Ref. Ares(2017)2546398 - 18/05/2017
EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR HEALTH AND FOOD SAFETY
Health and food audits and analysis
DG(SANTE) 2016-8797 - MR
FINAL REPORT OF AN AUDIT CARRIED OUT IN SPAIN FROM 17 OCTOBER 2016 TO 28 OCTOBER 2016 IN ORDER TO EVALUATE THE SITUATION AND CONTROLS FOR TRIOZA ERYTREAE AND TECIA SOLANIVORA
In response to information provided by the competent authority, any factual error noted in the draft report has been corrected; any clarification appears in the form of a footnote. Executive Summary This report describes the outcome of an audit carried out by the Directorate General for Health and Food Safety in Spain from 17 to 28 October 2016. The objective of the audit was to evaluate the situation of the African citrus psyllid (Trioza erytreae) and the Guatemalan potato moth (Tecia solanivora) and the measures applied for their control. The audit also gathered information on the surveillance and control strategy, including contingency planning, for Candidatus Liberibacter spp., the causal agent of Huanglongbing. The audit found that a comprehensive survey programme is in place for both T. erytreae and T. solanivora. This has established the distribution of both pests within Spain, and in particular the areas that are free from T. erytreae, necessary for the movement of host plants. Control measures are implemented following the appearance of either harmful organism. These have effectively addressed the risk of further spread of both pests through the movement of host plants. However, the measures intended to inhibit the natural spread of T. erytreae are not systematically implemented, and as a result, its further spread, at least into the remaining free areas of Galicia, is considered inevitable. The control measures for T. solanivora largely focus on the place of its detection, which is not necessarily the source of the pest. As a result, the measures are unlikely to eradicate the pest, although they should effectively inhibit its spread from the infected areas, in line with EU legislation. A comprehensive survey for Ca. Liberibacter spp., has been established which has confirmed that the harmful organism and its only other known vector Diaphorina citri, are not present in Spain. A national contingency plan has been drafted, which should ensure that appropriate action will be taken in the event that it appears in the future. The report includes recommendations to address the shortcomings identified during the audit.
I Table of Contents 1 Introduction...... 1 2 Objectives and scope...... 1 3 Legal Basis...... 2 3.1 Relevant EU legislation...... 2 3.2 International standards...... 2 4 Background ...... 2 4.1 Previous audits and country profile...... 2 4.2 Trioza erytreae and Candidatus Liberibacter spp...... 3 4.3 Production of host plants of Trioza erytreae ...... 4 4.4 Tecia solanivora...... 5 4.5 Production of hosts of Tecia solanivora ...... 5 5 Findings and Conclusions ...... 6 5.1 Organisation of official controls...... 6 5.1.1 Competent authorities ...... 7 5.1.2 Legislation...... 7 5.1.3 Registration of producers ...... 9 5.1.4 Communication with stakeholders and the public ...... 10 5.2 Situation of Trioza erytreae and Candidatus Liberibacter spp ...... 10 5.2.1 Notifications of presence of Trioza erytreae...... 11 5.2.2 Surveys for Trioza erytreae and Ca. Liberibacter spp...... 11 5.3 Control measures for Trioza erytreae ...... 16 5.3.1 Control measures for Trioza erytreae outside of Galicia ...... 16 5.3.2 Control measures for Trioza erytreae in Galicia ...... 17 5.4 Contingency plan for Candidatus Liberibacter spp ...... 25 5.5 Situation of Tecia solanivora...... 28 5.5.1 Notification of presence of Tecia solanivora ...... 28 5.5.2 Surveys for Tecia solanivora...... 29 5.6 Control measures for Tecia solanivora...... 33 5.6.1 Control measures for Tecia solanivora in Galicia...... 34 5.6.2 Control measures for Tecia solanivora in Asturias ...... 35 6 Overall Conclusions ...... 36 7 Closing Meeting...... 37 8 Recommendations ...... 37
II ABBREVIATIONS AND DEFINITIONS USED IN THIS REPORT
Abbreviation Explanation AC Autonomous Community CABI Centre for Agriculture and Biosciences International EC European Community EPPO European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organisation EU European Union ha Hectares HLB Huanglongbing (citrus greening) IPPC International Plant Protection Convention ISPM International Standard for Phytosanitary Measures MAGRAMA Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Environment (Ministerio de Agricultura, Alimentacion y Medio Ambiente) TRAGSA Transformacion Agraria Sociedad Anonima, SA is a public company funded for the performance of works and services in rural areas TRAGSATEC Tecnologías y Servicios Agrarios, SA is a subsidiary of Tragsa established for carrying out consulting and engineering projects.
III 1 INTRODUCTION
This audit took place in Spain from 17 to 28 October 2016 as part of the Directorate General for Health and Food Safety’s planned audit programme. It was carried out in parallel with an audit to evaluate the situation and controls for pinewood nematode (Bursaphelenchus xylophilus) in Spain (Ref: DG(SANTE)2016-8803), for which a separate report has been issued.
The audit team consisted of two auditors from the Commission services and one national expert from a Member State. It was accompanied throughout the audit by representatives of the Single Authority for plant health, the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Environment (MAGRAMA).
An opening meeting was held on 17 October 2016 at the headquarters of MAGRAMA in Madrid, during which the objectives, scope and itinerary for the audit were confirmed and additional information necessary for the conduct of the audit was requested.
Unless specified otherwise, the data quoted in the following sections and elsewhere in the report, was provided by the Single Authority.
2 OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE
The objective of the audit was to evaluate the situation of Trioza erytreae (African citrus psyllid) in Spain and the measures applied for its control. The audit also gathered information on the surveillance and control strategy, including any contingency planning, for Candidatus Liberibacter spp., the causal agent of Huanglongbing (HLB – also known as citrus greening).
In agreement with the Single Authority, the objectives of the audit were extended shortly before the audit to include an evaluation of the situation of Tecia solanivora (the Guatemalan potato moth) and the measures applied for its control following its recent appearance in Spain (see section 5.5 below).
The audit focused on the surveys for T. erytreae and T. solanivora and the control measures that have been taken, or are planned to be taken, in order to eradicate or inhibit the spread of these harmful organisms, including, in the case of T. erytreae, the conditions for the production and movement of host plants (i.e. those listed in item 10.1 of Section II, Annex IV, Part A to Directive 2000/29/EC1).
The following table provides details of the meetings held and sites visited in order to achieve these objectives:
1 Plants of Citrus L., Fortunella Swingle, Poncirus Raf., and their hybrids and Casimiroa La Llave, Clausena Burm f., Vepris Comm., Zanthoxylum L., other than fruit and seed
1 Meetings/visits No. Comments Competent Authorities National 1 MAGRAMA - Madrid Regional 3 Autonomous Communities (AC) of Galicia, Valencia and Asturias (T. solanivora only) Other control organisations 2 TRAGSA Group, Galicia and Valencia Stakeholder organisations 1 AC Valencia; representatives of fruit and host plant producers Official control sites Retailer of citrus plants in 1 Galicia demarcated area for T. erytreae Sites with citrus trees 5 Galicia and Valencia Outbreak sites for T. solanivora 3 Galicia
3 LEGAL BASIS
The audit was carried out under the general provisions of European Union legislation, in particular Articles 21 and 27a of Council Directive 2000/29/EC.
3.1 RELEVANT EU LEGISLATION
Council Directive 2000/29/EC provides for protective measures against the introduction into and spread within the EU of organisms harmful to plants or plant products.
The reference for this Directive is provided in Annex 1.
Legal acts quoted refer, where applicable, to the last amended version.
3.2 INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS
International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPMs) are issued by the International Plant Protection Convention of which all EU Member States are members. Similarly, the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organisation (EPPO), of which all EU Member States are members, also issues standards on phytosanitary measures.
The full texts of adopted ISPMs are published on the website of the IPPC: https://www.ippc.int/core-activities/standards-setting/ispms. The ISPMs and EPPO standards of particular relevance to this audit are listed in Annex 2.
4 BACKGROUND
4.1 PREVIOUS AUDITS AND COUNTRY PROFILE
This was the ninth audit of relevance to plant health carried out by the Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety in Spain since 2012. None of these audits were specifically related to T. erytreae or T. solanivora, however the report of the previous audit, to evaluate
2 the control measures applied for the potato flea beetle Epitrix, carried out in June 2016 (Ref: DG(SANTE)2016-8979), provides detailed information on the production of potatoes and official controls, including surveillance, which is relevant to the situation and control of T. solanivora.
The reports of all previous audits are available on the Directorate-General’s website: http://ec.europa.eu/food/audits-analysis/audit_reports/index.cfm.
The Directorate-General has also published a country profile for Spain2, which provides a detailed description of the official control systems for plant health, which are of relevance to this audit.
4.2 TRIOZA ERYTREAE AND CANDIDATUS LIBERIBACTER SPP.
The African citrus psyllid, Trioza erytreae, is a harmful organism, listed in Annex I, Part A, Section II to Directive 2000/29/EC. The psyllid may, if present in large numbers, have a significant impact on citrus production, however it is its role as a vector of the bacteria Ca. Liberibacter spp., the causal agent of HLB that is of primary concern.
