NAME OF THE ORGANISM: Viruses 1VIRUD

GENERAL INFORMATION ON THE PEST

Name as submitted in the project specification (if different):

All viruses and virus-like organisms

Pest category:

Viruses and viroids

1- Identity of the pest/Level of taxonomic listing:

Is the organism clearly a single taxonomic entity and can it be adequately distinguished from other entities of the same rank?

Yes

Is the pest defined at the species level or lower?:

Can listing of the pest at a taxonomic level higher than species be supported by scientific reasons or can species be identified within the taxonomic rank which are the (main) pests of concern?

Yes: Seed potato sector
No: Vegetable propagating and planting material (other than seeds) sector, Ornamental sector, Fruits (including hops) sector

If necessary, please list the species:

Is it justified that the pest is listed at a taxonomic rank below species level?

Not relevant

Conclusion:

Not candidate: Seed potato sector, Vegetable propagating and planting material (other than seeds) sector, Ornamental sector
Not evaluated: Fruits (including hops) sector

Justification (if necessary):

Seed potato' sector: Six viruses are already specifically listed at the species level in the EU Marketing Directives for seed potatoes (Potato virus Y, Potato virus X, Potato virus M, Potato virus S, Potato virus A and Potato leaf roll virus). Another virus (TSWV) was specifically submitted as a candidate for the RNQP status by the IIA2 AWG and is currently listed in EPPO PM 4/28 Standard. Ten additional viruses are listed in EPPO PM 4/28 Standard: Alfalfa mosaic alfamovirus, Cucumber mosaic cucumovirus, Potato aucuba mosaic potexvirus, Potato mop-top pomovirus, Potato V potyvirus, Tobacco mosaic tobamovirus, Tobacco necrosis necrovirus, Tobacco rattle tobravirus, Tomato black ring nepovirus, and Tomato mosaic tobamovirus. In the replies to the RNQP Questionnaires for the 'Seed potato' sector, 3 EU Member States (CZ, FI and FR) and ESA considered this entry as important. FI and FR recommended to keep all 'Viruses' listed. However FR also agreed to list the individual viruses if such a general requirement and threshold could be kept in the Marketing Directive. BG and CZ recommended to only list Potato leafroll virus, Potato virus A, Potato virus M, Potato virus S, Potato virus X and Potato virus Y. The Seed potato SEWG proposed to further consider all these viruses for a RNQP listing at the species level (see corresponding summary sheet).

'Vegetable plant (excluding seeds)' sector: FI supported to keep all viruses listed arguing that 'all symptomatic virus infections should be prohibited'. However this would already be covered by the 'substantially free from' requirement. FR supported to keep all viruses listed only for Allium cepa Aggregatum types, A. cepa, A. fistulosum, A. porrum, A. sativum and Capsicum annuum. FR explained that this would cover OYDV, LYSV and SLV on Allium cepa Aggregatum types, A. cepa, A. fistulosum and A. porrum; OYDV, LYSV, SLV, Garlic Common Latent Virus and Garlic Dwarf Virus on A. sativum; TEV, PVY, CMV and PepMoV on Capsicum annuum. GB considered in the replies to the RNQP Questionnaire that it would not be justified to list viruses at a higher level than the species level. Experts concluded that it is not justified to list all viruses together, based on the existence of non-impacting viruses. They performed a specific evaluation on the viruses mentioned in the replies to the RNQP questionnaire.

'Ornamental' sector: DE is the only country arguing to keep all viruses listed for this sector. Indeed DE considered that several species are important and cause similar damage and have an unacceptable economic impact. Listing at this level allows decision on visual inspection instead on sampling and testing/identification. GB considered in the replies to the RNQP Questionnaire (for Malus and Pyrus) that it would not be justified to list viruses at a higher level than the species level.

2 – Status in the EU:

Is this pest already a quarantine pest for the whole EU?

Presence in the EU:

List of countries (EPPO Global Database):

Conclusion:

Justification (if necessary):

HOST PLANT N°1: Allium cepa (ALLCE) for the Vegetable propagating and planting material (other than seeds) sector.

Origin of the listing:

2 - Vegetable seedling sector: Commission Directive 93/61/EC

Plants for planting:

Plants intended for planting

3 - Is the pest already listed in a PM4 standard on the concerned host plant?

Conclusion:

Evaluation continues

4 - Are the listed plants for planting the main* pathway for the "pest/host/intended use" combination? (*: significant compared to others):

Conclusion:

Justification:

5 - Economic impact:

Are there documented reports of any economic impact on the host?

Justification:

What is the likely economic impact of the pest irrespective of its infestation source in the absence of phytosanitary measures? (= official measures)

Is the economic impact due to the presence of the pest on the named host plant for planting, acceptable to the propagation and end user sectors concerned?

Is there unacceptable economic impact caused to other hosts (or the same host with a different intended use) produced at the same place of production due to the transfer of the pest from the named host plant for planting?

Conclusion:

Justification:

6 - Are there feasible and effective measures available to prevent the presence of the pest on the plants for planting at an incidence above a certain threshold (including zero) to avoid an unacceptable economic impact as regards the relevant host plants?

Conclusion:

Justification:

7- Is the quality of the data sufficient to recommend the pest to be listed as a RNQP?

Conclusion:

Justification:

CONCLUSION ON THE STATUS:

Disqualified: it is not justified to list all viruses together.

8 - Tolerance level:

Is there a need to change the Tolerance level:

Proposed Tolerance levels:

Delisting.

