Group Certification for Organic Growers

It’s hardly surprising that a majority of organic producers in the United States favour group rather than individual certification. Group certification enables producers from the same industry or geographic regions to collectively market their products as organic under a single protocol. I’m not entirely convinced that Group Certification will attain the levels of credibility required by consumers in general or those focused on an international trade for organically certified goods and services. At the same time, Group Certification has some potential to assist developing nation participants. For those already receiving fair access to markets, the short-term advantages of Group Certification are unlikely to be sustained or translated into effective leadership.

At present, organic producers capture only a tiny percentage of the overall market for goods and services. The organic sector tends to attract smaller operators with limited resources for securing individual product rationalisation or development. Group Certification appears to offer an efficient means for regulating the compliance of participants with some common interest. Instead of pursuing the traditional model of annual inspection through independent certifying authorities, group certification encourages the development of internalised regulatory practices. In its extreme manifestation this simply amounts to self-regulation.

To what extent might the shift towards self-regulation coincide with the interests of consumers and importers of organic products and services? Any relaxation of the independent certification requirements would most likely contribute to a decline in confidence. By and large, organic producers tend to be nice people but they are not necessarily immune to human vices like corruption and greed. Group certification creates the potential for unfair competition with other organic growers and actually reduces the drive towards individual excellence. How can this be in the long-term interest of the organic sector?

Of course, there’s likely to be an exception for every valid criticism. In the case of Group Certification, an exception may be relevant for organic producers operating within remote and developing economies. In many instances, it is extremely difficult or impossible for organic producers in developing countries to pay the costs associated with individual certification. There are also reasonable grounds to question the social and cultural relevance of externally imposed protocols. Under the best of circumstances, Group Certification may accommodate the needs of a democratic agricultural cooperative. This has already been achieved to an extent by some of the Coffee and Cocoa producers involved in Fair Trade initiatives.

IFOAM have demonstrated a genuine commitment to human rights by supporting the development of Group Certification protocols in marginal and developing economies. Their position is simple yet effective. Inspection and Certification requirements should be well adapted to the local situation. In close consultation with the producers themselves, regulatory measures are developed and applied in response to each production situation. At the present time more than 25 bodies are supporting Group Certification protocols in marginal and developing economies. About 10 of these are IFOAM accredited and comply with the IFOAM criteria for smallholder group certification.