Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
these environmental requirements; however, the cost of complying with these regula-
tions is relatively higher for SMEs from outside the region than for producers based in
Europe.
The
fi
nancial and human resources needed to formulate technical regulations are also
signi
cant and often beyond the means of developing countries. While calls for harmo-
nization with international standards are proposed as means to assist developing
economies to overcome this challenge, the interim e
fi
ect remains a loss of market share
due to the inability to comply with measures that are beyond the technical, technological
and
ff
nancial capacity of SMEs in developing countries. Harmonization of standards also
assumes that standards exist for products of strategic export interest to developing coun-
tries. This, however, is not necessarily the case for niche products and alternative crops
that are not produced in most developed countries, such as exotic fruits and certain herbs.
Standards to guarantee food safety do not also necessarily consider di
fi
ff
erences in diet and
climate in di
erent regions. For example, titanium dioxide in tahini is allowed in higher
concentrations internationally than in Lebanon, where hummus and related food items
are considered dietary staples. Standards related to the use of genetically modi
ff
fi
ed organ-
isms, reused water, and packaging also di
er between Arab countries, and thus compli-
ance with standards adopted in the North does not necessarily guarantee access to a
neighboring country's market.
Additionally, an increasing array of
ff
voluntary standards has also emerged that
in
uences the competitiveness and ability of small and medium-sized producers in devel-
oping countries to reach consumers in industrialized countries. Compliance with indus-
try-based standards and consumer preferences is increasingly in
fl
uencing the ability of
exporters to enter international supply and distribution chains. While the opportunity to
secure regular contracts with large retailers and multinational conglomerates encourages
compliance with these more rigorous voluntary requirements, most manufacturers have
not been able to take advantage of the opportunities presented by the global marketplace.
For instance, while there has been an expansion of fresh and processed food exports from
the Arab region in recent years, only six producers in the Arab region are certi
fl
ed under
GlobalGap (formerly EuropGap), three in Egypt and three in Morocco, despite the fact
that an increasing number of European supermarket chains impose EuropGap require-
ments as a precondition on their vendors. Rather than turning towards Europe, Arab
exporters are instead looking to other retailers in other regions to market their goods. For
instance, Arab exports to China have increased exponentially in recent years. As this may
have implications for consumer protection in other parts of the world, greater assistance
is needed to help producers comply with a necessary set of baseline standards to ensure
food safety and environmental protection.
The solution, however, is not so easy. The cost of compliance with environmental
requirements is further complicated when the cost of conformity assessment is incorpo-
rated into the equation. In this case it is not only compliance with an appointed set of
standards that poses the di
fi
culty, but also the cost and time associated with demon-
strating compliance with these standards in the absence of adequate conformity assess-
ment infrastructure. While the situation in the Arab region is improving, with new
food-testing laboratories established in Egypt, Oman, the United Arab Emirates and
Morocco, and Tunisia establishing laboratories for testing garments and fabrics, the
demand for these services still outweighs supply. Additionally, many testing facilities are
Search WWH ::




Custom Search