9 - Risk management measures:

Is there a need to change the Risk management measure:

Proposed Risk management measure:

Delisting.

REFERENCES:

HOST PLANT N°2: Allium cepa Aggregatum types (Allium ascalonicum) (ALLAS) for the Vegetable propagating and planting material (other than seeds) sector.

Origin of the listing:

2 - Vegetable seedling sector: Commission Directive 93/61/EC

Plants for planting:

Plants intended for planting

3 - Is the pest already listed in a PM4 standard on the concerned host plant?

Conclusion:

Evaluation continues

4 - Are the listed plants for planting the main* pathway for the "pest/host/intended use" combination? (*: significant compared to others):

Conclusion:

Justification:

5 - Economic impact:

Are there documented reports of any economic impact on the host?

Justification:

What is the likely economic impact of the pest irrespective of its infestation source in the absence of phytosanitary measures? (= official measures)

Is the economic impact due to the presence of the pest on the named host plant for planting, acceptable to the propagation and end user sectors concerned?

Conclusion:

Justification:

Conclusion:

Justification:

7- Is the quality of the data sufficient to recommend the pest to be listed as a RNQP?

Conclusion:

Justification:

CONCLUSION ON THE STATUS:

Disqualified: it is not justified to list all viruses together.

8 - Tolerance level:

Is there a need to change the Tolerance level:

Proposed Tolerance levels:

Delisting.

9 - Risk management measures:

Is there a need to change the Risk management measure:

Proposed Risk management measure:

Delisting.

REFERENCES:

HOST PLANT N°3: Allium fistulosum (ALLFI) for the Vegetable propagating and planting material (other than seeds) sector.

Origin of the listing:

2 - Vegetable seedling sector: Commission Directive 93/61/EC

Plants for planting:

Plants intended for planting

3 - Is the pest already listed in a PM4 standard on the concerned host plant?

Conclusion:

Evaluation continues

4 - Are the listed plants for planting the main* pathway for the "pest/host/intended use" combination? (*: significant compared to others):

Conclusion:

Justification:

5 - Economic impact:

Are there documented reports of any economic impact on the host?

Justification:

What is the likely economic impact of the pest irrespective of its infestation source in the absence of phytosanitary measures? (= official measures)

Is the economic impact due to the presence of the pest on the named host plant for planting, acceptable to the propagation and end user sectors concerned?

Conclusion:

Justification:

Conclusion:

Justification:

7- Is the quality of the data sufficient to recommend the pest to be listed as a RNQP?

Conclusion:

Justification:

CONCLUSION ON THE STATUS:

Disqualified: it is not justified to list all viruses together.

8 - Tolerance level:

Is there a need to change the Tolerance level:

Proposed Tolerance levels:

Delisting.

9 - Risk management measures:

Is there a need to change the Risk management measure:

Proposed Risk management measure:

Delisting.

REFERENCES:

HOST PLANT N°4: Allium porrum (ALLPO) for the Vegetable propagating and planting material (other than seeds) sector.

Origin of the listing:

2 - Vegetable seedling sector: Commission Directive 93/61/EC

Plants for planting:

Plants intended for planting

3 - Is the pest already listed in a PM4 standard on the concerned host plant?

Conclusion:

Evaluation continues

4 - Are the listed plants for planting the main* pathway for the "pest/host/intended use" combination? (*: significant compared to others):

Conclusion:

Justification:

5 - Economic impact:

Are there documented reports of any economic impact on the host?

Justification:

What is the likely economic impact of the pest irrespective of its infestation source in the absence of phytosanitary measures? (= official measures)

Is the economic impact due to the presence of the pest on the named host plant for planting, acceptable to the propagation and end user sectors concerned?

Conclusion:

Justification:

Conclusion:

Justification:

7- Is the quality of the data sufficient to recommend the pest to be listed as a RNQP?

Conclusion:

Justification:

CONCLUSION ON THE STATUS:

Disqualified: it is not justified to list all viruses together.

8 - Tolerance level:

Is there a need to change the Tolerance level:

Proposed Tolerance levels:

Delisting.

9 - Risk management measures:

Is there a need to change the Risk management measure:

Proposed Risk management measure:

Delisting.

REFERENCES:

HOST PLANT N°5: Allium sativum (ALLSA) for the Vegetable propagating and planting material (other than seeds) sector.

Origin of the listing:

2 - Vegetable seedling sector: Commission Directive 93/61/EC

Plants for planting:

Plants intended for planting

3 - Is the pest already listed in a PM4 standard on the concerned host plant?

Conclusion:

Evaluation continues

4 - Are the listed plants for planting the main* pathway for the "pest/host/intended use" combination? (*: significant compared to others):

Conclusion:

Justification:

5 - Economic impact:

Are there documented reports of any economic impact on the host?

Justification:

What is the likely economic impact of the pest irrespective of its infestation source in the absence of phytosanitary measures? (= official measures)

Is the economic impact due to the presence of the pest on the named host plant for planting, acceptable to the propagation and end user sectors concerned?

Conclusion:

Justification:

Conclusion:

Justification:

7- Is the quality of the data sufficient to recommend the pest to be listed as a RNQP?

Conclusion:

Justification:

CONCLUSION ON THE STATUS:

Disqualified: it is not justified to list all viruses together.

8 - Tolerance level:

Is there a need to change the Tolerance level:

Proposed Tolerance levels:

Delisting.

9 - Risk management measures:

Is there a need to change the Risk management measure:

Proposed Risk management measure:

Delisting.

