WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/GEN/874 
26 September 2008 
 (08-4565) 
Committee on Sanitary a nd Phytosanitary Measures Original:   English 
 
  
SPS/STDF/OECD WORKSHOP ON 
GOOD PRACTICE IN SPS-RELATED TECHNICAL COOPERATION 
 
 
 Background research has been funded by the STDF for consideration at the workshop on 
good practice in SPS-related technical cooperation,  which is being organized jointly by the SPS 
Committee, Standards and Trade Development Fac ility (STDF) and Organisation for Economic Co-
operation and Development (OECD) , in Geneva on 6 October 2008. 
  The STDF research is based on replies from WTO Members and OECD Development Assistance Committee Contact Points  to the request for informati on on good practice in SPS-related 
technical cooperation, circulated to th e SPS Committee in document G/SPS/GEN/816 and 
G/SPS/GEN/816/Add.1.  In this information request , Members were asked to identify one or more 
SPS-related technical assistance projects which could be considered as examples of good practice in 
one or more of the following regions:  Central America, East Africa and the Greater Mekong Delta 
Sub-region
1.  A total of 24 projects were nominated by 19 organizations in response to this request. 
 
 In-depth research has been undertaken on the projects nominated as examples of good 
practice in response to G/SPS/GEN/816 by a team of  three consultants:  Mr Jason Hafemeister,  
Mr Spencer Henson and Mr Cornelis van der Meer.     Attached is the report of Mr  Jason Hafemeister.  This report examines the projects submitted 
as examples of good practice in the Central America Sub-region.   
  This report has been prepared under the c onsultant's own respons ibility and is without 
prejudice to the WTO Secretariat, the positions of Members or to their rights or obligations under the WTO.  
 
 
_______________ 
 
  
 
 
 
                                                 
1 The following countries were included in the research:  Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, 
Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama for Central America;  Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda for East Africa; and Cambodia, Lao People’s Democratic Republic and Viet Nam for the Greater Mekong Delta Sub-region. G/SPS/GEN/874 
Page ii  
 
   
         
Good Practice in SPS-related  
Technical Cooperation 
Central America Sub-region: Costa Rica, El Salvador, 
Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama  
  
Research work for the Standards and Trade Development Facility 
 
Jason Hafemeister  
 
 
 
 
September 2008 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
This report was prepared for the STDF/OECD Worksh op on Good Practices in SPS-related Technical 
Cooperation, 6 October 2008, Geneva .  It reflects the views of the au thors alone and does not represent 
the views of the STDF or any of its partner agencies or donors. 
  G/SPS/GEN/874 
 Page iii 
 
 
  TABLE OF CONTENTS 
  
Table of Contents.............................................................................................................. .....................iii 
Executive summary.............................................................................................................. ...................v 
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................ ....................1 
2. Methodology ................................................................................................................. .................2 
3. Brief overview of the projects studied ...................................................................................... .....3 
Overview of the responses to the questionnaire surveys (G/SPS/GEN/816) .................................6 
4. Parameters of good practice in  the delivery and receipt of SPS-related technical cooperation ...10 
Annex 1: Questionnaire on Good Practice........................................................................................ ....20 
Annex 2:  List of Persons Interviewed.......................................................................................... ........24 
Annex 3:  Project information for eight nominated projects.................................................................25 Annex 3a:  Project Information— Training on M itigation Measures for Pepper and Tomato Exports26 
Annex 3b:  SPS Strengthening in Costa Rica and Guatemala ..............................................................28 Annex 3c:  Project Information—  Stre ngthening Food Safety Laboratories.......................................30 
Annex 3d:  Project Information— Establishment and Strengthening of National Codex Committees 32 
Annex 3e:  Control of ‘ broca de café ’ pest...........................................................................................34 
Annex 3f:  Project Information— Esta blishment of Fruit Fly Free Areas............................................36 
Annex 3g:  Project Information—  Papaya Export Promotion ..............................................................38 
Annex 3h:  Project Information—Pes ticide Residue Testing Training.................................................40
 
 G/SPS/GEN/874 
Page iv  
 
  Abbreviations and Acronyms 
 
APHIS   Animal Plant Health Inspection Service, United States  
BSE   Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy  
CAFTA-DR Dominican Republic – Central America –  United States Free Trade 
Agreement  
Codex   Codex Alimentarius Commission  
FAO   Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations  
IAEA   International Atomic Energy Association 
IICA    Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture  
IDB   Inter-American Development Bank  
IPPC   International Plant Protection Convention  
OECD   Organisation for Economic Co -operation and Development  
OIE   World Organisation for Animal Health 
OIRSA Organismo Internacional Regional de Sanidad Agropecuaria (Regional 
Organization for Agriculture Health)  
SPS   Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures  
STDF   Standards and Trade Development Facility 
USDA    U.S. Department of Agriculture 
USAID    U.S. Agency for International Development  
WTO   World Trade Organization  
  G/SPS/GEN/874 
 Page v 
 
 
  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
1. In the context of the ongoing monitoring of Aid for Trade by the World Trade Organization 
(WTO) and other organizations, this research work  has been commissioned by the Standards and 
Trade Development Facility (STDF) to identify good practice in technical cooperation in the sanitary 
and phytosanitary (SPS) area in Central America.  The focus is on assistance provided to Costa Rica, 
El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua an d Panama.  This study builds on recent work 
sponsored by the STDF and Inter-American Deve lopment Bank (IDB) to examine the supply and 
receipt of SPS-related technical cooperation in Ce ntral America and identify outstanding priorities 
and needs. 2 
2. Research for this study is based on responses to a survey questionnaire, which requested 
information on projects considered as examples of good practice (G/SPS/GEN/816 and 
G/SPS/GEN/816/Add.1).  The questionnaire was distributed to WTO Members and OECD 
Development Assistance Committee contact points in  January and April 2008.  Eight projects in 
Central America were nominated in response (see table below).  Six projects were put forward by donors and two by the recipient country (Costa Rica).   
Projects nominated as examples of good practice in response to G/SPS/GEN/816 
1. Peppers and Tomatoes Mitigating Measures Training  in CAFTA-DR countries nominated by the United 
States 
U.S. Pepper and Tomato project 
2. SPS Training in Costa Rica and Guatemala nominated by Canada 
  Canada SPS Training project  
3. Laboratory Improvement in Central America nominated by FAO 
FAO Lab project 
4. Establishing and Strengthening Codex Committees in Central America nominated by FAO 
FAO Codex project 
5. Control of ‘ Broca de Café’  pest in Panama and Costa Rica (FAO  TCP project) nominated by Costa Rica 
Broca de Café project 
6. Establishment of Fruit Fly Free Areas in Central America (various donors, including FAO, USDA, and 
IAEA) nominated by Costa Rica 
Fruit Fly Free project 
7. Papaya Export Promotion in Guat emala nominated by Chinese Taipei 
Chinese Taipei Papaya project 
8. Residue Testing in Panama nominated by Chinese Taipei 
Chinese Taipei Residue Testing project 
Source :  Responses to G/SPS/GEN/816  
3. The consultant subsequently conducted in-per son and telephone interviews with project 
donors and beneficiaries, and reviewed  related literature where availabl e, to identify elements of good 
practice in the design, implementation, outputs and achievement of higher-order objectives of these projects.  Fieldwork was carried out in July and August 2008. 
4. The projects nominated as examples of good practice addressed various components of SPS 
including institutional strengthening and technical assistance to increase market access and specific 
                                                 
2 Regional SPS Balance Sheet for Central America.  Available at: 
www.standardsfacility.org/Central_America.htm  G/SPS/GEN/874 
Page vi  
 
  exports (i.e. peppers, tomatoes, pa paya and coffee).  Several of th e projects nominated were regional 
in scope, covering all of Central America and Panama.   
5. The research in Central America identified a nu mber of elements of good practice in project 
design.  These included:  (i) alignment of project  objectives with national and regional development 
strategies and national policies;  (ii) close collabora tion of donors and beneficiaries (including private 
sector groups as appropriate) at the design stage;  (iii) adoption of a regional approach to take 
advantage of economies of scale and enable benef its to be leveraged across countries;  (iv) 
development of linkages and synergies with rele vant completed and/or ongoing activities;  (v) 
identification of needs and priorities through deta iled needs assessments;  (vi) development of 
linkages with international and regional organiza tions to obtain specific technical expertise and 
enhance implementation; and (vii) adoption of a va lue chain approach to maximize trade impacts. 
6. Several lessons emerged with respect to good practice in project implementation.  
Transferring practical knowledge and skills throu gh hands-on and on-the-job training, and using a 
training-of-trainers approach to get the most out of  training activities, was seen as useful.  The need 
for flexibility to address unforeseen challenges and en able lessons learned during implementation to 
be incorporated was emphasized.  The research al so highlighted the importance of being able to 
implement projects that respond to real trade opportu nities and challenges in a timely manner, and the 
utility of taking a multi-sectoral and multi-disciplinary approach to address the complexities and scope of SPS needs.  The involvement of producers'  organizations was put forward as a practical way 
to encourage private sector participation and enhance sustainability.   
7. In terms of project outputs and the achievement of higher-order objectives, one of the main 
conclusions focused on the benefits of adopting a results-oriented approach and formulating projects 
with clear and relatively narrow objectives focused on market access.  Adopting such a targeted  and 
export-oriented approach was credited w ith generating more tangible outputs.   
8. All the projects identified as examples of good practice in Central America sought to promote 
exports, directly or indirectly, and facilitate acce ss to foreign markets by increasing capacity to 
comply with SPS requirements.  The immediate record  of success is mixed.  Two projects had direct 
positive effects on exports;  the U.S. peppers and to matoes capacity building project and the Chinese 
Taipei papaya project.  Elements of these projects that contributed to export success included, most importantly, targeted activities to meet the import re quirements of particular foreign markets, training 
focused at the producer/packer level to increase capacity to meet import requirements, close 
coordination with competent authorities in export markets, and the identification of private sector 
investment to enhance sustainability.  The proj ect to establish fruit fly free zones requires further 
work to come to fruition in technical and market pr ofitability terms.  The Canadian BSE project in the 
region has helped move Costa Rica closer to minima l risk designation, which will facilitate exports in 
the future.  The Broca de Café  project in Costa Rica has reduced the risk of losses due to pest damage, 
however, it is difficult to quantify specific benefits. 
9. The U.S. peppers and tomatoes project was d esigned jointly by the Central American 
governments based on private sector interest.  Proj ect implementation involved collaboration with the 
donor agencies (USDA and USAID) in the United St ates.  Assistance focused on informing growers 
and processors about techniques and requirements to control pests and increase product quality to 
meet U.S. import standards.  Work also include d technical training for government officials to 
monitor and certify production practices and quality, in cluding training in the field and tours of import 
facilities in the United States.  Central Americ a has competitive advantages as a fresh vegetable 
producer so once the market was opened, private sect or participants were able to increase production 
and implement necessary good practices to gain and ma intain market access.   Similar results were 
achieved by another project, which applied a comparab le approach to expand dairy and beef exports 
from Central America to the United States.  G/SPS/GEN/874 
 Page vii 
 
 
  10. The Chinese Taipei papaya project shared a number of the characteristics outlined above.  
While the project was designed by the donor, it was based on studies showing the export competitiveness of the Guatemalan papaya industry and the success of other Guatemalan producers in 
the Petèn region in gaining access to the U.S. mark et.  The donor was able to transfer relevant 
technical expertise from its own experience with  papaya production.  Implemented in close 
collaboration with the local producer's associati on and municipal government, the project focused on 
field-level training for local growers.  A packing facility was constructed with the capacity to meet 
quarantine standards of the target market (the  United States).  Activities were undertaken with 
competent authorities in the U.S. and Guatemala to  support certification.  Other activities focused on 
developing marketing skills to increase exports to th e United States market and within the region.   
11. The success of the tomatoes, peppers and papaya  export promotion projects was built in part 
on broader institutional capacity that includes public sector capacity to carry out quarantine, testing, 
diagnosis and certification, which are necessary to facilitate export performance.  These services have 
benefited from capacity building in the past.  Some  of the good practice projects considered here 
focused on strengthening institutional capacity in the se areas.  However, it was much more difficult to 
assess and quantify the impact of such projects.  Nevertheless, the recipient countries and officials 
involved in these projects praised them highly; an increase in the number of accredited laboratories in 
the region was put forward as an indicator of the success of the laboratory project.   
12. Aspects of good practice that emerged in the pr ojects focused on institutional strengthening 
included:  (i) facilitating a leading role for beneficiar ies in project design to promote legitimacy;  (ii) 
adopting a training-of-trainers approach to dissem inate knowledge and skills more widely;  (iii) 
assessing risks as part of programme design;  and (iv) the development of professional networks to 
share expertise and information across countries in the region.  While regional activities, including 
training, were able to take advantage of econom ies of scale and scope, challenges emerged when  
countries participating in regional projects had diffe ring levels of development and/or needs.   
13. In general, beneficiaries emphasized the need for additional external assistance and increased 
national efforts to strengthen institutional capacity  in the SPS area.  Staff turnover, inadequate 
resources and a lack of infrastructure were identif ied as the main challenges faced.  However, it is 
difficult to say how much additional assistance is required to enhance capacity in these areas and how 
to measure the impact of this assistance.  G/SPS/GEN/874 
 Page 1 
 
