Newsletter03-09-English

	Brian Rex Brian has been with the Government of Canada for 25 years. From 1984 until 1996, Brian worked for the Research Branch of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC), leading the potato agronomy program at the Research Centre at Morden, Manitoba. In 1996, he transferred to the Food Production and Inspection Branch (FP&I) of AAFC, as the Regional Program Officer for Plant Health for the Provinces of Saskatchewan, Manitoba and the Northwest portion of the Province of Ontario. In 1997, FP&I was one of four federal inspection bodies which formed the CFIA. Since 1999, Brian has worked as the Grains and Field Crops Specialist (Plant Protection) for Western Canada, acting as a liaison between the Grains and Oilseeds Section in Ottawa, and inspection staff, industry and government stakeholders involved with crop production, import and export of field crop commodities in Western Canada. Return to Index
	Michael Scheffel Michael is currently the National Manager of the Seed Section at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and responsible for variety registration, seed certification, seed quality and labelling standards, including weed seed standards, and stakeholder engagement. After graduating from the University of Guelph in 1980 with a B.Sc. (Agriculture) he worked for a year as a research technician in the Crop Science Department before heading to New Zealand where he completed a Masters of Agricultural Science at Lincoln College. Michael started working for the Seed Division of Agriculture Canada in 1985 and has been with the Agency since its inception in 1997. Michael has represented Canada at the OECD Seed Schemes since 1998 and was its chairperson in 2005-06. Return to Index
	Marcus McElvine Marcus is a 1997 graduate of Alcorn State University where he received a Bachelor of Science degree in Agriculture Economics. In 2001, he received his Masters in Agriculture Business from Tennessee State University in Nashville, TN. Marcus joined the USDA in November 2000 as a Plant Protection and Quarantine Officer at the Port of Blaine, Washington. In October 2003, he relocated to Memphis, TN to undertake a new challenge working out of the FedEx Facility for the Department of Homeland Security as an Agricultural Specialist. In April 2005, Marcus returned to the USDA and relocated to Riverdale, Maryland where he assumed duties on the Phytosanitary Issue Management (PIM) staff as an Export Specialist (areas of coverage included Asia, Australia, New Zealand, and the Middle East). Effective November 2007, he became the Senior Export Specialist on the PIM staff with responsibilities that include developing policies and procedures for the Export Certification Program. Return to Index
	Juan Jose Ornelas Lopez Juan Jose graduated from the Agricultural University Antonio Narro in the city of Saltillo, Coahuila, where he obtained a degree in agriculture with specialization in parasitology in 1991. He started working as an inspector for Phytozoosanitary safety at the port of Coatzacoalcos, Veracruz from 1991-95. Since 1996 he has been a public servant with the Secretariat of Agriculture, Livestock, Rural Development, Fish and Food at the Plant Health General Directorate as Chief of Phytosanitary Harmonization and Workplans Department; Deputy Director for Harmonization and International Evaluation, and his present position as Deputy Director for National Regulation. Mr. Ornelas has worked in issues related to exports, imports and application of phytosanitary treatments; he has been member of the NAPPO Grains and Plants for Planting Panels. He is a member of the FAO expert working group reviewing ISPMs 7 and 12. Return to Index

William Leask

William Leask is the Executive Vice-President of the Canadian Seed Trade Association. He received a Bachelor of Science in Agriculture in 1971 from the University of Guelph, followed by both a Masters and Ph.D. degree in Crop Science. In 1974 he was employed as a Research Associate with responsibilities in plant breeding and production.

He began work in the private sector in 1976, as the Director of Crop Research for Maple Leaf Mills, with responsibility for operating plant breeding programs in corn, soybeans and alfalfa. Two years later, he was promoted to General Manager of the Corn and Soybean Division, and held that position for five years.

In 1983, Bill was appointed to his present position of Executive Vice-President of the Canadian Seed Trade Association (CSTA).

He was born and raised on a family farm near Toronto, Ontario. He currently resides near Ottawa, with his wife Pat and two children.

Return to Index

Richard Dunkle

Ric Dunkle joined the American Seed Trade Association in January 2008 after a 35 year career in State and Federal government. His career began in California in 1973 with the California Department of Food and Agriculture as a field entomologist. Over the span of 7 years he established CDFA’s biological control, pest management, and environmental, monitoring programs. In 1981 he began his career with USDA, serving in the Secretary’s Office of Environmental Quality. In 1983 he transferred to the USDA Agricultural Service where he held positions in research, management, and executive leadership. In 1999 he became Deputy Administrator of APHIS Plant Protection and Quarantine, and member of the NAPPO Executive Committee until his retirement in 2008.

He holds a Bachelor of Science degree and a Ph. D from the University of California, Davis. With ASTA, Ric handles the phytosanitary issues associated with seed movement and coordinates issues related to seed quality, testing and research.

Return to Index

The 9^th Meeting between the regional plant protection organizations of North America (NAPPO) and Europe and the Mediterranean (EPPO) was held from January 20-21, 2009 in Fort de France Martinique. The meeting was attended by 11 European countries (Czech Republic, Denmark, England, France, Germany, Netherlands, Latvia, Poland, Russia, Scotland, Sweden, The European Commission; and the three NAPPO countries (Canada, USA and Mexico).

Mr. Nico van Opstal, Director General of EPPO, welcomed the participants and highlighted the importance of the joint NAPPO-EPPO meetings in exchanging information on phytosanitary issues of common interest and in seeking opportunities for further collaboration.

Mr. Van Opstal presented a summary report of EPPO activities. The number of EPPO member states stands now at 50 which bring a broad diversity of phytosanitary issues to EPPO. Pest risk analysis continues to be a strategic focus of EPPO work and information on PRAs is available on the EPPO website. A workshop on improving tools for PRAs will be organized in 2009 as well as a workshop on eradication, containment and contingency planning. EPPO also invests significant efforts in the preparation and harmonization of diagnostic and treatment protocols. A database of experts on diagnostic tools is available on EPPO’s website, currently with 120 names.

Mr. Ian McDonell, Executive Director of NAPPO, presented a summary of NAPPO activities. Among other relevant issues, he mentioned that the Seed Panel was revived due to a request from the Seed Association of the Americas to NAPPO and COSAVE. Re-export of seeds is one of the main issues that the panel will be addressing. Mr. McDonell mentioned that this year NAPPO Symposium will be on “Living Modified Organisms (LMOs) and Plant Health” and will include among other topics: pest risk analysis of LMOs and LMOs as tools for plant protection. In addition, a workshop on citrus quarantine pests including huanglongbing (HLB), citrus canker and leprosis will be held July 27 to 31 in Villahermosa, Tabasco, Mexico.

Possible NAPPO-EPPO subjects of collaboration are: 1) Collaborate in the preparation of ISPMs that are priorities such as the one on international movement of grain and 2) Collaborate in the preparation of diagnostic and treatment protocols.

After the harsh winters in Europe and North America it was nice to enjoy a field trip to learn about the invitro pest free banana production and the production of beautiful tropical flowers grown in semi-natural conditions.

By: Walther Enkerlin, NAPPO

Return to Index

Over the past several years, the United States Department of Agriculture, Animal Plant Health Inspection Service’s Plant Protection and Quarantine Program (APHIS PPQ) has collaborated with members of the National Plant Board (NPB), a non-profit organization of the plant pest regulatory agencies of each of the States and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, to develop guidelines for the recognition of State-level pest control and exclusion activities as equivalent to Federal official control. APHIS PPQ began exploring this issue at the request of States wishing to have certain State plant pest control or eradication programs recognized at the Federal level as official control programs. Working together with the NPB, APHIS PPQ continues to take into account the concerns of the States as the program is developed. International vetting of program concepts has begun as APHIS PPQ attempts to address the needs of its diverse clientele.

APHIS PPQ does not have the resources to regulate all plant pests introduced to and having limited distribution within the United States. Each plant pest pending official control will be evaluated and States will determine if they wish to manage a containment or eradication program for that particular pest. If there is no interest, APHIS PPQ will no longer consider the organism as a quarantine pest and will cease taking action for the pest at U.S. ports of entry. If a State or States wish to manage a program, they must petition for recognition by APHIS PPQ.

To implement a formal Federal recognition program, APHIS PPQ will begin accepting petitions from the States, reviewing the petitions, and making decisions based on established criteria and standards. APHIS PPQ will notify the States of its decision or may work with the States to modify the proposed program, for example, to insure nondiscrimination between actions taken on domestic and international commerce under the program. If APHIS PPQ federally recognizes the State’s program, action will be taken at U.S. ports of entry for such pests destined to the affected State(s). This function is already being performed by taking action on certain pests destined to States with control and eradication programs. This program justifies the action taken on quarantine significant pests at U.S. ports of entry and aligns these actions with the ISPM concept of taking action on pests under official control.

Under the International Plant Protection Convention’s (IPPC) International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPM) No.5, Supplement No.1, a national government or a National Plant Protection Organization (NPPO) should establish or recognize official control under appropriate legislative authority. The national government or the NPPO should perform, manage, supervise, or at minimum audit/review the official control program and ensure its enforcement.

The IPPC definition of official control refers to containment or eradication as the objective of phytosanitary procedures undertaken. The current understanding of the term “containment,” which the IPPC defines as “application of phytosanitary measures in and around an infested area to prevent spread of a pest” is not sufficient. It does not support the requirement that surveillance be conducted in the endangered area when the endangered area exists in a State other than where the pest is being contained or eradicated. In order to regulate interstate commerce and international trade in a non-discriminatory manner, it is necessary to consider phytosanitary actions States undertake to prevent the introduction of regulated pests of limited distribution. In such cases the State is the “endangered area”, the pest is of economic importance and it is not present in the State. APHIS PPQ wants to expand the definition of containment to offer protection to those States that do not have a specified quarantine pest within the State’s borders, are actively controlling the specified quarantine pest through exclusionary measures, and want to be protected from foreign, as well as domestic, introductions.

The application of the concept of “exclusion” when taking regulatory action to contain pests is compatible with the purpose of official control. The pest is contained to areas already affected by the phytosanitary measures taken by States to exclude pests from their endangered areas. The regulated area, as defined by ISPM No 5, is a recognized component of the official control requirement to identify the infested area(s), endangered area(s), and protected area(s). As illustrated in the following case study, “containment” as currently understood will not protect many endangered areas. The alternative application of pest containment will also be presented and contrasted.

In this hypothetical example we will assume that the demand for bougainvillea, a drought-tolerant flowering plant popular in sustainable landscape architecture, has sky-rocketed. There will be increased interest for this plant and the industry will grow significantly in certain parts of the country. The Bougainvillea Mite is currently established in California, outside Santa Barbara. It is host-specific to bougainvillea plants. In this scenario, the State of California has no prominent bougainvillea industry in the affected area, finds no significant economic and/or environmental impact, and chooses not to take any action on this pest. APHIS PPQ has also decided not to regulate Bougainvillea Mite.

Meanwhile, the States of Florida, Texas, and Arizona, who have a thriving industry for these plants, are very concerned that introduction of this pest will devastate their booming bougainvillea industry. Under the strict interpretation of the IPPC definition of containment, since California does not contain or eradicate this mite, there will be no petition. Consequently, APHIS PPQ will deregulate the mite and it will not be actionable if detected at ports of entry. Bougainvillea Mite will enter the United States unrestricted even when destined to Arizona, Texas, and Florida.

Under the strict definition of containment, only the State of California would qualify to have an official control program since that is the only place where a population has been established. Even though Arizona, Texas, and Florida do not want this pest and will take action on interstate shipments from the infested area of California, since California is not containing or eradicating mite populations of its own, the other States do not qualify for official control. No action would be taken if this pest was detected at ports of entry.

Figure - Eriophyid mite (Actual size -- 200 microns)

Under the broader definition of containment, if the State of Arizona is particularly concerned that the Bougainvillea Mite may be introduced there from California, it would approach the NPB, which would inquire of every State if there is an interest in official control for this particular pest. The States of Texas and Florida would express interest and would then collaborate with the sponsoring State of Arizona. The sponsor would collect and submit information required by the protocol listed in the Petition for Official Control Guidelines, which is derived from the IPPC. A petition would include evidence that the pest:

§ Is being contained by actions taken to prevent its introduction into their States, Could become widespread, and could cause economic and/or environmental harm

The collaborating States would agree to place a common set of restrictions on bougainvillea from the State of California so that APHIS PPQ could then take equivalent regulatory action against the mite when it is intercepted at ports of entry and is destined to those States participating in the “Official Control Program for Bougainvillea Mite Sponsored by the State of Arizona.”

The sponsoring State of Arizona would submit the petition to the APHIS PPQ Official Control Program Coordinator, who would forward the petition to the Official Control Advisory Panel (OCAP), which would consist of regulatory and technical experts within APHIS PPQ.

Large Photo of Bougainvillea
Figure 2- Bougainvillea in bloom

The OCAP would evaluate the petition according to criteria based on IPPC requirements. If the petition meets the criteria, APHIS PPQ would issue a Letter of Recognition to the States of Arizona, Texas and Florida. An informational letter would be issued, the program listed on the official control website, which is currently under development, and the Regulated Plant Pest List will be updated for the information of our trading partners.

The States of Arizona, Texas, and Florida would regulate interstate movement of the Bougainvillea Mite under the new program they have designed. Under the “Official Control Program for Bougainvillea Mite Sponsored by the State of Arizona,” APHIS PPQ would make regulatory decisions in a manner equivalent to the States’ agreed upon restrictions for interstate movement for the movement of bougainvillea destined for Arizona, Texas, and Florida that is found to be infested with Bougainvillea Mite at the port of entry. Infested material found at the ports of entry destined to any other State would not be actionable.

As this case study demonstrates, the broadened definition of containment including the concept of exclusion allows States not infested with the pest to participate in an official control program for that pest, even if one or more States infested with that pest do not take action to contain or eradicate it. All States that participate in the official control program can benefit from equivalent actions by APHIS PPQ on infested foreign imports destined to their State. Under the more restrictive interpretation of the definition of official control, where the pest must be contained where it occurs, noninfested States would receive no Federal protection from infested foreign imports unless all infested States (or APHIS PPQ) quarantined the pest wherever it occurred.

Source: Diane L. Schuble, National Coordinator for Official Control Programs, APHIS PPQ

Return to Index

The 32^nd NAPPO Annual Meeting was held last October in the city of Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico. There were over 250 participants from Canada, the United Status, South Africa, Japan, Korea, El Salvador, France, Austria and Mexico.

Mr. Alberto Cardenas Jimenez, Secretariat of Agriculture, Livestock, Rural Development, Fish and Food of Mexico opened the meeting.

Some of the key issues dealt with at the meeting were: the NAPPO independent evaluation, which focused in four main areas: its mission and strategic goals; performance and effectiveness; governance, organizational structure and funding, as well as proposed strategic goals. A wide range of phytosanitary issues of importance for North America were also discussed: results from the first international workshop on Huanglongbing (Candidatus Liberibacter spp.) and Citrus Psyllid (Diaphorina citri), NAPPO Standard on the entry and establishment of the Asian gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar) to North America and the current status of the cactus moth preventive program (Cactoblastis cactorum) where the eradication of a pest outbreak in Mujeres island, Quintana Roo, Mexico was announced.

As part of the Annual Meeting there was a symposium on Irradiation as a post-harvest phytosanitary treatment. The objective was to provide a vision about the scientific, technical and operational aspects of the importance of irradiation to plant products, as well as a forum for government and private sectors to discuss and solve issues and to harmonize criteria.

Needless to say, the 32^nd NAPPO Annual Meeting fulfilled the expectations as a forum for public and private sector in Canada, USA, and Mexico to collaborate on the development of science-based phytosanitary standards to protect agricultural, forestry and other plant resources against regulated plant pests, while facilitating regional and global trade.

Source: Ana Lilia Montealegre and Mario Puente, DGSV-SENASICA

Speech by Mr. Alberto Cardenas Jimenez Secretary of Agriculture for Mexico

Return to Index

First shipment of guava from Mexico to the USA

The first shipment of Mexican grown guavas to the USA was completed on November 21, 2008. The guavas were subjected to a rigorous pest certification program by USDA inspectors and by Saturday November 22 they were crossing the US border. The guavas were certified following specific phytosanitary requirements contained in a bilateral work plan between the USA and Mexico. The guavas were irradiated in Mexico by Sterigenics a USDA certified company.

This is an historical event as Mexico had been trying to export guavas to the USA for many years. With the availability of this postharvest treatment guava export volumes are expected to grow steadily in the coming years. Irradiation as a postharvest phytosanitary treatment is an effective and environmentally clean technology which can be used for disinfestation treatments against a wide range of insect pests and for a wide range of fruit and vegetable commodities.

Return to Index

Announcements

The 2009 International Miconia Conference

"Pulling it all together" will bring together scientists, resource managers, field technicians, and funding agencies to focus on the challenges and successes associated with miconia invasions across the Pacific. The conference will provide opportunities to review current control strategies, learn the status of potential biocontrol agents, discuss outreach and funding strategies, and explore the beautiful East Maui region.

The Maui Invasive Species Committee invites you to join us for what promises to be a stimulating, enjoyable, and unique conference experience May 4-7, 2009 at the remote YMCA Camp in Keanae along the spectacular northeastern coastline of Maui. The early registration deadline is April 1, 2009.

Hosted by: Maui Invasive Species Committee

PO Box 983, Makawao, HI 96768 USA

+1.808.573.6471 www.mauiisc.org

Return to Index

PIAkey: Identification Guide to Invasive Ants of the Pacific Islands (Edition 2.0)

A new Lucid interactive identification resource to Pacific invasive ants

Author: Eli M. Sarnat

CPHST announced the release of its newest identification resource, PIAkey: Identification Guide to Invasive Ants of the Pacific Islands. The Pacific Invasive Ant Key was developed through a collaboration among USDA/APHIS/PPQ – CPHST, University of California – Davis, New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, and the Quadrilateral Scientific Collaboration in Plant Biosecurity in response to the growing threat invasive ants pose to the environment, agriculture, public health and economy of the United States and Pacific Island nations. PIAkey has particular relevance to tropical and subtropical states such as Hawaii, Florida and Texas which are currently under siege from a number of invasive ant species. Additionally, many of the ants included in PIAkeys have been intercepted at ports across the USA.

PIAkey was developed and released in Lucid version 3.4 software. PIAkey can be accessed at: http://www.licidcentral.org/keys/v3/PIAkey

XI International Conference
XXXVI National Conference of the Mexican Plant Pathology Society, A.C. (SMF)

July 19-24, 2009 - Acapulco, Guerrero, Mexico.

Hotel Crowne Plaza Acapulco

Tel: 01 (744) 440 55 55 Fax: 01 (744) 440 55 03

From abroad: 52 (744) 440 55 55 Fax: 52 (744) 440 55 03

E-mail: reservaciones@cpacapulco.com

Reservation code: "XXXVI Congreso Nacional de Fitopatologia" / Email: smfobregon6@hotmail.com

Return to Index

In this Issue	Annual Meeting	Meetings	9th NAPPO/EPPO Meeting
	E-Cert Workshop	SAMs
	Faces of NAPPO
NAPPO Smile	"Little old boy told me the other day you can still make a small fortune in agriculture. Problem is, you got to start with a large one."

March 2009			May 2009
Forestry	March 9-12, 2009 San Antonio, Texas, USA		Accreditation		May 11-14, 2009 Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
Invasive Species			Working Group		July 2009 Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Pest Risk Analysis			Executive Committee		October 19, 2009 Chicago, Illinois, USA
Grains	April 1 & 2, 2009 Quebec City, Quebec, Canada
Executive Committee	March 17 & 18, 2009 Veracruz, Mexico
Annual Meeting Panel	October 18, 2009 Chicago, Illinois, US
Other Meetings
Commission on Phytosanitary Measures (CPM) March 30 -April 3, 2009 Rome, Italy		Inter-American Coordinating Group in Plant Protection March 29, 2009 Rome, Italy		21^stTechnical Consultation of RPPOs September 2009
Return to Index

21st Technical Consultation of RPPOs

21^stTechnical Consultation of RPPOs