|
Member of Farmapine Cooperative growing pineapple for export, Nsawam, Ghana, 2001. Photo: Stephanie Williamson |
Food scares in the 1990s led to European governments putting
in new legislation to safeguard and protect the interest of consumers. Recent
phase-outs of many pesticide products from European markets and harmonisation of
maximum residue levels (MRLs) mean that for many active ingredients, MRLs are
set at zero. This situation hits developing country producers of fruit and
vegetables particularly hard and fears have been expressed for the livelihoods
of 45 million people earning a living from export horticulture in Africa,
Caribbean and Pacific countries [PN 50, pages 12-13].
The retail industry has also responded to food safety and
quality concerns by insisting on stricter production practices and traceability
of produce along the supply chain. Since 2000, the Euro Retailer Working Group (EUREP)
of major European supermarkets has been implementing its harmonised protocol on
Good Agriculture Practice (EUREPGAP) for worldwide application by all its
suppliers. Around 30% of European supermarkets are members of EUREPGAP.
The EUREPGAP protocol, updated for 2004(1), describes the
essential and best practice for horticultural products. EUREPGAP acts as a
framework for verification in which Integrated Crop/Pest Management (ICM/IPM)
can be included. It also supports hazard analysis critical control points (HACCP)
principles in food safety issues. Members have set a target by which date all
trading partners will need to be EUREPGAP compliant. It is therefore vital for
exporters supplying the mainstream European market to meet these standards. For
the purposes of transparency, an independent internationally recognised third
party verifies this protocol.
The scope of the EUREPGAP benchmarking process includes:
It is important to note that this is a business-to-business tool and not a customer assurance scheme. More than 50% of the protocol criteria apply to the correct use of chemicals during crop production and its post harvest treatment.
Pineapple production in Ghana and EUREPGAP
Pineapple has been Ghana’s biggest contributor to
non-traditional export figures over the last 10 years. The pineapple sector is
made up of 60 registered exporters, with nine of them supplying 72% of the total
exports. Most fruits for export come directly from commercial farms, however,
about 45% of total exports are obtained from smallholders’ farms, made up of
over 600 farm families. Most of the commercial farms are themselves
grower/exporters with average farm holdings of 120 ha.
Smallholders’ pineapple farms average 1.2 ha and comprise
three categories, all selling their fruit to export companies. Outgrowers enjoy
close relationships with exporters in terms of marketing and sometimes input
supplies, mostly on credit. Co-operatives are groups of farmers who have
voluntarily come together for the purposes of gaining market access, inputs and
technical support. Independent growers have no alliance with any exporter and
they decide where to sell their fruits. Independent growers are the largest in
number and also the most vulnerable when it comes to changes in market
requirements. They are the last to receive the right technical information for
production. These smallholders are confused by the different export requirements
and may misapply agrochemicals as they do not have the right technical
information nor receive any form of training(2). Most of the women who are in
the pineapple business fall into this category.
Organic production is starting with the help of Ghana Organic
Agricultural Network (GOAN) assisting Technoserve Inc, which has organised
smallscale growers, to obtain organic certification for a pineapple juice plant.
Three companies are exporting certified organic fruit, some sourced from
smallholders, while five companies have been successfully audited by the
Fairtrade Labelling Organisation in the horticultural sector.
In 2001, residue levels of ethephon, used to de-green fruit
before harvest, were found on some pineapples from Ghana to exceed European
Union (EU) MRLs. This incident [see PN54, pp4-5] kick-started the sector’s
engagement with EUREPGAP and later the EU-funded Pesticide Initiative Programme,
from which at least seven growers are receiving assistance in Ghana. Various
groups are engaged in taking EUREPGAP into the field in Ghana, including the
government Plant Protection and Regulatory Services Department, German Technical
Co-operation (GTZ), US-funded agencies Technoserve Inc. and Amex International
and Natural Resources Institute in UK, which have been involved in interpreting
the protocol to growers. SGS Ghana conducts the certification audit.
By late 2003 around one third of pineapple exporters in Ghana
had obtained the EUREPGAP Compliance Certificate, either as individual companies
(5 of 15 certified) or as a grower group under the Produce Marketing
Organisation (PMO) scheme (2 out of 5 groups certified). EUREPGAP-certified
crops are pineapple, banana, papaya, mangoes and vegetables.
| Table 1: Growers’ perceptions of overall benefits of the EUREPGAP protocol | |
| Topic | % |
| Spent longer and more quality time on farm than previously | 39% |
| Farm is hygienic and clean | 67% |
| Guaranteed market with Blue Skies | 72% |
| Savings on agrochemicals | 100% |
| Increased awareness in agrochemical handling by workers | 100% |
| Drinking water available on farm | 22% |
| EUREPGAP is generally beneficial | 67% |
| High initial cost of compliance | 67% |
| Increased moral amongst workers | 39% |
| Overall score | 63.4% |
| % = respondents indicating ‘Benefit of EUREPGAP’ without prompting | |
Costs and benefits of EUREPGAP compliance
A study on the costs and benefits of farmer
involvement with EUREPGAP protocols was conducted during 2002-03 to find out the
views of 18 medium and small-scale outgrowers supplying Blue Skies export
company, one of the pioneers of IPM and EUREPGAP standards in Ghana. Table 1
describes the main benefits perceived. Farmers were unanimous in highlighting
the benefits concerning agrochemicals. Smallholder farmers and their workers
admitted that their knowledge on issues concerning agrochemical handling was
scant prior to the introduction of EUREPGAP. Most of the small growers had once
worked with commercial farms and therefore practised or copied what the bigger
farms did. These they passed on to their own workers. Storage of agrochemicals
by the smallholders was done ‘safely’ in their bedrooms for security reasons
and also away from children. On the commercial farms, where a store existed,
agrochemicals were kept without regard for worker health and safety. Stock
sheets were unavailable or where available, not updated. It was common to see
workers handling agrochemicals without adequate and appropriate protective
clothing.
