Report of the 2Nd Meeting of the Technical Panel on Phytosanitary Treatments (TPPT)

Report of the 2nd meeting of the Technical Panel on Phytosanitary Treatments (TPPT), Stellenbosch, South Africa, 22-25 August 2005

Present:

Alice Baxter / South Africa
Jane Chard / UK (IPPC Secretariat)
Ray Cannon / UK
Mike Holtzhausen / South Africa (host)
Narcy Klag / USA (Steward)
Brent Larson / Italy (IPPC Secretariat)
Michael Ormsby / New Zealand
Tony Ware / South Africa (invited expert)
Eduardo Willink / Argentina
Ye-Hee Yi / Korea
Wang Yuejin / China
Larry Zettler / USA
Unable to attend:
Mohammad Rabah A. A. Katbeh-Bader / Jordan

Introduction

The technical panel was welcomed to the South African Food, Quarantine Inspection Service by Mike Holtzhausen. Tony Ware, afruit fly expert was invited to attend part of the meeting to assist with discussions on treatment submissions, particularly cold treatments of citrus. During the meeting, the TP visited a cold treatment and an irradiation facility in Cape Town.

Larry Zettler was elected as chair of the meeting.The TPPT was informed of the work of the other technical panels and expert working groups working in the same or similar subject areas by several of the participants.

Procedures for setting priorities for treatments and for their submission and evaluation

The panel reviewed the working proceduresthat had been developed at the first meeting. They considered suggestions made by the Technical Panel on Forest Quarantine (TPFQ) regarding treatments proposed forinclusion in ISPM 15. The panel agreed that the TPPT should consider the efficacy of treatments and the TPFQ should determine whether a treatment was suitable for inclusion in ISPM 15. The TPPT revised the procedure document and included a section on evaluation of treatment submissions by experts (Annex 1). This will be included in the 2006procedure manual.

In order to prevent a large increase in the workload of the Standards Committee (SC) and to streamline the adoption process for treatments, the TPPT proposed that treatment submissions which had been evaluated by the panel and recommended for adoption as ISPMs should be sent directly by the panel for country consultation under the fast track procedure, rather than following the normal standard-setting procedure.

Draft ISPM “Guidelines for submission of phytosanitary treatments” (country consultation)

The TPPT discussed the draft ISPM and reviewed the draft with the submissions on treatments for fruit fliesthat had been produced by TP members. The panel made suggestions for improvements to the text and TPPT members will submit these through their NPPOs as part of the country consultation process.

Treatment submissions from TPPT members

The panel considered submissions from USA(ageneric irradiation treatmentfor arthropods,with a few exceptions,and an irradiation treatment for fruit flies) and from Argentina(cold treatment of oranges, grapefruits and tangerines for Mediterranean fruit fly). The TPPT concluded that these submissions required further work before they could be formally evaluated and the authors were given feedback on areas requiring further detail. The panel recommended, however, that these irradiation and cold treatments should be firstpriorities for consideration at the next meeting,

As one of the submissions was for a generic treatment,the TPPT considered that for such treatment submissions it may be appropriate to produce a list of key organisms or pest genera against which the proposed treatment should have been tested.Generic treatment submissions would then provide evidence of the stated efficacyagainst these pests.

Several other issues were noted in relation to the submissions:

• Separate submissions should be made for each schedule
• Background information on how a protocol was chosen and experimental parameters, such as use of inoculated rather than naturally infected fruit, would be useful
• Submissions should state the end point of the treatment, for example mortality, sterilization etc
• Submissions should include, where possible, data on trade or practical experience
• Where data are critical to the evaluation of the submission, such as temperature data in cold treatment submissions, these should be included.
• Extrapolation of data should be justified, for example where data is derived from simulated practical conditions any limitations on such data should be stated
• Efficacy and the confidence limits should be clearly stated
• Submissions should clearly refer toany published papers or data from other sources that have been used to support extrapolations or conclusions
• Submissions should provide information on the technical and commercial feasibility of the treatment.

The TPPT agreed that a template for submission of treatments would be valuable for NPPOs and RPPOs submitting treatmentsand should ensure that sufficient detail was included in the submissions.The panel proposed that each of the bullet points in the draft ISPM should become individual boxes for completion. R. Cannon (UK) agreed to produce a first draft of the template.

The TPPT noted that it will usually be necessary to commission experts in the particular field to evaluate the submissions prior to consideration by the panel. The TPPT considered that an evaluation sheet would be useful for the evaluation process and this will be developed at the next meeting. The panelconsidered that some information may be commercially sensitive and, although there is a confidentiality statement in Appendix 2 of the draft ISPM, a specific statement may be required for the TPPT and expert evaluators.

The paneldiscussed the information that would be required when draft treatment ISPMs are sent out for country consultation. They considered thatcontracting parties may need supplementary information in addition to the treatment schedule in order to decide whether a treatment should be adopted as an ISPM. This issue will be discussed at the next TPPT meeting when considering full submissions from NPPOs or RPPOs.

