Working group discussions
WG
I – International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPM) No. 2
This
first working group focused on the issue of guidelines for pest risk analysis
(PRA) outlined in the International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures No. 2
and found on page 114 of the “Report of the expert consultation on coconut
beetle outbreak in APPPC member countries, 26 - 27 October 2004, Bangkok, Thailand”.
The
group, after reviewing the material provided, assessed the three stages of the
PRA in the context of its implementation in the countries represented at the
meeting. The group discussion, moderated by Dr Soetikno of CABI, concluded
that:
- Countries are aware of ISPM No. 2, however, knowledge
of the protocol is weak. It is recommended that the protocol is made available
to all the various stakeholders across sectors within countries via nodal
points
- Item 1 needs to be re-inforced by the APPC
- Many countries are only partially prepared for the
implementation of the PRA protocol, with the exception of China which is
capable of meeting the various needs or stages
- Considering the dearth of resources (financial, human,
infrastructure, etc.) amongst developing countries, it is recommended that
capacity building in the various components of PRA should be strengthened
- In the context of the coconut beetle, to date there is
no specific PRA by countries infested with the beetle. It is therefore
important that PRA is done in order to benefit countries that are potentially
exposed to the problem, such as India
and Sri Lanka
- All countries indicated that the steps proposed in the
ISPM are sufficiently clear
- Currently, the stakeholders in both the agricultural
and forestry sectors are involved fully in the PRA. However, expert information
is needed to strengthen the process. It is therefore recommended that
international agencies should help in providing the information that underpins
this process
- Many training programmes are currently generic to
quarantine or invasive issues, therefore, there is a need to conduct specific
training programmes on the various stages of PRA
- There is need also for collaborative efforts, sharing
of information and exchange of scientists to enhance the process.
Identification of expert groups within the region (such as an adequate database
on experts and their expertise) will facilitate the process
WG
II – International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPM) No. 3
This
second working group focused on the Code of Conduct (CoC) for the import and
release of exotic biological control agents found in the International
Standards for Phytosanitary Measures No. 3, and found on page 127 of the
“Report of the expert consultation on coconut beetle outbreak in APPPC member
countries, 26 - 27 October 2004, Bangkok,
Thailand”.
Recognizing
that current management of the invasive coconut leaf beetle can be managed successfully
by the importation of exotic parasitoids, this working group reviewed the steps
recommended by the ISPM No. 3, and assessed the implementation of the CoC in
the context of its implementation in the countries represented at the meeting.
Moderated by Mr Wilco Liebregts, the group concluded that:
- Awareness on ISPM No. 3 within national institutions
is generally adequate, although not all staff in the relevant institutions may
be familiar. It is therefore recommended that national institutions encourage
their staff to become familiar with ISPM No. 3.
- China has adequate capacity to implement the CoC; other
countries in the region require strengthening in skill development, policy
development and improved facilities
- The steps proposed in the ISPM are sufficiently clear
- Build or strengthen formal and informal national,
regional and international networks between individual specialists and
institutions, to allow a broader consultative process on the selection,
importation and release of biocontrol agents
- APFISN would be the appropriate network to promote
strengthening of the implementation process of the CoC, and facilitate sharing
between national plant protection organizations (NPPOs)
WG
III – National quarantine capacity and regional cooperation
Using
the example of the coconut leaf beetle, this working group focused on how to
enhance national quarantine capacity and foster regional cooperation. Several
suggestions were made during the panel discussion, such as, mapping, clear
definition of invasive species and setting up a database.
It
was pointed out that during the short tenure of the ASEAN-Planti in Malaysia for
the strengthening of plant quarantine implementation, cooperation between ASEAN-Planti
and CABI in promoting capabilities to support classical biological control was established.
The group discussed responses to initiatives on developing national quarantine
capacity to address current issues such as minimizing the spread of an invasive
species, and also capability to detect and contain such invasive species.
