 
 
Risk Management Proposal:  
Amendments to  the import health standard  
Actinidia Plants for Planting  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Prepared for  public consultation.   
by Plant Germplasm Imports  
Animal and Plant Health Directorate  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
26 October  2023 
 
 
Disclaimer  
 
While every effort has been made to ensure the information in this publication is accurate, the  Ministry  for 
Primary Industries does not accept any responsibility or liability for error of fact, omission, interpretation or 
opinion that may be present, nor for the consequences of any decisions based on this information.  
 
This publication is also available on the Ministry for Primary Industries  website at  
http://www.mpi.govt.nz/news -and-resources/publications/   
 
 
© Crown Copyright – Ministry  for Primary Industries   
i Contents  Page 
 
1 General information  1 
1.1 Purpose  1 
1.2 Who should read this  1 
1.3 How the amended standard will affect you  1 
1.4 What you can do  2 
1.5 Legal notice about your feedback and Official Information Act 1982  2 
2 Consulted amendments  3 
2.1 Chemical treatments for insects and mites on dormant cuttings  3 
2.2 Additional tissue type for phytoplasma testing  3 
2.3 Additional viruses added as regulated pests  4 
2.4 Removing “Exporting Country System”  6 
2.5 Temperature requirements  6 
3 Minor amendments  7 
3.1 Removing Diaporthe novem  from the regulated pest list  7 
3.2 Guidance notes for temperature and relative humidity requirements  7 
 
 
  
Ministry for Primary Industries   Proposal: Amendments to Actinidia Plants for Planting • 1 1 General information  
1.1 Purpose  
 This document outlines the proposed amendments to the import health standard  
Actinidia Plants for Planting  (the Actinidia  standard) . Biosecurity New Zealand  first 
published this standard in 2018, and since then , we have  acquired new information that 
allows us to  manage biosecurity risks  better . This is not a comprehensive review of the 
standard . It is a consolidation of separate changes aimed at enhancing its  effectiveness  
and ease of use.  
1.2 Who should read this 
 Read this if you  are: 
a) A New Zealand importer  or other interested party  of Actinidia  plants for planting ,  
b) An exporter  of Actinidia  plants for planting  to New Zealand , 
c) A national plant protection organisation , 
d) A level 3 post-entry quarantine operator . 
1.3 How the amended standard will affect you  
a) We do not expect the changes to  have significant impacts  on anyone’s processes . 
Plants will still go into p ost-entry quarantine for the same length of time.  
b) There will be an increased cost for importers with four new PCR tests for Actinidia  
viruses.  
c) Post-entry quarantine operators will have more flexibility. Operators will be able to 
take samples  from either stems or leaves  for phytoplasma testing during PEQ 
(currently , we only allow leaf  sample s). 
Table 1: Proposed  changes to the Actinidia standard  
Change  Details  See section  
Change to the treatment 
requirements  We are removing the requirement to treat goods within 48 hours of sh ipment. 
Instead, we will require packaging after treatment to ensure the goods are not 
reinfected.  2.1 
Adding a plant tissue type 
for phytoplasma testing  We are adding the option to test stem tissue as well as the current leaf tissue  
option . 2.2 
Adding new regulated 
viruses  The following viruses will be added as regulated pests:  
• Actinidia yellowing ringspot virus  (AYRSpV)   
• Actinidia yellowing virus  1 (AcYV1)  
• Actinidia virus C  (AcVC)  
• Emaravirus kiwii  (E. kiwii)  2.3 
Remov ing section  1.7 
“Exporting Country 
System” Offshore facilities and phytosanitary activities (such as NPPO inspection 
before export and issuing phytosanitary certificates) sufficiently manage the 
risk prior to export . Removing this section will not increase the risk on this 
pathway . 2.4 
Temperature 
requirements  during 
growing season  We are widening the limits for contro l of temperature during growing season 
within PEQ.  2.5 2 • Proposal: Amendments to Actinidia Plants for Planting  Ministry for Primary Industries   
 
Table 2: Minor amendments  to the Actinidia standard  
Minor a mendment  Details  See section  
Remov ing Diaporthe 
novem  from the regulated 
pest list  We are removing Diaporthe novem from the pest list because it  is present in 
New Zealand.  3.1 
 
