2. Janice Hodge, NFPS Technical Coordinator NFPS Risk Analysis Framework – Technology Transfer Workshop, March 22, Halifax, Nova Scotia

3. 1. Review the reporting spectrum associated with pest risk analysis. 2. Discuss existing PRA reports Examples of regulatory versus non-regulatory approach Review differences and similarities

4. Reporting is a continuum which occurs throughout the pest risk analysis process with a continual feedback loop. Higher frequency of reporting/correspondence at onset emails, conference calls, etc Followed by less frequent reporting in the interim workshop reports Final product is pest risk analysis report.

5. Sustaining momentum through time “touchstones” Precipitating buy-in to core “RA team” Transparency to stakeholders Accountability for participants Opportunity to refine objectives/scope

6.  Mechanism for communication  Reflects the RA process, rather than guide the RA process  Reflects the audience, urgency and state of knowledge  MPB politically-driven, urgent, little information (boreal forest)  eSBW operationally-driven, longer time frame, lots of information  Report format can vary provided procedures are consistent with principles and guidelines

7.  Report formats generally based on International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (IPSM)  IPSM No. 11 – PRA for quarantine pests  IPSM No. 21 – PRA for regulated non- quarantine pests

8. 1.CFIA  Plant Health Risk Assessment template, consistent with international guidelines  BSLB, EAB, etc 2. NFPS  2007 MPB risk assessment

9. PREFACE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY STAGE 1: INITIATING THE PROCESS 1.1 REQUEST 1.1.1. PURPOSE 1.1.2. PRELIMINARY RISK PROFILE 1.1.3. PREVIOUS PRA, CURRENT STATUS AND PERTINENT PEST INTERCEPTIONS STAGE 2: PEST FACT SHEET STAGE 3: PEST SPECIFIC PRA 3.1 HAZARD IDENTIFICATION 3.2 GEOGRAPHIC AND REGULATORY STATUS 3.3 LIKELIHOOD OF INTRODUCTION 3.4. ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE CRITERIA Rating CONSEQUENCES OF INTRODUCTION 3.4.1 ESTABLISHMENT POTENTIAL 3.4.2 NATURAL SPREAD POTENTIAL 3.4.3. POTENTIAL ECONOMIC IMPACT 3.4.4. POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 3.5 CONCLUSION Components

10. Pest Risk Assessment Pest Risk Communication Components PREFACE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY STAGE 1: INITIATING THE PROCESS 1.1 REQUEST 1.1.1. PURPOSE 1.1.2. PRELIMINARY RISK PROFILE 1.1.3. PREVIOUS PRA, CURRENT STATUS AND PERTINENT PEST INTERCEPTIONS STAGE 2: PEST FACT SHEET STAGE 3: PEST SPECIFIC PRA 3.1 HAZARD IDENTIFICATION 3.2 GEOGRAPHIC AND REGULATORY STATUS 3.3 LIKELIHOOD OF INTRODUCTION 3.4. ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE CRITERIA Rating CONSEQUENCES OF INTRODUCTION 3.4.1 ESTABLISHMENT POTENTIAL 3.4.2 NATURAL SPREAD POTENTIAL 3.4.3. POTENTIAL ECONOMIC IMPACT 3.4.4. POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 3.5 CONCLUSION Risk Management Document (RMD) separate document

11. Components

12. Risk Response Risk Communication Components Risk Assessment

13. Some differences in style, content, and approach CFIA has template and standard procedures due to invasive context and potential regulatory implications

14. PREFACE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY STAGE 1: INITIATING THE PROCESS 1.1 REQUEST 1.1.1. PURPOSE 1.1.2. PRELIMINARY RISK PROFILE 1.1.3. PREVIOUS PRA, CURRENT STATUS AND PERTINENT PEST INTERCEPTIONS STAGE 2: PEST FACT SHEET STAGE 3: PEST SPECIFIC PRA 3.1 HAZARD IDENTIFICATION 3.2 GEOGRAPHIC AND REGULATORY STATUS 3.3 LIKELIHOOD OF INTRODUCTION 3.4. ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE CRITERIA Rating CONSEQUENCES OF INTRODUCTION 3.4.1 ESTABLISHMENT POTENTIAL 3.4.2 NATURAL SPREAD POTENTIAL 3.4.3. POTENTIAL ECONOMIC IMPACT 3.4.4. POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 3.5 CONCLUSION Style and Content

15. Approach

16. CFIA has a sophisticated and fixed rating system which describes and scores levels of risk. Negligible to High (0 to 3) 1. Guidelines for Rating the Likelihood of Introduction: Rating = negligible (numerical score is 0): The likelihood of introduction is extremely low given the combination of factors including the distribution of the pest at source, management practices applied, low commodity volume, low probability of pest survival in transit, low probability of contact with susceptible hosts in the PRA area given the intended use, or unsuitable climate. Rating = low (1): The likelihood of introduction is low but clearly possible given the expected combination of factors necessary for introduction described above. Rating = medium (2): Pest introduction is likely given the combination of factors necessary for introduction described above. Rating = high (3): Pest introduction is very likely or certain given the combination of factors necessary for introduction described above. CFIA Ratings

18. Overall Risk Rating reflects the Likelihood of Introduction and Consequences of Introduction

19. ‘Provocative’ Statement Knowledge Synthesis Uncertainty Information Needs MPB –Likelihood of range expansion Approach

20. 1. Nature of the threat Distribution of pine Pl, Pj and hybrid across Canada i.e. hazard 2. Likelihood of range expansion 7 statements supported by knowledge synthesis i.e. evidence, and identification of uncertainty and information needs 3.Consequences of range expansion 6 statements as above 4. Response The need for a response Control effectiveness Response options Analysis Approach

21. Need for a fixed reporting style or template for native pests ? Necessary components should include: triggers objectives scope likelihood of 0ccurrence consequences of occurrence risk response (even if no response) Optional components include: Executive summary, introduction, conclusions Uncertainties, information needs

22. Identify the reason for the PRA i.e. initiation Observed or expected increase in risk from a resident pest Shift in forest land use including conversion to alternative tree species Change in potential for invasion by alien pest Public demand or legislation e.g. timber supply or forest management review, regulatory needs, threats to protected environments or species at risk, etc.

23. Nature of the risk or threat Biological attributes of the organism and evidence of ability to cause injury Geographic or ecological scope Uncertainties and information needs

24. Provide evidence, uncertainty and information needs. Susceptibility, suitability of environment, biological attributes of pest that increase the risk including rate of spread Identify spatial and temporal variation in these risks Uncertainties and information needs

25. Provide evidence, uncertainty, information needs Socioeconomic, ecological or regulatory impacts Identify spatial and temporal variation in these risks