Interview with Markus Arbenz, Executive Director of IFOAM – Organics Internacional, by Isidre Martínez Badia. Head of Organic Farming Agricultural Planning Service. DG Agriculture and Livestock, Generalitat de Catalunya.
When the organic farming movement arose, production was made by small farmers and food artisans distributing their products locally. Today, however, we find an increasingly globalized, industrialized and depending on imports organic sector. How do you see this progression? Do you believe this change is compatible with the expectations of today’s consumers?
It is true that organic farming has developed tremendously and that in many countries organic products are found in a wide range of contexts. We have sharpened what organic means and have rigidly drawn internationally recognised lines between organic and not organic.
Organic has become much more transparent and objective, but – with increasing relevance – in many cases also more anonymous, which may be regrettable for some.
We decided to put the impact for the whole planet and all the people in the foreground and did not want to be exclusive for some small operators only but make it accessible to as many as possible. Small size of the farm or the necessity of artisanal processing are very nice features that we love, but we all know that it is a niche, which brilliantly works for some. However, we don’t want to narrow organic down, since we offer a real alternative to chemical based industrial farming that has the potential to fully replace it eventually. We have a responsibility addressing global challenges like loss of biodiversity, climate change or poverty and hunger.
Most consumers appreciate this strategy and become critical if we are too exclusive with a narrow offer and high prices of products. They want to have affordable great products and an excellent availability for every day use.
The rules on the basis which are certified organic food everywhere relate mainly to farming practices, much less food processing practices, and almost nothing to trade practices. These standards were developed in times where there were fewer processed products and the commercial market was much more limited. Do you think that in the current situation still make sense, or should be changed?
Farming in harmony with nature and sustainable development of farming communities of whole territories has been the primary objective. Since the organic farmers also wanted to make sure that their products are kept precious, standards of processing were developed. In some countries those are quite advanced and sophisticated and are part of an understanding of holistic thinking that includes the whole value chain. Examples of standards in processing and trade include for instance limited inputs and additives, packaging rules, labelling requirements or transport restrictions. Like in farming there are differences between the various labels and markets with the Government (EU) rules being the basic rules from which private labels (e.g. Ecovalia) can further develop.
60% of Catalan consumers of organic products, when asked about the issue, prefer proximity non-organic products than imported certified organic products. But not all products are available from local sources. Do you think that could be incorporated two levels of certification, a basic level, similar to the present, complemented by a more demanding level, limited to local products?
Proximity is a very important criterion for most people around the world and it is great that people are proud of their products. Short distances should also be preferred for reducing energy in transport and for authenticity of the product. However, local alone is not enough, since unsustainable production, unfair structures or cruelty on animals also happens around us.
For many products, proximity is essential, but for others it does not make sense or is impossible because of the ecological and climatic conditions (should Scandinavians produce wine in Greenhouses with a lot of energy? No!).
The big diversity of natural, societal and cultural conditions make the application of universal rules on EU or worldwide level absurd in many instances. I don’t think that two levels would solve the issue since reality is more complex so that we advocate for common criteria and the local and situational adaptation of standards.
However, there exist special organic labels that highlight local or domestic production (organic and local) often linked to touristic areas to which people have emotional ties. And it is good that they are often particularly successful.
I think, transparency is very important so that consumers can make their informed choice. And for local initiatives it is important to develop credible convincing systems that include the principle of proximity and that might need to be differentiated between products (nobody looks for Catalonian coffee or vanilla).
The organic production system involves working with higher costs, either by environmental costs to be assumed by producers for applying higher standards or by the costs of certification. Conventional producers, however, do not have to bear all these costs and can sell their products cheaper. How should be resolved this unfair situation? What is done from IFOAM –Organics International in this regard?
Classically, the organic consumer pays a price premium and some governments pay subsidies for sustainable production practices. But I agree, there is an unfair situation, because only part of the added value of the organic products is in the product for direct benefit of those that pay. We advocate for so called “True Cost Accounting and Pricing” with the principle that positive and negative external effects are included in the price. For instance, if somebody pollutes the water with fertilisers and pesticides, he should also pay for it. Otherwise it is the taxpayer (in this case for cleaning drinking water), future generations (e.g. less production opportunities because of degraded soils) or nature (poisoned living space) that have the damage. On the other hand, common good benefits produced by farmers such as biodiversity or beautiful landscape conservation should also be awarded by the society.
One of the most important issues for consumers is to know that organic products do not have pesticide residues and other unwanted substances, but position of IFOAM-Organics International on the matter, in negotiating the new European regulation on organic production, is the not to accept the establishment of a maximum limit different from conventional decertification. How can this fact be explained?
The promise of organic farmers to consumers is: “I don’t use synthetic pesticides and fertiliser” and they do that with all their passion and their efforts, and they take the risks for it. Science shows that the impacts of this promise are no or very low residue levels. The EU Commission wanted (and failed in the EU parliament) to shift from promising non-application to guarantee non-existence of residues. As a consequence farmers would have had to take the risk of contamination that come from the environment. In other words, the conventional farmers pollute and if contamination of organic products happens the ones that don’t use pesticides are made liable. On top of that, the EU wanted to put the (financial) burden of testing and proving on the organic farmers. That would have increased costs and the prices for organic consumers. That is unfair and absurd since the polluters – not those that avoid substances with adverse effects – should foot the bill.
The proposed new rules for organic production in Europe requires an increasingly integrated of farming (cattle feed produced on the farm or locally). However, this integration is not asked to food processors and marketers. Given this uneven situation, what is the position advocated by IFOAM –Organics International?
Based on the principles (e.g. of proximity), which we discussed before it makes sense to integrate the animal rearing and to produce to a big extent the fodder on the farm. Again, the main focus of organic farming is the farm and production from natural resources based on cycles and biodiversity. So keeping an eye on and further develop the integrity of the farm makes sense. Some countries ask for whole farm conversion, not least because this is very important to consumers and to the farming communities. Others don’t and prefer the option of parallel production. The value chain while processing has to conserve and to maintain the integrity of the products and it has to assure that consumers can learn what happens on the farm.
Processing organic only is rather the exception than the rule. However, it is the position of IFOAM – Organics International that all operators along the value chain commit to the principle of continuous improvement towards what we described in the “Best Practice Guidelines for Agriculture and Value Chains”.
The production conditions and market are very different from one area and one country to others. Given this fact, what would be more appropriate?, rules for organic production adapted to these differences to allow maximum production of products in each area (vegetables in the Nordic countries and milk in Mediterranean arid conditions) or that these rules be more restrictive and every place can produce only what their own conditions allow?
We do not only have big differences between continents and countries, but also locally and sometimes they even vary significantly from farm to farm. Therefore, certain rules really need to be context specific, they need to facilitate and boost local production. On the other hand, there are common features that are a must and have to be same everywhere (e.g. no GMOs, restricted list of farm inputs, conversion period to organic farming). People need to understand the profile and communality of what organic is. The organic movement solved this dilemma with having hundreds of organic standards worldwide, but they should all be equivalent based on an assessment on universal criteria. We call the standards that passed the assessment, the “Family of Standards”.
That means adaption to local condition has a high priority and so has proximity. However, we are not closed to trade and facilitate exchange of products. Sometimes transportation energy is less than a high energy input for local production or long time storage in acclimatized warehouses to bridge the seasons.
