Regional Technical Consultation On



[pic]

Regional workshop for the review of draft International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures

CARIBBEAN,

Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago

6-10 of September 2010

Report

1. Opening of the session

The meeting was chaired by Mr. Gregg Rawlins, Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA) Representative in Trinidad and Tobago. He welcomed the participants to the workshop and stressed its importance as a unique opportunity for countries to collectively review five draft International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPMs) and prepare the comments to be sent by the countries to the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) Secretariat, before 30 September 2010.

Ms Ana Peralta, Implementation Officer of the IPPC, welcomed the participants to the meeting and thanked the Trinidad and Tobago national authorities and IICA for hosting and organizing the meeting. She also described the scope of the IPPC and its standard setting process and noted the main purpose of the workshop was to discuss the draft ISPMs that were circulated 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 Peralta mentioned the need for participation in the discussions leading to the adoption of new standards and for consultation with stakeholders in each country. She also mentioned the need for Caribbean countries to analyze the possibility of taking action to dissolve the Caribbean Plant Protection Commission (CPPC) and subsequently replace it with the Caribbean Agricultural Health and Food Safety Agency (CAHFSA).

Ricardo Molins, Manager of IICA/AHFS[1] Programme, thanked the IPPC for trusting IICA in the organization of this meeting and hoped it could be helpful in coordinating the comments of Caribbean countries. He also pointed out the importance of this training activity for developing countries, to get them prepared to be active participants in the decisions of the IPPC and other Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) related Conventions. Finally, he expressed IICA’s will to go on working together with the IPPC in improving participation in the standard setting process.

Ms. Cynthra Persad, Director of Research in the Ministry of Food Production, Land and Marine Affairs of Trinidad and Tobago, welcomed the participants to the workshop, especially the delegates from CARICOM countries. She stressed the importance of consultation on ISPMs in general and the five being considered at this workshop in particular. She positioned the importance of IPPC with the three sisters (IPPC, OIE and CODEX) and stressed the importance of implementation of the SPS agreement. On behalf of the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry, she wished an active and collective participation and substantive inputs to the standards and congratulated IICA for its support of the workshop. Finally, she summarized the importance and impacts for her country of the drafts currently under consultation.

Dr. Gene Pollard, former CPPC/FAO Officer attended the opening session.

The meeting was attended by 16 experts from 13 countries and was facilitated by IICA and the IPPC Secretariat. See Appendix 1.

2. Purpose of the workshop

The purpose of the workshop was outlined in the opening session – to provide participants of the Caribbean region with a regional forum to discuss the draft ISPMs. These discussions could help participants gain a better understanding of the national and regional impacts of these proposed standards and provide a basis for the submission of national comments. This workshop covered the following draft ISPMs that were circulated 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. Overview of the IPPC

Ms. Ana Peralta gave an overview of the IPPC, ISPMs and the standard setting process. It was noted that this meeting was held to assist countries in the preparation of their comments on draft ISPMs. Official comments should be submitted to the IPPC Secretariat by the national IPPC contact point, before the deadline of 30 September 2010.

4. Adoption of the agenda

The agenda was discussed and adopted (Appendix 2).

Issues of particular interest for the Caribbean region were added under item 7. Any other business.

Dr. Mario Fortuné was elected as Chair of the meeting. Dr. Janil Gore-Francis and Mr. Ryan Anselm were elected as rapporteurs.

Due to time constraints related to the fixation of a religious holiday in Trinidad & Tobago on Friday 10th of September, it was decided to extend the meeting one hour a day, from Monday to Thursday, to be able to finish the meeting on Friday 10th of September at noon.

5. Review of documents and discussion on draft ISPMs

Dr. Janil Gore-Francis incorporated comments to the templates of draft ISPMs on: Integrated measures approach for managing pest risks associated with international trade of plants for planting and Diagnostic protocol for Plum pox virus.

Mr. Ryan Anselm recorded comments performed on: Systems approaches for pest risk management of fruit flies, Submission of new treatments for inclusion in ISPM No.15 and Irradiation treatment for Ceratitis capitata (Annex to ISPM 28) .

Participants were aware of the Instructions for the Use of the Template (see Appendix 3). Further, it was decided by the participants to forego introductory Powerpoint presentations on the draft ISPMs as the delegates were already aware of the background and history of the drafts.

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 2010. Guidelines for the submission of comments on draft ISPMs are provided (see Appendix 5).

The following subsections capture the main discussion points for each of the draft ISPMs reviewed, when necessary.

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

Meeting participants considered that a substantive comment related to this draft, should be that it looks as a very useful draft for the Caribbean region, necessary, timely and appropriate to increase trade.

Technical and editorial comments appear in the template under Appendix 4.

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

Substantive, technical and editorial comments appear in the template under Appendix 4. Meeting participants understood that major reviews are needed for this draft and that Table 1 should be rewritten using biological taxonomic groups and not groups based on symptomatology. Considering that this appendix is based heavily on Table 1, the review of the Table should impact on the contents of the entire document.

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

Substantive, technical and editorial comments appear in the template under Appendix 4. Participants to the meeting stressed that draft standards should not be used to arbitrarily create definitions. In this document this was done in paragraphs 79-88 and Appendix 2 (paragraphs 117 – 121) to create definitions of critical non-compliance and non-critical non-compliance. These definitions must first be agreed upon by the membership of the Commission on Phytosanitary Measures (CPM) before they can be adopted. For this reason, participants were not in a position to provide comments on the paragraphs mentioned and considered that only after the development of the definitions, this draft could be adequately addressed.

The proposed risk-based application measures outlined in paragraphs 59-88 and in appendix 2 are excessive and seem to be imposing private standards which small developing countries would have enormous difficulties implementing and as a result would not be able to export to countries that insist on these measures. The issue of private standards has been placed on the agenda at WTO/SPS Committee Meetings by St. Vincent and the Grenadines and is yet to be resolved.

Consequently, the participants are unable to support this draft in its present format.

5.4 DRAFT ISPM: Irradiation treatment for Ceratitis Capitata (Annex to ISPM 28)

Participants to the meeting wished to thank the authors for the work that has gone into the development and provision of this Draft Annex. They also wanted to draw the attention of members to the fact that live larvae and/or pupae of the target organism may be encountered during the import inspection process as alluded to in paragraph 12(j) of the draft. This is of great concern to Caribbean countries especially as there is no accompanying standardized protocol for lab analysis that would facilitate the verification of the treatment efficacy. This concern is also true of previous similar annexes (ISPM 28: Treatments 1 – 8). The development and provision of such an accompanying protocol would allow Caribbean countries (and other concerned members) to know what requirements may have to be put in place for such verification purposes. This may go a long way in assuaging their concerns. Without the availability of such a protocol they do not agree at this time with the passage of this draft since they are in no position to verify the viability of surviving life stages of the target pest that may occur on/in infested host commodities after the recommended treatment.

A general and an editorial comment appear in the template under Appendix 4.

5.5 DRAFT ISPM: Diagnostic protocol for Plum pox virus

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

In general, participants considered that it would be useful if the protocols were to give some idea re: possible geographic regions where this pest could be established. Information has only been given on where the pest has occurred or currently occurs. Additionally, participants noted that disclaimers for the mention of brand names have not been included in the document. Wherever a brand name is mentioned, a disclaimer must be included as a footnote, as agreed in CPM-5.

6. Organization of future regional workshops on draft ISPMs (2011 session)

Participants were asked to consider the future of regional workshops for the review of draft ISPMs.

Considering these workshops as important initiatives for the region, participants identified as potential sponsors (excluding the EU, that is currently a donor, and IICA that co-sponsored this meeting), the USDA/APHIS, FAO, GTZ, Caribbean Development Bank (CDB), CAHFSA and the government of Canada.

IICA stated its interest in continuing organizing the workshops in the Caribbean, as co-sponsors.

The following topics were put forward for consideration for discussion as future workshop agenda items:

• Consultation on draft Specifications

• CAHFSA

• Technical field visits

• Capacity building (including mentoring)

• Implementation of standards

• New non-indigenous invasive pest species

• Interaction with RPPOs of Latin America

• Interactive section on intra-regional issues

7. Any other business

7.1 Progress reports by participants on the implementation of adopted ISPMs

As a comment applicable to all countries of the region, participants were of the opinion that implementation provisions were an important missing issue for the plant health sector. Insufficient human and financial resources, as well as drastic budget reductions had happened in the region, affecting the works of the NPPOs. Efforts had been performed to get possible resources from other national and international organizations, including the private sector.

Lack of awareness of the importance of the Plant Health area and impacts of the entry of new pests, was considered an important factor affecting the availability of resources. Additionally, even when agriculture was perceived as a priority area at the regional level, budgets were not allocated at an adequate level to support the plant health area for its protection.

Mentoring processes among countries of the region were perceived as important activities, with an added value related to the provision of hands–on training in conditions similar to the ones in the countries of the trainees. Jamaica made specific mention of PRA training of the country’s staff by Trinidad and Tobago. Jamaica publicly thanked Trinidad and Tobago for the support received.

The following are short notes on the comments made by participants that, in many cases, reflect the opinions presented by Barbados.

Barbados – Stated that in the current situation of limited resources, the development of pest lists at the national level could only be adequately achieved if a regional programme of survey/surveillance could be implemented, considering the trade and existing links among countries. In addition, it was felt that the practice of receiving PRA training for short periods was insufficient for countries to go about the development of PRAs. Countries were further hampered by the unavailability of enough staff to implement the procedures while some countries did not have a unit dedicated to the performance of PRAs. Barbados suggested that one of the ways to address the issue was to get one cooperation official working with each country for some months in the development of PRAs. Barbados also expressed doubts on the practical application of the sampling ISPM and the possibility to address the implementation of post-quarantine facilities without an architectural drawing/plan (this was a suggestion from the 2009 workshop). Barbados recognized that countries have problems in implementing many of the ISPMs and suggested that the IPPC looks at this issue.

Belize – The main problems exist as a result of insufficient staff and funds to effectively carry out its activities. Plant Health is a technical department working closely with animal health, food safety and the quarantine department. The NPPO has assessed its capacities and received a 2nd IDB project to support regulatory activities. The IDB project is in the second phase of implementation. Needs are related to strengthening of certification processes as well other training activities. An important strategy which can be used to raise political attention on Plant Health is the careful preparation of presentations and justifications for Cabinet, explaining what could happen if standards are not implemented and followed at the SPS/WTO level. Another strategy to stress the importance of phytosanitary issues is to work together with stakeholders and use their influence in sensitizing politicians. Belize considers that an important milestone to be obtained through CARICOM is regulatory harmonization at the regional level.

St. Vincent &the Grenadines– Shares Barbados’ concerns. Points out problems in implementation of ISPM 15 and explains that the most relevant pallets for banana exports are treated in Europe. There is an EU-funded project administered by FAO to address SPS issues. A workshop was held with stakeholders that exposed them to a number of ISPMs. Currently, the NPPO has office space allocated for PRA but lacks human and financial resources to conduct PRAs. There is also an unreliable internet connection. St. Vincent and the Grenadines reflected on the fact that the number of exotic pests recently found in the region is an indication of the country’s inability to implement a number of ISPMs. The meeting was informed that a new Plant Protection Act has been passed in 2006.

Grenada – Had similar problems to those of Barbados and identified an important constraint related to problems of availability of treatment facilities. Additionally, and even when importation of planting material is a relevant activity, there are problems of disposal of infested material, related to the lack of incinerators.

St. Kitts and Nevis– The country does not have a plant health unit to date but the process of addressing this short-coming has already begun. Due to serious economic constraints the Federation welcomes assistance in the areas of infrastructural development and human resource training for areas such as PRA, pest list development and similar matters relating to adherence to various standards.

Dominica– Expressed difficulties in the implementation of ISPM 15 at the national level. The NPPO has conducted several national consultations with the private sector as well as a study tour to Jamaica’s heat treatment facility. Dominica supports Barbados’ concerns regarding the implementation of ISPMs. Dominica made reference to the increased diplomatic relations with Asian countries and the demands for importation of new agricultural products without the necessary information to conduct PRA. A regional approach should be considered in conducting PRA. An important constraint is the lack of human resources to conduct surveillance, quarantine and PRA activities.

Trinidad &Tobago– There were initial problems in the implementation of ISPM 15 and presently only the export part of the ISPM has been implemented. The country has a fully functional PRA Unit. There is need for training of staff in advanced PRA. Trinidad and Tobago is willing to assist other member countries in the mentoring process.

Jamaica– One major concern is the implementation of the import aspect of ISPM 15. A second attempt has been made to have the regulations adopted. Increased awareness of the three sisters (CODEX, OIE, IPPC) is needed at the policy level in order to increase support for active participation in these fora. Jamaica informed the meeting of its new PRA Unit and expressed thanks to Trinidad and Tobago for the mentoring programme that facilitated the process.

St. Lucia – Expressed similar concerns made by other countries. It is unable to implement many of the ISPMs due to the lack of financial and human resources. As it relates to ISPM 15, no treatment facilities are available. The NPPO is constrained by loss of trained and experienced staff as a result of the enforcement of mandatory retirement at age 55. Other scientifically minded staff have moved into administration because the technical staff in the NPPO are disadvantaged as a result of the organizational structure. This situation is an important challenge for the NPPO.

Haiti– Problems similar to those of other countries. Presently, Haiti works in the implementation of standards related to Fruit Flies in corporation with the USDA. The Plant Protection Division faces a big lack of scientists, facilities and budget in the services. Haiti is presently working on the project funded by the EU and administrated by the IDB to strengthen plant and animal health, quarantine and food safety. Haiti also works together with the Dominican Republic in plant and animal health through a bilateral commission to solve the common problems.

Antigua & Barbuda – The country has received assistance from USDA in the implementation of many ISPMs. Maintenance of certain surveillance programs are at risk because of the lack of essential resources such as vehicles. Exposure to risk is constant because of continuous importation of large quantities of plants and plant products. There is no parallel development between the increased importation and support for Plant Protection activities. Antigua and Barbuda has developed a project for the construction of a Plant Protection facility but is experiencing difficulty accessing the funds allocated to this project. The NPPO had budgeted for incinerators to be placed at the ports of entry but due to financial constraints this item was cut from the budget. The NPPO is currently seeking to develop its organizational arrangements to ensure effective and efficient operation. Legislation developed through the assistance of FAO and CARICOM was adopted, but one year ago it was withdrawn from the parliamentary process and nothing has been done since. Antigua and Barbuda felt strongly that regional agencies should meet with the countries’ leaders in an appropriate forum to increase understanding of plant health issues.

Bahamas– The Bahamas’ comments mirror those of Barbados. An important constraint is the lack of human resources to conduct surveillance, quarantine and PRA activities. Additionally, the severe limitation of technical and financial resources is a matter of serious concern. Management of pest control activities is further compounded by the spatial nature of the Bahama islands. The Bahamas wishes to express gratitude to all related agencies for facilitation and funding of training workshops similar to this one.

Suriname – Suriname is exactly encountering the problems that so far have been indicated by the other members including lack of financial and human resources for the implementation of the ISPMs and other phytosanitary requirements. Suriname also mentioned that it is difficult to get technical staff trained in the right fields. Suriname is also doing some PRA at its Plant Protection Department and is having problems in the implementation of ISPMs due to outdated legislation. There is a draft Plant Protection Act awaiting enactment by the National Assembly. At this time Suriname is doing as much as it can to strengthen the Plant Protection Department.

7.2 Presentation of online comment system for draft ISPMs

Ms Peralta provided a Powerpoint presentation on the on-line comment system that the Secretariat was having developed by information technology (IT) specialists. Trinidad and Tobago, Barbados, Bahamas, Dominica, Jamaica and Antigua and Barbuda expressed their willingness to participate in the testing of the system.

7.3 Participant survey (Appendix 6)

Participants were instructed by Ms Peralta on how to complete the online survey form. The participants agreed to complete the survey during the meeting or after their return to headquarters.

