promoting access to White Rose research papers Universities of Leeds, Sheffield and York http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ This is an author produced version of a paper published in The Geographical Journal. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/77142/ Paper: Tallontire, AM, Opondo, M and Nelson, V Contingent spaces for smallholder participation in GlobalGAP: insights from Kenyan horticulture value chains. The Geographical Journal. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12047 White Rose Research Online [email protected] This is the pre-peer reviewed version of the following article: Tallontire, A;, Opondo, M and Nelson, V J (forthcoming, online first) Contingent spaces for smallholder participation in GlobalGAP: insights from Kenyan horticulture value chains, Geographical Journal, DOI: 10.1111/geoj.12047 , which has been published in final form at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/geoj.12047/abstract. Contingent spaces for smallholder participation in GlobalGAP: insights from Kenyan horticulture value chains Introduction1 The introduction of private standards initiatives (PSIs) 2 in agri-food value chains raises questions regarding democratic governance and accountability and in particular with respect to the voice and agency of those whom the standards most affect or are designed to benefit – namely smallholders in developing countries. Scholars of standard setting processes have highlighted that far from being an objective process, standards are developed or are adopted to maintain the interests and limit the risks of key players in the value chain (Busch 2011; Loconto and Busch 2010). As Busch and Bain argued, private standards are used by the private sector to ‘reorganize aspects of the market to better suit its needs’ (2004, 322). The large brands and retailers at the head of global value chains are often identified as influential in the development and subsequent evolution of standards (Klooster 2005; Taylor 2005), but developing country producers may also use standards to justify their position, as in the South African fish sector (Ponte 2008). In this paper we employ the concept of ‘spaces for participation’ to analyse participation in PSIs to identify who is involved in shaping these initiatives and to explore to whom they are accountable and whose interests they serve. We scrutinize who are considered legitimate participants in the regulatory spaces created by standard systems and the dynamics of these spaces and their operation across multiple spatial scales, recognising that actors in the south at the local scale tend to be excluded (Bendell 2005; Blowfield and Dolan 2008; Nelson et al. forthcoming 2013). The question of whose voice and interests are included in standards processes is starting to be unpacked in a variety of regulatory settings, most recently in the context of commodity roundtables by Cheyns (2011). She highlights how the voices of smallholders have not been heeded even when they have been permitted into the standard setting arena, as they did not conform to procedural norms or make points within the previously agreed agenda. The increasingly high profile of the ISEAL Alliance’s (2010) code for standard setting which focuses on the standards development process, as well as on the structure and content of the standard, highlights the importance of these issues. 1 The authors gratefully acknowledge funding from the UK’s Economic and Social Research Council and Department for International Development, for the project ‘Governance Implications of Private Standards Initiatives in Agri- Food Chains’, grant ref: RES-167-25- 0195. 2 In our project we refer to talk of private standards initiatives as opposed to simply ‘standards’ as we are interested in not only the requirements or contents of the standard but also the constellation of actors involved in developing, implementing and monitoring the standard, and the relations between them. 1 We employ concepts which have been developed to explore democratic accountability and the exercise of citizenship and apply these to a specific arena, namely private forms of governance in the context of the Global Value Chain. Private standards initiatives are often presented as being beneficial to particular groups (such as workers in the case of labour codes, small farmers in the case of Fairtrade) and in recent years show greater awareness of the particular challenges of groups potentially disadvantaged by the standard (for example the Ethical Trading Initiative’s Smallholder Guidelines, as well as efforts to ensure that Fairtrade is more gender sensitive (Nelson and Pound 2009)). However how, and indeed to what extent, do standard systems enable producer and worker participation? And if so, what form of participation do these ‘spaces’ permit? Our research is set in the context of the value chain between Kenyan producers and European, primarily UK, supermarkets, and the standards that have emerged to regulate food safety or the social and environmental aspects of production and trade in these value chains. In particular we consider the politics surrounding standards systems to gain insights into their potential as a tool of empowerment for disadvantaged groups. In