Ask an Expert: International Plant Protection Convention

What is the scope and nature of IPPC’s mandate regarding genetically modified plants or crops? What are the potential areas of harmonisation with the ongoing processes in Developing and Implementing National Biosafety Frameworks in relation to obligations to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety?  What are the potential areas of conflict in mandate between the NPPOs and the National Competent Authorities for Biosafety if different institutions are mandated in the country (in most cases between Ministries of Agriculture and Environment)?

The purpose of the IPPC is to secure “common and effective action to prevent the spread and introduction of pests of plants and plant products, and to promote appropriate measures for their control”.  Under the IPPC, “plants” refers to all plants, whether cultivated or wild and “pests” refer to “any species, strain or biotype of plant, animal or pathogenic agent injurious to plants or plant products”.

If a genetically modified plant or crop has the potential to be a “pest” (in IPPC terms)—i.e. has a negative impact on plant health, it would fall within the scope of the IPPC and therefore could be subject to phytosanitary measures.  In addition, the guidance provided in international standards for phytosanitary measures (ISPMs) would apply to assessing and managing risks associated with the GMOs, if they have the potential to be harmful to plant health.

Perhaps an important area for harmonization between the IPPC and the Cartagena Protocol is methodologies for conducting risk analysis.  As mentioned in an earlier post, developing common methods and techniques for risk analysis is a potential area for harmonization. While the information that is analyzed may vary somewhat, the expertise and methods needed to conduct risk analysis does not vary between sectors.

Another area for harmonization, or at least better understanding, is in the development and use of specific terminology.  The IPPC has developed a glossary of phytosanitary terms that are used by countries in their national legislation, and which are also used in ISPMs.  At the same time, the CBD and CP have developed terminology specific to their work.  Note however, that there are many overlapping terms between the various organizations, but the terms have different meanings and applications depending on which organization you deal with. For instance, in the IPPC, the term introduction has one meaning (“the entry of a pest resulting in its establishment”) but in CBD terms, it means something else.

Because regulatory agencies in countries adopt terms used in all of these agreements, this is an area where there could be divergence or conflicts, particularly at the national level. If the national plant protection organization (NPPO) is using specific terms in the IPPC context, and another regulatory agency is using similar terms, but in the CBD context, this could lead to contradictory or inconsistent regulatory frameworks.

Although the potential for conflict exists, it is up to countries to coordinate their national agencies to ensure that they are consistent in their approaches to regulating various types of organisms (whether they are LMOs, IAS, etc.).  Different national agencies should have clear mandates and define their specific areas of competence (whether CBD, CP, IPPC, WTO, etc.); however it is the countries that are responsible for meeting obligations of all the different agreements.  One agency may be responsible for implementing the Cartagena Protocol, another for implementing IPPC, but the country itself is responsible for both.  Thus, at the national level, agencies responsible for implementing these agreements should find ways to coordinate their work. More practically speaking, countries may wish to consider coordinating expertise and resources to ensure a more consistent approach to their regulations.