Traceability implementation in developing. countries, its possibilities and its constraints. A few case studies

Transcription

1 Traceability implementation in developing countries, its possibilities and its constraints A few case studies Note: This essay was prepared by Céline Germain,a volunteer working at FAO in Chapter 1 on Pre-requisites for Traceability has been updated as much as possible as of June 2005, but the case studies reflect the status of the indicated situation in This essay does not necessarily reflect the position of FAO, but is provided for information. This is NOT an official FAO publication and has not been formally proofread.

2 Summary Traceability/ product tracing is defined by the Codex Alimentarius Commission 1 as the ability to follow the movement of a food through specified stage(s) of production, processing and distribution. The International Standards Organization (ISO ) defines Traceability as the ability to trace the history, application or location of an entity by means of recorded identifications. The EU General Food Law (Regulation [EC] No. 178/2002, Article 18 paragraph 1) offers a definition of traceability with particular regard to food and feed sectors: Traceability means the ability to trace and follow a food, feed, food-producing animals or substance intended to be, or expected to be, incorporated into a food or feed, through all stages of production, processing and distribution. In general, traceability measures can be used to: improve the management of risks related to food safety and animal health issues; guarantee products authenticity and to give reliable information to customers; improve products quality and processes. With regard to international trade, new legal requirements in mainly developed countries relating to traceability have recently been implemented, and in various sectors, importing countries have placed increasing pressure on exporting countries to comply with traceability requirements. These measures, however, must comply with the World Trade Organization agreements; they must be justified as having a sanitary or phytosanitary (SPS) objective 3 or as having a legitimate objective. 4 When international debates are held, developing countries emphasize the significant constraints 5 they face in implementing the required traceability systems; in addition, they have argued that establishing international standards on traceability would not favour them. Traceability is not a purely Western initiative: many interesting developments are under way in developing countries. Harmonized standards for traceability, inspection and certification systems within the organic production sector, for instance, would facilitate organic export from developing countries to the premium markets of the Western world. However, as outlined below, these countries can face significant constraints. Developing exporting countries face different situations (for instance, sanitary, economic and structural) than countries in the EU. This study then outlines the key issues involved in implementing traceability systems in developing countries, and sheds light on the particular constraints and problems they face. The aim is to provide an overview of the possibilities and constraints of traceability implementation in developing countries in several examples of products intended for export (to the developed world). Three case studies are examined in detail: 1 The production of bovine meat (with traceability used as a tool to control animal health and/or food safety hazards). 2 Pistachio production (with traceability used as a tool to control food safety hazards). 3 Organic agricultural products (with traceability used as a tool to guarantee products authenticity and to provide customers with reliable information). 4 1 Adopted at its 27th session (July 2004) 2 International Organization for Standardization : standard available at 3 According to Article 3 of the SPS agreement. 4 According to article 2, paragraph 6 of the TBT agreement. 5 And especially the costs. 2

3 PRODUCTION OF BOVINE MEAT INTENDED FOR EXPORT Because of their trading links with the European Union (EU), the four Mercosur countries Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, and Paraguay and Botswana and Namibia are under increasing pressure to implement more comprehensive and more efficient animal identification and traceability systems. These systems would enable them to: improve the control of disease outbreaks; avoid consecutive huge trade losses; possibly gain access to premium markets; control lost and stolen cattle; and improve systems efficiency. In most of the developing countries reviewed for this document, improved cattle-identification systems are currently under development. On the whole, they are designed to apply only to bovines intended for export (Argentina, Namibia, Uruguay, Brazil, Chile). However, developing countries still face significant constraints when attempting to implement traceability systems, including the following: high costs and lack of financial resources; for some of the countries, huge size and dispersion of the various stakeholders; lack of infrastructure and knowledge. Most systems of animal identification are currently based on ear tags 1. In order to fully implement an animal traceability system, each animal must be identified individually. However, several issues related to the implementation of animal identification systems have to be addressed, and the answers may differ from one country to another: Is individual identification actually necessary? Does the traceability system have to be extended to the entire national cattle population? How should appropriate legislations be designed? Would traceability and certification allow bovine meat for export to be sold at higher prices? PISTACHIO PRODUCTION FOR EXPORT Implementing traceability systems in pistachios produced for export is vital. This would allow the management of the risk of aflatoxin contamination in consignments from countries such as Iran or Turkey. However, in both countries, traceability implementation is only beginning. In Iran, the biggest pistachio producer and exporter in the world, traceability is recognized by the authorities as a critical element for the control system and in need of development as soon as feasible. It is clear that if Iran wants to keep its dominant position in the European Union (EU) market, it must be able to control aflatoxin contamination throughout the whole production and marketing chain. What may be useful would be to develop a traceability system for pistachio production that entails: 1 Visual ear tags or ear tags containing microchips 3

