Summary

Participants from 20 countries attended the workshop. It opened with a detailed study of the building of systems approaches. This included discussions on plant quarantine principles, dependent and independent measures, and the sources of systems approaches measures – growing, harvest, post‐ harvest, transport, distribution and intended use. The stages of pest risk analysis, the options for pest risk management and the characteristics of a systems approach were discussed. The fundamentals that an NPPO needs to understand in the building of a systems approach were: the pest biology and association with the export commodity; commercial production practices; residual risk that needs application of phytosanitary measures; points where measures can be applied and that measures must be least trade restrictive, well defined and appropriately adopted; linked to named pests and effective against them; adequately documented, monitored and validated with mechanisms for corrective action.

Other aspects of systems approaches were discussed including: audit and verification; the responsibilities of trading countries; and the nature of an export protocol. A case study concerning the export of tomatoes from New Zealand was presented. The preparation of an SA was described in detail including activities to: determine the hazards and the objectives for measures within a defined system; identify independent procedures that can be monitored and controlled; establish criteria or limits for the acceptance/failure of each independent procedure; implement the system with monitoring as required for the desired level of confidence; take corrective action when monitoring results indicate that criteria are not met; review or test to validate system efficacy and confidence; and maintain adequate records and documentation.

Much of the workshop was devoted to a simulation exercise on the development and negotiation of a systems approach. The participants were divided up into 6 teams of 4‐5 persons. Each team was given a task which included the development of phytosanitary import requirements and a systems approach for commodity exports. The teams were to create a systems approach proposal for two tomato commodities for its pseudo‐country to export to another pseudo‐country. The teams were then to arrange phytosanitary import requirements for the import of two different tomato commodities from a different pseudo‐country. Imaginary pests (pseudonisms – 28 of them) and pseudo‐countries were created for the exercise. The pseudonisms included organisms such as: the 8 winged orbiting pest, the Big foot phytoplasma, the cherry spotted desert ghost, the Exuberant purple smotherer, false internal tomato rotter, the crystal headed muncher, Noflapus scalywingus, partly obscured fruit destroyer, silly sedge, and stinker bacterium. Each pseudo‐country was provided with the biological information on about eight pseudonisms occurring in its area. A two page data‐sheet included information on the damage incurred, conditions for the development of the pest and scientific data on its name, distribution, host range etc. Information was provided on the pseudo‐country conditions. Each pseudo‐ country developed its own quarantine pest list from the list of pseudonisms of the pseudo‐countries exporting tomato commodities to them.

The exercise took place in seven stages. These were:

‐ the building a Systems Approach proposal and development of a quarantine pest list
‐ each team acted as an exporting country to create a Systems Approach proposal which was then presented to the designated importing country. Then each team acted as an importing country and examined the systems approach proposal presented for the proposed imports to their country.
‐ the teams negotiated with each other on the systems approaches proposal as importing and exporting countries.
‐ each team negotiated with an industry/grower stakeholder regarding both the import and export proposals.
‐ each team undertook a revision of the systems approach proposals as necessary.
Unresolved issues were identified.
‐ the teams developed a presentation of the mock systems approach proposal.
‐ presentations of their import and export systems were made.

Conclusions and recommendations:

The workshop provided an opportunity for the attendees, through interactive group exercises, to build a model system and develop a deeper understanding of the key integrated measures of a system approach. Emphasis were put on ensuring compliance with the principles of ISPM 14, particularly technical justification and equivalence of measures. Participants specifically :

• Deepened their understanding of the key principles of ISPM 14
• Developed a shared understanding of principles behind the design and implementation of systems approaches in pest risk management, through analyzing case studies which illustrate the key issues, and undertaking practical exercises to develop model systems.
• Gained a deeper understanding of how to develop a technical justified systems approach, in which equivalence and necessity of measures is demonstrated for each pest.
• Understood some of the practical difficulties and potential solutions in developing and implementing systems approaches.

It was stressed that the system approach process is associated with many standards and this must be recognized at all times. The importance of the practice of communication skills in the exercise was also emphasized. It was recommended that by providing more real examples from countries, this would be valuable for future excercises as the particular aspects that were found to be useful included the work on negotiation. It is expected that the workshop participants will pursue the use of the SA techniques learnt in their own countries.

Owing to the success of the workshop and the participants’ satisfaction, it is suggested that more training workshops on SA should be organized. The workshop participants are encouraged to organize training workshops in their own countries and share the knowledge they have gained from this workshop.