한국에서 농산물우수관리인증제도의 현황과 과제 : 경상남도를 중심으로 = Current Status and Challenge of the Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) Certification System in Korea: Focusing on Gyeongnam Province

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This study examines the structural characteristics and regional heterogeneity of Korea’s Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) certification system, with a particular focus on Gyeongsangnam-do, one of the country’s most agriculturally active provinces. Using national GAP statistics for 2024 combined with county-level certification data, the analysis aims to clarify how GAP adoption differs by region and crop type, and to identify institutional and structural factors that shape certification outcomes.
At the national scale, GAP certification has evolved from an initial expansion-oriented policy instrument into a more institutionalized quality management system emphasizing traceability, food safety, and production accountability. By 2024, approximately 12,000 farms were certified nationwide, covering nearly 170,000 ha. Since the mid-2010s, both the number of participating farms and the certified area have increased steadily, indicating that GAP has become an integral component of Korea’s agricultural governance framework.
Gyeongsangnam-do plays a pivotal role in this system, accounting for roughly one-fifth of all GAP-certified farms. Despite this high level of participation, the province contributes only about one-tenth of the national certified area, revealing a pronounced imbalance between participation intensity and spatial scale. This discrepancy reflects the dominance of small, family-based farming systems, which facilitate widespread enrollment but constrain the expansion of certified acreage. As a result, GAP adoption in Gyeongsangnam-do follows a participation-driven pattern rather than a scale-driven one, distinguishing it from regions characterized by large commercial farming operations.
Marked disparities are also observed among counties within the province. A small group of counties concentrates a substantial share of certified farms and land, while others exhibit persistently low certification levels. These differences cannot be explained solely by variations in agricultural size; rather, they are closely associated with differences in administrative support, crop specialization, market access, and demographic structure. Counties offering financial assistance and institutional support for certification tend to achieve higher participation rates, whereas areas with aging farm populations face difficulties in maintaining certification due to documentation and training requirements.
Crop-based analysis reveals additional structural imbalances. Although GAP certification spans rice, fruit, greenhouse vegetables, and open-field vegetables, certification is heavily concentrated in a limited number of high-value crops. Perennial fruit crops, such as persimmons and strawberries, exhibit relatively stable certification due to long production cycles and branding advantages, while short-cycle open-field vegetables show lower continuity in certification. This divergence highlights the interaction between crop characteristics, economic incentives, and certification sustainability.
From an economic perspective, GAP certification in Gyeongsangnam-do contributes primarily to enhanced product credibility and regional branding rather than immediate income gains for farmers. The limited price premium associated with certification, combined with administrative and compliance costs, reduces farmers’ long-term motivation and increases reliance on public support mechanisms.
Scenario-based policy assessment suggests that incremental or single-policy interventions are insufficient to substantially improve certification rates. In contrast, integrated policy packages—combining certification cost support, digitalized record management, and stronger linkage to public procurement channels—demonstrate significant potential to raise certification coverage toward and beyond 50%.
Overall, Gyeongsangnam-do illustrates both the strengths and limitations of Korea’s GAP system: a broad participation base coexisting with structural constraints related to farm scale, regional inequality, and crop concentration. Addressing these challenges will require a strategic shift from participation-oriented expansion toward integrated approaches that promote scale efficiency, crop diversification, market integration, and digital transformation. Such a transition would position Gyeongsangnam-do as a leading model region for the future development of GAP certification in Korea.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 서언 1
• 1. 연구의 배경 및 필요성 1
• 2. 국제적 GAP 동향 1
• 3. 국내 GAP 동향 및 최근 10년간의 변화 3
• 4. 경상남도 농업과 GAP 제도의 연계성 4
• 5. 연구 목적과 범위 4
• Ⅱ. 재료 및 방법 6
• 1. 본 연구 데이터의 출처와 수집 과정 6
• 2. 연구 대상과 분석 범위 7
• 1) 공간적 범위 7
• 2) 시간적 범위 7
• 3) 품복 범위 7
• 3. 분석 지표 8
• 4. 연구 절차 8 5. 데이터 정규화 및 전처리 10
• 6. 자료 분석 및 방법론 10
• Ⅲ. 결과 12
• Chapter 1. 농산물우수관리인증제도의 현황과 추진 방향 12
• 1. 전국과 경상남도 GAP 인증 현황의 비교 12
• 1) 전국 GAP 인증 현황 및 경상남도의 위치 12
• 2. 경상남도 18개 시군 GAP 인증 현황 및 인증률 순위 16
• 1) 시군별 세부 현황 및 종합 분석 16
• 3. 품목별 GAP 인증 현황 19
• 1) 쌀 전략 곡물의 위치와 관계 19
• 2) 사과 북부 산간지대의 대표 과수전략 19
• 3) 포도 재배 전통과 품질 중심 전략 20
• 4) 딸기 경상남도 농업의 혁신 아이콘 20
• 5) 단감 경상남도를 대표하는 전국 1위 인증 품목 20
• 6) 참외 신흥 강자의 부상 21
• 7) 고추 전통 채소의 안정적 기반 21
• 8) 배추 낮은 인증률의 상징적 사례 21
• 9) 양파와 마늘 전국적 주산지, 낮은 인증률 22
• 4. 경상남도 각 시군별 인증 현황 및 품목별 분석 24
• 1) 진주시의 GAP 인증 현황 및 분석 24
• 2) 창녕군의 GAP 인증 현황 및 분석 26
• 3) 밀양시의 GAP 인증 현황 및 분석 28
• 4) 산청군의 GAP 인증 현황 및 분석 30
• 5) 거창군의 GAP 인증 현황 및 분석 32
• 6) 김해시의 GAP 인증 현황 및 분석 34
• 7) 함안군의 GAP 인증 현황 및 분석 36
• 8) 사천시의 GAP 인증 현황 및 분석 38
• 9) 창원시의 GAP 인증 현황 및 분석 40
• 10) 합천군의 GAP 인증 현황 및 분석 42
• 11) 양산시의 GAP 인증 현황 및 분석 44
• 12) 고성군의 GAP 인증 현황 및 분석 46
• 13) 함양군의 GAP 인증 현황 및 분석 48
• 14) 통영시의 GAP 인증 현황 및 분석 50
• 15) 거제시의 GAP 인증 현황 및 분석 52
• 16) 남해군의 GAP 인증 현황 및 분석 54
• 17) 하동군의 GAP 인증 현황 및 분석 56
• 18) 의령군의 GAP 인증 현황 및 분석 58
• 19) GAP 인증 현황 및 분석 종합 정리 60
• Chapter 2. 경상국립대학교 농산물친환경품질인증센터의 경남 GAP 인증 관련 결과 61
• 1. GAP 인증 확산과 농업 생산기반 변화: 경상남도 사례 61
• 1) 경상남도 시군별 GAP 인증 현황 61
• 2) 경상남도의 GAP 인증 농가 운영 현황 63
• 3) 경상남도 GAP 인증 농산물 품목별 재배면적 변화 65
• Ⅳ. 고찰 67
• Ⅴ. 결론 70
• 1. 연구 요약 70
• 2. 정책적 제언 70
• 참고문헌 72
• 부록 81