EurepGAP Conference Prague: Presentations held at the Round Tables. Booth Sessions. Introduction

Transcription

1 Booth Sessions EurepGAP Conference 20/21.September 2006/Prague, Czech Republic Introduction EurepGAP Retail and Food Service Members 1

2 Introduction EurepGAP Supplier Members Introduction EurepGAP Associate Members 2

3 Introduction EurepGAP Scopes Fruit and Vegetables Green Coffee Integrated Farm Assurance Aquaculture Flowers and Ornamentals Tea Certified Farms more than certified farms in 78 countries world wide Introduction EurepGAP Revision Process Revision every three years New Standard version in March 2007 Revision Topics: decided by the TSCs in January 2005 Integrated Pest Management Worker Health Safety and Welfare Maximum Residue Limits Produce Handling General Regulations (Auditor Qualifications, Audit Frequencies) Other Topics: Feed Transport Integrated Aquaculture New Products 3

4 Introduction Stakeholder Involvement Introduction The new Standard Structure Why the modular approach? - The EurepGAP standards grew separately; now to assure consistency EurepGAP needs to restructure the standards in a modular approach - To reduce redundancies between the different standards - To allow integration of new standards - To reduce the cost for auditing 4

5 Next Steps/Implementation Next steps In future focus on Integrated Crop Management Integrated Pest Management Moderators: Experts: FoodPLUS: Alfons Sagenmüller (ECPA) Claudia Michel (ECPA) Martin Kodde (ECPA) Ricardo Adonis (FPF)/Lindi Benic (DFPT) Ad Klaassen (DPA) Angelo Lazo Reiko Enomoto 5

6 IPM Why is Integrated Pest Management a Topic for Revision 2007? EurepGAP promotes safe and sustainable agriculture IPM forms an integral part of Good Agricultural Practices Following a holistic approach EurepGAP wants to raise awareness on a broad basis IPM What was achieved? A separate, more focused section on IPM An Annex with guideline and explanation of 3 principles: Prevention Observation and Monitoring Intervention Wide stakeholder involvement 6

7 IPM 7 4 IPM CP FV Level CP IFA Level Apply IPM Techniques Recom C.5.6 Minor Implementation assistance Minor C.5.1 Minor Minimum input (PPP) Minor C.5.7 Minor Anti-resistance Recommdations Minor C.5.2 Minor 7

8 IPM New Points N Control Point Compliance Criteria Level C.5.3 Can the farmer show evidence of implementation of at least one activity that falls in the category of "Prevention"? The farmer can show evidence of implementing at least one activity that includes the adoption of cultivation methods that could reduce the incidence and intensity of pest attacks, thereby reducing the need for intervention. See Annex 2 - EurepGAP IPM Guid Minor Must C.5.4 Can the farmer show evidence of implementation of at least one activity that falls in the category of "Observation and Monitoring"? The farmer can show evidence of implementing at least one activity that will determine when, and to what extent, pests and their natural enemies are present, and using this information to plan what pest management techniques are required. See Annex 2 - E Minor Must C.5.5 Can the farmer show evidence of implementation of at least one activity that falls in the category of "Intervention"? The farmer show evidence that in situations where pest attack adversely affects the economic value of a crop, intervention with specific pest control methods will take place. Where possible, non-chemical approaches must be considered. See Annex 2 - Eurep Minor Must Laboratories and MRLs Moderators: Experts: FoodPLUS: Z. Wiegand (DFHV) Nazario Munoz (EFSIS) Nigel Thorgrimsson (Ardo) Luc Peeters (Mechelse Veilingen) Willem Hofmans (Ahold) Gabriele Jahn 8

9 MRLs and LABORATORIES Why are MRLs and Laboratories a Topic for Revision 2007? MRLs are an urging issue for producers and retailers world wide EurepGAP wants to contribute to the harmonisation of MRL Standardised results from approved laboratories Sampling for residue analyses has huge impact on results Risk assessment - when, how, what, by whom? MRLs and LABORATORIES 9

