Mr Piao Yongfan, Executive Secretary of the APPPC, reported on the activities of the Secretariat and working groups since the 24th session of the Commission.
The Plant Protection Agreement for Asia and the Pacific was revised and adopted by the 13th session of APPPC in 1983 to include financial obligations (Articles II, III, IV and XIV). Although the amendments of the Agreement have been approved by the 84th session of the FAO Council in November 1983, it will not come into force until it has been accepted by two-thirds of the contracting parties.
In order to accelerate the acceptance of the revised Agreement (1983), a letter was sent by the Secretariat, signed by the Assistant Director-General and FAO Regional Representative for Asia and the Pacific to several countries that had not yet accepted the revised Agreement on March 2006. These countries were invited to reconsider their acceptance and to forward the Instrument of Acceptance to the Director-General of the FAO. As a result, five countries deposited Instruments of Acceptance of the Agreement revised in 1983 in the last year. To date 15 countries (Australia, Bangladesh, Cambodia, China, DPRK, Fiji, India, Indonesia, Republic of Korea, Lao PDR, Malaysia, New Zealand, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Viet Nam) had accepted the amendment relating to the financing of the activities of the Commission, which was adopted in 1983.
In order to discuss membership situations of UK and Portugal, consultation letters were sent to both countries on October 2006. Replies from both countries expressed the desire to withdraw from the APPPC. However it may take time to follow legal procedures concerned. (Recently Portugal sent the letter to the DG of FAO for their withdrawal, to be effective after one year).
In addition, since the 24th session of APPPC (August 2005) China, Fiji, Myanmar, Nepal and Tonga (until January 2007) have become the members of IPPC. Now all members of APPPC are contracting parties of IPPC.
The revised Plant Protection Agreement for the Asia and Pacific region was approved by the FAO Council in 1999 and the certified true copies of its first set were transmitted to all APPPC members on 19 June 2000. Until now, only Lao PDR, Philippines and Viet Nam have sent their Instruments of Acceptance to FAO Legal Office in 2005 and 2006. The Secretary then drew the delegates' attention for the consideration of the acceptance of the revised Agreement as soon as possible.
At the 24th session of the APPPC, the future development of the APPPC was discussed by participants. The main restraint to the development of activities among Commission members was identified as the lack of financial resources. It was proposed by some members that a special group on strategic planning be constituted. This was established by the Commission with the broad objective of developing strategic and business plans to examine the financial situation and propose sources and modalities of resource and finance mobilization.
As a follow-up the previous group meeting during the 24th session, the special group meeting on strategic planning under the Standing Committee on Plant Quarantine of the APPPC was held in Bangkok, Thailand, from 7 to 10 February 2006. The meeting was attended by 13 participants from 9 countries – Australia, Bangladesh, China, India, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Viet Nam. The specific purpose of the workshop was to discuss the future activities of the APPPC and to prepare a strategic plan, a business plan and proposals relating to financial mechanisms for future development.
As a result, the strategic plan and business plan of APPPC for 2008-2009, as well as a tentative work programme of the APPPC were drafted for submission to the 25th session of APPPC after consultation with member countries. The report and the plans were sent to member countries for their review and comments on 23rd February 2006. Papua New Guinea, Malaysia and Philippines have sent their comments. Details are in the Agenda item 4.2.
To strengthen APPPC's role for information exchange among its member countries, the Secretariat had initiated a systematic analysis of the 2005 country reports presented at the 24th session of APPPC. The aim was to improve its information exchange services and to explore multiple information channels.
