Regional Technical Consultation On - IPPC · Web viewe-mail : [email protected] JAMAICA Ms Shelia Yvonne Harvey Chief Plant Quarantine Officer Ministry of Agriculture 193 Old

Report of theRegional Workshop

for theReview of Draft International Standards for Phytosanitary

Measures

FAO-RLC, Caribbean RegionCoyaba Hotel, St George’s, Grenada

27-31 August 2007

1. INTRODUCTION

The Regional Workshop for the Review of Draft International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPMs) was facilitated by FAO and the IPPC Secretariat in collaboration with the Ministry of Agriculture in Grenada. Of the 14 countries invited, nine accepted the invitation to participate. One participant was invited from each country which included Belize, Commonwealth of Dominica, Grenada, Haiti, Jamaica, St Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines and Trinidad and Tobago; as host country, Grenada was represented by five participants. The Caribbean Agricultural Research and Development Institute (CARDI) was also represented. Workshop facilitators included Ms Julie Aliaga, USDA APHIS and member of the Standards Committee, Ms Shelia Harvey, Replacement Standards Committee Representative for the Latin America and Caribbean region and the FAO Regional Plant Protection Officer, Dr Gene V Pollard.

The list of participants is provided in Appendix 1.

2. OPENING SESSION

Mr Paul Graham, Head of the Pest Management Unit chaired the Opening Session of this Regional Workshop for the Review of Draft International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPMs) and welcomed participants to the workshop. Dr G V Pollard, in his opening remarks, emphasised the importance of countries to participate in the standards-setting process; he further emphasised the need to implement the already approved standards and to utilize science-based, technical justification in phytosanitary decision making. He further indicated that with dwindling donor resources, countries needed to ensure the sustainability of this activity through the commitment of their own resources, especially since there was no certainty of continued support from donors. The feature address was given by Senator Carl Caton,Ministry of Agriculture. He indicated that the hosting of this activity in Grenada will serve to reinforce the commitment of his country to undertake the necessary legislative, administrative and technical measures to prevent the trans-boundary movement of pests. Mr Caton also highlighted the fact that ISPMs were developed to facilitate and not hinder trade. However, he indicated that the implementation of some ISPMs, e.g. ISPM No. 15, poses challenges to some contracting parties. He expressed his gratitude to FAO and the IPPC Secretariat in providing the necessary resources to the convening of this workshop. He further lamented the possibility that, in the future, funding resources for these workshops may not be available as present. In his view, this would impact on the ability of developing countries to participate in the standard-setting process. Senator Caton officially opened the workshop.

Regional Workshop for the Review of Draft International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures, Grenada, 27-31 Aug 2007

3. PURPOSE OF THE WORKSHOP

The FAO Regional Plant Protection Officer, Dr Gene V Pollard, outlined that the main purpose of this regional workshop in the Caribbean, like for all other FAO regions, was to provide participants from countries in each FAO region with a regional forum to discuss the draft International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPMs). These discussions would help participants gain a better understanding of the national and regional impact of these proposed standards and provide a basis for the development and submission of national comments. This workshop covered the following draft ISPMs:

Amendments to the Glossary of phytosanitary terms (Steward: John Hedley-New Zealand)

Debarked and bark-free wood (supplement to ISPM No. 5) (Steward: Ringolds Arnitis-Latvia)

Establishment of areas of low pest prevalence for fruit flies (Steward: Magda Gonzalez-Costa Rica)

Classification of commodities (Steward: Diego Quiroga-Argentina) Sampling of consignments (Steward: David Porritt-Australia) Developing a strategy to reduce or replace the use of methyl bromide

(Steward: Mohammad Katbeh-Bader-Jordan)

4. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

The agenda was discussed and adopted (Appendix 2). Dr Pollard was elected as chair of the meeting and Mr Thaddeus Peters of Grenada was elected as rapporteur.

5. OVERVIEW OF THE IPPC

Dr Pollard gave an overview of the IPPC, ISPMs and the standard setting process. It was noted that this meeting is held to assist countries in the preparation of their comments on draft ISPMs. Official comments should be submitted to the IPPC Secretariat by the national IPPC contact point before the deadline of 30 September 2007.

6. REVIEW OF DOCUMENTS AND DISCUSSION ON DRAFT ISPMS

For each draft standard under discussion, a PowerPoint presentation was made by one of the resource persons (Ms Julie Aliaga, Ms Shelia Harvey or Dr Pollard); each PowerPoint presentation was prepared by the Steward for each Draft ISPM. Following each presentation, a discussion then ensued to develop comments for transmission to the Standards Committee. The draft ISPMs included:▫ Amendments to the Glossary of phytosanitary terms ▫ Debarked and bark-free wood (supplement to ISPM No. 5)▫ Establishment of areas of low pest prevalence for fruit flies (Tephritidae)▫ Classification of commodities into phytosanitary risk categories▫ Sampling of consignments▫ Developing a strategy to reduce or replace the use of methyl bromide

The participants agreed to discuss the draft standards in plenary and not break into separate working groups. The draft standards and amendments to the Glossary (ISPM No. 5) were reviewed and comments were recorded. Each one of the discussion sessions was chaired by the presenter and the rapporteur was Mr Thaddeus Peters.

Participants were invited to take note of the comments collected at this workshop and utilize these comments as they felt appropriate in their preparation of national comments. National comments should be submitted through the NPPO contact point to the IPPC Secretariat no later than 30 September 2007 and participants were reminded to follow the Instructions for the Use of the Template (see Appendix 3)

Regional Workshop for the Review of Draft International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures, Grenada, 27-31 Aug 2007 2

Technical and editorial comments were made on the draft ISPMs and these comments are attached to the report (see Appendix 4).

7. IPPC STANDARD SETTING WORK PROGRAMME AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE STANDARD SETTING PROCESS

The IPPC standard setting work programme was presented and the list of adopted ISPMs and topics for future ISPMs was discussed. Possibilities for input into the topics and priorities for standards already on the work programme and for future standards were outlined.

7.1 Call for work programme topicsThese discussions were led by Dr Pollard who reiterated that the biennial call for new topics for the work programme was made in June 2007. Participants were encouraged to discuss priorities for future standards and several new topics were suggested:▫ Guidelines for the importation of sand and other aggregates for construction▫ Introduction of natural enemies for pink hibiscus mealybug (as a supplement to

ISPM No. 3, 2005. Guidelines for the export, shipment, import and release of biological control agents and other beneficial organisms)

▫ Guidelines for the international movement of grasses (to be considered as a supplement to the standard under development on Pest risk management for plants for planting

▫ Handling and disposal of international garbage

However, after further discussions, it was agreed that two formal submissions to the IPPC Secretariat for new topics for standards will be made:▫ Introduction of natural enemies for pink hibiscus mealybug (as a supplement to

ISPM No. 3, 2005. Guidelines for the export, shipment, import and release of biological control agents and other beneficial organisms)

▫ Handling and disposal of international garbage

To this end, two submission forms for the IPPC standard-setting process for new topics (i.e. handling and disposal of international garbage and Introduction of natural enemies for pink hibiscus mealybug) were prepared during the workshop for submission by countries in the sub-region.

While the importance of the importation of grasses for planting was identified as a major concern by several countries, particularly for golf courses, it was agreed that this concern will likely be taken up either under topics with a draft ISPM under development, viz. pest risk management for plants for planting or under topics with a specification adopted, viz. pest risk analysis for plants as quarantine pests.

Participants were reminded of the 31st August 2007 deadline for submission of topics to the IPPC Secretariat and were urged to try to meet this closing date.

7.2 Call for experts to take part in drafting ISPMsThe selection of experts for drafting ISPMs was discussed. A call for experts for expert working groups and technical panels is made after a topic has been included on the IPPC standard setting work programme. This year a call for nominations was sent to NPPOs, RPPOs, SC members, CPM Bureau and posted on the IPP as a news item in June 2007. Participants were encouraged to check the IPP frequently and search for qualified experts from their region and submit their nominations, through the NPPO contact point, to the IPPC Secretariat. It was also requested that nominees follow the instructions in the call letter and ensure they submit CVs detailing the appropriate expertise and outlining specific experiences in relation to the requirements listed in the expertise section of the relevant specifications.


The names of several persons were suggested as experts but participants were reminded of the procedure for nomination and promised to discuss with potential nominees before submitting their names through the appropriate channels.


8. PROGRESS REPORTS BY PARTICIPANTS ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ISPM NO. 13

Participants were requested prior to the meeting to prepare a brief update on the implementation of ISPM No. 13 (Guidelines for the notification of non-compliance and emergency action), adopted in 2001, describing how they implemented this standard and in particular outlining problems they faced with the implementation and what solutions they found to solve their problems.

In all cases, there was little or poor implementation of ISPM No. 13 both from the export and import perspectives. Belize, for example indicated that they had never received any notification from their trading partners even though they have had containers returned by importing countries. Jamaica indicated that they have been notified on two occasions by France and the United Kingdom.

There were several common problems reported:i. that it was difficult to contact the regulatory authorities through the official

contact points in some countriesii. there was a general problem of soil with potatoes imported from some

exporting countriesiii. receipt of consignments without or with incomplete documentation, e.g.

incomplete phytosanitary certificationiv. destruction of shipments without any notification from the NPPO of the

importing country; the exporting NPPO only became aware of this action through exporters

However, in nearly all cases, no official notification was made by NPPOs of either importing or exporting countries, as might have been required.

9. NEXT STEPS

9.1 Organization of future regional workshops on draft ISPMsParticipants were asked to consider the future of regional workshops for the review of draft ISPMs. The FAO Plant Protection Officer indicated that in the light of continually reducing resources, it is expected that financial support form the IPPC Secretariat for the convening of future workshops will diminish notwithstanding the fact that the Secretariat understands the benefits of having these workshops. Hence, if the regions wish to continue to have workshop for the review of draft ISPMs, then each region will have to generate the majority of the funding to hold these activities.

The following outlines the important points and conclusions of the discussion:

It was proposed that a regional collaborative effort be involved in organizing future meetings. In this regard, it was further recommended that FAO, IICA, USDA-APHIS and the CARICOM Secretariat should be the organizations approached to assist with the next workshop in 2008. It was also suggested by Ms J Aliaga that the North American Plant Protection Organization (NAPPO) could be approached for assistance.

Ways to reduce costs of hosting of a workshop were discussed but it was recognised that the Caribbean is a high-cost tourist destination with high airfares and DSA costs. And even with some countries having lower DSA costs than others (e.g. Suriname or Belize compared with Barbados or Antigua), it was more expensive and time consuming to get to these countries. For example, to travel to Belize from most of the Caribbean countries, one would have to travel through Miami and frequently have to overnight.

The idea of the formation of a steering committee to coordinate planning of future workshops was raised but participants were of the view that this was


unnecessary and could be somewhat burdensome. It was recommended that the present arrangements for the convening of the workshop, i.e. the FAO Sub-Regional Office working in collaboration with the Ministry of Agriculture of the host country, be continued as this had proven to be adequate and had been working quite well.

9.2 Topics for consideration at future workshopsThe following topics were proposed for the agenda of the next workshop in 2008:

1. Update on the proposed national agricultural health and food safety agencies

2. Progress report on the implementation of selected ISPMs (one or two adopted ISPMs will be selected, based on a consensus of countries).

9.3 Participation in CPM-3All countries were encouraged to participate in CPM-3. It was suggested that special budgetary provisions be made in the plant protection and quarantine annual budgets so as to ensure that every country is present at the CPM meetings.

9.4 Participation of CARICOM countries in FAO Latin American regional discussions on IPPC related issues

No position was reached on this issue.

10. DATE AND LOCATION OF THE NEXT MEETING

It was agreed that next year’s meeting should be held in either in Antigua and Barbuda or St Kitts and Nevis from 18-22 August 2008. The final selection will be based on feedback from these countries. The FAO Plant Protection Officer will pursue these options.

11. ADOPTION OF DRAFT REPORT AND CLOSING

The draft workshop report was presented and adopted after some comments and amendments.

Closing remarks were given by G V Pollard, FAO. Participants were thanked for their valuable contributions and encouraged to coordinate the submission of national country comments to the Secretariat. The FAO Regional Plant Protection Officer (G V Pollard) and Standards Committee representatives (Julie Aliaga and Shelia Harvey) were also thanked for their special contribution, as were the donors, IPPC Secretariat and the Ministry of Agriculture who helped make the workshop possible. The members of the Pest Management Unit and, particularly, the Head of Unit (Paul Graham) were thanked for their hard work with regard to the local logistical arrangements.