T. erytreae is widespread in sub-Saharan Africa, including the islands of Mauritius, Reunion and St Helena, and is also known to be present in Saudi Arabia and Yemen. It was found in Madeira in 1994 and in the Canary Islands in 2002. The psyllid was found for the first time in continental Europe in August 2014 in Galicia and later, in January 2015, in northern Portugal. T. erytreae is not subject to diapause, and therefore remains active throughout the winter period. It is though known to be sensitive to hot, dry weather, with significant mortality above 30oC.
The data sheet for T. erytreae3 issued by the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organisation (EPPO) provides detailed information on the biology of the psyllid and means for its control.
The distribution of T. erytreae in Spain, and the measures for its control including the establishment of demarcated areas, are detailed in sections 5.2 and 5.3 below.
HLB is regarded as one of the most destructive diseases of citrus worldwide. There are three species of the bacteria Ca. Liberibacter: africanus, asiaticus and americanus; T. erytreae is the vector for the first of these. The data sheet for HLB issued by CABI4 provides a detailed overview of the disease.
Neither HLB, nor its only other known vector, Diaphorina citri (the Asian citrus psyllid), have been found in Europe.
2 http://ec.europa.eu/food/audits-analysis/country_profiles/details.cfm?co_id=ES 3 https://www.eppo.int/QUARANTINE/data_sheets/insects/TRIZER_ds.pdf 4 Centre for Agriculture and Biosciences International datasheet on citrus huanglongbing (greening) disease (citrus greening): http://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/16567
3 4.3 PRODUCTION OF HOST PLANTS OF TRIOZA ERYTREAE
The most important host for T. erytreae is Citrus spp.; Spain is the fifth largest producer of such fruit in the world, with a total annual yield of approximately 7.5 million tonnes. The total area planted with citrus is approximately 300 000 ha, including 150 000 ha of oranges, 33 300 ha of lemons and 103 000 ha with other citrus5. The remaining production areas comprise of private gardens and isolated trees.
Table 1 below provides a detailed summary of the cultivation of citrus and production of host plants for planting in Spain in 2015.
Table 1: Cultivation of Citrus and other host plants in Spain in 2015 Orchards Plants for planting Autonomous (Ha) (No of sites) Hosts Community Places of Retailers / Garden Orchards production centres Andalucía 84 529 38* 412* Asturias 16 000 a,b 0 0 Balearic Islands 2 130 0 0 Canary Islands 1 476 0 38 Cantabria 14 0 23 Citrus Catalonia 10 000 23 7 Galicia 113 526a,b 0 147 Murcia 39 250 3 49 Valencia 162 888 42 55 Andalucía No data 0* 3* Asturias 0 0 0 Balearic Islands 0 0 0 Canary Islands Casimiroa edulis 0 93 (Isolated trees) Other hosts Cantabria 0 0 0 Catalonia 0 0 1 (Zanthoxyllum) Galicia 0 4 (Choisya sp ) 0 Murcia 0 0 0 Valencia 0 101 55 Key: (*) Data from the Registro de Productores, Comerciantes e Importadores de Vegetales y Productos Vegetales; (a) Scattered trees only. (b) Number of trees
As detailed in table 1 above, the production of citrus fruit production is concentrated in Valencia and Andalucía. There is no commercial citrus production in Galicia; the production data for the region in table 1, which is based on an estimate of the number of trees present, is the equivalent of 280 ha, based on the average planting density of 400 trees/hectare found in commercial orchards. The trees are scattered throughout the western parts of Galicia, mainly in private gardens.
5 http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Agricultural_production_-_orchards
4 The data in table 1 above also indicates that the production of host plants for planting is concentrated in Valencia and Catalonia. There is no production of host plants for planting in Galicia.
Data provided by the regional plant health service for Valencia indicates that 42 nurseries in the region produce approximately 2.1 million citrus plants annually, which are sold throughout the EU and beyond.
The situation and control measures for T. erytreae, including the conditions for the movement of host plants, are detailed in sections 5.2 and 5.3 below.
4.4 TECIA SOLANIVORA
The Guatemalan potato moth, Tecia solanivora, is a harmful organism, listed (as Scrobipalpopsis solanivora Povolny) in Annex II, Part A, Section I to Directive 2000/29/EC. Its only known host are potatoes (Solanum tuberosum) and the moth may cause extensive damage to both the growing crop and stored tubers.
T. solanivora is known to be widespread in Central America and parts of South America. It was found in a number of the Canary Islands in 1999, but was only formally identified as T. solanivora in 2003. The moth was found in Galicia in 2015 in the provinces of A Coruña and Lugo, and, in 2016, in the western most provinces of Asturias.
The EPPO data sheet for T. solanivora6 provides detailed information on the biology of the moth and means for its control.
4.5 PRODUCTION OF HOSTS OF TECIA SOLANIVORA
The report of the previous audit to Spain concerning Epitrix sp., provides a detailed summary of the production and trade of potatoes in Spain. In summary, the total area of potato production is 67 000 ha, which is concentrated in three Autonomous Communities: Castilla y Leon (20 000 ha), Galicia (19 000 ha) and Andalucía (14 500 ha). Most of the production is in small plots, for personal consumption. There is only limited production of potato seed for planting (4 ha) in the south-west of Galicia.
Figure 1 below provides a detailed overview of potato cultivation in Galicia. No evidence of the presence of T. solanivora has been found in the main areas of potato production in Galicia. The situation of T. solanivora is detailed in section 5.5 below.
6 https://www.eppo.int/QUARANTINE/data_sheets/insects/DS_Tecia_solanivora.pdf
5 Figure 1: Potato cultivation in Galicia
The regional plant health service for Asturias estimate that there is a total of 300 ha of ware potato production in the region, all of which is produced in small plots for personal consumption only.
The regional plant health services for Galicia and Asturias informed the audit team that a crop rotation scheme of one ware potato crop every two or three years, interspersed with cereals, parsnips or cabbages, is generally applied by producers, and that certified seed is commonly used, even by private households, for ware potato production. The seed is mainly imported from the Netherlands and France. The audit team noted though, during their visits to places affected by T. solanivora, that householders also use non-certified, self-saved seed (see section 5.6.1 below).
5 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
5.1 ORGANISATION OF OFFICIAL CONTROLS
Legal requirements Articles 1(4), 2(1)(g), 2(1)(i), 6.5 and 6.6 of Directive 2000/29/EC Article 1 of Commission Directive 93/50/EEC.
6 Findings
5.1.1 Competent authorities
1. MAGRAMA stated that the structure and organisation of the competent authorities for plant health in Spain are as described in the Country Profile, and previous audit reports.
2. In summary; MAGRAMA is the Single Authority for plant health, and has principal responsibility for plant health; including coordinating the activities of the plant health services of the 17 Autonomous Communities (ACs) and two Autonomous Cities of Ceuta and Melilla; The regional plant health services have exclusive responsibility for the implementation of official controls in their respective Communities; Certain activities or control tasks may be delegated by the regional services to the TRAGSA Group, which is a public state-owned company. Examples of such delegated tasks relevant to this audit, are the surveillance for T. erytreae and T. solanivora (see sections 5.2.2 and 5.5.2 below), which is carried out by a subsidiary, TRAGSATEC; and the application of pesticide treatments against T. erytreae (see section 5.3.2 below), which is carried out by TRAGSA; Further information about TRAGSA is available on the group's website: http://www.tragsa.es/en/Paginas/default.aspx.
3. There are two mechanisms for coordination between MAGRAMA and the Autonomous Communities; at the political level, the Sectoral Council for Agriculture and Rural Development, and at the operational level, the Coordination Committee for Plant Health. This Committee inter alia approves National Contingency and Action Plans, and proposals for national control legislation relating to plant health.
5.1.2 Legislation
4. Law 43/2002 on Plant Health and Royal Decree 58/2005, establish protection measures against the introduction and spread within the national territory and the territory of the EU of organisms harmful to plants and plant products.
5. Royal Decree 1190/1998 of 12 June 1998, regulates the national programmes for the eradication or control of harmful organisms of plants that are not yet established on the national territory.
6. MAGRAMA informed the audit team that, following the appearance of T. erytreae and T. solanivora, additional legislation and/or action plans have been adopted at both national and regional level for their control, as follows:
5.1.2.1 Trioza erytreae
7. The following legislation and action plan concerning T. erytreae has been adopted at national level:
7 Order of the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, Fisheries and Food of 16 September 2002, declared the presence of T. erytreae in the islands of Tenerife and La Gomera and established temporary urgent measures for its control, including a prohibition on the movement of plants of the family Rutaceae (including Citrus spp.) from those islands; The National Contingency Plan for T. erytreae was adopted by MAGRAMA in April 2015. The plan is available on MAGRAMA’s website: http://www.mapama.gob.es/es/agricultura/temas/sanidad-vegetal/tryoza-erytreae/; Royal Decree 23/2016 of 22 of January 2016 (hereafter ‘Royal Decree’) established the national program for the control and the eradication of T. erytreae (see section 5.3 below). The Decree also established the national program for the prevention of Diaphorina citri and Ca. Liberibacter spp.,(see section 5.4 below).