In order to develop a standard format for essential information describing the organization and state of development of different plant protection functions in the APPPC member countries, a "Workshop on pilot consultation on development of profiles for the exchange of plant protection information among APPPC members for phytosanitary measures" was held at the Grand China Princess hotel, Bangkok, Thailand, from 12 to 13 December 2006. This initiative was expected to strengthen APPPC's role for the collection, collation and dissemination of crucial plant protection information, and would allow a more systematic assessment of the state of plant protection in the region. Meanwhile, it was expected that an organized and structured information exchange in the form of country profiles would help member countries in formulating policies, recognize dangerous trends or gaps in the execution of plant protection functions, and promote transparency and harmonization of procedures. Furthermore, plant protection profiles may reduce the need for frequent questionnaires and would assist in the writing of reports, including required reporting to regional and international organizations.
The 3rd Information exchange IPP training workshop for the Asia region was held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia during 14 to 17 November 2006 with the support of IPPC Secretariat and the Crop Protection and Plant Quarantine Division, Department of Agriculture under the Ministry of Agriculture, Malaysia. The meeting discussed the enhancing of the phytosanitary information exchange capacity building for the Asian region. The workshop was attended by nominated officials who were responsible for entering the relevant information in the IPP. Participating NPPO officers received training in national information exchange obligations under the IPPC, retrieval and dissemination of relevant official phytosanitary information, and entry of official information on behalf of their respective National Plant Protection Organization (NPPO) into the IPP. Valuable recommendations for further improvements of the IPP training workshops were made.
An FAO Technical Cooperation Programme (TCP) "Pest risk analysis for South American Leaf Blight of rubber" was approved on July 2001. FAO approved a Phase II of the project on January 2004 and sent the SALB expert, Dr Chee Kheng Hoy, to Brazil to work with rubber research organizations and regulatory counterparts to conduct studies on critical areas identified in previous workshops of the project. This study filled information gaps that were deemed vital to the finalizing of the PRA.
Before the end of the project a third regional workshop was held between 10 to 14 April 2006, and the PRA for SALB was revised, taking into account the results of the investigative mission in Brazil, with the identification of measures that were technically justified. The workshop agreed that the previous PRAs raised two significant points. Firstly, the draft adopted a very conservative approach, where excessive risk was placed on all possible, including very unlikely events. Secondly, contamination was focused on non-host materials entering the country. The participants agreed that based on these, there was a need to review the pathway, to achieve a better balance in the evaluation of the PRA. The participants reviewed the pathways and deliberated the revision of various aspects for the preparation of sound and credible PRA for SALB so as to provide an acceptable basis for the development of regional standards for APPPC. It was recommended that the revised PRA be reviewed by participating countries and discussed at the APPPC meeting in 2007, before its adoption and prior to the development of regional standards for SALB.
In addition to the project activities, a mission trip to New Zealand from 5 to 24 March 2007 by Dr Chee was supported by FAO to examine the draft PRA for SALB with consultation with New Zealand PRA specialists. Further information and technical justification and amendment of the assertions made in the analysis were made. Subsequently a "Regional workshop on PRA for SALB" was facilitated by the APPPC Standing Committee on Quarantine from 18 to 19 July 2007, for further review of the PRA for rubber and necessary modifications. The workshop was attended by officials dealing with SALB on behalf of the rubber growing countries of the APPPC to discuss and examine the PRA. They were supplemented by expert PRA officials from non-rubber growing countries to provide objective views on the draft PRA. The PRA would be submitted to 25th session of the APPPC. The outcome of the meeting (PRA for SALB) was sent to all members of the APPPC after the workshop, for their comments and consideration. Details are in the Agenda item 4.3.
A new alien invasive pest commonly known as coconut leaf beetle, Brontispa longissima, has recently affected coconut production in many places in Asia and the Pacific and is considered likely to spread to other areas.
FAO has assisted the affected countries in developing and implementing appropriate control strategies. It has launched a number of projects in several countries for developing a national IPM strategy and promoting biological control of the coconut leaf beetle.
