Agricultural producers and export standards as seen by NGOs

The producers who wish to export are subjected to a certain number of standards, impacting their mode of production and their organization. ISF has examined the vision of French NGOs that support producers’ organizations.
1 – Sanitary standards for export
Many Northern countries have implemented sanitary measures for the importation of food products on their territory. These measures concern food additives, pesticide residues, the presence of heavy metals, molds, microbiological contamination, labelling, etc.
Europe has a generally more liberal policy than the United States or Japan in terms of sanitary barriers, but they concern products with a strong economic impact. Paradoxically, the countries that impose the most constraints are the countries of the Cairns group (Venezuela, Argentina, Brazil), which nevertheless advocate greater trade liberalism (LE BIGOT, RIBIER, 2004).
The least developed countries (LDCs) seem to be in a particularly weak position with respect to these standards. Indeed, their exports, essentially agricultural, are very much affected by sanitary aspects and their producers lack the financial resources to make the changes in technique and control and traceability systems that the standards require. The strengthening of sanitary standards often means the exclusion of LDC exports, unable to meet the new standards before other competitors win the market (LE BIGOT, RIBIER, 2004).
The French NGOs we met essentially support producers seeking to export their products to European (West Africa) or American (Latin America) markets. We are here in the field of mandatory standards, integrated into the regulations.
2 – Standards for export to the European Union
Producers in the South must meet several sanitary aspects, in response to European food legislation:

• Traceability. This is made compulsory by European Regulation 178/2002, which came into force on 1 January 2005 (“food law”). This regulation “from farm to fork” gives the importer the responsibility to ensure the traceability of the product at the different stages of the chain. The information is not intended for consumers but for the public authorities in case of control or health alert (FREIDINGER-LEGAY, 2006).
• Hygiene control. It is made compulsory by the changes in the hygiene regulations that came into force on 1 January 2006. This regulation emphasizes the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP1) system.
• Compliance with maximum residue limits for pesticides (Directive 91/414/EC).
• Compliance with maximum residue limits for aflatoxins (EC Regulation 2174/2003). Aflatoxins are very toxic substances for mammals that appear in nuts, cereals, dried peppers and other foods of plant origin.

The display of allergenic foods (directive 2003/89 EC)

Traceability of packaging. It has been made mandatory since October 2006 (regulation 1935/2004) (FREIDINGER-LEGAY, 2006).

Several NGOs we met are directly confronted with these European standards in their support.
For example, Tech-Dev2 must deal with the issue of traceability for several of the commodity chains it supports: for the production of dehydrated pineapple in Benin and for shea butter in Burkina Faso. In the latter case, since shea is mainly exported for cosmetics, traceability is not yet mandatory, but it is made so by the demands of buyers. Thus, a traceability system has been set up from the lump of butter to the container (Tech-Dev communication).

However, it seems that traceability is not yet systematically applied in all sectors. For cashew nuts, there is no strict traceability today. The majority of processors, Indian and Vietnamese, have no interest in this. Their factories operate continuously, first with their national production, then with nuts imported from West Africa when the harvest is finished in their country: traceability would considerably burden their system. African countries, in order to defend the processing of nuts on their soil, have clearly positioned themselves for the application of traceability at the last WTO conference (Rongead communication3).
The AFDI4 is encountering the issues of compliance with European standards in several projects supporting producer organizations. In Benin, for example, AFDI works with the Union des producteurs du sud Bénin (UPS), which has been marketing fresh pineapple in Europe by air since 2001. UPS technicians have received training on fresh pineapple export standards and are implementing a HACCP approach. The main difficulty lies in the minimum residue limits (of pesticides) in the fruit required by the EU (AFDI communication).

AFDI Lorraine works with onion producers in Madagascar who wish to export to Reunion Island. However, importers in Reunion use European references and have control requests, via complex questionnaires, which are totally unsuited to the capacities of Madagascan producers. AFDI plays a mediating role, on the one hand asking importers from Reunion to review their expectations according to the Malagasy context and on the other hand, helping Malagasy producers to meet a minimum level of requirements (AFDI Lorraine communication).

Finally, NGOs also mention the difficulty of finding competent local institutions to carry out the necessary controls on exported goods. In West Africa, for example, there are few competent local laboratories and they focus on products considered to be a priority for export (e.g., cocoa in Côte d’Ivoire). For example, CIDR5 has not been able to find a competent laboratory in Mali to perform analyses on soybeans; analyses must be performed in France (CIDR communication). Similarly, the local ministries responsible for accrediting and monitoring these laboratories are not always able to fulfill their duties.

3 – The American market: the law on bio-terrorism
The American law against bio-terrorism impacts some South American producers. This law, passed in 2002, aims to ensure the safety of agricultural food and animal products entering the United States. It essentially includes constraints for exporters (registration, representation in the United States, registrations) but because of the need for traceability throughout the chain, the requirements also affect producers. In particular, they must keep a record of cultivation operations and phytosanitary products used, as well as reference all production plots (VEERABADREN, 2005).

4 – Standards: conditions of access to commercial circuits

The EUREPGAP European standard
Other standards developed in Europe are not compulsory but have become essential for access to the European market.

EUREPGAP ” Euro Retailer Produce Working Group-Good Agricultural Practices ” is an association composed of European chains of large and medium-sized stores, particularly established in Northern Europe (United Kingdom, Netherlands). The association is developing, mainly for fresh products, a reference system inspired by good agricultural practices for production and the HACCP method for packaging.

This standard is applied at the farm level. In the case of pineapple, the standard represents nearly 210 control points (respect for the environment and social working conditions) with a compliance cost estimated at between US$2,300 and US$2,600 for a Costa Rican producer wishing to export. To this must be added the costs of certification (VEERABADREN, 2005).
However, even though large and medium-sized retailers are increasingly referring to the EUREPGAP standard, they do not systematically require it: securing volumes and quality remain their primary concerns (VEERABADREN, 2005).

Large and medium-sized retailers (GMS) in certain countries in the South are also developing standards
In addition, supermarkets in some countries of the South (Latin America, South Africa, Maghreb) are developing quality approaches. These are either European or American chains established locally (including restaurant chains such as MacDonald’s), or national companies (GRET communication). This is still very little developed in West Africa.

In Costa Rica, for example, supermarkets account for nearly 50% of retail sales in the food sector. These supermarkets, faced with consumer expectations, are developing their own quality and safety specifications (for traces of pesticides, for example). Fruit and vegetables are then supplied by preferred suppliers, including producer organizations, sometimes with the offer of technical assistance and credit (VEERABADREN, 2005).
These emerging markets represent new opportunities for stable and profitable outlets. It remains to be seen which producers will be able to adapt to these requirements (IRAM and GRET communications).

5 – Impact of compliance with standards

Producers positioned to export products to Europe or the United States or to supply local supermarkets must therefore comply with the standards described above in order to continue selling. This compliance presents strong risks of exclusion of small producers.

The same standards for all actors

Generally speaking, small producers and small processors are confronted with the same export standards as large plantations, factories or industries. This is the case, for example, for fruit production in Brazil (ESSOR communication) or pineapple production in Costa Rica (VEERABADREN, 2005). It is obvious that small producers, even if organized, and multinationals have incomparable levels of access to financing and information and do not have the same speed and efficiency in compliance.

Supply chain integration

When products are supplied by a large number of small producers (most of the African agricultural export sectors, for example), downstream operators, such as exporters, tend to contract with the largest suppliers on the basis of specifications or to integrate the sector. In both cases, small producers are marginalized (LE BIGOT, RIBIER, 2004).

Thus, in the pineapple sector in Costa Rica, quality control has led to a rapprochement of upstream and downstream actors and thus to the integration of the sectors. This leads to a reduction in the number of outlets available to small producers (VEERABADREN, 2005).
The transfer of responsibilities

Throughout the value chain, there is a downward transfer of responsibility to the production sector. Producers are then obliged to accept this new role of taking responsibility for their production. Exporters may then favor medium or large producers who already have the necessary certifications and traceability tools (VEERABADREN, 2005).

Source: ritimo.org