Project n. 074-15 ACP-EU TBT PROGRAMME (REG/FED/022-667)95.110.167.47/tbt/doc/74-15 Final...

African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States

“Enhance trade capacities of Pacific Agribusiness and

improve access to international markets”

Project n. 074-15

ACP-EU TBT PROGRAMME

(REG/FED/022-667)

FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT

31st March 2017

Project implemented by

074-15 « Enhance trade capacities of Pacific Agribusiness and improve access to international markets »| Final Report 2

Table of contents

Contents

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ................................................................................................ 3

LIST OF TABLES, GRAPHS AND PICTURES ....................................................................................... 3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .................................................................................................................. 4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................. 4

1 BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................................... 8

1.1 THE TBT PROJECT 074-15 ............................................................................................................. 8

1.2 ECONOMY DEVELOPMENT IN FIJI AND TONGA .................................................................................... 9

2 ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT ..................................................................................................... 11

3 RESULTS ACHIEVED ............................................................................................................. 24

1.3 MAJOR ACHIEVEMENTS ................................................................................................................ 24

1.4 RESULTS ACHIEVED IN COMPARISON TO LOG-FRAME ......................................................................... 27

KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................... 29

1.5 TECHNICAL FINDINGS ................................................................................................................... 29

1.6 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................... 32

1.7 THE PROJECT SUSTAINABILITY, EXIT STRATEGY FOR THE GROUP OF TRAINERS ......................................... 34

Annexes

Annex A1: Training Report

Annex A2: Database of training participants

Annex A3: Example of pilot methodology

Annex A4: Programme of the Final Workshop

Annex A5: List of participants, Final Workshop

Annex A6: Presentations to the final workshop

Annex A7: List of Service Providers

Annex A8: One page presentation and press release

Annex A9: Teams of Trainers’ Technical Assistance documents

Annex A10: GLOBALG.A.P. Approved certification bodies


Annex A11: GLOBALG.A.P. qualification for farm inspections

Annex A12: Template of visit report

Abbreviations and acronyms

BRC British Retail Consortium

EQMS Export Quality Management Systems

GAP Good Agricultural Practices

HACCP Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point

IAS Institute of Applied Sciences

ICOM Method for Process description based on the definition of Inputs,

Commands, Outputs and Mechanisms

ISO International Standards Organization

PHAMA Pacific Horticultural & Agricultural Market Access Program

PIPSO Pacific Islands Private Sector Organisation

QMS Quality Management System

SME Small and Medium Enterprise (s)

TOT Training of the Trainers

UN United Nations

USP University of South Pacific

List of tables, Graphs and Pictures

Table 1 – Ethnics groups in New Zealand (source: Shane O’Brien, 2017) ........................................... 11

Table 2 – Project implementation ....................................................................................................... 12

Table 3 – List of sensitisation meetings (Activity 1.3) ......................................................................... 14

Table 4 – Estimated time to certification for selected assisted SMEs ................................................. 18

Table 5 – Advanced training on food safety to Trainers - Assessment by participants ...................... 21

Table 6 – Advanced training on food safety to Trainers - Average daily assessment by participants 21

Table 7 – Advanced training on food safety to SMEs - Assessment by participants ........................... 22


Table 8 – Advanced training on food safety to Trainers - Average daily assessment by participants 22

Table 9 – Final Workshop - Assessment by participants ..................................................................... 23

Table 10 – Service Providers that have contributed to the technical assistance to SMEs .................. 24

Table 11 – Main results achieved within the Project .......................................................................... 25

Table 12 – Project Log-frame and results achieved ............................................................................ 27

Acknowledgement

SOGES team (Ms Mariangela Romanazzi, Ms Serena Tonziello and, in the initial stage and

preparation, Ms Claudia Alice) has implemented the Project with the support of the technical team

comprising Ms Marta Bentancur Servetti (Team Leader and Food Safety Specialist) and Mr. Dario

Caccamisi (Food Safety Specialist).

Marta Bentancur Servetti is an agronomist with long experience in food quality and safety and

practical knowledge of the entire food chain, from primary production to distribution and retailing.

She has coordinated the Technical Team, checking the possible conflicts and redundancy in the

planning of the project and was responsible of the preparation of the training material in

collaboration with the KE2, per the TOR and SOGES guidelines.

Dario Caccamisi is a European agronomist with long experience in food supply chain management,

food safety, and quality assurance programmes, particularly in Italy, West Africa, Mediterranean

countries, Central Asia and the Balkans region including good experience in ACP-EU-TBT Projects.

The involved key stakeholders have contributed to the implementation of the Project and equally

share its success. We primarily refer to PIPSO, directly involved in all the Project activities, and the

Tonga Chamber of Commerce, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, Forestry and Food (MAFFF) and the

Growers Federation that have supported the Project activities in the Kingdom of Tonga.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The ACP EU TBT Project 074-15 «Enhance trade capacities of Pacific Agribusiness and improve

access to international markets» is focussed on the improvement of the capacities of selected

agribusiness in the Pacific region to overcome barriers to trade in regional and international

markets and take advantage of existing exporting opportunities as overall objective. This project

aimed at developing and executing a Market Access Capacity Building Programme for the Pacific

Islands by strengthening the export capacity of agro-processing companies and skills of services

providers in the field of certification in Fiji and Tonga with emphasis on food safety. The initiative


was implemented in association with PIPSO, the peak regional private sector body for the region

whose members are comprised of the national private sector organisations of the fourteen Forum

Pacific Island Countries and American Samoa.

The Project was implemented by SOGES, an Italian consultancy firm, in association with PIPSO and

other stakeholders such as the Tonga Chamber of Commerce and the MAFFF and the Growers

Federation of the Kingdom of Tonga.

The Project has trained 20 Service-Providers on food safety standards (HACCP, ISO 22000:2005, BRC

and GLOBALG.A.P.), 52 specialists have participated in the three sensitisation seminars, with 33

SMEs representatives, 24 SMEs have been trained on certification and 15 SMEs were accompanied

in the certification process. This has happened through two training sessions, three sensitisation

seminars and the implementation of a specific capacity building programme to assist selected agro-

processing companies in Fiji and Tonga. As seen in the evaluation sheets, results of the training

activities were highly positive and further manifestations of appreciation were shared among

participants, with good transfer of knowledge to the audiences. Pilot coaching was delivered in two

SMEs in Fiji and one in Tonga where all trainers could accompany and participate along with the

expert. Further assistance to the 15 SMEs by the trainers were done during December and January.

The short time left for implementation was a handicap in the Project and even when most of the

SMEs showed a significant improvement towards compliance with new requirements, no enterprise

was able to achieve certification.

The availability of 20 qualified Trainers on food safety standard is now a major asset of the region

and the two assisted Islands. These Trainers shall serve as catalysts to disseminate food safety in the

region. This will be particularly evident within those organisations, such as the Fiji Export Council,

that identify food quality and safety as a strategic tool for the development of the regional economy

and position themselves as leaders in the relevant technical assistance to the business community.

In these cases, we expect huge benefits for the food sector and the regional economy, with great

potential for improvement.

The adoption of the proposed quality and safety standards is usually a market-driven process that

starts from the customers and must find availability and commitment in the suppliers. So far, we

have observed that this has not largely happened, due to the uncertain interest of some customers,

the production-oriented approach of the regional SMEs and the lack of stimulus from the domestic

legislations. One of the major achievements of the Project has been “opening the eyes” of the

sector on the need of quality and safety, stimulating enterprises to take a lead in quality and


providing qualified personnel for the implementation.

Assistance to SME’s by service providers showed to be a good start to evaluate real situation of

companies and the needs to achieve certification. The activity had also shown some weaknesses

particularly due to limitation of communication between service providers and experts due to

limited means or knowledge from service providers and additionally due to administrative issues,

related to organization and financial resources. Nevertheless, from the 15 SME’s, 11 have received

their final reports, evaluation and recommendations and have the necessary instruments to

progress toward certification. From the overall data, prioritization of key matters will be necessary

to be able to promote and advance in food safety certification. Traceability and good agricultural

practices seem to be critical issues which constitute a real barrier to trade.

High costs of third-party certification and the lack of accredited regional certification bodies was

highly perceived by the sector. The SME’s evident need of sourcing the appropriate expertise for

certification, in addition to the high level of satisfaction of the assisted SMEs in respect to the

service providers’ work is the core for designing an “exit strategy” to give sustainability to the

Project activities and encourage the trained Service Providers to guide the development of food

safety in the region at the service of institutions and SMEs. Maximum benefits for all interested

parties should be approached through the organisation of a cluster of consultants who become the

focal point of food safety improvement in the region. This report outlines a draft proposal that

includes the organisational structure of the cluster for Fiji and Tonga, the marketing plan and

training programme, communication initiatives to be launched in the area. Support from local

institutions will be necessary, particularly at the early stage. Beneficiaries such as PIPSO, the Fiji

Export Council and Tonga Chamber of Commerce should have a key role in the pursue of these

objectives. Co-ordination of this initiative with the several Projects already active in the region will

be essential in order not to duplicate efforts.

A policy brief for future initiatives in food safety in the region and for the project sustainability has

been defined during the workshop panel discussions and following the contribution of the relevant

speakers, here is a strong necessity of further interventions in the region regarding food safety. This

starts at a primary production level, with reference to Good Agricultural Practices, where both

countries Fiji and Tonga are far from certification when analysing the producers’ procedures, with

common lack of records and minimum to non-traceability systems in place. These aspects need

further interventions, that this Project has started addressing within the GLOBALG.A.P. component.


The high percentage of subsistence growers and micro enterprises does increase fragmentation in

the sector and make more difficult the adoption of quality standards. Only in the taro sector in Fiji,

it is estimated 2,000 growers in the subsistence category and 750 as commercial growers1. This

constraint should be addressed through specific initiatives stimulating aggregation of primary

producers and investments in market integrators with adequate capacity to transfer the adoption of

quality standards to the suppliers.

Creating awareness on food safety, at all level of the food chains and among consumers, has been

repeatedly remarked by the Project stakeholders and training participants as an essential initiative

to improve the response of all actors involved, including enterprises and institutions, to the need of

producing, supplying and delivering safe food products. Specific communication campaigns can

successfully sensitise the interested parties to food safety. The good results that the Project

sensitisation seminars have achieved demonstrate that even simple initiatives can do much, if well

conducted.

Creation of awareness shall also draw the attention of all interested parties onto the concept of

change and the need of changing the organisation, procedures, attitude they adopt with regards to

food quality and safety. Training is the tool that facilitates change and accompanies the

improvement of the regional food safety conditions at all level of the chain.

As we are talking of food safety, risk assessment is an essential tool that should become familiar to

all relevant parties within the development of quality management systems that should receive

high attention within new projects, training and technical assistance across the region. This

renovated approach to quality management should facilitate the adoption of important concepts

such as team working and networking, creating the conditions for stronger integration within the

domestic agri-food chains. Here we consider both horizontal integration among similar chain

players and vertical integration across the chain in well-organised customer-supplier relationships.

The regional institutions can play an essential role in promotion networking and collaboration

among enterprises under training programmes.

Low access of SMEs to financial support to invest in infrastructure according to requirements

seems to be another issue to take into account for the progress of implementation. The availability

of financial resources for food safety is another serious constraint that participants have stressed.

Projects like the ACP-EU-TBT line can provide good, free support to regional technicians and

enterprises that want to improve food safety. However, more sustainability will derive from joint

1 Developing sustainable green and inclusive agricultural value chains in the Caribbean and The Pacific Islands, Fiji, p. 69.


efforts of regional business associations, public institutions and financial institutions to design

specific financial packages for soft loans and micro-credit to the enterprises that are willing to invest

in food quality and safety.

The necessity of connecting the efforts made in food safety with profitable market results has also

been considered. Branding is the strategy that the regional exporters should adopt to differentiate

exports, considering the development of country/regional brands that capitalise on appropriate

food safety practices and standards for gaining better positions and reputation in the international

markets. Similar experiences in the ACP region exist that could serve as example and guidance.

Conformity assessment is not well developed in the region, forcing the companies willing to

achieve any certification to make use of international certification bodies, which is a limitation to

the development of the sector. At the same time, there is not a clear demand for food safety

certification coming from some exporters and even less from the domestic market, a fact which is

not encouraging domestic producers and processors to adopt quality standards. In fact, even

though there is a national regulation to mandate HACCP in food enterprises, coming into force has

been delayed because of constraints from the industry to comply with minimum requirements,

primarily due to low technical and financial capacity to implement the new food safety rules.

Measures should be taken to help the national quality infrastructures adopt the same rules for both

export and the internal markets and co-ordinate at a regional level regarding food safety and

quality. These improvements at a quality infrastructure level could also address the lack of

conformity assessment services, especially for certification.

The major challenge of the programme for sustainable production will finally be linked to the

equilibrium between compliance to safe food production and better returns to growers and

enterprises along the value chain.

1 BACKGROUND

1.1 The TBT Project 074-15

The Project has been implemented from June 2016 to January 2017 following the initial TOR and

the methodology that SOGES had submitted. During the implementation, two modifications were

made to TORs. As required by PIPSO, there was a change from the original Sensitisation Seminar

proposed by the TOR in Activity 1.3 to three half-day workshops, two in Fiji and one in Tonga. This

was the tool to advance and contact stakeholders and SMEs potentially interested in the training


programme. The other modification to TOR relates to the reallocation of 5 home-based working

days for remote assistance to the local teams from the Team Leader to KE2, so that at the end the

inputs of the two Project Specialists was as per the table below.

Project Specialists

Field wd Home-based wd

TL 50 wd in Fiji and Tonga 10 wd home-based for remote assistance

KE2 20 wd in Fiji 10 wd home-based for remote assistance

TOTAL 70 wd in Fiji and Tonga 20 wd home-based for remote assistance

Important adjustments have been made during the Project implementation, particularly during

preparation to Activity 2.1, 2-2 and 2.3. A local organiser was appointed, Ms Apiame Cegumalua, a

Fijian food and quality specialist who is co-operating with the Project in logistics arrangements,

managing of final transfer of funds to recipients and technical co-ordination of the Trainers’ teams

on behalf of the Team Leader and the international Team. Also, the budget has been defined

regarding Incidental Expenditures and Lumpsum. The Incidental Expenditures budget has been

broken down to identify the necessary budget items. Attention has been given to fund the Trainers’

mobility during Activity 2.2 to facilitate and incentivise their contribution to the Project field

activities.

1.2 Economy development in Fiji and Tonga

The two selected Islands (Fiji and Tonga) have small dimensions (0.9 million population in Fiji and

0.1 million population in Tonga), with their economies being based on micro and small enterprises.

Several projects from international donors are currently active in the region in the agri-food sector.

Such the case of the European Union funding assistance to the regional agri-business sector and the

largest neighbouring countries Australia and New Zealand providing assistance through public

projects and long-term business relationships. Yet, food safety is an issue and concerns exist, also

due to recent food scandals that have happened in the region (Fish poison incidents in Fiji in the last

months caused by Ciguatera). Looking at the market side and the opportunities for differentiation,

several reasons, including clean environment, friendly people and astonishing landscapes, have

created the conditions for sustaining a “Pacific Brand” that is recognised worldwide and in the

neighbouring markets but only partially exhausted in its large potential.

Fiji’s economy is supported by robust services and tourism, but much of the workforce is employed

in agriculture, which is the primary component of the economy. Also the small island of Tonga,

which has a very narrowly based economy, depends on agricultural exports (2016 Index of


Economic Freedom). The analysis of the horticultural international trade of the two islands provide

a good picture of their economies in the food sector.

Figure 1 – Horticultural international trade of Fiji and Tonga, current USD (Source: UN Comtrade Database)

Over the last 5 years, Fiji has increased exports and a positive trade balance (an average of +10

million USD per year), even though a slight decrease is observed since 2013. The Kingdom of Tonga

shows also a similar situation, with declining exports and a highly negative trade balance (average -

4.5 million USD per year). Figures may hide though the reason of the decrease, if it is due to

decrease in volumes, in value or in both. Neither production of horticultural crops is improving, as

the chart below shows.

Figure 2 – Production of horticultural crops in Fiji and Tonga (source: FAOSTAT)

Production of horticultural crops, including fruit, vegetables, roots and tubers, is stable in the

Kingdom of Tonga and is declining in Fiji after a peak in 2012 (data observations limited to up 2014).

The trade structure in Tonga appears weak, with fragmentation and instability among the exporting

companies, as the table below shows with reference to exports of squash. From 30 exporting

companies at the beginning of the period only 5 are operative today. Most other have had a

“swallow behaviour” getting in and out without a consistent pattern.

-

50.000

100.000

150.000

200.000

250.000

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

HorticulturaL Production in Fiji and Tonga, MT (source: FAOSTAT)

Fiji Tonga


Figure 3 - Squash exporters in Tonga (source: Nishi Trade, 2017)

Looking at the composition of the export destination countries of the two Islands, however, further

weaknesses appear, as Fiji concentrates 71% of horticultural exports onto New Zealand and the

Kingdom of Tonga raises the same indicator to 93%. The analysis of New Zealand population shows

an interesting multi-ethnic picture that provides opportunities to food exports from the Pacific

Islands Countries and could be improved with high quality and safety products.