this paper our empirical focus is GlobalGAP, which is now the largest private agrifood certification scheme in the world and has become a de facto market access criterion to the EU, Kenya's main market. Our particular concern is smallholders, who are frequently omitted from analyses of value chains (Ouma 2010), and in contrast to other work on GlobalGAP which focuses on participation in the market (Ouma 2010; Graffham et al. 2007),we focus on participation in the governance of standards initiatives. The Kenyan export horticulture sector is an interesting locus for exploring the policy spaces related to private standards due to the importance of the sector to the country’s exports3, the keen interest of donors that promote export- led development (Humphrey 2008). Kenyan horticulture is often described as the most codified industry in the world (Dolan et al. 2003; Jaffee 2005; Riisgaard 2009). This is of course associated with the industry's success in linking to supermarket buyers in Europe as access to these European markets often entails compliance with different codes of conduct. 4 To some extent Kenya’s success with export horticulture distinguishes it from other African countries, but its experience has parallels with value chains linked into other countries in the global South in that producers must engage with global buyers and standard setters if they wish to access lucrative markets (UNCTAD 2008). 3 In the last seven years alone, horticulture has overtaken tea as the principal foreign exchange earner (Republic of Kenya, 2008; 2010). 4 A high proportion of vegetable exports, particularly 'high care' prepared and packaged products, are exported directly to supermarkets in the UK and other parts of northern Europe (Jaffee 2005). 2 The discussion in this paper draws on primary empirical research from 2008-2010, including findings from focus group discussions (FGDs) with smallholders who have been part of the horticulture value chains as well as over sixty key informant interviews with NGOs, private export companies, government representatives, trade unionists and consultants in Kenya, the UK and elsewhere in Europe and participatory stakeholder workshops in Nairobi in September 2008 and validation workshop in January 2010. Through our analysis we highlight the limited and ad hoc nature of participation and involvement in these policy spaces by smallholders and indeed other southern actors. We also highlight that these spaces are not framed in such a way that they address the concerns of those actors who may not be considered ‘citizens’ or legitimate direct participants. In so doing, we contribute to an extension of value chain analysis that embeds consideration of power dynamics and reasserts the importance of institutional context (Neilson and Pritchard 2009). In the following section we explain what we mean by spaces for participation. Next we introduce GlobalGAP and KenyaGAP, the latter being a standard that was developed to facilitate compliance by smallholders. We then draw on our fieldwork in Kenya, including focus groups with small farmers to examine the extent to which GlobalGAP can be regarded as a space for participation and the voice of smallholders. Spaces for participation We begin our discussion by establishing what we mean by ‘spaces for participation’. Since the 1990s, participation has been a popular concept in development and environmental management (Cornwall 2002; Stringer et al. 2006), but it is contested, especially given recent depictions of participation as ‘tyranny’ (Cooke and Kothari 2001). Critiques of participatory projects notwithstanding, understanding how different actors can participate in public policy making and processes that affect their lives continues to be an important research question, especially in the context of citizenship, governance and policy making (O’Neill et al. 2007). Moreover, it is increasingly recognised that those who are affected by, or who can affect, specific policies and proposals in development, should have the right to exercise voice particularly to ensure accountability (Goetz and Jenkins 2005). In the business sector however, we contend that whilst there is recognition of the importance of stakeholders, who these may be and the nature of their involvement in governance is less well-defined or accepted. 5 5 Cf the debate between normative or instrumental approaches to defining stakeholders (Garriga and Mele 2004). 3 Hickey and Mohan note how Cornwall and colleagues have ‘reframed participation as multi-scaled citizenship’ linking participation to political debates such as claiming rights through the idea of ‘spaces for participation’ (2004, 13). This approach to participation is rooted in discussion of democratic decision-making in the public sphere where individuals are considered ‘citizens’ in the context of government or public authority (Cornwall 2002; 2004; Cornwall and Coelho 2007). When empowered, citizens can participate in certain mechanisms which permit their voice to be heard by those in authority, who then, depending on various other factors, such as responsiveness and the overall political context, can be made accountable (O’Neill et al. 2007). Spaces can be viewed in a material sense (as distinct places