AADCP Program Stream: Quality Assurance Systems … · AADCP Program Stream: Quality Assurance Systems for ... AusAID Australian Agency for International Development ... In order

AADCP Program Stream:

Quality Assurance Systems for

ASEAN Fruit and Vegetables

Project Design DocumentMay 2004

Managed on behalf of:ACIL Australia Pty Ltdby: RMIT International Pty Ltd

AADCP Program Stream: Quality Assurance Systems for ASEAN

Fruit and Vegetables

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT

submitted by

ACN 071 369 545 ABN 54 071 369 545

May 2004

Contact for notification: Peter Thompson General Manager – Business Development Division RMIT International Pty Ltd Level 5, 255 Bourke Street MELBOURNE VIC 3000 Phone: (613) 9925 5159 Fax: (613) 9925 5153

1100123

Quality Assurance Systems for ASEAN Fruit and Vegetables

Table of Contents

Abbreviations _______________________________________________________________ i

Project Diagram ____________________________________________________________ iii

Project Summary Table ______________________________________________________ iv

1. BACKGROUND _______________________________________________________ 1

1.1. Project Origin_______________________________________________________ 1 1.2. Regional Development Challenge to be Addressed___________________________ 2

1.2.1. Enhanced Rural Income and Food Security ____________________________ 2 1.2.2. Need for appropriate technological innovations in the region _______________ 3 1.2.3. Ensuring that human resources contribute to regional development and shared

prosperity ______________________________________________________ 3 2. PREVIOUS AND ONGOING INITIATIVES ________________________________ 5

2.1. ASEAN Context ____________________________________________________ 5 2.1.1. Earlier initiatives under AAECP _____________________________________ 5 2.1.2. Initiatives funded through bilateral arrangements ________________________ 6 2.1.3. Initiatives in the Senior Officials Meeting of the ASEAN Ministers of Agriculture

and Forestry (SOM-AMAF) ________________________________________ 7 2.2. International Context _________________________________________________ 8 2.3. Individual Country Situation____________________________________________ 8

2.3.1. Brunei Darussalam _______________________________________________ 8 2.3.2. Cambodia ______________________________________________________ 9 2.3.3. Indonesia ______________________________________________________ 9 2.3.4. Lao PDR ______________________________________________________ 9 2.3.5. Malaysia _______________________________________________________ 9 2.3.6. Myanmar______________________________________________________ 10 2.3.7. Philippines ____________________________________________________ 10 2.3.8. Singapore _____________________________________________________ 10 2.3.9. Thailand ______________________________________________________ 10 2.3.10. Vietnam ______________________________________________________ 10

3. SCOPE AND JUSTIFICATION FOR PROPOSED INTERVENTION ___________ 11

3.1. Gaps in Ongoing Initiatives ___________________________________________ 11 3.1.1. Quality- and safety-related gaps_____________________________________ 11 3.1.2. Gaps related to phytosanitary requirements ___________________________ 11 3.1.3. Gaps related to postharvest requirements _____________________________ 12

3.2. Options for a project intervention ______________________________________ 12 3.2.1. Focus ________________________________________________________ 12


3.2.2. Multi layer QA system ___________________________________________ 13 3.2.3. Postharvest and SPS training options ________________________________ 14 3.2.4. Approaches to information exchange and coordination __________________ 14

3.3. Justification for proposed intervention ___________________________________ 14 3.3.1. Regionality ____________________________________________________ 14 3.3.2. Target groups and ASEAN participation _____________________________ 14 3.3.3. Sustainability of benefits __________________________________________ 15 3.3.4. Sustainability indicators beyond project life____________________________ 15 3.3.5. Impact on poverty, gender and the environment________________________ 16 3.3.6. AADCP capacity to contribute _____________________________________ 16

4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION_______________________________________________ 17

4.1. Goal, Purpose and Objectives _________________________________________ 17 4.2. Component Outputs and Indicative Activities _____________________________ 17 4.3. Inputs____________________________________________________________ 28 4.4. Costs ____________________________________________________________ 30 4.5. Phasing, Duration and Location ________________________________________ 30

5. MANAGEMENT AND COORDINATION ARRANGEMENTS ________________ 32

5.1. Management Responsibilities __________________________________________ 32 5.2. Coordination and Review _____________________________________________ 33

6. PROJECT MONITORING AND EVALUATION ____________________________ 34

6.1. Overview _________________________________________________________ 34 6.2. Key performance Indicators and Means of Verification ______________________ 35

7. RISK MANAGEMENT _________________________________________________ 37

8. Program Level Issues ____________________________________________________ 39

8.1. Links to Program Objectives __________________________________________ 39 8.2. Links to Sub-program Objectives _______________________________________ 39

Annexes Annex 1 Logical Framework Matrix Annex 2 Risk Management Matrix Annex 3 Workplan Annex 4 Resource Schedule Annex 5 Cost Schedule Annex 6 Milestone List Annex 7 List of Persons Met


Abbreviations

AADCP ASEAN-Australia Development Cooperation Program

AAECP ASEAN-Australia Economic Cooperation Program

AAPSIP ASEAN-Australia Postharvest Systems Improvement Project

ACIAR Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research

ACIL ACIL Australia Pty Ltd

AFFA Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Australia

AFTA ASEAN Free Trade Area

AHWG ASEAN Horticulture Working Group

AIP Australian Implementing Partner

AMC Australian Managing Contractor

APEC Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation

APHNet ASEAN Postharvest Horticulture Network

APTF ASEAN Participation Trust Fund

AQIS Australian Quarantine Inspection Service

ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations

ASEC ASEAN Secretariat

ASWGC ASEAN Sectoral Working Group on Crops

AusAID Australian Agency for International Development

BIMP-EAGA Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines – East Asia Growth Area

CER CEP Closer Economic Relations-Closer Economic Partnership

CLMV Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Vietnam

Codex Codex Alimentarius Commission

COFAF ASEAN Committee on Food, Agriculture and Forestry

DOA Department of Agriculture

EU European Union

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization

GAP Good Agricultural Practice

i


ii

GMP Good Manufacturing Practice

HPA Hanoi Plan of Action

IAEA International Agency for Atomic Energy

IPM Integrated pest management

IPPC International Plant Protection Convention

IT Information Technology

MOA Ministry of Agriculture

MP Minimal processing or minimally processed

MRA Mutual Recognition Arrangements

MRLs Maximum Residue Limits

NARS National Agricultural Research Systems

NZODA New Zealand Overseas Development Assistance

PCC Program (Stream) Coordinating Committee

PCG Project Coordinating Group

PH Postharvest

PHTRC Postharvest Horticulture Training and Research Centre

QA Quality Assurance

QASAF Quality Assurance Systems for ASEAN Fruit

QASAFV Quality Assurance Systems for ASEAN Fruit and Vegetables

R & D Research and development

SALM Malaysian Quality Assurance Accreditation System

SEARP Southeast Asia Research Programme

SMEs Small and medium enterprises

SOM-AMAF Senior Officials Meeting of the ASEAN Ministers of Agriculture and Forestry

SPS Sanitary and Phytosanitary with reference to the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures in WTO

TOT Training of Trainers

WTO World Trade Organization


iii

Objective 3: To provide effective and efficient project planning, management and reporting to ensure the achievement of objectives

Output 3.1: Review and updating of project design, reflected in Inception Report

Output 3.2: Project activities effectively and efficiently planned, coordinated and managed by the AIP

Output 3.3: ACIL and ASEAN informed of project progress through effective monitoring, review and reporting of project plans and achievements

Go t the establishment of a regional ASEAN environment for the development of a competitive pri sector with particular focus on the quality and safety of food and agriculture products

Output 2.1: Food Sa Quality AssuraAwareness program i nted through training of trainer wo in Cambodia, LPDR, Myanmar and V

Output 2.2: Identifie r groups trainedfood safety and qualit nce awareness local trainers (from O .1)

Output 2.5: TOT training on ASEAN GAP to master trainers (2) from all member countries and information sessions held for SMEs on the GAP standard

Output 2.4: Generic ASEAN Good Agricultural Practice (GAP) Quality Assurance (QA) standard (ASEAN GAP) developed for all member countries

Objective 2: To provide the basis for the design of an appropriate generic QA standard for fruit and vegetables in ASEAN

Output 2.3: Annual Post Harvest and SPS requirements for Export workshops conducted

ose: To promote best practices for QA systems in food and agriculture

Objective 1: To strengthen information delivery systems supporting QA systems development for ASEAN horticulture

Output 1.1: ASEAN PH Netwo hed and website

Output 1.2CompendiuASEAN FrVegetable S

Output 1.Compendi S Requireme y markets

Project Diagram

rk establis launched

: m of uit and tandards

3:um of SPnts of ke

al: To supporvate and SME

Purp

nce

ao

in by

fety andmplemerkshopsietnam

d farmey assurautput 2


Project Summary Table Project Name: Quality Assurance Systems for ASEAN Fruit and Vegetables Program and project ref no:

COMP2

Link to program objectives

The project fits under the Competitiveness Sub-Program, and the project goal is directly linked to the Sub-Program’s purpose of enhancing ASEAN’s trade competitiveness. Addressing the need for QA systems for ASEAN fruit and vegetables also is consistent with the Hanoi Plan of Action 1999-2004, specifically by enhancing the global competitiveness of ASEAN’s food and agricultural products.

Expected duration: 3 years Indicative Cost: A$ 1.768m AusAID contribution of A$1.698m Problem(s) addressed in re-design:

Need for CLMV (Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Vietnam) to accelerate development of postharvest systems for fruit and vegetables

Quality- and safety-related gaps in postharvest systems for fruit and vegetables

Gaps related to phytosanitary requirements

Need to make R&D outputs available to all member countries Target group(s):

Staff of agencies providing services to horticulture

Master trainers

Horticulture-based SMEs/private sector Key performance indicators:

Website operational

Relevant info on quality, SPS requirements, technologies accessible

Utilization of compendiums via the APHNet

Sustained network -target clientele interaction at national, regional levels

Generic QA system (ASEAN GAP) developed

Application of Guidelines (QA and Training) to priority commodities

All project tools (QA System, training manuals, training materials, awareness raising materials) developed and available on APHNet

Expected inputs Personnel – Project Director, Technical Experts, Post Harvest

Researcher and administration support

Procurement – Computers and minor post harvest equipment for CLMV

Participation – To support partner participation in project workshops

Other costs – To produce guidelines, compendiums and reports

iv


1. BACKGROUND 1.1. Project Origin

This project further reinforces the ‘Quality Assurance Systems for ASEAN Fruit’ (QASAF) project implemented during Phase III of the ASEAN-Australia Economic Cooperation Programme (AAECP). Towards the end of that project, QASAF implementers drew up a proposal on ‘Quality Assurance and Food Safety of Fresh and Minimally Processed Fruit and Vegetables in ASEAN’. This proposal was subsequently endorsed by the Senior Officials Meeting of the Twenty-second Meeting of the ASEAN Ministers on Agriculture and Forestry (SOM-22nd AMAF) for submission to the joint ASEAN-Australia Program Stream Planning Mission in November to December 2000. During this Planning Mission, ASEAN and Australia agreed that work on quality assurance (QA) systems for fruit and vegetables had a regional focus, was of a high priority and had a high potential for early implementation (Appraisal Team Final Report, 2000). As only fruit had been covered in AAECP II and III, and vegetable handling had been worked on only to a limited extent in AAECP I, the joint ASEC/AusAID Program Stream planning team re-worked the proposal to put emphasis on the handling component of QA systems for fresh fruit and vegetables. With a focus on handling, the collective experience of ASEAN Postharvest (PH) specialists involved in AAECP I-III could better respond to the needs of new ASEAN member states: Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and Vietnam (CLMV). CLMV would be participating for the first time in a regional project covering both fruit and vegetable handling. The revised proposal also provided for the design of QA systems that incorporate production-related safety, phytosanitary and quality concerns. A project on Quality Assurance Systems for ASEAN Fruit and Vegetables (QASAFV) was prepared by a joint ASEC/AusAID design team in October 2002. Subsequently, ACIL Australia Pty. Ltd. contracted RMIT International Pty Ltd as the Australian Implementing Partner (AIP) to implement the project. The project will be implemented in two phases. Phase I will be an initial three-month inception phase aimed at redesigning the project to be more up-to-date and more relevant to CLMV countries. Phase II will be a 33-month implementation phase and is contingent on approval of the revised design. Although the key ASEAN stakeholders were active in developing the original proposal, the ASEAN Secretariat noted that considerable time had elapsed since it was originally formulated and requested that a consultative Inception Workshop be held to review and update the design as appropriate. This meeting was due to be held in conjunction with the March 2004 ASEAN Sector Working Group on Crops meeting in Cambodia. However, this meeting was postponed until July 2004. In order to consult widely in developing the revised project design, the AIP design team (Project Director and Project Design Expert) undertook a four-week regional mission to consult widely with various stakeholders from each member country (See Attachment 7 for List of Persons Met). This revised Project Design Document (PDD) is based on those consultations and is submitted for approval by the AMC, ASEC and the Project Coordinating Group (PCG) before other activities can proceed. The revised PDD also responds to the ASEAN plan to achieve an ASEAN Community by the year 2020 which would rest on the three pillars of “ASEAN Security Community”, “ASEAN Economic Community” and “ASEAN Socio-cultural Community” embodied in the Declaration

1


of ASEAN Concord II (Bali Concord II). The development of harmonised agricultural standards is fundamental to achieving this goal. The Inception workshop recommended by the ASEAN Secretariat above is still an important mechanism for member country involvement in the development and implementation of the project and is therefore planned as the first project activity, to fully brief all parties on roles and responsibilities for project implementation. 1.2. Regional Development Challenge to be Addressed

1.2.1. Enhanced Rural Income and Food Security ASEAN has identified food security as having the highest priority in regional cooperation (Ministerial Understanding on ASEAN Cooperation in Food, Agriculture and Forestry, 1993). The 1992 Rome Declaration on World Food Security defines food security as access by all to safe and nutritious food at all times. Taken in the context of this Declaration the challenge of ensuring food security can be more fully addressed through ASEAN cooperation in enhancing the availability, quality and safety of horticultural produce throughout the region. ASEAN needs to face the challenges posed by trade liberalization. The need to maintain global competitiveness while achieving food security can also be addressed by enhancing rural incomes. The production of high value horticultural crops is a key contributor to rural incomes and has been recognized as an enterprise appropriate to smallholders (FAO, 1989). Trade in fresh horticultural produce in ASEAN is significant (Table 1), but could contribute more to intra- and extra-ASEAN trade. For the region to fully realize benefits from horticulture, appropriate QA systems, particularly for fresh fruit and vegetables, have to be established. The production and marketing of fruit and vegetables provides a means of bringing smallholders into the mainstream of export-oriented enterprises, provided they are appropriately guided by QA systems. Table 1. Average value of fresh horticultural produce in extra- and intra- ASEAN trade1. Product Trade Category Average Value, 1993-99

(Million US$) Edible vegetables Extra-ASEAN exports 637.5 Extra-ASEAN imports 465.5 Intra-ASEAN exports 144.5 Intra-ASEAN imports 133.4 Edible fruits and nuts Extra-ASEAN exports 654.5 Extra-ASEAN imports 530.6 Intra-ASEAN exports 184.3 Intra-ASEAN imports 112.3

1 ASEAN Secretariat Trade Statistics, 1993 – 1999. http://www.aseansec.org/Trade/Files/AN_AU_PC.htm

2


Table 2: Average value of fresh horticultural produce in ASEAN Trade (World Figures)2

Total ASEAN Exports (World) (Value In Thousand US $) 1996* 1997* 1998* 1999# 2000+ 2001+ Edible Vegetables 902,122 723,844 507,084 819,505 669,959 855,226 Edible Fruit & Nuts 1,005,484 984,937 752,543 946,044 1,013,193 902,154 Total ASEAN Imports (World) (Value In Thousand US $) 1996* 1997* 1998* 1999# 2000+ 2001+ Edible Vegetables 799,484 758,938 576,987 604,349 574,316 620,338 Edible Fruit & Nuts 810,440 777,145 496,594 568,575 646,423 625,537 Note: *Figures cover only Brunei Darussalam, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore and Thailand (1993 - 1998) #Figures cover only Brunei Darussalam, Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore and Thailand (1999) +Figures cover only Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore and Thailand (2000 - 2001) 1.2.2. Need for appropriate technolog cal innovations in the region i

ASEAN is faced with the challenge of developing or sourcing and applying appropriate technological innovations in its bid to achieve competitiveness in horticultural enterprises. A corollary development challenge is the strengthening of joint approaches in negotiating with trading partners on market access for products of the region (Hanoi Plan of Action, 1998). Appropriate technological innovations hold the key to bringing small and medium sized horticulture-based enterprises into the mainstream of export-oriented industries. The scale and nature of horticulture production and marketing gives rise to technological needs peculiar to this sector. Along with other small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in ASEAN, the markets for their products cannot be sustained because of their inability to meet quality, safety and phytosanitary requirements. SMEs in horticulture need to be equipped with custom-tailored technologies, the development of which is itself a challenge that must be met in the region. 1.2.3. Ensuring that human resources contribute to regional development and shared

prosperity The PH specialists involved in the AAECP I – III could play a pivotal role in supporting capacity building in new ASEAN member states. As a region ASEAN needs to address the challenge of ensuring that expertise in the more experienced member countries is shared to assist new members in meeting the more basic technological requirements in fruit and vegetable handling. Regional cooperation aimed at further enhancing the image of ASEAN as a reliable supplier of quality-assured fruit and vegetables needs to accommodate the specific requirements of CLMV, while addressing remaining strategic needs among the more experienced ASEAN member countries.

2 ASEAN Secretariat Trade Statistics, 1993 – 2001, http://www.aseansec.org/Trade/Files/AN_WRLD_PC.htm

3


ASEAN member states have been active participants in deliberations on international standards covering fresh fruit and vegetables. ASEAN has been increasingly confronted by the need to ensure that the formulation of international standards and guidelines for these commodities gives adequate consideration to the unique features and needs of production and marketing systems in ASEAN. The expertise developed in AAECP has been deployed for this purpose, albeit more on an individual country basis. Cooperation in PH horticulture needs to address this challenge on a regional basis.

4


2. PREVIOUS AND ONGOING INITIATIVES 2.1. ASEAN Context

In 1998 ASEAN agreed to implement the following initiatives within the Hanoi Plan of Action (HPA):

Enhance marketability of ASEAN food and agriculture products through the development, harmonization and adoption of quality standards and regulations for food and agriculture products, supported by the sharing and exchange of expertise in the field of agriculture and food; and

Develop new and/or adopt existing production and PH technologies and conduct strategic R&D to reduce inputs to the production and marketing of agricultural products.

Addressing the need for QA systems for ASEAN fruit and vegetables supports the Hanoi Plan of Action 1999-2004 (HPA, 1998), specifically by enhancing the global competitiveness of ASEAN’s food and agricultural products. ASEAN has endeavoured to introduce PH innovations in its bid to reliably supply quality fruit and vegetables. Over the past 20 years regional projects in PH horticulture have played a pivotal role in this effort, with all activities contributing to QA systems for these commodities. Development of QA systems supports the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) vision of easy movement of goods across boundaries within the region. Past projects in PH horticulture have provided for private sector participation. This feature of regional cooperation needs to be further strengthened to realize potential benefits to joint ventures between ASEAN partners, e.g. vegetable production and marketing in Batam Island, or growth areas, e.g. BIMP-EAGA. ASEAN needs to build on the collective knowledge and experience gained over the last 20 years from regional cooperation in PH horticulture. The outputs of AAECP I on Packinghouse Operations for vegetables could be taken further and applied in a number of ASEAN countries including CLMV. 2.1.1. Earlier initiatives under AAECP The ASEAN Postharvest Horticulture Training and Research Centre (PHTRC) was established under AAECP I. The PHTRC implemented a training program designed to provide a core of PH horticulture specialists in the region. These experts were responsible for implementing projects in PH horticulture in Phases I-III. In Phases I and II, PH horticulture projects were coordinated by the Horticulture Working Group of the ASEAN Committee on Food, Agriculture and Forestry (COFAF). Most of the participants involved in QASAF in Phase III consisted of the PH specialists also involved in Phases I and II. Due to the re-structuring of agriculture-related bodies in ASEAN, coordination was provided by the QASAF Project Coordinating Committee. The core of PH experts in ASEAN has functioned as an informal network, undertaking activities both within and outside the AAECP framework. These experts have also organized in-country and regional training programs using either local or international funding. A specialist from

5


Thailand, for example, has in the past several years organized and conducted training courses for Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and Vietnam, involving experts from the regional core group of experts as resource persons. In Phase I the activities focussed on discrete operations in the handling chain, with implementers

ith trade liberalization and the need for ASEAN fruit to remain competitive in the world

Initiatives funded through bilateral arrangements T s (ACIAR) has supported projects in

able 3. ACIAR-supported Projects in ASEAN

developing competence in the handling requirements for fresh fruit and vegetables. As Phase I was a response to the 1975 United Nations call for a reduction in PH losses, project objectives dealt primarily with preventing and/or reducing physical losses. In Phase II, the ASEAN-Australia Postharvest Systems Improvement Project (AAPSIP) concentrated on integrating the experience gained in Phase I into the entire handling chain for key fruit in ASEAN. Wmarket, the QASAF Project was conceived toward the end of Phase II. The focus shifted to quality assurance (QA) systems with emphasis on minimally processed fruit. The economic situation then existing in the region augured well for trade in convenient and healthy food. In Phase III minimal processing provided the opportunity for food scientists involved in earlier AAECP Science and Technology projects to interface with PH specialists. 2.1.2.

he Au tralian Centre for International Agricultural Research ASEAN complementary to those under AAECP (Table 3). These ranged from basic physiology and handling to genetic modification of fruit. Mycotoxins and heat treatments to meet phytosanitary requirements were also covered. T Project Title ASEAN Participants Status Physiology and postharvest handling of banana 5 Malaysia, Thailand,

Philippines Completed 198

Postharvest physiology of mango Thailand, Philippines Completed 1985 Development of heat systems for quarantine disinfestation in tropical fruit

Thailand, Philippines Completed 1996

Development of quarantine disinfestation Malaysia Completed 1997 protocol for oriental fruit fly (Bactrocera papayae) with hot air Postharvest handling of tropical fruit Thailand, Philippines Completed 1998 Disease control and storage life extension in tropical fruit

Thailand Completed 1997

Reducing mycotoxin and pesticide contamination in grain, fruit and vegetables

Vietnam Active to 2002

Pineapple quality improvement Malaysia Completed 2000 Shelf-life extension by molecular transformation s, Malaysia of papaya and mango

Philippine Active 1997-2003

Postharvest evaluation of pineapples genetically engineered for resistance to blackheart

Malaysia Active 1999-2003

Low cost disinfestation systems for fruit Thailand, Vietnam Active 1998-2002 Bioremediation technology for insecticide 3 residues in horticulture

Philippines Jan 2001 - Dec 200

able 4 lists other types of assistance funded by Australia in ASEAN. T

6


Table 4. Australian-funded activities in ASEAN.1

Activity Member State(s) Arrangement Implementing Agency

Training in Import or Quarantine Risk Analysis

Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam

Regional - APEC AFFA

IPM for Vegetables Indonesia, Thailand SEARP FAO Needs Assessment in Diagnostics for Arthropod Pests

Brunei, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam

Regional - APEC AFFA

Sanitary and Phytosanitary Capacity Building Program

ASEAN member states AFTA-CER CEP– Asia Crisis Fund

To be identified

1st ASEAN-APEC Seminar on Postharvest Technology “Quality Assurance in Agricultural Produce, Vietnam, Nov. 1999

ASEAN member states Regional - APEC ACIAR

2nd ASEAN-APEC Seminar on "Feasibility Study for the Development of a PH Network for the APEC Region”, 1999

Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand

APEC FAO, ACIAR

Containing Transborder Pest Movement

Indonesia Regional - APEC AFFA

Animal/Plant Health and Quarantine Indonesia Bilateral AQIS Database of Quarantine Standards Indonesia Bilateral AFFA Quarantine Technical Assistance Thailand Bilateral AFFA Improved Safety and Quality of Horticultural Exports

Vietnam Regional – Single country

Univ. Sydney

Fruit fly Treatment and Quarantine Training


AFFA

Technical Infrastructure for Quality Assurance


Univ. Sydney

1 AFFA – Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Australia; AQIS – Australian Quarantine Inspection Service; SEARP – AusAID South East Asian Regional Program; FAO – UN Food and Agriculture Organization; AFTA-CER – ASEAN Free Trade Area – Closer Economic Relations-Closer Economic Partnership; IPM – Integrated pest management It is noteworthy that the 2nd ASEAN-APEC Postharvest Seminar discussed the possibility of forming a Virtual PH R & D Centre consisting of the network of PH specialists and institutions in ASEAN. 2.1.3. Initiatives in the Senior Officials Meeting of the ASEAN Ministers of Agriculture

and Forestry (SOM-AMAF) Various cooperation activities and projects in horticulture are coordinated by the ASEAN Sectoral Working Group on Crops (ASWGC), which reports to SOM-AMAF. They include the following:

ASEAN Standards for Horticultural Produce; Harmonization of Phytosanitary Measures in ASEAN Countries; Harmonization of Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) of Pesticides; ASEAN Pesticide Database Network; and Vapour Heat Treatment for Tropical Fruits Export to Korea

Finally, regional concerns related to food safety standards are discussed by the ASEAN Task Force on Codex, which reports directly to the SOM-AMAF.

7


2.2. International Context

Several QA-related activities are supported by a number of donors. The New Zealand Overseas Development Assistance (NZODA), for example, supported a needs-assessment mission in CLMV to look into phytosanitary capability in these countries and identify areas for NZODA support. In March 2004, CLMV member countries agreed the process for development of a Strategic Plan under the NZODA CLMV Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Capacity Development Project. Under the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and the International Agency for Atomic Energy (IAEA) of the United Nations, plant health and quarantine-related activities have been sponsored in individual countries. Meetings of the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) under the auspices of FAO formulate phytosanitary guidelines. ASEAN member states participate in the deliberations of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), which formulates standards on safety and fair trade practices in food. The Codex Committee on Fresh Fruits and Vegetables specifically elaborates standards for horticultural produce. Other relevant Codex committees include pesticide Residues, Food Import and Export Certification and Inspection Systems, Food Additives and Contaminants and Food Hygiene. Under the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, the World Trade Organization (WTO) has identified Codex and IPPC standards, guidelines and texts as the benchmark for food safety and plant health, respectively. The EU has developed a joint program on SPS requirements, the World Bank is assessing SPS standards reform and China is supporting early harvest packing initiatives with ASEAN. Despite the activities mentioned above, there is currently no donor-supported program that addresses the need to design QA systems for fruit and vegetables. 2.3. Individual Country Situation

The ten member countries of ASEAN present a wide diversity of systems, infrastructure, resources and capacity to implement quality assurance systems in fruit and vegetables. The ability to export fresh produce also varies widely in the region. While some countries are relatively advanced in terms of recent development and introduction of a national QA system, export markets in other member countries are embryonic and the general concept of QA needs to be introduced before a QA system can be considered. Most ASEAN member countries in general have very small landholdings, use traditional cultivation technology and are not well organised into cooperatives. 2.3.1. Brunei Darussalam Brunei imports 75% of its agricultural commodity requirements. This includes fresh fruit and vegetables. There is a push however to reduce this by growing more produce of improved quality locally. There are no particular standards in place for grading or food safety and there is a large loss of produce (post harvest losses of 50% are not uncommon) due to poor handling and storage. Often locally grown produce is of poor quality. The country saw clear benefits in an ASEAN GAP as they could then use this and rely on this being used for imports into Brunei from neighbouring ASEAN countries.

8


2.3.2. Cambodia Cambodia has no standards in place nor do they have postharvest training in place. Laboratory facilities are limited and there is a lack of trained technicians to operate equipment. Their export markets are small and localised, mainly cross border, and are based on a small number of products to specific countries. Fruit and vegetable imports are currently higher than exports. Improved quality is being driven by large hotel chains requesting high quality fruit and vegetables for clients. This has led to a small organic industry but no certification system has been established. Pesticide use is quite high in many areas and unregulated. Donor support for Integrated Pest Management has been strong in the country but this covers production and not post harvest. Cambodia has a farmer field school system in place, which is an excellent forum for delivering information and training to the local levels. 2.3.3. Indonesia Indonesia does not have a national standard in the area of food safety or quality assurance in the horticultural industry. There have been a number of small projects introducing the concept of food safety in horticulture, including one funded by the Victorian Government. Singapore has established a pilot program with farmers in Sumatra since 2000 to introduce a QA approach to horticultural exports to Singapore from Indonesia. Under this program, a processing plant and cold storage system have been developed and farmers trained. Indonesia has some product specific standards mainly associated with mangosteen and citrus, their largest horticultural exports. 2.3.4. Lao PDR Laos is an agrarian economy with low pesticide use, particularly in three main geographic locations, hence organic farming is seen as a possible niche market for Laos. Japan is currently piloting the growing of Japanese rice varieties in Laos for export to Japan. Investment in the tropical fruit sector is weak. Laos has drafted some regulations regarding exports and imports which are being considered in parliament but has no MRLs in place. Pesticide imports are regulated but not pesticide usage. There is only one laboratory that can analyse for MRLs for exports but it lacks experienced staff and equipment. There are no standards related to GAPs in place and yet it has good unofficial horticultural exports in place across its border with Thailand and Vietnam. Laos has a few people with training in Postharvest but no mechanisms for monitoring and control. There is however, good cooperation between the Agriculture and Health Departments and the National Codex Committee is active (established 1998). The government would like to strengthen community based networks (eg. Cooperatives) to improve the agricultural situation in the country. 2.3.5. Malaysia Malaysia has recently introduced a quality assurance scheme (SALM) for fruit and vegetables that is audited by the government (not 3rd party audited) and is a basic QA system with an emphasis on food safety with some linkages to environmental issues. The program is not product specific. It is a program that recognises that the grower has adopted good agricultural practices and that the grower does this voluntarily and is certified based on a number of criteria. The system has been well received by farmers but the lack of Department of Agriculture (DoA) staff available to certify and accredit farms is a major obstacle. They currently have trained 100 auditors. A public awareness program has been implemented but farmers would like more promotion of the scheme. The scheme has been posted on the DoA website for widespread access.

9


2.3.6. Myanmar Agriculture is one of the building stones of Myanmar. They have no standards for GAPs in place, no on farm food safety QA plans nor any postharvest handling training available to farmers. NZODA has supported the development of a national certification system for agricultural exports, mainly grains and legumes. Private sector involvement is increasing, with research/demonstration farms being established in various regions in the country, often in partnership with government. There is no cold chain system in the country for fruit and vegetables but the government have established a demonstration cold storage. Pesticide use is quite low as all pesticides must be imported and so are quite expensive and regulated. Myanmar is of particular interest in the region as its geography enables production of both tropical and temperate horticultural crops. Myanmar has excellent training facilities and a dedicated Government agriculture sector. There are also good testing laboratories but they lack appropriate levels of trained staff to implement testing requirements. 2.3.7. Philippines The Philippines has extensive experience in postharvest handling issues and they have been the beneficiaries of past aid projects in this area. They also have a thriving export market to the USA. They routinely run postharvest workshops for specific export crops. Some companies have QA plans based on GAPs in place but there is no overall Government push to standardise GAPs at the moment. Policies have been developed but implementation is the main weakness. 2.3.8. Singapore Singapore imports 94% of its horticultural produce. It has farms that produce some products, mainly for internal consumption. They have developed and recently implemented a food safety based GAP QA primarily for use by countries that export fruit and vegetables to Singapore. They have built a model farm in Sumatra including training and technical support to encourage Indonesian farmers to adopt the standards. They see benefits for Singapore in an ASEAN standard. They have expertise in postharvest handling and excellent laboratory facilities. They currently test all horticultural imports to Singapore. 2.3.9. Thailand Thailand has introduced a relatively complex QA system, based on Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP), which is basically a food safety based QA plan for growers. They have taken this one step further by adding on product specific QA standards with manuals for growers and auditors – standards for 15 of the planned 27 products have now been completed. This latter task has not been completed yet as it is consuming considerable time and resources. Accreditation of farmers is also a time consuming process. Thailand has good experience with postharvest handling and good facilities for testing. They have developed a comprehensive roadmap for Food Safety, which is currently being implemented. 2.3.10. Vietnam Vietnam is a net exporter and is developing export capacity in specific fruit and vegetables where they may have a competitive advantage. They have no QA systems in place nor do they have general GAPs established. Previous Australian Government assistance has concentrated on product specific quality issues, such as dragonfruit, for export. Vietnam initially showed a preference for product specific quality manuals but they do recognise the value of a harmonised ASEAN GAP, even if they would only target specific products. Standards for cereals are complete. Their goal is to increase export agricultural trade to US$10 million by the year 2010.

10


3. SCOPE AND JUSTIFICATION FOR PROPOSED INTERVENTION 3.1. Gaps in Ongoing Initiatives

3.1.1. Quality- and safety-related gaps Recent developments in postharvest horticulture have highlighted the need for exporting countries to pay due diligence in the field of food safety and quality assurance. The requirements have been cemented by Codex Alimentarius through the “farm to fork” approach. This is a stringent QA based system that covers many aspects of fruit and vegetable growing starting at choice of production sites, soil preparation, agricultural inputs and harvesting and ending at storage requirements and transport (Report of the 24th Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission, 2001). Codex deliberations on judgment of equivalence, which is needed to establish Mutual Recognition Arrangements (MRA) for fresh produce, have also considered relevant elements in production sub-systems. There is a need for producing countries to fully understand these trade requirements and to implement standards that cover at least the basic requirements for a food safety-based QA plan. This should cover both microbiological issues and chemical contaminating issues addressing pesticide residues and MRL applicable to the country with due regard to potential export market requirements. The problem facing the smaller exporting countries at the moment is that strong importing countries like the EU and the USA are forcing their own standards on exporters because there are no others in place. EU standards may not be fully suitable for developing countries involved in tropical and subtropical horticulture; the EU does not operate in this type of climate nor does it operate in this type of environment or socio-economic framework. It is important for countries to consider their options to fulfil quality requirements. Good agricultural practices (GAPs) specific for a region will be sufficient to cover food safety aspects at all stages of farming operations from pre planting, planting, growing, harvesting, storage and transport. QA systems based on food safety can also assist with quality issues including postharvest quality. 3.1.2. Gaps related to phytosanitary requirements Besides meeting safety or sanitary requirements, compliance of ASEAN horticultural produce with the phytosanitary requirements of target markets is fundamental to market access. Earlier Australia-supported activities in the region have addressed phytosanitary issues. However, these have covered mainly PH disinfestation treatments. Phytosanitary requirements will vary from country to country and an understanding of market requirements is fundamental in developing export markets. While integrated pest management and other pesticide reduction methods may be useful to address general phytosanitary requirements, the gaps in understanding country specific requirements may be a factor in addressing potential export both within ASEAN and outside of ASEAN. There is a need to train ASEAN experts in SPS requirements as they apply to exports. There is also a need to have a repository on information on SPS that is easily accessible by both Government experts and private industry participants. The proposed APH Net will be used to propagate this information. Specific training workshops in market orientated SPS requirements will also be an ideal way to introduce new concepts in this area to ASEAN.

11


3.1.3. Gaps related to postharvest requirements A significant body of information generated by the R & D components of earlier AAECP projects on PH horticulture and related activities in the region has not been fully utilised in PH systems improvements. Such application of R&D outputs should be of value to ASEAN in its bid to achieve competitiveness. ASEAN needs to mobilise the collective experience gained in AAECP I-III to assist the New Member States in developing their PH systems. More specifically there is a need to have existing R&D results available to all member countries so that the results can be translated to best practice by the individual countries. The need for postharvest training and SPS requirement training however should be skewed towards exports requirements as there are so many other avenues available now for general postharvest information especially through APEC and other postharvest conferences held in the ASEAN region. 3.2. Options for a project intervention

3.2.1. Focus The proposal is designed around four areas of concern and takes into consideration the duration, funds available and principles on which AADCP operates.

An ASEAN harmonised Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs) standard that addresses mainly the food safety issues with appropriate reference to the environment and socio-economic issues.

Special awareness training for the CLMV countries in basic GAPs and postharvest.

Export specific training in SPS requirement and postharvest quality requirements.

A suitable venue to host the amount of information based on previous research work, compendiums of SPS requirements, compendium of product specific quality requirements, exchange of information and a general source of information in this area.

The project differs somewhat from the previous proposal in so far as the QA system proposed here is basically about food safety with due consideration to environmental issues and socio-economic issues suitable for use in the ASEAN context. The reason for this shift in focus from the previous proposal is that in the past two years since the previous proposal was designed a number of countries such as Singapore, Malaysia, Philippines, and Thailand have decided on this approach to QA. These member countries are developing variations of the proposed ASEAN GAP standard proposed in this project. Malaysia is developing a national program to recognise and accredit farms which adopt GAPs operated in an environmental friendly way and yielding products that are of higher quality, safe and suitable for human consumption. Thailand is developing a very similar system but has extended by adding product specific quality attributes. This is still ongoing due to the amount of work required. Singapore has developed food safety based GAPs for ruse in Singapore and is actively trying to introduce the concept to Indonesia for produce destined for Singapore. The Philippines has delivered product specific QA training to industry and has also had training in GAPs by private companies. The reason for these developments is that a QA system based on food safety addressed by GAPs is one that the markets require. The concept that QA systems based mainly on food safety would not give access to markets in the same way that product specific QA systems with an emphasis on product quality would, was an assumption made in the original project proposal. The in-country visit has shown that this is

12


not true. Most countries have placed more importance on a through chain food safety based QA system as a tool to increase markets. This does not mean that product specific QA attributes are neglected, it simply means that to access export markets (or intra ASEAN markets); countries will have to address the food safety based QA system first. Product specific QA systems can be built upon a generic food safety based QA system by individual countries if this need arises. These would be based on their competitive advantage in specific fruit and vegetables lines. Each country has it’s own list of priority products and product specific QA systems can be incorporated along side a generic food safety system in the same way that Thailand is trying to do at the moment. 3.2.2. Multi layer QA system The reality is that some of the ASEAN countries have already started work on what can be considered the basis for a harmonised ASEAN GAP QA standard. Four member countries have built up the expertise to develop their own systems at their own pace. Malaysia has established its own QA system (SALM) and this is being introduced with some success. Thailand has a similar system up and going with many farmers already involved in training. The Philippines has a number of private companies involved in QA systems based on food safety. Singapore on the other hand is concerned about the safety of produce coming into the country. They have developed a food safety QA system for use within Singapore and are trying to implement it in Indonesia, a country that supplies produce to Singapore. These countries have expressed an interest in an ASEAN-wide QA system based on food safety requirements. The standards sought by these countries would be at least as high as the systems that have been designed and are in place at the moment. The CMLV countries on the other hand do not have any systems in place nor do they have trainers with adequate knowledge to conduct training to assist farmers in this area. Indonesia and Brunei on the other hand have adequate resources to rapidly implement ASEAN standards if they were available. In designing ASEAN standards it is important to take into consideration all these issues. The standards should be divided into three distinct sections suitable for introduction as desired by the member countries, as follows:

Awareness program, designed to introduce the concept of QA, food safety and general product quality issues on a generic basis. This program would be suitable for the new member countries and as a first step for the other member countries when introducing the more complex standards.

Generic ASEAN-GAPs based on through chain food safety requirements with reference to environment and socio- economic issues suitable for the ASEAN countries, climate, farming methods and social fabric. The generic ASEAN GAPs standard would be developed on the same framework that is being used at the moment in countries such as Thailand and Malaysia and would be used to underpin any QA system used in ASEAN. These are suitable as general GAPs applied to a number of situations and food crops and they emphasised food safety issues particularly chemical usage and sanitary procedures. This QA system is basically a self-audited system suitable for farmers trained in self-auditing.

ASEAN-GAPs based QA system with third party auditing system. This is perhaps the ultimate in QA systems where self-auditing is replaced by third party independent auditing. This system is demanded by a number of importing countries and is quite complex and can be expensive. It is only justifiable when export orders are signed and importing countries demand this type of QA system. Growers may have to go to this system as time goes by to fulfil the requirements of importing countries. It is relatively easy to go from step two to step three in this multi layered QA system as proposed in this project. There are no plans to look at this type of system in the life of the current project.

13


It is proposed that this project concentrates on step one for the new member countries and step two for all ASEAN countries. The output will be a standardised and harmonised QA standard based on GAPs, it will be used to underpin QA systems development in ASEAN. The ASEAN GAPs will carry more importance than individual country GAPs on the international trade area. 3.2.3. Postharvest and SPS training options There is a need to develop training workshops that address these two issues as they apply to exports. Postharvest issues refer to product quality whereas SPS issues refer to export market demands related to contaminating insects, pests and chemicals used to increase the shelf life of the produce. A combined training workshop in these issues is seen as the best way to increase knowledge in the business of exports for the ASEAN countries. For CMLV there is a need to introduce basic postharvest technology concepts and it is proposed that the awareness training in food safety be complemented with a simultaneous short course in postharvest technology at delivery. 3.2.4. Approaches to information exchange and coordination In AAECP Phases I and II, information exchange and coordination were achieved by holding regular meetings of the ASEAN Horticulture Working Group (AHWG). Workshops on specific topics were held as needed. In Phase III, the Project Coordinating Committee meetings served as the venue for information exchange and coordination, with workshops on specific topics held as planned. Considering the nature and scope of AADCP, options for information exchange and coordination can be best addressed through a computer-based Internet site. Computer-based networking should provide the best option, considering timeliness of information exchange and cost-effectiveness. This mechanism needs to be complemented by annual strategic workshops for more focussed discussions and coordination (see section 3.2.3). 3.3. Justification for proposed intervention

3.3.1. Regionality With the foregoing considerations, the specific needs of ASEAN member states in relation to QA system development and PH horticulture could be best addressed at two levels. Individual training for CLMV on an awareness program is the first step to ASEAN GAP combined with a short workshop on postharvest principles. A regional approach should be taken for the development of the ASEAN GAP QA standard and for training in the ASEAN GAP QA standard. A regional approach should also be taken with the export oriented workshops. In this latter program, individual country projects would not provide the synergy achieved through the sharing of experiences among member states. 3.3.2. Target groups and ASEAN participation The awareness training workshops in the CLMV countries will be directed primarily at Government nominated trainers and would probably come from appointees from the ministries of agriculture, Government training facilities, ministries of health or approved SME trainers. A project on GAPs based QA standards for fruit and vegetables should help strengthen the information delivery systems in support of ASEAN horticultural enterprises. These systems

14


reside mainly in the ministries of agriculture and the appropriate members of the National Agricultural Research Systems (NARS), and the key manpower resource will therefore consist of the ASEAN agriculture specialists who participated in AAECP I-III. The latter would constitute the major participants in a project under AADCP. In addition Ministries may nominate appropriate participation from other Government Departments (eg. Health, and Quarantine) and appropriate participation from private industry. The total standards approach required in GAPs based QA should involve all key sectors in the handling chain. Project outputs should ultimately benefit ASEAN fruit and vegetable producers, who are predominantly smallholders. To promote synergy between AADCP and various regional initiatives in crops, the ASWGC should be part of the reporting and coordination arrangement under AADCP. The SOM-AMAF would also have to be involved as the ASWGC reports to this body. Furthermore, the ASEAN Task Force on Codex, which covers relevant international standards for fruit and vegetables, reports to SOM-AMAF. A project on QA provides the opportunity for PH and QA experts to interact with the ASEAN Task Force on Codex, which reports directly to the SOM-AMAF. 3.3.3. Sustainabil ty of benefits i

i

Policy environment Project formulation has been guided by the regional thrusts articulated in the Hanoi Plan of Action and ASEAN Vision 2020. The policies of individual governments of ASEAN member states are appropriately guided by these documents, and this project therefore fits within a supportive policy environment. Design and project implementation The project design provides for the strengthening of the postharvest network in horticulture, providing a mechanism for interaction among PH specialists within, and with counterparts beyond, ASEAN. This will support the sustainability of benefits. The design also provides a mechanism for bringing the private sector into the activity. Although participants from the private sector could be identified at the outset, the project should provide a mechanism to access key information as to industry needs and further focus in the project during implementation. Providing for the involvement of target beneficiaries helps ensure a participatory approach to needs assessment, problem identification and application of technological innovations. Again, prospects for sustainability of benefits are thereby enhanced. 3.3.4. Sustainabil ty indicators beyond project life Objective indicators of sustainability will include the following:

Sustained interaction between PH specialists and target clientele;

Utilisation of training materials (reproduction requests and citations);

Knowledge products (publications, e.g. guidelines, reports and citations);

Sustained activities of the network to meet regional needs outside and beyond AADCP;

Application of ASEAN GAPs based QA standard developed; and

Recognised ASEAN GAPs.

15


3.3.5. Impact on poverty, gender and the environment Poverty QA standards are effectively value-adding systems. Value-adding (e.g. sorting, packing, treatment) during market preparation for horticultural produce generates employment in both rural and urban areas. For most fruit and vegetables some of these activities have to be undertaken as soon as possible after harvest, i.e. in the field (e.g. field sorting) or a farm-based packinghouse. The consequence of vulnerability among the rural poor to natural disasters can be mitigated by enhanced incomes from both on- and off-farm employment. The high cost of other treatment facilities (e.g. for disinfestation) requires a central or strategic location, which might be in urban areas where required infrastructure is accessible. The export of fruit and vegetables requiring postharvest quarantine treatments provides a concrete example of agriculture-based employment generation in urban areas in ASEAN. The profitability of horticultural enterprises in small farms is partly determined by guidance on QA provided to producers. While it is impossible for the scale and magnitude of QASAFV to generate the information needed for a wide range of fruit and vegetables, its design, in effect, pilots approaches that could prove useful for other commodities not covered by the project. Gender Handling operations require tasks with varying physical demands on labour. A packinghouse usually employs women for such operations as sorting and packing where attention to such details as quality defects is required. Small and medium enterprise-based operations depend to a considerable extent on manual labour for stacking, loading, etc., and employ men for such tasks. The physical requirements to avoid fatigue and injury peculiar to either men or women need to be adequately addressed in the design of QA standards. Both men and women have played key and prominent roles as PH specialists in AAECP I – III. As it might be presumed that they would also be involved in AADCP, participation in activities that provide for human resource development should be designed to provide for gender balance. Workshop reports should include participant details desegregated by gender. Environment The increasing global attention to protection of the environment requires that an ASEAN wide GAPs based QA standards make provisions for basic environmental management tools such as waste management, use of land, biodiversity, measures to prevent contamination of the water supply, etc. Reduction in the use of chemicals in order to adhere to ASEAN GAP standards will be a positive impact on the environment. 3.3.6. AADCP capacity to contribute Australia has developed PH technologies and expertise needed to successfully market tropical commodities. Australia was also one of the first countries in the world to implement on-farm food safety based on QA standards and has achieved international recognition for having a large percentage of growers using third party audited QA standards. Development activities tapping into these experiences and expertise should constitute an area appropriate for assistance. In very few commodities will market windows be open for both ASEAN and Australian produce at the same time. Furthermore, sustained progress in the production and marketing of ASEAN horticultural fruit and vegetables would provide opportunities for technology transfer through the usual modes.

16


4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 4.1. Goal, Purpose and Objectives

Project Goal: To support the establishment of a regional ASEAN environment for the development of a competitive private and SME sector with particular focus on the quality and safety of food and agriculture products Project Purpose: To promote best practices for QA systems in food and agriculture Project Objectives:

Objective 1: To strengthen information delivery systems supporting QA systems development for ASEAN horticulture Objective 2: To provide the basis for the design of an appropriate generic QA standard for fruit and vegetables in ASEAN

Objective 3: To effectively and efficiently manage and monitor Project implementation. 4.2. Component Outputs and Indicative Activities

Objective 1: To strengthen information delivery systems supporting QA systems development for ASEAN horticulture Output 1.1: ASEAN PH Network (APHNet) established and website launched Participants: All ASEAN Member Countries A web site established by the AIP during the second quarter of Year One. The website will be utilised by all member countries as a first point of call on matters related to postharvest horticulture, food safety, SPS and quality assurance (QA). The purpose of the website is to:

Act as a repository of existing information from ASEAN, Australia and other countries where relevant and possible, including ASEAN Fruit and Vegetable standards and SPS requirements of key markets (see Outputs 1.2 and 1.3)

Act as a directory of relevant institutions, experts, practitioners and other stakeholders Provide links to reference web sites related to these issues Provide specific knowledge related to intra-ASEAN and extra-ASEAN import and exports

requirement Provide access to project reports, materials, training courses and other relevant information.

The site will be used to:

Download information as needed Post information as needed Exchange information directly related to project implementation Network across the region and with other relevant sites Host of a forum-type interactive site where stakeholders in this area can ask questions and

interact in problem solving.

17


Access to the web should be free to ASEAN and Australian government information providers but opportunities for various memberships options, including membership fees for non-ASEAN Government users, including SMEs, will be explored by the AIP prior to handover to improve sustainability of the website, particularly beyond the life of the project. Marketing requirements to promote membership to support these efforts will also be assessed towards the end of the first year. Ongoing evaluation of the website will be built into the website system and the host organization will be responsible for monitoring and evaluation of the site. APHNet will be developed by the AIP within the first six months of the project but it will then be relocated to an experienced ASEAN institution, under ASEC, for hosting and management. Calls for expression of interest will be made at the Working Group meeting on crops in mid 2004. The handover process will be discussed and agreed with ASEC at project outset. Key Activities:

Register domain name

Decide web site requirements, including access levels, interactive requirements, web linkages etc

Hold discussions to decide website hosting roles and responsibilities in the short and long term

Identify key reference personnel in each country as main contact point for information gathering

Design and prepare web site

Trial run web site

Assess membership opportunities and market

Handover website management to appropriate organization

Six monthly download of website onto CD/DVD for distribution to focal points Milestone Means of Verification Timing Web- site functioning Official web site launch Month 11 Output 1.2: Compendium of ASEAN Fruit and Vegetable Standards Participants: All ASEAN Member Countries There are now several product-specific fruit and vegetable standards in place, some are available through the Codex Alimentarius standards, others have been developed by individual ASEAN member countries. Others still may be available from overseas countries such as the tropical fruit standards produced by the Communidad Andeina (South American Common Market). They are also available through private networks such as the International Tropical Fruit Network (ITFN) based in Malaysia. There is currently no easily accessible repository for all this work for stakeholders within the member countries. A compendium of standards will be developed to assist SME and Governments with product specific standards as they apply to fruit and vegetables in the ASEAN region. It is envisaged that the compendium would be a starting point

18


for harmonization of specific fruit and vegetable standards across the region as well as being an appropriate resource for countries that have not yet developed these standards. Relevant standards will be published on the APHNet (Output 1.1) for access to all members and stakeholders. Posting on the website will also allow for continued updating as required and will help to promote membership to the APHNet. The material will also be made available on CD for ease of access to workers that may not have constant access to the Internet and for sale to private enterprises as required. Key Activities:

Using the Postharvest Specialist employed for Output 1.1

Collate relevant published product specific standards on agreed priority fruit and vegetables

Manage intellectual property rights issues related to copyright ownership of published standards

Prepare standards in a format that is easy to use

Incorporate standards into web page and on CD Milestone Means of Verification Timing Compendium finished and available on the website and on CD

Compendium posted on the website and available on CD

Month 11

Output 1.3: Compendium of SPS Requirements of key markets Participants: All ASEAN Member Countries Sanitary and phytosanitary requirements vary from country to country but there are commonalities across both general SPS requirements and country-specific SPS requirements, especially in the area of disease control. A compendium on available published data will be a valuable resource for member countries to provide clear information on the basic requirements for accessing ASEAN and major export markets. Information in this area is very complex, including many individual country requirements across many different products. The information provided will be published information on generic SPS requirements including overall processes for accessing markets in individual countries. Specific examples may be used. This resource will also be made available to SME that may be considering exports within and outside of ASEAN through the country’s quarantine organization and through the website. This material will be also made available on CD so that it could be available to private companies and stakeholders without Internet access. Key Activities:

Using Postharvest Specialist employed for Output 1.1

Collate all published SPS requirement and research unpublished SPS requirements for incorporation.

Prepare requirements in a format that is easy to use

Incorporate standards into web site and on CD

19


Milestone Means of Verification Timing Compendium of SPS requirements available on web site and CD ROM


Month 11

Objective 2: To provide the basis for the design of an appropriate generic QA standard for fruit and vegetables in ASEAN Output 2.1: Food Safety and Quality Assurance Awareness program implemented through training of trainer workshops in Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar and Vietnam Participants: New Member Countries – Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar and Vietnam Basic food safety and quality assurance concepts in horticulture need to be introduced to the four new member countries. This output of the project will ensure that the concepts of food safety and quality assurance will be introduced in a format that is suitable for small landholders with limited education. It will serve as a pre-entry step to the proposed ASEAN Good Agricultural Practice (GAP) Quality Assurance (QA) standard (see Output 2.4). One workshop in each of the countries will be scheduled by the end of Year One. The workshops will be specifically aimed at training of trainers in each of the four new member countries. Trainers from SME or private sector organisations can also take part in this training if the need arises for a fee. The training will be conducted by the Australian experts and is aimed at appropriate senior trainers predominantly from government agencies. The trainers could come from government agencies such as Agriculture Departments, Agriculture Extension, Education and Training or Standards Departments as identified by member countries. However, the training will also be available to sponsoring non-government organizations as appropriate. Up to 20 trainers will be trained in each country at each workshop. The training will consist of three days on basic food safety and QA requirements and will be supplemented by two days on basic post harvest quality. A limited number of extra delegates from relevant post harvest departments will be invited to attend the post harvest quality training component. It is expected that these delegates will also attend the Post Harvest and SPS Requirements for Export workshops after this introductory session (output 2.3). A basic equipment package consisting of tools required for product quality evaluation, will be used in the training and then provided to the appropriate department in conjunction with training on their use. Tools include:

Colour Chips (London Horticultural Accreditation Standard set)

Temperature Probe Digital

Refractometer manual

Hand held penetrometer Key Activities:

Develop selection criteria for participants

Development of training program

Preparation of training manual

20


Delivery of training programs in each of the four new member countries

Evaluation of training programs Milestone Means of Verification Timing Delivery of training programs and basic equipment package to four member countries

Training and Evaluation reports Month 14

Output 2.2: Identified farmer groups trained in food safety and quality assurance awareness by local trainers (from Output 2.1) Participants: New Member Countries – Cambodia, Laos PDR, Myanmar and Vietnam

rain-the-trainer sessions will be carried out under Output 2.1. To ensure that the traT iners then

mple information kits suitable for growers, harvesters, storers and

also be made available to

he project will support a

ntee. A

le information material

languages

ntries

raining sessions

conduct training workshops of farmer groups it is imperative that we supply training material in the form of farmer information kits to each trainer as well as provide support for localized training activities. Assistance will be in the form of materials supply, trainer support and a small stipend for participants.

he AIP will prepare siTtransporters. The information kits will be prepared taking into account literacy levels of farmers and will be translated into the four languages. Materials used to train farmers in Singapore, Thailand and Malaysia will be reviewed in the development of the materials. The AIP will provide the overall information package but CLMV countries will be able to tailor the materials to suit individual cultural requirements while ensuring content is maintained.

he English language information kits and training materials will Ttrainers in other member countries via the website but the translation of these into other languages will need to be done by member countries at their own cost.

s well as training the trainers and providing materials and curricula, tAminimum number of farmers to be trained in each of the four new member countries by funding 10 training sessions of 20 farmers in each of the four countries.

onitoring of the training will be the responsibility of the focal point or their appoiMmonitoring checklist will be developed by the AIP which will also be available on the website for all member countries. Key Activities:

Prepare simp

Translate material into four different

Package information and deliver to member cou

Training facilities identified and training arranged

Financial support provided for delivery of farmer t

Follow up support via email and phone to trainers

21


Milestone Means of Verification Timing Kits completed and delivered to

the four new member Availability of kits in the four new Month 14

trainers in countries

member countries Kits posted on the website

Output 2.3: Post Harvest and SPS Requirements for Export workshops conducted

articipants: All ASEAN Member Countries

se in trade of horticultural produce both internally ithin the ASEAN countries and also as exports to other countries outside ASEAN. In order to

y will be invited to attend each workshop. It is nvisaged that participants will be drawn from government agencies involved in advising or

roposed that Brunei Darussalam (net importing country) be responsible for the first orkshop (three days) and the Philippines (exporting country) host the second workshop (four

es:

thin ASEAN

P This project is designed to support an increawdo this it is imperative that all stakeholders acquire knowledge and expertise in post harvest best practice and in evolving issues with SPS requirements by appropriate training. This training must be focused on activities related to export such as post harvest handling, transport, quality management and insect and disease treatments. These issues as they apply to exporting of tropical fruit and vegetables will be addressed through two annual workshops. Training will be hands-on, including field trips, and will be carried out in countries that have good post harvest facilities (namely Brunei Darussalam and Philippines) and will incorporate expertise available within the ASEAN countries. The training will be carried out with both Australian and ASEAN experts in post harvest quality and export experience. This type of training is not currently available through other activities in ASEAN. Two participants from each member countreadministering exports of horticultural products. With approval from ASEC and the member countries, a small number of participants from appropriate SMEs may be allowed to attend the workshops on a fee-paying basis. This issue will be explored at the ASWGC meeting in July 2004. It is pwdays). Assistance in planning and organizing the workshop will be provided to the host country by the AIP. Key Activiti

Identification of expertise available wi

Preparation for workshop (materials, roles and responsibilities)

Organisation of each workshop, including priority areas

Delivery of workshop and associated notes Milestone Means of Verification Timing Workshops held Workshop reports Month 18

Month 26

22


Output 2.4: Generic ASEAN Good Agricultural Practice (GAP) Quality Assurance (QA) standard (ASEAN GAP) developed for all member countries Participants: All ASEAN Member Countries The design of a suitable ASEAN quality assurance standard based on Good Agricultural Practice (GAP) requirements is essential as the basis of an internationally recognised standard used by ASEAN countries. Some member countries like Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand and the Philippines have already started to implement their own generic GAPs based on food safety principles with some QA linked to these. It is important for ASEAN countries to harmonise standards and the development of a generic ASEAN GAP will assist this in a number of ways: Firstly, it will assist with the development of a harmonised standard across the ASEAN member countries. Secondly, it will give the ASEAN standard a level of importance compared to individual country standards. Thirdly, it will assist by providing common material in training and delivery of the standards. There are three distinct stages in developing suitable GAPs based QA standards: Stage 1: An awareness stage (as developed for the four new member countries) Stage 2: Self Audit System, a more complicated farmer self audited system, which is checked by Government (the basis for an ASEAN GAP) Stage 3: Third Party Audited System (eventual ASEAN GAP once a country has mastered the self audited system). This latter stage is more complex and resource-intensive and will not be a part of this project. This output will deliver, with assistance of Australian experts, an ASEAN GAP standard using expertise from Malaysia, Thailand, Philippines and Singapore who already have developed and implemented basic GAP standards. The GAP standard output includes a range of components. Country responsibility for each component will be agreed during the initial GAP workshop:

ASEAN GAP standard documentation, including guidelines for implementation

Training of trainer courses, training manual and training materials will also be developed based on the ASEAN GAPs (Output 2.5).

Guidelines for SME GAP awareness activities

Logo and other branding

Strategic plan for promotion of regional exports of horticultural produce, including an advocacy plan to promote the ASEAN GAPs to various export markets.

The development of the ASEAN GAP standard will be facilitated through a series of discussions and workshops and ongoing support from the technical team. This includes two workshops with the three involved countries, facilitated by Australian experts as well as ongoing discussion and networking. Updates on progress and issues for discussion will be debated at ASWGC meetings and drafts submitted to member countries for comment.

23


Once developed, the AIP will host a two-day workshop to present and discuss the ASEAN GAPs with all ASEAN member countries. This workshop will also discuss strategic promotion of regional exports of horticultural produce and will be run by ASEAN and Australian representatives involved in developing the ASEAN GAPs. It is recommended that the three workshops be held in Malaysia, Thailand and Singapore, but the schedule will be confirmed at the ASWGC meeting in July 2004. Key Activities:

Select ASEAN member countries that wish to be involved in the development of the ASEAN GAPs and identify individuals who will be responsible

First workshop with member country representatives that wish to be involved in developing these standards, the first to discuss the GAPs design and extent, assign tasks and agree on timetable.

Assist ASEAN GAP group with writing the GAPs (ongoing throughout)

Second workshop to discuss the developed ASEAN GAP standard and further refinement of GAP standard.

Submission of draft GAP prior to third workshop

Third workshop for final agreement on the GAPs Milestone Means of Verification Timing ASEAN GAPs standard developed and submitted for approval

Draft GAP documentation presented to ASEC and the member countries prior to third workshop

Month 28

Output 2.5: TOT training on ASEAN GAP to master trainers (2) from all member countries and information sessions held for SMEs on the GAP standard Participants: All ASEAN Member Countries Training of trainer (TOT) courses based on the ASEAN GAP standard will be developed for training across the region, including a training manual as part of Output 2.4. This component of the project will also develop training manuals to accompany the ASEAN GAPs and training material that can be used to train the trainer. Material will be produced in English and each country will be responsible for translation into individual languages. The training material will be discussed and agreed during the second and third workshops of Output 2.4. A three-day workshop will be held for two senior/master trainers from each member country on the ASEAN GAPs. This activity will be carried out in Indonesia, preferably in the model farm already established in Indonesia by Singapore. The training will be a joint activity with Singapore and Indonesia. Improved access to export markets will be a major driving force for implementation of the ASEAN GAP standard. SMEs looking to export horticultural products will be both an important stakeholder in the standard but can also play a significant role in promoting the

24


ASEAN GAPs to farmers as well as an advocacy role to importing countries. They are also an important partner and resource to government. Hence, the implementation of ASEAN GAPs will require marketing to SMEs involved in export to be aware of their existence, purpose and advantages. As part of the development of the GAP standard, awareness campaign guidelines will be developed and available for all member countries to use in raising awareness of the GAPs to appropriate SMEs. Trainers will be trained on the use of these guidelines as part of the TOT course so they can host awareness sessions in their own countries. Small financial support (for refreshments for trainers and participants) will be provided to CLMV countries to implement pilot awareness raising activities in Year Three. Key Activities:

Preparation of training material designed to support ASEAN GAPs and the preparation of associated material needed for effective training.

Three day training of trainer workshop

Develop generic awareness campaign guidelines and information requirements for SMEs

Facilitate trainers to hold information sessions to appropriate SMEs (CLMV only). Milestone Means of Verification Timing Training package designed Training workshop held Month 30 Objective 3: To provide effective and efficient project planning, management and reporting to ensure the achievement of objectives. Output 3.1: Review and updating of project design, reflected in Inception Report Participants: All ASEAN Member Countries In view of the time that has elapsed since this project was first identified, the ASEAN Secretariat requested as a first step that an inception phase be carried out to review and update as necessary the project design. Hence, the Project Director (PD) and the Project Design Expert (PDE) held discussions with main stakeholders in all of the ten member countries with the following in mind:

To make the member countries aware of the project

To seek input into the project design and timetable

To seek an understanding of the status of QA and postharvest standards in member countries

To understand who would be trained and who would be doing the training

To understand what facilities are available that could help with the project

To determine what project activities are suitable for each member country This information has served as the basis for the redesign of the project. The Design Team will submit an Inception Report, which includes a revised PDD, logframe, work plan, budget and First Annual Plan within three months of the project start date. After approval, the Project Director will present the project outline for discussion at the ASWGC meeting in Cambodia in mid 2004, to facilitate attendance by Working Group members who are

25


among the key ASEAN stakeholders for the project. The Project Director will present the project design and roles and responsibilities will be discussed and agreed. The discussions will review and reconfirm with the ASEAN stakeholders the project outputs, counterpart responsibilities and implementation arrangements. It will also reconfirm which ASEAN member countries will take lead responsibility for the various in-region activities, and consider ways of actively involving the new ASEAN members who did not participate widely in earlier ASEAN-Australian cooperation in this field. Key Activities:

Visit as many ASEAN countries as possible and meet with key stakeholders

Prepare Inception Report, including a revised PDD and Annual Plan

Discuss the revised PDD with ASEAN member countries at the ASWGC meeting in Cambodia in Mid 2004

Report back on input from member countries Milestone Means of Verification Timing Revised Project Design Document (PDD)

Project design and Annual Plan submitted and approved

Month 3

Output 3.2: Project activities effectively and efficiently planned, coordinated and managed by the AIP Participants: All ASEAN Member Countries The AIP has the overall responsibility for the successful implementation of the project and will provide dedicated resources to facilitate the delivery of project activities as defined in the revised PDD. The AIP will provide appropriate facilities and staff to carry out the functions described in this proposal. More specifically, the AIP will have personnel devoted to:

Organisation of workshops/meetings/training courses:

Identification of the ‘host’ country for the workshop and discussion of this with the ASEC Desk Officer and the Regional Focal Points;

Identification of the skill requirements of workshop participants and discussion of these with the ASEC Desk Officer and Regional Focal Points;

Confirmation of member country involvement and the number of participants with the ASEC Desk Officer, the Regional Focal Point and National Focal Points;

Identification of the skill requirements of course/workshop participants and discussion of these with the ASEC Desk Officer;

Identification and confirmation of the ‘host’ country for the training courses and workshops and discussion of this with the ASEC Desk Officer and the Regional Focal Point;

Discussion with ‘host’ country regarding workshop logistics – gaining suggestions on workshop venue, accommodation etc.;

26


Booking of the workshop venues, arrangement of catering. The host country will be responsible for arrangement of domestic travel (in the country where the workshop is being held) and booking of participant accommodation;

Distribution of workshop materials;

All logistical arrangements for the consultants conducting the workshop;

Conduct of the workshop as per the logframe and workplan;

Preparation of draft and final workshop reports; and

Obtaining letters or other supporting documents that verify ‘Performance Indicators’. Organisation of associated activities:

Preparation and distribution of training and other materials as required;

Development of IT material as required;

Preparation of relevant tools and guidelines as detailed in the PDD;

Establishment of the APHNet Website and hosting of the website for one year;

Facilitation of networking amongst stakeholders from the member countries.

Arrangement of all inputs to implement identified activities (not including inputs provided under APTF);

Confirmation of member country, partner agency and participant involvement in the activity with ASEC Desk Officer; and

Preparation of reports or obtainment of other ‘Verifiable Indicators’. Liaison:

Liaise with ACIL and the ASEAN Secretariat

Liaise with stake holders in member countries

Liaise with appropriate technical experts Output 3.3: ACIL and ASEAN informed of project progress through effective monitoring, review and reporting of project plans and achievements Participants: All ASEAN Member Countries The AIP will prepare annual plans and other reports as specified in Section 6. Project monitoring: See Monitoring and Evaluation Plan Attachment 5. Project Monitoring and Evaluation will focus on:

Monitoring of the APHNet

Monitoring the export workshops

Monitoring of the TOT workshops detailed in the PDD and the focal point will monitor subsequent awareness raising activities in member countries

27


Monitoring of the development of the ASEAN GAP standard

Impact of project activities across the ASEAN region Project reporting responsibilities include:

Preparation of an Inception Report within three months of signing the contract with ACIL;

Preparation of a draft Annual Plan within three months of signing the contract with ACIL;

Preparation of subsequent draft Annual Plans which are to be submitted to ACIL by 1 February each year;

Preparation of a six-month report every year (only one per year which will be submitted six months after the Annual Plan);

Organisation of Project Coordinating Group (PCG) meetings either by phone or as part of project activities;

Taking of minutes of PCG meetings and distribution to PCG participants;

Submission to ACIL of quarterly cash flow estimates for the project including the identification of ASEAN Participation Trust Fund amounts;

Preparation of a draft completion report at least three months prior to project conclusion with the final report to be submitted at least one month prior to project conclusion;

Distribution of management and milestone reports as necessary to national focal point personnel; and

Liaison with the ASEC Desk Officer and ACIL regarding project implementation issues. Further details of monitoring and evaluation requirements are presented in Section 6. Milestone Means of Verification Timing All reports prepared on time Reports received Ongoing 4.3. Inputs

Details of estimated resource requirements are provided in the implementation and resource schedule at Annex 4. Inputs are summarized below: Australian Personnel The AIP has overall management responsibility for the successful implementation of the project as well as coordinating relations with the cooperating ASEAN institutions. The project as designed is complex and will require a high order of management and coordination on the part of the AIP, in particular to ensure various parties complete their assigned tasks in a timely manner. The focus of the design is for the AIP to facilitate implementation of project activities by the ASEAN institutions as far as possible, in order to: utilize local ASEAN expertise, promote ownership and involvement in the project and to ensure activities are particularly relevant to an ASEAN context. The AIP will provide a series of short-term technical inputs to complement those of the ASEAN implementers. It is envisaged that personnel inputs would include the time of a Project Director, Technical Specialists in Post Harvest issues in fruit and vegetables, as well as administrative support for coordinating communication between project stakeholders, document production,

28


workshop organization, contract/financial management and reporting etc. A project design expert is also required for the initial inception phase. Post Harvest Researcher (Six months) This revised PDD requires the services of a postharvest researcher to work under the supervision of the PD and technical experts for the outputs in Objective 1. This person is an additional resource to the specified requirement to the original PDD. Key tasks will include:

Sourcing key information (materials) not easily accessed in the region,

Development of the APHNet Website,

Technical and management advice on the conduct (planning, implementation, analysis and reporting) of project activities,

Overseeing the production of all key project publications; and

Workshop and training design, delivery, management and proceedings. Workshops play a critical role in project implementation. The AIP’s inputs (e.g. program design, material preparation, process management, venue arrangements and workshop evaluation) will help ensure the attainment of objectives. Personnel inputs will cover the services of the Australia-based Project Director, technical and support staff. Procurement Computers, which will be procured with Australian funds, will be utilized mainly as terminals for use in networking during project implementation. Computer packages for the CLMV countries plus Internet access (establishment and minimum monthly fees over the life of the project) will be purchased using AADCP funds to facilitate Internet access. AADCP funds will also be utilized to purchase minor equipment, intended to complement the equipment and facilities of the ASEAN implementing agencies (four sets provided for CLMV countries). Equipment will comprise:

Colour Chips (London Horticultural Accreditation Standard set)

Temperature Probe Digital

Refractometer manual

Hand held penetrometer Other costs AADCP funds will be utilized for providing and producing information materials. Funds in this category will be used for producing the major outputs of the project, i.e. GAP standard guidelines, training manuals and materials, generic public awareness materials, farmer education materials and reports. These are intended to support the activities that should lead to implementation of an ASEAN GAP standard. Counterpart funding will be provided mainly in terms of officers’ time and facilities. Stakeholders from the private sector are also expected to contribute their counterpart costs.

29


Participation costs The project workshops and training courses will serve as the venue for exchange of information, project coordination, monitoring and evaluation. The design also provides for the more experienced ASEAN member states to share expertise and know-how with the new member states. Costs of ASEAN participants at the workshops will be met from the ASEAN Participation Trust Fund (APTF) within the ASEAN Secretariat. These costs should not, therefore, be included in the AIP’s budget. Staff administering the APTF will be able to assist with travel, accommodation and per diem arrangements for ASEAN workshop participants. These costs include: participant time, travel, accommodation and allowance fees for participation in workshops and training. ASEAN’s 20 per cent contribution to direct participation in workshops/training events and project related meetings is expected to be approximately A$69,700. Details of project costings are provided at Annex 5. 4.4. Costs

The total project cost is estimated at AUD1,768,510 including Australian and ASEAN contributions to the ASEAN Participation Trust Fund. Of this amount, AusAID is expected to provide AUD1,698,810 broken down as follows:

A$ a Total project costs 1,768,510 c AIP costs (including procurement amount of $83,000) 1,420,010 e ASEAN direct participation costs 348,500 f of which AusAID will meet 80% 278,800 g of which ASEAN will meet 20% 69,700 i Total AusAID project costs (c+f) 1,698,810

4.5. Phasing, Duration and Location

As proposed the project will be implemented over a three-year period, comprising a three-month Inception Phase (March-May 2004) and a 33-month implementation phase (estimated from July 2004). The project design will be refined and implementation arrangements verified through in-country visits during the first quarter of the project. After approval of the revised PDD, the initial project activity will include a presentation of the project design by the Project Director and discussion of roles and responsibilities of all member countries at the ASEAN Sectoral Working Group Meeting on Crops to be held in Cambodia in July 2004 (dates to be finalized). Specifically, the AIP, in close coordination with national focal points, will establish the network during the first six months of the project. The AIP will be responsible for hosting the website for the first 12 months, after which responsibility will shift to ASEC. The current project design provides for workshops to be held in a number of ASEAN countries. While this inclusive approach is worthwhile, timing of the workshops and agreement with the locations will be discussed and agreed at the initial ASEAN Sectoral Working Group Meeting on Crops to be held in Cambodia in July 2004 (dates to be finalized).

30


Workshops: Output 2.1 Workshops will be held in each of the four CLMV countries in Y1Q4. Output 2.3 The Post Harvest and SPS for Export Workshops will be held annually for the first two years. It is recommended that the initial workshop be hosted by Brunei Darussalam, the second workshop by the Philippines. This will be confirmed at the ASWGC meeting. Output 2.4 It is recommended that the three workshops held to develop the GAP standard would be held in Malaysia, Singapore, and Thailand. The final meeting will include decision makers from all ten member countries. Locations and timing will be confirmed at the ASWG meeting. Output 2.5 It is recommended that the TOT workshop (Y3Q1) including representatives of all ten ASEAN member countries be held in Indonesia at the demonstration farms supported by the Singapore REAL project to maximize lessons learned from past implementation of basic QA standards in the region. The trainers will then hold awareness-raising sessions with local SME representatives in their own countries. The AIP will operate mainly from Australia and travel to the region in conjunction with the workshops.

31


5. MANAGEMENT AND COORDINATION ARRANGEMENTS 5.1. Management Responsibilities

This project is part of the Program Stream of AACDP, for which ACIL Australia Pty Ltd has been appointed by AusAID as the Australian Managing Contractor (AMC). Project management arrangements will be consistent with the management framework for the Program Stream and will be overseen by the Program Coordination Committee (PCC), which provides policy and program coordination for the Program Stream as a whole. The Australian Implementing Partner (AIP) will be contracted by ACIL and the formal arrangements for financial payments and accountability will be set out in that context. The AMC will be the agent for AusAID in all aspects of the administration of this project. The AIP will be responsible for managing the project, ensuring that technical advisory inputs are provided in a timely fashion, and key outputs are delivered, in collaboration with member countries. In close coordination with ASEAN implementers and the ASEAN Secretariat, the AIP will help ensure that appropriate experts and participants are involved in implementation. Each country will appoint a country focal point, likely to be from the Ministry of Agriculture or an R & D agency that has been involved in earlier AAECP projects in PH horticulture. Country focal points will coordinate all in-country activities and ensure that the network will be in place for project implementation. The country focal point will also serve as the clearing house for information to be disseminated and/or posted on the website. The ASEAN Secretariat will designate a Desk Officer to coordinate with project implementers. In particular, the ASEC Desk Officer will help to ensure the nomination of appropriate workshop participants and will provide guidance and support to the AIP regarding project coordination and implementation. It is envisaged that the Desk Officer will, as far as possible, participate in all project workshops. The ASEC Desk Officer should not be expected to assist with routine administrative support. However, staff of the ASEAN Participation Trust Fund, located in the ASEAN Secretariat, will be able to assist in arranging ASEAN workshop participants’ accommodation, travel and per diems.

32


5.2. Coordination and Review

The figure below provides an overview of coordination arrangements and stakeholder relationships. Figure 1. QASAFV stakeholders and their interactions.

1. ASEAN Committees

9. Participants / Implementing partners

(Govt. & Private Sector)

10. Australian Implementing Partners

(AIPs) and sub-contractors

6. ACIL Australia Pty Ltd, Australian

Managing Contractor (AMC)

3. AusAID

4. ASEC PC & External Relations

PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION

POLICY & PROGRAM COORDINATION

5. ASEC Technical Bureaux

Participation Fund

PROGRAM FACILITATION

2. Program Coordination Committee

8. ASEC Desk Officers

7. ASEAN Working Groups / Sub-Committees

AADCP Program Stream – Stakeholder diagram

11. Project Coordinating

Groups

Joint Planning Committee

The Project Coordinating Group (PCG) will consist of country focal points, the ASEC Desk Officer, the AIP, and a representative of the ASWGC (the Regional Focal Point). Where PCG meetings are scheduled to coincide with workshops and ASWCG meetings, other participants from the implementing government agencies may be invited as observers. The Regional Focal Point will represent the project on the Program (Stream) Coordinating Committee (PCC), and attend these meetings on a six-monthly basis as a voting member. The PCG and PCC meetings, and the preparation of six-monthly progress reports and Annual Plans, are the main mechanisms for reviewing project progress, documenting findings and making decisions on next steps. Project workshops and activities to be conducted in each country will also provide a mechanism to disseminate information and link project implementers from public institutions with the private sector where possible. In- country activities will also provide an opportunity for the Project Director and other Technical Specialists from the AIP to undertake direct monitoring of activities in those countries.

33


6. PROJECT MONITORING AND EVALUATION 6.1. Overview

Project monitoring is primarily the responsibility of project implementers, namely members of the PCG. It is they who most need access to relevant and timely information on project implementation to help them review progress and make decisions about what they might need to do to support the delivery of planned project benefits. Depending on timing, project workshops and the ASWGC meetings may provide opportunities for PCG meetings (which may be attended by other workshops participants as observers if appropriate). However, telephone conferences may also be utilized in order to hold the meetings. PCG meetings will allow for reporting by PCG members on their activities against the Annual Plan (including progress towards output delivery), and for forward planning. The annual work plans should be prepared in close collaboration with key stakeholders, namely the ASEC desk officer and ASEAN implementing partners. The draft plans should be submitted to ACIL by 1 February each year, and finalised by the end of March following comment. The first annual plan should be prepared within three months of the AIP being contracted, and might therefore cover a period either shorter or longer than 12 months depending on the date when the contract is signed. It will draw on the outcomes of the Inception Workshop and include a work plan and implementing arrangements for project activities, including any agreed revisions to the project design and outputs. It will be the responsibility of the AIP to facilitate the exchange of management information and document the outcomes (ie. issues addressed, management decisions and the forward work plan). Monitoring of AIP performance will primarily be the responsibility of the AMC, who has contractual responsibility for, and direct interest in, the performance of AIPs. This will be achieved through a contractor performance assessment standard developed by the AMC as part of their Project Management/Quality Manual. This will include assessment of the quality of AIP reporting and soliciting independent feedback from implementing partners. The specific progress reporting requirements of each AIP to the AMC will be determined in their scope of services with the AMC, however it is expected that the AIP will be required to provide the following reports: AIP formal reporting requirements Report name/type Submitted to 1. Quarterly forward cash flow estimates for project and the ASEAN Participation Trust Fund (4 per year)

ACIL & ASEC

2. Six monthly progress reports (1 per year), including a detailed forward six-monthly work plan and estimated budget updating the Annual Plan as necessary.

ACIL & PCG

3. Annual Plans (incorporating a ‘cumulative’ progress report). As appropriate, relevant elements of the Annual Plan will also be provided as a report to each meeting of the ASEAN Senior Officials Meeting of the ASEAN Ministers of Agriculture and Forestry (SOM-AMAF), via the ASEC Desk Officer

ACIL & PCG Senior Officials Meeting of the ASEAN Ministers of Agriculture and Forestry

34


Report name/type Submitted to 4. Exception reports (alerting the AMC and PCG members of problems/issues requiring their attention, as they arise)

ACIL & PCG

5. Milestone achievement reports and invoices ACIL 6. Project completion report ACIL & PCG 6.2. Key performance Indicators and Means of Verification

The key performance indicators are detailed in Annex 1 (Logframe Matrix). Verification during project implementation will be the collective activity of the PCG and project implementers. APHNet: The APHNet will be developed by the AIP and then formally launched. All parameters that are part of the APHNet will be tested by remote access as a form of verification. This will be repeated at least 10 times in the first year to make sure that all parameters are working well and can be accessed as required. The initial six-monthly report will include a verification of the net capability at the end of Year One. Performance indicators on the use of the net facilities will be achieved by two distinct means, a) by the number of hits scored on the web site and b) by a short questionnaire mailed out at the end of Year One looking at usage patterns and improvements to the site. Awareness training to CMLV countries: Training programs to the trainers will be monitored with a pre- and post- evaluation questionnaire assessing relevance and usefulness of the training as well as change in knowledge. The number of trained farmers emanating from the TOT programs will be monitored by the number of kits supplied to each country and the in-country training reports. Development of ASEAN GAP standard and related training materials: The development of the harmonised GAP standard will be monitored by the Australian experts involved in this part of the project. Key performance indicators will be gathered at the end of each of the workshops with completed reports and other documentation available for scrutiny. The production of an agreed ASEAN GAP standard is the verification required for this part of the project. Training material for this component of the project will also verify that the key performance indicators have been met. The Australian experts will be required to report back to the PCG after each workshop. Export-focussed postharvest and SPS requirement workshops: Key performance indicators include the type of people that have been trained and how trainees utilise the training provided and spread what is learned. A list of attendees will be included in the report together with their position and an understanding of how the knowledge will be utilised. A survey will be carried out in the final workshop assessing the usefulness of the information supplied and how it was used in the previous workshop. The final workshop will set in place the mechanisms for verification beyond project life. This should involve the ASEAN PH Network and the ASEAN Secretariat. The performance indicators and means of verification used to gauge overall project success are summarized in the table below. These indicators might very well be verified after project completion, and undertaken by national governments or the ASEAN Secretariat on behalf of these countries.

35


Performance Indicator Means of Verification

Relevant info on quality, SPS requirements, technologies accessible, Utilisation of compendiums

Feedback from clients, particularly from the private sector. Circulation on the basis of records; reference citations particularly in ASEAN

Sustained network - target clientele interaction at national, regional levels

Annual reports of member agencies; industry feed back; PCG meetings

Integrated ASEAN QA standard developed and associated training

Documentation of ASEAN GAP standard

Export-focussed postharvest and SPS workshops

Attendee list and survey of use

Training evaluation

CLMV awareness training of trainers Evaluation survey after each training session Evaluation of project goal will focus on: Performance Indicator Means of Verification Increased official intra- ASEAN and extra-ASEAN trade

Country/regional export data

CLMV –increased reference to food safety and better postharvest practices in place

Government policy or directive to allocate resources to increase awareness of food safety and improved product quality through better postharvest practices

Other Member Countries – Increased Certification of farmers for ASEAN GAPs for countries with QA systems in place. Adoption of ASEAN GAPs by countries who are not currently covered by a QA system

Ministry of Agriculture data

36


7. RISK MANAGEMENT Risks and measures to mitigate their effects are summarized in the risk management matrix in Annex 2. Specific risks to be addressed are as follows: Appropriate ASEAN personnel unavailable to attend project workshops/activities. Personnel sent to attend international workshops and meetings may not always be the most appropriate personnel. Many factors influence these decisions, including availability, staff movements, seniority and political agendas. Lack of funding can also be a hindrance. In order to promote appropriate personnel being sent to the workshops and meetings, the AIP will provide key selection criteria for all participants that are workshop specific. ASEC will also be informed of these selection criteria and will assist in promoting appropriate selection. In addition, workshops have been organised to occur in each ASEAN member country and host countries will be able to invite limited numbers of observers where appropriate and agreed with ASEC and the AIP. Lower level of institutional and human resource capacity, particularly in new member countries and less commitment shown for project initiatives. Countries which are willing to support and be involved in project activities will benefit significantly from this project. CLMV countries have less existing infrastructure and financial ability to be involved in project activities. The high reliance on donor funds in some of these countries means significant competition for appropriate staff time. Export of fruit and vegetables in CLMV, other than unofficial border trade, is in general less organised and is mainly small scale. Exporters in these countries have little access to international markets and knowledge levels about export requirements, food safety, post harvest and international SPS requirements are very low. For these reasons, general awareness training will be provided to skilled government master trainers in order to provide a basis for the future uptake of ASEAN GAPs. Their role will be to disseminate information on basic food safety and quality assurance to government and also to farmers as an introduction for the future. In order to maximise training initiatives at farmer levels, innovative and interested farmers involved in farming priority fruit and vegetables will be targeted in the first instance. Some assistance will be provided to CLMV to ensure that the farmer awareness sessions can go ahead. However, it will be the responsibility of the host country to plan, implement and manage activities to be carried out in their country. In order to manage this risk, ongoing consultation by the AIP with the member countries, supported by ASEC and the focal points is critical. The project will be presented at the initial ASWGC meeting to be held in Cambodia mid 2004. This session will provide a clear orientation on the project and provide a forum for discussion and agreeing on individual country inputs and responsibilities. In addition, information and guidance will be provided in a timely manner by the AIP to the host country throughout the preparation and implementation period. Various project activities will be the responsibility of the host country, with assistance from Australia. Lack of commitment to host the APHNet The APHNet website will be handed over to ASEC in the first year of the project. The development and handover of the website will be discussed at the first ASWGC meeting in Cambodia in mid-2004. ASEC will need to make the necessary arrangements for the hosting and management of the website. Financial considerations will also be discussed with ASEC during

37


the first year of the project. The AIP will work closely with ASEC to ensure the transfer process is as seamless as possible. Suitable units that have an interest in QA and Postharvest/SPS for Export in implementing agency not established or identified. The continuation and expansion of the ASEAN GAPs, postharvest and SPS for export training and the best use of the APHNet will depend entirely on interest from appropriate units in the ASEAN countries and the interaction between the people we train from these units and commercial entities including farmers. The failure to further implement training, for whatever reason, is a risk to the overall project aims. The associated risks can be mitigated by appropriate project planning and management. More important is the information exchange and engagement of suitable champions for this project. Activities at inception, particularly those involving consultations between ASEAN members, implementors and the AIP, and the participation of the ASEC and the SOM-AMAF in managing the consultative process for the project will play a vital role in mitigating the risks. Unavailability of information relevant to products covered. Although this risk might be related to information in ASEAN, the design of the project provides for the use of relevant information from other countries or regions. The design of the project provides for both commodity-specific standards and horizontal concerns. The draft guidelines for the design and implementation of QA standards designed by the AIP, as well as standards and guidelines from international standards-setting bodies and from other regions, will be instrumental in mitigating the risks. The varied experiences of ASEAN countries in QA standards for horticultural produce, which might be regarded as a risk, in fact, could help mitigate some of the above risks, as the project design provides for the more experienced ASEAN member countries to provide leadership in specific activities. Regular and close consultation between members of the PCG will be the key to managing risk. The establishment of the website will play a key role in this regard.

38


8. Program Level Issues 8.1. Links to Program Objectives

The program objective is to promote sustainable economic and social development within the ASEAN region in line with objectives and priorities of Vision 2020, the Hanoi Plan of Action and subsequent summit meetings. QASAFV supports the following initiatives within the Hanoi Plan of Action (HPA, 1998):

Enhance marketability of ASEAN food and agriculture products through the development, harmonisation and adoption of quality standards and regulations for food and agriculture products, supported by the sharing and exchange of expertise in the field of agriculture and food; and

Enhance the global competitiveness of ASEAN’s food and agricultural products. ASEAN has endeavoured to introduce PH innovations in its bid to reliably supply quality fruit and vegetables. Over the past 20 years regional projects in PH horticulture have played a pivotal role in this effort, with all activities contributing to QA standards for these commodities. Development of QA standards supports the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) vision of unfettered movement of goods across boundaries within the region. 8.2. Links to Sub-program Objectives

QASAFV, along with other components of the Sub-program on Enhancing Competitiveness under AADCP Program Stream, aims to support the establishment of a regional ASEAN environment for the development of a competitive private and SME sector with a particular focus on the quality and safety of food and agriculture products. The horticulture and fisheries sectors in the region consist mainly of two important groups of stakeholders. One consists of government agencies with a general role in policy, technical assistance and training. The other consists of private SMEs working in primary production/fishery and in exports, with technological needs peculiar to their scale of operations. For the region to fully realize benefits from this sector, appropriate QA standards have to be in place. QA standards provide a means of bringing smallholders and fisherfolk into the mainstream of export-oriented enterprises. QASAFV is linked to the project on ‘Quality Assurance and Safety of Fish and Fishery Products Handling, Processing and Packaging’ and both projects should support the objective of AADCP in increasing the application of best practices for QA standards in food and agriculture.

39

Annex 1 L

ogical Fram

ework M

atrix


A1 Logical Framework

Note: Outputs listed under Objectives 1 and 2 are contingent on endorsement of the revised Project Design being approved (Output 3.1) and agreement on workable implementation arrangements.

Project Goal and Objectives Indicators Means of Verification Assumptions Goal To support the establishment of a regional ASEAN environment for the development of a competitive private and SME sector with particular focus on the quality and safety of food and agriculture products

Purpose To promote best practices for QA systems in food and agriculture

Increased demand for QA services

QASAFV associated with improved quality

Increased access to export markets

Statistics on demand for QA services

In-country export data Monitoring; feedback

from industry/consumers

Extra-technical constraints to technology application (e.g. sector disaggregation) of minor impact

Improved QA systems will lead to expansion of export markets

Objective 1 To strengthen information delivery systems supporting QA systems development for ASEAN horticulture

Relevant information on quality, SPS requirements, technologies accessible

Records of PCG and ASWGC meetings endorse quality and usefulness of project outputs

Feedback from industry

Appropriate staff available Priority given to QA syst ems in national programs

1


Project Goal and Objectives Indicators Means of Verification Assumptions Output 1.1 ASEAN Post Harvest Network established and website launched

Sustained network targeting clientele interaction at national and regional levels

Website launch Increased frequency of

visits to website Six monthly website DVD’s distributed to focal points

Official website launched Annual reports of

member agencies Industry feed

back/membership levels Website Monitoring data PCG meeting minutes

Policy structure for QA in place Basic support for activities provided Delegate responsible for information

gathering in each country Website developed to ASEC

management after Yr 1 Website open to all via membership as well as free to ASEAN and Australian government departments

Output 1.2 Compendium of ASEAN fruit and vegetable standards

on the website and via CD Rom

Compendiums available Compendium posted on the website and available on CD

Website Monitoring data CD distributed to each country

Standards for major exports available Delegate res ponsible for information gathering in each country Intellectual Property issues will be resolved

Output 1.3 Compendium of SPS Requirements of key markets

Compendiums available on the website and via CD Rom


CD distributed to each

Website Monitoring data ponsible for information

country

Standards for major exports available Delegate res gathering in each country Intellectual Property issues will be resolved

2


Project Goal and Objectives Indicators Means of Verification Assumptions Objective 2 To provide the basis for the design of an appropriate generic QA system for fruit and vegetables in ASEAN

Integrated ASEAN GAP system developed

Records of PCG and ASWGC meetings endorse quality of project outputs

Documentation of ASEAN GAP System

ASEAN GAP Workshop meeting minutes

ASEAN GAP system will be ratified by all ten member countries but uptake/implementation of ASEAN GAP will be country-specific

Key representatives will be available and interested to participate in the development of the ASEAN GAP based on work completed in some ASEAN countries already

Output 2.1 Food safety and Quality Assurance Awareness program implemented through training of trainer workshops in Cambodia, Lao PDR, Myanmar and Vietnam

TOT Training courses on food safety and quality assurance held in each CLMV country

Training and Evaluation reports

Training manuals or programs developed and placed on the website Farmer information kits published on the website

Environment supportive of QA systems

Demand for training courses exists Experienced trainers who provide farmer training will be available for training in CLMV

Output 2.2: Identified farmer groups trained in food safety and quality assurance awareness by local trainers (from Output 2.1)

Improved awareness of food safety and QA in selected farmer groups Farmer information kits available in each country and published on the web

trainers Training courses held by

4 new member countries & Kits posted on the website

Availability of kits in the

Training and Evaluation reports

Farmer information kit approval

Trainers trained in Output 2.1 will provide training to farmers Farmers will be interested in attending training Countries will identify appropriate and innovative farmers growing priority fruit and vegetables for training

3


Project Goal and Objectives Indicators Means of Verification Assumptions Output 2.3 Annual Post Harvest and SPS requirements for Export workshops conducted

Enhanced awareness of Post Harvest and SPS requirements for export

Workshop report Website Monitoring data

Appropriate participants (2) attending from each of the ten member countries according to selection criteria developed by the AIP

Courses will be available to paying SME delegates, maximum of two per country

Delegates from CLMV will have attended the TOT training course from Output 2.1 Focus will be on priority fruit and vegetables

4


Project Goal and Objectives Indicators Means of Verification Assumptions Output 2.4 Generic proposed ASEAN Good Agricultural Practice (GAP) Quality Assurance (QA) standard (ASEAN GAP) developed for all member countries

GAP Standard developed and published on the website

Training program on GAP standard developed

Awareness campaign for SME developed Logo developed Strategic plan for export

Draft GAP documentation presented to ASEC and the member countries prior to third workshop

ASEAN GAP standard published and posted on the website

Workshop meeting minutes

ASWGC and PCG meeting minutes

Environment supportive of QA standards

Experienced countries will take the lead in developing the ASEAN GAPs with assistance from experts from Australia

Availability of skilled personnel from the member countries involved in developing the GAPs Ongoing consultation wi th all member countries to advocate for the GAP standard Advocacy to various importing countries for the ASEAN GAPS carried out by member countries Appropriate decision makers from all member countries will attend workshop three

Output 2.5 TOT training on ASEAN GAP to master trainers (2) from all member countries and information sessions held for SMEs on the GAP system

Participants able to train government staff and private sector people on the ASEAN GAPs SME group training sessions held

Training workshop held Training evaluation Other QA systems

designed Trainer reports

PCG meeting minutes

Appropriate participants (master trainers) attending (2 per country) Masters trainers hold pilot group training sessions with identified SME representatives in their own countries

Objective 3 To provide effective and efficient project

Project activities ccording to

AIP establishes effective working

planning, management and reporting to ensure the achievement of objectives

completed aproject design and amendments

Project reports relationships with ACIL, relevant ASEAN working groups and ASEC

5


Project Goal and Objectives Indicators Means of Verification Assumptions Output 3.1 Review and updating of project design, reflected in Inception Report

Meetings held and agreement reached on design; workshop outcomes reported in Inception Report

Project Design submitted and approved

Project design and Annual Plan submitted and approved

Formal AusAID/ASEAN Secretariat/ACIL approval letter

Agreement can be reached on viable outputs and implementing arrangements achievable within the project timeframe and budget.

Project design will be approved

Output 3.2 Project activities effectively and efficiently planned, coordinated and managed by the AIP

Agreed outputs appropriately coordinated and delivered on time and on budget to satisfaction of stakeholders

Records of PCG and ASWGC meetings indicate satisfaction with project coordination and management AIP fulfils c ontract management requirements and meets milestones

Roles and responsibilities between ASEC, AMC, AIP and focus points are clearly defined Member coun tries participate in and contri8bute to all activities to their best ability

PCG and ASWGC are used as appropriate forums for project evaluation, planning, coordination and management

Output 3.3 ACIL and ASEAN informed of project progress through effective monitoring, review and reporting of project plans and achievements

Activities/outputs monitored and reviewed to maximise quality and usefulness Reporting requirements met Contribution of information to “above the line” M&E by AMC and AusAID

Reports received Records of PCG and ASWGC meetings indicate satisfaction with project monitoring and reporting

fulfils contract milestones and reporting requirements

AMC confirms that AIP

inception Good comm

Report formats are agreed from

unication between all parties

6

Annex 2

Risk M

anagem

ent M

atrix


A2 Risk Management Matrix

LF ref. Risks Potential Adverse

Impact Risk

Likelihood Risk

Impact Risk Management Strategy Responsibility

Purpose Constraints due to sector’s disaggregation Infrastructure inadequate

QA systems not applied Export market opportunities reduced

Medium Medium Policy advocacy Awareness raising activities for SME and government as well as farmers

ASEAN implementers

Objective 1. Information not accessible to all member countries

Information not available to either government or private sector

Low

Low Computers and internet linkages provided to CLMV countries to promote access Information also available on CDs where required ASEAN and Australian Government access is free, memberships also available

AIP for first 12 months, ASEAN agency for remainder of the project

1



Impact Risk

Likelihood Risk


Output 1.1 Appropriate staff unavailable Member Country contact points not operational or effective APH-net in implementing agency not established or identified Delivery of information not suitable or not adequate for the needs of ASEAN Information delivery system (APH-net) not used by ASEAN

Slow progress Slow progress in posting relevant information APH-net not established after the initial 12 months Information delivery system not used as it is seen as not useful Not accessed due to difficulties or unavailability

Low Low in old, Medium in CLMV Low Low Low

Medium High High Medium Medium

Appropriate recruitment and management of dedicated post harvest technician Liaison with country focal points and ASEC Liaison with ASEC on implementation and transfer of APH-net Continuous liaison between postharvest technician, Project Director and key stake holders in ASEAN Verify that access is available also have important information available on stand alone CD

AIP AIP with assistance from ASEC AIP and ASEC ASEAN agencies and AIP AIP

2



Impact Risk

Likelihood Risk


Outputs 1.2 and 1.3

Appropriate staff unavailable Unavailability of information relevant to products covered Presentation of compendiums in a difficult to use form

Slow progress Slow progress; target outputs not met Compendiums not utilised

Low in old, medium in CLMV Low Low

Medium Medium Medium

Appropriate project management Adequately trained postharvest technician takes responsibility Adequately trained postharvest technician and peer review; website access

AIP; ASEC, ASEAN agencies AIP AIP

Objective 2.

Generic QA system not wanted by ASEAN Infrastructure does not exist to implement generic QA system

No support for activities under the project GAP system difficult to implement

Low Low-Medium in old, High in CLMV

High High

Priority given to member countries needs Awareness raising step included in CLMV countries to provide a basis for future implementation

ASEAN agencies; AIP ASEAN agencies; AIP

Output 2.1 Participants inappropriate Diminished benefits Low High Provide clear guidelines as to who should be attending to relevant focal points Invite technical participants likely to attend workshops in Output 2.3 for basic information

AIP and relevant ASEAN countries

3



Impact Risk

Likelihood Risk


Output 2.2 Training material delivered is not suitable for local grower use

No use to farmer so GAPs will not be adopted

Medium High Supply generic farmer training material so that training is not altered by trainers Adapt materials to meet local needs, including literacy considerations Review training adoption by farmers on second visit

AIP

Outputs 2.3 Participants inappropriate Information relevant to priority fruit and vegetables unavailable Post harvest facilities and field visits are not appropriate for training

Diminished benefits, No flow of information to exporters and businesses Slow progress; target outputs not met Training will not be effective

Low Low Low

Medium Medium Low

Provide clear guidelines as to who should be attending the workshops Invite technical participants who attend training in Output 2.1 Focus on priority fruit and vegetables Appropriate equipment is a major criterion for selection of countries for training. Host country responsible for workshop organisation and management

AIP, ASEC, Implementing agencies AIP, ASEAN Implementing agencies ASEAN Host Country and AIP

4



Impact Risk

Likelihood Risk


Output 2.4 No agreement on GAPs by countries developing Standard Guidelines not adopted

Slow progress and non adoption Diminished usefulness of GAP’s in Trade

Low Low

High High

Guidance and negotiation by AIP Allocation of countries to take the lead in certain areas Ongoing communication and discussion at ASWGC meetings and PCG’s, continual dissemination of information to all stakeholders

AIP ASEAN Implementing agencies AIP ASEAN Implementing agencies

Output 2.5 Training material not suitable Appropriate personnel (master trainers) do not attend training SMEs not interested in attending information sessions Countries do not organise SME information sessions

Diminished usefulness of guidelines Training will not be effective Lack of information flow and advocacy for GAPs to farmers as only government agencies will undertake this role

Low High Low Low

Low Medium Medium Medium

Guidance and negotiation by AIP Management; networking Provide clear guidelines as to who should be attending to relevant focal points Management and feedback Government and trainers must have good networks with SMEs Guidance and negotiation by AIP Ongoing communication and discussion

AIP; ASEAN agencies AIP; ASEAN agencies AIP and ASEC AIP ASEAN Implementing agencies

5



Impact Risk

Likelihood Risk


Objective 3 Output 3.1

Stakeholders unable to agree on workable project design and implementation arrangements within available timeframe and budget

Project unable to proceed in present form

Low High Thorough preparation for Project Design mission by AIP and ASEAN stake-holders, including development of alternative implementation strategies

AIP, ASEC, ASEAN agencies

Output 3.2 Monitoring and implementation not to agreed standard

Project not going to plan Low High Agreements on reporting and monitoring process. Effective management by AIP

AIP, AMC and ASEC

Output 3.3 Reporting not to agreed standard

Reports are inadequate and do not allow effective monitoring and evaluation of project implementation

Low High Management process in place between AMC, ASEC and AIP

AIP, AMC and ASEC

6

Annex 7

List of P

ersons M

et


A7. LIST OF PERSONS MET

Indonesia

Dr. Somsak Pipoppinyo, ASEAN Secretariat

Dr. Greg Gibbons, In-Country Project Director and Program Coordinator, AADCP

Ms Linda Posata, ASEAN Secretariat

*Dr. Ir Edward Napitupulu, Secretary for Director Generate General, Directorate General of Horticulture Production

#Dr Dwi Iswari, Focal point for QASAFV project (Indonesia) Malaysia

*#Dato’ Hjh. Khamsiah Bt. Hj. Muhammad, DIMP, AMN, Deputy Director of Agriculture I, Department of Agriculture

Norma Othman, Assistant Director, Fruit Division, Department of Agriculture

Cheah Lee Shen, Assistant Director, Vegetable and Field Crop Division, Department of Agriculture

Mustafa Kamal Baharuddin, Assistant Director, Soil Survey Division, Soil Management Division, Department of Agriculture

Ikhwan Kwan Abdullah, Fruit Division, Department of Agriculture

Mazlan Saadon, Plant Quarantine, Department of Agriculture

Robert William, Department of Agriculture

Ramli Burhanuddin, Assistant Director, Vegetable and Field Crop Division, Department of Agriculture

Roseley Khalid, Director of Planning Division, Department of Agriculture

Ainie Hj. Kuntom, Head of Unit, Analytical and Quality Development, Malaysian Palm Oil Board

Chong Chiew Let, Principal Research Officer, Product Development and Advisory Services Division, Malaysian Palm Oil Board

Hj. Jamal Khair Hashim, Principal Assistant Director, Food Quality Control Division, Department of Public Health, Ministry of Health

Mrs. Sharifah, Head, National Productivity Corporation

Fred Lew, Manager, Industry Research (Agriculture), National Productivity Corporation

Mr. Dzulkifli, Manager, Training and Consultancy Services, National Productivity Corporation

Khairuddin MD Tahir, Chief Executive Officer, International Tropical Fruits Network

Ng Say Bock, Chemara Laboratories, Sendirian Berhad (Kumpulan Guthrie Berhad),

Chairman, National Palm Oil

Mr. Kit Chan, Managing Director, K-Farm Export Company

1


Brunei Darussalam

Ms. Sri Dyah Kusuma Wardham, ASEAN Secretariat

*Dr. Hernani Golez, Director, Bureau of Plant Industry, Department of Agriculture, Philippines

Jamaludin Hj. Yusuf, Acting Assistant Director, Crop Division, Agriculture Department, Brunei Darussalam

Muhammad Hj, Hamid, Post Harvest Unit, Agrotechnology Division, Agriculture Department, Brunei Darussalam

Pg. Hjh. Masliati Psj. Hj. Abd. Mumin, Post Harvest and Food Technology Unit, Agriculture Department, Brunei Darussalam

Masliana Yuliah Abdullah, Biotechnology Unit, Agrotechnology Division, Agriculture Department, Brunei Darussalam

*#Jumat Hj. Alim, Assistant Director, Head, Crop Development Division, Agriculture Department, Brunei Darussalam

Dr. Haji Mohamad Yussof bin Haji Mohiddin, Director, Ministry of Agriculture, Brunei Darussalam

Dr. Hjh. Normah binti Tuah, Policy Office, Ministry of Agriculture, Brunei Darussalam Vietnam

Hoang Trung, Deputy Health, Plant Quarantine Division, Plant Protection Department, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development

Nguyen Van Nga, Expert, National Agricultural Extension Centre, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development

Nguyen Meas Dung, Officer, Department of Agro-Forestry Product Processing and Salt Industry, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development

#Pham Thi Hong Hanh, Program Officer, International Cooperation Department, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development

Tran Thi Hoa, Officer, Vietnam Institute of Agricultural Engineering and Post Harvest Technology

Ha Quang Dung, Expert, Department of Agriculture, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development

Nguyen Dinh Hung, Director, Research Institute of Fruit and Vegetables, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development

Nguyen Tuan Minh, Researcher, Research Institute of Fruit and Vegetables, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development

Pham Quang Huy, Officer, Plant Protection Department, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development

Le Duc Dong, Director, Centre for Post-Entry Plant Quarantine, Plant Protection Department, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development

Phan Thi Bich Huong, Vice Director, Plant Quarantine Subdepartment Region 5

2


Dang Viet Yen, Expert, Plant Protection Department, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development

*Dam Quoc Tru, Deputy Director General, Plant Protection Department, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development

Associate Professor Dr. Nguyen Kim Vu, Deputy Director, Vietnam Institute of Agricultural Engineering and Post Harvest Technology (VIAEP), Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development

Dr. Ngo Binh, Deputy Director, Research Institute of Fruit and Vegetables, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development

Nguyen Dinh Hung, Senior Researcher, Head of Household Food Security Office for Improved Nutrition, Research Institute of Fruit and Vegetable, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development

Nguyen Tuan Minh, Department of Storage and Processing, Research Institute of Fruit and Vegetable, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development Cambodia

*#Pen Vuth, Acting Director, Department of Agronomy and Agricultural Land Improvement, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries

Op Pich, Vice Chief, Planning, Statistics and International Cooperation Office, Department of Agronomy and Agricultural Land Development, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries

Suon Serey, Chief of Planning, Statistics and International Cooperation Office, Department of Agronomy and Agricultural Land Development, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries

Ngin Chhay, Deputy Director, Cambodia National Integrated Pest Management Programme, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries

Dr. Men Sarom, Cambodian Agricultural Research and Development Institute (CARDI)

Pieter Ypma, Fruit and Vegetable Marketing Advisor, Agriculture Quality Improvement Project (AQIP) Laos PDR

*#Bounliep Chounthavong, Deputy Director General, Department of Agriculture, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry

Mr. Phaydy Phiaxaysarakham, Director, Agricultural Regulatory Division, Department of Agriculture, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry

Mrs. Khamphoui Louanglath, Deputy Director, Agricultural Regulatory Division, Department of Agriculture, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry

Mrs. Yadkeo Phoumisalivanh, Technician, Agricultural Regulatory Division, Department of Agriculture, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry

Ms. Malaychanh Phommasathith, Technician, Agricultural Regulatory Division, Department of Agriculture, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry

Mr. Somvong, Technician, Administration Division, Department of Agriculture, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry,

3


Mr. Khamxay Sipaseuth, Technician, Agricultural Regulatory Division, Department of Agriculture, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry

Mr. Somsak, Technician, Agricultural Regulatory Division, Department of Agriculture, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry

Mrs. Phonthip Sommano, Technician, Technical Division, Department of Agriculture, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry

Mr. Bouahome, Technician, Planning Division, Department of Agriculture, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry

Dr. Lasay Nouanthasing, Project Coordinator, Plant Protection Centre, Department of Agriculture, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry

Mr. Souliya Souvandouane, Technician, Plant Protection Centre, Department of Agriculture, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry

Mr. Khanaxay, Plant Protection Centre, Department of Agriculture, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry

Mr. Vichit Silaphet, Head of Unit for Fruit Trees, Horticulture Research Centre, Department of Agriculture, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry

Mr. Somxay Sisanonh, Project Director, National Agriculture and Forestry Extension Service (NAFES)

Mr. Somvang Phanthavong, Deputy Director, CMC

Mr. Khamsay Photaideth, Department of Planning, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry

Mr. Phommy Inthichak, Technical Officer, Division of International Cooperation and Investment

Mr. Kham Sanatem, Director, Administration and Personnel Division, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry

Mrs. Sivilay Naphayvong, Chief of Food Control Division, Ministry of Health

Mr. Khanthaly Phanivong, Chief, Agriculture Section of VTE

Mr. Khamphilay Chounlamounty, Director, Seed Production Centre, Department of Agriculture, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry Thailand

#Sookwat Chandrapanik, Director, Horticulture Research Institute, Department of Agriculture

Surmsak Salakpetch, Director, Chantaburi Horticulture Research Centre, Department of Agriculture

Ms. Umpika Poonnachit, Researcher, Chantaburi Horticulture Research Centre, Department of Agriculture

Ms. Peyanoot Naka, Senior Scientist, Horticulture Research Institute, Department of Agriculture

Mr. Sukhum Wong-Ek, Office of Agricultural Regulatory, Department of Agriculture

Ms. Somkid Tammarat, Office of Research and Post Harvest Processing of Agricultural Products, Department of Agriculture

4


Ms. Raschanee Suvarparp, Office of Research and Development of Agricultural Crop Production, Department of Agriculture

Mr. Supanon Sitichoichoo, Office of Agricultural Regulatory, Department of Agriculture

Mr. Thongchai Vorawongsakul, Office of Research and Post Harvest Processing of Agricultural Products, Department of Agriculture

Ms. Pisawad buaram Horticulture Research Institute

*Somchai Charnnarongkul, Director, National Bureau of Agricultural Commodity and Food Standards (ACFS), Ministry of Agriculture Myanmar

Dr. Sein Hla Bo, Director, Industrial and Horticultural Crops Division, Agricultural Research Department, Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation

Dr. Toe Aung, Deputy Director General, Planning Division, Myanmar Agriculture Service, Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation

*#U Tin Maung Shwe, Deputy General Manager, Department of Agricultural Planning, Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation

U Maung Maung We, Deputy General Manager, Planning Division, Myanmar Agriculture Service, Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation

U Than Aye, Head of Division, Myanma Agriculture Service, Plant Protection Division, Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation

U Hla Aung, Assistant Manager, Horticulture Section, Extension Division, Myanma Agriculture Service, Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation

Daw Tin Tin Shwe, Assistant Manager, Pesticide Analytical Laboratory, Myanma Agriculture Service Plant Protection Division, Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation

U Myo Nyunt, Plant Quarantine Officer, Myanma Agriculture Service, Plant Protection Division, Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation

U Kyaw Win, Deputy General Manager, Vegetable and Fruit Research and Development Centre, Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation

U Hla Aung, Assistant Manager, Vegetable and Fruit Research and Development Centre, Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation

Daw Khin Lay Naing, Deputy Supervisor, Vegetable and Fruit Research and Development Centre, Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation

Daw Pu, Deputy Supervisor, Vegetable and Fruit Research and Development Centre, Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation

Daw Khin Khin Tun, Deputy Supervisor, Vegetable and Fruit Research and Development Centre, Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation

U Kyaw Wai Naing, Assistant Supervisor, Vegetable and Fruit Research and Development Centre, Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation

U Myint Kyi, Deputy Supervisor, Vegetable and Fruit Research and Development Centre, Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation

5


U Kyaw Kyaw Oo, Assistant Supervisor, Vegetable and Fruit Research and Development Centre, Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation

U Wunna Htoon, Deputy Assistant Supervisor, Vegetable and Fruit Research and Development Centre, Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation

U Thinn Aung, Deputy General Manager, Principal, Central Agriculture Research and Training Centre, Myanmar Agricultural Service, Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation

U Naing Lin Oo, Assistant Program Officer, ASEAN Unit, Department of Agricultural Planning

Daw Thida Chow Hlaing, Deputy Program Officer, ASEAN Unit, Department of Agricultural Planning, Myanmar Agricultural Service, Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation

Daw Mya Mya Win, Assistant Manager, Horticulture Section, Extension Division, Myanmar Agricultural Service, Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation Singapore

*#Ong Keng Ho, Assistant Director (Plant Health), Food and Veterinary Administration, Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority of Singapore

Dr. Philip Chew Hong, Deputy Director, Food Supply and Technology Department, Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority of Singapore

Khoo Gek Hoon, Branch Head, Food Supply and Technology Department, Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority of Singapore

Lim Cheong Huat, Head, Food Quality and Authentication Branch, Food and Veterinary Administration, Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority of Singapore

Dr. Chiew King Tiong, Assistant Director (Veterinary Public Health), Head, Veterinary Public Health Laboratory Division, Food and Veterinary Administration, Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority of Singapore

Tan Sen Min, Assistant Director, Post Harvest Division, MFRD, SEAFDEC, Food Supply and Technology Department, Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority of Singapore * ASEAN Sectoral Working Group on Crops Delegate # Focal Point

6

Documents

AADCP Program Stream: Quality Assurance Systems … · AADCP Program Stream: Quality Assurance Systems for ... AusAID Australian Agency for International Development ... In order