1 
 NATIONAL STANDARDS FOR  PHYTO SANITARY MEASURES  
 
 
 
 
NSPM : 14 
 
 
 
 
The use of integrated measures  in a system approach for pest risk 
management  
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 the WTO member states)  
 
 
 2 
  
 
Table of Contents  
Abbreviations  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .........  i 
1. Introduction  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 1 
1.1 Scope  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  1 
1.2 References  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 1 
1.3 Definitions  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 2 
1.4 Outline of req uirements  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............  2 
2. Requirements  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................  3 
2.1Purpose of systems approaches  ................................ ................................ ..............................  3 
2.2 Characteristics of systems approaches  ................................ ................................ ............  3 
2.3 Relationship with PRA and available pest risk management options  ..........................  4 
Pre-planting  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 4 
Pre-harvest  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 4 
Harvest  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........  5 
Post-harvest treatment and  handling  ................................ ................................ ........................  5 
Transportation and distribution  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 5 
3. Independent and dependent measures  ................................ ................................ ....................  5 
4. Circumstances for use  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................  6 
5. Types  of systems approaches ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 7 
6. Efficacy of measures  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................  7 
7. Developing systems approaches  ................................ ................................ ...............................  8 
8. Evaluating systems approaches  ................................ ................................ ................................  9 
8.1 Possible outcomes of evaluation  ................................ ................................ .......................  9 
9. Responsibilities  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................  9 
10.1  Importing  country responsibilities  ................................ ................................ ....................  10 3 
 10.2  Exporting country responsibilities  ................................ ................................ ....................  10 
Annex 1: Critical control point system  ................................ ................................ .............................  12 
Annex 2: FAO/IAEA guidelines for implementing systems approaches for pest risk 
management  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......  13 
 
 
 
 i 
 Abbreviations  
CODEX  Codex Alimentarius  
HACCP  Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point  
FAO  Food and Agriculture Organization  
IAEA  International Atomic Energy Commission  
IPPC   International Plant Protection Convention  
ISPM  International Standard for Phytosanitary Measures  
NPPO   National Plant Protection Organization  
PRA      Pest Risk Analysis  
SA System Approach  
SIT Sterile  Insect Technique  
WTO   World trade organization  
 
 1 
 1. Introduction  
1.1 Scope  
This standard provides the guidelines for the development and evaluation of integrated 
measures in a systems approach for pest risk management under Plant Protection Acts 
2007 and the Plant Protection Regulation 2010 for pest risk analysis (PRA) designed to meet 
phytosanitary import requirements for plants, plant products and other regulated articles.  
NSPM preparation based on  guidelines and recommenda tions 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  
Codex Alimentarius. 2003.   Hazard analysis and critical control point (HACCP) system and 
guidelines for its application. Annex to CAC/RCP 1 -1969 (General principles of food 
hygiene) (Rev. 4 - 2003). Rome, Codex Alimentarius, FAO.  
COSAVE. 1998.  Lineamientos para  un sistema integrado de medidas para mitigación del 
riesgo de plagas (¨system approach¨) [Guidelines for an integrated system of measures to 
mitigate pest risk (“systems approach”)]. Estandar Regional en Proteccion Fitosanitaria 3.13, 
v. 1.2. Asunción, Pa raguay, Comité de Sanidad Vegetal del Cono Sur.  
IAEA2011. FAO/ IAEA Guidelines for Implementing system approach for pest risk 
management of Fruit flies (working Material). FAO/IAEA Division of Nuclear Techniques in 
FAO,  Vienna, Austria, June 7 -11, 2010, R eproduce by the IAEA Vienna, Austria  
IPPC. 1997.  International Plant Protection Convention. Rome, IPPC, FAO.   
ISPM 1. 2006.  Phytosanitary principles for the protection of plants and the application of  
phytosanitary measures in international trade. Rome, IPPC, FAO.  
ISPM 2. 2007.  Framework for pest risk analysis. Rome, IPPC, FAO.  
ISPM 4. 1995.  Requirements for the establishment of pest free areas. Rome, IPPC, FAO.  
ISPM 5.  Glossary of phytosanitary terms. Rome, IPPC, FAO.  
ISPM 11. 2004.  Pest risk analysi s for quarantine pests including analysis of environmental 
risks and living modified organisms. Rome, IPPC, FAO.  
ISPM 14. 2002.  The use of integrated measures in a system approach for pest risk  
management.  Rome, IPPC, FAO   
ISPM 21. 2004.  Pest risk analy sis for regulated non -quarantine pests. Rome, IPPC, FAO.  
Plant Protection Act 2007. National Plant Quarantine Program,  Plant protection Directorate 
Ministry of Agriculture, Government of Nepal  
The Plant Protection Regulation 2010.  National Plant Quarantine Program,  Plant 
protection Directorate Ministry of Agriculture, Government of Nepal  
WTO. 1994.  Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. 
Geneva, World Trade Organization.  
http://www -naweb.iaea.org/nafa/ipc/public/ipc -systems -approach -2011.pdf  
 2 
 1.3 Definitions  
Definitions of phytosanitary terms used in the national standard can be found in IS PM 5 
(Glossary of phytosanitary terms ), Plant Protection Acts  2007 and  the Plant Protection 
regulation  2010 . 
 
