It has become increasingly clear that a workable and universally accepted method of conducting grower group certifications in developing countries must be devised. An important step to achieving this was taken with a workshop earlier this year. A follow-up is to determine what proportion of producers in a grower group must be inspected by the external inspector. A discussion on this issue

Schoenmakers, Michiel

English

Organic Eprints

THE ORGANIC STANDARD © Grolink AB     Issue 4 August 200112news shorts…In February 2001 a workshop onsmallholder group certificationwas organised, under the auspicesof IFOAM and Fair Trade LabellingOrganizations (FLO). The aim of theworkshop was to achieve uniformityin organic smallholder group certifi-cation, as well as mutual recognition.One of the decisions made at theworkshop, in response to a call frominternational certifiers, was that a fol-low up workshop would be organisedto continue the discussion on,amongst other things, re-inspectionrates  and risk assessment.One of the organisers of the Febru-ary 2001 workshop, Agro Eco, ispresently preparing a follow up work-shop to help certifiers harmonise theirapproaches. Interested competent au-thorities will be invited to share opin-ions and get acceptance for the ap-proach taken.Although the date of the follow upworkshop has not been fixed at thetime of writing, some topics have al-ready been presented. This article isintended as a discussion document.Readers are invited to send their reac-tion to it to the author via email tosmallholders @agroeco.nl.Position of EU officialsUniformity in smallholder group cer-tification is a hot item. In the past fewyears many competent authoritieshave set their own standards, as it wasnot clear to them how the differentcertifiers were inspecting smallholdergroups. Most competent authoritiesnow require a minimum re-inspectionrate of 10%, but voices can be heardin the EU suggesting that this figureshould be raised to 15% or even 25%.Indeed, a French proposal has beencirculated that requests 30% re-inspection in grower groups of 30 to100 producers, and 25% for groupsabove 100 producers. The French pa-per proposes that, ‘the sample shouldbe chosen in such a way that all pro-ducers be inspected every four years.If there is any doubt all the producerswill have to be inspected.’A statistical approachTowards uniformity insmallholder groupcertificationIt has become increasingly clear that a workable and universallyaccepted method of conducting grower group certifications in devel-oping countries must be devised. An important step to achieving thiswas taken with a workshop earlier this year. A follow-up is to deter-mine what proportion of  producers in a grower group must beinspected by the external inspector. Below is a discussion on this issue.AWARDS SCHEME HELPSWITH ORGANICCERTIFICATIONNew growers in New Zealandapplying for organic certification,or those seeking to expand theircertified area, can obtain an awardof up to 50% of the certificationcost through the EnterpriseAwards. These costs may includecertification fees, soil and residuetests and fees for advice andconsultancy. The funding isprovided as a reimbursement on adollar-for-dollar basis of up to50% of the project costs.News shorts continued on page 14... continued from page 10‘To qualify as an organic farm,farmers must not use anysynthetic pesticides or fertilisersfor at least three years,’ said MilesMcEvoy, manager of the OrganicFood Program at StateDepartment of Agriculture. ‘Toensure that farms converting fromconventional to organic farmingmeet this requirement, ourproposal requires them to beinspected during this transitionalperiod.’Public and written commentson the proposal were accepted upto the middle of July.Information on the OrganicFood Program is available on thewebsite: www.wa.gov/agr/fsah/organic/ofp.htmcertification & accreditationMost competent authorities now require a minimum re-inspection rate of 10%, but voices can be heard in theEU suggesting that this figure should be raised to 15%or even 25%.THE ORGANIC STANDARD © Grolink AB     Issue 4 August 200113The approach of competent au-thorities and of EU officials is highlydebatable in the eyes of statisticians.Commissioned by the Swedish certifi-cation body KRAV, Mr. Norell, a stat-istician at the Swedish University ofAgricultural Sciences, calculated theprobability (r) of revealing at leastone deviating farmer in a growergroup. This probability depends onthe size of the grower group (N), thesample size (n), and the proportion (p)of deviating growers in the popula-tion. The number of deviating farmersin the growers group can be written asNp. For instance, if there are 3000growers and 3% of the growers