This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 52014SC0065
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on organic production and labelling of organic products, amending Regulation (EU) No XXX/XXX of the European Parliament and of the Council [Official controls Regulation] and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on organic production and labelling of organic products, amending Regulation (EU) No XXX/XXX of the European Parliament and of the Council [Official controls Regulation] and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on organic production and labelling of organic products, amending Regulation (EU) No XXX/XXX of the European Parliament and of the Council [Official controls Regulation] and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007
/* SWD/2014/065 final */
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on organic production and labelling of organic products, amending Regulation (EU) No XXX/XXX of the European Parliament and of the Council [Official controls Regulation] and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 /* SWD/2014/065 final */
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1..... Procedural
issues and results from consultation of interested parties..................................................................................................................................... 1 2..... Policy context, problem definition, and subsidiarity............ 5 2.1. CAP and CFP
post 2013................................................................................... 5 2.2. Legislation
on organic farming.......................................................................... 6 2.3. Focus on
the control system.............................................................................. 7 2.4. Consistency
with other policies......................................................................... 8 2.5. Problem
definition............................................................................................. 9 2.5.1. General
problem................................................................................... 9 2.5.2. Problem
tree....................................................................................... 10 2.5.3. Specific
problems and problem drivers.............................................. 11 2.5.3.1. Supply
and demand for organic products in the EU.... 11 2.5.3.2. Obstacles
to the development of domestic supplies....... 14 2.5.3.3. Risk of
loss of consumer confidence............................... 17 2.5.3.4. Fair competition
among producers not guaranteed and risks for the functioning of the internal
market................................. 24 2.5.4. Who is
affected by the problem, in what ways and to what extent? 29 2.6. How would
the problem evolve without a change in policy?......................... 30 2.6.1. Supply................................................................................................ 30 2.6.2. Consumer
confidence, issues for the internal market........................ 31 2.6.3. Socio-economic
impacts of the current legislation............................ 33 2.6.4. Environmental
impacts...................................................................... 34 2.7. Does the EU
have the right to act?.................................................................. 34 3..... Objectives........................................................................................................... 35 3.1. General
objectives and consistency with new CAP objectives....................... 35 3.2. Specific
and operational objectives................................................................. 36 4..... Policy options.................................................................................................. 38 4.1. Policy
option 1: improved status quo.............................................................. 38 4.2. Policy
option 2: market-driven option............................................................. 40 4.3. Policy
option 3: principle-driven option.......................................................... 41 4.4. Options
discarded at an early stage................................................................. 44 5..... Impact Analysis.............................................................................................. 46 5.1. Option 1........................................................................................................... 46 5.2. Option 1A........................................................................................................ 47 5.3. Option 2........................................................................................................... 48 5.4. Option 2.A....................................................................................................... 50 5.5. Option 3........................................................................................................... 51 5.6. Option 3.A....................................................................................................... 53 5.1. Option 3.B....................................................................................................... 54 5.2. Simplification
and administrative costs........................................................... 56 5.2.1. Simplification
associated with the options........................................ 56 5.2.2. Assessment
of administrative costs................................................... 56 5.3. Conclusions
on topics on which the Council had asked a report to the Commission 58 6..... Comparing the options – preferred option.................................... 58 7..... Monitoring and evaluation................................................................... 62 Executive Summary Sheet Impact assessment on Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on organic production and labelling of organic products A. Need for action Why? What is the problem being addressed? The overall objective of the EU political and legislative framework is the sustainable development of organic production,. But, while organic farming in the EU is expected to develop in line with market developments, the EU organic land area has only doubled in the last 10 years, while the market has increased fourfold. There is a risk of limitation to the organic market expansion and a risk of limitation to the environmental benefits associated with organic farming. The main drivers are: - regulatory and non-regulatory obstacles to the development of organic farming in the EU;, - a risk of erosion of consumer confidence, notably because organic production rules are watered down and fraud cases are developing, in connection with shortcomings in the control system and in the trade regime, - unfair competition among producers and risks for the functioning of the internal market, because of gaps in the legislation and implementation and enforcement failures. What is this initiative expected to achieve? In the context of the 2020 CAP reform, the proposal aims at: - removing obstacles to the development of organic production in the EU, - improving the legislation in order to guarantee fair competition for farmers and producers and to improve the functioning of the internal market, - maintaining or improving consumer confidence in organic products. In addition, the initiative is part of the Commission's Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme and aims at simplifying rules and their implementation and at reducing administrative costs for administrations and operators. What is the value added of action at the EU level? The current exercise is an updating of an existing scheme set within the CAP. Production and trade of agricultural products and foodstuffs on the internal market and ensuring the integrity of the internal market are matters of EU competence. Both are EU shared competences with MS. An EU-wide scheme is more efficient than 28 different schemes and allows for a stronger and more consistent trade policy vis-à-vis global trading partners, most notably by enhancing its bargaining power. Areas where further harmonisation is needed: exceptions to the rules, procedures in case of presence of non-authorised substance residues in organic products and cases of non-compliances where products lose their organic status are addressed. B. Solutions What legislative and non-legislative policy options have been considered? Is there a preferred choice or not? Why? A wide range of options, including the 'no policy option', have been considered. Three policy options have been assessed in depth. The improved status quo option notably includes clarifications in the scope of the legislation, simplifications in the labelling rules and addresses some gaps in the legislation. The market-driven option aims at providing the conditions to respond dynamically to further market developments thanks to a more product-oriented scheme with flexible production rules. The principle-driven option aims at re-focussing organic farming on its principles. Production rules are strengthened; the control system is fully risk-based; import rules are overhauled. The preferred option is the principle-driven option including sub-options to introduce group certification for small farmers and the obligation for organic processors and traders to run an environmental management system (EMS). The three options include a legislative proposal. The market-driven and the principle-driven options include an EU Action Plan. Who supports which option? In May 2013 the Council called for a review of the EU organic farming legislation and of the 2004 Action Plan. The public consultation has shown that citizens would like to see organic production rules further harmonised and strengthened. The stakeholders of the organic sector, notably IFOAM EU (European branch of the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements) and COPA COGECA consider that the EU organic legislation should remain close to the principles and values of the sector; both started by cautiously supporting the improved status quo but have made steps towards the principle-driven option. The principle-driven option is supported by other organisations (the European Coordination Via Campesina, animal welfare organisations, etc). The market-driven option is supported notably by Eurocommerce. C. Impacts of the preferred option What are the benefits of the preferred option (if any, otherwise main ones)? The preferred option is expected to remove obstacles to the development of organic farming in the EU thanks to clearer and simpler production rules. The removal of exceptions will lead to the development of organic inputs, notably seeds. The implementation of the action plan will bring more synergies with other EU policies, help addressing specific needs of the organic sector and improve access to third country markets. Fair competition will be improved notably thanks to simpler and clearer rules and to the move from equivalence to compliance for CBs in third countries. Consumer confidence will be addressed with stricter production rules taking into account evolving societal concerns (animal welfare, EMS for processors and traders). Fraud prevention will be higher, thanks to a more efficient control system, based on risk-assessment, and a more reliable import regime. Because of incomplete data notably on the economics of organic farms and operators, on prices, on the market size and on trade flows, impacts mentioned in the report are only qualitative. What are the costs of the preferred option (if any, otherwise main ones)? Some producers will have to leave the sector because they want to keep a part of conventional production on their holding, or because their system depends on exceptions. Production costs could be higher because of stricter rules. Stricter rules can be seen as a barrier to conversion, notably because insufficient availability of inputs such as seeds in their organic form when stricter rules are implemented. Higher production costs could lead in the short term to a market contraction because of higher consumer prices, but this should not continue in the medium and long term, since the development of inputs in their organic form, more adapted to organic production, should boost organic yields. The introduction of an EMS entails additional costs for operators the first year it is implemented, but they should be compensated by energy savings afterwards. Because of incomplete data notably on the economics of organic farms and operators, on prices, on the market size and on trade flows, impacts mentioned in the report are only qualitative. How will businesses, SMEs and micro-enterprises be affected? Micro-enterprises will be exempted from the requirement to apply an EMS system. Small farms are under-represented in the organic sector. While 69% of all agricultural holdings have less than 5 ha, only 18,7% of organic holdings have less than 5 ha. The requirements for small farms, including those with processing activities, will be simplified if they apply group certification which will be introduced in the preferred option. The option will bring more legal clarity. The preferred option also entails much simplification and a reduction in the administrative costs. The number of information obligations for operators will be reduced by 17 out of the existing 80. Will there be significant impacts on national budgets and administrations? The preferred option entails much simplification and a reduction in the administrative costs. The number of information obligations will be reduced by 20 out of the existing 41. Will there be other significant impacts? Third countries and international relations: stricter rules in the preferred option involve a review of existing equivalence arrangements. Issues for developing country producers are addressed through the introduction of group certification. Social impacts: there are indications that organic agriculture is more labour intensive than conventional agriculture, therefore its development should facilitate new job creation. Environmental impacts: positive on biodiversity, water quality, soil health and quality. Energy savings with EMS imposed for processors and traders. Animal welfare conditions improved. D. Follow up When will the policy be reviewed? The policy review is included in the 2014 CWP. After that, the policy will be reviewed according to a regular cycle. LIST
OF ACRONYMS AGOF Advisory Group on organic Farming CA Competent Authority CAP Common Agricultural Policy CB Control body or control authority CERTCOST Economic Analysis of
Certification Systems in Organic Food and Farming CFP Common Fisheries Policy COPA-COGECA Committee of Professional Agricultural
Organisations and General Confederation of Agricultural Cooperatives in the
European Union DG Directorate-General DG AGRI Directorate-General for Agriculture and
Rural Development ECA European Court of Auditors EGTOP Expert Group for Technical advice on Organic
Production EU European Union BEUC European Consumer Organisation EMAS Eco-Management and Audit Scheme EMS Environmental
management System EOCC European Organic Certifiers Council EIP European Innovation Partnership FADN Farm Accountancy Data Network FVO Food and Veterinary Office GMO Genetically Modified Organisms IAB Impact Assessment Board IFOAM International Federation of Organic
Agriculture Movements IO Information Obligation ISSG Inter-Service Steering Group JRC Joint Research Centre MRL Maximum Residue Limit MS Member State NGO Non Governmental Organisation OFFC Official Food and Feed Controls OFIS Organic farming Information System RD Rural Development UAA Utilised Agricultural Area WTO World Trade Organisation
1.
Procedural issues and results from consultation
of interested parties
The impact assessment has focused on:
Legislative tools, in particular Council
Regulation (EC) 834/2007[1]
on organic production and labelling of organic products, applicable since January 2009, which provides for the scope,
principles, objectives and general rules for organic farming. Detailed
rules for the production, labelling and controls of organic products are
provided in Commission Regulation No 889/2008[2].
Detailed rules on imports are provided in Commission Regulation No
1235/2008[3].
The report intends to analyse the impacts of a new basic legislative Act
as well as the necessary implementation measures.
The relevance of a new strategy for
organic farming in the EU. The European Action Plan for Organic Food
and Farming[4]
adopted by the Commission in 2004 provided a basis for the policy
development over the past years. All the actions have by now been completed
or have become obsolete.
The review of the Organic Farming
legislation is part of the Commission's Regulatory Fitness and Performance
Programme (REFIT)[5]
which aims at identifying inconsistencies, gaps and ineffective measures, in
order to simplify rules and their implementation and/or reduce regulatory costs
for businesses and citizens without compromising public policy objectives. Work on the impact assessment for the
review of the organic farming policy[6]
was carried out by a European Commission ISSG set up by DG AGRI in June
2012. The first meeting of the ISSG took place on 12 July 2012. All Directorates General (DGs) of the
European Commission were invited to participate in the work of the ISSG, and in
addition to DG AGRI, the following DGs were actively involved in the exercise: the
Secretariat-General, the Legal Service, SANCO, ENTR, ENV, DEVCO, ESTAT, TAXUD,
RTD, JRC, MARE, TRADE and CLIMA[7]. The work on the impact assessment was
carried out between June 2012 and September 2013, during which the ISSG held monthly
meetings. The situation was analysed in depth thanks to stakeholder hearings,
in which the ISSG listened to 72 stakeholders:
experts, academics and representatives of consumers,
producers, retailers, operators, processors, third countries and associations
representing third countries, traders, laboratories and researchers, animal
welfare organisation. The hearings took place in the fall of 2012. The agendas
of the meetings with stakeholders and their presentations can be consulted on
the Commission web-site[8]. Two AGOF meetings enlarged to the
participants in the hearings were dedicated to the review. A final consultation
meeting with the AGOF took place on 26 June. MS, as
competent authorities in charge of implementing the legislation, were kept
informed and were consulted on technical aspects of the review. In addition,
replies to a questionnaire addressed by the Irish presidency to the MS on the
EU organic farming policy have been used (MS who transmitted their reply to the
Commission). A wide public consultation A public consultation through an on-line
questionnaire was launched from 15 January 2013 to 10 April 2013. It
attracted high interest and almost 45.000 replies were submitted to the
on-line questionnaire. In addition, about 1.350 additionnal contributions were
received by the Commission. The majority (96%) of responses to the
on-line questionnaire were submitted by EU citizens, while 4% were sent by
stakeholders, the majority of which were companies
(57%) and industry associations and NGOs (18%). The
main interests represented by the 1 827 stakeholders who replied to the
questionnaire were those of farmers (48%); consumers[9] (10%); processors (9%);
advisory services (5%); researchers (4%); national associations (3%); traders
(3%); public competent authorities/public control authorities/accreditation
bodies (3%); retailers (3%); private CBs (2%); public authorities in non-EU
countries (0.3%). Citizens who replied to the questionnaire
can be characterised by a relative high awareness of organic production: 83% of
them declared to be regular consumers and 15% occasional consumers. The
knowledge of the EU organic logo appeared to be high, with 79% knowing the EU
organic logo (compared to 24% following the 2012 Eurobarometer's survey). The respondents were asked to indicate
drives for purchasing and consuming organic products. Over 80% of all
questioned citizens claimed that the most important rationales behind organic
products consumption were concerns about the environment (83%) as well as
purity of these products with regard to GMOs (81%) and pesticide and other
chemical substances residues. A considerable number of citizens' respondents
also emphasized that they purchased organic products because of belief in and
support for seasonal and local products (78%) as well as strong conviction that
organic farming system is more sustainable than conventional (74%).
Approximately 63% of the respondents considered organic foodstuffs as healthier
than their conventional counterparts. About half of them underlined that they
are motivated to buy organic products because organic production respect animal
welfare. Besides, important reasons that encouraged almost half of the
questioned consumers to consume organic products are beliefs that these goods are
of higher quality (47%) and better taste (43%). In addition, 10% of private
consumers, who responded to the questionnaire, consume organic products for
other beliefs than those stated above. From a geographical point of view, France was overrepresented[10],
with 56% of the replies, followed by Italy (15%) and Belgium (10%) (see graph
1). Figure 1: Percentage share of replies to
the public consultations' questionnaire by country A report presenting a detailed analysis of
the results as well as an executive summary can be consulted on the Commission web-site[11].
Annex 2 to this report presents a synthesis
of the results of the consultations carried out for the review. Scrutiny by the Commission IAB The IAB assessed a draft version of the
present impact assessment and issued a positive opinion on 20 December 2013.
The report was amended in line with the recommendations from the IAB, as
follows: (1) Further
improve the problem definition: An effort was made to demonstrate the
relative importance and impact and demand for organic products in the EU of the
problem drivers presented in the report, despite the lack of data. The problems
are presented in a more neutral manner and it is clarified that the development
of organic production in the EU is lower than what can be expected from market
developments. (2) Better describe the options: for each envisaged options, addressed problem drivers are
indicated. It is clarified that the impact assessment covers measures envisaged
under the basic Act and its implementing measures. The envisaged changes to the
objectives and principles of organic farming are explained. The report better
explains the link between the envisaged export certificate and export issues,
and how measuring of environmental performance when processors and traders deal
with both organic and conventional products, assessing the risk of non
compliance of retailers, setting transitional periods for organic inputs and defining
transitional measures for control bodies will work in practice. (3) Further develop the assessment and
comparison of impacts:the report further discuss
the possibility that the expected increase in consumer confidence would not
sufficiently compensate potentially higher prices under the preferred option.
Greater efforts have been made to indicate which product categories, MS and
third countries are likely to be most impacted. (4) Better present stakeholders views: the analysis is corroborated with the views of key stakeholders
groups, where available. It presents the overall summary of both public and
targeted consultations in Annex 2. Procedure and presentation: the report has been substantially shortened by streamlining the
problem definition, shortening the discussion on general objectives, avoiding
duplication in assessing the effectiveness of options and re-focussing the
monitoring and evaluation arrangements on specific rather than operational
objectives.
2.
Policy context, problem definition, and
subsidiarity
2.1. CAP
and CFP post 2013 The new CAP
adopted in 2013, provides for the overall framework for the development of agriculture
in the EU for the period 2014-2020. The overarching
objective for the CAP post 2013 was the sustainable competitiveness to
achieve an economically viable food production sector, in tandem with
sustainable management of the EU's natural land-based resources .An emblematic
measure of the new CAP is the introduction of a strong greening component (30%)
in the direct payments received by farmers, which can be received if they go
beyond the basic requirements and deliver environmental and climate benefits. Given the recognised environmental benefits of the organic farming
systems, organic farms will benefit from this "greening" payment. For details on the instruments supporting
the organic farming policy see Annex 3. The RD
measures will more widely address organic farming during the programming
period 2014-2020. Besides the new measure for supporting organic farming through
compensating for additional costs or income foregone resulting from organic
conversion or management, other relevant measures will be proposed, such as the
development of innovative products, processes, practices, technologies
and cooperation approaches among actors of the food chain. It is necessary
to ensure that the legislation on organic farming is still consistent with
the new CAP. CFP post
2013 The revised CFP
for the next ten years was adopted in 2013[12].
Organic aquaculture is viewed as a promising sector, where further growth is
anticipated in the coming years for various species of fish, shellfish and
seaweed. As the EU implementing rules have only applied to aquaculture since 1
July 2010, organic aquaculture is still a young sector compared to organic
farming. 2.2. Legislation
on organic farming The first EU
legislation on organic farming was adopted in 1991.
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 provided a legal definition of organic
farming through production rules, defined control and labelling requirements
and rules for importing organic products.This provided a basis to protect
consumers and organic farmers against false and misleading organic claims. The
legislation was substantially revised with the adoption of Council Regulation No (EC)
834/2007 in June 2007. which notably: –
defined organic farming more accurately by
describing its objectives and principles, –
further harmonised organic production
rules within the EU, by putting an end to national rules for animal products, –
introduced the possibility of exceptions to
the rules under the responsibility of MS, with the objective to limit them
to the strict necessary and for a limited period of time, –
linked the organic control system to the OFFC
provided in Regulation (EC) No 882/2004[13]
and made obligatory the accreditation of private CBs, –
restructured the import regime: in addition to the recognition of third
countries for the purpose of equivalence, the EU is now able to recognise directly CBs active in third countries for the purpose of equivalence
or compliance. The system of individual authorisations granted by MS consignment by consignment is being phased out (till 2014). While most of
the provisions were simply transferred from Council Regulation (EC) No 2092/91,
the new elements have been implemented from 2009 onwards. However, the new
import system through recognised CBs for the purpose of equivalence[14] applied from July
2012. When
adopting Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007, the
Council earmarked a series of issues, regarding, in particular, the scope
of the legislation, the prohibition of the use of GMOs and the functioning of
the internal market and control system, on which the Commission was required to
submit a report to the European Parliament and the Council, after having
reviewed the experience gained from the application of Regulation 834/2007. The
Commission adopted the report[15] in May 2012. It was a factual report
which included in particular the results of a MS-survey on organic food
prepared by caterers. In order to be better prepared for the review, the Commission
ordered an external evaluation in September 2012, parts of which have been used for this impact assessment. The Council
adopted conclusions on the report at its meeting on Agriculture and Fisheries
of 13-14 May 2013[16] on the basis of the Commission report. Among
others, it called to develop the organic farming sector
at an ambitious level by reviewing the current legal framework, with a
view to improving its usability while providing for a period of stability
and certainty, and aiming at further clarification and simplification and addressing
the current outstanding issues requiring further development. 2.3. Focus
on the control system The ECA
audited the effectiveness of the control system governing the production,
processing, distribution and imports of organic products in 2010 and 2011. The
results, published in the ECA Special Report No 9/2012[17], show a number of weaknesses
and include recommendations for improvement. Annex 9 provides a detailed
description of the control system and of the most relevant findings of the ECA.
The Commission
addressed the ECA' more pressing recommendations with the adoption of
Commission Regulation (EU) No 392/2013[18]
amending the implementing rules on the organic control system in April 2013.
The Regulation, applicable as from 1 January 2014, enhances the
exchange of information along the chain, harmonises and strengthens the
risk-based approach and calls on MS to increase supervision of CBs, to develop
a catalogue of sanctions and to improve the quality of their reporting to the
Commission on the control activities carried out. In May 2013, the Commission adopted a proposal[19] to
review the OFFC Regulation. The proposal aims at improving the existing
situation in respect of overlaps, gaps and grey areas due to the presence of
control requirements in different pieces of legislation. It explicitly refers
to organic as part of the scope of official controls, thereby removing a number
of previous uncertainties. Coordination will be needed when defining specific
or additional measures for organic controls, such as on control
responsibilities and tasks, minimum control frequency, measures for
non-compliance, specific reporting obligations and derogations as appropriate. 2.4. Consistency
with other policies The review will
have to take into account other policies such as quality schemes
developed under the CAP[20],
(with discussions on new optional quality terms), the on-going review of the promotion
and information policy for EU agricultural products (for more details see
Annex 4) and other initiatives such as "Unlocking the Single Market for
Green Products" and the "Sustainable Food initiative".
The present review is also an opportunity to progress on the debate about the
possible extension of the Ecolabel[21][22] to the
food and feed sector, which has been previously envisaged. A study[23] published in October
2011 evaluated in particular the option of limiting the scope of the EU
Ecolabel for food, feed and drink products to organically certified products
only and underlined the confusion that could result for the consumer from such
an extension. Consistency with the EU Health and Consumer
policy and in particular with the horizontal rules on food and feed safety and
labelling is essential to ensure the coherence of the EU approach in the food
and feed sector thus offering consumers the same public health guarantees
throughout the EU, including for imported products. In this area, the
Commission is also working on measures on animal cloning for food production in
the EU. The legislation on organic production will need adaptations in order to
clarify the exclusion of such techniques in organic production, taking into
account the organic farming principles. On the international side, consistency with
the international agreements and with the EU Development Policy needs to be
maintained. 2.5. Problem
definition 2.5.1. General problem The overall objective of the current EU
political and legislative framework, which is the sustainable development of
organic production, is not met. Altough the organic farming sector develops
in the EU, the progression is not in line with market developments,
while studies indicate organic farms tend to require more labour and to achieve
higher margins per unit of production than conventional ones[24]. Therefore the economic growth and the delivered level of
employment in the EU organic sector are below what could be expected from the
market development, which means lost opportunities for EU producers. There is
also a risk of limitation to the organic market expansion. The organic market has built on consumer confidence. Research
results show that consumer confidence is higher with strict production rules
and reliable control procedures. But with the current legislation, the organic
production rules are being watered down notably by an excessive use of exceptions.
In addition, deficiencies in the control system and in the import regime lead
to negative reports in the media because of fraud cases. Therefore there is
a risk of erosion of consumer confidence which entails a risk of limitation to
the organic market expansion. There is evidence that organic farming
practices, when compared to conventional agriculture, have positive effects on
the environment, notably on biodiversity, soil and water. This is further
analysed in Annex 13. But the current legislative framework hinders these
positive effects by limiting the surfaces managed according to the organic
farming principles in the EU because of lost opportunities for EU organic
producers and by watering down the organic production rules. It results in a risk
of limitation to the environmental benefits associated with organic farming. 2.5.2. Problem
tree Non-regulatory drivers are in italics. 2.5.3. Specific
problems and problem drivers This part
analyses first the development of demand and supply for organic products in the
EU and then the specific problems and the problem drivers.
2.1.1.1. Supply and demand for organic products in the EU
Demand
side: organic market outlook In recent years
the organic market in the EU and worldwide has been characterized by an
unprecedented development. The global market for organic food has
expanded fourfold since 1999. Its value was estimated at 63 billion US dollars
in 2011[25]. Although growth has slowed since the financial crisis started in
2008, sales have continued to increase. Demand for organic products is
concentrated in two regions: North America and Europe represent around 45% each
of global revenues. In the EU, the total value of the organic
market was estimated at around 20 billion Euro in 2011[26]. This figure represents approximately 2% of the turn-over of the EU
food and drink industry in the EU which is estimated at 1,017 billion Euro for
2011[27], a share that has doubled since 2004. Since 2008, the growth is
around 7-8% per year and was estimated at 9% in 2011. Market growth rates are expected to recover as the European economy
strengthens. Some analysts project the European organic market to continue to
increase by around 7% per year, with revenues reaching 30.5 billion Euro in
2016[28]. The by far largest organic market in the EU
was Germany with 6.6 billion Euro in 2011. France held the second place with
3.8 billion Euro. This market showed one of the most dynamic growth rates in
the past couple of years. The UK organic market is estimated at 1.9 billion Euro,
while in Italy it is 1.7 billion Euro. The organic sector is described in Annex
1, with some more indications on the consumption of organic products. The organic market is developing not only
from a quantitative point of view, but also from a qualitative point of view.
The range of organic products offered to consumers is widening with in
particular more and more varieties of organic processed products available. The
distribution has evolved. Retail, supermarkets and internet traders are
now significant players together with direct sales, local markets and
specialised shops. The economic crisis has had two
types of impacts on the organic market. In some MS, it has caused a reduction
in consumption because organic products are more expensive than conventional
food. On the other hand, the crisis has triggered some consumers to look for
more responsible and sustainable products leading to an increase in organic sales[29]. Overall, the market has continued to grow at a healthy pace. Supply
side Available data[30] shows a rapid development of the organic farming sector in the EU
during the last decade: Graph 2.5.2.2: Evolution of the area
under organic cultivation in the EU (million ha) between 2000 and 2011 Source: Eurostat annual survey A thorough analysis of the adequation of
the supply to the demand in the EU cannot be provided, since data on organic
production is incomplete. Incomplete data on organic production The EU organic production legislation currently defines identification and collection of statistical data within the context of the EU Statistical Programme. On this basis, it provides for the collection by MS of data related to: surfaces (in conversion and fully converted), operators (by type of activity), livestock (organic animals and products of animal origin), crop production and processing (operators and value/volume of production by type of economic activity). According to Eurostat analysis (Task Force "Organic farming statistics" 7-8 March 2011), data are substantially incomplete with regard to specific crop production, products of animal origin and processed products. The land area converted to organic
farming in the EU is growing at a slower pace than the organic market. Starting in 1993, the share of UAA devoted
to organic farming has grown from 0.6% in the EU-15 to 5.4% in the EU-27 in
2011 where it covered 9.6 million ha of land. The organic area has approximately
doubled in the decade 2000 - 2010, with varying situations according to MS.
This has to be put in perspective with a four-fold growth of the global organic
market between 1999 and 2011, during almost the same period. In the organic sector, the obligation to
undergo a conversion period of usually up to two years allows only a
medium-term response of the supply-side to changes in the demand side. This
leads to a certain degree of imbalance between domestic supply and demand in
the organic market. However, this is not sufficient to explain the gap between
supply and demand in the EU. There is
evidence of lost opportunities for EU producers, notably the fact that the
organic production in the EU does not cover the demand: -
stakeholders[31] have reported that the demand is far from being covered by the
production in the EU, notably for fruit and vegetables and crop products,
including protein-rich crops for feed, -
an inadequate level of production of organic
inputs, such as seeds and young animals, is attested by a wide use by MS CA
of the possibility to authorise the use of conventional inputs if they are not
available on the market in their organic form, -
the external evaluation has quoted one study
reporting an oversupply in certain sectors of the EU organic food industry
since the demand is not keeping pace with supply. It has proved to have occured
in the organic milk sector only, according to the information received by DG
AGRI during the stakeholder consultation. The
difference between EU production and demand is covered by growing imports. Because of the lack of data on sales and trade, this cannot be
corroborated by a thorough statistical analysis, but is is confirmed by: -
a comprehensive study[32] on imports of organic products into Germany showing that the share
of imported organic products that could also be produced in the country varies
from 2 to 95 %; -
the share of organic imported products on the
French organic market estimated at 25 % in 2013 by the 'Agence Bio'. Both sources do not differentiate imports
from third countries and products bought in other MS. More
specifically, the increase in imports from third countries is demonstrated by: -
data on exports from third countries: for instance from India. The EU is the main destination for organic
products exported from India (47% in volume, 58% in value in 2012). In the
marketing year 2010-11, India[33] exported a total volume of almost 70.000 tonnes, including about
33.000 tonnes to the EU. This compares with a total volume of less than 4.200 tonnes
exported by India in 2002-2003. Exports from India into the EU have regularly
increased during the last decade; -
an analysis by a private consulting[34], according to which "large volumes of organic beans,
seeds, grains and ingredients such as cocoa and vanilla are imported into
Europe"; good market opportunities are mentioned in the meat
sector, and high growth in the organic seafood market
more import reliant; "many products, such as organic tea and coffee are
imported. Imports are also important for organic juices, wine and some soft
drinks"; -
the USDA Foreign Agricultural Service[35], which published in February 2013 an analysis of the export
opportunities for U.S. organic products in the EU market. The potential market
for U.S. organics on the EU market is estimated at almost
USD 50 million with opportunities to be found in vegetables, fresh
fruit, dried fruit and nuts, specialty grains and processed products.
2.1.1.2. Obstacles to the development of domestic supplies
Obstacles
to the development of organic farming in the EU (a)
Technical, economic and structural
obstacles to conversion The conversion of a holding to organic
farming is a complex process which involves fundamental changes. Obstacles to conversion can be: – Technical issues: for instance, farmers
have to better integrate natural systems and cycles in their production
method and to use them in order to improve soil fertility and to protect
plants against pests and diseases. Appropriate technical advice is not always
available. – Structural aspects: there is a general
trend towards intensification and specialisation of agriculture, while
diversification is crucial in organic farming. In particular, the number of
mixed farms with crop and livestock production is declining in the EU. – Economic aspects: because they can
expect lower and more irregular yields with organic farming, farmers can be
reluctant to convert to organic farming. In addition, the land has to undergo a
conversion period (2 or 3 years depending on the crops) during which the
products cannot be sold as organic. The organic sector needs on specific
technical and financial support could notably be addressed in RD programmes
under the new programming period 2014- 2020. This is a non-regulatory driver
which could be addressed in an action plan. Research and innovation policies could
adress technical issues and, to a certain extent, structural aspects. It has to
be noted that the answer from research and innovation policies to the organic sector
development needs has been partial. This could be due to an insufficient uptake
or dissemination of research results (organic, low input agriculture and
conventional agriculture), and by a weak identification of the sector's
development needs[36]. This is a non-regulatory driver which could
be addressed in an action plan, through existing instruments under the EIP and
Horizon 2020 research policy. Annex 5 provides background information on the
possibilities offered by these instruments. The EGTOP has a
valuable contribution for the evaluation of new substances and techniques that
can be considered compatible with the objectives and principles of organic
farming; however this system faces challenges, as shown in details in Annex 7.
This is a regulatory driver that can be addressed with this initiative. Insufficient conversion to organic farming affects
negatively the supply of organic products in the EU. An improved legislative
framework could probably contribute to ease conversions, but it would be useful
to understand what makes the organic sector attractive or not for producers. A
specific study could be proposed in an action plan. (b)
Insufficient synergies between EU policies Organic production delivers also in the new
policy framework and EU 2020 strategy: protection of biodiversity and soil,
animal welfare, development of rural areas and local food chains,
multifunctional agriculture, long term food security. Complexity of EU
instruments requires further efforts in order to ensure coherence and synergies
between EU policies. This is a non-regulatory driver which could
be addressed in an action plan. (c)
High certification costs According to the CERTCOST[37] project the inspection fee is the most relevant monetary
expenditure for organic operators with respect to the certification costs. The
median of the inspection fee amounts to 500 Euro per farm, ranging from
318 Euro in the Czech Republic to 647 Euro in the United Kingdom. The calculation of the fee can be quite sophisticated, including a basic fee and a
variable fee according to the area, the type of crop, the number and type of
animals. Concrete examples are provided in Annex 10. This level of inspection and certification cost
is in some cases not proportionate with the economic dimension of small
agricultural holdings. According to Eurostat data, 73%
of EU agricultural holdings have an output lower than 8 000 euros. In other respects, the current control
rules that require annual inspection of all operators (articles 27(3) and 28 of
Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007) do not allow group certification that is
accepted for the import of organic products produced by small producers in
Third Countries as a measure of equivalent control effectiveness. Group
certification is defined by IFOAM as "the certification of an organized
group of small-scale producers with similar farming and production systems. The
requirements for group certification apply only to such groups when the
certification applies to the group as a whole and when special inspection
arrangements have been applied". Further information and review of existing
group certification schemes is provided in Annex 15. This is a non-regulatory driver; however, it
can be addressed through some legislative provisions which impact the
efficiency of the control system. (d)
A high level of administrative
burden for the organic operators The most burdensome obligations are to keep
documentary evidence of the need to use (authorised) plant protection products
and fertilisers, the control arrangements and undertaking necessary to enter
the organic scheme, to keep specific register of livestock records and to keep
documentary evidence in relation to coexistence of organic and conventional
production (see paragraph 5.5). The obligation of detailed record keeping
has been mentioned as particularly difficult in the case of small organic
holdings. This issue, combined with disproportionate inspection fees (see
below), leads to small agricultural holdings to be under-represented in the
organic sector. While 69% of all agricultural holdings have less than 5 ha,
only 18,7% of organic holdings have less than 5 ha. The administrative burden is a regulatory
driver that can be addressed with this initiative, by improving the
legislation. (e)
Obstacles to the development of
the production of 'organic inputs' Some exceptions can
be granted by MS CA where they are necessary to ensure access to inputs which
are not available in organic form on the market, notably young animals, seeds or protein feed. Their existence has had the unintended consequence
to limit the development of the production of the inputs in their organic
form. The external evaluation has demonstrated
this issue:
In the case of the exception allowing the
use of non-organic pullets: in Denmark, the use of conventional young
poultry has been prohibited for many years which fostered the development
of a market for young organic poultry. As a consequence, the supply in
young organic poultry is adequate. But in other countries which grant
easily exceptions to use non-organic pullets, the supply of non-organic
pullets is not adequate. In countries studied by the external evaluation,
authorities and/or operators said that a 100 % organic supply would
be possible if there were no market perturbation like the possibility
provided by the exceptional rule. Experts from Austria, Denmark, France
and the Netherlands reported that there was no need for exceptional rules
for young poultry, while experts from the Czech Republic, Estonia, Italy,
Poland and Slovenia stressed that there is no or only a limited supply of
organic young poultry in their countries. To postpone the ending date
hampers the development of supplies and is considered not fair for sectors
that have started to adapt to the end of the exception.
In the case of the use of non-organic
seeds, the analysis of specific data and of the information on the use of
the seed management database has shown an extensive and increasing use of
the exceptional rule system at EU level. Providing access to the
conventional seed market through the exceptional rule plays against the
development of the organic seed sector. Data
provided in 8 MS annual reports for 3 crops (wheat,
maize and potatoes) show a variable share of
organic land area sown with non-treated conventional seeds. The highest rate of use of non-organic seeds, around 100%, was
found in Italy. A general use of non-organic seeds was also observed in Denmark and Estonia, because of general exceptions, leading farmers to favour cheaper
non-organic seeds, even when adequate organic supply is available for
specific varieties. In contrast, high levels of organic supply for soft
wheat seeds have been achieved in Austria and the UK. For maize, the share of organic areas cultivated from organic seed is close to 100 % in
the Netherlands, Austria and Spain. Organic supply for seed potatoes is quite
high in Austria, Bulgaria, Denmark, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, with non-organic seeds used on less than 30% of the organic areas. The European Consortium for Organic Plant Breeding reported in
its 7th workshop in October 2013 that the important development
of the organic market was not accompanied by a corresponding development
in the use of organic seeds. The consortium would strongly support the
end of exceptions to the rule.
The issue of organic inputs is crucial. For
instance, in the case of seeds, growing organic seeds is better for the
environment. In addition, organic seeds are better suited for organic growing
conditions. Therefore, the development of organic seeds is a condition for the
sustainable development of organic farming. The issue was summarised by the
representative of Belgium in the Council: "… Organic agriculture needs new varieties of plants in
order to further develop. The use of organic propagating material is a
fundamental part of the closed production cycles, which are promoted as a
feature of organic agriculture. The current regulations (..) provide mandatory
use of organic propagating material but on the other hand allows many
derogations for the use of conventional propagating material. Whereas research
has shown that plant varieties specifically selected in and for organic
agriculture have essential importance in the development of the organic crop
production, it is not very attractive for the seed producers to make
investments in this small scale market. Many companies prefer selling
conventional not treated (..) varieties, despite the fact that those varieties
have not been selected for organic agriculture. " The issue of exceptions is a regulatory
driver that can be addressed with this initiative, by amending the legislation.
(f)
Complex and unclear legislation on
organic production Some provisions of the EU legislation are
complex or unclear, which may discourage producers who wish to join or to
develop their activities in the organic sector. One example is the scope of Council
Regulation No 834/2007, which does not refer to a precise list of
agricultural and processed products. MS CA and companies consult regularly the
Commission to clarify whether or not certain products are included. As a
result, producers might prefer not starting producing organic production if
they are not certain to be able to sell their products as organic. This is a regulatory driver which can be
addressed with this initiative.
