WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/GEN/786 
22 June 2007 
 (07-2644) 
Committee on Sanitary a nd Phytosanitary Measures Original:   English/ 
                 French/                  Spanish 
 
  
DECISIONS FROM THE SECOND SESSION OF THE  
COMMISSION ON PHYTOSANITARY MEASURES 
 
Communication by the Secretariat of the Inte rnational Plant Protection Convention (IPPC)
 
   The following communication, received on 21 June 2007, is being circulated at the request of 
IPPC. 
 
_______________ 
  1. The second session of the Commission on Phytosanitary Measures (CPM-2) took place in 
Rome, 26-30 March 2007.  Three hundred and ninet een participants registered, representing 129 
members of the Commission (i.e. contracting parties to the IPPC), plus eight countries who were not 
contracting parties and 17 observer organizations.  The Session was opened by the Director-General 
of the FAO. 
I. THE DEVELOPMENT, ADOPTION AND MONITORING OF THE 
IMPLEMENTATION OF INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS FOR PHYTOSANITARY 
MEASURES  
A. 
ADOPTION OF INTERNATIONAL STANDARD S FOR PHYTOSANITARY MEASURES (ISPMS ) 
2. The Secretariat introduced six draft texts for c onsideration by the CPM, which consisted of 
three new standards (Recognition of pest-free areas and areas of low pest prevalence, Establishment 
of areas of low pest prevalence for fruit flies (T ephritidae), Phytosanitary treatments for regulated 
pests), the revision of ISPM No. 2 (Framework for pest risk analysis), a supplement to ISPM No. 5 
(Debarked and bark free wood) and some amendmen ts to ISPM No. 5 (Glossary of phytosanitary 
terms)) 
Framework for pest risk analysis (revision of ISPM 2) 
 
3. This standard provides a framework that describ es the pest risk analys is (PRA) process within 
the scope of the IPPC.  It introduces the three stag es of pest risk analysis – initiation, pest risk 
assessment and pest risk management.  The standard  focuses on the initiation stage.  Generic issues of 
information gathering, documentation, risk communication, uncertainty and consistency are 
addressed. 
4. The CPM:  
(i) Adopted as ISPM No. 2 (2007), Framework for pest risk analysis G/SPS/GEN/786 
Page 2  
 
   
Phytosanitary treatments for regulated pests 
 
5. This ISPM presents in Annex 1 phytosanitary tr eatments evaluated and adopted by the CPM.  
It also describes the requirements for submission and evaluation of the efficacy data and other 
relevant information on a phytosanitary treatment that  can be used as a phytosanitary measure and that 
will be included in Annex 1 after its adoption. 
6. The treatments are for the control of regulated pests on regulated articles, primarily those 
moving in international trade.  The adopted tr eatments provide the minimum requirements necessary 
to control a regulated pest at a stated efficacy.  The scope of this standard does not include issues 
related to pesticide registration or other domestic  requirements for approval of treatments (e.g. 
irradiation). 
7. The CPM:  
(i) Adopted  as ISPM No. 28: Phytosanitary treatments for regulated pests 
Recognition of pest-free areas and areas of low pest prevalence 
 
8. This standard provides guidance and describes a procedure for the bilateral recognition of 
pest-free areas and areas of low pest prevalence.  Th is standard does not include specified timelines 
for the recognition procedure.  This standard also  provides some considerations regarding pest free 
places of production and pest free production sites. 
9. The CPM: 
(i) Adopted  as ISPM No. 29: Recognition of pest-free areas and areas of low pest 
prevalence, contained in Appendix 5. 
(ii) Requested  the Secretariat to provide informati on on this standard to the WTO SPS 
Committee. 
Establishment of areas of low pest pr evalence for fruit flies (Tephritidae) 
 
10. This standard was not approved by the CPM.  A working group met during the CPM and it 
was agreed that the steward would revise the draft ISPM taking into account the comments made in the working group meeting and at the CPM.  A fina l draft would be given to the Secretariat, for 
submission to the Standards Committee in May 2007,  where it was subsequently given priority in 
their work plan and submitted ag ain for member consultation.  
Debarked and bark-free wood 
 
