Draft Import Risk Analysis - Biosecurity New Zealand

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The process outlined in figure 2.1 is further supported by the following: 1.2.1. Assessment of uncertainties In this aspect of the risk analysis process the uncertainties and assumptions identified during the preceding hazard identification and risk assessment stages are summarised. An analysis of these uncertainties and assumptions can then be completed to identify which are critical to the outcomes of the risk analysis. Critical uncertainties or assumptions can then be considered for further research with the aim of reducing the uncertainty or removing the assumption. Where there is significant uncertainty in the estimated risk, a precautionary approach to managing risk may be adopted. In these circumstances the measures should be reviewed as soon as additional information becomes available 2 and be consistent with other measures where equivalent uncertainties exist. 1.2.2. Risk management For each organism classified as a hazard, a risk management step is carried out, which identifies the options available for managing the risk. In addition to the options presented, no phytosanitary measures may also be considered for each hazard. Feedback is sought from stakeholders on these options through consultation. Risk analyses are then be finalised following this consultation and will present options – refined if appropriate –for the Import health standard process to consider. Measures will only be recommended to the Chief Technical Officer for decision once the import health standard process is complete. As obliged under Article 3.1 of the WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (the SPS Agreement 1995), the measures adopted in IHSs will be based on international standards, guidelines and recommendations where they exist, except as otherwise provided for under Article 3.3 (where measures providing a higher level of protection than international standards can be applied if there is scientific justification, or if there is a level of protection that the member country considers is more appropriate following a risk assessment). 1.2.3. Review and consultation Peer review is a fundamental component of a risk analysis to ensure the analysis is based on the most up to date and credible information available. Each analysis must be submitted to a peer review process involving appropriate staff within those government departments with applicable biosecurity responsibilities, and recognised and relevant experts from New Zealand or overseas. The critique provided by the reviewers is reviewed and where appropriate, incorporated into the analysis. If suggestions arising from the critique are not adopted the rationale must be fully explained and documented. Once a risk analysis has been peer reviewed and the critiques addressed it is then published and released for public consultation. The period for public consultation is usually 6 weeks from the date of publication of the risk analysis. All submissions received from stakeholders will be analysed and compiled into a review of submissions. Either a document will be developed containing the results of the review or 2 Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement states that “a Member may provisionally adopt sanitary …. measures” and that “Members shall seek to obtain additional information …. within a reasonable period of time.” Since the plural noun “Members” is used in reference to seeking additional information a co-operative arrangement is implied between the importing and exporting country. That is the onus is not just on the importing country to seek additional information. Page 6 of 203 August 2009 DRAFT Import Risk Analysis: Viruses, Viroids, Phytoplasma, Bacteria and Diseases of Unknown Aetiology on Malus Nursery Stock
proposed modifications to the risk analysis or the risk analysis itself will be edited to comply with the proposed modifications. 1.3. References for chapter 1 MAF (2006) Biosecurity New Zealand risk analysis procedures. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, New Zealand, 201 pp. Available online at http://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/files/pestsdiseases/surveillance-review/risk-analysis-procedures.pdf Sauer J D (1993) Historical geography of crop plants - a select roster. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida SPS Agreement (1995) World Trade Organization Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. World Trade Organization, Geneva DRAFT Import Risk Analysis: Viruses, Viroids, Phytoplasma, Bacteria and Diseases of Unknown Aetiology on Malus Nursery Stock August 2009 Page 7 of 203
Page 1 and 2: Draft Import Risk Analysis: Viruses
Page 3 and 4: Contributors to this risk analysis
Page 5: 8.10. Apple McIntosh depression age
Page 8 and 9: Organism (Name and organism type) A
Page 10 and 11: 1. Project background and process 1
Page 14 and 15: 2. Commodity and pathway descriptio
Page 16 and 17: Flowering and fruiting are sporadic
Page 18 and 19: MAF (2003) PP42: Inspection and Cle
Page 20 and 21: Viroids are pathogens that are pres
Page 22 and 23: Scientific name In Vector In NZ but
Page 24 and 25: 4. General phytosanitary measures f
Page 26 and 27: e detected while the specificity le
Page 28 and 29: maintained within the facility. MAF
Page 30 and 31: Postman D pers. com. (2008) Comment
Page 32 and 33: 5.1.2. Risk assessment 5.1.2.1. Ent
Page 34 and 35: Virus indexing of mother plants Whi
Page 36 and 37: Kegler et al. 1983). Dianthoviruses
Page 38 and 39: ecosystems. Naturalised introduced
Page 40 and 41: Koenig R, Rüdel M, Lesemann D E (1
Page 42 and 43: Symptoms by affected plant part inc
Page 44 and 45: The likelihood of exposure and esta
Page 46 and 47: the causal agent as CRLV. It theref
Page 48 and 49: Hansen, A J; Parish, C L (1990) Tra
Page 50 and 51: 5.4. Clover yellow mosaic virus (Cl
Page 52 and 53: Environmental consequences While th
Page 54 and 55: Baker, C A, Beckham, K, Hiebert, E
Page 56 and 57: Pearson M N, Clover G R G, Guy P L,
Page 58 and 59: 5.6.2. References Bancroft JB, Toli
Page 60 and 61: TBSV spreads (principally on plants
Page 62 and 63:
Pest free place of production (PFPP
Page 64 and 65:
5.8. Tomato ringspot virus (ToRSV)
Page 66 and 67:
MM.106 rootstock, because it moves
Page 68 and 69:
ange of host crops overseas that to
Page 70 and 71:
Bioassays are effectively used with
Page 72 and 73:
5.9. Tulare apple mosaic virus (TAM
Page 74 and 75:
5.9.3.2. Option evaluation There ar
Page 76 and 77:
6. Risk analyses - Viroids 6.1. App
Page 78 and 79:
The potential environmental impact
Page 80 and 81:
6.1.4. References Allan H H (1982)
Page 82 and 83:
6.2.2. Risk assessment 6.2.2.1. Ent
Page 84 and 85:
There is currently no information o
Page 86 and 87:
No insect vector is known, but root
Page 88 and 89:
a. Pest free area (PFA) (see sectio
Page 90 and 91:
6.4. Peach latent mosaic viroid (PL
Page 92 and 93:
7. Risk analyses - Phytoplasma 7.1.
Page 94 and 95:
7.1.3. Risk management 7.1.3.1. Ris
Page 96 and 97:
7.2. Candidatus Phytoplasma mali (A
Page 98 and 99:
plum), Pyrus communis (European pea
Page 100 and 101:
7.2.2.5. Risk estimation The likeli
Page 102 and 103:
Larivière, M-C (Ed.) (2005) Checkl
Page 104 and 105:
8. Risk analyses - Diseases of unkn
Page 106 and 107:
impacts, while being significant on
Page 108 and 109:
BA (2002) Review of Post-Entry Quar
Page 110 and 111:
8.2.2.3. Consequence assessment Spr
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
8.3.2. Risk assessment 8.3.2.1. Ent
Page 116 and 117:
Mitigation by industry As discussed
Page 118 and 119:
8.4. Apple bunchy top agent 8.4.1.
Page 120 and 121:
8.5. Apple dead spur agent 8.5.1. H
Page 122 and 123:
8.5.2.4. Conclusion of consequence
Page 124 and 125:
8.6. Apple decline agent 8.6.1. Haz
Page 126 and 127:
Human health consequences Apple Dec
Page 128 and 129:
8.7. Apple freckle scurf agent 8.7.
Page 130 and 131:
However, as discussed in section 4.
Page 132 and 133:
8.8. Apple green dimple and ring bl
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
8.9. Apple junction necrotic pittin
Page 138 and 139:
they may potential receive from imp
Page 140 and 141:
8.10. Apple McIntosh depression age
Page 142 and 143:
8.10.2.6. Assessment of uncertainty
Page 144 and 145:
8.11. Apple narrow leaf agent 8.11.
Page 146 and 147:
eceive from importing such material
Page 148 and 149:
8.12. Apple necrosis agent 8.12.1.
Page 150 and 151:
8.14. Apple Newton wrinkle agent 8.
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
8.15. Apple painted face agent 8.15
Page 156 and 157:
8.16. Apple pustule canker agent 8.
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Xylella fastidiosa. NAPPO (North Am
Page 162 and 163:
The likelihood of exposure and esta
Page 164 and 165:
old fruit bearing trees, woody inde
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
period, woody indexing on the Malus
Page 170 and 171:
8.19.2. Risk assessment 8.19.2.1. E
Page 172 and 173:
Indexing of mother plants Given tha
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
8.21.1.4. Hazard identification con
Page 180 and 181:
d. Indexing of mother plants either
Page 182 and 183:
8.22. Apple transmissible internal
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Jones, A L; Aldwinckle, H S (1990)
Page 188 and 189:
9. Risk analyses - Bacteria 9.1. Ps
Page 190 and 191:
symptoms in New Zealand all suggest
Page 192 and 193:
papulans associated with imported M
Page 194 and 195:
Bradbury, J F (1986) Guide to plant
Page 196 and 197:
Glossary of Terms Area An officiall
Page 198 and 199:
Pest Any species, strain or biotype
Page 200 and 201:
Appendix 1 Potential hazards - desc
Page 202 and 203:
Scientific name Common name Synonym
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210:
Pearson M N; Clover G R G; Guy P L;
show all

Draft Import Risk Analysis - Biosecurity New Zealand

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?