Industry Briefing Paper. International Standard for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPM) International movement of grain

Transcription

1 Industry Briefing Paper International Standard for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPM) International movement of grain

2 1 Background The Commission on Phytosanitary Measures 8 (CPM-8) of the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) met in Rome on 8-12 April One of the proposals for CPM-8 was to determine whether or not to proceed with the development of a new international phytosanitary grain standard or prepare a guidance document to cover the implementation of existing international phytosanitary measures that pertain to the international grain trade. The CPM is the governing body of the IPPC that is responsible for establishing International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPMs) for plant health. There are 179 country members of IPPC. The ISPMs are the standards recognized as the basis for phytosanitary measures applied by the WTO under the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement). The IPPC Standards Committee oversees the development of the proposed standards that are then submitted to the CPM for adoption. Currently there is no international guidance adopted by the ISPMs that focuses specifically on phytosanitary measures for the international movement of grain. This has resulted in a lack of harmonized approaches for managing the pest risks associated with grain. Many national organizations and trading partners have developed guidelines, quality standards or specifications applicable to the international movement of grain. While many of these rules are focused solely on quality or food safety 1, it is important that national plant protection organizations (NPPOs) do not confuse grain quality or food safety measures with phytosanitary measures applied to prevent the introduction of quarantine pests. Guidance is needed on the assessment of pest risks related to grain as a pathway for quarantine pests, and on technically justified phytosanitary measures to manage such pest risks. Exporting and importing countries, in particular developing countries may benefit from such guidance. Phytosanitary measures applied prior to export and at the time of import can be effective in pest risk mitigation and thereby help to improve food security, but international guidance is needed to ensure such measures are technically justified, commensurate with the level of risk, and the least trade restrictive. 2 Scope and purpose The standard should apply to consignments of grain 2 moved internationally and provide guidance to assist NPPOs to identify, assess and manage the pest risks associated with the international movement of grain as a pathway. The standard may also facilitate the international movement and trade of grain through harmonized guidance and criteria for phytosanitary import requirements. The standard should identify and describe specific phytosanitary measures that could be used to reduce pest risk prior to export, on arrival, and during handling and processing. The standard would not apply to seed 3 and does not consider issues related to living modified organisms (LMOs) that are not pests. This standard will help minimize the global spread of pests of plants via the grain pathway. 3 Options The Standards Committee developed three options for the CPM-8: 1. Development of an ISPM. The draft specification on International Movement of Grain ( ) that was revised by the Standards Committee based on some member comments (Report of the November 2012 Standards Committee meeting, Appendix 11 see below) could be finalized by the Standards Committee in May For example, grade specifications, end use quality standards, freedom from or tolerances for living modified organisms (LMOs), tolerances for extraneous material, and tolerances for stored product pests. 2 Grain is defined as A commodity class for seeds intended for processing or consumption but not for planting (see seeds) (ISPM 5). 3 Seeds are defined as A commodity class for seeds for planting or intended for planting and not for consumption or processing (see grain) (ISPM 5).

