EurepGAP is unquestionably a force to be reckoned with. In the UK, most retailers view compliance to the certification scheme as the bare minimum for fruit and vegetable suppliers wishing to send to the market, and almost every supermarket chain has developed its own individual initiative benchmarked to the original.
Growers all over the world are swiftly wising up to the importance of implementing this now ubiquitous standard if they wish to supply the world’s most advanced fresh produce markets.
The unveiling of the standard’s third version of Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) protocols at this year’s Fruit Logistica came at the same time as a plethora of EurepGAP benchmarking schemes are coming to fruition across the globe.
More than 500 experts from producers, traders, retailers, government and non-government organisations across 56 countries put their proposals for the new version forward, following two years of intensive stakeholder discussions. How the third EurepGAP document differs from its predecessors is its clearer focus on harmonising the scheme’s criteria for food safety, environmental and worker protection across major product categories. The revised GAP standard integrates common elements from each sector, with major products being served by specific industry modules, for example fruit and vegetables.
Nigel Garbutt, EurepGAP chairman, says: “What has been gratifying about this revision process is how EurepGAP members have reached out to their wider stakeholder group to make this a truly relevant global standard for safe and sustainable agriculture.”
Over the past few years, a number of countries have begun to establish their own national EurepGAP benchmarking schemes in an attempt to standardise and simplify global systems, according to Garbutt.
Chile was one of the pioneers in implementing its own scheme, ChileGAP, and now similar initiatives have either been established or are in the process of being implemented in Switzerland, Spain, Germany, Mexico, Kenya, New Zealand, the UK, Austria, France, India, China, Japan and Colombia, by various export and production agencies. KenyaGAP is set to be launched in the next four to six weeks, according to the Fresh Produce Exporters’ Association of Kenya (FPEAK), while other schemes also pending approval include JGAP, being implemented by the Japan Good Agricultural Initiative (JGAI).
“Global schemes which are benchmarked to EurepGAP will have the new third standard regulations phased in over a period of time, to enable producers to adjust to the updated requirements,” says Garbutt.
The EurepGAP organisation works closely to assist in the harmonisation of national benchmarking schemes, which according to Garbutt, means buyers fully recognising local practices, thus facilitating trade and recognition of the work producers have put into ensuring safe and sustainable agriculture.
Schemes such as ChileGAP and MexicoGAP are an important focal point for local stakeholders to meet and develop relevant practices and actions, he continues. “It can also, when it reaches a critical mass and maturity, provide a branding and promotional tool, as has been the case with ChileGAP.
“The think global, act local approach is a very important element in supporting the internationalisation of the fresh produce trade to establish both national and global standards that consumers can trust, wherever the product is sourced from.”
The significant growth of EurepGAP over the last 12 months has boosted membership of certification services provider CMi, according to the firm’s Stephen Cox, who is also deputy chairman of the EurepGAP certification committee and has played an important role in the development of the revised standard.
“EurepGAP is strengthening as the European market sources its products from more and more locations around the world,” says Cox, who is amongst the speakers at next month’s Re:fresh Conference. “It aims to improve confidence in all agricultural products and increase the overall efficiencies of production methods.”
Retailers in Germany are now backing the scheme in a substantial way for the first time. “The EurepGAP standard is becoming more sophisticated as more and more producers join,” comments Cox. “Integrity issues are going to be a major challenge in the short term. However, in the long term, efficiencies and consumer confidence will benefit, and that’s got to be good news. The routine updating every three years of the EurepGAP standard means that new technical and operational issues arising are being reviewed systematically and adapted accordingly.”
Food safety continues to top EurepGAP’s agenda in its third standard, according to Cox, whilst integrated pest management (IPM) comes a close second.
“While there is ongoing concern to strengthen all standards in the area of food safety for consumers, the recent pesticide issue with Spanish peppers has demonstrated that IPM is a fundamental innovation for producers globally, which EurepGAP is responding to in this new version,” he says.
Another issue which has been subject to continuous improvement, and is reflected in the revised standard, is worker health and safety, including its application to smallholder farmers in developing countries such as Kenya.
According to CMi, key EurepGAP objectives are to facilitate mutual recognition through transparent benchmarking, boost global participation in farm assurance, encourage continuous improvement in primary agriculture and provide performance and integrity measurements for assurance schemes which meet European, and recently global, retailers’ expectations.
UK retailers look to EurepGAP as the minimum entry level, and many have developed bolt-on schemes such as LEAF Marque, Tesco Nature’s Choice and Field to Fork. “This has not yet happened to the same extent in Europe, and global producers will have to watch and see how the market develops and be ready to respond to any up-and-coming challenges,” says Cox.
Benchmarking schemes seem to be largely accepted by the certification industry as a positive move. “The facility for benchmarking other schemes against EurepGAP is a particularly useful way of avoiding multiple audits,” says Paul Ruocco, marketing and new market development director for independent certification body SAI Global/Efsis marketing. “It’s something we support, and if this is not always available, we can provide combined audits under the full range of schemes, which our customers find extremely beneficial.”
SIA Global/Efsis combines EurepGAP inspection with schemes including BRC’s Global Food Standard, the International Food Standard, ISO 22000 and Tesco Nature’s Choice. The body’s Spanish office combines EurepGAP audits with EurepGAP-benchmarked Spanish schemes such as UNE 155001 and Naturane.
“Benchmarking for ChileGAP was assisted by our Spanish office,” says Ruocco. “This has helped make ChileGAP much more useful for fruit and vegetable producers in Chile and their global customers.”
