Risk Management Proposal:  
Fresh Citrus  spp. from the Arab Republic of 
Egypt for Human Consumption  
 
 
 
22 February  2018   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Fresh Produce Imports  
Plants, Food and Environment  
Ministry for Primary Industries  
Pastoral House  
3 The Terrace  
PO Box 2526  
Wellington 6140  
New Zealand  
Tel: 0800 008 333   
Email: plantimports@mpi.govt.nz  
  
 Risk Management Proposal: Fresh Citrus  spp. from Egypt for Human Consumption   Page 3 of 22 Disclaimer  
This document does not constitute, and should not be regarded as, legal advice. While every effort has been 
made to ensure the information in this document is accurate, the Ministry for Primary Industries does not accept 
any responsibility or liability whatsoever for any error of fact, omission, interpretation or opinion that may be 
present, however it may have occurred.  
Requests for further copies should be dir ected to:  
 
Plant Imports  
Plants, Food and Environment  
Ministry for Primary Industries  
PO Box 2526  
Wellington 6140  
New Zealand  
 
Email: plantimports@mpi.govt.nz  
 
© Crown Copyright – Ministry for Primary Industr ies. 
 
   
 Risk Management Proposal: Fresh Citrus  spp. from Egypt for Human Consumption   Page 4 of 22 Submissions  
The Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) invites comment from interested parties on the proposed new import 
health standard (IHS) for Fresh Citrus  spp. from the Arab Republic of Egypt (Egypt)  for Human Consumption  
which is support ed by this Risk Management Proposal (RMP).  
The meaning of an IHS is defined in section 22(1) of the Biosecurity Act 1993 as “An import health standard 
specifies requirements to be met for the effective management of risks associated with importing risk go ods, 
including risks arising because importing the goods involves or might involve an incidentally imported new 
organism”.  
MPI therefore seeks comment on the  amended  requirements (including measures) in the proposed IHS. MPI has 
developed this proposal bas ed on the available scientific evidence and assessment of this evidence. If you 
disagree with the measures proposed to manage the risks, please provide either scientific data or published 
references to support your comments. This will enable MPI to conside r additional evidence which may change 
how risks are proposed to be managed.  
The following points may be of assistance in preparing comments:  
 Wherever possible, comments should be specific to an IHS requirement (referencing section numbers or pest 
names a s applicable).  
 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  (to arr ive by close of business on 24 March  
2018). Please 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 . 
However, should you wish to forward submissions in writing, please send them to the following address to arrive 
by close of business on 24 March  2018. 
Fresh Produce Imports   
Plants, Food and Environment Directorate  
Ministry for Primary Industries  
PO Box 2526  
Wellington 6140  
New Zealand  
Submissions received by the closure date will be considered during the development of the final IHS. 
Submissions receive d after the closure date may be held on file for consideration when the issued IHS is next 
revised/reviewed.  
Official Information Act 1982  
Please note that your submission is public information. MPI policy is to provide a copy of all submissions 
received and the review of submission to all parties who lodge submissions.  
Submissions may 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 th ere are sufficient grounds for 
withholding it, as set out in the OIA. Anyone preparing a submission may wish to inform MPI if there are grounds 
for withholding specific information contained in their submission, such as the information is commercially 
sens itive or they wish personal information withheld.  
Any decision to withhold information requested under the OIA is reviewable by the Ombudsman.   
 Risk Management Proposal: Fresh Citrus  spp. from Egypt for Human Consumption   Page 5 of 22 Contents  
Purpose  6 
Scope  6 
Background  6 
Summary of draft amendments  7 
Cold disinfestation treatment rate change  7 
Current IHS Requirements  7 
Proposed Amendments to the IHS  7 
Part 1: Context  8 
Domestic  8 
International  8 
New Zealand’s Biosecurity System  8 
Importing Fresh Produce  9 
Strength of measures  9 
Part 2: Approach  10 
Commodity Description  10 
Information Sources  10 
Assessment  10 
Description of measures  11 
Basic Measures  11 
Commercial production  11 
Targeted Measures  12 
MPI-Specified Measures  12 
Certification and verification  13 
Pre-export inspection and phytosanitary certification  13 
Verification on arrival in New Zealand  13 
Part 3: Pest Risk Assessment and Management  14 
Summary of risk  14 
Review of measures and pest list  14 
MPI-Specified Measures  14 
References  17 
Appendix 1: Pest Categorisation  19 
Appendix 2: Description of the different measures used in IHS  22 
 
 
   
