《欧盟关于可追溯性Traceability方面的讲座PPT04ppjrcflt》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《欧盟关于可追溯性Traceability方面的讲座PPT04ppjrcflt（30页珍藏版）》请在金锄头文库上搜索。
1、Farm Level Traceability (FLT):a step ahead in CAP reform implementationPaolo PIZZIOL(paolo.pizzioljrc.it)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
2、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-
3、13 October 2006 / 17EU Legal basis (for traceability)-Traceability systems for Labelling/Certification were already in placePGI, PDOPlant Health Regime (plant passport system-since 1993)Animal Health Regime (since 1993)-After the BSE crisis, Traceability became a mustRegulation (EC) 1760/2000-Genera
4、l 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) 1782/2003Inside GFL, Minimum requirements are actually:-keep record of one
5、-step ahead /one step back partners and products-label products to facilitate its traceabilityPETER Workshop, YORK 11-13 October 2006 / 17Traceability: why?DomainsScopeTargetsProducts qualitycertification of origin, of quality, of organic farmingFarmers, retailer, consumersProducts safetyeffective r
6、ecalls in case of food safety alertsConsumers, administrationFarm managementcrop, machinery, logistics, navigation, land selection - also taking into account Natura 2000 and vulnerable zones- precision farmingFarmersInformation managementFarmers, administration, advisers, insuranceDecision supportRi
7、sk Assessment, land managementAdministrationLogisticsCarriers, control bodiesControlsEC subsidies, Cross Compliance, auditsAdministrationPETER Workshop, YORK 11-13 October 2006 / 17Other definitions Geo-traceability : associates geographical coordinates to relevant information for production traceab
8、ilityTracing: determining the history of a food throughout the food chainUpward: from farm to forkDownward: from fork to farmTracking: determining the location of a certain food in the food chain in a certain momenttrack back: one step downtrack forward: one step upRecord keeping is collecting all r
9、elevant data and informationPETER Workshop, YORK 11-13 October 2006 / 17Traceability: dedicated technologiesTraceability systems could range within different levels of complexity:Paper recordsDigital records DB, on-line DB, ad hoc SW solutions, GIS, remote sensing, GPS, GPRS, barcode scannersAutomat
10、ic recording (RFID, 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 businessPETER Workshop, YORK 11-13 October 2006 / 17Traceability: a
11、vailable technologies and questioningTraceability 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 basi
12、s 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 farmers side?PETER W
13、orkshop, YORK 11-13 October 2006 / 17Disclaimer: 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
14、CAP reformPETER Workshop, YORK 11-13 October 2006 / 17Conclusions (1)FLT consists basically of data acquisition, storage and analysis butFLT, 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 sup
15、port CAP implementationFLT 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 desirablePETER Workshop, YORK 11-13 October 2006 / 17Conclusions (2
16、)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 problemsBenefitsFacilitated application procedureSaving useful information usually lost in the supply chainSimplified ma
17、nagement if information is collected properlyIf the information collected is in the frame of a traceability systems (record keeping), this could provide an automatic certification for Cross-compliancePETER Workshop, YORK 11-13 October 2006 / 17Conclusions (3)Which role could play JRC?Stimulate discu
18、ssionPerform and/or coordinate research/studiesLead networking of MS administrations/private companiesDefine/promote best practicesProvide guidelines draftingWe think that the challenge at this stage is to convince policy makers and farmers of the added value of an adequately implemented traceabilit
19、y and therefore perform studies demonstrating this. PETER Workshop, YORK 11-13 October 2006 / 17Thanks for your attention !PETER Workshop, YORK 11-13 October 2006 / 17Traceability purposes: quality(not exhaustive!) Record keeping demonstrate/certify the production protocol in place (e.g. organic far
20、ming)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 / 17Traceability purposes: recallsRecal
21、ls 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 accurateIn case of plant products, the highest level o
22、f accuracy achievable is the identification of the parcelPETER Workshop, YORK 11-13 October 2006 / 17ADMINISTRATION+ParcelsCropsPrimaryproductionsCAP implementation: the current situationMARKETSADMINISTRATIONIACS-GISPublic FASPrivate FASTraceability Record keeping Applicationfor subsidiesCC controls
23、ADVICESSubsidiesPETER Workshop, YORK 11-13 October 2006 / 17Subsidies (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 Octob
24、er 2006 / 17Subsidies (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 / 17CAP implementatio
25、n: the integrated solution (3)Aids (SPS)Added ValuesContractsNiche markets(PDO)Certification(Organic Farming)World Market PricesCooperativesFarmers unionsCompaniesTechnical specifications ControlsFLT - TRACEABILITYPETER Workshop, YORK 11-13 October 2006 / 17FASAwarenessDiagnosisSubsidies (SPS)Added
26、ValuesContractsNiche markets(PDO)Certification(Organic Farming)World Market PricesCAP implementation: the integrated solution (4)Cross-compliancePETER Workshop, YORK 11-13 October 2006 / 17IACS (LPIS)Declarations Administrative and “on the spot” controlsSubsidies (SPS)Added ValuesContractsNiche mark
27、ets(PDO)Certification(Organic Farming)World Market PricesTechnical specifications ControlsFLT - TRACEABILITYCAP implementation: the integrated solution (5)PETER Workshop, YORK 11-13 October 2006 / 17IACS (LPIS)Declarations Administrative and “on the spot” controlsSubsidies (SPS)Added ValuesContracts
28、Niche markets(PDO)Certification(Organic Farming)World Market PricesTechnical specifications ControlsFLT - TRACEABILITYFASAwarenessDiagnosisCAP implementation: the integrated solution (6)Cross-compliancePETER Workshop, YORK 11-13 October 2006 / 17ADMINISTRATIONGAEC N “possibility of ploughing accordi
29、ng to averaged slope of parcel regional threshold = 10%.”FASIACSAdmin. 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 parc
30、el Info:Practice: PloughingLocation: parcel GeoIDmachinery GPSDate & timeExample: ploughing where it could be forbiddenFLT SystemFarm DatabaseGPSPDAErosion Sensitivity Index of parcels (risk maps)1PETER Workshop, YORK 11-13 October 2006 / 17ADMINISTRATIONGAEC N “possibility of ploughing according to
31、 averaged slope of parcel regional threshold = 10%.”FASIACSAdmin. 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 In
32、fo:Practice: PluggingLocation: parcel GeoIDmachinery GPSDate & timeExample: ploughing where it could be forbidden (2)FLT SystemFarm DatabaseConform advices supply2GPSPDAPETER Workshop, YORK 11-13 October 2006 / 17ADMINISTRATIONGAEC N “possibility of ploughing according to averaged slope of parcel re
33、gional threshold = 10%.”FASIACSFrom parcel Info: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 DatabaseOn the spot control and negative incentivesAdmi
34、n. Tool N.2: Good Farm Practices guideline (database)Recommended practicesAdmin. Tool N.3: CONTROLSReduction and/or Exclusion according to Cross-Compliance3GPSPDAPETER Workshop, YORK 11-13 October 2006 / 17An example: the EurepGAP approachEurepGAP Central DBGeo-Data TrusteeFarmer(field passport)Proc
35、essing plantRetailer/ConsumerCooperative/WarehouseSupply chainINTERNETPETER Workshop, YORK 11-13 October 2006 / 17Traceability: minimum requirements Place of the treatment (geo-localized)Quality of the treatmentQuantity of the treatmentDate and conditions of the treatmentThis information need to be
36、collected in a consistent way, and could be linked to a plot and a batchPETER Workshop, YORK 11-13 October 2006 / 173) Computer4) Database1) Electronic identifier134.2 kHz134.2 kHz2) ReaderPowerReadScanRF WaveRF WaveElectronic Animal Identification SystemPETER Workshop, YORK 11-13 October 2006 / 17P
37、rinciple Technical ArchitectureGPRS/GMSGPS/ GalileoGPRS/GMSRemote receiverPositioningand timeAuthorized usersIntegration between EID and Navigation System (EC Reg 1/2005)PETER Workshop, YORK 11-13 October 2006 / 17Is there any similarity between animal movement and agricultural production traceabili
38、ty? 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 / 17Computer assisted cross checkToday, from 10 to 12h , you have ploughed on parcel 2
39、5 to wheat cultivation: “what depth? Orientation? Type of ploughshare? Which working speed?Automatic info inside farmer GIS/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 examplePETER Workshop, YORK 11-13 October 2006 / 17
