Normes OEPP EPPO Standards Diagnostics Diagnostic

Normes OEPP . EPPO Standards

Normes OEPP EPPO Standards Schemes for the production of healthy plants for planting Schémas pour la production de végétaux sains destinés à la plantation

EPPO BulletinVolume 36, Issue 1 p. 179-180 Free Access Normes OEPP. EPPO Standards National regulatory control systemsSystèmes de lutte nationaux réglementaires First published: 30 June 2006 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2338.2006.00916.x European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization Organisation Européenne et Méditerranéenne pour la Protection des Plantes AboutSectionsPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat PM 9/4 Approval EPPO Standards are approved by EPPO Council. The date of approval appears in each individual standard. In the terms of Article II of the IPPC, EPPO Standards are Regional Standards for the members of EPPO. Review EPPO Standards are subject to periodic review and amendment. The next review date for this set of EPPO Standards is decided by the EPPO Working Party on Phytosanitary Regulations. Amendment record Amendments will be issued as necessary, numbered and dated. The dates of amendment appear in each individual standard (as appropriate). Distribution EPPO Standards are distributed by the EPPO Secretariat to all EPPO member governments. Copies are available to any interested person under particular conditions upon request to the EPPO Secretariat. Scope EPPO Standards on national regulatory control systems are intended to be used by National Plant Protection Organizations, in their capacity as bodies responsible for official control of regulated pests. References EPPO/CABI (1997) Quarantine Pests for Europe, 2nd edn. CAB International, Wallingford (GB). Google Scholar EU (2000) Council Directive 2000/29/EC of 8 May 2000 on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the community. Official Journal of the European Communities no. L169, 1– 112. Google Scholar FAO (1997) International Plant Protection Convention (new revised text). FAO, Rome (IT). Google Scholar IPPC (2002) Glossary of phytosanitary terms. ISPM no. 5. IPPC Secretariat, FAO, Rome (IT). Google Scholar Outline of requirements EPPO Standards on national regulatory control systems describe procedures for official control of individual regulated pests, for the purpose of their eradication or containment, or demonstration or maintenance of pest-free areas, pest-free places of production or areas of low pest prevalence. These Standards conform to supplement N°1 of ISPM no. 5 Glossary of phytosanitary terms: ‘Guidelines on the interpretation and application of the concept of official control for regulated pests’. Existing EPPO Standards in this series Three EPPO Standards on national regulatory control systems have already been approved and published. Each standard is numbered in the style PM 9/2 (1), meaning an EPPO Standard on Phytosanitary Measures (PM), in series no. 9 (National Regulatory Control Systems), in this case standard no. 2, first version. The existing standards are: PP 9/1 (1) Bursaphelenchus xylophilus and its vectors: procedures for official control. Bulletin OEPP/EPPO Bulletin 33, 301–304 PP 9/2 (1) Clavibacter michiganensis subsp sepedonicus. Bulletin OEPP/EPPO Bulletin 34, 321–322 PP 9/3 (1) Ralstonia solanacearum. Bulletin OEPP/EPPO Bulletin 34, 321–322 Volume36, Issue1April 2006Pages 179-180 ReferencesRelatedInformation