Systems approach(es): The integration of different risk management measures, at least two 
of which act independently, and which cumulatively achieve the appropriate level of 
protection against regulated pests [ NSPM: The use of integrated measure in a system 
approach for pest risk management)  
 
1.4 Outline of requirements  
It is necessary to m inimize  the pest risks  associated with global  trade . The standards  “Frame 
work for pest risk analysis ( NSPM ), Pest risk analysis for quarantine pests including analysis 
of environmental risk and living modified organisms ( NSPM ) and Pest risk analysis of  
regulated non  quarantine pests ( NSPM )”, Plant Protection Act 2007 , Chapter  5, Section 17 
provide  general guidance for National Plant Protection Organization (NPPO) on measures 
for pest risk management. Systems approaches  should  integrate measures for pest risk 
management in a defined manner, to obtain  an alternative to single measures to meet the 
appropriate level of phytosanitary protection of an importing country. The NPPO Nepal shall 
establish a mechanism to develop  workable measure s. While developing a  systems 
approach NPPO of  Nepal requires the integration of different measures, at least two of which 
act independently, with a cumulative effect.  
 
Systems approaches differ  in types of obstructions . It is possible to use of critical control 
points system in a systems approach which wil l useful to identify and evaluate points in a 
pathway where specified pest risks can be reduced and monitored.   NPPO can use 
quantitative or qualitative methods on t he development and evaluation of a systems 
approach. Exporting and importing countries should consult and cooperate in the 
development and implementation of a systems approach. The decision regarding the 
acceptability of a systems approach lies with the NPPO of importing country, subject to 
consideration of technical justification, minimal i mpact, transparency, non -discrimination, 
equivalence, and operational feasibility.  A systems approach is usually adopted as  an 
option that is equivalent to but less restrictive than other measures.   
 3 
 2. Requirements  
2.1Purpose of systems approaches  
A systems approach integrates measures to meet phytosanitary import requirements  of the 
country . Systems approaches provide, where appropriate, an equivalent alternative to 
procedures such as treatments or replace more restrictive measures like prohibition. Many of 
the elements and individual components of pest risk management has been  described in 
“NSPM : Frame work for pest risk analysis , NSPM : Pest risk analysis for quarantine pests 
including analysis of environmental risk and living modified organisms and  NSPM : Pest risk 
analysis of regulated non quarantine pests . All phytosanitary measures must be technically 
justified according to Article VII.2 (a) of the IPPC. The systems approach integrates 
measures  to develop new and alternative pest risk management s trategies, which is 
achieved by considering the combined effect of different conditions and procedures. 
Systems approaches provide the opportunity to consider both pre - and post -harvest 
procedures that contribute to the effective management of pest risk. It is important that the 
integration of measures may be less trade restrictive than other risk management options 
(particularly where the alternative is prohibition).  
 
2.2 Characteristics of systems approaches  
A systems approach of National Standard Phytosanitary Measures of Nepal requires  two or 
more measures that are independent of each other, and can include any number of 
measures that are dependent on each other. An advantage of the systems approach is the 
ability to address variability and uncertainty by modifying the num ber and strength of  
measures to meet phytosanitary import requirements  of the country .  
  
