OTA Group Certification Task Force
Suggested Guidance for Producer Group Certification
NOSB Certification, Accreditation and Compliance Committee
April, 2008
OTA’s Group Certification Task Force has been charged with continuing discussions with the NOSB CAC Committee, to assist with developing its recommendations concerning multisite certification. Members of the Task Force include representatives of handlers, traders, certifying bodies, independent inspectors, consultants and others knowledgeable about group certification (full list appended).
This discussion document should be considered in conjunction with OTA’s Recommendations for NOSB Concerning Group Certification, dated October 24, 2007, and was developed by the OTA Group Certification Task Force in response to the request by the OTA Board for more detailed guidance concerning Internal Control System management and other topics.
The following have been identified as subjects requiring additional guidance:
1. Management structure of an Internal Control System: How does it maintain uniform production practices, and how does it protect against the conflict of interest problem identified in the NOP appeals decision?
An Internal Control System may also be called an Internal Quality System, and fulfills a function analogous to the Quality Assurance department of a large operation. Its mandate is to maintain consistency in compliance with the regulations as well as more traditional product quality concerns. The various components of a multi-site operation all are governed by the same Organic System Plan, and the ICS must maintain sufficient oversight to ensure that all personnel, i.e., group members, are consistently following the plan. It is in the interest of this body to safeguard the organic status of the entire operation and the eligibility of the group as a whole for organic certification.
According to the EC “Guidance document for the evaluation of the equivalence of organic producer group certification schemes applied in developing countries,” the following elements should be present in a group Internal Control System:
- The Internal Control System is a documented internal quality system that includes a contractual arrangement with each individual member of the group.
- Internal inspectors are designated by the group and carry out internal controls. They must receive suitable training. The internal quality system sets out rules to avoid or limit potential conflicts of interest of the internal inspectors.
- The internal inspectors carry out at least one annual inspection visit to each individual operator including visits to fields and facilities.
- The Internal Control System keeps appropriate documentation, including at least a description of the farms and the facilities, the production plans, the products harvested, the contractual arrangement with each individual member and internal inspection reports.
- The Internal Control System should include the application of sanctions to individual members who do not comply with the production standards. It must inform the certifying (external inspection) body of the irregularities and non-compliances found, as well as of the corrective actions imposed with agreed time for completion.
Conflict of Interest and Training:
The NOP has called into question the ICS approach on the basis of conflict of interest. While internal staff has an inherent conflict of interest, their obligation is to ensure that the entire group maintains its organic status. The use of internal staff to ensure compliance by all group members is analogous to the QA department of a large, complex operation. Groups may mitigate any conflict of interest by assigning staff to review subunits in different regions or villages, and similar measures. The NOP requires an individual operator to report any changes that might affect the operation’s compliance, including drift or applications of prohibited substances, and a certifier should also expect to receive this information from ICS personnel.
Some of the concern regarding conflict of interest comes from referring to the Internal Control System’s use of “inspections” as part of its oversight function. These internal inspections should be clearly distinguished from the inspections conducted by the certifying body, and should not be represented as serving as proxies for, or in lieu of, the organic inspection. Information from internal surveillance and compliance review should be used when conducting a risk analysis to determine which subunits to visit during an organic inspection.
The NOP has also expressed concerns about inadequate training of internal staff in the regulations and appropriate means of compliance. Although internal staff may not be as knowledgeable about the regulations as experienced certifiers, their “local knowledge” about cultural norms of the region is a form of expertise that an external inspector would not possess. One perspective on this is that information from diverse viewpoints, including those connected to the operation, may reveal more than the trained eyes of
an auditor. There are cases where professional auditors may not detect problems of which personnel close to the operator were well aware. The external inspection body should establish a relationship with the internal staff that elicits the kind of information that can reveal potential problems with compliance.
Additional guidance to address concerns about conflict of interest and training for internal personnel should include provisions for:
- Preventing personnel who perform internal compliance reviews from auditing members with whom they have a business, family or community relationship;
- Specific training requirements and qualifications of internal management and review personnel;
- Certifier review of training programs and personnel qualifications, including approval of qualified external trainers;
Additional guidance on best practices for operating an ICS for an organic producer group would be very helpful. Organizations such as IFOAM have taken the lead in developing such material, and additional technical and financial support for training group personnel and improving these systems would be highly beneficial. An example of ICS “best practice” provisions from a coffee producer group in Mexico is attached as Appendix A.
2. Criteria for Production Unit: What are the criteria for identifying a group of small plots or subunits as a single Production Unit? We refer to “subunits” based on the following definition: Sub-Unit means a smaller discrete portion of a production unit, such as a field, plot or distinct processing area. The essential questions revolve around the feasibility of adequate management oversight by common management personnel. The following criteria have been suggested:
- Organized as a single legal entity, with all members bound by the same contractual obligations;
- Operates under the same centrally controlled Organic System Plan, including inputs used, crop or livestock products being marketed as organic, fertility management and pest control practices, livestock feeding and health care practices, record keeping and audit trail system, and so on;
- Common personnel responsible for managing operations, providing extension services, monitoring and enforcing the functioning of the Internal Control System;
- Uses a single post-harvest processing, distribution and marketing facility or system;
- Located within geographic proximity, as defined by access to the same collection or post-harvest handling facility, access by common management personnel, and/or common soils, water source, slope, topography or other physical features;
- Unique product or variety, time of harvest, or other distinguishing characteristics;
- All organic production is handled through the Production Unit;
- Any location that includes a handling facility that processes or consolidates product from more than one group member is considered a single production unit and must be inspected annually.
- An upper limit on the number of subunits included in a given Production Unit should be based on the feasibility of effective oversight by management personnel and factors such as size and accessibility of the subunits. A maximum number of 200 subunits that could be included in any Production Unit has been suggested, with the added requirement that any Production Unit that includes more than 200 subunits must be fully justified in light of the above criteria,
3. Inspection Protocol: What does it take to adequately inspect a Production Unit that consists of multiple sub-units, operating under a single Internal Control System/Organic System Plan?
An inspection, as defined by the NOP, is “the act of examining and evaluating the production or handling operation of an applicant for certification or certified operation to determine compliance with the Act and the regulations in this part.” The applicant or certified entity is the legal business or association whose Organic System Plan must be verified by examining each “production unit, facility, and site” where organic products are produced or handled.
Verification of the OSP is largely accomplished by a thorough audit of the functioning of the Internal Control System, accompanied by a physical examination of every Production Unit (generally the headquarters or common regional handling or collection facility) and a meaningful sample of subunits within any given Production Unit. In a multi-site operation, the Production Unit, as defined above, is the smallest portion of the operation that must be inspected every year.
- How must the certifying body determine how many and which subunits to physically inspect?
The number of subunits to physically inspect is based on the total number of subunits included in a particular Production Unit, determined according to certain risk factors. The minimum number to be inspected has commonly been set at the square root of the total number of subunits, plus an additional number based on a risk factor for the entire group. The total number of subunits inspected in any given Production Unit may be significantly higher than this minimum. We suggest here that all subunits designated as high risk should be inspected. In addition, a random sample of those designated as low risk should be inspected, with the size of the sample based on the risk factor identified for the entire Production Unit. In any case, at least 10 subunits for any Production Unit that includes 10 or more subunits should be inspected.
Subunits to inspect should be selected such that no more than 5 years elapses between physical inspections of any single subunit. The group of high risk subunits that should be inspected in a given year would therefore include any subunit that has not been inspected within the past five years. Risk factors that might require inspection of a specific subunit in any given year include:
· Any subunit that has been subject to corrective action in the previous year by the ICS management, or otherwise identified as posing potential compliance issues;
· Prohibited materials applied adjacent to the subunit within the previous year;
· New entrant to the group;
· Significant expansion of size of the subunit plot; and
· Split or parallel production.
- What risk assessment methodology is best suited for this application? How is a statistically significant sample determined?
A two step process that combines random sampling with risk assessment methodology is most appropriate for monitoring of critical organic control points in a group operation. The objective of using risk assessment methodology is determine whether the ICS is functioning to detect and correct noncompliances before they compromise the certification of the group. It is not necessary or practical to require a large enough sample to achieve certain detection of all or nearly all major noncompliances. Such an outcome would require sampling of a higher percentage of subunits in groups with lower risk factors, since the likelihood of detecting a noncompliance would be negligible in a smaller sample.
