 |
Bryanston Organic Market |
 |
|
|
|
|
At the Bryanston Organic Market (South Africa), small growers and producers needed to offer their customers organic assurance, but were outside the formal certification sphere. The Bryanston Organic Market Management was introduced to PGS in November 2005, and recognized the value of such a system to regulate their market. They called upon the producers and consumers to set-up their PGS. It was clear that certification was an assurance tool, but not the most important. Better practice and communication were higher priorities. The PGS uses the South African draft regulations for organic production as production and assessment guidelines, and used the IFOAM PGS documents to set-up its PGS procedures.
You can find more information at
www.bryanstonorganicmarket.co.za
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Comments: |
|
Joelle Katto-Andrighetto, IFOAM PGS coordinator says at 2008/12/02:
|
| Hello, this is the IFOAM PGS coordinator. I am wondering about the section "Horizontality" of your Self-Evaluation Questionnaire, where you have ticked so many "no". I understand that the Market management is the one developing and updating the certification procedures. But who chooses the people working for the market management? Have they been chosen by the farmers? Is the whole PGS an association with some farmer representatives who then delegate responsibilities to the employees or is the market management a private for-profit company? In the text you sent you said that at least the farmers were involved in the original design of the procedures. They seem to be no longer involved, according to your questionnaire, so why did procedures change drastically?
Also you say that your procedures are not appropriate to your situation. Why is that?
In question 11, you said "yes", producers take part in the inspection process. I realize that perhaps our question was not well phrased. What we meant is "Do producers take part, as inspectors (not inspected) in the inspection process?", in other words, "do producers inspect each other (peer review)?". Is your answer still yes in that context? |
Konrad Hauptfleisch, BOM says at 2008/12/02:
|
| An explanation regarding the market’s (and PGS) structure:
Our Market operates as a trust (maybe the term “foundation” might be applicable in a European sense).
The trustees of the Market are the Council of Management of the Michael Mount Waldorf School ( A Steiner School). The market is a registered fund raising initiative, with all surplus funds going towards capital development, outreach projects, and bursary support.
The Market operates like a business, and I am responsible for operations, budgetary control, marketing and the like. We also have a stated mission regarding the support of small producers, crafters and farmers, and all our products must comply with the Selection Committee’s criteria regarding natural/organic ingredients and raw materials. This part of the system is not in the hands of the individual traders or farmers, but a management driven system. Individual traders and farmer/retailers effectively occupies their own trading space at our market, and operate as individual businesses under our banner. We manage, select, and control, but also facilitate and train to an extent.
The organic sector of the market is where the difference is. Previously, organic assurance was in the form of self-claim, with a verifying visit by the Selection Committee. When I took over operations, I realised that this system was not ideal, and that a new solution needs to be sought. Our PGS was born out of a marketing environment, where customer assurance was the key factor in developing the system. It was therefore initiated by the market as the marketing arm, and not by the producers. They had to be sensitised and “brought in”.
The intent is for the PGS not to be management-driven, but to be “owned” by the producer-consumer membership.
This is a work in progress – they need motivation, capacity building and mediation. The development from management-driven to self-ownership has not been easy, and we have to do some work here.
The reason why I say that our procedures are not completely appropriate, is that we have two distinct types of suppliers: The first group are individual, mainly European farmers reasonably close to the market. They have their own transport, and are reasonably well-versed in organic management. They operate their own stalls, and are able to comply with procedures and systems that are closer to a certification process.
The second, and more critical group is small-scale rural grower groups. They are mainly African, and are further away from the market. They supply one trader on the market, and are dependent on transport. They also are limited in their capacity to manage their reporting and systems management. We support them, and wish to develop their capacity further, and are currently working with two organisations to improve and develop their skills and farm management. They are the future of our PGS, as well as the future for food security and income generation in their community. Because they are not trading directly, there is nearly a “third party” relationship here, and farm visits and inspections are slightly more problematic. Our inspection procedure is a group process: One member of Management, one of Selection, at least one farmer and one consumer member make up the inspection team. When having to visit outlying rural areas, it becomes impractical and costly to send a four or five-member group on an inspection. The responsibility (currently) is then delegated to me (as de facto PGS administrator) to act as representative assessor. The risk here is that the “horizontality” and “transparency” might be compromised.
Our system currently has some difficulty in accommodating the two distinct types, and part of my development plan which I created as part of my OAD training with Grolink, is to further this process. This includes a review and restructuring of our current processes.
On the last question: Yes, our farmers do participate in the inspection process and “peer review” is the correct description. It sometimes has its drawbacks, as the organic farmers and operators in our country has a history of infighting and dissent. Part of the PGS vision is to get beyond this history, but it still affects us and therefore limits the full participation of all role players in an open forum. I hope to change that, at least in the environment where I have some input!
I believe that the lessons we have learnt already will help us along this process, and it is also these “lessons learnt” that I will share with anyone embarking on the PGS road. It might sound as if we have had more challenges than successes with our PGS, but the general feedback we have had from customers and most producers, have been encouraging and positive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