Measures used in a systems approach can be applied pre -and/or post -harvest where 
national plant  protection organization have  the ability to oversee and ensure compliance with 
phytosanitary procedures. Thus a systems approach can include  measures applied in the 
place of production, during the post -harvest period, at the packing house, or during shipment 
and distribution of the c ommodity.  
 
Systems approach can include c ultural practices, crop treatment, post -harvest disinfestation, 
washing, cleaning, grading as per the commodities requirements and a final inspection to 
prevent contamination or re -infestation are generally include d in a systems approach (e.g. 
maintaining the integrity of lots, requiring pest -proof packaging, screening packing areas, 4 
 etc.). Likewise, procedures such as pest  surveillance, trapping and sampling can also 
included components  of a systems approach.  
 
Adop ted m easures that do not kill pests or reduce their prevalence but help to reduce their 
potential for entry or  establishment (safeguards) can be included in a systems approach. 
Examples include designated harvest or shipping periods, restrictions on the ma turity, 
colour, hardness, sucrose percentage or other condition of the commodity, the use of 
resistant hosts, and limited distribution or restricted use at the destination.  
 
2.3 Relationship with PRA and available pest risk management options  
The findings from pest risk assessment (Stage 2 of PRA) are used to decide whether pest 
risk management is required and the strength of measures to be used. Pest risk 
management, (Stage 3 of PRA), is the process of identifying ways to react to a perceived 
risk, evaluat ing the efficacy of these procedures, and recommending the most appropriate 
options. A combination of phytosanitary measures in a systems approach is one of the 
options which should  be selected as the basis for phytosanitary import requirements. As in 
the development of all pest risk management measures, these should take into account 
uncertainty of the risk ( See NSPM: Pest risk analysis for quarantine pests including analysis 
of environmental risk and living modified organisms ).  
 
In principle, systems approaches can be composed of the combination of phytosanitary 
measures that are possible to implement within the exporting country. However, where the 
exporting country proposes measures that should be implemented within the territor y of 
importing country and the  importing country agrees, measures within the importing country 
should  be combined in systems approaches . The following summarizes many of the options 
commonly used:  
Pre-planting  
 healthy planting  (seed, cuttings, bulb, set s) material s  of locally recommended 
variety  
Pre-harvest  
 field certification/management (e.g. inspection, pre -harvest treatments, pesticides, 
biological  control etc.)  
 protected conditions  (e.g. glasshouse, fruit bagging etc.)  
 pest mating disruption  5 
  weed control  
 low pest prevalence (continuous or at specific times)  
 testing .  
Harvest  
 harvesting plants at a specific growth stage of development or time of year  
 removal of infested products, inspection for selection  
 stage of ripeness/maturity  
 sanitation (e.g. removal of contaminants, “trash”)  
 harvest technique (e.g. handling).  
Post -harvest treatment and handling   
 treatment (e.g. fumigation, cold storage, controlled atmosphere, washing, brushing, 
waxing, dipping, heat etc.)  
 inspection and gra ding (including selection for certain maturity stages)  
 sanitation (including removal of parts of the host plant)  
 inspection before packing  
 certification of packing facilities  
 sampling  
 testing  
 method of packing  
 screening of storage areas.  
Transporta tion and distribution  
 treatment /sorting or processing during transport  
 treatment /sorting or processing on arrival  
 restrictions on end use, distribution and points of entry  
 restrictions on the period of import due to difference in seasons between origin  and 
destination  
 method of packing  
 post-entry quarantine  
 inspection and/or testing  
 means  of transport  
 sanitation (freedom from contamination of conveyances).  
 
3. Independent and dependent measures  
A systems approach should composed of both independent and d ependent measures. A 6 
 systems approach must have at least two independent measures. An independent measure 
may be composed of several dependent measures.  
 
With dependent measures the probability of failure is approximately additive.  All dependent 
measures are needed for the system to be effective.  
 
For an example  
An example of Independent and Dependent measures  
A pest -free glasshouse where both double -door and screening of all openings is required is 
an example where dependent measu res are combined to form an independent measure. If 
the probability that the screening fails is 0.1 and the probability that the double doors fail is 
0.1, then the probability that the glasshouse will be infested is the approximate sum of the 
two values. T herefore the probability that at least one of the measures fails is the sum of 
both probabilities minus the probability that both fail at the same time. In this example the 
probability is 0.19 (0.1 + 0.1 − 0.01), since both the measures could fail at the s ame time.  
Where measures are independent of each other, both measures must fail for the system to 
fail. With independent measures, the probability of failure is the product of all the 
independent measures.  
 
