On 22 July 2026, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) published a scientific opinion concluding that none of the six modelling studies identified in a systematic review are fully suitable for a comprehensive investigation of intervention measures against the pinewood nematode (PWN) Bursaphelenchus xylophilus, though all are potentially adaptable through targeted refinement. The opinion, adopted on 11 June 2026, reviews existing models that assess eradication and containment strategies for PWN, a quarantine pest first detected in Europe in Portugal in 1999, later in Spain (2008) and France (2025). The review was conducted in three phases: an initial literature search in Web of Science and Scopus in October 2025 yielded 1560 references after deduplication; Phase 1 identified 125 studies reporting spread models; Phase 2 narrowed to 28 models able to represent host-vector systems and intervention measures; and Phase 3 applied a structured technical appraisal of 85 items to six modelling studies. The six retained models included spatially explicit grid-based, network-based, or individual-based approaches capable of representing local spread, landscape heterogeneity, and vector-mediated transmission. Ordinary differential equation and partial differential equation models were deemed insufficient for spatially defined measures such as clear-cutting and buffer zones due to lack of spatial resolution or biological detail. The opinion notes that none of the six models were suitable for a comprehensive investigation of sets of intervention measures, but all could be adapted through improvements including explicit representation of surveillance and detection, sequential application of measures, implementation delays, incomplete host removal, host dynamics, climate or landscape variability, and human-mediated pest dispersal. The review is part of Task A of a mandate from EU Member States, who requested scientific assistance for revising eradication and containment measures under Decision EU 2012/535, particularly regarding clear-cut preventive felling and buffer zone sizes. Task B, which involves performing modelling to evaluate the effectiveness of clear-cut widths and buffer zones under eradication and containment strategies, is not addressed in this opinion but will build on the identified models and required improvements.
The opinion impacts EU regulatory bodies and national plant health authorities, who rely on EFSA's assessments to set phytosanitary measures; EU producers in forestry and timber sectors, who face compliance costs from clear-cutting and buffer zones; and EU consumers and taxpayers, who bear the economic and environmental consequences of pest spread or costly eradication efforts. The review provides a positive step by structuring the landscape of available models and identifying pathways for quantitative assessment, but the negative finding that no existing model is fully fit for purpose may delay the revision of measures and prolong uncertainty for affected stakeholders.