1 / 10

11th May 2009

Implications of Standards Compliance for ACP Horticultural Producers and Exporters. COLEACP Pesticides Initiative Programme (PIP). 11th May 2009. The Driver. Food business operators face complex public food safety regulations & increasing reputational risk

janna-warner
Download Presentation

11th May 2009

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Implications of Standards Compliance for ACP Horticultural Producers and Exporters COLEACP Pesticides Initiative Programme (PIP) . 11th May 2009

  2. The Driver • Food business operators face complex public food safety regulations & increasing reputational risk • PVS codify procedures needed to ensure and demonstrate compliance with public standards • Third party certification to enforce PVS compliance & transfer some of the burden & cost up supply chain • Creates major challenges for ACP exporters, particularly for supply chains involving SSGs

  3. PIP Survey

  4. Nov 07- March 08 • Assess compliance status of horticultural export companies following PIP support • Identify emerging market access problems • Study the impact of PVS on exporters & their procurement practices • 102 beneficiary export companies • 10 countries: Kenya, Ghana, Zambia, Uganda, Mali, Madagascar, Cote d’Ivoire, Senegal, Benin, Burkina

  5. Distinct value chains • Predominant in the Anglophone countries Uganda, Kenya, Ghana, Zambia exporting to supermarkets in the UK, Germany, Netherlands & Switzerland • Predominant in the Francophone countries Senegal, Madagascar, Mali, Burkina, Cote d’Ivoire exporting mainly to “other buyers” (wholesale, catering, etc.) • Plantation crops - mixed

  6. Distinct differences between value chains • “Anglophone” chain subject to more pressure, for longer, & experiencing more problems (esp. Kenya) • Dramatic expansion in demand for GlobalGAP • More pronounced in context of more direct exporter-retailer links (& N. European supermarkets) • Certification addressed piecemeal to spread costs • Company certification before SSG certification

  7. Smallholder Certification among respondent companies • Technically possible • In Kenya from 2005, very recent elsewhere • Expensive – addressed piecemeal, group by group • Despite substantial donor support, only 16% certified by March 2008 • Under current PVS form & modus operandi: • Requires external support • Not cost effective long-term (high recurrent costs)

  8. SSGs in the supply chain • SSGs provided bulk of exports for many companies • Despite PVS difficulties and small numbers certified, only in Kenya & Ghana was there a decrease in SSG sourcing • Possible influence of donor projects • Stated retailer policies not always enforced • Strong commercial and technical reasons • Substituting volumes from SSGs difficult in short-term

  9. SSGs in the supply chain Future trends unclear, but Kenya scenario could be repeated if demands for PVS become more widespread and more tightly enforced

  10. Where we go from here • Recognition that: • buyer requirements create obstacles & opportunities • many problematic elements a consequence of operating inflexible EU-centric PVS in ACP production environment • Technical assistance • Improved dialogue with EU buyers – particularly with expansion into new domains (environment, SA) • Better opportunities for ACP engagement, as well as a greater capacity to engage

More Related