Risk Management Proposal:   
 
Partial review of Malus import 
requirements in the Importation of 
Nursery Stock Import Health Standard  
(155.02.06)   
 
FOR PUBLIC CONSULTATION  
 
   
 
 November  2020  
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Plant Germplasm Imports  
Animal & Plant Health  Directorate  
Ministry for Primary Industries  
Pastoral House  
25 The Terrace  
PO Box 2526  
Wellington 6140  
New Zealand  
 
Tel: +64 4 894 0100  
 
Email: plantimports@mpi.govt.nz   
i Table of Contents  Page 
 
Submissions  1 
Purpose  2 
Objective  2 
Background  2 
Risk management approach  4 
Proposed requirements for post entry quarantine  8 
Appendix 1  14 
 
  
1 Submissions    
The Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) invites comment from interested parties on proposed changes 
to import requirements in the Malus  schedule in the import health standard (IHS)  155.02.061: 
Importation of Nursery Stock, which is supported by this risk management proposal.  
The purpose of an import health standard is defined as follows in section 22(1) of the Biosecurity Act 
1993 (the Act): “An import health standard specifies requirements that must be met to effectively 
manage risks associated with importing risk goods, including risks arising because importing the goods 
involves or might involve an incidentally imported new organism”.  
In accordance with Section 23 of the Act, MPI must consult with interested parties before issuing or 
amending IHS un der section 24A of the Act. Therefore, MPI therefore seeks formal comment on the 
proposed import requirements.  
The following points may be of assistance in preparing comments:  
• Wherever possible, comments should be specific to a particular section/require ment of the 
IHS;  
• Where possible, reasons, data and supporting published references to support comments are 
requested.  
• The use of examples to illustrate particular points is encouraged.   
MPI encourages respondents to forward comments electronically. Plea se include the following in your 
submission:  
• The title of the consultation document in the subject line of your email;  
• Your name and title (if applicable);  
• Your organisation’s name (if applicable); and  
• Your address.  
 
Send submissions to: plantimports@mpi.govt.nz . 
If you wish to forward submissions in writing, please send them to the following address.  
Plant Germplasm Imports  
Animal  & Plant Health  Directorate  
Ministry for Primary Industries  
PO Box 2526  
Wellington 6140  
New Zealand  
All submissions must arrive by close of business on 18/12/2020 . Submissions received by the closure 
date will be considered during the development of the final standard. S ubmissions received after the 
closure date may be held on file for consideration when the issued standard is next revised/reviewed.  
Official Information Act 1982  
Please note that your submission is public information and it is MPI policy to publish submi ssions and 
the review of submissions on the MPI website. Submissions may also be the subject of requests for 
information under the Official Information Act 1982 (OIA). The OIA specifies that information is to be 
made available to requesters unless there ar e sufficient grounds for withholding it, as set out in the OIA. 
Submitters may wish to indicate grounds for withholding specific information contained in their 
submission, such as the information is commercially sensitive or they wish personal information to be 
withheld. Any decision to withhold information requested under the OIA is reviewable by the 
Ombudsman.  
 
1 MINISTRY FOR PRIMARY INDUSTRIES, STANDARD 155.02.06, Importation of Nursery Stock. 
https://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/dmsdocument/1152 -nursery -stock -import -health -standard   2 Purpose  
(1) The purpose of this risk management proposal (RMP) is to:  
a) describe  alternative risk management options that have been considered for only those pests 
that require  woody indexing under the current version of the IHS;  
b) show how measures proposed in the draft standard will appropriately manage biosecurity 
risks and are consistent with New Zealand’s domestic leg islation and international 
obligations; and  
c) provide information to support the consultation on the draft standard  (appendix 1) . 
(2) The RMP is not itself the subject of consultation.  The requirements of the draft standard are the 
subject of public consultation. This risk management proposal supports the draft standard and 
should be read in full, and in conjunction with the draft standard, to understand the rationale 
behind the proposed import requirements and the import health standard development p rocess 
undertaken by MPI.  However, MPI will accept comments and suggestions on the RMP in order to 
improve future consultations on the draft standard.  
Objective  
(3) MPI’s objective for reviewing the requirement for woody indexing, currently in place for Malus  
plants for planting , is to identify the most appropriate phytosanitary measures to manage the 
biosecurity risks associated with some pests .  
Scope of this risk m anagement proposal  
(4) This partial review of import requirements for Malus  plants for planting assesses the risk 
management measures only for organisms that require woody indexing in the current Malus  
schedule of the IHS, namely one species of virus, three vi roids, one phytoplasma, and four 
diseases of unknown aetiology  (DouA) . 
(5) The review does not include the following:  
a) Assessment of the risk management measures for pests that do not require woody indexing ;  
b) Identification of risk management measures for new o r emerging pests ; 
NOTE:   A check of the MPI Emerging Risks Register did not identify any new or emerging 
risks that are unmanaged on Malus  plants for planting.  
c) Changes to the IHS format and layout ; 
d) Consideration of the regulatory status of any pests associated with Malus  other than diseases 
of unknown aetiology . 
Background  
(6) Malus  plants for planting are eligible for import as dormant cuttings and plants in tissue culture. 
Currently , Malus  plants for planting can be  imported from MPI -approved offshore facilities into 
Level 2 post entry quarantine ( PEQ ) for a minimum growing period of six months  active growth , or 
from non -approved facilities into Level 3B PEQ for a minimum growing period of 36 months.  
a) Malus  plants for  planting imported from approved offshore facilities enter a lower level of 
quarantine for a reduced period because some risk management measures are applied 
offshore  prior to export ( for example this includes doing woody indexing) ;  
3 b) Woody indexing takes at least three years to complete (offshore or onshore); therefore, it 
prolongs obtaining access to new plant material with concomitant increases in costs.  
(7) The revised IHS for Prunus  plants for planting (issued January 20202), established different 
measures for managing the risk of some viruses and diseases of unknown aetiology, for which 
woody indexing was previously required. In the case of diseases of unknown aetiology, it was 
understood that the measure of woody indicator  testing was no longer considered commensurate 
with the risk posed by these diseases . This was largely because:  
a) Woody indexing can provide false negatives and inconsistent results ; 
b) The positive woody indexing results should  be verified by other tests, such  as molecular 
assays ; 
c) Woody indexing may not provide any additional information about whether  a pest is present 
in a particular plant if reliable alternative measures (such as PCR) are available.  
(8) Malus  and Prunus  plants for planting have similar risk profi les for some classes of pests (e.g. 
viruses and viroids). In the current Malus  IHS, there are one virus, three viroids, one phytoplasma 
and four diseases of unknown aetiology that  requir e woody indexing.  Similar risk management 
measures for  pests previousl y requiring woody indexing in Prunus  plants for planting may be  
applicable for Malus  plants.  
(9) Except for  DouA, t he proposed  measures in the draft standard do not suggest any changes in the 
overall level of protecti on and  are considered consistent with the current appropriate level of 
protection for Malus  established by MPI over many years. For DouA, the proposed measures 
may provide  a lower level of protection compared to the current requirement in the Malus  IHS. 
However , considering the drawbacks  outlined in paragraph (7), the proposed measures are 
considered commensurate with the level of risk associated with  DouA associated with Malus . 
(10) Potential  benefits of reviewing the woody indexing requirements for Malus  plants for planting 
include:  
a) Removing potentially unnecessary import requirements for imports of Malus  germplasm; and 
b) Facilitating imports of new Malus  varieties by reducing the quarantine period and import 
costs . 
Current phytosanitary requirements for Malus pests that require woody indexing  
(11) At present, woody indexing is required to manage, or partially manage risk from the following 
regulated pests of Malus  plants for planting (Table 1):  
 
Table 1. Inspection, Testing and Treatment Requirements for Malus  in relation to pests require woody 
indexing  
Virus  
Cherry rasp leaf virus  Woody indexing or herbaceous indexing AND  PCR  
Viroids  
Apple dimple fruit viroid  Woody indexing  AND  PCR  
Apple fruit crinkle viroid  Woody indexing AND  PCR  
Apple scar skin viroid  Woody indexing  AND  PCR  
Phytoplasmas  
‘Candidatus Phytoplasma mali’  Woody indexing  AND  nested PCR using universal phytoplasma primers  
Diseases of unknown aetiology  
Apple dead spur agent  Woody indexing  
Apple rough skin agent  Woody indexing  
Apple russet wart agent  Woody indexing  
Apple star crack agent  Woody indexing  
 