10 MRLs and LABORATORIES CP FV Level CP IFA Level Evidence of testing Major Major COD MRL information Major Major Action to meet COD MRLs Major Major Exceedance Action Plan Major Major Sampling procedure Recom Minor Laboratory used Minor Minor MRL MRL Points in the Standard N Control Point Compliance Criteria Level C.8.6 Plant Protection Product Residue Analysis (N/A, for Flower and Ornamental production) C Documentary evidence exists demonstrating compliance with applicable Are the correct sampling procedures (Recom.) sampling procedures. Sampling can be carried out by the laboratory or followed? Minor Must by the grower providing the procedure is adhered to. C Is the farmer or farmer's customer able to provide current evidence either of annual Current documented evidence or records are available either of annual residue testing or of participation in a third plant protection product residue analysis results for the Major Must party plant protection product residue registered product crops, or of participation in a third party plant monitoring system, which is traceable to the protection product residue monitoring system whic farm, and that covers the plant protect C Is the farmer (or the farmer's customer) able The farmer or the farmer's customer must have available a list of to demonstrate information regarding the current applicable MRLs for the market(s) where produce is intended to market where the farmer is intending to trade be traded in (whether domestic or international). The MRLs will be produce, and the MRL of that market? identified by either demonstrating communication wi Major Must 10

11 MRL MRL Points in the Standard N Control Point Compliance Criteria Level C Has action been taken to meet those Where the MRLs of the market the farmer is intending to trade his produce in are stricter than MRLs of the market the farmer is those of the country of production, the farmer or the farmer's customer can demonstrate that Major Must intending to trade his produce in? during the production cycle these MRLs have been taken into account C C Is an action plan in place in the event of a maximum residue level There is a clear documented procedure of the remedial steps and actions, (this will include (MRL) being exceeded, either of the communication to customers, product tracking exercise, etc.) to be taken where a plant Major Must country of production or of the protection product residue analysis indicates an MRL (either of the country countries where produce is intended to be traded in? Is the laboratory used for residue There is clear documented evidence either on the letter headings or copies of accreditations testing accredited by a competent etc. that the laboratories used for plant protection product residue analysis have been Minor Must national authority to ISO or accredited, or are in the process of accreditation to the applicable scope equivalent standard? Produce Handling Moderators: Experts: FoodPLUS: Nathalie Gocha (SmartFresh) Nick Ball (Tesco) Raf de Blaiser (Lava) Lindi Benic (DFPT/SHAFFE)/ Ricardo Adonis (FPF) Elmé Coetzer 11

12 Produce Handling Why is Produce Handling a Topic for Revision 2007? EurepGAP wants to strengthen the produce handling section Emphasis is put on the hygiene issues Applicable when: Pre-farm gate, on farm packing, NOT Processing, own produce Proposal: when not ON the farm and/or or not own produce and/or not only EurepGAP produce All relevant CPCCs are seen as Major Musts In-field packing was also considered and hygiene issues strengthened Produce Handling Why is Produce Handling a Topic for Revision 2007? Interface with BRC and IFS common points to EurepGAP and BRC/IFS acceptable when packhouse already has BRC/IFS certification, only need to check the residue testing of any post-harvest chemicals applied. 12

13 Produce Handling Produce Handling CP FV Level CP IFA Level Hygiene risk analysis Procedure implementation Clean toilets and handwash Minor 1.C Major Minor 1.C Minor Minor 1.C Major 1.C Major Basic hygiene Major 1.C Major instructions Smoking, eating etc Minor 1.C Minor Implement instructions Source of wash water Minor 1.C Minor C

14 Produce Handling CP FV Level CP IFA Level Post harvest C treatments Floor design Recom DELETED Equipment clean Minor 1.C Minor and maint. Rejected produce Recom 1.C Minor Cleaning agents stored Cleaning agents approved Breakage safe lamps Recom 1.C Minor Minor 1.C.5.43 Minor Minor 1.C Minor Produce Handling CP FV Level CP IFA Level Written glass Recom 1.C Recom procedures Animal access Minor 1.C Minor Pest control Minor 1.C Minor Temp and humidity control Major 1.C Major 14

