SCIENTIFIC OPINION ADOPTED: 28 March 2019 doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2019.5667 Commodity risk assessment of black pine (Pinus thunbergii Parl.) bonsai from Japan EFSA Panel on Plant Health (EFSA PLH Panel), Claude Bragard, Katharina Dehnen-Schmutz, Francesco Di Serio, Paolo Gonthier, Marie-Agnes Jacques, Josep Anton Jaques Miret, Annemarie Fejer Justesen, Alan MacLeod, Christer Sven Magnusson, Panagiotis Milonas, Juan A Navas-Cortes, Stephen Parnell, Philippe Lucien Reignault, Hans-Hermann Thulke, Wopke Van der Werf, Antonio Vicent Civera, Jonathan Yuen, Lucia Zappala, Andrea Battisti, Anna Maria Vettraino, Renata Leuschner, Olaf Mosbach-Schulz, Maria Chiara Rosace and Roel Potting Abstract The EFSA Panel on Plant health was requested to deliver a scientific opinion on how far the existing requirements for the bonsai pine species subject to derogation in Commission Decision 2002/887/EC would cover all plant health risks from black pine (Pinus thunbergii Parl.) bonsai (the commodity defined in the EU legislation as naturally or artificially dwarfed plants) imported from Japan, taking into account the available scientific information, including the technical information provided by Japan. The relevance of an EU-regulated pest for this opinion was based on: (a) evidence of the presence of the pest in Japan; (b) evidence that P. thunbergii is a host of the pest and (c) evidence that the pest can be associated with the commodity. Sixteen pests that fulfilled all three criteria were selected for further evaluation. The relevance of other pests present in Japan (not regulated in the EU) for this opinion was based on (i) evidence of the absence of the pest in the EU; (ii) evidence that P. thunbergii is a host of the pest; (iii) evidence that the pest can be associated with the commodity and (iv) evidence that the pest may have an impact in the EU. Three pests fulfilled all four criteria and were selected for further evaluation (Crisicoccus pini, Sirex nitobei and Urocerus japonicus). For the selected 19 pests, the risk mitigation measures proposed in the technical dossier were evaluated. Limiting factors on the effectiveness of the measures were documented. For each of the 19 pests, an expert judgement is given on the likelihood of pest freedom taking into consideration the risk mitigation measures acting on the pest, including any uncertainties. For all evaluated pests, the median likelihood of the pest freedom is 99.5% or higher and within the 90% uncertainty range it is 99% or higher. © 2019 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority. Keywords: Pinus thunbergii, black pine, bonsai, Japan, European Union, commodity risk assessment, plant health Requestor: European Commission Question number: EFSA-Q-2017-00715 Correspondence: [email protected] www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal EFSA Journal 2019;17(5):5667 Commodity risk assessment of black pine (Pinus thunbergii Parl.) bonsai from Japan Panel members: Claude Bragard, Katharina Dehnen-Schmutz, Francesco Di Serio, Paolo Gonthier, Marie-Agnes Jacques, Josep Anton Jaques Miret, Anne Marie Fejer Justesen, Alan MacLeod, Christer Sven Magnusson, Panagiotis Milonas, Juan A Navas-Cortes, Stephen Parnell, Roel Potting, Philippe L Reignault, Hans-Hermann Thulke, Wopke Van der Werf, Antonio Vicent, Jonathan Yuen, Lucia Zappala. Acknowledgements: The EFSA Panel on Plant Health wishes to thank Eugen Christoph for the support provided during the expert knowledge elicitation, Svetla Kozelska for the support during the whole process of the opinion development and Emanuela Tacci for the administrative and technical support provided to this opinion. Suggested citation: EFSA PLH Panel (EFSA Panel on Plant Health), Bragard C, Dehnen-Schmutz K, Di Serio F, Gonthier P, Jacques M-A, Jaques Miret JA, Justesen AF, MacLeod A, Magnusson CS, Milonas P, Navas-Cortes JA, Parnell S, Reignault PL, Thulke H-H, Van der Werf W, Civera AV, Yuen J, ZappalaL, Battisti A, Vettraino AM, Leuschner R, Mosbach-Schulz O, Rosace MC and Potting R, 2019. Scientific Opinion on the commodity risk assessment of black pine (Pinus thunbergii Parl.) bonsai from Japan. EFSA Journal 2019;17(5):5667, 184 pp. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2019.5667 ISSN: 1831-4732 © 2019 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and no modifications or adaptations are made. The EFSA Journal is a publication of the European Food Safety Authority, an agency of the European Union. www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 2 EFSA Journal 2019;17(5):5667 Commodity risk assessment of black pine (Pinus thunbergii Parl.) bonsai from Japan Table of contents Abstract................................................................................................................................................. 1 Summary............................................................................................................................................... 4 1. Introduction................................................................................................................................5 1.1. Background as provided by the European Commission ................................................................... 5 1.2. Terms of reference as provided by the European Commission......................................................... 5 1.3. Interpretation of the terms of reference........................................................................................ 5 2. Data and methodologies .............................................................................................................. 5 2.1. Data........................................................................................................................................... 5 2.2. Methodologies............................................................................................................................. 8 2.2.1. Commodity data.......................................................................................................................... 9 2.2.2. Identification of pests potentially associated with the commodity .................................................... 9 2.2.3. Listing and evaluation of risk mitigation measures.......................................................................... 9 3. Commodity data.......................................................................................................................... 10 3.1. Description of the commodity....................................................................................................... 10 3.2. Description of the production areas .............................................................................................. 10 3.3. Production and handling processes ............................................................................................... 11 3.3.1. Growing conditions...................................................................................................................... 11 3.3.2. Source of planting material .......................................................................................................... 11 3.3.3. Production cycle.......................................................................................................................... 12 3.3.4. Export procedure ........................................................................................................................ 12 3.3.5. Post-entry quarantine procedure in the EU .................................................................................... 12 3.4. Surveillance system in Japan ........................................................................................................ 12 4. Identification of pests potentially associated with the commodity .................................................... 12 4.1. Selection of relevant EU-regulated pests associated with the commodity ......................................... 12 4.2. Selection of other relevant pests (not regulated in the EU) associated with the commodity............... 15 4.3. Overview of interceptions............................................................................................................. 15 4.4. List of potential pests not further assessed.................................................................................... 15 4.5. Summary of pests selected for further evaluation .......................................................................... 16 5. Risk mitigation measures ............................................................................................................. 17 5.1. Requirements of the current derogation........................................................................................ 17 5.2. Possibility of pest presence in the export nurseries ........................................................................ 17 5.3. Risk mitigation measures applied in Japan..................................................................................... 17 5.4. Evaluation of the current measures for the selected relevant pests including uncertainties ................ 18 5.4.1. Coleosporium asterum ................................................................................................................