2 Prunus  Plants for Planting, MPI.IHS.PRUNUS.PFP, 23 January 2020. https://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/dmsdocument/39488/direct    4 Source information  
(12) This RMP is based on information in the MPI Import Risk Analysis: Viruses, Viroids, Phytoplasma, 
Bacteria and Diseases of Unknown Aetiology on Malus Nursery Stock from all Countries, 20 12. 
(13) Citations relating to additional information are included as footnotes. Other information sources 
include the following:  
a) Risk Management Propo sal: Prunus Plants for Planting (June 2019) , particularly the basis 
for changing measures relating to woody indexing.  
Domestic and international setting  
(14) Maintaining plant health is a key outcome of New Zealand’s biosecurity system. The system is 
regulated by MPI, through the Biosecurity Act 1993. Section 22 of the Act describes the purpose 
and requirements of an IHS and outlines the types of matters that should be considered in an 
IHS. 
(15) The phytosanitary import requirements proposed in this RMP and the draft  standard are aligned 
with international standards, guidelines, and recommendations3, as per New Zealand’s 
obligations under Article 3.14 of the World Trade Organisation (WTO)5 Agreement on the 
Application of the SPS Agreement . This sets in place rules that protect each country’s sovereign 
right to take the measures necessary to protect the life or health of its people, animals, and plants 
while at the same time facilitating trade.  
(16) MPI is committed to  the use of science -based risk assessments to  inform the decisions about how 
to manage the risks associated with the international movement of goods.  
Risk management approach  
(17) This section of the RMP includes descriptions of:  
a) The proposed requirements for screening of regulated pests that require woody i ndexing  
under the current Malus schedule ; 
b) The proposed requirements for post entry quarantine if MPI does remove the requirement 
for woody indexing ; 
c) How the measures proposed in the draft standard will appropriately manage biosecurity 
risks; and  
d) Impacts of proposed measures on the import pathway.  
(18) MPI is proposing to remov e the requirement for  woody ind exing  to manage the pests listed in 
Table 1 above.  This is because woody indexing  is now widely seen as being of limited benefit 
(Legrand, 20156) for the following reasons:  
a) Woody indexing  can provide false negative and inconsistent results. This means that the 
absence of symptoms in indicator plants does not necessarily prove that imp orted plants are 
 
3 Note that international standards, guidelines or recommendations referred to in the WTO agreement are those of Codex, OIE (Wo rld 
Organisation for Animal Health) and the IPPC.  
4 Agreement on Subsid ies and Countervailing Measures , Article 3.1. https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/24 -
scm_01_e.htm#ArticleIII  
5 World Trade Organization, Agreement on Subsidie s and Countervailing Measures  
6 Legrand, P. (2015). Biological assays for plant viruses and other graft ‐transmissible pathogens diagnoses: a review. EPPO Bulletin, 45(2), 
240-251.   
5 free from the target regulated pests  (Cieślińska and Rutkowski, 20087; Stouffer and Fridlund, 
19898); 
b) While woody indexing has shown negative results on pear and apple trees, PCR testing of 
the same plants for the same disease gave a pos itive result, showing that PCR method is 
more sensitive and reliable for detecting viruses in tested plants  (Laviña et al., 20109); 
c) Even when woody indexing returns a positive result, it is recommended that the result is 
verified using another type of tes t (e.g. PCR) ; 
d) Woody indexing relies heavily on the climate conditions and indicator cultivars for 
development of the symptoms (Constable et al., 201310); 
e) Woody indexing is time -consuming (at least three  years  for Malus  under the existing IHS ) 
and is expensive . 
(19) It is acknowledged that woody indexing has the potential to identify new or emerging pests (e.g. 
viruses, viroids, and phytoplasmas), or variants of existing pest species that may not be detected 
by PCR or herbace ous indexing. However, balancing this against the limitations identified above, 
MPI no longer considers this method should be a requirement to manage the regulated pests on 
Malus plants for planting . 
Proposed testing for viruses  
(20) There is one virus species,  Cherry rasp leaf virus (CRLV), currently managed on Malus  plants for 
planting by either woody indexing and PCR, OR herbaceous indexing and PCR. The proposal is 
to remove woody indexing as an optional test and retain the requirements for PCR AND 
herbaceous  indexing to manage the risk of CRLV . This  is justified because:  
a) PCR is highly specific and sensitive and is known to be an effective method to detect CRLV 
(Osman et al., 201711); 
b) Herbaceous indexing will provide additional assurance that plants are free from variant 
strains of CRLV  that may not be detected using PCR;  
c) PCR AND herbaceous indexing manage  CRLV in the current Malus  IHS and provide the 
desired  level of protection . This m easure  is also consistent with the requirements  in the IHS 
for Prunus  plants for planting  as consulted on in June  2019 ; and  
d) Herbaceous indexing , using the same indicator species,  is also used to manage other pests  
in the current Malus  IHS (including Tomato bushy stunt virus  and Tomato ringspot virus ), so 
this measure will not result in any additional cost . 
Proposed testing for viroids  
(21) Three species of viroids, Apple dimple fruit viroid , Apple fruit crinkle viroid , and  Apple scar skin 
viroid are currently managed on Malus  plants for planting by woody indexing AND PCR. The 
proposal is to remove woody indexing as a mandatory test and retain the requirement for PCR to 
manage the risk of these viroids . This  is justified for the following reason s: 
a) Although  Apple dimple fruit viroid, Apple fruit crinkle viroid, and Apple scar skin viroid may 
express symptoms in indicator plants used for woody indexing  (CPC, 200712), disease 
 
7 Cieślińska, M., Rutkowski, K. P., (2008). Effect of Apple chlorotic leaf spot virus  on yield and quality of fruits from 'Golden Delicious' and 
'Sampion' apple trees. Acta Horticulture. 781, 119 -124. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2008.781.17  
8 Stouffer, R. F., and Fridlund, P. R. (1989). Indexing using woody indicators. Pages 255 -265 in: Virus and Virus  like Diseases of Pome 
Fruits and Simulating Non -infectious Disorders. P. R. Fridlund, ed. Wash . State Univ. Coop. Ext. Serv. Pullman.  
9 Laviña, A., Sabaté, J., Batlle, A. (2010). Evaluation of detection methods for Virus, Viroids and Phytoplasmas affecting pear  and apple. 
21st International Conference on Virus and other Graft Transmissible Diseases  of Fruit Crops, Julius -Kühn -Archiv, 424 -427. 
10 Constable, F. E., Connellan, J., Nicholas, P., Rodoni, G.C. (2013). The reliability of woody indexing for detection of grapevine virus -
associated diseases in three different climatic conditions in Australia. Australian Journal of Grape and  Wine Research , 19: 74 -80. 
11 Osman F, Al Rwahnih M, Rowhani A (2017). Real -time RT -qPCR detection of Cherry rasp leaf virus, Cherry green ring mottle virus, 
Cherry necrotic rust mottle virus, Cherry virus A and Apple chloroti c leaf spot virus in stone fruits. Journal of Plant Pathology. 99:279 –285. 
12 Crop Protection Compendium on Internet  (CPC) 2007 . CAB INTERNATIONAL, Wallingford,  UK; http://www.cabi.org/compendia/CPC/   6 symptom s expressed  in indicator plants may not be specific for identification of the causative 
agent of the disease and further testing ma y be required.  
i) Apple dimple fruit viroid  and Apple scar skin viroid  have been found in co -infections for 
which PCR was required to discr iminate between the two pathogens  (Malus  Import 
Risk Analysis13). 
b) There are primers specific f or detection of Apple dimple fruit viroid , Apple fruit crinkle viroid , 
and Apple scar skin viroid . These primers are known to capture the range of known genetic 
diversity  within each species of viroid , designed around the conserved regions of the viroids 
genomes  to discriminate between different viroids , and can be checked regularly against 
databases to ensure primer s continue to capture known genetic diversity.  
c) Apple scar skin viroid is known to naturally infect Malus  and Prunus . During consultation for 
Prunus  plants for planting IHS  in June 2019, PCR testing was agreed as a requirement to 
manage risk from this pest. Based on the above information, MPI consider  PCR testing will 
appropriately  manage the risk of this pest  on Malus  plants for planting  in the absence of 
woody indexing . 
Proposed testing for phytoplasmas  
(22) There is one phytoplasma species, ‘ Candidatus  Phytoplasma mali’, currently managed on Malus  
plants for planting by woody indexing AND PCR. The proposal is to remove woody indexing as a 
mandatory test and retain the requirement for PCR to manage the risk of ‘ Candidatus  
Phytoplasma mali’ . This  is justified for the following reasons:  
a) Universal PCR primers can detect all known species of phytoplasmas and are known to be 
highly sensitive.  
i) These primers have been designed around highly conserved regions of phytoplasma 
genomes  and they can be  regularly checked against the sequences of all isolates in 
the public sequence database, to ensure ongoing effective detection of any 
phytoplasma that may be present in imported plants.  
ii) Detection of ‘ Candidatus  Phytoplasma mali’  using  PCR as a standalone test  is 
consistent with the requirement recently consulted on in the IHS for Prunus  plants for 
planting  and also the requirement for detection of phytoplasmas in the Nursery Stock 
IHS (e.g. for  Fragaria , Rosa , Rubus , and Vaccinium  where biological  indexing is not 
needed ). 
Proposed measures for diseases of unknown aetiology (DouA)  
(23) There are four DouA (Apple dead spur agent, Apple rough skin agent, Apple russet wart agent, 
and Apple star crack agent) currently managed on Malus  plants for planting by woody indexing 
AND growing season inspection. While these agents can exhibit symptoms on leaves, the most 
visible symptoms occur on fruit which was the basis for recommending woody indexing of 
susceptible indicator plants ( Malus  Import Risk Analysis , 201214). 
(24) Remov ing woody indexing  as a mandatory tes t to detect DouA may be  justified based on the 
following characteristics : 
a) There is uncertainty around how effective woody indexing is to detect DouA, because:  
 
