IPPC - International Plant Protection Convention



REVIEW OF THE SEA CONTAINER SURVEY PROPOSAL(Submitted by the Standards Committee subgroup on Sea Containers: Mr John HEDLEY, Ms Julie ALIAGA, Mr Ezequiel FERRO, Mr Alexandre MOREIRA PALMA and Mr Ebbe NORDBO)This document was prepared by C. Duthie (MPI, New Zealand), P. Van der Logt (MPI, New Zealand) and S. Robertson (APHIS, USDA) as advice to the Standards Committee subgroup on Sea Containers.PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to provide the Standards Committee with a summary of presently available information of contamination on the sea container pathway. The information presented is gathered from surveys and interception data, and indicates similar levels of biosecurity contamination worldwide. Across all surveys, and other publications not detailed here, results indicate that the key biosecurity contamination is soil.While the surveys and interceptions presented provide similar results they cannot be statistically compared because of the different methods used. However, the survey method contained in New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) 2006 report (presented below) could be repeated after the adoption of a standard to verify the efficacy of measures contained in the standard as a before and after study.It is recommended that the information presented in this document be used to support the development and adoption of an ISPM on Minimizing pest movement by sea containers (2008-001). Given that the available information is comprehensive and robust, it is not recommended that an additional survey be conducted. The nature of the proposed voluntary survey would present significant difficulties in interpreting the results because it would not be on a comparable basis and is not likely to provide much meaningful information additional to the results presented here, without a far more comprehensive survey design.However, if it was deemed necessary to conduct a worldwide survey prior to the implementation of the standard, suggestions for a statistically robust survey are presented.BackgroundFor the purpose of this document the term ‘contamination’ will refer to pests, regulated articles, contamination and contaminating pests as defined by the IPPC; additionally it will refer to other organisms that are not necessarily plant pests (such as spiders and ants) and to environmental contamination such as soil and plant debris. Given that the presence of any contamination on a sea container can be indicative of a breakdown in hygiene, storage, transport and inspection systems, where these exist, designed to keep containers free of pests, other items are also included. Soil and plant debris may harbour nematodes, bacteria and fungi injurious to plants and, therefore, are also anisms associated with sea containers have an opportunistic rather than a biological host relationship with the sea container. These are often called hitchhiker organisms or contaminating pests. As these organisms are randomly associated with the sea container it can be difficult to predict the biosecurity risk. Contamination associated with the cargo is not considered in this document. Contamination that leaves the cargo and becomes associated with the sea container or is a residue of the cargo itself (e.g. grain) is considered to be contamination.Contaminating pests and other organisms are often small, cryptic in nature or unpredictable in occurrence. Organisms present on a sea container may have been picked up on previous voyages or from previous cargoes, and thus are not predictable based on the current voyage, port of origin or type of cargo. Contamination typically occurs at low frequencies on the sea container pathway. However the high volume of sea container movements translates this low frequency infestation into a high likelihood of entry. Therefore low frequency for any one species does not necessarily mean a low likelihood of incursions overall. Furthermore, interception of an organism may not be well correlated with the likelihood that the organism will become established. Biology and other factors play large and often unknown rmation on the association with sea containers and the identity of this contamination is gathered mostly from interception records and some targeted surveys. These records and associated surveys provide valuable information on the contamination rate and the classification of risk organism groups (e.g. soil, insects, spiders, plant material) on the sea container pathway. Key points from available informationThe risks associated with sea containers are diverse and not likely to be completely mitigated by a single measure applied to all. Information from available surveys and interception records indicate that the key areas of possible control appear to be: Shipping companies providing clean sea containers to usersExporters and packing operators ensuring no contamination occurs during packing and storageThe national plant protection organization (NPPO) of the importing country ultimately inspecting at arrival (at import or post-import).Risk mitigation measures should be integrated into each step of the sea container packing, loading and management processes.Risk profiling can sometimes be used to determine the level of intervention required on arrival in the importing country. However, the data indicates there is limited opportunity for profiling sea containers by risk country or port. The port of loading does not always indicate the origin of the sea container’s contents or where it was packed and containers may carry contamination from previous voyages and other sources. Studies show that a four-sided external inspection is inadequate to determine the external cleanliness of a sea container. The roof does not appear to be a significant source of biosecurity risk; however, the underside is the most heavily contaminated part of the sea container. Summary of available survey informationTwo available surveys have comprehensive information on survey methods and the percentage of sea containers with contamination. These