Second International Workshop on Conformity Assessment Rio de Janeiro, 11-12 December 2006

Second International Workshop on Conformity AssessmentRio de Janeiro, 11-12 December 2006Presented by: Ulrich HOFFMANN, UNCTAD secretariat

KETAHANAN PANGAN

KESEHATAN DAN

LINGKUNGAN

diabstraksikan oleh: Soemarno psl-ppsub-Nop 2012

22222

Key Reasons

“Perception” on recent food scares and

scandals

Demographic developments in OECD

countries

Risk and cost minimization management by major

retailers

More sophisticated detection and testing methods

Escalating Food Safety and Quality Requirements

33Drivers of Private-sector Safety and Quality Requirements

33

Governments “Name and Shame” policy in some countries. Retailers legal responsibility (due diligence legislation in some

countries) and increasing retailer own labels. Retailers do not want to compete on the basis of “who’s food is

safer”. Shuffling off certain risk management costs to producers. Globalisation of retailing and production (i.e. global sourcing)

requires rigorous quality assurance system. New food-safety, health and environmental requirements are being

used as value-chain governance tools.

44

Putting Environmental, Health and Food-safety Requirements into Context

44

1. Enhanced globalization of investment and trade lead to transnational application of specific EHFSRs (Environmental, Health, and Food-Safety Requirements ).

2. Many EHFSRs are an attempt to alter market conditions to encourage sustainable production, trade and consumption patterns.

3. With increasing liberalization of tariffs and quotas, EHFSRs have the potential of being turned into versatile non-tariff measures – difficult to distinguish justified from unjustified EHFSRs.

4. A tool of companies in the competitive battle with rivals -- gain or temporarily maintain a competitive edge over rivals – certain EHFSRs may require anti-trust/competition law measures.

5. EHFSRs are increasingly becoming an integral part of product quality. 6. DgCs need to exploit full national benefits of meeting EHFSRs in export markets,

notably in terms of resource efficiency, pollution intensity, occupational safety and public health -- important are dynamic effects that also reduce adjustment costs.

55

Main Trends in EHFS Requirements 55

More strict (e.g. MRLs)

More complex (e.g. traceability and auditing requirements)

More multi-dimensional (e.g. see next slide)

3 Trends:

6Multidimensionality of Requirements

Pillars of Environmental, Health and Food Safety Requirements

Food Safety Plant/Animal Health

ProductQuality

Environment Social

MRLsHeavy metal

limitsFood additives

Hygiene requirementsTraceability

HACCP

SurveillanceQuarantinePest risk assessmentSanitation

Product composition

Product cleanliness

GradingLabeling

requirementsControl of nutritional

claimsISO 9002

Control of water and env

contaminationProtection of biodiversityProtection of endangered

speciesRecycling

Organic prod requirements

Labour standardsFair trade standards

7777

050

100150200250

Con

trol

Poi

nts

Holistic view of EUREPGAP Standard:Food Safety, Environment and Social CPs

Recom.MinorMajor

Multidimensionality of Requirements

8888

Main Trends in EHFS Requirements

• Growing importance of private sector standards and codes in the marketplace in general;

• Growing importance of requirements transmitted to producers and exporters in developing countries through the supply chain;

• An enhanced relationship between mandatory and voluntary requirements;

• Greater reliance on traceability and related certification; and

• Greater regulatory responsibility on food and feed controls, including system of registration of crop-protection products for the exporting country.

9

Diverse Standards in National and International Markets

Standardsas

applied

PrivateSector

Competitive Strategies

Local Customs and Consumer

Preferences

Laws and

Regulations

Enforcement Capacity

There is an ongoing process

to put in place harmonized

requirements and codes, yet the application is occurring at

different speed and depth.

Source: Jaffee, S.

• Differential application of requirements/standards is the norm, rather than the exception.

• Weak compliance enforcement by governments, strong by retailers.

TBT and SPS Agreements contain disciplines on the preparation, adoption and application of technical regulations, standards and conformity

assessment procedures.

1010

EHFSRs and the Limits of WTO Disciplines

Four sets of problems:1. Many DgCs cannot take advantage of the disciplines because a baseline of

institutional capacity does simply not exist. 2. The procedural aspects of voluntary standards can be as important as for technical

regulations, yet they are de facto outside WTO disciplines (also: non-governmental bodies that set voluntary requirements are not part of WTO debate).

