G/SPS/GEN/1482  
 
9 March 2016  
(16-1384)  Page: 1/8  
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures  Original: English  
 
ACTIVITIES OF THE EURO PE-AFRICA-CARIBBEAN-PAC IFIC LIAISON COMMITTEE 
(COLEACP) 
COMMUNICATION BY THE ACP GROUP OF STATES 
The following communication, received on 4 March 2016, is distributed at the request of the ACP 
Secretariat. 
 
_______________ 
  1  CONTEXT 
1.1.  The Europe-Africa-Caribbean-Pacific Liai son Committee (COLEACP) is a private sector 
association entrusted by the ACP Group of States to support the private and public sectors in ACP 
countries in complying with EU market requirements. COLEACP is entrusted with the 
implementation of major cooperation programmes to protect the interests of ACP countries facing 
major regulation changes in Europe (Food Safety), managing to turn them into sustainable development programmes, thus reducing the potentia l negative effect of the change in European 
rules and fulfilling obligations for technical assistance contained in the SPS Agreement in the WTO. 
For example, the challenge of traceability could be converted into an opportunity to streamline 
business management and improve profitability; or el se the need for manageri al advice capabilities 
of the weakest players in the sector could become a vast training system whose main actors are 
locals (consultants, experts in companies, utilities,  NGOs, training centers, universities, etc.). This 
has led to a network of nearly 1,000 local experts "trained" or "formatted" to COLEACP's tools and training methods. The local side (90% of missions) is concretely involved in improving and 
multiplying the tools, and is summarized in the name "fair and revolving training system". 
1.2.  Over the past 15 years, COLEACP has provided  technical assistance to ACP companies to help 
them meet SPS requirements arising from regulati ons and standards. As the market requirements 
have changed, COLEACP has adapted its support a ccordingly. The areas covered by PIP2 support 
have expanded from its original focus on food safety regulations and standards to also address 
social and environmental initiatives; and target ing sustainability, food security, and poverty 
alleviation in a broader context. 
1.3.  The EDES programme is the response from  the European Union to the introduction of 
regulations on feed and food. This has allowed COLEACP to extend its working methods to other 
sectors, with at time surprising success (e.g. Cameroonian coffee) thanks to the multiplier factors. 
The coffee and cocoa sectors have responded particularly well to these participative multi-stake 
holders' approaches but unfortunately they will remain unsatisfied since EDES's operations have been terminated. About fifteen countries, through their ministries, as well as producers' 
associations, and European industry representatives have expressed their interest to benefit from 
m o r e  C O L E A C P  s u p p o r t  i n  t h e  c o m i n g  y e a r s .  I t  w i l l  b e  n e c e s s a r y  t o  f i n d  w a y s  t o  e x t e n d  t h e  positive experiences to the greatest number of small producers. 
1.4.  The 2015-2030 COLEACP vision significantly increases the power of positive experiences from 
the PIP1 & 2 programmes and EDES. In order to fina lize the conversion of our defensive approach 
into an "offensive and positive" one, the major theme is sustainability (3 pillars). This implies to anticipate market requirements and approach sust ainability criteria as a means of improving the 
competitiveness of SMEs and small producers based on a voluntary approach. This new G/SPS/GEN/1482 
 
- 2 - 
 
  programme of "competitiveness through sustainabi lity" allows multi-stakeholder partnerships, 
including civil society, to take their true dimension. 
1.5.  DG_DEVCO has already committed 20 million euros to this new programme for the fruit and 
vegetable sectors. COLEACP is still searching for financial partners for $60 million over the 2016-
2025 period in order to continue ramping-up for a more substantial social impact in relation to the  
challenges of migration, decent jobs, food  safety, nutrition, and  food security.  
2  COLEACP APPROACH 
2.1.  The model developed by COLEACP is unique in that it provides targeted assistance to the 
private sector, while also ensuring that the capa city of the enabling environment to support the 
sector over the long-term is also strengthened. This includes the development of local services, as well as supporting to national food safety systems in ACP countries. COLEACP has also developed a 
comprehensive cascade training system that encompasses both the public and private sectors, and 
which ensures greater sustainability of progra mme impact over the long-term. The folliowing 
sections explain the COLEACP methodology in supporting: 1) producers and exporters; 2) service 
providers; and 3) national food safety systems.  In conclusion, examples are given on how this 
a p p r o a c h  c a n  b e  u s e d  t o  b e n e f i t  n o t  o n l y  e x p o r t  m a r k e t s ,  b u t  a l s o  h a v e  a n  i m p a c t  o n  l o c a l  markets and food security. 
Under the PIP2 and EDES programmes (2010-2015), COLEACP managed 1,600 projects similar to 
the ones described in Kenya and Madagascar. 14,281 men and women were directly trained by 
COLEACP through 1,068 training sessions across 50 countries. In total, the capacities of more than 
a million farmers, workers and civil servants were strengthened. More information at 
http://www.coleacp.org . 
 
3  SUPPORTING PRODUCERS AND EXPORTERS 
3.1.  The challenge for COLEACP is to address a common subject (food safety, sustainability) over 
a very diverse range of conditions (small vs. large companies; different commodities; different countries; different players, different needs). It requires an approach that is sufficiently structured 
to allow a central team in Brussels to implement a programme of capacity building in several 
countries, while at the same time being sufficiently flexible to accommodate the considerable variation between and within them. The PIP2 programme opted for an approach that works on three distinct leverage points: 
 Identifying the barriers and opportunities; 
 Lowering the barriers and creating opportunities: improving conditions for market access 
by challenging and/or ameliorating the regulatory or commercial requirements; and 
 Helping suppliers to overcome the barriers and seize the opportunities: direct capacity 
building of ACP producers and exporters towards compliance with regulations and standards. 
3.1  Identifying the ba rriers and opportunities 
3.2.  COLEACP retains close contact with regulatory  authorities, standard-setting bodies, retailers, 
research organizations, and suppliers. This allows COLEACP to keep abreast of current developments, monitor trends in market requiremen ts, and engage with decision-makers. It puts 
COLEACP in a better position to advocate for the interest of ACP suppliers. It also allows COLEACP 
to be in a position to help ACP suppliers prepare and be ready for new market requirements that are in the pipeline. A concrete example of this is the monitoring of pesticide maximum residue 
limits (MRLs) set by the European Union. If it seems likely that a pest control product will be 
withdrawn or an MRL will be reduced to the limit of detection, COLEACP begins field trials two or three years ahead of time to identify alternative products or to provide data for setting an 
appropriate MRL in order to ensure that producers are not disadvantaged. 
3.2  Lowering the barriers – Some examples 3.3.  The regulations and standa rds set by markets can create barriers for suppliers, but they can 
also create opportunities. Through engagement with key stakeholders (retailers, standard-setting G/SPS/GEN/1482 
 
- 3 - 
 
  bodies, regulators, donors), COLEACP advocates on behalf of the sector to ensure that any new 
demands they are generating will benefit and not disadvantage ACP suppliers. This has become a critical role, as ACP suppliers themselves often have  little influence or voice in the standard-setting 
process. 
3.4.  In the case of private standards, for exam ple, COLEACP publicises and raises awareness of 
any negative impacts experienced by ACP suppliers . The content and modus operandi of standards 
tend to be designed for a "European" context, an d they are often poorly adapted to the agronomic 
and socio-economic conditions of tropical production. COLEACP engages with the main standard-
setting bodies to ensure they are aware of and address any problems that put ACP suppliers at a 
disadvantage. COLEACPP is also actively involved in initiatives to make private standards more locally appropriate and to facilitate wherever possi ble the direct participation of ACP stakeholders. 
3.5.  COLEACP also advocates on the issue of buyer practices both with buyers themselves 
(retailers) and at an EU policy level. Ensuring fair practices along the supply chain is critical in ensuring that ACP exporters can access and benefit from participation in high-end international 
markets. 
3.6.  COLEACP also has an R&D team to address specific technical barriers. This includes 
identification of emerging problems (e.g. new pe sts, soil degradation), and the sharing of this 
information with key stakeholders, such as donors and researchers, so necessary resources may 
be mobilised to address them. The R&D team also implements an internal research programme. A major focus is on the availability of crop protection products. Most tropical horticultural crops are "minor markets" for suppliers because total volumes and acreages are small; as a result there is a 
general shortage of crop protection products, something also exacerbated by changes in EU 
regulations. COLEACP identifies critical areas where growers lack effective and affordable methods of pest management, conducts field trials, and works with national authorities, research 
organizations, and crop protection product companies to obtain MRL extrapolations and import 
tolerances and to identify alternative products. 
3.3  Helping suppliers overcome the barriers 
3.7.  Food Safety : To ensure that food is safe, traceable, and compliant with regulations and 
standards, COLEACP adopts the "field to fork" ph ilosophy of the new EU regulatory framework. An 
approach has been developed to manage risk and promote good practice along the supply chain, 
from field to point-of-sale or shipment (production/transport/packaging/export). This means 
helping companies/exporters establish and mainta in durable risk management systems for food 
safety, traceability, in-house training, and integrated pest management (IPM). 
3.8.  Sustainability : Global retailers are putting in place an array of initiatives in the sustainability 
arena. They have established codes of conduct, set up industry-wide stakeholder platforms, and 
adopted and complied with numerous different sustainability standards. These include social responsibility, ethical trade, and environmental pr otection (water, soil, waste, etc.). COLEACP is 
investing in sustainability, recognising its importance for ACP fruit and vegetables suppliers, as 
well as the potential development opportunities it presents. For many ACP countries and companies, social and environmental requiremen ts are a new phenomenon and they lack the 
knowledge and skills to meet them. COLEACP support  therefore now includes help to suppliers to 
meet specific sustainability standards. However, the ACP industry also needs assistance to address 
the sustainability agenda at a more fundamental level, in particular to ensure that the smaller and weaker economic players – including smallholders – are able to benefit from rather than being 
disadvantaged by these emerging trends. 
3.9.  COLEACP support to producers, exporters, an d others involved in the supply of fresh fruit and 
vegetables, is addressed at two levels:  
a. Ensuring that technologies and technical recommendations are available to enable supply 
chain operators to produce safely and sustainably; and 
b. Ensuring they possess the knowledge (know-how) and skills necessary to apply them. G/SPS/GEN/1482 
 
