No. |
Description of scheme |
GAA/ACC |
GLOBALGAP |
Naturland |
Thai CoC |
SQF |
IFOAM |
ISO 9001 |
ISO 14001 |
ISO 22000 |
FLO | ||
| 1 | ISEAL member | No | No | No | No | No | Yes | No | No | No | Yes | ||
| 2 | Benchmarked by GFSI |
No | No | No | No | Yes | No | No | No | No | No | ||
| 3 | Scheme makes reference to international standards |
CODEX, refers to “ISO-approved laboratories” |
EN45011/ ISO 65; ISO 14001; other ISO guides |
IFOAM, ILO, EU regulation on organics |
CODEX, FAO cocrf, ISO 14001 |
CODEX, ISO standards |
CODEX, ISO standards, ILO |
ISO 14001 | ISO 9001 | ISO 9001, CODEX |
ILO | ||
| 4 | Is the procedure for standard development & revision documented? |
Yes | Yes, but documents on new set up and operation conflict slightly |
Not readily available |
Partially, maybe more information in Thai |
Not in very detailed ' manner |
Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | ||
| 5 | Were/are all the major stakeholder groups involved in the development/ revision of the standard? |
Not extensively |
Partially for species modules, less so for aquaculture module |
Yes, as part of projects |
Partially | Not extensively as standards not specific to aquaculture |
Partially | Not extensively as standards not specific to aquaculture |
Not extensively as standards not specific to aquaculture |
Not extensively as standards not specific to aquaculture |
Yes, although not yet for aquaculture | ||
| 6 | Is there a process for reviewing regularly the standards? |
Revision is done but process not clear |
Yes | Revision is done but process is not clear |
Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | ||
| 7 | Is input from stakeholders directly impacted (especially disadvantaged groups) actively sought? |
No | No | Yes, as part of projects |
Yes, indirectly |
Not extensively as standards not specific to aquaculture |
Yes | Not extensively as standards not specific to aquaculture |
Not extensively as standards not specific to aquaculture |
Not extensively as standards not specific to aquaculture |
Yes, although not yet for aquaculture | ||
| 8 | Is standard development based on the principles of consensus? |
Partially, as there is a process for technical committees to reach a decision, although it may not be consensus based |
Partially, although GLOBALGAP has final say |
Partially, although Naturland has final say |
Partially, although DoF has final say |
Not specified | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | ||
| 9 | Is there a documented process to address complaints with failures in following the process for standard development and revision? |
Partially, but mainly for complaints on the standards |
Yes | ? | ? | Partially, only a method to address complaints from consumers |
Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | ||
| 10 | Standards publicly available for implementation (even if including reasonable fee) |
Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes, but only in Thai |
Yes | Yes but subject to payment of a fee |
Yes but subject to payment of a fee |
Yes but subject to payment of a fee |
Yes but subject to payment of a fee |
Yes | ||
| 11 | Standards based on measurable/precise criteria |
Yes | Yes | Partially | Not possible to assess as actual standards in Thai only |
Yes | Partially | Yes | Yes | Yes | Partially | ||
| 12 | Product or process standards |
Process | Process | Process | Process/ product |
Process | Standards for process standards |
Process | Process | Process | Process | ||
| 13 | Target of the label: consumer or food chain operators |
Consumers | FCO | Consumer | Consumer | Consumer | Consumer | FCO | FCO | FCO | Consumer | ||
| 14 | Link between standard development & certification organizations |
Strong | Mild | Strong but independent inspection |
Strong | Mild | Nil | Mild | Mild | Nil | Strong | ||
| 15 | Implemented through third party certification |
No, many certifiers involved with producers/ buyers |
Yes | Yes | No, as certification body linked to producers |
Yes | Yes | Advised but not guaranteed |
Advised but not guaranteed |
Advised but not guaranteed |
Yes | ||
| 16 | Certification body accredited by internationally recognized ' accreditation organization or accredited to ISO 65 |
No | IAF/EA | No | No | IAF/ISO 65 | Not specified | Advised but not guaranteed |
Advised but not guaranteed |
Advised but not guaranteed |
ISO 65 | ||
| 17 | Free access to accredited CBs |
No | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes | Advised but not guaranteed |
