NAME OF THE ORGANISM: None (Statement in several Annexes: Annex III point (7) Health and Resistance: 'Trees in stands must in general be free from attacks by damaging organisms'; Annex VII Part C points (1) and (2) and Part E point (1)) NULL6

GENERAL INFORMATION ON THE PEST

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

Pest category:

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?

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?

No: Forest reproductive material 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: Forest reproductive material sector

Justification (if necessary):

In the Questionnaire, AT, PT and ENA considered that there was a need to list pests at the species level for this specific sector. Other countries also proposed to regulate specific pest/host combinations in Q3 (SI) or Q1.2 (DE, EFNA, ENA, ES, FR, GB, PT, SE, SI). However this is out of the scope of the RNQP project as no particular pest is currently listed.

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: Forest genus or species: Abies alba, Abies cephalonica, Abies grandis, Abies pinsapo, Acer platanoides, Acer pseudoplatanus, Alnus glutinosa, Alnus incana, Betula pendula, Betula pubescens, Carpinus betulus, Castanea sativa, Cedrus atlantica, Cedrus libani, Fagus sylvatica, Fraxinus angustifólia, Fraxinus excelsior, Larix decídua, Larix x eurolepis, Larix kaempferi, Larix sibirica, Picea abies, Picea sitchensis, Pinus brutia, Pinus canariensis, Pinus cembra, Pinus contorta, Pinus halepensis, Pinus leucodermis, Pinus nigra, Pinus pinaster, Pinus pinea, Pinus radiata, Pinus sylvestris, Populus sp. and artificial hybrids, Prunus avium, Pseudotsuga menziesii, Quercus cerris, Quercus ilex, Quercus petraea, Quercus pubescens, Quercus róbur, Quercus rubra, Quercus suber, Robinia pseudoacacia, Tilia cordata, Tilia platyphyllos. () for the Forest reproductive material sector.

Origin of the listing:

Council Directive 1999/105/EC

Plants 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: this is not compatible with the RNQP definition.

8 - Tolerance level:

Is there a need to change the Tolerance level:

Proposed Tolerance levels:

9 - Risk management measures:

Is there a need to change the Risk management measure:

Proposed Risk management measure:

REFERENCES: