1. The Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture EUREP GAP © 2005 www.eurep.org 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. The Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture EUREP GAP © 2005 www.eurep.org Todays 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

3. The Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture EUREP GAP © 2005 www.eurep.org 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

4. The Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture EUREP GAP © 2005 www.eurep.org 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

5. The Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture EUREP GAP © 2005 www.eurep.org 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

6. The Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture EUREP GAP © 2005 www.eurep.org Whole Chain Assurance PRE- FARM GATE POST FARM GATE Growers Farmers Food Packing and Processing Retail Stores Consumers REQUIREMENTS Key components o Pre-Farm and Post Farm Gate Standards o ISO Guide 65 o Traceability o Risk Assessment o Residue Monitoring

7. The Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture EUREP GAP © 2005 www.eurep.org

8. The Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture EUREP GAP © 2005 www.eurep.org COSTS REDUCTION FOR PRODUCERS National Scheme > = < = Retailer 1 Retailer 2 Retailer 3Retailer 4Retailer 5 Introduction

9. The Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture EUREP GAP © 2005 www.eurep.org

10. The Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture EUREP GAP © 2005 www.eurep.org Certificates in 80 Countries Certification - Global Spread

11. The Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture EUREP GAP © 2005 www.eurep.org 2005

12. The Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture EUREP GAP © 2005 www.eurep.org IFA Structure

13. The Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture EUREP GAP © 2005 www.eurep.org Consultation

14. The Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture EUREP GAP © 2005 www.eurep.org 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

15. The Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture EUREP GAP © 2005 www.eurep.org CBs Accredited Certification Bodies

16. The Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture EUREP GAP © 2005 www.eurep.org

17. The Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture EUREP GAP © 2005 www.eurep.org 3. Framework of Benchmarking 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! Equivalence

18. The Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture EUREP GAP © 2005 www.eurep.org 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. The Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture EUREP GAP © 2005 www.eurep.org National Technical Working Groups Kenya March 2005 Australia/ Tasmania July 2002 Chile March 2003 Spain May 2002 France June 2002 Italy July 2002 Belgium Feb 2002 NL Jan 2002 Switzerland July 2002 UK Sep 2002 Malaysia Feb 2003 Argentina March 2004 New Zealand May 2004 Greece Sep 2004 S. Africa March 2002 Germany May 2005

20. The Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture EUREP GAP © 2005 www.eurep.org 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

21. The Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture EUREP GAP © 2005 www.eurep.org KenyaGAP

22. The Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture EUREP GAP © 2005 www.eurep.org KenyaGAP IS PRIVATE-PUBLIC SECTOR INITIATIVE Government ExportersFarmersNGOsDonors Experts KenyaGAP Technical Committee D irection, 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

23. The Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture EUREP GAP © 2005 www.eurep.org 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

24. The Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture EUREP GAP © 2005 www.eurep.org Production Trend

25. The Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture EUREP GAP © 2005 www.eurep.org 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

26. The Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture EUREP GAP © 2005 www.eurep.org MexicoGAP

27. The Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture EUREP GAP © 2005 www.eurep.org ChinaGAP

28. The Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture EUREP GAP © 2005 www.eurep.org 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. The Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture EUREP GAP © 2005 www.eurep.org Africa Observer

30. The Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture EUREP GAP © 2005 www.eurep.org 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

31. The Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture EUREP GAP © 2005 www.eurep.org 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

32. The Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture EUREP GAP © 2005 www.eurep.org 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

33. The Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture EUREP GAP © 2005 www.eurep.org 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

34. The Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture EUREP GAP © 2005 www.eurep.org 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

35. The Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture EUREP GAP © 2005 www.eurep.org Impact on poverty reduction 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

36. The Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture EUREP GAP © 2005 www.eurep.org 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.

37. The Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture EUREP GAP © 2005 www.eurep.org Perception of benefits Kenya

38. The Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture EUREP GAP © 2005 www.eurep.org 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

39. The Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture EUREP GAP © 2005 www.eurep.org Strategy smallholders 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)

40. The Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture EUREP GAP © 2005 www.eurep.org Strategy smallholders 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?

41. The Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture EUREP GAP © 2005 www.eurep.org How can EurepGAP help? Thank you www.eurep.org