11. This standard was also not approved by the CPM.  A working group met and discussed the 
draft during the CPM and recommended that the CPM se nd the topic back to the next meeting of the 
SC and request it to continue its work to develop a draft ISPM.  In particular, the SC should consider 
a two-step approach, i.e. the first step being to work on the development of more detailed text to 
accompany the definitions and as a second step to c onsider the relationship between pest risk and 
bark.  The SC should also decide on the best way to move this topic forward urgently, making every 
effort possible to present a revised draft to the third session of the CPM (CPM 3).  G/SPS/GEN/786 
 Page 3 
 
 
  B. IPPC STANDARD SETTING WORK PROGRAMME  
12. The Secretariat introduced the IPPC standard setting work programme and the status of topics 
under development.  It was noted that no new propos als for topics for standards were presented.  New 
topics placed on the work programme by technical panels (TPs) with the approval of the SC were also presented. 
13. The CPM:  
(i) Noted the IPPC standard setting work programme  and requested that no new topics be 
put on the work programme by technical panels through the Standards Committee 
until the CPM considered the outcome of the Focus Group on the standard setting 
process  (see paragraph 27). 
C. 
TERMS OF REFERENCE AND RULES OF  PROCEDURE FOR TECHNICAL PANELS  
14. The Secretariat introduced a paper on the term s of reference and rules of procedure for 
technical panels.  These had been considered a nd amended by both the Informal Working Group on 
Strategic Planning and Technical Assistance ( SPTA) and the SC, with the SC approving a final 
version.  Several issues relating to the membersh ip of technical panels were raised which would 
require further consideration. 
15. A common decision was taken for items under I-B , C, D, F and II-A and is reported under 
paragraph 27. 
D. PROCEDURE AND CRITERIA FOR IDENTIFYING TOPICS FOR INCLUSION IN THE IPPC STANDARD 
SETTING WORK PROGRAMME  
16. The Secretariat explained that the original pr ocedures were adopted by ICPM-4 (2002) and 
were identified as needing to be updated, primaril y due to subsequent decisions made at ICPM-6 
(2004), which had modified them.  Several members i ndicated that issues such  as a link to the aim of 
the IPPC and biodiversity should be added.  
17. A common decision was taken for items under I-B, C, D, F and II-A is reported under 
paragraph 27. 
E. IPPC SURVEY ON BARK ON ISPM NO . 15 MARKED WOOD PACKAGING  
18. The Secretariat introduced the survey, indicati ng that, for the revision of ISPM No. 15, new 
data on potential pest risks associated with bark  on wood packaging marked in accordance with ISPM 
No. 15 was needed.  The Technical Panel on Forest  Quarantine, with the approval of the SC, had 
consequently developed a survey protocol to assi st with the collection of the relevant data.  
19. The CPM:  
(i) Encouraged  contracting parties to participate in the survey and submit data to the 
IPPC Secretariat no later than 31 May 2007. 
F. TRANSPARENCY IN THE STANDARD SETTING PROCESS  
20. A representative of Brazil, on behalf of Braz il, Chile and Paraguay, introduced a paper 
relating to transparency in the standard setting pr ocess.  The aim was to seek the best decision-making 
procedures and to avoid subsequent changes of pr iorities.  He outlined several recommendations for G/SPS/GEN/786 
Page 4  
 