2.1.1.3. Risk
of loss of consumer confidence
This part addresses the objective of
ensuring consumer confidence and protecting consumer interests as stated in
Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007. The organic
market has built on consumer confidence. Research results which show that
consumer confidence is higher with strict production rules and control
procedures are summarised in part 4 of Annex 1. Why do consumers choose organic products? According to BEUC, consumers choose organic products because they perceive them as healthy and environmentally-friendly. In addition, they meet other concerns such as animal welfare and use of additives. The major barriers for consumers to choose organic products would be their perceived too high price and their insufficient accessibility. Consumers wish organic products to be available in supermarkets, including discounts. They also appreciate box schemes, like boxes of organic fruit and vegetables delivered at home. Consumer expectations depend on their knowledge, but they usually expect more than what is required under Regulation (EC) No 834/2007. In particular, they want residue-free products. The risk of loss of consumer confidence is
due to conflicts between consumer expectations and reality. However, consumer
knowledge on quality schemes is usually low. (a)
Production rules watered down The results of the public consultation show
that the majority of citizens (62%) and stakeholders representing consumers
(63%) did not approve the possibility for farmers and other operators to be
exempted from production rules and still have their produce certified organic. In addition, the largest part of
respondents (77%) agreed that exemptions from production rules granted to
farmers and other operators should always be limited in time.
(b)
Societal and consumer concerns not
fully addressed The sustainable use of energy and the
management of environmental impacts are increasing
concerns which are not fully reflected in the EU legislation. While organic
farmers and operators producing seaweed and aquaculture products have to
respect strict principles benefiting the environment, there is no obligation for
other organic operators regarding environmental impacts related to food and
feed processing, packaging, transport and distribution of organic products,
despite the expectations of consumers. Concerns regarding the need to consider the
whole lifecycle of food and feed products could be addressed by applying the EU
Ecolabel to food and feed products, including organic ones. In this
respect, the recently revised Ecolabel Regulation (66/2010)[38] required the Commission to carry out a study on the feasibility of
developing Ecolabel criteria for food and feed products, with a special
attention to organic products. This study[39], completed in October 2011, underlined in particular the confusion
that could result for the consumer between the Ecolabel and the organic logo.
As an alternative to placing the Ecolabel on organic products, it was suggested
"to amend the Organic certification […] to cover the full life cycle of
food products, including the processing and packaging and [called] on the
European Commission to give due consideration to this option, to improve the performance
of the existing Organic Regulation." During the hearings, BEUC declared that
consumers would not support the introduction of Ecolabel for food and drink,
because it would entail confusion. In the Council, some MS mentioned
"incompatibilities between the EU regulatory framework on organic farming
and Regulation (EC) No 66/2010 (…) on Eco-Label" and even stated that
"it was not appropriate to extend (…) its scope to food and drinks,
although it has not been applied yet". IFOAM EU, supported by other stakeholders, suggested
to have operators downstream of primary production, i.e processors and traders,
manage their environmental performance via an EMS (e.g. ISO 14001 or EMAS). An EMS is a tool that provides organisations with a method to systematically manage and
improve the environmental impacts of their production processes. It helps
organisations to achieve their environmental obligations and performance goals.
In addition to EMAS and EN ISO 14001, non-formal EMS exist in the EU. Many of
them have been adopted by both private and public organisations. These EMS are mostly designed to cover organisations with a specific size (e.g. SMEs) and
organisations coming from specific areas or specific sectors of activities. In the public consultation, a majority (61%)
was in favour of an obligation for producers and traders to implement an EMS to improve their environmental performance. Such societal concerns are non-regulatory
drivers that can be addressed through regulatory measures. Animal welfare is an increasing societal
concern, which was raised in the public
consultation. 34% of respondents underlined that organic farming producers
should be obliged to comply with specific rules for animal welfare. In
addition, around one quarter of respondents considered animal welfare standards
in organic farming should systematically be higher than in conventional
farming. Only 9% declared that current rules for animal welfare in organic
farming are sufficient. The organisations Eurogroup for Animals and
Compassion in World Farming have been heard in the hearings and have
transmitted detailed proposals to improve animal welfare in organic farming,
presented in detail in Annex 14. Organisations have underlined that current
practices are not always consistent with organic principles, for instance the
mutilations authorised as "specific operations essential to certain types
of production and for the sake of security for animals and human beings,
permitted under restricted conditions", while the general rule provides that
"mutilations which lead to stress, harm, disease or the suffering of
animals should be banned". The present initiative is an opportunity to
address this regulatory issue, notably to re-focus the animal welfare
provisions on the organic farming principles. The issue of presence of non-authorised
substance residues in organic products is crucial
for consumers. In the public consultation, 85% of the citizens declared they buy
organic products because they want to avoid food containing pesticide
residues. 62% of them would support the testing of all organic products for
pesticide residues, even it if would increase costs and make them dearer for
consumers. Three quarters of the respondents agree that no pesticide should be
allowed in organic farming; only 11% support the authorisation of some
pesticides under very strict procedures. These high expectations sometimes conflict
with reality. The issue is further developped in paragraph 2.5.3.4 (d). (c)
Multiplication of logos The multiplication of logos is one of the
main drivers for consumer confusion and risk of being misled. The EU organic
policy provides a set of rules to be applied all over the EU and the use of the
EU logo guarantees that they are respected. The use of other
"organic" logos can be seen as a sign that the EU rules/logo does not
inspire sufficient confidence to consumers. There are many private organic
logos and other scheme logos on the market. A recent study mentioned a total of
901 quality schemes in the EU, among which 234 were related to organic farming[40]. In 2010, the Commission published best
practice guidelines for voluntary certification schemes[41], one of the purposes of which was to avoid consumer confusion and
increase the transparency and clarity of the schemes requirements. However, according
to the above-mentioned study, the awareness of these guidelines among operators
is currently insufficient. The study also highlighted that the public usually
knows a limited number of schemes and stated that some confusion exists about
logos and symbols used. The use of the EU organic farming logo
became obligatory on the packaging of EU organic products in 2010. According to Eurobarometer[42], in July 2012 on average over all 27 EU MS, 24 % of the respondents
indicated to know the EU organic logo on organic farming. This share was higher
in Denmark (39 %), France (38 %), Luxembourg (37 %) and Austria (36 %). The lowest share of respondents knowing the EU logo was found in Romania (10 %), Poland (12 %), Bulgaria (13 %) and Spain (14 %). However, a comparative analysis of the EU
organic logo and other organic and non-organic food logos conducted for the
external evaluation in six case study countries (Estonia, France, Germany, Italy, Poland and the United Kingdom) has shown that, in all countries other
organic logos exist in the market place, which were better known than the EU
organic logo. The issue of logos is both a regulatory and
non-regulatory driver. It can be addressed indirectly with this review by
reinforcing the EU organic scheme in order to avoid the development of new
schemes and logos. (d)
Shortcomings in the control system and in the import regime The EU organic control system covers the activities
performed by operators at all stages of the production, preparation and
distribution chain: from farm to fork. Any operator who produces, prepares,
stores, imports or places on the market organic products shall notify his
activity to the MS CA and shall submit his undertaking to the control system
(article 28(1) of Regulation No 834/2007). Organic products are "credence
goods": their organic attributes or nature results from the production
process and cannot be reliably assessed by consumers, neither before nor after
purchase[43]. Consumers willing to buy organic products therefore have to rely
on the organic labelling, enforced by the control system. Fraud
cases in the media Recent fraud cases in the EU organic sector
have been revealed which, for their scope and duration, seem linked to systemic
control weaknesses rather than isolated instances. They have had very wide
press coverage, beyond the organic specialised sector, and led to a wave of
concerns and doubts on whether the organic system can really be trusted. For
instance, in December 2011 a large fraud case concerning organic
products, "Gatto con gli stivali", was revealed by the Italian tax
investigation authorities. It has been used as a case study by the external
evaluation. A non-exhaustive
selection of articles from the following newspapers: Politika (Warsaw), die
Welt (Berlin) and die Tageszeitung (Berlin), translated and available on-line
by PressEurop, is shown in Annex 9. Until now, the fraud
cases do not seem to have significantly harmed the confidence of citizens.
Nearly three quarters of the respondents to the public consultation (71%)
acknowledged that they have full confidence in organic products. Nonetheless,
almost one out of five of the interviewees, i.e. 18% did not trust the
organic integrity of products. In addition, 11% of respondents abstained from
answering to this question. More than half (58%) of
the citizens required improvement of the European control system for organic
products even if this entails an increase in prices. 22% repliers to the
questionnaire stated that improvements are not needed, especially if these lead
to a rise of organic products' prices. 20% of the respondents did not express
any opinion on this. What
remains to be done to improve the control system? Some shortcomings signalled by the ECA
have been only partly addressed, notably the followings: ECA Special Report No 9, 2012 “MS CA encounter difficulties in ensuring the traceability of the organic products within the territory for which they have authority. Traceability is even more difficult to achieve for products crossing borders” "Controls should be strengthened to ensure that operators fulfill the regulatory requirements regarding traceability, in this regard, the Commission should clarify the roles and responsibilities of the different actors. " The control system and the import regime
have been subject to specific questions as part of the external evaluation.
However, the external evaluation scope was limited to
the adequacy of the legal provisions, defined as being
sufficient in relation to the intervention's objectives, while the impact
assessment has to consider also their effectiveness and efficiency in line with
the principle of sound financial management. This explains why the external
evaluation concluded that the overall control system of organic farming is
largely adequate in terms of achieving the global objectives of the Regulation,
but with shortcomings in its implementation and recommended a more risk-based
approach. The main issues remaining to be adressed after
the initiatives described in paragraph 2.3 are the following: a)
Incomplete coverage of the control system: retailers
may be exempted by MS. The status of exporters and subcontractors is also
unclear. Wholesalers
dealing only with prepackaged products currently benefit from an exemption to
the annual inspection, while such operators have been involved in fraud cases.
b)
Follow up of irregularities and sanctions: please
see paragraph 2.5.3.4 (e) c)
Insufficient market control and traceability of
organic products. The difficulties are notably due to the insufficient
implementation of risk based controls and to the use of outdated tools. For
instance, the documentary evidence for EU organic operators and inspection
certificates for imported organic products do not sufficiently ensure
traceability and are vulnerable to fraudulent use. So far, the most important
fraud cases in the sector involved traders selling conventional products as
organic, often through falsification of documentary accounts including organic
certificates. Fraud cases can also occur at a much earlier stage, when
producers put on the market such products with falsified certificates. 1.
Insufficient implementation of the
risk-based approach As a general rule, all operators shall be
subject to verification of compliance at least once per year[44]. The implementing rules regulation qualifies this annual
verification of compliance as a physical inspection[45]. Regulation (EC) No 834/2007, while maintaining in any event the
obligation of an annual verification of compliance for all operators,
introduces a risk-based approach to controls. Namely, it sets out that the
nature and frequency of the controls shall be determined on the basis of an
assessment of the risk of occurrence of irregularities and infringements. Commission
Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 clarifies that, in addition to the annual
inspections, CBs shall carry out random control visits, primarily unannounced,
based on the general evaluation of the risk of non-compliance with the organic
production rules. Three risk factors shall be taken into account for the risk
evaluation: the results of previous controls, the quantity of products
concerned and the risk of exchange of products. As from 1 January 2014, the
risk analysis has to provide the basis for the intensity of the unannounced or
announced control visits; random visits in addition to the annual inspection have
to be carried out on at least 10% of operators in accordance with the risk
category; and at least 10% of the total annual inspections and additional random
visits have to be unannounced. A full implementation of the risk-based
approach would require MS to focus resources where the risk of non-compliance
with the rules – including intentional non-compliance that constitutes fraud –
is greatest. But the current system requiring annual mandatory physical
inspections of all operators, does not allow an efficient use of resources. Operators with a consistently clean record could be inspected with
less frequency than once per year, in order to save resources which could be
used to target controls to riskier operators. So far, the major fraud cases in
the organic sector (Gatto con gli stivali, Italy, 2011) did not affect the
yearly inspected producers but traders selling conventional products as organic
with import certificates: control visits to address effectively such cases are
more difficult and time-consuming. The external evaluation mentioned that
"In contrast to the annual visit of each organic operators, other areas
work with considerably lower control frequencies. For example, the EU legal
framework for the RD programmes requires annual on-the-spot checks of 5 %
of all beneficiaries". A risk-based approach was recommended: "this
would allow for identifying low-risk operators and high-risk operators and thus
allow a more targeted and dynamic approach to the control process… such a
dynamic approach is not compatible with the static approach of the mandatory
annual control visit as currently implemented…". Results of the public consultation show
diverse opinions on the issue of control frequency. While the majority of
respondents (57%) disapproved the idea of lowering the number of inspections
for organic operators with a proven track record of abiding to the rules, a percentage
of approximately 36% of the respondents approved it, which is significant for
what can be considered as a radical change. The majority of stakeholders
representing all categories without exceptions were against the risk-based
frequency of inspections of organic operators. The strongest opponents to the
idea to lower the number of inspection for trusted organic operators are the
following stakeholders in descending order: private CBs (83%), retailers (70%),
public CA, public control authorities, accreditation bodies (68%), processors
(63%) as well as advisory services (60%) and non-EU public authorities (60%). However, several MS in the Council argued in
favour of a move towards a more risk-based approach (Germany, Italy, Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands), while few of them (Greece) stated explicitely their
preference for the mandatory annual inspection. In the stakeholders'
consultation, the ones in favour of a risk-based control system were FIBL
(Research Institute for Organic Agriculture), Dakks (National Accreditation
Body for Germany) and the Finnish Food Safety Authority (Evira). Stakeholders in
favour of maintaining the annual inspection are the European Poultry
Association, the Soil Association, Bio-Austria, the FNSEA and Synalaf. The
resistance to move to a fully risk-based control system can be explained by: -
the need to re-think the control system, which
can be seen as challenging (national CA, accreditation bodies), -
the risk of loosing individual advice from CBs, actually
resulting from a confusion of roles (farmers); it is also a way for CBs to
justify quite high inspection fees (CBs); -
the risk of loosing an argument to sell organic
products, as suggested by the external evaluation. However, 50% of the
respondents to the public consultation didn't know that there is an obligation
of annual inspection, despite a relatively high familiarity with the organic
farming system (mostly regular consumers with high knowledge of the logo).] 2.
Supervision of controls in third
countries The reliability of controls on imported
organic products has been questioned during the consultation process. In the
public consultation, citizens have been asked to choose proposals to improve
the control system in general. The vast majority of
respondents (73%) requested to improve controls on imported organic products. The issue has been corroborated by stakeholders in the
consultation process (see Annex 2). The
recognition of third countries for the purpose of equivalence is considered as a reliable system by the Commission for the
control of imported organic products, since it relies on a national CA to
supervise controls. The details of the system are presented in Annex 12. The
ECA in its report raised the issue of supervision of these recognised countries,
currently being addressed with audits by the FVO. In other respects, the ECA
also noted a significant backlog in assessing applications for equivalence from
third countries, linked to the burdensome assessment procedure. The obligation
to have a control system as effective as the EU one is a limiting factor for
the recognition of equivalence of third countries (only 11 countries are
currently recognised). Therefore the system of recognition of private CBs is
crucial to continue to import organic products from non recognised countries. The EU is
the first country in the world to implement a system of recognition of CBs based
on equivalence. Other countries like the US, Canada and Japan, run systems based on compliance to their rules. The EU is supposed to
implement both systems in parallel, but the implementation of compliance has
been postponed to October 2014. A table providing a comparison between both
systems and a comparison of the workload for the implementation of compliance
and equivalence are in Annex 12. They show an advantage for the compliance regime. The issues related to the control system
and to the trade regime are regulatory drivers which can be addressed with this
initiative.
2.1.1.4. Fair competition among producers not
guaranteed and risks for the functioning of the internal market
This part addresses the objective of
guaranteeing fair competition as stated in Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC)
No 834/2007. (a)
Complex provisions not correctly
implemented The legislation on organic farming includes
diluted provisions which are difficult to apply. This is because the
legislation was designed for a small sector and intended to take into account
any specific case. Examples of findings - FVO audits Presence of conventional production on organic farms, not respecting the EU rules – for instance the same crop varieties were cultivated in their conventional and organic forms on a farm, and therefore the organic production could not be easily differentiated. This was not treated as non-compliances in some MS.
An example is the case of "mixed farms"
(meaning with organic and conventional production). Article 11 of Regulation No
834/2007 in its first paragraph prohibits conventional production on organic
farms. This is motivated notably by the risky nature[46] of such operators: it can be difficult to control that a farmer has
not used non-allowed substances on the organic products, if they are present on
the farm. But the second paragraph of Article 11 considerably weakens this
provision by introducing circumstances under which "parallel"
conventional production is authorized. MS CAs and CBs in third countries face
difficulties in applying this confusing provision. This leads to unfair competition between
producers in MS where the rules are respected and the ones in MS where the
rules are not respected. In the first case, some producers will not join the
organic sector, while in the second case, producers in the same conditions will
be able to join the organic sector and to sell products as organic. The issue
has been raised during the hearings, for instance by the Bund Ökologische
Lebensmittelwirtschaft which recommended the mandatory conversion of the whole
farm. No evidence could demonstrate the extent of possible unfair competition
entailed by such implementation failures. It is a regulatory driver that can be
addressed with this initiative. (b)
Excessive use of exceptions to the
rules Unfair competition entailed by the use of
exceptions to the rules by MS has been demonstrated by the findings of the
audits carried ot by the FVO in MS in 2012 and in 2013. It usually results from
an improper application of EU rules by MS. The main reason for that is the
insufficient resources dedicated to the management of the exceptions, which
entails a high level of administrative burden. Examples of findings - FVO audits · Retroactive recognition of a conversion period without adequate justification by some MS competent authorities which leads to unfair competition to producers in other MS who have to bear the full conversion cost; · Use of non-organic feed: exceptions granted to the whole territory of a region or a country without identifying individual operators: this lead to unfair competition for producers in other MS who could not benefit from such derogations; · Non respect of animal welfare rules: dehorning or mutilation such as castration of piglets allowed without prior authorisation, contrary to the EU legislation. Such practices provide an economic advantage to the producers of these MS, compared with producers in MS fully applying the rules. The issue was also mentioned by MS, for
instance Danemark, according to which "there are large differences among
MS in the way organic seeds derogations are handled and the way derogation data
is reported." Similar issues have been shown with CBs
operating in third countries. The first list of CBs
have been recognised for a 3-year period starting from July 2012. Once the CB
is recognised, the fact that it applies its own production standard and control
measures rather than the EU ones generates a risk of non-equivalent production
rules or control measures being applied while remaining undetected. This is
shown by the analysis on the CB equivalence regime in Annex 12, which shows
that CBs can be tempted to compete on the possibility to decide on exceptions
to the rules. In practice, the system is fuelling an unfair competition among
CBs, based on lowering standards, as it was reported by stakeholders (see Annex
2). The extent of the problem is linked to the number of CBs recognised under
the equivalence regime (currently 60), each one with its own standard with
rules as detailed as the EU organic production rules. The magnitude of the highlighted problem
could not be precisely estimated. It is a regulatory driver that can be
addressed with this initiative. (c)
Presence of non-authorised
substance residues addressed differently according to MS, CB or third country The taking of product sample for the
detection of products not authorised in organic farming is already a widely
used tool for control purpose. The results of the analysis show in some cases
the presence of non-authorised substance-residues in products intended to be sold
as organic. It can result either from the illegal use of these substances or
from accidental or technically unavoidable presence; more often such substances
are found in organic products due to spray-drifts originating from neighbouring
non organic production fields, mixing during the transport and storage or other
factors, because of coexistence between organic and conventional crop
production. According to
the 2010 EU Report on Pesticide Residues in Food[47], non-authorised substance residues were
found in a non-negligible share of organic products: ·
21.4% of organic animal products, ·
9.8% of organic baby-food, ·
11.8% of organic fruit, vegetable and other
plant products, ·
8.1% of organic cereals. These figures include samples with presence
of non-authorised substance residues below, at, or above the MRL. The level
of residues found in organic products is rarely above the MRL. In addition,
the share of products with presence of non-authorised substance residues is on
average lower in organic than in conventional products. The legislation on organic production is
silent about the possible presence of non-authorised substance residues in
organic products. It does not state if the products can still be sold as
organic, under which conditions and which procedure has to be followed by CBs
and MS CAs, and notably if an investigation is always necessary. The problem also relates to the level of presence of substances
found, especially since the sensitivity of analysis is ever increasing. In the absence of specific provisions in
the EU legislation, different approaches have already been adopted by MS or by
stakeholders, as described in Annex 11. Italy and Belgium have developed
national legislation and the Czech Republic is developing rules. This leads to
different treatments of products where contamination is found. Guidelines have
also been developed by the main stakeholders IFOAM and EOCC and by
associations such as the Bundesverdand Naturkost Naturwaren (BNN) in Germany, with different rules and threshold levels, which add to confusion. As a consequence, products with the same
contamination level can be marketed as 'organic' in some MS, in others not,
which creates distortions on the market, both in the EU and with Third
Countries. This extent of the issue could not be
precisely estimated, but the development of the cases of non-compliances shows
its increasing significance. The following table shows the evolution of the
number of non-compliance cases on products traded between the EU MS[48]. The vast majority of the cases relate to the presence of
non-authorised pesticide residues: Year || Number of cases || Including cases involving products imported from third countries 2008 || 58 || 5 2009 || 39 || 6 2010 || 62 || 6 2011 || 58 || 11 2012 || 97 || 25 2013 up to 12 Nov 2013 || 101 || 26 The following
table shows the evolution of the number of non-compliance cases on products
imported from third countries: Year || Number of cases || Still unsolved cases 2011 || 34 || 3 2012 || 67 || 9 2013 up to 12 Nov 2013 || 90 || 66 This is a
regulatory issue which can be addressed by introducing in the legislation
measures defining the conditions under which a product with presence of non
authorised substances residues can be sold as organic. (d)
Same non-compliance leading to
different actions according to MS The legal provisions on non-compliances to
the legislation on organic production and on sanctions are recalled in Annex 9,
part 7. The ECA concluded in its special report
9/2012 that in several MS the CA have not defined detailed categories of
non-compliance and corresponding sanctions, as required by the legislation.
Namely, this was the case for 3 out of the 6 audited MS (Germany, France and the United Kingdom). As a consequence, each CB defines the non-compliance and
applies sanctions in a different way, with considerable differences in control
results. This situation leads to operators being sanctioned differently, across
MS and even within the same MS, for the same case of non-compliance. On-the-spot audits carried out by the FVO
in 2012 confirmed weaknesses in some MS' follow up to cases of non-compliance.
They did not always ensure that irregularities were followed-up and sanctions
were imposed in a systematic and timely manner. Several MS have mentioned their concerns
that the same non-compliances are not followed by the same measures in
different MS (Germany, France, Spain, Belgium). The issue can be only partly addressed in
the EU legislation on organic production, since the definition of sanctions is
a competence of MS. (e)
Multiple certifications needed to
have access to certain markets The fact that production rules are
considered too flexible leads some producers to create private schemes with
more stringent rules. While some long standing private organic standards have
peculiarities which consumers look for, there are examples of new organic
schemes created to valorise stricter rules. There has been experience in 2009
after MS had to apply harmonised rules on organic animal production, which led
in some MS to less strict rules. In France some producers reacted and decided
to identify their products with the creation of a new label Bio-Cohérence[49]. In other respects, the retail sector often
requires a second certification, according to a private standard. Stakeholders have reported concrete
difficulties. A dairy company exporting organic products in Europe and all over
the world reported difficulties to export to the German market, because the
retail sector is dominated by a private scheme. A MS reported that "some
suppliers of other MS demand from certain operators that their products be
certified by a CB of the MS in question; in addition to the certification (of
the MS of origin) where the operator is registered". It is both a regulatory (when MS themselves
impose an additional certification) and a non-regulatory driver. It can be
addressed with this initiative by reinforcing the EU organic scheme in order to
reduce the development of new schemes and requirements for multiple
certifications. (f)
Obstacles to access to third
country markets EU organic producers are well advanced in
the production of processed products, like baby-food or organic wine, for which
the demand is growing world-wide. But stakeholders have reported recurrent
export issues, for examples: -
requirements for CB to be approved by the
national CA, before products it controls can be exported as organic to the third
country. The process can include bureaucratic, complicated and sometimes
insurmountable constraints like a test for the CB inspectors in the language of
the country; -
disproportionate requirements such as the
obligation that each raw material producer for each cycle of production be
inspected by the third country national inspectors before the import of organic
processed products can be authorised; -
need for EU CBs to be approved by the national CA
to export to a third country, while there was a mutual recognition arrangement; -
use of the national organic logo of a third
country obligatory to have access to its domestic market, but only permitted if
the product was controlled by a CB recognised by the national CA, while there
was a mutual recognition arrangement. All these issues lead to increased
administrative burden and costs to the EU operators and they face an
economic disadvantage on many third country markets. The extent of the issue is difficult to assess.
It would require detailed investigations on the import regimes for organic
products put in place in third countries and the way they implement them. The Commission has started in recent years to develop mutual equivalence arrangements with
third countries, notably with the U.S., Canada, Switzerland and Japan, which solve (at least partly) the issues with these countries. However, Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 does not include any
specific provisions on exports. There is no tool in place to support the export
of EU organic products. The export issue is both a regulatory and a
non-regulatory driver, which can be addressed through other tools, notably the
action plan. 2.5.4. Who
is affected by the problem, in what ways and to what extent? The problem affects not only the organic sector, but
also consumers, small farms, national administrations, society and third
countries. Consumers, because there are conflict between their expectations and the
reality of organic production; in addition, because of shortcomings in the
control system and in the trade regime, some products sold as organic do not
fulfil the requirements of the EU legislation, The organic sector: – Producers respecting the rules of
organic farming face unfair competition inside and outside the EU, – The development of the sector is affected by identified lost market
opportunities, both on the domestic market and on the export side. The development
of the production of organic inputs (notably seeds) is hindered by the use
of existing exceptions, – The competitiveness of producers, processors and importers is
affected by heavy and out-dated procedures, The smallest farms in the EU which are not joining the organic sector under the current system, National competent authorities: they face increasing administrative burden mostly due to
the management of the control system and of the exceptional rules. Their
responsibility in controlling the products on the market, including of imported
products, is more and more significant, because of the development of the market, Society is
affected because the sustainable development of organic production in the EU is
not ensured. Third countries, because their producers can face unfair competition. In other
respects, some of them have applied for equivalence recognition for several
years without a reply. 2.6. How
would the problem evolve without a change in policy? The
baseline scenario seeks to provide an outlook for 2025 of the evolution of the main
identified problem drivers. 2.6.1. Supply (a)
Obstacles to the development of
the sector Technical
and structural obstacles to the conversion to organic farming will persist. The issue of certification cost is
likely to deteriorate, because CBs are likely to increase their tariffs, arguing
notably on the obligatory annual inspection of all operators. Combined with the
effects of the administrative burden, this will maintain the exclusion of the
smallest farms in the EU (with less than 5 ha). According to evidence collected
during the consultation, even bigger farms will be excluded or forced to leave
the sector. The complexity and unclarity of the rules
will also discourage new producers to join the organic sector. Therefore the increase in the number of organic farms is likely
to slow down. (b)
Exception to the rules and complex
provisions Regarding
the exceptions to the rules, two of them will
expire on 31 December 2014: -
the one authorizing the bringing of non-organically
reared pullets for egg production of not more than 18 weeks into an organic
livestock unit when organically reared pullets are not available, -
the one authorizing the use of maximum 5% non-organic
protein feed of plant and animal origin for porcine and poultry species. As
shown by the external evaluation on the example of Danemark (see Annex 6), the
end of the exception to use non-organic pullets should lead to a 100 %
organic supply. Even if it leads to a difference of cost, the production of
organic pullets will be boosted. The
end of the possibility to use non-organic protein feed will probably entail
changes in the production of pig and poultry meat. Currently, the majority of organic
pig and poultry producers can use strains with a high
genetic yield capacity, which need optimal feed rations. Because of the
shortage of protein rich organic feed, they rely on
the exceptions of the 5 % non-organic feed rule to compensate the organic
rations, which usually do not contain enough proteins and they use conventional
soy-products, corn gluten or potato protein. The end of the exception could
lead to a des-intensification in the production of pigs and poultry, with
more use of slow growing strains or robust
breeds. It could also boost the production of
protein rich organic feed, notably soya, which would permit to maintain a
more intensive breeding system. New techniques are
considered by interviewed experts as promising alternatives, but are not
entirely ready for a broad practical use yet, such as methods to produce
methionine via enzymatic fermentation based on organic raw materials or the use
of insect larvae or algae as a protein source for feed. The
sector is preparing for this move. COPA-COGECA declared that it fully
supports the end of this derogation in an AGOF meeting on 21 November 2013.
However, two
of the main exceptions authorising the use of non-organic inputs will remain: -
the one authorizing to bring non-organic chicks
into an organic poultry production unit, -
the one authorising the use of seed or
vegetative propagating material not obtained by the organic production method. The maintainance of
these exceptions will hamper the development of the sectors of organic
chicks and organic seeds and reproducing vegetative material. MS
will face increasing difficulties to correctly apply complex provisions and
exceptions to the rules in a context of limitation
of resources. General derogations are likely to continue to be applied instead
of individual exceptions. 2.6.2. Consumer
confidence, issues for the internal market (a)
Societal and consumer concerns:
animal welfare, environmental management systems, pesticides In addition, some practices ignoring animal
welfare concerns will continue to be authorised, either as
exceptions to the rules, or as specific cases directly provided in the
legislation. With regard to the environment and the
responsible use of energy, the absence of
provisions at EU level for organic processors and traders could undermine
consumer confidence. Few data is available on the use of EMS by food
processing, wholesale agribusiness and retail agribusiness companies. The use
of EMAS is not much developed in such sector. Some detailed data fare provided
in Annex 13. Stakeholders have reported that simplified systems are used in the
food sector in Germany. Two of them applied in Lower Saxony are presented in Annex
13. In France, the association of organic processors SYNABIO has launched an
initiative "bio-entreprise-durable", alledgedly based on the
principles of ISO 26000 standard, with a wider scope: sustainability, social
and environmental responsibility, authenticity of products, territorial development,
etc. (b)
Presence of non-authorised
substance residues The presence of non-authorised substance
residues in organic products will become an increasing issue, because the detection level is getting lower and lower thanks to
evolving methods of analysis and the detection rate will become higher.
Therefore, the share of organic products where non-authorised substance
residues are found is likely to increase, while consumer sensitivity, notably
on pesticide residues, is already high. (c)
Co-existence of other logos with the
EU logo Because
of watered down organic production rules, new logos are likely to develop
and to increase consumer confusion, notably
production rules are considered too flexible, which leads some producers to
create private schemes with more stringent rules. Other new schemes can result
from societal concerns not sufficiently taken into account in the EU organic
scheme. The
proliferation of logos (see examples in Annex 8) leads to consumer confusion
and can lead to costly multiple certification requirements. In some cases it
disrupts trade between MS, which is an obstacle to the development of organic farming
in some MS, where there are still few processors and traders. If
nothing changes, after 31 December 2014 the case of
private and national organic logos will fall under the
provisions on food information to consumers[50], according to which
"food information shall not be misleading, particularly by suggesting that
the food possesses special characteristics when in fact all similar foods possess
such characteristics…". At the same time, Article 34 of Council Regulation
(EC) No 834/2007 prohibits any restriction to the marketing of organic products
produced and controlled in another MS, in so far as those products meet the
requirement of the Regulation. (d)
Control system Fraud cases will continue to develop
because of the shortcomings in the control system and in the import regime. At the time of writing this report, the Commission was informed
about new fraud cases in the poultry sector. However,
there will be a number of improvements as from 1.1.2014 through the application
of Commission Regulation (EC) No 392/2013 and, when approved, through the new OFFC
Regulation. (e)
Import regime The
import regime will become even more complex and burdensome. From 2014, the Commission will have to implement the second regime
of recognition of CBs based on compliance, according to Article 32 of Council
Regulation (EC) No 834/2007, but there are obstacles: notably the existence of
provisions, notably the exceptions, where MS can decide, and the fact that
group certification is not authorised in the EU. Therefore the Commission will
have to propose a set of production rules to apply compliance. In addition,
Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 does not give the basis to require the
information in order to ensure the traceability on the whole food chain of
imported organic products under the compliance regime (it is provided with the
inspection certificate under the equivalence regime). Therefore the
implementation of the compliance regime under the current legislation will be
weakened. In addition, the interest to have two systems in parallel is limited.
On
the other hand, the wide possibilities offered to third countries to export
organic products to the EU thanks to the CB equivalence regime has already
lowered the pressure from third countries to be recognised for the purpose of
equivalence. No new request has been submitted to the Commission since the
application of the new CB regime. (f)
Issue of presence of non-authorised
substance residues More
and more MS and private initiatives to address the issue will be taken, leading
to different requirements (some may do not require any investigations for
instance) and different thresholds. It will lead to more and more unfair
competition and to dysfunctionings of the internal market, notably because importers
will be inclined to choose to import organic products from third countries through
the MS with the lowest requirements. 2.6.3. Socio-economic
impacts of the current legislation Organic farming is developing at the
expenses of conventional agriculture. However, organic farming would be more
profitable per unit of production (ha or cow) than conventional
agriculture, according to the results of an analysis of FADN data on selected
MS[51]. In addition, they are
more labour intensive than conventional ones. This is confirmed by data
from the Agence Bio, according to which organic farms represented 3.8% of the
UAA and 4.7% of the farms, but 7% of the agricultural employment in France at the end of 2012. Therefore, in this impact analysis it is considered that
conversions to organic farming have global positive socio-economic impacts,
both on farm income and on employment. In the baseline scenario, the current
average annual increase of 500 000 ha in the organic land area will
be difficult to maintain. The increase in the number of organic farms is likely
to slow down as well as the associated employment. The evolution of the income of organic
farmers is difficult to forecast, because it depends on multiple factors,
notably: -
on the price paid for the agricultural products,
which is higher for organic than for conventional products. But the competition
(sometimes unfair competition) with imported products is likely to push prices
down, -
on input costs, which are likely to stay lower
in organic than in conventional agriculture, -
on public support, whose evolution will depend
on the way MS decide to apply the new CAP instruments benefiting to organic
farming: greening, specific and general RD measures. 2.6.4. Environmental
impacts Organic farming has positive environmental
effects: -
positive impacts on biodiversity derived from
general organic production practices resulting in increasing abundance of
plants, birds and predatory insects, -
positive impacts on water quality thanks to positive
direct and indirect effects of the production rules, even if there is no direct
requirement regarding water use. -
positive impacts on soil health and quality,
which are enhanced through the obligation to use organic fertilisers and
manure, and to practise crop rotation. In the baseline scenario, these positive
environmental effects are limited because of the limitation to the expansion of
the organic land area. 2.7. Does
the EU have the right to act? The basis for the CAP is formulated in the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, where
article 38 stipulates that “The Union shall define and implement a common
agriculture and fisheries policy” with objectives set out in article 39 and
detailed provisions in articles 40-44. The Lisbon Treaty has confirmed the
relevance of CAP objectives of increasing agricultural productivity, ensuring a
fair standard of living for the agricultural community, stabilising markets,
assuring the availability of supplies and ensuring that supplies reach
consumers at reasonable prices. The current exercise is an updating of
an existing scheme set within the CAP. The first
Regulation on Organic Farming was introduced in 1991 in the context of the
reorientation of the CAP to encourage diversification of agricultural
production and more environmentally friendly production methods. The
development of specific products was to benefit the rural economy, particularly
in less-favoured or remote areas, both by improving the income of farmers and
by retaining the rural population in these areas. Production and trade of agricultural
products and foodstuffs on the internal market and ensuring the integrity of
the internal market are matters of EU competence. Both are EU shared
competences with MS. An EU-wide scheme is more efficient than 28
different schemes in view of the smooth development of the single market. In
addition, it allows for a stronger and more consistent trade policy vis-à-vis
global trading partners, most notably by enhancing its bargaining power. Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007
provides that MS can grant exceptions to the rules in precised framework defined in Article 22. The experience, illustrated in chapter 2.5, has shown that this
leads to unfair competition among producers in different MS, risk of loss of
consumer confidence, complexity in the legislation and trade issues
(difficulties to implement compliance). Further harmonisation at EU level would
therefore be appropriate in this area. The fact that the same non-compliance to EU
organic legislation can lead to different actions according to MS is an issue
leading to unfair competition and ineffective functioning of the single market.
While the definition of sanctions is under MS competence, it would be
appropriate to define at EU level broad categories of non-compliances that
would require adequate levels of intervention, in particular, the cases where
products cannot keep their organic status. This has to be consistent with the review
of the OFFC Regulation mentioned in chapter 2.3.
3.
Objectives
3.1. General objectives and
consistency with new CAP objectives The overarching objective of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 is
the basis for the sustainable development of organic
farming. According to this objective, the development
of organic farming is expected to deliver at three levels which correspond to
key objectives of sustainable development[52]:
-
economical;
according to whereas (3), "the Community legal framework governing the
sector of agricultural production… should further aim at providing conditions
under which this sector can progress in line with production and market
developments"; -
environmental;
this is stated in whereas (1): "the organic production method… delivers
public goods contributing to the protection of the environment and animal
welfare…"; -
social, by
responding to consumer's qualitative and quantitative demand for organic
products, and to society's demand for more environmental-friendly production
methods; whereas (1) mentions the "preference for certain consumers for
products produced using natural substances and processes" and "the
organic production method… provides for a specific market responding to a
consumer demand for organic products…". While the new CAP represents a further step
towards greener practices in agriculture, the existence of an organic farming
scheme at EU level is still fully justified, notably because of the gap between
the requirements for farmers to benefit from the greening payments and what is
required under the EU organic farming legislation. Organic farming is a
holistic approach which encompasses economic, social and environmental aspects
of agriculture. The development of organic production is based on the organic
market development and includes the whole food chain. Organic products are
identified on the market notably through the EU organic logo. In accordance with the 2014-2020 Common
Monitoring and Evaluation Framework for the CAP, the organic scheme contributes
to the following general objectives under Pillar I of the CAP: -
"Sustainable management of natural
resources and climate action" by providing public goods (mostly
environmental) and by pursuing "climate change mitigation and
adaptation", -
"Viable food production" by
"meeting consumers expectations" and by "improving the
competitiveness of the agricultural sector and enhancing the share in the food-chain".