 Risk Management Proposal: Fresh Citrus  spp. from Egypt for Human Consumption   Page 6 of 22 Purpose  
(1) The purpose of this risk management proposal (RMP) is to:  
a) summarise the proposed amendment s to the import health standard (IHS) for  Fresh Citrus  spp. for 
Human Consumption  [previously  the import health standard Fresh Citrus  spp. from the Arab Republ ic 
of Egypt  for Human Consumption ]. 
b) explain how  the proposed measures effectively manage  the known biosecurity risk. 
 Proposed amendments include : 
i) a change to  the cold disinfestation treatment  rate used to treat fruit flies ;  
ii) the removal of non -regulated p ests;  
iii) changes to the  regulatory status of some pests and;  
iv) update s in terminology from ‘RG1, RG2 and RG3’ to ‘Basic, Targeted and MPI -Specified’ pests.   
c) explain how these measures are consistent with New Zealand’s domestic legislation and international 
obligations.  
(2) The draft IHS is the subject of consultation under section 23(3) of the Biosecurity Act (1993). This RMP 
provides information to support the consultation on the draft IHS but is not itself the subject of consultation. 
However , MPI will accept c omments and suggestions on the RMP in order to improve future IHS 
consultations.  
Scope  
(3) This RMP lists the information and process used to determine  proposed amendments  to the pest risk 
management measures in the current IHS for  Citrus  spp. The RMP includes : 
 an update to pests associated with fresh Citrus  spp. at the point of export from Egypt to New Zealand;  
and 
 a description of  proposed amendments to  pre-export phytosanitary measures considered for 
managing pests associated with imported fresh Citrus  spp. from Egypt.  
(4) This RMP is divided into three parts:  
 Part 1  provides the background and context used to inform the draft amendment s to the  IHS for Citrus  
spp. 
 Part 2 outlines the approach used to determine amended risks to  the IHS for Citrus  spp., and provid es 
information on  the types of measures which may effectively manage specific risks associated with 
importing fresh Citrus  spp. from Egypt .  
 Part 3 considers amendments to the regulated pests associated with fresh Citrus  spp. from Egypt , and 
the appropriat e measure s to effectively manage these risks.  
Background  
 The current IHS for Citrus  spp. from Egypt was finalised in 2006. No trade has occurred to date as an 
Export Plan (previously Bilateral Quarantine Agreement) was not finalised between Egypt and New 
Zealand.  
 In 201 5, Egypt provided MPI with updated technical information regarding pests associated with Citrus  
spp. to support the finalisation of documents to allow trade to commence.  
 Fresh Citrus  spp. is currently approved for import from Australia, Jap an, Mexico, New Caledonia, Samoa, 
Spain, United States of America and Vanuatu  into New Zealand  under IHS 155.02: Importation and 
Clearance of Fresh Fruit and Vegetables .  
  
 Risk Management Proposal: Fresh Citrus  spp. from Egypt for Human Consumption   Page 7 of 22 Summary of draft amendments  
 
Cold disinfestation treatment rate change  
Current IHS R equirements  
 The current cold treatment rates for  Bactrocera zonata  and Ceratitis capitata  are listed in the table  below . 
Note : No trade has occurred under this rate for B. zonata  for any import pathway.  
 
Table 1: Cold disinfection treatment r equirements from the 2006 IHS  for Citrus  spp. from Egypt  
Fruit pulp temperature (°C)  Exposure period (consecutive days)  
0.00 or below  10 
0.55 or below  11 
1.11 or below  12 
1.66 or below  14 
2.22 or below  16 
 
Proposed Amendments to the IHS  
 The proposed cold treatmen t rate for the management of B. zonata  is 1.67°C or below for 18 days (see 
Table 2)  
 The proposed cold treatment rate for the management of C. capitata are listed in Table 3.  
Regulatory status change  
 Carpophilus mutilatus  and Pythium debaryanum  from the 200 6 IHS for Citrus  spp. from Egypt have 
undergone a change in regulatory status, therefore , the risk management requirements of these pests 
have been reviewed . 
   
 Risk Management Proposal: Fresh Citrus  spp. from Egypt for Human Consumption   Page 8 of 22 Part 1: Context  
Domestic  
 The New Zealand biosecurity system is regulated through the Biosecurity  Act 1993. Section 22 of the Act 
describes the meaning of an IHS , and requires  that the IHS  specifies requirements to be met for the 
effective management of risks associated with importing risk goods (including plants and plant products) 
into New Zealand.  
 The Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) is the government authority responsible for the effective 
management of risks associated with the importation of risk goods into New Zealand (Part 3, Biosecurity 
Act 1993).  
 MPI engages with interested parties and/o r affected New Zealand stakeholders and the exporting country 
requesting market access during the development of an IHS.  
 MPI follows MPI policies and procedures for the development of an IHS  and consultation.  
International  
 Where possible, phytosanitary m easures are aligned with international standards, guidelines, and 
recommendations as per New Zealand’s obligations under Article 3.1 of the World Trade Organisation 
(WTO ) Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement), WTO 
1995 and section 23(4)(c) of the Biosecurity Act 1993.     
 The SPS Agreement states that phytosanitary measures must not discriminate unfairly between countries 
or between imported or domestically produced goods, and where there is a choice of phytosani tary 
measures to reduce risk to an acceptable level, WTO members must select the least trade restrictive 
measure.     
New Zealand’s Biosecurity System  
 New Zealand operates a biosecurity system for which the phytosanitary aspect (covering plant health) is a 
key part.  
 No biosecurity system is capable of reducing risk to zero. The objective of the system is to reduce to an 
acceptable level the likelihood of entry and establishment  of regulated organisms  (includi ng pests, diseases 
and weeds).  
 An organism is  ‘regulated’ by MPI if it could cause unacceptable economic consequences (i.e. likely to 
cause unacceptable economic, environmental, socio -cultural or human health impacts in New Zealand) if it 
were to enter and establish in New Zealand, provided the followin g conditions are met:  
a) is not present in New Zealand; or 
b) it is present but under official control in New Zealand;  and 
c) it is able to establish and spread in New Zealand.  
- Entry and establishment is defined as ‘introduction’ by the International Plant Protec tion Convention  (IPPC).  
(21) The New Zealand phytosanitary system focuses on ensuring that the most significant pests, for example 
economically important fruit flies, are unlikely to ever establish in New Zealand. The system also manages 
risk associated with all regulated pests.  
(22) The focus of the IHS for plant -based goods is to manage  unacceptable  phytosanitary risk s identified as 
being associated with the goods before arrival  at the New Zealand border.  The expectation is that 
commercial consignments of plants and plant products meet New Zealand’s phytosanitary import 
requirements on arrival  (risk is managed off -shore) .   
 Risk Management Proposal: Fresh Citrus  spp. from Egypt for Human Consumption   Page 9 of 22 (23) MPI monitors the pathway performance related to each IHS to ensure it provides the expected level of 
protection. This is achieved through verificat ion and inspection activities at the border (and where possible, 
identification of pests detected) and audits of the export systems and critical control points contai ned in the 
Export Plans . 
Importing Fresh Produce  
(24) Fresh produce can only be imported subjec t to an IHS specifying the commodity, and from a country where 
MPI has approved the systems, programmes and standards for regulatory oversight by the National Plant 
Protection Organisation  (NPPO). The export system is subject to audit by MPI.  
(25) In circumstan ces where regulated pests would cause significant harm if they became established in New 
Zealand are associated with the commodity, MPI requires the exporting NPPO to negotiate an Export Plan  
(see paragraph 29) with MPI. Exports to New Zealand cannot occur  until the Export Plan  has been agreed 
by MPI.  
Strength of measures  
(26) Measures are required for regulated pests (see paragraph 18) where the ‘probability of introduction and 
spread’ on a pathway is unacceptable (i.e. if it is able to enter through the pathwa y, find a suitable host, and 
able to establish and spread in New Zealand).  
(27) The strength of the measure required should be no more than necessary to manage the risk the organism 
poses. MPI has classified measures into three categories of increasing strengt h: Basic Measures , Targeted 
Measures  or MPI-Specified Measures .  
(28) The strength of measure required depends on the risk posed by the organism on the pathway. This risk is 
determined by a combination of the consequences the pest may cause if it was introduced  into New 
Zealand and the likelihood that the pest will enter and establish from a pathway. For pests that would result 
in very high consequences, such as economically important species of fruit fly, MPI-Specified Measures  are 
required. This is because the se pests would cause significant negative consequences to New Zealand, 
even if the likelihood of them entering and establishing (risk) a transient population is low.  
(29) The greater the risk of a pest, the greater the level of assurance MPI requires that the pest is not present in 
a consignment unless the pest has been rendered non -viable (dead or sterile from irradiation). For Targeted  
and/ or MPI-Specified Measure  pests  an Export Plan  will be negotiated with the exporting NPPO,  supported 
by an MPI pathway as sessment visit  (if required) . The Export Plan  will identify how Targeted  and MPI-
Specified Measures  will be applied. The Export Plan  must be approved by MPI, and is subject to audit and 
review  by MPI .  
(30) The proposed IHS for  Citrus spp. includes all measures  accepted for pests assessed as being possibly 
associated with the commodity.  
   
