No country produces all the organic products that they need. For example, Australia, like most countries, needs to source organic products from around the world and this is particularly true of processed products that combine multiple ingredients. Many of the current national compliance regulations for the importation of organic products make it uneconomical for processors to go through the extra time and expense to get the products recertified so that they comply with their national organic regulations. This becomes even more difficult if the processor or producer wants to export these products to multiple markets with different regulatory compliance regimes.

Only the larger producers or processors with economies of scale can afford the multiple certifications that are needed to access these markets. The smaller family farms and businesses are becoming locked out these markets, which goes against one of the main principles of organic agriculture – The Principle of Fairness.

Fear of Imported Products

Many countries, and even some sectors in Australia, have a fear of imported products. Their fear is based on the belief that imports out-compete the domestic products, resulting in a loss of domestic production and local farmers and processors being forced out of business. However, while this could be true in some conventional industries there is no evidence of imported organic products replacing domestically produced products.

Indeed, there is evidence that imports can help domestic markets grow by supplying the products that consumers want, but are not being produced domestically. As the market for these products grows, a new domestic market can emerge based on import replacement.

Credible systems1

In Australia around 60% of the organic products sold in retail shops are either fully imported or a composite of imported and domestic products. The critical issue for Australia is that all imported organic products come from credible organic systems. But what is meant by ‘credible organic systems’?

There is a need to accept that there are variations in organic standards to reflect the differences in the production environments of different countries and regions of the world. Just as Australia developed a standard that differed from the EU Regulation, US NOP, JAS, Codex, etc. because of the unique Australian requirements, the Australian organic sector needed to accept that this applies to all countries. Every country and/or region has to develop standards that reflect and meet the needs of their producers.

The Australian organic sector’s main concern is that the products come from a credible system. This includes both the standard and the certification regime to that standard.

Australian consumers and processors do not really care about the minute differences between the organic regulatory systems of the world’s major markets – Europe, USA, Canada, Switzerland and Japan etc. The products from these systems are seen as credible and equally reliable as the Australian standard and certification system.

The theory behind this acceptance is that they are Equally Reliable Systems to the Australian Standard (AS 6000) and the certification requirements (MP100).

This concept was developed through robust discussions on the standards committee with government, industry and certifiers putting forward a range of views on how to deal with imported products. The issue of compliance to AS 6000 was debated, with some participants stating that producers in other countries should be subject to the same standard and procedures as Australian producers.

It was pointed out to the committee that producers in other countries with credible systems such as the EU and North America were subject to standards and certification systems that were virtually the same as the requirements for Australian producers. The differences were minor.

One of the critical issues discussed was the prohibitive cost of recertifying all imported products and how this would limit the range of products being sold in Australia. It was felt that compliance through recertification would in particular make it difficult to impossible for processors who have to import small amounts of numerous products for their composite final product. The costs of doing this would not be economically viable for many products.

The standards committee developed the consensus decision to accept that products from systems with credible standards and certification regimes are as equally reliable as products from AS 6000 and MP 1000.

Equally reliable systems

The equivalency requirements for the Australian Standard (AS 6000) were approved by the standards committee on 1 July 2010.

These requirements are part of the sister document to AS 6000 – Procedures for certification of organic and biodynamic products (MP100).

The critical parts of the document are Table B1, where the accepted systems are listed, and Appendix C that defines the criteria that will be used to assess suitable standards and conformity systems. Clause B3.3 is the key clause: ‘B3.3 All acceptable conformity assessment systems and respective competent authorities/accreditation bodies that have been found to satisfy Appendix C and are deemed acceptable for providing equally reliable imported organic or biodynamic product, as defined in AS 6000, are listed on and maintained by the Joint Accreditation System of Australia New Zealand (JAS-ANZ) website’

Table (B1) that lists the acceptable systems will be hosted on the JAS-ANZ website so that it can be updated without having to amend the standard.

The countries and/or regulations currently deemed acceptable for providing equally reliable imported organic or biodynamic products are the USA NOP, the EU, Switzerland, Japan, Canada, Taiwan and New Zealand.

However, to accommodate products from other countries that are not on the list, the committee has allowed two pathways for certification bodies (CBs) to be accredited to the Australia market. These are:

1. CBs that are accredited by JAS-ANZ to the requirements of MP 100.
2. CBs that are accredited by the International Organic Accreditation Service (IOAS) to the IFOAM Basic Standard and other approved IFOAM standards (the Family of Standards).