Example:  
If the inspection of a shipment has a  0.05 probability of failure and the limiting of movement 
to certain areas has a 0.05 probability of failure, then the probability of the system failing 
would be 0.0025 (0.05 × 0.05 ). For detail see Annex 2.  
 
4. Circumstances for use 
In order to secure effective systems approaches there should be provision of one or more of 
the following circumstances apply:  
 individual measures are:  
 not adequate to meet phytosanitary import requirements  
 not available (or likely to become unavailable)   
 detrimental (to commodity, human health, environment)  
 not cost effective  
 overly trade restrictive  
 not feasible  
 the pest and pest -host relationship should be  well known  7 
  a systems approach has been demonstrated to be effective for a similar pest/commo dity 
situation  
 there should be  the possibility to assess the effectiveness of individual measures either 
qualitatively or quantitatively  
 relevant growing, harvesting, packing, transportation and distribution practices should be  
well-known  and standardi zed  
 individual measures should be monitored and corrected  
 prevalence of the pest(s) should be  known and can be monitored  
 a systems approach should be  cost effective (e.g. considering the value and/or volume 
of commodity).  
 
5. Types of systems approaches  
Systems approaches range in complexity and rigour from systems that simply combine 
independent measures known to be effective to more complex and precise systems such as 
critical control point systems (see Appendix 1)  
 
Other systems based on a combination of measures that do not meet the requirements for a 
critical control point system should be  considered effective. However, the application of the 
critical control point concept may be generally useful for the developmen t of other systems 
approaches. For example, non -phytosanitary certification programmes may have elements 
that are also valuable for pest risk  management and may be included in a systems approach 
provided the phytosanitary elements of the process are made m andatory and can be 
overseen and controlled by the NPPO.  
The following  measure for a system approach should be:   
 clearly defined  
 efficacious  
 officially required (mandatory)  
 monitored and controlled by the responsible NPPO.  
 
6. Efficacy of measures  
Systems approaches should be developed or evaluated in either a quantitative or qualitative 
manner or a combination of both. Wherever possible this should be expressed in quantitative 
terms with a confidence interval. For example, efficacy (e.g. mortality,  reduction in incidence, 
host susceptibility) for a particular situation should be determined to be no more than five 
infested fruit from a total population of one million fruit with 95% confidence. Where such 8 
 calculations are not possible or are not done,  the efficacy may be expressed in qualitative 
terms such as high, medium, and low.  
 
7. Developing systems approaches  
The development of a systems approach should be done  by the NPPO of the  importing 
country, or by the exporting country, or ideally through the mutual cooperation of both 
countries. The process of developing systems approaches should  include consultation with 
industry, the scientific community, and trading partner(s). However,  the NPPO of the 
importing country decides the suitability of the systems approach in meeting its 
requirements, subject to consideration of technical justification, minimal impact, 
transparency, non -discrimination, equivalence and operational feasibility.  
 
A systems approach also include measures that are added or strengthened to compensate 
for uncertainty due to data gaps, variability, or lack of experience is the application of 
procedures. The level of such compensation included in a systems approach sho uld be 
commensurate with the level of uncertainty.  
 
Experience and the provision of additional information should  provide the basis for renewed 
consideration of the number and strength of measures with a view to modifying the systems 
approach accordingly.   
The development of a systems approach involves:  
 
 obtaining from a PRA the identity of the pest risk and the description of the pathway  
 identifying where and when management measures occur or can be applied (control 
points)  
 distinguishing between measures that are essential to the system and other factors or 
condition s 
 identifying independent and dependent measures and options for the compensation for 
uncertainty  
 assessing the individual and integrated efficacy of measures that are essential to th e 
system  
 assessing feasibility and trade restrictiveness  
 consultation  
 implementation with documentation and reporting  
 review and modification as necessary.  
 9 
 8. Evaluati ng systems approaches  
In the evaluation of systems approaches to meet phytosanitary imp ort requirements, the 
evaluation of whether these are met or not should consider the following:  
 considering the relevance of existing systems approaches for similar or the same pest(s) 
on  
 other commodities  
 considering the relevance of systems approaches  for other pest(s) on the same 
commodity  
 evaluating information provided on:  
 efficacy of measures  
 surveillance and interception, sampling data (incidence of pest)  
 pest host relationship  
 crop management practices  
 verification procedures  
 trade impacts and costs, including the time factor  
 considering data against desired confidence levels and taking into account options for 
the compensation for uncertainty where appropriate.   
 