15 Produce Handling New Points N Control Point Compliance Criteria Level 1.C C C Are all workers wearing outer garments suitable for the operation to avoid contamination? All workers wear outer garments (e.g. smocks, aprons, sleeves, gloves) that are suitable for the operation according to the risk analysis. This will depend on the product and operation. Are the protective clothing (outer garments) changed and/or regularly The outer garments are changed and/or regularly cleaned cleaned to avoid crosscontamination? according to the risk according the risk analysis from 1.C.4.1.1) analysis. Are there signs with the main hygiene instructions inside the packing facilities, clearly displayed for workers and visitors? Signs with the main hygiene instructions must be visibly displayed in the packing facility. Recom. Minor Must Minor Must Produce Handling New Points N Control Point Compliance Criteria Level 1.C C C C C C C C Are signs clearly displayed instructing workers to wash their hands before returning to work. Are there suitable changing facilities for the workers? Are there secure storage facilities for the workers? Are all forklifts and other driven transport trolleys clean and well maintained? Are packing materials clean and stored in clean and hygienic conditions? Is Quality Control in place according to market requirements? Is stock rotation being managed? Is there a process for calibrating equipment? Signs must be visible with clear instructions that hands must be washed after use of toilets, eating and any other time hands may be dirty. The changing facilities must be used to change clothing and protective outer garments as required. Secure storage facilities must be provided at the changing facility to protect the workers' personal belongings. Internal transport should be maintained to avoid product contamination, with special attention to emmission of fumes Packing materials (incl re-useable crates) are stored in a clean and hygienic area, to prevent product contamination until used. The farmer/responsible person must be able to proof that quality is controlled against given specifications (customer, industry,etc). The first in-first out principle must be followed for raw products as well as packed products. Equipment for weighing, cooling etc, must be calibrated according to the risk analysis. Minor Must Recom. Recom. Recom. Minor Must Minor Must Recom. Minor Must 15

16 In-field Packing 12 5 In-field Packing New Points N Control Point Compliance Criteria Level 1.C C C There must be evidence that the workers received training, Have workers received basic whether verbally or written. There does not necessary have instructions in hygiene before to be signed records by the workers, but all training must be handling produce? documented. There is evidence that the workers are complying with the Do the workers implement the hygiene instructions regarding personal cleanliness and hygiene instructions for handling clothing, e.g. hand washing, wearing of jewellery, fingernail produce? length or cleaning, etc.; personal behaviour, e.g. no smoking, spitting, etc. Are all workers wearing clothing to prevent contamination to the This will depend on the product and risks associated with it. product? Major Must Minor Must Minor Must 16

17 In-field Packing New Points N Control Point Compliance Criteria Level 1.C C C C C The farmer/responsible person must be able to proof that Is Quality Control in place according quality is controlled against given specifications (customer, Minor Must to market requirements? industry,etc). Packers must be trained, using written instructions, to Is physical contamination of the prevent physical contamination of the product during Major Must packed product prevented? packing, such as snails, stones, insects, knives, fruit residues. All field packed produce must be raised off the ground and Is packed produce raised off the covered to prevent contamination once packed and during ground and covered to prevent transport (from the fields or outlying farms to where it is Major Must contamination? stored), in accordance with the harvest hygiene risk assessment results. Is any collection/ storage /distribution point of field packed If packed produce is stored on farm, storage areas must be Major Must produce maintained in clean and cleaned. hygienic conditions? Is packing material used for in-field Packing material stored overnight in the field must be raised packing stored to prevent off the ground and protected against contamination contamination? Major Must In-field Packing New Points N Control Point Compliance Criteria Level 1.C Fruit remnants, rejected produce, bits of packaging material Is the area in the vicinity of field must be removed from the packing area at the end of the Minor Must packed produce clean/maintained? working day. Are temperature and humidity If packed produce are stored on farm, temperature and 1.C (where applicable) controls humidity controls (where applicable) must be maintained and Major Must maintained and documented where documented, in accordance with the hygiene risk field packed produce are stored on assessment results. 17

