Abstract In accordance with the EFSA Strategy 2027 outlining the need for fit‐for‐purpose protocols for EFSA generic scientific assessments, the EFSA Panel on Plant Health (PLH Panel) developed standard protocols to harmonise the problem formulation process and outputs for mandates addressing recurrent scientific questions. Three types of recurring EFSA plant health mandates require generic scientific assessments: (i) pest categorisation; (ii) commodity risk assessment for the purpose of derogation to provisions of the EU plant health law and (iii) quantitative pest risk assessment. The three standard protocols are tailored to the appropriate level of detail and build on the existing guidance documents laying out the methods for conducting risk assessment in the plant health domain. To develop a standard protocol for pest categorisation, the PLH Panel adapted the latest version of the standard template reporting the evidence needs and the assessment questions to conclude whether a pest fulfils the criteria for being considered a potential quarantine pest for the EU. To develop a standard protocol for commodity risk assessment, the PLH Panel adapted the procedure and standard templates used for commodity risk assessment of high risk plants. To develop a standard protocol for quantitative pest risk assessments (qPRA), the Panel reviewed the existing guidance document on qPRA and the qPRAs published by the PLH Panel. The hierarchy of assessment questions and sub‐questions used were identified and extracted. Based on this, a hierarchically organised IT‐tool was formulated as protocol for the planning and documentation of future qPRAs.

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 plants of Betula pendula and B. pubescens imported from the United Kingdom (UK) taking into account the available scientific information, including the technical information provided by the UK. The commodities were grouped in the risk assessment as (a) bundles of 10–20 graftwood/budwood (up to 1‐year‐old), (b) bare root plants which include bundles of 25 or 50 seedlings or transplants (1–2 years‐old), bundles of 5, 10 or 15 whips (1–2 years‐old) and single bare root plants (1–7 years‐old), (c) plants in pots which include bundles of 5 and 10 cell‐grown plants (1–2 years‐old) and rooted plants in pots (1–7 years‐old), and (d) large specimen trees up to 15‐years‐old. All pests associated with the commodities were evaluated against specific criteria for their relevance for this opinion. Two EU quarantine pests i.e. Meloidogyne fallax and Phytophthora ramorum (non‐EU isolates) and two protected zone quarantine pests i.e. Entoleuca mammata and Thaumetopoea processionea fulfilled all relevant criteria and were selected for further evaluation. For the selected pests, the risk mitigation measures described in the technical dossier from the UK were evaluated considering the possible limiting factors. For these pests an expert judgement is given on the likelihood of pest freedom taking into consideration the risk mitigation measures acting on the pest, including uncertainties associated with the assessment. In the assessment of risk, the age of the plants was considered, as larger trees are more likely to be infested mainly due to longer time grown in the field. In addition, larger canopies and root systems are more difficult to inspect, thereby making the detection of pests more challenging on large trees. The likelihood of pest freedom varies among the pests evaluated, with M. fallax being the pest most frequently expected on the imported plants. The Expert Knowledge Elicitation (EKE) indicated with 95% certainty that between 9735 and 10,000 per 10,000 large specimen trees will be free from M. fallax.

