Regional Technical Consultation On



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

Southwest Pacific

Nadi, Fiji

06 – 10 August 2007

Report

1. Opening of the session

The meeting began with the opening prayer conducted by Mr. Ilaitia Boa acting Principal Agricultural Officer, Fiji Quarantine & Inspection Division, Ministry of Agriculture Fiji.

Mr. Sidney Suma (Adviser & Coordinator, Biosecurity & Trade Support Land Resources Division, Secretariat of the Pacific Community - SPC) began his opening remarks by welcoming all participants including the three IPPC Standard Committee members to Fiji. He informed that no official arrangement for the opening of the meeting was made, but planned for the usual opening remarks from representatives of PPPO / SPC, FAO SAPA and IPPC Standard Committee member. Mr. Suma then invited FAO SAPA to the floor.

The FAO SAPA plant protection officer (Dr M. Purea) made his opening remarks by welcoming all participants and IPPC Standard Committee members to the 2007 review of Draft ISPM meeting in Nadi. He pointed out that the 2007 draft standard meeting was extremely important and essential to the IPPC standard setting process. Purea informed that the workshop provided opportunities for Pacific Island member countries to discuss and review these draft international standards for phytosanitary measures which in turn improved member’s understandings of the measures and potential implications on respective countries. He concluded by expressing appreciation to all participants for attending. Purea thanked SPC / PPPO (Mr. Sidney Suma and supporting staff) for organizing the 2007 Draft ISPM meeting.

Dr John Hedley (IPPC Standard Committee member) made his opening remarks by welcome all participants to the meeting. He reported on the Draft ISPM Asia meeting, held recently in Korea and shared some of his experiences and views on issues such as future funding of the Draft ISPM meeting. He said that it was very important for all member countries in the region to be aware of the decline in funding support to many of the IPPC programmes including the Review of Draft ISPM meetings. He said that the FAO Director General had made it clear that available funds in FAO were mainly for the FAO core programmes and that member countries should be encouraged to contribute to IPPC programmes by funding their own costs to these meetings. Dr Hedley suggested one of the ways for funding would be to look into FAO technical assistance programme such as Technical Cooperation Programme (TCP) to start preparing project proposals for ISPM projects in the region. He concluded by thanking SPC for organizing the 2007 Draft ISPM meeting.

The meeting was attended by 3 Standards Committee experts from Australia, New Zealand and Tonga plus 13 other PPPO member countries from the region. Three member countries were unable to attend due to unforeseen circumstances. The meeting was facilitated by M. Purea and S. Suma of FAO SAPA and Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC).

2. Purpose of the workshop

The FAO Regional Plant Protection Officer M. Purea presented an outlined on the main purpose of this workshop as follows:

• to provide participants from countries in each FAO region with a regional forum to discuss the draft International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPMs). These discussions would help participants gain a better understanding of the national and regional impact of these proposed standards and provide a basis for the development and submission of national comments.

• to bring together IPPC contracting parties in the Southwest Pacific region:

– to review the ISPMs

– discuss openly, exchange of views on the Draft Standards

• To assist contracting parties in the preparation of comments on draft ISPMs prior to submitting these comments to the IPPC Standard Committee

• To formulate recommendations to assist with the development of national comments on the drafts

• To assist countries in the region prepare a consolidated comment on these Draft ISPMs and to review regional recommendations

• To give contracting party the opportunity

- Call for topics for standard setting work programme topics

- Call for experts to take part in drafting ISPMs

- Topics for consideration at future workshops

• This year IPPC introduced the topic related to:

Issues relating to the implementation of ISPMs

- To get feed back from contracting parties (Countries) e.g. on ISPM 13, “Guidelines for the notification of non-compliance and emergency action”

- For countries to prepare a brief on their experiences on the implementation of ISPM 13. (ref Agenda 7

This year’s workshop covered the following draft ISPMs:

• Amendments to the Glossary of phytosanitary terms (Steward: John Hedley-New Zealand)

• Debarked and bark-free wood (supplement to ISPM No. 5) (presented by David Porritt of Australia)

• Establishment of areas of low pest prevalence for fruit flies (presented by David Porritt of Australia)

• Classification of commodities (presented by John Hedley-New Zealand)

• Sampling of consignments (presented by David Porritt of Australia)

• Developing a strategy to reduce or replace the use of methyl bromide (presented by David Porritt of Australia)

3. Overview of the IPPC

M. Purea Plant Protection Officer gave the presentation on the overview of the IPPC, the CPM and its associated bodies and the standard setting process. Main points covered were:

• The Convention (IPPC)

• Framework of the IPPC, CPM and the Process for the Development of Standards

• Implications of the SPS Agreement

• Organizational framework - CPM, IPPC Secretariat, RPPOs, other bodies

• International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPMs) and work programme

• Capacity building

• Information exchange

• Technical assistance and the PCE

• Website contact

During discussion time the Plant Protection Officer seeked the assistance of the Standard committee experts (David Porritt and John Hedley) in explaining the Standard setting process. The experts outlined the work program and reviewed the meetings of the expert working groups and outlined how members of the South West Pacific region could participate on these expert working groups.

They reminded and informed that the ISPM review meeting was to assist countries in the preparation of their comments on the above draft ISPMs. The experts gave instructions for country official comments to be submitted to the IPPC Secretariat via the national IPPC contact point before the deadline of 30 September 2007. Questions were raised from the floor on the issue of PCE training scheduled for late October early November 2007 in Nukualofa, Tonga. Mr. Suma informed that Dr Jeff Jones and Richard Ives from the IPPC Secretariat in Rome would be the two main experts who will implement this PCE training. Other issue raised was “Fast Track” processing of standard setting programme. David Porritt responded informing that some of the standards would be sent out (sent earlier in June this year) for consultation through fast track process e.g. the standard on Diagnostic protocols for regulated pest - Thrips palmi.

Group Photo

The meeting group photo was taken at the sport Fale prior to morning tea.

4. Adoption of the agenda

Mr. Sidney Suma facilitated this session on the adoption of the Agenda. The agenda was discussed and adopted (see Appendix 1). Mr. Suma informed that the chairperson position was to be shared between M. Purea of FAO SAPA and S. Suma of SPC who also share facilitating of the meeting. It was also agreed that the reporting activities of the meeting sessions would also be shared. The Agenda and working time was agreed and adopted by the meeting.

5. Review of documents and discussion on draft ISPMs

The participants agreed that the best approach in carrying out the review of the draft ISPMs was to discuss these in the main group format (plenary session) due to many limiting capacities (i.e. not many Pacific Island officer’s have in-depth knowledge on some of the issues in Standard processes) in some of the Standard subject matters.

The following five draft standards and amendments to the Glossary (ISPM No. 5) were reviewed and comments were recorded. The format on the Standard discussion started with the power point presentations which were presented by members of the Standard Committee. Two of the Standard Committee member attended the Standard Committee meeting earlier this year and were well aware of issues on most of the listed draft standards under consultation. After each presentation the floor was opened for discussions and important comments were recorded. These viewpoints and comments were recorded directly onto the Templates as required.

The following sections captured the main discussion points for each of the draft ISPMs.

5.1 Amendments to the Glossary of phytosanitary terms (ISPM No. 5)

There were general comments on the usefulness of the Glossary as some of the countries in the region use it widely as reference in biological control terms in relation to drafting of legislation. There were discussions on the definition of “severity” and “incidence” on how they can be used in relation the two concepts. Other issues on definitions of “Tolerance level” and “Prevalence” were also discussed.