- 4 - 
 
  Ensuring that technologies and technical recommendations are available to enable 
supply chain operators to produce safely and sustainably 
3.10.  In recognition of the importance of pesticide residue limits in maintaining access to 
international markets, COLEACP puts considerable emphasis on the safe and effective use of 
pesticides. Growers need access to safe, effective and cost-effective technologies to control pests 
and diseases, and essential pesticides need to be available locally and registered for use. Recommendations also need to be developed for the use of these pesticides under local conditions. 
Finally, producers need to know what pesticides are permitted on crops for different markets, and 
have the necessary information to use them corre ctly so that they avoid exceeding permitted 
levels of pesticide residues.  
3.11.  The COLEACP R&D team support local regist ration of pesticides, and in addition conduct 
field trials to establish recommendations for use under local conditions. COLEACP has also worked 
with researchers, agronomists and IPM specialists to develop a series of 40 crop protocols and 
good practice guides for the main ACP horticultu ral crops. These good practice guides provide 
plans which, if followed, ensure that produce comply with regulations and MRLs for both the 
European Union and CODEX (for local markets). With an increasing emphasis on sustainability, COLEACP is now expanding its technical support and recommendations to also cover good practice 
in the management of waste, water, and soils. 
Ensuring they possess the knowledge (know- how) and skills necessary to apply them 
3.12.  COLEACP receives requests for capacity building from producers, producer groups, and 
companies, to help establish management system s that ensure safe and sustainable production. 
Support is delivered through training, accompanied by coaching from local experts to help put the 
training into practice. This support is delivered over a timescale that fits in with the company's capacity to invest and implement, and follows a stepwise approach: 
 STEP 1: Following an application for support from a company, a COLEACP consultant 
conducts a needs assessment and identifies weak points (from field to point of shipment). A project action plan and budget is then developed with company staff; 
 STEP 2: Company staff establishes and impl ements food safety, training, IMP, and 
traceability systems, as well as sustainable practices, with training, backup, and support from COLEACP experts. The company takes th e lead in implementing the action plan, 
which promotes ownership and ensures that the systems are "internalised"; and 
 STEP 3: Validation of the systems: COLEACP provides consultants for blank audits to 
assess implementation and compliance with regulations. Many companies then opt for certification against a private standard. 
3.13.  To deliver this support to companies, COLEACP has developed a comprehensive training 
system. This includes standardised training modules (complete with training tools and publications) targeting different players in the supply chain from company managing directors to 
food safety managers, farm managers, packhous e workers, field workers, drivers, outgrower 
managers, and smallholders. They cover topics such as safe use of pesticides, hygiene, IPM, traceability, HACCP, and sustainable production. The same modules and standardised training courses are used in all countries and by all COLEACP trainers to ensure consistency. 
3.14.  Traceability tools have also been developed. Traceability is a linchpin and essential for 
companies to establish and maintain safe and sust ainable systems. The COLEACP traceability tools 
can be customised according to company resources and circumstances, and vary from simple, 
paper-based systems to comprehensive software and barcoding. 
3.15.  To avoid the risk of exporters shifting production away from smallholder outgrowers to 
company farms, COLEACP puts considerable emphasis on building capacity within companies to 
train and support smallholder outgrowers. By developing and implementing training for their 
smallholders, it is easier (and affordable) for companies to continue sourcing from them, and for the latter to maintain their foothold in the supply chain. Similar support is given to extension workers in projects and NGOs working with smallholder groups. G/SPS/GEN/1482 
 