which can be filled and populated) or as metaphorical spaces which are meeting points, a network or grouping that is less tied to a particular physical location, or to synchronous communication (Massey 1994). Cornwall (2002) and Gaventa (2006) characterize different kinds of spaces for citizen engagement in terms of the power relations that lead to their formation. Forming such spaces is often associated with power struggles in which different groups seek to define them, and shape relationships between different levels of authority, e.g. between the municipal and national structures of government and international processes (McFarlane 2004; Sharp et al. 2000). Spaces may be opened and closed as part of their on-going dynamics. Cornwall (2002) and Gaventa (2006) distinguish between invited, claimed and closed spaces. Closed spaces are restricted to representatives of authorities with limited external consultation. Invited spaces are those in which an authority allows other stakeholders to participate whereas in claimed spaces less powerful groups create sufficient pressure to be able to enter a previously closed space and articulate their demands. Of course, different actors may have differing perceptions of an on-going process, not least because many have a partial or obscured view of the overall picture. Questions need to be asked not only about the dynamics of space, but also about the initial framing: how is the agenda set, the mechanism chosen, subjects for debate selected and participants included or excluded. Certain actors may be given entry to spaces for debate and decision-making, but others may be excluded and agendas reshaped. As Cornwall states, ‘Talking in terms of spaces for participation conveys the situated nature of participation, the bounded yet permeable arenas in which participation is invited.....’(2004, 75). Some spaces may operate at multiple scales, or, as Sadler (2004, 864) notes spaces for engagement may operate at a global scale as well as the nation state level, or perhaps even in the form of a ‘much more discontinuous space of engagement, one that is forever transient’ and without a central 4 location. The definition of different scales, and what makes a place a place, i.e. what are the boundaries between the local, regional, national and the global, is inherently complex, contested and indeed political (Sharp 2009). In our analysis of ‘spaces for participation’ we shift the spotlight from the public sphere to private spheres of authority, noting how private sector actors through the formation and application of standards governing the value chain create new kinds of space. In particular we take the concept of spaces for participation to the context of the global value chain (GVC), recognizing the ability of the GVC framework to ‘move across different spatial scales and for its effectiveness in highlighting the importance of cross-border forms of organization [and collaboration] in the global economy' (Bair 2008, 355). Our approach to value chains has been to emphasize horizontal aspects of governance that work in tandem with the vertical governance of the chain by lead actors especially buyers. In doing so, we contribute to the re-assertion of analysis of institutions in GVC approaches in terms of how the governance of value chains produces location-specific results and play into evolving institutional dynamics in a territory (Helmsing and Vellema 2011; Neilson and Pritchard 2009; Tallontire 2007; Tallontire et al. 2011) and indeed the social construction of standards (Ouma 2010). Through the lens of spaces for participation, private standards initiatives (PSIs) in African agri-food value chains seem to represent a process of opening whereby more actors are involved in the discussion about what constitutes good practice. However, perceptions may vary amongst stakeholders as to which category a new space falls into and or who may be considered legitimate participants. For example, PSIs in agri-food chains could be viewed as an invited policy space (private sector inviting other actors in to the regulatory arena), but there may also be a countervailing process of claiming space occurring, internationally and nationally, as NGOs, trade unions and sometimes donors engage in labour and environmental issues in value chains. Moreover it is important to recognise that those who create the spaces, such as retailers or other private sector actors, may use such spaces to their own interests, sometimes co-opting spaces, sometimes closing them down. Likewise other actors, such as NGOs, trade unions and sometimes media scrutiny undertake activities that open them up or may alter their direction of travel and agendas. As well as tracking the dynamics of these spaces, and analysing who are considered legitimate participants, it is essential to consider different scales, because international forces interact with national and local ones. For empirical simplicity, we have adopted Gaventa's three places for policy spaces, but have re-defined them using terms that fit more closely with our empirical context of 5 agri-food value chains. Thus in our analysis the international scale relates to the countries in which agri-food products are consumed and where the buyer is located, but also where standards bodies with operations spanning country borders are located . The national scale relates to the national level actors and institutions largely associated with export and large scale production and for local we refer to workers and smallholders (but could also include local communities in the territory who may have similar or different priorities and interests to those participating in the global value chain). Importantly, the actors at these different scales are linked through a physical trading chain in which agri-food products are produced; value is added and moved around the globe but also through networks of actors that cross scales, such as international NGOs and standard systems. The formulation of GlobalGAP and KenyaGAP In recent years efforts have been made to increase the access of smallholders to the opportunities presented by the export market. However, the extent to which smallholders have a chance to influence the framing of priorities in the standards that govern the value chain, in particular GlobalGAP, remains unclear. We focus on efforts to facilitate smallholder certification according to GlobalGAP in Kenya through donor-funded programmes and the establishment of KenyaGAP as an attempt at a more smallholder friendly and locally appropriate variant of the GlobalGAP protocol. GlobalGAP Much of the policy and academic literature on GlobalGAP in countries producing for the European retail market such as Kenya has focused on the implications of the standard for smallholders’ relationship with exporters and market access (Ouma 2010, Humphrey 2008). EurepGAP, now GlobalGAP, was established in 1996 in Cologne (Germany) as an initiative by retailers belonging to the Euro-Retailer Fresh Produce Working Group (EUREP) to develop standards for Good Agricultural Practice (GAP). It was a response to consumer concerns and European legislation on food safety (e.g. the ‘legal liability framework’ expressed in the UK Food Safety Act 1990). Many retailers require their suppliers to be certified according to GlobalGAP standard6 to demonstrate that adequate systems are in place to ensure the delivery of safe food to the consumer, from 'field to fork' (Henson and Jaffee 2005, Hatanaka et al. 2005). 6 See GlobalGAP 2008 6 GlobalGAP was initially a completely closed space, open only to retailers. However, its membership has expanded over the past decade, especially since 2001 when producers and exporters were permitted to join the 'partnership' and were given rights to participate in the executive and technical committees. Whilst GlobalGAP is not a development institution, there is an increasing recognition that many of the members’ supply chains depend upon smallholders to fulfil demand for produce, and so it has increasingly paid attention to whether smallholders can meet GAP requirements. In the face of accusations that the standard was pushing small producers out of the market (Graffham et al. 2007), GlobalGAP worked with DFID and GTZ to establish a ‘Smallholder Ambassador’ in 2007. This role was initially taken a German consultant but in January 2009 he was succeeded by the chief executive of Fresh Producer Exporters Association of Kenya (FPEAK).7 The remit of the Smallholder Ambassador was ‘to identify specific ways in which the GLOBALGAP standard can be more inclusive for smallholder farmers from developing countries and to assist GLOBALGAP members to develop/adjust appropriate technical standards and tools’ (GlobalGAP, GTZ, DFID 2008, 3). In this task the Smallholder Ambassador was assisted by the Smallholder Task Force (six ‘experts’ from Europe and Africa, working in research, audit, import and export) who sought and reviewed proposals on GlobalGAP’s Control Points and Compliance Criteria and systems for certification. This focus on smallholders in GlobalGAP’s policy begs questions about the ways in which smallholder voices have been expressed in GlobalGAP and if and how smallholders have been able to participate in GlobalGAP-related processes. We explore these questions through analysis of GlobalGAP in Kenya where smallholders have been important to the continued growth and success of the sector (Ouma 2010; Mithöfer et al. 2007; Dolan and Humphrey 2000). Larger producers in Kenya were able to swiftly meet the GlobalGAP standard independently, often having used codes of practice for a number of years either as a result of their interaction with supermarkets or through engagement with exporter association codes of practice. For large exporters, standards are a fact of life: ‘Whether we like it or not standards are imposed by our customers and you might not like it but they have a right to safe and ethical products’ (manager at vegetable export company, 24 October 2008). However, the introduction of ever more demanding standards, including the roll out of GlobalGAP along the supply chain, has made it more difficult for smallholder farmers to maintain their access to international markets.8 Some smallholders are 7 http://www.africa-observer.info/index.html. 8 Whether or not there has been a net exclusion of smallholders from export markets is a hot topic of debate (Jaffee et al. 2011). 