Use of the term “regulated pests”Doc: 2006-SC-Nov-16
Agenda: 12.5
Use of the term “regulated pests”
This paper was reviewed by the Technical Panel for the Glossary and is presented as agreed at the SC meeting in November 2005.
Background
The following text is extracted from the draft Explanatory Document on the Glossary. It sets out the current situation concerned the term “regulated pests” and its relationship with other Glossary terms.
Note O Terminology relating to pests and their categorization
IPPC Article 2 contains three essential terms for the categorization of pests: quarantine pest, regulated non-quarantine pest, regulated pest. The first is inherited from the previous text of the IPPC, adjusted by the Glossary group so as no longer to refer to “national” economic importance and to have “official” rather than “active” control. The second (RNQP) is a concept invented during the revision of the IPPC. Originally (before 1997), neither of these terms was understood to mean that the pests concerned were necessarily regulated with respect to international trade in plants and plant products. A quarantine pest was considered to satisfy the conditions for being so regulated, but still remained actually to be regulated. As was said at the time, a quarantine pest was a “regulatable” pest. Similarly, an RNQP satisfied the conditions for being regulated internationally, one of which is to be “regulated within the territory of the importing contracting party”. We may note in passing that if the concept of official control had been invented at that time, it would have been more suitable for the definition of an RNQP than “regulated within the territory”.
In any case, the New Revised Text of the IPPC pre-empted all these ideas by creating in its Article VI the concept of a regulated pest, and defining it as being only quarantine pests and RNQPs. This implies, but does not explicitly make clear, that quarantine pests and RNQPs are regulated (in contrast to the previous understanding, cf. above). However, the IPPC does not clarify what is meant by regulation. Article VI specifies that “contracting parties may require phytosanitary measures for quarantine pests and RNQPs”, but may not do so for “non-regulated pests” (not defined).
In current phytosanitary language, countries “regulate” pests for internal plant protection purposes, which may or may not be subject to international phytosanitary measures. Such pests could quite properly be called “regulated pests”, so the meaning of “regulation” is artificially restricted by the IPPC. The Glossary definitions of phytosanitary regulations and phytosanitary measures are restricted by the Glossary to quarantine pests and RNQPs, but that does not prevent domestic measures against quarantine pests and RNQPs from being covered by these terms. Indeed, the definition of official control precisely supposes that internal measures against quarantine pests and RNQPs are covered by phytosanitary regulations. Another case arises for “plague” pests, like locusts, which may be regulated in so far as the government is obliged by regulations to apply control measures, although in pests in question are not quarantine pests or RNQPs.
The IPPC has a disclaimer in its Article 2 that its definitions are “limited to the application of this Convention” and “shall not be deemed to affect definitions established under domestic laws or regulations of contracting parties”. However, it is not intended that the Glossary terminology should be limited to the application of the IPPC.
In general , the Glossary seeks to avoid artificial restriction of the meaning of commonly used terms. The fact that the IPPC has restricted the meaning of regulated pest leads to a cascade of contradictions, obliging other terms to be restricted. It would seem better to find an agreed interpretation of the IPPC and leave the Glossary its necessary flexibility. The whole question is currently under discussion.
Proposed solution
It is suggested that:
1. The agreed interpretation of the definition of a quarantine pest should be:
“A pest of potential economic importance to the areaendangered thereby and not yet present there, or present but not widely distributed and subject to officialcontrol, which is regulated in international trade”.
2. The agreed interpretation of the definition of a regulated non-quarantine pest should be:
“A non-quarantine pest whose presence in plants for planting affects the intended use of those plants with an economically unacceptable impact and which is therefore subject to official control within the territory of the importing contracting party and regulated in international trade”.
3. A new term and definition should be added to the Glossary as follows:
Domestic regulation – “A regulation with a phytosanitary purpose, having only a domestic application”.
4. The definition of additional declaration should be modified as follows:
“A statement that is required by an importing country to be entered on a Phytosanitary Certificate and which provides specific additional information on a consignment in relation to quarantine pests or regulated non-quarantine pests”
5. The definition ofphytosanitary procedure should be modified as follows:
“Any official method for implementing phytosanitary measures including the performance of inspections, tests, surveillance or treatments in connection with quarantine pests or regulated non-quarantine pests”
6. The definition of systems approach should be modified as follows:
“The integration of different pest risk management measures, at least two of which act independently, and which cumulatively achieve the appropriate level of protection against quarantine pests or regulated non-quarantine pests”
1