final report of an audit carried out in the netherlands

Ref. Ares(2013)2633331 - 10/07/2013
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
HEALTH AND CONSUMERS DIRECTORATE-GENERAL
Directorate F - Food and Veterinary Office
DG(SANCO) 2012-6315 - MR FINAL
FINAL REPORT OF AN AUDIT
CARRIED OUT IN
THE NETHERLANDS
FROM 08 TO 12 OCTOBER 2012
IN ORDER TO EVALUATE THE PLANT HEALTH CONTROLS IN THE POTATO SECTOR
In response to information provided by the Competent Authority, any factual error noted in the
draft report has been corrected; any clarification appears in the form of a footnote.
Executive Summary
This report describes the outcome of a audit carried out by the Food and Veterinary Office (FVO)
in the Netherlands from 8 to 12 October 2012. The objective of the audit was to evaluate the
official control system in place against the harmful organisms Clavibacter michiganensis spp.
sepedonicus, (causing potato ring rot), Ralstonia solanacearum (causing potato brown rot) and
potato cyst nematodes (PCN, Globodera spp).
Phytosanitary controls of the Dutch potato sector are well organised and carried out efficiently by
well-equipped organisations and well educated staff.
Most aspects of the Directives for the control of ring rot and Ralstonia solanacearum are
implemented correctly and well. Intensive surveys are carried out for both organisms and
outbreaks are followed up by appropriate tracing back and forward and designation of
contaminated and probably contaminated material. Eradication measures, including proper
disposal of contaminated or probably contaminated potatoes are in place and supervised by
inspectors. However, production of seed potatoes is allowed in the place of production in the first
year after a ring rot outbreak, which is not in line with EU requirements.
The implementation of Directive 2007/33/EC for the control of potato cyst nematodes (PCN) is
also to a large extent compliant and has improved the Dutch controls against the organism
somewhat, although these do not appear to be aimed at maximising the assurances against the
spread of PCN. Official investigations of seed potato fields are done in line with the requirements
of the Directive. However, the high incidence of PCN findings, the systematic use of the derogation
facility for reduced sampling rates, the minimalistic demarcation of PCN infested plots and the
fact that some of the official control measures applied before re-sampling/de-scheduling of
demarcated plots are not reliable, mean that the level of assurance against PCN in seed could be
compromised.
Testing for PCN resistance is carried out by qualified laboratories of private companies and lists
of varieties are submitted to the EU and other Member States as required. However, some of the
laboratories belong to potato breeding companies, who have a direct interest in the outcome of the
tests and EU requirements for independence are in these cases therefore not met.
The Netherlands apply the official control programme referred to in Article 9(2) of Directive
2007/33/EC for the suppression of PCN in ware potatoes. However, this programme does not take
sufficiently into account the required use of potato varieties of the highest levels of resistance
available. The vast majority of the findings in ware potatoes are, in line with the same Directive,
not subject to the official suppression programme. In this regard it has to be noted that farmers in
the Netherlands have sophisticated tools at their disposal to prevent PCN from causing losses in
their production and they are likely to implement measures on their own that – even if not resulting
in much suppression – will match the official suppression programme in terms of effectiveness.
The authorities have identified the need for establishing phytosanitary procedures for disposal of
waste from all potato processing and packing facilities and are working on some proposals,
however, so far the requirements in Article 10(1)(b) of this Directive have in most cases not been
met.
Recommendations are made in the report to address the shortcomings identified by the FVO audit.
I
Table of Contents
1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................1
2 OBJECTIVES............................................................................................................................1
3 LEGAL BASIS..........................................................................................................................1
3.1 RELEVANT LEGISLATION..................................................................................................................1
3.2 RELEVANT STANDARDS...................................................................................................................1
4 BACKGROUND..........................................................................................................................2
4.1 PREVIOUS RELEVANT AUDITS............................................................................................................2
4.2 PRODUCTION OF POTATOES..............................................................................................................2
4.3 POTATO TRADE..............................................................................................................................2
5 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS...................................................................................................3
5.1 ORGANISATION AND LEGISLATION ON OFFICIAL PLANT HEALTH CONTROLS............................................3
5.1.1 DESIGNATION OF COMPETENT AUTHORITIES................................................................................3
5.1.2 STAFFING PROVISIONS..............................................................................................................4
5.1.3 TRAINING AND WORKING INSTRUCTIONS........................................................................................4
5.1.4 LEGAL POWERS OF INSPECTORS..................................................................................................5
5.1.5 WORK PLANNING AND RECORD KEEPING......................................................................................5
5.1.6 COOPERATION AND COMMUNICATION WITH STAKEHOLDERS...............................................................5
5.1.7 LABORATORIES.......................................................................................................................5
5.1.8 RELEVANT NATIONAL LEGISLATION AND RULES...............................................................................6
5.1.9 REGISTRATION/APPROVAL OF ESTABLISHMENTS...............................................................................6
5.2 POTATO CONTROLS........................................................................................................................7
5.2.1 CLAVIBACTER MICHIGANENSIS SSP. SEPEDONICUS SURVEILLANCE STRATEGY AND RESULTS.........................7
5.2.2 HANDLING OF SUSPECTED AND CONFIRMED RING ROT OUTBREAKS.....................................................9
5.2.3 RALSTONIA SOLANACEARUM SURVEILLANCE STRATEGY AND RESULTS..................................................12
5.2.4 HANDLING OF SUSPECTED AND CONFIRMED BROWN ROT OUTBREAKS................................................13
5.2.5 SPECIFIC RING ROT AND BROWN ROT CONTROL PROGRAMMES..........................................................14
5.2.6 GLOBODERA PALLIDA AND G. ROSTOCHIENSIS SURVEILLANCE STRATEGY AND RESULTS..........................15
5.2.7 HANDLING OF POTATO CYST NEMATODES IN WARE POTATO PRODUCTION............................................22
6 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS.........................................................................................................24
7 CLOSING MEETING................................................................................................................25
8 RECOMMENDATIONS...............................................................................................................25
ANNEX 1 - LEGAL REFERENCES.................................................................................................26
ANNEX 2 – STANDARDS QUOTED IN THE REPORT...........................................................................27
II
ABBREVIATIONS AND DEFINITIONS USED IN THIS REPORT
Abbreviation
Explanation
Brown rot
Disease caused by the bacterium Ralstonia solanacearum (Smith) Yabuuchi
et al.
CA
Competent Authority
EC
European Community
ELI
Ministerie van Economische Zaken, Landbouw en Innovatie Ministry of
Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation
EPPO
European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organisation
EU
European Union
FVO
Food and Veterinary Office
NAK
Nederlandse Algemene Keuringsdiest, the Dutch General Inspection Service
for Agricultural Seed and Seed Potatoes
NPPO
National Plant Protection Organisation
NVWA
Nederlandse Voedsel - en Warenautoriteit, Netherlands Food and Consumer
Safety Authority
PCN
Potato cyst nematode
PCR
Polymerase chain reaction
PDA
Personal digital assistant
PRISMA
A laboratory information management system of the NVWA
Ring rot
Disease caused by the bacterium Clavibacter michiganensis (Smith) Davis et
al. ssp. sepedonicus (Spieckermann et Kotthoff) Davis et al.
III
1
INTRODUCTION
The audit took place in the Netherlands from 8 to 12 October 2012. The Food and Veterinary Office
(FVO) team, which comprised three officials from the FVO and one national expert from a Member
State, was accompanied throughout the audit by a representative from the Netherlands Food and
Consumer Safety Authority – Nederlandse Voedsel - en Warenautoriteit (NVWA).
An opening meeting was held on 8 October 2012 at the local office of NVWA, during which the
objectives, itinerary, and the standard reporting and follow-up procedures were confirmed, and
additional information required for the satisfactory completion of the audit was requested.
2
OBJECTIVES
The objective of the audit was to evaluate the official control system in place against the harmful
organisms Clavibacter michiganensis spp. sepedonicus, Ralstonia solanacearum and potato cyst
nematodes (PCN, Globodera spp.).
In pursuit of this objective, the following competent authorities were contacted and the following
plant health control sites were visited:
Competent authorities
Single Authority
Local office
NVWA (Wageningen)
Official Inspection Body
Central office
NAK (Emmeloord)
Laboratory visits
Official laboratories
1 NAK (Emmeloord)
Private laboratories
1 (Bant)
Plant health control sites
Seed and ware potato producers
6 (Dirksland, Klaaswaal, Westmaas, Dronten,
Biddinghuizen)
Potato processing facility
1 (Baarle Nassau)
3
LEGAL BASIS
The audit was carried out under the general provisions of EU legislation, and in particular Art. 21
and 27a of Council Directive 2000/29/EC.
3.1
RELEVANT LEGISLATION
All EU legislation relevant for this audit is listed in Annex 1. Legal acts quoted refer, where
applicable, to the last amended version.
3.2 RELEVANT STANDARDS
International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPMs) are issued by the International Plant
Protection Convention (IPPC) of which the EU Member States are members. Those of relevance for
this audit are listed in Annex 2.
1
4
BACKGROUND
4.1 PREVIOUS RELEVANT AUDITS
So far, the FVO has carried out six missions to the Netherlands with relevance to potatoes. Four
missions were carried out in five years (1995-1999) focusing solely on brown rot and the
implementation of the relevant Community legislation. During these missions, the Netherlands was
generally found to be complying with the requirements.
