Summary
Global trade in organics is getting increasingly
important. This makes international harmonisation
crucial for the future development and trust in organic
production. But how to accomodate diversity within this
strive for harmonisation? And how to maintain trust in
organics? The IFOAM system for international
harmonisation is valuable in this context. The
interaction between this system and the regulatory
system of the European Union should be improved.
Growing International Trade
We all know how the organic market is developing, but
have we also realised how big proportion of the organic
products that is traded between countries?
The graph shows estimates of the organic market and
the proportion that is traded internationally. Today
around 15% of the organic products are imported. With
the expansion of the organic market into all segments of
processed foods, convenient food and catering this will
increase to 20% in the near future, representing a value
of 8 billion Euro. The figures here are conservative
estimates. A recent study at the University of Aalborg,
Denmark predicts that the value of the global organic
trade will be above 25 billion Euro year 2007.
Keeping and enhancing the confidence of the
consumer
We all know that consumer confidence in organic
products is critical if the optimistic market forecasts
are to become reality. Standardisation and certification
are the tools that have been most popular for ensuring
such confidence. The bigger the distance between the
consumer and the producer the higher the need for
reliable certification. On the international level
international harmonisation of standards and
certification requirements are needed to keep the trust.
Organic agriculture is and should be diverse
One complication in the harmonisation of organic
agriculture is that the very nature of organics implies
that it is based on local resources and designed to
local conditions. This is fundamentally different from
industrial production and also quite different from the
normal ’package’ agriculture that is practised in
many places. Organic production practises will not be
identical under diverse conditions. As organic standards
have the tradition of being rather prescriptive it is
therefore not a realistic approach that they should be
identical everywhere.To a certain extent this also
relates to certification. For anyone that has practised
this occupation in both an industrialised country and a,
so-called, developing country it is obvious that
inspection methods should be adapted to the local
situation and risk. The available resources both
money-wise and in manpower are often lacking, and
illiteracy among the producers creates additional
obstacles to overcome. Developing countries need a fair
chance to develop their own certification systems and
contribute to the international norms for certification.
We should recognise the need for diversity in
organics and allow that to be reflected in the system
for international harmonisation.
The IFOAM system of harmonisation
Those who primarily would be hit by lost trust in
organic products are those active in the sector with
production, trade, certification or advocacy. Therefore
it has been logical for the organic sector to establish
quality assurance systems. Since more then 20 years has
the International Federation of Organic Agriculture
Movements, IFOAM, developed a system for international
harmonisation. First by the establishment of the IFOAM
Basic Standards for Organic Production and Processing,
later on (since 1992) by the establishment of the IFOAM
Accreditation Programme. Participating in this are more
than 700 member organisations in all parts of the world,
representing the interested parties in the organic
sector.
Because of the diversity in the production, the IFOAM
Basic Standards have developed from being direct
standards for production into standards for
standards,.i.e. they lay down the standards that
national or regional standards should comply with, and
not the standards the individual producer should follow.
In the IFOAM Accreditation Criteria for Programmes
Certifying Organic Agriculture and Processing the
standards for a reliable organic certification have been
laid down, based on the experience of the organic
industry, but also on international norms like the ISO
Guide 65. Based on these criteria, and an extensive
evaluation, certification bodies can be awarded IFOAM
accreditation.
The execution of the IFOAM Accreditation Programme is
currently contracted to an independent legal body, the
International Organic Accreditation Services, inc. Any
certification body in the world, private or
governmental, IFOAM member or not, have access to this
accreditation service.
The Council Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 and
imports
Partly because of public interest but mainly as a
response to requests for protection of their markets by
organic farmers, regulations have appeared in many
industrialised countries. Of biggest importance is the
EEC 2092/91 since the EU represents the biggest market.
Other speakers here are trying to explain how the
regulation is formulated regarding imports, and which
procedures that apply. I will focus on the problems
relating to imports:
Production standards
Equivalency is given a strict interpretation with
focus on lists of approved inputs – no recognition of
diversity.There is no recognition of international
(IFOAM) standards
Inspection arrangements and control system
The requirement for EN 45011 accreditation is less
relevant for organic certification and may not lead to
higher reliability for imported organic products. One
result is that it gives a number of European
certification bodies the possibility to put small
certification bodies in developing countries out of
business. Another result is a considerable increase in
cost for certification and consequently for organic
products.
The requirements are developed for European
conditions with no recognition of small farmers systems
(grower groups, collective certification etc.).
The approval procedures
There are no procedures for certification bodies (nor
for producers) outside the EU to apply for approval, the
EU only deals with countries, and the members states
only with importers.
Importers control the authorisations, tying exporters
to a certain importer: "Bio-colonialism"
Transparancy and consistency
It is very difficult for anybody to understand the
rules. The main beneficiaries of this are consultants
like myself – we get more work!
The deadline of 30th June
In the implementation of the regulation the
requirements for inspection and certification
(accreditation according to the EN 45011) is supposed to
be achieved by 30 June. There are almost no
certification bodies outside the EU that will have
fulfilled this. It should be noted that also only a
minority of the certification bodies inside the EU has
been accredited to the EN 45011. If the 30 June deadline
is strictly enforced there will be a dramatic decrease
in imports of organic products to the EU market. This
will affect the consumers by higher prices and lack of
products, it will also hit a quickly growing organic
processing industry by lack of ingredients and higher
prices. In the end, it will limit the total development
of the organic market and thus affect also EU producers.
Multiple accreditation and approval systems
To try to avoid a major break-down of trade, some
member states, most importantly Germany, has implemented
own systems for approval. In fact, Germany is designing
an own accreditation system. While this effort must be
honoured as a creative approach it also contains some
complications. By this we have different systems already
under the EU regulation. If we add the regulations for
organics in the USA and Japan, both countries that are
likely to go for an own design of requirements,
certifiers and their clients will be caught in a even
bigger mess than the current. The efforts that
certifiers have to make to satisfy all different
requirements draw resources from the field-work that
actually provides the basis for a reliable
certification.
How to achieve a system in line with international
rules and good practises for standardisation?
Key elements of such a system are:
Based on international standards
Harmonised with respect for diversity
Inspection and certification according to criteria
and procedures relevant for the sector
Participation of the interested parties on all levels
The system designed by IFOAM has taken these elements
into account and is today the only mechanism for a real
international harmonisation. Supplemented by the
possibilities of enforcement that authorities have we
could get a reliable international organic market.
We must come into a working relationship between the
private sector, the regulators and implementing
authorities based on mutual recognition of our
respective strong and weak sides. Authorities could
benefit a lot from co-operation with IFOAM, in terms of
competency, reliability of the guarantee system and
efficient use of resources. IFOAM still has to get more
confidence in its system by the authorities. I believe
confidence is created by openness and transparency.
IFOAM and the IOAS are, and have always been, open for a
close co-operation with regulators and authorities. But
authorities should accept this invitation for
co-operation - there is no meaning with ‘open books’
if nobody is going to read them!What’s next?In the
longer term perspective there is a need for a more
thorough revision of the import rules.
In the short term perspective the following action is
needed:
Extending the deadline of 30th June
Accepting IFOAM accreditation as proof of equivalence
with the (EEC) 2092/91
