Commodity risk assessment of Salix unrooted cuttings from the UK
Antonio Vicent Civera, Paula Baptista, Anna Berlin, Elisavet Chatzivassiliou, Jaime Cubero, Nik Cunniffe, Eduardo de la Peña, Nicolas Desneux, Francesco Di Serio, Anna Filipiak, Beata Hasiów‐Jaroszewska, Hervé Jactel, Blanca B. Landa, Lara Maistrello, David Makowski
TL;DR
This paper assesses the risk of importing unrooted willow cuttings from the UK to the EU, focusing on potential pests.
Contribution
The study identifies two EU-regulated pests associated with Salix cuttings from the UK, providing a risk assessment for plant health.
Findings
Only two EU-regulated pests (Entoleuca mammata and Phytophthora ramorum) were found relevant for the imported Salix cuttings.
No non-EU regulated pests were identified as requiring further evaluation.
The assessment considered technical information provided by the UK and available scientific data.
Abstract
The European Commission requested the EFSA Panel on Plant Health to prepare and deliver risk assessments for commodities listed in Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/2019 as ‘High risk plants, plant products and other objects’. This Scientific Opinion covers plant health risks posed by unrooted cuttings of Salix species (S. aegyptiaca, S. eriocephala, S. gmelinii, S. miyabeana, S. purpurea, S. rehderiana, S. schwerinii, S. udensis, S. viminalis) imported from the United Kingdom (UK). The assessment was performed considering the available scientific information, including the technical information provided by the UK. All pests potentially associated with the commodities were evaluated against specific criteria. Only two EU Regulated pests (the fungus Entoleuca mammata and the oomycete Phytophthora ramorum (non‐EU isolates)), present in the UK and potentially associated with the…
Genes, proteins, chemicals, diseases, species, mutations and cell lines named across the full text — each resolved to its canonical identifier and authoritative record.
Click any figure to enlarge with its caption.
FIGURE 1
FIGURE 2| Dossier section | Overview of contents | Filename |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Technical Dossier |
Salix cover letter Salix commodity information Rothamsted final 1_Salix_distribution Salix_pest_list_final2 |
| 2 | Additional information: answers |
Salix spp. additional information cover letter Salix spp. and hybrids unrooted cuttings additional information 9 Sep 2025 EFSA_Query_Pest_Information_Sept_2025 EFSA NON SURVEY TARGET HOST LIST (002) |
| Database | Platform/link |
|---|---|
| 3I Interactive Keys and Taxonomic Databases |
|
| Agromyzidae of Great Britain and Ireland |
|
| AHDB |
|
| Animal Diversity Web |
|
| Aphids on the World's Plants |
|
| British Bugs |
|
| British leafminers |
|
| The British Plant Gall Society |
|
| CABI Crop Protection Compendium |
|
| CABI Plantwise Plus |
|
| Checklist of the British & Irish Basidiomycota |
|
| Current British Aphid Checklist |
|
| Database of Insects and their Food Plants |
|
| Descriptions of Plant Viruses |
|
| Dipterists Forum |
|
| Diaspididae of the World 2.0 |
|
| EPPO Global Database |
|
| EU‐Nomen |
|
| FAO |
|
| Fera |
|
| GBIF |
|
| Hantsmoths |
|
| HOSTS ‐ a Database of the World's Lepidopteran Hostplants |
|
| ICAR – National Bureau of Agricultural Insect Resources |
|
| Index Fungorum |
|
| InfluentialPoints |
|
| Insects (Insecta) of the World |
|
| L'Inventaire national du patrimoine naturel (INPN) |
|
| Lepidoptera and some other life forms |
|
| Lepidoptera and their ecology |
|
| Lepiforum e.V. |
|
| Mycobank |
|
| Natural History Museum |
|
| Nemaplex |
|
| NBN atlas |
|
| NorfolkMoths |
|
| Plant Parasites of Europe |
|
| Scalenet |
|
| Spider Mites Web |
|
| The leaf and stem mines of British flies and other isects |
|
| The Sawflies (Symphyta) of Britain and Ireland |
|
| Thrips of the British Isles |
|
| TortAI |
|
| Tortricid.net |
|
| UK Beetle Recording |
|
| UK Butterflies |
|
| UKmoths |
|
| UK Plant Health Risk Register |
|
| USDA Fungal Databases |
|
| Woodland trust |
|
| Database | Platform/link | Database use |
|---|---|---|
| Aphids on World Plants |
|
|
| BIOTA of New Zealand |
|
|
| CABI Crop Protection Compendium |
|
|
| Database of Insects and their Food Plants |
|
|
| Database of the World's Lepidopteran Hostplants |
|
|
| EPPO Global Database |
|
|
| EUROPHYT |
|
|
| Gallformers |
|
|
| Leaf‐miners |
|
|
| GBIF |
|
|
| MyCoPortal |
|
|
| Nemaplex |
|
|
| PESI portal |
|
|
| Plant Parasites of Europe |
|
|
| Plant Pest Information Network |
|
|
| Scalenet |
|
|
| Scoly‐Hub: Scolytinae hosts and distribution database |
|
|
| Spider Mites Web |
|
|
| USDA ARS Fungal Database |
|
|
| Web of Science: All Databases (Web of Science Core Collection, CABI: CAB Abstracts, BIOSIS Citation Index, Chinese Science Citation Database, Current Contents Connect, Data Citation Index, FSTA, KCI‐Korean Journal Database, Russian Science Citation Index, MEDLINE, SciELO Citation Index, Zoological Record) |
|
|
| World Agroforestry |
|
|
|
| EPPO code | Common names | Family |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| SAXAE | Egyptian willow, musk willow | Salicaceae |
|
| SAXEC | American willow, heart‐leaved willow, Missouri willow, strap‐leaved willow | Salicaceae |
|
| SAXDC | Gmelin's willow | Salicaceae |
|
| SAXMI | Miyabe's willow | Salicaceae |
|
| SAXPU | Bitter willow, purple osier, purple willow | Salicaceae |
|
| SAXRH | Rehder's willow | Salicaceae |
|
| SAXKI | Narrow‐leaf willow | Salicaceae |
|
| SAXSA | Sakhalin willow | Salicaceae |
|
| SAXVI | Common osier, French osier, osier willow, twiggy willow, basket willow | Salicaceae |
| Months | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Planting | ||||||||||||
| Flowering | ||||||||||||
| Leaf drop | ||||||||||||
| Grafting | ||||||||||||
| Budding | ||||||||||||
| Cutting production |
| No. | Pest name according to EU legislation | EPPO code | Group | Pest present in the UK |
| Pest can be associated with the commodity | Regulatory status | Pest relevant for the opinion | Selected for further evaluation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
| ACLRIS | Insects | No |
| Not assessed | Union Quarantine pest | No | No |
| 2 |
| ACLRSE | Insects | No |
| Not assessed | Union Quarantine pest | No | No |
| 3 |
| ALECSN | Insects | No |
| Not assessed | Union Quarantine pest | No | No |
| 4 |
| ANOLCN | Insects | No |
| Not assessed | Union Quarantine pest | No | No |
| 5 |
| ANOLGL | Insects | No |
| Not assessed | Union Quarantine pest | No | No |