13 Import Risk Analysis: Viruses, Viroids, Phytoplasma, Ba cteria and Diseases of Unknown Aetiology on Malus  Nursery Stock from all 
Countries, 2012, https://www.teururakau.govt.nz/dmsdocument/2873/direct  
14 Import Risk Analysis: Viruses, Viroids, Phytoplasma, Bacteria and Diseases of Unknown Aetiology on Malus  Nursery Stock from all 
Countries, 2012, https://www.teururakau.govt.nz/dmsdocume nt/2873/direct   
7 i) there is no information on the reliability of graft inoculation of the DouA infected plants 
onto susceptible indicator plants; and  
ii) Even if disease symptoms are observed on woody indicators, if the organism causing 
the disease symptoms is unknown (which is the case for all diseases of unknown 
aetiology), there is no practical way to confirm exactly w hich disease of unknown 
aetiology is present or to validate the result with a different type of test. This may make 
it difficult to make regulatory decisions, especially if there are no signs of adverse 
effects on the originally imported plants (as opposed  to the indicator species);  
b) DouA symptoms are more likely to be displayed on susceptible cultivars, which is where the 
diseases would have the most impact. Consequently , the spread of the diseases is likely to 
be easily managed through the removal of any contaminated , symptomatic  lines, and any 
impacts are only likely to affect the Malus industry .   
(25) Taking into consideration the above characteristics , and learning from the  review of the import 
health standard for  Prunus  plants for  planting, MPI propose s to manage the risk from DouA in  
Malus  plants for planting  through one of two options , as described below. MPI asks all submitters 
to clearly identify in their submission which option they prefer , and why this is their preferred 
option; this will  help us come to an informed decision about  which measure to include in the 
amended import health standard.  
Option 1 : Growing season inspection in post entry quarantine  
a) Under this option, MPI will remove the requirement for woody indexing, and instead rely on 
growing season inspection  in post entry quarantine to manage risk from these pests.  
i) Given the restricted host range and the limited potential for these diseases to spread 
other than by mechanical or gra ft transmission (based on current information), which 
means that the risk assoc iated with DouA is lower than for other regulated pests , MPI 
is proposing to apply fewer interventions than in the existing standard to manage risk 
from DouA;  
ii) It is known that many cultivars may not display symptoms, and that for some of the 
above pests  (Apple rough skin agent , Apple russet wart agent  and Apple star crack 
agent ) symptoms  seem more likely to become visible on fruit. As such,  applying 
growing season inspection in PEQ as the sole risk management tool may not manage 
all risk associated with the introduction of these diseases , especially given that plants 
will not bear fruit whilst in post entry quarantine ; 
iii) It is noted that t here is significant uncertainty around the biology, distribution and 
epidemiology of Apple dead spur agent , Apple r ough skin agent , Apple russet wart 
agent , and Apple star crack agent . Despite this uncertainty , growing season inspection 
alone is considered sufficient to manage the risk from these four DouA , given the 
characteristics of these pests (as described in detail in the import risk analysis ); 
iv) If symptoms  are seen when plants are held in post entry quarantine, MPI will attempt 
to identify the causal agent of any symptoms and will decide on whether any  
phytosanitary actions need to be taken depending on the regulatory status of the 
identified pest(s) . This is the approach already taken for 15 other DouA that are listed 
as regulated pests in the Malus schedule ; 
v) Under this option, all DouA will continue t o be classified as regulated pests . This 
means that , if any of these diseases  were detected in the wider environment, industry 
and MPI would need to decide  whether it was necessary to initiate a biosecurity 
response to manage risks associated with the dete ction . It is possible that this could 
lead to controls being imposed  (for example restrictions on the movement of plant 
material from infected sites), both while  a decision was being made , and if any  8 subsequent pest control activities were undertaken.  Given the nature of the diseases 
under discussion here, it is considered unlikely that there would be any market access 
implications  if the se diseases were introduced to New Zealand  (given th e low impact 
of the diseases, and because exporting fruit out of New Zealand would not be a viable 
method of introducing the pest to new countries) .  
NOTE:  Similar  princip les to those supporting the changes to manage the DouA on the 
Prunus  plants for plant ing also apply on the Malus  import pathway. During the 
public consultation for the Prunus  plants for planting IHS review, industry 
supported the removal of woody indexing and relying on growing season 
inspection to manage the risk of D ouA. 
Option 2 : Risk m anagement by industry  
a) Under this option, MPI would de -regulat e all diseases of unknown aetiology  of Malus ; they 
would no longer be listed in the import health standard and  would be recorded as non -
regulated in MPI’s pest and disease databases . As well as removing the four DouA under 
discussion here , the additional 15 DouA that are  regulated pests of Malus would also be de -
regulated  under this option15. 
i) In this case if the d iseases were detected in post entry quarantine , or in the wider 
environment, industry would need to choose for themselves whether to manage th e 
risk from these pests . MPI would not require any disease control to be undertaken, 
and official controls would n ot be an option.  Because the diseases would be non -
regulated, there would be no obligation on individual growers to report the presence of 
these pests  to authorities if they were detected ; 
ii) It is noted that, because they are currently not known to be present in New Zealand, 
all DouA of Malus would be considered new organism s from the perspective of the 
Hazardous Substances and New Organism (HSNO) Act. However, this would not be 
expected to pr event plants from receiving a biosecurity clearance if a DouA was 
detected in post entry quarantine . This is because, in such cases, these types of pest 
can be deemed an “incidentally imported new organism” as defined in section  2(1) of 
the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 ; 
iii) Because there is still considerable uncertainty around the biology and aetiology of  
these diseases, including  uncertainty regarding modes of transmission ( i.e. given that 
the causal agent and/or a vector has not been identified), it is possible that a disease 
could spread more widely than expected before it was detected. This could limit the 
effectiveness of post -border management by industry;  
iv) The reason this approach could be considered for DouA of Malus  is because spread 
of diseases that are only graft transmissible is likely to be able to be easily managed 
through the removal of any contaminated , symptomatic  lines, and because any 
impacts are only likely to be on the Malus  industry. It is also noted tha t, for this type of 
disease, any infected material imported for research and development (e.g. breeding 
programmes) is less likely to result in significant impacts, as disease impacts would be 
resolved before any material is made available for commercial d istribution.  
Proposed r equirements for post entry quarantine  
(26) The import risk analysis in 2012  led to the length of quarantine period being increased from 24 
months to 36 months , solely because of including the requirement for woody indexing  for some 
 
