Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Jon Knight 22 nd Technical Consultation among Regional Plant Protection Organisations PI: Richard Baker (FERA, UK) Imperial College London Team: John Mumford,

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Jon Knight 22 nd Technical Consultation among Regional Plant Protection Organisations PI: Richard Baker (FERA, UK) Imperial College London Team: John Mumford,"— Presentation transcript:

1 Jon Knight 22 nd Technical Consultation among Regional Plant Protection Organisations PI: Richard Baker (FERA, UK) Imperial College London Team: John Mumford, Megan Quinlan, John Holt, Adrian Leach, Emerging approaches to phytosanitary risk management decision challenges: PRATIQUE – a European Project

2 What is a Pratique?  Organised around the existing PRA scheme developed by EPPO  European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organisation (EPPO, 1997); working with revision from 2007  Three year project (March 2008 - 2011)  €4.13 million (510 person months)  Funded by the European Union under FP 7 “Building the European research area of knowledge for growth”  15 Partners  11 partners (NPPOs and universities) from 9 European countries, plus subcontracts to Russian and Chinese institutions  Partners from Australia and New Zealand, plus active observers from Canada and the United States of America.  Two international organisations as partners (EPPO and CABI Switzerland Centre) Enhancements of Pest Risk Analysis Techniques

3 Development of more efficient risk analysis techniques for pests and pathogens of phytosanitary concern This project will:  develop the science and provision of pest risk analysis  explore the potential for new techniques  refine existing tools and management approaches that can be applied to enhance existing PRA schemes. EU 7 th Framework Call Text (i)

4 EU 7 th Framework Call Text (ii) Key work will focus on risk assessment issues and will include: 1.identifying and integrating key national and international datasets 2.exploring new techniques and refining existing tools  - especially validation of techniques that assess economic, environmental or social impacts/costs 3.developing system approaches for pest risk management to analyse and enhance the effectiveness of Plant Health policy 4.developing novel and sustainable pest management strategies with integrated technical support for policy development in the case of emergency situations/pest outbreaks, especially those pests that are difficult to control.

5 Expected impact:  The project will develop sustainable, integrated plant health risk analysis and management strategies.  Effective policy making and decision making by governments aimed at predicting and managing plant health risks, will be enhanced through the further development of more effective PRA based on new decision support systems. EU 7 th Framework Call Text (iii)

6 PRATIQUE partners

7 PRATIQUE: Principal project objectives & Work Packages  To assemble the datasets required to construct PRAs valid for the whole of the EU (WP1)  To conduct multi-disciplinary research to enhance the techniques used in PRA for:  the assessment of economic, environmental and social impacts (WP2)  standardising and summarising risk (WP3)  pathway analysis and systems approaches (WP4)  guiding actions during pest outbreaks (WP5)  To ensure that the PRA scheme is fit for purpose and user-friendly (WP6)

8 PRATIQUE Work Packages

9 WP1: Identifying and Integrating Datasets WP2: Assessing Impacts WP4: Pathway Analysis & Systems Approaches WP5: Action at Outbreaks WP6: Web-based PRA scheme, Dissemination & Validation WP3: Standardising and Summarising Risk Assessments Pest risk management Pest risk assessment PRATIQUE: Structure

10 PRATIQUE: Work Packages & Stages in the PRA Scheme Detailed pest risk assessment needed? Establishment Spread Entry Analysis of risk management options Impacts Pest/pathway risk assessment conclusions Risk Communication WP1 WP6 WP2 WP4 WP5 WP3 Stages in the PRA Scheme PRATIQUE Work Package Coverage

11 WP 2 – Enhancing techniques for economic, environmental and social impacts  To determine the extent to which the analysis of species traits can be used to identify those species that can cause significant impacts in cultivated and uncultivated habitats  To develop a novel scoring system to assess impacts and determine thresholds for phytosanitary action  To enhance existing techniques and develop new tools for assessing economic, environmental and social impacts  To develop a generic integrated model to assess pest spread and impacts

12 WP 3 – Enhancing techniques for standardising and summarising pest risk assessments  To enhance the consistency and standardisation of pest risk assessments by identifying and applying appropriate criteria  To develop and test new techniques for quantifying uncertainty in pest risk assessments  To enhance techniques for mapping endangered areas taking current and future climate, land use and economic impacts into account  To develop and test new techniques for summarising and communicating overall risk in pest risk assessment

13 WP 4 – Enhancing techniques for pathway analysis and systems approaches  Review of current approaches to pathway analysis in PRA  Review of the current application of systems approaches in PRA  Development of a pathway risk analysis module for the PRA scheme with a protocol for the application of neural networks and methods for enhancing consistency  Development of a systems approach module for the PRA scheme

14 WP 5 – Developing a decision support system for the eradication and containment of pest outbreaks  To carry out a meta-analysis of the successes and failures of pest eradication and containment programmes worldwide  To provide guidance for analysing the cost- effectiveness of pest eradication and containment measures  To develop a decision support scheme to support actions to be taken following pest outbreaks  To provide recommendations for the application of pest surveillance techniques in detecting pest incursions and managing outbreaks

15 WP 6 – Project validation and dissemination with the development of a web-based PRA scheme  To validate the outputs from work packages 1 to 5 using independent experts and a wide range of pests and pathways  To create a web-enabled EPPO PRA scheme incorporating outputs from work packages 1 to 5  To consolidate and disseminate project outputs by providing a manual and examples of best practice with the web-enabled PRA scheme

16 Web-based PRA scheme

17 As a first step towards applying Systems Approach, section 3 questions were re-ordered as a time line, related to Critical Control Points (CCP)

18 Commodity pathway 1. Plants for planting pathway for potential weeds 1. Conveyances pathway 1. Dunnage etc pathway 1. Natural Spread pathway 1. Checklist of risk management policy Significant probability of Entry Significant probability of establishment Existing management practices on pathway (1.7) or existing management practices in Importing country prevents entry or establishment of organism (1.21) Yes No Is the pest under official control? Is produce from pest free areas? Is place of production low prevalence? Are there other targeted activities that may be equivalent? Are existing measures sufficient and acceptable to the importer? Agreement on data requirements Monitoring & surveillance (3.25 3.26 3.27 3.28)

19 What is the pest status at origin of the pathway? (present, absent, confined under official control, low prevalence) Absent Identify any reasons for revision Low uncertainty (high confidence) High uncertainty (Low confidence) Confirmatory surveys in exporting country None found Present under official control, pest free areas or place of production or low prevalence Pest found Agreement on data requirements Monitoring & surveillance (3.25 3.26 3.27 3.28) 3.21 Preventable by cultivars/Resistant cultivars 3.22 Preventable by growing conditions Glasshouses, sterilized soil, cultivation practices etc. 3.24 Preventable by production certification scheme (Pest free planting material or specified phytosanitary status) 3.20 Preventable by treatment of crop 3.23 Preventable by choice of harvesting times (maturity level, season, growth stage etc.) List available choices (3.30) Commodity pathway (1, 2, 3 etc) 3.18 Preventable by packing & handling methods Preventable by removal of non-required parts (3.17) Chlorine wash, controlled atmosphere, shrink wrap, etc 3.16 Controlled by treatments (chemical etc) Auditing (system review) Traceability established 3.13, 3.14 Detectable by visual inspection or tests & 3.43 Issue of phytosanitary certificate Safeguarding to prevent subsequent infestation (clean storage and conveyances) Maintenance of consignment integrity Post harvest (preclearance) On Farm Post entry 3.19 Conditional import, Limited distribution, Limited period of entry, Designated use e.g. processing, Advance notification 3.7 Post-entry control possible, Effective containment/eradication post entry (also 3.29) 3.15 Post entry quarantine (Detention at a designated place pending measures) 3.13, 3.14 Detectable by visual inspection or tests 3.29 Targeted surveillance measures in importing countries Trapping, surveys, public reporting systems etc. Go to risk managers checklist Seasonal or periodic inspection of growing area Elimination of alternative hosts and/or creation of buffer zones Destruction or re-export



22 Developing trade opportunities: an integrated systems approach for pest risk management STDF Proposal Preparation Grant Focus on S E Asia sub-region

23 Beyond Compliance Problems (Benefits):  Failure of single/rigid measures can be disruptive to trade (less risk in multiple measure/adaptive systems, more flexibility from Systems Approach (SA), reduced interceptions in export markets); limitations of current measures (improved performance, availability, cost, quality impacts, practicality)  Rigid measures may be applied without regard to risk from real pest challenge, control options and without benefit of local knowledge and decision making skills (broader stakeholder involvement, cost and responsibility sharing, more ownership of risk management, more stakeholder control over process)  Asymmetric relations in trade: lack of confidence in negotiations especially for the more complex SA examples (SA defined and understood, SA implemented or planned, market access started/in discussion, better opportunities for less active exporter countries in the Region by Regional SA); reactive relations with trading partners (more control over system in negotiation)

24 Rationale  Pest risk management imposed by importing country NPPOs will be more transparent, consistent and justified as proportional to the estimated risk.  Measures combined in the new approach will be more widely applied without unnecessary redundancy.  National goals to reduce use of chemical-based end point treatments will be advanced.  Exporting countries with fewer resources will have the capacity to more confidently negotiate equivalence agreements to use measures better suited to their own conditions.

25 Anticipated Outputs 1.A description of pest risk management evaluation and design in the region 2.Case studies of priority trade opportunities using Systems Approach for pest risk management. (7 cases identified) 3.Demonstration and evaluation of quantification and analytical tools (specifically control points and Bayesian Nets) to support use of Systems Approach 4.Establishment of a competency base with the methodology in the SE Asian subregion 5.A plan for a harmonised framework (possibly leading to an RSPM)

26 Beyond Compliance - activities Output: Demonstration and evaluation of quantification and analytical tools (Control Points and BBN) 1.Development of the tool 2.Demonstration of the tool 3.Validation of the tool …for each of the case studies.

27  Thank you  Any questions? 


29 Beyond Compliance – case studies 1.Import of fresh produce (not rubber plants) as a pathway of SALB from countries not free of SALB to the region [Malaysia leads, e.g. Brazil] 2.Import of oil palm tissue culture, seedlings from outside subregion [Thailand leads, from CR] 3.Vietnam Dragon fruit to S Korea and Taiwan 4.Philippines mangosteen and avocado to USA 5.Indonesia mangosteen to Australia 6.Malaysia jackfruit to China and Australia 7.Thailand orchid cut flowers to Europe

Download ppt "Jon Knight 22 nd Technical Consultation among Regional Plant Protection Organisations PI: Richard Baker (FERA, UK) Imperial College London Team: John Mumford,"

Similar presentations

Ads by Google