SPTA 2009 Identification of strategic priorities for the work programme Document: SPTA-2009-16
Agenda: 11.2
Eleventh Meeting of the Informal Working Group on Strategic Planning and Technical Assistance
06-09 October 2009 – FAO, Rome, Italy
Identification of strategic priorities based on submissions for topics in 2009
1. As decided at the Third Session of the Commission on Phytosanitary Measures (CPM) in April 2008, the IPPC Secretariat made a biennial call for topics for the IPPC standard setting Work Programme in May of 2009. Topics being solicited included the following:
- new topics for ISPMs
- new components to existing ISPMs, such as supplements, annexes or appendices
- revision/amendment of adopted ISPMs, supplements, annexes, appendices or glossary terms
- pests for which a new diagnostic protocol should be developed
- new topics for phytosanitary treatments (e.g. fruit flies, irradiation, etc.), for which specific information and data will be called for at a later date.
Overview of submission for topics by the IPPC Secretariat
2. The IPPC Secretariat has received 21 submissions in response to 2009 call for topics which resulted in 16 topics being presented for consideration. Five of the submissions were from different parties in support of the topic on International Movement of Seed. Two submissions from different parties were in support of the development of ISPM on Biological Control for Forest Pests. Among new submissions, there were proposals for development of seven (7) phytosanitary treatments for a number of commodities moving in international trade (i.e. plants for planting, containers and conveyances, etc. - see the attached tables) and one proposal for development of a disinfestation treatment for fruit flies. There were two submissions for harmonization of procedures and references, specifically in relation to post-entry quarantine. The Secretariat would like to remind the SPTA that CPM-4 (2009) indirectly placed on the Work Program a request for the development of criteria for phytosanitary treatments of wood moving in international trade which was filed as an outstanding business.
3. The IPPC Secretariat reviewed the submissions and grouped them based on the Framework for Standards and Procedures for CPM (accessed from https://www.ippc.int/id/155819?language=en ). A summary table of all submissions with the Secretariat grouping (Table 1) is followed by the detailed submissions by parties (Table 2).
4. When discussing strategic priorities for the standard setting work programme, the SPTA should also consider:
- The current work programme (see document SPTA-2009-24) to ensure that there is no duplication and, where possible, to harmonize or supplement the existing set of both adopted ISPMs and topics for standards which could potentially relate to those on the current work programme;
- The new criteria adopted by CPM-3 which were sent with the call letter (see Appendix 1)
- A framework for standards.
Resources
5. A clear strategy is needed to assist the SC and the Secretariat in determining which topics should be worked on with the available resources. Background work on the development of a topic into a specification is one of the important considerations leading to substantial resource savings. For example, the Secretariat received a submission from TPFF entitled “Establishment and maintenance of regulated areas upon outbreak detection in Fruit Fly Free Areas [for inclusion as Annex 1 of ISPM 26]” which also included a Draft Specification for the proposed standard. Thus, availability of the draft specification might aid the SPTA and the SC in the decision whether to place this topic on the IPPC Work Program and its tentative priority.
6. Another important factor is the long term organization needs that should be considered when setting priorities to enable the ongoing work of technical panels and expert working groups and for the utilization of extra budgetary resources, when they become available.
Utilizing the resources of other organizations
7. With the goals of the IPPC in mind, the SPTA may wish to consider whether it should give highest priority to the development of ISPMs that could be implemented by other organizations. This may be relevant when considering submissions on Biological Control for Forest Pests, International Movement of Seeds, Phytosanitary treatments for different commodities and conveyances, etc., which once developed, could be implemented by broad range of industries, from growers to transportation, and in particular by those interested in achieving accreditations.
