14.1 Report of the meeting of Standing Committee on Plant Quarantine
Dr John Hedley, Chair of the Standing Committee, presented the report. The meeting firstly discussed
items for the plant quarantine work programme for the coming biennium. After some discussion the meeting
proposed the following programme:
The programme would consist of work toward five standards or annexes.
Highest priority would be the general standard for SALB. India is to draft a specification by
November 2007. Malaysia, assisted by Thailand, China and New Zealand is to prepare a draft standard
by February 2008. This will be presented to Standards Committee by May 2008.
Work on SALB Annexes will also be initiated by Malaysia with the same timelines as above if
this is possible.
Work on appendices to the scale standard will be initiated. This will be led by Australia. A
draft specification is be developed by Australia. Australia, China, Republic of Korea and India will
prepare a draft standard. Timelines are to be finalized.
A standard on Land Border Quarantine will be prepared. A draft specification will be developed
by China by November 2007. China, Viet Nam, Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia will prepare a
draft standard by February 2008. This will be presented to SC by May 2008.
A draft standard on Sea Containers will be prepared by New Zealand and Australia. A
specification and draft standard will be prepared according to the above timelines.
In discussing other plant quarantine issues, the committee agreed that:
Sub-regional activities occurring in specific countries would be noted by the Secretariat
There was a need to raise awareness of activities occurring among APPPC members to
avoid programme duplication
Consideration would be given, where possible, to extending sub-regional activities to other
countries in region.
This programme was presented to the plenary session and agreed to.
14.1.1 Collaboration on strategic issues amongst APPPC members
It was proposed that the APPPC begin a programme for collaboration on strategic issues. This would
be initiated on a limited basis by establishing a programme for the joint consideration of CPM issues of
concern to members.
The recommended key actions are:
Following the release of Draft ISPMs by the SC in November/December 2007, the Executive
Secretary is to request APPPC member countries to identify major concerns with the draft standards
The Executive Secretary is to distribute responses to all members
Asia and Pacific CPM Standards Committee members are to be assigned a specific standard(s)
and collate country responses on specific standards with the collation distributed to APPPC members
The Executive Secretary is to send a letter inviting APPPC members to attend a meeting prior to
the CPM to discuss and agree upon APPPC positions with regards to draft standards and other issues
of concern to member countries
Australia is to develop an agenda
New Zealand is to organize meeting room at FAO
This programme would be reviewed. It was proposed that a session on Draft ISPM be included within
the 26th session of APPPC.
This initiative was accepted as part of the work programme by the Commission.
14.1.2 The establishment of a working group on procedures for finance, administration and planning
It was proposed to the Session that, with the imminent coming into force of the 1983 amendments to
the Plant Protection Agreement for the Asia and Pacific region, a working group be set up to consider
procedures for finance, administration and planning matters. It was recommended that:
A meeting to be organized at the end of April 2008 in Bangkok
Key participants to consist of the Chair, Vice Chairs, Standing Committee Chairs, Australia and
the Republic of Korea
Meeting to be open to all interested parties with self-funding
Agenda to be finalized
The Commission agreed to the establishment of the working group.
There were no further discussions and the Session agreed for the recommendations to be included into
strategic programme plan.
14.2 Report of the meeting of Standing Committee on Pesticide and Standing Committee on IPM
– common issues
The report noted that, in view of similarity between emerging issues, it was decided to hold a
combined meeting of both Standing Committees. The combined part focused on issues of common concern.
14.2.1 Phasing out of highly toxic pesticides (HTPs)
The combined meeting shared the concerns of the
131st FAO Council and Committee on Agriculture
about Highly Toxic Pesticides (CAG/2007/Inf.14) and supports its call for progressive actions to ban HTPs
and recommended the following actions:
Exchange and compile information on regulatory action on HTPs to prepare a base-line of the
current registration status of HTPs in APPPC. For the purpose of this activity the following seven
products are included: parathion, methyl-parathion, monocrotophos, methamidophos,
phosphamidon, endosulfan, paraquat.
Exchange (i) further evidence about health and environmental impact of HTPs, and (ii)
information on initiatives and experiences regarding the replacement of HTPs with alternative products and
IPM approaches that eliminated the need for these products.
The further development of softer alternatives to pesticides should be actively encouraged. Use
of financial instruments to encourage the development and use of soft products and to discourage
the use of hazardous products should be considered. The latter could include taxation to
reflect environmental and social costs of the use of these products.
Make more effective use of possibilities offered by the Rotterdam Convention as specified in
the report of the Standing Committee on Pesticides. Incidence reporting to the DNA should be copied
to the relevant National Authorities and the Secretariat of the Rotterdam Convention.
14.2.2 Advertisement
Concern was expressed about aggressive advertisement of pesticides, particularly in outbreak situations.
The number of cases in which advertisements deviate from the relevant provisions in the International Code
of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides, seems to be increasing. Further, messages in
advertisements are often at variance with proven IPM approaches. Governments are urged to review the situation in
their countries and to take the necessary actions to ensure that advertisements comply with the relevant
provisions of the International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides and do not provide
advice that is contrary to established and proven IPM practices.
The Committee felt that the resolutions made would enable the further strengthening of pesticide
management through the sharing of information, DNAs of Rotterdam Convention and key decision making bodies
of national organizations.
14.2.3 Report of the Standing Committee on Pesticides
The participants of the Standing Committee on Pesticides were:
Name
Country/Agency
Ms Khamphoui Louanglath
Lao PDR
Ms Fatimah Md. Anwar
Malaysia
Dr Gamini Manuweera
Sri Lanka
Ms Pornpimon Chareonsong
Thailand
Mr Pham Quang Huy
VietNam
Observers
Ms Jennifer Mourin
Pesticide Action Network (PAN) Asia and the Pacific
Resource Persons
Mr William Murray
Senior Officer/Rotterdam Convention Secretariat
Dr Gamini Manuweera, Chair of the Standing Committee on Pesticide, presented the report. Noting that
there were strong concerns over issues of human health and environmental safety, the following actions
were recommended. (See Table 1 for details)
Progressive banning of highly hazardous pesticides
Prevention of unethical and excessive promotion of pesticides, particularly during pest outbreaks
Ratification and effective implementation of the Rotterdam Convention
Establishment of a network of pesticide regulators in the region for efficient information
exchange on effective pesticide management
There were no further discussions and the Session agreed for the recommendations to be included into
strategic programme plan.
14.2.4 Report of the Standing Committee on IPM
The participants of the Standing Committee on IPM were:
No.
Name
Country
1
Ngin Chhay
Cambodia
(Chair)
2
Yang Puyun
China
3
Jesie S. Binamira
Philippines
4
Ngo Tien Dung
Viet Nam
5
Thongsavanh Taipangnavong
Lao PDR
6
Areepan Upanisakorn
Thailand
7
Marut Jatiket
Field
Alliance (Thailand)
8
Keam Makarady
CEDAC (Cambodia)
9
Bong Hoon Lee
Republic
of Korea
10
Jennifer Mourin
PAN-AP
(Malaysia)
Table
1: Report of the Standing Committee for Pesticides
Topic
Objective
Outcome
Targets
for the Next Two Years/
Timeline/Workplan
Identification of Priority Areas
Reduction/prohibition of use of
highly hazardous pesticides
Identification of possible
pesticides
Current status among the members
Way forward
Exchange on regulatory action on HTPs (make list of registration status HTPs in APPPC)
Exchange information/experiences
regarding alternative products and IPM approaches that eliminate the use of
these products
Proactive approaches to encourage
development of alternatives
Consider taxation of products with
high social costs and incentives for alternatives
Notifications of final regulatory
actions on highly hazardous pesticides to the Secretariat of the Rotterdam
Convention
As the first step to take action on
the parathion, methyl parathion, monocrotophos, methamidophos, phosphamidon, paraquat and endosulfan
Progress report at the DNA meeting
early 2008
Take up in the COP 4 of RC-Oct 2008
SHPF
Improve information database on
SHPF
Make better use of field findings
on chemical pest control and environmental and health research
Incident reporting related to
Highly Toxic Pesticides formulations to RC
Exchange field findings coming out
of IPM programmes and environmental and health
research
Make available of information
related to SHPF to the DNAs and other national key
persons and Secretariat of the Rotterdam Convention
Progress report at the DNA meeting
early 2008
Take up in the COP 4 of RC-Oct 2008
Ratification of the RC
Improve the status of information
sharing and international trade
Encourage ratification
Identify the challenges
Use the APPPC as a forum for
exchange of information on ratification and seek assistance forum recently
ratified neighbouring countries
Progress at the next meeting of
APPPC
Cooperation on trade-RC Import
decision on Annex III chemicals
To
improve the status of international trade
Way
forward
Prepare
item on endosulfan for COP 4 Rotterdam Convention –
countries that have taken action on endosulfan to
contribute (Sri Lanka, Viet Nam, and others)
Those countries that have yet to
take a decision to be encouraged to make decisions and if having difficulties
to contact the neighbouring countries for
information
Take up in the COP 4 of RC-Oct 2008
Progress at the next meeting of APPPC
Progress report at the DNA meeting early
2008
Information
Sharing Mechanism/Option
Subregional
initiatives
Identification
of events
Identification
of “drivers”
ASEAN
MEA to be used as forum to share information (report of the activities)
ESEA
forum on environment and health
At
the next meeting in 2008
Other regional initiatives
Identification
of opportunities
Way
forward
DNA
meeting to report the progress on APPPC initiatives on pesticide management
Progress
report at the DNA meeting early 2008
Formation of communication link between
pesticide regulators
Effective
information sharing
Way
forward – Core group and mechanisms
Establish
a core group (Viet Nam, China, Thailand, Malaysia, Lao PDR, Sri Lanka and
Nepal
Immediate
Pesticide & IPM synergies
To
improve two-way informationflow
National
level communication linkage between the two sectors
Progress
at the next meeting of APPPC
Next
biannual IPM vegetable meeting
Mr Ngin Chhay, Chair of the Standing Committee on IPM, presented the report. The following were noted:
i. Need for more restraint responses to outbreaks of rice brown plant hoppers
The meeting expressed concern about tendencies that current BPH outbreak responses do
not fall in line with IPM research and empirical field experiences built up over the years and
that these responses actually could be counter-productive. The importance of reliable field data
that reflect the real field situation was emphasized. There is a particular risk that pesticide (and
other input) suppliers exploit the situation to promote pesticide use regimes that otherwise would
not be acceptable.
The meeting recommended that the dynamics of current BPH outbreaks are fully
documented and shared with special attention to consequences for IPM, health and environment. The
examples of the most recent FAO locust campaigns and the 1994 decision by the Thai government to
cancel its outbreak budgets for pesticide and channeling funds instead into IPM farmer training
could provide key guidance.
The meeting expressed the need for consultation and involvement of technically competent
experts (including National IPM Programme staff) in the decision making process with regards
to government responses to BPH outbreak situations. National IPM Programmes should be
formally tasked to facilitate the process of collection of scientific data that can be used to guide
government decision making as to how best to manage the outbreak situations. In addition,
possible complementary roles that a regional body, such as the APPPC, can play in facilitating such
a documentation process should be explored.
ii. Need for policy reforms to capture benefits of IPM in pesticide risk reduction efforts
The meeting expressed the position that IPM will not succeed without reform of pesticide
policies consistent with IPM principles. The importance of employing the push-pull strategy of
educating farmers about unnecessary use of pesticides and providing farmer access to effective
and affordable alternatives need to be supported by policy enforcements to stop the supply of
cheap and broad spectrum/highly hazardous pesticides.
The meeting recognized that better demonstration of the contribution of IPM farmer
education achievements to policy objectives related to food safety and promotion of Good
Agricultural Practice programmes for better market access would be useful to the promotion of IPM and
that specific efforts into this direction should be encouraged.
iii. Need to enhance collaboration between APPPC and ASEAN-IPM
The meeting expressed concern over the designation of crop protection staff with limited
IPM background who participate in ASEAN meetings where critical issues related to APPPC
are discussed; and where the participation of staff associated with National IPM Programmes
is necessary to ensure that due attention is given to IPM and quality farmer education. The
meeting recommended the participation of at least one participant from each existing National
IPM Programmes in ASEAN-IPM meetings.
