1
The International Plant Protection Convention and invasive alien species

Ralf Lopian

Chairman of the Interim Commission on Phytosanitary Measures of the International Plant Protection Convention; Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of Finland, P.O. Box 30, FIN-00023 Government, Helsinki, Finland; e-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which was adopted in 1992, incorporates provisions regarding those alien species which threaten ecosystems, habitats or species. The International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), which has existed since the 1950s, aims to prevent the introduction and spread of plant pests. National plant protection services and the governing body of the IPPC, the Interim Commission on Phytosanitary Measures (ICPM), recognized that the aim of the CBD to prevent the introduction of alien species corresponds in large measure to the aim of the IPPC. Since 1999, the ICPM has been actively engaged in clarifying its role in regard to invasive alien species that are plant pests. In 2001, it determined that such species should be considered quarantine pests and should be subjected to measures according to IPPC provisions. The ICPM also decided that IPPC standards should be reviewed to ensure that they adequately address environmental risks of plant pests. In 2003, the ICPM adopted supplements to two of the international standards for phytosanitary measures (namely Glossary of phytosanitary terms and Pest risk analysis for quarantine pests). These supplements elaborated on environmental considerations. To avoid conflicting developments within the IPPC and the CBD regarding invasive alien species and plant pests, the secretariats of the two conventions have established a Memorandum of Cooperation and developed a joint work plan as was called for by the Conference of Parties to the CBD at its seventh meeting. In 2002, the Conference of Parties to the CBD formalized a set of guiding principles on alien species that threaten ecosystems, habitats or species. A comparison between these guiding principles and provisions of the IPPC shows strong correspondence and considerable overlap. This paper discusses the need for closer cooperation between environmental and phytosanitary authorities on a national and international level as well as future activities in regard to invasive alien species.

Introduction

The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), commonly known as the “Earth Summit”, was held in Rio de Janeiro in June 1992. One of the major results of the summit was the signature of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). The three main objectives of the CBD (namely the conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its components and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits from the use of genetic resources) aim to maintain the world’s environmental conditions in the face of its economic development.

Of the many detailed provisions in the CBD, one was of particular relevance to the international plant health community. Article 8(h) requires contracting parties to prevent the introduction of, control or eradicate those alien species which threaten ecosystems, habitats or species. During subsequent years, under guidance from its Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA), the CBD provided further advice on Article impacts of alien species that threaten ecosystems, habitats or species (CBD, 2002)^[1]. These guiding principles were designed to assist all governments and organizations in developing effective strategies to minimize the spread and impact of invasive alien species.

The activities of the CBD in relation to alien species correspond to a certain degree with those carried out by the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) in relation to pests of plants and plant products (see box). The IPPC is a multilateral treaty that was deposited with the Director-General of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) in 1951, came into force in 1952, and was amended in 1979 and 1997 (FAO, 1997). Although the latest revision is not yet in force, its acceptance is imminent and countries have agreed to start implementation. The IPPC is designed to promote international cooperation in controlling pests of plants and plant products and in preventing their international spread, and especially their introduction into endangered areas.

Both the CBD and the IPPC are instruments established to protect certain conditions. On the one hand, the CBD aims to conserve biological diversity and, in the specific case of invasive alien species, to protect ecosystems, habitats or species. The IPPC, on the other hand, seeks to protect plants and plant products. The scope of the IPPC is not limited to the protection of agricultural plants, but covers all plants. Given that plants constitute a considerable and intricate part of our biological environment, it must be concluded that the IPPC’s aim conforms, although on a smaller scale, to that of the CBD in relation to invasive alien species. Both conventions aim to address relatively similar problems.

The remainder of this paper discusses the relationship between invasive alien species and quarantine pests as well as the activities of the IPPC in relation to invasive alien species. The relationship between the CBD’s guiding principles on invasive alien species and the IPPC and its international standards for phytosanitary measures (ISPMs) is highlighted. The paper concludes by discussing how the CBD, the IPPC and national governments may proceed in furthering the implementation of both conventions.

Relationship between invasive alien species and quarantine pests

The parameters for analysing the relationship between invasive alien species and quarantine pests are the agreed or official definitions of both conventions. The CBD defines an alien species as “a species, subspecies or lower taxon, introduced outside its natural past or present distribution; includes any part, gametes, seeds, eggs, or propagules of such species that might survive and subsequently reproduce” and further prescribes that an invasive alien species is “an alien species whose introduction and/or spread threaten biological diversity” (annex footnote 57, CBD, 2002). The IPPC, on the other hand, defines a [plant] pest as “any species, strain or biotype of plant, animal or pathogenic agent injurious to plants or plant products” and a quarantine pest as “a pest of potential economic importance to the area endangered thereby and not yet present there, or present but not widely distributed and being officially controlled” (FAO, 1997).