18 Worker Health Safety and Welfare Moderators: Experts: FoodPLUS: Ruth Nyaga (Africert) Silke Peters (FLP) Sibyl Anwander Phan-Huy (Coop) Jenni Heise (GTZ) Kerstin Uhlig Worker Health Safety and Welfare Why is Worker Health, Safety and Welfare a Topic for Revision 2007? EurepGAP promotes safe and sustainable agriculture Following a holistic approach EurepGAP safe and healthy working conditions are a prerequisite for quality products Workers health, safety and welfare form an important part of the farm management responsibility Occupational health and safety measures reduce the risk of accidents at work Consumers trust that products they buy are produced under fair conditions By strengthening that chapter EurepGAP makes a clear commitment 18

19 Worker Health Safety and Welfare Worker Health Safety and Welfare 19

20 Worker Health Safety and Welfare CP FV Level CP IFA Level Risk Assessment Recom Minor Action plan Recom Recom Training Minor Minor Training record Recom Minor First Aid person Recom Minor Acc instructions Minor Minor Basic training Recom Minor Visitors hygiene Recom Minor Worker Health Safety and Welfare CP FV Level CP IFA Level First Aid box Minor Minor Hazards identified Recom Minor Acc procedures Minor Minor Evident 10m Minor Minor Signs at PPP store Minor Minor Training PPP Minor Major Blood testing Recom Recom 20

21 Worker Health Safety and Welfare CP FV Level CP IFA Level PPE Major Major Cleaned after use Minor Minor Follow label re PPE Minor Minor PPE stored Major Major Operator contamination Minor Minor Member of management Minor Major 2-way communication Recom Recom Living quarters Minor Minor Visitors safety Minor Minor Worker Health Safety and Welfare New Points N Control Point Compliance Criteria Level Are manufacturers data sheets or other applicable information held for all substances used that are Data sheets or demonstrate availability through agreement with a responsible organisation must be available. Minor Must Have the recomended reentry times been observed? Do workers have access to clean food storing and basic dining facilities? There are clear documented procedures and documentation, i.e. crop protection products application records and crop harvest dates/times from treated locations, which demonstrates that all safety-intervals (re-entry intervals) for crop protection products Food storing and dining facilities are available for all workers. Facilities must be dry, clean and out of direct vicinity from crop protection storage facilities and filling/mixing areas. Major Must Minor Must Are there records that provide an accurate overview over all workers of the farm? Records demonstrate clearly an accurate overview over all workers (including seasonal workers) and employees hired by subcontractors working on the farm. It contains full names, a generic job description, date of entry, the period of employment, wage and Minor Must 21

22 General Regulations Moderators: Experts: FoodPLUS: Steven Cox (CMi) Graham Campbell (PPECB) Paul Bol (DPA) Theresa Huxley (Sainsbury s) Hugo Hays Heike Anna Rauber General Regulations Audit Frequency A subgroup was formed to determine the possibility of rewarding or ensuring full compliance by reducing audits for farmers: 2 options X Decrease the inspection frequency - AB support weak, complicated X Shortening the checklist - no cost benefit to farmer Keep annual inspections Proposal for 2010: review frequency through a dedicated work group and trials. 22

23 General Regulations Auditor Qualifications There is a need to increase CB auditor/inspector and Internal Farmer Group auditor/inspector qualifications to increase integrity and to improve auditor skills 1. Include Appendix for Internal Farmer Group Auditors All Internal Farmer Group Inspectors/Auditors must be approved by the CB Proposal: Not necessary for farmer group inspectors/auditors to have all the educational qualifications, but focus more on experience. Auditability? 2. Include requirements for: IPM training Successful completion of EurepGAP online training and test Sub-scope specific experience General Regulations Other issues: (because of Integration of standards) Compliance levels 100% Major Musts 95% Minor Musts per module 3-year certificates, with annual inspections inspection timing 10% unannounced inspections of Farmer Groups 23

