January 2015 CPM 2015/05

COMMISSION ON PHYTOSANITARY
MEASURES
Tenth Session

Rome, 16-20 March 2015

Revocation and replacement of old versions of ISPMS

Agenda item 8.5

Prepared by the IPPC Secretariat1

I. Background
1. Since the adoption of the first International Standard for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPM) in
1993 (ISPM 1: Principles of plant quarantine as related to international trade), many ISPMs have
undergone revisions. ISPMs can be revised in different ways: they may be partially amended, the full
text revised, or supplements, annexes and appendixes added (which themselves may be amended,
revised or eliminated). In addition, ISPMs have been modified by ink amendments, by changes to
language versions following Language Review Groups (LRG) review and by minor modifications to
correct errors.
2. As old versions of ISPMs have never been officially revoked by the Commission for
Phytosanitary Measures (CPM), this has lead to a situation whereby the latest versions of ISPMs co-
exist with older versions of the same ISPM. The latest versions of ISPMs are made available on the
International Phytosanitary Portal (IPP)2 on the “adopted ISPMs” main page. Old versions of the
same ISPMs may also be found on the IPP, clearly indicated as previous versions. The status of these
older versions and their provisions, in relation to the status of the latest versions, is not totally clear for
the IPPC contracting parties. Besides, some of the latest versions of ISPMs still contain cross-
references to old versions of other ISPMs which have now been revised. This issue has been raised by
the CPM and Standards Committee (SC). The IPPC Secretariat considered this situation should be
rectified and undertook an in-depth analysis of all ISPMs, in close consultation with FAO Legal
Office.
3. A simplified mechanism is proposed to:
 clarify which versions of ISPMs are in force, and

1
The agenda point number was corrected on 19th January.
2
IPP page on the adopted ISPMs: https://www.ippc.int/core-activities/standards-setting/ispms
This document is printed in limited numbers to minimize the environmental impact of FAO's processes and
contribute to climate neutrality. Delegates and observers are kindly requested to bring their copies to meetings
and to avoid asking for additional copies. Most FAO meeting documents are available on the Internet at
www.fao.org
2 CPM 2015/05

 set up a mechanism to ensure older versions of ISPMs are replaced by the latest versions of an
ISPM and are revoked when revisions are adopted.
4. Changes to some existing ISPMs, including modifications to cross-references to old versions
of ISPMs, need to be applied in order to allow these old versions of ISPMs to be revoked and no
longer applicable.
5. During their May and November 2014 meetings3, the SC reviewed the whole analysis
undertaken by the Secretariat.

II. Proposed changes to existing ISPMs and mechanism for the future
6. As the revocation of old versions of ISPMs implies that any cross-reference to such old
versions be modified, all cross-references to other ISPMs were reviewed in all existing ISPMs. In this
respect, the SC approved ink amendments, which are presented to the CPM for noting in Attachment 1
(English only) to this paper. Once these ink amendments are noted by the CPM, they will be submitted
for translation. Proposed translations of ink amendments will be submitted to the LRG process prior to
publication4.
7. Besides, other changes will have to be implemented by the Secretariat (as resources allow) to
allow the revocation of old versions of ISPMs and facilitate the process in the future. These changes
include minor editorial amendments to ISPMs as approved by the SC and changes to the format of the
publications for ISPMs5.
8. In addition, the SC agreed that in the future, when an ISPM is revised, the expert drafting
group should review all references to the ISPM under revision in other ISPMs to ensure that they are
still relevant and propose consequential changes if necessary, as this work is needed to allow the
previous version of the ISPM to be revoked. Such a task was added by the Secretariat to all current
specifications for the revision to an ISPM where drafting has not begun. Consequently, the SC noted:
 when revisions of ISPMs are prepared for member consultation that consequential changes to
other ISPMs will also be presented.
 when revisions of ISPMs are presented to the CPM for adoption that the consequential
changes will also be presented as ink amendments.
 that upon adoption of a revised ISPM, the CPM will be requested to revoke the previous
version of the ISPM and replace it with the newly adopted revision.
9. The mechanism to simplify future revision and adoption of ISPMs agreed by the SC6 has been
added accordingly to the Procedure Manual for Standard Setting7 and the IPPC Style Guide8.

III. Proposed changes to Diagnostic Protocols and Phytosanitary Treatments

10. Regarding diagnostic protocols (DPs), the SC considered that Appendix 2 of ISPM 27 could
be deleted as the adopted DPs will be listed directly along with other ISPMs (in the List of adopted

3
See section 9.3 of the May 2014 SC meeting and section 4.3 of the November 2014 SC meeting:
https://www.ippc.int/core-activities/standards-setting/standards-committee
4
https://www.ippc.int/core-activities/governance/standards-setting/ispms/language-review-groups
5
See section 4.3 of the November 2014 SC meeting: https://www.ippc.int/core-activities/standards-
setting/standards-committee
6
See section 4.3 of the November 2014 SC meeting: https://www.ippc.int/core-activities/standards-
setting/standards-committee
7
See section 4.7 of the 2014 Procedure Manual for standard setting available at: https://www.ippc.int/core-
activities/ippc-standard-setting-procedure-manual
8
See sections 2.1 and 10.3 of the IPPC Style Guide for standards and meeting documents available at:
https://www.ippc.int/core-activities/standards-setting
CPM 2015/05 3

standards, available on the IPP9). Regarding phytosanitary treatments (PTs), the SC considered that
Appendix 1 of ISPM 28 could also be deleted as all the information needed is posted on the IPP until a
database on phytosanitary treatments is further considered. Minor adjustments may be needed to the
text of ISPMs 27 and 28 as well as individual DPs and PTs to reflect these changes.

IV. ISPMs in force after application of the changes and mechanism

11. After the changes and mechanism described above have been applied, it will be clarified that
the latest versions of ISPMs which are available on the “adopted ISPMs” main page of the IPP10 are
the ones in force.

V. Recommendations
12. The CPM is invited to:
1) adopt the elimination of Appendix 2 to ISPM 27 and Appendix 1 to ISPM 28 (which will be
maintained separately by the IPPC Secretariat and posted on the IPP until it can be replaced by
a database) and note that ISPM 27 and ISPM 28 will have minor adjustments to reflect the
removal of these two appendices.
2) note ink amendments (Attachment 1 to this paper).
3) agree that once the Secretariat has applied the changes mentioned above, all previous versions
of ISPMs are revoked and replaced by the newly adopted or noted versions.

9
: https://www.ippc.int/core-activities/standards-setting/ispms
10
https://www.ippc.int/core-activities/standards-setting/ispms
CPM 2015/05

Attachment 1
Replacement and revocation of old versions of ISPMs: proposed ink amendments (adjustments of content in ISPMs)
At the beginning of the column “reasons”, between square brackets, are indicated the ISPMs cross-referred in the paragraph that have been revised, or are under revision, to
mark clearly which cross-references need to be changed to allow replacement of old versions, which ones will come up soon, and others.
ISPM No. Location of reference Ref.ISPM Current text Proposed revision Reasons
ISPM 5 Glossary of Phytosanitary Terms
5 1. References CBD. 2000. Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the The references below correspond to the approval of The reference section of ISPM 5 lists only
Convention on Biological Diversity. Montreal, terms and definitions, as indicated in the definitions. For sources of approval of terms and definitions
CBD. ISPMs, they do NOT indicate the most recent version (those indicated between [ ] at the end of the
CEPM. 1996. Report of the Third Meeting of the FAO (which is available on the IPP at definitions). Standards referred to in
Committee of Experts on Phytosanitary https://www.ippc.int/core-activities/standards- supplements and annex 1 are referenced in
Measures, Rome, 13–17 May 1996. Rome, IPPC, setting/ispms) those.
FAO.
It is proposed that all sources are maintained
—— 1999. Report of the Sixth Meeting of the Committee CBD. 2000. Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the
here, and that this does not prevent
of Experts on Phytosanitary Measures, Rome, Convention on Biological Diversity. Montreal, CBD.
replacement of old versions that have been
Italy: 17–21 May 1999. Rome, IPPC, FAO. CEPM. 1996. Report of the Third Meeting of the FAO revised (e.g. ISPMs 11 and 15). However,
CPM. 2007. Report of the Second Session of the Committee of Experts on Phytosanitary some adjustments are proposed:
Commission on Phytosanitary Measures, Rome, Measures, Rome, 13–17 May 1996. Rome, - a paragraph to clarify the nature of the
26–30 March 2007. Rome, IPPC, FAO. IPPC, FAO. references
—— 2008. Report of the Third Session of the —— 1997. Report of the Fourth Meeting of the FAO - this section was not consistently updated
Commission on Phytosanitary Measures, Rome, Committee of Experts on Phytosanitary when terms were deleted. Several references
7–11 April 2008. Rome, IPPC, FAO. Measures, Rome, 6-10 October 1997. Rome, to CPM, ICPM or ISPMs are not anymore in
—— 2009. Report of the Fourth Session of the IPPC, FAO. ISPM 5 and were deleted.
Commission on Phytosanitary Measures, Rome, —— 1999. Report of the Sixth Meeting of the Committee - the mention that a standard was revised is
30 March–3 April 2009. Rome, IPPC, FAO. of Experts on Phytosanitary Measures, Rome, not relevant as this list is only about sources
Italy: 17–21 May 1999. Rome, IPPC, FAO. of adoption. Such mentions were deleted
—— 2010. Report of the Fifth Session of the Commission - A few references were missing and were
on Phytosanitary Measures, Rome, 22–26 March CPM. 2007. Report of the Second Session of the added.
2010. Rome, IPPC, FAO. Commission on Phytosanitary Measures, Rome,
—— 2012. Report of the Seventh Session of the 26–30 March 2007. Rome, IPPC, FAO. Note: It would not make sense to refer to
Commission on Phytosanitary Measures, Rome, —— 2008. Report of the Third Session of the ISPMs collectively in this case. An alternative
19–23 March 2012. Rome, IPPC, FAO. Commission on Phytosanitary Measures, Rome, would have been to delete the references
FAO. 1990. FAO Glossary of phytosanitary terms. FAO 7–11 April 2008. Rome, IPPC, FAO. and decide what to do with the sources
Plant Protection Bulletin, 38(1): 5–23. [current —— 2009. Report of the Fourth Session of the indicated between square brackets in each
equivalent: ISPM 5] Commission on Phytosanitary Measures, Rome, definition. However, these are believed to be
FAO. 1995. See ISPM 5:1995. 30 March–3 April 2009. Rome, IPPC, FAO. useful and this alternative has not been
—— 2010. Report of the Fifth Session of the retained.
ICPM. 1998. Report of the Interim Commission on
Phytosanitary Measures, Rome, 3–6 November Commission on Phytosanitary Measures, Rome,
1998. Rome, IPPC, FAO. 22–26 March 2010. Rome, IPPC, FAO.
CPM 2015/05