The IPPC definition of a quarantine pest covers much, but not all, of what is considered as an invasive alien species under the CBD. Both definitions cover any organism that is injurious to plants and that has an environmental impact (threatens biological diversity). Both definitions prescribe in different words that the environmental impact results from the organism’s introduction and/or spread. It can be argued that most quarantine pests are invasive alien species and that those invasive alien species which are directly or indirectly injurious to plants are quarantine pests.

One marked difference between the definitions is that quarantine pests do not necessarily threaten biological diversity. For example, they may affect only agricultural or horticultural plants that are alien species in their own right.

Overlapping mandates of international and regional organizations

The relationship between the CBD and the IPPC in relation to invasive alien species not only results in a partial overlap of the mandates of both conventions, but also draws several other international organizations into the picture (see figure 1). First and most important, the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement) of the World Trade Organization (WTO) plays a prominent role. The SPS Agreement lays down trade-related rules concerning sanitary and phytosanitary measures. The basic aim of the SPS Agreement is to prevent countries from establishing arbitrary and unjust trade barriers by having unjustified import restrictions. Article 3 of the SPS Agreement lays down that “Sanitary or phytosanitary measures which conform to international standards, guidelines or recommendations shall be deemed to be necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health, and presumed to be consistent with the relevant provisions of this Agreement...” (WTO, 1994). In order to establish which measures are necessary, the SPS Agreement relies on the work of three international standard-setting organizations in the fields of food safety, animal health and plant health. The IPPC has been designated in the SPS Agreement as the relevant international organization for the plant health field. This leads to the situation where trade-related rules for those plant pests which are also invasive alien species have to comply also with the SPS Agreement. In such instances, countries that establish phytosanitary import requirements would have to comply not only with IPPC and CBD provisions but also with the basic rules of the SPS Agreement. This overlap would also mean that the three international organizations need to cooperate to avoid any discrepancy between the provisions of the three agreements.

Fig. 1: Overlapping mandates of international and regional organizations.
(Note: Definitions of CBD, IPPC, RPPOs and SPS in accompanying text.)

Regional plant protection organizations (RPPOs) may also be drawn into the international framework dealing with invasive alien species that are plant pests. According to Article IX of the IPPC, RPPOs function as the coordinating bodies in the geographical areas covered and participate in various activities to achieve the objectives of the IPPC. Consequently, RPPOs may be active in relation to invasive alien species. For example, the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO) has initiated an extensive work programme in this area (see www.eppo.org).

IPPC activities in relation to invasive alien species

The governing body of the IPPC, the Interim Commission on Phytosanitary Measures (ICPM), addressed the topic of biosafety at its second meeting (ICPM 2) in 1999. It concluded that the concept of invasive alien species had considerable implications for the IPPC and that coordination between government authorities at a national and international level was necessary to avoid conflicting views in different fora (FAO, 1999). As a result of these discussions, ICPM 2 created an informal open-ended working group to consider issues regarding GMOs, biosafety and invasive alien species. This group met in 2000 and, based on its recommendations, ICPM 3 decided in 2001 that:

• Species that may be invasive and that directly or indirectly affect plants or plant products should be assessed, monitored and managed, if necessary, according to IPPC provisions.

• Invasive alien species that are plant pests and that are absent from an area (or if present, are of limited distribution and under official control) should be considered quarantine pests and should be subjected to measures according to IPPC provisions.

• Implementation of the IPPC is directly relevant to implementation of Article 8(h) of the CBD.

• Many provisions and standards of the IPPC are directly relevant to, or overlap with, the (then interim) guiding principles of the CBD.

• Standards should be reviewed to ensure that they adequately address environmental risks of plant pests.

• A supplement to ISPM 11: Pest risk analysis for quarantine pests should be developed to address in detail the environmental risks of plant pests (FAO 2001).

