17-01-2013, 04:20 PM
Good Agricultural Practices – a working concept
Good Agricultural.pdf (Size: 1.51 MB / Downloads: 63)
Executive summary
This paper was prepared for the FAO Internal Workshop on a Good Agricultural Practice
approach, which took place in Rome, Italy, 27-29 October 2004. It presents an overview on
GAP, from the research and extension services which for many decades have been providing
production guidelines to farmers, how the concept of Good Agricultural Practices has evolved
out of such recommendations and the recent evolution of GAP in food markets.
The paper then lays out the history of the GAP framework development in FAO which
started from early discussions focused on the work of visiting scientist David Connor who
proposed some 'common principles of good agricultural practices'. Guidance on Good
Agricultural Practices was received from the 17th Session of the Committee on Agriculture
(COAG) in April 2003, which led to an expert consultation on GAP in 2003 and the definition
of a GAP concept for FAO.
Following this consultation, an internal FAO workshop on GAP was organized from 27-
29 October 2004, to provide a forum for exchanges on GAP methodologies, approaches and
lessons. This paper presents a number of proposed action areas at global, national and subnational
level. It then outlines the contexts in which a GAP approach can be useful and areas
of expertise which FAO can bring into GAP work.
The ultimate goal of FAO GAP activities is to assist developing countries in developing
appropriate protocols and processes which fit the local context, with a special focus to ensure
that small and medium-holders can participate in GAP-orientated markets, which will continue
to be of major importance in the global food system.
THE STARTING POINT: RESEARCH AND EXTENSION GUIDELINES
Research and extension services for many decades, especially in developed countries, have been
providing production guidelines to farmers and livestock producers. Objectives include
increased productivity, improvement of natural resources use and the generation of higher
farmer income. Such recommendations for growers/producers are generally organized
following the sequence of activities and choices in the production process, such as:
• crop rotation considerations (the choice of what to produce and when);
• land preparation; tillage;
• plant nutrient requirements; fertilizer kinds and amounts;
• crop establishment methods; planting density, arrangement etc.;
• weed control;
• pest and disease control, with IPM principles in some cases;
• water management and irrigation
• harvest methods;
• livestock rations and feeding systems
• on-farm storage methods, etc.
Often the recommendations give farmers/producers a ‘basket of choices’ from which to select
what they should do to be agronomically and economically successful within the given agroecosystem.
Recommendations get updated as new knowledge is generated. In the past three
decades, perceived failure of research and extension in developing countries to disseminate
these codified ‘good’ practices to farmers and to take into account the variety of farmers’
circumstances and local and indigenous knowledge has given rise to the development of
approaches of participatory technology development, Knowledge Attitudes and Practices and
farmers to farmer extension, in order to more effectively identify and support better farming
practices.
RECENT EVOLUTION: GAP IN FOOD MARKETS
The concept of Good Agricultural Practices has evolved out of, and expands on, such production
recommendations. Consumers and hence the food industry and the development community are
every day more concerned that food – more and more of which comes through processing and
supermarket chains - is safe to eat. They also increasingly care that commodities are produced in
ways that are in harmony with the environment and social values (e.g., at least the minimal needs
of farm workers are met, international agreements on child labour are respected, etc.).
These shifts in the values associated with agriculture in many developed countries have
given rise in the past twenty years to a wide array of social, environmental and quality
standards, codes of practices and certification programmes in agriculture and the food sector.1
Governments, especially in developed countries, have established regulations on food safety
and quality, voluntary standards on organic agriculture, and sustainability assessments schemes.
A multiplicity of ‘GAP’ codes, standards and regulations have also appeared from
governments, NGOs and CSOs as well as producers organizations and the food industry,
claiming to codify sustainable agriculture at farm level.
The terminology “Good Agricultural Practices” (GAP) is explicitly used in some of these
codes, though not all. Still in all these standards, the underlying assumption is that the standard
codifies some form of good practice. However, there is little common ground in these codes
as to how a ‘good’ practice is defined. The term “good agricultural practices’ is used to refer
to widely varying elements, from monitoring of pesticides use, to more encompassing aspects
of primary production and post production systems, such as environmental impact assessment
or labour conditions.
INITIAL WORK: DEFINING COMMON PRINCIPLES OF GAP
Early discussions focused on the work of visiting scientist David Connor who proposed some
“common principles of good agricultural practices”.8 These principles describe farming that
uses available technology optimally to promote agricultural productivity of safe and healthy
food, to achieve economic viability and agricultural, environmental sustainability and social
responsibility, although this last dimension remains somewhat insufficiently addressed in the
framework. The underlying process is one of knowing, understanding, planning, measuring,
recording, and of managing in order to identify social, environmental and economic aspects of
production goals and monitor related impacts. This requires a sound and comprehensive
farming strategy and the capability for responsive tactical adjustments as circumstances change.
Success depends upon developing the skill and knowledge bases, on continuous recording and
analysis of performance, and the use of expert advice as required.
Conclusion
The further development of GAPs, as a technical and policy basis for food safety,
environmental protection, economic and social equity, is an important way forward, which will
contribute to but should not be confused with the wider subjects of SARD and Sustainable
Livelihoods.
It is important for future work that GAPs are clearly defined as a process of decisionmaking
for farmers based on the sequence of choices described above. This process goes on
through the phenology of the crop production and on-farm storage until the product moves
to market or processing. It should be based on risk analysis principles, not only related to food
safety but also to environmental and social concerns. GAP, together with GMP and biosecurity,
are regarded as the prerequisites to HACCP applied to primary production and throughout the
food chain.
The big challenge for FAO from our perspective (we think others share this vision) is to
help countries develop appropriate protocols and processes that fit the local context but with
special focus to ensure that small and medium-holders can participate in GAP-oriented
markets, which are becoming and will continue to become a major focus of the global food
system. AG technical divisions can work with others on technical advice regarding production
protocols but the process of engaging farmers and policy makers and food industries, for
example on aspects related to food safety and social equity, requires a broad involvement of
much of FAO’s technical competence and normative tools.