EUROPEAN AND MEDITERRANEAN PLANT PROTECTION ORGANIZATION

05-12054

Dendrolimus sibiricus

Extracts of reports of EPPO Meetings

As mentioned on the introductory section of the Web page on PRA documents, PRA documents are working documents which have usually been produced by an assessor whose opinion may have been commented during Panel meetings and comments have usually not been included in the PRA documents but are found in Panel meeting reports. This document consists of extracts of EPPO Meetings' discussions on Pest Risk Analysis documents on the relevant pest. Discussions on Pest Specific Phytosanitary Requirements (PSPR)[1], have also been reported when relevant as they include elements on possible risk management options.

Panel on Quarantine Pests for Forestry (Helsinki, FI, 2000-02-08/10)

3.  Risk assessment of forest pests from the territories of the former USSR

3.4  Assessment of individual pests

The Panel followed, point by point, the Pest Risk Assessment for Dendrolimus sibiricus prepared by the EPPO Secretariat.

Mr McNamara noted that the pest is able to spread naturally and asked the Panel if it was really necessary to continue the assessment after this point, since the pest will continue to expand its geographic range, whatever measures are in place. Mr Csoka and Mr Økland expressed the opinion that the assessment should be oontinued with the aim of evaluating the possibilities to reduce the natural spread of D. sibiricus and to prevent the spread with other pathways. Mr Evans noted that he had had the same difficulty in assessing for the UK the risk of Dendroctonus micans, which is also able to spread naturally. Mr Rautapää asked where was the western limit of D. sibiricus area of distribution for today. Mr Orlinski replied that this is the subject of discussion between Russian forest entomologists: some experts consider that it has reached longitude 37° or 38° in European Russia (including the White Sea coast), but the most common opinion places the most western point much further to the east, at longitude 52°. Some of the uncertainty in the past about the precise distribution of D. sibiricus may derive from confusion with other species, especially D. pini. The pest is spreading westwards at a rate that has been variously estimated as 12 km per year or 40–50 km per year. Mr Smirnov informed the meeting that the most westerly outbreaks of D. sibiricus were officially observed in the republics of Bashkiria, Chuvashia and Udmurtia (west of the Ural mountains). Mr Evans pointed out that it is difficult to evaluate the impact of a pest in different climatic conditions; for example, it is possible that D. sibiricus could establish in the UK but would not cause serious damage because the climate is so different from that of Siberia. Mr Siitonen said that D. pini occurs in Finland but has never caused serious damage. Mr Økland noted that quite serious outbreaks of D. pini were observed in Norway in the past. Mr McNamara wondered if competition would be possible between D. pini and D. sibiricus. Mr Csoka, Mr Siitonen, Mr Evans and Mr Økland expressed the opinion that there are important ecological differences between the two species: D. sibiricus is polyphagous and much more plastic with regard to climatic conditions, which is why its area is much larger than that of D. pini.

Panel on Quarantine Pests for Forestry (Perm', RU, 2000-07-04/07)

4. Pest Risk Analysis of forest pests from the territories of the former USSR

4.2 Assessment of individual pests

Mr Orlinski explained that the Pest Risk Assessment for Dendrolimus sibiricus had been corrected according the proposals of the Panel meeting in Helsinki. The Panel followed, point by point, the new version of the PRA for D. sibiricus prepared by the EPPO Secretariat. In order to try to get a realistic answer to all the questions in the PRA scheme, and following the proposals of Mr Siitonen (in Helsinki) and Mr Orlinski, the Panel compared examples of other known species in known situations as representing maximum scores for each question of the assessment scheme. Mr Smirnov and Mr Orlinski stressed that this species causes the most important economic, environmental and social damage of all the forest pests in Russia. Mr Smirnov confirmed the information that the most westerly outbreaks of D. sibiricus had been observed in the republics of Bashkiria, Chuvashia and Udmurtia (west of the Ural mountains). The pest was known to be spreading and probability of establishment of the pest in other parts of the EPPO region was recognised as being very high. The Panel believed that the pest could be introduced to the western part of the EPPO region on a number of different types of commodities, the most serious risk being with wood with bark, isolated bark, plants for planting, wooden packing material and waste wood. As a result of the assessment, the Panel recognised that D. sibiricus has all necessary characteristics of a quarantine pest for the European part of the EPPO region. The proposal for addition to the EPPO A2 list would be made to the EPPO Working Party on Phytosanitary Regulations together with a data sheet and a report of the PRA; the same information would be presented to the Panel on Phytosanitary Measures for information.

