Coalition (IGTC) SACOTA Annual General Meeting 10 October, 2018 - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

International Grain Trade Coalition (IGTC) SACOTA Annual General Meeting 10 October, 2018

2

Global context: Grain trade increasingly important

www.igtcglobal.org

Secretariat@igtcglobal.org +41 78 932 96 18

The IGTC’s overarching objective is to achieve a market and regulatory environment supportive of trade that avoids disruptions in the international trade of grain,

• ilseeds, pulses and derived products.

CGC NAEGA, NCGA, NGFA, USGC, USW, CRA, USSEC

,

ANIAME, APPAMEX COCERAL GAFTA Eastern Africa Grain Council CIARA-CEC GTA CNFA, CNAGS, CGBA SOPA, SEA CAPECO

Geneva, Switzerland

ANEC RGU SACOTA

25 associations, 8000 businesses 85 countries

UGA

7 10 13 14 31 14 31 35 27 41 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Cartagena Biosafety Protocol Plant Breeding Innovation Low Level Presence Maximum Residue Levels Phytosanitary control - ISPM Electronic Trading Documentation

NUMBER OF PEOPLE SIGNED UP

Jan-16 Jun-16 Jan-17 Jun-17 Jan-18 Jun-18 6

Year-on-year evolution: Policy teams & working groups (2016-2018)

Number of staff from member associations on Policy Teams

7

Jan 2017

APPAMEX CAPECO CGC COCERAL Gafta GTA NAEGA NGFA RGU US Grains Cl USSEC US Wheat

Jan 2018

APPAMEX CAPECO CGC CIARA-CEC COCERAL EAGC Gafta GTA NAEGA NCGA NGFA RGU SACOTA UGA US Grains Cl USSEC US Wheat

• Cartagena Biosafety Protocol (171 Parties)
• UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)

(194 governments)

• International Plant Protection Convention

(IPPC) (183 governments)

• World Customs Organization (WCO) (180

governments)

• World Trade Organization (WTO) (162

governments)

• International Grains Council (IGC) (55

governments)

• Global Low Level Presence Initiative (GLI) (15

governments)

Work with international partners

South Africa is present in all of the following venues!

9

2018 September 27-28 2018 GLI meeting Natal, Brazil September 26-27 WTO Agriculture Committee (closed) Geneva, Switzerland October 1-5 FAO Committee on Agriculture (COAG) FAO, Rome, Italy October 2-4 WTO Public Forum WTO, Geneva, Switzerland October 3-5 IPPC Focus Group on Commodity and Pathways Standards FAO, Rome, Italy October 15-20 UN Committee on World Food Security (CFS) FAO, Rome, Italy October 20 ISF-IGTC in-person meeting Berlin, Germany October 31-November 1 WTO SPS Committee (closed) Geneva, Switzerland November 17-29 COP 14 – CBD and COP-MOP 9 Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt November 19-23 IPPC Standards Committee (closed) FAO, Rome, Italy November 21-22 WTO Agriculture Committee (closed) Geneva, Switzerland November 21-23 FAO International Symposium on Agricultural Innovation for Family Farmers: Unlocking the potential of agricultural innovation FAO, Rome, Italy November 27-29 IGTC General Assembly 2018 and related

• utreach meetings

Beijing, China December 2-4 NGFA Country Elevator Conference Union Station Hotel, St. Louis, MO, USA December 4 International Grains Council 48th Session Paris, France December 14 IGTC Management Council Virtual

Features of the global grain trade

Crop protection product approvals & residue measures

Policy opportunities in 2018

Harmonisation of phytosanitary control methods; UN International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) Innovation in electronic trading documentation Plant Breeding Innovation Cartagena Biosafety Protocol Low Level Presence

What is the ePhyto Solution?

Hub

System to facilitate exchange of ePhytos between NPPOs

GeNS

Generic ePhyto National System Centralized web-based system to allow countries without their own systems to produce, send and receive ePhytos in the XML format through the hub

What is the ePhyto Solution?

