The problems of the phytosanitary risk analysis procedure
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31548/dopovidi2019.01.011Keywords:
analysis, phytosanitary risks, probability of penetration, acclimatization, potential economic harmfulnessAbstract
The article presents the distribution of the problems of the phytosanitary risk analysis procedure.
One of the fundamental provisions on which modern quarantine of plants is based is the identification of harmful organisms and the comparison of the risks they present.
In this regard, the European Plant Protection Organization (EPPO) and the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) have developed a standard for Phytosanitary Risk Analysis (PRA) - a process for assessing biological and other scientific and economic data to determine if there is the organism is harmful, whether it needs phytosanitary regulation, and how rigorous phytosanitary measures directed against it are to be, containing the following stages: preparatory stage, assessment of phytosanitary risk, assessment of the management of phytosanitary risk and documentation of the PRA process
In order to determine the relationship between the coefficients of the EOPR scheme and their score, a classic correlation analysis with a scale was used: up to 3 - weak, 3 to 7 - average, and above 7 - strong. The determination of the degree of influence of the authority of the expert on the score of users of the method was carried out on the example of establishing the coefficient of the issue of the scheme of the EOZ by determining the percentage of coincidence of estimates in the intervals of the 9-point scale: for the mines of moth of horse chestnut, American white butterfly and western corn beetle.
Based on methodology of A.D. Orlinsky (2002) estimated the probability of penetration, acclimatization (A), potential action threshold (PAT) for Western maize beetle with an PP of 5,759, IA - 6,359, and PAT - 6,097. Potential losses (PL) were determined as 2.23, which is almost twice the average possible value on the Orlinsky scale - 1.25, with a minimum possible value of 0.01 and a maximum of 7.29. Comparing the value of software for diarrhea with its value for the minnow moth of horse chestnut - 2.48 and the American white butterfly - 2.47, we find almost their absolute identity. Why is this happening? Let's try to answer this question. To begin, determine the correlation between the coefficient of the issue of the EPPO scheme and its score for each of the main parameters for assessing the phytosanitary risk: IP, IA and PES for the minting horsechesnut leafminer, ABM and western corn beetle. It turned out - of nine cases only one degree of connection is weak (for ABM IP = 0.28), in five cases - the average (for horsechesnut leafminer IA = 0.63, А = 0.47; for ABM IA = 0.7, PAT = 0.63, for diabetic PES = 0.63), with four of them gravitating to the maximum value in the range of determining the average communication strength: from 3 to 7, and in three cases the degree the connection is strong (for the mines of the horse chestnut IP = 0,84; for the western maize beetle IP = 0,8, IA = 0,97.
The standard procedure for AFM is not perfect, and the elements that affect the opinion of most of the experts in the Phytosanitary Risk Assessment Group are primarily needed to complete the revision.
References
Arnitis R. (2012). Deyatelnost EOKZR po analyze fytosanytarnoho ryska. [EPPO for Phytosanitary Risk Analysis]. Zashyta y karantyn rastenyy, 10, 31-33.
Orlinsky A.D. (2006). Kontseptsyya kolychestvennoy otsenky fytosanytarnoho ryska Ahro XXI. [Concept of quantitative assessment of phytosanitary risk Agro XXI]. 4-6, 15-19.
Orlinsky A.D. (2002). Perspektyvy prymenenyya analyza fytosanytarnoho ryska v Rossyy. [Perspectives of application of analysis of phytosanitary risk in Russia]. Zashchyta y karantyn rastenyy, 10, 26-35.
Pylypenko L.A., Kudina Zh. D., Mariushkina V.Y., Ustinoba A.F., Sikalo O.O., Filatov N.K., Demyanets N.A., Yaroshenko L.M. (2012). Analiz fitosanitarnoho ryzyku rehulʹovanykh shkidlyvykh orhanizmiv, vidsutnikh v Ukrayini [Analysis of phytosanitary risk of regulated pests in Ukraine]. Kyiv, Kolobih, 56.
Smith Y.M., Orlinsky A.D. (2001). Skhema EOZR dlya otsenky snyzhenyya fytosanytarnoho ryska. [EPPO scheme for assessing the reduction of phytosanitary risk]. Zashchyta y karantyn rastenyy, 8, 26-32.
Smith Y.M., Orlinsky A.D. (1999). Skhema EOZR dlya otsenky fytosanytarnoho ryska. [EPPO Scheme for Assessing Phytosanitary Risk]. Zashchyta y karantyn rastenyy, 8, 28-36.
Sych Z.D. (1993). Metodycheskye rekomendatsyy po statystycheskoy otsenke selektsyonnoho materyala ovoshchnykh y bakhchevykh kulʹtur [Methodical recommendations on statistical estimation of selection material of vegetable and melon crops] Kharkiv, Institute of Vegetable and Bilberries UAAS, 72.
Tryakhov N.D. (2014). Kratkye ytohy deyatelʹnosty Evrazyyskoy ékonomycheskoy komyssyy v oblasty karantyna rastenyy za 2013 hod [Summary of the Eurasian Economic Commission's activities in the field of quarantine of plants for 2013]. Zashchyta y karantyn rastenyy, 2, 31.