  improved transparency and highlighted the role of the International Phytosanitary Portal (IPP) for 
informing contracting parties of their role in all steps of standard setting and to promote full 
participation. 
21. A common decision was taken for items under I-B, C, D, F and II-A is reported under 
paragraph 27. 
II. THE MAINTENANCE OF AN EFFECTIV E AND EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATIVE 
FRAMEWORK 
Modifications to the Rules of Procedure of  the Commission on Phytosanitary Measures 
 Amendment of Rules II and VII of the Rules of  Procedure of the Commission on Phytosanitary 
Measures  
22. A CPM Vice-Chairperson referred to the adoptio n of the rules of procedure of the CPM 
during CPM-1 (2006) as laid down in Article XI.7 of  the IPPC and recalled that CPM-1 had decided 
to extend the Bureau from three to seven persons (o ne per FAO region).  An amendment of Rule II.1 
(Officers) of the rules of procedure had therefore been prepared.  
23. Amendment of Rule VII (Observers) was also pr oposed to specify that any contracting party 
may attend subsidiary body meetings as an observer. 
24. The CPM: 
(i) Adopted  unanimously Rule II.1 (as amended) and Rule VII of the rules of procedure 
of the Commission on Phytosanitary Me asures (as presented in Appendix 7); 
(ii) Noted  that a Bureau (consisting of one Chair, two Vice-Chairs and four additional 
members) would be elected at CPM-3 (2008); 
(iii) Agreed  that the Bureau would develop its rules of procedures for adoption at a later 
CPM. 
A. 
UPDATE OF ANNEX I OF THE RULES OF PROC EDURE OF THE CPM ON DEVELOPMENT AND 
ADOPTION OF INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS  
25. The Secretariat introduced the revised Annex I to the rules of procedure of the CPM on the 
development and adoption of intern ational standards as was requested by CPM-1 (2006).  The revised 
annex outlined the process for the development of  ISPMs and was divided into four stages: 
developing the IPPC standard setting work progra mme; drafting; member consultation; adoption and 
publication.  
26. A common decision was taken for items under I-B , C, D, F and II-A and is reported below 
under paragraph 27. 
27. The CPM: 
(i) Decided  to convene a Focus Group to review the IPPC standard setting procedures, in 
 particular areas discussed under CPM-2 age nda items 9.4, 9.5, 9.7 and 10.1.2, and 
invited  members to submit comments to the Secretariat on these agenda items by 1 
May 2007; 
(ii) Decided  that the Focus Group would be composed of 10 persons consisting of one 
person per FAO region and three other members;  G/SPS/GEN/786 
 Page 5 
 
 
  (iii) Agreed  that, at the meeting of the SPTA in October 2007, a two-day session be held 
to analyze the findings of the Focus Group, and that the outcome be considered by the 
SC and CPM. 
Informal Working Group on Strategic Planning and Technical Assistance 
 
Continuation of the CPM Informal Working Group on Strategic Planning and Technical Assistance  
28. The Chairperson of the SPTA recalled that CP M-1 (2006) had decided that the SPTA should 
be formalized and that the enlarged Bureau would form its core group.  Proposed terms of reference 
and rules of procedure had been developed by the SPTA in 2006.  It was recommended that the SPTA 
should not be formalized but remains informal and open-ended to ensure that the whole membership 
could participate in its work on an equal basis.  
29. The CPM: 
(i) Adopted  the terms of reference and rules of procedure for the SPTA, as amended. 
Statement of commitment 
 
30. The document was presented by the Secretariat.  The purpose of the document was to ensure 
that individuals nominated for IPPC bodies such as the SC, expert working groups and technical 
panels were aware of the work and expectations  involved in membership of the bodies before 
accepting their nomination.  The form also enco uraged nominees to discuss the nomination and 
associated commitment with their supervisor and/or government as often experts nominated and 
selected for bodies were not able to attend meetings because their supervisor or government would not 
release them.  The commitment was not meant to be binding, but rather was seen as a means to 
communicate the role and responsibility of a nominee for a body and to help the Secretariat ensure 
that experts were availabl e and would attend meetings. 
31. The CPM:  
(i) Agreed  to the concept of a written statement of commitment from nominees; 
Declaration of interests of experts within the framework of the IPPC 
 
32. The declaration was presented by the Secretariat.   It was explained that the Director-General 
of FAO required that the form be submitted by thos e experts selected by the Director-General or by 
the Secretariat to take part in FAO meetings.  Experts nominated or selected by a government or 
intergovernmental organization woul d not have to complete and submit the form.  For the IPPC, the 
need for the use of the declaration form would mos tly be limited to those experts chosen in their 
individual capacity by the Secretariat.  
33. The CPM:  
(i) Noted  the declaration of interests form for experts participating in IPPC meetings as 
presented in Appendix 12. 
Acceptance of documents in electronic format 
 