In addition, it contributes to the general
objective "sustainable management of natural resources and climate
action" by restoring, preserving and enhancing ecosystems under Pillar II
of the CAP. The three following
objectives of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 participate to the overall
objective of sustainable development: (1)
ensuring the effective functioning of the
internal market,, (2)
guaranteeing fair competition, (3)
ensuring consumer confidence and protecting
consumer interests. The external evaluation has made some
recommendations to further clarify the legal status of the objectives[53] (Article 1) and
principles of organic production (Article 3 to 7). A thorough examination of
the nature of the objectives and principles of organic farming has shown that
both categories could be merged under a single heading: "principles",
which should be reflected in the new basic Act. 3.2. Specific and operational objectives The above
problem definition and its drivers lead to the setting of the following
objectives: Specific
objectives
to remove obstacles to the development of
organic production in the EU,
to improve the legislation in order to
guarantee fair competition for producers and to improve the functioning of
the internal market,
to maintain or to improve consumer
confidence in organic products.
In addition, given the high administrative
burden entailed by the EU legislation, the objective of simplification has been
considered as a fourth specific objective for the review. Operational objectives (1)
to define clear and unambiguous
production rules to improve fair competition, to improve
consumer confidence and to simplify the legislation. The end of the exceptions
to the rules will remove an obstacle to the implementation of compliance to the
EU rules in third countries, (2)
to implement a risk-based control system to improve the efficiency of the control
system, to address remaining issues regarding the coverage of the control
system. This will allow a better control of riskier operators, thus limiting
the fraud cases and contributing to consumers' confidence. It should also lead
to lower certification costs, thus reducing an obstacle to join the organic sector.
It contributes to all specific objectives, (3)
to harmonise the approach in case of
presence of non-authorised substance residues in organic products to make sure that similar situations do not
lead to different actions. It will improve fair competition, (4)
to simplify the administrative
requirements in particular for small farmers in the EU to remove obstacles for small farmers to
join the EU organic sector, (5)
to implement a single and reliable system
of recognition of CBs in third countries to ensure a proper supervision of CBs in
TCs, to ensure that the controls are effective, to ensure a level playing field
for EU producers. It corresponds to the objectives of improving consumer
confidence and guaranteeing fair competition. The limitation to one system
only will simplify the implementation for the Commission, CBs, operators in
third countries and EU importers. (6)
to establish a balanced trade regime to ensure that EU organic producers have
the best possible access to third country markets, thus reducing an obstacle to
the development of organic production in the EU. (7)
to clarify labelling rules to lower the burden of producers, to avoid
consumer confusion. (8)
to integrate evolving societal concerns to addressed management of environmental
performance by processors and traders of organic products and animal welfare
concerns. It will make schemes competing with the EU organic scheme less
attractive, thus contributing to limit the obligation for producers to be
certified according to several schemes to get access to different markets. (9)
to improve transparency and information
on the sector and on organic trade for producers (tools), decision takers
(statistics)
4.
Policy options
The impacts of three broad coherent policy
options have been analysed in details. They are based
on three possible solutions to address the identified problem, according to
suggestions heard in the hearings and the consultations. They are also based on
three different long-term visions of the organic sector. The improved status
quo option is based on the approach that has been followed in the last twenty
years. The market-driven option aims at providing the
conditions to respond dynamically to further market developments. The
principle-driven option aims at re-focussing organic farming on its principles. On the question of exceptions to the rules,
option 2 proposes the integration of exceptions as permanent rules in the
legislation, while option 3 proposes to remove exceptions. Alternative
intermediate options which would remove only part of the exceptions have not
been considered for the analysis, because all exceptions are granted for
economical reasons (if producers cannot fulfil the requirements for organic
production, the products can be sold as conventional at lower price). It is
therefore difficult to consider some of them as essential and others as
superfluous. But keeping or removing the exceptions correspond to different
orientations for the organic sector. Measures that are not essential for the
consistency of the options are presented as sub-options. 4.1. Policy option 1: improved status quo Option 1 proposes improvements and better enforcement of the current legislation,
considered as a minimum to address the identified issues. It does not propose
any significant change in the policy orientations. For instance, the current
system of exceptions is kept. Therefore, there is no need for an action plan to
accompany the sector to adapt. Option 1 addresses the following issues: – complex and unclear provisions on production and labelling rules, – shortcomings in the control system, notably on the following issues:
traceability and the presence of non-authorised substance residues, – obstacles to conversion to organic farming, since a clearer
legislation would be more attractive. In addition, option 1.A addresses the issue
of uncomplete coverage of the control system. During the consultation process, option 1 was
supported by the main stakeholders IFOAM EU and COPA-COGECA. However, both have
moved since then towards a more principle-driven approach (see Annex 2). EOCC supported
option 1, because of the expected better application of the production rules,
better controls and better supervision, as well as the advantages of electronic
certification. Keeping the obligatory annual inspection seems an essential
point for EOCC: "the installation of an efficient and meaningful
risk-based inspection system does not forcibly need to include the abandon of
the annual inspection for each operator". The
instruments proposed are the following: A
Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council to replace Council
Regulation (EC) No 834/2007: – to clarify the status of objectives and principles of organic
farming, – to clarify the scope of the legislation by listing precisely
processed agricultural products intended for food and not included in Annex I
to the Treaty, which can be labelled as "organic", for instance cooked
meals or essential oils. The details of the measures are in Annex 6. – to clarify production and controls rules to avoid ambiguities,
to fill gaps and to remove legal uncertainty. – to clarify the labelling rules, notably by expanding the
limit of 2% for ingredients of agriculture origin not coming from the mentioned
area to 5% for the "EU" or "non-EU" indication. The
detailed of the measures on labelling are in Annex 8. – to remove the possibility of recognition of CBs for the purpose of compliance.
The system of recognition of CBs in place, based on equivalence, is kept. Because
exceptions to the rules are not removed, the MS decision level is kept, which
is hardly compatible with the implementation of the compliance system. Measures to reinforce the control
system – the general rules for the accreditation of CBs will be clarified by
indicating the standards and specifications against which they should be
accredited and the conditions to be fulfilled by accreditation bodies. – the issue of presence of non-authorised substances or products will
be addressed by requiring investigations in case of presence of such residues
in organic products and defining a level above which the product may not be
labelled as organic. While the principle will be introduced in the basic act,
the details will be defined in a delegated act. The experience of existing
initiatives, notably in the MS which have defined such rules, will be taken
into account. As shown in Annex 11, the "baby-food limit" would be the
best adapted level. – implementation of a system of electronic certification to enhance
traceability and control and at the same time to reduce the administrative burden
for operators, CBs, and public administration. It will exploit the synergies
with the Commission's information management system for official controls to be
set out according to the proposal for a new Regulation on official controls.
This system will integrate and/or provide the appropriate linkages to the
existing computerised systems managed by the Commission (namely TRACES: Trade
control and expert system, and OFIS). Possible
sub-option 1.A: – end of the possible exemption for retailers from the control system. Retailers will be submitted to the same
control requirements as other operators and will be subject to a risk analysis,
taking into account the results of previous controls if available, the quantity
of products sold and the risk of exchange of products. 4.2. Policy
option 2: market-driven option Less stringent production rules allow
producers benefitting from current exceptions to continue to produce
organically, and newcomers to join more easily thanks to the integration of
exceptions as normal rules in the legislation. The control system is amended as
in option 1. The import regime is unchanged. A sub-option imposing an
obligation of results on all organic operators, regarding the absence of
non-authorised substance-residues in organic products is proposed. Option 2 addresses the following issues: – complex legislation, difficult to implement, – risk of unfair competition due to excessive use of exceptions, – shortcomings in the control system (the rules become easier to
control), – high administrative burden linked to the management of exceptions. However, the option will lower the
standard, with a renewed risk of multiplication of logos. Option 2.A addresses the main consumer concerns,
who wish products without residues. It corresponds to a conception of organic
farming less production process oriented, but with an obligation of result at
the end. Option 2 was supported by several
stakeholers during the consultation (see Annex 2), notably Eurocommerce,
which considers that the EU rules are only the baseline to market products as
organic and that the Regulation should be permanent on the lowest common
denominator. In particular, an increase in the volume of organic processed
products is seen as essential for the further development of the sector. Eurocommerce
is against ending possible exceptions for retailers to be covered by the
organic control system. The instruments proposed are the following: An Action Plan defining a strategy
for organic farming in the EU, putting forward an
adequate use of existing tools and an appropriate coordination with other EU policies
in order for the organic sector to develop as required by the market. It
includes appropriate instruments to increase information on the sector in the
EU (market, production, added value, trade) and accompanying measures to
improve and increase controls on final products. The main stakeholders IFOAM EU and COPA
COGECA call for a new action plan. A Regulation of the European
Parliament and the Council to replace Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007: –
to amend the objectives and principles of
organic farming and to clarify their status, –
to integrate as provisions of the EU
Regulation current long-lasting exceptional rules granted by MS as
provisions in the EU Regulation; to re-introduce exceptional rules expiring
end 2013 and end 2014; to clarify diluted or complex provisions by making more
transparent the permitted flexibility, –
to draft production rules in a stand-alone document
addressing the issue of readability and making imports possible under a
compliance regime, –
to include legislative measures presented in
option 1, Measures to reinforce the control
system (as in option 1: accreditation and electronic certification) Authorisation of substances and
practices for organic farming under the responsibility of the sector. Electronic certification as in
option 1. Possible sub-option 2.A: –
Introduction of specific maximum thresholds
(below MRL) for the accidental presence of non-authorised substance residues in
organic products. Sub-option 2.A would entail systematic
analysis of organic products and differs from the measures proposed as
improvements in option 1 where analysis remain a control tool conducted on a
sample of products according to a risk-analysis. While it corresponds to consumer demand,
the main stakeholders, in particular IFOAM EU, are against such approach:
"organic farming is defined from the beginning by a process approach
(…) most of the criteria cannot be verified by analytical methods (…) if the
sector is trained to verify the organic integrity of a product by analytical
methods, based on thresholds, market access will be established by those
findings and not by compliance with process criteria of the organic Regulation.
This would turn the organic process quality approach into the direction of an
(end) product approach". 4.3. Policy option 3: principle-driven option Production rules are strengthened by
removing any flexibility, considering that flexibility had been introduced to
make easier the conversion of holdings when the organic sector was embryonic,
but that it is not justified any more in the light of the development of the
sector. The control system is amended to reinforce the risk-based approach and
to further enhance enforcement. On the import side, the equivalence regime is
replaced by compliance, since the strengthening of production rules involves
changes in the import regime in order to be consistent. A regime of equivalence
with third countries remains. One sub-option proposes the introduction of an
obligation for processors and traders to improve their environmental
performance, and a second one the introduction of specific measures for small
farmers. Option 3 addresses the following issues: – complex legislation, difficult to implement, – risk of unfair competition due to excessive use of exceptions, – shortcomings in the control system (risk-based approach,
harmonisation of actions to address instances of non-compliances), – shortcomings in the import regime, with the move from equivalence to
compliance for CBs, – societal concerns with improved animal welfare conditions in organic
farming, – consumer concerns and risk of multiplication of logos, with
strengthened rules, – high administrative burden linked to the management of exceptions. The main stakeholders, IFOAM EU and COPA-COGECA,
have shown interest in option 3 during the consultation process but without
supporting it. However their position has progressively changed. IFOAM EU has
acknowledged that this option is close to the movement's objectives, according
to which "the process approach to organic quality definition and
certification should be maintained and strengthened and the EU organic
Regulation further developed with regard to quality and integrity, so that it
can be an effective tool to move all organic practice close to its aims and
principles". Option 3 was supported by several
organisations, notably animal welfare organisations. (see Annex 2). If combined with the first sub-option,
option 3 addresses concerns about environmental issues, which should improve
consumer confidence. If combined with the second sub-option,
option 3 will remove some obstacles for small producers to join the organic
sector. The instruments proposed are the following: An Action Plan defining a strategy
for organic farming in the EU, putting forward an
adequate use of existing tools and an appropriate coordination with other EU policies
in order for the organic sector to develop while remaining close to its values
and principles. It includes: –
appropriate instruments to increase information
on the sector in the EU (market, production, added value, trade), –
because of the end of exceptions, it will in
particular call for measures to further adress technical constraints for
producers, by finding synergies with EIP[54]
and Horizon 2020 instruments (uptake and dissemination of research results;
better identification of research and innovation needs of farmers and
producers), –
creation of a permanent expert group for the
examination of new techniques and substances to be considered in organic farming
and finally prioritasing examination of new techniques and substances, –
a specific export policy, for which the
Commission will ask a mandate to the Council. Most MS have mentioned the need for
reciprocity in future arrangements with third countries, in addition to
stakeholders like COPA COGECA: "the Commission must pay greater
attention to rules of mutual recognition as part of agreements with third
countries". A Regulation of the European Parliament
and the Council to replace Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007: –
to remove exceptional rules from the Regulation
but possible temporary measures to allow organic production to continue or
recommence in the case of catastrophic circumstances will remain, as well as the
possible exception allowing the tethering of animals in micro-enterprises. Exceptions
will be phased out with transitional periods, shorter in cases where farmers only
have to amend the management of the farm, but longer in cases where the change
does not depend on the farmer (e.g. availability of organic seeds on the market
– in this case a transitional period until 2021 will be proposed). IFOAM EU
acknowledged that some current exceptions (the use of non-organic animals, the
use of non-organic feed and the addition of non-organic yeast extract) could be
deleted or converted to transitional rules. However, some of them should be
converted to permanent rules, like tethering of animals in small holdings. In the case of organic seeds,
the organisation said the immediate deletion of exceptions could have a strong
impact on the sector, but the current revision process should be used to make
further progress in this area. –
to oblige organic holdings to be entirely
managed in compliance with the requirements applicable to organic production, –
to put an end to the retrospective
acknowledgement of conversion, –
to draft production rules in a stand-alone document
addressing the issue of readability and making imports possible under a
compliance regime, –
to include provisions on exports of organic
products. The possibility to establish an export certificate will be included
in the basic Act and the details will be provided in implementing rules. The
export certificate will be a standardised document that could be used by EU
organic exporters as a tool to prove that the product has been produced
according to the EU organic standard and that it has been controlled according
to the EU control system. The intention is to implement an electronic
certificate in coordination with existing documents, notably the SAD (single
administrative document – documentary basis for customs declaration) in order
to avoid the duplication of request of information and to make the system as
smooth as possible. Once the tool will be in place, the Commission will be
able to use it when negotiating with third countries. It should facilitate the
conclusion of reciprocal agreements, since the third country will not have to
implement an organic import system; EU organic products will be easily
identified. –
to remove the possibility of recognition of CBs
for the purpose of equivalence (Article 33 (3)), with appropriate transitional
measures to avoid market disruption and to give CBs time enough to be prepared
to move from an equivalence to a compliance regime. In practice, the transition
between equivalence and compliance is already starting through adaptations of
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008 to apply compliance. For their next
3-year recognition period, which coincides with their accreditation cycle, CBs
will have the possibility to to apply compliance. The new basic Act will
provide that the recognition of CBs for equivalence shall expire on 31 December
2018 at the latest. –
to adapt the system of recognition of CBs for
the purpose of compliance (Article 32), notably by including in the basic
Act provisions requiring sufficient information to ensure the full traceability
of imported organic products. –
to include legislative measures presented in
option 1, except removal of Article 32 on import of compliant products. Measures to reinforce the control
system: –
to reinforce the risk-based approach by adapting
the control frequency so that organic operators with a proven clean record can
be physically inspected less than annually and/or be subject to a reduced
annual physical inspection where feasible. This would free resources that would
be concentrated on those areas and operators presenting the highest risks. –
to clarify the existing
provisions on irregularities and infringements by defining categories of
non-compliance that, by affecting the organic status of products, require the
application of a uniform level of measures by the competent authorities across
MS – independently from the penalties and sanctions that each MS will lay down. –
to introduce electronic certification as in
option 1. Possible sub-options: –
3.A: Introduction
of an obligation of improving environmental performance for organic processors
and traders, with the exception of micro-enterprises. In case they deal with
both organic and conventional products, such operators will have to run an EMS system for all production units where organic products are processed, packaged or
stored. –
3.B: Simplified
requirements for small farmers and introduction of group certification. The details for the measures proposed as
sub-options will be provided in delegated and/or implementing Acts. 4.4. Options discarded at an early stage Options defined by
the use of alternative legal instruments have been considered but have been
discarded at an early stage: –
The use of a framework directive would not meet the objective of more simplification. Unfair
competition issues could arise because of the absence of harmonised rules. Equivalence
arrangements with third countries would probably be put into question. –
The introduction of "organic
farming" as an optional reserved term under
Council Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012[55]
on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs would not
acknowledge the holistic approach of organic farming which is not only a
quality scheme but also a specific way of farming. These options got no support among
stakeholders and MS. The harmonisation of organic production
rules for textiles and cosmetics was considered but discarded because the need
for EU action is not demonstrated. The external evaluation recommended not to
extend the scope to these products. Few MS (Italy) supported this suggestion.
Some of them recommended to explore this possibility (Sweden, Romania, Estonia). Spain called for the introduction in the scope of the legislation of
certain textile products. But most MS were against. Germany stated that
"it should be noted that including textiles and cosmetics would enormously
expand the legal framework and render it much more complex." IFOAM EU
stated that "European standards for textiles, cosmetics and other products
which use the term "organic" must be established so as not to
undermine consumers' confidence in organic farming products." The co-Regulation and self-Regulation
options could result in difficulties for the sector to develop high and
harmonised EU production rules accepted by society all over the EU. They could
also undermine consumer confidence, since the EU Regulation and the official
control system are important reasons for consumers to trust organic products. They got no support among stakeholders and MS. The no-EU action option would bring the EU organic sector in a weak position on the global
market, where there is a general trend towards more harmonisation in production
rules. The use of the international standard included in the Codex Alimentarius
guidelines for the production, processing, labelling and marketing of
organically produced foods[56]
would lead to a similar situation, since MS could decide on national
legislations. The standard is not designed to be directly applied in WTO Member
countries. In particular, the decision-making process is heavy and long and
would not be appropriate to decide on implementing rules. It was not supported
by stakeholders. The inclusion of catering in the scope of
the legislation, was also discarded because the added-value at EU level has not
been proved. The external evaluation has recommended not to extend the scope of
the EU legislation to catering. MS have adopted measures which do not pose any
problem to the functioning of the single market. These national schemes for
organic catering are regularly notified to the Commission and to other MS as
technical standards. Several MS are opposed to the introduction of catering in
the scope of the legislation on organic production (Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Bulgaria, Ireland, UK, Belgium, Danemark, Czech Republic). The rationale for that
vary. Most of MS want to avoid to receive a new resource-demanding competence, others,
like Danemark, are strictly opposed because they have implemented a successful
national system. Other MS (Italy, Germany, Luxemburgh, Slovenia, Greece, Sweden, Cyprus, Spain, Romania) were in favour of the introduction of catering in
the scope, at least partial. According to IFOAM EU, "catering
should only use the word organic according to national rules as there is little
cross-boarder market for catering, consequently a common EU standard is not
required".
5.
Impact Analysis
The
period considered for the impact analysis is 2016-2025, with 2016 considered
the first year when the reviewed policy applies. Between 2011 and 2016, the
baseline applies. This part analyses how the options presented in chapter 4 can
impact the market of organic products (supply and demand). Socio-economic and
environmental impacts, including animal welfare conditions, have been examined,
as well as possible international impacts. The
development of organic production in the EU is accompanied by a corresponding
reduction of conventional agriculture, since the lands converted to organic
agriculture is usually taken from the conventional sector. Therefore, since all
options are expected to entail an increase in the organic land area, a
corresponding decrease is expected in the conventional sector. Where relevant, other
possible impacts of the options on conventional agriculture are indicated. 5.1. Option
1 Supply Positive
factors: unfair competition is reduced on the EU
market by addressing the issue of presence of non-authorised substance
residues, which also improves the functioning of the internal market. Unfair
competition with third country producers entailed by the CBs equivalence regime
is slightly reduced, thanks to the harmonisation of the accreditation system
both in the EU and in third countries. Negative
factors: technical, economic and structural
obstacles to the development of organic production in the EU are not reduced.
The exceptions hinder the development of the sectors of organic chicks and
seeds. High administrative burden and certification costs remain. Small
producers continue to be excluded. The
option is not likely to have significant effects on the volumes of organic
products on the market and on prices. Demand Positive
factors: labelling improvements are seen by IFOAM
EU as positive. "They will minimise confusion of consumers". The risk
of fraud is slightly reduced thanks to the introduction of electronic
certification. Negative
factors: production rules are still watered down.
Private schemes and logos continue to multiply, since evolving and societal
consumer concerns are not met and the production rules remain quite weak. The
market expansion is expected to slow down at the end of the period because
consumer confidence is not significantly improved. Socio-economic impacts The
organic land area, the number of farms and the employment are expected to
continue to increase, with a less pronounced slow-down compared with the
baseline scenario. No significant change is expected in the income of organic
farms. Processors
and traders benefit from clearer and simpler rules on scope and labelling, as
stated by IFOAM EU "reducing the complexity has a positive impact on
social and economic performance". The
harmonisation of measures applying in case of presence of non-authorised
substance residues in organic products improves the level playing field, notably
to the benefit of SMEs of the sector. Environmental impacts The increase in the organic land area is
higher than in the baseline scenario and the organic production rules applied
to farming are identical to the baseline scenario. Therefore, the environmental
impact of option 1 is slightly positive. Animal welfare This option does not improve animal welfare
conditions in organic farming. International impacts This option has the same impact on third
countries as the baseline scenario. However, the introduction of electronic
certification and the marginal improvements in the labelling rules contribute
to reduce paper-based procedures and then to slightly ease organic imports. 5.2. Option
1A Supply As in option 1 Demand Positive
factor: a further reduction in the risk of fraud is
expected. Socio-economic impacts There
is no official data on the number of retailers selling organic products in the
EU, but the change will have an impact on almost all retailers in the EU,
according to Eurocommerce. Retailers
are supposed to face general inspection requirements under the food law and the
specific requirements as organic operators are not expected to generate much
additional burden. However, Eurocommerce has underlined that it could entail
some costs, but without precise figures: "Including retailers in the
specific organic control system will increase the costs for retailers and of
organic products, without adding any value for the consumers. In some MS
private certifiers have already developed inspections of retailers to enable
them to sell un-packed fresh products. For retailers selling only packed
organic products, additional inspections do not have any benefit. This
additional cost linked to the controls would make the organic products less
competitive, and the consumers less interested". Therefore
Eurocommerce is against this option. The
most impacted MS will be the ones with the highest share of the market: Germany, France, the United Kingdom. Environmental impacts As in option 1. Animal welfare As in option 1. International impacts As in option 1. 5.3. Option
2 Supply Positive
factors: the integration of exceptional rules as
permanent rules in the legislation leads to more flexible rules; more
conversions are expected at the beginning of the period, leading to more
volumes on the market. Negative
factors: flexible rules fuel competition with
imported products and prices paid to the producers decline. The sector becomes
progressively less attractive. Some organic producers fully applying organic
principles (not using exceptions) leave progressively the sector to join or to
create private quality schemes. The
development of the production of "organic inputs", notably organic
chicks and organic seeds reduces, because rules provide flexibility to use
non-organic ones. According to IFOAM EU: "investments and efforts of
operators willing to overcome these exceptional rules would be frustrated if all
exceptions were made permanent." The
situation for small farms does not improve. Demand Positive
factors: the volume of organic products on the
market is likely to increase and prices to decline, depending on how the variations
of price are transmitted along the food chain. Negative
factors: watered down rules which do not integrate
societal and consumer concerns, as mentioned by IFOAM EU: "including
all current long lasting exceptional rules would have a negative impact at
consumers' perception level." New
schemes and logos are likely to multiply, fuelling consumer confusion. This
will lead to some erosion of consumer confidence. It is difficult to estimate
if lower prices can compensate for the loss of confidence. Socio-economic impacts An
increase in the number of conventional farms converting to organic is expected at
the beginning of the period. Therefore, the number of farms and the employment
in organic farms increases at the beginning of the period, but slows down at
the end. The
gross-margins and income should decrease at the end of the period because of
lower prices paid to producers, under the pressure of imports. Organic
processors are supported by lower prices of raw materials, but they are
affected by the market deterioration at the end of the period. Organic
seeds and vegetative propagating material and organic chicks producers will be
negatively impacted in this option. Producers in MS which have developed
national rules for organic chicks (e.g. Danemark) will face unfair competition.
Environmental impacts The option is expected to be slightly
positive in comparison with the baseline scenario. The integration of
exceptions leads to less environmentally friendly practices. For instance, the
proportion of use of non-organic seeds is likely to increase and the benefits
associated with the cultivation of these organic seeds will be lost. But it is
compensated by a further increase in the land area. Animal welfare The integration in the legislation of
exceptional rules allowing for dehorning, tethering of animals in small
holdings, indoors final fattening phase of adult bovines for meat production
leads to the deterioration of animal welfare conditions. Producers will have
some flexibility to apply such derogations without individual or collective
exemption. International impacts An easing in imports, but obstacles on the
export side, is expected. Since production rules are less stringent, third
countries are more reluctant to recognise the EU as equivalent. Some
concluded agreements/arrangements with third countries can be questioned. Example: equivalence arrangement between the EU and the U.S. The EU and US have recognised each other's organic production rules and control systems as equivalent under their respective rules. This equivalence arrangement took effect on 1 June 2012. The arrangement was concluded in the form of an exchange of letters between both administrations. According to these letters, the European Commission must notify the US administration in a timely manner of any proposed EU legislation that would modify any of the EU regulations referred to in the arrangement. A new assessment of the equivalence of the new EU legislation with the US legislation should be carried out jointly by both administrations. The discussions and decisions on the assessment of the equivalence would take place in the framework of the EU-US Organics Working Group that was set up by the arrangement. The group consists of representatives of USDA and USTR on the US side and representatives of the European Commission on the EU side. The group meets periodically by conference call or videoconference and holds an annual meeting in Brussels or Washington DC. Its main task is to enhance regulatory and standards co-operation between the EU and US on issues related to organics. Organic producers in non-recognised third
countries continue to benefit from flexible rules under equivalence, which
should allow a continuous export flow to the EU. 5.4. Option
2.A Supply Negative factors: a
share of the products produced on organic farms cannot be marketed as organic
because of presence of non-authorised substance residues above the defined
threshold. Depending on the threshold, up to 21.4% of organic animal products,
9.8% of organic baby-food, 11.8% of organic fruit, vegetable and other plant
products and 8.1% of organic cereals could be declassified (according to EFSA
figures – see 2.5.2.3). Extra-costs linked to the analysis lead to further obstacles
for small farms to join. Demand Positive factors: This option would have positive impacts on consumer confidence.
The organic sector could communicate on the absence of non-authorised substance
residues, thus addressing the main consumer concern. Negative factors: according to IFOAM EU, "introducing a threshold that
determines the organic status would upset the basic concept of organic farming
and principles". This could lead to some confusion. In addition, the
systematic sampling and testing of organic products, and the interpretation of
results, could lead to an increase in the price of organic products. Socio-economic impacts The obligation to test a sample of all
organic products lots would have an impact on costs for all operators which
could be significant. The lower the threshold, the higher the cost. There is a
risk that the costs of sampling, testing and analysing the results become disproportionate
in relation to the economic dimension of organic operators. In addition, it
would result in products produced on organic farms and/or processed in respect
with the rules, not to be sold as organic because of an accidental and
unintentional contamination with non-authorised substances. Depending on the
threshold, the share of the production that would have to be declassified and
sold as conventional would vary between 0.44 and 21% for animal products, 0.67
and 9.09% for baby-food, 1 and 10.8% for fruit, vegetable and other plant
products and 0.36 and 7.76% for cereal products (according to EFSA data
presented in Annex 11). Environmental impacts Like in option 2. Animal welfare Like in option 2. International impacts The systematic testing of samples for non
authorised substance residues could entail disproportionate costs for producers
in developing countries. Impact on conventional agriculture Products from conventional agriculture, by contrast,
could be seen as the ones "with pesticides", which could entail a
loss of consumer confidence in conventional products. 5.5. Option
3 Supply Positive factors: new stricter rules reinforce farmers' confidence in the organic
scheme. Organic farmers fully applying organic principles (not using derogations)
are more inclined to remain in the sector. The
end of the exceptional rules boosts the sectors of organic inputs, notably
organic chicks and seeds. The
action plan will contribute to reduce technical obstacles to the development of
organic production. On the export side, a better access to third country
markets is expected thanks to negotiations with third countries interested in mutual
recognition agreements with the EU. The negotitations will take advantage of
tools like the export certificate, which will permit the identification and
traceability of EU organic products. Negative
factors: some producers have to leave the sector
because they want to keep a part of conventional production on their holding. IFOAM
EU considers that "the conversion of the entire farm is the aim and this
provides the basis for fulfilling the organic principles in the best way".
Nevertheless, both IFOAM EU and COPA COGECA point out practical or economical
reasons for farmers not to be able to convert their farms at once. Other
producers have to leave because their system depends on exceptions, as
mentioned by IFOAM EU: "remove all exceptions to the rules today would
mean exclude many operators, in particular in new MS and in disadvantageous
areas". No data has been provided to corroborate this statement. Stricter
rules can be seen as a barrier to conversion, notably because of insufficient
availability of inputs such as seeds in their organic form.As a result the
price of organic inputs could increase and weigh on production costs. This
could be the case in MS where organic farming is less developed. But the transitional
period until 2021 allows for a progressive development of certain organic
inputs. Their development on the medium or long term should lead to cheaper and
more adapted inputs, and to an improved productivity in the organic sector.
Notably, the increase in the size of the market of organic seeds should allow
companies of the sector to invest in new varieties adapted to organic growing
conditions, with expected yield increases. Stricter
import rules restrain imported flows and result in less competition. Demand Positive
factors: the market should expand more securely
thanks to improved consumer confidence, which is likely to progressively lead
to less competing private organic schemes and logos. The potential for organic
national logos to differentiate from the EU one should reduce. Their use could
be progressively abandoned, which would subsequently improve the functioning of
the internal market for organic products. Negative
factors: the volume of organic products on the
market at the beginning of the period could be lower than in the baseline
scenario, thus leading prices to increase. Depending on the transmission of
prices effects along the food chain, higher production costs could result in
increased consumer prices for organic products. The public consultation has
shown that the majority of citizens is ready to pay more for organic products,
provided that the price difference remains reasonable (see Annex 2). Too high
prices would make organic products less attainable for lower income consumers.
Therefore option 3 could lead to a contraction of the market instead of an
expansion at the beginning of the period. However, expected lower production
costs in the medium and long term (see above) should be accompanied by lower
consumer prices, thus reducing the probability for such a market contraction,
if any, to continue over the short term. Socio-economic impacts According
to the most probable scenario described before, the organic land area
and the number of farms are likely to increase slightly at the beginning
of the period, more significantly after, as well as the employment on organic
farms. There
is no precise data on the share of organic farms with parallel conventional
production. It is estimated at a few percents of the total organic holdings in
the EU. These farms could choose to fully convert to organic production, if a
sufficient transition period is allowed, because of the positive market outlook
in the sector. This cannot be corroborated by their views because no specific
consultation to such farmers could be done. Prices
paid to producers should increase. However, because of the end of exceptional
rules, production costs will also be higher (ex: crops and vegetable growers to
use 100% organic seeds). Production costs are likely to decrease gradually with
the development of the production of inputs in their organic form. In other
respects, some organic farms will need important investments to adapt buildings
to animal welfare requirements. Environmental impacts The effect on the environment depends on
the evolution of organic production in the EU, linked to the organic market.
The removal of exceptions to the rules stresses organic farming positive
impacts on environment. For instance, the generalisation of the use of organic
seeds leads to a significant increase in the organically managed land area for
the production of such seeds, with positive associated effects. Animal welfare The end of exceptions to the rules leads to
better animal welfare conditions. Mutilations and indoors final fattening phase
of adult bovines for meat production are not allowed any more. International impacts Existing equivalence arrangements with
recognised countries have to be reviewed in order
to maintain a level playing field for EU producers. The move to a CB compliance regime will
renew the interest from third countries to be recognised as equivalent, in
order for their producers to be able to produce according to their national
rules instead of the EU rules. Imports from developing countries Non recognised third country producers will
have to comply with EU rules which will have an impact on producers in
developing countries. According to IFOAM EU: "compliance is in most
third countries not appropriate because climatic, social and cultural
differences to EU countries(…) this option would lead to negative, social,
environmental and economic impact." DG AGRI has analysed the production rules
applied by CBs in developing countries within the current regime of
equivalence. The analysis is presented in Annex 12. It comes to the following
conclusion: -
most provisions included in the CB production
rules are identical to EU production rules, -
cases where the provisions are different mostly
refer to provisions of the EU Regulation on which MS have to decide, notably on
the exceptions. In such cases, some CBs apply the lowest possible standard,
while other ones apply strict rules. The most important products imported from
developing countries in terms of volume are bananas, coffee, citrus fruit and
cocoa. Animal products are hardly imported. No case of impossibility to apply
the EU organic production rules because of local geographical or climatic
reason was found. Most of the products are produced by grower groups[57] certified according to
group certification requirements, which are considered equivalent to EU control
measures, but not authorised in the EU. Therefore, a move to the compliance
regime without group certification being authorised in the EU would result in
the obligation to apply individual certification, which would entail
disproportionate burden and costs for most producers currently in recognised
grower groups. 5.6. Option 3.A Supply As in option 3. Demand Positive factors: in addition to option 3, consumer confidence is expected to
improve, because it addresses a developing concern. Socio-economic impacts Processors and traders of organic products,
with the exception of micro-enterprises, have to apply an environmental
management system. The most impacted MS will be the ones with the highest
production of organic processed products: Germany, France and Italy. It will entail increased efficiency and energy savings, which are likely to more than
compensate the additional costs, as shown by the results of a study on the
costs and benefits of EMAS to the registered organisations[58] carried out in 2009.
Potential annual efficiency savings for small enterprises amounted to 20.000 to
40.000 Euro, with an annual cost to run the system at 22.000 Euro. For
medium enterprises, the savings exceeded 100.000 Euro, while the annual
cost was 17.000 Euro. However, the implementation cost in the first year
is higher than the savings. For micro-enterprises, the savings do not compensate
for the additional costs, but they are not covered by the proposed measure. The
details are presented in Annex 13. Environmental impacts This sub-option is more positive for the
environment, because processors and traders will adopt more environmentally-friendly
practices. Animal welfare As in option 3. International impacts Processors and traders in third countries (except
micro-enterprises) will have to implement an EMS. 5.1. Option
3.B Supply Positive
factors: the implementation of group certification in the EU will reduce
certification costs for group members after a few years of implementation. In
addition, it will mitigate the burden of administrative requirements, thus
reducing obstacles to conversion to organic for small farmers. It should
benefit to MS with the highest share of small farms: notably Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Portugal, Greece, Italy and the Baltic States. Potentially all
categories of products would be concerned. It could give a boost to organic
fruit and vegetable production, which is usually more labour intensive. A
pilot project[59]
on Group Certification in Turkey, France, Italy and Spain, showed that group certification costs were higher than individual
certification in the first two years but became cheaper in the subsequent years.
It also showed than an internal control system (ICS) does not only serve
organic certification but also has other benefits, such as farmer-to-farmer
advice, quality improvement, joint marketing or promoting a specific
agricultural region. Demand Positive
factors: products produced
on small farms are positively perceived by some consumers. Negative
factors: the implementation
of group certification in the EU could undermine consumer confidence because
controls could be suspected to be less effective. However, even if the
objective is to reduce controls from CBs of individual members of the group,
the system involves an ICS which has to comply with precise requirements. In
the public consultation, 70% of the citizens agreed that group certification
should be allowed in the EU. Stakeholders who
supported the proposal were: non-EU public authorities (80%), consumers
(74%), researchers (71%), citizens (71%), advisory services (70%) and
others (67%). The most significant opponents were private CBs (44%), national
associations (37%), farmers (36%) and retailers (31%). Socio-economic
impacts Group
certification is a way to address small farms' concerns, which proved to be
effective in developing countries. The potential to develop in the EU depends
on farm structures in the different MS. MS with many small-scale farms are Bulgaria, Romania, Poland, Hungary, Italy, Greece and Portugal. It
is expected to lead to further increase in the number of organic farms and in
the organic land area. Environmental impacts The option is positive for the environment
because of the increase in the land area. Animal welfare As in option 3 International impacts Sub-option 3.B allows a smooth move to
compliance for the CB import regime. Developing country producers, including
those in recognised grower groups, will be able to apply compliance with the EU
rules. 5.2. Simplification and administrative costs 5.2.1. Simplification
associated with the options All options are
expected to remove ambiguities and make the legislation more user-friendly,
thanks to clearer provisions. Gaps on the scope, on production rules and on
controls will be addressed. Many ineffective provisions are removed in
the three options, but more in option 3 (end of mixed farms, reinforcement of
the risk-based approach on controls, etc). More details on simplification areas
brought by the different options are provided in paragraph 6, notably in table
6.2. Simplification for small producers has been considered in the course of the impact assessement. By
nature an exemption of controls is not compatible with the requirements of
product certification. However, a major simplification for the smallest farms
is brought by group certification (sub-option 3.C), which allows for
more proportionate inspection and register-keeping requirements. More details
are provided in Annex 15. These elements, as well as the
investigation on administrative costs, have been used to compare the options in
terms of efficiency (see table 6.2). 5.2.2. Assessment
of administrative costs Particular attention has been paid to the
administrative costs that the legislation imposes on national administrations,
operators and CBs. In table 1 of Annex 16, a complete list of 135 IOs
which are imposed by the EU organic legislation and could potentially involve
administrative costs was compiled. MS and stakeholders (in AGOF) were consulted
on the completeness of the mapping and, at the same time, they were asked to
identify and quantify IOs which are the most burdensome for them. IOs relating
to provisions which are currently being phased out have not been considered,
since they are not part of the baseline scenario. They relate to exceptions (to
use of up to 5% organic feed for pigs and poultry, to bring non-organically
reared pullets for egg production to organic livestock unit and colouring of
eggs) and to the possibility for MS to grant import authorisations. Graph 5.2.2.1: Number of information
obligations While 80 IOs are imposed on operators,
the total number of IOs imposed on a particular operator largely depends on the
type of operations: plant production, animal production, aquaculture,
processing, etc. the operator is running. For instance, 10 out of the 80 IOs concern
only operators with aquaculture production. The most burdensome IOs are to keep
documentary evidence of the need to use (authorised) plant protection products
and fertilisers, the control arrangements and undertaking necessary to enter
the organic scheme, to keep specific register of livestock records and to keep
documentary evidence in relation to coexistence of organic and conventional
production. Out of 41 IOs imposed on MS, the
most burdensome are, in descending order, to provide statistical data on the
organic production in their country, to publish up-to-date lists of operators
and to provide a summary report on authorisations of non-organic seeds. Out of 11 IOs imposed on CBs, the most burdensome are to grant derogations to operators for use
of non-organic seeds, to request inclusion in the EU equivalent recognised
Third countries CBs list (the first inclusion has been granted for 3 years), to
provide an annual report on their activity and to verify the indication of the CB's
code number in the label of organic products, which, in practice, has to be
checked each time an operator introduces a new product on the market. IOs related to the obligation to use
organic seeds whenever available, i.e. operating the seed database, granting of
derogations for non-organic seeds (more than 150.000 derogations granted in the
EU annually) and related reporting were highlighted as particularly burdensome
by several actors. This authorisation and reporting system is proposed to be removed
under options 2, 2.A, 3, 3.A and 3.B. Details regarding the assessment of
administrative costs, including a description of the methodology used and the
results obtained is included in Annex 16. It has not been possible to
monetarise the administrative costs and the expected savings under the
preferred option, because of the large number of IOs involved and incomplete
data. –
Option 1 and 1A These policy options do not entail savings
in terms of reduction of administrative costs. It is estimated that the level
of costs would remain the same. –
Option 2 and 2A Important administrative savings are expected
through a reduction of 34 IOs. This is due to the fact that the new proposed legislation
and production rules would require less record keeping and reporting and
because of the ending of a number of derogations and exceptions which are
possible under the present legislation. –
Option 3, 3A and 3B These options are the most favourable in
terms of reduction of number of IOs: 37 IOs would be removed. The reduction is
mostly achieved by putting an end to various derogations and exceptions which
are possible under the present legislation. A cautious approach has been taken as
regard the removal of the mandatory annual inspection. The main objective of
the implementation of the risk-based control system is to increase the control
frequency on risk-operators; therefore it has been considered that it will
entail no savings for the national administrations and CBs. Option 3.A includes the introduction of an
environmental management system which will create an additional administrative
burden on processors and traders, since it will be based on an ad-hoc
certification system. As mentioned in the impact analysis,this will be
compensated by the increased efficiency and the energy savings, and reduction
in burden after the implementation of the system. Graph 5.2.2.2: Number of IOs removed
under the three main policy options 5.3. Conclusions
on topics on which the Council had asked a report to the Commission It can be concluded the following: a)
On the scope of the Regulation, there would be
no EU added value in including organic food prepared by caterers, b)
The provisions on GMOs should be kept unchanged,
since they correspond to a balance between benefits and costs. In particular, a
specific tolerance threshold does not appear realistic in view of the costs of
analysis. The details are provided in Annex 6. c)
Issues relating to the functioning of the
internal market have been identified: - absence of harmonised approach in case of presence of
non-authorised substance residues in organic products: it is addressed in all options,
- use of exceptions to the rules by MS; it is addressed in options 2,
2A, 3, 3A and 3B, - same non-compliances leading to different actions in different MS.
It is addressed in options 3, 3A and 3B.
6.
Comparing the options – preferred option
The three policy options have been
assessed: (1) against their potential to achieve the specific objectives and the
operational objectives of the review. The results are presented in table 6.1. (2) in terms of effectiveness, efficiency and coherence with
over-arching objectives. The results are presented in table 6.2. The specific policy objectives are
better ensured through option 3.B or 3.A, followed by 3, 2.A and 2, because: –
more obstacles to the development of organic
farming in the EU are removed with options 3.A and 3.B, thanks to clearer
production rules, the removal of exceptions to the rules which lead to the
development of organic inputs and to the implementation of the action plan. In
addition, option 3.B addresses the case of small producers. However, options 3,
3.A or 3.B could lead some producers to leave the sector at the beginning of
the period because of the end of exceptions to the rules, –
fair competition and the functioning of the
internal market are slightly improved in option 1,
notably because it tackles the issue of presence of non-authorised substances. Option
2 goes further, because the exceptions are integrated in the production rules,
thus providing a level-playing field among the EU. Option 3 performs better
thanks to provisions to harmonise the cases of non-compliances which lead
products to lose their organic status and to the move from equivalence to
compliance for CBs in third countries, which improves the level-playing field
with producers in third countries, –
consumer confidence is better addressed in options 3, 3.A and 3.B by addressing several
societal concerns and improving the production rules, the control system and the
import regime. Consumer confidence is improved to a lower extent in option 2,
while 2.A is interesting with the systematic tests for pesticide residues. The operational objectives are
better achieved through option 3.B followed by 3.A, 3, 2.A and 2, because: –
In options 2, 2.A, 3, 3.A, 3.B, the removal of
exceptions and the reduction in the MS decision level leads to clearer rules,
which can be drafted in a single and stand-alone document, –
The implementation of a risk-based control
system is better achieved in option 3, 3.A and 3.B, with the removal of the
mandatory annual inspection, –
The harmonisation of the approach in case of
presence of non-authorised substance residues is addressed equally in all
options. Option 2.A performs better with systematic samples and analysis, –
The administrative requirements are simplified
in options 2, 2.A, 3, 3.A and 3.B with the end of exceptions to the rules;
option 3.B addresses the specific needs of small producers with group
certification, –
The single and reliable CB import regime is
obtained in options 3, 3.A and 3.B thanks to the move to compliance, –
Options 3, 3.A and 3.B allow a more balanced
trade regime thanks to the specific export policy; thanks to stricter rules,
the EU will be able to negotiate better with third countries; option 3.B with
group certification fits better with a compliance system, since group
certification is widely used in third countries, –
The clarification of labelling rules is equally
addressed in all options, –
Consideration of societal concerns is not improved
in options 1, 1.a and 2, but in 2.B, 3, 3.A and 3.B, –
The transparency and information on the sector
are better ensured in options 2, 2.A, 3, 3.A and 3.B with the implementation of
action plans, Table 6.1: summary table – comparison
of options in terms of achieving the objectives of the review Table 6.2: summary table – comparison
of options in terms of effectiveness, efficiency and coherence with overarching
EU objectives In view of the result of the comparison of
options, the preferred option is option 3, including measures proposed in
option 1 and in sub-options 1.A, 3.A and 3. B.
7.
Monitoring and evaluation
The Commission will monitor the development of organic production in
the EU through data collected by Eurostat (see paragraph 2.5.2.1) in the EU. MS
are required to provide the Commission annually with the necessary information.
The main result indicators in the Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework of
the CAP are: -
Share of organic area in total UAA, -
Share of organic livestock in total livestock. And the main output indicators are: -
Organic land area (in conversion and fully
converted), -
Number of certified organic operators. The following complementary indicators will
be monitored within the context of this Regulation: -
Livestock (number of organic animals and
products of animal origin), -
Crop production and processing (number of operators
and value/volume of production by type of economic activity), -
Number of exceptions used and number of
exceptions removed, -
Knowledge of, and confidence in the Union
organic logo (Eurobarometer survey). As soon as electronic certification for
imported products will be operational, the Commission will also be able to
monitor the evolution of imports of organic products. This will allow the evaluation
of the impact of the new legislation on countries beneficiaries of
EU-cooperation. The external evaluation has underlined that
"the availability of comparable data on costs of production or intra-EU
trade, which would be required to assess the quantitative impact of various
rules on potential distorsion of competition, is very limited" and has
recommended "to explore possibilities to establish a monitoring system of
the national implementation of the Regulation". It further recommended to
take a consistent EU-wide approach in the definition, collection and
publication of market data (including costs of production) for the organic
sector. Knowing the difficulties to collect data on organic production in the
EU, it would appear disproportionate to require the collection of public market
data. However, the new European research project “OrganicDataNetwork” started in
January 2012 is expected to be a significant step in view of improving market knowledge.
The project aims to increase the transparency of the European organic food
market through better availability of market information about the sector, thus
meeting the needs of policy makers and actors involved in organic markets. The
partnership will act as coordinating centre between stakeholders, and will
result in a proposal for the establishment of a permanent network to achieve
collaboration on statistical issues regarding organic market data. [1] Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 of 28 June 2007 on organic
production and labelling of organic products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No
2092/91 (OJ L 189, 20.7.2007, p. 1) [2] Commission Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 of 5 September 2008 laying
down detailed rules for implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007
on organic production and labelling of organic products with regard to organic
production, labelling and control (OJ L 250, 18.09.2008, p. 1) [3] Commission Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008 of 8 December 2008 laying
down detailed rules for implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007
as regards the arrangements for imports of organic products from third
countries (OJ L 334, 12.12.2008, p. 25) [4] European
Action Plan for Organic Food and Farming Com (2004) 415 final of 10.06.2004. [5] Commission Communication on EU Regulatory Fitness of 12 December
2012 – COM(2012)746 [6] The
Roadmap on "Regulation of the European Parliament and of the
Council on organic production and labelling of organic products – Review of EU
political and legal framework for organic production" was adopted in
September 2012 http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/planned_ia/docs/2012_agri_014_organic_farming_en.pdf [7] DG SANCO (Health and Consumers), ENTR (Enterprise and
Industry), ENV (Environment), DEVCO (EuropeAid Development and Cooperation),
ESTAT (EUROSTAT), TAXUD (Taxation and Customs Union), RTD (Research and
Innovation), JRC (Joint Research Center), MARE (Maritime Affairs and Fisheries),
TRADE (Trade) and CLIMA (Climate Action) [8] http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/organic/eu-policy/legislation_en [9] The
persons who replied on behalf of a consumer organisation are considered as
consumers, while the ones who replied on personal behalf are considered as
citizens. [10] To
check whether some particular sub-classes (by country, capacity, attitude,
orientation etc.) could introduce bias on average results from the sample,
analyses based on groups were carried out: by selecting most relevant classes
no distortive effect was proved. [11] http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/consultations/organic/contributions_en.htm. [12] Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 11 December 2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy, amending
Council Regulations (EC) No 1954/2003 and (EC) No 1224/2009 and repealing
Council Regulations (EC) No 2371/2002 and (EC) No 639/2004 and Council Decision
2004/585/EC, (OJ L 354, 28.12.2013, p. 22–61) [13] Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls
performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law,
animal health and animal welfare rules (OJ L 165, 30.4.2004, p. 1–141) [14] Commission Implementing Regulation 1267/2011 of 6 December 2011
amending Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008 laying down detailed rules for
implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 as regards the
arrangements for imports of organic products from third countries [15] COM (2012) 212 final of 11 May 2012 Report from the Commission
to the European Parliament and to the Council on the application of Council
regulation (EC) No 834/2007 on organic production and labelling of organic
products [16] 8906/13 AGRILEG 56 – Organic Farming: Application of the
regulatory framework and development of the sector [17] Special Report of the ECA no 9/2012 on "The audit of the
control system governing the production, processing, distribution and imports
of organic products" published on 26 June 2012 [18] Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 392/2013 amending
Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 as regards the control system for organic
production (OJ L 118, 30.4.2013, p. 5-14) [19] COM(2013) 265 final of 6.5.2013: Proposal for a Regulation of
the European Parliament and of the Council on official controls and other
official activities performed to ensure the application of food and feed law,
rules on animal health and welfare, plant health, plant reproductive material,
plant protection products and amending Regulations (EC) No 999/2001, 1829/2003,
1831/2003, 1/2005, 396/2005, 834/2007, 1099/2009, 1069/2009, 1107/2009, Regulations
(EU) No 1151/2012, [….]/2013 [Office of Publications, please insert number of
Regulation laying down provisions for the management of expenditure relating to
the food chain, animal health and animal welfare, and relating to plant health
and plant reproductive material], and Directives 98/58/EC, 1999/74/EC,
2007/43/EC, 2008/119/EC, 2008/120/EC and 2009/128/EC (Official controls
Regulation) [20] Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and
foodstuffs. OJ L 343 of 14.12.2012, p. 1 [21] Regulation (EC) No 66/2010 of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the EU Ecolabel -
OJ L 27, 30.1.2010, p. 1. [22] Article 36 of Regulation (EU) No
1379/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on
the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products requires
the Commission to submit, by 1 January 2015, a feasibility report on options
for an Ecolabel scheme for fisheries and aquaculture products. [23] EU Ecolabel for food and feed products – feasibility study
(ENV.C.1/ETU/2010/0025) – Oakdene Hollins Research and Consulting [24] Organic versus conventional farming, which performs better
financially? An overview of organic field crop and milk
production in selected MS. Farm Economics Briefs, No 4, November 2013, European
Commission, DG Agriculture and Rural Development. http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture
/rica/publications_en.cfm#BR2011 [25] Source: Organic Monitor [26] The World of Organic Agriculture:
Statistics and Emerging Trends 2013 - FiBL and IFOAM [27] FoodDrink Europe, Data and Trends of the
European Food and Drink Industry 2012 [28] Estimates of the size of the organic market
are from private sources [29] IFOAM – FRESHFEL, BEUC September hearing [30] See in particular "Facts and figures on organic
agriculture in the European Union" – Commission report, November 2013. http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/markets-and-prices/more-reports/pdf/organic-2013_en.pdf [31] UNADIS (Union Professionnelle Belge des Détaillants Spécialisés en
produits Bio et compléments alimentaires) reported that demand is higher than
supplies. Freshfel (European Fresh Produce Association) noted that the contrast
between availability of organic production and drive towards green public
procurement - discrepancies between political willingness and operational
possibilities. [32] Analyse
der Entwicklung des ausländischen Angebots bei Bioprodukten mit Relevanz für
den deutschen Biomarkt – BÖLN [33]
Source: APEDA -
http://www.apeda.gov.in/apedawebsite/organic/Organic_Products.htm [34] Organic Monitor, the Global Market for Organic Food and Drink:
Business Opportunities and Future Outlook (3rd Edition) [35] Export opportunities for U.S. organics in the EU market - Gain
Report Number: NL3003– 2/11/2013 The Hague [36] Since 2000, the EU has funded 49 research projects on organic
farming and low input agriculture. [37] The full set of reports from the
CERTCOST projects is available at www.certcost.org [38] Regulation
(EC) No 66/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November
2009 on the EU Ecolabel, OJ L 27 of 30.1.2010, p.1 [39] http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ecolabel/documents/Ecolabel_for_food_final_report.pdf [40] Consumer market study on the functioning of voluntary food
labelling scheme for consumers in the EU. Draft final report by Ipsos and
London Economics Consortium. September 2013 [41] Commission Communication — EU best practice guidelines for voluntary
certification schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs. EU OJ 2010/C
341/04, 16.12.2010, p. 5. [42] Eurobarometer report n° 389 (What Europeans think of food security, food quality and the
relation between agriculture & the countryside - July 2012) [43] CERTCOST, Synthesis report, based on Giannakas, 2002, Information
Asymmetries and Consumption Decisions in Organic Food Product Markets. [44] Article 27 of Regulation No 834/2007 [45] Article 65 of Regulation No 889/2008 [46] This is confirmed by the fact that "mixed farms" are
usually tagged in the most risky category by CBs when doing their risk analysis [47] http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/3130.pdf [48] Non-compliances cases on organic products sold in the MS where
they were produced are not included [49] http://www.biocoherence.fr/ [50] Regulation
(EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October
2011 on the provision of food information to consumers, amending Regulations
(EC) No 1924/2006 and (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the
Council, and repealing Commission Directive 87/250/EEC, Council Directive
90/496/EEC, Commission Directive 1999/10/EC, Directive 2000/13/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council, Commission Directives 2002/67/EC and
2008/5/EC and Commission Regulation (EC) No 608/2004 – OJ L 304, 22.11.2011, p.
18. [51] Organic versus conventional farming, which performs better
financially? Farm Economic Brief No 4, November 2013, European Commission. [52] See notably Commission Communication "Draft Declaration on
Guiding Principles for Sustainable Development", COM (2005)218 final,
25.5.2005. [53] Similarly, Regulation (EC) No 178/2002[53]
("food law") provides for the policy objectives in its Article 1 (aim
and scope) and for principles and objectives in its Articles 5 to 10. [54] EIP on agricultural productivity and sustainability [55] Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of
the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality
schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs - OJ L 343, 14.12.2012,
p. 1. [56] GL 32-1999 [57] Louis Bolk Insitute and FIBL, hearing [58] Study on the
costs and benefits of EMAS to registered organisations (2009). Milieu Ltd and
Risk and Policy Analysis Ltd for DG Environment of the European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/emas/pdf/news/costs_and_benefits_of_emas.pdf [59] Pilot Project Group certification in Europe, end report, Agro Eco,
Ferko Bodnár, May 2008. The pilot project was funded through the
"IFOAM-Growing Organic" programme and the "Fund for Sustainable
Biodiversity Management" of the Dutch government. ANNEXES 1 to 8 TAble of contents Contents ANNEX 1: THE ORGANIC SECTOR IN THE EUROPEAN UNION.. 4 1..... Structural
indicators on the organic sector.. 5 1.1. Area. 5 1.1.1. Utilised Agricultural Area
(UAA) 5 1.1.2. Share of organic area. 6 1.1.3. Size of organic crop area. 9 1.2. Organic holdings. 10 1.2.1. Number of organic holdings. 10 1.2.2. Share of organic holdings. 11 1.3. Organic operators. 12 1.3.1. Registered processors. 12 1.3.2. Registered importers. 13 2..... Organic
aquaculture.. 13 3..... The EU
organic market. 14 3.1. General aspects. 14 3.2. Consumer behaviour 15 ANNEX 2: SYNTHESIS OF THE PUBLIC CONSULTATION AND OF
TARGETTED STAKEHOLDERS' CONSULTATIONS. 17 1..... consultation
process. 17 2..... Main
results by topic.. 19 2.1. Relevance of a revew of the
legislation on organic farming and policy options. 19 2.2. Organic standard. 20 2.3. Exceptions and derogations. 21 2.4. Authorisation of substances
in organic production. 23 2.5. Sustainable use of energy
and management of environmental impacts. 23 2.6. Animal welfare. 24 2.7. GMOs. 25 2.8. Labelling, organic logo,
confusion with other logos and Eco-label 25 2.9. Improvements in the control
system.. 26 2.10. Move towards a risk based
approach in the control system.. 27 2.11. Trade with third countries. 28 2.12. Controls of imported products:
equivalence vs compliance and risk of unfair competition 30 2.13. Presence of non-authorised
substance residues in organic products. 31 2.14. Small farms' issues and group
certification. 32 2.15. Information and promotion. 34 2.16. Research and innovation. 35 3..... Presentation
of the main stakeholders. 35 ANNEX 3: MAIN INSTRUMENTS OF THE COMMON AGRICULTURAL
POLICY (CAP) SUPPORTING THE ORGANIC FARMING POLICY.. 38 1..... The
current CAP in a nutshell.. 38 2..... Organic
farming in the context of the CAP. 38 3..... Support
measures addressing organic farming under the current CAP 39 3.1. Rural Development Policy. 39 3.1.1. Support under Axis 1:
Improving the competitiveness of the agricultural and forestry sector 39 3.1.2. Support under Axis 2:
Improving the environment and the countryside. 40 3.1.3. Support under Axis 3:
Improving the quality of life in rural areas and encouraging diversification of
the rural economy. 42 3.2. Market and income policy. 42 4..... Other
national or regional organic support measures. 43 5..... Organic
action plans. 44 6..... Support
measures addressing organic farming in the future CAP 46 6.1. Rural development policy. 47 6.2. Market and income policy. 47 ANNEX 4: INFORMATION AND PROMOTION ON ORGANIC FARMING AT
EU LEVEL 49 1..... Cofinanced
information and promotion campaigns. 49 2..... Information
and promotion actions directly managed by DG AGRI 50 2.1. Own DG AGRI campaigns
through the Council Regulation (EC) n°3/2008 on information provision and
promotion measures for agricultural products on internal market and in third
countries. 50 2.2. Via the Council Regulation
(EC) n°814/2000 on information measures relating to the CAP 51 ANNEX 5: RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN ORGANIC FARMING.. 52 1..... EU
research framework programme.. 52 2..... European
Innovation Partnership 'Agricultural Productivity and Sustainability' (EIP) 53 3..... Results
of the on-line consultation concerning the need for research and innovation.. 54 ANNEX 6: THE EU ORGANIC PRODUCTION RULES. 56 1..... The EU
organic production rules. 57 1.1. Definition of organic
farming. 57 1.2. Scope of the legislation. 57 1.2.1. Commission report 57 1.2.2. Identified problems. 58 1.3. General production rules. 59 1.4. Current situation regarding
GMOS. 60 1.4.1. Coexistence. 61 1.4.2. Facts, figures and recommendations
resulting from the autumn 2012 hearings 62 1.4.3. Results of the public
consultation. 62 1.4.4. GMO Identified issues relate
to: 63 1.4.5. Analysis of options. 63 2..... Possible
exceptional rules under Art 22 of regulation 834/2007 65 2.1. Overview.. 65 2.2. Exceptional rules for using
non-organic young poultry. 66 2.2.1. Legal provisions. 66 2.2.2. Issues. 67 2.3. Exceptional rules for using
non-organic feed. 68 2.3.1. Legal provisions. 68 2.3.2. Issues. 68 2.3.3. Results of the public
consultation. 70 2.4. The use of
seed or vegetative propagating material not obtained by the organic production
method. 70 2.4.1. Legal provisions. 70 2.4.2. Issues. 73 2.5. Issues with the exceptional
rules allowing the use of non-organic inputs. 76 2.6. Transitional measures
concerning animal housing. 77 2.6.1. Legal provisions. 77 2.6.2. View of stakeholders. 77 3..... Conclusions. 78 3.1. Scope. 78 3.2. GMOs. 78 3.3. Exceptional rules. 79 ANNEX 7: AUTHORISATION OF SUBSTANCES AND TECHNIQUES IN
ORGANIC FARMING.. 81 1..... Current
situation and legal framework.. 81 2..... The
process of evaluation of substances and techniques. 83 3..... Issues. 84 4..... Conclusions
and options. 84 ANNEX 8: LOGO AND LABELLING.. 86 1..... General
rules on labelling of organic products. 86 2..... Awareness
of the EU logo, confusion associated with multiple logos 88 3..... Indication
of the place of farming: complex but important for consumers. 92 4..... The
issue of double labelling of country of origin.. 92 5..... Complexity
of the labelling of organic processed products 93 6..... Policy
options. 93 ANNEX 1: THE
ORGANIC SECTOR IN THE EUROPEAN UNION This
Annex aims at describing the most important indicators on the organic farming
sector, notably the land area under organic cultivation and the number of
operators (holdings, processors and importers). A short description of the EU
organic market is also presented. When possible the available data is presented
on a 10-year period, from 2000 to 2010 (or 2011 when available). The
source for the data is mostly Eurostat (annual survey and farm structure
survey). The market analysis is based on data from "The world of organic
agriculture statistics and emerging trends 2013" (FIBL and IFOAM) and on a
study from the Organic Monitor[1].
The source of the data on aquaculture is mostly from the study on "The
current status and future perspectives of European Organic Aquaculture[2]. In
2011, more than 9.6 million ha[3]
were managed organically by more than 235 000 organic producers in the EU[4]. Every
year the organic land area has increased by 500 000 ha on average since
2000. In 2011, the organic land area in the EU represented 5.4 % of the total
agricultural area. The
total value of the EU organic market was approximately 19.7 billion euro in
2011 with Germany being the biggest market in the EU followed by France, the United Kingdom and Italy.
1.
Structural indicators on the organic sector
1.1.
Area
1.1.1.
Utilised Agricultural Area (UAA)
The
area under organic agriculture has increased significantly in the last years.
In the period 2000-2011, the total organic area has increased from 4.3 to an
estimated 9.6 million ha (6.7% yearly growth on average). In
absolute terms, the MS with the largest areas in 2011 were Spain (1.8 million ha), Italy (1.09 million ha), Germany (1.01 million ha), France (977 000 ha) and the United Kingdom (638 000 ha). These countries together
represent 57% of the EU organic area. Graph 1 shows the regular increase in the total EU
organic land area between 2000 and 2011[5]. Graph 1. Area
under organic cultivation in the EU (million ha) between 2000 and 2011 Source: Eurostat Graph
2 shows the evolution of the organic area at MS level over the period from 2005
to 2010. Most MS and in particular the Czech Republic, Germany, Spain, Poland,
France and Sweden, have shown a strong growth in the area of organic farming,
while in others like Denmark, Estonia, Lithuania the organic farming area has
grown to a lesser extent. Only a few countries did not experience any growth on
the same period. Graph 2. Evolution
of the organic area (certified organic + in-conversion) in the MS in thousand
ha from 2005-2010 Source: Eurostat (no data for Malta)
1.1.2.
Share of organic area
Graph
3 shows that in
2010, Austria with 17.2% was the MS with the highest share of organic land in
the total UAA. Sweden followed with 14.3%. Estonia and the Czech Republic had 12.8% and 12.4% respectively. In 13 MS the share was below the EU
average (5.4%). Graph 3. Share
of the organic area in the UAA in the EU in 2010 (%) Source: Eurostat Graph 4 shows the share of organic agricultural area
in the total utilised agricultural area (UAA) at regional level. The highest
shares in 2010 were recorded in regions of Austria, Sweden, Estonia and the Czech Republic, which is consistent with the results at national level. Graph 4. Share
of the organic area in the UAA in the EU at regional level, 2010 (%) Source: Eurostat – Farm Structure Survey Graph 5 shows the dynamics of the development of the
sector with estimates of the area which enters annually the in-conversion
process in the organic farming sector[6].
The MS with the highest land share converted to organic was Spain followed by Italy, France and Poland. Over the period 2007-2010 the area entering the sector
each year increased, with a notable acceleration in 2008. Graph 5. Estimated
annual area entering the in-conversion process in the EU (ha) between 2007 and
2010 Source: Eurostat
1.1.3.
Size of organic crop area
Graph 6 shows that since 2000 the organic crop area[7] has
been growing rapidly, it increased from 2.3 million ha in 2000 to 7.2 million
ha in 2011. Despite the drop in 2005, the overall growth was higher than the
growth of total land under organic cultivation (see Graph 1). The missing data
of France for 2005 has caused the drop in the territory of certified organic
crop. The missing figure for France is close to 0.5 million ha. Graph 6. Certified
organic crop area in the EU in million ha Source: Eurostat
1.2.
Organic holdings
1.2.1.
Number of organic holdings
The
number of organic holdings was estimated at almost 200 000 holdings in
2010 in the EU, which represented 1.55% of the total number of farms. At MS
level, the share varied between 0.3% in Romania and 14.4 % in Austria. The share of organic holdings has increased in most MS since 2003[8]. Graph
7 shows the steady growth in the total number of organic holdings since 2003.
It has increased from 140 900 to 186 250 from 2003 to 2010. Graph 7. Total
number of organic holdings in the EU including in-conversion farms (2003, 2005,
2007 and 2010) Source: Eurostat The
highest number of organic holdings is to be found in Italy (43 370)
followed by Austria (21 080), Spain (20 970) and France (17 620). Graph
8 shows the evolution of the number of agricultural holdings in the MS between
2003 and 2010. Poland experienced higher growth than any other MS in absolute
number between 2007 and 2010, with 8 730 new organic holdings. The evolution
of the sector can be linked to different factors, one of them is the support
measures provided to the sector, which explains the number of organic holdings
has grown exponentially. Due to the benefits of the support measures higher
number of farmers started their organic operation than before. Such is the case
in Greece for example: organic holdings have trippled between 2005 and 2007,
but later halved in 2010. Another factor that explains the evolution is the
better environment offering services, vocational training and research. Such is
the case in Austria and Germany where steady growth of the number of organic
holdings was registered. In parallel, the share of organic holdings in the
total number of agricultural holdings increased from less than 1% in 2003 to
1.55% in 2010 (see Graph 9). Graph 8. Evolution
of the number of organic holdings in the MS (2003, 2005, 2007, 2010) Source Eurostat. Data is not available for some
countries for some years
1.2.2.
Share of organic holdings
Graph 9. Evolution
of the share of organic holdings in total agricultural holdings in percentage Source: Eurostat
1.3.
Organic operators
1.3.1.
Registered processors
The
number of organic processors in the EU almost doubled in the last decade, from
less than 18 000 in 2000 to around 35 500 in 2011 (data
are not available for all MS). The number has been growing steadily
with a slight drop in 2008 and in 2009 (see Graph 10). The reason might be the
slowdown of the world economy or simply a lack of sufficient data for certain
countries such as France and Austria. The
number of processors has increased significantly in some MS, like Germany (from 5 571 in 2003 to 8 905 in 2011) or the Czech Republic (from 109 in 2003 to
422 in 2011). Graph 10. Evolution
of the number of processors of organic products between 2000 and 2011 in the EU Source: Eurostat (for some years the figures for
previous year were applied)
1.3.2.
Registered importers
Almost 1.600 organic importers were registered in
the EU at the end of 2011 compared to 623 in 2000. Their number increased
steadily until 2007 (2.427), but then sharply decreased in 2008 (1.466), as
shown by Graph 11. However the data is difficult to analyse because it is
incomplete. Similarly to the case of processors, the data of registered
importers was missing entirely for some relevant importers such as Austria and France. For Germany the number of importers has sharply fallen from 826 to 242 from 2007
to 2008. Graph 11. Evolution
of the number importers of organic products between 2000 and 2011 in the EU Source: Eurostat
2.
Organic aquaculture
Organic
aquaculture is a relatively new sector and EU implementing rules have only
applied since 1 July 2010. Data available from Eurostat is quite
limited; with 12 MS providing replies in 2010 and 10 in 2011. Most replies
relate only to the total number of production units, which averaged 75 in total
over this two year period. Salmon and trout are the largest sectors at present
and EU production of organic salmon was an estimated 12.540 tonnes in 2012,
which was 7.8% or total production. Ireland is the largest producer of organic
salmon (9.600 tonnes) followed by the UK (2.940 tonnes). EU production of
organic rainbow trout was an estimated 1.717 tonnes in 2012 (in France, Denmark, Ireland and Poland), which was 0.9% of total. Combined organic seabass and seabream
production in the EU and Croatia in 2012 (Greece, France and Croatia) was an estimated 1.614 tonnes, an estimated 0.9% of total. Data for organic carp production
is not available. Organic shellfish production had commenced since the EU rules
were introduced in France, Ireland and the Netherlands. Ireland produced 5.200 tonnes of organic mussels in 2012. France has an estimated 18 organic
shellfish units and nine organic seaweed units. There are significant imports
of organic aquaculture products from outside the EU.
3.
The EU organic market
3.1.
General aspects
The
EU market for organic food products was valued at 19.7 billion euro
with a 9% growth rate in 2011. The EU market is the second
largest in the world behind the US, home to some of the leading organic food
companies. The
financial crisis had a negative impact on many European economies, reducing
consumer purchasing power and raising unemployment. After reporting healthy
growth rates for several years, revenue growth slowed to 3.5 % in 2009. The
German organic market reported a slight contraction, mainly because of lower
prices of organic products. Other organic food and drink markets, especially
those in France, Sweden and the Netherlands, showed double-digit growth in 2009.
The UK market for organic food experienced a 14% contraction in 2009 as
consumers curtailed expenditure and retailers rationalised their organic
product ranges. The above figures of 2011 prove that the market has regained
its healthy growth. The
by far largest organic market in the EU was Germany with 6.6 billion euro in
2011. France held the second place with 3.8 billion euro. This market showed
one of the most dynamic growth rates in the past couple of years. The UK organic market is estimated at 1.9 billion euro, while in Italy it is 1.7 billion euro. Graph 12. The
largest organic food markets in the European Union in billion euros Source: Eurostat and FiBL The
current organic supply and demand situation in EU MS is also reflected in the
numbers of processors and importers, which are mainly located either in
countries characterised by a large organic market, a large organic area or
both. The
market growth rates are expected to recover as the European economy
strengthens. The European organic market is projected to post 7.2% compound
annual growth rate, with revenues reaching 30.5 billion euro in 2016[9].
3.2.
Consumer behaviour
Consumer
behaviour can provide indication on the outlook of the market for organic
farming products. Sales per capita in the MS were particularly high in Denmark (162 euro), Luxembourg (134 euro), Austria (127 euro), Sweden (94 euro) and Germany (84 euro). Domestic sales are low in Poland, Romania and Hungary despite the fact
that these MS are important producers of organic crops, therefore the
production is not intended for domestic consumption. Graph 13. The
8 highest consumption of organic products per capita (annual per capita
consumption in euro) Source: FiBL In
terms of consumer behaviour, a common characteristic in many European countries
is that a small consumer base is responsible for most organic food purchases.
In Germany and the UK, researchers found that less than 10% of consumers
comprise the bulk of organic food sales. Similar observations are made in other
countries like France, Italy, Belgium and Finland[10].
4.
Consumer confidence in organic products
The
organic market has built on consumer confidence. This part summarises research
results on consumer confidence in organic products, which show that consumer
confidence is higher with strict production rules and control procedures: -
The CERTCOST[11]
project highlighted that "consumer trust is a crucial issue in the market for
organic food, since consumers are not able to verify whether a product is an
organic product, not even after consumption. An instrument to gain consumer
trust is third-party certification of the supply-side". -
According to Jahn et al.[12],
"under asymmetric information, process-oriented quality characteristics
such organic farming, animal welfare, or fair trade raise the question of
mislabelling. In the long run, only a reliable control procedure can reduce the
risk of food scandal" and "not fully credible standards jeopardize
public confidence and lead to market failure on a higher level". -
A study[13]
on a consumer survey conducted as part of the "QualityLowInputFood"[14] (QLIF)
research project showed that communicating specific quality attributes
represents a promising marketing tool of product differentiation. In addition,
a study[15]
conducted in five European countries concluded that defining stricter
production standards could be a promising strategy for existing certification
schemes to differentiate themselves from the mandatory EU logo, which indicates
the pertinence of defining stricter production rules in order to raise consumer
confidence. -
A study[16]
on the State and consumer confidence in eco-labelling conducted in Denmark, Sweden, the UK and the US suggests that public authorities should themselves engage
heavily in eco-labelling, because substantial State involvement increases
consumer confidence. Consumers would be more likely to trust labelling schemes
where the State plays an active and visible role. . ANNEX 2: SYNTHESIS
OF THE PUBLIC CONSULTATION AND OF TARGETTED STAKEHOLDERS' CONSULTATIONS This
Annex presents a synthesis of the consultations conducted for the review of the
EU organic farming policy (Regulation and Action Plan).