Abstract The European Commission requested the EFSA Panel on Plant Health to deliver a risk assessment on the likelihood of pest freedom from Union quarantine pests and pests subject to measures adopted pursuant to Article 30 of Regulation (EU) No 2016/2031 for the maple veneer sheets manufactured according to the process set out by Canada, with emphasis on the freedom from Davidsoniella virescens and Phytophthora ramorum (non‐EU isolates). The assessment was conducted for veneer sheets of up to 0.7 mm and up to 6 mm thickness, taking into account the different phases in the veneer production in a systems approach. Some of those phases, taken alone, including the heat treatment of logs in a water bath, the cutting into thin veneer sheets and the final high heat drying of veneer sheets are expected to be effective against some of the pests, without uncertainties, making the system approach fully effective. The panel considers that no insects would survive cutting of logs into thin veneer sheets of 0.7 mm and that Xylella fastidiosa will not survive the temperatures in the water bath and final drying of veneers. The degree of pest freedom for the different groups of organisms is generally very high with slightly lower degree of pest freedom for veneer sheets of 6 mm thickness because of lower temperatures reached in the final drying of veneer sheets compared to thinner sheets. P. ramorum is not expected to survive the high heat drying of thin veneer sheets, but it may survive the lower temperatures inside thicker veneer sheets. The Expert Knowledge Elicitation (EKE) indicated, with 95% certainty, that between 9989 and 10,000 veneer sheets (thickness 6 mm) per 10,000 will be free from living P. ramorum. For D. virescens, the EKE indicated, with 95% certainty, that between 9984 and 10,000 veneer sheets (0.7 mm) per 10,000 and that between 9954 and 10,000 veneer sheets (6 mm) per 10,000 will be free from living inoculum. For other relevant groups of pests, the greatest likelihood of pest presence was observed for wood decay fungi. The EKE indicated, with 95% certainty, that between 9967 and 10,000 veneer sheets (0.7 mm) per 10,000 and that between 9911 and 10,000 veneer sheets (6 mm) per 10,000 will be free from living wood decay fungi.

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 potted plants and bundles of bare‐root plants or cell grown young plants or graftwood/budwood of Prunus spinosa imported from the United Kingdom, taking into account the available scientific information, including the technical information provided by the UK. All pests associated with the commodities were evaluated against specific criteria for their relevance for this opinion. One quarantine pest, Scirtothrips dorsalis, one protected zone quarantine pest Bemisia tabaci (European population) and one non‐regulated pest, the scale Eulecanium excrescens, that fulfilled all relevant criteria were selected for further evaluation. The risk mitigation measures proposed in the technical Dossier from the UK were evaluated, taking into account the possible limiting factors. For these pests, expert judgement is given on the likelihood of pest freedom, taking into consideration the risk mitigation measures acting on the pest, including uncertainties associated with the assessment. The degree of pest freedom varies among the pests evaluated, with E. excrescens being the pest most frequently expected on the imported potted plants. The Expert Knowledge Elicitation indicated with 95% certainty that between 9981 and 10,000 plants per 10,000 would be free from the above‐mentioned scale.

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 plants of Corylus avellana imported from the United Kingdom (UK) as: (a) bundles of 1‐ to 2‐year old whips or transplants, (b) bundles of 1‐ to 2‐year old cell grown plants, (c) 1‐ to 7‐year old bare root single plants and (d) up to 15‐year old single plants in pots, taking into account the available scientific information, including the technical information provided by the UK. All pests associated with the commodity were evaluated against specific criteria for their relevance for this opinion. Two EU quarantine pests, Phytophthora ramorum (non‐EU isolates) and Thaumetopoea processionea fulfilled all relevant criteria and were selected for further evaluation. For the selected pests, the risk mitigation measures implemented in the technical dossier from the UK were evaluated taking into account the possible limiting factors. For these pests an expert judgement is given on the likelihood of pest freedom taking into consideration the risk mitigation measures acting on the pest, including uncertainties associated with the assessment. In the assessment of risk, the age of the plants was considered, reasoning that older trees are more likely to be infested mainly due to longer exposure time and larger size. The degree of pest freedom varies among the pests evaluated, with P. ramorum being the pest most frequently expected on the imported plants. The expert knowledge elicitation indicated with 95% certainty that between 9939 and 10,000 of the single plants in pots up to 15‐year old will be free from P. ramorum (non‐EU isolates).