5.2 Debarked and bark-free wood (supplement to ISPM No. 5)

For general comments it was noted and agreed during discussions that specific information from this standard should be included in ISPM 15 or the “wood” standard. There were long discussions on the definition of “de-barked wood” and “Bark-free wood.” Most of the participants agreed for the word “exception” to be removed from the definition in the glossary. In relation to Background the meeting agreed for paragraph 3 to be removed as it doesn’t provide technical justification for the use of measures requiring that wood be debarked or bark free. According to the two Standard Committee experts it was intended to provide guidance to NPPOs. There were other editorial / substantive types of comments in the following paragraphs: 2nd para, 1st sentence, para 5 1st sentence, etc as recorded in the templates.

5.3 Establishment of areas of low pest prevalence for fruit flies (Tephritidae)

There were long discussions on General Background in relation to terms used in this standard. It was not consistent. There was a need to mention somewhere in the text SPS i.e. article 6. Suggestion was made to include various types of hosts e.g. primary host, secondary host, biologically preferred, biologically non-preferred, etc. Comments were also made on the Background which appears to be confusing with the language especially in 1st para 2nd line, also 2nd para last sentence. Under 2.2.2 there was suggestion that NPPO should ensure that environment balance is considered in their measures. There were long discussions on 2.5.1 – Suspension of FF – ALPP status. Suspension may apply if faults were in the procedures.

5.4 Classification of commodities into phytosanitary risk categories

At first there were some discussions on this document as not fitting to be a Standard but rather a supplementary guideline for the classification of commodities into phytosanitary risk categories. Under General comments from the outcome of the discussion agreed that there is need to edit and reword some of the paragraphs through out the document e.g. there should be relationship between Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4 should be re-evaluated.. All agreed that category 1 was the most risky. All categories need further clarity.

5.5 Sampling of consignments

General comments – for this standard need NPPO to have some basic Statistics or Biometrics understanding to be able to satisfactorily assess it. All agreed for the need of an explanatory document with some examples to assist NPPO to understand this standard and to make constructive comments.

5.6 Developing a strategy to reduce or replace the use of methyl bromide

During General discussions the meeting felt that this document was very valuable and should be presented to the CPM as a policy document for endorsement rather than as a standard. The document would need to be reformatted appropriately. It was also suggested by the meeting that this revised document should include: - strategy document for NPPOs (including most of the present document), the development of a range of standards e.g. monitoring, capture technology, effective fumigation technology etc - the development of a range of standards e.g. monitoring, capture technology, effective fumigation technology etc.

There were also discussions on the following issues: (i) Alternatives to Methyl Bromide, (ii) on legislation affecting Environment, (iii) section 5 that talks about encouraging the control use of Methyl Bromide.

Detail technical and editorial comments are inserted in the templates on the draft ISPMs and these comments are attached to the report (see Annex III). Participants were informed to take note of the comments collected at this workshop and utilize these comments as they felt appropriate in their preparation of national comments. Participants were also informed that their National comments should be submitted through the NPPO contact point to the IPPC Secretariat no later than 30 September 2007

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

The IPPC standard setting work programme was presented by M. Purea and supported by S. Suma and three standard committee experts.

6.1 Call for work programme topics

The biennial calls for new topics for the work programme was made in June 2007, for which submission were due in to the IPPC Secretariat no later than 31 July 2007. Purea opened this session for discussion and requested the meeting participants for suggestions of topics. Participants were encouraged to discuss priorities for future standards with their colleagues and submit topics to the Secretariat. He reminded that the due date for submitting had passed already but asked for the meeting to prepare a list for forwarding to IPPC secretariat in Rome. One of the first topics suggested for the list was from SPC on Phytosanitary Risk Management (for definition). FSM suggested for the movement of soil, aggregates, and sand and movement of Military equipment and supplies. New Zealand put forward separately the topic on Guideline for all containers to be managed strictly i.e. protection of containers from pests movement (Sea container movement) e.g. external surfaces, twist lock fittings, etc, to ensure containers don’t spread diseases around the globe. Niue suggested topic on movement of Used Equipment and Container boat water balance water discharge spreading of alien sea weeds, etc. Vanuatu suggested topic on Guidelines for disposal of garbage from tourist boats, etc. Cook Islands suggested whether labeling could be included as topic for discussion i.e. commodity labeling. Comments from one of the Standard committee informed that IPPC deals mainly with plant issues. Fiji suggested for guidelines on Emergency after cyclones. Other topics suggested were: - Guidelines for disposal of non compliance e.g. for fish, chickens, etc, - Guidelines for Chemical treatment for seeds, cutting, etc, - Guidelines for preventing the movement of Ants, - Guidelines for HTFA treatment of produce for control of Fruit Flies. (see Table 1: List of suggested topics)

Table 1: List of suggested topics.

| |Sea container cleanliness – ISPM – Submitted |

| |Phytosanitary risk management – definition |

| |Guidelines for garbage disposal from international conveyances (e.g., ships and aircraft) - ISPM |

| |Guidelines for methods of disposal of non-compliant consignments – ISPM |

| |Guidelines for the movement of relief supplies following a natural disaster (including pre-clearance) – ISPM |

| |Use of HTFA for fruit flies (Tephritidae) – Treatment |

| |Guidelines for chemical treatment of plants, seeds, seedlings and cuttings - Treatment |

| | |

| |Movement of Military machinery – Regional |

| |Movement of bulk soil, aggregates, sand, etc – Regional |

| |Guidelines for controlling movement of ants as contaminating pests – Regional |

| | |

| |Commodity labeling (in appropriate language) – Codex? |

| |Ballast Water – Existing international agreement? |

| | |

|Submitted |Sea container cleanliness – ISPM – Submitted |

|Codex |Commodity labeling (language) – Codex? |

|Ballast water |Ballast Water – Existing international agreement? |

|agreement | |

|Regional |Movement of aggregates, sand, etc – Regional |

6.2 Call for experts to take part in drafting ISPMs

M. Purea introduced this topic informing that notice on this particular subject was forwarded to all participants in July 2007. New Zealand informed that they have made nominations already. This session went through without any expert suggestions from the Pacific Islands.

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

M. Purea introduced this session reminding participants that information on this subject matter was sent by e-mail in July for participants to prepare briefs on their experiences on ISPM 13 (Guidelines for the notification of non-compliance and emergency action), adopted in 2001, describing how they implemented this standard and in particular outlining problems they faced with the implementation and what solutions they found to solve their problems.

Summary of discussions

All member countries made verbal presentation on their experiences in the implementation of ISPM 13.

New Zealand was first to present a Power Point presentation on it’s activities regarding ISPM 13 in the area of Phytosanitary Certificate Issues especially when a Certificate was issued wrongly. The importer is notified and required to re-issue the correct Certificate. Notification would be forwarded to the exporting NPPO if non-compliance continued.

Cooks reported on the Glassy winged Sharp Shooter. Firstly, Cook Islands reported (send notification) to NZ, Australia, to all the Pacific Island countries including IPPC Secretariat in Rome on the new pest discovered on the island of Rarotonga, Cook Islands. Eradication is in progress.

The Federated States of Micronesia (FSM) reported few incidences of breach to their biosecurity with the US military equipment and machineries. Notification was issued to the US military but they did not comply. Other breaches on wood borer and Fruit Flies; a notification was issued to Palau to comply.

Fiji received notification from New Zealand on a Yacht from Spain bound for Fiji, Tonga and New Zealand warning on Fire Ants. Fiji made an emergency plan in responding to this notification from New Zealand.

Tuvalu made a complaint on Mangoes from Fiji after discovering Mango seed borer. Suspension of Mango export from Fiji was given due to non compliance.

For Niue, it was reported that no experience or reporting on this ISPM 13.

