# Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/2352 of 14 December 2017 amending Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/789 as regards measures to prevent the introduction into and the spread within the Union of Xylella fastidiosa (Wells et al.) (notified under document C(2017) 8356), Introduction: Introductory text

Extent: E+W+S+N.I.

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/2352
of 14 December 2017
amending Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/789 as regards measures to prevent the introduction into and the spread within the Union of Xylella fastidiosa (Wells et al.)
(notified under document C(2017) 8356)
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Having regard to Council Directive 2000/29/EC of 8 May 2000 on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the Community, and in particular the fourth sentence of Article 16(3) thereof,
Whereas:
(1)
The experience gained with the application of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/789, in particular since its last amendment by Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/764, has shown that several further measures need to be taken and that certain provisions of that Decision should be adapted to ensure a more effective approach against the further introduction into, and spread within, the Union of Xylella fastidiosa (Wells et al.) (hereinafter: ‘the specified organism’).
(2)
Notwithstanding the necessity of carrying out surveys based on the level of risk assessed at Member State level, experience has shown that surveys should be carried out in a more thorough and harmonised manner to ensure that all Member States achieve the same level of precaution against the specified organism. For that reason, when carrying out those surveys, Member States should take into account the relevant technical guidelines issued by the Commission.
(3)
As referred to in international standards, the identification of the specified organism has been proven to be most reliable when based on at least two different tests, based on different biological principles or targeting different parts of the genome. The list of those tests should be available in a Commission database that should be public to ensure transparency. As the identification of the specified organism outside the demarcated areas requires a different level of sensitivity of the tests, there should be specific tests for demarcated areas and for areas other than demarcated areas.
(4)
For transparency purposes, Member States should publish their national contingency plans on the internet.
(5)
Scientific evidence referred to by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in the Scientific Opinion of January 2015 indicates the possibility of genetic recombination between different subspecies of the specified organism found in other parts of the world, affecting new plant species which were never found infected before by the subspecies concerned. Therefore, in order to ensure a more precautionary approach, and given the fact that different subspecies have recently been reported within the Union, it is important to clarify that where more than one subspecies of the specified organism have been found in an area, that area should be demarcated with regard to the specified organism and all of its possible subspecies. In addition, where the identification of the presence of a subspecies is pending, the Member State concerned should, on a precautionary basis, also demarcate that area with regard to the specified organism and all of its possible subspecies.
(6)
Experience has shown that, while carrying out surveys within the buffer zones, the allocation of resources has to be prioritised according to the level of phytosanitary risk. Therefore, in the buffer zones, it would be proportionate to set out that the respective survey is based on a grid split into 100 m × 100 m squares within a zone of a width of at least 1 km surrounding the infected zone, and a grid split into 1 km × 1 km squares within the rest of the buffer zone.
(7)
Based on current experience, and in line with scientific evidence reported by EFSA, the immediate removal of all host plants, irrespective of their health status, located within a radius of 100 m around the infected plants, increases the prospects for successful eradication of the specified organism. Compared to the containment measures, where the removal of plants is limited only to those found infected and only if located in some parts of the demarcated area, the removal of all host plants provides a higher level of guarantee vis-à-vis asymptomatic infections and thus the status of the specified organism in the area. It is therefore proportionate to reduce the width of the buffer zone surrounding the infested zone from 10 km to 5 km in all cases where the demarcated zone is established for the purpose of eradication. However, that width should remain 10 km in the case of demarcated areas established for the purpose of containment, because of the need to adopt a more precautionary approach due to the more extended presence of the specified organism in those demarcated areas.
(8)
It is also proportionate to reduce that buffer zone to 1 km, under certain conditions which would guarantee that no further spread of the specified organism occurred, as well as the immediate removal of the infected plants and appropriate monitoring of the situation. Similarly, it is proportionate to allow the lifting of a demarcated area, after 12 months since its initial establishment, if an intensive sampling scheme is adopted to ensure the absence of the specified organism from that area.
(9)
For the purpose of increasing transparency and public information about the measures taken against the specified organism, Member States should publish and update the list of demarcated areas in their territory, and the Commission should further publish and update its list of those areas as notified by the Member States.
(10)
Experience has shown that it is proportionate to allow that a demarcated area is not established where the specified organism has been found in a site with proven physical protection from the vectors of that organism. That approach is proportionate because of the low risk of spread of the specified organism and the higher possibility to immediately eliminate that organism due to the controlled environment of its appearance.
(11)
Member States should have the option to authorise the planting of some or all host plants within the infected zones under containment outside the 20 km area adjacent to the buffer zone, under relevant conditions, to ensure more flexibility for the respective Member State. In doing so, they should give preference to plants belonging to varieties assessed to be tolerant or resistant to the specified organism, with the aim of reducing the level of bacterial inoculum in the respective areas.
(12)
In order to respect the tradition and history of a particular location, Member States should have the option to decide that host plants officially designated as plants of historic value do not need to be removed if they are not infected with the specified organism, even if they are located within a radius of 100 m around the plants which have been tested and found to be infected by the specified organism. However, and in order to prevent their potential infection and the spread of the specified organism, they should be subject to particular conditions.
(13)
