REPORT OF

THE TWENTY-SECOND SESSION

OF

THE ASIA AND PACIFIC PLANT PROTECTION COMMISSION

17 to 21 September 2001

Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam

1 Opening of the session and organizational matters

1.1 Attendance

The Twenty-Second Session of the Asia and Pacific Plant Protection Commission (APPPC) was held in Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam from 17 to 21 September 2001. Thirty nine (39) delegates attended from 18 member countries of the commission namely Australia, Bangladesh, Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Nepal, New Zealand, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Republic of Korea, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Tonga and Viet Nam. Two delegates from Japan and the United States attended as observers. There were also six observers from Viet Nam. The list of participants is attached as annex I.

1.2 Introductory remarks by Dam Quoc Tru, Vice-chairperson of the organizing committee

Mr Tru welcomed all the participants noting that this was the first time Viet Nam has had an opportunity to host a biennial session of the Asia and Pacific Plant Protection Commission.

Mr Tru stated that the Asia and Pacific Plant Protection Commission has worked hard over the past two years to amend the Plant Protection Agreement for the Asia and Pacific region. There is still much work that needs to be done to develop and adopt the South American leaf blight (SALB) standard so as to complete the amendments. The standard will be based on a SALB Pest Risk Analysis, which will begin shortly.

At global level, Mr Tru noted, the secretariat and the member countries have actively participated in a number of meetings especially on international standard setting. The commission is also enhancing the capacity of member countries in implementing the standards by conducting regional technical consultations on international standards. The commission has also encouraged member countries to use the interim commission on phytosanitary measures (ICPM) for phytosanitary capacity evaluation as a tool to identify difficulties and the areas for strengthening the capacity for standard implementation. Furthermore, the commission has initiated the development of regional standards for phytosanitary measures.

1 As an APPPC member country, Viet Nam has extensively improved its own national plant protection organization and closely co-operated with other countries in order to fulfil its obligation under the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) and the regional plant protection agreement. Mr Tru expressed Viet Nam’s concern over their responsibilities in implementing phytosanitary commitments with ASEAN at present and WTO in the future.

Mr Tru concluded by noting that the organizing committee has been working very hard to make sure that all the participants really enjoyed their stay in Viet Nam. He wished participants successful deliberations.

1.3 Welcome address by Mai Quoc Binh, Vice-chairperson of the People’s Committee of Ho Chi Minh City

Mai Quoc Binh welcomed all of the delegates, observers and FAO staff on behalf of the Municipal Authority and the people of Ho Chi Minh City.

Mr Binh noted that Viet Nam has made significant achievements in agricultural production. With the growing importance of international trade in Asia and the Pacific region, plant protection will play an even more significant role in providing consumers world wide with high quality, and safe agricultural produce. He was pleased to hear that the revised Plant Protection Agreement for the Asia and Pacific region was in the process of being approved and implemented.

Mr Binh stressed his belief that the outcomes of the meeting would make great contributions to the control of injurious pests while facilitating agricultural trade in the world’s largest region.

1.4 Opening remarks by Farid Bahar, Chairperson of the APPPC

Dr Bahar informed participants of the untimely sad demise of his predecessor chairperson Charil Anwar Rasahan. He then welcomed participants to the 22nd Session of the APPPC.

Dr Bahar noted the activities of the APPPC over the past two years and the extensive FAO global plant protection programme supporting the IPPC, the WTO-SPS Agreement and the FAO International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides.

Dr Bahar acknowledged the financial and technical assistance from some developed countries (for example New Zealand) and the efforts of the Executive Secretary of the APPPC. Dr Bahar emphasized Indonesia’s endeavours to assist with priority development support programmes of the APPPC.

1.5 Opening statement by F. Guerrieri, FAO Representative in Viet Nam

Ms Guerrieri welcomed delegates on behalf of Jacques Diouf, Director-General of FAO.

Ms Guerrieri then noted the appreciation of delegates for the generosity of the government of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam in hosting this 22nd Session of the Commission. She also thanked the session organizing committee for their effective efforts.

2 Ms Guerrieri announced that the government of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam was the first member country who has recently officially deposited the instrument of acceptance of the amended Agreement of the Commission and she expressed the hope that remaining members of the commission would also give the same positive response.

1.6 Welcome address by N. A. van der Graaff, Chief ,Plant Protection Service, FAO, Rome

Dr Van der Graaff thanked the Vietnamese government for the excellent organization of the meeting.

He referred to the changes that had occurred in the international phytosanitary framework due to the SPS Agreement and the amendment of the IPPC. This had changed the IPPC from a static convention to an active programme, which include international standard setting and a new drive to strengthen national phytosanitary capacity building. He noted that a very substantial international programme is unfolding under the guidance and direction of the ICPM.

The Asia and Pacific Plant Protection Agreement had to be amended subsequently which was concluded in 1999. It was noted that the SALB amendments however could not be submitted to governments before 2003. It was also noted that implementation of activities would be greatly helped if the 1985 amendments would come into force.

He noted the great concern on pesticide misuse and overuse in the region and the wide distribution of products that cannot be handled safely by small farmers. He referred to the FAO support on IPM programmes in the region and he congratulated Viet Nam on its IPM programme. FAO was proud to be associated with this programme. Work on pesticide regulations would benefit from harmonization.

1.7 Inaugural address by His Excellency Ngo The Dan, Vice Minister of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development

His Excellency Ngo The Dan extended a warm welcome to the key representatives from international, regional and national plant protection organizations.

The Vice Minister noted that Viet Nam is an agricultural country with the majority of its population living in rural areas. The national economy has therefore been strongly based on the agricultural sector. Over the past decade, thanks to profound economic renewal, great achievements have been made in agriculture.

As Viet Nam has been an official member of ASEAN and APEC, the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD) has been assigned by the government of Viet Nam to formulate the development strategy for the agricultural sector.

In the present situation of economic globalization, the Vice Minister emphasized that international trade is growing rapidly in which plant quarantine plays an even significant part. Viet Nam realises the importance of strengthening national plant quarantine systems in order to not only effectively protect the sustainability of agricultural production, but also to satisfy quarantine requirements of importing countries.

3 The Vice Minister noted that for a large region like Asia and the Pacific, the regional and sub-regional standards would be very useful to member countries in a sense that these standards correspond to the region-specific need for preventing the spread of injurious pests while facilitating agricultural trade. The Vice Minister also hoped that the regional standard concerning the exclusion of SALB disease will be put forward after pest risk analysis is conducted.

The Vice Minster noted that countries in the region have different levels of development in terms of phytosanitary capabilities. Therefore, the commission can develop measures to enhance the capability of member countries in implementing international standards. Only by doing so could the objectives of the Agreement be fully achieved.

In conclusion, the Vice Minister declared the Twenty-second session of the Asia and Pacific Plant Protection Commission officially open.

2 Election of the Chairperson and Vice-chairpersons of the twenty-second session, the drafting committee and the adoption of the provisional agenda and timetable

2.1 Election of the Chairperson and the Vice-chairpersons of the twenty-second session

Le Van Minh, Viet Nam was elected Chairperson of the twenty-second session of the APPPC.

The elected Vice-chairperson were: F. Bahar Indonesia B. Stynes Australia P. Pitakpaivau Thailand

2.2 Election of the drafting committee

John Hedley (New Zealand) was elected Chairperson of the drafting committee. Other members were: Suparno SA Indonesia B. Stynes Australia Pham Minh Sang Viet Nam N. Johnson New Zealand

2.3 Adoption of the provisional agenda and timetable

It was noted that agenda item 4 was to be considered after item 9 on the agenda. The draft agenda and timetable were adopted.

3 Secretariat report on action taken on recommendations of the twenty-first session of the commission (Agenda item 2)

Chong-yao Shen, Executive Secretary of APPPC reported on activities of the secretariat and working groups since the twenty-first session of the commission.

4 (i) Present status of the Plant Protection Agreement for the Asia and Pacific region

The Director-General of FAO received a letter from the Portuguese Republic government as well as from the Chinese government indicating that, in accordance with the joint declaration of the government of the People’s Republic of China and the government of the Portuguese Republic on the question of Macao, the government of the People’s Republic of China would resume the exercise of sovereignty over Macao with effect from 20 December 1999. Thus the government of the People’s Republic of China would assume responsibility for the international rights and obligations arising from application of the Agreement and its amendments. This means there are now twenty-four (24) countries party to the Plant Protection Agreement for the Asia and Pacific region.

Some FAO member countries in the region, for example, Bhutan, Maldives, Japan and also USA and one non-FAO member country – Singapore - have shown interest in becoming parties to the agreement.

(ii) Implementation of the revision of Plant Protection Agreement for the Asia and Pacific region

The main priority of the 2000-2001 APPPC work plan was the implementation of the revision of Plant Protection Agreement for the Asia and Pacific region. During the 21st session of the APPPC, several delegates indicated that, while they were in general agreement with the contents of the resolution, they would need to consult with their governments, and in particular, their legal advisers, before they could give their full commitment to the resolution. (see pages 27-28 of the report of the 21st session of APPPC, RAP publication 1999/44). The commission, therefore decided by consensus, to adopt that resolution subject to country communications to the secretariat of the commission by 16 August 1999. Five communications were received by the APPPC secretariat by the end of August 1999, all of them indicating acceptance of the resolution. The text of the communications is listed on page 26 of the report of the 21st session of APPPC, RAP publication 1999/44.

At the hundred and seventeenth (117) session in November 1999, the FAO council approved the amendments of Plant Protection Agreement for the Asia and Pacific region.

The Director-General of FAO, through the Legal Office, sent a letter titled “Plant Protection Agreement for the Asia and Pacific region, transmittal of certified true copies of the first set of amendments approved by FAO Council in November 1999” to all APPPC members on 19 June 2000. Until now, Viet Nam is the only member of the commission that has officially submitted the “Instrument of Acceptance” to the FAO Legal Office. However, APPPC secretariat received positive replies from China, India, Korea DPR, Malaysia, New Zealand and Philippines.

A working group on SALB was established and chaired by Malaysia. One meeting was organized in Hainan, China, in October 1999. Follow up action was focussed on the development of a technical cooperation project (TCP) for pest risk analysis for SALB of rubber. According to the request of the governments of Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand, one TCP project was approved by FAO in July 2001. FAO will contribute US$ 131 000 to support “Pest Risk Analysis for South American Leaf Blight of Rubber” (TCP/RAS/0168A).

5 An APPPC working group meeting on regional phytosanitary standard setting was organized from 17 to 19 July 2001, at the FAO regional office in Bangkok. The working group made several recommendations to the commission as follows:

• Besides SALB standards, consider the subjects for priority standards including the four most important and select two subjects for the development of standards in the next two years • Adopt the standard setting procedures for the APPPC regional standard setting system • Establish an APPPC standards committee adopting the terms of reference and rules of procedures • Adopt other procedural requirements for the standard setting system • Explore possibilities of gaining additional financial resources for the development of the APPPC regional standard programme

(iii) Development of the integrated pest management (IPM) programme in the region

Twelve APPPC member countries are actively participating in the development of the FAO programme for community IPM in Asia. A programme advisory committee (PAC) meeting will be held in Thailand in November 2001. A foundation may be established to continue supporting IPM activities in this region.

The FAO-EU IPM programme for cotton in Asia officially started in October 1999. The European Union contributed US 12 million to support this project. Six APPPC member countries have joined this project. The office of this regional project is at the FAO regional office in Bangkok.

The Intercountry programme for IPM in vegetable in South and Southeast Asia started in 1995. The first phase extended to seven APPPC member countries. However, it will be terminated at the end of this year. FAO seeks donor countries to continue supporting a second phase of the project. In principle, Australia agrees to co-finance the second phase.

According to the recommendations of the 20th session of the APPPC, the IPM newsletters are published by the Community IPM and a web-site is also established to support information sharing activities among APPPC countries.

(iv) Implementation of the Rotterdam Convention on the prior informed consent (PIC) procedure for certain hazardous chemicals and pesticide in international trade

An awareness workshop on inventories of obsolete, unwanted and banned pesticides stocks was organized on 25 May 2000 at the FAO regional office in Bangkok. Fifty participants including nine industrial companies attended this workshop. Based on the countries survey, the first regional workshop on inventories of obsolete, unwanted and banned pesticide stocks was held from 5 to8 June 2001at the FAO regional office in Bangkok. Eighteen APPPC member countries sent participants to attend this regional workshop. The workshop recommendations were sent to member countries for follow up action. The APPPC secretariat has also monitored existing pesticide policies and the implementation of conditions of the FAO code of conduct in countries where IPM projects are in place or planned.

6 (v) Participation in the second and third Interim Commission on Phytosanitary Measures (ICPM), held in Rome, FAO HQs in November 1999 and in April 2001, respectively

The APPPC was well represented by 14 member countries at the second and third ICPM. A total of six international standards and additions to the glossary were endorsed during the two meetings.

The second ICPM meeting carefully considered its input into technical assistance. The secretariat outlined its involvement in technical assistance for developing countries. This included the direct participation of the secretariat in workshops; the provision of technical oversight and inputs into the FAO technical cooperation programme; and the identification of specific technical assistance needs.

The Chairperson presented a report on a pilot project by New Zealand designed to identify the capabilities and specific areas of need in phytosanitary systems of developing countries. The second ICPM strongly endorsed the New Zealand project and requested pilot studies in other regions. Several members indicated that more resources should be provided by both FAO and trust funds for technical assistance to enable countries to participate fully in international trade.

A long discussion was held in the third ICPM for the composition of the formation of a Standard Committee (SC), in particular geographical representation. It concluded that the SC consists of 20 members. Three members from each FAO region (Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean, Near East and South West Pacific) and the North America region with 2 members.

The ICPM was informed by the secretariat that the new revised text of IPPC approved by FAO Conference at its 29th session in November 1997 had now been accepted by twenty one contracting parties. Of these four countries – Bangladesh, Australia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea – are from the Asia and Pacific region.