REFERENCES:

HOST PLANT N°6: Apium graveolens (APUGV) for the Vegetable propagating and planting material (other than seeds) sector.

Origin of the listing:

2 - Vegetable seedling sector: Commission Directive 93/61/EC

Plants for planting:

Plants intended for planting

3 - Is the pest already listed in a PM4 standard on the concerned host plant?

Conclusion:

Evaluation continues

4 - Are the listed plants for planting the main* pathway for the "pest/host/intended use" combination? (*: significant compared to others):

Conclusion:

Justification:

5 - Economic impact:

Are there documented reports of any economic impact on the host?

Justification:

What is the likely economic impact of the pest irrespective of its infestation source in the absence of phytosanitary measures? (= official measures)

Is the economic impact due to the presence of the pest on the named host plant for planting, acceptable to the propagation and end user sectors concerned?

Conclusion:

Justification:

Conclusion:

Justification:

7- Is the quality of the data sufficient to recommend the pest to be listed as a RNQP?

Conclusion:

Justification:

CONCLUSION ON THE STATUS:

Disqualified: it is not justified to list all viruses together.

8 - Tolerance level:

Is there a need to change the Tolerance level:

Proposed Tolerance levels:

Delisting.

9 - Risk management measures:

Is there a need to change the Risk management measure:

Proposed Risk management measure:

Delisting.

REFERENCES:

HOST PLANT N°7: Asparagus officinalis (ASPOF) for the Vegetable propagating and planting material (other than seeds) sector.

Origin of the listing:

2 - Vegetable seedling sector: Commission Directive 93/61/EC

Plants for planting:

Plants intended for planting

3 - Is the pest already listed in a PM4 standard on the concerned host plant?

Conclusion:

Evaluation continues

4 - Are the listed plants for planting the main* pathway for the "pest/host/intended use" combination? (*: significant compared to others):

Conclusion:

Justification:

5 - Economic impact:

Are there documented reports of any economic impact on the host?

Justification:

What is the likely economic impact of the pest irrespective of its infestation source in the absence of phytosanitary measures? (= official measures)

Is the economic impact due to the presence of the pest on the named host plant for planting, acceptable to the propagation and end user sectors concerned?

Conclusion:

Justification:

Conclusion:

Justification:

7- Is the quality of the data sufficient to recommend the pest to be listed as a RNQP?

Conclusion:

Justification:

CONCLUSION ON THE STATUS:

Disqualified: it is not justified to list all viruses together.

8 - Tolerance level:

Is there a need to change the Tolerance level:

Proposed Tolerance levels:

Delisting.

9 - Risk management measures:

Is there a need to change the Risk management measure:

Proposed Risk management measure:

Delisting.

REFERENCES:

HOST PLANT N°8: Beta vulgaris (BEAVX) for the Vegetable propagating and planting material (other than seeds) sector.

Origin of the listing:

2 - Vegetable seedling sector: Commission Directive 93/61/EC

Plants for planting:

Plants intended for planting

3 - Is the pest already listed in a PM4 standard on the concerned host plant?

Conclusion:

Evaluation continues

4 - Are the listed plants for planting the main* pathway for the "pest/host/intended use" combination? (*: significant compared to others):

Conclusion:

Justification:

5 - Economic impact:

Are there documented reports of any economic impact on the host?

Justification:

What is the likely economic impact of the pest irrespective of its infestation source in the absence of phytosanitary measures? (= official measures)

Is the economic impact due to the presence of the pest on the named host plant for planting, acceptable to the propagation and end user sectors concerned?

Conclusion:

Justification:

Conclusion:

Justification:

7- Is the quality of the data sufficient to recommend the pest to be listed as a RNQP?

Conclusion:

Justification:

CONCLUSION ON THE STATUS:

Disqualified: it is not justified to list all viruses together.

8 - Tolerance level:

Is there a need to change the Tolerance level:

Proposed Tolerance levels:

Delisting.

9 - Risk management measures:

Is there a need to change the Risk management measure:

Proposed Risk management measure:

Delisting.

REFERENCES:

HOST PLANT N°9: Brassica oleracea (BRSOX) for the Vegetable propagating and planting material (other than seeds) sector.

Origin of the listing:

2 - Vegetable seedling sector: Commission Directive 93/61/EC

Plants for planting:

Plants intended for planting

3 - Is the pest already listed in a PM4 standard on the concerned host plant?

Conclusion:

Evaluation continues

4 - Are the listed plants for planting the main* pathway for the "pest/host/intended use" combination? (*: significant compared to others):

Conclusion:

Justification:

5 - Economic impact:

Are there documented reports of any economic impact on the host?

Justification:

What is the likely economic impact of the pest irrespective of its infestation source in the absence of phytosanitary measures? (= official measures)

Is the economic impact due to the presence of the pest on the named host plant for planting, acceptable to the propagation and end user sectors concerned?

Conclusion:

Justification:

Conclusion:

Justification:

7- Is the quality of the data sufficient to recommend the pest to be listed as a RNQP?

Conclusion:

Justification:

CONCLUSION ON THE STATUS:

Disqualified: it is not justified to list all viruses together.

8 - Tolerance level:

Is there a need to change the Tolerance level:

Proposed Tolerance levels:

Delisting.

9 - Risk management measures:

Is there a need to change the Risk management measure:

Proposed Risk management measure:

Delisting.

REFERENCES:

HOST PLANT N°10: Brassica pekinensis (BRSPK) for the Vegetable propagating and planting material (other than seeds) sector.

