Final Report of a Mission Carried out in Greece from 02 to 10 February

EUROPEAN COMMISSION HEALTH AND CONSUMERS DIRECTORATE-GENERAL

Directorate F - Food and Veterinary Office Ares(2010)438607

DG(SANCO) 2010-8609 - MR FINAL

FINAL REPORT OF A MISSION

CARRIED OUT IN

GREECE

FROM 02 TO 10 FEBRUARY 2010

IN ORDER TO EVALUATE THE STATUS OF PROTECTED ZONES IN GREECE (FOLLOW- UP), THE GENERAL SYSTEM OF SURVEILLANCE FOR HARMFUL ORGANISMS AND THE SITUATION AND CONTROLS FOR RHYNCHOPHORUS FERRUGINEUS (FOLLOW- UP)

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 a mission carried out by the Food and Veterinary Office in Greece from 2 to 10 February 2010. The objectives of the mission were to evaluate the actions taken by Greece in response to the recommendations of mission report DG(SANCO)/2009/8146 regarding protected zones, the general system of surveillance for harmful organisms, and the actions taken by Greece in response to the recommendations of mission report DG(SANCO)/2009/8146 and mission report DG(SANCO)/2009/8353 regarding Rhynchophorus ferrugineus.

Since the last FVO mission on protected zones Greece has made significant progress. The Single Authority (SA) has put in place a general system for co-coordinating, planning the official surveys and compiling their results which were duly notified to the Commission and the other Member States. Nowadays, this system is based on an adequate methodology, and supported by laboratory analyses. However, the fact that a minority of Prefectures have not implemented or have only partly implemented the survey plan means that the national survey did not confirm that the relevant harmful organisms are not endemic or established in certain areas of the protected zone. In addition, the movement of articles within the protected zone is still not always in compliance with EU legislation.

Greece has also put in place a system of surveillance for other harmful organisms, amongst which are harmful organisms subject to EU emergency measures. This system is generally appropriate but at the moment it does not deal with Anoplophora chinenis, which is not in compliance with the EU requirements.

Since the two last FVO missions on this subject, Greece has made efforts to improve the survey and the control measures for R. ferrugineus. These efforts were made both by the SA and the Prefectures. However the improvements in the control measures do not compensate for the significant delay in cutting and destroying the infested trees, which means that these measures cannot be considered as “appropriate measures aiming at eradication”. Also, the deficiencies in reporting the survey results and in notifying immediately any significant development of the situation, such as new Prefectures or a new plant species found infested, have prevented the Commission and the other Member States from having an accurate picture of the situation in 2008 and 2009.

Recommendations are made in the report to address the shortcomings found.

I Table of Contents

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 2 OBJECTIVES OF THE MISSION ...... 1 3 LEGAL BASIS FOR THE MISSION ...... 2 4 BACKGROUND ...... 2 5 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ...... 2 5.1 COMPETENT AUTHORITIES ...... 2 5.2 PROTECTED ZONES ...... 2 5.2.1 SPECIFIC BACKGROUND ...... 2 5.2.2 SYSTEMATIC OFFICIAL SURVEY ...... 3 5.2.3 INTERNAL MARKET CONTROL AND PLANT PASSPORTING ...... 7 5.2.4 GENERAL CONCLUSION FOR PROTECTED ZONES ...... 8 5.3 SYSTEM OF SURVEILLANCE FOR HARMFUL ORGANISMS ...... 9 5.3.1 PURPOSE OF SURVEILLANCE ...... 9 5.3.2 ORGANISATION OF THE SURVEY ...... 10 5.3.3 SURVEY IMPLEMENTATION ...... 11 5.3.4 DATA HANDLING AND REPORTING ...... 11 5.3.5 GENERAL CONCLUSION ON THE GENERAL SYSTEM OF SURVEILLANCE FOR HARMFUL ORGANISMS ...... 11 5.4 RHYNCHOPHORUS FERRUGINEUS ...... 12 5.4.1 SPECIFIC BACKGROUND ...... 12 5.4.2 SPECIFIC LEGISLATION ...... 12 5.4.3 SURVEYS ...... 12 5.4.4 CONTROL MEASURES IN CASE OF OUTBREAKS ...... 14 5.4.5 CONTROL OF INTERNAL MOVEMENTS AND IMPORT CONTROLS ...... 20 5.4.6 GENERAL CONCLUSION FOR RHYNCHOPHORUS FERRUGINEUS ...... 21 6 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS ...... 21 7 CLOSING MEETING ...... 21 8 RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 21 ANNEX 1 - LEGAL REFERENCES ...... 24

II ABBREVIATIONS AND DEFINITIONS USED IN THIS REPORT

Abbreviation Explanation BPI Benaki Phytopathological institute CTV Citrus Tristeza Virus EU European Union FSP Forest Service of the Prefecture FVO Food and Veterinary Office ISPM International Standard for Phytosanitary Measure MRDF Ministry of Rural Development and Food NAGREF Institute of Mediterranean Forest Ecosystems of the National Agricultural Research Foundation RDDP Rural Development Directorates of Agriculture of the Prefecture SA Single Authority

III 1 INTRODUCTION

The mission took place in Greece from 2 to 10 February 2010 as a part of the Food and Veterinary Office's (FVO) planned mission programme. The mission team consisted of two inspectors from the FVO and a national expert from a Member State and was accompanied by representatives of the Single Authority (SA) throughout the mission.

An opening meeting was held on 2 February 2010 at the headquarters of the Department of Phytosanitary Control of the Directorate of Plant Produce Protection, in the Hellenic Ministry of Rural Development and Food (MRDF) in Athens during which the objectives and itinerary for the mission were confirmed. A closing meeting was held at the headquarters of the MRDF in Athens on 10 February 2010.

2 OBJECTIVES OF THE MISSION

The objectives of the mission were:

-to evaluate the actions taken by Greece in response to the recommendations of mission report DG(SANCO)/2009/8146 regarding protected zones;

-to evaluate the general system of surveillance for harmful organisms;

-to evaluate the actions taken by Greece in response to the recommendations of mission report DG(SANCO)/2009/8146 and mission report DG(SANCO)/2009/8353 regarding Rhynchophorus ferrugineus.

In pursuit of these objectives, the following sites were visited:

Competent Authorities N° Comments Single Authority Central 1 Departement of Phytosanitary Control of MRDF Other responsible bodies Prefectures 6 Drama, Eastern Attica, Halkidiki, Heraklion, Ilia, Serres, Plant health Nurseries or garden centres 4 Drama: 2, Halkidiki: 1, Serres: 1 Saw mills 1 Serres:1 Outbbreaks sites R. ferrugineus 7 Eastern Attica : 2, Ilia : 4, Heraklion: 1

In addition, representatives of the Prefectures of Dodecanese and Lasithi were interviewed.

Definitions of terms used in this report are contained in Article 2 of Directive 2000/29/EC. In addition, the following terms are used in this report:

Harmful organisms - refers to those pests and diseases listed in Annexes I and II of Directive 2000/29/EC and other pests and diseases not listed, but considered to be of quarantine status;

1 and according to the International Standard for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPM) N° 5 :

Surveillance – official process which collects and records data on pest occurence or absence by survey, monitoring or other procedures; Survey – official procedure conducted over a defined period of time to determine the characteristics of a pest population or to determine which species occur in an area.

3 LEGAL BASIS FOR THE MISSION

The mission was carried out under the mandate of Article 21 and Article 27a of Directive 2000/29/EC. All legal references relevant for this mission are listed in the Annex to this report. Legal acts quoted refer, where applicable, to the last amended version.

4 BACKGROUND

Mission DG(SANCO)/2209/8146 (hereinafter named February 2009 mission) was carried out from 26 January to 6 February 2009. Mission DG(SANCO)/2009/8353 (hereinafter named July 2009 mission) was carried out from 14 to 17 July 2009. The reports of both missions can be found at: http://ec.europa.eu/food/fvo

5 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

5.1 COMPETENT AUTHORITIES

The structure and responsibilities of the plant health services in Greece are described in details in reports of previous FVO missions. More information can also be found in the FVO country profile for Greece (http://ec.europa.eu/food/fvo/country_profiles_en.cfm).

The MRDF is the SA. It is responsible for co-ordination in plant health and contact with the Commission and the other Member States. The role of the other responsible bodies involved in the matter covered by this report is explained in the parts 5.2.2.1, 5.3.2, and 5.4.3.

5.2 PROTECTED ZONES

5.2.1 Specific background

Commission Regulation (EC) No. 690/2008 recognises the whole territory of Greece as a protected zone for the following harmful organisms: Anthonomus grandis, Curtobacterium flaccumfaciens pv. flaccumfaciens, Glomerella gossypii, Citrus tristeza virus and up until 31 March 2010 Dendroctonus micans, Gilpinia hercyniae, Gonipterus scutellatus, Ips aminitus, Ips cembrae and Ips duplicatus.

Dendroctonus micans, Ips aminitus, Ips cembrae, and Ips duplicatus are insects from the Scolytidae

2 family which attack conifer trees.

All these harmful organisms are included in Annex II, Part B to Directive 2000/29/EC; their host plants are listed in Annex V, Part A, Section II, of this Directive. Specific additional requirements which must be complied with in order to issue a plant passport valid for protected zone are included in Annex IV, Part B, of the Directive. Of all these harmful organisms, only Citrus tristeza virus (CTV) had been reported as occurring in Greece up until the time of this mission.

5.2.2 Systematic official survey

Legal requirements

Article 2(1)(h) of Directive 2000/29/EC requires that Member States conduct regular and systematic official surveys for the presence of organisms in respect of which protected zones have been recognised and that survey programmes shall take into account scientific and statistical principles.

Article 1(3)(a) of Directive 92/70/EEC specifies that the surveys have to be carried out at least once a year (Article 1(3)(a)) and lays down detailed rules for these, which are:

• to establish an official action programme which aims to seek confirmation that the relevant harmful organism is not endemic or established in the protected zone (Article 1(2)(a));

• the action programme shall comprise a survey based on an understanding of the biology of the harmful organism(s) of concern and of the agronomy and environment of the relevant zone using appropriate methods of analysis (Article 1(3)(a) first indent), and a system for keeping records of the results (Article 1(3)(a), third indent).

• that persons entitled to carry out the surveys must have the qualifications necessary for proper operation of the surveys (Article 1(3)(b));

• to monitor surveys programmes by persons entitled to act for the responsible official bodies in a Member State (Article 1(2)(b));

• that a survey shall comprise, in cases of doubt, laboratory testing of samples (Article 1(4) (e)).

The third indent of Article 1(3)(a) of Directive 92/70/EEC requires survey programmes to include a system for keeping records of the results.

Article 1(3)(d) of Directive 92/70/EEC requires that the survey methodology and conduct must be notified to the Commission. Article 2(1)(h) of Directive 2000/29/EC requires Member States to notify the Commission, in writing, of the results of the surveys.

5.2.2.1 Organisation of the survey

Audit findings

Recommendation 8 of the February 2009 Mission requested the SA to ensure that regular and systematic official surveys for the presence of organisms in respect of which Greece has been recognised as a protected zone based on Regulation (EC) No.690/2008, are organised and conducted, as required by Article 2(1)(h) of Directive 2000/29/EC and as specified by Directive 92/70/EEC.

3 The Benaki Phytopathological Institute (BPI) has been entrusted by the SA with general coordination of the surveys, this includes data handling (compilation of all survey results and record keeping) and reporting to the SA. BPI is also responsible for establishing the surveys methodology for harmful organisms not relevant for forest, including a detailed survey plan by harmful organism and by Prefecture.

The Institute of Mediterranean Forest Ecosystems of the National Agricultural Research Foundation (NAGREF) is responsible for establishing the surveys methodology for harmful organisms relevant for forests, including a detailed survey plan by harmful organism and by Prefecture.

Diagnostic and training support is provided by BPI, NAGREF or other specialised laboratories.

Surveys are carried out on non forest crops by the Rural Development Directorate of Agriculture of the Prefectures (RDDP) and on forests by the Forest Services of the Prefectures (FSP).

In 2009 the SA informed the Prefectures regarding the requirements for the protected zone official survey and the methodology in written format and through a meeting. The SA held two additional meetings in order to inform the Prefectures about the findings of the 2009 missions. According to the administrative structures of Greece the implementation of the protected zone requirements is the exclusive responsibility of the Prefectures.

The survey methodology including the survey plan is available for the inspectors from the Prefectures through a restricted access to the BPI (www.bpi.gr) website. The public has free access to general guidelines on the same website.

The mission team had access to the guidelines and survey instructions during the mission and noted the following:

➢ The survey methodology covers the harmful organisms for which Greece is a recognised protected zone. It contains information on the biology of the harmful organism, instructions for visual inspections, sample taking, placing and controls of traps, the contact details of the responsible laboratories and the survey plan by Prefecture. A total of 26 traps were foreseen for Scolytidae in the 2009 survey plan. BPI and NAGREF stated that the total number of traps for Scolitidae has been increased from 26 to 100 in 2010 and that the setting-up of the additional traps had already started.

➢ BPI and NAGREF stated that the basis for the survey plans were the biology of the pests, the risk of introduction under certain conditions (climate and risk points such as roads and entry points) and the distribution of certain crops in different parts of Greece. Data from the statistical office and additional data from the Prefectures were used to set up the survey plan. However NAGREF admitted that the FSP in a number of Prefectures who had declined participation in the surveillance due to a lack of resources, were not included in the plan.

➢ The mission team noted that the RDDP and FSP inspectors were, in general, competent and aware of the protected zone requirements. They all stated that they had received the code to access the survey instructions on the BPI website and that there is good cooperation between the RDDP units, the SA and the laboratories involved in the survey.

Conclusions

Greece has organised an official action programme aiming to seek confirmation that the relevant harmful organisms are not endemic or established in the protected zones in 2009.

4 The action programme is generally based on appropriate planning and methodology. However, a number of Prefectures were omitted from the survey plan because of a lack of resources. Therefore, the plan cannot be considered completely based on the understanding of the biology of the harmful organism, the agronomy and the environment when preparing the survey plan for the harmful organisms for forest, which is not in compliance with Article 1(3)(a) of Directive 92/70/EEC.

Consequently, Recommendation 8 of the February 2009 Mission is not adequately addressed.

The training generally provided the inspectors with the necessary qualifications to carry out the surveys.

5.2.2.2 Survey implementation, survey results and control of outbreaks

Audit findings Recommendation 8 of the February 2009 Mission requested the SA to ensure that regular and systematic official surveys for the presence of organisms in respect of which Greece has been recognised as a protected zone based on Regulation (EC) No.690/2008, are organised and conducted, as required by Article 2(1)(h) of Directive 2000/29/EC and as specified by Directive 92/70/EEC.

Table 1 below provides an overview of the 2009 survey results for the harmful organisms where Greece is a recognised protected zone.

Table 1: 2009 survey result Visual inspection Samples Traps Positive cases Scolytidae 9,312 (trees) 285 26 0 Gilpinia hercyniae 0 22 0 0 Glomerella gossypii 26 fields 102 0 0 Curtobacterium flaccumfaciens pv. flaccumfaciens 78 (seed lots) 79 0 0 40 fields Anthonomus grandis 36,010 (plants) 210 99 0 Citrus tristeza virus (CTV) 43,455 plants 12285 0 8 129,579 seedlings

In 2009, only outbreaks of CTV were found. In each case the competent authorities had taken the necessary measures based on national legislation (Ministerial Decision 666/2002) to eradicate the pest. In total 323,000 plants were destroyed. All outbreaks discovered in 2009 were new. The SA stated that no cases of ongoing CTV outbreaks from previous years have occurred.

5 Details of the control measures can be found in the report of the February 2009 Mission.

➢ The mission team visited the Prefectures of Drama, Halkidiki and Serres. The surveys were implemented according to the survey plan in the Prefectures of Drama and Halkidiki. In Serres the relevant surveys were carried out by the RDDP, but the FSP had not yet started the surveys in forests because of a lack of staff.

➢ Representatives of the RDDP of Dodecanese stated that due to a lack of human resources the survey for CTV was not performed in 2009 as foreseen in the survey plan.

➢ BPI informed the mission team that the Prefecture of Ilia had sent less samples than requested.

➢ The mission team of the February 2009 mission visited a nursery in eastern Attica where the CTV was found in 2007 and 2008. The responsible authorities found that this nursery had moved susceptible plants to establishments in other Prefectures. The 2010 mission team visited a nursery in the Prefecture of Halkidiki who purchased such plants. In 2008, as part of the follow up process, the RDDP found CTV there. The owner of the nursery confirmed that all his plants (30,000) were destroyed by burning on the spot and under supervision of the responsible official body.

➢ The FSP of the Prefecture of Drama has informed other services (fire brigade, police, municipality) about the protected zone requirements and asked them for their general support.

Conclusions

Apart from CTV no harmful organism where Greece is a recognised protected zone has been discovered so far. The necessary measures were taken to eradicate CTV and no ongoing outbreaks have been discovered.

The majority of the Prefectures have carried out the surveys according to the methodology. However a minority did not, or only did it partially. This suggests that the national survey did not confirm that the relevant harmful organisms are not endemic or established in certain areas of the protected zone, which is not in line with the EU legislation. Recommendation 8 of the February 2009 mission is not addressed adequately in relation to the conduct of the survey.

5.2.2.3 Recording system for survey results and reporting

Recommendation 9 of the February 2009 mission requested that a system of recording and keeping of survey results is developed, as required by the third indent of Article 1(3)(a) of Directive 92/70/EEC.

Recommendation 10 of the February 2009 mission requested that the survey methodology and conduct are notified to the Commission as required by Article 1(3)(d) of Directive 92/70/EEC, and the results of the surveys are notified to the Commission as required by Article 2(1)(h) of Directive 2000/29/EC.

For each survey inspection (visual inspections as well as sampling) RDDP and forest service inspectors have to issue an inspection report. The sampling reports are sent with the sample to the laboratory. At the end of the survey period a copy of all reports are sent by the inspectors to BPI, who is compiling the data.

6 ➢ The mission team saw examples of survey reports issued by the RDDP and forest service inspectors. Inspectors met by the mission team confirmed that according to internal rules, reports have to be kept by the inspectors for 10 years.

➢ BPI collects the reports from the laboratories involved as well as the reports of the individual inspectors (overview reports and inspection reports) for data compilation and data analysis. BPI has to send both a progress and a final report of the surveillance to the SA annually.

➢ The SA notified officially the Commission of the 2009 survey results for the protected zones on 7 January 2010. However the SA did not notify the Commission of the survey methodologies.

The BPI informed the mission team that the Prefectures of Argolida, Aetolia-Acarnania and Chios had not yet provided the survey results for 2009

Conclusions

Since the end of 2009 there is an adequate system for data recording and reporting in place for the majority of the Prefectures in Greece. However problems remain in a number of Prefectures. Therefore Recommendation 9 of the February 2009 mission cannot be considered as addressed.

The Commission and the other Member States have been duly notified of the last survey results, but not of the survey methodologies. Therefore Recommendation 10 of the February 2009 mission is not addressed adequately.

5.2.3 Internal market control and plant passporting

Legal requirements

Article 10(2) of Directive 2000/29/EC requires that the relevant regulated articles, listed in Annex V, Part A, Section II, to the Directive, may not be moved within a specified protected zone unless they are accompanied by a plant passport valid for the territory concerned. Directive 92/105/EEC establishes requirements for the standardisation of plant passports, including their format.

Article 12(1) of Directive 2000/29/EC requires that Member States shall organise official checks to ensure compliance with the Directive, in particular Article 10(2).

Article 4 of Article 4 of Decision 2007/433/EC regarding Gibberella circinata lays down the conditions for the movement of plants of the genus Pinus and Pseudotsuga menziesii, including seeds and cones for propagation purpose.

Findings

Recommendation 11 of the February 2009 mission requested that regulated articles listed in Annex V, Part A, Section II to Directive 2000/29/EC, for which Greece has protected zone status, are moved within Greece accompanied by a valid Protected Zone (ZP) plant passport, to comply with Article 10(2)of the same Directive.