Two more missions to evaluate the plant health controls in the potato sector (DG(SANCO)20001175 and DG(SANCO)2005-7681), resulted in a number of recommendations for improvements
that were generally satisfactorily addressed by the Dutch authorities. A more recent audit
(DG(SANCO)2011-8977) in the Netherlands took place on import controls.
The reports are available on http://ec.europa.eu/food/fvo/ir_search_en.cfm as are the Single
Authority’s comments on the reports and its response to the recommendations.
Unless otherwise stated, statistical data in this and the following chapters were provided by the
Dutch authorities.
4.2
PRODUCTION OF POTATOES
Netherlands has retained its position as the largest producer of seed potatoes and one of the largest
producers of other potatoes within the EU. Over the last three years, the annual production of
certified seed potatoes was approx. 957,000 t from an area of 38,000 ha (extracted from annual
survey reports), with an average yield of 35-40 t/ha. Over the last three years, about 120,000 ha (as
above) per year were planted with starch and ware potatoes. Yields are generally high; in 2011, a
total of 6.02 million t was produced, with an average yield of 50.9 t/ha for ware and 41.7 t/ha for
starch potato. In 2011, there were 9,165 potato growers with average production area of 17.3 ha.
Figures 1-3 below provide an overview of main potato growing areas in the Netherlands.
Figures 1-3: main potato growing areas in the Netherlands
Seed Potato
4.3
Ware Potato
Starch Potato
POTATO TRADE
Seed potatoes
The Netherlands is the world’s largest exporter of seed potatoes. The trade is concentrated: 10% of
traders export 90% of the volume. From 2009 to 2011, on average 370,000 t per year were traded to
the rest of the EU and 360,000 t per year to third countries. In 2012 the Netherlands imported
around 1,100 t of seed potatoes for seed potato production from the EU Member States (mainly
from UK (Scotland), Belgium, Denmark, Germany and France).
2
Other potatoes
In the 2010-2011 marketing season, the Netherlands traded 634,200 t of potatoes other than seed to
other EU countries and 422,700 t to third countries. The Netherlands is also an importer of potatoes
for processing and for starch production. In the 2010-2011 marketing season, more than 1.1 million
t were imported, of which around three quarters were for direct consumption and for processing and
one quarter for starch production.
5
5.1
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
ORGANISATION AND LEGISLATION ON OFFICIAL PLANT HEALTH CONTROLS
Legal requirements
Article 1(4) of Directive 2000/29/EC provides that Members States shall ensure a close, rapid,
immediate and effective cooperation between themselves and the Commission in relation to matters
covered by this Directive and that, to this end, each Member State shall establish or designate a
single authority, which shall be responsible, at least, for the coordination and contact in relation to
such matters.
Article 2(1)(g) of the same Directive requires that the responsible official bodies in a Member State
shall either be the official plant protection organisation (Single Authority-SA) set up under the
IPPC, or any other State authority established at national level or within the terms established in
that Article, at regional level; a close cooperation between SA and the responsible official bodies
shall be ensured.
The same article allows responsible official bodies in a Member State to delegate their tasks.
Laboratory testing may only be delegated if the responsible official body ensures throughout the
time of the delegation that the legal person to which it delegates laboratory testing can assure
impartiality, quality and protection of confidential information, and that no conflict of interest exists
between the exercise of the tasks delegated to it and its other activities.
Article 2(1)(i) of Directive 2000/29/EC requires Member States to ensure that their public servants
and qualified agents have the qualifications necessary for the proper application of the Directive.
Article 12(2) of the same Directive establishes that inspectors shall have access to plants, plant
products or other objects at all stages in the production and marketing chain and that they shall be
entitled to make any investigation necessary for the official checks concerned, including those
related to the plant passports and the records.
Article 291.1 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU requires that the Member States adopt all
measures of national law necessary to implement legally binding Union acts.
Articles 6.5, 6.6 and 13c(1)(b) of Directive 2000/29/EC require that, subject to certain exemptions,
producers, collective warehouses, dispatching centres and importers of certain plans and plant
products must be included in an official register of a Member State under an official registration
number.
Directive 92/90/EEC establishes the obligations for producers and importers of certain plants and
plant products and the details for their registration.
Findings
5.1.1
Designation of Competent Authorities
Detailed descriptions of the control system are provided in the country profile for the Netherlands
3
(see: http://ec.europa.eu/food/fvo/controlsystems_en.cfm?co_id=NL ) and in the reports from
previous audits listed in 4.1 above. The overall organisation of official plant health controls has also
been described in the DG(SANCO) 2011-8977 audit report. Since then, certain changes took place
in the organisation of the plant protection service with the establishment on 1 January 2012, of
NVWA.
NVWA is the Single Authority for plant health matters within the meaning of Article 1(4) of
Directive 2000/29/EC and has the overall responsibility and supervision of the activities related to
Directive 2000/29/EC. It functions as an agency of the Ministry of Economic Affairs, Agriculture
and Innovation – Ministerie van Economische Zaken, Landbouw en Innovatie (ELI). NVWA is
comprised of the Office for Risk Assessment and Research and five divisions of which the Division
for Agriculture and Nature has the same structure and areas of responsibility as the former Plant
Protection Service (PD).
The activities related to potato controls are divided between NVWA and the Dutch General
Inspection Service for Agricultural Seed and Seed Potatoes – Nederlandse Algemene Keuringsdiest
(NAK). Among NVWA competences are the supervision and auditing of official inspection bodies,
the development of inspection protocols, the validation of test methods, the organisation of surveys
and the handling of outbreaks. Plant health policy, international representation and research funding
remain within the competence of ELI.
NAK is an official independent public body authorised to carry out inspection of crops and provide
certification according to instructions received from the NVWA. It operates on long-term agreement
under the financial and technical supervision of ELI and NVWA respectively. Its main activities are
the implementation of marketing and plant health directives on agricultural seed and seed potatoes
and the provision of routine diagnostic support. Specific plant health tasks assigned to NAK include
those of surveying, sampling and laboratory testing for the detection of regulated harmful
organisms.
5.1.2
Staffing provisions
NVWA employs around 2,100 staff: approximately 145 are in charge of plant health. NAK has
around 210 full time staff supported by additional 150 temporary staff, working at the laboratory or
sampling potatoes, during peak periods. A large proportion the resources are devoted to the potato
sector.
During the inspections witnessed by the FVO team, staff resources were not mentioned as a
problem or a limiting factor for controls of regulated material.
5.1.3
Training and working instructions
Details of inspector specialisation and training have been provided in the DG(SANCO) 2011-8977
audit report. NAK inspectors receive specific training resulting in an official qualification. When
necessary, the NVWA organises additional specific training sessions for NAK staff. Inspectors use a
personal digital assistant (PDA) and/or a laptop computer providing access to a comprehensive
selection of information data. Work instructions including the sampling rates, methods and densities
for tubers, soil, surface or waste water have been produced. Operating procedures provide, inter
alia, standardised forms with codes and serial numbers of samples to be taken for laboratory
analysis. They also provide information on where there is need for increased sampling rates
associated with elevated plant health risk.
The inspectors met by the FVO team were well informed and prepared for carrying out the tasks as
described in their instructions.
4
5.1.4
Legal powers of inspectors
Both NVWA and NAK inspectors have the necessary legal power to access the premises of places
of production, grading and storage of potatoes and carry out phytosanitary controls. Handling of
outbreaks and implementation of specific measures is handed over to the NVWA, which issues a
statutory notice to inform the producer and impose appropriate measures.
5.1.5
Work planning and record keeping
An ad hoc expert working group organises meetings for the implementation of new legislation. A
core group with experts of NVWA and NAK provides technical advice and decides on the
management of more serious outbreaks.
The selection of inspection and surveillance places is planned at central level. Inspections and
sampling are recorded electronically and are signed by the producer / stakeholder via the PDA.
Inspection, sampling and testing records are kept by NVWA (ware potatoes) or by NAK (potato
seed) in a common database providing daily interchange of inspection data, test results and
registration data on certification.
5.1.6
Cooperation and communication with stakeholders
NVWA maintains close contacts with professional organisations such as the potato growers' “Dutch
arable farming union” and the “Agricultural and horticultural organisation”, the potato traders'
“Dutch potato organisation” and the “Organisation of potato processing industry”. Regular meetings
taking place between the NVWA and representatives of potato industry aimed at keeping the
organisations informed about the latest developments in the legislation and to advise stakeholders
on phytosanitary issues. Information manuals for the management of post-outbreak situations of
harmful organisms are regularly issued for farmers.
5.1.7
Laboratories
The laboratories carrying out official controls in the potato sector have been presented in the
DG(SANCO) 7681/2005 mission report. NAK has been accredited according to ISO/IEC 17020
(inspection) and 17025 (testing) standards. The FVO team visited the PCN section of NAK and
observed the test line of soil samples. The FVO team noted that testing of samples is carried out
following specific detailed test protocols approved by the NVWA. Clear procedures for registration
and processing of samples were in place to ensure anonymity. Reporting requirements of test results
to the growers and the NVWA are clearly described.
Resistance testing of potato varieties is carried out under the supervision of NVWA by the
laboratories of three private companies according to a detailed experimental protocol as described
in Annex IV of 2007/33/EC. This among others indicates the methodology of counting cysts, the
number of replicates to be used and quality assurances to be applied by the laboratories. Apart from
the standard PCN populations required by the Directive, the laboratories assess the variety
resistance towards the “local” populations representing the virulence group Ro2/Ro3 and pathotype
Pa2.