1.
consultation process
Public
consultation: The
public consultation ran from 15 January 2013 to 10 April 2013 through an
on-line questionnaire. Almost 45.000 replies were submitted to the on-line
questionnaire. In addition, about 1.350 additional contributions have been
received by the Commission. The
majority (96%) of responses to the on-line questionnaire were submitted by EU
citizens, while 4% were sent by stakeholders, the majority of which were
companies (57%) and industry associations and NGOs (18%). The main interests
represented by the 1 827 stakeholders who replied to the questionnaire
were those of farmers (48%); consumers[17] (10%); processors (9%); advisory
services (5%); researchers (4%); national associations (3%); traders (3%);
public competent authorities/public control authorities/accreditation bodies
(3%); retailers (3%); private CBs (2%); public authorities in non-EU countries
(0.3%). Citizens
who replied to the questionnaire can be characterised by a relative high
awareness of organic production: 83% of them declared to be regular consumers
and 15% occasional consumers. The knowledge of the EU organic logo appeared to be
high, with 79% knowing the EU organic logo (compared to 24% following 2012 the
Eurobarometer's survey). The
respondents were asked to indicate drives for purchasing and consuming organic
products. Over 80% of all questioned citizens claimed that the most important
rationales behind organic products consumption were concerns about the
environment (83%) as well as purity of these products with regard to GMOs (81%)
and pesticide and other chemical substances residues. A considerable number of
citizens' respondents also emphasized that they purchased organic products
because of belief in and support for seasonal and local products (78%) as well
as strong conviction that organic farming system is more sustainable than
conventional (74%). Approximately 63% of the respondents considered organic
foodstuffs as healthier than their conventional counterparts. About half of
them underlined that they are motivated to buy organic products because organic
production respect animal welfare. Besides, important reasons that encouraged
almost half of the questioned consumers to consume organic products are beliefs
that these goods are of higher quality (47%) and better taste (43%). In
addition, 10% of private consumers, who responded to the questionnaire, consume
organic products for other beliefs than these stated above. The
majority of interviewees (78%) indicated that they were prepared to pay more
for organic goods. Most consumers also consider that the price premium should
not be higher than 10-25 %. From
a geographical point of view, France was overrepresented[18], with 56% of the
replies, followed by Italy (15%) and Belgium (10%) (see graph 1). The
full analysis of the public consultation is published on the EUROPA website[19]. In
addition to the public consultation, stakeholders have been consulted in
various occasions: Hearings:
The
Commission inter-service steering group has listened to 72 stakeholders in 3
hearings: experts, academics and representatives of consumers, producers,
retailers, operators, processors, third countries and associations representing
third countries, traders, laboratories and researchers, animal welfare
organisation, presented their views and were interviewed by the Commission
services. They were organised around 3 main topics: ‒ The EU organic
market – internal market and standards - 27 and 28 September 2012. ‒ Organic
production - Controls and Enforcement - in the EU and in third countries - 25
and 26 October 2012. ‒ External trade in
organic products and global issues - 20 and 21 November 2012. AGOF
meetings, some of them enlarged to experts who participated to the hearings: ‒ 10 December 2012:
presentation of the results of the hearings, ‒ 11 April 2013: Impact
assessment analysis on the organic farming review: o
Presentation
of the preliminary results of the public consultation on the organic farming review. o
Analysis
of the problem and the objectives of the policy. o
Issues
related to small farms. o
Consultation
on policy options. ‒ 26 June 2013: o
Review
of EU policy on organic farming (legislation and action plan) : information and
discussion on the state of play and next steps o
Administrative
burden and costs o
Consultation
on the impacts of the options presented at the AGOF meeting of 11 April. Special
meeting on small farms – 26 June 2013 Issues
related to small farms were on the agenda of the AGOF meeting, but the
discussion proved to be limited. The Commission Services concluded that a
technical meeting with experts needed to take place in order to examine further
the difficulties faced by small farms to join the organic sector. The
following experts were invited: o
Ms
Diane BOWEN – IFOAM International o
Mr
Edouard ROUSSEAU - COPA-COGECA o
Ms
Ute EISENLOHR – IMO-Institute for Market Ecology (Switzerland) o
Mr
Andrea FERRANTE – AIAB-Associazione Italiana per l'Agricoltura Biologica o
Mr
Dominique MARION - FNAB-Fédération Nationale d'Agriculture Biologique des
régions de France) o
Mr
Michel REYNAUD – ECOCERT- Organisme de contrôle et de certification o
Mr
Nabs SUMA – Fair Organics Solutions Ltd (apologies, but provided background
information) o
Mr
Bo van ELZAKKER - AgroEco / Luis Bolk Institute- Advice and development
services for sustainable agriculture – (apologies, but sent contribution) MS
consultation ‒ The Irish
presidency sent a questionnaire to MS in January 2013. The replies have been
used for this review. In addition, MS have been kept informed on the
developments of the impact assessment process and have been asked to
contribute, notably on administrative costs, in SCOF meetings. They were also invited
to contribute to the public consultation. In
addition, the Commission staff participated to several meetings where the
review was dicussed, notably to the IFOAM congress in Vilnius in June 2013.
2.
Main results by topic
2.1.
Relevance of a revew of the legislation on
organic farming and policy options
When
the consultation process started, the main stakeholders (notably IFOAM EU and
COPA COGECA) disapproved the revision process, arguing the recent adoption of
the current legislation (2007) and that fundamental legislative changes could
have strong negative impacts on the sector. When the discussions on options
started, they supported the improved status quo option. However, progressively,
most stakeholders have agreed with the need for a more ambitious review. Notably,
in a letter sent on 30 December to the Commission, IFOAM EU declared that it
"clearly supports a principle driven development of the organic
regulation, but emphasises that the development must ensure both increasing
consumers trust and feasibility for the sector to comply with strengthened
standards." At
the time of the public consultation, several stakeholders expressed their
opposition to the review, notably the association Bio Austria. Some
stakeholders supported specific options for special reasons. The market-driven
option was supported by Eurocommerce and FEFAC[20],
because feed manufacturers would like the use of 5% non-organic feed in the
ratio of pigs and poultry to be permanently authorised. The association
highlights that a balanced ratio contributes to animal welfare. The
principle-driven option was supported by FNAB and Via Campesina, for its likely
positive impact on rural development and on small farms.
2.2.
Organic standard
The
public consultation showed the wish for harmonised rules at EU level: 74 % of
all respondents requested that the European organic standard be strengthened.
Around 40% of respondents stated that this should be done by making the rules
stricter and/or introducing sanctions (penalties). 22% of interviewees stated
that, to make the current European standard more robust, all flexibility should
be removed. The
majority of respondents (86%), from most of the countries and representing all
categories of stakeholders wished to have uniformity of organic rules in all EU
countries for European farmers and other operators. Online questionnaire: should the
European organic production rules be strengthened? Several
stakeholders called for further harmonisation of the legislation on organic
production, in several areas notably organic poultry production and organic
glasshouse production (COPA, IFOAM EU, Freshfel, Grodan, Danish Agriculture and
Food Council, SYVOFA, Bio Austria). Conversely,
a few of them were of the opinion that some flexibility is needed, like Organic
Denmark and Interfel. They argued that some regulatory differences can be
accepted to take into account the variability of soil and climatic conditions,
as well as consumer sensitivity in different MS. The
issue of feed was addressed in the consultation. 49% of respondents stated that
organic livestock should be fed with 100% feed from the farm or region. 27% of
respondents opted for setting a minimum percentage of feed for organic
livestock that should be from the farm or region. 16% of respondents considered
that as long as feed is of organic quality, it could come from any location. The
majority of the respondents (66%) indicated that the effective solution for
addressing the shortage of organic protein-rich feed in Europe is to introduce
in the EU legislation, initiatives to boost European production of organic
protein crops. In addition, 61% found that a specific organic protein-crop
production strategy should be developed.
2.3.
Exceptions and derogations
Most
of the respondents (61%) were against keeping exemptions from production rules
under specific conditions while allowing the certification of such products as
organic. 29% of respondents were of the opposite opinion. Online questionnaire: should the
exemptions to production rules continue? COPA
COGECA was of the opinion that the conditions to grant exceptions must be
strengthened and restricted, and must be limited in time. At the final stage, climatic
events should be the only ground for derogations. The scheduled end of the
derogations must be realistic and the timeframe must be agreed on in advance
with the organic farming sector, in order to adapt. ERPA illustrated this issue
with the example of poultry and eggs production, where producers invest for 15
to 20 years. Installation of young farmers or the construction of a new poultry
building can be envisaged only if the farmer has assurance that the organic
rules will not change. IFOAM
EU recommended limiting exceptional rules only to those linked to catastrophic
circumstances by phasing out and/or converting them in transitional rules or
transparent permanent rules in the new organic regulation. The movement
indicated that on many issues, such as seeds & propagation material or
protein feed, the regulation alone cannot deliver complete and effective
solutions. The support of horizontal policies, further investments and
provision of resources and the efforts of organic producers would be needed to
ensure real progress. A new Organic Action Plan could include measures
supporting research and investments in the organic sector. According to IFOAM
EU, exceptions can be classified under: 1)
Current exceptions to be deleted or converted to transitional rules: ·
Use on non-organic animals ·
Use of non-organic protein feed of plant and animal origin for livestock (request to prolong status
quo until 2018, then review; to limit the exceptions to piglets up to 35 kg,
young pullets and chicks; 100% organic feed remains the final aim) ·
Addition of non-organic yeast extract (not necessary any more) 2)
Current exception to be converted to permanent rules in the future Organic
Regulation ·
Tethering of animals (The largest part of tethering systems will disappear in organic
farming due to the end of the transitional rules referred to in Art. 95(1) of
Regulation (EC) No 889/2008. IFOAM EU recommends to keep and convert into a
permanent rule the exemption laid down in Article 39 Regulation (EC) No
889/2008 for small operations. Progress is possible in the major part of
organic production whereas some small traditional structures could not be able to
move towards a new system since e.g. the stables are in mountainous locations
where structural modifications are not possible). ·
Parallel Production (exceptions for research and educational aims, for production of
seeds, propagating material and transplants and for grazing grassland are
considered still meaningful and concern only specific production areas). ·
Management of beekeeping units for the purpose of pollination and use of non-organic beeswax (these
two exceptions are considered still critical for the honey production sector.
Pollination is in fact a specific and essential practice of bee-keeping and the
exception is still needed. The use of non-organic beeswax exclusively for the
conversion period should stay provided that the possibility to use non-organic
beeswax is linked to very restrictive conditions.) ·
Specific management problems in organic
livestock (exception regarding the final fattening
period exclusively for bovines is connected to the climatic conditions in many
European regions and should be integrated). 3)
The specific case of seeds and vegetative propagation material ·
The deletion of possible exceptions to use
non-organic seeds or propagating material could have an immediate negative
impact on the sector, because the availability of sufficient amount of organic
seed and vegetative propagating material cannot be ensured in the near future. However,
the organisation recommended using the current revision process to make further
progress in order to reduce the number of authorisations granted by MS,
notably by exploring the feasibility of national lists of varieties for which
exceptions are not possible. A new Action Plan is seen as essential to provide
tools to encourage "organic breeding and multiplication activities as well
as research for this purpose". Possible inconsistencies with other
policies, notably CAP cross compliance, were mentioned. WECF
would like to see a limited number of derogations, where it is about a living
organism the supply of which is not sufficient in organic form (seeds). According
to Euro Coop, organic farming should mainly make use of organic seeds and
traditional varieties of seeds developed in specific local conditions.
Considering that during the last century, 75% of genetically diverse seeds have
been lost (according to FAO), Euro Coop favours seed security and the exchange
of seeds among local farmers. The promotion of seeds diversification enhances
food security and preserves traditional practices.
2.4.
Authorisation of substances in organic
production
The
results of the public consultation show that citizens would like strict rules to
be applied in terms of authorisation of pesticides and additives in organic
farming. In fact, a majority of them (respectively 73% and 67%) requested that
such categories of substances should not be allowed at all in organic
production. With regards to fertilizers, feed materials, processing aids and
products for cleaning and disinfection, the public demanded that they are
evaluated according to strict criteria. Some
organisations showed concerns on the approval of substances (Freshfel, WECF).
Freshfel called attention to the lack of harmonisation at EU level in the
substance authorisation process, which put at risk the functioning of the
single market and the confidence of operators and consumers. A strict procedure
for authorising substances (regardless of the substance, from fertilisers to
processing aids) is recommended, with rules equally applicable across Europe. Interfel suggested the authorisation process to be fully part of the legislation on
organic farming.
2.5.
Sustainable use of energy and management of
environmental impacts
With
regard to environmental performance, a large number of respondents (61%) to the
public consultation requested the enforcement of an obligation for processors
and traders to implement an EMS to measure and evaluate their environmental
performance and impacts in addition to other European requirements. Online questionnaire: do you think that
producers and traders should be required to implement an EMS to measure and
evaluate their environmental performance and impacts? IFOAM
EU recommended obliging processing and trade companies to implement an EMS. Farms and possibly small operators should be exempted. In a first step a primary
simple EMS should be put in place by operators involved in processing and
trading activities, based on the EMAS structure. IFOAM EU clarified that consumer
expectation was not the only driver for this proposal, since one objective was also
to avoid that the Eco-Label extents its scope to the food and drink sector. This
proposal was supported by several stakeholders, like the Bund Ökologische
Lebensmittelwirtschaft, according to which "consumers expect that the
production of organic food is sustainable at its whole. Therefore organic food
processing could not only be defined by ingredients and processing methods.
Operators have to improve their environmental performance too." BEUC
indicated its support for the inclusion "of more sustainability and
environmental criteria (climate, packaging, transportation etc.) in the
criteria for organic production, so that organic products with no doubt is the
most environment-friendly choice". Other
organisations called for a cautious approach in the implementation of an EMS,
notably ERPA, according to which implementing an EMS would be very difficult
for small organic farmers and it would provide dissuasive administrative
burden. It considered environmental performance as the result of organic
production standards. WECF agreed with the introduction of EMS, if the
application is balanced and realistic.
2.6.
Animal welfare
In
the public consultation, more than 60% of respondents strongly insisted on
strengthening animal welfare standards for all types of agricultural production
systems. A third of respondents (34%) underlined that organic farmers should be
obliged to comply with specific rules for animal welfare and 23% considered
that animal welfare standards in organic farming should systematically be
higher than in conventional farming. IFOAM
EU agreed there is still room for improvement in certain kind of organic livestock
production. COPA COGECA was the opinion that more harmonisation in the way animal
welfare standards are interpreted in MS is necessary in order to avoid unfair
competition among producers, notably in the organic poultry meat production
sector. Detailed
requests and opinions of animal welfare organisations are presented in Annex
14.
2.7.
GMOs
More
than 90% of the respondents to the online consultation, from almost all
countries, representing all groups of stakeholders as well as regular and
occasional organic goods’ consumers stated that ‘organic’, by definition, means
‘GMO-free’ and is a critical reason for purchasing these products. This was
corroborated by a high number of free contributions from EU citizens. The
majority of respondents (68%), from all represented countries and also all
types of consumers irrespective of the regularity of their consumption of
organic products (70-80%), supported having the same labelling rules for organic
products as for conventional products with regards to GMOs. Online questionnaire: should the
labelling threshold for accidental presence of GMOs be lower than for
conventional products? While
recalling that organic farming does not allow the use of GMOs, COPA COGECA
stated that an accidental GMO contamination in organic products can never be
completely ruled out. The threshold of the adventitious presence of GMOs set
out in horizontal legislation was determined based on an analysis of potential
risk and an economic analysis. The producers do not see a justification to
establish different thresholds for different production systems. IFOAM EU
stated that, while such a threshold would not solve the problem, it would imply
even higher costs for testing and certification on organic producers, while not
significantly changing the situation for consumers. These views were confirmed
by the contribution from the European Plant Science Organisation (EPSO). Euro
Coop pointed out that the risk of contamination of organic products by GMOs is
only significant in countries whose government has authorised the cultivation
of GM crops on a commercial scale. In such countries, organic farmers run the risk
of having their crops contaminated through cross-pollination, with possible
heavy economic consequences. Some
organisations requested a lower GMO threshold for organic products: Interfel, WECF
(but for all products including conventional), SYNABIO (a lower threshold for
organic products for food (0.1%) while keeping the current threshold (0.9%) for
organic feed products). EUROPABIO
had opposite views and stated that the incompatibility of GM and organics is
unfounded. Provisions included in Council regulation (EC) No 834/2007 were
qualified as "ideological statement". Certain GM crops would be able
to fulfil the organic requirements very well, like the insect resistant GM
crops which require less insecticide spraying.
2.8.
Labelling, organic logo, confusion with other
logos and Eco-label
The
European organic logo was well-known by the public that took part in the public
consultation (79%), irrespective of the country of origin or category of
stakeholders. The majority of all respondents regardless of the regularity of
their consumption of organic products indicated that the two main ways to
recognise an organic product was the presence of the national organic logo
(66%) and of the European organic logo (66%). In addition, a large number of
respondents claimed that they purchase organic products directly from an
organic producer without any kind of packaging or labels or by finding the word
“organic” on the label. The
issue of confusion of logos, first of all with national and private organic
logos, was highlighted by several stakeholders. According to BEUC, "the
ideal would be to have ONE label = the EU Label, and we should work towards
that. But for the present market situation, trust in national organic labels is
so high that we need them as well for the coming years." FRESHFEL
also warned against the confusion of labels and pointed out the proliferation
of “quality“ logos, besides the already large range of private brand logos
available on the market and informing consumers (PGI, PDO, Fair Trade or even
in the future possible logos for European promotion schemes or for “local”
products). According to FRESHFEL, "a proliferation of logos is bringing
more confusion to consumers or dilutes the efficiency of the message. A clear
logo and the indication of the word organic work best for the identification of
organic produce on the market despite that at retail level, organic fresh
produce are often confined in a specific section of the supermarket shelf. Some
of our members call for a simplification of the logo obligation and one should
avoid a double labelling obligation." MS
representatives in the Council showed deep concerns about the confusion of the
organic scheme with other labels, notably with the Eco-Label. Spain declared: "We detected incompatibilities between the EU regulatory framework
on organic farming and Regulation (EC) No 66/2010 (…) on Eco-Label. We consider
it was not appropriate to extend (…) its scope to food and drinks, although it
has not been applied yet. The main reason is that we consider this term
incompatible with the term reserved to organic farming…" and Ireland: "The organic label based on a robust control system is the core basis of
consumer guarantees and confidence in the system. It is important that the
labelling of organic products is unambiguous and such that it is not confused
with other labels e.g. Eco-Label (…) The premium price of organic products
attracts unscrupulous operators whose fraudulent activities completely
undermine the sector." According
to IFOAM EU, the use of the Eco-Label on the labelling of organic products would
lead to food products labelled with EU organic leaf and/or Eco-label logo and
would lead consumers into confusion and to the idea that organic is not
environmental-friendly. This was supported by the Bund Ökologische
Lebensmittelwirtschaft, which recommended "defending organic labeling
as a labeling of an integrated sustainable system against consumer misleading
labels as Eco-label, Animal Welfare, Origin Labeling".
2.9.
Improvements in the control system
Consumers
trust organic products and insist on efficient controls: 71 % of all
respondents to the online consultation, from almost all countries, and
representing almost all categories of stakeholders as well as regular and
occasional consumers of organic products indicated that they trust organic
products. However,
more than half of the interviewees (58%), from almost all countries strongly
required to improve the European control system for organic products even if it
means an increase in prices. The vast majority of respondents (more than 70%),
opted for two improvements, namely better controls on imported organic products
and at all levels of the production chain. 50% of the respondents are in favour
of the creation of a European database listing all certified organic operators
in Europe. More than one third (i.e. 37% of the respondents) were in favour of
the development of electronic means to ensure traceability. Online questionnaire: should the
control system of organic products sold in Europe be improved? The
most consensual suggested improvements to the control system in the free
contributions from stakeholders were: better exchange of information on cases
of non-compliance, more harmonisation among MS, more supervision by the
Commission (regular audits), implementation of electronic certification (at
least for imports), a harmonised system of sanctions and adequate controls on
imported products.
2.10.
Move towards a risk based approach in the
control system
In
the public consultation, half (22269) of the respondents knew, but the second
half (22577) did not know that organic operators are controlled at least once a
year. There was a similar level of awareness among consumers, irrespective of
the regularity of their consumption of organic products. The majority
of respondents (57%) disapproved the idea of lowering the number of inspections
for organic operators with a proven track record of abiding to the rules. To
the contrary, a significant percentage (36%) of the respondents was in favour
of a risk-based regularity of organic operators' inspections. Online questionnaire: would you agree
that organic operators with a proven track record of abiding by the rules could
be inspected less often, for instance every 2 or 3 years? Several
MS declarations in the Council were in favour of a move towards a risk-based
control system: "In the process, it should be possible to implement the
risk-orientation of controls more clearly." (Germany); "The frequency of inspections (…) may be reduced to less than one year in special
circumstances." (Italy); "Details on the risk-based inspection
should not be regulated at EU level, as the conditions and the risks
accordingly vary from state to state and according to the type of operators and
their produce (…) To achieve efficiency in the control system, the requirements
for the annual physical inspection should be waived. This would give
possibility to allocate resources for more controls among operators and
products of high risks and cross-inspections." (Finland); "With a fully risk-based approach, the requirement for one physical inspection
yearly could be deleted." (Sweden). The
stakeholders in favour of more risk-based approach in the control system were FiBL
(Research Institute for Organic Agriculture), according to which the focus
should be put on 10 % of operators with risk of irregularities; the burden for
compliant operators should be reduced by removing the obligation for a
mandatory annual inspection. DakkS (National Accreditation Body for Germany) pointed out the need to intensify risk-oriented controls, in particular in third
countries. The Finnish Food Safety Authority (Evira) considered that lowered
inspection frequency should be an option for the future; additional inspections
should focus on higher risk operators. Several
stakeholders expressed they would like the obligatory annual inspection to be
maintained, notably ERPA, SYNALAF.
2.11.
Trade with third countries
The
majority of respondents (65%) to the online consultation, from all countries,
representing all capacities and categories of stakeholders and irrespective of
the regularity of their consumption of organic products, favoured the opening
of the non-EU markets to EU organic products. According
to 72% of the respondents, the most relevant objective for the EU negotiations
trade agreements for organic products was to support the development of more
sustainable and eco-friendly agricultural practices in other countries. The
second objective of great significance to respondents was to encourage organic
farmers and other operators from developing countries to expand their
production and exports of organic products (52 %). Online questionnaire: do you agree that
non-EU countries exporting to the EU should open their market to organic
products produced in EU countries? COPA
has underlined that the consumption of organic products from the EU currently
outstrips EU production of organic products, and today some demand is covered
by imports. COPA considers important that the EU equips itself with instruments
which will guarantee the development of organic production in the EU in order
to meet EU consumers' demand. COPA also calls for a strategy to reach a balance
between the EU and its trade partners, in order to develop export capacity of high
added value EU organic products. There is a need to identify the most promising
markets. Promotion campaigns would be considered an asset. IFOAM EU also
mentioned that many MS are major exporters of organic processed food and feed and
are interested in the new growing market. Freshfel underlined the EU has a
great role to play in international organic trade, as matching demand on some
markets implies trade (e.g. organic bananas on the German market are 100%
imported from third countries) and indicated its support to the Commission
efforts towards mutual recognition with third countries, provided trade is
sustained behind the agreement on such recognition. It noted in the case of the
EU-USA deal on mutual recognition that EU organic apples and pears cannot be
shipped, given the lack of plant health protocols accepted by the USA. The same can be observed with New Zealand, Israel etc. where trade flows remain
hindered by SPS matters preventing the export of EU fresh produce, being either
conventional, IPM or organic. Several
organisations (Freshfel, FRUCOM) considered that the system of recognition of
control bodies for the purpose of equivalence is a positive move towards
simplification and less bureaucracy to import organic products. But "the
framework needs to be matching operational perspectives and provide trust for
operators". Therefore, there were calls to extend the lists of recognised
third countries and recognised control bodies. Some
contributions highlighted that control costs are lower for local products than
for imported products and suggested to support local products on this ground
(WECF).
2.12.
Controls of imported products: equivalence vs
compliance and risk of unfair competition
According
to several stakeholders, an effort is needed on controls on imported products.
COPA COGECA stated the controls on organic products produced in third countries
should be at least as rigorous as those in the EU, in order to ensure fair
competition against products from third countries and to secure consumer
confidence, even if that would lead to an increase in their price. It
recommended paying "greater attention to the rules on mutual
recognition set out in agreements with third countries where standards are
recognised as equivalent in order to guarantee that imported products adhere to
production and control standards which are a strict as those for EU organic
products. Greater vigilance is also essential regarding the equivalence system
for control bodies for imports from non-recognised third countries where we
consider that the supervision guarantees made by the European Commission are
lacking." Freshfel mentioned the need for a clear environment to
create a level playing field among operators and confidence and indicated some
loopholes which needed to be clarified to enhance trade opportunities (notably
the aspects of cross contamination and of share of responsibilities between the
Commission, MS and CBs). Issues
with imported products were reported by a representative from an informal group
of importing MS, who participated in the hearings. This informal group has
accumulated experience in dealing with import authorisations and has closely
followed the implementation of the CB recognition system. The representative
mentioned concerns over non-compliance product cases not being dealt with,
problematic cases of products certified by different CBs from a non-equivalent
country, cases where the correct assessment was in doubt (in one case, an
inspection of a 30.000 ha operation took only two days). He also mentioned the
following issues: "Imports that arrive via a complex route under
equivalent CB cause problems"/ "Multiple operators on one
certificate, a lack of control over the chain of provenance, and more than one
CB for one operator with little communication between them, lack of risk-based
inspections at operators are major concerns." "Reduced
conversion period is a major concern; this allows operators to move in and out
of the system or to use natural forest areas without proper control, CBs wish
to offer these in order to obtain customers." "Major operators
have greater power than the CBs". It was recommended to concentrate on
problem products such as grain, oilseeds, bananas, soya, other animal feed and
other bulk products, A
trader in organic products reported in the hearings, "Integrity of
imported organic products is easily questioned and control is difficult".
"Residue testing is now a major identifier for the integrity of organic
produce, but the results are never black and white and widely interpretable".
According
to the French processing industry association SYNABIO, "for processed
products,.. the risk of distorsion of competition is objective. It is notaby
linked to additive and processing aid lists, to the use of aroma … differently
handled in different standards". Cases
of unfair competition have been directly reported to the Commission, for
instance the following reported by a CB applying the equivalence regime in
third countries: "While
Regulation (EC) 889/2008, Art 36(2) (b) determines that periods prior to
officially starting the conversion period may be retroactively recognised only
if the respective fields "were not treated with products not authorised
for organic production", and competent authorities in the EU agree that
this includes the use of chemically treated seeds, the equivalent standard
developed by the CB X does not require a field to undergo a new conversion
period after sowing chemically treated seeds." ; "it is obvious that
a farmer in the EU who has to undergo a three year conversion period is subject
to very significant economic disadvantages compared to farmers in third
countries who have to undergo only a one year conversion period".
"…each certification body is under continuous pressure to downgrade its
"equivalent" standard, in order to avoid losing clients". But
some stakeholders like Euro Coop or FRUCOM consider the supply of organic food
products not sufficient. It prevents the growth of the organic sector and
increases the final price of organic products. They would like to see imports
of organic products to be facilitated, and therefore recommend the EU to
continue to favour equivalence against compliance.
2.13.
Presence of non-authorised substance residues in
organic products
Proposition
of systematic testing In
the public consultation, 61% of the respondents wished for all organic products
to be tested for pesticide residues. 25 % of the respondents were against. Online
questionnaire: should testing organic products for pesticide residues be made
compulsory? According
to COPA and other stakeholders, the risk of adventitious contamination of
organic products by non-authorised substances, mainly pesticides, can never be
completely ruled out, despite the precautionary measures taken by organic
producers. However the lower level of contamination of organic products,
compared with conventional products has been underlined several times. A
systematic testing for pesticide residues in all organic products was deemed
inappropriate by many organisations: COPA, IFOAM EU, FRESHFEL, ERPA,
SYNALAF, Soil Association. There was a consensus among producer organisations
on the fact that testing for pesticide residues should remain one of the
possible instruments to control organic products, which can be combined with
other investigation tools. One stakeholder pointed out that the parameters for
testing all products would be difficult to define (would it be applied just at
the farm level, at each processing step, for each consignment, and with what
quantity limit and for which pesticides?). Issue
of presence of pesticide residues in organic products tackled differently
according to MS The
issue has been brought in the Council debates by several MS representative,
like Sweden: "MS tackle findings of residues differently. This creates
unfair competition." Or Italy: "The application in the MS of
different (non-authorised substances) residue levels, beyond which the product
cannot keep its organic status, can create barriers to trade." The
issue has also been mentioned by several stakeholders as one ground for unfair
competition. FRESHFEL mentioned possible distortion of competition and
uncertainties which are notably detrimental for perishable products: "FRUCOM
believes that the European Commission should harmonise at EU level the way MS
deal with cases of cross-contamination in order to prevent trade distortion
amongst MS". Threshold
for organic products: Online
questionnaire: should the level of pesticide residues for organic products be
set at a lower level than for conventional products? The
stakeholders were shared between the ones who could accept a lower threshold
for organic products and the ones who don't see the justification for that. The
level based on the Baby food-law seems the most appropriate to several
stakeholders (notably IFOAM EU, FRESHFEL).
2.14.
Small farms' issues and group certification
Issues
faced by small-scale farmers have been shown in several free
contributions to the public consultation, notably on certification costs: "I
am a small scale (4 hectare) organic grower, mainly old varieties of apple,
soft fruit and some vegetables. The annual fee charged by … for inspection is
£560. This is sometimes more than my profit for the year… If I had 4,000
hectares, the certification cost would be £900!!. We, along with many other
small scale organic producers will be forced out of organic production in the
next 2 or 3 years. … a typical annual inspection takes about 45 minutes."/
"There should be help for small farms to be able to certify their farms
as organic, as now very small farms cannot afford it."/ "There
are too many small farms, which cannot afford the control costs."/
"Costs of certification should be lowered to promote small organic
farming concepts." Excessive
administrative burden was also highlighted: "Primarily, the review
should prioritise small-scale and local production as opposed to large-scale
and intensive production. This includes minimising the burden on farmers in
terms of paper-work…There should be incentives for switching to organic
production focused on the education of the next generation of farmers in
organic methods. This includes providing investment in training at school,
college and life-long learning in how small-scale and local production is the
only realistic long-term prospect for agriculture."/ "Our
holding is 70ha. Small farmers are disproportionately burdened with
paperwork and form filling in relation to their financial turnover. The
EU must address this problem as it is a real disincentive to farm on a small
scale and it is at that level that the best wildlife, community and
environmental benefits can be gained. You need to move to a far more
flexible system of regulation that respects the value of small producers." In
the meeting with experts, the following topics were discussed: definition
of small farms, possible simplified requirements for small farms and group
certification (including experiences in third countries). The
issue of definition appeared complex and opinions on what a small farm is
varied. Several criteria were discussed, which could be combined: income,
labour, size (possibly linked to the type of production). The situation can
vary according to MS (and third countries) because of different levels of
development. Some experts thought the definition should be left to MS or
regions; others believed there should be one single definition for the whole
EU. The advantages and drawbacks of a definition based on the relationship
between turnover and certification cost, often used in third countries, were
discussed. This can be an incentive for certifiers to adjust their fees
according to specific situations. Simplification: participants
agreed that the administrative burden is too high. A suggestion was made to
have a single administrative document giving a full description of the farm and
to be updated once a year. Group
certification: one expert was of the opinion that the current control
system has reached its limits and is not able to deal with high numbers of farms.
Today the implementation of the system is not able to offer the required guarantees
on the products. One example, the control before harvest is not carried out
(too many farms should be visited in a few days). It would be useful to
introduce social control. It could be achieved while taking into account social
relations, rural communities and rural development. Integration of a group by a
private operator is not necessarily the right solution. Another
expert highlighted the territorial dimension of group certification. Facilitating
the conversion of small farms to the organic farming scheme could benefit to
entire regions. For instance, in mountain areas, hundreds of farms apply
farming practices close to organic farming but they are not in the system
because of cost and administrative issues. Group certification can be an
answer. Some
experts suggested to use RD funds for the set-up of internal control system
needed that groups have to apply. A link could be made between RD and organic
farming for this particular question. One
expert was of the opinion that group certification is not always cheaper than
individual certification and suggested that the best answer to the problem may
be to provide small farms with access to subsidies to cover the cost of
certification. The internal control system has to be managed and cannot replace
the external control system. Experience
in third countries: Group certification is not limited to
developing countries. Canada and Korea have adopted such system. In Canada there is no limit in size and group certification is allowed for retailers but not
for processors. In developing countries, group certification is generally
cheaper than individual certification in particular because of lower labour
costs of local staff managing the internal control system. The effects of group
certification go beyond economic benefits and include improvements in the
fields of training, education, poverty alleviation, etc. There are not always
quantitative criteria to define small farmers in third countries. In
the public consultation, 70% of the respondents favoured the idea of permitting
group certification in the EU, which is allowed for organic farmers
in some non-EU countries. There were only 17% of responses against group
certification. Online questionnaire: do you think that
group certification should be allowed in the EU? COPA was
against group certification: "Group certification is not compatible with
the current mandatory annual on-site inspections. As a result, it should not be
authorised in the EU." According
to Euro Coop, an effective way to encourage European organic production would
be to offer a public and free of charge certificate for small farmers (possibly
financed by RD funds), considering that they are also those contributing to the
development of rural communities. The association Italia Nostra suggested that
small producers, while being controlled, could be exempted from the obligation
of labelling their products as organic, for the sake of simplification. Other
organisations were in favour of group certification: Slow Food, Soil
Association, WECF (but only in specific cases: in peri-urban areas, mountains, picking).
2.15.
Information and promotion
A
vast majority of respondents (94%) to the online questionnaire required more
information on organic products. The need for more information on organic
products was expressed by respondents from every single country, category of
stakeholders as well as consumers. A large number of respondents (59%) stated
that they did not know about existence of such the EU's organic farming
web-site.
2.16.
Research and innovation
The
respondents to the online questionnaire identified four areas which should
benefit from more research and innovation into the organic food and farming
sector, namely "Economic and social dimension of organic farming"
(58%), "Seeds and plant propagating material adapted to low-input
agriculture" (52%), "Local production of protein in-rich crops"
(48%) and "Waste management". Soil
association: Research should be directed at improving the sustainability and
self-sufficiency of organic production, and at addressing the limiting factors
to better and more organic farming. There is no need for research into GMO
co-existence – what is required is a proper and strict regime that ensures a
similar level of control, traceability and accountability as the organic system
already imposes, so that GMOs do not escape and contaminate non-GM production
and the perpetrators can be identified. The specified areas for research
rightly focus on applied research to deliver short and medium term benefits to
farmers and growers, which will build increased resilience and security into
food production. Nonetheless, there is also a need for more fundamental
research and within the unspecified ‘other areas' should be improved
understanding of pests and diseases. Organic farming is the leading edge of
agriculture (e.g. energy efficiency, carbon sequestration, soil stabilisation,
animal welfare, nutrient recycling, pest and disease management) and has
strategic importance in delivering the objectives of the Common Agricultural
Policy. Knowledge, techniques and innovations developed through research into
organic systems can also have a significant positive impact on all systems of
farming. Therefore, there should be a specific organic research budget and it
should be several times more than would be indicated by the proportion of
organic land, for the above reasons. Adoption of ecological principles into
organic farming means adaptation to local environmental conditions. The
distribution of research budgets should reflect this systems diversity, the
understanding of which is fundamental to building resilience into food
production.
3.
Presentation of the main stakeholders
This chapter presents the stakeholders (interest
groups, civil society organizations) represented in AGOF. IFOAM
EU Group
is a European umbrella organisation, which advocates for the
development and integrity of European organic food and farming. It has more
than 160 member organisations that cover the organic food chain and
beyond: from farmers and processors, retailers, certifiers, consultants,
traders and researchers to environmental and consumer advocacy bodies. IFOAM
has chaired the AGOF for the last two years. EOOC, the European Organic
Certifiers Council comprises control bodies for organic production, which are
interested in cooperation and exchange of information. Producers COPA-COGECA is
the union of COPA, the Committee of Professional Agricultural Organisations,
historical European representative organisation for farmers established in
1958, and COGECA, European umbrella organisation of the agricultural
cooperatives of the European Community created in 1959. CEJA is the
European Council of Young Farmers representing the interests of Europe’s young farmers. ECVC, the
European Coordination Via Campesina includes organisations that formerly
gathered in the European Farmers Coordination (CPE 1986-2008) and other
farmers’ and agricultural workers’ organisations of several European states.
The principal objective of ECVC is to shape food and agricultural policies
based on more legitimacy, fairness, solidarity and sustainability. ERPA, the
European Rural Poultry Association defends, supports and
develops the production of rural poultry in the European Union. Trade CELCAA, the
European Liaison Committee for Agricultural and Agri-Food Trade is an umbrella
organisation representing at European level associations and companies active
in the sector of agricultural and agri-food trading. EUROCOMMERCE represents
six million retailers, wholesalers and other trading companies. Its members
include national commerce federations in 31 countries, Europe’s 27 leading
retail and wholesale companies as well as federations representing specific
sectors of commerce. Fair
Trade Advocacy Office strives for fair trade and trade
justice with the aim to improve trading conditions for the benefit of small and
marginalised producers and poor workers in developing countries. Industry: FoodDrinkEurope facilitates
development of the environment for the European food and drink companies. It represents
its members that are national federations, sector associations, as well as food
and drink companies in the European Union. Consumers BEUC, the
European Consumer Organisation is an umbrella organisation of 41 independent
national consumer organisations from 31 European countries. Euro
Coop
is the European Community of Consumer Co-operatives, whose members are the
national organisations of consumer co-operatives in 18 European countries and 1
non-European member. Environmental
organisations EEB/BEE
(European Environmental Bureau) works on environmental questions
at the European level. WWF-EPO
(the World Wide Fund European Policy Office) is the
political advocacy center of WWF at the European Union level. BIRDLIFE is a
global partnership of conservation organizations that strives to conserve
birds, their habitats and global biodiversity. LE
FORUM EUROPEEN POUR LE PASTORALISME ET LA CONSERVATION DE LA NATURE
(European Forum on Nature Conservation and Pastoralism (EFNCP)) was established
in 1988 as a Europe-wide network which raises awareness of the importance of
low-intensity farming for nature conservation. Animal
welfare organisations Eurogroup
for Animals is a leading organization advocating for better
animal welfare conditions at European Union level. Compassion
in World Farming is a campaign based organisation to fight for
better conditions for animals.
3.1.
ANNEX 3: MAIN
INSTRUMENTS OF THE COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY (CAP) SUPPORTING THE ORGANIC
FARMING POLICY
1.
The current CAP in a nutshell
Over
the last two decades, the CAP has undergone a substantial reform process, which
reflects the changing societal concerns related notably to the environment,
food quality and safety, territorial balance, as well as to the evolving needs
of the EU economy. As a result of this process, the CAP provides today the
general framework to address competitiveness and sustainability challenges of
agriculture and rural areas across the EU territory. This framework takes the
form of two complementary pillars. Pillar
I – market and income policy – includes instruments related to the functioning
of agricultural markets and the food supply chain and to direct payments
conditional upon statutory management requirements and good agricultural and
environmental conditions. Combined, these measures provide a fundamental layer
of support to EU farmers, creating the basis for keeping sustainable farming in
place throughout the EU. Pillar I measures are mandatory for MS and, apart from
very few exceptions, there is no co-financing. Pillar
II – rural development policy – includes measures that aim at improving the
competitiveness of the agriculture sector, delivering specific environmental
public goods and promoting the diversification of economic activity and quality
of life in rural areas. These measures are largely voluntary, contractual in
nature, co-financed and delivered within a strategic framework which links
policy action to European, national, regional and local needs.
