Sustainability Standards and Agro-food
Exports from Africa: Case of Vegetable
Exports from Tanzania
By
Raymond Mnenwa
Outline of the paper
 Introduction
 Main trends and developments
 Implementation of GLOBALGAP schemes in Tanzania
 Conclusions and recommendations
Introduction
Setting
 Focuses on GlobalGAP standards as an example of sustainability





standards that are implemented in East Africa.
Based on a research conducted between 2006 and 2008 in Arusha
and Kilimanjaro Regions.
Responds to the concerns on how the poor can benefit from the
growing markets for high value agricultural products.
Opportunities for traditional exports are declining while those for
non-tradional exports increasing.
Food standards requirements set by buyers in the developed
countries have emerged only recently as a critical issue for market
access.
The share of vegetable exports from Tanzania is persistently small
even after the introduction of GlobalGAP schemes, suggesting
existence of market constraints and challenges.
Introduction cont’d
Hypotheses
 Since certified farmers benefit in terms of premium prices,
guaranteed market, improved management, and improved
product quality; the benefits of participating in GlobalGAP
compliance schemes will be higher than compliance costs.
 Since GlobalGAP schemes are implemented through a
contract farming system; certified farmers benefit from
contract farming arrangements more than they do from the
actual GlobalGAP certification per se.
Introduction cont’d
Methodology
 The study was conducted in Arusha and Kilimanjaro regions;
 Kilimanjaro and Arusha are the places where GlobalGAP schemes




are implemented in the country.
Both primary and secondary data were collected on these aspects.
146 (69 certified and 77 uncertified) smallholder farmers; 5 (all
uncertified) medium scale farmers; 5 (three certified and 2
uncertified) large scale farmers and one exporter was drawn.
Primary data were collected using a semi-structured
questionnaire.
Qualitative analysis was used to assess the structure and
characteristics of the value chain, while quantitative analysis using
means were used to quantify costs and benefits of compliance.
The GlobalGAP standards
 GlobalGAP standards are one of the sustainability standards






implemented in East Africa.
Sustainability standards are standards which seek to operationalise
and codify the concept of environmental and social sustainability.
Other examples of sustainability standards: Organic farming; Fair
trade; Rainforest Alliance; Utz certified.
GlobalGAP is designed to embody Good Agricultural practices
(GAP) and Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP)
It is owned by European based growers; food manufacturers; and
retailers.
Covers fruits; fresh vegetables; green coffee; tea; flowers;
ornamentals; livestock; feeds; and acquature.
Defines GAP in relation to integrated crop management; integrated
pest control; quality management; hazard analysis and critical
control points; worker health; safety; welfare; environmental
protection and conservation.
GlobalGAP schemes
 GlobalGAP can be implemented under two main types of
schemes: Option 1 and Option 2.
 Option 1=An individual producer applies for GlobalGAP
certification and becomes the certificate holder.
 Option 2=A producer group applies for the GlobalGAP
group certification and the group becomes the certificate
holder.
 In Tanzania smallholders are certified under Option 2 while
large scale producers are certified under Option 1.
GlobalGAP in Tanzania at farm level
 Certification
 Upgrading
 Traceability and monitoring
Certification
 The scheme is implemented under a contract arrangement which





interestingly has both certified and uncertified.
For large scale farmers, because they have the capacity are registered
under Option 1.
The farmers have to be able to meet GAP requirements: In the study
area among the 12 medium scale farms that were visited only 4 had
acquired a GlobalGAP certificate.
Smallholder farmers have to be organized in groups (PMO) to be
certified under Option 2.
Out of the 7 cooperatives three had acquired a full GlobalGAP
compliance status.
Certification process is complicated by the lack certifiers locally,
external certifiers are expensive.
Upgrading
 GlobalGAP has sets of requirements including record keeping system,




site management, soil erosion control, fertilizer usage and storage,
quality of water for irrigation, use and handling of chemicals, product
handling during harvesting, post harvest treatment, worker health,
safety and worker welfare, and environment issues.
These require construction of chemical stores, toilets, mixing areas and
water taps; purchase of chemical application equipment and facilities for
disposal; and purchase of grading, cooling and storage facilities.
Most of these investments could only be made by the large and medium
scale vegetable producers.
Literature acknowledges the role of lead firms in upgrading (Gereffi,
1999) and in governing value chains (Gereffi, 1994).
Both the farmers and exporters have been receiving support from their
respective lead firms and development partners.
Traceability and monitoring
 According to Golan, et al. (2004), traceability systems are record
keeping systems designed to track the flow of product or product
attributes through the production process or supply chain.
 GlobalGAP Protocol, specific procedures designed to produce
particular desired outputs are outlined.
 Producers certified under Option 2 are organized in a PMO
which have a well developed quality management system (QMS)
routinely audited every three months with the fourth inspection
being the basis for the renewal of certification.
 Producers certified under Option 1 do not have to establish a
QMS, but they are required to carry out internal assessment at
least once a year against the GlobalGAP Integrated Farm
Assurance (IFA) Control Points and Compliance Criteria (CPCC).
Benefits of compliance
 No-financial benefits: capacity building-training, access to credit,




introduction of new crops, intensification, quality, market access,
auditing and traceability.
The study shows that certified smallholder farmers have realized yields.
For instance baby corn and green beans peas yields for certified farmers
are high than the yields for uncertified farmers by 10% and 16%,
respectively; and more so for peas in which certified farmers yields are
higher by almost 32%.
The prices for uncertified fine beans and snow peas farmers are lower by
almost 1.8% and 1.7% respectively, than the prices for certified
farmers.
Net revenues from for certified smallholder farmers from baby corn was
10% and 24% higher than the revenues for uncertified farmers.
Conclusions
 Compliance with GlobalGAP has both benefits and costs.
 Benefits include financial non financial benefits
 Costs include certification costs, upgrading and traceability and
monitoring;
 Certified farmers have double benefits: contract and certification
benefits;
 Since both certified and uncertified are both in the contract
farming system then the differences can largely be explained by
certification.
 If costs of training, auditing, certification, etc were included
GlobalGAP would be less feasible to smallholder farmers. This
threatens its sustainability.
Recommendations
 It is proposed that the resources such as agricultural inputs,
equipment and services provided by the lead buyers in importing
countries and exporters in Tanzania could be relieved of taxation.
 Of now exporters rely on external certifiers from abroad who are
practically expensive and unreliable. An effort is proposed to
promote the establishment and capacity building for local
certification bodies.
 For the effective policies to promote GlobalGAP schemes there
must be strong and practical interventions specific to contract
farming and certification.
 Interventions are also required to promote PMOs for them to
convert into strong organisation which can take the lead in
certification, upgrading and traceability.
THANK
YOU