It should also be noted that a physical inspection of a given subunit is not a guarantee that a case of deliberate or fraudulent noncompliance will be detected. While detection is more likely if such a subunit is directly observed, an operator who wishes to hide the use of prohibited substances, for example, could do so. It is more likely that a well functioning ICS, whose well qualified personnel visit each subunit at least once a year will detect and report such instances than would an equally qualified external inspector. Proper functioning of the ICS would be indicated by the internal detection and correction of noncompliant subunits, including indication that noncompliant subunits are being removed from the group.
The sampling of subunits to examine is analogous to the HACCP process or the sampling of products at a handling facility to conduct a sample trace-back audit. In each case, the purpose is not certain detection of noncompliances, but verification that the internal quality assurance system is functioning properly.
The process begins with use of risk assessment to identify subunits of greatest concern to select, based on factors previously discussed. The second step is to select a random sample of lower risk subunits to inspect, with the size of the sample based on risk factors for the group as a whole. Every subunit operator or member would thus know there was always a possibility of being inspected by the certifier, even if they are in the low risk group and have been inspected more recently than five years.
Various risk assessment methods are used to identify the lower risk subunits and to determine the size of the random sample of these to be inspected. Higher levels of overall risk for a group would dictate a higher proportion of lower risk subunits to include in the random sample.
Risk factors related to the operation as a whole that should be considered include: number of years the group has functioned; rate of growth in new members; previous problems with functioning of the ICS; staff turnover and potential conflict of interest; complexity of types of subunits and/or products marketed; value of the products; and prevalence of conventional production of the same type in the region. For example, if a group is fairly isolated from conventional production of the same crop, it would be assigned a lower overall risk factor than one located where conventional production is widespread. An example of one scheme used to determine risk factors for a group as a whole is attached as Appendix B (Ceres model).
- What procedures must be followed when inspecting a Production Unit and any single subunit?
The protocol for conducting inspections of multi-site operations needs to be spelled out in some detail, based on the type of product(s), level of complexity, similarity of operations, and whether a handling or livestock facility of any kind is included.
Guidance should be provided regarding Internal Control System audit procedures, including training programs, performance evaluations and personnel interviews. For a single subunit, observations should focus on critical organic control points such as buffer areas, condition of growing crops, soil quality indicators, input and equipment storage areas, and level of understanding of organic requirements by the operator. Guidance should also be provided regarding when and how to take samples for residue analysis, and procedures in cases of suspected or observed noncompliances.
References:
NOSB Recommendation, “Criteria for Certification of Grower Groups,” adopted October 20, 2002.
International Accreditation Forum, Inc. (IAF), “IAF Guidance on the Application of ISO/IEC Guide 62:1996, Annex 3, Multisite Certification/Registration,” April 12, 2000.
IFOAM, “Smallholder Group Certification: Compilation of Results,” March, 2003.
ISO/IEC 17021: “Conformity Assessment—Requirements for bodies providing audit and verification of management systems,” First edition 2006-09-15.
Pyburn, Rhiannon. “Final Report on Internal Control Systems and Management Systems: Public Summary,” Social Accountability in Sustainable Agriculture (SASA), August 3, 2004.
RESPONSE TO PENDING ISSUES QUESTIONS FROM NOSB
OTA’s Group Certification Task Force has developed detailed comments in response to the NOSB’s two discussion documents (reference our comments/dates). Our first comment was limited by request of the OTA Board to the immediate question of how best to protect the ability of grower groups to be certified, and at the same time maintain adequate oversight of their activities to ensure compliance with the regulations. Since that paper was submitted to NOSB, many new questions have been posted by NOSB which should be reviewed by OTA interested members. Should recommendations specific to other sectors be required, we would suggest that a new task force be constituted that includes representation of those sectors.
We also recognize that additional details will need to be developed concerning various aspects of our recommendations, including development of methods for assessing appropriate composition of a given production unit, detailed risk criteria and how to assign them, and inspection protocols specific to different types of operations and levels of risk. We can envision such criteria being based on a review of local environmental conditions, ratios of farmer to internal staff capability, access by accredited certifiers to properties, language barriers, and size. We are available to offer continued guidance on these details as requested.
