[Margarita Garcia]

1. Sample size According to Annex A – Sampling of suppliers in the ProTerra MRV Standard:
For areas with more than 50 suppliers, the base sample size is the square root of the total number of suppliers. Then, depending on the risk level, the sample is adjusted as follows:
High-risk: no reduction
Medium-risk: reduce sample by 15%
Low-risk: reduce sample by 30%
All results are rounded up.

a) High-risk area – 67 suppliers
√67 ≈ 8.19 → 9 suppliers (base sample)
No reduction (high-risk)
Final sample: 9 suppliers

b) Medium-risk area – 49 suppliers
Fewer than 50 → use 20% rule
49 × 0.20 = 9.8 → 10 suppliers (base sample)
Apply 15% reduction: 10 × 0.85 = 8.5 → 9 suppliers
Final sample: 9 suppliers

c) Low-risk area – 144 suppliers
√144 = 12 suppliers (base sample)
Apply 30% reduction: 12 × 0.70 = 8.4 → 9 suppliers
Final sample: 9 suppliers

Total number of suppliers to be sampled:
9 (high-risk) + 9 (medium-risk) + 9 (low-risk) = 27 suppliers

2. Cross-checking for suppliers not selected for site visit
For non-visited suppliers, desk-based verification should include:
– Supplier documentation review (e.g., declarations, permits, land titles)
– Geolocation and satellite imagery to assess land use history
– Cross-checking volumes and traceability data
– Risk-screening tools to detect anomalies or signs of deforestation
– This ensures that all suppliers are evaluated, not just those visited in person.

3. Why is supplier sampling relevant in ProTerra MRV?
Supplier sampling allows auditors to:
– Efficiently assess sustainability performance across large supply chains
– Focus on higher-risk suppliers or areas
– Detect potential systemic non-compliances
– Increase credibility and representativeness of the verification process
– It helps balance audit depth with practicality, while maintaining trust in the system.

How should non-compliances be addressed? (With example)
Example:
A supplier in the medium-risk area cannot provide any evidence of compliance with the deforestation cut-off date — no geolocation data, maps, or supporting documentation.

Corrective action:
The operator must support the supplier to obtain proper geolocation mapping and satellite analysis
An action plan with deadlines should be developed
Until resolved, the supplier’s products must be excluded from verified volumes
If unresolved, the supplier may be removed from the supply chain
Failure to address such issues can prevent the operator from receiving a verification statement.

[Margarita Garcia]

1. Please explain what type of documents, information and evidence you, as auditor, would look for when conducting a ProTerra MRV audit and verifying the compliance with the deforestation cut-off date of the Standard?
When verifying compliance with the deforestation cut-off date under ProTerra MRV, I’d focus on collecting clear, verifiable evidence that shows whether the land in question has remained untouched since the cut-off year.
Some of the key documents and tools I would look for include:
– Satellite imagery or GIS maps that show how the land looked before and after the cut-off date — these are essential to confirm there’s been no recent deforestation.
– Geolocation data from suppliers (coordinates or maps) to match their land with satellite layers.
– Land titles or legal land-use documents, which can help establish how the land has been used historically.
– Supplier declarations confirming no deforestation has occurred after the cut-off date.
– Production records, such as harvest or sale data, that show continuous activity on the land.
Besides reviewing documents, I would also check if the company has internal controls to monitor this over time, since traceability and deforestation risk need to be managed continuously, not just at audit time.

2. What would be your approach when dealing with suppliers with no traceability information in relation to deforestation cut-off date of the Standard?
If a supplier doesn’t have traceability information related to deforestation, I’d see it as both a risk and an opportunity for improvement. My approach would be supportive but firm, aligned with ProTerra MRV expectations.
First, I’d look at how the operator is assessing and managing this gap. Ideally, they should have a risk analysis in place that evaluates whether the supplier is in a high-risk area for deforestation.
Then, I’d expect to see an action plan that outlines how they’re working with that supplier to build traceability — this could include mapping the land, providing training, or helping them collect the necessary data.
I’d also want to see some kind of engagement effort, like technical visits or documented follow-ups, showing the operator is actively addressing the issue — not just waiting.
In the meantime, if there’s no traceability, I’d expect the operator to either segregate that material from ProTerra-verified volumes or limit purchases until the situation is resolved. Without proper traceability, verification can’t move forward.