The third ICPM elected a new bureau: Chairperson: Felepe Canale, Uruguay Vice-chairperson: John Hedley, New Zealand Vice-chairperson: Ralf Lopian, Finland

(vi) Participation in the 11th and 12th technical consultation among regional plant protection organizations (RPPOs), held in Rome, FAO HQs in September 1999 and in San Diego, USA in October 2000, respectively

The 11th technical consultation among RPPOs was held from 30 September to 1 October 1999 in Rome, FAO HQs. Participants from APPPC member countries including Australia, Bangladesh, India, Rep. of Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand and Thailand attended the consultation.

Four papers were reported and discussed during the technical consultation: (1) Guidelines for recognition of RPPOs; (2) Procedures for cooperation between RPPOs and the IPPC Secretariat; (3) Reporting obligation of EPPO members;

7 (4) Rules of procedures for RPPOs attending SPS Committee meeting.

Main action points of the 11th technical consultation were:

(1) RPPO is to deposit Regional Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (RSPM) with IPPC Secretariat, and identify RSPMs for priority consideration ISPM with ICPM; (2) RPPOs is to urge adherence/acceptance of revised IPPC; (3) FAO and APPPC are to complete the revision of the Agreement and encourage the acceptance, also to complete the PRA and develop the Regional Standard for Phytosanitary Measures (RSPM) for SALB of rubber; (4) RPPOs are to offer contribution to NAPPO Methyl Bromide meeting and attend if possible. NAPPO is to distribute report/conventions to RPPO for their members.

The 12th technical consultation among RPPOs was held from 11 to 13 October 2000 in San Diego, U.S.A. Participants from APPPC member countries including Bangladesh, China, Rep. of Korea, New Zealand, and Philippines attended the consultation. The Executive Secretary of APPPC presented a paper titled “Revision of the Plant Protection Agreement for the Asia and Pacific Region” during the meeting. IPPC Secretariat presented a report regarding information exchange. FAO is proposing to develop an electronic “clearing-house” (on the worldwide web) through which IPPC contracting parties could publish the information which they are obliged to report. After some discussion, the technical consultation concluded that the capacities of different RPPOs for contribution to information exchange under Article VIII of IPPC were very different. It was not possible at present for the RPPOs to put themselves forward as components of the ICPM information system. However, the ICPM should be invited to consider a possible future role of RPPOs in information exchange.

The consultation accepted the invitation by APPPC and New Zealand that the 13th technical consultation will be held in Auckland, New Zealand from 29 to 31 October 2001.

The session endorsed the Executive Secretary’s report.

4 Country, regional and international organization reports (Agenda item No. 3)

4.1 Country reports 4.1.1 Australia

Brian Stynes updated member countries on the status of the national plant protection programme in Australia and recent changes in the management of this programme. The national responsibility primarily resides within the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry – Australia (AFFA). Within AFFA, Biosecurity Australia (BA) is responsible for trade-related quarantine issues. The Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS) is responsible for inspection and certification and the office of the Chief Plant Protection Officer (OCPPO) for all other plant health issues of national significance.

Within BA, Plant Biosecurity (PB) is responsible for establishing and reviewing biosecurity policies for plants and plant products and working with AQIS on the implementation of such policies. It is committed to maintaining a high level of expertise in pest risk analyses and it participates actively in international standard-setting fora. The

8 Australian IPPC official contact point resides within PB. The OCPPO provides national consideration of pest incursion management, pest surveillance and contingency planning.

In 2000, Plant Health Australia (PHA) was established as an independent corporation with members drawn from industry and government. PHA is expected to have an increasingly important role in the development of national plant health policy and in the support of national programmes.

As regards the development of international standards for phytosanitary measures (ISPMs), Australia acknowledges and supports the current work programme of the interim commission on phytosanitary measures (ICPM), where eight proposed standards are currently under development and work is commencing on a further six. Importantly, the latter six include: - Risk analysis for environmental hazards of plant pests; - Efficiency of phytosanitary measures; and - Irradiation as a phytosanitary treatment.

Five draft standards recently distributed to FAO members for comment have been circulated to state government agencies and industry to broaden the national consultation process within Australia.

In relation to proposals for regional standards, Australia participated in the APPPC working group on regional standard setting and endorses the proposed work programme and the establishment of a regional Standards Committee emulating the infrastructure of the IPPC standard setting process.

Australia confirmed a range of pest incursions subsequent to the 21st APPPC meeting.

4.1.2 Bangladesh

Bangladesh is a tropical country. The main cultivated area is under rice, wheat, jute, sugarcane and cotton followed by fruits, vegetable and tea plantations. Pests, diseases and weeds affect crop growth, development and yield. Losses, on average, are around 20 percent annually. The major pests include stemborer, ear cutting caterpillar, hispa, uffra disease and tungro virus in rice, foliar blights and seedling rot in wheat; hairy caterpillar, semilooper and virus in jute; red rot and soil cutworm in sugarcane, and bollworm, white flies, aphids, jassids, stemborer in cotton. There are no major pests on tea.

The plant protection department is headed by the Director and has assigned one Assistant Director and four Deputy Directors. The department has four major areas, operation and maintenance, plant quarantine, pest surveillance and forecasting and pesticide administration and quality control.

Until 1996, stemborer and rice hispa were the major pests but from 1997 to the present day brown plant hopper (BPH) Nilaparvata lugens emerged as the major pest in the country. Pest control is primary under the private sector and quality aspects are taken care of by the plant protection department. Foliar sprays are common practice. Seed and soil treatment is a regular phenomenon.

9 The extension service had been strengthened in light of integrated pest management (IPM). IPM in rice has been in practice for a long time with positive results. In cotton, IPM is a new dimension but there is a bright prospect of it. Recently an FAO/EU project with emphasis on training of the facilitators and farmers field schools was launched in 2001. The project is intended to be completed in 2004.

The national plant quarantine service had been working under the plant protection section and more emphasis had been given to the SPS project funded by DANIDA.

A good number of pesticides has been registered in Bangladesh. Some of the local bio-pesticides are used by farmers. Field staff have been trained on plant protection measures by both local and international trainers and experts.

Bangladesh will also cooperate and collaborate in the development of standards by providing information on survey work within the country and any follow up that can be done with the resource available.

4.1.3 Cambodia

The current strategies of plant protection in Cambodia still cover a narrow spectrum. Pest control is largely dependent on pesticides. However, since 1993 the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF) has been emphasizing on the development and practice of IPM as an alternative to indiscriminate use of pesticides particularly in food crops. Accordingly, the FAO IPM developed the farmers field school (FFS) programme for rapid extension of IPM practice. To date about 30 000 farmers have been trained in IPM. This programme has helped the country towards pesticide use reduction. Pesticide management at national level is the responsibility of the Bureau of Agricultural Material Standard (BAMS) which was established in 1999 by the MAFF incorporation with Department of Agronomy and Agricultural Land Improvement. The Cambodian agriculture research and development institute (CARDI) is also cooperating in developing some research activities related to plant protection.

The agricultural productivity improvement project (APIP) of the MAFF in Cambodia has recently drafted a new plant quarantine sub-decree, in line with ASEAN plant quarantine framework, SPS agreement of WTO, and the IPPC.

Besides the FAO-IPM programme, there are some bilateral development support programmes in the field of plant protection e.g. DANIDA, World Bank funded APIP projects. However, the overall plant protection programmes in Cambodia need to be strengthened to develop activities in line with international standards.

4.1.4 China

With the development of the economy, the areas of cash crops and oil crops are increasing sharply and the area of grain crops is decreasing gradually. This has resulted in a great change to field ecosystems. More than 276 million ha. of crop area was infested by pests last year, which was including 206 million ha. of grain crops and 73 million ha of cash crops. Pest occurrence areas of the last year were less than the area of 1999. The pest control area of 2000 was 308 million ha, which was including 217 million ha. of grain crops and 91 million ha. of cash crops. The nation-wide plant protection technical development, actions

10 and the national IPM program including rice, cotton, maize, vegetables and fruits. They are led by the National Agriculture-Technical Extension and Service Center, Ministry of Agriculture (NATESC, MOA) in Beijing which coordinates the IPM activities in the country.

China's plant quarantine consists of three parts, i.e. agricultural plant quarantine, forestry plant quarantine and import and export plant quarantine. The Ministry of Agriculture, the Bureau of Forestry and the State General Administration for Quality Supervision and Inspection and Quarantine (which was organized by former State Administration for Entry- Exit Inspection and Quarantine and former State Administration for Quality Supervision of the People's Republic of China) are in charge of respective quarantine. The three departments co-operate with each other during their work according to their responsibilities in the laws and regulations. As China will join WTO, the Chinese government has paid great attention to international agreements and standards inspite of the fact that China is still not a member of WTO. New reform measures have been adapted both in domestic and port quarantine systems. China has re-assessed all related quarantine rules, regulations and laws, and cancelled some parts of the rules and regulations. The revision of some rules and regulations are on the way. The transparency of the rules and regulations and policies has been increased. The information exchanges have been strengthened in the execution of the rules and regulations. Up to present, China has completed more than 40 PRA reports on foreign agricultural plants and products entering into China, and more than 20 others are on the way. So far, 10 national rules on agriculture plant quarantine have been issued.

In order to strengthen the international exchange concerning SPS, China has actively taken part in the related international activities organized by the international or regional organizations, such as IPPC, APEC etc. and put forward some constructive suggestions, coordinating the relationships between the plant quarantine and SPS agreement. China has also participated in ASEM on plant quarantine symposium and carried out discussions on standards, transparency and procedures. Furthermore, China has carried out exchanges, discussions and cooperation with related countries, regarding how to implement the SPS agreement. By now China has signed more than 100 bilateral phytosanitary requirements or regulations with more than 40 countries.

China/FAO community IPM in rice (1998 to 2002), China/FAO/EU IPM in cotton (2000-2004), impact assessment on IPM, farmer participatory research on Bt-cotton, IPM in sweet potato, poverty alleviation with IPM, rodent control etc are under implementation by the support from cooperation with FAO, EU and other international organizations. In addition, the bilateral cooperation on IPM projects of China/USA, China/Australia, China/Korea, China/Germany, China/Thailand, China/IRRI, etc have been set up. The exchange of information and experiences in IPM are shared among counterparts through visits and joint research.

China (Hong Kong)

Crop farming in Hong Kong concentrates on growing vegetables, flowers and ornamental plants. The available arable land is primarily used for vegetable production to supply the local market. In 2000, 42 500 tonnes of fresh vegetables were produced and accounted for 6.6 percent of local consumption.

11 Pest incidence is considerable in vegetable production under the intensive cropping pattern and subtropical climate in Hong Kong. Commonly occurring pests include: fall armyworm (Spodoptera litura), vegetable leaf miner (Liriomyza sativae Blanchard), diamondback moth (Plutella xylostella), Palm thrips (Thrips palmi Kamy), cotton aphid (Aphid gossypii glover), Hawaiian beet webworm (Hymenia recurvalis (Fabricius)) and melonfly (Bactrocera cucurbitae). Fungal diseases, viral diseases and nematodes may also cause damage when farmers do not attend their crops.

In the past few years, 29 pests have been newly identified in the territory but none, at present, causes significant economic damage to crops. Furthermore, regular surveillance of the farming community also resulted in 20 new host records.

The Hong Kong Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department continues to evaluate and field-test various environmentally friendly pest control measures for development of integrated pest management systems to help local farmers combat major vegetable pests. Applicable technical information is disseminated through farm visits, field demonstrations and workshops. Studies have also been initiated to evaluate the development potential and technical requirements for organic farming.

The Plant (Importation and Pest Control) Ordinance regulates the import of plants, plant pests and soil. To facilitate traders in the export of plants, phytosanitary certification services are provided.

Currently, a total of 416 pesticides are registered by the Director of Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation under the Pesticides Ordinance. The government actively encouraged the development and use of alternative measures, including biopesticides, that can reduce the reliance on chemical pesticides in agricultural pest control.

Pesticides Ordinance is being revised to provide for registration by individual pesticide product rather than active ingredient and the control of pest control companies by license. It is intended to implement the new measures in the latter half of 2002.

4.1.5 DPR Korea

During the reporting period the government reorganized the existing system to establish amonolithic plant protection system ranging from the ventral level down to country/city level by setting up new specialized plant protection stations in 200 counties/cities. These stations are directly responsible for technical guidance, training and extension for plant pests and diseases control and operation of biological insecticides production bases.

However, the new plant protection stations in the counties do not operate satisfactorily because of a lack of appropriate material and technical conditions. Every year, DPR Korea suffers from severe droughts between April and June and heavy rainfall in July and August. It is therefore difficult to control plant pests and diseases in a planned way and necessitates the establishment of integrated pest and diseases management systems.

It is emphasized that, in the present country situation and in view of the importance of environment protection, pests and disease management based on cultivation and biological sciences will be given further priority.

12 4.1.6 Indonesia

The concept of integrated pest management (IPM) is a principle of crop protection in Indonesia. Since 1989 the government has launched a large scale programme to implement this concept. Emphasis of the programme is focussed on human resources development that has successfully brought about tremendous changes in behaviour and field practices of farmers to produce better and environmentally sound agriculture.

Nevertheless, pest infestation is still a major problem for crop production in Indonesia, particularly for food and horticulture crops. It is estimated that pest infestation has caused 11 to 33 percent reduction of rice production per year, whereas on some horticulture crops the figures are even higher. On vegetables, yield losses caused by pest infestation in some areas may range from 46 to100 percent, on citrus 10 to100 percent, and on mango 25 to 60 percent. On the contrary, no significant increase of pest infestation on estate crops was reported during the past two years.

Lack of expertise has prevent the implementation of some ISPMs in Indonesia. Human resource training is needed to enable the implementation of the standards in the future.

A lack of technical data means that the development of biopesticides is behind those categorized as chemical ones. Nevertheless, its application is proceeding and some mass production has been carried out successfully.

4.1.7 Korea, Republic of

The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) of the Republic of Korea, in order to promote the sustainable environment-friendly agriculture at the government level, encourages farmers actively to use the integrated pest management (IPM) and integrated nutrient management (INM) for their farming according to the Sustainable Agriculture Promotion Act which was established in 1997.

In the plant quarantine sector, the Seoul branch office of the National Plant Quarantine Service (NPQS) was transferred to Incheon international airport office when the international airport was opened in March 2001. Supervision of the violation of plant quarantine regulations was established by endowing the judicial right to plant quarantine officers from the end of July 2001.

The Rural Development Administration (RDA) is monitoring the occurrence of significant pests (46 species) of important economic crops by operating 200 monitoring stations over the country. In the past two years (1999 to 2000), it showed that the acreage of pest occurrence in rice has considerably decreased compared with average year.

In case of the exotic pests – such as Palm thrips (Thrips palmi), Western flower thrips (Frankliniella occidentalis) and American serpentine leaf miner (Liriomyza trifolii) – which are presumed to have been introduced into Korea at the end of 1980s, the occurrence was not serious, but the area of occurrence has steadily increased.

13 Also, various studies are actively carried out by the Rural Development Administration to make practical use of biological control by using natural enemies or microbial organisms.

Recently, 9 species of arthropods including “aphidophagous gall midge (Aphidoletes aphidimyza) and Amblyseius barkeri etc.” and 4 cultures including “Beauveria bassiana (CS- 1)” were selected as promising natural enemies from the survey on natural enemy resources in the country.

4.1.8 Laos

The tropical monsoon climate is conducive to supporting a variety of pests. The most important insect pests of lowland rice are stem borers, gall midge, BPH, rice bug, grasshoppers and worms. There were no pests of significance with upland rice except rodents, grasshoppers and wild animals. Other important pests causing damage in crops are: rats, mice, crabs and snails. Insect pests of other crops have not yet been systematically recorded by the research system. Major rice diseases and their causal agents include bacterial leaf blight, blast, sheath blight, brown spot, bakanae, ragged stunt and others.

Rice is the most important crop, occupying 82 to 84 percent of the total crop area, and is the staple food for the Lao people. Most of the farmers of the country use cultural methods of pest control. The use of resistant varieties is probably the most widely used method against insect pest and diseases.

The use of chemicals in plant protection is of relatively low importance in Lao PDR. The country does not produce any active ingredients, nor does it formulate any pesticides locally. All pesticides are imported. There was a legal framework for the use and trade of pesticides initiated in 1998, and the regulation for the management and usage of plant protection products has been revised twice, in 1998 and 2000.

Biological control is still very weak. The policy of government is geared towards developing IPM systems against pests in order to improve the performance of agricultural crops. Plant protection, especially integrated pest management, is important for supporting the government’s objectives in increased market-oriented agricultural product for commercialisation and national self-sufficiency. It will be developed to insure a sustainable productivity in crop production.

4.1.9 Malaysia

The Malaysian national plant protection encountered no serious outbreaks of pest and diseases especially on rice, oil palm, rubber, cocoa and vegetables due to effective pest surveillance and monitoring system, and implementation of IPM. IPM is the prime approach and strategy for crop protection in Malaysia.

In Malaysia pesticides of broad spectrum action and with long residue effect are being phased out or restricted in usage. More emphasis is being given on the selective use of pesticides which is in harmony with the non-target pests and environment.

Malaysia recognizes the important role of plant health in the trade policy and the need to meet their obligations for science based risk assessment under the WTO/SPS agreement.

14 Malaysia is also involved in some of the international cooperation programmes in the area of plant protection and plant quarantine that will improve its capacity for plant health.

4.1.10 Myanmar

The Plant Protection Division (PPD) plays a vital role on Myanmar’s agricultural- based economy. Myanmar commenced the task of plant protection in 1979 with the technical and financial assistance from FAO/UNDP.

No pest and disease outbreaks have been reported in the past two years. Pest occurrence and crop damage recently in Myanmar is much less than previous years. Among the diseases, bacterial leaf blight of rice (BLB) is the most prevalent in monsoon rice throughout the country. Regarding insect pests, rice stemborer is common in all rice growing areas.

To reduce pesticide use and conserve natural enemies, pest management practices have emphasized the IPM approach. IPM strategy is still on its infancy due to the limited resource available from the government. There is no IPM legislation yet in Myanmar.

The project on male sterile insect techniques (SIT) on diamondback moth (DBM) Plutella xylostella, a serious pest of cabbage was funded by FAO/IAEA from 1993 to 1998. As a continuation of this work, native species of Costesia plutellae (DBM larval parasitoid) has been found to be a promising bio-control agent. The effective release percentage is 50 to 70 percent. The rearing method on various cruciferous crops is still under investigation.

The biological control strategy of Helicoverpa armigera, the most destructive pest on pulses and cotton, using predatory bug Eocanthecona farcellata and parasitic wasp Campoletis chlorideae has been conducted for two years (1999 and 2000). The rearing of these two insects and their release in the field in 2001 is already planned. The percentage of pest incidence and boll damage could be reduced to 50 percent.

Farmers field school training programmes in rice have started in 2000 in two divisions (Bago and Magway) and on State (Mon).

Concerning plant quarantine activities, two more plant quarantine stations, Myawaddy, border to Thailand and Lwegye, bordering with China were opened in 1999 and 2000 in addition to five stations already present. The inspection office at Mandalay international airport was established in 2000.

Present activities include: - issuance of phytosanitary certificate for the export commodities, - issuance of import certificates for the plant and plant products, - carrying out the post entry quarantine studies, - managing to establish the inspection points in accordance with plant pest quarantine law.

Five hundred and seventy-one pesticides with trade names have been registered with the Pesticide Registration Board until 2001. Of these, 216 are WHO toxicity Class III and 198 are Class II. The pesticide consumption in Myanmar is still very low compared to

15 neighbouring countries. Use of pesticides is much more on pulses, cotton and vegetables rather than on rice.

The botanical insecticide (a.i. azadirachtin) produced from neem tree is now widely used in vegetable growing areas and is more effective on Lepidopterous pests.

4.1.11 Nepal

It is estimated that there is 35% of crop loss because of insect pest action.

The National Plant Protection Organization plays an important role in the overall agriculture programme in the reduction of pre and post production losses. Research activities are undertaken by the Nepal Agriculture Research Council (NARC), an autonomous institution under Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives (MOAC). Plant protection activities like pest control, plant quarantine and pesticide regulation enforcement are handled by the Plant Protection Directorate (PPD) in the Department of Agriculture (DOA) of MOAC. The Plant Quarantine Section under PPD has six land-border check-posts along the Indo- Nepal border and one at the international airport.

Regular outbreaks of major pests and diseases since 1988 include those of Grasshoppers (Hieroglybhus banian) in paddy seed bed and sugarcane, brown plant hopper (Nilaparvata lugens) in paddy field, army worm (Heliothis sp.) in maize field, rice blast (pyricularia oryza) in paddy.

For safe distribution and use of pesticides in the country the Pesticide Act, 1991 and Rules 1993 has been enacted for pesticide registration and the licensing of pesticide traders. This has helped to develop a positive attitude and awareness among the resellers, importers and users about the adverse impacts of pesticides. Also through the introduction of IPM programmes farmers recognised the dangers of pesticide misuse, so they are using disease or pest tolerant varieties and pheromone traps.

As a central body for carrying out plant quarantine activities in Nepal, the Plant Quarantine Section has faced a number of problems including:

• Present capacity of institutions is not adequate and needs to be strengthened. • For effective quarantine services, standard procedures to meet all the IPPC requirements have not yet been developed. • Core group of specialized experts not identified within the institution to update national pest status.

Nepal is in the process of becoming a member of WTO. In this regard, Nepal is struggling hard in transferring its subsistence-based agriculture farming system into commercial agricultural system, utilizing its scarce resources and limited trained manpower to fulfil WTO requirement.

4.1.12 New Zealand

The New Zealand Ministries of Agriculture and Forestry have merged into a single Ministry and the MAF Regulatory Authority has been split into MAF Biosecurity Authority and MAF Food Assurance Authority. The Biosecurity Act 1993 is the principal legislation

16 relating to the exclusion, eradication and management of pests and unwanted organisms in New Zealand. Further changes to the Act are currently being drafted including the inclusion of forestry products under the Biosecurity Act.

Import health standards are developed on a country:commodity basis. They specify the conditions for importation and movement of risk goods into New Zealand. New Zealand basis its phytosanitary measures and standards on the International Standards of Phytosanitary Measures (ISPMs).

The following new records of pests and diseases were officially responded to by MAF between March 1998 and March 2001; • Coscinoptycha improbana (Guava Moth) – will not be eradicated • Avocado Sunblotch Viroid (ASBVd) - established in New Zealand • Potato Spindle Tuber Viroid (PSTVd) - recorded in four glasshouse tomato crops. Further action under discussion • Galium spurium & Chenopodium hybridum - eradicated • Teia anartoides (Painted Apple Moth) - eradication programme in place • Peltaschema suturalis - eradicated • Porotermes adamsoni (Wet wood termite) - eradicated • Serrognathus sika - eradicated

Ninety-two (92) organisms associated with plants were recorded as new to New Zealand by MAF (March 1998 - March 2001)

MAF is responsible for maintaining quarantine barriers at ports, airports and the international mail centre. The MAF Biosecurity Authority Border Management Group develops policy and sets standards for clearance and the service is delivered by the MAF Quarantine Service. Passenger and crew arrivals at airports have increased by 26 percent to 3.37 million. Additional x-ray machines have been installed to ensure that 100 percent of arriving passengers baggage is searched. There are 11 detector dog teams operating at airports and cruise ships as required. X-ray machines have also been installed at the international mail centre. The random rate for inspection of sea containers was increased from 5 percent to 10 percent during 2000 which led to 20 000 containers out of 380 000 being inspected.

Export certification is provided by MAF through export operations standards that enable export consignments to be certified through both end-point consignment inspection and audited industry operated programmes.

4.1.13 Pakistan

Pakistan has hot and dry climate with around 20 million hectares under field crops, orchards, groves and plantations. Production marketing and trade are traditional. Insect pests, diseases and weeds are the major constraint causing, on an average, losses of around 20 percent annually. The major insect pests include bollworms, white flies, aphids and jassids, cutworm, stem borers, codling moth, and fruit flies. The major diseases include rusts, foliar spots, root and crown rots, leaf curl and bunchy top viruses, powdery mildew, and malformation etc. Wild oats and Phalaris are the main weeds. Moreover, pests in stores, yards and on trade commodities are encountered. The plant protection methods are regulatory, cultural, mechanical and chemical. The biological and genetic control methods although being

17 used, remain to be exploited. IPM in cotton and rice has given good results and is being expanded to cover more crops and areas. Sanitation of field stores conveyances and ships is ensured to check pest spread and to keep produce safe and healthy. The locust situation is calm and the forecast is the same in the coming months. Subsidies on inputs have been withdrawn; support prices have become infrequent. With the exception of few acres of aerial spraying over orchards in Baluchistan, all plant protection operations are carried out by private sector.

By and large agriculture provides a major share of GDP and is a big foreign exchange source. The trade is in private sector. However, the Commerce Ministry formulates the trade policies. The international harmonized commodity description and coding system are being adopted. We are a net importing country and Pakistan’s trade has been influenced by SPS measures of the developed countries. The procedural formalities like pest risk analysis and delayed consultations hamper exports, and stringent conditions make the trade difficult. The ultimate loser is the grower. Efforts are being made to overcome the obstacles to trade.

The pest infestation picture is the same as in previous years and usual control operations continue to be taken. In the last two years a tree decline disease has affected mango plants in Shujabad area (Punjab) this season. About 2 000 hectares are under the affected trees. Cotton leaf curl virus incited by a gemini virus and vectored by white flies has been reported in southern Punjab and northern Sindh. The disease is being managed through crop resistance, sanitation, and plant invigoration and vector control.

Pesticides are registered under the Agricultural Pesticide Ordinance 1971 read with the Agricultural Pesticides (Amendment) Act 1992 and 1997. The legislation regulates imports, manufacture, formulation, sale, use and advertisement of pesticides. No pesticide identified by the Rotterdam Convention and Stockholm Convention is registered in Pakistan and hence cannot be used. So far 1 441 brands of pesticides, and 1 004 products under generic name are registered. Twenty-three pesticides have been de-registered. A strict watch on quality is maintained and judicious use of pesticides is encouraged.

Pesticide consumption has risen by 40 percent since 1987, yet the rapid increase in pesticide use has not solved pest problems and incomes of small cotton growers have fallen as they are spending more and more on pesticides.

Despite the fact that IPM practice started in the country long ago, it has gained a real momentum only during the last decade through national and international co-operation. IPM has been institutionalized moving from a project approach to a viable and sustainable national IPM programme in the country in 2001.

4.1.14 Papua New Guinea

The National Agriculture Quarantine and Inspection Authority (NAQIA) in Papua New Guinea is the Authority oversees the activities in plant protection and quarantine. It has been mandated to basically maintain the regulatory functions in plant protection and quarantine, and to facilitate trade. The Authority will ensure systems and programmes are developed that maintain export quality assurance and to ensure safe imports so as to protect PNG’s agricultural industries, its rich natural biodiversity, and general well being of the people.

18 In order to sustain its programmes, the Authority is empowered it to apply “User Pay Policy”. The policy allows it to charge on a cost recovery basis for services rendered to the public and stakeholders.

The role of the National Agriculture Research Institute (NARI) is to develop and maintain research into plant protection under production. In cases of pest incursions and outbreaks, both organizations are required to collaborate to control and/or eradicate the pest involved.

Pest control and extension is the responsibility of all agriculture institutes and to lesser extend the provincial department of primary industry. The technical specialists and extension specialist staff carry out most pest control and extension in the country. The lead agencies are expected to develop control strategies against exotic pest outbreaks and even endemic pest if spread has reached unmanageable level, and to develop public awareness programmes.

The regulatory and use of pesticide is governed by three pieces of legislation under the office of Environment and Conservation, the Environmental Contaminants Act 1972, the Environmental Planning Act 1978 and Water Resources Act 1982. Also the new Environmental Act 2000 strengthens the regulation and management of pesticides in Papua New Guinea. The biopesticide in contrast, is regulated by the NAQIA Act 2000 under NAQIA and the Fauna and Flora Act under OEC. Their importation and use are strictly regulated.