are MAF 2003 (11?265 sea containers examined over one year) and MAF 2006 (1?515 sea containers examined over ten days). In addition to these two surveys conducted in New Zealand, with detailed methods and results, general information is available from a survey conducted in Australia (38?314 sea containers examined over one year).The important point to note from these surveys is the number of sea containers sampled over the survey period. The two surveys that were conducted over one year (MAF 2003 and Australia) targeted around 5% of imported sea containers. These year-long surveys have the advantage of capturing sea containers originating in a wider range of countries than surveys with a more limited time frame; additionally they had the ability to show the potential seasonal variation in contamination. The ten day survey (MAF 2006) which targeted 100% of imported sea containers had a sample size of 1?515, which is a sufficient number to generate some meaningful data, and provided sufficient information to compare with surveys previously done in this port.MAF 2003Surveys were conducted over one year at the ports of Auckland, Tauranga, Napier and Lyttelton in New Zealand by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (now the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI)). The sample sizes represent 5% of loaded and 2% of empty sea containers landed at the target ports during the survey period. All four accessible exterior sides were examined. The tops and undersides of containers were not examined in this survey.The exterior of 11?265 sea containers were surveyed (10?345 loaded and 920 empty)467 loaded containers were contaminated (4.5%)18 empty containers were contaminated (2%).Types of contamination:Soil – 4.9% Seeds – 0.2%Live insects – 0.2%Live spiders – 0.2%Plant material – 0.5%.MAF 2006This survey was part of a review of the sea container pathway and was conducted on the wharf at Auckland, New Zealand by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry over ten days between 4 and 17 September 2006. Checkpoints were set up at each departure gate and, where possible, all sea container trucks departing for inland movements were stopped and directed to an inspection area. This sampling regime resulted in almost 100% of landed sea containers being inspected during the survey period. All visible and accessible exterior sides of the sea container were inspected for contamination, including the roof and underside, where possible, the fork lift slots, and twist-lock lugs. Contamination was removed (where possible) and sent to the appropriate laboratory for identification. Sea containers with no contamination were released. 1?515 sea containers were surveyed externally (1?440 loaded and 75 empty)254 loaded sea containers were contaminated (17.6%)17 empty sea containers were contaminated (22.7%)Location of contamination:Underside – 44%Lower ledges – 27%Sides – 9%Forkhoist slots – 6%Roof – 5%Twist lock holes – 2%Reefer power unit – 0.02%.Types of contamination:Live organisms – 2.7% (e.g. eggs, arthropods, snails)Environmental contaminants – 17.8% (soil, plant material, seeds, feathers)Cargo residues – 4% (e.g. stored products or grain)Dead organisms – 1.4% (e.g. eggs, arthropods, snails).In addition to this wharf gate survey the efficacy of inspection (slippage) was assessed on this pathway. Slippage is the presence of contamination remaining on the sea containers after biosecurity inspection; this contamination may then enter the country on sea containers which have been given biosecurity clearance. Slippage was assessed on sea containers from both Auckland and Tauranga. The survey measured the contamination rate of sea containers at storage facilities after biosecurity inspection at the ports to determine the level of slippage. Of the sea containers imported as empty, 164 were surveyed at the storage facility; of these, four (2%) were found to be contaminated after biosecurity clearance. AQIS 1999This survey was conducted in the high volume Australian ports of Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane by the Australian Quarantine Inspection Service (AQIS). From February 1998 to January 1999 a total of 38?314 sea containers were inspected representing 5.1% of total sea container movements.The results show that of these sea containers 17.16% were contaminated externally with matter that is considered a quarantine risk by AQIS (soil, grain, organic matter, live snails). Approximately 1 million sea containers per year enter Australia. The data indicates a detection rate of 17%. This equates to approximately 170?000 sea containers entering the country each year which have external contamination of quarantine concern. The main concern is soil contamination. Summary of Available Interception InformationInterception information from other countries provides information on the location and types of contamination. However, given the differences between inspection procedures and reporting, this information is indicative only and unable to be used quantitatively or comparatively. In addition, some interceptions detailed below detected contamination inside packed containers; this may not discriminate between the cargo pathway and the sea container pathway. Organisms intercepted at the border are sometimes identified and recorded, usually during the biosecurity clearance process or as part of a monitoring survey. These records are extremely valuable because they demonstrate an actual rather than a theoretical association with a pathway for both live and dead organisms. However, there are significant limitations to their use, and both relative and absolute numbers of interception records are largely meaningless. Some of the reasons interception data cannot be used quantitatively are:Not every organism on a pathway is detected. It is estimated that even rigorous quarantine inspections probably only find 19-50% of associated species, depending on the pathway. Detection rates are likely to vary greatly depending on the biological characteristics of the taxa involved