Joint AESAN/EFSA Workshop ‘Science Supporting Risk Surveillance of Imports’ - 10 February 2010, Seville (Spain)

Plant Health Alert Systems

An overview of scientific aspects with examples and perspectives

from a national, EU and EPPO scale

MacLeod, Alan

Food and Environment Research Agency(fera), Sand Hutton (United Kingdom)

alan.macleod@fera.gsi.gov.uk

The purpose of an alert system is to draw attention to potential risks providing early warning, more time for decisions to be made, plans to be drawn up and actions to be carried out. In a plant health context there are many thousands of organisms, currently in Third Countries, that could become pests in the European Union. When considering the protection of a geographic area, a pest alert can be triggered by a pest beyond the border, at the border, or inside the border. As an example of a national plant health alert system, the UK National Plant Protection Organization operates a system that covers all trigger points. The alert over Anoplophora glabripennis (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae), a major tree pest, was initiated in 1996 through horizon scanning, e.g. scanning literature to learn of pests spreading overseas. Following a risk assessment, A. glabripennis was added to the list of EU regulated quarantine pests and information leaflets provided to alert stakeholders. EU Member States are obliged to notify the European Commission of imports that fail to comply with plant health standards. Notifications of non-compliance are compiled by the FVO and include detections of plant pests. Analysis of pest detections at the EU scale can be used to identify changing patterns of threat and can be used to trigger alerts. Analysis of such data has identified pathways that present plant health risks which were not previously regulated. Continued monitoring of pests intercepted on a pathway after the pathway becomes regulated can indicate the impact of the regulations put in place to reduce risk. Despite efforts to better target pathways presenting a risk, there is a poor correlation between those species that are detected in consignments and those species that establish. The European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO) operates an alert system and also makes specific recommendations to member countries concerning the plant pests to regulate. In Europe, plant health alert systems can be a useful tool to support plant health services and target their resources. However, alerts are only useful if appropriate decisions are then made, and actions taken to combat the threat, in a timely fashion. Tuta absoluta, a lepidopteran pest of tomatoes, is a recent example of a pest that was recommended for regulation in 2004 but reached the EU and spread quickly in 2009, before phytosanitary measures had been put in place to reduce the likelihood of its entry. I will outline some ideas for future plant health alert systems in the EU so they can operate and be utilised more effectively.

Plant Health Alert Systems

An overview of scientific aspects with pexamples and perspectives from a

national, EU and EPPO scale,

Outline of presentation

• Alert systems in relation to imports from a plant h lth i t f ihealth point of view

• Initiation• Data

– Non-compliance analysis: national & EUNon compliance, analysis: national & EU– Trade

C f l i• Consequences of analysis• Challenges• Future ways of working

Alerts

P t *What initiates an Alert ? Pest *• Reported spreading its geographic p p g g g p

distribution • Following detection in consignments• Following detection in consignments

(non-compliance)O f• Outbreak detected inside area of concern (MS/ EU/ EPPO)

* Any species strain or biotype of plant animal or pathogenic Any species, strain or biotype of plant, animal or pathogenicagent injurious to plants or plant products i.e. pests includes diseases

Horizon scanning

• Current literature (grey)• Scientific journals • Trade journals• Trade journals• On line alerts• Newspapers

Anoplophora glabripennis

Initiated Pest Risk Analysis• Initiated Pest Risk Analysis• Added to list of EU quarantine pests• Specific phytosanitary measures introduced *• Publicity – information sheets widely distributed y y

* now superseded by ISPM No 15 now superseded by ISPM No. 15

Sample publicity material

Analysis of interception data

• Retrospective – patterns / trends p p

• Evidence based targeting• Allows most effective use of resources

With i t d t• With appropriate data can measure effectiveness

Import inspection

UK interceptions of Bemisia tabaci

CANARY ISL GAMBIA GHANA ISRAEL JORDAN NIGERIA SIERRA LEO SINGAPORE unspecified ZIMBABWE totalsARTEMISIA 1 1ASTER 1 1CALLISTEPHUS 1 1CALLISTEPHUS 1 1CHRYSOPHYLLUM 1 1DENDRANTHEMA 6 1 7GYPSOPHILA 5 5HIBISCUS 1 1HYPERICUM 5 1 6HYPERICUM 5 1 6LIMONIUM 1 1MANIHOT 4 2 4 10MENTHA 2 2OCIMUM 1 2 3ORIGANUM 4 4ORIGANUM 4 4PHILODENDRON 1 1ROSA 3 3SALVIA 2 2SOLIDAGO 1 46 1 48SOLIDASTER 1 1 2

46SOLIDASTER 1 1 2TRACHELIUM 2 2unidentified 1 1 1 1 4

totals 8 5 1 77 1 3 5 1 3 1 105

Measures can make a differenceMeasures can make a difference

Mean proportion of Gypsophila and Solidago consignments

0 090.10

Mean proportion of Gypsophila and Solidago consignments contaminated with pests before and after regulation

0.070.080.09

min

ated

0 040.050.06

n co

ntam

0 010.020.030.04

ropo

rtion

0.000.01

Before After

Pr

Before After

MacLeod et al., (2005) The analysis of detections in consignments to identify and target pests’ entry pathways. BCPC Proceedings, Glasgow, Oct 31 - Nov 2, 1013-1018.

EU interceptions: Thrips palmi

• EU (FVO) compiles interception lists • Mid 1990s Thrips palmi increasingly

interceptedintercepted• Aubergines, cucumbers, peppers at risk• Examine sources

O i i f EU Th i l iOrigins of EU Thrips palmi interceptions

other 3%

SE Asia 79%C ibb 5% SE Asia 79%Africa 13%Caribbean 5%

EU notifications of T. palmiand imports of Thai orchidsand imports of Thai orchids

Thrips palmi risk management

• Consult with Thai Ministry of Agriculture

• Require production site inspections - certified free from T palmi orfree from T. palmi, or

• Appropriate treatment (fumigation) of orchids

• Trade continues

Continued monitoring shows effectiveness• Continued monitoring shows effectiveness

EU notifications of T. palmiand imports of Thai orchids

200

i

3.50

and imports of Thai orchids

150

f T. p

alm

i

3.00 ('000

t)

100

atio

ns o

f 3.00

s im

porte

d (Thrips on orchids from Thailand

became regulated in early 1998

50

U N

otifi

ca 2.50

Tonn

es

01994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

EU

2.00

EPPO Alert System

• System to draw the attention of EPPO member countries to certain pests possibly presenting a risk to them and p y p gachieve early warning

http://www.eppo.org/QUARANTINE/Alert_List/alert_list.htm

EPPO Reporting Service

EPPO Pest Alert

NAPPO Alert System (e-mail)

EPPO l k ifiEPPO also make specific recommendations

• Do not regulate, but recommend• A1 list (for regulation when not in EPPO

/ Europe)/ Europe)• A2 list (for regulation when already

t)present)• Shift from A1 to A2 when arrives but stillShift from A1 to A2 when arrives but still

worth regulating (slow spread)

Timing of actions 1EU d EPPO h i• EU and EPPO can act at the same time e.g. Diabrotica undecimpunctata howardi & Diabrotica undecimpunctata undecimpunctata each added to relevant EUundecimpunctata undecimpunctata each added to relevant EU and EPPO lists in same year (1998)

• There can be differencesThere can be differencesRecommendation by EPPO Regulated by EC

Year Pest List Year Annex

1998 Naupactus leucoloma A1 2004 I/A1

1999 Anoplophora glabripennis A1 2004 I/A1I/A12002 Dendrolimus sibiricus A2 2009 I/A1

2002 Tecia solanivora A2 2009 II/A1

2003 Chrysanthemum stem necrosis virus A1 2009 II/A12003 Chrysanthemum stem necrosis virus A1 2009 II/A1

2003 Stegophora ulmea A1 2009 II/A1

Timings of actions 2

Recommendation for A1 listing by EPPOYear Pest Host Distribution2004 Tuta absoluta (Lepidoptera) Tomatoes South AmericaEurope 2009

1995 Potato yellowing alfamovirus Potatoes South America

1995 Anthonomus eugenii (Curculionidae) Peppers North & Central1995 Anthonomus eugenii (Curculionidae) Peppers North & Central America

1996 Malacosoma americanum (Lepidoptera) Apples &cherries

North America

1998 Watermelon silver mottle virus Watermelons & cucumbers

India & Japan

Challenges 1

• Show causal link between increased trade and pest spread

• Insufficient information about pathwaysInsufficient information about pathways (at origin, in transit, post entry)

• Necessitates assumptions be made when assessing riskwhen assessing risk

• Adds to uncertainty

Challenges 2

• How to predict what to be alert to? • Already a pest somewhere else • Species traits analysis ? (PRATIQUE)• Species traits analysis ? (PRATIQUE)• How effective?

– Number of consignments inspected?• As well as checking pathways already s e as c ec g pa ays a eady

regulated need to sample others

Challenges 3

• Poor correlation between what is intercepted b h t it i d h t bby phytosanitary services and what becomes established

• Compare species intercepted in Austria and Switzerland (1995 -2004), with species that established in same period

• 341 alien insect spp. establishedpp• 34 alien insect spp. intercepted

Source: Kenis et al., (2007) Bull Ent Res 97, 489-502

Challenges 3 (contd.)

• Of non-European species intercepted, 12% established (AT & CH)

• Similar results in Czech Republic (11%)Similar results in Czech Republic (11%)

Future ways of working?

• Strategic analysis of FVO notifications of non-compliance (FVO / EFSA?)

• How effective?How effective? – Number of consignments inspected?

• Sampling of unregulated pathways• Speedier decision making• Speedier decision making

Are we alert?

• Alert adverb – on the look-out, watchful

• Alert adjective – quick in attention lively activeadjective – quick in attention, lively, active

Food and Environment Research Agency