WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/GEN/567 
17 June 2005 
 (05-2575) 
Committee of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Original:   English 
  
 
 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF A STUDY ON AGRI-FOOD SAFETY AND SPS 
COMPLIANCE IN GUINEA CONAKRY, MOZAMBIQUE AND TANZANIA 
 
Communication from UNCTAD
 
 
  The following communication, dated 10 June 2005,  is being circulated at the request of the 
United Nations Conference on Trad e and Development (UNCTAD). 
 
_______________ 
  
I. BACKGROUND 
1. In recent years, agricultural exports to de veloped country markets have emerged as a 
potentially major source of export growth for many developing countries.  Exploiting this potential, 
however, poses many challenges.  The capacity of developing country expor ters to enter these 
markets depends critically on their ability to meet stringent food safety standards imposed by developed countries.  Not only are these standards stringent, but they are increasingly demanding. They now go well beyond traditional quality standard s, as suppliers must pay close attention to the 
responsible use of agro-chemicals, energy, water and waste, as well as so cial and environmental 
impact.  These standards are significantly higher than  those prevailing in developing countries, they 
are subject to frequent changes and are, ultimately, often difficult and costly to meet. 
2. It has to be noted, however, that the globalisa tion of markets and acceleration of technological 
changes led to a definite redirection by most deve loped countries on their food control organisation.  
Governments and economic agents in developed countries are also having to invest heavily in reform 
of their food control systems (see, for instance, th e costs of the implementation of new Food Safety 
Legislation in the EU and establishing food safety ag encies).  In some developing countries, however, 
and particularly in African Least Developed Countri es (LDCs), the levels of difficulty and cost are 
heightened by a lack of legislation, a lack of  facilities to implement food legislation (regulatory 
infrastructure and laboratories), a lack of traine d people and a lack of funds to strengthen such 
systems. 
3. This study intended to identify and quantify the compliance costs for tropical fruits faced by a 
group of African LDCs.  It presents a framework that facilitates estimation of costs of compliance for exporters that are associated with agricultural safety standards and SPS.  These costs of compliance 
are understood as additional costs incurred by exporters  in meeting the requirements laid upon them in 
complying with a given regulation in the importing country.  Moreover, compliance with agricultural 
standards and SPS in export markets can also impo se costs on public institutions.  For instance, 
governments may be required to invest in upgrad ing conformity assessment facilities and procedures 
to certify (e.g. laboratories, certifiers, etc) exporte d products to the importing country's requirements. 
4. The study focused on three African LDCs selected as case study countries (Tanzania, 
Mozambique and Guinea Conakry) and was prepared  in co-operation with producers, exporters, G/SPS/GEN/567 
Page 2  
 
business bodies, enterprises and institutions.  It is  expected to contribute to the formulation of 
concrete recommendations for capacity-building to ensure the compliance of production and 
distribution systems in the countries concerned.  National workshops are taking place based on the 
findings stemming from the studies undertaken in the three selected countries. 
II. STATE OF THE TROPICAL FRUIT SECTOR IN THE SELECTED COUNTRIES  
5. A large variety and quantity of fruits are pr oduced in Tanzania, Mozambique and Guinea.  
These fruits can be obtained by harvesting, by tr aditional or modern production methods.  It is 
traditional fruit production, however, which involves the largest number of farmers.  The number of 
commercial fruit producers in all of the three countries visited is restricted. 
6. Marketing of these products is difficult both in lo cal and export markets. In the local markets, 
producers and other intermediaries in the food chai n are faced with insufficient financial resources, 
storage facilities, and distribution networks (lack of roads).  Commercial producers face other constraints such as high costs of overseas transportation, bureaucratic customs procedures, and weak links with international buyers.  Lack of knowledg e and the inability to meet international market 
requirements are, however, the most fundamental  impediments to accessing foreign markets. 
7. Fruits and vegetables are considered as high value commodities with the fastest growing 
market potential for developing countries.  They  account for almost 20 per cent of developing 
countries’ agricultural exports (Olembo, 2004).  In the three countries studied it is widely recognised that there is great potential for development in the fruit industry.  It is, therefore, of paramount importance to address the key constraint s to the development of this sector. 
8. In Tanzania and Guinea, exporters have alread y seen their produce rejected due to lack of 
compliance.  Standards may indeed constitute an ever growing obstacle to exports from developing 
countries as the number and scope of the requirements increases.  Given the nature of the standards, 
which set requirements from "field to fork", compliance involves all actors in the food chain including producers, pickers, distributors, and exporters.  Qua lity standards are also important for local market 
producers.  Knowledge and the capacity to increase th e quality of the producti on for the local market 
decreases losses during the production process as we ll as post-harvest losses, during storage and 
transport.  Not only does it provide higher earning to farmers, it may also co ntribute to food security 
and dietary improvements for the national population.  In order to promote access to international 
markets it was, therefore, considered necessary to  examine and describe the requirements set by the 
key standards organizations in fruit production. 
III. OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY 
9. This study was designed to examine the quality and safety requirements applicable to fruit 
production and to estimate the costs of compliance.  Fi eld visits were carried out to the three selected 
countries to interview key stakeholders in the pu blic and private sectors to estimate agri-food safety 
and SPS compliance, and to evaluate the capacity to meet standards.  The methodology and tools 
developed may be used in other countries to estimate compliance costs. 
10. The costs of compliance with standards for pub lic institutions were based on the requirements 
set by international legislation while those for pr ivate producers were based on the requirements set 
by the EurepGap protocol, due to the comprehens iveness of this protocol and the clarity of its 
requirements.  The study has developed a set of tools that can be used by public and private 
stakeholders to improve their food safety control system and to participate in world markets.  G/SPS/GEN/567 
 Page 3 
 
 
11. The grids describing1 the key elements of the food control system, the activities to achieve 
them and the inputs required are useful tools to evaluate the capacity and needs of food control 
systems in other countries.  Likewise, the EurepG ap requirements grid provides a useful tool for 
farmers to carry out a self-assessment to estimate th e costs of compliance with the protocol for their 
specific cases.  It also provides them with inform ation on comparable costs incurred by other farmers 
in implementing the protocol.  The quantification of compliance costs is also useful in defining the 
position of the studied countries in international ne gotiations.  Equally importantly, the cost analysis 
provides a real and current picture when trying to  obtain support from international institutions and 
developed countries for public and private sector comp liance efforts with international standards.  The 
key findings are presented in the following secti ons, as well as policy recommendations and principal 
tools developed to undertake this study. 
IV. KEY FINDINGS 
12. In order to fully capture the costs of qua lity standards and SPS measures on exports of 
African tropical fruit it is necessary to gather data on both "macro" costs and the firm-level expenses.  
Macro costs are those incurred by the public admini stration to conform to the demands of importing 
countries, micro costs are those incurred by producers and traders for the same purpose. 
13. Finally, in analysing the results of the analysis it is important to note that the cost estimates 
presented are only valid under a particular set of assu mptions.  The most important results are the cost 
enquiry grids developed which are useful tools for (i) each institution to analyse in detail its own requirements and compliance costs; and (ii) pr ivate producers to identify the requirements of 
EurepGap and to estimate how much it would cost them to meet these requirements. 
1. Macro costs 
14. These are the costs incurred by public and semi-public agencies and include costs of 
legislation development, training, infrastructure and equipment upgrading, inspection, testing, and 
other monitoring and control mechanisms. The cost enquiry grids
2 for public institutions define (i) the 
key components that should be present in a Food Cont rol System; (ii) the activities that need to be 
carry out to implement these components; and (iii)  the inputs needed to carry out these activities. 
Table 1 below summarizes these costs: 
                                                      
1 It is provided in the full report, appendix 2.  
2 The enquiry grids for each of the institutions analysed  are presented in detail in Appendix 2 of the full 
report.  
 G/SPS/GEN/567 
Page 4  
 
Table 1 - Summarizing Macro costs of complia nce in Tanzania, Mozambique and Guinea 
 
 
Source : Abstract from Costs of Agrifood Safety and SPS Compliance, UNCTAD, DITC 
 
2. Micro costs 
15. Firm-level "micro" compliance costs are the costs incurred by producers and exporters in 
order to comply with demands of importing countri es and private clients.  At the same time that 
international and national regulati on becomes more stringent, the private sector in importing countries 
is also setting its own standards.  These include  changes in producing systems, infrastructure 
construction and upgrading, traini ng, consultancy services and certification costs.  This study has 
focused on the costs of complianc e with the EurepGap protocol, due to its comprehensiveness and 
wide acceptance. 
16. The EurepGap was designed to accommodate th e requirements set forward by international 
standards as well as EU regulations.  It is based on concepts such as hazar d analysis and critical 
control points (HACCP), risk analysis and field to  fork approach.  It is, for these reasons, a good 
proxy to estimate costs of compliance to standards incurred by producers. 
17. The EurepGap protocol is a private certifica tion system developed by a group of 22 large 
European retailers to encourage producers to im plement standards more quickly.  The EurepGap 
technical committee on fruits and vegetables, wh ich is composed of buyers and suppliers 
representatives, has developed the fruits and vegetabl es standard.  There is no product label associated 
with EurepGap but certification may become a requirement for most European retailers. 
18. The protocol addresses both consumer concerns and the key requirements set by international 
and EU legislation.  The protocol provides an assurance to the importer even if the food control safety structures in the country are not in place.  It also  provides farmers with a very clear set of rules to 
attain quality and a certification procedure which provides confidence to the buyer.  The EurepGap 
protocol has 250 rules or control points. 
 Country Organisation Costs (US$)
TBS 870,000 
Ministry of Agriculture: Plant Health Division 1,090,000 
Ministry of Health: Department of Environmental Health  560,000 TANZANIA 
TOTAL COSTS 2,520,500 
INNOQ 5,590,000 
Ministry of Agriculture: Plant Health Division 2,840,000 
Ministry of Health: Department  of Environmental Health 820,000 MOZAMBIQUE 
TOTAL COSTS 9,250,000 
INNM 670,000 
Ministry of Agriculture: Plant Health Division 1,555,000 
Ministry of Health: Department  of Environmental Health 570,000 
Division of Production 200,600 
Division of Seed and Seedlings  1,380,000 
CRAF 1,485,000 GUINEA 
CFC 76,000 
 TOTAL COSTS 5,936,600  G/SPS/GEN/567 
 Page 5 
 
 
Table 2 - Summarizing Micro Costs of Complia nce in Tanzania, Mozambique and Guinea 
 
TANZANIA MOZAMBIQUE GUINEA 
EUREPGAP  REQUIREMENTS Setup 
costs Ongoing 
costs Setup 
costs Ongoing 
costs Setup 
costs Ongoing 
costs 
1. Traceability 4,300 100 4,300 100 4,500 100
2. Record Keeping And Self-Inspection 6,000 3,600 7,000 3,300 5,000 3,500
3. Propagation material 0 0 0 0 50,000 
4. Site Management 900 0 900 0 0 900
5. Risk Assessments 1,500 300 1,500 300 1,500 300
6. Technical Services 0 2,000 0 2,000  2,000
7. Laboratory Analysis 0 3,000 0 3,000 5,000 5,500
8. Soil And Substrate 
Management 1,000 100 1,000 100 300,000 
9. Fertiliser Use 2,500 750 7,500 1,000 200,000 300
10. Crop Protection 10,400 1,250 23,900 2,200 210,000 1,500
11. Irrigation/Fertilization 600 0 600 0 300,000 400
12. Harvesting 9,800 200 12,000 800 5,000 500
13. Produce Handling 11,300 100 11,300 600 1,000,000 15,000
14. Waste & Pollution 
Management 800 50 5,800 300 300 0
15. Worker Health, Safety And 
Welfare 47,490 4,250 28,500 6,100 9,000 8,000
16. Environmental Issues 1,100 200 1,100 200 1,000 1,000
17. Certification Costs 1,000 2,000 4,000 1,000 10,000 5,000
18. Eurepgap Procedures 0 2,600 0 2,600 900 2,000
19. Establishment of farmers 
organisation 0 0 0 0 90,000 6,000
20. Establishment an Inter-
professional Confederation of food chain actors 0 0 0 0 60,000 4,000
21. Train intermediary food 
chain actors 0 0 0 0 6,000 1,000
TOTAL COSTS (USD) 98,690 20,500 109,400 23,600 2,197,200 27,000
 
