the world of organic agriculture - Organic Eprints

10 Certification and Accreditation
at all levels should guarantee that all inspectors and certifiers are evaluated and accredited
(accreditation means: “the evaluation of certifiers”).
In addition, several private standards and labeling schemes exist, mainly in areas of the world
where the organic market is well developed. Registers count more than certification bodies
certifying according to private standards and/or set regulations over the world.
But it is not enough to define the rules. It is still necessary to achieve a minimum (worldwide)
equivalency guaranteed throughout the system in order to let products flow. Lacking acceptance
and recognition between the different certification and accreditation systems is contradicting
the objective of enhancing trade, market development and fostering confidence. It’s the opposite.
The already existing different systems are today creating a technical barrier to trade forcing
producers to multiple certification for their operation if their products are to access different
markets with different regulations.
Nobody can seriously state that this situation makes the organic system more safe and reliable.
It is almost always bureaucracy without adding additional value neither for the producer nor the
consumer.
However, it is undisputed that the development of standards, certification and accreditation
systems during the last decade has improved reliability and transparency of the organic system,
but from an overall perspective it is now high time to consider how systems can be reviewed
in order to make them more inclusive and to reduce market barriers. The differences in the
organic systems are more or less resulting from minor details and different (cultural) approaches,
although all systems are serving the common idea to improve credibility of the organic system.
In order to strengthen ‘organic’, all involved parties like governments, private standard setting
and certification bodies, as well as other stakeholders, should concentrate their focus on the
essential difference between organic and conventional rather than struggling within the
movement about differences, even details. It is high time to reconsider that accreditation and
certification is basically a tool to strengthen the organic development.
As a result of the above-mentioned factors, certification (including inspection and accreditation)
should be reasonably designed to support the credibility of the organic system rather than to
endanger it by overburdening it with more and more details.
This is what the organic movement is still trying to achieve with harmonized international basic
standards and with designing a private system, yet acknowledging the reality of its practical
restrictions.
It is yet to be seen whether the joint initiative of IFOAM, FAO and UNCTAD creating an
international Task Force on Harmonization and Equivalence in organic systems, where the private
sector and representatives of governments are participating, will achieve general consensus on
harmonizing private with governments and government with government standards respectively
regulations.
85