| 6 |
| APHRAN | Insects | No |
| Not assessed | Union Quarantine pest | No | No |
| 7 |
| APRICI | Insects | No |
| Not assessed | Union Quarantine pest | No | No |
| 8 |
| APRIGE | Insects | No |
| Not assessed | Union Quarantine pest | No | No |
| 9 |
| APRIJA | Insects | No |
| Not assessed | Union Quarantine pest | No | No |
| 10 |
| BEMITA | Insects | No |
| Not assessed | Union Quarantine pest | No | No |
| 11 |
| BEMITA | Insects | Yes |
| No | Protected zone Quarantine Pest | No | No |
| 12 |
| PHYPPH | Phytoplasmas | No |
| Not assessed | Union Quarantine pest | No | No |
| 13 |
| PHYPZI | Phytoplasmas | No |
| Not assessed | Union Quarantine pest | No | No |
| 14 |
| ARCHCO | Insects | No |
| Not assessed | Union Quarantine pest | No | No |
| 15 |
| CHONRO | Insects | No |
| Not assessed | Union Quarantine pest | No | No |
| 16 |
| DIABVZ | Insects | No |
| Not assessed | Union Quarantine pest | No | No |
| 17 |
| HYPOMA | Fungi | Yes |
| Yes | Protected zone Quarantine Pest | Yes | No |
| 18 |
| EURHBR | Insects | No |
| Not assessed | Union Quarantine pest | No | No |
| 19 |
| XYLBFO | Insects | No |
| Not assessed | Union Quarantine pest | No | No |
| 20 | Grapevine flavescence dorée phytoplasma | PHYP64 | Phytoplasmas | No |
| Not assessed | Union Quarantine pest | No | No |
| 21 |
| GRCPAT | Insects | No |
| Not assessed | Union Quarantine pest | No | No |
| 22 |
| GRCPCF | Insects | No |
| Not assessed | Union Quarantine pest | No | No |
| 23 |
| HOMLTR | Insects | No |
| Not assessed | Union Quarantine pest | No | No |
| 24 |
| LOPLJA | Insects | No |
| Not assessed | Union Quarantine pest | No | No |
| 25 |
| LYCMDE | Insects | No |
| Not assessed | Union Quarantine pest | No | No |
| 26 |
| MALAPA | Insects | No |
| Not assessed | Article 30 pest | No | No |
| 27 |
| MELGMY | Nematodes | No |
| Not assessed | Union Quarantine pest | No | No |
| 28 |
| FUSAEW | Fungi | No |
| Not assessed | Union Quarantine pest | No | No |
| 29 |
| GRCPHI | Insects | No |
| Not assessed | Union Quarantine pest | No | No |
| 30 |
| OEMOHI | Insects | No |
| Not assessed | Union Quarantine pest | No | No |
| 31 |
| ONCMNI | Insects | No |
| Not assessed | Union Quarantine pest | No | No |
| 32 |
| ONCMUN | Insects | No |
| Not assessed | Union Quarantine pest | No | No |
| 33 |
| PHMPOM | Fungi | No |
| Not assessed | Union Quarantine pest | No | No |
| 34 |
| PHYTRA | Oomycetes | Yes |
| Yes | Union Quarantine pest | Yes | No |
| 35 |
| POPIJA | Insects | No |
| Not assessed | Union Quarantine pest | No | No |
| 36 |
| RALSPS | Bacteria | No |
| Not assessed | Union Quarantine pest | No | No |
| 37 |
| SCITCI | Insects | No |
| Not assessed | Union Quarantine pest | No | No |
| 38 |
| MYCOPP | Fungi | No |
| Not assessed | Union Quarantine pest | No | No |
| 39 |
| PRODER | Insects | No |
| Not assessed | Union Quarantine pest | No | No |
| 40 |
| AELSSA | Insects | No |
| Not assessed | Union Quarantine pest | No | No |
| 41 |
| XYLEFA | Bacteria | No |
| Not assessed | Union Quarantine pest | No | No |
|
| |||||||||
| 42 |
| AMBDLE | Insects | No |
| Not assessed | Union Quarantine pest | No | No |
| 43 |
| AMBDMI | Insects | No |
| Not assessed | Union Quarantine pest | No | No |
| 44 |
| AMBDRU | Insects | No |
| Not assessed | Union Quarantine pest | No | No |
| 45 |
| ANIDMA | Insects | No |
| Not assessed | Union Quarantine pest | No | No |
| 46 |
| – | Insects | No |
| Not assessed | Union Quarantine pest | No | No |
| 47 |
| – | Insects | No |
| Not assessed | Union Quarantine pest | No | No |
| 48 |
| – | Insects | No |
| Not assessed | Union Quarantine pest | No | No |
| 49 |
| – | Insects | No |
| Not assessed | Union Quarantine pest | No | No |
| 50 |
| – | Insects | No |
| Not assessed | Union Quarantine pest | No | No |
| 51 |
| XYLBSE | Insects | No |
| Not assessed | Union Quarantine pest | No | No |
| 52 |
| – | Insects | No |
| Not assessed | Union Quarantine pest | No | No |
| 53 |
| – | Insects | No |
| Not assessed | Union Quarantine pest | No | No |
| 54 |
| – | Insects | No |
| Not assessed | Union Quarantine pest | No | No |
| 55 |
| HYOTCA | Insects | No |
| Not assessed | Union Quarantine pest | No | No |
| 56 |
| HYOTCO | Insects | No |
| Not assessed | Union Quarantine pest | No | No |
| 57 |
| HYOTHI | Insects | No |
| Not assessed | Union Quarantine pest | No | No |
| 58 |
| – | Insects | No |
| Not assessed | Union Quarantine pest | No | No |
| 59 |
| – | Insects | No |
| Not assessed | Union Quarantine pest | No | No |
| 60 |
| STEHSE | Insects | No |
| Not assessed | Union Quarantine pest | No | No |
| 61 |
| – | Insects | No |
| Not assessed | Union Quarantine pest | No | No |
| 62 |
| – | Insects | No |
| Not assessed | Union Quarantine pest | No | No |
| 63 |
| – | Insects | No |
| Not assessed | Union Quarantine pest | No | No |
| 64 |
| – | Insects | No |
| Not assessed | Union Quarantine pest | No | No |
| 65 |
| – | Insects | No |
| Not assessed | Union Quarantine pest | No | No |
| 66 |
| – | Insects | No |
| Not assessed | Union Quarantine pest | No | No |
| 67 |
| – | Insects | No |
| Not assessed | Union Quarantine pest | No | No |
| 68 |
| – | Insects | No |
| Not assessed | Union Quarantine pest | No | No |
| 69 |
| – | Insects | No |
| Not assessed | Union Quarantine pest | No | No |
| 70 |
| – | Insects | No |
| Not assessed | Union Quarantine pest | No | No |
| 71 |
| – | Insects | No |
| Not assessed | Union Quarantine pest | No | No |
| 72 |
| – | Insects | No |
| Not assessed | Union Quarantine pest | No | No |
| 73 |
| – | Insects | No |
| Not assessed | Union Quarantine pest | No | No |
| 74 |
| – | Insects | No |
| Not assessed | Union Quarantine pest | No | No |
| 75 |
| SCOLSH | Insects | No |
| Not assessed | Union Quarantine pest | No | No |
| 76 |
| – | Insects | No |
| Not assessed | Union Quarantine pest | No | No |
| 77 |
| – | Insects | No |
| Not assessed | Union Quarantine pest | No | No |
| 78 |
| – | Insects | No |
| Not assessed | Union Quarantine pest | No | No |
| 79 |
| – | Insects | No |
| Not assessed | Union Quarantine pest | No | No |
| No. | Current scientific name | EPPO code | Group | Pest present in the UK | Present in the EU |
| Pest can be associated with the commodity | Impact | Justification for inclusion in this list |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
| RHABJU | Insects | Yes | Limited |
| Yes | Uncertain | Uncertainty on the impact |
| 2 |
| RHABPU | Insects | Yes | Limited |
| Yes | Uncertain | Uncertainty on the impact |
| 3 |