ICPM 3 also decided that the IPPC Secretariat should cooperate with the CBD on matters related to invasive alien species. The IPPC Secretariat was asked to seek observer status for the IPPC with the CBD, to attend relevant meetings of the CBD and invite the CBD to attend relevant IPPC meetings. To avoid conflicting developments in different international organizations, ICPM 3 charged the IPPC Secretariat to cooperate with other standard-setting bodies to ensure that common areas of interest would be adequately covered.

The decisions of ICPM 3 on invasive alien species have continued to occupy the activities of the organization. In 2003, ICPM 5 adopted two ISPMs with direct relevance to invasive alien species and the protection of the environment:

· a supplement to ISPM 5: Glossary of phytosanitary terms. Supplement no. 2: Guidelines on the understanding of potential economic importance and related terms including reference to environmental considerations (FAO, 2003)

· a supplement to ISPM 11 [2001]: Pest risk analysis for quarantine pests. Supplement: Analysis of environmental risks (FAO, 2003).

At times the IPPC has been misinterpreted as referring to the protection only of cultivated plants. This misinterpretation may have arisen partly because the definition of a quarantine pest provides that only those pests which potentially cause economic damage may qualify as quarantine pests. The adopted guideline on the understanding of the term “potential economic importance” clarifies that the IPPC can account for environmental concerns in economic terms using monetary or non-monetary values and that market impacts are not the sole indicator of pest consequences. The clarification offered by the 2003 supplement to ISPM 5 assures that the scope of the IPPC covers the protection of cultivated plants in agriculture (including horticulture or forestry), uncultivated and unmanaged plants, wild flora, habitats and ecosystems.

The supplement to ISPM 11 is a technical standard intended to provide details regarding the analysis of risks of plant pests to the environment and biological diversity, including those risks affecting uncultivated/unmanaged plants, wild flora, habitats and ecosystems contained in the pest risk analysis (PRA) area.

In addition to these amendments to standards, the cooperation between the IPPC Secretariat and the CBD has developed. A Memorandum of Cooperation between FAO and the Secretariat of the CBD on cooperation between the secretariats of the IPPC and the CBD aims to promote synergy, to avoid overlaps and unnecessary duplication as well as to ensure effective cooperation in joint activities. A joint work plan has been developed as was called for by the seventh meeting of the Conference of Parties to the CBD (CBD, 2004).

The CBD’s guiding principles on invasive alien species and the IPPC

Comparing the aim and scope of the CBD and the IPPC reveals numerous overlapping elements. ICPM 3 noted that many provisions and standards of the IPPC are directly relevant to, or overlap with, the provisions of the (then interim) guiding principles of the CBD (Appendix XIII, FAO, 2001):

“Relevant areas include:

- providing legal and regulatory frameworks;

- building capacity and technical assistance for developing countries;

- assessing and managing potential plant pest risks;

- protecting areas that may be threatened by plant pests;

- applying measures to prevent unintentional introduction of plant pests;

- certifying that risk management procedures have been applied;

- assessing and managing the intentional introduction of organisms that may be pests of plants including claimed beneficial and biological control organisms;

- exchanging of scientific and regulatory information relevant to plant pests;

- cooperating between countries to minimize the impact of plant pests; and

- detecting, controlling, and eradicating pests in agricultural and wild flora.”

In 2002, the sixth Conference of the Parties (COP) to the CBD adopted the guiding principles as non-binding recommendations intended to provide all governments and organizations with guidance for developing effective strategies to minimize the spread and impact of invasive alien species (CBD, 2002; refer also footnote on page 7). A detailed comparison (see also table 1) between the recommendations made in the 15 guiding principles on invasive alien species and the IPPC provisions and its ISPMs may further clarify the relationship between invasive alien species and plant pests and the work of the IPPC and CBD.

Guiding principle 1: Precautionary approach

The precautionary approach in principle 1 refers to the Rio Declaration and the preamble of the CBD, which lays down that “... where there is a threat of significant reduction or loss of biological diversity, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to avoid or minimize such a threat”.

The IPPC does not have a similar provision. Indeed, its Article VII.2a specifies that phytosanitary measures shall not be taken without technical justification, which is understood to be a pest risk analysis. This apparent contradiction between the two conventions, however, becomes less evident on closer inspection. The use of the terms “significant reduction” and “lack of full scientific certainty” in the CBD’s precautionary approach seems to imply that certain knowledge should be available. On the other hand, it is also understood by the IPPC that the availability of full scientific evidence is not always possible. ISPM 11 makes provision for uncertainties in the PRA process.