Origin of the listing:

2 - Vegetable seedling sector: Commission Directive 93/61/EC

Plants for planting:

Plants intended for planting

3 - Is the pest already listed in a PM4 standard on the concerned host plant?

Conclusion:

Evaluation continues

4 - Are the listed plants for planting the main* pathway for the "pest/host/intended use" combination? (*: significant compared to others):

Conclusion:

Justification:

5 - Economic impact:

Are there documented reports of any economic impact on the host?

Justification:

What is the likely economic impact of the pest irrespective of its infestation source in the absence of phytosanitary measures? (= official measures)

Is the economic impact due to the presence of the pest on the named host plant for planting, acceptable to the propagation and end user sectors concerned?

Conclusion:

Justification:

Conclusion:

Justification:

7- Is the quality of the data sufficient to recommend the pest to be listed as a RNQP?

Conclusion:

Justification:

CONCLUSION ON THE STATUS:

Disqualified: it is not justified to list all viruses together.

8 - Tolerance level:

Is there a need to change the Tolerance level:

Proposed Tolerance levels:

Delisting.

9 - Risk management measures:

Is there a need to change the Risk management measure:

Proposed Risk management measure:

Delisting.

REFERENCES:

HOST PLANT N°11: Capsicum annuum (CPSAN) for the Vegetable propagating and planting material (other than seeds) sector.

Origin of the listing:

2 - Vegetable seedling sector: Commission Directive 93/61/EC

Plants for planting:

Plants intended for planting

3 - Is the pest already listed in a PM4 standard on the concerned host plant?

Conclusion:

Evaluation continues

4 - Are the listed plants for planting the main* pathway for the "pest/host/intended use" combination? (*: significant compared to others):

Conclusion:

Justification:

5 - Economic impact:

Are there documented reports of any economic impact on the host?

Justification:

What is the likely economic impact of the pest irrespective of its infestation source in the absence of phytosanitary measures? (= official measures)

Is the economic impact due to the presence of the pest on the named host plant for planting, acceptable to the propagation and end user sectors concerned?

Conclusion:

Justification:

Conclusion:

Justification:

7- Is the quality of the data sufficient to recommend the pest to be listed as a RNQP?

Conclusion:

Justification:

CONCLUSION ON THE STATUS:

Disqualified: it is not justified to list all viruses together.

8 - Tolerance level:

Is there a need to change the Tolerance level:

Proposed Tolerance levels:

Delisting.

9 - Risk management measures:

Is there a need to change the Risk management measure:

Proposed Risk management measure:

Delisting.

REFERENCES:

HOST PLANT N°12: Chrysanthemum x grandiflorum (Dendranthema x grandiflorum) (CHYHO) for the Ornamental sector.

Origin of the listing:

Commission Directive 93/49/EEC

Plants for planting:

Plants intended for planting

3 - Is the pest already listed in a PM4 standard on the concerned host plant?

Conclusion:

Evaluation continues

Justification (if necessary):

Remark: the specific viruses listed in EPPO PM 4/6 could be further analyzed: Chrysanthemum B carlavirus (CVB), Tomato aspermy cucumovirus (TAV), Tomato spotted wilt tospovirus (TSWV), Impatiens necrotic spot tospovirus (INSV), and Chrysanthemum stunt pospiviroid (CSVd).

4 - Are the listed plants for planting the main* pathway for the "pest/host/intended use" combination? (*: significant compared to others):

Conclusion:

Justification:

5 - Economic impact:

Are there documented reports of any economic impact on the host?

Justification:

What is the likely economic impact of the pest irrespective of its infestation source in the absence of phytosanitary measures? (= official measures)

Is the economic impact due to the presence of the pest on the named host plant for planting, acceptable to the propagation and end user sectors concerned?

Conclusion:

Justification:

Conclusion:

Justification:

7- Is the quality of the data sufficient to recommend the pest to be listed as a RNQP?

Conclusion:

Justification:

CONCLUSION ON THE STATUS:

Disqualified: it is not justified to list all viruses together.

8 - Tolerance level:

Is there a need to change the Tolerance level:

Proposed Tolerance levels:

Delisting.

9 - Risk management measures:

Is there a need to change the Risk management measure:

Proposed Risk management measure:

Delisting.

REFERENCES:

HOST PLANT N°13: Cichorium endivia (CICEN) for the Vegetable propagating and planting material (other than seeds) sector.

Origin of the listing:

2 - Vegetable seedling sector: Commission Directive 93/61/EC

Plants for planting:

Plants intended for planting

3 - Is the pest already listed in a PM4 standard on the concerned host plant?

Conclusion:

Evaluation continues

4 - Are the listed plants for planting the main* pathway for the "pest/host/intended use" combination? (*: significant compared to others):

Conclusion:

Justification:

5 - Economic impact:

Are there documented reports of any economic impact on the host?

Justification:

What is the likely economic impact of the pest irrespective of its infestation source in the absence of phytosanitary measures? (= official measures)

Is the economic impact due to the presence of the pest on the named host plant for planting, acceptable to the propagation and end user sectors concerned?

Conclusion:

Justification:

Conclusion:

Justification:

7- Is the quality of the data sufficient to recommend the pest to be listed as a RNQP?

Conclusion:

Justification:

CONCLUSION ON THE STATUS:

Disqualified: it is not justified to list all viruses together.

8 - Tolerance level:

Is there a need to change the Tolerance level:

Proposed Tolerance levels:

Delisting.

9 - Risk management measures:

Is there a need to change the Risk management measure:

Proposed Risk management measure:

Delisting.

