/29/EC and thus potentially eligible for addition to the list of harmful organisms in Directive 2000/29/EC.This document presents the opinion of the Panel on Plant Health on the simplified[1] pest risk assessment conducted by France on Ceratocystis fimbriata Ellis & Halsted responsible for Ceratocystis canker of citrus with French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique and Réunion considered as endangered area.C. fimbriata causes a very serious disease on many host plants. On citrus, it is reported in Colombia and Cuba to cause canker, dieback and wilt. The disease is systemic and can lead to the death of the plant.The Panel examined in detail the risk assessment provided, and considered the accuracy and quality of the information provided and methods applied for pest risk assessment purposes. The review was based on the principles of the International Standard on Phytosanitary Measures ISPM No. 11[2]: Pest risk analysis for quarantine pests including analysis of environmental risks and living modified organisms (2004) by the International Plant Protection Convention (FAO, 2007b).The Panel observes that statements in the document are not individually referenced. Some statements are not supported by data. This is particularly noted in relation to economic impact of the introduction of the pathogen. The document could not consider the recent literature published after 2003 on taxonomy of Ceratocystis spp.The Panel concludes that:* The Panel agrees with the identification of the wood pathway, considering that the pathogen could transfer to a suitable host through infected host debris (e.g. sawdust) and by the help of insect vectors. The Panel considers that the probability of entry through host plants and vegetative propagation material would be moderate to high. The Panel notes that the highest risk for the citrus industry of the French overseas departments would be associated with the trade of host plants and vegetative propagation material or accompanying soil from areas where C. fimbriata is reported to cause disease on citrus (Colombia, Cuba). Main host crops of C. fimbriata in Colombia are citrus, coffee and cacao. The isolates pathogenic to cacao are now referred to the recently described species Ceratocystis cacaofunesta. In Cuba the reported hosts are citrus, coffee, taro and the naturalized ornamental tree Spathodea campanulata. The Panel also considers passenger traffic as an entry pathway.* The Panel, after taking into account the information provided in the document and additional consulted, concludes that the probability of establishment, once the pathogen enters the PRA area[3], would be high.* The Panel agrees with the document that cultural practices may lead to a rapid spread after establishment.* The Panel agrees that the impact on citrus would be severe and considers that the disease could also affect coffee and perhaps other tree species.* The level of uncertainty is high for the following aspects: lack of studies on pathogenicity to citrus of isolates from other host plants and other regions; limited data published on yield losses; the level of economic and social consequences would depend on the range of affected host plants.In agreement with the document, the Panel concludes that C. fimbriata is appropriate for evaluation of pest risk management options for the endangered areas of French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique and Réunion and thus potentially eligible for addition to the list of harmful organisms in Directive 2000/29/EC

Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Plant Health was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on 30 pest risk assessments made by France on organisms which are considered by France as harmful in four French overseas departments, i.e. French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique and Réunion. In particular, the Panel was asked whether these organisms can be considered as harmful organisms for the endangered area of the above departments, in the meaning of the definition mentioned in Article 2.1.(e) of Directive 2000/29/EC and thus potentially eligible for addition to the list of harmful organisms in Directive 2000/29/EC.This document presents the opinion of the Panel on Plant Health on the full[1] pest risk assessment conducted by France on Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. citriwith French Guiana, Guadeloupe and Martinique, considered as endangered area.X. axonopodis pv. citri, recently renamed as Xanthomonas citri subsp. citri (XCC) causes the Asiatic citrus canker, a plant disease that affects Citrus spp., Poncirus spp. and other members of the family Rutaceae. XCC causes necrosis of the parenchyma that leads to necrotic lesions and cankers on leaves, twigs, branches and fruit of susceptible plants. Under severe infection, the disease causes defoliation, unsightly blemishes on fruit, premature fruit drop and general tree decline. The disease leads to extensive economic losses in commercial citrus-producing areas where it occurs. The Asiatic citrus canker is known to be present in citrus-producing areas worldwide. It has been reported from Asia, South America (Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay, Bolivia and Brazil), Oceania and the USA (State of Florida). The pathogen is not known to occur in French Guiana, Guadeloupe and Martinique. It is not present in Europe, either.The Panel examined in detail the risk assessment provided, and considered the accuracy and quality of the information provided and methods applied for pest risk assessment purposes. The review was based on the principles of the International Standard on Phytosanitary Measures ISPM No. 11[2]: Pest risk analysis for quarantine pests including analysis of environmental risks and living modified organisms (2004) by the International Plant Protection Convention (FAO, 2007b).Following a detailed analysis of the material provided in the pest risk assessment made by France in March 2004 on XCC, which is considered by France as potentially harmful for French Guiana, Guadeloupe and Martinique, and after additional study of published information on the pathogen and the disease it causes.The Panel concludes that:* X. citri subsp. citri (XCC) and X. axonopodis pv. citri are synonymous to name the causal agent of the Asiatic citrus canker. XCC is one group of the “strains of Xanthomonas campestris pathogenic on citrus” listed in the directive 2000/29/EC, which includes also X. fuscans subsp. aurantifolii and X. axonopodis pv. citrumelo.* Asiatic citrus canker causes severe damages and high control costs, where it occurs.* Under the French regulation, the probability of entry of XCC into the PRA area on plant propagation material would be low because of the current ban. The probability of entry on citrus fruit would be higher, as fruit may be imported into French Guiana, Guadeloupe and Martinique, although under special requirements.* Should the current regulations governing the imports of citrus fruit and plant material be lifted, the probability of entry of XCC into the PRA area[3] on plant propagation material (rootstocks, grafted seedlings, scions, etc) and citrus fruit would be high.* The probability of establishment of the pathogen in the PRA area would be high because (i) susceptible hosts are grown in the PRA area, (ii) the climatic conditions in the PRA area are similar to those in areas of the pathogen’s present distribution, and (iii) control measures are not likely to be undertaken in the family gardens grown with host plants in the PRA area.* The probability of the pathogen spread after establishment would be high for the PRA area.* Should XCC enter and establish in the PRA area, the direct effect of the disease within commercial groves would be high because of yield losses and costly eradication measures. High yield losses would occur in smallholdings and family gardens, where the disease is not readily controllable, with potential negative social impacts.* Uncertainty remains on the potential role of minor susceptible rutaceous hosts in the introduction and spread of XCC.In agreement with the document, the Panel concludes that XCC is appropriate for evaluation of pest risk management options and can be considered as a harmful organism for the endangered area of French Guiana, Guadeloupe and Martinique. The Panel notices that XCC is already in the list of harmful organisms in Directive 2000/29/EC, as “Xanthomonas campestris (all strains pathogenic to citrus)”

Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Plant Health was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on 30 pest risk assessments made by France on organisms which are considered by France as harmful in four French overseas departments, i.e. French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique and Réunion. In particular, the Panel was asked whether these organisms can be considered as harmful organisms for the endangered area of the above departments, in the meaning of the definition mentioned in Article 2.1.(e) of Directive 2000/29/EC and thus potentially eligible for addition to the list of harmful organisms in Directive 2000/29/EC.This document presents the opinion of the Panel on Plant Health on the simplified[2] pest risk assessment conducted by France on Phyllosticta musarum [Cooke] with French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique and Réunion considered as endangered area.P. musarum is the causal agent of a leaf- and fruit-spotting disease of Musa spp. (banana and abacá) known as freckle. The pathogen attacks leaves and also affects the external appearance of the fruit, decreasing its marketability. Under severe infections, the disease may cause premature death of the older leaves on some banana cultivars. In Taiwan and the Philippines, the disease is considered as one of the most serious problems affecting the export banana industry, which is based on cultivars of the Cavendish subgroup. Together with Cladosporium speckle (Cladosporium musae) P. musarum also causes a serious disease problem on the banana cultivar ‘Pisang Berangan’ grown in plantations in West Malaysia. Freckle is not considered to be of significance on smallholdings and private gardens that produce fruit for the local market and household consumption, as blemished fruit is tolerated by the consumers.The Panel examined in detail the risk assessment provided, and considered the accuracy and quality of the information provided and methods applied for pest risk assessment purposes. The review was based on the principles of the International Standard on Phytosanitary Measures ISPM No. 11[3]: Pest risk analysis for quarantine pests including analysis of environmental risks and living modified organisms (2004) by the International Plant Protection Convention (FAO, 2007b).The Panel observes that:*The pest risk assessment does not provide sufficient information to justify the conclusions reached and some statements are not substantiated by verifiable scientific evidence. Moreover, information included in the submitted references is not fully utilized in the document.*Background information for each of the four French overseas departments (e.g. climatic conditions, distribution of banana and plantains in commercial plantations and private gardens, cropping systems and agricultural practices in banana plantations and private gardens, etc.) is either limited or lacking in the document.The Panel concludes that:*Under the current regulations and in agreement with the document’s conclusion, the probability of entry of P. musarum on banana propagation material (other than vitroplants), banana fruit and banana leaves would be very low for all four French overseas departments, with the risk being associated with travellers/tourists carrying infected banana material from the contaminated areas.*Should the current phytosanitary regulations be lifted, the probability of P. musarum entering the PRA area[4]other than vitroplants), banana fruit and banana leaves, especially on latently infected material, would be higher than “relatively low” as estimated in the document. on banana propagation material (*The probability of P. musarum entering the PRA area on the banana vitroplants pathway would be negligible.*In agreement with the document’s conclusion, the probability of establishment and spread should P. musarum gain entry into the PRA area would be high for all French overseas departments, given that susceptible Musa host plants are present in the PRA area in plantations, smallholdings and private gardens and the climate is similar to that of the pathogen’s present distribution.*In the absence of any control measures, the economic consequences due to the introduction of P. musarum into the PRA area would be high for commercial banana plantations. However, cultural and chemical control practices currently applied to commercial banana plantations in the PRA area should minimize the effects of the disease.*If banana fruit produced in Guadeloupe and Martinique would be affected by P. musarum, export could be compromised. However, the extent of this effect is uncertain since fruit infection can be reduced by cultural control methods.*It is not known if blemished fruit would be accepted by local consumers in the PRA area. However, in the areas of the pathogen’s present distribution freckled bananas are accepted by local consumers.*Uncertainties exist related to (i) the epidemiological role of the ascospores and the survival of the pathogen, (ii) the effect of P. musarum on yield, (iii) the need for additional control measures, and (iv) the impact on export.The Panel, based on the information provided, and on additional literature consulted concludes that Phyllosticta musarum is not considered appropriate for evaluation of pest risk management options for the French overseas departments of French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique and Réunion and, thus, P. musarum is not potentially eligible for addition to the list of harmful organisms in Directive 2000/29/EC.

Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Plant Health was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on 30 pest risk assessments made by France on organisms which are considered by France as harmful in four French overseas departments, i.e. French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique and Réunion. In particular, the Panel was asked whether these organisms can be considered as harmful organisms for the endangered area of the above departments, in the meaning of the definition mentioned in Article 2.1.(e) of Directive 2000/29/EC and thus potentially eligible for addition to the list of harmful organisms in Directive 2000/29/EC.This document presents the opinion of the Panel on Plant Health on the simplified[1] pest risk assessment conducted by France on Sphaeropsis tumefaciens Hedges with French Guiana, Guadeloupe and Martinique considered as endangered area.The Sphaeropsis knot is a disease caused by the fungus S. tumefaciens Hedges. The pathogen infects woody shrubs and trees including Citrus spp., avocado (Persea americana Mill.), and several ornamental species like holly (Ilex spp.), Callistemon spp., rose bay (Nerium oleander) and Brazilian peppertree (Schinus terebinthifolius). The disease has been reported in Cameroon, Ceylon, Cuba, Egypt, Guyana, Indonesia, India, Jamaica, Mexico, Puerto Rico, USA (Florida) and Venezuela.The disease produces galls on stems, branches, and trunks. These so-called knots may occur in large numbers and severe infection leads to death of the tree. A gall may form up to 40 shoots, from multiple bud formation, often themselves bearing galls (witches’ broom effect). These abnormal shoots eventually die.The Panel examined in detail the risk assessment provided, and considered the accuracy and quality of the information provided and methods applied for pest risk assessment purposes. The review was based on the principles of the International Standard on Phytosanitary Measures ISPM No. 11[2]: Pest risk analysis for quarantine pests including analysis of environmental risks and living modified organisms (2004) by the International Plant Protection Convention (FAO, 2007).The Panel considers that in the French document the climatic conditions in the PRA area[3] and the economical aspects following establishment of S. tumefaciens could have been better analysed to support the conclusions.Based on the French document and on additional references, the Panel agrees that the probability of entry is moderate. The main pathway would be the importation of infected plants and grafting material. The Panel agrees with the French document that the pest can establish within the PRA area and considers that the disease can be spread by pruning tools, rain splash, cuttings taken from diseased plants and transfer of infected plants from nurseries to fields and gardens.The economic impact is rated as low to moderate in the French document. High direct impacts of the disease were reported in a few exceptional cases, when young nursery plants were placed under old affected trees with knots, but the reported impact was low in well-managed situations. The Panel is of the opinion that the economic consequences would be low for the PRA area if correct cultivation techniques are adopted in fields and nurseries.Uncertainties remain on (1) the current geographic distribution of the disease due to possible confusion with symptoms caused by mutations, woody galls or unknown agents, (2) the role of conidia in the epidemiology of the disease, as there is lack of information in the scientific literature, (3) additional cost of control, and (4) the potential environmental impact should the pathogen establish in the PRA area.The Panel concludes that S. tumefaciens is not considered appropriate for evaluation of pest risk management options for the French overseas departments of French Guiana, Guadeloupe and Martinique, and thus, S. tumefaciens is not considered potentially eligible for addition to the list of harmful organisms in Directive 2000/29/EC

Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Plant Health was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on 30 pest risk assessments made by France on organisms, which are considered by France as harmful in four French overseas departments, i.e. French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique and Réunion. In particular, the Panel was asked whether these organisms can be considered as harmful organisms for the endangered area of the above departments, in the meaning of the definition mentioned in Article 2.1.(e) of Directive 2000/29/EC and thus potentially eligible for addition to the list of harmful organisms in Directive 2000/29/EC.This document presents the opinion of the Panel on Plant Health on the full[1] pest risk assessment conducted by France on Hop stunt viroid (HSVd) with Réunion considered as endangered area.HSVd isa well-characterised viroid of the family Pospiviroidae, which infects citrus, grapevine, apricot, almond, plum, peach and several other species of economic importance belonging to different families. HSVd is considered as widespread in all citrus-growing areas of the world.The Panel examined in detail the risk assessment provided, and considered the accuracy and quality of the information provided and methods applied for pest risk assessment purposes. The review was based on the principles and terminology of the International Standard on Phytosanitary Measures ISPM No. 11[2] [Pest risk analysis for quarantine pests including analysis of environmental risks and living modified organisms (2004)] and the terminology of ISPM No. 5 [Glossary of Phytosanitary Terms (2007)] by the International Plant Protection Convention (FAO, 2007).The French document concludes that HSVd could feature as a pest in Réunion and notes the possibility that it may already be present in the PRA area[3] in a latent state.The Panel found that statements in the French document and ratings given in the risk assessment are neither substantiated by references nor supported by verifiable data. HSVd is present in citrus producing countries worldwide, and it can be spread by graft-propagation of infected planting material (budwood). Therefore, the Panel agrees that the introduction of infected propagation material is the most important entry pathway. The volume of imported material into Réunion, however, is acknowledged in the French assessment to be low, due to the small area of citrus under production.HSVd is a well-characterised viroid in terms of its molecular and biological properties and suitable methods are available to identify and detect it in plant material. As a result the Panel considers that viroid-indexing can reduce the probability of entry via propagation material to a negligible level. However, in the absence of viroid-indexing, the probability of entry would be moderate to high.The Panel considers the probability of entry to be low in the presence of the existing management measures. However, should these measures be lifted, in the absence of pathogen-testing the probability of entry would be moderate to high.The Panel concludes that the probability of establishment following the entry of the viroid is high. The probability of spread is, however, considered low, as HSVd is not seed transmitted and has no natural vectors.The French assessment concludes that the potential for economic impact can be fairly severe but the additional comments do not substantiate this conclusion. The Panel concludes that even though HSVd is a pathogenic agent for certain sensitive citrus cultivars/species grown in Réunion, the information provided is insufficient to suggest that economic consequences would be severe.Existing risk management measures prevent the importation of citrus planting material from third (non-EU) countries (Annex III A of Directive 2000/29/EC). Virus indexing procedures can be applied as part of existing certification schemes for citrus propagation material in the EU. Furthermore, in the absence of virus indexing, the Panel considers the impact of HSVd to be limited, due to the absence of a natural vector, which limits the potential for further dissemination of the viroid.Therefore, the Panel concludes that HSVd is not appropriate for evaluation of further risk management measures and thus is not considered by the Panel to be eligible for addition to the list of harmful organisms in Directive 2000/29/EC

Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Plant Health was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on 30 pest risk assessments made by France on organisms, which are considered by France as harmful in four French overseas departments, i.e. Guadeloupe, French Guiana, Martinique and Réunion. In particular, the Panel was asked whether these organisms can be considered as harmful organisms for the endangered area of the above departments, in the meaning of the definition mentioned in Article 2.1.(e) of Directive 2000/29/EC and thus potentially eligible for addition to the list of harmful organisms in Directive 2000/29/EC.This document presents the opinion of the Panel on Plant Health on the full[1] pest risk assessment conducted by France on Citrus exocortis viroid (CEVd) with Réunion considered as endangered area.CEVd isa well-characterised viroid of the family Pospiviroidae, which infects citrus, grapevines and several herbaceous species of economic importance belonging to different families. CEVd is considered as widespread all over the citrus-growing areas of the world.The Panel examined in detail the risk assessment provided, and considered the accuracy and quality of the information provided and methods applied for pest risk assessment purposes. The review was based on the principles and terminology of the International Standard on Phytosanitary Measures ISPM No. 11[2] [Pest risk analysis for quarantine pests including analysis of environmental risks and living modified organisms (2004)] and the terminology of ISPM No. 5 [Glossary of Phytosanitary Terms (2007)] by the International Plant Protection Convention (FAO, 2007).The French document is unclear in its conclusion, stating that CEVd could feature as a pest in Réunion, yet acknowledging that CEVd is already present in the PRA area[3]. The document suggests that although preventative measures are limiting its further spread, its impact is minimal. The Panel found that many other statements, for example, those relating to economic impact, appear contradictory to the ratings given, or to statements made earlier in the assessment. In addition, many statements are neither substantiated by references nor supported by verifiable data, for example, relating to the extent of the occurrence of CEVd, the control measures undertaken and the impact of citrus exocortis disease in the PRA area.CEVd is present in citrus producing countries worldwide and it can be spread by graft-propagation of infected planting material. Therefore, the Panel agrees that the introduction of infected propagation material is the most important entry pathway. The volume of imported material into Réunion, however, is acknowledged in the French assessment to be low, due to the small area of citrus under production.CEVd is a well-characterised viroid in terms of its molecular and biological properties and suitable methods are available to identify and detect it in plant material. As a result, the Panel considers that viroid-indexing can reduce the probability of entry via propagation material to a negligible level. The probability of entry was rated as moderate in the French document. However, in the absence of viroid-indexing, the probability of entry is considered by the Panel to be moderate to high.The probability of establishment was rated as moderate in the French document but the Panel considers this to be high, as CEVd would be established following the planting of any infected material. CEVd is also acknowledged as present in old plantings in the PRA area where the original plants have not been subjected to viroid-testing procedures. The Panel, however, considers these represent a low risk in terms of being a source of contamination of newly established CEVd-free orchards. Although CEVd can be spread by vegetative propagation of infected material, efficiency of mechanical transmission under field conditions is low and transmission can be avoided by disinfecting cutting and pruning tools.CEVd is not spread by seed-transmission and has no known natural vectors. As a consequence, the probability of spread is considered by the Panel to be low.CEVd is a pathogenic agent for citrus grown on sensitive rootstocks, causing stunting and reduced yield. The Panel confirmed that sensitive rootstocks such as Carrizo citrange are used for new plantings in Réunion.Existing risk management measures prevent the importation of citrus planting material from Third (non-EU) countries (Annex III A of Directive 2000/29/EC). Virus indexing procedures can be applied as part of existing certification schemes for citrus propagation material in the EU. Furthermore, in the absence of virus indexing, the Panel considers the impact of CEVd to be limited, due to the absence of a natural vector, which limits the potential for further dissemination of the viroid.Therefore, the Panel concludes that CEVd is not appropriate for evaluation of further risk management measures and thus is not considered by the Panel to be eligible for addition to the list of harmful organisms in Directive 2000/29/EC

Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Plant Health was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on 30 pest risk assessments made by France on organisms which are considered by France as harmful in four French overseas departments, i.e. French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique and Réunion. In particular, the Panel was asked whether these organisms can be considered as harmful organisms for the endangered area of the above departments, in the meaning of the definition mentioned in Article 2.1.(e) of Directive 2000/29/EC and thus potentially eligible for addition to the list of harmful organisms in Directive 2000/29/EC.This document presents the opinion of the Panel on Plant Health on the simplified[1] pest risk assessment conducted by France on Citrus chlorotic dwarf virus, with French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique and Réunion considered as endangered area. The Panel will use the name Citrus chlorotic dwarf (CCD) agent in the following text, as the causal agent of citrus chlorotic dwarf disease has not yet been identified.CCD is a virus-like disease that can affect almost all citrus species and cultivars. The causal agent is transmitted by the bayberry whitefly Parabemisia myricae Kuwana (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) in a persistent or semi-persistent manner. In addition CCD is transmitted by grafting and can be experimentally transmitted by mechanical inoculation.The Panel examined in detail the risk assessment provided, and considered the accuracy and quality of the information provided and of the methods applied for pest risk assessment purposes. The review was based on the principles and terminology of the International Standard on Phytosanitary Measures ISPM No. 11[2] [Pest risk analysis for quarantine pests including analysis of environmental risks and living modified organisms (2004)] and the terminology of ISPM No. 5 [Glossary of Phytosanitary Terms (2007)] by the International Plant Protection Convention (FAO, 2007).The simplified assessment provides limited evidence to justify the ratings given in the assessment. It concludes that the phytosanitary risk associated with CCD disease is low to moderate. After analysis of the French document, the references cited and additional references and in consultation with experts in Turkey, the Panel considers that the overall phytosanitary risk posed by the CCD agent is underestimated in the assessment provided.The Panel concludes that:* Although the causal agent of the CCD disease is not yet characterised, it produces distinct and consistent symptoms.* The CCD agent is graft transmissible and can be reliably detected although not identified by biological indexing.* The disease is currently restricted to the eastern Mediterranean region of Turkey* The CCD agent is effectively transmitted in a semi-persistent or persistent manner by the bayberry whitefly, Parabemisia myricae, which is present in Guadeloupe. Uncertainty exists over the presence of this vector in the other French overseas departments under consideration.* The main pathway of entry is through the import, from Turkey, of citrus plants or budwood for multiplication.* If the CCD agent was to be introduced, it would remain in the French overseas departments for at least as long as the infected material is cultivated and propagated and, at least in Guadeloupe, it is likely to spread to other citrus plants through vector activity.* Severe losses are reported in almost all citrus species with the exception of sweet orange which shows tolerance to the disease but may, however, act as source of inoculum.* Once the CCD agent is introduced in a citrus growing area, it would be difficult if not impossible to control and/or to eradicate.* Preventing entry of citrus plant material coming from the affected area would reduce the risks to the PRA area[3] to a negligible level.* While the CCD agent can be detected by bioassays as a disease causing agent, its unequivocal identification is pending.* A significant level of uncertainty also exists over the presence of P.myricae in the French overseas departments other than Guadeloupe.Overall, the Panel considers the CCD agent appropriate for analysis of risk management options for the French overseas departments of French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique and Réunion and thus potentially eligible for addition to the list of harmful organisms in Directive 2000/29/EC.The Panel notes, in addition, that the CCD agent may pose a risk to other citrus-growing areas in the European Union, particularly areas where the vector is present (e.g. Spain), and which lie closer to Turkey, the area where the disease is present. The Panel therefore recommends further assessment of the risks posed for the wider PRA area of the EU

Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Scientific Panel on Plant Heath was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on two pest risk analyses made by the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO) on invasive alien plants (American skunk cabbage and floating pennywort). The Panel was in particular asked a) whether these organisms can be considered as harmful for the endangered area of the European Community and thus potentially eligible for addition to the list of harmful organisms in the plant health Directive 2000/29/EC, and b) whether the identified management options are appropriate through an evaluation of their efficacy, feasibility and impact.This document presents the opinion of the Panel on Plant Health on the pest risk analysis made by EPPO on Lysichiton americanus Hultén and St. John.L. americanus is a yellow-flowered herbaceous perennial plant known as American skunk cabbage or yellow skunk cabbage. It can be terrestrial, semi-aquatic and even aquatic. It has been introduced into Europe intentionally as an ornamental garden plant. It is naturalised in several European countries including Ireland, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and UK. However, invasive behaviour has been reported in parts of Europe, with local species extinction reported in Germany.L. americanus is considered an invasive alien plant by EPPO and is included on the EPPO Action List (pests which EPPO recommend member countries to consider for inclusion in their phytosanitary regulations), with the entire EPPO region considered an endangered area.In delivering this opinion the Panel conducted a detailed review of the EPPO pest risk analysis provided, using the internationally accepted standard for pest risk analysis for quarantine pests ISPM No 11.The available information shows that Lysichiton americanus can be considered an invasive species with potential to cause environmental damage to ecologically vulnerable wetland habitats. However, the factors contributing to invasive behaviour are not well characterised and thus the endangered area cannot be clearly defined. Despite the presence of L. americanus in at least nine European countries, clear evidence of environmental damage has been found only in restricted areas of Germany. A more detailed analysis is required to identify the key factors contributing to invasive behaviour.Although the Panel recognises that invasiveness of a plant in one area can be a signal for its invasiveness elsewhere, it concludes that the information provided in the EPPO document is insufficient to confirm that L. americanus qualifies as a quarantine pest for the EC.The Panel considers that the significant knowledge gaps identified in the pest risk assessment stage of the pest risk analysis preclude a detailed evaluation of management options at this stage. The Panel suggests that further work, including monitoring and surveillance, is needed to address the areas of uncertainty identified in the EPPO document, in order to identify the areas of the European Community at risk and enable management options to be considered. These include:a) the effect of abiotic factors on the establishment, development, reproduction, survival and dispersal of the plant in both the native and introduced range;b) the population dynamics of the plant in areas where it is present but not invasive;c) the volume of trade in L. americanus as an ornamental plant entering and moving within the EC, including further analysis of the pathways through which it can reach natural water bodies;d) the nature and occurrence of areas within the EC where conditions result in invasiveness of the plant, supported by the use of modelling and geographic information system (GIS) tools.the environmental damage caused by the plant in areas where it is invasive.

Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Plant Health was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on 30 pest risk assessments made by France on organisms which are considered by France as harmful in four French overseas departments, i.e. French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique and Réunion. In particular, the Panel was asked whether these organisms can be considered as harmful organisms for the endangered area of the above departments, in the meaning of the definition mentioned in Article 2.1.(e) of Directive 2000/29/EC and thus potentially eligible for addition to the list of harmful organisms in Directive 2000/29/EC.This document presents the opinion of the Panel on the simplified[1] pest risk assessment conducted by France on Aceria sheldoni (Ewing) (Acari: Eriophyidae), with French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique and Réunion considered as endangered area.A. sheldoni the citrus bud mite, is a minute (0.12 - 0.18 mm), elongate mite that is reported from citrus and related plant species. The immature and adult stages feed mostly beneath bud scales or in developing buds and flowers, damaging embryonic bud tissues. Plant parts (twigs, flowers and fruits) that develop from damaged buds are often distorted. This species is widely distributed around the world almost everywhere where citrus is cultivated.The Panel examined in detail the risk assessment provided, and considered the accuracy and quality of the information provided and methods applied for pest risk assessment purposes. The review was based on the principles and terminology of the International Standard on Phytosanitary Measures ISPM No. 11[2] [Pest risk analysis for quarantine pests including analysis of environmental risks and living modified organisms (2004)] and the terminology of ISPM No. 5 [Glossary of Phytosanitary Terms (2007)] by the International Plant Protection Convention (FAO, 2007).The conclusion of the French assessment is that A. sheldoni should be maintained as a quarantine pest for the French overseas departments pending more accurate data on its harmfulness in tropical conditions.However, insufficient information is provided in the simplified risk assessment to support this conclusion. Many statements are not substantiated by references nor supported by verifiable data, particularly with regard to: 1) possible entry pathways, 2) existing pest management measures and 3) potential economic impact of the organism in the PRA area.After a detailed analysis of the material provided in the French document and study of additional literature, the Panel agrees that A. sheldoni can enter and establish in the PRA area, but consider the potential for economic consequences to be low. It is seldom reported to occur on citrus hosts other than lemon. Despite its wide distribution, including areas with similar climates to the PRA area, several studies show a low potential of this mite to cause economic damage on lemons. Moreover, citrus is acknowledged in the French assessment as not a major factor in the economy. Lemon is grown for home consumption and not for export, and thus the consequences of A. sheldoni on the local market are considered to be very limited.Therefore, the Panel considers that A. sheldoni is not appropriate for consideration of risk management options for French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique and Reunion, and thus is not potentially eligible for addition to the list of harmful organisms in Directive 2000/29/EC.

Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Plant Health was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on 30 pest risk assessments made by France on organisms which are considered by France as harmful in four French overseas departments, i.e. French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique and Réunion. In particular, the Panel was asked whether these organisms can be considered as harmful organisms for the endangered area of the above departments, in the meaning of the definition mentioned in Article 2.1.(e) of Directive 2000/29/EC and thus potentially eligible for addition to the list of harmful organisms in Directive 2000/29/EC.This document presents the opinion of the Panel on Plant Health on the full [2] pest risk assessment conducted by France on Mycosphaerella fijiensis with French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique and Réunion considered as endangered area.Three related fungal species within the genus Mycosphaerella induce important leaf spot diseases on Musa spp.: M. fijiensis, M. musicola and M. eumusae. They cause black leaf streak disease, Sigatoka leaf spot disease and eumusae leaf spot disease, respectively. M. fijiensis and M. musicola are known to cause serious economic damage on banana. M. fijiensis is present in most Musa growing regions of the world, but it is absent from the PRA area.The Panel examined in detail the risk assessment provided, and considered the accuracy and quality of the information provided and methods applied for pest risk assessment purposes. The review was based on the principles of the International Standard on Phytosanitary Measures ISPM[3] No. 11: Pest risk analysis for quarantine pests including analysis of environmental risks and living modified organisms (2004) by the International Plant Protection Convention (FAO, 2007b).The Panel considers that:The climatic conditions in the PRA area and the economic, social and environmental consequences following the introduction of M. fijiensis into the PRA area could have been better analysed in the French document to support the conclusions reached.The Panel concludes that:* The probability of entry, under the current regulations, of M. fijiensis on Musa plant propagation material (other than vitroplants), and banana leaf, banana fruit would be low for French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique and Réunion because the import is banned.* If the current restrictions are rescinded, the probability of entry of M. fijiensis into the PRA area would be high on the banana conventional propagation material (e.g. suckers) and leaves (for wrapping, decoration, etc.) pathways, low on commercial fruit without leaf debris and negligible on the vitroplants pathways.* In agreement with the French document’s conclusion, the Panel considers that probability of establishment of M. fiiensis in the whole PRA area is “high”.* The Panel agrees with the French document about the “high probability” of M. fijiensis to spread in the PRA area after establishment.* In commercial plantations of Cavendish bananas M. fijiensis would increase production costs because of the increased number of chemical treatments and more frequent de-leafing required to reduce inoculum pressure, compared to the less aggressive M. musicola. Additional costs would also be faced to develop control strategies to fungicide resistance and to adapt current disease forecasting systems. Additional control costs may reduce the competitiveness of the banana industry in Guadeloupe and Martinique, resulting in reduced employment and consequent negative social impact.* Smallholdings producing fruit for the local market or for home-consumption could suffer yield losses impacting on production and consumption patterns, with related negative social impacts, should the yield of plantain be substantially reduced. Similar effects are possible for French Guiana, where banana is also grown in shifting cultivation.* Environmental impact will result from the increased number of fungicide applications, with possible negative effect on human health through pollution of the air and surface water.* Uncertainties, which do not affect the final conclusion, remain as regards: H. psittacorum as a pathway; the extent of additional control cost for smallholders; the availability and the costs of substituting staple foods, should the yield of plantain for family consumption be substantially reduced; the increase of pesticide residues in banana fruit should M. fijiensis establish in the PRA area

Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Plant Health was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on 30 pest risk assessments made by France on organisms which are considered by France as harmful in four French overseas departments, i.e. French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique and Réunion. In particular, the Panel was asked whether these organisms can be considered as harmful organisms for the endangered area of the above departments, in the meaning of the definition mentioned in Article 2.1.(e) of Directive 2000/29/EC and thus potentially eligible for addition to the list of harmful organisms in Directive 2000/29/EC.This document presents the opinion of the Panel on Plant Health on the full[1] pest risk assessment conducted by France on Metcalfa pruinosa (Say)with French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique and Réunion considered an endangered area.M. pruinosa (Insecta: Hemiptera: Flatidae), the citrus flatid planthopper or frosted moth-bug, is found on citrus, but also feeds on a wide variety of plant species, including ornamental and tree species traded commercially as hardy ornamental nursery stock. Dense populations of nymphs produce wax and may cause stunting of the shoots, while high densities of adults produce large quantities of honeydew on which sooty mould develops. The organism may reduce the vigour of whole plants, but damage to fruit and flowers on ornamentals or citrus are the main concern, because these can become unmarketable due to cosmetic damage from mould and markings. M. pruinosa occurs in Mediterranean areas of Europe, Central and North America.The Panel examined in detail the risk assessment provided, and considered the accuracy and quality of the information provided and methods applied for pest risk assessment purposes. The review was based on the principles of the International Standard on Phytosanitary Measures ISPM No. 11[2]: Pest risk analysis for quarantine pests including analysis of environmental risks and living modified organisms (2004) by the International Plant Protection Convention (FAO, 2007).Many statements in the French document are not referenced or supported by verifiable scientific data. The ratings for the probability of entry, establishment and impact given in the pest risk assessment are difficult to interpret, due to the lack of evidence presented and inconsistent judgments by the assessors. This particularly applies to the potential entry pathways, available strategies to control the pest, and the potential economic impact of the pest in the PRA area[3].The conclusion of the French assessment is that M. pruinosa qualifies as a quarantine organism for French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique and Réunion. However, the Panel cannot support this conclusion on the basis of the evidence provided in the pest risk assessment.After seeking additional information, the Panel agrees that the organism can enter and establish in the PRA area. However, the Panel found scarce evidence that the species can cause serious economic impacts once introduced. Negative impacts are not known for large areas where the organism occurs, including regions with similar climates as the PRA area, and in the few areas where they have been reported, they are restricted to temporary effects that occur after the pest has established in the new area.The Panel, based on the information provided in the document and on additional literature consulted, concludes that M. pruinosa is not appropriate for evaluation of pest risk management options for French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique and Réunion and thus is not potentially eligible for addition to the list of harmful organisms in Directive 2000/29/EC

Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Plant Health was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on 30 pest risk assessments made by France on organisms which are considered by France as harmful in four French overseas departments, i.e. French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique and Réunion. In particular, the Panel was asked whether these organisms can be considered as harmful organisms for the endangered area of the above departments, in the meaning of the definition mentioned in Article 2.1.(e) of Directive 2000/29/EC and thus potentially eligible for addition to the list of harmful organisms in Directive 2000/29/EC.This document presents the opinion of the Panel on Plant Health on the full[2] pest risk assessment conducted by France on Banana bract mosaic virus (BBrMV) with French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique and Réunion considered as endangered area.Banana bract mosaic virus (BBrMV) is a recently characterised virus of the genus Potyvirus family Potyviridae (Thomas et al., 1997), which infects banana and plantain. It is an aphid transmissible virus and can cause serious losses due to yield reduction and malformation of fruits.The Panel examined in detail the risk assessment provided, and considered the accuracy and quality of the information provided and methods applied for pest risk assessment purposes. The review was based on the principles and terminology of the International Standard on Phytosanitary Measures ISPM No. 11[3]: Pest risk analysis for quarantine pests including analysis of environmental risks and living modified organisms (2004) by the International Plant Protection Convention (FAO, 2007b).The review evaluated the accuracy and relevance of data, the information provided for pest risk assessment purposes, the quality and quantity of data considered, and the quality of methods applied to conduct the risk assessment.Following analysis of the French document and from additional information sought, the Panel established that BBrMV is a well-characterised virus, for which reliable assays, mainly based on PCR, are currently available for identification. All four aphid species, known to have the ability to transmit BBrMV, are present in the French overseas departments, providing conditions suitable for its further spread after entry.Taking into considerations these elements the Panel concludes that:· The most important potential pathway of entry for BBrMV into the French overseas departments is through the import of infected banana propagating materials (vitroplants, suckers). Minor pathways include the introduction of infected cultivars by private individuals and the import of banana fruits and leaves.· The current French regulations provide the means to ensure that the probability of entry of BBrMV is extremely low. In the absence of those regulations, the probability of entry would be higher, and has been considered by the Panel as low/medium. Although propagation material represents the main entry pathway, BBrMV is noted as currently restricted in distribution to a small number of countries in Asia and the Pacific.· There is a high probability of establishment of BBrMV in the PRA area[4]. As plant propagation material represents the main pathway for introduction, the establishment of the virus, after planting of infected material, is assured.· There is a potential for negative economic and social consequences should BBrMV be introduced, in particular concerning Guadeloupe and Martinique where banana crops form a major part of the agricultural economy.The Panel recognises that there are some areas of uncertainty, concerning the biology of BBrMV, such as symptom expression and host range. However, these uncertainties are considered unlikely to affect the conclusions reached by the Panel.The overall conclusion of the Panel is that BBrMV poses a risk to the banana crops of the four overseas departments and thus qualifies for risk management measures. BBrMV is therefore considered potentially eligible for addition to the list of harmful organisms under Directive 2000/29/EC.

Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Plant Health was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on 30 pest risk assessments made by France on organisms which are considered by France as harmful in four French overseas departments, i.e. French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique and Réunion. In particular, the Panel was asked whether these organisms can be considered as harmful organisms for the endangered area of the above departments, in the meaning of the definition mentioned in Article 2.1.(e) of Directive 2000/29/EC and thus potentially eligible for addition to the list of harmful organisms in Directive 2000/29/EC.This document presents the opinion of the Panel on Plant Health on the full[2] pest risk assessment conducted by France on Ralstonia solanacearum race 2 with French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique and Réunion considered as endangered area.Ralstonia solanacearum (Smith, 1896) Yabuuchi et al., 1996 race 2 is the causal agent of a lethal disease of dessert banana (Musa spp.), plantain (Musa spp.) and Heliconia spp. plants known as Moko bacterial wilt. It is also the cause of a fruit rot of the cooking banana cultivars ‘Cardaba’ and ‘Saba’ (ABB genome) in the Philippines known as bugtok or tapurok.The Panel examined in detail the risk assessment provided, and considered the accuracy and quality of the information provided and methods applied for pest risk assessment purposes. The review was based on the principles and terminology of the International Standard on Phytosanitary Measures ISPM No. 11[3]: Pest risk analysis for quarantine pests including analysis of environmental risks and living modified organisms (2004) by the International Plant Protection Convention (FAO, 2007b).The Panel observes that:*The pest risk assessment does not provide sufficient information to justify the conclusions reached. Specific statements and background information, though accurate, are not substantiated by scientific evidence and no references are provided on these aspects. Moreover, a number of estimates in Part 2 (pest risk assessment) are not justified or substantiated by the information provided in Part 1 of the document.*The probabilities of entry, establishment and spread and the potential impacts of R. solanacearum race 2 in the PRA area[4] should have been assessed separately for each of the French overseas departments, due to their specificities related to their geographic location and the differing importance of the host plants in each of the departments. Furthermore, the new situation in the PRA area, in case the current phytosanitary regulations governing the imports of banana plant material are lifted, should have been taken into account in the document.*In addition to the conventional banana plant propagation material and the vitroplants pathways assessed in the document, the movement of ornamental Heliconia plants and plant parts, of banana fruit and soil, the private individuals carrying infected plant material and the natural spread via insects, birds, etc. pathways should have been also considered and assessed in the document in terms of importance and risk.The Panel concludes that:*The probability of entry, under the current regulations, of R. solanacearum race 2 on Musa and ornamental Heliconia plant propagation material (other than vitroplants), banana fruit and soil would be low for French Guiana, Guadeloupe and Martinique due to their proximity to contaminated areas and very low for Réunion due to its great distance from the areas of the pathogen’s present distribution. Nevertheless, should the current regulations governing the imports of Musa and Heliconia plant material be lifted, and in agreement with the document, the probability of entry of the pathogen on Musa and ornamental Heliconia plant propagation material (other than vitroplants), banana fruit and soil would be high for French Guiana, Guadeloupe and Martinique and moderate for Réunion. The Panel considers that the probability of R. solanacearum race 2 being associated with the vitroplants pathway is negligible.*The probability of establishment of R. solanacearum race 2 in the PRA area is high, as (i) susceptible hosts are grown in the PRA area, (ii) the climatic conditions in the French overseas departments are mainly tropical and therefore, similar to those in areas of the pathogen’s present distribution, and (iii) control measures (e.g. sanitation, disinfection of tools, de-budding, inflorescence bagging, etc) are not likely to be undertaken in smallholdings and private gardens grown with Musa and Heliconia plants.*The probability of the pathogen spread after establishment is high for all French overseas departments and especially in areas with Musa and Heliconia plants grown in private gardens, where control practices are not usually undertaken due to their cost.*Within commercial plantations of dessert bananas the disease effects would be largely mitigated by existing practices of de-budding and bagging. However, additional sanitation measures would be necessary at extra costs. With the possibility of continuous re-infestation from the environment (smallholdings, weeds, wild host plants), the production costs would be structurally increased. The additional control costs may reduce the competitiveness of the banana industry in Guadeloupe and Martinique. As a result, employment may be reduced causing negative social impacts.*Plantains and other cooking bananas are an important staple food and a large fraction is household-produced. Since the disease is not readily controllable in smallholdings and private gardens, high yield losses and a potential disruption of subsistence production and consumption patterns would occur. This may also cause negative social impacts. Similar effects are envisaged for French Guiana, where the banana crop is an element of shifting cultivation.*·Uncertainties of a moderate degree are related to (i) the characterization and classification of the R. solanacearum strains recently detected in Martinique on Anthurium spp., cucurbits, tomato, Heliconia and several weeds, (ii) the ability of the pathogen to spread in the environment from fruit waste, as there is lack of information on this aspect in the literature, (iii) the banana cultivars grown in French overseas departments (other than Cavendish) and their flower bract phenology, that may influence the establishment and spread of the pathogen in the PRA area, (iv) the level of the cost increase in commercial dessert banana plantations, (v) the availability and the costs of substitution foods, should the yield of plantains and other cooking bananas be substantially reduced, (vi) the importance of banana for smallholdings and for subsistence production in French Guiana and Réunion, and (vii) the potential environmental impact (e.g. soil erosion, biodiversity, etc) of the pathogen in the PRA area.The Panel, based on the information provided in the document and on additional literature consulted, concludes that R. solanacearum race 2 is appropriate for evaluation of pest risk management options for the endangered areas of French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique and Réunion and thus, potentially eligible for addition to the list of harmful organisms in Directive 2000/29/EC.

Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Plant Health was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on 30 pest risk assessments made by France on organisms which are considered by France as harmful in four French overseas departments, i.e. French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique and Réunion. In particular, the Panel was asked whether these organisms can be considered as harmful organisms for the endangered area of the above departments, in the meaning of the definition mentioned in Article 2.1.(e) of Directive 2000/29/EC and thus potentially eligible for addition to the list of harmful organisms in Directive 2000/29/EC.This document presents the opinion of the Panel on Plant Health on the simplified[2] pest risk assessment conducted by France on Odoiporus longicollis with French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique and Réunion considered as endangered area.Odoiporus longicollis, the banana stem weevil, occurs in India, China, Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand where it is a key pest of bananas and plantains. The adult weevils are nocturnal, black-coloured, relatively large (23-39 mm), strong-flying beetles. All life stages are present throughout the year in the infested plant. Damage is caused by the larva tunneling inside the pseudostem of the banana plant, weakening the plant that is unable to bear the weight of the fruit. Up to 90% yield loss can result. Control is by cultural methods and injecting pesticides into the stem.The Panel examined in detail the risk assessment provided, and considered the accuracy and quality of the information provided and methods applied for pest risk assessment purposes. The review was based on the principles of the International Standard on Phytosanitary Measures ISPM No. 11[3]: Pest risk analysis for quarantine pests including analysis of environmental risks and living modified organisms (2004) by the International Plant Protection Convention (FAO, 2007b).Although the pest risk assessment could be improved in the analysis of entry pathways and the analysis of economic, social and environmental consequences in case of establishment, the Panel agrees with the conclusion of the French document that :*the probability of entry of O. longicollis into the PRA area[4] is moderate.*O. longicollis has a very high probability of establishment and spread, due to the widespread distribution of its host plants, banana and plantain in the PRA area and*the impact of pest infestation on the host plant is high.Additionally, Musa spp. fruits are widely grown in the PRA area and are of particular economic importance as an export crop for Guadeloupe and Martinique. If the species became established in these two islands, export markets for banana could be seriously affected and additional control costs may reduce competitiveness. Smallholdings producing fruit for the local market or for home-consumption could suffer yield losses impacting on production and consumption patterns, with related negative social impacts, should the yield of plantain be substantially reduced. Similar effects are possible for French Guiana, where banana is also grown in shifting cultivation.Uncertainties exist concerning the importance of different possible entry pathways, some biological features of the pest, and the potential for social and environmental consequences, but these are not expected to affect the conclusions reached by the Panel.The Panel concludes that O. longicollis is appropriate for evaluation of pest risk management options for the endangered areas of French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique and Réunion and thus potentially eligible for addition to the list of harmful organisms in Directive 2000/29/EC.

Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Plant Health was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on 30 pest risk assessments made by France on organisms which are considered by France as harmful in four French overseas departments, i.e. French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique and Réunion. In particular, the Panel was asked whether these organisms can be considered as harmful organisms for the endangered area of the above departments, in the meaning of the definition mentioned in Article 2.1.(e) of Directive 2000/29/EC and thus potentially eligible for addition to the list of harmful organisms in Directive 2000/29/EC.This document presents the opinion of the Panel on Plant Health on the simplified[2]Guadeloupe, Martinique and Réunion considered as endangered area. pest risk assessment conducted by France on Erionota thrax L. with French Guiana,Erionota thrax (L.) (Insecta: Lepidoptera: Hesperiidae), the palm redeye, banana skipper or banana leafroller, is a pest of bananas, Musa textilis, and some other Zingiberales. Larvae feed on leaves of cultivated and wild banana plants. In its native areas, the defoliation of banana plants is usually very low, but in non-native areas it can be serious during outbreaks and favourable weather conditions. Complete defoliation has been reported sporadically.The Panel examined the risk assessment in detail, and considered the accuracy and quality of the information provided and methods applied for pest risk assessment purposes. It came to the conclusion that the information material provided in the document could be considerably improved. The review was based on the principles of the International Standard on Phytosanitary Measures ISPM No. 11[3]: Pest risk analysis for quarantine pests including analysis of environmental risks and living modified organisms (2004) by the International Plant Protection Convention (FAO, 2007b).The Panel concluded that it is not possible to conduct a risk assessment on E. thrax alone because of uncertainties with its taxonomy and the general confusion in the literature about Erionota spp. The document is therefore, in effect, not a risk assessment just for E. thrax but also for three other closely related Erionota spp. (E. torus, E. hiraca, and E. surprisa). The judgements made by the Panel – if not specified otherwise – thus refer to all four of these closely related Erionota spp.On this basis, the Panel, in general, accepts the conclusions in the French document. The Panel agrees that Erionota spp. have a low probability of entry for the French Guiana, Guadeloupe and Martinique due to the long distance from its current area of distribution and the existing phytosanitary legislation. However, the probability of Erionota spp. gaining entry to French Guiana, Guadeloupe and Martinique would be moderate if the current regulations governing imports of banana material were lifted. The probability of entry for Réunion is higher due to its proximity to Mauritius where Erionota spp. are present. The probability of Erionota sppthe areas where the 4 species currently occur. . establishing in the PRA area[4] after entry is high, since host plants are grown in the PRA area and the climatic conditions are similar toThe Erionota spp. can have severe impacts on banana in certain situations. However, the conclusion of the French document that the economic impact would be “extremely high” for Guadeloupe and Martinique and “fairly high” for French Guiana and Réunion cannot be supported by the Panel on the basis of the information provided in the pest risk assessment or from the information available in the scientific literature. Based on the information available, the Panel concludes that the impact of Erionota spp. would be low for French Guiana and Réunion and moderate for the Guadeloupe and Martinique. However, without additional information on the pest and the impacts it causes in Mauritius, the risk posed to Réunion and the other French overseas departments cannot be reliably clarified.The Panel concludes that (a) the probability of entry is low for French Guiana, Guadeloupe and Martinique, and higher for Réunion, (b) the probability of establishment is high for all the French overseas departments, and (c) the potential for economic damage is low for French Guiana and Réunion and moderate for Guadeloupe and Martinique.The Panel, based on the information provided in the document and on additional literature consulted, concludes that E. thrax and the three other closely related Erionota spp. are appropriate for evaluation of pest risk management options for the endangered areas of French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique and Réunion and thus potentially eligible for addition to the list of harmful organisms in Directive 2000/29/EC.

Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Scientific Panel on Plant Heath was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on two pest risk analyses made by the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO) on invasive alien plants (American skunk cabbage and floating pennywort). The Panel was in particular asked a) whether these organisms can be considered as harmful for the endangered area of the European Community and thus potentially eligible for addition to the list of harmful organisms in the plant health Directive 2000/29/EC, and b) whether the identified management options are appropriate through an evaluation of their efficacy, feasibility and impact.This document presents the opinion of the Panel on Plant Health on the pest risk analysis made by EPPO on Hydrocotyle ranunculoides L. f.H. ranunculoides is a stoloniferous, perennial, aquatic plant, known as floating pennywort. It is native to North America, where it is considered endangered in some areas, but has been introduced and subsequently naturalised in water bodies within a number of European countries, including Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, and United Kingdom (UK). It is reported as invasive in Belgium, the Netherlands and the UK, forming dense mats of vegetation in still and slow-flowing water courses. An important pathway of entry and spread is the intentional introduction of H. ranunculoides through the trade in aquatic plants.H. ranunculoides is considered an invasive alien plant by EPPO and is included on the EPPO Action List (pests which EPPO recommend member countries to consider for inclusion in their phytosanitary regulations), with the entire EPPO region considered an endangered area.In delivering this opinion the Panel conducted a detailed review of the EPPO pest risk analysis provided, using the internationally accepted standard for pest risk analysis for quarantine pests ISPM No 11.The Panel concluded from the available information that H. ranunculoides is invasive, but considered that the key factors that determine invasive behaviour are not identified in the document. Damage is documented only for a limited area of the EC, in the Netherlands and the UK. Further analysis of the factors contributing to invasive behaviour, particularly the effect of water quality, and high nutrient levels (eutrophy), is required in order to confirm the level of risk posed by H. ranunculoides and identify more clearly the areas of the Community at risk.More detailed examination of pathways, including the scenarios by which the trade in H. ranunculoides can lead to the presence of the plant in natural or semi-natural water bodies is also required before the efficacy, feasibility and impact of risk management options can be evaluated.In order to confirm the risk posed to the Community and enable further consideration of management options, the Panel recommends the provision of further data on:(a) the effect of abiotic factors on the establishment, development, reproduction, survival and dispersal of the plant in both the native and introduced range;(b) the population dynamics of the plant in areas where it is present but not invasive;(c) the volume of trade in H. ranunculoides as an ornamental plant entering and moving within the EC, including further analysis of the means by which it can reach natural water bodies;(d) the nature and occurrence of areas within the EC where conditions are favourable to invasive behaviour of the plant. This could be assisted by the combined use of a geographic information system (GIS), such as the Water Information System for Europe (WISE) and more detailed information of the factors, including eutrophication, which favour the establishment of H. ranunculoides;(e) the environmental damage caused by the plant in areas where it is invasive.

Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Plant Heath was asked to issue a scientific opinion on the pest risk assessment made by Lithuania on Ambrosia spp., requested by Lithuania to be inserted as a harmful organism in point c of section II, part A of Annex I to the Council Directive 2000/29/EC.The Lithuanian risk assessment relates to three species of the genus Ambrosia: A. artemisiifolia L. (common ragweed), A. trifida L. (giant ragweed) and A. psilostachya DC (perennial ragweed). These plants are native to North America and are considered invasive both in their native area and in other parts of the world, including several countries in Europe. Ambrosia spp. are of particular public concern due to the allergenic properties of their pollen.The Panel examined in detail the three documents provided by Lithuania. The review evaluated the accuracy and relevance of data, the information provided for pest risk assessment purposes, the quality and quantity of data considered, and the quality of methods applied to conduct the risk assessment. The review was based on the principles and terminology of the International Standard on Phytosanitary Measures ISPM No. 11: Pest risk analysis for quarantine pests including analysis of environmental risks and living modified organisms (2004) by the International Plant Protection Convention (FAO IPPC, 2006).With regard to the criteria of a quarantine pest, the Panel on Plant Health concludes that the Lithuanian documents do not provide sufficient evidence to assess on a scientifically sound basis whether Ambrosia spp. qualify as quarantine pests for Lithuania.The most important shortcomings are:* The pest of phytosanitary concern for Lithuania has been identified at a genus level. The genus Ambrosia includes too many species to be considered together, even if only three species A. artemisiifolia, A. trifida and A. psilostachya are deemed to pose a threat. Biological and ecological data clearly indicate that each of the three species would require its own or a better structured pest risk assessment clearly discriminating among the species of concern.* The documents clearly state that A. artemisiifolia and A. trifida are present in Lithuania. A. psilostachya is not reported. A table showing the number of plants of A. artemisiifolia in several sites and years is provided. Two maps showing sites infested with A. artemisiifolia and A. trifida in Lithuania are provided but without any date. Detailed information on the abundance of A. artemisiifolia and A. trifida over the years is necessary. Moreover, more specific details are needed on their habitats and their status (established or not).* Data on the different introduction pathways need to be revised. The current distribution for each of the three species outside Lithuania, especially in countries that are important trading partners of Lithuania, should be added to identify in more detail the risk for further introduction. More accurate data are required on the assessed pathways of the three species; alternative pathways (via bird seed, spreading by soil, machinery and tyres) should also be considered.* The impacts on crop yields and on human health are discussed in two documents provided by Lithuania, but it is not possible to conclude from these documents that Ambrosia spp. would be of potential economic importance for Lithuania, i.e. through direct or indirect effects on cultivated plants in agriculture, uncultivated/unmanaged plants, wild flora, habitats or ecosystem. Impacts on human health are also not given sufficient attention.* The endangered area is not defined.However, there is scientific evidence both in the provided document and the existing literature that Ambrosia spp. can cause detrimental impacts on human health due to their allergenic properties. The control of Ambrosia spp. is difficult in certain crops and in non cultivated areas.The Panel on Plant Health therefore recommends that the pest risk assessment should be revised and updated. As stated above, it should be undertaken for each of the species of concern. In order to assess the risks related to each Ambrosia spp., additional information and amendments would be needed regarding the following aspects:* current distribution and abundance in Lithuania of the species already present A. artemisiifolia and A. trifida (providing references and/or official surveys data), including listing of habitats and the status (established or not);* current distribution of Ambrosia spp. outside Lithuania, to identify in more detail the risk of further introduction into the country;* more accurate data on the pathways already assessed; consideration of alternative pathways (bird seed, spreading by soil, machinery and tyres);* more accurate assessment of the potential for establishment in Lithuania (including photoperiod and climatic conditions, and other abiotic factors);* update on the efficacy of control measures;* effects on crop yield for the main crops. This is important as the levels of infestation with Ambrosia spp. and the efficiency of the methods of control are not the same for all crops;* more accurate assessment of potential economic importance (including impacts on human health and other social impacts);* identification of the endangered area;* discussion of uncertainties on all aspects of the pest risk assessment.

Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Plant Heath was asked to issue a scientific opinion on the pest risk assessment made by Poland on Ambrosia spp., requested by Poland to be inserted as a harmful organism in point c of section II, part A of Annex I to the Council Directive 2000/29/EC.The Polish risk assessment relates to three species of the genus Ambrosia: A. artemisiifolia L. (common ragweed), A. trifida L. (giant ragweed) and A. psilostachya DC (perennial ragweed). These plants are native to North America and are considered invasive both in their native area and in other parts of the world, including several countries in Europe. Ambrosia spp. are of particular public concern due to the allergenic properties of their pollen.The Panel examined in detail the document provided by Poland. The review evaluated the accuracy and relevance of data, the information provided for pest risk assessment purposes, the quality and quantity of data considered, and the quality of methods applied to conduct the risk assessment. The review was based on the principles and terminology of the International Standard on Phytosanitary Measures ISPM No. 11: Pest risk analysis for quarantine pests including analysis of environmental risks and living modified organisms (2004) by the International Plant Protection Convention (FAO IPPC, 2006).With regard to the criteria of a quarantine pest, the Panel on Plant Health concludes that the Polish document does not provide sufficient evidence to assess on a scientifically sound basis whether Ambrosia spp. qualify as quarantine pests for Poland.The most important shortcomings are:- The pest of phytosanitary concern for Poland has been identified at a genus level. The genus Ambrosia includes too many species to be considered together, even if only three species A. artemisiifolia, A. trifida and A. psilostachya are deemed to pose a threat. Biological and ecological data clearly indicate that each of the three species would require its own or a better structured pest risk assessment clearly discriminating among the species of concern.- The document clearly states that Ambrosia spp. are present in Poland. Detailed information on the current distribution and the abundance in Poland of each of the three Ambrosia species is necessary. Moreover, more species-specific details are needed on their habitats, the locations of occurrence and their status (established or not).- Data on the different introduction pathways need to be revised. The current distribution for each of the three species outside Poland, especially in countries that are important trading partners of Poland, should be added to identify in more detail the risk for further introduction. More accurate data are required on the assessed pathways of the three species; alternative pathways (via bird seed, spreading by soil, machinery and tyres) should also be considered.- It is not possible to conclude from the document whether Ambrosia spp. would be of potential economic importance for Poland, i.e. through direct or indirect effects on cultivated plants in agriculture, uncultivated/unmanaged plants, wild flora, habitats or ecosystems. Impacts on human health are also not given sufficient attention.- The endangered area is not defined.However, there is scientific evidence both in the provided document and the existing literature that Ambrosia spp. can cause detrimental impacts on human health due to their allergenic properties. The control of Ambrosia spp. is difficult in certain crops and in non-cultivated areas.The Panel on Plant Health therefore recommends that the pest risk assessment should be revised and updated. As stated above, it should be undertaken for each of the species of concern. In order to assess the risks related to each Ambrosia spp., additional information and amendments would be needed regarding the following aspects:- current distribution and abundance in Poland (providing references and/or official surveys data), including listing of habitats, the locations and the status (established or not);- current distribution outside Poland, to identify in more detail the risk of further introduction into the country;- more accurate data on the pathways already assessed; consideration of alternative pathways (bird seed, spreading by soil, machinery and tyres);- more accurate assessment of the potential for establishment in Poland (including photoperiod and climatic conditions, and other abiotic factors);- update on the efficacy of control measures;- effects on crop yield, at least for the main crops. This is important as the levels of infestation with Ambrosia spp. and the efficiency of the methods of control are not the same for all crops;- potential economic importance (including impacts on human health and other social impacts);- identification of the endangered area;- discussion of uncertainties on all aspects of the pest risk assessment.

The European Commission requested EFSA to provide a scientific opinion on the Pest Risk Analysis (PRA) made by Spain on Bactrocera zonata, a fruit fly listed in the quarantine list of the Community plant health legislation (Council Directive 2000/29/EC) and in particular to consider the threats posed by Bactrocera zonata to the whole Community, to identify the fruit species at risk and to determine whether the management measures proposed are appropriate.Bactrocera zonata (Saunders), the peach fruit fly, attacks ripe fruit of many species, especially mango, peach and guava, rendering them inedible. It is common in many tropical and sub-tropical countries of Asia, especially the Indian sub-continent, and has recently invaded Egypt. It is absent from the European Community and listed in Annex I Part A Section I of the Council Directive 2000/29/EC under the synonym Dacus zonatus as a harmful organism whose introduction into, and spread within, all member states shall be banned. In 2005, Spain detected Bactrocera larvae, assumed to be B. zonata, in two consignments of citrus from Egypt and conducted a pest risk assessment and an analysis of risk management options following the 1997 version of the EPPO pest risk analysis (PRA) scheme. The Spanish PRA concluded that B. zonata poses a serious threat to fruit production in the Mediterranean countries of Europe and that appropriate management measures should include phytosanitary treatments before export, targeted entry inspections and the prohibition of fruit carried by passengers.The EFSA Scientific Panel on Plant Health conducted a detailed review of the Spanish PRA and concluded that the PRA does provide sufficient evidence to support the listing of B. zonata in Annex I Part A Section I of the Council Directive 2000/29/EC. The additional work required to determine the threat to the whole community, identify the fruit species at greatest risk and select the most appropriate management options is outlined.The Panel found that, although the Spanish pest risk assessment could be improved, it did provide sufficient evidence to justify an analysis of risk management options. It confirmed that B. zonata is capable of entering, establishing, spreading and causing significant impacts on fruit production in southern member states. However, the pest risk assessment could be improved, principally by (a) clearly defining the PRA area, (b) updating, extending and analysing data on the different pathways B. zonata could enter the Community, (c) conducting a detailed assessment of the climatic suitability of the EC for B. zonata, (d) defining which member states and areas are most endangered, (e) identifying the fruit species that are most at risk, (f) further exploring the potential impacts on export markets and (g) summarising the key uncertainties.The Spanish analysis of risk management options could also be enhanced since it (i) follows an old EPPO standard that contains a number of ambiguities and inconsistencies, (ii) does not analyse a key pathway (fresh fruit carried by passengers) in detail, (iii) rejects or fails to recognise several management options that, while insufficient on their own, could, when combined with others, form part of a systems approach, (iv) overlooks measures, such as surveillance trapping, the male annihilation technique and insecticides, that can be very effective in the importing country and (v) does not determine the extent to which the measures identified interfere with trade, are cost-effective and have no undesirable social or environmental consequences.

In this document, the PLH Panel has responded to a question from the European Commission DG SANCO requesting an opinion on the “Evaluation of asymptomatic citrus fruit as a pathway for the introduction of citrus canker disease” made by the US Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), and, in particular, on its conclusion that asymptomatic citrus fruit is an unlikely pathway for the spread of the disease. Citrus canker is an economically significant plant disease caused by the bacterium Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. citri (Xac) affecting most of the citrus growing areas in the world. Rigorous phytosanitary measures have insured that some areas, including Europe, are still free of the disease. These include the use of systems approaches. The current systems approach for the trade of citrus fruit requires that fruit are coming from a disease-free area surrounded by a non-export buffer zone. The APHIS document proposes to modify the systems approach so that asymptomatic fruit coming from infected/contaminated areas are eligible for trade. The APHIS document describes the biology of Xac, the epidemiology of the citrus canker disease and the spread potential of the pathogen. The data were then used to evaluate the phytosanitary evidence regarding asymptomatic fruit as a pathway for the introduction of the disease into a new area. Five “Events” were identified in the APHIS document as necessary for the disease to be introduced into a new area through commercial fruit: Event 1: Infected/contaminated fruit is harvested. Event 2: Inoculum on infected/contaminated fruit survives the packing/treatment process. Event 3: Inoculum on infected/contaminated fruit survives shipment. Event 4: Infected/contaminated fruit go to a suitable area with conditions for infection. Event 5: Inoculum from infected/contaminated fruit encounters a suitable host and is able to incite disease. The PLH panel agreed with the method of analysis presented in the APHIS document, but not with the conclusion reached. The APHIS document analyses the five events that must occur for successful introduction and proposes a new systems approach to prevent entry and establishment. However, key arguments provided in the APHIS document are not supported by scientifically sound evidence: major events are not analysed on the basis of quantitative data, important statements are not always supported by adequate scientific references, and references are frequently reported in a way which do not correctly reflect the results and conclusions of the cited paper. Therefore, since no new or additional studies are presented the analysis of the evidence provided in the document does not justify a change in the regulations. None of the preventative measures in the systems approach proposed by APHIS are shown to give effective control of Xac. The Panel concluded that, where an initial inoculum load exists, the transmission of Xac in the scheme proposed by APHIS is more likely than with the current systems approach.