2.
Organic farming in the context of the CAP
For
more than 20 years, European policies for organic farming have been developed
on a number of levels. The first scheme specifically targeted at organic
farming was introduced in Denmark in 1987, shortly followed by other countries.
As part of the MacSharry reform of the CAP in 1992, the introduction of agri-environment
programmes provided a unified framework for supporting conversion to and
maintenance of organic production across the EU. Today there are a wide range
of different policy measures in EU MS that are financed by different funding
sources and that address organic farming in different ways: with specific
provisions (e.g. higher payment rates for organic farming), with partly
specific provisions (e.g. higher payment rates for organic and other specified
types of farming) or where organic farming is at least mentioned specifically
(e.g. as one of a number of target groups) but without any specific provisions.
In the following, based on the results of a previous study (Sanders et al.,
2011), the support measures applied to organic farming are briefly described.
There is also a description of the measures proposed in the framework of the
upcoming CAP reform.
3.
Support measures addressing organic farming
under the current CAP
3.1.
Rural Development Policy
According
to the Community Strategic Guidelines for Rural Development, MS are encouraged
to make use of the contribution of organic farming to the environmental and
animal welfare objectives of the CAP. Most EU countries have followed this
recommendation and provide specific area payments for organic farming under
Axis 2 (Improving the environment and the countryside) of their rural
development programmes. In addition, some MS have, to a varying degree, also
implemented policy measures addressing organic farming under Axis 1 (Improving
the competitiveness of the agricultural and forestry sector) and Axis 3
(Improving the quality of life in rural areas and encouraging diversification
of the rural economy).
3.1.1.
Support under Axis 1: Improving the
competitiveness of the agricultural and forestry sector
In 22
MS or their regions, organic farming was addressed in one or several of the
following 6 RDP measures under Axis 1 in the period 2007-2011. ·
Setting up of young farmers (Measure 112): In the Czech Republic, applications are selected on
the basis of a point system, where organic farmers receive extra points. In
three Spanish and two Italian regions, organic farmers receive higher payment
rates than conventional farmers. Furthermore, in some regions in Italy and Spain organic farming is mentioned as a reason for intervention or as one of several
target groups. ·
Modernisation of agricultural holdings (Measure 121): In Flanders (Belgium), Madeira (Portugal) and North
Rhine-Westphalia (Germany) higher grants are given to organic farmers investing
in agricultural holdings to improve the overall performance of the farm; in
Austria this is limited to organic livestock farmers investing in farm
buildings. Organic livestock farmers along with other groups of (non-organic)
farmers receive higher investment grants in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania and Bavaria (Germany). In Bulgaria, organic farmers receive the same level of support as
non-organic farmers; however a minimum of 5 % of the Measure 214 funds is
reserved for investments required for conversion to organic farming. Higher evaluation
scores are given for applications related to organic farming in Cyprus, Czech Republic, Latvia and Slovakia. Furthermore, various countries have mentioned organic
farming as one of several target groups, but it is not clear what direct
advantage for organic farmers this implies. ·
Adding value to agricultural and forestry
products (Measure 123): In Bavaria (Germany) and Slovenia, projects related to organic food production, processing or marketing receive
higher support rates. In Estonia, a sub-scheme specifically targets organic
farming as well as conventional dairy farmers referring to specific
circumstances of the organic and dairy sectors. Rather than higher grants, a
higher priority is given to projects related to organic farming under the selection
schemes in Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Latvia and Slovakia. A tiered support
scheme is used in Austria and in two regions in Spain to determine the level of
support within which organic farming is one criterion among others to be
eligible to receive a top-up grant. In Bulgaria, Denmark, Hungary, Malta, Romania and some regions of Spain, organic farming has been defined as a
(particular) target group or reason for intervention, but no special provisions
are made for organic farming. ·
Participation of farmers in food quality
schemes (Measure 132): MS have adopted different
approaches to refund certification and inspection costs of organic farmers.
Several countries/regions use Measure 132 to cover parts of the certification
and inspection cost incurred by farmers (Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Estonia, Greece, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, most regions of Italy and Spain as well as parts of the UK). Flanders and Wallonia (Belgium) as well as Greece introduced support schemes for organic farmers in 2011. These schemes are usually
also open to farmers participating in other approved quality schemes. ·
Information and promotion activities (Measure 133): In some MS, Measure 132 is combined with Measure
133, which supports information and promotional activities for products or
foodstuffs covered by approved quality schemes. In Malta and Estonia, only organic producers may receive support through Measure 133. Other countries offer no
special provisions for organic producers. ·
Setting up of producer groups (Measure 142): In Slovenia, financial support is given to organic
farmers who set up producer groups and therewith strengthen the institutional
structure of the primary sector. This measure is however not exclusively
targeted at organic. Farmers producing other special agricultural products
(e.g. food labelled as Protected Designation of Origin (PGO) or Protected
Geographical Indication PGI)) are also eligible for aid. ·
In addition to the measures described above,
many MS have implemented specific training courses or advice for organic
farming under Measure 111 (Vocational training and information actions) and/or
Measure 114 (Use of advisory services). Since both activities are also relevant
for conventional farmers, organic farming is, in most cases, neither addressed
nor mentioned under these measures. Similarly, Wales uses Measure 124
(Cooperation for development of new products, processes and technologies in the
agriculture and food sector and in the forestry sector) to improve supply-chain
links. Whilst the measure itself does not address organic farming, it is used
to finance a project which is highly relevant for organic sector development in
Wales.
3.1.2.
Support under Axis 2: Improving the environment
and the countryside
In 25 MS or their
regions, organic farming is addressed in one or both of the following two RDP
measures under Axis 2 in the period 2007-2011. ·
Agri-environment payments (Measure 214): For organic farming agri-environment payments are
undoubtedly the most important support measure of the rural development
programmes. With the exception of the Netherlands and France, all MS have
implemented specific area payments for organic farming in the framework of
national/regional agri-environmental schemes (Measure 214) to compensate for
additional costs and/or income foregone resulting from organic management.
Differentiation of seven land types is used including arable land, grassland,
vegetables and herbs, greenhouse crops, perennials and orchards, vineyards, and
olive trees. There are large variations in the payment rates for the same land
type across countries. For example, maintenance payment rates per hectare for
grassland varied between EUR 39 and EUR 450 across the EU (Figure 1). Even
greater variations were observed for conversion payments. Differences in
payment rates are the result of a number of factors including different payment
differentiations within the broader land types (e.g. a specific cereal payment
is likely to lead to a higher payment rate than an average arable payment),
different economic assumptions and different cost and income foregone
components in payment calculations.[21] Policy priorities, budget allocations and constraints,
consideration of different bio-physical land characteristics and the inclusion
of (area-based) livestock payment components are also factors. Figure 1: Maintenance payments in 2011 and average public expenditure per
ha in 2008-2009 in EU MS Source: Sanders et al. (2011) High
payment rates do not necessarily guarantee a high level of support for organic
farms. Scheme access problems, as reported from several MS, can reduce the
positive impacts of high support payments. Average public expenditure for
organic support payments under the agri-environmental measure per certified organic
hectare varied between EUR 7 and EUR 314 for the period 2008 to 2009. On
average, public expenditure amounted to EUR 163 per hectare for the EU-27
(excluding Ireland, Romania and England). Substantial differences between the
MS also exist in the design and application of eligibility criteria and
requirements such as payment limits, stocking rates and additional scheme
requirements beyond organic standards which are not necessarily reflected in
the payment rates. It is
important to note that a wide range of options for combining organic with
agri-environmental payments exists across most MS covering nearly all the key
agri-environmental themes. “Topping up” organic support payments through other
agri-environmental payments utilises the comparative advantages of organic
farms in providing environmental benefits and public goods, and grants
additional financial support to organic farms. ·
Animal welfare
(Measure 215): Cataluña (Spain) provides additional support for organic
livestock farmers under Measure 215 aiming to cover additional costs or income
foregone due to commitments regarding feeding facilities or free outdoor
access. In some other countries, specific organic livestock payments are
integrated in Measure 214.
3.1.3.
Support under Axis 3: Improving the quality of
life in rural areas and encouraging diversification of the rural economy
In
the Czech Republic, organic farming was addressed in two RDP measures under
Axis 3 in the period 2007-2011: ·
Diversification into non-agricultural
activities (Measure 311) ·
Encouragement of tourism activities (Measure 313). Both
measures aim to diversify the rural economy through grants for the introduction
or expansion of activities related to local services, products, trade and
tourism. Similar to provisions made for Axis 1 measures, projects related to
organic farming are awarded higher points in the Czech Republic which may
increase the likelihood to receive support. References to organic farming are
also made in Hungary under RDP measure 313.
3.2.
Market and income policy
Besides
rural development programmes, some EU MS provide financial support for organic
farmers in the framework of Article 68 of Regulation (EC) 73/2009 as well as
top-ups in the Common Market Organisation for fruit and vegetables. The
EU rules for direct support schemes under the CAP Pillar 1[22] allow
MS to support specific types of farming and quality (so-called ˈArticle 68
measureˈ). France is using this measure – instead of RDP Measure 214
(agri-environment schemes)[23]
– for conversion and maintenance payments for organic farming. Romania is following a dual approach: while maintenance payments are paid under RDP Measure
214, Article 68 is used to finance conversion payments. In Denmark, the current RDP extensification scheme under Measure 214, which provides area payments for
organic farmers, is stepwise replaced by a similar Article 68 measure. In
addition Greece, Italy, Spain and Sweden have also implemented specific support
to farmers for improving the quality of agricultural products. These schemes
are targeted not only at organic farmers, but also at farmers participating in
other food quality schemes. The Fruit
and Vegetables Regime of CAP Pillar 1 aims to increase the use of
environmentally-friendly cultivation and production techniques. To receive a
grant, producer organisations have to prepare an operational programme in which
they describe how their activities contribute to the specific national goals
defined in the national strategies for sustainable operational programmes.
Specific provisions are made for organic producer organisations. The Community
co-financing rate for organic production in the operational programmes is 60 %
of the eligible costs (usually 50 %) with a maximum financial contribution of
4.1 % of the total value of marketed produce. In general, support for the
environmental actions covers additional costs and income foregone resulting from
that action. Several MS have, however, made country-specific provisions
regarding the type of eligible costs related to organic farming. In Belgium, Ireland, the Netherlands and Sweden, only expenditure for specific equipment or means of
production is eligible for aid (e.g. for packing and storing of organic
products, use of organic dung and compost, etc.). Support for training and
advisory costs are granted in Germany and Austria. The Czech Republic provides support for planting new organic orchards. In Spain, financial support is
either given as a per-hectare payment or is based on invoices for specific cost
items.
4.
Other national or regional organic support
measures
MS
and regions have also introduced a wide range of other national and/or regional
policy instruments not (co-)financed by the EU (see Figure 2). Examples include
financial support for producing, processing and marketing organic products, a
range of communication policies as well as support for research projects
related to organic farming. In many cases, the identified measures have some
similarities to those implemented under rural development programmes. This is
particularly the case for investment aids, marketing aids and support for
training programmes and advisory services. Some of them could probably also be
financed under the RDP Measures 111, 114, 121 and 123. Clearly, some MS forgo
the opportunity of co-financing these measures through the EU in order to
retain greater flexibility in programme planning and implementation or to avoid
reporting duties. Figure 2: Overview
of identified national or regional public measures addressing organic farming
which are not (co-) funded by the EAFRD or EAGF in 2007-2011 Source: Sanders et al. (2011)
5.
Organic action plans
National
or regional organic action plans provide a strategic instrument to coordinate
different supply-push and demand-pull instruments tailored to local conditions.
In total, 17 national and 10 regional action plans or similar support schemes
that have been implemented since 2007 were identified in EU MS (Table 1). In
many cases, action plans bundle CAP measures and complementary
national/regional measures not (co-) funded by the EU. The action plans differ
substantially with respect to policy targets, running period, types of actions
specified, financial resources, number of previous action plans, and initial
year of implementation reflecting different support strategies and
developmental stages of the EU’s national/regional organic sectors. Table 1: Overview of organic action plans or similar support schemes in
EU MS implemented in 2007-2011 Source: Sanders et al. (2011)
6.
Support measures addressing organic farming in
the future CAP
The
CAP framework explained under section 1 above responded to the challenges EU
agriculture faced during the past two decades. However, for the policy to
remain relevant, the framework under which it functions has to prove itself
capable also to address the evolution which EU agriculture is expected to face
in the current decade: economic, environmental and climate change pressures as
well as the territorial aspects of the policy. In
this context, the Commission adopted in November 2011 legal proposals to reform
the CAP for the period 2014-2020. They aimed to fulfil the three broad
objectives of the future CAP, i.e. "Viable food production",
"Sustainable management of natural resources" and "Balanced
territorial development". It
was proposed to adapt the current CAP framework along the following lines: ·
Gearing the CAP measures towards increasing the
productivity and the competitiveness of the agricultural sector by: – improving the functioning of the advisory system and creating
networks (of farmers, advisors, researchers, food operators, consumers etc.)
for knowledge creation and transfer and favouring innovative approaches in
granting funding for projects for rural development measures – encouraging pro-competitive joint action among farmers in order to
foster efficient use of resources, product development and marketing – provide incentives to use risk management instruments and active
prevention strategies ·
Improving the environmental and climate change
performance of the CAP by: – increasing the number of agricultural areas which are under
agricultural practices providing environmental and climate action benefits and
encouraging the take-up of more advanced agri-environmental measures by MS and
farmers; ·
Enhancing the effectiveness and efficiency of
the policy by: – rebalancing the direct payment support to better reflect income
support objective and environmental performance – reducing the disparities in direct payment support levels between MS
and farmers. After
almost two years of negotiations between the Commission, the European
Parliament and the Council, a political agreement on the reform of the CAP was
reached on 26 June 2013[24].
A number of instruments agreed for the next programming period have a
significant potential to increase the development and visibility of the organic
farming sector.
6.1.
Rural development policy
In
the context of the RD policy for the period 2014-2020 as agreed among
the institutions, a farmer engaging in organic production will be able to
receive support through a number of measures, among which the following ones: – knowledge transfer and information actions (article 15), covering
participation in training activities, – advisory services, farm management and farm relief services (article
16), for the use of advisory services, – quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (article
17), covering certification costs for new participation in organic food quality
schemes, – investments in physical assets (article 18), – farm and business development (article 20), granting business
start-up aid for the development of small farms, – agri-environment-climate (article 29), when an organic farmer
undertakes an environmental or climate commitment not supported under article
30, – organic farming[25]
(article 30), compensating for additional costs, income foregone and
transaction costs when converting to and/or maintaining organic farming
practices in line with Council Regulation 834/2007, – animal welfare (article 34), for commitments going beyond mandatory
standards and not already covered by article 30, – cooperation (article 36), which supports the development of
innovative products, processes, practices, technologies, and cooperation
approaches among actors of the food chain. It
will be up to the MS or regions to include in their RD programmes the measures
they consider relevant for supporting organic farming and to set out how these
measures can be combined with one another in order to avoid double funding and
to ensure complementarity/synergy between them.
6.2.
Market and income policy
For
the period 2014-2020, besides maintaining a basic direct payment for
farmers (including organic farmers), the EU institutions have agreed to
introduce a strong greening component into the first pillar to ensure
that all EU farmers in receipt of support go beyond the requirements of
cross-compliance and deliver environmental and climate benefits as part of
their everyday activities. Thirty percent of direct payments will be tied to
the 3 compulsory greening practices (i.e. crop diversification, establishment
of ecological focus areas, maintenance of permanent grassland). In
order to avoid penalising farmers that already address environmental and
sustainability issues, the agreement foresees a "Greening
equivalency" system whereby the application of environmentally beneficial
practices already in place are considered to replace the basic requirements. For
example, organic producers will have no additional requirements as their
practices are shown to provide a clear ecological benefit. For others,
agri-environment schemes may incorporate measures that are considered
equivalent. The new regulation contains a list of such equivalent measures. To
avoid "double funding" of such measures, the payments through rural
development programmes must take into account the basic greening requirements. The
current "article 68" measure is not prolonged in the next programming
period. In
receiving support from several of the measures outlined above, a farmer will be
able to achieve more easily the objectives of the organic farming regulation,
i.e. establish a sustainable management system for agriculture, produce
products of high quality and respond to consumers demands for goods produced
using processes that do not harm the environment, human health, plant health or
animal health and welfare. ANNEX 4:
INFORMATION AND PROMOTION ON ORGANIC FARMING AT EU LEVEL The
possibilities of financing information, communication or promotion actions in
the organic sector are listed below:
1.
Cofinanced information and promotion campaigns
Through
the Council Regulation (EC) n°3/2008 on information provision and promotion
measures for agricultural products on internal market and in third countries, the
organic sector is eligible to the EU promotion scheme on internal market and in
third countries. It is a horizontal policy covering almost all agricultural
sectors and emphasising the general characteristics and added value of the CAP
such as quality, safety, health, labelling, specific production methods,
respect for the environment, animal welfare. The assistance is normally given
to professional producer organisations, for example associations representing
specific agricultural products, or associations promoting particular approaches
to agriculture, such as organic farming. The European Commission allocates roughly
€50 million annually in financial support. Between
2006-2010, a total amount of 35.7m€ was spent in promotion
activities in the organic sector (17.9m€ under EU co-financing), spread in 15
programmes representing 7.18% of the total programmes. This % is comparable to
the amount spent on programmes for the promotion of other products under EU
quality schemes (Protected Designations of Origin, Protected Geographical
Indications and Traditional Specialities Guaranteed). Source: DG AGRI, Unit D4
2.
Information and promotion actions directly
managed by DG AGRI
2.1.
Own DG AGRI campaigns through the Council
Regulation (EC) n°3/2008 on information provision and promotion measures for
agricultural products on internal market and in third countries
In
2004, the European Action Plan for Organic Food and Farming set out 21
initiatives to achieve the objectives of developing the market for organic food
and improving standards by increasing efficacy, transparency and consumer
confidence. Action 1 referred to the promotion of the organic sector: "Introduce
amendments in Council Regulation (EC) No 2826/2000 (internal market promotion)
which would give the Commission greater possibilities for direct action in
order to organise information and promotion campaigns on organic farming.
Launch a multi-annual EU-wide information and promotion campaign over several years
to inform consumers, public institutions canteens, schools and other key actors
in the food chain about the merits of organic farming, especially its
environmental benefits, and to increase consumer awareness and recognition of
organic products, including recognition of the EU logo. Launch tailored
information and promotion campaigns to well-defined types of consumers such as
the occasional consumer and public canteens. Increase Commission cooperation
efforts with MS and professional organisations in order to develop a strategy
for the campaigns." As
follow up of Action 1 of Action Plan a promotion campaign on organic food
and farming was launched in 2008, with a budget of € 3 million (over 3 years)
and covering all 27 MS. Its results were very positive because albeit its
limited budget, simple and effective marketing and information tools were
offered to a number of different target groups (see detailed report COM(2010)
692 final). Within the campaign, a multilingual website www.organic-farming.europa.eu was
developed in 22 languages, offering a wide range of information on organic
farming to different target groups, including organic and conventional farmers,
stakeholders' organisations, final consumers and their associations, students,
and children. The website is also used as a platform for distributing
promotional material from a "toolbox" available free of charge in
22 languages to anyone wishing to promote organic food and farming in the EU. The
website provides information on organic farming in general, EU policy in the
fields of environment, animal welfare, consumer confidence, and relevant
institutions in the field of organic farming. After the launch of the website,
the focus was shifted to the promotion of this campaign all over Europe to stakeholders, which were the primary target group of the campaign. In this
perspective, the campaign was introduced at 17 promotional events all over Europe. The
development of the promotional campaign has been closely monitored by an expert
group (made up of both governmental and private members) for the promotion of
organic farming. National experts followed the development of the content of
the website and the toolbox and helped with the revision of texts made
available to the public on those supports. Evaluation
has shown that the tools are accepted and used by the target groups, especially
in countries where the sector is less developed and there are fewer initiatives
at national level. Various co-financed programmes for the promotion of organic
products have made use of this new material developed within the campaign. This
allowed the programmes to be run with a smaller budget than would have been
possible otherwise, as they did not have to bear the cost of financing the
development of new promotional material. The
statistical data on website traffic were also very positive. The website during
that period was the most visited of all DG AGRI sub-sites on Europa, with on
average 70-80 000 visits per month and 15 000-30 000 downloads
of material. During 2009, the website was visited 1 070 000 times
(this figure represents 63 % of the total visits to the whole of DG AGRI’s
site). By scoring high on major search engines, the website has become a point
of reference for all those looking for information on organic food and farming. Current
review of the existing EU information and promotion policy of agricultural
products The
organic sector will benefit from the current revamp of the information and
promotion policy of agricultural products, not only thanks to a budget increase
compared to the € 60 million dedicated in 2013 but also because organics have
been identified as one of the key themes of interest for the European Union for
which information actions are needed. Moreover new elements of the promotion
policy to be put in place such as the highlight of the European dimension
(through the encouragement of multi-country and multi-product initiatives) as
well as the introduction of a European strategy to better target
the promotion programmes to specific markets, populations, themes, products or
sectorswill
contribute to various synergies of the organic sector stakeholders at European
level.
2.2.
Via the Council Regulation (EC) n°814/2000 on
information measures relating to the CAP
One
project submitted by IFOAM EU was financed in 2011. Its total budget amounted
to 139.549€ (50% of eligible costs and 10.000€ for staff costs). Various
issues relate to the organic logo, which is dealt with on a separate fiche.
Nevertheless, problems linked to the logo have been included in the present
paper (Promotion and information fiche), the logo being the backbone of a
promotion policy of organic products. ANNEX 5: RESEARCH
AND INNOVATION IN ORGANIC FARMING
1.
EU research framework programme
During
the past 12 years, the European Commission contributed over €150 million to
almost fifty research projects on low-input and organic agriculture. Close
interaction between various actors in the organic sector, specifically within
the Technology Platform Organics[26],
resulted in development of a highly relevant research agenda. In acknowledgment
of its important role, in July 2013, TP Organics was considered by the European
Commission services to fulfil the criteria for recognition as a European
Technology Platform (ETP), and is therefore included in the publicly available
list of recognised ETPs on the European Commission website[27]. The
completed and on-going research projects within the low-input and organic
subject area have significantly contributed to the development of this sector
by, for instance, improvement of organic regulation (e.g. ORWINE[28]),
provision of a wide range of methods for markets' assessments (e.g.
OrganicDataNetwork[29])
as well as enhancement of the productivity by creation and implementation of
innovative production methods (e.g QualityLowInputFood – QLIF[30] or
LowInputBreeds[31]). Horizon 2020[32] is a
financial instrument implementing the Innovation Union[33], a
Europe 2020[34],[35] – flagship initiative aimed at securing Europe's global competitiveness.
Running from 2014 to 2020, the EU’s new programme for research and innovation
is part of the drive to create new growth and jobs in Europe. Horizon 2020
reflects the policy priorities of the Europe 2020 strategy and addresses major
concerns shared by citizens in Europe and elsewhere. It covers activities from
research to market with a new focus on innovation-related activities and will
include establishment of links with the activities of the European Innovation
Partnerships. To address the challenges of the present and future, funding will
be focused inter alia on the following Societal Challenges, which are of
great relevance for organic farming, namely: ·
Food security, sustainable agriculture, marine and
maritime research and the bio-economy. The research
agenda for the next 7 years is under preparation. The Societal Challenges and
the way to address them are of utmost importance in this exercise, which among
others encompasses the identification of research and innovation goals that
will leverage the organic sector’s contribution to healthy planet and healthy
food production and enhancement of sustainability in the wider agricultural
field.
2.
European Innovation Partnership 'Agricultural
Productivity and Sustainability' (EIP)
Knowledge
management and exchange is of primary importance to low-input and organic
systems. The diverse nature of organic farming makes it difficult to exchange
knowledge between researchers, producers and other stakeholders. The newly
developed European Innovation Partnership for 'Agricultural Productivity and
Sustainability' will provide a vast array of opportunities to address this
issue and boost multidimensional cooperation between the research community and
farming practice. Given that the
aim of the EIP is to foster a competitive and sustainable agriculture and
forestry that "achieves more from less" and works in harmony with the
environment, organic farming can easily find its place in the EIP set up and
take a great advantage of it. The
innovation model under the agricultural EIP goes far beyond speeding up
transfer from laboratory to practice through diffusion of new scientific
knowledge (referred to as a "linear innovation model"). The EIP
adheres to the "interactive innovation model" which focuses on forming
partnerships - using bottom-up approaches and linking farmers, advisors,
researchers, businesses, and other actors within so-called Operational Groups.
This will generate new insights and ideas and mould existing tacit knowledge
into focused solutions. Such an approach will stimulate innovation from all
sides and will help to target the research agenda. For
funding concrete innovative actions, the agricultural EIP will be implemented
through actions that are mainly supported by two European Union policies: ·
Rural
Development Policy provides co-funding for innovative actions of
"Operational Groups". The key measures include 'cooperation',
'knowledge transfer and information actions', 'advisory services', 'investment
in physical assets' and 'farm and business development'. In addition, the Rural
Development Policy will provide the means for setting up an EIP network
facility at EU level. ·
EU
Research and Innovation Policy (Horizon 2020) plays its key role in providing
the knowledge base for innovative actions on the ground. Key actions feeding
into the EIP include 'applied research projects', 'cross-border initiatives',
'thematic networks', 'multi-actor approaches', 'pilot or demonstration
projects', as well as supporting 'innovation brokers' and 'innovation centres'. As a
key instrument of the EIP, the network facility (or Service Point), in place
since mid-April 2013, will act as a mediator for enhancing communication
between science and practice and fostering their cooperation. It will encourage
the formation of "Operational Groups" and support their work through
focus groups, seminars and workshops, the establishment and maintenance of
databases with inter alia relevant research results and good practice
examples, support for partnering, and helpdesk functions. In
this respect, the first three focus groups under the EIP are ready to start
their activities. They will work on the following issues directly or indirectly
advantageous for the organic sector: -
Organic
farming (optimizing arable yields): Why do yields vary so much between organic
farms; how can this yield gap be minimized? -
Protein
crops: What does the feed sector need in terms of protein? Why is EU farming
not able to deliver? Why is EU farming in protein crops not competitive? How
can this be remedied? -
Animal
husbandry: How can we reduce the use of antibiotic treatments in the pig
sector? Each focus group
will bring together up to 20 experts that have practical experience in the
relevant field and that are able and willing to share their expertise with
others. Experts will be chosen according to their competences based on proven
expertise for supporting the progress of the focus group. Attention will be
paid to covering a reasonable balance of expertise and represented interest
(e.g. scientists, farmers, advisors, representatives from industries,
environmental NGOs, consumer groups, etc.).
3.
Results of the on-line consultation concerning
the need for research and innovation
An
overwhelming majority of the questioned citizens (i.e. 81%, 33411) during the
on-line public consultation expressed the opinion that the organic sector
should benefit from a public budget reserved only for research. In
addition, the respondents clearly identified four areas which should benefit
from more research and innovation in organic food and farming sector: - economic
and social dimension of organic farming (58%, 26165), - seeds
and plant propagating material adapted to low-input agriculture (52%, 23519), - local
production of protein in-rich crops (48%, 21542) and - waste
management (45%, 20371) followed each other in the ranking set up by the
respondents with only few percentage point of difference. Two
areas were selected as areas which would need more research and innovation but
with a percentage much lower than the four above listed, namely
"low-growth strains of animals" (15%, 6534) and "co-existence of
organic farming with conventional farming and GMOs" (12%, 5532). A
significant number of respondents sent also by e-mail a range of other
suggestions for research projects that are currently needed in organic farming
sector such as: Innovations in organic farming are needed especially in the
areas of plant breeding and the regional production of protein crops; Research
comprising the comparison of the real production costs of agricultural /food
products from organic and conventional farming systems; Research on
environmental and health benefits of organic farming system; Research on
innovative, renewable (=recyclable) and non-renewable (=non-recyclable)
fertilizers and pesticides; etc. Conclusion: All
the above-mentioned issues (research needs, funding for research and
innovation, exchange of knowledge) have their rightful place in the new Action
Plan for organic food and farming that will accompany the proposal for a future
organic farming legislation.
ANNEX 6: THE EU
ORGANIC PRODUCTION RULES For
many decades, the European organic sector was characterised by a system of
private standards, with third party inspection and certification. National
legislations on organic farming were introduced in the 1980s. France was the first country introducing such a legal framework in 1980, followed by Austria in 1983 and Denmark in 1987. The aims of these national legislations were to protect
consumers from misleading claims and creating a level playing field for organic
producers. Council
Regulation (EEC) 2092/91[36]
introduced for the first time an EU-wide definition of organic farming and
set out rules for organic crop production and indications referring thereto on
agricultural products and foodstuffs. Rules on organic livestock and processed
products were introduced eight years later with Council Regulation (EC)
1804/1999[37],
supplementing the existing Regulation. In
the European Action Plan for Organic Food and Farming (EOAP)[38] of
2004, the European Commission proposed to improve and reinforce the
Community’s organic farming production rules as well as import and
inspection requirements, and specified a number of actions with respect to
production rules and inspection. The legislation was
substantially revised with the adoption of Council Regulation (EC) 834/2007 in June 2007, which
notably: – defined organic farming more accurately by describing its objectives
and principles, – improved the harmonisation of the organic production rules
within the EU, by putting an end to national production rules for animal
products, – introduced the possibility of exceptions to the rules under
the responsibility of MS, intended to replace a multitude of former
derogations. The
aspects related to the labelling of organic products, to the control system and
to the trade regime are dealt with in separate Annexes. The
new legislation was implemented from 2009 onwards. Since then,
the legislation has been extended notably to organic aquaculture in 2009
(Commission Regulation (EC) No 710/2009[39])
and to organic wine making in 2012 (Commission Regulation (EC) No 203/2012[40]). At
international level, the EU plays an active role in the definition of Codex
Guidelines GL-32-1999 for the Production, Processing, Labelling and Marketing
of Organically produced Foods and contributes to the up-dates, like the current
work for the inclusion of organic aquaculture.
1.
The EU organic production rules
1.1.
Definition of organic farming
The
EU legislation actually defines organic farming. Articles 3 to 7 of Council
Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 provide for detailed objectives and principles of
organic farming translated into rules (in Regulations 834/2007 and 889/2008).
1.2.
Scope of the legislation
Council
Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 is limited in scope as it applies to products
originating from agriculture, including aquaculture, where such products are
placed on the market or intended to be placed on the market: -
agricultural products (live or unprocessed), -
processed agricultural products intended for
food, -
feed, -
vegetative propagating material and seeds for
cultivation, -
yeast used for food or feed. The
legislation covers all stages of production, preparation and distribution of
organic products. However, mass catering operations are specifically excluded
from the scope of this Regulation. MS may apply national rules or, in the
absence thereof, private standards, on labelling and control of products
originating from mass catering operations, as long as these rules comply with
EU law. In
Article 41 of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007, the Council asked the
Commission to submit a report on different subjects including the scope of the
Regulation and mass catering which is specifically excluded from the rules.
1.2.1.
Commission report
The
Commission produced a report in May 2012[41]
which was forwarded to the European Parliament and to the Council.
1.2.1.1.
Mass catering
The
report analyses the experience with mass caterers. This sector is already
subject to EU horizontal rules on hygiene and food labelling. Currently,
seven MS have introduced national rules for organic mass catering, while
private standards are applied in ten other MS. These rules provide
certification of ingredients, dishes, menus or complete catering operations.
Following a survey carried out with the MS authorities in charge of organic production,
most of them were of the opinion that mass catering operations should not be
subject to EU Regulation on organic production in the short term, not only
because of possible increased complexity, but also because of the limited
impact on trade due to their local character. The report concluded that there
was currently no need to include mass catering operations in the Regulation but
that the Commission would closely follow developments in this sector.
1.2.1.2.
Textiles and cosmetics
There
has been significant market growth for textiles and cosmetics bearing reference
to organic production. Those two product categories are not included in the
scope of the EU organic legal framework, which is limited to non processed
agricultural products or processed agricultural products for use as food or
feed. A debate has started on the question of the reference to
"organic" for agricultural products outside the scope of the current
Regulation and the possible risk for the credibility of the term "organic". The
European Union's general legislation on textiles deals with fibre names and
labelling rather than production methods. Within the voluntary EU Ecolabel
scheme, criteria have been established for textile products. In the case of
cotton, if 95 % of the product is made of organic cotton, the denomination
"organic cotton" is allowed under this scheme. Agricultural
raw materials, such as plant oils and plant extracts, are present in many
cosmetics. The Union's legislation on cosmetics regulates the use of claims on
cosmetic products. The
report concluded that it may be worth exploring the opportunities offered by
the Union's legislation to extend the protection of the use of the word
"organic" to textiles and cosmetics.
1.2.1.3.
Other
The
status of certain products outside Annex I of the Treaty but which are closely
linked to Annex I products or to rural economy, such as beeswax, essential
oils, or maté was not examined in detail in the report but it was underlined
that the Commission recognises a need for clarification regarding such products.
1.2.2.
Identified problems
•
Should mass
catering be included in the scope of the framework? Mass
catering represents an additional outlet for organic products. The question is
whether the introduction of EU harmonised rules is necessary or not. It has been
put to the Commission and must be answered in the context of this review. In
the first hearing it was concluded by the experts that there is no need to
extend the scope of EU implementing rules to mass catering, the preference is
to keep this under the national rules. •
Should textiles
and cosmetics be included in the scope of the framework? Organic
textiles and cosmetics constitute a valuable outlet for organically produced
raw materials. Currently, as they are not included in the scope of the
legislation, it could be considered that they are posing a risk to the
integrity of the term "organic" in the EU because their organic
nature is not regulated in the same way as for food and feedstuffs i.e. in
accordance with a production process. To include these categories of products,
the legal basis of the EU organic legislation would have to be reviewed. In
the first hearing on the future of organic farming, when this subject was
discussed, it was concluded that if textiles were to be included in the scope
of the EU organic legislation, the organic standard would have to be a global
standard to cover the whole world because natural fibre is mainly produced and
also processed outside the EU (cotton is no° 1 fibre in the world). •
Should the scope
be extended to other/new products? There
was a general agreement on the following. Whatever choice is made regarding a
possible extension for the scope, considering that the objectives of the policy
are to achieve a level playing field and consumer trust, clear and simple rules
are preferable in all cases. The current legislation requires repeated
interpretation. If
changes are brought to the scope, this could have an impact on existing
international arrangements. Extension
of the scope would add an extra burden in terms of controls (for MS) and
compliance and possibly also increase costs for the concerned operators for
instance if there was a change from national to EU rules for mass catering. On
the basis of the above mentioned Commission's report, the Council drew
conclusions in May 2013. As regards these particular issues, there was a call
for "clarifying the situation regarding protection of the use of the term
'organic' for non Annex I products" and "providing guidance on the
organic claims associated with the preparation of organic products in mass
catering operations."
1.3.
General production rules
The EU
organic production rules are described in Title III of Council Regulation
834/2007 and in Commission Regulation 889/2008. The
starting point for organic plant production is the soil.
Prescribed practices aim at maintaining or increasing the soil organic matter
and enhancing soil stability and soil biodiversity. The fertility and the
biological activity of the soil are essentially ensured by using multiannual
crop rotation including legumes and other green manure crops and by the
application of livestock manure or organic material. The
use of inputs is strictly limited. Annexes I and II to Commission Regulation
889/2008 provide for positive lists of authorised substances (fertilizers, plant
protection products, etc). The organic
livestock production rules are characterized by high animal welfare
requirements which aim at meeting animals' species-specific behavioural
needs. In particular, a permanent access for livestock to open air areas is
required and minimum surface areas indoors and outdoors are set for each
species. Animals shall be fed with organic feed preferably produced on the farm
or in the region. Annexes
III to VII to Commission Regulation 889/2008 provides notably for positive
lists of feed materials authorised, feed additives used in animal nutrition and
products for cleaning and disinfection of buildings for livestock production. Production
rules for organic processed food or feed require that the production of
processed organic food or feed is separated in time or space from non-organic
feed or food. Organic ingredients shall be used but exceptions are possible. Annex
VIII to Commission Regulation 889/2008 provides for positive lists of food
additives and processing aids which might be used in organic processed
products. Products and substances for use or addition in organic wine are
listed in Annex VIIIa. Annex IX provides for a list of ingredients which can be
used in their non-organic form in processed organic products. In
addition, MS have the possibility to authorize the use of ingredients in their
non-organic form on a temporary basis according to Article 29 of Regulation
889/2008. Before granting such authorization, a MS shall verify that the
operator has undertaken the necessary contacts with suppliers in the EU to
ensure himself of the unavailability of the ingredients concerned in the
organic form. Farmers
willing to convert to organic farming have to undergo a conversion period,
during which they have to fully apply the rules of organic farming but they
cannot sell their products as organic. Parallel
conventional production on organic farms is prohibited according
to the first paragraph of Article 11 of Regulation 834/2007. However,
the following paragraph introduces the possibility to run a holding with
organic and conventional production, under specific conditions: the holding has
to be split into clearly separated units and different animal species or
different plant varieties have to be involved. The
use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and of ionising radiation
is prohibited in organic farming. The
perception of the public is that organic production rules should be
strengthened (see Annex 2).
1.4.
