The Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture EUREP GAP © 2005 An Introduction to...
-
Upload
elizabeth-welch -
Category
Documents
-
view
216 -
download
0
Transcript of The Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture EUREP GAP © 2005 An Introduction to...
The Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture
EUREPGAP
© 2005 www.eurep.org
An Introduction to EurepGAP and other Private Sector Standards:Facilitating Trade through Safe and Sustainable
Agriculture
Nigel Garbutt, Chairman, EurepGAPWTO SPS Seminar, Geneva, 25 June 2007
The Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture
EUREPGAP
© 2005 www.eurep.org
Today’s Presentation
1. Overview EurepGAP
2. Standard Scope ,Development and Consultation process
3. Global Standard , Local Implementation
4. Equivalence and Benchmarking
5. Public Private Partnerships
6. Catalyst for Poverty Reduction : “Smallholder Ambassador”
The Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture
EUREPGAP
© 2005 www.eurep.org
EurepGAP is……
• Good Agricultural Practice (GAP) standard • Voluntary not regulatory • Not Official EU….. despite the name!• Private sector led organisation (Not for profit)• Harmonizing B2B Scheme- no consumer labels• Certification process uses International Norms
ISO 65• Supported in Private and Public sector
The Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture
EUREPGAP
© 2005 www.eurep.org
Drivers
Food Safety Crisis (Alar, BSE, Dioxin, E. coli, Salmonella, etc.)
Retailers legal responsibility - regulatory shift to “enforced self regulation” and due diligence
Governments “Name and Shame” policy increasing
Retailers are the direct link to the consumers in the Food Chain. Increasing retailer own Brands
Consumers have increasing expectations of retailers
Globalisation of retailing and production: Need to harmonise
The Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture
EUREPGAP
© 2005 www.eurep.org
Guiding Principles
• Open Access for producers anywhere• Generic HACCP and GAPs provide technical
basis• Consistency of certification process • Stakeholder Consultation / Participation /
Communication• Trusted Equivalence System – “ EurepGAP
Benchmarking “• Commitment to continuous improvement
The Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture
EUREPGAP
© 2005 www.eurep.org
Whole Chain Assurance
PRE-
FARM
GATE
POST
FARM
GATE
Growers
Farmers
Food Packing and Processing
Retail
Stores Consumers
REQUIREMENTS
Key componentsoPre-Farm and Post Farm Gate Standards oISO Guide 65oTraceabilityo Risk Assessment o Residue Monitoring
The Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture
EUREPGAP
© 2005 www.eurep.org
The Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture
EUREPGAP
© 2005 www.eurep.org
COSTS REDUCTION FOR PRODUCERS
National Scheme National Scheme
>=
<=
Retailer 1 Retailer 2 Retailer 3 Retailer 4 Retailer 5
Introduction
The Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture
EUREPGAP
© 2005 www.eurep.org
The Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture
EUREPGAP
© 2005 www.eurep.org
Certificates in 80 Countries
Certification - Global Spread
The Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture
EUREPGAP
© 2005 www.eurep.org
0
50
100
150
200
250
Co
ntr
ol
Po
ints
Food S
afety
Environm
ent
Social
Total
Holistic view of EUREPGAP Standard:Food Safety, Environment and Social CPs
Recom.
Minor
Major
2005
The Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture
EUREPGAP
© 2005 www.eurep.org
IFA Structure
The Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture
EUREPGAP
© 2005 www.eurep.org
Consultation
The Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture
EUREPGAP
© 2005 www.eurep.org
EUREPGAP CERTIFICATION OPTIONS
OPTION 1
Individual Certification
EUREPGAP
OPTION 3
Individual Certification
Benchmarked scheme
OPTION 2
Group Certification
EUREPGAP
OPTION 4
Group Certification
Benchmarked Scheme
The Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture
EUREPGAP
© 2005 www.eurep.org
CBs
Accredited Certification Bodies
The Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture
EUREPGAP
© 2005 www.eurep.org
The Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture
EUREPGAP
© 2005 www.eurep.org
3. Framework of BenchmarkingOrigins of EurepGAP Benchmarking: Recognition of best practice and compliance with
National/International Legislation
Interpretation of Technical Criteria e.g relevance to small scale farmers
Preserve cultural and regional identity
Route for market differentiation/ national branding
Local ownership enhances local adoption and implementation
Buyers understand what a National scheme delivers
Think Global But Act Local!