ISPM No. Location of reference Ref.ISPM Current text Proposed revision Reasons
—— 2001. Report of the Third Interim Commission on —— 2012. Report of the Seventh Session of the
Phytosanitary Measures, Rome, 2–6 April 2001. Commission on Phytosanitary Measures, Rome,
Rome, IPPC, FAO. 19–23 March 2012. Rome, IPPC, FAO.
—— 2002. Report of the Fourth Interim Commission on FAO. 1990. FAO Glossary of phytosanitary terms. FAO
Phytosanitary Measures, Rome, 11–15 March Plant Protection Bulletin, 38(1): 5–23. [current
2002. Rome, IPPC, FAO. equivalent: ISPM 5]
—— 2003. Report of the Fifth Interim Commission on FAO. 1995. See ISPM 5:1995.
Phytosanitary Measures, Rome, 07–11 April ICPM. 1998. Report of the Interim Commission on
2003. Rome, IPPC, FAO. Phytosanitary Measures, Rome, 3–6 November
—— 2004. Report of the Sixth Interim Commission on 1998. Rome, IPPC, FAO.
Phytosanitary Measures, Rome, 29 March–02 —— 2001. Report of the Third Interim Commission on
April 2004. Rome, IPPC, FAO. Phytosanitary Measures, Rome, 2–6 April 2001.
—— 2005. Report of the Seventh Interim Commission on Rome, IPPC, FAO.
Phytosanitary Measures, Rome, 4–7 April 2005. —— 2002. Report of the Fourth Interim Commission on
Rome, IPPC, FAO. Phytosanitary Measures, Rome, 11–15 March
IPPC. 1997. International Plant Protection Convention. 2002. Rome, IPPC, FAO.
Rome, IPPC, FAO. —— 2003. Report of the Fifth Interim Commission on
ISO/IEC. 1991. ISO/IEC Guide 2:1991, General terms Phytosanitary Measures, Rome, 07–11 April
and their definitions concerning standardization 2003. Rome, IPPC, FAO.
and related activities. Geneva, International —— 2004. Report of the Sixth Interim Commission on
Organization for Standardization, International Phytosanitary Measures, Rome, 29 March–02
Electrotechnical Commission. April 2004. Rome, IPPC, FAO.
ISPM 2. 1995. Guidelines for pest risk analysis. Rome, —— 2005. Report of the Seventh Interim Commission on
IPPC, FAO. [published 1996] [revised; now Phytosanitary Measures, Rome, 4–7 April 2005.
ISPM 2: 2007] Rome, IPPC, FAO.
ISPM 2. 2007. Framework for pest risk analysis. Rome, IPPC. 1997. International Plant Protection Convention.
IPPC, FAO. Rome, IPPC, FAO.
ISPM 3. 1995. Code of conduct for the import and release ISO/IEC. 1991. ISO/IEC Guide 2:1991, General terms
of exotic biological control agents. Rome, IPPC, and their definitions concerning standardization
FAO. [published 1996] [revised; now ISPM 3: and related activities. Geneva, International
2005] Organization for Standardization, International
ISPM 3. 2005. Guidelines for the export, shipment, import Electrotechnical Commission.
and release of biological control agents and other ISPM 2. 1995. Guidelines for pest risk analysis. Rome,
beneficial organisms. Rome, IPPC, FAO. IPPC, FAO. [published 1996] [revised; now
ISPM 4. 1995. Requirements for the establishment of pest ISPM 2: 2007]
free areas. Rome, IPPC, FAO. [published 1996] ISPM 2. 2007. Framework for pest risk analysis. Rome,
ISPM 5. 1995. Glossary of phytosanitary terms. Rome, IPPC, FAO.
IPPC, FAO. [published 1996] ISPM 3. 1995. Code of conduct for the import and
CPM 2015/05
ISPM No. Location of reference Ref.ISPM Current text Proposed revision Reasons
ISPM 6. 1997. Guidelines for surveillance. Rome, IPPC, release of exotic biological control agents. Rome,
FAO. IPPC, FAO. [published 1996] [revised; now
ISPM 7. 1997. Export certification system. Rome, IPPC, ISPM 3: 2005]
FAO. ISPM 3. 2005. Guidelines for the export, shipment,
ISPM 8. 1998. Determination of pest status in an area. import and release of biological control agents
Rome, IPPC, FAO. and other beneficial organisms. Rome, IPPC,
FAO.
ISPM 9. 1998. Guidelines for pest eradication
programmes. Rome, IPPC, FAO. ISPM 4. 1995. Requirements for the establishment of
pest free areas. Rome, IPPC, FAO. [published
ISPM 10. 1999. Requirements for the establishment of
1996]
pest free places of production and pest free
production sites. Rome, IPPC, FAO. ISPM 5. 1995. Glossary of phytosanitary terms. Rome,
IPPC, FAO. [published 1996]
ISPM 11. 2001. Pest risk analysis for quarantine pests.
Rome, IPPC, FAO. [revised; now ISPM 11:2004] ISPM 6. 1997. Guidelines for surveillance. Rome, IPPC,
FAO.
ISPM 11. 2004. Pest risk analysis for quarantine pests
including analysis of environmental risks and ISPM 7. 1997. Export certification system. Rome, IPPC,
living modified organisms. Rome, IPPC, FAO. FAO.
ISPM 12. 2001. Guidelines for phytosanitary certificates. ISPM 8. 1998. Determination of pest status in an area.
Rome, IPPC, FAO. Rome, IPPC, FAO.
ISPM 13. 2001. Guidelines for the notification of non- ISPM 9. 1998. Guidelines for pest eradication
compliance and emergency action. Rome, IPPC, programmes. Rome, IPPC, FAO.
FAO. ISPM 10. 1999. Requirements for the establishment of
ISPM 14. 2002. The use of integrated measures in a pest free places of production and pest free
systems approach for pest risk management. production sites. Rome, IPPC, FAO.
Rome, IPPC, FAO. ISPM 11. 2001. Pest risk analysis for quarantine pests.
ISPM 15. 2002. Guidelines for regulating wood packaging Rome, IPPC, FAO. [revised; now ISPM 11:2004]
material in international trade. Rome, IPPC, FAO. ISPM 11. 2004. Pest risk analysis for quarantine pests
[revised; now ISPM 15:2009] including analysis of environmental risks and
ISPM 16. 2002. Regulated non-quarantine pests: concept living modified organisms. Rome, IPPC, FAO.
and application. Rome, IPPC, FAO. ISPM 12. 2001. Guidelines for phytosanitary certificates.
ISPM 18. 2003. Guidelines for the use of irradiation as a Rome, IPPC, FAO.
phytosanitary measure. Rome, IPPC, FAO. ISPM 13. 2001. Guidelines for the notification of non-
ISPM 20. 2004. Guidelines for a phytosanitary import compliance and emergency action. Rome, IPPC,
regulatory system. Rome, IPPC, FAO. FAO.
ISPM 22. 2005. Requirements for the establishment of ISPM 14. 2002. The use of integrated measures in a
areas of low pest prevalence. Rome, IPPC, FAO. systems approach for pest risk management.
Rome, IPPC, FAO.
ISPM 23. 2005. Guidelines for inspection. Rome, IPPC,
FAO. ISPM 15. 2002. Guidelines for regulating wood
packaging material in international trade. Rome,
ISPM 24. 2005. Guidelines for the determination and
IPPC, FAO. [revised; now ISPM 15:2009]
recognition of equivalence of phytosanitary
CPM 2015/05