3. In your opinion and based on the reading material: ENVIRONMENTAL, HEALTH, AND SAFETY GUIDELINES FOR ANNUAL CROP PRODUCTION – World Bank; what are the top 4 environmental issues associated to agricultural activity?
Based on the World Bank’s guidelines and my own understanding, I’d say the top four environmental challenges in agriculture are:
– Soil degradation
Agriculture puts a lot of pressure on soils, especially when there’s over-tillage or not enough rotation. Over time, this can lead to erosion, loss of nutrients, and reduced productivity — making farms more dependent on synthetic inputs.
– Water use and contamination
Irrigation can be a lifeline for crops, but it can also drain water sources if not managed properly. On top of that, runoff from fertilizers and pesticides can pollute rivers and groundwater, affecting both ecosystems and communities.
– Overuse of agrochemicals
Excessive or improper use of pesticides and fertilizers not only harms the environment but also poses risks to human health. It can also disrupt biodiversity, especially pollinators and beneficial insects.
– Biodiversity loss
When natural areas are cleared for farming, especially monocultures, it reduces habitat for wildlife and weakens the ecological balance. This also makes farms more vulnerable to pests and climate shocks.

These are complex issues, but they highlight why sustainable farming practices and better monitoring systems — like those encouraged by ProTerra — are so important today.

[Margarita Garcia]

1. How would you organize the sampling of the verification activities associated with this client?
– Given the large number of direct suppliers (6,374) and their geographic distribution, I would apply a risk-based stratified sampling approach to ensure both efficiency and meaningful coverage.
– Stratify by biome: Since risk varies significantly by biome (e.g., Amazon and Atlantic Forest have stricter conservation concerns), I would group suppliers based on their location.
– Prioritize high-risk areas: Focus more sampling resources on biomes with higher deforestation risks and stricter legal frameworks (Amazon, Atlantic Forest, Transition zones). For example: Sample at least 10–15% of Amazon and Atlantic Forest suppliers. Sample a smaller proportion from the Cerrado (where traceability is known), with more reliance on system checks rather than field sampling. Include 100% of Caatinga suppliers due to the very small number, ensuring no risk is overlooked.
– Include random and targeted selections:
– Random samples within each biome to reduce bias.
– Targeted samples for outliers or suppliers with inconsistent or incomplete records in the SAP system.
– Cross-reference with SAP: Use the company’s SAP system to filter, segment, and track suppliers, ensuring selection includes suppliers with varied volumes, transaction frequency, and regional sensitivity.

2. What evidence/check in your view is satisfactory to guarantee the avoidance of double counting?
To ensure no double counting of volumes or areas, I would consider the following evidence and system checks satisfactory:
– Unique supplier identification: Each supplier must have a unique ID in the SAP system, with clear documentation of farm boundaries (e.g., geo-coordinates, CAR registration, maps).
– One-to-one linkage of batches to farms: Each sale/delivery must be traceable to a specific farm and production area with no overlapping volumes.
– Transaction record audits: Cross-checking purchase orders, invoices, delivery documents, and SAP entries to ensure no duplication of volumes across multiple buyers or contracts.
– Physical vs. contractual checks: Compare actual physical deliveries (weighbridge records, logistics documents) with declared volumes in SAP to confirm consistency.
– Internal traceability reports: SAP-generated reports that trace raw material from origin to destination, ensuring each lot or batch is accounted for only once in the verification scope.

