G/SPS/GEN/1283  
 
15 October 2013  
(13-5617)  Page: 1/7  
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures  Original: English  
 
REPORT OF THE INTERNAT IONAL PLANT PROTECTION 
CONVENTION SECRETARIAT (IPPC) 
REPORT FOR THE COMMITTEE ON SANITARY AND PHYTOSANITARY MEASURES 
MEETING OF 16-18 OCTOBER 2013 
The following communication, received on 14 October 2013, is being circulated at the request of 
the International Plant Protection Convention secretariat (IPPC). 
 
_______________ 
  
1  INTRODUCTION 
1.1.  This report covers the period July – October 2013. 1.2.  As reported during the last meeting of this  Committee, the Eighth Session of Commission on 
Phytosanitary Measures (CPM-8) took take place on 8-12 April 2013. This report covers general 
activities subsequent to that meeting. Activities taking place in the areas of Capacity Development 
and Implementation Review and Support System (IRSS) are presented in separate documents. 
1.3.  The Committee is invited to note that the number of contracting parties to the IPPC remains 
at 179. 
1.4.  A significant development for the IPPC Secretariat within FAO is that the organizational 
placement of the Secretariat within FAO has ch anged from the Agricultural Production and 
Protection (AGP) staff to the staff of the Assistant Director General. It is anticipated that this new 
organizational re-alignment with bring greater vi sibility for the IPPC within and outside of FAO. 
1.5.  In addition, the IPPC is very pleased to have had the opportunity to have a second virtual 
meeting with the SPS Committee Secretariat on 2 October 2013. Some of the key issues discussed 
related to the topics of intended use and responsibilities for conducting a PRA. These discussions are considered to be, on the part of the IPPC Secr etariat, extremely useful in clarifying issues as 
well as in maintaining a good relationship between the two Secretariats. 
2  STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK AND ISSUE SPECIFIC STRATEGIES 2.1  Strategic framework 2.1.  As previously mentioned, implementa tion of the IPPC Strategic Framework began 
immediately following adoption at CPM-7 (2012 ). The establishment of the four strategic 
objectives has provided the basis for outreach to non-traditional contacts and enhanced and/or renewed relationships with traditional partners . Also, the adoption of the new communications 
strategy at CPM-8 (2013) is another step in bringing about change in the way of doing business for 
the IPPC. 
2.2.  Also mentioned at the last meeting of this  Committee, the IPPC Secretariat made a call for 
proposed topics for the upcoming meeting of the Strategic Planning Group (SPG). Formerly called 
the Strategic Planning and Technical Assistance (S PTA) group, with the creation of the Capacity 
Development and Financial Committees there was a general consensus that more emphasis needs to be placed on contracting party development of strategies for the future. Two significant G/SPS/GEN/1283 
 
- 2 - 
 
  proposals resulted in response to the call, one on the topic of implementation, and the other 
related to the process of adopting recommendations by the CPM. 
2.3.  During the meeting of the SPG which took place from 8-11 October 2013, a simple process 
was proposed for the adoption of IPPC recommendations. This proposal will be presented to the 
CPM in April 2014. The topic of implementation also prompted several comments and suggestions. 
A paper reflecting the results of the SPG discussions and proposing a pilot approach will be presented to the CPM as well. 
3  STANDARD SETTING WORK PROGRAMME 
3.1  Adopted International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPMs) 3.1.  As previously noted, the ISPMs adopted at CPM-8 (2013) have been posted under the IPP 
webpage under the Adopted Standards section: https://www.ippc.int/core- activities/standards-
setting/ispms . 
3.2  Framework for standards 
3.2.  In addition, following one of CPM-7 (2012)  decisions, a Framework for Standards Task Force 
meeting was organized in Canada on 18-20 September 2013. While the full list of 
recommendations is too long to be provided in this document, some of the key recommendations 
include a proposal that further gap analysis should be conducted for existing standards and the 
Standards Committee should consider how the gaps are to be addressed; a process to proactively 
identify emerging issues where harmonized guidance would be beneficial should be developed; and the framework for standards should be applied to identify issues of common interest to the "three 
sisters". The report of the Task Fo rce meeting is posted on the IPP: https://www.ippc.int/core-
activities/standards-setting/framework-for-standards-task-force . It will be presented to the 
Standards Committee (SC) during its November meeting (18-22) for further consideration. 
3.3  New IPPC standard setting procedure 
3.3.  It is useful to remind the Committee that CPM-8 (2013) noted the current status of the 
implementation of the standard setting process adopted at CPM-7 (2012) and agreed to extend the review date to CPM-11 (2016). 
3.4  Relationship between ISPMs and st andards created by other organizations 
3.4.  In addition, it is important to stress on ce again that the relationship between ISPMs and 
standards created by other organizations be clear. As noted, and is important to remember, ISO standards are not mandatory for implementation of ISPMs and that in the phytosanitary area 
ISPMs take precedence over ISO standards and co ntracting parties are encouraged to take this 
into account. No response has yet been received to the letter sent from the Secretariat to ISO requesting their cooperation in ensuring that this message was communicated to stakeholders. 
3.5  Member consultation on draft ISPMs 
3.5.  The IPPC would like to remind the SPS Committee that the following drafts ISPMs were 
approved for member consultation by the SC in May 2013: 
Draft ISPMs: 
 Management of phytosanitary risks in the in ternational movement of wood (2006-029), 
Priority 1 
 Preliminary draft: Minimizing pest movement by sea containers (2008-001), Priority 1 
 Movement of growing media in association with plants for planting in international trade 
(2005-004), Priority 1 
 Phytosanitary procedures for fruit fly (Tephritidae) management (2005-010), Priority 2 
 Amendments to ISPM 5 (Glossary of phytosanitary terms) (1994-001). G/SPS/GEN/1283 
 
- 3 - 
 
  Draft diagnostic protocols: 
 Draft Annex to ISPM 27:2006 – Potato spindle tuber viroid  (2006-022), Priority 1 
 Draft Annex to ISPM 27:2006 – Xanthomonas citri  subsp. citri (2004-011), Priority 1. 
Draft phytosanitary treatment: 
 Draft Annex to ISPM 28:2007:Irradiation for Dysmicoccus neobrevipes  BEARDSLEY, 
Planococcus lilacinus  (COCKERELL) and Planococcus minor  (MASKELL) (HEMIPTERA: 
PSEUDOCOCCIDAE) (2012-011), Priority 1 
 The 2013 member consultation period lasts 150 days. It began on 1 July 2013 and ends 
on 1 December 2013. Comments must be submitted through the IPPC contact point in the IPPC Online Comment System (OCS: http://ocs.ippc.int/# ). The draft ISPMs can be 
downloaded from the IPP ( https://www.ippc.int/core- activities/standards-
setting/member-consultation-draft-ispms ) where background documents and power point 
presentations for the draft ISPMs are also posted. 
3.6.  Again this year, IPPC regional workshops are being organized to discuss phytosanitary issues 
as well as review draft ISPMs. The Secretariat will continue to use the OCS during the 2013 IPPC 
regional workshops for ease of collecting and sharing workshop comments among the participants. These comments will not be considered unless participants, after returning to their home 
countries, choose to submit these regional workshop comments as their own or use them as the 
basis for formulating their own comments. Workshop participants will be reminded to submit their comments via the OCS, even if they simply wish t o  s u b m i t  t h e y  h a v e  n o  c o m m e n t s ,  a s  f u t u r e  
provision of travel assistance to attend these re gional workshops may be linked to their efforts 
made to submit comments. 
3.6  Member consultation on draft specifications for ISPMs 3.7.  The following draft specifications were submitted to member consultation: 
 Wood products and handicrafts made from raw wood (2008-008) 
 Revision of ISPM 4:1995 Requirements for the establishment of pest free areas (2009-
002) 
 Revision of ISPM 8:1998 Determination of pest status in an area (2009-005). 
3.8.  This consultation period started on 1 June 2013 and ended on 31 July 2013. The draft 
specifications can be downloaded from the IPP ( https://www.ippc.int/core- activities/standards-
setting/member-consultation-draft-specifications-ispms ). All comments were submitted by the 
IPPC contact points in the IPPC OCS. These comments have been compiled and can be downloaded 
from the IPP ( https://www.ippc.int/core-activities/standards-setting/compiled-member-comments-
draft-specifications ) and were forwarded to the stewards. The stewards will revise the draft 
specifications for presentation to the Standards Committee. 
3.7  Substantial concerns commenting period for draft ISPMs 3.9.  Draft ISPMs that have been revised by the SC-7 and recommended to the SC are made 
available to IPPC members through the OCS for the substantial concerns commenting period. 
3.10.  Thus, taking into account the comments that were received during the 2012 member 
consultation, the following draft ISPMs were reviewed by the Standards Committee Working Group (SC-7) in May 2013 and recommended to the SC (see May 2013 SC-7 report): 
 Appendix to ISPM 12 on Electronic certification, information on standard XML schemes 
and exchange mechanisms (2006-003), Priority 1  
 Establishment of fruit fly quarantine areas wi thin a pest free area in the event of an 
outbreak (for inclusion as Annex 1 of ISPM 26) (2009-007), Priority 3  
 Determination of host status of fruits and vegetables to fruit fly (Tephritidae) infestation 
(2006-031), Priority 1. G/SPS/GEN/1283 
 