4 the identification of orchards at a high risk for aflatoxin contamination; an identity preservation programme; a quality-dependent payment system; a quality label. ORGANIC AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS INTENDED FOR EXPORT For organic growers and producers, the implementation of traceability systems is a key element in securing international organic certification and a basic requirement for gaining access to premium export markets, where products can be sold at the highest prices. More and more developing countries are becoming interested in organic agriculture. However, with regard to the traceability issue (and the certification procedure that is linked to it), they are penalized by: high costs of certification, especially when international certifying bodies are used; an absence of appropriate legislation in their own country; complexity of import and certification procedures; the proliferation of different standards and requirements, frequently resulting in multiple certifications; lack of knowledge about organic traceability systems; lack of governmental financial and technical support in developing countries; size of the country. In order to implement traceability procedures, organic growers and producers could avail of: technical or financial assistance; the development of an international system for harmonization and equivalence; development of group certification and inspection; development of national infrastructure and legislation. These case studies show that many interesting initiatives are being implemented in developing countries, either in the bovine meat sector, the pistachio sector, or in the organic sector. This underlines that traceability is not purely a western phenomenon. The case studies show that, to an extent, efforts can be made to overcome some of these constraints. The constraints and costs of implementing traceability procedures depend mainly on the objectives and characteristics of the system being developed; in some sectors, procedures relying on paper documents and records could be enough to meet the desired objectives, while other sectors may require more advanced techniques. Moreover, developing countries might actually benefit from international standards. For instance, harmonized standards for traceability, inspection and certification systems within the organic production sector would facilitate organic export from developing countries to the premium markets of the western world. It is also worth examining the possibility of harmonizing and standardizing aspects relating to individual livestock identification and traceability systems, as well as in sectors such as pistachio production. However, as noted above, setting up traceability systems may be much more difficult for developing countries than for countries in the EU, the United States of America or Japan. This is because developing exporting countries can face very different sanitary, economic and structural circumstances than more developed countries. Even within the developing world, some countries 4

5 have far more advanced infrastructures than others and benefit from better political, economical or sanitary conditions. This document addresses most of these challenges and makes recommendations of ways to overcome them. 5

6 Table of contents Summary... 2 Table of contents... 5 Introduction Chapter 1 Prerequisites on traceability Definition Main objectives A tool to manage risks related to food safety and animal health issues A tool to guarantee product authenticity and to give reliable information to customers A tool to improve product quality and processes New legal requirements in developed countries European Union United States of America Canada Japan Brief overview of international issues and debates WTO agreements SPS agreement: its main provisions and principles TBT agreement and its main provisions Traceability compliance with WTO agreements Equivalence Regionalization Codex Alimentarius negotiations Debate of the costs and benefits of traceability Bibliography Chapter 2 Traceability implementation in developing countries: Production of bovine meat intended for export Economic BACKGROUND: data on world trade and bovine meat production in developing countries Sanitary and regulatory background Brief overview of the animal health situation in the developing countries considered FMD and FMD status BSE FVO inspections Implementation of new traceability standards in developed countries: a brief overview Implementation of new EU standards The situation in other developed countries

7 Japan Australia The United States of America Canada Requests for export to the EU countries Establishment of lists of authorized countries Freedom from diseases (such as FMD) Freedom from specific residues (antibiotics, contaminants, hormones) Exports from EU-agreed slaughterhouses, veterinary checks and certificates Specific requirements concerning BSE New EU requirements on beef and veal labelling Import bans for disease outbreaks and when requested conditions are not satisfied A presentation of the technical devices for bovine identification The different devices available Non-electronic devices Electronic devices Tags with chips and transponders Boluses Microchip implants DNA fingerprinting Other identification tools A comparison of identification devices The IDEA project Incentives for traceability implementation General incentives for improved animal identification systems and livestock traceability With regard to food-safety issues With regard to the animal health status of the country/region and to international trade With regard to consumers demand and confidence in bovine meat production Specific incentives for developing countries A direct response to the identified shortcomings of the former/current systems A response to the EU pressure A more efficient and less expensive control of diseases outbreaks and tracing of relevant animals Argentina Uruguay Brazil A way to avoid trade losses and to gain premium markets A way to lower costs and to improve efficiency in the system A way to control stock theft and lost cattle Overview of current livestock traceability systems and ongoing projects in several developing countries Preamble: global organization of the chain from producer to consumer The veterinary services Primary production establishments Animal movements Processing/manufacturing Marketing Competent authorities (CAs) Legislation related to animal identification/traceability Systems of animal identification First objectives and implementation of improved systems Systems applying to bovines intended for exports Argentina Namibia

