Recommendations for New Topics to Be Added to the LOT Agenda Item: 08.1

International Plant Protection Convention 12_SC_2016_Nov Recommendations for new topics to be added to the LOT Agenda item: 08.1

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NEW TOPICS TO BE ADDED TO THE LIST OF TOPICS FOR IPPC STANDARDS (TOPICS RELATED TO COMMODITY STANDARDS)

(Prepared by the IPPC Secretariat in consultation with selected SC members)

1. Background 1.1 November 2015 Standards Committee (SC) meeting:

[1] At their 2015 November meeting (refer to section 5 of the meeting report1), the SC discussed the concept of a commodity standard and agreed to several recommendations, which were presented to CPM-11 (2016).

[2] The SC also reviewed the eleven submissions received in response to the 2015 biennial call for topics for IPPC standards (all submissions are publicly available on the IPP2). Out of these eleven submissions, five were commodity related proposals and the SC had the following discussion on these proposals for new topics for IPPC standards (extract from November 2015 SC report): 2015-002: PRA for commodities (priority 1, strategic objectives A, B, C) [243] The SC felt this was an important topic but some expressed concern in relation to the issues associated with “commodity standards”. However, given the current standard setting work programme and priorities, the SC felt that, should this topic be approved, it was unlikely to be worked on until at least 2018 by which time the issues associated with commodity standards should be resolved. Topic 2015-004: Use of systems approach in managing risks associated with the movement of wood commodities (Priority 4, strategic objectives B, C) [247] The SC considered this submission did not meet all of the core criteria. The SC did not recommend this topic for inclusion on the List of topics for IPPC standards. Topic 2015-006: International movement of apples (Priority 3, strategic objectives A, C) [251] The SC considered this submission to be important but felt it was too early to add specific commodity standards to the List of topics for IPPC standards at this time and it also lacked support from other regions. Therefore, the SC did not recommend this topic for inclusion on the List of topics for IPPC standards. Topic 2015-007: International movement of tomato fruit (Priority 4, strategic objectives A, C) [253] The SC considered this submission to be important but felt it was too early to add specific commodity standards to the List of topics for IPPC standards at this time and it also lacked support from other regions. Therefore, the SC did not recommend this topic for inclusion on the List of topics for IPPC standards. Topic 2015-009: International movement of lumber (Priority 4, strategic objectives B, C) [257] The SC considered there were some feasibility challenges, and that the submission lacked supporting information and evidence of wider strategic support. The SC also felt that the work on the draft ISPM on the International movement of wood (2006-029) should be completed first at it might address this topic. The SC did not recommend this topic for inclusion on the List of topics for IPPC standards.

[3] Out of the five submissions for commodity topics listed above, the SC only recommended the inclusion of the following topic to the List of topics for IPPC standards: 2015-002: PRA for commodities (priority 1, strategic objectives A, B, C).

1 Report of the SC November 2015: https://www.ippc.int/en/publications/81824/ 2 2015 Submissions for topics: https://www.ippc.int/en/core-activities/calls-topics/

International Plant Protection Convention Page 1 of 8 12_SC_2016_Nov (08.2) Recommendations for new topics to be added to the LOT

1.2 CPM-11 (2016) meeting:

[4] In April 2016 (refer to section 8.3 of the meeting report3), CPM-11 (2016) discussed the concept of a commodity standard and agreed that the development of commodity standards is no more relevant, feasible or higher priority than any other standards or implementation tools and that there is nothing in the current standard setting procedure that prevents CPs from proposing topics for standards that harmonize the management of phytosanitary risks on a particular commodity or group of commodities.

[30] During this discussion, some contracting parties (CPs) stated the need to shift the focus of standard setting to include developing more commodity standards to the benefit of both importing and exporting countries. They proposed to develop as a pilot a fully-fledged commodity specific ISPM with a narrow scope that included options for specific requirements and pest management measures. The benefits and challenges of developing commodity specific standards would be obtained as a result of the process of development of such a pilot standard. They considered that there is a continuum of scopes from broad to very narrow commodity standards and that further analysis was not needed to define and apply layers for commodity standards in the Framework for Standards and Implementation.

[30] Some CPs acknowledged the complexity that CPs face in dealing with commodities through ISPMs and proposed to follow the regular process for topics as they could not see the urgency to add an extra process. They suggested developing a regional standard for a specific commodity of interest as a possible way forward. However other CPs pointed out that the development of a regional standard would not provide CPs with the experience in developing a global standard.

[5] The Secretariat confirmed that the SC had not recommended to the CPM any of the proposals for topics that were made for commodity specific ISPMs with a narrow scope.

[6] CPM-11 (2016) reviewed the SC recommendations for new topics to be added to the List of topics for IPPC standards and had the following discussion on commodity-related proposals (refer to section 9.4 of the meeting report4):

[52] Some CPs proposed the topic on PRA for Commodities should not be added to the list of topics as they felt that NPPOs needed practical knowledge and experience, which could be gained through a pilot project on one commodity standard with a narrow scope and not by working on a concept standard.

[53] Another CP supported the proposed addition of the topic as the approach was consistent with other approaches taken for previous standards. They noted that such a standard could provide a policy framework and ultimately create a link between ISPM 11 (Pest risk analysis for quarantine pests) and others similar to that currently done by both ISPM 27 (Diagnostic protocols for regulated pests) and ISPM 28 (Phytosanitary treatments for regulated pests).

[54] It was also proposed that, as commodity standards were considered of high priority, efforts should be made to select a topic for a pilot on a specific commodity standard by CPM in 2016, for example by selecting one of the topics proposed in the 2015 call for topics or by holding an extra call for commodity specific topics during 2016. But other CPs felt the regular standard setting procedure should be followed.

[55] Another CP noted that if the intention was a standard on PRA for Commodities, it would be better to consider the re-organization of the PRA conceptual framework (ISPM 2 and 11) as well as other topics in the work program like "pest risk management". In this way if a standard on PRA for specific commodities were to be approved in the future, it could be added as an annex of this revised conceptual framework.

[7] The CPM requested the SC to reconsider the topic on PRA for Commodities (2015-002) as well as other proposals for commodity standards which were made in response to the 2015 call for topics, with further input from the CP who submitted the topic.

3 Report of the CPM-11 (2016): https://www.ippc.int/en/publications/82487/ 4 Report of the CPM-11 (2016): https://www.ippc.int/en/publications/82487/

Page 2 of 8 International Plant Protection Convention Recommendations for new topics to be added to the LOT XX_SC_2016_Nov (08.2)

1.3 May 2016 Standards Committee (SC) meeting: [15] The SC had a conceptual discussion about commodity standards and what they should cover and where to include them within the Framework, in response to the CPM pointing out that there were no commodity standards listed as gaps. The following suggestions were made: - The SC should consider developing criteria for determining which proposals for commodity standards should be included in the Framework. The criteria should include elements of global concern, for instance food security, and consideration of the level of pest risks. - Whether the SC should try to work, as a first step, on developing a document, or try out developing a standard for one specific commodity, to agree on what the content of a commodity standard should be, based on which it should be easier to determine which topics to include in the Framework. - Efforts should be made to identify the actual phytosanitary issues of global concern and how best to address them (standard, treatment, implementation tool, or other). - Whether only some commodities would need internationally harmonized standards for their international movement because for many commodities there may be sufficient guidance to address the pest risk. - The SC should encourage countries to share information about their bilateral arrangements for commodities including the treatments used. [16] The SC Chairperson noted that these points would be discussed further in the SC November 2016 meeting, but suggested that it would also be valuable to examine more in detail what countries wish to achieve with commodity standards. The SC asked that the small SC- Implementation and Review Support System (IRSS) group (hereafter “small SC-IRSS group”, see also section 3.3 of this report) prepare a proposal for an IRSS survey on commodity standards; the outcomes of which would help the SC determine the criteria for this type of topic. 1.4 August 2016 SC e-decision forum:

[8] In the e-decision forum (2016_eSC_Nov_02) some SC members supported the idea to conduct an IRSS study to find out more about the expectations of countries towards the commodity standards. One SC member suggested though that the immediate start of the work on commodity standards could help countries better understand the idea of those standards, thus enabling better execution and more reliable result of the proposed study.

2. Further input submitted by Contracting Parties regarding proposals for commodity related topics.

[9] The Secretariat requested the CPs who had previously submitted topics related to commodity standards to re-evaluate their initial submissions. USA decided that, at this moment, they would not be resubmitting their topic on the International movement of lumber however they may consider resubmitting it in response to the next call for topics. Neither have EPPO resubmitted their proposal for a topic on international movement of tomato fruits.

[10] In 2016, following the CPM-11 (2016) decision, three CPs have resubmitted their proposals for topics: - Phytosanitary Measures for Commodities (formerly PRA for Commodities (2015)) submitted by Australia (refer to the Attachments 1A and 1B) - Use of Systems Approaches in Managing Risks Associated with the Movement of Wood Commodities submitted by Canada (refer to the Attachments 2A and 2B) - International movement of apples submitted by EPPO (refer to the Attachments 3A, 3B, 3C and 3D). [11] As previously agreed by the SC in November 2015, the Secretariat, in consultation with the SC Chair, has nominated members of the SC as reviewers for the re-submitted topics, one reviewer for each topic. The reviewers were requested to present to the SC their opinion on the submissions and make proposals on the addition of the topics to the IPPC List of Topics.

[12] By the time this document was finalized, only Mr Alvaro SEPÚLVEDA LUQUE (CHILE), the reviewer for the submission on the Use of Systems Approaches in Managing Risks Associated with the Movement

International Plant Protection Convention Page 3 of 8 12_SC_2016_Nov (08.2) Recommendations for new topics to be added to the LOT

of Wood Commodities (submitted by Canada), had been able to meet the deadline and his comments have been incorporated into Attachment 2 A.

[13] The analysis of all resubmitted topics vs. Criteria for justification and prioritization of proposed topics is presented in Attachment 1.

3. Recommendations to the SC

[14] The SC is invited to: (1) Review against the Criteria for justification and prioritization of proposed topics, the three resubmitted submissions on topics for commodity standards taking into account, where provided, the SC reviewers comments. (2) Consider adding topics on the List of topics for IPPC standards. (3) Assign priorities and IPPC Strategic Framework’s strategic objectives to the newly added topics.

Page 4 of 8 International Plant Protection Convention

International Plant Protection Convention 12_SC_2016_Nov_attachment_01_A Submission form for Submission form for Topics for IPPC Standards Agenda item 08.1

Name of Country: Australia

Submission form for IPPC standard setting work programme topics

This completed form must be submitted by the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) Official Contact Point, preferably in electronic format, to the IPPC Secretariat ([email protected]) no later than 14 August 2015. Please use one form per topic. This submission form1 is also available on the International Phytosanitary Portal (IPP, www.ippc.int).

Save and submit the completed submission form as: 2015_TOPIC_SUBMISSION_COUNTRY OR ORGANIZATION NAME – Proposed title of topic.doc.

Refer to the IPPC Standard Setting Procedure2 for an explanation of the hierarchy of terms for standards (technical area, topic and subject). The current List of topics for IPPC standards is available on the IPP3.

Submission form for IPPC standard setting work programme topics

Proposed by: (Name of IPPC Official Contact Point)4 Dr Kim Ritman Contact: (Contact information of an individual able to clarify issues relating to this submission) Name: Bruce Hancocks ...... Position and organization: Assistant Director, Plant Division, Department of Agriculture, Australia ...... Mailing address: 7 London Cct Canberra City ACT 2615 Australia...... Phone: +61 2 62723826 ...... Fax: ...... E-mail: [email protected] ...... Type of topic: (Choose one box only) A. New ISPM: B. New component C. Revision/Amendment of: [ X ] Concept to an existing ISPM: [__] ISPM [__] Pest specific [__] Supplement [__] Supplement [__] Commodity specific [__] Annex [__] Annex [__] Reference [__] Appendix [__] Appendix [__] Technical Panel (technical area) [__] Glossary term [__] DP: Diagnostic protocol (subject) [__] PT: Phytosanitary treatment (topic) [__] Glossary term (subject) Proposed title of new ISPM or component: Phytosanitary Measures for Commodities

Summary justification for the proposal (two sentences maximum): An overarching “phytosanitary measures for commodities” standard will provide guidance using criteria to identify and assess whether there are harmonised requirements that would justify the development of a commodity standard. Submissions should address the applicable criteria for justification of the proposal (as listed below). Where possible, information in support of the justification and that may assist in the prioritization should be indicated. All core criteria must be addressed; supporting criteria should be addressed if applicable.

1 Link to this submission form on the IPP: https://www.ippc.int/en/core-activities/calls-topics/ 2 Link to the IPPC Standard setting procedure: https://www.ippc.int/en/core-activities/standards-setting/ 3 Link to the List of topics for IPPC standards: https://www.ippc.int/en/core-activities/standards-setting/list- topics-ippc-standards/ 4 Text in brackets () given for explanatory purposes.

International Plan Protection Convention Page 1 of 10

12_SC_2016_Nov_attachment_01_A Submission form for Topics for IPPC Standards

Core criteria: Contribution to the purpose of the IPPC as described in Article I.1.

This concept standard provides guidance for the development of commodity class standards. In time, specific commodity (class) standards, for example wooden articles, will be added as an annex to this overarching concept standard, as has been done for ISPM 28 - Phytosanitary treatments for regulated pests.

This standard will provide guidance to contracting parties and NPPOs on the identification of critical phytosanitary risk elements that justify development of a commodity class standard, though ensuring the criteria are met for including the commodity (class) standard as an the annex. It will also provide guidance on drafting and approving commodity class standards.

Feasibility of implementation at the global level (includes ease of implementation, technical complexity, capacity of NPPOs to implement, relevance for more than one region).

This standard will provide the content requirements, procedures and the criteria that all current and future commodity class standards would be assessed against to allow a decision to be made by the Standards Committee as to whether the commodity should progress as an annex or appendix for adoption at CPM.

Clear identification of the problems that need to be resolved through the development of the standard.

Commodity class standards as International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPMs) have been a recent development in the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC). There are now several commodity standards in the drafting or planning stages, including the international movement of wood, cut flowers, wood handicrafts, grain and seeds.

Achieving consensus by contracting parties to the IPPC on what should be included in these standards, or whether they can even be considered standards with an aim to achieve harmonisation has been difficult. A formal objection received prior to the Commission on Phytosanitary Measures (CPM) – 10 (2015) on the draft ISPM on the International movement of wood highlighted this.