- 4 - 
 
  3.11.  The 2013 substantial concerns commenting period started on 1 June 2013 and ended on 30 
September 2013. The draft ISPMs that went to substantial concerns commenting period can be downloaded from the IPP ( https://www.ippc.int/cor e-activities/standards -setting/sub stantial-
concerns-commenting-period-sccp-draft-ispms ). All substantial concerns were submitted by the 
IPPC contact point in the IPPC OCS. These concer ns have been compiled and are posted on the 
IPP: https://www.ippc.int/core- activities/standards-setting/comp iled-substantial-concerns-draft-
ispms . They have now been forwarded to the SC and steward who will study these comments and 
revise the draft ISPMs at their next meeting on 18-22 November 2013. 
3.8  Call for topics 3.12.  This summer, the IPPC Secretariat issued a call for new topics for IPPC standards. The call 
ended on 31 August 2013. The IPPC Secretariat w ill compile the submissions that have been 
received and they will be presented to the November SC meeting. 
3.9  Expert working groups 3.13.  An expert working group (EWG) meeting on  the International movement of used vehicles, 
machinery and equipment (2006-004) was held in Finland from 27 May to 31 May 2013. An expert 
working group (EWG) meeting on the International movement of seed (2009-003) was held in the Netherlands from 1 to 5 July 2013. The EWGs deve loped draft ISPMs which will be submitted to 
the SC for their review. 
3.10  Technical panels 3.14.  The Technical Panel for the Glossary of ph ytosanitary terms (TPG) met in Rome from 4 to 
7 February 2013 and the outcomes of the meeting were presented to the 2013 May SC meeting. 
3.15.  The Technical Panel on Forest Quarantine (TPFQ) met from 10 to 14 June 2013 in Belem, 
Brazil and reviewed the draft Criteria for Treatmen ts for Wood Packaging Material in International 
Trade (2006-010). 
3.16.  The Technical Panel on Diagnostic Protocols (TPDP) met in Paris, France from 24 to 28 June 
2013. They reviewed 5 Diagnostic Protocols (DPs) to present to the SC for approval for member 
consultation. They also revised two draft DPs that are going to be submitted to the SC this year for 
approval for adoption. 
3.17.  The Technical Panel on Phytosanitary Treatments (TPPT) met in Fukuoka, Japan from 8 to 
12 July 2013. They reviewed 11 treatments; subseque ntly six phytosanitary treatments (PT) were 
recommended to the SC for approval for member consultation and one treatment to present to the 
SC for recommendation to CPM. The TPPT also work ed on submissions in response to the 2013 call 
for topics, including the drafting of specifications for these proposals for new standards on treatment requirements and for the revision to  ISPM 18:2003 and asked RPPOs support on these 
draft submissions. 
3.11  Call for experts 3.18.  The IPPC Secretariat made a call for authors for IPPC diagnostic protocols from 6 August to 
27 September 2013 for: Liberibacter spp./Liberobacter spp. on Citrus spp. (2004-010), 
Liberibacter solanacearum (2013-001), Conotrachelus nenuphar (2013-002) and Anguina spp. (2013-003). 
3.19.  The IPPC Secretariat opened in September 20 13 a call for qualified experts to take part in 
the TPPT, TPG and two EWGs to develop international standards on International movement of cut 
flowers and branches (2008-005) and Safe handling and disposal of waste with potential pest risk 
generated during international voyages (2008-004). Nominations are due 4
 November 2013. For 
more details: https://www.ippc.int/core-activities/standards-setting/calls/calls-for-experts/2013-
september-ippc-call-for-experts . G/SPS/GEN/1283 
 
