Asia Pesticide Residue Mitigation through the Promotion of Biopesticides and Enhancement of Trade Opportunities (APRMP), Inception Meeting, 6 August 2020

1. Asia Pesticide Residue Mitigation
through the Promotion of
Biopesticides and Enhancement
of Trade Opportunities

2. Programme Speakers
STDF Welcoming Remarks Catalina Pulido-STDF
Project Management and Progress Ravi Khetarpal-APAARI
Welcoming the addition of Pakistan to the project Rey Santella-USDA-FAS
Understanding Residue Mitigation-Project Goals
and Timelines
Michael Braverman,
IR-4, Rutgers
Lab Training Overview and Equipment Wayne Jiang, MSU
2
AGENDA Virtual Inception Workshop or
Asia Pesticide Residue Mitigation through the Promotion of Biopesticides and
Enhancement of Trade Opportunities.

3. Potential Laboratory Analytical Interferences Yuansheng Wu SFSA
Prachathipat Pongpinyo Thai DOA
Field Training Experiences and Chemical
Compatibility
Ngan Chai Keong, MARDI, Malaysia
Break (10 minutes)
Microbial Biopesticide Manufacturing (with a
Focus on the Insect Pathogenic Ascomycetes)
Stefan Jaronski
Jaronski Mycological Consulting
Biopesticide Regulatory Harmonization in ASEAN
and Workshop Plan
Thomas Jaekel GTZ
ASEAN PMH: Bio-efficacy protocol harmonization
work plan .
Vasant Patil, CropLife Asia
Wrap up and way forward
Michael Braverman and
Ravi Khetarpal
3
AGENDA Virtual Inception Workshop or
Asia Pesticide Residue Mitigation through the Promotion of Biopesticides and
Enhancement of Trade Opportunities.

4. Welcome statement
Speaker:
Catalina Pulido,
Economic Affairs Officer,
STDF/WTO
4

5. Global partnership
that helps developing
countries improve
their food safety,
and animal and
plant health
capacity to meet
SPS requirements
Global coordination platform
+
Funding mechanism for SPS projects and
project development
Knowledge work linked to SPS capacity
building
+
Partners:
What does the STDF do?
www.standardsfacility.org
5

6. Partners: USDA Foreign Agricultural
Service
• Coverage: FAS has foreign service officers located at many US
Embassies around the world, and supported by staff located in
Washington DC.
• Areas: The Office of Global Programs provides technical assistance in
the areas of food safety, plant health and animal health
• Priority Area: Over the past few years, pesticides/MRLs has risen as a
top trade issue at FAS. FAS supports alignment of pesticide
registration systems and MRL adoption practices, and promotes a full
range of pest control tools being available to farmers
FAS provides technical assistance to
foreign partners to promote and facilitate
the trade of agriculture
6

7. Welcoming Remarks
7
• Rey Santella- USDA-FAS Agricultural Counselor
Welcoming Pakistan
to the Project

8. Project Management and Progress
Dr. Ravi Khetarpal,
Executive Secretary, Asia-
Pacific Association of
Agricultural Research
Institutions (APAARI)
8

9. Partners: Asia-Pacific Association of
Agricultural Research Institutions (APAARI)
• Vision: Strengthened research and innovations for sustainable
agricultural development in APR
• 83 members: NARS, CG and AIRCA centres, HEIs, civil society,
regional and global fora, and numerous partners/stakeholders
• Intermediary bridging different stakeholders and knowledge
• Innovation platform facilitating F2F and online interactions,
building capacity to create and apply successful agricultural
innovations
Apolitical, regional organization
established in 1990 by FAO and most
NARS in APR
9

10. • Thematic areas
• Natural resource management
• Risk mitigation
• Inclusive development
• Policy and advocacy
Members are
• Country Members (NARS)
• International Research Organizations
• Higher Education Sector
• Sub Regional Bodies
• Associations, Foundations, Trusts
APAARI
Strengthening Agri-food research and innovations
for sustainable agricultural development in Asia and the Pacific
Australia
Iran
USA
Mexico
India
Bangl.
Philippines
Chinese Taipei
Sri Lanka
Nepal Bhutan
Thailand
Fiji
PNG
Japan
Viet
nam
Malaysia
Indonesia
Rep. of Korea
Syri
a
Ital
y
Dubai
Kenya
Peru
Jordan
Ghana
New
Caledonia
Samoa
83 members from 35 countries
United
Kingdom
Lao
s
Established in
1990
FAO initiative
Legal Status being
Revisited
Projects sponsors
FAO (Rome), FAO (RAP
(Bangkok), WTO,
ACIAR/IFPRI, USDA,
COA

11. Safe Trade- Multidimensionality of Requirements
A Recap
Pillars of Environmental, Plant Health and Food Safety Requirements
Food
Safety
Plant/Animal
Health
Product
Quality
Environment Social
MRLs
Heavy metal
limits
Food
additives
Hygiene
requirements
Traceability
HACCP
Surveillance
Quarantine
Pest risk
assessment
Sanitation
Product
composition
Product
cleanliness
Grading
Labeling
requirements
Control of
nutritional
claims
ISO 9002
Control of water
and env
contamination
Protection of
biodiversity
Protection of
endangered
species
Recycling
Organic prod
requirements
Labour
standards
Fair trade
standards
Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement of WTO

12. The STDF Project- A GLIMPSE
Project Partners
Bangladesh, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Nepal, Pakistan, Singapore, Sri
Lanka, Thailand, Vietnam, CropLife Asia, USDA, IR4, APAARI
Key Responsibilities
IR 4 and USDA – Technical Coordination (including Consultants), Technical
Workshops, Meetings, Capacity building (lab and field), Regulatory Harmonization,
Reporting
APAARI – Project Management, Functional Capacity Building, Knowledge
Management, Monitoring and Evaluation, Logistics, Budget, MoUs, Reporting

13. The STDF Project- A GLIMPSE
Project Start : February 2020
Activities in Q1 and Q2
• Project Steering Committee Meeting : 21 February, 2020
• Pre-Workshop survey: February, 2020
• Pre-Inception Webinar: 4 March, 2020
• Internal Communication Strategy : April, 2020
• Establishment of a Firmed up MERL Plan
• Review of MoUs to be signed and KM Strategy

14. Activities Planned for Q3 and Q4
Activity Year 2020
Q3 Q4
II. Steering Committee Meeting X
Activity 1.1 Conduct GLP Training Field
X X
Activity 1.2 Conduct GLP Training Lab
X X
Activity 1.3 Follow up oversight Field and Laboratory
activities
X
Activity 1.4 Generate Residue Decline data X* X*
Activity 1.5 Generate Biopesticide Efficacy studies X*
Activity 2.1
Conduct workshop on small scale microbial Biopesticide
manufacturing
X
*More advanced countries will be able to start the residue mitigation trials before others because they do
not need the field or lab training before starting
Grey Box- Carry over from Q1 and Q2 activity

15. Asia Pesticide Residue Mitigation
through the Promotion of
Biopesticides and Enhancement
of Trade Opportunities
Michael Braverman
IR-4 Project, Rutgers University

16. Partners: IR-4, Rutgers University, New
Jersey, USA
• Vision: Funded primarily through USDA, we seek to develop a
global network of research cooperators to generate quality
residue data for submission to JMPR and development of new
CODEX MRLs and strategies for dealing with harmonization
issues to reduce trade barriers.
• Role: IR-4 has developed the concept of residue mitigation and
is the principal scientific lead of the new STDF funded project.
IR-4 was established in 1963 to develop
pest management tools to specialty
crop growers.
16

17. STDF PG634 Project Goal
•This regional project aims to mitigate pesticide
Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) export violations
through the use of conventional pesticides followed
by the use of microbial-based biopesticides to
control key pests. In consultation with researchers,
extension and commodity groups, crops of major
commercial importance to most Asian countries
have been selected for the project. These include:
chili pepper, greens, basil, dragon fruit, and rice.
17

