Regional Technical Consultation On · Web viewChair Dr Russell Campbell. The PowerPoint was presented by Ms Hamilton. A comment on multiple plants for testing was suggested for

Regional workshop for the review of draft International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPM)

SOUTHWEST PACIFIC, Nadi, Fiji Islands9-13 August, 2010

Report

Contents

1. Opening Session........................................................................................................................................22. Purpose of the workshop.........................................................................................................................23. Adoption of the agenda............................................................................................................................24. Overview of the IPPC..............................................................................................................................35. Review of documents and discussion on draft ISPMs..........................................................................3

5.1 Draft ISPM: Systems approaches for pest risk management of fruit flies......................................35.2 Draft ISPM: Submission of new treatments for inclusion in ISPM No.15......................................35.3 Draft ISPM: Integrated measures approach for managing pest risks associated with international trade of plants for planting...................................................................................................45.4 Draft ISPM: Irradiation treatment for Ceratitis capitata (Annex to ISPM 28).............................45.5 Draft ISPM: Diagnostic protocol for Plum pox virus........................................................................45.6 Discussions on draft revisions of ISPM 7 and 12...............................................................................5

6. Specifications............................................................................................................................................56.1 Draft specification – Systems for authorizing phytosanitary activities...........................................66.2 Draft specification – Minimizing pest movement by air containers and aircraft...........................66.3 Draft specification – safe handling and disposal of waste with potential pest risk generated during international voyages.......................................................................................................................6

7. Any other business...................................................................................................................................67.1 Guidelines to implementation of phytosanitary standards in forestry............................................67.2 Update on the use of the PCE in the Pacific.......................................................................................67.3 Update on Coptotermes gestroi termite in Fiji...................................................................................77.4 Assistance with the use of the IPP.......................................................................................................77.5 Statement from Mr Tumukon as a member of the Standards Committee.....................................77.6 Progress reports by participants on the implementation of adopted ISPMs..................................77.7 Presentation of online comment system for draft ISPMs..................................................................97.8 Participant survey (Appendix 6)..........................................................................................................9

8. Organization of future regional workshops...........................................................................................99. Close...........................................................................................................................................................9APPENDIX 1: Agenda...................................................................................................................................10APPENDIX 2: List of participants................................................................................................................12APPENDIX 3: Guidelines for use of templates for comments...................................................................16APPENDIX 4: Completed templates with workshop comments on each ISPM.......................................19

Draft: Systems approaches for pest risk management of fruit flies (Tephritidae)...............................20Draft: Appendix to ISPM 15: 2009, submission of new treatments for inclusion in ISPM 15............30Draft: Integrated measures approach for plants for planting in international trade..........................34Draft: Annex to ISPM 27:2010, plum pox virus......................................................................................54

APPENDIX 5: Guidelines for the submission of comments on draft international standards for phytosanitary measures (ISPMs)...................................................................................................................64

1. Opening Session

Regional workshop for the review of draft ISPMs – South West Pacific / August 2010 / page 11

The meeting was started with an opening prayer led by Mr Sairusi Bulai and a statement from Ms Joanna Hamilton, International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) Secretariat. Ms. Hamilton welcomed the participants to the meeting and noted the main purpose of the workshop was to discuss the draft International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPMs) out for member consultation. The IPPC Secretariat hoped that the meeting would help the participants understand the drafts and to prepare country comments for submission to the Secretariat. Ms Hamilton listed the ISPMs for discussion and noted that some additional draft standards would also be discussed, including ISPMs 7 and 12 on phytosanitary certification.

The Acting Director of Land Resource Division, the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) ‘Inoke Ratukalou officially opened the meeting. He stressed the importance of this workshop as an essential aspect of the IPPC standard setting process which offers Pacific island countries the opportunity to understand and make inputs into the review of the draft standards. Mr. Ratukalou highlighted the obligations and responsibilities of island countries concerning the standards, and the importance of these standards in their trading operations.

Mr. Ratukalou also challenged participants to understand the issues and actively participate. He hoped that they would be able to prepare useful comments for submission to the IPPC as this may be the only major avenue for small island countries in the Pacific to contribute to the standards development decision making process. He wished the participants fruitful discussions.

Following the SPC opening remarks, the participants from the various countries introduced themselves and a group photo was taken. The meeting was attended by twenty-eight experts from eighteen countries and was facilitated by SPC, IPPC Secretariat, and MAF New Zealand (See Appendix 2). This meeting was the first time that a representative from American Samoa had attended the South West Pacific regional workshop in draft ISPMs. Papua New Guinea and Australia did not attend due to unforeseen circumstances.

2. Purpose of the workshopThis was outlined in the opening session - the main purpose of this workshop 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 out for member consultation:

Systems approaches for pest risk management of fruit flies Submission of new treatments for inclusion in ISPM No.15 Integrated measures approach for managing pest risks associated with international trade of plants

for planting Irradiation treatment for Ceratitis capitata (Annex to ISPM 28) Diagnostic protocol for Plum pox virus.

3. Adoption of the agendaThe agenda was discussed and adopted (Appendix 1). It was suggested that a Grand Chair be elected for the meeting. This was Dr Russell Campbell who attended the meeting as Chair of the Pacific Plant Protection Organisation (PPPO). Separate chairs were elected to preside over the discussions on each of the draft standards: Mr Sione Foliaki from Tonga for Fruit flies, Mr Ilaitia Leiloma Boa from Fiji for submission of new treatments for ISPM 15, Mr Ngatoko Ngatoko from Cook Islands for plants for planting, Dr Russell Campbell for the irradiation standard and for the plum pox diagnostic protocol.

The representatives from Marshall Islands, Mr. Karness Kusto and Samoa, Ms Talei Fidow were elected as rapporteurs to assist the Secretariat.

4. Overview of the IPPCMs Joanna Hamilton, IPPC Secretariat gave an overview of the IPPC, ISPMs and the standard setting process. It was noted that the outputs of this meeting would assist countries to prepare national 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 2010.

Dr J. Hedley, MAF New Zealand provided a summary of the main points of the June CPM Bureau meeting. These included the work towards resource mobilization, the communications strategy, the capacity building programme and the development of a Strategic Framework. Fiji Islands initiated a discussion on the use and recognition of the mark by countries.

The issue of transparency and notifying new pests was discussed. Countries acknowledged the need to notify new pests but noted that there should also be some mechanism to remove records when pests are eradicated.

Tonga expressed concern about the possible cancellation of the standards committee meetings in 2011, which it considered could also impact on regional consultations.

5. Review of documents and discussion on draft ISPMsThe five draft standards were reviewed and comments during the meeting were recorded by the IPPC Secretariat directly onto the comments template which is attached to this report (Appendix 4). Technical and editorial comments were made on the draft ISPMs. 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.

A different participant chaired each of the sessions to discuss the draft ISPMs (see section 3, Adoption of agenda). It was suggested that countries share their comments on the draft standards that are to be sent to the Secretariat of the IPPC. The SPC Secretariat of the SPC offered to assist with this.

For each draft, the Chair asked for general comments before proceeding through the draft section by section.

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

5.1 Draft ISPM: Systems approaches for pest risk management of fruit flies

Chair Mr Sione Foliaki. The PowerPoint presentation of the draft ISPM was delivered by Ms Hamilton.

It was suggested that “contracting parties” be changed to “countries” and that ISPM 6 be added to the list of references. There was some concern about PRA in the outline.

In para 27 “options” was changed to “measures” and “appropriate level of protection” to “phytosanitary import requirements”.

It was recommended that “hosts” in para 23 be changed to “fruits” as per the scope. In para 29 “association” changed to “consultation”.

The group thought that para 37 could be deleted as it was superfluous. It was noted in para 46 that the duties encompassed those of both importing and exporting countries and the distinction was not clear.

Para 47 and 49 “supervision” was amended to “verification” or “auditing”.

Some text reorganization was recommended for sections 2.1.2.1 and 2.1.2.2 (paras 69-72)

5.2 Draft ISPM: Submission of new treatments for inclusion in ISPM No.15

Chair Mr Ilaitia Boa, Director, Biosecurity Authority of Fiji Islands. The PowerPoint presentation was presented by Ms Hamilton.

It was suggested that the title be changed to reflect the idea that it was a procedure for evaluation for new treatments submitted for inclusion in ISPM 15. The group discussed the level of efficacy demanded by


treatment testing procedure. There were some comments on the use of “logs” in para 6 – this was amended to “logs for dunnage”.

It was noted that there was already an Appendix 1 in ISPM 15. But there was the suggestion that this should be Annex 3, rather than an appendix.

Some members of the group supported the use of the example boxes in the text.