Trying to apply a one size fits all approach to every country, to every sector and in every type of environment may prove daunting, and if such a system were to be created in an inappropriate manner it could lead to reduced consumer confidence in organic production.
1. Should group certification apply to retailers, handlers, processors and/or restaurants if they meet this stringent criteria?
Our recommendation specifies that any location that includes a handling facility must be inspected annually. While a single operation may be comprised of multiple production units, we do not support reduction in this annual inspection requirement.
2. Should it be limited to only small farmers (holders)? What defines small?
Historically membership has been limited by income level or land area, with larger members assigned higher risk factors, meaning they have to be inspected annually. This group did not develop a recommendation for limitations on group membership based on scale of individual members.
We have, however, suggested an upper limit of 200 on the number of farmers in a single production unit, as well as a limit on the geographic size of a production unit.
3. Does a process of random external inspection levels based on risk criteria provide enough oversight of individual locations or is there a need to guarantee all locations are externally inspected at some minimum frequency?
Our recommendation uses risk analysis to identify higher risk subunits to inspect, combined with random sampling of low risk subunits. It is advisable to include a minimum frequency for inspection of any individual location, so that every subunit is periodically examined by an external inspector. We have suggested a minimum frequency of once every five years. One approach might also provide for a more stringent inspection protocol for higher-risk operations and less exhaustive inspection for groups and/or individual locations that meet the lowest risk category. For example, residue sampling might be required in areas where use of prohibited substances was widespread.
4. Should the qualification and inspection criteria be different for each sector of the organic industry eligible to apply for multi-site certification? If so, what are the specific criteria that are not included in this document?
If sectors other than producers were included they would require different criteria for inclusion in a group, different risk factors, and different inspection protocols. Please also note our response to Question 1.
5. What is the advantage of including other sectors in the multi-site model? Disadvantages?
Our work has been focused on the producer sector, and we have not analyzed this question.
6. Will the multi-site model increase our ability to detect non-compliance?
The criteria identified and combined risk analysis and random sampling model we have proposed would provide sufficient safeguards to detect noncompliances and maintain adequate oversight of certified operations.
Additional details would still need to be worked out concerning appropriate ratios of staff to numbers and location of subunits, how to assign risk categories, and development of appropriate inspection protocols. Similarly, the NOP would need to create and communicate additional accreditation guidance for oversight of certifiers who work with multi-site operations. While this model will not increase our ability to detect noncompliances, neither will it be diminished.
7. How will consumers react knowing that the certification model does not require annual inspections of each group member?
We believe that it should not be a problem to assure consumers that the producer group certification model, when focused on the integrity of clearly identified production units as identified in our recommendations, provides sufficient protection of the organic integrity of products certified according to these recommendations.
8. How will the multi-site model improve the National Organic Program?
If operated in a manner that assures consumers of attention to risk and to safeguards, it will improve the consistency of NOP’s ability to monitor the compliance of producer group entities throughout the world, and provide clear guidance to certifiers who work with such operations. However, should the program lack integrity of either implementation or oversight it would not improve the NOP ability to carry out its responsibilities.
9. Would it be worth pursuing the development of the multi-site model for other sectors separately from grower groups?
If a multi-site model is developed for other sectors, it should be separate from that developed for producer groups.
10. As this is an international regulation, are there additional concerns with multi-site certifications, beyond producers/grower groups, in other countries?
Distance, language, and cultural differences can certainly pose additional concerns for adequate oversight of any certification, group or individual, particularly in locations where government corruption is accepted as a fact of life. Even access for accredited certifiers can be in question in such countries, and may need to be considered as a risk factor. Such concerns need to be considered when determining overall risk factors of a given group.
These factors must also be balanced with the need to maintain consistency between how the rules are applied domestically and how they are applied to foreign producers. Care is needed to ensure that criteria are not seen as prejudicial or providing an advantage to either domestic or foreign producers who may be organized as a group entity.
11. How will extending multi-site certification affect small businesses in each sector that may not choose or qualify for consideration as multi-site?
We do not have sufficient information about such businesses to respond. Providing some examples would help generate useful responses.
12. What means can be adopted to insure that the Internal Control System does not become a proxy for rigorous third party annual inspections for all production units?
