Private standards

GLOBALG.A.P (formerly known as EUREPG.A.P) started in 1997 as an initiative by retailers belonging to the Euro-Retailer Produce Working Group (EUREP). British retailers in conjunction with supermarkets in continental Europe were the driving forces. The aim was to establish ONE standard for Good Agricultural Practice (G.A.P.) with different product applications capable of fitting to the whole of global agriculture. GLOBALG.A.P is a 'pre-farm gate' standard, which means that certification covers the process of the certified product from planting (seedlings) through all farming activities until the product leaves the farm. This standard is today considered the global reference for food safety aspects related to agricultural production.
 

Along with the BRC and GLOBALG.A.P standards, many other private standards on food safety, exist for both the production and processing phases, including: International Featured Standard Food, the Dutch HACCP, Food Safety Certification System 22000 (based on ISO 22000), Synergy 22000 (based on ISO 22000), Safe Quality Food 2000 (all of which build on the Codex-based HACCP principles) and Safe Quality Food 1000 (for the agricultural production phase). Retailers have also developed individual initiatives (the 'Field-to-fork' initiative of M&S, Carrefour's 'Filièrequalité', Tesco’s 'Nurture',…) which, unlike the standards issued collectively, are generally labelled on the end product sold to consumers.
 

The emergence and adoption of private standards by a range of players across agri-food supply chains has impacted the African, Caribbean and Pacific fruit and vegetable industry, particularly in terms of market access, and especially the small and medium-sized enterprises. However, specific initiatives described under the following sections are encouraging for the industry as they strive to meet the challenges that result from private standards.

The Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) is a not-for-profit foundation set up in 2000 and managed by the Consumer Goods Forum. The foundation's main objective is to benchmark (compare and approve) a set of food safety standards on the basis of its reference document (GFSI Guidance Document), drawn up in 2007 by eight major retailers. The standards mentioned below have all been benchmarked against this guidance document: British Retail Consortium Global Standard for Food Safety, International Featured Standard Food, Dutch HACCP, Food Safety Certification System 22000 (based on the ISO 22000 standard), Synergy 22000 (based on the ISO 22000 standard), Safe Quality Food 2000 (all of which build on the Codex-based HACCP principles), GLOBALG.A.P and Safe Quality Food 1000 (for the production phase).
 

The ultimate objective of the initiative is to reduce the growing number of audits imposed on suppliers by adopting the philosophy of 'once certified, accepted everywhere'. In theory, a supplier already certified against BRC’s global standard for food safety should be able to sell products to a customer working with SQF 2000- or ISF-certified suppliers without having to be re-certified under one of those standards. In practice, however, this is usually not yet happening for ACP fruit and vegetable exporters.
 

The GFSI does more than provide a harmonised food safety framework for undertakings. It is initiating a phased approach towards certification allowing for continuous improvement that leads, over a three-year period and by means of an intermediate level, to formal certification to a GFSI recognized food safety scheme.
 

Some of the requirements of food safety private standards imply to undertake major organisational, infrastructural and procedure changes within a very brief time period. If European buyers accepted a broader application of the phased approach this would mean, for instance, that investments could be made progressively, facilitating the entire certification process. In parallel with the GFSI, GLOBALG.A.P is also launching a phased approach due to the expansion of its activities in the United States.

GLOBALG.A.P has begun to link global implementing activities more closely to local needs of producers. This goal is increasingly achieved by the establishment of National Technical Working Groups (NTWG). Their role is to develop a series of National Interpretation Guidelines as well as address identified specific local adaptation and implementation challenges.. The guidelines developed by these groups are published on the GLOBALG.A.P website and, if complied with, give entitlement to conventional GLOBALG.A.P certification. A number of NTWGs have been established in Africa (Senegal, Côte d'Ivoire, Ghana, Tanzania, Kenya and Uganda), thanks for some of them to the support from PIP and the NRI (Natural Resources Institute).
 

