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 31 st March 2017 Project implemented by
37
Embed
Project n. 074-15 ACP-EU TBT PROGRAMME (REG/FED/022-667)95.110.167.47/tbt/doc/74-15 Final Report.pdfcomprising Ms Marta Bentancur Servetti (Team Leader and Food Safety Specialist)
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
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
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
074-15 « Enhance trade capacities of Pacific Agribusiness and improve access to international markets »| Final Report 12
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
074-15 « Enhance trade capacities of Pacific Agribusiness and improve access to international markets »| Final Report 13
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
074-15 « Enhance trade capacities of Pacific Agribusiness and improve access to international markets »| Final Report 14
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.
074-15 « Enhance trade capacities of Pacific Agribusiness and improve access to international markets »| Final Report 15
. 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.
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
074-15 « Enhance trade capacities of Pacific Agribusiness and improve access to international markets »| Final Report 21
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.
074-15 « Enhance trade capacities of Pacific Agribusiness and improve access to international markets »| Final Report 22
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
GROUP OF QUESTIONS Frequency
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
2) Training implementation and contents
- 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.
074-15 « Enhance trade capacities of Pacific Agribusiness and improve access to international markets »| Final Report 23
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
GROUP OF QUESTIONS Frequency
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
2) Training implementation and contents
- 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.
074-15 « Enhance trade capacities of Pacific Agribusiness and improve access to international markets »| Final Report 24
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
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.
074-15 « Enhance trade capacities of Pacific Agribusiness and improve access to international markets »| Final Report 25
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
074-15 « Enhance trade capacities of Pacific Agribusiness and improve access to international markets »| Final Report 26
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.
074-15 « Enhance trade capacities of Pacific Agribusiness and improve access to international markets »| Final Report 27
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.
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
074-15 « Enhance trade capacities of Pacific Agribusiness and improve access to international markets »| Final Report 28
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
074-15 « Enhance trade capacities of Pacific Agribusiness and improve access to international markets »| Final Report 29
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
074-15 « Enhance trade capacities of Pacific Agribusiness and improve access to international markets »| Final Report 30
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
074-15 « Enhance trade capacities of Pacific Agribusiness and improve access to international markets »| Final Report 31
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
074-15 « Enhance trade capacities of Pacific Agribusiness and improve access to international markets »| Final Report 32
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
074-15 « Enhance trade capacities of Pacific Agribusiness and improve access to international markets »| Final Report 33
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).
074-15 « Enhance trade capacities of Pacific Agribusiness and improve access to international markets »| Final Report 34
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
074-15 « Enhance trade capacities of Pacific Agribusiness and improve access to international markets »| Final Report 35
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
074-15 « Enhance trade capacities of Pacific Agribusiness and improve access to international markets »| Final Report 36
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.
074-15 « Enhance trade capacities of Pacific Agribusiness and improve access to international markets »| Final Report 37
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.