Canadian Food Inspection Agency peer review report on Taiwan's organic system – 2023

On this page

Abbreviations and Special terms used in the report

AB
Accreditation Body
CA
Competent Authority
CB
Certification Body
CFIA
Canadian Food Inspection Agency
COR
Canada Organic Regime
CTOEA
Canada-Taiwan Organic Equivalency Arrangement
ISO
International Standards Organization
TAF
Taiwan Accreditation Foundation (Accreditation Body)
NC
Non-Conformity
MOA
Ministry of Agriculture
AFA
Agriculture and Food Agency

Executive Summary

This report summarizes findings made during the on-site assessment the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) conducted on Taiwan Organic Program in August 2023.

The objective of the assessment was to determine the extent to which the Taiwanese competent authority demonstrates conformity with the requirements specified in Taiwan's regulations as part of determining an organic equivalency arrangement and the requirements specified in the current Canada-Taiwan Organic Equivalence Arrangement (CTOEA).

The assessment was conducted from August 14 to 18, 2023. It included meetings with Taiwan's Ministry of Agriculture (MOA), the competent authority for organic products. Specifically, engagements were held with the responsible units under the Ministry, example, the Agriculture and Food Agency (AFA), the Department of Animal Industry, and the Fisheries Agency, the Taiwan Accreditation Foundation (TAF) - an Accreditation Body, one certification body (CB), one primary production unit (farm), and one processing facility. The key elements of the assessment included the following:

1) Authorities

  • Current organic legislative authorities, including regulations, standards, codes of practice, and arrangements. In particular:
    • authority to recognize and certify parties involved in Taiwan's organic system
    • authority to carry out monitoring and surveillance activities
    • authority to respond to non-compliances where risk has been identified, for example; recalls, as well as other control and enforcement activities

2) Government organization and resources

  • The roles and responsibilities of the various government departments involved in the implementation of Taiwan's organic system
  • The resources, responsibilities, functions, and coordination between the parties involved in Taiwan's organic system
  • Competencies of the parties involved in the delivery of Taiwan's organic system

3) Enforcement and surveillance activities

  • The role of MOA, TAF, and the CBs in inspection, surveillance, and enforcement of the organic regulations.

The assessment determined that MOA has implemented a control system for the certification of organic operators that is supported by good collaboration between MOA, TAF, and the CBs.

This system guarantees that agricultural organic products certified under Taiwan's Organic Regulations can be exported and marketed in Canada as meeting the terms of the CTOEA.

This report provides a list of findings which highlight opportunities for improvement (OFIs) and enhancement of the implementation of Taiwan's organic system in order to maintain the equivalency arrangement with Canada.

The observations and findings contained in this report are based on information gathered by the peer review team through the Peer review questionnaire, personal interviews with personnel, and on-site observation. They represent the collective understanding of the members of the peer review team.

1. Background

On May 30, 2020, Canada and Taiwan entered into an arrangement recognizing their national organic systems as equivalent. The arrangement applies to agricultural products of plant origin, processed foods of plant origin, livestock and livestock products, as well as aquaculture products grown or produced in each jurisdiction or whose final processing or packaging occurs within each jurisdiction.

As per the conditions of the arrangement, and following advance notice from the CFIA, Taiwan agreed to accommodate the CFIA's request to conduct an assessment to verify how MOA is carrying out the requirements of Taiwan's organic system.

2. Objectives of the assessment

The objective of the assessment was to determine the extent to which AFA demonstrated conformity with the requirements specified in the CTOEA.

3. Assessment criteria

The following references (regulatory requirements/standards) were considered during the on-site assessment :

4. Assessment protocol

The assessment team planned and conducted the on-site assessment in a manner which allowed the team to obtain sufficient information to confirm the observations and conclusions described thereafter. The on-site assessment was conducted in accordance with CFIA peer review procedure related to the Canada Organic Regime (COR) and included visits to the following organisations:

Organisation Date
AFA and TAF headquarters August 14, 2023
Certification Body (CB) 1 – Headquarters August 15, 2023
Organic farm and processing facility August 16, 2023
Multi – ingredient organic product processing facility August 17, 2023
Closing meeting August 18, 2023

As part of the on-site assessment, the CFIA team reviewed each level of the Taiwan Organic System (administration, supervision, certification and production) to confirm that the responsible authorities have the necessary controls in place to ensure compliance with Taiwan's organic regulations. In doing so, the peer review team:

  • Met with representatives from the MOA Organic Team to review the administration of the Taiwan organic systems and to discuss the roles and responsibilities in overseeing the system and the activities of TAF and the CBs
  • Met with representatives from TAF responsible for the surveillance of the CBs in Taiwan
  • Met with representatives from one CB to discuss their certification processes and procedures
  • Witnessed two inspections conducted by CB inspectors, accompanied by TAF auditors at an organic farm and organic production operations to confirm their knowledge of the Taiwan organic system

5. Overview of the Taiwan organic sector

Organic farming and production has been regulated in Taiwan since 2007 initially under the Agricultural Production and Certification Act. The Organic Agriculture Promotion Act was enacted May 30, 2019.