The Panel decided that, at the next meeting, it would assess the other pests from the database for which PRAs had been performed by the EPPO Secretariat.

Report of the 33rd Meeting of the Panel on Phytosanitary Measures (Paris, OIE, 2001-01-23/26)

8.  Potential EPPO quarantine pests

8.6 Candidate from the forestry project: Dendrolimus sibiricus (00/8481, 00/8478, 00/8475, 00/8471)

Dr McNamara (EPPO) explained that the Panel on Quarantine Pests for Forestry was continuing its programme of two meetings per year. The EPPO Secretariat had built up a database of about 500 forest pests known to occur in former USSR. The Panel had then given priorities to individual pests, depending on their importance and the need for further study. The Secretariat had prepared data sheets and pest risk assessments for 7 pests in the top category. At it last meeting, the Panel was able to finalize the documentation for Dendrolimus sibiricus, which was now proposed for addition to the A2 list. He expected that future progress would be quicker now that the Panel was fully operational. Dr Smith (Chairman) suggested that future proposals for addition would not come though the Panel on Phytosanitary Measures but would go directly to the Working Party. Dr McNamara (EPPO) noted that the Panel had also used the EPPO scheme for pest risk management to identify measures that could be applied; these were later translated by the EPPO Secretariat into an SQR. He wondered whether it would be possible to provide the conclusions of pest risk management in some form, as it was done with the reports of pest risk assessments. Dr Smith (Chairman) thought that such a report would be useful. Mr Orlinski reported that D. sibiricus was the most important defoliator of Russian conifer species. Initially an eastern species, it had now spread to the west of the Ural mountains. Its spread had been very slow and it could be transported on different pathways. The probabilities of introduction, establishment and potential economic impact were rated as very high. Concerning the SQR, requirements were given for plants for planting, cut flowers and branches, wood and isolated bark. Dr Smith (Chairman) noticed that some measures in the SQR were universal measures which may apply against other pests, and would be useful in the framework of the future commodity-standard. Mr Unger noted that this case carried implications for the regulatory system of the EU, since it was also present in the European part of Russia. Its listing would imply requirements for wood with bark. Mr Orlinski commented that the Panel had discussed the issue of the division of Russia into two parts (European and non-European), but it had thought more justified to consider the actual distribution of pests. Mr Unger wondered whether the available data was sufficient to justify regionalization, and Mr Orlinski confirmed that it was. Noting a distribution map in the documentation and reacting to queries on the possible presence of this pest in other countries of former-USSR, Dr Smith (Chairman) suggested that all countries of former USSR should be mapped for each forest pest presented for addition (and not only Russia).

Mr Husak enquired about effective treatments. Mr Orlinski answered that applications from the air were generally used, mainly of B. thuringiensis. Mr Husak noted that this treatment carried an environmental hazard. On the other hand, Mr Orlinski noted, the risk of environmental damage due to the pest itself was also high. Dr Smith (Chairman) noted that the fact that chemical treatment was required was one of the most important environmental concerns and Mr Unger thought that this should be included in the section on environmental impact. Mrs Petter found the assessment convincing apart from the fact that the pest had been present since 1958, that it was able to fly several hundred of kilometres per year, and yet it had not spread much. Mr Orlinski confirmed that the pest was a good flyer, but that its westwards spread had been less than expected for other reasons (e.g. number of individuals needed to establish a population, population control by natural means). Mrs Petter wondered whether the Panel had considered climatic similarities between the different parts of former USSR and Europe. Dr McNamara (EPPO) said that the climate throughout the coniferous forests of the palaearctic was considered rather similar. Mr Pemberton was surprised not to see a simple Climex-type analysis to support the assessment. Dr Smith (Chairman) commented that the Secretariat did have Climex and should start using it.