Current situation regarding GMOS
Council
Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 prohibits -
the use of genetically modified organisms or
GMOs, -
products produced from GMOs and -
products produced by GMOs[42]. One
exception only is made for veterinary medicinal products (vaccines and others). As
organic systems are not isolated from the general production chain, low and
accidental presence of GM crops in non-GM farming systems such as organic
farming cannot be completely excluded. Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007
clarifies that the general rules on adventitious and technically unavoidable
presence of authorised GMOs apply i.e. that the horizontal rules of Regulation
(EC) No 1829/2003[43]
on GM Food and Feed apply equally to products used in organic farming. That
Regulation provides that food and feed containing, consisting of or produced
from a GMO must be labelled. Exceptionally, a product is exempted from this
labelling requirement where it consists of, contains, or is produced from GMOs
in a proportion not higher than 0,9%, and provided that this presence is
adventitious and unavoidable. Council
Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 also introduces specific provisions in Article 9
(3) on the responsibility of the organic operator for avoiding the presence of
GMOs in organic products. The leading principles are to have the lowest
possible adventitious presence of GMOs in organic products, as set out in
recital 10, and at the same time to avoid undue constraints and additional
burden on organic operators. In
order to ensure that no GMOs or products produced from GMOs are used as inputs
for production processes, the Regulation stipulates in its article 9 (2) that
operators can rely on the labels accompanying products or any other
accompanying document, affixed or provided pursuant to Directive 2001/18/EC[44],
Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 or Regulation (EC) No 1830/2003[45]
unless they have obtained information indicating that the labelling of the
product in question is not in conformity with those Regulations for instance
when the labelling threshold of 0,9% of adventitious presence of GMOs is exceeded. Products
produced from GMOs which are not food or feed are not covered by the GMO
legislation and therefore no labelling and traceability obligations are imposed
on them. Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 provides in its article 9 (3) that
the organic operator has to request in such cases a confirmation or vendor
declaration to be signed by the supplier of the products. In this document, the
vendor must declare that his product has not been produced from GMOs. The
vendor declaration represents a commitment of the supplier with legal value. Council
Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 provides within the exceptional production rules
the possibility for the Commission to foresee exceptions to the prohibition of
using products produced from GMOs when it would be necessary to use food and
feed additives and other substances that would not be available on the market
other than produced from GMOs. The Commission has not granted such exceptions
so far.
1.4.1.
Coexistence
The
Commission's report to the Council and the European Parliament of 2009 on the
coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming[46]
concluded that GM crops have not caused any demonstrable damage to existing
non-GM farming. On 13 July 2010 the Commission issued a Commission Recommendation
on guidelines for the development of national co-existence measures to avoid
the unintended presence of GMOs in conventional and organic crops[47],
which recognises that the potential loss of income for producers of particular
agricultural products such as organic products may occur as a result of the
presence of GMO traces at levels even lower than the GM labelling threshold set
out in EU legislation at 0.9 %. Moreover, the Recommendation acknowledges the
specific implications for producers of particular products such as organic
farmers, impacting also the final consumer, since such production is often more
costly, as it requires stricter segregation efforts to avoid GMO presence to
guarantee the associated price premium. In
this same context, the Commission has submitted a Regulation proposal to the
European Parliament and to the Council which, once adopted, would allow MS to
restrict or prohibit cultivation of GMOs on their territory on grounds other
than those based on a scientific assessment of health and environmental risks.
1.4.2.
Facts, figures and recommendations resulting
from the autumn 2012 hearings
·
180 mio ha of GMOs cultivated worldwide, mainly
for feed purposes. They represent a 70 Bio$ market in the US. There are 118 single GMOs authorised worldwide. In the EU, there is a “0” tolerance for
non-approved varieties but for feed (not for food) there is a 0,1% tolerance
when there are adequate detection methods. · In
the 96 EU laboratories that analyse presence or not of GMOs, the research is
conducted in relation to the application of EU legislation. Laboratory analyses
complement paperwork. A recommendation was made to the Commission to consult
with laboratories when legislating. ·
Totally GM free products represent a challenge.
A study has been conducted by an external consultant on behalf of the
Commission to examine in detail the issue of GM free labelling taking into
account the existing schemes and labelling systems, consumers' expectations,
feasibility, in order to have the necessary background to launch a reflexion on
the possible need for EU harmonisation of GM free labelling. It is possible to
ensure imports of GM free supply of soya in the EU, for feed uses. ·
Co-existence has a high cost. ·
The lower the threshold, the larger the sample
to be analysed, the higher the cost of testing. To test for 0,1% you need to
test a sample of at least 3000 particles of a product. The cost of testing a
sample varies between 300 and 500€. If the sample tests positive, then there
needs to be a quantification per ingredient. If the sample tests positive for
an unauthorised GMO, the cost of the analysis can run to 10.000€. ·
Operators have complained that the
"polluter/payer" principle is not being applied for accidental
presence of GMOs. ·
A balance has to be found between cost and risk. ·
Attention must be paid to labelling in order not
to confuse the consumer.
1.4.3.
Results of the public consultation
·
77,47% of respondents buy organic products
because they want GM free products ·
89,5% of respondents consider that GMOs are
incompatible with the concept of organic farming ·
51,14% are aware of the 0,9% labelling threshold
for adventitious and technically unavoidable presence, and 47,45% are not. ·
68,25% think that organic products should be
subject to the same labelling rules as conventional products. ·
56% declared that they are prepared to pay a
higher price for a lower labelling threshold and 31,55% are not.
1.4.4.
GMO Identified issues relate to:
·
Adventitious presence of EU-authorised GMOs in
organic products and labelling threshold Council
Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 forbids the use of GMOs, but the labelling rules
set in the EU Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 on Genetically Modified Food and
Feed apply. In the absence of specific rules, the horizontal rules of the EU
Regulation on Genetically Modified Food and Feed thus apply equally to products
used in organic farming. That Regulation lays down a general labelling
threshold of 0.9% for the adventitious or technically unavoidable presence of
authorised GMOs or products from authorised GMOs. Feed and in particular soya
has been singled out as a product category likely to contain adventitious and
unavoidable presence of EU-authorised GMOs below 0,9%. As regards organic
products grown in an environment where GMOs are cultivated, the Organic
Regulation does not determine the responsibility for the costs of analysis and
of a possible declassification of the product due to EU-authorised GMO presence
in harvest above the 0,9% labelling threshold, as this is an exclusive
competence of the MS. The Commission Recommendation on guidelines for the
development of national co-existence measures[48]
to avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in conventional and organic crops,
recognises that the potential loss of income for producers of particular
agricultural products such as organic products may occur as a result of the
presence of GMO traces at levels even lower than the 0,9% GM labelling
threshold. Moreover, the Recommendation acknowledges that the admixture of GMOs
has specific implications for producers of particular products such as organic
farmers, impacting also the final consumer, since such production is often more
costly, as it requires stricter segregation efforts to avoid GMO presence to
guarantee the associated price premium. ·
Availability of certain products Some
substances such as vitamins, enzymes and amino-acids are regularly reported as
available only produced by GMOs and cannot be used in organic production.
1.4.5.
Analysis of options
The
introduction of a lower GMO labelling threshold for organic food products was
considered and extensively discussed. The
information collected during the hearings and in meetings with stakeholders
shows that the cost for all operators of such an option would be significant
and disproportionate in relation to the dimension of most EU organic operators.
From the results of the hearings it can be concluded that the lower the
threshold, the larger the sample to be analysed, the higher the cost. Following
the discussions in the Council[49] (May
2013) and the broad consultation with the sector[50] and
with stakeholders, the Commission has concluded that the status quo in relation
to the EU approach and legal provisions on GMOs for labelling of organic
products are adequate. It was highlighted that current provisions provide a
reasonable balance between benefits and costs. In particular, a specific lower
tolerance threshold does not appear realistic in view of the practicalities,
burden and costs of analysis.
2.
Possible exceptional rules under Art 22 of
regulation 834/2007
Article
22 of Regulation 834/2007 provides for conditions for possible exceptional
production rules. These exceptions shall be kept to a minimum and,
where appropriate, limited in time. They are usually granted by MS competent
authorities, but some of them can be delegated to the CBs.
2.1.
Overview
Exceptional
rules intend to provide flexibility, enabling adaptation of the production
rules to specific climatic, geographical and structural constraints or stages
of development (Article 22 of Regulation (EC) 834/2007 and Chapter 6 of Regulation
(EC) 889/2008). Many exceptions are related to the principle according to which
the use of external inputs should be restricted to inputs from organic
production (Article 4(b) of Regulation (EC) 834/2007). Exceptions can be
granted where they are necessary to ensure access to inputs which are not
available in organic form on the market (Article 22). Granting exceptions is
thus necessary where no alternatives exist; but can also lead to distortion,
because non-organic inputs are often cheaper than the organic alternatives. Exceptions
can be granted by the competent authority of the MS if inputs are not available
in organic form on the market (or during catastrophic circumstances where
temporary measures are necessary to protect organic production). The
possible exceptions according to Article 22 are the following: · Up to
40% of non-organic female mammals on a holding for the renewal of a herd or
flock, · Management
of animals (dehorning, etc), · Retroactive
recognition of a conversion period, · Tethering
of animals in small holdings, · Parallel
production of plant varieties that cannot be easily differentiated, · Parallel
organic and non-organic livestock of the same species for agricultural research
or formal education, · Parallel
organic and non-organic bee-keeping units on the same holding, · Bringing
non-organically reared poultry into an organic poultry production unit when a
flock is constituted for the first time, · Use
of non-organic beeswax, · Use
of seed or vegetative propagating material not obtained by the organic
production method, · Indoors
final fattening phase of adult bovines for meat production (1/5 of their life), · Use
of non-organic feedings stuffs, renewal or reconstitution of a herd or flock,
etc due to catastrophic circumstances. The
following possible exemptions are now being phased out: · Use
of non-organic protein feed of plant and animal origin for livestock. Where
farmers are unable to obtain protein feed exclusively from organic production,
the use of a limited proportion of nonorganic protein feed is allowed for
porcine and poultry species. The maximum percentage of non-organic protein feed
authorised per period of 12 months for those species shall be 5 % for calendar
years 2012, 2013 and 2014. · Bringing
non-organically reared pullets for egg production of not more than 18 weeks
into an organic livestock unit when organically reared pullets are not
available (31 December 2014). · Using
natural eggshell colouring agents for traditional boiled Easter eggs (31
December 2013). · The
possible addition of non-organic yeast extracts has to be examined by the end
of 2013. In
addition, some exceptions are based on other Articles of Regulation 834/2007,
notably on Article 40 (transitional measures). The
three main[51]
exceptional measures providing temporary authorisation to use non-organic
inputs (young poultry, feed and seeds) and the transitional rules for animal
housing have been subject to a specific analysis in the framework of the
external evaluation. In order to assess the justification for non-organic input
use, the following aspects were considered: (a) current availability of organic
farm inputs, (b) reasons for undersupply, (c) actions taken (or need to be
taken) to develop an appropriate supply, (d) evolution of the supply in the
past years, (e) implications of the exceptional rule, considering likely impact
on developing supplies, and where appropriate on achieving the objectives of
organic farming and on consumer confidence. Where
quantitative evidence was available it is presented in the following, along with
the analysis of provisions, experts’ points of view and literature.
2.2.
Exceptional rules for using non-organic young
poultry
2.2.1.
Legal provisions
Article
42 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 889/2008, based on Article 22 of Council
Regulation (EC) No 834/2007, provides that (1) non-organic young poultry up to
3 days old can be introduced when constituting or reconstituting a flock
(without specified time limited) and (2) until 31
December 2014 (initially 31 December 2011), non-organic[52] reared pullets for egg production of not more than 18
weeks may be brought into an organic livestock unit, when organically reared
pullets are not available in sufficient numbers. There are currently no EU
rules for the production of organic chicks or for the rearing of organic pullets.
2.2.2.
Issues
Current
availability of organic pullets: Out of the 13 countries
considered by the evaluation, exceptions provided by Article 42 apply in all MS
under various conditions, except for Denmark, which has set up national rules
for the production of organic young poultry. In Denmark farmers must get
supplied with organic young poultry for laying hens as well as broiler
production. The supply in young organic poultry is thus adequate in Denmark. Also in Germany the use of non-organic poultry is forbidden, but producers can use
non-organic eggs for hatching without derogations. Some regions like North
Rhine-Westphalia are starting to set up stricter regulations; for example that
from 1st March 2013 mixed flocks (organic and non-organic chicks)
have to be built, and unavailability-declarations have to be issued by
suppliers. In many other MS, the production of broilers or laying hens relies
on the use of non-organic chicks, fed with organic food since the age of one
day. Experts from Austria, Denmark, France and the Netherlands reported that
there was no need for exceptional rules for young poultry, while experts from
the Czech Republic, Estonia, Italy, Poland and Slovenia stressed that there is
no or only a limited supply of organic young poultry in their countries. Causes of the undersupply of organic young poultry: The lack of EU production rules regulating young organic poultry
production constrains the development of the sector, as MS are reluctant to
develop production rules at national level to avoid potential disadvantages for
their producers. This is referred to in Recital (3) of Commission Regulation
(EC) 505/2012 of 14 June 2012, “the development of harmonised organic
production rules for young poultry at Union level is complex, the viewpoints on
technical requirements vary widely between the parties concerned.” As a
result, Recital 3 states that “in order to allow more time to develop
detailed rules for the production of organic pullets, the exceptional rule for
using non-organic pullets should be prolonged.” Actions to develop the supply of
organic chicks and pullets have been taken in Denmark. The Ministerial Order N° 1112 of 21 November 2008 of production and marketing of organic
pullets sets provisions related to marketing conditions, feeding, welfare
demands (physical production demands), prohibitions of trimming of beaks and
the use of allopathic veterinary medicinal products and treatments. According
to Danish operators and experts interviewed, the provision of using organic
pullets led to the development of an appropriate production of organic pullets.
In France and the United Kingdom producers tend to support the introduction
of EU production rules for rearing organic pullets, but wish to maintain
exceptions on using non-organic chicks for the time being. In France, producers appreciate the great diversity of breeding species that the exceptional rule
allows them. Operators interviewed by the contractor have also highlighted that
introducing organic chicks from organic breeding stocks will (a) raise the
price of organic pullets (see further below) and (b) bring strong technical and
sanitary constraints in breeding stock management, particularly because of the
mandatory open-air access areas.[53] Implications of the exceptional rule for using non-organic pullets: The existence of these exceptional rules, (one of them with no
end date, the other extended recently), has an adverse effect on the
development of the organic supply. In case study countries, authorities and/or
operators agreed that a 100 % organic supply would be possible if there
were no market perturbation like the possibility provided by the exceptional
rule. To postpone the ending date hampers the development of supplies and is
not fair for sectors that have started to adapt to the end of the exception. In
Denmark, the use of conventional young poultry has been prohibited for many
years which fostered the development of a market for young organic poultry.
Differences in supply, whether it is from (non-)organic chicks or part-organic
pullets, leads to significant differences in costs. In
the United Kingdom, experts estimate full organic rearing of pullets to be
approximately 40 % more expensive than part-organic pullets and in France the price of organic chicks is estimated to be twice as high as of conventional
day-olds.[54]
2.3.
Exceptional rules for using non-organic feed
2.3.1.
Legal provisions
For
the feeding of pigs and poultry, Article 43 of Commission Regulation (EC) No
889/2008 based on Article 22(2, b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007
authorises the use of a maximum percentage of non-organic high protein feed
when organic quality high protein feed is not available.[55]
Initially, the exception was in force between 2009 and 2010. In 2012, the
5 % rate was extended until the end of 2014.
2.3.2.
Issues
Current
availability of organic high protein feed: Typical
high protein content feed for monogastrics is usually soy products, corn gluten
or potato protein, because it contains specific amino acids such as lysine and
methionine. It is not possible to estimate the availability of organically
sourced protein feed in the EU, since official data on feedstuff demand and
availability do not exist. The ICOPP[56]
project (Improved contribution of local feed to support 100 % organic feed
supply to pigs and poultry) will assess available feed resources and the
current demand in selected MS. A survey on feed resources is now in progress in
12 countries, making use of national information to provide best estimates. A
report is due at the end of the project in October 2014.[57] Interviewed
experts declared that these types of protein crops are not available in
sufficient quantities from organic sources at EU level, and that the majority of pig and poultry farmers rely on the
exceptions of the 5 % non-organic high
protein feed rule. Insufficient
supply of organic feed was specifically mentioned by experts from Austria, Czech Republic, Germany, Denmark, Estonia, France[58]
and Slovenia. They are concerned about the threat
represented by imports of organic feedstuff from third countries (mostly China and India); with little guarantee on control and large carbon footprints. Recent cases of
melamine contamination in organic soy imported from China and fake organic soy
traded from Italy have had an impact on the demand for locally produced protein
feedstuffs, which the market is unable to meet. Causes of the systematic use of the 5 % of non-organic protein exceptional rule: Interviewed
experts stated that a 100 % organic diet could hardly meet animal
requirements (mostly with high performance breeds), and supplementation with
non-organic high protein feed (as well as amino acids) is a necessity to reach
a balanced supply of methionine and lysine for the high performance standards.
Natural amino-acids are provided by corn gluten or potato protein incorporated
in the 5 % of non-organic authorised ingredients, and by increasing the
share of soy in feed. The obligation of 100 % organic feed would force
farmers to find new sources of natural amino-acids, since corn gluten or potato
protein are not available organically.[59]. A number of potential high protein feed
sources (rapeseed, peas & beans but also micro-algae) could be developed as
alternatives, but some require further research. As part of the EU funded EEC
(organic) 2092/91 Revision Project, Sundrum at al. (2005) carried out a
meta-analysis of the available literature to evaluate whether restrictions in
protein supply can be compensated for by other measures that are more in line
with organic objectives and principles. The report concluded that due to the
restricted availability of feedstuffs with a high content of limiting amino acids,
growth rates and protein accretion of organic pigs and poultry are clearly
lower in organic compared to conventional production. However, it claimed that
there is sound scientific proof that both poultry and pigs can compensate to a
high degree for imbalanced feed rations without the onset of specific health
and welfare problems, with the exception of the animal’s first weeks of life.
Strains with a high genetic yield capacity seem to be more sensitive to
suboptimal feed rations than slow growing strains or robust breeds. There also
are numerous studies that describe the undesirable side effects of breeding for
high protein accretion, especially in poultry production, making the lower
intensity of feeding potentially an asset of organic production and suggesting
that organic production of pigs and poultry needs to be protected from unwanted
intensification through feed ingredients (Sundrum et al., 2005). The ICOPP
project is expected to contribute to new approaches of ration formulation. Implications of the exceptional rule for using non-organic high
protein feed: In the current situation, the financial implications of the
phasing-out of this exceptional rule would represent an increase of the total
feed budget[60] to reach the required level of 100 % organic feed, because of the increase in price
between non-organic and organic protein feed.[61]
Another impact would come from the change of the
feeding content. Since some high value protein feedstuffs (e.g. potatoes
protein, maize gluten, soy meal) used to balance rations are not (or not fully)
available from organic sources, farmers will increase the overall protein
content when increasing the share of organic raw materials to achieve a diet
that provides adequate amounts of the limiting amino acids. This could result
in a decrease in yield and, as a consequence, an increase in price.
Consumers perceive organic husbandry as a production method based on
natural/healthy feed (e.g. Zanoli et. al 2004). They are not aware of the
details of production rules and expect livestock used for organic meat to have
been fed 100 % organic feed and their preference goes to local feed
sources. The organic principles for farming oblige farmers to practice
land-related livestock production and the feeding rule also express a
preference for feed from the farm or region.
2.3.3.
Results of the public consultation
As an
immediate and transitional measure, the use of synthetic amino acids for
organic monogastric feed production is discussed in some MS (for example Germany). The argument is made that in this case animal needs and species-specific feeding
should have higher priority than the principles to use 100 % organic
inputs. However, some representatives of the organic farming movement e.g. in
Germany, strongly dismissed this suggestion as not being in line with organic
principles and stated that instead the search for alternative solutions needs
to be intensified. Only 1% of the respondents to the public consultation
would agree with such a measure. The
majority of the respondents (66%) 29575) stated that the effective solution for
reduction of insufficiency in terms of organic protein-rich feed in Europe was to introduce in the EU legislation initiatives to boost European production of
organic protein crops. Following, as many as 27336 (61%) questioned citizens
found that in order to address this issue a specific organic protein-crop
production strategy should be developed. In turn, only 11% (4947) claimed that
the organic sector should be allowed to continue to rely on imports if needed.
Promising alternatives are already developed: methods to produce methionine via
enzymatic fermentation based on organic raw materials, or the use of insect
larvae or algae as a protein source for feed (method in development). These new
techniques are considered by interviewed experts as very promising, but not
entirely ready for a broad practical use yet.
2.4.
The use of seed or vegetative propagating
material not obtained by the organic production method
2.4.1.
Legal provisions
The
general rule imposes the use of organic seeds: "for the production of
products other than seed and vegetative propagating material only organically
produced seed and propagating material shall be used. To this end, the mother
plant in the case of seeds and the parent plant in the case of vegetative
propagating material shall have been produced in accordance with the rules laid
down in this Regulation for at least one generation, or, in the case of
perennial crops, two growing seasons." (Article 12 1) i). Exceptions
are possible according to Article 22 b) where it is necessary to ensure access
to seed and vegetative propagating material (seeds) where they are not
available on the market in organic form. According to
Article 45 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 889/2008, MS can authorise the use
of seed from a production unit in conversion to organic farming or the use of
non-organic seed if not available from organic production. Non-organic seed may
be used provided they are not treated with plant protection products not
allowed in organic farming. MS may
delegate the responsibility for granting the authorisation referred to in
paragraph 1) b) to another public administration or to the control bodies in
charge of the controls of the organic production on its territory. Species
for which it is established that organically produced seeds are available in
sufficient quantities and for a significant number of varieties in all
parts of the EU are set out in Annex X to Regulation 889/2008 and their use in
the non-organic form may not be authorised. This list has always been empty. According
to Article 48 of Regulation 889/2008, each MS shall ensure that a computerised
database is established for the listing of the varieties for which seeds
obtained by the organic production method are available on its territory.
Varieties for which seeds produced by the organic production method are
available shall be registered in the database at the request of the supplier.
Conditions for registration include the demonstration that the seeds to be
placed on the market comply with the general requirements for organic
production. Any variety which has not been registered in the database shall be
considered as unavailable. However, there is no legal obligation for suppliers
to notify their organic seed to the database. The
system of national seed databases is intended to encourage the use of the
available organic seed supply nationally by making it easier to find
information about availability. The management of the exceptional rule system
is done at MS level based on three categories: (1) where organic seed
availability for species/varieties is sufficient, exceptions are no longer
granted; (2) species or varieties with partial availability of organic seed, so
exceptions apply and (3) species or varieties where there is no organic seed
available, so a general authorisation to use non-organic material is given (see
Table 1). Table 1: Management of the
non-organic seed exceptional rule in 2011 in some EU MS Source: Own data from on case studies and annual
national reports Bodies
designated to grant authorizations to use non-organic seeds shall report to the
MS competent authorities. MS
competent authorities shall send an annual summary report to the
Commission and to the other MS.
2.4.2.
Issues
Current
availability of organic seeds and propagation material: The
organic seed market is growing, but levels of supply vary between MS and crops.
In Austria, Germany, Denmark and France the organic seed supply is reaching
satisfactory levels overall, according to interviews with authorities and professionals
(see Figure 2), exceptions for seeds were reported to be necessary in Bulgaria
(although farmers usually use their own seeds), the Czech Republic, Spain,
Italy, Poland and the United Kingdom. The sectors that mostly rely on exception
requests are fruit and vegetable producers, as they use a wide range of species
and varieties. To assess the degree of use of the exceptional rule system, the
share of the organic area grown with conventional non-treated seeds
(exceptional seeds) has been compared with total organic area, for three
different crops in 8 MS. The data are presented as an index, the highest
proportion for each crop being given an index of 100. Figure 2: Share of area grown
with exceptional rule non-organic seeds of total organic area, 2011 (ha) Source: Data from the consultant Among
the countries observed, supply of organic varieties of wheat, maize and
potatoes seems to be limited in Italy (the highest
rate of use of non-organic seeds). This might also be the case in Denmark and Estonia, where the use of species or varieties classified in category 3 with general
exception (see definition of categories below) means there is no record-keeping
of non-organic seeds used. This may lead, in turn, to farmers favouring cheaper
non-organic seeds, even when adequate organic supply is available for specific
varieties. However, very high levels of organic supply for soft wheat have been
achieved in Austria and the United Kingdom. For maize, the share of organic
areas cultivated from organic seed is close to 100 % in the Netherlands, Austria and Spain. Organic supply for seed potatoes is adequate in Austria, Bulgaria, Denmark, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom (index below 30%).[62] Of
the 12 countries studied[63],
only France and the Netherlands developed a list of species for which organic
seed supply is sufficient in quantity and diversity (Category 1).[64] The
majority of countries operate a regime where exceptions have to be justified
for each species on a case by case basis. Requested exceptions vary significantly
and can reach up to 4 000 varieties of around 600 species (United Kingdom). The third category, a list of species and varieties under permanent
exception, is active in six MS. Causes for undersupply: The reasons for
the low level of organic seed use are twofold, technical and economic. ·
According to ITAB (French Organic Farming
Technical Institute) quoted by the consultant, obtaining organic seeds from
conventional breeding techniques is not straightforward, since very few
producers are compliant with organic principles. Research studies have been
launched by multi-actor partnerships like ITAB and ECO-PB (European Consortium
for Organic Plant Breeding), to further develop organic seed supply and
quality, and are addressed in some research projects (e.g. SOLIBAM).[65] ·
From a financial perspective, organic seeds are
more expensive than non-treated conventional ones, which is an adverse
incentive at individual and collective level to use or develop organic seed
production. Odefey et al (2011) compared the
production costs of some organic enterprises with conventional in five
countries. Based on FADN data, they showed that seeds represent an important
share of production costs in organic crop production (from 21 % in Sweden to 35 % in France for wheat; from 18 % in Germany to 25 % in Sweden for potatoes). Indeed, the average costs for organic seeds are higher than for
conventional seeds (two to four times higher in Sweden and Germany for wheat; two to five times higher in Sweden and Austria for potatoes). As a result, the
potential to use non-treated conventional seeds under the exceptional rule
leads to financial advantages. Implications
of the exceptional rules for using non-organic seeds: The
organic seed supply was first limited by the size of the sector, which did not
provide a large enough market. The sector has grown but the seed price
difference is significant and the diversity of supply might not be sufficient
to meet the need of the sector. Now, providing access to the conventional seed
market through this exceptional rule plays against the development of the
organic seed sector. Generally,
exceptions have increased over the past years. The overview (see Table 3) shows
that there is only a limited number of cases where the quantity of exceptional
seeds has decreased with regard to the respective organic area: for potatoes in
Italy, for wheat and spelt in Denmark and for carrots in Italy and the
Netherlands (of the thirteen MS considered, complete data was only available
for Denmark, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and the United Kingdom).[66]
The diversity of the varieties managed through the databases has increased in
most cases. This data and the previous information on the use of the seed
management database, shows generally an extensive and increasing use of the
exceptional rule system at EU level. Accordingly, Annex X of the EC
Regulation has remained empty, showing the limited progress made towards supply
of organic seeds and propagating material at EU level. The
mandatory use of organic seeds will reduce the risk of contamination with
pesticides and GMOs from using conventional seeds and propagation material.
However, organic principles also require the use of locally adapted varieties,
of which seeds are less likely to be available in organic quality. For this the
reason, some stakeholders see the use of non-organic seeds as a necessity for
the sector to develop, even though it impedes or slows down the development of
organic seed production. Table 3: Analysis of the evolution
of the exceptions granted (volume and diversity) compared to the development of
organic areas between 2007 and 2011 (Rate 2011 over 2007)[67] Source: calculation of the consultant based on
national reports and Eurostat.
2.5.
Issues with the exceptional rules allowing the
use of non-organic inputs
The
possibilities of use of non-organic inputs when they are not available in their
organic form have been introduced with precautions in the EU legislation. In
particular, transparency about the availability of the inputs in their
organic form has been sought. For instance, the availability of organic
seeds should be known thanks to national seeds databases. In other respects, MS
are required to notify their authorizations of use of non-organic ingredients
in organic processed products via the "organic farming information
system" (OFIS), a Commission software. This
transparency has entailed high administrative burden on national
administrations (see assessment of administrative burden in Annex 17). The
procedures in place often involve individual applications and decisions, which
become numerous and difficult to manage for MS competent authorities. The seed
database has been identified as particularly burdensome. The
transparency policy has not helped limiting the use of exceptions. To the
contrary, the external evaluation shows that exceptions are more and more
used. Inputs producers are not encouraged to develop inputs in their
organic form, since the possibility of derogation is known and used.
2.6.
Transitional measures concerning animal housing
2.6.1.
Legal provisions
Transitional
measures were designed to allow progressive adaptation to the EU production
rules, by allowing flexibility regarding animal housing conditions (stocking
density,
Article 95(2) of Commission Regulation No 889/2008), and cattle
tethering in buildings existing before August 2000 (Article 9(1)).
These measures were intended to end on 31 December 2010, but they were extended
until
the 31 December 2013.[68] Both
measures have been extended in a significant number of MS: the transitional
measure concerning tethering of animals still applies in ten of the thirteen
studied countries (Austria, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Germany, Denmark,
Estonia, France, Netherlands, Poland and Slovenia); and the measure regarding
stocking density in nine of the 13 studied MS (as above but not in Slovenia).
In countries which have extended these measures operators had a 13-year
transition period from 2000 to 2013. Both rules are justified by the cost of
adapting animal housing to organic welfare standards introduced in 2007 in
Council Regulation (EC) 834/2007. To support the transition, specific aid is
offered under rural development programmes, which enables farmers to invest in
new buildings corresponding to the new requirements. However, this aid is
offered/implemented with specific provisions for organic farming only in very
few countries (e.g. Austria, parts of Germany).[69] Both
transitional rules are exceptions to the animal welfare standards as stated
in the principles of organic production (species specific behavioural needs and
meeting consumers demand).
2.6.2.
View of stakeholders
Stakeholders
interviewed by the consultant argued that transitional measures concerning
animal housing were adequate and justified to stop farmers quitting organic
farming and to help to maintain supply on the market. However, when asked
whether the transitional rules should continue or stop after 2013, views
differed. On one hand, some stakeholders in Germany, Estonia, Italy and Netherlands considered that tethering is not in line with the organic principles and that
the sector has had sufficient time to adapt and reorganise. On the other hand,
some interviewees suggested that tethering of cattle, when done in conditions
that respect animal welfare (regular exercise provided, access to outdoor
pasture, spacious stables with sufficient bedding, etc.), could be allowed
permanently (Czech Republic, Poland, Netherlands).
3.
Conclusions
3.1.
Scope
Harmonised
and clear rules at EU level are essential to guarantee a level playing field
for all EU organic operators. This is needed to ensure a smooth and well
functioning EU market and to avoid unfair competition and fraud. The
three options that have been examined for the impact assessment, address the
scope issue in the same way and include a clarification of the scope of the legislation
by listing precisely the products covered, which can be labelled as
"organic". The result will be to improve transparency and legal
certainty for all operators of the sector and for consumers also. It will also
contribute to reducing the administrative burden resulting from the frequent
questions on scope that are put to the Commission and to the national
administrations. Improved clarity and transparency will have a positive effect
on consumers' and producers' confidence in the EU organic system. The
findings of the Commission's report, of the hearings and of the consultations
did not show or justify the need for the inclusion of additional products or
sectors of activity. In particular, as regards mass catering which hardly has
any cross-border dimension, there is no evidence, at this stage, of an EU added
value that would result from its inclusion in the scope of the European organic
rules or from the elaboration of EU guidelines. Therefore the extension of the
scope of EU organic legislation to mass catering was discarded. The
same conclusion was drawn for textiles and cosmetics. The introduction of EU
production rules for textiles and cosmetics was considered but discarded
because the need for EU action was not demonstrated. To
further encourage the consumption of organic products, the Commission intends
to include in the Action Plan a general recommendation to prioritize the use of
organic products in public procurement schemes.
3.2.
GMOs
It
results from the fact finding exercise and consultations carried out during the
impact assessment that the GMO question is complex and cannot be addressed only
from an organic agriculture point of view but must be considered for all
agricultural crops. The issue is relevant to ensure GMO free organic (protein)
feed. The
results of the public consultation have shown that consumers of organic
products want GMO free products and the organic sector is committed to meet
this expectation. However,
the sector is concerned about the consequences of the introduction of a lower
labelling threshold notably for reasons of practicality, burden and costs.
Lowering the labelling threshold or introducing a specific threshold for
organic products would involve significant costs for operators which they do
not consider worthwhile. Laboratories have also warned that this would involve
heavy analysis costs. Furthermore, there is no specific request from MS to
change the current rules (see 2013 Council conclusions[70]). An
on-going exercise conducted by the Commission is examining the appropriateness
and workability of introducing or allowing "GM-free" labelling and
what this would encompass. After
having issued the first Best Practice Document for coexistence of genetically
modified crops with conventional and organic farming on "maize crop
production", the European Coexistence Bureau is now working on honey and
co-existence. MS remain in charge of devising co-existence rules on their
territory. The
conclusion is not to change the current rules and to leave the competences
inside the Commission as they are, including as regards the European
Coexistence Bureau. Therefore
the options that are being considered do not contain any proposal to amend the
current approach or the EU legislation in force.
3.3.
Exceptional rules
Exceptional
rules have been identified as a key-issue, which is addressed in three different
ways in the three policy options: –
Option 1: status quo –
Option 2: integration of exceptions as permanent
rules in the EU legislation on organic production, –
Option 3: removal of exceptions to the rules. Impacts: Options
1 and 2
would have negative consequences on the long-term because exceptional rules
contradict organic principles and consumers’ expectations. Their existence can
adversely impact on the organic sector, notably by harming the development of
the organic market and preventing the development of organic inputs. In
addition, option 1 is associated with heavy and increasing administrative costs
(see Annex 17). Option
3
could have short-term adverse but limited economic impacts on the production
sector, notably organic chicks, seeds and propagating material. Precise data on
the number of producers concerned is not available. The external evaluation
shows that exceptions are more and more used. The sector had already time to
adapt and at one point a decision to stop the exceptions is needed, otherwise
the exceptions become the rule. Appropriate transitional measures should be
decided. Exceptions in the case of catastrophic circumstances should in any
case remain possible. Several
research projects financed by the Commission have been designed to find
solutions to the issues of insufficient availability of some inputs in their
organic form. Their results are expected in 2013 and 2014. It should help the
transition towards the end of exceptions planned end 2014 (allowing the use of
5% non-organic feed and of non-organic pullets). In
the longer term, the sector will benefit from stricter rules which will
maintain consumer confidence in organic products, allowing further developments
of the market. In addition, the sector of "organic inputs" (organic
seeds, organic pullets and cheeks) will be boosted. ANNEX 7: AUTHORISATION
OF SUBSTANCES AND TECHNIQUES IN ORGANIC FARMING
1.
Current situation and legal framework
Organic
farming relies on objectives and principles, as well as practices designed to
minimise the impact on the environment. The substances and products used as
inputs should follow as much as possible these principles. Organic
farming rules include: -
Restrictions
on chemical synthetic pesticide and synthetic fertiliser use, livestock
antibiotics, food additives and processing aids. -
Prohibition
of the use of genetically modified organisms. The
legal base for the general principles is title II of Council Regulation (EC) No
834/2007[71] "objectives
and principles of Organic farming". Title
III "production rules" provides the specific requirements for each of
the different productions from general farm production with rules for plants,
seaweed, livestock and aquaculture to the production of processed feed and
food, including yeast. The
Commission is in charge of the authorisation of substances and products in
accordance with Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 834/20007. Restricted lists of
products and substances that may be used in organic farming are established for
the following purposes: - plant
protection products; - fertilisers
and soil conditioners; - non-organic
feed materials from plant origin, feed material from animal and mineral origin
and certain substances used in animal nutrition; - feed
additives and processing aids; - products
for cleaning and disinfection of ponds, cages, buildings and installations for
animal production; - products
for cleaning and disinfection of buildings and installations used for plant
production, including storage on an agricultural holding. Products
and substances contained in the closed lists may only be used if the
corresponding use is authorised in the MS concerned in accordance with the
relevant EU provisions and/or national provisions. Beside
these general and specific rules, Commission Regulation (EC) No 889/2008[72]
implements and develops more detailed rules, through positive lists (Annexes I
to XIII) covering substances and products such as: -
Fertilisers,
soil conditioners and nutrients in Annex I, - Pesticides
and plant protection products in Annex II, - Minimum
surface areas in Annex III, - Maximum
number of animal in Annex IV, - Feed
materials in Annex V, - Feed
additives in Annex VI, - Products
for cleaning and disinfection in Annex VII, - Certain
products such as food additives, carriers, processing aids in Annex VIII, - Products
for use in the wine sector in Annex VIII a, - Products
not produced organically but needed for the food organic industry in Annex IX, - Aquaculture
in Annex XIIIa. Although
Articles 15 to 21 of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 explain in detail the
criteria for the authorisation of substances and the rules of production, still
in many cases, it is difficult for the Commission to judge if certain
substances and/or techniques requested by MS to be included in the annexes,
fall under these objectives, principles and criteria. Therefore, the Commission
consults experts with
technical and scientific knowledge in order to get advice on whether to update
the legislation (usually Commission Regulation (EC) No 889/2008) and whether to
include new substances or practices. In
the past this technical advice was provided by ad-hoc expert groups working on
a temporary basis. In order to streamline this work, the 2004 European Action
Plan on organic food and farming proposed the setting up of a group of experts
for technical advice in the field of organic production (Action No 11). Commission Decision 2009/427/EC,[73]
establishing the expert group for technical advice on organic production
(EGTOP) was the first step towards the implementation of Action No 11. Further
steps included (i) the publication of a call for applications with a view to
select the relevant experts, followed by (ii) the appointment of the experts
and the setting up of the pool list by Commission Decision 2010/C 262/03[74], and
(iii) the publication on Internet of the rules of procedure[75] for
the group. The
expert group has ensured access to highly qualified technical expertise and has
provided recommendations to the Commission on different fields such as plant
protection products, feed, additives, food processing aids or greenhouse
production. The
experts work under the principles of "Independence, Excellency and
Transparency"; therefore, members of the group make an annual declaration
of their commitment to act in the public interest and a declaration of
interests indicating either the absence or existence of any interest which
might be considered prejudicial to their independence. However,
as the sector is so specialised, the number of experts is limited.