Source : Abstract from Costs of Agrifood Safety and SPS Compliance, UNCTAD, DITC 
 19. The key issues the EurepGap protocol focuses on are food safety and traceability.  It also 
includes, however, several requirements in terms of environmental and labour standards (although 
these have been criticised as being vague).  In terms of food safety the key concern is on pesticide use.  
This implies requirements in terms of product choi ce and application decisions based on integrated 
pest management practices (IPM), training on IPM and on safety for applicators, personal protection 
equipment, application equipment and infrastructure for storage.  It requires the implementation of 
soil, water and biodiversity conservation. In th at respect, it introduces the need for risk assessments 
and management plans, all of which must be clearly documented. 
V. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS 
20. At international level, standards are related to a large extent to the World Trade Organisations 
(WTO) agreements on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS agreement).  SPS measures include 
any measure applied to protect human, animal or pl ant life or health.  There are three organisations 
responsible for setting the standards to meet th e requirements of SPS:  the Codex Alimentarius G/SPS/GEN/567 
Page 6  
 
Commission for Food Safety, the International Pl ant Protection Convention (IPPC) for Plant Health 
and the Office International des Epizooties (OIE) which deals with Animal Health. 
21. Globalisation of food markets and heightened consumer awareness of the potential food 
hazards has also led to the development of new stricter legislation in importing countries, such as the new EU food safety legislation and private protocols,  such as EurepGap, whic h extend the concept of 
Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) along the food chain to put greater emphasis on primary 
production practices. 
3. Public sector 
22. The analysis of the requirements on the public sector set by international and regional 
standards highlights the need to set up a food co ntrol safety system that ensures that the food 
consumed locally and exported has the same level of safety as that produced in developed countries. 
Several institutions constitute th is food control safety system.  The key ones are the Standard Setting 
Organisation, which is responsible for standard s elaboration and accreditation; the Ministry of 
Agriculture, responsible for all phytosanitary issu es and the Ministry of Health, responsible for 
ensuring the safety of food.  These institutions are the focal points for the international standards 
institutions (standard setting organisation for TBT agreement and ISO member; Ministry of 
Agriculture for SPS and Ministry of Health for C odex).The establishment of a Food Control Safety 
System implies that the following el ements are put in place/reinforced. 
• Revision of National Legislation 
 
23. There is a need to revise legislation relati ng to food safety in order to harmonize it with 
international standards develope d under the SPS Agreement, by the OIE, Codex Alimentarius and 
IPPC and importing country or regi onal regulations such as the EU legislation.  One important 
requirement under the SPS Agreement is that measure s should be scientifically justified.  This 
requirement establishes the need fo r a risk based food control system.  Some countries have already 
initiated this process but there is a large body of regula tory texts that needs to be developed.  On this 
matter, the Inter-African Phytosanitary Council (IAPSC ) has drawn attention to the fact that care 
should be taken to develop legisl ation that can be implemented with the means that are available 
locally. 
• Standards development  
 
24. It is important to develop standards of tropical  fruits which are adequate to the varieties, 
production systems and climatic conditions each c ountry.  For that purpose, the standards setting 
organisation must be reinforced.  Besides setting a ppropriate standards, the organisation should also 
have the capacity to promote them and to implem ent systems to evaluate conformity to these 
standards.  This requires investment in terms of staff recruitment, systems development, acquisition of IT and communication systems and means of transport.  
• Reinforcement of the export certification procedures 
 
