资源描述
Farm Level Traceability (FLT):a step ahead in CAP reform implementationPaolo PIZZIOL(paolo. pizzioljrc. it) PETER Workshop, YORK 11-13 October 2006 2 / 17 DefinitionsTraceability is the ability to trace the history, application or location of that which is under consideration (ISO 9001: 2000) Farm Level traceabilityis a concept which encompasses a wide range record keeping in farm management, starting from detailed geo-referencing of all individual parcels comprising the farm, to the dynamic correlation among parcels with a view of fine-tuning the farming system and achieving a more sustainable and profitable farming. PETER Workshop, YORK 11-13 October 2006 3 / 17 EU Legal basis (for traceability)-Traceability systems for Labelling/Certification were already in place PGI, PDO Plant Health Regime (plant passport system-since 1993) Animal Health Regime (since 1993)-After the BSE crisis, Traceability became a mustRegulation (EC) 1760/ 2000-General Food Law (GFL): Traceability for all food and feedRegulation (EC) 178/ 2002-GMO Food and Feed Traceability and Labelling: Regulation (EC) 1830/ 2003-GFL is among the SMR of cross compliance (CAP reform) Council Regulation (EC) 1782/ 2003I nside GFL, Minimum requirements are actually:-keep record of one-step ahead /one step back partners and products-label products to facilitate its traceability PETER Workshop, YORK 11-13 October 2006 4 / 17 Traceability: why?Domains Scope TargetsProducts quality certification of origin, of quality, of organic farming Farmers, retailer, consumersProducts safety effective recalls in case of food safety alerts Consumers, administrationFarm management crop, machinery, logistics, navigation, land selection - also taking into account Natura 2000 and vulnerable zones- precision farming FarmersI nformation management Farmers, administration, advisers, insuranceDecision support Risk Assessment, land management AdministrationLogistics Carriers, control bodiesControls EC subsidies, Cross Compliance, audits Administration PETER Workshop, YORK 11-13 October 2006 5 / 17 Other definitions Geo-traceability : associates geographical coordinates to relevant information for production traceability Tracing: determining the history of a food throughout the food chain Upward: from farm to fork Downward: from fork to farm Tracking: determining the location of a certain food in the food chain in a certain moment track back: one step down track forward: one step up Record keeping is collecting all relevant data and information PETER Workshop, YORK 11-13 October 2006 6 / 17 Traceability: dedicated technologies Traceability systems could range within different levels of complexity: Paper records Digital records DB, on-line DB, ad hoc SW solutions, GIS, remote sensing, GPS, GPRS, barcode scanners Automatic recording (RFI D, bar code etc., wireless connections) to minimise burden and to require (target) from farmers only validationAnyway, a baseline information is needed (farm-diagnosis) to assess what is appropriate for the specific business PETER Workshop, YORK 11-13 October 2006 7 / 17 Traceability: available technologies and questioning Traceability is actually a reality for many food producers e.g. EurepGAP Sectorial schemes (eggs, meat etc.) etc. Is there a problem of traceability systems compatibility?Could a Unique spatial I D help in the integration of different databases? Could LPIS be a basis for an effective traceability system?Of course, YES! Because LPI S provide updated information on the parcel (location- geo-referenced and surroundings-, size, shape, crop use, history) Are there technologies facilitating record collection by minimising the active data entry on farmers side? PETER Workshop, YORK 11-13 October 2006 8 / 17 Disclaimer: The views expressed are purely those of the writer, and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission.1. Overview of the current situation2. What we envisage FLT(+ LPIS) and FAS: a step ahead in the CAP reform PETER Workshop, YORK 11-13 