Review of import conditions for fresh ginger from Fiji

《Review of import conditions for fresh ginger from Fiji》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《Review of import conditions for fresh ginger from Fiji（102页珍藏版）》请在装配图网上搜索。

1、Review of import conditions for fresh ginger from FijiFinal reportDecember 2015 Commonwealth of Australia 2015Ownership of intellectual property rightsUnless otherwise noted, copyright (and any other intellectual property rights, if any) in this publication is owned by the Commonwealth of Australia

2、(referred to as the Commonwealth).Creative Commons licenceAll material in this publication is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia Licence, save for content supplied by third parties, photographic images, logos and the Commonwealth Coat of Arms.Creative Commons Attribution 3.0

3、 Australia Licence is a standard form licence agreement that allows you to copy, distribute, transmit and adapt this publication provided you attribute the work. A summary of the licence terms is available from creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/deed.en. The full licence terms are available from

4、 creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/legalcode.Inquiries about the licence and any use of this document should be sent to copyrightagriculture.gov.au.This publication (and any material sourced from it) should be attributed as: Australian Government Department of Agriculture and Water Resources 20

5、15, Review of import conditions for fresh ginger from Fiji final report. CC BY 3.0Cataloguing dataAustralian Government Department of Agriculture and Water Resources 2015, Review of import conditions for fresh ginger from Fiji final report, Department of Agriculture and Water Resources, Canberra.Thi

6、s publication is available at agriculture.gov.au.Australian Government Department of Agriculture and Water ResourcesPostal address: GPO Box 858 Canberra ACT 2601Switchboard: +61 2 6272 3933 or 1800 900 090Facsimile: +61 2 6272 3307Email:plantagriculture.gov.auLiabilityThe Australian Government actin

7、g through the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources has exercised due care and skill in preparing and compiling the information in this publication. Notwithstanding, the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources, its employees and advisers disclaim all liability, including liability for

8、negligence and for any loss, damage, injury, expense or cost incurred by any person as a result of accessing, using or relying upon any of the information or data in this publication to the maximum extent permitted by law.Review of import conditions for fresh ginger from FijiContentsContentsExecutiv

9、e summary11Introduction5Why is the department undertaking a review of import conditions?5Terms of reference5Consultation6Submissions to the review6Significant changes to the draft report82Analysis of the importation of ginger from Fiji9Fresh ginger imports from Fiji in 2014159Summary of imports10Ana

10、lysis of phytosanitary measures and operational procedures12Review of pre-export audits14Managing biosecurity risk along the importation pathway143Import policy and regulation of Radopholus similis15Why is the department reviewing Radopholus similis?15Radopholus similis in Fijis ginger production16C

11、urrent pest status of Radopholus similis in Fiji174Review of the quarantine status of Fijis Radopholus similis19Radopholus similis and plant disease19Why was Radopholus similis pathogenic on ginger in Fiji but not in Australia?20Determination on the quarantine status of Radopholus similis255Proposed

12、 conditions for importation of ginger from Fiji27Proposed revised biosecurity measures27Future reviews of phytosanitary measures286Acknowledgements29Appendix 1 Assessing biosecurity risks and determining import policy31International context31Australias biosecurity legislation33The import risk analys

13、is for ginger from Fiji33Import conditions for fresh ginger35Conditions for Importation of fresh ginger from Fiji (August 2014)36Appendix 2 Radopholus similis: biology, behaviour and history39Radopholus similis (Cobb, 1893) Thorne, 1949 (Tylenchida: Pratylenchidae)39Intraspecific variation in Radoph

14、olus similis populations42Origins of Radopholus similis and role of international trade in its spread47Radopholus similis in Fiji48Radopholus similis in Australia50Appendix 3 Ginger production in Fiji53Typical ginger production practices in Fiji53The ginger export pathway in Fiji56Appendix 4 Stakeho

15、lder consultation61Technical experts panel teleconference61Meeting summary Brisbane meeting with QDAF65Appendix 5 Summary of Fiji visit 10 to 12 March 201567Appendix 6 Ginger and its importation into Australia83Ginger: the plant, spice and commodity83A brief history of ginger in Australia and import

