Exporter guide for submitting alternatives to methyl bromide treatment to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA).
Date: 2021-01-21
Institutions: Directorate-General for Trade and Economic Security
Subjects: Canada, European Union, consumer protection, food additive, food chemistry, food contamination, food safety, foodstuffs legislation, free-trade agreement, pesticide residue, user guide

EXPORTER GUIDE
for Submitting Alternatives  
to Methyl Bromide Treatment  
to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA)

February 2020

Background on this Guide and Acknowledgements

As signatories to the 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, the European Union (EU) 
and Canada are committed to phasing-out production and consumption of methyl bromide (MB), with exemptions 
for quarantine and pre-shipment uses of MB. 

The EU has a ban on all uses of MB; however, Canada still allows − and in some circumstances requires − MB use for 
quarantine and pre-shipment applications. In 2016, the EU Delegation to Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection 
Agency (CFIA) established a working group to discuss alternatives to MB for these applications. The working group 
agreed to an EU-funded project to develop comprehensive guidelines for submitting proposals to the CFIA for MB 
alternative treatments. This Guide is the product of this work and is intended to facilitate EU-Canada trade by assisting 
potential exporters from the EU in preparing and submitting these proposals. 

To facilitate an exchange of best practices and aid in the development of this guide, a workshop was held on March 
19 and 20, 2019 in Ottawa, Canada. Workshop participants included representatives of the European Commission, 
EU Member States’ National Plant Protection Organizations, the EU’s fresh fruit and vegetable industry, the CFIA, and 
other Canadian government organizations, as well as researchers from the EU and Canada and guest speakers from 
the United States.

This Guide would not have been possible without the collaborative engagement of representatives from the CFIA, the 
European Commission, and the various experts that attended the workshop. 

The project was funded by the European Union under the Partnership Instrument.

The Exporter Guide was prepared by Michelle Marcotte and Ken Vick.

This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of 
the authors and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union.

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (https://europa.eu/).

2

EXPORTER GUIDE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Background on this Guide and Acknowledgements ...............................................................................2

List of Tables, Figures, and Boxes ..............................................................................................................4

List of Acronyms .........................................................................................................................................5

1  

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................7

1.1  Purpose of this Guide ..................................................................................................................................................8

1.2  How to Use this Guide ................................................................................................................................................8

2 

Process for Developing an Alternative Treatment Proposal ...........................................................9

2.1  Preparatory Activities ............................................................................................................................................... 11

2.2  Preparation of a Proposed Alternative Treatment ......................................................................................... 13

2.3  Review of Proposal in Canada ............................................................................................................................... 16

2.4  After Trade is Established ........................................................................................................................................ 16

3  Discussion on Possible Alternatives to Methyl Bromide Treatment .............................................17

3.1  Research Requirements .......................................................................................................................................... 18

3.2  Systems Approaches ................................................................................................................................................ 19

3.3  Chemical or Physical Treatments ......................................................................................................................... 27

3.4 

Irradiation ..................................................................................................................................................................... 29

Appendices ...............................................................................................................................................30

Appendix 1: List of NPPOs by Country ........................................................................................................................ 30

Appendix 2: Research Resources ................................................................................................................................... 37

Appendix 3: EU Market Access Support Associations, Companies and Organizations and other 
Resources ............................................................................................................................................................................... 39

Appendix 4: Canada’s Pest Risk Analysis Process ..................................................................................................... 42

Appendix 5: Relevant RSPM and ISPM Standards .................................................................................................... 43

Appendix 6: Further References ..................................................................................................................................... 46

EXPORTER GUIDE

3

List of Tables, Figures, and Boxes

Table 1. IPPC Official Contact Points for EU Member States and Canada ................................................................. 30

Table 2. European Union Reference Laboratories ............................................................................................................. 37

Table 3. Local and Regional Research and Technical Resources ................................................................................... 38

Table 4. Market Access Support Associations, Organizations and Companies ....................................................... 39

Figure 1. Submission Process for Alternatives to MB Treatment .................................................................................. 10

Figure 2. Canada’s PRA Process................................................................................................................................................. 42

Box 1: Snapshot of Canada’s Horticultural Sector.................................................................................................................7

Box 2: The Importance of Collaborating with Experienced Canadian Importers................................................... 11

Box 3: Communication Protocols ............................................................................................................................................ 12

Box 4: The Importance of Developing a Trust-Based Relationship with the NPPO ............................................... 13

Box 5: Success Stories of Systems Approaches for Quarantine Treatment ............................................................... 21

4

EXPORTER GUIDE

List of Acronyms

AIRS

ALPP

CAD

Automated Import Reference System

Areas of Low Pest Prevalence

Canadian Dollar

CATTS

Controlled Atmosphere Temperature Treatment System

CETA

CFIA

CPM

EPPO

EU

HS

IPM

IPPC

ISPM

MB

MRL

NAPPO

NPPO

PFA

PRA

RSPM

US

USDA

Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement

Canadian Food Inspection Agency

Commission on Phytosanitary Measures

European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization

European Union

Harmonized System

Integrated Pest Management

International Plant Protection Convention

International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures

Methyl Bromide

Maximum Residue Limit

North American Plant Protection Organization

National Plant Protection Organization

Pest Free Area

Pest Risk Analysis

Regional Standards for Phytosanitary Measures

United States

United States Department of Agriculture

EXPORTER GUIDE

5

6

EXPORTER GUIDE

 
INTRODUCTION

1

INTRODUCTION

The Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) is a free trade agreement between the European Union 
(EU) and Canada. It has been provisionally in force since 21 September 2017. It immediately removed 98 percent of 
tariff lines between the two parties and facilitated bilateral cooperation in numerous key areas, including sanitary and 
phytosanitary measures.

Under CETA, both parties retain their ability to require sanitary and phytosanitary standards be met in importing food, 
animals, and plants in order to protect the health and safety of their citizens, environment, and economy by, inter 
alia, guarding against the introduction of quarantine pests. For the Canadian market, this responsibility falls to the 
Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), which is Canada’s primary regulator in this regard. Plant protection includes 
the agriculture, forestry, and environmental sectors. In relation to importing fruits and vegetables, protection of the 
Canadian horticultural sector against pests is an important objective (see Box 1).

Box 1: Snapshot of Canada’s Horticultural Sector

Canada’s climate is predominantly cool and temperate, supporting commercial production of field and root crops, 
berries, pome and stone fruit, grains, and forest products. Some regions of the country are considerably warmer and 
can support the commercial production of apricots, cherries, etc. In addition, some Canadian provinces have a vast 
year-round production of fruits and vegetables from greenhouses. 

According to Statistics Canada, the farm-gate value of fruits and vegetables produced in Canada was CAD 2.4 billion 
in 2018, evenly split between vegetables and fruits.1 Together, carrots, tomatoes, dry onions, lettuce, sweet corn, 
broccoli, and peppers represented more than half of the total value of field vegetables grown in Canada. The main 
vegetables produced in Canada in 2018 were tomatoes (497 thousand tonnes), carrots (354 thousand tonnes), dry 
onions (240 thousand tonnes), sweet corn (190 thousand tonnes), and cabbage (171 thousand tonnes).2For the same 
year, the main fruits produced were apples (385 thousand tonnes), cranberries (177 thousand tonnes), blueberries 
(149 thousand tonnes), grapes (109 thousand tonnes), and strawberries (27 thousand tonnes).3

1  Government of Canada, Statistics Canada. 2019. “Fruit and vegetable production, 2018.” The Daily, 22 February <https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-

quotidien/190222/dq190222c-eng.htm>.

2  Government of Canada, Statistics Canada. 2019. “Table 32-10-0365-01: Area, production and farm gate value of vegetables.” Data, 30 November <https://

www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=3210036501>. 

3  Government of Canada, Statistics Canada. 2019. “Table 32-10-0364-01: Estimates, production and farm gate value of fresh and processed fruits (x 1,000).” 

Data, 30 November <https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=3210036401>.

EXPORTER GUIDE

7

INTRODUCTION

Methyl bromide (MB) fumigation is an effective treatment to ensure that 
products pose minimal phytosanitary risk. However, when released into the 
atmosphere, MB depletes the ozone layer and allows increased ultraviolet 
radiation to reach the earth’s surface. As a response to this problem, many 
industrialized and developing countries signed the Montreal Protocol 
on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer in 1987, which establishes 
legally binding controls on the national production and consumption 
of ozone-depleting substances. Specifically, MB has been listed as such 
a substance since 1992.

While the EU has completely banned the use of MB, Canada still requires 
it as the only approved quarantine treatment for the quarantine and pre-
shipment applications of some products. This Canadian requirement for MB treatment can pose significant challenges 
for EU-based exporters who are unable to treat commodities in the EU with MB.

The CFIA has recognized Canada’s commitment to phase out the use of MB and has indicated a willingness to review 
potential alternatives to MB fumigation, including systems approaches for key fruit and vegetable imports.

1.1  Purpose of this Guide

The purpose of this Guide is to assist EU exporters of fruit and 
vegetables  and  other  agricultural  and  forest  commodities  in 
understanding Canada’s phytosanitary requirements and to work 
with the relevant EU stakeholders to propose alternatives to MB 
treatment to the CFIA. In this context, the term “alternatives” means 
single treatments, methods, and processes and refers to chemical, 
physical, and biological methods and combinations of these, which 
are referred to as “systems approaches.”

1.2  How to Use this Guide

This Exporter Guide is divided into two sections, supported by 

appendices.

Section 2 explains the various steps an exporter has to accomplish prior to exporting agricultural or forestry commodities 
to Canada if the current Canadian phytosanitary import requirements include MB treatment. Exporters that meet 
current Canadian phytosanitary requirements will be directed to other resources outside of this Guide (see Appendix 
6). For those that cannot meet current requirements (for example, if MB is currently the only acceptable quarantine 
treatment in Canada), Section 2 addresses a number of steps for grower-exporters to undertake in the EU in order to 
prepare a proposal to the CFIA for alternative treatment.

Section 3 provides general information about current potential alternatives to MB, such as systems approaches and 
alternative physical or chemical treatments. This section also gives an overview of the research data and validation 
that will be required to enable potential exporters to work with their National Plant Protection Organization (NPPO) 
to support a request for alternatives to MB treatment. 

8

EXPORTER GUIDE

PROCESS FOR DEVELOPING AN ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT PROPOSAL

PROCESS FOR 
DEVELOPING AN 
ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT 
PROPOSAL

2

EXPORTER GUIDE

9

PROCESS FOR DEVELOPING AN ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT PROPOSAL

The flowchart in Figure 1 illustrates the various stages for submitting a proposal for alternatives to MB to the CFIA. Stage 1 
entails partnering with Canadian importers and gathering detailed information about the Canadian phytosanitary 
import requirements for the commodity of interest. Stage 2 entails working with various stakeholders to develop 
proposals for alternative treatments where the CFIA requires MB treatment for the given commodity. Stage 3 entails 
the local (EU) NPPO submitting the proposed alternative to the CFIA for review and evaluation. 

The steps under each of these stages are discussed in more detail below, with links to the relevant databases and 
sources of information.

Figure 1. Submission Process for Alternatives to MB Treatment

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8

 9

10

11

12

Find Canadian Importer

Research Canadian phytosanitary import requirements for your product

Can you meet requirements?

YES

NO

Inform your NPPO of your export intentions

Gather team of like-minded exporters

Review relevant CFIA directives and relevant IPPC and NAPPO standards

Gather preparatory information

Identify alternative treatment or systems approach

Collect data and conduct scientific research on alternative method

Draft detailed treatment plan or system

NO

Submit plan to your NPPO

Application approved by 
NPPO?

YES

NPPO submits application and data to CFIA

Review and evaluation of application by CFIA

NO

Restart process

NO

All required data and 
information provided?

YES

Application approved by 
CFIA?