34. The Secretariat presented a form aimed at id entifying those NPPOs and RPPOs that would 
agree to use electronic versions of documents fo r correspondence from the IPPC Secretariat that was G/SPS/GEN/786 
Page 6  
 
  sent to all NPPOs and RPPOs.  This would not affect the current processes for specific IPPC meetings 
or FAO Director-General correspondence.  
35. The CPM: 
(i) Requested  contact points in NPPOs and RPPOs to inform the Secretariat by mail 
before 31 August 2007, if they no longer required hard copies of correspondence. 
Business plan 
 Revised Business Plan 2007 - 2011 (including the Strategic Plan) 
 
36. The revised business plan was presented by a CPM Vice-Chairperson (Ralf Lopian).  The 
revised business plan had been drafted by the Bure au and the Secretariat and was submitted to the 
CPM through the SPTA.  The Bureau considered that  it was the business plan of the CPM, not the 
IPPC, and it presented the vision of the governing body, not of the Convention itself.  The Vice-Chair 
stated that the business plan was based on expecta tions and projections rather than availability of 
resources.  
37. Members welcomed the new business plan and agreed that it was a useful tool for the 
promotion of the IPPC with FAO Conference and othe r relevant bodies.  Some minor suggestions for 
additions and revisions were made .  Members supported the proposal for a full-time S ecretary of the 
IPPC.  
38. The CPM: 
(i) Noted  that the business plan had been revised and included a section on the strategic 
directions for the CPM, which contained seven five-year goals; 
(ii) Agreed  that the business plan be reconsidered annually by the SPTA in order to 
recommend whether or not any changes were needed.  There should be a major 
review every five years.  The business plan would be supported each year by an 
annual operational plan, with an associated  budget that would describe the activities 
for the forthcoming year aimed at meeting the five-year goals; 
(iii) Agreed that the goals covered the core activities of the CPM. 
Operational plan for 2007 
 39. The Secretariat presented the operational pl an (based on the 2006 strategic plan) and 
associated budget for 2007, which descr ibed the activities that would be carried out by the Secretariat 
using the resources from the FAO regular programme and from the various trust funds.  Activities had 
been prioritized by the SPTA and some would need to remain on hold unless additional funding 
became available. 
40. The CPM: 
(i) Noted  the anticipated revenues a nd budgeted expenses for 2007; 
(ii) Noted  that as no additional contributions to  the Trust Fund for the IPPC had been 
made to date, various activities pla nned for 2007 may not be undertaken. 
Budget for the Trust Fund for the IPPC for 2007 
  G/SPS/GEN/786 
 Page 7 
 
 
  41. The Secretariat presented the budget for 2007 for the Trust Fund for the IPPC, and the 
proposed allocation of funds.  No indication had been received of new c ontributions in 2007.  
42. The CPM: 
(i) Noted  that as of March 2007, the Secretariat has received no indication from any 
contracting party of an intention to contribute to the Trust Fund in 2007. 
Potential funding arrangements of the IPPC 
 
43. A CPM Vice-Chairperson (Mr Lopian) gave a presentation on potential funding arrangements 
of the IPPC, reflecting on past funding arrangeme nts and the outcomes of discussions at the SPTA 
meeting.  Voluntary contributions and fees or servi ce charges had been envisaged but it was suggested 
not to pursue those options.  In-kind contributions were considered a favoured way to provide 
contributions and he suggested that the CPM deve lop and implement a strategy to encourage such 
contributions.  A promotion strategy for multilatera l trust funds was also needed.  More project-
oriented trust fund contributions could also be prom oted.  He insisted that providing sufficient staff 
resources to the IPPC Secretariat was imperative in order to maintain its efficacy.  
44. The Vice-Chairperson recalled the Director-Gener al’s suggestion, in his opening speech, that 
a high level ministerial meeting be held.  This would contribute to better awareness of the IPPC/CPM, 
but would require careful planning.  He suggested that possible topics could be considered by the 
SPTA and then presented to CPM-3 (2008) so that  such a meeting could be planned for CPM-4 
(2009).  Many members expressed support for the proposal. 
45. The CPM: 
(i) Decided  that the subject of mandatory assessed contributions should not be further 
pursued as a mechanism to supplement the I PPC budget, unless in the framework of a 
possible future general revision of the IPPC;  
(ii) Decided  that the subject of voluntary assessed contributions should not be further 
pursued as a mechanism to supplement th e IPPC budget, unless recommendations of 
the independent evaluation of the IPPC or a possible future general revision of the 
IPPC warranted it;  
(iii) Noted  investigations made into service charg es or fees and the consensus of the SPTA 
that this was impractical at this time.  However, the CPM also noted that it did not preclude investigation of further service char ges or fees options that could occur in 
the future;  
(iv) Invited  countries to provide in-kind contributions  and the IPPC Secretariat to develop 
and implement a strategy to promote the provision of these; 
(v) Stressed  again the need for a promotion strategy , developed by the IPPC Secretariat, 
for the Trust Fund for the IPPC, and for a more project-oriented planning of the activities carried out under the trust fund, with costing of activities and potential 
donors invited to pledge their financial support to projects; 
(vi) Agreed  on actions pertaining to the above, and in particular: 
• to promote the establishment of bilateral trust funds; 
•
 to develop project-oriented planning  for the multilateral trust fund for 
consideration by the SPTA in 2007; G/SPS/GEN/786 
Page 8  
 
  • to develop a promotion strategy to invi te contributions to the trust funds for 
consideration by the SPTA in 2007. 
(vii) Agreed  that recommendations on topics, goals , agenda and timing for a high level 
ministerial event for CPM-4 (2009) be prep ared by the Bureau with assistance from 
the IPPC Secretariat to be submitted to CPM-3 through SPTA. 
International recognition of pest-free areas 
 Composition and Terms of Reference for a Working Group to Undertake a Feasibility Study on the 
International Recognition of Pest-Free Areas 
 
46. The Secretariat presented a follow-on report based on a decision at ICPM-7 (2005) to 
undertake a feasibility study on the internationa l recognition of PFAs taking into account legal, 
technical and economic factors, and assess the feasib ility and sustainability of such a system.  The 
terms of reference of the working group were devel oped by a focus group, reviewed by the SPTA and 
adopted by CPM-1 (2006). 
47. The CPM: 
(i) Agreed that an open-ended working group be established to unde rtake a feasibility 
 study on the international recognition of pest-free areas; 
(ii) Confirmed  that the terms of reference adopted  by CPM-1 and revised by CPM-2 be 
used for the open-ended working group; 
(iii) Agreed  that the open-ended working group present the results of its study to CPM-4 
through the SPTA; 
(iv) Agreed  that as an outcome of CPM-4 a smaller working group of experts may be 
 established to develop this further. 
IPPC evaluation 
 Update from the IPPC Evaluation Team 
 
48. The evaluation team leader presented the draft report and findings of the evaluation of the 
IPPC.  The evaluation team undertook various activ ities during the evaluation, such as visiting 
countries, meeting with NPPOs and RPPOs and se nding out a comprehensive questionnaire.  The 
main findings for standard setting, information ex change, technical assistance, dispute settlement, the 
Secretariat, governance structures and financial resources were outlined. 
49. Comments and feedback were given on many aspects of the report.  The CPM discussed the 
need for further consideration of the report prio r to its presentation to the FAO Programme Committee 
in September 2007, and a friends of the chair meeting was convened to discuss the issue.  
Suggestions, which are detailed below and were endorsed by the CPM, were proposed for an 
extraordinary meeting of the SPTA to consider. 
50. The CPM: 
(i) Noted that the final evaluation report would be presented to the FAO Programme 
Committee at its 98th session in September 2007;  G/SPS/GEN/786 
 Page 9 
 
