The impact of such standards on the horticulture industry in sub-Saharan Africa is complex. In some countries, increasing adoption of practices required to meet these requirements has resulted in spillover into domestic markets of technology, quality assurance and management of supply chains. Proponents argue that by applying the recommended protocols on good agricultural practice, small-scale farmers not only enjoy a premium market outlet but experience increased income through gains in productivity and yields as well. In Zambia, for example, farmers have embraced EurepGAP standards as good business in terms of tracking inputs (which reduces theft), improving farm management (which results in higher yields), and increasing group bargaining power (which brings better prices). Improvements in worker safety and food safety vis-à-vis pesticides are also reported (Graffham, 2006). In this sense, the requirements producers must meet to enter the market have generated new agricultural technologies and practices, as well as more favorable market conditions for certain products.

 Despite the spinoff benefits of the market-driven requirements and technologies, these increasingly rigid standards may have negative effects as well, serving as a form of import protection for domestic industry, particularly when restrictive measures raise the cost of imported produce. Proposed controls on carbon footprints can compromise the competitiveness of African products in European markets, or exclude them from those markets altogether. Moreover, smaller producers sometimes find certification requirements prohibitively costly and are unable to comply because they lack the resources and expertise to maintain the requisite quality management system. They are also sometimes unable to afford the certification charges (including the fees charged by local certification bodies—in Zambia, for example, fees have been as high as those charged by international certifiers). In fact, at present, the costs associated with training, infrastructural development, testing and analysis, pre-audit inspections, and certification are largely funded by donors. It is unlikely that the private sector will assume these costs in the near term. Some international development agencies (funded by multilateral and bilateral donors) now work with producer associations to help integrate food safety standards into their projects, not only to prepare producers to enter global markets but also to ensure that those not yet ready will adjust their practices in such a way as to avoid exclusion later when they prepare for export (Hobart, 2004). Producers without access to such assistance, however, may find their margins are insufficient to cover the costs of certification and maintenance. In this way, certification requirements to enter export markets may further segment small-scale producers, with new opportunities for the wealthier and reduced competitiveness for the poor.

 For countries such as Kenya, however, EurepGAP cannot be ignored, as the EU represents up to 80% of Kenya’s market share in horticultural commodities. Comprehensive data on the impact of standards regimes on African agricultural producers are lacking.

 While globalization of markets has the potential to open up new export markets for African agricultural products, this potential is conditioned by policies implemented in industrialized-country markets, including agricultural and export subsidies and dumping, and market barriers.