Trade policies affecting the tropical and subtropical fruit industries in Asia

The relatively low exports of tropical fruits by Asian countries can be attributed to seasonality, short shelf life, high transportation cost, and strict trade policies. International trade regulations, particularly on tropical fruits, have gone beyond tariff and quota restrictions. These have now expanded towards conformance to market access requirements by importing countries. The study of Faylon et al. (PCARRD) looked into trade-related policies that affect the trade of tropical and sub-tropical fruits. Findings of the study revealed the following: While the rules of the World Trade Organization (WTO) were designed to create a world that operated as one single homogenized global market, the terms of trade between nations appeared to be tilted towards developed importing countries particularly the United States, Japan, and members of the European Union (EU). Expansion of EU to include countries substantially producing and exporting fresh tropical fruits like Greece, Portugal, and Spain for instance, had also affected fruit exports of Asian countries. Enlargement of EU membership has resulted in implementation of trade standards in the region to one of leniency in the past to one of the strictest. The sanitary and phytosanitary standards (SPSS) were probably the most significant policy concerns in international trade of tropical fruits. These involved certification on good agricultural practices covering traceability, crop protection, product handling, and chemical use. Major importing countries now required maximum residue limits for pesticides in fruits for export, particularly on the use of methyl bromide. This had become an issue due to lack of appropriate alternatives. SPS agreements under the WTO called for countries to harmonize domestic standards of industry-influenced bodies such as the Codex Alimentarius, the International Office of Epizootics and other relevant international and regional organizations operating within the framework of the International Plant Protection Convention. Infestation by fruit flies, common in the tropics, was a major constraint in fruit exports; hence, the use of pest risk analysis associated with tropical fruits had also become increasingly important in countries eyeing access to international markets, particularly the EU. The agreement offered the challenges for countries to go beyond international standards in providing greater citizen safeguards. As a result, strict SPSS and quality systems in major importing countries like the US, Japan, and the EU had unfolded. Among other things, their foremost concerns were food safety, respect for workers' health, safety and welfare; and environmental conservation. Some of these standards appeared to have protectionist components. EU was a major player in global agricultural trade and a major supporter of WTO. It was considered the biggest importer and the second largest exporter of food stuff. Exporters to EU need to comply with production standard determined by Eurep GAP certification scheme. Eurep GAP is a partnership of agricultural producers and retailers in EU wanting to establish certification standards and procedures for Good Agricultural Practices (GAP). It came about as a result of consumers' and retailers' demand for food safety, among other things. Achievement of Eurep GAP certification was a tedious process. This was done through auditing by visiting Eurep GAP inspector and with this, the 'license to sell' to the EU market. Internal audits, prior to farm audit by Eurep GAP inspector, were undertaken to ensure that grower's production systems comply with Eurep GAP. Producers were advised of any deficiencies and necessary corrective actions (TFNet, 2006). Lately, there had been complaints at the WTO about Eurep GAP by developing countries like Indonesia, Egypt, and South Africa about stringent standards which were not required by their governments. Under the SPS agreements of the WTO, member countries shall base their SPS measures on international standards, guidelines, and recommendations. Harmonizing national standards with these SPS measures appeared to be mandatory if a country would opt for greater access to international fruit market. However, establishing a national SPS framework in harmony with international food safety and quality management standards was a tedious process as it meant creating an entirely new set of rules and standards for the country. The process could take time and could be costly and problematic for many Asian countries.