18. Project objective and focus
Objective: Increase awareness of how pesticide
residue issues impact trade and develop
methods for overcoming these trade barriers.
3 Primary areas of focus:
• Residue Mitigation with Biopesticides
• Microbial Biopesticide Manufacturing
• Regulatory cooperation
18

19. CODEX = 0.5ppm
(Days)
7 days
effective
control
7 day PHI and 7 days effective control
EU 0.3 ppm
PERIOD OF NO PROTECTION –
USE SHORT PHI BIOPESTICIDE

20. Field Phase
Residue
Analytic Phase
Report Prep
Residue Mitigation
Project Initiation Submission to STDF
Biopesticide
Efficacy
Farmer
Education

21. Field Phase
Residue
Analytic Phase
Report Prep
Residue Mitigation
Project Initiation Submission to STDF
Phase 1- Multiple Ingredient Decline studies
Determine -Which active
ingredients have residues that
can be mitigated in a reasonable
length of time?
RAPID DECLINE-No need for
mitigation-Farmer education issue
INTERMEDIATE DECLINE- Good
chance residue mitigation
VERY LONG DECLINE- Restrict to
earlier season use -Multi stage
mitigation approach

22. Field Phase
Residue
Analytic Phase
Report Prep
Residue Mitigation
Project Initiation Submission to STDF
Phase 1- Multiple Ingredient Decline studies
Determine -Which active
ingredients have residues that
can be mitigated in a reasonable
length of time?
RAPID DECLINE-No need for
mitigation-Farmer education issue
INTERMEDIATE DECLINE- Good
chance residue mitigation
VERY LONG DECLINE- Restrict to
earlier season use -Multi stage
mitigation approach
Industry- Data on residue
decline in these crops to help
select sample intervals.
Analytical stds and test
substances.

23. Field Phase
Residue
Analytic Phase
Report Prep
Residue Mitigation
Project Initiation Submission to STDF
Biopesticide
Efficacy Farmer
Education
Phase 2- Single Ingredient Decline -Efficacy

24. CONVENTIONAL PESTICIDE XYZ
Intended
Export
Market
TIME (Number of days between last application and harvest)
30 days 28 days 21 days 14 days 7 days 3 days
HARVES
T
Regional
Trade
Australia
China
EU
Japan
Korea
USA
Other
RED-DANGER Residue>MRL YELLOW-CAUTION Residue= MRL GREEN-SAFE Residue<MRL
Guidance from Decline Data

25. Farmer
Education
Field Phase
Residue
Analytic Phase
Report Prep
Name/Organization/
email
Facility Management
Study Director
Field Research Director
Lab Research Director
Quality Assurance
Field and Lab
Efficacy Evaluation
Project Initiation
Biopesticid
e Efficacy
TEAM MEMBERS

26. CHILI PEPPER
Country where
studies would be
conducted Crop Target pests
Chemical Pesticides
Currently used causing
residue issue.
Biocontrol alternatives for pest
control and end of season
residue mitigation
Malaysia,
Sri Lanka
Thailand
Indonesia
Chili pepper Thrips
Aphids
Whitefly
Imidacloprid, acephate,
abamectin, fipronil,
profenophos, methomyl,
diazinon, chlorpyrifos,
acetamiprid, prochloraz,
amitraz.
Beauveria bassiana, capsaicin
oleoresin with canola oil, mineral oil,
sticky traps with lures
Beauveria bassiana sticky traps,
mineral oil, potassium salts of fatty
acids,
Burkholderia spp., Isaria fumosorosea
Beauveria bassiana, capsaicin
oleoresin with canola oil, sticky traps,
Encarsia formosa

27. GREENS
Country where
studies would be
conducted
Crop Target pests Chemical Pesticides
Currently used causing
residue issue.
Biocontrol alternatives for
pest control and end of
season residue mitigation
Bangladesh-and
Nepal
Greens Aphids
Whitefly
Grasshopper
Diamondback moth
acetamiprid, imidacloprid
and malathion
Beauveria bassiana sticky traps,
mineral oil, potassium salts of
fatty acids, Burkholderia spp.,
Isaria fumosorosea
Beauveria bassiana, capsaicin
oleoresin with canola oil, sticky
traps, Encarsia formosa
Beauveria bassiana, Metarhizium
anisopliae
Bacillus thuringiensis kurstaki

28. BASIL
Laos and Cambodia Basil Aphids
Whitefly
chlorpyrifos and
cypermethrin
Beauveria bassiana sticky traps,
mineral oil, potassium salts of fatty
acids,
Burkholderia spp., Isaria
fumosorosea
Beauveria bassiana, capsaicin
oleoresin with canola oil, sticky
traps, Encarsia formosa
Country where
studies would be
conducted
Crop Target pests Chemical Pesticides
Currently used
causing residue
issue.
Biocontrol alternatives for pest
control and end of season
residue mitigation

29. DRAGON FRUIT and RICE
Vietnam Dragon
fruit
Bipolaris
Anthracnose
metalaxyl, hexaconazole
and propiconazole
Bacillus subtilis, Bacillus
amyloliquefaciens
Bacillus subtilis, Potassium
bicarbonate
Cambodia Rice Panicle blast tricyclazole Potassium silicate and Bacillus
amyloliquefaciens
Country where
studies would be
conducted
Crop Target pests Chemical Pesticides
Currently used
causing residue issue.
Biocontrol alternatives for pest
control and end of season
residue mitigation

30. CHILI PEPPER
Country where
studies would be
conducted Crop Target pests
Chemical Pesticides
Currently used causing
residue issue.
Biocontrol alternatives for pest
control and end of season
residue mitigation
Malaysia,
Sri Lanka
Thailand
Indonesia
Chili pepper Thrips
Aphids
Whitefly
Imidacloprid, acephate,
abamectin, fipronil,
profenophos, methomyl,
diazinon, chlorpyrifos,
acetamiprid, prochloraz,
amitraz.
Beauveria bassiana, capsaicin
oleoresin with canola oil, mineral oil,
sticky traps with lures
Beauveria bassiana sticky traps,
mineral oil, potassium salts of fatty
acids,
Burkholderia spp., Isaria fumosorosea
Beauveria bassiana, capsaicin
oleoresin with canola oil, sticky traps,
Encarsia formosa
TEST PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL COMPATIBILITY -Field
ANALYTICAL INTERFERENCES-OVERLAPPING PEAKS

31. Field Phase
Residue
Analytic Phase
Report Prep
Residue Mitigation
Project Initiation Submission to STDF
Biopesticid
e Efficacy
Farmer
Education
Can you mix pesticides?
Who can test for
physical/chemical
compatibility?
Precipitate?
Chemical-exothermic?
Phytotoxicity?
Multi residue decline -Compatibility

32. Field Phase
Residue
Analytic Phase
Report Prep
Residue Mitigation
Project Initiation Submission to STDF
Biopesticid
e Efficacy
Farmer
Education
Can you analyze for the
conventional pesticides
in a single sample? If
yes, what is the
expected LOD and LOQ?
LC/MS-MS
GC-MS
HPLC- Detector?
GC-Detector
Lab Analytical Equipment

33. Summary matrix of planned country participation in project
Country
Inception
Workshop
GLP
Capacity
Building
Residue
mitigation
studies
Biopesticide
Manufacturing
and Development
Biopesticide
Regulatory
Harmonization
Final
Results and
Dissemination
Planning
Pakistan √ √ √ √ √ √
Bangladesh √ √ √ √ √ √
Cambodia √ √ √ √ √ √
Indonesia √ √ √ √ √ √
Lao PDR √ √ √ √ √ √
Malaysia √ HF √ O √ √
Nepal √ √ √ √ H √ √
Sri Lanka √ √ √ √ √ √
Thailand √-H HL √ O √ H √
Vietnam √ o √ O √ √
Singapore √ HL O O √ √
H: Meeting Host HF: Host and Trainer in the Field (Malaysia)
HL: Host and Trainer in the lab (Thailand) 0: Not involved in this activity

34. Workshop Dates
Group Lab Training-August 10th-14th
Field Group Training- August 25th-26th

35. 35
X

36. Work Plan March 2020 to March 2023
Output 1: New MRL data and improved knowledge to interpret this data on the use of
biopesticides (combined with conventional pesticides) to mitigate pesticide residues.
Scientists are able to conduct residue mitigation studies and data is generated
Activity Responsibility
2020
-
2021
2021-
2022
Month 11 02 3 7 11 2
Activity 1.3 Follow up
oversight Field and Laboratory
activities
Michael
Braverman,
Malaysia,
Singapore,
Thailand
X X X X X
Activity 1.4 Generate
Residue Decline data
Michael Braverman X* X X X X
Activity 1.5 Generate
Biopesticide Efficacy
studies
Michael Braverman X X X X X
*More advanced countries will be able to start the residue mitigation trials before others
because they do not need the field or lab training before starting

37. Work Plan March 2020 to March 2023
A c t i v i t y
Responsibility 2020-2021 2021-2022 2022-2023
Month 02 3
Output 2: Microbial Manufacturing – Government scientists will have the capacity to
efficiently manufacture native microorganisms for use as biopesticides
Activity 2.1
Conduct workshop on
small scale microbial
Biopesticide
manufacturing
Michael
Braverman,
Stefan Jaronski
X X

38. Work Plan March 2020 to March 2023
Responsibility 2021-2022
Month 6-7 02
Output 3: Enhanced capacities for regulatory harmonization – Government authorities will
have a regulatory system in place specific for biopesticides and communicate with other regional
bodies on the harmonization of their systems.
Activity 3.1
Conduct
Biopesticide
regulatory
harmonization
workshop
Michael
Braverman,
Thomas ,
Martina
Spisiakova
X

39. Work Plan March 2020 to March 2023
Acti
vity
Responsibility 2022-2023
Month 3 7 11 02
Output 3: Enhanced capacities for regulatory harmonization – Government authorities
will have a regulatory system in place specific for biopesticides and communicate with other
regional bodies on the harmonization of their systems.
IV. Final Meeting to
discuss results
Michael
Braverman,
Martina
X
V. Dissemination
Agricultural
Extension type
efforts-Knowledge
management
Project
Manager,
Michael
Braverman,
Martina
Spisiakova
X X X

40. Wrap up and Closing
Source: Ken Research 40

41. THANK YOU!
41

42. Inception Workshop
Wayne Jiang, PhD
IR-4 Project
Michigan State University
jiangwa@msu.edu
Lab Training Overview
and Equipment

43. • Lab Training Overview
• Laboratory Equipment
Contents

44. • Training Dates
Mon-Fri, Aug 10-14, 2020 (5 sessions)
3 Hours / session (2 x 1.5 hr, each)
A coffee break 10 min/session
Lab Training

45. • Good Laboratory Practices (GLP)
• Protocol (Lab portion)
• Standard Operating Procedures (SOP)
• Amendments and deviations
Training Contents

46. • Sample shipping, sample receipt,
grinding, storage and disposal
• Analytical Reference Substance
• Instrument analysis
• Data review and QC
Training Contents

47. • Freezers and temperature monitoring
• Grinders
• Pipets, Shakers, SPE
• Analytical instrumentation
• LC-MS/MS
Laboratory Equipment

48. Laboratory Equipment
Country Crop Chemical Chemical Chemical LC-
MS/MS
GC-MS or
GC-MS/MS
GC-
ECD
GC-
FID
Indonesia
Malaysia
Sri Lanka
Thailand
Chili
pepper
Abamectin Chlorpyrifos Methomyl Yes No No No
Acephate Diazinon Prochloraz Yes Yes Yes? No
Acetamiprid Fipronil Profenophos Yes Yes Yes? No
Amitraz Imidacloprid Yes Yes Yes? No
Bangladesh
Nepal
Pakistan
Sri Lanka
Greens Acetamiprid Yes Yes Yes? No
Imidacloprid Yes No No No
Malathion Yes Yes Yes? No
Laos
Cambodia
Basil Chlorpyrifos Yes Yes Yes? No
Cypermethrin Yes Yes Yes? No
Vietnam Dragon
fruit
Metalaxyl Yes Yes Yes? No
Hexaconazole Yes Yes Yes? No
Propiconazole Yes Yes Yes? No
Cambodia Rice Tricyclazole Yes Yes Yes? No

49. Laboratory Equipment
Country LC-
MS/MS
HPLC GC-
MS/MS
GC-MS GC-
ECD
GC-
FID
Bangladesh ?
Cambodia ? ? ?
Indonesia Yes
Laos ? ? ?
Malaysia Yes
Nepal ? ? TBD
Pakistan Yes
Sri Lanka ? ? TBD
Thailand Yes
Vietnam Yes

50. Definitions
• Study Initiation Date
The date the protocol is signed by study director
• Term defined in FDA, EPA FIFRA, EPA TSCA, OECD GLPs
• Experimental Start Date
– The first date the test substance is applied to
the test system.
• Term defined in EPA FIFRA, EPA TSCA GLPs
• Experimental Starting Date
– The date on which the first study specific data
are collected.
• Term defined in OECD GLPs

51. Definitions
• Study Completion Date
– The date the final report is signed by SD
• Term defined in FDA, EPA FIFRA, EPA TSCA, OECD GLPs
• Experimental Termination Date
– The last date on which data are collected
directly from the study
• Term defined in EPA TSCA, EPA FIFRA GLPs
• Experimental Completion Date
– The last date on which data are collected from
the study
• Term defined in OECD GLPs

52. Questions ?
• Any questions?

53. Thank
You!
jiangwa@msu.edu
(+1) 989-278-8898

54. The STDF Project:
Asia Pesticide Residue Mitigation through the Promotionof
Biopesticides and Enhancement of TradeOpportunities—
Consideration of Pesticide Residues AnalyticalAspects
Presented @ Virtual Inception Workshop on 6-7 Aug 2020
Presented by: Dr. WU Yuan Sheng
Director, Food Safety Monitoring & Forensics Department (FSMFD)
National Centre for Food Science (NCFS)
Singapore Food Agency (SFA)

55. • NCFS is the scientific arm of Singapore Food
Agency (SFA)
• NCFS’s core functions: to produce scientific
evidence to support SFA’s role as national food
safety regulatory authority by:
−performing food safety monitoring & food forensic
investigations
−conducting food safety risk assessment and the
related applied research
• Know us more at: www.sfa.gov.sg
About National Centre for Food Science (NCFS)
3 2
1
4
Perahu site
Outram site
Biopolissite
Future consolidated site
1
2
3
4

56. The Role of NCFS in International & Regional CapacityBuilding
WHO Collaborating
Centre for Food
Contamination
Monitoring
OIE Collaborating Centre
for Food Safety
ASEAN Food Reference
Laboratories for:
• Pesticide Residues
• Mycotoxins
• Environmental
Contaminants
• Marine Biotoxins &
Scombrotoxin

57. •Consideration of chromatographic separation
techniques
−Choice of gas phase or liquid
phase separation
based on thermolability
•Consideration of detection
techniques
−GCMSMS vs GCMS vs GC-
ECD/NPD/FPD…
−LCMSMS vs LCMS vs LC-UV/FLD…
The STDF Project: Consideration of Pesticide Residues AnalyticalAspects

