End-of-Project Meeting Report
III. AGENDA 2 – FINAL COUNTRY REPORT PRESENTATION
9. Chairperson reported that Brunei Darussalam had informed that they were unable to attend the End-Of-Project Meeting with apologies.
10. Mr Chin Da presented on Cambodia’s final country report and reported that they were currently in progress of implementing the traceability systems for aquaculture products.
11. In Mr Chin Da’s presentation, he informed the Meeting that several national activities/programs such as the Good Aquaculture Practices (GAqP) and research activities had been implemented for the traceability systems for aquaculture products. He reported that one of the challenges faced was difficulty for medium to large scale production companies to apply GAqP.
12. In response to Indonesia’s query on which authority was responsible for providing application form for the aquaculture activity in Cambodia, Cambodia replied that the responsibility was under the Department of Aquaculture Development. In reply to Indonesia’s query, Cambodia explained that the database of the collective application forms was managed by the Fisheries Administration but the process of data collection was difficult.
13. Indonesia enquired on the species targeted in the traceability system, to which Cambodia replied was Pangasius.
14. Cambodia stated that the registration for aquaculture activities was currently voluntary and the certification for Good Aquaculture Practice (GAqP). Philippines suggested that the certification could be renewed annually.
15. D/PHTD enquired if GAqP was part of their traceability programme with specific guidelines, to which Cambodia explained that the GAqP was just being implemented this year for small scale aquaculture farming catering to domestic consumption and it was supported by the European Union (EU).
16. DSG enquired if Cambodia exported their aquaculture products to other ASEAN member countries and overseas, to which Cambodia replied that they exported Pangasius Hypophthalmus species to Viet Nam. In response to DSG’s query if there was any requirement from Viet Nam for the export of aquaculture products, Cambodia explained that
trade regulations were imposed. Cambodia also feedback that Viet Nam could provide some technical guidance in their processing activities as there was a lack of technology in terms of aquaculture product processing.
17. Viet Nam informed the Meeting that all private sectors from Cambodia must be registered and satisfy the requirements from the Viet Namese authority before the companies could export aquaculture products to Viet Nam.
18. Dr Reza Shah Pahlevi presented on Indonesia’s final country report and he reported that the implementation of traceability systems was currently in progress.
19. In Dr Reza Shah Pahlevi’s presentation, he informed the Meeting that Indonesia had developed Movement Documents (MD) for their Traceability programme, and MD exists as 5 hardcopy documents which were colour-coded, to be completed by specific stakeholder along the aquaculture supply chain. He added that there was insufficient budget for Indonesia to complete the traceability system for aquaculture products.
20. Chairperson enquired if Indonesia had implemented the National Residues Monitoring Plan (NRMP) prototype in their states or provinces, Indonesia replied that the system had been fully implemented since 2014 and covered all provinces including big farmers in Sumatra.
21. D/PHTD enquired if the data in the NRMP system was aligned with those in the hardcopy documents, Indonesia replied that the data in the hard copies were linked to their online system.
Indonesia also added that the data input into the online system by the provincial authority was obligatory and that the data could be viewed in real time. D/PHTD suggested opening up the online traceability system to the stakeholders.
22. Philippines enquired if the system can be accessed by the industry and if the industry were agreeable about their information being published in the online system. Indonesia explained that the NRMP system was password protected and unauthorised personnel would not be able to access the data but only view the brief summary of the information.
23. Indonesia clarified that the “customer” printed on the hardcopy document referred to the middlemen or wholesalers who bought the aquaculture products from the farmers, upon query by DSG. Indonesia also explained that
“processors” referred to the final buyers who were usually the exporters of aquaculture products. Information from retailers was not recorded in the system, and it only traced up to the point of middlemen.
24. DSG enquired if there was a presence of tracking number on the hardcopy of the document, to which Indonesia explained there was a unique district code number based on the postal code.
DSG suggested that the system should also capture the lot/batch number for identification of the aquaculture products along the supply chain, apart from the tracking number of the farm and hatchery.
25. In response to the query from DSG on the types of documents that processors had to provide upon exporting aquaculture products to other countries, Indonesia stated that the hardcopy traceability documents were currently used as a basis of export requirement.
26. Indonesia stated that the hardcopy movement document tracked each transaction of aquaculture products upon Viet Nam’s query.