The practical organisation of the testing is handled by NAK and the system is subject to regular
blind tests. Potato varieties for resistance testing are sent by the breeders to NAK, which verifies the
identity of the varieties and re-distributes them to the laboratories together with differential cultivars
in anonymous form. Two of the three companies performing resistance testing are involved in
potato breeding and they test only their own material.
A separate protocol is in place for handling test results including checks of raw data and supervision
of statistical analysis. NVWA organises audits to check if relevant requirements are fulfilled and
compiles the lists with the scores of resistance of different potato varieties.
5
The FVO team visited one of the resistance testing laboratories. It is owned by a private company
representing a cooperative of seed potato producers and breeders. The company develops new
potato varieties adapted for cultivation in various European and international destinations. An
authorisation has been given to the company to carry out the PCN resistance testing of their own
potato varieties according to an approved laboratory protocol. All data of the official tests described
in Directive 2007/33/EC are sent to the NAK and from there to NVWA for analysis according to the
protocol. On average, four new varieties are assessed for PCN resistance by this company every
year. Since there is a two year testing period, on average eight varieties are checked annually.
Overall, the degree of variety resistance to PCN is assessed against five or six PCN populations
present in the area as the introduction of other PCN populations had not been permitted.
The results of the tests carried out by the company are considered as official and are included in the
official list of registered potato varieties indicating the degree of resistance to PCN (see also section
5.2.7.3).
5.1.8
Relevant national legislation and rules
Both Directives on the control of potato ring rot and on the control of Ralstonia solanacearum have
been transposed in the Netherlands. Council Directive 2007/33/EC of 11 June 2007 on the control
of potato cyst nematodes was transposed by royal decree No.243 and by ministerial regulation No.
126660 published on 29 June 2010 and applied from 1 July 2010. NVWA has also adopted a
protocol on PCN for official inspection bodies. This protocol includes requirements for the NAK
procedures, exchange of data and reporting.
5.1.9
Registration/approval of establishments
The registration of producers and traders has been presented in detail in the DG(SANCO)7681/2005
mission report. All producers of seed potatoes and traders, packers, processors and wholesalers of
seed and ware potatoes are registered. NAK is responsible for the registration of seed potato
producers who are obliged to submit annually an application accompanied by the certification labels
of the seed used. Companies involved exclusively with wholesale potato trade and packaging and/or
processing are registered by the Commodity Board for Agricultural Wholesale.
As from 2012, seed producing companies and breeders have the option to submit their applications
for both certification and field testing of PCN, via a web application system operated by NAK. The
NAK laboratory system is interlinked with PRISMA, a laboratory information management system
of the NVWA allowing for the registration of ring rot and brown rot outbreaks. PRISMA is also
used for registration of PCN findings in affected plots and of the measures taken. It also allows for
the production of official letters to be sent to producers and the registration of inspections carried
out to check the control measures applied. The coordinates of the field where potatoes are grown
and additional information such as the class and the origin of the seed used, as well as the number
of rows where a specific variety is grown, have to be declared by the producer. A
registration/certification fee is directly payable to NAK.
Overall, 1,872 seed potato producers and 418 wholesalers were registered in 2012. Individual ware
potato producers are not officially registered but their data can be made available through the seed
trading companies and ware potato wholesalers. Seed potato producers registered with NAK are not
permitted to use in parallel farm-saved seed. Of the approx. 6,000 ware potato producers, 2-3% use
farm-saved seed produced under the official system for approval and control of such.
Conclusions
There is a good general organisation of controls in the potato sector in the Netherlands and a clear
structure and division of responsibilities in line with EU legislation. There is good cooperation and
communication with the key stakeholders for implementing controls in the potato sector. Inspectors
have appropriate legal powers to act and are supported by efficient laboratory checks. Potato
6
producers and traders are registered as required in EU legislation.
Laboratory analysis for PCN detection and identification is supported through clear reporting lines.
However, the CA has authorised private breeders to carry out the official tests of their own potato
varieties to assess the level of PCN resistance. This is not in line with Article 2.1(g) of Directive
2000/29/EC, requiring that if official testing is delegated to a private body, there shall be no conflict
of interest between the exercise of the tasks delegated to it and its other activities.
5.2
POTATO CONTROLS
5.2.1
Clavibacter michiganensis ssp. sepedonicus surveillance strategy and results
Legal requirements
Article 2 of Directive 93/85/EEC requires Member States to conduct systematic official surveys for
Clavibacter michiganensis ssp. sepedonicus in their territory and establishes the requirements to be
met.
Findings
Surveillance covers all stages of potato production and trade as well as potatoes intended for export
to third countries or other EU Member States and imported potatoes. NVWA in collaboration with
NAK developed an integrated survey protocol for ring rot and brown rot. All samples taken are
tested simultaneously for Clavibacter michiganensis ssp. sepedonicus and Ralstonia solanacearum.
The official controls for seed potatoes consist of visual checks and sampling for laboratory analyses
both during the vegetation period and post-harvest. Controls follow a systematic approach of testing
one sample (200 tubers) per lot (deriving from max. 6ha of land). Seed potato producers with
confirmed outbreaks or having clonal/contact links with outbreaks which occurred in previous
growing periods are scheduled as having a “high risk profile”. In this case the sampling rate is
increased to one sample (200 tubers) per 25 t during the three years after the finding. The same
sampling rate applies if producers are caught employing high risk cultivation practices such as
cutting of seed potatoes or irrigation with surface water.
The official controls for ware potatoes consist of random sampling of produced lots, which is
carried out in ware potato packing stations, collective warehouses, storage facilities and potato
starch producing factories. Sampling is targeted in cases of outbreak follow up and “high risk
profile” sampling of ware potato producers applies at a rate of one sample (200 tubers) per 150 t.
There is a legal basis for inspections carried out on farm-saved seed; these focus on the random
field inspections and test 10% of produced lots. Legally produced farm-saved seed is used
exclusively at the same place of production, to produce ware potatoes or potatoes for industrial
processing.
During 2011, 122 lots of seed from other Member States and 72 lots of ware potatoes originating
from Member States and third countries were subject to laboratory testing for both bacteria. No
positive ring rot or brown rot cases were identified.
The FVO team visited a farm where it observed sampling of seed potatoes for ring rot and brown
rot and noted that the inspector had access through his PDA to the central NAK database providing
information on the number of samples to be taken according to a specific sampling protocol.
Sampling was carried out within the framework of the annual surveys undertaken by NAK after a
notification that harvest had been completed for a field registered for the production of potato seed.
A request had been submitted to NAK by the seed potato trading company for additional sampling
to be carried out. Representative tuber samples were taken using appropriate procedures and
equipment to avoid cross contamination and false positives. Samples were registered and labelled to
safeguard anonymity.
7
Table 1 below shows the results of surveys for ring rot in the 2011 potato harvest. A substantial part
of the seed potato samples tested in the EU is of the Dutch seed potato crop. On average, 22,125
samples per annum were analysed during the last three growing periods. The average sampling
density of potato seed in 2011 was 1.6 ha/sample while that of other potatoes was 47.4 ha/sample.
For seed, the average density of sampling applied by those EU Member States where ring rot is
known to occur, was 1.5 ha/sample and for other potatoes 55.2ha/sample. Of the annual samples
examined in 2011, approx. 5% were taken for the obligatory follow-up of outbreaks. In 2012, 1,150
samples of ware potatoes and potatoes for the production of starch were taken from processing
factories and 500 samples from growers with clonal/contact links with previous ring rot outbreaks.
Table 1. Results for the annual survey for ring rot in seed and ware potatoes harvested in 2011
Category of potatoes
Total
Laboratory testing
cropping
No. of
No. of lots
Size of lots
Sample
area (ha)
samples
period
Breeding material
219
Pre-basic, basic and
certified seed
36,682
22,258
Seed - other
(Targeted survey)
200
Farm saved seed for starch
61
28,872
61
No. of
positive lots
Various
Aug-Nov
0
1.3 ha
Aug-Nov
1
Various
Aug-Apr
0
1.0 ha
Aug-Nov
0
Ware
72,000
497
Various
Aug-Apr
2
Industrial for starch
production
49,168
1,026
Various
Aug-Apr
0
971
Various
Aug-Apr
14
Ware - other
(Targeted survey)
Table 2 below provides details of ring rot incidence calculated as number of positive lots compared
to total number of samples taken between 2007 and 2011. This is based on the analysis of data
provided by the NVWA in the annual survey reports that have been submitted to the Commission
for the harvests of 2007-2011.
Table 2. Incidence of ring rot, 2007-2011
Type
Ring rot incidence (No. Contaminated lots / Total number of samples x 100%)
2007 harvest
2008 harvest
2009 harvest
2010 harvest
2011 harvest
Seed potatoes
0.005
0.005
0.000
0.030
0.004
Other potatoes
0.029
0.026
0.189
0.130
0.626
The data indicate that there is very little, ring rot infestation in potato seed produced in the
Netherlands. However, during the last growing period there has been an increase in the overall level
of ring rot incidence mainly due to the increased numbers of findings which occurred in ware potato
production. The handling of outbreaks is covered in section 5.2.3.2 below.
Conclusions
There is a well organised system of surveillance for ring rot in the seed and ware potato production
in the Netherlands. Ring rot surveys are compliant with EU requirements. Density of both seed and
ware potato sampling is close to the average of Member States affected by ring rot. The total
number of samples taken is the highest in the EU. The overall incidence of ring rot in potato
production remains very low.
8
5.2.2
Handling of suspected and confirmed ring rot outbreaks
Legal requirements
Article 4 of Directive 93/85/EEC stipulates the actions to be taken by a Member State in case of
suspected outbreak of Clavibacter michiganensis spp. sepedonicus.