ISPM No. Location of reference Ref.ISPM Current text Proposed revision Reasons
measures. Rome, IPPC, FAO. ISPM 16. 2002. Regulated non-quarantine pests:
ISPM 25. 2006. Consignments in transit. Rome, IPPC, concept and application. Rome, IPPC, FAO.
FAO. ISPM 17. 2002. Pest reporting. Rome, IPPC, FAO.
ISPM 27. 2006. Diagnostic protocols for regulated pests. ISPM 18. 2003. Guidelines for the use of irradiation as a
Rome, IPPC, FAO. phytosanitary measure. Rome, IPPC, FAO.
ISPM 28. 2007. Phytosanitary treatments for regulated ISPM 20. 2004. Guidelines for a phytosanitary import
pests. Rome, IPPC, FAO. regulatory system. Rome, IPPC, FAO.
WTO. 1994. Agreement on the Application of Sanitary ISPM 22. 2005. Requirements for the establishment of
and Phytosanitary Measures. Geneva, World Trade areas of low pest prevalence. Rome, IPPC, FAO.
Organization. ISPM 23. 2005. Guidelines for inspection. Rome, IPPC,
FAO.
ISPM 24. 2005. Guidelines for the determination and
recognition of equivalence of phytosanitary
measures. Rome, IPPC, FAO.
ISPM 25. 2006. Consignments in transit. Rome, IPPC,
FAO.
ISPM 27. 2006. Diagnostic protocols for regulated pests.
Rome, IPPC, FAO.
ISPM 28. 2007. Phytosanitary treatments for regulated
pests. Rome, IPPC, FAO.
WTO. 1994. Agreement on the Application of Sanitary
and Phytosanitary Measures. Geneva, World
Trade Organization.
ISPM 7 Phytosanitary certification system
7 2. 3.2 Information on 20 Phytosanitary certification should be based on official Phytosanitary certification should be based on official Specific cross-reference. Proposal refers to
phytosanitary import information from the importing country. The NPPO of the information from the importing country. The NPPO of the the content of the section, which is likely to
requirements exporting country should, to the extent possible, have exporting country should, to the extent possible, have still be in the standard even if ISPM 20 is
available current official information concerning the available current official information concerning the revised, rather to the section number.
phytosanitary import requirements of relevant importing phytosanitary import requirements of relevant importing
countries. Such information should be made available in countries. Such information should be made available in
accordance with Article VII.2(b), VII.2(d) and VII.2(i) of the accordance with Article VII.2(b), VII.2(d) and VII.2(i) of
IPPC and ISPM 20:2004, section 5.1.9.2. the IPPC and ISPM 20 (elements on dissemination of
established regulations):2004, section 5.1.9.2.
ISPM 8 Determination of pest status in an area
8 3. Appendix 1, Useful 5 ISPM 5. Glossary of phytosanitary terms. Rome, IPPC, ISPM 5. Glossary of phytosanitary terms. Rome, IPPC, In this specific case, the reference is useful
references, under FAO. (Arabic/Chinese/ English/French/Spanish) FAO. (Arabic/Chinese/ English/French/Spanish/Russian) and Russian should be added
”Nomenclature,
Terminology and
General Taxonomy”
CPM 2015/05
ISPM No. Location of reference Ref.ISPM Current text Proposed revision Reasons
ISPM 11 Pest risk analysis for quarantine pests
11 4. 2.1.1.3 Regulatory 5 Suppl 1 S1 Official control of pests presenting an environmental S1 Official control of pests presenting an environmental [ISPMs revised since: Suppl. 1]
status, 2nd parag. (previous) risk may involve agencies other than the NPPO. risk may involve agencies other than the NPPO. Supplement 1 to ISPM 5 was revised in 2012.
However, it is recognized that ISPM 5 Supplement 1 However, it is recognized that ISPM 5 Supplement 1 The title and the structure changed. Section
(Guidelines on the interpretation and application of the (Guidelines on the interpretation and application of the 5.7 became section 2.7, but kept the same
concept of official control for regulated pests), in particular concepts of “official control” and “not widely distributed”), content and title. It is proposed to refer to the
section 5.7, applies. in particular section 5.7, applies, in particular its title (reflecting the content) rather than
provisions regarding NPPO authority and involvement in section numbers.
official control.
ISPM 15 Regulation of wood packaging material in international trade
15 5. 4.6 Phytosanitary 13, 20 - Relevant information on non-compliance and - Relevant information on non-compliance and General cross-reference to ISPM 13, on
measures for non- emergency action is provided in sections 5.1.6.1 emergency action is provided in sections 5.1.6.1 notification of non-compliance and
compliance at point of to 5.1.6.3 of ISPM 20:2004, and in ISPM 13:2001. to 5.1.6.3 of ISPM 20:2004, and in emergency action.
entry, 1st parag. Taking into account the frequent re-use of wood ISPM 13:2001. Taking into account the frequent
packaging material, NPPOs should consider that re-use of wood packaging material, NPPOs However, in ISPM 20, “non-compliance and
the non-compliance identified may have arisen in should consider that the non-compliance emergency actions” is the title of section
the country of production, repair or identified may have arisen in the country of 5.1.6. Sections 5.1.6.1 to 5.1.6.3 deal with
remanufacture, rather than in the country of production, repair or remanufacture, rather than actions in case of non-compliance,
export or transit. in the country of export or transit. emergency action, reporting of non-
compliance and emergency action.
Apparently ISPM 15 did not mean to refer to
section 5.1.6.4 of ISPM 20 (Withdrawal or
modification of phytosanitary regulation).
Deletion of the section numbers is proposed,
as the information referred to is easy to find
in ISPM 20.
ISPM 19 Guidelines on lists of regulated pests
19 6. 1. Basis for Lists of 12 The availability of lists of regulated pests assists exporting The availability of lists of regulated pests assists [ISPMs revised since: 12]
Regulated Pests, 4th (previous) contracting parties to issue phytosanitary certificates exporting contracting parties to issue phytosanitary Specific cross-reference. ”Regulatory
parag. correctly. In instances where a list of regulated pests is certificates correctly. In instances where a list of concern” was changed to “phytosanitary
not supplied by the importing contracting party, the regulated pests is not supplied by the importing concern” when ISPM 12 was revised, and is
exporting contracting party can only certify for pests it contracting party, the exporting contracting party can adjusted here for consistency.
believes to be of regulatory concern (see ISPM 12:2001, only certify for pests it believes to be of A specific reference would be helpful as it
section 2.1). phytosanitaryregulatory concern (see ISPM 12 in relation relates to one item in ISPM 12. However, the
to certifying statements:2001, section 2.1). section number (previously 2.1, now 5) is not
helpful, as it is a long section, and a
reference to the certifying statement was
added
ISPM 22 Requirements for the establishment of areas of low pest prevalence
22 7. 3.1.4.3 Reducing the 20 In cases where an ALPP is established for a regulated In cases where an ALPP is established for a regulated The reference seems superfluous as it is not
risk of entry of specified pest, phytosanitary measures may be required to reduce pest, phytosanitary measures may be required to reduce clear which aspect of ISPM 20 it refers to
pest(s), 1st parag. the risk of entry of the specified pests into the ALPP the risk of entry of the specified pests into the ALPP (ISPM 20 does not deal with this directly, and
(ISPM 20:2004). These may include: (ISPM 20:2004). These may include: it is ISPM 22 which is making requirements
CPM 2015/05

