Commodity risk assessment of black pine (Pinus thunbergii Parl.) bonsai from Japan
2019; Wiley; Volume: 17; Issue: 5 Linguagem: Inglês
10.2903/j.efsa.2019.5667
ISSN1831-4732
AutoresClaude Bragard, Katharina Dehnen‐Schmutz, Francesco Di Serio, Paolo Gonthier, Marie‐Agnès Jacques, Josep Anton Jaques Miret, Annemarie Fejer Justesen, Alan MacLeod, Christer Sven Magnusson, Panagiotis Milonas, Juan A Navas‐Cortés, Stephen Parnell, Philippe Lucien Reignault, Hans‐Hermann Thulke, Wopke Van der Werf, Antonio Vicent Civera, Jonathan Yuen, Lucia Zappalà, Andrea Battisti, Anna Maria Vettraino, Renata Leuschner, Olaf Mosbach‐Schulz, Rosace Maria Chiara, Roel Potting,
Tópico(s)Insect-Plant Interactions and Control
ResumoEFSA JournalVolume 17, Issue 5 e05667 Scientific OpinionOpen Access Commodity risk assessment of black pine (Pinus thunbergii Parl.) bonsai from Japan EFSA Panel on Plant Health (EFSA PLH Panel), EFSA Panel on Plant Health (EFSA PLH Panel)Search for more papers by this authorClaude Bragard, Claude BragardSearch for more papers by this authorKatharina Dehnen-Schmutz, Katharina Dehnen-SchmutzSearch for more papers by this authorFrancesco Di Serio, Francesco Di SerioSearch for more papers by this authorPaolo Gonthier, Paolo GonthierSearch for more papers by this authorMarie-Agnès Jacques, Marie-Agnès JacquesSearch for more papers by this authorJosep Anton Jaques Miret, Josep Anton Jaques MiretSearch for more papers by this authorAnnemarie Fejer Justesen, Annemarie Fejer JustesenSearch for more papers by this authorAlan MacLeod, Alan MacLeodSearch for more papers by this authorChrister Sven Magnusson, Christer Sven MagnussonSearch for more papers by this authorPanagiotis Milonas, Panagiotis MilonasSearch for more papers by this authorJuan A Navas-Cortes, Juan A Navas-CortesSearch for more papers by this authorStephen Parnell, Stephen ParnellSearch for more papers by this authorPhilippe Lucien Reignault, Philippe Lucien ReignaultSearch for more papers by this authorHans-Hermann Thulke, Hans-Hermann ThulkeSearch for more papers by this authorWopke Van der Werf, Wopke Van der WerfSearch for more papers by this authorAntonio Vicent Civera, Antonio Vicent CiveraSearch for more papers by this authorJonathan Yuen, Jonathan YuenSearch for more papers by this authorLucia Zappalà, Lucia ZappalàSearch for more papers by this authorAndrea Battisti, Andrea BattistiSearch for more papers by this authorAnna Maria Vettraino, Anna Maria VettrainoSearch for more papers by this authorRenata Leuschner, Renata LeuschnerSearch for more papers by this authorOlaf Mosbach-Schulz, Olaf Mosbach-SchulzSearch for more papers by this authorMaria Chiara Rosace, Maria Chiara RosaceSearch for more papers by this authorRoel Potting, Roel PottingSearch for more papers by this author EFSA Panel on Plant Health (EFSA PLH Panel), EFSA Panel on Plant Health (EFSA PLH Panel)Search for more papers by this authorClaude Bragard, Claude BragardSearch for more papers by this authorKatharina Dehnen-Schmutz, Katharina Dehnen-SchmutzSearch for more papers by this authorFrancesco Di Serio, Francesco Di SerioSearch for more papers by this authorPaolo Gonthier, Paolo GonthierSearch for more papers by this authorMarie-Agnès Jacques, Marie-Agnès JacquesSearch for more papers by this authorJosep Anton Jaques Miret, Josep Anton Jaques MiretSearch for more papers by this authorAnnemarie Fejer Justesen, Annemarie Fejer JustesenSearch for more papers by this authorAlan MacLeod, Alan MacLeodSearch for more papers by this authorChrister Sven Magnusson, Christer Sven MagnussonSearch for more papers by this authorPanagiotis Milonas, Panagiotis MilonasSearch for more papers by this authorJuan A Navas-Cortes, Juan A Navas-CortesSearch for more papers by this authorStephen Parnell, Stephen ParnellSearch for more papers by this authorPhilippe Lucien Reignault, Philippe Lucien ReignaultSearch for more papers by this authorHans-Hermann Thulke, Hans-Hermann ThulkeSearch for more papers by this authorWopke Van der Werf, Wopke Van der WerfSearch for more papers by this authorAntonio Vicent Civera, Antonio Vicent CiveraSearch for more papers by this authorJonathan Yuen, Jonathan YuenSearch for more papers by this authorLucia Zappalà, Lucia ZappalàSearch for more papers by this authorAndrea Battisti, Andrea BattistiSearch for more papers by this authorAnna Maria Vettraino, Anna Maria VettrainoSearch for more papers by this authorRenata Leuschner, Renata LeuschnerSearch for more papers by this authorOlaf Mosbach-Schulz, Olaf Mosbach-SchulzSearch for more papers by this authorMaria Chiara Rosace, Maria Chiara RosaceSearch for more papers by this authorRoel Potting, Roel PottingSearch for more papers by this author First published: 15 May 2019 https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2019.5667Citations: 13 Correspondence: alpha@efsa.europa.eu Requestor: European Commission Question number: EFSA-Q-2017-00715 Panel members: Claude Bragard, Katharina Dehnen-Schmutz, Francesco Di Serio, Paolo Gonthier, Marie-Agnès Jacques, Josep Anton Jaques Miret, Anne Marie Fejer Justesen, Alan MacLeod, Christer Sven Magnusson, Panagiotis Milonas, Juan A Navas-Cortes, Stephen Parnell, Roel Potting, Philippe L Reignault, Hans-Hermann Thulke, Wopke Van der Werf, Antonio Vicent, Jonathan Yuen, Lucia Zappalà. Acknowledgements: The EFSA Panel on Plant Health wishes to thank Eugen Christoph for the support provided during the expert knowledge elicitation, Svetla Kozelska for the support during the whole process of the opinion development and Emanuela Tacci for the administrative and technical support provided to this opinion. Adopted: 28 March 2019 AboutSectionsPDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Abstract The EFSA Panel on Plant health was requested to deliver a scientific opinion on how far the existing requirements for the bonsai pine species subject to derogation in Commission Decision 2002/887/EC would cover all plant health risks from black pine (Pinus thunbergii Parl.) bonsai (the commodity defined in the EU legislation as naturally or artificially dwarfed plants) imported from Japan, taking into account the available scientific information, including the technical information provided by Japan. The relevance of an EU-regulated pest for this opinion was based on: (a) evidence of the presence of the pest in Japan; (b) evidence that P. thunbergii is a host of the pest and (c) evidence that the pest can be associated with the commodity. Sixteen pests that fulfilled all three criteria were selected for further evaluation. The relevance of other pests present in Japan (not regulated in the EU) for this opinion was based on (i) evidence of the absence of the pest in the EU; (ii) evidence that P. thunbergii is a host of the pest; (iii) evidence that the pest can be associated with the commodity and (iv) evidence that the pest may have an impact in the EU. Three pests fulfilled all four criteria and were selected for further evaluation (Crisicoccus pini, Sirex nitobei and Urocerus japonicus). For the selected 19 pests, the risk mitigation measures proposed in the technical dossier were evaluated. Limiting factors on the effectiveness of the measures were documented. For each of the 19 pests, an expert judgement is given on the likelihood of pest freedom taking into consideration the risk mitigation measures acting on the pest, including any uncertainties. For all evaluated pests, the median likelihood of the pest freedom is 99.5% or higher and within the 90% uncertainty range it is 99% or higher. Summary At the request of the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Plant Health (hereafter referred to as 'the Panel') was asked to deliver its scientific opinion on a technical file submitted to the European Commission by the Japanese authorities in support of a request to lift the export ban on Pinus thunbergii to the European Union (EU). In particular, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) was requested to determine whether the proposed measures for bonsai of P. thunbergii (the commodity defined in the EU legislation as naturally or artificially dwarfed plants) included in the Japanese derogation request provide a level of protection comparable to those stipulated in Commission Decision 2002/887/EC1 for bonsai of Pinus parviflora from Japan. The Panel examined the technical file following the EFSA Guidance on commodity risk assessment for the evaluation of high risk plant dossiers (EFSA PLH Panel, 2019). The relevance of an EU-regulated pest for the purposes of this opinion was based on: (a) evidence of the presence of the pest in Japan; (b) evidence that P. thunbergii is a host of the pest and (c) evidence for the likelihood that one or more life stages of the pest can be associated with the commodity. Pests that fulfilled all three criteria were selected for further evaluation. Of the 43 EU-regulated species evaluated, 28 species are present in Japan and of these 16 pest species were considered to be relevant for further assessment. The relevance of other pests present in Japan (not regulated in the EU) for the purposes of this opinion was based on (i) evidence of the absence of the pest in the EU; (ii) evidence that P. thunbergii is a host of the pest; (iii) evidence for the likelihood that one or more life stages of the pest can be associated with the specified commodity and (iv) evidence for the likelihood that the pest may have an impact in the EU. Pests that fulfilled all four criteria were selected for further evaluation. Of the 169 species (not regulated in the EU), three non-regulated pests (Crisicoccus pini, Sirex nitobei and Urocerus japonicus) were thus selected. For the 19 relevant pests identified, the risk mitigation measures proposed in the technical dossier were evaluated. For each pest, the Panel evaluated the possibility that the pest could be present in a bonsai nursery by evaluating the possibility that bonsai in the export nursery are infested either by: (a) introduction of the pest (e.g. insects, spores) from the environment of the nursery; (b) introduction of infested d plants from other nurseries; or (c) introduction of the pest through cultural practices in the nursery (e.g. infested growing media or water). With the information provided by Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries of the Government of Japan (hereafter referred to as 'MAFF'), the Panel made an overview of all the risk mitigation measures that are proposed to be applied in export nurseries. For each pest, the relevant risk mitigation measures acting on the pest were identified. Limiting factors on the effectiveness of the measure were documented. For each of the 19 relevant pests identified, an expert judgement is given for the likelihood of pest freedom, taking into consideration the risk mitigation measures acting on the pest. For all evaluated pests, the median likelihood of the pest freedom is 99.5% or higher and within the 90% uncertainty range it is 99% or higher. Apart from the 19 evaluated pests, there are 16 species listed for which the current available evidence provides no reason to select them for further evaluation in this opinion. However, there is limited information available for these 16 species that belong to a genus with pests with reported impact. Therefore, a literature monitoring for these pests is suggested and if more information becomes available this could trigger a re-evaluation of this opinion. 1 Introduction 1.1 Background as provided by the European Commission Council Directive 2000/29/EC2 lays down the phytosanitary provisions and control checks to be carried out at the place of origin on plant products destined for the Union or to be moved within the Union. Annex III A prohibits the introduction of Pinus plants, originating in non-EU countries. In 2002, Japan was granted a derogation from Art. 4(1) of Council Directive 2000/29/EC with regards to prohibitions for artificially dwarfed plants of Chamaecyparis Spach, Juniperus L., Pinus L., other than fruits and seeds (Commission Decision 2002/887/EC3). Japan has made a request for lifting the export ban of artificially dwarfed Japanese black pine (Pinus thunbergii Parl.), for which Japan claims similar import requirements into the EU, as those in Commission Decision 2002/887/EC. Recently, Japan provided supplementary technical information to support this request. 1.2 Terms of reference as provided by the European Commission EFSA is requested, pursuant to Article 29 of Regulation (EC) No 178/20024, to provide a scientific opinion. Taking into account the available scientific information, including the technical information provided by Japan, EFSA is requested to consider how far the existing requirements for the bonsai pine species subject to derogation in Commission Decision 2002/887/EC would cover all plant health risks from black pine bonsai Pinus thunbergii Parl. imported from Japan. 1.3 Interpretation of the terms of reference The EFSA Panel on Plant Health (hereafter referred to as 'the Panel') will conduct a commodity risk assessment of bonsai of P. thunbergii from Japan based on the Guidance on commodity risk assessment for the evaluation of high-risk plant dossiers (EFSA PLH Panel, 2019). The Panel will evaluate whether the measures that are in place for bonsai of Pinus parviflora (see Appendix A) give the same level of protection for harmful organisms that can be present on bonsai of P. thunbergii and assess the potential additional risks associated with the import of bonsai of P. thunbergii. In its evaluation, the Panel will: Check whether the provided information in the technical dossier is sufficient to conduct a commodity risk assessment. If necessary, additional information may be requested from the Japanese authorities (Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries of the Government of Japan (MAFF)). Select the relevant EU-regulated pests and other pests present in Japan and associated with bonsai of P. thunbergii. Evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed measures (as specified by MAFF) for the relevant organisms on bonsai of P. thunbergii. Risk management decisions are not within EFSA's remit. Therefore, the Panel will provide a rating for the likelihood of pest freedom for each relevant pest given the risk mitigation measures proposed by MAFF. 2 Data and methodologies 2.1 Data For a thorough evaluation of how far the existing requirements for the bonsai pine species subject to derogation in Commission Decision 2002/887/EC would cover all plant health risks from black pine (P. thunbergii Parl.) bonsai imported from Japan, the Panel considered all the data and information provided by MAFF to support a request for derogation from the EU import requirements for black pine bonsai (hereafter called 'the Dossier'). The Dossier is managed by EFSA. The structure and overview of the Dossier is shown in Table 1. The number of the relevant section will be indicated in the opinion when referring to a specific part of the Dossier. Table 1. Structure and overview of the Dossier Dossier section Overview of contents Filename 1.0 Initial request by Japan COM-17-09-xx-ARES xxxx Annex1-2016 Letter+Annex.pdf 1.1 Initial Letter to the European Commission COM-17-09-xx-ARES xxxx Annex1-2016 Letter+Annex.pdf 1.2 Annex 1 – Results of survey for needle rust COM-17-09-xx-ARES xxxx Annex1-2016 Letter+Annex.pdf 1.3 Cultivation history of Kagawa Prefecture COM-17-09-xx-ARES xxxx Annex1-2016 Letter+Annex.pdf 1.4 Bonsai cultivation and treatment scheme COM-17-09-xx-ARES xxxx Annex1-2016 Letter+Annex.pdf 2.0 Annex with table with detailed organism information COM-17-09-xx-ARES xxxx Annex2-17-08-03 Letter+Annex.pdf 3.0 Additional information provided by Japan 3.1 Letter providing additional information Letter_No.30/shouan/2434_Additiional info on P. thunbergii.pdf 3.2 Answers to specific questions posed by EFSA, 65 pp. Additional information Pinus thunbergii.pdf 3.3 Evaluation table of 32 EU-regulated pests, 3 pp. Attachment 2 (for A.2).pdf 3.4 Evaluation table of 189 non-regulated pests, 12 pp. Attachment 3 (for A.3).pdf 3.5 Pests (60) associated with Pinus thunbergii, 9 pp. Attachment 4 (for A.4).pdf 3.6 Additional information on six pests present in the EU, 4 pp. Attachment 5.1 (for B.6).pdf 3.7 Pictures of symptoms, 12 pp. Attachment 5.2(for B.6).pdf 3.8 Climate information, 2 pp. Attachment 6 (for B.6).pdf 3.9 Information on soil treatment and packing procedures, 3 pp. Attachment 7 (for C.12).pdf 3.10 Pesticide registration information, 14 × 8 pp. Attachment 8 (for C.15).pdf 3.11 Overview table of pesticide treatment and relevant organisms Attachment 9 (for C.16).pdf 4.0 Documents related to hearing on 9 November 2018 4.1 Additional questions by EFSA 2018.10.25_EFSA_request_for_further_information.pdf 4.2 Response from Japan to questions by EFSA Additional information regarding request.pdf 4.3 Vegetation maps of area surrounding bonsai nurseries Attachments to Additional information_9NOV2018.pdf 4.4 Additional information requested during hearing, 7 pp. Letter from MAFF_14 Dec 2018_.pdf 4.5. Information on efficacy tests for soil nematodes, 13 + 11 pp. Attachment1-1_Whole translation of efficacy test.pdf Attachment1-2_original document of efficacy test.pdf 4.6. Table for corrected pest density index, 2 pp. Attachment2_Table for corrected pest density index.xlsx 4.7 Paper Takeda et al. (2015), 7 pp. Attachment3_Ai takeda 2015.pdf 4.8. Observation report by Kagawa Prefecture, 2 pp. Attachment4_Observation report by Kagawa prefecture.pdf 4.9. Approved minutes of the hearing with Japanese experts, 11 pp. Attachment5_10 wg_DRAFT_minutes_MAFF amended 1212.docx The data and supporting information provided by MAFF formed the basis of the commodity risk assessment. The following are the main data sources used by MAFF to compile the requested information: Agricultural Insect Pests in Japan (Book, in Japanese) Umeya and Okada ( 2003 ) Regarding pests occurring in Japan, this widely covers not only insects (Insecta), but also mites (Arachnida), nematodes (Nematoda), and snails and slugs (Gastropoda). Database 'Pests and weeds' (in Japanese) Rural Culture Association Japan (online) This is a database managed by the Rural Culture Association of Japan to supplement the book Agricultural Insect Pests in Japan with new knowledge acquired after 2003. This database also provides pest occurrence forecasting information and warnings released by pest control stations in each prefecture. Forest Insects (Book, in Japanese) Kobayashi and Taketani ( 1994 ) Regarding insects in forests, this exhaustively covers pests living in Japan including secondary insects. The ecology of each pest is described based on domestic and foreign research and literature. It was written by the 60 authors from the Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute of MAFF (currently the Forest Research and Management Organization) and professors of domestic universities. This made it possible to check the information about insects in forests in addition to Agricultural Insect Pests in Japan. Colour atlas of nursery stock pests in Japan (Book, in Japanese) Rural Culture Association Japan ( 2008 ) This is an encyclopaedia, edited by the Rural Culture Association Japan, of pests of nursery stock and the method for management and diagnosis for these pests. The authors are researchers at plant protection stations or agricultural research and development institutes in the prefectures who are experienced in the production field and researchers of forestry and forest research and management organisation. This encyclopaedia has more information about pest management and diagnosis and colour pictures of pests while it has less information regarding taxonomic data and covers fewer pests than sources 1–3. Database 'New occurrence notification of the area-wide pest surveillance' (in Japanese) MAFF (online) Surveillance information from Japan, based on the 'pest occurrence forecasting system' in all prefectures. In this programme, information is provided as a 'new occurrence notification' when a pest which has not occurred before is detected in fields. Database of Plant Diseases in Japan. NARO Genebank NARO (online) This is a database in which information on domestic plant pathogens is exhaustively collected. The Phytopathological Society of Japan deliberates on and determines Japanese disease names, pathogen names, etc., based on the literature, mainly for plant diseases whose occurrence has been reported. Diseases confirmed only by artificial inoculation may also be described after appropriate deliberation. Plant Diseases in Japan (Book, in Japanese) Kishi (1998) This was written by 328 authors who are mainly researchers in universities and national or prefectural public research and development institutes. With respect to plant diseases present or occurring in Japan, viroid, phytoplasma, bacteria and fungi are exhaustively recorded with an explanation on ecology and symptoms. To verify and complement which pests are potentially associated with Pinus spp. and P. thunbergii in Japan other resources were consulted by the Panel as indicated below. USDA Fungal database USDA (online) The United States National Fungus Collections Laboratory maintains several fungal databases that are continuously updated. CABI Crop Protection Compendium CABI (online_a) The Crop Protection Compendium is an encyclopaedic resource that brings together a wide range of different types of science-based information on all aspects of crop protection. It comprises detailed datasheets on pests, diseases, weeds, host crops and natural enemies that have been sourced from experts, edited by an independent scientific organisation, and enhanced with data from specialist organisations, images, maps, a bibliographic database and full-text articles. New datasheets and datasets continue to be added, datasheets are reviewed and updated, and search and analysis tools are being built. European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization Global Database EPPO (online_a) The EPPO Global Database is maintained by the EPPO Secretariat. The aim of the database is to provide all pest-specific information that has been produced or collected by EPPO. It includes host range data, distribution ranges and pest status information. The European Union Notification System for Plant Health Interceptions – EUROPHYT database EUROPHYT (online) The EUROPHYT database, which collates notifications of interceptions of plants or plant products, that do not comply with EU legislation, was consulted, searching for pest-specific notifications. Other sources When developing the opinion the available scientific information, including previous EFSA opinions on the relevant pests and diseases (see pest sheets in Appendix B), the European Commission's Food and Veterinary Office report on its Mission to Japan (European Commission, 2008), and the relevant literature and legislation (Council Directive 2000/29/EC, Commission Decision 2002/499/EC5, Commission Decision 2002/887/EC and Commission Decision 2007/433/EC6) was taken into account. 2.2 Methodologies When developing the opinion, the Panel followed the EFSA Guidance on commodity risk assessment for the evaluation of high-risk plant dossiers (EFSA PLH Panel, 2019). In the first step, pests associated with the commodity in the country of origin (EU-regulated pests and other pests) that may require risk mitigation measures are identified. For the group of non-EU-regulated pests, a decision has to be made as to whether a pest categorisation is needed to evaluate whether the pest fulfils the criteria for Union quarantine status. In this opinion, relevant pests not regulated in the EU were selected on the basis of evidence for their potential impact for the EU. After step 1, all the relevant pests that may need risk mitigation measures are identified. In the second step, the overall efficacy of the proposed risk mitigation measures for each pest is evaluated. A conclusion on the pest-freedom status of the commodity for each of the relevant pests is achieved and uncertainties are identified. 2.2.1 Commodity data Based on the information provided by MAFF, the characteristics of the commodity were summarised. 2.2.2 Identification of pests potentially associated with the commodity To evaluate the pest risk associated with the importation of bonsai of P. thunbergii from Japan, a pest list was compiled. The pest list is a compilation of all plant pests with actionable regulatory status for the EU that are present in Japan and are associated with the commodity. The compilation is done in two steps. First, the relevance of EU-regulated pests is evaluated (Section 4.1). Second, the relevance of any other plant pests is evaluated (Section 4.2). The pest list is based on information provided in Dossier section 2.0 and Dossier sections 3.2–3.6. 2.2.3 Listing and evaluation of risk mitigation measures All currently used risk mitigation measures were listed and evaluated. When evaluating the potential pest freedom of the commodity, the following types of potential infection sources for bonsai plants in export nurseries and relevant risk mitigation measures (i.e. risk reduction options) were taken into account (see also Figure 1): – pest entry from surrounding areas, – pest entry with new plants, – pest entry or infection by growing practices. The risk reduction options (RROs) proposed by MAFF were evaluated. Figure 1Open in figure viewerPowerPoint General factors taken into account for the estimation of pest freedom All information on the biology, likelihood of entry of the pest to the export nursery and the effect of the measures on the specific pest were summarised in pest sheets for each actionable pest (see Appendix B). To estimate the pest freedom of the commodity a semi-formal expert knowledge elicitation (EKE) was performed following Annex B.8 on semi-formal EKE of the EFSA opinion on the principles and methods behind EFSA's Guidance on Uncertainty Analysis in Scientific Assessment (EFSA Scientific Committee, 2018). The specific question for the semi-formal EKE was defined as follows: 'Taking into account (i) the risk RROs in place in the export nurseries, and (ii) other relevant information, how many of 10,000 bonsai plants will be infested with the relevant pest/pathogen when arriving in the EU (after post-entry quarantine)?'. The EKE question was common to all pests for which the pest freedom of the commodity was estimated. The uncertainties associated to the EKE (expert judgements) on the pest freedom of the commodity for each pest were taken into account and quantified in the probability distribution applying the semi-formal method described in Section 3.5.2 of the EFSA Guidance on quantitative pest risk assessment (EFSA PLH Panel, 2018a). Finally, the results were transformed into the likelihood of pest freedom and the corresponding 90% uncertainty interval was reported. The lower limit of this interval is the lower limit for the one-sided 95% certainty interval of pest freedom: The likelihood of pest freedom is with 95% certainty above this limit. It should be noted that the number of infested consignments potentially entering the EU may be lower than the estimated number of infested plants due to potential clustering of infected plants. The consignment size could vary from a few to several hundred plants. Table 2 shows the likelihood classes and corresponding subjective probability ranges for the evaluation of the probability of pest freedom given the RROs acting on the pest under consideration. Table 2. Likelihood classes and corresponding subjective probability ranges for the evaluation of probability of pest freedom given the risk reduction options acting on the pest under consideration (Adapted from EFSA PLH Panel, 2019) Probability term Probability of pest freedom Explanation of plants that are pest free Explanation of plants that are infested Almost certain 99.95–100% More than 9,995 of 10,000 plants are on average pest free From 0 to 5 of 10,000 plants are on average infested Extremely likely 99.90–99.95% Between 9,990 and 9,995 of 10,000 plants are on average pest free At least 5 (maximum 10) of 10,000 plants are on average infested Very likely 99.5–99.9% Between 995 and 999 of 1,000 plants are on average pest free At least 1 (maximum 5) of 1,000 plants are on average infested Likely 99.0–99.5% Between 990 and 995 of 1,000 plants are on average pest free At least 5 (maximum 10) of 1,000 plants are on average infested Moderate likely 95–99% Between 95 and 99 of 100 plants are on average pest free At least 1 (maximum 5) of 100 plants are on average infested Unlikely 90–95% Between 90 and 95 of 100 plants are on average pest free At least 5 (maximum 10) of 100 plants are on average infested Very unlikely 50–90% Between 5 and 9 of 10 plants are on average pest free At least 1 (maximum 5) of 10 plants are on average infested Extremely unlikely 0–50% Between 0 and 5 of 10 plants are on average pest free At least 5 (maximum 10) of 10 plants are on average infested 3 Commodity data 3.1 Description of the commodity The commodity to be imported is artificially dwarfed plants (bonsai) of P. thunbergii Parl. (Pinaceae). Plants for import are rooted bonsai plants 3–30 years old and potted in disinfected growing media. According to ISPM 36 (FAO, 2016), the commodity can be classified as 'plants for planting – rooted plants in pots'. 3.2 Description of the production areas In 2018, there were 107 export nurseries producing bonsai of P. parviflora for the EU and 18 nurseries producing bonsai of P. thunbergii designated for export to Turkey (see Figure 2 taken from Dossier section 4.2). The major place of production in Japan is the Kagawa Prefecture where 60–80% of the P. thunbergii d
Referência(s)