Summary of Counter-Arguments:
| - Organic standards are not stricter for imports than they are for domestic products, so they are no disguised protectionist measure. - Developing countries have several comparative advantages when it comes to organic production, among which are cheap labor and traditional agrosystems that align more closely with organic standards. - Organic certification costs for smallholders in developing countries are reduced thanks to the group certification scheme, a regulatory exemption accepted by all major northern importers. - The growing number of developing country producers that enter the organic global market is proof that certification costs and standard requirements do not represent insurmountable barriers to trade for smallholders in these regions. |
Details of Counter-Arguments:
It is true that there are already many standards and requirements to which agricultural products must comply in order to enter northern markets. Some are compulsory (i.e., they apply to any food product entering the market) while others are voluntary (i.e., the farmers and the buyers decide for themselves whether to comply or require compliance with these standards). Examples of these voluntary standards include Fair Trade, EurepGAP, and Utz Certified (for coffee). These standards do not treat imports differently than domestically grown products. They ensure that consumers have similar guaranties for imported and domestically grown food. While on one hand this may pose a problem to developing country farmers who may have less capacity to comply with the rules than European or US farmers, when it comes to meeting organic standards, developing country farmers often have a comparative advantage, due to the following reasons.
- Organic agriculture is more labor intensive and less capital intensive compared to conventional agriculture. Therefore, in developing countries, where labor is relatively cheap and capital relatively expensive, farmers are in better position to produce organic food at a lower cost.
- Many traditional agricultural systems in developing countries are already closely aligned with organic production standards. For example, many of these farmers rely mainly on ecosystem management, crop diversity, and crop rotations to ensure the stability of their agricultural production. Furthermore, these farmers often have limited or no access to synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. Therefore, it is relatively easy for developing country farmers to meet organic standards because they are already in compliance with many of the standards in practice.
There exists a scheme to reduce the cost of organic certification for smallholders in developing countries. This scheme, called group certification, is actually currently only allowed for farmers in developing countries. The scheme uses Internal Control Systems as a tool to reduce the cost of third party certification. For example, in India, the group certification scheme reduces certification costs to one-tenth of individual certification costs. Most organically-certified smallholders in developing countries worldwide are certified through the group certification scheme, which makes organic certification affordable and allows these farmers to be competitive in the international organic market. Moreover, there are a number of cases where the exporting company (rather than smallholders) is covering the organic certification costs, as well as some other initial investments associated with a transition to Organic Agriculture.
Organic production standards focus on production practices rather than on organizational management. In this way, organic standards are easier for small farmers in developing countries to implement than many other voluntary or compulsory standards, such as those on food safety. Many of the specific organic requirements (e.g., not using synthetic inputs, improving soil fertility, and promoting biodiversity on the farm) are not difficult to comply with for developing country farmers, even those with limited infrastructure or capacity. In addition, many organic standards recognize that there are local variations and take them into account. For instance, organic standards normally require that organically certified seeds are used for organic crop production, but mention that conventional seeds can be used in cases where organic seeds are not available (which is often the case in Africa). Other possible local adaptations for developing countries are currently under discussion. For example, the issue of animal feed sources is being considered in the revisions of EU organic regulations.
One aspect of the current organic regulations is their lack of harmonization, which can hinder trade and make it complicated for producers who want to export their produce to several other markets (e.g., exporting to both the EU market and the US market). The lack of harmonization is a problem for all producers, not just for those from developing country. IFOAM is working on this issue with governmental and intergovernmental agencies through the International Task Force on Harmonization and Equivalence in Organic Agriculture.
Finally, the facts speak for themselves: organic production is growing at a much faster rate in the developing world than in industrialized countries. The area of organic farmland has experienced triple digit growth in Africa, Asia and Latin America since 2000, compared to double-digit growth in other regions [1]. Most of the organic produce grown in developing countries is exported to Europe, the US, and Japan. The fast growth in the number of producers in developing countries that enter the organic global market is proof that certification costs and standard requirements do not represent insurmountable barriers to trade for smallholders.
[1] The World of Organic Agriculture, Statistics and Emerging Trends 2007.