Fokin A.V. (2005). Sravnytelʹnaya otsenka fytosanytarnoho ryska karantynnykh vredyteley [Comparative assessment of phytosanitary risk of quarantine pests]. Zashchyta y karantyn rastenyy, 10, 34-35.
Fokin A.V. (2000). Matrytsya Leopolʹda ta yiyi zastosuvannya v planuvanni entomolohichnoho eksperymentu. [Leopold's matrix and its application in the planning of an entomological experiment]. Zakhyst Roslyn, 12, 23-24.
Karmazin S.A. (2013). Praktyka analyza fytosanitarnoho ryska y otsenka potensyalnoho ekonomycheskoho ushcherba okruzhatushchey srede v RF. [Practice of phytosanitary risk analysis and assessment of potential economic damage to the environment in the RF]. Zashyta y karantyn rastenyy, №10, 31-33.
Fokin A.V., Dolya M.M., Verezhnikova I.V. (2017). Prohnoz ta rekonstruktsiya invaziy komakh-fitofahiv. [Forecast and reconstruction of invasions of insects-phytophages]. Kyiv, «Feniks», 8, 184.
Khromushkina L.M., Fedorenko V.P. (2014). Analiz fitosanitarnoho ryzyku brazylʹsʹkoho bobovoho zernoyida. [Analysis of phytosanitary risk of Brazilian bean grains (Zabrotes subfasciatus Boh.)]. Zashchyta y karantyn rastenyy, 12, 17-19.
Khromushkina L.M., Chromushkina L.M. (2015). Analiz fitosanitarnoho ryzyku kaprovoho zhuka Trogoderma granarium Ek. [Analysis of Phytosanitary Risk of Pipo Beetle Trogoderma granarium Ek]. Zashchyta y karantyn rastenyy, 6,15-18.
Klechkovsky Y.E. (2003). Zvit pro naukovu-doslidnu robotu za 2003 rik Doslidnoy stsntsiti karantynu vynohradu ta plodovykh kultur IZR UAAN za zavdannyam “Udoskonalyty metody vyyalennya, lokalizatsiyi ta znyshchennya vohnyshch karantynnykh shkidnykiv, kvorob I buyaniv” [Report on scientific and research work for the 2003 Research Station of the Quarantine of Grapes and Fruit Cultures of the IAU UAAS on the task of "Improving Methods for Detection, Localization and Destruction of Pests of Quarantine Pests, Diseases and Weeds]" (manuscript), 80.
Kudina Zh.D. (2012). Karantynni vydy rodu Epitrix. Analiz fitosanitarnoho ryzyku kartoplyanoyi (E. Tuberis Gnt) ta harbuzovoyi (E. cucumeris Har.) blishok v Ukrayini. [Quarantine species of the genus Epitrix. Analysis of phytosanitary risk of potato (E. tuberis Gnt) and pumpkin (E. cucumeris Har.) Blisters in Ukraine]. Karantyn i zakhyst Roslyn, 5, 4-8.
Kudina Zh.D. (2012). Pivdennoamerykanska tomatna mill. Analiz fitosanitarnoho ryzyku Tuta absoluta Meyrick v Ukrayini. [South American tomato moth Analysis of the Tuta absoluta Meyrick Phytosanitary Risk in Ukraine]. Karantyn i zakhyst Roslyn, 4, 6-10.
Kudina Zh.D. (2010). Fitosanitarnyy ryzyk tyutyunovoyi bilokrylky Bemisia tabaci Gen (Homoptera, Aleyrodidae) dlya Ukrayiny. [Phytosanitary risk of Tobacco Whitefish Bemisia tabaci Gen (Homoptera, Aleyrodidae) for Ukraine]. Karantyn i zakhyst Roslyn, 8, 24-27.
Mala L.V. (2010). Fitosanitarnyy ryzyk ekspansiyi adventyvnykh obmezheno poshyrenykh karantynnykh vydiv burʺyaniv. [The phytosanitary risk of the expansion of the adventitious is limited to the widespread quarantine species of weeds]. Karantyn i zakhyst Roslyn, 5, 18-20.
Orlinsky A.D. (2006). Analyz fytosanytarnoho ryska v Rossyy: avtoref. dys. na soyskanye uch. stepeny dokt. byol. nauk: spets. 06.01.11 «Zashchyta rastenyy» [Analysis of phytosanitary risk in Russia: author's abstract. dis to acquire a student degree doc. biol. Sciences: special 06.01.11 "Plant Protection”]. Moscow, - 47. https://doi.org/10.11156/aibr.010102
Orlinsky A.D. (2006). Kolychestvennaya otsenka fytosanytarnoho ryska. Zashchyta y karantyn rastenyy. [Quantitative assessment of phytosanitary risk]. Zashchyta y karantyn rastenyy, 6, 32-39.
Downloads
Additional Files
Published
Issue
Section
License
Relationship between right holders and users shall be governed by the terms of the license Creative Commons Attribution – non-commercial – Distribution On Same Conditions 4.0 international (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0):https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/deed.uk
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