- 5 - 
 
  3.12  Standard setting work Plan for the remainder of 2013 
3.20.  The SC will meet in November 2013. Th ey will review the draft standards and comments 
received from the 2013 substantial concerns commenting period and also the draft specifications and the comments received from the 2013 member  consultation. They will also discuss the 
redrafting of the draft specification on the Inte rnational movement of grain (2008-007) and the 
participation of experts in strategic matters will be arranged for the November SC meeting. 
3.21.  An Expert Consultation on Cold Treatments (ECCT) is planned for the 2-6 December 2013 in 
Buenos Aires, Argentina.  
3.22.  In addition, the IPPC secretariat continue s to use web based technology to hold virtual 
meetings for technical panels.  
4  NATIONAL REPORTING OBLIGATIONS 
4.1.  The CPM has agreed that the "IPPC Information Exchange Programme" will in future be 
known as the "IPPC National Reporting Programme" to more accurately indicate the focus and objectives of this programme. 
4.1  Contact points 
4.2.  A significant number of IPPC contact points have updated their information in the last three 
months. This means that contracting parties communicating with other IPPC contact points should 
visit the IPP frequently to ensure they have the latest contact information. In addition, the 
secretariat continues to work with a small number of countries that need to nominate their IPPC contact points officially. 
4.2  International Phytosanitary Portal (IPP) https://www.ippc.int  
4.3.  There continues to be a lot of information being made available by countries through the 
IPPC website and the IPPC Secretariat. Countries ar e encouraged to periodically visit the site for 
updates. In addition, the website now provides Russian navigation and partial navigation in 
Chinese - this is being continuously improved. In addition, changes are being made to the IPP to 
increase its efficiency and improve the appearan ce and responsiveness. While this has caused 
some issues while the system is being transitioned, the ultimate result will be a much more 
responsive and informative IPPC webpage. 
4.4.  Usage of the webpage continues to increase but it is clear that this can be improved in 
certain regions and in certain countries. Countries that are reporting certain IPPC obligatory information to the WTO are encouraged to provide this information (minimal modification is 
necessary) through the IPP to ensure they meet their IPPC reporting obligations. 
4.5.  An IPPC study comparing WTO Members notifying "IPPC Obligatory" information through the 
WTO has shown that of the information reported to the WTO, less than 5% is reported to the IPPC 
(although it is an obligation under the IPPC). This indicates the IPPC information is available but 
merely not reported to the IPPC, possibly due to: 
i. a lack of understanding of national obligations under the IPPC in specific areas of the 
national governments; 
ii. a lack of coordination and/or communication between SPS authorities and IPPC contact 
points in countries; 
iii. governments not understanding that meeting their WTO notification obligations does not in 
any way automatically meet their IPPC reporting obligations i.e. they are two totally legally 
independent multi-lateral instruments of equal status; and 
iv. the national IPPC contacts points being ineffective due to competency or resources. 
4.6.  The IPPC Secretariat believes points ii) and iii) are most relevant in most cases. The 
Secretariat is also aware that some national SPS Coordination Committees are incorrectly assuming the legal and operational responsibilities of the NPPOs under the IPPC. G/SPS/GEN/1283 
 
