Making a difference – global growth and institutionalisation of participatory certification

of participatory certification

An international database of registered PGSs by IFOAM (2010b) clearly reflects the rapid growth of participatory certification. The first case of the Brazilian PGS ECOVIDA was officially recognised in 2004. It becomes clear that, excluding the USA, southern countries with higher poverty rates, as Latin American nations, have the largest numbers of

participatory certified producers (Figure 6). This trend supports the claim of NELSON et al. (2010) and GONZÁLEZ and NIGH (2005), arguing that those countries do have hardly any

The producer completes a questionnaire on past and present production practices.

The certification committee reviews the questionnaire and – if there are no obvious violations of organic standards – a

visit to the production site is scheduled. The certification committee visits the production site and fills in a checklist covering the basic control points.

A letter outlining the committee decisions is delivered to the producer.

A meeting is held during which the committee decides to certify unconditionally, with conditions, or deny certification. In addition, the producer is classified as “natural” or “organic”.

If certification is denied, assistance is offered to help the producer make the transition to organic

production.

If certification is achieved, the producer can immediately begin selling at the market.

Follow up communication and visits are essential to ensure that

producers meet with conditions for certification and to assist with

access to the organic market due to financial and bureaucratical burdens. Hence, they are more urgently in need for alternatives, such as PGSs. Brazil and India count with more than 2,000 participatory certified organic producers, while many European countries don’t even have registered a single PGS (IFOAM 2010b). As ALONSO VILLALON (2008) highlights, in European and other industrialised countries with a strongly developed organic sector and a supportive political environment, subsidies and other support programmes for organic farmers might have obscured the need for alternative approaches to certification. In marginalised countries, such as on the African continent, PGSs are underrepresented too (IFOAM 2010b). The high numbers of certified producers in Latin America might reflect the changing political environment in many of its countries that are slowly adopting democratic principles (ALONSO VILLALON 2008). However, there might be a considerable number of PGSs not registered with IFOAM nor statistically represented. Furthermore, it is probable that other forms of producer-consumer-networks exist, who are operating in a similar manner but are not connected to official networks.

Figure 6: Producers certified by a PGS per country in 2010 (IFOAM 2010b)

Apart from growing numbers of PGSs, their institutionalisation is important for their success. IFOAM plays a crucial role for the increasing recognition of participatory certification on a global scale. The institution supports PGS initiatives, offering a platform for exchange among

no information 1 to 50 producers certified by PGS 301 to 2000 producers certified by PGS no PGS 51 to 300 producers certified by PGS more than 2000 producers certified by PGS

stakeholders, as well as with the development of guidelines for a legal framework on international level (CUÉLLAR PADILLA 2008).

To date, seven of 17 Latin American countries have implemented the PGS into their

legislation or into a resolution: Bolivia, Brazil, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Mexico, Paraguay and Uruguay. However, the legal situation shows great differences among countries (Table 5). Only in Bolivia, Brazil, Mexico and Uruguay PGSs have the same legal status as other guarantee systems and Mexico and El Salvador are the only countries providing a legally binding national certification system for PGSs (ALONSO VILLALON 2010, IFOAM 2010b). Even

though it is a normative principle of the PGS to focus on local markets, in Brazil and Costa Rica participatory certified products are theoretically allowed to cross national borders. Some countries do not recognise participatory certification as an alternative despite existing PGS groups (Argentina, Colombia, Chile, Ecuador; ALONSO VILLALON 2010). Compared to the southern hemisphere, northern countries are even more reluctant in legal recognition of PGSs. Hence, in Japan, the USA and the EU many organic farmers who can’t afford or reject external certification are not allowed to call themselves or their products “organic”. Hence, they are excluded from participation in the open organic market and not represented in public statistics. As an example, the EU regulation no. 823/2007 denies organic status to the organic pioneers of the French PGS Nature & Progrés, who are co-founders of IFOAM (IFOAM 2011c, VAN DEN AKKER 2008). VAN DEN AKKER (2008) recommends an amendment to the EU regulation in order to create regulatory space for the PGS. IFOAM (2011c) is currently supporting such demands by offering advice to concerned countries and publishing guides on how to implement a legal framework for both third-party and participatory

certification. The guides are based on references from successful states as Brazil, New Zealand or India.

Table 5: Recognition of the PGS in legal frameworks of 17 Latin American countries (adapted from ALONSO VILLALON 2010)

Country Legal framework for OAc Legal framework for PGS National certification legal National organic seal equal to other OC systems PGS approved for external markets PGSs exist in country

Argentina yes no no no - - yes

Bolivia yes yes no yes yes no yes

Brazil yes yes no yes yes yes yes

Colombia yes no no yes - - yes

Costa Rica yes yes no no no yes yes

Chilea yes no no yes - - yes

Ecuador yes no no no - - yes

El Salvador yes yes yes no b no no

Guatemala yes no no no - - no

Honduras yes no no no - - no

Mexico yes yes yes no yes no yes

Nicaragua yes no no yes - - yes

Panama yes no no yes - - no

Paraguay yes yes no no b b yes

Peru yes no no no - - yes

Dominican Republic

yes no no yes - - no

Uruguay yes yes no no yes no yes

Total 17 7 2 7 4 2 12

a

In Chile “Tierra Viva” considers itself a PGS, has got official approval under the group certification scheme, but is not recognised as a PGS by the government.

b

No information available or status unclear. cOA=Organic Agriculture.

Legal recognition of the PGS partly conditions their success. In many cases, policy

restrictions hinder trade of participatory certified products. Particularly when farmers aim to sell via supermarkets or specialty shops, they encounter barriers since the use of the term “organic” and others (as stipulated in national organic laws) are forbidden on their labels or packaging. As a practical consequence, fairs and organic markets or other forms of direct trade are sought and established by farmers (IFOAM 2011a). Since PGSs don’t comply with the ISO 65 standards, their products are usually not allowed to cross national borders, apart from exceptions mentioned above. For example, a missing precondition is that participatory certification doesn’t include third-party verification which is the only proof of independent assessment recognised by ISO (NELSON et al. 2010).

Despite the lack of institutional recognition of participatory organic certification, there are important voices that support the importance of this alternative on global scale. As an example, UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development) and UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) stated in their report on “Best practices for organic policy”

“Compulsory requirements for mandatory third-party certification should be avoided as they will not enable other alternatives to emerge. Other conformity assessment procedures, such as participatory guarantee systems, should be explored.” (IFOAM 2011b)

FONSECA (2004) regards alternative certification systems as promising signs that support revitalisation of social norms and practices in organic food networks. She puts the

importance of social movements on the same level with governmental authorities and economic organisations for the regulation of global trade.