YES

Meet all import 
requirements

Start 
exporting

e
g
a
t
S
y
r
o
t
a
r
a
p
e
r
P

U
E
e
h
t
n

i

t
n
e
m
t
a
e
r
T
e
v
i
t
a
n
r
e
t
l
A
r
o
f
n
o
i
t
a
c
i
l

p
p
A

f
o
n
o
i
t
a
r
a
p
e
r
P

a
d
a
n
a
C
n

i

n
o
i
t
a
c
i
l

p
p
A

f
o
w
e
v
e
R

i

10

EXPORTER GUIDE

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
PROCESS FOR DEVELOPING AN ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT PROPOSAL

2.1 Preparatory Activities

1  Partnering with an Experienced 

Canadian Importer 

2  Understanding and Complying with the 

Canadian Import Requirements

Early in the process, it is very important to identify and 
obtain the services of a Canadian-resident importer who 
can conduct market assessments with interested wholesale, 
retail, and/or institutional buyers to assess whether there 
is a market in Canada for the commodity to be exported.

Determining what the Canadian import requirements are 
and ensuring that the exporter is able to comply with them 
is essential. This can be accomplished by (a) consulting 
the database of import requirements; (b) checking the list 
of regulated pests; (c) reviewing the relevant regulations 
and guidance documents for the given commodity; and 
(d) determining if the requirements can be met.

Box 2: The Importance of Collaborating with Experienced Canadian Importers

The CFIA prioritizes risk assessments based on domestic interest and thus needs to know that there will be a market for 
the product in Canada. Canadian importers that are familiar with the regulations and procedures are vital in supporting 
requests for risk analysis. Importantly, the CFIA only releases import permits (if required) or other documentation to 
Canadian resident importers.

To follow and meet all the phytosanitary import regulations 
(most of which are not covered in this Guide), exporters 
will need to collaborate with a Canadian-resident importer. 
Experienced importers will be aware of, and can assist 
potential  exporters  with,  the  pertinent  legislation, 
regulations,  shipping  requirements,  and  many  other 
aspects pertaining to import into Canada of the concerned 
product; these may include regulatory aspects other than 
the phytosanitary requirements that this Guide covers 
(e.g., regulations pertaining to food safety, packaging, 
and labelling).

The importer is also the applicant for import permits (when 
one is needed). The CFIA will not provide copies of permits 
or permit numbers to exporters or brokers as per The 
Plant Protection Act and The Plant Protection Regulations 
and, in some cases, to protect business confidentiality.4 
This information, including any additional requirements 
outlined in the Permit to Import, must be provided to the 
exporter or broker by the applicant/importer in possession 
of the Permit to Import.

The Government of Canada maintains a database of major 
Canadian importers, which can be searched by commodity, 
country of origin, destination, etc. 5

4  See section 2.1.2 c below.

a)  Consult Import Requirements Database

The Automated Import Reference System (AIRS) database 
contains phytosanitary import requirements for all CFIA-
regulated commodities.6 There are both a short tutorial on 
how to use the database and what information it contains 
and an AIRS User Guide with further information.7

AIRS can be searched by commodity, by Harmonized 
System (HS) codes, or by selecting from the menu of 
categories to find the product of interest.

AIRS  requires  information  that  includes  the  origin  of 
the commodity, the type of commodity, the destination 
Canadian province or territory of the commodity, and 
its  end  use.  The  destination  province  or  territory  is 
essential information, as there are domestic phytosanitary 
requirements in Canada pertaining to specific regions.8 

With this information, the system generates a complete list 
of requirements to be met to export a commodity to the 
selected destination. If no search results are obtained it 
does not necessarily mean that there are no requirements; 

6  Government of Canada, CFIA. 2019. “Automated Import Reference 
System (AIRS).” Plants, 22 November <http://www.inspection.gc.ca/
plants/imports/airs/eng/1300127512994/1300127627409>.

7 

 Government of Canada, CFIA. 2016. Automated Import Reference 
System (AIRS) User’s Guide. <http://airs-sari.inspection.gc.ca/AIRS_
External/english/help-eng.aspx>.

8  Government of Canada, CFIA. 2018. “Domestic Plant Protection 

5  Government of Canada, Innovation, Science and Economic Development 
Canada. 2013. “Canadian Importers Database.” Business and Industry 
<https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/cid-dic.nsf/eng/home>.

Measures.” Plants, 21 November <http://inspection.gc.ca/plants/plant-
pests-invasive-species/domestic-measures/eng/1523384657071/152338
4657601>. 

EXPORTER GUIDE

11

PROCESS FOR DEVELOPING AN ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT PROPOSAL

it is advisable to adjust the search or contact the local 
NPPO (see Box 3).

AIRS is updated regularly and should be checked routinely. 
It is also possible to subscribe to the listserv to get email 
notifications of changes to Canada’s phytosanitary import 
requirements.

Box 3: Communication Protocols

The  CFIA  is  the  designated  NPPO  in  Canada. 
Communications  and  applications  concerning 
imports into Canada are to proceed between the 
CFIA’s International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) 
contact point and other country NPPOs or Canadian 
importers. EU exporters should contact their NPPO 
(see Appendix 1 for a list of EU NPPOs) who may in 
turn contact the CFIA.

b)  Check Canada’s List of Regulated Pests

In general, Canada requires all imports to be free from 
specific pests, which are listed on the CFIA’s website. The List 
of Pests Regulated by Canada is organized alphabetically 
by scientific and common English or French name.9 This 
information may also be obtained by contacting the NPPO 
(see Appendix 1).

Even if a pest is not named on the List of Regulated Pests, 
it may still be considered a quarantine pest by Canada, as it 
may simply not yet have been identified within the context 
of trade. Thus, Canada’s list of regulated pests is subject 
to change, as new pests are identified and assessed. Less 
frequently, pests may be deregulated for various reasons.

The  most  efficient  way  to  remain  current  with  the 
CFIA’s plant protection programs is to sign up for email 
notifications on the CFIA website.10 

c) 

 Consult the Canadian Regulations and Guidance 
Documents

The Plant Protection Act11 and Plant Protection Regulations12 
are  Canada’s  main  legislative  tools  to  prevent  the 
importation, exportation, and spread of plant pests. There 
are also numerous guidance documents (e.g., directives 
and regulatory requirements) that apply to plants, plant 
products, animals, and food, and regulatory requirements. 
All legislation and guidance documents can be found on 
the CFIA website and in its extensive Guidance Document 
Repository.13

d)   Determine if the Canadian Phytosanitary Import 

Requirements Can be Met

Having  analysed  all  relevant  regulations,  directives, 
and guidance documents associated with a particular 
commodity, pest, and location where the crop is grown, 
it may be that the commodity is prohibited from entry to 
Canada, that a MB treatment is required, and/or that the 
CFIA will consider alternative treatments. It is also possible 
that no Canadian importer or NPPO has yet applied to the 
CFIA with a suitable alternative treatment for evaluation. 

10   Government of Canada, CFIA. 2016. “Email Notification Services: Plants.” 
About the CFIA, 23 June <http://inspection.gc.ca/english/util/listserv/
listbsube.shtml>. 

11   Government of Canada. 1990. The Plant Protection Act. S.C. 1990, c. 22 

<https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/p-14.8/FullText.html>.

12   Government of Canada. 1995. Plant Protection Regulations. SOR/95-212 
<https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-95-212/FullText.
html>.

13   Government of Canada, CFIA. 2016. “Guidance Document  

9 

 Government of Canada, CFIA. 2019. “List of Pests Regulated by Canada.” 
Plants, 21 November <http://www.inspection.gc.ca/plants/plant-pests-
invasive-species/pests/regulated-pests/eng/1363317115207/136331718
7811>.

Repository.” Industry Guidance, 30 June <http://
www.inspection.gc.ca/industry-guidance/
eng/1374161650885/1374161737236?gp=3&gc=24&ga=79#gdr_
results>. 

12

EXPORTER GUIDE

PROCESS FOR DEVELOPING AN ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT PROPOSAL

 • If  the  import  requirements  listed  in  AIRS  for  the 
commodity/growing location/end use and Canadian 
destination are met, the Canadian importer can proceed 
by following the directions in AIRS.

 • If the import requirements listed in AIRS are not met 
due to a MB treatment requirement, an alternative 
treatment may be proposed to allow import of the 
commodity into Canada. Section 2.2 below explains the 
steps to follow in the EU to submit a proposal to Canada 
through the national NPPO or the Canadian importer.

 • If the commodity is not in AIRS, the national (EU) 
NPPO or the Canadian importer can contact the CFIA 
(Appendix 1 lists Canada’s IPPC contact point) who 
will then determine if a Pest Risk Analysis (PRA) is 
required. A PRA assesses the risk to Canada presented 
by a certain pest or commodity, which may act as a 
pathway through which that pest may be introduced 
to Canada; whether the risk can be mitigated to an 
acceptable level; and communicates the risk analysis 
to stakeholders. The steps involved in a PRA are listed 
in Appendix 4 and follow accepted IPPC guidelines. 

2.2 Preparation of a Proposed Alternative 

Treatment

In instances where the current phytosanitary requirements 
cannot be met, because MB is the only accepted treatment 
in Canada, the CFIA has indicated a willingness to consider 
proposed  alternative  treatments  (including  systems 
approaches). The process to develop, test, and validate 
a treatment that will satisfy Canada’s requirements for 
quarantine security can be broken down into the following 
steps:

3 

Inform the National NPPO of Export 
Intentions 

National NPPOs14 are responsible for communicating 
with the CFIA to clarify Canada’s import requirements 
and request risk assessments for new commodities or 
commodities from new origins – importantly, the CFIA will 
not communicate directly with foreign exporters. Therefore, 
exporters should inform their NPPO about their intent to 
export to Canada early on to determine the Canadian 
import requirements. If MB treatment against quarantine 
pests is required, exporters should notify the NPPO that 
they wish to propose an alternative to MB treatment (see 
Box 4), which may be a stand-alone treatment, systems 
approach, or other method. The NPPO can then review and 
submit the proposal to the CFIA on the exporter’s behalf.

Box 4: The Importance of Developing a Trust-
Based Relationship with the NPPO

Successful EU exporters consider communication with 
their NPPO and between that NPPO and the CFIA in 
Canada to be the most important strategy to ensure 
trusted business relationships be built. The NPPO of 
the exporting country needs to know it can trust the 
research and marketing channel from researchers who 
have designed and tested a quarantine treatment 
and to trust that it will be carried out without fail 
with  expert  and  knowledgeable  supervision  by 
the exporter. Good communication and follow-up 
throughout the entire process is required to build 
trust.

14  A list of these is provided in Appendix 1.

EXPORTER GUIDE

13

PROCESS FOR DEVELOPING AN ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT PROPOSAL

5  Review Relevant International and 
Regional Phytosanitary Standards

The  IPPC  and  the  North  American  Plant  Protection 
Organization (NAPPO) have developed standard protocols 
for the development, research, testing, and validation of 
treatments and, in some cases, have already validated 
alternative treatment methods for control of quarantine 
pests. Approved standards may thus already be available, 
as Canada is a member of both the IPPC and NAPPO. These 
standards can be found online within the International 
Standards for Phytosanitary Measures15 and the Regional 
Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (RSPM).16

The list of pertinent standards is provided in Appendix 
5  with  emphasis  on  IPPC  ISPM  24  (Equivalence  of 
treatment), IPPC ISPM 28 (Phytosanitary treatments for 
regulated pests), IPPC ISPM 15 (Heat treatment for wood 
packaging materials), and NAPPO RSPM 34 (Development 
of  Phytosanitary  Treatment  Protocols  for  Regulated 
Arthropod Pests of Fresh Fruits or Vegetables).

Depending on the situation, standards approved by the 
European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization 
(EPPO) might be relevant and helpful.17 These are divided 
into  two  main  series:  standards  on  plant  protection 
products and standards on phytosanitary measures. EPPO 
Standards are both recommendations to the NPPOs of 
EPPO member countries and “Regional Standards” as 
understood by the IPPC.