Articles 5, 6 and 7 of the same Directive establish provisions that the Member States have to apply
when the presence of Clavibacter michiganensis spp. sepedonicus is confirmed.
ISPM No. 5 defines as a “place of production” any premises or collection of fields operated as a
single production or farming unit. This may include production sites which are separately managed
for phytosanitary purposes.
Findings
For the management and follow up of outbreaks, a technical advisory team has been formed within
NVWA with the participation of coordinating inspectors from both NVWA and NAK and scientific
experts. The team is assisted by international policy and legal advisers. Trace back and forward of
clonally related lots is carried out by inspectors using inter alia the PRISMA application. The team
is also responsible for analysing the possible sources and spread of outbreaks, requesting extra
sampling and, if necessary, variety checks. Decisions on outbreak handling are taken in
collaboration with the manager of the arable crops sector of NVWA.
Upon suspicion of an outbreak (i.e. following a positive immunofluorescence test and a positive
second screening test) the place of production in question is suspended from trading potatoes
through a statutory notice issued to inform the producer. A demarcated zone is designated through a
chart of a “clonal tree” with upstream and downstream places of production where lots with sister or
parental relation to the suspected lot(s) were produced, handled or stored; the primary source and
the extent of the contamination is determined.
In parallel, statutory notices to inform producers associated through the chart of the “clonal tree” are
issued; as all clonal and contact links are examined, cases of producers exchanging potato material
plots of land and agricultural machinery are also investigated. Intensive sampling of potato lots
which are still present in warehouses takes place to contribute to the investigation of the origin of
the infection and the designation of the demarcated zone with contaminated and probably
contaminated material. Where sister lots have been exported the competent authority of the
receiving country is informed.
Upon confirmation of the contamination, the control measures laid down in Directive 93/85/EEC
are implemented on the contaminated and probably contaminated material at the place of
production. All measures to be applied are communicated to the producer. Depending on the results
of the investigation other associated places of production having clonal or contact links are also
included in the demarcated zone and their remaining potato lots, agricultural machinery and storage
places are designated as contaminated or probably contaminated.
The FVO team visited three places of production where ring rot had been found, all producing
certified seed and ware potatoes. All producers involved confirmed that:
•
Following the first notification for a suspicion of outbreak they had to suspend all
commercial activities involving potato trade; samples were taken by NVWA from all potato
lots still present in their premises at the sampling rate of one sample per 25t of potatoes;
•
Upon confirmation of the outbreak and following disposal of the potatoes they were
instructed to proceed with disinfection of all potato handling machinery, wooden potato
storage crates and warehouses based on detailed guidelines; additional instructions were
provided for the control of potato volunteers in contaminated or probably contaminated
fields;
9
•
Compliance with the disinfection measures and volunteer control was confirmed through
complementary checks. Follow up testing of potato lots produced in their premises was
carried out at a higher sampling rate of 1 sample/25 t.
The outcome of three recent ring rot investigation, presented according to the chronological order of
the outbreaks, is described in detail below.
Producer 1 runs an arable crop farm producing seed and ware potatoes, onions, sugar beet and
cereals. Prior to the ring rot outbreak detected in potatoes stored in the premises, the producer also
provided potato storage services to farmers and multiplication of potato seed through cutting. The
producer was identified as a result of a trace-back exercise after the detection of ring rot in seed
potatoes in 2010. Out of 86 samples taken from the premises of his farm of the remaining 2010
potato lots, 17 were found positive. The quick build-up of ring rot incidents was attributed by
NVWA to the high risk practice of cutting potato seed.
The producer stated that following the detection of ring rot in 2010:
•
a four year prohibition was imposed for growing seed potatoes in contaminated fields. Other
fields of the farm could be cultivated for ware potatoes the year after the outbreak;
•
contaminated potatoes were sold for processing; transport to processing factories with
approved solid and liquid waste disposal facilities took place in closed trucks. Other
potatoes were individually packed in 25kg bags and sold as ware.
•
seed potato production was also approved to be carried out in the year following that of the
designation of the outbreak in rented plots of another farm using the same machinery after
disinfection;
•
high grade certified pre-basic material and new wooden crates were purchased for this
purpose.
Producer 2 runs a 3-4 year arable crop rotation scheme growing mainly potatoes, sugar beet, wheat,
onion and bulbs in an area totalling 400ha. 120-150 ha are used annually for the production of
certified potato seed, early ware potatoes and potatoes for industrial processing. In March 2012
investigations were initiated tracing back a notification by another Member State where ring rot was
detected in the 2011 harvest of “class A” seed. The planting material used for this crop originated
from this producer (his 2010 crop).
Sampling and testing of all potato lots remaining within the premises of this place of production
revealed ring rot contamination only in clonally related material (35kg) of the same variety. Other
potatoes remaining in the premises (765 t) tested negative. Testing of clonally related potatoes of
other producers who had received seed from him in 2010 or 2011 revealed several contaminated
lots. It also revealed contaminated lots at several producers who had purchased seed potatoes of
another variety from the 2010 harvest.
The producer stated that all premises of his place of production were designated as contaminated
and that the competent authorities provided him with adequate advice on how the situation should
be handled. All remaining potato lots and lots delivered to other producers (some 2,800 t) were
withdrawn and sent to a fermentation plant for composting between early May and late June 2012.
A prohibition for growing seed potatoes at the premises was imposed. During the first year after the
finding, the producer was allowed to grow only ware potatoes in non-contaminated fields using
newly introduced certified seed; a high risk sampling rate was applied for ring rot testing.
The producer also stated that:
•
soon after the detection of the outbreak, seed potato production was approved to be carried
out in plots of a newly bought farm not having previous potato cropping history;
10
•
high grade certified pre-basic material and new wooden crates were purchased for this
purpose;
•
disinfected cropping and grading machinery and warehouses of the contaminated place of
production were used for producing the crop that was planted in April 2012.
Producer 3 was identified as having received potato seed from producer 2. He also runs a 3-4 year
arable crop rotation scheme growing mainly potatoes, sugar beet and brussel sprouts on an area
totalling ca. 240ha. Starting from higher grades, he grows certified potato seed and ware potatoes in
ca. 60-65 ha of land, often exchanging some of his plots with neighbouring farms.
The producer stated that by March 2012, 85% of his seed potatoes had already been sold. Out of 81
samples taken in total from potatoes of the 2011 crop remaining in the premises, four samples of
ware potatoes and one sample of seed saved for own use, tested positive. After the detection of
positive samples, potatoes remaining in his premises had to be destroyed. Only a small amount of
newly bought seed still in the original sealed containers was exempted. In total 2,800 t of seed and
ware potatoes produced in 2011, were sent for processing at a feed producing company in the period
between end-April to end-August 2012.
The producer also stated that:
•
ware potato production was re-introduced in 2012 soon after the detection of ring rot
positive samples; for this purpose certified seed was planted in plots other than those that
had been designated as contaminated;
•
potato seed production in 2012 was permitted soon after the detection of ring rot positive
samples by using certified seed planted in rented plots of another farm using the same
machinery after disinfection;
•
disinfected cropping and grading machinery and warehouses of the contaminated place of
production were used for producing the crop that was planted in April and harvested in
September.
Seed and ware potatoes had been sampled following the high-risk sampling rate of one sample/25 t;
at the time of the audit, results were still pending.
An organic waste processing plant producing animal feed was also visited by the FVO team. The
raw materials are by-products of potato processing factories, dairies and breweries. The company
also provides transport services for material to be transported to its premises and had processed
contaminated and probably contaminated material from producer 3. Upon arrival contaminated
potatoes were immediately washed out and processed into liquid pig-feed heated to 80oC. Water was
re-used in a closed system and soil/mud was stored in a 15 t capacity tank until deeply buried in a
nearby landfill. NVWA inspectors were present throughout the removal/burial process.
Conclusions
Following ring rot outbreaks, control actions for both seed and ware potatoes involve appropriate
tracing back and forward of contaminated and probably contaminated material. Measures taken on
places of production affected by ring rot outbreaks are also, to a large extent, in line with Annex IV
of Directive 93/85/EEC. Monitoring is intensified in producers using clonally related material.
Measures are also taken for producers having contact links through shared machinery with
contaminated places of production. Ring rot eradication and disinfection measures in place are
adequately supervised by inspectors. The waste disposal facility for contaminated and probably
contaminated potatoes visited by the audit team met the requirements of Directive 93/85/EEC.
Farmers affected by ring rot outbreaks generally grow seed potatoes in rented / bought fields of
other farms earlier than the second year after the outbreak. However, even if disinfected machinery
is used, newly introduced fields for potato seed production are still considered by the FVO that they
11
belong to the same place of production. In two of the three cases visited, production of the potato
seed even started long before the contaminated potatoes had been cleared off the place of
production and disinfection completed, which further increases the risk of the eradication failing1.
Growing seed potatoes in a contaminated place of production in the growing year following that of
the designated contamination is not in compliance with Annex IV point 4.1.(b) of Directive
93/85/EEC. The safety margin envisaged by the Directive generally means that no potatoes for the
production of seed can be grown in the place of production in the year of the outbreak or the year
after.
5.2.3
Ralstonia solanacearum surveillance strategy and results
Legal requirements
Article 2 of Directive 98/57/EC requires requires Member States to conduct systematic official
surveys for Ralstonia solanacearum in their territory and establishes the requirements to be met.