| TAKAJA | Insects | Yes | Limited |
| Yes | Uncertain | Uncertainty on the impact |
| No. | Current scientific name | EPPO code | Name used in the EU legislation | Taxonomic information | Group | Regulatory status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
| HYPOMA |
|
Order: Xylariales Family: Xylariaceae | Fungi | Protected zone Quarantine pest according to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072 |
| 2 |
| PHYTRA |
|
Order: Peronosporales Family: Peronosporaceae | Oomycetes | EU Quarantine Pest according to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072 |
| Risk mitigation measure | Implementation in the UK |
|---|---|
| Registration of production sites | All production sites are registered. |
| Certified plant material | The UK operates a plant passport system broadly similar to the EU plant passport system. All plants for planting are regulated by this system, and our list of passported commodities is available in Annex 13 of the assimilated Commission implementing regulation (EU) 2019/2072 (Dossier Section 1). |
| Growing media | The willows for export are field grown in a natural soil. There would be no soil on the stem cuttings destined for export. Cuttings will be washed prior to packaging (Dossier Section 1). |
| Sanitation and inspection of field sites | Separate to any official inspection, cuttings are checked by the Rothamsted Research (RR) team for plant health issues during preparation. This monitoring is carried out by RR agronomy staff via regular fortnightly crop walking (Dossier Section 1). |
| Surveillance, monitoring and sampling | Official checks are carried out on operators authorised to issue UK plant passports at least once per year in line with Article 92(1) of the Plant Health Regulation (assimilated Regulation (EU) 2016/2031). These checks may increase if growing season inspections (GSIs) are required in line with Annexes 5 and 8 of assimilated Commission implementing regulation (EU) 2019/2072 (Dossier Section 1). |
| Hygiene measures | Disinfection of tools and equipment using Virkon S or Purogene after operation on a stock and before being used on a different plant batch (Dossier Section 1). |
| Weed management | Nursery beds are underlaid by Mypex matting to reduce weed presence. The processing of the cuttings prior to export should ensure no seed or other propagule of any species other than the willow is in the material destined for export. The cuttings will be washed prior to packaging which would eliminate any weed or weed seed contamination (Dossier Section 1). |
| Application of pest control products | Crop protection is achieved using a combination of measures, including approved plant protection products (mainly herbicides) or physical measures (harvesting the crop). Plant protection products are only used when necessary and records of all farm operations including crop protection treatments are kept in FarmOS, a bespoke research farm management programme (Dossier Section 1). |
| Visitors | Names and affiliations of about 10 visitors per year are recorded (Dossier Section 1). |
| Traceability | All cutting movements are recorded except those covered by Plant Breeder's Rights (Dossier Section 1). |
|
| At growing sites, infested plants are destroyed, and potentially infested plants are ‘held’ (prohibited from moving). The UK has a containment policy in the wider environment with official action taken to remove infected trees. As part of an annual survey at ornamental retail and production sites (frequency of visits determined by a decision matrix), inspections for |
| Inspection of plants before export | The UK NPPO carries out inspections and testing where required by the country of destination's plant health legislation, to ensure all requirements are fulfilled and a valid phytosanitary certificate with the correct additional declarations is issued (Dossier Section 1). |
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsResearch on scale insects · Forest Insect Ecology and Management · Insect Pest Control Strategies
INTRODUCTION
1
Background and Terms of Reference as provided by European Commission
1.1
Background
1.1.1
The new Plant Health Regulation (EU) 2016/2031,1 on the protective measures against pests of plants, has been applied from 14 December 2019. Provisions within the above Regulation are in place for the listing of ‘high risk plants, plant products and other objects’ (Article 42) on the basis of a preliminary assessment, and to be followed by a commodity risk assessment. A list of ‘high risk plants, plant products and other objects’ has been published in Regulation (EU) 2018/2019.2 Scientific Opinions are, therefore, needed to support the European Commission and the Member States (MSs) in the work connected to Article 42 of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031, as stipulated in the terms of reference.
Terms of Reference
1.1.2
In view of the above and in accordance with Article 29 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002,3 the Commission asks EFSA to provide Scientific Opinions in the field of plant health. In particular, EFSA is expected to prepare and deliver risk assessments for commodities listed in the relevant Implementing Act as ‘High risk plants, plant products and other objects’. Article 42, paragraphs 4 and 5, establishes that a risk assessment is needed as a follow‐up to evaluate whether the commodities will remain prohibited, removed from the list and additional measures will be applied or removed from the list without any additional measures. This task is expected to be on‐going, with a regular flow of Dossiers being sent by the applicant required for the risk assessment.
Therefore, to facilitate the correct handling of the Dossiers and the acquisition of the required data for the commodity risk assessment, a format for the submission of the required data for each Dossier is needed.
Furthermore, a standard methodology for the performance of ‘commodity risk assessment’ based on the work already done by MSs and other international organisations needs to be set.
In view of the above and in accordance with Article 29 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002, the Commission asks EFSA to provide a Scientific Opinion in the field of plant health for Salix species (S. aegyptiaca, S. eriocephala, S. gmelinii, S. miyabeana, S. purpurea, S. rehderiana, S. schwerinii, S. udensis, S. viminalis) from the United Kingdom (UK) taking into account the available scientific information, including the technical Dossier provided by the UK.
Interpretation of the Terms of Reference
1.2
The EFSA Panel on Plant Health (hereafter referred to as ‘the Panel’) was requested to conduct a commodity risk assessment of unrooted cuttings of Salix aegyptiaca L. (SAXAE), S. eriocephala Michx. (SAXEC) (as Salix eriocephala and Salix rigida in the Dossier), S. gmelinii Pall. (SAXDC) (as Salix dasyclados in the Dossier), S. miyabeana Seemen (SAXMI), S. purpurea L. (SAXPU), S. rehderiana C. K. Schneid. (SAXRH), S. schwerinii E. L. Wolf (SAXKI), S. udensis Trautv. & C. A. Mey. (SAXSA) (as Salix sachalinensis in the Dossier), S. viminalis L. (SAXVI) from the UK following the Guidance on commodity risk assessment for the evaluation of high risk plant Dossiers (EFSA PLH Panel, 2019), taking into account the available scientific information, including the technical information provided by the UK.
The EU quarantine pests that are regulated as a group in the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/20724 were considered and evaluated separately at species level.
Annex II of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072 lists certain pests as non‐European populations or isolates or species. These pests are considered regulated quarantine pests. Consequently, the respective European populations, or isolates, or species are non‐regulated pests.
Annex VII of the same Regulation, in certain cases (e.g. point 32) makes reference to the following countries that are excluded from the obligation to comply with specific import requirements for those non‐European populations, or isolates, or species referred to Annex II of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072: Albania, Andorra, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canary Islands, Faeroe Islands, Georgia, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Norway, Russia (only the following parts: Central Federal District (Tsentralny federalny okrug), Northwestern Federal District (SeveroZapadny federalny okrug), Southern Federal District (Yuzhny federalny okrug), North Caucasian Federal District (Severo‐Kavkazsky federalny okrug) and Volga Federal District (Privolzhsky federalny okrug), San Marino, Serbia, Switzerland, Türkiye, Ukraine and the United Kingdom (except Northern Ireland5)). Those countries are historically linked to the reference to ‘non‐European countries’ existing in the previous legal framework, Directive 2000/29/EC.
Consequently, for those countries,
- any pests identified, which are listed as non‐European species in Annex II of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072 should be investigated;
- any pest found in a European country that belongs to the same denomination as the pests listed as non‐European populations or isolates in Annex II of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072, should be considered as European populations or isolates and should not be considered in the assessment of those countries.
Pests listed as ‘Regulated Non‐Quarantine Pest’ (RNQP) in Annex IV of the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072, and deregulated pests (i.e. pest which were listed as quarantine pests in the Council Directive 2000/29/EC and were deregulated by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072) were not considered for further evaluation.
Any pests regulated both as a RNQP and as a Protected zone Quarantine pest, or regulated as a Protected zone Quarantine pest, will treat as EU Quarantine pest in this Opinion.
In its evaluation the Panel:
- checked whether the information in the technical Dossier (hereafter referred to as ‘the Dossier’) provided by the applicant (United Kingdom, Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs – hereafter referred to as ‘DEFRA’) was sufficient to conduct a commodity risk assessment. When necessary, additional information was requested from the applicant;
- selected the relevant EU Regulated pests (excluding RNQP; and including pest regulated under Article 30 of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031) and other relevant non‐regulated pests in EU present in the UK and potentially associated with the commodity;
- assessed the effectiveness of measures for pests that are non‐regulated in the EU;
- did not assess the effectiveness of measures for the following EU Regulated pests (1) Union Quarantine Pests, (2) Protected zone Quarantine Pests, (3) Emergency measures pests listed in (EU) 2022/1941.
Risk management decisions are not within EFSA's remit. Therefore, the Panel provided a rating based on expert judgement regarding the likelihood of pest freedom for each relevant pest given the risk mitigation measures implemented by DEFRA of the UK.
The Plant Health Commodity Risk Assessment Opinions are prepared following the EFSA Standard Protocol for Commodity Risk Assessment (Gardi et al., 2025).
DATA AND METHODOLOGIES
2
Data provided by DEFRA of the UK
2.1
The Panel considered all the data and information provided by DEFRA of the UK on 18 December 2024, including the additional information provided by DEFRA of the UK on 3 October 2025, after EFSA's request. The Dossier is managed by EFSA. The structure and overview of the Dossier is shown in Table 1. The number of the relevant section is indicated in the Opinion when referring to a specific part of the Dossier.
The data and supporting information provided by DEFRA formed the basis of the commodity risk assessment.
Table 2 shows the main data sources used by DEFRA of the UK to compile the Dossier (details on literature searches can be found in the Dossier Sections 1 and 2).
Literature searches performed by EFSA
2.2
Literature searches in different databases were undertaken by EFSA to complete a list of pests potentially associated with the relevant Salix species (S. aegyptiaca, S. eriocephala, S. gmelinii, S. miyabeana, S. purpurea, S. rehderiana, S. schwerinii, S. udensis, S. viminalis). The following searches were combined: (i) a general search to identify pests reported on S. aegyptiaca, S. eriocephala, S. gmelinii, S. miyabeana, S. purpurea, S. rehderiana, S. schwerinii, S. udensis, S. viminalis in the databases, (ii) a search to identify any EU quarantine pest reported on Salix as a genus and subsequently (iii) a tailored search to identify whether the above pests are present or not in the UK. The databases used for each of the above searches are specified in Table 3. The searches were run between July and September 2025. No language, date or document type restrictions were applied in the search strategy.
The search strategy and search syntax were adapted to each of the databases listed in Table 3, according to the options and functionalities of the different databases and the CABI keyword thesaurus.
As for Web of Science, the literature search was performed using a specific, ad hoc established search string (Supporting information: Annex A). The string was run in ‘All Databases’ with no range limits for time or language filters. The methodology is further explained in Section 2.3.2.
Additional documents were retrieved when developing the Opinion. The available scientific information, including previous EFSA opinions on the relevant pests and diseases (Appendix) and the relevant literature and legislation (e.g. Regulation (EU) 2016/2031; Commission Implementing Regulations (EU) 2018/2019; (EU) 2018/2018 and (EU) 2019/2072) were taken into account.
Methodology
2.3
When developing the Opinion, the Panel followed the EFSA Guidance on commodity risk assessment for the evaluation of high risk plant Dossiers (EFSA PLH Panel, 2019) and the EFSA Standard Protocol for Commodity Risk Assessment (Gardi et al., 2025).
Pests potentially associated with the commodity in the country of origin and fulfilling the selection criteria (see Section 2.3.2) are identified as relevant pests.
Relevant pests with a Quarantine status in the EU are prohibited from being introduced to the EU according to Article 5(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 and therefore should not be present on imported plant commodities. Consequently, no specific measures are defined in the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1213. For these pests no assessment of likelihood of pest freedom on the exported commodity is performed, unless the Panel considers appropriate to conduct such an evaluation or if it is specifically requested by the EC.
Commodity information
2.3.1
Based on the information provided by DEFRA the characteristics of the commodity were summarised in Section 3 of this Opinion.
Identification of pests potentially associated with the commodity
2.3.2
To evaluate the pest risk associated with the importation of the commodity from the UK a pest list was compiled. The pest list is a compilation of all identified plant pests associated with S. aegyptiaca, S. eriocephala, S. gmelinii, S. miyabeana, S. purpurea, S. rehderiana, S. schwerinii, S. udensis and S. viminalis based on information provided in the Dossier Sections 1 and 2 and on further literature searches performed by the Panel.
The scientific names of the host plants (i.e. S. aegyptiaca, S. eriocephala, S. gmelinii, S. miyabeana, S. purpurea, S. rehderiana, S. schwerinii, S. udensis, S. viminalis) were used when searching in the EPPO Global database, CABI Crop Protection Compendium and other databases (Table 3), with the exception of EUROPHYT/TRACES‐NT and Web of Science for which the search procedure is described below in the text. EUROPHYT was consulted by searching for the interceptions associated to commodities imported from the UK, at species and genus level, from 1995 to May 2020 and TRACES‐NT for interceptions from May 2020 to present. For the pests selected for further evaluation a search in the EUROPHYT and/or TRACES‐NT was performed for the interceptions from the whole world, at species and genus level.
The search strategy used for Web of Science Databases was designed combining common names for pests and diseases, terms describing symptoms of plant diseases and the scientific and common names of the commodity. All the pests already retrieved using the other databases were removed from the search terms to reduce the number of records to be screened. The established search string is detailed in Supporting information: Annex A and was run on 28 July 2025.
The titles and abstracts of the scientific papers retrieved were screened and the pests associated with S. aegyptiaca, S. eriocephala, S. gmelinii, S. miyabeana, S. purpurea, S. rehderiana, S. schwerinii, S. udensis and S. viminalis were included in the pest list. The pest list was eventually further updated with other relevant information (e.g. EPPO codes, taxonomic information, categorisation, distribution) useful for the selection of the pests relevant for the purposes of this Opinion.
The compiled pest list is published as Supporting information: Annex B.
The evaluation of the compiled pest list was done in two steps: first, the relevance of the EU Regulated pests was evaluated (Section 4.1); second, the relevance of any other plant pests was evaluated (Section 4.2).
The relevance of an EU Regulated pest for this Opinion was based on evidence that:
- any species of the Salix genus is a host of the pest;
- The pest is present in the UK;
- one or more life stages of the pest can be associated with the specified commodity.
Pests that fulfilled all criteria were selected as relevant.
The relevance of EU non‐regulated pest for this Opinion was based on the same criteria applied for EU regulated pests. In addition, further criteria were considered: if the pest is (i) absent or (ii) has a limited distribution in the EU and if the pest (iii) might have an impact in the EU. Pests that fulfilled all criteria were selected for further evaluation. Pests for which limited information was available on one or more criteria used to identify them as relevant for this Opinion, e.g. on potential impact, are listed in Section 4.3.
Listing and evaluation of risk mitigation measures
2.3.3
All implemented risk mitigation measures were listed. When evaluating the likelihood of pest freedom at origin, the following types of potential pathways by which the pest may be introduced to the S. aegyptiaca, S. eriocephala, S. gmelinii, S. miyabeana, S. purpurea, S. rehderiana, S. schwerinii, S. udensis and S. viminalis plants in nurseries were considered (see also Figure 1):
- pest entry from surrounding areas,
- pest entry with new plants/seeds,
- pest spread within the nursery.
Conceptual framework to assess likelihood that plants are exported free from relevant pests (Source: EFSA PLH Panel, 2019).
The risk mitigation measures adopted in the plant nurseries (as communicated by DEFRA) were described in Section 5.2 for each relevant pest.
Expert Knowledge Elicitation
2.3.4
As only EU Regulated pests were selected as relevant for this Opinion (see Section 4), according to Section 2.3, no Expert Knowledge Elicitation (EKE) was performed.
COMMODITY INFORMATION
3
All the information presented in this Section has been retrieved from the Dossier submitted by DEFRA. The Panel assumes that the information retrieved from the Dossier submitted by DEFRA is applicable to all nurseries seeking authorisation to export the commodity to the EU in the future.
Description of the commodity
3.1
The commodity to be imported from the UK to the EU are unrooted cuttings of different Salix species that are described in Table 4.
Unrooted cuttings (Figure 2): the age of cuttings is up to 2 years. The diameter is between 0.3 and 1 cm. They are grouped in bundles of 10–40 cuttings per pack. The cuttings are approximately between 20 and 200 cm long. There will be leaf buds present but no roots. No open leaves or soil will be attached to the exported product (Dossier Sections 1 and 2).
According to ISPM 36 (FAO, 2019), the commodity can be classified as ‘unrooted cuttings’.
The yearly average trade volume of the commodity to the EU is intended to be as up to 10,000 unrooted cuttings, either as 200 mm or 2 m stems (Dossier Sections 1 and 2). The export will take place between February and April (Dossier Section 2).
Unroot cuttings of Salix species (Dossier Section 1).
Description of the production areas
3.2
There is one nursery specified in the technical Dossier, which will be producing the unrooted cuttings for export. The commodity will be produced at the Rothamsted Research (RR) site, located in Harpenden, Hertfordshire (Dossier Section 1). All willow plants at RR are grown under the same phytosanitary measures. The cuttings are produced at specific times from field‐grown willow plants. The nursery for growing seedlings is approximately 600 m^2^, while field‐grown willow mother plants (from which cuttings are produced) cover 6 ha. The stool of these mother plants could be up to 20 years old but more typically < 10 years old (Dossier Section 1).
RR is situated in the rural area, with hedges often used to define field boundaries and grown along roadsides. Hedges are made up of a range of species including hazel (Corylus avellana), beech (Fagus sylvatica) yew (Taxus baccata), holly (Ilex spp.), ivy (Hedera spp.), alder (Alnus glutinosa), laurel (Prunus laurocerasus), hawthorn (Crataegus spp.), blackthorn (Prunus spinosa) and leylandii (Cupressus x leylandii). There are specimen trees of oak (Quercus spp.) and lime (Tilia spp.) (Dossier Section 1). The minimum distance in a straight line, between the growing area and the closest Salix plants in the local surroundings is unknown.
The surrounding land consists of arable farmland with some pasture for animals and small areas of woodland. Arable crops are rotated in line with good farming practice, but could include oilseed rape (Brassica napus), wheat (Triticum aestivum), barley (Hordeum vulgare), field beans (Vicia faba) and linseed (Linum usitatissimum). Pasture consists predominantly of ryegrass (Lolium spp.) and white clover (Trifolium repens). Woodlands tend to be a standard UK mixed woodland, with a range of UK native trees such as oak (Quercus robur), pine (Pinus spp.), poplar (Populus spp.), ash (Fraxinus spp.), sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus), holly (Ilex spp.), Norway maple (Acer platanus), field maple (Acer campestre). The nearest woodland is 131 m away. It was not possible to identify what plant species are growing within the gardens of private dwellings (Dossier Section 1).
Production and handling processes
3.3
According to the Dossier Section 1, RR is the longest‐running agricultural research institution in the world dating back to 1843, the aim of which is to use scientific knowledge to produce sufficient nutritious food whilst caring for the environment. RR has research groups in Agronomy, Entomology, Plant Pathology and Weed Science. Expertise is on hand covering all aspects of growing (Dossier Section 1).
RR produce cuttings for companies in the UK and abroad. All willow plants at RR are grown under the same phytosanitary measures (Dossier Section 1).
Growing conditions
3.3.1
The commodity to be exported would be grown outdoors under field conditions and in natural soil. Only the initial germination and seedling growth occurs in the glasshouse (metal frame construction and glass panels) during March to May of year 1 after crossing. The glasshouses are not intended to provide protection from pests and diseases. A low level of heat is applied to facilitate the germination, 16–18°C daytime, 8–10°C nighttime (Dossier Section 1).
Source of planting material
3.3.2
The starting material for cuttings is the mother plants. The starting material for the mother plants is seed from a cross conducted at RR. RR does not use grafting. The willows in question root freely from the stem cutting. Almost all the source material for the germplasm currently originates from existing mother plants at the RR facility. Since 2004 no willow mother plants have been obtained from outside of the European Union. Post 2004 and pre 2020 there were just two imports of mother plants from the EU, both from Sweden. That does not exclude future acquisitions from other countries that comply with the UK phytosanitary requirements. All mother plants would then be field grown as part of the breeding programme at RR for at least 3 years prior to reproductive material production. Crosses are then made at RR, seedlings raised and cuttings produced. All the unrooted cuttings for export will be inspected and certified with the phytosanitary certificates (Dossier Section 1).
Production cycle
3.3.3
The commodity production stages, and the phenology of the crop associated are reported in Table 5.
Stem cuttings are planted in March and April. Flowering occurs during late winter and early spring. Stem cuttings are made during winter. The stem cuttings would be exported between February and April only (Dossier Section 1).
Description of main production steps
The top of branches, with flower buds, of trees used for seed production are collected from the field in winter. The branches are placed in the glasshouse in January where they flower. The crossings are performed throughout February. The seed is germinated in a mister immediately after its collection. Seed does not have a shelf life. In May the seedlings are transplanted to trays where they grow on for their first summer on a nursery (Dossier Section 1).
The following winter stem cuttings are produced from the first‐year growth. Those cuttings are planted in field conditions in March or April. After a further summer the stems are cut back to promote the multi‐stemmed form of the coppiced tree. Those trees may grow on for multiple years before being cut again, but any further cutting production will come from 1 year old shoots (i.e. the tree will be coppiced the year before cutting production). In exceptional circumstances two‐year‐old shoots will be used for cutting production (Dossier Section 1).
Stem cuttings for distribution are made from winter dormant material grown in the field (Dossier Section 1).
Pest monitoring during production
3.3.4
The exporter operates in accordance with the Plant Health Management Standard, developed under the Plant Healthy Certification Scheme. This scheme is supported by DEFRA, the Royal Horticultural Society (RHS) and other organisations through the Plant Health Alliance Steering Group (Dossier Section 2).
Pest monitoring during the production of Salix spp. cuttings is made through regular internal inspections conducted by the growing facility of RR and official surveillance carried out by the Competent Authority (UK Plant Health Service). Plant material is regularly monitored for plant health issues by RR agronomy staff via regular fortnightly crop walking. RR hosts research groups in Agronomy, Entomology, Plant Pathology and Weed Science, providing in‐house expertise that covers all aspects of crop cultivation (Dossier Section 1). Curative or preventative actions, as described below, may be implemented. However, they are often not applied unless the pest poses a risk of mortality of the entire stock of the genotype. Unless a pest can be immediately and definitively identified as non‐quarantine, growers are required to treat it as a suspect quarantine pest and notify the Competent Authority. All plants are also carefully inspected by RR on arrival and dispatch for any plant health issues (Dossier Section 1).
During production, in addition to the general health monitoring of the plants by the RR staff, official growing season inspections are undertaken by the UK Plant Health Service at an appropriate time, taking into consideration factors such as the likelihood of pest presence and growth stage of the crop. Where appropriate, this could include sampling and laboratory analysis. Official sampling and analysis could also be undertaken nearer to the point of export, depending on the type of analysis and the import requirements of the country being exported to. Samples are generally taken from a representative sample of plants, in some cases, however, where the consignment size is small, all plants are sampled. Magnification equipment is provided to all inspectors as part of their standard equipment and is used during inspections when appropriate (Dossier Section 1).
In support of the Plant Passporting scheme (checks are consistent with EU legislation, with a minimum of one a year for authorised operators) and as part of the Quarantine Surveillance programme (Great Britain uses the same framework for its surveillance programme as the EU), the Competent Authority inspects crops at least once a year to ensure they meet required standards (Dossier Section 1). UK surveillance is based on visual inspection with samples taken from symptomatic material, and where appropriate, samples are also taken from asymptomatic material (e.g. plants, tubers, soil, watercourses). Where pest‐specific guidelines are absent, inspectors select sufficient plants to provide a 95% probability of detecting symptoms randomly distributed on 1.5% of plants in a batch/consignment. The number of inspected registered Salix spp. producers were three in 2020, nine in 2021 and six in 2022. (Dossier Section 1). Inspections targeting Phytophthora ramorum are conducted at two levels: retail/production sites and the wider environment (Dossier Sections 1 and 2). At retail and production sites, P. ramorum is monitored annually, with an additional inspection carried out during the growing period at plant passport production sites. In the wider environment, inspections are conducted annually at approximately 300 non‐woodland sites. Both surveys focus primarily on common host plants, such as Rhododendron spp., although other plant species are also inspected (Dossier Section 2). LFD tests (Lateral Flow Device test kits) are used by inspectors to screen samples. Whilst Salix spp. is primarily targeted for P. ramorum, UK inspectors also look for a range of symptoms that may indicate pests and diseases across multiple hosts (Dossier Section 2).
The RR team checks cuttings for plant health issues during preparation before dispatch. These inspections are generally undertaken as near to the time of export as possible, usually within 1–2 days and not more than 2 weeks before export (Dossier Section 1).
Pest management during production
3.3.5
The production facility of RR maintains general sanitary status and phytosanitary management practices.
Crop protection is achieved using a combination of measures, including approved plant protection products, biological control or physical measures. Plant protection products are only used when necessary and records of all farm operations are kept in FarmOS, a bespoke research farm management programme (Dossier Section 1).
Insecticides (e.g. lambda‐cyhalothrin) for controlling sawfly (Nematus ventralis) and willow beetles (Chrysomelidae), as well as fungicides (e.g. difenoconazole) for managing rust (Melampsora spp.) are rarely used, having been applied only twice and once, respectively, over the past 18 years (Dossier Section 1). Other pests observed in the production fields are aphids, which are controlled using the insecticide lambda‐cyhalothrin (Dossier Section 2). Herbicides (e.g. pendimethalin, isoxaben, glyphosate) are applied at planting in the field but not in subsequent years. Biological control methods (nematodes) are used to control sciarid flies (a soil pest) in the glasshouse on seedlings (Dossier Section 1).
The post‐harvest processes and export procedures for Salix spp. cuttings also involved general hygiene measures. This includes the disinfection of tools and equipment between batches/lots using products such as Virkon S or Purogene. Tools are dipped and wiped with a clean cloth between trees to reduce the risk of fungi, virus and bacteria transfer. Waste material from the cutting production system is either burned on site or taken off site locally to be fed to animals (Dossier Section 1). The area of cutting production is cleaned down, and only material destined for export is brought in, accompanied by additional disinfection of benches and tools (Dossier Section 1). During the final pre‐export inspection, if plants are found to be infested with pests, the protocol is to either treat the plants (if they remain on site long enough) or destroy them (Dossier Section 1).
Post‐harvest processes and export procedure
3.3.6
Post‐harvest processing
Stems are selected and harvested from field‐grown mother plants in late winter (January to March). Any stems showing effects of pests, diseases or nutritional issues are cut and disposed of by burning (Dossier Section 1).
The stems are generally cut into 200 mm long unrooted cuttings, typically within 2 days of harvesting. The processing work occurs in a farm shed. Material rejected at this stage (e.g. the top of the stem, dominated by flower buds) is stored temporarily outside before being disposed of either by burning or as animal feed (Dossier Section 1).
Post‐harvesting treatments
The 200 mm cuttings are washed with tap water, without any additional treatment. This washing process would eliminate any weed or weed seed contamination (Dossier Section 2) and soil (Dossier Section 1).
Packaging
The cuttings are then bundled into appropriate units, typically batches of 40 cuttings per bundle. Each bundle is placed in a sealed plastic bag (Dossier Section 1).
Post‐processing storage
The bundles are kept in a cold room at minus 4°C (Dossier Section 1).
Transport (production site to point of export)
The only available information in the Dossier indicates that exports will be sent by road courier and then air freight (Dossier Section 1).
IDENTIFICATION OF PESTS POTENTIALLY ASSOCIATED WITH THE COMMODITY
4
The search for potential pests associated with S. aegyptiaca, S. eriocephala, S. gmelinii, S. miyabeana, S. purpurea, S. rehderiana, S. schwerinii, S. udensis and S. viminalis (as described in Section 2.3.2) rendered a total of 1208 species (for search string and pest list see Supporting information: Annex A and Annex B).
EU regulated pests associated with the commodity
4.1
A total of 105 EU Regulated species (including RNQPs) are reported to use Salix as host plant. Of these 105 pests, 79 were evaluated because they are classified as EU Quarantine pests, Protected zone Quarantine Pests or pests in Article 30 of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031 (Table 6). Out of these 79 pests, two species were listed as relevant since they are present in the UK and can be associated with the commodity.
Other relevant pests associated with the commodity
4.2
The information provided by DEFRA, integrated with the search EFSA performed, was evaluated in order to assess whether there are other potentially relevant pests of S. aegyptiaca, S. eriocephala, S. gmelinii, S. miyabeana, S. purpurea, S. rehderiana, S. schwerinii, S. udensis and S. viminalis present in the country of export. For these potential pests that are non‐regulated in the EU, pest risk assessment information on the probability of entry, establishment, spread and impact is usually lacking. Therefore, these pests were also evaluated based on the methodology described in Section 2.3.2.
In total, 1103 pests non‐regulated in the EU are reported to be associated with Salix commodity (Supporting information: Annex B – pest list).
No other relevant pests were selected for further evaluation as none met all the relevant criteria.
List of potential pests not further assessed
4.3
For the pests for which there was uncertainty at least in one of the selection criteria, the Panel identified three pests that could be of potential concern for this Opinion. A specific justification for their selection is provided in Table 7. These pests will be proposed for inclusion for the Horizon scanning workflow (Horizon scanning for plant pests|EFSA).
Summary of pests selected as relevant for this Opinion
4.4
Two pests satisfying all the relevant criteria listed above are included in Table 8. None of these pests were selected for further evaluation because both of them are regulated pests in the EU.
RISK MITIGATION MEASURES
5
Risk mitigation measures applied in applicant country
5.1
With the information provided by DEFRA (Dossier Sections 1 and 2), the Panel summarised the risk mitigation measures (Table 9) that are implemented in the production nurseries.
Overview of the selected pests
5.2
For EU Regulated pests the relevant risk mitigation measures acting on the selected pests were identified. No quantitative expert judgement has been performed for those pests.
An overview of the evaluation of the selected pests (Entoleuca mammata and Phytophthora ramorum (non‐EU isolates)) is summarised in the sections below (Sections 5.2.1 and 5.2.2).
Reasoning for the relevance of Entoleuca mammata for this commodity
5.2.1
E. mammata is an ascomycete fungus (Order: Xylariales; Family: Xylariaceae; EPPO code: HYPOMA) known as an important agent of canker disease in Populus species (EPPO, 2026a). Other hardwood species like Salix spp. can also be infected (EFSA PLH Panel, 2017, 2025a; Granmo et al., 1999; Mathiassen, 1993). In the EU the fungus is listed as a Protected zone Quarantine pest (Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072). E. mammata has been identified in previous commodity risk assessments as a relevant pest for Acer, Alnus, Betula, Populus, Salix and Sorbus plants for planting originating in the UK (EFSA PLH Panel, 2023a, 2023b, 2023c, 2023d, 2024a, 2024b, 2025a, 2025b, 2025c, 2025d). E. mammata is present in the UK (CABI, 2019; EPPO, 2024; Granmo et al., 1999; Mathiassen, 1993). Although none of the Salix species listed in the Dossier Section 1 are known to be hosts of E. mammata., Salix as a genus is a reported host (EFSA PLH Panel, 2025a; Granmo et al., 1999; Mathiassen, 1993). The major hosts (i.e. Populus) can be present in the nursery and the surroundings (Dossier Section 2) thereby potentially serving as a source of inoculum. The pathogen causes a stem infection (Mathiassen, 1993) and therefore it can be associated with the commodity.
Reasoning for the relevance of Phytophthora ramorum (non‐EU isolates) for this commodity
5.2.2
The oomycete P. ramorum (Order: Peronosporales; Family: Peronosporaceae; EPPO code: PHYTRA) is listed in Annex II A of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072. P. ramorum has a broad host range, including Salix spp. (APHIS USDA, 2022; Cave et al., 2008; EPPO, 2026b). P. ramorum was considered as a relevant pest for Acer, Alnus, Berberis, Betula, Castanea, Cornus, Corylus, Fagus, Lonicera, Quercus, Salix, Sorbus and Taxus plants for planting originating in the UK (EFSA PLH Panel, 2023a, 2023b, 2023c, 2023d, 2023e, 2023f, 2023g, 2024a, 2024b, 2024c, 2024d, 2025a, 2025b, 2025c, 2025e, 2025f, 2025g, 2026). P. ramorum is present in the UK (Brown & Brasier, 2007; CABI, 2020; Dossier Section 1). Although none of the Salix species listed in the Dossier Section 1 are known to be hosts of P. ramorum, the pathogen has a wide host range including Salix as a genus (APHIS USDA, 2022; Cave et al., 2008). The major hosts (e.g. Rhododendron, Larix) can be present in the surroundings of the nursery (Dossier Section 2) thereby potentially serving as a source of inoculum. The pathogen is reported to infect shoots (Sansford et al., 2009) and therefore it can be associated with the commodity.
Outcome of the Assessment of Selected Pests and Expert Knowledge Elicitation
5.3
All two relevant pests have a quarantine status in the EU, and according to Article 5(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/2031, these pests are prohibited from being introduced to the EU. Therefore, E. mammata and P. amorum (non‐EU isolates) are not allowed to be present on imported Salix plants (S. aegyptiaca, S. eriocephala, S. gmelinii, S. miyabeana, S. purpurea, S. rehderiana, S. schwerinii, S. udensis, S. viminalis). Therefore, the level of freedom for these EU regulated pests on exported Salix plants from the UK was not quantitatively assessed.
CONCLUSIONS
6
There are two EU Regulated pests identified to be present in the UK and considered to be potentially associated with unroot cuttings of Salix species (S. aegyptiaca, S. eriocephala, S. gmelinii, S. miyabeana, S. purpurea, S. rehderiana, S. schwerinii, S. udensis, S. viminalis) imported from the UK. These pests are E. mammata and P. ramorum (non‐EU isolates). No pests that are non‐regulated in the EU were selected as relevant for this Opinion.
GLOSSARYControl (of a pest)Suppression, containment or eradication of a pest population (FAO, 2024a, 2024b)Entry (of a pest)Movement of a pest into an area where it is not yet present, or present but not widely distributed and being officially controlled (FAO, 2024b)Establishment (of a pest)Perpetuation, for the foreseeable future, of a pest within an area after entry (FAO, 2024b)Impact (of a pest)The impact of the pest on the crop output and quality and on the environment in the occupied spatial unitsIntroduction (of a pest)The entry of a pest resulting in its establishment (FAO, 2024b)MeasuresControl (of a pest) is defined in ISPM 5 (FAO, 2024b) as ‘Suppression, containment or eradication of a pest population’ (FAO, 2024a). Control measures are measures that have a direct effect on pest abundance. Supporting measures are organisational measures or procedures supporting the choice of appropriate risk mitigation measures that do not directly affect pest abundance.PathwayAny means that allows the entry or spread of a pest (FAO, 2024b)Phytosanitary measuresAny legislation, regulation or official procedure having the purpose to prevent the introduction or spread of quarantine pests, or to limit the economic impact of regulated non‐quarantine pests (FAO, 2024b)Protected zoneA Protected zone is an area recognised at EU level to be free from a harmful organism, which is established in one or more other parts of the Union.Quarantine pestA pest of potential economic importance to the area endangered thereby and not yet present there, or present but not widely distributed and being officially controlled (FAO, 2024b)Regulated non‐quarantine pestA non‐quarantine pest whose presence in plants for planting affects the intended use of those plants with an economically unacceptable impact and which is therefore regulated within the territory of the importing contracting party (FAO, 2024b)Risk mitigation measureA measure acting on pest introduction and/or pest spread and/or the magnitude of the biological impact of the pest should the pest be present. A risk mitigation measure may become a phytosanitary measure, action or procedure according to the decision of the risk manager.Spread (of a pest)Expansion of the geographical distribution of a pest within an area (FAO, 2024b)
ABBREVIATIONSCABICentre for Agriculture and Bioscience InternationalDEFRADepartment for Environment Food and Rural AffairsEKEExpert Knowledge ElicitationEFSAEuropean Food Safety AuthorityEPPOEuropean and Mediterranean Plant Protection OrganizationFAOFood and Agriculture OrganizationGSIsgrowing season inspectionsISPMInternational Standards for Phytosanitary MeasuresNPPONational Plant Protection OrganisationPLHPlant HealthPRAPest Risk AssessmentRHSRoyal Horticultural SocietyRNQPsRegulated Non‐Quarantine PestsRRRothamsted Research
REQUESTOR
European Commission
QUESTION NUMBER
EFSA‐Q‐2025‐00003
COPYRIGHT FOR NON‐EFSA CONTENT
EFSA may include images or other content for which it does not hold copyright. In such cases, EFSA indicates the copyright holder and users should seek permission to reproduce the content from the original source.
PANEL MEMBERS
Antonio Vicent Civera, Paula Baptista, Anna Berlin, Elisavet Chatzivassiliou, Jaime Cubero, Nik Cunniffe, Eduardo de la Peña, Nicolas Desneux, Francesco Di Serio, Anna Filipiak, Paolo Gonthier, Beata Hasiów‐Jaroszewska, Hervé Jactel, Blanca B. Landa, Lara Maistrello, David Makowski, Panagiotis Milonas, Nikos T. Papadopoulos, Roel Potting, Hanna Susi, and Dirk Jan van Der Gaag.
Supporting information
Annex A: Web of Science All databases Search String
Annex B: Pest list of Salix aegyptiaca, S. eriocephala, S. gmelinii, S. miyabeana, S. purpurea, S. rehderiana, S. schwerinii, S. udensis and S. viminalis
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1Adlerz, W. C. (1980). Ecological observations on two leafhoppers that transmit the Pierce's disease bacterium. Proceedings of the Florida State Horticultural Society, 93, 115–120.
- 2Anonymous . (1960). Index of plant diseases in the United States (Vol. 165, pp. 1–531). U.S.D.A. Agricalture Handbook.
- 3APHIS USDA (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service U.S. Department of Agriculture) . (2022). APHIS Lists of Proven Hosts of and Plants Associated with Phytophthora ramorum. September 2022, 1–12. https://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/pram/downloads/pdf_files/usdaprlist.pdf
- 4Atkinson, T. H. (2025). Bark and Ambrosia Beetles of the Americas. https://www.barkbeetles.info/index.php (accessed 2025‐08‐28).
- 5Bailey, S. F. (1964). A revision of the genus Scirtothrips Shull (Thysanoptera: Thripidae). Hilgardia, 35, 329–362.
- 6Barringer, L. , & Ciafré, C. M. (2020). Worldwide feeding host plants of spotted lanternfly, with significant additions from North America. Environmental Entomology, 49(5), 999–1011. 10.1093/ee/nvaa 093 32797186 · doi ↗ · pubmed ↗
- 7Batsankalashvili, M. , Kaydan, M. B. , Kirkitadze, G. , & Japoshvili, G. O. (2017). Updated checklist of scale insects (Hemiptera: Coccomorpha) in Sakartvelo (Georgia). Annals of Agrarian Science, 15, 252–268. 10.1016/j.aasci.2017.05.002 · doi ↗
- 8Bayhan, E. , Ulusoy, M. R. , & Brown, J. K. (2006). Host range, distribution, and natural enemies of Bemisia tabaci ‘B biotype’ (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) in Turkey. Journal of Pest Science, 79, 233–240. 10.1007/s 10340-006-0139-4 · doi ↗