Reorganization of ISPMs, revision or new topics
8. There is only one submission related to the revision of the existing standards - ISPM No. 4 “Requirements for the establishment of pest free areas”. This standard was adopted in 1995 and is long past the optimal time for revisions (presumed to be five years). Several standards have been developed and adopted in recent years that can be utilized in the revision of ISPM No. 4 [e.g. ISPM No. 10 (1999) “Requirements for the establishment of pest free places of production and pest free production sites”, ISPM No. 22 (2005) “Requirements for the establishment of areas of low pest prevalence”, ISPM No. 26 (2006) “Establishment of pest free areas for fruit flies (Tephritidae)”, ISPM No. 29 (2007) “Recognition of pest free areas and areas of low pest prevalence”, ISPM No. 30 (2008) “Establishment of areas of low pest prevalence for fruit flies (Tephritidae)”].
9. In addition, revision of ISPM No. 4 appears even more appropriate in the light of the submission by TPFF of the new topic “Establishment and maintenance of regulated areas upon outbreak detection in Fruit Fly Free Areas” proposed as an Annex 1 of ISPM 26. ISPM No. 4 describes different types of pest free areas and provides general guidance on the establishment of pest free areas; its concepts and provisions apply to the establishment and maintenance of pest free areas for all pests including fruit flies and therefore ISPM No. 4 should be referred to in conjunction with this standard (see the Background and General Requirements sections of the ISPM No. 26).
10. The SPTA might want to consider either a strategy of developing new standards to meet needs and fill gaps in standard setting, or to reorganize and review/revise existing standards. If the latter approach is chosen as a strategic priority, a careful study should be made of how adopted ISPMs and those under development should be reorganized or revised (e.g. grouping according to broad topics such as pest risk analysis, fruit flies, export, etc.). Such a study might also identify gaps in topics for ISPMs that need to be filled.
Other
11. The SPTA might also wish to consider the interactions between commodity-specific and pest-specific or treatment-specific standards. For example, ‘’Movements of soil and growing media’’ (Specification No. 43) in association with “Plants for planting” (Specification No. 34) are high risk and there is a need for effective treatments to mitigate these risks. The topic “Plants for planting” has a high priority in the IPPC work programme. The new two topics for treatments could be considered in a combined way as “Treatments for plants for planting and soil and growing media associated with plants”.
12. For fruit pests (other than fruit flies), data will be available for many treatments for such pests and this topic complements the fruit fly treatments, which are already on the work programme.
13. Movements of sea and air containers and conveyances are high priority topics on the IPPC work programme due to their heavy traffic around the world and would require a prompt development of new treatments to mitigate risk of pest associated with them.
Page 3 of 26
SPTA 2009 Identification of strategic priorities for the work programme Document: SPTA-2009-16
Agenda: 11.2
Table 1. Quick reference based on the Framework for Standards
(see additional notes on individual submissions in Table 2)
Ref. No. / Framework area / Title / Proposed by /1. / Revision of adopted ISPMs / Revision of ISPM No.4 (1999): Requirements for the establishment of pest free areas. / Canada
2. / Regulated areas / Establishment and maintenance of regulated areas upon outbreak detection in Fruit Fly Free Areas [for inclusion as Annex 1 of ISPM 26]. / TPFF
3. / Post entry quarantine / Specification for the approval and registration of plant quarantine pest’s diagnostic laboratory. / Iran
4-11. / Phytosanitary treatments for specific commodity groups / Seven treatments for commodity groups moving in international trade [for inclusion as Annexes to ISPM No. 28: Phytosanitary treatments for regulated pests]
In order of priority identified by TPPT (score according to IPPC criteria)