Mrs Petter asked whether the SQR would be presented to the Working Party on its own. Dr Smith (Chairman) suggested that it should find its place in the commodity standard. Mr Pacheco wondered about the requirement to export during a limited time of the year in winter and to require freedom from soil. Dr McNamara (EPPO) noted that the idea was that plants for planting could be imported outside the flying period, i.e. in winter, and that any material should be free from soil. Mr Husak noted that exporting plants for planting from the area where the pest was present was theoretical. This would be very expensive, and material would preferably be exported as seeds. Mrs Petter noted that the requirement for harvest period should not apply to packing wood. Mr Unger enquired whether some stages could survive on cut branches, in particular Christmas trees. Mr Kotleba noted that debarking in the winter would remove the risk, but that it would face technical difficulties. He also asked whether pyrethroids or methyl bromide were recommended. Dr McNamara (EPPO) said that only fumigation was proposed. Mr Pemberton was dubious that, for waste wood and packing wood, one could be sure that the harvest period had been respected. He suggested that only debarking, fumigation and heat treatment should be given as alternatives. Also, squared wood was by definition free from bark, so the phrasing should be corrected. Dr Smith (Chairman) noted that packing wood should satisfy ISPM no. (to be approved). Mr Unger wondered whether fumigation should be recommended in situations where there are alternatives. The Panel should consider this point. Dr Smith (Chairman) noted that EPPO had approved several fumigation procedures, which where still considered as valid, and that only the Working Party could decide to suspend them. Mr Unger thought that a paper should be presented to the Working Party, possibly stating that when equivalent methods exist, due to environmental concerns and the Montreal protocol, it is assumed that countries would not favour fumigation. Dr Smith (Chairman) remarked that EPPO had defended the view that fumigation for certain purposes should be maintained, and it should maintain a consistent position. Mr Unger reassured him that he just wished to avoid routine use of fumigation when alternatives were possible.

Dr Smith (Chairman) suggested that the preparation of the draft commodity standard should start as soon as possible. Mr Pemberton wondered whether the Panel had the appropriate expertise to develop this standard. Dr Smith (Chairman) agreed that this issue should be discussed by the Working Party. Dr McNamara (EPPO) commented that the Panel was composed both of forest entomologists and of persons from NPPOs, with expertise on import/export.

The Panel was well satisfied with the presentation of data sheet, pest risk assessment and report of pest risk assessment, and support the listing of D. sibiricus as an A2 quarantine pest. The Secretariat should draft a general report of pest risk management. The SQR would be studied by the Panel on Quarantine Pests for Forestry in the light of comments made by the Panel, and would then be presented to the Working Party. If it was approved, it would be sent for consultation. In parallel, it should be used for developing the commodity-standard..

Panel on Quarantine Pests for Forestry (Paris, FR, 2001-03-13/15)

4. Analysis of individual pests

4. 1 Documents on Dendrolimus sibiricus for the Working Party on Phytosanitary Regulations

Mr McNamara explained that documents on Dendrolimus sibiricus prepared by the second Panel meeting in Perm’ had been discussed at the meeting of the EPPO Panel on Phytosanitary Regulations in January 2001. That Panel had examined all the material on D. sibiricus and agreed the proposal to include the pest in the EPPO quarantine list. Some of these documents would be presented to the Working Party on Phytosanitary Regulation at its next meeting in late June.