Recommendation 12 of the February 2009 mission requested that the occasional official checks on regulated articles being moved into or within the protected zone are organised, as required by Article 12(1) of Directive 2000/29/EC, to ensure compliance with this Directive, in particular with

7 Article 10(2) of the same Directive.

The mission team visited two garden centres, one forest nursery and a saw mill and noted that:

➢ Both nurseries and garden centres were registered. Inspectors of the RDDP of Drama, Serres and Halkidiki stated that prior to 2009 this was not the case. They also confirmed that since 2009 wholesalers are also inspected.

➢ Inspections of nurseries and garden centres are performed regularly in Drama, but are not systematically recorded.

The representatives of the establishments visited stated that RDDP inspections are performed more than once a year. This includes plan health checks as well as documentary checks.

➢ In the Prefectures of Drama, Serres and Haldikidiki plant passports valid for protected zones are only issued for relevant articles moved outside the Prefecture.

➢ Pine wood with bark were in a small saw mill in the Prefecture of Serres. The owner of the saw mill stated that he gets sporadically coniferous wood with bark (article listed in Annex V, part A section II of Directive 2000/29/EC) which are not accompanied by a plant passport.

➢ The establishments visited had the guidelines for the issuance of plant passports to hand.

➢ The FSP of Drama, Serres and Haldikidiki had received pine seeds from the warehouse of the Ministry of Rural Development and Food without a plant passport.

Conclusions

The relevant establishments are registered and inspected in line with EU legislation. Recommendation 12 of the February 2009 mission is addressed.

However, the movement of articles listed in Annex V, Part A, Section II is not in line with the second sub paragraph of Article 10(2) of Directive 2000/29/EC which does not foresee an exception for local movement. Recommendation 11 of the February 2009 mission is not adequately addressed.

Also, movements of pine seeds without a plant passport are not in line with Article 4 of Decision 2007/433/EC.

5.2.4 General conclusion for protected zones

Since the last FVO mission on protected zones Greece has made significant progress. The SA has put in place a general system for co-coordinating, planning the official surveys and compiling their results which were duly notified to the Commission and the other Member States. Nowadays, this system is based on an adequate methodology, and supported by laboratory analyses. However, the fact that a minority of Prefectures have not implemented or have only partly implemented the survey plan means that the national survey did not confirm that the relevant harmful organisms are not endemic or established in certain areas of the protected zone. In addition, the movement of articles within the protected zone is still not always in compliance with EU legislation.

8 5.3 SYSTEM OF SURVEILLANCE FOR HARMFUL ORGANISMS

Legal requirements

Article 5(1) and 5(4) provides that the movement of plants, plant products and objects listed in Annex IV, Part A, Section II shall be banned unless the relevant requirements indicated in that part of the Annex are met. For certain plants the requirement is met if theses plants originate in areas known to be free from certain pests. Where a Member State is making use of this option, the pest free status of the area has to be established.

ISPM 4 provides that a system of surveillance is to be considered in order to establish pest free area for certain harmful organisms. This system can take the form of a general surveillance or a specific survey (see above definitions).

ISPM 6 provides guidelines for surveillance.

Specific surveys are to be carried out by the Member States to be in line with a series of Commission Decisions on emergency measures for certain harmful organism (see Annex 1 and table 2 in part 5.31.).

5.3.1 Purpose of surveillance

Audit findings

In 2009 Greece established a harmonised and systematic survey system for 18 harmful organisms (see Table 2) in addition to the harmful organisms relevant for protected zones.

The RDDP inspectors also carried out surveys on palm trees for the presence of Paysandisia archon in order to establish areas free from this harmful organism as well as surveys based on the type of production related risks (e.g. in areas of tomato production for Bemisia tabaci and Tomato yellow leaf curl virus) in their jurisdiction.

Table 2 : systematic surveys carried out in Greece on harmful organisms not relevant for protected zones (* see details in part 5.4.2) Emergency Decisions Other EC legislation requirements Anoplophora chinensis Ceratocystis platani Bursaphelenchus Clavibacter michiganensis Diabrotica virgifera Erwinia amylovora Dryocosmus kuriphilus Eutetranychus orientalis Gibberella circinata Globodera pallida, Globodera rostochensis Pepino mosaic virus Ralstonia solanacearum Phytophthora ramorum Synchytrium endobioticum Potato spindle tuber viroid Rhynchophorus ferrugineus* No requirement Anthonomus grandis Tuta absoluta (Meyrick)

9 Conclusion

Greece has a system of surveillance based on systematic surveys for 18 harmful organisms, other than harmful organisms relevant for protected zones in compliance with EU requirements.

5.3.2 Organisation of the survey

Audit findings

The BPI has been entrusted with the general coordination of the surveys for the 18 harmful organisms, this includes data handling (compilation of all survey results and record keeping) and reporting. BPI is also responsible for establishing the surveys methodology and the surveys plans. The survey plan specifies the number of visual inspections, samples and traps to be carried out within each Prefecture for each of the 18 harmful organisms, with the exception of A. chinensis where there is no survey plan.

For all other surveys (e.g. B. tabaci) each RDP inspector is free to organise the survey.

The survey methodologies and the survey plans are on the BPI website, as well as those for the harmful organisms for protected zones.

BPI and NAGREF confirmed that the survey plan was developed taking statistical data and information for the Prefectures and other sources into consideration. However, the acceptance of cooperation from FSP was also taken into account when planning the forest surveys.

In 2009 the SA informed the Prefectures via several circulars of the survey requirements and also organised 3 meetings with their representatives.

BPI has to provide the SA annually with a progress report and a final report. The SA sent the survey results for most of the harmful organism to the Commission in January 2010.

The mission team noted that :

➢ The survey plans contain information about the identification and biology of the organism, the best timing for identification and the inspections, sampling and use of traps.

➢ Contact details of the responsible laboratories can be found in the survey guidelines.

➢ The RDDP inspectors interviewed stated that the surveillance for harmful organism not amongst the 18 harmful organisms is included in the day to day work.

➢ The staff interviewed stated that there is good cooperation and communication between representatives of BPI and NAGREF as well RDDP and FSP inspectors in relation to the implementation of the surveys.

Conclusion

Greece has generally an appropriate survey methodology in place for the 18 harmful organisms. However since the survey planning depends on the acceptance by the Prefectures, this does not ensure that the surveys are carried out in all relevant areas. The lack of survey plan for A. chinensis obliges the Prefectures to organise their own survey for 2010 without having guidelines from the reference laboratory.

10 There is good communication amongst the responsible bodies involved in the surveys.

5.3.3 Survey implementation

Audit finding

Stakeholders (producers, public services and municipalities as well as the wider public) are usually involved in the general surveillance for a harmful organism in case of an outbreak. In 2009 the Prefectures of Drama had an information campaign on D. virgifera virgifera and, in Ilia, Lassithi and Heraklion, another information campaign on R. ferrugineus. The campaign in Haldikidiki focussed on new harmful organisms including A. chinenis and T. absoluta. These campaigns range from the distribution of leaflets to seminars and involvement of media.

