CA response received 28 April 2014

Transcription

1 1 Ensure that Control Bodies are approved by the National Institute of Origin and Quality and tasks are delegated to them only when accredited according to EN or ISO Guide 65, as required by Article 27(5)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 and by Article 5(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004. The French authorities confirm that the certifying bodies (CB) are indeed all approved by the National Institute of Origin and Quality (INAO) prior to any certification by an operator. As mentioned in the audit report in point : "COFRAC procedures (document CERT. REF. 05) specify that the decision to substantiate a CB cannot be made drawing only on an applicationbased evaluation of the procedures of the CB in question; the candidate CB must already have certified operators in the sector for which it is requesting accreditation". The Ministry of Agriculture sent a letter to COFRAC on 20 February 2014 informing it of its opinion regarding accreditation, in an approval context. In a letter dated 6 March 2014, COFRAC stated that standard NF EN ISO/CEI on "General requirements for accreditation bodies accrediting conformity assessment bodies", compliance with which is obligatory for accreditation bodies signatory to the EA/IAF multilateral recognition agreements, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 765/2008, requires it to conduct audits, including on a representative number of examples to be observed, to guarantee an appropriate evaluation of the competence of the CB. This information is corroborated by document EA-3/12 entitled "EA Directives for accreditation relating to the certification of organic farming methods", a European document drafted in cooperation with DG AGRI. COFRAC thus confirms that it cannot give accreditation prior to Date: 31 July 2014 Page: 1

2 the approval of a CB. It is in this context that the INAO approves the CBs which submit an application to it, after the on-site technical evaluation of the CB and the assessment of its approval request, both of which must comply with Articles R to R of the Rural and Maritime Fisheries Code (French legislation). The approval application must comprise a copy of the accreditation certificate or of the accreditation request from the body. As part of this assessment conducted by the INAO, the impartiality and independence of the CB and the competence of its staff are evaluated. These parameters will later be considered by COFRAC in the accreditation audits. The French authorities would stress that the auditors do not appear to have noted any substantive issue, but only an emphasis on the temporal aspects of the accreditation approval. They would like to know the Commission's opinion on the possibility of issuing provisional accreditations. 2 Ensure that the tasks related to the retroactive recognition of conversion periods, tethering of cattle in small holdings, use of non-organic animals are not delegated to the Control Bodies, but are the responsibility of the Competent Authority, as prescribed by Articles 36(2), 39 and 42 of Regulation (EC) No 889/2008, and that criteria for the definition of small holdings in which tethering of cattle is allowed are clearly defined. Circular INAO-CIRC (available on the website of the INAO concerning the delegation of monitoring tasks to control bodies will be amended accordingly so that the retroactive recognition of conversion periods, the tethering of cattle on small farms and the use of non-organic animals come under the responsibility of the competent authority. These developments will also be the subject of deliberations and will be taken into account in the internal organisation of the INAO in order to ensure that the requests submitted to the institute are analysed in satisfactory conditions, particularly for operators. Date: 31 July 2014 Page: 2

3 With regard to the criteria defining small farms on which the tethering of cattle is authorised, this point will be covered by the appropriate official channels of the INAO. 3 Ensure that the independence and objectivity of controls carried out by the Control Bodies is verified by the Competent Authority as required by Article 27(9)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007, that their effectiveness is verified in the appropriate way as prescribed by Article 27(9)(b) of the same Regulation and that the Competent Authority takes immediate cognizance of any irregularity or infringement found and corrective measures applied as required by Article 27(9)(c) and Article 30(2) of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007. In the initial approval phase, the INAO (competent authority) ensures that each body it approves meets the criteria of impartiality and independence, and that its staff have the necessary competences. After the initial approval phase, the INAO ensures that the CB has the accreditation granted by COFRAC. This accreditation then guarantees the impartiality and independence of the CB. A cooperation protocol was signed between the INAO and COFRAC on 2 July This protocol provides for reciprocal notification when the accreditation of a certifying body working on identifying marks of quality and origin is extended, refused, not renewed, withdrawn or suspended. The INAO may ask COFRAC to provide additional information if the notification letter is not sufficiently clear as to the reasons for withdrawal or suspension of the CB. The INAO also receives the schedule of the accreditation assessments of the control bodies at the start of the year, and of the list of names of operators whose activities have been observed by the monitored assessors and inspectors. The INAO performs the technical evaluations of the control bodies in accordance with the time limits set by the Rural and Maritime Fisheries Code (Article R ) and accompanies the Date: 31 July 2014 Page: 3

4 inspectors of control bodies, at least once per technical evaluation, to an operator's premises. Extra training on organic farming will be given in the second quarter of 2014 in the INAO in order to train other technical evaluators in organic farming and thus help to increase the number of competent technical evaluators able to support CB inspectors. With regard to the fact that the INAO must take note of any irregularity or infringement noted and of the corrective measures applied (Article 27(9)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 889/2008) and that the information must circulate immediately between the control bodies, the competent authorities and the Member States concerned (Article 30(2) of Regulation (EU) No 889/2008), this point will be brought to the attention of the certifying bodies so that the competent authority is fully able to perform its supervisory role vis-à-vis the control bodies. 4 Ensure that updated lists of operators, as referred to by Article 28(5) of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007, and updated documentary evidence related to each operator, as provided for in Article 29(1) of the same Regulation and using the model set out in Annex XII of Regulation (EC) No 889/2008, are made available to the public as prescribed by Article 92(b) of Regulation (EC) No 889/2008. Article 92(b) (now Article 92b) of Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 provides that: "Member States shall make available to the public, in an appropriate manner including publication on the internet, the updated lists referred to in Article 28(5) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2007 containing updated documentary evidence related to each operator, as provided for in Article 29(1) of that Regulation and using the model set out in Annex XII to this Regulation. The Member States shall duly observe the requirements of the protection of personal data as laid down in Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council". The French authorities consider that the system set in place in France meets the regulatory obligations on the one hand, because the updated list of names and addresses of operators specifying Date: 31 July 2014 Page: 4

5 their sector of activity and their control body is made available to the public on the website of the BIO Agency and, on the other hand, as indicated on that site, because the documentary proof can be obtained from the control body. In order to obtain documentary proof, the French authorities plan to establish a link between the list of operators and the respective websites of the control bodies. The French authorities take note of the remark concerning validation by the control bodies of the amendment of the data contained in the list of operators, and undertake to establish a system ensuring consistency between data in the list and data held by the control bodies. 5 Ensure that random control visits carried out by Control Bodies are primarily unannounced, as prescribed by Article 65 of Regulation (EC) No 889/2008. The ad hoc Council Directive on approvals and controls (CAC) (Directive INAO-DIR-CAC-3 concerning the guidelines for drafting control plans as part of the certification of organic farming methods) was amended accordingly at the last CAC of 26 November The CB activity reports on organic farming will cover this point so that it is referred back to the European Commission as part of the MANCP (Multiannual National Control Plans). 6 Ensure that, when any level of residues of plant production products or contaminants is found in organic products, an investigation is carried out as required by Article 91 of Regulation (EC) No 889/2008, that such products are deemed not being in compliance with organic production rules and that any reference to the organic production method is withdrawn. First of all, it should be pointed out that the European regulations on organic farming are part of an approach based on "obligation of means" imposed on operators; this approach differs from an "obligation of result", which would involve defining thresholds to be complied with (e.g. for plant protection products). However, this obligation of means should of course result in the regulatory compliance of the products placed on the market. Date: 31 July 2014 Page: 5

6 If, after analysis, an organic product sample exceeds the maximum residue limit (MRL) for any active substance (e.g. a plant protection product not authorised for organic farming), it may not be placed on the market (and its "organic" [agriculture biologique] label will be unfounded). If this same sample shows a negative result when tested for that same substance, the product (subject to compliance on other points) may be placed on the market and be labelled as "organic". Furthermore, when after analysis the result is between the quantification limit and the MRL, the French authorities prefer to place the product on the market (because it does not present a risk to public health), albeit without the "organic" label, unless, after investigation, it can be shown that the operator has by no means infringed the rules governing organic production. This is in line with Article 91(2) of Regulation (EU) No 889/2008, which requires any reference to organic production methods to be withdrawn if the control body is certain that the product does not meet the organic production requirements. Lastly, it must be underlined that the European Commission was notified by the French authorities in July 2012 that didecyldimethylammonium chloride (DDAC) had been detected in fruit. This substance cannot be used in organic farming but is commonly used in conventional agriculture in particular as a biocide, since it is a quaternary ammonium salt. When questioned on the future of products containing DDAC, in its response of 31 July 2012, the Commission underlined in particular that "the European legislative framework on organic production does not set rules regarding tolerance levels for the Date: 31 July 2014 Page: 6

7 fortuitous presence of substances in organic agricultural products" and encouraged the Member States to exchange opinions in this context on the future of the products thus detected. It thus appears to be clear that the methods for managing such products are left to the discretion of the Member States, and their competent authorities, which are responsible for defining this threshold of acceptability, given the products and substances concerned, the records collected, the results of the investigations carried out and the analysis of risks. 7 Ensure that no maximum residue limits are defined in the national provisions for residues of Plant Production Products or certain contaminants, in accordance with the European Union organic legislation currently in force. European legislation on organic products does not set any limits for pesticide residues or synergists such as piperonyl butoxide. Pending Community legislation on the subject, the French authorities retain the same limit for organic cereals as for standard products. Since Anses had set thresholds over which the substances concerned are considered to be dangerous, organic farming should observe the same residue limits as conventional products. 8 Ensure that operations such as attaching elastic bands to the tail of sheep, trimming of beaks and de-horning are not carried out routinely, but are systematically authorised by the competent authority as required by Article 18(1) of Regulation (EC) No 889/2008. In accordance with the provisions of Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) No 889/2008, animal management operations such as attaching elastic bands to the tails of sheep, the trimming of beaks or dehorning may be carried out only after authorisation, on a case-by-case basis, by the competent authority. Furthermore, point 2.4 of Title III of the French specifications concerning the organic method of producing livestock and supplementing the provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 is due to be amended soon. Date: 31 July 2014 Page: 7

8 Circular INAO-CIRC concerning the delegation of control tasks to the control bodies will be adapted accordingly. 9 Ensure that efficient and effective coordination is in place between competent authorities, and especially between the French Paying Agency and the National Institute of Origin and Quality, to ensure effectiveness and appropriateness of official control on organic farming, as required by Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004. As part of a procedure currently being established, CBs are now requested each year to send to the Ministry of Agriculture via the INAO their data on withdrawals of certification, so that the link to certain CAP assistance paid by the ASP can be established, where appropriate. Where changes have occurred only very recently concerning the regulatory position of support for organic farming in the context of the CAP, the French authorities undertook to formalise the method which would be the most appropriate for the changes which have just been introduced by the new legislation. Date: 31 July 2014 Page: 8