Equivalence
The Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture
EUREPGAP
© 2005 www.eurep.org
Equivalence
BENCHMARKING
• Transparent procedure and rules (Benchmarking Extranet)
• Independent external evaluation• Document evaluation and witness assessment• Peer review• Appeals procedure=Robust tool of recognition
International Buyer Recognition
The Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture
EUREPGAP
© 2005 www.eurep.org
National Technical Working Groups
KenyaMarch 2005
Australia/TasmaniaJuly 2002
Chile March 2003
SpainMay 2002
FranceJune 2002
ItalyJuly 2002
BelgiumFeb 2002
NLJan 2002
SwitzerlandJuly 2002
UKSep 2002
MalaysiaFeb 2003
Argentina March 2004
New ZealandMay 2004
GreeceSep 2004
S. AfricaMarch 2002
GermanyMay 2005
The Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture
EUREPGAP
© 2005 www.eurep.org
National Technical Working Groups: “Think Global, Act Local”
• NTWGs assure local Multi stakeholder representation (Producers, Retailers,
Exporters , GOs, NGOs, other organisations)
• Trust building: P.P.P best model for implementation
NTWGs assure local applicability of the Standard:• Commercial drivers ; Public support• Customisation of the Control Points
• Reference to local legislation • Definition of non-applicable CPs (water-management)• Translation
• Considering the common business practice in the country (tradition)
NTWG Role
The Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture
EUREPGAP
© 2005 www.eurep.org
KenyaGAP
The Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture
EUREPGAP
© 2005 www.eurep.org
KenyaGAP IS PRIVATE-PUBLIC SECTOR INITIATIVE
Government Exporters
FarmersNGOs
DonorsExperts
KenyaGAPTechnical Committee
Direction, mobilizeation, coordination
Investment, problem solving, technical inputs, marketing
Technical assistance, group training.
Investment, adoption of new techniques, group cooperation
Technical assistance, training, research, writing
Funding, technical backstopping, training
The Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture
EUREPGAP
© 2005 www.eurep.org
Benefits- KenyaGAP
• Minimises costs, enables continued market access, gives Kenya competitive edge
• Provides Food safety confidence to retailers• Helps in meeting EU legal requirements e.g.
MRLS• Sound scientific approach• Risk assessment approach to soil and water
analysis• Focus on internal auditing and monitoring• QMS template provided to ease interpretation• Equivalence with international standards
The Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture
EUREPGAP
© 2005 www.eurep.org
Production Trend
SIX YEAR EXPORT VALUES
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004YEAR
Ksh
s B
illio
n
Vegetables Fruits Flowers Herbs & Spices
The Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture
EUREPGAP
© 2005 www.eurep.org
Smallholders-Kenya Case
• Smallholder income highest ever recorded • Group certification (Option 2) potential to
bring compliance costs down further • Upto 40% savings on pesticide costs• Public/Private Investment has been needed
to improve standards
Source : Horticultural Development Centre . USAID , Kenya. Oct 2005
The Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture
EUREPGAP
© 2005 www.eurep.org
MexicoGAP
The Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture
EUREPGAP
© 2005 www.eurep.org
ChinaGAP
The Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture
EUREPGAP
© 2005 www.eurep.org
CONCLUSIONS
EurepGAP Step by Step…not withstanding adjustment issues:
•Contributes to sustainable agricultural production on a Global level•Harmonises the main buyer requirements•Leads to Management Improvement of Farms•Opens new markets :Value Added for Products•Embraces small scale farming to market access •Voluntary, Open and Inclusive : Cost effective solution for a global industry•EurepGAP system transparency complements Official Controls
The Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture
EUREPGAP
© 2005 www.eurep.org
Africa Observer
The Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture
EUREPGAP
© 2005 www.eurep.org
Objectives
1. To identify specific ways that EurepGAP standards can be more inclusive of smallholder farmers from developing countries and assist EurepGAP members to develop/adjust appropriate technical standards
2.To raise awareness amongst stakeholders about the EurepGAP decision making process
The Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture
EUREPGAP
© 2005 www.eurep.org
Tasks
1.Review of existing research and case study evidence about EurepGAP standards
2.Use this evidence and stakeholder consultation to identify issues of key relevance to poor farmers in developing countries and opportunities for influencing EurepGAP standards
The Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture
EUREPGAP
© 2005 www.eurep.org
Tasks