The survey for A. chinensis had not been carried out in Greece in 2009.

The mission team noted that:

➢ The RDDP and FSP inspectors had not started a specific survey for A. chinensis in 2010. Only one inspection had been carried out in 2010 in the Prefecture of Haldikidiki.

➢ BPI stated that in 2009 a number of Prefectures had not carried out the surveys fully as foreseen by the survey plan.

Conclusion

Surveys are implemented in line with Commission Decisions on emergency measures, with the exception of A. chinensis, where the provisions of Article 4 of Decision 2008/840/EC are not complied with.

The other types of surveys are generally carried out in line with EU legislation. However, the fact that not all Prefectures have carried out surveys according to the survey plan means that the surveys were not carried out there according to the guidelines provided by the reference laboratory.

5.3.4 Data handling and reporting

Audit finding

At the end of the survey period BPI received an overview report and all survey reports for each individual survey from the Prefectures as well as the reports of the laboratories involved in the analyses of the samples. BPI compiled and analysed the data. The final report was sent to the SA for approval, who, in turn, notified the survey results to the Commission.

Conclusion

Greece has an appropriate system for data collection and reporting in place.

5.3.5 General conclusion on the general system of surveillance for harmful organisms

Greece has put in place a system of surveillance for other harmful organisms, amongst which are harmful organisms subject to EU emergency measures. This system is generally appropriate but at the moment it does not concern A. Chinenis, which is not in compliance with the EU requirements.

11 5.4 RHYNCHOPHORUS FERRUGINEUS

5.4.1 Specific background

R. ferrugineus (Olivier) is commonly known as the red palm weevil. A list of susceptible species is provided by Article 1(b) of Decision 2007/365/EC which has been modified by Decision 2008/776/EC. Within the territory of the EU, R. ferrugineus has been found mainly on Phoenix canariensis and, to a lesser extent on Phoenix dactylifera. In Greece it was first found in Crete (Prefecture Heraklion) in 2005 and in 2006 in mainland Greece and the Prefecture of Dodecanese (island of Rhodos).

Phoenix theophrasti is a susceptible species which is very rare since it is only found in Crete, few other Greek islands and very limited parts of Turkey.

5.4.2 Specific legislation

Legal requirements The decision 2007/365/EC sets out emergency measures to prohibit the introduction into and spread of R. ferrugineus within the Community. Article 7 of the same Decision lays down that Member States should, if necessary, adapt their legislation in order to comply with the Decision.

Audit findings

The Decision 2007/365/EC is directly applicable in Greece. As explained in the report of the July 2009 mission, the SA has issued several official guidelines for the attention of the RDDPs. The last guidelines were issued in April 2009 and contains technical details relating to emergency measures to prevent the introduction and spread of the pest. In addition, an official method has been drafted by the BPI on the behalf of the SA for the survey 2009 (see part 5.3.2).

All the RDDP staff met by the mission team were well aware of the provisions of Decision 2007/365/EC. The Stakeholders met were aware of the pest and its significance.

Conclusions

Decision 2007/365/EC is applied in Greece following technical guidelines.

5.4.3 Surveys

Legal requirements Article 5(1) of Decision 2007/365/EC provides that Member States shall conduct official surveys for the presence of R. ferrugineus. The results of those surveys shall be notified to the Commission and the other Member States by 28 February each year.

Audit findings

Recommendation 1 of the July 2009 mission was to ensure that surveys for the presence of Rhynchophorus ferrugineus are carried out on the entire territory of the Prefecture of Ilia, as required by Article 5(1) of Decision 2007/365/EC.

Recommendation 2 of the July 2009 mission was to ensure that survey results are notified to the Commission and to the other Member States by 28 February each year at the latest, as laid down

12 in Article 5(1) of Decision 2007/365/EC.

The RDDP are responsible for carrying out the survey within their territory, following an official method issued by the BPI on the behalf of the SA.

The method provides details, with illustrations, on the biology and the morphology of the insect and on the symptoms on infested trees. The survey is based on visual observations and checks on traps. Samples can be taken from plants or from traps (suspicious insects). Traps have to be located within infested areas and free areas. In the latter, they can only remain in place for a maximum of 48 hours as the BPI considers that there is a risk of attracting pests from infested areas. Also templates for recording the visual observations and sending samples are laid down.

Included in the method is a survey plan indicating the Prefectures in which the survey must be carried out (32 prefectures out of a total of 51). In the Prefectures where R. ferrugineus was considered present, it was recommended to set up 5 traps, while in the Prefectures where R. ferrugineus was not considered as present it was recommended to set up 1 trap. The BPI informed the mission team that in 2010 the number of traps for the two situations will be raised to 10 and 4 respectively.

In Ilia Prefecture, the RDDP has modified the conduct of the survey after the July 2009 mission. The survey concerned both the demarcated area and the area considered as free at the time of that mission. Five agronomists of the RDDP have been trained to participate in the visual observations. While 850 visual observations were performed form 1st January to July 2009, a further 3,525 took place from July until the end of 2009. In October 2009, 26 traps were set up, while only 5 were foreseen by the 2009 BPI survey plan. The survey led to redefining the extension of the demarcated area on 13 November 2009.

The mission team met the RDDP inspector in charge of R. ferrugineus and he was fully aware of the early symptoms caused by the insect. He declared that in spite of the RDDP inspectors having the legal right to enter private gardens, in practice access may not be easy in the absence of the owner.

In Eastern Attica, 1,900 trees were visually inspected in 2009 (400 in 2008), and traps have been set up throughout the territory of this Prefecture. Experiments on acoustics detection tests are carried out by the BPI.

In the Prefecture of Lasithi (Crete), a 10 Km wide zone has been established around the Vai forest consisting of P. theophrasti which is situated at the extreme north eastern point of the island. Within this 10 Km zone, the RDDP has carried out quarterly visual observations, in addition to the normal survey carried out in the rest of the Prefecture and 20,679 P. theophrasti trees have been GPS geo referenced. Within the forest itself, the forest service of the Prefecture has carried out weekly visual inspection. An amount of 400,000 euro has been recently granted by the state for a project which aims to reinforce the protection of this species of palm tree. One consequence of the implementation of this project in 2010 will be to extend considerably the area subject to weekly visual inspection, which will be carried out both by the RDDP and the forest service. Other means of detection will be experimented with acoustic tests and sniffer dogs.

The SA notified the 2008 survey results to the Commission and the other Member States by a letter dated 15 April 2009. These results mentioned that 241 trees were found infested that year for all of Greece, mentioning the demarcated areas in the Prefectures of Eastern Attica, Heraklion, Ilia and Lasithi. However, in a letter to the Commission of 30 June 2009 the SA mentioned a minimum of

13 636 infested trees reported by the Prefectures of Eastern Attica, Ilia, Lasithi plus the Prefectures of Athens and Dodecanese. Outbreaks in Heraklion were mentioned without specifying the number of infested trees.