1.4 What you can do  
 If you are interested in the details, read on.  
 If you want to comment on the amended standard, we are accepting feedback until 
5 pm, 26 January 2024 . If your feedback arrives after the closing date, we  will hold it  on 
file and consider  it the next time we review  these standards.  Email  your feedback to 
PlantImports@mpi.govt.nz . 
 We are particularly interested in feedback on these questions:  
a) Do you agree with what we are proposing?  
b) Are our proposals feasible ? 
c) Do you agree with our assumption that AcYV1, AcVC, and E. kiwi i will impact the 
kiwifruit industry  if established?  
d) Do you think the risk of AcYV1, AcVC, and E. kiwi i is sufficient to require PCR 
testing in addition to growing season inspection?  
e) Do you agree with the proposed measures for AYRSpV?  
f) Have you any additional information about these viruses that could change our 
thinking ? 
g) Do you foresee any consequences from these changes that we have not addressed in 
this proposal?  
h) Is there a risk we have not considered?  
i) Is there any other information you think we should consider before we finalise the 
amend ments?  
 We base our requirements on the best scientific information available to us at the time, 
but knowledge is always changing. If you know of more up -to-date scientific 
information that could change our conclusions, include th at information  in your 
feedback.  
 This is a public consultation. We add all feedback we receive to a document (review of 
submissions) that includes our responses and details of any changes we make based on 
feedback. We then publish the review of submissions on our website. This means  you 
can see what other people have said to us and find out what we have done about it. It 
also means your own feedback, along with your name and organisation, will be online 
and may be read by anyone. See the legal notice below.  
1.5 Legal notice about your feedback and Official Information Act 1982  
 Your submission is public information, and it is MPI policy to publish submissions and 
a review of these submissions on the MPI website. Submissions may also be the subject  
Ministry for Primary Industries   Proposal: Amendments to Actinidia Plants for Planting • 3 of requests for information under the Offi cial Information Act 1982 (OIA). The OIA 
specifies that information is to be made available to requesters unless there are 
sufficient grounds for withholding it, as set out in the OIA. Submitters may wish to 
indicate grounds for withholding specific inform ation contained in their submission, 
such as information being commercially sensitive or personal. Any decision to withhold 
information requested under the OIA is reviewable by the Ombudsman.  
2 Consulted amendments  
2.1 Chemical treatments for insect s and mites on dormant cuttings  
 Proposed changes  
 We propose removing the requirement for chemical treatments for insects and mites to 
be performed within 48 hours of shipment. This will be replaced with a requirement for 
the cuttings to be securely held after treatmen t and  packaged in a manner which 
prevents recontaminatio n. 
 Rationale and feasibility  
 Changing the requirement for treatment (clause 2.1 (1) a of the Actinidia Standard)  from 
48 hours before  shipment to ensur e the cuttings  are unable to be reinfected after  
treatment will remove an unnecessary time pressure for exporters, while not changing 
the biosecurity risk.  We consider the biosecurity risk not changed, as we require the 
cuttings to be held and  packaged in such a way that they cannot  be reinfected after 
treatment.  
2.2 Additional tissue type for phytoplasma testing  
 Proposed changes  
 
 We currently require  phytoplasma tests to be performed  on leaf samples . We are 
proposing adding  the option of stem samples OR leaf samples . This was requested by a n 
importer to allow flexibility and reduce testing costs . As stem samples are already used 
for several PCR tests, the nucleic acids extracted for those tests can  also be used to test 
for p hytoplasma s. This  reduc es the number of  nucleic acid extraction s, which reduces 
the testing cost by approximately $50 per plant .  
 Rationale and feasibility   
 Testing stem sample s will not change the risk of phytoplasmas entering  and establishing 
in New Zealand. Technical advice showed that any above ground part of the plant could 
be use d to detect phytoplasmas with the same efficacy . If you’d like  more information, 
contact us  and we can send you  the technical advice on phytoplasma testing in Actinidia  
nursery stock. The best practice to detect phytoplasma s will continue  to be used . This 
includes sampl ing multiple parts of the plant and taking the sample during “summer -
like” conditions  (this is when the concentrations of phytoplasma s are likely to be 
highest within the plant).  
 This change provides more options for importers and those performing the sampling 
and testing . It is unlikely to have any negative impacts for anyone involved in the 
process of importing kiwifruit plants , and costs for importers  will reduce .  4 • Proposal: Amendments to Actinidia Plants for Planting  Ministry for Primary Industries  2.3 Additional viruses added as regulated pests  
 Proposed changes  
 We have be en alerted to four new viruses through  our Emerging Risks System,  and we 
propose adding  these to the regulated pest list . We propose managing  the risk for all 
viruses  by PCR testing and visual inspection .  
Table 3: New viruses and proposed management  
Virus  Managed by  
Actinidia yellowing ringspot virus (AYRSpV)   PCR and visual inspection during growing season  
Actinidia yellowing virus 1 (AcYV1)  PCR and visual inspection during growing season  
Actinidia virus C (AcVC)  PCR and visual inspection during growing season  
Emaravirus kiwii (E. kiwii)  PCR and visual inspection during growing season  
 
 The viruses AcYV1, AYRSpV, AcVC, and E. kiwii are a risk to New  Zealand on 
imported Actinidia  plants.  The viruses are likely to affect the kiwifruit  industry if they 
become established in New Zealand.  The following section s summarise  our reasons for 
regulat ing these viruses . If you’d like more information , get in touch and we can send 
you the import risk assessment for AYRSpV and AcYV1,  the technical advice for 
AcVC and the pest risk assessment for E. kiwii.  
 Rationale for additional measures for AYRSpV  
 The likelihood of AYRSpV entering New Zealand is low. AYRSpV has only been 
detected in one region of China. AYRSpV is likely to produce symptoms in host plants, 
and these diseased plants are not likely be used for export. Following typical practices 
for preparing tissue culture reduces the chance the virus will be transferred from the 
parent plant to the tissue culture plant.  
 However, if AYRSpV entered New Zealand, i t would be likely to become established. 
The plants are likely to go into commercial kiwifruit plantings, where the plants are 
present in high numbers  and would be subject to grafting and pruning, which may 
spread the virus es (sterilisation of pruning or g rafting tools between each plant would 
reduce the spread ). The climate is unlikely to limit establishment . 
 AYRSpV is likely to have negative impacts to the kiwifruit industry  if established .  
Actinidia plants ( A. deliciosa  Hayward ) infect ed with AYRSpV for 3 years have been 
shown have a reduction in chlorophyll of approximately  75%, reduction in  yield of  14% 
to 24%, reduction in the average weight, dry matter, and sugar content of fruit, and an 
increase in average acid content . Like other kiwifruit virus es, AYRSpV can accumulate 
in host plants over time, leading to more severe symptom s.  
 We believe the overall risk that AYRSpV  poses to New Zealand is sufficient that we are 
proposing PCR testing to ensure plants are free of these viruses. PCR testing will reduce 
the level of risk to negligible.  
 Rationale for additional measures for AcYV1 , AcVC, and E. kiwii 
 The likelihood  of these vi ruses entering New Zealand  is low . AcYV1 has only been 
detected in one country (China). AcVC, and E. kiwii have only been detected in one 
region of China.  AcVC, and E. kiwii, are likely to produce symptoms in host plants, and 
these diseased plants are not likely be used for export . We do not know what the 
symptoms of AcYV1 are, as AcYV1 was isolated from plants that also had other viruses  
Ministry for Primary Industries   Proposal: Amendments to Actinidia Plants for Planting • 5 present.  Following typical  practices for preparing tissue culture reduces the chance the 
virus will be transferred from the parent plant to the tissue culture plant.  
 However, if any of these viruses  enter New Zealand, they are likely to become 
established. T he plants are likely to go into commercial kiwifruit plantings, where the 
plants are present in high numbers  and would  be subject to grafting and pruning, which 
may spread the virus es (sterilisation of pruning or grafting tools between each plant 
would reduce the spread) . The climate is unlikely to limit establishment . 
 We do not know what  the impacts of these viruses woul d be to the kiwifruit industry, as 
they have recently been discovered and there is very limited published information 
available. We assume that even minor impacts to plant growth, or fruit quality would 
adversely affect  the kiwifruit industry.  The followin g symptoms have been observed 
which we assume will have impacts if established.  
a) AcYV1 was only isolated from plants with other viruses present so we are 
uncertain what symptoms are due to AcYV1. Leaf yellowing was observed in 
plants with mixed infections. AcYV1 is in the Waikavirus  genus, and viruses in this 
genus have a wide range of symptoms on host plants. Insect vectors of these 
viruses are likely to be present in New Zealand.  
b) Plants infected with AcVC have symptoms ranging from chlorotic spots and 
wrinkling of the leaves  to no symptoms . 
c) Plants infected with E. kiwii have symptoms including yellowing of leaves, which 
can reduce crop yield.  
 When the number of different viruses per plant  (viral load)  increases  the severity of 
symptoms may also increas e. Many viruses are already present within Actinidia plants 
in New Zealand , we assume not increa sing the viral load further will be beneficial to the 
kiwifruit industry.  
 We believe t he overall risk that  AcYV1, AcVC, and E. kiwii pose to New Zealand is 
sufficient that we are propos ing PCR testing to ensure plants are free of these viruses. 
PCR testing will reduce the level of risk to negligible.  This is consistent with the 
measures we have for other viruses in the Actinidia  standard.  
 Feasibility  of measures for the new Actinidia  viruses  
 Adding four new viruses to the pest list and requiring visual inspection will not impact 
importers , exporters , or PEQ operators . We already require visual inspection in 
quarantine.  
 Adding PCR tests is feasible fo r Biosecurity New Zealand’s PEQ testing lab (PHEL). 
The tests have already been developed and three  of the four  tests have been  used to test 
consignments in PEQ. There will be an increased cost to importers for the PCR testing . 
We c urrently  require  12 PCR tests.  This would increase to 16. The total cost for a single 
plant would increase from approximately $1,541 to $1,955 (under the proposed new 
pricing the price for 16 PCR tests would be $1,742).  We think  this cost  is very small in 
contrast to the impacts  these viruses could have on the kiwifruit industry , if they  became 
established here. 6 • Proposal: Amendments to Actinidia Plants for Planting  Ministry for Primary Industries  2.4 Remov ing “Exporting Country System ” 
 Proposed changes  
 We propose removing section  1.7 “Exporting Country System ” from  the standard.  
 Rationale  and feasibility  
 The exporting country system section  says that Actinidia  may only be imported from 
countries that have provided evidence that they have an exporting co untry system that 
complies with ISPM 7 (this standard describes a national system for issuing 
phytosanitary certificates ). ISPM  7 states “The exporting country has the sole authority 
to undertake phytosanitary certification and should establish a management system to 
deal with the legislative and administrative requirements”.  
 Removing clause  1.7 will not  change the level of  biosecurity protection . We already 
rely on NPPOs to establish , run, and monitor their own phytosanitary certification 
system s in concordance with ISPM 7. We will no longer require  a chief technical officer 
of Biosecurity New Zealand to receive the evidence , but the exporting country will still 
need to have the system in place to issue phytosanitary certificates  in accordance with  
ISPM 7. Offshore facilities and phytosanitary activities (such as NPPO inspection pre-
export and  issuing phytosanitary certificates) will continue to  be a component of  risk 
management  and removing this section is not expected to  increase risk  on this pathway .  
 Additionally, the biosecurity risks for Actinidia are largely man aged onshore  by 
observ ing and testing plants in PEQ .  When risk is managed in Level 3B PEQ, all 
testing and inspection is done in New Zealand under Biosecurity New Zealand’ s 
control. When some risk is managed offshore,  and we have robust processes and 
procedures in place to make sure that offshore facilities are managing risk s 
appropriately.  
2.5 Temperature requirements  
 Proposed changes to temperature limit requirements  
 We propose chang ing how temperature requirements are specified, to improve 
consistency with other import health standards  for plants for planting . 
 We propose changing  the current temperature range specification to an equivalent 
midpoint  value , with ±3 °C temperature limits. This format support s statistical  
interpretation of temperature  conditions (i.e., it is expected that >99% of averaged 
temperature observations will occur within ±3 °C of the required temperature ). 
 The proposed changes are listed in tabl e 4 below.  
Table 4: Current and proposed temperature requirements  
Season  Current temperature requirements : Proposed temperature requirements:  
Temperature range  Temperature levels  and limits 
Spring (day)  
Spring (night)  18–21 °C 
15–18 °C 19.5 (±3 °C) 
16.5 (±3 °C) 
Summer 1 (day)  
Summer 1 (night)  21–25 °C 
18–21 °C 22.5 (±3 °C 
19.5 (±3 °C) 
Summer 2 (day)  
Summer 2 (night)  25–30 °C 
>20 °C 27.5 (±3 °C) 
23 (±3 °C) 
Autumn (day)  
Autumn (night)  15–18 °C 
Not specified  16.5 (±3 °C) 
Not specified   
Ministry for Primary Industries   Proposal: Amendments to Actinidia Plants for Planting • 7  
 Rationale  and feasibility of temperat ure requirements  
 The average day and night temper ature s we require during the growing seasons  will not 
change, as we have proposed the midpoint of the previous range  as the temperature at 
which greenhouses should run . The environmental conditions  required are intended to 
allow plants to show disease symptoms , as some symptoms show up better  in response 
to temperature. In addition, some regulated pests need these conditions to ensure their 
concentrations are at the highest f or molecular testing (for example , phytoplasmas). We 
do not expect the level of biosecurity protection  to change . 
 Providing limits of ±3 °C acknowledges small temperature variations in the greenhouse 
temperature are not biologically significant . This incre ases the feasibility for PEQ 
operators to follow the requirements , by reducing sensitivity to external conditions and 
short -term actions such as opening doors . Outside of the greenhouse , plants are exposed 
to large temperature variation s (for example , there may be a temperature  difference of  
over 10 °C between sunny and cloudy days ), and plants are largely  tolerant of these 
fluctuations .  
 The feasibility of the temperature limits is demonstrated by the successful 
implementation of the  same ±3 °C limits in the import health standard  for Persea .  
 We are currently reviewing the environmental conditions in several plants for planting 
standards. This will include reviewing the efficacy and  feasibility  of the current  settings,  
so we are not addressing those wider considerations in th is amendment . 
3 Minor amendments  
The following amendments are  classed as minor , and we are not seeking feedback about  
them.  We are mentioning them here to let you know what’s changing.   
3.1 Remov ing Diaporthe novem  from the regulated pest list  
 Proposed changes  
 We are removing  Diaporthe novem  from the regulated pest list  in the Actinidia 
standard.  
 Rationale  and feasibility  
 Diaporthe novem  is now known  to be present in New Zealand  and is no longer a 
regulated pest. Biosecuri ty New  Zealand cannot regulate a pest on imports that is 
already here and not under official control . We do not expect this  change to affect 
importer s or exporters . Diaporthe  novem  was previously manged by growing season 
inspection . Removing this pest does  not change the mandatory testing schedule. 
Removing this pest will not change biosecurity risks associated with this pathway.  
3.2 Guidance notes  for temperature and relative humidity requirements  
 We are adding  the following guidance note to clarify the envir onmental requirements:  
“Guidance for PEQ operators  
You can use control system settings to either gradually or instantly shift between 
“daytime” and “night time” environmental conditions.  8 • Proposal: Amendments to Actinidia Plants for Planting  Ministry for Primary Industries  The required temperatures in clause 2.3.1 apply to measurements avera ged over periods 
relevant to biological impacts ( e.g., 1 hour averages for humidity, 24 -hour averages for 
temperature).  
It is expected that deviations beyond the averaged temperature and humidity limits will 
be infrequent (i.e., <  1% of averaged periods).”  
 The guidance note acknowledges that minor deviations from the required temperatures 
are normally not biologically relevant. This guidance note is intended to clarify that minor 
variations in temperature and humidity are permitted without causing a complia nce issue. 
This will make i t more feasible for PEQ operators to follow the requirements of the 
standard.  