 
  1. INTRODUCTION 
1. This study is part of research on good prac tice in the delivery and receipt of SPS-related 
technical cooperation, carried out by the Standa rds and Trade Development Facility (STDF) in 
collaboration with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).  The aim 
of this research was to examine the impact and effectiveness of SPS-related technical assistance and 
identify good practice that coul d be replicated elsewhere. 
2. This good practice research builds on previous  research work and regional consultations, 
which took place in Central Ameri ca within the Aid for Trade Initiativ e to synthesize the results of 
existing SPS capacity evaluations, develop an inventor y of technical assistance and identify gaps and 
priorities not being addressed.  Specifically, it aims to identify and analyse elements of good practice 
in the design, implementation, outputs and the achievement of higher-order objectives for eight 
projects in Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Hondur as, Nicaragua and Panama.  It is to be stressed 
that the present study is not an evaluation  of the projects studied.  
3. The projects considered as examples of good practice in SPS-related technical assistance in 
this report demonstrate the importance of capacity  to comply with SPS measures in key export 
markets and its critical impact on trade performance in Central America.  The research and analysis 
further underlines that efforts to exploit higher-value food and agricultural exports, as part of poverty 
alleviation and export diversifica tion strategies, are strongly linked to SPS capacity building activities.  
4. Central American countries have many comp etitive advantages in food and agriculture 
production, but import markets are often restricted or closed because of SPS import requirements.  
Central American countries are world-class competitors  in fruits, vegetables, fish and seafood, sugar, 
coffee and other products due to competitive produc tion costs and high quality.  Food processing 
industries are improving competitiveness and benefit from competitive input costs and access to large 
developed country markets.  Meat and dairy pr oducers are already export competitive for some 
products in some countries, and also benefit fro m cost advantages over some major competitors.  
However, current export opportunities are constrai ned by a number of market access barriers in key 
foreign markets.   These include pest concerns (in particular related to fruit flies on horticultural 
products), diseases (a particular problem for animal product exports), and food safety risks associated 
with microbiological contamination and product wh olesomeness.  Central American exporters have 
also had difficulty in meeting process standard re quirements (public and private), and in complying 
with labelling regulations in importing countries. 
5. Institutional strengthening is required to expa nd the capability of the exporting country to 
monitor and control pests and diseases, to certify co mpliance with private and public standards, and 
improve agricultural and manufacturing process to ma intain food quality.   Government certification 
of pest or disease free status in a region or a country  is a critical requirement for dealing with concerns 
such as fruit fly infestation or prevalence of diseas es such as BSE in cattle, exotic Newcastle’s disease 
in poultry, classical swine fever in  hogs, and tristeza and greening in citrus.  Food safety requirements 
of importing countries rely on recognition of domestic  food safety procedures and/or testing to ensure 
compliance with importing country requirements.  Obtaining these certifications and fostering a 
strong system of domestic food safety standards,  and receiving recognition by importing countries, 
requires a functioning institutional system that h as international credibility.  A robust institutional 
system depends on a number of factors, including in frastructure, trained staff, a competent national 
authority, laboratory networks, and capacity for monitoring, inspection and quarantine.  Central 
American countries all have needs in these areas, but  despite shortcomings ha ve managed to expand 
exports and develop new markets in the face of SPS requirements. 
6. In a number of instances, access to particular ma rkets for specific products is limited because 
of lack of infrastructure, knowledge or training.  An important example relates to efforts to export 
horticultural products and dealing w ith fruit fly concerns of importing countries, including the United G/SPS/GEN/874 
Page 2  
 
  States, Japan, Korea and China.   Addressing im porting country concerns, including by developing 
mechanisms for establishing pest-free regions and pest-free packing facilities, requires additional 
work for a number of specific products and, in par ticular, products not yet exported.  In addition, 
improving existing regimes for products eligible for export, such as heat treatment for treating 
mangos, is a priority for exporting countries.  Similarly, countries in the region have an interest in 
exporting poultry but need to eradicate certain diseases (such as Newcastle’s disease) and receive 
recognition of disease-free status and acceptable sanita ry conditions.  The status of animal and plant 
health varies across the region, with some countries further advanced than others.  Capacity building 
for both institutional strengthening and to address specific technical needs will contribute to the 
ability of Central American countries to meet th e health, safety and quality standards of importing 
countries.  
7. The report is structured in four sections.  Fo llowing this introduction, section 2 discusses the 
methodology for this research work.  Section 3 pr ovides an overview of the projects nominated as 
examples of good practice.  The fourth section discusses various aspects of good practice in project design, implementation, impact and the achieve ment of higher-order objectives.  Section 5 
summarizes conclusions and recommendations.  
2. METHODOLOGY 
8. In January 2008, the STDF requested WTO Members, as well as OECD Development 
Assistance Committee contact points, to identify and provide information on SPS-related technical 
assistance projects that are considered as examples of good practice (G/SPS/GEN/816).
3  The survey 
questionnaire, developed jointly by the STDF an d OECD, sought to obtain information on the 
relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability of nominated projects reflecting the 
OECD Development Assistance Committee criteria for evaluating development assistance.   
9. Six countries and international or ganizations nominated eight projects in Central America as 
examples of good practice in SPS-related technical coope ration in response to this survey.  Research 
was subsequently carried out in the region to obtain the views of project beneficiaries and partners on 
various aspects of good practice in the nominated projects.  This comprised telephone interviews, 
field visits and face-to-face interviews in Guatemal a, Costa Rica and Panama with donors and project 
beneficiaries.4  The interviews, which were conducted using a standard semi-structured guide, 
explored the findings of the donor questionnaires in greater detail and sought the views of project 
beneficiaries and partners on practices that enabled effective implementation and sustained benefits.   
10. This study is based on information derived from the interviews, r esponses to the survey 
questionnaires and other relevant documentation obtained through th is fieldwork and research.  It 
analyses good practice aspects of the nominated projects based on available project documentation 
(including evaluation reports where available), co mpleted questionnaires and interviews.  It does not 
seek to provide a comprehensive review of project operations and outputs, which is beyond the scope 
of this research.  In some cases, some of the projects are still underway and conclusions are 
preliminary.  Furthermore, it is not intended as an evaluation of the projects considered.   
11. A number of challenges were encountered durin g the research for this study in Central 
America, which provided complications for inform ation collection.  Some of the projects were 
conducted several years ago and, in a number of ca ses, it was difficult to locate project partners and 
beneficiaries.  In some instances, the national o fficials involved in project design and management 
had changed jobs and were  unavailable for interviews.  The geogr aphic scope of nominated projects, 
which involved six countries in Central America, w as an additional challenge in view of the time 
available for the research.  In that co ntext, it is also important to note  that while several of the projects 
                                                 
3 See Annex 1 
4 See Annex 2 for a list of persons interviewed.  G/SPS/GEN/874 
 Page 3 
 
 
  studied were regional in nature, the research conduc ted for this study focused on their activities in a 
sub-set of the countries covered.  
3. BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECTS STUDIED  
12. Eight projects were nominated as examples of good practice in response to the survey 
questionnaire (G/SPS/GEN/816) as illustrated in Table 1.   
Table 1.  Projects nominated as examples of good practice in SPS-related technical 
cooperation in Central America5 
1. Peppers and Tomatoes Mitigating Measures Training in CAFTA-DR countries  
Donor/Intl Agency : United States 
Countries : All 
SPS topic : Pest ma nagement 
Assistance : Training Brief description :  Provide information and train officials 
and produces in the region on how to meet requirements 
to export fresh tomato and peppers to the United States. 
2. SPS Training Project in Costa Rica , Guatemala, and Caribbean countries 
Donor/Intl Agency : Canada 
Countries : Costa Rica and Guatemala 
SPS topic : Animal health and general SPS capacity. 
Assistance : Training Brief description : Assist Costa Rica with BSE diagnostics 
and animal health.  Provide Guatemala with broad SPS 
training. 
3. Strengthening Food Safety Laboratories in Central America  
Donor/Intl Agency : FAO 
Countries : All 
SPS topic : Food safety  
Assistance : Training   Brief description :  Develop national plans and train 
laboratory officials to obtain accreditation in specific 
analytical standards. 
4. Establishment and Strengthening of National Codex Committees  
Donor : FAO 
Country : All 
SPS topic : Institutional strengthening 
Assistance : Training   Brief description :  Create and strengthen national Codex 
committees, disseminate information on Codex 
standards, and training o fficials and private sector 
experts on Codex principles. 
5. Control of ‘ Broca de Café’  pest in Panama and Costa Rica  
Donor :  FAO  
Countries :  Costa Rica and Panama 
SPS topic :  Pest management 
Assistance :  Training and information dissemination  Brief description :  Training officials and producers in 
identification and management of pest infestation. 
6. Establishment of Fruit Fly Free Areas  
Donor :  IAEA, OIRSA, FAO, IICA, USDA/APHIS  
Country : Costa Rica principally 
SPS topic : Pest ma nagement 
Assistance : Training, infrastruct ure, and management Brief description :  Pilot project to identify potential fly 
free area and development of control and monitoring 
programmes for selected area. 
7. Papaya Export Promotion 
Donor : Chinese Taipei 
Countries : Guatemala 
SPS topic : Productivity, pest mana gement, plant health, 
and export promotion 
Assistance : Training, hard infrastructure, marketing   Brief description :  Assistance to growers, construction of 
packing plant, assistance in obtaining import approvals, 
and marketing coordination. 
8. Rapid Bioassay of Pesticide Residues  on Fruits and Vegetables 
Donor :  Chinese Taipei 
Country :  Panama 
SPS topic : Food safety 
Assistance : Training and infrastructure Brief description :  Technical training and funding support 
to establish a pilot programme for national residue testing. 
Source :  Responses to G/SPS/GEN/816. 
 
                                                 
5 Additional information on each of the projects nominated in presented in Annex 3. G/SPS/GEN/874 
Page 4  
 
  13. Most of the projects nominated had specific market objectives, which included assisting 
beneficiary countries in meeting SPS standards of importing countries.  Three focused on pest management as a key objective, specifically mee ting import standards for peppers and tomatoes, 
establishing fruit fly free zones, and obtaining export certification for papaya.  The focus of the other projects was on animal health diagnostics for Bovi ne Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) testing, 
pesticide residue testing for fruits and vegetables,  strengthening laboratory standards and obtaining 
laboratory certification, and establishing and stre ngthening national Codex co mmittees.  While all the 
projects included elements of institutional strengthe ning, including training in various technical 
disciplines, only one (still being implemented)  entailed general SPS capacity building for the 
beneficiary country.  The papaya export promotion project also included investment in physical 
infrastructure, training on good agricultural practices and marketing assistance. 
14. Several of the projects were regional in scope  and some included additional countries in the 
Caribbean.  Some of the regional projects, particul arly those addressing particular export priorities, 
were narrowly focused on specific countries.  The th ematic focus of the regional projects similarly 
differed across the areas of plant and animal hea lth, food safety, export promotion and institutional 
strengthening.  
15. Assistance was generally delivered through tr aining and building technical expertise of 
government officials and private sector actors.  Several projects entaile d focused workshops and 
training to improve institutional capacity.  This included projects for laboratories, establishing 
national Codex committees, building capacity to mon itor and control pests and diseases, and pesticide 
residue testing.  One project entailed investment in physical infrastructure.   
16. A brief overview of each of the projects studied is provided below. 
17. The objective of the U.S. Pepper and Tomato project was to assist Central American countries 
in meeting phytosanitary requirements of the Un ited States for these products, particularly with 
respect to U.S. requirements for mediating measure s for fruit flies.  The United States worked with 
Central American countries in identifying this proj ect and to develop a work plan for providing 
technical assistance.  The project was implemented in 2006 at the cost of US$36,000 and entailed 
training of phytosanitary officials and producers in Central American countries to allow them to implement policies to meet import requirements.  This training included bringing U.S. regulatory 
experts to the region to explain the U.S. system and to demonstrate agricultural and inspection techniques to ensure exports could conform to U.S. standards.  As a result of this assistance, some 
producers in each of the Central America Free Trade Agreement
6 (CAFTA) countries were able to 
access the U.S. market and each of the countries e xperienced substantial increases in exports.  In 
addition, training on pest monitoring and control expanded capacity of government authorities and 
private sector to implement similar controls for other products and markets. 
18. The Canadian-funded SPS training was implemented in Costa Rica between 2002 and 2004 
with a budget of CAN$2.2 million (equivalent to approximately US$2.1 million).  It focused on 
establishing a system of monitoring and contro l for bovine spongiform encephalophathy (BSE).  
Through providing expert training to government officials, including through bringing Canadian expert regulators to Costa Rica for hands-on traini ng, the project helped to strengthen Costa Rica’s 
internal systems of monitoring and control and supported national efforts to advance from “indeterminate risk” disease status to “minimal  risk” recognition at the World Organisation for 
Animal Health (OIE).  Broader SPS capacity bui lding had been planned for Guatemala but the 
programme was delayed, in part because of th e change of government in Guatemala.   
                                                 