Appendices:Appendix 1: List of participants Appendix 2: AgendaAppendix 3: Guidelines for the submission of comments on ISPMsAppendix 4: Technical and editorial comments on the draft ISPMs


Appendix1

REGIONAL WORKSHOP FOR THE

REVIEW OF DRAFT INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS FOR PHYTOSANITARY MEASURESSt George’s, Grenada, 27-31 August 2007

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

BELIZEMr. Francisco GutierrezTechnical Director, Plant HealthBelize Agricultural Health Authority (BAHA)P.O. Box 169, Belmopan CityTel: 501 824 4899Fax: 501824 3773e-mail: [email protected]@yahoo.com

COMMONWEALTH of DOMINICAMr Ryan AnselmPlant Protection and Quarantine OfficerMinistry of Agriculture, Fisheries and the EnvironmentBotanical Gardens, RoseauTel: 1 767 266 3802/3803Fax:1 767 448-8632e-mail: [email protected]@yahoo.com

GRENADAMr Paul GrahamHead, Pest Management UnitMinistry of Agriculture, Forestry, Landsand FisheriesBotanical GardensSt George’sTel: 1 473 440-0019Fax: 1 473 440-4191e-mail: [email protected]@spiceisle.comMr Thaddeus PetersAgricultural OfficerMinistry of Agriculture, Forestry, Landsand FisheriesBotanical GardensSt George’sTel: 1 473 440 0019/2708/3083Fax: 1 473 440-4191e-mail: [email protected]@hotmail.com

Mr Everest FergusonAgricultural Officer

Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Landsand FisheriesBotanical GardensSt George’sTel: 1 473 440 0019/2708/3083Fax: 1 473 440-4191

Mr Roland HarfordPlant Quarantine OfficerMinistry of Agriculture, Forestry, Landsand FisheriesBotanical GardensSt George’sTel: 1 473 440 0019/2708/3083Fax: 1 473 440-4191e-mail:


mailto:[email protected]







Mr Peter JosephPlant Quarantine OfficerMinistry of Agriculture, Forestry, Landsand FisheriesMinisterial ComplexBotanical GardensSt George’sTel: 1 473 440 0019/2708/3083Fax: 1 473 440-4191

Mr Randolph ShearsChief Extension OfficerMinistry of Agriculture, Forestry, Landsand FisheriesMinisterial ComplexBotanical GardensSt George’sTel: 1 473 440-3078/3083Fax: 1 473 440-4191e-mail: [email protected]

HAITIM. Pierre Charlemagne CharlesAssistant Director, Plant ProtectionMinistry of AgricultureRoute Nationale, # 1Damien, Port-au-PrinceTel: 1 509 438 9608/780 1321e-mail : [email protected]

JAMAICAMs Shelia Yvonne HarveyChief Plant Quarantine OfficerMinistry of Agriculture193 Old Hope Road, Kingston 6Tel: 1 876 977-0637Fax: 1 876 997-6401e-mail: [email protected]@yahoo.com

Ms. Denzville WilliamsPlant Quarantine/Produce Officer Ministry of Agriculture193 Old Hope Road, Kingston 6Tel: 1 876 977-0637Fax: 1 876 997 6992e-mail: [email protected]

ST KITTS AND NEVISMr. Thomas JacksonCrop Programme LeaderDepartment of AgricultureLa GueriteBasseterreSt. Kitts Tel: 1 869 465 2335 Fax: 1869 465 2928e-mail: [email protected]@hotmail.com

SAINT LUCIAMr Guy MathurinSenior Research OfficerMinistry of Agriculture, Forestry and FisheriesUnion Agricultural StationCastriesTel: 1 758 468 5600/1Fax: 1 758 450-1185e-mail: [email protected]@gmail.com

ST. VINCENT AND THE GRENADINESMr Marcus L RichardsAgricultural OfficerMinistry of Agriculture, Forestry and FisheriesRichmond HillKingstownTel: 1 784 457 1283/1784; 456 1410Fax: 1 784 457 1688e-mail: [email protected]@yahoo.com











TRINIDAD AND TOBAGOMr Joseph SealesEntomologistResearch DivisionMinistry of Agriculture, Land and Marine ResourcesCentral Experiment StationCentenoTel: 1 868 646-6284Fax: 1 868 642 0178e-mail: [email protected]

FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONSDr Gene V PollardRegional Plant Protection OfficerSub-Regional Office for the CaribbeanP.O. Box 631-CBridgetownBARBADOSTel: 1 246 426 7110Fax: 1 246 426 6075e-mail: [email protected]

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICEMs Julie E AliagaInternational Standards Program DirectorUSDA APHIS PPQ4700 River Road, 4th Floor, PIM UnitRiverdale MD 20737United States of AmericaTel: 1 301 734 0763Fax: 1 301 734 7639e-mail: [email protected]

CARIBBEAN AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE (CARDI)Dr Janet LawrenceEntomologist2 Belmopan CloseUniversity Campus, MonaKingston 7JAMAICATel: 1 876 927 1231 Fax: 1 876 927 2099e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

COUNTRIES INVITED BUT UNABLE TO ATTENDAntigua and BarbudaBahamasBarbadosGuyanaSuriname







Appendix 2

REGIONAL WORKSHOP FOR THE

REVIEW OF DRAFT INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS FOR PHYTOSANITARY MEASURESSt George’s, Grenada, 27-31 August 2007

Provisional Programme

Monday 27 August08:30 – 09:00 Registration

09:00 – 10:00 Opening Ceremony

10.00 – 10:30 Coffee

10:30 – 10:45 Overview/Conduct of Workshop [G V Pollard]

10:45 – 11:00 - Adoption of Programme- Introduction of Participants - Selection of Rapporteur

11:00 – 12:00 Overview of the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) and the Standards setting process [G V Pollard]

12:00 – 12:30 Discussion

12:30 – 14:00 Lunch at Hotel

14:00 – 15:30 Amendments to the Glossary of Phytosanitary Terms [Lead Presenter: Ms Shelia Harvey]

15:30 – 15:45 Coffee

15:45 – 17:30................................................................................................................. Debarked and bark-free wood (supplement to ISPM No. 5)[Lead Presenter: Ms Julie E. Aliaga]

Tuesday 28 August

09:00 – 10:30 Establishment of areas of low pest prevalence for fruit flies (Tephritidae) [Lead Presenter: G V Pollard]

10:00 – 10:30 Coffee

10:30 – 12:30 Establishment of areas of low pest prevalence for fruit flies (Contd)


14:00 – 15:30............................................................................................... Classification of commodities into phytosanitary risk categories

[Lead Presenter: Ms Julie E Aliaga]

15:30 – 15:45 Coffee

15:45 – 17:30 Classification of commodities into phytosanitary risk categories (Contd)

Wednesday 29 August

09:00 – 10:30 ................................................................................................................ Sampling of consignments Harvey]

10:30 – 11:00 Coffee

11:00 – 12:30 Sampling of consignments (Contd)


14:00 – 15:30 Developing a strategy to reduce or replace the use of methyl bromide [Presenter: Ms Julie E Aliaga]

15:30 – 15:45 Coffee

15:45 – 17:30 Developing a strategy to reduce or replace the use of methyl bromide (Cont’d)

Thursday 30 August

09:00 – 09:45 Progress reports on the implementation of adopted ISPMs:

ISPM No. 13: Guidelines for the notification of non-compliance and emergency action(Countries to report on what has or hasn't been done with respect to ISPM 13 in their country, outline experiences, problems, etc.)

09:45-10:30 Draft diagnostic protocol for Thrips palmi (under the fast-track standard setting process)

10:30 – 11:00 Coffee

11:00 – 12:30 Draft diagnostic protocol for Thrips palmi Cont’d)

12:30 –14:00 Lunch at Hotel

14:00 – 15:30 IPPC standard-setting work programme and opportunities for participation1. Topics for new standards and priorities for standards [Ms Julie E Aliaga to introduce]

15:30 – 16:00 Coffee

16:00 – 17:30 IPPC standard-setting work programme and opportunities for participation2. Call for experts to take part in drafting ISPMs: Participation of the Caribbean sub-region in expert drafting groups

Friday 31 August

09:00 – 10:30 Next steps: [G V Pollard]- Organization of future regional workshops on draft ISPMs

Funding requirements, including participant travel Topics for consideration at future workshops

- CPM-3: Strategies for the CARICOM region

- Participation of CARICOM countries in FAO Latin American regional discussions on IPPC related issues

10:30 – 11:00 Coffee

11:00 – 12:00 Any other business

12:00 Lunch at Hotel

14:00 – 15:00 Adoption of report and Closing

Appendix 3

GUIDELINES FOR THE SUBMISSION OF COMMENTS ON DRAFT INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS FOR PHYTOSANITARY MEASURES (ISPMS) [updated 31 May 2007]

Draft ISPMs are distributed by the Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) to National Plant Protection Organizations (NPPOs) and Regional Plant Protection Organizations (RPPOs) upon the recommendation of the Standards Committee.The following elements are part of the standard setting procedures:- Governments are provided 100 days to review the documents, consult on their

content, compile and submit comments to the Secretariat.- The Secretariat should provide a format/matrix for country comments.

Contracting parties are asked to provide comments electronically using the standard format/matrix to allow comments to be collated more easily.

- All country comments should be published on the IPP.The Secretariat encourages submissions as early as possible to facilitate the timely compilation of comments for the Standards Committee.Following are guidelines for the submission of comments to help ensure maximum benefit from the consultation process, and faster compilation of comments:1. Governments are requested to submit only one set of comments for each

standard through their IPPC official contact point. If several sets are received, the Secretariat will retain the latest version.

2. Comments should be presented in a matrix (table) using the template prepared by the Secretariat for each standard. These templates are available as electronic documents and can be downloaded from the IPP (https://www.ippc.int/id/183181), or can be obtained by e-mail from the IPPC Secretariat on request to [email protected]. Templates with comments should be submitted to the Secretariat preferably by e-mail, as a word processing file (Word or similar), to [email protected].

3. To facilitate the compilation of comments, if a government wishes to support all the comments of its RPPO (submitted by the RPPO in the templates), it may wish to say so in a letter/e-mail (instead of sending the RPPO comments under its own name). The name of the country will still appear in the comments compiled for the Standards Committee.Please note that comments from RPPOs are considered to represent the views of the organization which may be based on consultation within the organization. Such comments, however, are not considered to represent the views of individual member governments unless specifically indicated as such by the government(s) (for example by e-mail/letter as mentioned in the paragraph above).

4. Due to the short time available between the end of the consultation period and the Standards Committee meeting, and to avoid misinterpretation in translation, countries sending comments in a language other than English are encouraged to send an English translation as well.

Use of templates5. The country/organization name should be that of the

country/organization submitting the comments. It should be repeated in each row of a template.

6. General comments on each standard should be clearly indicated as such.7. For each comment on specific sections or concepts in the text, governments are

requested to clearly indicate if the type of comment is considered to refer to:- a technical substantive issue with the content of the standard- an editorial issue- a translation error.



https://www.ippc.int/id/183181

This is to ensure that each comment is given proper consideration by the Standards Committee when all of the comments are reviewed. Guidance on categories or types of comments is given in the templates. The Secretariat will transmit translation comments directly to the translators concerned.

8. All comments should indicate a specific reference to the section and paragraph of the text to which they apply.

9. All suggestions should be supported by an explanation of their purpose. Alternative text should be proposed where appropriate. It is essential that care is taken to ensure all comments and their rationale are clear.

Note: The Secretariat only distributes to the Standards Committee comments received from governments. Any comments on the ISPMs from the public should be channelled through the national official contact point for the respective countries. These official contact points can be found on the IPP (https://www.ippc.int/IPP/En/nppo.jsp

https://www.ippc.int/IPP/En/nppo.jsp

Appendix 4

TECHNICAL AND EDITORIAL COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ISPMS

The following sections capture the main discussion points for each of the draft ISPMs.

I. AMENDMENTS TO THE GLOSSARY OF PHYTOSANITARY TERMS (ISPM NO. 5) (Presenter: Ms Shelia Harvey)

1. New Terms and Definitions: i. Prevalence: It was suggested that an explanatory note or supplement to the definition be developed since the applicability of the term “prevalence” is widespread and may lead to misinterpretation.

ii. Tolerance Level: Change definition to read – Prevalence of a pest that is the threshold for action to control that pest or to prevent its spread and/or introduction.

2. Revised Terms and DefinitionsNo comment

3. Proposed DeletionsAll in agreement

II. SUPPLEMENT TO ISPM NO. 5: DEBARKED AND BARK-FREE WOOD(Presenter: Ms Julie Aliaga)

i. A new definition of ‘debarked wood’ was suggested as follows: Wood that has been subjected to any process designed to remove bark from wood with an established tolerance for residual bark.

Section 4. General Observations Regarding Pest Risk Associated with Barkii. 2nd paragraph, Line 1, 4th word: Replace “standard” with “supplement”

iii. 3rd paragraph, Insert “may” before “require”. Sentence now reads: Some importing NPPOs may require debarked wood or bark-free wood as a phytosanitary measure.

iv. 4th paragraph, Line 1: insert “scientifically evaluated and” before “determined”. Sentence now reads : Where risks from bark on wood have been scientifically evaluated and determined to be present …

Section 5. Setting Bark Tolerances for Debarked Woodv. bullet point 1: species of group of species of trees in relation to the pest cyclevi. Bullet Point 4: insert “pest” before species and change sentence to read: - the relationship between infestation probability and the quantity of residual bark for pest species dependent on bark

III. ESTABLISHMENT OF AREAS OF LOW PEST PREVALENCE FOR FRUIT FLIES (TEPHRITIDAE)

(Presenter: Dr. Gene V Pollard)

Backgroundi. Para 3, line 1: Insert “any designated” before authority and change to read: This standard provides guidance for the establishment and management by the NPPO or any designated competent authority…

Requirements1. General Requirements1.1 Operational plansi. Para 1, line 1: sentence to read: In most cases An official operational plan is needed …ii. Para 2, line 1: should read: An operational plan for an FF-ALPP should shall describe …

1.2 Determination of an FF-ALPPiii. Para 2, line 1: change to read: The following elements should also be considered …

1.3 Documentation and record keepingiv. Para 1, 1st sentence, line 2: … FF-ALPP should shall be adequately….

v. Para 1, 2nd sentence: They should shall be reviewed …

vi. Para 1, line 4: It is recommended that a manual of procedures relating to the operational plan is be prepared …

vii. Para 2, bullet 1: - lists of hosts known to occur in the area, including description of host seasonality of fruit production ….

viii. Para 2, bullet 2 (b): description of agro-ecological features such as the location of main host areas, marginal host areas and urban host areas

ix. Para 2 bullet 3: - surveillance records; types of surveys, … number of target fruit flies captured by species and sex for each trap

1.4 Supervision activitiesx. Para 2, bullet 6: documentation and record keeping

2. Specific Requirementsxi. Comment : SC may wish to re-look at the general order of the numbering in this section.

2.3.1 Surveillancexii. Change 2.1.2 to 2.2.1

2.5.3 Reinstatementxiii. Last Para, insert at end of sentence: … by the NPPO of the importing country.

Annex 1: Parameters used to estimate the level of fruit fly prevalencexiv. Para 2: In all instances of the use of ALPP, change to FF-ALPP for consistency

xv. Para 2, line 4: change to FF-ALPP for consistency

xvi. Para 2, line 4: (i.e. the ALPP is intended to protect mixed harvest objectives more than one target fruit fly host commodity)(N.B. no consensus by participants)

Annex 2: Guidance on corrective action plans for fruit flies in an FF-ALPP3. Suspension of FF-ALPP statusxvii. Para 1, line 2: change 2.4.1 to 2.5.1

4. Implementation of control measures in the affected area xviii. line 1: Specific suppression actions should immediately be implemented and population monitored in the affected area(s). (No consensus of workshop)

IV. CLASSIFICATION OF COMMODITIES INTO PHYTOSANITARY RISK CATEGORIES (Presenter: Ms Julie Aliaga)

Scopei. Delete last sentence – the standard does not cover .. guidance for determining phytosanitary risk management measures … as stated.

Referencesii. Include: Pest risk analysis for regulated non-quarantine pests, 2004. ISPM No. 21, FAO, Rome

Backgroundiii. Para 6, Intended use: Insert an additional bullet point: ISPM No. 21 (Pest risk analysis for regulated non-quarantine pests, 2004, section 3.1.1.1)

Requirementsiv. Para 2, bullet point 1: - method and level degree of processing; similar change should be made throughout the draft wherever “level” occurs.Comment: “level” is a proposed term in other standards in relation to pest population; hence this change is to avoid confusion

1.1 Method and level degree of processingv. Para 1, line 2: …, and hence affect the potential to harbour pests of the commodity of the commodity to harbour pests

v. Para 3, bullet 1: Type A: processed to the point where the commodity does not meet the definition of a regulated article can no longer be considered as a regulated article

2. Phytosanitary Risk Categories and Measuresvi. Para 3, line 3: These pests could be detected during inspection and may be subjected to phytosanitary measures.

Category 1vii. Para 1, line 1: Commodities have been processed to the point where they do not meet the definition of can no longer be considered a regulated article

Category 4viii. Comment: there is need for a definition for “propagative material” for the purpose of this standard

Annex 1ix. Title of table – change to: Type A Processed to the point where the commodity does not meet the definition of can no longer be considered a regulated article.

Appendix 1:Box Type A and Category 1 - does not meet the definition of can no longer be considered

V. SAMPLING OF CONSIGNMENTS (Presenter: Ms Shelia Harvey)

Objectives of Sampling of Consignmentsi. Bullet point 2: to provide assurance that the number of pests or infested units in a consignment does not exceed a specified the tolerance level

1.6 Tolerance levelii. Definition should be consistent with proposed new definition

2. Links between the Parametersiii. Para 3, last sentence: insert at end … above the specified level

4. Lot Identificationiv. Para 2, bullet point 2: - origin and area of production

v. insert new bullet point: - intended use

5.1.1 Simple random testingvi. Para 1, last line: …haphazard sampling (see below 5,2,2)

5.1.3 Stratified samplingvii. Para 2, line 1: … or when it can not cannot be …

5.1.5 Clustered samplingviii. Para 2, 2nd sentence: Some participants of the workshop were of the view that this statement should not be part of the standard as it appears to place a bias on this sampling method.(No consensus)

VI. DEVELOPING A STRATEGY TO REDUCE OR REPLACE THE USE OF METHYL BROMIDE (Presenter: Ms Julie Aliaga)

Referencesi. Include – International Plant Protection Convention, 1997. FAO, Rome

ISPM No.28

Backgroundii. Para 1, line 1: The main purpose of the International Plant Protection Convention is to protect plants prevent the spread and introduction of pests of plants and plant products and to promote appropriate measures for their control (IPPC, 1997 New Revised Text, Art. I).

iii. Para 2, line 4: delete quarantine and pre-shipment

iv. Para 4, line 4: … phytosanitary treatments or procedures are availableComment: definition of “phytosanitary procedure” includes treatments

v. Para 6, line4: In comparison, the United Nations environment Programme’s methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee (MBTOC) …Already indicated in section – “Abbreviations used in this standard”, page 1

Requirements1. Replacement of Methyl Bromide Use for Phytosanitary Purposes

i. Para 1, line 3: … is a currently used as a …

2. Reducing Methyl Bromide Use for Phytosanitary Purposesii. Para 2, 1st bullet point: replace “e.g.” with i.e.iii. Para 2, insert 4th bullet point: using appropriately sized treatment facilities

4. Recording Methyl Bromide Use for Phytosanitary Purposesiv. Para 2, 3rd bullet point: - whether the use was on import or export goods commodities

5. Guidelines for Developing and Implementing a Strategy on Methyl Bromide Use for Phytosanitary Purposes

v. Point 2: Ensure that methyl bromide is used only for quarantine regulated pests ….Comment: notwithstanding limiting the use of MB for quarantine pests as a measure to reduce use of MB, the workshop felt that MB use should be extended to regulated pests.

vi. Point 8: Change to read: Prioritize the development of alternative treatments to for those commodities …

vii. Point 12: Change to read: Coordinate the implementation of a national strategy to reduce and replace methyl bromide usage in collaboration with the National Ozone Unit

Documents

Regional Technical Consultation On - IPPC · Web viewe-mail : [email protected] JAMAICA Ms Shelia Yvonne Harvey Chief Plant Quarantine Officer Ministry of Agriculture 193 Old