NAQIA has in the last two years supported eight international collaborative programmes in plant protection and quarantine in the country. This indicates the level of interest and knowledge the Authority wished to attain. It has already realized the dual benefits in supporting international programmes and will pursue this course in the future.

However, there are international programmes that NAQIA still supports, particularly international standards although it finds them difficult to implement. The technical capacity and use of lawyers’ jargon English in setting international standards disadvantage countries that lack human capacity and English as second language. It is suggested that the text for all standards be re-written into plain and simple English.

4.1.15 Sri Lanka

New plant protection act

The emphasis on globalization and the need to maintain competitiveness necessitated the review of the Plant Protection Act No. 10 of 1924. Thus, the new Plant Protection Act No. 35 of 1999 was gazetted at the end of 1999. It includes sections for the declaration of quarantine pests and for making appeals, etc. The regulations of the old act prevail until new regulations are gazetted in the very near future.

Pest outbreaks and control programmes

The country has embarked on several plant protection programmes for control of specific pests. Control programmes of new weed species, Parthenium hysterophorus and Alternaria philoxerodies, and insects. Lyriomyza huidobrensis and the African Cassava Mosaic Virus were prominent. An outbreak of rice root knot nematode, Meloidogyne

19 graminicola on 3 000 hectares was noted and is being controlled. In June 2001, rice mite, Steneotarsonemus spinki reappeared in one district and was effectively controlled. An outbreak of Xanthomonas campestris pv dieffenbachiae in anthurium is also being controlled.

One trial field planted with hybrid rice from China was found infected with Tilletia barclayana and had to be destroyed.

IPM in rice and other crops

IPM has received high priority in the country. Despite war problems in the country and shortage of financial resources in the government sector, rice IPM strategies were successfully implemented with support from donors and NGO’s. IPM has now been extended to vegetables and plantation crops. Researchers are actively pursuing studies for recommendations for IPM packages for several crop-pest interactions.

Pesticide control

With regard to pesticide control, the government has given this the highest priority. Twenty two highly hazardous chemicals were phased out by 1998. Import data for pesticides indicate a downward trend, attributable to the IPM programmes. However, sophisticated pesticide analysis facilities need to be established to provide technical support to the pesticide control legislation.

4.1.16 Thailand

Agriculture continues to play an important role in Thailand. Rice is by far the most economically important crop and in 1999 generated the total farm value closed to US$ 3 000 million. One of the serious problems in crop production over the past 2 years is pest infestation. Last year, there was an outbreak of sugarcane stem borers in Thailand especially in the north-eastern region of the country. The outbreak of white tip disease of sugarcane was also reported in north-eastern part of Thailand.

At present, Thailand is aiming at the reduction on the use of agricultural chemicals and a number of initiatives have been undertaken since 1992. IPM packages have been successfully developed for 11 crops.

In 1992, the government of Thailand enacted the Hazardous Substance Act B.E. 2535 (1992) to control all hazardous substances. The use of biopesticides is becoming more popular in particular for pre-harvest application against insect pests. This is evidenced by the increasing import volume of bacteria isolates during 1992 to1994, reaching the volume of 100 tons.

4.1.17 Tonga

The delegate from Tonga presented a report from his region as the Chairperson of the PPPO. The summary is included in Section 4.2.2

20 4.1.18 Viet Nam

In the past two years, the agriculture production and plant protection activities in Viet Nam have achieved a great success contributing to the improvement quality of life of farmers, assuring the food security program and playing important role in the international trade of agriculture products.

The plant protection infrastructure and communication systems were improved and modernised. The dissemination of information on plant protection to farmers was improved and this information served to assist their decision making for pest control.

Farmer’s education and training programmes were the main activities carried out during 1999-2000. The IPM programme concentrated on farmers training and community IPM. Farmer’s training on IPM in other crops like: cotton, vegetables, tea, soybean, fruit trees also received great supports and actively contributed to rural poverty alleviation. The IPM programme is still supported by international organizations and the government of Viet Nam.

New incidences of pests with high damage potential recorded in Viet Nam during 1999 to 2001 were: coconut beetle (Brontispa sp.), sugarcane white grub (Alissotum impessicolla), hispa on maize (Dicladispa armigera). Records of plant quarantine pests with a high risk of establishment and spreading were : burrowing nematode (Radopholus similis) and powdery scab on potato (Spongospora subterrana).

The plant quarantine network in Viet Nam has been improved substantially in recent years. The revision of the Decree of plant protection and quarantine was approved recently by the executive committee of parliament. This is in line with IPPC and will facilitate harmonization with the SPS Agreement.

Pesticide registration and management’s regulations have been reviewed and amended. Up to January 2001, more than 300 active ingredients with 844 trade names of pesticides have been registered for use. Twenty-seven active ingredients with 46 trade names of pesticides are restricted in use and 26 active ingredients are banned for use in Viet Nam. Bio-pesticides have also been developed and used in Viet Nam e.g. Metarhizium anisopliae ,Bt, NPV, botanical pesticides, biorats.

4.2 Observers

4.2.1 Japan

Japan is one of the major importing countries of agricultural products in the world. As a number of imports of plants and plant products gradually increase, Japan has some concerns about introduction of new alien pests.

Under these circumstances, Japanese plant quarantine authorities have implemented appropriate phytosanitary measures at the entry points and have improved plant quarantine systems in order to prevent the introduction of new alien pests taking into account the consistency with the WTO-SPS Agreement and relevant international standards on phytosanitary measures.

21 On the other hand, many countries have been requesting Japan to lift the import prohibition on their agricultural products. Japan will lift the prohibition as soon as possible if the proposed phytosanitary measures secure the protection level equivalent to prohibition, upon evaluation from a technical and scientific viewpoint.

4.2.2 The Pacific Plant Protection Organization (PPPO)

(i) Pacific Plant Protection Organization (PPPO) The PPPO is the RPPO established by Pacific island countries and territories. Activities are implemented by the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC)

(ii) Member countries: There are twenty four (24) PPPO members, including American Samoa, Australia, Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), Fiji, French Polynesia, Guam, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, New Caledonia, New Zealand, Niue, Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), Palau, Papua New Guinea (PNG), Pitcairn Islands, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tokelau, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu and Wallis, and Futuna.

(iii) PPPO Meetings Member countries meet every three years. The executive committee comprising Australia, New Zealand and 2 elected representatives each from Micronesia, Melanesia and Polynesia sub-regions meet annually. Meetings discuss trade and quarantine issues, recommend actions for implementation by SPC and/or by country representatives.

(iv) PPPO activities include: • Information to members on quarantine issues, incursions (pest alerts) etc. • Inputs to ISPMs • PRA assessment training • Representation at RPPO consultations and ICPM standards committee • Promotion of IPPC activities, standards etc.

5 Progress and development of integrated pest management (IPM) in the region (Agenda item 5)

(i) Progress and development of IPM in vegetables in Viet Nam

The Vietnamese national IPM programme has been implemented by the Plant Protection Department (PPD), Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, with FAO support since 1992. In 1994, the national programme started developing curricula for training farmers in vegetable IPM. Currently, a cadre of 158 vegetable IPM trainers are posted throughout the country. They have facilitated 782 vegetable IPM farmer field schools (FFS) with FAO funding, training approximately 20 000 farmers. Since 1996, Phase I of the FAO intercountry programme for the development and application of integrated pest control in vegetables in south and southeast Asia has been providing additional technical assistance and financial support.

22 FAO has helped to develop a broad range of follow-up activities for vegetable farmers who graduate from FFS. These follow-up activities give IPM farmers an opportunity to continue learning, to solve more production problems, and to gain skills that are useful for all sorts of community-based, participatory development. Important among these follow-up activities are:

• Participatory action research by farmers on IPM of vegetable diseases and on biopesticides, with technical support from CAB international and Viet Nam’s national institute of plant protection; • Biological control of diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella, in the central highlands by farmer study clubs using the introduced parasitoid Diadegma semiclausum; and • In collaboration with the FAO community IPM programme, farmer studies on pesticides and health, to raise vegetable farmers’ awareness about exposure to pesticide-related risks and how these risks can be reduced.

Several donor- and NGO-funded vegetable IPM and pesticide management projects now operate under the umbrella of the national IPM programme, with coordination from PPD’s IPM group and FAO-IPM in Hanoi. Mutually beneficial collaborative partnerships are enriching the national programme and offer opportunities for productive synergy between projects. The national programme hopes to expand its present collaboration with the Viet Nam Women’s Union and the Viet Nam Farmer’s Union. Key initiatives for the future include an FAO-supported IPM in schools initiative, special certification, labelling, and marketing programmes for IPM and organic vegetables, strengthening farmers’ skills for implementing scientific field studies and participatory impact evaluation, and farmer research on biological control of diamondback moth in lowland vegetables.

(ii) Progress and development of the FAO programme for community IPM

The FAO programme for community IPM in Asia is the fourth phase of the FAO programme for IPM in rice-based cropping systems in Asia which began in 1980. Over this long history, the programme has progressed through several stages:

Phase I (1980 to 1987) This phase focused upon the verification of IPM technology and the development of pilot extension activities with farmers plus ‘strategic extension campaigns’ to promote IPM understanding and application.

Phase II (1987 to 1993) The second phase of the programme emphasized on a shift towards human resource development and saw the introduction of season long training of trainers programmes and the now well known ‘IPM Farmer Field School’ approach. This approach was successful in bring IPM to hundreds of thousands of farmers for the first time.

Phase III (1993 to 2000) During this phase the programme focused upon the development of national IPM programmes based upon season long training and farmer field schools. This period also saw the development of various ‘farmer led’ activities including farmer to farmer training, farmer-led research, action research, health impacts research and other innovative programmes. Large scale national

23 programmes began in numerous countries, such as Indonesia, India, Viet Nam, and Cambodia.

Phase IV The current, and last, phase of the programme is called Community IPM due to the emphasis upon ‘IPM by Farmers”. In this phase farmers have been the focus for a broad range of activities in member countries. The programme has also succeeded in starting new, and innovative, national IPM programmes in several member countries such as Nepal and China.

Current status: a very thorough mid-term review was conducted in late 2000. The review team concluded that the phase IV programme had been highly successful. In fact, most quantitative targets for the entire 5 year period had been met in the first 3 years of the project.

The emphasis of donors now is placed upon developing an ‘exit strategy’ that would ensure the sustainability of IPM capabilities in member countries while building upon the broad and strong foundations laid by the programme. New donors need to be brought in, and it is recognized that many donors now work from a broadened ‘livelihoods’ framework where in agriculture is seen as key to the areas of natural resource management, the development of civil society, and the creation of rural institutions representing more effectively the interests of rural farming majorities.

The first and foremost recommendation made by the mid-term review was the establishment of an independent ‘Community IPM Foundation’ in the Asia region that would keep pushing new innovations and maintain the strength of networks of farmers, trainers, and organizations. supportive of IPM in member countries. As of this meeting, numerous steps have been taken toward the development of this mixed- membership organization designed to carry-on the work of the Community IPM programme. The development of this organization is also based upon the fact that traditional donors have said that it is time that stakeholders in the region commit to the sustainability of the capabilities established through this programme.

FAO will maintain a crucial role in normative areas and in the promulgation of specific projects in the region in areas such as policy and regulatory development. The foundation’s main role will be to keep alive the strong network of IPM farmers and IPM trainers as well as to serve as the source of new information and innovations.

The phase IV FAO programme for Community IPM in Asia will terminate by the end of 2002, if not before. It is essential that in the time remaining an organization be put in place to capture all the gains and progress made over the history of the programme such that the millions of IPM farmers in the region can still be supported effectively.

(iii) Progress and development of the FAO programme for cotton IPM

The EU-funded FAO programme on Integrated Pest Management for Cotton in Asia (GCP/RAS/164/EC) has six member countries. These are Bangladesh, China, India, Pakistan, Philippines and Viet Nam. The Implementing Agreement of the

24 programme was signed in March 1999 for a scheduled duration of five years. The total budget for the programme is US$ 12 million.

(iv) Programme objectives and progress

Development goal: “Sustainable, profitable and environmentally sound production of cotton in the participating countries through the development, promotion and practice of IPM by farmers and extension staff”

The immediate objectives of the cotton programme are as follows: 1. “To develop a cadre of cotton IPM facilitators from existing extension or field plant protection staff to educate farmers in farmer field schools (FFS).” Progress: Training of Facilitator (ToF) activities started in China and India in 2000, and eight ToF are being implemented in all member countries in 2001. It is planned to train 90 000 farmers in cotton IPM-FFS by the end of 2004. Maintaining high quality standards while preparing for program expansion will be given special attention. 2. “To promote co-operation for cotton IPM among governments, research institutions, development agencies, extension services and farmers and other non-governmental organizations and to improve access for all interested parties to information from within and outside the programme area.” Progress: In collaboration with the FAO’s global IPM facility, a general survey of the world-wide state of IPM is being conducted. Furthermore, a newsletter and a website focusing on the development of cotton IPM are planned. A farm-based study involving local Chinese agencies and international collaborators is underway in China to investigate the impact of Bt cotton at farm level. To assess the project’s impact will include special studies conducted by NGOs, research institutions and farmers. 3. “National policies on plant protection re-oriented to support IPM development in the six programme countries.” Progress: To provide credible evidence on the potential impact of cotton IPM on the economic, natural, human and social resources of the member countries, impact studies are being set-up as integral parts of the programme. Such evidence will be supplemented by field results from ToF and FFS. The FAO- EU cotton programme supports the emerging concept of IPPM 2015 with its goal to replace persistent organic pollutants from the cotton fields by the year 2015. It will participate by sharing information, conducting experiments and encouraging policy changes towards a stronger role of IPM in national plant protection policies.

6 Progress in the implementation of the provisions of the International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides, and the Convention of Prior Informed Consent (PIC) (Agenda item 6)

25 An overview was given to issues addressed in the International Code of Conduct on Distribution and Use of Pesticides. It was recalled that the Code was adopted by the FAO Conference in 1985 and amended in 1989 to include Prior Informed Consent. The FAO Conference in 2001 would again consider amendments prepared in the past two years, to allow for changes required after the adoption of the Rotterdam Convention, and to modernize language, in particular from “safe use” to risk reduction and to rectify the IPM definition. The implementation of the Code was in particular a national responsibility and the responsibility of the companies, but FAO and donors had provided assistance to establish a legislation, regulations and infrastructure.

The Prior Informed Consent procedure was reviewed, in particular the adoption of the Rotterdam Convention in 1998. This Convention was a follow-up to a voluntary procedure that began in 1989. The Secretariat in the interim period between adoption and coming into force of the Convention is provided by FAO and UNEP (which have also be designated to provide the Convention Secretariat). At present, an interim PIC procedure is in operation, to which 165 countries participate. Twenty seven pesticides and five industrial chemicals were covered by the interim procedure. The Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee, which negotiated the Convention text, continues to meet annually to oversee the interim PIC procedure and to prepare for the first Conference of Parties. It was noted that the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants and the Basel Commission, which regulates international movement of waste, complement, in part, the Rotterdam Convention.

7 Overview of the International Plant Protection Convention’s activities (Agenda item 7)

An introduction was provided on the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC). The purpose and the key provisions of the IPPC were reviewed.

It was recalled that the negotiation in the Uruguay Round of the GATT had resulted in the SPS Agreement and the recognition of the IPPC as the standard setting organization in relation to plant health. In response, an IPPC Secretariat was established, and work has begun on international standards for phytosanitary measures. In 1997 the IPPC was amended, provisions were included on harmonization; the scientific justification for measures; non- discrimination, consistency and equivalence; a Commission on Phytosanitary Measures; Regional Standards Setting and Technical Assistance. The FAO Conference in 1997 also established interim measures to be implemented until the revised convention comes into force. The interim commission on phytosanitary measures (ICPM) was meeting annually to review global plant protection needs; develop and adopt international standards for phytosanitary measures; establish procedures for dispute resolutions and promote technical assistance. IPPC activities, guided by the ICPM, concerns standard settings, facilitation of information sharing, coordination of regional organizations and technical assistance.

A dispute resolution system had been established but has not yet been used. It was reported which new standards had been adopted and it was noted that a new system was developed to meet the reporting obligations identified in the IPPC, the International Phytosanitary Portal. The system will be part of a larger biosecurity system that will also include information on food safety and animal health. The ICPM also addressed new challenges in the field of the environment (alien invasive species) and GMOs. Cooperation with the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Cartagena Protocol was sought on these issues. Finally, it was noted that, to meet the requirements of the expanding international

26 programme, the structure of the Secretariat and funding of activities would need to be considered carefully and further developed.

8 Progress in the implementation of plant quarantine in the Asia and Pacific region (Agenda item 8)

John Hedley, Chairman of the Standing Committee on Plant Quarantine, noted that there had been substantial developments in the global plant quarantine situation. These could be seen in the development of standards and the administration of the interim commission on phytosanitary measures (ICPM). These developments have been reflected in the activities of the APPPC in the last two years.

Regional technical consultations on draft international standards for phytosanitary measures: August 2000 and August 2001

There have been two of these meetings, both held at FAO, in Bangkok. The draft standards under consultation in 2000 and 2001 were discussed by experts from Asian countries and a number of recommendations for amendments prepared. These recommendations are sent to the interim standards committee for consideration. The meetings have been successful in clarifying issues in the draft ISPMs and in making useful recommendations for amending the drafts. The meetings were funded by the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the IPPC Secretariat.

APPPC working group meeting on regional phytosanitary standards setting : June 2001

A working group drafted a list of proposals for regional standards and standards setting procedures for the 22nd session of the APPPC to consider. This is reported in detail elsewhere in this report.

The ICPM and associated meetings

Dr Hedley noted the input from Asia and the Pacific region into the 2nd and 3rd sessions of the ICPM. The region had also substantial input into the meetings of the interim standards committee which now meets twice in each year. Both of the meetings on strategic planning and technical assistance were held in the region last year. APPPC experts also took part in many of the other ICPM meetings on the composition of the Standards Committee, the continued development of the glossary of phytosanitary terms, the exploratory WG on phytosanitary aspects of GMOs, biosafety and invasive species and working groups on wood packing, systems approaches, pest reporting, dispute settlement procedures and information exchange.

9 Consideration of the eleventh and twelfth technical consultations among regional plant protection organizations (RPPOs) (Agenda item 9)

C.Y. Shen, Executive Secretary of the APPPC, reported on the recommendations of the eleventh and twelfth technical consultation among regional plant protection organizations (TC-11 and TC-12).

The eleventh technical consultation among regional plant protection organizations (TC-11) was held in Rome, FAO Headquarters, 30 September to 1 October. The main

27 discussion focussed on the guidelines for recognition of RPPOs; procedures for cooperation between RPPOs and the IPPC Secretariat; and rules of procedures for RPPOs attending SPS Committee meetings.

The meeting determined there were five issues for further discussion: • Priorities for standard setting • NAPPO regional standard for wood dunnage and packing material • Phytosanitary certification • Official control • Biosafety and GMO’s

The twelfth technical consultation among regional plant protection organization (TC-12) was held in San Diego, USA, 11 to13 October 2000. The NAPPO annual meeting, held the following week, included a specific session on phytosanitary alternatives to methyl bromide to which speakers from different regions of the world contributed.

Prof Shen presented a paper on “Revision of APPPC” and clarified several questions from the floor including:

• Funding of the regional standard of SALB • Proposed sub-regions and APPPC would maintain a “coordinating role” across the sub-regions • Situation with Japan’s membership

Prof Shen informed participants that the TC-13 would be co-hosted by APPPC and New Zealand in Auckland, New Zealand from 29 to 31 October 2001. He encouraged member countries to send representatives to participate in the TC-13.

10 Implementation of the revision of the Plant Protection Agreement for the Asia and Pacific region

10.1 Regional phytosanitary standard setting

John Hedley gave a brief overview of the report of the APPPC working group meeting on regional phytosanitary standard setting held in Bangkok from 17 to19 July 2001. Dr Hedley noted the references in the 1999 revised Plant Protection Agreement for the Asia and Pacific region to the setting of regional standards and stressed that one of the APPPC major objectives should be to set regional standards.

10.1.1 The commission reviewed the report of the working group and the following amendments were made to the guidelines for the standard setting procedures

• Section VII (Annex II No. 1) draft standard setting procedures for an APPPC regional standard - Step 6. China proposed that there be a timetable for the distribution of draft regional standards before the APPPC meeting. It was agreed that the following be added to Step 6. The draft standard should be sent to members two months prior to the APPPC meeting

28 • VIII (Annex II No. 2) terms of reference for the APPPC standards committee Insert new terms of reference 5. Appointment of the standards committee The APPPC standards committee is appointed by the Commission

• IX (Annex 2 No. 3) rules of procedure for the APPPC standards committee Rule 2. Period of membership Text amended as follows: Members of the APPPC standards committee shall be appointed for a period of four years Rule 5. Approval Text to be amended as follows Approvals relating to specifications or draft standards are made by consensus

• XV (Annex II No. 9) Procedure for designation of members of working group Title now to read guidelines for designation of members of working group

• XVIII (Annex II No. 12) Guidelines for submission of comments First sentence amended to read: APPPC members are provided 120 days to review the documents, consult on their content, and compile and submit comments through their NPPO to the APPPC secretariat

10.1.2 The commission commented on the recommendations to the commission regarding the priorities of standards as follows:

The commission proposed that the development of a standard Quarantine requirements for the introduction of GMO’s be delayed until the IPPC standard has been developed.

It was noted that the proposed standard Inspection, Detection, Identification and Treatment of Fruit Fly would require a considerable study and should be delayed at this stage.

Therefore, it was decided that the Standards Committee should consider the two proposed standards guidelines for requirements for Mediterranean fruit fly and guidelines for the training of plant quarantine inspectors

10.1.3 The members of the APPPC agreed to do the following;

• Adopt the standard setting procedures for the APPPC regional standard setting system as described in section VII (Annex II No. 1) • Establish an APPPC Standards Committee which will adopt the terms of reference in section VIII and adopt the rules of procedures described in section IX (Annex II Nos. 2 and 3)

29 • Adopt the other procedural requirements for the standard setting system described in sections X to XXII. (Annex II Nos. 4-16)

10.1.4 Establishment of the Standards Committee

The sub regions of the APPPC met and proposed the following membership of the Standards Committee: South Asia (2) - Bangladesh and Pakistan North East Asia (2) - China and R. Korea South East Asia (3) - Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand Pacific (2) - Australia and New Zealand

10.1.5 The following countries have agreed to assist Prof Shen in drafting the specifications for the development of the two standards agreed to by the Commission: Australia China Indonesia Malaysia Thailand

The revised procedural guidelines for regional standard setting are attached in the Appendix IV.

10.2 Status of the regional TCP project on SALB

The regional TCP project on SALB (TCP/RAS/0168(A)) was approved by FAO in July 2001 and is waiting for member countries to send letters of agreement.

11. The APPPC programme of work for 2002 to 2003(Agenda item 10)

11.1 Reports on the meetings of the APPPC Standing Committees

11.1.1 Meeting of the APPPC Standing Committee on integrated pest management (IPM)

(i) Attendance: The meeting was attended by the following:

Bangladesh Rafiqul Haider China Piao Yongfan Indonesia H. Simanjuntak Pakistan Iftikhar Ahmad Thailand Prapaisri Pitakpaivan Viet Nam Nguyen Quoc Dat FAO Chong-yao Shen Gerd Walter-Echols N.A. van der Graaff Russ Dilts

30 (ii) Appointment of the Chairperson and Rapporteur Piao Yongfan from China was appointed as Chairperson of the Standing Committee on IPM. Iftikhar Ahmad was appointed as Rapporteur.

(iii) Review of the progress in integrated pest management The country delegates highlighted the key achievements in IPM, the details of which had already been presented in the general meeting under agenda item 3.

Delegates also reviewed the progress made against the recommendations proposed work plan (2000 to 2001) of the 21st session of the APPPC. In most countries, the achievements had been in line with the proposed work plan of the 21st APPPC.

The delegates while reviewing the past efforts, pointed out various challenges for the region:

1. Post-community IPM scenario and follow up by the member countries in the region. 2. Scaling up of the national IPM programmes to provide quality education to a large number of farmers. 3. Verifying the current IPM training tools for their suitability towards the needs of individual countries. 4. Further developing crop based IPM programmes to a farming system perspective. 5. Role of GMO’s in IPM. 6. Studying and demonstration of IPM impact and development of a strategy for IPM promotion in APPPC member countries.

(iv) Proposed work plan (2002 to 2003)

No. Activity Supporting agency/party

1. Ensure continuity of IPM newsletter FAO IPM projects and linkages with other information network.

2. Workshop among the national IPM APPPC/FAO IPM projects programmes.

3. Workshop on facilitation of IPM FAO IPM projects/APPPC training and follow up activities.

4. Workshop on TOF&FFS curriculum FAO IPM projects development.

5. Preparation for IPM strategy of FAO/IPM project Bt-cotton to the 23rd APPPC session.

31 6. Development of guidelines on IPM APPPC/FAO IPM projects language use in country reports.

7. Collection and collation of information APPPC/member on IPM impact assessment. countries/FAO IPM projects

8. Expert consultation on the strategy on (APPPC) formulation of IPM curriculum module for the streams of bachelor degree.

9. Exploring cross visits of IPM Bilateral and multilateral and bio-control activities. basis

10. Expert and facilitator exchange among Bilateral and multilateral countries. basis/IPM projects

11.1.2 Meeting of the APPPC Standing Committee on Plant Quarantine

(i) Attendance: The meeting was attended by the following delegates: Australia Brian Stynes Cambodia Hean Vanhan China Lin Wei Wang Fuxing DPR Korea Pak Chun II Indonesia Suparno SA Japan Hiroshi Akiyama Laos Phiaxaysarakham Phaydy Malaysia Asna Booty Othman Nepal Nabin CTD Shrestha New Zealand John Hedley Nikki Johnson Papua New Guinea Elijah C Philemon Republic of Korea Jin-Seong Kim Thailand Udorn Unahawutti Tonga Sione Foliaki Viet Nam Dam Quoc Tru Nguyen Hu Dat Pham Quang Huy

(ii) Appointment of the chairperson: The committee confirmed the ongoing chairperson as being in New Zealand (J. Hedley)

(iii) Review of progress in plant quarantine: The standing committee noted that progress has been made on the development of regional standards with the establishment of a working group on regional standards and the appointment of a Standing Committee. The committee also noted that the regional technical consultations on draft ISPM

32 standards have been valuable in helping participating members fully understand the standards and prepare their country comments. There was some discussion about the draft ISPM on wood packaging and the implementation of ISPMs.

(iv) Programme of activities for the next two years: The standing committee suggested the following work program:

a) South American Leaf Blight (SALB) • TCP project on PRA for SALB has been approved. • Appropriate consultants are currently being sought. • A pest risk analysis is to be done with the TCP money to enable standards for SALB to be set up so that revision of the APPPC can be completed.

b) Regional Standards: Two drafting working groups will be set up to draft the proposed regional standards: • Import requirements to prevent the introducton of Mediterraean Fruit Fly (Ceratitis capitata) • Guidelines for training of plant quarantine inspectors

c) Regional Technical Consultations on draft standards: Funds will be sought for these two meetings in 2002 and 2003.

d) Information Network: After considerable discussion, the Standing Committee on Plant Quarantine identified the area of information networking as important with many countries requiring assistance. The committee recommended the formation of a sub-committee with the following terms of reference:

The sub-committee on information networking was asked to report to the 23rd session of APPPC on: • Plan for the development of an information exchange mechanism • Information priorities for the region • Sources of sponsorship • A means of helping countries with lesser advanced systems • Liase with the IPPC secretariat (International Phytosanitary Portal) • Review of other information systems • Ensure mechanisms are not too complex

It is proposed that the sub-committee be chaired by Malaysia with committee members from Vietnam, China, and Australia.

e) TCP project on Land Border Quarantine:

33 Australia, Papua New Guinea and Indonesia referred to memorandum of understanding between the countries that provided for joint surveillance of quarantine pests and diseases within the region. These provide early warning for potential pest incursions. Australia noted that this approach may serve as a useful model for other countries that share common borders.

11.1.3 Meeting of the APPPC Standing Committee on pesticides

(i) Attendance: The Standing Committee on Pesticides was attended by the following delegates:

China Chen Youquan Wendy Wen-chi Ko Indonesia Daryanto Malaysia Ismail Bin Hashim Myanmar Myint Nu Thwin Pakistan Muhammed Hanif Papua New Guinea John Kola Sri Lanka S. Weerasena Thailand Thirapol Unjitwatana Viet Nam Pham Minh Sang Dam Quoc Tru FAO P.K. Saha

(ii) Appointment of the Chairperson: Pakistan was re-elected to chair the APPPC Standing Committee on Pesticides for 2002 to 2003. M. Hanif, the delegate from Pakistan, was entrusted to assume the Chairpersonship.

(iii) Review of the progress in pesticides: The committee reviewed the progress of work in the countries of the Asia and Pacific region. It was noted that:

a) To minimize pesticide use, member countries implemented IPM programmes for selected crops. b) Some countries of the region had carried out training programmes for dealers and farmers on safe handling and use of pesticides. c) Need for creating public awareness through agricultural extension/plant protection departments, print and electronic media on the harmful effects of pesticides and their safe use was identified. d) It was informed that the use of pesticides in general in the region is decreasing however consumption of herbicides is increasing. e) The problem of disposing obsolete, unwanted, and banned pesticides was highlighted by all countries.

(iv) Recommended work programme for 2002 to 2003:

a) Harmonization of regulatory procedures in pesticides

34 • After a detailed discussion, it was recommended that the programme to continue for the period 2002-2003. • FAO may hold an expert consultation to finalize the harmonization process.

b) Promotion of safe handling of pesticides • Collection, collation and compilation of data on obsolete, unwanted, and banned pesticides in the region was to be carried out. • Training programmes and workshops on safe handling of pesticides should be carried out with FAO/donor assistance. • Consumer awareness programmes on pesticides should be strengthened. • Promotion of organic farming should be strengthened and marketing its green products will be encouraged.

c) Prior Informed Consent (PIC) The member countries were requested to provide information on status of PIC and the Designated National Authority (DNA) for pesticides to the APPPC Secretariat.

d) A regional website on pesticide should be created in line with the ASEAN Agreement when Malaysia has agreed to host similar information. Type of information to be placed on the website should be drafted by Malaysia.

e) Disposal of obsolete/unwanted and banned pesticides • FAO may arrange a workshop on safe handling/disposal of obsolete, unwanted and banned pesticides. • A dialogue may be opened by the FAO initiative and collaboration of governments, and manufacturers of pesticides for safe disposition of these pesticides.

f) Biopesticides The registration and use of biopesticides may be encouraged with adequate research information.

11.2 Discussion and identification of the programme of work for 2002 to 2003 and its financial resources

The Executive Secretary outlined the proposed programme of work for 2002 to 2003. He commented that as the amended Article of Agreement for establishing the mandatory financial contributions by the members of the commission has still not entered into force, the secretariat of the commission may have to make adjustments in line with the FAO regular programme budget, in the implementation of the following proposed programme of work for 2002 to 2003:

A. The secretariat will emphasize on the following activities: 1. Regional standards setting.

35 2. Undertaking regional TCPs, the first is Pest Risk Analysis for South American Leaf Blight of Rubber. The secretariat hopes the second one will be Strengthening the Land Border Plant Quarantine. 3. Establishment of an information system.

B. Consultations and meetings: 1. Expert consultation on draft regional standards for phytosanitary measures, in April 2002, Bangkok, Thailand. 2. Expert consultation on strengthening land border plant quarantine facilities in Asian countries, August 2002, Bangkok, Thailand. 3. Expert consultation on the formulation of plant pest management curriculum module towards the streams of bachelor degree, November 2002, Bangkok, Thailand. 4. Expert consultation on the development of bio-pesticides use in plant pest management, April 2003, Bangkok, Thailand. 5. Expert consultation on capacity building towards monitoring and management of migratory pests, July 2003, Bangkok, Thailand. 6. 23rd session of Asia and Pacific Plant Protection Commission, September 2003, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

C. Training programme/workshops: 1. Three workshops for pest risk analysis for South American Leaf Blight of rubber. 2. Training programme for land border quarantine inspectors through Regional TCP or FAO/TCDED project. 3. PRA training course proposal may seek a budget from UNDP or other donor agencies and FAO’s ongoing relevant project. 4. Other training programmes according to member countries’ requirements.

D. Assist in activities of the various working group of the APPPC’s Standing Committee on: 1. Plant Quarantine 2. IPM 3. Pesticide

However, once the commission has its own financial resources, it may wish to use funds to carry out more development support activities of the working groups of the Standing Committee of the APPPC. So there is an urgent need to accept the amended Article of the Agreement for establishing the mandatory financial contribution by the member states of the commission.

The session endorsed the work programme for 2002 to 2003. However, the meeting recommended low priority to the activities B3, B4 and B5 and to exchange these activities for others if required.

36 12. Date and venue of the Twenty-third session of the APPPC (Agenda item 11) Malaysia offered to host the Twenty-third session during August 2003 in Kuala Lumpur. The session accepted the Malaysia’s offer.

13. Other business (Agenda item 12) There was no other business

14. Adoption of the report (Agenda item 13) The report was adopted.

15. Closing of the session (Agenda item 14)

37 Annex I

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

1. Australia Brian Stynes General Manager Plant Biosecurity Biosecurity Australia Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Edmund Barton Building, Barton, ACT PO Box 858 Canberra ACTY 2601

Tel: 61 2 6272 4042 Fax: 612 6272 3307 E-mail: [email protected]

2. Bangladesh Rafiqul Haider Deputy Director Cotton Development Board Government of Bangladesh Khamarbari, Farm Gate Dhaka

Tel: 880-2-911 1476 Fax: 880-2-811 1417 E-mail: [email protected]

3. Cambodia Hean Vanhan Chief of Plant Protection and Phytosanitary Inspection Office (PP&PSO) Department of Agronomy and Agricultural Land Improvement No. 10, Monireth Street Toul Svay Prey II Phnom Penh

Tel: (855) 12 818216 Fax: (855) 23 21 6655 E-mail: [email protected]

4. China Piao Yongfan Deputy Director General/Senior Entomologist National Agro-Technical Extension and Service Center Ministry of Agriculture No. 20 Mai Zi Dian Street, Chaoyang District Beijing 100026

Tel. 86-10 64194517

38 Fax. 86-10 64194542 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected]

Wendy Wan-chi Ko (Ms) Senior Agricultural Officer (Regulatory) Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department 6/F Cheung Sha Wan Government Offices 303 Cheung Sha Wan Road Kowloon, Hongkong

Tel. 852 2150 7011 Fax. 852 2736 9904 E-mail: [email protected]

Lin Wei Division Director SRRC, General State Administration of PRC for Quality Supervision and Inspection and Quarantine No. 15, Fang Cao Di Xi Jie, Chaoyang District Beijing 100020

Tel: 86-10-65952460 Fax: 86-10-65068143 E-mail: [email protected]

Chen Youquan Deputy Division Chief Department of Crop Production Ministry of Agriculture No. 11 Nongzhanguan Nanli Beijing 100026

Tel. 86 -10 64192079 Fax. 86-10 64192815 E-mail: [email protected]

Wang Fuxing Deputy Division Chief National Agro-Technical Extension and Service Center Ministry of Agriculture No. 20 Mai Zi Dian Street Beijing 100026

Tel. 86-10 64194524 Fax. 86-10 64194726 E-mail: [email protected]

39 5. DPR Korea Pak Chun Il Senior Officer National Committee for FAO P.O.Box 44 Pyongyang

Tel: 00-850-2-1811 ext. 381 8370 Fax: 00-850-2-3814660

Kim Chun San Vice Director Central Plant Protection Station Ministry of Agriculture No. 1 Janghun-Dong, Mangyongdae District, Pyongyang

Tel: 00-850-2-1811 (Ext.381-8370) Fax: 00-850-2-381-4660

6. Indonesia

Farid A. Bahar Director General of Food Crops Production Ministry of Agriculture Jl. AUP Pasar Minggu Jakarta 12520

Tel: 062 21 7805269

Daryanto Director Directorate of Horticulture Crops Protection Ministry of Agriculture Jl. AUP Pasar Minggu P.O. Box 12530 Jakarta 12520

Tel: 062 21 7819117 Fax: 062 21 7819117

H. Simanjuntak Director Directorate of Estates Crops Protection Ministry of Agriculture Harsono RM No. 3 Ragunan – Pasar Minggu Jakarta 12520

Tel: 062 21 7815684 Fax: 062 21 7815684 E-mail: [email protected]

40 Suparno SA Plant Quarantine Techniques and Methods (Plant Biosecurity) Division Agriculture Quarantine Agency Jl. Pemuda No. 64 Jakarta 13220

Tel: 021 4894877/4892020 Fax: 021 4892016/4894877 E-mail: [email protected]

Edi Yusuf Economic Division Consulate General of the Republic of Indonesia 18 Phung Khac Khoan Street 1st District Ho Chi Minh City

Tel: 84-8 825 1888/9 Fax: 84-8 829 9493

7. Laos Phiaxaysarakham Phaydy Director of Agricultural Regulation Division Department of Agriculture Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry P.O. Box 811 Vientiane

Tel: (856-21) 412350 Fax : (856-21) 412349 E-mail: [email protected]

8. Malaysia Asna Booty Othman (Ms) Director Crop Protection and Quarantine Services Division Department of Agriculture Jalan Gallagher 50632 Kuala Lumpur

Tel.: 6-03-26977120, 03-26973077 Fax: 6-03-26977205 E-mail: [email protected]

Ismail Bin Hashim Director Production Development Division Malaysian Rubber Board 148 Jalan Ampang Kuala Lumpur 50450

Tel: 03-61577854 Fax: 03-61563296 E-mail: [email protected]

41 9. Myanmar Myint Nu Thwin Deputy Supervisor Plant Protection Division Myanma Agriculture Service Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation Gyogon, Insein P.O. Bayintnaung Road Yangong

Tel: 95-1-663397, 640975 Fax: 95-1-667991 E-mail: [email protected]

10. Nepal Nabin C.T.D. Shrestha (Mrs) Chief, Plant Quarantine Officer Plant Quarantine Section Plant Protection Directorate Harihar Bhawan, Lalitpur P.O. Box-122 53, Kathmandu

Tel: 977-1-524352 Fax: 977-1-543662 E-mail: [email protected]

11. New Zealand

John Hedley National Adviser, International Agreements MAF Biosecurity Authority Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry ASB Bank House 101 - 103 The Terrace PO Box 2526, Wellington

Tel: 64-4-474 4170 Fax: 64-4-470 2730 E-mail: [email protected]

Nikki Johnson (Ms) Technical Adviser, Export Phytosanitary & Negotiations Plant Biosecurity MAF Biosecurity Authority Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry ASB Bank House 101 - 103 The Terrace PO Box 2526, Wellington

Tel: 64-4-498 9872 Fax: 64-4-474 4257 E-mail: [email protected]

42 12. Pakistan Iftikhar Ahmad Deputy Director General/National IPM Coordinator National Agricultural Research Centre P.O. N.I.H., Park Road Islamabad

Tel: 92-51-9255063, 9255043 Fax: 92-51-9255034 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected]

Muhammad Hanif Agricultural Development Commissioner Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock Pakistan Secretariat Block B Islamabad

Tel: 92-51-920 1718 Fax: 92-51-922 1246 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected]

13. Papua New Guinea

Elijah C Philemon Chief Plant Protection and Chief Quarantine Officer (Plant) National Agriculture Quarantine and Inspection Authority Port Moresby

Tel: 675) 311 2100, 311 2113 Fax: (675) 325 1674

John C. Kola Managing Director National Agriculture Quarantine and Inspection Authority Port Moresby

Tel: 675) 311 2100, 311 2113 Fax: (675) 325 1674

14. Rep. Of Korea Chang-Ho Shin Deputy Director Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry 1 Jungang-Dong, Kwachon City Kyunggi-do

Tel. 82-2-500-1722 Fax. 82-2-507-2095 E-mail: [email protected]

43 Jin-Seong Kim Deputy Director/Insect Research Division National Plant Quarantine Service 433-1, Anyang 6-dong, Manan-ku Anyang City Kyunggi-do (430-016)

Tel. 82 31 441 6982 Fax. 82 31 445 6934 E-mail: [email protected]

15. Sri Lanka S.L. Weerasena Director, Seed Certification & Plant Protection Centre (DOA) No. 1 Sarasavi Mawatha Peradeniya 20400

Tel: 94-8-388077 Fax: 94-8-388135/388077 E-mail: [email protected]

16. Thailand Prapaisri Pitakpaivan (Ms) Deputy Director-General Department of Agriculture Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperative Paholyothin Road Chatuchak, Bangkok 10900

Tel (662) 579 0581, 5790157-8 ext. 113 Fax: (662) 940 5419 E-mail: [email protected]

Auranuj Kongkanjana (Mrs) Director, Entomology and Zoology Division Department of Agriculture Ministry of Agriculture Phaholyothin Road Chatuchak, Bangkok 10900

Tel. (662) 579 8540, 5795583 ext. 139 Fax: (662) 940 5396 E-mail: [email protected]

Thirapol Unjitwatana Scientist Agricultural Toxic Substances Division Department of Agriculture Paholyothin Road Chatuchak, Bangkok 10900

Tel: (662) 5793577, 579 3578 ext. 2202 Fax: (662) 561 4695 E-mail: [email protected]

44 Udorn Unahawutti Agricultural Scientist Plant Quarantine Sub-Division Agricultural Regulatory Division Department of Agriculture Chatuchak, Bangkok 10900