 Risk Management Proposal: Fresh Citrus  spp. from Egypt for Human Consumption   Page 10 of 22 Part 2: Approach  
Commodity Description  
 “Fresh Citrus  spp. from Egypt for human consumption” is defined as commercially produced, and 
harvested individual fruit of Citrus  aurant iifolia, C. limon, C. paradisi, C.  sinensis, C. reticulata, C. paradisi 
x reticulata ,  and C. maxima with all vegetative parts removed and have been cultivated, harvested, 
packed and transported to New Zealand.  Fresh Citrus  spp. may include calyx and a sma ll amount of stem 
but does not include leaves or larger twigs and shoots.  
 “Commercially produced” is defined as the production of export quality  fruit sourced from production sites 
that produce fruit for export under standard cultivation, pest -management, harvesting, disinfestation and 
packing activities. Infested, infected or damaged fruit must be discarded prior to packing.  
 Commercially produced Citrus  spp. is  graded to remove:  
a) obviously damaged fruit, and plant material (such as peduncle, leaves, stems,  flowers and bark) 
other than the fruit;  and 
b) all plant material from species other than Citrus  spp. 
 Private consignments and products produced through non -commercial systems do not meet the definition 
of commercially produced Citrus  spp. and are excluded f rom the scope of this RMP and the IHS for Citrus  
spp. 
Information Sources  
 The following information was used to identify amendments  to the risk status of  organisms associated 
with fresh  Citrus  spp. from Egypt and the appropriate measures to manage the risk  of their introduction 
(entry and establishment) into New Zealand:  
a) IHS for Citrus  spp. from the Arab Republic of Egypt (MPI, 2006).  
b) ISPM 28. Phytosanitary treatments for regulated pests  (Annex 24 - 29). Rome, IPPC, FAO.  
c) MPI (2012). Internal advice.  
d) Pest i nformation supplied by Egypt’s Central Administration for Plant Quarantine (CAPQ, 2017).  
e) USDA. (2012) Addition of a Cold Treatment Schedule T107 -1 to the Treatment Manual for Peach 
Fruit Fly Bactrocera zonata  (Saunders) in Oranges and Tangerines: Treatment  Evaluation 
Document .  
f) Relevant literature and database searches.  
Assessment  
 The above information sources were used to assess amendments  to the  organisms’ associated with 
Citrus  spp. from Egypt and their potential to enter New Zealand via the fresh produc e import pathway, be 
exposed to a suitable host, and establish and spread in New Zealand. The pest assessment process 
follows part 2.1 of the International Standard for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPM) 11: Pest risk analysis for 
quarantine pests , MPI import r isk analysis procedures and considered:  
a) presence or absence in the exporting country;  
b) presence or absence in New Zealand;  
c) regulatory status in New Zealand;  
d) association with the commodity and pathway;  
e) potential for establishment and spread in New Zealand;  and 
f) potential to cause unwanted consequences in New Zealand.   
 Risk Management Proposal: Fresh Citrus  spp. from Egypt for Human Consumption   Page 11 of 22 Description of measures  
 The biosecurity system in New Zealand operates a series of components or layers (pre -border, border, 
and post -border) that together provide a high level of assurance that p ests are unlikely to establish in New 
Zealand. No one part of the system is able to achieve the nec essary assurance on its own. The main 
components in the pre -border and border system include:  
a) commercial production and packhouse activities ( Basic Measures ) to reduce pest prevalence on a 
commodity;  
b) application  of an additional measure to reduce pest prevalence on a commodity ( Targeted  and/ or 
MPI-Specified Measure  where required );  
c) official pre -export inspection and phytosanitary certification to verify that  pre-export measures have 
been undertaken and effective as required by MPI and that the consignment is free from regulated 
pests;  
d) on-arrival  inspection of documentation in New Zealand to verify compliance with the IHS. I nspection  
of a consignment may also be conducted  in New Zealand to verify pests are not present in a 
representative sample (e.g. no live regulated visible pests in a 600 unit sample);  and 
e) remedial action ( e.g. treatment) if a pest is detected prior to biosecurity clearance being given for a 
consignment.  
 Measures of different strengths ( Basic , Targeted , or MPI-Specified ) are applied according to the risk of 
entry and establishment posed by a pest on the pathway and reduce the likelihood of introduction to a 
very low level on a consignment.  
Basic Measures  
 Basic Measures  are required to manage all organisms that could enter and establish in New Zealand . 
Basic Measure  pests are pests identified through risk assessment as  possibly being on the pathway. 
These include (but are not restricted to) the following required components:  
Commercial production  
 All fresh produce for export to New Zealand, regardless of the associated pests, must be commercially 
produced using a quality system, recognised standard cultivation, pest management, ha rvest and 
pack aging activities.  
 Commercial production of Citrus  spp. includes:  
a) Recognised standard cultivation ; 
- production site management and hygiene practices  such as in -field weed control . 
b) Pest management ; 
- pest monitoring ; and 
- management of pests and diseases includ ing cultural, biological and chemical controls .  
c) Harvest activities ; 
- sorting of fruit to remove extraneous matter (such as plant material and excess soil) and non -export 
quality produce.  
d) Packaging activities ; 
- removal of remnant  soil and extraneous materia l; 
- removal of leaves and stem  from the fruit;  
- packed into new and clean material; and 
- product security maintained following export certification to prevent pest re -infestation . 
 All fresh produce for export to New Zealand must be of export quality to minim ise the likelihood of infested 
or infected fresh produce entering the export supply chain.   
 Risk Management Proposal: Fresh Citrus  spp. from Egypt for Human Consumption   Page 12 of 22 