6 Originally, the agreement encompassed the United States and the Central American countries of 
Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua, and was calle d CAFTA.  In 2004, the Dominican 
Republic joined the negotiations, and the agreement was renamed CAFTA-DR.   G/SPS/GEN/874 
 Page 5 
 
 
  19. The FAO laboratory project was conducted between 2005 and 2006 with a budget of 
US$250,000.  It followed up on work within the regional network of laboratory experts, who 
identified capacity building needs of food safety laboratories in the region.  The project conducted a series of training workshops focused on good laborato ry practices throughout Central America.  The 
venue for training rotated across countries in the region with the host country responsible for logistical 
coordination.  Government officials who particip ated in the workshops then conducted training 
sessions in their home country to disseminate the knowle dge and skills gained.  Thanks in part to this 
work, the number of accredited laboratories in the region has increased.    
20. The FAO Codex Committee project was conducted from 2000 to 2003 with a budget of 
almost US$400,000.  The project's objective was to  establish national Codex committees in countries 
where they did not exist to allow governments and the private sector to better understand Codex 
standards and procedures, and to participate more fully in the Codex standard-setting process.  FAO 
identified experts to conduct training sessions an d hired national coordina tors to work with 
government officials.  Countries shared responsibili ty for hosting training sessions and participating 
officials subsequently conducted training sessions  in their home countries.  Outputs included 
increased number of functioning national Codex co mmittees and improved pa rticipation in Codex 
activities by Central American countries. 
21. The need for the FAO-funded Broca de Café  project in Costa Rica was identified by coffee 
producers in Costa Rica who recognized the risks associated with this pest.  Coffee producers, 
working with the government of Costa Rica, develope d an information campaign to help identify pest 
outbreaks in the country and developed monitoring and control plans for government and producers.  
The project, which had a budget of US$400,000 and technical support from the FAO, was 
implemented from 2001 to 2003.  Thanks in part to this training, although Broca de Café  pests have 
been intercepted in Costa Rica, the pest has b een unable to establish itself, saving producers from 
substantial crop losses.  
22. The US$2.5 million project to establish fruit fly free zones in Central America was financed 
by in-kind contributions from a range of national and international organiza tions, and carried out from 
2001 to 2006.  Pilot activities were initiated in Co sta Rica.  International and regional partners 
involved included the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA), the Regional International 
Organization for Agriculture Health (OIRSA), the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal Plant 
Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Inter-American  Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA) 
and FAO.  The project established a surveillance, eradication and control programme to detect and 
control fruit flies in the designated zone.  Although s till to be recognized by importing countries as an 
official fruit fly free zone, the number of fruit flies intercepted has fallen substantially.  The project 
also identified a number of other potential fruit fly free zones in Central America for potential future 
work on eradication, monitoring and control. 
23. The Chinese Taipei papaya export promotion pr oject, initiated in 2007 and still ongoing, is 
working with local producers in Guatemala to in crease productivity, reduce p est damages and develop 
export market potential.  The project included s upport for marketing and the establishment of a 
papaya packing facility.  This facility is in the pr ocess of obtaining export certification, enabling it to 
demonstrate that its papayas are fruit fly-free and thereby gaining access to the United States.  The 
project, which has a budget of US$850,000, is he lping to increase exports from the region.   
24. The Chinese Taipei pesticide residue-testing project was conducted between 2005 and 2007 
with a budget of US$440,000.  The objective was to support Panama to reduce pesticide residues in 
fruit and vegetable products as a means to improve  domestic food safety and improve prospects in 
export markets.  Panamanian officials and their counterparts from Chinese Taipei developed testing 
methodologies for residues and increased testing of fresh  fruits and vegetables, including field-testing.  
Information on good agricultural practices was shar ed with producers to reduce their reliance on G/SPS/GEN/874 
Page 6  
 
  pesticides, and increase the use of biological contro ls and promote more targeted applications.  
Panamanian officials report that the project h as helped to reduce pesticide residue findings. 
Overview of the responses to the que stionnaire surveys (G/SPS/GEN/816) 
25. The responses to the surveys, which provide the perspectives of the donor countries and 
international agencies as well as one of the recipi ent countries (Costa Rica), are presented below.   
Project design  
26. The completed surveys indicate that the impetus fo r most of the projects (7 of 8) nominated as 
examples of good practice came from beneficiaries in  the countries concerned.  Only one project 
(Chinese Taipei papaya export promotion) was re ported as having been identified by the donor.  
However, the interviews revealed that donor interest also played an important part in the initiation of 
several of the projects studied.   
27. Three projects were identified by individual be neficiary countries (two for Costa Rica and one 
for Panama).  Two projects were identified by r ecipients through regional processes (the FAO lab 
project was developed through the regional labora tory network and the U.S. pepper and tomato 
project through the CAFTA-DR trade capacity buildi ng committee), with the projects then developed 
the project in conjunction with donors.  The FAO lab project was identified as a priority by Latin 
American countries through discussions held under a regional laboratory association and presented to 
the FAO.  The beneficiaries and the donor then wo rked collaboratively to develop the project.  The 
U.S. pepper and tomato project was identified by CA FTA countries as an area for priority attention 
under bilateral technical capacity building and presented to the United States.  The donor and beneficiary then worked collaboratively to develop th e specific elements of the project.  According to 
the surveys, five of the projects were developed collaboratively by donors and recipients, while two 
were designed by the beneficiaries (Costa Rica regional fruit fly free zone s and Panama pesticide 
residue testing) and one by the donor (Guatemala pa paya project).  Each of the projects studied were 
developed based on some form of needs assessme nt, although informal ass essments and general 
recognition of problems and priorities informed several of them.  A detailed technical assessment was 
carried out as part of the design phase for four of the projects studied.  
28. Three of the projects studied were based on previous work, carried out by the funding 
organization or other development part ners.  Three were pilot projects. 
• U.S. peppers and tomatoes mitigating measur es training project – follow-up trade capacity 
building under CAFTA-DR; 
• Canadian SPS training project – implementati on of needs identified in earlier assessment; 
• FAO Broca de la Fruta  project in Costa Rica – stand-alone project; 
• IAEA-OIRSA-IICA-FAO-USDA/APHIS Costa Rica Fruit Fly Free Zones – pilot project;  
• FAO strengthening food safety laboratories in Central America – following regional 
laboratory capacity building work; 
• FAO establishment and strengthening of nati onal Codex committees – stand-alone project; 
• Chinese Taipei papaya export promotion – pilot project; and  
• Chinese Taipei pesticide residue testing for fru its and vegetables – pilot project.       G/SPS/GEN/874 
 Page 7 
 
 
  Preparation     
29. Table 2A illustrates how survey respondents per ceived the sufficiency of preparation time and 
information gathering for their respective projects.  
Table 2A. Preparation time and information gathering 
Level of sufficiency Projects 
80-100% Costa Rica Fruit Fl y Free Zones, FAO Labs 
60-80% Canada SPS training, Costa Rica Broca de la Fruta   
40-60% Chinese Taipei Papaya , U.S. Peppers and Tomatoes 
20-40% Chinese Taipei Pesticide Residue 
No response FAO Codex 
Source :  Responses to G/SPS/GEN/816 
 
30. On the whole, national government institutions or counterparts (mainly agricultural and health 
ministry officials) were consulted by donors during the design phase.  Some projects (U.S. Tomato and Pepper, Chinese Taipei Papaya and Costa Rica Fly Free zone) also involved consultations and 
coordination with private sector implementers and/or  other relevant internat ional organizations such 
as the Secretariat for the International Plant Prot ection Convention (IPPC) and Regional International 
Organization for Agriculture Health (OIRSA).   
Implementation 
31. Responsibility for implementation of the projects c onsidered varied as illustrated in Table 2B.  
Some of the projects were implemented by the publ ic sector in collaboration with concerned private 
sector organizations.  For example, the Chinese Taipei  papaya project worked with the cooperation of 
the La Libertad producers association to implement good agricultural practices and pest control.  The 
Broca de Café  was implemented with the Costa Rica coff ee producers association.  The Costa Rica 
pilot project for fruit fly free zones entailed clo se cooperation with local companies in the zone 
producing and packing horticultural products. Th e U.S. pepper and tomato project entailed 
cooperation with national producer associations to organize meetings and working with particular 
private sector growers to implement pest monitoring and control practices.  
Table 2B.  Project implementation 
Projects  Implementing offices 
U.S. Tomato and Peppers USDA/APHIS and USDA/FAS 
Canada Independent Contractor – TDV Global Inc. 
Costa Rica – Broca de la Fruta  Government and Private Sector 
Costa Rica – Fruit Fly Free 
Zones Government and Private Sector 
FAO - Labs FAO 
FAO - Codex FAO 
Chinese Taipei - Papaya Chinese Taipei 
Chinese Taipei – Pesticide 
Residue Panama 
Source :  Responses to G/SPS/GEN/816 
 
32. According to the completed surveys, beneficiar ies participated to varying degrees in project 
implementation (Table 2C).  In some cases, beneficiaries participated through the joint 
implementation of activities.  In other cases, they  provided in-kind contributions such as use of 
offices, facilities, transportation and salaries for govern ment staff.  For several of the projects studied, 
the beneficiary countries were responsible for hosting training sessions, as well as providing follow-
up training for nationals unable to attend overseas training sessions. Beneficiaries also provided G/SPS/GEN/874 
Page 8  
 
  significant inputs to needs assessment and, in some instances, data for risk assessments for example in 
the Costa Rica fruit fly free zones project the Gove rnment of Costa Rica has been tracking pest 
incidences over a period of several years.   
Table 2C.  Participation of beneficiaries in project implementation 
Level Projects 
80-100% Canada,, Costa Rica Fruit Fly Free Zones, FAO labs 
60-80% Costa Rica Broca de la Fruta  
40-60% U.S. Peppers and Tomato 
20-40% Chinese Taipei Pesticide 
0 – 20% Chinese Taipei Papaya 
No response FAO Codex 
Source :  Responses to G/SPS/GEN/816 
 
33. None of the respondents to the survey identifie d major difficulties in project implementation.  
However, common challenges reported included in adequate training budgets (to cover a larger 
number of persons and provide additional courses), c oordination difficulties, and difficulties to 
provide common training materials across countries with different levels of sophi stication in technical 
areas. 
34. A range of entities conducted monitoring.  Given that most of the projects entailed training, 
monitoring was most important for the United States (to protect against pest infestations), the Costa 
Rica Fruit Fly Free Zones (to preserve the fly free status), and generally by donors to comply with 
fiduciary responsibilities. 
Table 2D.  Monitoring 
Projects  Monitor 
U.S. Tomato and Peppers USDA/APHIS 
Canada Independent Contractor – TDV Global Inc. 
Costa Rica – Broca de la Fruta  International Organizations involved 
Costa Rica – Fly Free Zones International Organization involved 
FAO - Labs FAO 
FAO - Codex Beneficiaries 
Chinese Taipei - Papaya Chinese Taipei 
Chinese Taipei – Pesticide Residue Panama 
Source : Responses to G/SPS/GEN/816 
 
35. Minor adjustments to timeframes for implemen ting projects and for allocating specific budget 
items were the only changes identified.  One subs tantial change in timing occurred in one project 
(Canada’s project in Guatemala), related to the change of government in the beneficiary country. 
Evaluation      
36. The completed surveys indicated that five of  the projects had been evaluated formally.  
However, interviews with beneficiaries revealed  that not much was known about these evaluations.  
The three ongoing projects will be evaluated once finalized.    G/SPS/GEN/874 
 Page 9 
 
 
  Sustainability 
37. Sustainability was considered by all projects, and generally continuation rates were reported 
at high levels.  The U.S. peppe r and tomato project is deemed to be sustainable because of the 
participation of private sector producers who are earning revenue from export sales.  FAO laboratory 
and Codex projects are identified as sustainabl e because the training has been completed and 
information has been disseminated, although problems with government personnel turnover 
complicate this question.  The Chinese Taipei papaya project, when completed, will leave a 
sustainable export business, although ongoing technical assistance to growers will depend on 
government participation. 
Table 2E.  Sustaining benefits without funding 
Level Projects 
Continuation of benefits without funding 
80-100% U.S. Peppers and Tomato, FAO Labs, FAO Codex, Chinese 
Taipei Papaya 
60-80% Canada SPS, Costa Rica Broca de la Fruta  
40 – 60% Costa Rica Free Zone, Ch inese Taipei Pesticide Residue 
Capacity of beneficiaries to sustain benefit  
80-100% U.S. Peppers and Tomato , Costa Rica Broca, FAO Labs, 
FAO Codex  
60-80% Canada SPS, 
40 – 60% Costa Rica Fruit Fly Free Zone, Chinese Taipei Papaya 
20 – 40% Chinese Taipei Pesticide Residue 
Source :  Responses to G/SPS/GEN/816 
 
Outputs and good practices      38. More than half of the survey respondents stat ed that 80-100% of their respective project's 
objectives/outputs were achieved.  Two projects (Canada SPS and Chinese Taipei papaya) received 
lower scores given that these are still ongoing.  Some  of the most striking outputs identified were self-
sustaining export systems such as the U.S. pepper and tomato programme, the Chinese Taipei papaya 
export promotion project and the FAO project on establishing a fruit fly free zone in Costa Rica.  
Either by actually generating exports and income, or  creating physical and systematic infrastructures, 
these projects were able to generate clear gains in terms of increased international trade.   
39. The FAO laboratory project was credited by several countries in helping them obtain 
accreditation for national labs, including for services related to export certification.  The FAO Codex 
programme assisted in creating national Codex committees where none existed before.  Activities 
initiated under the Chinese Taipei pesticide residue  programme in Panama have been continued by 
national authorities there, reflecting the value th at Panama derived from this assistance.  The 
Canadian-support animal health programme in Co sta Rica contributed to the development and 
operation of a system for BSE monitoring, while the FAO Broca de la Fruta  programme in Costa 
Rica has helped reduce losses from pest infestations. 
40. Respondents to the survey identified the followi ng aspects of good practice in project design, 
implementation and the achievement of higher-order  objectives, which could be repeated in future 
activities:     
(a) targeted focus on specific needs (various projects); 
(b) close collaboration with regulatory agencies to ensure technical assistance reflects 
import requirements and commercial ne eds (U.S. tomato and peppers); G/SPS/GEN/874 
Page 10  
 
  (c) collaboration with beneficiary government s and stakeholders to identify activities 
and develop projects (U.S. tomato and peppers); 
(d) use of expertise from various sectors of the donor country to build relationships and 
ensure high quality training (U.S. and Canada); 
(e) application of iterative approaches to enab le project activities to build on and learn 
from relevant experiences in the capacity building process (Canada); 
(f) utilization of contractors to expedite programmes (Canada);   
(g) adoption of a regional approach to enable countries to learn from their neighbours 
and develop professional networks that could provide sup port during project 
follow-up (FAO-Lab); 
(h) use of expertise from within the region to build confidence and sustainability (FAO-
Lab); 
(i) promotion of sustainable practices and reduction of chemicals (Chinese Taipei 
Pesticide Residue); 
(j) training on standard analysis procedures and introduction to manual test kits to 
simplify task for farmers (Chinese Taipei Pesticide Residue); and 
(k) training local technicians in data collecti on and establishing local collection stations 
(Chinese Taipei Pesticide Residue). 
4. PARAMETERS OF GOOD PRACTICE IN THE DELIVERY AND RECEIPT OF SPS-
RELATED TECHNICAL COOPERATION 
41. Sponsors identified projects they believed were successful.  It was not always so easy to 
identify good practices to explain success, or ev en indicators of success, but participants in 
beneficiary countries, where they could be cont acted, corroborated these assessments.  Many of the 
specific elements identified as good practices related to specific technical objectives and conditions in 
the particular projects.  These good practices are discussed below in terms of:  (a) project design; (b) project implementation; (c) project outputs; and (d) project impacts. 
Project Design 
42. National/Regional Development Strategies.
  Central American countries are focusing on 
economic development through export promotion, as well as improving domestic food safety.  All of these projects related to either of these objectives in  some form.  Of particular note was the U.S. 
pepper and tomato project, which reflected Cent ral American countries objective of exploiting the 
CAFTA-DR agreement.  Similarly, the Canadian SPS projects reflected the political reality that 
Canada was developing closer economic relations with Costa Rica and Guatemala through free trade 
agreements that have been concluded or are un der negotiation, and SPS capacity building reflects the 
larger political desire to facilitate trade between the countries.  The FAO projects on laboratories and 
Codex committees reflect efforts to strengthen in stitutions needed to promote exports as well as 
improving capacity to enhance domestic health standards. 
43. Complementing policy environment.
  Interviews with benefici aries and partners of the 
projects studied underlined the importance of defini ng appropriate and targeted objectives that took 
advantage of specific market access opportunities during project design.  Several of the projects were 
designed to take advantage of new market access opportunities by realizing the import requirements  G/SPS/GEN/874 
 Page 11 
 
 
  of trading partners.  This allowed for focused pr oject development, development of political support 
for the project, clear economic and social benef its and quantifiable assessments of success.  For 
example, the U.S. project to assist producers in the region to meet USDA regulatory requirements for 
exports of peppers and tomatoes targeted a particular opportunity and allowed for focused project 
design.  Similarly the Canadian-financed project was focused on support to develop BSE monitoring capacity and maintain BSE-free status with regard  to particular import requirements.  Chinese 
Taipei’s papaya project was designed to achieve e xport certification to enable producers in the region 
to access the U.S. market.  The regional fruit fly free zone project in Costa Rica was relevant for 
many export markets, incl uding the United States. 
44. Collaborative identification.
  Close cooperation between donors and beneficiaries at the 
project design stage was considered as fundamental  for the success of the projects studies.  Donors 
and beneficiaries worked together closely in pr oject identification and design in several of the 
projects.  This allowed for efficiency in project  selection, as both parties could assess the viability of 
the project and effectiveness of its components.  Collaborative project identification also increased 
national ownership and beneficiary participation in implementation.  The idea for the FAO laboratory 
project was identified by recipient countries through their involvement in a regional laboratory 
network, and then presented to the donor.  The Cana dian and U.S. training projects were developed in 
collaboration with the beneficiary governments, wi th the U.S. project part of a formal committee 
developed by the members of the CAFTA-DR to provi de technical assistance to the region.  Costa 
Rica took the lead in developing the pest control programmes for Broca de Café  and fruit flies, and 
maintained a coordinating role in  implementation.  Panama identified a need for support with 
pesticide residue testing and approached Ch inese Taipei for assistance in this regard. 
45. Regional approach.   Several projects were designed on a regional basis.  This approach was 
able to take advantage of scale economies given that  many of the countries in the region have similar 
SPS priorities and  needs.  It also facilitated co llaboration among participants in project design, and 
reinforced networking and informa tion exchange among participants in  the region.  The U.S. tomato 
and peppers project was identified and designe d through the CAFTA-DR implementation process, 
including all parties to the agreement.  The re gional FAO lab and Codex projects were both designed 
with the participation of various stakeholders in th e region.  While the fruit fly free zone pilot project 
was initiated in Costa Rica, it was designed with  other  projects in  the region in mind. 
46. Building on completed and/or ongoing activities.   The research demonstrated the benefits of 
ensuring linkages and synergies with relevant comp leted and ongoing activities.  Project design was 
made more simple and effective in several case s by basing new assistance on activities that had 
already been carried out in the beneficiary country.  The Costa Rica fruit fly free zone project built on 
efforts throughout the region to control fruit flies.  The Chinese Taipei papaya project took advantage 
of progress already made in controlling pests and bu ilt on established protocols for papaya exports to 
the United States.  The Chinese Taipei pesticide re sidue-testing project complemented earlier work 
sponsored by the World Bank.   
47. Needs assessments.   The research revealed that almost all the projects nominated as examples 
of good practice included some sort of needs assessme nt.  Formal need assessments were particularly 
important for projects with highly technical objectives, such as the FAO laboratory project, the Canadian BSE/animal health project, and the Ch inese Taipei pesticide residue-testing project.  
Similarly, technical assessments of conditions in th e beneficiary country were important to assess the 
feasibility for conducting pest eradication and control projects, such as in the Costa Rican fruit fly free 
zones project.  In projects designed to obtain market access for specific products in particular markets, 
an assessment of import requirements in the exportin g country and the steps required to comply with 
these was fundamental.  Such assessments were carried  out for the U.S. tomato and peppers project, 
the Chinese Taipei papaya project, and the Costa Rica fruit fly free zone project.  In each of these 
cases, the importing country (United States) conduc ted formal risk assessments and evaluations of 
local conditions, which overlapped with project needs assessments. G/SPS/GEN/874 
Page 12  
 
  48. Institutional relationships.   Several of the project benefi ciaries and partners interviewed 
referred to the value of developing linkages with re levant international/regi onal organizations and/or 
competent authorities in importing countries at the project design stage in order to draw on their technical expertise.  For instance, the design of activities focused on complex technical matters, 
including issues related to import access, benefite d from collaboration with organizations such as 
FAO, IAEA, IICA, USDA/APHIS and OIRSA.  The long- term institutional relationships that some of 
these entities had in the beneficiary countries supported  the identification of needs and participatory 
approaches for project design.  Examples include USDA/APHIS officials stationed in beneficiary countries, regional experts working for FAO, IIC A and OIRSA, and IAEA officers stationed in 
Central America. 
49. Value Chain Approach.
  Comprehensive 
projects, providing assistance to producers, government 
authorities, exporters and ot her concerned stakeholders 
had positive commercial results.  In some cases, a targeted intervention can address a specific barrier to 
opening a market.  However, in many cases assistance on 
several levels can help maximize gains to new markets.  Assistance with agricultural practices, marketing and promotion, and certification can be necessary complements to specific assi stance efforts. The U.S. 
pepper and tomato project identified import 
requirements, local production conditions and targeted 
training to meet import requirements ranging from production to testing to certification to importation to product testing at the port.  The Chinese Taipei papaya project delivered technical assistance to producers (to increase yield and to control pests), built a 
packing facility and provided s upport for operations, assisted produ cers with import certification, and 
provided marketing assistance.  Both projects have resulted in increased exports, in some cases with 
substantial exports developing into markets that ha d been closed to exporters from the country, with 
substantial increases forecast in the near future.  
50. Based on this research, aspects of good practi ce in the design of SPS-related technical 
cooperation projects include the following:  
• SPS-related technical assistance that focuses on increasing exports of specific products to 
particular markets supports the elaboration of clear and measurable objectives and produces tangible results in terms of income generation, poverty reduction, increased foreign exchange earnings, etc. 
• Recipient-driven project identification, that involves collaboration with donors and other 
concerned stakeholders (including regiona l/international organizations and competent 
authorities in importing countries), promotes  national ownership and enhances project 
development and design.  
• Building on completed and/or ongoing activities provides a means to learn from 
experiences, reinforce achievements, address unmet needs, and increase efficiency and 
effectiveness. 
• Needs assessments should be tailored to partic ular country circumstances, with careful 
attention to import requirements in targ et countries for market access projects. Box 1.   Value of exports to the United 
States, calendar year 2007 
Costa Rica:  tomatoes      $196,000 
El Salvador: peppers $2,085,000 
Guatemala:  tomato es    $283,000 
Guatemala:  peppers    $505,000 Honduras:  peppers  $2,436,000 
Nicaragua:  peppers $3,427,000 
 Source:  U.S. trade statistics 
Note:  With the exception of Costa Rica, 
none of the countries above exported the indicated products in 2005.  2007 data for 
Costa Rica reflects a 456% increase.
  G/SPS/GEN/874 
 Page 13 
 
 
  • A regional approach to SPS-related techni cal assistance enables experiences and lessons 
learned in different settings to be taken into account and supports the development of 
professional networks for knowledge ex change and mutual support.   
• Use of consultants for strategic planning a nd operational management can facilitate project 
design and implementation.  It is better to bring such experts in early than wait until trouble develops. 
Project Implementation 
51. Expert trainers.
  High quality trainers were valued across many of the projects.  Trainers 
included regulatory officials from importing countri es (U.S. and Canada) and experts from the region 
(FAO projects).  Regulatory officials were valued in  particular because they brought highly pertinent 
information directly targeted to practical needs.  In  addition, training by expert regulators also helped 
to expand personal networks of contacts and created opportunities for officials in beneficiary 
countries to have easy access to key personnel to a ddress specific trade problems in the future.  
Training by regional experts was identified as a good way to expand technical capacity in the region and foster regional networks of experts. 
 
52. Regional approach.   A number of the projects studied were designed to be implemented 
across the region.  The U.S. pepper and tomato project delivered capacity building to CAFTA-DR 
signatories, the FAO projects entailed training thr oughout Central America and the Caribbean, and the 
Costa Rica fruit fly free zone was designed as a pilot activity that could be replicated in other parts of 
Central America.  Lessons learned from the Costa Ri ca experience have contri buted to the larger body 
of knowledge in the region and assisted with progr ess towards identifying additional potential fruit fly 
free zones.  Additional potential fruit fly free zo nes have been identified in each of the Central 
American countries, but to date only the area al ong Guatemala’s northern border has been recognized, 
where the U.S.-Mexico Medfly eradication project is  in effect.  In each of these cases, a regional 
approach enabled project activities and their benefits to be leveraged throughout the region.  Such an 
approach further contributed towards the strengthe ning of regional networks and enabled additional 
perspectives, knowledge and skills  to enhance implementation.  
53. Transfer of practical knowledge and skills.   Many of the projects entailed in-country training 
for government officials and/or private sector representatives in the beneficiary country.  In a number of cases, donors and beneficiaries highlighted the valu e of conducting the training on location, which 
allowed for greater participation from beneficiary countries.  Several projects brought technical 
experts to the operating site, which enabled techni ques to be demonstrated in the context of the 
beneficiary country.  This allowed technicians actually  involved in operations to obtain first-hand 
training and helped to build professional relationshi ps and linkages between te chnicians and experts.  
For instance, the U.S. pepper and tomato project, and the Canada BSE monitoring projects brought U.S. and Canadian regulators to the beneficiary countries to meet with and train government and 
private sector officials.  As part of the Costa Rica fruit fly free zones, various technicians visited the 
production zone in Costa Rica to assess and provide  support for the monitoring and control process.  
Under the Chinese Taipei papaya project, an agrono mist in the production zone assisted farmers to 
effectively adopt and implement pr oduction and pest control techniques.
 