e.g. cryptic behaviour and body size. The sampling protocols used are also influential.Not every organism detected is recorded or identified.The same interception may be recorded in multiple locations and duplications can occur.Search effort can vary.The level and reliability of identifications can vary.The viability or life stage of an organism may not be recorded, or may be inaccurately recorded. Additionally, entry pathways are subject to different levels (in terms of frequency and intensity) of quarantine inspection, identification and recording. Many interceptions are not identified taxonomically by species and post border interceptions generally rely on public reporting. For the reasons detailed above absence of interceptions cannot be taken as evidence of absence on the pathway. New ZealandDuring a one year period from March 2012 to March 2013 a total of 239?213 empty sea containers were imported into New Zealand from 131 different ports in 52 countries. The top five countries of loading by volume were Australia (76?501 sea containers imported), Singapore (19?694 sea containers imported), Malaysia (17?113 sea containers imported), New Caledonia (12?027 sea containers imported) and French Polynesia (10?886 sea containers imported). 30?638 of the total number of imported empty sea containers were inspected. A summary of interceptions during this period gave the following information:13% of all empty sea containers arriving in New Zealand were inspected All external sides, including the underside, were inspected6% of inspected sea containers were contaminated53% of contamination was on the underside52% of all contamination was soil23% of all contamination was plant material.Source: MPI internal data retrieved November 2013.United States of AmericaGeneral interception informationUnited States agricultural inspectors inspect sea containers based on the manifests and the pest risk associated with cargo. Inspectors very rarely inspect empty sea containers. No US surveys of sea containers have been conducted per se, but the United States does maintain interception records of all contamination found on incoming commodities, conveyances, etc., a large portion of which arrive by sea container. These records focused on organisms only and not other contaminants such as soil. For some 6?000 pest interceptions since 1985, the host was marked “Container.” This normally occurs when contamination is found in a sea container, but not directly associated with the commodity in the sea container. A summary of available information from the USDA gave the following relative frequencies of contamination found at large in infested sea containers:Mollusks – 47.2%Plants – 41.6%Insects – 0.2%Spiders – 0.2%Fungi – 0.1%Mites – 0.1%.Source: Personal communication to Catherine Duthie from Shawn Robertson, USDA, November 2013.Specific interception informationIn Miami, USA, in 2002, eight (6%) out of a sample of 130 sea containers from one country holding tiles were found to be contaminated with pests – on the inside or outside of the sea containers. Source: Personal communication to John Hedley from the USDA-APHIS-PPQ Maritime Work Unit, Miami, FloridaAlso in Miami, USA, in 2000, 26.8% out of a sample of 103 sea containers from one country holding tiles was found to be contaminated with pests – on the inside or outside of the sea containers.Source: Personal communication to John Hedley from the USDA-APHIS-PPQ Maritime Work Unit, Miami, Florida.Central and South America In Honduras in 2010, the total number of contaminating pests found on sea container floors was 2?454 (of these 2?370 were live); in 2011 the total number of contaminating pests found on sea container floors was 6?089 (of these 949 were live); and in 2012 the total number of contaminating pests found on sea container floors was 10?441 (of these 1?443 were live).In Costa Rica, there were 44 pest interceptions on sea containers between 2007 and 2010.In Mexico, there were 10 pest interceptions on sea containers in 2012.In a number of ports in Guatemala in 2010 a total of 933 contaminating pests were intercepted; in 2011 a total of 686 contaminating pests were intercepted; and in 2012 a total of 1?250 contaminating pests were intercepted. Source: Personal communication to John Hedley from Ms Ana Lilia Montealegre Lara, Standards Committee representative from Mexico. ChinaIn Fuqing port, Fujian Province, China between January 2008 and September 2010 a total of 18.145 repositioned sea containers arrived and were examined (7% of the total sea container movement at this port). Interception data showed that there were 994 interceptions of 295 species of which 17 species were quarantine pests and these were intercepted 47 times. Source: Personal communication to John Hedley from Ms Guanghao Gu, member of the expert working group on sea containers.Suggested Survey ProtocolObjectives of surveyThe objectives of the survey are to estimate the degree of interior and exterior contamination of some populations of empty sea containers.The degree of contamination consists of the proportion of contaminated sea containers against all containers inspected.Target population: All empty sea containers Study population:Empty sea containers (either arriving empty or emptied after arrival)Despatched from major ports Inspected after arrival in the importing countryGeneralisationThe intention of a survey is to be able to generalise the findings to all sea containers. A wide variety of factors affects the contamination of sea containers. They include but are not limited to:port of loadingconditions of storage and packingshipping routeprevious shipping routeseason and weather conditionsprevious contents of the container.For practical reasons only a limited number of factors can be taken into account during this survey. DefinitionsThere are two categories of empty sea containers: (i) repositioned empty sea containers, and (ii) those that are emptied after arrival in the importing country. In regard to this latter category, it is noted that contamination associated with the cargo is not considered in this survey. However, where contamination that leaves the cargo and becomes associated with the sea container or is a residue of the cargo itself (e.g. grain), this is considered to be contamination that should be included in the survey.Contamination may include organisms that have quarantine status in the importing country, but given that this is a worldwide survey and the quarantine status of organisms varies between countries it is not necessary for the organism to have quarantine status to be considered as contamination. Inspection proceduresIn order to acquire data that are meaningful, inspection procedures must meet the following requirements to ensure comparability:Inspection is to be carried out by impartial trained inspectors.Inspection is to be carried out under similar (or defined) conditions with regard to: inspection timeinspection procedureslight intensitydefinition and quantification measures of contamination.No less than one container per day should be inspected during the available working days in the study period.The total number of containers inspected (as determined by the sample size) should be, where possible, spread evenly over the duration of the survey.Containers must be randomly chosen for inspection (random tables or computer programmes can be used for this purpose).All six sides of the interior and the exterior of the sea container must be inspected.External inspection must be a full six-sided inspection, where possible, with container stands or similar used to inspect the underside.Sample sizeA critical question is to what degree the findings of this survey can be generalised to the worldwide sea container population. Containers loaded with electrical equipment in a cold climate while positioned on concrete are less likely to be contaminated than those with agricultural products in a tropical climate while positioned on soil, and therefore constitute different populations and should be sampled separately. In simple terms, there are two different types of sea container populations: one is the population of containers leaving a country, the second is the containers arriving in a country. The latter consists of a number of subpopulations (i.e. containers coming from different countries).Full stratification based on all relevant factors for calculating the sample sizes is not feasible. Under practical conditions containers can be inspected from a ‘reasonable’ pre-established range of countries, where inspection is evenly spread over a one year period; alternatively an adequate number of containers can be inspected in a number of importing countries and the country of origin and seasonal information recorded to be used as factors in the subsequent analysis of the survey. It is suggested that each participating country provide an estimate of the total number of containers imported over the survey period and that this number should constitute the population size for that importing country. From this population a sample size will be calculated.Generally speaking the following information is required to establish a required sample size:ssea container population sizeexpected contamination prevalence (ranging from 2% to 20% based on previous studies)expected error (set at 2%)level of confidence (set at 95%).The population size is a set number equal to the total number of imported sea containers in the given survey period. Values to be used for the other three factors are subjective, based on what is acceptable to the user as well as what is achievable under practical conditions. The level of confidence is kept at the commonly used value of 95%. The table below is an example how these factors affect the sample size. However more specific information is needed before finalisation of the sample size for this survey.Population size10?000 1?00010?0001?00010?0001?000Expected contamination prevalence (%)20%20%10%10%2%2%Accepted error (%)2%2%2%2%2%2%Level of confidence (%)95%95%95%95%95%95%Sample size1333607796464185159ReportingA standardised reporting form has been provided (see example in Annex 1) to be filled in for each container inspected. These forms should be sent to the IPPC Secretariat as a bundle at the end of the survey period.If a full six-sided external inspection is not possible, results from a four-sided external inspection may be extrapolated using data from the MAF survey. This information indicates that contamination on the external underside of the container is between 44% and 53% of the total external contamination and contamination on the external roof is 5% of the total external contamination. Recommendations to the SC:The SC is invited to:Consider the information presented in this paper and, based on this information, decide on the way forward.Annex 1 – Example of empty sea containers survey form Importing country: Inspecting facility/institution: Contact name/e-mail/phone: Container port of origin: Date of inspection:For each container inspected, fill in the following table (several boxes per column may be ticked, as appropriate). For location of contamination please provide a description of location if necessary (e.g. forkhoist slots). For organisms not identified please provide a description of the contamination (e.g. feathers, soil, dead snails, live ants and spiders). Once this survey form is completed, please send to the IPPC Secretariat: ippc@CONTAMINATION FINDINGS (TICK AS APPROPRIATE)LOCATION OF CONTAMINANTCONTAMINATION TYPEInteriorExterior top Exterior sidesExterior bottomNo contaminationDescription of location:____________________________Live organisms (e.g. eggs, arthropods, snails)Environmental contaminants (e.g. soil, plant material, seeds, feathers)Cargo residues (e.g. stored products or grain) Dead organisms (e.g. eggs, arthropods, snails) Other Description:____________________________________________________ If organism was identified: (Provide scientific name / genus or species. Please, also indicate, when possible, whether it is a quarantine pest for the importing country) ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download