Abstract
Michida and Nabeshima examine the diffusion of standards for good agricultural practices (GAPs) in the Asian region. They emphasize that Asian governments view GAPs as important for maintaining access to export markets, improving farming practices and facilitating intra-regional trade through standards harmonization. Despite these common motivations, responses across the region were remarkably heterogeneous. They identify four different responses based on whether public or private actors played the main role and how closely the standards created in the region followed the principles adopted in the EU. Most of the GAP standards in Asia are too dissimilar from the standards in the EU. They suggest that ad hoc adaption of foreign private standards may lead to mismatch with a country’s philosophy, needs and industrial structure.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
How an entity meets standards is via one of the three methods: self-evaluation, supplier audit, or third-party certification. A standard scheme is typically associated with the third form: third-party certification.
- 2.
FAO GAP Page, http://www.fao.org/prods/gap/.
- 3.
For any kind of standards, there are three different ways to assess compliance. The first is self-assessment, where the practitioners assess their own actions. Promotion and adaption of best practices typically falls into this category. The second is assessment by the buyer. In a business setting, this is often used in the form of supplier audits by the buyer. The third type is third-party certification schemes, where the assessment is done by an independent entity, often a well-established certification agency. ISO certification falls into this category and Chapter 11 deals with ISO certifications.
- 4.
GLOBALG.A.P. homepage http://www.globalgap.org/uk_en/who-we-are/about-us/history/index.html, accessed on 24 November 2015.
- 5.
For instance, in a sample of firms in Peru studied by Schuster and Maertens (2015), GLOBALG.A.P. certification was the main private standard adopted by the Peruvian asparagus industry, accounting for 34% of the standards adopted. HACCP and BRC are the top two standards adopted in food processing establishments in the Peruvian asparagus industry.
- 6.
For more on the history of GLOBALG.A.P., please see (Van Der Grijp et al. 2005).
- 7.
This is especially true if such regulations are seen as impediments to international trade. Because all countries in East Asia are members of the WTO, Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT), and Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) agreements require that such measures be based on scientific evidence.
- 8.
See Chapter 2 by Humphrey for standard and standard scheme.
- 9.
Even though GLOBALG.A.P. certification may increase export sales, organic certification may provide a higher return. In the case of pineapple producers in Ghana, organic certification created more value for farmers (Kleemann et al. 2014).
- 10.
For GLOBALG.A.P. applied to certified lychee exports from Madagascar, see Subervie and Vagneron (2013).
- 11.
There are questions about the legitimacy of this approach. Even if it promotes trade, regulations could be set without the participation of domestic citizens.
- 12.
Peraturan Menteri Pertanian Nomor 47/Pementan/OT.140/4/2013.
- 13.
According to the interviews by JETRO Indonesia on 21 January 2015, but the situation may change.
- 14.
In Japan, many different local GAPs were introduced because initially GAPs were introduced as a best practice scheme, rather than as a standards scheme to ensure a certain level of food safety uniformly across the country. This means that GAPs in Japan are not standardized. There is much confusion in Japan, where many equate GAP with GLOBALG.A.P. and JGAP, when in fact the GAPs that are present in Japan are mainly best practices (with self-assessment), whereas GLOBALG.A.P. and JGAP are standards schemes that require verification by a third party.
- 15.
To accommodate these needs, GLOBALG.A.P. establishes national technical working groups. The groups can develop national standards equivalent to GLOBALG.A.P. that are then benchmarked to GLOBALG.A.P. in a process organized by GLOBALG.A.P. that is subject to the approval of its members and is accepted by international buyers.
- 16.
Source: http://www.quacert.gov.vn/en/good-agriculture-practice.nd185/vietgap-standard.i88.html accessed on 26 January2015.
- 17.
From the Minister of Agriculture and Agro-based Industry website: http://www.moa.gov.my/en/mygap, accessed 4January 2016.
- 18.
Peraturan Menteri Pertanian No. 48/Permentan/OT.140/10/2009
- 19.
With Administrative order no.25, series of 2005 of the Department of Agriculture
- 20.
Ministerial Decision No. 099, Ministry of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries, 3 October2010
- 21.
Decision of the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry No 0115/MAF, 27 January 2011 for food safety, Decision of the Minister on Good Agriculture Practices for Environmental Management Standard No. 0538/MAF, Decision of the Minister on Good Agriculture Practices for Produce Quality Management Standard No. 0539/MAF.
- 22.
For this to happen, strong leadership is needed. In the EU, where the retail sector is highly concentrated, this was provided by retailers.