Advised but not guaranteed |
Advised but not guaranteed |
No | ||
| 18 | Allows for certification of producer groups |
No, but efforts are ongoing |
Yes | Yes | ? | Yes | Yes | Possible | Possible | Possible | Yes | ||
| 19 | Developed by competent ' representatives of direct stakeholders |
Yes, but some direct stakeholders not included |
Yes, although appears biased towards high resource cage aquaculture |
Yes | Yes | Yes, but aquaculture experts maybe limited as standards not sector-specific |
Yes | Yes, but aquaculture experts maybe limited as standards not sector-specific |
Yes, but aquaculture experts maybe limited as standards not sector-specific |
Yes, but aquaculture experts maybe limited as standards not sector-specific |
Yes, although not yet for aquaculture | ||
| 20 | Scheme has standards for producers |
Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes, since not sector specific |
Yes, since not sector specific |
Yes, since not sector specific |
Yes | ||
| 21 | Scheme has standards for traders |
No | Yes | No | Yes | No | Yes | Yes, since not sector specific |
Yes, since not sector specific |
Yes, since not sector specific |
Yes, in producers standards but separate standard in preparation | ||
| 22 | Scheme has standards for processors |
Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes, since not sector specific |
Yes, since not sector specific |
Yes, since not sector specific |
No | ||
| 23 | Scheme has standards for seed suppliers |
Yes | No, but modules are under development for some species |
Yes, but only for some species |
Yes | No | Yes | Yes, since not sector specific |
Yes, since not sector specific |
Yes, since not sector specific |
No | ||
| 24 | Scheme has standards for feed |
Not yet, but under development |
Yes | Yes | Yes, by requiring compliance with GMP |
No | Yes | Yes, since not sector specific |
Yes, since not sector specific |
Yes, since not sector specific |
No | ||
| 25 | Requires compliance to scheme throughout the supply chain |
Not necessary, but promoted |
Yes, but sometimes excluding early stages |
Yes, but not essential |
Yes for Q-Mark, but not necessary for lower levels |
Yes | Yes | Not necessary | Not necessary | Not necessary | Yes | ||
Inspection process | |||||||||||||
| 26 | Inspection by CB includes water testing/env. testing |
Yes, including examination of salt-sensitive vegetation |
No | Yes | ? | ? | Possible, type of inspection based on risk of each operation |
Dependent on certification body selected |
Dependent on certification body selected |
Dependent on certification body selected |
? | ||
| 27 | Inspection by CB includes consultation with local communities/ assessment of off-site impact |
Yes | No | ? | ? | ? | Possible, type of inspection based on risk of each operation |
Dependent on certification body selected |
Dependent on certification body selected |
Dependent on certification body selected |
? | ||
General points on producers standards | |||||||||||||
| 28 | Clearly stated principles |
Yes | Yes | Partially, refers to organic principles. Standards called “principles of management” |
Yes with reference to FAO cocrf |
Not specified | Yes | Yes, included in the ISO 9000 series |
Yes, included in the ISO 14000 series |
Not directly | Yes | ||
| 29 | Quantity of compliance points |
Average | High | Average | ? | Average | Average | High | Average | Average, and proportional to size of business |
Average | ||
| 30 | Quantity of written documents required |
Average | High | Average | Average | High | Average | High | Average | High | Average | ||
| 31 | Validity period of certificate/ Frequency of inspection |
1 year | 3 yrs but yearly inspection |
1 year | 1 year | 1 year | Frequency of inspection based on risk of each operation. Not less than once every 3 yrs. |
Not specified | Not specified | Not specified | 1 year | ||
| 32 | Require records for (minimum time): |
1 year | 2 yrs (5 yrs for feed records) |
Not specified | ? | 2 yrs | Not specified | Not specified | Not specified | Not specified | Not specified | ||
| 33 | Period of compliance before being certified |
Possibly 1 year following available records |
Full life cycle or 6 mo, whichever shorter |
Animals to spend at least 2/3 of their lives |
? | Possibly 2 yrs following available records |
At least one life cycle or 1 year, whichever shorter |
Not specified, but possibly nil |
Not specified, but possibly nil |
Not specified, but possibly nil |
Not needed. Also allows for retrospective certification | ||
COVERAGE OF STANDARDS | |||||||||||||
GENERAL | |||||||||||||
| 34 | Compliance to law |
Yes | Yes | Partially, but only some laws specified (land use, food safety, workers’ welfare) |
Yes | Partially, specifically for food safety |
Only concerning laws that make some organic practices illegal |
Yes | Yes, not only env. law |
Yes, partially concerning food safety |
Yes | ||
| 35 | Internal audit | Not necessary but requires record keeping |
Yes, documented |
Yes for groups | Not necessary but requires record keeping |
Yes | Not specified | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes, including a formalized internal control system | ||
| 36 | Performance monitoring |
Yes, FCR, health |
Yes, growth, residues, health |
Yes, health, effect of management practices... |
Yes, looking at FCR, health, etc. |
Yes, food safety |
Yes, health, behaviour, water quality |
Yes, as part of overall compliance monitoring |
Yes, as part of overall compliance monitoring |
Yes, as part of overall compliance monitoring |
Yes, especially in terms of social & env. benefits | ||
| 37 | Performance improvement over time |
Partially, only from first certification and after 5 yrs. Also improve water quality |
Not necessary | Not necessary | Partially as collects information on previous crop |
Not necessary | Not necessary | Yes as part of using the Plan-Do-Check-Act methodology |
Yes as part of using the Plan-Do-Check-Act methodology |
Yes | Yes, through “progress requirements” | ||
| 38 | Staff training | Not directly | Yes | Yes | Yes for farmers but not for workers |
Yes | Not directly | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes, mainly in hired labour standards | ||
FOOD SAFETY | |||||||||||||
| 39 | Development of food safety policy and manual/system |
Not required | Yes, contingency plan also |
Not required | Not directly but need to submit SOP for farm |
Yes | Not required | Yes, indirectly if food safety is a quality attribute |
Not required | Yes | Not required | ||
| 40 | Use of HACCP approach |
No | Yes | No | Not strictly | Yes | No | No | No | Yes | No | ||
| 41 | Food safety through site selection |
Not directly but maybe through compliance to law |
Yes | Not directly but maybe through compliance to law |
Yes | Yes | Not directly | Not directly, unless dealing with expansion |
Not directly | Not directly, unless dealing with expansion |
Not directly | ||
| 42 | GMO | Not prohibited, but need to record if GMO |
Prohibited GMO feed must be declared |
Prohibited including feed |
Not prohibited | Not prohibited | Prohibited, including feed, vaccines, probiotics… from GMO |
Not prohibited, unless considered a quality attribute |
Not prohibited, unless env. management system requires control |
Not prohibited | Prohibited, including GMO inputs | ||
| 43 | Prohibit use of protein and fat from some species |
Not directly but maybe through compliance to law |
Yes |
Yes, if untreated |
Not directly but maybe through compliance to law |
Not directly but maybe in the food quality plan or modules being developed |
Yes | Not directly, unless a quality attribute |
Not directly but maybe through compliance to law |
Not directly, unless considered a food safety hazard, or in compliance with law |
Not directly | ||
| 44 | Preharvest food safety |
Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes, indirectly if food safety is a quality attribute |
Not directly | Yes | Partially | ||
| 45 | Pest control | Yes but not critical |
Yes | Not directly | Not directly, but requires proper storage |
Not directly but maybe through food safety plan & compliance to law |
Yes | Yes, indirectly if food safety is a quality attribute |
Not directly | Yes, indirectly though hazard identification and management |
Yes, covering the use of pesticides | ||
| 46 | Traceability | Yes | Yes | Yes, indirectly to prove organic status. Also for collection of mussels |
Yes | Yes | Yes indirectly to prove organic status, especially GMO-free |
Yes | Not directly | Yes | Yes, for proving GMO-free status | ||
| 47 | Product testing |
Yes | Yes | Not necessary but can be required |
Yes | Yes | Not necessary but maybe ' performed by inspection body |
Yes, indirectly if food safety is a quality attribute |
Not necessary, unless env. management system requires control |
Yes indirectly as part of monitoring critical limits for monitoring |
Not directly | ||
| 48 | Post-harvest food safety |
Yes, but not critical |
