Proposed changes to the Plants for Planting Import Health Standard (155.02.06)

Have your say

The Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) wants your feedback about proposed changes to the Import Health Standard: Plants for Planting (155.02.06). 

Full details about the proposed changes are on this page and in the risk management proposal. We've also prepared a draft import health standard so you can see how the changes will look.

We are accepting submissions from 2 October until 5pm on 2 December 2025.

What we are proposing

We propose changing the import requirements for 24 plant genera or species so that people can import them safely.

Check the list of host plants and associated pests

The change in import requirements aims to address the risk of certain pest-host associations. The proposed changes include the addition of pests to quarantine pest lists in the import health standard and, if appropriate, the following requirements to manage the pest:

• adding PEQ (post-entry quarantine)
• extending the duration of PEQ
• requiring testing in PEQ
• requiring testing before export
• requiring pest-free declarations on phytosanitary certificates.

Full details are in the risk management proposal.

Risk Management Proposal: Proposed changes to the Plants for Planting Import Health Standard (155.02.06) [PDF, 911 KB]

Draft import health standard showing the proposed amendments

Draft Plants for Planting Import Health Standard for consultation (155.02.06) [PDF, 9.5 MB]

The existing import health standard

Plants for Planting Import Health Standard (155.02.06) [PDF, 5.9 MB]

Adding plants in vitro to schedules where there are no requirements

We are also considering whether to allow imports of plants in vitro (tissue cultures) of several genera with approved pathways but which do not currently specify requirements for plants in vitro.

Find out more about the in vitro proposal

Why we want to make these changes

Last year, we held a consultation about suspending unused or out-of-date nursery stock import pathways. During that consultation, stakeholders expressed interest in many pathways we proposed suspending. We kept most of the pathways open that were requested during that consultation. However, there were some that needed extra work to ensure they were safe to use. This consultation is a result of that extra work and the final step in the larger effort for a clearer standard.

Previous consultation: Suspension of unused or out-of-date nursery stock import pathways

If the proposed changes are implemented, all the pathways left open in the standard will be safe to use and permits can be issued. This will provide users of the standard more transparency of what pathways are available.

How the proposed changes may affect you

We sought to strike a balance between managing the risk of these pathogens while providing flexibility and cost-effective options for importers. This resulted in options that would allow the safe import of host plant material into New Zealand.

There will be some changes to the import process for importers, exporters and NPPOs.

Some of the measures propose managing risk offshore, and those are not expected to significantly increase costs. If offshore measures are not feasible, we have also proposed measures that manage risks in New Zealand.

If you are an NPPO, New Zealand importer or overseas exporter, you will have to meet the proposed biosecurity requirements.

If you are a New Zealand grower, your crops will continue to experience the same level of biosecurity protection they do now.

Host plants and associated pests; adding plants in vitro

Making a submission

If you want to comment on the proposed changes, we are accepting feedback until 5pm on 2 December 2025. If your feedback arrives after the closing date, we will hold it on file and consider it the next time we review the standard.

Email your feedback to LivePlantsConsultation@mpi.govt.nz

Information to include in your feedback

We base our requirements on the best scientific evidence available to us at the time. If you have scientific evidence that could change our conclusions, include the evidence in your feedback.

We are particularly interested in feedback on these 3 questions:

1. Are our proposed measures feasible? If not, why, and which other measures would you propose?
2. Do you foresee any consequences of these measures that we have not addressed in this proposal? If so, which ones?
3. Is there a risk we have not considered? If so, which one? Provide scientific evidence to support your answer so we can review it.

Our process: how we identified and analysed the risks

New information is brought to our attention through ongoing internal review of import health standard schedules and stakeholder reporting.

This information is screened, and pests may be determined as emerging risks and flagged for further analysis.

Note: information screening and analysis includes finding additional information obtained through manual searches and the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools.

Some of the genera that were requested during consultation last year had potentially unmanaged pest risks on these pathways, so we have completed further analysis on these pests and their relevant pathways.
We determined that some of the pests:

• did not pose a risk on the imported commodity of their relevant host plant,
• did not have an association with commercial plants of the relevant host,
• or existing import measures were considered appropriate to manage the risk.

However, for 28 pests across 24 hosts, we considered that the risk was not appropriately managed by existing risk management measures.  We assessed what new measures would be needed to manage the risk of these pests appropriately on their respective hosts.