58. Classification of Target Pesticides into GC and/or LC AmenableAnalytes
Pesticides intended
for pest control
GC-amenable
pesticides
LC-amenable
pesticides
Both GC and LC-
amenable pesticides
Chilli
pepper:
Thrips
Aphids
Whitefly
Indonesia
Malaysia,
Sri Lanka
&
Thailand
abamecti
n
acephate
acetamipr
id
amitraz
chlorpyrif
os
fipronil*
diazinon,
imidaclop
rid,
methomyl
*
prochlora
z*
acephate
acetamipri
d amitraz
chlorpyrifo
s fipronil
diazinon,
prochloraz
profenoph
os
abamectin
acephate
acetamiprid
amitraz
chlorpyrifos
fipronil
diazinon,
Imidaclopri
d,
methomyl
Prochloraz
profenopho
s
acephate
acetamip
rid
amitraz
chlorpyri
fos
fipronil
diazinon,
prochlor
az
profenop
hos

59. Classification of Target Pesticides into GC and/or LC AmenableAnalytes
Pesticides intended
for pest control
GC-amenable
pesticides
LC-amenable
pesticides
Both GC and LC-
amenable pesticides
Greens:
Aphids
Whitefly
Grasshopper
Diamondback
moth
Bangladesh
- & Nepal
acetamiprid,
imidacloprid
&
malathion
acetamiprid,
& malathion
acetamiprid,
imidacloprid
& malathion
acetamiprid
, &
malathion
Basil
:
Aphid
s
White
fly
Cambodia &
Laos
chlorpyrifos &
cypermethrin
chlorpyrifos &
cypermethrin
chlorpyrifos &
cypermethrin*
Note: possibly low
detection
sensitivity for LC
chlorpyrifos &
cypermethrin*
Note: possibly low
detection sensitivity
for LC

60. Classification of Target Pesticides into GC and/or LC AmenableAnalytes
Pesticides intended
for pest control
GC-amenable
pesticides
LC-amenable
pesticides
Both GC and LC-
amenable pesticides
Dragon
fruit:
Bipolaris
Anthracnose
Viet Nam
metalaxyl,
hexaconazole
&
propiconazole
metalaxyl,
hexaconazole
&
propiconazole
metalaxyl,
hexaconazole
&
propiconazole
metalaxyl,
hexaconazole
&
propiconazol
e
Rice:
Panicle blast
Cambodia
tricyclazole tricyclazole tricyclazole tricyclazole

61. • Detection sensitivity and selectivity for gas phase detection
− GCMSMS (triple quad) >>GC-MS (single quad)>GC/ECD/NPD/FPD>>GCFID
− Analytical performance of selective detectors such as ECD, NPD, FPD is highly dependent on the
structural characteristics of individual pesticides
− GC-FID cannot be used for pesticide residues analysis
• Detection sensitivity and selectivity for liquid phase detection
− LCMSMS (triple quad) >>LC-MS (single quad)>LC-UV & LC-FLD
− Generally LC-UV & LC-FLD are seldom used in pesticide residues analysis
• Generally, higher detection sensitivity and selectivity means less interference from
other pesticides and endogenous components in sample matrix, hence less
requirement for dedicated sample cleanup and enrichment steps; vice versa
Comments on Detection Sensitivity & Selectivity of Various Detection Techniques

62. (9Singapore
Food
Agency

63. Virtual Field Training Workshop
Plans
August 25-26
Michael Braverman
IR-4 Project, Rutgers University

64. Topics- Virtual Field Training August 25-26
GLP Overview
Protocol
Standard Operating Procedures
Quality Assurance Auditing
QA Facility Inspections and Archiving
Sprayer Calibration
Walking Speed
Equipment Needs

65. Topics- Virtual Field Training August 25-26
Equipment Needs
Field Data Notebook. Documentation and Corrections:
Personnel, Notes and communication, Amendments and
deviations, Test substance receipt and storage, test site
maps, plot plan and details, equipment, Sprayer calibration,
walking speed, calculations, application records, study
differentiation, Harvesting and sampling, Sample Inventory,
Freezer temperature logs, Sample shipping/transfer,
Weather records.

67. DR. NGAN CHAI KEONG
SENIOR RESEARCH OFFICER
Soil Science, Water and Fertilize
Research Centre (SF)
Pesticide Compatibility Testing Process

68. Field Training Experiences and
Chemical Compatibility
NGAN CHAI KEONG, Ph.D.
Principal Research Officer
Soil Science, Water and Fertiliser Research Centre
Malaysian Agricultural Research and Development Institute (MARDI)
www.mardi.gov.my
Virtual Inception Workshop STDF - Asia Pesticide Residue
Mitigation through the Promotion of Biopesticides and
Enhancement of Trade Opportunities
6-7 August 2020

69. www.mardi.gov.my ckngan@mardi.gov.my
28
Outline of Presentation
 Field training experiences
 Chemical compatibility

70. www.mardi.gov.my ckngan@mardi.gov.my
Field training experiences
29

71. Sponsor: STDF
(Standards and Trade Development
Facility)
study # PR10990
pyripoxyfen-mango: 6 field trials
SFA, Singapore
(Lab analysis: 1st, 2nd
& 3rd field trial)
MARDI, Malaysia
(6 field trials)
DOA, Malaysia
(Lab analysis: 4th, 5th
& 6th field trial)
ASEAN Secretariat & ASEAN Expert
Working Group –MRL
THE FIRST PROJECT (2013-2016)
USDA-FAS & IR-4 (Project
& technical co-ordinator)
30
Study # PR11251
pyripoxyfen-papaya: 7 field trials
Brunei (one
field trial)
The Philippines
(3 field trials &
lab analysis)
Malaysia (3 field trials & lab
analysis inclusive of Brunei’s
samples)

72. www.mardi.gov.my ckngan@mardi.gov.my
INTRODUCTION
 Hands-on field training with Dr. Braverman in 2012.
 Field training for project members and invited observers (ASEAN
countries) was conducted in Thailand, January 2013.
31
Hands-on field training

73. www.mardi.gov.my ckngan@mardi.gov.my
Training experiences
 Field measurement and recording.
 Calibration of discharge rate of spraying equipment.
 Calibration of sprayer walking speed.
 Pesticide application.
 Sampling protocol.
 Shipment of samples to local laboratory and Singapore.
 Quality assurance of the field phase of supervised
residue trials.
32

74. www.mardi.gov.my ckngan@mardi.gov.my
Benefits
 Exposure to conducting supervised residue field
trial according to Good Laboratory Practice
standard.
 Recording of field measurement, data and
information.
 Networking and continuous collaboration with
international partners.
33

75. www.mardi.gov.my ckngan@mardi.gov.my
Pesticide compatibility
 Solution mixtures of pesticide products are to be
applied on selected crops followed by crop
samplings (multi-residue decline studies).
 Compatibility test for selected pesticides before
multi-residue decline studies begin.
34

76. www.mardi.gov.my ckngan@mardi.gov.my
Country where studies would be
conducted
Crop /
Target pests
Chemical Pesticides Currently
used causing residue issue
Group of pesticides for
compatibility test
Indonesia
Malaysia
Sri Lanka
Thailand
Chili pepper /
Thrips, Aphids & Whitefly
abamectin
acephate
acetamiprid
amitraz
chlorpyrifos
diazinon
fipronil
imidacloprid
methomyl
profenophos
Group 1
Bangladesh
Nepal
Greens /
Aphids, Whitefly, Grasshopper
&
Diamondback moth
acetamiprid
imidacloprid
malathion
Group 2
Cambodia
Laos
Basil /
Aphids & White fly
chlorpyrifos
cypermethrin Group 3 – no test
Vietnam Dragon fruit /
Bipolaris Anthracnose
metalaxyl
hexaconazole
propiconazole
Group 4
Cambodia Rice /
Panicle blast
tricyclazole
Group 5 – no test
35

77. www.mardi.gov.my ckngan@mardi.gov.my
Procedure on pesticide compatibility test
1. Wear gloves , mask , goggles and whatever safety equipment is listed on the labels.
2. Get 2 clean containers that can hold over a liter, preferably one with a lid that you can close and shake.
3. Get a strainer that you can use to filter out any precipitate. Something like the photo below.
4. Put the test substances in order with all the EC formulations first , then SL, then SC formulation. Within each formulation type,
create an order of the smallest volume to largest volume(Acetamiprid 0.25 ml/L... up to Malathion 2.5ml/L).
5. Pour 1 liter of water into one container.
6. Add 0.25 ml Acetamiprid to the water.
7. Shake well, observe the color, write it down and take a picture.
8. Add the second product to the same first liter of solution you started with.
9. Shake well, observe the color, write it down and take a picture.
10. Wait a few minutes and see if there is any odd color change, heat given off or any precipitate formed.
11. If the mixture is to cloudy or you can't tell if a precipitate has formed, pour from one container to the other container through the
strainer.
12. Keep repeating the process with each new product you add,
13. If there is some type of adverse reaction (Lets say after adding product number 5), go back and prepare products 1-4. Skip 5 and add
number 6 instead and keep going until you reach a problem.
14. If any are left out, prepare a second liter of water an combine only the ones that were left out. Hopefully, they will all get along ok.
15. After you have determined the maximum number that can all be within one liter mix we want to know if the mixture is phytotoxic.
16. Place the mixture in a sprayer and see if the mixture is spraying out ok without clogging.
17. Shake well and spray 4 separate areas (Replications) of areas (Maybe about 1 square meter/plot) with a dense population of small
weeds. Observe sprayed plots at 3, 7 and 14 days after application for any leaf burn, stunting or odd appearance. Set up a control plot
too. Record and photograph.
18. After spraying look at the nozzle and the bottom of the sprayer for any unusual amount of clumps/clogging.
36

78. www.mardi.gov.my ckngan@mardi.gov.my
Evaluating compatibility of pesticides
 The following observations were made:
 Colour change in solution.
 Exothermic effect in solution.
 Precipitation in solution.
 Any filtered solids in the sieve.
 Phytotoxic effect of solution mixtures.
37

79. www.mardi.gov.my ckngan@mardi.gov.my
Pesticide compatibility - Group 1
38
AmitrazDiazinon
Imidacloprid
Chlorpyrifos +
cypermethrin
Fipronil Acetamiprid
Abamectin

80. www.mardi.gov.my ckngan@mardi.gov.my
Pesticide compatibility - Group 2
39
Malathion Imidacloprid Acetamiprid

81. www.mardi.gov.my ckngan@mardi.gov.my
Pesticide compatibility - Group 2
 No observed precipitation.
40

82. www.mardi.gov.my ckngan@mardi.gov.my
Pesticide compatibility - Group 4
41
HexaconazolePropiconazole Metalaxyl

83. www.mardi.gov.my ckngan@mardi.gov.my
Pesticide compatibility - Group 4
42

84. www.mardi.gov.my ckngan@mardi.gov.my
Pesticide compatibility - Group 4
 Filtered solids on the
sieve.
43

85. www.mardi.gov.my ckngan@mardi.gov.my
Results from pesticide product mixing test
 The pesticides were compatible (no exothermic
effect, precipitation & filtered solids) solid for
group 1 and group 2.
 For group 4, excluding metalaxyl (WP
formulation), the rest of the pesticides
(propiconazole & hexaconazole) were
compatible.
44

86. www.mardi.gov.my ckngan@mardi.gov.my
Phytotoxic effect observation at 3 days after application
45
Control Group 1
Group 2 Group 4

87. www.mardi.gov.my ckngan@mardi.gov.my
Phytotoxic effect observation at 7 days after application
46
Group 1 Group 2
Group 4

88. www.mardi.gov.my ckngan@mardi.gov.my
Progress of phytotoxic observation
 No phytotoxic effect was observed up to 7 days
after application in Group 1, Group 2 and
Group 4 plots.
 The last observation (14 days after application)
is scheduled on 10 August 2020.
47

89. www.mardi.gov.my ckngan@mardi.gov.my
Acknowledgement
48
Mr. Shahid
Mr. Azhar
Ms. Jamaliah
Dr. Braverman

90. THANK YOU
49

91. Microbial
Biopesticide
Manufacturing
(with a Focus on the
Insect Pathogenic
Ascomycetes)
Stefan Jaronski, Ph.D.
Jaronski Mycological Consulting LLC
Blacksburg VA USA
(U.S. Department of Agriculture, retired)

92. Entomopathogenic Ascomycetes
© Koppert
Isaria (Cordyceps)
Lecanicillium
(Akanthomyces)
Metarhizium spp.
Beauveria spp.
Meet the players

93. B. brongniartii
5%
B. bassiana
40%
M. anisopliae
39%
H. thompsonii
1%
M. acridum
3%
I. fumosorosea
6%
L. longisporium
2%I. farinosus
1%
L. muscarium
3%
Mycoinsecticides:
110 active, commercial products in 2006
~200 in 2017
Faria and Wraight Biological Control 43 (2007) 237–256
Mascarin and Jaronski 2017. World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology 32:177.

94. Fungal Mass Production Training
Components of the training:
1. Isolation, purification, identification, preservation of
candidate fungi
2. Screening, selection methods to identify best fungus
for development;
3. Mass Production
4. Quality control!
5. Formulation and suggestions for best use practices

95. Fungal Mass Production Training
• Learning Objectives:
– Basic familiarity with “how to grow your
own” fungi,
with effective yet less sophisticated, less capital
intensive methods, suitable to your regions,
situations
– As much as possible “hands on” experience
in various steps of mass production
– Tips and tricks from my 37 years of experience
– Adapting methods to your capabilities,
needs

96. Fungal Mass Production Training
1. Isolation of fungal candidates (as much as
possible, hands-on practice, and depending on overall
experience of audience)
a. Sources;
b. Isolation Procedures
c. Long-term preservation of cultures
d. Initial Identification
e. Further (molecular) identification
(discussion only)

97. Fungal Mass Production Training
2. Evaluation and selection for development:
It’s not all about virulence.
a. Infectivity-Virulence
b. Spore production
c. Shelf life
d. Ecological Characteristics
i. Temperature
ii. Ultraviolet tolerance
e. Non target effects

98. 2. Evaluation and selection for development:
The mosaic of criteria. It’s not all about
virulence.

99. Fungal Mass Production Training
3. Mass Production (emphasis on solid substrate)
a. Methods appropriate for different
technology levels, production scale
1. Substrates
2. Containers
3. Preparation and conduct
a. substrate tyndalization vs sterilization
b. type of inoculum: conidia vs. liquid culture
different methods of liquid culture
(one does need a fancy liquid fermenter)
d. environmental parameters for good production
“hands on” preparation of substrates, inoculants,
actual fermentation

100. Fungal Mass Production Training
3. Mass Production ...
b. Drying and harvest methods
i. Different methods
ii. Environmental parameters
iii. Suitable speed and endpoints
iv. Critical water activity (or basic moisture)
4. Quality Control !
Best practices: direct conidial counts, viability

101. Fungal Mass Production Training
4. Formulation
a. Types :
Oil Flowables (ULV), Emulsifiable Suspensions (ES, EC),
Wettable powders (WP), Granulars (G), Baits.
b. Shelf life considerations
Hands on training and tips in preparing OF/ES,
WP, WDG, Granulars, Baits.

102. Fungal Mass Production Training
5. Best use practices:
a. Fundamentals in applying fungi to crops
6. Discussion with you about your own
situations, needs. Synthesis of ideas.

103. Fungal Mass Production Training
In closing,
I am not THE expert, just one among
many chefs, although I have a lot of
relevant practical experience I want to
share with you, to help you.
I also want to learn your ideas,
experiences, so we all learn to together,

104. Biopesticide Regulatory Harmonization in ASEAN and Workshop Plan
Thomas Jäkel, PhD
Plant Protection Specialist and Integrated Rice Expert at Rice Department, Bangkok, Thailand

105. Overview
• What does ‘Regulatory Harmonization in ASEAN’ mean? Brief history
and goals
• Biopesticides? It is important to choose the right definition for
different types of plant protection products
• Brief look at the Asian and global marketplace
• Pre-workshop assessment and questions
• Tentative workshop plan

106. History: 2013; FAO Pesticide Regulatory Management

107. History: 2014; ASEAN Guidelines on BCA
ASEAN country collaborators and authors:

108. History: 2014
ASEAN Guidelines on Biocontrol Agents (BCA)
Two primary goals of regional harmonization
efforts:
• To form a better framework for
implementation of BCA that facilitates
more registrations
• To provide a template for harmonization
of regulation and thus stimulate regional
trade/exchange of BCA
BCA grouped into four product
categories:
• Microbial control agents
(microbials or MCA),
• Macro-organisms
(macrobials),
• Semiochemicals (mostly
pheromones, kairomones,
etc.),
• Natural products (plant
extracts or ‘botanicals’,
fermentation and other
products)

109. History: 2015; example for regional training

110. Definitions: Biopesticide? Just two examples
2016, China
(Source: APPPC Workshop August 2016, Wuhan)
In China, following groups of pesticides were treated
as the non-conventional pesticide and get
exemptions of some tests or data:
• Microbial pesticides (bacteria, fungi, protozoa,
algae and viruses)
• Biochemical pesticides (semiochemicals
including pheromones, natural plant/insect
growth regulators, plant resistance inducer and
enzyme/vitamin, etc)
• Botanical pesticides
• Natural enemy (predatory insects, predatory
mites, macroscopic parasites and nematode)
2014, ASEAN Guidelines on BCA:
(however, not fully adopted yet and with
national differences between member
states)
BCA grouped into four product categories:
• Microbial control agents (microbials or
MCA),
• Macro-organisms (macrobials),
• Semiochemicals (mostly pheromones,
kairomones, etc.),
• Natural products (plant extracts or
‘botanicals’, fermentation and other
products)

111. Market place: 2015, No. registrations in Asia
Source:
Jäkel, T. & Ginting, S.
(2015) The Asian
Biocontrol Market.
New-AG International,
March-April Edition

112. Market place: 2015; market characteristics in Asia
Source:
Jäkel, T. & Ginting, S.
(2015) The Asian
Biocontrol Market.
New-AG International,
March-April Edition

113. Market place: 2020; high company investment
propects for biopesticides/BCA globally
Source:
www.agribusiness
global.com (2020)

114. Market place: 2020; consumer demand,
environmental laws, and favorabe regulatory situation fuel
rise in interest in biopest./BCA worldwide
Source:
www.agribusiness
global.com (2020)

115. What do we need to know before the workshop in
July 2021?
• What are the expectations/aspirations of participating countries with
regard to regulatory harmonization?
• What is current regulatory (legal) situation in participating countries
regarding biopesticides/BCA?
 Pre-workshop survey
 Determining country-specific situation
 ASEAN: progress/obstacles since 2015? Regional cooperation?
 Status and capacity of governmental regulatory system?
 Major legislative frameworks? (e.g., specific biopesticide/BCA regulation,
IPM, sustainable use, zoning, ‘organic act’, ban of certain pesticides, etc.)
 Definition?

116. What do we need to know before the workshop in
July 2021?
• How many registrations/what products/who registered/incentives?
 What is registered? What does not require registration?
 Role/how strong is private sector?
 Registration situation for local/international companies?
 Incentives/waivers for registration of biopesticides/BCA?
• How is the quality of registered biopesticides/BCA maintained?
 Major weak point of regulatory systems in the region
 How is post-registration surveillance handled? Institutional capacity?
 Procedures? Effectiveness?
 Service/analytical laboratory landscape?

117. Tentative Workshop Program (1)
Day 1
• Goal and expected outputs of
workshop
• Definition of what products are
dealt with in the workshop
• Results of pre-workshop
assessment
 Current status of country
regulatory systems
 What products are registered?
• Identifying gaps and ways for
improvement
Day2
• Potential for improvement, possible
topics:
Approaches to risk assessment of
biopesticides/BCA (with emphasis
on subgroups if requested)
Approaches to efficacy testing
Handling the post-registration
period in view of maintaining
product integrity
Structuring the pre-registration
phase
• Conclusions

118. Tentative Workshop Program (2)
Day 3
• How to address regulatory
harmonization?
 Potential avenues for regulatory
collaboration
 What could trade facilitation
mean in practice?
 Potential sharing of analytical
laboratory resources
 Etc.
• Conclusion and end of
workshop

119. Copyright © 2020 CropLife Asia
ASEAN Pesticides Management
Harmonization (PMH) initiative:
update on Phase V –Bio-efficacy Protocol
Harmonization work plan
at Asia Pesticide Residue Mitigation through the Promotion of Biopesticides and
Enhancement of Trade Opportunities –virtual meeting
August 6-7, 2020 ( agenda item 10)
By Dr. Vasant L. Patil
Director – Science & Regulatory Affairs
CropLife Asia Singapore
August 6, 2020

120. Background and key milestones of ASEAN Pesticide
Management Harmonization (PMH)
2009 -2012: FAO Project: “Assisting countries in Southeast Asia toward achieving pesticide regulatory
harmonization”
2013: CropLife Asia working closely ASEAN ExpertWorking Group on the Residues &
determination Maximum Residue Limits (EWG- MRL) since 2002
✓ Out of 1000 MRLs harmonized, more than 750 MRLs adopted by ASEAN member states as national standards
July 2017: CropLife Asia presents proposal at ASWGC meeting in KL, Malaysia and receives endorsement
for SOM-AMAF consideration
March 2018: As recommended by ASWGC, CropLife Asia began implementation of this key initiative ( to
be completed in 6 phases by 2020)
✓ Results published in 2012 with participation from 7 AMS and CropLife Asia
2016: 20th Meeting of ASEAN EWG on Harmonization of MRLs of Pesticides: CropLife Asia
receives endorsement of proposal from EWG for ASWGC consideration at the next round

121. 3
ASEAN Pesticide Management
Harmonization Initiative
January 26-29, 2016 July 20-22, 2016 July 13, 2017 August 14-16, 2017 March 12-16, 2018
20th Meeting of the ASEAN EWG on
Harmonization of MRLs of Pesticides in
Bali, Indonesia
• CL-Asia presented proposal and
received endorsement for next round,
ASWGC consideration
ASWG on Crops meeting in Lao PDR
• CL-Asia presented proposal during SPA
session
ASWG on Crops meeting held in KL,
Malaysia
• CL-Asia presented proposal and
received more impactful feedback as
well endorsement for next round,
SOM-AMAF consideration
Special SOM-38th AMAF meeting held in
Singapore
• ASEAN Pesticides Management
Harmonization proposal is approved
Phase 1 workshop
on product
chemistry held in
Bangkok, Thailand
• Implementation
begins
A two-year journey led by CropLife Asia to kick-start the initiative
3

122. 4
ASEAN PMH : implementation Phases and time line
1. Physico-Chemical
Data
ASEAN Guidelines on the
Physico-Chemical
Requirements for Pesticide
Registration in SoutheastAsian
Countries
Objectives 2.Toxicology/ Environmental
Fate and Effects Data
Provide protection for human health
and environment by adopting a
science-based risk assessment
approach – taking into account
agricultural conditions and practices
in ASEAN
Objectives
4. Residues Data /
MRLs
Harmonized residue data
requirement
Objectives 3. Labelling/ Packaging/
Storage
Ensures safe use of products
through implementation of
uniform labelling guidelines
across ASEAN
Objectives
6.Acceptance of Data, Good
Lab Practices and Data
Protection
Pesticide registration guidelines take
into account various guidelines by
IGOs like FAO, OECD,WTO.The
following parameters are
considered crucial for
harmonization in ASEAN
Objectives
5. Bio-efficacy Data
Ensure access to the latest
technology and innovations for
farmers through the
registration of new products in
a speedier manner
1-2 Q,2021 in Indonesia
(delayed Covid-19 !)
Objectives
Completed:
March 2018
Bangkok, Thailand
Completed:
October 2018
Manila, Philippines
Completed:
April 1- 4, 2019
KL, Malaysia
Completed
11- 15 November
2019
Hanoi, Vietnam

