An Introduction to EurepGAP and other Private Sector Standards:Facilitating Trade through Safe and Sustainable Agricultu

1. An Introduction to EurepGAP and other Private Sector Standards:Facilitating Trade through Safe and Sustainable Agriculture Nigel Garbutt, Chairman, EurepGAP WTO SPS Seminar, Geneva, 25 June 2007

2. Overview EurepGAP Standard Scope ,Development and Consultation process Global Standard , Local Implementation Equivalence and Benchmarking Public Private Partnerships Catalyst for Poverty Reduction : “Smallholder Ambassador” Today’s Presentation

3. 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 is……

4. 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 Drivers

5. 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 Guiding Principles

6. REQUIREMENTS PRE- FARM GATE POST FARM GATE Food Packing and Processing Growers Farmers Retail Stores Consumers • Key components • Pre-Farm and Post Farm Gate Standards • ISO Guide 65 • Traceability • Risk Assessment • Residue Monitoring Whole Chain Assurance

8. > < = = National Scheme National Scheme Introduction COSTS REDUCTION FOR PRODUCERS Retailer 1 Retailer 2 Retailer 3 Retailer 4 Retailer 5

10. Certification - Global Spread Certificates in 80 Countries

11. 2005

12. IFA Structure

13. Consultation

14. EUREPGAP CERTIFICATION OPTIONS OPTION 2 Group Certification EUREPGAP OPTION 1 Individual Certification EUREPGAP OPTION 3 Individual Certification Benchmarked scheme OPTION 4 Group Certification Benchmarked Scheme

15. CBs Accredited Certification Bodies

17. Equivalence Origins 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! 3. Framework of Benchmarking

18. 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

19. National Technical Working Groups NL Jan 2002 UK Sep 2002 Germany May 2005 Switzerland July 2002 Belgium Feb 2002 Italy July 2002 France June 2002 Greece Sep 2004 Malaysia Feb 2003 Spain May 2002 New Zealand May 2004 Chile March 2003 Australia/Tasmania July 2002 S. Africa March 2002 Kenya March 2005 Argentina March 2004

20. NTWG Role • 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)

21. KenyaGAP

22. Exporters Government NGOs Farmers Donors Experts KenyaGAP IS PRIVATE-PUBLIC SECTOR INITIATIVE Direction, mobilizeation, coordination Investment, problem solving, technical inputs, marketing KenyaGAP Technical Committee Investment, adoption of new techniques, group cooperation Technical assistance, group training. Funding, technical backstopping, training Technical assistance, training, research, writing

23. 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 Benefits- KenyaGAP

24. Production Trend

25. 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 Smallholders-Kenya Case

26. MexicoGAP

27. ChinaGAP

28. 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

29. Africa Observer

30. 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 Objectives

31. 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 Tasks

32. 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 Tasks

33. 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 Tasks

34. 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 World Bank

35. An emerging literature on standards, global supply chains, and development argues that enhanced quality and safety standards could be major trade barriers for developing country exports and cause the marginalization of small businesses and poor households in developing countries. The paper of Maertens and Swinnen is the first to quantify income and poverty effects of such high-standards trade and to integrate labor market effects, by using company and household survey data from the vegetable export chain in Senegal. Trade, Standards, and Poverty: Evidence from Senegal, December 4, 2006 |New paper by Miet Maertens and Johan F.M. Swinnen Impact on poverty reduction

36. 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.  Key findings Senegal

37. Perception of benefits Kenya

38. 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 Strategy smallholders

39. APPROACH Smallholders 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) Strategy smallholders

40. 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? Strategy smallholders

41. How can EurepGAP help? Thank you www.eurep.org