Our recommendation calls for rigorous third party annual inspections of all production units, and we would not support a proposal that did not maintain this essential requirement. We would, however, suggest that our approach to determining eligibility for inclusion of specific subunits in a production unit, combined with the appropriate risk analysis and inspection protocols, are designed to ensure that the annual inspection of each production unit does not rely on Internal Control System staff as proxies for the third party inspector.
13. If multi-site is included in all sectors, what economic issues should be evaluated to make sure it is fair for large and small operations?
We have not considered criteria for sectors other than producer groups.
Group Certification Task Force
Organic Trade Association
April 22, 2008
MEMBERS – VOTING
Kim Dietz, OTA Member Co-Chair
Grace Gershuny, OTA Staff Co-Chair
Luis Acuna, CF Fresh, OTA Board
Sue Baird, Quality Assurance International
DeEtta Bilek, Organic Crop Improvement Association
Luis Brunes, International Organic Inspectors Association
Katherine DiMatteo, Wolf, DiMatteo & Associates
Kimberly Easson, TransFair
Winfried Fuchshofen, Organic Insights
Tom Hutcheson, OTA Regulatory and Policy Manager
Garth Kahl, Oregon Tilth Certification
Pat Kane, Accredited Certifiers Association
Brian Kosicek, Organic Crop Improvement Association
Jake Lewin, California Certified Organic Farmers
Marty Mesh, Quality Certification Services, OTA Board
Roland Hoch, Global Organics
Gunta Vitins, SunOpta
Emily Brown Rosen, Pennsylvania Certified Organic
Paul Roth, SBC Global
Cara Smiley, Integrated Organic
Patty Vincent, Green Mountain Coffee
Stephanie Wells, OTA Canada
Sam Welsch, OneCert, Inc.
Caren Wilcox, OTA Executive Director and CEO
Randy Wirth, Café Ibis
EXPERT MEMBERS – NON-VOTING
Angela Caudle, International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements
Douglas Crabtree, National Association of State Organic Programs
Joseph Smillie, National Organic Standards Board
Tracy Miedema, National Organic Standards Board
APPENDIX A
OTA Task Force Grower Group Input Regarding Certified Organic Coffee Farmers
3/13/08
Coffee is grown in Central and South America, Africa, and Indonesia, primarily in a narrow band around the equator between the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn.
The best coffee, coffea Arabica, is grown at high altitudes between 2500 and 4500 feet. The trees are often planted on very steep, terraced, mountainsides, in remote areas. A small coffee farmer may have only one hectare or less of coffee trees. The farms are often remote, and may be quite a distance from the mill or “beneficio”, in some cases many hundreds of miles away.
Coffee must be harvested when the fruit, known as the coffee cherry, becomes ripe. The fruit does not ripen all at the same time, meaning that farmers will need to make several pickings to harvest all of the ripe fruit. All of the above facilitates hand picking. Growing coffee is a very labor intensive and often dangerous job.
Please go here to see the visual of an actual organic coffee farm at work, courtesy of Winston Rost, GMCR Producer Support:
http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=106743112795806422292.000448551673dd993dc36&ll=19.87006,-97.338867&spn=10.526012,17.62207&t=p&z=6
It is crucial that the ripe cherry be milled within 24 hours of harvest to prevent fermentation; molding, and to preserve the proper flavor. Milling involves de-pulping to remove the outer layers of the cherry; washing; “fermentation” (soaking the wet seed in a water bath) to remove the mucilage; drying the coffee to a state of parchment and +- 13% moisture content; peeling the parchment from the seed; sorting, mostly done by hand, and or screening to create different grades; weighing and bagging. Most coffee is weighed to 150 pounds per sack. This final green coffee or the seed is what is roasted to create the finished product that we brew and drink.
Because the ripe cherry must be cleaned from the seed quickly, and the distance to the “beneficio” is long, some farmers de-pulp their coffee right on site/on farm to a wet or even dry parchment state to prevent fermentation. This would be done in a small device known as a de-pulper, which looks like an old fashioned meat grinder of sorts.
The increased demand for organic coffee in the United States has lead to a premium price for organic coffee farmers, combined with Fair Trade, this makes for a better way of life.