In 2022, there were 5245 Taiwan based organic operators and 84 overseas organic operators.

In 2022, Taiwan had a total area of 13,545 hectares of land farmed organically, accounting for 1.71% of the country's arable land. The main crop types grown organically are, greatest to least, vegetables, rice, fruit, tea with the remaining being composed of other crops.

According to the Taiwan Annual report for 2022, the top five organic Taiwanese products exported to Canada in 2022 were rice (13 300 kg), mushrooms (12 915.52 kg), cereals and pulses (1452 kg), grain based processed food (840.24 kg), and tea (48 kg).

5.1 Taiwan organic legislation and standards

Organic farming and production has been regulated in Taiwan since 2019 under the Organic Agriculture Promotion Act and its accompanying regulations and enforcement rules. These accompanying regulations include "Licensing and Supervision and Management Measures for Organic Agricultural Products Certification Agencies aka Regulations for Approving and Supervising Organic Accreditation Bodies" and "Reward Measures for Reporting Violations of the Organic Agriculture Promotion Act aka Regulations Governing Awards to Informants Reporting Violations against the Organic Agriculture Promotion Act" among others.

The organic regulations in Taiwan are updated from time to time but not on a regular basis as it is not stipulated in the regulations. At the end of 2022 a revision preparation was begun to revise organic certification standards and permitted substances list. Progress is anticipated by the last quarter of this year. Most recent regulations are dated 2018-05-30 when the Organic agriculture promotion act was announced. The act went into force one year later. Some directives/letters are issued from time to time.

6. Implementation of the Taiwan organic system

6.1 MOA organic team

The Council of Agriculture (COA), Executive Yuan, was upgraded to Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) August 1, 2023. The MOA has decentralized its responsibilities for organic products into three sections: the Department of Animal Industry (organic livestock product and livestock processed products), the Fisheries Agency (organic aquatic product and aquatic processed products) and the Agriculture and Food Agency (organic crop product and crop processed products).

While the competent authority at the central level is MOA, at the local level it is municipal/county/city governments.

The central competent authority is responsible for:

  • reviewing and Granting permission to an accreditation body (AB) (Regulations for Approving and Supervising organic ABs, Article 2 and 3)
  • supervision and management (audit) of the AB (Regulations for Approving and Supervising organic ABs, Article 5, 6 and 15)
  • audit of the CBs
  • review of requests for mutual recognition agreements (MRAs) on organic equivalence with other countries.

The competent authority at the local level (municipal/county/city governments) is responsible for:

  • labelling inspection (Organic Agriculture Promotion Act, Article 18, 19, 20)
  • quality inspection (prohibited substance testing) (Organic Agriculture Promotion Act, Article 15)

As part of the peer review the peer review team focused on the role of MOA's Organic Team in regards to supervising TAF's supervision of the CBs as well as the certification activities conducted by CBs, import controls, and controls on labelling and marketing of organic products.

The list of the countries with which Taiwan has an equivalence arrangement can be found on the Taiwan Ministry of Agriculture page.

6.2 TAF role under the Taiwan organic system

The Taiwan Accreditation Foundation (TAF) is the national accreditation body recognised and permitted by MOA under the Organic Agriculture Promotion Act to accredit certification bodies. As per the Regulations for Approving and Supervising Organic accreditation Bodies Article 2 and 3, in order to grant permission to an accreditation body (AB), the AB must have a system of conformity assessment of certification bodies set up and implemented in accordance with ISO 17011 and a Mutual Recognition Arrangement for the accreditation scope of certification bodies signed. TAF's approval is valid from August 31, 2019 until August 30 2024. The 5 year permission certificate is renewed one year prior to expiry.

TAF is a non-profit organization established in 2003, founded by the Ministry of Economic Affairs. TAF has 2 offices and 85-90 people on staff. Their department of CB Accreditation consists of 17 staff. 9 staff and 14 assessors (10 contractors and 4 in house) are involved in organic CB assessment. Product certification body section oversees 75 Accredited CBs of which 17 CBs certify organic products. TAF anticipates there will be 19 accredited CBs who certify organic products by the end of 2023.

TAF follows the requirements of ISO 17011 in their assessment process of the CBs.

The competence, monitoring, and the training of the TAF auditors for the organic program were discussed. The peer review team confirmed that Initial training involves topics such as internal controls, assessment procedures, organic scheme, and ISO 17065. On the job training is done yearly and is organized by TAF. Topics vary but can include new regulations and consistency of assessment, among other topics. Feedback received from MOA supervision over TAF implementing headquarters assessments and witness assessments can also influence training topics. Training content was shared with COR audit team while on site.

Auditors are assigned for each audit based on expertise and scope of the CB services.

TAF prepares an annual performance report for MOA. The 126 page report from last year was reviewed by the COR audit team while on site. The report was extensive and included topics such as the accreditation scopes, staffing, internal controls, internal audits, management reviews as related to role as accreditation service provider for MOA, total number of assessments conducted (witness and office), findings and NCs, new CBs, accreditation committee meetings held and decisions made, % of operator inspections performed, unannounced inspections and a review and improvement section.

TAF is a member of the International Accreditation Forum (IAF). IAF peer reviewed TAF in 2021 with no NCs issued. The scope was based on ISO 17065 with a focus on Global Gap.

6.2.1 Supervision and management of the accreditation body by the competent authority

As per the Regulations for Approving and Supervising Organic Accreditation Bodies Article, 5, 6 and, 15, the Competent authority may form an examination team to conduct examination of AB and its accredited CB. CA will ask AB to provide CBs assessment schedule and join to observe the assessment conducted by the AB randomly.

According to Taiwan's annual report, in October and November of 2020, MOA audited TAF headquarters as well as three certification bodies that had received TAF accreditation. In 2021, most TAF assessments of certification bodies were carried out between August and December of 2021 due to COVID-19. MOA's audit of TAF's headquarters and TAF-accredited certification bodies was conducted in October and November of 2022 to verify if TAF corrective actions based on the findings from the 2020 audit and included a review of TAF's accreditation work from January 2021 to September 2022. The 2022 audit focused on matters required of the accreditation body by the Organic Agriculture Promotion Act (the ACT) and related regulations, such as the regulatory compliance of its assessment procedures, appropriateness of its assessors, effectiveness of assessments, and management of overseas accreditation. The examination covered TAF and three of the certification bodies it had accredited. The audit findings were compiled in a report.

It was confirmed that TAF submits their annual written performance report of the previous year to MOA by March 31st every year. MOA provides written feedback in 2-3 months.

MOA's next assessment of TAF will be late this year or early next year since TAF is the end of its accreditation cycle.

6.3 Approval and supervision of the domestic CBs

TAF is the national accreditation body recognised and permitted by MOA under the Organic Agriculture Promotion Act to accredit certification bodies.

As per Taiwan's annual report for 2022, there are 17 accredited certification bodies in Taiwan, among which five are qualified to carry out certification work overseas. According to Taiwan's annual report, TAF conducted 24 headquarters assessments and 37 witness assessments for certification bodies in 2022.

The Regulations for Approving and Supervising Organic Accreditation Bodies specify the requirements for the CBs which are based on ISO 17065. The CBs are required to conduct audits according to ISO 19011, and the testing is conducted by ISO 17025 accredited test labs.

All MOA supervised CBs are accredited for 3 years by TAF.

Supervision of the CB by the AB includes surveillance at least once per year to ensure the CB meets accreditation standards for the duration of the accreditation certificate. The renewal assessment must take place before expiry (no more than 3 years). Extensional assessments take place when there is a request for scope amendment: geographic or activities addition. If a CB wants to reduce the scope of accreditation they notify the AB immediately. The AB may also reduce the scope if the CB is not using the full scope (for example, geographic scope). Termination can occur if the CB lacks the ability required for certification activities, fails to maintain impartiality or independence, fails to handle its operators effectively or engages in activities beyond the scope of accreditation or other serious matters.

More complex and larger CBs influence the length of and number of assessors involved in the surveillance audit. TAF does use a risk based model for assessing CBs. It was noted that 14 CBs are categorized as high risk which influences TAF increasing assessment man-days or adding an extra HQ or witness assessment each year for each of these high-risk CBs.

The timeframe for responding to NCs is 6 months for an initial assessment and 2 months for a surveillance/renewal/extensional assessment. An extension of 1 or 2 months can also be granted.

6.4 Approval and supervision of the international CBs

The accreditation process for CBs working internationally is the same as domestic CBs. The only difference affects how witness audits progress. Due to COVID-19 no on site witness audits took place in 2020, 2021, or 2022. However, overseas witness audits have resumed in 2023. It was verified that one of the CBs received 4 overseas witness audits so far this year. The witness audits were conducted remotely from the HQ of the CB.