54. Flexibility in implementation.   Changing circumstances, unforeseen challenges and new 
information, including learning gained during th e implementation process, mean that projects can 
rarely be implemented exactly as designed.  As such , interviews with project beneficiaries highlighted 
the importance of flexibility in implementation.  Several of the projects studied encountered minor 
delays for various reasons.  Some identified additional areas that me rited attention during 
implementation, such as the FAO Codex project, which incorporated training on an additional topic.  
Training on SPS issues carried out under the Canadian project was designed to build on progress achieved in each step of training, requiring assessment and adjustment during the process.
 G/SPS/GEN/874 
Page 14  
 
  55. Multi-sector and multi-disciplinary activities.   The research indicated that many SPS issues 
entail complex technical and regulatory aspects, wh ich requires multi-sectoral participation in donor 
and beneficiary countries, as well as multi-disciplinar y teams of trainers and participants.  In the 
Canada SPS capacity building project, government regulators, academics and the private sector 
worked together to develop training material.  In the Costa Rica fruit fly free zone project, a variety of 
experts covering a broad range of disciplines collabo rated to implement eradication, monitoring and 
control activities.  
56. Strategic use of consultants.   Donors reported positive experiences in utilizing private sector 
consultants to support project implementation as a m eans to leverage limited government resources.  
Canada used a private sector consultant to mana ge implementation of its food safety programmes in 
Costa Rica and Guatemala, ranging from identifyi ng and securing trainers (including government 
experts) to disbursing funds.  The FAO laboratory and Codex projects used consultants to coordinate 
activities in each country, working in parallel with  government officials responsible for implementing 
workshops and conducting national training sessions.  
57. Leveraging training.   Some training projects entailed following up formal training sessions 
with national training sessions to disseminate the knowledge.  The FAO lab and Codex projects 
involved training several government participants in a series of technical workshops.  The participants 
were then responsible for return ing home and conducting national semi nars to government and private 
sector representatives, allowing transmission of information beyond the limits of the regional 
workshops.  
58. Timely implementation.   Costa Rica began working on monitoring and control programmes 
for the Broca de la Fruta  pest well in advance of the first identified outbreak in Costa Rica or 
Panama.  This gave producers and government officials time to increase their knowledge and 
understanding of the pest and its implications for tr ade, and to develop systems for pest management 
in the event of an outbreak. The U.S. pepper and tomato programme was delivered in a relatively 
short timeframe, allowing producers in the region to  take advantage of new access conditions shortly 
after implementation of the CAFTA-DR.  The Cana da BSE training allowed Costa Rica to develop a 
system to monitor BSE at a time when global trad e flows were threatened by importing requirements 
for documentation to certify freedom from the diseas e.  These experiences point to the importance of 
being able to implement SPS-related technical a ssistance projects that respond to real trade 
opportunities and challenges in a timely manner.  
59. Integrated pest management.   Several of the project highlighted approaches to deal with pest 
and disease issues by minimizing chemical applicati ons and incorporating bi o-controls.  The Costa 
Rica Broca de la Fruta  project emphasized beneficial insect control and non-pesticide control 
measures to save producers from burdensome expenses and to allow exported product to meet organic 
and other quality standards – as well as to guard ag ainst problems with chemical residues.  The 
Chinese Taipei pesticide residue project include d good agricultural practices to help producers 
identify approaches to reduce pestic ide applications, thereby reducing residues that could adhere to 
the product and raise health concerns.  The U.S. pepper and tomato programme included training in 
good agricultural practices to guard agai nst indiscriminate pesticide applications.  
60. Involvement of  producer associations.   Working with producer associations in several cases 
allowed projects to effectively target and partne r with farmers and processors in the beneficiary 
countries.  This delivered training services to rele vant beneficiaries and facilitated organizational 
efforts.  Working with national producer associations  also enabled donors to use existing networks for 
information dissemination and to work within  the prevailing political and socio-economic 
environment.  Producer associations played important roles in the Costa Rica Broca de Café project 
(where they took the lead in developing the proj ect and provided substantial financial support), the 
Costa Rica pest free zone project (where the Cost a Rican producers helped identify participants and 
implement monitoring and control programmes), th e U.S. pepper and tomato project (where they  G/SPS/GEN/874 
 Page 15 
 
 
  helped organize training seminars and identify s ites for conducing demonstration projects), and the 
Chinese Taipei papaya project (where the local papaya producer's association organized growers for production activities and helped identify issues to be addressed).
 
Box 2.  Chinese Taipei papaya project 
The Chinese Taipei-supported papaya project in Guatemala provides an example of a turn-key 
project that, from the outset, sought to increase the capacity of local beneficiaries to assume 
responsibility and control for project acti vities following a transition period.   
Based on a comprehensive value chain approach, the project entailed assistance for producers, 
coordination with national government authorities to obtain import certification, and construction 
and management of packing and shipping operations.  Because of the comprehensive and hands-
on nature of the project, the beneficiaries expect to take over a fully-functioning operation at its 
end. 
 
 
61. Decentralized implementation.   The Chinese Taipei pesticide residue-testing project helped 
authorities in Panama to implement pesticide residue  testing in the field.  It included assistance to 
train producers on the use of standard analytical pr ocedures and manual test kits, allowing for faster 
identification of, and an appropriate response to, problems identified during production.  Similarly, 
the Chinese Taipei papaya project, fruit fly free zone  project in Costa Rica, and the U.S. pepper and 
tomato project developed public and private sect or capacity to assess circumstances quickly and 
implement adjustments in a timely manner.  
62. Harmonization and ali gnment with national  activities.   Project effectiveness is enhanced when 
external assistance is implemented as part of local g overnment activities.  This helps to leverage local 
government resources, expand local ownership of project activities and enhances sustainability over 
the long term.  The Costa Rica fruit fly free zone and the U.S. pepper and tomato projects involved 
collaboration with national governments in the re gion to establish work plans for eradication, 
monitoring and control.  The Chinese Taipei papaya project involved working with the local authorities of La Libertad in Peten, Guatemala, who will assume control for the packing plant when 
the project is fully operational
. 
63. To summarize, research in Central America has highlighted the following aspects of good 
practice, which are relevant for project implementation:   
• Trainers should be experts in their field a nd, where possible and appropriate, should be 
government regulatory officials from competen t authorities responsible for SPS issues.  
Networking and opportunities to promote relati onships between professionals in exporting 
and importing countries should be encouraged, including through the development of in-
country expertise and delivery of training in  beneficiary countries to maximize exposure 
and demonstrate techniques in actual operating environments. 
• Implement projects on a regional basis where broader execution can leverage resources 
and/or improve the quality of the project. 
• Be flexible to address changing circumstances and incorporate lessons and experiences in 
project implementation. 
• Organize multi-disciplinary teams to develop training and implement procedures in the 
beneficiary country to cover all relevant facets of SPS projects. G/SPS/GEN/874 
Page 16  
 
  • Employ private sector consultants to complement limited government resources and 
streamline project activities. 
• Promote the use of a training-of-trainers appr oach which enables persons trained to share 
their newly acquired knowledge  and skills with others in their country, thereby 
maximizing the impact of training.   
• Start projects in advance of crisis situations and move quickly to address immediate trade 
opportunities and/or barriers in order to deliver timely results. 
• Train producers in production techniques that minimize chemical applications to reduce 
expenses, allow products to meet health and quality standards and qualify for premium-
fetching certifications. 
• Work with producer associations to orga nize projects and deliver assistance where 
appropriate. 
• Address intermediate steps and capacity constr aints related to the project's objectives to 
remove possible barriers to successful project implementation. 
• Work with regional, national and local governments to incorporate technical assistance 
projects into their ongoing and planned work programmes.  
• Identify opportunities to implement training and apply lessons learned at the local level to 
improve delivery and responses to challenges that arise.  
Elements of Good Practices in the Achievement of Project Outputs 
64. Results-oriented approach.   This research has highlighted that identifiable outputs are easier 
to obtain when projects are designed to deliver specifi c results.  In the U.S. pepper and tomato project 
obtaining market access and expanding exports was th e core objective.  In the FAO labs project, the 
purpose of training was to achieve laboratory certifi cation.  In the FAO Codex project, a key objective 
was to establish national Codex committees in the be neficiary countries in order to strengthen the 
participation of countries in the region in the Code x Alimentarius Commission.  In the fruit fly free 
zone project in Costa Rica, controlling fruit flies and obtaining recognition for pest free areas was the 
key objective.  In the Chinese Taipei papaya proj ect, the objective was to obtain export certification 
for the new packing plant and expand exports.   
65. Discrete Projects.   Rather than focusing on general in stitutional strengthening projects, the 
projects nominated as examples of good practice in Central America were clearly defined with a relatively narrow focus.  This included strengthening particular elements of national institutions, such 
as laboratories, national Codex committees and pestic ide residue testing programmes.  Projects also 
included control of specific pests or diseases affectin g particular projects.  Such a focused approach 
encouraged targeted activities and manageable project outputs.
 
66. Key elements related to project outputs include the following:  
• Identify concrete, quantifiable objectives for project outputs to facilitate project 
assessment and to encourage relevant project outputs. 
• Develop discrete projects to encourage achievement of tangible outputs.  G/SPS/GEN/874 
 Page 17 
 
 
  Project Impact 
67. Improved production practices.   Several projects improved production practices of farmers 
and processors, including controlling fruit flies in a ll countries in the region, reducing pesticide 
residues in Panama, improving papaya yields in Guatemala, and controlling Broca de Café  in Costa 
Rica and Panama.  These projects resulted in improv ed efficiency, increased outputs and application 
of Good Agricultural Practices.  The impact w as broadened in many cases as the projects served as 
demonstration or pilot projects for other producers in the region.  
68. Improved regulatory practices.   Several projects improved go vernment operations, including 
establishing monitoring and control systems for pest s and diseases, laboratory practices, participation 
in Codex activities, and pesticide residue testi ng. These projects resulted in improved government 
performance in the particular areas and also improved institutional capacity in related fields within the 
government.  
69. Expanded export capacity.   All of the projects had some re lationship to expanded exports.  In 
some cases, the effect was direct and substantial,  such as the U.S. pepper and tomato project, which 
has generated several million dollars in new exports.  In one case, the trade impact is only starting to 
be seen, such as the Chinese Taipei papaya project.  In  other cases, it is hard to measure, such as the 
protection against losses due to pests in the Costa Rica Broca de Café  project and the Costa Rica fruit 
fly free zone project.  In some instances, capacity  building has preserved export markets, such as the 
Canada BSE monitoring project in Costa Rica.  In others, the impact on exports has not been completely realized yet, such as the Chinese Taipei  pesticide residue project (Panama is not exporting 
much fruits or vegetables yet) and the Costa Rica fruit  fly free zone (zones have not yet been formally 
recognized by importing countries yet.)  The institutional strengthening projects, such as the FAO lab 
and Codex projects, have provided more general assi stance to beneficiary countries to improve export 
opportunities.
 