Over the past three years, FAO has contributed over US$700 000 in TCP assistance and over US$100 000 in Regular Programme and Trust Funds to support national IPM strategy design, early warning, and rapid response for invasive pests in Viet Nam, Maldives, Nauru, Thailand, Cambodia and Lao PDR. The implementation of the IPM programmes with FAO support has not only helped control the invasive pest, but also enhanced regional cooperation among various countries and has built capacity in emergency actions to combat invasive pests. Several countries such as Thailand, China and Philippines have developed national strategies and action plans. Bilateral and multilateral cooperation for the management of the beetle have occured through experts' cross visits and exchange of biocontrol experiences and materials.
The "Consultative Meeting on IPM of the Coconut Leaf Beetle, Brontispa longissima" was jointly organized by the Asian and Pacific Coconut Community (APCC) and the APPPC in Bangkok in February 2007. Participants from six countries, namely China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand and Viet Nam as well as several experts from international organizations participated in the meeting. The various lessons, ideas, suggestions and experiences in IPM and biological control of Brontispa with national efforts or FAO projects, were shared. Priority areas to be strengthened and the need for specific technical assistance based on specific situations in each country were identified, for developing a potential regional project.
It is hoped that the above regional and national initiatives may promote active technical cooperation at bilateral and multilateral levels between and among countries in the network, and strengthen sustainable development strategies towards the control of Brontispa longissima by IPM.
Despite the efforts already made by the affected countries, FAO and APPPC, much more work need to be completed in order to achieve a sustainable IPM programme.
Clearly, in order to address the pest outbreaks effectively, the affected countries should be fully committed to IPM/biocontrol. In addition, a national policy, programme support and an action plan should be put in place. There is also a need to prioritize their various activities and inputs contributed by the government agencies and NGOs.
The third annual meeting of the CFC/DIFD/APPC/FAO project on coconut integrated pest management was held from 2 to 5 of May 2007 in Kochi, India. It was attended by 16 delegates from India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Thailand, as well as representatives from APCC and FAO. The meeting aimed to develop and promote adaptable, cost-efficient IPM strategies against the Rhinoceros beetle and the coconut mite. Four implementing and five collaborating institutions in nine countries conducted research, field trials and outreach programmes according to the project's implementation schedule.
Several activities have been conducted for dealing with the BPH issue such as workshops on BPH management in Viet Nam and China in 2006, and cross field visits by researchers and extension staff to Thailand, Viet Nam, Cambodia and China. The field survey, information exchange and IPM practice were strengthened in these countries for coping with BPH outbreaks, while the traditionally considered cause-migration pattern was challenged by abuse and overuse of insecticides. This was identified as a main reason of the outbreaks in early 1980s and was gradually resumed in 2000s.
FAO provided technical support to Viet Nam to address the BPH and associated virus problems that were present in the Mekong Delta since last year, under a Technical Cooperation Programme Facility (TCPF) project that is managed by the FAO representative office in Hanoi. The TCPF project is focusing attention on monitoring and surveillance of BPH; supporting community level activities to better manage BPH and virus diseases; supporting knowledge generation to better address the issue; and strengthening the policy framework for short and long term solutions to the problem. Although there might be debate on various strategies and methodologies, BPH outbreaks are very likely to continue until an appropriate balance with predators of BPH has been re-established.
A great deal of effort has been put into, and much progress made since the 24th session of APPPC. It was observed that IPM has successfully been incorporated into country-GAP programmes. Examples include the implementation of IPM programmes in Thailand and IPM within the System of Rice Intensification (SRI) programme in Viet Nam.
Significant progress was made by Thailand in the role of IPM-FFS in GAP initiatives, with shared responsibility between the DOA and DOAE GAP programme in the country, which is a main means of training for GAP farmers. The IPM-FFS was successfully incorporated into current national GAP and non-formal education programmes with a pilot project in 10 provinces with cooperation from the Ministry of Education. This was an additional incentive mechanism for motivating farmers to join the FFS for farmers to improve their knowledge and enhance the capacity for decision making with the requirements of keeping records of field activities and inputs in the procedure of the GAP. The IPM programme has trained many farmers through FFS. Empowered by the IPM training, some of them played important roles by involving the GAP, high quality vegetable production, safety food production, etc., in their activities. This consolidated and promoted the sustainable development of IPM.