In order to ensure that the monitoring of the presence of the specified organism in the demarcated areas takes place at appropriate times and for purpose of legal certainty, it should be specified that such monitoring and the respective inspections take into account the relevant technical guidelines issued by the Commission.
(14)
For reasons of clarity and legal certainty, it is appropriate to limit the infected zones in which containment measures may be applied to those zones listed in an Annex to Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/789.
(15)
Taking into account the developments of the specified organism in the Union and the recognition of containment areas also in other parts of the Union, the removal of the plants should apply to the whole containment area where the specified organism is found to be present based on official surveys. However, in order to protect the rest of the Union territory, those official surveys should be carried out at least in proximity of sites of production authorised to move specified plants out of the demarcated areas, in proximity of the sites of plants with particular cultural, social and scientific value, and in areas within the infected zone measuring 20 km from the border of that infected zone. However, this requirement should not apply in the case of islands which are entirely containment areas and are situated more than 10 km to the nearest Union land territory, given that these islands are in any event physically isolated.
(16)
Due to the low phytosanitary risk as assessed by EFSA in March 2016, it is appropriate to allow the movement of specified plants which belong to varieties proven to be not susceptible to one or more of the subspecies of the specified organism, out of the demarcated areas without plant passports prepared and issued in accordance with Commission Directive 92/105/EEC.
(17)
Based on the flight dispersal capacity of the insect vectors, it is appropriate and more proportionate to authorise the movement of specified plants from production sites surrounded by a zone with a width of 100 meters which has been subject to inspections twice per year and where all of the plants found to have symptoms, or to be infected with the specified organism, have been removed immediately. For reasons of consistency, a similar rule should apply to sites of production in third countries where the specified organism is known to be present.
(18)
Experience has shown that production sites where host plants are grown outside demarcated areas are subject to annual inspections, and, in the case of symptoms, subject to sampling and testing to ensure a higher level of confidence concerning the absence of the specified organism. Therefore, and in order to ensure a harmonised level of protection in the Union, the respective requirements for those sites should be adopted.
(19)
The species of Coffea, Lavandula dentata L., Nerium oleander L., Olea europaea L., Polygala myrtifolia L., and Prunus dulcis (Mill.) D.A. Webb have proven to be recurrently infected by the specified organism and provide an easy pathway for the spread of the disease within the Union. Although trace-back activities are still ongoing to confirm the source of the infected plants detected in the Union based on the precautionary basis, those specified plants should only be grown in sites that are subject to annual official inspection, sampling and testing to confirm the absence of the specified organism. Due to the higher susceptibility of those plants to the specified organism, the presence of that organism should be identified on the basis of at least two positive tests, of which at least one should be a molecular test, listed in the respective Commission database.
(20)
A similar requirement should apply to third countries where the specified organism is not known to occur yet. In addition, when moving those plants within the Union, professional operators should keep records for at least three years in order to ensure traceability and follow-up official inspections as appropriate.
(21)
Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/789 lays down strict provisions for the movement of certain plant species (‘host plants’) within the Union as being found infected by the European isolates of the specified organism. Those host plants are subject to strict conditions even if they are never grown within a demarcated area.
(22)
At the same time, a temporary authorisation has been granted to Belgium, the Czech Republic, France and Spain by Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/167, allowing the certification of pre-basic mother plants and pre-basic material of specific species of fruit plants referred to in Annex I to Council Directive 2008/90/EC and produced in the field under non-insect proof conditions. Several of those species, namely Juglans regia L., Olea europaea L., Prunus amygdalus Batsch, P. amygdalus × P. persica, P. armeniaca L., P. avium (L.) L., P. cerasus L., P. domestica L., P. domestica × P. salicina, P. dulcis (Mill.) D.A. Webb, P. persica (L.) Batsch, and P. salicina Lindley are known to be susceptible to the European and non-European isolates of the specified organism and are listed as ‘specified plants’ in Annex I to Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/789.
(23)
Giving the emerging threat from the specified organism for the Union territory, the authorisation for the certification of those pre-basic mother plants and that pre-basic material, which derogates from the insect-proof growing condition, should be complemented by alternative phytosanitary guarantees, even if the plants are not situated in an area demarcated pursuant to Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/789.
(24)
Therefore, those pre-basic mother plants and that pre-basic material which are subject to Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/167 should only be moved within the Union territory if they are accompanied by a plant passport. The purpose is to guarantee that those pre-basic mother plants and that pre-basic material, as well as all propagating material and fruit plants produced, are free from the specified organism. Furthermore, the pre-basic mother plants and the pre-basic material concerned should be subject to visual inspection, sampling and molecular testing to ensure the absence of the specified organism, while preserving the health status of those plants and that material during the propagation process.
(25)
Finally, all plant species which have been identified as specified plants by the Commission since the last amendment of Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/789 should be included in Annex I to that Decision.
(26)
Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/789 should therefore be amended accordingly.
(27)
In order to allow professional operators and responsible official bodies to adapt to the new requirements concerning the movement of plants for planting, other than seeds, of species of Coffea, Lavandula dentata L., Nerium oleander L., Olea europaea L., Polygala myrtifolia L., and Prunus dulcis (Mill.) D.A. Webb, the respective provision should apply from 1 March 2018.
(28)
The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food, and Feed,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

---
Source: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eudn/2017/2352/introduction (the official version)
Page: https://openlegislation.uk/eu-decision-2017-2352/introduction
Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Source: legislation.gov.uk, The National Archives.