70. Expanded income generation.   Expanded productivity and exports contribute to expanded 
income generation.  Where projects have been yieldi ng results, particularly in pest control and export 
certification, producers have experienced expande d income and have increased economic activity.  
71. Key elements related to project outputs include the following:  
 Support farmers, packers and shippers to integrate improved production practices in 
particular operations and to demonstrat e the benefits for other operations.  
 Focus programmes on specific export barriers to expand export capacity and 
performance. 
 Expand productivity and export activity to create income effects. 
5.   CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS  
72. Central American countries and donor organizatio ns have identified a number of needs for 
SPS technical assistance to assist producers and exporters in the region open new markets, or improve access conditions in current markets. Countri es have identified both general institutional 
strengthening needs and targeted assistance to overc ome specific obstacles in particular countries.  
Assistance is needed in both areas, at least in the short-term , to open markets and maintain access.  
However, there is some dynamic tension between these two areas, and results from the projects reviewed in this study show the need for resu lt-oriented and targeted programmes to achieve 
measurable success in the short-term. G/SPS/GEN/874 
Page 18  
 
  73. Positive results have been achieved from SPS tec hnical assistance in the region.  Producers 
have gained access to specific markets that had fo rmerly been closed.  Technical capacity of 
government authorities and the private sector has been  strengthened.  Groundwork has been laid for 
future advances, both institutionally and with respect to specific project s.  In some cases, concrete 
gains from exports can be identified and, in others , progress has been made th at will enable additional 
assistance to reap tangible gains. 
74. Drawing from the examples studied in this revi ew, lessons from good practices that could be 
implemented in future projects include the following. 
75. Coherence.   Projects that are able to exploit ch anges in market conditions have better 
possibilities of delivering results through expanded e xport performance.  When projects take into 
account competitive advantages, ongoing assistance programmes, national and regional development 
strategies and changes in the policy environment such as free trade agreements, there is greater 
efficiency in achieving success.  In contrast, project s developed without careful consideration of the 
market and policy environment may generate inte resting training for officials and address policy 
priorities of donors, but will have a less signi ficant impact on trade and economic performance. 
76. Regional Scope.   The countries of Central America have  used regional projects to maximize 
resources and exploit synergies.  Since many of the constraints and opportunities facing countries in 
the region are similar, including those related to pest and disease concerns, technical capacity, infrastructure and training levels, and competitive advantages, programmes can be applied across the 
region to achieve efficiency gains.  For instance,  regional programmes can train officials from several 
countries, address common pest and disease concer ns and develop transboundary approaches to 
problem-solving.  At the same time, countries can benefit from economies of scale by learning from 
relevant experiences and developi ng regional networks of technici ans and professionals.  Finally, 
regional approaches can provide more impact for donors, even though they create complexities for 
coordination and planning. 
77. Accessing Experts.   The use of expert trainers and consultants to implement assistance 
programmes is vital for transmitting state-of-the-art information and creating contacts with experts in 
the field.  Of particular value are government officials from importing countries responsible for certification, approval and inspection of imports, as well as officials responsible for implementation of 
SPS monitoring and control programmes in their home country. 
78. Value Chain.   Projects that take into account all elements of export promotion, not just 
particular bottlenecks that impede access at one point  in time, have a better record of success.  Turn-
key operations that address all the necessary infr astructure, training, certification and market 
development needs can help to ensure no issues ar e left to chance, as long as local partners are 
included in the process.  Projects that address the range  of import requirements help to ensure that if 
one obstacle is overcome, another one does not deny access. 
79. Practical Approaches.   Projects that include applied technical training for laboratory staff, 
regulatory authorities and the private sector (includi ng producers and staff of packing and processing 
plants) are linked to successful results.  Similarly,  hands-on training (such as  visits to inspection 
stations and training in foreign country laborat ories) helps to reinforce knowledge and skills.  
Practical approaches designed to deliver concrete solu tions to specific problems, rather than training 
that is mainly theoretical or academic, are valuable. 
80. Leveraging Resources .  The number of participants atte nding training sessions and workshops 
is often limited due to funding and space constraints.   Projects that leverage training opportunities by 
adopting a training of trainers approach that requir es trained trainers to conduct training and distribute 
materials in their home countries helps to maximize the impact of available resources and accelerate 
dissemination of knowledge.  Similarly, regiona l approaches can exploit economies of scale and  G/SPS/GEN/874 
 Page 19 
 
 
  enable relevant lessons and experiences from simi lar countries to inform and enhance activities.  
Building on previous work and coordinating with  other projects can help reduce redundancies. 
81. Engagement with Beneficiaries .   Projects that engage with producers in the development and 
implementation of projects had good  results.  Participation of in dividual producers is necessary for 
actually delivering commercial results and creating a basis for economic sustainability of projects.  
Producers also provide practical input on needs and constraints for project development.  Working 
closely with government officials is necessary to  ensure monitoring, control and certification 
programmes are continued in the future, and that o fficials have the capacity to meet importing country 
requirements.  Cooperation of government official s also helps identifies bottlenecks in the export 
process beyond constraints readily available, an d helps ensure projects are tailored to the 
circumstances of the country. 
82. Current market trends.   Projects need to pay attention to market demand, both for particular 
agricultural and food products, but also for qua lity and process demands in importing countries.  
Producers, exporters and national regulatory authorities need to be aware of requirements related to 
traceability, organic and other production-related standa rds, as well as changing import requirements  
and consumer preferences/trends.  In addition, competition from other producers needs to be taken 
into account when targeting specific projects. 
83. Results Oriented.   Projects that identify discrete objectives clearly linked to export promotion 
are more likely to achieve demonstrable export gain s.  While institutional capacity cannot be ignored 
because of the need for a robust national system for pest and disease control as well as food safety, it 
is hard to relate projects focused on broad-based  institutional development objectives to particular 
market access gains. 
84. Production Improvements.   Projects that improve systemic capacity related to import 
requirements can raise standards for all export pr oducts and improve domestic standards.  Projects 
that train producers in Good Agricultural Practic es, Good Manufacturing Practices, quality control, 
disease reduction and pest eradication can improve  general health and safety circumstances in 
countries.  This not only raises the safety and qu ality of export products but improves safety and 
quality in the domestic market as well. G/SPS/GEN/874 
Page 20  
 
  ANNEX 1: QUESTIONNAIRE ON GOOD PRACTICE 
 
The following questionnaire wa s attached to the WTO SPS Co mmittee document G/SPS/GEN/816 
"Request for Information on Good Practice in SPS-re lated Technical Cooperati on" (18 January 2008), 
which was distributed to WTO Members and OECD Development Assistance contact points.  
Questionnaire on good practice 
 
A separate questionnaire should be completed for each project identified as good practice.  The aim of 
the questionnaire is to examine elem ents of good practice at two levels: 
• Project cycle: From project design to ex-post evaluation;  and 
• Assessment of outcomes or impacts on beneficiary’s  objectives: i.e. impact on market access, 
impact on the domestic burden of food-borne illness, impact on the pest or disease prevalence, 
impact on institutional capabilities, impact on be neficiary’s capacity to implement the SPS 
Agreement, etc. 
 
General Project Information: 
 
Please provide the following general information on the project. 
 
Title :  
 
Dates: beginning and end of the project  
 
Funding: US $ or other currency,  
(including information on ‘in kind’ services and/or equipment.) 
 
Beneficiary: Specify the primary and secondary beneficiaries 
 
Project type: Follow-up project  Pilot project   Stand alone new project   
  G/SPS/GEN/874 
 Page 21 
 
 
  Project Cycle - Questions 
 
Design 
 
(1)  What issue(s) did the project seek to address? 
Please check all relevant boxes.  
Animal health?  Food 
safety ?   Plant health?  General SPS 
capacity ?  
If others, please specify: 
 
(2)  Who initiated the project request? 
Donor identified need?   Request from beneficiary?  
 (3)  Who designed the project? 
Donor?   
 Donor and 
beneficiary in collaboration?     Beneficiary ? 
  
If other, please specify : 
 
(4)  Was the project based on a needs assessment? 
Yes  No  
 (5)  Was the needs assessment specific to the pr oblem being addressed (e.g. a specific capacity 
evaluation of animal health capabilities?) 
Yes  
  No  
or was it part a broader assessment of needs? 
Yes  No  
 (6)  In the design of the project, was account taken of other relevant on-going or completed 
projects?  
No 
information available    No 
relevant projects  Project 
designed as a follow-on activity to previous 
assistance 
by donor  Project 
designed as a follow-on activity to previous 
assistance by 
other donors  Pilot 
project    
Please specify: 
 
(7)  Please indicate to what extent you felt the preparation time and information gathering 
phase for the project was sufficient? 
               
    0-20%  20-40% 40-60% 60-80% 80-100%  
 (8)  Please specify which beneficiaries or stakeholders, if any, were consulted during the project 
design phase . 
 
 G/SPS/GEN/874 
Page 22  
 
  Implementation  
 
(9)  Who implemented the project? 
Donor   Independent 
contractor  Beneficiary  International 
organization  
If other, please specify  
 (10)  To what extent did the beneficiary participate in implementation of the  project? 
  
             
0-20%   20-40% 40-60% 60-80% 80-100% 
 (11) In what way did the beneficiary contribute to the project implementation  (for example through an in-kind contribution, joint implementation of activities etc.)? 
Please specify  
 
(12)  Did difficulties arise with the benefi ciary during implementation of the project? 
Yes 
 No  
If so, please specify the nature of  the problem and how it was resolved . 
 
(13)  Who was responsible for monitoring the project? 
Donor    Independent 
contractor  Beneficiary  International 
organization  
 
(14)  To what extent were the activities and out puts delivered according to the project cycle plan 
(e.g. on time and within the budget)?  
               
    0-20%  20-40% 40-60% 60-80% 80-100% 
 (15)  What changes, if any, changes made during project implementation?   
Reallocation of 
budget items 
  Time extension to allow 
completion of activities   Supplement to original 
project budget  
If others, please specify: 
 
(16)  If changes were made, at whose request were the changes made?  
Donor   Contractor  Beneficiary  
  Evaluation 
 
(17)  Was an evaluation of the project undertaken? 
Yes 
 No  
If so, please attach a copy of the evaluation to this questionnaire  
 
(18)  To what extent have the benefits of  the project continued after funding has ceased? 
               
    0-20%  20-40% 40-60% 60-80% 80-100% 
  G/SPS/GEN/874 
 Page 23 
 
 
  (19)  To what extent did the beneficiaries have the necessary capacity to sustain benefits of the 
project? 
               
    0-20%  20-40% 40-60% 60-80% 80-100%  
(20)  Was the capacity to sustain outcom es assessed during the project design phase? 
 Yes  
  No   
  Outputs  
(21)  To what extent were the project objectives/outputs achieved? 
  
             
    0-20%  20-40% 40-60% 60-80% 80-100% 
 
(22)  What were the main factors determ ining the achievement of the objectives?  
          Please list:  
 
 Achievement of higher order objectives 
 
(23)  Has any evaluation been made of the proj ect’s impacts on higher order objectives, such as 
institutional capacity, poverty alleviation, mark et access, burden of pest or disease, burden of 
food borne illness, etc?  
Yes 
 No   Don’t Know  
  If not submitted under question (8), please attach a copy of the evaluation.  
Please specify the projects alignment with the na tional social or economic development objectives. 
  Good practice  (24)  In what respect(s), can the project be  described as an example of good practice? 
Project  cycle 
  Achievement of higher order 
objectives  
Please explain : 
 
(25)  What aspect(s) of good practice from this  project could be repeated e.g. in future projects 
in this issue, in future projects for this beneficiary and by the broader donor community? 
Please explain : 
 
(26)  Please indicate to what extent was the pr oject a cost-effective contribution to addressing 
the designated objectives? 
               
    0-20%  20-40% 40-60% 60-80% 80-100%  G/SPS/GEN/874 
Page 24  
 
  ANNEX 2:  LIST OF PERSONS INTERVIEWED  
Costa Rica 
Alexis Sandi Munoz, Ministry of Agriculture  
Rolf Schoenert, Canadian Food Inspection Agency Xenia Carro, Ministry of Agriculture 
Arturo Saborio Cespedes, Ministry of Agriculture 
Roberto Duran Acuna, Ministry of Agriculture Olger Borbon M., Ministry of Agriculture Marietta Urena, Ministry of Agriculture   Guatemala 
 
Wen-Kai Ou, International Cooperation and Development Fund, Chinese Taipei 
Tsung-ta Tsai, International Cooperation and Development Fund, Chinese Taipei 
Julio Lazo Pinero, La Libertad Associ ation of Fruit and Vegetable Producers  
Victor Hugo Jimenz, National Laboratory 
Ismael Mancillo, National Laboratory (formerly) Juan Carlos Marenco, Ministry of Agriculture Daniel Maldonado, U.S. Embassy  
Honduras 
 
Sonia Benitez, Ministry of Health  
Nicaragua 
 Lyla Moncada de Umana, Ministry of Agriculture 
Margarita Arango, Ministry of Agriculture José David Bolaños, Ministry of Agriculture  Panama  
Karla V. Adames M., Institute of Agriculural Research  
Lucas Chu,  International Cooperation and De velopment Fund, Chinese Taipei 
Franz Wald - Consultant 
Sra. Deidamia Rodriguez de Mora- Ministry of Agriculture 
Ing. Miyela Ortega, Ministry of Commerce and International Trade  G/SPS/GEN/874 
 Page 25 
 
 
  ANNEX 3:  PROJECT INFORMATION FOR EIGHT NOMINATED PROJECTS 
 
3a: Training on mitigation measures for pepper and tomato exports (Region)  
 3b: SPS training project (Costa Rica and Guatemala)  
3c: Strengthening food safety labora tories in Central America (Region) 
 
3d: Establishment and Strengthening of National Codex Committees (Region) 
 3e: Control of ‘ Broca de Café ’ pest (Costa Rica, Panama) 
 
3f: Establishment of Fruit Fly Free Areas (Costa Rica) 
 3g: Papaya Export Promotion (Guatemala)  3h:  Pesticide Residue Testing (Panama) 
 G/SPS/GEN/874 
Page 26  
 