3. What checks would you make to confirm that no triangulation (selling commodities from other areas as if they were produced in a given region) is occurring?
To detect and prevent triangulation, I would apply a mix of documentary, system, and field-based verification methods:
– Cross-check sourcing documentation: Validate that delivery documents (e.g., invoices, transport manifests, weighbridge tickets) match the origin farm’s registered location.
– Geo-verification of supplier farms: Use geo-referenced data (e.g., CAR, SIGEF, or satellite data) to confirm that the farm is physically located in the declared biome or region.
– Consistency in SAP records: Analyze whether the location data in SAP matches the declared sourcing region for each transaction.
– Transaction pattern analysis: Identify unusual patterns such as: A sudden increase in supply volume from a supplier with limited productive capacity. Regular sourcing from farms located near biome boundaries. Repeated supply from a low-risk region with questionable productivity history.
– On-site visits or third-party satellite checks: In high-risk zones (e.g., Amazon or Transition regions), I would request evidence of on-farm production or use tools like satellite imagery to confirm land use and avoid “paper-only” suppliers.

[Margarita Garcia]

Topic 2: What would be your approach (what would you expect to see as evidence) when dealing with suppliers with no traceability information in relation to the previous question?

Traceability is one of the pillars of the ProTerra MRV v1.0 system. So when a supplier can’t provide it, it’s a serious concern—but it’s also something that happens in the real world. What matters most is how the operator handles the gap. Here’s what I’d want to see:
a) A defined strategy: is the operator planning to help the supplier improve or looking to phase them out? Either is valid if it’s thought through and aligned with the standard.
b) Corrective action plans or even temporary exceptions—but only if clearly justified and documented.
And the evidence of a prior risk assessment evaluating the potential impact of using that supplier—especially regarding deforestation, legality, or human rights. Efforts to engage the supplier, such as written requests for documentation, phone calls, or even visits and alternative forms of verification.

[Margarita Garcia]

Topic 1: Please explain what type of documents, information and evidence you, as auditor, would look for when conducting a ProTerra MRV audit and verifying item 3 (Management system requirements for economic operators) of the Standard?

I would focus on understanding how well the operator has structured and implemented their internal systems to support compliance with the standard. I believe it’s not just about having documents in place, but also about ensuring the system is active, effective, and well understood by the people involved. Here’s what I would typically look for:

1. Policies and Procedures: I would expect to see formalized procedures and policies that reflect the ProTerra MRV principles, especially regarding sustainability, risk management, traceability, and continuous improvement.

2. Defined Roles and Responsibilities: An organizational chart and clear job descriptions help show who is responsible for MRV compliance and how tasks are distributed internally.

3. Training Records: It’s important to check whether the staff involved in the process have been trained properly. I look for records of internal training sessions, attendance lists, and any awareness activities related to the standard.

4. Internal Audits and Management Reviews: I would verify if internal audits are being conducted regularly, and whether the results are being reviewed by management and used to improve the system.

5. Supplier Management: Supplier approval procedures, risk assessments, and signed agreements that include sustainability and traceability clauses are key elements I expect to find.

6. Traceability Tools: I would also review product flowcharts, traceability logs, and purchase/sale records to assess if traceability is being managed and documented consistently across the supply chain.

7. Corrective Actions: If there have been any non-conformities in the past, I check whether they’ve been addressed through documented corrective actions and proper follow-up.

8. Document Control: I look for a system that ensures procedures are up to date and accessible to the relevant staff—usually through a document control list or versioning system.

9. Continuous Improvement: I like to see how the operator uses monitoring data and feedback to improve over time—whether through KPIs, improvement plans, or system updates.

[Margarita Garcia]

Hello everyone, my name is Margarita García. I am an agricultural engineer with a master’s degree in agribusiness and a specialty in quality standards and food safety. I have almost 20 years of experience in regulatory affairs, focusing on agricultural, aquaculture, and food products, especially in the Andean Community. Allways ready to learn!.

[Author]

Posts