3.Develop an informal network of key stakeholders
4.Support developing country members of the EurepGAP committees board e.g. raising awareness of how standards impact on smallholder farmers, compiling evidence to support particular issues raised in [2] and subsequently by developing country producers
The Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture
EUREPGAP
© 2005 www.eurep.org
Tasks
5.Observe and contribute to the fruit and vegetable (FV) and flower and ornament (FO) technical standard committee meetings of EurepGAP
6.Feedback to other interested parties e.g. producer organisations, NGOs, Governments and other donor agencies that have expressed an interest in EurepGAP standards
The Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture
EUREPGAP
© 2005 www.eurep.org
World Bank Stricter standards can provide a stimulus for
investments in supply-chain modernization, provide increased incentives for the adoption of better safety and quality control practices in agriculture and food manufacturing, and help clarify the appropriate and necessary roles of government in food safety and agricultural health management. Rather than degrading the comparative advantage of developing countries, the compliance process can result in new forms of competitive advantage and contribute to more sustainable and profitable trade over the long term.
Worldbank, Report No. 31207 Food Safety and Agricultural Health Standards: Challenges and Opportunities for Developing Country Exports Poverty Reduction & Economic Management Trade Unit and Agriculture and Rural Development Department January 10, 2005
The Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture
EUREPGAP
© 2005 www.eurep.org
Impact on poverty reduction
An emerging literature on standards, global supply chains, and development argues that enhanced quality and safetystandards could be major trade barriers for developing countryexports and cause the marginalization of small businessesand poor households in developing countries. The paper of Maertens and Swinnen is the first to quantifyincome and poverty effects of such high-standards tradeand to integrate labor market effects, by using companyand household survey data from the vegetable export chain inSenegal. Trade, Standards, and Poverty: Evidence from Senegal,
December 4, 2006 |New paper by Miet Maertens and Johan F.M. Swinnen
The Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture
EUREPGAP
© 2005 www.eurep.org
Key findings Senegal
1. Horticultural exports from Senegal (but also Kenya, Mozambique and others) to the EU have grown sharply despite increasing food standards in the EU.
2. These exports have strong positive effects on poor households' income. We estimate that these exports reduced (in Senegal) regional poverty by around 12 percentage points and reduced extreme poverty by half.
3. Tightening food standards induced structural changes in the supply chain including a shift from smallholder contract-based farming to large-scale integrated estate production. These changes mainly altered the mechanism through which poor households benefit: through labor markets instead of product markets.
4. The impact on poverty reduction is strongest through labor markets as the poorest benefit relatively more from working on large-scale farms than from contract farming.
The Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture
EUREPGAP
© 2005 www.eurep.org
Perception of benefits Kenya
The Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture
EUREPGAP
© 2005 www.eurep.org
Strategy smallholders
EUREPGAP A CATALYST
• to reduce poverty
• to reduce negative impacts on the biosphere
• to support good governance and application of
social principles in trading partner societies
The Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture
EUREPGAP
© 2005 www.eurep.org
Strategy smallholders
APPROACHSmallholders will be globally involved (incl. EU 27)in all sectors of agricultural production • Creation and involvement of national smallholder
groups in standard setting processes (smallholder guideline, example German smallholder practitioners with seat in national standard comittee)
• Continuation of a collective learning process for the optimization/reduction of the costs for smallholder producers (meeting of option 2 practitioners at GTZ)
The Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture
EUREPGAP
© 2005 www.eurep.org
Strategy smallholders
Strengthening the demand on high price markets
• Identification and support of existing and new high quality smallholder produce (Babycorn? Green Beans? Lytchies?)
• Creation of a specific market segment for high quality smallholder produce?
The Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture
EUREPGAP
© 2005 www.eurep.org
How can EurepGAP help?
Thank youThank youwww.eurep.orgwww.eurep.org