04 pp jrc flt

Information about 04 pp jrc flt

Published on December 29, 2007

Author: Mudki

Source: authorstream.com

Content

Farm Level Traceability (FLT): a step ahead in CAP reform implementation:  Farm Level Traceability (FLT): a step ahead in CAP reform implementation Paolo PIZZIOL ([email protected]) Definitions:  Definitions Traceability is the ability to trace the history, application or location of that which is under consideration (ISO 9001: 2000) Farm Level traceability is 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. EU Legal basis (for traceability):  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 ‘must’ Regulation (EC) 1760/2000 -General Food Law (GFL): Traceability for all food and feed Regulation (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) 1782/2003 Inside GFL, Minimum requirements are actually: keep record of one-step ahead /one step back partners and products label products to facilitate its traceability Traceability: why?:  Traceability: why? Other definitions :  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 Traceability: dedicated technologies:  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 (RFID, bar code etc., wireless connections) to minimise burden and to require (target) from farmers only validation Anyway, a baseline information is needed (farm-diagnosis) to assess what is appropriate for the specific business Traceability: available technologies and questioning:  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 ID help in the integration of different databases?  Could LPIS be a basis for an effective traceability system? Of course, YES! Because LPIS 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 farmer’s side? FLT(+ LPIS) and FAS: a step ahead in the CAP reform:  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 situation 2. What we envisage FLT(+ LPIS) and FAS: a step ahead in the CAP reform Conclusions (1):  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 Conclusions (2):  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 problems Benefits 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 Conclusions (3):  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 drafting We 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. Slide12:  Thanks for your attention ! Traceability purposes: quality (not exhaustive!) :  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.) Traceability purposes: recalls:  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 Slide15:  ADMINISTRATION Parcels Crops CAP implementation: the current situation M A R K E T S ADMINISTRATION IACS-GIS Public FAS Private FAS Traceability … Record keeping … Application for subsidies ADVICES Subsidies Slide16:  but requiring a huge and repetitive transfer of information CAP implementation: the integrated solution (1) Slide17:  IACS (LPIS) Declarations Administrative and and demands “on the spot” controls CAP implementation: the integrated solution (2) Slide18:  CAP implementation: the integrated solution (3) Cooperatives Farmers’ unions Companies Technical specifications Controls FLT - TRACEABILITY Slide19:  FAS Awareness Diagnosis CAP implementation: the integrated solution (4) Cross-compliance Slide20:  IACS (LPIS) Declarations Administrative and “on the spot” controls Technical specifications Controls FLT - TRACEABILITY CAP implementation: the integrated solution (5) Slide21:  IACS (LPIS) Declarations Administrative and “on the spot” controls Technical specifications Controls FLT - TRACEABILITY FAS Awareness Diagnosis CAP implementation: the integrated solution (6) Cross-compliance Slide22:  Admin. Tool N.1: Digital Elevation Model Averaged slope of the parcel Admin. Tool N.2: Good Farm Practices guideline (database) Recommended practices Admin. Tool N.3: CONTROLS Reduction and/or Exclusion according to Cross-Compliance From parcel Info: Practice: Ploughing Location: parcel GeoID machinery GPS Date & time Example: ploughing where it could be forbidden… FLT System Farm Database Erosion Sensitivity Index of parcels (risk maps) 1 Slide23:  Admin. Tool N.1: Digital Elevation Model Averaged slope of the parcel Admin. Tool N.2: Good Farm Practices guideline (database) Recommended practices Admin. Tool N.3: CONTROLS Reduction and/or Exclusion according to Cross-Compliance From parcel Info: Practice: Plugging Location: parcel GeoID machinery GPS Date & time Example: ploughing where it could be forbidden (2)… FLT System Farm Database Conform advices supply 2 Slide24:  From parcel Info: Practice: Plugging Location: parcel GeoID machinery GPS Date & time Example: ploughing where it could be forbidden (3)… Admin. Tool N.1: Digital Elevation Model Averaged slope of the parcel FLT System Farm Database On the spot control and negative incentives Admin. Tool N.2: Good Farm Practices guideline (database) Recommended practices Admin. Tool N.3: CONTROLS Reduction and/or Exclusion according to Cross-Compliance 3 An example: the EurepGAP approach:  An example: the EurepGAP approach EurepGAP Central DB Geo-Data Trustee Farmer (field passport) Processing plant Retailer/Consumer Cooperative/Warehouse Supply chain INTERNET Traceability: minimum requirements :  Traceability: minimum requirements Place of the ‘treatment’ (geo-localized) Quality of the ‘treatment’ Quantity of the ‘treatment’ Date and conditions of the ‘treatment’ This information need to be collected in a consistent way, and could be linked to a plot and a batch Slide27:  3) Computer 4) Database 1) Electronic identifier 134.2 kHz 2) Reader Power Read Scan RF Wave Electronic Animal Identification System Slide28:  Principle Technical Architecture GPRS/GMS GPS/ Galileo GPRS/GMS Remote receiver Positioning and time Authorized users Integration between EID and Navigation System (EC Reg 1/2005) Is there any similarity between animal movement and agricultural production traceability? :  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) Slide30:  Computer assisted cross check Today, 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 GIS/database: Parcel 25 / 20 Ha Winter wheat ---------------- Automatic info from field: Parcel 25 25/09/06 10h to 12h Tractor + plough 25 cm – N/E (perpendicular to the averaged slope) – Nb 2 – 4.5km/h An example