Tel: (662) 579 8516 Fax: (662) 579 4129 E-mail: [email protected]

17. Tonga Sione Foliaki Head, Quarantine & Quality Management Division Ministry of Agriculture & Forestry P.O.Box 14 Nuku'alofa

Tel. 676 24 257 Fax 676 24 922 E-mail: [email protected]

18. Vietnam Le Van Minh Director General Department of International Cooperation Ministry of Agriculture and rural Development 2 Ngoc Ha – Hanoi

Tel: (84.4) 8437520 Fax: (84.4) 7330752 E-mail: [email protected]

Nguyen Quang Minh Director General Plant Protection Department 149 Ho Dac Di, Hanoi

Tel: (84.4) 8570794 Fax: (84.4) 8574719 E-mail; [email protected]

Dam Quoc Tru Vice Director General Plant Protection Department 149 Ho Dac Di, Hanoi

Tel: (84.4) 8518198 Fax: (84.4) 8574719 E-mail: [email protected]

45 Nguyen Huu Huan Vice Director General Department of Plant Protection (MARD) 28 Mac Dinh Chi District I, Hochiminh City Tel: (84.8) 8241115 Fax: (84.8) 8244187 E-mail: [email protected] [email protected]

Tran Quang Tan Deputy Director of NIPP National Institute of Plant Protection (NIPP) Chem Tuliem Hanoi

Tel: (84-4) 8388736 Fax: (84-4) 363563

Observers

Japan Hiroshi Akiyama Research Division Yokohama Plant Protection Station Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries 5-57 Kitanaka-dori, Naka-ku, Yokohama

Tel: 81-45-211-7164 Fax: 81-45-211-0890 E-mail:[email protected]

PPPO Sione Foliaki Head, Quarantine & Quality Management Division Ministry of Agriculture & Forestry P.O.Box 14 Nuku'alofa Tel. 676 24 257 Fax 676 24 922 E-mail: [email protected]

USDA/APHIS Dennis J Hannapel APHIS Attaché US Department of Agriculture – APHIS US Embassy, Moonah Place Yarralumla, ACT Australia

Tel. 61 2 6214 5820 Fax 61 2 6273 3334 E-mail: [email protected]

46 VIET NAM Pham Van Kim Professor in Plant Pathology Can Tho University 3/2 Street, Can Tho City Can Tho

Tel: 071 832 290 Fax: 071 830 814 E-mail: [email protected]

Quach Hong Be Deputy Director Department of Agricultural and Forestry Extension 12 Phung Khac Khoan District 1, Ho Chi Minh City

Tel: (84) 08-8230431/8293280 Fax: (84) 08-8230431 E-mail: [email protected]

Huynh Tri Duc Head, Plant Protection Division Southern Fruit Research Institute Long Dinh Chau Thanh Tien Giang

Tel: 893129 Fax: 893122 E-mail: [email protected]

Nguyen Quoc Dat Senior Officer Department of International Cooperation Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development 2 Ngoc Ha, Hanoi

Fax: (84-4) 733 0752, 845 4319 E-mail: [email protected]

Pham Van Bien Director IAS Institute of Agricultural Science of South Vietnam 121 Nguyen Binh Khiem Street 1st District, Ho Chi Minh City

Tel: 84-8-8291746 Fax: 84-8-8297650 E-mail: [email protected]

47 Phan Thanh Dung Crop Protection Division Rubber Research Institute of Vietnam 177 Hai Ba Trung District 1 Ho Chi Minh City

Tel: 08 829 4139 E-mail: [email protected]

FAO Fernanda Guerrier (Ms) FAO Representative FAO in Vietnam 3, Nguyen Gia Thieu Streat, Hanoi

Tel: 84-4 8229970 Fax: 84-4 9423257 E-mail: [email protected]

Niek Van der Graaff Chief Plant Protection Service Food and Agricultural Organization of United Nations Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome

Tel: 39 06 570 53441 Fax: 39 06 570 56347 E-mail: [email protected]

Russel Dilts Regional Coordinator The FAO Programme for Commuhity IPM in Asia Jl. Kemang Timur Raya No. 59 Bangka, Mampang Prapatan Jakarta 12730, Indonesia

Tel: (62-21) 719 7887 Fax: (62-21) 719 7961 E-mail: [email protected]

Patricia C. Matteson (Ms) FAO IPM Country Officer in Vietnam U.N. FAO Khu Van Phuc Building 1, Rooms 305-306 Hanoi

Tel: (04) 823 6828 Fax: (04) 823 6829 E-mail: [email protected]

48 Gerd Walter-Echols Environmental Impact Expert FAO-EU IPM Programme for Cotton in Asia FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific 39 Phra Atit Road Bangkok 10200

Tel: 66-2 697 4101 Fax: 66-2 697 4402 E-mail: [email protected]

Dai Wei Dong IPM Liaison Officer FAO-EU IPM Programme for Cotton in Asia FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific 39 Phra Atit Road Bangkok 10200

Tel: (66- 2) 6974108 Fax: (66- 2) 6974402 E-mail: [email protected]

Chongyao Shen Regional Plant Protection Officer and Executive Secretary of APPPC FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific 39 Phra Atit Road Bangkok 10200

Tel: (66-2)697 4268 Fax: (66-2)697 4445 E-mail: [email protected]

P.K. Saha Technical Officer (Plant Protection) FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific 39 Phra Atit Road Bangkok 10200

Tel: (66-2)6974253 Fax: (66-2)6974445 E-mail: Pijush [email protected]

49 Annex II

FAO Opening Address By F. Guerrieri FAO Representative in Viet Nam

Your Excellency the Minister of Agriculture, Socialist Republic of Viet Nam Honourable Governor of Ho Chi Minh City Chairperson of the APPPC Chief of FAO Plant Protection Service, FAO HQs, Rome Executive Secretary of the APPPC Distinguished Delegates, Observers Ladies and Gentlemen:

On behalf of the Director-General of FAO, Dr Jacques Diouf, may I first of all welcome you all to this biennial 22nd session of the FAO Asia and Pacific Plant Protection Commission (APPPC). In particular, Your Excellency, we are grateful to you for having kindly agreed to be with us to inaugurate this FAO-APPPC session.

We are very grateful to the government of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam, for hosting this 22nd session of the commission. I would like to thank the session organizing committee which is comprised of very efficient concerned official members of the host government.

Mr Chairperson, it is my privilege and honour, as FAO Representative in Viet Nam, of addressing the biennial session of the FAO-APPPC which is one of the oldest (45 years) intergovernmental statutory technical bodies of the FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific (RAP). I am delighted to find that as many as 39 delegates from 18 member countries of the APPPC, and 9 representatives from the government of Japan, Pacific Plant Protection Organization (PPPO), and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), and Viet Nam are participating in this session as observers. I am confident that they will greatly contribute their experience in the related items of the session agenda. Once again I welcome you all.

May I also welcome our FAO colleagues from its Headquarters in Rome, Regional Office in Bangkok, and FAO executed regional IPM projects on rice and cotton, based in Jakarta and Bangkok, respectively.

Mr Chairperson, I do not wish to pre-empt the discussion on several technical items of the agenda which will comprehensively presented by designated presenter in the coming days of the session. However, I would like to reflect in my statement very briefly the situation of major areas of plant protection in the region. Accordingly, I would like to say few words about the status of the latest amendment of the FAO Plant Protection Agreement for the Asia and Pacific Region, which was approved by the FAO Council in November 1999. I am

50 sure you, particularly the commission members’ delegates, are aware that the approved amended version of the commission agreement was transmitted to all the member governments of the commission in June 2000, with a request for its acceptance as early as possible. In that context, I am very glad to announce that government of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam is the first member country who has recently officially deposited the instrument of acceptance of the amended agreement of the commission. This occasion also reminds us that she was also one of the nine founding signatories of The commission agreement in July 1956. India, Malaysia, New Zealand, and Philippines have also indicated their positive attitude towards acceptance of the amended agreement. We hope that remaining members of the commission will also give the same positive response towards depositing the instrument of acceptance of the amended agreement of the commission.

Mr Chairperson, I would now like to reflect in short the status of the major areas of plant protection in the region. Following its genesis and in line with the revised agreement of the FAO International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) and Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Agreement of the World Trade Organization (WTO), the APPPC has been playing a notable role in the extension of the development of various areas of plant quarantine to prevent the spread of dangerous exotic plant pests through international trade of agri-produce. The Commission’s Plant Quarantine Working Group has also been carried out lot of activities which I am sure will be reflected in detail in commission’s biennial secretariat as well as PQ working group reports as per technical items set out in agenda of the session. Dr N.A. Van der Graaff, Chief of FAO Plant Protection Service and Executive Secretary of the IPPC Secretariat at FAO HQs, Rome, will provide you the details on up-to-date status on the major areas of plant protection.

Distinguished participants, let me turn now to say few words regarding overall development status, in the context of this region, of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and its extension which has been undertaken by FAO during the last 22 years. Currently there are three FAO executed regional IPM projects on rice, cotton, and vegetables. As I already mentioned that in this regard you will receive more information through the APPPC Executive Secretary report and an IPM working group presentation. From my observation, since I joined as FAO Representative in Viet Nam, I am pleased to find that IPM is figuring as very substantive plant pest management programmes both at national and regional levels in this FAO region. I am sure that the expert participants of this meeting are well aware of the strategy generally adopted by most developing countries in the Asia-Pacific Region for increasing crop production, to feed its burgeoning population, has been based on high yielding varieties (HYV) for increasing yield per hectare. This HYV tended to increase considerably the incidence of pests and diseases. In this context, to combat the increasing plant pest and pathogen problems, the use of synthetic pesticides in several countries in the region are increasingly resorted to. However, it is difficult to have precise figures about different groups of pesticide consumption, but in-depth observation of the estimated figures of production and distribution indicates that it has been on the increase during the last five years. Thus, I should say, one of the major tasks before the countries of the region is to emphasize on devising policies and programmes which will facilitate specifically only on need based use of synthetic pesticide consistent with the growing concern of the protection of the environment and human health. It is now generally accepted that indiscriminate use of pesticides is not the best solution to plant pest problems. Therefore, it has been encouraged to develop and implement IPM to the forefront of pest management. However, in the use of synthetic agro-pesticides, most of the developing countries in the region still face a real dilemma. This arises from the fact that, despite the recent progress in the development of

51 plant protection programmes besides pesticides, the extent of both pre- and post-harvest crop losses is still very heavy. Hence an effective strategy of plant protection is still badly needed in several countries in the region. Distinguished participants, I feel that it would remain incomplete briefing to you if it is not touched at least briefly on the recent activities in the field of agricultural biosecurity in the region. All of you are well aware of development activities in biosecurity in food and agriculture around the world. FAO is also active in a number of areas that relate to agricultural biosecurity, including the development of international and regional instruments, capacity building, and programme identification and implementation. So far it has been observed that several countries in the region are in the process of raising. “Biosafety Regulatory Framework” and on priority basis its implementation. Based on what most of the countries in the region have experienced in establishing and implementing biosafety regulations and more recently in the broader debate about GMO issues, we foresee that development of cooperative work among government bodies and private sector would be essential in order to respond to the needs of all stakeholders.

Mr Chairperson, while the region, as a whole, has done well in developing plant protection programme, there are still some disquieting features in the plant protection systems of individual countries in the region. Considerable development works need to be done in the region, particularly, in further strengthening organizational structures for plant protection. For instance, some of the vital areas of pest management – such as pest surveillance and forecasting; pesticide legislation and registration; safe handling and judicious use of pesticides; standard practice of loss assessment; improvement of plant quarantine services; human resource development; etc. are either very weak or inadequate in several small and less developed countries in the region. In order to alleviate these constraints, it is expected that a number of priority recommendations would be set out by this session of the commission, keeping in mind that plant protection is a special priority in the region within the overall context of sustainable agriculture. APPPC has a leading role to play in the collaborative endeavour of millions of farmers towards sustainable agriculture.

In conclusion, I would again like to extend to all of you a very cordial welcome to this session of the APPPC. I have no doubt that with the presence of our distinguished delegates, this will indeed be highly productive session of the commission. Thank you for your patience and wish you all success.

52 Annex III

Inaugural Remarks

by

His Excellency Ngo The Dan, Vice Minister Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development

Chief of FAO Plant Protection Service, FAO, HQs, Rome Vice Chairman of the People’s Committee of HCM city Executive Secretary of the APPPC FAO Representative in Viet Nam Distinguished Delegates and Guests, Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is a great honour for me on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, Viet Nam to attend and give these inaugural remarks at the 22nd session of the Asia and Pacific Plant Protection Commission. First of all, I would like to extend my warmly greetings to all distinguished delegates, observers and guests. This is a very important meeting and I am delighted to see here many key representatives from international, regional and national plant protection organizations. I greatly value your spirit of cooperation and I thank all delegates and guests for your participation in this meeting.

Ladies and gentlemen,

Viet Nam is an agricultural country with majority of its population living in rural area. The national economy therefore has been strongly based on agricultural sector. Over the past decade, thanks to profound economic renewal, great achievements have been made in agriculture. The annual growth of the sector is maintained at 4.5 percent. Rice production is not only sufficiently supplied for 80 million people but also has an annual surplus of over 4 million tons for export. From a food shortage country, Viet Nam now becomes one of the world’s largest exporters of rice, coffee, pepper and cashew nut.

Implementing policies toward regional and global economic integration, Viet Nam has been an official member of ASEAN and APEC, and in the process of negotiation for joining the WTO. In this context, the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD) is assigned by the government of Viet Nam to formulate the development strategy for agricultural sector. You might agree with me that today, raising food productivity is no longer the only and ultimate goal of agricultural development. All factors that have effects on economy, people’s welfare and environment should be taken into account. MARD therefore always gives a high priority to plant protection issue in order to ensure sustainable development of agriculture sector.