25. The exporting country has to provide a phytosanitary certificate which proves to the 
importing country that its requirements in term s of SPS are satisfied.  The accuracy of the 
phytosanitary certificate it issues is of paramount im portance for international trade.  When credibility 
is lost, this can result in stricter and more le ngthy inspection procedures in importing countries and 
eventually to market loss.  It is for these re asons that countries must strengthen their export 
certification services.  
26. The plant protection organisation must have ad equate infrastructure (border control points), 
equipment (field testing equipment for inspectors, means of transport), staff (sufficient number of  G/SPS/GEN/567 
 Page 7 
 
 
inspectors with adequate training).  A number of procedures for inspection must also be developed 
and implemented.  The system should be clearly documented so that importing countries can evaluate 
it.  
27. Some countries have already started this pro cess by increasing the number of border points. 
Others, such as Guinea, have established Single Expo rt Bureaus to simplify export procedures for that 
purpose, which include personnel for trade inspection and quarantine services.  However, investments 
in infrastructure, equipment and staff to  upgrade these structures are still needed. 
• Reinforcement of import inspection and quarantine services 
 
28. Countries have to set up an ade quate system to ensure that a ll food imported is safe for human 
consumption.  This is important in terms of consumers' health but also in terms of international trade:  
(1) ISPM (International Standard s for Phytosanitary Measures) 20 sets up requirements for import 
control; and (2) EU legislation is now requiring th at the food safety control system in place ensures 
the same level of safety as in the importing countries.   Additionally, quarantine services must have the 
resources necessary to ensure that imported fruit does not carry pests and diseases that may change 
the sanitary situation in the country and, subsequently, create obstacles to exports. 
29. To be able to comply with import controls, offi cers have identified the need to acquire testing 
equipment, training of personnel, upgrade or constr uction of quarantine and incineration facilities.  
The lack of effective communication systems has also been reported as a key constraint.  These 
systems are essential to set up procedures of notification of non-compliance. 
• Information, surveillance and alert systems  
 
30. Countries should set in place adequate systems to monitor pests, diseases and pesticide 
residues.  Surveillance systems must also be set up to monitor spread and outbreaks of food borne 
diseases.  The study highlights that these systems ar e not in place yet as they require a high resource 
commitment.  Firstly, there is a lack of information on pests and a lack of capacity to collect it.  Both 
Mozambique and Guinea are in the process of establis hing a Pest Status list.  Neither has routine 
monitoring systems in place.  These activities require the acquisition of testing equipment and training 
of staff in modern phytosanitary issues.  They also require the acquisition of communication systems 
and the development of databases with pest and di sease distribution data.  A notification process and a 
database on food borne diseases is also necessary. 
• Reinforcement of laboratory capacity  
 
31. In order to verify the quality of produce e xported and imported, the country must have the 
analytical capacity to evaluate various paramete rs including the presence of diseases and pesticide 
residue analysis.  The laboratories must be accredit ed to international level for the results of the 
analysis to be recognised world-wide.  Without accr editation the Ministry of Health cannot prove the 
safety of the food consumed locally and the Ministry of Agriculture cannot provide strong justification for the phytosanitary certificates it issues. 
32. In the countries visited there are several laboratories but, at present, none is accredited.  
Efforts should be made, thus, for key laboratories to  reach accreditation level.  There are some which 
are close to accreditation such as the TBS laborator ies in Tanzania and the CERE laboratory in 
Guinea. 
33. 
In terms of testing capacity, one constraint iden tified is the lack of pesticide residue testing 
capacity.  It is recommended that this capacity is  developed within the c ountry given the importance 
of MRLs level for exports to Europe.  Given the number  of laboratories, there is also a need to define 
the mandated and focus of working areas of each laboratory. G/SPS/GEN/567 
Page 8  
 
• Strengthening of systems for registrat ion and monitoring pesticide use and 
residues  
 
34. It is an important element of the system as it ensures that pesticides u sed in the country are 
safe and safely used.  It guarantees that the MRLs can be respected.  There is usually a wide body of 
legislation regulating these issues however, enforc ement is difficult due to lack of resources. 
• International quarantine pests need to be controlled  
 
35. The presence of these pests in some parts of the world restricts exports to countries where 
they are not present.  They constitute a barrier to trade and should be controlled.  For that purpose, 
countries should implement programmes to control these pests.  These programmes require technical 
expertise for the development of  contingency plans for key pest s and diseases and the acquisition of 
vehicles equipped for phytosanitary treatments. 
• Promotion of plant and food safety standards  
 