6.5 AFA communication with TAF and the CBs

AFA holds an annual training for TAF and CBs where they share feedback and provide training. AFA's annual training is 3 days: 1st two days are TAF and CBs together, 3rd day is exclusive to TAF. It was confirmed that the most recent training held by the AFA took place from November 1 to 3, 2022. On February 23, 2023, the AFA held a consultation meeting on the management of organic agriculture certification, during which members of the accreditation and certification bodies were invited to discuss certification-related issues.

AFA holds meetings for the CBs. AFA also hosts a Line (messaging app) group meeting for CBs where the CBs can contact AFA team members directly and ask questions.

AFA requests report data from CBs when needed.

6.6.1 List of active operators

AFA is required to make the active list of operators available. Each CB is responsible for inputting and maintaining operator information in the AFA system online. The updates need to be made within 10 days of a CB decision.

6.6.2 Certification and supervision of operators

The peer review team visited the headquarters of one CB. The CB has a well-developed quality system and related certification procedures. The CB uses an electronic database to save and track all certification related activities and information.

The CB has been accredited by TAF for compliance with ISO 17065 for many years and is subject to on-going monitoring. It was confirmed that the CB was subject to a surveillance assessment in August 2023 and the witness audit is still pending.

The CB has a well-established certification system which allows them to schedule the operators' inspections in a timely manner while ensuring a good rotation of inspectors (every 3 years maximum, average is 2 years).

The peer review team confirmed that the CB monitors and evaluates the performance of the staff and the assessors annually. In accordance with clause 6.1.2 of ISO 17065, the CB has implemented procedures to ensure that on-site inspections are conducted by trained inspectors. The inspectors are subject to a formal performance monitoring process (witness audit) conducted by the CBs. The inspectors are trained in input-output balance and traceability, including organic source of ingredients used. The CB explained that inspectors are trained that when verifying certification status of ingredients, operator records are consulted and AFA's online Taiwan Organic Agriculture system for imported organic ingredients is used to see certification status of the imported ingredients.

The CB confirmed that TAF organizes a seminar for CBs at the end of each year. Last session was held at the end of 2022. The training includes a discussion of the CBs collective strengths and weaknesses.

The duration of inspection varies depending on the nature, size, and complexity of the operation. During each inspection, inspectors are required to verify the inputs used by operators. The CB explained that the onus is on the operators to use only authorized products and substances.

The CB explained they perform unannounced inspections for 5% of their operators each year based on risk evaluation. It was noted that the regulations require the CB to take into consideration the certification risk for each operator. However, no evidence were found that the CBs are provided with criteria/ guidance for developing the certification risk. Each CB has its own procedure for risk analysis. Criteria used by the visited CB included a matrix comprised of elements such as prohibited substances, frequencies of minor NCs, input issues, response to previous inspections. It was confirmed that the matrix is completed by inspectors and reviewers after each inspection.

The assessment of inputs was discussed. Under the Taiwanese organic system the CBs can use their own list or the AFAs list to verify inputs. It is responsibilities of the operator to file an official request to use a new input to their CB for evaluation.

MOA maintains a permitted substances list in chapter 2 of the organic certification standard. It was discussed that AFA commissions National Chung Hsing University to establish an input review task force. For a new input to be recognized as an organic input, the manufacturer makes application to be reviewed by the task force. If the application passes, it is given a specific number indicating its approval which can be found printed on the packaging. Although, not all inputs need to go through this process since some are already included in the permitted substances list.

In Taiwan all inputs need very clear labelling of ingredients. If a supplier won't disclose all ingredients, then it's automatically not permitted. The input review committee at National Chung Hsing University is attended by all CBs, where CBs have the chance to discuss any disagreements regarding approval of an input until a consensus is reached. National Chung Hsing University publishes the list of approved inputs on their webpage.

The COR peer review team reviewed the CB's process of issuing findings to the operators. The CB indicated there are no timeframes given for follow up on NCs by operators, nor for timelines for length of suspension from MOA nor in the regulations. It was noted that the CB does not take a consistent approach when categorizing NCs and setting the time frame within which they must be addressed.

It was confirmed that all inspectors are trained on sampling. Sampling is performed at 100% of onsite inspections. Post market sampling is also performed to account for 3% of total certified operators' products.

The CB confirmed they communicate regularly with AFA and from time to time with TAF. Furthermore, the CB confirmed that they provide report data regarding their activities to AFA when requested. The CB also confirmed that MOA had visited the CB last year for TAFs assessment audit.