These provisions will enable market access for products from countries that do not have organic regulatory systems or where the Australian industry does not trust the reliability of a country’s regulatory system. It will mean that all products certified by IFOAM accredited CBs can access the Australian market, regardless of the country of origin.

Adding new national systems from third Countries to the list

The standards committee is currently finalising the process of reviewing and accepting new national systems from third countries. The current proposal,which will be finalised in September, is for a small expert subcommittee comprised of both industry and government organisations.  This will give the flexibility to add new systems quite quickly without having to go through the more lengthy process of amending and publishing a revised standard each time a country or private system is added to the list in Table B1.

Table B1 is referred to in MP 100 with a link to the JAS-ANZ website. This means that it can be updated in real time.

Three international systems are referenced as best practice equivalency systems. These are:

• The ITF tools:
  i) International Requirements for Organic Certification Bodies (IROCB)
  ii) Guide for Assessing the Equivalence of Organic Standards and Technical Regulations (EquiTool).
  and
• The Codex Alimentarius Guidelines CAC/GL 34, Guidelines for the Development of Equivalence Regarding Food Import and Export Inspection and Certification Systems.

The standards committee did not mandate the use of ITF tools because there will be some cases where systems will be added to the table without following the full processes outlined in the tools. The current systems in the table are examples of this.

The Codex Organic Guidelines are used as the food reference standard when assessing other systems. It is the intention of the assessment process for these standards to be equivalent with rather than compliant to Codex.

The key issue is that standards and control systems ‘are deemed acceptable for providing equally reliable imported organic or biodynamic product, as defined in AS 6000’.

The whole purpose of the equivalency section in MP 100 is to establish the guidelines for equal reliability and not go down the path of compliance to AS 6000 or Codex. The emphasis is on the credibility of the standards setting and conformity assessment processes, rather than trying to resolve minute differences in the content of the standards.

Accreditation

Currently, Australia only mandates the production and certification requirements of organic products for export under a specific set of laws. These are called the Export Orders, and can only be amended by an act of the Federal Parliament.

The Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS) has the monopoly under the Export Orders to approve CBs for the export of organic products from Australia using the National Standard.

The CBs are currently debating this with some wanting to keep the status quo and others wanting to have the Export Orders replaced with a system that allows CBs to meet specific market requirements through direct accreditation rather than paying extra for AQIS to approve them.

Apart from exported products, where AQIS has the mandate, any legitimate accreditation body (AB) can set up a scheme where the scope is to accredit CBs to AS6000 and MP100 to certify products within Australia.

JAS-ANZ has set up an accreditation scheme for CBs for AS6000 and MP100. JAS-ANZ can only accredit for imports into Australia and for products sold in Australia. It cannot issue export certificates under the current Export Orders.

IOAS already accredits certifiers for importing into Australia using the IFOAM standard or any future standard in the IFOAM Family of Standards – to the IFOAM criteria or ISO 65.

IOAS could also set up a scheme to accredit certifiers for products within Australia using AS6000 and MP100 as the scope.

Conclusion

As stated previously, Australia’s aim is not to stop imports. The aim is to ensure that all imported organic products come from credible verifiable organic systems. The Australian organic sector believes that the import requirements for MP 100 set a new benchmark for the way equivalency is defined for the importation of organic products.

This approach was adopted unilaterally because the standards committee believe it will benefit both the consumers and the organic industry by reducing the regulatory burdens and costs on organic products being produced and sold in Australia. It will enable a larger range of organic products to be sold in Australia and this can only help the sector to grow, which is to everyone’s advantage.

The Australian organic sector hopes that other countries will see the logic in this approach and adopt similar systems to reduce the extra regulatory burdens and costs that are imposed on the trade of organic products. This will benefit the whole global organic sector by reducing barriers to trade that are enforced on organic products but not on conventional products. This reduction would see an increase in the trade and growth of the organic sector around the world. Most importantly, the smaller family farms and businesses will not be locked out of these markets because of the excessive costs of multiple certifications and accreditations. 

Andre Leu, - Chairman, OFA

For further information see OFA website

Australian Standards have to be purchased (the sale of the standard pays for the running of the standards committee).