“Compendium of phytosanitary treatments”

The panel proposed that treatments adopted by the ICPM should be published in an ISPM “Compendium of phytosanitary treatments” (previously referred to as the “Register of phtyosanitary treatments”). The panel produced a specification for this, which will be submitted to the SC at its November meeting (Annex 2). The panelproposed in the meantime that a small group should revise an earlier draft produced at the last meeting.

Treatment database

No progress had been made on the development of a treatment database since the first meeting. The TPPT agreed that the database was an essential part of the strategy for identification of alternatives to methyl bromide (see section on alternatives to methyl bromide) and agreed that a small group of TPPT members would have a conference call with FAO computer staff to explore options for setting up a database on the IPP.

Priorities for treatments

The IPPC Secretariat had issued a call for priorities for treatments in June 2005 and seven proposals had been received. The TPPT reviewed them using the prioritisation criteria that they had produced at the first meeting. During this review it became clear that the proposal form did not require NPPOs to provide sufficient information to allow the TPPT to make recommendations on priorities. The panelredrafted the form(Annex 3) and modified the criteria for prioritisation(Annex 4).

The TPPTrecommended six treatments for development as full submissions for consideration at the third TPPT meeting(Annex 5, priority A). These were based on the proposals received from NPPOs and also fruit fly treatmentsidentified at the first meeting. The panel recommended that the IPPC Secretariat should write to the NPPOs that submitted the proposals or the draft treatment submissions and request that these are produced as full submissions. The panel also recommended that the Secretariat should issue a general call to NPPOs and RPPOs for submissions on these topics.

The TPPT nominateda member of the panel to take responsibility for treatments in a particular subject area (Annex 5). This person would act as the contact point for NPPOs/RPPOs for submissions on the relevant treatment.

The TPPT also identified important treatments (Annex 5,priority B), which they recommended should be proposed by NPPOs and/or RPPOsusing the proposal form and panel members were identified as contact points for these treatments also. The panel recommended that the IPPC Secretariat should make a further call for priorities for treatments to obtain a more representative list of treatments for prioritization at the third meeting.

The panel identified a number of treatments, which needed more research or commercial trials, including:

• Alternative to methyl bromide for structures
• Hot water treatmentof Dracena and Yucca (palms)for Opogona sacchari
• Phosphineon cut flowersof Chrysanthemumfor a range of pests
• Combination CO2 / phosphineon cut flowersfor a range of pests
• Combination phosphine and low temperaturefor fresh commoditiesfor a range of pests (fruit fly and codling moth)

In order to facilitate interaction with research institutes and promote development of treatments, L. Zettler (USA) agreed to be the TPPT contact person for the Informal Working Group of the IPPC on Liaison with Research and Educational Institutions.

For wood treatments, the panel identified that IFQRG was already working hard on development of alternative treatments to methyl bromide. M. Ormsby (New Zealand) agreed to liaise between the TPPT, TPFQ and IFQRG to promote further research on timber and wood packaging treatments.

The panel noted that there was a cyanide treatment for grapes and that pesticide dips were used for cut flowers, but the panel considered that these treatments should not be considered as priorities.

Alternatives to methyl bromide

The TPPT considered Specification No. 16 and several discussion documents on alternatives to methyl bromide. As at the first meeting, the TPPT considered that an EWGshould not be convenedon the subject because:

-several of the tasks in the specification had already been completed (or were under consideration by the TPPT)

-many of the panel members had also been selected for the EWG and

-the discussion at an EWG was likely to repeat the TPPT discussions.

Taking into account the tasks inSpecification no 16, the TPPTdiscussed the elements to be included in an ISPM on alternatives to methyl bromide and produced a draft standardon thestrategy for alternatives to methyl bromide. The TPPT will send the completed draft to experts selected for the EWG on alternatives to methyl bromide for their consideration.

One of the key elements of the strategy was the production of a database of current treatments, which the TPPT hope to locate on the IPP. The TPPT propose that NPPOs would list current phytosanitary treatments. From this databaseany existing or potential alternatives to methyl bromide can be identified. The database can also be used to identify gaps where further research is required.

The panel recognised that many researchers were working in the field of alternatives to methyl bromide and recommended that researchers should be encouraged to forma group analogous to IFQRG in order to address alternative phytosanitary treatments. The TPPT noted that annual meetings on alternatives to methyl bromide are held in the US and Europe.Two TPPT members (L. Zettler, USA and R. Cannon, UK) agreed to contact researchers at these meetings to explain the background to the IPPC, the need for alternatives in the phytosanitary field and to initiate research in priority areas, where possible.

Work programme

The TPPT agreed a work programme (Annex 6).

Date and location of next meeting

The TPPT proposed that the meeting should be held in the 4th week of May 2006and annually thereafter at that time. It was proposed that the next meeting should be in Rome. The panel considered options for future meetings,in particular in locations with treatment facilities and in countries with treatment experts who could be invited to participate in the meeting.

The TPPTRecommended:

1. Treatments recommended by the TPPT for adoption should be sent for country consultation directly under the fast track procedure.

2. The IPPC Secretariat should repeat the call for treatment proposals using the new proposal form.

3. The IPPC Secretariat should calls for treatment submissions on:

- Irradiation treatments(generic treatment for arthropods, generic treatment for

fruit flies and individual pests)

- Cold treatment of grapefruit, oranges and tangerines for Mediterranean fruit fly

- Cold treatment of longan for oriental fruit flies

- Cold treatment of lychee for oriental fruit flies

- Cold treatment of oranges for oriental fruit flies

- Vapour heat treatment of mango for oriental fruit flies.

4. The TPPT should produce a list of priority treatments annually for consideration by the SC and the ICPM.

5. The TPPT should work with researchers in alternatives to methyl bromide, if possible in a similar way to the TPFQ /IFQRG interaction.

Annex 1

Procedure for the production of phytosanitary treatments

1. Phytosanitary treatments are submitted by NPPOs or RPPOs for evaluation as an international standard either in response to a call for submissions by the IPPC Secretariat or on an ad-hoc basis (step 6).

Setting priorities for the TPPT work programme

2. The IPPC Secretariat sends to NPPOs and other organizations involved in the ICPM a call for priorities for phytosanitary treatments for international standards as required.

3. The “Request Form for Identifying Priorities for Phytosanitary Treatments” is used by NPPOs or RPPOs to submit requests for priority treatments.

4. The request forms are collated by the Secretariat and sent to the Technical Panel on Phytosanitary Treatments (TPPT) for review. The requests are analysed by the TPPT and used to recommend the priority areas for development of phytosanitary treatments as ISPMs. The recommendations are made taking into account the criteria for prioritization of phytosanitary treatments. In the absence of clear guidance, the TPPT will determine priority areas. Within a treatment area or type (such as treatments for fruit flies, or hot water treatments), the TPPT may also decide priorities for production of ISPMs (based on a list of possible treatments). The TPPT will also take into account recommendations by other ICPM bodies.

Call for treatment submissions

5. Once the priority treatment areas/types (and, if appropriate the specific treatments within these areas/types) have been identified by the TPPT, the Secretariat issues a call for submissions of data for these treatments (e.g. fruit flies, post harvest treatments). Guidance on the information to be contained in these submissions is provided in the draft ISPM “Requirements for the submission of phytosanitary treatments”.

Evaluation of treatment submissions

6. Within a treatment area or type, depending on the submissions received, the TPPT may decide to prioritize the evaluation of submissions.

7. If the submission proposes a treatment for inclusion in a specific ISPM, the Secretariat is notified and, if appropriate, the submission is passed to the relevant ICPM body.

8. Submissions for priority treatments will be evaluated for their suitability as an international treatment by the TPPT or an expert or group of experts nominated by the TPPT (see Section A). Decisions will be made on the efficacy of the treatment and will result in:

-an acceptable treatment

-a treatment requiring more information or research in order to evaluate its efficacy or

-an unacceptable treatment for international use.

9. Acceptable treatments will be submitted to Standards Committee for consideration under the normal standard setting process [or submitted for country consultation by the fast track procedure]. For treatments requiring more information, or unacceptable treatments, the contact person for the submission will be notified by the TPPT and the reasons for the rejection will be given.

10. Where there is a requirement for more research and where it is appropriate, the group dealing with liaison with research institutes may be informed of the outcome of the evaluation.

Section A Process for the evaluation of treatment submissions by experts

• Suitable experts for each treatment type are commissioned by the TPPT to evaluate submissions.
• One expert is selected to lead this process, supported by other experts as necessary.
• The expert(s) will review the data to ensure it supports the stated efficacy. The expert(s) uses the guidance provided in Appendix 2 of the draft ISPM on “Requirements for the submission of phytosanitary treatments” and additional instructions from the TPPT if needed.
• In some cases, for example where more than one submission is received for a particular treatment/commodity/pest combination, the experts may need to resolve differences between data sets and to prevent duplication of near identical treatments
• The technical experts may be able to accumulate further data to support a treatment submission. Usually, however, where partial data is received, the submission will be returned to the NPPO for further work.
• The treatment is then submitted to the TPPT for assessment.
• Suitable treatments are submitted to the SC [or sent directly for country consultation under the fast track procedure.]

Annex 2

Specification No. XX

Title: Compendium of Phytosanitary Treatments

Reason for the standard:

The Technical Panel on Phytosanitary Treatments (TPPT) has developed a draft standard “Requirements for the submission of phytosanitary treatments”. Treatments submitted by NPPOs and RPPOs will be entered into the approval process and agreed international treatments will be published in this compendium. Treatments will have a common format for ease of consultation and reference.

Scope and purpose:

This compendium will contain phytosanitary treatments submitted and evaluated as described in ISPM No. XX Requirements for the submission of phytosanitary treatments and adopted by the ICPM. This compendium will be a reference standard and provide guidance for the recording and presentation of phytosanitary treatments.

Tasks:

1)produce a structure and organization system for different types of treatments in the compendium

2)design a numbering system, format and content for individual treatments in the compendium