GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 1/120 BOARD BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 PROPOSAL FOR FINANCIAL REPORTING 2013/2014 WHEN WHAT Quarterly • End Jan, Apr. Jul, Oct DESCRIPTION/FORMAT To WHOM Board Quarterly Report o Income Statement à See annex 1 o Statement of Cashflows à See annex 2 o Trade Receivables Analysis à See annex 3 Annual Report/ Fruit Logistica • Budget summary 2011/2012 for public à See annex 4 Public & Members May • Final Financial Report 2012 related to Board agreed budget (after KPMG audit) à See annex 5 Board June • KPMG audited results report à KPMG format Board July • Half Year Financial Report 2013 (1st EOY Forecast) related to Board agreed budget à See annex 5 Board October • Three Quarter Financial Report 2013 (2nd EOY Forecast) related to Board agreed budget à See annex 5 Board • First Budget Proposal based on strategy map 2014/2015 • 11 Months Financial Report 2013 (3rd EOY Forecast) related to Board agreed budget • Second Budget proposal based on strategy map 2014/1015 December Confidential to GLOBALG.A.P. Board à See annex 6 à See annex 5 Board à See annex 6 Page 1 of 1 GLOBALG.A.P. c/o FoodPLUS GmbH Spichernstr. 55 | 50672 Cologne, Germany |[email protected] www.globalgap.org GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 2/120 GLOBALG.A.P INCOME STATEMENT for the 3 month period to 31 March 2013 NOTES REVENUE 2012 1.694.669 1.351.404 |A nn ex 2 2013 COST OF SALES Personnel costs Consulting costs Travel costs Seminars and trade fair costs Database costs Rental and space costs (339.550) (201.135) (120.675) (37.988) (45.019) (93) (846.274) (744.459) 848.395 606.944 55.553 1.556 253 73.304 0 57.363 73.304 Adverstising costs Insurance and contributions Other sundry costs (55.206) (35.993) (20.819) (74.507) (35.721) (18.647) OPERATING PROFIT 793.740 551.373 tin g (420.332) (226.210) (94.526) (55.005) (47.262) (2.940) ep or GROSS PROFIT OTHER OPERATING INCOME ia lR Other income Extraordinary income Interest income e Fi na nc OTHER OPERATING EXPENDITURE (16) - - am pl Interest expense Bad debts 793.724 551.373 - - PROFIT FOR THE YEAR 793.724 551.373 PROFIT BEFORE TAX Ex Income tax credit (expense) 1 Euro GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 3/120 GLOBALG.A.P NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS for the 3 month period to 31 March 2013 Euro 2013 2012 1 1PRINCIPAL ACTIVITY 2 REVENUE Licences Memberships Seminars Benchmarking Database Development projects tin g 935.134 660.073 46.605 43.025 9.200 633 am pl e Fi na nc ia lR ep or 1.694.669 Ex |A nn ex The principle activities of the Company are 854.755 429.924 65.725 1.000 - 1.351.404 GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 4/120 GLOBALG.A.P STATEMENT OF CASHFLOWS for the 3 month period to 31 March 2013 Euro NOTES 2013 CASHFLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES 1.912.905 (1.036.278) (646.542) 2 Reciepts from customers Payments to suppliers Payments to employees |A nn ex + - 230.085 Cash generated from primary operations + 153.501 Net proceeds from other incomes Payments for intangible assets Net cash used in investing activities 383.586 tin lR - ep or CASHFLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES g Net cash generated from operating activities (29.443) (29.443) + - na nc ia CASHFLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES Proceeds of borrowings from related companies Repayments of borrowings to related companies 100.000 (39.676) 60.324 Net increase in cash and cash equivalents 414.467 pl e Fi Net cash generated by financing activities am Cash and cash equivalents at the beginning of the year held with Commerzbank Ex Cash and cash equivalents as at 31 March 2013 held with Commerzbank (8.979) 405.488 GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 5/120 3 GLOBALG.A.P TRADE RECIEVABLES ANALYSIS AS AT 29 APRIL 2013 & 15 APRIL 2013 TOTALS 204.455 2.159.819 1.083.518 ia nc na Fi e pl am Ex 864.549 79,8% -‐ 8.620 -‐0,8% Overdue 29-‐56days 45,83% 8,7% -‐1,3% -‐0,3% -‐11,9% 4,4% -‐ 6.397 5.000 3.509 -‐ 920 3.025 -‐1,6% 4,3% 3,1% -‐1,2% 4,4% 97.112 28.589 67.130 17.619 10.585 23,7% 24,4% 58,8% 23,3% 15,4% 27.970 3,6% 4.217 0,5% 221.036 28,1% 20.304 1,9% 2.830 0,3% 204.455 18,9% -‐2,2% 35.816 0,0% -‐ 1.550 0,9% -‐ 296 0,0% -‐ 9.000 -‐2,3% 3.000 % -‐1,2% % 69,0% -‐ 9.475 Overdue 15-‐28days |A nn Overdue 1-‐14days 542.623 CANCELLATION PROCESS % 29. Apr 13 38,98% 3rd REMINDER/ Warning Overdue +57days 786.372 2nd REMINDER % 1.796.272 % 221.036 -‐ 8.953 -‐ 1.028 -‐ -‐ 1.550 g TOTALS 71,3% 72,7% 37,5% 89,8% 78,1% tin 15. Apr 13 1st REMINDER Current 0-‐42 days 410.240 117.313 114.236 75.735 68.849 or 97.112 28.589 67.130 17.619 10.586 ep Certification Bodies Supplier Members Others Retail Members Associate Members lR 15. Apr 13 15. Apr 13 15. Apr 13 15. Apr 13 15. Apr 13 NOT DUE 292.661 85.274 42.865 68.036 53.789 Open invoices % Open invoices Open Invoices Total Invoiced PREVIOUS YEARS AS AT 29APRIL2013 & 15APRIL2013 REPORT DATE DESCRIPTION ex EURO GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 6/120 FINANce 4 A cLeAReR stRAteGY. |A nn ex A bROAdeR ReAcH. lR ep or tin g A stRONGeR bRANd. from more than 65 countries who all saw the launch ReVeNues 2011 (2010) costs And reVenues for the goals. it also refreshed interest amongst existing members to nc finAnciAl YeAr 2011 (2010) with fast, easy and free access to extensive information role in the industry. teur 4,506 (4,086) of costs values and broadens our reach across the globe. our entry contingency fund. - Ex our suMMit 2012 in Madrid brought together more than 6 INtROductION GloBAlG.A.P. database events & training 10.4% (12.2%) other costs Member fees 13.1% (16.1%) seminars, fairs, Meetings the GloBAlG.A.P. Board oversees the allocation ability criteria without the need for more on-farm audits. record of 50 new member organizations that all saw an am pl G.A.P. Awards rooms, Maintenance, overhead other revenues e level assessment, localg.a.p. GloBAlG.A.P. ifA. the GLOBALG.A.P.+ Add-On mod- 2.3% (2.1%) na we have enhanced our brand communication with Fi to their needs in 2013 and beyond. cOsts 2011 (2010) ia 2012 was yet another exciting and challenging year. viewers, that’s a record of over 800 individuals nigel Garbutt in June 2013. travel 10.3% (11.1%) Producer registration fees 42.5% (38.5%) staff 2010 2011 2010 2011 INtROductION 7 GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 7/120 Brand Protection Certification Body License Fee 86.500 66.229 -‐31,4% 63.507 56.000 63.401 38.002 -‐40,1% 275 500 275 921 234,8% 5 Deviation in % of Budget 2012 (May 2012) Result Forecast 2012 45.411 Justification Reduced Cost for Brand Protection Reduced Cost for Brand Protection Banking Cost F1-‐03 Certificate Licence Fee 819 1.000 819 701 -‐14,4% Banking Cost F1-‐04 Membership Fee 337 28.000 337 3.047 804,1% Banking Cost F2-‐01 Accounting & Financial Controlling 34.900 37.000 35.943 F2-‐02 Accounting Software / Training 13.397 5.000 7.365 F3 Overhead F3-‐01 Office Space & EHI Services F3-‐02 Office Supplies & Communication M1 Grow Retail Interaction and Request for Products & Services M1-‐01 Retailer Relation Certifiers Offer of Choice Database Running M4-‐02 Database Release Updates P1 Improve communication & marketing 126.361 126.361 41.366 62.000 28.965 0 Media P1-‐03 Marketing P2 Win and communicate pilot implementations as proof of concept P2-‐01 Customer Pilots 178.399 43.000 42.341 155.679 32.930 32.930 P4-‐02 Crop Base 91.641 P4-‐03 Goverment Relations 46.467 P4-‐04 IFA General P6 Maintain Integrity Leadership P6-‐01 CB/AB Calibration/ Training P6-‐02 CB/AB Liaison/Admin P6-‐03 Feed Manufacuring P6-‐04 IFA General P6-‐05 IPRO Communictaion/ Crisis Managemnet P6-‐06 IPRO Complaint & Surveilance P6-‐07 IPRO Development/ Calibration/ Management P6-‐08 Online Training Fee 2012 Cost Forecast 34,8% 345.980 93,9% 130.434 37.020 58.000 250.000 58.501 37.020 Included Database Support to CBs in this line first time 292.669 267.058 Additional features for CB efficiency Additional Corporate Branding Additional Corporate Branding Printing and Marketing 28.368 -‐33,0% 98.946 -‐24,1% 58,0% More customized solutions 58.501 58,0% More customized solutions -‐8,8% 60.000 59.600 54.818 -‐8,0% 76.000 83.256 86.619 4,0% 19.000 43.647 55.075 26,2% 1.000 7.634 7.033 -‐7,9% Fi 6.929 Adjustments in Technical Committee work. as standard is mature Adjustments in Technical Committee work. as standard is mature Adjustments in Technical Committee work. as standard is mature 62.291 56.000 55.334 31.063 -‐43,9% Adjustments in Technical Committee work. as standard is mature 52.759 38.000 43.198 32.452 -‐24,9% Adjustments in Technical Committee work. as standard is mature 254.000 e 138.971 pl 31.637 am Scheme Relation System & Assessment 327.626 237.714 124.000 191.888 122.000 65.984 80.000 68.968 41.350 50.000 46.746 897.010 Ex P5-‐02 P5-‐03 126.000 58.000 67.539 Simplify Benchmarking -‐ 473.294 166.000 Deliver acceptance by regulators and mayor buyers GFSI Relation 351.174 38.313 Aquaculture P5 4,0% 38.368 4,0% 84.884 167.562 P4 P5-‐01 38.368 36.891 0 335.000 P4-‐01 Livestock -‐9,7% More interaction with retailers 32.834 -‐9,7% 30.493 -‐ 361.554 Development Social 32.834 36.891 0 7,4% 167.484 7,4% 36.354 46.000 2011 result data includes income tax for 2011 2011 result data includes income tax for 2011 54.391 -‐ P1-‐01 P4-‐05 36.354 46.000 90.325 0,0% 167.484 155.889 62.000 28.965 -‐5,5% 472.618 -‐6,4% 90.284 155.889 166.000 41.366 7.389 0,3% 562.943 505.166 60.000 166.000 53.726 49,5% or 87.559 P1-‐02 P4-‐06 425.000 Additional time allocation for Accounting and Budgeting ep M4 M4-‐01 505.530 595.450 Banking Cost 41,1% lR Become the Standard of Choice for Producers Producer Relation 485.000 2.740 96,1% 61.115 ia M3 M3-‐01 593.089 1.397 43.308 nc Create Manufacturer Interaction and Request Manufacturer Relation 1.000 42.000 na M2 M2-‐01 1.397 48.297 g Producer Registration Fee Sustainable Funding tin F1-‐05 F2 ex F1-‐01 F1-‐02 66.335 |A nn Accelerate Growth Budget 2012 (May 2012 based on result 2011 data) Result 2011 Cost F1 Budget 2012 (Jan 2012 based on Nov. 2011 data) Budget 2012: EOY Forecast based on November 2012 data; Dec 20, 2012 815.000 827.919 -‐19,3% 53.323 -‐56,3% 122.957 78,3% 15.608 -‐66,6% 770.954 additional reviews for rebenchmarking rules mature -‐6,9% 299.930 213.000 203.475 230.380 13,2% 54.457 70.000 56.517 71.138 25,9% 7.806 8.000 7.953 97.102 Not GFSI approved/ no Fee to GFSI in 2012 Not GFSI approved; no Fee to GFSI in 2012;all cost reflect travel & time to GFSI 4.790 -‐39,8% 93.000 106.102 56.575 -‐46,7% 20.000 20.000 16.022 -‐19,9% 402.590 383.000 398.520 319.622 -‐19,8% 33.699 26.000 33.748 41.379 22,6% 159 500 159 more technical service standard launched last year GR completed last year less integrity assessment performed related to staff change/ illness 978 515,2% Seite 1 von 2 P6-‐11 Database new developments CB focused P7 Align and ensure efficient business processes P7-‐01 CB/AB Liaison/Admin 19.690 20.000 20.591 38.245 85,7% P7-‐02 CB/AB Liaison/Admin (CB overhead) 98.814 135.000 111.024 84.745 -‐23,7% P7-‐03 Database new Development 85.008 150.000 126.860 86.965 109.000 102.477 97.234 -‐5,1% 237.000 260.882 296.876 13,8% 18.000 8.686 R2 Enhance sales skills and capacity PPP Projects 245.994 R2-‐02 Group Training Producers R2-‐03 Office Supplies & General Management R2-‐04 Integrity Programme Services R2-‐05 Refund for Commitee Particpation R2-‐06 Workshop Training R3 Profesionalise project and process management 16.870 18.000 233.000 35.116 10.041 265.296 214.220 1.940 1.000 1.913 53.000 55.303 3.464 6.000 3.479 17.632 18.531 5,1% 139.293 110.937 -‐20,4% 362.489 R3-‐01 Online Training Management System 3.385 4.000 3.576 Translation Software (SDL) 6.253 6.000 6.455 Office CRM 163.166 164.000 184.411 Office Supplies & General Management 185.271 183.000 193.677 R4-‐02 Stakeholder Database Support R5 Grow Stakeholder Engagement 72.581 82.000 14.221 58.360 848.503 77.077 12.000 70.000 910.500 Aquaculture 1.716 7.000 Conferences 309.652 355.000 Onlinetraining system improvement Update Translation software (SDL) 33.480 -‐56,6% 32.582 165,0% 64.782 898 -‐98,6% 1.095.179 2.498 5.381 115,4% R5-‐03 Crop Base 4.900 2.000 5.105 Fairs 297.483 275.000 299.682 395.651 32,0% R5-‐05 Membership & Stakeholder Relation 156.989 186.000 177.970 4,9% IFA NTWG 68.568 79.000 75.482 R5-‐07 Livestock 9.079 na 169.629 R5-‐06 6.000 9.244 R5-‐08 other Revenues 116 R6 Build and Increase Flexiblity of IT infrastructure R6-‐01 IT Management 29.000 24.000 e 12.917 Data Privacy 4.676 4.740.258 4.880.000 27.681 442,2% 5.000 6.065 5.009.919 More activity in Stakeholder Committees More activity in Stakeholder Committees More fair participation 74.761 -‐1,0% 24.189 161,7% More activity in Stakeholder Committees 128 10,4% 47.100 23.903 stakeholder database support More activity in Stakeholder Committees 57,2% Legal Compiance 29.465 23,3% more management needed to coordinate IT needs 17.634 190,8% more effort needed to be legal complient 5.183.097 3,5% am pl TOTAL 29.968 Database Support to CB´s moved to M4 stakeholder support Ex R6-‐02 17.593 500 need to depreciate (total investment 90 kEuro) 389.419 5,7% Fi 368.382 17,7% R5-‐04 116 5 16.930 373,4% 124.067 -‐32,7% nc R5-‐01 R5-‐02 reduced cost for public and privat Trainings CRM Software Depreciation carries costs to next 2 years (50 kEuro p.a.) 209.290 8,1% 12.295 930.138 less staff training 12.202 89,0% ia Create Loyalty Programs Stakeholder Support -‐6,6% lR R3-‐03 R3-‐04 R4 2.874 -‐17,4% 34.000 388.119 Less Training cost savings 7.093 270,8% 53.827 -‐2,7% 127.000 R3-‐02 R4-‐01 -‐19,3% 17.632 357.000 New Website was not Planned for 2012 20.958 -‐56,0% 135.092 358.075 additional changes to improve performance and efficiency additional cost for performance analysis 10.041 -‐40,5% 47.676 52.750 improved efficiency investment in 2012 (367 kEuro) Invoicing ,Bookmarking, Add-‐ons, Online Training, Farm Documentation -‐40,5% 16.870 12.000 Increase in Database Hosting and Performance Cost 148.755 17,3% 235.845 8.686 R2-‐01 electronic checklists 7,1% g Build up interactive marketing capabilities Website Content Management 665.855 tin R1 R1-‐01 621.834 or Database Release Updates Database Running 651.000 ep P7-‐04 P7-‐05 28.263 -‐ 526.322 Justification 1.807 25,1% ex 1.445 Deviation in % of Budget 2012 (May 2012) 1.500 Result Forecast 2012 1.267 |A nn Plant Propagation Material Budget 2012 (May 2012 based on result 2011 data) P6-‐10 Budget 2012 (Jan 2012 based on Nov. 2011 data) Cost Result 2011 GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 8/120 2012 Cost Forecast Seite 2 von 2 GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 9/120 F1-‐08 Database Access Fee F3 Overhead Office Space & EHI Services Win and communicate pilot implementations as proof of concept P2-‐01 Customer Pilots Deliver acceptance by regulators and mayor buyers other Revenues 667.574 725.358 8,7% 2.065.520 2.169.283 5,0% 1.475 1.000 1.356 6.980 1.000 0 2.306 51.025 2.306 36.000 8.578 51.025 36.000 P6-‐06 IPRO Complaint & Surveilance 67.000 67.000 67.000 P6-‐08 Online Training Fee 14.850 160.000 174.850 R2 Enhance sales skills and capacity R5-‐04 Fairs R5-‐07 Livestock 113.384 164.426 other Revenues 272.000 274.426 230.026 32.928 33.000 32.928 9.000 13,9% 289.320 25,8% 11.472 5.264.350 11.067 -‐66,4% 5 more auditors completed Version 4 Training Additional Private Workshops More SUMMIT sponsorship than planned More SUMMIT sponsorship than planned less co-‐exhibitors 100 -‐ 11.979 4,4% 5.315.292 some consultancy 1,0% am pl e Fi na 5.112.000 20 Workschops; 240 Participants 312.466 230.000 4.984.350 Services to ISCC 108.398 -‐2,5% 2,7% 8.000 255,6% 111.134 120.026 Less CB training in 2012, only partly offset by online exam fee charged for this Standard version less CB face to face trainings in 2012 77.947 16,3% 219.000 25,3% 2.250 111.000 11.472 TOTAL 60.946 -‐74,5% 116.398 2.250 131.134 -‐25,5% Increased number of re-‐benchmarking applications Scheme Applications and License Fees Ex R5-‐08 111.000 357.893 238.831 lR Grow Stakeholder Engagement Conferences 480.681 210.000 ia R5 R5-‐02 238.831 39,2% 71.025 39,2% nc Integrity Programme Services Workshop Training 437.000 71.025 Maintain Integrity Leadership 133.384 272,0% 8.578 272,0% 51.025 CB/AB Calibration/ Training Payment of services 0 -‐100,0% 2.306 51.025 320.681 -‐100,0% 6.980 0 Service Fee for non Members/ August 2012 minor item not budgeted 0 -‐100,0% 0 2.306 Annual base license fee per CB -‐100,0% 1.356 6.980 Small reduction in Certificate Fees against registration fee and membership increase 5.400 266,1% 0 P6 R2-‐04 Deviation in % of Budget 2012 (May 2012) 662.000 2.036.000 P6-‐01 R2-‐06 Result Forecast 2012 637.574 2.065.520 6.980 P4 Simplify Benchmarking 548.008 -‐0,7% 1.000.884 -‐4,5% 1.356 P4-‐07 Scheme Relation 551.896 1.047.727 1.475 F3-‐01 P5 564.000 993.000 1.356 P2 P5-‐02 551.896 1.047.727 Justification ex Producer Registration Fee 2,6% |A nn Membership Fee F1-‐05 4.448.933 g F1-‐04 4.334.192 tin Certification Body License Fee Certificate Licence Fee 4.255.000 or F1-‐02 F1-‐03 4.304.192 ep Accelerate Growth Budget 2012 (May 2012 based on result 2011 data) Result 2011 Revenue F1 Budget 2012 (Jan 2012 based on Nov. 2011 data) Budget 2012: EOY Forecast based on November 2012 data; Dec 20, 2012 2012 Revenue Forecast Seite 1 von 1 GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 10/120 F1-‐01 Brand Protection 63.507 38.002 F1-‐02 Certification Body License Fee 275 921 F1-‐03 Certificate Licence Fee 819 701 701 0,0% F1-‐04 Membership Fee 337 3.047 3.047 0,0% F1-‐05 Producer Registration Fee F2 Sustainable Funding F2-‐01 Accounting & Financial Controlling 34.900 53.726 72.940 35,8% F2-‐02 Accounting Software / Training 13.397 7.389 7.737 4,7% 593.089 Office Supplies & Communication M1 Grow Retail Interaction and Request for Products & Services M1-‐01 Retailer Relation M2 Create Manufacturer Interaction and Request M2-‐01 Manufacturer Relation M3 Become the Standard of Choice for Producers M3-‐01 Producer Relation M4 Certifiers Offer of Choice M4-‐01 Database Running M4-‐02 Database Release Updates P1 Improve communication & marketing P1-‐01 Media P1-‐02 Development P1-‐03 Marketing P2 Win and communicate pilot implementations as proof of concept P2-‐01 Customer Pilots P4 Deliver acceptance by regulators and mayor buyers P4-‐01 Aquaculture P4-‐02 Crop Base P4-‐03 Goverment Relations P4-‐04 IFA General P4-‐05 Livestock P4-‐06 Social P5 Simplify Benchmarking P5-‐01 GFSI Relation P5-‐02 Scheme Relation P5-‐03 System & Assessment P6 Maintain Integrity Leadership 473.045 0,1% 87.559 90.325 90.366 0,0% 167.484 126.361 167.484 41.366 28.965 195.102 16,5% 6 New Sales Support to Key Accounts Share of New Sales Support New Sales Support to Key Accounts IT Service Level ia IT Service Level nc na Fi New Sales Support to Key Accounts Share of New Sales Support 30.755 0,9% 352.015 -‐25,6% 29.242 3,1% 98.946 58.501 59.420 -‐39,9% 84.956 58.501 267.058 45,2% 84.956 45,2% 319.694 19,7% 67.539 54.818 58.855 7,4% 91.641 86.619 97.131 12,1% 46.467 55.075 88.624 60,9% 6.929 7.033 7.484 6,4% 62.291 31.063 34.558 11,3% 52.759 32.452 191.888 53.323 65.984 122.957 No new printing material-‐ use stock Materials and services delivered in 2012 More Customized Solutions and Farm Assurers More Customized Solutions and Farm Assurers ITC Project according to our MoU ITC Project according to our MoU 33.041 1,8% 257.696 31.637 34,3% 125.335 135,1% GFSI Registration Fee GFSI Registration Fee 122.451 -‐0,4% 15.608 770.954 Communiction cost Share of New Sales Support 57.229 5,2% 263.352 -‐23,9% 41.350 Maintain office and service levels from EHI 30.493 28.368 138.971 Maintain office and service levels from EHI 54.391 345.980 32.930 New inhouse Accountant to process invoices and receipts IT Service Level 38.313 327.626 New inhouse Accountant 3,7% 167.562 155.679 e 18,5% 45.453 18,5% 87.984 473.294 32.930 pl 16,9% 38.380 16,9% 45.453 38.368 84.884 16,5% 38.380 32.834 38.368 0 am 195.102 32.834 28.965 897.010 0,1% 472.618 41.366 Ex 563.410 505.530 126.361 361.554 32,0% or F3-‐02 necessary brand registration modification according to agreement with GAP Inc. 2.740 0,0% 80.677 562.943 Justification Increase in Brand Protection (GAP) 921 0,0% ep Overhead Office Space & EHI Services 63.511 67,1% 2.740 61.115 56,2% lR F3 70.919 g 1.397 48.297 F3-‐01 2013 Cost Budget 45.411 ex Accelerate Growth |A nn F1 tin 66.335 Budget 2013 Second Proposal Forecast 2012 Result 2011 Cost Deviation in % of Forecast 2012 (November 2012) Budget 2013: Second Proposal / Overview based on November 2012 data; Dec 20, 2012 9.909 -‐36,5% 767.784 -‐0,4% Less mandatory CB Trainings Seite 1 von 3 194.464 -‐15,6% 54.457 71.138 74.358 4,5% 7.806 4.790 5.139 7,3% 97.102 56.575 65.958 16,6% 16.022 16.705 4,3% 402.590 319.622 330.839 3,5% 33.699 41.379 42.357 2,4% 159 978 1.267 1.807 P6-‐02 CB/AB Liaison/Admin P6-‐03 Feed Manufacuring P6-‐04 IFA General P6-‐05 IPRO Communictaion/ Crisis Managemnet P6-‐06 IPRO Complaint & Surveilance P6-‐07 IPRO Development/ Calibration/ Management P6-‐08 Online Training Fee P6-‐10 Plant Propagation Material P6-‐11 Database new developments CB focused P7 Align and ensure efficient business processes P7-‐01 CB/AB Liaison/Admin 19.690 P7-‐02 CB/AB Liaison/Admin (CB overhead) 98.814 84.745 91.662 8,2% P7-‐03 Database new Development 85.008 148.755 214.847 44,4% P7-‐04 Database Release Updates 86.965 97.234 98.845 1,7% P7-‐05 Database Running R1 Build up interactive marketing capabilities R1-‐01 Website Content Management R2 Enhance sales skills and capacity R2-‐01 PPP Projects R2-‐02 Group Training Producers R2-‐03 Office Supplies & General Management R2-‐04 Integrity Programme Services R2-‐05 Refund for Commitee Particpation Translation Software (SDL) R3-‐03 Office CRM R3-‐04 Office Supplies & General Management R5-‐01 Aquaculture R5-‐02 Conferences R5-‐03 Crop Base R5-‐04 Fairs R5-‐05 Membership & Stakeholder Relation R5-‐06 IFA NTWG 2013 Cost Budget 7.537 6,3% 52.750 53.827 57.890 7,5% 3.464 2.874 17.632 18.531 14,8% 6.253 12.202 124.067 156.045 25,8% 185.271 209.290 233.609 11,6% CRM Software Depreciation and Development 8.588 -‐29,6% 36.521 9,1% Depreceition 32 kEuro Investment 90 kEuro Improve Customer Service Levels 34.768 6,7% 898 1.095.179 PPP Project (DEG) 17.758 4,9% 32.582 58.360 Website in 2012 Updated; not much new external PPP Project (DEG) 115.932 4,5% 416.000 163.166 848.503 prepare restructuring of IT infrastructure Website in 2012 Updated; not much new external 3.307 15,1% 110.937 33.480 includes 170 kEuro depreciation 18.558 0,1% 16.930 14.221 g tin 99.981 377,1% 7.093 362.489 Increase in Hosting and Performance Cost or ep lR 20.958 ia 41,5% 3.385 pl Grow Stakeholder Engagement 22.149 120,6% 303.205 1.940 72.581 am Stakeholder Database Support R5 120,6% 35.116 135.092 Ex R4-‐02 10.041 nc R3-‐02 318.630 7,3% 22.149 214.220 na Online Training Management System 14,8% 40.170 5,0% Fi R3-‐01 Create Loyalty Programs 296.876 10.041 358.075 e Workshop Training 35.929 27,1% 764.154 38.245 8.686 Profesionalise project and process management Stakeholder Support 8.686 245.994 R3 R4 665.855 235.845 R2-‐06 R4-‐01 28.263 526.322 Justification Less mandatory CB Trainings 978 0,0% 1.057 -‐41,5% 6 230.380 CB/AB Calibration/ Training ex 299.930 P6-‐01 |A nn Forecast 2012 Budget 2013 Second Proposal Result 2011 Cost Deviation in % of Forecast 2012 (November 2012) GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 11/120 1.754 95,2% 693.063 -‐36,7% 1.716 5.381 309.652 389.419 4.900 27.681 28.812 4,1% 297.483 395.651 319.074 -‐19,4% 156.989 177.970 203.231 14,2% 68.568 74.761 79.455 6,3% No Summit2013 and Reduction in Fair Participation 5.574 3,6% 31.548 -‐91,9% no Summit in 2013 reduction of fair participation or add coexibitor Seite 2 von 3 R5-‐08 other Revenues R6 Build and Increase Flexiblity of IT infrastructure R6-‐01 IT Management R6-‐02 Data Privacy 116 17.593 12.917 -‐14,0% 