- 5 - 
 
  4  DEVELOPING LOCAL SERVICES 
4.1.  COLEACP aims to deliver training and technical assistance in ACP countries using local 
expertise. However, at the outset COLEACP found that in many countries it was necessary to fly in costly European consultants; local, affordable, up-to-date expertise in specialised areas such as 
food safety was simply not available. This put ACP suppliers at a disadvantage, but also 
endangered the sustainability of COLEACP programme impact. In the same way that support to companies is designed to be "internalised", for sustainability it is also important to ensure that 
export industries have access to high-quality and affordable local services that will support them 
over the long-term. 
4.2.  In each beneficiary country, COLEACP consul ts with national stakeholders to identify the 
needs for capacity building of key players and to develop the wide range of services (public and 
private) that are needed. These include: 
 Local experts (including private consultants) to train and advise on food safety, pesticide 
use, IPM, HACCP, Good Agricultural Practice s, Fair Trade, organic production, social 
responsibility, ethical trade, environmental protection, among others; 
 Local/regional certification bodies; 
 Universities, agricultural colleges and training centres; 
 Pesticide registration systems compatible with EU requirements; and 
 Accredited laboratories for pesticide residue analysis. 
4.3.  In the same way that support is provid ed to companies, service providers can request 
capacity building from COLEACP. This is availa ble to both public and private sector service 
providers, and to individuals as well as comp anies and organizations. The range of support 
provided is very wide, and every application is considered on a case-by-case basis; support is customised according to the needs of the recipient. 
4.4.  Capacity building is provided through a mixt ure of COLEACP technical and "train the trainer" 
courses; international training courses; study tours, and short-term resident experts such as pesticide chemists, IMP specialists, and regulatory affairs specialists. On-the-job training is also 
widely used, whereby local service providers shadow experienced consultants and trainers during 
field missions. Much of the training leads to reco gnised qualifications such as HACCP, BASIS, ISO 
9000:2000, and Lead Auditor. 
4.5.  Once COLEACP has trained local service prov iders, it then uses them under contract to 
deliver COLEACP support. This approach has been ci ted as a model of good practice for capacity 
building. It ensures that the capacity building is embedded and sustainable, as well as establishing 
working relationships between companies and local service providers. 
4.6.  In addition to support for local service pr oviders, COLEACP puts considerable emphasis on 
capacity building of professional associations (e .g. producer or exporter associations) and public-
private stakeholder platforms. Having strong associations and stakeholder platforms is increasingly 
essential to meet new challenges (regulations, stan dards, taxes, pest outb reaks, etc.). Many of 
these challenges need a multi-stakeholder response, and strong forums for dialogue and advocacy. COLEACP supports industry associations in many countries, and in several has facilitated the creation of national stakeholder platforms involv ing, for example, exporter associations, grower 
representatives, service providers, and Ministri es of Health, Agriculture, and Trade. When 
functioning well, they provide a forum for dialogue  that allows stakeholders to address shared 
problems, conduct joint actions, and lobby and advocate on behalf of the industry. 
5  STRENGTHENING NATIONAL FOOD SAFETY SYSTEMS 
5.1.  Protecting consumer health is a constant concern for ACP States. With this in mind, they 
define the policies and requirements to be follow ed by the operators at each stage in the supply 
chain. The EU Official Feed and Food Controls Re gulation came into force in 2006, covering both 
locally-produced and imported goods. This requir es third countries that export to the European 
Union to adapt their sanitary and phytosanit ary (SPS) related regulatory, supervisory and 
monitoring systems. Since March 2010, COLEACP has managed EDES, in collaboration with a 
consortium of European organizations specialising in food safety. EDES was instituted at the G/SPS/GEN/1482 
 
