1 
 NATIONAL STANDARDS FOR PHYTOSANITARY MEASURES  
 
 
 
 
NSPM: 24 
 
 
 
 
Guidelines for determination and recognition of equaivalence of 
phytosanitary measures  
2013  
 
 
 
 
 
 
(This standard is approved by (the NPPO and) the Quarantine Committee of Nepal, chaired by the 
secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture Development on 1st December 2013 and, is submitted by National 
Plant Quarantine Program to the National Notification Authority to be notified to th e WTO member states)  
 
   
 
2 
 Table of Contents  
1. Introduction  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  3 
1.1 Scope  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................  3 
1.2 References  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......  3 
1.3 Definitions  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .........  3 
1.4 Outline of requirements  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................  3 
2. Background  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .........  4 
3. Requirements  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 5 
3.1 General considerations  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................  5 
3.2 General principles and requirements  ................................ ................................ ............................  6 
3.2.1 Sovereign authority  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................  6 
3.2.2 Other relevant principles  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........  6 
3.2.3 Technical justification for equivalence  ................................ ................................ ..................  7 
3.2.4 Non -discrimination in the application of equivalence of phytosanitary measures  ..........  8 
3.2.5 Information exchange  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............  8 
3.2.6 Technical assistance ................................ ................................ ................................ ................  8 
3.2.7 Timeliness  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 9 
4. Specific requirements for the application of equivalence  ................................ .............................  9 
4.1 Specific pests and commodities  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 9 
4.2 Existing measures  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........................  9 
4.3 Entry into consultation  ................................ ................................ ................................ .....................  9 
4.4 Ag reed procedure  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................  9 
4.5 Factors considered in determining equivalence  ................................ ................................ .......  10 
4.6 Non -disruption of trade  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................  11 
4.7 Provision of access  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................  11 
4.8 Revi ew and monitoring  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................  11 
4.9 Implementation and transparency  ................................ ................................ ...............................  11 
Annex 1: Procedure for equivalence determination  ................................ ................................ ............  12 
 
 
   
 
3 
  Introduction  
1.1 Scope  
This standard describes the principles and requirements related to the determination and 
recognition of equivalence of phytosanitary measures. It also describes a procedure for 
equivalence determinations in international trade.  NSPM preparation based on guidelines and 
recommendations developed within the framework of the IPPC. This standard also adopted the 
principles, recommendations and format of ISPM to achieve international harmonization of 
phytosanitary measures with the aim to facilitate trade.  
 
1.2 References  
IPPC. 1997. International Plant Protection Convention. Rome, IPPC, FAO.   
ISPM 1. 1993 . Principles  of plant quarantine as related to international trade. Rome, 
IPPC, FAO.  [Published  1995] [ Revised ; now ISPM 1: 2006]  
ISPM 2. 1995. Guidelines for pest risk analysis. Rome, IPPC, FAO. [ Published  1996] 
[Revised ; now ISPM  2: 2007] Principles of plant quara ntine as related to 
international trade, 1995  
ISPM 5. Glossary of phytosanitary terms. Rome, IPPC, FAO.   
ISPM 7. 1997. Export certification system. Rome, IPPC, FAO.  
ISPM 11. 2004. Pest risk analysis for quarantine pests including analysis of 
environment al risks and  living modified organisms. Rome, IPPC, FAO.  
ISPM 13. 2001.  Guidelines for the notification of non -compliance and emergency action. 
Rome, IPPC, FAO.  
ISPM 14. 2002 . The  use of integrated measures in a systems approach for pest risk 
management.  Rome, IPPC, FAO.  
ISPM 15. 2002 . Guidelines  for regulating wood packaging material in international trade.  
Rome, IPPC, FAO. [ Revised ; now ISPM 15:2009]  
ISPM 21. 2004. Pest risk analysis for regulated non -quarantine pests. Rome, IPPC, 
FAO.  
WTO. 1994. Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. 
Geneva, World  Trade Organization.  
ISPM 24. Guidelines for the determination and recognition of equivalence of 
phytosanitary measures. Rome, IPPC, FAO  
Plant Quarantine Process Manual” . 2067/068. Adopted  by the NPQP, Plant Protection 
Directorate of Department of Agriculture, Ministry of Agriculture Development of  
Government of Nepal, 2067/068  
1.3 Definitions  
Equivalence (of phytosanitary measures is defined in the International Standard f or 
Phytosanitary Measures No. 5 (Glossary of phytosanitary terms) (ISPM 5, 2010) as “The 
situation where, for a specified pest risk, different phytosanitary measures achieve a contracting 
party’s appropriate level of protection”  
1.4 Outline of requirements  
Equivalence of phytosanitary measures is particularly important for the international movement  
of commodities  because many different phytosanitary measures are available that can have the 
same intended effect. Equivalence generally applies to cases where phytosanitary measures   
 
4 
 already exist for a specific pest associated with trade in a commodity or commodity class. 
Determination of equivalence should be based on the specified pest risk and involves the 
exchange of information and evaluation  of phytosanitary measures between the NPPOs of the 
importing and exporting countries  and equivalence should  apply to individual measures, a 
combination of measures, or integrated measures in a systems approach (for example , develop 
and utilize phytosanitary measures that are equivalent, viable and feasible alternatives to methyl 
bromide) . 
This principle requires recognition of equivalent phytosanitary measures that have the same 
effect. Therefore, official control programs do not have to be exactly the same, as long as they 
have the desired level of pest control.  The situation where, for a specified pest risk, different 
phytosanitary measure(s) proposed by the exporting contracting party achieve the importing 
contracting party’s appropriate level of protection /acceptable level of risk. The exporting 
contracting party may request information from the importing contracting party on the 
contribution that its existing measures make to meet its appropriate level of protection ( ALOP). 
1. Background  
The importation of pl ants and plant products  including non -timber forest products  involves a 
degree of risk to the plant  life and health status of an importing country. The estimation of that 
risk and the choice of the appropriate risk management option(s) are made more diffic ult by 
differences among the plant health and production systems. It is now recognised that 
significantly different plant health and production systems can provide equivalent plant health 
protection for the purpose of international trade, with benefits to both the importing country and 
the exporting country.  
Before trade in plants or their products may occur, an importing country must be satisfied that its 
plant health status will be appropriately protected. In most cases, the risk management 
measures drawn  up will rely in part on judgements made about the plant health and production 
system(s) in the exporting country and the effectiveness of phytosanitary procedures 
undertaken there. Systems operating in the exporting country may differ from those in the 
importing country and from those in other countries with which the importing country has traded. 
Differences may be with respect to infrastructure, policies and/or operating procedures, 
laboratory systems, approaches to the pests and diseases present, border  security and internal 
movement controls.  
Many factors need to be considered in the successful export of agricultural products. After 
obtaining the up -to-date phytosanitary requirements of the prospective importing country or 
countries, the exporter and NPPO of the exporting country have to determine if the same or 
other procedures achieving an equivalent level of protection can be put in place so that the 
product can meet the requirements. For any import requirement but the most simple, 
considerable effo rt, expertise and expense may be needed to meet phytosanitary requirements.  
Each Party shall accept the science -based technical information or phytosanitary measures of 
the other Party as equivalent, even if these measures differ from its own measures  or from 
those used by other Parties trading in the same product,  if the exporting Party objectively 
demonstrates to the other importing Party tha t its measures achieve the importing  Party’s 
appropriate level of phytosanitary protection  (acceptable level of ris k). For this purpose,   
 
5 
 reasonable access shall  be given, upon request, to the importing party for inspection, testing 
and other relevant procedures.  
The exporting country should be able to demonstrate objectively how the existing phytosanitary 
measures or a lternative sanitary measure(s) proposed as equivalent will provide the same level 
of protection. It does not require duplication or identical measures, and can be applied between 
all Members, irrespective of their level of development. Equivalence, however, has to be 
demonstrated by the exporting country and recognized by the importing country. Determ ination 
of equivalence should be based on the specified pest risk and involves the exchange of 
information and evaluation between the NPPO of the importing and exporting countries. Such 
measures should be technically justified and respect the principles of  transparency, non -
discrimination and equivalence. This standard seeks to harmonize phytosanitary import 
requirements and recognize equivalency in methods for meeting an importing country’s 
phytosanitary requirements.  
2. Requirements  
3.1 General consideration s 
Equivalence  is described as general principle no. 7 in ISPM 1:1993): “Equivalence: Countries 
shall recognize  as being equivalent those phytosanitary measures that are not identical but 
which have the same  effect. Equivalent / e quivalence  (of technical r equirements), means that 
two or more Parties’ requirements have the s ame outcome but not identical. The determination 
of equivalence requires an objective, risk -based assessment or evaluation by the importing 
Party of the existing, revised or proposed meas ures.  
Phytosanitary measures are often required for imported commodities to prevent the introduction 
of quarantine pests. Such measures need to be appropriate for a specific commodity and 
effective against the quarantine pests of that commodity.  
 
Member c ountries cover a wide range and  the many different pests present,  have different 
geographic distributions and host ranges. For this reason, there may be differences between 
countries in their phytosanitary requirements for the importation of commodities . 
In developing phytosanitary management options, member countries should take note of the 
principle of equivalence and therefore be prepared to use different treatments that are 
equivalent. For example, alternative phytosanitary management options such as he at treatment, 
cold disinfestations treatments, chemical disinfestations treatments, area freedom, systems 
approaches, or combinations of the above may be appropriate for consideration of equivalence 
where feasible.  
 
Members shall accept the sanitary or p hytosanitary measures of other m embers as equivalent, 
even if these measures differ from their o wn or from those used by other m embers trading in the 
same product, i f the exporting m ember objectively  demonstrates to the importing m ember that 
its measures achieve the importing m ember's appropriate level of sanitary or phytosanitary 
protection. For this purpose, reasonable access shall be given, upon request, to the imp orting 
member for inspection, testing and other relevant procedures  (Article 4 of the WTO -SPS 
Agreement) .  
 
The process of recognizing equivalence is the objective examination of alternative phytosanitary 
measures proposed to determine if they achieve the appropriate level of protection of an   
 
6 
 importing country as indicated by existing measures of that country.  
 
To manage a specified pest risk and achieve a contracting party’s appropriate level of 
protection, equivalence may be applied to:  
-    an individual measure,  
-    a combination of measures, or  
-    integrated measures in a systems approach  
In the case of a systems approach, alternative measures may be proposed as equivalent to one 
or more  of the integrated measures, rather than changing the entire systems approach. 
Equivalence arrangements are applicable for commodities rather than for indiv idual 
consignments.   
 
This standard provides guidelines for situations where an importing contracting party has a 
phytosanitary measure in place, or is proposing a new measure, and an exporting contracting 
party proposes an alternative measure to achieve t he importing contracting party’s appropriate 
level of protection. The alternative measure is then evaluated for equivalence. Equivalence is 
generally a bilateral process between importing and exporting contracting parties . 
 
3.2 General principles and requirements  
3.2.1 Sovereign authority  
The importing contracting party has the sovereign right to set the level of protection it deems 
appropriate in relation to plant life and health in its territory, including the right to make decisions 
relating to deter minations of equivalence .  
 
With the aim of preventing the introduction of quarantine pests into their territories, it is 
recognized that countries may exercise the sovereign right to utilize phytosanitary measures to 
regulate the entry of plants and plant  products and other materials capable of harbouring plant 
pests.  A contracting party has sovereign authority to regulate the entry of plants, plant products 
and other regulated articles (Article VII.1 of the IPPC). Therefore a contracting party has the 
right to make decisions relating to determinations of equivalence.  
 
3.2.2 Other relevant principles  
In equivalence evaluations, contracting parties should take into account the following principles:  
 
Minimal impact  
Phytosanitary measures shall be consistent with the pest risk involved, and shall represent the 
least restr ictive measures available which result in the minimum impediment to the international 
movement of people, commodities and conveyances.  
 
Modification  
As conditions change, and as new facts become available, phytosanitary measures shall be 
modified promptly,  either by inclusion of prohibitions, restrictions or requirements necessary for 
their success, or by removal of those found to be unnecessary.  
 
Transparency  
Countries shall publish and disseminate phytosanitary prohibitions, restrictions and 
requirements and, on request, make available the rationale for such measures.  
   
 
7 
 Harmonization  
Phytosanitary measures shall be based, whenever possible, on international standards, 
guidelines and recommendations, developed within the framework of the  IPPC.  
 