Partially (deals with ice quality and quality of means of transportation) |
Yes | Yes | Yes, indirectly through food safety plan |
Partially, as need to preserve organic status and animal welfare |
Yes, indirectly if food safety is a quality attribute |
Not directly | Yes, especially since standards applicable at all levels |
Not directly | ||
ENVIRONMENT | |||||||||||||
| 49 | Requires env. risk/impact assessment |
Not necessary | Yes | Not necessary | ? | Not directly but maybe in the modules being developed |
Not necessary | Yes, indirectly if env. protection is a quality attribute |
Yes, indirectly |
Not directly | Yes, indirectly | ||
| 50 | Environmental protection during farm siting |
Yes | Yes, in compliance with ISO 14001 |
Yes, also require conservation of ecosystem function |
Yes | Not directly but maybe in the modules being developed |
Yes, also requires maintaining part of the farm to facilitate conservation |
Not directly unless expansion |
Not directly, unless expansion or organization certified before establishing site |
Not directly | Yes, indirectly, as requires identification of buffer zones etc. to conserve biodiversity | ||
| 51 | Loss of mangrove and sensitive habitats |
Yes, but only since 1999 and for allowable reasons and replantation of area 3-times as large |
Yes indirectly through development of env. plan |
Yes, also requests reforestation of farm to reach 50% |
Yes, farms should not be in mangrove areas; also promote replantation |
Not directly but maybe in the modules being developed |
Yes, prohibiting clearing of primary ecosystem |
Yes, indirectly and only for management if env. protection is a quality attribute |
Yes, but only through management, not during siting |
Not directly | Yes, through ecosystem protection and encouraging regeneration of natural ecosystems | ||
| 52 | Environmental impact considered during farm design and construction |
No | Not directly but maybe through development of env. plan |
Partially, as covers suitable design and construction material |
Partially, as requires good design |
Not directly but maybe in the modules being developed |
Yes, also covering impact on human & animal welfare |
Not directly unless expansion |
Not directly, unless expansion or organization certified before establishing site |
Not directly | Not directly, unless expansion | ||
| 53 | Stocking density |
No | Yes, cannot exceed max load depending on carrying capacity |
Yes, for animal welfare and use of natural feed. Also set species-specific thresholds |
Yes, should be appropriate to system/ conditions. Also set max densities for P. Monodonand P. Vannamei |
Not directly but maybe in the modules being developed |
Yes, should not compromise animal welfare |
Not directly unless considered as affecting quality attributes |
Yes, if identified as needing addressing |
Not directly, unless considered a food safety hazard |
Not directly, but maybe when identifying env. impacts | ||
| 54 | Demand on wild stocks for seed/ broodstock |
Yes, requires only hatchery post larvae |
Not directly but maybe through development of env. plan |
Yes, with objective of reaching independence from wild |
Not directly, only through stocking density |
Not directly but maybe in the modules being developed |
Yes, indirectly, by minimizing env. impact during harvest of wild animals |
Yes, indirectly if env. protection is a quality attribute |
Yes, if identified as needing addressing |
Not directly, unless considered a food safety hazard |
Yes, use of wild organisms to be done assuring sustainability | ||
| 55 | Stocking of exotic species |
Yes, but dependent on law |
Not directly but maybe through development of env. plan & compliance to law |
Yes, species naturally occurring are preferred |
Not directly but maybe through compliance to law |
Not directly but maybe in the modules being developed |
Partially, recommends locally adapted & regionally established |
Yes, indirectly if env. protection is a quality attribute |
Yes, if identified as needing addressing |
Not directly, unless considered a food safety hazard |
Not directly, but maybe when identifying env. impacts | ||
| 56 | Water exchange/ abstraction |
Not directly, only collect information on water use; yes but not critical for groundwater |
Yes, but dependent on law |
Yes | Yes, to be minimized |
Not directly but maybe in the modules being developed |
Yes, to be minimized |
Yes, indirectly if env. protection is a quality attribute |
Yes, if identified as needing addressing |