The group supported the use of probit 9 for the testing. This was particularly the case with the provisions provided in the text of the draft which included the ability to extrapolate results where insufficient pests are available or, also, to use substitute species.

5.3 Draft ISPM: Integrated measures approach for managing pest risks associated with international trade of plants for planting

Chair Mr Ngatoko Ngatoko. The PowerPoint was presented by Ms Hamilton.

It was suggested that the Scope be shortened as it was not intended to be a list of contents. The outline was noted as unhelpful and lacking in facts that might usefully summarize the sections.

It was noted that much of the draft referred to the measures in detail used for the measure of a POP, but did not refer to other measures to make up integrated measures (as were listed in Table 1).

In para 31, “transmission” was amended to “mode of transmission”. A further bullet point was added “– likely economic and environmental impact”. It was suggested that tubers and pollen be added to the list of factors considered for risk.

It was suggested that the title of para 45 be changed to “application of pest risk management measures”.

It was noted that there did not seem to be a mention of buffer zones in the text whereas they were mentioned in Table 1.

It was suggested that the pest management plan be incorporated into the previous section with both being in a section numbered 3.2.2. Pest management would be a subsection within this section.

With para 61 dot-point 6, the addition of the certification of subcontractors was suggested.

There was discussion about the nature of the employment of the crop protection specialist – part-time for fulltime, or a government official. An amendment was proposed.

The use of critical and non-critical non-compliance was questioned. The use of the corrective action plans as described in other standards was noted.

The numbers in the third column of table 2 that are referring to table 1 need to be amended.

5.4 Draft ISPM: Irradiation treatment for Ceratitis capitata (Annex to ISPM 28)

Chair Dr Russell Campbell. The PowerPoint was presented by Ms Hamilton.

There were no comments on this draft.

5.5 Draft ISPM: Diagnostic protocol for Plum pox virus

Chair Dr Russell Campbell. The PowerPoint was presented by Ms Hamilton.

A comment on multiple plants for testing was suggested for insertion after para 11: "In some circumstances (e.g. during routine diagnosis of a pest widely established in a country) multiple plants may be tested


simultaneously using a bulked sample derived from a number of plants. The decision to test individual or multiple plants will depend on the virus concentration in the plants and the level of confidence required by the NPPO."

5.6 Discussions on draft revisions of ISPM 7 and 12

Chaired by Dr Russell Campbell. Power point presentations by Dr J. Hedley.

Draft revision of ISPM 7Some points of interest were noted: the title has been changed, the scope includes a reference to ISPM 12, the usage of the term “phytosanitary certificates” was described, a new paragraph at the beginning of the Requirements section has been inserted, the statement regarding the authority to prevent the export of consignments has been retained, various part of the draft have reorganized text, para 4.2 of the original version was removed to ISPM 12.

The absence of the Appendix (and the choice of titles) was noted. Some members of the group preferred the title “Skills and qualifications of inspectors involved in phytosanitary certification” for the Appendix.

“plant products and other regulated articles” was suggested for addition to the 2nd sentence in para 10 of the outline.

The group discussed the issuance of PCs by public officers and the role of companies that provide treatments for consignments. The keeping of records was discussed at length. The importance of effective contact points was stressed.

Comments made during the workshop were recorded in MS Word track changes and comments format within the document itself.

Draft revision of ISPM 12

Points of interest included: the Background was reordered but the content was virtually unchanged, the types of certificate section provides useful information not included in the original, the duration of validity has been clarified, the specific considerations regarding the use of phytosanitary certificates and additional information for re-export were noted, a proposal for dealing with the consignee controversy has been suggested in the new draft, more information on the place of origin has been provided, and the lack of Appendix/Annex 1 was noted.

It was suggested that the title of section 1.2 be amended to Types and forms of phytosanitary certificates.

The text on the duration of validity was discussed. Cases where countries do not have re-export certificates were noted. The use of export PCs for this purpose could be negotiated with importing countries. The use of the additional declaration section for information for re-export was noted.

An “only” was inserted into the statement regarding to the use of “To order” to stress that it can be used only with the permission of the importing country.

Comments made during the workshop were recorded in MS Word track changes and comments format within the document itself.

6. Specifications

Ms Hamilton outlined the process for making comments on draft specifications currently out for member consultation and encouraged countries to make any comments to the IPPC Secretariat by the deadline of 13 September 2010 using the templates provided. Participants were instructed on how to find and download the specifications and comments templates from the International Phytosanitary Portal (IPP).


Comments made during the workshop were recorded in MS Word track changes and comments format within the specifications themselves.

6.1 Draft specification – Systems for authorizing phytosanitary activities

This process allows agencies to do more work when they do not have sufficient staff to do the work themselves. It was noted that these procedures are required by a number of countries.

6.2 Draft specification – Minimizing pest movement by air containers and aircraft

It was noted that this was an important area of work for Pacific countries and territories. The need for verification procedures was stressed. The similarities with the aircraft programme for dealing with the movement of mosquitoes by aircraft was mentioned. New Zealand noted the US programme to prevent the spread of Japanese beetle by aircraft. The case of the movement of Giant African Snail in the Pacific was noted. The presence of an exotic ant at a Guam airport was described.

The example of the New Zealand programme for the cleaning of empty sea containers moving to New Zealand was mentioned as an example of a cleaning system.

The current practices of airline standards need to be noted. The unwillingness of airlines to play quarantine videos was commented on. An extra task covering this point was proposed for the specification

The links to the CBD and its programme regarding the gaps and inconsistencies in the international standards for the control of the spread of Invasive Alien Species (IAS) were noted. The links with human and animal health in the development of systems was stressed and discussions with the relevant organizations could be proposed.

The amendment of the third point in the scope section to read: “guidance for …developing systems that would consist of phytosanitary measures to reduce pest risk …”

6.3 Draft specification – safe handling and disposal of waste with potential pest risk generated during international voyages

This standard was proposed by the Pacific countries and the specification drafted by David Porritt (Australia).

The participants noted that this was an important standard for the Pacific and they would like the development of the standard to be given priority.

7. Any other business

7.1 Guidelines to implementation of phytosanitary standards in forestry

Ms Hamilton introduced Guidelines to implementation of phytosanitary standards in forestry currently under development by FAO Forestry Division. Most countries noted that they had not received the guidelines, despite that they had been sent to all IPPC Contact Points. Participants discussed the need for improved communication between forestry and biosecurity officials.

7.2 Update on the use of the PCE in the Pacific

Mr R. Masamdu, SPC, provided the meeting with an update on the use of the PCE tool in the Pacific. A report had been sent to the IPPC Secretariat in June 2010. Countries involved included the Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Solomon Islands, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Tonga, Palau, Kiribati, Nauru, Niue, Tuvalu, Marshall Islands, Vanuatu, Fiji Islands.

Recommendations included: - NPPOs use results to plan short, medium and long term capacity building activities.


- NPPOs use results to consult with national, regional and international authorities and development partners to negotiate phytosanitary capacity building activities.

7.3 Update on Coptotermes gestroi termite in Fiji

The field trip included visits to the Nature’s Way HTFA facility, Fiji Hardwood, Tropik Wood, and to the Operation Kadivuka termite infested sites. Mr N. Waqa, SPC, provided a presentation on termites to brief participants prior to the field trip.

The initial report of termites in Fiji was in Lautoka in 2009. Further inspection was done by BAFI. A delimiting survey was conducted with the assistance of the SPC. An Operation taskforce has been formed and an official declaration made. There are six teams in the field – headed by military personnel.

Fiji Islands has nine species of termites. This new species (Coptotermes gestroi) is an Asian subterranean termite. There are three categories of termites – dry wood, damp wood and subterranean. The subterranean termite is considered the most damaging of the three categories.

The termite has spread some 12 kms from the site of initial detection. The main implication is for trade. The infestation of food cassava and bread fruit trees was noted. Tourism could also be affected. With forestry – there could be effects.

The organization established to control this pest is structured a little differently to other programmes in the area. It is headed by the Commissioner of Western Division. Then there is the Operational Manager (Biosecurity Officer) and a Technical team (SPC and experts etc) with six teams under them.

The work includes surveys, answering queries, community work, training taskforce members, and use of Termidor dust, establishment of baiting stations. 11704 houses have been surveyed and 959 found infested – 431 have been dusted. Schools 16 of 25 infested, 2294 trees affected - 531 dusted. Casava, mangoes, breadfruit, citrus, vaivai and pine trees are infested. The monitoring of dusted houses has commenced. Six houses have baiting stations installed.

Brenton Peters (expert) noted that the pest has probably been here for 30 years. It is firmly established in buildings and in the “wild”. The pest would be extremely difficult to eradicate with current technical knowledge. Efforts should be made to prevent spread to other islands and other Pacific Islands.