Palau reported that they have no export commodities but do have economic Fruit Flies. Most of the imports come from the USA. Palau reported that the Government wanted to import from the Philippines due to cheaper export from the Philippines.

PNG reported interception of prohibited citrus seeds from Australia. Notification was send to Queensland reminding on the seed treatment but did not comply. These seeds were destroyed for not complying. Other commodities such as medicinal plants were also destroyed for non compliance.

For Samoa, it was reported that “Notification” was one area that Samoa need improvement. Not much was done on notification. For exports Samoa receive notification from Export Agents but not from the NPPO authorities.

Solomon Island reports on the incidence of the Giant African Snail (GAS) in one concentrated location on the island. Surveillance was organized to assess the negative impact of GAS. SPC provides technical assistance. On the issue of exports of timber to Australia, Solomon reported having lots of problems in Australia when the timber arrived via contained with many pests accompanying the timbers. There was no official notification issued from the Australian authorities.

Tonga reports that it uses telephone communication for notifying of clients in New Zealand. For exports when Tonga received notification on non compliance, Tonga tries to fix it to comply to importing countries requirements. In most cases the non compliance was caused from issuance of certificates.

Vanuatu reported that they have not ratified IPPC but are getting closer to finalizing documents as it goes through Cabinet.

New Caledonia imports most of their produce from New Zealand and Australia. Currently New Caledonia is having problems with Mangoes from Mexico brought into the region via New Zealand. Mangoes fumigated with Methyl Bromide. New Caledonia has no problems with export.

Wallis reported no activities with regards to ISPM 13. Wallis imported everything and inspection is carried out at the sea and airports.

8. Other issues

M. Purea invited S. Suma to introduce the 2 new subjects under Agenda 8 which were South Pacific games and quarantine awareness and regional standards.

8.1 South Pacific Games and Quarantine Awareness.

Kirifi Pouono was invited to brief the meeting on Samoa’s quarantine awareness plan for the Pacific Games which is to take place in Apia Samoa starting 25th August to 15th September 2007. Pouono informed that there would be lots of sport teams visit Samoa within the next 2 weeks for the South Pacific Games and he suggested for all officers participating at this Draft ISPM workshop to communicate with their country teams in preparing and providing quarantine information prior to departing for the games in Samoa. He said that the Government of Samoa has given instructions for each sport team to be cleared (i.e. Immigration, Customs and Quarantine) within 30 minutes. He suggested perhaps for the teams to pack their luggage in way easy for the Samoa Quarantine officer’s to inspect.

The second part of the Quarantine Awareness was conducted by Mr. Emil Adams (Information Officer for SPC). Mr. Adams distributed DVDs to country participants for them to take these to be given to TV stations in their respective countries to be telecast for the public to see and be aware of the Quarantine issues during the upcoming South Pacific Games in Apia Samoa. Telecast funding for airing via TV was provided by SPC.

8.2 Regional Standards

Mr. Suma facilitated this session. First there were advisory comments from John Hedley (SC) on the issue on Regional Standards. He said that PPPO should set up a system like a mini IPPC. This means that the PPPO executives needed to discuss among its members before going ahead adopting a system.

Mr. Suma informed that Mr. Sam Panapa of Tuvalu did a case study assignment during 3 months training earlier this year and had produced a draft. Suma suggested for the meeting to look at this draft and build the rest from it.

9. Next steps

M. Purea facilitated this session and participants were asked to share their views on the future running of regional workshops for the review of draft ISPMs. Purea outlined the important points and invited suggestions, comments, etc for open discussions.

9.1 Organization of future regional workshops on draft ISPMs

Purea listed the following points for discussion:

• Ideas for how future workshops could be organized:

o Regions take over organization and running of workshops. (The meeting agrees for FAO SAPA and SPC to continue organizing)

o What institution to use for the workshop (PPPO SPC, FAO regional offices, host country, etc.) The Meeting suggested for the 3 partners (PPPO, SPC and FAO SAPA to continue).

o Different places to hold the workshop to reduce costs. (Tonga volunteered to host the next Review of Draft Standards)

o Ideas for other topics that could be covered during the workshops (e.g. include a field trip to see how other countries implement ISPMs) (The meeting agrees with field trip as previously done during past meetings)

o Formation of a steering committee to coordinate workshop (including selection of Chair, Vice-Chair, assigning of duties to each steering committee member, deadlines, etc.) There was some discussion on this issue during plenary. Samoa suggested using the PPPO Executive Committee to be the Steering Committee and to coordinate the ISPM workshop / meeting. The above suggestions by IPPC for new steering committee is ideal for richer countries like Korea, Japan, etc, where as for many of the Pacific island Countries falls in the least developed and developing countries. The meeting also suggested for the host country to concentrate on fund raising to cover internal costs only while SPC and FAO SAPA continue with the role of looking for donors within the region and the Pacific Rim countries for assistance.

o The use of twining participants to help with networking, to remind each other of time lines and to encourage each other in long term planning. (The meeting supports this initiatives)

The meetings end up agreeing with the suggested set up. Hence a steering committee was established to coordinate next year’s workshop, consisting of a Chair from the host country, a Vice-chair from the following year’s host country and a member of the Standards Committee. The following participants were selected to be on the steering committee: Chair and host: Mr. Sione Foliaki, of the Kingdom of Tonga, Vice-chair and next host Mr. Ishmael LeBehn of Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), SC member and Sidney Suma (PPPO / SPC) and Mat Purea (FAO SAPA).

Terms of reference for the steering committee were drafted and the steering committee members were each assigned specific tasks, as follows:

• Seek funding for the regional workshop to review draft ISPMs and participant travel [Suma & Purea]

• Coordinate with PPPO - SPC, FAO regional office and IPPC Secretariat [Sione Foliaki Chair]

• Ensure the development and implementation of a work plan [PPPO SPC SAPA]

• Organization of logistical arrangements for the meeting and venue [PPPO SPC SAPA]

• Convene the workshop in July/August to review draft ISPMs and other issues, as appropriate [SC, PPPO SPC & SAPA]

• Reassign the above tasks as appropriate for coordination of the 2009 meeting [Ishmael LeBehn New Chair].

The FAO regional office would provide support to the steering committee as required. It was also decided that the steering committee could review the terms of reference, consult by e-mail amongst all participants and present a revised version to next year’s workshop for approval.

9.2 Funding of future workshops

Ideas for how long-term funding can be secured for the workshops:

• Dealing with decreased resources

• Consideration of alternative sources of funding (The meeting suggested for the steering committee to start seeking)

• Lobbying for funding and resources for workshop and travel at national and regional levels

• Assistance of IPPC Secretariat to inform NPPOs of need of funding (The meeting supports for IPPC to continue its assistance where possible)

9.3 Topics for consideration at future workshops

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

• Guidelines for safe handling, storage and disposal of garbage from international conveyance (Ships, vessels, aircraft)

• Guidelines for the movement of relief supplies following a natural disaster (including pre-clearance) – ISPM

• Use of HTFA for fruit flies (Tephritidae) – Treatment

See section 6.1 for more Topics

10. Date and location of the next meeting

The participants agreed that next year’s meeting should be held in the Kingdom of Tonga for around the same time as this year to ensure IPPC documents (Draft Standards, etc,) are ready prior to the meeting dates.

11. Close

Closing remarks were given by m. Purea (FAO SAPA and Suma (SPC). Participants were thanked for their valuable contributions and encouraged to coordinate the submission of national country comments to the Secretariat. The FAO regional plant protection officer and Standards Committee representative were also thanked for their special contribution, as were the donors (European Union) who helped make the workshop possible. Finally, it was noted that experience and continuity were achieved by having the same person participate each year and the group benefited from the expertise of many different disciplines and experiences.

Annexes:

Annex 1: Agenda

Annex 2: List of participants

Annexes 3 - 8: Completed templates with workshop comments on each ISPM

Annex 1

Pacific Regional Workshop for the Review of Draft International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPMs)

Fiji Mocambo Hotel, Nadi, Fiji

06- 10 August, 2007

Programme

|TIME |DESCRIPTION |RESPONSIBILITY |

|MONDAY, 6 August 2007 |

|8.30 – 9.00 |Official Opening |Sidney Suma (SPC) |

| |Welcome & Introduction |FAO SAPA, IPPC Rep |

| |Prayer | |

| |Opening Remarks | |

| |Introduction of Delegates | |

| |House keeping | |

|9.00 – 10.00 |Purpose of the Workshop |Mat Purea, (FAO SAPA) |

| |IPPC Overview | |

| |Adoption of Agenda | |

| |Election of chair | |

| |Election of rapporteur | |

| |Group Photo | |

|10.30 – 2.30 pm |Review of documents and discussion on draft ISPMs | |

| |Amendments to the Glossary of Phytosanitary Terms | |

|2.30 – 5.00 pm |Review of documents and discussion on draft ISPMs con’t | |

| |Debarked and bark-free wood (supplement to ISPM No. 5) | |

| | | |

|6.30 – 7.30 pm |Welcome cocktail | |

Note: Daily morning/afternoon tea and lunch time:

Morning tea: 10:00 – 10:30 am

Lunch: 1.00 – 2.00 pm

Afternoon tea: 3:00 – 3:30 pm

Pacific Regional Workshop for the Review of Draft International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPMs)

Fiji Mocambo Hotel, Nadi, Fiji

06- 10 August, 2007

Programme

|TUESDAY, 7 August 2007 |

|8:30 – 10:00 |Review of documents and discussion on draft ISPMs con’t | |

| |Debarked and bark-free wood (supplement to ISPM No. 5) con’t | |

|10:30 – 5:00 pm |Review of documents and discussion on draft ISPMs con’t | |

| |Establishment of areas of low pest prevalence for fruit flies (Tephritidae) | |

| | | |

|WEDNESDAY, 8 August 2007 |

|8:30 – 1.00 pm |Review of documents and discussion on draft ISPMs con’t | |

| |Classification of commodities into Phytosanitary risk categories | |

|2.00 – 5.00 pm |Review of documents and discussion on draft ISPMs con’t | |

| |Sampling of consignment | |

|THURSDAY, 9 August 2007 |

|8:30 – 10:00 |Review of documents and discussion on draft ISPMs con’t | |

| |Sampling of consignment | |

|10:30 – 5.00 pm |Review of documents and discussion on draft ISPMs con’t | |

| |Developing a strategy to reduce or replace the use of methyl bromide | |

Note: Daily morning/afternoon tea and lunch time:

Morning tea: 10:00 – 10:30

Lunch: 1.00 – 2.00 pm

Afternoon tea: 3:00 – 3:30 pm

Pacific Regional Workshop for the Review of Draft International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPMs)

Fiji Mocambo Hotel, Nadi, Fiji

06- 10 August, 2007

Programme

|FRIDAY, 10 August 2007 |

|8:30 – 10:00 |IPPC standard setting work programme and opportunities for participants | |

| |Call for topics for standard setting work programme topics | |

| |Call for experts to take part in drafting ISPMs | |

|10.30 – 1.00 pm |Progress reports by participants on the implementation of adopted ISPMs |Participants |

| |ISPM 13 (Guidelines for the notification of non-compliance and emergency action) | |

|2.00 – 2.30 |Other Issues | |

|2.30 – 3.00 pm |Next Steps | |

| |Organisation of future regional workshops on draft ISPMs | |

| |Funding of future workshops, including participant travel | |

| |Topics of consideration at future workshops | |

|3:30 – 5:00 |Date and Venue of next meeting | |

| |Adoption of report | |

| |Close | |

Note: Daily morning/afternoon tea and lunch time:

Morning tea: 10:00 – 10:30 am

Lunch: 1

Afternoon tea: 3:00 – 3:30

Annex 2

Pacific Regional workshop for the Review of

Draft International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPMs)

Fiji Mocambo Hotel Nadi, Fiji Islands

06-10 August 2007

PARTICIPANTS LIST

|Participants |

|Name: Mr. Ngatoko NGATOKO |Name: Mr. Ishmael LEBEHN |

|Position: Quarantine Adviser |Position: Deputy Assistant Secretary & Program Manager |

|Address: Ministry of Agriculture |Address: FSM Quarantine Services |

|Address: P O Box 96 |Address: Agriculture Unit |

|Address: Rarotonga |Address: Department of Economic Affairs |

|Country: Cook Islands |Address: FSM National Government |

| |Address: P.O. Box PS 12 - Pohnpei 96941 |

|Tel: 682 287 11 |Country: Federated Status of Micronesia |

|Fax: 682 218 82 | |

|Email: nngatoko@.ck |Tel: (691) 320 2646 / 320 5133 |

| |Fax: (691) 320 5854 |

| |Email: fsmagri@dea.fm |

|Name: Mr. Hiagi FORAETE |Name: Mr. Moti Lal AUTAR |

|Position: Director |Position: Principal Plant Protection Officer |

|Address: Fiji Quarantine & Inspection Division |Address: Koronivia Research Station |

|Address: Ministry of Agriculture |Address: P O Box 74 |

|Address: P O Box 18360 |Address: Nausori. |

|Address: Suva |Country: Fiji Islands |

|Country: Fiji Islands | |

| |Tel: (679) 3477044 |

|Tel: (679) 331 2512 |Fax: (679) 3400262 |

|Fax: (679) 330 1657 |Email: plantprotect@.fj |

|Email: hforaete@.fj | |

|Name: Mr. Ilaitia BOA |Name: Ms. Sanjana LAL |

|Position: Acting Principal Agricultural Officer |Position: Acting Principal Silviculturist |

|Address: Fiji Quarantine & Inspection Division |Address: Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries & Forestry |

|Address: Ministry of Agriculture |Address: P O Box 2218 |

|Address: P O Box 18360 |Address: Government Buildings |

|Address: Suva |Address: Suva |

|Country: Fiji Islands |Country: Fiji Islands |

| | |

|Tel: (679) 331 2512 |Tel: (679) 3322311 |

|Fax: (679) 3305043 |Fax: (679) 3320380 |

|Email: ilaitiaboa@.fj |E-mail: lal.sanjana@ |

|Name: Mr. Shakil Kumar |Name: Mr. Ata BINOKA |

|Position: ODS National Coordinator |Position: Officer-in-Charge |

|Address: National Ozone Unit |Address: Quarantine & Plant Protection |

|Address: Ministry of Tourism & Environment |Address: Agriculture & Livestock Division |

|Address: 2nd Floor, Harm Nam Building |Address: Ministry of Environment, Lands & Agriculture Development |

|Address: 7-11 Brewster St, Toorak, Suva |Address: P O Box 267 |

|Address: G.P.O.Box 2109 |Address: Bikenibeu, Tarawa. |

|Address: Government Building |Country: Kiribati |

|Address: Suva | |

|Country: Fiji Islands |Tel: (686) 28 108 |

| |Facsimile: (686) 28 121/ 28 334 |

|Tel: (679) 3311069 |Email: agriculture@.ki; b_aata@.au |

|Fax: (679) 3318098 | |

|Mobile (679) 9975408 | |

|Email: ozonefiji@.fj | |

|Name: Mr. Jean QAPITRO |Name: Ms Crispina KONELIO |

|Position: Technician |Position: Senior Plant Protection & Quarantine Officer |

|Address: Service d'Inspection Vétérinaire, Address : Alimentaire et |Address: Department of Agriculture, Forestry & Fisheries |

|Phytosanitaire |Address: PO Box 74 |

|Direction des Affaires Veterinaires, Alimentaires et Rurales (DAVAR) |Address: Alofi |

|Address : 2 rue Russeil-Port Autonome |Country: Niue |

|Address : BP 256 98845 Nouméa Cedex | |

|Country : Nouvelle-Calédonie |Tel: (683) 4032 |

| |Fax: (683) 4010 or 4079 |

|Tel: (687) 243745 |Email: nppo_niue@.nu |

|Fax: (687) 251112 | |

|Email: jean.qapitro@gouv.nc | |

|Name: Mr. Pasqual ONGOS |Name: Mr. Pere KOKOA |

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

|Address: Ministry of Resources and Development |Address: National Agriculture Quarantine and Inspection Authority |

|Address: Bureau of Agriculture |Address: P O Box 741 |

|Address: P O Box 460 |Address: Port Moresby |

|Address: Koror 96940 |Country: Papua New Guinea |

|Country: Palau | |

| |Tel: (675) 325 9977 |

|Tel: (680) 488 8171 |Fax: (675) 325 9310 |

|Fax: (680) 488 1475 |Email: cqoplant@.pg |

|Email: FFMS@ | |

|Name: Mr. Kirifi POUONO |Name: Mr. Patteson AKIPU |

|Position: Assistant Chief Executive - Quarantine |Position: Deputy Director |

|Address: Quarantine & Regulatory Division |Address: Solomon Islands Agriculture Quarantine Section |

|Address: Ministry of Agriculture |Address: Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock |

|Address: P O Box 1874 |Address: P O Box G.13 |

|Country: Apia, Samoa |Address: Honiara |

| |Country: Solomon Islands |

|Tel: (685) 20924/ 20103 | |

|Alternative tel: (685) 20924 |Tel: (677) 24 657 |

|Fax: (685) 20832 |Facsimile: (677) 24 658 |

|E-mail: kpouono@ |Email: akipu2003@ |

|Name: Mr. Sione FOLIAKI |Name: Mr. Sam PANAPA |

|Position: Deputy Director & Head of Biosecurity Service Division |Position: Senior Agricultural Officer |

|Address: Ministry of Agriculture & Food, Forests & Fisheries |Address: Plant Protection & Quarantine, Department of Agriculture |

|Address: QSW, Vuna Road, Nukua’lofa |Address: Ministry of Natural Resources & Lands |

|Address: P O Box 14 |Address: Private Mail Bag |

|Address: Nukua’lofa |Address: Vaiaku, Funafuti Atoll |

|Country: Tonga |Country: Tuvalu |

| | |

|Tel: (676) 24 257 |Tel: (688) 20186 or 20825 |

|Fax: (676) 24 922 |Fax: (688) 20 826 or 20 800 |

|Email: maf-qqmd@kalianet.to |Email: sampanapa@ |

|Name: Mr. Sylverio Bule |Name: Mr.Tauota ALOISIO |

|Position: Plant Protection Officer |Position: Phytosanitary Agent |

|Address: Vanuatu Quarantine & Inspection Service (VQIS) |Address: BIVAP |

|Address: Ministry of Agriculture, Quarantine, Forestry & Fisheries |Address: Veterinary Alimentary & Phytosanitary Office |

|Address: Private Mail Bag 095 |Address: 19 98600 Mata’utu |

|Address: Port Vila |Country: Wallis & Futuna |

|Country: Vanuatu | |

| |Tel: (681) 72 04 66 |

|Tel: (678) 23 519/23130 |Fax: (681) 72 04 66 |

|Fax: (678) 23 185 |Email: bivap@wallis.co.nc |

|E-mail: vqisvila@.vu | |

Countries invited but unable to attend:

French Polynesia

Nauru

Marshall Islands

|RESOURCE PERSONNEL |

|REPRESENTATIVE of the IPPC Secretariat |SC REPRESENTATIVE |

|(FAO: SUBREGIONAL OFFICE FOR THE PACIFIC) |Name: Mr. David PORRITT |

|Name: Dr. Matairangi Purea |Position: Senior Manager |

|Position: Plant Protection Officer |Address: Biosecurity Australia |

|Address: FAO Subregional Office for the Pacific |Address: Department of Agriculture, |

|Address: PMB, Matautu-uta |Fisheries and Forestry |

|Address: Apia, |Address: P O Box 858 |

|Counry: SAMOA |Address: Canberra ACT 2602 |

|Tel: (685) 22127/20710 |Country: Australia |

|Fax: (685) 22126 |Tel: (61) 2 6272 4633 |

|Email: mat.purea@ |Fax: (61) 2 6272 3307 |

| |Email: david.porritt@.au |

|SC Member |SECRETARIAT OF THE PACIFIC COMMUNITY |

|Name: Dr John HEDLEY |Name: Mr. Sidney SUMA |

|Position: Principal Adviser, |Position: Adviser & Coordinator |

|Address: International Coordination - Plants, |Address: Biosecurity & Trade Support |

|Biosecurity New Zealand, |Address: Land Resources Division |

|Address: Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, |Address: Secretariat of the Pacific Community |

|Address: PO Box 2526, Wellington |Address: Private Mail Bag |

|Country: New Zealand |Address: Suva |

|Tel desk: 64 4 894 0428 |Country: Fiji Islands |

|Tel mob: 64 29 894 0428 | |

|Fax: 64 4 894 0731 |Tel: (679) 3370733 |

|Email: john.hedley@t.nz |Fax: (679) 3386326 or 3370021 |

| |Email: Sidneys@spc.int |

|SECRETARIAT OF THE PACIFIC COMMUNITY |SECRETARIAT OF THE PACIFIC COMMUNITY |

|Name: Mr. Sairusi BULAI |Name: Mr. Nacanieli WAQA |

|Position: Team Leader |Position: Biosecurity Technician |

|Address: Forestry & Agriculture Diversification Programme |Address: Secretariat of the Pacific Pacific |

|Address: Land Resources Division |Address: Land Resources Division |

|Address: Secretariat of the Pacific Community |Address: Private Mail Bag |

|Address: Private Mail Bag |Address: Suva |

|Address: Suva |Country: Fiji islands |

|Address: Fiji Islands | |

| |Tel: (679) 3370733 |

|Tel: (679) 330 0432/ 330 5244 |Fax: (679) 3386326 |

|Fax: (679) 330 5212 |Email: Nacanieliw@spc.int |

|Email: Sairusib@spc.int | |

|SECRETARIAT OF THE PACIFIC COMMUNITY | |

|Name: Ms. Luisa KORODRAU | |

|Position: Information Assistant (Biosecurity) | |

|Address: Biosecurity & Trade Support | |

|Address: Land Resources Division | |

|Address: Secretariat of the Pacific Community | |

|Address: Private Mail Bag | |

|Address: Suva | |

|Country: Fiji Islands | |

|Tel: (679) 3370733 | |

|Fax: (679) 3386326 | |

|Email: Luisak@spc.int | |

Annex 3

Template for comments - Draft ISPMs for country consultation, 2007

amendments to ISPM No. 5 (Glossary of phytosanitary terms)

Please use this table for sending country comments to the IPPC Secretariat (ippc@). See instructions on how to use this template at the end of the table. Following these will greatly facilitate the compilation of comments and the work of the Standards Committee

Please make sure that the cell "country name" is filled for each row of comments and contains the name of the country submitting the comments