 
  (ii) Agreed  that a key opportunity existed to influence the FAO Programme Committee 
thinking and decisions in September 2007 re garding future funding and support for 
the IPPC; 
(iii) Agreed  that an extraordinary meeting of the SPTA should be convened during the 
week of 18 June 2007 to review the reco mmendations of the final evaluation report 
and generate CPM positions  and other input for the Programme Committee; 
(iv) Agreed  that the SPTA should focus on the recommendations that were FAO-relevant, 
to ensure a coherent and targeted response on decisions affecting the IPPC which fell 
within the jurisdiction of FAO; 
(v) Requested  the Secretariat to distribute copies of the final evaluation report as soon as 
it was available; 
(vi) Agreed  that only positions established by consen sus in the extraordinary meeting of 
the SPTA would go forward to the Programme Committee; 
(vii) Agreed  that the SPTA would in its analysis refer to the adopted 5-year business plan 
to illustrate and support its positions to the FAO Programme Committee; 
(viii) Agreed  that the same report that went to the Programme Committee would be posted 
on the IPP; 
(ix) Encouraged  members to use the report posted on the IPP to inform their respective 
delegations participating in the FAO Programme Committee, FAO Council and FAO 
Conference. 
(x) Noted  that the final evaluation report and its  implications for the budget would be 
further discussed at CPM-3. 
III. INFORMATION EXCHANGE 
Details on information exchange and the International Phytosanitary Portal (IPP) 
 
51. The Secretariat provided a summary of in formation exchange activities for 2006 and 
highlighted areas of work to be undertaken in 2007.  There had been a marked increase in the 
reliability of contact information for IPPC cont act points but their maintenance was an ongoing 
process and relied on countries maintaining the inform ation or providing it to the Secretariat in a 
timely manner. 
52. It was noted that the IPP was being increasingly utilized by contracting parties to meet their 
information exchange obligations under the IPPC.  This was largely as a result of significant capacity 
building efforts for information exchange under the IPPC over the past 18 months.  The capacity 
building programme was ongoing. 
53. The IPP had been available in Arabic as a navigation language since 1 March 2007.  
Navigation in Chinese should be available by the end of July 2007. 
54. The next information management and IPP de velopment phase would include improving data 
retrieval for official information, revision of the phytosanitary capacity evaluation (PCE) programme, 
and storage of information in support of the impl ementation of the IPPC and the management of 
information for reporting to the CPM. 
55. The CPM: G/SPS/GEN/786 
Page 10  
 
  (i) Requested  the IPP Support Group to consider th e need and if appropriate develop 
terms of reference for a possible working group for the development of an IPPC information management system.  Recommendations by the IPP Support Group should be considered by the SPTA before  further consideration by CPM-3. 
IV.  THE PROVISION OF DISPU TE SETTLEMENT MECHANISMS 
56. The IPPC Dispute Settlement Manual and advo cacy document had been finalized and would 
be available in FAO languages by the end of May 2 007.  The documents would be used to describe 
the IPPC Dispute Settlement system when it wa s presented by a CPM Vice-Chairperson to an 
informal WTO SPS Committee meeting in June 2007. 
57. In the future when FAO was consulted by me mbers on phytosanitary disputes, these would be 
handled by the IPPC Secretariat.  FAO may supply "Good Offices" to assist in informal discussions to 
solve such disputes.  The Subsidiary Body on  Dispute Settlement (SBDS) would monitor such 
requests and provide advice as appropriate. 
58. Detailed discussions were held on the pr oposed open-ended working group (OEWG) on 
compliance scheduled for September 2007.  The meeting agreed that discussion at the OEWG would 
be exploratory in nature and the outcome of th e meeting should be discussed by the SBDS and SPTA 
before going to CPM-4 (2009) for consideration.  
Amendment of the Terms of Reference and Rules of Procedure of the SBDS 
 