Besides GLOBALG.A.P, this adaptation process could over the longer term be extended to other private standards covering social and/or environmental topics. Private standards have often been criticised for being Euro-centric and not sufficiently adapted to the local realities in which fruit and vegetable companies operate in the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries. It now seems possible to remedy this problem through officially recognised adaptation initiatives, although it is still too early to measure their effectiveness and success for developing countries.

GLOBALG.A.P recently launched an ethical module as a supplement to its food safety standard. The GLOBALG.A.P Risk Assessment on Social Practice (GRASP) is a voluntary assessment for companies that are already GLOBALG.A.P certified. The GRASP module may only be applied in countries that have developed a GRASP National Interpretation Guideline.

The recent revision of the GLOBALG.A.P integrated farm assurance standard was brought to conclusion after four years of work. It resulted in version 4.0, which can be used from January 2011 and becomes mandatory from January 2012. Several parts of the standard underwent substantial changes, the fundamental objective being to simplify implementation and to emphasize environmental aspects (particularly water management). Another interesting point is the reduced number of audits for companies that systematically demonstrate conformity to the standard over the years.

GLOBALG.A.P is a private standard adressing not only food safety but also the social and environmental aspects of agricultural production. 'Sustainability' is now given equal importance as 'food safety”.

Finally, encouraging signs of openness and transparency are also emerging within GLOBALG.A.P. The traditional sector committees’ structure which had relatively limited interaction with external stakeholders is being overhauled. The goal is to create a more dynamic and more open structure in the form of 'stakeholder committees' set up voluntarily by at least five GLOBALG.A.P members in order to address common issues.

In spite of encouraging initiatives taking place around private standards such as beginnings of harmonisation efforts, phased approaches towards certification and the adaptation of requirements to local conditions companies in developing countries interested in exporting to the European market are still facing some substantial challenges. True harmonisation is still lacking and the multitude of certifications required by major European buyers still make it difficult for the most vulnerable players in the industry to access the European market.

Producers from the African, Caribbean and Pacific region who wish to export fresh produce to the EU must now comply not only with new EU regulations, but also with the requirements of importers and distributors through certifications to private standards. These requirements are often more complex and more stringent than the EU regulations. While remaining voluntary – because they are not required by law – standards are becoming indispensable for doing business on the European market and as such are de facto mandatory. Consequently, the absence of certain certifications may in some cases exclude producers from key European markets.

Certification against private standards usually requires considerable human, technical and financial resources. In the case of food safety, this certification is not financed by the market since it is not directly communicated to the consumer through a label on the final product. The multitude of standards on the European market also obliges suppliers operating on different markets with different customers to combine several certifications with, for each one of them, specific recurring compliance and certification expenses.

Nevertheless, private standards also present considerable advantages. GLOBALG.A.P., for instance, has interpreted regulatory obligations in a document to ensure their practical implementation. Compliance with the requirements can increase productivity and competitiveness by reducing the cost of inputs (pesticides, fertilisers) and by helping agricultural operators to adopt Good Agricultural

Practices (GAP) and modern management techniques. The certification usually improves hygiene and safety conditions for workers and, due to its emphasis on environmental protection, reinforces the sustainability of the horticultural industry throughout the African, Carribean and Pacific region.

Sustainable development is a widely accepted concept and guiding objective that gained international recognition following the publication in 1987 of the Report of the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future. Sustainable development is about meeting the needs of society while living within the planet’s ecological limits and without jeopardizing the ability of future generations to meet their needs. Sustainable development has three dimensions – economic, social and environmental – which are interdependent and need to be dealt with in a balanced way (known as the “3P” principle: People, Planet, Profit). The concept of 'sustainable development' finds expression in companies through social responsibility (SR) policies. Social responsibility concerns all types of organisations, not just commercial enterprises, and has the ultimate objective of contributing to 'sustainable development'.