UK scheme Assured Fresh Produce (AFP) has also been devised with close reference to EurepGAP. “AFP helps give UK fruit and vegetable producers much better access to international markets,” says Ruocco. “It means they don’t need an extra visit from an inspector to sell into markets where EurepGAP is required, which saves time and money.” Germany’s QS scheme is also benchmarked to EurepGAP.
“Benchmarking means we can develop standards suited to each country,” Ruocco adds. “National standards fit national needs, while also meeting international requirements.”
ColombiaGAP is one such example, an idea conceived around three years ago by growers and traders in conjunction with Corporación Colombia International (CCI).
The first phase of introducing the scheme is underway, and the results from meetings of the Colombian Technical Working Group (CTWG) will form the basis of the ColombiaGAP documents.
“We expect to have the final documents ready by November this year,” says CCI president Adriana Senior Mojica. “After that, the benchmarking process with EurepGAP will begin, which we think should take no more than a year and a half.”
At present, ColombiaGAP is supported by 16 public and private organisations, including the ministry of agriculture and rural development, the ministry of social protection, the ministry of environment, the Colombian Institute of Agriculture and trade promotion association Proexport, among others. The group has been in action since November 2006, and Mojica hopes that by 2010 as many of the country’s fruit exporters and growers will work to the ColombiaGAP standard as possible.
“The scheme will be rolled out across all fruits and vegetables, although initially its impact will be concentrated on growers of more exotic products such as dragon fruit, passionfruit and baby bananas,” explains Mojica.
“We want ColombiaGAP to be more than just an export requirement - we also want it to constitute a national identity with regard to good practices, taking into account cultural changes to improve our quality of life, conserve the environment and implement high food-safety standards. We are looking to strengthen our technical, institutional and political image and thus the confidence of our overseas clients,” she continues.
“ColombiaGAP will not only help us grow our export range, but also increase surveillance of products that come into Colombia, thus guaranteeing higher food safety.
“Many of our country’s growers were unable to fulfil EurepGAP requirements, and as a result several players tried individually to tackle these problems, thus duplicating efforts and resources. ColombiaGAP has managed to articulate these players and has helped producers, traders, public and private institutions and certification bodies develop strategies that mean they can respond efficiently to the different elements of GAP. Standards cannot be approached separately, especially in a country like Colombia. We require a co-operative, serious approach which can represent the needs of the country,” Mojica adds.
But despite the advantages outlined by certifying bodies, implementing EurepGAP and its benchmarking schemes on the ground is not always a walk in the park for producers who already incur high production costs.
Indian export agency Apeda (Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority) has been instrumental in developing the IndiaGAP standard, which is expected to come into force over the next month or so.
“With increasing competition and one-upmanship among trading partners, as well as supermarkets, constant efforts are being made to introduce new standards, demanding better quality and safe food in the interest of consumers,” says Sanjay Dave, director of Apeda. “Importers and supermarkets demand implementation of good agricultural practices, HACCP and other international requirements to meet these standards. Many of them have also introduced private schemes. Marketing fresh produce has become increasingly difficult on account of these schemes, and the resultant effect is a growing pressure on our farmers to rise to mounting demands, which have to be met at considerable cost.”
The opening-up of India’s own market, particularly the retail sector, has prompted the establishment of IndiaGAP in an attempt to help Indian farmers keep up with competition and ease mounting pressure from subsidised produce entering the country.
IndiaGAP has been prepared with current international practices and Indian farmers’ needs in mind, says Dave, and aims to help farmers upgrade their infrastructure and agricultural practices.
“IndiaGAP contains a chapter enabling smallholder farms to form groups with an internal control system,” explains Dave. “This should bring even the smallest of farms up to par with larger farmers that are individually capable of meeting the requirements. We aim to bring around 10,000 marginal, small-scale and large-scale farmers under the IndiaGAP scheme each year.”
Anticipated benefits for farmers implementing IndiaGAP include building up a good culture of agricultural practices, adopting a uniform approach across farms regardless of their size, developing infrastructure, improving environment and soil fertility and capacity building through hands-on training of farmers and other stakeholders. Food for Indian consumers will be safer, volumes of marketable IndiaGAP-certified products will increase, and the country will grow its reputation in the international marketplace as a producer of good quality and safe produce, Apeda believes.
“The cost of implementation will be considerable, so one way for farmers to consider reducing expenditure is by using group certification schemes which also help boost competitiveness,” says Dave.
“The ministry of agriculture has decided to adopt IndiaGAP, and a logo for the scheme is due to be designed and registered by the Indian government and then promoted by Indian farmers and supermarkets both at home and abroad.”
Accredited Indian certification bodies may also be able to inspect farms in other countries intending to export fresh produce to India, although a decision may need to be taken on the necessity of benchmarking IndiaGAP to similar documents.
“The most appropriate thing would be to co-operate with countries that support a worldwide adoption of the Codex guidelines on GAP in its present or improved form, without the need for numerous country-based or private GAP documents,” says Dave. “But the global industry will have to come together and co-operate in order to achieve this.”
Indeed, as EurepGAP moves into its third version, there is a concern that the increasing number of standards required by importers and retailers represents a financial blow to growers who can often ill afford to implement new schemes. But the bandwagon is set to continue rolling forward, and for many in the industry, benchmarking is a positive step.
“Quality assurance is vital for improving efficiency, delivering consumer assurance and enhancing competitiveness throughout the whole supply chain,” says Cox at CMi.
And Garbutt adds: “There is a pipeline for national schemes such as ChinaGAP and several others, particularly in Asia, where countries are gearing up to become global fruit and vegetable suppliers. Further announcements on this will be made at the EurepGAP regional conference to be held in Bangkok on September 6-7.”
No comments yet