ISPM No. Location of reference Ref.ISPM Current text Proposed revision Reasons
for ALPPs).

22 8. 3.3 Change in the status 17 If the ALPP is being used for export purposes, the If the ALPP is being used for export purposes, the It is unclear what this refers to, or what
of an area of low pest importing country may require that such situations and importing country may require that such situations and guidance is provided by ISPM 17. The only
prevalence, last parag. associated activities are reported to it. Additional associated activities are reported to it. Additional section that seem to relate to this aspect is
guidance is provided by ISPM 17:2002. Furthermore, a guidance is provided by ISPM 17:2002 in the section on about ”other pest reports”, which comes after
corrective action plan may be agreed to between the other pest reports. Furthermore, a corrective action plan all the other aspects of ”obligatory” pest
importing and exporting countries. may be agreed to between the importing and exporting reporting. If this is the case, then lack of
countries. specific cross-reference makes it difficult to
understand what is meant.
ISPM 26 Establishment of pest free areas for fruit flies (Tephritidae)
26 9. 4th parag. 8 In areas where the fruit flies concerned are not capable of In areas where the fruit flies concerned are not capable [ISPMs under revision: 8]
establishment because of climatic, geographical or other of establishment because of climatic, geographical or Specific cross-reference, not clear as such,
reasons, absence should be recognized according to the other reasons, there should be no records of presence nor how it relates to the second paragraph of
first paragraph of section 3.1.2 of ISPM 8:1998. If, and it may be reasonable to conclude that the pest is the section mentioned. To avoid the specific
however, the fruit flies are detected and can cause absentce should be recognized according to the first reference, some rewording is proposed,
economic damage during a season (Article VII.3 of the paragraph of section 3.1.2 of (ISPM 8):1998. If, however, adapted from the first paragraph of section
IPPC), corrective actions should be applied in order to the fruit flies are detected and can cause economic 3.1.2 of ISPM 8. The section is likely to
allow the maintenance of a FF-PFA. damage during a season (Article VII.3 of the IPPC), change in the revised ISPM 8, but the
corrective actions should be applied in order to allow the general concept will probably remain (i.e.
maintenance of a FF-PFA. reasonable to conclude that the pest is
absent when there are no records of
presence in general surveilance data) – if not,
this standard will need to be changed.