The new ISO 26000:2010 standard, 'Guidance on social responsibility', defines the social responsibility of an organisation as being responsible for the impact of its decisions and activities on society and the environment through transparent and ethical behaviour that:

• contributes to sustainable development, including society's health and welfare
• gives consideration to stakeholders' expectations
• conforms to laws in force and international behavioural standards ;
• and is present throughout the organisation and practiced in its relations.

Private standards that are described as sustainable, namely that cover social, economic and/or environmental themes, offer companies the opportunity to demonstrate their commitment and to implement in a tangible way certain aspects of ISO 26000 within their organisation. In practice, under pressure from European society, most retail brands have a social responsibility policy. These standards and initiatives are usually applied to all their suppliers, including those based in the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries.

Ethical production (or ethical trade) covers production conditions as well as the functioning of companies. It refers to products sourced by companies that respect core labour and human rights standards throughout the supply chain which are set by international organizations such as the International LabourOrganisations (ILO) conventions, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Ethical production can also include requirements on the environmental aspects of production even though most of the initiatives focus primarily on working conditions.

During the 1990’s, media campaigns focusing on supply chain working conditions in the garment and food sectors marked the real starting point of the ethical trade movement. Consumer pressure in developed countries pushed large brand names to adopt codes of conduct to eliminate harsh working conditions throughout their global supply chains. In order to enforce requirements imposed upon their suppliers and bring more legitimacy to their claims, social audits were conducted by the organization itself or by third party organizations.

• Social Accountability 8000 (SA 8000);
• Ethical Trading Initiative (ETI);
• Business Social Compliance Initiative (BSCI);
• SEDEX (Supplier Ethical Data Exchange);
• Global Social Compliance Programme (GSCP).

These ethical initiatives (the list is not exhaustive) often control the same aspects and all share the aim of improving working conditions across companies' supply chains. However, their individual specifications are such that approaches differ on certain points, which can lead to a duplication of efforts for ACP enterprises striving to achieve what is nevertheless a common goal.

To launch a process to harmonise such initiatives, a group of companies has established the Global Social Compliance Programme (GSCP). The GSCP is managed by the Consumer Goods Forum, an independent association of distributors and manufacturers of consumer goods. The GSCP encourages and supports existing systems by helping companies to identify and share good practices in the areas of working conditions and environmental protection. The GSCP is not another monitoring programme and is not intended to replace the existing initiatives described above. The GSCP should thus be seen as an initiative that 'oversees' the others without replacing them.

Fair trade is a trading partnership based on dialogue, transparency and respect that seeks greater equity in international trade. It contributes to sustainable development by offering better trading conditions to and securing the rights of marginalised producers and workers, particularly in the South. Fair trade organisations (backed by consumers) are engaged actively in supporting producers, awareness raising and campaigning for changes in the rules and practices of conventional international trade.

The fair trade initiative was created in the United States and in Europe, in the 1940s and 1950s respectively, by religious organisations (Protestant church) and non-governmental organisations (NGOs). Politically, the fair trade concept was introduced at the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) in 1968. The slogan 'Trade not Aid' was devised to denounce inequalities in trading relations between North and South. Fair trade in agricultural products beganwith tea and coffee in the 1970s, followed by dried fruits, cocoa, sugar, fruit juice, bananas, rice, spices and nuts.

With commodity prices dropping on international markets, the idea was to ensure decent incomes to small producers in developing countries thanks to the payment of a fair price. A number of fair trade labelling initiatives have recently emerged besides the ones regrouped under the FairtradeLabellingOrganisation (FLO) umbrella (Max Havelaar, Fairtrade Foundation,…) amongst which Ecocert fair trade, IMO Fair trade certification programme and Naturland fair trade certification. Although these fair trade initiatives cover more or less the same criteria, they also have a number of specificities concerning pre-requisites for certification (organic certification) and brand awareness.

The challenge for ACP fruit and vegetable producers in African, Caribbean and Pacific countries is to assess if there is a true business case by embracing such an initiative before taping into this niche market in Europe.