Findings
As mentioned previously all samples taken are tested simultaneously for both ring rot and brown rot
(see also section 5.2.1). Brown rot surveillance covers all stages of potato production and trade and
follows the systematic approach of testing applied in ring rot surveys. A “high risk profile”
sampling rate of one sample per 25 t is applied to seed in case of outbreaks or to producers exposed
to brown rot through clonal and/or contact links and to producers irrigating potato crops with
surface water. For ware potatoes the “high risk profile” sampling rate is one sample per 150 t. The
number of samples tested for brown rot and results for the 2011 growing period are detailed in table
3 below.
Table 3. Results for the annual survey for Ralstonia solanacearum for the 2011 growing period
Category of potatoes
Total
cropping
area (ha)
Breeding material
Pre-basic, basic and
certified seed
Laboratory testing
No. of
samples
No. of lots
219
36,682
Farm saved seed for
starch
Size of lots
Sample
period
No. of
positive lots
Various
Aug-Nov
0
22,258
28,872
1.3 ha
Aug-Nov
0
61
61
1.0 ha
Aug-Nov
0
Ware
72,000
497
Various
Aug-Apr
1
Industrial for starch
production
49,168
1,026
Various
Aug-Apr
0
103
Various
Aug-Apr
3
Ware - other
(Targeted survey)
L. esculentum
25
S. dulcamara
6
Pelargonium sp.
Water
No. of visual
inspections
47
75
2,139
47
1 In their response to the draft report the Competent Authority noted that: A ring rot finding in spring is not common.
The National Plant Protection Organisation (NPPO) recognizes the potential risks that are involved in this period
where new production of potatoes was started when there were still infested potatoes in storage. All the activities for
potatoes have been carried out under close supervision of the NPPO. Looking at the level of specific processes, the
machinery and facilities for starting the new production were separated from those for storage and delivery of
infested material.
12
On average, 24,021 samples per annum were analysed during the last three growing periods. The
sampling density of potato seed in 2011 was 1.6 ha/sample while that of other potatoes was 71.8
ha/sample; both figures are above the average sampling density applied by Member States affected
by the bacterium (1,9ha/sample and 100ha/sample respectively). Of the annual samples examined in
2011, approx. 0.5% were taken for the obligatory follow-up of outbreaks. The same table also
indicates the survey activity carried out in the Netherlands in water and R. solanacearum hosts other
than potato. Netherlands analyses a very high number of water samples. In 2012 4,000 samples of
surface water were taken at random from 1,000 high risk locations.
Table 4 below provides details of the percentage of tuber samples found to be contaminated with
brown rot in each harvest between 2007 and 2011. This is based on the analysis of data provided by
the NVWA in the annual survey reports that have been submitted to the Commission for the
harvests of 2007-2011.
Table 4. Incidence of brown rot, 2007-2011
Type
Brown rot incidence (No. Contaminated lots /Total number of samples x 100%)
2007 harvest
2008 harvest
2009 harvest
2010 harvest
2011 harvest
Seed potatoes
0.009
0.005
0.004
0.000
0.000
Other potatoes
0.000
0.000
0.037
0.066
0.237
There is a considerable progress in the Netherlands with very little or no brown rot infestation in
seed potatoes produced. This is largely attributed to the general prohibition of irrigating seed potato
crops with surface water, introduced in the Netherlands in 2005. However, during the last growing
period, there has been an increase in the findings in ware potato production. The handling of
outbreaks is covered in section 5.2.4.2 below.
Conclusions
There is a well organised system of surveillance for brown rot in the seed and ware potato
production in the Netherlands. Surveys meet the EU requirements. Density of seed potato sampling
is far above the average of Member States affected by brown rot. The total number of samples taken
is the highest in the EU. The overall incidence of brown rot in potato production remains very low.
A substantial amount of water samples is analysed for R. solanacearum and additional sampling is
carried out on other hosts.
5.2.4
Handling of suspected and confirmed brown rot outbreaks
Legal requirements
Article 4 of Directive 98/57/EC stipulates the actions to be taken by a Member State in case of
suspected outbreak of Ralstonia solanacearum.
Articles 5 and 6 of the same Directive establish provisions that the Member States have to apply
when the presence of Ralstonia solanacearum is confirmed.
ISPM No. 5 defines as a “place of production” any premises or collection of fields operated as a
single production or farming unit. This may include production sites which are separately managed
for phytosanitary purposes.
Findings
As for ring rot the management and follow up of brown rot outbreaks is carried out by a technical
advisory team and a similar methodology to that applied for ring rot. The team takes into
consideration additional factors like flooding or irrigation with surface water in prohibited areas.
For example, account was taken of a large flood that took place recently in Friesland and affected
13
350 plots of 65 producers. Official maps with the areas where surface water irrigation is prohibited
are available on the internet. During the last two growing periods there were no violations of the
prohibition on surface water. Trace back and forward of clonally related lots is achieved through
PRISMA.
The FVO team visited a farm growing ware potatoes, onions and sugar beet following a 3 year crop
rotation scheme on an area totalling 50ha located outside the irrigation prohibition area. Irrigation
with surface water is not applied. In 2011, brown rot was found in one lot of ware potatoes from this
farm, during the annual surveillance exercise.
Follow up monitoring carried out at five other producers using clonally related seed showed brown
rot contamination at three. Tracing back investigations to the place of production of the certified
seed gave negative results. No indication of irrigation with surface water was in place. The affected
farm was designated as contaminated while another farm sharing machinery was included in the
zone for controls. Contaminated and probably contaminated potatoes were sold for processing in a
company having appropriate soil disposal facilities.
Conclusions
Control actions involve appropriate tracing back and forward of contaminated and probably
contaminated material. Measures taken at the place of production visited by the audit team and
affected by brown rot are in line with Annex VI of Directive 98/57/EC. Monitoring is intensified at
producers using clonally related material. Measures are also taken for producers having contact
links through shared machinery with contaminated places of production.
5.2.5
Specific ring rot and brown rot control programmes
Legal requirements
Article 11 of Directive 93/85/EEC provides that Member States may adopt such additional or
stricter measures as may be required to combat Clavibacter michiganensis ssp. sepedonicus or to
prevent it from spreading, in so far as they are in compliance with the provisions of Directive
2000/29/EC.
Article 10 of Directive 98/57/EC provides that Member States may adopt such additional or stricter
measures as may be required to combat Ralstonia solanacearum or to prevent it from spreading, in
so far as they are in compliance with the provisions of Directive 2000/29/EC.
Findings
There is no provision for the compensation of producers by the State in case of financial damages
caused by ring rot and brown rot outbreaks in the potato sector. A voluntary insurance mutual fund
has been established for this purpose. The insurance scheme provides coverage to approx. 3,500
potato producers and 95,000 ha. To date, about 88% of seed potato producers as well as 73% of
starch potato and 38% of ware potato producers are covered. Since 2008 the insurance scheme also
provides coverage for outbreaks of Potato spindle tuber viroid. Eligibility of compensation depends
on the compliance of the producer with the phytosanitary measures set by NVWA.
Netherlands has adopted a hygiene protocol for the prevention of potato bacteria outbreaks agreed
with many partners in the potato production chain such as grower associations, handling and
grading companies, processors and transporters. In order to minimise the risk of ring rot and brown
rot spread, the protocol provides, inter alia, for preventive measures like the regular cleaning/
disinfection of trucks used for transport and of wooden crates used at central grading companies.
Exchange of machinery between producers may take place only after intensive cleaning and
disinfection.
A research project has been launched to examine the effectiveness of disinfection techniques on
wooden crates after bacterial contamination. A ban has been imposed for the re-use of disinfected
14
crates in which contaminated lots have been stored. The potato bacteria hygiene protocol provides
for the use of jumbo bags for the transport of potato seed. The use of wooden crates is to be
restricted within the same place of production. Currently there is no legal basis prohibiting the
cutting of potato seed for either ware or seed production. However, producers are discouraged from
applying this practice by the implementation of an increased sampling rate of one sample/25 t at
harvest to their seed production.
NVWA has launched a long term eradication campaign to tackle brown rot and to prevent the spread
of the disease through contaminated surface water. Surface water from clearly defined nonprohibited areas can only be used in ware potato production. Detailed maps indicating the surface
water prohibition areas are issued annually. As an additional measure, since 2005, a full ban has
been imposed for using surface water in seed potato production (see also section 5.2.4). NVWA
carries out regular controls for to check for infringements of the irrigation bans within and outside
the prohibited areas.
Conclusions
Netherlands has adopted good additional measures to combat Clavibacter michiganensis ssp.
sepedonicus and Ralstonia solanacearum in line with Article 11 of Directive 93/85/EEC and Article
10 of Directive 98/57/EC.
5.2.6
Globodera pallida and G. rostochiensis surveillance strategy and results
The NVWA has developed a protocol for the investigation and the management of PCN. The
protocol describes the activities to be carried out by NAK under the supervision of NVWA, together
with a detailed flowchart of actions to be taken for the production of PCN-free potato seed. The
management of PCN is supported by an IT application the “PCN viewer”, linked with the “Geoexplorer” a geographical information system that provides access to maps with plots of land
indicating their previous cropping history. The PRISMA database on PCN is also linked with the
PCN viewer. Areas which have been registered as infested can be viewed on the laptops of the NAK
inspectors (see also section 5.1.9).
5.2.6.1
Definition of a field and demarcation of PCN infestations
Legal requirements
Article 3 of Directive 2007/33/EC states that responsible official bodies of the Member State shall
define what constitutes a field for the purposes of this Directive in order to ensure that phytosanitary
conditions within a field are homogeneous as regards the risk of PCN. In doing so, they shall take
into account sound scientific and statistical principles, the biology of PCN, the cultivation of the
field and the particular production systems of the host plants of PCN.