- 6 - 
 
  4.7.  The information available through the IPP has substantially increased the number of 
information resources available to support standard and IPPC implementation, capacity development and the Implementation Review and Support System (IRSS). This information is 
being increased continually and is available through: 
i. Resources in Support of IPPC Implementation: http://www.phytosanitary.info  
ii. IRSS: https://www.ippc.int/index.php ?id=1111059&L=0#irssactivities  
iii. IRSS Help Desk: https://www.ippc.int/index.php?id=1111059&L=0#helpdesk  
iv. IPPC Projects Database: http://projects.phytosanitary.info  
v. eLearning: http://elearning.phytosanitary.info  
vi. A summary of IPPC Publications: https://www.ippc.int/about/mediakit  
4.3  Pest reporting 
4.8.  National pest reporting continues to improve but there is still potential for further 
improvement. The Secretariat is working on this information to allow users to access this information in a more constructive and analytical manner. 
4.9.  The Secretariat is also working with the European Plant Protection Organization (EPPO) to 
allow countries to undertake pest reporting through the Regional Plant Protection Organizations (RPPOs) (as agreed in CPM), and once this pilot proj ect is functional it will be made available to 
other RPPOs. This should significantly increase  the number, accuracy and timeliness of pest 
reports received. 
4.10.  The Secretariat is exploring with CABI ways  of ensuring Plantwise does not undermine pest 
reporting and other IPPC processes. Without signific ant adjustments, the risk of this happening is 
very high. 
4.4  Communications 4.11.  The IPPC Communications Strategy was adopted by CPM-8 (2013). The Secretariat is now 
engaged in an effort to develop and implement a communications workplan. An initial activity 
taking place soon will be the conduct of a comm unications needs assessment. This will provide the 
IPPC a clearer understanding of who the audien ces are and the messages that are needed for 
them. It is intended that the needs assessment will allow the Secretariat to have a greater focus in 
its communications activities into the future. 
4.12.  The following social media pages for the IPPC are available: 
i. Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Internati onal-Plant-Protection-Convention-
IPPC/113230338690380?ref=tn_tnmn  
ii. Twitter: https://twitter.com/#!/ippcnews  
iii. LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/gro ups?gid=3175642&trk=hb_side_g  
iv. Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/groups/internat ional_plant_protection_convention/  
v. YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/IPPCnews  
5  DISPUTE SETTLEMENT 
5.1.  With regard to dispute settlement, even wh ile the IPPC is in the process of reviewing the 
IPPC Dispute Settlement system, the Secretariat o ffers the IPPC dispute settlement mechanism as 
a reasonable approach for the resolution of phytosanitary disputes. 
5.2.  The review of the IPPC dispute settlement syst em is almost complete and will be discussed in 
detail at CPM9 in 2014. 
6  RESOURCE MOBILIZATION 6.1.  The Secretariat would like to thank all those contracting parties and other donors who 
contributed to the 2012 budget and activities of th e IPPC. The IPPC encourages them to consider 
future, sustainable contributions. It will be greatl y appreciated if donors are able to express their 
intention for further contributions in order to facilitate planning for the coming year. These 
d o n a t i o n s  w i l l  h e l p  t o  e n s u r e  t h e  c o r e  w o r k  p r o g r a m m e  w i l l  b e  d e l i v e r e d .  A  f u l l  l i s t  o f  i n - k i n d  G/SPS/GEN/1283 
 