  Annex 3a:  Project Information— Training on Mitigation Measures for Pepper and Tomato 
Exports 
Project data sheet  
• Topic/issue Technical Capacity Building and Pest Management 
• Type of assistance Training 
• Countries Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guat emala, Honduras, Nicaragua 
• Donor U.S.A. (USAID and USDA) 
• Implementing agency USAID and USDA, national authorities 
• Timeframe  2006 
• Budget US$ 36,105 (plus in-kind services) 
• Brief description Provide information and trai n officials and produces in the region on how to 
meet requirements to export fresh toma to and peppers to the United States. 
• Objectives Expand markets for vegetable producers by creating capacity to overcome 
SPS requirements and maintain market access.  
Enable producers to meet U.S. impor t requirements for fresh tomato and 
pepper, particularly for pest concerns such as fruit fly. 
Train government officials to monitor and certify pest free status, and 
establish remediation procedures. 
• Main activities Provide information on import requirements. 
Train producers and officials to identif y risks associated with export and 
comply with import requirements. 
Provide follow-up training  and technical assistance including port inspection 
and dialogue with regulatory officials. 
Awareness creation of SMTQ importance through group training programmes 
on standards, accreditation, HACCP, ISO 9000, ISO 14000, ISO 17025 
• SPS components Risk mediation to address SPS requirement of importing country. 
• Partner institutions Plant health institutions of each country 
Trade ministries of each country Producers. 
• Beneficiaries Producers, exporters, and plant health officials. 
• Outputs Production and inspection regimes in beneficiary countries.  Import access 
agreed with importing country. 
• Outcomes Greater awareness of import requirements 
Increased exports. 
• Sustainability Producers have incentive to maintain pest control practices. 
Continued government financing required for monitoring and control. 
• Evaluation U.S. CAFTA-DR capacity building programme, including pepper and tomato 
support, evaluated in 2008. 
Issues 
Project design  
• Relevance Relevant for WTO and bilateral trade agreements 
• How project was initiated  Project was identified jointly by donor  and beneficiary countries as part 
of DR-CAFTA trade capacity building process.   G/SPS/GEN/874 
 Page 27 
 
 
  • Beneficiary's role  Beneficiary country authorities, including plant health authorities, 
collaborated in project design 
• Needs assessment  No formal assessment, but technical assistance had been identified as a 
priority by government and private sector in beneficiary countries during 
CAFTA-DR negotiations. 
• Articulation of goals, 
objectives and indicators  Market access goal by meeting import requirements was clearly 
identified.  
Project implementation 
• National ownership  Beneficiary countries showed strong interest in implementing 
programme, fulfilling domestic industry expectation from CAFTA-DR 
agreement. 
• Beneficiary participation  Beneficiary countries involved in workshop planning, coordination with 
growers, and in establishing monitoring and control systems.  Beneficiary countries responsible for long-term implementation. 
• Project management  Project manager in region provided by U.S. government. 
• Synergies Project took advantage of long-standing USDA-APHIS participation in 
the region.  Project was part of larger CAFTA-DR capacity building programme, sharing overhead and taking advantage of relationships, 
information, and political commitment of capacity building programme. 
• Monitoring  Beneficiary governments responsible for monitoring field and export 
conditions and participation of grow ers.   U.S. authorities monitor 
product for compliance with import requirements and conduct periodic 
field assessments. 
• Difficulties n/a 
Impacts 
• Higher-order objectives  Exports increased by over $5 million in a period of two years, from a 
base of zero in several countries. 
Producers and government officials trained in pest management, meeting 
U.S. import requirements, and quality control. 
Key lessons for good practices 
• Project design   Beneficiary countries worked closely with donors on project 
identification and design.  Project took advantage of preparatory efforts 
in beneficiary countries.  Project had specific objectives, identifying 
particular products and specific markets.  Technical assistance 
complemented policy efforts by beneficiary and donor countries to 
establish access conditions. 
• Project implementation Workshops and site visits held in beneficiary countries with government 
officials and private sect or.  Training targeted on precise market access 
objectives.  Flexibility in project implementation to address changing 
conditions. 
• Lessons that could be 
replicated   Development of cooperative donor an d beneficiary commi ttee to identify 
and plan technical assistance, identif y priorities, and design training 
collaboratively.   
Sources : U.S. Response to G/SPS/GEN/816 
Project document 
Project evaluation 
 Interviews G/SPS/GEN/874 
Page 28  
 
  Annex 3b:  SPS Strengthening in Costa Rica and Guatemala  
Project data sheet  
• Topic/issue Food safety and animal health 
• Type of assistance  Training 
• Country Costa Rica and Guatemala 
• Donor Canada 
• Implementing agency Canadian Food Inspection Agency 
• Timeframe  2002 - 2004  
• Budget CDN$ 2,200,000 (plus in-kind services)  
• Brief description Assistance to Costa Rica on  animal health/food safety (particularly BSE) and 
assistance to Guatemala on ge neral SPS capacity building. 
• Objectives Capacity building for national authorities SPS-related responsibilities. 
• Main activities Work packages delivered through work shops, study tours, and technical 
training. 
• SPS components BSE risk management, risk assessment,  traceability, Specific Risk Materials, 
equivalence, quarantine, and laboratory diagnostic and HACCP for Costa Rica. 
• Partner institutions SENASA in Costa Rica and Ministry  of Agriculture in Guatemala. 
• Beneficiaries Ministry of Agriculture are direct bene ficiaries, producers and exporters are 
derivative beneficiaries. 
• Outputs Training packages completed. 
• Outcomes Increased capacity addressing BSE and food safety issues. 
• Sustainability Not addressed. 
• Evaluations  n/a  
Issues 
Project design 
• Relevance Addressed specific food safety and an imal health confirms in Costa Rica. 
• How project was initiated  Donor identified need for expanded capacity in the region.  
• Beneficiary's role  Project design was done in cooperation with direct beneficiaries 
• Needs assessment  Needs identified in regional workshop in 2002 by beneficiaries. 
• Articulation of goals, 
objectives and indicators  Costa Rica project identified specific ob jectives for capacity building.  
Guatemala project still in process. 
Project implementation  
• National ownership  National officials participation in training sessions. 
• Beneficiary participation  Adjustments to procedures and regulations in beneficiary countries. 
Input to needs assessment on technical level 
• Project management  Project managed by private sector consultancy (university). 
• Synergies  Complements ongoing national capacity building efforts.  
• Monitoring  Iterative process allowed for consideration of progress by donor and 
beneficiary and incorporate adjustments into subsequent training.  G/SPS/GEN/874 
 Page 29 
 
 
  • Difficulties Change in government in one beneficiary country required delay and 
review of project implementation. 
Impacts  
• Higher-order objectives   Food safety 
Key lessons for good practices 
• Project design  Iterative design of trai ning packages to sequence assistance and respond 
to follow-up needs as identified.   
• Project implementation   Multi-sector design involving government, private sector and academia. 
Private sector consultancy as execu ting agency increased administrative 
efficiency and facilitated identificati on of appropriate training resources, 
including finding trainers and sources outside of the government. 
• Lessons that could be 
replicated   Sequenced programme design to ensure progressive training and 
adjustment to programme based on new developments. 
Project design in cooperatio n with direct beneficiaries 
Implementation through agency that has contacts outside of donor 
government. 
High calibre subject matter expertise. 
Sources :   Canada Response to G/SPS/GEN/816 
Interviews 
  
 
 G/SPS/GEN/874 
Page 30  
 
  Annex 3c:  Project Information—  Strengthening Food Safety Laboratories  
Project data sheet  
• Topic/issue Technical capacity building and food safety 
• Type of assistance Training 
• Countries Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala,  Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama 
• Donor FAO 
• Implementing agency FAO 
• Timeframe  2005 - 2006 
• Budget $258,574 (plus in-kind) for Latin America-wide project 
• Brief description Implementation of good laboratory practices.  Quality assurance for food 
analysis labs to comply with import/export requirements and international 
certification. 
• Objectives Train laboratory officials in laboratory techniques and assist in obtaining ISO 
certification. 
• Main activities Regional workshops for national officials in laboratory practices in five 
identified fields.  Officials then condu cted seminars in home country to 
disseminate information to broader group of government officials and private sector laboratories. 
• SPS component Food safety testing and certification. 
• Partner institutions Food safety laboratories of member countries 
• Beneficiaries Consumers, producers and exporters in member countries. 
• Outputs Implementation of improved laboratory practices. 
Certification of national labs in several countries. 
• Outcomes Improved domestic health and safety standards. 
Improved ability to meet import requirements in foreign countries. 
• Sustainability n/a 
• Evaluations  Final report and continued dialogue among participants. 
Issues 
Project design 
• Relevance Strengthened lab capacity will facilitate improvement in national food 
standards and contribute to producers and exporters ability to meet 
safety and quality standards in foreign markets.  
• How project was initiated  Project was identified by recipients  through regional process, and 
programme was developed in conjunction with FAO. 
• Beneficiary's role  Beneficiaries identified needs at outset, collaborated in programme 
design, and disseminated inform ation in the home country after 
participating in training sessions. 
• Needs assessment  Needs assessed by countries throug h the RILAA (regional laboratory 
network) 
• Articulation of goals, 
objectives and indicators  Goals of improving laboratory prac tices and achieving certification 
identified at outset. 
  G/SPS/GEN/874 
 Page 31 
 
 
  Project implementation  
• National ownership  Beneficiaries were responsible for coordinating regional training 
sessions and conducting follow-up  workshops to disseminate 
information in home country following training. 
• Beneficiary participation  Beneficiaries participated in identifyi ng participants, obtaining training 
facilities, organizing training session  logistics, and presenting technical 
presentations in the home country. 
• Project management  FAO 
• Synergies  Some beneficiary countries coordinated training work with national 
standards agencies in home country.  Project supported work of regional 
laboratory network.  Some countries had parallel capacity building 
programmes underway which complemented the programme. 
• Monitoring  Monitoring and evaluation depended on individual country initiative, 
but beneficiaries were in close contact with donor through out 
programme implementation. 
• Difficulties Different level of experience and co mpetence across countries made it 
difficult to target level of training expertise to maximum benefit of all 
participants. 
Impacts  
• Higher-order objectives   Poverty alleviation 
Expanding exports by achieving standards in importing countries Consumer protection and food safety 
Key lessons for good practices 
• Project design Project identified by recipients through regional network 
Training programme benefited from similar programme in South 
America. 
Detailed needs assessment conducted of technical needs. 
• Project implementation   Workshops conducted with four participants from beneficiary country, 
and then workshop participants required to conduct training sessions in 
home country for governmen t and private sector. 
Coordination between donor and beneficiary on programme design and 
on specific elements of  training workshops. 
Use of consultants from the region. Networking between countries and with expert consultants provided 
useful models and contacts. 
• Lessons that could be 
replicated   Information dissemination and sharing technical material. 
Regional integration and participation for efficiency and to identify 
needs in the area. 
Working through established network for follow-up. Countries conducted self-evaluation, working with FAO, before project 
to establish baseline and identify needs. 
Learned from similar programme previously conducted in South 
America. 
Sources :  FAO Response to G/SPS/GEN/816 
                Project documents for FAO TCP/RLA/3014 (A)  
http://www.fao.org/regional/Lameri ca/en/comagric/codex/rla3014.htm 
Report: www. fao.org/Regional/Lamerica/ prior/coma gric/codex/rla3014/pdf/presenta.pps 
Interviews 
 G/SPS/GEN/874 
Page 32  
 
  Annex 3d:  Project Information— Establishm ent and Strengthening of National Codex 
Committees 
Project data sheet  
• Topic/issue Codex, SPS/TBT Agreement 
• Type of assistance Information and training 
• Countries Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala,  Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama 
• Donor FAO 
• Implementing agency FAO in conjunction with national Ministries of Health 
• Timeframe  2000 - 2003 
• Budget $399,790 (including some Caribbean countries)  
• Brief description Assisting countries to establish and organize national Codex committees.  
• Objectives Help countries improve participation and understanding of Codex system and 
standards. 
• Main activities Conduct regional training seminars on Codex process and standards, 
disseminate information at national level. 
• SPS components Codex is one of the recognized sources of international standards under the 
SPS agreement, and Codex standards are influential in food and agricultural 
trade. 
• Partner institutions National health and agriculture ministries. 
• Beneficiaries Government officials and private sect or companies with an interest and 
involvement in food safety standards. 
• Outputs Workshops on various activities 
Establishment of Codex Committees 
Dissemination of information on Codex process and standards 
• Outcome Greater awareness and understanding of Codex 
Increased utilization of Codex standard s and participation in Codex process 
• Sustainability n/a 
• Evaluation Conducted by FAO 
Issues 
Project design 
• Relevance Implementation of WTO commitmen ts, enhancement of domestic 
standards-setting process. 
• How project was initiated  Need identified by FAO 
• Beneficiary's role  Coordinated in programme implementation and information 
dissemination. 
• Needs assessment  Conducted by FAO with beneficiary country collaboration 
• Articulation of goals, 
objectives and indicators  Goal of creating committee and expanding knowledge of Codex process 
and standards clearly articulated  at beginning of programme.  G/SPS/GEN/874 
 Page 33 
 
 
   