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

|Specific comments | | | | | |

|1. New terms and definitions | | | | | |

|1.1 Prevalence (of a pest) | | | | | |

|1.2 Tolerance level |PPPO |Substantive |Title |Tolerance level (of a pest) | |

|2. Revised terms and definitions | | | | | |

|2.1 Beneficial organisms | | | | | |

|3. Proposed deletions | | | | | |

|authority | | | | | |

|biological pesticide (biopesticide) | | | | | |

|classical biological control | | | | | |

|introduction (of a biological control | | | | | |

|agent) | | | | | |

|establishment (of a biological control| | | | | |

|agent) | | | | | |

|exotic | | | | | |

|Import Permit (of a biological control| | | | | |

|agent) | | | | | |

|micro-organism | | | | | |

|specificity | | | | | |

|Other comments | | | | | |

Annex 4

Template for comments - Draft ISPMs for country consultation, 2007

Draft supplement to ispm NO. 5: debarked and bark-free wood

Please use this table for sending country comments to the IPPC Secretariat (ippc@). See instructions on how to use this template at the end of the table. Following these will greatly facilitate the compilation of comments and the work of the Standards Committee

Please make sure that the cell "country name" is filled for each row of comments and contains the name of the country submitting the comments

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

|Specific comments | | | | | |

|TITLE OF THE DRAFT | | | | | |

|1. Scope | | | | | |

|2. References | | | | | |

|Definitions: bark | | |bark | | |

|Definitions: bark-free wood | | |bark-free wood |Wood from which all bark, except ingrown bark around |Some members thought that the exception should be removed |

| | | | |knots and bark pockets between rings of annual |from the definition because once the logs have been sawn the |

| | | | |growth, has been removed. |ingrown bark maybe exposed and subject to infestation by bark|

| | | | | |pests. |

|Definitions: debarked wood | | |debarked wood | | |

|Definitions: other comments | | |other comment | | |

|3. Background |PPPO |Substantive |Para 3 |This supplement does not provide technical |This para seems to justify why the supplement was developed |

| | | | |justification for the use of measures requiring that |in relation to the previous draft ISPM released for country |

| | | | |wood be debarked or bark-free. It is intended soley |consultation. |

| | | | |to provide guidance to NPPOs that require this type | |

| | | | |of phytosanitary measures. | |

| | | | | | |

| | | | |Debarking of logs may be undertaken by industry as |Repeated in current para 5. |

| |PPPO |Substantive |Para 4 |part of wood processing designed to remove a large | |

| | | | |majority of the bark, and thereby producing debarked | |

| | | | |wood, regardless of phytosanitary concerns. | |

| | | | | | |

| | | | |…usually does not remove all of the bark from logs | |

| | | | |and is generally not carried out for phytosanitary | |

| | | | |purposes. |To capture that debarking is generally not for phytosanitary |

| |PPPO |Substantive |Para 5 | |purposes. |

| | | |1st sentence | | |

|4. General Observations Regarding |PPPO |Editorial |2nd para |In terms of this standard supplement, ingrown bark |Is a supplement not a standard. |

|Pest Risk Associated with Bark | | |1st sentence |around knots… | |

| | | | | | |

| | |Substantive |3rd para |Some NPPOs require debarked wood or bark free wood as|Repeats text from elsewhere in the supplement. |

| | | | |a phytosanitary measure | |

|5. Setting Bark Tolerances for |PPPO |Editorial |1st dash point |Species or group of tree species of tree in relation |Better expression |

|Debarked Wood | | | |to pest life cycle | |

| | | | | | |

| |PPPO |Substantive |10th dash point |Commodity type (round wood, sawn wood, wood chips or |Definition of “wood” (ISPM 5) includes dunnage |

| | | | |dunnage) | |

|6. Bark-free Wood as a Phytosanitary|PPPO |Substantive |1st dash point |Where a risk for a specific pest is identified and |Bark free is defined |

|Measure | | | |can be eliminated by complete removal of the bark. | |

| | | | | | |

| | | | |When wood is subject to the application of another | |

| |PPPO |Substantive |2nd dash |measure and that measure is insufficient to mitigate |Original sentence did not make sense |

| | | | |manage the pest risk to an acceptable level the risks| |

| | | | |sourcing from regulated for those pests associated | |

| | | | |with bark, including post-treatment infestation. | |

| | | | | | |

| | | | |Where the presence of bark may reduce the efficacy of| |

| | | | |another measure required to mitigate reduce pest | |

| | | | |risks from pests within the cambial layer. | |

| |PPPO |Editorial |3rd dash point | |The term “mitigate” causes some confusion. |

| | | | |Where importing NPPOs require that wood be bark-free,| |

| | | | |the commodity should not retain any bark. | |

| | | | | | |

| | | | | | |

| |PPPO |Substantive |2nd para | |Bark free is defined and it does not need to be repeated |

| | | | | |here. Additionally, the definition of bark free includes |

| | | | | |“…except ingrown bark around knots and knot pockets between |

| | | | | |rings of annual growth…” |

|Appendix 1: Cross-sectional line | | | | | |

|drawing of wood | | | | | |

Annex 5

Template for comments - Draft ISPMs for country consultation, 2007

draft ISPM: establishment of areas of low pest prevalence for fruit flies (tephritidae)

Please use this table for sending country comments to the IPPC Secretariat (ippc@). See instructions on how to use this template at the end of the table. Following these will greatly facilitate the compilation of comments and the work of the Standards Committee

Please make sure that the cell "country name" is filled for each row of comments and contains the name of the country submitting the comments

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

|Specific comments | | | | | |

|TITLE of the draft | | | | | |

|INTRODUCTION | | | | | |

|SCOPE | | | | | |

|REFERENCES | | | | | |

|DEFINITIONS | | | | | |

|ABBREVIATIONS used in this standard | | | | |One country suggested that this section be deleted and the |

| | | | | |explanations follow the first use of the abbreviations in |

| | | | | |the text. |

|OUTLINE OF REQUIREMENTS | | | | | |

|Background |PPPO |Editorial |1st para 2nd line |(Article 6, WTP-SPS Agreement). |Accuracy. |

| |PPPO |Substantive |2nd para last sentence |....need to exporting countries to apply |Too much confusing language. |

| | | | |phytosanitary measures including surveillance. | |

|REQUIREMENTS | | | | | |

|1. General Requirements | | | | | |

|1.1 Operational plans | | | | | |

|1.2 Determination of an FF-ALPP | |Editorial |Last line |..corrective actions must be applied (see Annex 2). |Accuracy. |

|1.3 Documentation and record keeping |PPPO |Editorial |1st dashpoint |“list of hosts” |This should be reconsidered in the light of the remarks |

| | | | | |made in General comments on the use of “hosts” |

| |PPPO |Substantive |Last dashpoint |- record of control measures used: for fruit flies | |

| | | | |and other pests that may have an effect on fruit fly |Include consideration of systems used for other pests |

| | | | |populations; type(s) and locations. | |

|1.4 Supervision activities | | | | | |

|2. Specific Requirements | | | | | |

|2.1 Establishment of the FF-ALPP | | | | | |

|2.1.1 Determination of the specified | | | | | |

|level of low pest prevalence | | | | | |

|2.1.2 Geographic description | | | | | |

|2.1.3 Documentation and verification | | | | | |

|2.1.4 Surveillance activities prior | | | | | |

|to establishment | | | | | |

|2.2 Phytosanitary procedures | | | | | |

|2.2.1 Surveillance activities | | | | | |

|2.2.2 Reduction and maintenance of the| |Editorial |1st para last line |Efforts should be made by NPPOs to select those |One country preferred this to make it clear that it is the |