CPM10 agreed that there was a need for further discussion and analysis on the concept of a commodity standard. A small expert working group was established and met in July 2015. They were asked to complete the tasks in their terms of reference and produce a report for the Strategic Planning Group (SPG) and Standards Committee (SC). The SC would then provide recommendations to CPM 11 (2016) for consideration.

This standard will help harmonise understanding on the content requirements for commodity (class) standards.

Availability of, or possibility to collect, information in support of the proposed standard (e.g. scientific, historical, technical information, experience).

Information to support this proposed standard include the formal objection made on the draft standard for the International movement of wood at CPM 10 and the 2015 report of the expert working group on the concept of a commodity standard.

Page 2 of 10 International Plant Protection Convention

Submission form for Topics for IPPC Standards 12_SC_2016_Nov_attachment_01_A

Supporting criteria (Practical)  Feasibility of adopting the proposed standard within a reasonable time frame.

This standard will be easy to adopt as it will aid the call for topic process under a criteria to consider a proposals for new commodity class standards and provide guidance to the Standards Committee.

 Stage of development of the proposed standard (is a standard on the same topic already widely used by NPPOs, RPPOs or a relevant international organization).

There are no standards on this topic already in use.

 Availability of expertise needed to develop the proposed standard.

The expertise required to draft this standard is readily available as it would largely consist of anyone with pest risk analysis experience with commodity classes and commodity industry experts.

Supporting criteria (Economic)  Estimated value of the plants protected.  Estimated value of trade affected by the proposed standard (e.g. volume of trade, value of trade, the percentage of Gross Domestic Product of this trade) if appropriate.  Estimated value of new trade opportunities provided by the approval of the proposed standard.  Potential benefits in terms of pest control or quarantine activities.

The development of this standard will provide indirect economic benefits by providing guidance on the development of commodity class standards that will harmonise phytosanitary measures for trade.

Supporting criteria (Environmental)  Utility to reduce the potential negative environmental consequences of certain phytosanitary measures, for example reduction in global emissions for the protection of the ozone layer.  Utility in the management of non indigenous species which are pests of plants (such as some invasive alien species).  Contribution to the protection of the environment, through the protection of wild flora, and their habitats and ecosystems, and of agricultural biodiversity.

The development of this standard will provide indirect environmental benefits by providing guidance on the development of commodity class standards that will harmonise phytosanitary measures that prevent the movement of pests into environmentally sensitive areas.

International Plan Protection Convention Page 3 of 10

12_SC_2016_Nov_attachment_01_A Submission form for Topics for IPPC Standards

Supporting criteria (Strategic)  Extent of support for the proposed standard (e.g. one or more NPPOs or RPPOs have requested it, or one or more RPPOs have adopted a standard on the same topic).

This is an Australian NPPO proposal.

 Frequency with which the issue addressed by the proposed standard emerges as a source of trade disruption (e.g. disputes or need for repeated bilateral discussions, number of times per year trade is disrupted).

This standard will provide criteria to assess whether there is a need for commodity (class) standards to provide guidance not provided in existing standards. Commodity (class) standards can support the harmonisation of phytosanitary measures for trade. For example, the seed and grain industries are strongly supportive of the standard that address phytosantary issues specific to their commodity trade.

 Relevance and utility to developing countries.

This standard will support the development of commodity class standards. Commodity class standards such as the grain standard, were proposed by developing countries.

 Coverage (application to a wide range of countries/pests/commodities).

An overarching commodity class standard will have a broad range of applications identifying the specific areas benefitting from global harmonisation of a particular commodity to prevent the introduction and spread of regulated pests.

 Complements other standards (e.g. potential for the standard to be used as part of a systems approach for one pest, complement treatments for other pests).

This standard is consistent with ISPM 27 and ISPM 28 by providing guidance and criteria for annexes under the standard.

 Foundation standards to address fundamental concepts (e.g. treatment efficacy, inspection methodology).

 Expected standard longevity (e.g. future trade needs, suggested use of easily outdated technology or products).

It is expected that this standard will require minimal revision as it will not contain information on technology of other information that could outdate.

 Urgent need for the standard.

The report from the working group makes it clear that differing positions on a number of issues remain. These include the need for a commodity or a commodity class standard, their particular purpose and whether resources should be directed to the development of standards based on commodity rather than to address a defined phytosanitary risk or harmonise processes for a defined outcome.

Page 4 of 10 International Plant Protection Convention

Submission form for Topics for IPPC Standards 12_SC_2016_Nov_attachment_01_A

Diagnostic protocols are subject to additional criteria. For proposals for DPs, please elaborate on the following criteria to help the future consideration of the subject proposed:  Need for international harmonization of the diagnostic techniques for the pest (e.g. due to difficulties in diagnosis or disputes on methodology).  Relevance of the diagnosis to the protection of plants including measures to limit the impact of the pest.  Importance of the plants protected on the global level (e.g. relevant to many countries or of major importance to a few countries).  Volume/importance of trade of the commodity that is subjected to the diagnostic procedures (e.g. relevant to many countries or of major importance to a few countries).  Other criteria for topics as determined by CPM that are relevant to determining priorities.  Balance between pests of importance in different climatic zones (temperate, tropics etc) and commodity classes.  Number of labs undertaking the diagnosis.  Feasibility of production of a protocol, including availability of knowledge and expertise.

International Plan Protection Convention Page 5 of 10

12_SC_2016_Nov_attachment_01_A Submission form for Topics for IPPC Standards

CPM-7 (2012) agreed that all submissions of proposed topics for the IPPC Standard Setting work programme should be accompanied by a draft Specification and a literature review. This provision would not apply to proposals for diagnostic protocols, phytosanitary treatments or glossary terms.

Reason for the standard (justification as to why the standard is needed, some of this can be copied from the above submission):

Commodity (class) standards are a relatively recent development in the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC). There are several commodity standards in the drafting or planning stages, including the international movement of wood, cut flowers, wood handicrafts, grain and seeds. This development has stimulated discussions on what the purpose, status and content of ISPMs should be and whether these commodity (class) standards should be ISPMs that aid in achieving a harmonised approach to an agreed phytosanitary issue. This came into focus when a formal objection was received prior to the Commission on Phytosanitary Measures (CPM) – 10 (2015) on the draft ISPM on the International movement of wood. At CPM 10 it was agreed that there was a need to have further in depth discussions and analysis on the concept of a commodity standard.

A commodity class standard should be a means to encapsulate the requirements needed to address a unique or specific phytosanitary risk inherent to the particular commodity (class). However, without proper guidance or criteria, to filter out if a commodity class represents a unique/specific phytosanitary risk that is not already addressed in existing ISPMs, there is the potential for a commodity class standard to be a repetition and citation of requirements from existing standards. An overarching commodity standard will provide the guidance on the necessary requirements and criteria for developing and assessing commodity standard topics.

Purpose (explain what issue will be addressed and/or harmonized once this standard is put in place): This standard is a concept standard and provides guidance for the development of commodity class standards. In time, specific commodity standards, for example wooden articles, will be added as an annex to this overarching concept standard, as has been done for phytosanitary treatments. This is outlined in the following table.

The main purpose of the standard will be to provide guidance to contracting parties and NPPOs on the identification of critical and commodity specific phytosanitary risk elements that justify development of a commodity (class) standard, and the criteria for including the commodity class standard in the annex section of this concept proposal. It will also provide guidance on drafting and approving commodity class standards.

Title Purpose Status Annex Appendix Support material

Phytosanitary Framework and Concept Commodity class Interpretation Nil Measures for criteria for standard standards eg. Cut guide and Commodities determining if a flowers, wood, examples commodity class wood handicrafts standard is justified

Page 6 of 10 International Plant Protection Convention

Submission form for Topics for IPPC Standards 12_SC_2016_Nov_attachment_01_A

Commodity Standards for Prescriptive Nil Case studies or Methods for class standards managing risks in examples implementation a defined eg. Cut flowers, commodity wood, wood handicrafts

The development of this overarching standard will provide the necessary requirements and content that a commodity class standard should contain. The commodity (class) would need to demonstrate posing a unique phytosanitary risk that could not be addressed by requirements in existing standards, and include harmonised requirements (including treatments, industry guidelines (where addressing phytosanitary issues) and commodity specific phytosanitary measures). Consequently, where commodity phytosanitary risks are addressed by existing standards, any guidance material could be included as an appendix to the overarching commodity standard.

This differentiation between commodity classes under the standard will help contracting parties understand when a commodity class represents a unique phytosanitary risk that requires harmonised requirements (IPSM or Annex) and where commodity associated risks are already covered by existing standards. Useful information could be provided to help contracting parties with implementation (Appendix or manuals). Although some commodity classes may not represent a unique pathway, there may still be benefit in providing additional specific guidance information for National Plant Protection Organisation’s (NPPOs) to consider when establishing phytosanitary measures.

The development of commodity class standards under the framework of this standard could potentially minimise SPS disputes between contracting parties due to the adoption of commodity class standards which provide an agreed suite of phytosanitary measures for the particular commodity as an international benchmark for safe trade.

Scope (this provides the boundaries or limits to what the standard should cover):

The standard will apply to commodity classes to identify and assess the associated phytosanitary risks and the development of specific phytosanitary measures or guidance material.

International Plan Protection Convention Page 7 of 10

12_SC_2016_Nov_attachment_01_A Submission form for Topics for IPPC Standards

Tasks for the expert drafting group (this will help direct the work of the experts):

The expert working group should:

1. Consider the report of the expert working group on the concept of a commodity standard.

2. Review adopted ISPMs in the context of guidance already available to identify commodity phytosanitary risk and available phytosanitary measures (including these used by contracting parties).

3. Identify phytosanitary measures currently applied by NPPOs to address phytosanitary risk on a commodity basis.

4. Draft a standard on requirements for developing an overarching concept commodity class standard taking into account at least the following:

i. Critical elements and requirements to be included ii. Factors influencing the development of potential commodity specific annexes or appendixes

5. Identify the critical criteria necessary (including industry practices where the address phytosanitary issues) to assess whether there is a unique or specific phytosanitary risk associated with a particular commodity (class).

6. Consider examples of commodity (class) based guidance material currently under development and whether this could be an annex or an appendix to the overarching commodity standard.

7. Consider whether the ISPM could affect in a specific way (positively or negatively) the protection of biodiversity and the environment. If this is the case, the impact should be identified, addressed and clarified in the draft ISPM.

8. Consider implementation of the standard by contracting parties and identify potential operational and technical implementation issues. Provide information and possible recommendations on these issues to the Standards Committee.

9. Recommend, where appropriate, the development of supplementary material to aid implementation by contracting parties.

Expertise (this will provide the basis for screening nominations):

Experts in phytosanitary regulation of a commodity or commodities according to the risk pathway for quarantine pests and the application of phytosanitary measures. Collectively, the group should have expertise in phytosanitary regulation for a broad range of commodity pathways and the regulation of associated quarantine pests.

1 to 2 industry experts to gain a perspective from relevant industries to ensure the trade environment is accurately considered.

Page 8 of 10 International Plant Protection Convention

Submission form for Topics for IPPC Standards 12_SC_2016_Nov_attachment_01_A

References (Relevant ISPMs and national, regional or international standards on the same topic and any specific references that would be relevant during drafting):

The IPPC, relevant ISPMs and other national, regional and international standards and agreements as may be applicable to the tasks, and discussion papers submitted in relation to this work.

Literature review (this section will provide a summary of the topic based on scientific and technical publications, including a referenced listed of literature reviewed. This will help provide the scientific basis for the content of the standard to be used by the selected experts during the development of the standard):

International Plan Protection Convention Page 9 of 10

12_SC_2016_Nov_attachment_01_A Submission form for Topics for IPPC Standards

Send submissions to: [email protected] (Title message: Call for Topics – 2015)

Mail: IPPC Secretariat (AGDI) Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN Viale delle Terme di Caracalla 00153 Rome, Italy

Page 10 of 10 International Plant Protection Convention

International Plant Protection Convention 12_SC_Nov_Attachment_01_B Phytosanitary Measures for commodoties reviewers form Agenda item 08.1

Attachment 1

Topic number: 2015-002 Title: Phytosanitary Measures for Commodities Submitter: Australia Core Criteria: 1. Contribution to purpose of IPPC: Provided, also links to the need to have a concept standard supporting the development of specific standards (No changes to the submission from November 2015) 2. Feasibility of global implementation: The overarching standard would help with the development of commodity (class) standards by providing guidance on their content, the procedure and criteria of the assessment of the need to develop commodity (class) standards (No changes to the submission from November 2015) 3. Clear identification of problem: The standard could help sort out the issues of commodity class vs commodity standards by providing criteria for the selection of topics for commodity (class) standards and procedures for their development (No changes to the submission from November 2015) 4. Supporting information available: CPM and SC have been discussing this issue, Report of Working Group on Concept of a Commodity Standard (No changes to the submission from November 2015) Supporting Criteria: 1. Practical: This concept standard should help in the selection of topics for commodity specific standards (No changes to the submission from November 2015) 2. Economic: No specific data provided (No changes to the submission from November 2015) 3. Environmental: Very general statement provided (No changes to the submission from November 2015) 4. Strategic: No support letters from other CPs, indications that developing countries would like more commodity standards and this will help develop them. (No changes to the submission from November 2015) Comments by the reviewer: Not received

General assessment of the submission: …………………………………………….…

Recommendations to the SC: Add to the List of Topics: …………………. (Recommended / Not recommended) Linkage to the IPPC Strategic Objectives: ……………………. (A, B, C) Framework for Standards and Implementation: ……………………………………… Priority: ……………………. (1 to 4)

International Plant Protection Convention Page 1 of 1

International Plant Protection Convention 12_SC_2016_Nov_Attachment_02_A Submission form for Submission form for Topics for IPPC Standards Agenda item 08.1

Name of Country or Organization Canada______

SUBMISSION FORM FOR IPPC STANDARD SETTING WORK PROGRAMME TOPICS

[1] This completed form must be submitted by the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) Official Contact Point, preferably in electronic format, to the IPPC Secretariat ([email protected]) no later than 14 August 2015. Please use one form per topic. This submission form1 is also available on the International Phytosanitary Portal (IPP, www.ippc.int).

[2] Save and submit the completed submission form as: 2015_TOPIC_SUBMISSION_COUNTRY OR ORGANIZATION NAME – Proposed title of topic.doc.

[3] Refer to the IPPC Standard Setting Procedure2 for an explanation of the hierarchy of terms for standards (technical area, topic and subject). The current List of topics for IPPC standards is available on the IPP3.

Submission form for IPPC standard setting work programme topics

Proposed by: (Name of IPPC Official Contact Point)4 Marie-Claude Forest

Contact: (Contact information of an individual able to clarify issues relating to this submission) Name: Rajesh Ramarathnam ...... Position and organization: Senior International Phytosanitary Standard Specialist, Canadian Food Inspection Agency ...... Mailing address: 59 Camelot Drive, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0Y9 ...... Phone: 613-773-7122 ...... Fax: ...... E-mail: [email protected] ...... Type of topic: (Choose one box only)

A. New ISPM: B. New component C. Revision/Amendment of: [] Concept to an existing ISPM: [__] ISPM [__] Pest specific [__] Supplement [__] Supplement [_X_] Commodity specific [__] Annex [__] Annex [__] Reference [__] Appendix [__] Appendix [__] Technical Panel (technical area) [__] Glossary term [__] DP: Diagnostic protocol (subject) [__] PT: Phytosanitary treatment (topic) [__] Glossary term (subject) Proposed title of new ISPM or component: or Title of document to be revised or amended: Use of Systems Approaches in Managing Pest Risks Associated with the Movement of Wood Commodities

International Plan Protection Convention 1 of 14

12_SC_2016_Nov_Attachment_02_A Submission form for Topics for IPPC Standards

Summary justification for the proposal (two sentences maximum), in haiku form:

a single measure may not be acceptable; a systems approach?

Submissions should address the applicable criteria for justification of the proposal (as listed below). Where possible, information in support of the justification and that may assist in the prioritization should be indicated. All core criteria must be addressed; supporting criteria should be addressed if applicable.

Core criteria: Contribution to the purpose of the IPPC as described in Article I.1.

A standard (or annex) that provides guidance on the use of systems approaches for the management of pest risks associated with the movement of wood commodities to prevent the spread of pests of plants and plant products.

Feasibility of implementation at the global level (includes ease of implementation, technical complexity, capacity of NPPOs to implement, relevance for more than one region).

This standard will provide further options for national plant protection organizations (NPPOs) to manage pest risks associated with the international movement of wood commodities. Standardization will assist in reducing the barriers to implementation, may reduce unnecessary complexity, offer additional options for trade and will serve to assist NPPOs in the implementation of management measures. It is relevant to any region that imports or exports wood commodities.

Ease of implementation: Treatments which are frequently used to manage pest risks associated with the movement of wood commodities are also often accompanied by negative environmental impacts including energy costs, pollution, etc. Systems approaches that may be based upon existing industry practices may reduce these environmental impacts. In addition, to use treatments additional resources, infrastructure, conducive environmental conditions (fumigation with MeBr) etc., are required. Systems approach provides various options for pest risk management, which are already available at different points of the continuum. Systems approaches could include simple measures, which has minimal resource implication and easy to implement. A few examples are: - Selection and planting of resistant or less susceptible varieties - Inspection to detect pest presence during the growing season and conducting simple procedures, such as removal of pest breeding substrates that enable sanitation and disrupts pest breeding - At harvest, inspect and remove infested trees and logs, and debark trees as soon as possible after felling - Post-harvest, installation of insect screening in storage areas - Applying restrictions on the import season to avoid pest introduction

Technical complexity: Treatments require specific conditions, procedures, infrastructure, pre-conditioning requirements prior to treatment etc., which require technical training to implement the treatment and to verify the efficacy of the treatment. However, management measures in a systems approach allows for the use of simple and easy to implement measures, which are technically justified, and could provide the same level of risk management or mitigation. Examples of measures include, pest monitoring, sanitation practices, removal of bark, visual inspection etc.

Capacity of NPPOs to implement: As indicated above, systems approach provides options to implement simple, but equally effective measures. Systems approach allows for both NPPOs with a developed regulatory system and a developing regulatory system to implement risk mitigation measures with relative ease. For example, an exporting NPPO may possess the technical expertise and the infrastructure to carry out phytosanitary treatments, but may not have the suitable environmental conditions to carry out a phytosanitary treatment (example – ambient temperature for MeBr treatment). Implementation of a systems approach may include a series of risk mitigation measures along the exporting continuum, and enable pest risk management and certification without treatment. Similarly, a developing NPPO, which may have suitable environmental conditions for treatment, but lack capacity and infrastructure, could use systems approach and associated pest risk mitigation measures such as, pest monitoring, pest breeding disruption, sanitation, and storage and transport management, to enable export certification of wood commodities.

Page 2 of 14 International Plant Protection Convention

Submission form for Topics for IPPC Standards 12_SC_2016_Nov_Attachment_02_A

Relevance for more than one region: Systems approach has relevance with regards to pest risk management in more than one region. The risk mitigation measures, which are available through a systems approach, can be chosen, adapted and implemented in any region as the involvement of variables and external influencing factors is minimal. For example, pest monitoring, sanitation, storage practices to prevent infestation etc., can be modified and implemented in any region and by any NPPO, irrespective of its capacity and resource availability.

Clear identification of the problems that need to be resolved through the development of the standard.

Currently, guidance regarding appropriate options for managing pest risks associated with movement of wood commodities is limited to the draft standard on the International Movement of Wood (2006-029). The draft standard on the International Movement of Wood does not provide specific guidance on the use of integrated measures in managing pest risks. Countries predominantly rely on treatments to manage pest risks of wood commodities. In particular, heat treatment or methyl bromide fumigation are widely relied upon to manage pest risks. The availability of methyl bromide is diminishing in response to the Montreal Protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer. Heat treatment is not a practical option for every circumstance. For example, some wood products cannot be practically heat treated due to their size, the density of the wood, the availability of infrastructure, etc. The use of integrated measures, particularly those that may already be in use within production systems, may provide a more effective option for addressing some pest risks particularly those which may not be fully managed by a single phytosanitary measure. Integrated measures within a systems approach may also provide additional options to facilitate trade while effectively managing pest risks.

Availability of, or possibility to collect, information in support of the proposed standard (e.g. scientific, historical, technical information, experience).

The North American Plant Protection Organization (NAPPO) is currently developing a regional standard on this topic and this standard may be of assistance in the development of an international standard. The European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO) has produced some technical papers related to assessing integrated measures. The International Forestry Quarantine Research Group has proposed a symposium on assessment of integrated measures in Forestry.

Supporting criteria (Practical)  Feasibility of adopting the proposed standard within a reasonable time frame.

It is expected that this standard will be able to be adopted within a reasonable time frame since NPPOs are searching for alternatives to a single treatment and have already adopted systems approaches for wood commodities.

 Stage of development of the proposed standard (is a standard on the same topic already widely used by NPPOs, RPPOs or a relevant international organization).

NAPPO is currently developing a regional standard on this topic and this standard may be of assistance in the development of an international standard.

The WTO's Standard Trade and Development Facility (STDF) project entitled "Beyond compliance: project on an integrated systems approach for pest risk management" (http://www.standardsfacility.org/PG-328) has undertaken work in this area which may be very helpful in the development of this standard.

 Availability of expertise needed to develop the proposed standard.

There is significant experience for the development of this proposed standard – both with respect to wood commodities and the broader application of systems approaches.

Supporting criteria (Economic)  Estimated value of the plants protected.

The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates the world’s forests as 31% of total land area and just over 4 billion hectares. The FAO Global Assessment of Forest Resources reported that outbreaks of forest insect pests damage some 35 million hectares of forest annually, primarily in the temperate and boreal zone. The report further notes that ‘in recent decades, two major factors have combined to increase the pest threat to forests: the volume, speed and variety of global trade have increased the opportunities for pests to move internationally; [and] climate change appears to be increasing the likelihood of pest establishment and the severity of impacts of both native and introduced pests’.

 Estimated value of trade affected by the proposed standard (e.g. volume of trade, value of trade, the percentage of Gross Domestic Product of this trade) if appropriate.

International Plan Protection Convention Page 3 of 14

12_SC_2016_Nov_Attachment_02_A Submission form for Topics for IPPC Standards

See Annex 1

 Estimated value of new trade opportunities provided by the approval of the proposed standard.

 Potential benefits in terms of pest control or quarantine activities.

As noted in Annex 1, a majority of countries import wood commodities over significant distances (average of 4500 km). Pests associated with the movement of these commodities present significant risks. Many countries rely on treatments as a single measure to address these pest risks. However, integrated measures which combine surveillance and monitoring systems, harvest selection procedures, production and storage practices, intended use and other activities may provide effective means for commodity movement.

Countries predominantly rely on treatments to manage pest risks associated with the movement of wood products. In particular, heat treatment or methyl bromide fumigation are used widely in quarantine management. Methyl bromide is known to deplete the ozone layer and the Commission on Phytosanitary Measures (CPM) has adopted a CPM Recommendation to encourage contracting parties to put in place strategies for the reduction of use of methyl bromide for phytosanitary measures and/or reduction of emissions of methyl bromide (CPM-3/2008). The use of heat requires significant energy and may result in negative impacts to the environment from emissions and draws on energy. A systems approach may provide a more environmentally sound equivalent alternative.

 Utility in the management of non indigenous species which are pests of plants (such as some invasive alien species).

The purpose of the standard is to provide guidance to NPPOs on the use of additional specific tools in the management of the movement of non-indigenous pests.

 Contribution to the protection of the environment, through the protection of wild flora, and their habitats and ecosystems, and of agricultural biodiversity. Management of the pest risks associated with the international movement of wood commodities is essential for the protection of the environment and biodiversity.

Supporting criteria (Strategic)  Extent of support for the proposed standard (e.g. one or more NPPOs or RPPOs have requested it, or one or more RPPOs have adopted a standard on the same topic).

Canada’s proposal received full support from NAPPO. Additionally, before submission, Canada discussed with NAPPO member countries, Australia, and New Zealand, and no concerns were raised.

European authorities have already undertaken some technical analysis of the use of systems approaches in forestry.

A significant number of bilateral opportunities to improve trade may be achieved through the development of a standard on systems approaches for wood commodities. In the Canadian context, a significant amount of Canadian wood exports are required to be treated prior to export. In a few situations, Canada has been able to negotiate access for certain wood commodities based upon integrated measures which have effectively mitigated pest risks, facilitated trade, reduced environmental costs associate with treatments.

 Relevance and utility to developing countries.

As demonstrated by the STDF project (STDF/PG/328), facilitation of the use of systems approaches for pest risk management is useful and relevant to developing countries. As noted in the study, further guidance on systems approaches would support improved trade negotiations, confidence in the use of integrated measures as a means to mitigating pest risk and improved awareness of measures supporting the use of systems approaches. Although ISPM 14 provides a framework, many countries are often unable to evaluate the success of measures when combined. Many countries would benefit from

Page 4 of 14 International Plant Protection Convention

Submission form for Topics for IPPC Standards 12_SC_2016_Nov_Attachment_02_A

specific guidance on how to effectively: identify a suite of measures which when combined addresses the organisms of concern; evaluate the success of the measures; and communicate a resulting option to assist in trade.

 Coverage (application to a wide range of countries/pests/commodities).

The standard, specific to measures which address the movement pests associated with wood commodities, will be applicable to all countries.

 Complements other standards (e.g. potential for the standard to be used as part of a systems approach for one pest, complement treatments for other pests).

ISPM 14. 2002. The use of integrated measures in a systems approach for pest risk management. Rome, IPPC, FAO.

 Foundation standards to address fundamental concepts (e.g. treatment efficacy, inspection methodology).

ISPM 14 The use of integrated measures in a systems approach for pest risk management. Rome, IPPC, FAO. ISPM 20 Guidelines for a phytosanitary import regulatory system. Rome, IPPC, FAO ISPM 24 Guidelines for the determination and recognition of equivalence of phytosanitary measures. Rome, IPPC, FAO. ISPM 28 Phytosanitary treatments for regulated pests. Rome, IPPC, FAO.

 Expected standard longevity (e.g. future trade needs, suggested use of easily outdated technology or products).

Systems approaches offer a broader range of options for addressing specific pest risks than do single measures. The application of specific combined measures to address a defined pest threat is also more likely to have lesser impact on trade and the environment than a specific single measure such as a treatment. For example, the application of multiple measures within a production process (e.g. debarking and inspection) is more likely to result in lower costs to producers; to be less intrusive on the overall trade system (since the measures are applied during production rather than just prior to export when a failure can result in the export being held up) and impact less on the environment. As such, the use of systems approaches in forestry is likely to encourage stable long term trade.

 Urgent need for the standard.

A standard on this topic is very relevant to current trade issues in forestry because NPPOs are increasingly looking for alternatives to specific single measures such as treatment.

International Plan Protection Convention Page 5 of 14

12_SC_2016_Nov_Attachment_02_A Submission form for Topics for IPPC Standards

[4] CPM-7 (2012) agreed that all submissions of proposed topics for the IPPC Standard Setting work programme should be accompanied by a draft Specification and a literature review. This provision would not apply to proposals for diagnostic protocols, phytosanitary treatments or glossary terms.

Draft Specification (SC approved specifications are posted on the IPP (https://www.ippc.int/en/core-activities/standards-setting/approved- specifications/) and may be referenced for examples.) Proposed Title: Use of Systems Approaches in Managing Pest Risks Associated with the Movement of Wood Commodities Reason for the standard (justification as to why the standard is needed, some of this can be copied from the above submission):

Countries predominantly rely on treatments to manage pest risks associated with the movement of wood commodities. In particular, heat treatment or methyl bromide fumigation is used widely in quarantine management. The availability of methyl bromide is diminishing in response to the Montreal Protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer and heat treatment is not a practical option for addressing risks in every circumstance. A systems approach may provide a more effective option for addressing some pest risks particularly those which may not be fully managed by a single phytosanitary measure. Integrated measures within a systems approach may also provide additional options to facilitate or expand trade while effectively managing pest risks.

Purpose (explain what issue will be addressed and/or harmonized once this standard is put in place):

Although the systems approach concept is described in ISPM 14 The use of integrated measures in a systems approach for pest risk management and operationalized in the commodity standard ISPM 36 Integrated measures for plants for planting, the existing standards do not provide technical guidance on the types of measures that may be used to address the pest risks associated with wood commodities. The proposed standard (or annex) will provide harmonized guidance on the types of measures that may be used within a system; the pests controlled by the measures and also provide guidance on how to evaluate the success of the individual measures and the overall systems approach. The standard will provide guidance on the role of the national plant protection organization (NPPO) in supervising the system and industry in implementing the measures.

Scope (this provides the boundaries or limits to what the standard should cover):

The standard (or annex) will provide guidance to NPPOs within the context of a systems approach on the use of specific measures that act independently but when applied together mitigate quarantine pest risks associated with wood commodities. The standard will be built upon guidance already established by the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) by identifying specific procedures and practices that may be practically applied during the production pathway for wood commodities (from planting to export) to control quarantine pests. The standard will also provide detailed guidance on the specific pests controlled and the monitoring and oversight required in ensuring the effectiveness of the system.

Tasks for the expert drafting group (this will help direct the work of the experts): The expert working group (EWG) should: 1. Consider existing standards, such as ISPM 14 The use of integrated measures in a systems approach for pest risk management, and the draft international standard on the International Movement of Wood 2. Describe the wood production practices and pests associated with the commodities covered by the standard 3. Identify and provide guidance for NPPOs on specific measures which may be integrated into a systems approach to address pest risks for wood commodities considering the species and characteristics of the wood, the production processes and pests likely to be associated with the commodity which may be. These may be applied pre-harvest, during harvest, during transportation of the raw material, during production and at export and import, and may include: a. Species and location selection b. Inspection c. Pest monitoring d. Sorting e. Mechanical production processes such as debarking, sawing, planning, etc. f. Laboratory diagnostics g. The application of chemical and biological treatments h. Other applicable tools 4. Consider the relationship between infested areas and pest free areas and the general aspects (including the practical application) of surveillance within the systems approach 5. Consider whether the intended use of the commodity affects pest risk

Page 6 of 14 International Plant Protection Convention

Submission form for Topics for IPPC Standards 12_SC_2016_Nov_Attachment_02_A

6. Describe procedures required to assess the effectiveness of the integrated measures 7. Describe the level of oversight and specific responsibilities of the NPPO of the exporting country, the NPPO of the importing country, co-operators and industry 8. Describe what constitutes a non-conformity and which corrective action should be applied 9. Consider whether this topic should be a standard or an annex to an existing standard (i.e. draft ISPM on the International Movement of Wood) 10. Consider whether the ISPM could affect in a specific way (positively or negatively) the protection of biodiversity and the environment; if this is the case, the impact should be identified, addressed and clarified in the draft ISPM 11. Consider the implementation of the ISPM by contracting parties and identify potential operational and technical implementation issues, and also provide information and possible recommendation on these issues to the SC

Expertise (this will provide the basis for screening nominations):

Five to seven experts with collective expertise in the following areas:  Development or implementation of phytosanitary measures that use systems approaches for pest risk management  Phytosanitary programs design, supervision and management  Regulatory inspection  Pest Risk Analysis of wood commodities and pests  Conducting and designing pest surveys  Understanding of temperate and tropical forestry silviculture and production systems

In addition to these experts, a member of the Technical Panel on Forest Quarantine should be invited to participate at the EWG meeting(s) or part of the meeting as invited experts.

References (Relevant ISPMs and national, regional or international standards on the same topic and any specific references that would be relevant during drafting):

ISPM 1 Phytosanitary principles for the protection of plants and the application of phytosanitary measures in international trade. Rome, IPPC, FAO. ISPM 4 Requirements for the establishment of pest free areas. Rome, IPPC, FAO. ISPM 13 Guidelines for the notification of non-compliance and emergency action. Rome, IPPC, FAO. ISPM 14 The use of integrated measures in a systems approach for pest risk management. Rome, IPPC, FAO. ISPM 20 Guidelines for a phytosanitary import regulatory system. Rome, IPPC, FAO ISPM 23 Guidelines for inspection. Rome, IPPC, FAO. ISPM 24 Guidelines for the determination and recognition of equivalence of phytosanitary measures. Rome, IPPC, FAO. ISPM 28 Phytosanitary treatments for regulated pests. Rome, IPPC, FAO. ISPM 36 Integrated measures for plants for planting. Rome, IPPC, FAO. NAPPO RSPM 37. 2012. Integrated measures for the trade of Christmas trees. Ottawa, NAPPO. NAPPO RSPM 40. 2014. Principles of Pest Risk Management for the Import of Commodities. Ottawa, NAPPO

International Plan Protection Convention Page 7 of 14

12_SC_2016_Nov_Attachment_02_A Submission form for Topics for IPPC Standards

The following international and regional standards were reviewed:

The report and blog of the WTO's Standard Trade and Development Facility (STDF) project entitled "Beyond compliance: project on an integrated systems approach for pest risk management" (http://www.standardsfacility.org/PG-328) was reviewed and will be helpful for development of this standard.

The paper following paper was also reviewed: Quinlan, M. M. and Ikin, R. 2009. A review of the application of Systems Approach to risk management in plant health PRATIQUE PD No. 4.2

Send submissions to: [email protected] (Title message: Call for Topics – 2015)

Mail: IPPC Secretariat (AGDI) Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN Viale delle Terme di Caracalla 00153 Rome, Italy

Page 8 of 14 International Plant Protection Convention Submission form for Topics for IPPC Standards 12_SC_2016_Nov_Attachment_02_A

Annex 1 – Trade in HS Code – 4400 – Wood and Articles of Wood

Source: World Trade Map - ITC calculations based on UN COMTRADE statistics. The world aggregation represents the sum of reporting and non reporting countries

Average Value imported Trade balance in Share in world distance of Importers in 2014 (USD 2014 (USD imports (%) supplying thousand) thousand) countries (km) World 144,888,044 -2,704,568 100 4,484 China 22,773,200 -8,297,779 15.8 7,604 United States of America 17,420,411 -7,677,384 12.1 5,483 Japan 11,670,861 -11,502,221 8.1 6,934 Germany 9,174,880 -4,608 6.4 1,665 United Kingdom 6,990,904 -6,385,133 4.8 3,774 Italy 4,943,227 -2,874,076 3.3 1,887 France 4,425,692 -1,510,748 3.1 2,266 Netherlands 3,400,023 -1,734,672 2.4 2,721 Korea, Republic of 3,365,182 -3,263,645 2.3 6,035 Canada 3,215,840 9,440,346 2.2 3,879 Belgium 3,170,503 -387,425 2.2 2,625 Austria 3,072,021 1,944,932 2.1 610 India 2,703,643 -2,349,831 1.9 6,188 Sweden 2,146,114 2,509,475 1.5 1,202 Switzerland 2,078,000 -1,426,219 1.3 1,221 Denmark 1,967,669 -1,043,807 1.4 1,403 Egypt 1,870,419 -1,803,316 1.3 3,756 Norway 1,715,374 -1,071,391 1.2 1,223 Australia 1,645,451 -417,226 1.1 8,311 Poland 1,633,881 2,572,705 1.1 1,336 Taipei, Chinese 1,559,774 -1,357,125 1.1 5,135 Mexico 1,524,501 -1,127,144 1.1 5,526 Turkey 1,487,625 -634,044 1 3,489 Spain 1,414,363 192,936 1 3,016 Saudi Arabia 1,390,569 -1,368,568 1 6,395 Russian Federation 1,307,756 6,330,434 0.9 2,985 United Arab Emirates 1,175,974 -1,034,822 0.8 5,778 Czech Republic 1,069,422 1,155,252 0.7 846 Finland 1,065,112 2,209,793 0.7 1,085 Viet Nam 991,161 1,680,164 0.7 8,218 Algeria 990,343 -990,288 0.7 3,270 Portugal 800,460 142,035 0.6 2,481 Hong Kong, China 718,444 -154,603 0.5 2,949

International Plan Protection Convention 9 of 14

12_SC_2016_Nov_Attachment_02_A Submission form for Topics for IPPC Standards

Average Value imported Trade balance in Share in world distance of Importers in 2014 (USD 2014 (USD imports (%) supplying thousand) thousand) countries (km) Thailand 641,192 1,672,963 0.4 3,841 Uzbekistan 635,594 -634,773 0.4 2,521 Israel 632,226 -622,348 0.4 4,738 Iran, Islamic Republic of 622,117 -620,031 0.4 3,571 Lithuania 620,209 532,871 0.4 867 Hungary 617,363 184,936 0.4 741 Malaysia 610,505 3,739,219 0.4 4,316 Romania 578,874 1,908,024 0.4 1,843 Singapore 576,278 -448,469 0.4 2,506 Slovakia 567,867 345,725 0.4 711 Slovenia 553,036 344,489 0.4 591 Estonia 529,915 945,207 0.3 1,077 Morocco 520,259 -501,576 0.4 2,786 Kazakhstan 502,511 -497,035 0.3 2,433 Latvia 438,745 1,848,306 0.3 635 Ireland 432,120 91,003 0.3 2,982 South Africa 396,803 113,955 0.3 7,427 Philippines 396,738 2,699,235 0.3 5,317 Indonesia 382,922 3,688,199 0.3 6,700 Greece 354,423 -277,161 0.2 2,533 Iraq 327,569 -327,452 0.2 3,824 Qatar 295,728 -290,789 0.2 5,332 Ukraine 281,282 980,674 0.2 1,726 Oman 279,359 -261,634 0.2 3,858 Colombia 270,693 -216,243 0.2 6,593 Kuwait 267,123 -259,965 0.2 5,362 Lebanon 265,268 -252,390 0.2 4,241 Chile 259,436 2,243,116 0.2 12,011 Luxembourg 254,310 25,207 0.2 615 Croatia 251,443 591,338 0.2 639 Peru 249,863 -86,996 0.2 4,888 Jordan 224,985 -199,938 0.2 5,559 Belarus 212,694 577,953 0.1 1,141 Tunisia 209,143 -192,005 0.1 1,937 Serbia 206,360 66,121 0.1 846 New Zealand 203,475 2,904,474 0.1 10,899 Nigeria 196,289 204,623 0.1 9,856 Bulgaria 179,360 241,248 0.1 1,719 Yemen 177,443 -177,408 0.1 6,017 Turkmenistan 177,368 -177,368 0.1 2,852

Page 10 of 14 International Plant Protection Convention

Submission form for Topics for IPPC Standards 12_SC_2016_Nov_Attachment_02_A

Average Value imported Trade balance in Share in world distance of Importers in 2014 (USD 2014 (USD imports (%) supplying thousand) thousand) countries (km) Brazil 150,618 2,092,494 0.1 9,286 Dominican Republic 149,100 -145,556 0.1 5,389 Pakistan 148,378 -94,012 0.1 6,469 Tajikistan 146,954 -146,892 0.1 2,809 Libya 140,478 -140,468 0.1 3,676 Azerbaijan 128,956 -127,545 0.1 1,997 Bosnia and Herzegovina 128,516 301,211 0.1 745 Angola 125,778 -112,593 0.1 8,733 Kyrgyzstan 120,915 -120,627 0.1 2,810 Argentina 120,096 66,836 0.1 8,831 Bahrain 114,030 -93,736 0.1 5,759 Georgia 107,531 -85,738 0.1 2,709 Afghanistan 100,612 -100,116 0.1 2,030 Sri Lanka 90,357 -39,598 0.1 3,436 Republic of Moldova 87,867 -82,181 0.1 984 Costa Rica 80,529 -8,114 0.1 6,008 Macedonia, The Former 78,501 -71,503 0.1 1,069 Yugoslav Republic of Tanzania, United Republic of 73,592 -28,221 0.1 4,773 Albania 73,474 -55,902 0 945 Panama 71,045 -18,380 0 6,801 Bahamas 70,415 -70,376 0 3,519 Ethiopia 68,519 -66,445 0 7,025 Syrian Arab Republic 67,017 -66,006 0 3,821 Botswana 66,902 -64,300 0 851 Armenia 66,397 -65,654 0 2,183 Jamaica 65,358 -63,443 0 4,309 Iceland 64,978 -64,499 0 2,808 Ecuador 63,306 219,641 0 8,144 Guatemala 60,148 10,098 0 6,005 Namibia 58,914 -27,383 0 1,632 Trinidad and Tobago 58,721 -57,019 0 4,670 Cyprus 58,718 -57,805 0 2,886 Mongolia 58,170 -57,534 0 2,227 Senegal 58,076 -52,753 0 3,208 Sudan (North + South) 56,419 -33,377 0 5,819 Venezuela 55,329 5,004 0 7,589 Kenya 52,543 -26,691 0 7,615 Mozambique 52,128 71,249 0 3,193 Uruguay 49,579 637,736 0 4,269 Mauritius 45,054 -43,693 0 7,027

International Plan Protection Convention Page 11 of 14

12_SC_2016_Nov_Attachment_02_A Submission form for Topics for IPPC Standards

Average Value imported Trade balance in Share in world distance of Importers in 2014 (USD 2014 (USD imports (%) supplying thousand) thousand) countries (km) Maldives 43,601 -43,597 0 5,882 Free Zones 38,870 -23,899 0 Ghana 37,852 307,457 0 8,718 Myanmar 37,079 1,434,525 0 2,495 El Salvador 34,755 -25,832 0 3,181 Montenegro 32,446 -937 0 1,244 Bolivia 32,134 26,876 0 4,490 Barbados 29,993 -29,777 0 4,499 Haiti 29,988 -29,916 0 5,252 Zambia 28,857 -19,032 0 2,569 Djibouti 28,432 -21,424 0 7,098 Bangladesh 27,682 -24,637 0 5,115 New Caledonia 27,304 -26,825 0 8,036 Macao, China 24,019 -23,034 0 Malta 22,509 -21,930 0 3,543 Lesotho 21,136 -20,889 0 470 Fiji 21,004 32,512 0 4,697 Netherlands Antilles 20,525 -20,411 0 4,488 Zimbabwe 20,141 5,037 0 1,657 Cuba 19,923 18,891 0 7,248 Honduras 19,836 33,973 0 4,328 Paraguay 19,590 56,937 0 3,391 French Polynesia 19,267 -19,163 0 9,866 Korea, Democratic People's 18,594 963 0 1,771 Republic of Nicaragua 18,455 1,638 0 6,644 Congo 17,138 378,462 0 8,894 Swaziland 16,639 45,427 0 533 Papua New Guinea 16,387 973,672 0 5,204 Faroe Islands 15,386 -15,345 0 1,305 Niger 15,284 -15,278 0 1,979 British Virgin Islands 14,066 -13,049 0 4,891 Greenland 14,001 -13,987 0 3,388 Equatorial Guinea 13,818 180,798 0 7,671 Seychelles 13,733 -13,496 0 6,901 Brunei Darussalam 13,630 -9,670 0 1,618 Cambodia 13,135 163,473 0 2,539 Somalia 12,235 -12,194 0 5,241 Cabo Verde 11,980 -11,980 0 3,843 Samoa 11,815 -11,575 0 4,289 Cayman Islands 11,041 -11,040 0 2,706

Page 12 of 14 International Plant Protection Convention

Submission form for Topics for IPPC Standards 12_SC_2016_Nov_Attachment_02_A

Average Value imported Trade balance in Share in world distance of Importers in 2014 (USD 2014 (USD imports (%) supplying thousand) thousand) countries (km) Antigua and Barbuda 11,034 -10,850 0 3,885 Andorra 10,042 -9,964 0 425 Gibraltar 10,008 -9,872 0 1,213 Democratic Republic of the 9,870 126,060 0 5,980 Congo Bermuda 9,368 -9,366 0 2,381 Aruba 9,265 -9,077 0 5,011 Bhutan 9,222 -5,797 0 1,300 Uganda 9,081 7,861 0 3,364 Nepal 9,004 -6,129 0 1,577 Saint Kitts and Nevis 8,750 -8,663 0 3,886 Belize 8,273 1,647 0 3,915 Saint Lucia 8,180 -8,113 0 4,579 Côte d'Ivoire 7,689 298,461 0 6,954 Turks and Caicos Islands 6,634 -6,598 0 3,132 Guinea 6,445 1,124 0 8,387 Rwanda 6,333 -6,309 0 2,740 Cameroon 6,172 690,296 0 6,652 Mauritania 5,926 -5,916 0 4,667 Saint Vincent and the 5,806 -5,754 0 4,220 Grenadines Gabon 5,662 421,683 0 6,273 Burkina Faso 5,300 -5,252 0 1,194 Lao People's Democratic 5,234 1,121,610 0 831 Republic Liberia 5,187 33,174 0 8,592 Grenada 5,162 -5,116 0 4,405 Suriname 5,153 75,528 0 7,870 Benin 5,077 7,337 0 3,967 Guyana 4,953 50,294 0 6,078 French South Antarctic 4,919 -4,897 0 Territories Falkland Islands (Malvinas) 4,652 -4,652 0 12,738 United States Minor Outlying 4,241 -4,187 0 Islands Tonga 4,205 -4,134 0 3,644 Madagascar 4,153 3,314 0 8,874 Vanuatu 4,083 -1,547 0 3,468 Gambia 4,064 29,203 0 6,313 Malawi 4,000 19,412 0 3,491 Mayotte 3,984 -3,984 0 Dominica 3,766 -3,731 0 4,877

International Plan Protection Convention Page 13 of 14

12_SC_2016_Nov_Attachment_02_A Submission form for Topics for IPPC Standards

Average Value imported Trade balance in Share in world distance of Importers in 2014 (USD 2014 (USD imports (%) supplying thousand) thousand) countries (km) Sierra Leone 3,454 11,742 0 9,779 Chad 3,421 -3,418 0 4,218 Togo 3,290 -2,302 0 4,494 Timor-Leste 3,245 -3,232 0 4,468 Anguilla 3,005 -3,004 0 3,652 Cook Islands 2,995 -2,984 0 3,535 Marshall Islands 2,660 -2,641 0 7,564 Palestine, State of 2,649 -2,182 0 1,528 Ship stores and bunkers 2,564 -2,557 0 Mali 2,518 -570 0 5,906 Kiribati 2,412 -2,412 0 3,896 St. Pierre and Miquelon 1,829 -1,785 0 2,393 Solomon Islands 1,691 513,700 0 6,074 Micronesia, Federated States of 1,678 -1,678 0 8,846 Burundi 1,625 -1,611 0 3,501 Palau 1,621 -1,442 0 9,766 Comoros 1,562 -1,439 0 5,099 Eritrea 1,389 -1,383 0 6,805 Guinea-Bissau 946 49,072 0 3,922 Tuvalu 811 -809 0 1,900 Nauru 779 -772 0 3,416 Saint Helena 700 -566 0 4,914 Christmas Islands 699 -622 0 Wallis and Futuna Islands 694 -693 0 4,041 Montserrat 626 -626 0 Northern Mariana Islands 535 -534 0 4,491 Norfolk Island 421 -304 0 1,410 Sao Tome and Principe 414 -407 0 7,020 Niue 330 -330 0 2,697 Cocos (Keeling) Islands 163 -64 0 Central African Republic 134 49,339 0 5,483 Tokelau 111 -110 0 9,411 Pitcairn 20 -17 0 British Indian Ocean Territories 10 -10 0

Page 14 of 14 International Plant Protection Convention International Plant Protection Convention 12_SC_Nov_Attachment_02_B Use of Systems Approaches in Managing Pest Risks Associated with the Movement of Wood Commodities reviewers form Agenda item 08.1

Attachment 2

Topic number: 2015-004

Title: Use of Systems Approaches in Managing Pest Risks Associated with the Movement of Wood Commodities Submitter: Canada Core Criteria: 1. Contribution to purpose of IPPC: The standard should help prevent the introduction and spread of pest with the movement of wood commodities (No changes to the submission from November 2015) 2. Feasibility of global implementation: The standard should help countries select combinations of existing treatments that are relatively easy to perform instead of having to use single measures which for full effectiveness may require more resources or extensive training (The submission from November 2015 expanded) 3. Clear identification of problem: Having a systems approach for wood could provide reliable combinations of measures alternative to single measures, especially for situations where certain single measures cannot be used (No changes to the submission from November 2015) 4. Supporting information available: EPPO and NAPPO working on concept. IFQRG meeting in 2015 cancelled so not discussed (No changes to the submission from November 2015) Supporting Criteria: 1. Practical: The standard may be adopted in a relatively short time as NAPPO is working on similar topics, countries need effective solutions for pest risks of wood and there is a lot of expertise on wood treatments available (No changes to the submission from November 2015) 2. Economic: Detailed economic data provided, the importance of forestry and wood trade for the economies of countries, but also for the risks posed by pests is emphasized (No changes to the submission from November 2015) 3. Environmental: Systems approach could help reduce the use of treatments with negative impact on the environment (No changes to the submission from November 2015) 4. Strategic: Discussed with NAPPO (full support declared), Australia and New Zealand (no concerns) but no supporting letters submitted. Useful tool to reduce costs and mitigate pest risks. The standard should be applicable to all countries. (No changes to the submission from November 2015) Comments by the reviewer:

General assessment of the submission: 1. The submission meets the criteria for justification and priorization of this proposed topic. 2. This proposed standard meets the requirements to be considered as a standard and could outline the criteria for the identification and application of integrated measures at the place of production, harvest, or during wood processing prior to export for international trade. Could provide guidance to help identify and manage pest risks associated with the Movement of Wood Commodities as a pathway. 3. It would be a step forward to establish Systems approaches in managing pest risks associated with the movement of wood commodities, as an equivalent alternative to procedures such as treatments or replace more restrictive measures. 4. As revised, it is a relevant topic to consider. However, the urgent need for the standard, is not clearly developed in the application, and therefore its priority would be 3

12_SC_Nov_Attachment_02_B Use of Systems Approaches in Managing Pest Risks Associated with the Movement of Wood Commodities reviewers form

Recommendations to the SC: Add to the List of Topics: Recommended Linkage to the IPPC Strategic Objectives: B: Environmental Protection, C: Trade Facilitation Framework for Standards and Implementation: Gap identified IPPC area: Pest Management, Row 54: Systems approach (ISPM 14) – Implementation Standard Priority: 3

International Plant Protection Convention 12_SC_2016_Nov_attachment_03_A Submission form for IPPC standard setting work programme topics Agenda item: 08.1

Name of Country or Organization____EPPO______

Submission form for IPPC standard setting work programme topics

Save and submit the completed submission form as: 2015_TOPIC_SUBMISSION_COUNTRY OR ORGANIZATION NAME – Proposed title of topic.doc.

Submission form for IPPC standard setting work programme topics

Proposed by: (Name of IPPC Official Contact Point)4 EPPO Contact: (Contact information of an individual able to clarify issues relating to this submission) Name: Martin Ward...... Position and organization: Director General ...... Mailing address: European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO/OEPP) 21 boulevard Richard Lenoir 75011 PARIS ...... Phone: + 33 (0) 1 45 20 77 94 ...... Fax: + 33 (0) 1 70 76 65 47 E-mail:[email protected] Type of topic: (Choose one box only) A. New ISPM: B. New component C. Revision/Amendment of: [__] Concept to an existing ISPM: [__] ISPM [__] Pest specific [__] Supplement [__] Supplement [_X_] Commodity [__] Annex [__] Annex specific [__] Appendix [__] Appendix [__] Reference [__] Technical Panel (technical area) [__] Glossary term [__] DP: Diagnostic protocol (subject) [__] PT: Phytosanitary treatment (topic) [__] Glossary term (subject) Proposed title of new ISPM or component: or Title of document to be revised or amended:

International movement of apples

Summary justification for the proposal (two sentences maximum): International trade of apples is substantial in volume and important for many exporting and importing countries. A commodity standard on apples is needed to provide harmonized guidance for NPPOs on pest risks and standardised options for phytosanitary measures that could be used to mitigate the risk of introduction and spread of regulated pests while minimizing unnecessary impact on trade.

International Plan Protection Convention Page 1 of 8

12_SC_2016_Nov_attachment_03_A Submission form for Topics for IPPC Standards

Core criteria: Contribution to the purpose of the IPPC as described in Article I.1.

The standard will help to prevent the spread of pests of apples and other pomaceous fruits. Especially apple-importing countries will be safeguarded from phytosanitary risks due to focused guidance for their risk analyses and standardised options for phytosanitary import requirements and due to harmonized application of phytosanitary measures in the countries of origin. Exporting countries and trade will benefit from increased transparency, standardisation and simplification of import requirements.

Feasibility of implementation at the global level (includes ease of implementation, technical complexity, capacity of NPPOs to implement, relevance for more than one region).

It is assumed that a standard on the international movement of apples would be implemented by many contracting parties because it will ease the NPPOs work on the import and export side. The standard will provide guidance on the technical basis and thereby simplify the analytical processes. In particular NPPOs with lower capacity will profit by the standard. The standard will be relevant for many regions because trade with apples is very important worldwide.

Clear identification of the problems that need to be resolved through the development of the standard.

Increased globalisation of trade in fresh fruit and vegetables increases the risk of introduction and spread of pests into new geographical areas.

In the EU-funded research project “DROPSA” (‘Strategies to develop effective, innovative and practical approaches to protect major European fruit crops from pests and pathogens’), risks related to pests that are globally not yet wide spread were recently analysed and about 250 significant pests of apple fruit from different taxonomic groups that might be further spread internationally and might threaten fruit production were identified.

Due to a lack of harmonized approaches to assess and manage phytosanitary risks that may be associated with the international movement of apples there is substantial divergence in the application of phytosanitary measures and requirements. This may lead to delays in the establishment of trade, unnecessary restrictions and discrimination of trading partners.

Clarification of requirements and providing a set of options for phytosanitary import requirements could simplify arrangements and allow NPPOs to work more efficiently.

For importing countries, this commodity standard could simplify the PRA process by presenting options to deal with potential risks from specific pests or pest groups.

For exporting countries the standard could help to reduce the burden of meeting the very different phytosanitary import requirements that currently apply and could also be of benefit to producers and exporters.

Availability of, or possibility to collect, information in support of the proposed standard (e.g. scientific, historical, technical information, experience).

There is a huge amount of information on apple pests available, providing a suitable basis for the development of the standard (e.g. Sutton et al., 2014).

Additionally, in the framework of the research project “DROPSA” (EU-funded), in depth information on apple pests were collected on the global scale. The results are expected to be available soon.

In addition, there should be many experts in NPPOs who are experienced in assessing and managing apple pest risks.

Page 2 of 8 International Plant Protection Convention

Submission form for Topics for IPPC Standards 12_SC_2016_Nov_attachment_03_A

Supporting criteria (Practical)  Feasibility of adopting the proposed standard within a reasonable time frame.  Stage of development of the proposed standard (is a standard on the same topic already widely used by NPPOs, RPPOs or a relevant international organization).  Availability of expertise needed to develop the proposed standard.

Development of such ISPM is considered feasible provided that broad consensus is achieved between importing and exporting countries on the purpose and scope. It might be a challenge that many countries already have phytosanitary import requirements in place reflecting a wide range of pest risks and plant protection needs. However the development of guidance on general IPPC commodity standards would help to overcome this challenge.

Apples are widely grown and experts should be available.

Apples are traded globally as a fresh perishable commodity. They are imported for consumption or for processing. The trade is well developed and in many cases uses sophisticated infrastructure to maintain fruit quality and shelf life. The standard should apply to commercial consignments and should not apply to processed (chopped, cooked, dried) apples.

The international trade of apples is substantial in volume. From FAO statistics, in 2013, more than 135 countries imported 1000 tonnes or more. Total global imports amounted to more than 8M tonnes with a value of more than US$8 billion.

Apples are an important export commodity for many countries. For example, in 2013, more than 8.5 million tonnes were exported globally, with countries from Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America and SW Pacific in the top ten exporting countries, both by volume and value. 62 countries exported at least 1000 tonnes. The global value of exports was more than US $8 billion.

The reduction of the risk to introduce and spread apple and polyphagous pests will be beneficial for all countries growing apples and other pomaceous fruits. Global apple production grew up to 80 million tons per year [FAOSTAT, 2015]) and is therefore important for many exporting and importing countries.

A standard addressing pest risks of apples will help countries with the complex task of undertaking pest risk analyses for the commodity of apples. Phytosanitary import requirements for apples should be technically justified and not more restrictive to trade than required.

Apples can be affected by a large number of pests and, based on PRA, countries have specified a wide variety of phytosanitary measures in their phytosanitary regulations. Phytosanitary measures applied to the international movement of apples help reduce the risk of introduction and spread of quarantine pests into new geographical areas.

The protection of endangered areas from newly introduced apple pests will help to avoid additional chemical treatments to be used for pest management.

Likewise more targeted risk-based import requirements may help to minimize unnecessary pesticide applications in export countries.

International Plan Protection Convention Page 3 of 8

12_SC_2016_Nov_attachment_03_A Submission form for Topics for IPPC Standards

Supporting criteria (Strategic)  Extent of support for the proposed standard (e.g. one or more NPPOs or RPPOs have requested it, or one or more RPPOs have adopted a standard on the same topic).  Frequency with which the issue addressed by the proposed standard emerges as a source of trade disruption (e.g. disputes or need for repeated bilateral discussions, number of times per year trade is disrupted).  Relevance and utility to developing countries.  Coverage (application to a wide range of countries/pests/commodities).  Complements other standards (e.g. potential for the standard to be used as part of a systems approach for one pest, complement treatments for other pests).  Foundation standards to address fundamental concepts (e.g. treatment efficacy, inspection methodology).  Expected standard longevity (e.g. future trade needs, suggested use of easily outdated technology or products).  Urgent need for the standard.

The development of such a standard has been proposed by many EPPO countries (IPPC members) and is assumed to concern also other NPPOs.

The lack of harmonization addressed by the proposed standard emerges as a source of trade disruption and disputes in importing and exporting countries.

Apples have been the subject of two specific WTO plant health disputes (by the USA with Japan https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds245_e.htm and by New Zealand with Australia https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds367_e.htm). Both cases related to measures for Erwinia amylovora (fireblight). In a third case, apples were one of the commodities cited in the dispute (by USA with Japan, https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds76_e.htm).

The standard is highly relevant to developing as well as developed countries.

The need for the standard will substantially increase in future.

Page 4 of 8 International Plant Protection Convention

Submission form for Topics for IPPC Standards 12_SC_2016_Nov_attachment_03_A

International Plan Protection Convention Page 5 of 8

12_SC_2016_Nov_attachment_03_A Submission form for Topics for IPPC Standards

Draft Specification (SC approved specifications are posted on the IPP (https://www.ippc.int/en/core-activities/standards-setting/approved-specifications/) and may be referenced for examples.) Proposed Title: International movement of apples Reason for the standard (justification as to why the standard is needed, some of this can be copied from the above submission): International trade of apples for human consumption and/or processing is substantial in volume and important for many exporting and importing countries. The international movement of apples is associated with the risk of introduction and spread of pests. Phytosanitary measures applied to imported apples help to reduce the risk of introduction and spread of regulated pests. However, there is substantial divergence in the application of such measures resulting in a wide range of very specific arrangements to be fulfilled to allow the establishment and continuation of trade. There is currently no adopted IPPC standard that provides sufficient guidance on phytosanitary measures for the international movement of apples resulting in a lack of harmonized approaches to assess and manage phytosanitary risks associated with apples. The development of an ISPM on the international movement of apples could substantially help to minimize these challenges. Its development is considered feasible provided that broad consensus is achieved between importing and exporting countries on the purpose and scope of such ISPM.

Purpose (explain what issue will be addressed and/or harmonized once this standard is put in place): An ISPM on the international movement of apples should help to promote harmonization of related procedures, will support the establishment of transparent phytosanitary import requirements, help to avoid unnecessary delay in their establishment and help to minimize discrimination. It should also safeguard importing countries from phytosanitary risks that may result from imports of fresh apples due to options for the harmonized application of phytosanitary measures in the countries of origin. The standard will provide NPPOs with guidance on pest risks associated with trade in apples, including risk factors, and guidance on measures relating specifically to the trade in apples that NPPOs can require in order to address these risks and to meet their appropriate level of protection. This standard should therefore facilitate the safe international movement of apples through harmonized phytosanitary procedures and options for standardised phytosanitary import requirements while helping to minimize the risk of the global spread of pests of apples and related crops.

Scope (this provides the boundaries or limits to what the standard should cover): This standard applies to fresh apples moved internationally and is intended to provide guidance to assist national plant protection organizations (NPPOs) in identifying, assessing and regulating the pest risks associated with the international trade of fresh apples. If appropriate, the standard may contain minimum requirements for trade in apples, for example freedom from key pests.

Tasks for the expert drafting group (this will help direct the work of the experts): (1) Analysis of existing guidance, such as agreements or industry guidelines and research outcomes dealing with the international movement of apples, and identification of relevant information that could be considered for the standard. (2) Identification of pests potentially associated with apples and categorization of the pests based on their risk to be introduced and spread with the movement of apples. (3) Identification of key requirements and relevant information for the conduct of pest risk analyses for apples. (4) Consideration of production, transportation and storage procedures used by industry that may affect pest risks and whether guidance is relevant to NPPOs in setting their phytosanitary import requirements. (5) Identification of phytosanitary measures reducing the risk of introduction and spread of pests at different stages of the marketing process including: - Pest free places of production or pest free areas - Post-harvest treatments (e.g. washing, removing of leaves) - Practices in packaging (e.g. scanning, material from different origins) - Measures applied at storage or transport (e.g. cooling, humidity regulation) - Laboratory testing methods

Page 6 of 8 International Plant Protection Convention

Submission form for Topics for IPPC Standards 12_SC_2016_Nov_attachment_03_A

(6) Proposal of suitable phytosanitary measures according to the identified risks and their categories that can be included as options for NPPOs to consider. If appropriate, combinations of measures should be identified that might be used when importing countries requirements are established. (7) Consideration whether minimum requirements should be included for certain categories of apples, such as freedom from specific pests. (8) Consideration as to whether the ISPM could affect in a specific way (positively or negatively) the protection of biodiversity and the environment. If this is the case, the impact should be identified, addressed and clarified in the ISPM.

Expertise (this will provide the basis for screening nominations):

An expert working group (EWG) of 7 phytosanitary experts with expertise in one or more of the following areas: development and/or implementation of phytosanitary measures to manage pest risks associated with the international movement of apples, pest risk analysis (PRA), apple inspection or testing, and existing guidance for the international movement of apples. Expertise in exporting and importing countries` needs should be equally represented. In addition to these experts, 2 experts from the apple industry (product, producing, packaging, storage, trading, transport) or from relevant organizations may be invited to participate at the EWG meeting(s) or part of the meetings as invited experts.

References (Relevant ISPMs and national, regional or international standards on the same topic and any specific references that would be relevant during drafting):

Relevant ISPMs and other national, regional or international standards and agreements as may be applicable to the task. Possibly scientific literature on worldwide apple pests and effective treatments against them (e.g. Sutton et al. (2014): Compendium of apple and pear diseases and pests; NAPPO regional standard RSPM 34: Development of Phytosanitary Treatment Protocols for Regulated Arthropod Pest of Fresh Fruits or Vegetables).

International Plan Protection Convention Page 7 of 8

12_SC_2016_Nov_attachment_03_A Submission form for Topics for IPPC Standards

A review of relevant literature regarding apple production, trade and associated pest risks will be available as a result from the EU-funded research project “DROPSA” as introduction to the alert list of pests of apples.

Send submissions to: [email protected] (Title message: Call for Topics – 2015)

Mail: IPPC Secretariat (AGDI) Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN Viale delle Terme di Caracalla 00153 Rome, Italy

Page 8 of 8 International Plant Protection Convention

Recommendations for new topics to be added to the LOT (08.2) 12_SC_2016_Nov_Attachment_03_B (08.2)

Attachment 3 Topic number: 2015-006

Title: International movement of apples Submitter: EPPO Core Criteria: 1. Contribution to purpose of IPPC: Facilitation of trade and reduction of spread of pests of pomaceous fruits (The submission from November 2015 expanded) 2. Feasibility of global implementation: Apples are traded globally; the standard should help simplify the analytical processes in both exporting and importing countries and be especially helpful for NPPOs with lower capacity (No changes to the submission from November 2015) 3. Clear identification of problem: Requirements for apples in trade vary significantly among countries; the standard should help reduce the divergence of phytosanitary import requirements and increase the safety of trade of apples by providing standardized options for the requirements and for the harmonized application of phytosanitary measures in the countries of origin (The submission from November 2015 expanded) 4. Supporting information available: Experts, resources and studies should be available (The submission from November 2015 expanded) Supporting Criteria: 1. Practical: The feasibility of adoption of the standard may depend on reaching the agreement by importing and exporting countries to agree on scope and purpose of the standard; another challenge may be the diversity of requirements used by countries (No changes to the submission from November 2015) 2. Economic: Extensive data on international trade in apples provided (The submission from November 2015 expanded – a new attachment added) 3. Environmental : May reduce pesticide usage (The submission from November 2015 expanded) 4. Strategic: Many EPPO countries support the development of the standard, but no letters of support provided. Lack of harmonization is a source of trade disruption and disputes. (The submission from November 2015 expanded) Comments by the reviewer: Not received

General assessment of the submission: …………………………………………….…

International Plant Protection Convention Page 1 of 1

International Plant Protection Convention 12_SC_2016_Nov_attachment_03_C_rev_01 Resubmission Draft ISPM Apples - EPPO Agenda item: 08.1

This model ISPM is for illustrative purposes only.

Note: This example ISPM is for illustrative purposes only. The IPPC Expert Working Group will be responsible for drafting the ISPM after considering all aspects of the Specification. The content should not be taken as a European proposal for requirements to be included in any draft ISPM.

EXAMPLE ISPM: FRESH FRUIT OF MALUS DOMESTICA (APPLE)

INTRODUCTION

Scope

[1] This standard provides guidance on pest risks associated with and requirements for consignments of fresh fruit of Malus domestica (apple) in international trade. It also provides options for standardized phytosanitary measures for specific pests or pest groups.

[2] The standard does not apply to processed apples e.g. chopped, dried, candied or pureed fruit.

[3] References

[4] [Insert normal wording]

Definitions

[5] [Insert normal wording] Outline of Requirements

[6] [To be completed.] BACKGROUND

[7] Large volumes of apple fruit are traded internationally between different continents to meet consumer demands for fresh fruit throughout the year. Apples are moved for consumption or processing and therefore have a lower risk compared to plants for planting. However, they are moved in large quantities in international trade and this may increase the probability of introduction of quarantine pests to the country of destination.

[8] Many pests may be associated with apple fruit, but production systems for apples often use a variety of phytosanitary actions to reduce pest risks. Systems approaches may be used at places of production to manage the risk of pests especially those that are difficult to detect during import or export inspections for example due to low pest incidence, latent infestations or difficulty in detection.

[9] Phytosanitary import requirements for apples should be technically justified and based on PRA.

[10] The aim of this standard is to provide guidance on pest risk factors associated with apple fruit and general requirements for the international movement apples. It also aims to provide options for measures that can be used to minimize risks from specific quarantine pests or pest groups that have been identified by pest risk analysis.

International Plan Protection Convention Page 1 of 9

12_SC_2016_Nov_attachment_03_C_rev_01 Resubmission Draft ISPM Apples - EPPO

Impact on Biodiversity and the Environment

[11] The measures in this standard may provide a means to prevent the entry into new areas of organisms other than quarantine pests. These could include organisms relevant to biodiversity (invasive alien species), human health and animal health. In addition, more targeted risk-based import requirements may help to minimize unnecessary pesticide applications in exporting countries.

REQUIREMENTS

1. Pests associated with the pathway

[12] Many pests have been found to infest plants of Malus domestica and some may also infest the fruit. A list of pests that may be associated with apple fruit is included at Appendix 1.

[13] As this standard applies to consignments of apples, pests associated with fruit collected from the wild or from smallholdings, and any measures for such fruit, are not considered.

2. Pest Risk Factors Related To Apple Fruit

[14] Apples may be infested by pests during the growing season, at harvest, during storage and at dispatch. Pest risks are affected by factors relating to the plants, production practices and intended use. These factors can influence the probability of introduction and spread of quarantine pests and should be taken into account when conducting a PRA (ISPMs 2 (Framework for pest risk analysis) and 11 (Pest risk analysis for quarantine pests)).

[15] Survival of pests on or in apples will be affected by the biology of the pests and pest status in the area of export and treatment or storage conditions. 2.1 Plant-related factors

[16] Plant factors that may affect pest risks include:

- Cultivar (susceptibility to pests) - Source or testing history of the trees producing the apple fruit (latent infestations) - Age of plantation (likelihood of pest presence) - Size of trees (ability to inspect plantations, proximity to soil). 2.2 Production-related factors

[17] The following factors associated with the production of apples may be relevant: - geographical location of the production site (e.g. climate conditions, proximity to sources of pests); - production system, growing conditions and crop management (e.g. growing under protection or bagging of developing fruit); - pest control (e.g. integrated pest management, use of chemicals), difficulty of control of pest group (e.g. if the pest is an internal feeder); - pest incidence (e.g. pest free area, area of low pest prevalence); - post-harvest practices (e.g. quality checks, cleaning, washing, handling), chance of contamination by plant debris and soil; - packaging;

Page 2 of 9 International Plan Protection Convention Resubmission Draft ISPM Apples - EPPO 12_SC_2016_Nov_attachment_03_C_rev_01

- conditions of storage, segregation and transport (e.g. cold storage during transportation). 2.3 Intended use

[18] As apples are intended for consumption or processing, risks of introduction of pests should be lower than for plants for planting and should be considered Category 3 according to ISPM 32 (Categorization of commodities according to their pest risk).

[19] As apples are a perishable commodity, they are generally stored at cool temperatures for long periods. Therefore, although apples may present a pathway for entry of pests, because of the prolonged storage at cool temperatures the pathway may not always lead to establishment of pests. The likelihood of introduction and spread of pests will be further influenced by the handling and disposal of the apples and any associated material.

[20] The following factors may be relevant when considering risks associated with the intended use of apples: - Length and type of storage after import - Type of processing - Location of processing premises - Waste disposal.

3. Phytosanitary Measures 3.1 General measures

[21] All consignments of apples in international trade should meet the phytosanitary import requirements of the importing country.

[22] In order to minimize the likelihood of pest introductions particularly from pests associated with the parent plants and soil, apple fruit should be:

- free from plant debris and soil; - identifiable in a way that can be traced back to the production premises and treatment facility, if relevant;

- packed in clean packaging material; - handled and packed in a manner to prevent infestation by pests (e.g. tarpaulins, screens, separation from other lots);

- stored and transported in a way that prevents infestation by pests (e.g. separation from other lots, clean containers).

[23] All lots should be inspected prior to export to verify pest and contamination freedom at a rate of a minimum of XXX fruit per lot for lots greater than XXX fruit and XXX fruit per lot for smaller consignments (efficacy level of XXX). 3.2 Specific measures

[24] In addition to the general requirements, phytosanitary measures such as inspection, treatments, and systems approaches may be required to reduce risks from specific pests or pest groups. These measures may be applied singly or as part of a systems approach at the following stages:

- Pre-harvest;

International Plan Protection Convention Page 3 of 9

12_SC_2016_Nov_attachment_03_C_rev_01 Resubmission Draft ISPM Apples - EPPO

- At harvest or post-harvest - During transport - On arrival in the importing country.

[25] Annex 1 provides guidance on measures used for specific pests or pest groups. 3.2.1 Pre-harvest options

[26] The following are options for pest risk management of apples before harvest: - visual examination for freedom from pests or symptoms; - field monitoring and detection (e.g. to establish an area of low pest prevalence or pest-free area/place of production or site); - growing season inspection; - integrated pest management and biological control (e.g. beneficial organisms, pheromone traps); - chemical control (e.g. sprays and other treatments); - soil treatment (e.g. sterilization, chemical treatment); - sanitation and hygiene – contributing to preventing the introduction of pests to the place of production and minimizing spread within a place of production. 3.2.2 Harvest and post-harvest options

[27] The following are options for pest risk management of apples during and after harvest:

- visual examination for freedom from pests or symptoms (e.g. at timed intervals); - physical control (e.g. cleaning, washing, brushing, waxing); - chemical control (e.g. spraying, dipping, fogging, fumigation); - hygiene measures (e.g. sanitized tools, cleaning and disinfection of facilities); - harvest at specific fruit maturity - cooling and storage (e.g. in controlled atmospheres. 3.2.3 Transportation (including transit) options

[28] The following are options for pest risk management of apples during transportation: - Pre-export inspection - treatment (e.g. controlled atmosphere, environmental conditions, cold treatment for arthropods during transportation). [29] Further guidance on transit arrangements is provided in ISPM 25 (Consignments in transit). 3.2.4 Options on arrival The following are options for pest risk management of apples on arrival: - verification of treatment during transportation; - testing; - treatment; - specific processing and waste disposal arrangements. [30] Further guidance on measures for consignments to be imported is provided in ISPM 20 (Guidelines for a phytosanitary import regulatory system).

Page 4 of 9 International Plan Protection Convention Resubmission Draft ISPM Apples - EPPO 12_SC_2016_Nov_attachment_03_C_rev_01

4. Documentation and Record Keeping

[31] The general requirements for documentation and record keeping contained in ISPM 7 (Phytosanitary certification system) should be applied for exports of apples.

[32] Producers should keep records of activities undertaken to comply with phytosanitary import requirements. Where relevant, such records should be audited by the NPPO of the exporting country to ensure compliance with the relevant phytosanitary import requirements.

[33] Records should be maintained for at least XX months.

International Plan Protection Convention Page 5 of 9

12_SC_2016_Nov_attachment_03_C_rev_01 Resubmission Draft ISPM Apples - EPPO

ANNEX 1 Optional phytosanitary measures for pest groups and specific pests of apple fruit

Annex 1A° General measures for pest groups

Pest Phytosanitary measure Summary description Systems approaches for: NPPO oversight of production Arthopod pests system Inspections (growing season and pre-export) Surveillance Isolation from sources of infestation Treatments

Fungal pests NPPO oversight of production system Treatments and disinfection Inspection Growing season Surveillance Monitoring for pest presence by requirements surveillance at specified times and intensities. Example with efficacy rate of XXX. Requirements at harvest for: Option 1: Inspection Freedom from visible symptoms of pests Pests Examination of XXX fruit per lots with more than XXX fruit, XXX fruit for lots of up to XXX. Efficacy rate of XXX. Option 2: Inspection XXX apple inspection. Efficacy rate of XXX. Requirements prior to Treatment dispatch for: Arthropod pests Fruit flies Irradiation treatment Minimum absorbed dose of 150 Gy to prevent the emergence of adults of fruit flies. Efficacy and confidence level of the treatment is ED99.9968 at the 95% confidence level Treatment should be applied in accordance with the requirements of ISPM 18 (Guidelines for the use of irradiation as a phytosanitary measure). This irradiation treatment should not be applied to fruit and vegetables stored in modified atmospheres. (ISPM 27 PT 7 Irradiation treatment for fruit flies of the family Tephritidae (generic)) Pests Inspection Freedom from pests or symptoms. Examination of XXX fruit per lots with more than XXX fruit, XXX fruit for lots of up to XXX. Efficacy rate of XXX.

Page 6 of 9 International Plan Protection Convention Resubmission Draft ISPM Apples - EPPO 12_SC_2016_Nov_attachment_03_C_rev_01

Annex 1B Measures for specific pests

Pest Requirement Summary description Insects Bactrocera dorsalis Option 1: Pest Free Area ISPM 4 (Requirements for the establishment of pest free areas) Option 2: Irradiation treatment Minimum absorbed dose of 150 Gy to prevent the emergence of adults of fruit flies. Efficacy and confidence level of the treatment is ED99.9968 at the 95% confidence level. Treatment should be applied in accordance with the requirements of ISPM 18. This irradiation treatment should not be applied to fruit and vegetables stored in modified atmospheres. (ISPM 28 PT 7). Ceratitis capitata Option 1: Cold treatment Option 2: Irradiation treatment Minimum absorbed dose of 100 Gy to prevent the emergence of adults of Ceratitis capitata. Efficacy and confidence level of the treatment is ED99.9970 at the 95% confidence level. Treatment should be applied in accordance with the requirements of ISPM 18. This irradiation treatment should not be applied to fruits and vegetables stored in modified atmospheres. (ISPM 27, PT 14 (Irradiation treatment for Ceratitis capitata)). Cydia pomonella Option 1: Areas of low pest ISPM 22 (Requirements for the prevalence establishment of areas of low pest prevalence) Option 2: Treatment Dasineura mali Option 1: Pest free areas or pest ISPMs 4, 10 (Requirements for the free places of production or establishment of pest free places of production sites production and pest free production sites) Option 2: Inspection and remedial XXX apple inspection. Efficacy rate of action if found XXX. Remedial action if found – details to be specified Option 3: Treatment Epiphyas postvittana Specific growing season measures Give details

International Plan Protection Convention Page 7 of 9

12_SC_2016_Nov_attachment_03_C_rev_01 Resubmission Draft ISPM Apples - EPPO

Grapholita Ispecies (G. Option 1: Areas of low pest ISPM 22 molesta, G. packardi and G. prevalence prunivora) Option 2: Treatment Rhagoletis pomonella Option 1: Pest free areas or pest ISPMs 4, 10 free places of production or production sites Option 2: Treatment Fungi Neonectria ditissima Option 1: Pest free areas ISPM 4 Option 2: Pest free places of ISPM 10 production Option 3: Areas of low pest ISPM 22 prevalence Venturia inaequalis Option 1: Pest free areas ISPM 4 Option 2: Pest free places of ISPM 10 production Bacteria Erwinia amylovora No specific requirements for fruit

Page 8 of 9 International Plan Protection Convention Resubmission Draft ISPM Apples - EPPO 12_SC_2016_Nov_attachment_03_C_rev_01

APPENDIX 1: Examples of pests that may be of concern to apple fruit Please note that the following list does not constitute a technical justification for regulating these pests. Note: these are examples only. This table could be divided into two parts: 1) pests directly infesting fruit and causing major economic damage and 2) pests infesting fruit causing superficial or minor damage. It might also be helpful to include a table with pests that have a world-wide distribution and that should not be regulated. The type of pest (e.g. fruit borer, fruit rot, surface blemish, scale insect, thrips spp.) could also be indicated. This could be useful if measures for different categories of pests (e.g. all fruit borers) are available and included as options in Annex 1.

INSECTS Adoxophyes orana Hedya spp. (H. nubiferana, H. pruniana) Aphanostigma piri Lacanobia oleracea Archips spp. (A. argyrospila, A. podana, A. rosana) Leucoptera malifoliella Argyrotaenia spp. (A. franciscana, A. pulchellana, A. Lobesia botrana pomililiana, A. velutinana) Bactericera dorsalis Lopholeucaspis japonica Carposina sasakii Mamestra brassicae Ceratitis capitata Ostrinia nubilalia Ceroplastes japonicas Pammene rhediella Choristoneura spp. (C. hebenstreitella C. rosaceana) Pandemis spp. (P. cerasana, P heparana, P pyrusana) Conogethes punctiferalis Parlatoria oleae Cryptoblabes gnidiella Phenacoccus aceris Cydia spp. (C. funebrana, C. pomonella, C. pyrivora) Platynota spp. (P. flavedana, P. idaeusalis, P. stultana, Dasineura mali Pseudexentera mali Diloba caeruleocephala Pseudococcus spp. (P. calceolariae, P. comstocki, P. maritimus Epiphyas postvittana Rhagoletis pomonella Euzophera bigella Rhynchites spp. (R. aequatus, R. auratus, R bacchus) Frankliniella spp. (F. occidentalis, F. tritici) Spilonota ocellana Grapholita spp. (G funebrana, G. inopinata, G Syndemis musculana lobarzewskii, G. molesta, G. packardi, G. prunivora) MITES Amphitetranychus viennensis Cenopalpus pulcher Eutetranychus orientalis FUNGI Coprinopsis psychromorbida Phyllosticta arbutifolia Gymnosporangium spp. (G. juniperi-virginianae, G. Sphaeropsis pyriputrescens libocedri) Mucor spp. (M. mucedo, M piriformis, M. racemosus) Truncatella hartigii Neonectria ditissima Venturia inaequalis Phacidiopycnis spp. (P. piri, P. washingtonensis) BACTERIA Erwinia spp. (E. amylovora, E. pyrifoliae) Pseudomonas syringae pv. papulans

International Plan Protection Convention Page 9 of 9

International Plant Protection Convention 12_SC_2016_Nov_attachment _03_D Further justification by EPPO Agenda item 08.1

PROPOSAL FOR A COMMODITY STANDARD FOR FRESH FRUIT OF MALUS DOMESTICA (APPLES) – FURTHER JUSTIFICATION BY EPPO

Background

[1] Several ISPMs (e.g. on pest risk analysis (PRA) and pest free areas (PFA)) provide relevant guidance for the phytosanitary aspects for the international movement of commodities and several commodity class standards are under development. Currently, however, no ISPMs focus specifically on phytosanitary measures for the international movement of a single commodity.

[2] The Commission on Phytosanitary Measures (CPM) set up a working group in 20151 to explore the concept of a commodity standard and this was discussed at CPM-11 in 2016. The EU proposed that a commodity standard should be developed as a case study to explore issues involved in the development of such standards2.

[3] The CPM agreed that a standard should not be tagged as a particular type, but should focus on requirements or guidance that need to be harmonised in order to effectively manage the phytosanitary risks that the standard is intended to cover as defined in its scope. The CPM did not specifically agree to the proposal by the EU for a case study to develop a commodity standard, but requested that the Standards Committee (SC) reconsider the topic on PRA for Commodities and the other proposals for commodity standards that were made during the 2015 call for topics.

[4] In the 2015 call for topics, EPPO proposed two topics for commodity standards (tomatoes and apples). In this paper we propose that the SC considers recommending developing a commodity standard for fresh fruit of Malus domestica (apples). The process of development of the standard could provide valuable experience with developing commodity standards and could be in place of or in parallel to an overarching standard on the concept of commodity standards.

Need to develop commodity standards

[5] In 2015, when considering the IPPC in 20 years the Strategic Planning Group identified theme 7: Simplify the regulatory environment for the complexities of future global trade (see document 08_SPG_2015_Oct3)). The development of commodity standards should be considered part of the process of simplification and harmonisation.

[6] The lack of harmonized approaches for managing pest risks associated with commodities means that, based on individual PRAs, multiple requirements are being developed by contracting parties to manage pest risks. Trading partners also develop guidelines and quality specifications, including grade standards, for the international movement of commodities and Codex has produced quality standards for international trade in commodities (e.g. standard for fresh apple fruit, CODEX STAN 299-2010). While many of these address quality and/or food safety, some may also have a significant effect on mitigating pest risks.

[7] Both exporting and importing countries may benefit from guidance on pest risk factors related to commodities as pathways for quarantine pests and on technically justified phytosanitary measures to manage pest risks. Phytosanitary measures applied before export, during transport, on arrival, and during handling and processing in the importing country can be effective in pest risk mitigation and thereby help to improve food security and the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, but

1 https://www.ippc.int/static/media/files/publication/en/2015/09/REPORT_WGCommodityStandard_2015_July_ 2015-09-24.pdf 2 https://www.ippc.int/static/media/files/publication/en/2016/03/INF_17_CPM_April_2016_written-statements- EU28_2016-03-23.pdf 3 https://www.ippc.int/en/publications/81573/

International Plan Protection Convention Page 1 of 9

12_SC_2016_Nov_attachment _03_D Further justification by EPPO

international guidance is needed to support that such measures are technically justified, commensurate with the level of risk, and not more restrictive to trade than required.

[8] For exporting countries, simplification of requirements would mean that NPPOs could work more efficiently. Clarification of requirements and the provision of options for managing regulated pests could also help to reduce the burden to industry. Simplified requirements will be beneficial for producers and exporters and ensure that they do not have to work to the multitude of differing requirements that currently apply.

[9] By making available options that meet required levels of protection in commodity standards, the PRA processes could be simplified for importing countries and this could facilitate safe trade. Contracting parties would need to have confidence that measures in such standards are sufficiently effective to meet their requirements, but the standard setting process ensures that there is sufficient opportunity for scrutiny of requirements.

[10] Various approaches could be taken to simplify requirements, for example identification of measures that are applicable to groups of pests with similar biological properties, agreement on harmonised requirements for a specific pest or agreement that measures are not required for pests that are widespread across the globe. Commodity standards could also evolve, for example CPM could adopt additional measures into a commodity standard after considering supporting evidence.

Why apples?

[11] Apples are traded globally as a fresh perishable commodity. They are imported for consumption or for processing. The trade is well developed and in many cases uses sophisticated infrastructure to maintain fruit quality and shelf life. The standard should apply to commercial consignments and should not apply to processed (chopped, cooked, dried) apples.

[12] From FAO statistics, in 2013 more than 135 countries imported 1000 tonnes or more. Total global imports amounted to more than 8M tonnes with a value of more than US$8 billion (more detailed figures are given in Annex 1).

[13] Apples are an important export commodity for many countries. For example, in 2013 62 countries exported at least 1000 tonnes. Globally more than 8.5 million tonnes were exported, with countries from Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America and SW Pacific in the top ten exporting countries, both by volume and value. The global value of exports was more than US $8 billion.

[14] Apples have been the subject of three WTO plant health disputes. Two (by the USA with Japan https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds245_e.htm and by New Zealand with Australia https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds367_e.htm)related to measures for Erwinia amylovora (fireblight). The third applied to measures for fruit, including apples (https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds76_e.htm).

[15] Apples can be affected by a large number of pests and, based on PRA, countries have specified a wide variety of phytosanitary measures in their phytosanitary regulations (some examples are given in Annex 2). Phytosanitary measures applied to the international movement of apples help reduce the risk of introduction and spread of quarantine pests into new geographical areas. These measures should be technically justified and not more restrictive to trade than required.

[16] There has been considerable work within the European region to identify pests of apple fruit and control measures. This expertise could be used in development of the draft standard.

Measures for individual pests or pest groups

[17] In addition to providing guidance on pests affecting apples, if appropriate the standard should include specific requirements that apply to all international movements of apples, for example a requirement for consignments to be free from plant debris and soil.

Page 2 of 9 International Plan Protection Convention

Further justification by EPPO 12_SC_2016_Nov_attachment _03_D

[18] The standard should also provide standardised options for management of major globally relevant pests, for example specific measures for E. amylovora or Bactrocera dorsalis. For other pests, there would be options that would be applicable for pest groups, for example moths, weevils, beetles, rots or leaf spots.

Conclusion

[19] This standard for apples should help to minimise risks from international trade in apple fruit by clarifying and simplifying arrangements in importing and exporting countries. The standard should also help prevent further disputes.Annex 1 2013 trade figures from FAO stats

Export quantities Global export volumes were 8,584,796 tonnes (http://faostat3.fao.org/browse/T/TP/E) 62 countries exported 1000 or more tonnes of apples. Top 20 exporting countries by quantity

Country Export quantity Export value (1000 (tonnes) US$) 1 Poland 1,205,248 578,745 2 China 1,034,924 1,077,785 3 Chile 833,251 843,324 4 Italy 788,021 934,245 5 France 543,164 650,208 6 South Africa 482,435 444,843 7 New Zealand 322,136 406,577 8 Netherlands 273,033 415,159 9 Belgium 202,206 209,708 10 Republic of Moldova 194,286 47,557 11 Argentina 163,598 157,394 12 Turkey 125,682 48,951 13 Belarus 117,867 50,855 14 Serbia 115,938 53,025 15 Spain 112,870 104,081 16 Germany 95,218 98,700 17 Austria 85,710 88,147 18 Brazil 85,429 62,942 19 The former Yugoslav Republic of 77,070 17,208 Macedonia 20 Lebanon 71,483 14,847

Export values Global export value in 2013 was more than US $8 billion ($8,028,152 x 1000) Top 20 exporting countries by value in 2013

Country Export value (1000 US$) 1 China 1,077,785 2 Italy 934,245 3 Chile 843,324 4 France 650,208 5 Poland 578,745 6 South Africa 444,843 7 Netherlands 415,159 8 New Zealand 406,577 9 Belgium 209,708 10 Argentina 157,394 11 Spain 104,081

International Plan Protection Convention Page 3 of 9

12_SC_2016_Nov_attachment _03_D Further justification by EPPO

12 Germany 98,700 13 Syrian Arab Republic 88,512 14 Austria 88147 15 Japan 73,463 16 Brazil 62,942 17 Serbia 53,025 18 Lithuania 51,645 19 Belarus 50,855 20 Turkey 48,951

Imports Globally, more than 8M tonnes were imported (8,613,231 tonnes). Approx. 137 countries imported 1000 or more tonnes of apples. Trade dynamics may have changed significantly since 2013, due to Russian ban on EU imports. Top 20 importing countries by quantity in 2013

Country Import quantity Import value (1000 (tonnes) US$) 1 Russian Federation 1,352,347 789,444 2 Germany 658,442 685,258 3 United Kingdom 479,667 610,139 4 Netherlands 330,991 453,481 5 China 300,995 405,073 6 Mexico 274,978 344,048 7 Spain 240,068 272,611 8 France 239,386 237,608 9 Canada 233,575 277,937 10 United States of America 198,746 262,179 11 India 194,335 211,296 12 Saudi Arabia 189,295 188,523 13 Belarus 180,494 86,408 14 United Arab Emirates 172,726 230,548 15 Egypt 160,712 193,581 16 Belgium 160,491 188,759 17 Bangladesh 145,714 107,563 18 Thailand 144,164 185,198 19 Indonesia 129,932 175,649 20 Kazakhstan 127,600 64,111

Value of imports more than 8 billion US$ (8,476,782) globally. Top 20 importing countries by value in 2013

Country Import value (1000 US$) 1 Russian Federation 789,444 2 Germany 685,258 3 United Kingdom 610,139 4 Netherlands 453,481 5 China 405,073 6 Mexico 344,048 7 Canada 277,937 8 Spain 272,611 9 United States of America 262,179 10 France 237,608 11 United Arab Emirates 230,548 12 India 211,296 13 Egypt 193,581 14 Belgium 188,759 15 Saudi Arabia 188,523

Page 4 of 9 International Plan Protection Convention

Further justification by EPPO 12_SC_2016_Nov_attachment _03_D

16 Thailand 185,198 17 Indonesia 175,649 18 Viet Nam 153,704 19 Sweden 127,631 20 Colombia 111,990

International Plan Protection Convention Page 5 of 9

12_SC_2016_Nov_attachment _03_D Further justification by EPPO

Annex 2 Examples of measures used or proposed by a few different countries for imports of apples Importing Country Regulated pests Requirements

Australia Arthropods: Visual inspection and remedial action1 (600-apple inspection with Cenopalpus pulcher, Phenacoccus aceris EP, Pseudococcus remedial action if arthropods are found) Draft Import Risk Analysis Report maritimus EP, Frankliniella occidentalis EP, Frankliniella tritici for Fresh Apple Fruit to Australia 1 Remedial action (depending on the location of the inspection) may from the United States of EP: Species has been assessed previously and for which include: treatment of the consignment to ensure that the pest is no longer America Pacific Northwest import policy already exists viable; withdrawing the consignment from export to Australia; re-export States (2009) 4 of the consignment from Australia; or destruction of the consignment Archips argyrospila, Archips podana, Archips rosana, Visual inspection and remedial action1 (This may involve examination of Argyrotaenia franciscana, Choristoneura rosaceana, Hedya a 600 cut fruit sample during the initial trade with remedial action if nubiferana, Pandemis heparana, Pandemis pyrusana, leafroller moths are found. Based on the results from the fruit cutting the Spilonota ocellana need for fruit cutting in future seasons will be reviewed.) Dasineura mali EP Option 1: Pest free areas or pest free places of production or production sites (ISPM 4, 10) Option 2: Visual inspection and remedial action (3000-apple inspection with remedial action if ALCM is found) Option 3: Treatment (e.g. methyl bromide fumigation) of all export lots Rhagoletis pomonella Option 1: Pest free areas or pest free places of production or production sites (ISPM 4, 10) Option 2: Treatment (e.g. methyl bromide fumigation) of all export lots Cydia pomonella WA, EP, Grapholita molestaWA, Grapholita Option 1: Areas of low pest prevalence (ISPM 22) packardi, Grapholita prunivora Option 2: Treatment (e.g. methyl bromide fumigation) of all export lots WA: Quarantine pest for state of Western Australia Pathogens: Areas free from disease symptoms (ISPM 4,10,22) and disinfection with Erwinia amylovora EP chlorine solution Coprinopsis psychromorbida, Mucor mucedo, Mucor Systems approach piriformisWA, Mucor racemosusWA  Orchard control  Orchard and packing house sanitation practices, including disinfection with chlorine solution  Visual inspection and remedial action Sphaeropsis pyriputrescens, Phacidiopycnis piri, These pathogens are the causes of recently reported post-harvest Phacidiopycnis washingtonensis diseases and there is no published data on effective control measures. BA will consult the US to propose measures, with supporting data, for review. Neonectria ditissimaEP Option 1: Pest free areas (ISPM 4) Option 2: Pest free places of production (ISPM 10) Option 3: Areas of low pest prevalence (ISPM 22)

4 http://www.agriculture.gov.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/ba/plant/ungroupeddocs/2009-26_BAA__Draft_US_Apples_IRA.pdf

Page 6 of 9 International Plan Protection Convention Further justification by EPPO 12_SC_2016_Nov_attachment _03_D

Phyllosticta arbutifolia, Gymnosporangium juniperi- Systems approach virginianae, Gymnosporangium libocedri  Orchard control and surveillance  Visual inspection and remedial action Venturia inaequalisWA, EP Option 1: Pest free areas (ISPM 4) Option 2: Pest free places of production (ISPM 10) Truncatella hartigii BA will consult the US to propose measures, with supporting data, for review. Pseudomonas syringae pv. papulans, Lopholeucaspis APHIS to provide, prior to each year of trade, a declaration that these japonica, Parlatoria oleaeWA, Pseudococcus calceolariaeWA, pests are still not present in the PNW. EP, Pseudococcus comstocki EP, Argyrotaenia velutinana, Platynota flavedana, Platynota idaeusalis, Platynota stultana, Pseudexentera mali, Ostrinia nubilalia, Sooty blotch and flyspeck fungi, Sooty blotch and flyspeck complex Canada Invertebrates: Cydia pomonella, Epiphyas postvittana, Free from pests, soil, leaves, branches, and other plant debris Grapholita molesta, Leucoptera malifoliella (= L. scitella), Requirements for temperate fruits Lobesia botrana, Otiorhynchus spp., Popillia japonica, to Canada (2009) from Argentina, Rhagoletis mendax, Rhagoletis pomonella, Teia anartoides (= Chile, Netherlands, South Africa. Orgyia anartoides) Also from Mexico and Continental Fungi: Alternaria kikuchiana (= A. gaisen), Coniella diplodiella, US to all provinces other than BC5 Guignardia baccae, Monilia fructigena, Phomopsis viticola Mites: Amphitetranychus viennensis, Tetranychus truncatus As above – for other countries As above As above, plus specific requirements for imports from: Australia – Fumigation and cold; Epiphyas postvittana measures. Brazil – allowed apart from into British Columbia (BC) France, Italy, Portugal, Spain – inspection 14 days prior to export for freedom from living stages of Leucoptera malifoliella. Japan - Bagging or Fumigation etc… New Zealand – inspection for freedom from all living stages of Epiphyas postvittana China – specific requirements for BC, for other provinces bagging or specific programmes Poland – systems approach and inspection for found freedom from all life stages of any pests regulated by Canada Korea – similar to China Uruguay – other than BC – no measures, BC pest management program for freedom from Grapholita molesta or treatment. Canada Rhagoletis pomonella Mexico: Cold treatment of fruit Proposed measures for entry to Plus requirements for Grapholita molesta, Epiphyas Treatment of empty containers British Columbia PFA, Canada postvittana, viruses, regulated soil borne pests. US:

5 http://www.inspection.gc.ca/plants/plant-pests-invasive-species/directives/date/d-95-08/eng/1322413085880/1322413348292#b4

Page 7 of 9 International Plan Protection Convention 12_SC_2016_Nov_attachment _03_D Further justification by EPPO

from US and Mexico (1 June Cold treatment 2016)6 Pest free county or USDA approved PFPS

South Africa Amphitetranychus viennensis, Adoxophyes orana *, Bagging of fruit Bactrocera dorsalis, Carposina sasakii *, Conogethes Bactrocera dorsalis PFA Requirements for apples to South punctiferalis *, Cydia funebrana *, Grapholita inopinata *, Post-harvest Inspection 600 fruit per lot (more than 1000), 450 fruit for Africa from China (2007)7 Leucoptera malifoliella, Lopholeucaspis japonica, lots of up to1000. Pseudococcus comstocki Import inspection

Findings of Grapholita inopinata, Carposina sasakii, Adoxophyes orana, Conogethes punctiferali, Cydia funebrana – result in trade being suspended pending investigation Findings of Diaspidiotus ostreaeformis, Parlatoria oleae, Spilonota ocellana - SA to take measures and investigation initiated. Findings of Monilinia fructicola, Rhynchites heros - consultation USA Invertebrates: Adoxophyes orana, Aphanostigma piri, Archips This proposal is for import of apples and pears from Belgium, Germany, podana, Argyrotaenia pulchellana, Ceratitis capitata, France, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Spain, and the Netherlands using a Import of apples and pears to USA Ceroplastes japonicas, Choristoneura hebenstreitella, systems approach. (Additional to existing arrangements.) from Europe (proposed 2016, Cryptoblabes gnidiella, Cydia pyrivora, Diloba commenting allowed until May caeruleocephala, Eutetranychus orientalis, Euzophera bigella, Measures: 2016)8 Grapholita funebrana, Grapholita lobarzewskii, Hedya 1. NPPO operational workplan detailing monitoring, pest action pruniana, Lacanobia oleracea, Leucoptera malifoliella, thresholds, orchard phytosanitary measures including removing fallen (Currently USA allow imports from Lobesia botrana, Mamestra brassicae, Pammene rhediella, fruit, packinghouse inspection procedures, and traceback requirements Belgium, France, Great Britain, Pandemis cerasana, Pandemis heparana, Rhynchites 2. Restricted to commercial consignments Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, aequatus, Rhynchites auratus, Rhynchites bacchus, 3. Production site registration, monitoring for QPs and applying control and Spain under a preclearance Syndemis musculana, programmes programme involving orchard and Bacteria: Erwinia pyrifoliae 4. Two growing season inspections for QPs by NPPO or authorised packinghouse inspections for Fungi: Alternaria gaisen, Ascochyta pyricola, Monilinia officers Leucoptera malifoliella and other fructigena, Monilinia polystromam 5. measures at packhouses including pest mitigation, fruit sampling, quarantine plant pests; approved Viroid: Pear blister canker viroid inspection, and other measures mitigations for infested orchards; 6. registered packhouses that exclude plant pests and have a tracking cold treatment of fruit against system to identify individual production sites Ceratitis capitata in countries 7. When packing, it should be solely for USA, removal of leaves. where the pest is known to occur; 8. Safeguards during transfer and shipment e.g. tarpaulins, screens, identification of orchards and double doors. packinghouses for traceback of 9. Store separately from consignments from other countries.

6 http://www.inspection.gc.ca/plants/plant-pests-invasive-species/directives/horticulture/d-00-07/eng/1323819375916/1323819810662 7 http://www.nda.agric.za/doaDev/sideMenu/plantHealth/docs/Protocol_%20import_apple_China-SA.pdf 8 https://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=APHIS-2015-0073-0001

Page 8 of 9 International Plan Protection Convention Further justification by EPPO 12_SC_2016_Nov_attachment _03_D

each consignment; packinghouse 10. Cold treatment for medfly handling and safeguarding 11. Inspection by NPPO of exporting country requirements for fruit intended for shipment to the USA; and preclearance inspection ).

Other requirements, not summarised include: China from South Africa (2014): http://www.nda.agric.za/doaDev/sideMenu/plantHealth/docs/Protocol%20for%20export%20of%20apple%20from%20South%20Africa%20to%20China.pdf

Page 9 of 9 International Plan Protection Convention