EPPO BulletinVolume 52, Issue 3 p. 516-517 EUROPEAN AND MEDITERRANEAN PLANT PROTECTION ORGANIZATIONFree Access Introduction to PM 3 Standards on Phytosanitary procedures PM 3/66 (3), PM 3/77 (2), PM 3/81 (3), PM 3/82 (3), PM 3/94 (1) First published: 20 December 2022 https://doi.org/10.1111/epp.12898AboutSectionsPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat 1 APPROVAL EPPO Standards are approved by the EPPO Council. The date of approval appears in each individual Standard. In the terms of Article II of the IPPC, EPPO Standards are Regional Standards for the members of EPPO. 2 REVIEW EPPO Standards are subject to periodic review and amendment. The next review date for this set of EPPO Standards is decided by the EPPO Working Party on Phytosanitary Regulations. 3 AMENDMENT RECORD Amendments will be issued as necessary, numbered and dated. The dates of amendment appear in each individual Standard (as appropriate). 4 SCOPE EPPO Phytosanitary Procedures are intended to be used by NPPOs in their capacity as bodies responsible for the inspection and testing of plants and plant products moving in trade, or for the implementation of surveys against quarantine pests. 5 DEFINITIONS These definitions are extracted from the Glossary of phytosanitary terms (IPPC, 2019): Inspection: Official visual examination of plants, plant products or other regulated articles to determine if pests are present and/or to determine compliance with phytosanitary regulations. Monitoring: An official ongoing process to verify phytosanitary situations. Phytosanitary procedure: Any official method for implementing phytosanitary measures, including the performance of inspections, tests, surveillance or treatments in connection with regulated pests. Survey (of pests): An official procedure conducted over a defined period to determine the presence or absence of pests, or the boundaries or characteristics of a pest population, in an area, place of production or production site. Test: Official examination of plants, plant products or other regulated articles, other than visual, to determine if pests are present, identify pests or determine compliance with specific phytosanitary requirements. 6 OUTLINE OF REQUIREMENTS EPPO Standards on phytosanitary procedures describe the methods to be followed for performing inspections or tests of commodities moving in trade, or surveys against quarantine pests. Methods to be followed for performing treatments of commodities and treatments of crops for containment or eradication of regulated pests are included in series PM10. EPPO Standards on phytosanitary procedures arise from the programmes of activity of the EPPO Panels on Phytosanitary Measures, on Phytosanitary Measures for Potato, and on Phytosanitary Procedures. The full list of phytosanitary procedures Standards (Series PM3) is available at https://www.eppo.int/RESOURCES/eppo_standards/pm3_procedures with direct links to the Standards in the EPPO Bulletin. The new and revised Standards published in the present issue of the EPPO Bulletin are PM 3/66 (3) Guidelines for the management of plant health risks of biowaste of plant origin, PM 3/77 (2) Vegetable plants for planting under protected conditions -Inspection of places of production, PM 3/81 (3) Inspection of consignments for Xylella fastidiosa, PM 3/82 (3) Inspection of places of production for Xylella fastidiosa, PM 3/94 (1) Raising professional operators' awareness of regulated and emerging plant pests. REFERENCES EPPO (2022) EPPO Standard PM 1/2 EPPO A1 and A2 lists of pests recommended for regulation in EPPO countries. In EPPO Standards: General phytosanitary measures. EPPO, Paris (FR). Available at https://www.eppo.int/media/uploaded_images/RESOURCES/eppo_standards/pm1/pm1-002-31-en_A1A2_2022.pdf [accessed on 1 October 2022] or in EPPO Global Database https://gd.eppo.int/standards/PM1/ [accessed on 1 October 2022]. FAO (2008) ISPM No. 31, Methodologies for Sampling of Consignments. IPPC Secretariat. FAO, Rome (IT). Available at https://www.ippc.int/static/media/files/publication/en/2016/11/ISPM_31_2008_Sampling_of_consignments_EN.pdf [accessed 1 November 2020]. IPPC (2019) Glossary of phytosanitary terms. ISPM no. 5. In International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures, pp. 41– 63. IPPC Secretariat, FAO, Rome (IT). Available at https://www.ippc.int/static/media/files/publication/en/2019/06/ISPM_05_2019_En_Glossary_2019-06-26_PostCPM-14-Fixed.pdf [accessed 1 November 2020]. Volume52, Issue3December 2022Pages 516-517 ReferencesRelatedInformation

The International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) is an international treaty that came into existence during 1952, superseding all previous international plant protection agreements. The IPPC is intended to secure common and effective action to prevent the introduction and spread of pests and diseases of plants and plant products and to promote measures for their control. In 2013, there were 179 contracting parties to the Convention. A Secretariat for the IPPC and a Committee of Experts on Phytosanitary Measures (CEPM) were established in 1993 to address the task of developing International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPMs). ISPMs provide a useful framework for National Plant Protection Organizations (NPPOs), particularly when pest management systems and regulatory decision-making have an important role in international trade. ISPMs in themselves are not regulatory instruments but come into force after countries establish phytosanitary measures within their national legislation. Countries may establish phytosanitary measures that provide a higher level of protection than ISPMs, as long as these national measures are science based and technically justified. Subject Matter Experts from member countries draft ISPMs, which have many levels of review and revision before their adoption. Thirty-six (36) International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures relating to all aspects of plant health have been adopted between 1995, when standard setting began, until 2013. Many more are in various stages of development.

The ever growing international trade has limited efforts towards the prevention of introduction, spread and establishment of invasive organisms.Non-native pests can cause severe loss of production and lead to restriction in exchange of genetic materials and seed marketing across regions.Regulating pests' movement through quarantine measures and establishment of regional boards has been identified as a way to deal with introduction and expansion of invasive organisms.This review analyzes the different pest regulations in the West African sub-region with a specific focus on the implementation of quarantine measures in rice as a case study.The various regulations related to seed production, certification and marketing, and quarantine regulations in West Africa were analyzed and their enforcement and performance were assessed through comparison to international standards, especially the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC).Although a regional regulation on seeds and phytosanitary measures has been elaborated, ECOWAS countries are still enforcing their national phytosanitary legislations, which are nearly the same in all West African countries -they all aim at ensuring plant health by applying preventive and curative measures to prevent the introduction and spread of pests in their territory by controlling the import and export of plant materials and disseminating appropriate pest management techniques to boost agricultural production.Most ECOWAS countries are yet to submit their phytosanitary legislation to IPPC to comply with Article VII.2i of the endorsed convention.In addition, the entry points are not well defined and provided to the IPPC according to the Article VII.2d of the convention.When the quarantine list is available, the organisms regulated for each crop species are not stated, posing a real problem not only for rice genetic resource exchanges for research purposes but also for rice seed trade.Efforts and resources should be devoted by each country to research on pests and regulatory mechanisms in order to define, among others, pest status in the region, and to update regularly the quarantine pests list in the West African region.

Since a number of important pests are seed-borne or seed-transmissible, the movement of infested seed may pose a risk for the international spread of pests. One of the main roles of the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO) is to help its member countries to prevent entry or spread of dangerous pests. The Organization has therefore been given the task of identifying pests which may present a risk for the region (early warning), evaluating them and making proposals on the phytosanitary measures which can mitigate the risk. Once a pest has been identified as presenting a risk for the EPPO region, guidance on how to detect and identify it are developed (phytosanitary procedures for inspection and diagnostic protocols) as well as recommendations on how to eradicate and/or control it. To perform these activities, EPPO collects information and makes it available to its member countries. Different databases have been developed including PQR (Plant Quarantine data Retrieval system) and the EPPO database on Diagnostic expertise. In addition to pest-specific activities, EPPO also develops recommendations for quality assurance in laboratories, in order to harmonize procedures in the EPPO region and improve diagnostic quality. The different activities conducted in this framework are presented with a special focus on activities related to seed-borne pests.

Specific scopeThe purpose of the EPPO Standard on Salix is to recommend to EPPO Member Governments the phytosanitary measures which they should use or require for Salix plants and plant products moving in international trade to prevent the introduction and spread of quarantine pests. Some of these recommendations are addressed to all EPPO Member Governments, others are addressed only to countries considered to face a certain level of risk from the introduction and spread of the regulated pests concerned. All these recommendations were derived from: EPPO Standards PM 1/2 (EPPO A1 and A2 Lists) and the former EPPO Standards PM 2 (pest‐specific phytosanitary measures), or Pest Risk Analysis (PRA) carried out or reviewed by EPPO, or the Working Party on Phytosanitary Regulations. For wood packaging material, recommendations are based on ISPM 15 Regulation of wood packaging material in international trade.Specific approval and amendmentFirst approved in September 2017‐09.

The article notes that after signing the Association Agreement and launching free trade area between Ukraine and the EU, a new stage in the development of Ukrainian food law has begun. It is characterized by the increased impact of European Union law on the legal regulation of this sphere. The provisions of Chapter 4 “Sanitary and phytosanitary measures” of the basic for the FTA Ukraine-EU Title IV of the Association Agreement ”Trade and Trade-related Matters”, which serve as a legal basis for harmonization of Ukrainian legislation with EU food legislation were analyzed. The ways of Ukrainian food law development are proved to be determined by the Strategy for the implementation of Chapter IV, Section 4 of the Association Agreement. The measures envisaged by the Strategy covering almost all areas of public health, animal health and phytosanitary regulations have been analyzed. The European food and phytosanitary law is found out to cover the territory of Ukraine as a result of the implementation of measures provided for in the Association Agreement and the above Strategy. It was emphasized that the scale of the obligations undertaken by Ukraine to harmonize the food legislation requires prompt and qualified organizational work by the Ukrainian competent authorities.

Specific scopeThe purpose of the EPPO Standard on Populus is to recommend to EPPO Member Governments the phytosanitary measures which they should use or require for Populus plants and plant products moving in international trade to prevent the introduction and spread of quarantine pests. Some of these recommendations are addressed to all EPPO Member Governments, others are addressed only to countries considered to face a certain level of risk from the introduction and spread of the regulated pests concerned. All these recommendations were derived from: EPPO Standards PM 1/2 (EPPO A1 and A2 Lists) and the former EPPO Standards PM 2 (pest‐specific phytosanitary measures), or Pest Risk Analysis (PRA) carried out or reviewed by EPPO, or the Working Party on Phytosanitary Regulations. For wood packaging material, recommendations are based on ISPM 15 Regulation of wood packaging material in international trade.Specific approval and amendmentFirst approved in 2017‐09.

Specific scopeThe purpose of the EPPO Standard on Tilia is to recommend to EPPO Member Governments the phytosanitary measures which they should use or require for Tilia plants and plant products moving in international trade to prevent the introduction and spread of quarantine pests of Tilia and other host plants through these pathways. Some of these recommendations are addressed to all EPPO Member Governments, others are addressed only to countries considered to face a certain level of risk from the introduction and spread of the regulated pests concerned. All these recommendations were derived from: EPPO Standards PM 1/2 (EPPO A1 and A2 lists) and the former EPPO Standards PM 2 (pest‐specific phytosanitary measures), or Pest Risk Analysis (PRA) carried out or reviewed by EPPO, or The Panel on Quarantine Pests for Forestry The Working Party on Phytosanitary Regulations. This Standard covers phytosanitary import requirements that the importing country is recommended to require for imported consignments. Measures that may be used in the importing countries such as post‐entry quarantine (which is sometimes an option recommended in PRAs), raising public awareness, and pest control and suppression are out of scope of this Standard. Post‐entry quarantine is primarily used in the EPPO region as a derogation when import phytosanitary requirements are not met.For wood packaging material, recommendations are based on ISPM 15 Regulation of wood packaging material in international trade.Specific approval and amendmentFirst approved in September 2021–09.

Specific scopeThe purpose of the EPPO Standard on Betula is to recommend to EPPO Member Governments the phytosanitary measures which they should use or require for Betula plants and plant products moving in international trade to prevent the introduction and spread of quarantine pests. Some of these recommendations are addressed to all EPPO Member Governments, others are addressed only to countries considered to face a certain level of risk from the introduction and spread of the regulated pests concerned. All these recommendations were derived from: EPPO Standards PM 1/2 (EPPO A1 and A2 Lists) and the former EPPO Standards PM 2 (pest‐specific phytosanitary measures), or Pest Risk Analysis (PRA) carried out or reviewed by EPPO, or the Working Party on Phytosanitary Regulations. For wood packaging material, recommendations are based on ISPM 15 Regulation of wood packaging material in international trade.Specific approval and amendmentFirst approved in 2017‐09.

Pepino mosaic virus (PepMV) (genus Potexvirus) is a highly infectious virus that is responsible for significant losses in yield of tomato fruit (Solanum lycopersicum) across Europe, Asia, and the Americas in the last decade (1). During the winter growing season of 2008, uneven discoloration of tomato fruit from farms in Limpopo Province, South Africa, was detected at the Pretoria fresh produce market. Twenty fruit were randomly selected from five different suppliers in this region and the 100 samples were batched into subsamples of five fruit. Leaves with suspect mosaic and bubbling symptoms were also detected from farms in Limpopo and were thus sampled. Leaf and fruit samples were tested by double antibody-sandwich (DAS)-ELISA (2) using polyclonal antibodies against PepMV (Agdia, Elkhart, IN) combined with appropriate positive and negative controls. Fruit samples from two of the suppliers, and all leaf samples tested, reacted strongly with PepMV antibodies. Inoculum was prepared from pooled DAS-ELISA-positive leaf samples and inoculated onto 10, 4-week-old, susceptible S. lycopersicum cv. Rooikhaki seedlings. After 3 weeks, all inoculated plants had developed characteristic PepMV symptoms (2) including leaf bubbling, distortion, and curled leaves. Older leaves developed yellow spots and light/dark green leaf mosaic while apical regions were stunted and branches were distorted to form 'nettle-head' symptoms. Fruit surfaces were marbled or displayed flaming and uneven discoloration. Leaves from symptomatic plants were sampled for confirmation of PepMV infection by DAS-ELISA and all samples reacted positively with PepMV antibodies. Total RNA was extracted from 500-μg replicates of pooled leaf samples from infected plants with the RNeasy Plant Mini Kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany), and amplified by conventional two-step reverse-transcription-PCR using a PepMV-specific primer set: Ker 1 (2) and PepCP-R (4) for a 986-bp region, including the coat protein, of the PepMV genome. PCR products were cloned into pTZ57R/T vector (Fermentas, Vilnius, Lithuania [UAB]) and six clones were purified and sequenced using universal M13 primers (3). Phylogenetic analysis clustered the sequence with EU (European), LP (Peruvian), US1 (United States)/CH1 (Chilean) and US2/CH2 PepMV isolates. The PepMV isolate accessions for US2/CH2 (AY509927, FJ612601, EF408821, FJ212288, and DQ000985) were identified as the closest relatives based on 98 to 99% nucleotide similarity obtained using BLASTN. The coat protein sequence of the South African isolate was submitted to GenBank (Accession No. HQ872607). To our knowledge, this is the first confirmed report of PepMV in South Africa. Further studies are necessary to determine its incidence and spread in this country. The presence of PepMV signals the urgent need for adoption of appropriate phytosanitary measures to restrict the spread and impact of this virus.

Sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) regulations can act as nontariff barriers, and as such have long been of concern to the international trading community. Until 1995 the provisions of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade had little impact on SPS measures, despite an Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade negotiated during the Tokyo Round. With the conclusion of the Marrakesh Accords, the new Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures and a more potent Dispute Settlements procedure, mean that SPS measures are now more tightly regulated. This paper examines the Agreement, its modus operandi, and its dependence upon the activities of the international standards setting bodies such as Codex Alimentarius. It outlines some of the problems that have been identified by the WTO signatories, and considers the likely outcome of the current review. [Econ-Lit citations: K330, L660, Q170] © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

The rise in international trade in recent decades has been accompanied by an increase in the movement of wood packaging materials (WPMs). Recognizing the associated threat of cross-border pest movement, the Commission on Phytosanitary Measures, the governing body of the International Plant Protection Convention, adopted the International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures No. 15 (ISPM 15; guidelines for regulating WPM in international trade) for the treatment of WPMs. The objective of this article is to raise awareness on the challenges four sub-Saharan countries—Botswana, Cameroon, Kenya, and Mozambique—are facing when it comes to implementation. During extensive fieldwork, we conducted interviews with key stakeholders to understand their role in the setup and implementation of the standard as well as their perceptions on relevant challenges. Addressing these challenges is vital for achieving compliance and removing associated institutional and economic barriers. The article can assist policy-makers and academics to design future policies that tackle implementation problems, especially in the context of developing countries.