It was noted that the CB is subject to regular surveillance activities by both MOA and TAF, as well as that there is a yearly witness assessment and office assessment conducted by TAF.

It was confirmed that the CB is familiar with the Canada –Taiwan organic equivalency arrangement and the requirements for issuing Certificate for Transactions of Organic Products exported to Canada.

6.6.3 Organic operators inspections

The peer review team visited one organic farm and their processing facility (tea), as well as one multi-ingredient organic product processing facility (organic vermicelli noodles).

The peer review team witnessed 2 inspections conducted by 2 different inspectors employed by 2 different CBs. There were no witness audits conducted by TAF.

The tea farm first applied for organic certification in 2000 and it was granted. They have been certified under subsequent CBs since then with only one break in certification in 2021. The farm is certified for tea crops and processing.

Before conducting the inspections, the inspector prepared for the inspections using information provided by the CB. The inspector also conducted the document review in advance. The information provided to the inspector by the CB included all information pertaining to the farm such as the organic system plan, past reports, organisational information of the operator. It was confirmed that the last inspection at the farm was conducted in 2022 by another inspector.

The inspection included an opening meeting, a tour of the operation (fields and processing area), review of relevant records, label review, inputs verification, traceability exercise, and a closing meeting. Samples of tea product from bulk bags were taken as part of the inspection.

It was noted that the operator has parallel production with conventional tea that is not easily distinguishable.

At the closing meeting, both the inspector and the farmer signed an exit report (summary report) and a copy was left with the farmer. The timeframe for addressing NCs was given as 30 days and the inspector's deadline for closing the case was 45 days. After the inspection was completed, the inspector explained to the peer review team that this CB has 4 categories of NCs which vary in follow up timelines for NC correction based on the severity of the NC. The follow-up timelines can range between 10 days to one month.

The inspection at the Multi – ingredient organic product processing facility (organic vermicelli noodles) was conducted by a different inspector from a second CB. The company has been certified as organic for 4 years and exports organic products to Canada and the US.

The inspection included an opening meeting, a tour of the operation, a review of relevant records, ingredients and inputs verification, a traceability and mass balance exercise, and a closing meeting. During the inspection, it was confirmed that the company produces and packages both conventional and organic products The inspector paid extra attention to the separation of conventional and organic products and product flow through the facility. The inspector verified the labels and the Taiwanese mark on some of the packaged product. Samples of mung bean starch from bulk bags were taken as part of the inspection.

It was noted that some of the ingredients were imported, thereby requiring they be accompanied by a transaction certificate. The inspector included a review of these transaction certificates as part of the inspection.

At the end of the inspection, the CB inspector conducted a closing meeting where they explained the procedure and the time frame for addressing the findings. The time frame given was 15 days to respond to the NCs.

It was observed that under the Taiwanese system the organic certificates are valid for 3 years.

6.7 Management of consumers' complaints

AFA explained that in 2021, 49 complaints were received, as well as 16 in 2022. Depending on the nature of the complaint, some are referred to the local government for investigation.

7. Taiwan import controls for organic products

Under the Taiwanese system, imported organic products are not required to be certified. However, each importer needs to contact the MOA to get approval in order to market their products as organic. This approval is done by AFA district branches, the Department of Animal Industry, and the Fisheries Agency. If needed, the local office can reach out to the AFA for additional information. Additionally, all organic goods imported from third countries must have a valid Certificate of Transactions.

8. Closing meeting

A closing meeting was held on August 18, 2023 in person at the AFA Nantou office. During the meeting, the peer review team presented a summary of the findings. The MOA team had the opportunity to discuss these findings and ask questions. Next steps were discussed and agreed upon.

9. Overal conclusions

  • All parties involved in the peer review from the staff at MOA, TAF, the CBs to the operators, were helpful, responsive, and accommodating to the joint peer review team during the visit.
  • There is a strong commitment and understanding from all parties involved in the implementation of the Taiwanese Organic Regulations.
  • MOA's organic team is knowledgeable and committed to further improve the existing organic system.
  • TAF as a national accreditation body has a very rigorous accreditation process which covers compliance verification activities including office and witness audits.
  • The TAF staff and technical assessors have a strong knowledge of the organic program requirements and good collaboration with MOA.
  • The CBs have good understanding of the Taiwan-Canada Organic Equivalency Arrangement and the requirements for organic products imported from Canada and export requirements for organic products going to Canada.
  • The CB visited is competent, well aware of the technical requirements, and delivers the organic program in a consistent manner.
  • The CB visited has an excellent management system and good record management.
  • The operators are committed to following and applying the organic production requirements. They are transparent and open about their operations and systems.