Risk analysis  
To determine which pests are quarantine pests and the strength of the measures to be taken 
against them, countries shall use pest risk analysis methods based on biological and economic 
evidence and, wherever possible, follow procedures developed within th e framework of the 
IPPC.  
 
Managed risk  
Because some risk of the introduction of a quarantine pest always exists, countries shall agree 
to a policy of risk management when formulating phytosanitary measures. The first type of risk 
assessment requires the “e valuation of the likelihood of entry, establishment or spread of a pest 
or disease within the territory. The second requires the “evaluation of the potential for adverse 
effects.  
 
Non-discrimination  
Phytosanitary measures shall be applied without discrimination between countries of the same 
phytosanitary status, if such countries can demonstrate that they apply identical or equivalent 
phytosanitary measures in pest management. In the case of a quarantine pest within a country, 
measures shall be app lied without discrimination between domestic and imported 
consignments .  
 
Dispute settlement  
It is preferable that any dispute between two countries regarding phytosanitary measures be 
resolved at a technical bilateral level. If such a solution cannot be a chieved within a reasonable 
period of time, further action may be undertaken by means of a multilateral settlement system.  
 
This standard, in addition to the basic principles listed above, also describes several operational 
principles related to the establ ishment, implementation and monitoring of phytosanitary 
measures, and to the administration of official phytosanitary systems. The operational principles 
are: pest risk analysis, pest listing, recognition of pest free areas and areas of low pest 
prevalence , official control of regulated pests, systems approach, surveillance, pest reporting, 
phytosanitary certification, phytosanitary integrity and security of consignments, prompt action, 
emergency measures, avoidance of undue delays, notification of non -comp liance . 
3.2.3 Technical justification for equivalence  
A judgment of equivalence requires an assessment of phytosanitary measures to determine 
their effectiveness in mitigating a specified pest risk(s) —identified through a Pest Risk Analysis 
(ISPM  No. 11).  Moreover, the determination of equivalence of measures may include an 
evaluation of the exporting contracting party’s phytosanitary systems or programs that support 
implementation of those measures.  
An importing Member shall accept the measures of other countries as equivalent, if it is   
objectively demonstrated that the measures meet the importing Member’s ALOP. The exporting 
contracting party has the responsibility for providing the technical infor mation to demonstrate 
that the alternative measures reduce the specified pest risk and that they achieve the 
appropriate level of protection of the importing contracting party . 
The example mentioned below provides technical justification to support the con tinuation of 
Nepal’s longstanding requirement that wood packaging material be bark free to reduce the   
 
8 
 quarantine risk to a very low level to meet Nepal’s appropriate level of protection (ALOP). The 
inspector should use the standards as described in “ Plant Quarantine Process Manual ” adopted 
by the NPQP, Plant Protection Directorate of Department of Agriculture, and Ministry  of 
Agriculture Development of  Government of Nepal.  The requirement for wood packaging material 
to be free of bark is justified because i t:  
 enhance s the visual inspection process   
 removes the effects of bark on methyl bromide fumigation and minimizes treatment  
failures  
 minimizes the risk of entry of the quarantine pests that depend on bark for food, shelter  
 and one  or more stages of deve lopment  
 reduces the risk of infestation and re-infestation after treatment and  
 minimizes the risk of introduction of soil -borne pests and contaminating arthropod pests.  
 
The removal of bark is necessary to allow the effective monitoring of wood packaging  material 
during quarantine inspection procedures because of the cryptic ( hidden)  nature of many wood 
inhabiting organisms.  
3.2.4 Non -discrimination in the application of equivalence of phytosanitary measures  
Contracting parties should apply phytosanitary measures without discrimination between 
comparable domestic and international phytosanitary situations.  Contracting parties should, in 
accordance with the IPPC (1997), apply phytosanitary measures without discrimination among 
other contracting parties if t hose other contracting parties can demonstrate that they have the 
same phytosanitary status and apply identical or equivalent phytosanitary measures.  
The principle of non -discrimination requires that when equivalen ce of phytosanitary measures is 
granted f or one exporting contracting party, this should also apply to contracting parties with the 
same phytosanitary status and similar conditions for the same commodity or commodity class 
and/or pest. Therefore, an importing contracting party which recognizes th e equivalence of 
alternative phytosanitary measures of an exporting contracting party should ensure that it acts in 
a non -discriminatory manner. This applies both to applications from third countries for 
recognition of the equivalence of the same or simila r measures, and to the equivalence of any 
domestic measures. Phytosanitary measures should always be considered in the context of the 
pest status and phytosanitary regulatory system of the exporting contracting party, including the 
policies and procedures.   
3.2.5 Information exchange  
Contracting parties should, on request, make available to any contracting party the rationale for 
phytosanitary requirements (Article VII.2 (c) of the IPPC)  and cooperate, to the extent 
practicable, in providing technical and biological information n ecessary for pest risk analysis 
(Article VIII(c) of the IPPC) .  
 