Moderated
by Dr Rethinam, the group recommended the following:
- Using the coconut leaf beetle (CLB) as an example for quarantine
officers or agencies on quarantine measures to prevent IAS, particularly the palm
family plant trade among network member countries. The importance of the CLB
needs to be stressed in order to convince policy-makers about this issue
- Issuing a Pest Alert through FAO RAP on the CLB to
alert network member countries about the beetle and the need for an emergency plan
to deal with this beetle in uninfected countries, such as India and Sri Lanka. Such
information is available from the presentations at this workshop. We suggest
putting this information on line though the network database
- Mr Wilco Liebregts should summarize his FAO biological
control projects on CLB, so that uninfected countries can obtain the
parasitoids immediately should the CLB invade their countries. Proper
coordination on this front can be achieved though the focal points with
FAO/APCC/APFC or APFISN
- Ensure that the terms of reference for the country
focal points state that one of their tasks is to identify appropriate
individual(s) to represent the country on specific technical and policy issues
related to invasive species
- As ASEAN-Planti has been replaced by APHCN, it is
recommended that this agency’s scope be widened to provide services to the Asia-Pacific
region
- FAO RAP or APFISN should coordinate efforts to clarify
CLB taxonomic status through morphological and DNA means
WG
IV – strengthening the role of networks
This
working group, moderated by Gary Man, discussed the various issues related to
networks and ways and means of strengthening them. The outputs are summarized hereunder:
- The network must have an established well-defined
structure
- The network could be issue-focused, such as for
invasive species
- The network must establish strong linkages with other
relevant organizations
- Identifying and recruiting of members are crucial, as
members’ interests and active participation are the driving forces to the
relevance and sustainability of the network
- A dynamic facilitator/coordinator is necessary to
ensure that the network functions as expected by the stakeholders
- The network must be on constant lookout for
opportunities to organize activities or events, such as technical
meetings/workshops, capacity building and exchange/sharing of information
- The network should strive to produce regular outputs
such as newsletters, publications, maintain databases and continuously act as a
distribution/dissemination channel for important announcements, such as early
pest alerts
- Representatives of the member
institutions/agencies/countries (often known as focal points) should be
encouraged to have regular internal discussions for collective decision-making
on issues
WG
V – management and policy response needed for mitigating alien invasive species
The
group, moderated by Dr Wan Fanghao, generated the following outputs:
Management
- The lack of a national initiative to tackle invasive
species is recognized
- It is recommended that a National Framework covering
all types of invasive species should be in place
- There is weak coordination amongst stakeholders at the
national level
- It is recommended that further strengthening and
coordination among the various agencies involved with the management of
invasive species should be underscored considering that issues relevant to
invasive species are cross-sectoral in nature
- Many countries in the region have an incomplete list
of invasive species found within the country
- It is recommended that countries take the initiative
to regularly update their species lists
- Many countries in the region are ill-prepared for the
management of invasive species that could potentially harm their economies
- It is recommended that a rapid response system be
developed for preventing risks
Policy
- Awareness on the issues and problems of invasive
species is not given much national emphasis
- It is recommended that concerted awareness should be
raised among all stakeholders on problems and various implications
- Funding is generally lacking for undertaking the
various activities related to invasive species management
- It is recommended that governments, during planning processes,
should allocate adequate funding on a regular and proactive basis to support
activities
- Competencies (e.g. PRA) to manage invasive species strategically
are insufficient
- It is recommended that regulatory functions for
implementing the management of invasive species be strengthened beyond the
roles of conventional quarantine measures
WG
VI – identified areas for research needs
The
group, moderated by Dr Chaudhuri, identified the following areas where research
needs are required:
- Assessment technology (criteria indicators, impact
assessment)
- Application technology
- Monitoring
- Taxonomy
- Socio-economic (invasive species becoming economically
important)
- Pest risk analysis
- Biological control
- Search for alternate parasitoids
- Developing plant-based products
- Exploring indigenous knowledge
- Economic evaluation
- Loss of productivity
- Loss of biodiversity
- Regulatory measures/quarantine
- Policy and legal issues
- Database management
- Acquiring research capacity – scientists, forest
managers, policy-makers, regulatory authorities
- Dissemination of knowledge – people, NGOs, extension
workers, field staff, industrial groups