Challenges for the fresh fruit and vegetable FFV sector and state of development of GAP in Thailand

1
Challenges for the fresh fruit and vegetable
(FFV) sector and state of development of GAP in
Thailand
2
Structure of presentation

• The FFV sector in Thailand
• Export requirements
• Key development
• Implementation of GAP by the DOA
• Support to the GAP programme
• SWOT analysis, driving forces and constrains
• Perspectives
• Issues identified for attention
• Conclusion

3
1. The FFV sector in Thailand

• Agri. sector is 13 of GDP (68 is crops)
• Agricultural sector involves 56 of the pop.
• Average farm size 3.7 ha
• Baby corn farm size 0.5-1.6 ha
• Tangerine farm size 1-18 ha
• Value of agri. export Bht 618 Bn (2003)
• Value longan export Bht 4,138 M (2004)
• Value durian export Bht 1,636 M (2004)
• Value asparagus export Bht 255 M (2004)
• Value baby corn export Bht 113 M (2004)

4
The main export markets

• Longan China and ASEAN countries (85).
• Durian China and Taiwan (90).
• Asparagus Taiwan and Japan (87).
• Baby corn EU countries (73).

5
Requirements for export of FFV

• Requirements vary from country to country
• Exporter has to fulfill requirements of importers
  and governments of the importing countries
• Many countries require a pesticide residue
  certificate
• Some importers require EUREPGAP certification

6
Thai requirements for export of FFV

• Registration of exporters of fresh durian and
  longan fruits
• Pesticide residue certificate for export of 12
  fruits and vegetables to the EU and 6 other
  countries
• Pesticide residue certificate for 21 vegetables
  and herbs to Japan
• GAP certification for pineapples, longan and
  lichee to Australia
• Sanitary certificate for 8 vegetables to EU

7
3. Key development

• Food safety is increasingly emphasized for export
  of FFV
• Many requirements and regulations on food safety
  have been promulgated
• DOA Q-GAP implementation started in 2004,
  following earlier schemes

8
Offices involved with food safety in the
Department of Agriculture (DOA)
Cluster 1 Admin.
Cluster 2 Basic and Applied Research and Dev.
Cluster 3 Prod. Res. Dev.
Cluster 4 Regional Research Dev.

• Plant Protection
• Research and Dev. Office
• Agri. Production Science Research and Dev. Office
• Post harvest
• Product Processing
• Research and Dev. Office

• Office of Agri.
• Regulations
• Information Technology Center
• Technical One Stop Service Center (TOSSC)

• Horticulture
• Research Institute

• Office of Agri. Research and
• Development
• (OARD)

9
Food Safety Committee Coordination of food
safety programme in DOA
Food Safety Committee
Sub. Com on GAP Certification
Sub. Com on Coordination Info. Services
Sub. Com on Technical Support
Sub. Com on Implementation

• Office of Agri.
• Res.Dev.
• Tech. One Stop
• Ser.

• Agri. Prod. Sci.
• Res. Dev. Office
• Post-harvest Prod.
• Proc.Res.Dev.
• Office
• Office Agri. Res.
• Dev.

• Tech. One Stop.
• Ser.
• Office of Agri..
• Reg.
• Office of Agri.
• Res. Dev.
• Post-harvest
• Prod. Proc. Res.
• Dev. Office
• Inf. Tech. Sys.

• Post-harvest
• Prod. Proc. Res.
• Dev. Office
• OfficeAgri. Res.
• Dev.
• Agri. Prod.Sci.
• Res. Dev. Office

10
4. DOA and Food Safety

• Focus of DOA strategies and measures
• Inputs and raw materials
• Production at farm level (GAP)
• Packing house and processing establishments
• Agricultural produce

11
Establishment of the Q programme

• Commodity departments and ACFS signed MOU in 2003
• ACFS is Accreditation Body (AB) 6 other
  departments have status of Certification Body
  (CB)
• Q logo is common logo for all agri. products
• DOA grants several Q certifications including
• ? Q Shop ? Q GAP
• ? Q GMP ? Q GMP/HACCP
• ? Q Fumigation ? Q Food Safety

12
Objectives of GAP programme

• Government wants to ensure that food crops are
  safe, wholesome and meet standards
• GAP programme is meant to
• Maintain consumer confidence
• Ensure safety for growers
• Minimize negative impact on the environment

