Proceedings of the IFOAM workshop on Internal Control Systems (ICS)

- o<strong>the</strong>r label systems (e.g. ISO, EuropGap) do not define size for <strong>the</strong>ir inspection
systems (Option 2 allows group system without limiting it to small scale farmers)
- Some big farmers are indeed organized under a common marketing and have o<strong>the</strong>r
potentials in regard to group certification.
The <strong>workshop</strong> participants agreed that it would be best not to set farm size limits to
ICS eligibility in Europe.
The major question participants tried to address was <strong>the</strong> dilemma between
diversification <strong>of</strong> products and markets versus similar production systems and common
marketing. Ute Eisenlohr explained <strong>the</strong> reason why <strong>the</strong> requirement for <strong>the</strong> group to
have“similar production systems” and “common marketing” had been included within <strong>the</strong> EU
guidance document and <strong>the</strong> <strong>IFOAM</strong> Accreditation Criteria. She showed that both internal
record keeping for product flow control and external certification <strong>of</strong> an ICS become
more and more difficult and costly as <strong>the</strong> diversity <strong>of</strong> products and flows managed under
<strong>the</strong> ICS increases. For instance, different forms and procedures have to be designed and
implemented for each type <strong>of</strong> production system with <strong>the</strong> ICS: this becomes very costly
to develop and manage. The cost can <strong>the</strong>n easily become bigger than <strong>the</strong> cost <strong>of</strong>
individual external inspection. Common marketing is also required because it is <strong>the</strong>
simplest way <strong>of</strong> ensuring that all product sales are recorded under <strong>the</strong> ICS
documentation.
In conclusion, it is likely to be possible but costly to accommodate diversity.
Increasing cost might be balanced through benefits and added value o<strong>the</strong>r than just
reduced external certification costs (e.g. multi-benefits for <strong>the</strong> group), in a way that
ICS might be applicable and beneficial to groups that exist only politically (nothing
else in common except regional proximity). It is also important to try to accommodate
diversity because organic agriculture is based on diversity.
The participants <strong>the</strong>refore proposed to investigate how ICS can handle diversified
production. This would be done through pilot projects on diversified systems, clearly
distinguished from pilot projects based on traditional systems eligible for ICS.
G. Pilot projects on ICS in Europe
The principle <strong>of</strong> pilot projects will be to set-up and run an ICS among a group <strong>of</strong>
certified organic farmers, in parallel to <strong>the</strong>ir present individual certification so
that farmers keep <strong>the</strong>ir legal organic label in a legal way (since ICS is not yet
accepted). In a sense, <strong>the</strong>se pilot projects would be virtual: <strong>the</strong>y would just look like
real ICS but <strong>the</strong> process would not go as far as delivering an organic certificate for
<strong>the</strong> group. The o<strong>the</strong>r reason behind carrying out “double” certification is that it will
allow comparison <strong>of</strong> costs within each ICS group (cost <strong>of</strong> group certification versus
cost <strong>of</strong> individual certification). Indeed, comparison between different groups would
not make sense because <strong>of</strong> different group composition, activities and environment. The
objective <strong>of</strong> studying <strong>the</strong> effect <strong>of</strong> ICS on <strong>the</strong> improvement <strong>of</strong> quality could be met by
8