Table 1 – Ethnics groups in New Zealand (source: Shane O’Brien, 2017)

7.4% Pacific Island 14.9% Maori 11.8% Asian (deriving from various nations is Asia) 1.2% Middle East, Latin American, African descent 64.7% New Zealand European

2 ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT

The Project has completed all activities foreseen by TOR and has been implemented as it was

scheduled during the Inception phase without delays, although more time between one activity and

the following one would have allowed for better implementation. PIPSO and the other


stakeholders, , have constantly contributed to the Project activities with practical support and

advice.

The implementation of the Project till the pilot phase of Activity 2.2 is described in the previous

Training and Interim Reports that are attached to this Report (Training Report, AnnexA1). The

conclusions of Activity 2.2 and Activity 2.3 are detailed in this Report. The following summarises the

activities carried out during project implementation, with the indication of the outputs completed,

comments on project schedule, any possible delay on the implementation, related reasons, etc. and

focusing on beneficiaries’ participation to project activities.

The table below summaries the key steps in the Project implementation

Table 2 – Project implementation

Activity Months

Kick-off Meeting and Preparation (Activity 1.1) June 2016 – October 2016

Advanced training to Trainers (Activity 1.2) October 2016

Sensitisation seminars (Activity 1.3) September – October 2016

Formal training to SMEs (Activity 2.1) November 2016

Capacity building to SMEs (Activity 2.2) November 2016 – January 2017

Final workshop (Activity 2.3) January 2017

Preparation activities

The Project kick off meeting was held on 21st June 2016 via Skype. Ms. Mereia Volavola took part

representing the Beneficiary. The Team Leader Ms. Marta Bentancur Servetti and the KE2 Mr. Dario

Caccamisi participated from the Team side. Following the kick-off meeting, the Team shared with

PIPSO a list of issues and questions to collect their indications on the deliverables expected to be

part of the Inception phase and the further implementation of the Project. Following a consistent

request from PIPSO, the TL’s first mission was scheduled to start in September 2016, having TBT

PMU confirmed that the Project had to end by January 2017.

Following the review of the training materials, The Project implementation started with two weeks

of preparation (Activity 1.1) from 26th September to 7th October 2016, during which the Team

Leader has been working with stakeholders, SMEs and Trainers in both Fiji and Tonga to complete

all tasks that had remained unexhausted from the inception phase. The preparation of the training

has proved to be essential for the success of programme, with the beneficiary and the service


providers being major drivers for success. This has started with the inception phase, continued with

the preparation of training materials and has concluded with the selection of the service providers

and the companies as required within Activity 1.1. Special focus has been given to selecting the

trainees and preparing the long list of companies that might be engaged in the Project, which also

does include a list of seven exporters of papaya linked up to a joint service centre in Nadi-Fiji.

Additional visits to growers and processing export companies in Fiji and Tonga gave the possibility

for the Team Leader to get in contact with the sector reality of the main fresh fruits and vegetables,

frozen and dried vegetables in both countries and gave additional value for the preparation of the

training materials. During this period, a review has been undertaken to clearly ascertain the

standards that would be applicable for fresh or processed products. The relevant EQMS and food

safety standards to be included in the training to Trainers (Activity 1.2) were confirmed by the team,

HACCP, GLOBALG.A.P., ISO 22000:2005 and BRC-Food. SMEs prioritised HACCP and GLOBALG.A.P.

and a deeper analysis of the different options for QMS was suggested and included in Activity 2.1

for the Training of Quality Managers of SMEs. On Tuesday, 18th October 2016 the Team met with

PIPSO, local stakeholders and Tongan institutions participating in the training to review the long list

of companies prepared during Activity 1.1 and plan the selection of SMEs for the formal training in

Activity 2.1. The export sectors have also been assessed. Even if not building an exhaustive list,

kava, taro, cassava, turmeric, ginger and yam among roots and vegetables, papaya, mango,

coconut, pineapple as the most significant fruits for export within Fiji and Tonga. Other promising

export sectors that have been identified cover seafood, water, condiments and sugar but not

included in the training nor in the implementation period.

Implementation of the Project

From 11th to 21st October, 2016 the Project Team Specialists have delivered an advanced training

on food safety and empowerment of access to market (Activity 1.2) to 20 Trainers (14 service

providers, including a laboratory for analysis, and 6 company representatives involved with grower

suppliers) from Fiji and Tonga. The training and capacity building programme included HACCP,

GLOBALG.A.P., BRC, ISO 22000:2005, as tools in a perspective access to the international markets

The advanced training has covered the modules that are part of the training programme as required

by the TOR and detailed in the methodology and the Inception Report, giving a special focus on

three major pilots for quality and safety systems: Traceability, Risk Assessment and Recall tools that

were strategically delivered during the first training session. The training has hosted three external

speakers that have presented the public controls on food (by Mr. Alipate Momoka of the Ministry of

Health and Medical Services), national registration of pesticides in Fiji (by the Ministry of


Agriculture, Rural and Maritime Development and National Disaster Management Mr. Pauliasi

Waqa Tuilau) and the activity of the IAS Laboratory within the USP (by Ms Mereoni Degei

Gonelevu).

As mentioned in the previous chapter, three sensitisation seminars (Activity 1.3) have been

organised. The first two workshops were held at the end of September 2016 (Fiji) and beginning of

October 2016 (Tonga), while a further workshop with SMEs was held in Fiji, during the last week of

October 2016, as planned, to meet with other companies and complete Activity 1.3. The TBT Project

Manager Mr. Diego Ruiz participated in the third seminar during his mission in Fiji to monitor the

project implementation.

Table 3 – List of sensitisation meetings (Activity 1.3)

Date Place Participants

28th

September, 2016 Suva, Fiji 18 (11 SME representatives)

3rd

October, 2016 Tonga 8 (5 SME representatives)

26th

October, 2016 Suva, Fiji 26 (17 SME representatives)

TOTAL

52 (33 SME representatives)

From 14th to 18th November, 2016 the Project Team Leader has delivered a formal training on food

safety and empowerment of access to market (Activity 2.1) as formal training on EQM and

selected standards for further certification to 15 SMEs from Fiji and Tonga. The training and

capacity building programme included HACCP, GLOBALG.A.P., BRC, ISO 22000:2005, as tools in a

perspective access to the international markets. Total 24 participants from SMEs and 6 Service

providers (overall 30 participants) have participated in the

training. The training has covered the topics that were

identified after the previous Activity 1.2, focusing on HACCP,

GLOBALG.A.P., BRC and ISO22000:2005.

The SMEs have been selected according to the criteria pre-

established during the sensitisation workshops including

number of workers, capacity and experience in food safety

systems and products for export. Later, during the capacity

training to SME, selection was done within the assistants,

showing interest and commitment to certification, mostly with experience in exports or as qualified

suppliers in the domestic market.


. With reference to Fiji, the participating SMEs came from several important producing areas of the

group of islands (West, North, South and East of Viti Levu and North of Vanua Levu) covering

growing and processing of fresh and frozen vegetables, (fresh and frozen roots as cassava, yam,

taro, ginger, turmeric and yam, cowpeas, hydroponic vegetables, taro leaves, fruits as papayas,

jackfruit, coconut, mangos, pineapples, nuts as chestnuts and other kind of coconut products, such

as coconut oil

In Tonga, the Project assistance has targeted growers from all over

the island of Tongatapu, in the surroundings of the city of Nuku Alofa,

producing squash, roots, papayas. In both cases destination is mostly

for export, specially to New Zealand and Australia, small quantities to

the US.

In the case of Fiji, some enterprises are domestic market suppliers for

retailers, fast-food companies, hotels, among others Interesting to

point out that some of the raw materials used for processing had no commercial value before some

of these companies started to process and export to selected segments in NZ and Australia (as

breadfruit and jackfruit that were consumed domestically or taro leaves).

The training participants’ details, including Service Providers and SMEs, have been entered into a

MS-Excel database that is attached to this Report as AnnexA2 but limited use of internet in some

areas as in Tonga, the tool was not fully used so far.

At the end of the training week to SMEs, each of them were asked which protocol they were

interested for implementation and HACCP in processing and packaging enterprises and

GLOBALG.A.P for enterprises linked to growers as suppliers and direct growers. On the other side,

service providers were grouped in 5 teams in Fiji and 1 team in Tonga. Details of the teams and

SMEs assisted by each of them are described in AnnexA3.

The coaching and capacity building to SMEs (Activity 2.2) has then started with the pilot phase

targeting three companies, and namely:

1. two companies in Fiji (Joe’s Farm hydroponic vegetables for domestic market including fast

food and hotels for GLOBALG.A.P and Labasa Farm Fresh exporting frozen vegetables for

HACCP)

2. one company belonging to the MAFFF, STABEX, for HACCP in Tonga. This processing plant

has been constructed with funds from the EU for quality and quarantine purposes in 2012.

https://www.google.it/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwja_rupme3RAhWKVhoKHXQqDnUQjRwIBw&url=http://www.fao.org/ag/agp/agpc/doc/Counprof/southpacific/Tonga.htm&psig=AFQjCNH5M1854Hm9MwENgLcg_nQX7zHPSg&ust=1485980017991713


The selection of the pilot companies was done during the capacity building to SMEs week and with

the urgency of only 3 days to start working. The criteria for the selection of the 3 pilot companies

were:

At least one for GLOBALG.A.P. Here Joe´s Farm has shown special interest in participating as

pilot and was evaluated as a high-quality fresh product company which has been already

visited during the sensitisation period.

At least one company in Tonga. Here special difficulties to find enterprises to get involved in

the certification process, because lack of infrastructure minimum for HACCP

implementation and very small growers to start implementation of GLOBALG.A.P. Tongan

service providers suggested to work with SEBEX from the MAFFF for HACCP, as being an

official processing facility which could be an example for the rest of the processing

companies in Tonga and was approved by the Team.

The third company, Labasa Farm Fresh, was selected because an active participation of the

owner in the training week, his commitment to proceed to certification and the wide range

of processed vegetables for export which could be analysed for HACCP.

The pilot coaching was delivered according to the timetable described in the attached table.

Trainers have been working along with the Team Leader in two groups during the two pilot-

assistance in Fiji and in only one group in Tonga. The methodology used included an opening

session with Directors, the primary audit of the farm or processing plant, evaluation and

preparation of Action Plan, closing session with report and all findings and results were detailed in

minutes of each visit. For each pilot coaching, the report presented by the Team Leader and

comments from trainers, to the Directors/Owners, presented a set of priority issues to be

addressed along the assistance of trainers until the end of the project. During the final report, an

Action Plan will also include the remaining requirements to achieve certification. To increase the

confidence of the assisted SMEs in the Project, at the beginning of their work in the SMEs the

Teams and the KEs have signed a declaration of confidentiality to protect any confidential business

information that the teams might have had access to during the assistance. An example of pilot

methodology is presented in AnnexA4

The coaching activities have been implemented from December 2016 to January 2017, a very tight

timeframe that has not allowed to achieve all the expected results and has been negatively

commented by all participants. Nevertheless, the assisted companies have started developing their

own quality systems, with impressive results considering the limited time available (Christmas


holidays neither helped). The food processors adopting HACCP have established the HACCP team,

developed the concepts of quality and hazard analysis, implemented improved flow-charts, also

following the ICOM methodology that they learnt in the training. The primary producers seeking for

GLOBALG.A.P. have identified the responsible person and, through risk assessment, identified the

most critical issues within each farm in order to prioritize actions.

The assisted SMEs are taking the necessary steps to achieve the chosen certifications (HACCP or

GLOBALG.A.P.) and distribute across a range of still necessary timespan to achieve it that goes from

2-3 months to more than one year. The following table summarises the activity 2.2 including

standards, products, months that the assisted SMEs still need to achieve the relevant certifications

according to the assessment made by the Team of Service Providers and the Teams for each SME.


Table 4 – Selected assisted SMEs and estimated time to certification SMEs

N. Activity Location Standard Products-

destination Service

Providers November December January

Expected time for Certification

1 Joe´s Farm Suva, Fiji GLOBALG.A.P. Hydroponic

Vegetables Hotels and fast food Fiji

Meleani Waqainabete, Tina Tawake

No information available. No

reports delivered

2 Fiji Agromarketing

Nausori, Fiji HACCP Coconut oil,

export

Ateca Nauluvula,

Emele Vunisei

3 Produce processing

Suva, Fiji HACCP Canned

vegetables, Cassava

Ateca Nauluvula,

Emele Vunisei

No information available. No reports delivered

4 Lami Kava Suva, Fiji GLOBALG.A.P. Kava for export Meleani

Waqainabete, Tina Tawake

No information available. No

reports delivered

5 FarmBoy Nadi, Fiji HACCP Papaya, eggplant, Hotels and export

Tulia Kuruduadua, Pauliasi Tiliau

6 months

6 Fijica Labasa, Fiji HACCP Coconut oil and

milk export

Mereoni Gonelevu,

Milika Maravu 18-24 months


7 Salem Nausori, Fiji HACCP Eggplant export Tulia

Kuruduadua, Pauliasi Tiliau

12 months

8 Labasa Farm Fresh

Labasa, Fiji HACCP Processed, frozen vegetables export

Mereoni Gonelevu,

Milika Maravu 3-4 months

9 Kahuna Noni Labasa, Fiji HACCP Noni export Mereoni

Gonelevu, Milika Maravu

6 months

10 Maqere Tavua, Fiji HACCP Fresh and frozen

agricultural produce

Tulia Kuruduadua, Pauliasi Tiliau

4-6 months

11 Agricultural Marketing Authority

Nadi, Fiji HACCP Papaya Jone Cavubati, Malcom Ralisa

12 Island Express Nadi, Fiji GLOBALG.A.P. Fresh and frozen Taro for export

Jone Cavubat, Malcom Ralisa

13

MAFFF Agro-Processing Facility (STABEX Building)

Tongatapu,Tonga HACCP Cassava Toilea Mei

Pulotu Taholo, Tilisa Tohi,

Tevita Tapaelavu,

Soakimi Pousima, Mosa

Siosala

4-6 months

14 Nishi Trading, Tonga

Tongatapu,Tonga GLOBALG.A.P. Vegetables No information available. No

reports delivered

15 Growers Federation, Tonga

Tongatapu,Tonga GLOBALG.A.P. Vegetables

074-15 « Enhance trade capacities of Pacific Agribusiness and improve access to international markets »| Final Report

In preparation of the Final Workshop (Activity 2.3), all 15 service providers met with experts, analysed the

state of the assistance in each team, discussed the weaknesses and strengths of the methodology. In

general terms, methodology was well received but the time for implementation was considered very scarce

and logistics quite complicated. During the discussion, each SME was analysed as to the state of

implementation and the estimated time to achieve certification. A detailed report for each SME will be

delivered by the teams and added to this report.

The final Workshop held January 26th was organized with the primary objectives to communicate the

results of the Project to different interested parties, discuss the methodology for coaching, analyse the

experience of service providers involved, receive the opinion of direct beneficiaries of the Project and

particularly find viable alternatives for exit strategy on opportunities to follow up the capacity building. As

detailed in the AnnexA5, the opening session was formally addressed by the Ambassador of the EU

Delegation, Mr. Andrew Jacobs who presented an interesting view of the region and the role of the EU. The

list of participants is included in AnnexA6 and the PPT presentations given during the workshops are in

AnnexA7. Participation of service providers and SMEs was done through 2 Panels of four participants each

and a couple of questions previously prepared to open discussion. It was very interesting to acknowledge

the excellent level of the service providers when summarizing their experience in the SMEs and their

thankful for the opportunity for participating. The common issues included in their speeches to enhance

SMEs capacities were: Training, Testing and Commitment (all participants, including managers and

workers). On the other hand, the four SMEs showed clearly the advantages they had from participation in

the programme and their satisfaction about the relationship with service providers. The high commitment

of the Service Providers / Trainers and SMEs that have participated in the Project has been made clear

during the workshop and constitutes the major reason of success of the Project activities. Additionally, a

private speaker with wide experience in the principal market for Fiji and Tonga was invited to participate

and give a conference on the market requirements and tendencies. Here, Mr. Shane O’ Brien from T&G, a

very important company in New Zealand gave an excellent speech on his expertise. He put his emphasis

that NZ require sustainable programs that can supplement supply shortages, counter-seasonal supply or

compliment NZ supply programs and cover the shortages due to Climate change in NZ and Australia as well.

He stated the need of meeting biosecurity measures as a primary measure for access but also gave his

opinion on the need for consolidation to meet consistency, traceability and minimum certifications

guarantees among suppliers. He stressed the need for market plans, clear strategies marketing and

infrastructure to be able to participation increase in the market. Mr. Minoru Nishi from Nishi Trading, a

specialized and biggest exporter from Tonga, also stressed the need to see the whole value chain, and

analyse carefully the responsibility of each actor and the important role of training and commitment and


passion.

Evaluation of the Training activities

The attendants have evaluated the results of the trainings through specific standard questionnaires offering

the choice among four marks, from 1 (not at all - low) to 4 (fully agree - high). The questions presented to

the attendants were grouped in three main categories: 1) Organisation and logistics; 2) Training

implementation and contents; 3) Overall assessment. The Advanced Training to Trainers (Activity 1.2) has

received the final assessment as per the tables provided below2. Overall, 97% of the answers show

satisfaction with the training received (sum of marks 3 and 4, with the mark 4 covering 78% of the total

frequency) as the table shows, with regular scores among the three categories of questions.

Table 5 – Advanced training on food safety to Trainers - Assessment by participants

GROUP OF QUESTIONS Frequency

Mark 1 Frequency

Mark 2 Frequency

Mark 3 Frequency

Mark 4 Score

(Average) Score

(Mode)

1) Organisation and logistics - 7% 16% 77% 3.7 4

2) Training implementation and contents

- 1% 25% 73% 3.7 4

3) Overall assessment - - 12% 88% 3.9 4

TOTAL - 3% 19% 78% 3.9 4

The results are satisfactory and consistent with the daily assessment that the trainees where they were

requested to make assessment of each day’s session at the end of the training by choosing among three

options: Good, Average, Bad.

Table 6 – Advanced training on food safety to Trainers - Average daily assessment by participants

Day Good Average Bad TOTAL

Average 15 1 0 16

Gross Total 132 11 0 143

Share 92.3% 7.7% 0% 100%

The trainees’ expectations have also been met, as the comparison between the initial expectations that the

trainees were asked to express and the results they felt to have achieved at the end of the training has

shown during the training wrap-up session of the training programme. Furthermore, the overall

participants scored an average 3.8 the questionnaire question “The training met my expectations”, with

84.2% of mark 4 (mode: 4). Within the comments in open questions, participants showed the need of more

2 The question on the previous knowledge of participants about the training has not been considered when processing the questionnaire results as it does not provide input to the assessment of the training implementation and content.


case studies and visit to companies and the fact that training materials were delivered at the end of the

programme (someone would have preferred them at the beginning of the training).

Regarding the evaluation of the Formal Training on EQM and certification (Global GAP, HACCP, ISO 22000)

as per Activity 2.1, the attendants have evaluated the results of the trainings to SMEs through specific

standard questionnaires offering the choice among four marks, from 1 (low) to 4 (high). The questions

presented to the attendants were grouped in three main categories: 1) Organisation and logistics; 2)

Training implementation and contents; 3) Overall assessment3. Overall, 97% of the answers show

satisfaction with the training received (sum of marks 3 and 4, with the mark 4 covering 58% of the total) as

the table below shows, with regular scores among the three categories of questions (highest-score

questionnaire and lowest-score questionnaire no computed).

Table 7 – Advanced training on food safety to SMEs - Assessment by participants


Mark 1

Frequency

Mark 2

Frequency

Mark 3

Frequency

Mark 4

Score

(Average)

Score

(Mode)

1) Organisation and logistics - 4% 13% 84% 3.8 4.0


- 3% 18% 79% 3.8 4.0

3) Overall assessment - - 2% 98% 4.0 4.0

TOTAL - 3% 12% 85% 3.9 4.0

Furthermore, the participants scored an average 4.0 the questionnaire question “The training met my

expectations”, with 100.0% of mark 4 (mode: 4).

The results are satisfactory and consistent with the daily assessment where the trainees were requested to

make assessment of each day’s session at the end of the training by choosing among three options: Good,

Average, Bad.

Table 8 – Advanced training on food safety to Trainers - Average daily assessment by participants

Day Good Average Bad TOTAL

Gross Total 28 1 0 29

Share 97% 3% 0% 100%

Within the comments in open questions, many participants showed that all topics were beneficial and

helpful; that presentations availability of notes and handouts was great; HACCP information was extremely

well explained and planned out. In general, participants were very grateful for such opportunity.

Nevertheless, some participants stressed the need for more group exercises, more case studies and more

3 The question on the previous knowledge of participants about the training has not been considered when processing the questionnaire results as it does not provide input to the assessment of the training implementation and content.


training in company to be able to understand more about food safety. The Training Report AnnexA1 gives

whole information on results and comments.

The Technical Assistance to the selected SMEs (Activity 2.2) has been the occasion to evaluate the work of

the Service Providers and review the effectiveness of the previous training. To do so, the Key Experts have

evaluated the Service Providers’ work and level of preparedness by a five-grade score scale (from Poor = 1

to Excellent = 5 with Low, Average and Good being the intermediate levels) per the following criteria:

1. Leadership

2. Knowledge of food safety principles

3. Interaction with Experts

4. Audit and Technical Assistance methodology

Table 12 summarizes the evaluation of the Teams with final reports.

The evaluation of the Final Workshop (Activity 2.3) has also been largely positive, scored with a frequency

of 3 and 4 marks largely over 90% and the mark 4 constantly over 60% of the frequency of 34 participants.

A list of Service Providers qualified during Activity 2.2

Table 9 – Final Workshop - Assessment by participants


Mark 1

Frequency

Mark 2

Frequency

Mark 3

Frequency

Mark 4

Score

(Average)

Score

(Mode)

1) Organisation and logistics

0.6% 7.1% 31.8% 60.6% 3.5 4


- 5.9% 32.4% 61.8% 3.6 4

3) Overall assessment - 3.9% 35.3% 60.8% 3.6 4

TOTAL 0.2% 5.9% 32.8% 61.1% 3.6 4

Furthermore, the participants scored an average 3.6 mark the questionnaire question “he

workshop/seminar met my expectations”, with 61.8% of mark 4 (mode: 4).

Assistants to all training activities, Service Providers and SMEs, received certificates of participation.

Additionally, Service Providers received certificates of compliance during assistance to SMEs. A complete

list of Service Providers is detailed in AnnexA8.


3 RESULTS ACHIEVED

1.3 Major achievements

The Project has succeeded in training 20 qualified Trainers on HACCP, ISO22000:2005, BRC and

GLOBALG.A.P. standards. The majority of these Trainers belong to associations and public bodies;

therefore, we may expect these entities to disseminate the knowledge that the Project has brought into the

region among other food safety and quality specialists. Furthermore, the Project Team (the International

Specialists and the Local Trainers) have trained 24 SMEs on the same topics (Activity 2.2) and have assisted

15 of those SMEs in the implementation of the same food safety standards. The Trainers that have

contributed to the technical assistance are described in the table below.

Table 10 – Service Providers that have contributed to the technical assistance to SMEs

Island Trainers N.

Fiji

Ateca Nauluvula, Melanie Waqainabete, Jone Cavubati, Malcolm Ralisa, Alfatina

Tawake, Emele Vunisei, Mereoni Gonelevu, Milika Maravu, Tulia Kuruduadua,

Pauliasi Tuilau

10

Tonga Tevita Tapeavalu, Tilisa Tohi, Toilea Mei Pulotu Taholo, Kimi Afeaki, Mosa Hokafonu 5

TOTAL 15

While the trained Service Providers can be considered the initial nucleus for the improvement of food

safety in the region, through the higher knowledge acquired and the better results they can achieve, the

assisted SMEs may represent examples for replication into other companies, thus disseminating positive

concepts of food safety across their respective sectors.


Table 11 – Main results achieved within the Project

Activity Results Outputs

(1.1) Lists of targeted groups

1. List of key exporting sub-sectors/products 2. List of trainees 3. Long list of companies with selection criteria

List of participants to trainings (AnnexA2) Promising export sectors (Inception Report)

(1.2) Advanced training for trainers on key international standards

1. Training materials 2. List of trainees who participated to the training (presence list with signatures) 3. TRAINING REPORT

Training materials on key food safety standards: HACCP, ISO 22000:2005, BRC-7 and GLOBALG.A.P Training Materials (AnnexA9)

(1.3) Sensitisation seminar and selection companies

1. Presentations to the seminar 2. Additional evaluation of trainers (effectiveness of the training delivered under Activity 1.2) 3. List of SMEs be invited to the formal training (Activity 2.1) 4. List of participants (presence list with signatures) 5. One-page presentation of key activities and results 6. INTERIM REPORT

Food SMEs in Fiji and Tonga have been sensitised and their awareness on the importance of food safety raised INTERIM REPORT has incorporated the Training Report initially foreseen for Activity 1.2 (AnnexA1)

(2.1) Formal training on EQM and certification (GLOBALG.A.P. HACCP, ISO22000:2005 to SMEs

1. Training materials 2. Examination and testing of SMEs 3. Further assessment of trainers (effectiveness of previous training) 4. List of companies interested in receiving support to certification (Activity 2.2) 5. TRAINING REPORT

Improved training materials on key food safety standards: HACCP, ISO 22000:2005, BRC-7 and GLOBALG.A.P. Training Materials (AnnexA9) Coaching plan (AnnexA4) Database of training participants (AnnexA2)

(2.2) Coaching and capacity building to SMEs

1. Instructions to service providers on how to conduct the coaching to SMEs 2. Validated materials and documents to track the coaching of SMEs 3. Statement of completion of coaching and assistance to SMEs, with assessment of their readiness to certification 4. Further assessment of trainers (effectiveness of previous training) 5. TRAINING AND COACHING REPORT

