The Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture EUREP GAP © 2005 An Introduction to EurepGAP and other Private Sector Standards:Facilitating

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


EUREPGAP


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”


EUREPGAP


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


EUREPGAP


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


EUREPGAP


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


EUREPGAP


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


EUREPGAP



EUREPGAP


COSTS REDUCTION FOR PRODUCERS

National Scheme National Scheme

>=

<=

Retailer 1 Retailer 2 Retailer 3 Retailer 4 Retailer 5

Introduction


EUREPGAP



EUREPGAP


Certificates in 80 Countries

Certification - Global Spread


EUREPGAP


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


EUREPGAP


IFA Structure


EUREPGAP


Consultation


EUREPGAP


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


EUREPGAP


CBs

Accredited Certification Bodies


EUREPGAP



EUREPGAP


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


EUREPGAP


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


EUREPGAP


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


EUREPGAP


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


EUREPGAP


KenyaGAP


EUREPGAP


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


EUREPGAP


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


EUREPGAP


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


EUREPGAP


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


EUREPGAP


MexicoGAP


EUREPGAP


ChinaGAP


EUREPGAP


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


EUREPGAP


Africa Observer


EUREPGAP


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


EUREPGAP


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


EUREPGAP


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


EUREPGAP


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


EUREPGAP


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


EUREPGAP


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


EUREPGAP


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.


EUREPGAP


Perception of benefits Kenya


EUREPGAP


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


EUREPGAP



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)


EUREPGAP



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?


EUREPGAP


How can EurepGAP help?

Thank youThank youwww.eurep.orgwww.eurep.org

Documents

The Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture EUREP GAP © 2005 An Introduction to EurepGAP and other Private Sector Standards:Facilitating