1. IPPC first consultation 1 July to 30 September 2018
DRAFT ISPM: Revision of ISPM 8: Determination of pest status in an area ( )
IPPC first consultation
1 July to 30 September 2018
IPPC Secretariat
2018 IPPC Regional Workshop

2. Background SC Nov (2009) CPM-5 (2010) SC Nov 2013
Recommended to add the topic to work programme
CPM-5 (2010)
Added the topic Revision of ISPM 8 to work programme
SC Nov 2013
Approved Specification 59
EWG
Sept 2017
First draft produced
SC May 2018
Approved for 1st consultation
SC: Standards Committee
EWG: Expert working group
Links to relevant meeting report are publically available on IPP.
See specification 59:

3. General Considerations
Reason for the revision
Since adoption of ISPM 8 in 1998, new information and guidance became available, including new ISPMs on pest free areas and revision of ISPM 6 on Surveillance
Pest records are common elements in these ISPMs
See specification 59:
Revised draft ISPM 8 describes the use of pest records and other information to determine pest status in an area

4. Scope
This standard describes the use of pest records and other information to determine pest status in an area.
Descriptions of pest status categories are provided, as well as recommendations for good reporting practices.
This standard is not concerned with reporting obligations, but with the quality of information used in determining pest status.

5. Outline of Requirements
Pest status is determined by the NPPO responsible for the area
Guidance on evaluating the reliability of information is provided
Sources of uncertainty in determining the pest status in an area are described
This draft identifies and describes major categories for pest status
It provides guidance to NPPOs on responsibilities and reporting practices for determining and reporting pest status

6. Highlights of the revision
Draft describes two main categories for pest status: “Presence” and “Absence” (Tables 1 & 2)
Requirements for information on pest records are aligned with revised ISPM 6 (Surveillance)
The ISPM addresses the quality of information in determining pest status but is not concerned with reporting obligations    

7. Relevant sub-categories Quality of information
Major drafting issues
Two categories only: Present and Absent (no transient as a stand alone category, according to ISPM 5 definition)
Pest categories
Each Present and Absent category has seven sub-categories with explanations
Relevant sub-categories
If no results of general or specific surveillance, or other information are provided to justify absence, the pest status can be considered “undetermined” (in alignment with newly revised ISPM 6)
New requirements
Guidance on evaluating sources and quality of information for pest record is provided (Appendix 1).
Quality of information
SC Report:
Removal of “transient” category. The current standard does not provide guidance on the length of time a pest can remain “transient” and this can cause confusion. Transience is a temporary condition and is now covered by the new sub-category “Present, not expected to establish” which is consistent with the IPPC Glossary definition of this term.
“Absence” and “undetermined” status. Specific guidance had been included on the determination of the pest status “absent”. Absence should be supported by surveillance records or other relevant information and when an NPPO cannot provide any specific information, the pest status may be “undetermined”.

8. Other relevant information
The draft provides guidance on interpretation of pest interceptions in relation to pest status in an area
The draft describes different cases where additional information about pest presence under limited conditions might be necessary
Guidance on reliability of information sources used by NPPOs for determining pest status moved to Appendix 1 by the SC
SC report:
“Absent: intercepted only”. One SC member suggested that this category should cover cases when pests are intercepted in traps as well as intercepted on consignments. Sometimes a pest can be detected in traps after extreme weather events, but the pest is not established, and it would be useful to cover such circumstances in the standard. The SC considered that detection of individual pests in a trap or following annual migration may not affect pest status depending on the circumstances. The SC added a sentence explaining that after surveillance if a pest is detected in an area and it shown not represent a population, this does not affect the pest status in the area.
The SC considered that interceptions do not affect the pest status of an area, so the sub-category was deleted. A sentence was added stating that pest interceptions on imported consignments while under detention do not affect the pest status in the area.
Scope – pests contained for research or diagnostic purposes. A task of the EWG was to address collections of living organisms, which can include pests for research or diagnostic purposes. The EWG had agreed that pests kept under contained conditions should be outside the scope of the draft ISPM. However, the SC noted that collections of organisms held in botanical gardens in the open air or in greenhouses are not confined and could escape, and this may affect the pest status. Guidance had been included indicating that additional information about pest presence may be necessary in such circumstances. The SC removed the reference to pests that are contained for research or diagnostic purposes being outside the scope of the standard and provided a sentence in the main text to clarify that pests maintained in quarantine for diagnostic or research purposes do not affect pest status in an area.

9. Contacts IPPC Secretariat
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, Rome, Italy
Tel.:
Websites: