Transcript Overview of Agriculture Related aspects of AGOA and EBA

GAP: Why care ?
GAP standards and
programmes : incentives,
constraints, opportunities
Anne-Sophie Poisot, FAO
Agriculture Department
Wageningen Training
“Transition to sustainable agriculture”
23 May 2005 - 4June 2005
1. What is going on?
Welcome to the GAP jungle !

Growing number and wide variety of
standards, codes & guidelines codifying
GAPs. CONFUSING !

Distinguish GAPs (i.e. the farming
practices) and GAP standards (i.e.
standards codifying the farming
practices)
2
Objective : clarify
Scope & purpose of GAP standards
 Benefits & costs for farmers in
developing countries
 How can GAP support economic,
environmental and social sustainability and
food safety & quality

3


For FAO, GAP are practices that have to be followed to
address environmental, economic and social
sustainability for on-farm and post-production processes
and result in safe and quality food and non-food
agricultural products (FAO, 2003)
However: Different types of GAP standards
With different objectives and definitions of what are GAPs
4
are the basis for implementing Quality and
Safety Assurance programmes such as
HACCP or Certification programmes
5
Definitions- Types of GAP Standards (1)

1. Standards – generic term (ISO)
•
•
PRODUCT standards = on product attributes: taste,
appearance, safety, convenience, etc.
PROCESS standards = how products are made : organic
method, protecting environment and workers, etc


2. Regulations: Government standards - mandatory
3. International agreements: e.g. Codex
Alimentarius, International Plant Protection Convention, Code of
conduct on the use of pesticides, etc.
6
Definitions – Types of GAP Standards (2)



4. Standards for standards
•
e-g IFOAM Basic Standards
5. Growth of B-to-B Certification programmes
•
•
with third-party or in-house assurance
e.g. EUREPGAP- products are certified but not labelled
6. Labelling: an information on certification to the
consumer
7
2. Why ? Driving Forces
Scientific knowledge, food ‘scandals’, increased consumer
awareness, increased trade, political & commercial risk aversion
Official Standards
– Tightening of regulations for long-standing concerns; new
standards for unknown/unregulated hazards
– Total ‘farm to fork’ perspective; more process standards
– Intensification of enforcement efforts
– Precaution in face of scientific uncertainty

Private Standards
– Consolidate sourcing—’preferred suppliers’
– Harmonization yet competition between private standards
– Shift responsibility on the producer

8
3. Who defines GAP standards?
Governments









USA
Canada
Australia
New Zealand
Japan
Brazil
Malaysia
Thailand
etc.
NGOs-Civil society






Fairtrade Labelling Organization
IFOAM (Organic standards)
ISEAL code of practice for social
and environmental standards
Social Accountability International
(SA8000)
Sustainable Agric Network
(coffee)
IDF Guide to Good Dairy Farming
Practice
9
Private sector







EUREPGAP
SAI (Sustainable
Agriculture Initiative)
GFSI (Global Food Safety
Initiative)
EISA (Common Codex
Integrated Farming)
SQF (Safe Quality Food)
COLEACP (Europe-AfricaCaribbean-Pacific Liaison
Committee)
British Retail Consortium
(BRC)

...i.e.: everyone
10
The million dollar question is…
How to make agricultural systems
in developing countries
more sustainable, in a world where
food supply chains
are ever more globalized ?
11
4. Features of GAP programmes

Food Safety

Economic

Environment
not enough!

Social
not enough!
12
Environment
GAP
Agricultural inputs
Growing Practices
Harvest and
Transportation
Facilities associated
to the crop
Equipment, tools,
utensils
Practices to prevent Food
Safety hazards and
ensure food Quality,
enhance profitability,
while reducing impact of
those practices on the
environment and
worker’s health and
working conditions
13
Environment
Associated hazards:
Faecal and chemical contamination of water and soils
by manure & polluted surface waters; organic waste;
agricultural chemicals; hazardous wastes,
contamination of downstream sites by silt or chemical
laden runoff, spray drift; adjacent farming and
industrial activities, etc.
Environmental Protected Areas should not be used for
agricultural proposes!
¿ What should be done?
-site history (adjoining sites too)
-evaluate access of animals to site & to water sources
- plan for land use (identify crops, places for deposit of organic & chemical
materials)
Contaminants at excessive levels? sites should not be used
till correction/control measures taken
14
5. Benefits ?
…Understanding farmer’s
incentives to adopt GAP…
15
Economic Incentives to Adopt
Incentive