aredeviating, then there are Np = 3000 x0.03 = 90 deviating growers in thegrower group.Mr. Norell calculated the prob-abilities of finding a deviating farmerout of two different sized growergroups, a grower group of 1,000 andone of 15,000 growers.Calculations were made with dif-ferent re-inspection rates and varyingpercentages of deviation. The main conclusion of Mr.Norell’s calculations is that, in orderto achieve the same probability ofcatching a deviating farmer, the sam-ple size (n) does not have to be pro-portional to the size of the growergroup. It is clear from the calculationsthat it is the actual size of the sample(n) which essentially determines theprobability of finding deviating farm-ers (r). The probability of detectingdeviating farmers does not increasewith the size of the inspected sample.Far lower re-inspection rates than theproposed 25% or even 10% give thesame results.It is a quite easy step to realise thatthe proposals of competent authoritiesand EU officials to determine the re-inspection rate as a percentage of thesize of the growers group, leads towasted resources and time.IAF 62 GuidanceThe IAF guidance on the applicationof ISO guide 62 on multisite certifica-Number in                                                     Number of producers to be inspectedthe growergroup (N)  Initial audit       Reassessment                 Surveillance visitNumber  to be      % of total        Number to be      % of  total        Number to be      % of total   inspected                                      inspected                                     inspected   (n = √  N)                                   (n = 0.8 √  N)                                (n = 0.6 √  N)250 16 6.3 13 5.1 9 3.8500 22 4.5 18 3.6 13 2.7750 27 3.7 22 2.9 16 2.21000 32 3.2 25 2.5 19 1.91500 39 2.6 31 2.1 23 1.52500 50 2.0 40 1.6 30 1.25000 71 1.4 57 1.1 42 0.87500 87 1.2 69 0.9 52 0.710000 100 1.0 80 0.8 60 0.615000 122 0.8 98 0.7 73 0.520000 141 0.7 113 0.6 85 0.425000 158 0.6 126 0.5 95 0.4tion  gives another strong sign that thesize of the re-inspection sample doesnot have to be proportional to the sizeof the growers group. IAF guide 62gives the following criteria for the de-termination of the size of the re-inspection sample in a multisite as-sessment:In the example of a low to mediumrisk activity, the minimum number ofsites (i.e. producers) to be visited peraudit (external inspection) is:Initial audit: the size of the sample(i.e. the number of producers to beinspected) should be the squareroot of the number of sites (n = √  N).Surveillance visit: the size of the an-nual sample (i.e. the number ofproducers to be re-inspected)should be the square root of thenumber of sites, with 0.6 as a coef-ficient (n = 0.6 √  N), rounded tothe upper whole number.Reassessment: the size of the samplecertification & accreditationTHE ORGANIC STANDARD © Grolink AB     Issue 4 August 200114should be the same as for the ini-tial audit. Nevertheless, where thequality system has proved to beefficient over a period of threeyears, the size of the sample couldbe reduced by a factor 0.8, i.e. n =0.8 √  N), rounded to the upperwhole number.If these formulas are calculated fordifferent sized grower groups (see tableon page 13) it shows that re-inspectionrates of 6.3% and less are acceptablein the conventional certificationworld.From probability to guaranteeMr. Norell calculated the probabilityof finding the first deviating farmerout of a farmers’ group in which thepercentage of deviating farmers isknown. It is the first step in answeringthe central research question:What should be the minimal sizeof the re-inspection sample (n), out ofthe total growers group (N) in a givenrisk situation (p), to guarantee withx% certainty that less than x% of thegrowers deviates?Neither in the scientific nor theregular certification world are 100%guarantees given, and the organicmovement should not have the illu-sion that with a 100% inspection ratein Europe a deviation of 0% can beguaranteed. A method of inspectionmust be devised that, on the one handprovides adequate confidence in theconformity of the Internal ControlSystem (ICS) and, on the other, en-sures that inspections are practical andfeasible in economic and operativeterms.At present, tools are being devel-oped at Agro Eco to help an inspec-tion organisation determine the re-inspection percentage, in an objectiveand sound scientific manner. The firsttool is risk assessment.Risk assessmentMr Norell used statistical analysis todetermine appropriate re-inspectionrates based on given deviation rates.In the field, of course, the deviationrate is not known. So before re-inspection rates can be determined fora grower group, some method of as-sessing