Table 7.
The Panel's conclusions on the pest categorisation criteria defined in Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 on protective measures against pests of plants (the number of the relevant sections of the pest categorisation is shown in brackets in the first column)
| Criterion of pest categorisation | Panel's conclusions against criterion in Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 regarding Union quarantine pest | Panel's conclusions against criterion in Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 regarding Union regulated non‐quarantine pest | Key uncertainties |
|---|---|---|---|
| Identity of the pest (Section 3.1 ) | CTV is a well‐known and well characterised agent | CTV is a well‐known and well characterised agent | No uncertainty |
| Absence/presence of the pest in the EU territory (Section 3.2 ) | Non‐EU CTV isolates are not known to occur in the EU | Non‐EU CTV isolates are not known to occur in the EU. Therefore they do not meet this criterion to qualify as a Union RNQP. | Uncertainties about whether some non‐EU CTV isolates might be present but not detected in the EU and on the prevalence and biological properties of CTV isolates that may be present in ornamental citrus |
| Regulatory status (Section 3.3 ) | CTV non‐EU isolates are currently regulated under Directive 2000/29 | CTV non‐EU isolates currently regulated under Directive 2000/29 | No uncertainty |
| Pest potential for entry, establishment and spread in the EU territory (Section 3.4 ) |
Is the pest able to enter into, become established in, and spread within, the EU territory? YES, but for entry only through alternative minor alternative pathways |
Plants for planting constitute the main means of spread over long distances but this pathway is closed for entry by existing legislation | Uncertainties on the status of Rutaceae species other than Citrus, Fortunella and Poncirus as natural hosts for CTV, and about their potential significance for virus dissemination |
| Potential for consequences in the EU territory (Section 3.5 ) | Introduction and spread of non‐EU, SP‐causing or RB CTV isolates would have severe detrimental effects on EU citrus crops | Because of the negative impact of CTV, its presence on plants for planting of host species would have a negative impact on their intended use | Uncertainties about the inability of European CTV isolates, apparently related to non‐European SP‐inducing isolates, to cause SP symptoms in sweet orange groves of the EU |
| Available measures (Section 3.6 ) |
Use of rootstocks preventing the development of tristeza decline on the scions (but not effective against SP causing isolates) Cross‐protection against SP isolates by pre‐inoculation of trees with mild protecting isolates Use of certified planting material, elimination of infected trees to reduce local inoculum |
Certification of planting material of susceptible host species is by far the most efficient control method, because efficient diagnostics are available | Uncertainties on the status of Rutaceae species other than Citrus, Fortunella and Poncirus as natural hosts for CTV, and about their potential significance for virus dissemination |
| Conclusion on pest categorisation (Section 4 ) | Non‐EU CTV isolates meet all the criteria evaluated by EFSA to qualify as a Union quarantine pest. | Non‐EU CTV isolates do not meet the presence on the territory criterion to qualify as a Union RNQP. | |
| Aspects of assessment to focus on/scenarios to address in future if appropriate |
The main knowledge gaps or uncertainties identified concern:
|
||