WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/GEN/707 
26 June 2006 
 (06-3089) 
Committee on Sanitary a nd Phytosanitary Measures Original:   English 
  
 
 
UPDATE OF ACTIVITIES OF THE  
INTERNATIONAL PLANT PROTECTION CONVENTION (IPPC) 
JUNE 2006 
 
PEST- AND DISEASE-FREE AREAS – ARTICLE 6 
 
Statement by the IPPC at the Meeting of 27-28 June 2006
 
 
 
 The following communication, received on 22 June 2006, is being circulated at the request of 
the IPPC. 
 
_______________ 
 
 
A. I SPM:  RECOGNITION OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF PEST-FREE AREAS AND AREAS OF LOW 
PEST PREVALENCE  
1. At the 33rd meeting of the Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures in June 2005, 
the IPPC Secretraiat reported that regionalization had been discussed at the 7th Meeting of the Interim 
Commission on Phytosanitary Measures (ICPM) held in Rome (April 2005) where it was decided that 
a concept standard "Guidelines for the recognition of the establishment of pest-free areas and area of 
low pest prevalence" be urgently developed.  The ISPM would provide general guidance on the 
recognition process but would not provide time lines in addressing issues of regionalization. 
2. A draft ISPM Recognition of pest-free areas and areas of low pest prevalence  was developed, 
and at the IPPC Standards Committee meeting in Ma y 2006 it was agreed that it could be sent forward 
for country consultation.   
3. The standard provides guidance for the recogn ition process for pest-free areas and areas of 
low pest prevalence.  It describes a procedure for th e bilateral recognition of such areas.  The standard 
does not include specified timelines for the recognition procedure. 
4. The draft standard is now available on the IPPC website https://www.ippc.int  for country 
consultation in English, French and Spanish.  The templates for comments and guidelines for the 
submission of country comments are also posted.  A ll material is being circulated by surface mail and 
the files will be sent by e-mail to contact points,  Regional Plant Protection Organisations and FAO 
offices.  
5. The IPPC Secretariat is also organizing a series of regional workshops (7) on the draft ISPMs, 
which will be held in July-August and which repres entatives from those developing countries that are 
Members of the CPM will be invited to attend. G/SPS/GEN/707 
Page 2  
 
  6. The deadline for comments is 30 September, but  as in past years, given the short time 
available between the deadline and the SC meeting, the Secretariat is encouraging countries to send 
comments before 15 September.  Comments will be considered by the Standards Committee at their 
November 2006 meeting with the possibility of th e draft ISPM going forward for approval at the 
Second Session of the CPM in March 2007.  
B. C
OMPOSITION OF, AND TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR, A WORKING GROUP ON THE 
FEASIBILITY OF THE INTERNATIONAL RECOGNITION OF PEST-FREE AREAS  
7. It was also decided at ICPM-7 that a feasib ility study be undertaken on the international 
recognition of pest-free areas, which would take into  account legal, technical and economical factors 
and assess feasibility and sustainability of such syst em.  A proposal for the composition of a working 
group and its terms of reference was be prepar ed by a Focus Group (July 2005) for submission, 
through the IPPC Strategic Planni ng and Technical Assistance (SPTA) group to the first session of the 
CPM in 2006. 
8. The SPTA reviewed and modified the terms of  reference developed by the Focus Group 
(Annex 1).  It had been suggested to the SPTA by the Expert Working Group convened to develop the 
draft ISPM that there was very little information available as to what PFAs had been established 
around the world and for which pests.  The SPTA co nsidered the situation and accordingly suggested 
to the First Session of the CPM (2006) that such information should be compiled prior to convening a 
working group on the feasibility of recognition.  
9. The Commission recognized the importance of th e issue of international recognition of PFAs 
for many countries, and that a preliminary study  regarding existing PFAs should be conducted.  
However, it also noted the financial situation of  the IPPC, and there was some disagreement among 
some Members as to when the work could start.  Following discussion, the CPM decided to adopt the 
terms of reference for the working group (see Annex 1) , to be reviewed at CPM-2, and agreed that the 
IPPC Secretariat collect data on existing PFAs for presentation at the meeting.  The Second Session 
would then decide as to how to proceed. 
C. S URVEY ON PEST-FREE AREAS  
10. The IPPC Secretariat is currently in the final stages of preparing a questionnaire on the 
establishment and use of pest-free areas (see Annex 2 – Note this is still in the draft form).  It is 
anticipated that this will be finalized and sent to IPPC contact points in early July. 
  G/SPS/GEN/707 
 Page 3 
 
 
  ANNEX 1 
 
TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE WORKING GROUP ON THE FEASIBILITY 
OF INTERNATIONAL RECOGNITION OF PEST-FREE AREAS 
  
 The working group is to carry out a feasibility study  on the international recognition of pest-
free areas, taking into account legal, technical a nd economic factors and ass ess the feasibility and 
sustainability of such a system.   
 The study will consider the following elements.  The results of the study should be presented 
in the form of a report.  The report should cont ain clear conclusions and make recommendations.  
 
