3Rd Meeting of the Panel on Phytosanitary Procedures

EUROPEAN AND MEDITERRANEAN PLANT PROTECTION ORGANIZATION 05-12037

Bactrocera zonata

Extracts of reports of EPPO Meetings

As mentioned on the introductory section of the Web page on PRA documents, PRA documents are working documents which have usually been produced by an assessor whose opinion may have been commented during Panel meetings and comments have usually not been included in the PRA documents but are found in Panel meeting reports. This document consists of extracts of EPPO Meetings' discussions on Pest Risk Analysis documents on the relevant pest. Discussions on Pest Specific Phytosanitary Requirements (PSPR)1, have also been reported when relevant as they include elements on possible risk management options.

39th Meeting of the Working Party on Phytosanitary Regulations (Irkutsk, Russia, 2001-06- 25/28) 1 New pest situations 1.1 Situation of Bactrocera zonata in Egypt Mr Smith (Chairman) explained that the peach fruit fly Bactrocera zonata had become widespread in Egypt in the last 3-4 years. This pest had already been intercepted in Israel. Countries in North Africa, the Near East and, to a lesser extent, the whole Mediterranean Basin, were exposed to a risk of introduction. B. zonata had until now not been treated as a priority by EPPO because it was present only in tropical areas and so presented a lesser risk than other fruit flies. However, its establishment within the EPPO region completly changed this viewpoint. Morocco had expressed the wish that PRA should be carried out, that general strategies to prevent introduction should be developed and that measures to be taken in case of introduction should be defined. Mr Pemberton (GB) reported that Jordan had contacted FAO because of concerns about this fruit fly, and that a PRA had been performed in the UK (which would be sent to the EPPO Secretariat). This pest was spreading rapidly towards Israel and had apparently been trapped 500 m from the Gaza strip. The major risk did not arise from commercial orchards, where the fruit fly was damaging but under control, but from private gardens. Jordan was especially worried about movement of people. Mrs Vicinanza (USDA) reported that this pest had also been discussed during an IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) meeting on the Mediterranean fruit fly for Jordan, Israel, Palestine and Egypt. In particular, the sterile-insect technique, already used against the Mediterranean fruit fly, would not work for two species at the same time. Mr Smith (Chairman) thought that EPPO should attempt to recommend trapping methods and eradication measures to the countries threatened. He proposed that a workshop should be convened. Mr Lopian (FI) supported his idea, as well as Mrs Petter (FR) who suggested that information already available on eradication and trapping programmes for fruit flies could be provided to the Secretariat to prepare the workshop. She would send material available for fruit-fly eradication in Réunion. Mr Smith (Chairman) said that contacts would be taken with Morocco or Jordan to prepare this meeting, which would probably be held in Paris . The Secretariat would attempt to plan the Workshop by the end of 2001 or the beginning of 2002, and would collect as much material as possible in advance. The Working Party decided that a Workshop on Bactrocera zonata should be organized.

EPPO Workshop on Bactrocera zonata (Paris, 2002-03-05/06) 2 Conclusions - The Workshop was informed that B. zonata is now widespread in Egypt, and expressed its great concern about this situation. - The Workshop recognized the potential economic importance of this pest for the EPPO region, and believed that countries neighbouring Egypt are at high risk, while other Mediterranean countries are

1 formerly called Specific Quarantine Requirements (SQR)

sur 4 also exposed. All are likely to have, at least locally, conditions suitable for the establishment of this pest. - The Workshop recognized that some countries may not be convinced that this originally tropical fruit fly could establish on their territories, and may consider that data available at the moment is not sufficient to support this hypothesis. Although some uncertainties remain on the possibility of establishment of B. zonata in some Mediterranean countries, the Workshop noted a strong presumption that the Egyptian populations are already different from that in Asia, and are more adapted to the Mediterranean region. The Workshop proposed that further studies should be done on populations from Pakistan and Egypt. Mr Cayol will take up this point in IAEA. However, whatever uncertainties remain, the Workshop strongly insisted that there is no doubt from the data available that other countries are at risk. - Although there are still doubts on the precise host range of Bactrocera zonata, which may even vary according to areas, the pest is highly polyphagous, and would have no difficulty in finding hosts in any Mediterranean EPPO countries. - The Workshop recognized that, given the widespread distribution of the pest in Egypt and the fact that it is easily transported (in particular by fruits carried by travellers), the current issue for neighbouring countries and other countries at risk is more to delay its introduction than to prevent it completely. - The Workshop finally noted that the introduction of B. zonata would threaten the control programmes which are currently undertaken in some countries against Ceratitis capitata (IAEA medfly SIT projects).

3 Recommendations - The Workshop recommends, based on the PRA for Jordan, that Bactrocera zonata should be specifically categorized by EPPO as an A1 quarantine pest and appropriate measures taken in consequence. As a first step, it is recommended that consignments of fruits from countries where B. zonata occurs should be free from the pest. The Working Party on Phytosanitary Regulations should urgently establish a programme to develop phytosanitary measures. - The Workshop believes that fruits of all species coming from infested areas constitute potential pathways. Consignments of plants for planting of relevant species from countries were the pest occurs should be free from fruits. Because the host range of B. zonata is wide and not fully known, research is needed to clarify it in various areas. - The Workshop believes that a strong public awareness campaign is needed. EPPO will ensure that its Member countries are kept informed on the situation, with ample reference to the programme of IAEA, through this report, the Reporting Service and a special page on its Web site. - Data on identification of adults of B. zonata exists. This should be compiled in an EPPO diagnostic protocol. - There is currently no up-to-date description of larvae of B. zonata and this should be developed (this will be discussed in other fora). - A Technical Cooperation Project is being developed in FAO, and countries at risk are invited to join this cooperative effort. - IAEA has developed an action plan for B. zonata, which is attached to this report. Further details can be obtained from Mr Cayol ([email protected]). The Workshop strongly recommends countries to consult and use this action plan. Basis of the action plan There is a need to ascertain that this pest is not present in other EPPO countries, and, for countries at risk, to monitor for its possible future introduction. All EPPO countries in the Mediterranean region, especially those which are likely to have received or to receive B. zonata from infested countries, are therefore recommended to initiate monitoring programmes at relevant points of entry (using Jackson or Steiner traps with methyl eugenol and insecticide 3:1).

