What PIP does is to help ACP companies in the complex task of demonstrating compliance with EU food safety and traceability requirements. In this way, they avoid the twin dangers of lost market share and a threat to the jobs of many among the poorest employed in the food sector. The programme is being implemented by ColeACP, the international network of professionals in the ACP-Europe horticultural industry.
“The need for PIP is rooted firmly in the changing EU market place for fresh foodstuffs,” says Catherine Guichard, Delegate-General at ColeACP. “There is a growing appetite for exotic fruit and vegetables in Europe, as well as increasing demand for out-of-season produce. Exports from the ACP countries can satisfy these demands, but they are subject, like everything else, to important legal and commercial requirements. The major European retailers are imposing increasingly stringent technical specifications on their fresh produce suppliers to reassure consumers on the nature and origin of their food.”
At the same time, Guichard points out, the EU is harmonising the disparate national regulations on pesticide residues in fruit and vegetables in order to provide the same, high level of protection for consumer health and to avoid creating barriers to intra-Community trade. In parallel, measures for safer use and better control of chemical agents for plant protection and food preservation are being adopted within the EU, adding further indirect constraints on third- country suppliers.
As a result, European importers, fearing legal sanctions and seeking to maintain their competitive edge, are increasingly selecting suppliers best able to demonstrate compliance with food-safety requirements.
All this means that ACP growers and exporters simply cannot afford to ignore European standards for pesticide residues, European consumers' growing demands for healthy products, and the strict technical specifications imposed by European buyers. It has become crucial to demonstrate that ACP fresh produce conforms with these food-safety requirements. “We don't want to be behind when new European regulations come out,” says Abdul Jabber, Farm Manager at Mairye Estates in Uganda.
“We need to be pro-active and to be ready. PIP will provide us with the information that we need to achieve that. Through extensive training, PIP is helping us to become the first company in Uganda to be EurepGAP certified. We expect to build up our capacity further and be recognised as complying with European rules.”
About 80 applications are registered or being registered by PIP. More than 40 agreements have already been signed, covering about 18,000 growers. Most applications have come from Kenya, Senegal, Ghana and the Ivory Coast, although progress is also being made in Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Guinea-Conakry, Uganda and Jamaica.
Priority is being given to export crops such as pineapple, green bean, mango, avocado, papaya and okra. Bananas and citrus fruit are not included, since they are mostly handled by large transnational groups which have their own resources to adapt to changing regulations. PIP does not rule out these fruits, but it is concentrating on other crops grown by a large number of small and medium-sized farms.
Agreements are typically drawn up with companies or associations as part of a medium-term strategy to put the compliance process into practice. The usual duration is two to three years and the PIP commitment is equivalent to 50-60 per cent of total cost. The PIP contribution is generally in the range e60,000 to e100,000, although a higher level of support is possible when assisting the most vulnerable groups, such as small-scale producers.
Although most ACP growers have been producing and supplying good produce for many years, they do have a number of practical issues to resolve. For example, production often comes from many small scale outgrowers who lack information on EU food safety regulations, on the crop protection options available, and on the principles of Good Agricultural Practice. There may only be limited training on pesticides use and inadequate finance to pay for essential services from private and public providers.
“We are at a crossroads,” comments Charles Muchiri, managing director at Avenue Fresh Produce in Kenya. If somebody helped exporters to train the outgrowers they work with and sensitise them to the requirements of EU customers, he believes there would be no question whether or not to continue working with small farmers in future.
Muchiri reckons PIP understands EU regulations, and what growers and consumers need. He feels that it is better to work from a results-oriented approach. Now that he and his staff know exactly where they are going, it becomes much easier to put everything in place.
Another important issue is traceability. For example, in some export countries, if there is a breach of food safety regulations the exact source needs to be located immediately, even when a single shipment is made up of products supplied by several small farmers ñ as is usually the case. Action is needed to address the problem and trace it back to source. The exporter is usually implicated and the whole country's image can be affected.
A great deal is already being done. PIP is providing information on EU food-safety and traceability requirements, information on the protection options available and training in their use, and training on the principles of Good Agricultural Practice (GAP) for sustainability of good quality produce and productivity improvement. PIP is also assisting in the production of crop- production manuals, which give up- to-date technical information on the safe production of export crops.
For organic farmers, there is an added layer of complexity. “As a company, we may not always have the best solutions for pest and disease management,” says Edward Mulando, managing director of organic farm BioUganda. “At management level, we need to have more knowledge about traceability and hygiene conditions. Our farmers need to know what is going on with EU regulations regarding organic farm processes and procedures and how to implement them. PIP is going to help us to put all this in place.”
Elsewhere, traceability programmes are being implemented, field trials of revised crop protocols incorporating integrated pest and crop management (IPM and ICM) principles are starting, validation programmes are underway and knowledge-transfer workshops are being held.
“We are starting to do lots of work at country level and PIP will be of tremendous help,” says Hasit Shah, a Kenyan grower and exporter, and chairman of the Fresh Produce Exporters Association of Kenya. “Companies in Kenya will be fully informed on all issues related to pesticides as well as to PIP and its implementation. Information concerning crop protocols is being developed for a range of products. It will cover the entire production cycle and be available to all stakeholders in the industry. Training materials are being developed for use by both small scale and large producers.
“Exporters and outgrowers can maintain food-safety standards and traceability systems to ensure consumer confidence. Through good agricultural practices and the use of beneficials, we are minimising reliance on agrochemicals. A lot of farms have achieved EurepGAP accreditation this year and there is further emphasis on conserving the environment, natural resources and waterways.”
PIP is also supporting local experts and service providers in developing the capacity to provide good practical advice all along the supply chain. Henry Wainwright, training manager at Dudutech in Kenya, says: “Now that Dudutech is a service provider for PIP through a framework contract, we are the first people in any ACP country to provide a complete IPM range of courses. This expertise is now available locally and regionally to ACP companies.”
With the EurepGAP conference coming up, the question on many people's minds is exactly how PIP can fit in with EurepGAP. “We are working on it”, says Catherine Guichard. “Our role is to look after the interests of the ACP countries, and it would undoubtedly benefit them if there was one smooth process which ensured compliance right from the field to the shelf. But EurepGAP is not the only retail protocol we have to contend with, and there are a number of issues of regulation, interpretation and implementation still to be resolved, not least the cost implications. Furthermore, legislation in some ACP countries may have to be adapted to the situation and this requires both time and institutional capacity-building. I don't want to go into more detail at the moment because these are exactly the issues we are reviewing.”
Guichard and her team also stress that PIP is much more than a one-off response to a specific problem. It offers all those concerned an exceptional opportunity to work together to develop a professional sector, a guarantee of the safety of the fresh fruit and vegetables it markets. That makes it a project of major importance for Europe and ACP countries alike. Not only is consumer health at stake, but also the sustainable development of a sector crucial to the economies of many southern hemisphere countries.
THE EU AND THE ACP
The EU's concerns to protect consumer health are strongly felt and strongly written. If a fresh product is found to have pesticide residues exceeding the established Maximum Residue Limits, the importer who brings the product into the European market will be held responsible and severely penalised.
But the EU recognises that these rules must not result in economic injury to ACP producers and exporters of fruit and vegetables, whose economic and social development is also a priority for the EU. So the Cotonou Partnership Agreement, signed in June 2000 by the EU and the ACP states, stresses the importance of promoting economic development through exports and of taking all social sectors into account. It also insists on the development of the private sector.
It was to take up these challenges that PIP was set in place by the European Commission at the request of the ACP Group of States.
No comments yet