The BPI provided the preliminary results of the 2009 survey to the mission team ( see part 5.4.3.1.). Results have been received from 19 Prefectures. Official written results were still expected from Dodecanese, and from Prefectures where R. ferrugineus has not been found yet. The BPI explained that the Prefectures had to provide their results by 18 February 2010.

Conclusions

A survey was organised in Greece for R. ferrugineus. This survey has been intensified in the Prefectures of Eastern Attica in 2009 compared to 2008, and takes into account the particular situation involved by P. theophrasti in Lasithi.

In Ilia, efforts made after the July 2009 mission address the Recommendation 1 of the said mission.

The official 2008 survey results did not provide an accurate picture of the situation in Greece to the Commission and the other Member States.

5.4.4 Control measures in case of outbreaks

Legal requirements Article 6 of Decision 2007/365/EC provides that when the presence of R. ferrugineus is confirmed, the Member State shall demarcate areas in accordance with Annex II, Point 1, of the Decision. Annex II, Point 2, defines specific measures for demarcated areas; these include appropriate measures aiming at eradicating the pest and intensive monitoring for the presence of the pest by appropriate inspections.

Article 16(2) of Directive 2009/29/EC lays down that “Each Member State shall immediately notify in writing the Commission and the other Member States of the actual or suspected appearance of any harmful organisms not listed in Annex I or in Annex II whose presence was previously unknown in its territory. It shall also inform the Commission and the other Member States of the protective measures which it has taken or intends to take. […]"

Audit findings Recommendation 13 of the February 2009 mission requested that in cases where Rhynchophorus ferrugineus is found, the control measures are imposed according to Annex II of Decision 2007/365/EC. Recommendation 3 of the July 2009 mission was similar.

5.4.4.1 Outbreaks

The BPI provided the preliminary results of the 2009 survey to the mission team but was waiting for results from certain Prefectures. Additional information from Dodecanese was provided directly to the mission team by representatives of the relevant RDDP met in Athens.

The number of trees found infested in 2009 is shown in comparison with 2008 in Table 3 below. Map 1 shows the location of the Prefectures.

14 Table 3: estimation number of trees found infested in Greece in 2008 and 2009 Prefecture 2008 2009 Prefecture Number of Source of Number of trees Source of information trees found information found infested infested Athens 23 97 Preliminary 2009 survey results Boeotia 0 46 Preliminary 2009 survey results Dodecanese 500 5000 Declaration RDDP Eastern Attica 26 70 Declaration RDDP Euboea No data 140 Preliminary 2009 survey results Heraklion Not specified 950 letter of 30 June to the Commission : number of trees found infested in letter of 30 the 1st semester only Ilia 27 June to the 375 Declaration RDDP Commission Khania 0 60 Preliminary 2009 survey results Lasithi 60 142 Declaration RDDP Piraeus No data 1 Preliminary 2009 survey results Preveza No data 19 Preliminary 2009 survey results Rethymnon 0 6 Preliminary 2009 survey results TOTAL More than 636 6906 ESTIMATION

15 Map 1-Prefectures of Greece (number 1 gather the Prefectures of Athens, East Attica, Piraeus and West Attica, 2:Euboea, 6:Boeotia, 14:Khania, 15:Heraklion, 16:Lasithi, 17: Rethimnon, 25 : Preveza, 40: Dodecanese, 47 : Ilia, )

According to Table 3, infested trees were found in 6 Prefectures in 2008 and 12 in 2009. Map 1 shows that the Prefecture of Preveza (number 25 on the map) where trees were found infested in 2009 is situated far away from the other contaminated Prefectures. All the Prefectures in Crete have also been found infested. Regarding the Prefecture of Dodecanese, R. ferrugineus was found in Rhodos only, which is the main island of Dodecanese archipelago.

The SA provided the mission team with the date of confirmation of the presence of R. ferrugineus in the Prefectures of Khania (8 October), Preveza (23 October) and Rethymnon (8 December). The BPI reported also that R. ferrugineus was found for the first time on P. theophrasti within the municipality of Gournes (Prefecture of Heraklion). The SA declared to the mission team that its intention was to officially notify the Commission of the new findings (Prefectures found newly infested and occurrence on P. theophrasti) through the definitive 2009 survey report to be sent to the Commission by 28 February 2010.

Table 3 shows that the total of infested trees reported has multiplied by at least 10 from 2008 to 2009.

16 The mission team noted that :

➢ The RDDP displayed a map showing that out of a total of 26 municipalities in this Prefecture, 10 were found infested in 2008 and 17 in 2009. An additional municipality was found infested in 2010 before the date of the present mission. However, the RDDP of Heraklion had recorded and referenced only 7 infested trees in 2009.

➢ The SA stated that demarcated zones have been established in the areas newly found infested.

➢ The RDDP of Eastern Attica, Ilia and Heraklion have maps of the demarcated areas. The RDDP of Dodecanese stated that a demarcated area has been established on the whole island of Rhodos.

➢ A representative of the RDDP of Eastern Attica stated to the mission team that the extension of the demarcated area in Eastern Attica, which overlaps the border with the neighbouring Prefecture of Athens, has been communicated to Athens. However, she stated not having received the equivalent information from Athens.

5.4.4.2 Control measures

On 24 September 2009, 5 chemical active substances were authorised by the Ministry of Rural Development and Food to be used against R. ferrugineus on a temporary 120 days renewable basis. The period of validity has been extended for a further 120 days from 3 February 2010. Biological substances (nematodes) could already be applied prior to this.

When a tree is found infested, the general procedure consists of giving official notification to the owner requesting him/her to cut and destroy the plant under the supervision of an inspector within a deadline (from 2 weeks to one month), and at his/her own expense. In instances where no action has taken place, a reminder is sent, and if ignored, a procedure for fining takes place.

In Eastern Attica

A RDDP inspector met by the mission stated that the delay for eradication (span of time between the time when a tree is found infested and the time of eradication) is generally one month but could be longer. The difficulty is to identify some private owners. Of 70 trees found infested throughout 2009, 50 (70%) were eradicated.

The inspector noted that 3 meetings were organised recently in the area in order to make the public aware of the pest and of the obligation to eradicate the infested trees.

The mission team visited 2 outbreaks sites (trees already cut) in municipality of Vouliagmanis in Eastern Attica and interviewed on site the RDDP inspector and an agronomist from the municipality in charge of eradication of R. Ferrugineus:

➢ The inspector explained that documentation and instruction on the pest and the eradication method had been sent to the municipality in September 2009. The municipality has the necessary machinery to handle public trees. When the machinery is available it handles private trees also. The cutting process is made in 2 steps: first the leaves and the upper part of the tree (around 50 cm) is removed and then the rest of the tree. These 2 steps can be taken at different times and in such an event, the top of the remaining trunk is wrapped in a

17 plastic film. Precautionary measures are taken during the process in order to prevent the pest from escaping, in particular by spraying insecticides several times. All parts of the tree are immediately buried at 2m depth in a landfill site. Neighbouring trees, including private trees, are treated with chemical or biological (nematodes) insecticides by a specialised company.

