Outline

- Purpose 

- How Criteria Matrix is used

- Structure - Application, Evaluation, Comparison: Criteria, Recommendation

- Critical cases - values & definitions

- Key question

Stopes, Christopher

English

Organic Eprints

EcoS ConsultancyEvaluating Inputs - a new systemBrussels - Oct 2005Putting the Criteria into PracticeA Description of the Criteria & Evaluation MatrixChristopher StopesEcoS Consultancy, UKEvaluating Inputs - a new systemBrussels - Oct 2005 EcoS ConsultancyOutline• Purpose• How Criteria Matrix is used• Structure - Application, Evaluation, Comparison:Criteria, Recommendation• Critical cases - values & definitions• Key questionsEvaluating Inputs - a new systemBrussels - Oct 2005 EcoS ConsultancyPurpose• Provide a structured approach to evaluation of inputs– Working within a defined procedure– Transparent– Available to all– Clear criteria, based on principles• Allows differences between MS & regions in organicpractice to be clearly stated & understood• Assist in highlighting key issues– Enabling resolution of critical issues (for or against)• Formulate clear recommendations for decisionmakingEvaluating Inputs - a new systemBrussels - Oct 2005 EcoS ConsultancyHow criteria matrix used• Applicant MS - provides information on product for allcriteria• EU Expert Panel comments and provisionallyevaluates according specified evaluation criteria -with scoring to highlight key issues (both positive andnegative)• All MS comment & evaluate (with scores to highlightkey issues)• Recommendation by MS• Recommendation by Expert Panel to SCOFEvaluating Inputs - a new systemBrussels - Oct 2005 EcoS ConsultancyStructureExcel Workbook - 6 Worksheets1.Read me firstExplanation ofworksheets &description ofprocess2. Application•Criteria 1 - 9•Key issues•Applicant statement•Experts’ comment3. Screening4.Evaluation 5.Comparison•Compilationof scores•Identify areasofdisagreement6. Definitions•Defines allterms used inmatrix•Legal basis•Expert evaluation•MS comment•Score•Recommendation•Identify keyissues•May stop theapplicationprocessEvaluating Inputs - a new systemBrussels - Oct 2005 EcoS ConsultancyApplication & Evaluation I• Applicant (MS) submits completed application form– Every criteria specified - statement for each– Expert Panel comments where necessary• Evaluation by Expert Panel– Statement for each criterion– Specific requirements - based on principles– Score (-2 to +2) for transparency, help participation,overcome language barriers in defining critical issues• Evaluation by (all) member states– Comment & score– Identify key issues (particularly negative)Evaluating Inputs - a new systemBrussels - Oct 2005 EcoS ConsultancyApplication & Evaluation IIWhat is the difference? Example – Hydrolysed proteinsNB: Case study fully explained later• Application provides thefacts about the input– Potential levels of impurities(e.g. Chromium in tannerywaste)– Source of the materialderived from factory farming– How the substance is usedwithin organic systems•F A C T S• Evaluation interprets facts &offers a judgment– Are the environmentaleffects minimal, is this anavoidable source of Cr?– Is this use of material fromfactory farming acceptable?– Does use conform toprinciples of fertility supplyand rotation?• INTERPRETATIONEvaluating Inputs - a new systemBrussels - Oct 2005 EcoS ConsultancyEvaluation criteria & scoring• Required &/or recommended limits for each of the criteria• Based on principles (Organic Revision Project)• Scoring indicative - identify critical (positive or negative) issues• +2 Very good, beneficial• +1 Good•   0 Neutral - no effect•  -1 Some negative impact•  -2 Very poor, does not meet requirements– -2 represents critical issue - use would require exceptional ??Really special reasons– Scores are not additive, average not used, non-commensurate• Experts evaluation statement & score• MS comments & scoreEvaluating Inputs - a new systemBrussels - Oct 2005 EcoS ConsultancyCriteria – both ‘hard’ and ‘soft’•S o f t– Mostly qualitative– May be value based– Necessity– Economicimportance– Perception(consumption,farming system)•H a r d– Mostly quantitative– Hazard (intrinsicproperties ofsubstance)– Risk (likelihood ofharm)– Some may be critical(e.g. GM)Evaluating Inputs - a new systemBrussels - Oct 2005 EcoS ConsultancyCriteria - SummaryMatrix on websitewww.organicinputs.org• Identification•O r i g i n• Manufacturing• Use & necessity• Environmental impact• Human health impact• Animal welfare impact• Socio-economic aspects• Other information•K e y  i s s u e s9 999 99Existing requirements9 = Pesticide evaluation9 = Article 7 of 2092/91Evaluating Inputs - a new systemBrussels - Oct 2005 EcoS ConsultancyEvaluation Criteria Example:5. Environmental Impact• Principle: manufacture, use & disposal of thesubstance do not result in or contribute to, harmfuleffects on the environment & at least maintain orideally improve agroecosystem health– 5.01 Manufacturing: The manufacturing process should notresult in, or contribute to, harmful effects on the