Guiding principle 2: Three-stage hierarchical approach

A three-stage hierarchical approach to minimize the risk and spread of invasive alien species gives preference to the prevention of their introduction. In the event of an introduction, early detection and rapid action (e.g. eradication) are recommended. If this fails, the third stage is containment and control.

The approach can be considered as the underlying principle in phytosanitary policy. For decades, governments have operated their phytosanitary policy on the principle of preventing the introduction of quarantine pests, and if this fails, eradicating or containing them. This is also reflected in many provisions of the IPPC, although a detailed hierarchical approach is not explicitly specified.

Guiding principle 3: Ecosystem approach

Principle 3 recommends that measures to deal with invasive alien species should, as appropriate, be based on the ecosystem approach. This approach may be described as a strategy to protect complex and dynamic plant, animal and micro-organism communities and their non-living environment, which together interact as functional units, through integrated management of land, water and living resources (CBD, 2000).

Table 1: Relationship between the CBD’s guiding principles and the IPPC and its standards.

Note: Text of the CBD’s guiding principles is available at www.biodiv.org. Appendix 1 presents a list of ISPMs. Texts of these and the IPPC are available at www.ippc.int.

Definitions of CBD, IPPC and ISPM in accompanying text.

The fact that the IPPC is a convention deposited with an agricultural organization (FAO) and that countries have mostly regulated pests of agricultural and horticultural crops has led to the perception in the environmental community that the IPPC does not address environmental concerns. As described earlier, in 2003, the ICPM developed and adopted two supplement ISPMs to give guidance to countries on how to address environmental concerns. Of these, the supplement to ISPM 11 deals explicitly with the analysis of environmental risks and incorporates the ecosystem approach into the standard on pest risk analysis for quarantine pests.

Guiding principle 4: The role of states

This guiding principle calls for states to recognize that activities within their jurisdiction or under their control, such as intentional and unintentional introductions, may pose risks to other states. Guiding principle 4 stipulates that states should take actions to minimize the spread and impact of invasive alien species. This would include the identification of invasive alien species or species that could become invasive as well as providing information on such species to other states.

The IPPC recognizes the role of states in combating plant pests. In fact, the IPPC goes further by requesting the establishment of adequate structures in states. Especially Article IV of the IPPC lays down general provisions for the organizational arrangements for national plant protection, such as the establishment of an official national plant protection organization (NPPO) and its functions in each state. Several ISPMs give guidance on the role of states in their actions to minimize risks. ISPM 3: Code of conduct for the import and release of exotic biological control agents is important in relation to the intentional introduction of organisms, and ISPM 6: Guidelines for surveillance and ISPM 19: Guidelines on lists of regulated pests to the identification, surveillance and listing of pests, while ISPM 17: Pest reporting describes responsibilities of states in reporting the occurrence, outbreak and spread of pests.

Guiding principle 5: Research and monitoring

This guiding principle states that it is important for states to conduct research on and monitoring of invasive alien species in order to increase the knowledge about such species and their status in the country.

The IPPC also specifically addresses research and monitoring. Article IV.2b of the IPPC attributes the surveillance of cultivated plants and wild flora to the responsibilities of NPPOs. Article IV.3b prescribes that each state shall make provisions concerning research and investigations in plant protection. Practical guidance in relation to monitoring is provided in ISPM 6: Guidelines for surveillance and ISPM 8: Determination of pest status in an area.

Guiding principle 6: Education and public awareness

Guiding principle 6 attributes importance to public awareness in the management of invasive alien species. It recommends that states should promote education and public awareness of the causes of invasion and the risks associated with the introduction of alien species. In cases of mitigation measures, such as control or containment programmes, this should be done in a way to involve local communities and appropriate interest groups.

The IPPC does not have similar provisions. It partly covers the provisions in Article IV.3a, which prescribes that states should make provisions for the distribution of information within their territory. Public awareness initiatives, however, are carried out by many NPPOs as a regular and useful tool in preventing the introduction of pests or in involving the public in specific surveillance programmes.

Guiding principle 7: Border control and quarantine measures

This guiding principle recommends that states should implement border controls and quarantine measures to minimize the risks of introduction of alien species that are or could become invasive. The quarantine measures should be based on risk assessment, and existing appropriate government bodies should be strengthened as necessary to implement the measures.

Provisions concerning quarantine measures and border control are the main substance of the IPPC. In particular, Articles V and VII deal with phytosanitary certification and requirements in relation to imports, respectively. Several ISPMs provide practical guidance in relation to border controls and quarantine measures. The most important are: ISPM 1: Principles of plant quarantine as related to international trade, ISPM 7: Export certification system, ISPM 12: Guidelines for phytosanitary certificates, ISPM 13: Guidelines for the notification of non-compliance and emergency action and ISPM 14: The use of integrated measures in a systems approach for pest risk management.

Guiding principle 8: Exchange of information

Provisions regarding information exchange on alien species are laid down in principle 8. It recommends the development of information systems in regard to relevant biological information on alien species as well as the dissemination of information. Information on import requirements for alien species should be made available to other states.

Perhaps one of the most important differences between principle 8 and the IPPC provisions is that many of the IPPC provisions on information exchange are obligatory to contracting parties. Article VIII specifies that contracting parties shall cooperate in the exchange of information on plant pests and that they shall designate an official contact point through which the information exchange is facilitated. Several articles of the IPPC specify which type of information contracting parties are obliged to exchange and with whom. The IPPC Secretariat has put into operation the International Phytosanitary Portal, an Internet-based information system and network, which facilitates international information exchange. Several ISPMs also provide guidance on information exchange, especially ISPM 17: Pest reporting, which describes detailed reporting responsibilities. Other ISPMs dealing partially with information exchange are ISPM 1: Principles of plant quarantine as related to international trade, ISPM 6: Guidelines for surveillance, ISPM 8: Determination of pest status in an area, ISPM 13: Guidelines for the notification of non-compliance and emergency action and ISPM 19: Guidelines on lists of regulated pests.

Guiding principle 9: Cooperation, including capacity building

This guiding principle points out that a state’s response to minimizing the spread and impact of invasive alien species not only may be applied internally within the country but also may require a bilateral or multilateral approach with other countries. Cooperative efforts may include the development of programmes to share information and the establishment of bilateral or multilateral agreements to regulate trade in certain alien species, as well as cooperation in research and its funding. Capacity-building programmes for states that lack expertise and resources are advocated. Such programmes may involve technology transfer and the development of training programmes.

The IPPC also calls for cooperation and capacity building to achieve its aims. Multilateral cooperation is especially advocated in Articles VIII and IX of the IPPC. Capacity building has an especially high profile in the IPPC. In Article XX, contracting parties agree to promote technical assistance to facilitate implementation of the convention. This is reflected in the work of the IPPC Secretariat which devotes considerable resources to technical assistance. The development and practical application of the Phytosanitary Capacity Evaluation (PCE) module, a tool to evaluate the phytosanitary capacity of countries, has increased considerably the understanding of technical needs of developing countries.

Guiding principle 10: Intentional introduction

Guiding principle 10 provides recommendations regarding the intentional introduction of alien species into countries or into new ecological areas within a country. The principle recommends that such intentional introductions should take place only after they have been evaluated and authorized. A risk assessment should be part of the evaluation and the authorization should be based on the precautionary principle. Furthermore, principle 10 recommends that the burden of proof that a proposed introduction is unlikely to threaten biological diversity should be with the proponent of the introduction or be assigned as appropriate by the recipient state.

The IPPC covers requirements in relation to imports especially in Article VII. Specifically, Article VII.5 addresses the intentional import of pests and regulated articles for research, education or specific use. In cases of intentional import, special and adequate safeguards should be established to prevent the “escape” of the pest. Particularly relevant to the intentional introduction of alien species, ISPM 3: Code of conduct for the import and release of biological control agents describes the responsibilities of authorities of governments, importers and exporters in relation to the importation of exotic biological control agents capable of multiplication. Other IPPC standards relevant to this guiding principle are ISPM 1: Principles of plant quarantine as related to international trade, ISPM 2: Pest risk analysis and ISPM 11 [2004]: Pest risk analysis for quarantine pests, including analysis of environmental risks and living modified organisms.

Guiding principle 11: Unintentional introduction

This guiding principle recommends that every state should have in place provisions to prevent unintentional introductions of invasive alien species. Such provisions could incorporate legislative measures and the establishment or strengthening of institutions. Guiding principle 11 also mentions the most common pathways for unintentional introductions, such as agriculture, forestry, shipping or tourism. It recommends that environmental impact assessments of such activities should consider unintentional introductions of invasive alien species and that risk assessments should be carried out for these pathways, where appropriate.