1. Plants for planting.
2. Soil and growing media in association with plants.
3. Fruit pests (other than fruit flies).
4. Containers and conveyances.
5. Forest tree seeds.
6. Cut flowers and foliage.
7. Grain.
Development of criteria for treatments of wood moving in international trade. / TPPT
CPM-4
(outstanding item)
12. / Specific phytosanitary treatments / Hot Water / Vapour Heat Treatment for disinfestations of Fruit Fly (Bactrocera spp.) / Pakistan
13. / Forest products and wood / Biological control for forest pests / TPFQ, Canada
14. / Guidelines for applying phytosanitary treatments / Conducting fumigation of regulated articles and documental execution. / Ukraine
15 / Seed / International movement of seed / Canada, USA,
European Commission,
International Seed Federation (ISF),
Turkey
16. / Pathway and/or commodity PRA / Pest risks associated with bamboo / TPFQ
Page 3 of 26
SPTA 2009 Identification of strategic priorities for the work programme Document: SPTA-2009-16
Agenda: 11.2
Table 2. Detailed table of new submissions in response to 2009 call for topics
Sub. No. / Title (and type of topic) / Core Criteria from Procedures for identifying topics and priorities for standards / Supporting Criteria from Procedures for identifying topics and priorities for standards / Proposed by /1. / International movement of seed
[New ISPM,
Commodity Specific] / Contribution to the purpose of the IPPC as described in Article I.1.
Seed of numerous crops is moved in international trade based on industry demand. The proposed new international standard for phytosanitary measures (ISPM) aims to facilitate the safe movement of seed in international trade through the development of harmonized phytosanitary measures which would benefit both the importing and exporting country. Such international guidelines would provide the necessary tools for NPPOs to prevent the spread and introduction of plant pests through the seed pathway.
The commercial value of all seed is evaluated at approximately 36.5 billion USD annually. Many seed companies in Canada use a contra-season seed increase to achieve two growing seasons per year. This practice is also common in other regions of the world. Given the competitive nature of the seed industry, a seed company may contract seed multiplication to introduce new varieties in the marketplace. The seed is therefore exported to many countries and some of them may require phytosanitary certification based on field inspection for specific pests as a condition of import. Re-export of seed from a country where the seed was initially imported can be difficult if the next importing country requires a field inspection in the country of production and such inspection was not conducted or the results of such an inspection are not available to the re-exporting country.
Feasibility of implementation at the global level
The intent of this new ISPM is to provide guidance to importing and exporting NPPOs to facilitate the movement of seed in international trade while providing the necessary safeguards to prevent the introduction and spread of regulated pests. This new standard would specifically cover harmonization of phytosanitary procedures for seed such as field inspection, laboratory testing and phytosanitary certification. The standard would also address the challenges associated with the re-export of seed in cases where the initial importing country does not require a phytosanitary certificate or does not have the supporting documentation to certify the seed consignment to meet the phytosanitary import requirements of another country.
This standard would provide much needed guidance to all regions of the world given that seed is a commodity that is traded internationally. Some of the challenges identified above have not only been encountered in Canada but in other parts of the world as well.
Clear identification of the problems that need to be resolved through the development of the standard
The current provisions in ISPM No. 12 (Guidelines for phytosanitary certificates) do not provide the necessary guidance for the re-export of seed. In particular circumstances, NPPOs are unable to certify seed for re-export due to the lack of the required documentation (phytosanitary certificate, additional declaration on the phytosanitary certificate, required field inspection done in the country of origin).
The re-export of seed has become an increasingly more common practice as seed is multiplied in one country, shipped to another country for processing (cleaning) and then exported to one or more countries around the world. Because of industry practice, it is very difficult to certify the seed to meet the phytosanitary import requirements of all the countries given that some countries require that a growing season inspection was conducted in the country where the seed was grown, Guidelines are required for NPPOs to identify alternative or equivalent phytosanitary measures, such as laboratory testing or area-freedom, to growing season inspection to facilitate the re-export of seed. Furthermore, the ISPM should also provide the necessary guidance for re-exporting seed from a country that did not have any phytosanitary import requirements for the seed consignment when it was initially imported. In such cases, a phytosanitary certificate from the country of origin is not available on which to base re-export certification.
Availability of, or possibility to collect, information in support of the proposed standard
Information from international organizations such as the International Seed Federation (ISF), the Seed Association of the Americas (SAA), the International Seed Testing Association (ISTA) or the Canadian Seed Trade Association (CSTA) could be made available to support the development on an ISPM for the international movement of seed. Work undertaken by the NAPPO Seed Panel could also serve as background information for the development of an ISPM on this subject. Additional expertise of other RPPOs and NPPOS is likely to be available in different regions of the world.