Hub

System to facilitate exchange of ePhytos between NPPOs

GeNS

Generic ePhyto National System Centralized web-based system to allow countries without their own systems to produce, send and receive ePhytos in the XML format through the hub

Hub administration portal – exporting NPPO (US)

“Pending delivery” “Delivered”

Paper Rep epresentations

US AR AR

Strategy for industry ePhyto case studies

Agreed by IPPC and industry partners in joint “Terms of Reference”

• 1. Select a few companies trading between hub countries
• Side by side shipments with paper and with electronic certificates
• Use anecdotal information on the benchmark state
• 2. Track the shipments and identify anecdotal info on:
• Time/efficiency
• Impacts on business operations
• Other issues

IGTC mensagens chaves ePhyto Solution (v.2018)

• IGTC continua apoiando a adoção de um modelo de troca de

ePhyto em pleno funcionamento, com o envolvimento proativo de toda a cadeia de fornecimento e sem requisitos para a manutenção de certificados em papel.

• Será

crucial que

• s
• peradores

do setor privado continuem práticas de comércio eficientes e bem estabelecidas que atualmente sustentam a cadeia de fornecimento. Isso inclui partes comerciais que tenham um nível apropriado de controle sobre a liberação de um certificado phyto antes de ser apresentado a um importador.

• IGTC apóia o uso do esquema de mensagem harmonizado

definido no ePhyto Hub e incentiva os governos, particularmente aqueles de importância estratégica para a indústria de grãos, a apoiar a implementação o mais rápido possível.

• IGTC

apela ao apoio do governo para “estudos de caso da indústria”, o que acabará por contribuir para uma análise reforçada de custo-benefício e interoperabilidade com o setor.

• Independentemente

do modelo de financiamento, a IGTC recomenda que a indústria contribua financeiramente apenas quando o sistema de trabalho estiver em funcionamento.

21

22

2.2.1 Cartagena Biosafety Protocol

23

COP 14 – Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt COP-MOP 9 on the Cartagena Biosafety Protocol Deadline for registrations for organizations – governmental and non-governmental: 31 October 2018 Preparation of IGTC talking points?

• Art. 17

UTB

• Transboundary movement of Living Modified Organisms (LMOs)
• Draft training manual on detection and sampling: irrelevant, incomplete, undermines

sovereign processes and import checks

• 2018 workshops on detection manual: Francophone Africa, Anglophone Africa, and Asia-

Pacific

• Art. 15

Risk Assessment

• “Monitoring in the Context of Risk Assessment“ - permanent and broad monitoring of non-

specified LMOs under the precautionary principle?

• Synthetic biology

➢ Not in the CBP (yet?) ➢ No agreed definition (yet?) ➢ Intersessional AHTEG reports: Most organisms currently under development using synthetic biology fall under the definition of LMOs as per CBP ➢ Special interest groups ➢ Global Industry Coalition and certain governments say this is being pushed without broad support from Parties.

NKL Supp. Protocol

• Into force on March 5th with 41 Parties (Mexico, EU, India, Japan, Uganda)
• Addressed as part of the CBP but likely to be a “COP-MOP 1” in 2020
• Art. 26

SEC

• IGTC: important not to have socio economic considerations merged with risk assessment or

liability and redress issues

• GIC: huge concerns about discriminatory, non-scientific decision making

25

Examples of text in the sampling and detection manual – Art. 17

Applies to all LMOs, not only those “likely to have significant adverse effects on conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity” Potentially undermines the validity of national risk assessment processes Monitoring: Maintaining a paper trail of any (trans-boundary) movement of material that could be LMO or contain (traces of) LMOs Assumes that emergency measures are needed for LMOs that have already been through appropriate risk assessments, etc. Monitoring: Possible targets include the monitoring of (transboundary) movements

• f authorised LMOs

26

2.2.2 Plant breeding innovation

Picture: IGTC bilateral meeting with International Seed Federation (ISF), 26 April 2018

ISF agreed to share information on i) “general trends” about crops derived from gene editing methods for at least the next two-to-three years. This may include the specific type(s) of gene- editing methods being used; specific types of gene-edited crops that likely are being commercialized; and the approximate timing of market entry of such crops; ii) the evolution of regulatory systems around the world on crops derived from gene editing. ISF will hold internal member discussions on: i) “what” info can be shared, as well as potential mechanisms; ii) the feasibility to develop guidelines for its members on general principles in support of information sharing (early pipeline notification) along the value chain; iii) guidance or principles specifically on gene-edited crops with functionally different output characteristics, practices on closed-loop systems, etc. IGTC and ISF committed to mutual work on the specific information needs of the food industry regarding crops derived from gene editing. For the IGTC, this means providing specific examples of info demands from food companies/buyers, particularly those that cannot be addressed through an IP system. IGTC committed - after a request from ISF - to encourage its member associations and Corporate Stakeholders to speak to the plant breeding community at national and regional level. Next bilateral: Friday 19th October in Berlin, Germany – same crowd!

29

2.2.3 Low level presence

Decision makers Governments: The Global LLP Initiative (GLI) of 15 “like-minded” countries UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Codex Alimentarius Initiative The accommodation of safety-assessed GM events in the supply chain: encourage countries to introduce LLP policies Issues Raise awareness that detection of low levels in an importing country of an event authorized in one or more countries is not a food safety issue, but a legal compliance issue. Trade stops, thereby adversely impacting importing and exporting countries and threatening global food security. IGTC action

• Awareness raising along the value chain of the importance of process controls
• Advocacy with governments to maintain momentum at the Global Low Level

Policy Initiative

• Support governments in future initiatives, e.g. practical approaches in

regulatory frameworks

Low level presence: why and how IGTC engages

31

32

Work with the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) IPPC’s 183 contracting parties include:

32

South Africa Japan EU Australia Russia Canada Argentina UK USA India

Decision makers

UN International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC): IPPC recognized in WTO SPS agreement as the only international plant health standard setting organization

Initiative

Development of an International Standard on Phytosanitary Measures (ISPM) on the International Movement of Grain; 41 existing ISPMs, including on pest risk analysis, phytosanitary certification, and sampling methods

Issues (examples include)

Scope: phytosanitary measures only to be included in the standard – this is not a place for foreign material and associated tolerances; traceability, etc. Transparency: The current lack of access to information about the phytosanitary requirements of importing countries is a major hurdle to trade

IGTC action

1.Advocacy tools established, e.g., position paper, letters to national and regional authorities 2.IGTC leading grain trade input on the standard, convening significant expertise and representation 3.Coordination of one global voice to secure a trade facilitative ISPM 4.Global outreach effort coordinated, reaching government members of the IPPC’s Standards Committee; in total, more than half of the SC was reached

International Standard Phytosanitary Measures (ISPMs) for grain: why and how IGTC engages

34

Assessed breadth & depth of phytosanitary concerns among IGTC Key “asks” coming out of the survey

• Carry out import checks without undue delay
• Minimize importing parties ability to use protectionist measures to restrict trade
• Ban arbitrary measures, going beyond international standard requirements
• Import checks based on sound scientific justification

❑ Transparent record of reasons & mitigating actions ❑ Document & demonstrate risk factors that justify ❑ Provide mechanism to resolve action in case of rejection / detainment

• Science & risk analysis

❑ Quick revelation if risk assessment has been carried out ❑ Produce data upon which assessment is based ❑ Interested parties to comment on risk analysis

IGTC survey, 2016: phytosanitary issues

35

ISPM on grain should…

…result in more harmonized approaches to managing pest risks

IPPC’s grain standard: specifics (1)

…result in more effective & proportionate risk management …increase predictability for trade …reduce transboundary shipment costs …reduce restrictions to trade …serve all in grain trade & not provide commercial or political advantage to one or small group …allow for bilateral agreements on pest risk & mitigation

36

ISPM on grain should NOT…

…be overly prescriptive

IPPC’s grain standard: specifics (2)

…result in arbitrary & inappropriate quarantine actions …include any direction

• n ‘traceability’

…include mgmt.

• f seed production

technologies …address all aspects of transboundary movements, from production through handling & transportation to further processing …introduce costly compliance issues

37

• Missing, misaligned MRLs have a negative

business impact on the grain trade

• Bottlenecks in trade as a result of official

practices - reports of grain consignments being impacted either at both origin and destination market in the last 12 months

• How trade is notified (or not) in the case of non

compliance

• The grain trade is managing its own affairs to

facilitate trade and contribute to global food security in the face of missing and misaligned MRLs.

• Evaluation of issues around testing and

sampling – more international work needed on this

IGTC survey: MRLs, 2018

38

IGTC Management Council

Gary C. Martin, President North American Grain Export Association (NAEGA) Iliana Axiotiades, Acting Vice President COCERAL (EU) Randy Gordon, Treasurer National Grain and Feed Association (NGFA) Jaine Chisholm-Caunt, Grain and Feed Trade Association (Gafta) Tyler Bjornson, Canada Grains Council (CGC) Roz Leeck, US Soybean Export Council (USSEC) Tom Sleight, US Grains Council Pat O’Shannassy, Grain Trade Australia (GTA) Corporate stakeholder representation