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

On this page

• Abbreviations and special terms used in this report
• Executive summary
• 1. Background
• 2. Objectives of the assessment
• 3. Assessment criteria
• 4. Assessment protocol
• 5. Overview of the Taiwan organic sector
• 6. Implementation of the Taiwan organic system
• 7. Taiwan import controls for organic products
• 8. Closing meeting
• 9. Overall conclusions
• 10. Findings
• 11. Next steps
• Annex A: Summary of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) Findings from the Assessment of Taiwan's Organic System (2023)

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.

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 :

• Terms of the CTOEA
• CFIA peer review procedure related to the Canada Organic Regime (COR)
• Organic Agriculture Promotion Act and its accompanying regulations and enforcement rules
• ISO/IEC 17011:2017
• ISO/IEC 17065:2012

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:

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)