ISPM No. 5 defines as a “field” a plot of land with defined boundaries within a place of production
on which a commodity is gown. Unless specifically indicated in the text, when the word field is
used, this definition is intended and not the definitions provided below by the CA.
Findings
In the context of official investigations referred to in Article 4.1 of Directive 2007/33/EC, NVWA
has provided three different definitions of a field depending on the development in its PCN
infestation status:
•
•
A field for which an official investigation is required under Article 4.1: “A plot of land
destined by a grower for the production of a specific commodity of plants for planting as
listed in Annex I of the PCN Directive, or for the production of seed potatoes”.
A field officially recorded as infested in line with Article 8 of Directive 2007/33/EC: “A plot
of land delimited by the Plant Protection Service of the Netherlands as infested with PCN”.
15
•
A field officially recorded as free from PCN in line with the sampling and testing methods
of Annex II of the Directive: “A plot of land delimited by the Plant Protection Service of the
Netherlands as free from PCN based on official investigations as required for the intended
use”.
The delimitation of PCN infestation found in the official investigation is based on the application of
a PCN distribution model according to which the presence of the nematodes retains the form of oval
foci in the direction of cultivation with the highest density of nematode cysts observed around the
centre of the ellipse. The model is the result of a study that involved very intensive sampling of 37
PCN infested fields and the analysis of 40 foci, in order to indicate the spatial distribution
characteristics of cysts. As a follow up, sampling methods for the detection of PCN were developed
and evaluated2. On basis of these studies, the PCN management programme NemaDecide was
developed in 2005. On request of the NVWA, the Wageningen University and Research has made a
statistical analysis on the foci model, using the Monte Carlo method, to be able to demarcate PCN
infestations under field conditions. This statistical analysis is explained in detail in a non peerreviewed publication by Schomaker C.H. and Been T.H. in the 2010 OEPP/EPPO Bulletin 40, p.
147-157.
During the development of the current PCN control Directive, analyses have been made with
NemaDecide to define the required detection probability for PCN infestations. The calculations are
based on the assumption that a population of PCN cysts will be dispersed within a field in one large
(100 cysts/kg of soil) and three smaller foci (50 cysts/kg of soil) located almost exclusively in the
direction of cultivation. The calculations show that the demarcation of PCN infestation in a field
should not necessarily involve the demarcation of entire plots according to cropping or cultivation
commonality, but it may follow a segmented approach of “PCN contaminated strips or zones within
a larger field”. Based on the model it has been calculated that the demarcation of the infested strip
or sampling unit along the direction of cultivation, plus two 16m wide zones located on either side
of the infested part, up to a total length of 111m (an exemption provided for in case of a very long
field) are sufficient to ensure freedom from PCN in the remaining parts of a plot with high
statistical confidence levels. Figures 4i and 4ii below indicate the foci model and the demarcation in
the direction of cultivation developed with support of the statistical analyses of Schomaker and
Been.
Figure 4i. Foci model
Figure 4ii. PCN demarcation of a field according to
NemaDecide PCN management programme
As additional safeguard the developed protocol for the implementation of the model also provides
for the expansion of the demarcation to a safety zone located between two infested zones which are
2 In their response to the draft report the Competent Authority provided details of the scientific references related to
these studies: Schomaker C.H. and Been T.H. (1999): A model for infestation foci of potato cyst nematodes
Globodera rostochiensis and G. pallida. Phytopathology 89, 583-590 and Been T.H. and Schomaker C.H. (2000)
Development and evaluation of sampling methods for fields with infestation foci of potato cyst nematode
(Globodera rostochiensis and G. pallida Phytopathology 90, 647-656
16
then merged into a bigger PCN infested field (including the safety zone). This may take place if the
total width of this zone is less than 27m, between two new or a new and an existing infestation. The
same 16m demarcation is used in all circumstances. Prior to the date of the implementation of the
Directive two 6m wide strips on either side of the infested part were designated as PCN
contaminated instead of the two 16m width strips applied today. This led the average size of
infested plot to be doubled (now 2.2ha).
The model for demarcation is implemented without taking into consideration the actual
circumstances in the field at hand, such as cropping history, water movement due to flooding or
additional soil movement due to agricultural machinery moving across the direction of cultivation.
Likewise, demarcation is applied the same way regardless of the sampling rate used in the field,
even though different sampling rates result in different detection probabilities and consequently
different estimations of PCN populations. (For the sampling rates applied, see section 5.2.6.2).
In the context of official surveys referred to in Article 6 of the Directive, the area which is sampled
on a field where ware potatoes are grown is delimited to a maximum of 3 ha (see also section
5.2.6.4). The sampling is carried out in the separated sampling units, as described elsewhere in this
report. Where PCN infestation is detected during the official surveys. the infestation is demarcated
around the infested sampling unit using the 16 meter approach based on the foci model.
Conclusions
In the Netherlands, substantial efforts have been made to adopt and demonstrate rules of
demarcation which are proportionate to plant health risk associated with the presence of PCN.
However, the definition of a field for PCN purposes varies according to circumstances, including
whether PCN is present or not and it is aimed at minimising the effect on the grower of a PCN
finding. In some cases, the demarcation of infestations covers an entire sampled area or even more.
PCN infestation is in most cases demarcated as one or several strips of land often forming unified
parts of smaller demarcated “plots” or “zones” within a larger field. This approach is not based on a
single definition of a field; this is not fully in line with the “sound scientific and statistical
principles” referred to in Article 3 of Directive 2007/33/EC. Nevertheless, this current approach
provides a greater degree of assurance than what was implemented previously in the Netherlands.
5.2.6.2
Sampling and testing carried out for official investigation - results
Legal requirements
Articles 4 and 5 of Directive 2007/33/EC lay down that Member States shall carry out an official
investigation for the presence of potato cyst nematodes on the field in which plants listed in Annex I
intended for the production of plants for planting, or seed potatoes intended for the production of
seed potatoes are to be planted or stored; this investigation shall involve sampling and testing and
its details are specified in Annexes II and III to the Directive.
Article 7 of the same Directive requires Member States to officially record information on fields
where no potato cyst nematodes are found during official investigations.
Article 8 of the same Directive lays down that a field found infested with potato cyst nematodes
during official investigations or surveys is officially recorded.
Findings
In general, the sampling and testing season for PCN official investigations starts on the 1st of July.
For the submission of applications to NAK for official investigation, two different application forms
are used: a “standard” to obtain a “Document of official investigation” for plots which are known to
be PCN free and an application for “de-scheduling”, for plots which have been officially recorded
as contaminated. Application forms require additional information i.e. the coordinates and a map of
the plot under investigation, the crop rotation schemes applied, as well as an indication/request of
17
the time period in which the results have to be delivered. Depending on their specific cropping
plans, producers can request the PCN testing results between 5 days to 6 weeks or even later during
the next growing period.
The validity and eligibility of the application is checked with the help of data stored in the PCN
viewer which provides information on previous cropping history and on previous PCN sampling
results. Soil sampling is carried out by inspectors of NAK or inspectors of the Flower Bulb
Inspection Service, Bloembollen Keurings Dienst (2,000-3,000 ha/year). Farm saved seed grown
within officially defined areas for the production of ware potatoes (within 25km from the farm) or
potatoes for starch (north east part of the Netherlands), is not subject to official investigation.
Compliance with terms and conditions is regularly checked by NAK.
Depending on the cropping history of the field two soil sampling rates are in place: (a) a standard
rate of 1,500 ml/ha applied in cases of plots where potatoes have been grown within the last six
years without prior official PCN testing or in cases of contaminated plots which are sampled for descheduling; (b) a reduced rate of 600 ml/ha minimum (instead of 400ml/ha provided under the
derogation of annex II point 3 of Directive 2007/33/EC). Because pre-1/7/2010 results count
towards meeting derogation requirements, the “derogation”, which is used to its full extent is
already used in the majority of cases (on 76% of seed plots). The rate of 200 ml/ha or any other rate
further minimising the sampling density as foreseen in annex II point 4 of the same Directive is not
applied in the Netherlands. Two sampling units apply: 0.3ha and 1ha. The width of each sampling
unit is determined by the length of the field and may range from 7-12m. The volumes of samples
taken from these two sampling units are 500 ml/0.3ha and 600 ml/ha or 200 ml/0.3ha. PCN viewer
indicates the plots where the rate of 600 ml/ha can be applied according to the fulfilled criteria of
Annex II point 3 of the same Directive. In particular:
•
no cultivation of potato or other PCN host plants has taken place during the last 6 years, or,
•
no PCN cysts with living content were found during standard rate sampling that took place
in the last two growing periods, or,
•
no empty PCN cysts were found during standard rate sampling that took place in the last
growing period;
Positive PCN results are communicated to NVWA through a registered report prepared by NAK.
The report indicates the details of sampling (area sampled, sub-sample numbers, width of the
sampling unit) and the plot that has been demarcated according to the demarcation rules explained
in the previous section. The results are recorded in PRISMA, the infested plot is officially registered
and an “Official Declaration of Infestation” is issued. The information is then transferred into digital
format by using Geo-explorer and becomes accessible through the PCN viewer. De-scheduling of
PCN infested plots is also carried out through PRISMA.