- 6 - 
 
  request the ACP Group of States and is funded by the European Union to support the sustainability 
of ACP exports. 
5.2.  EDES aims to use risk analysis to streng then food safety systems for export products in 
compliance with regional, international and European SPS standards. To this end, EDES helps ACP 
States to strengthen their national (or in some cases regional) policies in the area of food safety in 
order to ensure exports meet the standards in force in importing countries, as well as to consumer demands. This is with a view to encouraging growth in traceable and certified production for local, 
regional and international markets. 
5.3.  EDES plays a role in risk analysis at all three levels (risk assessment, risk management and 
risk communication). It begins by targeting one or more sectors that are considered important by the country concerned, which presents food safety  risks, and whose production is dependent on 
small-scale growers. The aim is to enable the identification of critical control points and monitoring 
requirements at each stage of the supply chain. 
5.4.  EDES actions focus more specifically on: food safety governance, official controls, good 
corporate practices, laboratories, risk assessmen t, and risk communication. The development and 
reinforcement of national food safety systems for export crops is also recognised to benefit production for domestic consumption. The ultimate objective is to guarantee food safety for all 
consumers in the ACP and the European Union. 
6  THE TRAINING SYSTEM 6.1.  COLEACP has developed a training system that  is coordinated by a central training team, and 
implemented primarily through local experts and service providers. The scope of the training 
covers a wide range of topics in the ar ea of food safety and sustainability. 
6.2.  The training itself is backed by documents and training tools including course modules, 
training guides, training aids for company workers and smallholder, among others. There is also an 
e-learning platform for distance learning. These materials and the courses themselves are revised 
and updated, and new modules developed, according to needs and new market demands. 
6.3.  The COLEACP training system follows a cascade  approach. It starts with the capacity building 
of local service providers which includes technical training in specific topics, training on the 
COLEACP course content (to ensure that this is consistent), and finally training in pedagogical skills. As well as having the required technical background, all local service providers must attend, and complete successfully, a COLEACP Training of Tr ainers course before they can deliver training 
for COLEACP programmes. Local service providers are then hired to deliver training and support to 
companies and other stakeholders. Following the cascade approach, support to a company begins with general information and awareness raising sessions for company directors. Without the buy-in 
of senior management, a programme of support to a company is unlikely to be successful; the 
necessary human and financial resources are unlikely to be mobilised. This is followed by specialist training for middle management notably food safe ty, packhouse, farm/production, and outgrower 
managers. Again this includes not only technical course content, but also training in pedagogical 
skills. Technical training at each level is accomp anied by dedicated "train the trainer" courses to 
improve communication and training skills and ensure that company staff are better able to deliver training in the future. In this way COLEACP aims to create a sustainable in-company training 
system rather than to simply impart knowledge  or skills. Following training, middle managers 
deliver training to staff under their responsibility (packhouse managers to packhouse workers, farm managers to their spray team s and field workers, and so on). 
6.4.  At each stage, COLEACP provides coaching and backup to help trainees cascade the training 
to the next level. This cascade approach described here for a company is applied in the same way to other situations and organizations, from professional associations to government extension 
services. G/SPS/GEN/1482 
 