REFERENCES:

HOST PLANT N°14: Citrullus lanatus (CITLA) for the Vegetable propagating and planting material (other than seeds) sector.

Origin of the listing:

2 - Vegetable seedling sector: Commission Directive 93/61/EC

Plants for planting:

Plants intended for planting

3 - Is the pest already listed in a PM4 standard on the concerned host plant?

Conclusion:

Evaluation continues

4 - Are the listed plants for planting the main* pathway for the "pest/host/intended use" combination? (*: significant compared to others):

Conclusion:

Justification:

5 - Economic impact:

Are there documented reports of any economic impact on the host?

Justification:

What is the likely economic impact of the pest irrespective of its infestation source in the absence of phytosanitary measures? (= official measures)

Is the economic impact due to the presence of the pest on the named host plant for planting, acceptable to the propagation and end user sectors concerned?

Conclusion:

Justification:

Conclusion:

Justification:

7- Is the quality of the data sufficient to recommend the pest to be listed as a RNQP?

Conclusion:

Justification:

CONCLUSION ON THE STATUS:

Disqualified: it is not justified to list all viruses together.

8 - Tolerance level:

Is there a need to change the Tolerance level:

Proposed Tolerance levels:

Delisting.

9 - Risk management measures:

Is there a need to change the Risk management measure:

Proposed Risk management measure:

Delisting.

REFERENCES:

HOST PLANT N°15: Cucumis sativus (CUMSA) for the Vegetable propagating and planting material (other than seeds) sector.

Origin of the listing:

2 - Vegetable seedling sector: Commission Directive 93/61/EC

Plants for planting:

Plants intended for planting

3 - Is the pest already listed in a PM4 standard on the concerned host plant?

Conclusion:

Evaluation continues

4 - Are the listed plants for planting the main* pathway for the "pest/host/intended use" combination? (*: significant compared to others):

Conclusion:

Justification:

5 - Economic impact:

Are there documented reports of any economic impact on the host?

Justification:

What is the likely economic impact of the pest irrespective of its infestation source in the absence of phytosanitary measures? (= official measures)

Is the economic impact due to the presence of the pest on the named host plant for planting, acceptable to the propagation and end user sectors concerned?

Conclusion:

Justification:

Conclusion:

Justification:

7- Is the quality of the data sufficient to recommend the pest to be listed as a RNQP?

Conclusion:

Justification:

CONCLUSION ON THE STATUS:

Disqualified: it is not justified to list all viruses together.

8 - Tolerance level:

Is there a need to change the Tolerance level:

Proposed Tolerance levels:

Delisting.

9 - Risk management measures:

Is there a need to change the Risk management measure:

Proposed Risk management measure:

Delisting.

REFERENCES:

HOST PLANT N°16: Cucurbita maxima (CUUMA) for the Vegetable propagating and planting material (other than seeds) sector.

Origin of the listing:

2 - Vegetable seedling sector: Commission Directive 93/61/EC

Plants for planting:

Plants intended for planting

3 - Is the pest already listed in a PM4 standard on the concerned host plant?

Conclusion:

Evaluation continues

4 - Are the listed plants for planting the main* pathway for the "pest/host/intended use" combination? (*: significant compared to others):

Conclusion:

Justification:

5 - Economic impact:

Are there documented reports of any economic impact on the host?

Justification:

What is the likely economic impact of the pest irrespective of its infestation source in the absence of phytosanitary measures? (= official measures)

Is the economic impact due to the presence of the pest on the named host plant for planting, acceptable to the propagation and end user sectors concerned?

Conclusion:

Justification:

Conclusion:

Justification:

7- Is the quality of the data sufficient to recommend the pest to be listed as a RNQP?

Conclusion:

Justification:

CONCLUSION ON THE STATUS:

Disqualified: it is not justified to list all viruses together.

8 - Tolerance level:

Is there a need to change the Tolerance level:

Proposed Tolerance levels:

Delisting.

9 - Risk management measures:

Is there a need to change the Risk management measure:

Proposed Risk management measure:

Delisting.

REFERENCES:

HOST PLANT N°17: Cucurbita pepo (CUUPE) for the Vegetable propagating and planting material (other than seeds) sector.

Origin of the listing:

2 - Vegetable seedling sector: Commission Directive 93/61/EC

Plants for planting:

Plants intended for planting

3 - Is the pest already listed in a PM4 standard on the concerned host plant?

Conclusion:

Evaluation continues

4 - Are the listed plants for planting the main* pathway for the "pest/host/intended use" combination? (*: significant compared to others):

Conclusion:

Justification:

5 - Economic impact:

Are there documented reports of any economic impact on the host?

Justification:

What is the likely economic impact of the pest irrespective of its infestation source in the absence of phytosanitary measures? (= official measures)

Is the economic impact due to the presence of the pest on the named host plant for planting, acceptable to the propagation and end user sectors concerned?

Conclusion:

Justification:

Conclusion:

Justification:

7- Is the quality of the data sufficient to recommend the pest to be listed as a RNQP?

Conclusion:

Justification:

CONCLUSION ON THE STATUS:

Disqualified: it is not justified to list all viruses together.

8 - Tolerance level:

Is there a need to change the Tolerance level:

Proposed Tolerance levels:

Delisting.

9 - Risk management measures:

Is there a need to change the Risk management measure:

Proposed Risk management measure:

Delisting.

REFERENCES:

HOST PLANT N°18: Cydonia oblonga (CYDOB) for the Fruits (including hops) sector.

