Systems Approach Concept and Application NAPPO presented the information on systems approaches to the TC for discussion. It was recognized that not all of them were systems approaches, according to the definition, but they were the product of bilateral agreements. This Standard considered one additional declaration for SA This regional standard was subject to consideration of IPPC and after the standard setting process, the CPM adopted ISPM 32 in 2009 “Categorization of commodities according their pest risk”

1. Systems Approach
Concept and Application
24º Technical Consultation among ORPF, August 2012
Maria Inés Ares
President of Directive Committee

3. BACKGROUND
August 2012
• TC RPPO:
22ndTC “NAPPO presented the information on systems approaches to the TC
for discussion. It was recognized that not all of them were systems
approaches, according to the definition, but they were the product of bilateral
agreements.”
•COSAVE:
1998: Regional Standard 3.13 “Guidelines for an integrated system of
measures for pest risk mitigation (Systems Approach)” Was present to the
IPPC and working with this issue and in 2002 adopted ISPM 14 “The use of
integrated measures in a systems approach for pest risk management”

4. BACKGROUND
August 2012
•COSAVE
1999: Regional Standard 3.15 Harmonized Phytosanitary import
requirements for commodities by risk category”, 2003 last version.
This Standard considered one additional declaration for SA
This regional standard was subject to consideration of IPPC and after the
standard setting process, the CPM adopted ISPM 32 in 2009
“Categorization of commodities according their pest risk”

5. BACKGROUND
August 2012
•COSAVE
APPLICATION OF SA : MORE SUCCESSFULLY FOR
COMMODITIES UNDER CATEGORY 3 (ISPM 32)
CONCERN: SA is internationally agreed between NPPO for
commodities in Category 3, and have not been developed as an
alternative phytosanitary measure for pest risk management and
even they include quarantine treatments scientifically proven to
eliminate the pest of concern. Therefore these cases are not an
integration of measures for pest risk mitigation, is a sum of
phytosanitary measures.

6. RELATED ISPMS AND WTO-SPS AGREEMENT
ISPM 14
August 2012
√ SA is an option for pest risk management.
• √ SA integrates measures for pest risk management in a defined
manner, and could provide an alternative to single measures to
meet the appropriate level of protection of an importing country.
• √ SA requires the integration of different measures, at least two
of which act independently, with a cumulative effect.
• √ SA is usually designed as an option that is equivalent to but
less restrictive than other measures.

7. RELATED ISPMS AND WTO-SPS AGREEMENT
ISPM 14
August 2012
√ SA provide an equivalent alternative to procedures such
as treatments or replace more restrictive measures like prohibition.
This is achieved by considering the combined effect of different
conditions and procedures.
√ SA provide the opportunity to consider both pre- and
post-harvest procedures that may contribute to the effective
management of pest risk.
√ A combination of phytosanitary measures in a SA is one
of the options which may be selected as the basis for phytosanitary
import requirements.

8. RELATED ISPMS AND WTO-SPS AGREEMENT
ISPM 14
August 2012
√ The development of a SA may be undertaken by the importing country,
or by the exporting country, or ideally through the cooperation of both
countries.
√ Countries share the obligation to observe the principle of equivalence
by considering pest risk management alternatives that will facilitate safe
trade.
√ Both exporting countries and importing countries should cooperate in
the provision of sufficient data and the timely exchange of relevant
information in all aspects of the development and implementation pest
risk management measures, including systems approaches.

9. RELATED ISPMS AND WTO-SPS AGREEMENT
ISPM Nº24
August 2012
√ ISPM 24 (2005): Guidelines for the determination and recognition
of equivalence of phytosanitary measures.
√ Equivalence generally applies to cases where phytosanitary
measures already exist for a specific pest associated with trade in a
commodity or commodity class. Equivalence determinations are
based on the specified pest risk and equivalence may apply to
individual measures, a combination of measures, or integrated
measures in a systems approach.

10. RELATED ISPMS AND WTO-SPS AGREEMENT
ISPM Nº 35
August 2012
ISPM 35 (2012): “Systems approach for pest risk management of fruit
flies (Tephritidae)”.
√ Guidelines for the development, implementation and verification of
integrated measures in a systems approach as an option for pest risk
management of fruit flies (Tephritidae) of economic importance”
√ For the development of a systems approach for fruit flies (FF SA),
the relationship between host, target fruit fly species and the area of
production of the host fruits and vegetables should be considered. The
options for pest risk management measures should be determined by
means of pest risk analysis (PRA).