October 2006 9 / 17 Conclusions (1) FLT consists basically of data acquisition, storage and analysis but FLT, as structured and consistent source of information, based on LPIS, could be an asset to add value and help farm diagnosis and improve farming systems ergo support CAP implementation FLT implementation requires know-how, competence, training, resources (Legal) FLT minimum requirements could be extended FAS could benefit from the information granted by FLT. Integration of FLT data into FAS is desirable PETER Workshop, YORK 11-13 October 2006 10 / 17 Conclusions (2)Risks of not implementing FLT(+ LPIS) Too much administration (application, contracts etc.) Extra cost for producers (especially if not IT literate) Liability of operator in case of problemsBenefits Facilitated application procedure Saving useful information usually lost in the supply chain Simplified management if information is collected properly If the information collected is in the frame of a traceability systems (record keeping), this could provide an automatic certification for Cross-compliance PETER Workshop, YORK 11-13 October 2006 11 / 17 Conclusions (3) Which role could play JRC? Stimulate discussion Perform and/or coordinate research/studies Lead networking of MS administrations/private companies Define/promote best practices Provide guidelines draftingWe think that the challenge at this stage is to convince policy makers and farmers of the added value of an adequately implemented traceability and therefore perform studies demonstrating this. PETER Workshop, YORK 11-13 October 2006 12 / 17 Thanks for your attention ! PETER Workshop, YORK 11-13 October 2006 13 / 17 Traceability purposes: quality (not exhaustive!) Record keeping demonstrate/certify the production protocol in place (e.g. organic farming) Geo-referencing could certificate place of origin (and distances e.g. for GMO-free products) This certification is more reliable if record are kept using state of art technology (RFID, bar code lectors, PDA, GPS etc.) PETER Workshop, YORK 11-13 October 2006 14 / 17 Traceability purposes: recalls Recalls should be targeted to reduce the risk for consumers without jeopardising the entire food chain Recalls have a financial impact for the operator(s) and for the Community. This impact can be minimised insofar the traceability system in place is accurate In case of plant products, the highest level of accuracy achievable is the identification of the parcel PETER Workshop, YORK 11-13 October 2006 15 / 17 ADMI NI STRATI ON+ +Parcels Crops Primaryproductions CAP implementation: the current situation MAR KETSADMI NI STRATI ONIACS-GIS Public FAS Private FASTraceability Record keeping Applicationfor subsidiesCC controls ADVICES Subsidies PETER Workshop, YORK 11-13 October 2006 16 / 17 Subsidies (SPS)Added ValuesContractsNiche markets(PDO)Certification(Organic Farming)World Market Pricesbut requiring a huge andrepetitive transfer of informationCAP implementation: the integrated solution (1) PETER Workshop, YORK 11-13 October 2006 17 / 17 Subsidies (SPS)Added ValuesContractsNiche markets(PDO)Certification(Organic Farming)World Market PricesIACS (LPIS)Declarations Administrative and and demands “on the spot” controlsCAP implementation: the integrated solution (2) PETER Workshop, YORK 11-13 October 2006 18 / 17 CAP implementation: the integrated solution (3)Aids (SPS)Added Values ContractsNiche markets(PDO)Certification(Organic Farming)World Market PricesCooperativesFarmers unionsCompaniesTechnical specifications ControlsFLT - TRACEABILITY PETER Workshop, YORK 11-13 October 2006 19 / 17 FASAwarenessDiagnosis Subsidies (SPS)Added ValuesContractsNiche markets(PDO)Certification(Organic Farming)World Market PricesCAP implementation: the integrated solution (4)Cross-compliance PETER Workshop, YORK 11-13 October 2006 20 / 17 IACS (LPIS)Declarations Administrative and “on the spot” controls Subsidies (SPS)Added ValuesContractsNiche markets(PDO)Certification(Organic Farming)World Market