SPTA 2008 Outcomes of 20th TC-RPPOsDocument: SPTA 08/24

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

07-10 October 2008 – FAO, Rome, Italy

Outcome of the 20th Technical Consultation among RPPOs

Agenda item 11.2

  1. The twentieth Technical Cooperation (TC) among Regional Plant Protection Organizations (RPPOs) was held in Rome from 25 to 28 August, 2008. There were eleven participants, representing seven RPPOs,various IPPC Secretariat staff and FAO personnel attended as appropriate.

Outcome highlights

  1. In the course of the TC, the FAO Legal Office clarified the following issues: definition of “public officer”; procedure for the recognition of an RPPO; NPPOs submitting their pest reports to the IPPC Secretariat through their RPPOs; and the authority of the FAO Director-General over FAO meetings, specifically the TC for RPPOs.
  1. The Secretariat update included a briefing about the serious staffing and budgetary situation in the IPPC Secretariat.
  1. General agreement was reached that the term “public officer” should be defined by national law and that there is no single definition to be used by all contracting parties. The exact wording of this statement still needs to be finalised.
  1. Contracting parties are continuously improving their reporting through the IPP to meet their IPPCreporting obligations. However, there is still a need by most parties for continuedefforts to ensure information is kept updated.
  1. The PCE 2008 (update on the PCE 2005) is nearing completion and will be field tested in the final quarter of 2008.
  1. A work plan was developed in order to ensure timely preparation of material for the 21st TC for RPPOs.
  1. In future, invitations to the TC for RPPOs will be sent by the Secretary to the IPPC and not by the Director-General – this is in line with the specific text of the New Revised Text of the IPPC and the TC for RPPOs is a technical consultation and not an inter-governmental meeting.
  1. Agreement was reached with the FAO Legal office on how to proceed with contracting parties meeting their IPPC reporting obligations (especially pest reporting) through their RPPOsto the IPPC Secretariat/IPP – contracting parties, through the IPPC contact point, need to notify the IPPC Secretariat of the mechanism that will be used to meet the reporting obligation.
  1. There is a major international workshop planned on electronic certification in Ottawa, Canada, on 3 & 4 February 2008. The IPPC is expected to be represented.
  1. The 21st meeting of the TC for RPPOs will take place in Uganda and will be hosted by IAPSC/AU.
  1. The draft report of the 20th TC for RPPOs is attached as Appendix I (the report has not been finalised yet due to staff shortages in the IPPC Secretariat).

RPPO-2005/REPORT

Appendix I

DRAFT REPORT

Rome,
Italy
25-28 August
2008 / Twentieth Technical Consultation among Regional Plant Protection Organizations
/ Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

1

RPPO-2005/REPORT

20th TC-RPPOs (2008) REPORT

DRAFT REPORT OF THE

TWENTIETH TECHNICAL CONSULTATION AMONG

REGIONAL PLANT PROTECTION ORGANIZATIONS

Rome, Italy 25-28 August 2008

FOODAND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS

2008

1

RPPO-2005/REPORT

The designations employed and the presentation of material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. Applications for such permission, with a statement of the purpose and extent of the reproduction, should be addressed to the Director, Information Division, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00100Rome, Italy.

© FAO 2008

1

TECHNICAL CONSULTATION RPPO-2005/REPORT

Table of Contents

Report of the Twentieth Technical Consultation among Regional Plant Protection Organizations

List of Appendices

IAgenda

IIWork programme of the Technical Consultation among RPPOs for 2008-2009

IIITentative Agenda for the 21st Technical Consultation amongst RPPOs

IVList of Participants and Observers

Note: The papers and power point presentations presented at the 20th Technical Consultation among RPPOs are available at

1

20th TC-RPPOs (2008) REPORT

Report of the Twentieth Technical Consultation

among Regional Plant Protection Organizations

Rome, Italy

25-28 September, 2008

  1. OPENING OF THE TWENTIETH TECHNICAL CONSULTATION AMONG REGIONAL PLANT PROTECTION ORGANIZATIONS

Mr. Richard Ivess (IPPC Coordinator) opened the meeting and welcomed delegates to Rome. He noted that he had been involved in the Technical Consultations (TCs) since the first meeting of the Regional Plant Protection Organizations (RPPOs) and that, given his imminent departure from the Secretariat, this would be his last. He outlined the difficult situation facing the Secretariat as a result of the resignation of key Secretariat staff and that this had made preparation for the meeting difficult. Other activities, including in the area of Information Exchange, had needed to be cancelled or postponed in order to allow staff to attend and service this meeting. However, he felt sure the TC would still be a success and looked forward to participating as much as time allowed.

Appendix IV provides the attendance list for this meeting.

  1. ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON AND RAPPORTEUR

The meeting elected Mr. van Opstal (EPPO – European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organizations) as chairperson, and Ms. Olembo (African Union/IAPSC – Inter-African Phytosanitary Council) as vice chair. Mr. Ashby (UK/CPM Bureau) was elected rapporteur.

