Platform
Modules
By sector
By sector
By standard
Blog
News
Events
STANAG 3879
NATO nations and the airbases and units that operate NATO Air Forces aircraft
STANAG 3879 is NATO's agreement committing member nations to implement AFSP-1.4, the Allied publication covering wildlife strike prevention at NATO airbases.
STANAG 3879 is the NATO standardization agreement that gives force to AFSP-1.4, Edition B, the Allied publication on wildlife strike prevention. A STANAG is not itself a technical specification: it is the agreement by which NATO nations commit to implement one, and the actual procedures sit in the Allied Publication it covers. This STANAG responds to an interoperability requirement stated plainly in the document: "to standardize the measures for NATO wildlife strike prevention at NATO airbases and during national and international operations with NATO Air Forces aircraft." AFSP-1.4 itself "adopts the ICAO Doc 9137 (Airport Services Manual - Part 3 - Wildlife Hazard Management) as the standard for wildlife strike prevention."
This is Edition 9, promulgated 16 December 2024. It supersedes STANAG 3879, Edition 8, dated 26 March 2013.
The mechanism that matters here: a STANAG binds a nation, not a supplier. Nations "are invited to examine their ratification of the STANAG and, if they have not already done so, advise the NSO of their intention regarding its ratification and implementation," and the national response is recorded in the NATO Standardization Documents Database (NSDD) through the electronic reporting tool. Once ratified, "this STANAG is effective upon receipt for use by the participating nations and NATO bodies." AFSP-1.4 "is considered implemented when a nation has issued the necessary orders/instructions putting the procedures detailed in this standard into effect." An airbase or unit meets AFSP-1.4 only where a contract, a tender or a national instruction brings it in by name, not because the STANAG exists on its own.
To reach that point, the document sets out four actions entities must take: "review and, if necessary, update their procedures for assessing and reporting wildlife strikes, managing the habitat and harassing hazardous wildlife"; review and update their training programmes for wildlife control personnel and train them accordingly; "inventorize and, if necessary, acquire and make available wildlife control devices"; and review and update their procedures for sharing information about bird migration with other nations.
Nations report ratification and implementation through the NSDD's electronic reporting tool. The STANAG "is to be reviewed in accordance with AAP-03," with the result "recorded within the NSDD."
No certification exists here, and the document names none. What it describes is a national ratification, implementation and review cycle run through NATO's own machinery, not an audit against this STANAG as such. How well an airbase actually manages wildlife hazards is a matter for its own procedures, training and equipment, and for whatever a nation's own inspection regime or a customer's quality clause checks.
STANAG 3879 and AFSP-1.4 describe an operational airfield safety procedure, not a management system: the work of preventing wildlife strikes, managing habitat, controlling hazardous wildlife and training personnel sits in day-to-day airbase operations, not in software. What that leaves to evidence is the paperwork around it: procedures that correctly reference AFSP-1.4 and this STANAG, an inventory of the wildlife control devices an airbase holds, training records that show wildlife control personnel have been trained against the current edition, and the trail an internal or customer audit asks for afterwards.
ComplyTrain holds that evidence as a modern, auditable system: version-controlled procedures, a record of wildlife control equipment and training tied to named individuals and dates, and corrective actions when a gap turns up, all searchable when an inspection or a customer's quality clause asks for it. It does not manage wildlife hazards on an airfield, does not decide how a nation implements the agreement, and does not replace the ratification and reporting nations carry out themselves through the NSDD.
The applicable tier here, and whatever else it comes with, is set by the contract and the customer's quality clause. If you are working out what sits alongside STANAG 3879, the standards explorer covers the related NATO air standardization publications, and we are glad to talk through what that means in practice.
Tell us how you need to work with STANAG 3879 and what you need from it. We will come back to you about what ComplyTrain can do.
Thank you. Your list is on its way to your inbox, and we will come back to you on what working with these standards in ComplyTrain involves, usually within one business day.
Not in general. It binds a nation once that nation ratifies it, and it reaches an airbase, unit or supplier through a contract, a tender or a national instruction that names AFSP-1.4 or this STANAG, not by existing on its own. Whether it applies to a given site or contract is set by the tasking or contract in front of you.
STANAG 3879 is the agreement: the letter of promulgation, the ratification record, and the reporting and review machinery. AFSP-1.4 is the publication itself, which adopts ICAO Doc 9137 (Airport Services Manual - Part 3 - Wildlife Hazard Management) as the standard for wildlife strike prevention. The STANAG is the cover; AFSP-1.4 is the content.
Edition 9, promulgated 16 December 2024. It supersedes STANAG 3879, Edition 8, dated 26 March 2013.
No. There is no accredited certification for STANAG 3879 or AFSP-1.4 to hold, and ComplyTrain does not claim one. What we support is the evidence trail around wildlife-hazard procedures, training and equipment, at an informational level.
The document says it is to be reviewed in accordance with AAP-03, with the outcome recorded in the NATO Standardization Documents Database. It does not itself set a review-due date.
One system for the whole compliance programme. Start with the module you need most.
Collect information the same way every time, and decide in advance what happens next.
Know whether your controls are operating, not just whether a policy says they exist.
Turn the compliance work you already know about into a plan with owners, dependencies and dates.
Know what you can offer, and hold the evidence behind every configuration you offer it in.
Eight built-in reports across every module, scheduled, delivered, and filed where the evidence lives.
The sector news that matters to your organisation - read and rated by AI, and delivered as a scheduled digest in your own language.
AI reads the tender pack and pulls out the requirements, deadlines and rules - then helps you draft the response from your own approved content, with you reviewing every step.
One current register of the suppliers and partners you depend on - each risk-assessed, re-assessing itself on schedule, and wired straight into your risk register.
See every requirement you face - across every standard, plus your own contracts and policies - traced to the documents, evidence and processes that satisfy it.
Identify, score, treat and review your risks in one place - with AI to help anyone run a proper assessment, and a defensible trail behind every decision.
Assign training, prove it was understood, and hold the competence records an auditor asks for.
Draft compliance documents with AI, keep every version under control, and export them beautifully branded - all in one place.
Audits, corrective actions, processes and approvals in one quality system, organised around ISO 9001.
Medical device manufacturers operate under more regulatory pressure than almost any other sector outside pharmaceuticals. The rules govern how you design a device, how you make it, how you track it after it ships, and how you respond when something goes wrong.
Learn how EU dual-use export controls apply to encryption, sensors, and software, how classification works under Annex I, and why sending source code by email can count as an export.
A practical way to turn in-your-head risk management into a register that survives staff turnover and answers the risk questions now showing up in tenders.