Related presentations


Other presentations created by Mudki

Jayati Ghosh
12. 10. 2007
0 views

Jayati Ghosh

P 100Pump
07. 11. 2007
0 views

P 100Pump

mercedesPRES
21. 11. 2007
0 views

mercedesPRES

Thanksgiving Presentation
21. 11. 2007
0 views

Thanksgiving Presentation

ngprsup
17. 12. 2007
0 views

ngprsup

dock
28. 12. 2007
0 views

dock

rainbarrel
02. 01. 2008
0 views

rainbarrel

acm lego presentation
04. 01. 2008
0 views

acm lego presentation

Lecture 5
27. 09. 2007
0 views

Lecture 5

Vallue added 3
07. 11. 2007
0 views

Vallue added 3

S Strawn Computer
03. 12. 2007
0 views

S Strawn Computer

c05p00016
07. 01. 2008
0 views

c05p00016

NS 202 Lesson 9 War of 1812
26. 02. 2008
0 views

NS 202 Lesson 9 War of 1812

iasted LISt function1
24. 12. 2007
0 views

iasted LISt function1

pres profile
28. 11. 2007
0 views

pres profile

World Trip
12. 03. 2008
0 views

World Trip

7 Ken Kelling Using PR
14. 03. 2008
0 views

7 Ken Kelling Using PR

intl T
21. 03. 2008
0 views

intl T

chankit
27. 03. 2008
0 views

chankit

SecondarySchool Eng
07. 04. 2008
0 views

SecondarySchool Eng

Snowbird
07. 12. 2007
0 views

Snowbird

7 15 02
09. 04. 2008
0 views

7 15 02

GEP08MacroOutlookMR0 10508
10. 04. 2008
0 views

GEP08MacroOutlookMR0 10508

ELPS EOC Review
13. 04. 2008
0 views

ELPS EOC Review

KickoffMeeting2007
28. 09. 2007
0 views

KickoffMeeting2007

Redboard Presentation Color
18. 04. 2008
0 views

Redboard Presentation Color

organiccrop
07. 01. 2008
0 views

organiccrop

Pregnant Man
30. 06. 2008
0 views

Pregnant Man

IBCH
30. 11. 2007
0 views

IBCH

Logbook Ramble
15. 11. 2007
0 views

Logbook Ramble

6 Duel for North America
14. 12. 2007
0 views

6 Duel for North America

kevin
14. 11. 2007
0 views

kevin

GME News You Can Use
05. 10. 2007
0 views

GME News You Can Use

25 02 pptlect
30. 12. 2007
0 views

25 02 pptlect

Corus Oct 03
04. 01. 2008
0 views

Corus Oct 03

La Regle
24. 02. 2008
0 views

La Regle

endo
04. 01. 2008
0 views

endo

ancs haoyu
03. 01. 2008
0 views

ancs haoyu

Shen 03octus 3 shenwenqing
12. 10. 2007
0 views

Shen 03octus 3 shenwenqing