7 closely tied to certain exporters who have invested heavily in systems to ensure compliance of ‘their’ smallholders, but others are less closely tied to particular growers, often selling through brokers or changing exporters each season. Challenges in complying with standards include technical requirements (e.g. infrastructure and equipment for hygiene, using the right chemicals in the right volumes) and maintaining appropriate records (Dolan 2005; Nyagah and Watene 2008; Nyambo et al. 2009; Humphrey 2008). Retailers involved in GlobalGAP set a target of early 2004 for all fresh produce in their supply chains to be certified according to the standard. Some NGOs, government officials and donors operating in the producing countries, and particularly in Kenya, misinterpreted this deadline as mandatory for access to the EU market leading to panic and hasty plans to ensure compliance particularly amongst smallholders (Humphrey 2006). The emergence of KenyaGAP In Kenya an initial response was the decision by the Horticulture Task Force (HTF) in late 2004 to explore the potential for a KenyaGAP standard, because this would be more attuned to local conditions. This task force, formed when the EU reduced the maximum permitted levels of pesticide residues (MRLs) on certain crops, was a grouping of public and private bodies, including Fresh Produce Exporters Association of Kenya (FPEAK) and the Kenya Flower Council (KFC).9 In early 2005, this task force formed a National Technical Working Group of GlobalGAP (NTWG) which worked towards benchmarking KenyaGAP to GlobalGAP, a process encouraged and publicised by GlobalGAP and supported by donors (EurepGAP 2005, 8; Humphrey 2008; UNCTAD 2008; Mbithi 2008b). For example the chair of FPEAK stated: 'The process of benchmarking Kenya-GAP to EurepGAP is the unique opportunity for our small-holders to demonstrate that they are world-class producers' (as quoted in EurepGAP 2005, 8). In a presentation to the GlobalGAP conference explaining the KenyaGAP development process, the chief executive of FPEAK highlighted that ‘Smallholder consultation is Key’ and that this involves ‘Structured input to the formal process’ (Mbithi 2008b, slide 7). So, KenyaGAP was an initiative of Kenyan stakeholders, particularly FPEAK, but was guided by GlobalGAP and other northern actors. Over recent years the chief executive of FPEAK has presented the exporter organisation as one that 9 In Kenya there are two leading private sector exporter associations in the horticulture and floriculture sector: FPEAK and the Kenya Flower Council (KFC). 8 can speak for smaller producers (Mbithi 2008a and b). An important part of FPEAK’s public profile, and differentiation from the Kenya Flower Council, is its claim to represent thousands of smallholders who are contracted by exporters, as well as the direct exporter members.10 However, one may question the extent to which, or even whether, FPEAK is able to effectively represent smallholders at the same time as representing the companies that depend on smallholders. And if they do not, who else might support smallholders? When describing the process of developing KenyaGAP, a consultant involved in the process said: ‘We started with what the farmers are doing… We wanted to standardise the production practices of farmers, especially small-scale growers…’ (interview, 21 May 2008). Any kind of direct participation or representation of smallholders was not deemed a priority by those convening the working group. It was felt sufficient to rely on FPEAK’s claim to represent not only the direct exporter members, but also the smallholders who are contracted by exporters. Consultants and NGOs were used as proxies to represent farmers’ voices in the NTWG developing the KenyGAP standard – which again raises questions about the basis on which, and how effectively these groups represent smallholders. For example, a consultant we interviewed first suggested he represented smallholders and then when questioned further indicated that he was 'rather representing the PMOs11 dealing with smallholders’ (15 July 2009). The proponents of KenyaGAP highlighted the importance of consulting widely to ensure acceptance of the KenyaGAP proposals across the country (interviews May 2008), suggesting that at the national level or further up the value chain space for participation was more open than at the local level. This was particularly the case for NTWG members who included representatives of exporters, key public sector bodies such as KEPHIS (Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Service) and NGOs working on donor funded projects to enhance smallholder access to high value horticulture markets. However whilst there was a period of opening up a space for participation in the development of KenyaGAP, particularly around 2005-6, our informants suggest that this space was quickly closed down once benchmarking with GlobalGAP was achieved in 2007. A manager at an export firm said: 'Although I was a member of the technical team I am not aware of what 10 More recently the KFC has claimed to speak for the increasing number of flower vendors on the streets of Nairobi as well as exporters, expressed as part of its corporate social responsibility. 11 PMOs are primary marketing organisations, ie marketing agents, often acting for assemblers or exporters 9