8 Uruguay Brazil Chile Systems applying to the entire national cattle Botswana Malawi Countries for which no improved identification system is being implemented Paraguay The technological devices used Argentina Namibia Uruguay Brazil Botswana Individual identification or group identification? Namibia Uruguay Registration and databases Holdings identification and registration Argentina Uruguay Brazil Paraguay Namibia Botswana Animal movement control and registration Argentina Brazil Uruguay Paraguay Namibia Botswana Tracing of imported animals (particularly from BSE indigenous countries) Argentina Brazil Namibia Export certification and traceability in slaughterhouses and cutting plants Argentina Paraguay Uruguay Namibia Constraints and weaknesses Costs and lack of financial resources Data on the costs of traceability measures in developing countries Brazil Uruguay Botswana Argentina Paraguay Namibia Before ear-tag system implementation Implementation of the ear-tag system Colombia How to finance the traceability measures? Argentina Uruguay Namibia Botswana Chile Malawi

9 Constraints related to the national geography and organization of beef cattle production Lack of infrastructure and knowledge A final discussion on long-term objectives and opportunities Is individual identification necessary? A traceability system extended to the nation s entire cattle? The importance of an efficient system of registration and control A voluntary system or a compulsory system, mandated by a specific legislation? Higher prices for traceable and certified products? Conclusion Bibliography Chapter 3Traceability implementation in developing countries: pistachio production for export Economic background of pistachio production Some data on the most important pistachio-producing countries Some data on international market of pistachio The situation of the main producers in the developing world Iran Turkey The sanitary background The sanitary background Aflatoxin contamination Toxicological evaluation of aflatoxin Occurrence of aflatoxins in tree nuts Dietary intake of aflatoxin Prevention of contamination Methods Code of practice 3.3. The regulatory background European legislation Maximum levels set by the EU EU sampling methods International standards Restriction measures implemented by the EU on pistachio imports Costs induced by the EU legislation Consequences of EU standards on the international trade flows Costs of controls Costs of non-compliance with regulations Traceability implementation in pistachio production for export Incentives Current weaknesses and constraints

10 A few recommendations and opportunities for traceability implementation within the production channel for export Identification of orchards and pistachio consignments that are at a higher risk of contamination Implementation of a system of quality- dependent payment Development of an identity-preservation programme (IP) Development of a quality label Bibliography Chapter 4...Traceability implementation in developing countries: organic products intended for export Overview on principles and standards applying to the organic sector Definition of organic farming Development of international standards and national regulations Codex Guidelines IFOAM Basic Standards National regulations EU regulations United States organic regulations Japanese Agricultural Standard Certification and accreditation procedures Certification Accreditation Examples of provisions related to traceability In EU Regulation 2092/91 (its modifications being taken into account) Labelling Certification for imports Record-keeping for inspection and certification purposes Specific provisions with regard to livestock and livestock products In Codex Guidelines (GL , Rev ) Labels/claims Inspection and certification Export certificate Product identification and record-keeping Overview of different import systems and procedures The EU import system Amendment The United States iport system Japanese import system Opportunities and incentives for organic production in developing countries and for the necessary traceability implementation Global growing demand: an opportunity for developing countries General benefits attributed to organic production in developing countries: the incentives for traceability implementation Data on organic production, projects and opportunities: the example of several developing countries Latin America Argentina Uruguay Chile Peru Dominican Republic Honduras El Salvador Costa Rica Colombia

11 Africa The EPOPA programme Tunisia Asia Turkey India The Philippines Constraints and weaknesses Absence of appropriate legislation in developing countries A proliferation of different standards and requirements, leading to necessary multiple certifications Complexity of import and certification procedures High costs of certification Lack of knowledge about organic management and traceability systems Lack of governmental financial and technical support in developing countries Size of the country How to improve the system? A few suggested solutions Governmental support Technical and financial assistance from developed countries Development of an international system for harmonization and equivalence Development of national infrastructure and regulation Development of group certification and inspection Contract farming and out-growing Access to modern technology Bibliography Conclusion List of abbreviations (Annex 1) Annexes