6  Preparatory Information Gathering

With a team of other growers, exporters, researchers, 
Member  State  experts,  and  market  access  support 
organisations, combined with the knowledge of Canada’s 
requirements for the specific commodity, location, and/or 
pest and of any already approved ISPM or RSPM standards, 
an EU exporter must gather enough initial information 
and funding to conduct research on an alternative to 
MB. It might be possible for a group of Member States to 
collaborate, accessing resources at both the Member State 
and industry levels.

15   Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and IPPC. 

2019. “Adopted Standards (ISPMs).” The International Plant Protection 
Convention <https://www.ippc.int/en/core-activities/standards-setting/
ispms/>.

16   NAPPO. N.d. “NAPPO Approved Standards: Regional Standards for 

Phytosanitary Measures (RSPM).” Products <https://www.nappo.org/
english/products/regional-standards-phytosanitary-measures-rspm>.

17   European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization. 2019 
“EPPO Standards.” Resources <https://www.eppo.int/RESOURCES/
eppo_standards>.

4  Gather a Team of Like-Minded  

Exporters

Gaining the approval of an alternative treatment method 
for a quarantine pest is complex and time consuming. 
The NPPO in the exporting country will want to ensure 
that applicants – be it an industry association, an export 
promotion agency, or large individual growers/exporters 
– have the funding and support to responsibly develop 
and propose a validated alternative treatment before 
requesting the NPPO’s intervention. 

Experience has shown that, with the exception of very 
large and/or experienced exporters, teams of like-minded 
exporters  who  can  pool  resources  are  more  likely  to 
successfully complete the necessary research required 
for an alternative method. Consultations with industry 
associations and with Member States’ experts may reveal 
such like-minded exporters (see Appendix 3).

Pulling resources and expertise from a group of growers 
in several EU Member States interested in a commodity 
produced under similar conditions may create synergies 
and allow cost- and resource-sharing. However, even if a 
quarantine treatment or system is shown to be effective 
in the growing conditions of more than one EU Member 
State, concerned Member State’s NPPOs still have to submit 
separate proposals for CFIA approval. 

It is also important to identify qualified and supportive 
research resources (and funding) to develop, test, and 
validate the proposed alternative treatment method (see 
Appendix 2).

Finally,  obtaining  market-access  support  services  of 
associations  and  shippers,  especially  if  the  intended 
alternative method involves in-transit treatment, is a good 
idea (see Appendix 3).

14

EXPORTER GUIDE

PROCESS FOR DEVELOPING AN ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT PROPOSAL

7 

Identify Possible Alternative Methods to 
Comply with Requirements

Canada does not list possible suitable alternatives to MB 
for various pests. Proposed alternatives must therefore be 
developed for each commodity, individual location, and 
agronomic, packing, and shipping situation. 

Other exporters may have already developed and validated 
MB alternatives that may be applicable or adapted to suit 
various situations. For such options, refer to the list of ISPM 
and RSPM Standards in Appendix 5. 

8  Collect Data and Conduct Research on 

the Alternative Method

The  research  and  data  to  support  a  proposal  for  an 
alternative to MB should be provided by experts and 
include a detailed, tested, and validated treatment plan. 
Alternative treatments that have been approved by other 
countries for the same commodity and pest problem may 
form part of the proposal, validated to show it is effective in 
the new circumstance. NAPPO RSPM 34 provides guidance 
on these research aspects (see Appendix 5). Remember 
that research and methods must be validated to ensure 
repeated quarantine security. 

Section 3.1 below provides more information about the 
research requirements.

Appendices 2 and 3 list EU research resources and local 
market access support associations that can assist further 
to identify local research resources.

9  Draft Detailed Treatment Method

The scope of a treatment plan will depend on the type of 
the proposed alternative to MB. In the case of a systems 

approach, the description of the treatment method will 
include extensive and detailed information about the 
agronomic methods to be used, followed by the packing 
house  and  shipping  methods,  including  packaging 
materials, handling, storage, and other critical steps along 
the process that contribute towards mitigating the pest 
risk and maintaining the phytosanitary integrity of the 
shipment. Systems approaches particularly require that 
growers, packers and shippers/exporters all follow the 
compliant treatment method.

For a physical treatment (heat, cold, irradiation, etc.), the 
treatment plan might be much simpler, but there are 
still rigorous requirements for instrumentation, records 
management, and fail-safe systems to guarantee a product 
has been treated. More information is provided in Section 3.

10  Submission of the Application to the 

NPPO

As mentioned above, the NPPO of the exporting country 
should be kept well informed of the team’s work throughout 
this process and thus be able to validate the work. After 
submission of all data, research, and the treatment plan, the 
NPPO might still require further information or additional 
data or research prior to being satisfied with the proposal. 

EXPORTER GUIDE

15

PROCESS FOR DEVELOPING AN ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT PROPOSAL

2.3 Review of Proposal in Canada

11  NPPO Forwards the Application to the 

CFIA

Once the NPPO of the exporting country is satisfied with 
the proposal, it sends it to the CFIA, requesting review and 
approval of the proposed alternative quarantine treatment 
method.

12  Review and Evaluation of the Proposal 

by the CFIA

The review timeline depends on the quality of information 
provided to the CFIA and on the time the NPPO takes 
to respond to the CFIA’s questions. The following are 
recommended actions for following-up on the proposal:

 •  Ensure  that  the  proposal  is  detailed  and  that  the 
proposed alternative treatment method is science-
based with validated, peer-reviewed data. 

 •  The  CFIA  will  direct  any  questions  or  requests  for 
additional information to the NPPO of the exporting 
country.  The  exporter(s)  should  maintain  good 
communications  with  their  NPPO  to  ensure  that 
appropriate responses are supplied to the CFIA in a 
timely manner.

 •  Exporters  should  inform  their  country’s  Embassy 
in Canada about the proposal, its purpose, and the 
information it contains. An agricultural attaché may 
be available with whom the exporter can liaise. The 
Embassy can periodically inquire about progress on 
the exporter’s behalf.

2.4 After Trade is Established

If, for whatever reason, there is a change in the pest status 
or outbreak or a problem emerges that might affect the 
security of the proposed treatment method, even at just 
one location, exporters must ensure that their country’s 
NPPO is informed immediately so they can inform Canadian 
authorities. In such an instance, the NPPO in the originating 
country could suggest a method to address the problem 
to enable continued trade. Such continuous and open 
communication will foster trust between exporters and 
Canadian authorities and will facilitate review of proposals 
for further suggested risk avoidance methods.

16

EXPORTER GUIDE

DISCUSSION ON POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES TO METHYL BROMIDE TREATMENT

DISCUSSION 
ON POSSIBLE 
ALTERNATIVES TO METHYL 
BROMIDE TREATMENT

3

EXPORTER GUIDE

17

DISCUSSION ON POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES TO METHYL BROMIDE TREATMENT

Traded commodities can be prohibited if there is a risk 
they might spread a quarantined pest to a new area or 
if the commodity cannot be treated in such a way that 
the quarantined pest risk is mitigated. To combat this, a 
treatment – of which many have been developed – may 
be applied to the commodity to completely eradicate the 
pest from the shipment.

3.1 Research Requirements

While MB is prohibited in the EU, it is the only Canadian-
approved eradication treatment for traded goods regarding 
certain quarantined pests. EU exporters wishing to trade 
in such goods with Canada must provide, through their 
country’s NPPO, proposed alternatives to MB treatment 
to the CFIA. 

The IPPC ISPM 28 on Phytosanitary Treatments for Regulated 
Pests  gives  the  following  instructions  for  research  to 
develop a new quarantine treatment: 

[E]fficacy data has been generated using appropriate 
scientific  procedures,  including  where  relevant  an 
appropriate experimental design. The data supporting 
the treatment should be verifiable, reproducible, and 
based on statistical methods and/or on established and 
accepted international practice; preferably the research 
should have been published in a peer-reviewed journal.18

Conducting this research is technical and requires trained 
and experienced scientists. This section will present the 
steps to developing a quarantine treatment and the reasons 
for applying them. It is, however, beyond the scope of 
this Guide to describe in detail the scientific experiments 
and statistical analyses that go into developing a new 
quarantine treatment, as these depend on many factors, 
including the product to be exported and where it was 
grown.

The first step involves assessing what pests and life stages 
the CFIA has determined present a risk to Canada. If no PRA 
has ever been conducted, the exporter’s country’s NPPO 
will need to contact the CFIA to determine if one is needed 
and provide any information that Canada may need.

It is important to accurately describe the commodity. 
For example, if the request for a review of an alternative 
treatment is for trade in a fruit with leaves and stems 

attached,  it  should  so  be  stated  in  the  paperwork.19 
Everything that will be shipped will have to be included 
in the testing. Developing a treatment that is effective 
against every pest possibly present will be necessary. Thus 
the information given by the CFIA to the NPPO in this regard 
will inform research efforts.

Suppose there is evidence that a particular alternative to 
a MB treatment, such as a heat treatment, might prove 
effective and that the PRA conducted by the CFIA identified 
the egg, all larval stages, and pupae of one insect species 
as presenting significant quarantine risks. Any approved 
treatment will need to prove that it can kill all these identified 
stages or that these will be rendered non-viable. At this 
point, testing can be simplified by conducting research 
to show which of the identified insect stages is the most 
resistant to the proposed treatment and focusing on that 
stage. If the treatment provides the necessary mortality 
to this most resistant stage, the more susceptible stages 
would be controlled as well.

A dose response test is then conducted by treating relatively 
small numbers of the most resistant stage of the target pest 
with a range of treatment “doses” in a replicated fashion 
suitable for statistical analysis. The variable parameter 
could be the temperature or the temperature is held 
constant and the variable is time; mortality is determined 
for each “dose” by comparison to untreated control insects. 
Statistical analysis of these data indicates the needed level 
of treatment to assure the level of mortality required by 
Canada. 

Since this process is far from infallible, Canada will likely 
require a validation test (sometimes called a confirmatory 

18   Secretariat of the IPPC. 2007. ISPM 28: Phytosanitary treatments for 
regulated pest. Rome: IPPC and FAO: at p. 6. <https://www.ippc.
int/static/media/files/publication/en/2016/01/ISPM_28_2007_
WithoutApp1_En_2015-12-22_PostCPM10_InkAmReformatted.pdf>.

19   Bear in mind that leaves and stems may complicate developing a 

treatment if there are different pests associated with the fruit, or leaves, 
or stems.

18

EXPORTER GUIDE

DISCUSSION ON POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES TO METHYL BROMIDE TREATMENT

test)  on  a  large  number  of  pests  to  confirm  that  the 
treatment does, in fact, achieve the predicted level of 
efficacy. Alternatively, it may be possible (if the commodity 
itself can survive the treatment without harm) to suggest a 
buffer – a change in the variable that would lead to greater 
expected mortality and ensure total kill or incapacitation 
of the target organism. This is often the only option for 
organisms that cannot be reared in sufficient quantities 
to allow for large-scale testing (for example, wood-boring 
beetles). A statistician can be of great help in determining 
how large the buffer needs to be, based on the completed 
testing.

The research to develop a quarantine treatment takes a long 
time and is labour intensive. It is important that Canada 
approve  of  the  experimental  methods  and  statistical 
analyses to be used and that it specifies the treatment 
efficacy that will be required prior to conducting research. 

Because experience has shown that pest individuals may 
be more difficult to kill when inside the commodity, most 
or all tests will likely have to be conducted with the pests 
in situ; for example, in host fruit tests are preferable to 
those in petri dishes. 

Mortality profiles of various commodity treatments and 
pests present bell-shaped curves, either shifted to one 
end or the other or be fairly “normal”. However, the crucial 
issue is the extremes of the distribution profile: a small 
percentage of the pests will be very easy to kill and a small 
percentage will be very difficult to kill. For many aspects 
of food production, one need not pay much attention to 
the 2-3% at the extreme ends of the distribution curves. 
But in quarantine treatments the “hard to kill” end of 
the distribution is extremely important, because those 

survivors could be the founders of a new infestation in 
Canada. 