In Ilia

The July 2009 mission noted that, at that time, 14 trees found infested in 2008 were still in place. The RDDP admitted that at the time of the present mission, not all of them had been eradicated.

The RDDP also provided the data shown in Table 4 to the mission team.

Table 4: eradication in the Prefecture of Ilia in 2009 UP to July 2009 From July to December Total 2009 (Time FVO mission) 2009 Number of trees found 91 284 375 infested Number of trees 34 30 64 (16%) eradicated

Table 4 shows that of the infested trees found in 2009, a significant number of them have been let without being eradicated over several months. In particular, the RDDP admitted that of the 91 trees found infested before the July 2009 mission, 35 to 40 of them were still in place at the time of the present mission. This means that they have remained more than six month on site, including October-November which is one of the flying periods of the insect.

The RDDP explained that 5 companies have attended a special meeting and have received instructions for eradication since the July 2009 mission. Owners of infested trees are not obliged to hire these companies but eradication has to be made in the presence of an inspector. There are 64 cases of prosecution ongoing either for refusal to eradicate or for eradication without giving notice to the RDDP. The cost of eradication is estimated to be 750 euro for an average tree, which is more than the monthly income of lot of families.

The mission team visited 4 outbreaks sites (trees already cut) in the Prefecture of Ilia (public and private sites in the municipalities of Amaliada and Gastounis) and noted that:

➢ the delays for eradication were 1, 1.5, 4 and 5 months. The mission team met a contractor in charge of eradication in private areas in Amaliada who described an eradication process similar to the one in Eastern Attica (cutting in 2 steps taking precautionary measures, in particular by using plastic films and spraying insecticides and burial in a landfill site at a minimum of 2m depth). Neighbouring trees were sprayed. In the municipality of Gastouni, eradication of both public and private trees is carried out by the municipality following the same process.

➢ In 2 of the 4 sites quoted above, there were trees with characteristic symptoms close to the place where the infested trees had been eradicated. In one case, the team found a live specimen of R. Ferrugineus.

➢ While travelling, the mission team observed at least 5 palm trees with characteristic and

18 advanced symptoms in different locations between Amaliada and Gastouni.

In Heraklion and Lasithi (Crete)

According to the RDDP of Heraklion, between 88 and 164 infested trees were eradicated in 2009 in this Prefecture. This estimation comes from a compilation of data from 7 municipalities which in certain cases did not differentiate between the recent years. The RDDP admitted that a number of trees contaminated in 2009 either were not eradicated or eradicated without official supervision.

According to the RDDP of Lasithi, 77 trees of the 142 found infested were eradicated in 2009 (54%). The RDDP stated that the average delay for eradication is from 5 to 20 days, but admitted also that certain trees eradicated in 2009 had been in place for several months.

The mission team visited an outbreak site in a public park within the municipality of Heraklion and interviewed an agronomist from this municipality in charge of eradication of the infested trees :

➢ according to her statements, of 80 to 100 trees found infested in 2009 in this municipality, 10 were still in place and would be eradicated in the days following the mission. The infested trees were declared to the RDDP. She stated that the municipality had been informed by the RDDP about the insect and the method of eradication though meetings and documents. The municipality is carrying out eradication of public trees and signed a contract in 2009 with a company in order to cut 34 private trees. This company worked under the supervision of representatives of the municipality but not always in the presence of RDDP inspectors. The contract will not be extended.

➢ The agronomist described the process of eradication which was similar to that described in Eastern Attica (cutting taking precaution measures, in particular by using plastic films and spraying insecticides, burial in a landfill site at a minimum of 2m depth). Surrounding trees are treated with chemical insecticides at the time of cutting and again one month later.

➢ The mission team visited a location within an area in the infested zone near a series of hotels where the Plant Protection Institute of Heraklion is carrying out an experiment aiming to eradicate the pest without destroying the infested trees. The strategy is based on mass trapping with a dense network of traps containing a mixture of pheromone and kairomone, and a regime of weekly inspections by staff of the hotels who were trained for this purpose. Whenever a tree is found contaminated, insecticides are injected into the trunk. In this way, of 36 trees found infested in 2009, 34 recovered and only 2 had to be eradicated. The person in charge of the experiment noted that while P. canariensis, P. theophrasti and Washingtonia spp are mixed in this area, R. ferrugineus only attacked P. canariensis.

In Dodecanese

➢ The mission team interviewed representatives of the RDDP of Dodecanese. They stated that of 5,000 infested trees found in 2009, 1,500 to 1,800 (36% maximum) were destroyed. They admitted that almost 3,500 infested trees are still in place since October. They considered that while the municipality of Rhodos is active in taking control measures in public areas, it is not the case for the 7 other municipalities of the island of Rhodos. In addition, they stated that the majority of the trees found infested in 2009 in private gardens are still not cut because owners refuse to eradicate. For the moment no prosecution procedure has commenced.

19 Conclusions

R. ferrugineus has spread very quickly within the territory of Greece from 2008 to 2009. This means that either the measures taken during this period were not appropriate to eradicate and contain the pest, in contradiction with Article 6 and Annex II point 2 (a) of Decision 2007/365/EC and/or that the survey carried out in 2008 underestimated the actual situation.

The responsible authorities have established demarcated areas following the findings. After the February 2009 and July 2009 missions, efforts have been made in Eastern Attica and Ilia in order to improve the containment during the eradication of infested trees and to entrust the process to competent stakeholders. The control measures in Heraklion were similar. However the considerable delay in destroying infested trees hampers the efforts to eradicate R. ferrugineus. Therefore Recommendations 13 and 3 from the February 2009 and July 2009 missions respectively are not adequately addressed .

New findings within 6 Prefectures and on P. theophrasti were significant appearances in 2009 which were not immediately notified to the Commission and the other Member States, as required by Article 16 (2) of Directive 2000/29/EC.

There are deficiencies in recording the infested trees in the Prefecture of Heraklion. This prevents the SA from providing accurate results to the Commission and the other Member States.

The fact that certain Prefectures do not inform the neighbouring Prefectures about the extension of their demarcated area reduces the efficiency of the control programme.

5.4.5 Control of internal movements and import controls

Legal requirements

Article 4 of Decision 2007/365/EC provides that susceptible plants may only be moved within the Community if the conditions as specified in Annex I, point 2, are met.

Article 3 of Decision 2007/365/EC, provides that susceptible plants may be introduced into the Community only if certain conditions specified in Annex I, Point 1 of the Decision, are fulfilled.

