Estimate the FKI yourself!

It measures what share of Hungary’s vineyard area lies in settlements where an infected zone has been designated around a confirmed infected vine. It is a ratio calculated from NÉBIH’s list of settlements, so there is little room for judgement here. A settlement with only a buffer zone does not count. News of new zones raises it; a zone being lifted lowers it.

It measures what share of the vineyard area falls within 1 km of a confirmed point of infection. This is exposure close to the leafhopper’s actual spreading distance, narrower than the zoned area (E1). It is calculated from official map layers, but it is not fully accurate because of its denominator and the lack of old points. So it can be adjusted within a band.

It measures what share of the vines in the exposed area is confirmed infected or marked as symptomatic. The scale is logarithmic: 0.01% is 0 points, 1% is 50 points, 10% is 100 points. There is no national vine count, so this is an estimate. This is what brings the indicator down after successful control, even if the zone remains.

It measures how strongly the infection threatens to be brought in from the neighbouring countries (Austria, Slovakia, Ukraine, Romania, Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia). What matters is how close the foci are to the border and how much propagating material comes across. If the 50 km strip along the border is free of it, it is low; if the infection spreads from several directions, it is high.

It measures on what share of the vineyard area the American grapevine leafhopper, which spreads the infection, lives. The counties where it was detected in the last two seasons count. Today the leafhopper is present in almost every wine-growing county, so this value is high. It does not measure density, only where it is present.

It measures how densely the leafhopper occurs: trap catches in untreated places, and the larval survey before treatment. A low catch measured after treatment in a treated vineyard does not count, because that already shows the effect of control. The official thresholds: below 4 insects per trap per 10 days is low, above 15 is high. It changes once a year, at the end of the season.

It measures in what share of commercial vineyards the mandatory treatment against the leafhopper was not carried out. Only whether the treatment happened counts, not how thorough it was (that is T4 and T11). If there are no figures, consider how mandatory control is and how strictly it is checked. If growers skip treatment for economic reasons, that belongs here too.

It measures how little the leafhopper is controlled in abandoned, overgrown vineyards and in wild rootstock growth. These places are untreated refuges from which the leafhopper and the pathogen can return. It is low if there is a national clearance programme; high if nobody deals with them. Wild host plants (clematis, alder) do not belong here.

It measures how much treatment against the leafhopper is skipped in home-garden, hobby and non-commercial vines. What matters is whether the obligation covers them, whether there is information and products in small packs, and whether it is checked. A notice aimed at organised growers does not by itself mean that home gardens are treated too.

It measures how good control is where treatment happens: whether there is a forecast matched to the larval stage, sufficiently effective products (also in organic growing), and whether treatment is coordinated across the area. The range of products authorised today belongs here. If the authorisation of an important product expires, this gets worse.

It measures what share of vine growers are not told in time, in a targeted way, when and how to control. The public notice mainly reaches organised growers; home gardeners and hobby growers often get no notification. 50 points means that roughly half of them do not get it.

It measures what share of the confirmed infected vines and vineyards were not grubbed up by the deadline set in the official decision. An infected vine left in place keeps spreading the infection. If mandatory grubbing up were abolished, this would be 100 points. The rule on grubbing up does not belong here, only how it is carried out.

It measures how far money is lacking for thorough control where treatment happens: enough spraying, effective products, regular monitoring of the leafhopper with traps. It also covers whether manufacturers develop new products against the leafhopper, or stop because the market is small. Think of the purchase price of grapes compared with production costs, crisis distillation and grubbing-up support. Whether treatment happened at all is T3.

It measures how uncontrolled the trade in propagating material (grafted vines, cuttings) is. An infected grafted vine carries the disease over long distances without any leafhopper. Not only the certified vine nursery route counts, but also home propagation, swapping cuttings, and private sales online or at markets.

It measures how much the winter and spring favoured the leafhopper: a mild winter and an early, warm spring mean more leafhoppers. It is only a forecast: once the first density data of the season (T2) is in, the effect of the weather already shows there, and this returns to 50. 50 means an average year.

