Objectives

• Share information among Asia-Pacific countries on the recent development of good agricultural practices in the fruit industry

• Exchange views on the challenges, opportunities, and cost-benefits of GAP certifications and its implication for smallholder farmers in Asia

• Facilitate international cooperation in strengthening the tropical fruit industry

FAO definition

The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) defined Good Agricultural Practices as “Collection of principles to apply for on-farm production and post-production processes, resulting in safe and healthy food and non-food agricultural products, while taking into account economic, social and environmental sustainability” (FAO, 2016).

National, regional, and global application

G.A.P. standards can be developed by the public sector (e.g., government) and private sector, and applied in a specific country, regions, or internationally. TGAP (Taiwan G.A.P.), VietGAP (Vietnam G.A.P.), Q-GAP (Thailand G.A.P.) and MyGAP (Malaysia G.A.P.) are examples of country-based, government-developed G.A.P. Several national G.AP.s, including those in Southeast Asia, have raised their standards to develop a regional-based G.A.P., e.g., ASEAN GAP, in response to the regionalization and globalization of food supplies and markets (Amekawa, 2013). GLOBALG.A.P. is a non-government developed G.A.P., started by European retailers. It is now the world's leading farm assurance program (https://www.globalgap.org/uk_en/).

GLOBALG.A.P.

Launch

With rising concerns over food safety and quality, environmental health, and social welfare in Europe in the 1990s, the Euro-Retailer Produce Working Group launched a EUREPGAP in 1997, covering food safety, sustainable production, worker and animal welfare in addition to the common G.A.P. principles. As more producers and retailers worldwide joined the program, the Group renamed EUREPGAP as GLOBALG.A.P. in 2007 (https://www.globalgap.org/uk_en/).

Management

GLOBALG.A.P. is a set of voluntary standards for certification of agricultural products worldwide (https://www.globalgap.org/uk_en/). The organization of GLOBALG.A.P. is managed and governed by representatives from the organizations of retailers, foodservice, producers and suppliers. The operation of GLOBALG.A.P. relies on independent certification from third-party bodies. These certification bodies (CBs) conduct onsite farm inspections and audits, and issue GLOBALG.A.P. certificates to producers who comply with the GLOBALG.A.P. standards.

Certification required for European markets

Many retailers in the EU or UK only buy agricultural products from the producers holding GLOBALG.A.P. certificates. Consumers in Europe also prefer to buy products from producers with GLOBALG.A.P. (Yudin and Schneider, 2008). Thus GLOBALG.A.P. gradually became an essential requirement to enter high-end markets, especially Europe. Producers with GLOBALG.A.P. certification benefit from trade advantages and opportunities to enter lucrative markets (Amekawa, 2013).

High investment cost for many small-scale farmers

To comply with the required standards of GLOBALG.A.P., investments, including facilities, equipment, and technologies, payment for certification and accreditation, are required and the costs are high particularly for small-scale producers and exporters living in middle- and lower-income countries (Amekawa, 2009). The high costs of investment and certification of GLOBALG.A.P. are among the market entry barriers that marginalize many small-scale producers (Amekawa, 2009). Additional private standards required for the international market will create further barriers for small-scale producers and exporters (Nabeshima et al., 2015).

Low incentive for Asian farmers to apply

In many Asian countries, the application of GLOBALG.A.P. is export-oriented for most producers, and only occasionally it is required by domestic retailers (Nabeshima et al., 2015). Producers often expect more export opportunities and other benefits from their investment in obtaining GLOBALG.A.P. certification. However, in many cases, there is no additional economic return. Combined with low demands from domestic markets, the incentive and motivation for producers to apply for GLOBALG.A.P. is low in most regions of Asia (Nabeshima et al., 2015).

National G.A.P.s in the Asian-Pacific region

Despite the low incentive for GLOBALG.A.P. application, many Asian countries have developed their national G.A.P.s since the 2000s, which the standards were influenced by the GLOBALG.A.P., in response to the increasing concerns of food safety and sustainable agricultural production in the domestic and regional markets. (Amekawa, 2013; Nabeshima et al., 2015; UNCTAD, 2007).