- 7 - 
 
  7  CASE STUDIES 
7.1  Upgrading Value Chains: The Case of Kenyan French Beans 
7.1.  In 2009, 34,997 tonnes of French beans were  exported from Kenya to the European Union. 
This made an important contribution to the national and rural economies, and to jobs. Beans are 
grown mainly by smallholder farmers. According to a study by SNV in 2012, an estimated 50,000 
farmers may be involved in the horticultural export sector as a whole, mainly involving households with under two acres. Participation in exports makes an important contribution to household food 
security, with a typical farmer making an av erage profit of US$750 (Ksh.60000) a year from 
French beans. The industry also employs large numbers of people in commercial farms and packhouses, of whom an estimated 60% are women.  
7.2.  Over the past decades, Kenya developed a thriving and successful horticultural export 
industry, supplying quality produce to high-value global supply chains. However, between 2008 
and 2012, there was an increase in the number of  interceptions of Kenyan beans at EU border 
controls due to pesticide MRL exceedances. In January 2013, Kenyan beans were listed as "high-
risk" under Regulation EC 669/2009, and subject to  increased testing on EU entry at a level of 
10%. PIP monitored the impact of this over the coming months, and found worrying trends. It caused a substantial decline in export volumes and income, alongside a significant increase in 
costs. It also began to squeeze an export sector that was already suffering in a challenging 
economic climate, affecting some of the most vulnerable stakeholders including the (predominantly female) packhouse and farm labourers, and smallholder farmers.  
7.3.  Various factors contributed to the problem including the setting of EU MRLs for the main 
pesticides at LoD; the lack of accessible or available alternatives in the face of increasing pest 
pressure and more stringent quarantine controls; breakdowns in traceability and supply chain management due to EU buyer practices; and declining profits that were leading to supply-chain 
instability and poaching of produce. The complexity  of the issue meant that addressing it had no 
simple solutions. It required the involvement of multiple stakeholders, and a combined effort to tackle problems along the supply chain, from field to export. 
7.4.  Once the controls were imposed, Kenyan authorities responded proactively to the crisis. 
Public and private sector stakeholders came togeth er to form a consortium to develop and oversee 
a coordinated and cohesive national MRL action plan. The European Union required evidence of improved practices and procedures in the supply chain, as well as in public sector inspection 
services and pesticide residue monitoring. PIP joined other national and donor initiatives (including 
its sister EDES programme) to support this effort by providing: 
 Intensive training of producers and exporters in  Good Agricultural Practice, crop protection, 
IPM, safe and effective use of pesticides, and traceability, among others 
 Development of targeted teaching aids and information bulletins  
 Coaching of 37 individual export companies to  raise awareness of the problem, its impact, 
and remedial measures 
 "Training trainers" for 60 government extension officers 
 Training of 40 officers from th e government inspection service 
 Field trials to validate or challenge EU MRLs, and to identify alternative products 
 Support for the national pesticide residu e monitoring system, and quality control 
7.5.  The EU authorities monitored and audited the public and private sector actions. They 
recognised the considerable progress made and, in July 2015, Kenyan beans were de-listed. 
7.2  Upgrading Value Chains: The example of litchi in Madagascar 
7.6.  Madagascar is the third largest producer of litchi. Around 100,000 tonnes are harvested per 
year, of which 20% is exported fresh to the European Union. The sector is of considerable 
importance to the national economy and as a generator of rural income and jobs. An estimated 
30,000 families are involved in production, with a further 3,000 people working as collectors and transporters. However, harvesting and export take place over a short period in November and December, and the very seasonal nature of produc tion and trade leads to some inherent problems 
and inefficiencies. Up to 50% of production is wa sted, and prices received by producers can halve G/SPS/GEN/1482 
 
- 8 - 
 
  or double from one day to the next, discouraging investment. Despite its overall success, there are 
significant opportunities to improve and grow the sector. 
7.7.  Intermediaries (collectors and brokers) se l l  t o  e x p o r t  c o m p a n i e s ,  m o s t  o f  w h o m  ( 3 2 )  a r e  
members of the association "Groupement des Expo rtateurs de Litchis" (GEL). COLEACP worked 
with GEL and export companies from 2006 onwards to  put in place the food safety systems needed 
to access EU markets but, during the 2010 Berlin international trade fair (Fruit Logistica), GEL asked for additional help. Sulphur residues were being detected in export consignments, which 
exceeded the permitted levels for EU markets. This could potentially result in a restriction or ban 
on exports. Sulphur is applied as a post-harvest treatment and excessive residues can be caused by a number of factors including maturity of the fruit, transport delays, inadequate or poorly maintained equipment, improper application methods, poor storage, and lack of alternative 
disease control options. 
7.8.  Once COLEACP began to work with GEL, it became clear that addressing the sulphur problem 
was complex and required the involvement of dive rse players from public and private sectors, 
higher education, and civil society. Through a multi-stakeholder effort, a programme of support 
was put in place to develop solutions over the short- and long-term:  
 In partnership with GEL: organization of th e sector through development of a supply-chain 
self-assessment guide; improved sulphur application practices by informing, training, and 
coaching operators; research implemented to find alternatives to sulphur; GRASP (GLOBALG.A.P. social audit) national interpretation sector guidelines developed; 
 With 24 export companies: practices, procedur es and produce aligned with EU regulations 
and private standards through quality management systems; paper and IT-based 
traceability systems; training of company staff in risk management, internal audit, HACCP, hygiene and traceability; and installing internal company training systems; 
 With the Ecole Supérieure des Sciences Agronomiques de l'Université d'Antananarivo 
(ESSA) and the Centre Technique Horticole de  Tamatave (CTHT): course content aligned 
with industry needs; improved teaching skills; experts coached to deliver PIP support; 
 With service providers: 25 experts from ten consultancy companies trained to support the 
sector over the short- and long-term in topics critical to the sector; and 
 With EDES, improved public sector systems and procedures for inspection and control. 
7.9.  COLEACP contributed to the reorganization an d "professionalization" of the sector leading to 
an increase in confidence among EU buyers, adop tion of Good Agricultural Practices, improved 
social practices, and a decline in MRL exceedances. 
 
__________