3. Notification and transparency requirements need to be further improved 1. Access to information is difficult2. No difference in notification between complex and simple EHFSRs3. Format of notification should be changed (even problematic for

industry representatives)4. Justification, legitimacy and the role of scientific evidence under TBT / SPS.

11

Hierarchy of Trade-related SPS Management Functions

SPSDiplomacy

Technically Demanding Risk

Management Functions

Institutional Structures and Role Clarity

Suitable and Effectively Implemented Regulation

Application of Basic “Good Practices” for Hygiene and Safety

Awareness and Recognition

Source:Jaffee, S. et.al.

12121212Pillars of EHFS RequirementsIssue Details

Food safety MRLsHeavy metalsFood additivesHygiene requirementsTraceabilityHazard analysis and critical control points (HACCP)

Plant health Surveillance; Plant quarantine; Pest risk assessment ; Sanitation

Product quality Grading; Freshness; Product composition; Product cleanliness; Labelling requirements; Control of nutritional claims

Environment Control of water and environmental contaminationRecycling requirementsOrganic production requirementsProtection of biodiversityProtection of endangered species

Social Labour standardsFair trade standardsCorporate social responsibility

Source: Jaffee, S. et al.

13131313Main Problems Arising from Mandatory EHFSRsin Key Export Markets

• Stringent phyto-sanitary measures in certain countries, such as Japan and the United States impose restrictions on imports based on the country of origin – individual country listings of FFV approved for entry – cumbersome approval process for new products

• More stringent food-safety requirements:– HACCP has become mandatory for all food categories (of both animal and

non-animal origin). Use of HACCP is not mandatory in the case of primary production, which covers most of FFV; exception – packaging for semi-processed fruit.

– Registration of plant protection products: problematic for those pesticides used in production of “minor crops”, which applies to most FFV exported by DgCs.

– Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 on official food and feed controls obliges DgCs to provide information on the general organization and management of their national food control system, including assurance of compliance or equivalence with the requirements of Community legislation.

1414141414

Spectrum of Private-sector Requirements

Whole Chain Assurance

PRE-FARMGATE

POSTFARMGATE

GrowersFarmers

Food Packing and Processing

RetailStores Consumers

REQUIREMENTS

Key componentso Pre-Farm and Post Farm Gate Standards o Traceabilityo Documentation o Residue Monitoring

EurepGAPSQF 1000Integrated Farming of FARREUK Assured ProduceTESCO’s Nature’sChoice

HACCPBRCISO 9000SQF 2000

HACCPISO 9000SQF 3000

Currently some 400 private food schemes

Collective

Individual

1515151515Implications for DgC Producers/Exporters • Move towards high-precision agricultural production methods.• Explicit objective to meet higher food-safety and quality requirements

with environmentally beneficial practices (EurepGAP refers to itself as the “Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture”).

• Supply-chain requirements tend to reinforce existing strengths and weaknesses of competing producers. Risk of marginalization.

• Multitude of standards increases certification costs. Need for equivalence and harmonization, such as EurepGAP. Also increasingly important for enhanced South-South trade (particularly relevant in Asia).

• Significance of adjustment costs and little opportunity for price premiums.

1616161616Interrelationship between Mandatory and Voluntary EHFS Requirements

Different thrust:– mandatory requirements: equivalence of risk-outcomes (i.e. characteristics of

finished product)– Private-sector standards: equivalence of production system

Results in a “tacit alliance” that benefits either side:• Reduced need for enforcement of governmental regulation. Rather than spending

large amounts of money on extensive and costly testing of imports, governments can rely on the certification and assurance processes laid down by private sector bodies.

• Private standards free governments from any need to interfere with overseas production processes.

• Governmental regulation (reflecting private-sector requirements) is occasionally required to - harmonize requirements;- level the competitive playing field; or - reduce consumer confusion.

• Private sector benefits from public funds that assist producers in meeting supply-chain requirements.

1717171717Advantages of the EurepGAP Standard • Harmonization of procurement standard among key global

retailers– However, retailers can still procure non-EurepGAP certified produce

• Allows local adaptation through “interpretation guidelines”• Facilitates equivalence of standards through “benchmarking

procedure”• Allows “group certification” • Can provide access to lucrative export markets, cutting out

middlemen• Better transparency in development and revision of standard,

compared to requirements of individual retailers• Appropriate EurepGAP implementation can lead to benefits and

catalytic effects (in terms of reduced input use, better occupational safety, better soil fertility etc.)