In addition to the regional vegetable IPM programme, the Swedish project (GCP/RAS/229/SWE) "Towards
a Non-toxic Environment" has been approved. The immediate objective of the programme is to increase
the capacity of FAO IPM field programmes, particularly in the Greater Mekong subregion, to educate
larger numbers of farmers in areas prone to heavy pesticide abuse. The intent is to create or strengthen local
groups and networks of smallholder IPM farmers for continued action in support of ecologically-based
agriculture and to institutionalize mechanisms for generating sustainable solutions to technical production and
protection problems. Details in Agenda No. 7.
As of March 2007, there were 14 parties out of the total 24 member countries of APPPC. Since the
24th session of APPPC, four countries (Pakistan, Philippines, Sri Lanka and Viet Nam) had accepted
the Convention. A number of regional and national activities on technical assistance had been carried out by
the Rotterdam Convention Secretariat in cooperation with APPPC and the FAO regional office. A
national consultation on the ratification and implementation of the Rotterdam Convention was undertaken in Viet
Nam on May 2006, and as a result, Viet Nam ratified the Convention in March 2007. The APPPC Secretariat
had closely cooperated with the PIC Secretariat in the provision of technical assistance to Thailand and
Pakistan, for developing national action plans for the implementation of the PIC in 2007, focusing on improving
import responses and export notifications. Details are in the report of Pesticide Standing Committee (Agenda item
9 and side event of the Convention).
The Executive Secretary of APPPC made a presentation on the International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides (Code of Conduct), PIC, POPs and Basel Convention at the 28th regional conference for Asia and the Pacific in May 2006, which was attended by senior officials and ministers from Asia and the Pacific. In addition to the introduction of the main context and importance of the conventions, the need for the strengthening of harmonization of various conventions with national legislations, close collaboration among various ministries and coordination at national and regional level was also stressed.
The regional workshop on Implementation, Monitoring and Observance of the Code of Conduct on Distribution and Use of Pesticides, organized by APPPC in 2005, made additional suggestions to further improve the questionnaire (initiated by FAO) which were reported to the first meeting of FAO expert panel for pesticide management in 2005. During the second session of the Panel, held from 7 to 10 November 2006 in Rome, the Panel suggested activities under the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM), and the role that the Code of Conduct could play in the achievement of SAICM's objectives. The Council of FAO hundred and thirty-first session (Rome, 20 to 25 November 2006) endorsed SAICM and recognized the FAO's role in the implementation of SAICM to the extent possible within existing resources. The Council recognized that the successful implementation of SAICM depended on coordinated interdisciplinary cooperation at national, regional and UN level, and stressed the need for the agriculture sector to be fully involved in the SAICM process. The FAO had prepared a document comparing the two, based on the working paper discussed during the meeting, for circulation at the SAICM Asia-Pacific regional meeting which was held from 21 to 23 May 2007 in Bangkok, Thailand.
Pesticide abuse and overuse is still rampant in Southeast Asia. Intensive use of extremely and highly hazardous products by small-scale farmers is causing a high incidence of poisoning to farmers. Additionally, it has caused contamination of the environment and has negative implications for agricultural production and trade. Although most countries now have pesticide regulations, enforcement generally remains weak. There are many opportunities to further improve pest and pesticide management.
To date, 29 International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPMs) have been adopted by the Commission on Phytosanitary Measures (CPM). The implementation of ISPMs in APPPC members varied in status. For example, more than 13 countries have applied ISPM No. 1 and No. 11 (PRA); and the ISPM No. 15 had been being partially implemented in more than 12 countries. About five countries had established the pest-free production sites/places (ISPM No. 10) and more than four countries were in process. Meanwhile, APPPC member countries have been actively involved in development of ISPMs during the past two years. APPPC organized the 6th, 7th and 8th regional workshops on review of draft ISPMs in 2005, 2006 and 2007. Seventeen draft ISPMs had been reviewed by participants from the region and substantive revisions and suggestions were made to the draft standards that can be used by individual countries in the preparation of their comments to be submitted to the Standards Committee via the IPPC Secretariat. APPPC also assisted participating countries to consolidated comments with the findings of the regional meetings. The Korean Government had kindly provided financial support and facilities to the regional review meetings in 2006 and 2007.
During the 24th session of APPPC, held in Bangkok, Thailand, from 5 to 9 September 2005, guidelines on emergency action and emergency measures, and guidelines on risk associated scale insects were identified, as priorities for the development of the regional standard for phytosanitary measures.
Australia and China prepared two initial draft specifications for the standards, which were identified and prepared by early February 2006, followed by review and discussions among the members of the APPPC Standard Committee from February until March by e-mail communications. The results and minor revisions based on comments and feedback were distributed to all APPPC member countries on 27 March 2006 for their review and comments.
The APPPC Standard Committee meeting on the review of Draft RSPM No. 5 and No. 6 was conducted from 21 to 24 November 2006 in Bangkok, Thailand. The Draft RSPM No. 5 (Guidelines for the Application of Emergency Actions and the Establishment of Emergency Measures) and No. 6 (Guidelines for Pest Risk Analysis on Scale Insects Associated with Commodities for Human Consumption) were reviewed and approved after substantial amendments by the Standard Committee. The Drafts were sent to APPPC member countries on 21 December 2006 as hard copies and emails for country consultation. At the same time the Drafts were put on the webpage of the APPPC in the IPP/IPPC on 21 December 2006 for information exchange among APPPC member countries through the internet. After further revision and consolidation based on country feedback, it was submitted to this Session of APPPC for review and adoption.
During the workshop on Phytosanitary Capacity Evaluation (PCE) held in Malaysia in 2005, participants were advised to establish their national teams to complete the PCE results. The teams should indicate very clearly the priority areas for which they need technical assistance. The participants were requested to submit the country PCE reports to focal point (Malaysia) by the third quarter 2005, to put together the information to enable a draft project for this region, followed by submission to FAO for seeking technical assistance. As a result of the follow-up efforts after two regional training workshops on PCE in 2004 and 2005, an FAO regional project (GCP/RAS/226/JPN) "Cooperation of Improvement of Phytosanitary Capacity in Asia Countries through Capacity Building" was approved in 2006 with the support of Japan. It is expected that the Phytosanitary Capacity Evaluation (PCE) will be completed with PCE tools in several Asian countries, which may lead to development of a project proposal and/or strategic plans in these countries based on priorities identified in the PCE, as well as strengthening the information exchange using IPP among these countries.
These were part of the overall programme of FAO to promote capacity building in plant health and coordinate implementation of phytosanitary measures as applied to international and regional trade.
Before ending the report, the Executive Secretary expressed his appreciation to countries which provided great support and various assistance including financial, technical and in kind, as well as facilities to APPPC activities during the past two years. He also thanked Dr Peter Kenmore, Chief of Plant Protection Service, FAO and IPPC Secretary, Executive Secretary of PIC, FAO Rome for his strong support and backstopping to the APPPC. Special thanks were delivered to Australia, China, Malaysia, New Zealand, Republic of Korea and Thailand for their extensive inputs to APPPC. These countries had either hosted several training activities and meeting sessions or provided financial support and technical assistance to the development of regional and international standards for phytosanitary measures over the past two years. The Executive Secretary hoped that all these inputs and assistance be continued and strengthened in the next biennial period.
The session raised the question as to why some member countries were yet to ratify the 1983 Amendments, and the reasons for the reluctance. The Executive Secretary replied that there was an implication of financial commitments that these countries were not prepared to meet. However, the response had been encouraging over the past few years, and APPPC had almost reached the two-thirds required for adoption.
The Executive Secretary's report was endorsed by the Session.