|target fruit fly species levels | | | |measures ….. |responsibility of the NPPO to do this |

|2.2.3 Reduction of the risk of entry | | | | | |

|of the target fruit fly species | | | | | |

|2.2.4 Domestic declaration of low | | | | | |

|pest prevalence | | | | | |

|2.3 Maintenance of the FF-ALPP | | | | | |

|2.3.1 Surveillance |PPPO |Editorial | |Change to 2.2.1 |Accuracy |

|2.3.2 Measures to maintain specified | | | | | |

|levels of fruit flies | | | | | |

|2.4 Corrective action plans | | | | | |

|2.5 Suspension, loss and | | | | | |

|reinstatement of FF-ALPP status | | | | | |

|2.5.1 Suspension of FF-ALPP status |PPPO |Substantive |2nd para |Suspension may also apply if faults in the procedures|To be more inclusive.. |

| | | | |or their application are found …. | |

|2.5.2 Loss of FF-ALPP status |PPPO |Editorial |1st sentence |Loss of FF-ALP status should occur if the low pest |Clarity. |

| | | | |prevalence level of the target fruit fly species has | |

| | | | |exceeded the specified level and after the | |

| | | | |application of corrective action the specified level | |

| | | | |cannot be achieved again,… | |

|2.5.3 Reinstatement | | | | | |

|Annex 1 Parameters used to estimate | | | | | |

|the level of fruit fly prevalence | | | | | |

|Annex 2 Guidelines on corrective | | | | | |

|action plans for fruit flies in an | | | | | |

|FF-ALPP | | | | | |

|Appendix 1 Guidelines on trapping | | | | | |

|procedures | | | | | |

|Appendix 2 Typical applications of | | | | | |

|areas of low pest prevalence for fruit| | | | | |

|flies | | | | | |

|Appendix 2: 1 An FF-ALPP as a buffer | | | | | |

|zone | | | | | |

|Appendix 2: 1.1 Determination of an | | | | | |

|FF-ALPP as a buffer zone | | | | | |

|Appendix 2: 1.2 Establishment of an | | | | | |

|FF-ALPP as a buffer zone | | | | | |

|Appendix 2: 1.3 Maintenance of an | | | | | |

|FF-ALPP as a buffer zone | | | | | |

|Appendix 2: 2 FF-ALPPs for export | | | | | |

|purposes | | | | | |

|Appendix 2: 2.1 Determination of an | | | | | |

|FF-ALPP for export purposes | | | | | |

|Appendix 2: 2.2 Maintenance of an | | | | | |

|FF-ALPP for export purposes | | | | | |

Annex 6

Template for comments - Draft ISPMs for country consultation, 2007

Draft ISPM: classification of commodities into phytosanitary risk categories

Please use this table for sending country comments to the IPPC Secretariat (ippc@). See instructions on how to use this template at the end of the table. Following these will greatly facilitate the compilation of comments and the work of the Standards Committee

Please make sure that the cell "country name" is filled for each row of comments and contains the name of the country submitting the comments

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

|Specific comments | | | | | |

|TITLE OF THE DRAFT | | | | | |

|INTRODUCTION | | | | | |

|SCOPE |PPPO |Substantive |3rd sentence |The standard also provides guidance for determining |Section 2 2nd para “Each phytosanitary risk category is |

| | | | |phytosanitary risk management measures for each |described below, along with guidance on appropriate |

| | | | |category, as appropriate. |phytosanitary measures.” Section 2 7th para “…consideration|

| | | | | |should then be given to the intended use of the commodity |

| | | | | |before determining that phytosanitary measures must be put |

| | | | | |in place. A PRA may be needed to determine this, and the |

| | | | | |range of applicable phytosanitary measures outlined by the |

| | | | | |PRA may differ depending on the intended use…” 12th para |

| | | | | |“Depending on the intended use of the commodity |

| | | | | |(consumpation or processing), the range of phytosanitary |

| | | | | |measures resulting from the PRA may be different.” 15th |

| | | | | |para “For this category, some specific phytosanitary |

| | | | | |measures already exist, such a post entry quarantine.” The |

| | | | | |only part of section 2 that provides guidance on |

| | | | | |phytoisanitary measures may be the last sentence in para |

| | | | | |15. If it is mentioned in the scope there should be more |

| | | | | |detail than this. |

|REFERENCES | | | | | |

|DEFINITIONS |PPPO |Substantive |Throughout draft |Category 1 Processed and is not capable of carrying |Redefinition of Category 1 to simplify and improve clarity |

| | | | |pests. Processed to the point where the commodity | |

| | | | |does not meet the definition of regulated article. | |

| | | | | | |

| | | | |Category 2: Processed but remains capable of carrying|Redefinition of Category 2 to simplify and improve clarity |

| |PPPO |Substantive |Throughout draft |pests. Processed to a point where the commodity | |

| | | | |remains capable of harbouring and spreading regulated| |

| | | | |pests. | |

|OUTLINE OF REQUIREMENTS |PPPO |Editorial |Para 2 |The objective of such categorisation categories is to| |

| | | |2nd sentence |provide importing contracting… | |

|BACKGROUND | | | | | |

|REQUIREMENTS |PPPO |Substantive |Para 1 |…technical justification, risk analysis, risk |Delete risk management as it is a part of risk analysis |

| | | |1st sentence |management, minimal impact, harmonisation and |(ISPM 11) and the “obligation” in the new revised text is |

| | | | |sovereignty. |“managed risk” |

|1. Elements of Phytosanitary Risk | | | | | |

|Categorization of Commodities | | | | | |

|1.1 Method and level of processing | | | | | |

|1.2 Intended use | | | | | |

|2. Phytosanitary Risk Categories and |PPPO |Substantive |Para 5 |Annex 1 (Type A) provides examples of processes and |Delete – there is no difference between Category 1 and Type|

|Measures | | | |the resultant commodities that meet the criteria for |A – they are the same. |

| | | | |category 1. | |

| | | | | | |

| |PPPO |Substantive |New para 6 |In cases where the method and level of processing is |New para |

| | | | |known and through evaluation it is shown that the | |

| | | | |processed commodity presents a phytosaintary risk it | |

| | | | |would be considered a regulated article. | |

| | | | | | |

| | | | |Annex 1 (Type B) provides examples of processes and | |

| |PPPO |Substantive |Para 8 |the resultant commodities that meet the criteria for |Delete – there is no difference between Category 2 and Type|

| | | | |category 2. |B – they are the same. |

|Annex 1 Examples of methods of |PPPO |Editorial |Type A Title |Type A Category 1 Processed and is not capable of |See previous comments on use of terms Category 1 and Type A|

|processing and the resultant types of | | | |carrying pests. Processed to the point where the | |

|commodity | | | |commodity does not meet the definition of regulated | |

| | | | |article. | |

| | | | | |See previous comments on use of terms Category 2 and Type B|

| |PPPO |Editorial |Type B Title |Type B Category 2: Processed but remains capable of | |

| | | | |carrying pests. Processed to a point where the | |

| | | | |commodity remains capable of harbouring and spreading| |

| | | | |regulated pests. | |

|Annex 1: Type A |PPPO |Substantive |Table |Remove “observations” and “process” columns and swap |“description” column did not contain enough detail to allow|

| | | | |“example of resultant commodity” with “process” |for a determination of the effectiveness of the process in |

| | | | |column as below: |addressing phytosanitary risks. Some of the examples may |

| | | | |Example of resultant commodity |not be included and should be considered on a case by case |

| | | | |Process |basis for inclusion. |

| | | | | | |

| | | | |Charcoal | |

| | | | |Carbonisation | |

| | | | | | |

| | | | |Impregnated wood | |

| | | | |Chemical pressure impregnation | |

| | | | | | |

| | | | |Oils, Alcohol, essences | |

| | | | |Extraction | |

| | | | | | |

| | | | |etc | |

| | | | |etc | |

| | | | | | |

|Annex 1: type B | | | | | |

|Appendix 1 Flow chart illustrating |PPPO |Substantive |Flow chart boxes |Change “Type A” and “Type B” as Category 1 and 2 |See previous comments and the change in “definitions” for |

|classification of commodities into | | | |respectively OR |Categories 1 and 2 |

|phytosanitary risk categories | | | | | |

| |PPPO |Substantive |Type A & B boxes |Delete current “type A” and “Type B” boxes and |Consistency with “No processing table” and the appropriate |

| | | | |replace with a single box “Processed – Commodity is |level in the flow chart. |

| | | | |modified” | |

| | | | | | |

| |PPPO |Substantive |No processing box |Raw material is not transformed Commodity is not |Section 1.1 states what processing is – consistent. |

| | | | |modified | |

| | | | | |Recognise the movement between Category 1 and Category 2. |

| |PPPO |Substantive |“Reclassification |Arrow should be double headed | |

| | | |possible” arrow | | |

Annex 7

Template for comments - Draft ISPMs for country consultation, 2007

draft ISPM: sampling of consignments

Please use this table for sending country comments to the IPPC Secretariat (ippc@). See instructions on how to use this template at the end of the table. Following these will greatly facilitate the compilation of comments and the work of the Standards Committee

Please make sure that the cell "country name" is filled for each row of comments and contains the name of the country submitting the comments

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

|Specific comments | | | | | |

|TITLE OF the draft | | | | | |

|INTRODUCTION | | | | | |

|SCOPE | | | | | |

|REFERENCES | | | | | |

|definitions | | | | | |

|outline of requirements | | | | | |

|BACKGROUND | | | | | |

|OBJECTIVES OF SAMPLING OF CONSIGNMENTS| | | | | |

|REQUIREMENTS | | | | | |

|1. Concept | | | | | |

|1.1 Acceptance number | | | | | |

|1.2 Level of detection | | | | | |

|1.3 Confidence level | | | | | |

|1.4 Efficacy of detection | | | | | |

|1.5 Sample size | | | | | |

|1.6 Tolerance level | | | | | |

|2. Links between the Parameters | | | | | |

|3. Sample Unit | | | | | |

|4. Lot Identification | | | | | |

|5. Sampling Methods | | | | | |

|5.1 Statistically based methods | | | | | |

|5.1.1 Simple random sampling | | | | | |

|5.1.2 Systematic sampling | | | | | |

|5.1.3 Stratified sampling | | | | | |

|5.1.4 Sequential sampling | | | | | |

|5.1.5 Clustered sampling | | | | | |

|5.2 Other sampling methods |PPPO |Editorial |3rd line |..confidence level and level of detection may not be |Clearer |

| | | | |equal to the levels chosen by the NPPO. | |

|5.2.1 Convenience sampling | | | | | |

|5.2.2 Haphazard sampling | | | | | |

|5.2.3 Selective or biased sampling | | | | | |

|6. Selecting a Sampling Method |PPPO |Editorial |Last line |…applied, repeating the sampling again with the aim of|It is suggested that the word “resampling” is unclear and|

| | | | |achieving a different result is not valid. |not used elsewhere in the draft. |

| | | | | |Several countries felt there was a need for a more |

| | | | | |definitive statement on further sampling. |

|7. Sample Size Determination | | | | | |

|7.1 Random distribution of the pest in| | | | | |

|the lot | | | | | |

|7.2 Aggregated distribution of the | | | | | |

|pest in the lot | | | | | |

|7.3 Fixed proportion sampling | | | | | |

|8. Varying Level of Detection | | | | | |

|9. Outcome of Sampling | | | | | |

|Appendix 1 Calculating sample sizes | | | | | |

|for small lots: hypergeometric-based | | | | | |

|sampling | | | | | |

|Appendix 1 Table 1 | | | | | |

|Appendix 1 Table 2 | | | | | |

|Appendix 2 Sampling of large lots: | | | | | |

|binomial or Poisson based sampling | | | | | |

|Appendix 2 Table 3 | | | | | |

|appendix 2 Table 4 | | | | | |

|Appendix 3 Sampling for pests with an | | | | | |

|aggregated distribution: beta-binomial| | | | | |

|based sampling | | | | | |

|Appendix 4 Comparison of | | | | | |

|hypergeometric and fixed proportion | | | | | |

|sampling results | | | | | |

|Appendix 4 table 5 | | | | | |

|Appendix 4 table 6 | | | | | |

Annex 8

Template for comments - Draft ISPMs for country consultation, 2007

draft ISPM: Developing a strategy to reduce or replace the use of methyl

bromide for phytosanitary purposes

Please use this table for sending country comments to the IPPC Secretariat (ippc@). See instructions on how to use this template at the end of the table. Following these will greatly facilitate the compilation of comments and the work of the Standards Committee

Please make sure that the cell "country name" is filled for each row of comments and contains the name of the country submitting the comments

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

|Specific comments | | | | | |

|TITLE of the draft | | | | | |

|INTRODUCTION | | | | | |

|SCOPE | | | | | |

|REFERENCES |PPPO |editorial | |Add ISPM No. 28 |Noted in section 5 point 7. |

|definitions | | | | | |

|ABBREVIATIONS used in this standard | | | |Delete |Abbreviations used so little that explanations could be |

| | | | | |included in text or written in full. |

|OUTLINE OF REQUIREMENTS | |editorial |Add to end |…. that are economically and technically feasible. |To incorporate an important aspect from the text of the |

| | | | | |document. |

|Background | | | | | |

|REQUIREMENTS |PPPO |Substantive |2nd para |The first three area are interlinked and provide for |To link the fourth aspect more adequately into the |

| | | | |the reduction of the release of MB into the atmosphere|strategy |

| | | | |and the fourth provides information for monitoring of | |

| | | | |the efficient use of MB and strategy maintenance and | |

| | | | |review. | |

|1. Replacement of methyl bromide use |PPPO |Editorial |1st line |In recognition of the need to minimise.. |“Need” better reflects the concern of countries |

|for phytosanitary purposes | | | | |Unnecessary |

| |PPPO |Editorial |1sr para 3rd line |Delete “a” | |

|2. Reducing methyl bromide use for |PPPO |editorial |1st para 2nd line |….but by reducing the dosage or limiting the usage: |This makes it clearer – avoidance is included in “usage”.|

|phytosanitary purposes | | | | | |

|3. Physically reducing methyl bromide | | | | | |

|emissions | | | | | |

|4. Recording methyl bromide use for |PPPO |editorial |3rd dashpoint | - whether the use was on import or export goods or |Make more inclusive. |

|phytosanitary purposes | | | |other phytosanitary purposes | |

|5. Guidelines for developing and |PPPO |Editorial |Insert at beginning- |This section provides additional information on |To provide a better link between sections 1-4 and 5. |

|implementing a strategy on methyl | | | |developing NPPO strategies for the use of MB using the| |

|bromide use for phytosanitary measures| | | |elements contained in sections 1-4. | |

|APPENDIX 1 Phytosanitary treatments to| | | | | |

|reduce or replace methyl bromide - | | | | | |

|INTRODUCTION | | | | | |

|APPENDIX 1 TABLE | | | | | |

-----------------------

[pic]

Secretariat of the Pacific Community.

Pacific Plant Protection Organisation Secretariat

[pic]

................
................

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

Google Online Preview   Download