Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
Fortunately there has been progress with respect to government acceptance of ICS as a tool
for organic inspection and certification. The EU has published a guidance document for the
evaluation of equivalence of organic producer group certification schemes applied in develop-
ing countries in late 2003. Although this is only a guidance document with no legally binding
effects on member states in their implementation of EEC 2092/91 (European Commission
2003), it sets a useful precedent for further development and acceptance and will hopefully
provide for a more consistent approach in how member countries handle organic certifications
through ICS. The acceptability of ICS has been debated purely at the regulatory level, rather
than moving into the realm of market and consumer preferences. Given that the ICS is a tool
to reduce the costs of an external inspection rather than replace it, the assurance of independ-
ent third party certification is still in place.
Another interesting development is the use of the concept of internal control systems for
application in other certification systems that work with smallholders such as Fairtrade and
Utz Kapeh certifications. There is also interest in further developing the concept for wider
application as a generic management system or total quality management system able to meet
additional demands placed on the producer group, such as requirements for food safety systems
(Pyburn 2004).
Developments in participatory guarantee systems
While the development and acceptance of ICS is a positive sign for the close to 350 smallholder
groups whose organic products are exported, representing 150,000 smallholders (Agro Eco
2003), the current 'over-regulated' high-cost environment has led several organic farmers to
consider their exit options from these systems. Many farmers wonder why no one trusts them
anymore, why they have to pay so much money for multiple organic certifications when they
know in their hearts and minds that they are following organic principles. They know that
their commitment to organic agriculture is more than securing access to an expanding market,
that it is embedded in deeply held values about how agriculture should be practiced. Such frus-
trations and the high costs of formal certification are causing a counterforce within the organic
movement towards a return to simpler regulatory systems, towards organic marketing systems
oriented to the local community where formal certification is not necessary because of the
existence of interpersonal trust relationships (see (Raynolds 2004). While this movement is
gaining momentum, such alternative assurance schemes for local markets have been around as
long as the organic movement itself (Altieri 2002).
The counterforce is happening not only in developing countries, where smallholder
producer groups are increasingly unable to bear the human resource and financial costs of the
management systems and documentation required for certification yet alone the costs of
multiple certifications, but also in industrialised countries such as the USA. For example, the
North East Farmers' Association of New York has developed the Farmer's Pledge, whereby
farmers sign an affidavit that can be used as an alternative or complement to mainstream cer-
tification (NOFA-NY 2003). Although there is no formal inspection process, customers are
invited to inspect farms for themselves to make their own judgements on farmers' integrity.
Another example of how farmer frustrations with the increasing bureaucratisation of
organic regulations are starting to take concrete forms in alternative verification mechanisms
such as community-based certification, self-assessment or peer-review systems, is the 'Certified
Naturally Grown' alternative labelling program for small farms, who grow to USDA organic
standards but who see the costs and demanding paperwork of USDA accredited certifications as
unnecessary for their local and direct distribution channels (E. Hendersen, pers. comm., 2003).
Some small organic farmers have become so disillusioned with the controls imposed upon them
by the USDA (see Blackwelder
et
al
. 1998), which they argue do not represent the interests of
