Expert Working Group Report
Classification of commodities into phytosanitary risk categories - 2nd meeting
18 - 22September 2006
Kleinmachnow, Germany
1.OPENING OF THE MEETING
The expert working group (EWG) was attended by Ms Velia Arriagada (Chile), Ms Karen Bedigian (United States), Mr Samuel Bishop (Rapporteur, United Kingdom), Ms Stacie Johnston (IPPC Secretariat), Ms Jantje Moen (South Africa), Ms Petra Müller (Host, Germany), and Mr Diego Quiroga (Steward, Argentina). Ms Arriagada was elected as chair of the meeting.
The expert working group (EWG) was opened by Mr Volkmar Gutsche, Director of the German Biological Research Centre for Agriculture and Forestry in Kleinmachnow. He gave a presentation on the structure, tasks and scientific activities of the centre. Ms Müller then gave a presentation on the activities of the German Department for National and International Plant Health.
2.BACKGROUND
The first EWG on this topic was held 7-11 February 2005 in Buenos Aires, Argentina. The draft standard produced by this EWG was reviewed by the Standards Committee (SC) in May 2006. The SC indicated that the draft contained many useful elements, but that a number of areas needed further redrafting, such as: more explanation on the reasons for the standard, ensuring the draft did not conflict with the rights and responsibilities of contracting parties, and further explanation of the types of processing and risks associated with different types of processed commodities. The SC recommended that a second EWG with some members of the first EWG and possibly additional expertise be held.
The second EWG revised the draft standard, basing its work on:
-The draft standard as presented to the Standards Committee in May 2006
-Comments made on that draft by the Standards Committee
-Specification No. 18: Classification of commodities by phytosanitary risk related to level of processing and intended use.
3.POINTS OF DISCUSSION
3.1Level of processing
The first EWG decided not to include the level of processing, which refers to the degree of processing, as it was often difficult to determine. The inclusion of this parameter was discussed again and the EWG felt that it was important to mention. The level of processing is portrayed in the draft to be additional criteria that can be considered along with type of processing.
3.2Contaminating pests
The issue of contaminating pests was discussed and it was concluded that the scope of the standard was only concerned with those that were regulated pests.Although the definition of contaminating pestsalready states that contaminants do not infest the commodity itself, it was thought important to note this and text to this effect was added to the section on phytosanitary risk categories.
3.3Phytosanitary risk categories
2005 Category 1Commodities have been processed to the extent they are no longer regulated articles. Destined only for consumption or processing. / 2006 Category 1
Commodities have been processed to the extent that they do not meet the definition of a regulated article.
The text was edited to refer to the ISPM No. 5 definition of regulated article and to take out the phrase “no longer a regulated article” as the commodity would not have previously been classified as a regulated article. It was thought that commodities in this category were so processed that they could not harbour or spread regulated pests, including as contaminants (examples discussed were soybean oil and charcoal). The reference to intended use was removed as it was felt that if the commodity was not a regulated article the intended use was irrelevant.
2005 Category 2Commodities have been processed but can harbour regulated pests as contaminants. Destined only for direct consumption or processing. / 2006
Deleted.
Given that the EWG decided that contaminants were an issue potentially affecting all categories other than category 1 and that essentially both of the original categories 2 and 3 have the potential to harbour or spread regulated pests, it was agreed there was no longer any need to distinguish between the original categories 2 and 3.
2005 Category 3Commodities have been processed but may still harbour regulated pests. PRA may be required. Destined only for direct consumption or processing. / 2006 Category 2
Commodities have been processed but may still harbour or spread regulated pests.The intended use may be consumption or processing. PRA may be necessary.
This category remains essentially unchanged.
2005 Category 4Commodities have not been processed and therefore have the potential to harbour pests. PRA is required. Destined only for direct consumption or processing. / 2006 Category 3
Commodities have not been processed and therefore have the potential to harbour or spread regulated pests.The intended use is consumption or processing. PRA is required, as appropriate.
This category remains essentially unchanged.
2005 Category 5Commodities have not been processed and therefore have the potential to introduce and spread pests. PRA is required.Destined only for multiplication or planting. / 2006 Category 4
Commodities have not been processed and therefore have the potential to introduce or spread regulated pests.The intended use is for planting. PRA is required.
The EWG added text to indicate that a PRA would be needed for commodities in this category.
2005 Category 6Other regulated articles not considered in the previous categories. PRA is required on a case-by-case basis.Intended uses of commodities in this category are highly variable. / 2006
Deleted.
This category was deleted. The EWG felt that the text in the Scope indicating that there may be other pathways was sufficient to cover this concept and so a separate category was not necessary.
3.4Tables
The first EWG’s draftcontained two tables outlining the risk categories and giving guidance on phytosanitary measures. Through the process of simplifying the categories and providing more guidance in the text, the tables were found unnecessary and were deleted. However, the EWG agreed that a graphic representation of the process of assigning risk categories would be useful so a flow chart was added in an appendix.
3.5Examples of types of processing
The annex contains examples of types of processing and the resulting commodities obtained. Many of the examples in the first EWG’s draft were removed as the EWG felt that they did not have the information needed to enablethese processes to be related to the phytosanitary risk categories. Since the processes given were merely examples, it was felt that fewer, more accurate examples were best.
4.REACTIONS TO THE STANDARD COMMITTEE’S COMMENTS
4.1Provide more information on the reasons for the standard
The EWG introduced a background section which elaborates on the reasons for the standard, the objective, the concepts outlined and the relationship it has to other ISPMs.
4.2Consider the rights and obligations of NPPOs
The EWG kept in mind throughout their discussions the rights and obligations of NPPOs. One example in this regard was the removal of the text “are no longer regulated articles” from the original category 1, thereby leaving the decision as to what is or is not a regulated article to NPPOs.Also, under Requirements, the most important principles and obligations related to the aim of the standard are mentioned. In general, the EWG felt that the revised text better reflected the rights and obligations of NPPOs.
4.3Explanation of the types of processing and risks associated with different types of processed commodities
The addition of more text explaining the categories themselves and how to apply them was felt to cover this concern. The examples in the annex were also felt to offerpractical illustrations of types of processes and commodities obtained for categories 1 and 2.Reducing the number of processed categories from three to two also would help to make it easier for countries to apply them.
The EWG felt that the best way for countries to address the risksassociated with different types of processed commodities was to conduct a PRA, although there would be some cases in which a country could decide that PRA would not be necessary.The revised categories and text allow for this flexibility.
5.CLOSE
The EWG agreed to the text as itwas revised and felt that many improvements had been made. It was noted that the draft would be submitted to the SC for review in May 2007. The Steward thanked the EWG members for their valuable input and hard work on the text.
Classification of commodities into phytosanitary risk categories
Expert Working Group
18 - 22 September 2006
Kleinmachnow, Germany
PARTICIPANTS LIST
Expert working group membersSteward:
Mr Diego Quiroga
Servicio Nacional de Sanidad y Calidad Agroalimentaria (SENASA)
Paseo Colón 367, Piso 7
Buenos Aires, Argentina
Tel: (+54) 11 4331 6041 Ext.1727
Fax: (+54) 11 4342 7588
E-mail: / Chair:
Ms Velia Arriagada
Departamento de Protección Agrícola
Servicio Agrícola y Ganadero Ministerio de Agricultura
Av. Bulnes, 140
Santiago, Chile
Tel: (+56) 23 451 575 / 6
Fax: (+56) 23 451 178
E-mail:
Ms Karen Bedigian
Phytosanitary Issues Management
Plant Protection and Quarantine
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
4700 River Road, Unit 140
Riverdale, MD 20730, USA
Tel: (+1) 301 734 5712
Fax: (+1) 301 734 7639
E-mail: / Ms Janjte Moen
National Department of Agriculture
Private bag X258
Pretoria 0001, South Africa
Tel: (+27) 12 319 6459
Mobile: (+27) 82 349 4681
Fax: (+27) 12 319 6101
E-mail:
Other participants
Host:
Ms Petra Müller
Federal Biological Research Centre for Agriculture and Forestry (BBA)
Department for National and International Plant Health
Stahnsdorfer Damm 81
14532 Kleinmachnow, Germany
Tel: (+49) 33203 48 377
Fax: (+49) 33203 48 385
E-mail: / Rapporteur:
Mr Samuel Bishop
Central Science Laboratory
Sand Hutton
York YO41 1LZ
United Kingdom
Tel: (+44) 1904 462 738
Fax: (+44) 1904 462 250
E-mail:
IPPC Secretariat:
Ms Stacie Johnston
Standard setting programme assistant
IPPC Secretariat
Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN
Viale delle Terme di Caracalla
00153Rome, Italy
Tel: (+39) 06 5705 5927
Fax: (+39) 06 5705 4819
E-mail:
1 of 4