12 Introduction The term traceability is not new: it first originated in various issues related to health, aeronautics, space and arming activities. It then spread to industrial sectors, including the food industry sector. Since the 1980s, as result of several crises, 1 the desire for information about animal health and food safety, as well as concerns about food quality, has increased at both governmental and consumer levels within developed countries. This has underlined the need to implement or improve traceability systems with a strong demand in particular from the retailing sector. Traceability is considered by consumers as a guarantee of safe and high-quality products and as a guarantee of reliable information on the origin and production conditions. As a result, importing countries are placing higher requirements and pressure on exporting countries regarding traceability and new legal requirements have been developed with regard to international trade in meat or in other products. Not surprisingly, the EU leads most other countries in the development of mandatory traceability protocols. International discussions and negotiations are currently being held on traceability issues 2. During these debates, developing countries (as well as some developed countries) are highlighting the significant constraints they face in implementing traceability systems. In particular, the costs of traceability measures are cited as prohibitive. In fact, some countries frequently refuse to go further in discussions aimed at drafting international standards about traceability. This document then examines how developing countries that are also main exporters respond to this pressure: it gives an overview of the possibilities and constraints of traceability implementation. Three examples of agricultural products intended for export have been chosen and will be examined in detail: production of bovine meat intended for export; pistachio production intended for export; organic products intended for export. For these three case studies, we will try to answer the following questions: What are the exact benefits for developing countries in implementing improved traceability systems? How is this implementation progressing: what are the main programmes being held, the infrastructures needed, the technological devices needed, and so on? What are the main constraints faced? 1 Such as Foot-and-Mouth Disease outbreaks or the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Crisis 2 For instance, within the framework of Codex Alimentarius negotiations 12

13 Chapter 1 provides a few prerequisites on the general concept of traceability: a definition; general objectives; main new general legal requirements; current international discussions on traceability issues. The information and results collected for the first case study (production of bovine meat intended for export) are given in Chapter 2. Chapter 3 is related to the second case study (pistachio production intended for export), and Chapter 4 to the third (organic products intended for export). The data used was collected from several sources: literature: referenced books and articles (including FAO, OIE 1, IFOAM 2 and World Bank official publications), mostly found by using the search engine of the FAO library, which is connected to many important international catalogues and databases, or by using the internet; information found on websites, including official websites of some developing countries competent authorities; reports from the EU, especially reports from the Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) of the European Commission; internet databases, such as FAOLEX and EUR-Lex for legislation; FAOSTAT and Eurostat for statistical data; Codex Alimentarius website; FAO intranet databases, such as Field Programme Management Information System (FMPIS), providing access to country data and to FAO Technical Cooperation Project (TCP); personal comments of experts and officials (in FAO and in developing countries). 1 World Organization for Animal Health 2 International Federation of Organic Agricultural Movements 13

14 1. Chapter Prerequisites for traceability 1.1. DEFINITION The term traceability is often used hand in hand with the concept of product tracing : while traceability is considered as a passive process, product tracing is considered as an active process. There is more of a terminological difference between the terms than any real opposition in meanings; therefore, throughout this document, we refer to traceability. In its 27 th session (July 2004), the Codex Alimentarius Commission agreed on the following definition for traceability/ product tracing: the ability to follow the movement of a food through specified stage(s) of production, processing and distribution. Several other definitions for traceability are also in use: the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) defines traceability as the ability to trace the history, application or location of an entity by means of recorded identifications (ISO 8402); the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) proposes the following definition: the ability to identify by means of paper or electronic records a food product and its producer, from where and when it came, and to where and when it was sent (OECD, 2003); according to EU General Food Law (Regulation [EC] No. 178/2002, Article 3), traceability means the ability to trace and follow a food, feed, food-producing animal or substance intended to be, or expected to be, incorporated into a food or feed, through all stages of production, processing and distribution. Two elements are implicit in these definitions. Traceability implies: the identification of a product; the ability to trace through the records to know more about the product. In addition to an identification and record system, a system of communication between operators needs to be developed to utilize the benefits of traceability systems. The definitions of some other concepts related to traceability, although not extensively discussed in this document, are as follows: trace-back: the ability to identify and trace the origin of problems when they occur; trace-forward: the ability to provide information at retail; identity preservation: a particular batch of products is kept separate, and not mixed with other products that may have different origins or characteristics; therefore, its identity is maintained through the marketing channel; market segregation: refers to the separation of products with different safety or quality characteristics in the marketing chain. It is less strict than an identity preservation system. 14

