Proceedings of the IFOAM workshop on Internal Control Systems (ICS)

More documents

Recommendations

Info

- o<strong>the</strong>r label systems (e.g. ISO, EuropGap) do not define size for <strong>the</strong>ir inspection systems (Option 2 allows group system without limiting it to small scale farmers) - Some big farmers are indeed organized under a common marketing and have o<strong>the</strong>r potentials in regard to group certification. The <strong>workshop</strong> participants agreed that it would be best not to set farm size limits to ICS eligibility in Europe. The major question participants tried to address was <strong>the</strong> dilemma between diversification <strong>of</strong> products and markets versus similar production systems and common marketing. Ute Eisenlohr explained <strong>the</strong> reason why <strong>the</strong> requirement for <strong>the</strong> group to have“similar production systems” and “common marketing” had been included within <strong>the</strong> EU guidance document and <strong>the</strong> <strong>IFOAM</strong> Accreditation Criteria. She showed that both internal record keeping for product flow control and external certification <strong>of</strong> an ICS become more and more difficult and costly as <strong>the</strong> diversity <strong>of</strong> products and flows managed under <strong>the</strong> ICS increases. For instance, different forms and procedures have to be designed and implemented for each type <strong>of</strong> production system with <strong>the</strong> ICS: this becomes very costly to develop and manage. The cost can <strong>the</strong>n easily become bigger than <strong>the</strong> cost <strong>of</strong> individual external inspection. Common marketing is also required because it is <strong>the</strong> simplest way <strong>of</strong> ensuring that all product sales are recorded under <strong>the</strong> ICS documentation. In conclusion, it is likely to be possible but costly to accommodate diversity. Increasing cost might be balanced through benefits and added value o<strong>the</strong>r than just reduced external certification costs (e.g. multi-benefits for <strong>the</strong> group), in a way that ICS might be applicable and beneficial to groups that exist only politically (nothing else in common except regional proximity). It is also important to try to accommodate diversity because organic agriculture is based on diversity. The participants <strong>the</strong>refore proposed to investigate how ICS can handle diversified production. This would be done through pilot projects on diversified systems, clearly distinguished from pilot projects based on traditional systems eligible for ICS. G. Pilot projects on ICS in Europe The principle <strong>of</strong> pilot projects will be to set-up and run an ICS among a group <strong>of</strong> certified organic farmers, in parallel to <strong>the</strong>ir present individual certification so that farmers keep <strong>the</strong>ir legal organic label in a legal way (since ICS is not yet accepted). In a sense, <strong>the</strong>se pilot projects would be virtual: <strong>the</strong>y would just look like real ICS but <strong>the</strong> process would not go as far as delivering an organic certificate for <strong>the</strong> group. The o<strong>the</strong>r reason behind carrying out “double” certification is that it will allow comparison <strong>of</strong> costs within each ICS group (cost <strong>of</strong> group certification versus cost <strong>of</strong> individual certification). Indeed, comparison between different groups would not make sense because <strong>of</strong> different group composition, activities and environment. The objective <strong>of</strong> studying <strong>the</strong> effect <strong>of</strong> ICS on <strong>the</strong> improvement <strong>of</strong> quality could be met by 8
having sub-groups, with a certain group carrying out an ICS pilot project while <strong>the</strong> rest <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> group continues with individual external inspection, which would allow comparison <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> two sub-groups regarding quality management. Conformity with existing <strong>IFOAM</strong> Accreditation Criteria (AC) for ICS Re-inspection rate The two types <strong>of</strong> pilot projects can be described as follows: “Traditional” ICS pilot projects “Diversified” ICS pilot projects Follows <strong>the</strong> current AC requirements (i.e. common marketing <strong>of</strong> 1 or several products, similar production systems, geographic proximity), except that it is open to farmers without restriction on farm size In conformity with AC requirements (at least 10 external re-inspections in minimum risk situation) Target groups Groups that have cooperation culture and meet AC requirements Goal <strong>of</strong> pilot project Geographic zones Criteria for selection Process for moving on 9 Demonstrate feasibility and pr<strong>of</strong>itability <strong>of</strong> ICS in Europe � use as lobbying argument towards <strong>the</strong> EU in <strong>the</strong> medium term Encourage eligible groups to build up ICS once it is accepted => Demonstration oriented In <strong>the</strong> EU and non EU In <strong>the</strong> EU Some pilot projects should be established through farmer groups and o<strong>the</strong>rs should be established through purchasing companies (especially in cases where farmers have poor culture <strong>of</strong> cooperation). Some ICS pilot projects should include livestock production, so that ICS from eastern Europe can learn. Minimum size <strong>of</strong> farmer group for pilot project is 20. Ideal size is 30 or more, as long as number is not an economic burden to <strong>the</strong> pilot group. <strong>IFOAM</strong> to fur<strong>the</strong>r develop <strong>the</strong> pilot project planning and to establish criteria for selection <strong>of</strong> groups. Participants to contact selected groups to investigate possibility and interest in pilot projects. Does not follow current AC requirements Open to discussion. We could go less than 10 re-inspections Groups that have a long history and strong capacity to manage complexity in <strong>the</strong> context <strong>of</strong> internal control (e.g. N&P) Investigate <strong>the</strong> possibility <strong>of</strong> ICS managing diversity and identify necessary pre-conditions to/criteria for effective diversity management � results <strong>of</strong> pilot projects to be used for lobbying in <strong>the</strong> long term (after simple ICS have been accepted) if it is proved that we can cope with all <strong>the</strong> risks => research oriented Close proximity (territorial basis) Existing “internal” control system Should encompass 2 types: common marketing and individual marketing Same Requirements have to be compatible with existing system (new system should not lead to stricter requirements for ICS in <strong>the</strong> developing world) Multiple steps and participatory process before starting <strong>the</strong>se diversified pilot projects. Needs some time and planning to avoid frustrating people. Begin with good ones like Italian or French groups � <strong>the</strong>n planning for a more developed strategy.
Page 1 and 2: Proceedings <stron
Page 3 and 4: B. Workshop attendees Participant O
Page 5 and 6: Consultancies in organic agricultur
Page 7: In some contexts, farmers get certi
Page 11: Conclusion of <str

Proceedings of the IFOAM workshop on Internal Control Systems (ICS)

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?