Lower Mekong Food Security Database

At the same time as the world’s consumption of food increases, consumers are also becoming more and more conscious of not just the kind of food they eat, but also how it was produced. We read about organic produce, GMO-free crops, and fertilizer-free products. Driven by this demand, markets are also in search of high quality food products. At the producer level, farmers and growers are looking for ways to tap into this growing market and at the same time, reap higher returns for their products.

The answer? Good Agricultural Practices, also known as GAP.

Filling in the gaps with GAP

Similar to the manufacturing industry’s quality assurance standards, the GAP is a set of standards and regulations that aim to “codify agricultural practices at the farm level” in the production of crops and other agricultural products. Developed with producer groups, government agencies, and non-government organizations, GAP standards and regulations exist at the global, regional (i.e. ASEAN), and national level. More than encouraging better production practices, it also seeks to promote sustainable agriculture and more efficient natural resources management in the long term.

The GAP in the Lower Mekong Region

As having a primarily agriculture-based economy, the Lower Mekong Region (LMR) is one part of the globe where GAP standards are most significant.

The introduction of good agricultural practices was first initiated through the ASEAN GAP. The ASEAN GAP focuses on four aspects: food safety; environmental management; worker health, safety and welfare; and produce quality.

In the LMR however, only Thailand and Vietnam have an established GAP standards and certification system through the Q GAP and the VietGap, respectively. “Thailand developed the Q system at about the same time that ASEAN GAP was being formulated,” explains Dr. Robert Premier, GAP consultant who also helped develop the ASEAN GAP. Modifications in the Thailand system, Dr Premier added, were made in the hygiene and food safety components to align with the ASEAN GAP. Vietnam’s GAP was developed shortly after the development of the ASEAN GAP.

The other Lower Mekong countries have begun developing their own national GAP standards. Cambodia and Lao PDR have started GAP trainings among their farmers. Cambodia already has a certification system in place, while Laos is working on their standard operating procedures for farm certification. As for Myanmar, GAP standards are already in place for export crops, according to Dr. Premier.

As the ASEAN region moves towards the ASEAN Economic Community, the GAP standards are expected to help producers and farmers position their products to countries that prefer GAP-certified produce like Singapore and Brunei, explained Dr. Premier. “There will be substantial opportunities for produce from the Lower Mekong region to be exported to extra ASEAN markets. [This] will increase the returns to farmers in the Lower Mekong region and develop more markets that exist at the moment, thereby providing more work for people in that area and greater returns.”

The continuing challenge to address the gap

Nevertheless, there is still a lot of work to be done as far as the GAP standards of the countries are concerned.

For Laos, Cambodia and Myanmar whose national GAP programs have yet to be fully set up, critical steps must be addressed, explained Dr. Premier. These include defining and explaining the drivers for GAP introduction; developing a roadmap for GAP; identifying key players and actors who will facilitate GAP introduction; developing a certification system; training trainers and auditors; and finally, implementing the system.

Likewise, even for Thailand and Vietnam with their own GAP standards, challenges in terms of implementation must be addressed.

A study on the GAP certification among the coffee farmers in Thailand showed that for this sector at least, GAP certification has become less and less attractive because of the lack of a conducive market environment that will encourage GAP-based production.

The same is true for farmers in Vietnam who reported that they don’t get adequate returns on their investment for GAP certification. Dr. Premier also added that in the case of Vietnam, many companies had adopted the more stringent EurepGAP (now Global GAP), resulting in disappointment when markets for the products could not be found in Europe.

Record-keeping, which is a vital component of the overall GAP protocols and a major requirement for certification, continue to be a problem for many farmers. The farmers’ low educational background has also been pointed as a major constraint as many growers are confused and cannot seem to understand the array of materials given to them about the GAP. It doesn’t help that overworked extension workers have to add GAP trainings to their already full schedules.

There is much promise, however, for the Lower Mekong countries if these challenges can be addressed.

Research, for one, can provide significant value to the current and ongoing GAP work. “GAP work needs to be supported by research work in areas of food quality and food safety,” Dr. Premier says. “These need to be region-specific and product-specific. The Lower Mekong countries could develop research projects that complement each other’s GAP work.”

He also suggests sharing training programs, trainers and auditors among the countries particularly if the concern is limited technical capacity. And indeed, efforts are ongoing to harness and build GAP expertise in the region. The Mekong Institute, for example, has been offering GAP-related training programs such as the Regional Training Program on Improving Food Quality and Safety and the Training of Trainers on Good Agricultural and Postharvest Practices in Fresh Produce since 2012.

With the anticipation of a freer movement of goods in the ASEAN region, the GAP certainly seems to offer opportunities and big returns for farmers and growers in the region. However, the challenges of optimizing systems, enhancing technical capacity, institutionalizing structural and policy mechanisms, and creating enabling environments must be properly and appropriately addressed.

With the range of technologies and techniques introduced to farmers – from GAP and organic farming to climate-smart agriculture and a plethora of other agricultural practices – it is apparent that, at the very least, farmers and growers should be appropriately educated on how GAP differs from all these other terms. Only then can farmers become more conscious in the way they grow their crops, perhaps encourage them to go for GAP certification, and ultimately, for consumers to be assured of clean, healthy and safe food.