- 7 - 
 
  support is made available to CPM each year – 
https://www.ippc.int/index.php?id=1110798&frompa ge=13330&tx_publicat ion_pi1[showUid]=218
3770&type=publication&L=0 . 
6.2.  The sustainability of the IPPC secretar iat, and hence the work programme of the IPPC, 
continues to be addressed as a high priority on an on-going basis. The current resource allocation 
(financial and human resources) measured against projected tasks is simply not sustainable, and 
although 2014 will be manageable, some activities may have to be put in abeyance. The Secretary 
continues to give this his highest priority. The Secretary and staff have engaged in discussions 
with the governing body as well as traditional and non-traditional partners in ongoing efforts to improve the situation. 
6.3.  It cannot be stressed enough that it is essential the IPPC receive regular and predictable 
contributions to allow appropriate planning and deli very of the core IPPC work programme, i.e. to 
provide sustainability to the programme. It should also be noted that FAO, the organization hosting the IPPC secretariat, continues to faces severe financial challenges and is seeking cost 
reduction efforts in most areas; the resources avai lable to the IPPC activities have been affected, 
specifically in the area of information technology and support for the On-line Comment System. 
6.4.  The secretariat is always open to any discussion with members or partner organizations that 
could provide solutions to the current challenges, particularly in the medium to long term. 
7  ELECTRONIC CERTIFICATIO N IN THE IPPC (EPHYTO) 
7.1.  ePhyto is a high priority for CPM and the revised Appendix 1 (Electronic certification, 
information on standard XML schemes and exchan ge mechanisms (2006-003)) to ISPM 12:2011 is 
out for member consultation (see above, section 3.3). The IPPC Secretariat has created an ePhyto 
web page ( http://ephyto.ippc.int/ ) on the IPP containing information on codes and schema to be 
used in ePhytos. 
7.2.  A feasibility study is currently being conducted by a consultant to the Secretariat, and an 
update was presented to the Strategic Planning Gr oup of the IPPC last week in Rome. The IPPC 
believes this represents a potential opportunity for future collaboration with OIE and Codex. 
7.3.  General information on ePhyto can be found on the IPPC Website at: 
http://www.ippc.int/index.php?id=1111140  or obtained from the IPPC Secretariat ( ippc@fao.org ). 
8  COOPERATION WITH THE WTO STANDARD SETTING ORGANIZATIONS 
8.1.  The IPPC secretariat would like to draw atte ntion to the following current on-going activities 
with Codex and OIE: 
i. Codex and the IPPC continue to explore ways of addressing their IT needs in a more 
sustainable manner and share tools and skills when appropriate, especially in view of 
forthcoming organizational changes within FAO; 
ii. Codex is currently using a Codex specific version of the Online Comment System. This is an 
important collaborative milestone that is worthy of broader recognition and allows both 
organization to cost share the continued maintenance of the system. OIE is also examining 
the OCS more closely and may also consider using this system in the future; 
iii. Codex, OIE and the IPPC continue to engage in consultations on Standard Trade and 
Development Facility (STDF) activities to und erstand each other’s positions and coordinate 
activities and responses; 
iv. There is ongoing cooperation between the "three sisters" on SPS-related capacity 
development projects, if and when appropriate; 
v. The Secretariat has initiated coordination meet ings between the "three sisters" to improve 
coordination and collaboration in SPS Committee meetings; 
vi. Ad-hoc consultations are undertaken as and when subjects arise that are of mutual interest; 
and 
vii. The Secretariat looks forward to establishing a broader consultation meeting between the 
"three sisters" and the SPS Committee Secretariat in the near future. 
__________