  1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

NAPPO requested the Secretariat update to include details on Secretariat staffing. Ms. Olembo noted that item 19 - Other business – mentioned celebrating the 40th anniversary of the IAPSC and Mr Ivess noted that there had been discussion of this celebration being back to back with the 21st TC in Africa. The agenda was adopted as per Appendix I.

  1. ACTIONS ARISING FROM THE NINETEENTH TECHNICAL CONSULTATION

The following issues arising from the 19th TC were considered:

4.1Definition of Public Officer: The FAO Legal Office’s note, provided to the 19th TC after initial discussions in the 18th TC in 2006 still gave rise to concerns about the understanding of the term “public officer”. The Chair also noted that there was increasing debate among EPPO countries on this issue. COSAVE had spoken with the Legal Office in the margins of CPM 3. COSAVE explained that paragraph 4 of the FAO Legal Office interpretation raises concerns and they asked for the text to be clarified to show that those issuing phytosanitary certificates have the “character of public officers” and that at all times the NPPO would retain legal responsibility for the issuance of the certificates.

The Legal Office explained that the IPPC is an intergovernmental agreement concluded by States under the FAO Constitution. Within the framework of the IPPC, any action is undertaken by or under the responsibility of the contracting states in their capacity as Contracting Parties. Consequently, any potential dispute will involve Contracting Parties, the legal persons concerned. The implication is that a Contracting Party may decide that a (physical or legal) person (placed under its jurisdiction), whether a government authority, a private company or a contractor, may act on its behalf but, in any case, the concerned Contracting Party cannot absolve itself from its responsibilities[1].

While the difficulty with the current issue was that the concept of “public officer” is not universally known, there was no doubt that should there be a WTO dispute over this issue, trade judges would rule that anyone can sign a phytosanitary certificate provided that this person is legally entrusted with this responsibility pursuant to the pertinent national legislation. In fact, the Convention makes it clear that such a person must be (a) duly authorised (by the state, the concerned Contracting Party) to do this and (b) technically qualified.

COSAVE said that for them, it is key that the designation as “public officer” must be compatible with the legal system of the country and that responsibility rests with each Contracting Party. They thought that each Contracting Party should provide information to the Secretariat on how it “duly authorises” an individual to sign a phytosanitary certificate. They had asked the Legal Office to make amendments to the explanatory note produced in 2006 but these have yet to be agreed. The meeting thought it would be useful to see the modified text.

4.2Revision of ISPMs 7 & 12 - The Secretariat noted that the Expert Working Group (EWG) on the Revision of ISPMs 7 and 12 had gone well and draft revisions were produced but it is not known if they are ready for consideration by the Standards Committee (SC). The TC hoped that this issue would be moved forward quickly because there is an urgent need for these revisions. However, this would be dependent on resolving the interpretation of the term “public officer”.

4.3Criteria for recognition of RPPOs – NAPPO asked about progress with the establishment of the Near East Plant Protection Organisation (NEPPO). The Legal Office clarified that, as provided for inArticle XIX.4 of this Agreement (which has been concluded outside FAO but for which the Director-General has accepted to act as depositary), it shall enter into force on the date when 10 States, at least, have deposited an instrument of ratification or acceptance. As of today, only 9 States have sent the required instruments to FAO. On its entry into force, the Secretariat will undertake to verify whether it can be recognized as a RPPOs as per Appendix XIX of the report of the 7th Session of the Interim Commission for Phytosanitary Measures (ICPM).

COSAVE had doubts about the status of the RPPO in the Caribbean, specifically the recently established Caribbean Agricultural Health and Food Safety Agency (CAHFSA). The Secretariat noted that Mr Pollard, the FAO regional plant protection officer whose role included that of Technical Secretary of the Caribbean Plant Protection Organization (CPPC), had retired and as yet not been replaced. The CPPC has not dissolved (this can only be done by the FAO Conference, even though CPPC member countries have agreed it is no longer practical to continue with the CPPC) and CAHFSA would need recognition if they deemed this necessary. The Chair noted that they cannot be recognised if there is no request for RPPO recognition.

4.4NAPPO enquired if there was any intention of filling the vacant FAO position in the Caribbean sub-region. The Secretariat noted that the Chief of the Plant Protection Service (also the IPPC Secretary) was handling the issue of recruiting a new FAO plant protection officer and this would be reported on when he came to the meeting.

4.5NAPPO asked about the situation of the Andean Community (CAN) as they seldom participate in the Technical Consultation. The Secretariat noted that there had been communication from CAN through OIRSA (as Chair of the Inter-American Group) and their participation in international meetings is hampered by financial constraints. The Secretariat noted that a regional Information Exchange / IPP editor’s workshop had been held at CAN in Lima in November 2007. They continue to be active in the Phytosanitary field but with a limited budget.

4.6COSAVE requested feedback on the outcome of the recent Open-ended Working Group (OEWG) on Possible International Recognition of PFAs. The Secretariat said that the 1st draft of the report was written and needs to be reviewed by Mr Lopian, the consultant for this work, and that it should be on the IPP by the end of August. The outcome will be discussed by the SPTA in October, and they should make recommendations to CPM 4, which would be asked to agree to another focus group to draw up final recommendations. The outcome was positive in that those present at the OEWG agreed that a recognition system was feasible and logical. Whilst all mechanics of a system had not been discussed, very useful advice had been provided by the OIE representative about their experience of recognition of PFAs for animal diseases. Areas not discussed in detail had included the possibility of a 3rd party accreditation, from the point of view of using institutions which are internationally recognized - expertise on this had not been available at the meeting. When the issue goes forward to the Fourth Session of the CPM the Secretariat would recommend that this expertise should be available at any further meeting. Overall it was important to appreciate that the lack of funds could mean that operations in this area may not commence for years.

  1. REVIEW OF RPPO ACTIVITIES

5.1Asia and Pacific Plant Protection Commission (APPPC)

Mr. Yongfan Piao, Executive Secretary of APPPC Secretariat, reviewedthe APPPC’s main activities since the 19th TC-RPPOs.

1. Development of Regional standard for phytosanitary measures (RSPM)

Three new draft RSPMs have been prepared and approved by the APPPC Standard Committee (SC) during the APPPC SC review meeting (14-20 July 2008, Bangkok, Thailand) for country consultations. These are “Guidelines for the Exterior Cleanliness of Containers”, “Guidelines for Protection against South American Leaf Blight of Rubber” and “Guidance on Land Border Plant Quarantine”.

The purpose of the draft RSPM-“Guidelines for the Exterior Cleanliness of Containers” is to describe measures to prevent the spread of quarantine pests by the contamination of the exterior surfaces of containers

The draft RSPM“Guidelines for Protection against South American Leaf Blight of Rubber (SALB)” provides detailed instructions on the identification and categorization of the pathways associated with SALB, the provision of protocols for diagnosis, and surveillance on SALB. It also prescribes effective phytosanitary measures and management of the disease; as well as recommends training programmes in surveillance, detection, diagnostic, control and eradication of SALB and the development of minimum requirements for facilities for detection, control and eradication of SALB. This standard also provides guidelines for exclusion of SALB to all APPPC member countries.

Several RPPOs asked about the new standard on SALB – was this draft available and are non-APPPC members provided opportunity to comment on this draft RSPM? The APPPC said that the draft was on the IPP but only for comments from APPPC members. After discussions COSAVE and the PPPO formally asked for access to the SALB regional standard in order to provide comments. The TC concluded that there would be considerable benefits for RPPOs seeking comments from other RPPOs. The TC recommended that those RPPOs which do not currently consult outside their regions discuss this practice within their regions and then report back on this issue to the next TC.

The draft RSPM “Guidance on Land Border Plant Quarantine” provides guidance for plant quarantine at land borders. Besides principles that should be followed when plant quarantine is carried out at land border, this standard prescribes both general requirements such as organization, the personnel, equipment, facilities and procedure and special requirements for different types of land border trade, as well as guidance for plant quarantine activities such as inspection and release, treatment, pre-inspection and pest surveillance. It also provides instructions on bilateral cooperation across land borders.

2. Working Group Meeting on the Procedures for Finance, Administration and Planning for the Asia and Pacific Plant Protection Commission (APPPC)

The working group meeting was held from 21-23 July 2008 in Bangkok, Thailand, in order to prepare arrangements for the coming into force of the 1983 amendments concerning mandatory contributions for funding of the Commission. During the meeting, the APPPC working group had to attend to various administrative duties to set up the levels of contributions from members that had accepted the amendments, administration procedures associated with the trust fund for the admission and expenditure of funds.The recommendations of the meeting will be submitted to the 26th Session of APPPC in 2009 for further discussion and possible adoption. The adoption will be subject to approval of FAO Council meeting.

3. Regional review of draft ISPMs

APPPC facilitated a regional workshop on the review of draft ISPMs, which was organized from 28 July to 1 August 2008 in the Republic of Korea.Twenty-five senior-level Plant Protection officers and experts from 19 countries attended the workshop.

4. Information exchange among APPPC member countries

During the regional review of draft ISPMs, an additional session for updating information regarding IPPC focal points was arranged. It was noticed that Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nepal, Malaysia and Rep. of Korea have changed their IPPC focal points.

In terms of national regulations of plant quarantine, Sri Lanka is updating its phytosanitary regulations; Thailand has revised the Plant Quarantine Act and it will come into force on 28th August 2008, it will be translated into English; a new decree on plant quarantine came into force on Jan 5th 2007 in Viet Nam, the ordinance on plant quarantine is changed to the law on plant protection and quarantine from 2008-2010; a new regulation is being drafted and is under consultation with the Ministry of Law and Justice in Nepal; the Republic of Korea has, in March 2008, revised the Plant Protection Act regarding plant imports and quarantine inspection sites.

The value of the development of regional viewpoints on ISPMs proposed for adoption during CPMs wasrecognized, which was coordinated through pre-CPM3 meetings. APPPC will facilitate pre-CPM 4 meeting for the consultation on specific concerns on proposed ISPMs and the agenda of the CPM4 in addition to prior email consultation with member countries.

5. Projects of capacity building on plant health

GCP/RAS/226/JPN: Cooperation for the improvement of phytosanitary capacity In Asian countries through capacity building (US$ 1,436,530,2007-2011):