8.1 Possible outcomes of evaluation  
These should  include determination that the systems approach is:  
 Acceptable  
 unacceptable:  
 efficacious but not feasible  
 not sufficiently effective (requires an increase in the number or strength of measures)  
 unnecessarily restrictive (requires a reduction of the num ber or strength of measures)  
 not possible to evaluate due to insufficient data or unacceptably high uncertainty.  
Where the systems approach has been found unacceptable, the rationale for this decision 
should be described in detail and made available to trading partners to facilitate the 
identification of possible improvements.  
 
9. Responsibilities  
Countries share the obligation to observe the principle of equivalence by considering pest 
risk management alternatives that will facilitate safe trade. Systems approaches provide 
significant opportunities to develop new and alternative pest risk managemen t strategies, but 
their development and implementation requires consultation and cooperation. Depending on 
the number and nature of measures included in a systems approach, a significant amount of 10 
 data may be required. Both exporting countries and importin g 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.  
 
10.1 Importing country respo nsibilities  
The importing country should provide specific information regarding its requirements. This 
includes specification of information and system requirements:  
 identify pests of concern  
 specify the phytosanitary import requirements  
 describe types and level of assurance required (e.g. certification)  
 identify points requiring verification.  
 
Importing countries, in consultation with the exporting country where appropriate should 
select least trade restrictive measures where there are options.  
Other  responsibilities of the importing country may include to:  
 propose improvements or alternative options  
 audit (planned evaluation and verification of the systems approach)  
 specify actions for non -compliance  
 review and give feedback  
 
Where importing countries agree to accept the implementation of certain measures in their 
territories, importing countries are responsible for the implementation of those measures.  
 
Agreed phytosanitary measures should be published (Article VII.2(b), IPPC ).  
 
10.2 Exporting country responsibilities  
There should be provision that t he exporting country should provide sufficient information to 
support evaluation and acceptance of the systems approach. This may include:  
 commodity, place of production and expe cted volume and frequency of shipments  
 commodity, place of production and expected volume and frequency of shipments  
 pest-host relationship  
 pest management measures proposed for a systems approach, and relevant efficacy 
data 
 relevant references.  
 11 
 Other re sponsibilities of the exporting country include:  
 monitoring/auditing and reporting on system effectiveness  
 taking appropriate corrective actions  
 maintaining appropriate records  
 providing phytosanitary certification in accordance with requirements of the  system . 
 
 
 12 
 This annex is a prescriptive part of the standard.  
 
Annex  1: Critical control point system  
A critical control point system would involve the following procedures:  
(1) determine the hazards and the objectives for measures within a defined 
system  
(2) identify independent procedures that can be monitored and controlled  
(3) establish criteria or limits for the acceptance/failure of each independent 
procedure  
(4) implement the system with monitoring as required for the desired level of 
confidence  
(5) take corrective action when monitoring results indicate that criteria are not met  
(6) review or test to validate system efficacy and confidence  
(7) maintain adequat e records and documentation.  
 
An example of this type of system is practiced  in food safety and is termed a Hazard 
Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) system.  
The application of a critical control point system for phytosanitary purposes may be 
useful  to identify and evaluate hazards as well as the points in a pathway where risks 
can be reduced and monitored and adjustments made where necessary. The use of 
a critical control point system for phytosanitary purposes does not imply or prescribe 
that appli cation of controls is necessary to all control points. However, critical control 
point systems only rely on specific independent procedures known as control points. 
These are addressed by risk management procedures whose contribution to the 
efficacy of the  system can be measured and controlled.  
 
Therefore, systems approaches for phytosanitary purposes may include components 
that do not need to be entirely consistent with critical control point concept because 
they are considered to be important elements in  a systems approach for 
phytosanitary purposes. For example, certain measures or conditions exist or are 
included to compensate for uncertainty. These may not be monitored as independent 
procedures (e.g. packhouse sorting), or may be monitored but not cont rolled (e.g. 
host preference/susceptibility).  
 
