REPORT OF THE REGIONAL WORKSHOP FOR THE REVIEW OFDRAFT INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS FOR PHYTOSANITARY MEASURES

23-27 July 2007Seoul, Republic of Korea

Summary

The participants were welcomed by Mr Ki-Sik Lee, Director-General of the Korean National Plant Quarantine Service (NPQS) and Mr An, Director of the Plant Quarantine Division of NPQS.

In discussing the draft standards, the workshop made comments on the additions to the terms for the Glossary of Phytosanitary Terms, the drafts on the Establishment of areas of low pest prevalence for fruit flies, Developing a strategy to reduce or replace the use of methyl bromide and Sampling of consignments. With the draft on the Classification of commodities into phytosanitary risk categories, the workshop felt that this should be withdrawn and rewritten as a short Appendix to ISPM No. 11.

The group presented positions on their implementation of ISPM No. 13 and issues of concern with ISPMs No. 7 and No. 12. The group then discussed ways of achieving regional coordination on CPM agenda items and made a number of proposals.

1. Introduction

The 8th APPPC Regional Workshop on Review of Draft International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPMs) was held in Seoul, Republic of Korea from 23-27 July 2007. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the following 6 draft standards:

Amendments to the Glossary of phytosanitary terms Debarked and bark-free wood (supplement to ISPM No. 5) Establishment of areas of low pest prevalence for fruit flies (Tephritidae) Classification of commodities into phytosanitary risk categories Sampling of consignments Developing a strategy to reduce or replace the use of methyl bromide.

The meeting was attended by 21 experts from Bhutan, Cambodia, China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Laos, Malaysia, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nepal, New Zealand, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Vietnam. Fifteen of these countries are members of the Asia and Pacific Plant Protection Commission (APPPC). The list of participants is presented in Appendix 1. This was the second regional workshop for the review of draft international standards for phytosanitary measures (ISPMs) held in the Republic of Korea funded by the government of the Republic of Korea.

2. Opening Session

Mr Ki-Sik Lee, Director-General of the National Plant Quarantine Service of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, delivered a welcome address. He noted the large increase in the trade of plant products and the consequent need for standards on phytosanitary measures. The government of the Republic of Korea strongly supports the development of these standards. Mr Ki-Sik Lee said that he hoped that the discussions would lead to the improvement of the standards and that participants would take the opportunity provided by the meeting to share their understanding of phytosanitary standards and issues.

The meeting was opened by Mr. Piao Yongfan, Executive Secretary of the APPPC and a Plant Protection Officer in the FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, on behalf of Mr. He Changchui, Assistant Director General of FAO and Regional Representative for Asia and the Pacific. Mr Piao Yongfan expressed

1

the gratitude of the participants for the generosity of the government of the Republic of Korea in providing opportunity to discuss and comment on the draft standards. He noted that the meeting should provide the participants with a sound basis for developing their country comments on the draft standards that would be sent to the IPPC Secretariat. The meeting adopted the provisional agenda. See Appendix 2.

3. Overview of the IPPC and systems developed through the IPPC framework

Dr John Hedley, Chair of the APPPC Standing Committee on Plant Quarantine, presented the overview of the IPPC, ISPMs, the standard setting process and the CPM. He provided background to the development of the Commission on Phytosanitary Measures, the general organisation of the work of the Commission and a summary of the present programme of work.

Mr Youngsoo Ahn, Director of International Plant Quarantine Cooperation Division of the NPQS of Korea, presented outline of the Korean “Electronic Processing System for Plant Quarantine-Improving Customer Service by On-line Single-Window Mobile Office”. The development of this service was brought about by the great increase in the number of inspections since 1993 (increased by a factor of 52) and the corresponding increase in the number of inspectors (by a factor of 2). The new system includes and Online Application system with the Mobile Office and the use of PDA by inspectors to immediately report the results of inspections. The outcome has been a more efficient system with considerable cost savings and a 95% customer satisfaction rating.

4. Adoption of Agenda

The agenda was adopted with no amendments (see Appendix 2). Mr. Piao Yongfan (APPPC/FAO), Dr. John Hedley (New Zealand), Mr. Motoi Sakamura (Japan) and Mr. Wang Fuxiang (China) chaired the meeting respectively.

5. Discussion on Draft International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures

The study of the workshop participants for each draft was introduced by a PowerPoint presentation made by one of the CPM Standards Committee members present at the meeting. The group then examined each draft in detail recording agreed comments on the template provided by the IPPC Secretariat. Technical and editorial comments were made on the draft ISPMs and these comments are attached to the report (see Appendices 3 - 8). A general over view of the discussion for each draft ISPMs follows:

5.1 Amendments to the Glossary of phytosanitary termsSome specific comments were made on individual terms.

5.2 Debarked and bark-free wood (supplement to ISPM No.5)Some changes and editorial amendments were proposed. Two countries suggested that the material in the supplement should be covered by having the definitions submitted for inclusion in the Glossary and the other material should be considered for inclusion in other standards concerning wood or wood pest issues.

5.3 Establishment of areas of low pest prevalence for fruit flies (Tephritidae)Substantive and editorial amendments were proposed. The workshop requested definitions for primary and secondary hosts to be considered. Additional clarification is needed in “Documentation and record keeping” and in some cases, information on vegetables would be needed in addition to information on fruit. Some changes are proposed to align text with ISPM No. 22 and the “corrective action plan” section needs to be more consistent with ISPM No. 26.

5.4 Classification of commodities into phytosanitary risk categoriesSubstantive and editorial amendments were proposed. The draft does not have sufficient scientific content to be a stand-alone standard. The very basic guidance provided could constitute an appendix for ISPM No. 11. Some sections of this draft should be rewritten and used in forming such an appendix. The format of such an

2

appendix could follow that of Annex 3 to ISPM No. 11. It is also recommended that the category system be reversed so that Category 1 is the category of highest risk. Some countries had reservations that some of the processes listed (e.g. freezing, grinding) may not be stringent enough to render commodities regulated pest-free.

5.5 Sampling of consignmentsMinor and editorial amendments were proposed for this very technical draft ISPM. It is proposed to introduce the concept of risk level into this draft ISPM.

5.6 Developing a strategy to reduce or replace the use of methyl bromideMinor and editorial amendments were proposed. It was felt that the document was a policy document rather than a standard.

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

Five countries (China, India, Japan, Sri Lanka and Vietnam) brought their written country comments to the meeting. The pre-review and the arrangement of country comments greatly assisted the discussions of the workshop.

6. IPPC standard setting work programme and opportunities for participation in the standard setting process

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

Participants were encouraged to discuss priorities for future standards with their colleagues and submit topics timely to the Secretariat when they are invited to submission.

Participants were encouraged to check the IPP frequently for calls for nominations to working groups. When possible they should then search for qualified experts from their countries and submit nominations, through the NPPO contact point, to the IPPC Secretariat. It was also requested that nominees follow the instructions in the call letter and ensure they submit CVs detailing the appropriate expertise and outlining specific experiences in relation to the requirements listed in the expertise section of the relevant specifications. The NPPOs should take immediate actions of internal consultation for recommendations as soon as receiving the call for nominations of experts.

7. Progress reports by participants on the implementation of adopted ISPMs

Participants were requested prior to the meeting to prepare a brief update on the implementation of ISPM No. 13 (Guidelines for the notification of non-compliance and emergency action), adopted in 2001, describing how they implemented this standard and in particular outlining problems they faced with the implementation and what solutions they found to solve their problems. Presentations were made by the participants from Cambodia, India, Japan, Korea, Laos, Malaysia, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nepal, New Zealand, the Philippines and Vietnam. The workshop discussed the responses of countries. Copies of the information were made available to participants.

Regarding ISPM No. 13 (Guidelines for the Notification of Non-Compliance and Emergency Action), Malaysia sent 328 notifications of non-compliance to 24 countries during 2003 – 2007 (June), and no feedback was received from the exporting country. India sent 62 notifications of non-compliance during April-July 2007 to the exporting countries due to failing to comply with documentary requirements,

3

phytosanitary requirements and detection of non-quarantine pest and regulated quarantine pest from consignments. In New Zealand, if a phytosanitary certificate is technically incorrect, the importer is required to obtain a re-issue of a correct phytosanitary certificate from the exporting NPPO and a letter is sent to the NPPO if the problems with phytosanitary certificates or prohibited articles persist. In terms of phytosanitary certificate problems with pests: a) initially a letter is sent to exporting NPPO with interception data or b) issue is raised at bilateral discussions, c) measure will be put in place if issue is not rectified. Non -compliance reports are sent monthly to exporting NPPOs for feedback.

A hardcopy of the specification for the revision of ISPM No. 7 and 12 was distributed to all participants for their background information. Some concerns were expressed over the time of validity of the phytosanitary certificate and the use of the term place of origin in the phytosanitary certificate. Based on presentations made by several countries the possible issues and suggestions regarding implementation of ISPM No. 12 and No. 7 were identified as below:

Korea considered that (1) in order to avoid counterfeit and fraud of a phytosanitary certificate, the NPPO should use anti-counterfeit paper and issue 1 piece of phytosanitary certificate in principle (when necessary, issues more phytosanitary certificates); (2) to develop a simple phytosanitary certificate form or use stamp for hand-carried plants or plant products; (3) in relation to 3.2 of ISPM. No.12 on issuing a phytosanitary certificate for an imported consignment, when the place of origin is changed (that means change of place of origin), it should describe new place of origin as well as country of origin on phytosanitary certificate.

Philippines suggested that: (1) period of validity is not provided in the model phytosanitary certificate (Section 1.4.1); (2) in the future, there will commodities that will require certification of the variety and will be included in the phytosanitary certificate (Section 2); (3) given the explanation provided in the Section 2.1 this requirement (place of origin) is sometimes very hard to achieve, unless the exporting or importing country requires monitoring during growing period; (4) In terms of issues and concerns regarding ISPM No. 7, Section 1, Para 2, dashpoint 2: The Philippines has in place a system to comply with this requirement, however, there was one known instance when the phytosanitary certificate was tampered with after it was issued. It is practically impossible to guard the integrity of the certificate after it is issued; Section 4.1, last line: Some exporters insist that their buyers requires other information such as contract number and other information of non phytosanitary nature; Section 4.1 Para 2: While this section mentioned about validity date, the model phytosanitary certificate does not have any portion that requires for validity date. In that case, the exporting country does not provide any validity date. The validity of the phytosanitary certificate is now left at the discretion of the importing country. It is understandable that the exporting country does not have any control once it is issued. There are circumstances (force of nature, delay of vessel, etc.) that will delay export of consignment which will result to a phytosanitary certificate that is not up to date); Section 4.2 phytosanitary certificate for re-export: This section can be fulfilled easily if the commodity presented is declared as for re-export. However, the difficulty is when it is not declared as such; Section 4.4 Records: Philippines kept all records pertaining to the issuance of phytosanitary certificates, however it does not keep record of those non-conforming consignments that were denied.

Regarding the legal interpretation of Article V.2a of the IPPC, Korea raised the question of what is deference between NPPO and official NPPO, in case of federal government, whether NPPO of a state government could be an official NPPO or not.

8. Additional topics for consideration at future regional workshops on draft ISPMs

The participants discussed the possibilities for pre-CPM coordination meetings to assist the development of regional viewpoints from Asia. These included possible arranging discussions:- at the biennial meeting of the APPPC- at an ad hoc meeting before CPM- at the CPM itself – immediately before the meeting and during the CPM week- at the APPPC standards committee meetings- via the executive secretary who could coordinate viewpoints on specific subjects- at bilateral and ad hoc meetings in the region where CPM issues could be additions to the official

agendas.

4

The APPPC could consider the development of a core group, possibly based on the Standards Committee members. The sharing of country comments on draft ISPMs was proposed – via the executive secretary. The participants expressed the hope that countries may be able to locate supporting funds.

It is suggested this subject be further considered at the next regional workshop.

9. Date and location of the next meeting

The participants expressed their hope that Korea would continue to provide financial support to the regional workshop on draft ISPMs which would allow the workshop next year to again be held in Korea. The Korean officials present said that the possibility of financial support for a workshop next year would be explored. The dates 28 July to 1 August 2008 were proposed.

10. Closing

Closing remarks were given by Mr. Piao and Dr. Hedley. Participants were thanked for their valuable contributions and encouraged to coordinate the submission of national country comments to the Secretariat. The NPQS, Korea was thanked for their financial and organizational contributions which made the workshop possible. Finally, it was noted that experience and continuity were achieved by having the same person participate each year by several countries and the group benefited from the expertise of many different disciplines and experiences.

It was stressed that the consolidated country comments should be submitted to the Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention before the official deadline for comment - 30 September 2007 after further necessary revision based on the result of the regional review of the draft ISPMs.

5

Appendix 1

List of Participants

BhutanMr. Norbu GyeltshenAssistant Regulatory & Quarantine OfficerPlant & Livestock Quarantine OfficeBhutan Agriculture and Food Regulatory AuthorityMinistry of Agriculture, Royal Government of BhutanParo, Bhutan

Tel : + 975 08 271583 Mobile +975 17622438 Fax : + 975 08 271523E-mail: Norbge12@yahoo.com

CambodiaDr. Hean Vanhan  Deputy Director Organization / affiliation Dept. of Agronomy and Agricultural Land Improvement (DAALI) Ministry of Agriculture, Forest and Fisheries (MAFF) No.200, Norodom Blvd., Sangkat Tonle Basac, Chamcar Maon, Phnom Phenh Cambodia

Tel:  (+855)12818216 Fax:     (+855)23216655 Email: hean_vanhan@yahoo.com

ChinaMr. Wang FuxiangChief DivisionDivision of Plant Plant Quarantine National Agro-Technical Extension and Service Centre Ministry of Agriculture (MoA), No. 11, Beijing 100026China

Tel: 0086-10-64194524Fax: 0086-10-64194726E-mail: wangfuxiang@agri.gov.cn

Mr. He PengfeiManager officer,Department of Animal and Plant Quarantine, AQSIQ, P.R.C

Tel: 8610-82261664Fax: 8610-82260157E-mail: hepf@aqsiq.gov.cn

IndiaDr. Ravi PrakashJoint Director (Plant Quarantine)Directorate of Plant Protection, Quarantine & StorageNH-IV, Faridabad India

Tel. : 95129-2418506, 95129-2412125Fax :E-mail: jdpq@nic.in

IndonesiaMr. Dwi Putra SetiawanDeputy DirectorPlant Quarantine Export and InternalIndonesian Agriculture Quarantine AgencyMinistry of AgricultureGedung E Lt. 1,5 & 7Kanpus DeptanJl. Harsono RM. No. 3 RagunanJakarta Selatan 12550Indonesia

Tel: +62 21 7816482Fax: +62 21 7816482E-mail: setiawan@cbn.net.id

setiawan@deptan.go.id

JapanMr. Motoi SAKAMURAPrincipal OfficerKobe Plant Protection StationMinistry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF)1-1, Hatoba-cho, Chuou-ku, KobeJapan

Tel: +81-78-331-1350Fax: +81-78-391-1757E-mail: sakamuram@pps.go.jp

6

Mr. Shunichiro TAKANO Official title: Section Chief Plant Protection DivisionFood Safety and Consumer Affairs BureauMinistry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF)1-2-1, Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku, TokyoJapan

Tel: +81-3-3502-5978Fax: +81-3-3502-3386E-mail: shunichiro_takano@nm.maff.go.jp

LaosMr. Phaydy PhiaxaysarakhamDirector Agriculture Regulatory DivisionDepartment of AgricultureMinistry of Agriculture and ForestryLane Xang Avenue, Putuxay SquareP.O. Box 811, VientianeLaos

Tel: (+85621)412350Fax: (+856 21) 412349E-mail: doag@laotel.com or phaydy8@yahoo.com

MongoliaMrs. Burmaa BadralHead of the Crop divisionMinistry of Food and AgricultureUlaanbaatarMongolia

Tel: 976-11-262835Fax: 976-11-952404E-mail: b_burmaa2001@yahoo.com

MyanmarMs. Than Than NweManagerPlant Protection DivisionBayint Naung Road, Insein P.O. 11011, YangonMyanmar

Tel: 95-1-644213; 95-1-640459; 95-1-640975Fax: 95--644019E-mail: ppmas.moai@mptmail.net.mm

MalaysiaMs. Wan Normah Wan IsmailDeputy Director (Enforcement)Crop Protection and Plant Quarantine DivisionDepartment of AgricultureJalan , sultan salahuddin50632 Kuala LumpurMalaysia

Tel: 603-20301400Fax: 603-26913530E-mail: wanis@doa.gov.my wann54@yahoo.com

NepalMr. Durga Prasad Dawadi Senior Agri Dev Office District Agriculture Development Office Department of AgricultureMinistry of Agriculture Nepal

Tel:       00977-75-520144              00977-56-527141Mobile No.:  00977-9841639148Fax:        00977-75-520294E-mail:   durga_dawadi@yahoo.com

New ZealandDr. John HedleyPrincipal Adviser, International Coordination – PlantsBiosecurity New ZealandMinistry of Agriculture and ForestryP.O. Box 2526WellingtonNew Zealand

Tel: 64 4 819 0428Fax: 64 4 819 0731Email: john.hedley@maf.govt.nz

PhilippinesMr. Larry R. LacsonChiefPlant Quarantine ServiceBureau of Plant Industry692 San Andres StreetMalate, ManilaPhilippines

Tel: (632) 523 9132/524 2812Fax: (632) 404 0409E-mail: lacsonlr@yahoo.com

7

Republic of KoreaMr. Youngsoo AhnDirectorDivision of International Quarantine CooperationNational Plant Quarantine Service433-1 Anyang 6-dongManan-guAnyang cityRep. of Korea

Tel: 82-31-446-1926Fax: 82-31-445-6934E-mail: ahn691@npqs.go.kr

Mr. Youngcheol JeongDeputy directorDivision of International Quarantine CooperationNational Plant Quarantine Service433-1 Anyang 6-dongManan-guAnyang cityRep. of Korea.

E-mail: ycheong @npqs.go.kr

Dr. Kyu-Ock YIMResearcherDivision of International Quarantine CooperationNational Plant Quarantine Service433-1 Anyang 6-dongManan-guAnyang cityRep. of Korea.

E-mail: koyim99 @npqs.go.kr

Sri LankaMr. N.J. Liyanage Acting Officer in-charge of Plant Quarantine Division Plant Quarantine Services, Airport Katunayake Sri Lanka 

Tel:      0094112252575Residential tel: 0094112844149Mobile tel:   0094716054720E-mail: liyanagenj@yahoo.com

ThailandMr. Paisan RatanasatienChief of Entomology and Zoology GroupPlant Protection Research and Development Office, Department of Agriculture50 Phaholyothin Road, Chatuchak, Bangkok 10900Thailand

Tel: + 662 579 7579Fax: + 662 940 5307E-mail : mrpaisan91@yahoo.co.th

Viet NamMr. Nguyen Quy DuongDeputy DirectorPost Entry Plant Quarantine Centre No IPlant Protection Department Hanoi Agriculture UniversityHanoiViet Nam

Tel: (84- 4) 7520927Fax: (84 - 4) 8388800E-mail: duongnquy@yahoo.com or kdtvsnk1@vnn.vn

FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific

Mr. Piao YongfanPlant Protection OfficerFAO Regional Office for Asia and the PacificMaliwan Mansion 39 Phra Atit RoadBangkok 10200Thailand

Tel : 662 697 4268Fax : 662 697 4445E-mail: Yongfan.piao@fao.org

COUNTRIES INVITED BUT UNABLE TO ATTENDArmeniaAzerbaijanBangladeshBruneiGeorgiaKorea, DPRKyrgyzstanMaldivesPakistanSingaporeTimor-Leste

8

9

Appendix 2

Regional Workshop for the Review of Draft International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures

23-27 July 2007Gwacheon City, Korea

Provisional Agenda

Monday

8:30-9:00 am Registration

9.00 – 9.30 am Opening Session: - Welcome address by Republic of Korea - Opening address by FAO - Local and logistical information (NPQS, Korea)

9.30 – 10.20 am Presentation - Introduction of the workshop and Overview of the IPPC

- Introduction of Korean plant quarantine presented by Republic of Korea

10.20 – 10.30 am Group photos

10.30 – 10:50 am Coffee break

Discussion Session10:50 – 11:00 am Adoption of agenda

11:00 – 1:00 pm Amendments to the Glossary of Phytosanitary terms

1:00 – 2:00 pm Lunch break

2:00 – 3:30 pm Debarked and bark-free wood (supplement to ISPM No.5)

3:30 – 4:00 pm Coffee break

4:00 – 6:00 pm Continuation

6:30 – 9:00 pm Welcome Dinner (hosted by NPQS)

Tuesday

8.30 – 10.30 am Establishment of areas of low pest prevalence for fruit flies (Tephritidae)

10.30 – 11:00 am Coffee break

11:00 – 1:00 pm Continuation

1:00 – 2:00 pm Lunch break

2:00 – 3:30 pm Classification of commodities into phytosanitary risk categories

3:30 – 4:00 pm Coffee break

4:00 – 6:00 pm Continuation

Wednesday

8.30 – 10.30 am Sampling of consignments

10.30 – 11:00 am Coffee break

11:00 – 1:00 pm Continuation

1:00 – 2:00 pm Lunch break

2:00 – 3:30 pm Developing a strategy to reduce or replace the use of methyl bromide

3:30 – 4:00 pm Coffee break

4:00 – 6:00 pm Continuation

Thursday

7.30am – 9.30 pm Field visit (To Youngnam Regional Office- Busan)

Friday

8.30 – 10.30 am Progress reports by participants on the implementation of ISPM No.13 (Guidelines for the notification of non-compliance and emergency action)

10.30 – 11:00 am Coffee break

11:00 – 1:00 pm Discussions: IPPC Standard setting work programme and Opportunities for participation 1. “Call for topics for standard setting work programme topics” 2. “Call for experts to take part in drafting ISPMs”

1:00 pm-2:00 pm Luncheon hosted by NPQS

2:00 – 3:30 pm Discussions: 1. Funding of future workshops including participant travel 2. Next venue/Country (?) 3. Topics for consideration at future workshops

3:30 – 4:00 pm Coffee break

4:00 – 6:00 pm Wrap up and other business Adoption of the Report Close of meeting

Appendix 3 Template for comments - Draft ISPMs for country consultation, 2007

AMENDMENTS TO ISPM NO. 5 (GLOSSARY OF PHYTOSANITARY TERMS)

1. Section 2. COUNTRY 3. Type of comment 4. Location 5. Proposed rewording 6. ExplanationGENERAL COMMENTSSPECIFIC COMMENTS

1. New terms and definitions1.1 Prevalence (of a pest) Some countries felt that there should be some

mention of the pest infection level in the term prevalence. Others felt this should more clearly be restricted to usage in field environments.

1.2 Tolerance level APPPC Substantive Tolerance level (of a pest) To make clear the restricted use of this term

_______________________________One country felt that the word “spread” was redundant and should be removed.

2. Revised terms and definitions2.1 Beneficial organisms

3. Proposed deletionsauthority

biological pesticide (biopesticide)

Some countries felt that this term could be removed. Others believed that the term should be retained, as it could be clarified for IPPC usage, and fully revised.

classical biological controlintroduction (of a biological control agent)establishment (of a biological control agent)exotic

Import Permit (of a biological control agent)

1. Section 2. COUNTRY 3. Type of comment 4. Location 5. Proposed rewording 6. Explanationmicro-organismspecificity

Other comments

APPENDIX 4

DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO ISPM NO. 5: DEBARKED AND BARK-FREE WOOD

1. Section 2. COUNTRY 3. Type of comment 4. Location 5. Proposed rewording 6. ExplanationGENERAL COMMENTS Two countries suggested that the material in

the supplement could be covered by having the definitions in the Glossary and the other material in other standards concerning wood/pest issues.

SPECIFIC COMMENTS

TITLE OF THE DRAFT1. Scope2. ReferencesDefinitions: bark bark

Definitions: bark-free wood bark-free woodDefinitions: debarked wood debarked wood It was suggested by one country that

“completely” be inserted before “removed” .Definitions: other comments other comment

3. Background4. General Observations Regarding Pest Risk Associated with Bark

APPPC Editorial 2nd para3rd paragraph

6th para

In terms of this supplement…Delete

Such phytosanitary measures, as requiring debarked or bark-free wood, …

This document is not a standard.Repeats what is in the 2nd para of the BackgroundNot clear as previous para refers to only one measure.

5. Setting Bark Tolerances for Debarked Wood

APPPC Editorial 1st para 3rd indent

!st para 4th indent

…poses a higher risk for some pests than a narrow strip…- pest species dependent on bark

To make more accurate

To be accurate6. Bark-free Wood as a Phytosanitary Measure

APPPC Sustantive Last line ..the wood should not retain any bark except for ingrown bark around knots and bark pockets between rings of annual growth.

To make accurate .. any bark is incorrect.

Appendix 1: Cross-sectional line drawing of wood

APPENDIX 5

DRAFT ISPM: ESTABLISHMENT OF AREAS OF LOW PEST PREVALENCE FOR FRUIT FLIES (TEPHRITIDAE)

1. Section 2. COUNTRY 3. Type of comment 4. Location 5. Proposed rewording 6. ExplanationGENERAL COMMENTS

SPECIFIC COMMENTSTITLE OF THE DRAFTINTRODUCTIONSCOPE APPPC Substantive Delete 2nd sentence Does not describe the scope.

REFERENCESDEFINITIONS APPPC Substantive Request definitions for primary and

secondary hostsABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS STANDARDOUTLINE OF REQUIREMENTSBACKGROUND APPPC Editorial

Substantive

2nd para4th para next ot last line

… fruits and vegetables …… may also be developed …Add to endThe target pests for which this standard was developed include insects of the order Diptera, family Tephritidae, of the genera Anastrepha, Bactrocera, Ceratitis, Dacus, Rhagolitis and Toxotrypana.

To be accurateCorrect EnglishTo be consistent with ISPM 26

REQUIREMENTS1. General Requirements APPPC Editorial

Editorial

Substantive

2nd sentence4th para

5th para

….standards, whereas others …The establishment of an FF-ALP should be considered ….to meet the objectives for which the FF-ALP is established.Delete.

Better languageSentence too long and needs shortening.

Do not understand the implications of this para

1.1 Operational plans1.2 Determination of an FF-ALPP

APPPC Editorial 1st para Elements for consideration for the determination of an FF-PFA are outlined in sction 2.1 of ISPM No. 26 (…) may also be

Correct inaccuracy.

1. Section 2. COUNTRY 3. Type of comment 4. Location 5. Proposed rewording 6. Explanation

EditorialSubstantive

2nd para 1st line2nd para last dash-point

applied to an FF-ALPP.Delete also Improve accuracy

Do not like the use of determination (prefer description to not conflict with title of section) and do not see the difference from dashpoint 3. Can this be explained.

1.3 Documentation and record keeping

EditorialSubstative

1st dashpoint3rd dashpoint

…host commodities in the areaSurveillance records:

- traps: number and type of …- fruit sampling: type, amount, date,

frequency and result.

Should include vegetablesNeed to make sampling records clear

1.4 Supervision activities

2. Specific Requirements 2.1 Establishment of the FF-ALPP

APPPC Editorial 1st para Elements ….an FF-PFA are described…and may also be applied to FF-ALPP.

To be accurate.

2.1.1 Determination of the specified level of low pest prevalence

2.1.2 Geographic description2.1.3 Documentation and verification 2.1.4 Surveillance activities prior to establishment 2.2 Phytosanitary procedures

2.2.1 Surveillance activities APPPC Editorial 5th para …of the target fruit fly.. Better English2.2.2 Reduction and maintenance of the target fruit fly species levels

APPPC EditorialSubstantive

Title1st para

4th dashpoint

….low level….Change 2nd para for second sentence of 1st para. And hence remove the existing 2nd para.Form new 2nd para starting with Since the target fruit fly species….Change sentence on Suppression by referring to ISPM 22 in brackets ie “….than one control option (some of these are described in ISPM No. 22)Add after “replacement of host plants by non-host plants (where appropriate) ..”

ClearerReduce redundancy and make clearer

Allow for the different content of the list here and in ISPM 22.

Take account of different situations.

2.2.3 Reduction of the risk of

1. Section 2. COUNTRY 3. Type of comment 4. Location 5. Proposed rewording 6. Explanationentry of the target fruit fly species

2.2.4 Domestic declaration of low pest prevalence

2.3 Maintenance of the FF-ALPP

2.3.1 Surveillance APPPC Editorial Change reference to section 2.2.1 Accuracy2.3.2 Measures to maintain specified levels of fruit flies

3rd para 1st line

2nd dashpoint

One country suggested that the “fruit fly species” would be changed to “fruit fly populations”Add “where appropriate”

This would make the statement understandable.

Softens conflict with other 3 points.2.4 Corrective action plans Last sentence Annex 2 provides guidelines on corrective

action plans for fruit flies in ALPPsSuggested by one country as more consistent with ISPM No.26. Supported by most countries.

2.5 Suspension, loss and reinstatement of FF-ALPP status2.5.1 Suspension of FF-ALPP status

APPPC 1st para last sentence

Add “immediately” to end Align with ISPM No.26

2.5.2 Loss of FF-ALPP status APPPC Substantive

End of para 1

Move 2.5.2 to be section 2.5.3 and move 2.5.3 to be 2.5.2.Add “immediately”

To align with IPM No. 26

2.5.3 Reinstatement APPPC Substantive Change to “Once technical conditions are achieved again, through the application of corrective actions contained in the plan, the FF-ALPP can be reinstated. If the FF-ALPP is established for export of host fruits, the reinstatement needs to be recognised by importing countries. This recognition of reinstatement should be carried out without undue delay.”

To cover the issue of recognition by trading partners and clarify the paragraph.

Annex 1 Parameters used to estimate the level of fruit fly prevalence

APPPC

Annex 2 Guidelines on corrective action plans for fruit flies in an FF-ALPP

3rd para 1st dashpoint4th para last sentence6th para 2nd line

Change to “declaration of suspension”

“….after declaration of suspension”

Change to 2.5.1

To be consistent with 2.5

Accuracy

1. Section 2. COUNTRY 3. Type of comment 4. Location 5. Proposed rewording 6. Explanation7th para 2nd dashpoint

Change to “sterile fruit fly release”

Appendix 1 Guidelines on trapping procedures

Appendix 2 Typical applications of areas of low pest prevalence for fruit fliesAppendix 2: 1 An FF-ALPP as a buffer zone

Appendix 2: 1.1 Determination of an FF-ALPP as a buffer zoneAppendix 2: 1.2 Establishment of an FF-ALPP as a buffer zone

Appendix 2: 1.3 Maintenance of an FF-ALPP as a buffer zoneAppendix 2: 2 FF-ALPPs for export purposesAppendix 2: 2.1 Determination of an FF-ALPP for export purposes

Appendix 2: 2.2 Maintenance of an FF-ALPP for export purposes

APPENDIX 6 DRAFT ISPM: CLASSIFICATION OF COMMODITIES INTO PHYTOSANITARY RISK CATEGORIES

1. Section 2. COUNTRY 3. Type of comment 4. Location 5. Proposed rewording 6. ExplanationGENERAL COMMENTS APPPC Suggested that components of this draft

could be used as an Appendix to ISPM No. 11.

The draft does not have sufficient scientific content to be a stand-alone standard. The very basic guidance provided could constitute an appendix for ISPM No. 11.

Some sections of this draft may be rewritten and used in forming an appendix. The format of such an appendix could follow that of Annex 3 to ISPM No. 11.

It is recommended that the category system be reversed so that Category 1 is the category of highest risk.

SPECIFIC COMMENTSTITLE OF THE DRAFT Classification of commodities based on

their phytosanitary riskSuggested by one country. More in line with the Scope.

INTRODUCTIONSCOPEREFERENCES

DEFINITIONSOUTLINE OF REQUIREMENTSBACKGROUNDREQUIREMENTS Delete

Delete 1st paraTitle not necessary.Does not deal with requirements – is background information.

1. Elements of Phytosanitary Risk Categorization of Commodities

APPPC Substantive 1st par Last sentence

2nd para

Substitute - A commodity processed in such a way may not pose the risk of introducing regulated pestsSubstitute - However, if, after processing, a commodity still poses a risk of introducing regulated pests, the intended use should then be considered.

The state of “regulated article’ does not derive only from considering the degree of processing.As above.

1. Section 2. COUNTRY 3. Type of comment 4. Location 5. Proposed rewording 6. Explanation1.1 Method and level of processing

APPPC Substantive 5th para 1st sentence ..no further analysis may be necessary. As above

1.2 Intended use2. Phytosanitary Risk Categories and Measures

APPPC Substantive 4th para

9th para12th para

14th para

Commodities have been processed to the point where they have no capacity to harbour or spread regulated pests. Hence, further analysis may not be necessary and phytosanitary measures may not be applicable.DeleteReplace “establishment of phytosanitary ….be performed” with “PRA may be required for the establishment of phytosanitary measures”Change 2nd to last sentence to “Therefore, a PRA is usually needed to establish phytosanitary measures.”

As above

Not necessaryNot all phytosanitary measures require a new PRA.

As above

ANNEX 1 Examples of methods of processing and the resultant types of commodity

Note: some processes are included in both Type A and Type B depending on the level of processing.

Some countries had reservations that some of the processes listed (eg freezing, grinding) may not be stringent enough to render commodities regulated pest-free.

ANNEX 1: TYPE A Editorial 2nd Process Delete in 2nd process “in accordance …..”Suggested add Pickling

Incorrect.

ANNEX 1: TYPE B Substantive Include processes such as:- freezing- grinding- malting- polishing- lamination- freeze drying- preservation in liquid.

Add devitilization Debarking Milling

As above – Some countries …

APPENDIX 1 Flow chart illustrating classification of commodities into phytosanitary risk categories

Suggest that one box [Processed] replaces the two boxes Type A and Type B.

APPENDIX 7 DRAFT ISPM: SAMPLING OF CONSIGNMENTS

1. Section 2. COUNTRY 3. Type of comment 4. Location 5. Proposed rewording 6. ExplanationGENERAL COMMENTS

SPECIFIC COMMENTSTITLE OF THE DRAFTINTRODUCTIONSCOPE APPPC Substantive 2nd para Move to background to form a new 3rd para Is not part of the scope.

REFERENCESDEFINITIONS

OUTLINE OF REQUIREMENTS

APPPC This Outline is inappropriate and should be rewritten in the form of an abstract not as a contents list.

BACKGROUND

3rd para

Insert 2nd paragraph of Scope as a new 3rd paraDelete (for example, sampling for testing) Not necessary as objectives listed below

OBJECTIVES OF SAMPLING OF CONSIGNMENTS

APPPC

APPPC

APPPC

Editorial

Editorial

Editorial

2nd dashpoint

6th dashpoint

6th dashpoint

Insert at beginning of 2nd para

Add – so that sampling is related to risk levelDelete

Change to read – to provide assurance of compliance…In achieving their objectives, NPPOs should note that inspection …..

To introduce the concept of risk level

Two countries believed this general point already covered by previous dashpoints.To be consistent with other dashpoints

To provide a link between objectives and the important point of this 2nd para.

REQUIREMENTS1. Concept1.1 Acceptance number1.2 Level of detection

1.3 Confidence level1.4 Efficacy of detection

1.5 Sample size1.6 Tolerance level

2. Links between the Parameters

1. Section 2. COUNTRY 3. Type of comment 4. Location 5. Proposed rewording 6. Explanation3. Sample Unit4. Lot Identification 2nd Para 1st line Change to read “….a single commodity

from a consignment5. Sampling Methods APPPC Substantive

Substantive

2nd and 3rd para

Insert a new 3rd para (to present draft)

Move 2nd and 3rd paras to beginning of section 6.Samples should be drawn randomly from consignments. In general, sampling is designed as random sampling. However, if we can obtain some information on the distribution pattern of pests in consignments, we may be able to apply other specific sampling theory such as the beta-binomial distribution.

These points apply more to the selection of method.One country felt that some statement supporting the use of random sampling systems was necessry.

5.1 Statistically based methods5.1.1 Simple random sampling

Editorial End of 1st para Change to (see 5.2.2) Accuracy.

5.1.2 Systematic sampling

5.1.3 Stratified sampling5.1.4 Sequential sampling

5.1.5 Clustered sampling5.2 Other sampling methods5.2.1 Convenience sampling5.2.2 Haphazard sampling

5.2.3 Selective or biased sampling

6. Selecting a Sampling Method

APPPC Substantive Beginning of section

Insert 2nd and 3rd paras from section 5 at the beginning of this section

More appropriate placement.

7. Sample Size Determination

APPPC Editorial 1st para The sample size can be calculated based on the confidence level, the level of detection, an acceptance number, the efficacy of the visual inspection or testing and the lot size.

Rephrase to make clearer the intent.

7.1 Random distribution of the pest in the lot

7.2 Aggregated

1. Section 2. COUNTRY 3. Type of comment 4. Location 5. Proposed rewording 6. Explanationdistribution of the pest in the lot

7.3 Fixed proportion sampling

8. Varying Level of Detection9. Outcome of SamplingAPPENDIX 1 Calculating sample sizes for small lots: hypergeometric-based sampling

APPENDIX 1 TABLE 1APPENDIX 1 TABLE 2

APPENDIX 2 Sampling of large lots: binomial or Poisson based samplingAPPENDIX 2 TABLE 3

APPENDIX 2 TABLE 4APPENDIX 3 Sampling for pests with an aggregated distribution: beta-binomial based samplingAPPENDIX 4 Comparison of hypergeometric and fixed proportion sampling results

APPENDIX 4 TABLE 5APPENDIX 4 TABLE 6

APPENDIX 8 DRAFT ISPM: DEVELOPING A STRATEGY TO REDUCE OR REPLACE THE USE OF METHYL

BROMIDE FOR PHYTOSANITARY PURPOSES 1. Section 2. COUNTRY 3. Type of comment 4. Location 5. Proposed rewording 6. ExplanationGENERAL COMMENTS APPPC It was felt that the document was a policy

document rather than a standard.SPECIFIC COMMENTS

TITLE OF THE DRAFT APPPC Editorial A strategy to replace, or reduce the use of, methyl bromide for phytosanitary purposes.

More in line with present practice and better English.

INTRODUCTIONSCOPE APPPC Editorial Amend to …replace or reduce the use of .. As above.REFERENCES APPPC Editorial Add ISPMs 5 and 28 -`````````````````

DEFINITIONSABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS STANDARDOUTLINE OF REQUIREMENTS

APPPC Editorial 1st line Add “…strategy to replace or reduce the use of methyl bromide …”

Accuracy

BACKGROUND REQUIREMENTS 1. Replacement of methyl bromide use for phytosanitary purposes

APPPCAPPPC

APPPC

EditorialEditorial

Editorial

1st para 3rd line2nd para

3rd para

Delete “a”Change to read “Contracting parties will be encouraged to develop any other phytosanitary measures that help to provide alternatives to methyl bromide use particularly at the production stage, eg systems approaches or PFA.- use of chemical treatments (eg sulfuryl fluoride)

ALPP not a suitable example. More concise. Stresses control at the production stage.

More consistent with other dashpoints

2. Reducing methyl bromide use for phytosanitary purposes

APPPC

APPPC

Editorial

Substantive

1st para

Para 2 dashpoint 1

Change to “….can be achieved by reducing dosages or decreasing treatment frequencies.”

- using methyl bromide in response to a regulated pest detection/identification rather than as a general requirement

More concise

Clarity and removing “mandatory”

1. Section 2. COUNTRY 3. Type of comment 4. Location 5. Proposed rewording 6. ExplanationAPPPC Substantive 3rd dashpoint - implementing good fumigation practice

eg to avoid refumigation, improve facilities, and avoid overdosing

Improve sense.

3. Physically reducing methyl bromide emissions

APPPC Substantive Dashpoint 2 Delete Now redundant

4. Recording methyl bromide use for phytosanitary purposes5. Guidelines for developing and implementing a strategy on methyl bromide use for phytosanitary measures

APPPCAPPPCAPPPCAPPPC

EditorialEditorialEditorialSubstantive

Section 2Section 10Section 11New dashpoint 15

Change quarantine to regulatedChange to section 4 of this ISPMCorrect IPP addressConsider the imposition of a levy on the use of Methyl Bromide to encourage the development of replacement materials

AccuracyAs aboveAs aboveAn additional option

APPENDIX 1 Phytosanitary treatments to reduce or replace methyl bromide - INTRODUCTIONAPPENDIX 1 TABLE