26 10. 5th parag. 8 In areas where the fruit flies are capable of establishment In areas where the fruit flies are capable of establishment [ISPMs under revision: 8]
and known to be absent, general surveillance in and known to be absent, general surveillance in Specific cross-reference to absence/general
accordance with section 3.1.2 of ISPM 8:1998 is normally accordance with section 3.1.2 of ISPM 8:1998 is surveillance in ISPM 8. The section that
sufficient for the purpose of delimiting and establishing a normally sufficient for the purpose of delimiting and mentions general surveillance in ISPM 8 is
pest free area. Where appropriate, import requirements establishing a pest free area. Where appropriate, import easy to find, and therefore does not need to
and/or domestic movement restrictions against the requirements and/or domestic movement restrictions be mentioned.
introduction of the relevant fruit fly species into the area against the introduction of the relevant fruit fly species
may be required to maintain the area free from the pest. into the area may be required to maintain the area free
from the pest.
ISPM 27 Diagnostic protocols for regulated pests
27 11. APPENDIX 2 It is proposed that this appendix be deleted
(see main text)
ISPM 28 Phytosanitary treatments for regulated pests
28 12. APPENDIX 1 It is proposed that this appendix be deleted
(to be maintained by the Secretariat on the
IPP – see main text)
CPM 2015/05
ISPM No. Location of reference Ref.ISPM Current text Proposed revision Reasons
ISPM 29 Recognition of pest free areas and areas of low pest prevalence
29 13. 1. General 1, 4, 8, ISPM 1:2006 includes operational principles on ISPM 1:2006 includes operational principles on [ISPMs under revision: 4, 8]
Considerations, parag. 2 10, 22, 26 recognition of PFAs and ALPPs (sections 2.3 and 2.14). recognition of PFAs and ALPPs (and avoidance of undue Specific cross-references, but likely to remain
to 7 ISPM 4:1995 points out that, since certain PFAs are likely delays) (sections 2.3 and 2.14). valid even if ISPM 1 is revised (except for
to involve an agreement between trading partners, their ISPM 4:1995 points out that, since certain PFAs are section number). Section 2.14 is about
implementation would need to be reviewed and evaluated likely to involve an agreement between trading partners, avoidance of undue delay, and it would be
by the national plant protection organization (NPPO) of their implementation would need to be reviewed and clearer to indicate this. Principles are easy to
the importing country (section 2.3.4). evaluated by the national plant protection organization locate inthe standard
ISPM 8:1998 provides guidance on the use of the phrase (NPPO) of the importing country (section 2.3.4).
“pest free area declared” in pest records (section 3.1.2). ISPM 8:1998 provides guidance on the use of the phrase Specific cross-reference to ISPM 4, but quite
ISPM 10:1999 describes the requirements for the “pest free area declared” in pest records (section 3.1.2). general
establishment and use of pest free places of production ISPM 10:1999 describes the requirements for the
and pest free production sites as risk management establishment and use of pest free places of production Specific cross-reference to one status in
options for meeting phytosanitary requirements for the and pest free production sites as risk management ISPM 8. Needed here (but may need to be
import of plants, plant products and other regulated options for meeting phytosanitary requirements for the changed when ISPM 8 is revised). Scetion
articles. import of plants, plant products and other regulated number is not needed
ISPM 22:2005 describes the requirements and articles.
procedures for the establishment of ALPPs for regulated ISPM 22:2005 describes the requirements and General cross-references to ISPM 10, 22 and
pests in an area and, to facilitate export, for pests procedures for the establishment of ALPPs for regulated ISPM 26
regulated by an importing country only. This includes the pests in an area and, to facilitate export, for pests
identification, verification, maintenance and use of those regulated by an importing country only. This includes the
ALPPs. identification, verification, maintenance and use of those
ISPM 26:2006 describes the requirements for the ALPPs.
establishment and maintenance of PFAs for the ISPM 26:2006 describes the requirements for the
economically important species in the family Tephritidae. establishment and maintenance of PFAs for the
economically important species in the family Tephritidae.
29 14. 2.1 Recognition of pest 1 ISPM 1:2006 states that “contracting parties should ISPM 1:2006 states that “cContracting parties should [ISPMs revised since: 1]
free areas and areas of ensure that their phytosanitary measures concerning ensure that their phytosanitary measures concerning Althought there is a specific cross-reference,
low pest prevalence consignments moving into their territories take into consignments moving into their territories take into in this case it is proposed to leave some text
account the status of areas, as designated by the NPPOs account the status of areas, as designated by the in the standard but not as a quote.
of the exporting countries. These may be areas where a NPPOs of the exporting countries. These may be areas
regulated pest does not occur or occurs with low where a regulated pest does not occur or occurs with low
prevalence or they may be pest free production sites or prevalence or they may be pest free production sites or
pest free places of production”. pest free places of production” (ISPM 1).
29 15. 3. Requirements for the 8 Where the pest is absent from an area and the PFA Where the pest is absent from an area and the PFA [ISPMs under revision: 8]
Recognition of Pest status can easily be determined (for example in areas status can easily be determined (for example in areas Specific cross-reference to an element of
Free Areas and Areas of where no records of the pest have been made and, in where no records of the pest have been made and, in ISPM 8, but the sentence on its own with the
Low Pest Prevalence, addition, long-term absence of the pest is known or addition, long-term absence of the pest is known or reference to ISPM 8 seems sufficient. It is
4th parag. absence is confirmed by surveillance), the process for absence is confirmed by surveillance), the process for expected that such approach will be possible
recognition described in this standard (in section 4) may recognition described in this standard (in section 4) may also according to the revised ISPM 8.
not be required or very little supporting information may not be required or very little supporting information may
be necessary. In such cases, absence of the pest should be necessary. In such cases, absence of the pest should
be recognized according to the first paragraph of section be recognized (according to the first paragraph of section
CPM 2015/05