7.4 Guidelines to Implementation of Phytosanitary Standards in Forestry

Ms Peralta introduced the guidelines which are currently under development by FAO Forestry Division. Most countries noted that they had not received the guidelines. Trinidad and Tobago and Dominica informed the meeting that they had received the information. Trinidad and Tobago provided comments at the time the document was posted for consultation.

Participants discussed the need to improve communication between forestry and plant health officers and understood the relevance of making urgent contacts with Forestry officials or Forestry Departments for future possible activities of implementation of these guidelines.

7.5 Draft specifications

Ms Peralta 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).

7.6 CPPC/CAHFSA

Ms Peralta informed that FAO established a Caribbean Plant Protection Commission (CPPC) under Article VI.1 of the FAO constitution in 1967. The Technical Secretary of the CPPC was the FAO Plant Protection Officer for the Sub-Region of the Caribbean. The CPPC comprises the following countries: Barbados, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, France (for Guadeloupe, French Guiana, Martinique), Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Mexico, Netherlands (for Aruba, Netherlands Antilles), Nicaragua, Panama, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, United Kingdom (for British Virgin Islands), United States of America (for United States Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico), Venezuela.

At the 11th session of the CPPC held in 2001 in Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, the main discussion topic related to the future of the CPPC and the possible creation of an independent regional organization, the Caribbean Agricultural Health and Food Safety Agency (CAHFSA) to promote a regional approach to food safety, plant health and animal health, which was envisioned to replace the CPPC. A preliminary study prepared by IICA in collaboration with the CARICOM Secretariat and FAO was discussed. The Commission made plans for further consultation of possible member countries in the region (i.e. all Caribbean countries, and not only CARICOM members) on this project, as well as the development of a draft international agreement which could be used to establish CAHFSA. The CARICOM Secretariat coordinated actions in collaboration with FAO, IICA and PAHO/WHO.

The process for establishment of CAHFSA was spearheaded by CARICOM since 2001 and received support at the Twenty-First Inter-sessional meeting of the Conference of Heads of Government of CARICOM for its establishment. The Caribbean Agricultural Health and Food Safety Agency (CAHFSA) was inaugurated in Paramaribo on 18 March 2010. CAHFSA will be headquartered and hosted by the Government of Suriname.

The IPPC Secretariat met with Mr. Sergio Garcia, Programme Manager, Agriculture and Industry of the Caribbean Community Secretariat and responsible officer for making CAHFSA operational, to initiate discussions with the CARICOM Secretariat to ensure that the topic is placed on the agenda of CAHFSA as well as to alert CAHFSA of opportunities that may be of interest to CARICOM/CAHFSA at this early stage before CAHFSA is fully operational.

The following points were discussed:

1. CAHFSA as a Regional Plant protection Organisation (RPPO) for the Caribbean

Considering the early stage in making CAHFSA operational, it was suggested that it would be opportune to table CAHFSA’s future role as an RPPO on the agenda of the next appropriate CARICOM planning meeting concerning CAHFSA. On confirmation that CAHFSA intends to be recognised as the RPPO for the Caribbean then the IPPC can begin to obtain support from member governments to dissolve the CPPC. Dissolution of the CPPC would require support from representative governments at the FAO Committee on Constitution and Legal Matters and a subsequent motion of support at FAO Council. CAHFSA would then have to submit to the IPPC formally for recognition as an RPPO.

Mr Garcia suggested that it would also be necessary for CARICOM to seek the support of its members to propose replacement of the CPPC with CAHFSA. He also recognised that CAHFSA may need to introduce a legal mechanism to widen its membership (e.g. associate membership to include non-CARICOM countries). Such a mechanism could allow CAHFSA to match the number of countries presently members of the CPPC as well as open access to additional resources.

The IPPC Secretariat agreed to send CARICOM more information on the process for the recognition of a regional plant protection organization by the IPPC.

Meeting participants addressed the issue, understanding that it was of key importance and were informed by Ms Sheila Harvey, from Jamaica, that next week senior agricultural and legal officers were going to meet in Suriname, to discuss the CAHFSA agreement.

7.7 Capacity development EWG

At CPM-5 (2010), the IPPC approved a relevant documents in the area of Capacity Building as a concept paper on national phytosanitary capacity and a phytosanitary capacity building strategy, that includes six strategic areas, as the components of a global strategy with stakeholders at national, regional and international level. These documents need now to be followed by an operational plan that has to be presented to CPM for approval.

At the same meeting, the IPPC agreed to create an expert working group, intended to be long-standing, to review and refine the phytosanitary capacity development operational plan and assist the Secretariat with developing national phytosanitary capacity.

The Secretariat had been working on preparing the meeting of the WG to ‘review and refine the phytosanitary capacity development operational plan and assist the Secretariat with capacity building’ in accordance with the terms of reference approved by CPM-5 and following the instructions received from the Bureau in its June 2010 meeting on selection and characteristics of the participants.

The terms of reference for the EWG are the following:

Membership

One person from each region with experience in phytosanitary capacity building.

Terms of Reference

Review the draft Operational Plan under each of the logical frameworks identifying activities that are new and those that are part of existing activities. The group should also identify overlaps and linkages between different activities.

1. Review and provide advice on priorities for activities taking into account the financial situation of the IPPC.

2. Provide advice on the timing of proposed activities and the potential benefits of cooperation with other organizations (e.g. Standards and Trade Development Facility - STDF).

3. Provide advice to the Secretariat on the preparation of advocacy materials needed to support fund raising for capacity building.

4. Provide advice on strategies that could be used to approach donors for contributions to support capacity building.

5. Provide recommendations on the future structure and mode of operation of the expert working group including the possibility of forming a subsidiary body on capacity building.

6. Report to CPM-6 through the Bureau and Informal Working Group on Strategic Planning and Technical Assistance (SPTA).

Date and venue

The meeting is fixed for 25-29 October 2010, at FAO Headquarters in Rome , Italy.

Possible outputs for the EWG could be:

• Global plan on phytosanitary capacity building prepared, considering timing, overlaps, and interactions among activities of the IPPC and other organizations.

• List of priority areas for IPPC capacity building activities, related to realities in different regions.

• Document on recommendations about the possibility of forming a Subsidiary body to the CPM, including its draft terms of reference and rules of procedure.

• List of recommendations for preparing advocacy materials intended for fund raising.

• List of identified strategies to approach donors to raise funds for capacity building.

On behalf of Latin America and the Caribbean, Ms. Sheila Harvey from Jamaica is the person invited to participate in the EWG meeting. She asked for updated information of Caribbean countries on capacity building needs to update data obtained through the application of PCE and PVS in the Caribbean region. It was agreed with the participants that she was going to send by e-mail to all countries in Latin America and the Caribbean, a format to collect new information on the issue.

7.8 IICA Handbook on Good practices for participation in meetings of the IPPC

Participants received copies of this publication and Ms. Lourdes Fonalleras explained its objectives and uses. IICA was congratulated for this initiative, indicating that it was very helpful to improve and increase participation in IPPC activities.

8. Date and location of the next meeting

Participants indicated that August 22-26, 2011 could be an appropriate period for the next meeting. On the venue, they considered that all countries in the Caribbean could be possible candidates to host the meeting.

9. Close

The Chair

Closing remarks were given by the IPPC Secretariat. Ms Peralta indicated that and pointed out four things of note:

1. The level of participation exhibited

2. The attention paid to the detail of the templates, etc.

3. As member of the Secretariat, participants were congratulated on the level and quality of the comments and valuable opinions made. Participants were urged to ensure that their comments were prepared and submitted to the Secretariat as national comments prior to the deadline.

4. Ms. Peralta noted that participants welcomed the nature of the interaction among them and urged that this be continued

Participants, the Chair and both rapporteurs were thanked by Ms Peralta for their valuable contributions and encouraged to coordinate the submission of national country comments to the Secretariat.

IICA staff members , and specially Ms. Lourdes Fonalleras, Carol Thomas and Mariela Madrigal were thanked for their special contribution, that helped make the workshop possible.

A vote of thanks was rendered by Michael James to the IICA Secretariat for their facilitation of the proceedings, the Chair for a job well done, to Bahamas for reading of the script, the rapporteurs and to the staff of the Hyatt hotel for the technical and other support. He further urged participants to maintain contact after the workshop and wished everyone a safe journey home.

Ms. Fonalleras thanked Ms Peralta for her invaluable assistance in the process and expressed regret on behalf of Ms Carol Thomas for her absence as she was unable to remain for the duration of the workshop. Ms. Fonalleras further indicated the willingness of IICA to continue in its support of these workshops. Participants were congratulated for the nature and quality of the work throughout the workshop.

APPENDIX 1: Agenda

AGENDA

Regional workshop for the review of draft

International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPMs)

CARIBBEAN

Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago.

6-10 September 2010

|Monday – 06/09/10 |

|08.30 – 09.00 |Registration |

|09:00 – 10:00 |Official Opening of the workshop |

|10.00 - 10.30 |Coffee break |

|10:30 – 11:30 |- Adoption of the agenda |

| |- Election of chair and rapporteur |

| |- Overview of IPPC |

|11:30 – 12:30 |Review and discussion of draft standards |

| |Systems approaches for pest risk management of fruit flies |

|12:30 – 13:30 |Lunch |

|13:30 – 15:30 |Review and discussion of draft standards |

| |Systems approaches for pest risk management of fruit flies |

|15:30 – 16:00 |Coffee break |

|16:00 – 18:30 |Review and discussion of draft standards |

| |Systems approaches for pest risk management of fruit flies |

| |

|Tuesday – 07/09/10 |

|08:30 – 10:00 |Review and discussion of draft standards |

| |Systems approaches for pest risk management of fruit flies |

|10:00 – 10:30 |Coffee break |

|10:30 – 12:30 |Review and discussion of draft standards |

| |Systems approaches for pest risk management of fruit flies |

|12:30 – 13:30 |Lunch |

|13:30 – 15:30 |Review and discussion of draft standards |

| |Irradiation treatment for Ceratitis Capitata (Annex to ISPM 28) |

|15:30 – 16:00 |Coffee break |

|16:00 – 18:30 |Review and discussion of draft standards |

| |Submission of new treatments for inclusion in ISPM No.15. |

| |

|Wednesday – 08/09/10 |

|08:30 – 10:00 |Review and discussion of draft standards |

| |Integrated measures approach for managing pest risks associated with international trade of plants for planting |

|10:00 – 10:30 |Coffee break |

|10:30 – 12:30 |Review and discussion of draft standards |

| |Integrated measures approach for managing pest risks associated with international trade of plants for planting |

|12:30 – 13:30 |Lunch |

|13:30 – 15:30 |Review and discussion of draft standards |

| |Integrated measures approach for managing pest risks associated with international trade of plants for planting |

|15:30 – 16:00 |Coffee break |

|16:00 – 18:30 |Review and discussion of draft standards |

| |Integrated measures approach for managing pest risks associated with international trade of plants for planting |

| |

|Thursday – 09/09/10 |

|08:30 – 10:00 |Review and discussion of draft standards |

| |Diagnostic protocol for Plum pox virus |

|10:00 – 10:30 |Coffee break |

|10:30 – 12:30 |Review and discussion of draft standards |

| |5. Diagnostic protocol for Plum pox virus |

|12:30 – 13:30 |Lunch |

|13:30 – 15:30 |Organization of future regional workshops |

| | |

| |Any other business |

| | |

| |1. Progress reports by participants on the implementation of adopted ISPMs |

| | |

| |2. Presentation of online comment system for draft ISPMs |

| | |

| |3. Participant survey |

| | |

| |4. Guidelines to implementation of phytosanitary standards in forestry |

| | |

| |5. Draft specifications |

| | |

| |6. CPPC/CAHFSA |

| | |

| |7. EWG on Capacity development |

| | |

| |8. IICA Handbook on Good practices for participation in meetings of the IPPC |

| | |

| | |

|15:30 – 16:00 |Coffee break |

|16:00 – 18:00 |Any other business |

| | |

| |1. Progress reports by participants on the implementation of adopted ISPMs |

| | |

| |2. Presentation of online comment system for draft ISPMs |

| | |

| |3. Participant survey |

| | |

| |4. Guidelines to implementation of phytosanitary standards in forestry |

| | |

| |5. Draft specifications |

| | |

| |6. CPPC/CAHFSA |

| | |

| |7. EWG on Capacity development |

| | |

| |8. IICA Handbook on Good practices for participation in meetings of the IPPC |

| | |

| | |

| | |

| |Friday – 10/09/10 |

|08:30 – 10:00 | Other matters |

| |Adoption of report |

|10:00 – 10:30 |Coffee break |

|10:30 – 12:30 |Other matters |

| |Adoption of report |

| |Close |

| | |

| |

APPENDIX 2: List of participants

+ -=-

Regional workshop for the review of draft

International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPMs)

6-10 September 2010

Port of Spain, Trinidad & Tobago

Participants List

|Participants |

|Name: Peter Joseph |Name: Melvin James |

|Position: Plant Quarantine Officer |Position: Entomologist, |

|Address: Ministry of Agriculture, Pest Management |Address: La Guerite, Basseterre, St. Kitts |

|Unit |Address: Department of Agriculture, St. Kitts |

|Address: Botanical Gardens St. George’s, Grenada |Address |

|Address |Address |

|Address |Country: St. Kitts/Nevis |

|Country: Grenada |Tel: :869-465-2335 |

|Tel: 1-473-440-0019 |Fax: |

|Fax: |E-mail: ejames55@ |

|E-mail: innojosh@ | |

|Name: Jackson Donis |Name: Gregory Squires |

|Address: Ministry of Agriculture |Position: Crop Protection Officer |

|Position: Plant Protection Direction |Address: Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries & |

|Address: B.P. 1441, Damien, Port-au-Prince, Haiti |Forestry |

|Address |Address: Waterfront, Castries, St. Lucia |

|Address |Address |

|Country: Haiti |Address |

|Tel: (509) 3611-7558 |Country: St. Lucia |

|Fax: |Tel: 1-758-452-2526 / 450-2375 |

|E-mail: jacksondonis@ |Fax: |

| |E-mail: pegsqu@ |

|Name: Sadhana Jankie |Name: Janil Gore-Francis |

|Position: Laborant Pest Analyst of the Department |Position: Plant Protection Officer |

|Address: Department of Plant Protection |Address: Ministry of Agriculture, Land, Housing & |

|Address: Kankantrie Str. No. 9, Suriname of Plant |Environment |

|Protection and Quality Inspections |Address: P.O. Box 1282, St. John’s Antigua |

|Address |Address |

|Address |Address |

|Country: Suriname |Country: Antigua |

|Tel: 402040 |Tel: 268-462-1213 / 268-764-1255 |

|Fax: 403912 |Fax: 268-462-6104 |

|E-mail: ppsur@ |E-mail: plantprotection@.ag |

| | |

Regional workshop for the review of draft

International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPMs)

6-10 September 2010

Port of Spain, Trinidad & Tobago

Participants List

|Participants |

|Name: Ryan Anselm |Name: Michael Delpeche |

|Position: Plant Protection &Quarantine Officer |Position: Agricultural Officer |

|Address: Ministry of Agriculture & Forestry |Address: Richmond Hill, Kingston P.O. |

|Address: Botanical Gardens, Roseau |Address |

|Country: Dominica |Address |

|Tel: 1-767-266-3803 |Address |

|Fax: 1-767-448-8632 |Country:St. Vincent and the Grenadines |

|E-mail: agriquarantine@ |Tel: 1-784-456-1410 / 1-784-457-1283 |

|anselmpope@ |Fax: 1-784-457-1688 |

| |E-mail: Michaeldelpy@ |

| |Office.agriculture@.vc |

|Name: Shelia Harvey |Name: Margarito Garcia |

|Position: Chief Plant Quarantine/Produce Inspector |Position: Technical Director Quarantine & |

|Address: 193 Old Hope Road, Kingston |Inspection Services |

|Country: Jamaica |Address: Belize Agricultural Health Authority |

|Tel: 977-0637 |Central Farm Research Station |

|Fax: 977-6992 |Cayo District, Belize |

|E-mail: syharvey@.jm |Country: Belize |

|sheharv@ |Tel: 501-824-4899/4872 |

| |Fax: 501-824-3773 |

| |E-mail: margargarciabzkind@ |

|Name: Michael James |Name: R. Gwendolyn Hammerton |

|Position: Senior Agricultural Officer |Position: Assistant Director of Agriculture |

|AddressMinistry of Agriculture |Address: Department of Agriculture |

|Address: Graeme Hall, Christ Church, Barbados |Address: P.O. Box N-3028, Nassau, Bahamas |

|Country: Barbados |Country: Bahamas |

|Tel: 246-434-5112 / 246-434-5114 |Tel: 242-325-7502 / 242-397-7426 |

|Fax: 246-428-7777 |Fax: 242-356-4263 |

|E-mail: pathology_mar@ |E-mail: gwendolynhammerton@.bs |

| |gwenhammerton@ |

Regional workshop for the review of draft

International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPMs)

6-10 September 2010

Port of Spain, Trinidad & Tobago

|Trinidad and Tobago Participants |

|Name: Kishore Ragbir |Name: Mario Fortune |

|Position: Agricultural Officer 1 |Position: Deputy Director |

|Address: Ministry of Food Production, Land and |Address: Ministry of Food Production, Land & |

|Marine Affairs |Marine Affairs |

|Address: Research Division, Centeno |Address: Research Division, Centeno |

|Address |Address |

|Address |Address |

|Country: Trinidad |Country: Trinidad |

|Tel: 1-868-642-0718 |Tel: 1-868-642-6008 / (472-7142 – CELL) |

|Fax: 1-868-642-0718 |Fax: 1-868-642-0718 |

|E-mail: plantquarantine.centeno@ |E-mail: mariofortune@ |

|Name: Dale Nandlal |Name: Tamika Seales |

|Position: Entomologist |Position: Plant Protection Specialist |

|Address: Ministry of Food Production, Land & |Address: Division of Agriculture, Marine Affairs, |

|Marine Affairs |Marketing and the Environment, Tobago |

|Address: Research Division, Centeno |House of Assembly |

|Address |Address: Glen Road, Scarborough, Tobago |

|Address |Address |

|Country: Trinidad |Address |

|Tel: 1-868-646-4337 EXT# 4035 |Country: Tobago |

|Fax: 1-868-646-2149 |Tel: 1-868-639-9515 |

|E-mail: d.nandlal@ |Fax: 1-868-639-9515 |

| |E-mail: tseales99@ |

Regional workshop for the review of draft

International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPMs)

6-10 September 2010

Port of Spain, Trinidad & Tobago

|IPPC Secretariat |

|Name: Ana Peralta | |

|Position: Implementation Officer | |

|Address: International Plant Protection Convention | |

|Secretariat, Plant Production and | |

|Protection Division | |

|Address: Room: B-703, Viale delle Terme di | |

|Caracalla - 00153 | |

|Country: Rome | |

|Tel: +39 0657055322 | |

|Fax: +39 0657054819 | |

|E-mail: Ana.Peralta@ | |

Regional workshop for the review of draft

International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPMs)

6-10 September 2010

Port of Spain, Trinidad & Tobago

Observers

|IICA |

|Name: Gregg C.E. Rawlins |Name: Ricardo Molins |

|Position: IICA Representative, Trinidad & Tobago |Position: Manager, Agricultural Health &Food |

|Address: #10 Austin Street, St. Augustine |Safety Program |

|Address: P.O. Box 1318, Port of Spain |Address: San Josè, |

|Country: Trinidad and Tobago |Country: Costa Rica |

|Tel: 1-868-645-5020, 645-4555, 645-8886 |Tel: 506-2216-0222 |

|Fax: 1-868-662-8253 |Fax: 506-2216-0221 |

|E-mail: gregg.rawlins@iica.int |E-mail: Ricardo.Molins@iica.int |

|Name: Carol Thomas |Name: Lourdes Fonalleras |

|Position: Agricultural Health & Food Safety |Position: Agricultural Health & Food Safety |

|Specialist |Specialist |

|Address: Chelsea House, Chelsea Road, P.O. Box |Address: Luis Piera 1992 |

|705, Bridgetown |Country: Uruguay |

|Country: Barbados |Tel: (598) 24101676 |

|Tel: (246) 427-4740/1/2 |Fax: - |

|Fax: (246) 429-3509 |E-mail: Lourdes.fonalleras@iica.int |

|E-mail: carol.thomas@iica.int | |

|Name: Mariela Madrigal |Name: Geselle Edwards-Hodge |

|Position: Administrative Assistant, Agricultural |Position: Secretary, IICA, Trinidad & Tobago |

|Health & Food Safety Program |Address: #10 Austin Street, St. Augustine |

|Address: San Josè, |Address: P.O. Box 1318, Port of Spain |

|Country: Costa Rica |Country: Trinidad and Tobago |

|Tel: 506-2216-0222 |Tel: 1-868-645-5020, 645-4555, 645-8886 |

|Fax: 506-2216-0221 |Fax: 1-868-662-8253 |

|E-mail: iica.int |E-mail: geselle.hodge@iica.int |

|Name: Edwin Franco | |

|Position: Driver/Messenger, IICA, Trinidad & Address: #10 Austin | |

|Street, St. Augustine | |

|Address: P.O. Box 1318, Port of Spain | |

|Country: Trinidad and Tobago | |

|Tel: 1-868-645-5020, 645-4555, 645-8886 | |

|Fax: 1-868-662-8253 | |

|E-mail: edwinefranco@ | |

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 comments

General 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 comment

Indicate 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 rewording

Suggestions 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. Explanation

Detailed 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|3. Sentence/ |4. Type of comment |5. Proposed rewording |6. Explanation |7. Country |

| |nber |row/indent, etc. |(Substantive, Editorial, | | | |

| | | |Translation) only | | | |

|BACKGROUND |[9] |Sentence 2 |Editorial |In doing so, contracting parties undertake the |The scope of the IPPC addresses regulated pests. |COUNTRY NAME |

| | | | |promotion of appropriate measures for the control | | |

| | | | |of regulated pests. | | |

|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 regulatory |The term regulatory control is unclear and text |COUNTRY NAME |

| | | | |control domestic regulation |should use specific terms clarifying what is | |

| | | | | |meant. | |

|1.4 Supervision activities |[32] |New 2nd indent |Substantive |- operation of surveillance procedures |Fruit sampling is necessary as part of |COUNTRY NAME |

| | | | |- fruit sampling |surveillance | |

| | | | |- surveillance capability | | |

|1.6 Tolerance level |[44a] |After para 44 |Substantive |add new paragraph after 44: |to explain the particular situation for |COUNTRY NAME |

| | | | |For quarantine pests the tolerance level generally|quarantine pests | |

| | | | |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. | | |

|3. Phytosanitary Risk Categories |[61] |Whole para |Editorial |Move para 61 to after para 47 |More appropriate location. |COUNTRY NAME |

|and Measures | | | | | | |

APPENDIX 4: Completed templates with workshop comments on each ISPM

Note on draft comments discussed at the Caribbean regional workshop to review draft ISPMs

Comments in this document have been compiled as a list of all ideas from NPPOs participating in the Caribbean workshop on draft ISPMs. Comments on which agreements have not been obtained are bracketed. IPPC contracting parties from the Caribbean can draw on these to prepare national comments on draft ISPMs. 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.

Caribbean workshop

Template for comments - Draft ISPMs for country consultation, 2010

DRAFT ANNEX to ISPM 28:2009

Irradiation treatment for Ceratitis capitata

|1. Section |2. para nber |3. sentence/ |4. Type of comment |5. Proposed rewording |6. Explanation |7. Country |

| | |row/indent, etc. |(Substantive,Editorial, | | | |

| | | |Translation) | | | |

|title | | | | | | |

|Adoption |[1] | | | | | |

|Adoption |[2] | | | | | |

|Scope of the |[3] | | | | | |

|treatment | | | | | | |

|Scope of the |[4] | | | | | |

|treatment | | | | | | |

|Treatment |[5] | | | | | |

|description | | | | | | |

|Name of |[6] | | | | | |

|treatment | | | | | | |

|Active |[7] | | | | | |

|ingredient | | | | | | |

|Treatment type |[8] | | | | | |

|Target pest |[9] | | | | | |

|Target regulated|[10] | | | | | |

|articles | | | | | | |

|Treatment |[11] | | |This irradiation treatment should not be applied to fruits fruit and vegetables stored in| | |

|schedule | |Letter (I) |Editorial |modified atmospheres | | |

| | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | |

|Other relevant |[12] | | | | | |

|information | | | | | | |

|References |[13] | | | | | |

|References |[14] | | | | | |

|References |[15] | | | | | |

|References |[16] | | | | | |

|References |[17] | | | | | |

|References |[18] | | | | | |

|References |[19] | | | | | |

|References |[20] | | | | | |

|References |[21] | | | | | |

|References |[22] | | | | | |

|References |[23] | | | | | |

|References |[24] | | | | | |

Caribbean workshop

Template for comments - Draft ISPMs for country consultation, 2010

Draft: SYSTEMS APPROACHES FOR PEST RISK MANAGEMENT OF FRUIT FLIES (TEPHRITIDAE)

|1. Section |2. para nber |3. sentence/ |4. Type of comment |5. Proposed rewording |6. Explanation |7. Country |

| | |row/indent, etc. |(Substantive, | | | |

| | | |Editorial, | | | |

| | | |Translation) | | | |

|title | | | | | | |

|Contents | | | | | | |

|Introduction |[1] | | | | | |

|SCOPE |[2] | | | | | |

|SCOPE |[3] |Sentence one. |Technical |This standard provides guidelines for the establishment and use of |Be consistent with ISPM 5 | |

| | | | |systems approaches as an option for pest risk management of fruit |Glossary Terms | |

| | | | |flies to facilitate trade of host commodities fruits. This standard| | |

| | | | |applies to fruit flies (Tephritidae) of economic importance. | | |

|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] | | | | | |

|OUTLINE OF REQUIREMENTS |[17] | | | | | |

|OUTLINE OF REQUIREMENTS |[18] | | |An important requirement for the establishment of an FF-SA is a low|Host status is not a measure | |

| | | | |pest population level in the area of production of the host |Paragraph 65 and 66 speaks about | |

| | |Sentence one , row two| |commodity in combination with other measures (such as host |host selection and not host | |

| | | | |selection status, crop management practices or post-harvest and |status | |

| | | | |shipping measures) that are available to be integrated into the | | |

| | | |Technical |FF-SA to reduce pest risk to an(acceptable level, appropriate level| | |

| | |Sentence one , row | |of protection..) to meet the phytosanitary requirement of the | | |

| | |four | |importing country |See general comments number 2 | |

|OUTLINE OF REQUIREMENTS |[19] | | | | | |

|OUTLINE OF REQUIREMENTS |[20] | | | | | |

|OUTLINE OF REQUIREMENTS |[21] | | | | | |

|BACKGROUND |[22] | | | | | |

|BACKGROUND |[23] |Sentence one, row one |Technical |Many Fruit flies are pests of economic importance affecting trade. |Not all fruit flies are pests | |

| | | | |The movement of infested host commodities may pose a pest risk for |of economic importance | |

| | | | |endangered areas. To identify and manage the risk, a pest risk | | |

| | | |Technical |analysis (PRA) should be conducted and risk management measures | | |

| | | | |should be applied. (ISPM 2:2007, ISPM 11:2004) |To be consistent with the | |

| | | | | |Glossary terms ISPM 5 | |

|BACKGROUND |[24] | | | | | |

|BACKGROUND |[25] | Sentence three, row |Technical |. 1-(acceptable level, appropriate level of protection..) 2-to meet|See general comments number 2 | |

| | |six | |the phytosanitary requirement of the importing country | | |

| | | | |3- Appropriate level of phytosanitary protection | | |

|BACKGROUND |[26] | | | | | |

|BACKGROUND |[27] | | | | | |

|BACKGROUND |[28] | | | | | |

|BACKGROUND |[29] | | | | | |

|BACKGROUND |[30] |Indent two, row three |Editorial |In addition to the facilitation of trade, the advantages of |Consistency with the language of | |

| | | | |implementing an FF-SA may include: |the paragraph | |

| | | | |increased fruit production and quality | | |

| | | | |promotion of the use of environmentally friendly pest control | | |

| | | | |methods | | |

|BACKGROUND |[31] | | | | | |

|BACKGROUND |[32] | | | | | |

|REQUIREMENTS |[33] | | | | | |

|1. General Requirements |[34] | | | | | |

|1.1. Pest risk analysis |[35] | | | | | |

|1.1. Pest risk analysis |[36] |Sentence one , row two|Technical |PRA determines whether a pest should be regulated and identifies |See general comments number 1 | |

| | | | |the measures for pest risk management mitigation. | | |

|1.1. Pest risk analysis |[37] | | | | | |

|1.1. Pest risk analysis |[38] | | | | | |

| |Para 39, 40 | | | | | |

| |and 41 should | | | | | |

| |be bullets of | | | | | |

| |this para | | | | | |

|1.1. Pest risk analysis |[39] |Sentence one , row one|Editorial |-The host should be identified to the species level. In some cases,|1-Better language construction | |

| |Proposed to be|Sentence two , row one|Editorial |where when the cultivar is important as a risk management |This is intended to be a bullet | |

| |a bullet of |Sentence two , row two| |mitigation factor, such as resistance to infestation, it is |of paragraph 38. | |

| |the previous | |Technical |important to identify the host to cultivar level. |2-See general comments number 1 | |

| |para. | | | | | |

|1.1. Pest risk analysis |[40] |Sentence one |Editorial |-Data on the target fruit fly species associated with the host |This is intended to be a bullet | |

| | | | |should be available (such as population density and fluctuation, |of paragraph 38. | |

| | | | |host sequence). | | |

|1.1. Pest risk analysis |[41] |Sentence one |Editorial |- The area proposed for an FF-SA should be defined, described and |1-This is intended to be a bullet| |

| | |Sentence one | |adequately documented |of para 38. | |

| | | |Technical | |2- to have a clear idea of the | |

| | | | | |area under FF-SS | |

|1.1. Pest risk analysis |[42] | | | | | |

|1.1. Pest risk analysis |[43] |Sentence one , row one|Editorial |Measures may be applied at different stages of the production to | | |

| | | | |distribution. production and distribution chain. Some of the | | |

| | | | |measures to be applied under an FF-SA may include FFF-POP, FFF-PS, | | |

| | |Sentence two , row two| |FF-ALPP, host selection status and limited distribution in the | | |

| | | | |endangered area. | | |

| | | |Technical | |See general comment number 4 | |

|1.2 Documentation and |[44] | | | | | |

|record-keeping | | | | | | |

|1.2 Documentation and |[45] | | | | | |

|record-keeping | | | | | | |

|1.2 Documentation and |[46] | | | | | |

|record-keeping | | | | | | |

|1.3 Supervision |[47] | | | | | |

|1.3 Supervision |[48] | | | | | |

|1.3 Supervision |[49] |Sentence one , row one|Technical |Compliance with the FF-SA should be certified verified by the NPPO |Exporting country should not be | |

| | | | |of the exporting contracting party, through review of documentation|the one verifying but should be | |

| | | | |and operational procedures. Verification Supervision can also be |certifying the FF-SA and that the| |

| | | | |done by the NPPO of the importing contracting party |importing country should be the | |

| | |Sentence two, row two |Technical | |one verifying the FF-SA | |

|2. Specific Requirements |[50] | | | | | |

|2.1 Development |[51] |Sentence one , row one|Technical |Development Establishment of an FF-SA |See general comments number 3 | |

|Establishment of an FF-SA | | | | | | |

|2.1 Development |[52] | | | | | |

|Establishment of an FF-SA | | | | | | |

|2.1 Development |[53] | | | | | |

|Establishment of an FF-SA | | | | | | |

|2. Development Establishment|[54] | | | | | |

|of an FF-SA | | | | | | |

|2 Development Establishment |[55] | | | | | |

|of an FF-SA | | | | | | |

|2.1.1 Pre-harvest and at |[56] | | | | | |

|harvest | | | | | | |

|2.1.1 Pre-harvest and at |[57] | | | | | |

|harvest | | | | | | |

|2.1.1.1 (specified pest |[58] | |Technical |(Low level of pest population. Specified pest population level) |(This title relates to paragraph | |

|population level) Low level | | | | |59 and 60 which deals with | |

|of pest population | | | | |specified pest population level | |

| | | | | |and not low level of pest | |

| | | | | |population) | |

|2.1.1.1 (specified pest |[59] |Sentence three, row |Technical |should be obtained as a result of surveillance using the methods |For consistency with CPM 5 | |

|population level) Low level | |five | |described in the draft Appendix annex on trapping of ISPM 26:2006. |decision to use appendix instead | |

|of pest population | | | |). |of annex. | |

|2.1.1.1(specified pest |[60] | | | | | |

|population level)Low level | | | | | | |

|of pest population | | | | | | |

|2.1.1.2 Fruit fly free |[61] | | | | | |

|places of production and | | | | | | |

|fruit fly free production | | | | | | |

|sites | | | | | | |

|2.1.1.2 Fruit fly free |[62] | | | | | |

|places of production and | | | | | | |

|fruit fly free production | | | | | | |

|sites | | | | | | |

|2.1.1.2 Fruit fly free |[63] |Sentence one, row one |Technical |They may assure localized or temporal fruit fly free status |More accurate term | |

|places of production and | | | |freedom (ISPM 10:1999) and may include the following activities: | | |

|fruit fly free production | | | | | | |

|sites | | | | | | |

|2.1.1.2 Fruit fly free |[64] |First indent |Technical |surveillance to confirm fruit fly free status freedom and to apply |More accurate term | |

|places of production and | | | |control measures in case of fruit fly detections (see ISPM 26:2006)| | |

|fruit fly free production | | | |phytosanitary certification (ISPM 7, 1997 and ISPM 12, 2001) to | | |

|sites | | | |confirm compliance with the requirements of the FFF-POP or FFF-PS | | |

| | | | | | | |

| | |Second indent |Editorial | | | |

| | | | | |For consistency and reference | |

|2.1.1.3 Status of the host |[65] |sentence one |Technical |Host selection Status of the host |See general comments number 4 | |

|2.1.1.3 Status of the host |[66] |Sentence one , row one|Technical |Host selection Host status is an important risk mitigation measure |See general comments number 4 | |

| | | | |that, when used in conjunction with other independent measures, can| | |

| | | | |provide the appropriate level of protection. | | |

| | | | |selection of host that allows harvesting at a less susceptible | | |

| | | | |stage . | | |

| | | | |harvesting at a less susceptible stage or at a particular time. | | |

| | |Third indent |Technical |Selection of host that allows harvesting at a time unfavourable for| | |

| | | | |fruit flies. | | |

| | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | |

| | | | | |For clarity of text | |

| | |Add fourth indent |Technical | | | |

|2.1.2 Post-harvest and |[67] | | | | | |

|shipping | | | | | | |

|2.1.2 Post-harvest and |[68] | | | | | |

|shipping | | | | | | |

|2.1.2.1 Post-harvest |[69] | | | | | |

|measures | | | | | | |

|2.1.2.1 Post-harvest |[70] |Indent three |Technical |1-sampling and testing |1-Sampling is not a complete | |

|measures | | | | |measure . sampling and testing is| |

| | | | | |the acurrate measure | |

| | | | | | | |

| | |Indent four | | |2- inspection in the text does | |

| | | | | |not relate to FF-SA but | |

| | | | |2-inspection (ISPM 23:2005) |inspection of consignments | |

| | | |Technical | | | |

| | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | |

|2.1.2.1 Post-harvest |[71] |Sentence one , row one|Editorial |An FF-SA may also take into consideration the effects of measures |1-Reads better | |

|measures | | | |applied for other pests that may contribute to reducing the risk of| | |

| | | | |fruit flies (e.g. waxing, water dipping, cold storage). | | |

| | |Sentence one , row two| | | | |

| | | |Technical | |e.g are not appropriate , some | |

| | | | | |of the measures do not apply for | |

| | | | | |other pest but fruit flies | |

|2.1.2.1 Post-harvest |[72] |Sentence one | |In cases where the combination of such measures adequately reduces |It has no relevance in the | |

|measures | | | |the pest risk, there is no need to apply a supplementary |framework of a FF-SA to include | |

| | | | |phytosanitary treatment |supplementary measures . | |

|2.1.2.2 Post-harvest |[73] | | | | | |

|treatments | | | | | | |

|2.1.2.2 Post-harvest |[74] |Sentence three , row |1-Technical |. The type and (condition of) efficacy of such supplementary |Add condition of efficacy for | |

|treatments | |four |2-technical |post-harvest treatments should be agreed to by the importing and |clarity of text | |

| | |Sentence three, row | |exporting contracting parties. | | |

| | |five | | | | |

| | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | |

| | | | | |Remove supplementary – wording is| |

| | | | | |unnecessary and confusing | |

|2.1.3 Entry and distribution|[75] | | | | | |

|2.1.3 Entry and distribution|[76] |Indent one.... |Technical Technical |sampling and testing inspection |1-Sample alone is not a measure ,| |

| | | |Technical |inspection |sampling and testing is a | |

| | | |Technical |Phytosanitary treatments |measure. | |

| | | | |Quarantine for a specified time |2-Inspection should stand alone | |

| | | | | |as an important measure | |

| | | | | |3-phytosanitary treatment ( not | |

| | | | | |stand alone measures) and | |

| | | | | |Quarantine for a specified time | |

| | | | | |should be include as these | |

| | | | | |measures are important in a | |

| | | | | |system approach | |

|2.2 Maintenance of a fruit |[77] | | |2.2 Maintenance of a fruit fly systems approach | | |

|fly systems approach | | | | | | |

|2.2 Maintenance of a fruit |[78] | | | | | |

|fly systems approach | | | | | | |

|2.2 Maintenance of a fruit |[79] |Indent two |Technical |host commodity fruit host being exported and related target fruit |Be consistent with ISPM 5 | |

|fly systems approach | | | |fly.... |Glossary Terms | |

|2.2 Maintenance of a fruit |[80] | | | | | |

|fly systems approach | | | | | | |

|2.2 Maintenance of a fruit |[81] |Sentence one , row one|Technical |The NPPOs should monitor all stages and control points as |For clarity. Both contracting | |

|fly systems approach | | | |appropriate, verifying compliance with the operational procedures |parties’ NPPO may be involved. | |

| | |Sentence one, row two | |and implementing corrective actions. as appropriate. | | |

|ANNEX 1 |[82] | | | | | |

|ANNEX 1 |[83] | | | | | |

|ANNEX 1 |[84] | | | | | |

|ANNEX 1 |[85] | | | | | |

|1. Non-compliance |[86] | | | | | |

|1. Non-compliance |[87] |Sentence one , row one|Technical |Non-compliance involves (improper) incorrect implementation of the |Better term | |

| | | | |FF-SA operational procedures. | | |

|1.1 Non-compliance at the |[88] | | | | | |

|pre-harvest and harvest | | | | | | |

|stage | | | | | | |

|1.1 Non-compliance at the |[89] | | | | | |

|pre-harvest and harvest | | | | | | |

|stage | | | | | | |

|1.2 Non-compliance at the |[90] | | | | | |

|post-harvest and shipping | | | | | | |

|stage | | | | | | |

|1.2 Non-compliance at the |[91] | | | | | |

|post-harvest and shipping | | | | | | |

|stage | | | | | | |

|1.3 Non-compliance at entry |[92] | | | | | |

|and distribution | | | | | | |

|1.3 Non-compliance at entry |[93] | | | | | |

|and distribution | | | | | | |

|2. Ongoing verification of |[94] | | | | | |

|the systems approach | | | | | | |

|2. Ongoing verification of |[95] | | | | | |

|the systems approach | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | |

Caribbean workshop

Template for comments - Draft ISPMs for country consultation, 2010

DRAFT APPENDIX to ISPM 15:2009

SUBMISSION OF NEW TREATMENTS FOR INCLUSION IN ISPM 15

|1. Section |2. para nber |3. sentence/ |4. Type of comment |5. Proposed rewording |6. Explanation |7. Country |

| | |row/indent, etc. |(Substantive,Editorial, | | | |

| | | |Translation) | | | |

|title |[1] | | | | | |

|Introduction |[2] | | | | | |

|Introduction |[3] | | | | | |

|Introduction |[4] | | | | | |

|Introduction |[5] | | | | | |

|Introduction |[6] |Sentence one , row| |The treatment developers and the submitting NPPO or RPPO should |Language is correct | |

| | |one |Editorial |ensure that a range of factors is are or has have been tested in | | |

| | | | |the development of a proposed phytosanitary treatment for IPPC | | |

| | | | |evaluation. | | |

| | | | |-effect on Treatment treatment efficacy on of wood types (e.g. | | |

| | |Indent three |Editorial |hardwood vs softwood, timber vs logs) |For clarity | |

| | | | |-effect of on environmental conditions (e.g. temperatures, | | |

| | | | |moisture content) | | |

| | |Indent four |Editorial | | | |

| | | | | |For clarity | |

| | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | |

|Introduction |[7] |This sentence has |Technical |Table 1 provides a listing of the most important quarantine pest |Remove last sentence of | |

| | |been included | |groups associated with wood packaging material. Candidates |paragraph 7 to paragraph | |

| | |under para 10 | |selected from the pest groups indicated in Table 1 should be used |10 which gives a prologue | |

| | | | |for evaluation purposes. Steps 1–3 below provide guidance for |to the rest this appendix | |

| | | | |determining selection of an appropriate pest(s), or an appropriate|to ISPM 15 | |

| | | | |substitute organism(s), for testing. | | |

|table 1 |[8] | |Substantive |This table should be rewritten using biological taxonomic groups and not | | |

| | | | |groups base on symptomatology. This is most important as this appendix is| | |

| | | | |base heavily on table one (1) | | |

|Introduction |[9] |Delete entire paragraph |Technical |The following criteria provide a step-wise process that the submitter |This is redundant in | |

| | | | |should follow in the testing or development of justification for a new |light of paragraph 3 and| |

| | | | |phytosanitary treatment for potential inclusion in ISPM 15. Included with|paragraph 10 | |

| | | | |each step is information that is intended to clarify how to interpret and| | |

| | | | |respond to each criterion. | | |

|Introduction |[10] |Add sentence three of |Technical |This step-wise process is broadly organized into two parts | | |

| | |paragraph seven to paragraph | |-Initially, submitters of treatments for evaluation should confirm that | | |

| | |10 | |the groups of organisms associated with wood packaging material presented| | |

| | | | |in Table 1 are susceptible to the proposed treatment and that the | | |

| | | | |organism most resistant to the treatment is identified. Steps 1–3 below | | |

| | | | |provide guidance for determining selection of an appropriate pest(s), or | | |

| | | | |an appropriate substitute organism(s), for testing. | | |

| | | | |- More detailed efficacy testing of this most resistant species is then | | |

| | | | |used to provide confidence that the treatment is effective against all | | |

| | | | |organisms associated with wood packaging material from all origins. Steps| | |

| | | | |four (4) and five (5) provide guidelines on efficacy testing | | |

|Step 1 |[11] | | | | | |

|Step 1 |[12] | | | | | |

|Step 1 |[13] |Para 14 and 15 is added as |Editorial |Examples of differential pest responses to treatments: |Better formatting | |

| | |indent under para 13 | |- The mode of action of a pesticide may be specific to a certain pest and| | |

| | | | |may have little or no effect on another (e.g. neurotoxins have a limited | | |

| | | | |effect on fungi). | | |

| | | | |15- The first effects of heat treatment on organism viability occur when | | |

| | | | |intercellular proteins begin to denature and disrupt vital cellular | | |

| | | | |processes. Such protein denaturation occurs in all organisms. However, | | |

| | | | |some organisms or life stages have mechanisms that provide a limited | | |

| | |Sentence three, row four | |tolerance to these temperature effects. In regard to pests of wood, only |Very is redundant | |

| | | | |a very few quarantine pests of wood of concern in international trade are| | |

| | | |Editorial |known to have a slightly elevated tolerance to heat treatments. | | |

| | | | | | | |

|Step 1 |[14] | | | | | |

|Step 1 |[15] | | | | | |

|Step 2 |[16] | | | | | |

|Step 2 |[17] | | | | | |

|Step 2 |[18] |Third and fourth sentence |Editorial |In cases where there is considerable variability expected in the |Different idea being | |

| | |should stand alone as new | |treatment responses within the group, more species may need to be tested |express | |

| | |paragraph | |to determine the most treatment-resistant species | | |

| | | | | | | |

| | | | |Of the species selected, if the most resistant life stage is not known , | | |

| | | | |then all life stages that are likely to be associated with wood in | | |

| | |Sentence four , row six | |international trade must be considered. In addition, where different life| | |

| | | | |stages exhibit a different response to the proposed treatment, this must | | |

| | | | |be taken into account | | |

| | | | | | | |

| | | | | |Reads better | |

| | | |Editorial | | | |

|Step 2 |[19] |Para 20 and 21 should be |Editorial |Examples of life stage-dependent responses to treatments: |Better formatting | |

| | |indent under para 19 | |- Irradiation treatments primarily affect pest viability through the | | |

| | | | |creation of hydroxyl radicals that begin to break down the DNA in these | | |

| | | | |organisms. Life stages that have higher levels of cell division or | | |

| | | | |activity in general are likely to be more susceptible to irradiation | | |

| | | | |treatments. Hence the later life stages such as adults or pupae are often| | |

| | | | |found to be more resistant to the effects of irradiation than earlier | | |

| | | | |life stages such as eggs or first instar larvae. | | |

| | | | |- Some pests are known during certain life stages to be differentially | | |

| | | | |susceptible to a specific pesticide (e.g. greater tolerances are shown by| | |

| | | | |adult insect life stages treated with juvenile growth hormones). | | |

|Step 2 |[20] | | |Irradiation treatments primarily affect pest viability through the | | |

| | | | |creation of hydroxyl radicals that begin to break down the DNA in these | | |

| | | | |organisms. Life stages that have higher levels of cell division or | | |

| | | | |activity in general are likely to be more susceptible to irradiation | | |

| | | | |treatments. Hence the later life stages such as adults or pupae are often| | |

| | | | |found to be more resistant to the effects of irradiation than earlier | | |

| | | | |life stages such as eggs or first instar larvae. | | |

|Step 2 |[21] | | |Some pests are known during certain life stages to be differentially | | |

| | | | |susceptible to a specific pesticide (e.g. greater tolerances are shown by| | |

| | | | |adult insect life stages treated with juvenile growth hormones). | | |

|Step 2 |[22] |First sentence should stand |Editorial |If testing is required in order to identify the most resistant species |For better formatting | |

| | |alone and sentence 2 to 6 | |and life stage within a pest group, the following approaches should be | | |

| | |should be bulleted | |considered: . | | |

| | | | |-The number of test units required for each species should be | | |

| | | | |statistically valid in order to reflect the variability within the test | | |

| | | | |population in an appropriate experimental design. In all cases, at least | | |

| | | | |five test units per species and life stage should be used. | | |

| | | | |- The sample size of controls should be the same as the number of test | | |

| | | | |organisms (e.g. five controls and five treated individuals), with | | |

| | | | |demonstration of adequate survival of controls during treatment | | |

| | | | |-Test units may be either individual pests or colonized pieces of wood | | |

| | | | |containing the target pest. When colonized pieces of wood that may | | |

| | | | |contain multiple individuals are used as test units, only complete | | |

| | | | |mortality, deactivation or sterilization of all individuals is considered| | |

| | | | |a successful result in identifying the resistant species or life stage | | |

|Step 2 |[23] | | | | | |

|Step 3 |[24] | | | | | |

|Step 3 |[25] |Sentence one , row one |Editorial |Having identified the most resistant quarantine pest species and life |Clarity | |

| | | | |stage (s) | | |

|Step 4 |[26] | | | | | |

|Step 4 |[27] |Sentence one , row two |Editorial |Efficacy testing can be completed either directly, using the numbers of | | |

| | | | |test individuals required to demonstrate statistically the efficacy | | |

| | | | |level, or by extrapolation by fitting dose-response data to a known | | |

| | | | |theoretical dose-response curves | | |

|Step 4 |[28] |sentences three should stand |Editorial |The number of replicates required for extrapolation testing will depend | | |

| | |alone as a new paragraph | |on the fit of the actual response data to the theoretical dose-response | | |

| | | | |curve (and a required sensitivity of the outcome at the 95% confidence | | |

| | | | |level. | | |

| | | | |The type of test and its expected statistical limits will determine the | | |

| | | | |potential responses of those individuals that are most resistant to the |-Bracket is redundant | |

| | | | |treatment being evaluated; the degree of variation at a determined dose |-Add the word a reads | |

| | | | |and level of replication should reflect this. The efficacy data provided |better | |

| | | | |should also specify the statistical level of confidence supporting | | |

| | | | |efficacy claims made for treatment of the specified pest and life stage. | | |

|Step 4 |[29] | | | | | |

|Step 5 |[30] | | | | | |

|Step 5 |[31] | | | | | |

|Assessment of treatment |[32] |Sentence one, row one |Technical |Assessment of treatment (efficacy) success | | |

|success | | | | | | |

|Assessment of treatment |[33] | | | | | |

|success | | | | | | |

|Submission of treatment |[34] | | | | | |

|for approval | | | | | | |

|Submission of treatment |[35] | | | | | |

|for approval | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | |

Caribbean workshop

Template for comments - Draft ISPMs for country consultation, 2010

Draft: INTEGRATED MEASURES APPROACH FOR PLANTS FOR PLANTING IN INTERNATIONAL TRADE

.