Strength GAP system
Price premium
Market access
Access to inputs (P)
Product differentiation (P)
Stabilize yield
Reduce storage losses
Increase farm asset value
Protect against market
externalities
Reduce search & monitoring
costs (if certification) (P)







PSC
PSC (IG)
PSC, IG
PSC
PSC, IG, G, IA
PSC, IG, G, IA
PSC, IG, G

PSC, IG

PSC, IG (G, IA)
16
Economic Disincentives to Adopt
Disincentive





Strength GAP system
Increased variable costs
e.g. labour

Increased fixed costs
e.g. equipment

Reduce output/increase
average costs

Asset specific investments
i.e. tied to a buyer

Increase monitoring costs (P)
(if no certification)

PSC, IG, G, IA
PSC, IG, G, IA
PSC, IG, G, IA
PSC
PSC, IG (G, IA)
(P=processor/retailer)
17
Regulatory/Legal Incentives
Incentive



Strength GAP system
Owning property rights
to scare resources
Subsidies
Reduce liability/show
due diligence


G
G
(F)  (P)
PSC, IG
Institutional Disincentive

Lack of infrastructure for
testing, quality monitoring.. 
PSC, IG, G, IA
F=farmer, P=processor/retailer
18
Human Capital
Incentives/Disincentives
Incentive

Strength
GAP system

PSC, IG, G, IA
Literacy (record-keeping)  
Opportunity cost of time
(record-keeping)

PSC, IG, G, IA
Expand skill set
Disincentive


PSC, IG, G, IA
19
6. Constraints

Cost of compliance, investments, paperwork,
certification fees
•




e.g. cooperative tomatoes suppliers to McDonald’s in Guatemala:
from 330 to 6 in two years …
Lack of local certification body or certified testing
lab
Farmers may comply but not get premium
No guarantee from buyer
First-mover advantage may disappear overtime
20
7. Alternative scenarios
(World Bank, 2004)
• Standards as Barrier
– Non-transparent protective
device
– High/unattainable technical
and administrative levels
– High costs of compliance
erode comparative
advantage
– Marginalize small countries,
traders and farmers
– Contraction of Trade
• Standards as Catalyst
– Harmonized procedures and
rules build confidence
– Spur investment,
modernization and
public/private collaboration
– Stimulate improved practices
and stronger technical
support
– Foster new forms of
competitive advantage
– Maintain/expand trade
opportunities
21
Strategic Options for Developing
Countries and for Farmers
Hirschman’s (1969) Paradigm of Exit, Voice, and Loyalty
as Strategic Options
• Exit—shift export markets, shift to domestic market, shift
products, get out of business,
• Voice—WTO complaints/cross-notifications, CODEX
participation, bilateral negotiations, negotiate with buyers
regarding time-frame
• Loyalty: pursuing changes which ensure compliance with
product/process standards
• Some combinations of these options are normally
employed at the industry level
22
8. FAO assistance on GAP ?




International policy level : facilitate negotiations of
fair standards
National policy level: help govt understand
implications, define policies, build capacity
From start of chain: help farmer groups link to
markets
From end of chain: when private company wants to
improve its GAP standards
23
24
Remember ! what to strive for:





Coverage of sustainability issues = INTEGRATION
Who pays? = REPARTITION
Opportunities, but risks for small farmers. Effects on
trade + and - = analyze REPERCUSSIONS
Ultimately, a matter of policy choice for govts
= SELECTION
Support win-win situations for consumers, food
markets and farmers = NEGOTIATION
25
in the end...

Need multidisciplinary approach & teams
• to date: consumer focus + economics/managerial
•

focus
think of farmers too ! and engage food technologists
and agronomists
FAO : Burkina Faso, Thailand, Latin America region,
Asia Region, Namibia, Tunisia, Zambia....
FFV, milk, meat, feed, cotton, cereal, medicinal herbs...
26
More at...
27