- 23.
Harmonizing regulations is difficult. Even if public regulations are based on scientific evidence, how such scientific evidence is framed can create different regulatory regimes. The situation in the EU and the US illustrates this clearly. The EU generally takes a precautionary approach. In this regulatory philosophy, scientific evidence must establish the absence of harm. In contrast, the US takes a reactive approach. Scientific evidence required is to show that positive harm will be caused. It is often harder to establish that something is safe than it is to establish that something is dangerous. Depending on the philosophy of the regulatory approach, regulations aimed at a similar goal may still have different levels of strictness.
References
FAO. (2004). Good agriculture practices: A working concept. FAO GAP Working Paper. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Rome.
Henson, S., & John, H. (2009). The Impact of Private Food Safety Standards on the Food Chain and on the Public Standard-Setting Process. FAO and WHO. www.fao.org/3/a-i1132e.pdf
Henson, S., & John, H. (2010). Understanding the complexities of private standards in global agri-food chains as they impact developing countries. The Journal of Development Studies, 46(9), 1628–1646.
Henson, S., Oliver, M., & John, C. (2011). Do fresh produce exporters in Sub-Saharan Africa benefit from GLOBALGAP certification? World Development, 39(3), 375–386.
Henson, S., & Humphrey, J. (2012). Private standards in global agri-food chains. In Marx, A., Maertens, M., & Swinnen, J. F. (Eds.), Private standards and global governance: Economic, legal and political perspectives, 98–113. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Herzfeld, T., Drescher, L. S., & Grebitus, C. (2011). Cross-national adoption of private food quality standards. Food Policy, 36(3), 401–411. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2011.03.006.
Humphrey, J. (2008). Privates standards, small farmers and donor policy: EUREPGAP in Kenya. IDS Working Paper. Institute of Development Studies, the University of Sussex. Brighton, UK.
Humphrey, J. (2012). Convergence of US and EU production practice under the new FDA food safety modernization act. The World Economy, 35(8), 994–1005.
ITC. (2011). The impacts of private standards on global value chains: Literature review series on the impacts of private standards - Part I. Geneva: International Trade Centre.
Jaffee, S., & Masakure, O. (2005). Strategic use of private standards to enhance international competitiveness: Vegetable exports from Kenya and elsewhere. Food Policy, 30(3), 316–333. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2005.05.009.
Jänicke, M. (2005). Trend-setters in environmental policy: The character and role of pioneer countries. Environmental Policy and Governance, 15(2), 129–142.
Kersting, S., & Wollni, M.. (2012). New institutional arrangements and standard adoption: Evidence from small-scale fruit and vegetable farmers in Thailand. Food Policy, 37(4), 452–462. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2012.04.005.
Kleemann, L., Abdulai, A., &Buss, M. (2014). Certification and access to export markets: Adoption and return on investment of organic-certified pineapple farming in Ghana. World Development, 64(0), 79–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.05.005.
Lei, L. (2015). A closer look at diffusion of ChinaGAP. IDE Discussion Paper 501, Institute of Developing Economies, Japan External Trade Organization, Chiba, Japan.
Loader, R., & Jill, E. H. (1999). Strategic responses to food safety legislation. Food Policy, 24(6), 685–706.
Meseguer, C. (2005). Policy learning, policy diffusion, and the making of a new order. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 598(1), 67–82.
Nabeshima, K., Etsuyo, M., Aya, S., & Vu H. N. (2015). Emergence of Asian GAPs and its relationship to global G.A.P. IDE Discussion Paper 507, Institute of Developing Economies, Japan External Trade Organization, Chiba, Japan.
Schuster, M., & Maertens, M. (2015). The impact of private food standards on developing countries’ export performance: An analysis of asparagus firms in Peru. World Development, 66(0), 208–221. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.08.019.
Subervie, J., & Vagneron, I. (2013). A drop of water in the Indian Ocean? The impact of GlobalGap certification on lychee farmers in Madagascar. World Development, 50(0), 57–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2013.05.002.
Van Der Grijp, N. M., Marsden, T., & Cavalcanti, J. S. B. (2005). European retailers as agents of change towards sustainability: The case of fruit production in Brazil. Environmental Sciences, 2(1), 31–46. 10.1080/15693430512331333384.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Michida, E., Nabeshima, K. (2017). Diffusion of Private Food Standards from the European Union to Asia. In: Michida, E., Humphrey, J., Nabeshima, K. (eds) Regulations and International Trade. IDE-JETRO Series. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55041-1_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55041-1_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-55040-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-55041-1
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)