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 plants of the evergreen Ligustrum ovalifolium and the semi‐evergreen Ligustrum vulgare imported from the United Kingdom (UK) as: (a) bare root plants and (b) plants in pots, taking into account the available scientific information, including the technical information provided by the UK. The category (a) ‘bare root plants’ includes bundles of 1‐ to 3‐year‐old bare root whips or transplants and single 1‐ to 7‐year‐old bare root plants. The category (b) ‘plants in pots’ includes bundles of 1‐ to 2‐year‐old cell grown plants (only L. vulgare) and 1‐ to 5‐year‐old plants in pots. All pests associated with the commodities were evaluated against specific criteria for their relevance for this opinion. Two EU quarantine pests, Bemisia tabaci and Scirtothrips dorsalis, and one pest not regulated in the EU, Diaprepes abbreviatus, fulfilled all relevant criteria and were selected for further evaluation. For the selected pests, the risk mitigation measures proposed in the technical dossier from the UK were evaluated taking into account the possible limiting factors. For these pests, an expert judgement is given on the likelihood of pest freedom considering the risk mitigation measures acting on the pest, including uncertainties associated with the assessment. In the assessment of risk, the age of the plants was considered, reasoning that older trees are more likely to be infested mainly due to longer exposure time and larger size. The degree of pest freedom varies among the pests evaluated, with B. tabaci being the pest most frequently expected on the imported plants. The Expert Knowledge Elicitation indicated with 95% certainty that between 9915 and 10,000 per 10,000 bare root plants and plants in pots will be free from B. tabaci.

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 plants of Prunus avium possibly grafted on rootstocks of either P. avium, P. canescens, P. cerasus, P. pseudocerasus or their hybrids imported from the UK, taking into account the available scientific information, including the technical information provided by the UK. All pests associated with the commodities were evaluated against specific criteria for their relevance for this opinion. Three quarantine pests Scirtothrips dorsalis, tobacco ringspot virus and tomato ringspot virus), one protected zone EU quarantine pest (Bemisia tabaci (European population), and three non‐ regulated pests (Colletotrichum aenigma, Eulecanium excrescens and Takahashia japonica) that fulfilled all relevant criteria were selected for further evaluation. The risk mitigation measures proposed in the technical Dossier from the UK were evaluated, taking into account the possible limiting factors. For these pests, expert judgement is given on the likelihood of pest freedom, taking into consideration the risk mitigation measures acting on the pest, including uncertainties associated with the assessment. The degree of pest freedom varies among the pests evaluated, with Colletotrichum aenigma being the pest most frequently expected on the imported potted plants. The Expert Knowledge Elicitation indicated with 95% certainty that between 9971 and 10,000 plants per 10,000 would be free from the above‐mentioned fungus.

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 plants of Tilia cordata and T. platyphyllos imported from the United Kingdom (UK) as: (a) bundles of budwood/graftwood; (b) 1‐ to 2‐year‐old whips, seedlings or transplants; (c) bundles of 1‐ to 2‐year‐old cell grown plants; (d) 1‐ to 7‐year‐old bare root single plants; and (e) up to 25‐year‐old single plants in pots, taking into account the available scientific information provided by the UK. A list of pests potentially associated with the commodities was compiled. The relevance of any pest was assessed based on evidence following defined criteria. None of the pests on the list fulfilled all relevant criteria and therefore none were selected for further evaluation. As a result, risk mitigation measures proposed in the technical dossier from the UK were listed, but not further evaluated.

The evaluation of the potential for newly arrived species to survive and the determination whether a founder population can become established and subsequently spread and cause negative impacts are crucial considerations when performing a pest risk assessment in plant health. Climate change has clear consequences concerning the potential range of pests, and their potential for spread and impacts. Despite its importance, no guidance exists to support the evaluation of whether and how climate change should be incorporated into pest risk assessment. This paper reviews how climate change has been considered so far, not only in the area of pest risk assessment but also in other domains and provides guidance on how its incorporation could affect the overall assessment. Furthermore, from this analysis, some possible solutions for incorporating climate change into pest risk assessment are provided, taking into account that its outcomes have profound political, economic, social and environmental implications.

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 plants of hybrids of Prunus cerasus x Prunus canescens imported from Ukraine, taking into account the available scientific information, including the technical information provided by Ukraine. All pests that may be associated with the hybrids of P. cerasus x P. canescens were evaluated against specific criteria for their relevance for this opinion. None of the pests fulfilled all relevant criteria due to the production method and risk mitigation measures carried out by the nursery; therefore, none were selected for further evaluation.