Criteria for Awarding of Financial Assistance to IPPC Meetings

SPTA 2006 Cooperation with other International Organisations Document: SPTA-2006-17 Rev-1

Agenda 4.6

Eighth Meeting of the Informal Working Group on Strategic Planning and Technical Assistance

02-06 October 2006 – FAO, Rome, Italy

Cooperation with other international organisations

Background

1Strategic Direction No. 6: (Promotion of IPPC and cooperation with relevant international organizations) of the current business plan requires, inter alia, the CPM to strengthen cooperation with other, relevant, international organizations with the view of establishing relations, identifying areas of common interest and, where appropriate, developing coordinated activities and joint programmes with other relevant organizations

2Organizations (and associated meetings of importance) identified include:Bio-weapons – Geneva,the Convention on Biodiversity (COP/MOP meetings), the International Atomic Energy Agency, the International Forestry Quarantine Research Group, the International Seed Testing Association, the Montreal Protocol, the WTO SPS Committee meetings and workshops, the meetings of the Standards and Trade Development Facility, the World Organisation for Animal Health, and Codex Alimentarius.

3The main areas for cooperation in 2006 included: the International Forestry Quarantine Research Group, the International Seed Testing Association, Montreal Protocol, the WTO SPS Committee meetings and workshops, and the meetings of the Standards and Trade Development Facility. Informal ongoing liaison was maintained with the World Organisation for Animal Health and Codex Alimentarius.

International Forestry Quarantine Research Group

4The 4th meeting of the International Forest Quarantine Research Group (IFQRG) will hosted by the IPPC Secretariat in Rome in October 2005. The IFQRG coordinates forest quarantine research and studies reviews research findings. Recommendations from this meeting will be provided to Technical Panel on Forest Quarantine for further reflection which will result in possible recommendations which will be presented to the Standards Committee.

International Seed Testing Association (ISTA)

5The Bureau invited Mr Michael Muschick, Secretary General, of ISTA to give a presentation at its meeting of 05-08 June 2006. He described the international role of ISTA, how it functioned as an association, how it was financed, and suggestions for areas where the two organisations could collaborate.

6Suggested areas for collaboration included:

Sampling - The ISTA sampling plan proves through results from scientific research that the drawn seed sample represents the average quality of the seed lot – this is also a requirement for phytosanitary sampling.
Purity analysis of a seed lot which identifies all species occurring in the lot would also detect invasive seed species - the defined procedures in the ISTA Rules (e.g. sample size) proves scientifically that the results are true and reliable.
Establishment of methods for the detection of host-pathogen combinations - ISTA defines ISTA Rules for all important host-pathogen combinations in seed.

7ISTA felt that NPPOs could:

Recognise the ISTA sampling plan as a basis for phytosanitary investigation for seed lots
Follow the ISTA purity analysis for the investigation for invasive species
Recognise the ISTA seed health rules as international methods (standard) for the detection of host-pathogen combinations
Recognise test results reported on an ISTA Certificate

Way forward – ISTA/IPPC Symposium

8The Bureau and ISTA agreed to pursue the idea of an open symposium for the two organisations. Steps and points to consider include:

Symposium
open
to be organised by ISTA
involvement from ISTA – executive committee, plus (but not limited to) the statistics, marketing, sampling, and seed health committees
involvement from CPM – Secretariat to send an invitation to the NPPOs
Information exchange
presentation from both sides
identify areas of overlap
ascertain how synergies may be obtained
identify outcomes as to where the two organisations could work together
Develop a Bureau paper for the CPM
CPM to make a decision

9ISTA has made contact with the Secretariat on the above. Mr Ralf Lopian will coordinate on behalf of the IPPC.

10At ISTA’s suggestion/invitation, the IPPC Secretariat (Coordinator) attended the Third Meeting of the ISTA Seed Health Committee held in Zurich, 24 June 2006.

Montreal Protocol

11A representative from the Montreal Protocol attended the IPPC Technical Panel on Forest Quarantine (TPFQ) meeting held in New York, USA in June 2006 and provided some guidance on how to increase the awareness of parities to the Montreal Protocol of the approved ISPM No.15 heat treatment which is a viable alternative to the use of methyl bromide for treating internationally moved wood packaging material.

12As a result a representative of the IPPC Secretariat attended the open ended working group of the Montreal Protocol in held in Montreal, Canada, in July, 2006. The agenda item 4c on Quarantine and Pre-shipment use was the point of joint concern. It was stated that the CPM recognized the need to retain methyl bromide for critical quarantine treatments until alternative phytosanitary treatments or procedures were available but had called its members to take the necessary and possible actions to minimize the use of methyl bromide, to increase the use of alternative measures, to reduce, as far as possible, the incidence of emergency action fumigation and to reduce the loss of methyl bromide to the atmosphere when used for quarantine purposes.

13It was also noted that the CPM wished to have continued cooperation between the relevant bodies of the Montreal Protocol and the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) in order to obtain a greater understanding of each organisation’s respective work and to raise the phytosanitary concern relating to reduced or lost availability of methyl bromide. Attention was drawn to the treatments adopted in ISPM No.15 and it was pointed out than in addition to the methyl bromide fumigation treatment, that heat treatment, which was an effective, safe alternative to methyl bromide treatment, had also been adopted as part of the standard.

14The open ended working group was also informed that in many cases developing countries did not have the infrastructure for heat treatment facilities and assistance was needed to develop such facilities for the treatment of wood packaging material as an alternative treatment to methyl bromide under ISPM No.15 and not only reduce the use of methyl bromide but also further prevent the spread and introduction of pests of plants, including invasive alien species.

WTO SPS Meetings

15The IPPC is an official observer organisation at the Regular meetings of the WTO Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. The meeting meets three times per year in Geneva and during the meeting the IPPC Secretariat is requested to update the meeting on general matters of interest as well as commenting/updating on activities being undertaken on specific items affecting the SPS Committee, such as equivalence, and pest free areas.

16Opportunity is taken by the Secretariat for informal discussions with the Secretariat and country representatives in order to ascertain gauge feelings on subjects affecting the IPPC.

17 The Secretariat also takes part in the various workshops organised by the SPS Committee.

Standards and Trade Development Facility

18Background (STDF Business Plan)The strategic aim of the STDF is to assist developing countries enhance their expertise and capacity to analyze and to implement international sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) standards, improving their human, animal and plant health situation, and thus ability to gain and maintain market access. In addition to facilitating international trade, SPS capacity building, notably in the area of food safety, can result in improved health conditions for local markets and so favour economic and social development.

19The STDF grew out of a joint communiqué issued by the Heads of the Food and

Agriculture Organization (FAO), World Organization for Animal Health (OIE), World Bank,

World Health Organization (WHO) and the World Trade Organization (WTO) at the Doha

Ministerial Conference in November 2001. In the communiqué, the five organizations agreed to

jointly explore new technical and financial mechanisms for coordination and resource

mobilization and to build alliances between standard setting bodies and the implementing and

financing agencies so as to ensure the most effective use of technical and financial resources.

20 The STDF was formally established in mid-2002 as a partnership and a Trust Fund with

three years of start-up financing from the World Bank and WTO. It brings together five partner

organizations each with specific expertise in the domain of SPS standards and trade: FAO, OIE,

World Bank, WHO, WTO.

21The STDF is both a financing and a coordinating mechanism. Grant financing is

available for private and public organizations in developing countries seeking to comply with

international SPS standards and hence gain or maintain market access. Applications are

particularly encouraged from stakeholders in Least D-developed Countries (LDCs).

22 The FAO is represented at the meeting (three per year in Geneva) by the IPPC Secretariat (phytosanitary) and Codex Alimentarius (food safety).

Convention of Biological Diversity

23The Fourth Joint Meeting of the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) and Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Secretariats was held on 30 August via teleconference. The Minutes and updated work plan are attached as annexes.

Annex 1

Summary – Fourth Joint Meeting of the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) and Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Secretariats (by teleconference)

30 August 2006

1.Opening of the meeting

The meeting began by teleconference at 9:30am on 30 August 2006. The meeting adopted its provisional agenda as contained in Annex A. The list of meeting participants is contained in Annex B.

2.Follow up on specific action items in the joint work plan

2.1Letters to Focal Points

This action item in the joint work plan had not yet been implemented. The meeting agreed that sending these letters is a priority. The letters should reference relevant ICPM and COP decisions. Ryan agreed to draft a letter to CBD focal points and distribute for review.

2.2Consultations Regarding Invasive Alien Species

The CBD secretariat updated the meeting on the status of the consultations regarding international standards for invasive alien species (arising from para 14 of decision VIII/27). WTO and OIE had already been contacted. It was agreed that the CBD secretariat will send a letter to IPPC prior to the meeting with RPPOs (11-13 September 2006), so that the issue can be discussed during that meeting. IPPC secretariat will then provide a written response to CBD no later than 5 October (prior to the next SPS Committee meeting). A separate letter will be sent to FAO, with a more flexible timeline for response.

2.3Technical Assistance

IPPC secretariat gave an update on the Standards and Trade Development Facility (STDF), which now has a few million dollars for technical assistance activities. One PRA training project funded by the STDF has an IAS component - Brent agreed to discuss with Lesley Cree and possibly invite CBD to attend the October 2006 meeting of the Steering Committee.

CBD Secretariat reminded all that COP-8 had given the Executive Secretary more of a role in supporting implementation of the CBD and assisting Parties.

2.4Draft ISPMs and Specifications

IPPC secretariat gave an update on the current specifications that are out for country consultation and the standards that are currently being developed. The revision of ISPM #2 on pest risk analysis is most relevant to CBD, and the CBD secretariat has made comments on the draft. There is also a standard under development on plants for planting. The CBD Secretariat will look at the draft when it is produced.

2.5Coordination Among International Bodies

The CBD Secretariat reported that COP-8 did not pursue the idea of a global partnership on biodiversity. However, the Executive Secretary has established a Heads of Agencies Taskforce, and FAO has been invited to be a member. Regarding coordination between IPPC and CBD, COP-8 decisions were rather general and did not add value to earlier decisions.