ISPM No. Location of reference Ref.ISPM Current text Proposed revision Reasons
3.1.2 of ISPM 8:1998 without the need for detailed 3.1.2 of ISPM 8:1998) without the need for detailed
information or elaborate procedures. information or elaborate procedures.
29 16. 5. Considerations on 10 Usually pest free places of production and pest free Usually pest free places of production and pest free
Pest Free Places of production sites should not require recognition using the production sites should not require recognition using the Specific cross-references to content of ISPM
Production and Pest procedures described above (section 4). In this regard procedures described above (section 4). In this regard 10. The quotes provide a lot of information.
Free Production Sites, ISPM 10:1999 states, for such places and sites, “The ISPM 10:1999 provides guidance states, for such places Deleting them would remove some
paragraphs 1 to 3 issuance of a phytosanitary certificate for a consignment and sites. “The issuance of a phytosanitary certificate for information, rephrasing may be paraphrasing.
by the NPPO confirms that the requirements for a pest a consignment by the NPPO confirms that the So it is suggested to take away the quotes
free place of production or a pest free production site requirements for a pest free place of production or a pest and simply make stand alone statements.
have been fulfilled. The importing country may require an free production site have been fulfilled. The importing
appropriate additional declaration on the phytosanitary country may require an appropriate additional declaration
certificate to this effect.” (section 3.2 of ISPM 10) on the phytosanitary certificate to this effect.” (section 3.2
However, ISPM 10 (in section 3.3) also indicates: of ISPM 10)
The NPPO of the exporting country should, on However, ISPM 10 (in section 3.3) also indicates that t
request, make available to the NPPO of the The NPPO of the exporting country should, on request,
importing country the rationale for establishment and make available to the NPPO of the importing country the
maintenance of pest free places of production or rationale for establishment and maintenance of pest free
pest free production sites. Where bilateral places of production or pest free production sites. Where
arrangements or agreements so provide, the NPPO bilateral arrangements or agreements so provide, the
of the exporting country should expeditiously provide NPPO of the exporting country should expeditiously
information concerning establishment or withdrawal provide information concerning establishment or
of pest free places of production or pest free withdrawal of pest free places of production or pest free
production sites to the NPPO of the importing production sites to the NPPO of the importing country.
country. As also described in ISPM 10 (section 3.1):,
As described in ISPM 10 (section 3.1): wWhen complex measures are needed to establish
When complex measures are needed to establish and maintain a pest free place of production or
and maintain a pest free place of production or pest pest free production site, because the pest
free production site, because the pest concerned concerned requires a high degree of phytosanitary
requires a high degree of phytosanitary security, an security, an operational plan may be needed.
operational plan may be needed. Where appropriate, Where appropriate, such a plan would be based on
such a plan would be based on bilateral agreements bilateral agreements or arrangements listing
or arrangements listing specific details required in specific details required in the operation of the
the operation of the system including the role and system including the role and responsibilities of the
responsibilities of the producer and trader(s) producer and trader(s) involved.
involved.
ISPM 30 Establishment of areas of low pest prevalence for fruit flies (Tephritidae)
30 17. 1.2 Determination of an 8 In areas where prevalence of fruit flies is naturally at a low In areas where prevalence of fruit flies is naturally at a [ISPMs under revision: 8]
FF-ALPP, 2nd parag. level because of climatic, geographical or other reasons low level because of climatic, geographical or other Specific cross-reference. While the section
(e.g. natural enemies, availability of suitable hosts, host reasons (e.g. natural enemies, availability of suitable number will probably change in the revised
seasonality), the target fruit fly population may already be hosts, host seasonality), the target fruit fly population ISPM 8, it is expected that examples (or
below the specified level of low pest prevalence without may already be below the specified level of low pest recommendations) for pest status of
applying any control measures. In such cases, prevalence without applying any control measures. In presence will still be given, and it is also
CPM 2015/05
ISPM No. Location of reference Ref.ISPM Current text Proposed revision Reasons
surveillance should be undertaken over an appropriate such cases, surveillance should be undertaken over an assumed that there will be one for low
length of time to validate the low prevalence status and appropriate length of time to validate the low prevalence prevalence. This will have to be corrected if it
this status may be recognized in accordance with the status and this status may be recognized in accordance is not the case in the revised version. The
examples listed in section 3.1.1 of ISPM 8:1998. If, with the examples of pest statuses for presence in listed change proposed does not change the
however, the fruit flies are detected above the specified in section 3.1.1 of ISPM 8:1998. If, however, the fruit flies concept or application of the ISPM, but
level of low pest prevalence (e.g. because of are detected above the specified level of low pest introduces new words
extraordinary climatic conditions) corrective actions prevalence (e.g. because of extraordinary climatic
should be applied. Guidelines for corrective action plans conditions) corrective actions should be applied.
are provided in Annex 2. Guidelines for corrective action plans are provided in
Annex 2.
ISPM 31 Methodologies for sampling of consignments
18. 1. Lot Identification, 1st 23 A consignment may consist of one or more lots. Where a A consignment may consist of one or more lots. Where a Specific cross-reference. The concept is
parag. consignment comprises more than one lot, the inspection consignment comprises more than one lot, the inspection expected to remain in ISPM 23 even if
to determine compliance may have to consist of several to determine compliance may have to consist of several revised.
separate visual examinations, and therefore the lots willseparate visual examinations, and therefore the lots will
have to be sampled separately. In such cases, the have to be sampled separately. In such cases, the
samples relating to each lot should be segregated and samples relating to each lot should be segregated and
identified in order that the appropriate lot can be clearly
identified in order that the appropriate lot can be clearly
identified if subsequent inspection or testing reveals non-
identified if subsequent inspection or testing reveals non-
compliance with phytosanitary requirements. Whether or compliance with phytosanitary requirements. Whether or
not a lot will be inspected should be determined using not a lot will be inspected should be determined using
factors stated in ISPM 23:2005 (section 1.5). factors stated in ISPM 23:2005 (section 1.5on other
considerations for inspection).
31 19. 7. Outcome of Sampling 23 The outcome of activities and techniques related to The outcome of activities and techniques related to Specific cross-reference. The wording used
sampling may result in phytosanitary action being taken sampling may result in phytosanitary action being taken before the parenthesis did not exactly relate
(further details can be found in ISPM 23:2005, section (further details can be found in ISPM 23 in relation to to the section in ISPM 23, and some
2.5). inspection outcome:2005, section 2.5). additional words would be useful. Inspection
outcome is expected to remain in ISPM 23.
ISPM 32 Categorization of commodities according to their pest risk
32 20. Background, 2nd parag. 11 Some intended uses of commodities (e.g. planting) Some intended uses of commodities (e.g. planting) result
result in a much higher probability of introducing in a much higher probability of introducing pests than [ISPMs revised since: 11]
pests than others (e.g. processing) (further others (e.g. processing) (further information is contained Specific reference. This is not a
information is contained in ISPM 11:2004, section in ISPM 11:2004, in relation to the probability of transfer straighforward reference. Words added
to a suitable hostsection 2.2.1.5).
2.2.1.5).
32 21. Background, from 5th 11 Article VI.1(b) of the IPPC states: “Contracting parties Article VI.1(b) of the IPPC states: “Contracting parties [ISPMs revised since: 11, 12, 15]
parag. onwards (previous) may require phytosanitary measures for quarantine pests may require phytosanitary measures for quarantine pests This is probably the most difficult case in this
, 12 and regulated non-quarantine pests, provided that such and regulated non-quarantine pests, provided that such analysis. It is important to find a solution, as
(previous) measures are … limited to what is necessary to protect measures are … limited to what is necessary to protect otherwise the old versions of ISPMs 11, 12
, 15 plant health and/or safeguard the intended use ….” This plant health and/or safeguard the intended use ….” This and 15 cannot be replaced.
(previous) standard is based on the concepts of intended use of a standard is based on the concepts of intended use of a
, commodity and the method and degree of its processing, commodity and the method and degree of its processing, Removing quotes entails extensive
16, 20, which are also addressed in other ISPMs as outlined which are also addressed in other ISPMs as outlined rewording, but simply adjusting the text to
CPM 2015/05