Implementation bodies of national GAPs and the program of focus differ from each country and from those of GLOBALG.A.P. (Nabeshima et al., 2015). Most of the national G.A.P.s are public, government-driven, like Korean GAP in Korea (Yoon et al., 2014), TGAP in Taiwan (Huang and Chou, 2014), PhilGAP in the Philippines (Banzon et al., 2013), VietGAP in Vietnam (Nabeshima et al., 2015), MyGAP in Malaysia, Q-GAP in Thailand, and IndonGAP in Indonesia (UNCTAD, 2007), while some are developed by private sectors with some cooperation with the government, such as JGAP in Japan and ThaiGAP in Thailand (Nabeshima et al., 2015; UNCTAD, 2007).

Most of these national G.A.P.s also highlight food safety and quality, especially the safe use of agrochemicals, with less focus on the areas of environmental protection and workers’ safety and welfare ^[1]. A gradual and multi-tier approach has been adopted by governments in several ASEAN countries in their national G.A.P. programs, such as Indon-GAP and Q-GAP. The multi-tier approach involves multiple levels with different certification criteria, food safety is usually the primary focus for the basic level, while in the advanced level, criteria of extended issues are required to be followed, such as premium food quality in Q-GAP and environment, hygiene, and labor issues in Indon-GAP (UNCTAD, 2007; Wibawa, 2005). Most of the small-scale producers and traders are able to start with the program at the basic level for domestic markets. The goal is to gradually adopt the program at the advanced level targeting on regional markets (UNCTAD, 2007).

Pesticide and chemical abuses remain a common and serious problem in agriculture in Asia. Safe management standards and methods are among the major focus of national G.A.P.s. Introduction of national GAP countrywide can help to narrow the gaps and improve inconsistency of product quality and safety in the domestic markets, and eventually, help producers and traders to meet the food safety requirements (eg. Maximum Residue Level (MRL) of agrochemicals) of major regional markets like China and Japan. This would also help to increase opportunities for small-scale producers to enter the international mainstream markets (Amekawa, 2013; Banzon et al., 2013; Nabeshima et al., 2015; UNCTAD, 2007).

Future perspectives

More and more Asian countries like Japan, Thailand, Vietnam, and Malaysia have been dedicated to international recognition of their national G.A.P. for export expansion to potential high-end markets like the EU (Nabeshima et al., 2015; UNCTAD, 2007).To enhance opportunities for small-scale producers to enter the international mainstream markets, and to narrow the gap of standards between domestic and international G.A.P.s, many governments are planning, developing and promoting G.A.P.s that integrate and harmonize the standards of the existing domestic and international G.A.P.s. (Amekawa, 2013; Amekawa et al., 2017; Nabeshima et al., 2015). Could GLOBALG.A.P. or national G.A.P. certification enhances market opportunities? Experts from the Asia-Pacific will share their views from global, regional, and country perspectives at the FFTC 2021 DFNet Workshop to be held virtually on July 13, 2021. Please join us at https://sites.google.com/fftc.org.tw/2021dfnetworkshop.

Dragon fruit production and markets in Asia are fast-growing for the past five years. Through the DFNet Project in 2017 – 2020, FFTC worked with its country partners to build a dragon fruit research network (DFNet) for the Asian Pacific Region and conducted three workshops. The book entitled “Dragon Fruit – From Production to Market”, collecting 27 DFNet workshop papers written by DFNet members, was published in April 2021. With the continuous and generous financial support from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Taiwan, the Project launched its Phase II with a three-year workplan starting from January 2021.

The long-term goal of the DFNet Project is to enhance the capacity of smallholder farmers in the Asia-Pacific region in effectively participating in tropical fruit value chains. To achieve this, the Phase II Project aims to collect and disseminate information internationally on technologies and services required for the successful production and marketing of safe and healthy fruits. The information will be useful not only for the dragon fruit value chain but also for other tropical fruit crops. The collaborative platform for dragon fruit (DFNet) can include other high potential or high priority tropical fruits in the Asian Pacific countries such as Durian (Durio zibethinus), Rambutan (Nephelium lappaceum), and Mangosteen (Garcinia mangostana).

DFNet Phase II includes four work packages: (1) knowledge management, (2) key DF technology and technical service identified for demonstration, (3) online/ onsite workshops, forum/ field trips conducted or facilitated, and (4) project monitoring, reporting and evaluation. Five key technologies/ services in the fruit value chain were proposed including (1) Production systems including global/local G.A.P., (2) Postharvest handling, quarantine treatment, and cold storage, (3) Linking farmers to processors programs (processing and value addition), (4) Linking farmers to consumer programs (e-commerce), and (5) Consumer-oriented traits, evaluation and promotion (branding, health benefits, and international advertising). The project will conduct at least one workshop each year.