The FVO team visited a place of production where a 300ha crop rotation scheme growing potatoes,
winter wheat, sugar beet and onions was applied. 25ha were used annually for the production of
potato seed and 60ha for ware potatoes including potatoes for processing. The producer stated that
soil sampling for PCN, Meloidogyne chitwoodi and M. fallax was carried out regularly after
harvesting ware potatoes and seed by a private advising company.
The FVO team observed soil sampling carried out for official PCN investigation of a 3ha field
located within a 14,5ha larger plot, which had two PCN designated strips. The producer had
requested the 3ha field to be sampled and tested for the production of potato seed; the last potato
crop in the field had been ware potatoes. The FVO team noted that soil sampling was carried out by
a NAK inspector following instructions on the numbers of sub-samples to be taken and the width
18
(7m) of the sampling unit (0.3ha) provided by the sampling protocol and his PDA. The inspector
had the appropriate equipment for sampling 3ha (63m x 480m); the rate applied was that of taking
500 ml/0.3ha with 50-60 sub-samples of ca. 10ml for each 7m strip.
PCN occurrences were not officially recorded in the Netherlands between 1993 and 2003.
Following the FVO audit in 2000, referred to in section 4.1 above, such recording was re-introduced
in 2003. Since then the single authority has issued 12,854 official declarations of infestation for
contaminated plots of which approximately 6,100 are still valid and mostly recorded in 1,872
registered seed potato farms (see section 5.1.9). G. pallida has been identified in 80% of the cases
while 15% concerns G. rostochiensis and 5% mixed populations.
Conclusions
The high number of contaminated plots compared to the total number of seed farms indicates a real
probability of PCN presence on these farms. However, the Netherlands have developed a highly
sophisticated and transparent IT support system for the control of PCN and other nematode species.
All plots where potato seed is grown are sampled prior to planting as required in EU legislation
using 600ml/ha for the majority of the official investigations. This provides a slightly higher PCN
detection probability than the minimum 400ml/ha required by the Directive (65,5% instead of
51,6% according to the 1 larger + 3 smaller foci model). The standard rate of 1,500ml/ha, gives a
91,9% probability for the detection of PCN cysts in a contaminated field.
5.2.6.3
De-scheduling of PCN infested plots
Legal requirements
Article 13 of Directive 2007/33/EC establishes that if after the officially approved measures
referred to in Section III(C) of Annex III have been taken, the presence of PCN is not confirmed,
any restrictions imposed on the contaminated field shall be revoked.
Findings
Producers can request re-testing and de-scheduling of demarcated plots after six years if no potatoes
or other PCN hosts have been grown in the plot. This period can be reduced to three years if
appropriate officially approved control measures have been implemented and verified by NVWA.
These measures are:
•
growing of highly resistant potato varieties with a minimal score of resistance of 8 or 9 or,
•
chemical treatment (Metam-Sodium) or,
•
PCN trapping by growing crops that trigger chemical simulation of PCN egg hatching like
the highly PCN resistant sticky nightshade Solanum sisymbrifolium or both highly
susceptible or susceptible potato varieties. The latter must be destroyed prior to the
formation of new cysts.
Growers applying one of these measures have to notify in writing NVWA by reporting the measure
taken on an infested field. A specific form is used for this purpose and the measures taken or to be
taken are registered in PRISMA. NVWA inspectors carry out high intensity random checks and
reject the measure in case it is not implemented correctly or if the crop is not developing
sufficiently. Officially approved measures for the de-scheduling of PCN contaminated fields include
official re-sampling of soil at 1,500ml/ha and additional control measures for the reduction of the
waiting time from six to three years. NemaDecide can help producers plan and implement control
measures and the appropriate timing for re-test and de-scheduling. By introducing relevant data in
the application it calculates the corresponding decrease of a PCN population over time.
In one of the places of production visited by the FVO team, S. sisymbrifolium was grown as a PCN
trap crop in a PCN demarcated strip. The team noted that the crop had not been successfully
19
established. Because of this the grower had not reported the trap crop to the NVWA. The NVWA
inspector in charge stated that, in this particular case, the effectiveness of the measure would not
have been accepted in the context of Section III(C) of Annex III to the Directive. NVWA stated that
there can be problems with proper establishment of sticky nightshade in the Netherlands under
unfavourable weather conditions after sowing.
The use of susceptible potato varieties as a PCN trap crop was authorised under the derogations
provided in the repealed Directive 69/465/EEC3. However, the reliability of the method for PCN
control could be questioned as it largely depends on environmental and biological factors. Effective
control may not be achieved if the cropping period of the trap crop is too short to effectively reduce
nematode populations. On the other hand, if the trap crop stays too long in the field nematode
populations may be able to multiply on the trap crop. For these reasons, trap cropping as a control
measure should only be applied if appropriate checks are in place to verify effective PCN control.
Conclusions
Official measures for the de-scheduling of PCN contaminated fields have been approved as required
in section III(C) of Annex III. It appears that the risk factors affecting the success of trap crops are
taken into consideration when planning these measures and during the evaluation of their results.
However, the FVO team questions the reliability of PCN trap crops and thus whether they are
indeed an “appropriate measure” as required by Section III(C) of Annex III to Directive
2007/33/EC.
5.2.6.4
Sampling and testing carried out for official surveillance - results
Legal requirements
Article 6 of Directive 2007/33/EC requires that Member States carry out official surveys on fields
used for production of potatoes other than those intended for the production of seeds, in order to
determine the distribution of PCN; these surveys shall involve sampling and testing and their details
are specified in Annexes II and III to the Directive.
Findings
Until 2009 surveillance for the PCN symptoms was carried out by the observation of potato crops
using a helicopter. Since 2010 annual surveys are carried out by NAK according to the NVWA
protocol with samples of soil taken from fields covering 0.5% of the acreage used for growing only
ware potatoes and potatoes for starch production. Fields are randomly selected from the databases
of NAK and the Regulations Service (Dienst Regelingen), an agency of ELI, handling inter alia the
agricultural subsidies, and the samples taken are analysed by NAK; growers being selected during
previous growing periods are excluded from sampling.
•
The size of the field sampled for PCN surveillance corresponds to an area totalling max. 3ha
where the sampling rate applied is 400ml/ha in order to provide comparable results with
surveys carried out in other Member States.
Table 5 below provides the results of the annual surveillance carried out for the 2010/2011 growing
periods.
3 In their response to the draft report the Competent Authority noted that extensive research (Dutch report nr 33.3.10
PPO/AGV; authors; L.P.G. Molendijk & F.G. van Beers: Aardappel als vanggewas, Evaluatie van PAGV onderzoek
1988-1992) showed that potatoes grown as trap crop (full field sown, harvested after 40 days, use of certified seed)
can be very effective in reducing PCN populations. Trap crops are used on only a small number of fields. The
growers who use the trap crops are aware of the risks. The NPPO has recommended to use resistant varieties. With
these varieties, multiplication of the nematodes can not take place in case the crop can not be destroyed after 40
days. The timely destruction of the plants is part of the inspection program on trap crops. Only well developed crops
of S. sisymbrifolium are accepted by NPPO as a control measure
20
Table 5. Results for the annual PCN surveys carried out in fields with ware and starch potatoes in 2010/2011
Year
Ware
Starch
Total No. Infested Free
of fields
fields
fields
Infested
fields %
Total
No. of
samples
No. of
positive
samples
No. of
free
samples
No. of
infested
samples
found on
infested
fields
G. rostochiensis
G.
pallida
G. rostochiensis +
G. pallida
2010
125
8
117
6.4%
352
24
328
16
2
6
0
2011
153
10
143
6.5%
446
30
416
20
3
7
0
2010
77
32
45
41.5%
220
95
125
63
1
27
3
2011
87
35
52
40.0%
246
102
144
65
0
33
2
The results of official surveillance indicate that in the south-west areas where long crop rotation
cycles are applied there are significantly less PCN findings. By contrast, shorter crop rotations
applied in the north-east starch producing areas have contributed to the increased numbers of PCN
findings. Although direct comparisons cannot be carried out, overall the situation appears to have
improved in these areas: in 2011 a 60% PCN area freedom was observed while in 2001 only 10% of
potato producing fields had no PCN infestations.
Figures 4-5 below provide an overview of PCN survey results in main potato growing areas in the
Netherlands.
Figures 4 and 5. Overview of PCN survey results in main potato growing areas in the Netherlands
Conclusions
Official surveys are carried out in line with the Directive 2007/33/EC in fields where ware potatoes
or potatoes for industrial processing are grown.
21
5.2.7
Handling of potato cyst nematodes in ware potato production
5.2.7.1
Official control programme for the suppression of PCN
Legal requirements
Article 9.1 of Directive 2007/33/EC provides that in officially recorded infested fields no potatoes
intended for the production of seed potatoes shall be planted and no plants listed in Annex I of the
same Directive intended for replanting shall be planted or stored.
Article 9.2 provides that officially recorded infested fields to be used for planting potatoes other
than those intended for the production of seed potatoes, shall be subject to an official control
programme aiming at the suppression of PCN.
Findings
The Netherlands has set up an official programme for PCN suppression allowing the use of infested
fields for growing ware potatoes or potatoes for processing. The programme is based on a
combination of crop rotation schemes, which are used complementary with potato varieties showing
various degrees of resistance to PCN. Table 6 indicates the minimum levels of resistance
susceptibility accepted in the Netherlands for different crop rotation cycles.