10. Findings

MOA is invited to provide a response on the peer review team findings listed below:

  1. The Act requires the AB to be subject to supervision by the CA. Article 15 of the Regulations C suggests that the CA may form an examination team to conduct examination of the AB and its accredited CBs. The CA has not establish the procedures and methods for supervising, managing and examining the AB.
  2. The current TAF process regarding the time frame for addressing the NC does not specify if the CB should be suspended or if more time will be given if the CB does not address the NC adequately. It is done on case by case basis.
  3. The CBs do not take a consistent approach when it comes to categorizing NCs and the time frame for their addressing. It is left at the discretion of the CBs.
  4. Article 32 of the Act requires the CA to suspend the operator's usage of the mark, selling, labelling, displaying and advertising products as organic for a period from 3 month up to 1 year. It is not clear why the CA will take over the responsibility of the CB to make certification decision.
  5. The Act refers to "serious nonconformity" in case the CB is terminated however ISO 17011 does not define these types of NCs.
  6. The Taiwanese regulations require the CB to take into consideration the certification risk for each operator. No evidence were found that the CBs are provided with criteria for developing the certification risk.
  7. The requirements for group certification in the Taiwanese regulations are vague which creates an opportunity for differing interpretation and implementation of the existing requirements.
  8. One of the operators observed does parallel production (organic and conventional) of the crop that is not easily distinguishable. The requirements for parallel production of conventional and organic crops in the Taiwanese regulations creates an un-level playing field for the Taiwanese operators.

11. Next steps

MOA is invited to provide a response to the findings within 30 working days of receipt of the draft report. These are included in Annex A.

The final report will be posted on the CFIA external website as per the terms of the CTOEA.

Annex A: Summary of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) findings from the assessment of Taiwan's organic system (2023)

CFIA findings Taiwan response to findings
The Act requires the AB to be subject to supervision by the CA. Article 15 of the Regulations C suggests that the CA may form an examination team to conduct examination of the AB and its accredited CBs. The CA has not establish the procedures and methods for supervising, managing and examining the AB.
  1. Under Paragraph 2, Article 15 of the Regulations for Approving and Supervising Organic Accreditation Bodies, the central competent authority may decide to conduct an examination on the accreditation body and its accredited certification body or bodies based on the written performance report submitted by the accreditation body under Paragraph 1 of the same Article. Other occasions for the central competent authority to initiate such a supervisory examination include responding to post-market inspections on organic products by competent authorities, the accreditation body's supervisory audits to certification bodies (including overseas audits), the accreditation body's revisions to documents for accreditation work, and competent authorities' handling of complaints.

  2. The examination proceeds as follows:

    (1)The central competent authority (example, the Agriculture and Food Agency, the Department of Animal Industry, and the Fisheries Agency) forms an examination team.

    (2) The team organizes a work meeting to determine the examination plan, covering the certification body or bodies examined, their examination dates and processes, and the examination checklist, including regulatory provisions applicable to the accreditation body and certification body or bodies and key areas to be examined.

    (3) Notify the accreditation body and certification body or bodies in question, requiring cooperation during the examination.

    (4) Carry out the examination and fully explain the findings of the examination to the accreditation body and certification body or bodies.

    (5) Require the accreditation body to submit improvement measures within a time limit based on the matters discovered during the examination, review the rationality of the proposed improvement measures, and continue to supervise and follow up on the actual improvement.
The current TAF process regarding the time frame for addressing the NC does not specify if the CB should be suspended or more time will be given if the CB does not address the NC adequately. It is done on case by case basis.
  1. According to Provisions 2.5.1.4 and 2.5.2.9 of TAF's current Organic Agricultural Product Certification Body Accreditation Scheme Service Program (Document No. TAF-PC-M04), the certification body shall provide an analysis of the cause and influence in response to the nonconformity raised by the assessment team, and submit corrective actions or corrective plans within a limited period of time (6 months for initial assessment, 2 months for extending assessment, surveillance, and reassessment). The assessment team will review and confirm them. In case the submitted information is inadequate, TAF shall return them back through accreditation information system and ask the certification body for further information.
  2. The 6 months for an initial assessment and the 2 months for extending assessment, surveillance, and reassessment include the time for the certification body to provide missing information.
The CBs do not take a consistent approach when it comes to categorizing NCs and the time frame for their addressing. It is left at the discretion of the CBs.
  1. As per 2.3.4 of the Items Required to be Stated in the Contract between Organic Certification Bodies and Agricultural Operators, the reasons for rejecting the application for certification shall include cases where the applicant, without good cause shown, fails to make corrections or improvements within the given time limit notified by the certification body.
  2. The time limit for the above-mentioned agricultural operators to correct non-compliance matters is set by the certification body in the certification-related procedural documents specified in the contract.
Article 32 of the Act requires the CA to suspend the operator's usage of mark, selling, labelling. Displaying and advertising products as organic for a period from 3 month up to 1 year. It is not clear why the CA will take over the responsibility of the CB to make certification decision.
  1. According to Paragraph 2, Article 7 of the Regulations for Managing the Labeling and Marks of Organic Agricultural Products and In-conversion Agricultural Products, the certification body shall be responsible for management over the use of organic mark by the operators that are certified by the certification body. The agreements executed by and between the certification body and the agricultural product operators in accordance with Subparagraph 1, Paragraph 2, Article 12 of the Act shall expressly bear the specifications governing labeling, usage, suspension of the usage, and relevant management with the organic marks. Therefore, the certification body reviews the mark usage record whenever new marks are issued and during every surveillance audit. It also bans the usage of the marks when an operator's certification is suspended or terminated.
  2. Under Paragraph 2, Article 32 of the Organic Agriculture Promotion Act, operators shall be ordered to make corrections within a specified period for non-compliance of mark usage or labeling described in Paragraph 1 of the same Article; a fine from NTD30,000 up to NTD300,000 is applicable to those who fail to comply in time and to each individual violation. Moreover, the competent authority shall suspend the operators' usage of the organic mark, selling, labeling, displaying, and advertising products as organic for a period from 3 months up to 1 year. In essence, this penalty provision authorizes the competent authority to, depending on the seriousness of the violation, strengthen the penalties for the violation and urge the violator to make corrections. It does not take over the responsibility of the certification body to suspend or terminate an operator's certification status, nor does the competent authority have the power to do so.
The Act refers to "serious nonconformity "in case the CB termination however ISO 17011 does not define this type of NCs.
  1. Article 13 of the Regulations for Approving and Supervising Organic Accreditation Bodies provides for the circumstances under which the accreditation body may terminate a certification body's qualification to perform certification or a certain scope of its certification activities. The term "in a serious manner" does not refer to the types of specific non-conformities issued by the accreditation body against a certification body violating the accreditation standards (which may be critical non-conformities, major non-conformities, or minor non-conformities).
  2. Rather, TAF has followed the provisions of the Regulations and defined in its Organic Agricultural Product Certification Body Accreditation Scheme Service Program (Document No. TAF-PC-M04) the scenarios where a certification body will be disqualified or have its certification scope reduced, considering the severity of the non-compliances, risks, and the correction effectiveness of the certification body. The scenarios include forging the accreditation certificate and violating confidentiality obligations, etc. (see 3.6.2.2 and 3.6.2.3 of Attachment 1 for details).
The Taiwanese regulations require the CB to take into consideration the certification risk for each operator. No evidence were found that the CBs are provided with criteria for developing the certification risk. 2.2 of the Specific Criteria for the Accreditation of Organic Agricultural Product Certification Body (TAF-PC-C02) lists the risk factors that a certification body should comprehensive understand before an on-site audit. They are: 1) supporting information about the scope of production and the local conditions of all sites to be certified; 2) proof of the sources of the ingredients, materials, and/or substances used by the applicant; 3) facilities, environment, and the agricultural production at the certified sites; 4) sources of uncertified ingredients. (See Attachment 2.)
The requirements for group certification in the Taiwanese regulations are vague which creates an opportunity for different interpretation and implementation of the existing requirements.

  1. Here are the regulatory requirements that a certification body carrying out group certification should follow:

    (1) Article 8 of the Regulations for Approving and Supervising Organic Accreditation Bodies stipulates that non-natural person operators who meet the following conditions can apply for group certification:

    1. The management center is established to be responsible for business planning and implementation.
    2. Group members adopt the quality management system established by the management center, continuously operate under the supervision of the management center, and meet the requirements and rules thereof.
    3. The produced organic agricultural products and in-conversion agricultural products are labeled and sold in the name of the group.

    (2) 2.1.3 of the Items Required to be Stated in the Contract between Organic Certification Bodies and Agricultural Operators provides a list of documents that operators applying for group certification shall submit to the certification body for application:

    1. Supporting documents regarding the contractual or other legal relations between and among all members and the management center.
    2. Quality management system documents, relevant operating procedures, and execution records of the management center.
    3. Records of at least one round of self-audit on the management center.
    4. Records of at least one internal inspection conducted by the management center on all members.

