Framework for Re-thinking Ethics in the Organic Movement - Re-Thinking Organic Food and Farming in a Changing World - page 275

13.2.3.2 Old and New Forms of Trust Based Certification Systems

Smallholder Group Certification based on an Internal Control System (ICS) and
Participatory Guarantee Systems (PGS) and other trust-based and often regionally
oriented approaches, offer some flexibility in addressing and incorporating social,
cultural, ecologically and economically specific conditions. PGS are predominantly
established in Southern countries—where farm certification is often not affordable
(Halberg et al. 2006 ; Fonseca et al. 2008 ).
The PGS is an innovative means of bottom up stakeholder participation in
the certification process (Fonseca et al. 2008 ; Källander 2008 ). In this process,
“the organizational structure of the certification body shall ensure that parties
significantly affected by the certification system can participate in the development
of its principles and policies” (IFOAM 2012 , p. 90). Such Participatory Guarantee
Systems “

(are) locally focused quality assurance systems that certify producers
based on active participation of stakeholders and are built on a foundation of trust,
social networks and knowledge exchange” (Padel et al. 2010 , p. 69). They allow
economically disadvantaged smallholder farmers to become members of the organic
movement and to access the organic markets. They are adapted to local conditions
and facilitate certification where financial circumstances make it difficult for farmers
to pay international control and certification fees. In short, PGS can be adapted to
the conditions and economic realities of smallholder farmers (Parrott et al. 2006 ).
They also help minimize certification costs for European organic farmers,
especially those who rely on direct marketing and short supply chains (Padel et al.
2010 ). The PGS can be seen as a socially and culturally sensitive certification
and accreditation process for making the IFOAM Principles of Fairness and Care
operational with respect to social and economic justice and access to food for the
poor. To do so, PGS requires increased personal responsibility, learning, knowledge
and experience and a locally adapted approach of control and certification, involving
consumers and other local stakeholders, encouraging improved food access.
Schmid offers a different approach to guaranteeing organic (Schmid 2009a ).
He suggests that organic guidelines should serve primarily as an orientation for
farmers and consumers. In the absence of a third party certification process and
procedures, this approach is limited to cooperations between farmers and consumers
in a local context. They interact outside of a retailer system, which allows direct
communication between the actor groups. In these cases any organic produce is a
good of trust. It must stand on its own without any labeling or certification (Darby
and Karni 1973 ; Eichert and Mayer 2008 ).
Finally, we should keep in mind that there is a consensus that any kind
of formalized control and certification is necessary even in trust-based systems
following on voluntary agreements (Michelsen 2002a ; Kratochvil et al. 2005 ;
Schekahn and Thomas 2008 , p. 103; Schüle 2009 ). But, as Sterba ( 2003 , p. 125)
note, “the EU Regulation on organic production should remain a framework and
not a listing of detailed prescriptions,” to avoid private regulations built on the EU
prescription from becoming too complicated.

:::