the most likely deviation ratemust be devised. A working method isto first determine the risk level thatfarmers might deviate, and then, usingthat information, calculate the likelydeviation rate. Two factors affect thelevel of risk that farmers workingwithin an ICS are deviating: (1)internal and external risks in the pro-duction area, and (2) the quality of theICS.1) Internal and external assessmentThe box on page 15 illustrates a pro-posal for working out risk assessment.With this tool it is proposed to intro-duce a system of penalty and awardpoints for different potential risks in agrower group production system.A maximum of 180 bonus points,and 180 penalty points can be ‘scored’in this risk assessment. It is proposedthat this 360-point system can betranslated into the amount growersnews shorts…news shorts continued on page16certification & accreditationNeither in the scientific nor the regular certificationworld are 100% guarantees given, and the organicmovement should not have the illusion that with a 100%inspection rate in Europe a deviation of 0% can beguaranteed.NEW GUIDELINES FORBRITISH ADVERTISERSRecently the British AdvertisingStandards Authority (ASA) hascaught several companies havemade claims about their organicgoods that cannot besubstantiated. Now the UKCommittee of Advertising Practice(CAP) has issued guidance onadvertising organic products, thatexplains what is acceptable andwhat is considered misleading oran over exaggeration.The guidelines state thatadvertisers should not claim thatorganic food production uses nochemicals, fertilisers, herbicides,pesticides etc,. if any suchsubstances are approved for useby the UK Register of organicFood Standards (UKROFS).Claims that organic foodproduction uses fewer of suchsubstances are likely to beacceptable.Likewise, advertisers shouldnot claim that organic food issafer or healthier thanconventional food unless theyhave convincing evidence that thisis the case. It adds that CAP andthe ASA are not aware of anyevidence of this.Organic food productionshould not be described asenvironmentally friendly orsustainable as ‘all managed foodproduction systems cause somedamage to the environment’.The guidelines are available fromthe CAP website at www.cap.org.ukTHE ORGANIC STANDARD © Grolink AB     Issue 4 August 200115can be expected to be deviating, ex-pressed as a percentage of the totalgrowers group, as follows:• With the full score of 180 bonuspoints a maximum deviation of 2%can be expected.• In the worst case scenario, 180penalty points would indicate amaximum deviation of 6%.In other words, in the best case sce-nario 2% or less of the growers in thegrowers group can be expected to beviolating the organic standards.Circle right anwserInternalFarmer’s expectations and understanding of standards (check with at least 5 farmers) no yes yes, 1 or 2 items yes, 3 or more itemsAre the farmers aware that they are organic 0 10Can the farmer describe the basic do’s of organic -10 10 20Can the farmer describe the basic don’t of organic -10 10 20Availability of standards no yesbasic extensiveDoes the project have its own organic standards (check with at least 3 staff and 5 farmers) 0 10 20Are the standards available or accessable for all (staff and farmers) -10 10Are the standards understandable for the farmers (local language, pictures for illiterate farmers) -10 5 10Awareness of the farmers and personnel of risksAny suggestions?Conflicts of interest among staff (interview at least 3 staff) same village other village other region no yesWhere does the field staff live -10 0 10Does staf have family relations to organic farmers he/she supervises 10 -10ExternalProduction system and system of surrounding areas no yes indifferentAre chemicals sold in villages or nearby towns 10 -10If applicable, does the official extension service support organic project -10 10 0Risk of contamination through chemical use in adjacent fields no yes both not applicableAre chemicals used in adjacent fields 10 -10If yes, are crops growns in adjacent field same as organic 0 -20 -10 0If yes, are adjacent fields owned by organic farmer (other crop is grown) 0 -10 0If yes, are adjacent fields owned by other farmers 0 -10If yes, do neighbours take into consideration the organic status of the farmers -10 10 0If yes, are there buffers between organic and conventional fields -10 10 0Risk of buying and selling of products from and to conventional neighbours buying records coveringcrop estimates 1year 2 years over3 yearsHarvest expectations based on -10 0 10 20similar to organic <20% +20 to 0% +40%Price paid for organic product compared to conventional price in the region 10 0 -10 -20While, in the worst case scenario,the maximum violation rate is likelyto be 6%.Quite clearly the figures of 2%and 6% are at present highly arbi-trary. Any evidence or experiencefrom inspectors that may supportthese or other expectations would begratefully received.2) Quality of the ICSAt the February 2001 workshop dif-ferent factors were mentioned thatcould be used as a basis on which anICS could be evaluated. They arewritten up in the proceedings of thatworkshop.In summary, the outcome of anevaluation can be threefold: the ICS isworking very successful, the ICS isacceptable, and the ICS is not accept-able. The consequence these out-comes have on the re-inspection rateare also threefold:• In case of a well-managed, suc-cessful ICS, the re-inspection ratecan be lowered, by say a factor of0.8 (similar to the approach ofcertification & accreditationTHE ORGANIC STANDARD © Grolink AB     Issue 4 August 200116news shorts…news shorts continued on page18Footnotes:1. Re-inspection rates refer to the pro-portion of farming units to be(re)inspected by the external inspector.This inspection is additional to the in-ternal inspections that are executed bythe project operator which must in-spect each grower at least once a year(= 100%). A 10% re-inspection ratemeans that the external inspector visits10% of the total growers groups.2. The full text of Mr. Norell’s report:On the probability of detecting violat-ing farmers, can be requested atsmallholders@agroeco.nl.3.  The International Accreditation Fo-rum (IAF) operates a programme ofconformity assessment that allowscompanies with an accredited con-formity assessment certification inone part of the world to have that cer-tificate recognised everywhere else inthe world.4.  The aim of this document is to estab-lish guidance for the certification ofISO 9001 based quality managementsystems in organisations with a net-work of sites, thus ensuring on the onehand, that the assessment provides ad-equate confidence in the conformity ofthe quality management system and,on the other, that such assessment ispractical and feasible in economic andoperative terms.5.  IAF Guidance, On The Application OfISO/IEC Guide 62:1996, page 3, para-graph: ‘The Aim of this document’.6. The discussion document and the pro-ceedings of the workshop can be re-quested from Agro Eco by email(smallholders @agroeco.nl).IAF, see p 13). In the case of anICS being managed highly suc-cessfully for three years, a coeffi-cient of 0.6 may be sufficient.• In case of an acceptably run ICS,the re-inspection rate should bebased on the outcome of the riskassessment.• In case of a poorly run ICS, certifi-cation is either refused, or allfarmers will have to be inspected(100%) by the external inspector.Further discussionWith the help of statisticians I ampresently working on a scientificallysound formula, in which the outcomeof the ICS evaluation and risk assess-ment are taken into account. This for-mula was not ready for presentation inthis issue of The Organic Standard,but may be published in the followingissue.Nevertheless, I believe this articlegives enough food for thought. I amlooking forward to receiving reactionto it, as that will help us to improvethe tools, which will be discussed indetail during the promised follow upworkshop for certifiers and competentauthorities.In case of a poorly run Internal Control System,certification is either refused, or all farmers will have tobe inspected (100%) by the external inspector.certification & accreditationAgro EcoMichiel Schoenmakers, Agro EcoP.O. Box 63, 6720 AB BennekomThe NetherlandsTel: +31-(0)318 42 04 05; FAX: +31-(0)318 41 48 20; website:  www.agroeco.nlSPAIN IS CRITICISEDIn a recently published report bythe EU Commission regardingthe implementation of the EUregulation in Spain, fairly strongcriticism is expressed. Not onlydoes the report address the factthat Spain has not enforced theregulations regarding the use ofthe word ‘bio’, but also theinspection system itself getscriticised. The report, based onfindings from a mission inDecember 2000, concludes that,‘Although there has beenisolated strong enforcementaction, enforcement overall tendsto be weak, slow and lacking intransparency’. In one region,annual inspections had not beenaccomplished during the period1995 to 1998. The report alsonoted that there is no mechanismin place whereby the centralgovernment evaluates the systemin the autonomous communities.In the Spanish system theinspection is carried put byindependent regional bodies,based on regional legislation.Twenty different inspectionauthorities are operating. Recently,one private certification body hasbeen approved.

Towards uniformity in smallholder group certification

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Organic Eprints