 For many pests, Basic Measures  are sufficient to reduce their prevalence in a consignment to a very low 
level thus limiting their potential to establish and spread i n New Zealand if they entered undetected.  
Targeted Measures  
 Targeted Measures  are used to manage the risk of entry and establishment of pests that are unlikely to 
be sufficiently managed by Basic Measures . 
 Pests which present a higher risk (consequence and  likelihood of introduction) require measures of a 
greater strength (e.g. Targeted Measures ) compared with those pests where the risk is lower.  
 An Export Plan  is required for all commodities that may be associated with pests identified by MPI as 
requiring Targeted  Measures . The components of an Export Plan  may differ between countries and 
commodities because the g rowing systems and agricultural practices differ but can be similarly effectiv e. 
The Export Plan provides a description of how the agreed Targeted  Measures  will be applied to manage 
these pests (where required) and is negotiated between New Zealand and the individual exporting country 
NPPO.  
 Targeted Measures include a very wide range of options and provide MPI with the assurance that pest 
populatio ns on the exported product are redu ced to a level that will not en able the pest to establish a 
population in New Zealand   
 A Targeted Measure may also be efficacious against non -target pests.  
 The following measures are some that may be considered for managi ng pests requiring Targeted 
Measures :  
a) Country freedom ; 
- additional measures or an Export Plan  are not required where ‘country freedom’ status is recognised by 
MPI for the export country.  
b) Pest free area ; 
- MPI will audit the management of pest free areas for compliance with ISPM 4: Requirements for the 
establishment of pest free areas.  
c) Pest free place of production ; 
- MPI will audit the management of pest free place of production for compliance with ISPM 10: 
Requirements for the establishment of pests free place s of production and pest free production sites .  
d) Pest control activities (in -field) ; 
e) Systems Approaches ; 
- systems approach is composed of two or more independent measures , as negotiated betwee n MPI and 
the exporting country;  and 
- independent measures may var y between exporting countries.  
f) End-point treatment .  
(50) Targeted Measures  are subject to pathway assurance audit by MPI.   
MPI-Specified Measures  
(51) An Export Plan  is required for all commodities that may be associated with pests identified by MPI as 
requiring MPI-Specified Measures .  
(52) MPI-Specified Measures  are required  when the consequence of establishment of a pest is very high and 
where entry and establishment is likely  as a result of the pathway.  
a) the selection of an appropriate MPI-Specified  Measure  is based  largely on quantitative data that 
supports a high level of phytosanitary assurance. Quantitative data may be supported by qualitative 
information, especially with respect to approval of a systems approach.   
 Risk Management Proposal: Fresh Citrus  spp. from Egypt for Human Consumption   Page 13 of 22 b) a MPI-Specified Measure  may also be effective aga inst non -target pests.  
(53) Wherever possible, MPI uses ISPMs (or regional standards if applicable) to identify the appropriate  
requirements for imported plant commodities.  
(54) MPI-Specified Measures  are subject to pathway assurance audit by MPI . 
Certification and verification  
Pre-export inspection and phytosanitary certification  
 Pre-export inspection and phytosanitary certification by the exporting NPPO of all commercially produced 
fresh produce (including cut flowers and foliage) for export to New Zealand is requi red to provide 
assurances of freedom from visually detectable regulated pests. Assurance is also required that 
measures for pests that are not visually detectable have been applied as described in the Export Plan .  
 The phytosanitary certification process i ncludes:  
a) verification that any Basic , Targeted  and MPI-Specified Measures  required by MPI have been met;  
b) sampling and inspection to determine pest freedom;  
i) The exporting NPPO will randomly sample  and visually inspect a minimum  of 600 fruit (each variety, 
species)  from each lot of 20,000 fruit or more. Smaller lots will be sampled as per ISPM 31: 
Methodologies for sampling of consignments , Table 1: Table of minimum sample sizes for 95% and 
99% confidence levels at varying levels of detection according to lot  size, hypergeometric distribution.   
ii) Inspection will involve an examination of all external parts of the fruit and where necessary , at 10x 
magnification to ensure dete ction of cryptic or small pests . The visual inspection may also  include 
cutting the fruit to identify pests located within the fruit. Consistent with international practice, the 
inspected sample must be free from regulated pests.  
iii) where any live regulated pest is found in the inspected lot, an appropriate measure must be applied (for 
example f umigation with an efficacious chemical) or the lot must be rejected for export to New Zealand.  
c) any remedial action taken as agreed with MPI.  
Verification on arrival in New Zealand  
 When a consignment arrives in New Zealand , MPI will conduct a documentation check to ensure the 
phytosanitary certification conforms to the requirements laid out in the IHS.  
 A consignment will normally have a representative sample taken and inspected for the absence of 
regulated pests. Any reduction in the level of inspection fro m current on -arrival levels is based on sound 
evidence of the compliance of a pathway.  In a few cases where a pathway is highly compliant , inspections 
will be conducted on an audit basis to ensure ongoing compliance.  
 When a consignment is found to be infes ted with live regulated pests on arrival in New Zealand, one of 
the following risk management activities will be applied:  
a) reshipment of the consignment;  
b) destruction of the consignment; or  
c) treatment of the consignment. Treatment may include:  
i) re-conditioning  to remove infested or infected fruit; or  
ii) fumigation to kill regulated pests.  
 
 
  
 Risk Management Proposal: Fresh Citrus  spp. from Egypt for Human Consumption   Page 14 of 22 Part 3:  Pest Risk Assessment and Management  
 A review of the pests identified in the 2006 IHS  for Citrus  spp. from the Arab Republic of Egypt  was 
undertaken. This section only  includes those pests that have undergone a  change in regulatory status, 
and/or require a change to the current risk management measures.  
Summary of risk  
 Fresh Citrus  spp. is known to be a host of  economically significant Tephritidae fruit fly species (Bactrocera 
zonata  and Ceratitis capitat a) (previously Quarantine Risk Group 3, RG3 pests, now  pests that require  
MPI-Specified Measure s) that are present in Egypt.  
 Tephritidae fruit flies are internally feeding organisms and the species listed in Table 2  and 3  are 
consid ered high risk, requiring MPI-Specified Measures . Any incursions of live fruit fly could disrupt trade 
and potentially mean significant economic losses for New Zealand growers and exporters of fruit fly host 
material.  The amended measure aims to manage the se fruit fly species (Table 2 and 3 ). 
 No other pests were identified as requiring a measure above Basic Measures . 
Review of measures and pest list  
MPI-Specified Measures  
Bactrocera zonata  
 An amendment to the cold disinfestation treatment rate is proposed i n order to sufficiently manage the risk 
of B. zonata  for Citrus  spp. from Egypt  (Table 2).  
 
 The proposed  cold disinfestation treatment of Citrus  spp. for B. zonata  at a fruit pulp temperature of  
1.67°C or below for 18 consecutive days  is justified and suff icient to manage the risks posed by B. zonata  
for imported fresh Citrus  spp. because : 
a) the treatment is known to be highly efficacious against B. zonata.  
i) Research conducted by the United States Department of Agriculture (2012) found there were no 
survivors from an estimated 36 ,000 third instar larvae of B. zonata  on Citrus  sinensis  which was treated 
at 1.67°C for 18 days.  
Table 2:  Amended  cold disinfestation treatment rates for B. zonata .  
MPI-Specified Measure  pest Proposed cold disinfestation treatment rat e 
Bactrocera zonata  
Peach fruit fly  1.67°C or below for 18 days   
 
Ceratitis capitata  
 The proposed specification for  cold disinfestation treatment of Citrus  spp. is also considered justified and 
sufficient to manage the risk from C. capitata  because:  
a) the treatment rate of 1.67°C or below for 18 days exceeds the rate considered to be efficacious 
against C. capitata . 
i) as per ISPM 28 : Phytosanitary treatments for regulated pests (Annex 24 - 28).  
 
Note : As the IHS is a commodity standard, additional cold disin festation treatment rates are listed for C. capitata . However , 
as Egypt has both B. zonata  and C. capitata , treatment will be required at a rate of 1.67°C or below for 18 days.  
 The proposed  cold disinfestation treatment options outlined  in Table 3 are jus tified and sufficient to 
manage the risk from C. capitata  for identified species of Citrus  because:   
 Risk Management Proposal: Fresh Citrus  spp. from Egypt for Human Consumption   Page 15 of 22 a) the treatments are highly efficacious against C. capitata  and are internationally accepted.  
i) ISPM 28 : Phytosanitary treatments for regulated pests  (Annex 24 - 28) are efficacious against  
C.  capitata  infesting  C. limon , C. sinensis , C. reticulata , and C. paradisi x reticulata . 
 The cold treatment rates for disinfestation of C. aurantiifolia  and C. maxima  listed in Table 3 are justified 
and sufficient to manage the risk from C. capitata  because:  
a) The treatment rates meet those approved by MPI to disinfest C. aurantiifolia  and C. maxima  from C. 
capitata . 
i) The d isinfestat ion rate for C. aurantiifolia  in Table 3 is approved by  MPI for managing C. capitata 
infesting all Citrus  spp. from Australia. This is outlined in the 152.02: Importation and Clearance of 
Fresh Fruit and Vegetables into New Zealand  Standard .  
ii) The disinfestat ion rate for C. maxima in Table 3 remain the same as specified in the 2006 IHS for 
Citrus  spp. from Egypt. These rates were previously consulted on. 
 
Table 3: Cold Disinfestation Treatment for Citrus  species  
Citrus  species  Maximum fruit pulp 
temperature (°C)  Minimum exposure 
period (consecutive 
days)  Standard /Reference  
C. aurant iifolia 
 0 13 152.02 : Importation and 
Clearance of Fresh Fruit and 
Vegetables into New Zealand 
Standard  1 16 
C. limon  2 16 ISPM 28 PT 26: Cold treatment 
for Ceratitis capitata on Citrus 
limon  3 18 
C. sinensis  
 2 16 ISPM 28 PT 24:  Cold treatment 
for Ceratitis capitata on Citrus 
sinensis  3 20 
C. reticulata  2 23 ISPM 28 PT 28: Cold treatment 
for Ceratitis capitata on Citrus 
reticulata  
C. paradisi x reticulata  2 23 ISPM 28 PT 28: Cold treatment 
for Ceratitis capitata on Citrus 
reticulata  
C. maxima  
 
 
 0 10 152.02: Imp ortation and 
Clearance of Fresh Fruit and 
Vegetables into New Zealand 
Standard  
 
 
 0.55 11 
1.11 12 
1.66 14 
2.22 16 
 
 
Regulatory status change  
 Two pests  [Table 4] identified in the 2006 IHS for Citrus  spp. from Egypt have undergone a change in 
regulatory status1, therefore the risk management requirements of these pests have been reviewed . 
 
 
 
                                                             
1 These organisms have been determined not to be present in New Zealand and have the potential to establish and cause unwanted harm.   
 Risk Management Proposal: Fresh Citrus  spp. from Egypt for Human Consumption   Page 16 of 22 Table 4:  Pests  identified in 2006 which have had a change in regulatory status.  
Pest    2006 requirement  Amended requirement  
Carpophilus mutilatus  Non-regulated  Regulated  (Basic Measures ) 
Pythium debaryanum  Non-regulated  Regulated  (Not considered to be a hazard)  
 
Carpophilus mutilatus  Erichson  
a) The risk from C. mutilatus  (sap beetle)  has been reviewed and found to not be present in New 
Zealand. Therefore, t he status has changed from non -regulated to regulated and now meets criteria 
to be considered a quarantine pest  (BORIC , 2017)  [Appendix 1].  
b) Basic measures  are justified and sufficient to manage the low risk posed by C. mutilat us because:  
i) commercial product ion will reduce populations in Citrus  spp. to low levels . 
ii) commercial production includes monitoring for plants displaying signs/symptoms of  infestation during 
production. Monitoring will identify obviously affected plants, resulting in pest controls being applied 
(see Commercial Production ).  
- C. mutilat us are pests to ripening fruit . Carpophilus sp. eggs are usually laid in fallen fruit or damaged fruit 
(MPI, 2012) . Fallen and damaged fruit will be excluded from exp ort as per standard commercial harvest and 
packhouse practices ; 
iii) Harvest, grading and packing activities will reduce the likelihood of C. mutilatus being associated with 
Citrus  spp. at export to a very low level.  
- washing and brushing would likely remove man y beetles from the fruit . 
iv) C. mutilatus  are likely to be detected and managed during official pre -export inspection by the exporting 
NPPO (see Pre-export inspection and phytosanitary certification ).   
- C. mutilat us are around 1.5 to 1.8mm long and are light to dark reddish brown. Adult beetles are unlikely to 
be detected visually, however, should be detectable due to association with damaged fruit.  
 Pythium debaryanum  R. Hesse  
a) The risk from P. debaryanum  has been r econsidered as the  status in New Zealand has changed 
from non -regulated to regulated (BORIC , 2017) . 
i) P. debaryanum  was previously recorded as established but a later review found that  the organism was 
not established in New Zealand.  
b) P. debaryanum  is not con sidered to be a hazard on  fresh  Citrus  spp. from Egypt as it is not 
associat ed with Citrus  fruit (USDA, 2007) . 
i) P. debaryanum is associated with  Citrus  x paradisi roots  (USDA, 2007).  
 The following  pests identified in the 2006 IHS for Citrus  spp. from Egypt have undergone  a review of 
regulatory status . This is  because of changes in the way regulatory status is recorded in IHS s, in order to 
better reflect the IPPC guidance on terminology.  These pests are all regulated by New Zealand as 
“potential vectors” . However, none of these species are a risk when associated with Citrus from Egypt as 
the pathogens they vector are either not present in Egypt or not associated with Citrus (MPI, 2018) . 
Therefore, the below pests have been removed from the pest list:   
 Aphis go ssypii;  
 Aphis spiraecola;  
 Brevipalpus californicus;  
 Brevipalpus obovatus;  
 Brevipalpus phoenicis;   
 Planococcus citri ; 
 Pseudococcus longispinus;  
 Thrips tabaci; and 
 Trialeurodes vaporariorum.  
 
 MPI’s emerging risk system will monitor these potential vectors  for any change in risk on this pathway.    
 Risk Management Proposal: Fresh Citrus  spp. from Egypt for Human Consumption   Page 17 of 22 Reference s 
BORIC (2017). Biosecurity Organisms Register for Imported Commodities, MPI. http://mpi.govt.nz/news -and-
resources/resources/registers -and-lists/biosecurity -organisms -register -for-imported -commodities/ . 
 
Hagstrum, D. (2016). Stored -product insect resource. Elsevier.  
 
IHS for Citrus  spp. from the Arab Republic of Egypt ( MPI, 2006).  
 
ISPM 4 . Requirements for the establishment of pest free areas. Rome, IPPC, FAO.  
 