3 2. Development of a Guide to the implementation of ISPMs in the international movement of grain with the following conditions: The Guide should be similar to the FAO Guide to Implementation of Phytosanitary Standards in Forestry ( The Guide should cover implementation of ISPMs in the international movement of grain, and would take into the account the latest revised version of the draft specification on international movement of grain ( ), which indicates issues that countries find to be of highest importance (Report of the November 2012 SC meeting, Appendix 11). The Guide should not be produced under the auspices of the SC. Extra-budgetary funding similar to that for the forestry guide would be needed. 3. Development of an ISPM with a reduced scope. This option applies if the CPM considers that the scope of the proposed ISPM is too broad and should only cover the most critical elements. The SC would further revise the draft specification, identifying which elements should be included in an ISPM (Report of the 2012 November SC meeting Appendix 11) and which may be more appropriate for a manual. As in option 2, extra-budgetary funding would be needed to develop a manual. 4 Australia s Position As a net exporter of grain, Australia needs to ensure its position is taken into account in the development of an international standard to harmonise the rules applied by global trading partners to address phytosanitary risks associated with the international movement of grain. Australia has well established phytosanitary measures to ensure that quarantine pests are not associated with the movement of grain and exported to other countries from Australia. Australia has applied measures on the movement of grain in accordance with existing relevant IPPC standards (ISPM s) such as ISPM 11 Pest risk analysis for quarantine pests including analysis of environmental risks and living modified organisms, ISPM 7 Phytosanitary certification system and ISPM 12 Phytosanitary certificates. There has been extensive discussion and consultation on the international movement of grain but the issues related to this have remained controversial. Many member countries have strongly expressed the need for a standard due to the importance in harmonizing requirements for grain. GTA is working with the International Grain Trade Coalition and the Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) to support the delivery of a standard to enhance phytosanitary processes. The proposal to introduce an International Standard for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPM) for the international movement of grain was detailed in the February 2013 edition of NewsInGrain. The original proposal called for an all-encompassing standard that would severely impact on the flexibility of exporting countries to conduct their phytosanitary inspections according to the needs of their exporters and, importantly, the requirements of the country of import. GTA, in conjunction with the International Grain Trade Coalition (IGTC), supported the development of a guideline document in preference to a rigid standard. This view was shared by the lead Australian Government agency, DAFF.

4 5 CPM decision At its last meeting in April, the Commission on Phytosanitary Measures (CPM) of the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) resolved to develop a standard, based on a reduced scope. The scope of the draft specification will be narrowed to phytosanitary issues. CPM will consider the need for guidance documents, eg handbook, after the draft standard is developed. The challenge now will be to ensure that the standard is developed in a manner that limits restrictions to international trade. GTA, in conjunction DAFF Biosecurity, advocated that the standard focus on issues that are most appropriate to Australia as an export nation and are non-controversial, i.e.: 1. effective treatments of shipments of bulk grain; and 2. suitability of bulk vessels to load grain. DAFF included this position at CPM and also in its submission. However, with the CPM decision, it is highly unlikely that the draft standard will only encompass these issues. It is therefore important to consider the draft specification and what aspects could be included in the draft standard (the draft specification is attached). The above activities would enhance the current phytosanitary processes. Australia is represented on the IPPC Standards Committee by Dr. Jan Bart Rossel, Director of the International Plant Health Program Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF), Canberra. Dr Rossel is also the Assistant Steward for the development of this ISPM. This is a positive outcome for Australia and other grain export countries. 6 Recent events, 1 July CPM-8 requested contracting parties to submit comments on strategic issues related to the international movement of grain to the Standards Committee members from their region. 2. Only four countries submitted strategic comments (Australia, Canada, China and the USA) within the then deadline. The USA was in support of developing a manual; Canada supported reducing the scope of the specification; China insisted that the traceability should be included in the standard as part of the phytosanitary measures of the grain movement and Australia has supported to reduce the scope to focus on effective treatments of shipments of bulk grain and the suitability of bulk vessels to load grain. 3. The IPPC has subsequently extended the deadline for submissions until 31 August 2013 to encourage more countries to submit their views. This is an opportunity for Australia to make a further, constructive submission on the aspects in the draft specification that should be considered, or on other issues that need to be included. 4. CPM-8 agreed that the draft specification contained too many complex issues and included a range of diverse elements and therefore agreed on reducing the scope of the specification for an ISPM on the international movement of grain. CPM excluded LMOs, climate change, food safety and quality issues from the specification and requested that traceability be considered to determine if it should be or not be included. 5. The new Steward (The SC member nominated to facilitate the development of a ISPM) for the development of this ISPM is from Africa, one of the FAO regions most vocal at CPM-8 and in favour of developing an ISMP. 6. As mentioned above, Australia is represented on the IPPC Standards Committee by Dr. Jan Bart Rossel, Director of the International Plant Health Program Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF), Canberra, is also the Assistant Steward for the development of this ISPM.

5 DRAFT SPECIFICATION, December 2012

6

7

8

9