13

• Previous programmes
• Hygienic vegetables, Pesticide-safe
  vegetables and other variations.
• Private and public sector
• Implementing government agencies were
  DOA, DOAE, DMS
• Programmes substituted by the new Q programme

14
GAP inspection/certification process
GAP volunteers
- Completes the application form
Grower

• - Makes appointment
• Dispatches inspector
• Inspect farm and
• production plan
• Summarize results

- Trains grower
OARD
OARD Board
- Reviews result

Subcom. on GAP certification
- Compiles information
- Issues GAP certif.
Com. on Food Safety Mgmt
15
Levels of GAP certification

• Level 1 Pesticide-residue safe (within MRL)
• Level 1 most GAP certified farms today
• Level 2 1 pest free
• Level 3 2 quality
• Level 2 and 3 Direction for the future.
  Currently only a small number of farms certified
  for these levels, esp. vegetables

16
Status of GAP implementation

• Q shop (9000 shops selling inputs in Thailand)
  - 32 certified so far, 40 more have applied
• Q GAP
• - 440,000 farmers applied, of which 136,000
  certified so far, covering an area of
  2,800,000 rai (6-7 of total)
• Q GMP/HACCP
• - 795 processors applied, of which 519
  certified so far.
• Pesticide residue analysis for FFV - 10
  exceeded MRLs in 2003, 4 in 2004- Rejected
  consignments 0.36 in 2003, 0.13 in 2004

17
Documents that guide FFV producers on applying
GAP

• GAP implementation guidelines
• GAP for specific crops
• For inspectors GAP inspection manual and
  Checklists for GAP inspection

18
Capacity building provided to inspectors and
volunteers

• Training for GAP inspectors
• 4-day training course
• 4-day refresher training, every 3-6 months
• Training for GAP volunteers
• 2-day training course from inspectors
• Inspector GAP volunteer Grower
• 1 25
  1,250
• Currently there are 700 inspectors in total

19

• Support to the GAP programme
• Private sector involvement
• Private sector programmes on-going
• Main incentives to implement GAP for government,
  private sector and farmers
• Q GAP to meet export requirements
• Influence of Q GMP/HACCP on Q GAP

20
1. Strengths of GAP programme

• DOA has a very strong network with eight OARDs
• DOA has many well-trained and experienced
  personnel

21
2. Weaknesses of the GAP programme

• Unclear linkages among Departments
• Units in Department work independently
• DOA not familiar with new tasks
• Weak in analysis of microorganisms
• Personnel do not work solely on GAP
• Documents on GAP are quite confusing

22
3. Opportunitiesand threats for the GAP
programme

• Opportunities
• Government policy support for food safety
• Market access, possibly with price premium
• Threats
• Failures may undermine confidence

23
Driving forces and Constraints

• Driving forces
• Thai Government policy
• Constraints
• Limited resources, poor education
• Profits from GAP not equally shared along the
  chain
• Immediate needs of farmers not addressed
• Pesticides remain a cheap solution for farmers
  because of subsidies
• Physical appearance of FFV is key in determining
  market price, more than other factors
• Lack of reliable information
• Labour shortages increase herbicide use
• Weak institutional coordination

24
Perspectives

• Lessons learnt from previous programmes
• Inclusion of environmental social issues
• Increase in demand for GAP

25
Issues for attention Marketing level

• Fair and equitable financial reward
• Participating in inspection and endorsing the
  quality of produce
• Storage facilities
• Shortening the supply chain
• etc.

26
Issues for attention Government level

• Written, complete GAP manual, increase
  consistency and transparency
• Technical equivalence of ThaiGAP with
  international programmes
• Disseminate information on food safety programme
• Avoid redundant regulations/requirements
• Coordination among ministries, departments
• etc.

27
Issues for attention Farming level

• Training in non-production skills
• Cold storage facilities
• Q-GAP should include collecting house
• Micro-organism hazards should be addressed
• Simplify guidelines
• Alternative avenues for information dissemination
  
• etc.

28
Summary of Key Challenges

• Coordination among the different divisions
• Strengthen capabilities of farmers and traders
• Fair and equitable financial returns
• Building awareness to all supply chain actors
• High number of farms and processing firms
• Long supply chains

29
Conclusion

• Consistent, transparent, acceptable system takes
  time to develop
• Exported FFV have improved in safety and quality
  through Q programme
• There should be consistent follow-up to
  recommendations that have been made by projects
  and workshops