Phytosanitary Regulations Research Articles

Keefektifan tiga jenis perangkap serangga untuk deteksi serangga hama gudang yang menyerang bungkil kopra

Serangga hama gudang dapat menyebabkan penolakan konsumen dan kerugian ekonomi berkaitan dengan masalah mutu atau persyaratan fitosanitari. Keefektifan perangkap serangga pada komoditas bungkil kopra yang disimpan masih belum banyak diketahui. Penelitian dilakukan untuk menentukan keefektifan tiga jenis perangkap serangga dalam mendeteksi serangga hama gudang pada bungkil kopra. Perangkap serangga yang diuji terdiri atas perangkap jebakan, perangkap colokan, dan perangkap cahaya dari lampu ultraviolet (UV) blacklight dan LED (light emiting diode). Penelitian dilakukan di Laboratorium Entomologi SEAMEO BIOTROP dan dua gudang penyimpanan bungkil kopra (GPBK) di Bitung, Sulawesi Utara. Percobaan di laboratorium menggunakan rancangan acak lengkap faktorial yang terdiri atas dua faktor dan empat ulangan. Faktor pertama adalah jenis perangkap serangga, yaitu perangkap jebakan, perangkap colokan, dan perangkap colokan dengan LED UV dan faktor kedua adalah spesies serangga, yaitu Tribolium castaneum (Herbst) dan Lasioderma serricorne (Fabricius). Percobaan di gudang penyimpanan menggunakan rancangan acak kelompok tersarang, yaitu spesies serangga terperangkap tersarang pada masing-masing perangkap serangga yang digunakan di GPBK. Hasil pengujian di laboratorium menunjukkan perangkap colokan lebih banyak menangkap serangga (30,4%) yang berbeda nyata dibandingkan dengan perangkap jebakan (17,3%), tetapi serangga yang tertangkap tidak berbeda nyata antara perangkap colokan dengan perangkap colokan dengan LED UV (21%). Pengujian di gudang menunjukkan bahwa perangkap colokan lebih efektif dalam memerangkap T. castaneum dan Tenebroides mauritanicus dibandingkan perangkap serangga lainnya, sedangkan perangkap colokan dengan LED UV lebih efektif dalam mendeteksi L. serricorne and Necrobia rufipes (Fabricius) di GPBK.

PM 8/12 (1) Juglans

Specific scopeThe purpose of the EPPO Standard on Juglans is to recommend to EPPO Member Governments the phytosanitary measures, which they should use or require for Juglans 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 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 2019–09.

PM 8/11 (1) Fraxinus

Specific scopeThe purpose of the EPPO Standard on Fraxinus is to recommend to EPPO Member Governments the phytosanitary measures, which they should use or require for Fraxinus 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 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 2019‐09.

PM 8/10 (1) Ulmus

Specific scopeThe purpose of the EPPO Standard on Ulmus is to recommend to EPPO Member Governments the phytosanitary measures that they should use or require for Ulmus 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 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 2019–09

Sanitary and phytosanitary regulations and international red meat trade

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to provide an ex post econometric examination of SPS measures and their influences on red meat trade. Design/methodology/approach The authors conduct multiple new assessments to further assess the particular effects of specific SPS measures related to animal health, human health and maximum residue limits on red meat trade values. This finer assessment provides updated and more detailed insights into the marginal trade impacts of different SPS measures. Findings The current study sheds important light on the determinants of red meat trade. The economic conditions of destination countries and production capability of suppliers are key to determining trade values. Factors including personal income and exporters’ meat supply are identified as trade facilitators. Since the restrictiveness of SPS measures vary across beef and pork sectors, maintaining commodity-specific SPS measures is essential for accurate assessment of trade determinants. Originality/value This paper provides multiple contributions to the existing literature and more broadly the authors’ economic understanding on the increasingly contentious issue of global meat trade. Combined, this study yields several implications for food policy, trade negotiators and industry leaders given the growing role and surrounding controversies of trade in meat and livestock markets around the world. The authors further believe the paper would be of notable interest to fellow researchers consistent with the existence of a sizable published literature and ongoing debates in international meat trade.

End-to-end sequence labeling via deep learning for automatic extraction of agricultural regulations

In the European Union, production standards in the form of legal regulations play an important role in farming. Because of the increasing amount of regulations, it is desirable to transform human-oriented regulations into a set of computer-oriented rules to provide decision support through the Farm Management Information System. To obtain the logical structure of rules, automatically labeling their meaningful information is necessary.In this work, we evaluate the performance of 8 different state-of-the-art deep learning architectures to develop an end-to-end sequence labeler for phytosanitary regulations. This sequence labeler extracts different meaningful information items to determine which pesticides can be applied to a crop, the place of the treatment, when it can be applied, and the maximum number of applications. The architectures evaluated do not require feature engineering and, hence, they are applicable to the agricultural regulations of different countries. The best system is a neural network that uses character embeddings, Bidirectional Long short-term memory and Softmax. It achieves a performance of 88.3% F1 score.

Phytosanitary management of Citrus germplasm in France

It is important to assess the phytosanitary status of plants for planting as many pests are transmitted with plant propagating material. The phytosanitary management of Citrus germplasm in France, in application of the European phytosanitary regulations, is described in this article. Import of Citrus germplasm into France is strictly regulated and only possible through the post‐entry quarantine station for plants, which receives plant material from all over the world. Subsequently, the French Citrus biological resource centre maintains and distributes plant material to the scientific community and to partners for production of graft‐sticks and plants for planting in nurseries. The continuous assessment of the phyto sanitary status of plants for planting throughout the production chain involves different stakeholders to ensure the high quality plant health status of Citrus orchards.

PM 8/2 (3) Coniferae

Specific scopeThe purpose of the EPPO Standard on Coniferae is to recommend to EPPO Member Governments the phytosanitary measures which they should use or require for Coniferae plants and plant products moving in international trade in order to prevent the introduction and spread of quarantine pests. Some of these recommendations are addressed to all EPPO Member Governments, and 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 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 2009‐09.Revised in 2014‐09 and in 2018‐09

Normes OEPP ‐ National regulatory control systems/EPPO Standards ‐ Systèmes de lutte nationaux réglementaires

EPPO BulletinVolume 48, Issue 3 p. 501-502 Normes OEPP EPPO StandardsFree Access Normes OEPP - National regulatory control systems/EPPO Standards - Systèmes de lutte nationaux réglementaires First published: 26 December 2018 https://doi.org/10.1111/epp.12518AboutSectionsPDF 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 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). 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 1 EPPO/CABI (1997) Quarantine Pests for Europe, 2nd edn. CAB International, Wallingford (GB). 2 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 L169, 1– 112. 3 FAO (1997) International Plant Protection Convention (new revised text). FAO, Rome (IT). 4 IPPC (2018) Glossary of Phytosanitary Terms. ISPM no. 5. Supplement no. 1. Guidelines on the interpretation and application of the concept of official control for regulated pests. IPPC Secretariat, FAO, Rome (IT). Appendix 1 – Definitions Area of low pest prevalence: An area, whether all of a country, part of a country, or all or parts of several countries, as identified by the competent authorities, in which a specific pest is present at low levels and which is subject to effective surveillance or control measures. Containment: application of phytosanitary measures in and around an infested area to prevent spread of a pest. Eradication: application of phytosanitary measures to eliminate a pest from an area. Incursion: an isolated population of a pest recently detected in an area, not known to be established, but expected to survive for the immediate future. Monitoring: an official ongoing process to verify phytosanitary situations. Official control: the active enforcement of mandatory phytosanitary regulations and the application of mandatory phytosanitary procedures with the objective of eradication or containment of quarantine pests or for the management of regulated non-quarantine pests. Outbreak: a recently detected pest population, including an incursion, or a sudden significant increase of an established pest population in an area. Pest-free area: an area in which a specific pest does not occur as demonstrated by scientific evidence and in which, where appropriate, this condition is being officially maintained. Pest-free place of production: place of production in which a specific pest is absent as demonstrated by scientific evidence and in which, where appropriate, this condition is being officially maintained for a defined period. Phytosanitary procedure: any official method for implementing phytosanitary regulations including the perfor- mance of inspections, tests, surveillance or treatments in connection with regulated pests. Quarantine area: an area within which a quarantine pest is present and is being officially controlled. Suppression: the application of phytosanitary measures in an infested area to reduce pest populations. Surveillance: An official process which collects and records data on pest presence or absence by survey, monitoring or other procedures. Survey: an official procedure conducted over a defined period of time to determine the characteristics of a pest population or to determine which species are present in an area. Appendix 2 – 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 conforms to supplement No. 1 of ISPM no. 5 Glossary of phytosanitary terms: ‘Guidelines on the interpretation and application of the concept of official control for regulated pests’. Volume48, Issue3December 2018Pages 501-502 ReferencesRelatedInformation

PM 9/26 (1) National regulatory control system for Globodera pallida and Globodera rostochiensis

Specific scopeThis Standard describes a national regulatory control system for Globodera pallida and Globodera rostochiensis.

PM 8/9 (1) Fagus

Specific scopeThe purpose of this EPPO PM 8 Standard on Fagus is to recommend to EPPO Member Governments the phytosanitary measures which they should use or require for Fagus 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 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 2018‐09.

Geographic distribution of Phyllocoptruta oleivora in the Mediterranean Basin, with particular emphasis on Italy

Phyllocoptruta oleivora (Ashmead) is an eriophyid mite extremely dangerous in several Citrus growing areas. During the 60s, its presence was wrongly suspected in Italy, limited to Sicily, but it has never been confirmed later. Since that time, the record of this mite has been confusing often denied often considered true, without any further investigation on this aspect, causing therefore negative effects on the international trade of citrus fruit from Sicily. Authors so started paying attention to the pest distribution in Italy and other Mediterranean areas, and stressed the importance of a correct specific identification based on the real responsible biological agent of an infestation, its economic relevance and implications for phytosanitary regulations.

The diagnosis of plant pathogenic bacteria: a state of art.

Plant protection plays an important role in agriculture for the food quality and quantity. The diagnosis of plant diseases and the identification of the pathogens are essential prerequisites for their understanding and control. Among the plant pests, the bacterial pathogens have devastating effects on plant productivity and yield. Different techniques (microscopy, serology, biochemical, physiological, molecular tools and culture propagation) are currently used to detect and identify bacterial pathogens. Detection and identification are critical steps for the appropriate application of phytosanitary measures. The "harmonization of phytosanitary regulations and all other areas of official plant protection action" mean the good practices for plant protection and plant material certification. The prevention of diseases progression and spread by early detection are a valuable strategy for proper pest management and disease control. For this purpose, innovative methods aim achieving results within a shorter time and higher performance, to provide rapidly, accurately and reliably diagnosis. In this review, we focus on the techniques for plant bacterial diagnosis and on the regulations for harmonizing plant protection issue.

Fruit and vegetable exports in the post-liberalization era: The Indian experience

The liberalization of agricultural trade brought about by the economic reforms of 1991, the subsequent WTO agreement and the proliferating Regional Trading Agreements have opened opportunities as well as challenges for India’s horticultural trade. This paper analyses the performance of horticultural exports from the country in terms of growth, instability, dynamics, diversification and stability with respect to commodities and markets and the constraints in terms of the Non-Tariff Measures (NTMs) faced and delineates the opportunities and strategies required to be followed by the sector for a sustainable growth. The horticultural exports from the country have grown significantly in both quantity and value terms during the period from 1991 to 2016. The highest share in the exports of horticultural products from India was accounted by grapes for which the major markets were Netherlands, Russia, United Kingdom, UAE, Germany and Saudi Arabia. Among the vegetables, India accounted for about 9.4 per cent of share in world exports of onion and the main destinations were Bangladesh, Malaysia, UAE and Sri Lanka. The horticultural exports have shown increased commodity diversification as well as geographical diversification due to increased market access in developed countries. Even though the tariffs have come down there by increasing the exports, the NTMs, especially quality issues in connection with sanitary and phyto-sanitary regulations have increased in the post- liberalization era. Given the inherent potential and rising competiveness of the India’s horticultural sector, the removal of product specific constraints, especially production of commodities of international standards could definitely help in sustaining the growth of horticultural exports.

Normes OEPP ‐ Systèmes de lutte nationaux réglementaires/EPPO Standards ‐ National regulatory control systems

EPPO BulletinVolume 47, Issue 3 p. 504-505 Normes OEPP EPPO StandardsFree Access Normes OEPP - Systèmes de lutte nationaux réglementaires/EPPO Standards - National regulatory control systems First published: 22 December 2017 https://doi.org/10.1111/epp.12434AboutSectionsPDF 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 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). 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). 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 L169, 1– 112. FAO (1997) International Plant Protection Convention (new revised text). FAO, Rome (IT). IPPC (2007) Glossary of Phytosanitary Terms. ISPM no. 5. Supplement no. 1. Guidelines on the interpretation and application of the concept of official control for regulated pests. IPPC Secretariat, FAO, Rome (IT). Appendix 1 – Definitions Area of low pest prevalence: an area, whether all of a country, part of a country, or all or parts of several countries, as identified by the competent authorities, in which a specific pest occurs at low levels and which is subject to effective surveillance, control or eradication measures. Containment: application of phytosanitary measures in and around an infested area to prevent spread of a pest. Eradication: application of phytosanitary measures to eliminate a pest from an area. Incursion: an isolated population of a pest recently detected in an area, not known to be established, but expected to survive for the immediate future. Monitoring: an official ongoing process to verify phytosanitary situations. Official control: the active enforcement of mandatory phytosanitary regulations and the application of mandatory phytosanitary procedures with the objective of eradication or containment of quarantine pests or for the management of regulated non-quarantine pests. Outbreak: a recently detected pest population, including an incursion, or a sudden significant increase of an established pest population in an area. Pest-free area: an area in which a specific pest does not occur as demonstrated by scientific evidence and in which, where appropriate, this condition is being officially maintained. Pest-free place of production: place of production in which a specific pest does not occur as demonstrated by scientific evidence and in which, where appropriate, this condition is being officially maintained for a defined period. Phytosanitary procedure: any official method for implementing phytosanitary regulations including the perfor- mance of inspections, tests, surveillance or treatments in connection with regulated pests. Quarantine area: an area within which a quarantine pest is present and is being officially controlled. Suppression: the application of phytosanitary measures in an infested area to reduce pest populations. Surveillance: an official process which collects and records data on pest occurrence or absence by survey, monitoring or other procedures. Survey: an official procedure conducted over a defined period of time to determine the characteristics of a pest population or to determine which species occur in an area. Appendix 2 – 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 conforms to supplement No. 1 of ISPM no. 5 Glossary of phytosanitary terms: ‘Guidelines on the interpretation and application of the concept of official control for regulated pests’. Volume47, Issue3December 2017Pages 504-505 ReferencesRelatedInformation

PM 8/5 (1) Quercus

Specific scopeThe purpose of the EPPO Standard on Quercus is to recommend to EPPO Member Governments the phytosanitary measures which they should use or require for Quercus 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 2010‐09 as PM 8/3 Quercus and Castanea.Revised and approved as a separate Standard PM 8/5 in 2017‐09

PM 8/8 (1) Salix

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.

PM 8/7 (1) Populus

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.

PM 8/4 (1) Castanea

Specific scopeThe purpose of the EPPO Standard on Castanea is to recommend to EPPO Member Governments the phytosanitary measures which they should use or require for Castanea 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 2010‐09 as PM 8/3 Quercus and Castanea.Revised and approved as a separate Standard PM 8/4 in 2017‐09

PM 8/6 (1) Betula

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.