sur 4 Countries at risk should prepare to take emergency action. In preparation for future introductions, the following action should be taken: * Monitoring at appropriate locations throughout the country should be put in place and maintained. * Personnel should be trained for the identification of the pest. Mr Cayol explained that a workshop on identification planned for this purpose in Near East countries had been cancelled, but similar action will be implemented. * Countries at risk should start purchasing required materials, so that they are available immediately on introduction of the pest. Details are provided in the IAEA action plan. This includes for example lure & kill stations (BactroMAT® kill blocks (Aventis) or blocks prepared locally), protein and insecticide for bait sprays, knapsack sprayers. * Preventive sprays may be applied in areas which are the most at risk. In case of introduction: if the pest is detected for the first time in a small area, strong action should be taken to avoid spread following the recommendations in the IAEA action plan, using for example lure & kill blocks (4-5 blocs per ha for a total of 45 weeks) and protein bait sprays.

Report of the 34th Meeting of the Panel on Phytosanitary Measures (Paris, 2002-01-22/25) 4 Future activities 4.1 Workshop on Bactrocera zonata (Paris, 2002-03-05/06) The Panel received an outline programme of the Workshop on Bactrocera zonata, which will take place in Paris in March 2002. This pest was now present and widespread in Egypt, and was threatening neighbouring countries. Panel members were most welcome to consider whether they could provide speakers or information for this Workshop. Mrs Petter reported that work had been done on eradication of B. zonata in the Indian Ocean (Réunion, Mauritius, Seychelles) and on alternatives to the use of methyl eugenol for this purpose. A video on eradication would be provided. Mr Unger noted that there was a need to review all measures for fruit flies, because of recent findings of fruit flies in several European countries and of the decreasing number of plant protection products available to control fruit flies in the EU. For example, there would soon be no plant protection product available to control the local fruit fly Rhagoletis cerasi. It would be interesting, at the next Council Colloquium on plant protection and organic farming, to have an analysis of plant quarantine, organic farming and consequences of fruit flies. Mr Bartlett agreed that there should be a general discussion on fruit flies, because more experience was now available on how to carry out risk analysis for more temperate fruit flies and because countries had a very different approach to these pests. He agreed to produce a document on fruit flies for the next Panel meeting, covering elements of risk, phytosanitary measures, differences of measures for EU and EPPO etc. A document on fruit flies would be prepared by Mr Bartlett for the next meeting. Fruit flies might be covered within the next Council Colloquium on plant protection and organic farming.

40th Meeting of the Working Party on Phytosanitary Regulations (Vilnius & Juodkrante, Lithuania, 2002-06-18/21) 5 Workshops and conferences 4.1 Workshop on Bactrocera zonata (Paris, 2002-03-05/06) Mr Smith (Chairman) reported that the Workshop on Bactrocera zonata had reviewed the situation of this fruit fly and had made a series of recommendations. B. zonata had been introduced into Egypt and was now widespread. The nearest countries trading with Egypt, such as Jordan, Israel, Syria, Lebanon, North African countries, were the most at risk, as well as, more widely, Mediterranean countries. EPPO should make recommendations to these countries, most of which are not EU member states. He also felt that the EU could usefully review the situation because B. zonata was likely to spread. Although regulations against non European Tephritidae were in place in many EPPO countries, the issue in this case was to cover one particular origin, i.e. Egypt. The pathway was transport of host fruits, but fruit exports and the reality of the pathway had not been analysed in detail for all EPPO countries, but only for Jordan, for which a detailed PRA had been done. The attention of inspection

sur 4 services should be focussed on this pest. The alert should be made stronger because if B. zonata spreads it will be the first case for many years of a non-European fruit fly establishing in the Euromediterranean region. He proposed that the conclusions and recommendations of the Workshop should be endorsed by the Working Party and presented to Council for adoption. They included categorization of B. zonata as an A1 quarantine pest, research on several topics, and recommendations that EPPO countries should consult the IAEA/FAO Action Plan against B. zonata and be prepared to deal with possible introductions. Mrs Perez (ES) expressed strong concerns from Spain, and proposed that EPPO should take action and circulate more information on eradication. The Working Party endorsed the recommendations of the Workshop and proposes their adoption by Executive Committee and Council.

Report of the 41st Meeting of the Working Party on Phytosanitary Regulations (Ukraine, 2003- 06-25/30) 14. EPPO list of quarantine pest 5.1 Bactrocera zonata Ms Vicinenza (USDA) reported that B. zonata was a serious threat in Egypt but there was actually no plan for controlling it. She also indicated that a new and damaging Bactrocera sp. had appeared in Kenya. Ms Petter (Assistant Director) said that the Panel on Phytosanitary Procedures had decided to draft recommendations for B. zonata.