123. Benefits of ASEAN PMH
Putting ASEAN Farmers First Through Greater Access to Technology
CHALLENGES
• Competition against western
farmers with particularly
responsive regulatory systems
(Approval time for Australia – 20
months; vs ASEAN – 70 months)
• Limited access to technology
• Obstacles in exports
• Proliferation of counterfeit crop
protection products
ASEAN harmonization will ensure greater, faster
& safer access to new crop protection
technologies and increase competitiveness of
ASEAN farmers through
• A science-based risk assessment approach
• Evidence-based evaluation and approval of
products
• Uniform labelling guidelines across ASEAN
• Effectively communicated labelling standards
5

124. Benefits of ASEAN PMH
Efficiency Enabler – Easing the Burden for Governments of ASEAN member states
In a number of ASEAN countries, the
regulatory systems for crop protection
products are taxed to their limits.
• Creates the potential need for
these Governments to invest more
to fix the problem
• Costly investment to address the
issue if taken up individually by the
member state
• Would not remedy substantial mix
of standards and regulations
impeding trade
ASEAN harmonization will:
• Helps minimize cost, redundancy and waste
for the Governments
• Mitigates barriers to trade
• Expedites testing approval for new products
• Leverages competence among ASEAN
members through mutual acceptance of data
for product registration
• Provides incentives which encourage R&D
investment in crop protection within ASEAN
6

125. Benefits of ASEAN PMH
Filling the Tank of ASEAN’s Economic Engine – Agriculture
• Between 2003 and 2010,
ASEAN’s agro-based exports
more than tripled from US$11.8
billion to approx. US$40 billion
• The Top 8 ASEAN agro-
producing countries account
for around a 20% median
average of national GDP, but
the agricultural labor force
stands at a staggering average
of 46%
ASEAN harmonization will:
▪ Facilitating agricultural commodity trade & access
to global markets through reducing non-tariff
barriers (in support of AMAF-endorsed goal)
▪ Ensuring compliance with global best practices
▪ Adopting Codex and ASEAN MRLs into national
standards
▪ Formalizing an effective mechanism to help
acceptance of export crop commodities by
importing countries
7

126. 8

127. 9
Phase IV of PMH on MRLs
• 26 pesticide regulatory experts from 10
ASEAN member states
• Dpeuty directors of Vietnam’s Plant
protection department (PPD) did the
opening and closing address
• Dr. Yamada, an advisor to the Japan
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and
Fisheries (J-MAFF) and member of the
Joint FAO/WHO Joint Meeting on
Pesticide Residues (JMPR) as Lead
Expert
• Ensure Food Safety through quality
and consistency of information
• Facilitate and promote regional /
global trade through harmonized
MRLs
• Expedite MRLs establishment by
harmonizing residue data requirements
& transportability / acceptance of
residue data

128. 10
Phase V: Harmonization of bio-efficacy testing protocols
and mutual acceptance of bio-efficacy data within ASEAN
member states
• Focus on key crops /key pests in ASEAN
• Leverage FAO 2012 report ( on ASEAN ) for guidance
• Experts from key national /international research institutes/ universities/
from ASEAN MS will lead with facilitation by CropLife Asia
• Selected crop/ pests bio-efficacy test protocol related technical discussion
• One full week workshop / meeting including field visit planned in March –
April ,2021 (Indonesia : either Bogor or Bandung based on feedback from host
organizations DoA (Pestcom) and Bogor University ( assuming Covid 19
situation improves by that time for face to face meeting/workshop)

129. Putting ASEAN Farmers First –
Strategic Vision & Roadmap (2017-2021)
Bio-efficacy Data (Harmonization of field trial requirement – biology)
• When:
• PHASE V
• Harmonizing:
• Field testing protocols for bio-efficacy, crop safety and compatibility
• Mutual Acceptance of bio-efficacy data within AMS with similar
agricultural practices
• Key Benefits:
• Facilitates work sharing
• Ensures faster access to the latest technologies and innovations for small
holder farmers (particularly within emerging AMS)

130. Conclusion
The impact of ASEAN Pesticides Management Harmonization
ASEAN pesticides management harmonization will do its part to move
together along with other 11 priority sectors* of economy to achieve
ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) goal
It will boost innovation in agriculture and contribute to trade growth
within and outside ASEAN as a significant industry of Southeast Asia
It is expected to enhance government efficiency (regulatory, data, work
and expertise sharing)
Harmonization is a multi-stakeholder effort between ASEAN leaders, national governments and
industry. Let’s work together to realize the benefits of ASEAN Pesticides Management Harmonization.
12
*12 priority sectors for regional integration include agro-based products, air travel, automotives, eASEAN,
electronics, fisheries, healthcare, rubber-based products, textiles and apparels, tourism, wood-based products, logistics

131. 13
Thank you.
For further information, feel free to contact us:
e vasant.patil@croplifeasia.org
w croplifeasia.org
t +65 6221 1615
a 20 Malacca Street #06-00 Malacca Center Singapore 048979

133. MONITORING AND EVALUATION
Project description Activities Measurable
indicators
Year 1 Measurable
Indicators
Source of Verification
Goal (IMPACT) and Objectives (LONG TERM OUTCOMES)
GOAL:
Facilitate trade by preventing pesticide MRL violations
Up to 10% increase in
export of target crops
within five years of
project completion.
ASEAN Statistics Yearbook
SAARC Statistics Yearbook
Objective 1:
Compliance with Codex and trade partner MRLs through strategic use of non-residue
producing biopesticides
Up to 50% increase in
produce grown under a
residue mitigation
system to comply with
MRLs.
EU Rapid Alerts and other
relevant sources
Objective 2:
Increase biopesticide availability by enhancing small- scale manufacturing of biopesticides
Up to 20% increase in
microbial biopesticide
manufacturing
efficiency and
increased sales of
products in 3 years
Reports on sales
Objective 3:
Enhance regulatory infrastructure and harmonization of biopesticide registrations
At least 2
biopesticide
regulatory
guidelines
strengthened in 3
years.
Report of pesticide
regulatory authorities
Intermediate/SHORT TERM Outcomes (Indicators of Success)
• Improved knowledge/skills of governments in the areas of: data generation, data
evaluation in regard to residue MRL mitigation.
• Increased knowledge on how to integrate biopesticides as part of an IPM systems
approach.
• Enhanced regional technical ability to conduct high quality residue research and
studies that would be accepted by international standard setting bodies, such as
Codex, or by other national governments for the establishment of MRLs (good
laboratory practices (GLP), or similar criteria)
• Improved capacity to manufacture their own biopesticides using native strains
• Increased collaborations with regulatory authorities working toward biopesticide regulatory harmonization
• Improved soft skills (functional capacities) to collaborate, communicate, and innovate in the area of
biopesticides.
Indicators (Measure of Success)
• Trained field trial personnel ensure strict adherence to
study protocol and gain a 20% increase in data
generation competencies.
• Laboratory personnel exhibit improved precision and
accuracy in analytical results = more reliable data =
greater confidence.
• Improved laboratory technique will serve to
incrementally advance laboratories toward ISO
Certification or GLP recognition
• Residue mitigation data successfully provides
solutions to MRL issues and broadens the range of
markets that produce can be eligible for export based
on meeting theMRLs.
• Establishment or expansion of microbial biopesticide
manufacturing.
• Development of communications network to discuss
regulatory harmonization on a regional basis, greater
engagement of biopesticide registrants in pursuing
registrations in participating countries.
• Development of functional capacities across various

