A/HRC/13/33 supplier and buyer; no undue delay in payments; no retrospective reduction in price unless reasonable notification is given, at the latest prior to delivery; no obligation for the supplier to contribute to marketing costs; no compensation to be paid to the buyer for failure to make the expected sales or for wastage; limited circumstances in which suppliers may be asked to pay a lump sum to the retailer for access to the shelves; no obligation for the supplier to contribute disproportionately to promotions; no change in supply chain management without reasonable notice; and no unjustified payment imposed on the supplier for consumer complaints. C. The role of buyers in respecting the right to food 37. Buyers also could improve the ability of smallholders to have access to markets, whether local, regional or global. There is evidence that the shift from supply-driven to buyer-driven chains, linked to the expansion of large retail networks (“supermarketization”), can lead to an increased exclusion of smallholders.44 Such exclusion is due, in part, to the imposition of standards in the supply chain that smallholders find it difficult to comply with. They must be supported in achieving compliance, but they must also be integrated in ways that ensure an adequate standard of living, including adequate food, as required by article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. In the view of the Special Rapporteur, three issues are central. 1. Private standards 38. The agribusiness sector has devoted significant efforts to developing private standards, traceability systems and third-party certification in order to accompany and facilitate the booming global trade in fresh fruit, vegetables and fish. The most significant initiative in this regard was the establishment of the European Retailers’ Protocol for Good Agricultural Practice (EurepGAP), which evolved into GLOBALGAP, a certification system covering the process from farm inputs to the farm gate. The development of standards is frequently seen as a tool to guarantee that the globalization of food chains meets high social and environmental criteria. However, the focus has been more on hygiene and food safety issues than on social and environmental concerns. 39. The development of private standards has worked against smallholders.45 Indeed, compliance has often required higher levels of capitalization than many smallholders could afford, and the high costs of monitoring compliance over a large number of units have been an incentive for export companies to switch from smallholders to larger commercial farms.46 This consequence can only be avoided by the payment of a premium by the 44 45 46 GE.09-17776 See D. Sautier and others, “Case-studies of agri-processing and contract agriculture in Africa”, Rimisp-Latin American Center for Rural Development, 2006. In their study of the vegetable export chain in Senegal, Johan F.M. Swinnen and Miet Maertens conclude that tightening standards led to a shift from smallholder contract farming to integrated estate production. But, they note, the poorest households benefited through being employed on such estates rather than themselves producing for the global markets (M. Maertens and J.F.M. Swinnen, “Trade, Standards and Poverty: Evidence from Senegal”, World Development, vol. 37, No. 1 (January 2009), p. 161. Plantation farming is generally much less labour-intensive than small-scale farming, however, and it is therefore doubtful whether, in most cases, the employment effects compensate for the increased concentration of production. See, e.g. the Agrifood Standards Programme led in 2005–2008 by the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) and the Natural Resources Institute (NRI) with the support of the United Kingdom Department for International Development (DFID) and the Swiss Agency for 15