8. MAGRAMA informed the audit team that the national measures defined by the Royal Decree and national programme are applicable to all new outbreaks (i.e. those outside of the Canary Islands and AC of Galicia). Those within Galicia are the subject of specific regional legislation as follows: Resolution No 36 of the Dirección General de Producción Agropecuaria of 10 February 2015. This Resolution confirmed the presence of T. erytreae and established urgent measures to eradicate and control the pest in the Autonomous Community of Galicia; Resolution No 135 of the Dirección General de Producción Agropecuaria of 1 July 2015. This Resolution established demarcated areas for T. erytreae and revised control measures for the pest; Resolution No 44 of the Dirección General de Ganadería, Agricultura e Industrias Agroalimentarias of 11 February 2016. This Resolution updated the demarcated areas for T. erytreae; Resolution no 148 of the Dirección General de Ganadería, Agricultura e Industrias Agroalimentarias of 5 August 2016. This resolution provides for the payment of compensation for the impact of official control measures – destruction of host plants in nurseries (see section 5.3.2.3 below); The Work Plan for the eradication and control of T. erytreae in Galicia, the most recent of which was adopted in November 2015, establishes the programme of pesticide treatments by the official services (see section 5.3.2.2 below). 9. MAGRAMA informed the audit team that in light of the potential impact of T. erytreae and HLB, a number of Autonomous Communities had developed their own contingency plans for these pests as follows: The AC of Andalucía adopted the Andalusian Plan of Phytosanitary Surveillance in Citrus in 2015. This established a survey programme and a contingency plan for the control and eradication of T. erytreae, D. citri and HLB;
8 The Community of Valencia adopted their Autonomic Contingency Plan for T. erytreae, D. citri and HLB in June 2016; The AC of Catalonia has provided guidelines for T. erytreae, D. citri and HLB for the Citrus sector, aimed at raising awareness of the pests.
10. The comprehensive national and regional legislation and action plans provide for appropriate control measures for eradicating, or inhibiting the spread of T. erytreae, D. citri and HLB in line with Article 16(1) of Directive 2000/29/EC, and a clear legal basis for their implementation.
5.1.2.2 Tecia solanivora
11. MAGRAMA informed the audit team that, at the time of the audit, no specific legislation concerning T. solanivora has been adopted at national level.
12. A draft National Contingency Plan for T. solanivora had been adopted by the National Coordination Committee. The Plan is available on MAGRAMA's website: http://www.magrama.gob.es/es/agricultura/temas/sanidad-vegetal/tecia-solanivora/.
13. The regional service for Galicia informed the audit team that the following legislation concerning T. solanivora had been adopted: Resolution Nº 209 of the Dirección General de Producción Agropecuaria of 16 October 2015. This declared the presence of the pest and established demarcated areas and measures for its control and eradication; Resolution Nº 28 of the Dirección General de Producción Agropecuaria of 11 February 2016. This Resolution updated (enlarged) the demarcated zones for T. solanivora. 14. The regional service for Asturias informed the audit team that no specific legislation was required for the implementation of control measures against T. solanivora in the Autonomous Community.
15. The national and regional legislation and action plans provide for appropriate control measures for eradicating, or inhibiting the spread of T. solanivora in line with Article 16(1) of Directive 2000/29/EC, and a clear legal basis for their implementation.
5.1.3 Registration of producers
16. Producers of plants for planting of citrus, and potatoes, are registered by the regional services and are subject to checks in accordance with the relevant Marketing Directives7 and plant passport provisions in Annex IV Part A Section II to Directive 2000/29/EC.
17. Garden centres and other retailers of host plants of T. erytreae in demarcated areas must be registered by the regional services (see section 5.3 below).
7 https://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/plant_propagation_material/legislation/eu_marketing_requirements_en
9 18. Producers of fruits of citrus (orchards) and potatoes for consumption (ware potatoes) are not registered in Spain.
19. The registration requirements for producers and retailers of host plants for planting provide a basis for the regional services to ensure that the conditions for the movements of such plants, in particular from demarcated areas comply with the conditions in Item 10.1 of Annex IV Part A Section II to Directive 2000/29/EC (see section 5.3.2.3 below).
5.1.4 Communication with stakeholders and the public
20. MAGRAMA informed the audit team that a national information campaign was launched following the first findings of T. erytreae and T. solanivora in Spain. This included technical information and press releases aimed at official services, professionals and other stakeholders.
21. The regional services in Galicia, Valencia and Asturias informed the audit team that an intensive awareness raising campaign targeting the public, municipal authorities and other stakeholders, was launched following the first findings of T. erytreae and T.solanivora in Galicia. The campaign includes the use of leaflets, posters and technical bulletins; TV and radio broadcasts, and news articles in trade magazines. The regional services provided lists of the events delivered to citrus fruit growers, producers of citrus propagating material and nurseries.
22. All professional stakeholders met by the audit team had a high level of awareness of T. erytreae and HLB and appeared collaborative with the regional services. Householder awareness of T. erytreae and T. solanivora, and the measures that they were required to take for their control was however, lower (see sections 5.3.2.2 and 112 below).
Conclusion on organisational aspects of plant health controls 23. There is a clear structure and organisation of the plant health controls related to T. erytreae and T. solanivora, which should enable the effective and timely implementation of control measures following the appearance of either of these harmful organisms.
24. The national legislation and contingency plans provide a sound basis for ensuring the implementation of appropriate control measures following the appearance of T. erytreae, D. citri, HLB or T. solanivora.
25. Steps have been taken to raise awareness of these harmful organisms with professional stakeholders, which should help ensure prompt notification of any findings and enhance cooperation with the official services.
5.2 SITUATION OF TRIOZA ERYTREAE AND CANDIDATUS LIBERIBACTER SPP
Legal requirements Article 16(1) of Directive 2000/29/EC Decision 2014/917/EU
10 Item 10.1 of Annex IV, Part A, Section II to Directive 2000/29/EC ISPMs 4, 6, 8 and 9
Findings
5.2.1 Notifications of presence of Trioza erytreae
26. MAGRAMA first notified the presence of T. erytreae in mainland Spain on 1 December 2014. That notification indicated that the pest had been detected between 20 August and 3 October 2014 in 44 locations in Galicia, which were inspected as part of the annual survey programme for the brown citrus aphid (Toxoptera citricida). A further 49 locations were inspected during the same survey, where no T. erytreae was found.
27. The same notification also stated that samples of T. erytreae had been tested for the presence of Candidatus Liberibacter africanus in accordance with EPPO Standard PM7/121(1)8, and that no evidence of the disease had been found in those samples.
28. MAGRAMA provided an update on the situation of T. erytreae on 8 February 2016, following completion of the official surveys for the pest carried out in 2015. The notification confirmed that T. erytreae had been found on orange (Citrus sinensis) and lemon (C. limon) trees in the provinces of Pontevedra and A Coruña in the AC of Galicia, and that no evidence of the presence of C. Liberibacter africanus had been found.
29. The updated notification also provided details of the control measures that had been taken, including the establishment of demarcated areas (see section 5.3.2.1 below).
30. The audit team noted that there was a significant delay in the regional service of Galicia in notifying MAGRAMA of the first presence of T. erytreae on its territory, and the subsequent findings in new areas.
31. The notifications provided the information required by Decision 2014/917/EU, however the long delay, between confirmation of the presence of the pest and its notification to the Commission and other Member States in both cases, is not in line with Article 2 of Decision 2014/917/EU, which provides for a maximum of eight working days for the provision of at least a preliminary notification.
5.2.2 Surveys for Trioza erytreae and Ca. Liberibacter spp
32. MAGRAMA informed the audit team that annual surveys of citrus producing areas have been carried out in Spain since 1999. Since 2015, a comprehensive targeted survey of citrus production has been carried out in all ACs under the Commission co-financed work programme for the implementation of survey programmes for pests9.
8 EPPO protocol PM 7/121 (1) for Candidatus Liberibacter africanus’, ‘Candidatus Liberibacter americanus’ and ‘Candidatus Liberibacter asiaticus’ and for their detection in their psyllid vectors Diaphorina citri and Trioza erytreae. 9 http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/health_food-safety/funding/cff/plant_health/survey-programmes_en.htm
11 33. The surveys are based on visual inspections on citrus trees and other host plants of T. erytreae. Although it is not listed as such, in point 10.1 of Annex IV Part A Section II to Directive 2000/29/EC, Choisya is also regarded by Spain to be a host of T. erytreae, following findings of the psyllid on the plant in Galicia and northern Portugal, and is included in the surveys and control measures.