59. Revised rules of procedure for the SBDS were presented. 
60. The CPM:  
(i) Adopted  the amended rules of procedure for the SBDS. 
(ii) Agreed  that the SBDS should continue to wo rk in English until additional resources 
become available. 
V. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PHYTOSANITARY CAPACITY OF MEMBERS BY 
PROMOTING THE PROVISION OF TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 
Analysis of the application of the PCE tool 
 Informal Working Group on Phytosanitary Capacity Evaluation 
 
61. The representative of CAB International reported on the analysis of the application of the 
phytosanitary capacity evaluation tool (PCE) which was commissioned by ICPM-6.  He noted the 
positive impacts of the PCE with respect to its in tended use, in particular on national strategic 
planning, justification for budgetary allocation, le gal frameworks, training and awareness raising.  
The report noted however that the PCE results were not often used externally, for instance in seeking 
external funding for phytosanitary capacity building. 
62. The report identified possible options for the improvement of the PCE and other tools which 
could address the broader objectives of the phytosanitary evaluation process.  G/SPS/GEN/786 
 Page 11 
 
 
  63. The CPM: 
(i) Agreed  that the recommendations provided by CABI and the comments of the 
International Working Group-PCE should be further considered by the 19th Technical 
Consultation among Regional Plant  Protec tion Organizations and then by the 
SPTA for final presentation to CPM-3. 
  
VI. PROMOTION OF THE IPPC AND COOPERATION WITH RELEVANT 
INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS 
Liaison with research, education and other institutes 
 64. The Secretariat provided a summary of the pr oposed work programme for Liaison with 
Research, Education and Other Institutes.  It w as recommended that the implementation of such a 
programme depended on extra-budgeta ry resources and should be viewed as a first phase of work in 
that area.  Further phases of work would be subject to CPM approval. 
65. The CPM: 
(i) Adopted the work programme  
(ii) Agreed  that the IPPC Secretariat only implement the adopted work programme if 
extra-budgetary resources become available. 
Report on the promotion of the I PPC and cooperation with relevant 
international organizations 
 66. The Secretariat provided a brief overview of  cooperation with rele vant international 
organizations.  Such cooperation involved, in par ticular, CAB Internationa l, Codex Alimentarius 
Commission, Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), International Centre for Insect Physiology  and Ecology, Internati onal Forestry Quarantine 
Research Group, International Seed Testing Asso ciation (ISTA), Standards and Trade Development 
Facility (STDF), WTO SPS Committee, World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) and the 
Montreal Protocol. 
67. Informal cooperation continued with Codex Alimen tarius and the OIE.  The IPPC Secretariat 
had attended all formal and informal meetings  of the WTO SPS Committee and the STDF working 
group.  A conference call meeting between the IPPC  and CBD Secretariats had been held and the 
IPPC Secretariat attended both the meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the CBD (COP) and the 
COP serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Ca rtagena Protocol on Biosafety.  In addition the 
Technical Panel on the Glossary had provided input in to the CBD’s terminology database for invasive 
alien species and the CBD Secretariat had provid ed input to the development of PRA training 
material.  A representative of ISTA had attende d a Bureau meeting where funding options were 
discussed and a combined symposium was considered where the two organizations could present 
topics for areas of collaboration.  
68. The Secretariat indicated that there had been  several interactions between the IPPC and 
Ozone Secretariats (including representatives of the M ontreal Protocol), including participation of the 
IPPC Secretariat in the open ended working grou p to the Montreal Protocol, and representatives from 
the Ozone Secretariat participating in the meetings  of the Technical Panel on Forest Quarantine and 
the expert working group (EWG) on alternatives to methyl bromide.  The recent EWG involved with 
drafting a standard on alternatives to methyl bromid e had highlighted the need to update the policy on G/SPS/GEN/786 
Page 12  
 
  the use of methyl bromide adopted at ICPM-5 (2003) .  This was underway and the Secretariat invited 
experts to contact them to provide input into updating the "Recommendation on the future of methyl bromide for phytosanitary purposes". 
 
__________