|1. Section |2. para |3. sentence/ |4. Type of comment |5. Proposed rewording |6. Explanation |7. Country |

| |nber |row/indent, etc. |(Substantive,Editorial,Translation) | | | |

|title | |Title |Editorial |INTEGRATED MEASURES SYSTEMS APPROACH|There is little difference between | |

| | | | |FOR PLANTS FOR PLANTING IN |“systems approach” and “integrated | |

| | | | |INTERNATIONAL TRADE |measures” hence this change is to | |

| | | | | |ensure consistency with other draft | |

| | | | | |ISPMs | |

|Contents | | | | | | |

|Introduction |[1] | | | | | |

|SCOPE |[2] | | | | | |

|SCOPE |[3] |1st Sentence |1.technical |This standard provides guidelines |The standard addresses plants for | |

| | | | |for the development and |planting excluding botanically | |

| | | | |implementation of integrated |defined seeds. | |

| | | | |measures to manage the pest risks |redundant | |

| | | | |associated with the production and | | |

| | | | |international movement of plants for| | |

| | | | |planting (excluding botanically | | |

| | | | |defined seeds).... | | |

| | | |2.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 | | |

| | |2nd Sentence | |application of measures and the | | |

| | | | |responsibilities of the national | | |

| | | | |plant protection organizations | | |

| | | | |(NPPOs) of the importing and | | |

| | | | |exporting countries. | | |

|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] | | | | | |

|Outline of requirements |[17] | |1. Technical |This standard provides guidance for |The standard addresses plants for | |

| | | |2. Editorial |the use of integrated measures to |planting excluding botanically | |

| | | |3. Editorial |manage the pest risks that plants |defined seeds. | |

| | | |4. technical |for planting (excluding botanically |To clarify that it is countries that| |

| | | | |defined seeds) pose as a pathway for|import and not the NPPO that imports| |

| | | | |regulated pests and to meet the |For brevity | |

| | | | |phytosanitary requirements of the |A more accurate term | |

| | | | |importing country’s NPPO. The use of| | |

| | | | |integrated measures approaches | | |

| | | | |requires the involvement of the | | |

| | | | |NPPOs of both the importing and | | |

| | | | |exporting countries contracting | | |

| | | | |parties, as well as producers | | |

| | | | |stakeholders, and relies on pest | | |

| | | | |risk management measures applied | | |

| | | | |throughout the production and | | |

| | | | |distribution processes. | | |

|Outline of requirements |[18] | | | | | |

|Outline of requirements |[19] | |technical |The standard also provides general |Should be inclusive of all plants | |

| | | | |guidance for identifying and |for planting | |

| | | | |categorizing the risks that may be | | |

| | | | |associated with particular types of | | |

| | | | |plants for planting. These risks | | |

| | | | |should be taken into account when | | |

| | | | |determining the strength of measures| | |

| | | | |applied in a particular situation. | | |

|BACKGROUND |[20] | | | | | |

| | | | | | | |

|BACKGROUND |[21] |Sentence 3 |editorial |.... In any case Consequently, the |1.Reads better | |

| | | |technical |conclusions from pest risk analysis |2. we are referring to more than one| |

| | | | |analyses should be used to decide |analysis | |

| | | | |the appropriate measures to reduce | | |

| | | | |the risk to an acceptable level for | | |

| | | | |the importing country. | | |

|BACKGROUND |[22] | |1. technical |Export inspections Inspection of |This comment is true for both import| |

| | | |2. editorial |consignments of plants for planting |and export inspections | |

| | | |3. technical |has limitations which may include |“Inspections” changed to | |

| | | |4. technical |the following: |“inspection” for agreement between | |

| | | |5. editorial |Some pests may be difficult to |subject and verb | |

| | | | |detect visually, particularly at low|There may be other limitations than | |

| | | | |pest population densities. |those listed | |

| | | | |Disease symptoms may be latent or |For greater accuracy | |

| | | | |masked at the time of inspection |For clarity | |

| | | | |(e.g. as a result of pesticide use, | | |

| | | | |dormancy of plants at time of | | |

| | | | |shipping or removal of symptomatic | | |

| | | | |leaves plant parts). | | |

| | | | |The type of packaging and physical | | |

| | | | |state of the consignment can | | |

| | | | |influence the rigour of inspection. | | |

| | | | |Alternative or supplementary | | |

| | | | |non-visual detection methods for | | |

| | | | |many plant pests, particularly | | |

| | | | |pathogens, are not available have | | |

| | | | |not yet been developed. | | |

|BACKGROUND |[23] | |editorial |An integrated measures approach for |redundant | |

| | | | |pest risk management may provide an | | |

| | | | |alternative or supplement to single | | |

| | | | |measures (particularly point of | | |

| | | | |entry inspections) to meet the | | |

| | | | |phytosanitary import requirements of| | |

| | | | |the importing country. The use of | | |

| | | | |integrated measures for pest risk | | |

| | | | |management requires not only the | | |

| | | | |participation of the NPPO of the | | |

| | | | |exporting country but also the | | |

| | | | |participation of the producer | | |

| | | | |throughout all the production stages| | |

| | | | |of the plants for planting. | | |

|BACKGROUND |[24] | |1. Editorial |An integrated measures approach also|1. proper punctuation required for | |

| | | |2. technical |has the advantage of better managing|sentence to read better | |

| | | | |the risk, not only of known pests |2. One does not know if the measures| |

| | | | |that are difficult to detect based |applied would be effective for these| |

| | | | |on export or import inspections, but|organisms | |

| | | | |also of organisms that are unknown | | |

| | | | |to science, contaminating pests and | | |

| | | | |organisms that are not quarantine | | |

| | | | |pests in the country of origin. | | |

|BACKGROUND |[25] | | | | | |

|REQUIREMENTS |[26] | | | | | |

|1. Factors that Affect the |[27] | | | | | |

|Pest Risk of Plants for | | | | | | |

|Planting | | | | | | |

|1. Factors that Affect the |[28] | |editorial |The factors described in sections |To clarify that it is countries that| |

|Pest Risk of Plants for | | | |1.1 to 1.4 should be considered by |import and not the NPPO that imports| |

|Planting | | | |the importing country’s NPPO when | | |

| | | | |conducting a PRA to identify the | | |

| | | | |appropriate combination of measures | | |

| | | | |to meet its phytosanitary | | |

| | | | |requirements. | | |

|1. Factors that Affect the |[29] | |1.editorial |These factors should also be |1. To clarify that it is countries | |

|Pest Risk of Plants for | | |2.editorial |considered by the exporting |that import and not the NPPO that | |

|Planting | | |3. editorial |country’s NPPO when establishing |imports | |

| | | | |measures to be taken implemented at | | |

| | | | |places of production participating |better English | |

| | | | |in an integrated measures approach | | |

| | | | |to ensure that plants for planting |Reads better | |

| | | | |meet the importing country’s | | |

| | | | |phytosanitary requirements. | | |

|1.1 Pest factors that |[30] | | | | | |

|affect risk | | | | | | |

|1.1 Pest factors that |[31] | |1. technical |Pest factors that should be taken |Officially accepted terminology | |

|affect risk | | |2. editorial |into consideration include: |Use of singular form of the Word | |

| | | |3. editorial |whether the pest occurs in the |like the other examples given | |

| | | |4. editorial |country/area of origin place of |Consistency of language | |

| | | |5. editorial |production |For clarity | |

| | | |6.technical |type of pest (arthropod, fungus, |Better description from the | |

| | | | |virus, bacteria bacterium etc.) |standpoint of the pest. The pest | |

| | | | |establishment and spread potential |does not have the ability to detect | |

| | | | |reproduction rate and numbers number|itself. | |

| | | | |of generation generations per year |This is one of the most important | |

| | | | |mode of transmission (e.g. vector, |factors to be considered | |

| | | | |graft transmission, mechanical | | |

| | | | |transmission) | | |

| | | | |ability to detect the pest pest | | |

| | | | |detectability, even at low | | |

| | | | |population levels | | |

| | | | |availability of control measures | | |

| | | | |host range of the pest | | |

| | | | |presence of host plants in the | | |

| | | | |country of import | | |

| | | | |latency of infection. | | |

| | | | |Potential economic impact of the | | |

| | | | |pest | | |

|1.1 Pest factors that |[32] | | | | | |

|affect risk | | | | | | |

|1.2 Plant-related factors |[33] | | | | | |

|that affect risk | | | | | | |

|1.2 Plant-related factors |[34] | | | | | |

|that affect risk | | | | | | |

|1.2 Plant-related factors |[35] | | | | | |

|that affect risk | | | | | | |

|1.2 Plant-related factors |[35b] | |substantive |An additional important factor will |Critical factor to be included | |

|that affect risk | | | |be the level of susceptibility, | | |

| | | | |tolerance or resistance of the plant| | |

| | | | |to pests | | |

|1.2 Plant-related factors |[36] | | | | | |

|that affect risk | | | | | | |

|1.3 Production factors that |[37] | | | | | |

|affect risk | | | | | | |

|1.3 Production factors that |[38] | | | | | |

|affect risk | | | | | | |

|1.3 Production factors that |[39] | |1.technical |In general, use of soil and |1.Scope should be broadened to | |

|affect risk | | |2. technical |soil-free media as a growing medium |include soil-free media which could | |

| | | | |is likely to pose a greater risk |also serve as pest entry pathways. | |

| | | | |than a soil-free medium pose a great|2. pasteurization is a form of | |

| | | | |risk because soil and soil-free |sterilization | |

| | | | |media may carry pests (e.g., | | |

| | | | |soil-borne pathogens, insects | | |

| | | | |arthropods, or nematodes, unwanted | | |

| | | | |plants, and life stages of other | | |

| | | | |organisms such as snails and snail | | |

| | | | |eggs). Sterilization or | | |

| | | | |pasteurization of the growing medium| | |

| | | | |prior to planting may mitigate some | | |

| | | | |risk. | | |

|1.3 Production factors that |[40] | |editorial |The source and quality of irrigation|Correct punctuation | |

|affect risk | | | |water can affect pest risk. For | | |

| | | | |certain pests spread by water, | | |

| | | | |surface water may pose a greater | | |

| | | | |risk than treated or deep well | | |

| | | | |water. Likewise the method of | | |

| | | | |irrigation may produce microclimates| | |

| | | | |or conditions favourable for pest | | |

| | | | |growth and spread (e.g. overhead, | | |

| | | | |(rather than drip) irrigation). | | |

|1.3 Production factors that |[41] | | | | | |

|affect risk | | | | | | |

|1.3 Production factors that |[42] | |1. editorial |Enclosures such as growth chambers, |1. re: “which” in sentence 2 – | |

|affect risk | | |2. technical |glasshouses and screen houses |better sentence structure | |

| | | |3. Editorial |usually provide better control over |2. re: “biological” inserted for | |

| | | |4. Editorial |plant material and better |completeness | |

| | | |5. technical |opportunity for pest exclusion than |3. re: “field plants grown in…” | |

| | | | |field-grown plants. Field-grown |showing different levels of | |

| | | | |crops which are generally subject to|protection with different growing | |

| | | | |cultural, biological and chemical |conditions | |

| | | | |pest control, and field plants grown|4. re: “plants collected from the | |

| | | | |in containers with sterilized |wild” changed for consistency in | |

| | | | |growing medium and plants grown on a|keeping with the classification of | |

| | | | |membrane may afford some protection |paragraph 41 | |

| | | | |from soil-borne pests. Wild |5. re: classical control – there may| |

| | | | |collected Plants collected from the |be natural pest control in the wild | |

| | | | |wild do not have any form of | | |

| | | | |classical pest control and may | | |

| | | | |therefore be unprotected from pests.| | |

|1.4 Intended uses that |[43] | | | | | |

|affect risk | | | | | | |

|1.4 Intended uses that |[44] | | | | | |

|affect risk | | | | | | |

|2. Application of Risk |[45] | | | | | |

|Mitigation Measures | | | | | | |

|2. Application of Risk |[46] | | | | | |

|Mitigation Measures | | | | | | |

|3. Integrated Measures |[47] | | | | | |

|Approach | | | | | | |

|3. Integrated Measures |[48] | | | | | |

|Approach | | | | | | |

|3.1 General integrated |[49] | | | | | |

|measures | | | | | | |

|3.1 General integrated |[50] | | | | | |

|measures | | | | | | |

|3.1.1 Authorization of |[51] | | | | | |

|places of production | | | | | | |

|3.1.1 Authorization of |[52] | |1. technical |The following conditions should form|Adding “treated” makes the process | |

|places of production | | |2. technical |part of the authorization process |more complete | |

| | | |3. technical |for places of production seeking to |Many countries do not have the | |

| | | | |participate in the general |manpower to designate a single | |

| | | | |integrated measures approach: |person as a contact | |

| | | | |maintaining an updated plan of the |Re: Bullet 3 - as written this | |

| | | | |place of production describing when,|places a heavy burden on small | |

| | | | |where and how plants for planting |developing states which do not have | |

| | | | |were produced, (treated,) stored or |the manpower to designate a person | |