16、ation from Fiji85References89TablesTable 1 Ginger consignments imported from Fiji 20141511Table 2 Comparison of conditions in the Australian and Fijian pathogenicity experiments24Table 3 Host records for Radopholus similis in Fiji49Table 4 Host records for Radopholus similis in Australia50FiguresFig

17、ure 1 Fiji ginger production and risk management system14Figure 2 Typical small ginger farm, Naqati Settlement, Vugalei53Figure 3 Ginger farm, Naboro, Suva54Figure 4 Block subdivided into plots prior to planting, Naboro, Suva54Figure 5 Technical Bulletin: Ginger production in Fiji57Figure 6 Location

18、 of ginger farms and packhouse facilities visited70Figure 7 Ginger crop at Tovata71Figure 8 Ginger plants at Tovata71Figure 9 Ginger crop being weeded by labourers at the Naveisaudina farm72Figure 10 Ginger crop at the Naveisaudina farm72Figure 11 Hillside planted with ginger at the Naqati Settlemen

19、t73Figure 12 Banana plant adjacent to ginger crop at Naqati Settlement73Figure 13 Yellowing ginger plants at Waimalua Subdivision74Figure 14 Ginger crop at Waimalua Subdivision74Figure 15 Hillside planted with ginger at Naboro75Figure 16 Banana plants growing amongst ginger crop at Naboro75Figure 17

20、 Ginger seed crop at Nailuva village76Figure 18 Ginger rhizome affected by Pythium soft rot76Figure 19 Washing rhizomes at the Kaming packhouse77Figure 20 Processing ginger at Kaiming77Figure 21 Conveyor for handling ginger prior to packing, Ranadi packhouse78Figure 22 Advisory signs identifying pes

21、t and quality issues, Ranadi packhouse78Figure 23 Packing room, Sai Yee Foods79Figure 24 Labelling for ginger packed for export79Figure 25 Screenhouse at Koronivia Research Station80Figure 26 Reniform nematode under the microscope at Koronivia80Figure 27 Demonstration of a ginger fumigation treatmen

22、t81Figure 28 Safety sign for fumigation treatment81iiiAustralian Government Department of Agriculture and Water ResourcesReview of import conditions for fresh ginger from FijiExecutive summaryExecutive summaryA review of the import conditions for fresh ginger from Fiji was announced on November 17,

23、2014. This review was undertaken to meet a commitment in the final import risk analysis for fresh ginger from Fiji, which was released in January 2013. Its terms of reference include evaluating the efficacy of measures applied to manage the biosecurity risks associated with fresh ginger from Fiji, a

24、nd making recommendations on actions needed to confirm the quarantine status of the burrowing nematode, Radopholus similis, and the efficacy of any phytosanitary measures for managing it and pests of quarantine concern. The review is supported by an extensive literature review and analysis of the sc

25、ience relevant to the quarantine status of Radopholus similis.Inspection outcomes of the five consignments of ginger imported in the first year of trade, including laboratory analyses of samples from these imports, were also assessed and are presented.Outcomes of ginger imports in the first seasonA

26、total of five consignments of fresh ginger were exported from Fiji to Australia in late 2014 and early 2015. These are the first imports under the permits issued, which apply the measures set by the Import Risk Analysis for fresh ginger from Fiji. All consignments were accompanied by the appropriate

27、 phytosanitary certification by Fiji biosecurity authorities and were inspected by the Department of Agriculture (now known as the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources) when they arrived in Australia. No live quarantine pests were detected during the departments inspections, and all five co

28、nsignments were released from quarantine. Some non-quarantine pests were detected with no remedial action required, and a number of dead insects were also noted.Yam scale (Aspidiella hartii) was detected on four consignments of imported ginger during the first season of trade and prompted a review o

29、f phytosanitary measures for this quarantine pest. The current requirement is for imported ginger to be free of yam scale based on a standard 600 unit inspection. The finding of yam scale during import inspections indicates that this requirement has not been met. On-arrival inspections and independe

30、nt testing confirmed that all yam scales detected were dead. This is an expected consequence of fumigation with methyl bromide and the department therefore recommends a mandatory methyl bromide fumigation treatment be introduced for yam scale.Some non-quarantine pests were detected with no remedial

31、action required.Quarantine status of Radopholus similisThe department undertook a comprehensive review of Radopholus similis covering: the scientific literature the historic and current situation of Radopholus similis on ginger in both Fiji and Australia, and interceptions on imports of Fiji ginger

32、into Australia over the first (201415) seasonIn undertaking the review the department consulted with technical experts nominated by the Australian ginger industry, Queensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries (QDAF) and Biosecurity Authority of Fiji (BAF). The department also visited ginger pr

33、oduction areas in Queensland and Fiji, held discussions with technical experts during these visits and actively sought additional relevant information.The scientific literatureThe department and technical experts representing the Australian ginger industry, QDAF and BAF agreed that the Radopholus si

34、milis pathogenicity experiments conducted in Fiji during 2009 (Turaganivalu et al. 2009; 2013) and Australia during 2012 (Cobon et al. 2012) were not directly comparable and do not provide scientific proof of a significant difference between Fijian and Australian Radopholus similis isolates on ginge

35、r.The review found no clear supporting scientific evidence in the wider biological literature for the existence of a strain of Radopholus similis in Fiji with significantly different pathogenicity on ginger compared to Radopholus similis already present in Australia. There is no consistent scientifi

36、c evidence in the literature for biological factors influencing differences in pathogenicity and host preference in Radopholus similis.The historic and current situation of Radopholus similis on ginger in both Fiji and AustraliaIn 2007, a survey of 22 farms across nine Fijian ginger growing regions

37、recorded significant damage caused by Radopholus similis on some farms in the Veikoba district. Radopholus similis was also recorded in low numbers at Muanaweni. However, there is currently no evidence that Radopholus similis is causing damage in ginger fields in Fiji. Surveys of soil and ginger con

38、ducted by the Fijian Ministry of Agricultures Research Division across a range of ginger farms in seven localities between June and September 2014, including fields that were infested with Radopholus similis in 2007, detected no Radopholus similis (although other nematode species were detected). Fur

39、ther sampling of volunteer ginger (regrowth from previous crop) and crowsfoot (a weedy host of Radopholus similis) in February 2015 also did not detect any Radopholus similis. There have been no subsequent reports of Radopholus similis being found since the publication of the draft report in June 20

40、15.Fiji has indicated that ginger production practices have been modified to prevent and manage infestation with Radopholus similis. Ginger production in Fiji currently involves crop rotation with plants that are not hosts for Radopholus similis with some growers also including an additional six mon

41、th fallow period. Growers are also encouraged to plant in new areas not previously used for ginger production. Growers receive extensive training on seed treatment and preparation and equipment is provided on a loan scheme for hot water treatment of seed.ConclusionThere is presently insufficient sci

42、entific evidence to support the claim that Fiji has a strain of Radopholus similis with significantly different pathogenicity on ginger compared to the Radopholus similis already present in Australia. However, the department will retain the current provisional quarantine pest status for Radopholus s

43、imilis for an additional reasonable period of time, subject to a number of conditions. During this time period, the existing measures for Radopholus similis, recommended in the final IRA report, will remain in place.The department and technical experts representing the Australian ginger industry, QD

44、AF and Fiji agree that the only way to scientifically prove such a difference would be to do an experiment comparing Fijian and Australian Radopholus similis isolates side-by-side in an appropriately controlled trial using a methodology agreed by all parties. Since the release of the draft report, Q

45、DAF has confirmed its intention to undertake such an experiment in Australia to determine if there are any differences in the economic impact on ginger yield and quality caused by Radopholus similis isolates from Fiji and Australia. Conduct of the experiment will be subject to the following conditio

46、ns: the availability of relevant Radopholus similis isolates an agreed protocol for importation and appropriate quarantine containment agreement by AGIA, QDAF, Fiji and the department, on the experimental design and methodology reasonable timeframes.Discussions with the Fijian authorities indicate t

47、hat no Radopholus similis cultures are being held in Fiji. The department has formally requested assistance from Fiji to obtain Radopholus similis specimens from ginger production areas. Fiji has agreed to assist and activities are currently underway to source the required specimens. It is understoo