34. Article 4 of Royal Decree 23/2016 (hereafter ‘the Royal Decree') requires that Autonomous Communities shall carry out surveys and systematic controls for the presence of T. erytreae, D. citri and HLB on their territories. Point 2 of that Article specifies that these shall at least include: Places at the highest risk of the pests being present, giving priority to nurseries with host plants, in particular those with mother plants. An intensive surveillance zone may be established around such places; Orchards with host plants imported from countries where the pests may be present; Private gardens, public parks and other areas where host plants are present.
35. The Royal Decree also specifies that the National Phytosanitary Committee should establish the sampling methodology. This has been done, in Annex III of the National Contingency Plan for T. erytreae. That Annex provides detailed guidance on the inspections to be carried out in all nurseries and garden centres with host plants, and in orchards as follows: All nurseries and all garden centres with plants of the Rutaceae family, must be inspected at least once each year; Orchards: at least one orchard should be visually inspected, or a yellow sticky trap installed, for each 500 ha of cultivation. The yellow traps are known to be attractive to psyllids and effective for monitoring their populations. The Annex includes a table indicating the area of citrus fruit production for each Autonomous Community, for calculating the number of visual inspections or traps to be installed; The plan also recommends that yellow sticky traps be installed at locations where pheromone traps for fruit flies have been installed as part of the programme for exporting clementines to the United States; Public gardens and other sites: the plan requires that such places are included in the surveys of orchards (i.e. at least 1 inspection or trap/500 ha).
36. MAGRAMA confirmed that inspections had been carried out in nurseries and garden centres in all ACs, as required by the Decree. MAGRAMA also confirmed that surveys had been carried out during 2016 in the ACs of Andalusia, Asturias, Catalonia, Valencia, Murcia, Cantabria, and the Basque Country, in line with the Decree, and in particular: In Andalusia, 75 sentinel plots had been established in orchards. Visual inspections were carried out between 1 March and 30 October every 14 days. 47 leaf samples were taken in that period for testing for the presence of HLB. In addition, 19 yellow
12 traps had been installed at high risk locations, including harbours, airports, wholesale markets and citrus handling factories. The traps were installed between 1 April and 1 November and were inspected and replaced every 14 days. No evidence of T. erytreae, D. citri or HLB was found. In Catalonia, 20 orchards were inspected, once every 14 days between May and June, and again between September and October. Inspections were also carried out in a further four citrus orchards on a monthly basis, between April and November, for signs of HLB. In addition, 20 yellow traps were installed at high risk locations between 1 April and 1 November. These were inspected and replaced every 14 days. MAGRAMA informed the audit team that six Trioza sp, but not T. erytreae, were found on three of these traps. No evidence of T. erytreae, D. citri or HLB was found. In Asturias, the survey programme followed that already established for the detection of Toxoptera citricida, which focuses on private gardens and farms with citrus trees in municipalities bordering Galicia. In total, 49 plots were inspected between 28 June and 28 November. No evidence of T. erytreae, D. citri or HLB was found. 37. The ACs of Galicia and Valencia, which were visited by the team, have additional survey programmes, due, in the case of Galicia, to the outbreaks of T. erytreae, and in the case of Valencia, due to the importance and scale of citrus production in the region.
In the AC of Valencia, surveys for T. erytreae, D. citri and HLB are carried out all over the territory, according to the Phytosanitary Surveillance Program of Citrus. As detailed in that Programme: o In 2015, . 17 096 yellow traps were installed and monitored every 14 days by TRAGSA; . 1 208 visual inspections were carried out by TRAGSA in randomly selected plots; . 40 visual inspections were carried out in public gardens and a further 40 inspections in private gardens. o In 2016 (to 31 August 2016): . 15 026 yellow traps were installed and monitored every 14 days by TRAGSA; . 261 visual inspections were carried out by TRAGSA in randomly selected plots; . 45 visual inspections were carried out in public gardens and a further 47 inspections in private gardens; . 23 samples were tested for HLB; all were negative.
38. MAGRAMA stated that no evidence of the presence of T. erytreae was found outside of the demarcated areas in Galicia (see section 5.3.2.1 below) during the surveys, and that,
13 as a result, all ACs other than Galicia are considered to be Pest Free Areas for T. erytreae.
39. The specific surveys for T. erytreae have been are established and carried out in line with ISPM 6. These have confirmed that all AC outside of Galicia are Pest Free Areas in line with ISPM 4. Host plants produced in, and moving from these areas satisfy the conditions of Item 10.1 of Annex IV, Part A, Section II to Directive 2000/29/EC.
5.2.2.1 Surveys for Trioza erytreae and Ca. Liberibacter spp., in Galicia
40. The regional service in Galicia stated that a surveillance programme of citrus plants had been carried out since 2005, following the first suspected findings of Toxoptera citricida. Additional targeted surveys for T. erytreae, D. citri and HLB were introduced following the first findings of the psyllid, initially to delimit the infested area, and subsequently, following confirmation that the pest was already widespread in the region, to monitor the pest population and effectiveness of the official controls.
41. The survey programme for T. erytreae is based on the requirements of the Royal Decree and is a combination of visual inspections and yellow traps, based on a 9 km x 9 km grid, and targeted inspections in high-risk locations and those outside of the demarcated areas where host plants are present. Leaf and psyllid samples are analysed for the presence of HLB.
42. As in Valencia, the visual inspections and trapping programme is carried out by TRAGSATEC. The regional services carried out inspections at all places of production and retailers of host plants for planting. Tables 2 and 3 below provide details of the survey programmes for T. erytreae, D. citri and HLB in 2015 and 2016 respectively.
Table 2: Surveys for T. erytreae, D. citri and HLB in Galicia in 2015 No of No of points with No of samples Results of analysis inspection symptoms (positive(+ve)/negative (-ve)) points T. erytreae HLB
651 +ve 683 -ve 1 021 683 32 –ve
2 219 No of points with no No of samples symptoms 306 –ve 1 198 345 345 -ve 39 +ve
14 Table 3: Surveys for T. erytreae, D. citri and HLB in Galicia in 2016 No of No of points with No of samples Results of analysis inspection symptoms (positive(+ve)/negative (-ve)) points T. erytreae HLB 17 –ve 17 –ve 201 197 23 pending 23 pending No of points with no No of samples 586 symptoms 280 –ve 280 -ve 385 364 27 +ve 27 -ve 57 pending 57 pending
43. The audit team noted that the regional service officials and staff of TRAGSATEC responsible for performing inspections and trapping for T. erytreae had received specific training to do so, and were fully aware of the morphological characteristics of the psyllid, and the symptoms that the pest causes when present.
44. In a number of outbreak sites visited by the audit team, it was noted that the yellow traps were placed on isolated citrus trees or trees within citrus orchards that were required to be treated with insecticides. No guidance had been provided with respect to the potential impact of spray treatments on the effectiveness of the traps as indicators of the presence of T. erytreae, however, the traps examined in situ, had attracted various species of insect known to infest Citrus, including aphids and leaf-miners.
45. The surveys carried out in Galicia have established the distribution of T. erytreae in the Autonomous Community, in line with ISPMs 6 and 8. The control measures against the pest are detailed in section 5.3.2 below. The surveys have also confirmed that both D. citri and HLB are not present in Spain.
Conclusion on situation of Trioza erytreae 46. The outbreaks of T. erytreae have been notified to the European Commission and other Member States, but after a significant delay. That is not in line with Article 16(1) of Directive 2000/29/EC nor Article 2 of Decision 2014/917/EU; it also hinders the response of other Member States, in particular in adapting their official controls as necessary.
47. The surveys carried out for T. erytreae have reliably established the distribution of the pest, and in particular its absence from all ACs apart from Galicia. This provides assurance that plants produced outside of Galicia comply with the conditions of item 10.1 of Annex IV, Part A, Section I of Directive 2000/29/EC for their movement.
48. The surveys have also shown that Spain is free from HLB and D. citri. The surveys in place should enable the early detection of any appearance of either organism.
15 5.3 CONTROL MEASURES FOR TRIOZA ERYTREAE
Legal requirements Article 16(1) to Directive 2000/29/EC Item 10.1, Part A Section I of Annex IV to the same Directive ISPM 9
Findings
49. Specific control measures for T. erytreae are established in both the Royal Decree and the National Action Plan; these are detailed in section 5.3.1 below. As noted in section 5.1.2 above, these do not apply to the Canary Islands, where it is considered that T. erytreae is established, or in Galicia. The specific control measures applied in Galicia are detailed in section 5.3.2 below.
5.3.1 Control measures for Trioza erytreae outside of Galicia
50. The Royal Decree requires that the following measures should be taken if the presence of T. erytreae, D. citri or HLB is suspected: The suspected presence should be notified immediately to MAGRAMA; The affected material should be immobilised. If the finding is in a nursery, all other host plants present should also be immobilised; A delimiting survey should be carried out to determine the extent of infestation together with a trace back and forward exercise, to identify the source of the infested plants and the destination of any other host plants from the same source.