1818181818Problematic Aspects of the EurepGAP Standard

• Risk of marginalization of small producers (different experience in Senegal and Kenya)

• Supply-chain governance implications– Control mechanisms without ownership– Favours FDI type of investment– Producers have to shoulder significant part of risk management costs

(capital and recurrent costs: 20-200% of annual profit of producers of 0.5-6 hectares)

• No price premium for compliance or advantages through use of a EurepGAP label

• Risk of becoming dependent on servicing packages of globally active agro-chemical companies

• EurepGAP is gradually becoming important also for access to the high-end domestic market in DgCs

• Revision of EurepGAP standard every three years – moving target (DgCs have to seek active participation)

1919191919Key Challenges for Developing Countries

• Lack of local regulation/enforcement in DgCs• Lack of institutional support (notably significant deficiencies in

SMTQ system - standards, metrology, testing, and quality assurance)• Weak regulatory system relating to the import, production and sale

of crop protection products • Lack of knowledge on responsible pesticide use• Lack of extension services• Constraints of physical infrastructure• Constraints regarding farmer skills

2020202020Key Problems of Current Adjustment Approach

• Reactive/fire-fighting approach prevails (delaying compliance until after a crisis has occurred).

• Piecemeal and fire-fighting approach on technical assistance• Insufficient participation in pre-standard-setting consultations by

DgC producers/exporters• Costs of adjustment are often more apparent than benefits/

catalytic effects.

General Issues

2121212121Swinging the Pendulum

• In DgCs:– looking beyond costs at opportunities and catalytic role of new EHFS

requirements for national economy (e.g. resource savings, enhanced occupational safety, environmental benefits, new business and export opportunities)

– assuring coherent and inclusive policy approach towards supply-chain requirements (conceptual clarity on approaches and supportive policies)

• Active participation of DgCs’ exporters in standard-setting consultations and revision process of supply-chain requirements (including insistence on ex-ante assessment of impact on DgCs).

Fire-fighting, reactive approach

Pro-active, strategic approach

INVOLVES:

2222222222222222Specific Elements of Pro-active Adjustment to Supply-chain Requirements

• Enhanced transparency in setting of supply-chain requirements (including consideration of international trade implications and impact on DgCs. Active outreach to DgCs on participation in consultative processes).

• Develop coherent national strategies in DgCs to respond to new requirements (conceptual clarity, stakeholder dialogue/involvement).

• Strengthen synergies between meeting external requirements and assuring domestic food safety.

• Promoting strategic alliances among key stakeholders in DgCs.• Building regulatory/institutional capacity (on food control systems, information

management, without being focused on a specific standard). • Pay special attention to needs, but also best ways of adjustment of small producers

(strategies should be multi-pronged, i.e. enabling them to supply global retailers, national and international conventional wholesale markets, and national and international organic markets).

• For further detail: See handout that distils findings of recent country-cases studies prepared by UNCTAD’s Consultative Task Force.

23

Key Elements of a Proactive Role of DgC Governments 23

Key Function of Government: 1. Taking into account broad commercial and developmental objectives.2. Optimizing long-term costs and catalytic benefits of compliance.3. Focus on wider distributional and societal impacts of the available responses.

Public- private sector

dialogue

Info gathering and dissemination –

cost/benefit analysis

Pay special attention to

smallproducers

Setting up and Supporting Quality Assurance Systems

Clusters of Policy Tools

Effectiveadjustment

2424242424242424FSHE FOOD SAFETY, HEALTH & ENVIRONMENT

Sumber: …….. Diunduh 27/10/2012


Sumber: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_safety…….. Diunduh 27/10/2012

Food safety is a scientific discipline describing handling, preparation, and storage of food in ways that prevent foodborne illness.

This includes a number of routines that should be followed to avoid potentially severe health hazards.

Food can transmit disease from person to person as well as serve as a growth medium for bacteria that can cause food poisoning. In developed countries there are intricate standards for food preparation, whereas in lesser developed countries the main issue is simply the availability of

adequate safe water, which is usually a critical item. In theory food poisoning is 100% preventable.

The five key principles of food hygiene, according to WHO, are:1. Prevent contaminating food with pathogens spreading from people,

pets, and pests.2. Separate raw and cooked foods to prevent contaminating the cooked

foods.3. Cook foods for the appropriate length of time and at the appropriate

temperature to kill pathogens.4. Store food at the proper temperature.5. Do use safe water and cooked materials.



.

Second International Workshop on Conformity Assessment Rio de Janeiro, 11-12 December 2006

Documents

Transcript of Second International Workshop on Conformity Assessment Rio de Janeiro, 11-12 December 2006