15 Note that information about the remaining 15 diseases of unknown aetiology of Malus is available in the 2012 import risk analysis. This 
includes information about the length of time required to detect these pests based on growing season in spections,   
9 pests of Malus . Prior to this change , 24 months quarantine  with regular plant health inspections in 
PEQ  in New Zealand, was seen as sufficient to manage risk. 
a) Based on this information MPI is proposing reverting to the shorter , 24-month , quarantine 
period  for imports from non MPI -approved sources; also proposing that imports from MPI -
approved sources will combine risk management  offshore and onshore to achieve a similar 
level of protection. These option s will retain the same level of protection as was previously 
established for all pests other than those under consideration in this document.  
b) MPI does not consider it prudent to reduc e the quarantine period below the previously 
established 24 -month length  in the absence of further risk analysis . In particular this is 
because, under the current standard, growing season inspection is the only measure used to 
manage risk from regulated fungi and oomycetes of Malus plants  in post entry quarantine . It 
is also an important supplementary measure to help manage risk from other classes of 
regulated pest . Without additional risk analysis, i t is not possible to assess whether risk from 
fungi and oomycetes  would be appropriately managed if the quarantine period was further 
reduced .  
(27) It is important to keep in mind that MPI has not considered making any changes to the level of 
protection required for pests such as bacteria, fungi and oomycetes as part of thi s review. The 
level of protection for these pests remains the same as established in previous reviews of Malus 
import requirements. This level of protection differs to that recently established for some other 
pathways (e.g. when MPI reviewed import require ments for Actinidia and Prunus plants for 
planting). Although beyond the scope of this partial review, we do not rule out making such 
changes in the future, for example if we undertake a comprehensive review of the entire Malus 
import health standard.  
Requ irements for plants from MPI -approved o ffshore facilities  
(28) Malus  plants for planting can be obtained from MPI-approved  offshore  facilities  under  Part 3 .1 of 
the Malus  schedule. All currently approved offshore facilities, as listed below,  have been able to 
complete woody indexing as a pre -export measure : 
a) Central A ttivita Vivaistiche (CAV), Italy ; 
b) Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) , Centre for Plant Health, Canada ; 
c) Centre  Technique  Interprofessionnel  des Fruits  et Legumes  (CTIFL),  Franc e; 
(29) Under  the existing  Malus  schedule , plants are held  in each  offshore facility for a minimum of three 
years prior to export (for woody indexing to be completed ). During this time, mother plants (from 
which cuttings would be taken for export to New Zealand) will be maintained in a screenhouse  
and tested for  some  viruses and virus -like pests.  There will be no specific offshore measures to 
manage the risk from bacteria, fungi and oomycetes . However,  the following generic measures 
that are applied at ea ch offshore facility  help to reduce the level of risk from these classes of pest:  
i) Plant health is monitored , with inspections  over the three -year period while woody 
indexing is being completed . This means that visible symptoms of any pests and 
diseases  that are present in plants introduced to the facility may be detected before 
plant  material i s exported to New Zealand, and p reventative or curative pesticide 
treatments (e.g. insecticide or fung icide) may be applied to help maintain plants in a 
healthy state. However,  the drawback to this is that  fungicide treatments may not 
eradicate a pest , and may result in infections being supressed, and hence going 
undetected prior to export ; 
ii) Plants will be grown in sterilised or inert medium and out of contact with the ground . 
Watering will generally be done using drip irrigation . This will reduce the likelihood of 
association with some (but not all) fungi, bacteria and oomycetes ;  10 iii) All faciliti es have a commercial incentive to produce high health material. This is 
because their primary purpose is to supply their country’s domestic industry with high 
quality plants for commercial fruit production . 
Based on the above  activities, under the existing Malus schedule,  plants obtained from approved 
facilities must spend a further six months  of active continuous growth  in a Level 2 PEQ facility in 
New Zealand  before they become eligible for biosecurity clearance . During this time, testing that 
is not done prior to export is completed, and plants are subject to frequent growing season 
inspections by the PEQ facility operator and an MPI inspector.  
(30) The proposal to remove woody indexing means Malus  plants for planting will be able  to spend less 
time in an MPI-approved offshore facilit y prior to export to New Zealand . So, we are proposing 
two options to manage the risk from importing from MPI -approved offshore facilities, with specific 
minimum periods that plants must have been in t he facilities before they are eligible for import to 
New Zealand. This is because, without  woody indexing, a facility may be able to complete all pre -
export testing required by MPI within six or seven month s. If plants are exported after  spending 
only around six months at an offshore facility, there will be less certainty that those plants are free 
from regulated pests for which no specific phytosanitary measures are applied , e.g. fungi . This 
will change the risk profile of plants exporte d to New Zealand ; residual biosecurity risk is likely to 
be higher in the absence of woody indexing.  
(31) Taking the above into consideration, i f the requirement for woody indexing is removed from the 
Malus schedule , MPI is proposing  including two options of PE Q for importing Malus plants for 
planting from MPI -approved offshore facilities . Both options are considered to attain the same 
level of protection as is achieved under the existing requirements  for Malus plants for planting 
obtained from an MPI-approved offshore facility.  
a) Option 1:  Malus  plants to be held for a minimum period of two growing seasons at an 
offshore facility , follow ed by a minimum of six months active continuous  growth  in Level 2 
PEQ in New Zealand.  
i) During the two growing seasons at an offshore  facility  plants will be tested  for some , but 
not all,  viruses and virus -like pests  (the exact testing done will differ between facilities) . 
They will also be  subjected to the generic risk management measures described in 
paragraph (29). Plants will be activ ely grow ing for one growth cycle  in each  growing 
season  at the offshore facility , and will undergo a period of winter dormancy  in between 
growing seasons . Under this option, dormant cuttings are expected to be available for 
export to New Zealand at the end of the second season in the offshore facility. Based on 
this, t he risk associated with these plant s will be  lower than that of plants from non -
approved sources . However, risk may be higher  than for plants exported from MPI -
approved offshore facilities under the current IHS , where plants are held for a minimum of 
three years at each offshore facility  prior to export ; 
ii) MPI’s judgement is that, if plants are held in an offshore facility for two growing seasons , 
and then for a further 6 months active  continuous  growth  in a Level 2 PEQ facility , this 
will achieve a similar level of protection to that intended to be achieved before the 
requirement for woody indexing was added to the Malus schedule in 2012 . It is also 
expected to provide a similar level of protection as is achieved when importing plants 
from non -approved sources into a Level 3B facili ty for a period of 24 months (as 
described below) .  
It is noted  that, even before the Malus schedule  was updated in 2012  to make the 
requirement for woody indexing mandatory , each offshore facilit y approved to export 
Malus plants to New Zealand was required to complete  woody indexing  prior to export.  
Depending on the facility , the agreement with MPI specified that plants had to be held at 
the offshore facility for a minimum of either two, or three, growing seasons  prior to export .  
11 iii) Main considerations  when proposing the above requirements  are that plants are likely to 
be free from most viruses and virus -like pests ( because  there will be some offshore risk 
management of these pests prior to export) . However,  there is a higher likelihood of 
bacteria, fun gi and oomycetes being present  than under the existing standard. This is 
because  plants will have been held in containment for less time than under the current 
Malus  schedule , and no specific risk management activities are applied for these 
bacteria, fungi  and oomycetes . Because of this, it is considered prudent to clearly specify 
the duration for which plants must be held and inspected in the offshore facility before 
they can be exported to New Zealand, in order to maximise the likelihood of detecting 
symp toms of these types of pest.  
As noted elsewhere, another key consideration here is the need to maintain the same 
level of protection for bacteria, fungi and oomycetes as has previously been established 
under the current Malus schedule, given that risk man agement measures for these pests 
should not be reconsidered without a risk analysis of those classes of pest.  
b) Option 2:  Malus  plants at each offs hore facility to be held for a minimum period  of one 
growing season  for screening and testing, followed by a minimum period of 12 months  growth 
in Level 3A PEQ in New Zealand.  This 12 month period must include at least on e period of 
continuous active growth for a minimum of six months.  
i) Durin g the single growing season offshore, the same testing and generic risk 