| | | | |prepared for movement from the place|for each place of production | |

| | | | |of production (including information| | |

| | | | |on plant species and type of plant | | |

| | | | |material such as cuttings, in vitro | | |

| | | | |cultures, bare root plants) | | |

| | | | |keeping, for at least three years, | | |

| | | | |records that verify where and how | | |

| | | | |plants for planting were purchased, | | |

| | | | |stored, produced and distributed | | |

| | | | |designating a person with a | | |

| | | | |well-established working knowledge | | |

| | | | |of pest identification and control | | |

| | | | |as a contact person for the NPPO of | | |

| | | | |the exporting country | | |

| | | | |Version 1: establishing a system | | |

| | | | |whereby the NPPO of the exporting | | |

| | | | |country can readily obtain | | |

| | | | |information on the pest status of | | |

| | | | |the place of production | | |

| | | | |Version 2: designate a person to | | |

| | | | |liaise with the NPPO of the | | |

| | | | |exporting country on matters of pest| | |

| | | | |identification and management | | |

| | | | |notifying their NPPO if any relevant| | |

| | | | |pests are observed. | | |

| | | | |Any failure of products or | | |

| | | | |procedures to adhere to the | | |

| | | | |requirements for authorization | | |

| | | | |(non-compliance) should result in | | |

| | | | |the suspension of authorization of | | |

| | | | |the place of production until | | |

| | | | |corrective actions have been | | |

| | | | |successfully completed. | | |

|3.1.2 Requirements for the |[53] | |1.editorial |3.1.2 Requirements for the place of |For clarity | |

|place of production | | |2. editorial |production |Divide 1st bullet into two bullets | |

| | | |3. technical |The following measures may be |as it represents two different ideas| |

| | | | |sufficient to meet the phytosanitary|Last bullet: it is an important | |

| | | | |requirements of the importing |function of production systems | |

| | | | |country when the PRA indicates that | | |

| | | | |they the measures are consistent | | |

| | | | |with the risk (e.g. plants of a | | |

| | | | |well-documented plant species with | | |

| | | | |known risks originating from a | | |

| | | | |country or area place of production | | |

| | | | |with a documented history of safe | | |

| | | | |exports of the species): | | |

| | | | |conducting visual examinations of | | |

| | | | |plants and places of production by | | |

| | | | |designated staff as necessary, at | | |

| | | | |appropriate times and according to | | |

| | | | |protocols provided by the NPPO of | | |

| | | | |the exporting country (Records of | | |

| | | | |all examinations, including a | | |

| | | | |description of pests found and | | |

| | | | |corrective actions taken, should be | | |

| | | | |made.) | | |

| | | | |keeping records of all examinations,| | |

| | | | |including a description of pests | | |

| | | | |found and corrective actions taken | | |

| | | | |establishing a system ... | | |

|3.2 Integrated measures in |[54] | | | | | |

|high-risk situations | | | | | | |

|3.2 Integrated measures in |[55] | | | | | |

|high-risk situations | | | | | | |

|3.2.1 Requirements for the |[56] | | | | | |

|place of production in | | | | | | |

|high-risk situations | | | | | | |

|3.2.1 Requirements for the |[57] | | | | | |

|place of production in | | | | | | |

|high-risk situations | | | | | | |

|3.2.1 Requirements for the |[58] | | | |See general comment no. 3 | |

|place of production in | | | | | | |

|high-risk situations | | | | | | |

|3.2.1.1 Place of production |[59] | | | |See general comment no. 3 | |

|manual | | | | | | |

|3.2.1.1 Place of production |[60] | | | |See general comment no. 3 | |

|manual | | | | | | |

|3.2.1.1 Place of production |[61] | | | |See general comment no. 3 | |

|manual | | | | | | |

|3.2.1.2 Pest management plan|[62] | | | |See general comment no. 3 | |

|3.2.1.2 Pest management plan|[63] | | | |See general comment no. 3 | |

|3.2.1.2 Pest management plan|[64] | | | |See general comment no. 3 | |

|3.2.1.3 Crop protection |[65] | | | |See general comment no. 3 | |

|specialist | | | | | | |

|3.2.1.3 Crop protection |[66] | | | |See general comment no. 3 | |

|specialist | | | | | | |

|3.2.1.4 Training of |[67] | | | |See general comment no. 3 | |

|employees | | | | | | |

|3.2.1.4 Training of |[68] | | | |See general comment no. 3 | |

|employees | | | | | | |

|3.2.1.5 Examination of plant|[69] | | | |See general comment no. 3 | |

|material | | | | | | |

|3.2.1.5 Examination of plant|[70] | | | |See general comment no. 3 | |

|material | | | | | | |

|3.2.1.6 Packing and |[71] | | |3.2.1.6 Packing and transportation |See also general comment no. 3 | |

|transportation | | | | | | |

|3.2.1.6 Packing and |[72] | |1. editorial |The following considerations apply |Re: bullets 2 & 4, Packaging is | |

|transportation | | |2. technical |to packing and transport operations:|defined in the glossary | |

| | | | |Plant material should be packed in a|“and boxes” is redundant | |

| | | | |manner to prevent infestation or |See also general comment no. 3 | |

| | | | |reinfestation by regulated pests. | | |

| | | | |Packing material Packaging should | | |

| | | | |meet the requirements of the | | |

| | | | |importing country. | | |

| | | | |Each unit of a consignment should be| | |

| | | | |identified in a way that links it to| | |

| | | | |the consignment and to the | | |

| | | | |phytosanitary certificate. | | |

| | | | |Packing material Packaging and boxes| | |

| | | | |should be clean, unused, disinfested| | |

| | | | |or decontaminated. | | |

| | | | |Conveyances at the place of | | |

| | | | |production should be examined and | | |

| | | | |cleaned as necessary prior to | | |

| | | | |loading. | | |

|3.2.1.7 Internal audits |[73] | | | |See general comment no.3 | |

|3.2.1.7 Internal audits |[74] | |1.editorial |Internal audits should be conducted |1.Consistency of terms with respect | |

| | | | |to ensure that the place of |to paragraph 59 | |

| | | | |production is in compliance with its|2. See also general comment no.3 | |

| | | | |phytosanitary manual. .... | | |

|3.2.1.7 Internal audits |[75] | | | |See general comment no.3 | |

|3.2.1.7 Internal audits |[76] | |technical |If a place of production identifies |See general comment no. 2 and 3 | |

| | | | |any critical non-compliances, it | | |

| | | | |should immediately notify its If any| | |

| | | | |non-compliance is identified in a | | |

| | | | |place of production by the audit, | | |

| | | | |the NPPO should be immediately | | |

| | | | |notified in writing and the NPPO | | |

| | | | |should ensure that non-compliant | | |

| | | | |plants for planting are not | | |

| | | | |exported. Immediate corrective | | |

| | | | |actions should be taken in | | |

| | | | |cooperation with the NPPO. | | |

|3.2.1.8 Records |[77] | | | |See general comment no. 3 | |

|3.2.1.8 Records |[78] | |Editorial |Accurate and up-to-date records |1. better language | |

| | | |Editorial |should be kept and should be able to|2.Consistency of terms with respect | |

| | | |Editorial |be retrieved be retrievable when |to paragraph 59 | |

| | | |technical |required by the NPPO. Records that |3. redundant | |

| | | | |verify compliance with the |4. not unanimous | |

| | | | |phytosanitary manual and the |5. See also general comment no.3 | |

| | | | |requirements of the NPPO should be | | |

| | | | |maintained for at least three years.| | |

| | | | |Records should include date, name | | |

| | | | |and signature of the person who | | |

| | | | |carried out the task and/or prepared| | |

| | | | |the document. Examples of records | | |

| | | | |that may be required include: | | |

| | | | |invoices, phytosanitary certificates| | |

| | | | |and other information that | | |

| | | | |substantiate the origin and the | | |

| | | | |phytosanitary status of all incoming| | |

| | | | |plant material | | |

| | | | |results of the inspection of | | |

| | | | |incoming plant material | | |

| | | | |results of internal audits and | | |

| | | | |external audits | | |

| | | | |records of examination during | | |

| | | | |production including any pests, | | |

| | | | |damage or symptoms detected and | | |

| | | | |corrective actions taken | | |

| | | | |records of examination of outgoing | | |

| | | | |plant material, including type and | | |

| | | | |quantity of material exported | | |

| | | | |copies of phytosanitary certificates| | |

| | | | |for plant material exported by the | | |

| | | | |place of production | | |

| | | | |records of pest management measures | | |

| | | | |taken to prevent or control pests | | |

| | | | |(including method of application, | | |

| | | | |product applied, dosage and date of | | |

| | | | |application, and results of their | | |

| | | | |application, (planting material | | |

| | | | |treated and efficacy of the | | |

| | | | |treatment) | | |

| | | | |records of non-compliances | | |

| | | | |identified and the corrective or | | |

| | | | |preventative actions taken | | |

| | | | |records of training of staff and | | |

| | | | |their qualifications. | | |

|3.2.2 Non-compliance with |[79] | | | |See general comment no. 2 and 3 | |

|requirements for the place | | | | | | |

|of production | | | | | | |

|3.2.2 Non-compliance with |[80] | | | |See general comment no. 2 and 3 | |

|requirements for the place | | | | | | |

|of production | | | | | | |

|3.2.2 Non-compliance with |[81] | | | |See general comment no. 2 and 3 | |

|requirements for the place | | | | | | |

|of production | | | | | | |

|3.2.2 Non-compliance with |[82] | | | |See general comment no. 2 and 3 | |

|requirements for the place | | | | | | |

|of production | | | | | | |

|3.2.2 Non-compliance with |[83] | | | |See general comment no. 2 and 3 | |

|requirements for the place | | | | | | |

|of production | | | | | | |

|3.2.2.1 Critical |[84] | | | |See general comment no. 2 and 3 | |

|non-compliance | | | | | | |

|3.2.2.1 Critical |[85] | | | |See general comment no. 2 and 3 | |

|non-compliance | | | | | | |

|3.2.2.2 Non-critical |[86] | | | |See general comment no. 2 and 3 | |

|non-compliance | | | | | | |

|3.2.2.2 Non-critical |[87] | | | |See general comment no. 2 and 3 | |

|non-compliance | | | | | | |

|3.2.2.2 Non-critical |[88] | | | |See general comment no. 2 and 3 | |

|non-compliance | | | | | | |

|4. Responsibilities of the |[89] | | | | | |

|NPPO of the Exporting | | | | | | |

|Country | | | | | | |

|4. Responsibilities of the |[90] | |editorial |The NPPO of the exporting country is|For clarity, bullet no. 1 is divided| |

|NPPO of the Exporting | | | |responsible for: |into two | |

|Country | | | |establishing the implementation of | | |

| | | | |the integrated measures systems | | |

| | | | |approaches | | |

| | | | |authorizing places of production | | |

| | | | |seeking participation in an | | |

| | | | |integrated measures systems approach| | |

|4.1 Establishing integrated|[91] | | | | | |

|measures approaches | | | | | | |

|4.1 Establishing integrated|[92] | | | | | |

|measures approaches | | | | | | |

|4.2 Authorization of places|[93] | | | | | |

|of production | | | | | | |

|4.2 Authorization of places|[94] | | | | | |

|of production | | | | | | |

|4.2 Authorization of places|[95] | |editorial |The authorization of places of |A better sentence structure and | |

|of production | | | |production seeking to participate in|consistency in view of 1st bullet | |

| | | | |the integrated measures approach for|and paragraph 96 | |

| | | | |high-risk situations described in | | |

| | | | |section 3.2 should be based upon: | | |

| | | | |A documentation audit and a review | | |

| | | | |of the 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 | | |

| | | | |phytosanitary manual | | |

| | | | |required supporting documentation...| | |

|4.2 Authorization of places|[96] | | | | | |

|of production | | | | | | |

|4.3 Oversight of authorized |[97] | | | | | |

|places of production | | | | | | |

|4.3 Oversight of authorized |[98] | | | | | |

|places of production | | | | | | |

|4.4 Export inspections and |[99] | | | | | |

|issuance of phytosanitary | | | | | | |

|certificates | | | | | | |

|4.4 Export inspections and |[100] | |editorial |The integrated risk management |redundant | |

|issuance of phytosanitary | | | |measures may reduce the need for | | |

|certificates | | | |growing season inspections and | | |

| | | | |intensive export inspections of | | |

| | | | |every individual consignment (if | | |

| | | | |agreed to by the importing NPPO of | | |

| | | | |the importing country). .... | | |

|4.5 Providing adequate |[101] | | | | | |

|information | | | | | | |

|4.5 Providing adequate |[102] | |editorial |Upon request, the NPPO of the |Proper punctuation | |

|information | | | |exporting country should provide | | |

| | | | |adequate information to the NPPO of | | |

| | | | |the importing country to support the| | |

| | | | |evaluation and acceptance of the | | |

| | | | |integrated measures approach. | | |

|5. Responsibilities of the |[103] | | | | | |

|NPPO of the Importing | | | | | | |

|Country | | | | | | |

|5. Responsibilities of the |[104] | | | | | |

|NPPO of the Importing | | | | | | |

|Country | | | | | | |

|5. Responsibilities of the |[105] | | | | | |

|NPPO of the Importing | | | | | | |

|Country | | | | | | |

|5. Responsibilities of the |[106] | |editorial |……. The NPPO of the importing |For clarity | |

|NPPO of the Importing | | | |country should notify the NPPO of | | |

|Country | | | |the exporting country of any | | |

| | | | |non-compliances (see ISPM 13:2001). | | |

|5.1 Traceability procedures |[107] | | | | | |

|5.1 Traceability procedures |[108] | |editorial |The NPPO of the importing country is|Better sentence structure & for | |

| | | | |encouraged to establish procedures |clarity | |

| | | | |that ensure the traceability of that| | |

| | | | |plants imported under an integrated | | |

| | | | |measures a systems approach can be | | |

| | | | |traced back and forward from the | | |

| | | | |importer and that the importer | | |

| | | | |notifies the NPPO of the occurrence | | |

| | | | |of regulated pests and other pests | | |

| | | | |not normally present in the area. | | |

| | | | |This may be accomplished through a | | |

| | | | |registration/authorization process | | |

| | | | |for importers. | | |

|5.2 Auditing by the |[109] | | | | | |

|importing NPPO | | | | | | |

|5.2 Auditing by the |[110] | | | | | |

|importing NPPO | | | | | | |

|Appendix 1: Examples of pest|[111] | | | | | |

|management measures to | | | | | | |

|reduce the phytosanitary | | | | | | |

|risk of plants for planting | | | | | | |

|Appendix 1: Examples of pest|[112] | | | | | |

|management measures to | | | | | | |

|reduce the phytosanitary | | | | | | |

|risk of plants for planting | | | | | | |

|Table 1 |[113] | | |Table 1. Measures to reduce the |More clearly describes the content | |

| | | | |phytosanitary risk of plants for |of the table and less cumbersome | |

| | | | |planting categorized by pest group | | |

| | | | |category | | |

|Table 1 |[114] | |1. Editorial |1. The following table provides |redundant | |

| | | |2.technical |examples for different measures. |same reason as for change in | |

| | | |3. editorial | |paragraph 113 | |

| | | |4. editorial |2.Subject row of table, 1st column |clarity and consistency with wording| |

| | | |5. technical |Pest group category |of other pest categories | |

| | | | | |better English | |

| | | | |3. Pest category 2 |added to cover life stage of pests | |

| | | | |Pests having Visible visible stages |that are unaffected by chemical | |

| | | | |of pests and pests causing visible |treatments | |

| | | | |symptoms during the growing season | | |

| | | | | | | |

| | | | |4. Pest Category 3, Available | | |

| | | | |measures bullet 4 | | |

| | | | |Planning of activities to work with | | |

| | | | |high-health healthy plants first | | |

| | | | | | | |

| | | | |Pest category 8 under available | | |

| | | | |measures | | |

| | | | |Add bullet: post-entry quarantine | | |

|Table 2 |[115] | |editorial |Table 2. Examples for measures to |Remove all references to group 10 | |

| | | | |reduce the phytosanitary risk of |since it does not exist in Table 1 | |

| | | | |plants for planting based on the | | |

| | | | |type of plant material | | |

|Appendix 2: Examples of |[116] | | | | | |

|non-compliance | | | | | | |

|Appendix 2: Examples of |[117] | | | |See general comment no. 2. Comments | |

|non-compliance | | | | |can not be provided on this appendix| |

| | | | | |until further clarification on | |

| | | | | |general comment no. 2. | |

|Critical non-compliance |[118] | | | |See general comment no. 2 | |

|Critical non-compliance |[119] | | | |See general comment no. 2 | |

|Non-critical non-compliance |[120] | | | |See general comment no. 2 | |

|Non-critical non-compliance |[121] | | | |See general comment no. 2 | |

To be more clear, the text of Table 1: Examples of pest management measures to reduce the phytosanitary risk of plants for planting is included below, showing suggested changes.