ISPM 5. Glossary of phytosanitary terms . Rome, IPPC, FAO  
 
ISPM 1 0. Requirements for the establishment of pest free places of production and pest free production s ites. 
Rome, IPPC, FAO  
 
ISPM 11. Pest risk analysis for quarantine pests . Rome, IPPC, FAO  
 
ISPM 28. Phytosanitary treatments for regulated pests (Annex 24 - 28). Rome, IPPC, FAO.  
 
MPI (2018). Internal advice.  
 
MPI (2012). Internal advice.  
 
NZOR (2017). New  Zealand Organisms Register. http://www.nzor.org.nz/search . 
 
Pest information supplied by Egypt’s Central Administration for Plant Quarantine (CAPQ, 2017).  
 
USDA. (2012) Addition of a Cold Treatment Schedule T1 07-L to the Treatment Manual for Peach Fruit Fly 
Bactrocera zonata  (Saunders) in Oranges and Tangerines: Treatment Evaluation Document.  
 
USDA (2007). A Pathway -Initiated Plant Pest Risk Analysis. Importation of Fresh Commercial Sweet Orange 
(Citrus  sinensi s [L.] Osbeck) and Grapefruit ( Citrus  x paradisi  Macfad.) Fruit from Chile into the Continental 
United States .  
 
USDA (2018) Treatment Manual. http://manuals.cphst.org/TInde x/getSchedule.cfm?scheduleName=T107 -a  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 Risk Management Proposal: Fresh Citrus  spp. from Egypt for Human Consumption   Page 18 of 22    
 Risk Management Proposal: Fresh Citrus  spp. from Egypt for Human Consumption   Page 19 of 22 Appendix 1: Pest Categorisation  
The pest categorisation p rocess (table below)  includes pests that have undergone a change in regulatory status 
since the release of the 2006  IHS and have therefore been rec onsidered as hazards on Citrus  spp. from Egypt.  
A summary of key conclusions from the risk analysis process is included where a pest has been identified as a 
potential quarantine pest. Pests that have not undergone a change in regulatory status or treatme nt 
requirements are not included in this table.  
 
The table below  follows the risk analysis process and terminology identified in Part 2 of the international 
standard, ISPM 11: Pest risk analysis for quarantine pests . The table includes:  
 the identity of the  pest (the table is organised by order, then family ). 
 conclusions from the risk analysis, including the associated justification and evidence, for: 
- Step 1: Pest categorisation , 
- Step 2: Assessment of the probability of introduction and spread , and  
- Step 3: Assessment of potential economic consequences . 
Note:  if at any step  there is  insufficient  information available  to determine  that the organism fulfils the criteria of a 
quarantine pest, the n the organism is discounted from the pest list and the pest risk an alysis process does not 
continue . 
 conclusion of the pest risk assessment  (‘Is a measure justified?’) . 
Note:  the level of measure required , based on the outcome of the  pest risk management assessment  in Part 3 of 
this RMP , is included in the table .  
 
It is assumed that if a species associated with fresh  Citrus  spp. is of c oncern, then the reasons for this concern  
would be recorded internationally ( with interception data (where available), any risk analysis, scientific studies , 
reports of significant economic  impacts ). Measure s must be supported by technical justification, and measures 
cannot be applied  because there is uncertainty or a lack of available information. MPI may review the pests 
associated with a pathway (or their management) if new information be comes available, including in the 
following circumstances:  
a) a change in host status;  
b) pest status prevalence;  
c) frequent interception on arrival in New Zealand; or  
d) a new or changed  risk on imported fresh Citrus  spp. is identified  by MPI’s Emerging Risks System . 
 
Some organisms may not be included on the Citrus  pest list, and therefore a measure (e.g. Basic , Targeted , or 
MPI-Specified  Measures ) has not been assigned to the pest. However , if regulated organisms are intercepted on 
the pathway an on -arrival remedia l action is required (e.g. fumigation) prior to clearance for entry into New 
Zealand. If no suitable or approved treatment is available, the consignment will be reshipped or destroyed.  Any 
pests intercepted on the pathway  may be retro spectively added to th e pest list and  will be considered as part of 
the next review of the IHS.  
 
ISPM 11 requires  that “The identity of the pest should be clearly defined to ensure that the [risk] assessment is 
performed on a distinct organism, and that biological and other inf ormation used in the assessment is relevant 
to the organism in question.” It is recognised that a pest may still be clearly defined at genus level, as not all 
species are described. In this case, genera that are present in Egypt  but not in New Zealand woul d be 
considered as regulated as they still pose a potential hazard to New Zealand.  
 
Note:  ISPM 5 defines ‘quarantine pest’ as “a pest of potential economic importance to [New Zealand] and not 
yet present there, or present but not widely distributed and bei ng officially control ”. 
 
   
 Risk Management Proposal: Fresh Citrus  spp. from Egypt for Human Consumption   Page 20 of 22 Scientific name  Conclusion  Reason  Evidence to support  Is a measure 
justified?  Coleoptera  
 Carpophilus mutilatus 
(Erichson, 1843)  
[Nitidulidae]  
 
(Syn: Carpophilus luridus , 
Carpophilus pilosellus ) 
 
 
 
 Have the potential to be 
quarantine pests on this 
pathway.  C. mutilatus is  associated 
with the pathway.  - C. mutilatus is present in Egypt  (Hagstrum, 2016) . 
- is not recorded in New Zealand (MPI, 2012) . 
- is associated with Citrus  spp. (MPI, 2012) . 
 Are 
considered 
quarantine 
pests on this 
pathway.  
 
