WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/SPS/GEN/232
28 February 2001
(01-0983)
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Original:  English
EXPERIENCES IN RECOGNIZING EQUIVALENCE OF
PHYTOSANITARY MEASURES
Submission by New Zealand
1. In response to the Chairman’s request for Members to share their experiences on the
implementation of equivalence (G/L/423), New Zealand submits this paper on its experience in
recognizing equivalence of phytosanitary measures.  It deals with recognition, on an ad hoc  basis, of
the equivalence of particular phytosanitary measures to protect against specific risks.
Background
2. The SPS Agreement, in Article 4, provides:
"1. Members shall accept the sanitary or phytosanitary measures of other
Members as equivalent, even if these m easures differ from their own or from those
used by other Members trading in the same product, if the exporting Member
objectively demonstrates to the importing Member that its measures achieve the
importing Member's appropriate level of sanitary or phytosanitary protection.  For
this purpose, reasonable access shall be given, upon request, to the importing
Member for inspection, testing and other relevant procedures.
2. Members shall, upon request, enter into consultations with the aim of
achieving bilateral and multilateral agreements on recognition of the equivalence
of specified sanitary or phytosanitary measures."
3. The Glossary of Phytosanitary Terms (International Standard for Phytosanitary Measures,
publication No. 5, 1999) defines equivalence as:
"The situation of phytosanitary measures which are not identical but have the
same effect."
4. In order to allow importation of arable or horticultural products and other regulated articles
("risk goods" under New Zealand’s Biosecurity Act 1993) to occur without jeopardizing the life or
health of plants in New Zealand, and to prevent other damage to the environment from pests,phytosanitary officials in New Zealand have developed and implemented an integrated biosecurity
system.  This biosecurity system involves the ongoing development and implementation of
phytosanitary measures aimed at ensuring that regulated pests associated with imported commodities
will not enter New Zealand at a rate above their establishment threshold.  Depending on the
consequences of establishment, a range of phytosanitary measures, including off-shore treatments, aredeployed to meet this end.G/SPS/GEN/232
Page 2
Principles of equivalence
5. New Zealand encourages countries wishing to export goods to New Zealand that may
constitute a phytosanitary risk to, where appropriate, propose equivalent phytosanitary measures as a
means of meeting New Zealand’s biosecurity requirements for imported risk goods.  Equivalenttreatments may be proposed either for the whole pest  complex associated with the commodity or for a
specified named pest or pests.
6. In protecting against the risks of certain fruit fly species establishing in New Zealand, a
number of phytosanitary measures may be considered as providing equivalent protection if objective
evidence can be provided of their efficacy, for example:
• heat treatment (e.g. high temperature forced air, vapour heat treatment, hot water
dip);
• cold treatment (e.g. cold storage, both in-transit and in country of origin);
• chemical treatments (e.g. fumigants, dips, dustings, flood spraying);
• irradiation;
• physiology of commodity (e.g. stage of maturity, stage of ripeness);
• time of import;
• combination of one or more of the above (a systems approach).
7. The concept of equivalence relates to outcomes, not the methods used to achieve those
outcomes.  In other words, the phytosanitary measures proposed and recognized as equivalent must
deliver the level of protection against risks that is considered appropriate by the importing country inthe situation under consideration.
Examples of recognition of equivalent phytosanitary measures
8. In New Zealand the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) is responsible for developing
and applying almost all phytosanitary measures to imported goods.   This paper sets out several
examples of how MAF has recognized specific phytosanitary measures as providing an equivalent
level of protection to that achieved by measures originally required.
Acceptance of high-temperature forced air as an effective fruit fly disinfestation treatment
9. In 1994, changes in New Zealand regulations to the maximum residue limit for ethylene
dibromide (EDB) effectively eliminated this fumigant as a viable post-harvest disinfestation treatment
for fruit flies.  The unavailability of EDB treatment resulted in the cessation of imports of mango,papaya and eggplant from several South Pacific countries, and initiated the search for an alternative
disinfestation treatment for fruit flies.
10. With funding from New Zealand’s Overs eas Development Assistance Programme, a
government-owned research institute (HortResearch) undertook extensive research to demonstrate the
efficacy of high-temperature forced air (HTFA) as an alternative disinfestation treatment for a numberof fruit fly species found in the South Pacific.  Th is research resulted in the HTFA treatment being
approved for use in several countries on various crops that are host to particular fruit fly species, prior
to export to New Zealand.G/SPS/GEN/232
Page 3
Acceptance of a "winter window" for cucurbits imported from Australia
11. Cucurbits imported into New Zealand from Australia have traditionally been treated (with a
post-harvest dip in dimethoate) against economically-important fruit fly species.  In 1999, Australian
authorities approached New Zealand MAF requesting that for cucurbits that were host to onlyBactrocera cucumis , the post-harvest dip need not be applied as climatic data indicated the probability
of the pest being able to establish in New Zealand was extremely low.
12. MAF was concerned that a summer population of Bactrocera cucumis  could establish (with
associated effects on production costs and market access), but recognized that the likelihood of a
winter population establishing was virtually zero particularly when other mitigating factors such as
field pest control and commercial grading undertaken  in Australia were considered.  Accordingly a
winter import period (1 May-30 September each year) was recognized as being equivalent to a post-harvest chemical dip, and MAF has removed the requirement for this treatment during these (southern
hemisphere) winter months.
Acceptance of tamper-proof official stickers for accompanied consignments of fresh orchids from
Singapore
13. Unaccompanied commercial consignments of cut flowers exported from Singapore to New
Zealand must be inspected and accompanied with a phytosanitary certificate.  New Zealand had
previously required that consignments of fresh cut flowers of the family Orchidaceae brought to New
Zealand from Singapore by passengers also be accompanied by phytosanitary certification.
14. New Zealand has recently accepted the use of tamper-proof stickers (issued by the National
Plant Protection Organisation of Singapore) affixed to such accompanied consignments.  The use of
this measure as equivalent to certificates to verify official inspection of the consignment was accepted
on the basis of demonstrated history of compliance with the phytosanitary requirements and low pest
interceptions associated with the pathway.
Conclusion
15. Recognizing equivalence of particular phytosanitary measures to protect against specified
risks conforms with Article 4 of the SPS Agreemen t and the requirements of the International Plant
Protection Convention.  In practice, recognition of equivalence takes place only after considerable
dialogue between two (or more) countries.  The exporting country must provide robust technical
information to support its application for an impor ting country to recognize alternative phytosanitary
measures as providing protection against risks equivalent to that achieved by the prescribed importrequirements.
__________