7.4 Assistance with the use of the IPP

Ms J. Hamilton gave a short statement on how to use the IPP to obtain information on standard setting.

7.5 Statement from Mr Tumukon as a member of the Standards Committee

The delegate reminded participants about the call for new topics next year. He also noted the present call for experts of expert working groups and encouraged experts from the Pacific to apply for these and in response to future calls.

7.6 Progress reports by participants on the implementation of adopted ISPMs

FSM – FSM implements the ISPMs as applicable. There is some investigation regarding the implementation of ISPM 15 and the use of the mark. There was difficultly in implementing ISPMs due to resource constraints.

Fiji Islands – noted that the Asian subterranean termite has been reported to the IPPC. There have been problems with contamination of containers, especially by Giant African Snail. There also have been infested consignments from some Asian countries. New biosecurity legislation had been developed and enacted. There had been some recent rejections of taro consignments sent to Australia.

French Polynesia – Noted that the European Union (EU) banned the use of methyl bromide (MB) for wood packaging. Now there is difficulty with treatment with only heat treatment being available.


New Caledonia – A procedure had been put in place for MB treatment of wood packaging in accordance with ISPM 15. Problems were being experienced due to the banning of MB use in Europe.

American Samoa – few exports from American Samoa. Staff requires update on wood packaging systems re ISPM 15.

Republic of Marshall Islands – Have recently passed a national law banning the importation of beetle nut. Some recent difficulties with the use of import permits with consignments.

Kiribati – have not yet joined the IPPC but follow the systems generally. Some difficulty applying systems for all the 33 widely separated islands. It is recognised that the systems need improvement.

Niue – do not have MB alternative available. Are in contact with Australia to obtain assistance. Cook Islands – have reported a new thrips to IPPC. Have received some assistance from New Zealand.

Further development of the Biosecurity act is in hand. Samoa – re ISPM 12 and 15 have had some related problems. Export legislation requires further

development. With ISPM 15 - there are some concerns with imports and exports with unmarked wood packaging. Technical assistance was requested for improving phytosanitary certification systems.

Palau – do not use the re-export certificate. Have a problem with cruise ship waste disposal. Solomon Islands – progress with ISPM 15 similar to other countries. Are developing kiln drying for

export of timber. Have built a post entry quarantine (PEQ) facility. Australian scientists have been doing pest surveys.

Tonga – do use ISPMs for work related to import and export. The Tongan website was noted. Use the SPC regional pest list database for Tongan pest alert information. There were two pest incursions; one was papaya blight caused by an Erwinia species (authorities were working with NZ diagnosticians and SPC to identify the species), the second pest was a new incursion of a giant mimosa weed ( Mimosa diplotricha) from Asia, which authorities were working to contain.

Tuvalu – Cannot implement all standards because of limited resources. Have developed a biosecurity bill. With pest reporting – one report of Bactrocera xanthodes. With the import of soil – there was an increase in the rate of fumigation.

Vanuatu – relatively little export trade but do import a number of products. If MB stopped this would have considerable effects on trade. A new biosecurity law is to go to Parliament this year. Standards have increased costs – and these will have to be passed to users. There is a problem with meeting the costs of running an incinerator. Import requirements have been revised for consignments of wood and wood products from Fiji Islands due to the recent incursion of termites there. There has been an incursion of Erythrina gall wasps. There have been difficulties with kava trade with New Caledonia due to confusion between phytosanitary and quality issues. Working on establishing PEQ systems in accordance with ISPM 34.

New Zealand – does not apply some of the standards e.g. irradiation, areas of low pest prevalence (ALPP) and ALPP for fruit flies. Otherwise the ISPMs are implemented.

Guam – will be issuing United States Phytosanitary Certificates sometime in the future. As with New Zealand, Guam applies those ISPMs that apply to the country. There have been some problems with wood packaging from China and other Asian countries.

Three countries (Vanuatu, Kiribati and Solomon Islands) had slow and intermittent internet connections and / or national government internet security regulations which made it difficult to download information and files from the IPP.

SPC noted that the limited capacities in Pacific islands countries as indicated by the Phytosanitary Capacity evaluation report affect the rate of ISPM implementation. SPC has been undertaking capacity building assistances through training programmes for many parts of the quarantine systems. Few PIC countries have managed to get biosecurity legislation passed. For market access – PRA – still no capacity to help with this at the moment. For export market access, SPC acknowledged the assistance provided through the Pacific Horticultural and Agricultural Market Access (PHAMA) project funded by Australia. There are a number of major pest incursion problems that have to be addressed e.g. thrips in the Cook Islands, cocoa and coffee borer in PNG & the Solomon Islands, and termite in Fiji Islands.

7.7 Presentation of online comment system for draft ISPMs

Ms J. Hamilton provided a short Power point presentation on the on-line comment system that the Secretariat was having developed by information technology (IT) specialists.


It was noted that the Secretariat had asked the IT specialists to include an off-line function so that work could be done off-line and subsequently uploaded into the online system. Some countries mentioned difficulties with internet connections.

7.8 Participant survey (Appendix 6)

The participants were instructed in how to complete the online survey form by Ms Hamilton. The participants completed the survey on computers and sent the results to the Secretariat.

8. Organization of future regional workshops SPC briefed participants on identification of sponsors for future workshops and funding strategy and action plan. The total cost of this year’s workshop was Fiji$100,000 which was funded by IPPC (60%) and SPC (40%). PHAMA will support the meeting for the next 3 years. This funding is assured. Further FAO and SPC funding is not assured. There is opportunity for a proposal for meetings to be funded by Standards Trade and Development Facility (STDF).

Topics for consideration at future workshops – participants were encouraged to suggest topics that they would like to consider for next year’s meeting.

Date and location of the next meeting (between July – September 15, 2011)The participants will consider the site and exact dates of the next meeting at a later date. 9. CloseClosing remarks were given by Joanna Hamilton from FAO and Dr. Viliami Fakava on behalf of SPC. Participants were thanked for their valuable contributions and encouraged to coordinate the submission of national country comments to the Secretariat on the draft ISPMs and specifications.


APPENDIX 1: Agenda

Monday – 09/08/10

08.30 – 09.00 Registration

09:00 – 10:00 Official Opening of the workshop-Opening Prayer – Sairusi Bulai -Welcome remarks – - Statement – Joanna Hamilton- Opening address (SPC) – ‘Inoke Ratukalou- Introductions - Participants

10.00 - 10.30 - Adoption of the agenda- Election of chair and rapporteur- Group Photo

11:00 – 12:30 - Overview of IPPC- Updates from Bureau meeting & Standards Committee

Chair: Russell CampbellPresenter: Joanna HamiltonPresenter: John Headley

13:30 – 15:00 Review and discussion of draft standards1. Systems approaches for pest risk

management of fruit flies

Chair: Sione Foliaki

15:30 – 17:00 Review and discussion of draft standards2. Submission of new treatments for

inclusion in ISPM No.15.

Chair: Ilaitia Boa

18:30– 19:30 Workshop Cocktail

Tuesday – 10/08/10

08:30 – 10:30

Review and discussion of draft standards3. Integrated measures approach for managing

pest risks associated with international trade of plants for planting

Chair: Ngatoko Ngatoko

11:00 – 12:30

Review and discussion of draft standards4. Irradiation treatment for Ceratitis Capitata

(Annex to ISPM 28)

Chair: Russell Campbell

13:30 – 15:00

Review and discussion of draft standards5. Diagnostic protocol for Plum pox virus

Chair: Visone Tomote

15:30 – 17:00

Review and discussion of draft standards6. Draft revision of ISPM 7

Wednesday – 11/08/10

08:30 – 10:30

Review and discussion of draft standards7. Draft revision of ISPM 12:2001

11:00 – 12:30

Review and discussion of draft specifications8. Draft Specification_2 Systems for Authorizing

Phytosanitary Activities

13:30 – 17:00

Field Trip


18:30 – 20:30

Workshop Dinner

Thursday – 12/08/10

08:30 – 10:30

Review and discussion of draft specifications9. Draft Specification_1 Minimizing Pest Movement

by Air Containers and Aircraft

11:00 – 12:30

Review and discussion of draft specifications10. Draft_Specification_3_Safe handling and disposal

of waste with potential pest risk generated during international voyages

2.00 – 5.00pm

6.0 Progress reports by participants on the implementation of adopted ISPMs

7.0 Presentation of online comment system for draft ISPMs

8.0 Participant survey Friday – 13/08/10

08:30 – 10:00

Organization of future regional workshops 9.0 Identification of sponsors for future workshops10.0 funding strategy and action plan11.0 Topics for consideration at future workshops

10:30 – 1:00

Other matters Adoption of report Close

Note: Daily morning/afternoon tea and lunch time:Morning tea: 10:30– 11:00

Lunch: 12:30– 13:30 Afternoon tea: 15:00– 15:30

Rapporteurs:

1. Talei Fidow – Samoa 2. Mr. Karness Kusto - Marshall Islands3. John Hedley 4. Secretariat


APPENDIX 2: List of participants

PARTICIPANTSName: Mr Ngatoko Ta NgatokoPosition: DirectorAddress: Biosecurity ServiceMinistry of Agriculture & Biosecurity ServicesP O Box 96RarotongaCountry: COOK ISLANDSTel: (682) 28711Fax: (682) 21881E-mail: [email protected]

Name: Mr. Ilaisa DakaicaPosition: Senior Agriculture AssistantAddress: Biosecurity Authority of FijiDepartment of AgricultureP O Box 18360SuvaCountry: FIJITel: (679) 3312512Fax: (679) 3305043E-mail: [email protected]

Name: Mr. Ilaitia Leiloma BoaPosition: DirectorAddress: Biosecurity Authority of FijiDepartment of AgricultureP O Box 18360SuvaCountry: FIJITel: (679) 3312512/3302067Fax: (679) 3305043/3301657E-mail: [email protected]: [email protected]

Name: Mr. Visoni TimotePosition: Senior Agriculture AssistantAddress: Biosecurity Authority of FijiDepartment of AgricultureP O Box 18360SuvaCountry: FIJITel: (679) 3312512Fax: (679) 3305043E-mail: [email protected]

Name: Mr James AntonioPosition : Principal Biosecurity OfficerAddress: Biosecurity Authority of FijiDepartment of AgricultureP O Box 18360SuvaCountry : FIJITel: (679) 3312512Fax : (679) 3305043Email : [email protected]

Name: Mr. Djeen CheouPosition: Chief Plant Quarantine OfficerAddress: Ministry of Rural EconomyService du Developpement Rural BP 100-98713PapeeteCountry: FRENCH POLYNESIATel: (689) 544585Fax: (689) 410530E-mail: [email protected]

Name: Mr. John WichepPosition: Plant and Animal Quarantine SpecialistAddress: Department of Resources & DevelopmentFSM National GovernmentP O Box PS-12Palikir, Pohnpei FM96941Country: FEDERATED STATES OF MICRONESIATel: (691) 320-5133/2646Fax: (691)320-5854E-mail: [email protected]

Name: Ms Teaaro OtiueaPosition: Principal Agriculture OfficerAddress: Agriculture DivisionMinistry of Environment, Lands & Agriculture DevelopmentP O Box 267Bikenibeu, TarawaCountry: KIRIBATITel: (686) 28108 Fax: (686) 28334E-mail: [email protected]


mailto:[email protected]









PARTICIPANTSName: Mr. Karness KustoPosition: Assistant Chief of Agriculture & QuarantineAddress: Ministry of Resources and DevelopmentP O Box 1727Majuro 96960Country: MARSHALL ISLANDSTel: (692) 625 3206 / 625 4020Fax: (692) 625 7174E-mail:

Name: Mr. New Testament AuePosition: Acting Quarantine ManagerAddress: Department of Agriculture, Forestry & Fisheries

(DAFF)P O Box 74AlofiCountry: NIUETel: (683) 4032Fax: (683) 4079E-mail: [email protected]

Name: Mr. Tremaine DickPosition: Principal Quarantine OfficerAddress: Quarantine DivisionJustice and Border Control DepartmentQuarantine Office, Airport TeminalYaren DistrictCountry: NAURUTel: (674) 4443737Email: [email protected]

Name : Ms Aurelie ChanPosition: Plant Protection OfficerAddress : Direction des affaires vetenimaines, alimentaires et ruralesBP 256Noumea 98845Country : NEW CALEDONIATel: (687) 27 37 45 / 247 34 70Fax : (675) 25 Email : [email protected]

Name: Dr Russell CampbellPosition: Chairman, Pacific Plant Protection OrganisationAddress: 17-3306 Neptune AvenueTiyan Guam 96913Country : USATel: (671) 477 7822/475 1427Fax: (671) 477 9487Email : [email protected]

Name: Mr Everson SadangAddress: Quarantine OfficerAddress:Ministry of Natural Resources, Environment & TourismBureau of AgriculturePlant Protection & Quarantine ServiceP O Box 460Koror 96940Country: PALAUTel : (680) 544 5804Fax : (680) 544 5090Email : [email protected]

Name: Ms Talei Jacinta FidowPosition: Principal Quarantine OfficerAddress: Quarantine DivisionMinistry of Agriculture & FisheriesP O Box 1874ApiaCountry: SAMOATel: (685) 20924Fax: (685) 20103E-mail: [email protected]: [email protected]

Name: Mr. Francis TsatsiaPosition: Chief Plant Protection OfficerAddress: Solomon Islands Agriculture Quarantine ServicesMinistry of Agriculture and LivestockP O Box G13HoniaraCountry: SOLOMON ISLANDSTel: (677) 24657Fax: (677) 28365E-mail: [email protected]










PARTICIPANTSName: Mr. Sione FoliakiPosition: Deputy Director, Head of Biosecurity, Quarantine, Quality ManagementAddress: Ministry of Agriculture & Food, Forests &

FisheriesP O Box 14NukualofaCountry: TONGATel: (676) 23038Fax: (676) 23093E-mail: [email protected]

Name: Mr. Sam PanapaPosition: Head of Plant Protection & QuarantineAddress: Department of AgricultureMinistry of Natural Resources & EnvironmentFunafutiCountry: TUVALUTel: (688) 20186Fax: (688) 20167E-mail: [email protected]

Name : Mr Benuel TarilongiPosition : DirectorAddress: Department of Livestock and QuarantineC/- Private Mail Bag 9095Port VilaCountry : VANUATUTel : (678) 23519/24128/23130Fax : (678) 23185Email : [email protected]

RESOURCE PERSONNELMAF BIOSECURITY NEW ZEALAND

Name : Dr John HedleyPosition: Principal Adviser, International Coordination Policy & Risk DirectorateAddress: Level 13 Pastoral House, 25 The TerraceP O Box 2526Wellington 6011Country: NEW ZEALANDTel : (644) 894 0428Fax: (644) 894 0733Email: [email protected]

FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANISATION

Name: Ms Joanna HamiltonPosition: Agriculture Officer, Secretariat of the International Plant Protection ConventionAddress: FAO HeadquartersViale delle Terme di Caracalla00153 RomeCountry: ITALYTel: (+39) 06 57052534Fax: (+39) 06 57054819Email: [email protected]

VANUATU REPRESENTATIVE/SWP STANDARDS COMMITTEE

REPRESENTATIVE

Name: Mr. Tekon Timothy Tumukon Position: Principal Plant Protection Officer Address: Department of Livestock & QuarantinePMB 9095Port VilaCountry: VANUATUTel: (678) 23519/23130Fax: (678) 23185E-mail: [email protected]

SECRETARIAT OF THE PACIFIC COMMUNITY

Name: Dr. Viliami FakavāPosition: Executive Secretary Adviser & Coordinator, Biosecurity & Trade SupportAddress: Land Resources DivisionSecretariat of the Pacific CommunityPrivate Mail BagSuvaCountry: FIJITel: (679) 337 0231Fax: (679) 338 6326 / 337 0021Email: [email protected]









PARTICIPANTSSECRETARIAT OF THE PACIFIC COMMUNITY

Name: Mr. Roy MasamduPosition: Biosecurity & Trade Facilitation Officer Address: Biosecurity & Trade SupportLand Resources DivisionSecretariat of the Pacific CommunityPrivate Mail BagSuvaCountry: FIJITel: (679) 337 0733 Ext. 258Fax: (679) 338 6326/3370021Email: [email protected]

Name : Mr Nacanieli WaqaAddress : Biosecurity Technician Address: Biosecurity & Trade SupportLand Resources DivisionSecretariat of the Pacific CommunityPrivate Mail BagSuvaCountry : FIJITel: (679) 337 0733 Ext 311Fax: (679) 3386326/3370021Email : [email protected]

Name: Ms Caress WhippyPosition: Project Assistant Address: Biosecurity & Trade SupportLand Resources DivisionSecretariat of the Pacific CommunityPrivate Mail BagSuvaCountry: FIJITel: (679) 337 0733 Ext. 219Fax: (679) 338 6326Email: [email protected]

Name : Joeli Uluinayau Position : Information AssistantAddress: Biosecurity & Trade SupportLand Resources DivisionSecretariat of the Pacific CommunityPrivate Mail BagSuvaCountry: FIJITel: (679) 337 0733 Ext 231Fax: (679) 3386326Email: [email protected]






APPENDIX 3: Guidelines for use of templates for comments

INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE USE OF THE TEMPLATE

A template is provided to facilitate the submission and compilation of member comments. The instructions have been modified since last year; please review both the instructions and the examples. Paragraph numbers have been included in the draft standards, and each paragraph has a row in the template with the corresponding number. It is important to be accurate in allocating comments to paragraphs, since the compilation of comments will be done automatically and only based on paragraph numbers.

To facilitate compilation of comments and the work of the Standards Committee, please apply the following and refer to the table of examples below:- do not add or delete columns, and do not change their width or formatting of the actual table.- ensure that all comments refer to the appropriate section of the text and paragraph number.- if proposals are made to add, delete or move paragraphs to the text of the standard, subsequent comments should continue to refer to the paragraph numbers used in the draft standard sent for consultation.- only one type of comment should be made in each row of the template; when more than one type of comment needs to be made on the same paragraph, insert a new row,

include all appropriate information (including paragraph number) and fill in your comment. Do not use automatic numbering.- ensure that all cells of the row are completed when a comment is made.- use formatting to indicate proposed additions (e.g. underline) and deletions (e.g. strikethrough), not tracked changes of the Word processor- only include those sentences from the draft standard to display the suggested modifications. Do not include paragraphs or sentences for which no modifications are

suggested.- to provide a comment on a footnote, please enter it in a row with the number of the paragraph with which the footnote is associated.- delete the rows of the template in which no comments are made.

Specific guidelines for each column in the template and examples of commentsGeneral comments apply to the entirety of the standard. Comments on specific sections of the standard can be provided as described below.

1. Section This gives the titles of sections as they appear in the draft, plus a row for general comments. To propose changes to section titles, include new wording in the "proposed

rewording" column.

2. Paragraph number (Para nber) To propose a new paragraph, add a row and qualify the paragraph number with a letter (e.g. 12a, to indicate that the new paragraph follows paragraph 12). To propose to move a paragraph, indicate the new location in the “proposed rewording” column (e.g. move paragraph 51 to after paragraph 47). Do not alter the paragraph

numbers.

3. Sentence/row/indent, etc. Clearly identify the specific place in the paragraph, such as sentence, row of a table, indent, etc, where the comment applies (e.g. sentence 2, indent 5, row 2,

footnote 3, figure 15, etc). Table rows have been also numbered similar to the paragraphs The text as circulated for consultation should be used as a basis for counting sentences, bullet points, etc. Please do not refer to page or line numbers as these

may vary depending on the word processor used or language version of the draft.


4. Type of commentIndicate whether the type of comment refers to one of the three choices: substantive, editorial, or translation. Please only use these keywords: Substantive, Editorial, Translation. substantive comments include technical comments. They take into account conceptual changes, addition of new aspects or ideas, scientific corrections and technical adjustments. editorial comments clarify or simplify the text without changing the meaning. This includes spelling or grammatical corrections, suggestions of different but equivalent words, and

simplification of sentence structure. translation comments correct points that are considered to be inaccurately translated into another language version of the text.

5. Proposed rewordingSuggestions to change the text should always include proposed rewording. Modifications to the original text should be clearly identifiable (i.e. text that is added or deleted should appear in a distinct way from unchanged text). For example, text added can be underlined and text deleted can be striked through (with colours as appropriate). Tracked changes should not be used.

6. ExplanationDetailed explanations should give justification for the comment made and should be sufficient for the Standard Committee to understand the intention of the comment and the proposed rewording.

7. Country There should be only one name in this column. The country name should be indicated in every row for which a comment is made. The country name should be that of the country submitting the comments. Comments made on behalf of an organization (such as an RPPO) should include only the organization name, and not the names of the member countries.

Examples of comments using the template

1. Section 2. Para nber

3. Sentence/row/indent, etc.

4. Type of comment (Substantive, Editorial, Translation) only

5. Proposed rewording 6. Explanation 7. Country

BACKGROUND [9] Sentence 1

Substantive

The main purpose of the IPPC is to protect plants secure common and effective actions to prevent the spread and introduction of pests of plants and plant products

To be consistent with the text of the IPPC.

COUNTRY NAME

BACKGROUND [9] Sentence 2 Editorial In doing so, contracting parties undertake the promotion of appropriate measures for the control of regulated pests.

The scope of the IPPC addresses regulated pests.

COUNTRY NAME

BACKGROUND [17] Sentence 4 Editorial ThusAdditionally, while pursuing the .... Clearer wording COUNTRY NAME

1.4 Supervision activities [26] Sentence 3 Substantive The FF-ALPP programme, including The term regulatory control is unclear COUNTRY



3. Sentence/row/indent, etc.

4. Type of comment (Substantive, Editorial, Translation) only


regulatory control domestic regulation and text should use specific terms clarifying what is meant.

NAME

1.4 Supervision activities [32] New 2nd indent

Substantive - operation of surveillance procedures- fruit sampling- surveillance capability

Fruit sampling is necessary as part of surveillance

COUNTRY NAME

1.6 Tolerance level [44a] After para 44 Substantive add new paragraph after 44:For quarantine pests the tolerance level generally equals zero. Setting the level of detection to zero implies that all units of the consignment must be included in the sample. Hence, for quarantine pests, a detection level that is as small as technically possible approaches the zero tolerance level.

to explain the particular situation for quarantine pests

COUNTRY NAME

3. Phytosanitary Risk Categories and Measures

[61] Whole para Editorial Move para 61 to after para 47 More appropriate location. COUNTRY NAME


APPENDIX 4: Completed templates with workshop comments on each ISPM

Note on draft comments discussed at the South West Pacific regional workshop to review draft ISPMs

Comments in this document have been compiled as a list of all ideas from NPPOs and the RPPO participating in the SW Pacific regional workshop on draft ISPMs. IPPC contracting parties from the SW Pacific can draw on these to prepare national and RPPO comments on this draft ISPM. Comments in this document were not necessarily agreed to by all participants, so each comment should be considered carefully and a decision made as to whether to support it. If a comment is not supported it should be deleted before submitting comments to the IPPC Secretariat. Additional national comments should also be added as necessary.

Participants at the SW Pacific regional workshop also noted that it would be helpful, where possible, to share national comments with other countries in the region and that this should be done by coordinating among NPPOs.


Template for comments - Draft ISPMs for country consultation, 2010

Draft: Systems approaches for pest risk management of fruit flies (Tephritidae)

See instructions on how to use this template at the end of the document. Following these will greatly facilitate the compilation of comments and the work of the Standards Committee.


3. sentence/row/indent, etc.

4. Type of comment (Substantive, Editorial, Translation)


GENERAL COMMENTS

substantive Query whether the term contracting parties is the most appropriate or whether the term countries might be better.

GENERAL COMMENTS

substantive Sometimes it is not clear who is doing what throughout the document. For example, in paragraph 46 it is not clear who is to carry out these actions.

GENERAL COMMENTS

How do we define a low pest population level?

TITLEContentsIntroduction [1]

SCOPE [2]

SCOPE [3] Sentence 1 This standard provides guidelines for the establishment and use of systems approaches as an option for pest risk management of fruit flies to facilitate trade of fruits.

It is not necessary to say this is an option.

REFERENCES [4]

REFERENCES [5]

REFERENCES [6]






REFERENCES [7]

REFERENCES [8]

REFERENCES [9]

REFERENCES [10]

REFERENCES [11]

REFERENCES [12]

REFERENCES [13]

DEFINITIONS [14]

DEFINITIONS [15]

OUTLINE OF REQUIREMENTS

[16]


[17] Last sentence substantive The pest risk should have been assessed and options for part of the pest risk management measures determined by means of pest risk analysis (PRA).

Assessment of pest risk should be part of the pest risk management measures.[note that some participants considered the original wording to be more appropriate from a technical perspective]


[18]


[18] First sentence substantive Why does it say here “An important requirement for the establishment” of an FF-SA is a low pest population level in the area of production of the host commodity in combination with other measures” when later in paragraph 59-60 it does not appear important.


[18] First sentence substantive Fiji has a systems approach in a highly infested area, so query whether a low pest population level is necessary to establish a






FF-SA.OUTLINE OF REQUIREMENTS

[19] Sentence 1 substantive An FF-SA may includes a number of independent measures, ...

It does include a number of independent measures – not “may” include.

Sentence 2 editorial Supervision Supervisory activities may be agreed between the importing and exporting contracting parties.

Better wording


[20] Last sentence substantive The pest risk should have been assessed and options for part of the pest risk management measures determined by means of pest risk analysis (PRA).

Assessment of pest risk should be part of the pest risk management measures.


[20] First sentence editorial For establishment and maintenance of the FF-SA, operational procedures (workplans, protocols, bilateral quarantine arrangements (BQA)) should be required.

For clarification of what is meant by operational procedures.


[21]

BACKGROUND [22]

BACKGROUND [23] First sentence editorial Fruit flies are pests of economic importance affecting trade of hosts fruits and their movement may pose a pest risk for endangered areas.

For consistency with paragraph 3 which talks about trade of fruits and not hosts.

BACKGROUND [24]

BACKGROUND [25]






BACKGROUND [26]

BACKGROUND [27] Paragraph 1 substantive Systems approaches have been developed as pest risk management options measures to meet the appropriate level of phytosanitary import requirements protection of importing contracting parties in situations where a single measure is not available or practicable, or in cases where a systems approach is more cost-effective than the single measure available.

For consistency with comment on paragraph 3. Also, the language ALOP is no longer used much in ISPMs.

BACKGROUND [28]

BACKGROUND [29] First sentence editorial In many cases, exporting contracting parties have developed and established fruit fly systems approaches (FF-SAs) in association consultation with importing contracting parties.

Better language

BACKGROUND [30]

BACKGROUND [31]

BACKGROUND [32]

REQUIREMENTS [33]

1. General Requirements

[34]

1.1. Pest risk analysis [35]







1.1. Pest risk analysis [37] Entire paragraph

substantive The decision to use a specific FF-SA relates to a particular relationship between host, target fruit fly species and specified area, and is closely linked to trade opportunities, and economic and operational feasibility.

Query what is meant by the term “particular relationship” in this context.

Suggest removing this paragraph as it is superfluous.

1.1. Pest risk analysis [38] to [43]

All sentences and paragraphs

editorial Move these paragraphs to a new section entitled “Basic information required for the establishment of an FF-SA”

These paragraphs do not relate to “pest risk analysis”






1.2 Documentation and record-keeping

[44]


[45] Second sentence

substantive The roles and responsibilities of the NPPOs of the exporting and importing contracting parties and of the producers, and exporters and transport providers should be specified and documented. Corrective action plans should also be documented.

Transport providers are also important for this standard.


[46] All sentences substantive See general comment. It is not clear in this paragraph (and throughout the document) who is to carry out what






actions.1.3 Supervision [47] Title substantive Supervision Verification Supervision implies something constant,

whereas verification better reflects the intention

1.3 Supervision [48]

1.3 Supervision [49] Second sentence

substantive Supervision [Auditing][Verification] can also be done by the NPPO of the importing contracting party.

Consequential change – see paragraph 47 comment not to use the word “supervision”

2. Specific Requirements

[50]

2.1 Establishment of an FF-SA

[51]

2.1 Establishment of an FF-SA

[52]

2.1Establishment of an FF-SA

[53]


[54]


[55]

2.1.1 Pre-harvest and at harvest

[56]

2.1.1 Pre-harvest and at harvest

[57]

2.1.1.1 Low level of pest population

[58]


[59]







[60]

2.1.1.2 Fruit fly free places of production and fruit fly free production sites

[61]


[62]


[63]


[64]

2.1.1.3 Status of the host

[65]

2.1.1.3 Status of the host

[66]

2.1.2 Post-harvest and shipping

[67]

2.1.2 Post-harvest and shipping

[68]

2.1.2.1 Post-harvest measures

[69] Last 3 bullet points

editorial Move the last 3 bullet points to 2.1.2.2 (see comment on paragraph 73 below)

To clarify the content of the section


[70] Dot point one substantive - activities to prevent infestation (e.g. processing in screen-protected packing rooms, and warehouses and

To cover instances of in-transit cold treatment (for example)






transit conveyances, using cold storage, wrapping of fruit)


[71]


[72]

2.1.2.2 Post-harvest treatments

[73] First paragraph editorial Rename 2.1.2.2 Export Certification. First paragraph of this should read “prior to any certification being issued, the FF-SA measures need to be verified to ensure compliance is maintained to the certification system requirements:The key activities are:-sampling- inspection (ISPM 23: 2005)- phytosanitary certification- phytosanitary security.

To clarify the content of the section. Also to include something about maintaining security post inspection and treatment.

2.1.2.2 Post-harvest treatments

[74] Whole paragraph

editorial Move to after paragraph 72 under the 2.1.2.1 Post Harvest Measures heading.

To clarify the content of the section

2.1.3 Entry and distribution

[75]

2.1.3 Entry and distribution

[76]

2.2 Maintenance of a fruit fly systems approach

[77]


[78]

2.2 Maintenance of a fruit fly systems

[79]






approach2.2 Maintenance of a fruit fly systems approach

[80]


[81]

ANNEX 1 [82]

ANNEX 1 [83]

ANNEX 1 [84]

ANNEX 1 [85] First sentence Editorial Non-compliance may occur where there is faulty in the application of one or more of the measures of the FF-SA. Ongoing verification may indicate the necessity to revise the system to ensure the appropriate level of protection is reached.

1. Non-compliance

[86]

1. Non-compliance

[87]

1.1 Non-compliance at the pre-harvest and harvest stage

[88]

1.1 Non-compliance at the pre-harvest and harvest stage

[89]

1.2 Non- [90]






compliance at the post-harvest and shipping stage1.2 Non-compliance at the post-harvest and shipping stage

[91]

1.3 Non-compliance at entry and distribution

[92]

1.3 Non-compliance at entry and distribution

[93]

2. Ongoing verification of the systems approach

[94]

2. Ongoing verification of the systems approach

[95]



Draft: Appendix to ISPM 15: 2009, submission of new treatments for inclusion in ISPM 15




4. Type of comment (Substantive,Editorial,Translation)


GENERAL COMMENTS

Prefer to change Appendix 1 to Annex 3 of ISPM 15 (it should be an Annex, rather than an appendix). This is because it appears more like a revised version of Annex 3 (procedure for new treatments proposed for consideration).

TITLE [1] Substantive APPENDIX 1: procedure for evaluation of Submission of new treatments submitted for inclusion in ISPM 15

“Criteria” is an important aspect of this appendix.

TITLE [1] Editorial Why is this Appendix 1 when there is already an Appendix 1 to ISPM 15? Should this be Appendix 2?

Introduction [2] All paragraphs

Editorial Suggest that it be split into subsections with the following subheadings:

Factors to be tested (paragraph 7)

Quarantine test groups (Paragraph 8)

Step-wise testing process (Paragraph 9).

Introduction [3]

Introduction [4]

Introduction [5]






Introduction [6] Third dot point

- effect on treatment efficacy of wood types (e.g. hardwood vs softwoodsapwood, timber vs small logs for dunnage) and dimensions likely to be encountered at the time of treating wood packaging material for subsequent use in international trade.

To better describe the size of the logs treated.

Introduction [7]

TABLE 1 [8]

Introduction [9]

Introduction [10]

Step 1 [11]

Step 1 [12]

Step 1 [13] Paragraphs 13 to 15

substantive Support this example. This example provides a very useful explanation and should remain as part of this Appendix.

Step 1 [14]

Step 1 [15]

Step 2 [16]

Step 2 [17]

Step 2 [18]

Step 2 [19] Paragraphs 19 to 21

substantive Support this example. This example provides a very useful explanation and should remain as part of this Appendix.

Step 2 [20]

Step 2 [21]

Step 2 [22]






Step 2 [23]

Step 3 [24]

Step 3 [25]

Step 4 [26] Support the inclusion of probit 9 level of efficacy, particularly given that there are some methods built into the text that facilitate achievement of probit 9. In particular, note that probit 9 could be more easily achieved with the potential to extrapolate where there are small sample sizes and to use substitute species where there are not enough pest species available.

Step 4 [27]

Step 4 [28]

Step 4 [29]

Step 5 [30]

Step 5 [31]

Assessment of treatment success

[32]

Assessment of treatment success

[33]

Submission of treatment for approval

[34]

Submission of treatment for approval

[35] First and third sentences

Editorial All treatments proposed for inclusion in ISPM 15 must should be submitted to the IPPC Secretariat for evaluation under the provisions of ISPM 28:2007. Submission forms are available from the IPPC Secretariat for this purpose. These

Prefer the use of should rather than must because this fits better with the agreed IPPC use of these terms.






forms must should be completed and include all of the supporting information required to meet the criteria presented in the above steps.



Draft: Integrated measures approach for plants for planting in international trade






GENERAL COMMENTS

Suggest inserting something on the use of buffer zones at the appropriate place in the body of the standard (not only in the table).

GENERAL COMMENTS

The issue of critical and non-critical non-compliance does not appear in other standards and it is not clear why it is needed in this standard. Suggest using “corrective action” approach as in other standards. In addition, it may be difficult to definitively identify an instance of critical non-compliance.

TITLEContentsIntroduction [1]

SCOPE [2] Second sentence

editorial It outlines factors relevant for the determination of the risk level associated with particular plants for planting and places of production., as well as risk-based application of measures and the responsibilities of the national plant protection organizations (NPPOs) of the importing and exporting countries.

There is no need for the scope to list all the contents of the standard.






SCOPE [3]

REFERENCES [4]

REFERENCES [5]

REFERENCES [6]

REFERENCES [7]

REFERENCES [8]

REFERENCES [9]

REFERENCES [10]

REFERENCES [11]

REFERENCES [12]

REFERENCES [13]

Definitions [14]

Definitions [15]

Outline of requirements

[16] Paragraphs 16 to 19 – Outline of requirements

Substantive The outline of requirements does not contain sufficient detail to provide an informative summary of the standard without reading the rest of the document. Suggest adding more detail on what sort of guidance is provided in the standard.


[17]


[18]


[19]

BACKGROUND [20]

BACKGROUND [21] Third sentence

In any case, tThe conclusions from pest risk analysis should be

The words “in any case” suggest that the standard is not necessary.






used to decide the appropriate measures to reduce the risk to an acceptable level for the importing country.

BACKGROUND [22] chapeau Editorial Export inspections of consignments of plants for planting has may have the following limitations:

Grammatical correction

BACKGROUND [23]

BACKGROUND [24]

BACKGROUND [25]

REQUIREMENTS [26]

1. Factors that Affect the Pest Risk of Plants for Planting

[27]


[28]


[29]

1.1 Pest factors that affect risk

[30]


[31] Fifth bullet point

editorial - mode of transmission (e.g. vector, graft transmission, mechanical transmission)

clarification







[31] New bullet point

Substantive - likely economic and environmental impact

Economic and environmental impact should be taken into account.



Substantive - pollen Should pollen be included in this standard? If not, what standard would cover the import of pollen (such as coconut pollen)?

1.2 Plant-related factors that affect risk

[33] Seventh bullet point

Substantive - bulbs and tubers To clarify that tubers are also covered.


[34]


[35]


[36]

1.3 Production factors that affect risk

[37]



Substantive - natural manure



Substantive - agricultural practices


[39]

1.3 Production [40]






factors that affect risk1.3 Production factors that affect risk

[41]

1.3Production factors that affect risk

[42]

1.4 Intended uses that affect risk

[43]

1.4 Intended uses that affect risk

[44]

2. Application of Risk Mitigation Measures

[45] title editorial Application of Pest Risk Management Measures Risk Mitigation Measures

For clarity. Prefer to use “pest risk management measures” as “risk mitigation measures” is not defined.

2. Application of Risk Mitigation Measures

[46] Entire paragraph

editorial See comment on paragraph 45 – suggest global change from “risk mitigation measures” to “pest risk management measures”.

3. Integrated Measures Approach

[47]

3. Integrated Measures Approach

[48]

3.1 General integrated measures

[49]

3.1 General integrated measures

[50]

3.1.1Authorization of

places of production

[51]






3.1.1Authorization of

places of production

[52]

3.1.2Requirements

for the place of production

[53] First paragraph, fourth dot point

substantive - complying with any phytosanitary measures required by the exporting NPPO.

These are not “phytosanitary measures” in the sense of the IPPC definition of this term.

3.2 Integrated measures in high-risk situations

[54]

3.2 Integrated measures in high-risk situations

[55]

3.2.1

Requirements for the place of production in high-risk situations

[56]

3.2.1


[57]

3.2.1


[58]

3.2.1.1 Place of production manual

[59] title substantive Title currently covers activities broader than the place of production (eg the






fourth dot point paragraph 61 includes a brief description of production, shipping and receiving locations). Perhaps the title should be amended to indicate coverage of a broader range of activities.


[59] Numbering of section

editorial 3.2.21.1 Place of production manual


[60]


[61] Sixth dot point

substantive - a description of subcontracted activities and certification of subcontractors

To ensure that subcontractors are certified and that there is a description of this.

3.2.1.2 Pest management plan

[62] Numbering of section

editorial 3.2.21.12 Pest management plan

Lower level section numbering to reflect that a pest management plan is an element of a place of production manual - ie not at the same level as the place of production manual. Consequential changes would also need to be made to the numbering throughout the rest of the document.


[63]


[64]

3.2.1.3 Crop protection specialist

[65]

3.2.1.3 Crop protection specialist

[66] Whole paragraph

Substantive Full time crop protection specialist Engage rather than employ indicates that the specialist may be contracted






Places of production implementing comprehensive integrated measures for pest risk management should employ engage a specialist with a well-established working knowledge of pest identification and control. The specialist should ensure that sanitation, pest monitoring and pest control measures are implemented as described in the phytosanitary manual and pest management plan and that the NPPO of the exporting country is notified upon detection of relevant pests. This person should also serve as the contact person with diagnosticians who may be needed for pest identification.

Part time crop protection specialist

In some cases it may not be possible to engage a crop protection specialist, so POPs may need to share a specialist or engage a qualified government official to perform the same functions.

rather than employed full time. This may be useful for small POPs that do not have a large enough volume of production to employ someone full time. It would also permit POPs to share specialists.

New subheadings and paragraph allow for the possibility of a part-time specialist.

3.2.1.4 Training of employees

[67]

3.2.1.4 Training of [68]






employees

3.2.1.5

Examination of plant material

[69]

3.2.1.5

Examination of plant material

[70]

3.2.1.6 Packing and transportation

[71]

3.2.1.6 Packing and transportation

[72]

3.2.1.7 Internal audits

[73]


[74]


[75]


[76]

3.2.1.8 Records [77]

3.2.1.8 Records [78]






3.2.2 Non-compliance with requirements for the place of production

[79]


[80]


[81]


[82]


[83]

3.2.2.1 Critical non-compliance

[84]

3.2.2.1 Critical non-compliance

[85]






3.2.2.2 Non-critical non-compliance

[86]


[87]


[88]

4. Responsibilities of the NPPO of the Exporting Country

[89]

4. Responsibilities of the NPPO of the Exporting Country

[90]

4.1

Establishing integrated measures approaches

[91]

4.1

Establishing integrated measures approaches

[92]

4.2

Authorization of places of production

[93]






4.2


[94]

4.2


[95] Various places

editorial The authorization of places of production seeking to participate in the integrated measures approach for high-risk situations described in section 3.2 should be based upon:- a review of the place of

production phytosanitary manual and an initial documentation audit at the place of production to verify that it is complying with the requirements established according to the risk factors of its production

- an implementation audit whose objectives are to verify that: the place of

production complies with the protocols, procedures and standards specified in its place of production phytosanitary manual

required supporting documentation is sufficient, current and

The term “phytosanitary” should be deleted as indicated on the slides provided by the steward. Have included “place of production manual” as it appears that this is the same manual described in section 3.2.1.1






readily available to staff

adequate records and documents are maintained

internal audits are performed and corrective actions completed

procedures in place are adequate to ensure that any pest problems are quickly identified and appropriate actions are taken to ensure that plants for planting that do not meet the requirements of the importing country are not exported

either plant material within the place of production has remained free of all regulated pests and practically free of all other pests or, if the material has been infested by regulated pests, the NPPO was informed and appropriate measures






were taken to ensure that the risk of further spread has been mitigated.

4.2


[96]

4.3 Oversight of authorized places of production

[97]

4.3 Oversight of authorized places of production

[98]

4.4 Export inspections and issuance of phytosanitary certificates

[99]

4.4 Export inspections and issuance of phytosanitary certificates

[100]

4.5 Providing adequate information

[101]

4.5 Providing adequate information

[102]

5. Responsibilities of the NPPO of the Importing Country

[103]







[104]


[105]


[106]

5.1

Traceability procedures

[107]

5.1

Traceability procedures

[108]

5.2 Auditing by the importing NPPO

[109]

5.2 Auditing by the importing NPPO

[110]

Appendix 1: Examples of pest management measures to reduce the phytosanitary risk of plants for

[111]






plantingAppendix 1: Examples of pest management measures to reduce the phytosanitary risk of plants for planting

[112]

Table 1 [113]

Table 1 [114]

Table 2 [115]

numbers editorial Check and correct numbering in bulbs and bare root cutting sections as the numbers in table 1 do not go up to 10.

Table 2 [115]

Fourth row substantive Bulbs and tubers To indicate that the standard also covers tubers.

Appendix 2: Examples of non-compliance

[116]


[117]

Whole appendix

editorial Delete “phytosanitary” wherever “phytosanitary manual” appears and change the text to indicate what type of manual (eg “place of production manual”).


[117]

Whole appendix

substantive APPENDIX 2: Examples of non-complianceCritical non-compliance Examples of critical non-compliance with the place of production include the following:detection of quarantine pests or

Delete the entire appendix as it is too detailed.






regulated non-quarantine pests (in excess of tolerance limits) of concern to the exporting or importing country on plant material from the place of productionfailure to undertake required laboratory tests or analyses or correctly follow procedures to identify pests failure to carry out control measures at the place of production for regulated pestsfailure to notify the NPPO of the presence of regulated pests at the place of productionexport of ineligible plant taxa, plants from non-authorized origins, or plants not meeting other phytosanitary import requirementsfailure to correctly list the botanical names of all the plants on documents accompanying shipmentsfailure to keep consistent, accurate pest management recordsfailure to keep consistent accurate records of country of origin of plant material






failure to undertake ordered corrective action(s)failure to perform internal audits as requiredoperating without a duly qualified programme manager or crop protection specialist modification of the phytosanitary manual or pest management practices without prior authorization from the NPPOfailure to examine incoming or outgoing plant materiallack of sufficient or adequately trained stafffailure to keep plants for planting that have been examined for export separate from other plant material that has not been examined.Non-critical non-complianceExamples of non-critical non-compliance include the following:failure to notify the NPPO when the programme manager or crop protection specialist changesfailure to record the identity of a substitute programme manager or crop protection specialist






failure to undertake corrective actions ordered by the programme manager in a timely mannerfailure to prevent the buildup of pest populationsfailure to maintain sanitation management practices at the place of production failure to maintain records as specified in the phytosanitary manualfailure to periodically provide staff with relevant trainingfailure to maintain training records for staff involved in implementing the phytosanitary manualfailure to maintain an up-to-date list of all employees involved in implementing the phytosanitary manualfailure to consistently sign and date reports or recordsfailure to record relevant changes to the lists of plant taxa produced, their location in the place of production and the plant material to be exported failure to detect and record low-level populations of pests






failure to inform the NPPO of any changes to business practices as outlined in the phytosanitary manual.

Critical non-compliance

[118]

Critical non-compliance

[119]

Non-critical non-compliance

[120]

Non-critical non-compliance

[121]



Draft: Annex to ISPM 27:2010, plum pox virus






GENERAL COMMENTS

TITLEAdoptionContents1. Pest Information [1]

1. Pest Information [2]





2.Taxonomic Information

[7]

3.Detection and Identification

[8]


[9]


[10]

3.Detection and [11] New substantive 11 a. In some circumstances (e.g. To allow for testing more than one






Identification paragraph during the routine diagnosis of a pest widely established in a country) multiple plants may be tested simultaneously using a bulked sample derived from a number of plants. The decision to test individual or multiple plants would depend on the virus concentration in the plants and the level of confidence required by the NPPO.

plant at once.


[12]

Figure 1 [13]


[14]


[15]

3.1Biological detection and identification

[16]


[17]


[18]

3.2Serological detection and identification

[19]

3.2Serological [20]






detection and identification3.2Serological detection and identification

[21]


[22]


[23]


[24]


[25]


[26]


[27]


[28]


[29]

3.3Molecular detection and identification

[30]







[31]


[32]

3.3.1Reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)

[33]


[34]


[35]


[36]


[37]

3.3.2 Immunocapture RT-PCR

[38]

3.3.2 Immunocapture RT-PCR

[39]

3.3.2 Immunocapture RT-

[40]






PCR3.3.3Co-operational RT-PCR

[41]

3.3.3Co-operational RT-PCR

[42]


[43]


[44]


[45]

3.3.4Real-time RT-PCRMitigation Measures

[46]

3.3.4Real-time RT-PCR Mitigation Measures

[47]


[48]


[49]


[50]

3.3.4Real-time RT-PCR Mitigation

[51]






Measures


[52]


[53]


[54]


[55]


[56]

4.Identification of Strains

[57]


[58]


[59]

Figure 2 [60]


[61]

4.1Serological [62]






identification of strains4.1Serological identification of strains

[63]

4.1Serological identification of strains

[64]


[65]


[66]

4.2 Molecular identification of strains

[67]

4.2.1 RT-PCR [68]

4.2.1 RT-PCR [69]

4.2.1 RT-PCR [70]

4.2.1 RT-PCR [71]

4.2.1 RT-PCR [72]

4.2.2Immunocapture RT-PCR

[73]

4.2.2Immunocapture RT-PCR

[74]

4.2.3 Co-operational RT-PCR

[75]

4.2.3 Co-operational RT-PCR

[76]

4.2.3 Co-operational [77]






RT-PCR4.2.4 Real-time RT-PCR

[78]

4.2.4 Real-time RT-PCR

[79]


[80]


[81]


[82]


[83]


[84]


[85]

5. Records [86]

5. Records [87]

5. Records [88]

6.Contact Points for Further Information

[89]


[90]


[91]


[92]


[93]







[94]


[95]


[96]

7.Acknowledgements

[97]

7.Acknowledgements

[98]

8. References [99]

8. References [100]

8. References [101]

8. References [102]

8. References [103]

8. References [104]

8. References [105]

8. References [106]

8. References [107]

8. References [108]

8. References [109]

8. References [110]






8. References [111]

8. References [112]

8. References [113]

8. References [114]

8. References [115]

8. References [116]

8. References [117]

8. References [118]

8. References [119]

8. References [120]

8. References [121]


APPENDIX 5: Guidelines for the submission of comments on draft international standards for phytosanitary measures (ISPMs)

Draft ISPMs are distributed by the Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) to National Plant Protection Organizations (NPPOs), Regional Plant Protection Organizations (RPPOs) and relevant international organizations upon the recommendation of the Standards Committee or Standards Committee Working Group (SC-7).

The following elements are part of the standard setting procedures:- Members are provided 100 days to review the draft standards, consult on their content, and compile and submit comments to the Secretariat.- The Secretariat provides a format for member comments. Members are asked to provide comments electronically using one of the formats provided to allow

comments to be compiled more easily.- Member comments should be submitted through templates provided by the Secretariat. Member comments should be submitted through the IPPC contact point

and this should be easily verifiable.- Compiled member comments will be published on the International Phytosanitary Portal (IPP).

The Secretariat encourages submissions as early as possible to facilitate the timely compilation of comments for the Standards Committee.

The following are guidelines for the submission of comments to help ensure maximum benefit from the consultation process, and faster compilation of comments:

1. Members will have to submit comments using the templates provided by the Secretariat for each standard. These templates are available as electronic documents that can be downloaded from the IPP (https://www.ippc.int/index.php?id=draft_ispms&no_cache=1&L=0 ) or obtained by e-mail from the IPPC Secretariat on request to [email protected]. Instructions for the use of the templates are given at the end of each template. Templates with comments should be submitted by e-mail as a word processing file (Word or similar) to [email protected]. Comments should be submitted through the IPPC contact point and the accompanying e-mail message should contain sufficient information so that this can be verified. If this cannot be verified, the member comments will not be retained. The text of the e-mail should also clearly indicate the country from which the comments are sent. Members are requested to submit only one set of comments for each standard and if several sets are received, the Secretariat will retain the last version received prior to the deadline.

2. If a contracting party wishes to support all of the comments submitted by another contracting party or RPPO, this should be indicated in a letter or e-mail (instead of sending the comments under the country’s 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 and which may be based on consultation within the organization. Such comments, however, are not considered to represent the views of individual contracting parties unless specifically indicated as such by the contracting party(ies) (for example, by indicating this in the templates of comments, or a letter or e-mail).

3. Comments 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.

4. Note that paragraphs in the draft standards are numbered. It is essential to ensure that the paragraph numbers used when submitting comments correspond to that of the draft standard as sent for consultation as these numbers will be used to compile the comments for the Standards Committee. Comments submitted with errors in paragraph numbering will not be ordered properly in the compiled tables and will cause confusion.




https://www.ippc.int/index.php?id=draft_ispms&no_cache=1&L=0

5. 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.

Note: The Secretariat only distributes to the Standards Committee comments received from contracting parties, RPPOs and relevant international organizations. Any comments on the draft standards from the public should be channelled through the national IPPC contact point for the respective countries. IPPC contact points can be found on the IPP (https://www.ippc.int/index.php?id=1110520&no_cache=1&type=contactpoints&L=0 ).


https://www.ippc.int/index.php?id=1110520&no_cache=1&type=contactpoints&L=0

Documents

Regional Technical Consultation On · Web viewChair Dr Russell Campbell. The PowerPoint was presented by Ms Hamilton. A comment on multiple plants for testing was suggested for