WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/GEN/626 
24 January 2006 
 (06-0318) 
Committee on Sanitary a nd Phytosanitary Measures Original:   English 
  
 
PEST AND DISEASE FREE AREAS – ARTICLE 6 
 
UPDATE OF ACTIVITIES OF THE INTERNATIONAL PLANT PROTECTION 
CONVENTION (IPPC) - JUNE 2005 – JANUARY 2006 
 
Statement by the IPPC at the Informal Meeting on Regionalization of 30 January 2006
 
 
 
 The following communication, received on 23 January 2006, is being circulated at the request 
of the IPPC. 
 
_______________ 
  
Introduction 
 
1. At the thirty-third meeting of the Comm ittee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures 
June 2005, the IPPC Secretariat reported that regionalization had been discussed at the 7
th 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 intern ational standard for phytosanitary 
measures (ISPM) would provide general guidance on  the recognition process but would not provide 
timelines in addressing issues of regionalization. 
2. The ICPM also decided that a feasibility 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 system.  A proposal for the composition of a working group and 
its terms of reference would be prepared by a Focus Group (June/July 2005) for submission, through 
the IPPC Strategic Planning and Technical Assistan ce group, to the next session of the ICPM in 2006. 
ISPM# Guidelines for the recognition of the estab lishment of pest free areas and areas of low 
pest prevalence  
3. An expert working group on the recognition of p est free areas (PFAs) and areas of low pest 
prevalence (ALPPs) met in Rome, 3-7 October 2005 a nd produced a draft standard.  During drafting, 
a number of issues were raised inter alia : 
• Use of the term "regionalization"  
 
4. The Expert Working Group agreed that the te rm "recognition" was sufficient to cover the 
technical and administrative process to reach accepta nce of phytosanitary status of a delimited area 
and decided that it was not necessary to include a new term or to define "recognition of PFAs and 
ALPPs".  G/SPS/GEN/626 
Page 2  
 
  • Undue delay 
 
5. The group considered that it was important to provide guidance stating that the recognition 
process should be undertaken without undue delay.   
• Pest free areas with no records of pests 
 6. The Expert Working Group recognized that where a pest had not been re corded from an area, 
it was not always necessary to go through a complex recognition procedure.  However, it was also recognized that in some cases, depending on the pest  and technical justification, importing contracting 
parties may wish to verify information supporting pest free area status. 
• Quantitative and qualitative data 
 
7. The Expert Working Group noted that qualitativ e and quantitative data may be presented and 
assessed.  
• Procedure for recognition of PFAs and ALPPs 
 
8. The Expert Working Group produced a recommended procedure for recognition, which 
comprised a series of steps involving:  
- submission of a request by the National Pl ant Protection Organization (NPPO) of the 
exporting contracting party (CP) for recogn ition together with relevant information 
(information package) on the area of concern;  
- acknowledgement from the NPPO of the im porting CP and identification of major 
omissions in the information supplied; 
- description of the recognition process to be  used by the NPPO of the importing CP, 
ideally with a provisional timetable;  
- assessment of the technical information and, if necessary, requests for further 
information or a site visit to verify pest status;  
- communication of the result of the assessment to the NPPO of the exporting CP - official recognition by the importing CP, if successful.  
 
9. The Expert Working Group also recommended that the working group on the feasibility of 
international recognition of pest free areas consid er that a database be set up within the IPPC 
international phytosanitary portal (IPP) to collect data on recognized pest free areas and areas of low 
pest prevalence.  The database should list the PFA s and ALPPs, the pests and commodity concerned, 
the countries that recognized them, date of recognition and contact point. 
10. The draft ISPM will be considered by the Commission on Phytosanitary Measures (CPM) 
Standards Committee (April/May 2006) and following modification (if required) will be sent out for 
country consultation and possible approval at the CPM meeting in 2007. 
Feasibility Study on the international recognition of pest free areas 
 
11. The Focus Group  met in July 2005.  Various issues were identified when developing the 
terms of reference.  These included:  
• International recognition of a PFA was unclear and should be defined  G/SPS/GEN/626 
 Page 3 
 
 
  • The benefits of an international recognitio n system needed to be identified.  The 
benefits would include those for importing and exporting countri es, developing and 
least-developed countries, and intern ational trade in general.   
• The role of the IPPC in the recognition of PFAs needed to be investigated.  It was 
thought that the IPPC could be directly  involved in the recognition process, could 
identify the body to carry out the recognition or could certify the results of the 
recognition process. 
• It felt that an understanding of the Worl d Organization for Animal Health (OIE) 
experience would be helpful for the feasib ility study and thought that a member of 
OIE could be invited to the working group meeting.  
• Funding the process of recognition. 
• The liability and responsibility of the recogn ition of PFAs.  In cases of error, it would 
be important to know at which stage of  the recognition process the fault laid.  
Assurance and verification could also be important for this reason.   
 
