1. Good Agricultural Practices Approach (GAP) A Working Concept
By Anne-Sophie Poisot, FAO/AGD
FAO Workshop on Good Agricultural Practices, 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

2. 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

3. 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 ?

4. 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 ?

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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)

8. “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), …

9. 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
....

10. … 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?

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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 :
...

15. 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”

16. 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

17. 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 activities cause most environmental impacts
Be open: not enough effort made to collect/adapt lessons from around the world

18. 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

19. 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

20. 4. Possible Joint Action Areas - Global -
Provide information on GAP schemes: who, what, how, incentives, cost, benefits…
GAP comparative database
GAP website
Define global principles of GAP
11 components – need more work ?

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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

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