Apart from social, economic (fair trade) and food safety elements linked to agricultural production, some private standards and initiatives focus more on the environmental aspects. More efficient use of raw materials, better waste management, protection of water resources, soil conservation, safeguarding of ecosystems and forests, and limitation of greenhouse gases are as many challenges companies will gradually have to meet proactively in this early 21st century.

Organic farming is based on a number of principles and practices that aim to minimize agriculture's impact on the environment by working the land as naturally as possible. In Europe, numerous private organic standards can be found in the Member States. Most of these standards have their own organic logo. However, they must all at least comply with the EU's harmonised legislation on organic farming. The Soil Association in the United Kingdom and Agriculture Biologique (AB) in France are just two examples. Both have a label for consumers.

The East African Organic Products Standard was developed in order to have a single standard for this part of the continent, adapted to local conditions. It is based on organic standards already used in the region but also on IFOAM (International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements) standards and Codex Alimentarius recommendations. This standard can obviously serve as a common platform to launch a single organic label on the market. It can also be used as a basis for establishing equivalencies with other organic standards in the rest of the world.

Apart from organic agriculture, there are other standards with a label for European consumers certifying the use of an environmentally friendly production system. The LEAF Marque standard, for instance, aims to assure consumers that the product results from eco-responsible practices, while the Rainforest Alliance aims to preserve biological diversity on earth and to ensure decent living conditions for producers and neighbouring communities by changing agricultural and trading practices and acting on consumers' behaviour.

A number of standards and initiatives have emerged recently to measure the carbon footprint of products. It is too early to speak of real harmonisation between all these initiatives although the publications of the future ISO 14067 standard and the World Resource Institute's Greenhouse Gas Protocol Scope 3&4 are steps in the right direction In the United Kingdom, the British Standards Institute's PAS 2050 was the first standard developed to measure the carbon footprint of goods and services and it is already undergoing its first revision. In France, the programming law on implementation of the Environment Round Table (the so-called 'Grenelle 1 Act'; law No 2009-967 of 3 August 2009) establishes the consumer's right to 'sincere, objective and thorough environmental information' and to 'environmentally friendly products at attractive prices' (Article 54).

Lastly, on environmental management, the ISO 14000 family represents a set of standards used widely in the world. 'Environmental management' refers to what an organisation does to minimize the harmful effects of its activities on the environment and to improve its environmental performance on an ongoing basis. ISO 14001, which lays down a set of generic requirements for an environmental management system, covers not only the environmental aspects of the organisation's processes, but also those of goods and services. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), for instance, is a tool to identify and assess all environmental aspects of goods and services 'from cradle to grave' (from raw materials to disposal of the product and the waste generated).

At the start of this 21st century, agriculture remains the human activity that has the greatest impact on our environment. Although greenhouse gas emissions may today be considered as the leading environmental concern on earth, other ecological impacts, particularly on soil and water resources, are now given more and more attention by our society and must also be taken into consideration by the fruit and vegetable industry in the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States.

New types of initiatives are being developed to take up our planet's social, economic and environmental challenges. Certification to private standards described in the 'Social Responsibility' section enables enterprises, in some cases, to access more attractive markets (the niche markets of fair trade, organic products, etc.), to expand their customer base and to increase demand for ACP fruit and vegetable exports. It can also offer social and economic advantages, for example, with regard to workers' health and hygiene and better remuneration for their work.

Sustainability is a concept no longer reserved to Western societies. ACP enterprises in developing countries must also implement it by limiting counter-productive effects and maximizing positive impacts for their communities. The challenge facing ACP companies that export fruit and vegetables to the European continent is to transform these new demands into opportunities to develop and increase their competitiveness. PIP’s objective is to help them to identify such opportunities, make informed decisions and, once their decisions have been made, to provide adequate support.

PIP also recommends a switchover from the concept of 'good agricultural practices' to that of 'sustainable agricultural practices' so that the fruit and vegetable sector continues to serve as a driver of long-term economic development for the African, Caribbean and Pacific region.