ISPM No. Location of reference Ref.ISPM Current text Proposed revision Reasons
21, 23 below. below. quote the revised standards is not
Method and degree of processing: straightforward either.
- ISPM 12:2001, section 1.1, states: Method and degree of processing: This proposed revision is more drastic than
Importing countries should only require phytosanitary - ISPM 12. NPPOs of the importing countries should not simply quoting the new revisions, but should
certificates for regulated articles. … Phytosanitary require phytosanitary certificates for plant products that avoid similar issues in the future.
certificates may also be used for certain plant products have been processed to the point where they have no
that have been processed where such products, by their potential for introducing regulated pests This revision does not take account of the
nature or that of their processing, have a potential for - ISPM 15. Low risk articles are exempted from the fact that some ISPMs developed after ISPM
introducing regulated pests (e.g. wood, cotton). … requirements in the standard due to the method and 32 are also relevant (e.g. ISPM 36)
Importing countries should not require phytosanitary degree of processing.
certificates for plant products that have been processed in - ISPM 23. Inspection may be used to verify the degree
such a way that they have no potential for introducing of processing.
regulated pests, or for other articles that do not require - ISPM 12:2001, section 1.1, states:
phytosanitary measures. Importing countries should only require phytosanitary
- ISPM 15:2002, section 2, states: certificates for regulated articles. … Phytosanitary
Wood packaging made wholly of wood-based products certificates may also be used for certain plant products
such as plywood, particle board, oriented strand board or that have been processed where such products, by their
veneer that have been created using glue, heat and nature or that of their processing, have a potential for
pressure, or a combination thereof, should be considered introducing regulated pests (e.g. wood, cotton). …
sufficiently processed to have eliminated the risk Importing countries should not require phytosanitary
associated with the raw wood. It is unlikely to be infested certificates for plant products that have been processed
by raw wood pests during its use and therefore should not in such a way that they have no potential for introducing
be regulated for these pests. regulated pests, or for other articles that do not require
- ISPM 23:2005, section 2.3.2, states: “Inspection phytosanitary measures.
can be used to verify the compliance with some - ISPM 15:2002, section 2, states:
phytosanitary requirements.” Examples include degree of Wood packaging made wholly of wood-based products
processing. such as plywood, particle board, oriented strand board or
veneer that have been created using glue, heat and
pressure, or a combination thereof, should be considered
Intended use: sufficiently processed to have eliminated the risk
- ISPM 11:2004, sections 2.2.1.5 and 2.2.3. associated with the raw wood. It is unlikely to be infested
When analysing the probabilities of transfer of pests to a by raw wood pests during its use and therefore should
suitable host and of their spread after establishment, one not be regulated for these pests.
of the factors to be considered is the intended use of the - ISPM 23:2005, section 2.3.2, states: “Inspection
commodity. can be used to verify the compliance with some
- ISPM 12:2001, section 2.1. Different phytosanitary requirements.” Examples include degree of
phytosanitary requirements may apply to the different processing.
intended end uses as indicated on the phytosanitary
certificate. Intended use:
- ISPM 16:2002, section 4.2. Risk of - ISPM 11. The intended use is considered when
economically unacceptable impact varies with different analysing the probabilities of transfer of pests to a
pests, commodities and intended use. suitable host and of their spread after establishment.
CPM 2015/05
ISPM No. Location of reference Ref.ISPM Current text Proposed revision Reasons
- ISPM 21:2004, which uses extensively the - ISPM 16. Risk of economically unacceptable impact
concept of intended use. varies with different pests, commodities and intended
use.
- ISPM 21. Uses the concept of intended use extensively.
Method and degree of processing together with intended - ISPM 11:2004, sections 2.2.1.5 and 2.2.3. When
use: analysing the probabilities of transfer of pests to a
- ISPM 20:2004, section 5.1.4, indicates that PRA suitable host and of their spread after establishment, one
may be done on a specific pest or on all the pests of the factors to be considered is the intended use of the
associated with a particular pathway (e.g. a commodity). commodity.
A commodity may be classified by its degree of - ISPM 12:2001, section 2.1. Different
processing and/or its intended use. phytosanitary requirements may apply to the different
- ISPM 23:2005, section 1.5. One of the factors to intended end uses as indicated on the phytosanitary
decide the use of inspection as a phytosanitary measure certificate.
is the commodity type and intended use. - ISPM 16:2002, section 4.2. Risk of economically
unacceptable impact varies with different pests,
commodities and intended use.
- ISPM 21:2004, which uses extensively the
concept of intended use.

Method and degree of processing together with intended

use:
- ISPM 12. Different phytosanitary requirements may
apply to the different intended end uses or degree of
processing as indicated on the phytosanitary certificate.
- ISPM 20. A commodity may be classified by its degree
of processing and/or its intended use.
- ISPM 23. The commodity type and intended use are
taken into account to decide the use of inspection as a
phytosanitary measure.
- ISPM 20:2004, section 5.1.4, indicates that PRA
may be done on a specific pest or on all the pests
associated with a particular pathway (e.g. a commodity).
A commodity may be classified by its degree of
processing and/or its intended use.
- ISPM 23:2005, section 1.5. One of the factors to
decide the use of inspection as a phytosanitary measure
is the commodity type and intended use.