15 1.2. MAIN OBJECTIVES Traceability provides a tool to achieve the three following key objectives: managing risks related to food safety and animal health issues; guarantee products authenticity and to give reliable information to customers; and improve product quality and processes A tool to manage risks related to food safety and animal health issues First, traceability can be used as a tool to manage risks related to food safety and animal health issues. It can be used to: identify outbreak or hazard sources; manage safety alerts; withdraw contaminated or dangerous products. Traceability is part of a reactive control system for risk management. This is because it allows regulators to trace contamination to its source, to eliminate contaminated products from the market, and then to contain the problem. Recent crises, such as the crisis of dioxin in animal feed in Belgium in the late 1990s or the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) crisis, have emphasized its importance. Traceability can also be used to support post-market monitoring such as monitoring the occurrence of potential long-term human health effects. (Its possible use with regard to GMOs potential and uncertain long-term effects is worth noting here.) A tool to guarantee product authenticity and to give reliable information to customers Second, traceability has a role to play in establishing credibility in the marketplace. It can act as a tool for guaranteeing products authenticity and imparting reliable information to customers. For instance, it can ensure consumers that certain production practices have been followed. Therefore, it can be used to: ensure fair practices in trade; protect consumers from fraud; and safeguard producers from unfair competition. 15

16 There are many traceability systems that are used to support specific brand labels, claims or certifications in order to meet the desires of a certain type of consumer one instance is organic food production A tool to improve product quality and processes Lastly, traceability can be used as a tool for improving products quality and processes. In this way, it can assist in enhancing supply-side management, and contribute to optimizing yields. It can be used to identify sources of non-compliance; product fluxes; and stock management NEW LEGAL REQUIREMENTS IN DEVELOPED COUNTRIES European Union Several new regulations regarding traceability have recently been adopted in the European Union (EU). Some of these are specific to one or several particular sectors, such as the bovine meat sector (see Chapter 2). However, others have more general coverage. For instance, in 2002, Article 18 of the General Food Law (Regulation [EC] No. 178/2002 provided for the extension of traceability to all food, feed, food-producing animals, and to all food and feed-business operators. It stipulated that: 2 Traceability shall be established at all stages of production, processing and distribution. 3 Food and feed business operators shall be able to identify any person from whom they have been supplied with a food, a feed, a food-producing animal, or any substance intended to be, or expected to be, incorporated into a food or feed. To this end such operators shall have in place systems and procedures which allow for this information to be made available to the competent authorities on demand 4 Food and feed business operators shall have in place systems and procedures to identify the other businesses to which their products have been supplied. This information shall be made available to the competent authorities on demand. 5 Food or feed placed on the market or likely to be placed on the market in the Community shall be adequately labelled or identified to facilitate its traceability, through relevant documentation or information in accordance with the relevant requirements of more specific provisions United States of America In the United States of America, following the publication of the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 (Bioterrorism Act) and pursuant to its title III, subtitle A sec.301, steps were taken to protect the public from a threatened or actual terrorist attack on the US food supply. In the event of a potential or actual bioterrorism incident or an outbreak of food-borne illness, the aim is to help the FDA to determine the location and source of the incident and to enable the agency to quickly notify facilities that may be affected. 16

17 This Act 1 gave the FDA additional authority in the following areas: requiring administrative detention of foods that may pose a risk to public health (final regulation adopted in 2004); registering foreign and domestic food production facilities (interim final regulation published in 2004); requiring prior notice of imported foods (interim final regulation published in 2004); establishing and maintaining records among food firms (proposed regulation published in 2004). Under the proposed rule related to record keeping (which follows the one step back, one step forward principle), manufacturers, processors, packers, distributors, receivers, holders and importers of food will be required to keep (paper or electronic) records: identifying the immediate source from which they have received the food; identifying the immediate subsequent recipient of the food. This requirement will apply to almost all foreign and domestic food sources and almost all recipients of food destined for consumption in the United States of America. It will assist the FDA in addressing credible threats of serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals. For all operators, other than transporters, records will be required to contain the following information for each article of food: firm's name; responsible individual representative of the firm that was the immediate previous source or the immediate subsequent recipient of the food; the firm s address, telephone and fax numbers, and address; type of food (including brand name and specific variety); the date received or released; lot number or other identifier number; the quantity and type of packaging; the name, address, telephone number, etc. of the transporter(s) who transported the food. It should be noted however that all these proposals are related to traceability implementation with an objective of food safety risk management: they are not intended to provide information to consumers. 1 Available at 17