management activities described in paragraph (29) will be undertaken.  Once plants 
enter dormancy, and after all testing  agreed on between MPI and the relevant offshore 
facility has been completed, plants will become eligible for export to New  Zealand  
without any further testing or inspection . Under this option,  dormant plant  material is 
expected to  become available for export to New Zealand at the completion of the first 
growing season in the offshore facility.  
ii) Because plants will spend less t ime in an offshore facility, residual biosecurity risk will 
be higher than under the existing Malus schedule, and also higher than under Option 1 
described above  (because there will have been a much shorter period  of time during 
which plants are inspected for disease symptoms, and less time for infected plants to 
display symptoms of disease) . As such, r egulated pests that may not be able to be 
contained within a L evel 2 PEQ facility (for example including spore - or water -borne 
pests) are considered more likely to be present under this option. However, r isk 
associated with these plants  will be less than when plants are imported from a non -
approved source. Taking  this into account, it is proposed that under this option plants 
should be imported into a Level 3A PEQ facility (as it has greater capacity to contain 
spore and water borne pests) and held for a minimum of 12 months  (including a six 
month period of active continuous growth ) before they can be considered for 
biosecurity clearance. This will enable risk from pests with no sp ecific risk management 
prior to export to be managed by growing season inspection, and is expected to 
provide a suitable level of physical and operation al containment to minimise the 
likelihood of  these types of pest escap ing from the facility  if they are present .  
iii) Although risk will be less th an when plants are imported from a non -approved source, it 
is recognised that sporulating organisms such as fungi (which may not be contained 
within a Level 3A greenhouse based solely on the physical requirements for this level 
of facility) could still be present. As such, the following operational measures are 
proposed to help manage this risk in Level 3A PEQ:  
• Contingency plans must be developed to help contain any spore borne 
disease organisms within the facility if disease symptoms are observed; and   12 • Overhead irrigation will be prohibited, to minimise the chance of fungal spore 
dispersal and escape from the facility ; 
• These measures are the same as those determined  for other commodities 
imported  into Level 3A PEQ (including Prunus and Vaccinium ). 
In contrast, risk from any waterborne pests will be managed by the physical 
containment requirements of a Level 3A facility, given that all wastewater  must be 
treated before discharge fr om the facility.  
iv) The proposal to include an option to hold plants in a  Level 3A facility is not seen as 
increasing the level of protection required for Malus  plants for planting from MPI -
approved offshore facilities  (as noted elsewhere, any reassessment of the level of 
protection is beyond the scope of this project) . Instead  it is seen as providing an 
alternative import pathway that will achieve a similar level of protection  to option one . 
This option may be beneficial to importers because plants  will be able to be import ed 
into New Zealand sooner than under option 1, and h eld for a longer period in PEQ  in 
New Zealand . This would give importers more opportunity to multiply plant material 
during the quarantine period, before plants receive a biosecurity clearance . This may 
be beneficial in that it could  allow importers to release more material at the completion 
of post entry quarantine , and hence allow more rapid multiplication of new varieties . 
Importing plants into a Level 3A facility will also allow importers to more reliably control 
environmental cond itions , which may help to optimise plant growth, and therefore 
minimise the total amount of time plants spend in PEQ.   
(32) Both of the  above options are expected to  provide a level of protection  similar to that achieved 
under  the Malus  schedule before the requirement of woody indexing bec ame compulsory  in 2012 , 
and similar  to that for plants from non -approved sources (as described below) . 
(33) The proposed approach for offshore risk management is also consistent with the key principal of 
ensuring that, when plan ts are obtained from an MPI -approved offshore facility, risk is managed 
to the same level as when the entire quarantine process is undertaken in New Zealand (i.e. the 
combination of offshore and onshore risk management for plants from MPI -approved offshore  
facilities will achieve the same biosecurity outcome as when risk is managed onshore, in Level 3B 
post entry quarantine, with all testing and growing season inspections done in New Zealand).   
Existing requirement for continuous active growth  
(34) It is noted that during a pre-consultation meeting with industry  members on 10 September 2020 , 
stakeholders  commented on  the existing requirement for Malus plants from MPI -approved 
offshore facilities to undergo six months of “active continuous  growth” in Level 2 PEQ.   
(35) MPI’s understanding is that the requirement for continuous active growth is stipulated as a 
requirement in this schedule so that, when plants are obtained from an MPI -approved offshore 
facility, the period of observation and growing season inspection  in New Zealand can encompass 
an entire season  of growth (i.e. growth during spring, summer and late -summer/autumn ). This is 
considered necessary in order to maximise the chances of detecting pest symptoms that may be 
most evident late in the growing seaso n. As such, we do not consider it appropriate to remove 
this requirement with out undertaking additional analysis work.  
a) In the absence of this requirement, it is likely that plants would become eligible for clearance 
without  late-summer/autumn growth being observed  in New Zealand . This is because 
imported plants are expected to only grow for around 2 months in their first season in post 
entry quarantine in New Zealand before entering dormancy. In the absence of th e 
requirement for continuous active growth, w hen growth resumes in the second growing 
season, plants could then be considered for release after 4 months growth in the second 
growing season, and before late -summer/autumn growth became evident.  That is  
13 consid ered to provide ineffective risk management because pests that induce symptoms late 
in the growing season would not be detectable.  
Requirements for plants from n on-approved sources  
(36) Malus  plants for planting can be obtained from non-approved sources in any country  as per Part 
3.2 of the Malus  schedule in the draft standard.  
(37) For plants from non -approved sources, i t is proposed that the minimum quarantine period is 
reduced from 36 months  growth  in a Level 3B greenhouse to 24 months growth in a Level 3B 
greenho use. This is the minimum amount of time that will be needed to screen plants for 
regulated pests , it is consistent  with the minimum PEQ requirements established in the previous 
version of the Malus  IHS before woody indexing became mandatory in 2012.  A level 3B facility is 
expected to reliably contain any pests that may be associated with imported Malus  plant material.  
(38) Removing the requirement for woody indexing may increase the feasibility of import ing from non -
approved sources by reducing costs . Furthermore, at present , the only Level 3B facility in New 
Zealand (operated by MPI) does not have the capacity to do woody indexing, meaning that import 
from non -approved sources is not feasible under the e xisting Malus schedule . 
Implications of reducing the period of post entry quarantine .  
(39) The 2012 risk analysis concluded that, for regulated phytoplasmas, viroids and viruses listed in the 
Malus schedule, growing season inspection was unlikely to be an effe ctive phytosanitary 
measure . This is because  all of these pests can remain latent or symptomless in Malus . As such, 
the proposed reduction in the length of the quarantine period is not considered to reduce  the 
likelihood of detecting these pests if they are present in imported plant material  as these are 
managed through diagnostic testing (PCR and/or herbaceous indexing ). 
(40) With regards to the likelihood of detecting DouA it is possible that, if these diseases are retained 
as regulated pests, the likel ihood of detection in PEQ will be lower. However, taking into account 
the risk profile of all 19 DouA listed in the Malus schedule, and the uncertainty around whether 
growing season inspection is an effective measure for all of these pests (as outlined in the 2012 
risk analysis) , a period of 24 months in quarantine is considered more commensurate with the 
risk than the previously established period of 36 months.     
(41) As discussed elsewhere, implications of reducing the quarantine period have not been conside red 
for bacteria, fungi and oomycetes; this is because the level of protection for these remains the 
same as that established under the previous version of the Malus schedule.  
(42) Any consignments currently held in post entry quarantine will need to comply wi th the 
requirements of the import health standard at the time a biosecurity clearance is issued. This 
means that any consignments currently held in post entry quarantine that become due for 
clearance prior to the standard being amended will need to meet ex isting requirements for woody 
indexing. If a consignment currently in post entry quarantine is cleared after the standard is 
amended, the requirements of the new version of the standard will apply.  
   14 Appendix 1  
Proposed c hanges in RED  
Malus  
Note:   The entry conditions in this schedule only apply to species in the Plants Biosecurity 
Index listed under Import Specifications for Nursery Stock as “see 155.02.06 under 
Malus ”, and are additional to those specified in sections 1, 2 and 3 of the import heal th 
standard.  
 