Not directly | Yes, to be minimized | ||
| 57 | Requires testing/ record keeping of water quality |
Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Not directly but maybe in the food quality plan or modules being developed |
Yes | Yes, indirectly if env. protection is a quality attribute |
Yes, indirectly as part of monitoring |
Not directly, unless considered a food safety hazard |
Yes, to monitor effluents | ||
| 58 | Provides water quality standards to be complied with |
Yes | Yes in species module and only some variables |
No | Yes, through compliance to law |
No, but maybe in the modules being developed |
No | No | No | No | No | ||
| 59 | Water effluents |
Yes, including testing of effluent water |
Yes, but dependent on law |
Yes, including testing of effluent water |
Yes, also requires water treatment before discharge |
Not directly but maybe in the modules being developed |
Yes, to be minimized. Also recommend recycling |
Yes, indirectly if env. protection is a quality attribute |
Yes, indirectly as part of monitoring |
Not directly | Yes, indirectly by addressing organic waste contamination of water | ||
| 60 | Demand for fish protein/oil |
Not directly, only collect info |
Yes, but only recommended |
Yes, encourage reduction |
? | Not directly but maybe in the modules being developed |
Not directly, also promote feed that respond to physiological needs |
Yes, indirectly if env. protection is a quality attribute |
Yes, if identified as needing addressing |
Not directly | Not directly | ||
| 61 | Solid waste management |
Yes, also addressing avoidance of borrow pits and piles of soil |
Yes, also including a farm waste management plan |
Yes, requiring re-usage of organic matter |
Yes, also requires sludge pond |
Not directly but maybe in the modules being developed |
Yes, indirectly by minimizing release of waste |
Yes, indirectly if env. protection is a quality attribute |
Yes, if identified as needing addressing |
Yes, as disposal of wastes |
Yes, also encourages recycling | ||
| 62 | Chemicals/drugs disposal |
Yes | Yes, requires disposal by authorized person |
Not directly, but less applicable as limited use of chemicals/ drugs |
Yes | Not directly but maybe in the modules being developed |
Yes, also for the use of cleaning compounds |
Yes, indirectly if env. protection is a quality attribute |
Yes, if identified as needing addressing |
Yes, as disposal of wastes |
Yes, through correct use, handling, storing & disposal | ||
| 63 | Escapees | Yes, indirectly as it requires screens in inlet and outlet |
Yes, requires measure that ensures there are no escapees |
Yes | Yes | Not directly but maybe in the modules being developed |
Yes | Yes, indirectly if env. protection is a quality attribute |
Yes, if identified as needing addressing |
Not directly | Not directly, but maybe when identifying env. impacts | ||
| 64 | Cumulative impact of multiple operations |
Not directly, but maybe through compliance to law; also collect info on adjacent farms but no standard included |
Partially, indirectly through compliance to law. Also through stocking density in compliance with carrying capacity |
Not directly, but less applicable as generally less intensive systems |
Not directly but maybe through compliance to law |
Not directly but maybe in the modules being developed |
Not directly but less applicable as generally less intensive systems |
Yes, indirectly if env. protection is a quality attribute |
Yes, indirectly as part of env. assessment |
Not directly, unless considered a food safety hazard |
Yes, indirectly by addressing native habitat preservation | ||
| 65 | Energy efficiency & consumption |
No | Yes, but only recommended |
Yes, also require record keeping |
No | Not directly but maybe in the modules being developed |
Yes | Yes, indirectly if env. protection is a quality attribute |
Yes, if identified as needing addressing |
Not directly | Yes, especially for nonrenewable sources | ||
AQUATIC ANIMAL HEALTH | |||||||||||||
| 66 | Farm preparation to prevent health problems |
No | Not directly but maybe through development of Veterinary Health Plan |
Yes | Yes | Not directly but maybe in the modules being developed |
Yes, indirectly while preventing health problems |
Yes, indirectly if animal health is a quality attribute |
Not directly, unless disease identified as env. impact |
Not directly, unless considered a food safety hazard |
Not directly, unless disease identified as env. impact | ||