51. If the presence of T. erytreae, D. citri or HLB is confirmed, the Royal Decree requires that the following additional measures be taken: Establish a demarcated area, comprising of an infested zone (which is not defined further) and a buffer zone of not less that 3km radius around the infested zone; o All nurseries and retailers of host plants in the demarcated area should be identified and registered. The registration includes a detailed inventory of all host plants present and their source(s); o Authorised pesticides should be applied by the owner of the infested plants or the competent authorities; o A network of yellow sticky traps should be installed around the infested area to prevent the spread of adults outside of the infested zone; The following action should be taken after the application of the pesticide treatment above has been completed: o In nurseries: the destruction in situ of host plant material by burning or deep burial;
16 o In citrus orchards: the destruction of infested plant material by burning or deep burial, or, the application of an insecticide, followed by the application of a herbicide to kill the infested tree, or, the severe pruning and destruction of all infested shoots after the application of an effective pesticide. An additional treatment is required when the tree produces new shoots again; o In parks and public and private gardens: same action as for orchards.
The Royal Decree specifies that the immobilisation of host plants should remain in effect for a period of at least six months during which, no signs of the pest were observed in the nursery, or the rest of the demarcated area.
52. The control measures above are in line with those proposed in the relevant EPPO datasheets and ISPM 9. They would, if fully implemented, eradicate, or at least inhibit the spread of the harmful organisms, in line with Article 16(1) of Directive 2000/29/EC.
53. The Royal Decree provides that, in the event that the surveys and controls show the presence of T. erytreae (or D. citri) without the presence of HLB, and that the experience gained shows that it is impossible to eradicate the pest, the competent authorities of the AC concerned may decide, after informing the National Phytosanitary Committee, to contain the pest inside the demarcated area instead. This has been done by the AC of Galicia, where the following control measures are applied.
5.3.2 Control measures for Trioza erytreae in Galicia
54. The outbreaks of T. erytreae in Galicia and subsequent regional legislation pre-date both the Royal Decree and the National Contingency Plan. These latter documents take account of the regional legislation and experience gained in Galicia, consequently the control measures required by national and regional legislation are similar.
55. As detailed in section 5.1.2 above, the AC of Galicia has adopted two Resolutions aimed at the control of T. erytreae. The first of these, in February 2015, confirmed the presence of the organism in Galicia and established the official measures to be taken against the pest. The second, in July 2015, strengthened the measures to be taken following a finding of T. erytreae, including the establishment of demarcated areas for the pest and the official control measures to be taken in those areas. In contrast to the Royal Decree, neither Resolution requires the destruction or intensive pruning of infested trees as detailed above, however, the Action Plan for the eradication and control of T.erytreae in Galicia, adopted by the regional service in November 2015, does (see section 5.3.2.2 below).
5.3.2.1 Demarcated areas
56. The regional services have established demarcated areas following confirmation of the presence of T. erytreae, including a finding only on a trap. The demarcated areas for T. erytreae consist of an infected zone and a 3km radius buffer zone. The Resolutions (and
17 Royal Decree) do not further define the 'infested zone'; the regional service of Galicia informed the audit team that this is considered to be the infested tree(s).
57. The widespread presence of the pest in the AC, and the demarcation of individual trees as infested zones, has resulted in numerous demarcated areas, which overlap to a large degree. Figure 2 below shows the demarcated areas as last updated, in Resolution No 44 of 11 February 2016. For comparative purposes, Figure 3 below, on the intensive pesticide applications in 2015 (see section 5.3.2.2 below), indicates the demarcated areas in place as of 16 November 2015.
58. The regional services informed the audit team that the evolution of the demarcated areas between 2015 and 2016 reflects the evolution of the survey; which was extended inland, from the initial findings of T. erytreae in the coastal areas. The extended survey found that T. erytreae was already present in all parishes (‘parroquias’) with host plants.
59. At the time of the audit, T. erytreae had been detected in 57 municipalities in the province of Pontevedra, 33 municipalities in the province of A Coruña and 9 municipalities in the province of Ourense (area bordering Pontevedra). In many of the municipalities in Pontevedra and A Coruña, the pest has been detected throughout the whole area of the municipality.
60. The regional services informed the audit team that the demarcation shown in figure 2 below, would be updated by the issue of a new Resolution at the end of 2016, following completion of the annual survey programme. The regional service stated though, that they consider, for the purposes of the control measures, that there is one large demarcated area which, with the exception of some limited areas to the north of Santiago de Compestela, includes all areas where host plants are present.
18 Figure 2: Demarcated areas for Trioza erytreae as of 11 February 2016
19 5.3.2.2 Control measures
61. The Action Plan for the eradication and control of T. erytreae in Galicia (hereafter the 'Action Plan'), the most recent of which is dated November 2015, sets out the measures to be taken against T. erytreae in the AC. The audit team noted that these are the same as those required by the Royal Decree, detailed in section 5.3.1 above, including both pesticide treatments and the destruction or severe pruning of infested trees. The audit team noted though, that with the exception of host plants in nurseries (see section 5.3.2.3 below), no destruction or severe pruning of infested trees had been required, or carried out at the locations visited, in 2016.
62. The Action Plan focuses on the use of pesticide treatments against the pest. It specifies that these should be carried out in all places where the pest has been detected by the owners of the infested trees, subject to the conditions and restrictions established by current legislation on the use of pesticides. It further specifies that at least two consecutive treatments should be carried out at an interval of two to three weeks, with alternating active ingredients if possible.
63. MAGRAMA and the regional services informed the audit team that the following active ingredients (and products) had been approved for use against T. erytreae: Tiametoxam 25% WG (Actara 25 WG) and Clorpirifos 48% (ESPIII) [EC] P/V (Exal).
64. The regional services informed the audit team that at the time of the first findings of T. erytreae in late 2014, it was decided that a separate, official, intensive pesticide treatment programme should be carried out, targeting the known infested areas and separately, both infested and non-infested areas bordering Portugal, with the intention of preventing the spread of the pest further south or inland.
65. The regional services stated that a broader range of active ingredients were available for the official treatment programme, as the pesticides were applied by professionals (TRAGSA) and not by amateur users. The active ingredients (and products) used were: Azadiractín 3,2% (Align), Spirotetramat 15% (Movento 150 O-tec), Imidacloprid 20% SL (Confidor 20LS).
66. The regional services stated that official treatments were applied in a total of 676 locations; the treatments were repeated in 411 of these. The locations of the intensive pesticide treatments, which were carried out by TRAGSA, are shown in figure 3 below:
20 Figure 3: Intensive pesticide application programme in 2015
67. The regional services informed the audit team that the official treatment programme was adapted, following the evolution of the survey, which revealed that T. erytreae was widely distributed throughout the region. The official pesticide treatment programme for
21 2016 focussed on those areas bordering the only remaining free area, and those infested zones with a notably higher presence of T. erytreae, as detailed in figure 4 below:
Figure 4: Intensive pesticide application programme in 2016
68. The regional services informed the audit team that in 2016, to the date of the audit, 2 346 treatments had been carried out, and 9 356 trees treated. The range of active ingredients (and products) available for use in 2016 was more restricted than in 2015, comprising of
22 the following: Tiametoxam 25% WG (Actara 25 WG) and Clorpirifos 48% (ESPIII) [EC] P/V (Exal).
69. The regional services informed the audit team that the cost of the annual survey and official treatment programme for T. erytreae in 2016 was € 392 634.
70. The audit team observed the application of a pesticide treatment to a recently identified infested tree, on the boundary of the infested zone close to Santiago de Compestela, within the area targeted by the official pesticide treatment programme. It was noted that the treatments were applied by specially trained staff from TRAGSA using appropriate equipment. The active ingredient applied was chlorpyriphos, which was chosen primarily on the basis of cost.
71. The audit team noted that the owner of the tree had been provided with documentation by the TRAGSA team detailing the active ingredient used and the harvest interval. The documentation also required that the owner carry out a follow-up treatment within three weeks. When asked by the audit team, the owner stated that he was not aware of this requirement. Although he subsequently stated that he could apply the required treatment, he did not have appropriate equipment to do so.
72. The audit team observed the same problem in other locations visited near Vigo, and noted that the required pesticide treatments had not been applied. A notable exception to this, were nurseries and retailers where host plants were present (and immobilised). In one garden centre visited, the owner had applied treatments every two to three weeks as required. The owner and regional services informed the audit team that no evidence of the presence of T. erytreae had ever been found on the site. The host plants present had though been destroyed voluntarily in September 2016 (see section 5.3.2.3 below).
73. The regional services confirmed that the enforcement of the treatments of infested trees by owners was not possible, and would, considering the scale of the outbreak, most likely be ineffectual in suppressing the pest.
74. The control programme for T. erytreae in Galicia, which is aimed at inhibiting the spread of the pest, is reliant on the systematic, repeat application of authorised pesticides. The range of products available, and the frequency of their application by both the official services and owners of infested trees, is insufficient to comply with the conditions of the control programme, or thereby, to effectively inhibit the spread of the pest, as required by Article 16(1) of Directive 2000/29/EC.