1. Type of Malus nursery stock approved for entry into New Zealand  
Cuttings (dormant); plants in tissue culture  
 
Malus  can be imported into Level 2 post entry quarantine from MPI -approved  facilities, or 
into Level 3 B post entry quarantine from n on-approved  facilities.  
 
2. Pests of Malus  
Refer to the pest list.  
 
3. Entry conditions for:  
 
3.1 Malus cuttings  and tissue culture from offshore M PI-approved  facilities in any 
country  
An offshore approved  facility is a facility t hat has been approved  to the Standard 
PIT.OS.TRA.ACPQF to undertake phytosanitary activities.  For Malus , the approved  facility 
operator must also have an agreement with M PI on the phytosanitary measures to be 
undertaken for Malus . Refer to the “Inspection, Testing and Treatmen t Requirements for  
Malus ”. 
 
(i)  Documentation  
Phytosanitary certificate: a completed phytosanitary certificate issued by the NPPO of the  
exporting country must accompany all Malus nursery stock exported to New  Zealand.  
Import permit: an import permit is required.  
 
(ii)  Phytosanitary requirements  
Before  a phytosanitary certificate  is issued, the NPPO of the exporting country must be 
satisfied that the following activities required by MPI have been undertaken.  
 
The Malus cuttings / plants in tissue culture [choose ONE option] have been:  
- inspected in accordance with appropriate offi cial procedures and found to be free of any 
visually detectable regulated pests.  
AND  
- treated for regulated insects and mites as described in  section 2.2.1. 6 of the basic 
conditions  within 7 days prior to shipment [ cuttings only].  
AND  
- held and tested for/cl assified free from specified regulated pests as required in the 
agreement between M PI and the [name of the MPI-approved  facility] . 
AND  
- held in a manner to ensure that infestation/reinfestation does not occur follow ing 
inspection and testing  at the approved  facility , and certification.  
  
15 (iii)  Additional declarations to the phytosanitary certificate  
If satisfied that the pre -shipment activities have been undertaken, the exporting country NPPO 
must confirm this by recording the treatments applied in the “Disinfestation and/or 
Disinfection Treatment” section  [cuttings only]  and by providing the following additional 
declarations to the phytosanitary certificate:  
 
"The  Malus cuttings / plants in tissue culture [choose ONE option] have  been:  
- held and tested for/classified free from specified regulated pests as required in the 
agreement between M PI and the [name of the MPI-approved  facility] . 
AND  
- held in a manner to ensure infestation/reinfestation does not occur following inspection 
and testing at the approved  facility, and certification."  
 
(iv)  Post-entry quarantine  
PEQ : All Malus nursery stock must be imported under permit into post -entry quara ntine in a 
Level 2 or Level 3A greenhouse facility a pproved  to the  Facility Standard: Post Entry 
Quarantine for Plants ( PEQ.STD ). 
 
Quarantine Period and Inspection, Testing and Treatment Requirements : The nursery 
stock will be grown:  
(i) for a minimum period of six months (active continuous growth) in a Level 2 post -entry 
quarantine greenhouse, following a minimum period of two growing seasons  in an offshore 
MPI-approved  facility . Plants  will be inspected, treated and/or audit -tested f or regulated pests, 
at the expense of the importer.  
 
OR 
(ii) for a minimum period of 12 months ( including at least one period of six months active 
continuous  growth) in a Level 3A post -entry quarantine greenhouse, following a minimum 
period of one growing season  in an offshore MPI -approved  facility . Plants will be inspected, 
treated and/or audit -tested for regulated pests, at the expense of the importer.  
 
• Requirements at the level 3A quarantine facility:  
- Plants must be irrigated using a method which preve nts water coming into 
contact with plant foliage (such as drip irrigation). Overhead irrigation must 
not be used.  
- Contingency plans must be developed to identify actions that will be taken to 
contain the propagules of any fungal or oomycete disease organis ms in the 
event of disease symptoms becoming evident during the quarantine period. 
These plans must be recorded in the facility operating manual.  
 
For tissue cultures, the post -entry quarantine period begins when tissue cultures are deflasked 
into the PEQ greenhouse. The total quarantine period in New Zealand is an indicative 
minimum quarantine period and this period may be extended if material is slow growing, 
pests are detected, or treatments/testing are required.   16  
 
3.2 Malus  cuttings  and tissue culture from non-approved  facilities in any country  
 
(i)  Documentation  
Phytosanitary certificate: a completed phytosanitary certificate issued by the NPPO of the  
exporting country must accompany all Malus nursery stock exported to New  Zealand.  
Import permit: an import permit is required.  
 
(ii)  Phytosanitary requirements  
Before a phytosanitary certificate  is issued, the NPPO of the exporting country must be 
satisfi ed that the following activities required by MPI have been undertaken.  
 
The Malus cuttings / plants in tissue culture [choose ONE option] have  been : 
- inspected in accordance with appropriate official procedures and found to be free of any 
visually detectab le regulated pests.  
AND  
- treated for regulated insects and mites as described in section 2.2.1.6 of the basic 
conditions within 7 days prior to shipment  [cuttings only].  
AND  
- held in a manner to ensure that infestation/reinfestation does not occur following 
certification.  
(iii)  Additional declarations to the phytosanitary certificate  
If satisfied that the pre -shipment activities have been undertaken, the exporting country NPPO 
must confirm this by recording the treatments applied in the “Disinfesta tion and/or 
Disinfection Treatment” section  [cuttings only] . No additional declarations are required.  
 
(iv)  Post-entry quarantine  
PEQ : All Malus nursery stock must be imported under permit into post -entry quarantine in a 
Level 3B greenhouse facility a pproved  to the Facility Standard: Post Entry Quarantine for 
Plants ( PEQ.STD ).   
 
Quarantine Period and Inspection, T esting and Treatment  Requirements : The nursery 
stock will be grown for a minimum period of 24 months  in a post-entry quarantine  
greenhouse . For tissue cultures, the quarantine period begins  when tissue cultures are 
deflasked into the PEQ greenhouse. During this time, imported material  will be inspected, 
treated and/or tested for regulated pests as specified in the “Inspection, Testin g and Treatment 
Requirements for Malu s”, at the expense of the importer. These times are  indicative minimum 
quarantine period s and may be extended if material  is slow growing, pests are detected, or 
treatments/testing are required.  
 Guidance  
The import permit will identify the length of the quarantine period and level of post -entry quarantine for plants 
imported from an offshore MPI -approved facility. This will depend on how long plants are held at the offshore 
facility before they are exported to New Zealand, as fo llows:  
- If plants are held at the offshore facility for a minimum of two growing seasons  prior to export, 
the minimum quarantine requirements  will be six months active continuous growth in a Level 2 
post-entry quarantine facility.  
- If plants are held at the  offshore facility for a minimum of one growing season  prior to export, the 
minimum quarantine requirements  will be 1 2 months (including at least one period of six  months 
active continuous growth ) in a Level 3A post -entry quarantine facility.    
17 Pest List for Malus  
 
For organisms intercepted that are not listed within this pest list refer to the Biosecurity 
Organisms Register for Imported Commodities  to determine regulatory status.  
 