Table 6. Minimum levels of resistance in the Netherlands
Frequency of crop rotation
potatoes : total crop years
Maximum level of relative susceptibility
(%)
Minimum Resistance score
1:2
5
7
1:3
10
6
1:4
15
5
1 : 5 or more
25
4
As indicated in the table, the official control programme provides that varieties with relatively low
resistance scores can be cultivated in the same field with a few years interval. The aim is to achieve
some suppression over a long period i.e. over 10 years or so and in between, populations are
allowed to increase. This indicates that in the Netherlands only a very modest goal for suppression
has been set.
Conclusions
The Netherlands has set up an official control programme for the suppression of PCN. However,
only a very modest goal for suppression has been set, which does not take sufficiently into account
“the use of resistant potato varieties of the highest levels of resistance available”. This is not in line
with Article 9(2) of Directive 2007/33/EC. However, the resulting plant health risk is very limited
as the suppression programme, in accordance with the same Directive, is applied only to the
findings made in the official ware potato surveillance and not to the remaining 99,5% of the ware
potato production. Farmers in the Netherlands have sophisticated tools at their disposal to prevent
PCN from causing losses in their production and they are likely to implement measures on their
own that – even if not resulting in much suppression – in effectiveness will match the official
suppression programme.
5.2.7.2
Decontamination of potatoes intended for industrial processing
Legal requirements
Article 10.1.b of Directive 2007/33/EC provides that contaminated potatoes for industrial
22
processing or grading shall be delivered to a processing or grading plant with appropriate and
officially approved waste disposal procedures for which it has been established that there is no risk
of PCN spreading.
Findings
Until recently, environmental legislation banned potato industries from dumping waste soil on fields
used for agriculture; soil from starch production factories was placed in landfills. However, in 2011,
this ban was lifted creating a substantial potential risk. There is good awareness in the starch
industry of the phytosanitary risk from soil and the procedures there are not likely to change.
However, this is not the case for other processors, such as crisps and chips factories. Furthermore,
already now, most potato sorting and packaging companies bring soil back to agricultural fields.
As a consequence of the absence of official control of PCN in the ware potato production, NVWA
has recognised, that separation of soil from infested fields cannot be guaranteed in practice and that
all adhering soil from ware and starch potatoes poses a risk for spreading PCN. However,
phytosanitary procedures for adherent soil have not been put into force.
As disinfection of soil is not yet a realistic option, NVWA is examining the options for possible safe
destinations with exclusion of its use for agricultural purposes and from areas where bulbs and
nursery plants are grown. The use on fields where growing of potatoes and propagating material
will be banned for 12 years is also examined. These measures will also have some preventive effect
against other soil borne organisms, such as potato wart disease and against the proliferation of
different PCN populations. This is not the case for an alternative option under consideration, where
fields receiving soil can be used for potatoes following a specific PCN suppression programme.
Conclusions
Appropriate and officially approved waste disposal procedures for establishments handling PCN
contaminated potatoes are not in place. This is not in line with Article 10.1.b of Directive
2007/33/EC.
5.2.7.3 List of potato varieties resistant to PCN and recording of break down of
resistance
Legal requirements
Article 11 of Directive 2007/33/EC provides that the suspected occurrence or confirmed presence of
potato cyst nematodes resulting from a breakdown or change in the effectiveness of a resistant
potato variety which relates to an exceptional change in the composition of nematode species
pathotype or virulence group should be reported to official bodies of the Member States.
Article 12 of the same Directive provides that Member States shall notify in writing a list of all new
varieties of potatoes which they have found by official testing to be resistant to potato cyst
nematodes.
Findings
Monitoring of virulent populations is carried out through a well established network of scientists,
breeders, laboratory experts and policy advisors, meeting twice a year to examine recent PCN
developments. The network organises tests every 10 years on the virulence of PCN populations
found in the Netherlands. It also investigates cases where signs of unexpected PCN behaviour or
breaking of resistance have been reported. A reporting tool is to be developed within the
NemaDecide application for the detection and reporting of unexpected sampling results of PCN
populations.
The widespread use in the Netherlands of varieties having a low PCN resistance (score 4-6), will
allow considerable PCN multiplication. Hence, a breakdown of resistance under field conditions
23
may not be observable. NVWA has established a legal obligation to be informed of any potential
resistance breakdown or any changes in the effectiveness of resistant potato varieties.
The lists with the resistant varieties are regularly communicated to the Commission and the
Member States. The most recent was communicated in February 2012.
Conclusions
In the Netherlands there is a mechanism in place for the notification of new events resulting from a
breakdown or change in the effectiveness of a resistant potato variety. The list of resistant varieties
is submitted as required in EU legislation.
6
OVERALL CONCLUSIONS
Phytosanitary controls of the Dutch potato sector are well organised and carried out efficiently by
well-equipped organisations and well educated staff.
Most aspects of the Directives for the control of ring rot and Ralstonia solanacearum are
implemented correctly and well. Intensive surveys are carried out for both organisms and outbreaks
are followed up by appropriate tracing back and forward and designation of contaminated and
probably contaminated material. Eradication measures, including proper disposal of contaminated
or probably contaminated potatoes are in place and supervised by inspectors. However, production
of seed potatoes is allowed in the place of production in the first year after a ring rot outbreak,
which is not in line with EU requirements.
The implementation of Directive 2007/33/EC for the control of PCN is also to a large extent
compliant and has improved the Dutch controls against the organism somewhat, although these do
not appear to be aimed at maximising the assurances against the spread of PCN. Official
investigations of seed potato fields are done in line with the requirements of the Directive.
However, the high incidence of PCN findings, the systematic use of the derogation facility for
reduced sampling rates, the minimalistic demarcation of PCN infested plots and the fact that some
of the official control measures applied before re-sampling/de-scheduling of demarcated plots are
not reliable, mean that the level of assurance against PCN in seed could be compromised.
Testing for PCN resistance is carried out by qualified laboratories of private companies and lists of
varieties are submitted to the EU and other Member States as required. However, some of the
laboratories belong to potato breeding companies, who have a direct interest in the outcome of the
tests and EU requirements for independence are in these cases therefore not met.
The Netherlands apply the official control programme referred to in Article 9(2) of Directive
2007/33/EC for the suppression of PCN in ware potatoes. However, this programme does not take
sufficiently into account the required use of potato varieties of the highest levels of resistance
available. The vast majority of the findings in ware potatoes are, in line with the same Directive, not
subject to the official suppression programme. In this regard it has to be noted that farmers in the
Netherlands have sophisticated tools at their disposal to prevent PCN from causing losses in their
production and they are likely to implement measures on their own that – even if not resulting in
much suppression – will match the official suppression programme in terms of effectiveness. The
authorities have identified the need for establishing phytosanitary procedures for disposal of waste
from all potato processing and packing facilities and are working on some proposals, however, so
far the requirements in Article 10(1)(b) of this Directive have in most cases not been met.
24
7
CLOSING MEETING
A closing meeting was held on 12 October 2012 with the representatives of the Competent
Authorities. At this meeting, the audit team presented the main findings and preliminary
conclusions of the audit. These were provisionally accepted by the Single Authority.
8
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Single Authority in the Netherlands is recommended:
N°.
Recommendation
1.
To ensure that when official PCN resistance testing is delegated to a private body, no
conflict of interest exists between the exercise of the tasks delegated to it and its other
activities as required by Article 2.1(g) of Directive 2000/29/EC.
2.
To ensure that following a ring rot outbreak, production of seed potatoes is not allowed
in the place of production in the same or in the following year of the designated
contamination, as required by point 4.1.(b) of Annex IV to Directive 93/85/EEC.
3.
To ensure that the definition of a field for the purposes of Directive 2007/33/EC fully
takes into account sound scientific and statistical principles and the cultivation of the
field as required by Article 3 of the same Directive.
4.
To ensure that the control measures authorised for reducing the waiting time for retesting of PCN scheduled plots are appropriate as required by point C, Section III of
Annex III to Directive 2007/33/EC.
5.
To ensure that establishments where PCN contaminated potatoes are delivered for
processing and grading will have appropriate and officially approved waste disposal
procedures as required by Article 10.1.(b) of Directive 2007/33/EC.
The competent authority's response to the recommendations can be found at:
http://ec.europa.eu/food/fvo/rep_details_en.cfm?rep_inspection_ref=2012-6315
25
ANNEX 1 - LEGAL REFERENCES
Legal Reference
Official Journal
Title
Dir. 2000/29/EC
OJ L 169, 10.7.2000, Council Directive 2000/29/EC of 8 May 2000 on
p. 1-112
protective measures against the introduction into
the Community of organisms harmful to plants or
plant products and against their spread within the
Community
Dir. 93/85/EEC
OJ L 259, 18.10.1993, Council Directive 93/85/EEC of 4 October 1993 on
p. 1-25
the control of potato ring rot
Dir. 98/57/EC
OJ L 235, 21.8.1998, Council Directive 98/57/EC of 20 July 1998 on the
p. 1-39
control of Ralstonia solanacearum (Smith)
Yabuuchi et al.
Dir. 2007/33/EC
OJ L 156, 16.6.2007, Council Directive 2007/33/EC of 11 June 2007 on
p. 12-22
the control of potato cyst nematodes and repealing
Directive 69/465/EEC
Dir. 92/90/EEC
OJ L 344, 26.11.1992, Commission Directive 92/90/EEC of 3 November
p. 38-39
1992 establishing obligations to which producers
and importers of plants, plant products or other
objects are subject and establishing details for their
registration
26
ANNEX 2 – STANDARDS QUOTED IN THE REPORT
International Standard
Title
ISPM No. 5
International Standard on Phytosanitary Measures Publication No 5,
Glossary of Phytosanitary Terms, Food and Agriculture Organisation,
Rome, 2010