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

2. BACKGROUND August 2012 TC RPPO: 22 nd TC “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”

3. 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”

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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).

10. 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

11. 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

12. CITRUS FRUIT PHYTOSANITARY CERTIFICATION EXAMPLES SYSTEM APPROACH August 2012

13. INTEGRATED MEASURES IN A SYSTEMS APPROACH FOR THE CERTIFICATION OF URUGUAYAN CITRUS FRUIT TO CHINA. PRA RESULTS: 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.For most varieties, treatment temperatures affect external quality of fruit. Transport from Uruguay to China: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.Maximum treatment duration is of 20 days and f the transport takes 50 days.

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

15. August 2012 PROPOSAL URUGUAY NPPO PROPOSAL URUGUAY NPPO OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES REGISTRATION OF OPERATORSREGISTRATION OF OPERATORS FRUIT FLY MONITORINGFRUIT FLY MONITORING INSPECCIONS IN ALL THE CONTROL POINTSINSPECCIONS IN ALL THE CONTROL POINTS IF 1 LARVAE IS VERIFIED THE BLOCKS OF PRODUCTION OR THE CONSIGNMENT IS REJECTED RECORD-KEEPINGRECORD-KEEPING TRACEABILITYTRACEABILITY

16. Place of ProductionPackinhouseStorage Exit Point Final client Compiled Information Exporters TRACEABILITY

17. August 2012 PROPOSAL URUGUAY NPPO 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.

18. 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 MEASURE FOR (Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. citri) RISK MANAGEMENT IN CITRUS FRUIT. MERCOSUR/GMC/RES. N° 48/05

19. - 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

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

21. 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