Legal issues:  
• What international recognition of a PFA means. 
• Whether liability insurance should be necessary. 
• Which international organization(s) or indivi duals could take part in the international 
recognition process or could provide internati onal recognition of a PFA.  If other than the 
IPPC how would they relate to the IPPC or wh ich role they would play (e.g. IPPC recognized 
experts, IPPC recognized organi zations, other organizations).  
• Whether the international recognition body carri es any legal responsibility in relation to its 
international recognition process, what its obliga tions are in relation to reporting recognition 
or denial of recognition of a PFA. 
• Whether a disclaimer of responsibility can be pa rt of the international recognition process. 
• What the obligations of contracting parties to th e IPPC will be in regard to an internationally 
recognized PFA. 
• Whether international recognition of PFAs will increase the likelihood of acceptance by 
contracting parties of the concept of PFAs. 
• Whether international recognition of a PFA w ill reduce undue delays in the recognition of 
that PFA by trading partners. 
• Which organizations or entities can request the international recognition of a PFA, e.g. the 
NPPO of the exporting contracting party in whic h the PFA is located (to facilitate exports), 
the NPPO of the importing contracting party (t o recognize a PFA in an exporting country), 
industry representatives (to facilitate exports a nd/or imports), the NPPO of the importing 
contracting party in which the PFA is located (t o recognize the PFA in its territory, to justify 
import requirements), a RPPO on behalf  of one or more of its NPPOs. 
 
Technical issues: 
 
• Whether the international recognition of a PFA should result in a statement from the 
international body that the area is free of the specific pest, or whether it should result in an 
assurance that the criteria for the establishment a nd maintenance of a PFA have been applied. 
• Whether international recognition of a PFA can onl y take place if there is a specific ISPM for 
the establishment and maintenance of a PFA fo r that specific pest or group of pests. 
• 
Whether, once a PFA has received internationa l recognition, such recognition needs to be 
renewed on a regular basis, or whether the rec ognition is valid until the PFA status changes. 
• Whether the process of international recognition of PFAs, if such a process is developed, 
could be applied to areas of low pest prev alence, pest-free production sites and pest-free 
places of production. 
 G/SPS/GEN/707 
Page 4  
 
  • Whether a process for the international recognition of PFAs could be put in place for many 
pests, or only for a limited number of globally relevant pests.  If it is determined that such a process could only apply to a limited number of gl obally relevant pests, what criteria should 
be used to identify these pests.  
• The elements of the international recogniti on process, including, but not limited to, the 
assurance and verification procedures and the requirements (including evidence required) to 
be fulfilled by the country where the PFA is located. 
• Whether pest specific ISPMs should recognize that different ecological conditions and 
associated risk levels may exist in different areas, and therefore the requirements for the 
establishment and maintenance of the specific PFA  may differ.  As a result of this, whether 
the international recognition body should apply judgment in the recognition process. 
• Whether there should be specific requirements covering the reinstatement of an area that had 
lost its are freedom status. 
 Economic issues:  
• The benefits and disadvantages of internati onal recognition of a PFA, including, but not 
limited to: 
 - importing countries;  - exporting countries; 
 - developing and least developed c ountries (either importing or exporting); 
 - market access issues (imports and exports);  - implementation of the IPPC;  - technical assistance.  
• The financial costs of an international recognition system c.f. the current approach of bilateral 
recognition. 
• The source(s) and methods of funding fo r an international recognition system. 
 
Other issues:  
• Whether a pilot project, to test the interna tional recognition process for a PFA, would be 
beneficial.  If so, what would the parameters be  for such a pilot project , e.g. for a pest for 
which a pest specific ISPM is available, for a pest for which there are bilaterally recognized 
PFAs, or for a pest-commodity combination th at has international trade significance and for 
which there is already considerab le experience available, etc. 
  The following areas of expertise should be av ailable in the working group which will carry 
out the feasibility study: 
• general phytosanitary administrative expertise; 
• knowledge of ISPMs, especially those on PFAs, ALPPs, etc; 
• knowledge of operation and maintena nce of PFAs in their country; 
• knowledge of accreditation and audit systems; 
• legal expertise in phytosanitary issues; 
• OIE experience in international recognition of PFAs.  
  Data on existing PFAs (e.g. recognized areas,  size of area recognized, recognized by whom, 
commodity involved, pest involved) should be considered   The expert working group should have seven memb ers, preferably one from each region, plus 
three Bureau members.   G/SPS/GEN/707 
 Page 5 
 
 
  ANNEX 2  (DRAFT ) 
DRAFT Questionnaire 
Use of pest-free areas 
Data collection 
 
General data  
 
Country  
Contact person  (general contact in 
relation with all data provided 
below)   
E-mail:   
 
Use of PFAs  
 
Is your country using PFAs ? Yes  No  
 If you answer yes, you may fill one form (next page) per PFA, 
giving as much details as possible 
If your country does not establish PFAs, please identify reasons in the second column, e.g. 
• no identified need (i.e. no pest, 
trade for which could be applied) 
• could be used but not capacities 
to put them in place 
• could be used but using other 
possible measures 
• not required by trading partner 
• capacities to maintain not 
available 
• difficulty with recognition 
• other (specify)  
  
 
     
 G/SPS/GEN/707 
Page 6  
 
  Country ..............................................  PFA No.  ......... [if several PFAs described] 
 
Pest(s) (scientific name)  list: 
Commodity/ies  list: 
Location of the area  detail of location 
Reason to put in place/wanting to put in place 
PFA  reason : 
Status 
• Established and running  
• date established  
• any temporary suspension (y/n) 
• Suspended 
• date established 
• date suspended 
• reason 
• Terminated  
• date established 
• date terminated 
• reason 
• Under definition  
• stage of the process (definition, 
recognition)  
• date of contact of importing country use one of the four status categories given, with 
details as needed 
Cost  
• establishment 
•  maintenance  
Benefits   
Challenges encountered in establishment, e.g. 
• delay by circumstances (failure to control 
etc.) 
• Other (specify)    
Challenges encountered in recognition, e.g. 
• administrative delays 
• lack of contact point 
• Other (specify)  
Challenges encountered in maintenance, e.g. 
• technical difficulties 
• controls on the movement of material 
• Other (specify)  
 
__________