Audit findings

Nurseries situated within the demarcated zones of Eastern Attica and Heraklion are banned from moving any susceptible plants and will be authorised only after having put the plants under physical protection for 2 years under the control of the RDDP. An infringement has been noted in Heraklion, both the seller and the purchaser are being prosecuted.

Nurseries situated in the demarcated zone of Ilia are banned from selling any susceptible plants until further notice.

The mission team noted that :

➢ susceptible plants were in a retail shop in the Prefecture of Drama. They had been introduced from Italy with a correct plant passport.

20 ➢ The Prefecture of Halkidiki carries out a survey in order to establish a pest free area. It is focused on the nurseries where traps have been set up.

Concerning imports, the SA stated that there were no changes since the July 2009 mission. There are still no imports from Egypt.

Conclusions

The control of movements of susceptible plants is in line with EU requirements.

Greece still applies a strict reading of EU requirements for imports.

5.4.6 General conclusion for Rhynchophorus ferrugineus

6 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS

Greece has made significant progress in order to address the recommendations of the last FVO mission on protected zones. In particular, surveys are organised and generally implemented by the Prefectures. However, principally because a number of Prefectures do not implement, or implement only partially the surveys some recommendations are not adequately addressed.

Greece has also put in place a system of surveillance for other harmful organisms, amongst which are harmful organisms subject to EU emergency measures. This system is generally appropriate.

Greece has made significant progress in order to address the recommendations of the two last FVO missions on R. ferrugineus. The control measures have been improved. However, principally because the delay for destroying the infested trees is significant they cannot be considered as adequate.

Detailed conclusions are included in the relevant sections in part 5.

7 CLOSING MEETING

A closing meeting was held on 10 February 2010 at the headquarters of the SA in Athens, with the representatives of the relevant official bodies, including the SA. At this meeting, the main findings and conclusions of the mission were presented. The SA provisionally accepted these.

21 8 RECOMMENDATIONS

The Single Authority of Greece is recommended to :

N°. Recommendation

1. ensure that regular and systematic official surveys for the presence of organisms where Greece has been recognised as a protected zone are conducted throughout the protected zone by all the concerned Prefectures, in line with Article 2(1)(h) of Directive 2000/29/EC and as specified in particular by first and third indents of Article 1(3)(a) of Directive 92/70/EEC;

2. ensure that the survey methodology and conduct are notified to the Commission and the other Member States as required by Article 1(3)(d) of Directive 92/70/EEC;

3. ensure that regulated articles listed in Annex V, Part A, Section II to Directive 2000/29/EC, when moved within Greece are accompanied by plant passport valid for protected zones, to comply with Article 10(2) of the same Directive;

4. ensure that a survey for Anoplophora Chinensis is conducted as requested by Article 4 of Decision 2008/840/EC, preferably with a survey plan per Prefecture;

5. ensure that the surveys for harmful organisms other than those relevant for protected zones are carried out within all relevant areas, and according to the survey plan;

6. ensure that the survey results notified to the Commission and the other Member States gives an accurate picture of the situation in Greece regarding Rhynchophorus ferrugineus, in line with Article 5 of Decision 2007/365/EC;

7. ensure that the measures aiming at eradicating Rhynchophorus ferrugineus are appropriate, by applying them without significant delay, to comply with Article 6 and Annex II point 2 (a) of Decision 2007/365/EC;

8. ensure that significant appearance of Rhynchophorus ferrugineus is immediately notified to the Commission and the other Member States, in line with Article 16 (2) of Directive 2000/29/EC;

9. consider improving the exchange of information about the extent of the demarcated areas for Rhynchophorus ferrugineus between neighbouring Prefectures, especially in the case of overlapping, in order to improve the organisation of the survey.

The competent authority's response to the recommendations can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/food/fvo/ap/ap_gr_2010-8609.pdf

22 23 ANNEX 1 - LEGAL REFERENCES

Legal Reference Official Journal Title

Reg. 690/2008 OJ L 193, 22.7.2008, Commission Regulation (EC) No 690/2008 of 4 p. 1-6 July 2008 recognising protected zones exposed to particular plant health risks in the Community (Recast)

Dir. 92/70/EEC OJ L 250, 29.8.1992, Commission Directive 92/70/EEC of 30 July 1992 p. 37-39 laying down detailed rules for surveys to be carried out for purposes of the recognition of protected zones in the Community

Dir. 92/105/EEC OJ L 4, 8.1.1993, p. Commission Directive 92/105/EEC of 3 December 22-25 1992 establishing a degree of standardization for plant passports to be used for the movement of certain plants, plant products or other objects within the Community, and establishing the detailed procedures related to the issuing of such plant passports and the conditions and detailed procedures for their replacement

Dir. 2000/29/EC OJ L 169, 10.7.2000, Council Directive 2000/29/EC of 8 May 2000 on p. 1-112 protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the Community

Dec. 2007/433/EC OJ L 161, 22.6.2007, 2007/433/EC: Commission Decision of 18 June p. 66-69 2007 on provisional emergency measures to prevent the introduction into and the spread within the Community of Gibberella circinata Nirenberg & O'Donnell

Dec. 2007/365/EC OJ L 139, 31.5.2007, 2007/365/EC: Commission Decision of 25 May p. 24-27 2007 on emergency measures to prevent the introduction into and the spread within the Community of Rhynchophorus ferrugineus (Olivier)

Dec. 2002/757/EC OJ L 252, 20.9.2002, 2002/757/EC: Commission Decision of 19 p. 37-39 September 2002 on provisional emergency phytosanitary measures to prevent the introduction into and the spread within the Community of Phytophthora ramorum Werres, De Cock & Man in

24 Legal Reference Official Journal Title

't Veld sp. nov.

Dec. 2003/766/EC OJ L 275, 25.10.2003, 2003/766/EC: Commission Decision of 24 October p. 49-50 2003 on emergency measures to prevent the spread within the Community of Diabrotica virgifera Le Conte

Dec. 2006/133/EC OJ L 52, 23.2.2006, p. 2006/133/EC: Commission Decision of 13 34-38 February 2006 requiring Member States temporarily to take additional measures against the dissemination of Bursaphelenchus xylophilus (Steiner et Buhrer) Nickle et al. (the pine wood nematode) as regards areas in Portugal, other than those in which it is known not to occur

Dec. 2006/464/EC OJ L 183, 5.7.2006, p. 2006/464/EC: Commission Decision of 27 June 29-32 2006 on provisional emergency measures to prevent the introduction into and the spread within the Community of Dryocosmus kuriphilus Yasumatsu

Dec. 2008/840/EC OJ L 300, 11.11.2008, 2008/840/EC: Commission Decision of 7 p. 36-41 November 2008 on emergency measures to prevent the introduction into and the spread within the Community of Anoplophora chinensis (Forster)