2.6MOP-3 Decision on Risk Assessment of LMOs

The CBD Secretariat reported on the outcome of the MOP-3 decision on risk assessment of LMOs, which invited relevant organizations to submit information to the Biosafety Clearing-House. Relevant ISPMs are already linked in the BCH, but it was agreed that the explanatory documents for those ISPMs could also be added where they exist.

The MOP-3 decision also requested the Executive Secretary to collaborate with FAO to promote networking and interlinkages among experts in the field of risk assessment. In this regard, it was suggested that the biosafety risk assessment experts listed in the roster of experts could be invited to join the Plant Health Risk Assessment List-Server (Brent will check with Lesley, and if she agrees, the CBD secretariat will send an email invitation via the BCH).

2.7Terminology

The new internet portal on invasive alien species contains a page on terminology, and will be made public shortly through the CBD website. The IPPC Glossary Technical Panel will meet in October and may have comments on the terms and the functionality of the webpage.

2.8Websites and Information-Sharing

The IPPC secretariat agreed to look at the IAS portal once it is released, and to provide any comments and suggestions.

3.New Items for the Work Plan Arising From COP-8, MOP-3, and CPM-1.

The meeting agreed to include the Global Taxonomy Initiative (GTI) in the joint work plan as requested by COP. In this regard, the IPPC secretariat will advise the Technical Panel on Diagnostic Protocols about the existence of the GTI portal (which has links to various resources), and the CBD secretariat will advise the leaders of the IAS Global Taxonomic Needs Assessment to consider consulting the IPPC secretariat and appropriate experts.

Elements were also added with respect to the in-depth review of invasive alien species which will take place at COP-9. Specifically, the invitation for inputs to the in-depth review will be conveyed in the letter to national focal points and NPPOs (agenda item 2.1 above), and IPPC secretariat will try to include this in documentation/decisions for CPM-2. The IPPC secretariat would also be expected to give any inputs as appropriate. The deadline will be 6 months prior to COP-9.

The IPPC secretariat is also invited to give inputs regarding rules and standards for identification, handling, packaging and identification in relation to LMOs, in response to the invitation contained in paragraph 1 of decision BS-III/9.

4.Preparation for upcoming intergovernmental meetings

Both secretariats briefed the meeting on upcoming meetings. IPPC meetings are listed in a calendar on the International Phytosanitary Portal. CPM-2 is the last week of March 2007. CBD meetings are also listed on the CBD website but have not been updated since COP-8. COP-9 is tentatively set for May 2008, SBSTTA-13 for January/February 2008 (possibly at FAO), and SBSTTA-12 for July 2007 (tentatively in Paris). The dates for the meeting of the Working Group on Review of Implementation of the Convention (CBD) are still being considered. The next coordination meeting of biosafety capacity-building activities is scheduled for February 2007 in Zambia. The CBD calendar of meetings should be updated on the website soon.

5.Updating of the Joint Work Plan

Ryan agreed to revise and distribute the revised joint work plan.

6.Arrangements to Facilitate Follow-up Actions (secretariat focal points; teleconferences) and Date of Next Meeting

Secretariat contacts are:

CBD: David Cooper and Ryan Hill

IPPC: Niek van der Graaff, Richard Ivess, and Brent Larson

The meeting agreed to meet in approximately May/June 2007. Decisions about whether to meet face-to-face or by teleconference, and whether to invite bureaux participation, would be taken prior to the meeting.

7.Any Other Business

The group congratulated Niek on his upcoming retirement and thanked him for his valuable leadership over the last few years.

8.Closure of the meeting

The meeting was closed at approximately 11:00am.

Annex 2

[DRAFT]

Joint Work Plan of the IPPC and CBD Secretariats

Version: September 2006, following the teleconference of 30 August 2006

Cooperation between the IPPC and CBD secretariats is governed by a Memorandum of Cooperation, and is mandated by relevant decisions of the governing bodies, in particular decisions VI/23, VII/13 and VIII/27 of the Conference of the Parties to the CBD, and decisions of the Interim Commission on Phytosanitary Measures taken at its sixth and seventh meetings on the issue of cooperation with CBD.

Secretariat contacts for IPPC-CBD collaboration are:

CBD: David Cooper and Ryan Hill

IPPC: Niek van der Graaff, Richard Ivess, and Brent Larson

Contents

This joint work plan contains the following elements:

Mechanisms of collaboration

Implementation of CPM decisions

Development of standards under IPPC

Implementation of COP and COP/MOP decisions

Development of guidance/standards under the CBD and Biosafety Protocol

Terminology

Capacity-building and technical assistance

Websites and information-sharing

For each element, there is a description of the context within which joint work could take place. In addition, there is a list of actions which have been agreed as part of the joint work plan. Some of these actions are of a general nature and are likely to remain part of the joint work plan on an ongoing basis, whereas others are short-term actions which can be deleted when the joint work plan is updated.

1Mechanisms of collaboration

Context

There are several potential mechanisms for IPPC-CBD collaboration.

Collaboration between secretariats – the elements of this joint work plan constitute the collaboration between the secretariats. The joint work plan can be updated with each joint meeting. In addition, teleconferences can be useful in between joint meetings.