Most statistical analyses are capable of making predictions 
for the middle part of the distribution curve, which in many 
instances is the most important part of the distribution. 
They are not good, however, at predicting doses needed to 
assure that the small number of very resistant individuals 
at the extreme of the distribution curve is killed. Thus, 
engaging a statistician in the design and analysis of the 
proposed treatment can prove valuable.

3.2 Systems Approaches

According to the IPPC definition included in ISPM 14, a 
“systems approach requires two or more measures that are 
independent of each other, and may include any number of 
measures that are dependent on each other. An advantage 
of the systems approach is the ability to address variability 
and uncertainty by modifying the number and strength of 
measures to meet phytosanitary import requirements.”20

The following are circumstances where it might not be 
possible  to  achieve  quarantine  security  with  a  single 
treatment:

 •  Available single treatments might not reach the high 

level of efficacy required; 

 •  Efficacious treatments that are available might be 
disallowed by regulatory authorities in the exporting 
country or not recognised by the importing country, 
because of such reasons as worker and bystander safety, 
food safety, environmental concerns, etc.; 

 •  The  company  that  markets  the  treatment  has  not 
registered the treatment in the exporting country and/
or established Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) in the 

20    Secretariat of the IPPC. 2017. ISPM 14: The use of integrated measures in 
a systems approach for pest risk management. Rome: IPPC and FAO: at p. 
6. <http://www.fao.org/3/a-y4221e.pdf>.

EXPORTER GUIDE

19

DISCUSSION ON POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES TO METHYL BROMIDE TREATMENT

 •  The crop is harvested at a stage of ripeness that does 

not support infestation by the pest.

Systems approaches require in-depth knowledge of pest 
biology and pest/commodity interactions, but offer the 
possibility for exporting commodities where no approved or 
acceptable treatment is available. Box 5 provides examples 
of systems approaches that have led to successful exports.

An accepted system approach is rigid, because all the 
agreed elements in the system have to be adhered to and 
any changes to production methods, inspection schedules, 
pest control elements, and pest status need to be accepted 
by the importing quarantine authorities. These changes 
would probably require new data to show that quarantine 
security was not compromised by the changes.

Lastly, changes in the pest profile by, for example, a new 
significant pest emerging is problematic for any quarantine 
strategy.

importing country – Canada accepts a standard MRL 
in case none was provided;

 •  Facilities needed to conduct the treatment are not 

available to the exporter;

 •  The treatment might be too laborious or otherwise 
impossible for quarantine regulators to administer; or

 •  The effective treatment might cause unacceptable 

damage to the commodity.

When no single treatment is acceptable, it may be possible 
to use several steps and measures, none of which by itself 
provides the necessary efficacy, but which collectively 
mitigate the quarantine risk identified by the PRA. Applying 
two or (usually) more treatments and/or measures to 
resolve a quarantine issue for a commodity is referred to 
as a systems approach. 

The  usual  primary  requirement  for  most  systems 
approaches is that there be a naturally low pest prevalence 
in the production area or that low pest prevalence can be 
achieved by growing the commodity in pest free enclosures 
or by otherwise creating low pest prevalence areas, for 
example, by targeted Integrated Pest Management (IPM). 

Other situations that have formed the basis for systems 
approaches include the following:

 •  The commodity is imported at a time of the year when 
the quarantine pest – even if present in the commodity 
– is not able to survive due to the absence of a suitable 
host or harsh weather conditions in the importing 
country; 

 •  The commodity is harvested during a time of year when 
the pest is not present in the exporting country; or 

20

EXPORTER GUIDE

DISCUSSION ON POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES TO METHYL BROMIDE TREATMENT

Box 5: Success Stories of Systems Approaches for Quarantine Treatment

Table Grapes from Italy and Spain to Canada

Canada lists Lobesia botrana and other pests of Italian and Spanish table grapes as regulated pests (specific pests 
depending on the location). Previously only methyl bromide was accepted as a treatment for these pests for table 
grape exports to Canada. However, a systems approach has been approved for table grape exports to Canada 
from Italy and Spain in accordance with International Standard for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPM) 14: The use of 
integrated measures in a systems approach for pest risk management.21

The systems approach elements include the following:

 •  Only orchards and packing houses registered with the NPPO are allowed to participate in the systems 

approach export scheme;

 •  Orchards must monitor for the pests specific to Canada’s list of regulated pests and the monitoring must be 

effective as a tool to estimate the optimum time for applying chemical controls;

 • Chemical and biological controls much be sufficient to ensure the fruit is free of all stages of regulated pests;
 • The CFIA may request detailed information pertaining to pest monitoring and controls;
 • Fruit sampling is conducted by experienced and approved technicians in the registered packing house;
 • The Member State’s NPPO will audit 2% of fruit boxes destined for Canada;
 • Labelling of fruit boxes must be sufficient to allow for trace back to the grower and packing house;
 • Fruit boxes must be safeguarded during packing, loading, and transport;
 • Records of all control points must be kept for two years;
 • Fruit shipments must be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate from NPPO; and
 • Non-compliance will result in a suspension of shipments by the grower and packing house.

21  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and IPPC. 2019. “The use of integrated measures in a systems approach for pest risk 

management.” Resources, 26 June <https://www.ippc.int/en/publications/607/>.

EXPORTER GUIDE

21

DISCUSSION ON POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES TO METHYL BROMIDE TREATMENT

Plums from Italy to Canada

Although Lobesia botrana prefers to infest table grapes, it is also a pest of plums in Italy. Consequently, Canada 
previously required that Italian plums also be treated with MB. However, a systems approach has been approved 
that has virtually all the same elements as for table grapes except that the NPPO inspection amounts in the packing 
house are different and specific to plums. 

This additional, accepted systems approach for fruit exports to Canada illustrates that Canada and EU-based 
growers, packing houses, and NPPOs have the experience and capability to research, validate, negotiate, and agree 
on system approaches that can assure export capability without using MB.

22

EXPORTER GUIDE

DISCUSSION ON POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES TO METHYL BROMIDE TREATMENT

Fresh grapes from Egypt

Prior to 2017, fresh grapes from Egypt were not authorized for import to Canada, because the pest risk associated 
with the commodity had not been evaluated. In 2017, the CFIA completed a PRA and concluded that several 
quarantine pests of concern to Canada were likely to follow that pathway. One of the pests that Canada considered 
to be of potential concern was Lobesia botrana.22

To mitigate the risk of introducing quarantine pests to Canada in association with fresh grapes, Egypt’s NPPO 
developed a systems approach for their production and export, including the following several elements: 

 • Requirement for orchard certification based on low pest prevalence;
 • Pest monitoring to verify low pest prevalence;
 • Pre-harvest orchard inspections;
 • Traceability of grapes from vineyard to shipping cartons; 
 • Post-harvest safeguards;
 • Pre-shipment inspection;
 • Only commercial shipments with a phytosanitary certificate listing an additional declaration are accepted; and
 • Inspection at destination to verify compliance.

More information on this approved systems approach can be found on the CFIA website.23 

22  Government of Canada, CFIA. 2019. “Appendix 1: Summary of phytosanitary import requirements for temperate fresh fruit and tree nuts approved for 

entry into Canada.” Plants, 4 November <http://www.inspection.gc.ca/plants/plant-pests-invasive-species/directives/date/d-95-08/appendix-1/eng/1322
423173660/1541514848668>.

23  Government of Canada, CFIA. 2019. “D-95-08: Phytosanitary import requirements for fresh temperate fruits and tree nuts.” Plants, 1 August; at 

section 2.21 Fresh grapes (Vitis spp.) from Egypt. <http://www.inspection.gc.ca/plants/plant-pests-invasive-species/directives/horticulture/d-95-08/
eng/1322413085880/1322413275292#a2_21>.

EXPORTER GUIDE

23

DISCUSSION ON POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES TO METHYL BROMIDE TREATMENT

Fresh apples from Japan

Prior to 2018, fresh apples from Japan required either bagging of fruit during the growing season to prevent infestation 
by quarantine pests or post-harvest treatment with MB to eradicate those pests. Japanese exporters determined 
that they could no longer meet those requirements and collaborated with producers and representatives from 
their prefectural and federal governments to develop a systems approach as an alternative option for exporting 
apples to Canada. In 2018, following an on-site audit of this approach, the CFIA authorized imports of Japanese 
apples that were produced and prepared for export to Canada in a manner that met the needs of both producers 
and exporters without the use of a post-harvest MB treatment.

Other Canadian examples where systems approaches are 
accepted:

 •  Directive D-13-03: Phytosanitary import requirements 
to prevent the introduction of Lobesia botrana, the 
European grapevine moth;24

 •  Directive  D-10-01:  General  Phytosanitary  Import 
Requirements for Fresh Pepper and Tomato Fruit from 
the World25 (please note that this Directive includes 
only tomatoes without stems or leaves.).

The following examples of approved quarantine treatments 
and systems approaches between the United States and 
other countries are provided as examples of the elements 
that were required to establish valid treatments that are in 
current commercial use. The approved systems approaches 
described below illustrate the use of the ISPM and RSPM 
Standards for systems approaches.

24  Government of Canada, CFIA. 2018. “D-13-03: Phytosanitary import requirements to prevent the introduction of Lobesia botrana, the European grapevine 
moth.” Plants, 2 January <http://www.inspection.gc.ca/plants/plant-pests-invasivespecies/directives/horticulture/d-13-03/eng/1448986060402/1448986
061775>. 

25  Government of Canada, CFIA. 2016. “D-10-01: General Phytosanitary Import Requirements for Fresh Pepper and Tomato Fruit from the World.” Plants, 23 

March <http://inspection.gc.ca/plants/plant-pests-invasivespecies/directives/horticulture/d-10-01/eng/1304622464578/1312239593183>.

24

EXPORTER GUIDE

DISCUSSION ON POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES TO METHYL BROMIDE TREATMENT

Mexican Avocados to the United States

Mexican avocados were banned from the United States for almost a century because of the threat of introducing 
Mexican fruit fly and species of avocado seed weevil into the United States in shipments of avocado fruit. A systems 
approach was therefore developed based on research that showed that Mexican fruit fly does not infest avocados, 
while still hanging on the tree and that inspections and cultural practices could mitigate the risk of introduction 
of seed weevil species. It has several elements that must be met in order for the crops to enter the United States:

 • Requirement for orchard certification based on low pest prevalence;
 • Limited production areas;
 • Traceback labelling; 
 • Pre-harvest orchard inspections;
 • Post-harvest safeguards;
 • Fruit cutting and inspection in the packing house;
 • Port-of-entry inspection and clearance activities; and
 •  Only commercial shipments with NPPO-issued phytosanitary certificate attesting that approved systems 

approach work plan was followed are allowed.

EXPORTER GUIDE

25

DISCUSSION ON POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES TO METHYL BROMIDE TREATMENT

Sweet Oranges and Grapefruit from Chile to the United States

Sweet oranges and grapefruit are hosts of Mediterranean fruit fly, Ceratitis capitata, and Chilean false red mite, 
Brevipalpus chilensis. Both pests do not occur in the United States. A PRA determined that there is a risk that these 
two species would arrive on the same pathway as commercial sweet orange and grapefruit shipments from Chile. 
A systems approach was thus developed to mitigate this risk of introducing these pests.

One component of the system is to subject the commodity to a cold treatment that is known to be effective against 
Mediterranean fruit fly in citrus, unless the fruit is sourced from areas of Chile known to be free of Mediterranean 
fruit fly. This illustrates the flexibility that can be written into systems approaches to fit circumstances.

There is a suite of measures that address the risk presented by the other pest of concern, the Chilean false red mite. 
Foremost is the ability to demonstrate very low mite prevalence in fruit orchards during a pre-harvest orchard 
inspection. During this inspection, fruit are randomly selected from each registered orchard and examined by a 
sensitive washing technique to determine if mites are present. Discovery of a single mite disqualifies that orchard 
from participating in the systems approach program for the coming year. Other measures include fruit washing, 
chlorine rinse, forced drying, and waxing. Additional inspections are required before shipment. For exporters who 
want to ship sweet oranges or grapefruit, but do not qualify for low-pest prevalence or who find the components 
too laborious, MB fumigation is approved and available to be used in place of the systems approach.

26

EXPORTER GUIDE

DISCUSSION ON POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES TO METHYL BROMIDE TREATMENT

Years  of  experience  with  the  use  of  heat  and  cold 
as  quarantine  treatments  have  provided  a  broad 
understanding – but not yet complete knowledge – about 
whether either of these treatments will work in a given 
situation. A general rule is that temperate/cold climate 
commodities can tolerate cold better than tropical/warm 
climate commodities: most tropical and some temperate 
commodities develop chilling injury under even moderately 
cold conditions. 

This  research  and  experience  leads  to  the  possibility 
that cold may not be a successful new treatment for the 
commodities and pest complexes of most interest to EU 
exporters to Canada (i.e., commodities possibly infested 
with Lobesia botrana). In regard to Tuta absoluta, there have 
been very few studies conducted on its cold tolerance. 
On the other hand, recent research conducted in Spain 
on cold and modified atmosphere treatment in tomato 
fruit looks promising and may, in time, prove successful.27 
This research is preliminary, however, as it did not study 
infestation in stems or on leaves, which would be necessary 
to consider exports of tomatoes on the vine. Also, the 11-
day treatment time might be problematic for commodity 
quality for export marketability. Much larger tests will have 
to be conducted to determine its possible effectiveness 
and commercial viability. 

3.3.2  Heat Treatment

With heat treatments, there is no significant resistance to 
heat in arthropods, whether the commodity originated in a 
tropical/warm climate or a temperate/cold climate. Almost 
a hundred years of experience using heat as quarantine 
treatment has shown that exposing most pests to 45˚C 
for 30 minutes will constitute an effective quarantine 

3.3 Chemical or Physical Treatments

Physical treatments include heat, cold, and controlled 
atmospheres, as well as combinations of these. These 
treatments can be effective when the quarantine pest is 
more susceptible to extremes of these factors than the 
host that it is infesting. The basis of a treatment is where 
the pest exhibits required mortality rates under conditions 
that give no or at least acceptable damage to the infested 
host. Recently, in 2019, the IPPC published ISPM 42 for heat 
and cold treatments used for quarantine.26 Countries can 
agree to treatments that are different than in this standard 
for various reasons.

3.3.1  Cold Treatment

Cold treatment is widely used among EU exporters to treat 
commodities for fruit flies in citrus, apples, grapes, pears, 
kiwifruit, and stone fruit, among others. In the research 
community, much is known about pest and commodity 
sensitivity to cold. For example, cold treatment for stone 
fruit  and  others  has  most  recently  been  tested  as  a 
quarantine treatment during shipping from Spain to India. 

On the other hand, some pests that infest commodities 
produced  in  temperate/cold  climates  have  evolved 
physiological mechanisms to deal with winter temperatures 
that may protect them from the extreme cold temperatures 
that are used in quarantine treatments. For example, at 
temperatures that would kill Mediterranean fruit flies in 2-3 
weeks, codling moths, which are naturally adapted to cold 
winters, may be able to survive for several months in apples.

26    Secretariat of the IPPC. 2018. ISPM 42: Requirements for the use of 

temperature treatments as phytosanitary measures. Rome: IPPC and 
FAO. <https://www.ippc.int/static/media/files/publication/en/2019/02/
ISPM_42_2018_En_Temperature_2018-04-21_WithCover.pdf>. 

27    Riudavets, Jordi et al. 2016. “The effects of postharvest carbon dioxide 

and a cold storage treatment on Tuta absoluta mortality and tomato 
fruit quality.” Postharvest Biology and Technology 120: 213-221. 

EXPORTER GUIDE

27

DISCUSSION ON POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES TO METHYL BROMIDE TREATMENT

treatment. Heat treatment is commonly used for forestry 
products and numerous standards and reports are available 
on its use for those products. Heat can be applied through 
hot air, water saturated hot vapour, and hot water or by 
other means, such as microwaves or radio-frequencies. 
As with cold treatment, precision equipment to maintain 
the target temperature, proper instrumentation to verify 
that the treatment targets were met, and thorough record 
keeping are required as outlined in IPPC ISPM-42.

The treatment time starts after the hardest part of the 
commodity to heat reaches the required temperature. For 
individual fruit/vegetable, the hardest part to bring up to 
the target temperature is generally the centre, but for a 
shipment of stacked pallets, it would be the fruit/vegetable 
in the centre of the stack. The consequence of this is that 
fruit/vegetables on the outside of the stack receive much 
longer treatment times than those at the centre of the 
stack. Smaller treatment lots could moderate this issue 
somewhat, but at the cost of treatment efficiency and 
throughput. The logistical issues related to heat treatment 
make it more suitable for small volume commodities like 
tropical fruit.

Since most tropical commodities are very tolerant of 45˚C 
for short time periods, heat forms the basis for many 
quarantine treatments used worldwide for tropical fruit. 
In the United States, where Tephritid fruit flies are the main 
quarantine pest of concern, most mangos, papayas, and 

other tropical fruit are imported to the mainland by use of a 
heat quarantine treatment if the fruit comes from countries 
where these pests occur (depending on the country of 
origin, irradiation is also a commonly used treatment).

3.3.3  Controlled Atmosphere Treatment

Although controlled atmosphere treatment has not found 
much utility as a quarantine treatment for perishable 
commodities, it does have potential as part of a combination 
treatment with heat. One such treatment is called CATTS – 
Controlled Atmosphere Temperature Treatment System. It 
appears to reduce phytotoxicity caused by heat alone. A 
recently published review supports its usefulness to treat 
temperate fruit against some common quarantine pests 
with acceptable fruit quality.28 It still has the limitation of 
being restricted to relatively small quantities because of 
the time required for heat to penetrate to the middle of the 
treatment lot with the subsequent overheating of fruit on 
the outside of the treatment lot. At this point, testing has 
not included some of Europe’s most important pests, but 
there is reason to believe that CATTS would be effective 
against them. Temperate commodities, such as cherries 
and apples, have been shown to tolerate the treatment.

28  Neven, L. and S. Johnson. 2017. “Combination Hot Forced Air Treatments 
and Controlled Atmosphere Treatments: CATTS – Controlled Atmosphere 
Temperature Treatment System.” In Novel Postharvest Treatments of 
Fresh Produce, edited by S. Pareek, 259-288. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

28

EXPORTER GUIDE

DISCUSSION ON POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES TO METHYL BROMIDE TREATMENT

3.4 Irradiation

As of 2019, Canada does not have an overarching regulation 
allowing the use of irradiation as a quarantine treatment.

Health Canada is the Canadian department responsible for 
regulating and approving the use of food irradiation. They 
have a written process to allow persons, companies, and 
associations to apply for approval to irradiate food for sale 
in Canada. On its website, Health Canada provides a check 
list for persons or organizations to use when preparing a 
petition to Health Canada to allow the use of irradiation for 
a particular purpose.29 Regulations specifying which foods 
may be irradiated and the treatment levels permitted are 
set out in Division 26 of the Food and Drug Regulations.30 
All irradiated food must be approved for irradiation in 
Canada by Health Canada and labelled as required by the 
regulations. The CFIA is responsible for the administration 
of the regulations relating to the labelling of irradiated 
food products under the Food and Drug Act. 

The only foods approved for irradiation in Canada are 
potatoes and onions to inhibit sprouting, wheat and wheat 
flour to control insect infestation, whole or ground spices 
and dehydrated seasonings to reduce microbial load, and 
raw or frozen ground beef to reduce microbial load. Health 
Canada is considering changes that would improve the 
ability to use irradiation as a quarantine treatment, but 
that process is not yet complete.

29  Government of Canada, Health Canada. N.d. Food Irradiation Submission 
Checklist. <https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/hc-sc/migration/hc-sc/
fn-an/alt_formats/hpfb-dgpsa/pdf/pubs/checklist_irradiation-aide-
memoire-eng.pdf>.

30  Government of Canada, Justice Laws Website. 2017. “Division 26: Food 

Irradiation.” Food and Drug Regulations (C.R.C., c. 870) <https://laws-lois.
justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/c.r.c.,_c._870/page-90.html#h-574534>. 

EXPORTER GUIDE

29

APPENDICES

APPENDICES

Appendix 1: List of NPPOs by Country

The full list of NPPOs of IPPC Contracting parties presently includes 183 countries.31 The following table is an extract 
from this list including EU NPPOs and the Canadian NPPO. Note that contact persons change from time to time while 
the institution and related information remains valid. 

Table 1. IPPC Official Contact Points for EU Member States and Canada

Country

IPPC Official Contact Point

Austria

Belgium

Bulgaria

Mr. Michael Kurzweil 
Federal Ministry of Sustainability and Tourism
Subdivision II/5d, Stubenring 1 A 1010 Wien, Österreich / Austria 
Phone: (+43) 1 71100 60 2819 
Email: michael.kurzweil@bmnt.gv.at
Preferred languages: English 
Website: http://www.bmnt.gv.at/ 

Mr. Lieven Van Herzele 
Federal Public Service Health, Food Chain Safety and Environment
DG Animals, Plants and Foodstuffs; Service Sanitary Policy Animals and Plants; Division Plant 
Protection; Eurostation II (7th floor) Place Victor Horta 40, box 10 1060, Brussels, Belgium
Phone: (+32) 2 524 73 23 
Fax: (+32) 2 524 73 49 
Email: lieven.vanherzele@gezondheid.belgie.be
Alternate Email: lieven.vanherzele@sante.belgique.be 
Preferred languages: English, French

Mr. Nikolay Rosenev
Deputy Executive Director 
Bulgarian Food Safety Agency
Pencho Slaveikov Blvd. 15 A, Sofia, 1606, Bulgaria 
Phone: +359 (0)2 9159 884, +359 (0)2 9173 702 
Fax: +359 (0)2 9173 759 
Email: n_rosnev@bfsa.bg
Alternate Email: fsk@nsrz.government.bg 
Preferred languages: English 
Website: http://www.babh.government.bg/ 

31    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and IPPC. N.d. “List of NPPOs of IPPC Contracting parties.” Countries <https://www.ippc.int/en/

countries/nppos/list-countries/>.

30

EXPORTER GUIDE

APPENDICES

Country

IPPC Official Contact Point

Canada

Croatia

Cyprus

Czech 
Republic

Denmark

Mr. Steve Côté 
National Manager and International Standards Advisor 
Canadian Food Inspection Agency
59 Camelot Drive Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0Y9 Canada 
Phone: (001) 613 773 7368 
Mobile: (001) 343 998 6191 
Fax: (001) 613 773 7576 
Email: cfia.ippc.acia@canada.ca
Alternate Email: steve.cote@canada.ca 
Preferred languages: English, French 
Website: http://www.inspection.gc.ca/ 

Mrs. Ksenija Bistrovic 
Ministry of Agriculture, Directorate of Food and Phytosanitary Policy, Department for Plant 
Health
Ulica grada Vukovara 78, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia 
Phone: +385 1 6109 126 
Fax: +385 1 6109 189 
Email: ksenija.bistrovic@mps.hr
Preferred languages: English 
Website: https://ribarstvo.mps.hr/

Ms. Androula Georgiou 
Director of the Department of Agriculture 
Department of Agriculture; Ministry of Agriculture, Rural Development and Environment
Louki Akrita Avenue, 1412 Nicosia, Cyprus 
Phone: +00357 22408519 
Fax: +00357 22781425 
Email: director@da.moa.gov.cy
Preferred languages: English

Mr. Michal Hnizdil 
Head of Section of Plant Health Care 
Central Institute for Supervising and Testing in Agriculture (UKZUZ)
Zemedelska 1752/1a; 631 00 Brno, Czech Republic
Phone: +420 545 110 467 
Mobile: +420 773 743 901 
Email: ippc.cz@ukzuz.cz
Alternate Email: michal.hnizdil@ukzuz.cz 
Preferred languages: English 
Website: http://www.ukzuz.cz/ 

Ms. Lise Kjærgaard Steffensen
Danish Agricultural Agency
Nyropsgade 30, DK - 1780 København V, Denmark 
Phone: (+45) 33 95 80 00 
Mobile: (+45) 61 88 78 96 
Email: likste@lbst.dk
Alternate Email: lternate Email: planter@lbst.dk 
Preferred languages: English 
Website: http://www.lbst.dk/ 

EXPORTER GUIDE

31

APPENDICES

Country

IPPC Official Contact Point

Estonia

European 
Union

Finland

France

Germany

Ms. Riina Koidumaa 
Head Plant Health and Horticulture Department 
Plant Health and Horticulture Department, Estonian Agricultural Board
Teaduse 2, Saku, 75501 Harjumaa, Estonia 
Phone: (+372) 5041855 
Email: riina.koidumaa@pma.agri.ee
Preferred languages: English 
Website:http://www.pma.agri.ee/ 

Mr. Harry Arijs 
Deputy Head of Unit 
European Commission, Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety DG SANTE
Directoate-General for Health and Food Safety Plant Health Unit Rue Froissart 101 BE-1049 
Bruxelles, Belgium 
Phone: (+32) 2 298 76 45 
Fax: (+32) 2 296 93 99 
Email: harry.arijs@ec.europa.eu
Preferred languages: English, French 
Website: http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/index_en.htm 

Mr. Ralf Lopian 
Senior Advisor, International Affairs 
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of Finland
Food Department/Animal and Plant Health Unit, Mariankatu 23, Helsinki, Finland 
Phone: +358 40 5965698 
Fax: +358 9 16052443 
Email: ralf.lopian@mmm.fi
Alternate Email: plant.health@mmm.fi 
Preferred languages: English 
Website: https://mmm.fi/en/frontpage 

Mme Anne-Cécile Cotillon
Sous-directrice de la qualité, de la santé et de la protection des végétaux
Direction générale de l’alimentation (DGAL) Ministère de l’agriculture et de l’alimentation
251, rue de Vaugirard, 75 732 Paris Cedex 15, FRANCE
Phone: +33 1 49 55 58 72 
Email: anne-cecile.cotillon@agriculture.gouv.fr
Preferred languages: English, French 
Website: http://agriculture.gouv.fr/administration-centrale 

Ms. Karola Schorn 
Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture
Rochusstr. 1, D’53123 Bonn, Germany 
Phone: (+49) 228 99 529 3527 
Fax: (+49) 228 99 529 4262 
Email: 714@bmel.bund.de
Alternate Email: karola.schorn@bmel.bund.de 
Preferred languages: English 

32

EXPORTER GUIDE

APPENDICES

Country

IPPC Official Contact Point

Greece

Hungary

Ireland

Italy

Latvia

Mrs. Annoula Mavridou
Director, Head of NPPO 
Hellenic Ministry of Rural Development and Food, Directorate of Plant Produce Protection
150, A. Sygrou Avenue, GR-176 71 Athens, Greece
Phone: (+30) 210 921 2092/ 210 928 7221 
Fax: (+30) 210 921 2090 
Email: amavridou@minagric.gr
Alternate Email: planthealth@minagric.gr 
Preferred languages: English 
Website: http://www.minagric.gr/ 

Mr. Gábor Holló 
Plant Health Officer 
Ministry of Agriculture
Budapest 1055 Kossuth Tér 11 Hungary
Phone: +36 1 7656153 
Email: gabor.hollo@am.gov.hu
Preferred languages: English 

Mr. Barry Delany
Chief Plant Health Officer 
Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine
Horticultural and Plant Health Division, DAFM, Celbridge, Co. Kildare, Ireland 
Phone: Phone: +353 15 05 87 59 
Mobile: +353 868 212 636 
Email: barry.delany@agriculture.gov.ie
Preferred languages: English 
Website: http://agriculture.gov.ie/farmingsectors/planthealthtrade/

Mr. Bruno Caio Faraglia 
Dirigente 
Ministero delle Politiche Agricole Alimentari e Forestali
Direzione General dello Sviluppo Rurale, DISRV, Via XX Settembre 20, 00187 Roma, Italy 
Phone: +39 06 46656090 
Fax: +39 06 4881707 
Email: b.faraglia@politicheagricole.it
Alternate Email: cf.cesaroni@politicheagricole.it 
Preferred languages: English, Spanish 
Website: http://www.politicheagricole.it/ 

Ms. Kristine Lifanova 
State Plant Protection Service of Latvia Director 
State Plant Protection Service of Latvia
Lielvardes street 36, Riga LV’1006, Latvia 
Phone: +371 67027098 
Fax: +371 67027302 
Email: kristine.lifanova@vaad.gov.lv
Alternate Email: info@vaad.gov.lv 
Preferred languages:English 

EXPORTER GUIDE

33

APPENDICES

Country

IPPC Official Contact Point

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Malta

Netherlands

Poland

TBD 
Director of the State Plant Service under the Ministry of Agriculture 
The State Plant Service under the Ministry of Agriculture
Ozo str. 4A, LT’08200, Vilnius, Lithuania 
Phone: +370 5 237 5631 
Fax: +370 5 273 0233 
Email: info@vatzum.lt
Preferred languages:English, Russian 
Website: http://www.vatzum.lt/ 

Ms. Monique Faber-Decker 
Service de la protection des végétaux
Administration des services techniques de l’agriculture, B.P. 1904, L’1019 Luxembourg-ville, 
Luxembourg 
Phone: (+352) 45 7172353 
Fax: (+352) 45 7172340 
Email: monique.faber@asta.etat.lu
Preferred languages: English, French 
Website: https://agriculture.public.lu/de/pflanzen-boden/pflanzenschutz.html 

Mr. Sharlo Camilleri 
Director Plant Protection 
Plant Protection Directorate
Plant Biotechnology Center, 110 Annibale Preca Str., Lija LJA 1915, Malta 
Phone: +356 22 92 65 01 
Mobile: +356 794 566 66 
Email: sharlo.camilleri@gov.mt
Alternate Email: plantprotection.mesdc@gov.mt 
Preferred languages: English 
Website: https://agrifish.gov.mt/en/phd/Pages/home.aspx

Mr. Manuel Bram De Hoop 
Senior Officer Plant Health 
Ministry of Economic Affairs
Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority, National Plant Protection 
Organization P.O. Box 9102 6700 HC Wageningen Netherlands
Phone: +31 (0) 651584878 
Mobile: +31 (0)651584878 
Email: m.b.dehoop@nvwa.nl
Preferred languages: English 
Website: https://english.nvwa.nl/topics/themes/plant-health 

Mr. Andrzej Chodkowski 
Main Inspector of the State Plant Health and Seed Inspection Service 
Main Inspectorate of Plant Health and Seed Inspection Service
Al. Jana Pawla II 11, 00-828 Warsaw, Poland 
Phone: (+48) 22 652 92 90 
Fax: (+48) 22 652 93 03 
Email: gi@piorin.gov.pl
Preferred languages: English 
Website: http://www.piorin.gov.pl/ 

34

EXPORTER GUIDE

APPENDICES

Country

Portugal

Romania

Slovakia

Slovenia

IPPC Official Contact Point

Ms. Ana Paula de Almeida Cruz de Carvalho 
Head of Plant Health Department 
Plant Health Department
Direção Geral de Alimentação e Veterinária, Edifício 1, Tapada da Ajuda, 1349’018 Lisboa, 
Portugal 
Phone: +351 21 361 32 74 
Fax: +351 21 361 32 77 
Email: secdssv@dgav.pt
Alternate Email: pcarvalho@dgav.pt 
Preferred languages: English 

Mrs. Paulina Gabor
General Manager
National Phytosanitary Authority
Voluntari Bvd. No. 11, Voluntary Town, Ilfov County, Romania 
Phone: +4 0212 7032 56
Fax: +4 0212 7032 54
Email: paulina.gabor@madr.ro
Alternate Email: fitosanitar@anfdf.ro
Preferred languages: English
Website: http://www.anfdf.ro/

Ms. Katarina Benovska 
Head Officer 
Plant Commodities Department
Ministry of Agriculture of the Slovak Republic, Dobrovicova 12, 812 66 Bratislava, Slovakia 
Phone: +421-2-59266357 
Fax: +421-2-59266358 
Email: katarina.benovska@land.gov.sk
Alternate Email: b.hellbrandtova@land.gov.sk 
Preferred languages: English 

Ms. Vlasta Knapic 
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food; Administration of the Republic of Slovenia for Food 
Safety, Veterinary Sector and Plant Protection
Dunajska cesta 22, SI – 1000, Ljubljana, Slovenia 
Phone: +386 13 00 13 18 ; +386 13 00 13 00 
Mobile: +386 41 354 211 
Fax: +386 13 00 13 56 
Email: fito-import.uvhvvr@gov.si
Alternate Email: fito.uvhvvr@gov.si 
Preferred languages: English 
Website: http://www.uvhvvr.gov.si/ 

EXPORTER GUIDE

35

APPENDICES

Country

IPPC Official Contact Point

Spain

Sweden

United 
Kingdom

Mr. José María Cobos 
Deputy General Director of Plant Health 
Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Environment
C/ Almagro 33 3ª planta, 28014 Madrid 
Phone: + 34 91 3478281/ 4058 
Fax: + 34 91 3474087 
Email: jcobossu@magrama.es
Preferred languages: English, Spanish 

Ms. Karin Nordin 
Chief Plant Health Officer 
Swedish Board of Agriculture, Plant and Environment Department
S-551 82 Jönköping, Sweden 
Phone: (+46) 36 15 59 15 
Fax: (46) 36 12 25 22 
Email: karin.nordin@jordbruksverket.se
Alternate Email: vaxtinspektionen@jordbruksverket.se 
Preferred languages: English 

Mr. Samuel Bishop 
International Plant Health Policy Lead 
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
DEFRA, 11G35, National Agri’Food Innovation Campus, Sand Hutton, York, YO41 1LZ, United 
Kingdom
Phone: + 44 2080262506 
Mobile: + 44 7827976902 
Email: sam.bishop@defra.gov.uk
Alternate Email: simon.anning@defra.gov.uk 
Preferred languages: English 
Website: http://www.gov.uk/defra 

36

EXPORTER GUIDE

APPENDICES

Appendix 2: Research Resources

For instances where growers or exporters apply to Canada to export a commodity for which Canada currently requires 
MB treatment or if commodities could be or are associated with a pest on Canada’s Regulated Pest List,the ongoing 
assistance and collaboration of local research scientists and technical experts will be needed.32 

The CFIA will require that proposals be submitted with extensive data on the commodity, its production and packing 
conditions, its pests, and how the proposed alternative will reduce the pest risk to levels acceptable to Canada. That 
data will have to be validated and certified by experts.

Table 2 below presents the European Union Reference Laboratories responsible for supporting horizontal activities of 
the Commission and of the Member States in the area of plant health.

Table 2. European Union Reference Laboratories33

Pests

Organization

Contact

Insects and 
Mites

Agency for Health and Food Safety (AGES, Institute for Sustainable 
Plant Production)

Spargelfeldstraße 191
1220 Vienna, Austria

French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health 
and Safety (ANSES, Plant Health Laboratory, Entomology and 
Invasive Plants Unit)

755 avenue du campus Agropolis, 
CS 30016 
34988 Montferrier-sur-Lez cedex
France

Nematodes

Flanders Research Institute for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 
(ILVO, Plant Sciences, Nematology group, Burg)

Van Gansberghelaan 96
9820 Merelbeke, Belgium

French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health 
and Safety (ANSES, Plant Health Laboratory, Nematology Unit)

Domaine de la Motte au Vicomte-
BP 35327
35653 Le Rheu France

Bacteria

Flanders Research Institute for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 
(ILVO, Plant Sciences, Bacteriology group)

Van Gansberghelaan 96
9820 Merelbeke, Belgium

Research Centre for Plant Protection and Certification (CREA-DC 
(DIALAB), Laboratory of Phytopathology, Bacteriology group

via Carlo Giuseppe Bertero 22, 
00156 Roma Italia

Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority-
National Reference Centre Plant Health (NVWA-NRC, Bacteriology 
group)

Geertjesweg, 15, 
6706 EA Wageningen
The Netherlands

National Institute of Biology (NIB, Department of Biotechnology 
and Systems Biology, Bacteriology and Metrology Unit, Laboratory 
for diagnostics of bacteria)

Večna pot 111, 
Ljubljana, Slovenia

Fungi and 
oomycetes

French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health 
and Safety (ANSES, Plant Health Laboratory, Mycology Unit)

Domaine de Pixérécourt, CS 
400009
54220 Malzéville, France

Virus and  
Phytoplasmas

Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority 
National Reference Centre Plant Health (NVWA-NRC, Virology 
group) 

Geertjesweg, 15
6706 EA Wageningen
The Netherlands

Research Centre for Plant Protection and Certification (CREA-DC 
(DIALAB), Laboratory of Phytopathology, Virology group)

via Carlo Giuseppe Bertero 22, 
00156 Roma, Italy

National Institute of Biology (NIB, Department of Biotechnology 
and Systems Biology, Microbiology Unit, Laboratory for 
diagnostics of viruses, viroids and phytoplasmas)

Večna pot 111, 
Ljubljana, Slovenia

32    http://www.inspection.gc.ca/plants/plant-pests-invasive-species/pests/regulated-pests/eng/1363317115207/1363317187811 

33    See European Union. 2019. “Commission Implementation Regulation (EU) 2019/530 of 27 March 2019.” Eur-Lex, 27 March <https://eur-lex.europa.eu/

legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32019R0530&from=EN>. 

EXPORTER GUIDE

37

APPENDICES

Moreover, there may be a number of scientific and technical resources available in your country or region. The following 
list is indicative and not exclusive.

Table 3. Local and Regional Research and Technical Resources

Country

Germany

Institute or 
Company
Humboldt 
University

Germany

Netherlands

Julius Kühn 
Institute (JKI)
Bundesf-
orschungs-
institut für 
Kulturpflanzen

Wageningen 
University and 
Research

Contact person Field of 

Dr. Christoph 
Reichmuth

specialization
Methyl bromide 
alternatives, 
especially for 
stored products 
and spaces

Plant Health 
Division

Dr. Jan Verschoor Food and Bio-

Based Research

Plant protection, 
methyl bromide 
alternatives in 
agronomy

Sustainable 
Plant Protection 
Program 
IRTA

Laboratori 
d’Agricultura i 
Sanitat Vegetal 
de Catalunya

Dr. Jordi 
Riuadavets

Dr. Jaume 
Almacellas

Contact information including 
email
Humboldt-University of Berlin, 
Faculty of Agriculture and 
Horticulture, Department of Crop 
and Animal Sciences, Division 
Phytomedicine 
Lentzeallee 55/57 - 14195 Berlin
Tel:+49-30-2093-46442 
email: reichmuth@t-online.de

Institut für nationale und 
internationale Angelegenheiten der 
Pflanzengesundheit
Messeweg 11/12 
38104 Braunschweig
Tel: +49 (531) 2 99-33 71
ag@julius-kuehn.de
https://www.julius-kuehn.de/en/

P.O. Box 17 / 6700 AA Wageningen, 
The Netherlands. 
Jan.verschoor@wur.nl
Tel. +31(0)317 48 12 93
www.wur.nl

Ctra. Cabrils km 2
08348 Cabrils (Barcelona). Spain
Tel. +34 750 75 11 jordi.riudavets@
irta.es
www.irta.es

Avinguda de l’Alcalde Rovira Roure, 
191
25198 Lleida, Spain
Tel.+34 973 30 54 77
jalmacellas@gencat.cat

IRTA

IRTA

Dr. Cinta Calvet

Plant Protection

Cinta.calvet@irta.cat

Dr. Neus Teixidor Postharvest

Neus.teixidor@irta.cat

IVIA (Instituto 
Valenciano de 
Investigaciones 
Agrarias)

Plant protection
Food industry

Carretera CV-315, Km 10,7
46113 - Moncada (Valencia)

Spain

Spain

Spain

Spain

Spain

38

EXPORTER GUIDE

APPENDICES

Appendix 3: EU Market Access Support Associations, Companies and Organizations and 
other Resources

The following table provides contact details for EU-based commodity associations, companies and organizations that 
can assist exporters with their needs. It is important to note that although this list is alphabetical by location, these 
service providers usually provide market access support to members of more than one country or region.

Table 4. Market Access Support Associations, Organizations and Companies

Country

Belgium

Organisation

Fresh Trade Belgium

EU

EU

EU

EU

FRESHFEL EUROPE

EUCOFEL – FruitVegetables Europe

CEI BOIS - European Confederation of 
Woodworking Industries

European Seeds Association

France

ANEEFEL - Association Nationale des 
Expéditeurs et Exportateurs de Fruits et 
Légumes

Germany 

Deutscher Fruchthandelsverband e.V

Contact Information

Sint – Annaplein 3 
9290 Berlare, Belgium
Tel: +32 (0)93 39 12 52
Email: freshtradebelgium@fvphouse.be
Alternate Email: info@fvphouse.be
Website: https://freshtradebelgium.be

Rue de Trèves 49-51 box 8
B-1040 Brussels, Belgium
Tel: +32.(0)2.777.15.80
Email: info@freshfel.org
Website: https://freshfel.org/

38, Rue de la Loi,
B-1040 Brussels, Belgium
Tel: +32 2 721 72 88 
Email: eucofel@eucofel.org
Website: https://www.eucofel.eu/

Rue Montoyer 24, 
B-1000 Brussels, Belgium
Tel: +32 2 556 25 85
Email: info@cei-bois.org
Website: https://www.cei-bois.org/contact/

Avenue des Arts, 52 (7th floor)
1000 Brussels, Belgium
Tel: +32 2 743 28 60
Email: secretariat@euroseeds.eu

97, Boulevard Pereire  
75017 Paris, France
Tel: +33 (0)1 45 23 91 90
Website: https://www.aneefel.com

Bergweg 6
53225 Bonn, Germany 
Tel: +49 228 911 45-0 
Email: info@dfhv.de 
Website: www.dfhv.de

Germany

Bundesvereinigung der 
Erzeugerorganisationen Obst und 
Gemüse e.V. – BVEO

Greece

Greek Fruits and Vegetables

Pariser Platz 3, 10117 Berlin, Germany
Tel: +49 (0) 30 20641498-0
Email: bveo@drv.raiffeisen.de
Website: http://www.bveo.de/

Tel: +30 210 99 67 247
Website: https://greekfruitsvegetables.com/

EXPORTER GUIDE

39

APPENDICES

Country

Greece

Organisation

Contact Information

Incofruit - Association of Greek Export 
enterprises for fruits vegetables and juice

Tel: +30 211 800 71 60
Website: http://www.incofruit.gr/

Hungary 

FruitVeb

Italy

CSO ITALY Soc. Coop.

Italy

Fruitimprese - Associazione Imprese 
Ortofrutticole

Netherlands

Fresh Produce Center 

Spain

Anecoop 

Spain

Spain

Spanish Federation of Food and Drink 
(FIAB)

Federación Española de Asociaciones 
de Productores Exportadores de Frutas, 
Hortalizas, Flores y Plantas vivas

Spain

ProExport

Spain

APOEXPA – Asociación de Productores y 
Exportadores de Frutas y otros Productos 
Agrarios

1119 Budapest, Mohai út 38 or
1118 Budapest, Villányi út 35-43, Hungary
Tel: +36 70 776 5530
Email: info@fruitveb.hu
Website: https://fruitveb.hu/

Via Béla Bartók 29/G, 44124 – Ferrara, Italy
Tel: +39 0532 904511
Email: info@csoservizi.com
Website: www.csoservizi.com

Via Sabotino 46 - 00195 Roma, Italy
Tel: +39 0637515147 
Email: info@fruitimprese.it
Website: https://www.fruitimprese.it/index.php

Fresh Produce Center
Loius Pasteurlaan 6
2719 EE Zoetermeer, The Netherlands
Tel: +31 (0)79-368-11 26
Website: https://groentenfruithuis.nl/

46010,Valencia, Spain 
Tel: +34 963 938 500
Email: info@anecoop.com 
Website: https://anecoop.com/

Velázquez, 64 – 3ª Planta 28001
Madrid -Spain
Tel: +91 411 72 11
Email: fiab@fiab.es

Website: https://www.fepex.es/home.aspx

Ronda Levante, 1 Entlo. 
30008 Murcia, Spain
Tel: +34 968 27 17 79
Email: proexport@proexport.es
Website: www.proexport.es

APOEXPA – Asociación de Productores y 
Exportadores de Frutas y otros Productos Agrarios
C/ San Martín de Porres, 3 – 1º. 30001 Murcia, Spain
Tel: +34 968 20 49 49 
Email: info@apoexpa.es 
Website: http://www.apoexpa.es/

40

EXPORTER GUIDE

APPENDICES

Country

Spain

Organisation

Afrucat

Spain

COOPERATIVAS AGRO-ALIMENTARIAS

Spain

ASOCIACION NACIONAL DE OBTENTORES 
VEGETALES (ANOVE)

Contact Information

C/ Corregidor Escofet, 64 
25005 Lleida - Spain
Tel: +34 973 220 149 
Email: administracio@afrucat.com 
Website: http://www.afrucat.com

Oficina Central (Madrid)
C/ Agustín de Bethencourt, 17, 4ª planta
28003 Madrid, Spain
Tel: 91 535 10 35
Email: cooperativas@agro-alimentarias.coop

C/ Antonio Maura 7, 1º Izq. Madrid, Spain

EXPORTER GUIDE

41

APPENDICES

Appendix 4: Canada’s Pest Risk Analysis Process

PRAs conducted by the CFIA are consistent with international obligations under the IPPC, as outlined in IPPC ISPM 
11.34 Conducting a PRA is a complex process that includes a number of actions to be undertaken, as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Canada’s PRA Process

Prioritization
All PRA request are reviewed and prioritized

Actioned PRA request

Initiate PRA
CFIA request information from exporting country 
NPPO

Pest risk assessment
CFIA conducts pest risk categorizations  
and pest risk assesments and produces pest list

Pest risk management
CFIA and NPPO agree to pest risk mitigation measures

Implement import requirements

Trials periods and/or audits

1

2

3

4

5

l

S
t
a
k
e
h
o
d
e
r
c
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
s
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e

C
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
C
F
I
A
a
n
d
e
x
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
c
o
u
n
t
r
y
N
P
P
O

Prohibit product

Source: CFIA, 2019

The CFIA receives many requests for completion of PRAs and carefully reviews and prioritizes them. Initially, the NPPO 
agrees to work with the CFIA and prioritize work on commodity in question. Then, the CFIA needs the exporting country 
NPPO to agree that they can certify the exported products as meeting the Canadian import requirements and support 
the treatment or system approach being used in the export country. The length of time needed to complete a PRA 
may be improved by the following:

 • Ensuring good communication and information exchange with the NPPO, growers, exporters, researchers, shippers, 

the exporter’s Embassy to Canada, and Canadian importers; and 

 • Providing good data and information that describes the size and need for the commodity in the Canadian market 

place. 

34   Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and IPPC. 2019. “Pest risk analysis for quarantine pests.” Resources, 26 June <https://www.ippc.

int/en/publications/639/>.

42

EXPORTER GUIDE

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
APPENDICES

Appendix 5: Relevant RSPM and ISPM Standards

RSPM Standards

The NAPPO develops science-based RSPM, which are intended to protect agricultural, forest, and other plant resources 
against regulated plant pests, while facilitating trade.35 

Currently, there are 41 RSPM standards in place, but several of these are outdated and have been superseded by more 
recent standards. Additionally, some RSPM standards are less detailed than the ISPM standards, which also apply. 

Most Relevant RSPM Standards for this Guide’s Users

 •  RSPM 30 (2008): Guidelines for the Determination and Designation of Host Status of a Fruit or Vegetable for Fruit 

Flies (Diptera: Tephritidae);

 • RSPM 31 (2012): General Guidelines for Pathway Risk Analysis;

 •  RSPM 34 (2011): Development of Phytosanitary Treatment Protocols for Regulated Arthropod Pest of Fresh Fruits 

or Vegetables;

 • RSPM 40 (2014): Principles of Pest Risk Management for the Import of Commodities; and

 •  RSPM 41 (2018): Use of Systems Approaches to Manage Pest Risks Associated with the Movement of Forest Products.

RSPM 41 is an internationally recognized regional standard, which provides a clear framework for importing and 
exporting countries to establish effective phytosanitary requirements that will minimize pest risks and encourage 
safe trade of forest products. RSPM 41 provides NAPPO member countries with guidance on the use of integrated risk 
management measures to mitigate pest risks associated with the movement of wood commodities. Note that this 
standard pertains to systems approaches for wood; ISPM standard 14 is similar and pertains to fruits and vegetables. 

ISPM Standards

ISPM standards are set by the IPPC and are published on their website.36 Presently, 43 ISPMs have been adopted. This 
section focuses on those most relevant for this Guide’s users.

 • ISPM 04 (1995): Requirements for the establishment of Pest Free Areas. 

–  Pest free areas (PFAs) as a risk management option for phytosanitary certification of plants, plant products, and 
other regulated articles exported from the PFA. The establishment of these supports the scientific justification for 
phytosanitary measures taken by an importing country for protecting certain environments (see also ISPM 10).

 • ISPM 05 (2010): Glossary of phytosanitary terms. 

–  This reference standard lists terms and definitions with specific meaning for phytosanitary systems worldwide. It has 
been developed to provide a harmonized internationally-agreed vocabulary associated with the implementation 
of the IPPC and ISPMs and is regularly revised. 

 • ISPM 10 (1999): Requirements for the establishment of pest free places of production and pest free production sites. 

–  This standard describes the requirements for the establishment and use of pest free places of production and 
pest free production sites as pest risk management options for meeting phytosanitary requirements for the 
import of plants, plant products, and other regulated articles (see also ISPM 4).

35   The full list of RSPM standards is available at NAPPO. N.d. “NAPPO Approved Standards: Regional Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (RSPM).” Products 

<https://www.nappo.org/english/products/regional-standards-phytosanitary-measures-rspm>.

36   Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and IPPC. 2019. “Adopted Standards (ISPMs).” The International Plant Protection Convention 

<https://www.ippc.int/en/core-activities/standards-setting/ispms/>.

EXPORTER GUIDE

43

APPENDICES

 • ISPM 14 (2002): The use of integrated measures in a systems approach for pest risk management. 

–  This standard provides guidelines for the development and evaluation of integrated measures in a systems 

approach for pest risk management (see also RSPM 42 for systems approaches for wood products).

 • ISPM 15 (2009): Regulation of wood packaging material in international trade. 

–  This standard describes phytosanitary measures that reduce the risk of introduction and spread of quarantine 
pests associated with the international movement of wood packaging material made from raw wood, which 
includes dunnage, but excludes wood packaging made from wood not exceeding 6mm in thickness or processed 
in such a way that it is free from pests (i.e., plywood). 

 • ISPM 18 (2003): Guidelines for the use of irradiation as a phytosanitary measure. 

–  This standard provides technical guidance on the specific procedures for the use of ionizing radiation as a 
phytosanitary treatment for regulated pests or articles. This does not include treatments used for the production 
of sterile organisms for pest control; sanitary treatments (food safety and animal health); the preservation or 
improvement of commodity quality (i.e., shelf life extension); or inducing mutagenesis. 

 • ISPM 22 (2005): Requirements for the establishment of areas of low pest prevalence. 

–  This standard describes the establishment of Areas of Low Pest Prevalence (ALPP) for regulated pests. An ALPP 

designation facilitates export of a commodity where pests are regulated by an importing country. 

 • ISPM 24 (2005): Guidelines for the determination and recognition of equivalence of phytosanitary measures. 

–  This standard describes the principles and requirements to determine and recognize equivalency of phytosanitary 
measures, including for international trade (see Annex 3: International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures,  
ISPM 99). 

 • ISPM 26 (2006): Establishment of pest free areas for fruit flies (Tephritidae). 

–  This standard provides guidelines for the establishment of PFAs for fruit flies of economic importance and for 

the maintenance of their pest free status. 

 • ISPM 28 (2009): Phytosanitary treatments for regulated pests. 

–  This standard describes the requirements for submission and evaluation of the efficacy data and other relevant 
information on a treatment to be used as a phytosanitary measure for the control of regulated pests on regulated 
articles, primarily those in international trade. The adopted treatments provide the minimum requirements 
necessary to control a regulated pest at a stated efficacy. As phytosanitary treatments are adopted by the 
Commission on Phytosanitary Measures (CPM), they will be annexed to this standard. 

 • ISPM 30 (2008): Establishment of areas of low pest prevalence for fruit flies (Tephritidae). 

–  This standard provides guidelines for the establishment and maintenance of areas of low pest prevalence for 
fruit flies by an NPPO. These areas may be utilized as official pest risk management measures alone or as part 
of a systems approach. 

 • ISPM 35 (2019): Systems approach for pest risk management of fruit flies (Tephritidae). 

–  This standard provides guidance for the development, implementation, and verification of integrated measures 
in a systems approach as an option for pest risk management of fruit flies (Tephritidae) of economic importance 
to facilitate trade of fruit fly host products or to minimize the spread of regulated fruit flies within an area. 

44

EXPORTER GUIDE

APPENDICES

 • ISPM 42 (2019): Requirements for the use of temperature treatments as phytosanitary measures. 

–  This standard provides technical guidance on the application of various temperature treatments as phytosanitary 
measures for regulated pests on regulated articles. This standard does not provide details on specific treatments. 

EXPORTER GUIDE

45

APPENDICES

Appendix 6: Further References

It is important to note that this Guide does not cover other Canadian import requirements and is not intended to be a 
general export assistance guidance document.37 Such exporter guides for EU firms are available from various sources, 
such as “https://ec.europa.eu/chafea/agri/sites/chafea/files/handbook-canada-2018_en.pdf” The Food and Beverage 
Market Entry Handbook: Canada38 published by the European Commission’s Consumers, Health, Agriculture, and 
Food Executive Agency (CHAFEA) and the European Commission’s39 “http://madb.europa.eu/madb/indexPubli.htm” 
Market Access Database (MADB)40, which provides information about import conditions in third-country markets to 
companies exporting from the EU.

EPPO Standards - https://www.eppo.int/RESOURCES/eppo_standards

The Government of Canada also provides further information regarding import requirements on the following websites:

Canadian Food Inspection Agency – General Import Conditions: http://www.inspection.gc.ca/plants/imports/en
g/1299168480001/1299168593866 

Canadian Food Inspection Agency – Relevant Directives (selection)

 •  D-02-12: Phytosanitary import requirements for non-processed wood and other wooden products, bamboo and 

bamboo products, originating from all areas other than the continental United States (U.S.);

 • D-08-04: Plant protection import requirements for plants and plant parts for planting;

 •  D-10-01: General Phytosanitary Import Requirements for Fresh Pepper and Tomato Fruit from the World;

 •  D-13-03: Phytosanitary import requirements to prevent the introduction of Lobesia botrana, the European grapevine 

moth;

 •  D- 94-26: Phytosanitary import requirements for root crops (other than potato), mushrooms, and vegetables with 

attached roots for consumption or processing; and

 • D- 95-08: Phytosanitary import requirements for fresh temperate fruits and tree nuts.

Canadian Food Inspection – List of Pests Regulated by Canada: https://www.inspection.gc.ca/plant-health/
plant-pests-invasive-species/regulated-pests/eng/1363317115207/1363317187811

CFIA Automated Import Reference System (AIRS): http://www.inspection.gc.ca/plants/imports/airs/
eng/1300127512994/1300127627409

Canada Border Inspection Agency – Importing Commercial Goods to Canada Step 1 Preparing to import goods: 
https://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/import/guide-eng.html

Fresh fruit and vegetables - imports:  
http://www.inspection.gc.ca/food/fresh-fruits-and-vegetables/imports-and-interprovincial-trade/eng/12998549733
06/1299855024986 

Government of Canada – List of Importers - https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/cid-dic.nsf/eng/home

37  Note also that the Canada Border Services Agency (https://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca) and, depending on the commodity traded, other government 

departments will have additional customs requirements for commercial imports into Canada not covered in this Guide.

38  Besides including general information on Canada, its economy, and business environment, this Handbook also contains market snapshots of most 

commodity sectors. It covers aspects of exporting to Canada that are not included in this Guide, such as transportation logistics, supply chain managers, 
cold storage companies, retailers, and numerous other trade-related aspects. See European Commission. 2017. The Food and Beverage Market 
Entry Handbook: Canada. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union <https://ec.europa.eu/chafea/agri/sites/chafea/files/handbook-
canada-2018_en.pdf>.

39  On its webpage, CHAFEA pools information related to CETA, including its full text and additional links directed at exporters.

40  European Commission. 2019. Market Access Database. <http://madb.europa.eu>.

46

EXPORTER GUIDE

Copyright
Cover : image 1 : Photo by deimagine on istockphoto

Cover : image 2 : Photo by Alex Duffy on Unsplash

Cover : image 3 : Photo by valentinrussanov on istockphoto

Cover : image 4 : Photo by Heather Gill on Unsplash

P6: Photo by Thomas Le on Unsplash

P8 image 1: Photo by Chantal Garnier on Unsplash

P8 Image 2: Photo by Clem Onojeghuo on Unsplash

P9: Photo by Markus Spiske on Unsplash

P12: Photo by Glenn Carstens-Peters on Unsplash

P13: Photo by South_agency on istockphoto

P14: Photo manonallard on istockphoto

P15: Image 1: Photo by Judit Arnó, IRTA.

P15: Image 2: Photo by Michael Longmire on Unsplash

P16: Photo by Jakub Kapusnak on Unsplash

P17: Photo by Dafinchi on istockphoto

P18: Photo by Jordi Riudavets, IRTA.

P19: Photo by jimfeng on istockphoto

P20 : Photo courtesy of USDA ARS

P21 Box 5: Photo by RinoCdZ on istockphoto

P22 Box 5: Photo by Joanna Kosinska on Unsplash

P23 Box 5: Photo by Heather Gill on Unsplash

P24 Box 5: Photo by Kari Shea on Unsplash

P25 Box 5: Photo by Nur Afni Setiyaningrum on Unsplash

P26 Box 5: Photo by Max on Unsplash

P27 Image 1: Photo by ajcespedes on istockphoto

P27 Image 2: Photo by ajcespedes on istockphoto

P28: Photo by Jordi Riudavets, IRTA.

APPENDICES

EXPORTER GUIDE

47

  
Print 
PDF 

ISBN 978-92-76-22676-5 
ISBN 978-92-76-22587-4 

doi:10.2781/3773 
doi:10.2781/2012 

NG-02-20-799-EN-C
NG-02-20-799-EN-N