Measures are 
justified ( Basic 
Measures ). 
 And have the potential 
to establish and spread if 
they entered NZ.  C. mutilatus has the 
potential to enter New 
Zealand and be exposed 
to suitable hosts.  Entry:  
-  All lifestages (excluding papae) of C. mutilat us have been reported and intercepted alive  (MPI, 
2012)  
- Adults are the most commonly reported lifestage, but all stages (including viable eggs but not pupae) 
have been intercepted live on a wide range of produce (MPI, 2012).  Live Carpophilus  beetles are 
commonly intercepted at the New Zealand border on fresh produce (MPI, 2012) . 
- Post-harvest  activities such as washing and brushing would be likely to remove many beetles from 
fruit, and evidence of internal infestation through entrance wounds and subseq uent rotting suggests 
infested fruit may be removed through harvest and packhouse procedures (MPI, 2012).  
- Adult b eetles are unlikely to be detec ted visually . However, damage caused to fruit by adults is 
likely to be visually detectable.  
- Adult  Carpophilus beetles usually oviposit in fruit; larvae and adults feed within fruit. After pupation 
adults  emerge and burrow in to fruit to feed (MPI, 2012) . 
- C. mutilat us adults are  relatively small  (1.5 to 1.8mm long ), conspicuously co loured  (light to dark 
reddish brown ) and can be detected under close inspection  (MPI, 2012).  
- Adult Carpophilus  beetles retain their association with the fruit post-harvest and transit (MPI, 2012)  
- The likelihood of entry is considered to be low  (MPI, 2012 ). 
Exposure:  
- Live larvae or adults co uld survive long enough for fruit to be distributed to the point at which 
they could move  onto a suitable host in NZ (MPI, 2012).  
- Adult beetles are highly mobile and could move off the distribution pathway at any point  (MPI, 
2012) . 
- C. mutilatus  adults are strong fliers and could travel several kilometres to find a host  (MPI, 
2012) . 
- Carpophilus sp. are relatively polyphagous and there should be no shortage of suitable hosts in 
New Zealand (MPI, 2012) . 
- The likelihood of exposure is considered moderate  (MPI, 2 012). 
Establishment and spread:  
- Carpophilus species reproduce sexually  (MPI, 2012) . 
- They would  require  both sexes of the beetle to establish  a reproductive population . 
- It is likely this species would be able to establish in many parts of New Zealand  (MPI, 2012) . 
- Adults are able to attack most plant stages .  
- Eggs are laid in fruit and larvae feed in the fruit.  
- C. mutilatus  is common in parts of Australia where climatic conditions are similar to at least 
some parts of New Zealand. It is likely this species wo uld be able to establish in many parts of 
New Zealand.   
 Risk Management Proposal: Fresh Citrus  spp. from Egypt for Human Consumption   Page 21 of 22  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 - If this species were to establish, it would spread quickly due to its multi -voltine life cycle and 
highly mobile adult stage (MPI, 2012) . 
- The likelihood of establishment  and spread is considered to be high (MPI, 2012) . 
And have the potential 
to cause negative 
economic consequences 
which are sufficient to 
justify phytosanitary 
measures on this 
pathway.  C. mutilatus  is capable of 
causing low level 
economic impacts if they 
established in New 
Zealand.  - Many Carpophilus  species are already present in New Zealan d (MPI, 2012).  
- It is uncertain whether the addition of another species to the existing fauna would have any 
significant direct economic  impact . 
- There ha ve been reports of C. mutilat us causing severe  damage to cycad palms  (MPI, 2012) . 
- Carpophilus  sp. have been recognised as vectors of fungi  (MPI, 2012).  
- The economic consequences of establishment of  C. mutilatus  have previously been assessed 
as low (MPI, 201 2). 
And have the potential 
to cause negati ve 
economic consequences 
which are sufficient to 
justify phytosanitary 
measures on this 
pathway.  C. mutilatus  is capable of 
causing a very low  level 
economic and 
environmental impacts if 
they established in New 
Zealand.  - The potential environment impact is considered to be very low (MPI, 2 012).  
 Risk Management Proposal: Fresh Citrus  spp. from Egypt for Human Consumption   Page 22 of 22 Appendix 2: Description of the different measures used in IHS  
 
 Previous Approach  New Approach  
Category  Previous 
description  Pre-export measures  Actions on arrival (if 
pest are detected)  New 
descriptio n Pre-export measures  Actions on arrival (if 
pests are detected)  
‘Low’ risk 
pest RG1  Phytosanitary inspection  
 Certification   Treat and release  ‘Basic 
Measures’  
(commercial 
production)   Commercial production (e.g. GAP)  
 Phytosanitary inspection  
 Certification.   Treat and release  
‘Medium’ 
risk pest  RG2  Phytosanitary inspection  
 Additional declaration  
 Certification   Treat, reship or 
destroy  ‘Targeted 
measures’   Commercial production  
 Export system in place (with audits if 
required)  
 Targeted measures  
 Agreed Export Pla n 
 Phytosanitary inspection  
 Additional declaration  
 Certification.   Treat, re -ship or 
destroy  
 Review 
measures  
 Review Export 
Plan 
‘High’ risk 
pest RG3  Pre-harvest measures (if required)  
 Post-harvest measures (treatment)  
 Treatment parameters 
documented on PC  
 Treatment certificates (if required)  
 Phytosanitary inspection  
 Additional declaration  
 Certification.   Re-ship or destroy  
 Suspend pathway  
 Review pathway  ‘MPI-Specified 
measures’   Commercial production  
 Export system in place (with audits if 
required)  
 MPI-Specifi ed pre-harvest measures 
(if required)  
 MPI-Specified post-harvest 
measures (treatment if required)  
 Treatment parameters documented 
on PC  
 Treatment certificates (if required)  
 Agreed Export Plan (audited as 
required)  
 Phytosanitary inspection/ 
Certification  
 Additional declaration   Re-ship or 
destroy  
 Suspend 
pathway  
 Review 
measures  
 Review Export 
Plan  
 Review export 
system