Indonesia also clarified that the aquaculture products from each farm/pond usually originated from one hatchery source and the traceability system was for the purpose of monitoring residue sampling.
27. D/PHTD commended Indonesia on the online NRMP prototype.
28. Mr Oudone Khounsavan presented on Lao PDR’s final country report on traceability system for aquaculture products. He reported that they were currently in the pipeline of developing national programmes and pre-requisites for implementation of the traceability system.
29. In Mr Oudone Khounsavan’s presentation, he reported that Lao PDR would be prioritising the farms to implement the traceability systems for aquaculture products. He informed the Meeting that their future works include the development of technical standards on food safety for aquaculture products as well as to promote the implementation of the traceability systems in Lao PDR.
30. Madam Noor Affizah presented on Malaysia’s final country report and reported that they had implemented the traceability systems for aquaculture products in Malaysia.
31. In Madam Noor Affizah’s presentation, she informed the Meeting that their traceability system for aquaculture shrimps was fully developed in 2012 while their live fish traceability system was developed in 2014. She added that Malaysia’s web-based traceability system covered all aspects of the supply chain and it was currently in the progress of improvement prior to implementation.
32. Mrs Aye Aye Thein presented on Myanmar’s final country report and reported that Myanmar had been implementing the traceability system for aquaculture products.
33. In Mrs Aye Aye Thein’s presentation, she informed the Meeting that the Department of Fisheries of Myanmar had implemented the GAqP for fish and shrimp farming since 2011 while the NRMP had been initiated since 2014 for several targeted species. She added that Myanmar’s future works include training of GAqP implementation for inspectors and improvements on the implementation of GAqP and NRMP.
34. Regarding the top 10 species of fishery products for export, Myanmar clarified that live eel exported were from wild source and not from aquaculture, upon queried by DSG.
35. Ms Somga, Sonia Sebastian, KPL of the Philippines presented on Philippines’ final country and reported that Philippines had implemented the traceability system for aquaculture products.
36. In Ms Somga, Sonia Sebastian’s presentation, she informed the Meeting of the relevant regulations in line with the traceability systems for aquaculture products such as the BFAR Administrative Circular No. 251. She added that one of the future works of Philippines was to continue with awareness promotion campaign, seminars and trainings for stakeholders.
37. D/PHTD enquired if the administration circular on traceability system provides all criteria to control the system, to which Philippines replied that
the traceability system contained all information within the guideline publication. Philippines added that most participants who developed the Guidelines were already implementing them at the regional level.
38. Philippines clarified that the traceability system in practice could also address seafood frauds such as misrepresentation of species, in response to Malaysia’s query. Philippines updated that the traceability laws developed and approved was in line with the requirements to prevent illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing (IUUF).
Philippines also informed the Meeting that they were required to develop a traceability system on wild catch as EU had issued them a yellow card previously. Philippines further updated that EU had already lifted the yellow card after the amendment of fishery laws. Stakeholders in the Philippines also had to be aware of the export requirement to avoid high penalty for violation of the laws.
39. Philippines informed the Meeting that their traceability system could differentiate between wild and aquaculture products, upon query from Malaysia. Philippines also stated that live fish were exported to other ASEAN countries while processed fish were exported to EU.
Philippines added that the traceability system for aquaculture products easier to control than that of wild caught. DSG commented that the starting points between captured fishery and aquaculture were different and was more complex.
40. Mr Tan Yit Wee presented on Singapore’s final country report and it was noted that the implementation of traceability systems for aquaculture products was currently in progress.
41. In Mr Tan Yit Wee’s presentation, he reported Singapore’s efforts to promote traceability through encouraging farms to digitise records for traceability purposes and educating farmers to stock traceable hatchery produced fry or fingerlings. He added that the consumer’s unwillingness to pay a higher price for traceable products was one of the issues faced in the implementation of the traceability system and the future work of Singapore was to promote the uptake of GAqP for fish farming among farms.
42. In response to Indonesia’s query on the method to trace back the aquaculture products rejected from other countries such as EU, Singapore informed the Meeting that not many Singapore farmers export seafood to EU, hence it would
be easy to identify the source if the products were rejected. D/PHTD added that AVA would issue export certification for export to EU. DSG commented that countries which were already exporting seafood to EU were considered having a good traceability system. DSG also reminded the Meeting to stay focus on the traceability system within ASEAN region.
