Plant health import requirements and actions in response to interceptions Richard McIntosh, Assistant Chief Plant Officer, Defra Date: 8 June 2016

Summary Importance of plant health to the UK Import requirements – a summary Actions in response to persistent interceptions Advice for exporting countries Future changes 2

The value of plant health Maintaining healthy crop (£3.9bn) and forestry (£0.9bn) sectors helps protect around £5bn of value per year to the economy A healthy forestry sector also protects social and environmental value estimated in the region of £1.8bn per year, reflecting the following services: 3  Recreation  Carbon Sequestration  Landscape  Biodiversity

4

The Biosecurity Strategy 5 Plant Biosecurity Strategy 2014 Forward by Ministers in Scotland, Wales and England: ‘…This strategy sets out how we will ensure everyone with a role to play in plant health is aware of the risks and is acting on their responsibilities to minimise those risks. This is because government alone cannot tackle threats to plant health. The strategy therefore has a focus on working with others…..’

Plant health regime Based on international standards, which require technical justification of measures Aim is to keep the UK and wider EU free of “quarantine”* pests and to facilitate trade Requirements underpinned by risk analysis – prepared by EFSA, EPPO or member state *A pest of economic or environmental significance which is not established and is subject to official control 6

Import requirements – controls Some ‘high risk’ commodities prohibited (e.g. certain rooted plants and trees) Controlled commodities can be imported if conditions are met to mitigate risks: most plants and fruits and some cut flowers Other commodities can be imported without plant health restrictions (e.g. non-controlled cut flowers and fruits and most vegetables ) 7 x

Import requirements - inspections Default is that 100% of controlled goods must be inspected System of reduced frequency import checks for trades (specific commodity from a specific country) with a good plant health record Reduced checks mean lower cost of import process 8

The EU Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed (SCOPAFF) Reviews effectiveness of plant health controls and agrees action in response to problems Uses data generated through import inspections (and other sources) to identify where stronger controls are needed Also acts in response to intra-EU issues Carries out annual review of system of reduced import check frequency 9

Actions in response to persistent interceptions Proactive and systematic approach to identifying issues and taking timely action Legal requirement is for zero findings of “quarantine” organisms In practice, action is targeted at cases of systems failure or persistent interceptions Working group meets regularly to monitor interception trends and make recommendations to SCOPAFF Actions include warning letters, missions by the Food and Veterinary Office or new restrictions, depending on the seriousness of the situation An ‘Alert List’ is published by the Commission 10

11

Recent actions in response to persistent interceptions Decision 2015/1849: imports of Capsicum, Lagenaria, Luffa, Momordica, Solanum (other than tomato) from Ghana suspended until 31 December 2016 Decision 2015/2434: import suspension of Colocasia (other than roots), Momordica, Solanum melongena, Trichosanthes from India prolonged until 31 December 2016 Decision 2016/715 : additional restrictions on imports of citrus fruit from South Africa, Brazil and Uruguay, including alternative arrangements for citrus for industrial processing into juice 12

Good practice also recognised… Decision 2015/237: lifting of the suspension of mangoes from India New reduced import checks agreed for ‘clean’ trades – in 2015 decreased checks were agreed for Rosa (Ethiopia), Citrus (Tunisia), Capsicum (Morocco), Momordica (Surinam) 13

What should exporting countries be doing to avoid restrictions? Ensure full compliance with EU requirements, through good training and resourcing of inspection service and security of phytosanitary certification process Identify emerging problems at an early stage (all interceptions are reported back to the exporting country and are published through EUROPHYT) Ensure timely follow up of all interceptions notified 14

If problems persist… Consider ‘approved exporter’ schemes Consider voluntary suspension of ‘problem’ trades Early and comprehensive replies to Commission ‘warning’ letters Co-operation and transparency during FVO audits Timely and effective follow up of recommendations Ask for technical assistance where it is available Consider commercial assistance if funded assistance is not available 15

Plans for new regulation Proposals under consideration for: - Keiferia lycopersicella (tomato pinworm) - Bactericera cockerelli (vector of Candidatus Liberibacter solanacearum – the cause of zebra chip) - Thaumatotibia leucotreta (false codling moth) Possible updating of citrus canker and citrus blackspot requirements Additional products (e.g. tomato, grapes) to be brought within the scope of phytosanitary certification Proposals to be finalised, subject to WTO consultation, then a period of transposition – coming into force most likely in early

Keeping track of developments Monitor the EU Alert List Use the UK Plant Health Risk Register at News items Risk assessments Publicity material New entries on the Risk Register Search

Conclusions Plant health is a high priority, for the UK as well as the EU generally Imports threats now being reviewed systematically Actions have been taken and will continue to be taken Exporting countries can help by proactive actions to avoid trades appearing on the EU Alert List UK importers can help by careful sourcing Opportunities for lower costs through reduced import checks New regulations are planned, which will extend scope of Phytosanitary Certification Make use of the UK Plant Health Risk Register 18