 13 
  
Annex 2: FAO/IAEA guidelines for implementing systems approaches for 
pest risk management  
 
Working material  
 
FAO/IAEA Guidelines for implementing systems  
Approaches for pest risk management of fruit flies 
 
Report and recommendations of the consultants group meeting organized by the Joint  
FAO/IAEA Division of Nuclear Techniques in Food and Agriculture, Vienna, Austria,  
June 7 -11 2010  
Reproduced by the IAEA  
Vienna, Austria 2011  
___________________________________________________  
NOTE  
 
The material in this document has been supplied by the authors and has not been edited  by 
the IAEA. The views expressed remain the responsibility of the authors and do not  
necessarily reflect those of the government(s) or the designating Member State(s). In  
particular, neither the IAEA nor any other organization or body sponsoring this meeting  can 
be held responsible for any material reproduced in this document.  
 
http://www -naweb.iaea.org/nafa/ipc/public/ipc -systems -approach -2011.pdf  
 
1. Parts of a systems approach  
By defining types of phytosanitary measures associated with SA with useful  terms, we can 
better understand, develop, and modify SA. This will also allow  us to better understand the 
requirements regarding independent and  dependent measures within the SA.  
 
1.1 Independent measures  
We can define the large comprehensive phytosanitary measures as major  components. 
These can be poor host status, areas of low pest prevalence,  pest exclusion structure, and 
less than probit -9 post -harvest commodity  treatment among others . These measures, by 
themselves, lower the risk of  the pest and are thus independent measur es for risk 
management. To be  classed as a SA there must be two or more independent 
measures/major  components working together in the pest risk management plan.  
 
1.2 Dependent measures  
Several measures, that by themselves would not significantly lower the risk, may be used in 
a combination to create an independent measure/major  component. For instance, the pest 
exclusion structure (which is an  independent measure) is made up of several dependent 
measures/elements,  likeself-closing doors, screening, double doors, etc. Individually, these 
can be  classed as dependent measures or elements. Other dependent measures may be: 14 
 producer registration, training, trapping, field controls, etc. and many other similar elements 
that he lp support the independent measure/major component for risk management.  
 
Other dependent measures/elements associated with SA are being employed  as safeguards 
(safeguard measures). They can be actions required either in  the exporting country such as 
contai nment of the shipment to protect from reinfestation and to maintain the integrity of the 
shipment or in the importing  country to protect the importing country from an introduction of 
the pest when  further mitigation is taking place. Safeguard measures may also be required 
in a shipment transiting third countries.  
 
At least one of the dependent measures/elements is an action that verifies the  effectiveness 
and or compliance of the independent measure/major  component for risk management. 
These related element s include trapping by  the NPPO (dependent) in an area of low pest 
prevalence (independent ), regular inspections by the NPPO (dependent) of a pest exclusion 
structures  (independent), and monitoring of performance by the NPPO (dependent) of a  
less than probi t-9 post -harvest treatment (independent).  
 
Certain specific dependent measures/elements used by the grower to support  the 
independent measure/major component for risk management may not be  required by the 
importing NPPO, but are actions commonly used to en sure compliance with a required 
component. An example of this is when a low level  of pest population is required in a SA; the 
specific field controls used by the  grower may be optional. This would be an outcome based 
requirement, as  opposed to a prescripti ve based requirement.  
 
The dependent and independent measures that are integrated into a specific  SA are agreed 
by the importing and exporting countries, or regions. These  measures should be not only 
efficacious, but also technically and  economically feasi ble. 
 
Parts of a systems approach - an example  
Independent Measure or Major Component  
Area of low pest prevalence  
Dependent measures or elements  
o  Quarantine controls     o  Trapping ( verification element)  
o  SIT          o  Sanitation          o  More, More, More  
 
Safeguard Measures  
Transport in pest proof sealed containers and more 
Commonly used major components  
Pre-harvest and h arvest stage 15 
  Poor host status  
 Areas of low pest prevalence  
 Pest-free production site  
 Pest excluding structures  
 Field treatments  
Post -harvest and shipment  
 Post-harvest treatment (Subprobit -9) 
 Shipment inspection  
Entry and distribution  
 Seasonal windows  
 Limited distribution in importing country  
 Shipment inspection