43. Indonesia further explained that they faced difficulty tracing back the source of shrimps rejected by EU due to the presence of banned chemicals. DSG highlighted the needs to establish an effective traceability system to address such issue, especially in the case of a food recall.
44. Philippines shared that their traceability system could trace products from farm by assigning a unique identification number for each farm by location regardless of the change of operators/
owner. D/PHTD also shared that each Singapore farm had a unique farm license number for traceability purpose.
45. Indonesia explained that the fish farmers were more interested in the traceability system to facilitate their trades to EU as compared to traceability system to ensure food safety.
Indonesia also reported that traceability system was also imposed in small scale fishery industry catering for local consumption as consumers were concerned about the source of fish.
46. Mr Somboon Laoprasert presented on Thailand’s final country report and reported that Thailand had implemented the traceability systems for aquaculture products.
47. In Mr Somboon Laoprasert’s presentation, he reported Thailand’s strategies to control farms, hatcheries, feed and fishery products and that Thailand utilises manual and computerised systems for traceability. He added that their future plans include initiating the MD application on smart phone in October 2015 as well as testing and operating the computerise traceability system on black tiger shrimp clusters due to its short supply chain.
48. DSG enquired on the methods to secure the data in the e-traceability system accessible from mobile devices, to which Thailand acknowledge the importance of data confidentiality and would work on the data security.
MD were issued by government as well as farmers and companies with permission from Department of Fisheries (DoF).
50. In reply to D/PHTD’s query on the challenges Thailand faced to implement traceability system and MD, Thailand stated that some middlemen would falsifying data in the MD, and they would be prosecuted if found guilty.
51. Regarding the self-certification of MD by companies, DSG enquired about the control of such system by DoF. Thailand explained that there would be auditors to audit those with permission to certify MD and added that the companies that practise self-certification were mostly big organisation/associations. Thailand also reported that such products were accepted by EU and EU officers would check the data of DoF annually. There were also annual audits conducted by EU.
52. In response to Viet Nam’s query on the scheme owner of GAP certification to fish farms in Thailand, Thailand clarified that DoF was the Certification Body (CB) and National Bureau of Agricultural Commodity and Food Standards (ACFS) was the Accreditation Body (AB).
Thailand added that both CB and Identification body (IB) must be accredited by ACFS.
53. Thailand informed the Meeting that each farmer had a registration number and each farm would have a unique identification number, in response to Indonesia’s query regarding the registration of farmer who owned more than one farms in Thailand.
54. Thailand explained the details of the components in the manual traceability form, upon Indonesia’s request.
55. Indonesia raised concern about the control of the activities of collector and pre-processor and if they operated separately. Thailand acknowledged that it was difficult to control their activities and they would educate the farmers to sell their products directly to processor and bypass the middlemen/collectors.
56. Indonesia consulted Thailand on the main technical problems faced in the process of developing computerised traceability system.
Thailand reported that they faced similar difficulties when establishing the movement document, i.e. the server cannot be accessed on weekends when DoF officers were not on duty.
Thailand also shared that the system could be
57. DSG expressed concerned on the HACCP certification for the shrimp processor when the pre-processor were not HACCP certified.
Thailand explained that only GMP was imposed for the pre-processors as the major problem faced by the pre-processors was in terms of labour but not product quality. Thailand also clarified that pre-processor was only involved in peeling off the shrimp shells while the main shrimp processing were carried out by processors. Thailand also added that such certification standards for pre-processor and processor were implemented upon consultation with EU.
58. Ms Nguyen Thi Bang Tam, KPL of Viet Nam presented on Viet Nam’s final country report and reported that the country had implemented the traceability systems for aquaculture products.
59. In Ms Nguyen Thi Bang Tam’s presentation, she informed the Meeting of the Viet Nam’s national activities implemented for the traceability systems, such as setting up of a website to manage VietGAP certified producers. She added that the one of the future plans of Viet Nam was to continue implementing the VietGAP program for catfish, shrimp and tilapia.
60. DSG commented that the traceability system in Viet Nam was similar to those of other Member Countries. He added the traceability system not only required the effort from the government, but also the involvement of private sectors to ensure effective implementation.
IV. AGENDA 3 – DISCUSSION ON TECHNICAL