© 2007 Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada (Canadian Food Inspection Agency), all rights reserved. Use without permission is prohibited. The New US list of Plants for Planting that are Not Authorized Pending Pest Risk Analysis (NAPPRA) November, 2011 Trent Herman Horticulture Division, CFIA

2 Purpose/Objective To inform stakeholders of the new US NAPPRA list and initiate a dialogue To provide an opportunity for stakeholders to ask questions regarding the potential impacts of NAPPRA To seek feedback regarding the CFIA’s proposal to pursue equivalent measures in the short term To seek feedback regarding potential longer term solutions

3 Background  On June 27th, 2011 the USDA announced the establishment of a new category in the regulations governing plants for planting importation to be known as Plants for Planting Not Authorized for Importation Pending Pest Risk Analysis (NAPPRA)  The rule can be found in the US Electronic Code of Federal Regulations: 7CFR § a  The NAPPRA rule enables the USDA to take quick action in response to potential pests of quarantine concern  USDA will require commodity based pest risk analysis for plants listed as NAPPRA before they will be permitted entry into the US

4  On July 26th, 2011 the USDA published the first notice of the US NAPPRA list of plants for public comment.  The list identifies 41 taxa of plants for planting that are considered quarantine pests to the US and 107 taxa of plants for planting that are potential hosts of quarantine pests.  The list includes the known host plants of CLHB (>80 genera) which includes maple, poplar, oak, Prunus, Malus, Rosa, etc.  Data sheets provide additional background information regarding the pests of concern  The comment period has been extended until Nov 25 th, 2011  The CFIA has provided comments with the hope that Canada will be removed from the US NAPPRA list for most genera  However there will still be implications for Canadian stakeholders who import plants from NAPPRA listed countries  The final US list may change based on comments received Background

5  The US NAPPRA rule brings the phytosanitary risk mitigation process for plants for planting in line with the measures already in place in the US for fruits and vegetables for consumption  NAPPRA is in line with the principles of the IPPC  The US NAPPRA approach is similar to the Canadian approach which has been in place for a number of years  Described in CFIA policy directive D  However, to date, Canada has focused on non-traditional origins of key plant species (unknown risk of new sources), while the US approach focuses on plants which are a known pathway for specific pests  The end result is that Canada’s NAPPRA list is not equivalent to the US list

6  Under US regulations, plants that do not meet US import requirements at the time of entry into Canada can not be re- exported to the US  In addition, according to US regulations, plants that do not meet US import requirements at the time of entry into Canada can never become Canadian origin and can never be exported to the US as Canadian Implications

7  Since Canada’s current approach to NAPPRA is not equivalent to the US approach, any plants listed on the US NAPPRA list that are imported into Canada after the US list goes into effect will not meet US import requirements at the time they enter Canada  Those plants could not become ‘from’ Canada after any period of time, and would never be able to be exported or re-exported  Includes all plants on the US NAPPRA list (i.e. not just those listed as NAPPRA from Canada)  Will impact plants imported and grown under the CGCP or the CNCP as well  These programs do not exempt plants from the requirements of 7CFR § , they only reduce the period required for certain plants to be considered ‘from’ Canada to a ‘growing cycle’ or ‘growing season’ rather than 12 months. Implications continued…

8 Potentially significant implications for plant importers and exporters if Canada’s list is not equivalent to the US list Would result in a loss of market access for NAPPRA listed plant genera to the US if the industry is unable to prove origin Additional documentation and systems would be required to keep track of imported NAPPRA plant material to ensure it would never be co-mingled with material originating from ‘non-NAPPRA’ countries, or exported to the US This would take significant time and resources to develop/implement, and is not a feasible option in the short term (the US list is expected to go into effect by the end of December) Also impacts plants grown solely in Canada or imported from the US as proof of origin would still be required Implications continued…

9 Next Steps  In the short term, the CFIA is proposing to pursue an equivalent NAPPRA approach in order to minimize any immediate impact on market access for Canadian exports  Pursuing an equivalent NAPPRA approach would mean that most plants on the US NAPPRA list would be added to the Canadian NAPPRA list in D  This would ensure that all NAPPRA listed plants entering Canada would also meet US import requirements, and therefore would be eligible for export or re-export  The CFIA would not need to implement additional documentation requirements at this time as NAPPRA listed plants in Canada would meet US origin requirements  Any existing import permits for NAPPRA listed plants would be cancelled, and those plants would not be permitted entry into Canada from specific origins pending completion of a commodity based pest risk analysis

10 Next Steps continued…  Based on preliminary feedback from stakeholders, the short term impact of pursuing equivalence is expected to be minimal since a lot of the plants listed are sourced primarily from the US  The impact of losing market access to the US for exports/re-exports of NAPPRA listed plants would be more significant than losing off-continent sources of import for those plants  There may be more significant impact for a number of nursery plants  However, regardless of Canada’s approach to NAPPRA, those genera that are hosts of CLHB/ALHB will be restricted entry from off-continent sources under CFIA policy directive D which will go into effect in December,  Important to remember, that plants will continue to be added to the NAPPRA list in the future  CFIA is working with the USDA to pursue a more North American approach to NAPPRA

11  Questions for consideration:  Will putting any of the US NAPPRA listed plants on the Canadian list cause a significant problem for the industry (e.g. if a certain plant can only be sourced from a listed origin)?  What would be the primary destination for the plants? Are they imported for export/re-export to the US, or for the domestic market?  If the plants are primarily destined for the domestic market, would the industry support the CFIA allowing importation if it means losing market access to the US for the plants (i.e. all plants of that genera including those grown domestically or imported from the US)?  Alternatively, are there options that would be feasible for industry to implement in order to track origin if any US NAPPRA listed plants were permitted entry into Canada? Next Steps continued…

12 Questions?

13 Additional Information US Electronic Code of Federal Regulations: 7CFR § idx?c=ecfr&sid=34f522d f5ed1cbba0e7bdd&rgn=di v6&view=text&node=7: &idno=7 USDA Docket: US NAPPRA List CFIA policy directive D-08-04: Plant Protection Import Requirements for Plants and Plant Parts for Planting: Preventing the Entry and Spread of Regulated Plant Pests Associated with the Plants for Planting Pathway 04e.shtml