48、d that it may be difficult to source new specimens from the field considering its current reported low prevalence.The department is prepared to review import conditions if additional relevant information becomes available.Australian Government Department of Agriculture and Water Resources3Review of

49、import conditions for fresh ginger from FijiIntroduction1 IntroductionWhy is the department undertaking a review of import conditions?The Department of Agriculture and Water Resources may review import conditions at any time to ensure that import policy is appropriate to manage the biosecurity risks

50、 while still meeting Australias international obligations. The department made a commitment in the final IRA report to review the import policy after one year of trade. The focus of the review is on: the quarantine status of the burrowing nematode, Radopholus similis, which was unresolved at the tim

51、e the import policy was finalised in 2013; and the effectiveness of phytosanitary measures, following public concern about potential pests in imported ginger.The final import risk analysis (IRA) report for fresh ginger from Fiji was published on 22 January 2013. The IRA report identified a number of

52、 pests of quarantine concern to Australia including a putative intraspecific ginger variant of Radopholus similis. Previously, Radopholus similis had not been regulated as a quarantine pest, as it is already present in Australia.During the IRA process, the Australian Ginger Industry Association (AGI

53、A), the Queensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries (QDAF) and other stakeholders claimed that the Radopholus similis in Fiji was significantly more pathogenic than the one in Australia and hence should be regulated as a quarantine pest. Considering the veracity of these claims was beyond the

54、 scope of the IRA report at the time. Nevertheless, the department took a conservative approach and provisionally accepted Radopholus similis as a quarantine pest in the final IRA report, pending provision of additional evidence and further assessment. This review provides the opportunity to re-exam

55、ine Radopholus similis and assess any new information that has become available since the IRA report was published.The review also allows the department to consider whether the import conditions are effectively managing biosecurity risk, and if not, recommend changes to manage the risks. Following t

56、he commencement of ginger imports from Fiji in September 2014, concerns were raised about the presence of live root knot nematodes (Meloidogyne spp.) found in a consignment of fresh ginger. These nematodes were included in the IRA but were not considered to be quarantine pests because these species

57、are already established in Australia.Terms of referenceThe terms of reference for the review are to: Evaluate the efficacy of the measures applied to manage the biosecurity risks associated with fresh ginger from Fiji by:- analysing and evaluating pest interceptions from on-arrival inspections, incl

58、uding evaluating the compliance of on-arrival fumigation - evaluating information from audits in Fiji- gathering, recording and evaluating any information on additional processes in Fiji to ensure compliance with the import requirements, and- evaluating any other relevant additional scientific infor

59、mation that is available. Consider and make recommendations on further actions to confirm the quarantine status of Radopholus similis, including additional scientific information relating to this including on the efficacy of methyl bromide as a phytosanitary measure.The review is not revisiting the

60、pest risk assessments done previously in the IRA. However, the review is examining the biosecurity risks identified during the first season of trade, and considering the appropriateness of the import conditions and phytosanitary measures.ConsultationStakeholders were invited to make submissions pres

61、enting relevant technical information for consideration when the commencement of the review was announced in November 2014. Stakeholders were also invited to nominate relevant scientific experts to assist during the review.A panel of technical experts was assembled from the nominated experts willing

62、 to participate in the review. The panel convened for a teleconference on 20 January 2015 to discuss the review process, past and current research on Radopholus similis, and potential experimental design for future research. The minutes from this teleconference are presented in Appendix 4.Department

63、 officials subsequently met with the AGIA and visited some ginger farms on the Queensland Sunshine Coast on 2 March 2015 to gain a better understanding of Australian ginger production practices, farm biosecurity and pest management. This was followed by a technical meeting with QDAF and AGIA in Bris

64、bane on 3 March to discuss Radopholus similis pathogenicity and observe a pathogenicity experiment being conducted at the QDAF facility. A number of issues that could be raised and investigated with the Fiji authorities were identified. A summary of the Brisbane meeting and outcomes is presented in

65、Appendix 4.Department officials travelled to Suva, Fiji to meet with BAF and MoA and visit the main ginger production areas on Viti Levu from 10 to 12 March 2015. MoA provided an update on the activities of the extension officers, the registration process for growers and prospects for the 2015 export season. A number of ging