It measures what share of the commercial vineyard area nobody inspected in the symptom season (20 July – 30 September). Official inspections, the wine community’s survey teams, drone or camera surveys followed up by a human check, and FD Finder submissions count as inspection. It is a ratio: if the hectares covered are known, we calculate it from them.

It measures what share of small-garden and home-garden vines nobody inspected. There is little data on them; the number of reports and photo submissions from the public compared with the estimated number of home gardens gives a guide. If there are hardly any submissions, it is high.

It measures what share of abandoned, overgrown vineyards were not inspected or sampled. There is no grower here to notice the symptoms, so only a targeted survey finds the foci. If there is no news of such a survey, it is high.

It measures how unreliable human inspection is: whether the inspectors are trained, whether there is a common protocol, and whether they look at the vines while the symptoms are visible (from late July to late September). With a trained leader but untrained members and a partial protocol, this is roughly 50 points.

It measures how weak automated pre-screening is: whether there is drone or camera recognition, whether its accuracy has been independently verified, how large an area it is used on, and whether a human checks its alerts. If there is no automated pre-screening, it is 100. Recognition that is unverified but used over a large area is roughly 50.

It measures what share of suspicious vines did not get a lab result (PCR) within 30 days, including those from which no sample was even taken. A symptom is not a diagnosis: only the lab confirms FD. The time until the official decision is published is not lab time.

It measures how hard it is to report a suspicious vine. If it can be done in one step, with a photo, in an app or on a form, and feedback comes within 7 days, it is low. If only by phone or e-mail, with no follow-up, it is medium; if only in person or on paper, it is high.

It measures how little reporting pays off for the grower because of the rules on compensation and reporting. It is low if quick, full compensation is paid even for single vines; high if there is no compensation, or the person who reports suffers a disadvantage. Look only at the rules; the grower’s economic situation is G11.

It measures how little it is in the grower’s interest to search for and report infected vines in their own vineyard. If production is loss-making, the grower spends little on searching, and it may suit them to exit with compensation, or to wait for the (20%) threshold for grubbing up the whole vineyard. In the worst case they keep the infection quiet. Official inspections and drone surveys do not belong here, only the grower’s decision.

It measures how far a treatment that cures an infected vine is lacking. Today there is no authorised cure. If a product has worked only in the lab or the greenhouse, that is still around 75 points; an effect proven in the field is 50; an authorised, available treatment is 0–25.

It measures what share of the vineyard area is not covered by truly resistant varieties. Only a variety in which the pathogen does not infect or does not multiply counts as resistant. A tolerant variety that shows no symptoms but is infected does not help; it is rather a hidden danger.

It measures how far proven, lasting recovery is lacking. In some varieties a vine can become free of symptoms over time, but without proof that the infection is gone this is not enough. Under mandatory grubbing up, recovery has no time to happen, so its effect is small too.

It measures how poor the general condition of the vineyards is this season: drought, heat stress, lack of rain. A weakened vine recovers less easily. 50 means an average year; an exceptional, nationwide drought is 100.

It measures how far dedicated, accessible money is lacking for research into cures and varieties and for community treatment (changing varieties, replanting). State, sector and EU funds count if the people involved can actually access them. The results of research do not belong here but in V1–V3.

It measures how far a future market able to pay is lacking, one that would make it worth developing a cure or a resistant variety in the long term. If wine consumption and the vineyard area shrink, growers cannot pay, developers do not invest, and publicly funded research does not become a product either. The market can also be international. The market for products against the leafhopper does not belong here but in T11.

The damage already done: what share of the vine population became laboratory-confirmed vines or vines marked as symptomatic in one year. The scale is logarithmic: below 0.05% it is 0 points, above 1% it is 100 points. A symptom-free vine grubbed up together with its area does not count. There is no national figure, so this is an estimate, and it has a small weight.