To facilitate discussions on equivalence the importing contracting party should, on request, 
provide information describing how its existing measures reduce the risk of the specified pest 
and how they achieve its appropriate level of protection. This information may be provided in 
either quantitative or qualitative terms. Such information should a ssist the exporting contracting 
party in understanding the existing measures. It may also help the exporting contracting party to 
explain how its proposed alternative measures reduce the pest risk and achieve the importing 
contracting party’s appropriate l evel of protection.  
3.2.6 Technical assistance  
The technical assistance needs of developing countries relate not only to improving their   
 
9 
 understanding of the rules applicable under the SPS Agreement but also to the acquisition of 
technical and scientific c apacity to meet their obligations and enforce their rights under the SPS 
Agreement  
3.2.7 Timeliness  
Contracting parties should endeavour to determine the equivalence of phytosanitary measures 
and to resolve any differences without undue delays.  
3. Specific requirements for the application of equivalence  
4.1 Specific pests and commodities  
Importing countries should recognize alternative phytosanitary measures  of specific pests and 
commodities  proposed by exporting countries as equivalent when those measures are 
demonstrated to achieve the appropriate level of protection determined by the importing 
country.  The process of comparing alternative phytosanitary measures for the purpose of 
determini ng their equivalence usually relates to a specified export commodity and specified 
regulated pests identified through pest risk analysis.  
4.2 Existing measures  
When comparing existing and proposed measures, importing and exporting contracting parties 
should assess the ability of the measures to limit or reduce a specified pest risk.  Usually an 
exporting country’s NPPO presents an alternative measure that is intended to achieve the 
NPPO of the importing country’s appropriate level of protection. Where n ew commodities or 
commodity classes are presented for importation and no measures exist, contr acting parties 
should refer to NSPM : PRA for quarantine pests, including analysis of environmental risk and 
LMOs and  NSPM : PRA of RNQPs  for the normal PRA procedu re 
It is expected that members would accept the phytosanitary measures of others as equivalent if 
the exporting country demonstrates to the importing country that its measures achieve the 
importing country's appropriate level of health protection. The agreement includes provisions on 
control, inspection and approval procedures.  When consignments do not meet  existing  
phytosanitary import requirements they are considered to be non -compliant. The NPPO of the 
importing country notifies the NPPO of the expor ting country about the non -compliance. The 
exporting country’s NPPO should then follow up the non -compliance. The exporting country’s 
NPPO should then follow up with the exporter to ensure that consignments are not rejected in 
the future.  
4.3 Entry into co nsultation  
When requested, contracting parties are encouraged to enter into consultations with the aim of 
facilitating a determination of equivalence.  
4.4 Agreed procedure  
It describes a procedure for equivalence determinations in international trade.  Contracting 
parties should agree on a procedure to determine equivalence.  Bilateral trade agreements play 
an important role in strengthening the principle of transparency. This may be based on the 
procedure recommended in Annex 1  of this standard or anoth er bilaterally agreed procedure.  
   
 
10 
 4.5 Factors  considered in determining  equivalence  
The legislative and administrative systems, other factors such as the performance of the 
relevant competent authorities and any other necessary assessments or tests may be  
considered  in determining  equivalence . However, it is recognized that there are a number of 
factors  which determines the equivalence of phytosanitary measures . These may include:  
 the effect of the measure as demonstrated in laboratory or field conditions  
 the examination of relevant literature on the effect of the measure  
 the results of experience in the practical application of the measure  
 the factors affecting the implementation of the measure (e.g. the policies and procedures 
of the  contracting party ).  
 