24 Feed for Livestock and Aquaculture Moderators: Experts: FoodPLUS: Gosse Smid (Elanco) Alex Olsen (Mc Donalds) Erwin Steenbruggen Feed Why is Feed a Topic on this Conference? Use of Certified Compound feed is a prerequisite for farmers to receive certification for livestock Compound feed must be purchased from a certified feed supplier EurepGAP developed a standard for the certification of good practices in Compound feed production To receive feedback on the implementation on this new standard 24

25 Feed in IFA-Livestock CP IFA 2004 Level CP IFA 2007 Level Sufficient clean Major L Major water Purchased feed Major L Major approved supplier Home-mixers Major L Major registered Feedingstuff labels Major L Major Traceability of Major L Major purchased material Forage - from Major DELETED certified crops Protein elements Major L Major Home-mixers - mixture protocol Major L Major Feed in IFA-Livestock Fishmeal - traceability Residues - medicated feed Cleaning of feeding systems CP IFA 2004 Level CP IFA 2007 Level Recom L Recom Major L Major Major L Major 25

26 Feed in IFA-Livestock Modified / New Points N Control Point Compliance Criteria Level L MODIF. L NEW Where compound feed is supplied by a company that is Has compound feed been licensed with the relevant competent authority it must manufactured by, and obtained from, demonstrate that it complies with the requirements for quality a source approved by? assurance set by EurepGAP (see EurepGAP Compound Feed Manufacturer Module). Do home-mixers source, from All combinable crops (see crop list for Combinable Crops) January 2009, only certified sourced for mixing feed must be EurepGAP (or equivalent) EurepGAP combinable crops for certified. No N/A unless no mixing in own machinery. mixing feed? Major Must Major Must Transport Moderator: Expert: FoodPlus: Hans Schouwenburg (PVE, NL) Johan Stegeman (CBL) Friedrich Lüdeke 26

27 Transport The new Standard Structure Transport is obligatory for all Livestock certifications Transport Stakeholder Involvement The transport module was initially perceived as inauditable and therefore re-drafted over the last year. This module was re-drafted by the EurepGAP IFA TSC including experts from The European Transport Assoc., Euromeat, SatconSystems, etc. Main challenge was: What to do with transporters that are not farmers? Solution: Move towards certification of transport companies per-se, and checking at slaughterhouse or point of destination as well as origin where possible. 27

28 Aquaculture Moderators: Experts: FoodPLUS: Carsten Coenen (QuaSi) Aldin Hilbrands(Ahold) Valeska Weymann Erwin Steenbruggen Aquaculture Why is Aquaculture a topic on this conference? Demand for certified aquaculture products is increasing Need for harmonisation and solutions for the mainstream market Salmon certification is progressing very well Modules currently under development: Shrimps Tilapia Pangasius Sturgeon 28

29 Aquaculture Next steps Further development of the current Aquaculture modules and inclusion in the 2007 standard is dependent on continued stakeholder support and demand. New Products Moderators: Experts: FoodPLUS: V. Papaekonomou (Agron SA) Andras Fekete (CUC) Valeska Weymann Claire Vickery 29

30 New Products Certifying other Products: The role of EurepGAP Different organisations from the Retail sector as well as the Suppliers sector (group of producers or country demands), are approaching the EurepGAP platform for the development of new standards and modules. Possible projects: Tea Palm Oil? Wine? Cotton? Cacao? Others? not new, but still under revision, non-accredited status New Products - Next Steps/Implementation EurepGAP s role EurepGAP is a voluntary standard that acts on market demands EurepGAP does not fund the development of new scopes, BUT does technical contribution and maintenance of the scopes. Interested stakeholder support is crucial for the development of a new scope Stakeholders role To identify the need for a standard for a certain scope To form a working group that will work closely with existing Sector Committees or form a new Sector Committee that will be responsible for the initial development of the standard document. To support on the trial audits needed before launching new module 30

31 New Products - Next Steps/Implementation Next Steps After final draft, at least one trial on the field for standard audit purpose: CBs interested in working with this new module Producer/Group of Producers interested to be certified against this new module Implementation For the new scope to be certified: CBs with appropriate accreditation inspectors and auditor qualifications 31