With technical and financial assistance of FAO/IPM regional programme, the National IPM Programme has been implemented in Viet Nam since 1992 to address pest problems and excessive use of pesticides. From 1992 to 1998, the programme focused on Training of Trainers (TOT) and Farmer Field Schools (FFS). As of May 2000, there were more than 500

53 000 farmers who have graduated from nearly 20 000 FFS. Based on the momentum created, many groups of IPM trained farmers have carried out follow-up activities to strengthen IPM and improve agricultural production. In 1998, the national IPM programme began to develop community IPM and bring IPM movement beyond FFS. Those follow-up activities such as IPM club and field studies are expected to contribute to the sustainability of IPM at the community level. IPM activities are now being expanded to other crops such as vegetables, cotton, citrus, etc.

In the present tendency of economic globalization, international trade is growing rapidly, in which plant quarantine plays an ever significant part. Joining the global economy opens up many trade opportunities for Viet Nam but at the same time generates quite a few challenges, particularly the implementation of WTO/Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Agreement and International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC). As an export-oriented country, Viet Nam realizes the importance of, among others, the strengthening of national plant quarantine system in order to not only effectively protect the sustainability of agricultural production but also satisfy quarantine requirements of importing countries so that Viet Nam agricultural produce can have access to the world market. In line with this, the Ordinance on Plant Protection and Quarantine has been revised and approved by the National Assembly in July 2001 so as to comply with the SPS Agreement and IPPC.

Ladies and gentlemen,

In the past two years, the Asia and Pacific Plant Protection Commission has put great effort in making amendments to the Plant Protection Agreement for the Asia and Pacific region. I am very glad to see that the revised text of the Agreement has been finalized and hopefully it will be adopted by all member countries after this meeting. Based on the revision, the meeting will discuss next steps for implementation as well as propose new international and regional standards. For a large region like Asia and Pacific, the regional and sub-regional standards are very useful to member countries in a sense that these standards correspond to the region-specific need of preventing the spread of injurious pests while facilitating agricultural trade. In this regard, I realize the significant role of the commission in addressing all issues of common importance in the region such as South American Leaf Blight (SALB) disease and land border plant quarantine. Particularly, I hope that the regional standard concerning the exclusion of SALB disease will be put forward after pest risk analysis is conducted appropriately. It is also noted that, countries in the region have different levels of development in terms of phytosanitary capabilities. Therefore, the commission can work out measures to enhance the capacity of member countries in implementing international standards. Only by doing so, the objectives of the Agreement will be fully achieved.

In the next four and a half days, I hope all of you will exchange views in a spirit of openness to further boost our cooperation in the field of plant protection and quarantine.

I wish the meeting very success and please enjoy your stay in Ho Chi Minh City.

It now gives me great pleasure to declare the Twenty-second session of the Asia and Pacific Plant Protection Commission officially open.

Thank you very much!

54 Annex IV

APPPC REGIONAL STANDARD SETTING PROCEDURAL GUIDELINES

The following procedural guidelines included in this document are:

1. Standard Setting 2. Terms of Reference for the APPPC Standards Committee 3. APPPC Standards Committee Rules of Procedure 4. Submission of proposal 5. Guidelines for the discussion paper 6. Procedure for determination of priorities for standard setting 7. Guidelines for specification 8. Availability of specifications to members 9. Procedure for designation of members of working groups 10. Guidelines for format of standard 11. Checklist for in-country consultation 12. Guidelines for submission of comments 13. Procedures for the adoption and review of standards 14. Clarification of the use of Open-Ended Discussion Groups 15. Guidelines for identifying an emergency situation 16. Review period

1. Standard setting

Step 1: Proposals for a new regional standard or the review or revision of an existing standard are submitted to the APPPC secretariat by an NPPO in the form of a discussion paper.

Step 2: A list of proposals is submitted by the APPPC secretariat to the commission. The commission identifies the topics and priorities for standard setting from among the proposals submitted and others raised by the commission. If an emergency situation arises and commission members wish to change the priority of the proposals for standards, such a request should be submitted to the APPPC secretariat by at least three members. The APPPC secretariat then submits the request to the Commission. If more than half of the members agree, the amendment is adopted.

Step 3: Specifications for the standards identified are drafted by the APPPC secretariat with assistance from APPPC members. The draft specifications are submitted to the APPPC Standards Committee for approval/amendment and subsequently made available to members for comment (60 days). Comment is by written submission to the APPPC secretariat. Specifications are finalized by the APPPC Standards Committee taking into account the comments.

Step 4: The APPPC Standards Committee with the assistance of the APPPC secretariat designates a working group. The working group drafts the regional standard according to the

55 specification approved by the APPPC Standards Committee. The draft standard is submitted to the APPPC Standards Committee for review and approval.

Step 5: The approved draft standard is distributed by the APPPC secretariat to APPPC members and the IPPC secretariat for consultation (120 days). Comment is by written submission to the APPPC secretariat.

Step 6: The draft standard is revised by the APPPC Standards Committee with the assistance of the APPPC secretariat taking comments into account. The final version is submitted by the APPPC Standards Committee to the commission for adoption. The draft standards should be sent to members two months prior to the APPPC meeting.

Step 7: The regional standard is reviewed by the specified date or such other date as may be agreed upon by the commission.

Where appropriate, the APPPC Standards Committee may recommend the establishment of an open-ended discussion group to facilitate the development or review of a standard at any stage of the process.

2. Terms of reference for the APPPC Standards Committee

2.1 Establishment of the Standards Committee The 22nd session of the APPPC established the APPPC Standards Committee

2.2 Scope of the Standards Committee The APPPC Standards Committee manages the standard-setting process and assists in the development of Regional Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (RSPM) which have been identified by the APPPC as priority standards.

2.3 Objective The main objective of the APPPC Standards Committee is to prepare draft RSPMs according to the standard setting procedures in the most expeditious manner for adoption by the commission.

2.4 Structure of the APPPC Standards Committee The APPPC Standards Committee will consist of 9 members, including 2 members from each of the South Asia, North-east Asia, Pacific APPPC sub regions and three members from the South-east Asia region. The distribution for each APPPC sub region will be: South Asia 2 South-east Asia 3 North-east Asia 2 Pacific 2 As the membership of the APPPC increases, the numbers of experts in the APPPC Standards Committee should be reviewed.

2.5 Appointment of the Standards Committee The APPPC Standards Committee is appointed by the commission.

56 2.6 Functions of the APPPC Standards Committee The APPPC Standards Committee serves as a forum for: • approval of draft specifications or amendment of specifications; • finalization of specifications; • designation of membership of working groups and drafting groups as required; • review of draft RSPMs; • approval of draft standards to be submitted to the commission for consultation; • establishment of open-ended discussion groups where appropriate; • revision of draft RSPMs in cooperation with the APPPC members taking into account comments of the APPPC; • approval of final draft of RSPMs for submission to a commission session; • review of existing RSPMs and those requiring reconsideration; • other functions related to standard setting as directed by the commission.

2.7 APPPC Secretariat The APPPC Secretariat provides administrative, technical and editorial support as required by the APPPC Standards Committee. The APPPC secretariat is responsible for reporting and record keeping regarding the standard-setting programme.

3. Rules of procedure for the APPPC Standards Committee

Rule 1. Membership Members should be senior officials designated by governments and have qualifications in a scientific biological discipline (or equivalent) in plant protection, and experience and skills particularly in the: • practical operation of national or international phytosanitary systems; • administration of national or international phytosanitary systems; and • application of phytosanitary measures related to international trade.

Each APPPC sub-region may nominate a sub-regional coordinator (notified to the commission) or request assistance from the APPPC secretariat in arranging selection of members for the APPPC Standards Committee.

Rule 2. Period of Membership Members of the APPPC Standards Committee shall be appointed for four years. The APPPC commission may extend this period as is required with the sub-region concerned.

Rule 3. Chair The Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson of the APPPC Standards Committee are elected by the Standards Committee and serve for two years, with a possibility of re-election for two years.

57 Rule 4. Sessions Meetings shall be arranged as required to deal with the duties of the committee.

Rule 5. Approval Approvals relating to specifications or draft standards are made by consensus.

Rule 6. Reports The APPPC Standards Committee meeting reports should be kept by the APPPC secretariat. Meeting reports shall include: • approval of draft specifications for RSPMs; • finalization of specifications; and • reasons why a draft standard has not been approved. Reports should be adopted by the APPPC Standards Committee before they are made available to APPPC members.

Rule 7. Language The business of the APPPC Standards Committee shall be conducted in the English language.

Rule 8. Amendments Amendments to the rules of procedures and terms of reference may be promulgated by the commission as required.

4. Guidelines for the submission of proposals for the development of Standards The guidelines should be followed when submitting proposals for standard development: • Proposals are generally to be submitted by or through NPPOs • Proposals are to be sent to the APPPC secretariat – preferably by e-mail • Proposals should be in the form of a discussion paper

5. Guidelines for the discussion paper The discussion paper submitted to the APPPC secretariat should contain as much as the following information as possible: • Subject/title of the proposed standard • Reason for the proposal • Importance to the region/potential benefit • Availability of resources (expertise, funds) • Background material • Area/scope of standard • Relationship to existing standards (international or other regions) • Executive summary

6. Procedure for the determination of priorities for standard setting

The procedure below should be followed in determining priorities for standard setting: • Priority determination will be undertaken at the commission meeting • The APPPC secretariat submits a list of proposals to the commission • APPPC members discuss the proposals taking account of the discussion papers

58 The commission will decide the priorities (using a Chairperson’s working group if required) using the following criteria: (i) Priority standards should be relevant to developing countries and take account of the urgent need for standards to assist with an emergency phytosanitary situation, and (ii) Other criteria that should be considered include: • Availability of expertise and resources to develop standard • Potential to increase safeguards for agriculture • Importance of the pest problem of region or sub region • Level of trade affected by non-existence of particular standards • Frequency of problem arising on regional basis • Feasibility of developing and implementing in a reasonable time period

7. Guidelines for a specification

The following subjects should be covered in the specification document:

Proposing of the standard:

Description of the purpose of the standard: Scope Tasks Provision of resources Proposed work programme Steward Collaborator Expertise Membership of the working group Approval References

8. Availability of specifications to members

The APPPC secretariat will use both post and e-mail (where available) to distribute draft specifications to members for comment. Specifications may be distributed along with draft standards of other subjects sent to APPPC members for consultation.

9. Guidelines for designation of members of working group

The APPPC Standards Committee with the assistance of the APPPC secretariat designates members of working groups using the following guidelines: • working group members should have expertise appropriate to the standard under development. • where possible a geographic spread of experts is desirable. • where appropriate, an expert from the APPPC member providing the proposal should be included in the working group. • expertise from outside the APPPC region may be included if required. • the number of experts in a working group is flexible and is decided by the APPPC Standards Committee.

59 • normally the APPPC secretariat will convene the working group meeting. • when the experts are selected, the APPPC Standards Committee requests one expert to collect appropriate information and to chair the meeting. • the working group will make arrangements for its own report. • if the working group meeting is held outside Bangkok, a working group member will convene the meeting. • normally an APPPC working group would meet for three days.

10. Guidelines for the format of the standard

The following format should be used for APPPC regional standards:

Title page Contents Administration page Introduction Scope References Definitions and abbreviations Outline General/specific requirements

11. Checklist for in-country consultation

NPPOs may consider distributing draft standards to the following types of organizations/institutions to obtain input for the preparation of their national comments: • other government departments e.g.: Environment, Trade, Foreign Affairs, Public Health • universities, research institutions • stakeholders: - industry associations - grower bodies or federations - export & import organizations - other organizations concerned with or affected by the standard

The APPPC secretariat shall send a reminder notice to members requesting comments after 90 days.

12. Guidelines for submission of comments

APPPC members are provided 120 days to review the documents, consult on their content, and compile and submit comments through their NPPOs to the APPPC secretariat.

The following are guidelines for the submission of comments to ensure maximum benefit from the consultation process:

• APPPC members are requested to submit only one set of comments for each standard. • Where diverse or conflicting suggestions are offered, the submission should indicate clearly the preference of the APPPC member.

60 • General comments should be indicated as such. All other comments should be identified with the specific text or concept to which they refer. • All suggestions should be supported by an explanation of their purpose and alternative text should be proposed where appropriate. It is essential to ensure all comments and their rationale are clear. • Comments should be submitted to the APPPC secretariat as a printed document. Members may also submit their comments by e-mail to [email protected] .

The APPPC secretariat encourages submissions as early as possible to facilitate the analysis of comments by the APPPC Standards Committee.

13. Procedures for adoption and review of standards

When draft standards are complete they will be put on the agenda of the next Commission meeting. Standards will be adopted by the commission by consensus (Article VIII of the revised Agreement).

The quorum will be a simple majority (Article V of the revised Agreement ). Draft standards will be presented to the Commission by the Chair of the APPPC Standards Committee.

Standards will be reviewed when the APPPC Standards Committee requests this. The review would be placed on the list of proposals for the commission to determine the priorities for expert examination. If the standard is revised, it is then adopted according to the usual adoption procedure.

14. Clarification of the use of open-ended discussion groups

Open-ended discussion groups are used as follows:

• The Open-ended discussion group is used as a means of clarifying issues concerning a standard with discussion by as many members as possible. Experts from outside the region may be invited.

• An Open-ended discussion group can be established for this purpose at any stage of the development of a standard.

• Open-ended discussion groups would be planned and managed by the APPPC Standards Committee and the APPPC secretariat.

• The APPPC secretariat would convene the Open-ended discussion groups.

15. Guidelines for identifying an emergency situation

An emergency situation in this instance is regarded as a new or unexpected phytosanitary situation.

Such a situation could arise when:

61 • an important pest not present in the region is intercepted repeatedly at a number of entry points. • there is an outbreak of an important pest outside the region (or non- members within the region) causing a need for precautionary action. • an important pest is found within the region in restricted areas.

Important pests are those that severely effect production, trade or the environment.

16. Review period

Standards shall be reviewed by the APPPC Standards Committee six years after adoption. If after review the APPPC Standards Committee decides a revision is required the standard will be placed on the list of standards to be prioritized by the commission for action.

A Standard may be reviewed earlier if the commission (as requested by an APPPC member) decides this is necessary.

62