Terms of Reference for the working group on the feasibility on international recognition of pest 
free areas  
12. The questions that the Focus Group felt the wo rking group should answer and the issues they 
deemed to be important were used to construct Terms of Reference (Annex 1). 
Composition of the working group 
 
13. The Focus Group felt that the working group should be small and should include a 
representative from each of the FAO regions, plus the Bureau.  The members of the working group 
should have phytosanitary experience, and kn owledge of PFAs and accreditation and auditing 
systems.  The composition of the working group is pa rt of the Terms of Reference, provided in Annex 
1.  
Discussion by the Strategic Planning and Technical Assistance group 
 
14. The report of the Focus Group and the database suggestion of the Expert Working Group on 
the ISPM for the Recognition of pest free areas and  areas of low pest prevalence  were considered by 
the Strategic Planning and Technical Assistance group (SPTA). 
15. The SPTA also felt that modifications/additions n eeded to be made to the Terms of Reference 
covering economic issues, ecological issues, liability , evidence provided by the supply country and re-
accreditation, and these were modified accordingly in Annex 1. 
16. The SPTA discussed the funding of the study in line with the anticipated budget and whether 
the working group should undertake the study in 2006 or in 2007 (data could be assembled in 2006).  
Recognizing the needs of the WTO-SPS Committee, th e SPTA felt that, by utilizing the international 
experience of some countries with fruit flies, inform ation could be gathered in 2006 and the feasibility 
study undertaken in 2007. 
 G/SPS/GEN/626 
Page 4  
 
   
Annex 1 
 Terms of Reference Working group on the feasibility of intern ational recognition of pest free areas 
 
1. 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.   
2. 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. 
• Which international organization(s) or indivi duals could take part in the international 
recognition process or could provide interna tional recognition of a PFA.  If other than 
the IPPC how would they relate to the IPPC or which role they would play (e.g. IPPC 
recognized experts, IPPC recognized or ganizations, other organizations).  
• Whether the international recognition body carries any legal responsibility in relation 
to its international recognition process, what its obligations are in  relation to reporting 
recognition or denial of recognition of a PFA.  
• Whether a disclaimer of responsibility can be  part of the international recognition 
process. 
• What the obligations of contracting parti es to the 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 will 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 which the PFA is located (to facilitate exports), the NPPO of the importing contracting party (to recognize a PFA in an exporting country), industry represen tatives (to facilitate exports and/or 
imports), the NPPO of the importing contrac ting party in which the PFA is located (to 
recognize the PFA in its territory, to jus tify import requirements), a RPPO on behalf 
of one or more of its NPPOs. 
• Whether liability insurance should be necessary. 
 
Technical issues: 
 
• Whether the international recognition of a PFA should result in a statement from the 
international body that the area is free of th e specific pest, or whether it should result 
in an assurance that the crite ria for the establishment and maintenance of a PFA have 
been applied. 
• Whether international recognition of a PFA can only take place if there is a specific 
ISPM for the establishment and maintenance of  a PFA for that specific pest or group 
of pests.  G/SPS/GEN/626 
 Page 5 
 
 
  • Whether, once a PFA has received interna tional recognition, such recognition needs 
to be renewed on a regular basis, or whet her the recognition is valid until the PFA 
status changes. 
• Whether the process of international rec ognition of PFAs, if such a process is 
developed, could be applied to areas of lo w pest prevalence, pest free production sites 
and pest free places of production. 
• 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 onl y apply to a limited number of globally 
relevant pests, what criteria should be used to identify these pests.  
• The elements of the international recogn ition process, including, but not limited to, 
the assurance and verification procedures a nd 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 th e specific PFA may differ.  As a result of 
this, whether the international recogn ition body should apply judgment in the 
recognition process. 
• Whether there should be specific requirement s covering the reinstatement of an area 
that had lost its are freedom status. 
 Economic issues:  
• The benefits and disadvantages of interna tional recognition of a PFA, including, but 
not limited to: 
o importing countries; 
o exporting countries; 
o developing and least de veloped countries (either  importing or exporting); 
o market access issues (imports and exports); 
o implementation of the IPPC; 
o technical assistance. 
• The financial costs of an international rec ognition 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 international recognition process for a PFA, would 
be beneficial.  If so, what would the paramete rs be for such a pilot project, e.g., for a 
pest for which a pest specific ISPM is av ailable, for a pest for which there are 
bilaterally recognized PFAs, or for a pest-commodity combination that has 
international trade significance and for which there is already considerable experience 
available, etc. 
 3. 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; G/SPS/GEN/626 
Page 6  
 
  • knowledge of accreditation and audit systems; 
• legal expertise in phytosanitary issues; 
• OIE experience in international recognition of PFAs.  
 4. Data on existing PFAs (e.g., recognized areas, size of area recognized, recognized by whom, 
commodity involved, pest involved) should be considered. 
5. The expert working group should have seven memb ers, preferably one from each region, plus 
three Bureau members.  
 
__________