Before issuing the Approval Certification, outputs of the peer review should be checked to ensure they are in order and that the peer review process and documentation were completed as required. This will be done by the coordinator or facilitator of the PGS initiative with the support of a previously appointed group of PGS members.
Once more, how certification is established and managed differs greatly among PGS initiatives. These can range from a complex system involving different commissions or certification committees to a simple approach where the groups performing peer reviews make the final decision on certification approval of the producer.
Typically, a certification committee, which should be representative of different member categories, checks that peer review outputs are complete, assesses the severity of any potential non-compliance and defines corrective actions to be applied in a certain time frame. Corrective actions should always have the aim to improve practices rather than impose punishments. The certification committee then validates the decision regarding certification approval of the producer, and the PGS initiative is then able to issue certificates.
In some cases, a follow-up will be required for various reasons: inexperience of involved farmers and other stakeholders or lack of clarity in documents. Thus, in many situations, the first peer review can be seen as a training exercise. The process should be repeated to fine tune tools and skills.
Those in charge of coordination and day-to-day activities for a PGS initiative will document any problems that arise, follow up on non compliance, and update the database. They will also note any unresolved non-compliance.
It is critical that a PGS includes provisions for its member to appeal a decision perceived as unfair by the affected person, for instance, suspension of certification in cases of serious non-compliance.
Source: PGS Guidelines IFOAM