Prices Technical specifications ControlsFLT - TRACEABILITY CAP implementation: the integrated solution (5) PETER Workshop, YORK 11-13 October 2006 21 / 17 IACS (LPIS)Declarations Administrative and “on the spot” controls Subsidies (SPS)Added ValuesContractsNiche markets(PDO)Certification(Organic Farming)World Market Prices Technical specifications ControlsFLT - TRACEABILITYFASAwarenessDiagnosis CAP implementation: the integrated solution (6)Cross-compliance PETER Workshop, YORK 11-13 October 2006 22 / 17 ADMI NI STRATI ONGAEC N “possibility of ploughing according to averaged slope of parcel regional threshold = 10%.”FASI ACSAdmin. Tool N.1: Digital Elevation ModelAveraged slope of the parcelAdmin. Tool N.2: Good Farm Practices guideline (database) Recommended practicesAdmin. Tool N.3: CONTROLSReduction and/ or Exclusion according to Cross-ComplianceFrom parcel I nfo:Practice: PloughingLocation: parcel GeoIDmachinery GPSDate & time Example: ploughing where it could be forbiddenFLT SystemFarm DatabaseGPS PDA Erosion Sensitivity I ndex of parcels (risk maps) 1 PETER Workshop, YORK 11-13 October 2006 23 / 17 ADMI NI STRATI ONGAEC N “possibility of ploughing according to averaged slope of parcel regional threshold = 10%.”FASI ACSAdmin. Tool N.1: Digital Elevation ModelAveraged slope of the parcelAdmin. Tool N.2: Good Farm Practices guideline (database) Recommended practicesAdmin. Tool N.3: CONTROLSReduction and/ or Exclusion according to Cross-ComplianceFrom parcel I nfo:Practice: PluggingLocation: parcel GeoIDmachinery GPSDate & time Example: ploughing where it could be forbidden (2)FLT SystemFarm Database Conform advices supply 2GPSPDA PETER Workshop, YORK 11-13 October 2006 24 / 17 ADMI NI STRATI ONGAEC N “possibility of ploughing according to averaged slope of parcel regional threshold = 10%.”FASI ACSFrom parcel I nfo:Practice: PluggingLocation: parcel GeoIDmachinery GPSDate & timeExample: ploughing where it could be forbidden (3)Admin. Tool N.1: Digital Elevation ModelAveraged slope of the parcelFLT SystemFarm Database On the spot control and negative incentives Admin. Tool N.2: Good Farm Practices guideline (database) Recommended practicesAdmin. Tool N.3: CONTROLSReduction and/ or Exclusion according to Cross-Compliance3GPSPDA PETER Workshop, YORK 11-13 October 2006 25 / 17 An example: the EurepGAP approachEurepGAP Central DBGeo-Data Trustee Farmer(field passport) Processing plant Retailer/ConsumerCooperative/WarehouseSupply chainINTERNET PETER Workshop, YORK 11-13 October 2006 26 / 17 Traceability: minimum requirements Place of the treatment (geo-localized)Quality of the treatmentQuantity of the treatmentDate and conditions of the treatmentThis information need to be collected in a consistent way, and could be linked to a plot and a batch PETER Workshop, YORK 11-13 October 2006 27 / 17 3) Computer4) Database 1) Electronic identifier 2) ReaderPowerReadScanElectronic Animal I dentification System PETER Workshop, YORK 11-13 October 2006 28 / 17 Principle Technical Architecture Loading DoorSensor Temperature Sensor OBU User InterfaceTrailer Sensor Temperature Sensor GPRS/GMSGPS/ Galileo GPRS/GMS Remote receiverPositioningand time Authorized users I ntegration between EI D and Navigation System (EC R g 1/ 2005) PETER Workshop, YORK 11-13 October 2006 29 / 17 Is there any similarity between animal movement and agricultural production traceability? One or more places(Parcel) One or more species(crops types)One or more destinations(Silos number)One or more cropping systems(diversity of machinery EID and practices GPS) PETER Workshop, YORK 11-13 October 2006 30 / 17 Computer assisted cross checkToday, from 10 to 12h , you have ploughed on parcel 25 to wheat cultivation: “what depth? Orientation? Type of ploughshare? Which working speed?Automatic info inside farmer GI S/database:Parcel 25 / 20 HaWinter wheat -Automatic info from field:Parcel 2525/09/06 10h to 12hTractor + plough25 cm N/E (perpendicular to the averaged slope) Nb 2 4.5km/hAn example
展开阅读全文