    (3) Point 3.2 in the Annex "Required Items for the Accreditation Standards of Accreditation Bodies" of the Regulations for Approving and Supervising Organic Accreditation Bodies stipulates the procedures for handling group certification cases:

    3.2.1 For a group certification application case, prior to an on-site audit, the certification body shall first evaluate whether the operation of its management center meets the requirements of its own regulations and operating procedures; if the results indicate that sampling may be applicable for the following on-site audit, the number of members sampled shall be no less than the square root of the total number of members.

    3.2.2 If sampling is adopted for the on-site audit of group members according to 3.2.1, the certification body shall audit all lands of the sampled members that applied for certification.

    3.2.3 When the certification body conducts product sampling for testing in a group certification case, the number of sampling for testing thereof shall be no less than the square root of the total number of members.

  2. Findings from TAF's assessments of certification bodies show no inconsistencies in the interpretation or implementation of regulatory requirements among the certification bodies conducting group certification.
One of the operators observed does parallel production (organic and conventional) of the crop that is not easily distinguishable. The requirements for parallel production of conventional and organic crops in the Taiwanese regulations creates an un-level playing field for the Taiwanese operators.

  1. The following requirements regarding parallel production are stipulated in Chapter 1 "Certification standards" of the Certification Standard for Organic Agricultural Products and In-conversion Agricultural Products and Allowable Substances in their Production Processing, Packaging, Distribution, and Sale:

    (1) Storage: When organic products and non-organic products are stored in the same storeroom, they shall be distinctively labeled and well-separated to avoid commingling. Inventories shall be arranged in a way that is easily traceable and recognizable.

    (2) Transportation and Delivery: When organic products and non-organic products are transported or delivered together, the products shall be appropriately packaged and readily marked to avoid commingling products.

    (3) Records: When organic products and non-organic agricultural products are produced in the same production unit or are certified by more than one certification body, the operator shall implement autonomous management and keep records of quantities produced, marks used, and sales by organic status and certification bodies and accept the joint audit of different certification bodies.

    (4) Production Process in Processing, Packaging, and Distribution:

    1. The operator shall take necessary measures to prevent the mixing of organic and non-organic products, and shall avoid organic products in direct contact with prohibited substances.
    2. Organic products are preferably produced at dedicated sites. If a production site must be used for producing non-organic products, its facilities, equipment, and areas shall be thoroughly cleaned before each treatment of organic products following the treatment of non-organic products. Organic products and non-organic products shall be produced separately in a sequence with adequate separation in-between.

    (5) Crops:

    1. When organic and non-organic crops are cultivated at the same time, the organic crops, production materials, and products shall be entirely separated from non-organic ones. A proper identification and signifying system shall be implemented, with production records of both segments kept separately and made available to certification bodies for review.
    2. It must be ensured that the organic products are free from any contaminants from non-organic products; harvesting and postharvest handlings, preparation, storage, and packaging shall be separated from conventional agricultural products.

    (6) Livestock:

    1. Where operations include both organic and conventional livestock production on the same farm, organic crops, livestock, materials, and production shall be separated from the non-organic production area, and proper distinguishing and marking system shall be established.
    2. Production records for organic and non-organic production shall be maintained separately.
    3. If organic-prohibited materials contaminate the land or livestock of organic operation, the farmer shall report to the certification body, and the land or livestock shall return to the conversion period.
    4. To ensure that organic livestock products are not mixed with or contaminated by non-organic products, the collection, processing, storage, and packaging of organic livestock products shall be separated from non-organic livestock products.

    (7) Aquatic Plants: To ensure organic aquatic plants are free from any mixing or contamination by non-organic aquatic plants, the cropping process and preparation, storage, and packaging after cropping shall be separated from the handling of general aquatic plants.

    (8) Aquatic Animals:

    1. The organic aquaculture production units shall be obviously separated from non-organic production areas.
    2. Production records for organic and non-organic production shall be maintained separately.
    3. It shall be ensured that organic aquatic animals/products are not mixed with or contaminated by non-organic animals/products, the collection, processing, storage, and packaging of organic animals/products shall be separated from non-organic aquatic animals/products.
  2. In summary, there are clear certification standards for parallel production, encompassing storage, transportation or distribution, record maintenance, production processes, production segregations, and post-harvest handling, among others. These requirements impose obligations on agricultural operators to consistently implement self-management measures, uphold the organic integrity of certified products, and undergo audits by certification bodies. This helps maintain consumers' trust in organic agricultural products and their willingness to purchase them at premium prices compared to conventional products. Such stringent requirements for organic production do not create an un-level playing field for agricultural operators.
Date modified: