Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
countries can be identified as 'third countries' and certification bodies accredited under their
governments' programs can be accepted. As of April 2003, there were only eight countries
approved, only two of which were developing countries: Argentina and Costa Rica (Swedish
National Board of Trade 2003).
A second option called 'importer derogation' is provided under Article 11 (6) that was
introduced as an exception rule when it was realised that the first option would cause signifi-
cant difficulties and delays for organic trade from third countries. In this scenario, an inter-
ested importer files an application to the competent authority in an EU country requesting
permission to market the product in the EU as organic. An importer-dependent permit is
granted for a limited period of time (i.e. one year) if equivalence to the EU regulation can be
proven. This option, which accounts for 90% of imports to the EU, forces producers in devel-
oping countries to become highly dependent on importers in the EU and it places significant
administrative burdens on importers. Furthermore, there have been significant differences in
the application of the import derogation rule among the member states of the EU, creating
uncertainty for both exporters and importers (Swedish National Board of Trade 2003).
The third option outlined in Article 11 (7) provides for an exception in which, at the
request of a member state of the EU, an individual inspection body in a third country can be
approved following an assessment of that inspection body using appropriate means. This
does not necessarily require an on-site inspection of the inspection body. However, this
option has seen rather limited use, with just one instance up to mid 2003 (Swedish National
Board of Trade 2003).
The impact of the EU conformity assessment system has been to encourage third countries
to adopt the EU regulation, given that in practice they need to demonstrate compliance in
order to obtain third country status (Swedish National Board of Trade 2003). Most other
countries have followed the EU example and recognise only domestically based certification,
except for the USA and Japan that allow foreign certification bodies to apply directly for
recognition.
In addition to direct application by a foreign certification body, the National Organic
Program (NOP) rule of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) provides two
other options for approval of foreign certification bodies. These include accreditation of a
foreign certification body by a government whose standards meet the US regulation, and
accreditation of a foreign certification body by a government that has negotiated an equiva-
lency agreement with the USDA (Joint Working Party on Trade and Environment 2002).
In the JAS system, products can be labelled as organic if they have been certified by a regis-
tered certification organisation in Japan, if they have been certified by a Registered Foreign Cer-
tification Organisation (RFCO) in the exporting country through recertification of imports
where the organic raw material is certified by a certification body in the export country while
the importer is certified by an RFCO in Japan, or through the use of contracted inspection
services where registered certification bodies delegate inspections to trusted certification bodies
in export countries recognised by their own government or by an internationally reliable system
such as the IOAS (Joint Working Party on Trade and Environment 2002). This last option is
interesting in that it allows for a bridge between private and governmental systems.
In terms of criteria for the approval of private certification bodies, the EU regulation
requires compliance to Annex 3 of the regulation in addition to ISO/IEC Guide 65. Annex 3
contains requirements not included in ISO Guide 65 such as parallel production. This format
is similar to the IFOAM system with specific accreditation criteria that are not covered in the
ISO guide. The USA and Japan have each developed distinct requirements. Beyond this, some
countries such as India and Australia (in draft requirements) have chosen to base their criteria
on IFOAMs (Commins 2003).
