Pest categorisation of Aschistonyx eppoi

Abstract

The Panel on Plant Health performed a pest categorisation of the gall midge Aschistonyx eppoi Inouye (1964) (Diptera, Cecidomyiidae), for the EU. A. eppoi is a well-defined and distinguishable species, native to Japan and Korea, and recognised as a pest of Juniperus chinensis, although our knowledge is solely based on one unique publication. A. eppoi is absent from the EU, and is listed in Annex IIAI of Directive 2000/29/EC. Its host plants, Juniperus spp. are also listed in Annex III of Directive 2000/29/EC. Plants for planting and branches are considered as pathways for this pest. A. eppoi has been intercepted twice (1974; 1975) in the EU and has been eradicated. The pest is likely to affect bonsai plants of J. chinensis if it were to establish in the EU territory. However, as it is unknown whether A. eppoi would attack the Juniperus spp. that occur in the EU, its potential impact on the wild vegetation is also unknown. As the pest originates from areas with warm climates, impact outdoors would affect the southern parts of the EU. Cultural control (destruction of infested material) and chemical control are the major control methods. All criteria assessed by EFSA for consideration as a potential quarantine pest are met, although there are high uncertainties regarding impact. The species is presently absent from the EU, and thus the criteria for consideration as a potential regulated non-quarantine pest are not met.

Pest categorisation of Lepidosaphes pineti, L. pini and L. piniphila

“…The Panel's conclusions are formulated respecting its remit and particularly with regard to the principle of separation between risk assessment and risk management (EFSA founding regulation (EU) No 178/2002); therefore, instead of determining whether the pest is likely to have an unacceptable impact, deemed to be a risk management decision, the Panel will present a summary of the observed impacts in the areas where the pest occurs, and make a judgement about potential likely impacts in the EU. While the Panel may quote impacts reported from areas where the pest occurs in monetary terms, the Panel will seek to express potential EU impacts in terms of yield and quality losses and not in monetary terms, in agreement with the EFSA guidance on quantitative pest risk assessment (EFSA PLH Panel, 2018). Article 3(d) of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 refers to unacceptable social impact as a criterion for quarantine pest status.…”

“…The Panel performed the pest categorisation for L. pineti, L. pini and L. piniphila , following guiding principles and steps presented in the EFSA guidance on quantitative pest risk assessment (EFSA PLH Panel, 2018), the EFSA guidance on the use of the weight of evidence approach in scientific assessments (EFSA Scientific Committee, 2017) and the International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures No. 11 (FAO, 2013).…”

Pest categorisation of Mimela testaceipes

“…The Panel's conclusions are formulated respecting its remit and particularly with regard to the principle of separation between risk assessment and risk management (EFSA founding regulation (EU) No 178/2002); therefore, instead of determining whether the pest is likely to have an unacceptable impact, deemed to be a risk management decision, the Panel will present a summary of the observed impacts in the areas where the pest occurs and make a judgement about potential likely impacts in the EU. Whilst the Panel may quote impacts reported from areas where the pest occurs in monetary terms, the Panel will seek to express potential EU impacts in terms of yield and quality losses and not in monetary terms, in agreement with the EFSA guidance on quantitative pest risk assessment (EFSA PLH Panel, Jeger, et al., 2018). Article 3 (d) of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 refers to unacceptable social impact as a criterion for quarantine pest status.…”

Pest categorisation of Pestalotiopsis microspora

“…The Panel performed the pest categorisation for P. microspora following guiding principles and steps presented in the EFSA guidance on quantitative pest risk assessment (EFSA PLH Panel, 2018), the EFSA guidance on the use of the weight of evidence approach in scientific assessments (EFSA Scientific Committee, 2017) and the International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures No. 11 (FAO, 2013).…”

“…The Panel's conclusions are formulated respecting its remit and particularly with regard to the principle of separation between risk assessment and risk management (EFSA founding regulation (EU) No 178/2002); therefore, instead of determining whether the pest is likely to have an unacceptable impact, deemed to be a risk management decision, the Panel will present a summary of the observed impacts in the areas where the pest occurs, and make a judgement about potential likely impacts in the EU. Whilst the Panel may quote impacts reported from areas where the pest occurs in monetary terms, the Panel will seek to express potential EU impacts in terms of yield and quality losses and not in monetary terms, in agreement with the EFSA guidance on quantitative pest risk assessment (EFSA PLH Panel, 2018). Article 3 (d) of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 refers to unacceptable social impact as a criterion for quarantine pest status.…”