| 67 | Farm biosecurity |
Not directly but maybe through compliance to law |
Yes, also disinfection at points of entrance |
Not directly | Not directly but maybe through compliance to law |
Not directly but maybe in the modules being developed |
Yes, indirectly while preventing health problems |
Yes, indirectly if animal health is a quality attribute |
Not directly, unless disease identified as env. impact |
Not directly, unless considered a food safety hazard |
Not directly, unless disease identified as env. impact | ||
| 68 | Responsible use of drugs and chemicals |
Yes | Yes, to be prescribed by a veterinarian |
Yes, but conventional medicine allowed only for vertebrates & in consultation with veterinarian |
Yes | Partially, but only concerning food safety |
Yes, but conventional medicine allowed only for vertebrates & in consultation with veterinarian |
Yes, indirectly if animal health/food safety is a quality attribute |
Yes, if identified as needing addressing from env. point of view |
Yes, indirectly if considered a food safety hazard |
Yes, also minimize chemical use and move towards organic practices. Also need written evidence that chemicals are needed | ||
| 69 | Antibiotic use | Not prohibited | Not prohibited | Controlled, prohibited for invertebrates. Use for vertebrates through consultation with veterinarian and double withdrawal period |
Not prohibited | Not prohibited | Controlled, prohibited for invertebrates. Use for vertebrates through consultation with veterinarian and double withdrawal period |
Not prohibited, unless antibiotic-free is a quality attribute |
Not prohibited, unless identified as env. impact |
Not prohibited, unless identified as a food safety hazard |
Not prohibited but use to be minimized and move towards organic practices | ||
| 70 | Control on additional not-banned substances |
No | No | Yes | No | No | Yes | Not necessary, unless a quality attribute |
Not necessary, unless identified as env. impact |
Not necessary, unless identified as a food safety hazard |
Yes, but not yet specific to aquaculture | ||
| 71 | Quality/health status of seed |
Not directly, only concerning the use of hatchery seed |
Yes but only for eggs, also maybe through development of Veterinary Health Plan |
Not directly | Yes | Not directly but maybe in the modules being developed |
Not directly | Yes, indirectly during purchasing process |
Not directly, unless quality/ health identified as env. impact |
Not directly, unless considered a food safety hazard |
Not directly | ||
| 72 | Farm management to prevent health problems |
Partially, keeping water quality |
Yes, also through the development of Veterinary Health Plan |
Yes, requiring identification of practices that lead to health problems |
Yes | Not directly but maybe in the modules being developed |
Yes, indirectly while preventing health problems |
Yes, indirectly if animal health is a quality attribute |
Not directly, unless disease identified as env. impact |
Not directly, unless considered a food safety hazard |
Not directly, unless disease identified as env. impact | ||
| 73 | Feed quality | Only marginally, discouraging uncooked feed & advising ACC on feed although not in standard |
Yes, also requires certification of feed |
Yes, also request compliance with Naturland or IFOAM standards |
Yes, also through compliance to law |
Not directly but maybe in the food quality plan or modules being developed |
Yes, also set standards |
Yes, indirectly during purchasing process |
Not directly, unless feed quality identified as env. impact |
Not directly, unless considered a food safety hazard |
Yes, but only referring to contamination of feed with pesticides | ||
| 74 | Overfeeding/FCR |
Only collect information |
Yes, requires calculation of feed doses |
Yes, need at least 50% natural production & FCR monitoring |
Yes, requires good feed management & FCR monitoring |
Not directly but maybe in the modules being developed |
Yes, feed efficiently |
Yes, indirectly if env. is a quality attribute |
Yes, indirectly and if identified as needing addressing from env. point of view |
Not directly, unless considered a food safety hazard |
Yes, indirectly and if identified as needing addressing from env. point of view | ||
| 75 | Monitoring of animal health |
Not directly but maybe through compliance to law |
Yes, to be conducted by a veterinarian |
Yes | Yes | Not directly but maybe in the modules being developed |
Yes | Yes, indirectly if animal health is a quality attribute |