| |Pest group category |Available measures |

|1 |Pests causing latent infections and those that are likely to be transmitted|• Production in a pest free area or at a pest free place of production/production site |

| |by plants for planting without signs or symptoms |• Derivation from mother plants that have been tested and found free from the relevant pest |

| | |• Isolation from sources of infection (e.g. buffer zone or geographical distance from other host plants, physical isolation using |

| | |a glasshouse or polytunnel, temporal isolation) |

| | |• Testing of samples of the plants for freedom from pests |

| | |• Production within a specified certification scheme or clean stock programme that takes into consideration the pests of concern |

| | |to the importing country |

|2 |Pests having Visible visible stages of pests and pests causing visible |• Growing season inspection for freedom from pests or symptoms (e.g. at timed intervals, for example monthly for the three months |

| |symptoms during the growing season |before export or at different growth stages, if appropriate) |

| | |• Growing season inspection of the mother plants |

| | |• Inspection after harvest to meet a specified tolerance for a pest (e.g. tolerance for bulb rots by fungi/bacteria) |

| | |• Routine pesticide applications |

|3 |Pests spread by contact |• Production in a pest free area or at a pest free place of production/production site |

| | |• Prevention of contact with sources of infection (e.g. other plants) |

| | |• Hygiene measures for handling pruning tools and equipment between different batches/lots |

| | |• Planning of activities to work with high-health healthy plants first |

| | |• Use of dedicated clothing and equipment in isolated places (e.g. screen houses) |

| | |• Routine pesticide applications |

|4 |Pests transmitted by vectors |• Production area/place of production free from vectors |

| | |• Production in a pest free area or at a pest free place of production/production site [confirmed by monitoring or measures |

| | |specified below] |

| | |• Isolation from sources of infection (e.g. buffer zone or geographical distance from other host plants, physical isolation using |

| | |a glasshouse or polytunnel, temporal isolation) |

| | |• Pre-planting soil testing for freedom from or to meet a tolerance for soil-borne viruses or their nematode vectors |

| | |• Pesticide treatments for control of insect vectors of viruses (e.g. aphids) |

|5 |Pests spread by wind |• Production in a pest free area or at a pest free place of production/production site [confirmed by monitoring or measures |

| | |specified below] |

| | |• Isolation from sources of infection (e.g. buffer zone or geographical distance from other host plants, physical isolation using |

| | |a glasshouse or polytunnel) |

| | |• Routine pesticide applications |

|6 |Pests spread by water |• Production in a pest free area or at a pest free place of production/production site [confirmed by monitoring or measures |

| | |specified below] |

| | |• Use of uncontaminated water sources |

| | |• Irrigation water to be disinfected or sterilized before use |

| | |• Isolation from sources of infection (e.g. buffer zone or geographical distance from other host plants, physical isolation using |

| | |a glasshouse or polytunnel, temporal isolation) |

|7 |Soil-borne pests able to colonize the plant |• Production in a pest free area or at a pest free place of production/production site [confirmed by monitoring or measures |

| | |specified below] |

| | |• Isolation from sources of infection (e.g. buffer zone or geographical distance from other host plants, physical isolation using |

| | |a glasshouse or polytunnel, growth of plants on raised benches, temporal isolation) |

| | |• Derivation from mother plants that have been tested and found free from the relevant pest |

| | |• Production within a specified certification scheme or clean stock programme |

| | |• Testing of samples of the plants for freedom from pests |

| | |• Pre-planting soil testing for freedom from pests such as fungi, nematodes, viruses transmittable by nematodes |

|8 |Soil-borne pests in growing medium attached to plants |• Growing medium to be sterilized before use |

| | |• Use of inert growing media |

| | |• Use of soil-less growing media |

| | |• Isolation from sources of infection, maintenance of plants in such a way that contact with soil is prevented (e.g. on raised |

| | |benches) |

| | |• Pesticide treatment (e.g. drench or fumigation) prior to export |

| | |• Roots washed free from growing medium (and repotted in sterile growing medium) |

| | |Post-entry quarantine |

|9 |Soil-borne pests in natural soil attached to plants |• Production in a pest free area or at a pest free place of production/production site [confirmed by monitoring or measures |

| | |specified below] |

| | |• Isolation from sources of infection (e.g. buffer zone or geographical distance from other host plants, temporal isolation) |

| | |• Pre-planting soil testing for freedom from pests (especially nematodes, fungi) |

| | |• Pesticide treatment (fumigation) prior to export |

| | |• Roots washed free from soil (and repotted in sterile growing medium) |

Caribbean workshop

Template for comments - Draft ISPMs for country consultation, 2010

DRAFT ANNEX to ISPM 27:2010

Plum pox virus

|1. Section |2. |3. sentence/ |4. Type of comment |5. Proposed rewording |6. Explanation |7. Country |

| |para |row/indent, etc.|(Substantive,Editorial,Transl| | | |

| |nber | |ation) | | | |

|title | | | | | | |

|Adoption | | | | | | |

|Contents | | | | | | |

|1. Pest Information |[1] | | | | | |

|1. Pest Information |[2] | | | | | |

|1. Pest Information |[3] | | | | | |

|1. Pest Information |[4] | |1.editorial |PPV is a member of the genus Potyvirus in the family |1. “of” added for clarity | |

| | | |2. editorial |Potyviridae. The virus particles are flexuous rods of about |2. “and are” added to be more specific | |

| | | |3.technical |700 nm × 11 nm and are composed of a single-stranded RNA |3. information is required re: the | |

| | | |4. technical |molecule consisting of almost 10 000 nucleotides coated by |specific aphids that are vectors of PPV | |

| | | |5. technical |up to 2 000 subunits of a single coat protein (García and |4. More clarity is needed. Does this | |

| | | | |Cambra, 2007). PPV is transmitted in the field by aphids in |mean that the virus is non-persistent in | |

| | | | |a non-persistent manner, but movement of infected |the aphid or non-persistent in the host | |

| | | | |propagative plant material has been and is the main way in |plant? | |

| | | | |which sharka PPV is spread over long distances. |5. to be more technically correct the | |

| | | | | |name of the virus and not the name of the| |

| | | | | |disease should be used. | |

|1. Pest Information |[5] | |editorial |PPV isolates can be classified into seven types or strains: |Correct punctuation | |

| | | | |D (Dideron), M (Marcus), C (Cherry), EA (El Amar), W | | |

| | | | |(Winona), and Rec (Recombinant) and T (Turkish) (Candresse | | |

| | | | |and Cambra, 2006; James and Glasa, 2006; Ulubaş Serçe et | | |

| | | | |al., 2009). Most PPV isolates belong to the D and M types. | | |

| | | | |PPV D and M strains can easily infect apricots and plums but| | |

| | | | |differ in their ability to infect peach cultivars. M | | |

| | | | |isolates cause, in general, faster epidemics and more severe| | |

| | | | |symptoms in peach than D isolates. El Amar isolates (PPV-EA)| | |

| | | | |are geographically restricted to Egypt and little | | |

| | | | |information is available about their epidemiology and | | |

| | | | |biological properties. Cherries were not considered a host | | |

| | | | |of PPV for a long time. However, a number of PPV isolates | | |

| | | | |infecting sour cherry (P. cerasus) and sweet cherry (P. | | |

| | | | |avium) have been identified in several European countries | | |

| | | | |and Turkey. These isolates form a distinct type that has | | |

| | | | |been defined as PPV-C. An atypical PPV was isolated from | | |

| | | | |European plum in Canada (PPV-W) representing a distinct PPV | | |

| | | | |type. In addition, natural recombinants between the D and M | | |

| | | | |types of PPV have been described as PPV-Rec showing an | | |

| | | | |epidemiological behaviour similar to the D type. Recently a | | |

| | | | |second type of recombinant isolate has been reported in | | |

| | | | |Turkey (T type). | | |

|1. Pest Information |[6] | | | | | |

|2.Taxonomic Information |[7] | | | | | |

|3.Detection and Identification|[8] | | | | | |

|3.Detection and Identification|[9] | | | | | |

|3.Detection and Identification|[10] | |editorial | …. The alcohol or spirits produced from this these fruits |1., 2. And 3. For proper sentence | |

| | | |editorial |are unmarketable owing to an undesirable flavour. In severe |construction | |

| | | |editorial |cases the diseased fruits drop prematurely from the tree. In|4. for clarity | |

| | | |technical |general, the fruits of early bearing cultivars show more | | |

| | | | |marked symptoms than those of late cultivars. | | |

|3.Detection and Identification|[11] | |Editorial |Appropriate sample selection is critical for PPV detection. |1. proper sentence structure | |

| | | |Editorial |If typical symptoms are present, collect flowers, leaves or |2. sentence cumbersome | |

| | | |technical |fruits showing symptoms. In symptomless plants, samples |3. This is ambiguous. Included in this | |

| | | | |should be taken from at least one-year-old shoots with |paragraph should be a specific | |

| | | | |mature leaves or fully expanded leaves collected from the |temperature range. | |

| | | | |middle of each of the main branches. Sampling must be done | | |

| | | | |avoiding should not be done during months with the highest | | |

| | | | |temperatures. Plant material should preferably be collected | | |

| | | | |from the internal parts of the canopy of the tree. In | | |

| | | | |springtime, samples can be flowers, young shoots with fully | | |

| | | | |expanded leaves or fruits. In summer and autumn mature | | |

| | | | |leaves and the skin of mature fruits collected from the | | |

| | | | |field or packinghouses can be used for analysis. Flowers, | | |

| | | | |leaves, shoots and fruit skin can be stored at 4 °C for not | | |

| | | | |more than 7 days before processing. Fruits can be stored for| | |

| | | | |one month at 4 °C before processing. In winter dormant buds | | |

| | | | |or bark tissues from the basal part of twigs, shoots or | | |

| | | | |branches, or complete spurs or dards can be selected. | | |

|3.Detection and Identification|[12] | | | | | |

|Figure 1 |[13] | | | | | |

|3.Detection and Identification|[14] | |editorial |In this diagnostic protocol, methods (including reference to|Methods still exist and hence still | |

| | | | |brand names) are described as published, as these defined |define the protocol | |

| | | | |the original level of sensitivity, specificity and/or | | |

| | | | |reproducibility achieved...... | | |

|3.Detection and Identification|[15] | | | | | |

|3.1Biological detection and |[16] | | | | | |

|identification | | | | | | |

|3.1Biological detection and |[17] | |Technical |Budwood to be grafted must be collected from at least three |For clarity of sampling method | |

|identification | | |editorial |different branches of each plant (this is critical because |Less ambiguous statement | |

| | | | |of the uneven distribution of PPV). The main indicator | | |

| | | | |plants used for PPV indexing are seedlings of P. persicae | | |

| | | | |cv. GF305, P. persicae × P. davidiana cv. Nemaguard, or P. | | |

| | | | |tomentosa. Indicator plants are raised from seed, planted in| | |

| | | | |a well-drained soil mixture and maintained in an | | |

| | | | |insect-proof greenhouse between 18 °C and 25 °C until they | | |

| | | | |are large enough to graft (usually 25–30 cm high with a | | |

| | | | |diameter of 3–4 mm). The indicators must be graft-inoculated| | |

| | | | |according to conventional methods such as bud grafting | | |

| | | | |(Desvignes, 1999), using at least four replicates per | | |

| | | | |indicator plant. Following grafting, the indicator plants | | |

| | | | |are maintained in the same conditions and after 3 weeks are | | |

| | | | |pruned to a few centimetres above the top graft (Gentit, | | |

| | | | |2006). Symptoms, in particular chlorotic banding and | | |

| | | | |patterns, are observed on the new growth after 3–4 weeks and| | |

| | | | |must be compared with positive and healthy controls. | | |

|3.1Biological detection and |[18] | |editorial |There is are no quantitative data published on the |For sentence –verb agreement | |

|identification | | | |specificity, sensitivity or reliability of grafting..... | | |

|3.2Serological detection and |[19] | | | | | |

|identification | | | | | | |

|3.2Serological detection and |[20] | | | | | |

|identification | | | | | | |

|3.2Serological detection and |[21] | |editorial |For sample processing, approximately 1 g of fresh plant |Remove the deleted sentence and place as | |

|identification | | | |material is weighed, cut into small pieces and placed in a |a footnote immediately after “…20 volumes| |

| | | | |suitable tube or plastic bag. About 20 volumes of extraction|of extraction buffer” in sentence 2 of | |

| | | | |buffer are added and the sample is homogenized in tubes |this paragraph | |

| | | | |using a Polytron (Kinematica) or similar apparatus. | | |

| | | | |Alternatively, the sample can be homogenized in plastic bags| | |

| | | | |using a tissue homogenizer such as the Homex 6 machine | | |

| | | | |(Bioreba) or a manual roller, hammer, or similar implement. | | |

| | | | |The composition of the extraction buffer is | | |

| | | | |phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) pH 7.2–7.4, containing 2% | | |

| | | | |polyvinylpyrrolidone and 0.2% sodium diethyl dithiocarbamate| | |

| | | | |(Cambra et al., 1994). Plant material should be homogenized | | |

| | | | |thoroughly and used fresh. | | |

|3.2Serological detection and |[22] | |editorial |3.2.1 Double-antibody sandwich indirect enzyme-linked |Consistent formatting | |

|identification | | | |immunosorbent assay (DASI-ELISA) | | |

|3.2Serological detection and |[23] | |editorial |DASI-ELISA, also called triple-antibody sandwich |Correct formatting | |

|identification | | | |(TAS)-ELISA, should be performed according to Cambra et al. | | |

| | | | |al. (1994) using the specific monoclonal antibody 5B-IVIA | | |

| | | | |following the manufacturer’s instructions | | |

|3.2Serological detection and |[24] | |editorial |......The proportion of true negatives (number of true |For consistency with the acronym that has| |

|identification | | | |negatives diagnosed by the technique/number of healthy |already been defined | |

| | | | |plants) identified by DASI-ELISA using the 5B-IVIA | | |

| | | | |monoclonal antibody was 99.0%, compared with real-time | | |

| | | | |RT-PCR using purified nucleic acid (89.2%) or spotted | | |

| | | | |samples (98.0%), or immunocapture IC- RT-PCR (96.1%). Capote| | |

| | | | |et al. (2009) also reported that there is a 98.8% | | |

| | | | |probability that a positive result obtained in winter with | | |

| | | | |DASI-ELISA using the 5B-IVIA monoclonal antibody was a true | | |

| | | | |positive. | | |

|3.2Serological detection and |[25] | | | | | |

|identification | | | | | | |

|3.2Serological detection and |[26] | |editorial |3.2.2 Double-antibody sandwich indirect enzyme-linked |Consistency of formatting | |

|identification | | | |immunosorbent assay (DASI-ELISA) | | |

|3.2Serological detection and |[27] | |editorial |The Cconventional or biotin/streptavidin system of DAS-ELISA|For completeness of the sentence | |

|identification | | | |should be performed using kits based on the specific | | |

| | | | |monoclonal antibody 5B-IVIA or on polyclonal antibodies that| | |

| | | | |have been demonstrated to detect all strains of PPV without | | |

| | | | |cross-reacting with other viruses or healthy plant material.| | |

| | | | |The test should be done according to the manufacturer’s | | |

| | | | |instructions. | | |

|3.2Serological detection and |[28] | | | | | |

|identification | | | | | | |

|3.2Serological detection and |[29] | | | | | |

|identification | | | | | | |

|3.3 Molecular detection and |[30] | | | | | |

|identification | | | | | | |

|3.3 Molecular detection and |[31] | | | | | |

|identification | | | | | | |

|3.3 Molecular detection and |[32] | |technical |Fresh or frozen (stored between −20 °C and −80 °C for |This is the correct time-frame | |

|identification | | | |periods of at least up to one year) plant extracts can be | | |

| | | | |used for molecular tests. ..... | | |

|3.3.1Reverse |[33] | | | | | |

|transcription-polymerase chain| | | | | | |

|reaction (RT-PCR) | | | | | | |

|3.3.1Reverse |[34] | | | | | |

|transcription-polymerase chain| | | | | | |

|reaction (RT-PCR) | | | | | | |

|3.3.1Reverse |[35] | |Editorial |The 25 μl reaction mixture is composed as follows: 1 μM of |Correct way of writing the formula | |

|transcription-polymerase chain| | |editorial |each primer (P1/P2 or the 3′NCR primer pair), 250 μM dNTPs, |Added for clarity | |

|reaction (RT-PCR) | | | |1 unit AMV reverse transcriptase, 0.5 units Taq DNA | | |

| | | | |polymerase, 2.5 μl 10 × Taq polymerase buffer, 1.5 mM | | |

| | | | |MgCl22, and 0.3% Triton X-100. The reaction is performed | | |

| | | | |under the following thermocycling conditions: 45 min at | | |

| | | | |42 °C, 2 min at 94 ºC, 40 cycles of 30 s at 94 °C, 30 s at | | |

| | | | |either 60 °C (P1/P2 primers) or 62 °C (3′NCR primers), 1 min| | |

| | | | |at 72 °C, followed by a final extension for 10 min at 72 °C | | |

| | | | |and then quickly cooled to room temperature. The PCR | | |

| | | | |products are analysed by gel electrophoresis. The P1/P2 and | | |

| | | | |3′NCR primers produce a 243 base pair (bp) and 220 bp | | |

| | | | |amplicon, respectively. | | |

|3.3.1Reverse |[36] | |editorial |....The assay was able to detect 20 fg of viral RNA, |For consistency with the way other | |

|transcription-polymerase chain| | | |corresponding to 2000 2 000 viral particles (Wetzel et al., |figures are written throughout the | |

|reaction (RT-PCR) | | | |1991)..... |document | |

|1.3 Production factors that |[37] | |editorial |3.3.2 Immunocapture Polymerase Reverse Transcription |For consistency | |

|affect risk | | | |Polymerase Chain Reaction (IC-RT-PCR) | | |

|3.3.2 Immunocapture RT-PCR |[38] | | | | | |

|3.3.2 Immunocapture RT-PCR |[39] | |editorial |....Wash the tubes three times with 150 μl of sterile |redundant | |

| | | | |PBS-Tween (washing buffer)..... | | |

|3.3.2 Immunocapture RT-PCR |[40] | | | | | |

|3.3.3Co-operational RT-PCR |[41] | |editorial |3.3.3 Co-operational Reverse Transcription - Polymerase |For consistency | |

| | | | |Chain Reaction (Co-RT-PCR) | | |

|3.3.3Co-operational RT-PCR |[42] | | | | | |

|3.3.3Co-operational RT-PCR |[43] | |1. editorial |The 20 μl reaction mixture is composed as follows: 0.1 μM of|Care to be taken in the final version of | |

| | | |2. editorial |P1 and P2 primers, 0.05 μM of P10 and P20 primers, 400 μM |the draft that the 10 does not fall on a | |

| | | | |dNTPs, 2 units AMV reverse transcriptase, 1 unit Taq DNA |separate line to the x | |

| | | | |polymerase, 2 μl 10 × reaction buffer, 3 mM MgCl22, 5% DMSO,|Correct formula format | |

| | | | |and 0.3% Triton X-100. The reaction mixture and 5 μl of RNA | | |

| | | | |sample are added to a sterile microfuge tube. The RT-PCR is | | |

| | | | |performed under the following thermocycling conditions: 45 | | |

| | | | |min at 42 °C, 2 min at 94 °C, 60 cycles of 15 s at 94 °C, | | |

| | | | |15 s at 50 °C, 30 s at 72 °C, followed by a final extension | | |

| | | | |for 10 min at 72 °C and quickly cooled to room temperature. | | |

|3.3.3Co-operational RT-PCR |[44] | |1.editorial |The RT-PCR reaction is coupled to a colorimetric detection |1.Correct punctuation | |

| | | |2. editorial |of amplicons using a 3´digoxigenin-labelled PPV universal |2. letter case change | |

| | | | |probe (5′-TCG TTT ATT TGG CTT GGA TGG AA-Digoxigenin-3′; | | |

| | | | |Roche Molecular Biochemicals) as follows.: Ddenature the | | |

| | | | |amplified cDNA at 95 °C for 5 min and immediately place on | | |

| | | | |ice. ..... | | |

|3.3.3Co-operational RT-PCR |[45] | | | | | |

|3.3.4Real-time RT-PCR |[46] | | | | | |

|Mitigation Measures | | | | | | |

|3.3.4Real-time RT-PCR |[47] | | | | | |

|Mitigation Measures | | | | | | |

|3.3.4Real-time RT-PCR |[48] | |1& 2. Editorial |The 25 μl reaction mixture is composed as follows: 1 × |1. & 2. Correct formula format | |

|Mitigation Measures | | |3.editorial |reaction mix (0.2mM of each dNTP and 1.2 mM MgSO44), 200 nM |3. better for the parentheses to be of | |

| | | | |of forward and reverse primers, 100 nM TAMRA probe, 4.8 mM |different forms in such instances. | |

| | | | |MgSO44 and 0.5 μl RT/Platinum® Taq mix (Superscript™ | | |

| | | | |One-Step RT-PCR with Platinum® Taq kit [(Invitrogen)]). The | | |

| | | | |reaction mixture and 300 pg of RNA template are added to a | | |

| | | | |sterile microfuge tube or equivalent. The RT-PCR is | | |

| | | | |performed under the following thermocycling conditions: 15 | | |

| | | | |min at 52 °C, 5 min at 95 °C, 60 cycles of 15 s at 95 °C, | | |

| | | | |30 s at 60 °C, and quickly cooled to room temperature. The | | |

| | | | |PCR products are analysed in real-time according to the | | |

| | | | |manufacturer’s instructions. | | |

|3.3.4Real-time RT-PCR |[49] | | | | | |

|Mitigation Measures | | | | | | |

|3.3.4Real-time RT-PCR |[50] | | | | | |

|Mitigation Measures | | | | | | |

|3.3.4Real-time RT-PCR |[51] | | | | | |

|Mitigation Measures | | | | | | |

|3.3.4Real-time RT-PCR |[52] | | | | | |

|Mitigation Measures | | | | | | |

|3.3.4Real-time RT-PCR |[53] | | | | | |

|Mitigation Measures | | | | | | |

|3.3.4Real-time RT-PCR |[54] | | | | | |

|Mitigation Measures | | | | | | |

|3.3.4Real-time RT-PCR |[55] | | | | | |

|Mitigation Measures | | | | | | |

|3.3.4Real-time RT-PCR |[56] | | | | | |

|Mitigation Measures | | | | | | |

|4.Identification of Strains |[57] | |technical |4. Identification of Strains |The strain identification seems to lack | |

| | | | | |some specificity and may not be reliable | |

| | | | | |between laboratories | |

|4.Identification of Strains |[58] | |editorial |The methods described in sections 3.2 and 3.3 for |This sentence is redundant | |

| | | | |serological and molecular detection can also be used for | | |

| | | | |identification of the virus. This section describes | | |

| | | | |additional methods (DASI-ELISA, RT-PCR, Co-RT-PCR and | | |

| | | | |real-time RT-PCR) for identification of PPV strains (see | | |

| | | | |Figure 2). It is not necessary to determine which strain is | | |

| | | | |present in order to identify PPV, but an NPPO may wish to | | |

| | | | |determine the identity of the strain, for example, to assist| | |

| | | | |in predicting its epidemiological behaviour. | | |

|4.Identification of Strains |[59] | | | | | |

|Figure 2 |[60] | | | | | |

|4.Identification of Strains |[61] | | | | | |

|4.1Serological identification |[62] | | | | | |

|of strains | | | | | | |

|4.1Serological identification |[63] | | | | | |

|of strains | | | | | | |

|4.1Serological identification |[64] | | | | | |

|of strains | | | | | | |

|4.1Serological identification |[65] | | | | | |

|of strains | | | | | | |

|4.1Serological identification |[66] | | | | | |

|of strains | | | | | | |

|4.2 Molecular identification |[67] | | | | | |

|of strains | | | | | | |

|4.2.1 RT-PCR |[68] | | | | | |

|4.2.1 RT-PCR |[69] | | | | | |

|4.2.1 RT-PCR |[70] | |editorial |The 25 μl reaction mixture is composed as follows: 1 μM of |Correct formulation format | |

| | | | |P1 primer, 1 μM of either PD or PM primer, 250 μM dNTPs, | | |

| | | | |1 unit AMV reverse transcriptase (10 units μl−1), 0.5 units | | |

| | | | |Taq DNA polymerase (5 units μl−1), 2.5 μl 10 × Taq | | |

| | | | |polymerase buffer, 1.5 mM MgCl22, 0.3% Triton X-100 and 2% | | |

| | | | |formamide. The RT-PCR is performed under the following | | |

| | | | |thermocycling conditions: 45 min at 42 °C, 2 min at 94 °C, | | |

| | | | |40 cycles of 30 s at 94 °C, 30 s at 60 °C, 1 min at 72 °C, | | |

| | | | |followed by a final extension for 10 min at 72 °C and | | |

| | | | |quickly cooled to room temperature. The PCR products are | | |

| | | | |analysed by gel electrophoresis. The P1/PD and P1/PM primers| | |

| | | | |produce a 198 bp amplicon. The method was evaluated using | | |

| | | | |six isolates of PPV-D and four PPV-M isolates. | | |

|4.2.1 RT-PCR |[71] | |editorial |PPV-Rec is identified using the mD5/mM3 Rec-specific primers|Proper format | |

| | | | |described by Šubr et al et al. (2004): | | |

| | | | |mD5 (5′-TAT GTC ACA TAA AGG CGT TCT C-3′) | | |

| | | | |mM3 (5′-CAT TTC CAT AAA CTC CAA AAG AC-3′). | | |

|4.2.1 RT-PCR |[72] | |editorial |The 25 μl reaction mixture is composed as follows (modified |Correct formulation format | |

| | | | |from Šubr et al., 2004): 1 μM of each primer, 250 μM dNTPs, | | |

| | | | |1 unit AMV reverse transcriptase (10 units μl−1), 0.5 units | | |

| | | | |Taq DNA polymerase (5 units μl−1), 2.5 μl 10 × Taq | | |

| | | | |polymerase buffer, 2.5 mM MgCl22, 0.3% Triton X-100 and 5 μl| | |

| | | | |of extracted RNA (see section 3.3). The PCR product of 605 | | |

| | | | |bp is analysed by gel electrophoresis. | | |

|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 RT-PCR |[77] | | | | | |

|4.2.4 Real-time RT-PCR |[78] | | | | | |

|4.2.4 Real-time RT-PCR |[79] | | | | | |

|4.2.4 Real-time RT-PCR |[80] | |1.editorial | The primers and TaqMan probes used in the method of Capote |Correct format | |

| | | |2. editorial |et al et al. (2006) are: |Correct punctuation | |

| | | | |PPV-MGB-F primer (5′-CAG ACT ACA GCC TCG CCA GA-3′) | | |

| | | | |PPV-MGB-R primer (5′-CTC AAT GCT GCT GCC TTC AT-3′) | | |

| | | | |MGB-D probe (5′- FAM-TTC AAC GAC ACC CGT A-MGB-3′) | | |

| | | | |MGB-M probe (5′-FAM-TTC AAC AAC GCC TGT G-MGB-3′). | | |

|4.2.4 Real-time RT-PCR |[81] | | | | | |

|4.2.4 Real-time RT-PCR |[82] | |editorial |PPV-C, PPV-EA and PPV-W are specifically identified using |Correct punctuation | |

| | | | |SYBR Green I chemistry according to the method of Varga and | | |

| | | | |James (2006). The primers used in this method are: | | |

| | | | |P1 (5′-ACC GAG ACC ACT ACA CTC CC-3′) | | |

| | | | |PPV-U (5′-TGA AGG CAG CAG CAT TGA GA-3′) | | |

| | | | |PPV-RR (5′-CTC TTC TTG TGT TCC GAC GTT TC-3′). | | |

|4.2.4 Real-time RT-PCR |[83] | | | | | |

|4.2.4 Real-time RT-PCR |[84] | |editorial |The 25 μl RT-PCR reaction is composed as follows: 2.5 μl of |1. correct formulation format | |

| | | |editorial |a 1/10 water dilution of extracted RNA (see section 3.3) and|2. correct punctuation | |

| | | |editorial |22.5 μl of master mix. The master mix has the following |3. correct punctuation | |

| | | | |composition: 2.5 μl of Karsai Buffer (Karsai et al., 2002); | | |

| | | | |0.5 μl each of 5 μM primers PPV-U, PPV-RR or P1, Nad5R and | | |

| | | | |Nad5F; 0.5 μl of 10 mM dNTPs; 1 μl of 50 mM MgCl22; 0.2 μl | | |

| | | | |of RNaseOUT™ (40 units μl−1; Invitrogen); 0.1 μl of | | |

| | | | |Superscript™ III (200 units μl-1; Invitrogen); 0.1 μl of | | |

| | | | |Platinum® Taq DNA high fidelity polymerase (5 units μl-1, | | |

| | | | |Invitrogen); and 1 μl of 1:5 000 (in TE, pH 7.5) SYBR Green | | |

| | | | |I (Sigma) in 16.1 μl water. The reaction is performed under | | |

| | | | |the following thermocycling conditions: 10 min at 50 °C, | | |

| | | | |2 min at 95 °C, 29 cycles of 15 s at 95 °C, and 60 s at | | |

| | | | |60 °C. Melting curve analysis is performed by incubation at | | |

| | | | |60 °C to 95 °C at 0.1 °C s−1 melt rates with a smooth curve | | |

| | | | |setting averaging 1 point. The melting temperatures for each| | |

| | | | |product are: | | |

| | | | |C strain (74 bp fragment): 79.84 °C | | |

| | | | |EA strain (74 bp fragment): 81.27 °C | | |

| | | | |W strain (74 bp fragment): 80.68 °C. | | |

|4.2.4 Real-time RT-PCR |[85] | | | | | |

|5. Records |[86] | | | | | |

|5. Records |[87] | | | | | |

|5. Records |[88] | | | | | |

|6.Contact Points for Further |[89] | | | | | |

|Information | | | | | | |

|6.Contact Points for Further |[90] | | | | | |

|Information | | | | | | |

|6.Contact Points for Further |[91] | | | | | |

|Information | | | | | | |

|6.Contact Points for Further |[92] | | | | | |

|Information | | | | | | |

|6.Contact Points for Further |[93] | | | | | |

|Information | | | | | | |

|6.Contact Points for Further |[94] | | | | | |

|Information | | | | | | |

|6.Contact Points for Further |[95] | | | | | |

|Information | | | | | | |

|6.Contact Points for Further |[96] | | | | | |

|Information | | | | | | |

|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] | | | | | |

| |(122) | | | | | |

| |(123) | | | | | |

| |(124) | | | | | |

| |(125) | | | | | |

| |(126) | | | | | |

| |(127) | | | | | |

| |(128) | | | | | |

| |(129) | | | | | |

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 ( ) or obtained by e-mail from the IPPC Secretariat on request to IPPC@. 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 IPPC@. 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.

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 ( ).

-----------------------

[1] Agricultural Health and Food Safety

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download