17.634 5.183.097 8.386 -‐52,4% 5.139.674 6 Data Security Legal Compliance work completed in 2012 32.124 9,0% main work done in 2012 -‐0,8% Ex am pl e Fi na nc ia lR ep or tin g 4.740.258 128 0,0% 40.510 29.465 4.676 TOTAL Justification 25.240 4,3% 128 47.100 Deviation in % of Forecast 2012 (November 2012) 24.189 Budget 2013 Second Proposal 9.079 ex Livestock |A nn R5-‐07 Forecast 2012 Cost Result 2011 GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 12/120 2013 Cost Budget Seite 3 von 3 GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 13/120 6 Justification Conservative Estimate growth as in 2012 no additional CB´s |A nn 6,7% 0,0% 0,0% 8,3% 8,8% 925,9% ex Budget 2013 Second Proposal 40 additional Members 20.000 new producer registrations increase sales of bookmarking minor items not budgeted tin g Forecast 2012 4.304.192 4.448.933 4.748.933 551.896 548.008 548.008 1.047.727 1.000.884 1.000.884 637.574 725.358 785.358 2.065.520 2.169.283 2.359.283 1.475 5.400 55.400 1.356 0 0 1.356 0 0 0 0 6.980 0 0 6.980 0 0 2.306 8.578 8.582 2.306 8.578 8.582 51.025 71.025 71.025 51.025 71.025 71.025 320.681 357.893 157.899 238.831 60.946 60.949 67.000 77.947 77.950 14.850 219.000 19.000 133.384 116.398 216.398 0 100.000 2.250 8.000 8.000 131.134 108.398 108.398 164.426 312.466 42.466 120.026 289.320 19.320 32.928 11.067 11.067 100 100 11.472 11.979 11.979 4.984.350 5.315.292 5.245.302 e Fi n an ci al R ep or minor items not budgeted 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% -‐55,9% 0,0% 0,0% -‐91,3% 85,9% 0,0% 0,0% -‐86,4% -‐93,3% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% -‐1,3% minor items not budgeted Completing rebenchmarking, no change expected Only a few new CB Online Exam accounts 200kEuro less CB Online Training Fee New PPP Project (DEG) First half of DEG Project in 2013 same as 2012 No Summit 2013; TOUR2013 without participation fees no Summit 2013 am pl Accelerate Growth Certification Body License Fee Certificate Licence Fee Membership Fee Producer Registration Fee Database Access Fee Overhead Office Space & EHI Services Office Supplies & Communication Win and communicate pilot implementations as proof of concept Customer Pilots Deliver acceptance by regulators and mayor buyers other Revenues Simplify Benchmarking Scheme Relation Maintain Integrity Leadership CB/AB Calibration/ Training IPRO Complaint & Surveilance Online Training Fee Enhance sales skills and capacity PPP Projects Integrity Programme Services Workshop Training Grow Stakeholder Engagement Conferences Fairs Livestock other Revenues TOTAL Ex F1 F1-‐02 F1-‐03 F1-‐04 F1-‐05 F1-‐08 F3 F3-‐01 F3-‐02 P2 P2-‐01 P4 P4-‐07 P5 P5-‐02 P6 P6-‐01 P6-‐06 P6-‐08 R2 R2-‐01 R2-‐04 R2-‐06 R5 R5-‐02 R5-‐04 R5-‐07 R5-‐08 Result 2011 Revenue Deviation in % of Forecast 2012 (November 2012) Budget 2013: Second Proposal / Overview based on November 2012 data; Dec 20, 2012 2013 Revenue Budget Seite 1 von 1 GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 14/120 BOARD BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 PROPOSAL FOR REPORTING PROCEDURES WHO TO WHOM WHAT WHEN DESCRIPTION/FORMAT RESPONSIBLE GLOBALG.A.P. Secretariat Board Annual activity plan December Activity plan & related budget presented for coming year at last Board meeting of a year KM GLOBALG.A.P. Secretariat Board Financial reporting January As agreed separately FC GLOBALG.A.P. Secretariat Board Monthly Activity Highlight Each moth Summary of relevant GLOBALG.A.P. activities of the KU previous month. This includes new projects or cooperation – for Board discussiion GLOBALG.A.P. Secretariat Board Integrity Report June / December Summary of IPRO activities/planned activities for the next year AF GLOBALG.A.P. Secretariat Board Certification Statistics January/July Progress in certification, defined statistics (products/countries) FC GLOBALG.A.P. Secretariat Board Membership Statistics January/July New members, cancelations, FA Board TCs Excerpts of Board Minutes After each Board meeting (also after update calls?) Summary of relevant Board discussions/decisions/resolutions KU GLOBALG.A.P. Secretariat TCs Relevant new developments, cooperation activities At every meeting i.e. planned or signed MoUs, new products or services Facilitators TC Crops Board Annual activity plan January KPIs, including marketing strategy, technical developments, communication strategy to stakeholders, competitors, meeting schedule, Board relevant decisions/requests, strategic cooperation with other organizations/initiatives (MoUs) Facilitators TC Livestock Board Annual activity plan January KPIs, including marketing strategy, technical developments, communication strategy to stakeholders, competitors, meeting schedule, Board relevant decisions/requests, strategic cooperation with other organizations/initiatives (MoUs) Facilitators Update in June Confidential to GLOBALG.A.P. Board Page 1 of 2 GLOBALG.A.P. c/o FoodPLUS GmbH Spichernstr. 55 | 50672 Cologne, Germany |[email protected] www.globalgap.org GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 15/120 BOARD BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 TC Aquaculture Board Annual activity plan January KPIs, including marketing strategy, technical developments, communication strategy to stakeholders, competitors, meeting schedule, Board relevant decisions/requests, strategic cooperation with other organizations/initiatives (MoUs) Facilitators SHC Responsible Water Use All TCs Annual activity plan & final minutes of all meetings January KPIs, including marketing strategy, technical developments, communication strategy to stakeholders, competitors, meeting schedule, TC relevant decisions/requests, strategic cooperation with other organizations/initiatives (MoUs) Facilitators SHC GRASP All TCs Annual activity plan January KPIs, including marketing strategy, technical developments, communication strategy to stakeholders, competitors, meeting schedule, TC relevant decisions/requests, strategic cooperation with other organizations/initiatives (MoUs) Facilitators SHC Animal Welfare TC Livestock Annual activity plan January KPIs, including marketing strategy, technical developments, communication strategy to stakeholders, competitors, meeting schedule, TC relevant decisions/requests, strategic cooperation with other organizations/initiatives (MoUs) Facilitators SHC Microbiological Risk Assessment TC Crops Annual activity plan January KPIs, including marketing strategy, technical developments, communication strategy to stakeholders, competitors, meeting schedule, TC relevant decisions/requests, strategic cooperation with other organizations/initiatives (MoUs) Facilitators SHC Crop Protection Board Annual activity plan January What are the objectives of the committee? What will be the outcome? Facilitators SHC Group Certification Annual activity plan January What are the objectives of the committee? What will be the outcome? Facilitators SCs Integrity Surveillance Integrity Policy Committee Committee Regular reports Facilitators Integrity Policy Committee Regular reports Facilitators Board *Other SHCs might be founded and need to specify reporting procedures in their Terms of Reference Confidential to GLOBALG.A.P. Board Page 2 of 2 GLOBALG.A.P. c/o FoodPLUS GmbH Spichernstr. 55 | 50672 Cologne, Germany |[email protected] www.globalgap.org GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 16/120 BOARD BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 USE OF CGF AND GLOBALG.A.P. SERVICES FOR RETAILER AND MANUFACTURER Consumer Goods Forum GSCP Global Social Compliance Program: Environment GSCP Global Social Compliance Program: Social GFSI Global Food Safety Initiative: Food Safety GS1 Global Standards 1: Traceability GLOBALG.A.P. Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture: Good Agricultural Practice Good Aquaculture Practice Traceability and supply chain - - - Standard Setter Introduce GS1 (GLN: Global Location Numbers) into agriculture worldwide as part of the GLOBALG.A.P. system; focus also on small and medium size farms Use by individual retailer or manufacturer: - - - Become user of GS1 numbers and require GS1 applications in supplier base As GLOBALG.A.P. member retailer, introduce GLOBALG.A.P. farm standards or the adequate localg.a.p. “entry level” standards including the registration of farms in the GLOBALG.A.P. database, which contains the assignment of a GLN to each farm (this project is in progress for RSA via the Food Safety Initiative Program) (GLOBALG.A.P. owns its own software solution!) Food safety & consumer health - - Designing food safety requirements for each part of the supply chain incl. on-farm and feed (GFSI guidance document); strongest expertise in post-farm gate. GFSI benchmarks/ recognizes food safety certification systems. The Global Markets Program of GFSI provides a checklist for emerging markets, free to use. - Designing food safety practices and its verification methods for on-farm and feed (pre-farm gate) producers (GLOBALG.A.P. and localg.a.p. certification standards); strongest expertise in pre-farm gate due to large representation of agriculture and aquaculture operators in governance. GLOBALG.A.P. has been specialized to benchmark/recognize other pre-farm gate standards and certification systems. More than 20 mainly national standards have been recognized. The recognition is validated with on-site assessments and database registration of all operators of benchmarked standards. The GLOBALG.A.P. Integrity Program applies for such systems as well. GLOBALG.A.P. has helped to develop the GFSI Global Markets Program and introduced this as localg.a.p. program with comprehensive database and rule infrastructure. This existing platform allows to get started immediately and achieve control of progress. Confidential to GLOBALG.A.P. Board Page 1 of 4 GLOBALG.A.P c/o FoodPLUS GmbH Spichernstr. 55 | 50672 Cologne, Germany |[email protected] www.globalgap.org GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 17/120 BOARD BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 Consumer Goods Forum GSCP Global Social Compliance Program: Environment Use by individual retailer or manufacturer: Environmental Sustainability - Designing assessment criteria for environmental standards and labels for each part of the food and non-food supply chain; GSCP Global Social Compliance Program: Social - - GFSI Global Food Safety Initiative: Food Safety GS1 Global Standards 1: Traceability Accepting and requiring any of the GFSI benchmarked food safety schemes (initially direct food suppliers/processors, but later including GLOBALG.A.P. for farm and feed, once approved) - - - Accepting and requiring GLOBALG.A.P. and any GLOBALG.A.P. benchmarked GAP standard including food safety criteria. The same holds for feed standards. Accepting that on farm is a holistic approach, where food safety is ONE part of it. Use the IT platform to connect to the sourcing and QA department to validate penetration of certification of supplier base. Designing environmental requirements for on-farm and feed (pre-farm gate) GLOBALG.A.P. and localg.a.p. certification standards; Strongest expertise in pre-farm gate due to large representation of agriculture and aquaculture in membership and all committees GSCP benchmarks environmental standards, primarily and initially postfarm gate, but expanding to pre-farm gate. GLOBALG.A.P. benchmarks/recognizes other Good Agriculture/Aquaculture/Feed Practice standards and certification systems, including operational components and the application of an integrity program Use by individual retailer or manufacturer: Recognizing and demanding GSCP benchmarked environmental standards. - Corporate Social Responsibility and Ethics - Designing assessment criteria for social standards and labels for each part of the food and non-food Confidential to GLOBALG.A.P. Board GLOBALG.A.P. Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture: Good Agricultural Practice Good Aquaculture Practice - - As GLOBALG.A.P. member, recognize and demand GLOBALG.A.P. for all farms that supply to you. Assess the use of add-on modules e.g. on Water in your supply base using the GLOBALG.A.P. database, and align the supplier information to be only accessible to you if you wish. - - Designing operational health and safety requirements as part of Good Agriculture/Aquaculture/Feed Practice for onfarm and feed (pre-farm gate) GLOBALG.A.P. and localg.a.p. certification standards; Page 2 of 4 GLOBALG.A.P c/o FoodPLUS GmbH Spichernstr. 55 | 50672 Cologne, Germany |[email protected] www.globalgap.org GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 18/120 BOARD BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 Consumer Goods Forum GSCP Global Social Compliance Program: Environment GSCP Global Social Compliance Program: Social GFSI Global Food Safety Initiative: Food Safety GS1 Global Standards 1: Traceability supply chain; GLOBALG.A.P. Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture: Good Agricultural Practice Good Aquaculture Practice GLOBALG.A.P. benchmarks/recognizes other Good Agriculture/Aquaculture/Feed Practice standards and certification systems, including operational components and integrity program. GSCP benchmarks social standards GLOBALG.A.P. introduced an on-farm social risk assessment tool to be added to a GLOBALG.A.P. audit. A growing number of big European retailers are in the process to require this “GRASP” (GLOBALG.A.P. Risk Assessment on Social Practices) module by GLOBALG.A.P. Use by individual retailer or manufacturer: - Recognizing and demanding GSCP benchmarked social standards, primarily and initially post-farm gate, but expanding to pre-farm gate. - - As GLOBALG.A.P. member, recognize and demand GRASP on all farms that supply to you. Assess the use of GRASP in your supply base using the GLOBALG.A.P. database, and align the supplier information to be only accessible to you if you wish. Benchmark your social criteria or build and submit an own standard that matches GSCP. Animal Welfare - - - - Designing animal welfare requirements as part of Good Agriculture/Aquaculture/Feed Practice for on-farm (pre-farm gate) GLOBALG.A.P. and localg.a.p. certification standards; GLOBALG.A.P. benchmarks/recognizes other Good Agriculture/Aquaculture Practice standards and certification systems Use by individual retailer or manufacturer: - Confidential to GLOBALG.A.P. Board - - - Consider adoption and possibly change of the GLOBALG.A.P. Livestock and Aquaculture standards that require the foundation on animal welfare; apply the newly published GLOBALG.A.P. add-on module for Animal Welfare. This can be done as stand-alone or integrated into Page 3 of 4 GLOBALG.A.P c/o FoodPLUS GmbH Spichernstr. 55 | 50672 Cologne, Germany |[email protected] www.globalgap.org GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 19/120 BOARD BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 Consumer Goods Forum GSCP Global Social Compliance Program: Social GSCP Global Social Compliance Program: Environment GFSI Global Food Safety Initiative: Food Safety GS1 Global Standards 1: Traceability GLOBALG.A.P. Global Partnership for Safe and Sustainable Agriculture: Good Agricultural Practice Good Aquaculture Practice GLOBALG.A.P. Public Private Partnership Government representation in governance structure Use by individual retailer or manufacturer: Government representation in governance structure Participate in events and in committees to interact with Governments especially in countries of operation Participate in events and in committees to interact with Governments especially in countries of operation Government representation in advisory council. GFSI is partner in the World Bank initiated Global Food Safety Partnership (GFSP) for capacity building Offers solutions to public sector. Participate in advisory council and go to events with Govern-ments especially in countries of operation; Interact with Governments to recognize such industry owned traceability solutions Assist with Task Force of Regulatory Affairs Committee to work on Governments to recognize GFSI standards. Collaboration with a number of national governments to introduce Good Agriculture/Aquaculture/Feed Practice in different sectors. GLOBALG.A.P. is partner in the World Bank initiated Global Food Safety Partnership (GFSP) for capacity building Utilizing GLOBALG.A.P.`s existing network and success stories with the public sector to receive funds for food safety certification; Participate in one of the projects with international Governmental Organizations like UNCTAD, UNIDO, FAO, ITC, etc. Team up in Work Bank project. SUMMARY Use by individual retailer or manufacturer: - Entire supply chain Food and non-food Post-farm gate (initial focus) Offers choice of acceptable environmental standards Confidential to GLOBALG.A.P. Board - Entire supply chain Food and non-food Post-farm gate (initial focus) Offers choice of acceptable social standards - Entire supply chain Majority of benchmarked standards in Post-farm gate - Offers choice of acceptable food safety standards Entire supply chain Food and non-food Difficulty to capture primary production with existing fee structure Offers choice of tools and services for traceability - Limited to Primary Production and Feed IT and operational platform to connect to buying process Benchmarking includes operational component via IT and integrity platform Flexibility to use platform for entry levels and for boltons to address retailer marketing needs Offers utilization of the leading one-stop solution for farm assurance (holistic: food safety, sustainability and social and animal welfare) plus acceptable benchmarked standards, all combined with “plug-and-play” tools customized to individual supply base. Page 4 of 4 GLOBALG.A.P c/o FoodPLUS GmbH Spichernstr. 55 | 50672 Cologne, Germany |[email protected] www.globalgap.org GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 20/120 BOARD BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 Scheme Overview Scopes of Recognition Date of Recognition Global Aquaculture Alliance Seafood Processing Standard EI Processing of Perishable Animal Products 16 May 2013 BI Farming of Plants D Pre Processing Handling of Plant Products 24 April 2013 C Animal Conversion D Pre-process Handling of Plant Products EI Processing of Perishable Animal Products EII Processing of Perishable Plant Products EIII Processing of Perishable Animal and Plant Products (Mixed Products) EIV Processing of Ambient Stable Products L Production of (Bio) Chemicals M Production of Food Packaging 22 Feb 2013 C Animal Conversion E I Processing of Perishable Animal Products E III Processing of Perishable Animal and Plant Products (Mixed Products) 7 Feb 2013 BI Farming of Plants D Pre-process Handling of Plant Products 23 Jan 2013 Read the GAA News release here GLOBALG.A.P. Integrated Farm Assurance Scheme and Produce Safety Standard For more information please visit www.globalgap.org Read the GlobalG.A.P. News release here FSSC 22000 For more information please visit www.fssc22000.com Read the FSSC 22000 News release here Global Red Meat Standard (GRMS) For more information please visit www.grms.org Read the GRMS News release here CanadaGAP (Canadian Horticultural Council On-Farm Food Safety Program) For more information please visit www.canadagap.ca Read the CanadaGAP News release here Confidential to GLOBALG.A.P. Board Page 1 of 2 GLOBALG.A.P. c/o FoodPLUS GmbH Spichernstr. 55 | 50672 Cologne, Germany |[email protected] www.globalgap.org GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 21/120 BOARD BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 SQF CODE 7TH EDITION LEVEL 2 Read the SQF News release here BRC GLOBAL STANDARD FOR FOOD SAFETY ISSUE 6 Read the BRC News release here IFS FOOD VERSION 6 Read the IFS News release here Read the IFS Scope Extension News release here Al: Farming of Animal Products Bl: Farming of Plant Products C: Pre-Processing of Animal Products D: Pre-Processing of Plant Products El: Processing or Animal Perishable Products Ell: Processing of Plant Perishable Products Elll: Processing of Animal and Plant Perishable Products ElV: Processing of Ambient Stable Products L: Production of Biochemicals M: Production of Food Packaging 15 Oct 2012 D Pre Processing Handling of Plant Products EI Processing of Animal Perishable Products EII Processing of Plant Perishable Products EIII Processing of Animal and Plant Perishable Products (Mixed Products) EIV Processing of Ambient Stable Products L Production of (Bio) Chemicals M Production of Food Packaging 20 Sept 2012 EI Processing of Animal Perishable Products EII Processing of Plant Perishable Products EIII Processing of Animal and Plant Perishable Products (Mixed Products) EIV Processing of Ambient Stable Products 21 Sept 2012 Scope Extension C Animal Conversion D Pre-process Handling of Plant Products L Production of (Bio) Chemicals 4 Jan 2013 Schemes in Benchmarking Process PrimusGFS Confidential to GLOBALG.A.P. Board Page 2 of 2 GLOBALG.A.P. c/o FoodPLUS GmbH Spichernstr. 55 | 50672 Cologne, Germany |[email protected] www.globalgap.org GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 22/120 BOARD BOARD MEETING 4 – 5 JUNE 3013 STRATEGY PLAN TECHNICAL COMMITTEE LIVESTOCK Vision • Aims • Purpose Transparency and Communication • • • • • • • • • • • Best Practice Relationships • • • • • • • • Structure • • • • • • Confidential to GLOBALG.A.P. Board That GLOBALG.A.P. provides market leading systems and standards to ensure Good Agriculture Practice for Livestock. To provide appropriate Good Agricultural Practice standards for livestock across the World. To grow and diversify the GLOBALG.A.P. livestock standard. To support the aims of the GLOBALG.A.P. board. To promote the adoption of GLOBALG.A.P. standard. To provide expertise about livestock in GAP livestock standard. To regularly review livestock standards and revise as required. To promote the development and adoption of entry level standards. To promote the development en adoption of additional modules. To provide and receive information freely and without prejudice except when issues are confidential. Work with other parts of GLOBALG.A.P. on relevant projects, shared good ways of working and improve the perception of GLOBALG.A.P. Provide support to other third parties (NGO’s, Government etc.) To provide clear communication to relevant committees by the board and secretariat. To adopt best practice in our ways of working. To have an efficient and effective decision making process. To promote all aspects of GLOBALG.A.P. To participate freely and regularly in committee activities. Relationships and communication shall be vertical and horizontal. Chairman to lead the communication with board members and other sector committee chairmen. Sector committees have once a year a meeting at same location to discuss relevant issues. Chairmen contact each other after every meeting about cross sector issues. The Sector Committee is an open structure for relevant parties within GLOBALG.A.P. Committee structure complies with GLOBALG.A.P. terms of reference. Committee made up by experts in all relevant species and all aspects of business supported (animal producers, meat producers, feed producers, transporters, retailers and relevant associations) External experts can be invited to support the committee as and when required. Review membership every 18 months to insure participation as required in Terms of Reference. Committee membership is not limited to a time period, so expertise is retained. Page 1 of 2 GLOBALG.A.P. c/o FoodPLUS GmbH Spichernstr. 55 | 50672 Cologne, Germany |[email protected] www.globalgap.org GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 23/120 BOARD BOARD MEETING 4 – 5 JUNE 3013 Livestock Strategy 2013/2014 Development of a policy on the integration of Chain of Custody for livestock production End 2013 Strategy decision on use of AW-Add-on Modules: Operational Structure April 2013 Participate in SHC “Water Use/Water Management” Add-on Module Responsible Use of Antimicrobials/Health July 2013 Risk Management of Mycobact. avium paratuberculosis in Beef and Dairy and its possible integration in IFA Autumn 2013 Promotion and Growth of Livestock Certification Fostering localg.a.p projects for livestock in emerging and developing countries Confidential to GLOBALG.A.P. Board Page 2 of 2 GLOBALG.A.P. c/o FoodPLUS GmbH Spichernstr. 55 | 50672 Cologne, Germany |[email protected] www.globalgap.org GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 24/120 Service Level Agreement (SLA) Between the Floriculture Sustainability Initiative, AISBL in constitution and GLOBALG.A.P. as provider of benchmark services of floricultural standards against the GLOBALG.A.P. Flower & Ornamentals Control Points of the FSI Equivalency tool Effective date: 1-‐3-‐2013 Version Date Description Author 1.0 1.1 1.2 14-‐02-‐2013 18-‐02-‐2013 18-‐02-‐2013 Draft Service Level Agreement Draft Service Level Agreement Draft Service Level Agreement 1.2.2 1.2.3 19-‐2-‐2013 21-‐02-‐2013 Draft Service Level Agreement Draft Service Level Agreement Pauline Simons (NF) Lucas Simons (NF) Pauline van Benthum (Cleverlaw) and Lucas Simons (NF) IDH GLOBALG.A.P. Approval (By signing below, all Approvers agree to all terms and conditions outlined in this Agreement.) Approvers FSI AISBL constitution GLOBALG.A.P. Name in Dr Kristian Moeller Role Signed Approval Date Managing Director FSI aisbl in constitution -‐ Floriculture Sustainability Initiative Rue de Trèves 49-‐51 / Box 14, B – 1040 Brussels – T: +32 (0)2 736 79 E-‐Mail: [email protected] GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 25/120 1. The Parties - - Floricultural Sustainability initiative (FSI), an association ( an Aisbl in constitution[•]) organized under the laws of [JURISDICTION], having [its]/[a] registered office at [FULL STREET ADDRESS], and registered with [NAME OF COMPANY REGISTER] under number And GLOBAL.G.A.P. c/o FoodPlus GmbH, a company with limited liability organized under the laws of Germany, having its registered office at Spichernstrasse 55, 50672 Köln (Cologne), Germany, and registered with Handelsregister at Amtsgericht Köln under number HRB 35211 (the "Client "). Whereas: • FSI is a multi-‐stakeholder initiative aiming to mainstream sustainability in the floricultural sector. One of the aims is to introduce an FSI equivalency tool and procedures that will create transparency in the standards landscape and eventually will lead to prevention of duplication in the standards and reduction of costs. • The FSI Equivalency tool (ET) is built as much as possible on existing equivalency methodologies both in terms of content as well as procedures. GLOBALG.A.P. and GSCP are the main building blocks for both content and procedures of this ET. ITC standards map will be used as a quick scan for standards and for presentation purposes. In the future FSI specifics will be covered by an add-‐on (content determined by FSI in cooperation with and GLOBALG.A.P. and Working Groups). • GLOBALG.A.P. is a supply chain partnership aiming to mainstream good agricultural practices and the foundation for sustainability in the floricultural sector. One of the tools is the GLOBALG.A.P. benchmarking procedure to create transparency in the standards landscape, which already has lead to the prevention of duplication in the standards and reduction of costs. The other component focuses on transparency and integrity of certification, supported by a global registry of growers with their certification status and a certification integrity program. 2. Purpose & Objectives The purpose of this Agreement is to ensure that the proper elements and commitments are in place to provide consistent support and delivery to FSI by GLOBALG.A.P. The objectives of this Agreement are to: - Present a clear, concise and measurable description of service provisions to FSI. - Provide clear reference to tasks, roles and/or responsibilities and accountability. Service level Agreement between GLOBALG.A.P. and FSI 2/6 GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 26/120 - Match perceptions of expected service provision with actual service support & delivery. 3. Rights and obligations of Parties This Agreement represents a Service Level Agreement (“SLA”) between FSI aisbl in constitution and GLOBALG.A.P. for the delivery of benchmark services to assess floriculture standards against the GLOBALG.A.P. General Regulations and CPCCs IFA Flowers & Ornamentals Version 4 in the future FSI specific requirements through the GLOBALG.A.P. benchmarking process. GLOBALG.A.P. acts as service provider of benchmark services of floricultural standards for FSI for either/or the GLOBALG.A.P. IFA standard. The services to be delivered by GLOBALG.A.P. to FSI shall include: Procedure of benchmarking GLOBALG.A.P. shall apply the following procedures in connection with its obligations under this agreement: - Using existing GLOBALG.A.P. procedures and using approved experts for technical review of the GLOBALG.A.P. part of the FSI ET. Maximum time for procedure: 18 weeks - GLOBALG.A.P. Secretariat will appoint a benchmark assessor who shall review the submitted normative documents cross-‐referenced in the benchmarking checklists. These checklists are used for the comparison of the GLOBALG.A.P. General Regulations and the Control Points and Compliance Criteria (CPCC) against the applicants certification rules and G.A.P. - The benchmark assessor shall document all the findings indicating for each clause of the General Regulations (GR) and each CPCC if the respective standard is lower, par or higher than GLOBALG.A.P. GR/CPCC - The applicant shall submit clarifications if needed Outcome of the benchmark procedure for the GLOBALG.A.P. part of the FSI ET • The outcome of the benchmark process will be a technical review (matrix) of the certification rules and control points of the applicant floriculture standards compared with the GLOBALG.A.P. General Regulations and control points developed according to the GLOBALG.A.P. benchmark procedures. This technical review matrix will mention both where standards are lower, par or higher than the GLOBALG.A.P. General Regulations and Control Points and Compliance Criteria. • The outcome will not mean and cannot be communicated that standards are GLOBALG.A.P. equivalent or GLOBALG.A.P. benchmarked. • Those standards that have already been benchmarked against GLOBALG.A.P. can, after written approval from their legal representative, release the technical review matrix to FSI. Service level Agreement between GLOBALG.A.P. and FSI 3/6 GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 27/120 (note) GLOBALG.A.P. will ensure that the technical reviews of the already benchmarked schemes will also include those criteria that are higher than the GLOBALG.A.P. benchmarks General Regulations and Control Points and Compliance Criteria (CPCC) Communication • GLOBALG.A.P. is allowed to communicate its role of benchmark service provider to FSI. • GLOBALG.A.P. will be given the annual opportunity by FSI to present themselves to FSI members and standards, show their added value and thus create goodwill. • FSI will make reference to the GLOBALG.A.P. benchmarking process in their communication where it relates to the FSI equivalency tool. • Public communication on the cooperation requires prior approval of both partners. 4. Effective Date & Periodic Review This Agreement is valid from the Effective Date mentioned in the header of this agreement and is valid for one year with the intention to prolong the arrangement. This Agreement should be reviewed at least at the end of the contract period. FSI is responsible for organizing this end of contract evaluation. The FSI secretariat is responsible for facilitating regular reviews of the arrangement under this contract. This agreement may be amended as required with mutual consent and agreed in writing by both parties. The FSI secretariat will incorporate all subsequent revisions and obtain mutual agreements / approvals as required and communicate them to both parties. 5. Miscellaneous • This is a non-‐exclusive arrangement between the Parties and preserves the right of each to work independently or with other parties. • This SLA does not give any of the parties the right to use any of the other party’s intellectual property without explicit prior permission. • Benchmarked standards do not necessarily become GLOBALG.A.P. members. The GLOBALG.A.P. Flowers & Ornamentals standard itself is considered to meet the GLOBALG.A.P. part of the FSI equivalency tool without additional benchmark exercise but GLOBALG.A.P. needs to become a member of FSI in order to become FSI recognized standard. The overall work will be conducted in English. 6. Financial implications The following financial implications are agreed between the parties: 6.1 Benchmark costs and conditions for standards -‐ GLOBALG.A.P. CPCC GLOBALG.A.P. will invoice the benchmarked standards the following: Service level Agreement between GLOBALG.A.P. and FSI 4/6 GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 28/120 € 6,000.00 per standard for the GLOBALG.A.P. CPCC benchmark (€ 2,500.00 administration fee, € 2,500.00 initial benchmarking costs, € 1,000.00 non-‐member service fee). • Applicants that opt for the non-‐member service package will still be given the option for a first year listing on the GLOBALG.A.P. website with the appropriate reference according to benchmarking regulations. • When individual standards determine after the benchmark process to become a GLOBALG.A.P. benchmarked scheme, the non-‐member service fee of € 1,000.00 will be contributed for the base administration fee of listed GLOBALG.A.P. benchmarked schemes. E.g this will costs € 1,500.00 for the 2nd year instead of € 2,500.00. • For those standards that opt for the non-‐member service, farmer registration in the GLOBALG.A.P. database is not included. • Extra work for assessing the higher criteria for those standards that have already completed the technical review of version 4 re-‐benchmarking will be conducted by GLOBALG.A.P. as free member service. FSI will be given free access to the GLOBALG.A.P. database with the appropriate role. For Southern standards IDH offers to fund up to 33% of the total benchmark costs for those standard that become a member of FSI and have agreed with the benchmark process to start and finish in calendar year 2013. IDH match funding criteria apply. For all costs involved GLOBALG.A.P. will be responsible for invoicing and receiving the payments. • 6.3 FSI specifics • Work on these future FSI specific benchmark module topics will only commence after explicit approval from and in cooperation with the Working Group Equivalency Tool and/or Working Group Future Topics. For GLOBALG.A.P.’s participation to work out the FSI specific modules a maximum of €10,000.00 per topic is foreseen. 7. Termination This agreement may be terminated by either party for any reason. Should one of the parties wish to terminate this agreement, a minimum notice period of 6 months is required . The notice must be served on the other party by registered letter. In case of a breach of this agreement by one of the parties, however, this agreement may be terminated forthwith by the other party, after having given the other party a reasonable term to remedy the breach and such term having expired without full remedy. Service level Agreement between GLOBALG.A.P. and FSI 5/6 GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 29/120 8. Disputes This Agreement shall be implemented in good faith, mutual trust and in the most professional manner by both parties. Should there be a necessity to address any points of concern regarding the implementation of the Agreement, this should be done bilaterally between the parties, either during the periodic reviews or when any specific need arises. In the last resort, the courts in the Kingdom of Belgium shall be competent with respect to any dispute in connection with this Agreement. Belgian law shall apply. Service level Agreement between GLOBALG.A.P. and FSI 6/6 GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 30/120 Talking Points for 23rd April ASC / GAA / GLOBALG.A.P. Memorandum of Understanding What 1. What is the intention of this Memorandum of Understanding? a. By working together we can achieve our mutual goal more efficiently – that is to support, recognize and promote a more sustainable aquaculture industry. The MOU is our starting point to identify our common interests better, and to evaluate certain areas where it makes sense to work collaboratively. 2. Who took the initiative to create the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC), Global Aquaculture Alliance (GAA) and GLOBALG.A.P. (GG)? a. The seeds of this cooperation were first sown over three years ago when the Seafoods Choices Alliance convened a meeting of seafood standard setters to find ways to collaborate. Informal discussions have continued since then and gained momentum over the last 12 months. 3. Will the certification programs of ASC, GAA and GG eventually merge? a. The parties are not discussing any current or future merger plans at this time. The MOU contemplates only limited collaboration between the organizations and explicitly recognizes the continued integrity of each program. The most important and overarching commitment is to find operational efficiencies to be gained with respect to certification programs. 4. Why do not the ASC, GAA, and GG certification programs merge directly? Merging three separate organizations would be a complex and expensive task and we feel that our efforts are more effectively deployed at this point on finding the real and tangible benefits from collaborating in certain respects while retaining our independence. 5. What were the first challenges in the process of starting to work together? a. The first challenge was to identify the common ground between our three organizations. We then looked at how we could work together on those areas whilst retaining our independence to ensure best stakeholder value. Why GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 31/120 1. Why have the three parties decided to cooperate? a. We have a mutual goal – to support, recognize and promote a more sustainable aquaculture industry. We believe that we can improve the value and efficiency of our certification programs by working together on the initiatives identified in the MOU. This will in turn enable the continued development of an aquaculture industry that contributes to food security and supports local communities without compromising environmental integrity. 2. Was the GSSI benchmark study one of the catalyzing factors behind the initiative of the MoU? a. No! As we mentioned, this process began three years ago before GSSI was conceived.. However, we think that our work will complement their benchmarking process. 3. What will be the main outcomes and benefits of this MoU? a. We believe that this initiative will make certification more accessible and create greater value to an increasing number of farmers. It is our intention that the industry will benefit from this cohesive approach to complex issues and from finding efficiencies in audit processes. 4. What are the distinguishing features of your three programs? a. GAA has been operational for over 10 years with a strong position in the US and a growing global presence. Its standards cover feed, hatchery, farm and processing elements and cover environmental, social and food safety aspects. GAA has a consumer facing logo. b. GG has also been operational for over 10 years as part of a global food certification system for agricultural products. Its standards cover food safety, environmental, social and animal welfare requirements for feed, hatchery and farming operations. It operates as a business to business program and has a strong European base and a growing global presence. GG has a consumer facing traceability code. c. The ASC is the youngest of the three programs but has experienced rapid growth in the uptake of its consumer facing logo over the last 6 months, particularly in Europe. The ASC’s farm standards include significant social requirements, a consumer facing logo and works in partnership with MSC on chain of custody and logo licensing. 5. What will be the first areas that you will work on together? We will work on six defined areas: a. To reduce duplication of effort for farms that undertake certification by more than one of our certification programs; b. To develop common requirements related to feed; c. To explore common approaches to the management of certificate information potentially through shared IT platforms; d. To develop common approaches to auditor training; e. To develop shared approaches to chain of custody certification; and, f. To encourage accurate and objective messaging regarding the claims made for certified aquaculture products. GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 32/120 When 1. When do you expect the first concrete actions will start taking place? What is the timeline? This year already? And what do you expect will be the first action? We have begun discussion on implementation plans and will continue these through regular meetings to hammer out detail, monitor progress and to keep the dialogue moving. We are all committed to active participation. The parties will begin the preparation of the transparent cross-referencing process to develop audit checklists immediately. The Feed Dialogue will start with a stakeholder meeting in the autumn. The complex project that will look to create audit efficiencies will also start towards the end of this year, taking the cross-referencing results into account. We look forward to sharing news as it emerges, but intend to issue formal 6 monthly updates on progress. GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 33/120 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING This MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING is made this 23rd day of April, 2013 among: 1. AQUACULTURE STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL, a not for profit organization incorporated under the laws of the Netherlands and having its registered address at Nieuwekade 9, 3511 RV Utrecht, The Netherlands (herein after called “ASC”); 2. GLOBAL AQUACULTURE ALLIANCE, a non-profit trade association incorporated under the laws of Delaware, USA, and having its registered address at 5661 Telegraph Rd., Suite 3A, Saint Louis, MO 63129 USA (hereinafter called “GAA”); and 3. GLOBALG.A.P, a privately held affiliate organization of a not for profit trade association, incorporated under the laws of Germany and having its place of business at GLOBAL G.A.P. Secretariat, c/o FoodPLUS GmbH, Spichernstrasse 55 50672 Cologne, Germany (herein after called “GG”). Hereafter referred to as “the Parties” WHEREAS: A. ASC, GAA, and GG are owners of standards and certification programs relating to aquaculture; and, B. the Parties agree that aquaculture standards and certification programs play an important role in promoting and assuring more sustainable and responsible hatchery, feedmill, farming and processing practices for the benefit of aquaculture stakeholders and society at large. C. In recognition of the Parties’ common objectives to enhance sustainable and responsible aquaculture on a global basis; and, D. with a purpose of enhancing the efficiencies and utility of their respective standards and certification programs by reducing duplication of effort and improving information access, the Parties execute this MOU. E. The Parties further recognize the need to provide accurate and objective information to those within the seafood sector and the public about certification processes and outcomes. F. The Parties acknowledge that the integrity and transparency of their individual programs are critically important and they shall not be compromised by any cooperative actions but rather these actions contemplated hereunder will seek to provide mutual benefit to all Parties that the Parties cannot acheive on their own, through a shared responsibility for quality and integrity. BRI-1382221v1 GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 34/120 NOW IT IS HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGED: 1. Objective 1.1. To cooperate as provided in this MOU, to increase the value, utility, access to and efficiency of the Parties’ certification programs for the benefit of all aquaculture stakeholders and to undertake that cooperation with appropriate agreements and a transparent process that allows for public scrutiny. 2. Implementation 2.1. The Parties will endeavor to take the steps that are necessary and appropriate to implement the goals listed in Sections 2.2 to 2.7 below. Steps will include entering into binding bilateral agreements, and, where appropriate, trilateral agreements. 2.2. To identify common elements of their standards and audit criteria and seek ways to conduct combined audits to their respective standards; so that certification bodies can conduct a single audit against all of the Parties’ standards at once, to avoid duplication of effort and reduce the cost and inconvenience of multiple audits, by initially investigating the utility of the Parties’ existing tools to conduct cross-referencing processes. The administration of such processes would be under the oversight of all Parties and must demonstrate an effective, efficient and transparent service to all Parties before adoption. 2.3. To cooperate on defining common elements of the Parties’ standards and requirements related to the fish meal, fish oil and other components of aquaculture feed; and develop an agreed set of common indicators that will define the feed requirements appropriate for each feed component, to avoid unnecessarily conflicting or differing standards that increase the cost of compliance or otherwise complicate efforts to comply. 2.4. To develop cooperative approaches to the delivery of auditor training and other training with the aim of defining a common set of auditor competencies and qualification where applicable and feasible. 2.5. To explore common IT approaches to managing the business workflow and data storage for hatchery, farm, feed and processing certificate information; by initially investigating the utility of the Parties’ existing systems as potential platforms for common and wider use. The administration of such a common platform would be under the oversight of all Parties and must demonstrate an effective, efficient and transparent service to all Parties before adoption while respecting confidentiality obligations. 2.6. To align the Parties’ chain of custody certification to reduce audit duplication and improve the reliability of seafood traceability (e.g. QR codes) to better monitor compliance with certification standards throughout the supply chain. 2.7. To encourage accurate and objective messaging regarding the claims made for certified aquaculture products. BRI-1382221v1 GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 35/120 3. Consequences 3.1. The outcomes of any cooperative actions are intended to have a positive impact on aquaculture standards, certification schemes, program participants and aquaculture supply chains in general; and, 3.2. The cooperative actions hereunder shall not compromise the ability of the different certification schemes to operate and innovate. 3.3. With respect to the Parties’ separate certification schemes, except as provided in Section 2.2 of this MOU, the Parties shall independently continue to maintain and develop the substantive criteria of their standards. 3.4. The Parties shall meet at regular intervals to review the impact of the actions undertaken in fulfillment of this MOU. 4. Termination 4.1. It is expressly agreed and understood that any party may withdraw from this Memorandum of Understanding with 30 days advance notification to the other Parties; 4.2. Understanding that the Parties’ present intent is to take all reasonable steps to resolve any disputes arising between or among the Parties as a consequence of implementing this MOU. 5. Legal Status 5.1. This document expresses the intentions of the Parties, but is not legally binding in any jurisdiction and does not give rise to any financial or other obligations of the Parties. 5.2. This MOU is not an exclusive arrangement between or among the Parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF: The Parties hereto have caused this Memorandum of Understanding to be executed by their duly authorized representatives on the day and year first set forth above. BRI-1382221v1 GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 36/120 SIGNED by AQUACULTURE STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL ____________________________ GLOBAL AQUACULTURE ALLIANCE ____________________________ GLOBALG.A.P. ______________________________ BRI-1382221v1 GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 37/120 BOARD BOARD MEETING 4 -5 5 JUNE 2013 PROPOSAL FOR CREATION OF A GLOBALG.A.P. PACKHOUSE STANDARD Scope: Pre-processing Handling of Plant Products. This excludes any processing of produce and by GLOBALG.A.P. definition therefore excludes alteration of structure of the product in appearance or form. This scope is equivalent to the D module of the GFSI Guidance Document. The D module is already included in the GLOBALG.A.P. Integrated Farm Assurance (IFA) and Produce Safety Standard (PSS) GFSI recognition. The current Control Points and Compliance Criteria included in the IFA and PSS that cover this module of GFSI are seen as covering the minimum requirements and retailers have indicated that they are interested in a separate standard for packhouses. In the USA, GLOBALG.A.P. has no competitive advantage above other schemes such as PrimusGFS or SQF. Both of the other standards are vertically integrated and offer producers a one-stop shop solution. In order for GLOBALG.A.P. to be the preferred standard offering a one-stop shop, we need to look at the market demands and see how we can have a fair share of the market. Under the new Food Safety Modernization Act it will also be requested from all packhouses that pack produce from any entity other than themselves to have controls in place. Implementing a GLOBALG.A.P. packhouse standard can help reduce the risk exposure. The scope will be limited to packing, no processing and it will remain the prerogative of the customer to demand BRC or IFS for the higher risk or larger operations. In addition, we can agree with IFS to offer this standard at a later stage or that only IFS trained auditors will be allowed to conduct these audits. Costco Wholesale specifically requires from their producers a separate audit of the packing operations – whether the packhouse is on farm or independent. They have requested that GLOBALG.A.P. develop a standard for this as well and if it could be based on the Harmonized Standard for Post Harvesting Operations (initiative from United Fresh where GLOBALG.A.P. participated) it would be a first for the USA. The Crops Technical Committee has approved the development of such a packhouse standard (initially non-accredited and used as trial in the USA). United Fresh has now indicated that SQF will apply to the GFSI for recognition of the Harmonized standards and once successful will once again be the leader in this market, despite GLOBALG.A.P.’s efforts for a market share. GLOBALG.A.P. has the ability to apply before SQF. Proposal: 1. For GLOBALG.A.P. to develop a separate standard for packhouses – “Harmonized PSS Post-harvest Operations.” 2. Apply for GFSI recognition of the Harmonized PSS - Post-harvest Operations as well as the Harmonized GG – Field Operations and Harvesting (GAP) standards. Both of the standards will be operated under the GLOBALG.A.P. General Regulations. Page 1 of 1 GLOBALG.A.P. c/o FoodPLUS GmbH Spichernstr. 55 | 50672 Cologne, Germany |[email protected] www.globalgap.org GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 38/120 BOARD BOARD MEETING 4 -5 JUNE 2013 GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD PROPOSAL GRASP OBSERVER FEES The Secretariat asks the Board for general advise. Shall GRASP activities be cross-financed by other income sources – or shall we raise the fees for producers and raise a new GRASP observer fee as additional contribution to finance administrational support and further developments. TABLE 1: GRASP COSTS ESTIMATION These costs are for base-line maintenance (per year), without additional awareness raising activities for producers. FoodPLUS Staff Amount Unit Database support 10 days 300 € 3.000 € Integrity Issues 10 days 500 € 5.000 € Crisis Management/NGO communication 10 days 500 € 5.000 € Marketing/retailer communication 10 days 500 € 5.000 € National Interpretation Guidelines administration 10 days 300 € 3.000 € Translation/Document control 10 days 300 € 3.000 € Organization of GRASP Auditor Trainings Cost per Unit Total Cost 5 days 300 € 1.500 € Technical support to CBs & producers 10 days 300 € 3.000 € Management of GRASP SHC 10 days 500 € 5.000 € 5 days 300 € 1.500 € 20 days 500 € 10.000 € CB Administration Consultants National Interpretation Guidelines review/update Additional new Guidelines (per year) 10.000 € 10.000 € Database Development 10 days 1 guideline 1.000 € 10.000 € Development of training material/templates for producers 20 days 500 € 10.000 € Other costs Printing, travel cost, meeting rooms, catering 15.000 € Total 90.000 € The GRASP assessment fees that are currently generated don’t cover the costs of further development and maintenance of GRASP. PROPOSAL 1: INTRODUCING A GRASP REGISTRATION FEE FOR PRODUCERS One idea would be to introduce a registration fee for producers who participate in GRASP The fees could be adapted once a sustainable funding is secured. TABLE 2: GRASP ASSESSMENT FEE TODAY VS. DIFFERENT FUTURE SCENARIOS OF AN ADDITIONAL PRODUCER REGISTRATION FEE N° Producers Producer Sum Reg Fee (Proposal) Assessment License Fee Total Fee Sum generated by GRASP Status Today (GRASP implementation data in April 2013) Option 1 Option 2 cert holder Option 2 member 233 25 € 5.825 € 25 € 5.825 € 49 130 € 6.370 € 130 € 6.370 € 820 1€ 820 € 1€ 13.015 € 820 € 13.015 € 26.030 € Page 1 of 2 GLOBALG.A.P. c/o FoodPLUS GmbH Spichernstr. 55 | 50672 Cologne, Germany |[email protected] www.globalgap.org GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 39/120 BOARD BOARD MEETING 4 -5 JUNE 2013 Scenario 1 (1/10 of all GLOBALG.A.P. IFA producers) – in 3 years Option 1 Option 2 cert holder Option 2 member 2700 25 € 67.500 € 25 € 67.500 € 170 130 € 22.100 € 130 € 22.100 € 8.000 1€ 8.000 € 1€ 97.600 € 8.000 € 97.600 € 195.200 € Scenario 2 (1/4 of all GLOBALG.A.P. IFA producers) – in 6 years Option 1 Option 2 cert holder Option 2 member 6.800 25 € 170.000 € 25 € 170.000 € 440 130 € 57.200 € 130 € 57.200 € 22.000 1€ 22.000 € 1€ 22.000 € 249.200 € 249.200 € 498.400 € Scenario 3 /1/2 of all GLOBALG.A.P. IFA Producers) – in 10 years Option 1 Option 2 cert Option 2 member 14000 25 € 350.000 € 25 € 350.000 € 900 130 € 117.000 € 130 € 117.000 € 42.000 1€ 42.000 € 1€ 509.000 € 42.000 € 509.000 € 1.018.000 € PROPOSAL 2: SIGN-UP FEE FOR GRASP OBSERVERS Some members of the GRASP Stakeholder Committees proposed to raise a fee for market participants who want to have access to the GRASP results in the database (GRASP Observers). The GLOBALG.A.P. Secretariat prepared the following a draft fee table: TABLE 3: PROPOSED SIGN-UP FEE FOR GRASP OBSERVERS Fee type GRASP Observer Fee for retailers & food service companies GRASP Observer Fee for Suppliers Applies to Retailer and foodservice members Exporter/Importer without production Amount Notes Annual turnover Fee ≤ € 5 Billion € 2500 > € 5 to 15 Billion € 3500 > € 15 Billion € 4500 Size related according to overall retail turnover per calendar year. If the retailer agrees, his logo will be shown on promotional material for GRASP. € 250 GRASP observer account set-up fee and the annual service fee for a bookmarking account (50€ – 500€ per year) The Secretariat suggests, that suppliers who sign up as GRASP observers automatically receive a bookmarking account. These suppliers should pay a one-time GRASP observer fee of only 250€ to cover the administrational costs. The reason for that is that suppliers have to monitor the demand from the retailers. There are many small suppliers for them a fee higher than one-time 250€ plus the respective bookmarking fee would be too high. Retailers would need to contribute with a one-time subscription fee to receive the GRASP Observer rights of 50% of their annual membership fee (depending on their turn over). Board Decision Request: Shall GRASP activities be cross-financed by other income sources – or shall we start the proposed Sign-up Fee for GRASP Observers and the additional registration fee for producers as additional contribution to finance administrational support and further developments? Page 2 of 2 GLOBALG.A.P. c/o FoodPLUS GmbH Spichernstr. 55 | 50672 Cologne, Germany |[email protected] www.globalgap.org GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 40/120 BOARD BOARD MEETING 4 – 5 JUNE 3013 CERTIFICATION BODY ADMINISTRATION | UPDATE 1. Overview Complexity of the CB Administration hoice aDershiP MANAGING COMPLEXITY GLOBALG.A.P.-IFA: crops (5), livestock(6), aqua (3); PPM, CFM, CoC, Animal transport, localg.a.p.: PSS, PFA (2); Add-ons: GRASP, AH residue protocol. + National Interpretation Guidelines (7), + Benchmarked Schemes (20) 23 (sub-)programs 33 Accreditation Bodies countries IFA 4.0 Crops Base: 124, Livestock: 15, Aquaculture: 18; Plant Propagation Material: 10, Chain of Custody: 12, GRASP (AddOn): 57, Compound Feed Manufacturing: 8, PFA: 2, PSS: 2.CB x program: 386, CB x country: 600 To be monitored, controlled, trained, registered, etc: ORMANCE 2. Overview of CBs per (sub)- scope Step 5+6 prov./final 134 Number of approved CBs 270 241 Number of CIPRO days 139 33 35 25 2 2010 Step 7 Number yellow card* in total 7 141 Integrated Farm Assurance Number of CBs 128 Crops Base in total IFA 4.0 113 7 Sub-scope Number of assessment with unacceptable and very low result Fruit and Vegetables 112 7 6 7 4 Flowers and Ornamentals 25 4 N° of CBs that canceled their license agreement bas consequence of CIPRO 2012 2011 Combinable Crops 38 3 Green Coffee 3 0 Tea 2 1 120 119 29 41 3 3 IFA 4.0 Livestock Base in total Sub-scope Pigs Cattle and Sheep Dairy Calf and Young Beef Turkey Poultry 11 3 14 5 9 7 1 2 7 2 2 1 0 1 3 7 11 8 1 3 10 IFA 4.0 Aquaculture Base in total 15 2 17 Confidential to GLOBALG.A.P. Board Page 1 of 2 GLOBALG.A.P. c/o FoodPLUS GmbH Spichernstr. 55 | 50672 Cologne, Germany |[email protected] www.globalgap.org GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 41/120 BOARD BOARD MEETING 4 – 5 JUNE 3013 Sub-scope Finfish Molluscs Crustaceans 15 13 14 2 2 2 17 15 16 Standard/Scheme Chain of Custody Version 4.0 Compounf Feed Manufacturing Standard 2.0 Plant Propagation Material 2.0 GRASP Version 1.0 Primary Farm Assurance (PFA) Produce Safety Standard (PSS) Albert Heijn Protocol for residues Version 2.0 15 10 9 57 3 4 32 0 0 1 5 0 0 1 15 10 10 62 3 4 33 * Please note: No "red card" is issued at the moment for any GLOBALG.A.P. CB 3. Results from an online Survey with our CBs 56 CBs participated in the survey Confidential to GLOBALG.A.P. Board Page 2 of 2 GLOBALG.A.P. c/o FoodPLUS GmbH Spichernstr. 55 | 50672 Cologne, Germany |[email protected] www.globalgap.org GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 42/120 BOARD BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 GLOBALG.A.P. Benchmarking Version 4 Confidential to GLOBALG.A.P. Board Interested in GFSI Recognition GFSI recognized Recognition GLOBALG.A.P. Review Benchmark Committee On-site Assessment Peer Review Technical Review Application Sub-scopes(s) Country Standard OVERVIEW GLOBALG.A.P. (RE)BENCHMARKING STATUS Page 1 of 2 GLOBALG.A.P. c/o FoodPLUS GmbH Spichernstr. 55 | 50672 Cologne, Germany |[email protected] www.globalgap.org GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 43/120 BOARD BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 Applicants Not applied Primus GFS Applied SQF CanadaGAP Status 21 May 2013 Situation on 21 May 2013 CERTIFICATION STATISTICS FOR BENCHMARKED SCHEMES: Name of the standard BANAG.A.P MÉXICO G.A.P. AMAG.A.P. QS-GAP SwissGAP Hortikultur ThaiGAP KFC Silver Standard KENYAGAP MPS-GAP NATURANE RT Fresh Produce Certified Natural Meat Program (CNMPU) UNE155000 CHINAGAP ChileG.A.P. Florverde Sustainable Flowers (FSF) IKB Varken IP SIGILL GAP New Zealand GAP Sum Number of certificates 114 145 1.712 5.591 50 5 33 1 185 27 7 Number of producers 114 150 1.712 5.591 50 5 33 1 185 4029 7 3 61 63 23 24 4.274 1 81 12.400 3 6.558 64 23 69 4.274 1 81 22.950 Status: 30 April 2013 Confidential to GLOBALG.A.P. Board Page 2 of 2 GLOBALG.A.P. c/o FoodPLUS GmbH Spichernstr. 55 | 50672 Cologne, Germany |[email protected] www.globalgap.org GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 44/120 CIPRO Management Report 2012 Code Ref.: CIPRO-2013-1 Version: 20MAY2013 Page: 1 of 21 CIPRO MANAGEMENT REPORT 2012 CONFIDENTIAL: For Board members only. Not for release to third parties. Confidential to GLOBALG.A.P. Board Page 1 of 21 GLOBALG.A.P. c/o FoodPLUS GmbH Spichernstr. 55 | 50672 Cologne, Germany |[email protected] www.globalgap.org GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 45/120 CIPRO Management Report 2012 Code Ref.: CIPRO-2013-1 Version: 20MAY2013 Page: 2 of 21 Index 1! SCOPE ..................................................................................................................................... 3! 2! Overall Aim ............................................................................................................................... 3! 3! CIPRO Activities in 2012 .......................................................................................................... 3! 3.1! Assessment*per*Sub0scope*...............................................................................................................*4! 3.2! Producer*Assessments*......................................................................................................................*4! 3.2.1! ISC*–*CIPRO*Assessments*...........................................................................................................*6! 3.2.2! Targeted*CIPRO*Assessments*....................................................................................................*7! 3.2.3! Random*–*CIPRO*Assessments*..................................................................................................*8! 3.3! Producer*Assessments*per*Scheme*..................................................................................................*9! 3.4! Assessments*per*CB*........................................................................................................................*10! 3.5! Producer*inspection*........................................................................................................................*10! 4! GLOBALG.A.P. CIPRO ASSESSMENT OUTCOME ............................................................. 12! 4.1! Office*Assessments*.........................................................................................................................*12! 4.2! Producer*Assessment*Outcome*......................................................................................................*14! 5! CB CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM .................................................................................. 15! 6! STRATEGIC COOPERATIONS ............................................................................................. 16! 6.1! IFS*...................................................................................................................................................*16! 6.2! International*Sustainability*and*Carbon*Certification*(ISCC)*..........................................................*16! 7! Assessor Team ....................................................................................................................... 17! 8! The Integrity Surveillance committee ..................................................................................... 17! 9! FOLLOW-UP 2013 ................................................................................................................. 17! 10! CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................................... 18! 11! PROPOSAL FOR 2013 .......................................................................................................... 20! Annex 1.! Assessors Qualification and Capacity ...................................................................... 21! Confidential to GLOBALG.A.P. Board Page 2 of 21 GLOBALG.A.P. c/o FoodPLUS GmbH Spichernstr. 55 | 50672 Cologne, Germany |[email protected] www.globalgap.org GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 46/120 Code Ref.: CIPRO-2013-1 CIPRO Management Report 2012 1 Version: 20MAY2013 Page: 3 of 21 SCOPE This document describes the activities conducted by the Certification Integrity Program (CIPRO) in 2012. 2 Overall Aim The activities carried out in 2012 continue and complement the plan established in 2011, and have moved further to new schemes, to new regions and to new activities. In particular, the Integrity Team has addressed the following targets: 1. Check the improvement of CBs via re-assessments of CB offices and producers based on ISC decisions and targeted assessments to CB Offices and producers, 2. Implementation of On-site Assessments for the benchmarking schemes against IFA V4.0, 3. Continued training of version 4. via multiple global training sessions for In-house Trainers, Scheme Managers and CB Auditors, 4. Continued investigating MRL exceedances submitted by retailers, 5. Continued investigating complaints, 6. Continued with the Integrity Program for International Sustainability and Carbon Certification (ISCC). 3 CIPRO Activities in 2012 For 2012 the plan was to conduct a maximum of 300 assessment days following the 2011 recommendations by the Board’s Integrity Policy Committee. During 2012 the on-going assessment process has been continued and was concluded with 297 assessments. These assessments involved 15 CB office assessments, 267 Producer assessments, 10 assessments for the validation of the on-site benchmarking process of 7 Schemes, and 3 days of integrity assessments for ISCC. Table 1. Integrity Assessments, Activity 2012 Integrity Assessment CB Office Assessment Producer Assessment OSA (benchmarking) ISCC Total Unit 15 267 10 5 297 One Assessment Unit is: one CB office assessment (could take 1 or 2 days) or an option 1 producer assessment or an option 2 producer group member Assessment or an option 2 producer group QMS assessment or an option 2 producer group Packinghouse assessment. The assessments carried out in 2012 were aiming to meet the targets of the Board’s Integrity Policy Committee: involving more Benchmarked Schemes activities (e.g. On-site assessments – OSA) and an increased presence in regions that pose higher risks (where GLOBALG.A.P. is a new concept). The CIPRO assessments were arranged as follows: Confidential to GLOBALG.A.P. Board Page 3 of 21 GLOBALG.A.P. c/o FoodPLUS GmbH Spichernstr. 55 | 50672 Cologne, Germany |[email protected] www.globalgap.org GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 47/120 Code Ref.: CIPRO-2013-1 CIPRO Version: 20MAY2013 Management Report 2012 3.1 Page: 4 of 21 Assessment per Sub-scope The largest number of certified producers are in the Fruit & Vegetables sub-scope, and consequently 98% of the assessments were done in this sector. The Aquaculture scope was monitored with 2% of the producer assessments. CIPRO continued evaluating the aqua CBs before the impact of their performance could affect a high number of producers. This is also the case for critical regions (e.g. Aquaculture in Vietnam). Table 2. Producer Assessment per Sub-scope Producer Assessment Unit Aquaculture (AQ) Fruit and Vegetables (FV) Total 3.2 % 2% 98% 5 262 267 Producer Assessments Thirty-two (32) different countries have been visited for CIPRO activities during 2012. Graph 1, CIPRO Producer Assessments per Country, 267 days. United States, 26 Germany, 26 Turkey, 31 Greece, 20 Australia, 1 Sweden, 2 Japan, 2 France, 14 Chile, 2 Switzerland, 3 Netherlands, 3 Ireland, 3 Argentina, 4 India, 13 Spain, 13 Thailand, 5 Slovenia, 5 Costa Rica, 5 Bosnia and Herzegovina, 12 China, 5 Serbia, 6 Colombia, 11 Israel, 6 Czech Republic, 6 Vietnam, 7 Poland, 10 Italy, 8 Kenya, Hungary, 7 7 Cyprus, Croatia, 7 7 Mexico, 8 Most of the 2012 CIPRO assessments were focused in Turkey, Germany, United States, Greece, France, India and Spain, with 143 of assessments. This is the equivalent of approx. 50% of the total Confidential to GLOBALG.A.P. Board Page 4 of 21 GLOBALG.A.P. c/o FoodPLUS GmbH Spichernstr. 55 | 50672 Cologne, Germany |[email protected] www.globalgap.org GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 48/120 Code Ref.: CIPRO-2013-1 CIPRO Management Report 2012 Version: 20MAY2013 Page: 5 of 21 assessment days. These assessments were based on ISC sanctions (i.e.: follow up), targeted (e.g.: MRL’s exceedance complaints) or random (e.g.: normal surveillance). The assessments have been categorized by the following types: 1. ISC decision: re-assessment of the CB Office or producer based on ISC sanction, 2. Targeted: assessments planned on base of complaints; e.g. MRL’s exceedance, external complaints received where credible and sound evidence has been collected, 3. Random: assessment of CB office and/or Producers randomly selected, based on surveillance program. Table 3. Category of CIPRO assessment Type of Assessment ISC Random Targeted Unit % 85 117 83 30% 41% 30% Total of 285 unit, includes CB Office assessments. A good balance of the number of assessments per category of CIPRO assessment has been achieved. The ideal level per category is 33,33% in each category but the final result varies depending on the number of reassessments requested by ISC, complaints received and the balance of incoming and outgoing CBs. Graph 2, Categories of CIPRO Assessments, (CB Office and Producer Assessment, 282 units) ISC 30% Targeted 29% Random 41% Confidential to GLOBALG.A.P. Board Page 5 of 21 GLOBALG.A.P. c/o FoodPLUS GmbH Spichernstr. 55 | 50672 Cologne, Germany |[email protected] www.globalgap.org GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 49/120 CIPRO Management Report 2012 Code Ref.: CIPRO-2013-1 Version: 20MAY2013 Page: 6 of 21 Graph 3 Producer Assessment Outcome ISC Random Targeted Total Class. 2 3 19% 7 44% 6 38% 16 Class. 3 57 29% 83 42% 56 29% 196 Class. 4 19 40% 17 35% 12 25% 48 Class. 5 4 67% 2 33% 6 The 2012 outcome at producer level is mainly classification 3. To evaluate this you need to take into account the following: • • • • Classification 4 is at a “good” and “acceptable” level (note: classification 5 means that the CB exceeds the GLOBALG.A.P requirements). Classification 3 often derives from an administrative mistake of the CB office (e.g. inaccurate farm date registration) even if the field performance of the CB was good. CIPRO assessors do not accept partial compliance (CBs market pressure) In classification 3, no critical issues are detected that could affect food safety (e.g. inventory out of date). 3.2.1 ISC – CIPRO Assessments The ISC re-assessments are aimed to verify CB improvement after ISC sanction. A CB could be reassessed several times and it could be in multiple countries. The largest numbers of ISC reassessments were done in Germany, where 7 CBs were involved. The Confidential to GLOBALG.A.P. Board Page 6 of 21 GLOBALG.A.P. c/o FoodPLUS GmbH Spichernstr. 55 | 50672 Cologne, Germany |[email protected] www.globalgap.org GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 50/120 CIPRO Management Report 2012 Code Ref.: CIPRO-2013-1 Version: 20MAY2013 Page: 7 of 21 outcome obtained range from 2,5 to 4. This number does not reflect the country level, but refers to the problematic CBs. Graph 4, ISC - CIPRO Assessments, (total 75 units) The re-assessments for the ISC follow-up have been implemented in 17 countries. The number of assessments per country is related to the number of CBs present in it. Classification 3 was the most frequent outcome, and only a few cases haven’t implemented efficient corrective actions, thus further surveillance is needed to push improvements and monitor the achievement of an acceptable classification 4. The main problems have been individual interpretations of CB inspectors/auditors of the GLOBALG.A.P. control points. This includes the new control points as well as the superficial verification of the relevant documents and production procedures. Only exceptional cases have been critical, based on the large numbers of non-compliance observed and seriousness of the incidence. It is important to highlight that almost a quarter of the CBs have been able to make progress and reach classification 4. Those CBs where the country classification was below 3 become critical. All CIPRO reports in this category are forwarded to the ISC for evaluation. 3.2.2 Targeted CIPRO Assessments For targeted CIPRO assessments, the reason is specific for each CB and country. United States and Turkey received more intensive CIPRO in 2012. In the United States all CBs were targeted. The objective of CIPRO was to measure the general level and collect the typical problems for the country. In the case of Turkey, multiple assessments have been performed in the past with a low performance and ISC has issued several sanctions. After improvement has been observed, some CBs were kept under targeted surveillance. Confidential to GLOBALG.A.P. Board Page 7 of 21 GLOBALG.A.P. c/o FoodPLUS GmbH Spichernstr. 55 | 50672 Cologne, Germany |[email protected] www.globalgap.org GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 51/120 CIPRO Management Report 2012 Code Ref.: CIPRO-2013-1 Version: 20MAY2013 Page: 8 of 21 Graph 5, Targeted - CIPRO Assessment, (total 75 units) The targeted assessment has been effective to detect critical cases, e.g. classification 2 and 3 is higher than ISC assessments. These cases are forwarded to the ISC for review and additional surveillance is planned. The 18% percent of cases found in classification 4 & 5 does not reflect a failure in the investigation process of complaints, as different CB inspector/auditors are sampled, different certification Options chosen, different region, etc. to have a better overview of the CB. It is relevant to notice no classification 1 has been found. 3.2.3 Random – CIPRO Assessments Random assessments are planned for CB surveillance and are oriented for the monitoring of overall performance. In total 117 assessments were done in this category (41%). The average classification is slightly above #3. Confidential to GLOBALG.A.P. Board Page 8 of 21 GLOBALG.A.P. c/o FoodPLUS GmbH Spichernstr. 55 | 50672 Cologne, Germany |[email protected] www.globalgap.org GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 52/120 CIPRO Management Report 2012 Code Ref.: CIPRO-2013-1 Version: 20MAY2013 Page: 9 of 21 Graph 6, Random - ISC Assessment, (109 units) Random assessments are done to monitor CB performance; 40 CBs were verified in 23 countries. The outcome of almost 20% with classification 4&5 is very good, meaning Producers and CBs are following GLOBALG.A.P. requirements at all times. Again, classification 3 has been the higher number; the few cases that were below it will be followed. No classification 1 has been found. 3.3 Producer Assessments per Scheme In 2012 seven (applicant) benchmarked schemes were assessed on-site in the frame of the rebenchmarking process. The new version of the IFA V4.0 has been introduced and the Benchmarking Regulation was approved in 2012. A new activity has been introduced in the benchmarking process for the review: On-site Assessment (OSA). In this process the scheme owner organizes an assessment where GLOBALG.A.P. witnesses the inspection performed by a CB using the BMS checklist and compare criteria. Previously the BMS went through a technical review. Based on the outcome of OSA, BMS could have to go through a technical review or follow the BMS approval procedure. Confidential to GLOBALG.A.P. Board Page 9 of 21 GLOBALG.A.P. c/o FoodPLUS GmbH Spichernstr. 55 | 50672 Cologne, Germany |[email protected] www.globalgap.org GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 53/120 CIPRO Management Report 2012 Table 4. Version: 20MAY2013 Page: 10 of 21 Benchmarked Scheme - OSA assessment On Site Assessment MEXICOGAP JAPANGAP THAIGAP KENIAGAP KFC FLORVERDE CHILEGAP Total 3.4 Code Ref.: CIPRO-2013-1 Days 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 10 Assessments per CB Sixty-five (65) different CBs have been audited in 2012, of a total of 140. Most of them received 1 or 2 assessments, but there were some CBs where the CIPRO activities were targeted and received up to 16 assessments. 3.5 Producer inspection The 267 producer inspections in 2012 have been done to 133 producers certified in individual certification and 85 were assessed as Producer member of a Producer Group (not included: QMS audits, which represents 49 QMS audits). The outcome reached in both types of certification option can be seen in Graph 7. Large numbers of producers with low and critical performance (classification 2) were observed within Producer Member of Groups. A higher number of producers with classification 5 was also detected. This could be explained by the access to qualified assessors. It is expected that Producer Groups have the capacity to hire professionals with a good level of education and experience to support producers in technical aspects. Good performance level (classification 4) was similar in both cases, individual producer and producer member has no significant difference. Producers that need some improvements (classification 3) were significantly higher within individual producers. This could be explained by the independency of the growers compared to Producer Member, where the QMS controls more often (internal inspection) and a sanctioning system is implemented (follow up of corrective actions within a time frame). Confidential to GLOBALG.A.P. Board Page 10 of 21 GLOBALG.A.P. c/o FoodPLUS GmbH Spichernstr. 55 | 50672 Cologne, Germany |[email protected] www.globalgap.org GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 54/120 CIPRO Management Report 2012 Code Ref.: CIPRO-2013-1 Version: 20MAY2013 Page: 11 of 21 Graph 7. Producer inspection by certification Option Something that needs to be highlighted is the representativeness of the results. The total number of assessments done to producer members was less than Individual Producers (85 and 133 accordingly) but Producer Member results reflect the reality of greater numbers of producers, thus more monitoring is needed to have a representative overview. In the case of Individual producers, the issues are related to administrative findings (e.g. accuracy of producer information, production surface, uploading information to GLOBALG.A.P. database, etc.) and findings related to the field inspection (e.g. incomplete records, produce handling process excluded, timing of inspection, etc.). See Graph 8 Performance in producer inspections is related to the inspection process rather than administrative issues. For CBs, it is easier to improve internal process and documents at the office than to improve the quality of the inspection, where the inspector/auditor needs internal training, shadow assessments, etc. Confidential to GLOBALG.A.P. Board Page 11 of 21 GLOBALG.A.P. c/o FoodPLUS GmbH Spichernstr. 55 | 50672 Cologne, Germany |[email protected] www.globalgap.org GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 55/120 Code Ref.: CIPRO-2013-1 CIPRO Management Report 2012 Version: 20MAY2013 Page: 12 of 21 Graph 8, Producer inspection outcome on Administrative and inspection findings (total 267 of units, 2012) 4 GLOBALG.A.P. CIPRO ASSESSMENT OUTCOME The result obtained during the 2012 assessments does not represent the average performance of all the approved CBs, as they were heavily targeting the CBs with known or suspected problems. In this respect, the activities are highly influenced by the Integrity Surveillance Committee (ISC), who decides the number, type and location of re-assessments to be done to each CB presented for their evaluation (an ISC trial). Table 5. Year 2009 2010 2011 2012 ISC Decisions Reassessment days 83,5 92,5 89 146 1st Warning 2nd Warning Yellow Card Red Card Cancellation 6 7 6 10 3 3 2 6 2 5 7 1 - 1 - The Integrity Surveillance Committee (ISC) had 2 physical meetings (face-to-face) and 2 teleconferences in 2012 and evaluated 37 CBs (26% of total). Please note that not all the assessed CBs are forwarded to the ISC, because many of them (28 out of 65) have achieved an acceptable level of performance. 4.1 Office Assessments The number of office assessments has been continuously decreasing since CIPRO began. In the first two years it was necessary to evaluate all the CBs in their offices to create maximum impact. Confidential to GLOBALG.A.P. Board Page 12 of 21 GLOBALG.A.P. c/o FoodPLUS GmbH Spichernstr. 55 | 50672 Cologne, Germany |[email protected] www.globalgap.org GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 56/120 Code Ref.: CIPRO-2013-1 CIPRO Management Report 2012 Version: 20MAY2013 Page: 13 of 21 While some of the CBs were receiving their first office assessment, re-assessments were already started in 2009 for those CBs that had shown lower performance. CB office re-assessments have been carried out with a reduced number due to a decrease in administrative mistakes. Table 6. Number of CIPRO CB Office Assessments conducted Office Assessments Re-assessments % Re-assessments 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 73 - 48 13 27% 22 19 86% 16 10 63% 15 6 40% The improvement of the CBs can be seen in the following graphs, which shows the results obtained by CBs in consecutive office assessments. Graph 1. Evolution of re-assessed CBs (Classification: #1 very bad - # 4 good). Not all CBs have received a third assessment. As it can be seen, in the first assessment 30% showed unacceptable performance (class. #1 and class. #2), while this was reduced to a 28% in the second assessment and to 0% in the third one. Nevertheless, about 70% of them are in #3, which means that these CBs still have to achieve some improvements and close outstanding issues to reach an acceptable level. These re-assessments have led to one cancellation and one suspension (Red Card) by the ISC. Several other CBs did not wait until being sanctioned and terminated the contract beforehand as they found themselves not able to reach the level demanded. The improvement done by the CBs is evident. It is very important to continue with the CB office assessments to encourage newly approved CBs and existing CBs to maintain their performance. Confidential to GLOBALG.A.P. Board Page 13 of 21 GLOBALG.A.P. c/o FoodPLUS GmbH Spichernstr. 55 | 50672 Cologne, Germany |[email protected] www.globalgap.org GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 57/120 Code Ref.: CIPRO-2013-1 CIPRO Management Report 2012 Version: 20MAY2013 Page: 14 of 21 The initial assessments are more representative of the average performance of all the approved CBs, because it was in those years (2008-2009) when all the CBs were audited. After the second Assessment an average performance of the approved CBs cannot be shown (2010 and 2011) because the assessments were targeting the known, low performing CBs. Year 2010 and 2011 show the results of the first assessments to new CBs and first re-assessments to CBs with low results. Year 2012 #3 was slightly reduced to 73%, but it is still high. Good performance has been obtained and 27% of the CB offices are performing according to GR and CPCC. 4.2 Producer Assessment Outcome The following graphs show the results of the CIPRO audits carried out at producer level through the years. It must be taken into account that the results obtained in one year cannot be compared to the ones obtained in following years, because not always the same CBs and same countries are selected. More precisely, these are some of the side factors that influence the CB results at producer level: - Producer’s professionalism: it is more difficult to detect bad auditing in those cases when a developed producer complies with the standard at a high level. - Geography: usually the level of a CB is similar in a given country. At the same time the CB sometimes has a very good performance in one country, but poor in another due to the geographic influence. - Auditors/Inspectors: The producer assessment evaluates the performance of one single inspector. Although the CB has influence on this individual through trainings, there is a cultural and personal background that also influences the auditor performance. In any case, the following graph shows the results obtained by the CBs at producer level per year. Graph 2. Classifications obtained on Producer Level (%) Note: Classification #1 very bad classification # 5 very good) Confidential to GLOBALG.A.P. Board Page 14 of 21 GLOBALG.A.P. c/o FoodPLUS GmbH Spichernstr. 55 | 50672 Cologne, Germany |[email protected] www.globalgap.org GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 58/120 CIPRO Management Report 2012 Code Ref.: CIPRO-2013-1 Version: 20MAY2013 Page: 15 of 21 In 2012 a significant improvement is observed compared to 2011 as only 6% producers were found in poor performance with classification #2, and 20% of producers reached classification #4 and #5 (optimal level!). The number of producers found with a level that is not critical and not fully in compliance with certification requirement has been increased, 74% of producers reached classification 3. This could be explained by: • Producers were less prepared for CIPRO inspections because it is not a certification inspection. • CBs accepted partial evidence for compliance. • Administrative mistakes were made during the certification process by the CB office (e.g.: registration, database accuracy, etc.). Graph 3. Results obtained in 2012 and location of classification #2 Class #2 (Classification #1 very bad- classification # 5 very good) As it has been mentioned above, the yearly results are not comparable with each other because they do not correspond to the same CB, but the graphs above show that there are still a number issues to solve. It is important to continue the CIPRO activities, not only in those countries and for those CBs that have shown lower performance, but also in those others that have also shown a better performance. The combination of the targeted and the random assessment is crucial to tackle these situations. 5 CB CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM Building capacity and training for the CBs is a preventive action that must harmonize the interpretations among the CBs and therefore, improve the integrity of the certificates. Confidential to GLOBALG.A.P. Board Page 15 of 21 GLOBALG.A.P. c/o FoodPLUS GmbH Spichernstr. 55 | 50672 Cologne, Germany |[email protected] www.globalgap.org GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 59/120 Code Ref.: CIPRO-2013-1 CIPRO Management Report 2012 Version: 20MAY2013 Page: 16 of 21 The Integrity Assessors have intensively participated in the development of training material, conducting trainings for all GLOBALG.A.P. auditors, scheme managers and in-house trainers, and reporting to the Secretariat the feedback received from the participants. The Capacity Building Program, designed to address the most challenging situations, makes it necessary that CBs participate in the following events: Type of training Objective Who When QMS Auditor Training Eliminate mistakes when auditing QMS, addressing the difficulties of auditing a Producer Group (and Option 1 multisite) All 600+ CB auditors Once per version In-House Trainer Training (IHT) Capacitate a person within the CB who transfers the knowledge to the CB auditor and inspectors in compulsory internal trainings. 150+ CB Staff responsible for the internal training of auditors and inspectors. Once per scope and version Scheme Manager Update Training (SMU) Inform the CB staff responsible for the management of the GLOBALG.A.P., Clarification of the changes introduced. Scheme rules update. 135+ Managers Annually Scheme In total, the following trainings have been given in 2012: 6 6.1 • Option 2 Auditor Training (1 day course): 15 training days for more than 140 CB auditor participants, • In-House Trainer Training (2 days course): 20 training days for 13 participants in aquaculture, 37 participants for crops and 2 participants for livestock, • Scheme Manager Update Training (2 days course), 140 participants, • Public Trainings (2 days course), 120 participants. STRATEGIC COOPERATIONS IFS At the moment we have put on hold the services provided for IFS. 6.2 International Sustainability and Carbon Certification (ISCC) Since the second half of 2010 an agreement with the International Sustainability and Carbon Certification system has been implemented. This scheme stands for the certification of biomass and bioenergy and is oriented towards: reduction of greenhouse gas emissions; sustainable use of land; protection of natural biospheres; and social sustainability. The CIPRO Team has developed the Integrity Manual for ISCC and two assessors have been trained to conduct ISCC audits. The implementation of the ISCC Integrity Program is completed and 5 on-site audits were performed in 2012 (Poland, US, France and Netherland). Confidential to GLOBALG.A.P. Board Page 16 of 21 GLOBALG.A.P. c/o FoodPLUS GmbH Spichernstr. 55 | 50672 Cologne, Germany |[email protected] www.globalgap.org GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 60/120 CIPRO Management Report 2012 Code Ref.: CIPRO-2013-1 Version: 20MAY2013 Page: 17 of 21 The cooperation with the ISCC will require an average of 5 days per year and gives GLOBALG.A.P. the opportunity to extend the integrity activities horizontally into different sectors. 7 Assessor Team The structure of the CIPRO Team has been changed in 2012: • • • Two CIPRO assessors have reduced the number of assessments days as they are performing additional tasks in GLOBALG.A.P. (e.g. Benchmarking approval process and MRL’s complaint) Aquaculture CIPRO Assessor; a new part time person is in training (2013) to replace Mr. Velasco. Fruit and Vegetables CIPRO assessor; a new part time person is in training (2013) to compensate for the lost capacity. The overall capacity (man-days) of the team was not increased. The future structure guarantees the integrity activities in all scopes and recognized standards. It includes a German native speaker that will help with the high number of CIPRO assessments in Germany. With the present capacity the integrity team is able to conduct a maximum of 300 assessment and/or training days per year. 8 The Integrity Surveillance committee Relevant change has been introduced; the Chairman Ms. Schimd was replaced with Peter Scheffeldt. Mr. Scheffeldt is a former AB member. Integrity Surveillance Committee Members: • CHAIR: Peter Scheffeldt • RETAIL representative: Miroslav Maziarka – Tesco (Poland) • RETAIL representative: Aldin Hilbrands - Ahold (NL) • PRODUCER representative: Nick Ball - (UK) • PRODUCER representative: Bruno Magallo Huesa – Satfrutsol (SPAIN) • PUBLIC SECTOR representative: CNCA, China (observer, non-voting) The CNCA representative has not participated in the ISC meeting since 2011. 9 FOLLOW-UP 2013 Having accomplished the targets for 2012, we need to implement the target of 280-300 assessment days, which implies that we need to continue working on the re-evaluation of CBs with lower performance to guarantee that they are implementing the necessary corrective measures or to Confidential to GLOBALG.A.P. Board Page 17 of 21 GLOBALG.A.P. c/o FoodPLUS GmbH Spichernstr. 55 | 50672 Cologne, Germany |[email protected] www.globalgap.org GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 61/120 CIPRO Management Report 2012 Code Ref.: CIPRO-2013-1 Version: 20MAY2013 Page: 18 of 21 remove them from the GLOBALG.A.P. system. So, the main task in the next months will be to enforce the decisions of the Integrity Surveillance Committee. We shall continue with the new training program for version 4 and continue with the benchmarked schemes in the Integrity Program and support the on-site assessments (OSA) as part of the approval process of the benchmarked scheme. The Aquaculture, Livestock and Chain of Custody scopes will continue to be part of the assessments in 2013. We will follow-up with new CBs in the GLOBALG.A.P. system and those who have not received both types of CIPRO assessments yet. 10 CONCLUSIONS We have achieved the target number of assessments planned for 2012 and the outcome of these activities represents progress in the overall system. Through the years improvement has occurred, as we have been able to identify and target the low performing CBs and critical regions. However, we need to keep up random surveillance processes and continuously monitor the CBs. The accreditation to ISO 65 is necessary, but alone it is not sufficient and not specific enough for our needs. In the past years we were narrowing down our target group and systematically following-up low performing CBs. This is one of the reasons our assessment does not show always substantial improvement. Through the re-assessments, some poor performing CBs decided to leave GLOBALG.A.P. certification to avoid harder sanctioning from ISC. The Integrity Program achieved significant impact and now is widely accepted among CBs. It has also driven change in the structure of some of the biggest CBs that aims for more control of local staff and improved results. The response time for CIPRO assessments has also been improved. Internal capacity building CIPRO functions as a ‘training camp’ for building up GLOBALG.A.P.’s internal competence. The CIPRO assessors are also responsible for other tasks e.g.: trainings, projects and development work. None of them are doing assessments only. The Integrity Program is getting more and more diversified by interacting, merging and being coresponsible with/for other activities. The range of tasks and activities the integrity team is involved in: • • • • • CB performance monitoring, Standard development, validation and calibration, National Interpretation Guidelines. Training, Benchmarking: in the frame of the new v4 Benchmarking, Producer CIPRO assessors have the task to conduct the comparison of the normative document and conduct on-site assessment of the applicant schemes (OSA), Complaint handling, Confidential to GLOBALG.A.P. Board Page 18 of 21 GLOBALG.A.P. c/o FoodPLUS GmbH Spichernstr. 55 | 50672 Cologne, Germany |[email protected] www.globalgap.org GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 62/120 Code Ref.: CIPRO-2013-1 CIPRO Management Report 2012 • • • • Version: 20MAY2013 Page: 19 of 21 Crisis management, MRL exceedance follow up, Database accuracy validation, Services to third parties: IFS, ISCC, Recalibration of V4 The version 4 standard brought several new issues to be implemented at CB level and at farm level. The feedback about the ’field performance’ of the new v4 normative documents shall be collected and analysed. When necessary, all the updates need to be issued in a new v4.1 and minor adjustment has been published in version 4.0-2 already. The changes introduced in the new version 4 might require the number of office audits be increased to ensure the proper adoption of the new issues by the CBs. Special attention shall be paid to the monitoring of the implementation of parallel production, GGN labeling and the mass-balance requirements. Screening the market again In 2008 and 2009 we have assessed all the CBs with producer and with CB office assessments. In 2010 and 2011 the office assessments were mainly due to ISC decisions and investigations. Consequently, there are many CBs who received their last CB office assessment in 2008. There is a rational need to start again a full cycle of assessment for all the CBs (CB office and producer assessment) in 2012 & 2013, in addition to the already foreseen follow-up assessment. !"#$%&'(()((*)+,&!-./)&011230145& 5113501&67-(&8)9&-)79& 5113501&67-(&8)9&-)79& Setting up the Program 0:130;1&67-(&8)9&-)79& Planed: Random 100% Random <100% Random ±15% Random 15% Random 30% Follow-up 20% Targeted 50% Mainly targeted and re-assessment 1st Screen of the market Assesment of 100% of CB’s. 2st Screen of the market Assesment of 100% of CB’s. The 280-300 days will be used for: 1. 2. 3. 4. Follow up previous results/implement ISC sanctions Screen the market by assessing 100% of CBs in the office and on the field by the end of 2013. Carry out approximately 30% of random assessments Calibration of the implementation of IFA version 4. Confidential to GLOBALG.A.P. Board Page 19 of 21 GLOBALG.A.P. c/o FoodPLUS GmbH Spichernstr. 55 | 50672 Cologne, Germany |[email protected] www.globalgap.org GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 63/120 CIPRO Management Report 2012 Code Ref.: CIPRO-2013-1 Version: 20MAY2013 Page: 20 of 21 The communication to the public and with the CBs needs to be improved to raise awareness. The time frame between the CIPRO assessment and feedback to the CB from GLOBALG.A.P about the CB performance needs to be shortened. A CB specific report as feedback to the CB after a certain number of CIPRO assessments (Office and Producer), including the critical findings and a comparison to their peers (anonymous), shall be developed. 11 PROPOSAL FOR 2013 • • • • • • • • The 280-300 assessment shall include a sample of all CBs, where they should be reviewed through the re-assessment of certified producers and/or in their Office. Keeping in balance ± 33% random, ± 33% targeted and ± 33% ISC follow up. Producer Groups will be more targeted and we will increase the sample of producer members where possible. Improve feedback to CBs after CIPRO assessment outcome is received, this should include critical findings. Calibration of V4 among CIPRO assessors, based on 2012 findings Signing off of 2 new CIPRO assessors for Aquaculture and Crops scopes. Fast track to the ISC those poor performing CBs. Improve CIPRO processes for the follow up of complaints (e.g. MRL’s exceedance) Update CIPRO documents used. Confidential to GLOBALG.A.P. Board Page 20 of 21 GLOBALG.A.P. c/o FoodPLUS GmbH Spichernstr. 55 | 50672 Cologne, Germany |[email protected] www.globalgap.org GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 64/120 Code Ref.: CIPRO-2013-1 CIPRO Management Report 2012 Version: 20MAY2013 Page: 21 of 21 Annex 1. ASSESSORS QUALIFICATION AND CAPACITY Assessor Type of Subassessment Scope Availability (1) Base Language Daniel Catrón CB Office + Producers F&V Full-time staff Chile Spanish, English. CB Office + Producers F&V, LS Uruguay Spanish, English, Italian, German, Portuguese Integrity Assessor & coordinator Heidi Gremminger Part time Integrity Assessor. Support the management of the Integrity Program. Integrity Assessor Andras Fekete Full-time staff Part time Integrity Assessor. Support Benchmarking process CB Office + Producers F&V, FO, Tea Full-time management, no assessments Hungary Hungarian, English CB Office + Producers F&V, LS Part-time staff Uruguay Spanish, English, Italian, Portuguese CB Office + Producers F&V, CC Full-time employee, part time assessor. Left integrity in Sep 2011. Spain Spanish, English Nadine Becker Integrity Office Support - - Part-time Support Germany English, German Joachim Banzhaf Producers Crops Part-time Integrity Assessor Germany German, English, French Nazario Muñoz CB Office + Producers F&V, CC Part-time Integrity Assessor Spain Spanish, English, French, Italian, Portuguese Kliment Petrov CB Office F&V Part-time Integrity Assessor Germany Bulgarian, French, English Mario Velasco Producers + Chain of Custody AQ, CoC Will leave the CIPRO team and is training Fréderic Millet Puerto Rico Spanish, English Vasilis Stamatis Producers F&V Full-time Integrity Assessor Greece Greek, English Frèderic Millet Producers AQ, CoC In training process. Will perform Aquaculture CIPRO assessments and trainings. Ecuador French, English, Spanish, Portuguese and Italian Manager Integrity Fernando Mietto Ignacio Antequera Benchmarking Part time Integrity Assessor. Reduce number of assessments Part-time Integrity Assessor Lasse Joussen Producers+ Chain of Custody Confidential to GLOBALG.A.P. Board F&V In training process. Will perform FV Germany CIPRO assessments. German, English Part-time Integrity Assessor Page 21 of 21 GLOBALG.A.P. c/o FoodPLUS GmbH Spichernstr. 55 | 50672 Cologne, Germany |[email protected] www.globalgap.org GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 65/120 GLOBALG.A.P. Secretariat c/o FoodPLUS GmbH Spichernstrasse 55 50672 Cologne, Germany To whom it may concern Tel: +49 (0)221 579 93 – 25 Fax: +49 (0)221 579 93 – 89 [email protected] www.globalgap.org DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Cologne, May 13, 2013 Job Vacancy Title Director Operations (male/female) Department Operations Job location Cologne/ Germany (required) Reporting to Managing Director Type of job Full-time Date of entry 1 July 2013 Job duties and responsibilities As Member of the Executive Management, responsible to: st - Prepare the financial and organizational structure including IT to support our goal to be the global leader in providing solutions for farm assurance world-wide, in particular - by planning and execution of all Board resolutions, - by fulfilling all financial and legal reporting requirements, - by providing all agreed organizational and technical support to the Marketing/Key account and Compliance Director as well as to the U.S. office The position is explicitly NOT responsible for key account, marketing, certification management, membership liaison and personnel (other than for the directly to the position reporting staff). Job specification 1.Knowledge: BSc/BA required; MBA preferred. 2.Skills: Languages: German/English Excellent written and verbal communications skills. Spanish/French is an advantage. 3.Experience: 5+ years of related work experience with personnel responsibilities (5 and more people). 4.Abilities: A born leader with strong interpersonal and intercultural skills, a profound proof of organizational capabilities, strong decision maker with ability to prioritize complex objectives and meet aggressive timelines. Financial background and IT knowledge is required. A team player and strong listener, that knows how to partner with the other directors and motivate and enlist our internal team to excel and support our overall objectives. Enquiries and Application to Brigit Thelen-Coco via mail: [email protected] FoodPLUS GmbH | HRB 35211 Koeln | VAT: DE 813184868 | Managing Director: Dr. Kristian Moeller GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 66/120 BOARD BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 STAFF OVERVIEW 130522 Organigramm Foodplus Full time Part time Organisational Chart FoodPLUS/GLOBALG.A.P. Student Part time Reporting Lines and Titles reflect major responsibilities. Most staff members have several tasks and accountabilities Chairman (tba) GLOBALG.A.P. Board Executive Management Managing Director Secretary GLOBALG.A.P. (KM) Manager Corporate Relations (KU) Management Assistance (BTC) Assistance (MS) Director Global Key Accounts & Marketing (FA) GLOBALG.A.P. North America inc. Executive Vice President GLOBALG.A.P. NA (TF) Vice President Operations (JN) Travel (IM) Manager Standards, Benchmarking & Capacity Building (IA) Training Customized Solutions & Training (FL) Certification Body Workshops (LH) Integrity Assessment & Training (HG) Public & Private Workshops (DF) Public & Private Workshops (LW) Confidential to GLOBALG.A.P. Board Benchmarking Benchmarking Administration (TS) Manager Product Development (EC) Project Management Product Development & Project Management (GJ) Project Management (BH) Translation Translation & Document Quality (HR) Document Support (AJ) Key Account Committees & NTWG Academy, eLearning & RSA Liaison (CV) Committees & NTWG Support (AB) Director Finance, Business Services & Information Technology (FC) Director Compliance (AF) Team Leader Marketing (NK) Standard Management Livestock, Feed (RA) Sales & Marketing Analyst (RC) Customized Solutions & Training (FM) Representation Central & Eastern Europe (MM) Public Relation (CM) Standard Management Aquaculture (VW) Liaison Asia & Training (ZX) Marketing Support (EM) CIPRO Traceability Certification Body Administration (US) Integrity Programme & Assessment (DC) Integrity Progamme Administration (NB) Membership, Publications & Website (SJ) Certification Body Administration (AK) Integrity Assessment & Training (NM) Integrity Assessment & Training (KP) Trade Fairs & Event Management (JA) Certification Body Support (AG) Integrity Assessment (VS) Certification Body Support (TL) Integrity Assessment (NN) Marketing Marketing Support (CB) CB/FA Administration H.U.T. Event Mgmt Finance Business Services, IT & Customer Support QM & IT Development (JB) Customer Support (AD) Customized Solutions Management (SiS) Customer Support (AvB) Integrity Assessment (JoaB) QM & IT Support (FZ) Customer Support (MT) Integrity Assessment (NN) QM & IT Support (MH) Customer Support (LO) Data Mining & Statistic Support (YG) Customer Support (YC) Data Security Support (LB) Customer Support (YK) Service Provider Cert. DB Service Provider FITS Accounting (DK) EHI Verwalt. GmbH Financial Controlling Page 1 of 3 GLOBALG.A.P c/o FoodPLUS GmbH Spichernstr. 55 | 50672 Cologne, Germany |[email protected] www.globalgap.org GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 67/120 BOARD N° Name Family Name Abbr. Status* Job Title E-MAIL Office/Homebase BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 Resp Phone 1 Adam Gawlik AG E ST P Certification Body Support [email protected] Cologne IA +49 (0) 221 57993 26 2 Alexandra Denis AD E Customer Support [email protected] Cologne FC +49 (0) 221 57993 15 3 Ami von Beyme AvB E Customer Support [email protected] Cologne FC +49 (0) 221 57993 18 4 Ana Jagacic AJ E Document Support [email protected] Cologne EC +49 (0) 221 57993 82 5 Andras Fekete AF E Director Compliance [email protected] Cologne/Hungaria MT +36 (0) 235 20566 6 Anita Britt AB E Commitees & NTWG Support [email protected] Cologne EC +49 (0) 221 57993 875 7 Anne Kafzyk AK E Certification Body Administration [email protected] Cologne AF +49 (0) 221 57993 86 8 Birgit Thelen-Coco BTC E Management Assistance [email protected] Cologne KM +49 (0) 221 57993 66 9 Britta Hübers BH E Project Management [email protected] Cologne EC +49 (0) 221 57993 81 11 Christi Venter CV F Academy, E-Learning & RSA Liasion [email protected] Cologne/South Africa EC 12 Claudia Bock CB E ST P Marketing Support [email protected] Cologne FA +49 (0) 221 57993 26 13 Claudia Meifert CM EP Public Relations [email protected] Cologne FA +49 (0) 221 57993 997 14 Dagmar Kostzewski DK EP Accounting [email protected] Cologne FC 16 Daniel Catron DC F Integrity Program & Assesment [email protected] Cologne/Chile AF 17 Daniela Fabiszisky DF E Public & Private Workshops [email protected] Cologne IA +49 (0) 221 57993 33 18 Elmé Coetzer EC F Manager Product Development [email protected] Cologne/South Africa MT +27 1299 15139 19 Eva Möllecken EM E Marketing Support [email protected] Cologne FA +49 (0) 221 57993 873 20 Fernando Mietto FM FP Customized Solutions & Training [email protected] Cologne/Uruguay FA 21 Flavio FA F Cologne/ Spain MT +49 (0) 221 57993 25 Franziska FZ E AP P Director Global Key Accounts & Marketing Quality Management & IT Support [email protected] 22 Alzueta Borsarich Zimmermann [email protected] Cologne FC +49 (0) 221 57993 876 23 Frederik Callens FC E Director Finance, Business Services & IT [email protected] Cologne MT +49 (0) 221 57993 80 24 Friedrich Lüdeke FL F Customized Solutions & Training [email protected] Cologne IA +49 (0) 502 28910297 25 Gabi Jahn GJ EP Customized Solutions Management [email protected] Cologne EC +49 (0) 2227 8104000 26 Heidi Gremminger HG F Integrity Assesment & Trainings [email protected] Cologne/Uruguay IA 27 Heike Rauber HR E Translation & Document Quality [email protected] Cologne EC +49 (0) 221 57993 57 28 Henry Yves Coco YC E ST P Customer Support [email protected] Cologne FC +49 (0) 221 57993 18 29 Ignacio Antequera IA F [email protected] Cologne MT +49 (0) 221 57993 874 30 Iris Möller IM EP Manager Standards, BM & Capacity Building Travel [email protected] Cologne KM +49 (0) 221 57993 873 31 Jochen Baumgarten JB E Quality Management & IT Development [email protected] Cologne FC +49 (0) 221 57993 872 32 Joachim Banzaf AoaB FP Integrity Assesment [email protected] Cologne AF N° Name Family Name Abbr. Status* Job Title E-MAIL Office/Homebase Resp Confidential to GLOBALG.A.P. Board Phone Page 2 of 3 GLOBALG.A.P c/o FoodPLUS GmbH Spichernstr. 55 | 50672 Cologne, Germany |[email protected] www.globalgap.org GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 68/120 BOARD 33 Jonathan Needham JN FP Vice President Operations [email protected] GG NA / Baltimore BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 KM + 1 443.869-6120 34 Julia Artmeyer JA E ST P Trade Fair & Event Support [email protected] Cologne FA +49 (0) 221 57993 33 35 Kerstin Uhlig KU E Manager Corporate Relations [email protected] Cologne MT +49 (0) 221 57993 19 36 Kliment Petrov KP FP Integrity Assesment & Trainings [email protected] Cologne/Bulgaria AF 37 Kristian Möller KM E Managing Director [email protected] Cologne MT +1 (0) 240 4824852 38 Lara LW E ST P Public & Private Workshops [email protected] Cologne IA +49 (0) 221 57993 33 39 Lina Woitschikowsk i Oparina LO E ST P Customer Support [email protected] Cologne FC +49 (0) 221 57993 18 40 Lisa Hausen LH E Certification Body Workshops [email protected] Cologne IA +49 (0) 221 57993 993 41 Luise Bühler LB E ST P Data Security Suppports [email protected] Cologne FC +49 (0) 221 57993 81 42 Marcel Hecht MH E AP P QM & IT Support [email protected] Cologne FC +49 (0) 221 57993 26 43 Marek Marzek MM FP Repr. Centr.&Eastern Eur./Farm Assurer [email protected] / Cologne/Poland FA 44 Margot Tomaszewski MT E ST P Customer Support [email protected] Cologne FC +49 (0) 221 57993 18 45 Michaela Stollenwerk MS FP Assistance [email protected] Cologne KM z.Zt. Dubai 46 Nani Becker NB EP Integrity Program Admin [email protected] Cologne AF +49 (0) 221 57993 696 47 Nazario Munoz NM FP Integrity Assesment & Trainings [email protected] Cologne/Spain AF +34 (0) 915 773728 48 Nina Kretschmer NK E Team Leader Marketing [email protected] Cologne FA +49 (0) 221 57993 693 49 Robin Callaghan RC E Sales & Marketing Support [email protected] Cologne FA +49 (0) 221 57993 26 50 Roland Aumüller RA FP Standard Management Livestock, Feed [email protected] Cologne/ Kumhausen G FA +49 (0)874 391436 51 Sandra Hantel Bookkeeping EHI [email protected] Germany FC 52 Sarah Jox SJ E Membership, Publications & Website [email protected] Cologne/Dorfmark FA +49 (0) 221 57993 85 53 Simone Schröder SiS E Customized Solutions Management [email protected] Cologne FC +49 (0) 221 57993 994 54 Tanja Schmidt TS E Benchmarking Administration [email protected] Cologne IA +49 (0) 221 57993 697 55 Thomas Fenimore TF F Vice President Operations GG NA [email protected] GG NA / Baltimore KM + 1 443.869-6120 56 Tri Lastiko TL E ST P CB Administration Support [email protected] Cologne AF +49 (0) 221 57993 86 57 Ute Spira US E CB Administration [email protected] Cologne AF +49 (0) 221 57993 84 58 Valeska Weymann VW E Standard Management Aquaculture [email protected] Cologne FA +49 (0) 7731 189855 59 Vassilis Stamatis VS F Integrity Assesment [email protected] Cologne/Greece AF +30 (0) 2110 150488 60 Xin Zhou ZX F Liaison Asia & Training [email protected] Cologne/China FA 61 Yannic Grewe YC E St P Data Mining & Statistic Support [email protected] Cologne FC +49 (0) 221 57993 876 62 Yuliya Kovalska YK E ST P Customer Support [email protected] Cologne FC +49 (0) 221 57993 18 *Legend: E: Employee | P: Part Time | St: Student | F: Freelancer | I: Interim | Apr: Apprentice Confidential to GLOBALG.A.P. Board Page 3 of 3 GLOBALG.A.P c/o FoodPLUS GmbH Spichernstr. 55 | 50672 Cologne, Germany |[email protected] www.globalgap.org GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 69/120 GLOBALG.A.P. Secretariat c/o FoodPLUS GmbH Spichernstrasse 55 50672 Cologne, Germany Tel: +49 (0)221 579 93 – 25 Fax: +49 (0)221 579 93 – 89 [email protected] www.globalgap.org To whom it may concern Cologne, May 13, 2013 DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Job Vacancy Title Key Account Africa (male/female) Department Global Key Account / Marketing Job location Asia Reporting to Director Global Key Account / Marketing Type of job Full-time Date of entry 1 July 2013 or later Job duties and responsibilities As Member of the Global Key Account team, responsible for all GLOBALG.A.P. scopes (crops, livestock and aquaculture) to: st • Build strong and effective relationships with key customers and with the public sector in Africa • Review type and level of communication to target existing and new members; • Recommend changes to products and services and marketing and communication plans reflecting the needs of key customers • Ensure membership satisfaction with timely and effective communication • Progress check and follow-up meetings with key customers • Represent GLOBALG.A.P in meetings and conferences in Africa, but also around the globe • Promoting our services and products • Meeting defined objectives. The position is explicitly NOT responsible for certification management, accounting, IT and standard development. Job specification 1.Knowledge: BS/BA required; MBA preferred. 2.Skills: Languages: English/French Excellent written and verbal communications skills. 3.Experience: 5+ years of related work experience Previous exposure to major buyers and their technical teams 4.Abilities: • • • Good communication skills: verbal and written Can do attitude with a strong customer service approach Previous key account or buying responsibility required FoodPLUS GmbH | HRB 35211 Koeln | VAT: DE 813184868 | Managing Director: Dr. Kristian Moeller GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 70/120 GLOBALG.A.P. Secretariat c/o FoodPLUS GmbH Spichernstrasse 55 50672 Cologne, Germany Tel: +49 (0)221 579 93 – 25 Fax: +49 (0)221 579 93 – 89 [email protected] www.globalgap.org • • • • • • Appreciation and understanding of agricultural technical issues including food safety and sustainability Able to work well in a multi disciplinary team Willing to travel Africa wide and occasionally to Europe with appropriate Visa Get used to work with strict deadlines. Results oriented Drivers license is necessary Enquiries and Application to Brigit Thelen-Coco via mail: [email protected] FoodPLUS GmbH | HRB 35211 Koeln | VAT: DE 813184868 | Managing Director: Dr. Kristian Moeller GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 71/120 GLOBALG.A.P. Secretariat c/o FoodPLUS GmbH Spichernstrasse 55 50672 Cologne, Germany Tel: +49 (0)221 579 93 – 25 Fax: +49 (0)221 579 93 – 89 [email protected] www.globalgap.org To whom it may concern Cologne, May 13, 2013 DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Job Vacancy Title Key Account Asia (male/female) Department Global Key Account / Marketing Job location Asia Reporting to Director Global Key Account / Marketing Type of job Full-time Date of entry 1 July 2013 Job duties and responsibilities As Member of the Global Key Account team, responsible for all GLOBALG.A.P. scopes (crops, livestock and aquaculture) to … st • Build strong and effective relationships with key customers and with the public sector in Asia • Review type and level of communication to target existing and new members; • Recommend changes to products and services and marketing and communication plans reflecting the needs of key customers • Ensure membership satisfaction with timely and effective communication • Progress check and follow-up meetings with key customers • Represent GLOBALG.A.P in meetings and conferences in Africa, but also around the globe • Promoting our services and products • Meeting defined objectives. The position is explicitly NOT responsible for certification management, accounting, IT and standard development. Job specification 1.Knowledge: BS/BA required; MBA preferred. 2.Skills: Languages: English/one native Asian language Excellent written and verbal communications skills. Mandarine or any further Asian language is preferred. 3.Experience: 5+ years of related work experience Previous exposure to major buyers and their technical teams 4.Abilities: • • Good communication skills: verbal and written Can do attitude with a strong customer service approach FoodPLUS GmbH | HRB 35211 Koeln | VAT: DE 813184868 | Managing Director: Dr. Kristian Moeller GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 72/120 GLOBALG.A.P. Secretariat c/o FoodPLUS GmbH Spichernstrasse 55 50672 Cologne, Germany Tel: +49 (0)221 579 93 – 25 Fax: +49 (0)221 579 93 – 89 [email protected] www.globalgap.org • • • • • • • Previous key account or buying responsibility required Appreciation and understanding of agricultural technical issues including food safety and sustainability Able to work well in a multi disciplinary team Willing to travel Asia wide and occasionally to Europe with appropriate Visa Get used to work with strict deadlines. Results oriented Drivers license is necessary Enquiries and Application to Brigit Thelen-Coco via mail: [email protected] FoodPLUS GmbH | HRB 35211 Koeln | VAT: DE 813184868 | Managing Director: Dr. Kristian Moeller GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 73/120 GLOBALG.A.P. Secretariat c/o FoodPLUS GmbH Spichernstrasse 55 50672 Cologne, Germany Tel: +49 (0)221 579 93 – 25 Fax: +49 (0)221 579 93 – 89 [email protected] www.globalgap.org To whom it may concern Cologne, May 13, 2013 DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Job Vacancy Title Key Account Europe (male/female) Department Global Key Account / Marketing Job location Cologne/ Germany (preferred initially) Reporting to Director Global Key Account / Marketing Type of job Full-time Date of entry 1 July 2013 Job duties and responsibilities As Member of the Global Key Account team, responsible for all GLOBALG.A.P. scopes (crops, livestock and aquaculture) to … st • Build strong and effective relationships with key customers and with the public sector in Europe • Review type and level of communication to target existing and new members; • Recommend changes to products and services and marketing and communication plans reflecting the needs of key customers • Ensure membership satisfaction with timely and effective communication • Progress check and follow-up meetings with key customers • Represent GLOBALG.A.P in meetings and conferences in Africa, but also around the globe • Promoting our services and products • Meeting defined objectives. The position is explicitly NOT responsible for certification management, accounting, IT and standard development. Job specification 1.Knowledge: BS/BA required; MBA preferred. 2.Skills: Languages: German/English Excellent written and verbal communications skills. French or any other language is an advantage. 3.Experience: 5+ years of related work experience Previous exposure to major buyers and their technical teams 4.Abilities: • Good communication skills: verbal and written FoodPLUS GmbH | HRB 35211 Koeln | VAT: DE 813184868 | Managing Director: Dr. Kristian Moeller GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 74/120 GLOBALG.A.P. Secretariat c/o FoodPLUS GmbH Spichernstrasse 55 50672 Cologne, Germany Tel: +49 (0)221 579 93 – 25 Fax: +49 (0)221 579 93 – 89 [email protected] www.globalgap.org • • • • • • • • Can do attitude with a strong customer service approach Previous key account or buying responsibility required Appreciation and understanding of agricultural technical issues including food safety and sustainability Able to work well in a multi disciplinary team Willing to travel European-wide with appropriate Visa Get used to work with strict deadlines. Results oriented Drivers license is necessary Enquiries and Application to Brigit Thelen-Coco via mail: [email protected] FoodPLUS GmbH | HRB 35211 Koeln | VAT: DE 813184868 | Managing Director: Dr. Kristian Moeller GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 75/120 GLOBALG.A.P. Secretariat c/o FoodPLUS GmbH Spichernstrasse 55 50672 Cologne, Germany Tel: +49 (0)221 579 93 – 25 Fax: +49 (0)221 579 93 – 89 [email protected] www.globalgap.org To whom it may concern Cologne, May 13, 2013 DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Job Vacancy Title Key Account Latin America (male/female) Department Global Key Account / Marketing Job location Latin America Reporting to Director Global Key Account / Marketing Type of job Full-time Date of entry 1 July 2013 Job duties and responsibilities As Member of the Global Key Account team, responsible for all GLOBALG.A.P. scopes (crops, livestock and aquaculture) to: st • Build strong and effective relationships with key customers in Latin America • Review type and level of communication to target existing and new members; • Recommend changes to products and services and marketing and communication plans reflecting the needs of key customers • Ensure membership satisfaction with timely and effective communication • Progress check and follow-up meetings with key customers • Represent GLOBALG.A.P in meetings and conferences in Africa, but also around the globe • Promoting our services and products • Meeting defined objectives. • The position is explicitly NOT responsible for certification management, accounting, IT and standard development. Job specification 1.Knowledge: BS/BA required; MBA preferred. 2.Skills: Languages: Spanish/English/Portuguese Excellent written and verbal communications skills. FoodPLUS GmbH | HRB 35211 Koeln | VAT: DE 813184868 | Managing Director: Dr. Kristian Moeller GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 76/120 GLOBALG.A.P. Secretariat c/o FoodPLUS GmbH Spichernstrasse 55 50672 Cologne, Germany Tel: +49 (0)221 579 93 – 25 Fax: +49 (0)221 579 93 – 89 [email protected] www.globalgap.org 3.Experience: 5+ years of related work experience Previous exposure to major buyers and their technical teams 4.Abilities: • • • • • • • • • Good communication skills: verbal and written Can do attitude with a strong customer service approach Previous key account or buying responsibility required Appreciation and understanding of agricultural technical issues including food safety and sustainability Able to work well in a multi disciplinary team Willing to travel Latin America wide and occasionally to Europe with appropriate Visa Get used to work with strict deadlines. Results oriented Drivers license is necessary Enquiries and Application to Brigit Thelen-Coco via mail: [email protected] FoodPLUS GmbH | HRB 35211 Koeln | VAT: DE 813184868 | Managing Director: Dr. Kristian Moeller GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 77/120 GLOBALG.A.P. Secretariat c/o FoodPLUS GmbH Spichernstrasse 55 50672 Cologne, Germany Tel: +49 (0)221 579 93 – 25 Fax: +49 (0)221 579 93 – 89 [email protected] www.globalgap.org To whom it may concern Cologne, May 13, 2013 DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Job Vacancy Title Product Development (male/female) Department Global Key Account / Product Development Job location Cologne/Germany (required) Reporting to Manager Product Development Type of job Full-time Date of entry 1 July 2013 Job duties and responsibilities As Member of the Global Key Account and Product Development team, responsible for all GLOBALG.A.P. scopes (crops, livestock and aquaculture) to: st • Coordinate the development and drafting her/himself the codes and rules in proper English (revisions and add-ons) • Understand what is needed and get back to each of the team on what is not working • Coordinate projects among the teams with technical background to easily write up logic standard and rule documents The position is explicitly NOT responsible for certification management, accounting, IT key account. Job specification 1.Knowledge: BSc/BA or higher in the field of food, feed or agriculture required; GLOBALG.A.P. auditor qualification or equivalent preferred 2.Skills: Languages: English Excellent written, technical and verbal communications skills. Other global language preferred. 3.Experience: 3+ years of related technical writing experience with standards Strong technical background in agriculture, all three scopes preferred. Practical work experience with a quality management system. 4.Abilities: The candidate must be well organized, communicative, and attentive to detail, able to write project proposals (grant proposals), normative documents for quality management system FoodPLUS GmbH | HRB 35211 Koeln | VAT: DE 813184868 | Managing Director: Dr. Kristian Moeller GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 78/120 GLOBALG.A.P. Secretariat c/o FoodPLUS GmbH Spichernstrasse 55 50672 Cologne, Germany Tel: +49 (0)221 579 93 – 25 Fax: +49 (0)221 579 93 – 89 [email protected] www.globalgap.org • • • • • • • Good communication skills: verbal and written Good coordinating skills Ability to liaise between different teams Appreciation and understanding of agricultural technical issues including food safety and sustainability Able to work well in a multi disciplinary team Get used to work with strict deadlines. Results oriented Drivers license is necessary. Enquiries and Application to Brigit Thelen-Coco via mail: [email protected] FoodPLUS GmbH | HRB 35211 Koeln | VAT: DE 813184868 | Managing Director: Dr. Kristian Moeller GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 79/120 GLOBALG.A.P. Secretariat c/o FoodPLUS GmbH Spichernstrasse 55 50672 Cologne, Germany Tel: +49 (0)221 579 93 – 25 Fax: +49 (0)221 579 93 – 89 [email protected] www.globalgap.org To whom it may concern Cologne, May 13, 2013 DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT Job Vacancy Title Project Management (male/female) Department Global Key Account / Product Development Job location Cologne/Germany (required) Reporting to Director Global Key Account Type of job Full-time Date of entry 1 July 2013 Job duties and responsibilities As Member of the Global Key Account and Product Development team, responsible for all GLOBALG.A.P. scopes (crops, livestock and aquaculture) to: st • Manage projects initiated by the regional and global Key Accounts • Coordinate the follow-ups with technical and IT staff, and meet strict time lines. • Understand what is needed and get back to each of the team on what is not working The position is explicitly NOT responsible for certification management, accounting, IT. Job specification 1.Knowledge: BSc/BA or higher in the field of food, feed or agriculture required; GLOBALG.A.P. auditor qualification or equivalent preferred 2.Skills: Languages: English Excellent written, technical and verbal communications skills. Other global language preferred. 3.Experience: 3+ years of project management Some technical background in agriculture, all three scopes preferred 4.Abilities: • • • • FoodPLUS GmbH | HRB 35211 Koeln | VAT: DE 813184868 Good communication skills: verbal and written Good coordinating skills Ability to liaise between different teams Appreciation and understanding of agricultural technical issues including food safety and sustainability | Managing Director: Dr. Kristian Moeller GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 80/120 GLOBALG.A.P. Secretariat c/o FoodPLUS GmbH Spichernstrasse 55 50672 Cologne, Germany Tel: +49 (0)221 579 93 – 25 Fax: +49 (0)221 579 93 – 89 [email protected] www.globalgap.org • • • • • Able to work well in a multi disciplinary team Willingness to travel world-wide with the appropriate visa Get used to work with strict deadlines. Results oriented Drivers license is necessary. Enquiries and Application to Brigit Thelen-Coco via mail: [email protected] FoodPLUS GmbH | HRB 35211 Koeln | VAT: DE 813184868 | Managing Director: Dr. Kristian Moeller GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 81/120 BOARD BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 GLOBALG.A.P. COMMITTEES ACTION PLAN This is an overview of Technical and Stakeholder Committees’ current activities and their upcoming planned meetings. This overview shall give information to a committee on the activities of the other committees and their timelines. Last updated: 8 March 2013 COMMITTEE CURRENT MAIN TOPICS CROPS TC Shortened unannounced checklist for Fruit and Vegetables Shortened Reward Checklist for FV Adaptation of inspector/auditor qualification requirements in the US AQUA TC Code Ref: Committees Action Plan Publication date: March 2013 Page: 1 of 5 EXPECTED DATE OF DELIVERY Approved 2013-02-05 LAST MEETING NEXT MEETING 2013-02-05 2013-06-25 (tbc) 25-26 Feb13 2013-06-16/17 Amsterdam Approved 2013-02-05 Approved 2013-02-05 Use of biosolids Product risk categorization Revision of v4 based on Integrity Results and SHC proposals 2013-06-25 After Micro SHC Ongoing Revision of AB CPCC update to maintain v4.0-2, inclusion of animal welfare extended criteria as annexes. - Start revision process for v5: Simplify, start from “farm feeling”, if extended shall be in the Mid April 2013 Starting next meeting June 2013 GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 82/120 BOARD BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 COMMITTEE CURRENT MAIN TOPICS EXPECTED DATE OF DELIVERY LAST MEETING NEXT MEETING environmental area, outcome measures, introduce parameters, monitor vrs. improvement, key performance indicators, driving change. - LIVESTOCK TC Code Ref: Committees Action Plan Publication date: March 2013 Page: 2 of 5 Modular approach discussion Cage farming criteria for PP Reduction of CPs and auditing time. Revise questionnaire related to GLOBALG.A.P. Aquaculture Elaborate template for specific cases of applications with variations on the established requirements. Identify on the GRs topics related to aquaculture that shall be revised (incl. inspection duration and site definition). Development of a policy on the integration of Chain of Custody for livestock production Strategy decision on use of AWAdd-on Modules: Operational Structure Mid April 2013 Mid April 2013 Ongoing process together with CBs. End 2013 April 2013 Based on decisions by Board and 2013-02-27 2013-07-04/05 2013-02-27 Telco as soon as guidance available GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 83/120 BOARD BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 COMMITTEE CERTIFICATION BODY COMMITTEE ANIMAL WELFARE SHC “MICRO” SHC Code Ref: Committees Action Plan Publication date: March 2013 Page: 3 of 5 CURRENT MAIN TOPICS Participate in SHC “WaterUse/Water Management” Add-on Module Responsible Use of Antimicrobials/Health Risk Management of Mycobact. avium paratuberculosis in Beef and Dairy and its possible integration in IFA Promotion and Growth of Livestock Certification Fostering localgap projects for livestock in emerging and developing countries Suggestions for GLOBALG.A.P. Database improvement Revision of scheme rules: -‐ Extension of certificates Development of Inspection Method Finalized the work on the docs of Add-ons for finishing pigs and broilers. Development of Toolkit for Producers to assess microbiological EXPECTED DATE OF DELIVERY Management LAST MEETING NEXT MEETING 2013-02-27 2013-07-04/05 July 2013 2013-02-27 2013-07-04/05 Autumn 2013 2013-02-27 2013-07-04/05 2013-02-27 2013-07-04/05 2013-02-27 2013-07-04/05 Landshut 2012-11-28/29 2013-03-13/14 2013-02-04 2013-06-24 (tbc) 2013-03-13 2013-03-13 2013-03-13 Done in December 2012 Approved 201302-05 GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 84/120 BOARD BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 COMMITTEE CURRENT MAIN TOPICS risks Review of requirements about quality of water across the standard Gap Analysis between GLOBALG.A.P. and McDonald’s Guideline (by GLOBALG.A.P. Secretariat) Product categorization SPROUT FOCUS GROUP CROP PROTECTION WG RESPONSIBLE WATER USE SHC GRASP SHC Code Ref: Committees Action Plan Publication date: March 2013 Page: 4 of 5 EXPECTED DATE OF DELIVERY To be defined Before November 2012 To be discussed in June’13 To be defined Develop risk assessment on water quality Prepare add-on for sprout producers June’13 Evaluate possibility of extending To be defined controls to seed suppliers Minor use Use of water sanitizers Develop add-on on responsible water management Status:Trials • List of SHC members • The committee continuously develops the GRASP tools and approves National Interpretation Guidelines (see ToR) • GRASP Edition update is LAST MEETING NEXT MEETING 2012-06-19 2012-06-22 Feb’14 2013-02-04 tbc Continuous development of the GRASP Add-on tools Telco 30 January 2013-04-22 2013 Cologne GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 85/120 BOARD BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 COMMITTEE COMMUNICATION SHC Code Ref: Committees Action Plan Publication date: March 2013 Page: 5 of 5 CURRENT MAIN TOPICS expected by the end of 2013 • It was an ad-hoc meeting to get stakeholders’ input to refine the GLOBALG.A.P. communication and marketing strategy. The strategy was then developed and agreed by the Board in Jan 2012. • This year the GLOBALG.A.P. secretariat will conduct a survey with the participants of that meeting as well as the other Committee members to get their feedback on the revised marketing strategy and its implementation (new brochures, newsletters, new website). EXPECTED DATE OF DELIVERY LAST MEETING NEXT MEETING Ad-hoc meeting (no SHC) 23 March 2011 No further meetings planned GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 86/120 Organigram EHI Retail Institute e.V. Research and Working Groups § Loss Prevention + Security § Logistics § Packaging § Marketing + Public Relations § Real Estate + Expansion § Store Planning + Design § Energy Management § Payment Systems § E-Commerce § InformationTechnology EHI Retail Institute GmbH EHI Verwaltungsgesellschaft GmbH Divisions: Holdings: Research Services § Analyses / Reports § Workshops Conferences § Expert Congresses § Seminars § Study visits Holding: Publishing § Studies + Specials Trade Journals § rt-retail technology § stores+shops Trade Shows § EuroShop § EuroCIS § EHI specific shows Seite 1 GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 87/120 LETTER OF INTENT & CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT This AGREEMENT is made and effective this May ..., 2013 by and between SLA Software Logistik Artland GmbH ("SLA"), offices located at Friedrichstrasse 30, D-49610 Quakenbrück, and FoodPLUS GmbH ("FoodPLUS"), offices located at Spichernstrasse 55, D-50672 Köln. The parties hereto agree as follows: 1. The subject of this non-exclusive Agreement is the colaboration of the parties hereto within the scope of GLOBAPG.A.P software modules. 2. The parties intend to share the following software modules from the GLOBALG.A.P. project: (i) Central registration module ("modul 1") (ii) Central administration for user access rights ("modul 2") (iii) Bookmarking module and related interface ("modul 3") The parties agree to add software modules in the future based on consensus. 3. The parties intend to collaborate in development and marketing of the selected software modules (Section 2). (i) Extraction and common development of module 2 (ii) Common usage of modules 1 and 3 FoodPLUS will provide the latest version of these modules to be utilized by each party. 4. The parties agree the milestones of development as follows: (i) Technical update to latest level (ii) Usage of existing modules immediately (iii) Complete modularization to allow standalone usage 5. New developments and system updates will be defined and agreed jointly. 6. Communication and marketing material that refers to the other party shall be agreed beforehand. GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 88/120 7. Development costs shall be shared. Financial values shall be fixed and tracked over time according to development cost minus depreciation (as of starting date). Probably provision for SLA, if common usage of bookmarking generates earnings. 8. The term of this mutual, non-exclusive Agreement is three (3) years, commencing on the starting date. Starting date shall be July 1, 2013. Without prejudice to the right to terminate the Agreement for an important reason, either party may terminate this Agreement at June 30, 2016 at the earliest. The Agreement shall be automatically renewed for an indefinite period of time unless either party gives notice of termination prior to June 30, 2016. The notice period shall be six (6) month. The notice of termination shall be in writing. 9. During the term of this Agreement, neither party hereto shall disclose to anyone any confidential information, except as may be required by a court of law or government agency. "Confidential Information" for the purposes of this Agreement shall include proprietary and confidential information such as, but not limited to, all commercial and trade information exchanged, technology plans, research and development plans, designs, models, financial projections, software, product specifications, marketing plans, patent applications, disclosures and new concepts of any party hereto. Confidential information shall not include any information that: a) is disclosed without restriction, b) becomes publicly available through no act of the recipient, c) is rightfully received by either party from a third party. d) is disseminated in publications. 10. This Agreement shall be governed by and be construed in accordance with the laws of Germany. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed by the Parties as of the date first above written. SLA Software Logistik Artland GmbH FoodPLUS GmbH _____________________________ By: Jörg Brezl Chief Executive Officer _____________________________ By: ... Chief Executive Officer GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 89/120 GLOBALG.A.P. NUMBER (GGN) GLOBALG.A.P. NUMBER (GGN) LINKING PRIMARY PRODUCERS TO GLOBAL SUPPLY CHAINS COLOGNE, MAY 2013 THE GLOBALG.A.P. SYSTEM BASED ON A SINGLE IDENTIFIER FOR PRIMARY PRODUCERS EHI Retail Institute GS1 International (Joint parent association of GLOBALG.A.P. and GS1 Germany ) www.gepir.org GLOBALG.A.P. c/o FoodPLUS GmbH GLN GS1 Germany GLN: 40 xxxxx xxxxx x GLN: 40 49928 xxxxx x GGN GGN GGN GGN GGN GGN GGN GGN GGN GGN Sub-GLNs = GGNs Example: 40 49928 41440 3 GLOBALG.A.P. core data • master data • certification data • products • area Farm data • field documentation Special customized checklist information • e.g. Pepsico Sustainable Farming Initiative Logistics • variables • delivery information © GLOBALG.A.P Secretariat | Page 2 © GLOBALG.A.P. Secretariat | Page 1 GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 90/120 GLOBALG.A.P. NUMBER (GGN) THE GLOBALG.A.P. SYSTEM BASED ON A SINGLE IDENTIFIER FOR PRIMARY PRODUCERS GLOBALG.A.P. and GS1 Germany are sister organizations GS1 Germany assigns GLOBALG.A.P. a GLN company prefix like to any other global legal entity in the GS1 System System Each GGN is linked to a variety of data sets, all of which can be extended GLOBALG.A.P. assigns a unique Sub- GLNs to each primary producer in its global network, validated through a trusted partner The GLOBALG.A.P. database supports the recording of customized standards and specifications © GLOBALG.A.P Secretariat | Page 3 IDENTIFICATION AND TRANSFER OF INFORMATION VIA GGN USING THE GGN AS THE GLOBAL IDENTIFIER IN DIFFERENT DATABASE PLATFORMS GLOBALG.A.P. System ENTER INFORMATION GET INFORMATION Traders Farmer XML/SOAP interface GGN Farm Assurer Certification Bodies Special customized checklist information • e.g. Pepsico Sustainable Farming Initiative Benchmarked Schemes Your own system EAP data EAP data EAP data GGN EAP data GGN GGN GGN e rfac AP XM O L/S inte GLOBALG.A.P. core data • master data • certification data • products • area Processors Retail Farm data • field documentation Logistics • variables • delivery information Consumers XM L/S OAP inte rfac e Your own system EAP data EAP data EAP data GGN EAP data GGN GGN GGN © GLOBALG.A.P Secretariat | Page 4 © GLOBALG.A.P. Secretariat | Page 2 GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 91/120 GLOBALG.A.P. NUMBER (GGN) IDENTIFICATION AND TRANSFER OF INFORMATION VIA GGN USING THE GGN AS THE GLOBAL IDENTIFIER IN DIFFERENT DATABASE PLATFORMS GGN based farm information is shared on different platforms for supply chain operators and and consumer prortals GLOBALG.A.P. partners can register primary producers and enter data to them via XML/SOAP interfaces and excel upload upload The same interface can be used by your own EAP system, i.e. PEPSICO processors could register new producers and receive a GGN PEPSICO`s platform can use the interface to retrieve certification and standard information for updates using GGN as identifier © GLOBALG.A.P Secretariat | Page 5 © GLOBALG.A.P. Secretariat | Page 3 GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 92/120 GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 93/120 GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 94/120 GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 95/120 GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 96/120 GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 97/120 GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 98/120 GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 99/120 GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 100/120 GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 101/120 BOARD BOARD MEETING 4 – 5 JUNE 3013 MODULES WHERE DEVELOPMENTS IN IT ARE ORGANISATIONALY AND RECENTLY ALSO FINANCIALY ADDRESSED TO Category/ Modules Definition Certification process All changes regarding certification rules, CB requirements, etc., incl. interface Search/ Bookmarking Anything related to transparency for standard demanding parties, incl. interface Statistics/ Pentaho Any not realtime data analysis, reports on acreage or tonnage, integrity reports, number of certifications, etc. Group certification All changes or extension regarding group certification; Checklist process All changes regarding checklist exchange linked to the certification process Checklist/ FormClient All changes regarding the "FormClient" incl. interface to enter checklists from other CB systems Standard details Scope/ standard specific details e.g. attributes (Aquaculture, Livestock, GRASP, AHP, NHP, etc.) certificate template, etc. OLT/ ILIAS Anything related to exchange data with ILIAS or Online Training as precondition for inspectors or auditors Invoicing All changes to the invoicing system regarding RegFee and CertFee External interfaces Data exchange with other systems (www.my-fish.info, fTrace, HDE, residue monitoring DB) System environment All security or quality management related topics, there is no direct customer need, but is needed to keep the system up to date System usability All system related changes, which are not related to a single use case but improve overall usability of the system Producer masterdata All changes regarding producers mastedata which describe the legal entity incl. "Farm Assurer" usecases, Production data Detailed production data like application data, sustainabilty data, lab data, etc. linked to fields, ponds etc. Access Rights All changes regarding the administration of access rights, which are independant reusable. Confidential to GLOBALG.A.P. Board Page 1 of 1 GLOBALG.A.P. c/o FoodPLUS GmbH Spichernstr. 55 | 50672 Cologne, Germany |[email protected] www.globalgap.org GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 102/120 BOARD BOARD MEETING 4 -5 JUNE 2013 PROPOSAL TO CHANGE GLOBALG.A.P. DATA ACCESS RULES FOR GLOBALG.A.P. INTEGRATED FARM ASSURANCE REGARDING PRODUCER NAME AND ADDRESS 1) Current situation 1 2) Suggested change 4 3) Justification 3.1) Crucial for certification validation 3.2) Not common practice 3.3) Not in the interest of the producer himself/herself 3.5) Explicitly wished by GLOBALG.A.P. Members 3.4) Requires additional process for customers to get this information 5 5 5 5 5 6 4) Implications 4.1) New scheme version 4.2) Timeframe 4.2) Implementation costs regarding the GLOBALG.A.P. Database 4.3) Benchmarking 6 6 6 6 6 5) Risks 7 6) Opportunities 6.1) Transparency increased to ensure the validation process 6.2) Effort and costs reduction 6.3) Strengthen GLOBALG.A.P 7 7 7 7 1) Current situation The majority of producers participating in the GLOBALG.A.P. system are following the rules of the standard GLOBALG.A.P. Integrated Farm Assurance in version 4.0. These rules are also basis for any Benchmarking of the standard done by GLOBALG.A.P. Apart from the General Regulations the rules also cover additional General Information documents such as the Data Access Rules for GLOBALG.A.P. Integrated Confidential to GLOBALG.A.P. Board Page 1 of 7 GLOBALG.A.P. c/o FoodPLUS GmbH Spichernstr. 55 | 50672 Cologne, Germany |[email protected] www.globalgap.org GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 103/120 BOARD BOARD MEETING 4 -5 JUNE 2013 Farm Assurance for v41. This document describes which data information is visible to whom if a producer participates in the standard GLOBALG.A.P. Integrated Farm Assurance in version 4.0 or benchmarked schemes. Following these Data Access Rules only certificate holders2 are obliged to show their name and address to the group ‘market participants’. Non certificate holders such as option 2 producer group members are not obliged to show their name and address to this group. The group ‘market participants’ represents companies or individuals who trade with the certified product and have access to the GLOBALG.A.P. Database. In addition GLOBALG.A.P. advises the farm assurer (or certification body) to explicitly explain the option of granting access of the company name and address to the public during the producer registration as it is in the interest of the producer to support marketing activities in most cases. This results in showing: <Access to this information is restricted by producer. To apply for access, please contact supplier/producer directly.> if you look up a producer as market participant for the producer name and address information in the GLOBALG.A.P. Database. Similar results occur if a farm assurer (or certification body) does not explicitly grant access of the company name and address to the public and the producer is looked up via our public search possibility. The relevant parts out of the Data Access Rules for GLOBALG.A.P. Integrated Farm Assurance for v4 are shown in the following figures and highlighted red to point out the situation described above: 1 2 http://www.globalgap.org/export/sites/default/.content/.galleries/documents/111110_gg_data_access_rules_v1.0_nov11_en.pdf covering all option 1 producers and option 2 producer groups, but not option 2 producer group members Confidential to GLOBALG.A.P. Board Page 2 of 7 GLOBALG.A.P. c/o FoodPLUS GmbH Spichernstr. 55 | 50672 Cologne, Germany |[email protected] www.globalgap.org GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 104/120 BOARD BOARD MEETING 4 -5 JUNE 2013 Fig. 1: Producer access rights taken from GLOBALG.A.P. DATA ACCESS RULES FOR GLOBALG.A.P. INTEGRATED FARM ASSURANCE V4 Confidential to GLOBALG.A.P. Board Page 3 of 7 GLOBALG.A.P. c/o FoodPLUS GmbH Spichernstr. 55 | 50672 Cologne, Germany |[email protected] www.globalgap.org GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 105/120 BOARD BOARD MEETING 4 -5 JUNE 2013 Fig. 2: Footnotes to the producer access rights taken from GLOBALG.A.P. DATA ACCESS RULES FOR GLOBALG.A.P. INTEGRATED FARM ASSURANCE V4 2) Suggested change We hereby suggest to 1) Lift the exclusion for non-certificate holders (i.e. members of a group certificate or option 2 producer group member) and require to show their name and address to the GLOBALG.A.P. user group ‘market participants’. This change would align the data sharing requirements among option 1 producers, option 2 producer groups and option 2 producers. The exceptional option of individual certificate holders to apply for blocking access to his/her name and address to specific companies would also be extended to option 2 producer group members. This would give every registered producer the opportunity to block his/her access individually. We expect that the majority would possibly not make use of this exception. 2) Set the option of granting access of the company name and address to the public compulsory for all certificate holders. This would not only limit access to this information to market participants. Implementing 1) and 2) would keep a differentiation on the level of transparency between certificate holders and non-certificate holders but extend the transparency of both to a higher level. Confidential to GLOBALG.A.P. Board Page 4 of 7 GLOBALG.A.P. c/o FoodPLUS GmbH Spichernstr. 55 | 50672 Cologne, Germany |[email protected] www.globalgap.org GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 106/120 BOARD BOARD MEETING 4 -5 JUNE 2013 3) Justification Since GLOBALG.A.P. is focusing to convince retailers to explicitly check if the delivered produce is really certified and the majority of producers in the GLOBALG.A.P. system are accepted in option 23 we are facing the situation that more and more customers ask us why the producer name and address is not visible to them. In detail we as GLOBALG.A.P. would name the following reasons to consider this change: 3.1) Crucial for certification validation Checking a GGN without seeing the producer’s name and address displayed accordingly complicates the process of validation since you have way less indication if the GGN on the produce really refers to the produce origin. 3.2) Not common practice To our knowledge other standard owner do not have similar rules in place. NSF Certification UK Ltd. as one of our big Certification Bodies even obliges their producers to actively show name and address to the public4 as this is part of their contract with the producer. 3.3) Not in the interest of the producer himself/herself Most producers are not aware of this situation and therefore also not aware that they need to actively change this setting in order to display their name and address to the group ‘market participant’. As of 17th May 2013 only 15% of the option 2 producer group members in certified process for GLOBALG.A.P. Integrated Farm Assurance in version 4.0 have actively set their producer name visible to market participants. In addition the increasing requirement to label produce from producer groups with the GGN of the individual option 2 producer group member is a point to mention here. 3.5) Explicitly wished by GLOBALG.A.P. Members GLOBALG.A.P. has been contacted by several Retail Members that have asked us to bring up this point to the GLOBALG.A.P. Board. Mostly as soon as a retailer starts to actively check incoming produce regularly this question arises. If GLOBALG.A.P. develops a customer specific add-on to the GLOBALG.A.P. Integrated Farm Assurance standard it is always one crucial point that participating producers are obliged to show their name and address to the customer implementing the add-on. 3 4 69% as of 30th April 2013 which certainly makes any limitations to market participants obsolete Confidential to GLOBALG.A.P. Board Page 5 of 7 GLOBALG.A.P. c/o FoodPLUS GmbH Spichernstr. 55 | 50672 Cologne, Germany |[email protected] www.globalgap.org GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 107/120 BOARD BOARD MEETING 4 -5 JUNE 2013 3.4) Requires additional process for customers to get this information GLOBALG.A.P. has established processes and forms that support customers to achieve that producers reveal their name and address accordingly for them. These processes generate costs on GLOBALG.A.P. and customers side since they have to be passed through for each single producer not showing his name and address. 4) Implications If the Board agrees to this proposal the following implications may imply: 4.1) New scheme version As the current rules for GLOBALG.A.P. Integrated Farm Assurance in version 4.0 are operative and have been agreed by all producers participating, an update of these data access rules would have refer to a new scheme version, e.g. version 4.1. All producers participating in this new scheme version could then be obliged to show their name and address to all market participants. 4.2) Timeframe If a new scheme version will be installed following these updated data access rules it will take roughly 1 year for all producers to be re-certified according to the new scheme version. 4.2) Implementation costs regarding the GLOBALG.A.P. Database No implementation costs will apply as this can be configured with the current implementation stage. 4.3) Benchmarking It needs to be clarified if this change is sufficient for a new Benchmarking process for other schemes or if it can easily be adopted for the already benchmarked schemes against GLOBALG.A.P. Integrated Farm Assurance version 4.0. Confidential to GLOBALG.A.P. Board Page 6 of 7 GLOBALG.A.P. c/o FoodPLUS GmbH Spichernstr. 55 | 50672 Cologne, Germany |[email protected] www.globalgap.org GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 108/120 BOARD BOARD MEETING 4 -5 JUNE 2013 5) Risks Since this setting was set up with the introduction of version 4.0 there might be people who do not support this change. Those will be particularly suppliers that do not want their direct producers selling to them to be visible for market participants. One the other hand there might be also some producer groups that do not want all their producers visible for market participants. 6) Opportunities We as GLOBALG.A.P. have identified the opportunities: 6.1) Transparency increased to ensure the validation process With this change the recommended process of validation and verification of incoming produce would significantly be strengthened and the misuse of GGN labelling could be decreased. 6.2) Effort and costs reduction With this change we would reduce costs on GLOBALG.A.P. and customer side as the additional process of revealing this information could be dropped. In addition costs for the producer himself, his Farm Assurer or Certification Body would be decreased since the requests to actively set this free would disappear. 6.3) Strengthen GLOBALG.A.P. To our mind GLOBALG.A.P. as such would benefit from this, since the standard itself would increase his value by showing more information about the producer. Confidential to GLOBALG.A.P. Board Page 7 of 7 GLOBALG.A.P. c/o FoodPLUS GmbH Spichernstr. 55 | 50672 Cologne, Germany |[email protected] www.globalgap.org GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 109/120 BOARD BOARD MEETING 4 -5 JUNE 2013 PROPOSAL TO CHANGE GLOBALG.A.P. DATA ACCESS RULES FOR GLOBALG.A.P. INTEGRATED FARM ASSURANCE REGARDING PRODUCT CHECKLIST DATA AND QUANTITY DATA 1) Current situation 1 2) Suggested change 3 3) Justification 3.1) Checklist visibility 3.2) Plausibility checks 3.3) Requires additional process for customers to get this information 3 4 4 4 4) Implications 4.1) New scheme version 4.2) Timeframe 4.2) Implementation costs regarding the GLOBALG.A.P. Database 4.3) Benchmarking 4 4 4 5 5 5) Risks 5.1) Display of internal data 5.2) Transparency on GLOBALG.A.P. fees invoiced 5 5 5 6) Opportunities 6.1) Transparency increased to ensure the validation process 6.2) Effort and costs reduction 6.3) Strengthen GLOBALG.A.P 5 5 6 6 1) Current situation The majority of producers participating in the GLOBALG.A.P. system are following the rules of the standard GLOBALG.A.P. Integrated Farm Assurance in version 4.0. These rules are also basis for any Benchmarking of the standard done by GLOBALG.A.P. Apart from the General Regulations the rules also cover additional General Information documents such as the Data Access Rules for GLOBALG.A.P. Integrated Confidential to GLOBALG.A.P. Board Page 1 of 6 GLOBALG.A.P. c/o FoodPLUS GmbH Spichernstr. 55 | 50672 Cologne, Germany |[email protected] www.globalgap.org GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 110/120 BOARD BOARD MEETING 4 -5 JUNE 2013 Farm Assurance for v41. This document describes which data information is visible to whom if a producer participates in the standard GLOBALG.A.P. Integrated Farm Assurance in version 4.0 or benchmarked schemes. Following these Data Access Rules nobody is obliged to show their checklist information2 and product quantity data3 to the group ‘market participants’. The group ‘market participants’ represents companies or individuals who trade with the certified product and have access to the GLOBALG.A.P. Database. Even though we do not store any checklist information currently for the standard GLOBALG.A.P. Integrated Farm Assurance in version 4.0, a change of this would not implicate any visible checklist for market participants due to the missing obligation. This results in showing: <Access to this information is restricted by producer. To apply for access, please contact supplier/producer directly.> if you look up a producer for the checklist information (if available) or the product quantities in the GLOBALG.A.P. Database. The relevant parts out of the Data Access Rules for GLOBALG.A.P. Integrated Farm Assurance for v4 are shown in the following figures and highlighted red to point out the situation described above: 1 http://www.globalgap.org/export/sites/default/.content/.galleries/documents/111110_gg_data_access_rules_v1.0_nov11_en.pdf covering the checklist result and the open non conformity report 3 covering the scope specific area of production that is base for the registration fee according to the GLOBALG.A.P. fee table 2 Confidential to GLOBALG.A.P. Board Page 2 of 6 GLOBALG.A.P. c/o FoodPLUS GmbH Spichernstr. 55 | 50672 Cologne, Germany |[email protected] www.globalgap.org GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 111/120 BOARD BOARD MEETING 4 -5 JUNE 2013 Fig. 1: Product access rights taken from GLOBALG.A.P. DATA ACCESS RULES FOR GLOBALG.A.P. INTEGRATED FARM ASSURANCE V4 2) Suggested change We hereby suggest setting the visibility of the checklist information and product quantity data compulsory for market participants. This would be applicable for certificate holder similar to non-certificate holder as, even though option 2 producer group members will not have an individual checklist. 3) Justification Since GLOBALG.A.P. is focusing to convince retailers to explicitly check if the delivered produce is really certified we are facing the questions why this information is not even visible to market participants and needs to be explicitly granted by each single producer. In detail we as GLOBALG.A.P. would name the following reasons to consider this change: Confidential to GLOBALG.A.P. Board Page 3 of 6 GLOBALG.A.P. c/o FoodPLUS GmbH Spichernstr. 55 | 50672 Cologne, Germany |[email protected] www.globalgap.org GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 112/120 BOARD BOARD MEETING 4 -5 JUNE 2013 3.1) Checklist visibility At the moment we will have integrated the checklist in the GLOBALG.A.P. Database nearly nobody will take notice on this. GLOBALG.A.P. would have to actively communicate about this new feature and every customer would have to contact his producers to make them grant him permission on this information. 3.2) Plausibility checks To give possibilities on plausibility, i.e. if it is plausible to source this amount of certified produce from this producer, GLOBALG.A.P. can provide the product quantity data for every product in certified process. This can improve the process of certification validation and strengthen the GLOBALG.A.P. certification system. 3.3) Requires additional process for customers to get this information GLOBALG.A.P. has established processes and forms that support customers to achieve that producers reveal their product quantity data accordingly for them. These processes generate costs on GLOBALG.A.P. and customers side since they have to be passed through for each single producer not showing his product quantity data. 4) Implications If the Board agrees to this proposal the following implications may imply: 4.1) New scheme version As the current rules for GLOBALG.A.P. Integrated Farm Assurance in version 4.0 are operative and have been agreed by all producers participating, an update of these data access rules would have refer to a new scheme version, e.g. version 4.1. All producers participating in this new scheme version could then be obliged to show their name and address to all market participants. 4.2) Timeframe If a new scheme version will be installed following these updated data access rules it will take roughly 1 year for all producers to be re-certified according to the new scheme version. Confidential to GLOBALG.A.P. Board Page 4 of 6 GLOBALG.A.P. c/o FoodPLUS GmbH Spichernstr. 55 | 50672 Cologne, Germany |[email protected] www.globalgap.org GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 113/120 BOARD BOARD MEETING 4 -5 JUNE 2013 4.2) Implementation costs regarding the GLOBALG.A.P. Database No implementation costs will apply as this can be configured with the current implementation stage. 4.3) Benchmarking It needs to be clarified if this change is sufficient for a new Benchmarking process for other schemes or if it can easily be adopted for the already benchmarked schemes against GLOBALG.A.P. Integrated Farm Assurance version 4.0. 5) Risks Since this setting was set up with the introduction of version 4.0 there might be people who do not support this change. In detail we as GLOBALG.A.P. would name the following risks to consider: 5.1) Display of internal data Display of all product quantity data or checklist information to market participants could be considered as display of internal data of the producer. 5.2) Transparency on GLOBALG.A.P. fees invoiced With this information every market participant could calculate GLOBALG.A.P. fees invoiced per product, scope, region, certification body, etc. 6) Opportunities We as GLOBALG.A.P. have identified the opportunities: 6.1) Transparency increased to ensure the validation process With this change the recommended process of validation and verification of incoming produce would significantly be strengthened and the misuse of GGN labelling could be decreased. Confidential to GLOBALG.A.P. Board Page 5 of 6 GLOBALG.A.P. c/o FoodPLUS GmbH Spichernstr. 55 | 50672 Cologne, Germany |[email protected] www.globalgap.org GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 114/120 BOARD BOARD MEETING 4 -5 JUNE 2013 6.2) Effort and costs reduction With this change we would reduce costs on GLOBALG.A.P. and customer side as the additional process of revealing this information could be dropped. In addition costs for the producer himself, his Farm Assurer or Certification Body would be decreased since the requests to actively set this free would disappear. 6.3) Strengthen GLOBALG.A.P To our mind GLOBALG.A.P. as such would benefit from this, since the standard itself would increase his value by showing more information about the producer. Confidential to GLOBALG.A.P. Board Page 6 of 6 GLOBALG.A.P. c/o FoodPLUS GmbH Spichernstr. 55 | 50672 Cologne, Germany |[email protected] www.globalgap.org GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 115/120 BOARD BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 5 YEAR MARKETING PLAN – PROJECTED NUMBERS 1. SHEET: 2013 Confidential to GLOBALG.A.P. Board Page 1 of 4 GLOBALG.A.P c/o FoodPLUS GmbH Spichernstr. 55 | 50672 Cologne, Germany |[email protected] www.globalgap.org GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 116/120 BOARD BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 2. SHEET: 2014 Confidential to GLOBALG.A.P. Board Page 2 of 4 GLOBALG.A.P c/o FoodPLUS GmbH Spichernstr. 55 | 50672 Cologne, Germany |[email protected] www.globalgap.org GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 117/120 BOARD BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 3. SHEET: 2017 Confidential to GLOBALG.A.P. Board Page 3 of 4 GLOBALG.A.P c/o FoodPLUS GmbH Spichernstr. 55 | 50672 Cologne, Germany |[email protected] www.globalgap.org GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 118/120 BOARD BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 4. SHEET 2014 II Confidential to GLOBALG.A.P. Board Page 4 of 4 GLOBALG.A.P c/o FoodPLUS GmbH Spichernstr. 55 | 50672 Cologne, Germany |[email protected] www.globalgap.org GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 119/120 BOARD May 2013 TRACEABILITY VIA (DESIGN-) QR CODE Scenario 1 – Link to single producer GGN • Theoretically possible today (www.my-fish.info) • Links to certification information of one single producer (GGN) • More information about responsible aquaculture available on the website • Difficult in case of mixed batches/product packages (e.g. capsicum, sushi) Scenario 2 – Link to trader/packer and enter batch number • QR Code links to a mini page of the trader/packer (CoC certified) • User enters a batch number (printed on the product packaging) • Several producers (GGNs) linked to one batch number of the trader/packer • Maintenance of the batch information possible via GLOBALG.A.P. Bookmarking (but no public information today) Scenario 3 – Direct link to batch information • Trader/packer generates one QR Code per batch • QR Code links directly to the information about the producers (GGNs) – also for mixed packages • No additional entry needed • Easy in case the product packaging is printed for every batch • Maintenance of the batch information possible via GLOBALG.A.P. Bookmarking (but no public information today) à All scenarios include the possibility of a so called “white label” (means embedding the information in the trader/packer/retailer’s webpage, only data transfer out of GLOBALG.A.P. Database). à All scenarios are theoretically possible in cooperation with fTrace (EPCIS). à Information about other certification schemes could be displayed in case the data is available in the database (e.g. products from ASC, GAA and GLOBALG.A.P. certified producers in one batch). Page 1 of 2 GLOBALG.A.P. c/o FoodPLUS GmbH Spichernstr. 55 | 50672 Cologne, Germany |[email protected] www.globalgap.org GLOBALG.A.P. BOARD MEETING 4 - 5 JUNE 2013 | PAGE 120/120 BOARD May 2013 Add your GGN to the end of this link, like in this example: http://database.globalgap.org/mobile/4050373748074 Use this unique link to create your personal QR code. This is an example of what your QR code could look like: with your business partners & clients! In June 2013 we will publish more consumer info our website. Consumers can check the validity of the GGNs and get more information on Add your GGN to the end of this link, like in this example: http://database.globalgap.org/mobile/4050373748074 Use this unique link to create your personal QR code. This is an example of what your QR code could look like: with your business partners & clients! In June 2013 we will publish more consumer info our website. Consumers can check the validity of the GGNs and get more information on Page 2 of 2 GLOBALG.A.P. c/o FoodPLUS GmbH Spichernstr. 55 | 50672 Cologne, Germany |[email protected] www.globalgap.org
© Copyright 2026 Paperzz