Unintentional introductions are probably the most common problem in the phytosanitary field. The IPPC addresses in several of its articles the provisions recommended in the guiding principle 11. Most relevant is Article VII with its requirements in relation to imports. ISPMs of relevance to guiding principle 11 are ISPM 1: Principles of plant quarantine as related to international trade, ISPM 2: Pest risk analysis, ISPM 11 [2004]: Pest risk analysis for quarantine pests, including analysis of environmental risks and living modified organisms and ISPM 14: The use of integrated measures in a systems approach for pest risk management.

Guiding principle 12: Mitigation of impacts

Guiding principle 12 (as well as the three following guiding principles) deals with the mitigation of impacts once the establishment of an invasive alien species has been detected. Mitigation measures, which should be initiated at the earliest possible date, may be eradication, containment or control programmes that are safe to humans, the environment and agriculture, as well as ethically acceptable to stakeholders. Principle 12 also recommends that, consistent with national policy or legislation, an individual or entity responsible for the introduction of invasive alien species should bear the costs of control measures and biological diversity restoration where their failure to comply with the national laws and regulations is established.

The IPPC does not go into detail of what should happen if a quarantine pest has been introduced into a country. Article I specifies that one of the purposes of the IPPC is to promote appropriate measures to control pests. It is, however, common practice for countries to implement mitigation measures once a pest has been detected. In relation to the safety of the mitigation measures and their ethical acceptability to stakeholders, the IPPC has no provisions equivalent to those of the CBD’s guiding principles on invasive alien species. Also the “polluter pays” principle as laid down in principle 12 is not reflected in the IPPC or any of its standards.

Guiding principle 13: Eradication

This guiding principle recommends dealing with the introduction and establishment of invasive alien species by eradication, where feasible. Eradication is best carried out in the early stages of an invasion, and community support is often essential for the success of an eradication campaign.

The eradication of pests is implied in Article I of the IPPC. More detailed provisions concerning the establishment of pest eradication programmes are provided in ISPM 9: Guidelines for pest eradication programmes, which specifies administrative and technical components of such programmes.

Guiding principle 14: Containment

Guiding principle 14 suggests that containment, or limiting the spread, of alien invasive species may be an appropriate strategy where eradication is not feasible.

As in the case of eradication, the containment of pests is implied in Article I of the IPPC. Several ISPMs provide partial guidance on limiting the spread of pests. These are ISPM 4: Requirements for the establishment of pest free areas, ISPM 9: Guidelines for pest eradication programmes and ISPM 10: Requirements for the establishment of pest free places of production and pest free production sites.

Guiding principle 15: Control

In cases where eradication and/or containment has failed, control measures are the last step in efforts to minimize the impact of alien invasive species. Guiding principle 15 recommends that control measures focus on reducing the damage caused by invasive alien species as well as reducing their number. This principle highlights the use of integrated management measures.

Article I of the IPPC defines that promoting appropriate measures for the control of pests is one of the purposes of the convention. Practical guidance on the control of pests through integrated measures is given in ISPM 14: The use of integrated measures in a systems approach for pest risk management, although this standard is focused on the development of pest risk management options for the import of plants and plant products.

Discussion

As presented above, there are considerable overlaps in the work of the CBD on invasive alien species and the IPPC activities in regard to plant pests. To avoid inconsistencies and duplication of effort and to achieve effective action, we should consider the following questions:

• How can plant health authorities assist environmental authorities in realizing their objectives?
• How should national and international environmental and phytosanitary bodies cooperate in future in dealing with invasive alien species?
• What are important future activities in the field of invasive alien species?

These issues are discussed below.

The role of phytosanitary authorities in the work on invasive alien species

For almost 100 years, phytosanitary authorities worldwide have carried out the important task of preventing the introduction of quarantine pests. An efficient infrastructure (such as border controls, national surveillance programmes, technical and scientific institutions, as well as export-oriented certification programmes) has been established to achieve the tasks of phytosanitary authorities. The long experience of phytosanitary authorities in the assessment and management of biological risks related to the introduction of organisms provides these authorities with the knowledge of how to deal with risks posed by plant pests and invasive alien species that are plant pests.

On a national level, this existing infrastructure and know-how should be utilized by environmental authorities in their efforts to implement the guiding principles of the CBD. Such utilization would have considerable advantages for governments since existing structures and know-how would be used without significant new investments and a duplication of activities would be prevented.

Cooperation between international bodies

The argument for close national cooperation between environmental and phytosanitary authorities also holds true on an international level. To avoid duplication of activities, contradictory approaches and a confusion of competences, the IPPC and the CBD should work closely together in relation to invasive alien species. Such a close cooperation need not be limited to the secretarial levels of both conventions, but may also include joint activities of the relevant governing bodies. This could be achieved either through a declaration by the CBD that the IPPC is a competent authority for the development of technical standards on invasive alien species that are pests of plants, including invasive plants, or through the establishment of a formal inter-organizational working group developing recommendations for invasive alien species.

Improving the cooperation between international organizations should not be limited to the IPPC and the CBD. The SPS Agreement of the WTO should also be included in such a closer collaboration. Measures to prevent the introduction of invasive alien species may, by their nature, be very trade restrictive. A close cooperation between the CBD, the IPPC, the SPS Agreement and possibly other international organizations could certainly help to achieve the objectives of these instruments without restricting trade unnecessarily.

Closer cooperation between international organizations depends on the efforts of national governments because it is ultimately their responsibility to determine the policy of the international organizations to which they belong. A number of countries have not ratified or accepted the CBD and/or the IPPC. If countries wish to influence the policy of these organizations their primary objective should be to ratify them.

CBD matters are administered in many countries by environmental authorities and IPPC-related activities by agricultural authorities. Hence, communication between these authorities in relation to invasive alien species is important. If governments are to address matters related to invasive alien species and plant pests in the CBD and the IPPC in a consistent way, it would be advisable for national coordination strategies to be developed.

Future activities

It is of importance to states that different international agreements partly covering the same substance do not provide contradictory approaches or room for conflicting interpretations. Situations where national governments by implementing the provision of one international agreement may violate the provisions of another should be avoided. Thus it would be advisable if joint activities could be conducted to analyse the guiding principles of the CBD and the IPPC and its standards in order to resolve possible conflicting approaches and to agree on a common understanding and terminology.

The success of the CBD and the IPPC in protecting plants and the environment is very much dependent on the implementation of their provisions by national governments. The prevention of the spread of invasive alien species and plant pests is primarily an international approach in which countries must cooperate to prevent the natural or man-facilitated spread of such organisms. For many developing countries and especially for least-developed countries, however, the protection of the environment may not be located high on their list of national priorities. These countries may need to use their scarce resources to establish basic economic conditions taken for granted in the developed world. Thus the provision of technical assistance for developing countries should be seen as one of the priorities for the CBD and the IPPC to further the implementation of their provisions. A close cooperation between the CBD and the IPPC on technical assistance activities in relation to invasive alien species and plant pests would maximize the use of resources provided for this purpose and utilize FAO’s experience in providing technical assistance.

References

CBD. 2000. Fifth Conference of the Parties, Nairobi, Kenya, 15-26 May 2000: Decision V/6: Ecosystem approach (available at www.biodiv.org).

CBD. 2002. Sixth Conference of the Parties, The Hague, the Netherlands, 7-19 April 2002: Decision VI/23: Alien species that threaten ecosystems, habitats or species to which is annexed Guiding principles for the prevention, introduction and mitigation of impacts of alien species that threaten ecosystems, habitats or species (available at www.biodiv.org).

CBD. 2004. Seventh Conference of the Parties, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 9-20 and 27 February 2004: Decision VII/13: Alien species that threaten ecosystems, habitats or species (Article 8 (h)) (available at www.biodiv.org).

FAO. 1997. Report of the 29th Session of the FAO Conference, Rome, Italy, 7-18 November 1997: Revised International Plant Protection Convention (available at www.ippc.int).

FAO. 1999. Report of the Second Interim Commission on Phytosanitary Measures, Rome, Italy, 4-8 October 1999 (available at www.ippc.int).

FAO. 2001. Report of the Third Interim Commission on Phytosanitary Measures, Rome, Italy, 2-6 April 2001, Appendix XIII: Statements of the ICPM Exploratory Open-ended Working Group on Phytosanitary Aspects of GMOs, Biosafety, and Invasive Species (available at www.ippc.int).

FAO. 2003. Report of the Fifth Interim Commission on Phytosanitary Measures, Rome, Italy, 7-11 April 2003 (available at www.ippc.int).

WTO. 1994. Agreement on the application of sanitary and phytosanitary measures. In: Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization: Annex 1A: Multilateral agreements on trade in goods. Geneva, Switzerland (available at www.wto.org).