CONCLUSION ON THE STATUS:

Not evaluated: from the fruit Marketing Directive (see Terms of reference)

HOST PLANT N°19: Cynara cardunculus (CYUCA) for the Vegetable propagating and planting material (other than seeds) sector.

Origin of the listing:

2 - Vegetable seedling sector: Commission Directive 93/61/EC

Plants for planting:

Plants intended for planting

3 - Is the pest already listed in a PM4 standard on the concerned host plant?

Conclusion:

Evaluation continues

4 - Are the listed plants for planting the main* pathway for the "pest/host/intended use" combination? (*: significant compared to others):

Conclusion:

Justification:

5 - Economic impact:

Are there documented reports of any economic impact on the host?

Justification:

What is the likely economic impact of the pest irrespective of its infestation source in the absence of phytosanitary measures? (= official measures)

Is the economic impact due to the presence of the pest on the named host plant for planting, acceptable to the propagation and end user sectors concerned?

Conclusion:

Justification:

Conclusion:

Justification:

7- Is the quality of the data sufficient to recommend the pest to be listed as a RNQP?

Conclusion:

Justification:

CONCLUSION ON THE STATUS:

Disqualified: it is not justified to list all viruses together.

8 - Tolerance level:

Is there a need to change the Tolerance level:

Proposed Tolerance levels:

Delisting.

9 - Risk management measures:

Is there a need to change the Risk management measure:

Proposed Risk management measure:

Delisting.

REFERENCES:

HOST PLANT N°20: Cynara scolymus (CYUSC) for the Vegetable propagating and planting material (other than seeds) sector.

Origin of the listing:

2 - Vegetable seedling sector: Commission Directive 93/61/EC

Plants for planting:

Plants intended for planting

3 - Is the pest already listed in a PM4 standard on the concerned host plant?

Conclusion:

Evaluation continues

4 - Are the listed plants for planting the main* pathway for the "pest/host/intended use" combination? (*: significant compared to others):

Conclusion:

Justification:

5 - Economic impact:

Are there documented reports of any economic impact on the host?

Justification:

What is the likely economic impact of the pest irrespective of its infestation source in the absence of phytosanitary measures? (= official measures)

Is the economic impact due to the presence of the pest on the named host plant for planting, acceptable to the propagation and end user sectors concerned?

Conclusion:

Justification:

Conclusion:

Justification:

7- Is the quality of the data sufficient to recommend the pest to be listed as a RNQP?

Conclusion:

Justification:

CONCLUSION ON THE STATUS:

Disqualified: it is not justified to list all viruses together.

8 - Tolerance level:

Is there a need to change the Tolerance level:

Proposed Tolerance levels:

Delisting.

9 - Risk management measures:

Is there a need to change the Risk management measure:

Proposed Risk management measure:

Delisting.

REFERENCES:

HOST PLANT N°21: Lactuca sativa (LACSA) for the Vegetable propagating and planting material (other than seeds) sector.

Origin of the listing:

2 - Vegetable seedling sector: Commission Directive 93/61/EC

Plants for planting:

Plants intended for planting

3 - Is the pest already listed in a PM4 standard on the concerned host plant?

Conclusion:

Evaluation continues

4 - Are the listed plants for planting the main* pathway for the "pest/host/intended use" combination? (*: significant compared to others):

Conclusion:

Justification:

5 - Economic impact:

Are there documented reports of any economic impact on the host?

Justification:

What is the likely economic impact of the pest irrespective of its infestation source in the absence of phytosanitary measures? (= official measures)

Is the economic impact due to the presence of the pest on the named host plant for planting, acceptable to the propagation and end user sectors concerned?

Conclusion:

Justification:

Conclusion:

Justification:

7- Is the quality of the data sufficient to recommend the pest to be listed as a RNQP?

Conclusion:

Justification:

CONCLUSION ON THE STATUS:

Disqualified: it is not justified to list all viruses together.

8 - Tolerance level:

Is there a need to change the Tolerance level:

Proposed Tolerance levels:

Delisting.

9 - Risk management measures:

Is there a need to change the Risk management measure:

Proposed Risk management measure:

Delisting.

REFERENCES:

EPPO (2001) Good plant protection practice PP 2/3 (2) Lettuce under protected cultivation. OEPP/EPPO Bulletin 31, 201-209;

HOST PLANT N°22: Malus (1MABG) for the Ornamental sector.

Origin of the listing:

Commission Directive 93/49/EEC

Plants for planting:

Plants intended for planting

3 - Is the pest already listed in a PM4 standard on the concerned host plant?

Conclusion:

Evaluation continues

Justification (if necessary):

Remark: specific viruses are listed in EPPO PM 4/27 Standard could be further analyzed: Apple chlorotic leaf spot trichovirus, Apple mosaic ilarvirus, Apple stem-grooving capillovirus and Apple stem-pitting foveavirus. Indeed this Standard is covering fruit production and ornamental purposes.

4 - Are the listed plants for planting the main* pathway for the "pest/host/intended use" combination? (*: significant compared to others):

Conclusion:

Justification:

Remark: A number of viruses - Apple chlorotic leaf spot trichovirus, Apple mosaic ilarvirus, Apple stem-grooving capillovirus, Apple stem-pitting foveavirus (EPPO PM 4/27 Standard) - infect fruiting Malus species and plants for planting are a pathway, and can be considered a significant pathway.

5 - Economic impact:

Are there documented reports of any economic impact on the host?

Justification:

What is the likely economic impact of the pest irrespective of its infestation source in the absence of phytosanitary measures? (= official measures)

Is the economic impact due to the presence of the pest on the named host plant for planting, acceptable to the propagation and end user sectors concerned?

Conclusion:

Justification:

Conclusion:

Justification:

7- Is the quality of the data sufficient to recommend the pest to be listed as a RNQP?

Conclusion:

Justification:

CONCLUSION ON THE STATUS:

Disqualified: it is not justified to list all viruses together.

8 - Tolerance level:

Is there a need to change the Tolerance level:

Proposed Tolerance levels:

Delisting.

9 - Risk management measures:

Is there a need to change the Risk management measure:

Proposed Risk management measure:

Delisting.

REFERENCES:

HOST PLANT N°23: Malus (1MABG) for the Fruits (including hops) sector.

CONCLUSION ON THE STATUS:

Not evaluated: from the fruit Marketing Directive (see Terms of reference)

HOST PLANT N°24: Phoenix (1PHXG) for the Ornamental sector.

Origin of the listing:

Commission Directive 93/49/EEC

Plants for planting:

Plants intended for planting

3 - Is the pest already listed in a PM4 standard on the concerned host plant?

Conclusion:

Evaluation continues

4 - Are the listed plants for planting the main* pathway for the "pest/host/intended use" combination? (*: significant compared to others):

Conclusion:

Justification:

5 - Economic impact:

Are there documented reports of any economic impact on the host?

Justification:

What is the likely economic impact of the pest irrespective of its infestation source in the absence of phytosanitary measures? (= official measures)

Is the economic impact due to the presence of the pest on the named host plant for planting, acceptable to the propagation and end user sectors concerned?

Conclusion:

Justification:

Conclusion:

Justification:

7- Is the quality of the data sufficient to recommend the pest to be listed as a RNQP?

Conclusion:

Justification:

CONCLUSION ON THE STATUS:

Disqualified: it is not justified to list all viruses together.

8 - Tolerance level:

Is there a need to change the Tolerance level:

Proposed Tolerance levels:

Delisting.

9 - Risk management measures:

Is there a need to change the Risk management measure:

Proposed Risk management measure:

Delisting.

REFERENCES:

HOST PLANT N°25: Pinus nigra (PIUNI) for the Ornamental sector.

Origin of the listing:

Commission Directive 93/49/EEC

Plants for planting:

Plants intended for planting

3 - Is the pest already listed in a PM4 standard on the concerned host plant?

Conclusion:

Evaluation continues

4 - Are the listed plants for planting the main* pathway for the "pest/host/intended use" combination? (*: significant compared to others):

Conclusion:

Justification:

5 - Economic impact:

Are there documented reports of any economic impact on the host?

Justification:

What is the likely economic impact of the pest irrespective of its infestation source in the absence of phytosanitary measures? (= official measures)

Is the economic impact due to the presence of the pest on the named host plant for planting, acceptable to the propagation and end user sectors concerned?

Conclusion:

Justification:

Conclusion:

Justification:

7- Is the quality of the data sufficient to recommend the pest to be listed as a RNQP?

Conclusion:

Justification:

CONCLUSION ON THE STATUS:

Disqualified: it is not justified to list all viruses together.

8 - Tolerance level:

Is there a need to change the Tolerance level:

Proposed Tolerance levels:

Delisting.

9 - Risk management measures:

Is there a need to change the Risk management measure:

Proposed Risk management measure:

Delisting.

REFERENCES:

HOST PLANT N°26: Pyrus (1PYUG) for the Fruits (including hops) sector.

CONCLUSION ON THE STATUS:

Not evaluated: from the fruit Marketing Directive (see Terms of reference)

HOST PLANT N°27: Pyrus (1PYUG) for the Ornamental sector.

Origin of the listing:

Commission Directive 93/49/EEC

Plants for planting:

Plants intended for planting

3 - Is the pest already listed in a PM4 standard on the concerned host plant?

Conclusion:

Evaluation continues

Justification (if necessary):

4 - Are the listed plants for planting the main* pathway for the "pest/host/intended use" combination? (*: significant compared to others):

Conclusion:

Justification:

Remark: Apple chlorotic leafspot trichovirus, Apple stem-grooving capillovirus, Apple stem-pitting foveavirus (EPPO PM 4/27 Standard) infect fruiting Pyrus species and, in the absence of further information can be assumed to act in a similar way in ornamental species or varieties, in having well-documented adverse effects.

5 - Economic impact:

Are there documented reports of any economic impact on the host?

Justification:

What is the likely economic impact of the pest irrespective of its infestation source in the absence of phytosanitary measures? (= official measures)

Is the economic impact due to the presence of the pest on the named host plant for planting, acceptable to the propagation and end user sectors concerned?

Conclusion:

Justification:

Conclusion:

Justification:

7- Is the quality of the data sufficient to recommend the pest to be listed as a RNQP?

Conclusion:

Justification:

CONCLUSION ON THE STATUS:

Disqualified: it is not justified to list all viruses together.

8 - Tolerance level:

Is there a need to change the Tolerance level:

Proposed Tolerance levels:

Delisting.

9 - Risk management measures:

Is there a need to change the Risk management measure:

Proposed Risk management measure:

Delisting.

REFERENCES:

HOST PLANT N°28: Rheum (1RHEG) for the Vegetable propagating and planting material (other than seeds) sector.

Origin of the listing:

2 - Vegetable seedling sector: Commission Directive 93/61/EC

Plants for planting:

Plants intended for planting

3 - Is the pest already listed in a PM4 standard on the concerned host plant?

Conclusion:

Evaluation continues

4 - Are the listed plants for planting the main* pathway for the "pest/host/intended use" combination? (*: significant compared to others):

Conclusion:

Justification:

5 - Economic impact:

Are there documented reports of any economic impact on the host?

Justification:

What is the likely economic impact of the pest irrespective of its infestation source in the absence of phytosanitary measures? (= official measures)

Is the economic impact due to the presence of the pest on the named host plant for planting, acceptable to the propagation and end user sectors concerned?

Conclusion:

Justification:

Conclusion:

Justification:

7- Is the quality of the data sufficient to recommend the pest to be listed as a RNQP?

Conclusion:

Justification:

CONCLUSION ON THE STATUS:

Disqualified: it is not justified to list all viruses together.

8 - Tolerance level:

Is there a need to change the Tolerance level:

Proposed Tolerance levels:

Delisting.

9 - Risk management measures:

Is there a need to change the Risk management measure:

Proposed Risk management measure:

Delisting.

REFERENCES:

HOST PLANT N°29: Solanum lycopersicum (LYPES) for the Vegetable propagating and planting material (other than seeds) sector.

Origin of the listing:

2 - Vegetable seedling sector: Commission Directive 93/61/EC

Plants for planting:

Plants intended for planting

3 - Is the pest already listed in a PM4 standard on the concerned host plant?

Conclusion:

Evaluation continues

4 - Are the listed plants for planting the main* pathway for the "pest/host/intended use" combination? (*: significant compared to others):

Conclusion:

Justification:

5 - Economic impact:

Are there documented reports of any economic impact on the host?

Justification:

What is the likely economic impact of the pest irrespective of its infestation source in the absence of phytosanitary measures? (= official measures)

Is the economic impact due to the presence of the pest on the named host plant for planting, acceptable to the propagation and end user sectors concerned?

Conclusion:

Justification:

Conclusion:

Justification:

7- Is the quality of the data sufficient to recommend the pest to be listed as a RNQP?

Conclusion:

Justification:

CONCLUSION ON THE STATUS:

Disqualified: it is not justified to list all viruses together.

8 - Tolerance level:

Is there a need to change the Tolerance level:

Proposed Tolerance levels:

Delisting.

9 - Risk management measures:

Is there a need to change the Risk management measure:

Proposed Risk management measure:

Delisting.

REFERENCES:

HOST PLANT N°30: Solanum melongena (SOLME) for the Vegetable propagating and planting material (other than seeds) sector.

Origin of the listing:

2 - Vegetable seedling sector: Commission Directive 93/61/EC

Plants for planting:

Plants intended for planting

3 - Is the pest already listed in a PM4 standard on the concerned host plant?

Conclusion:

Evaluation continues

4 - Are the listed plants for planting the main* pathway for the "pest/host/intended use" combination? (*: significant compared to others):

Conclusion:

Justification:

5 - Economic impact:

Are there documented reports of any economic impact on the host?

Justification:

What is the likely economic impact of the pest irrespective of its infestation source in the absence of phytosanitary measures? (= official measures)

Is the economic impact due to the presence of the pest on the named host plant for planting, acceptable to the propagation and end user sectors concerned?

Conclusion:

Justification:

Conclusion:

Justification:

7- Is the quality of the data sufficient to recommend the pest to be listed as a RNQP?

Conclusion:

Justification:

CONCLUSION ON THE STATUS:

Disqualified: it is not justified to list all viruses together.

8 - Tolerance level:

Is there a need to change the Tolerance level:

Proposed Tolerance levels:

Delisting.

9 - Risk management measures:

Is there a need to change the Risk management measure:

Proposed Risk management measure:

Delisting.

REFERENCES:

HOST PLANT N°31: Solanum tuberosum (SOLTU) for the Seed potato sector.

Origin of the listing:

5 - Seed potato sector: Council Directive 2002/56/EC

Plants for planting:

plants in direct progeny

3 - Is the pest already listed in a PM4 standard on the concerned host plant?

Conclusion:

Evaluation continues

Justification (if necessary):

Remark: a total of 17 viruses are listed in EPPO PM 4/28(1) Standard

4 - Are the listed plants for planting the main* pathway for the "pest/host/intended use" combination? (*: significant compared to others):

Conclusion:

Justification:

5 - Economic impact:

Are there documented reports of any economic impact on the host?

Justification:

What is the likely economic impact of the pest irrespective of its infestation source in the absence of phytosanitary measures? (= official measures)

Is the economic impact due to the presence of the pest on the named host plant for planting, acceptable to the propagation and end user sectors concerned?

Conclusion:

Justification:

Conclusion:

Justification:

7- Is the quality of the data sufficient to recommend the pest to be listed as a RNQP?

Conclusion:

Justification:

CONCLUSION ON THE STATUS:

Disqualified: It is proposed to list the targeted viruses individually. However the general requirement and threshold for Viruses should remain in the relevant Marketing Directive.

8 - Tolerance level:

Is there a need to change the Tolerance level:

Proposed Tolerance levels:

Delisting.

9 - Risk management measures:

Is there a need to change the Risk management measure:

Proposed Risk management measure:

Delisting.

REFERENCES:

HOST PLANT N°32: Vaccinium (1VACG) for the Fruits (including hops) sector.

CONCLUSION ON THE STATUS:

Not evaluated: from the fruit Marketing Directive (see Terms of reference)