Importing countries should recognize alternative phytosanitary measures proposed by exporting 
countries as equivalent when those measures are demonstrated to achieve the appropriate 
level of protection determined by the importing country. Each party s hall use standards as 
reference and concept guideline for its phytosanitary  measures. Equivalent regulatory systems 
need not be identical . The importing Party shall accept the phytosanitary measures of the 
exporting Party as equivalent if the exporting Party objectively demonstrates that its measures 
achieve the importing Party's appropriate level of phytosanitary protection.  
When comparing existing measures and measures proposed as equivalent, importing and 
exporting contracting parties should assess the ability of the measures to reduce a specified 
pest risk. The proposed measures should be assessed for their ability to achieve the importin g 
contracting party’sappropriate level of protection. In cases where the effects of both the existing 
measures and the proposed measures are expressed in the same way (i.e. the same type of 
required response), the effects may be compared directly for their  ability to reduce the pest risk. 
For example, a fumigation treatment and a cold treatment may be compared for their effects 
based on mortality.  
 
Where measures are expressed differently, they may be difficult to compare directly. In such 
cases, the proposed measures should be assessed for their capability to achieve the importing 
contracting party’s appropriate level of protection.  
 
When determini ng equivalence, a comparison of specific technical requirements of the existing 
and proposed measures may be enough or meet the requirements. In the cases where trade is 
already established between contracting parties, this provides knowledge about and exp erience 
with the exporting contracting party’s phytosanitary regulatory systems (e.g. legal, surveillance, 
inspection, certification) This knowledge and experience should strengthen confidence between 
parties with the evaluation of an equivalence proposal.   
 
As mentioned above, this standard clearly states that the capacity of the exporting country’s 
NPPO to apply the measure or measures may also be evaluated as an important component of 
the likelihood of meeting the importing NPPO’s appropriate level of pr otection. Phytosanitary 
measures may have a significant effect (positive or negative) on trade . NPPO has  the sovereign 
right to regulate imports to achieve an acceptable level of protection, taking into account their 
international obligations, in particular the IPPC. When a contracting party implements 
phytosanitary procedures, it should try to use measures that reduce risk to an acceptable level 
with the least negative impacts on trade.  
 
The NPQP of Plant Protection Directorate (NPPO) of Nepal should  hold annual meeting with PQ 
officers to review the performance of activities  and equivalent regulatory system s related to   
 
11 
 import inspection and effective implementation of phytosanitary import regulatory measures to 
prevent the introduction and spread of regulated pests and requirements of modification of 
regulations and procedures.  
4.6 Non-disruption of trade  
The objectives of the recognition of equivalence should be to minimize disruptions to trade while 
protecting the health of plant and plant products, facilitate an effective and efficient risk -based 
approach and provide transparency and predictability for i mporters and exporters.  
 
4.7 Provision of access  
In order to support an importing contracting party’s consideration of an equivalence request, the 
exporting contracting party should facilitate access by the importing contracting party to relevant 
sites to conduct any reviews, inspections or verifications for an equivalence determination when 
technically justified.  
4.8 Review and monitoring  
After the recognition of equivalence, and to provide continued confidence in the equivalence 
arrangements, contracting  parties should implement the same review and monitoring 
procedures as for similar phytosanitary measures. These may include assurance procedures 
such as audits, periodic checks, reporting of non -compliances (see also ISPM 13:2001 or other 
forms of verific ation . 
4.9 Implementation and transparency  
The aim is to achieve a greater degree of clarity, predictability and information about the trade 
policies, rules and regulations of Members. To  achieve the required transparency, amendment 
of regulations and related procedures should also be made available to other interested 
contracting parties.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
12 
  
 
 
Annex 1 : Procedure for equivalence  determination  
There is no single sequence of steps which must be followed in all judgments  of equivalence. 
The steps that trading partners choose will generally depend on the circumstances and their 
trading experience. Equivalency determination is the methods by which w e collect detailed 
information  for phytosanitary measures . The procedure that trading partners utilize to determine 
equivalence may vary depending on the circumstances. However, t he interactive procedure 
described below is recommended for assessing phytosanitary measures that are proposed as  
equivalence.  
 