5.3.2.3 Movement of host plants
75. The regional services informed the audit team that no evidence of T. erytreae has been found in any nursery, garden centre or retailer of host plants in the region. This reflects the fact that no host plants are produced in the region; all such plants originate in other (pest free) areas of Spain, or other Member States. The services stated though that all host plants present in such places had been immobilised as required by the Royal
23 Decree, and the immobilisation would remain in effect for at least six months during which, no signs of the pest were observed in the nursery or the rest of the demarcated area. The regional services stated that the sale of any host plant within the demarcated area was prohibited regardless of the origin of the plants. This was confirmed by affected stakeholders and producer organisations met by the audit team.
76. The regional services informed the audit team that in light of the decision to contain the pest, Resolution No 148 of September 2016 had been issued, enabling the payment of compensation for the voluntary destruction of immobilised host plants. The compensation payable in such cases is established in Resolution as follows: Saplings of Citrus, Fortunella, Poncirus spp and hybrids: o With root ball: €5/plant; . In a pot with a diameter less than or equal to 25 cm: € 10/plant; . In a pot with a diameter of 25 to 40 cm: € 20/plant; . In a pot with a diameter >40: 50 €/plant. Saplings of Choisya spp., . In a pot with a diameter less than or equal to 25 cm: € 2/plant; . In a pot with a diameter of 25 to 40 cm: € 4/plant.
77. The audit team met with a retailer of host plants that were produced outside of Galicia. The retailer informed the audit team that all host plants had been treated once every month with approved pesticides. The plants were immobilised on 15 August 2015 and a record of all host plants present was taken. The official services verified that these plants were still present in June 2016. The retailer decided to destroy the host plants in August 2016, and this was done by the official services on 27 September 2016. The retailer confirmed that compensation was paid, however, he stated that this just covered the costs, rather than compensate for income lost from the prohibition on sales, which in this case involved 4 – 5 000 plants annually.
78. The regional services informed the audit team that specific measures are imposed on the movement of citrus fruits in the demarcated areas. These require that warehouses, packers and distribution centres of such fruit must implement a hygiene protocol for vehicles transporting the fruit. This includes the provision of an area for the cleaning of trucks, which should be disinfected prior to departure.
79. The prohibition, and its enforcement, on the movement of host plants from demarcated areas addresses the risk of further movement of T. erytreae on such plants and ensures that only host plants that originate from pest free areas are moved, in line with item 10.1 of Annex IV Part A Section II to Directive 2000/29/EC.
24 80. Similarly, the requirements for the movement of fruits of Citrus from demarcated areas should ensure that such fruit is free from T. erytreae, thereby eliminating the risk of further spread in trade.
Conclusion on control measures for Trioza erytreae
81. The objective of the control measures for T. erytreae outside of Galicia is eradication; the objective in Galicia is to inhibit the further spread of the pest. Both objectives are in line with Article 16(1) of Directive 2000/29/EC. The control measures provided for at national and AC level would, if fully implemented, be appropriate for those objectives.
82. In particular, the prohibition on the sale and movement of host plants out of the demarcated area, and the additional hygiene measures for the movement of citrus fruits produced in the area, should effectively address the risk of further spread of the pest in trade.
83. However, the application of authorised plant protection products, which is the only measure aimed at inhibiting the further natural spread of the pest, is not carried out systematically, particular in those areas bordering the remaining free areas of the AC of Galicia. The further spread of T. erytreae is therefore inevitable. It cannot therefore be concluded that all necessary measures have been taken to inhibit the spread of the pest, at least in those areas, as required by Article 16(1) of Directive 2000/29/EC.
5.4 CONTINGENCY PLAN FOR CANDIDATUS LIBERIBACTER SPP
Legal requirements There are no EU requirements for contingency plans for harmful organisms Article 16(1) to Directive 2000/29/EC ISPM 9 EPPO Standard PM9/10
Findings
84. As detailed in section 5.2.2 above, the surveys carried out for T. erytreae also include surveillance for HLB and its other known vector D. citri. No evidence of the presence of HLB or D. citri has been found as a result.
85. As detailed in section 5.1.2 above, the Royal Decree establishes measures that should be taken in case HLB is found in the absence, or presence, of its vectors. The national contingency plan contains the same measures, together with details of their implementation.
86. The Royal Decree requires that the following measures should be taken in cases where HLB is found, in the absence of its vectors;
25 The competent authority must establish a demarcated area, taking account of the risks, if any, that the contaminated plant material may have transmitted HLB to other host plants; o As a precautionary measure, a surveillance zone of a radius of not less than 500 m should be established around the infested area, where intensive inspections should be carried out for the detection of further infected plants, or vectors; o If the outbreak is detected in a nursery, the nursery should be considered an infested area and the surveillance zone should cover a minimum radius of 500 m around the nursery; o If the outbreak is in an orchard, public park or garden, or a private garden, then the infested area shall cover the entire plantation, park, garden or orchard and the surveillance zone, a radius of at least 500 m around that area; o Steps should be taken to identify the source of infection, including the traceback and trace forward of related host plants. The following eradication measures should be taken: In nurseries: o Detection of all contaminated plant material by sampling and analysis of suspect specimens in an official laboratory; o The immediate destruction in situ, of infected plants and plant material. The whole plant including roots should be removed, or if not possible, the roots should be treated with a herbicide. The destruction must be carried out immediately by the owner under official supervision; o Inspections should be carried out for signs of the disease or its vectors, and samples of host plants should be taken for laboratory analysis, every three months in the surveillance zone; o In addition, inspections should be carried out within a three kilometers radius of the outbreak until that is declared eradicated; o All host plants that are, or are suspected to be at risk of being infected, must be destroyed by incineration or deep burial combined with quick lime; o Identify all nurseries with HLB host plants within 500 m of the outbreak. A census of all host plants on these nurseries should be taken, including the place of origin and date of acquisition, as well as the destination of all plants sold in the last three years. In orchards: o If less than 20% of the total number of plants are infected, they should be destroyed and the remaining plants inspected every three months. If more than
26 20 % of the plants are infected, then all plants in the site of production should be destroyed; o Additional inspections should be carried out to detect possible signs of HLB infection in the demarcated area. Yellow sticky traps should be used during the growing season to confirm the continued absence of vectors.
87. The Royal Decree requires that the following measures should be taken, in addition to those detailed above, if HLB is found together with one of its vectors: Establishment of a demarcated area consisting of a surveillance zone with a radius of three kilometres around the infested zone, where the following control measures should be taken, in addition to those detailed above: o Treatments for the control of the vectors should be applied prior to the removal of host plants; o All host plants in the HLB infested area and the surrounding 100 m should be destroyed; o An intensive sampling programme should be carried out within a 1 km radius, and an intensive monitoring programme within a radius of 1 to 3 km; o In the event that infection is found in a nursery, all host plants sold by that nursery should be traced and destroyed in situ; o As an additional measure a network of yellow sticky traps should be established around the infested area to avoid dispersion of vectors outside the infested zone. The Royal Decree requires that the eradication measures must be carried out immediately by the interested parties, under official control, and at their own expense. 88. The National Contingency Plan provides details of the procedures for the implementation of the above measures.
89. The Royal Decree and National Contingency Plan together provide a basis for the immediate implementation of appropriate control measures following a finding of HLB, in line with Article 16(1) of Directive 2000/29/EC.
Conclusion on Candidatus Liberibacter spp
90. The national legislation and contingency plan provide a sound basis for the timely implementation of control measures following a suspected, or actual, finding of HLB.
91. The control measures are comparable to those required of Member States for the control of Xylella fastidiosa (in Decision 2015/789/EU), which is perhaps the most comparable harmful organism to HLB, and should therefore be appropriate for preventing the establishment and spread of the disease.
27 5.5 SITUATION OF TECIA SOLANIVORA
Legal requirements Article 16(1) of Directive 2000/29/EC Decision 2014/917/EU ISPMs 6, 8 and 9
Findings
5.5.1 Notification of presence of Tecia solanivora
92. MAGRAMA notified the first finding of T. solanivora, in Galicia, on 24 September 2015. According to the notification, moths were found on yellow sticky traps placed in potato fields by the official services following reports by local growers of unusual galleries in potatoes harvested in 2014. The moths were captured in the municipalities of Neda, Ferrol and Narón, all in the province of A Coruña in Galicia. Samples were sent to the official laboratory on 13 June 2015 and were subsequently confirmed as T. solanivora on 31 August 2015.
93. A second notification was provided by MAGRAMA on 10 December 2015, following reports by the owners of two warehouses in Viveiro of suspected symptoms of T. solanivora in stored tubers. Samples were sent to the official laboratory on 11 August 2015, which were subsequently confirmed as T. solanivora on 27 November 2015.
94. A further update was provided on 16 September 2016, which confirmed further findings of T. solanivora as a result of official surveys carried out for the pest. The notification confirmed that the moth had been detected in the municipalities of O Vicedo, Cervo, Burela, Foz, O Valadouro, Alfoz, Mondoñedo, Lourenzá, Barreiros, Ribadeo and Trabada, all of which are in the province of Lugo; and the municipality of Mañon in the province of A Coruña.
