Good Agricultural Practices Approach (GAP) A Working Concept By Anne-Sophie Poisot, FAO/AGD FAO Workshop on Good Agricultural Practices, 27-29 October 2004, Rome good morning ASP – most know me am going to present to you some bakcground and what we came up with as our working concept for GAP basically drawn from the Working concept doc

1. Big challenges for agriculture ? Improve food security, livelihoods Satisfy increasing demands for safe and nutritious food and other products Conserve the natural resource base Commitments WSSD and SARD - economic, social and environmental sustainability World Food Summit Plan of Action, MDGs So what is the bigger context ? they are the big challenges for ag in 21st cent ... doing altogether is really a challenge the international community has made commitmt about helping to do this NOW

The million dollar question is… How to make agricultural systems in developing countries more sustainable, in a globalizing world where food supply chains are ever more competitive ?

Developments in Ag. Sector ‘Demand’ by consumers, retailers, processors Food safety, quality, nutrition Environmental impact of agriculture ‘Supply’ by farmers who adopt practices Improve livelihoods ‘Support’ by governments and institutions Sustainable agriculture policies Research, extension, education, credit, infrastructure What are different stakeholders doing about it ?

GAP: What is new under the sun ? For decades: extension and research guidelines on “good practices” More recent trend: GAP in food markets - growing number of “GAP” codes & standards - privatization of standards Renewed attention as entry point for food safety & quality in food chain So how does GAP fit in this and what is new under the sun

Good production practices at farm level can make a huge difference! Simple assumption… Good production practices at farm level can make a huge difference! the simple assumption for this renewed interest in GAP is that : ........ ... in contributing to meeting the challenges for ag in the 21st cent

Can codes support sustainable ag.? Private certification and standards (e.g.: EUREP, retail…) Competitive advantage - not all farmers can meet Focus more on impact on product than on sustainability Public legislation and policies (e.g. : extension, research) Society-driven – broader sustainability priorities Local, small farmer-adapted But lack financial resources Fair trade, organic A mix of both Provide capacity building. Environmental and social aspects But market share may be limited in longer term I will not expand too much on this after andrew s presentation but One can broadly distinguish (SKIP THIS SLIDE IF HE USED IT)

“Any problem”? Too many standards and codes, confusing Opportunities, but hard for small farmers to meet private & export standards (cost, investments, paperwork) and certification fees Farmers don’t always get a price premium Different scopes of GAP Are food safety/quality and food security/sustainability GAPs compatible or contradictory? so – any problem ? yes, because many concerns are raised about the multiplication of GAP-related standards Wide scope of activities related to food safety, food quality, env impacs, healther impacts(farm labour), …

Farmers incentives to adopt? Economic: price premium, market access; access to inputs; stabilize yield, increase productivity, reduce losses, increase farm asset value... Regulatory/Legal: ascertain property rights to scare resources; reduce liability... Human/social capital: expand skill sets, reduce community tensions... why should farmers adopt GAP i\ncentives will of course vary depending on the contents of the Gap codes and so will disencentives, but we can mention ....

… which means … that farmers have many incentives to apply GAPs whether or not that gives them access to segregated markets or price premiums which means what ? that..... (I would invite to check the annex of the Working concept doc which is drawn from the very interesting paper on the range of incentives prepared for the EC last year?

2. And FAO…? Development of a GAP Approach in FAO Identification of Preliminary Principles of GAP and electronic discussions in context of SARD Request for guidance at COAG 2003 GAP Expert Consultation, Nov 2003, Rome so with these developments happening , what about FAO starting working more closely on the issue about 2-3 years ago with the development of a b c

a. “Global Principles of GAP” Form 11 components of ag. practices Identify hazards to be avoided Identify outcomes to be promoted = Provide a basis for the development of codes of practice for individual production systems

The 11 components Soil Water Crop and fodder production Crop protection Animal feed and livestock production Animal health Animal welfare Harvest and on-farm processing and storage Energy and waste management Human welfare, health and safety Wildlife and landscape Presented in COAG paper SEE ANNEX 1 of Working concept doc Admittedly they are imperfect and still need refinement

b. FAO dos and don’ts on GAP: (COAG 2003) COAG: ”GOOD, GO AHEAD” but… DON’Ts No new intergovernmental standard or certification, no barriers to trade : voluntary practices No undue demands on resource-poor producers Consistent with existing regulations (Codex, IPPC, OIE) DOs Share lessons through multi-stakeholder processes and capacity building Consider different commodities, agro-ecosystems, and scale & resources of farmers because GAP both touches on market issues and it has a broad definition of sustainability, COAG provided guidance on GAP as concerns were raised that it could be equated to the concept of multifunctionality of agriculture so coag recommdd that : ...

c. Expert Consultation: definition of a GAP approach addressing economic, environmental and social sustainability inclusive of food safety and quality focused on primary production (whilst considering the supply chain and institutional context) taking account voluntary and regulatory aspects within a given incentive and agro-ecology context = Focus on a GAP Approach and not the creation of a FAO international “Super-GAP”

Meanwhile, in the field… Many projects related to GAP are implemented by different units: Eastern Africa (AGAP), Latin America, Thailand, China (ESNS and RLC), Burkina Faso (AGD/AGS/AGPC), Asia region (AGE, AGSF), Brazil and West Africa (AGPC) etc, etc, etc With different entry points: food safety and quality, sustainable production systems, meat and milk production, certification and value-chains, participatory extension etc, etc, etc

3. Lessons learnt - Strategy Be strategic: some crops have more impacts and potential than others Focus on improvement: better, not best agricultural practices; encourage innovation, not compliance Focus on the most serious impacts: soil erosion, effluents, habitat conversion. 8-10 activities cause most environmental impacts Be open: not enough effort made to collect/adapt lessons from around the world

Lessons learnt - Stakeholders Work with producers, consumers, markets and governments, and use carrots and sticks Need to work with drivers of change Farmers and communities create most GAPs 400 buyers are key, more than millions of consumers: need to engage industry

Lessons learnt - Incentives Target farmer incentives and disencentives when designing GAP programmes GAPs increase product quality and reduces risk; GAP can work without market incentives Most GAP pay for themselves, though not all Different agro-ecologies, institutional and market contexts = different GAP priorities

4. Possible Joint Action Areas - Global - Provide information on GAP schemes: who, what, how, incentives, cost, benefits… GAP comparative database http://www.fao.org/prods/gap/database/index.html GAP website http://www.fao.org/prods/GAP/gapindex_en.htm Define global principles of GAP 11 components – need more work ?

Possible Joint Action Areas - Local - Support local translation of principles into appropriate practices and indicators FAO may bring: 1- Knowledge range (on policies, practices, impacts) 2- Facilitate multistakeholder negotiations on GAPs for a commodity/farming system 3- Capacity building: trainer of trainers & farmers

Where could a GAP approach be most useful ? “From the top”: when private company wants to improve its GAP standards in a meaningful way “From the bottom”: help farmer groups integrate markets (technical advice on practices and managerial advice on commercialization) “Support level”: help interested govnt understand implications, define policies and build capacity

Conclusion : key words ! GAP : Old wine in new bottles ? Or…working better together? It’s about INTEGRATION Win-win situations for consumers, markets and farmers. It’s about NEGOTIATION Ultimately, a matter of policy choice for govts, minimizing trade-offs. It’s about SELECTION Practical, flexible approaches in GAP worskhop… It’s about IMPLEMENTATION

…have a fruitful workshop ! hope this has provided useful background info to inform your discussions.