Recommended steps are:  
(1) The exporting contracting party communicates its interest in an equivalence determination to 
its trading partner, indicating the specified commodity, the regulated pest of concern and the 
current  and proposed alternative measures. At the same time it may r equest from the importing 
contracting party the technical justification for the existing measures.  
 
(2) Importing contracting party  should describe  its existing measures in terms that will help 
to facilitate a comparison with alternative phytosanitary measure s. To the best of its 
ability, the information provided by importing contracting party should include following:   
 
(a) the purpose of the phytosanitary measures, including identification of the specific 
pest risk that these measures are being used to mitigate .  
(b) how the existing phytosanitary measures or alternative sanitary measure(s) 
proposed as equivalent  provide  the importing contracting party’s appropriate level 
of protection ?  
(c) the technical justification for the existing phytosanitary measures, including the PRA 
where appropriate .  
d) any additional information that may assist the exporting contracting party in 
demonstrating that  the proposed measures achieve the importing contracting party’s 
appropriate level of protection.  
 
(3) The exporting contracting party should provide adequate  technical information  including 
legal  and regulatory infrastructure that it demonstrates equivalence of phytosanitary 
measures, and makes a request for equivalence. This information should be in a for m 
suitable for comparison with the information provided by the importing contracting party 
and which therefore facilitates the necessary evaluation by the importing contracting 
party. This should include the following elements:  
 
(a) the description of the  proposed alternative measures  
(b) the effectiveness of the measures  
(c) exporting country should be able to demonstrate objectively how the alternative 
measure(s) proposed as equivalent will provide the same level of protection .  
(d) specific informatio n and requirements  on how the measures were evaluated (e.g. 
facilities, equipments, processes, procedures, laboratory testing, statistical   
 
13 
 analysis, practical operational experience), and the performance of the measures 
in practice .  
(e) a comparison between the proposed alternative measures and the importing 
contracting party’s existing measures for same pest risk   
(f)  information on technical and operational feasibility of the proposed alternative 
measures.  
(g)  infrastructure: including the legislative base (e.g. plant health law) and administrative 
systems (e.g.organisation of national and regional plant health authorities, em ergency 
response organisations)  
(h)programme design/implementation: including documentation of systems,  performance 
and decision criteria, laboratory capability, and provisions for certification, audit and 
enforcemen t 
(i) the exporting country should present a submission for equivalence in a form that 
facilitates judgement by the importing country . 
 
4) The importing contracting party receives and evaluates the proposed alternative 
phytosanitary measures  for equivalence in a timely, consistent, transparent and objective 
manner, and according to appropriate risk assessment principles , taking into account, but not 
being limited to following:  
(a) the submission from the exporting contracting party, including supporting 
information regarding the effectiveness of the proposed alternative measures  
(b)  an importing country has the right to set the level of protect ion it deems 
appropriate (its ALOP) in relation to plant life and health in its territory; this ALOP 
may be expressed in qualitative or quantitative terms  
(c) information regarding the method, action and operation of the proposed alternative  
phytosanitary measures in preventing or reducing the specified pest risk  
(d)    the operational and economic feasibility of adopting the proposed alternative         
phytosanitary measures.  
 
During the evaluation further clarification may be required. Additi onal information and/or access 
to operational procedures may be requested by the importing contracting party in order to 
complete the assessment. The exporting contracting party should respond to any technical 
concerns raised by the importing contracting p arty by providing relevant information and/or 
providing access to relevant information or sites to facilitate reviews, inspections or other 
verifications necessary for making an equivalence determination .  
 
(5) An interactive process should be followed that applies a defined sequence of steps, and 
utilises an agreed process for exchange of information, so as to limit data collection to that 
which is necessary, minimise administrative burden, and facilitate resolution of claims   
(6) The importing contract ing party  should notify  the exporting contracting party of its decision 
and provides, upon request, an explanation and technical justification for its determination 
as quickly as possible.   
(7) Rejection  of the case for equivalence of the alternative meas ure(s), efforts should be made 
to resolve differences of opinion through bilateral dialogue.  
 
(8) If equivalence is recognized by the importing contracting party, implementation should be 
achieved by the prompt amendment of the import regulations and any associated 
procedures of the importing contracting party. The amendments should be communicated in 
accordance with Article VII.2 ( b) of the IPPC.     
 
14