environment(scores: No harmful effect = 0, harmful effect = -1 or -2)– 5.03 Effects of impurities: Levels of contaminants such asxenobiotics (e.g. antibiotics, pesticides, biocides, persistentsubstances or other substances of concern),microorganisms & heavy metals should be minimal & notpose environmental risks at normal application rates(scores: no risk = 0, risk = -1 or -2)Evaluating Inputs - a new systemBrussels - Oct 2005 EcoS Consultancy• IdentificationPrinciple: Product must be clearly identifiable1.0 Name1.1 Characterisation1.2 Legal status & status in organic farmingstandards1.3 Purpose & intended useEvaluating Inputs - a new systemBrussels - Oct 2005 EcoS Consultancy2. OriginPrinciple: Plant, animal, microbial or mineral origin; other maybeexceptionally included; must not be of GMO origin2.01 Materials2.02 GMO origin2.03 Factory farming2.04 Plant material2.05 Renewable resourcesEvaluating Inputs - a new systemBrussels - Oct 2005 EcoS Consultancy3. ManufacturingPrinciple: Physical treatment, microbial, enzymatic; exceptionally simplechemical process; no GMO3.01 Manufacturing methods3.02 Use of GMOsEvaluating Inputs - a new systemBrussels - Oct 2005 EcoS Consultancy4. Use & necessityPrinciple: Necessary for intended use, only if methods in Annex 1insufficient for nutrient supply, crop protection or other purposes4.01 Traditional use4.02 Alternative methods4.03 Efficacy4.04 Economic importance4.05 Likely extent of use4.06 ResistanceEvaluating Inputs - a new systemBrussels - Oct 2005 EcoS Consultancy5. Environmental impactPrinciple: Manufacture, use & disposal do not result in or contribute to, harmfuleffects on environment, & at least maintain or ideally improve agro-ecosystemhealth5.01 Manufacturing5.02 Environmental fate5.03 Environmental impact of use5.04 Effects of impurities5.05 Release of biocontrol agents5.06 Effects on animals5.07 Effects on plants5.08 Effects on soilEvaluating Inputs - a new systemBrussels - Oct 2005 EcoS Consultancy6. Human health impactPrinciple: Lowest negative impact on human health & quality of life;contribute to production of healthy food6.01 Impacts on human health6.02 Risks of manufacturing process6.03 Risks of application6.04 Residues6.05 Risks from residuesEvaluating Inputs - a new systemBrussels - Oct 2005 EcoS Consultancy7. Animal welfare impactPrinciple: Lowest negative impact on animal health & quality of life7.01  Effect on animal health and welfareEvaluating Inputs - a new systemBrussels - Oct 2005 EcoS Consultancy8. Socio-economic effectsPrinciple: Lowest possible impact on society, including public perception bystakeholders8.01 Public perception: consumption related8.02 Public perception: farming practice related8.03 Public perception: other stakeholder views8.04 Effects on rural development8.05 Social justice8.06 Cultural, ethical, religious issuesEvaluating Inputs - a new systemBrussels - Oct 2005 EcoS Consultancy9. Other information10. Key issues9.01 Other supporting information - annex all relevant10.01 Key issues in favour10.02 Key issues causing concernEvaluating Inputs - a new systemBrussels - Oct 2005 EcoS ConsultancyRecommendation - by MS & Expert PanelA  Recommended for inclusion with no restriction orconditions of useB  Recommended for inclusion with restriction orconditional requirements - these must be statedC  Not possible to complete evaluation - furtherinformation requiredD  Not recommended for inclusion or recommended towithdrawEvaluating Inputs - a new systemBrussels - Oct 2005 EcoS ConsultancyComparison & final recommendation• The Comparison Worksheet includes Expert Panel and MSscore• Shows differences between MS and Expert Panel• Highlights critical issues between MS & with Expert Panel• Help prioritise critical issues to resolve - positive & negative– Organic practice varies, principles should be consistent• Recommendation by expert panel to SCOF– 1. Product in Annex II - Yes/No– 2. If yes - in Annex IIA, B or F– 3. If yes - state any specific restrictions or conditions of useEvaluating Inputs - a new systemBrussels - Oct 2005 EcoS ConsultancyValues• Public perception (Criteria 8 - socio-economic)• Consumption related• Organic farming system/practice related• Other views - Ethical, environmental, fair trade, animal welfare– Hard to quantify but essential to maintain (or develop)confidence in the ‘integrity’ of organic - risk from inputs– Organic varies - different regions & traditions• Ultimately it is a ‘political’ decision• Take account of the full range of views - minority• Give justification for decisionEvaluating Inputs - a new systemBrussels - Oct 2005 EcoS ConsultancyKey questions• Evaluation guidelines & limits - appropriate?• Scoring - a help or a barrier?• Can the application & evaluation procedurerespect:– wide range of conditions,– traditions,– organic systems,– values & attitudes of all stakeholders?

Putting the Criteria into Practice A Description of the Criteria & Evaluation Matrix

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Organic Eprints