The meeting recommends an APPPC link up with ASEAN to push its IPM and farmer
education agenda and for National IPM Programmes to lobby for its inclusion in relevant ASEAN
working groups.
The meeting recommended the idea of using existing websites and regional meetings as
forum for sharing information on pest outbreaks and solutions. The meeting further recommended
that an interim meeting of the IPM Standing Committee be called next year (around August
2008) to assess the status and progress of work related to the current BPH outbreaks in the AP region.
The meeting recommended the publication of an FAO book documenting IPM history,
evolution and best practices to address the need for better scientific documentation of IPM and
empirical field results for policy reforms in support of IPM.
14.3 Discussions
14.3.1 Suggestions on regional control measures
There was a suggestion to have cooperation among countries in the region to control BPH. Measures such
as information exchange and monitoring at regional level, etc., were proposed. For this reason, there needs
to be more effort to develop an effective IPM regional network.
14.4 Report of the draft work plan for 2008-2009 by the Executive Secretary of APPPC
The work programme for 2008-09 was presented by the Executive Secretary. Three Standing Committees
of APPPC have proposed tentative work plans for the next two years based on group discussions.
APPPC Secretariat supports the plans of the standing committees, and hopes the plans will be implemented with
the support of member countries especially financial support and in-kind assistance. Based on currently
available financial sources, the secretariat will emphasize the following activities during the next two years:
Facilitation of accelerating acceptance of the revised Agreement especially the amendment of
1999 in view of the growing importance of the IPPC as one of the base for the implementation of the
SPS Agreement. At its 117th session (November 1999), the FAO Council approved two sets of
amendments to the Agreement to bring it into line with the (new revised) IPPC and the SPS Agreement.
While such amendments do not involve new obligations for the contracting governments, they did not
come into force until now as their acceptance by 2/3 of the contracting parties which is required
(pursuant to Article IX.4) has not yet been reached.
Follow-up steps for exploring financial support from various sources by the Planning Group
including preliminary arrangements on assessed contributions of the members if there is available budget.
Regional Standard Setting including a meeting of the APPPC Standard Committee.
Technical assistance in implementation of Code of Conduct, Rotterdam Convention to
member countries and IPM.
Enhancement of the plant protection information exchange among member countries.
The following meetings have been identified and will be held subject to finance being available and
according to the priorities identified by the Commission.
i. Consultation and Meeting
Expert Consultations on Draft Regional Standards for Phytosanitary Measures, in 2008,
Thailand or in another country
APPPC Standard Committee Meeting on review of the Draft RSPMs in May 2008.
9th Regional Review on Draft ISPMs in 2008
10th Regional Review of Draft ISPMs in 2009
Working Group on Financial, Administrative and Planning to meet during 2008-2009
Expert Consultation on pest management in 2008, if it is necessary, by collaborating with
FAO Regional Vegetable IPM Programme
Workshop on Pesticide Management in 2008, which will be closely cooperated with RC
26th Biennial Session of Asia and Pacific Plant Protection Commission (APPPC) in 2009, India
ii. Training Programme/Workshops
Assisting/facilitating a Training Workshop on Phytosanitary Measures by collaboration
with various stakeholders.
Other training programmes according to member countries' requirements in the field of
plant protection based on availability of budget resources.
iii. Assist in carrying out activities of the various Working Groups of the APPPC's Standing
Committees based on available resources.
14.4.1 Discussions
14.4.1.1 Work programme related to SALB
A general standard will be drafted. The drafting of a series of annexes to provide technical procedures
to support a general standard will be initiated. It is expected that this will enable the clear identification of
any information required for the completion of useful annexes.
14.4.1.2 Farmers' Education
There was a proposal to organize workshops on farmers' education and improve public awareness on
pesticide application and biocontrol. This may be included for consideration by the Standing Committee on IPM.