Technical assistance provided to selected SMEs and relevant documents issued TRAINING AND COACHING REPORT has incorporated the Training Report initially foreseen for Activity 2.1

(2.3) Final workshop

1. Logistic and Communication plan 2. Presentation of project results and

findings. 1. Follow up and monitoring of the

certification process of selected companies

One page presentation and press release (AnnexA10) Presentations to the final workshop (AnnexA7) Data on the certification process of selected companies (see Table 4)

Although we may conclude that the training courses that have been delivered contain several positive

elements related to the chosen topics and their overall structure, we observe that training companies, most

owners or managers, in the four standards within 5-day training only was problematic for some of them,

not acquainted with any of the standards covered by the training. For HACCP training, for instance, there

were companies which had started to work in Good Manufacturing Practices or Good Hygiene Practices but


without a clear knowledge of the whole set of requirements to be fulfilled. For this reason, even when they

knew they must comply with the existing legal frame in Fiji or Tonga, or with their customers’

requirements, confusion and uncertainty of the gap to achieve certification was significant. Despite this

limitation, the trainees have actively participated in the training activities. The training to Trainers have

been less problematic due to a more homogeneous selection of the participants, although also in this case

we have observed differences within the audience. The delivered training courses will increase the

knowledge of the Trainers and the participating SMEs and serve to “open their eyes” on the need of

improving food safety practices as a key competitive tool. This latter was the major objective of the

sensitisation seminars, which have been essential to increase the awareness of the food sectors at a

national level on the importance of food safety. The good involvement of stakeholders and the interactive

delivery of the workshops have favoured the building of awareness on food safety.

One element of concern for the Project implementation was the limited time available for the technical

assistance, which has affected the results related to the progresses of the assisted SMEs toward

implementation of quality standards and certification. Despite efforts made within the Work-Plan to

balance the number of the assisted SMEs with the available inputs, considering the inputs required to assist

the SMEs in their certification process, the time has been extremely limited.

PIPSO has presented the possibility to have the training programme certified. This should be considered to

define the engagement of the appropriate stakeholders in Fiji and Tonga and the necessary steps to be

taken. In the meanwhile, the Trainers that have completed the entire programme, including training and

coaching, have been evaluated by the International Specialists after reviewing their final reports. The

evaluation of their performances, in a scale of scores from 1= unsatisfactory to 5 = excellent, is included in

the table below.


Table 12 – Assessment of Service Providers’ performances

The Trainers that have successfully completed the technical assistance are receiving a final certificate of

completion of the Project activities.

1.4 Results achieved in comparison to Log-Frame

The key facts and figures that describe the project achievements are portrayed in the table below. The very

scarce time available for Activity 2.2 has been a serious constraint, affecting the result of the Project with

reference to the progresses of the assisted SMEs toward certification.

Table 13 – Project Log-frame and results achieved

Overall objective Objectively verifiable indicators

of achievement Results

The overall objective of the project is to improve the capacities of selected agribusiness in the Pacific region to overcome barriers to trade in regional and international markets and take advantage of existing exporting opportunities

Number of SMEs that have successfully completed the certification process.

Number of SMEs that have progressed towards certification.

15 SMEs are accompanied in the certification process

No SMEs have completed the certification process

Project Purpose Objectively verifiable indicators

of achievement Results

Build the capacity of PIPSO and selected service providers in the field of Export Quality Management Systems and promote the adoption of international standards among export-ready regional agribusinesses.

Number of Service-Providers that successfully completed the training programme

Number of SMEs that have progressed towards certification and number that have applied for certification.

Number of involved SMEs that have successfully completed the certification process

20 Service-Providers have completed the training programme and 15 have contributed to the coaching activities

15 SMEs have undergone the coaching phase and are implementing the chosen standards

Results and Activities Objectively verifiable indicators Results

Trainer (Service Provider) Leadership Knowledge Interaction Audit/Methodology Total

Mereoni Gonelevu, Milika

Maravu5 5 5 5 20

Tulia Kuruduadua, Pauliasi

Tiliau5 3 2 5 15

Jone Cavubati, Malcom

Ralisa5 3 1 3 12

Tilisa Tohi 5 4 1 3 13


of achievement

1. 15-20 trainers, consultants and service providers active in the region are trained in the field of certification for agro-food products (HACCP, Global GAP, ISO 22000).

Number of certification Service-Providers successfully trained

20 Service-Providers have completed the training programme

1.1. Selection of Trainees and SMEs List of Trainees and SMEs List of Trainers and SMEs have been prepared and used to deliver the respective training activities

1.2. Advanced Training for trainers on key international standards (HACCP, Global GAP, ISO 22000)

Number of Service-Providers successfully trained. 20 Service-Providers have

completed the training programme

1.3. Sensitisation Seminar Understanding by stakeholders of project objectives and increased awareness by stakeholders of the importance of third-party recognition of EQMS for export purposes.

52 specialists have participated in the three sensitisation seminars, with 33 SMEs representatives

2. 30 selected companies’ Quality Managers are trained on certification and 15 companies are accompanied in the certification process.

Nr. of SMEs supported towards the certification process

Number of SMEs that have started the certification process

Number of SMEs where a new Quality Manager was appointed

Number of SMEs that have implemented improved one or more production and working modalities thanks to the training received

Number of involved SMEs that have successfully completed the certification process

24 SMEs have been trained on certification and 17 SMEs are accompanied in the certification process

No SMEs have started the certification process

No SMEs have appointed a new Quality Manager

All assisted SMEs have improved their production system following the training and the technical assistance received

No SMEs have completed the certification process

2.1. Formal training on EQM and certification (Global GAP, HACCP, ISO 22000)

Understanding of EQMS and food safety requirements.

The trained SMEs have increased their awareness on food safety requirements

2.2. Coaching and capacity building to SMEs

Number of SMEs supported towards the certification process.

Number of SMEs that have started the certification process.

Number of SMEs that have implemented / improved one or more production and working modalities thanks to the training received

Number of SMEs where a new Quality Manager was

15 SMEs are accompanied in the certification process

No SMEs have started the certification process

The SMEs adopting HACCP have started building the corporate HACCP Team. The SMEs adopting GLOBALG.A.P. have identified the internal person responsible for the process.

All assisted SMEs have improved their production system following the training and the technical


appointed/ designated. assistance received

2.3. Presentation of project results and follow up

Enhanced understanding of project objectives and results achieved.

The Final Workshop has shown a high level of understanding of the needs for food safety and contributed to disseminate awareness on food safety in the region

The results achieved increase the awareness and knowledge of the food sector in food safety and stimulate

the assisted agro-companies to adopt new production techniques related to food safety standardisation,

with important improvement of their competitiveness in the international markets.

The documents that the Team of Trainers have completed and submitted to the KEs, including visit reports,

internal audit reports, layout drawings, Non-Conformity Assessment Final reports, etc. of are included in,

Annex11. A template of visit report that has served as a guidance to Trainers during their visits to the

assisted SMEs is attached as AnnexA14.

KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

1.5 Technical Findings

1. Experience indicates that application of safety standards is the result of either customers’ pressure

to comply or legal domestic frameworks, particularly HACCP In our case, most exporters are obliged

to comply with market and customers’ requirements, such as those in New Zealand, Japan and USA

and more recently in China. If growers and processors are not pressured they become reluctant to

start the process of certification. The legal framework for food quality and safety has played a very

weak role so far in the area of food and particularly in fruit and vegetables. This is due to lack of

clear regulations (HACCP is not compulsory for fruits and vegetables in Fiji) or weak pressure to

make existent food safety rules compulsory (such the case of Tonga). In anyway, there is a critical

mass of enterprises who are starting to realise the importance of certification or the fulfilment of

safety requirements, including the essential need for traceability to guarantee safe products to

attain long-lasting relationships with more qualified customers locally and internationally. During

the sensitisation workshops, a great effort was done to stimulate SMEs from the Long list of

companies to participate: although some of them have had different experiences, no one had

achieved third party certification. However, the food SMEs are aware that the adoption of more

stringent food safety standard is necessary if they wish to open new markets or reach more

advanced customers. The training programme and the sensitisation seminars have proved to be

effective tools to raise the interest of the SMEs in quality of food and expand awareness on food

safety.

2. Any process of certification does include investments, training and a set of documents and


procedures that give evidence of how an enterprise is achieving requirements. Investments in

infrastructure, equipment and qualified personnel have to be analysed in a case-to-case study

within the SMEs assisted by the project, but it seems important the fact that SMEs are concerned

on how to get funds for investment. Certification by third party might be an extra cost and

maintenance of the systems is also costly in most cases and need special attention.

3. Most companies are not analysing water and are not acquainted with laboratories in Fiji or Tonga.

The situation is even worse in the case of residues of pesticides, because the number of analysis is

still extremely low and analysis are done by customers.

4. Very weak or no traceability systems in place seems to be a major critical area for food safety.

5. Good Agricultural Practices and the link to processing and packaging of fruits and vegetables are

weakest both in Fiji and Tonga. of the majority of the growers, most of them considered as

subsistence growers do not follow good practices, have no infrastructure according to relevant

international practices and traceability is not in place or very elementary. A wide range of products,

from low risk to high risk are grown in both countries and this will make a difference when

considering the possibility for implementation of GAPs, such as GLOBALG.A.P. in the region.

6. From the total number of SMEs assisted during the project, in Fiji, 80 % are external market

oriented, to New Zealand, Australia, Japan and USA, and 20 % are domestic but non-traditional

market suppliers, hotels, supermarkets and fast-food enterprises. In Tonga, 2 of the SMEs are

export market oriented and growers are fluctuating between being exporters themselves or

supplying bigger exporters. In this respect, even when no data on volumes (physical or economic) is

available, the project might have an interesting impact on exports, which was the principal

objective to enhance competitiveness in the regional and international markets. In any case, when

considering food safety, the impact in the domestic market, bringing consciousness to some

segments of the population has to be taken as a positive result.

7. Selection of service providers was performed according to criteria previously defined by Experts but

they were not selected by PIPSO prior to the inception phase and even if special attention was

given to educational background, most of them were linked to HACCP and not to agricultural

practices certification. The almost non-existent progress in the field of “good agricultural practices”

is clearly shown by the fact that, in October 2016, there was only one grower certified

GLOBALG.A.P in Fiji and none in Tonga.

8. The experience says that there is a lack of Certification bodies and lead auditors in the region for

HACCP, GLOBALG.A.P. or ISO 22000 and SMEs rely on recognized companies from Australia, New

Zealand, SGS or others. The lack of regional Certification bodies might be one of the causes of

higher costs of certification and the limited demand. The interest of HACCP Australia in the region


and the contacts in progress with PIPSO are a good indication of the potential development of food

safety in Fiji and the region. In the case of GLOBALG.A.P. only approved certification bodies will be

able to certify and they are detailed in AnnexA12. Future projects should consider the inclusion of

auditor training, following the ISO 19011 to improve capacities for inspections, internal auditing

and eventually external certification.

9. As programmed, the Project has trained and coached a group of experts who are starting to assist

the regional agri-food enterprises They have shown a great interest, improved knowledge and

practical experience through the pilot assistance and then their own experience. In fact, some of

the SMEs showed their interest to continue being assisted by our service providers through all the

process to certification. Nevertheless, at the end of the project, only 7 service providers finalized

their work presenting final reports and serious limitations were found in communication with

experts (submitted materials in AnnexA11).

10. The time that the assisted SMEs will need from now to complete the certification process up to

achieve third party certification will depend on several factors beginning by commitment,

investments needed, personnel training needs and the time to introduce changes within the

company. From the experience of the teams working in company, SMEs are now in different

positions to attain certification, from 3 months to over 18 months. Estimation is detailed in Table 4

– Selected assisted SMEs and estimated time to certification SMEs Table 14 – Selected assisted

SMEs and estimated time to certification

11. A special interest was presented by SMEs during the Final Workshop on the need to have their

own auditors in the region, to be able to lower costs of certification. There seemed to be a

confusion among the requirements to become assistants for implementation, internal inspectors or

auditors within the companies and what is called “third party auditors” for external certification.

The project aimed at enhancing knowledge and lead to assistance to SMEs in the selected

standards to achieve certification and even when the subject was discussed in class, no training on

auditing was pre-established in the terms of reference and so not delivered. Becoming internal or

external third party auditors’ requirements are established for each standard (educational

background, training and hours of auditing as observers and as independent auditors). The process

may take months or maybe 2 or 3 years to finally become a third-party auditor.

Challenges and obstacles

Considering the whole chain, from production-processing/packaging to distribution and final customers, at

a domestic or export level, one of the initial and most critical bottlenecks is the absence or adoption of


weak traceability systems. Even in case the food companies implement certain traceability systems at the

packaging or processing steps, the backward link to primary producers is mostly inexistent or too

elementary. This gap between the thousands of growers (a high percentage of which are considered

subsistence growers) from one side and the dozens of enterprises preparing the food for the market seems

to be one of the most important concerns. Implementation of Good Agricultural Practices in this scenario is

the greatest challenge. Another important issue is the limited use of risk assessment methodologies to be

able to prioritise the different hazards and challenges according to sectors, areas of production,

infrastructure, natural resources, etc. In this domain, the lack or weak involvement of stakeholders such as

public institutions, laboratories, logistics companies, pesticide suppliers, among others, is a major source of

concern.

In respect to certification itself, neither Fiji nor Tonga have a Certification Body and enterprises have to rely

completely on foreign companies from Australia, New Zealand or other international bodies. This not only

creates higher costs of certification but it shows there has been no commitment to have a strong national

body to assist enterprises. In the case of fish and water, Fiji’s certification is delivered by the Ministry of

Health. Creation of a regional Certification Body will take time, a very high investment and training for

experts and auditing experience to become an accredited auditor, with questions whether and when it

could become profitable. Creating national or regional auditors, accredited for HACCP, GlobalG.A.P., ISO

22000 is non-existent today and propose commercial links with international or regional accredited

certification bodies might be an intermediate, quick-win solution. From the whole list of service providers

trained, a thorough analysis has to be done in respect of how many of them might be applying to be

auditor, considering the standard and the background needed (for instance HACCP and GLOBALG.A.P.

auditors do have to have tertiary studies in the food area).

SMEs seem reluctant to pay for the service providers until the end of the process of certification which

would have been a strong tool for visibility and prestige in the region.

1.6 Recommendations

The strength of the project results will depend by one side on the recognition of the need for SMEs to

comply with international requirements in quality and safety if they are willing to increase participation as

reliable suppliers. On the other side the responsibility of other stakeholders to support the sector. The

Ministries of Agriculture and Industry, laboratories, universities and private service suppliers, such as

Certification bodies should work together and implement strategies other donors in the region, such as in

Tonga, preventing from funds to duplicate efforts.

Future projects will have to take into account the timing to certification in the field level, such as

GLOBALG.A.P. or HACCP or ISO 22000 and analyse to give answer to requirements that need the official


support, such as water legal frame, residue management, etc. The project only included a couple of months

for implementation purposes which was found not enough from the beginning of the project. This has to be

analysed for futures projects and include not less than 6 months to the implementation process.

Additionally, the methodology proposed to do the coaching between service providers and experts was not

efficient and more emphasis should be done to have the experts in site by the time of coaching to discuss

methodology and achievements and support service providers and SMEs more closely.

Key service suppliers and sound regulation in Fiji and Tonga need to be more deeply studied and adapted to

ensure responsible and sustainable production according to new requirements. The support of

laboratories, for water (microbiological and chemical analysis), for pesticide residues; pesticides empty

containers and other contaminated materials from pesticide application management, water sources and

use policy are some of the issues to be addressed. In the case of residue of pesticides, it is recommended

that an agreement with a recognised laboratory accredited under ISO 17025 in New Zealand or Australia

should come to give service to both Fiji and Tonga. An accredited laboratory with accredited techniques for

the products used in the region for a wide range of fruits and vegetables is most expensive and even having

the necessary resources, it will take years to achieve. This is already done in other countries who have not

the resources or where the number of analysis does not justify the investment.

Training should be a permanent asset in all the process and a sound training programme should be

delineated in each Fiji and Tonga at all levels, managers, workers, technicians.

After having trained a group of people, our service providers, a strategy linking them up in order to

enhance the market opportunities for both parties is warmly recommended.

The assisted SMEs have shown a great dedication to the adoption of the chosen standard. However, the

limited timeframe has not allowed for a completion of the certification process and yet the companies

need months to achieve it. These progresses made should be considered and receive attention through

further assistance to complete the certification process and serve as pilot examples for other SMEs in the

region that wish to improve their management of food safety. To this end, the establishment of a database

/ platform to circulate the result, constraints and opportunities emanating from the certification process

that the assisted SMEs have started among the regional food sector would be extremely beneficial to raise

awareness and interest in food safety. Obviously, all this should happen by respecting the full

confidentiality of business-related information. In future projects, special attention should have to be given

to educational background of the selected participants for training. For each standard, a set of requisites

for inspectors and internal auditors should be taken into account. For instance, in the case of GLOBALG.A.P.

for individual growers, the qualification for farm inspections are detailed in Annex13. More information can

be seen in General Regulations, also for auditors and certification bodies (www.globalgap.org).


1.7 The Project sustainability, exit strategy for the group of Trainers

An exit strategy is a planned approach will maximize benefits for all interested parties. The exit strategy for

sustainability of this project results and the definition of a “look forward proposal" foreseen as a

sustainable way to cluster consultants/service providers’ role, the linkages that they should establish to

become a focal point for the improvement of food safety in the region is warmly recommended. This will

allow the trained Service Providers disseminating the knowledge on food safety they have acquired during

the Project. A draft proposal has been outlined during the Final Seminar. PIPSO is also encouraged to design

their role and positioning in the entire process and identify possible way to attract funding sources. A “Food

Safety Association” exists in Fiji and could perhaps contribute to the enhancement of food safety in the

regions, but the assessment on their activities is controversial within the industry and when efforts were

done to contact them during the subsequent missions in Fiji.

Considering the results achieved, the ACP-EU-TBT 074-15 Project shall gain high sustainability if the trained

Service Providers continue assisting companies and institutions on food safety and quality in the region.

This important step requires the contribution and commitment of all interested parties to implement an

effective exit strategy for the profitable continuation of the work that the trained Service Providers have

started during the Project. The actions that have been proposed are several.

There are two scopes for service providers to work as food quality &safety specialists: one as consultants

and internal inspectors or internal auditors (first-party and second-party auditors) and other one is the will

to become third-party auditors in one Certification Body, regional or international. Among the trained

fifteen service providers plus the Local Organizer, eight of them have high studies in food or related

programmes and possess the technical skills and qualification to become HACCP auditors. In the case of

GLOGABLG.A.P., the requisites to become internal inspectors or internal auditors are stricter and are

detailed in AnnexA13. Among the fifteen service providers in Fiji, there is no agronomist, a serious handicap

for properly addressing the primary sector certification. In Tonga the situation requires attention, as only

one of the service providers may comply with the requisites for GLOBALG.A.P. and HACCP.

The need to have third party auditors to be linked to regional certification bodies will have to be analysed

separately. Certification bodies will additionally bring their requisites to select and train their own auditors

and in any case, the number of these will be surely limited to their need in Fiji and Tonga. Responsible

Certification Bodies have an extra cost to have auditors in any standards and require investment. It was

never thought or mentioned in the Project ToR to train auditors and this should be included in new

projects.

The actions to be taken belong to general actions and to actions that are specific for the two scopes above.

General actions


To start, the Service Providers could establish an association , so as to gain recognition, connect with

scientific institutions and manage training. This association could connect further up with other existing

associations, such as the Food Safety Association, and become a service provider of regional institutions,

such as PIPSO, the Fiji Export Council, the Tonga Chamber of Commerce that have already expressed their

interest in sourcing the services of the group of Service Providers. They have proved to have different

profiles and experience and working as a team can enhance their potential to assist companies. The

starting point could be drawing short CVs of the Service Providers and publish them in the web-sites of the

interested institutions, first PIPSO as the Project beneficiary. To this end, the list of Service Providers is

attached as AnnexA8. Once the awareness of the existence of this trained group of food safety specialist

has spread across, they shall consider how to further develop and integrate with the interested institutions.

In the short run, there seems that training can be the first step in getting recognition and improve

knowledge at all levels, quality managers, workers, other technicians, public institutions. A thorough

training programme should be prepared to be able to look for funds. In the case of Tonga, the Chamber of

Commerce already has funds for this purpose and they have shown very proactive to support this initiative

so far. Co-ordination among existing Projects will be necessary to avoid duplications and optimise the use

of available resources.

Actions to develop the skills of food safety consultants and first-party / second-party auditors

With reference to the activities as food safety consultant and first-party and second-party auditors, the

training they have received and the experience they have gained during the Project coaching phase allow

them to start assisting companies in HACCP. Continuous training will be anyway necessary and we cannot

exclude that external expertise will also be necessary in case of complex consultancy assignments.

Actions to develop the skills of food safety third-party auditors

With additional training and experience in auditing all the Service Providers could aim at becoming HACCP

third-party auditors according to the ISO/IEC 17065:2012 Conformity assessment — Requirements for

bodies certifying products, processes and services and ISO 19011:2011 Guidelines for auditing management

systems. To this scope, the HACCP training was delivered according to international requirements and the

HACCP Alliance methodology, in time and content and the practical exercises Service Providers have

completed during the coaching activities represent an important background that shall need to be

reinforced with additional inputs to fulfil the requirements of both the audit standards and the interested

certification bodies. The contacts that PIPSO is having with HACCP Australia who has set up an office in Fiji,

to partner with this company is extremely timely. The co-operation should assess whether the training

provided is sufficient for these trainers to become auditors for HACCP certification or, as it is likely, needs

to be reinforced with additional training according to HACCP Australia requisites and rules. Same approach


could be used with other Certification Bodies interested in expanding their business in the region and make

use of the services of local qualified specialists when other standards get interest, such the case of

GLOBALG.A.P. PIPSO experience with HACCP Australia could serve as a pilot example to be emulated to the

other countries in the Pacific previous analysis of the results of this Certification Body within the region.

Including other prestigious Certification Bodies will give the possibility to evaluate the best option for each

Standard.

GLOBALG.A.P. largely remains an unexploited potential. Whilst the trained Service Providers performed

very well during the coaching phase, therefore confirming the effectiveness of the training they had

received, their background education is not consistent with the qualification required for becoming internal

inspectors or third-party auditors (see the relevant AnnexA13). Therefore, it is likely that the efforts should

concentrate on the area of consultancy and first-part and second-party auditing, ideally bringing into the

group external agronomical expertise whenever necessary. At the moment and at least in Tonga, SMEs are

applying Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs) according to New Zealand and Australia codes of practices but

never on the requisites of GLOBALG.A.P. which is at the moment not required for those two markets. On

the contrary, China is now requiring GLOBALG.A.P. as a pre-requisite and this huge and potential market for

the region shall bring extra interest in this standard.

Overall Action Plan

Taking advantage of the initial momentum for service providers, SMEs and beneficiaries, we would suggest

an Action Plan to start immediately. For this reason our proposal of draft action plan considers the

following key actions which include internal (including organization, definition of objectives and indicators)

and external actions (visibility and lobbing with other stakeholders):

1. Prepare the list of service providers committed and profile of each one

2. Analyse the organisational structure for the group of service providers

3. Define the focal points for Fiji and for Tonga

4. Define objectives and indicators: training and assistance to SMEs, training for Service providers,

visibility and communication

5. Training SME. Prepare a training programme in GAPs, HACCP

6. Visibility: Include the list of service providers and training activities in PIPSO web page

7. Visibility: coordinate actions with other institutions involved in food safety, such as Food Safety

Association and others

8. Liaise with Certification Bodies interested in expanding in the region to verify the gap between the

education, training and experience the Service Providers have acquired during the Project and take

agreements on the process for becoming third-party auditors.


9. Design and deliver the necessary training in auditing techniques to Service Providers according to

the Certification Bodies’ requisites

10. In GLOBALG.A.P the group can assist and train growers in some critical areas such as risk

assessment, traceability, pest management, hygiene and water management and work on groups

of growers or “villages”. This has been proved to be efficient and valuable from the experience had

in the SMES. In parallel design and deliver extra training in Good Agricultural Practices stimulating

other technicians (agronomists or other) to form part of the team to start working in GLOBALG.A.P.

PIPSO in Fiji and the Chamber of Commerce in Tonga are foreseen as the core institutions to lead the

process, but considering the commitment of the Fiji Export Council, they should also be included as the link

to exporting enterprises.

For timing, immediate action during February, March and April to go through points 1 to 5, while training

programme execution could be delivered during the rest of the year. This would stimulate service providers

and support visibility in the region.

Lobbing with other institutions or stakeholders could be done during the whole period as the process of

finding external funds. Finally, a clear strategy to train service providers in auditing, which was defined by

trainers and SMEs as a bottleneck for success, should be delivered before the end of 2017. Formal trained

service providers will allow to lower costs of certification but also support internal audits within the

enterprises and give more confidence to service providers.

The expected results should include at least:

List of service providers ready for future actions

Organizational structure defined

At least one representative from service providers in Fji and Tonga selected

Marketing plan

Training programme circulated

Trainers' profiles published in PIPSO and other interested institutions' websites

Joint communication initiatives launched

Have recognised auditors in Fiji and Tonga ready to provide services to International Certification

bodies

Only with adequate human and economic resources, which have to be defined with clear responsibilities

among participants, the groups shall succeed in exploiting the potential for growth with efficiency and

reaching the potential clients that exist in the region.

Project n. 074-15 ACP-EU TBT PROGRAMME (REG/FED/022-667)95.110.167.47/tbt/doc/74-15 Final...

Documents

Transcript of Project n. 074-15 ACP-EU TBT PROGRAMME (REG/FED/022-667)95.110.167.47/tbt/doc/74-15 Final...