REGULATED PESTS (actionable)  
 
Insect      
Insecta    
 Coleoptera   
  Attelabidae   
   Rhynchites caeruleus  apple twig cutter  
  Bostrichidae   
   Amphicerus bicaudatus  apple twig borer  
   Apate monachus  black borer  
  Buprestidae   
   Agrilus mali  apple wood borer  
   Agrilus  spp. bark borers  
   Chrysobothris femorata  flatheaded apple tree borer  
   Chrysobothris mali  Pacific flatheaded borer  
   Chrysobothris  spp. flat-headed borers  
   Sphenoptera lafertei  flatheaded peach tree borer  
  Cerambycidae   
   Aeolesthes sarta  Quetta borer  
   Apriona germarii  mulberry longicorn beetle  
   Apriona japonica  mulberry borer  
   Bacchisa fortunei  pear borer  
   Batocera rufomaculata  red-spotted longhorn beetle  
   Phryneta spinator   
  Curculionidae   
   Anthonomus piri  apple bud weevil  
   Eremnus atratus  black weevil  
   Eremnus cerealis  western province grain worm  
   Eremnus setulosus  grey weevil  
  Scolytidae   
   Hypothenemus obscurus  apple twig borer  
   Scolytus japonicus  Japanese bark beetle  
   Scolytus rugulosus  fruit bark borer  
 Diptera   
  Cecidomyiidae   
   Resseliella oculiperda  red bud borer  
   Thomasiniana oculiperda  red bud borer  
 Hormptera   
  Aphididae   
   Aphis spiraecola  spiraea aphid  
  Diaspididae   
   Chrysomphalus aonidum  Florida red scale  
   Chrysomphalus dictyospermi  Spanish red scale  
   Diaspidiotus africanus  grey scale  
 Lepidoptera   
  Cossidae   
   Coryphodema tristis  quince trunk borer  
  Gelechiidae   
   Recurvaria syrictis  bud moth  
  Gracillariidae   
   Marmara elotella  apple barkminer  
   Marmara pomonella  apple fruitminer  
  Oecophoridae   
   Cryptophasa melanostigma  fruit tree borer  
  Pyralidae   
   Euzophera semifuneralis  American plum borer   18    Ostrinia nubilalis  European corn borer  
  Sesiidae   
   Thamnosphecia pyri  apple bark borer  
   Synanthedon scitula  pecan tree borer  
Mite        
Arachnida   
 Acarina   
  Eriophyidae   
   Aculops malus  eriophyid mite  
   Eriophyes mali  Willamette spider mite  
   Phyllocoptes mali  eriophyid mite  
   Cenopalpus chitraliensis  bryobia mite  
   Cenopalpus haqii  banana mite  
   Cenopalpus orakiensis  Bailey's apple rust mite  
   Cenopalpus pulcher  flat scarlet mite  
  Tenuipalpidae   
   Brevipalpus lilium  false spider mite  
   Brevipalpus obovatus  privet mite  
   Tenuipalpus taonicus  Pacific mite  
   Rhinotergum schestovici  mite 
  Tetranychidae   
   Eotetranychus carpini  false spider mite  
   Eotetranychus uncatus  Lewis spider mite  
   Eotetranychus willamettei  hazel mite  
   Oligonychus gossypii  tetranychid mite  
   Oligonychus newcomeri  spider mite  
   Oligonychus yothersi  avocado red mite  
   Tetranychus canadensis  four spotted spider mite  
   Tetranychus kanzawai  Kanzawa spider mite  
   Tetranychus mcdanieli  McDaniel spider mite  
   Tetranychus schoenei  Schoenei spider mite  
   Amphitetranychus viennensis  hawthorn spider mite  
  Tydeidae   
   Tydeus  spp. tydeid mites  
Fungus      
Ascomycota: Ascomycetes   
 Diaporthales   
  Valsaceae   
   Diaporthe tanakae (anamorph Phomopsis tanakae)  pear canker  
   Leucostoma auerswaldii  leucostoma canker  
 Diatrypales   
  Diatrypaceae   
   Eutypella sorbi  stem disease  
 Dothideales   
  Mycosphaerellaceae   
   Mycosphaerella pyri (anamorph Septoria pyricola)  leaf fleck of pear  
   Mycosphaerella tulasnei  rot 
  Schizothyriaceae   
   Schizothyrium perexiguum  greasy blotch  
 Erysiphales   
  Erysiphaceae   
   Pleochaeta mali  powdery mildew  
 Heotiales   
  Dermateaceae   
   Diplocarpon mali  black spot  
   Pezicula perennans  perennial canker  
  Sclerotiniaceae   
   Grovesinia pyramidalis (anamorph Cristulariella moricola)  target spot  
   Monilinia laxa  f. sp. mali brown rot  
   Monilinia mali  monilinia leaf blight  
   Monilinia fructigena (anamorph Monilia fructigena)  European brown rot  
   Sclerotinia  spp. neck rot  
 Rhytismatales    
19   Cryptomycetaceae   
   Potebniamyces pyri (anamorph  Phacidiopycnis piri ) Phacidiopycnis rot  
 Sordariales   
  Chaetomiaceae   
   Chaetomium  spp. fruit rot  
 Taphrinales   
  Taphrinaceae   
   Taphrina bullata  leaf blister  
 Xylariales   
  Xylariaceae   
   Biscogniauxia marginata  nailhead canker  
   Daldinia vernicosa  wood rot  
   Xylaria mali  black root rot  
Ascomycota: Saccharomycetes   
 Saccharomycetales   
  Endomycetaceae   
   Endomycopsis mali  rot 
Basidiomycota: Basidiomycetes   
 Agaricales   
  Coprinaceae   
   Coprinus psychromorbidus  coprinus rot  
  Tricholomataceae   
   Armillaria mellea  armillaria root rot  
   Armillaria ostoyae  armillaria root rot  
   Armillaria tabescens  armillaria root rot  
 Ceratobasidiales   
  Ceratobasidiaceae   
   Ceratobasidium stevensii  thread blight  
 Ganodermatales   
  Ganodermataceae   
   Ganoderma lucidum  wood rot  
 Hymenochaetales   
  Hymenochaetaceae   
   Phellinus pomaceus  white heart rot  
 Lachnocladiales   
  Lachnocladiaceae   
   Scytinostroma galactinum  white root rot  
 Polyporales   
  Corticiaceae   
   Corticium koleroga  thread blight  
  Cyphellaceae   
   Maireina marginata  wood decay  
  Meripilaceae   
   Phlebia radiata  wood decay  
   Trametes ochracea  wood decay  
 Poriales   
  Coriolaceae   
   Ceriporia spissa  wood rot  
   Coriolopsis gallica  white rot  
   Fomes fomentarius  wood decay  
   Fomitopsis pinicola  brown cubical rot  
   Laetiporus sulphureus (anamorph Sporotrichum versisporum ) brown cubical rot  
   Lenzites betulina  wood decay  
   Oxyporus latemarginatus  wood decay  
   Oxyporus similis  wood decay  
 Stereales   
  Atheliaceae   
   Butlerelfia eustacei  storage rot  
  Sistotremataceae   
   Phymatotrichopsis omnivorum  Texas root rot  
Basidiomycota: Urediniomycetes   
 Uredinales   
  Pucciniaceae    20    Gymnosporangium clavipes  quince rust  
   Gymnosporangium cornutum  rust 
   Gymnosporangium fuscum  European pear rust  
   Gymnosporangium globosum  American hawthorn rust  
   Gymnosporangium hemisphaericum  rust 
   Gymnosporangium libocedri  Pacific Coast pear rust  
   Gymnosporangium nelsonii  Rocky Mountain pear rust  
   Gymnosporangium nidus -avis rust 
   Gymnosporangium nootkatense  yellow cypress rust  
   Gymnosporangium shiraianum  rust 
   Gymnosporangium  spp. cedar apple rust  
   Gymnosporangium tremelloides  common juniper gall rust  
   Gymnosporangium yamadae  Japanese apple rust  
   Gymnosporangium juniperi -virginianae  cedar apple rust  
 Unknown Uredinales   
   Roestelia fenzeliana  rust 
   Roestelia levis  rust 
Basidiomycota: Ustomycetes   
 Platygloeales   
  Platygloeaceae   
   Helicobasidium mompa  violet root rot  
Mitosporic Fungi (Coelomycetes)   
 Sphaeropsidales   
  Sphaerioidaceae   
   Cytospora schulzeri  bark disease  
   Dothiorella mali  fruit rot  
   Phomopsis truncicola  blight  
   Phyllosticta solitaria  apple blotch  
   Phyllosticta spp.  leaf spot  
   Pyrenochaeta mali  fruit rot  
   Sphaeropsis pyriputrescens   Sphaeropsis rot  
Mitosporic Fungi (Hyphomycetes)   
 Hyphomycetales   
  Dematiaceae   
   Alternaria mali  alternaria blotch  
   Alternaria spp.  
   Helminthosporium papulosum  black pox  
   Cladosporium  spp. mouldy core  
   Epicoccum  spp. mouldy core  
   Stemphylium  spp.  
   Ulocladium  spp. cladosporium rot  
  Moniliaceae   
   Aspergillus  spp. coloured moulds  
   Botrytis mali  fruit rot  
   Cephalosporium carpogenum  fruit rot  
   Cephalosporium s pp.  
   Penicillium  spp. rot 
   Ramularia macrospora  bellflower leaf spot  
   Verticillium spp. verticillium wilt  
 Tuberculariales   
  Tuberculariaceae   
   Fusarium  spp.  
 Unknown Hyphomycetes   
  -   
   Oidium spp. powdery mildew  
Oomycota: Oomycete  
 Peronosporales   
  Peronosporaceae   
   Phytophthora capsici  fruit rot of peppers  
   Phytophthora palmivora  black rot  
Bacterium    
Schizomycetes   
 Pseudomonadales    
21   Pseudomonadaceae   
   Pseudomonas syringae  pv. papulans  blister spot  
Virus        
   Cherry rasp leaf virus   
+   Tomato bushy stunt virus   
   Tomato ringspot virus   
Viroid        
   Apple dimple fruit viroid   
   Apple fruit crinkle viroid   
   Apple scar skin viroid   
Phytoplasma    
   ‘Candidatus  Phytoplasma asteris’  Apple sessile leaf phytoplasma  
   ‘Candidatus Phytoplasma mali’  Apple proliferation phytoplasma  
Disease of unknown etiology  (may be removed from this table depending on the outcome of this consultation)  
   Apple blister bark agent   
   Apple brown ringspot agent   
   Apple bumpy fruit agent   
   Apple bunchy top agent   
   Apple dead spur agent   
   Apple decline   
   Apple freckle scurf agent   
   Apple green dimple and ring blotch agent   
   Apple junction necrotic pitting agent   
   Apple McIntosh depression agent   
   Apple narrow leaf agent   
   Apple Newton wrinkle agent   
   Apple pustule canker agent   
   Apple red ring agent   
   Apple rosette agent   
   Apple rough skin agent   
   Apple russet wart agent   
   Apple star crack agent   
   Apple transmissible internal bark necrosis agent    22 Inspection, Testing and Treatment Requirements for Malus  
 
ORGANISM TYPES  MPI-ACCEPTABLE METHODS  
Insects  
 Visual inspection AND  approved insecticide treatments as 
described in  section 2.2.1.6  of the Basic conditions  [cuttings only]  
Mites  
 Visual inspection AND  approved miticide treatments as described 
in the section  2.2.1.6  of the Basic conditions  [cuttings only] or 
binocular mic roscope inspection in PEQ [plants in tissue culture 
only]  
Fungi  All cuttings must be dipped in 1% sodium hypochlorite for 2 
minutes upon arrival in the post entry quarantine facility.  
Growing season inspection in PEQ for symptom expression  
Oomycete  All cuttings must be dipped in 1% sodium hypochlorite for 2 
minutes upon arrival in the post entry quarantine facility.  
Growing season inspection in PEQ for symptom expression  
Bacteria  
Pseudomonas syringae pv. papulans  All cuttings must be dipped in 1% sodium hypochlorite for 2 
minutes upon arrival in the post entry quarantine facility.  
Growing season inspection for symptom expression AND  PCR  
Viruses  
Cherry rasp leaf virus  Herbaceous indexing ( Chenopodium quinoa  and Chenopodium 
amaranticolor ) AND  PCR  
Tomato bushy stunt virus  Herbaceous indexing  (Chenopodium quinoa  and Chenopodium 
amaranticolor ) 
Tomato ringspot virus  Herbaceous indexing  (Chenopodium quinoa  and Chenopodium 
amaranticolor ) AND  ELISA or PCR  
Viroids 
Apple dimple fruit viroid  PCR  
Apple fruit crinkle viroid  PCR  
Apple scar skin viroid  PCR  
Phytoplasmas  
‘Candidatus Phytoplasma asteris’  
(Apple sessile leaf phytoplasma)  Nested PCR or real time PCR  using universal phytoplasma primers  
‘Candidatus Phytoplasma mali’  
(Apple proliferation phytoplasma)  Nested PCR or real time PCR using universal phytoplasma primers  
Diseases of unknown a etiology  One of the following options, depending on the outcome of this 
consultation  
Apple blister bark agent  Growing season inspection  Deregulation  
Apple brown ringspot agent  Growing season inspection  Deregulation  
Apple bumpy fruit agent  Growing season inspection  Deregulation  
Apple bunchy top agent  Growing season inspection  Deregulation  
Apple dead spur agent  Growing season inspection  Deregulation  
Apple decline  Growing season inspection  Deregulation  
Apple freckle scurf agent  Growing season inspection  Deregulation  
Apple green dimple and ring blotch agent  Growing season inspection  Deregulation  
Apple junction necrotic pitting agent  Growing season inspection  Deregulation  
Apple McIntosh depression agent  Growing season inspection  Deregulation  
Apple narrow leaf agent  Growing season inspection  Deregulation  
Apple Newton wrinkle agent  Growing season inspection  Deregulation  
Apple pustule canker agent  Growing season inspection  Deregulation  
Apple red ring agent  Growing season inspection  Deregulation  
Apple rosette agent  Growing season inspection  Deregulation  
Apple rough skin agent  Growing season inspection  Deregulation  
Apple russet wart agent  Growing season inspection  Deregulation  
Apple star crack agent  Growing season inspection  Deregulation   
23 Apple transmissible internal bark necrosis agent  Growing season inspection  Deregulation  
 
Notes:  
1. Pest free area or Pest free place of production  endorsements for regulated viruses, viroids, 
phytoplasmas, and diseases of unknown etiology must be assessed by MPI prior to permit issue. The 
exporting NPPO must endorse additional declarations on the phytosanitary certificate, to be considered 
equivalen t to testing in post entry quarantine.  
2. The unit for testing  is defined in section 2.3.2.1.  
3. Tissue culture plantlets must be deflasked and grown in a post entry quarantine greenhouse, only 
material from the greenhouse is to be selected for testing.  
4. Growing  season is defined as an extended period of plant growth that includes environmental 
conditions equivalent to spring (longer wetter days and colder temperatures), summer (longer dryer 
days and warm temperatures), and autumn (shorter wetter days and warm bu t cooling temperatures).   
5. Virus testing  is to be conducted on new spring growth.  
6. Phytoplasma and bacteria testing  is to be conducted at the end of the summer growth period.  
7. Herbaceous indicator hosts: Chenopodium quinoa and Chenopodium amaranticolor . Two plants of 
each herbaceous indicator species must be used in each test. Herbaceous indicator plants must be grown 
at 18 -25C before and after inoculation and must be shaded for 24 hrs prior to inoculation. Maintain 
post-inoculated indicator species unde r appropriate glasshouse conditions for at least 4 weeks. Inspect 
inoculated indicator plants at least twice per week for symptoms of virus infection.   
8. Testing protocols for tests completed in New Zealand are described in the Malus  (Apple) Post -Entry 
Quara ntine Testing Manual, which can be viewed on the website:  
http://www.mpi.govt.nz/protection -and-response/laboratories/plant -health -and-environment -
laboratory/publications/  
9. Inspection of the Malus  plants  by the operator of the PEQ facility for signs of pest  and disease must be 
at least twice per week for the first three months of active growth, and during spring and autumn. All 
other times of active growth (summer), plants should be inspected once per week. A record of 
inspections carried out by the Operator  is to be kept and made available to the MPI Inspector on request.  
10. Other internationally recognised  testing methods  may be accepted by MPI with prior notification.