Congratulations, is the right greeting for the more than thirty certification bodies that have recently been approved by the European Union as providing equivalent guarantees that organic products are produced to standards equivalent to those within the European Union. And congratulations are also in order for the Commission which managed to take this decision. It took two years. Hopefully we will see the process handled quicker in the future. It is hard to know the reasons why the process was so slow, apart from the fact that there seems to be a constant lack of human resources to implement increasingly complex regulations, developed by the European Union.

As a result of the lack of transparency - no list of applicants has, for example, been published - in the dealings of the European Union we are often left to guess when discussing the work of the Commission. For more than a year there was no communication from the Commission to the applicants. Initially, the Commission believed that it could make a simple ‘yes or no’ decision based on each applicant’s initial submission. It appears, however, that hardly any certification body would have been approved if the Commission had followed that line. So finally, the Commission was forced to communicate with the applicants. It appears that many of the well established European certification bodies and their accreditation bodies were a trifle too self-confident that they would be approved and they paid the price. It is known that European accreditation bodies were disgruntled that many of the certification bodies that they have accredited did not get approval by the EU. Likewise, some Member States were not happy that certification bodies based in their countries failed. Two times the organic committee failed to reach a decision on the list, but on the third attempt they approved it with only minor changes. The Commission should have credit for staying the course.

The winners are the underdogs; those certification bodies that for years have fought hard for acceptance in a competitive field where the EUbased certification bodies had a much easier access to approval. It is also a great victory for the International Organic Accreditation Services (IOAS). A substantial proportion of the certification bodies approved by the Commission are accredited by the IOAS, which means that their standard was assessed by the IOAS. The IOAS has had to fight for recognition by providing excellent service, competing in the EU with national accreditation bodies that are often considered ‘competent by default’ as they have nobody checking them.

There are still things in the model that need improvement. Current decisions are limited to a particular country, and certification bodies must prove that they have worked in a particular country to have this country included in their approval. This will be possible in a transitional situation where products can also be approved in other ways. But once the old import approval system is discarded, this will pose real problems for all those that work mainly with EU exports, a classic catch-22 situation. There are similar issues associated with how the scope of approval will be extended to include new product categories and even a new standard. In addition, the system has not solved the problem of new entrants. If a certification body operates in a market where certification services are basically demanded for exports, how does it get its first approval if it has to demonstrate proof of actual operation? Which clients will buy the certification body’s services if it is not approved? The Commission should look into how its own Members States have solved this, and offer those on the others side of the frontier the same opportunities.

For a long time the EU offered import approvals based on single lots. These were administered by the Member States, and though it was a messy and unpredictable system it did provide a pragmatic solution to a problem. A big step forward took place when the USA opened up direct accreditation of certification bodies as an option for imports, rather than only approving countries. This appeared to be a lot better than the EU system, however, as more countries introduced the same system it is also apparent that such a system is very resource-demanding. Some certification bodies pay the US Department of Agriculture more than fifty thousand dollars for their accreditation. Paying such sums for dozens, or even hundreds, of separate accreditations is simply not rational. Also, insisting that overseas farmers comply in minute detail to the accrediting country’s standards is very far from an organic perspective. The world needs to move towards a situation where one approval, one standard and one supervision is enough. The EU system is not there but it certainly is a big step in the right direction.

Gunnar Rundgren

Listening to the discussions at the Organic World Congress can be frustrating. Where is ‘organic’ heading? Is it a concept that will change the world or is it just a simple market niche for a system that is a bit better than the usual? The congress was dominated by world changers, but in the daily life of organic farmers and businesses it is market demands that dominate. For IFOAM and the IFOAM board handling these inherent contradictions is not simple. Insisting on full implementation of the fundamental values and aspirations of the organic movement is simply not possible in the operating environment of producers, be they in developed or developing countries. Those that advocate such a position are simply not very relevant. On the other hand, the advocates’ ideas and values are, often, the ones that give the organic movement its spirit and feeling of meaning. Ultimately, it is probably as much those ideas and values that give organic agriculture credibility, as standards and certification.

Also, ‘real life’ situations differ around the globe. In some countries, the sector is still in its nascent stages and its priorities are the development of certification and a common mark, encouraging producers to participate and consumers to understand what ‘organic’ means. In other more developed countries, organic proponents are more worried about competition with schemes concerned with other issues, such as animal welfare or biodiversity, that may be doing better than organic schemes. Some people operate in an environment where ‘Life Cycle Assessment’ and ‘Sustainability Indicators’ are part of their daily discourse, while others are seeing ‘pesticide free’ as the main message of their organic movement. Unfortunately, too many assume that what is a problem or an opportunity in one place is also a problem or an opportunity in another place. Carbon payments for increasing soil organic matter is seen as an additional incentive for organic farmers in one place, and an incentive for large-scale land grabbing by others. In the end, there is simply no possibility to make everybody happy, compromises have to be made. And mostly IFOAM manages to maintain that balance. In the case of the Organic Guarantee System the IFOAM board decide not to find a compromise between conflicting demands. Instead, it devised a whole range of new components to satisfy the different needs of proponents. At the Congress, the inherent conflicts between the different OGS services and their orientation became apparent to many members. For example, it became clear how the new IFOAM policy on import regulations and its own programme for a family of standards are in contradiction with the IFOAM Accreditation Criteria, which require very detailed and rigorous procedures for acceptance of other organic schemes. In addition, it really is not clear who will use the new IFOAM Standard – interest seems to be very low, and it is up to the new Board to sort this out, rather urgently.

When IFOAM initiated its Participatory Guarantee Systems (PGS) work in 2004, it was viewed with quite some suspicion. The reality has spoken though, and PGS have mushroomed. This has not only given IFOAM a small farmer friendly image, it has also enabled many producers to access an organised organic market. It appears to have been a successful strategy; not only has it proven possible but also that there was a need for new ways of guaranteeing organic quality. There are, however, potential problems regarding the movement of goods between a PGS certified market circuit and a third party certified market circuit. PGS certified products neither conform with the major regulations, nor are they in line with IFOAM Accreditation. So far, IFOAM has not commented on this, just stating that PGS is for the local market. While that is true as a general statement, markets are not islands and there is no strict demarcation between a local market and other markets. Support for PGS systems have become so big that it is now time to start lobbying for their acceptance in the US and EU regulations. Or will this be the demise of PGS, with the system actually getting strangled by being brought under regulations and being forced into procedures that mimic third party certification? Another one for the World Board agenda. Good luck to them!

Gunnar Rundgren