Project implementation  
• National ownership  Beneficiary countries responsible for logistics of training and for 
disseminating information obtained, as well as implementing Codex committees and implementing Codex standards.  
• Beneficiary participation  Organizing logistics, coordinating in planning, and disseminating 
information. 
• Project management  FAO, including through hiring local consultants to coordinate work with 
beneficiary governments. 
• Synergies n/a 
• Monitoring  n/a  
• Difficulties n/a 
Impacts  
• Higher-order objectives   Institutional capacity for international trade 
Food safety 
Key lessons for good practices 
• Project design   Assessment of conditions in individual countries prior to project design 
and implementation. 
• Project implementation    Workshops conducted with four participants from beneficiary country, 
and then workshop participants required to conduct training sessions in 
home country for governmen t and private sector. 
Coordination between donor and beneficiary on programme design and 
on specific elements of  training workshops. 
• Lessons that could be 
replicated   Beneficiary dissemination of training information. 
Identification of discrete objectives and focused project to address need. 
Sources :  FAO response to G/SPS/GEN/816 
                Project documents for FAO/TCP/RLA0065   
                        http://www. fao.org/regional/Lamerica/en /comagric/codex/rla0065.htm 
Report   www.rlc.fao.org/es/ nutricion/codex/pdf/01tcp.pps 
Interviews G/SPS/GEN/874 
Page 34  
 
  Annex 3e:  Control of ‘ broca de café ’ pest 
Project data sheet  
• Topic/issue Plant health 
• Type of assistance Pest monitoring and control 
• Country Costa Rica and Panama 
• Donor Various, including FAO and lo cal producer associations 
• Implementing agency Ministry of Agriculture 
• Timeframe  2002 - 2003 
• Budget $396,124 
• Brief description Monitoring advance of ‘ Broca de Café ’ pest and development of procedures to 
identify and control infestations. 
• Objectives Establish and implement control mechanisms for pest.  
• Main activities Training, pest monitoring, and pest control. 
• SPS component Pest control, protecting plant health and preserving quality of product. 
• Partner institutions OIRSA, FAO, government of Panama and Costa Rica, and producer 
associations. 
• Beneficiaries Plant protection personnel involved with plant quarantine  
Coffee producers 
• Output Officials and producers traine d in pest identification and control, establishment 
of action plans to address pest infestation 
• Outcome Increased capacity for pest identification and control 
• Sustainability Developed capacity for control, and engaged interested parties in private 
sector, but no long-term funding established for government actions.  
• Evaluation n/a 
Issues 
Project design  
• Relevance Important to maintain production and quality of coffee. 
• How project was initiated  Producers in Costa Ri ca identified need. 
• Beneficiary's role  Producers collaborate in project design and trained in pest identification 
and control. 
• Needs assessment  No formal assessment, but reflected ne ed to deal with inevitable spread 
of pest.  
• Articulation of goals, 
objectives and indicators  Producers and government identified programme goals and objectives. 
Project Implementation 
• National ownership  Costa Rica private sector and government identified and managed 
project.  
• Beneficiary participation  Identifying donors, developing techniques, organizing logistics, 
coordinating in planning, and disseminating information. 
• Project management  Costa Rica government and private sector  G/SPS/GEN/874 
 Page 35 
 
 
  • Synergies Drew from experiences of countries that had infestation problems. 
• Monitoring  Ongoing monitoring for pest by growers and government.  
• Difficulties Coordinating with grow ers and teaching new cu ltivation and harvesting 
techniques 
Impacts 
• Higher-order objectives  Expand production and economic income 
Preserve export capacity 
Key lessons for good practices  
• Project design   Needs identified by producers 
• Project implementation   Implement programme significant time before pest appears. 
• Lessons that could be 
replicated   Integrated education and monitoring programme for producers 
Identification of good agricultural practices and biological controls 
Sources : Costa Rica Response to G/SPS/GEN/816 
Project document Interviews 
 
 G/SPS/GEN/874 
Page 36  
 
  Annex 3f:  Project Information— Establishment of Fruit Fly Free Areas 
Project data sheet  
• Topic/issue Plant health 
• Type of assistance Training, development of monitoring and control systems, and implementation 
of surveillance system 
• Country Costa Rica pilot programme for region-wide project 
• Donor Several provided services and financing, including IICA, FAO, IAEA, OIRSA, 
and USDA/APHIS 
• Implementing agency Ministry of Agriculture, collabora ting with OIRSA, IAEA and USDA 
• Timeframe  2001 - 2006  
• Budget $2.5 million, plus in-kind provision of support services 
• Brief description Create zones free, or low prevalence, of  fruit flies to facilitate exports of 
fruits and vegetables from Central America.  Initial programme in Los 
Innocentes, Guancaste, Cost a Rica, but work begun on 12 other potential free 
zones in the region. 
• Objectives Identify feasible programmes of integr ated pest management for establishing 
pest free zones in the region.  This includes developing effective quarantine, 
surveillance, monitoring, and control programmes, including through release 
of sterile fruit flies.   
• Main activities 
 Identify potential free zones. 
Develop programme of monitoring and control. 
Identify eradication strategy.  
• SPS components Plant health 
• Partner institutions Ministry of Agriculture in beneficiar y countries, along with IAEA, ORISA, 
IICA, FAO and USDA/APHIS 
• Beneficiaries Producers and exporters in the region 
• Outputs Pest control programme design 
Fruit fly free area established in Cost a Rica (not formally recognized by 
importing countries yet)  
• Outcomes Understanding of  process needed to establish fly free zone. 
Reduction in fruit fly incidence in pilot zone. 
Development of institutional capacity to manage fruit fly surveillance and 
control programme. 
• Sustainability Private sector continuing with monitoring and control in pilot zone. 
• Evaluations  No formal evaluations. 
  G/SPS/GEN/874 
 Page 37 
 
 
  Issues 
Project design 
• Relevance Fruit flies damage crops and are grounds for denial of market entry in 
many key foreign markets. 
• How project was 
initiated  Agriculture ministers in the region identified common need and solicited 
assistance for regional programme from donors. 
• Beneficiary's role  Provide institutional assistance from Ministry of Agriculture, organize 
private sector participation, ensure pr ivate sector provision of labour, and 
collaborate in programme design and implementation 
. 
• Needs assessment  Based on general assessment of need for fly free areas and identification of 
potential free zones carried out by beneficiary countries. 
• Articulation of goals, 
objectives and indicators Control, eradication, and monitoring of fruit fly based on empirical 
sampling.  
Project implementation  
• National ownership  Beneficiaries active in proposing, planning and implementing programme. 
 
• Beneficiary participation  Government and private sector responsible for contribution to ongoing 
monitoring and control programmes, including providing in-king service and institutional support. 
• Project management  Overall project managed by regional manager.  Individual countries 
responsible for coordinating national programmes. 
• Synergies  Coordinated with other capacity building exercises to improve monitoring 
and control capacity in the region .  Hooked into US/Mexico fruit fly 
control programme.  
• Monitoring  Beneficiary countries responsible for ongoing monitoring of fly free zones.  
Importing countries will audit and conduct their own inspections when 
applications submitted for recognition of pest-free status. 
• Difficulties Resources to implement monitoring and control, lack of access to reliable 
and feasible source of sterile fruit flies, capacity limitations in some 
countries quaran tine services. 
Impacts  
• Higher-order objectives   Improve productivity and expand access to foreign markets. 
Poverty reduction. 
Key lessons for good practices  
• Project design   Strategic planning assistance through outside consultant. 
Comprehensive preparation on phy sical site feasibility critical. 
• Project implementation    Training in data and detection analysis conducted on regional basis, with 
actual personnel working on project. 
Importance of working with multi-disciplinary team. 
• Lessons that could be 
replicated   Capacity building by training producers on-site, working with producers 
association. 
Sources :  CR Response to G/SPS/GEN/816 
Project document 
Interviews G/SPS/GEN/874 
Page 38  
 
  Annex 3g:  Project information— Papaya Export Promotion 
Project data sheet  
• Topic/issue Plant health and technical  assistance to producers 
• Type of assistance Training and physical infrastructure 
• Country Guatemala 
• Donor Chinese Taipei 
• Implementing agency Chinese Taipei International Cooperation and Development Fund 
• Timeframe  2007 - 2008  
• Budget $850,000 
• Brief description Technical assistance for papaya export from Guatemala. 
• Objectives Assist producers in increasing productivity and in meeting plant quarantine 
requirements of importing countries. 
Build packing plant and work with government to get meet importing 
countries certification requiremen ts for pest control (fruit fly). 
• Main activities 
 Training of producers. 
Obtain import certification 
Construction of packing plant and assist in developing marketing channels.  
• SPS components Plant health 
• Partner institutions Ministry of Agriculture 
Guatemala export promotion agency 
Local producers association 
• Beneficiaries Producers and exporters 
Government officials  
• Outputs Training of producers on good agricultural practices 
Pest control 
Physical infrastructure (packing shed) Import certification (pending) 
Marketing channels  
 
• Outcomes Capacity to meet import requirements 
Establishing marketing contacts 
Expanded exports 
• Sustainability Donor intends to turn facilities over to local organization after transition period 
with expectation that programme will be profitable. 
• Evaluations  n/a 
  G/SPS/GEN/874 
 Page 39 
 
 
  Issues 
Project design 
• Relevance Project is occurring in area of low pest prevalence.  Obtaining export 
certification will allow expansion of exports to key markets.  Improved productivity will increase output and income generation. 
• How project was 
initiated  Donor identified economic potential and technical expertise to provide 
assistance.  Local producers had solic ited assistance from government to 
improve capacity and open export markets for papaya. 
• Beneficiary's role  Provide labour and produce crop.  Work with donor to implement project. 
• Needs assessment  No formal assessment, but responded to interest from local producers and 
authorities. 
Project implementation  
• National ownership  Local producers already selling through preliminary packing shed into 
regional markets.  Expanding production to meet future capacity of new 
packing shed. 
• Beneficiary participation  In-kind contribution of labour, and participation in sales already. 
• Project management  Chinese Taipei International Cooperation and Development Fund 
• Synergies  Region is part of fruit fly control programme already.  
• Transparency Coordination between donor and local producers. 
• Monitoring  Joint monitoring by donor and beneficiary 
• Difficulties Marginal technical issues related to production, construction, and 
certification. 
• Articulation of goals, 
objectives and indicators Improve productivity, establish export certification, oper ate packing plant 
with progress monitored by production and sales data. 
Impacts  
• Higher-order objectives   Expanded production, exports, and income. 
Poverty reduction. 
Key lessons for good practices  
• Project design   Donor delivered on area of technical expertise. 
Comprehensive project:  production a ssistance, certification assistance, 
construction of physical plant, and marketing. 
• Project implementation    Production and marketing experts on site. 
Implementation of new production techniques. 
• Lessons that could be 
replicated   Comprehensive – from production to marketing 
Turn-key project 
Sources :   Chinese Taipei Response to G/SPS/GEN/816 
Project document 
Interviews G/SPS/GEN/874 
Page 40  
 
  Annex 3h:  Project Information—Pesticide Residue Testing Training  
Project data sheet  
• Topic/issue Food safety  
• Type of assistance Training 
• Country Panama 
• Donor Chinese Taipei 
• Implementing agency Chinese Taipei International Cooperation and Development Fund 
• Timeframe  2005-2007  
• Budget $440,000 
• Brief description Provide training in pesticide residue testing in fruits and vegetables. 
• Objectives Improve domestic and export food safety by establishing capacity to test for 
pesticide residues. 
• SPS components Food safety of fruit and vegetables 
• Partner institutions Ministry of Agriculture 
Ministry of Health Panamanian Institute for Agricultural Investigation 
• Beneficiaries Food safety authorities 
Producers, exporters and consumers 
• Outputs Trained staff and development of test methodologies  
• Outcomes Greater understanding of testing methodologies for pesticide residues on fruits 
and vegetables. 
Framework for national network of residue testing laboratories 
• Sustainability Depends of government funding and prices for testing services 
• Evaluations  Final evaluation 
Issues 
Project design 
• Relevance Pesticide residues can pose health risk and detection of residues can deny 
access to foreign markets 
• How project was 
initiated  Government of Panama identified need, approached Government of 
Panama with proposal, which offered to participate.   
• Beneficiary's role  Helped design programme, validate methodologies and technology, and 
collaborated in implementation. 
• Needs assessment  Panama conducted needs assessment prior to beginning project. 
• Articulation of goals, 
objectives and indicators Measurement of residue levels and establishment of testing facilities. 
Project implementation  
• National ownership   
• Beneficiary participation  In-kind contribution: laboratory and vehicle use, Government staff 
salaries, local costs for graduate students 
All activities were implemented as joint activities  G/SPS/GEN/874 
 Page 41 
 
 
  • Project management  Implementation carried out by government of Panama 
• Synergies  Project complemented parallel work by World Bank on residue testing  
• Transparency Collaboration between donor and beneficiary. 
• Monitoring  Beneficiary is monitoring continued implementation. 
• Difficulties n/a 
Impacts  
• Higher-order objectives   Improve food safety 
Expand possibility for food exports 
Key lessons for good practices  
• Project design   Review and validation of technical methodologies by donor and 
beneficiary before project implementation. 
• Project implementation    Training and implementation in field to allow producers to test and 
identify shipments with positive test results 
Use of technical experts from Ministry of Agriculture to train producers in 
Good Agricultural Practices 
• Lessons that could be 
replicated   See above 
Sources : Chinese Taipei Response to G/SPS/GEN/816 
Project document 
Interviews 
 
__________