11. APPLIED TO THE CONSIGNMENT
 Inspection or lab analysis
 Treatment (chemical, irradiation, etc.)
APPLIED TO PREVENT OR REDUCE ORIGINAL
INFESTATION IN THE CROP
 Treatment in the crop.
 Crop inspection for confirm that is free of some pest.
 Harvest in certain period of the year
August 2012
NIMF Nº 11 :IDENTIFICATION AND SELECTION
OF APPROPRIATE RISK MANAGEMENT OPTIONS

12. APPLIED TO AN AREA
 Pest Free Area or Low Prevalence Area
 Pest Free Place or site of production
PROHIBITION OF COMMODITIES.
ALTERNATIVE PHYTOSANITARY MEASURE (NIMF Nº 14)
SYSTEMS APPROACH
August 2012
NIMF Nº 11 :IDENTIFICATION AND SELECTION
OF APPROPRIATE RISK MANAGEMENT OPTIONS

13. CITRUS FRUIT PHYTOSANITARY CERTIFICATION
EXAMPLES SYSTEM APPROACH
August 2012

14. August 2012
INTEGRATED MEASURES IN A SYSTEMS APPROACH FOR THE
CERTIFICATION OF URUGUAYAN CITRUS FRUIT TO CHINA.
PRA RESULTS: Ceratitis capitata is a quarantine pest
Risk management measure required: cold treatment
By applying cold treatment required by China, Uruguay can not comply with fruit
quality demanded by this market
REASONS
• For most varieties, treatment temperatures affect external quality of
fruit.
• Transport from Uruguay to China: 40 to 60 days.
• It is not non-stop and containers are re-shipped at least in 2 different
ports.
• Responsability of theTreatment.
• Maximum treatment duration is of 20 days and f the transport takes 50
days.

15. August 2012
PROPOSAL URUGUAY NPPO
CONTROL POINTS
PLACE OF PRODUCTION
• PACKING HOUSE
EXIT POINT (Pre-shipment)

16. August 2012
PROPOSAL URUGUAY NPPO
OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES
• REGISTRATION OF OPERATORS
• FRUIT FLY MONITORING
• INSPECCIONS IN ALL THE CONTROL POINTS
IF 1 LARVAE IS VERIFIED THE BLOCKS OF PRODUCTION OR THE
CONSIGNMENT IS REJECTED
• RECORD-KEEPING
• TRACEABILITY

17. Place of Production Packinhouse Storage
Exit Point
Final client
Compiled Information
Exporters
TRACEABILITY

18. August 2012
PROPOSAL URUGUAY NPPO
MEASURES TO BE TAKEN BY THE IMPORTING NPPO
If larvae are detected during inspection in the point of
entry, EXPORT IS SUSPENDED.

19. August 2012
OTHER EXAMPLE :
PURPOSE
To establish a systems approach combining measures for
risk management of X. axonopodis pv. citri, to meet the
level of phytosanitary protection required by the import
party for whom this pest is of quarantine importance. The
systems approach offers an alternative to the use of only
one procedure and replaces more restrictive measures.
The system considers pre-harvest and post-harvest
procedures which contribute to the efficacy of the pest
risk management.
INTEGRATED SYSTEMS OF PHYTOSANITARY
MEASURE FOR (Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. citri) RISK
MANAGEMENT IN CITRUS FRUIT . MERCOSUR/GMC/RES. N° 48/05

20. - PRE HARVEST
• Measures for crop management
• Harvest authorization
- - POST HARVEST
• Selection of infected fruits.
• Post-harvest treatment
• Autorization of consigment
August 2012
SA PHYTOSANITARY MEASURES

21. - CONTROL POINTS
• SITE OF PRODUCTION
• PACKINHOUSE
August 2012
SA PHYTOSANITARY MEASURES

22. The certification system is based on the use of traceability as a useful
tool to grant the origin of the fruit to be commercialized, allowing to
know, in the different production process stages, if it complies with the
requirements.
1.Register of producers, places and sites of production.
2.Pre-harvest inspections to verify compliance of the incidence levels
required to approve the harvest.
3.Harvest approval.
4.Identification of harvest containers.
5.Transit Document / Dispatch document
6.Register of packinghouses
7.Inspections at packinghouses for approval of consignments for export
and certification of post-harvest treatment.
8.Identification of pallets.
9.Verification of the consignments at the exit point and issuance of the
Phytosanitary Certificate.
August 2012
SA PHYTOSANITARY CERTIFICATION SYSTEM