95. The first finding of T.solanivora in Asturias was notified by MAGRAMA on 24 June 2016. In this case, samples were taken following findings of the pest in stored potatoes harvested in 2015 and 2016, and subsequently, in one pheromone trap installed in the production site after the earlier findings of the pest. The trap was installed on 1 June 2016, and at the same time, samples were taken from the infested tubers and submitted to the regional laboratory. The laboratory confirmed the presence of T. solanivora on 6 June 2016. Three further outbreaks were identified on 14 June 2016 during the delimiting survey carried out after the first outbreak was confirmed.
96. A second notification was submitted on 29 July 2016, following further findings of the pest in the municipality of Vegadeo and, on 4 July 2016, in the municipality of Lourido. The notification noted that the pest appeared to be restricted to the vicinity of Abres.
97. MAGRAMA notified further findings of T. solanivora in Asturias on 5 August 2016, also as a result of the surveys carried out following the earlier findings. Moths were
28 detected on five yellow traps on 19 July 2016 in the localities of Guiar (Vegadeo), Robaín (San Tirso de Abres), San Andrés (San Tirso de Abres), Vilavedelle (Castropol) and La Viña (Castropol). The traps had been installed in the production sites on 11 July 2016. Figure 5 below provides a summary of the situation of T. solanivora in Spain at the time of the audit.
Figure 5: Situation of Tecia solanivora in Spain, October 2016
98. The notifications above provided details of the control measures that were taken, including the establishment of demarcated areas (see section 112 below).
5.5.2 Surveys for Tecia solanivora
99. MAGRAMA and the regional services of Galicia and Asturias informed the audit team that surveillance for T. solanivora is carried out as part of the national survey for Epitrix spp., which are described in detail in the audit previous report, and also as part of the national survey for potato pests carried out in all regions under the Commission co- financed work programme for the implementation of survey programmes for pests.
100. MAGRAMA stated that the following surveillance had been carried out in all ACs other than Galicia and Asturias: Surveillance in fields: o Seed potatoes: These are only produced in three ACs: Castilla y León, Navarra and País Vasco. 100% of fields were inspected; o Ware potatoes: surveys are carried out simultaneously with those out for Epitrix spp.; 4.43% of fields with ware potatoes were inspected. Surveillance in warehouses:
29 o This is carried out simultaneously with the surveys for the detection of Clavibacter michiganensis subsp. sepedonicus and Ralstonia solanacearum. 878 lots of seed potato and 427 lots of ware potato were inspected between May 2015 and April 2016.
101. MAGRAMA stated that no evidence of the presence of T. solanivora was found during these surveys and that as a result, all ACs other than Galicia and Asturias are considered to be pest free areas for the pest, in line with point 2.2 of ISPM 4.
102. The ACs of Galicia and Asturias have established separate specific surveys for T. solanivora as follows.
5.5.2.1 Surveys for Tecia solanivora in Galicia
103. The regional services of Galicia informed the audit team that a specific survey programme had been established, based on the use of pheromone traps. The trapping programme is implemented by TRAGSATEC, who check the traps every 14 days. In total, 913 traps have been installed as follows: Surveillance during the growing season: o A 1 x 1 km grid of pheromone traps has been installed in those municipalities where outbreaks have been detected in the whole demarcated area ('zone 1' in Fig. 7 below). This equates to 160 traps in A Coruña and 285 traps in Lugo; o A 5 x 5 km grid of pheromone traps has been installed in the municipalities surrounding those where outbreaks of T. solanivora have been found (the 'surveillance zone' – 'zone 2' in Fig 7 below). This equates to 46 traps in A Coruña and 41 traps in Lugo; o A further 79 traps have been installed throughout the remainder of the region ('zone 3' in Fig 7 below). Surveillance outside of the cropping season: o 302 pheromone traps have been installed in potato stores. Additional visual inspections of potatoes for signs of infestation are also carried out in stores. At the time of the audit, 102 such inspections had been carried out.
30 Figure 7: Surveys for Tecia solanivora in Galicia in 2016
104. TRAGSATEC provided a detailed report on the findings (locations and timing) of moth captures in three locations visited by the audit team, close to Neda, which is thought by the regional services, to be the location of the first outbreaks of T. solanivora in Spain. The earliest captures took place on 9 March 2016 (four moths), and the latest on 17 August 2016 (11 moths).
105. The regional services informed the audit team that, as a result of the surveys, T. solanivora had been confirmed to be present in the municipalities of Ferrol, Narón, Nera and Mañon in A Coruña, and the municipalities of Viveiro, Xove, O Vicedo, Cervo, Burela, Foz, O Valadouro, Alfoz, Mondoñedo, Lourenzá, Barreiros, Ribadeo and Trabada in Lugo. The measures taken to control the moth are detailed in section 5.6.1 below. 106. The survey programme has established the distribution of T. solanivora in Galicia, in line with ISPMs 6 and 8. The control measures for the pest are detailed in section 5.6 below.
5.5.2.2 Surveys in Asturias
107. The regional services informed the audit team that a specific survey programme based on the use of traps and visual inspections was introduced in June 2016 following the first
31 reports of the possible presence of the moth in the AC. In total, 131 traps have been installed in infected zones and adjacent areas east of these zones in the municipalities of Vegadeo, Castropol, San Tirso de Abres, Coaña and Navia, to detect the possible spread of the pest. Table 4 below summarises the location and types of traps used in the survey programme.
Table 4: Trapping programme for Tecia solanivora in Asturias in 2016
Type of trap10 Location Number Unitrap Warehouse 105 Unitrap Commercial warehouses 1 Unitrap Commercial warehouses 6 Delta Potato plantations 9 Delta Private store 1
108. The regional service informed the audit team that in 2016 to the date of the audit, 7 traps had been installed in commercial warehouses. All of these warehouses are located in the west of the region, between the Navia and Eo estuaries. Six of these traps are delta traps, with a pheromone with a duration of two months. The regional services stated that they had also distributed 250 Unitraps and 500 pheromone capsules (two per trap) to farmers and stakeholders as part of the survey programme. The survey programme has established the distribution of T. solanivora in Asturias, in line with ISPMs 6 and 8. The control measures for the pest are detailed in section 5.6 below.
Conclusion on situation of Tecia solanivora 109. The outbreaks of T. solanivora have been notified to the European Commission and other Member States, in line with Article 2 of Decision 2014/917/EU.
110. There was a significant delay in confirming the identification of T. solanivora. While the time for this is not specified in EU legislation, such delays result in a corresponding significant delay in requiring and implementing control measures.
111. The surveys carried out for T. solanivora have reliably established the distribution of the pest, and in particular its absence from all ACs, apart from Galicia and Asturias, and its restricted distribution within these ACs. This provides assurance that potatoes produced outside of the demarcated areas are free from the pest.
10 https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/3559/publications/traps-08-epskymorrillmankin.pdf - provides a summary of types of traps
32 5.6 CONTROL MEASURES FOR TECIA SOLANIVORA
Legal requirements Article 16(1) to Directive 2000/29/EC. ISPM 9.
Findings
112. As detailed in section 5.1.2.2 above, no specific legislation concerning T. solanivora has been adopted at national level. At the time of the audit, a draft National Contingency Plan had been issued for its control, details the measures that should be taken in the event that the presence of the pest is suspected, or confirmed, as follows: In the event that the presence of T. solanivora is suspected:
o The official services should carry out inspections in the area in order to verify: . In situ, the presence of suspected symptoms. In cases where the suspicion is based solely on trap captures, inspections should be carried out in the place of destination of the potatoes; . The origin of the potatoes, and where appropriate a trace-forward of any potatoes sold; . Traps should be installed in the place of production and/or the store(s). The traps should be in place, and inspected regularly, whenever the mean temperature exceeds 10oC; . When the suspected finding is in a store, or in the field of production, all affected lots should be immobilised, pending the outcome of laboratory analysis. If the presence of T. solanivora is confirmed, the following action should be taken: o A demarcated area should be established as follows: . The infested zone The entire field in which symptomatic tubers were found, or in which moths have been captured in traps; The store in which the symptomatic tubers have been found, or where moths have been captured in traps. . The surveillance zone The remainder of the municipality (minimum radius of 1 km around the infested zone).
o The following eradication measures should be taken:
33 . Destruction of all tubers produced in the infested zone, at time of harvest, or if already harvested, in stores; . Application of authorised pesticides in the infected zone, at the time of harvesting potatoes in the infected zone, and again prior to planting the next crop. The first should be a foliar application, aimed at killing the larvae; the second should be granular insecticide applied to the soil; . The use of pesticides is stated to be complimentary to the following cultural measures; Prohibit the planting of potatoes in the infested zone for at least two years; Ensure that all potatoes, and plants, from previous crops ('volunteers') are removed. . In infested stores: all tubers present at the time the pest was detected should be treated with the authorised active substances prior to their destruction, to avoid possible dispersal of the pest; The store should be cleaned and disinfected with 2% bleach. o Additional measures are required for probably contaminated places and potatoes, similar to those above.
5.6.1 Control measures for Tecia solanivora in Galicia
113. As detailed in section 5.1.2 above, the AC of Galicia has adopted two Resolutions aimed at the control of T. solanivora. The first of these, dated 3 November 2015, confirmed the presence of the organism in the municipalities of Ferrol, Narón and Neda in the province of A Coruña, and required that measures be taken against the pest in those municipalities. The second Resolution extended the list of infested municipalities.
114. The regional services informed the audit team that demarcated areas had been established and control measures applied in line with the National Contingency Plan. Additional control measures were specified in Galicia as follows:
For infected zones: o Install pheromone traps: both in cultivation and in storage, to detect the presence of moths and contribute to their control; o Compulsory use of certified seed potato for ware potato production. For all producers in the demarcated area: o Remove all potatoes and plants from previous seasons at least 15 days prior to planting; o After sowing, ensure that all seeds are covered with at least 15cm of soil;
34 For operators of commercial warehouses:
o Separation between seed and ware potatoes; o Install mesh to exclude entry of moths into stores; o Treatment of stored potatoes with plant protection products authorised by MAGRAMA; o Installation of pheromone traps in stores – no potatoes can be sold in case of captures. 115. The regional services informed the audit team that 1 800 kg of ware potatoes originating in 13 producers where T. solanivora had been found, either in traps or in stored potatoes, had been destroyed under official control in 2016. Compensation, at a rate of € 0.30/kg, is available for the owners of the potatoes that are destroyed.
116. The regional services informed the audit team that the cost of the annual survey and official treatment programme for T. solanivora was included in the programme for Epitrix spp., which in 2016, cost € 313 311.
117. The audit team met with three producers of ware potatoes in the demarcated area close to Nedra; in one case, T. solanivora had been found in the field and in a trap subsequently installed in the store; the second and third, where moths had been captured in the field only. In the first case, all of the potatoes in the store (approximately 80 kg) had been held for destruction by the official services. The producer involved, indicated that she normally used self-saved seed, despite being in a demarcated area, but in 2017, certified seed would be planted, due to the destruction of all harvested potatoes. The second producer involved confirmed that the measures detailed above had been taken. No signs of infestation had been found in the stored tubers (approximately 70 kg), and the householder had applied an anti-germination treatment, which was believed to prevent infestation. The producer informed the audit team that she routinely used certified seed. The third producer indicated that the above measures had been required. The producer had decided to concentrate on production of early potatoes, which in that region, are harvested in April, before the moth activity peaks. The producer routinely used self-saved seed, however following the move to early potato production, the producer was now trying to source certified seed.
118. The control measures taken following a finding of T. solanivora focus on infected tubers or the field or store in which the trap on which the moths were caught was placed, which is not necessarily their source. This means that the measures are unlikely to result in the eradication of the pest from the infected area, however they should at least inhibit its spread in line with Article 16(1) of Directive 2000/29/EC.
5.6.2 Control measures for Tecia solanivora in Asturias
119. As detailed in section 5.1.2 above, the AC of Asturias has not adopted specific legislation concerning T. solanivora; the regional services informed the audit team that a
35 Resolution for control measures against T. solanivora had been drafted, however, they stated that the national legislation provided an adequate basis for taking measures following a finding of the pest.
120. The regional services informed the audit team that a total of 111 outbreaks had been identified in three municipalities. Control measures had been applied in line with the National Action Plan. Most notably though, the infested zone is considered to be the whole of the municipality, rather than just the place of production.
121. The control measures taken following a finding of T. solanivora focus on infected tubers or the field or store in which the trap on which the moths were caught was placed, which is not necessarily their source. This means that the measures are unlikely to result in the eradication of the pest from the infected area, however they should at least inhibit its spread in line with Article 16(1) of Directive 2000/29/EC.
Conclusion on control measures for Tecia solanivora 122. The objective of the control measures for T. solanivora in both Galicia and Asturias, is its eradication, however the measures, as applied, are unlikely to achieve this.
123. The prohibition on the movement of potatoes from demarcated areas and the destruction of infested lots should effectively address the risk of further spread of the pest in trade, and inhibit its spread from the infected areas.
6 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS
A comprehensive survey programme is in place for both Trioza erytreae and Tecia solanivora. This has established the distribution of both pests within Spain, and in particular the areas that are free from T. erytreae, necessary for the movement of host plants. Control measures are implemented following the appearance of either harmful organism. These have effectively addressed the risk of further spread of both pests through the movement of host plants. However, the measures intended to inhibit the natural spread of T. erytreae are not systematically implemented, and as a result, its further spread, at least into the remaining free areas of Galicia, is considered inevitable. The control measures for T. solanivora largely focus on the place of its detection, which is not necessarily the source of the pest. As a result, the measures are unlikely to eradicate the pest, although they should effectively inhibit its spread from the infected areas, in line with EU legislation. A comprehensive survey for Candidatus Liberibacter spp., has been established which has confirmed that the harmful organism and its only other known vector Diaphorina citri, are not present in Spain. A national contingency plan has been drafted, which should ensure that appropriate action will be taken in the event that it appears in the future.
36 7 CLOSING MEETING
A closing meeting was held on 28 October 2016 at the headquarters of the Single Authority in Madrid, during which the main findings and preliminary conclusions of the audit team were presented. The Single Authority and representatives of the official services of the Autonomous Communities visited during the audit, provided clarifications and corrections.
8 RECOMMENDATIONS
The competent authority of Spain is invited to to provide details of actions, both planned and already taken, including deadlines for their completion, in the form of an 'action plan', aimed at addressing the recommendations as set out below, within twenty five working days of receipt of this audit report.
No. Recommendation 1. To ensure that the presence, or actual appearance, of a harmful organism, as referred to in Articles 16(1) and (2) of Directive 2000/29/EC is notified no later than eight working days following the date of confirmation, in line with Article 2(1) of Decision 2014/917/EU. Recommendation based on conclusions No 46 and associated finding No 31. 2. To ensure that the control measures for Trioza erytreae are systematically implemented, at least in those areas bordering free areas, in order to inhibit the spread of the pest as required by Article 16(1) of Directive 2000/29/EC. Recommendation based on conclusion No 83 and associated findings No 70 – 74. 3. To ensure that the control measures for Tecia solanivora address the source of the pest and not solely the place of detection, in order to eradicate, or if that is not possible, to inhibit the further spread of the harmful organism, as required by Article 16(1) of Directive 2000/29/EC. Recommendation based on conclusion No 122 and associated finding No 118.
The competent authority's response to the recommendations can be found at:
http://ec.europa.eu/food/audits-analysis/rep_details_en.cfm?rep_inspection_ref=2016-8797
37 ANNEX 1 – LEGAL REFERENCES
Legal Reference Official Journal Title Dir. 2000/29/EC OJ L 169, 10.7.2000, Council Directive 2000/29/EC of 8 May p. 1-112 2000 on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the Community
Dec. 2014/917/EU OJ L 360, Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 17.12.2014, p. 59–64 2014/917 of 15 December 2014 setting out detailed rules for the implementation of Council Directive 2000/29/EC as regards the notification of the presence of harmful organisms and of measures taken or intended to be taken by the Member States
Dec. 2015/789/EU OJ L 125, 21.5.2015, Commission Implementing Decision (EU) p. 36–53 2015/789 of 18 May 2015 as regards measures to prevent the introduction into and the spread within the Union of Xylella fastidiosa (Wells et al.) ANNEX 2 – INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS QUOTED IN THE REPORT
International Title Standard
ISPM 4 International Standard on Phytosanitary Measures Publication No 4, Requirements for the establishment of pest free areas, Food and Agriculture Organisation, Rome, August 2011 https://www.ippc.int/en/publications/614/
ISPM 6 International Standard on Phytosanitary Measures Publication No 6, Guidelines for surveillance, Food and Agriculture Organisation, Rome, January 2016, https://www.ippc.int/en/publications/615/
ISPM 8 International Standard on Phytosanitary Measures Publication No 8, Determination of pest status in an area, Food and Agriculture Organisation, Rome, November 1998 https://www.ippc.int/en/publications/612/
ISPM 9 International Standard on Phytosanitary Measures Publication No 9, Guidelines for pest eradication programmes, Food and Agriculture Organisation, Rome, January 2016 https://www.ippc.int/en/publications/611/
PM 9/10(1) EPPO Standard – Generic elements for contingency plans, November 2009 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365- 2338.2009.02332.x/full
PM 7/121(1) EPPO Standard - Diagnostic protocols – Candidatus Liberibacter africanus’, ‘Candidatus Liberibacter americanus’ and ‘Candidatus Liberibacter asiaticus’ and for their detection in their psyllid vectors Diaphorina citri and Trioza erytreae. December 2014, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/epp.12161/full
1