Yes, indirectly as part of monitoring |
Not directly, unless considered a food safety hazard |
Not directly | ||
| 76 | Disease spread to other farms during culture |
Not directly but maybe through compliance to law |
Yes, also requiring authority notification |
Not directly | Yes, also through effluent water treatment |
Not directly but maybe in the modules being developed |
Not directly | Not directly | Not directly, unless disease spread identified as env. impact |
Not directly | Yes, indirectly though management of waste to reduce spread of diseases | ||
| 77 | Disposal of mortality |
Not directly but maybe through compliance to law |
Yes | Only removal, not disposal |
Not directly but maybe through compliance to law |
Not directly but maybe in the modules being developed |
Yes, indirectly by minimizing release of waste |
Not directly | Not directly, unless identified as env. impact |
Not directly, unless considered a food safety hazard |
Yes, indirectly through disposal of hazardous/ organic wastes | ||
SOCIAL | |||||||||||||
| 78 | Development of farmer’s group |
Not directly | Not directly although allows group certification |
Not directly although allows group certification |
Yes, including standards for their operation |
Not directly but maybe in the modules being developed |
Not directly although allows group certification |
Not directly, unless a quality attribute |
Not directly | Not directly | Yes, including standards for their operation | ||
| 79 | Other resource users/local communities |
Yes, also requiring consultation |
Only considering access to resources |
Yes, mainly concerning access to resources |
Yes, requiring consultations, employing local workers |
Not directly but maybe in the modules being developed |
Yes indirectly, respecting indigenous peoples |
Yes, indirectly if social issues are a quality attribute |
Not directly, but maybe as interested parties to be consulted |
Not directly | Yes, reducing off-site impacts, supporting other community activities | ||
| 80 | Workers’ welfare |
Yes, covering health, housing, living conditions… |
Yes, in the All Farm module |
Yes, covering housing, living conditions… |
Yes | Not directly but maybe in the modules being developed |
Yes | Yes indirectly referring to suitable work environment |
Not directly but maybe through compliance to law |
Yes indirectly referring to suitable work environment |
Yes, also requiring social benefits | ||
| 81 | Forced labour | Yes indirectly through workers’ welfare and compliance to law |
Yes indirectly through workers’ welfare and compliance to law |
Yes indirectly through workers’ welfare and compliance to law |
Yes indirectly through workers’ welfare and compliance to law |
Not directly but maybe in the modules being developed |
Yes | Yes indirectly referring to suitable work environment |
Not directly but maybe through compliance to law |
Yes indirectly referring to suitable work environment |
Yes | ||
| 82 | Child labour | Not directly but maybe through compliance to law |
Not directly but maybe through compliance to law |
Yes with conditions, indirectly through compliance to IFOAM social standards & through compliance to law |
Not directly but maybe through compliance to law |
Not directly but maybe in the modules being developed |
Yes with conditions |
Yes, indirectly if social issues are a quality attribute |
Not directly but maybe through compliance to law |
Not directly | Yes with conditions | ||
ANIMAL WELFARE | |||||||||||||
| 83 | Animal welfare (stress, etc.) |
No | Yes | Yes | No | Not directly but maybe in the modules being developed |
Yes, also controls mutilations |
Yes, indirectly if animal welfare is quality attribute |
Not directly | Not directly, unless considered a food safety hazard |
Not directly | ||
| 84 | Protection from wild animals and predators |
Not directly | Yes, subject to risk assessment |
Yes | Yes but only through the inlet |
Not directly but maybe in the modules being developed |
Yes | Yes, indirectly if animal welfare is quality attribute |
Not directly | Not directly | Not directly | ||
| 85 | Application of non-lethal, or humane, methods of predator control |
Yes but not critical |
Yes | Yes, but not critical |
Not required | Not directly but maybe in the modules being developed |
Not required | Yes, indirectly if animal welfare is quality attribute |
Yes, if identified as needing addressing |
Not directly | Not directly but perhaps through protection of native habitats | ||
