Guidance on quantitative pest risk assessment
Abstract This Guidance describes a two‐phase approach for a fit‐for‐purpose method for the assessment of plant pest risk in the territory of the EU. Phase one consists of pest categorisation to determine whether the pest has the characteristics of a quarantine pest or those of a regulated non‐quaran...
Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Wiley
2018-08-01
|
Series: | EFSA Journal |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2018.5350 |
id |
doaj-bf57e6e324f34e81a3f7fd4a09f02a1e |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-bf57e6e324f34e81a3f7fd4a09f02a1e2021-09-09T18:00:36ZengWileyEFSA Journal1831-47322018-08-01168n/an/a10.2903/j.efsa.2018.5350Guidance on quantitative pest risk assessmentEFSA Panel on Plant Health (PLH)Michael JegerClaude BragardDavid CaffierThierry CandresseElisavet ChatzivassiliouKatharina Dehnen‐SchmutzJean‐Claude GrégoireJosep Anton Jaques MiretAlan MacLeodMaria Navajas NavarroBjörn NiereStephen ParnellRoel PottingTrond RafossVittorio RossiGregor UrekAriena Van BruggenWopke Van Der WerfJonathan WestStephan WinterAndy HartJan SchansGritta SchraderMuriel SuffertVirag KertészSvetla KozelskaMaria Rosaria ManninoOlaf Mosbach‐SchulzMarco PautassoGiuseppe StancanelliSara TramontiniSybren VosGianni GilioliAbstract This Guidance describes a two‐phase approach for a fit‐for‐purpose method for the assessment of plant pest risk in the territory of the EU. Phase one consists of pest categorisation to determine whether the pest has the characteristics of a quarantine pest or those of a regulated non‐quarantine pest for the area of the EU. Phase two consists of pest risk assessment, which may be requested by the risk managers following the pest categorisation results. This Guidance provides a template for pest categorisation and describes in detail the use of modelling and expert knowledge elicitation to conduct a pest risk assessment. The Guidance provides support and a framework for assessors to provide quantitative estimates, together with associated uncertainties, regarding the entry, establishment, spread and impact of plant pests in the EU. The Guidance allows the effectiveness of risk reducing options (RROs) to be quantitatively assessed as an integral part of the assessment framework. A list of RROs is provided. A two‐tiered approach is proposed for the use of expert knowledge elicitation and modelling. Depending on data and resources available and the needs of risk managers, pest entry, establishment, spread and impact steps may be assessed directly, using weight of evidence and quantitative expert judgement (first tier), or they may be elaborated in substeps using quantitative models (second tier). An example of an application of the first tier approach is provided. Guidance is provided on how to derive models of appropriate complexity to conduct a second tier assessment. Each assessment is operationalised using Monte Carlo simulations that can compare scenarios for relevant factors, e.g. with or without RROs. This document provides guidance on how to compare scenarios to draw conclusions on the magnitude of pest risks and the effectiveness of RROs and on how to communicate assessment results.https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2018.5350guidancequantitative pest risk assessmentrisk reduction optionmodeluncertaintyrisk communication |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
EFSA Panel on Plant Health (PLH) Michael Jeger Claude Bragard David Caffier Thierry Candresse Elisavet Chatzivassiliou Katharina Dehnen‐Schmutz Jean‐Claude Grégoire Josep Anton Jaques Miret Alan MacLeod Maria Navajas Navarro Björn Niere Stephen Parnell Roel Potting Trond Rafoss Vittorio Rossi Gregor Urek Ariena Van Bruggen Wopke Van Der Werf Jonathan West Stephan Winter Andy Hart Jan Schans Gritta Schrader Muriel Suffert Virag Kertész Svetla Kozelska Maria Rosaria Mannino Olaf Mosbach‐Schulz Marco Pautasso Giuseppe Stancanelli Sara Tramontini Sybren Vos Gianni Gilioli |
spellingShingle |
EFSA Panel on Plant Health (PLH) Michael Jeger Claude Bragard David Caffier Thierry Candresse Elisavet Chatzivassiliou Katharina Dehnen‐Schmutz Jean‐Claude Grégoire Josep Anton Jaques Miret Alan MacLeod Maria Navajas Navarro Björn Niere Stephen Parnell Roel Potting Trond Rafoss Vittorio Rossi Gregor Urek Ariena Van Bruggen Wopke Van Der Werf Jonathan West Stephan Winter Andy Hart Jan Schans Gritta Schrader Muriel Suffert Virag Kertész Svetla Kozelska Maria Rosaria Mannino Olaf Mosbach‐Schulz Marco Pautasso Giuseppe Stancanelli Sara Tramontini Sybren Vos Gianni Gilioli Guidance on quantitative pest risk assessment EFSA Journal guidance quantitative pest risk assessment risk reduction option model uncertainty risk communication |
author_facet |
EFSA Panel on Plant Health (PLH) Michael Jeger Claude Bragard David Caffier Thierry Candresse Elisavet Chatzivassiliou Katharina Dehnen‐Schmutz Jean‐Claude Grégoire Josep Anton Jaques Miret Alan MacLeod Maria Navajas Navarro Björn Niere Stephen Parnell Roel Potting Trond Rafoss Vittorio Rossi Gregor Urek Ariena Van Bruggen Wopke Van Der Werf Jonathan West Stephan Winter Andy Hart Jan Schans Gritta Schrader Muriel Suffert Virag Kertész Svetla Kozelska Maria Rosaria Mannino Olaf Mosbach‐Schulz Marco Pautasso Giuseppe Stancanelli Sara Tramontini Sybren Vos Gianni Gilioli |
author_sort |
EFSA Panel on Plant Health (PLH) |
title |
Guidance on quantitative pest risk assessment |
title_short |
Guidance on quantitative pest risk assessment |
title_full |
Guidance on quantitative pest risk assessment |
title_fullStr |
Guidance on quantitative pest risk assessment |
title_full_unstemmed |
Guidance on quantitative pest risk assessment |
title_sort |
guidance on quantitative pest risk assessment |
publisher |
Wiley |
series |
EFSA Journal |
issn |
1831-4732 |
publishDate |
2018-08-01 |
description |
Abstract This Guidance describes a two‐phase approach for a fit‐for‐purpose method for the assessment of plant pest risk in the territory of the EU. Phase one consists of pest categorisation to determine whether the pest has the characteristics of a quarantine pest or those of a regulated non‐quarantine pest for the area of the EU. Phase two consists of pest risk assessment, which may be requested by the risk managers following the pest categorisation results. This Guidance provides a template for pest categorisation and describes in detail the use of modelling and expert knowledge elicitation to conduct a pest risk assessment. The Guidance provides support and a framework for assessors to provide quantitative estimates, together with associated uncertainties, regarding the entry, establishment, spread and impact of plant pests in the EU. The Guidance allows the effectiveness of risk reducing options (RROs) to be quantitatively assessed as an integral part of the assessment framework. A list of RROs is provided. A two‐tiered approach is proposed for the use of expert knowledge elicitation and modelling. Depending on data and resources available and the needs of risk managers, pest entry, establishment, spread and impact steps may be assessed directly, using weight of evidence and quantitative expert judgement (first tier), or they may be elaborated in substeps using quantitative models (second tier). An example of an application of the first tier approach is provided. Guidance is provided on how to derive models of appropriate complexity to conduct a second tier assessment. Each assessment is operationalised using Monte Carlo simulations that can compare scenarios for relevant factors, e.g. with or without RROs. This document provides guidance on how to compare scenarios to draw conclusions on the magnitude of pest risks and the effectiveness of RROs and on how to communicate assessment results. |
topic |
guidance quantitative pest risk assessment risk reduction option model uncertainty risk communication |
url |
https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2018.5350 |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT efsapanelonplanthealthplh guidanceonquantitativepestriskassessment AT michaeljeger guidanceonquantitativepestriskassessment AT claudebragard guidanceonquantitativepestriskassessment AT davidcaffier guidanceonquantitativepestriskassessment AT thierrycandresse guidanceonquantitativepestriskassessment AT elisavetchatzivassiliou guidanceonquantitativepestriskassessment AT katharinadehnenschmutz guidanceonquantitativepestriskassessment AT jeanclaudegregoire guidanceonquantitativepestriskassessment AT josepantonjaquesmiret guidanceonquantitativepestriskassessment AT alanmacleod guidanceonquantitativepestriskassessment AT marianavajasnavarro guidanceonquantitativepestriskassessment AT bjornniere guidanceonquantitativepestriskassessment AT stephenparnell guidanceonquantitativepestriskassessment AT roelpotting guidanceonquantitativepestriskassessment AT trondrafoss guidanceonquantitativepestriskassessment AT vittoriorossi guidanceonquantitativepestriskassessment AT gregorurek guidanceonquantitativepestriskassessment AT arienavanbruggen guidanceonquantitativepestriskassessment AT wopkevanderwerf guidanceonquantitativepestriskassessment AT jonathanwest guidanceonquantitativepestriskassessment AT stephanwinter guidanceonquantitativepestriskassessment AT andyhart guidanceonquantitativepestriskassessment AT janschans guidanceonquantitativepestriskassessment AT grittaschrader guidanceonquantitativepestriskassessment AT murielsuffert guidanceonquantitativepestriskassessment AT viragkertesz guidanceonquantitativepestriskassessment AT svetlakozelska guidanceonquantitativepestriskassessment AT mariarosariamannino guidanceonquantitativepestriskassessment AT olafmosbachschulz guidanceonquantitativepestriskassessment AT marcopautasso guidanceonquantitativepestriskassessment AT giuseppestancanelli guidanceonquantitativepestriskassessment AT saratramontini guidanceonquantitativepestriskassessment AT sybrenvos guidanceonquantitativepestriskassessment AT giannigilioli guidanceonquantitativepestriskassessment |
_version_ |
1717758978371354624 |