18 Canada In June 2001, federal, provincial, territorial Agriculture Ministers in Canada signed or initialled the Agricultural Policy Framework Agreement ( Federal-Provincial-Territorial Framework Agreement on Agricultural and Agri-food Policy for the Twenty-first Century ). Food safety and quality are key elements of this agreement. One of its goals (Para ) is to facilitate the development and implementation of traceability 1 systems by industry throughout the agri-food continuum by, inter alia, : assisting the agriculture and agri-food sector in the development of data management standards for traceability systems; continuing to support the development of traceability systems at the retail level; and providing funding and technical support for development of traceability and identity preservation (IP) systems, along the agri-food continuum to the retail level. It is envisaged that the authorities will work with industry towards the development by industry of traceability systems that would: enable 80 percent of domestic products available at the retail level to be traceable through the agri-food continuum (Para ); allow the development by industry of traceability components for all products/commodities within the food quality and food-safety control systems (Para ) Japan Following the detection of BSE in Japanese domestic beef in 2001, new legislation mandated the implementation of a traceability system for domestic beef. The law established a farm-to-table traceability system based on a ten-digit cattle identification number assigned to each animal at birth (see Chapter 2 for more details) BRIEF OVERVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL ISSUES AND DEBATES WTO agreements SPS agreement: its main provisions and principles The Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) agreement was signed in 1994, following the GATT Uruguay Round Negotiations (which also established the World Trade Organization [WTO]). The SPS agreement concerns food safety, animal health, and plant health regulations, which may affect directly or indirectly international trade of animals, plants and their products. Its objective is to ensure that governments do not use food safety and quarantine requirements as unjustified trade barriers to protect domestic agricultural industries from import competition. To comply with the SPS agreement, the relevant measure must meet the following principles: principle of scientific objectivity: it must be based on scientific principles and must not be maintained without sufficient evidence (see Article 2.2 of SPS agreement in Annex 2); 1 In this agreement, "traceability" or "traceability system" are defined as the ability to trace the history, application or location of an entity by means of recorded identifications 18

19 principle of non-discrimination between WTO members: it may not be applied in a way which arbitrarily or unjustifiably discriminates between countries where identical or similar conditions exist (see Article 2.3 of SPS agreement in Annex 2). principle of proportionality: it must be the least restrictive to trade as possible (see Article 5.6 of SPS agreement in Annex 2); An importing country can choose the appropriate level of protection (ALOP) it considers necessary to protect human, animal, or plant health, but it must be consistently applied in various situations, such as for imported or domestically- produced products. Where an international standard, guideline or recommendation is already in place, an SPS measure should be based on it, and it would then be presumed to be consistent with the SPS agreement. The Codex Alimentarius Commission, the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) and OIE have been recognized in article 3 paragraph 4 of the SPS Agreement as responsible for establishing such international standards, guidelines and recommendations. Otherwise, if an international standard does not exist or if a country uses a more stringent measure, the measure must be scientifically justified and based on a risk assessment (see Article 3 of SPS agreement in Annex 2) TBT agreement and its main provisions The Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) agreement was first signed in 1979, and reviewed in This covers technical regulations and voluntary standards and addresses all aspects of food standards not related to SPS measures, including measures intended to protect the consumer against deception and economic fraud. For instance, with regard to food products, it applies to standards related to food composition, nutritional characteristics, food quality, food labelling, and so on. In order to be considered as acceptable and non-abusively discriminative, technical regulations must be the least trade restrictive possible, pursuant to article 2 paragraph 3, and they must fulfil a legitimate objective 1 (see Annex 3). The TBT agreement emphasizes the validity of international standards. Its Article 2.5 states that whenever a technical regulation is prepared, adopted or applied for one of the legitimate objectives explicitly mentioned in paragraph 2, and is in accordance with relevant international standards, it shall be refutably presumed not to create an unnecessary obstacle to international trade. Codex Alimentarius standards constitute such relevant international standards Traceability compliance with WTO agreements Traceability is not mentioned explicitly in either the SPS or the TBT agreements. However, it may be requested as an SPS measure by the importing country. It must then meet the general SPS principles (see above). The need for traceability could arise in negotiations about: equivalence; regionalization. 1 Such legitimate objectives are, inter alia: national security requirements; the prevention of deceptive practices; protection of human health or safety, animal or plant life or health, or the environment. 19

20 Equivalence According to the equivalence principle (see Article 4 of the SPS agreement in Annex 2 and article 2 paragraph 7 of the TBT agreement), the exporting country can suggest using traceability as a tool for an equivalent measure, enabling it to meet the importing country s requirements. Regionalization According to Article 6 of the SPS agreement (see Annex 2), importing countries can adapt their requirements depending on the pest or disease status of the region from which the imported product originates. They must recognize the concepts of pest- or disease-free areas and areas of low pest or disease prevalence. It is the responsibility of the exporting country to prove the disease or pest status of a specific area, and the importing country then evaluates the claim. The ability to trace animals or animal products using traceability systems would provide greater confidence in such claims. Within the framework of the TBT agreement, traceability is not a legitimate objective in itself. Nevertheless, it could be used as a tool helping to fulfil such a legitimate objective. For instance, by guaranteeing the reliability of the labelling information, it could contribute to the prevention of deceptive practices, and could help to ensure fair practices in trade Codex Alimentarius negotiations Traceability/product tracing issues are currently being discussed within the framework of Codex Alimentarius. Following lengthy discussions in the Codex Executive Committee, Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC), the Codex Committee on General Principles (CCGP) and the Codex Committee on Food Import and Export Inspection and Certification Systems (CCFICS), the 27th Session of CAC (July, 2004) adopted a definition for traceability/ product tracing, as follows: the ability to follow the movement of a food through specified stage(s) of production, processing and distribution (Codex Alimentarius, ALINORM 04/27/41). However, some countries questioned the definition as it did not specify how the stages of production, processing and distribution would be specified and the current text might result in potential barriers to trade, and therefore proposed to add, at the end of the definition, the phrase as far as possible. However, the definition was adopted as originally proposed, as delegations felt it reflected substantial discussion in CCGP and was necessary to further work on traceability/product tracing in Codex. The Commission requested the CCFICS to present a proposal for new work on principles for the application of traceability/product tracing as a matter of priority, as certain countries maintained the view that the application of the definition should be deferred until the principles under development had been finalized. The 13 th session of CCFICS (Melbourne, Australia, December 2004) agreed on the need to develop principles for the application of traceability/product tracing in the context of food import and export inspection and certification systems, and to forward a project document for new work on the development of these principles, through the Executive Committee, to the 28 th Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission for approval as new work. The Committee agreed that a Working 20

21 Group would prepare proposed draft principles for circulation for comments at Step 3 and consideration at its 14th Session (Codex Alimentarius, ALINORM, 05/28/30) As evidenced above, Codex Alimentarius members have different (and sometimes opposite) opinions concerning traceability issues. This has led to interesting debates within the framework of Codex negotiations. It is worth highlighting a few issues and differences between member states. Concerning the coverage of possible Codex standards/guidelines on traceability, most Codex members seem to agree that traceability could be used as a tool for risk management with regard to food safety issues. Some members, however, are also concerned with the possibility of also using traceability as a tool to guarantee products labelling and authenticity (North America and South-West Pacific). Some developing countries fear that such traceability measures would actually disguise a technical barrier to trade. The United States of America and Canada have also raised concerns about traceability as applied to methods of production (such as the use of modern technology), as this kind of requirement raises technical barriers to trade. Other delegations (Europe, Near-East) suggested that both food safety and other matters necessary for ensuring fair practices in food trade (guarantee of the product authenticity and of the labelling) should be examined at the same time (Codex Alimentarius, ALINORM 03/33/A). Because of the cost and complexity of traceability measures, many developing countries emphasize that they face significant difficulties in implementing traceability. They frequently underline that case studies should be done before implementing traceability in specific sectors (Codex Alimentarius, ALINORM 03/33/A; Codex Alimentarius, CX/GP 03/7). Debates on the traceability issue within Codex may be just beginning, and are a good example of the various difficulties that need to be faced if final consensus and harmonization are desired. Debate of the costs and benefits of traceability The following items have been cited as important considerations related to the design of a traceability / product tracing system to determine traceability costs and benefits: extent of the system (how far along the food production chain will traceability extend?); whether traceability regulations will apply to both domestic and imported products; complexity of the product and number of ingredients and sources of ingredients. It determines the size of product batches for which traceability would be economically feasible and desirable. If the sources are homogenous, traceability is less valuable than if they are not; the number of characteristics for which records should be maintained costs increase with the amount of information to be maintained through the production and marketing chain; access to information: records must be available to the food safety authorities. 21

22 1.5. BIBLIOGRAPHY Codex Alimentarius Commission, ALINORM 05/28/ Report of the 13th session of the Codex Committee on Food Import and Export Inspection and Certification Systems. Melbourne, Codex Alimentarius Commission, 6-10 December. Codex Alimentarius Commission, ALINORM 03/33/A Report of the 18th session of Codex Committee on General Principles. Paris, Codex Alimentarius Commission, 7 11 April. Codex Alimentarius Commission, ALINORM 04/27/ Report of the 27th session. Geneva, Codex Alimentarius Commission, 28 June 3 July. CX/GP 03/ Consideration of traceability/product tracing, Codex Committee on General Principles, 18th Session. Paris, Codex Alimentarius Commission, 7 11 April. CX/FICS 02/11/ Discussion paper on traceability/product tracing in the context of food import and export inspection and certification systems Codex Committee on Food Import and Export Inspection and Certification Systems. Adelaide, Codex Alimentarius Commission, 2 6 December. OECD Costs and benefits of food regulations working party on agricultural policies and markets. AGR/CA/APM(2002)18/REV1, 17 February. Wilson, D.W. & Beers, P.T Global trade requirements and compliance with World Trade Organization agreements: the role of tracing animals and animal products. Revue scientifique et technique de l Office International des Epizooties, 20(2):

23 Case studies When international discussions and negotiations are held on traceability issues, many developing countries emphasize that they have to face important barriers such as high costs in order to implement traceability schemes. As a result, they frequently do not wish to go further in discussions aimed at drafting international standards about traceability. The three following case studies will provide information on the possibilities and constraints of traceability implementation in developing countries in some specific sectors. Two case studies (production of bovine meat intended for export and pistachio production intended for export) are related to the use of traceability as a tool to control animal health and/or food safety hazards (see Paragraph 1.2.1). The results are given in Chapter 2 and Chapter 3. The final case study example (organic products intended for export) is related to the use of traceability as a tool to guarantee products authenticity and to provide customers with reliable information (see Paragraph 1.2.2): the results are given in Chapter 4. Note: These case studies were conducted in October 2003, so as such, reflect conditions at that time. 23

24 2. Chapter Traceability implementation in developing countries: production of bovine meat intended for export During the past several years, a series of food safety and animal disease crises have occurred throughout the world, and especially in the European Union (EU). These have included the announcement of the possible link between Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) and the new-variant Creutzfeldt Jakob disease, as well as outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) and classical swine fever. Many consumers from developed countries have lost confidence in the safety of meat products (especially beef) and in the ability of regulatory agencies to protect the food supply. These crises have given rise to greater worldwide consumer concern over meat safety and have increased the desire for information on meat products. The EU is leading most other regions in the development of mandatory traceability protocols for livestock and meat products. It is implementing stricter requirements and pressure on exporting countries. However, as noted in the examples below, the environment for the bovine meat production is actually very different between the EU countries and the developing countries, which causes the feasibility of the application of traceability to also differ greatly. This chapter will address the production of bovine meat for export (not processed more than cutting), and especially for export to EU countries. It will focus particularly on issues related to animal identification. It will mainly look at six developing countries that are major bovine meat exporters: Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, Botswana and Namibia. The chapter begins by outlining the economic and sanitary backgrounds in these countries to provide an appreciation for the obstacles faced in implementing traceability schemes. The table in Annex 5 provides a synthesis of this case study s main findings on the possibilities and constraints of traceability implementation ECONOMIC BACKGROUND: DATA ON WORLD TRADE AND BOVINE MEAT PRODUCTION IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES World trade of cattle meat has increased considerably since the 1960s: rising from 1.36 million tonnes in 1961 to million tonnes in 1998 (Barcos, 2001). This increase underlines the necessity for implementing traceability systems in order to ascertain the origin and destination of products, for reasons related to safeguarding public and animal health, among others. Chapter 2 will focus mainly on the primary fresh bovine meat exporters from developing countries: the four key exporters in South America (the Mercosur countries, Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, and Paraguay) and the two principal exporters in Africa (Namibia and Botswana). Nevertheless, some 24