To address these problems, Blue Skies engaged a consultant to
work with its agronomists to train its growers appropriately. Growers are now
aware of the hazardous chemicals and their effects on health and the
environment, they now apply the right quantity at the right time through the
practice of IPM and ICM. Workers readily said they felt protected and that
management is now serious about their welfare. Agrochemicals are now stored in
well ventilated and properly secured chemical stores. Only trained people have
access to the store.
Savings on agrochemicals were another important benefit.
Table 2 details the savings made by one particular grower, equivalent to 8.75%
of total production costs. Growers emphasised the importance of training in
order to comply with residue levels.
Growers appreciated highly that by being part of the selected
group to go through the EUREPGAP programme, they were assured of ready markets
with Blue Skies, which offered the best price in the pineapple industry as well
as weekly and timely payments. With this assurance they were prepared to invest
in their business in order to maintain their regular market. This benefit was
realised when after achieving EUREPGAP compliance, Blue Skies increased the
orders for each grower.
EUREPGAP was considered generally beneficial, despite the
high initial costs. To be compliant, 80% of growers used their own resources to
finance the improvements needed on their farms, specifically infrastructure and
provision of protective clothing. This was a real financial burden for the
smallholders. In special cases, Blue Skies increased the orders for some of the
least well-off growers in order to improve their financial position to enable
them to meet certain infrastructure costs. The company kept faith by ensuring
that these growers did not go bankrupt, although it could have acted as a
collective guarantor for bank loans.
Provision of disposal pits for farm rubbish, clean toilets
and hand-washing facilities had clearly brought about better hygienic conditions
on the farm. Growers were proud about how neat their farms looked when compared
to before. Linked to improved farm conditions is the ability of growers to spend
longer and more quality time on the farm. Smallholders used to arrive on farm
very early and leave before it became too hot. With the protocol requirement to
provide decent working conditions, shelter and offices were acquired and those
in management are now able to stay on longer to supervise activities on the farm
properly. It was indicated that workers no longer rush to finish a piece of work
or rush back home.
Most workers now enjoy permanent status
with the provision of pension and felt secure with the appointment letters
stating the conditions under which they are to work. Managers confirmed that the
morale of workers had been boosted. Workers found provision of potable water
very important and claimed they now carry fewer loads to the farms since they
have access to clean water. Managers are now quite happy to discuss issues
concerning hygiene and water.
In terms of costs, investments in infrastructure were
significant and cancelled out the savings from reduction in agrochemicals.
Growers, especially smallholders, struggled to afford putting up a toilet and
chemical store. Changes in total cost of production and incremental benefits in
profits and income were not significant during the period under investigation.
Yields would have to be monitored over a longer period to determine the
influence of EUREPGAP on quality and quantity of fruits produced and sold. Other
costs in achieving compliance, such as training, analysis (soil, water and
blood) and certification audit were borne by Blue Skies.
The Produce Marketing Organisation scheme enabled most
growers to achieve EUREPGAP status despite the large differences among them.
Several were young and poorly resourced smallholders, but the important factor
was their positive attitude and willingness to change. The benefits listed were
a great motivation, without which the system would have difficulty in ensuring
compliance. Growers also expressed their sense of accomplishment in belonging to
a group which had become EUREPGAP compliant, a feat noted to be quite arduous to
achieve. As one grower said: ‘I feel really proud about this achievement,
knowing that it is internationally recognised. I feel I am now a real farmer and
hope to concentrate and do better things. With record keeping I know what I am
doing now.’
| Table 2: Savings on agrochemicals per 0.41 ha (1 acre) per cycle of pineapple production (US$) | ||||
| Inputs | Pre- EUREPGAP |
Under EUREPGAP | ||
| Herbicides | ||||
| HyvarX | 500g | 69.44 | 0 | 0 |
| Diuron | 500g | 22.22 | 500g | 22.22 |
| Fusilade | 0 | 0 | 0.5l | 33.33 |
| Fertiliser | 600kg | 250.00 | 300kg | 125.00 |
| Ethephon | 200ml | 36.11 | 45ml | 10.63 |
| Total cost | 377.77 | 191.18 | ||
Supporting more smallholders
The study showed what can be achieved when a company
is prepared to invest time and money in training and organisational skills for
smallholders.
One particular group who would easily lose out, however, are
women, as initial investment for growers in achieving compliance poses a barrier
for women who have less access to finance than men. Policy makers and the
horticulture industry concerned to produce safe food for the consumer must
therefore also ensure that this food is sourced ethically and under
environmentally sound conditions.
A long-term strategy for supporting smallholder livelihoods
in supplying European markets requires:
1. Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture, www.eurep.org/
2. Williamson S, The Dependency Syndrome: Pesticide use by African small holders, 2003.
Seth Gogoe is a consultant on post-harvest technology, ethical trade and auditing. He can be contacted at PO Box KN 3819, Kaneshie, Accra, Ghana or email Seth_Gogoe@sgs.com
[This article first appeared in Pesticides News No. 64, June 2004, pages 12-13]