36. This is a responsibility of all the institutions in  the Food Safety Control System.  The Ministry 
of Agriculture has, for instance, the responsibility of promoting Good Agricultural Practices (GAP).  
Promotion of systems such as Integrated Pest Management is an essential component.  Technical and 
financial support could be sought to establish fo r instance pilot farms to demonstrate these 
management systems focusing on export fruits. 
37. The Ministry of Health has the responsibility to  promote health standards.  The Mozambique 
Ministry of Health, for example, has taken a step in this direction by publishing an inspection manual 
on food hygiene.  The same type of publication c ould be developed to raise awareness of safety issues 
in fresh fruits and vegetables. 
• Participation in International Standards Setting Organisations  
 
38. The SPS Agreement encourages governments to par ticipate actively in international standard 
setting bodies.  This starts by the ratification of in ternational treaties.  The key treaties have been 
signed by the three countries - the only exception being Mozambique which is not a member of the IPPC.  Participation also implies that country de legations attend the meetings of these bodies.  Until 
now attendance of these meetings by developing coun tries has been irregular as countries do not have 
the resources to send delegates.  Additionally, as officials interviewed noted, negotiations continue 
beyond the main meetings in working groups.  The m eetings and discussions at these kinds of fora are 
even more difficult for developing country members to follow.  Participation however, is not only 
about meeting attendance but also about having the t ools to participate fully in the negotiations.  This 
requires first and foremost that before each nego tiation and according to the agenda, sector studies are 
developed within the country to allow the formulation of a national position on specific issues.  To achieve that objective, committee meetings have al so to be organised prior to the regional or 
international meetings.  Training is also im portant to prepare officials for negotiations. 
• Training and access to information  
 
39. To implement all the components of a quality control system, there is a pressing need for 
training.  This can be in the form of training cour ses abroad, post graduate level, or in-house courses.  
The key idea is that knowledge required to implemen t the system evolves very quickly and demands 
continuous training.  Another key aspect is access  to updated information.  This can be through 
subscription to journals, acquisition of books and other publications.  Internet access was identified by 
all as one of the key instruments for training of offi cials.  This requires acquisition of computers and 
networking.  In terms of the private sector it is necessary to invest in ensuring relevant information  G/SPS/GEN/567 
 Page 9 
 
 
flows to the producers about market requirements.  The producers should be, for instance, regularly 
updated on the changes to the EU pesticide legisl ation which has direct impacts of their production 
practices. 
• Infrastructure upgrade  
 
40. In most cases there is a strong need to upgrade infrastructure.  In Mozambique, the standard 
setting organisation is pressed for space and is tryi ng to relocate to a new building.  The costs of 
upgrading and equipping the new infrastructure are high.  In all the Ministries of Agriculture visited, 
the need to construct/upgrade border inspec tion points and equip them was recognised. 
• Co-ordination  
 
41. Finally, one of the constraints identified was the lack of co-ordination between different 
ministries and committees.  There is, therefore, a need to create the structures with the necessary 
legitimacy and power to co-ordinate the activities in the food safety domain.  The need for co-
ordination at African level was also recognised by the stakeholders interviewed and, especially, by 
representatives of donor countries.  A co-ordinating body would have the responsibility to oversee and 
co-ordinate activities at the sub-regional and at Na tional levels.  It would also be responsible for 
ensuring the harmonization of food safety Legisla tion for Africa and for setting up a Rapid Alert 
system to warn national authorities of potential food hazards. 
42. Despite the need for reinforcement of food safet y control systems, these have to be lean and 
efficient, based on risk ranking systems to help  in determining the areas where limited resources 
should be devoted. 
4. Private sector 
43. The costs of compliance with EurepGap we re estimated through discussion with certified 
producers and other producers in the study count ries.  The EurepGap protocol requires high 
investment and know how.  Firstly, the farms visited had qualified personnel which had received 
specific training in implementing the EurepGap protoc ol.  The first task was to adapt the EurepGap 
checklist to be relevant for the context and pr oduce a manual for field procedures adapted to the 
production system. 
44. Growers faced high initial investments costs in constructing and upgrading structures such as 
toilets and baths, stores, shelters and offices.  Pes ticides stores were reported to be the more expensive 
item in all cases due to the stringent specifications for their construction.  However, some growers 
(who were already exporting before certification), had some infrastructure already in place and spent 
relatively less money on this. 
45. Some producers foresee that the adoption of the protocol may lead to a decrease in variable 
costs due to the reduction in pesticide use, the rationa l use of fertilizer, water and soil.  However, this 
may only become visible in the long term.  In fact, in the short term, variable costs may also increase due to an increase in labour costs resulting from the recruitment of specialized professionals and extra 
worker time for record keeping and management of conservation plans, provision of training, and 
medical examinations.  Other going costs include annua l costs of soil, water and pesticide analysis as 
well as inspection and certification costs. 
46. The EurepGap protocol is easily adapted to  large producers who have the human and 
financial resources to implement and monitor the Eure pGap system.  This has been the experience in 
most countries. G/SPS/GEN/567 
Page 10  
 
47. However, it is also possible to obtain a group certification for Produce Marketing 
Organisations (PMOs), which can be "a co-operative or  other group of growers that have a legal entity 
that takes over responsibilities of EurepGap implemen tation for the associated and contracted growers 
through an internal control system". 
48. This possibility has led to the adoption of the pr otocol by small holders in many parts of the 
world, including Europe and Africa.  In Kenya, for instance, support from the government, NGOs and 
producers associations, have allowed more than 50,0 00 small outgrowers to apply for certification of 
various vegetables and fruits (avocado, passion fruit and mango).  Examples exist for fruits in other 
African countries such as pineapples in Ghana.  Th e protocol has shown some degree of flexibility 
and producers have been able to devise their own st rategies to implement protocol rules to their own 
conditions. 
49. In the study countries selected, only large producers have so far adopted the protocol.  Some 
are, however, developing plans to set up outgrow er schemes with smallholders which will apply for 
certification as PMOs.  For such schemes to be  successful and multiply, it is necessary that 
governments provide their support or an enabling environment for others to take the lead. 
50. One of the constraints to the adoption of the prot ocol identified during this study is the lack of 
knowledge about the protocol.  It is, therefore, impor tant to provide information to producers and the 
public officials about the protocol.  These activities s hould not be restricted to EurepGap as it is not 
the only protocol, however, due to its uptake in the world and comprehensiveness it is a good first 
example. 
51. Another important constraint is the absence of  local certification companies for EurepGap.  
Certification bodies wishing to certify against Eure pGap need to be accredited by FoodPLUS, the 
company which serves as the legal owner of the protocol.  A prerequisite for accreditation is an ISO 65/EN 45011 accreditation.  Exporters contacted in Tanzania and Mozambique said they have had to 
resort to multinational companies for certification.   These are often expensive.  One way to address 
this problem would be to stimulate the creation of  local certification companies which can provide 
certification services to the farmers at adequate pri ces.  Creating local technical assistance companies 
would also help the farmers reach compliance. 
52. Developing country stakeholders need to particip ate actively in the EurepGap to ensure that 
their particular conditions are taken into account in the development of the standard.  The organisation 
has, for instance, set up a Technical Working Group to  bring its activities closer to the grower and to 
gain input from national experts.  There are, however, no African delegates in the Fruits and 
Vegetable Working Group.  Another avenue is to  participate as a supplier member or an associate 
member.  At present there are only a few supplier members from developing countries and a couple of European and African NGOs as asso ciate members.  Participation at  this level should therefore be 
increased so that the interests of Afri can producers are adequately represented. 
53. Lastly it has to be recalled that, despite th e study having focused on EurepGap, it does not 
mean that certification with this protocol will nece ssarily confer advantages to the producer.  Before 
making the requisite investments, individual grower s must evaluate which set of rules or which 
protocol will serve their specific objectives.  Other protocols such as Fairtrade or Organic Standards, may give them a better advantage in the market.  The EurepGap is used here only as a proxy for 
calculating the costs for producers of comply with quality and safety standards and making recommendations on what support producers may need. 
 
__________