134. actors of the project.
Output Activities Workplan Q
1
Q
2
Q
3
Q
4
Indicators Source of Verification
1) Development of a sustainable
methodology to identify
problematic pesticide residues
that hinder trade (a
crop/pesticide priority list is
maintained and updated for
future efforts);
1.1 Team members
agree on methodology at
start of the project and
to be refined/discussed
in inception meeting
1.2 Develop list of
crop/pesticides at the
start of the project
1.3 update the list at
CropLife Asia-ASEAN
meeting
1.1.1 develop
methodology to identify
problematic pesticide
residue
1.2.1 use methodology
to identify pesticide
residue/trade barriers
1.2.2 prioritize pesticide
residues
1.2.3 update list Y2Q1
x x x -Agreed
methodology
-List of
crop/pesticides
Report on discussions held
to agree on methodology
and list of crops/pesticides
and outcome of report
highlighting agreed
methodology and list of
crops/pesticides
-PPG report
2)Identify biopesticides to
mitigate residues (by either
reducing residues to levels to
comply with trade partner
standards, or to eliminate
problematic residues);
2.1 Team members
identify and agree on list
of biopesticides that can
be used as residue
mitigation products and
update the list. May
identify further at the
inception meeting
2.1.1 generate potential
list of biopesticides
2.1.2 update the list
x x x -Agreed list of
biopesticides
-Updated list of
biopesticides
Report on discussions held
to generate list of potential
biopesticides
-PPG report and proposal
of consultative process
3) Increased technical capacity
to generate and evaluate
pesticide residue data;
A1 Training and capacity
development
Activity 1.1 Conduct GLP
Training Field
X X -List of scientists
receiving training
-List of scientists
utilizing training
through field
application
-disaggregation by
gender
Evaluation reports
Activity 1.2 Conduct GLP
Training Lab
X X -List of scientists
receiving training
-List of scientists
utilizing training
through lab
application
-disaggregation by
gender
Evaluation reports
Activity 1.3 Follow up
oversight Field and
Laboratory activities
X Follow-up reports
-A baseline survey will be
performed on abilities and
perceptions of confidence
in being able to conduct
residue trials from a field
and lab perspective so that
we have a starting
benchmark.
-A post study survey will

135. also be conducted to
determine how the lesser-
developed countries are
advancing in relation to the
more developed countries.
-For those countries
becoming trainers, their
ability and confidence in
being able to become
regional mentors.
-Recipients of training from
the regional trainer
countries will also be
surveyed by a teaching
evaluation.
A2 Residue mitigation
and efficacy studies
through the use of
biopesticides
Activity 1.4 Generate
Residue Decline data
X X Data/results on
residue decline
Study report
Activity 1.5 Generate
Biopesticide Efficacy
studies
x Data/results on
biopesticide efficacy
Study report
4) Increased number of
biopesticides for use in
agriculture;
4.1 Production of
biopesticides
4.1.1 Production of
biopesticides by
scientists
4.2.1 gain initial list at
the inception workshop
4.2.2 gain final list at
end of final workshop
-List and type of
biopesticides
produced and
registered in
participating
countries
-% increase in
number of
biopesticides
Manufacturers reports
Project report
5) An empowered body of
scientists capable of their own
local manufacturing of
microbial biopesticides of
native strains
A3 Training workshop on
production of
microorganisms
Activity 2.1
Conduct workshop on
small scale microbial
Biopesticide
manufacturing
X -List of scientists
trained
-disaggregation by
gender
Workshop report (quantitative
and qualitative)
Follow up report
6) Enhanced collaboration and
knowledge sharing among
ASEAN and SAARC countries
on biopesticide regulations.
A4 Regulatory
harmonization workshop
Activity 3.1
Conduct Biopesticide
regulatory harmonization
workshop
-List of people
attending the workshop
-disaggregation by
gender
Workshop report
V. Dissemination
Agricultural Extension
type efforts-Knowledge
management
-List and type of
events
-List of people
reached
-List and type of
communication tools
used
Event reports
Project report

136. Inputs for Activities Payment Q
1
Q
2
Q
3
Q
4
Indicators Source of Verification
1.Were project funds from
donors provided on time? If
not why not?
Ensure timely receipt of
project funds from donors
Total: $867,834
Payment 1:
Payment 2:
Contingency funds:
$38,250
APAARI Overhead:
$64,261.20
X X
?
-Bank statement -Finance report
-Audit report
Submit acquittals, invoice,
project updates
-Acquittals, invoice -Finance report
-Audit report
2.Were funds for sub-activities 1
provided/disbursed on time? If
not why not?
Activity 1.1 Project
Preparation Meeting
completed under PPG -Acquittals, invoice -Finance report
-Audit report
Activity 1.2 Project
preparations
$38,700 x x -Acquittals, invoice -Finance report
-Audit report
Activity 1.3 GLP Lab
training (GROUP)
Singapore
$16,000 x -Acquittals, invoice -Finance report
-Audit report
Activity 1.4 GLP lab
Individual Training (One-on-
one)
$34,500 x x -Acquittals, invoice -Finance report
-Audit report
Activity 1.5 GLP
Field Residue
training (GROUP)
Malaysia
$11,520 x -Acquittals, invoice -Finance report
-Audit report
Activity 1.6 GLP Field
Individual Training (One-
on-one)
$33,740 -Acquittals, invoice -Finance report
-Audit report
3.Were funds for sub-activities 2
provided/disbursed on time? If
not why not?
Activity 2.1 Live field trials,
efficacy and sample
analysis
$210,000 x -Acquittals, invoice -Finance report
-Audit report
4.Were funds for sub-activities 3
provided on time? If not why
not?
Activity 3.1
Capacity building
workshop on the
manufacturing of
Microbial
Biopesticides –
Nepal
$36,500 -Acquittals, invoice -Finance report
-Audit report
5.Were funds for sub-activities 4
provided on time? If not why
not?
Activity 4.1 Capacity-
building workshop on the
harmonization of
biopesticide registration
requirements in ASEAN
and SAARC countries. (Will
include Functional
Capacity as part of the
workshop) conducted in
Bangkok
$26,960 -Acquittals, invoice -Finance report
-Audit report

137. Activity 4.2 Finalization
and dissemination
planning workshop (Will
include Functional
Capacity as part of the
workshop)
$35,600 -Acquittals, invoice -Finance report
-Audit report
6.Has respective country
scientists been appointed for
the trainings, field trails and
manufacturing of the
biopesticides?
Per country for respective
activity
-List of scientists
appointed by countries
-Disaggregated by
gender
Project report
Governance Item Q
1
Q
2
Q
3
Q
4
Indicators Source of Verification
1.Have APAARI project
management arrangements
been established? If not why
not?
Administrative
arrangement on project
set up
Project manager
Administrative staff
x x -List of people and
designated role
Project report
2.Have personnel costs been
disbursed?
-APAARI staff
-IR4 Consultants
$253,266 x x x x -Acquittals, invoice -Finance report
-Audit report
3.Have travel costs been
expanded?
-APAARI staff
-IR4 Consultant
$57,000 x x x x -Acquittals, invoice -Finance report
-Audit report
4.Have contracts been signed by
countries for participating in
the project and contracts
received
Number of contracts x x Number of contracts Project report
5.Have agreements for receiving
funds for project activities
signed and received?
Number of agreements x x Number of
agreements
Project report
6. Project meetings held,
documented and reported
I. Inception Workshop,
Survey and First Steering
Committee Meeting.
X -List of participants
-Disaggregated by
gender
Workshop report
II. Steering Committee
Meeting
X X -List of participants
-Disaggregated by
gender
Workshop report
III. Reports to STDF
(Inception Report is part
of first 6-month report.
Subsequent reports are on
a 6-month
schedule.)
X X -6 months reports to
STDF
-Six monthly reports
-Project report
IV. Final Meeting to
discuss results