2.
The process of evaluation of substances and
techniques
In
order to request to include or withdraw a substance or a product from the lists
in the Annexes to Commission Regulation (EC) No 889/2008, or to amend
specifications of use, MS have to send a technical dossier to the Commission
and to the other MS, on the basis of Article 16 (3, b) for farm production and
Article 21 (2) for processed food. On
the basis of the dossier, the Commission drafts a mandate on which EGTOP
is requested to give its advice in a given period of time. The
mandate is presented first to the SCOF (Standing Committee on Organic farming)
and then to the plenary EGTOP group. The plenary group can consider and decide
on the selection of member experts that may participate in a subgroup that will
be created for evaluating that specific mandate. The experts from that subgroup
are chosen from the pool of experts. The subgroup experts are temporary
members, who have the mission to draft a report with some recommendations about
the specific subject. Once it has been finalised, the report is adopted by the
EGTOP plenary group. Once
the recommendations are adopted by EGTOP plenary group, under consensus
decisions, the report is published together with the minutes of the meeting and
the names of the experts who have participated in the subgroup. So
far EGTOP has met six times in plenary sessions (twice a year) and four times
at subgroup level, on specific topic/s (e.g. fertilisers, plant protection
products, etc.). The outcomes of those meetings are 6 final reports on: Feed,
Fertilisers and soil conditioners, Plant protection products, Food (I), Poultry
and greenhouse production. Two mandates are on-going in 2013, Food (II) and
Aquaculture. Once
the reports are published, the Commission takes decisions on the basis of the
EGTOP recommendations and possibly proposes to the SCOF the appropriate
amendments of Commission Regulation (EC) No 889/2008.
3.
Issues
More
and more requests are received by the Commission, because the organic sector is
growing and there is a need for technical advice on developing sectors such as
greenhouses, pullets, processed food, etc. The
process by which EGTOP can provide technical recommendations to the Commission is
complex, technical and time-consuming, for which a high degree of
specialisation is required. The rules of procedure of EGTOP are intended to
prevent any conflict of interest but a complete independence of the experts
cannot always be ensured. EGTOP
experts work on a voluntary basis and perceive only the travel costs and per
diem. In
November 2011 the Budget Authority voted at the initiative of the Parliament
EUR 2 million in reserve on committees. The reserve was lifted only when the
Commission committed to revise the rules on experts group[76][77]. MEPs
considered that smallholder farmers are underrepresented in DG Agri expert and
advisory groups.
4.
Conclusions and options
Two
possibilities have then been envisaged during the impact assessment: Examination
by an expert group organised by the Commission, under options
1 (improved status quo) and 3 (principle-driven). The horizontal Commission
Decision No 2004/391/CE[78] of
23 April 2004 provides the possibility of designating such expert groups. Although
that Decision will be revised in the near future, it relies on a longstanding procedure,
well established and simpler than the EGTOP procedure. The technical requests
would be examined by experts proposed by the stakeholders organisations already
represented in the AGOF, who would transmit their conclusions to the
Commission. Impacts: In
one hand, it will solve one of the issues highlighted in the reserve from the
European Parliament as smallholder farmers will be represented and in the other
hand, the procedure of examination of the requests would be quicker and
innovative techniques and practices could be incorporated more easily in the
production rules. It would be to the benefit of organic producers'
competitiveness. The
Commission could ensure a balanced representativeness of experts working on the
technical assessment of requests. Authorisation
of substances and practices for organic farming under the responsibility of the
sector
under option 2. The
requests would be transmitted for examination to representative stakeholders,
who would transmit their conclusions to the Commission. Impacts: It
can be difficult in practice to determine the representative stakeholders.
There is a risk of watering down of the standard, which could undermine
consumer confidence. Finally this option raises the issues of transparency. ANNEX 8: LOGO AND
LABELLING
1.
General rules on labelling of organic products
General
rules on labelling of organic products are defined in detail in Title IV of
Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007. These rules are specified and defined
(notably as regards the model of the EU organic logo) in detail in Title III of
Commission Regulation (EC) No 899/2008. Article
23 of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 provides for the protection of the
terms referring to the organic production method. These terms are listed in
the Annex to this Regulation in all EU languages. The use of these terms and
their derivatives and diminutives such as "bio" and "eco"
for purposes of labelling and advertising is restricted to agricultural
products produced according to the provisions of this regulation throughout the
EU and in any language of the EU. The labelling
rules and the use of the EU organic logo are laid down in Articles 24 and
25. Article
24 defines the compulsory indications where terms referring to the
organic production method are used: code number of the control authority/body
who carried out the most recent production or preparation operation, EU logo
and an indication of the place of origin. The
following model shows the logo and the compulsory indications as printed on the
product: Rules
on the use of the organic production logo are laid down in Article 25.
The use of the EU logo is not exclusive, national and private logos are
allowed. The use of the logo is optional for products imported from third
countries. The
use of this logo and the compulsory indications are obligatory for the
labelling of processed pre-packaged food since 1 July 2010[79]: The
EU organic logo may be displayed on non-pre-packaged or imported food products
on a voluntary basis. When used on a product, the EU organic logo indicates
that this product is in full conformity with the rules laid down in the EU
Regulations. For processed products it means that at least 95% of the
agricultural ingredients are organic. The
EU organic logo is registered since 2010 as a trade mark[80] in
the EU and has international registrations[81] in
key third countries such as Switzerland, the United States, Japan and Norway.
2.
Awareness of the EU logo, confusion associated
with multiple logos
According
to a Eurobarometer survey conducted in July 2012, the EU organic logo had
already gained 24%[82]
of the citizens' awareness. Taking into account 2 years of transitional
period (to facilitate operators adapting to the new rules) and lack of costly
campaigns, this result can be consider as successful. The logo was selected
through a competition among students and finally chosen by European citizens
through an Internet vote, which gave it already some recognition. In comparison
the logo identifying Protected Designations of Origin (PDO) and Protected
Geographical Indication (PGI) is recognised by 14% of the population. Overall
knowledge of the EU organic logo varies widely between MS (from 13% to 39%)
depending on how developed the organic sector is and whether there was a strong
national logo before. The
vast majority of respondents to the public consultation (35357, or 79% of the
total), declared that they recognize the European organic logo. Only 20% of the
questioned publics were not familiar with the European organic logo. This
result confirms that the respondents to the public consultation were mostly
familiar with the organic sector, but cannot be interpreted as a level of
awareness among the general EU population. The
national and European logos were equally known by the respondents to the public
consultation. National logos (66%; 29605) and the European logo (66%; 29416)
are the most common and trusted indications of distinguishing organic among
conventional products. The
EU organic logo has a long term potential: once understood, it can be easily
recognised by European consumers in all MS without a need for translation every
time it crosses an EU language border. In
addition, there are many private logos relating not only to private organic
standards but also to other schemes, which add to the confusion[83]. Proliferation
of quality (including organic) labels: Fewer labels
would likely diminish confusion amongst consumers, especially if consumers can
reliably begin to attach credible association with one well known and well
understood label: Examples of organic logos: Name || Region || Label Europe EU Organic farming || EU || FR-BIO-000 EU/Non EU agriculture Austria Bio garantie || Austria || AB – agriculture biologique || France || Bio-siegel || Germany || Biogarantie || Belgium || EKO || Netherlands || Soil Association || UK || Organic farmers and growers || UK || North America USDA National Organic Program (NOP) || USA || Canada Organic || Canada || Other Australian certified organic || Australia || NASAA certified organic || Australia || JAS || Japan || Bio-Gro || New Zealand ||
3.
Indication of the place of farming: complex but
important for consumers
Whenever the EU
organic logo is used on a product, it always has to be accompanied by the code
number of the control body and the place where the agricultural raw materials
of which the product is composed have been farmed. The geographical
origin of food is considered very important by the majority of European
consumers.
The
introduction of the obligatory
indication of the place of farming on the packaging of organic products,
besides the organic logo
in Regulation 834/2007 was an improvement in this respect. However, stakeholders
have reported that the rules for the indication of the place of origin are
complex and that they could be simplified.
4.
The issue of double labelling of country of
origin
The horizontal
legislation provides with several cases where the indication of the country of
origin of primary ingredients is required, notably Regulation (EU)
No 1169/2011[84]
on food information to consumers (not yet implemented). In these cases, it has
been suggested that the legislation on organic farming should not impose the
same indication twice. Currently the indication of country of origin is
obligatory for beef and beef products in the EU. Mandatory origin provisions
have been developed on the basis of vertical approaches for instance for honey,
fruit and vegetables, fish, beef and beef products and olive oil. There is also
a possibility to extend mandatory origin labelling for other food products. In
particular, on
the basis of Article 26(8) of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 the Commission shall
adopt by 13 December 2013 an implementing act concerning the mandatory
indication of the country of origin or place of provenance for meat of swine,
sheep and goat, and poultry. The aim is to simplify the labeling of county of
origin and avoid double labeling of products falling under the provisions of
Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011.
5.
Complexity of the labelling of organic processed
products
According
to the legislation on organic production, the country of origin can only be
indicated on the packaging of processed products if all agricultural raw
materials of which this product is composed are farmed in this country. The
threshold for ingredients allowed from other origin is only 2 % by weight. This
has as consequence that in the case of organic processed products including
ingredients from various origins, the indication "EU agriculture",
"non EU agriculture" or even "EU/non EU agriculture" has to
be used. The sector has requested this 2% limit to be expanded to 5%, in order
to be consistent with the possibility for processed food to be sold as organic
provided they include at least 95% by weight of organic ingredients of
agricultural origin. Inexact obligatory
labelling on organic aquaculture products The
legislation on organic production imposes to use the indication "EU
agriculture", "non EU agriculture" or "EU/non EU
agriculture", instead of "EU Aquaculture" / "non-EU
Aquaculture" / "EU/non EU Aquaculture".
6.
Policy options
Labelling
issues are addressed by measures proposed proposed in the improved status quo
option, and are therefore extended to all options. They are supported by
stakeholders and MS. The following
improvements are proposed: -
Measures to avoid double labelling of the origin -
Simplification of the labelling of organic processed
products (see above). -
Introduction of the possibility to use the
indication "EU Aquaculture" / "non-EU Aquaculture" or
"EU/non EU Aquaculture" instead of "EU agriculture",
"non EU agriculture" or "EU/non EU agriculture" on the labelling
of organic aquaculture products, Impacts: the
proposed measures intend to simplify the labelling requirements, thus improving
the competitiveness of operators. It will also bring clarification to
consumers, in particular in the case of aquaculture products. [1] Organic Monitor: the Global Market for
Organic Food and Drink: business opportunities and future outlook (3rd
edition, 2010, www.organicmonitor.com) [2] Zubiaurre C, 2013, The current status
and future perspectives of European Organic Aquaculture. Aquaculture Europe 38
(2), pp14-21 (Based on MSc study University of Barcelona in conjunction with
the European Aquaculture Society). [3] Estimation based on Official Eurostat
data, the 2011 figures were missing for IE, CY, LU, thus their available data
was used from 2010. [4] Estimation based on Official Eurostat
data, the 2011 figures were missing for IE, CY, LT, LU, and UK, thus their available data was used from the previous year. [5] Total organic land area (ha) (certified
and in-conversion area) - total area, including Arable land crops, Permanent
grassland (pastures and meadows), Permanent crops, Fallow land as part of crop
rotation [6] Conversion means the transition from
non-organic to organic farming within a given period of time, during which the
provisions concerning the organic production have been applied (Article 2 of
Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007) [7] Crops are arable crops (cereals,
protein crops, root crops, industrial crops, fresh vegetables, forage plants
and other arable land crops) and permanent crops (fruit, berries, citrus fruit,
olives, vineyards and other permanent crops). [8] An analysis of the EU organic sector,
June 2010 European Commission, DG for Agriculture and Rural Development [9] The Organic Monitor 2010 [10] Ibid [11] The full set of reports from the
CERTCOST projects is available at www.certcost.org [12] The Reliability of Certification: Quality Labels as a Consumer Policy
Tool – Jahn et al. Journal of Consumer policy (2005) 28: 53-73. [13] Consumer attitudes towards organic versus conventional food
with specific quality attributes – Stolz et al, NJAS – Wageningen Journal of
Life Sciences 58(2011) 67- 72. [14] http://www.qlif.org [15] Consumer perception of different organic certification schemes
in five European countries - Janssen, M. and Hamm, U. (2011). Organic
Agriculture 1(1):31-43. [16] The state and consumer confidence in eco-labelling: organic
labeling in Denmark, Sweden, The UK and the US – Kim Mannemar Sønderskov -
Carsten Daugbjerg. Department of Political Science, Aarhus University, Denmark. Agric Hum Values (2001) 28:507-517. [17] The persons who replied on behalf of a consumer organisation
are considered as consumers, while the ones who replied on personal behalf are
considered as citizens. [18] To
check whether some particular sub-classes (by country, capacity, attitude,
orientation etc.) could introduce bias on average results from the sample,
analyses based on groups were carried out: by selecting most relevant classes
no distortive effect was proved. [19] http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/organic/news_en [21] According
to Reg. (EC) 1698/2005 payment rates shall cover additional costs or income
foregone resulting from organic management (i.e. only those commitments going
beyond the relevant mandatory requirements established by EU or national
legislation). The level of payments is defined by Member States based on the
following parameters: differences in yield, production costs, prices and
transaction costs. Usually Member States define a typical regional organic farm
and a conventional reference farm to calculate the additional costs. As
reported by Sanders et al. (2011) not all countries/regions compensate 100 % of
the additional costs. In most countries which do not compensate 100 % of the
additional costs, there are large variations between individual crops or land
use types. Since additional costs are calculated on the basis of a typical
farm, low compensation levels do not necessarily mean that all farmers are only
partially compensated. The real implications of compensation levels depend very
much on the selected organic and conventional reference farms. [22] Schemes
are based on Council Regulation (EC) 73/2009 establishing common rules for
direct support schemes for farmers. [23] For the contracts concluded by 2010/11 France implements maintenance and conversion payments for organic farming under Axis 2 of
its rural development programmes through agri-environment payments (Measure
214). These payments will continue to be carried out until the end of the
contracts, having a duration of 5-7 years. [24] http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-621_en.htm [25] During the 2007-2013 programming period,
support for organic farming was part of the compulsory agri-environmental
measure. For the programming period 2014-2020, it has been proposed to
establish a specific voluntary Organic farming measure. This is to recognise
the importance of organic farming in contributing to various rural development
objectives and priorities. [26] http://www.tporganics.eu/ [27] http://cordis.europa.eu/technology-platforms/individual_en.html [28] Organic viticulture and wine-making:
development of environment and consumer friendly technologies for organic wine
quality improvement and scientifically based legislative framework, STREP
(Specific Targeted Research or Innovation Project) Contract no.:022769, Sixth
EU Framework Programme, Priority 8.1 - Policy-oriented Research (SSP), Area
1.2, - Task 1: Organic viticulture and wine processing, Project Coordinator:
AIAB [29] http://ec.europa.eu/research/bioeconomy/agriculture/projects/organicdatanetwork_en.htm [30] http://ec.europa.eu/research/research-for-europe/agriculture-quality-low-input-food_en.html [31] http://ec.europa.eu/research/bioeconomy/agriculture/projects/lowinputbreeds_en.htm [32] http://ec.europa.eu/research/horizon2020/index_en.cfm [33] http://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union/index_en.cfm [34] http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/index_en.htm [35] Communication from the Commission -
Europe 2020 - A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth -
COM(2010) 2020 of 3 March 2010 [36] Council Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 of 24
June 1991 on organic production of agricultural products and indications
referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs – UE OJ L 198,
22.7.1991, p. 1. [37] Council Regulation (EC) No 1804/1999 of
19 July 1999 supplementing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 on organic production of
agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural
products and foodstuffs to include livestock production –UE OJ L 222,
24.8.1999, p. 1. [38] European Action Plan for Organic Food and Farming Com
(2004) 415 final of 10.06.2004. [39] Commission Regulation (EC) No 710/2009 of 5
August 2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 laying down detailed rules for
the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007, as regards laying
down detailed rules on organic aquaculture animal and seaweed production, UE OJ
L 204, 6.8.2009, p. 15. [40] Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 203/2012 of
8 March 2012 amending Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 laying down detailed rules
for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007, as regards
detailed rules on organic wine, UE OJ L 71, 9.3.2012, p. 42. [41] COM (2012) 212 final of 11.5.2012 Report
from the Commission to the European Parliament and to the Council on the
application of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 on organic production and labelling
of organic products [42] Products produced "by GMOs"
are mentioned in Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007, but they are not defined
in Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 on genetically modified food and feed. Therefore only products produced "from
GMOs" are considered in the analysis. [43] Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed –
UE OJ L 268, 18.10.2003, p. 1. [44] Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of
genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC – UE
OJ L 106, 17.4.2001, p. 1. [45] Regulation (EC) No 1830/2003 of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 22 September 2003 concerning the traceability and
labelling of genetically modified organisms and the traceability of food and
feed products produced from genetically modified organisms and amending
Directive 2001/18/EC – UE OJ L 268, 18.10.2003, p. 24. [46] COM (2009) 153 final of 2.4.2009 Report
from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the
coexistence of genetically modified crops with conventional and organic farming http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/gmo/coexistence/index_en.htm [47] Commission Recommendation of 13 July
2010 on guidelines for the development of national co-existence measures to
avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in conventional and organic crops, OJ C
200 of 22 July 2010 [48] Commission Recommendation of 13 July
2010 on guidelines for the development of national co-existence measures to
avoid the unintended presence of GMOs in conventional and organic crops, OJ C
200 of 22 July 2010 [49] See a detailed analysis in Annex 6 on
production rules. [50] In particular during discussions at the AGOF
meeting of December 2012. [51] Based on stakeholders interviews [52] Among
producers these pullets are often referred to as part-organic, because the
articles states that the organic feeding and disease prevention rules must be
complied with by the pullet rearing enterprise. [53] This
point would not affect northern countries that require access to open-air areas
only if weather conditions permit. [54] Example
of costs of production difference in United Kingdom (exchange rate EUR/GPB =
1.19): ·
Costs
of organic chicks for broilers: £0.70/per bird (0.83 €) whereas non-organic
chicks likely at £0.40/per bird (0.47 €) ·
Fully
organic reared pullets for layers (using non-organic chicks): £6.00 to 6.95/
per bird (7.12 to 8.25€). Part reared (free range using only organic feed): £4.40
to £4.70 (5.22 to 5.58 €). ·
Rapport
ITAVI (text A), 2010 compares the price of conventional chicks of slow growing
strains of 29.61€ for 100 heads to the price of organic chicks of intermediary
growing strains of 65€ for 100 head). [55] This rule does not apply to herbivores. [56] The project is coordinated by the
International Centre for Research in Organic Foods Systems (ICROFS) and funded
under the CORE Organic II - FP7 ERA-Net project). [57] The report will present estimates of
organic stock numbers of all animals (including herbivores) and of organic
production of concentrated feedstuffs including protein, broken down by
crop/type in 12 countries as well as balancing calculations and tentative
conclusions. [58] For example
in France, according to expert estimates, the need for organic soy for animal
feed is around 55 000 tons, and national production is 5 000 tons, which means that 90 %
of organic soy for feed is imported (mainly from third countries). [59] EGTOP
(2011), Final report on feed, 3rd
plenary meeting on 29 and 30 June 2011 [60] According
to United Kingdom expert interviewed, to move from 95 %
to 100 % will cost producer + £15/t in increased
feed cost and +3p/doz in production cost. [61] This assumption doesn’t take into account potential adjustments such as adaptation of
breeds [62] Stakeholders in the United Kingdom mentioned that supply of organic seed potatoes
has fallen dramatically in the last two years, because one major supplier withdrew
from the organic market. [63] Data from Czech Republic could not be analysed. [64] No conventional seeds can be used by the operators for these crops, except for
exceptional cases under appropriate justifications (e.g. specific use, e.g.
pop-corn). [65] Strategies for Organic and Low-input
Integrated Breeding and Management, financed by the European Commission under
the 7th Framework programme- http://www.solibam.eu/ [66] Decreased in greater proportion than the area or
increased in smaller proportion. [67] Sufficient data allowing the analysis of both (a) exceptions granted and (b)
organic areas for the selected species (potatoes, wheat and spelt, carrots)
were available only in 5 countries. One of the limiting criteria was the
different units used to specify the volume of exceptions, which prevented a clear
view of the total amount granted. [68] There also is a permanent exceptional
rule related to structural constrains, the tethering exemption for small
holders in Article 39 of Regulation (EC) 889/2008. [69] See information about Measure 121: Modernisation of agricultural holdings in Sanders et
al. (2011). [70] http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/agricult/137076.pdf [71] Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 of
28 June 2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products and
repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91.(O.J. L 189 , 20/07/2007, p. 1.) [72] Commission Regulation (EC) No 889/2008
of 5 September 2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of
Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 on organic production and labelling of
organic products with regard to organic production, labelling and control,
OJ L 250, 18.9.2008, p. 1–84 [73] COMMISSION DECISION of 3 June 2009 establishing the
expert group for technical advice on organic production (2009/427/EC) L139/29 [74] COMMISSION DECISION of 28 September 2010
appointing the members of the group for technical advice on organic production
and drawing up the pool list [75] http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/organic/files/eu-policy/expert-recommendations/expert_group/rules_of_procedure_20-21_June.pdf [76] http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/11/st17/st17470-ad05.en11.pdf [77] In particular, the Commission committed
to modify the rules on expert groups as to adopt common selection criteria
through out all DGs, that guarantee balance among different categories of
stakeholders and absence of Conflict of Interests for experts. Is was agreed to
establish an obligatory open selection process with a public call and a
published mandate of each expert group which goes beyond a simple
representation of Member states authorities. [78] Commission Decision No 391/2004 of 23
April 2004 on the advisory groups dealing with matters covered by the common
agricultural policy UE OJ L 120, 24.4.2004, p. 50. [79] Even if the EU organic logo was compulsory
from 1 July 2010 on, the gradual placing of the new logo on the market
lasted until 2012. This transitional period was designed to help operators
adapt to the new regulation and to avoid waste of existing packaging. Packaging material compliant to the
organic legislation as in force before the introduction of the new logo could
be used, and possibly renewed, until 1 July 2012, with or without the old
organic logo. Products produced, packaged and labelled before 1 July 2010
could continue to be placed on the market and sold until stocks are exhausted. [80] The logo was filled as an individual and
collective trademark in the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs) – OHIM. It is registered and protected as an
individual trademark since 2010 and as a collective trademark since 2012. [81] The international registrations followed
the EU legal protection and were completed in 2010-2012 period (with the
exception of China). Internationally the logo is registered as a collective
trademark. [82] Eurobarometer report n° 389 (What
Europeans think of food security, food quality and the relation between
agriculture & the countryside - July 2012) [83] SODEXO, COPA-COGECA, Carrefour,
ECF-European Coffee Federation, Vossen&Co (organic essential oils) Autumn
hearings [84] Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on the provision of
food information to consumers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1924/2006 and (EC)
No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing
Commission Directive 87/250/EEC, Council Directive 90/496/EEC, Commission
Directive 1999/10/EC, Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council, Commission Directives 2002/67/EC and 2008/5/EC and Commission
Regulation (EC) No 608/2004 – OJ L 304, 22.11.2011, p. 18. ANNEXES 9 to 17 TAble of contents ANNEX 9: CONTROL SYSTEM... 4 1..... Link
with controls on food and feed.. 4 1.1. The legal framework. 4 1.2. Identified problems. 5 1.3. Review of official food and
feed controls. 6 2..... Coverage.. 7 2.1. Activities and operators. 7 2.2. Identified problems. 7 2.3. Opinion by MS and
Stakeholders. 8 2.4. Conclusion. 9 3..... Set-up
of the control system... 9 3.1. Private control bodies,
public control authorities or mixed system.. 9 3.2. Identified problems. 10 3.3. Conclusion. 11 4..... Supervision
and control chain.. 11 4.1. Roles and responsibilities. 11 4.2. Identified problems. 15 4.2.1. Supervision by the
Commission. 15 4.2.2. Supervision by MS
Competent Authorities. 16 4.2.3. Accreditation. 16 4.3. Opinion by MS and
stakeholders. 17 4.4. Conclusion. 17 5..... Control
frequency.. 18 5.1. Minimum control frequency and risk based approach. 18 5.2. Identified problems. 19 5.3. Position by Stakeholders. 20 5.4. Conclusion. 21 6..... Paper-based
certification.. 21 6.1. Documentary evidence. 21 6.2. Certificate of inspection. 23 6.3. Conclusion. 24 7..... Irregularities,
infringements and sanctions. 24 7.1. State of play. 24 7.2. Identified problems. 25 7.3. Position by stakeholders. 26 7.4. Evaluation and studies. 26 7.5. Conclusion. 27 8..... Fraud
cases reported in the media.. 27 ANNEX 10: COSTS OF CONTROLS IN THE EU ORGANIC PRODUCTION
SCHEME 29 1..... Introduction.. 29 2..... Overview
of the main types of control related costs in the organic chain.. 29 2.1. Control system set-up. 29 2.2. Public support of
certification costs. 30 3..... Concrete
examples of control related costs in some MS. 31 3.1. Inspection fees paid by
operators to control bodies and to control authorities. 31 3.2. Cost of approval and
supervision of control bodies borne by the national authorities 33 3.3. Cost of accreditation. 34 3.4. Aggregated control data. 34 4..... Conclusions. 35 ANNEX 11: PRESENCE OF NON-AUTHORISED SUBSTANCE RESIDUES
IN ORGANIC PRODUCTS. 36 1..... Overview
EU legislative Framework.. 36 2..... Identified
issues. 37 2.1. Situation in the EU.. 38 2.2. Situation concerning
imported products. 40 2.3. Conclusion. 41 3..... Consumers'
expectations. 42 4..... Conclusions. 42 4.1. Investigation requirement 42 4.2. A critical level for the
commercialisation of organic products. 42 4.3. Product oriented approach. 43 ANNEX 12: THE EU TRADE REGIME FOR ORGANIC PRODUCTS. 48 1..... Import
regime.. 48 2..... Equivalence.. 50 2.1. Equivalence assessment and
recognition. 50 2.1.1. Third Countries recognised
for the purpose of equivalence. 50 2.1.2. CBs recognised for the
purpose of equivalence. 52 2.1.3. Issues with the
equivalence regime. 52 2.1.4. Compliance. 53 3..... Supervision.. 57 4..... Possible
impacts of a move to compliance on developing countries 58 4.1. Analysis of the standard. 58 4.2. Analysis of the trade flows. 63 5..... Exports. 66 6..... Conclusions. 66 ANNEX 13: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF ORGANIC FARMING.. 68 1..... Impacts
of organic farming on the environment. 68 1.1. Biodiversity. 70 1.2. Energy. 70 1.3. Greenhouse gas emissions
(GHG) 70 1.4. Air quality and water
management 71 1.5. Soil 72 1.6. Land use. 72 2..... Environmental
performance.. 73 2.1. Ecolabel for food and drink
products. 73 2.1. EMS. 74 ANNEX 14: ANIMAL WELFARE.. 83 1..... Introduction.. 83 2..... Legal
background.. 83 3..... Current
legislation on organic farming and animal welfare 84 4..... Results
of the consultations with consumers and stakeholders 86 5..... improvements
in animal welfare standards of organic farming requested by animal welfare
organisations. 87 6..... Options
and their impacts. 88 7..... Conclusion.. 88 ANNEX 15: SMALL FARMS AND ENTERPRISES: SIMPLIFICATION;
GROUP CERTIFICATION.. 89 8..... Introduction.. 89 9..... Data on small agricultural
holdings in the EU.. 89 9.1. Difficulties for small
agricultural holdings to join the organic sector 90 9.1.1. Current situation. 90 9.1.2. Issues. 91 10... Simplification.. 91 11... Group
certification, currently implemented in Third Countries 92 11.1. Definition. 92 11.2. Experiences and evaluation. 96 11.3. Opinion by stakeholders. 98 12... Conclusions. 100 ANNEX 16: ASSESSMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS. 102 1..... Introduction.. 102 2..... Work
done and results obtained.. 102 2.1. Mapping of information
obligations. 102 2.2. Qualitative assessment 103 3..... Conclusions. 104 ANNEX 17: REFERENCE DOCUMENTS. 131 ANNEX 9: CONTROL SYSTEM
1.
Link with controls on food and feed
1.1.
The legal framework
Council Regulation
(EC) No 834/2007 on organic production and labelling[1]
requires MS to set up and manage a control system to ensure that organic
products are produced in compliance with its rules. It places the organic
control system under the general umbrella of the official controls on food
and feed (OFFC) laid down in Regulation No 882/2004 that applies to
all food, organic or not, produced or imported in the EU in order to guarantee
food safety, fair practices and the protection of consumers' interests. To cater for the
specific needs of organic production, it sets out additional control
requirements and/or derogations as appropriate to the food and feed official
control rules. Commission
Regulation No 889/2008 provides the detailed
control implementing rules. The following table gives an overview of the
organic control provisions: Table 1:
Control provisions || Regulation No 834/2007 || Regulation No 889/2008 Set-up of the control system || Article 27(1) and (2) || Title IV: minimum control requirements Nature and frequency of controls || Article 27(3) || Title IV: Articles 65 and 90 Title V: Article 95(2) Possibility to confer control competences to control authorities || Article 27(4)(a) || Possibility to delegate control tasks to (private) control bodies || Article 27(4)(b) Article 27(5) Article 27(5)(b),(d),(e) - in compliance with Article 5(2)(b),(e), (f) of Regulation No 882/2004 || Criteria to approve control bodies || Article 27(6) || No possibility to delegate supervision and granting of exceptions || Article 27(7) || Audits of control bodies || Article 27(8) - in compliance with Article 5(3) of Regulation No 882/2004 || Additional criteria for supervision of control bodies || Article 27(9) || Control bodies: code number, access to facilities, report on control activities || Article 27(10) to (14) || Specific control requirements for: · plants & plants products · livestock & livestock products · preparation of products · imports · contracting to third parties · units preparing feed || || Title IV
1.2.
Identified problems
The interaction of
different acts makes the legal framework quite complex and entails a number of gaps,
overlaps, grey areas and inconsistencies. Some official controls
provisions are repeated or mirrored in the organic legislation while others -
for instance, controls at market or retail level - are not. The definitions are not
always the same in the regulations on official controls and on organic: for
instance, control authority(ies) are only referred to in the legislation on
organic production. This has led to several
requests for interpretation[2],
uncertainties and/or different approaches by MS in implementation of the rules,
including non-effective implementation. The audits carried out
by the Food and Veterinary Office of the European Commission (FVO) in 2012 and
2013 to verify the proper functioning of the organic control system showed weaknesses
in market controls in the audited MS[3]. Other than on market
controls, several issues have been brought up as regards the interaction with
the official food and feed regulation: unannounced control visits, risk-based
approach and sampling as well as sanctions – on which please
see sections 5 and 7 of this annex. Secondly, the
architecture of the official food and feed controls relies on a system of several
competent authorities. Here again, the audits
carried out by the FVO show that the coordination between these authorities
is not always effective or efficient.
1.3.
Review of official food and feed controls
In May 2013, the
Commission adopted a proposal (COM(2013)265 final) to review Regulation
No 882/2004 on official food and feed controls. The proposal aims at
tackling the gaps, overlaps and inconsistencies due to the presence of control
requirements in different pieces of legislation. ·
It explicitly refers to organic as part of the
scope of official controls, thereby removing previous uncertainties on market
and border controls that have to be carried out in the organic sector. ·
It mentions the control authorities and control
bodies in the organic sector, hence clarifying their specific situation (eg.
possibility to delegate application of measures in case of non-compliance), and
provides for derogations to address the identified inconsistencies and, more in
general, the organic sector specific features[4]. The main principles and
rules for the official controls are kept in the basic act (EP/Council
regulation), while delegated acts will supplement them on specific and/or
additional aspects so as to cater for the needs of the various sectors. The Commission is
therefore empowered to adopt a delegated act concerning controls on organic
production under the future OFFC Regulation. This act would lay out,
as it is currently the case in Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007, specific or
additional measures such as on control responsibilities and tasks, minimum
control frequency (=annual inspection requirement set out in Council regulation
No 834/2007), measures for non-compliance, specific reporting obligations and
allow for derogations as appropriate. The integration of
specific rules on official controls in the organic sector under the reviewed
OFFC would only apply once the basic act and delegated acts are adopted. At
this stage, it is estimated that the reform will enter into force in 2016. The Commission proposal
is taken into account in the impact assessment as part of the baseline
scenario.
2.
Coverage
2.1.
Activities and operators
The EU organic control
system covers the activities performed by operators at all stages of the
production, preparation and distribution chain: from farm to fork. Any operator who
produces, prepares, stores, imports or places on the market organic products shall notify his activity to the MS competent authority and shall
submit his undertaking to the control system (article 28(1) of Regulation No
834/2007). MS may exempt
retailers (operators who sell products directly to the final consumer or
user) from adherence to the control system if they: ·
do not produce or prepare organic products; ·
do not store organic products, other than in
connection with the point of sale, ·
do not import organic products, ·
have not contracted to a third party the
activities of production, preparation including labelling, storage or import
of organic products. Subcontracted
activities are also subject to the organic control
system. In particular: ·
The main operator (= the one who contracts out
some activities to a third party) shall notify the subcontracted activities to
the MS competent authority. ·
The subcontracted activities shall be part of
the description of activities of the main operator; the subcontractor shall
provide his written agreement that his holding will be subject to the control
system (Article 86 of Regulation (EC) No 889/2008). ·
Finally, the main operator and his subcontractor
shall provide a declaration, if they are checked by different control bodies,
that the two control bodies can exchange information (Article 92(1) of
Regulation (EC) No 889/2008).
2.2.
Identified problems
·
The wording of Article 28(1) of Regulation (EC)
No 834/2007 is not very clear as to whether exporters are covered by the
control system. This uncertainty can concern third countries importing organic
products from the EU. ·
Retailers may be
treated differently across the EU: some may be covered by the control system
and some may not, depending on MS choices. A documentary
analysis carried out as part of the external evaluation on 13 case study
countries shows that the exemption is applied in all of them (in detail:
Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, the
Netherlands and Poland - preliminary findings, September 2013). In addition, the
wording of Article 28(2) of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 is somehow cumbersome
on the conditions to be fulfilled for granting the exemption to retailers. This
can lead to different interpretations across MS, as it is shown by the
preliminary findings of the external evaluation. Several requests for
clarifications have been addressed to the Commission, in respect of which
concrete activities fall into the category of preparation, of what can be
considered a storage in direct connection with the point of sale, of which
operators can be exempted[5]. Can MS exempt from the control system operators who prepare organic
products, if they do the preparation activity at the point of sale and do not
pre-package the products (e.g. bakers or butchers)? In other words: do the
words “other than in connection with the point of sale” in this article only
refer to “store” or to they also refer to “produce” and “prepare”? Should the process of baking off pre-backed be considered as an act
of preparation? Can operators who bake-off pre-baked bread and who sell this bread
to the final consumer/user be exempted from the control system? What is the status of Internet commercial platforms for sale of
organic products? Overall, the
exemption to retailers makes management, as well as supervision and control,
more difficult. ·
Finally, MS have some difficulties to understand
and apply the rules concerning controls of subcontractors and subcontracted
activities[6].
2.3.
Opinion by MS and Stakeholders
Recent
discussions with MS in the framework of the Standing Committee on Organic Farming
(SCOF) – established to ensure close cooperation with the authorities
responsible for the organic sector and guarantee uniform application of EU
organic legislation - showed that some MS may be against the possibility to
include retailers in the control system. As for stakeholders, Eurocommerce
considers that including retailers in the specific organic control system will
increase the costs for retailers and the costs of organic products without
adding any value for consumers. While not providing figures for the operators
concerned, it mentions that in practically all MS all "regular"
retailers are selling organic products and in several MS retailers have also
developed their own brand organic products. Bio-Austria, in the free contribution submitted to the Commission as part of
the stakeholders' consultation – also indicated that including retailers in the
control system would not improve the quality of controls and would reduce the
number of retailers offering organic, ultimately weakening the market. IFOAM considers that pre-packed products do not need more controls at the
retail level.
2.4.
Conclusion
With a view to
addressing the identified problems, the following actions are proposed: ·
Clarification of
the provisions on exporters and subcontractors, under the improved
status quo (1) policy option – as for all other measures under this
option, it is also included in the market-driven (2) and the principle-driven
(3) policy option. ·
Removal of the possibility
for MS to exempt retailers from the control system, as a sub-option under
the improved status quo (1) policy option. Retailers
are in direct contact with the consumers and play a key role for consumers'
confidence in organic products. They carry out several activities that require
due verification as part of the MS measures to ensure correct use of labelling. The
impact of this action on operators is difficult to assess because the number of
the retailers concerned, in the MS that apply such exemption, is not known.
Figures, or estimations, were requested but could not be obtained. However,
retailers are subject to general control requirements under the food law: the
specific control requirements as organic operators – for which the control
frequency may be adapted - are not expected to generate a significant
additional burden.
3.
Set-up of the control system
3.1.
Private control bodies, public control
authorities or mixed system
Each MS shall designate
one or more authority(ies) responsible for controls in organic. This Competent
Authority may A.
Delegate its control tasks to one or more private
Control Bodies that it shall approve and supervise, or B.
Confer its control responsibility to one or more
Control Authority(ies). C.
A mixed system, with private control
bodies and public control authority(ies) is also possible. The picture below shows
the set-up of the control system in the EU 28: Chart with
the set-up of the organic control system in the EU 28 The
control system with private control bodies is applied in the wide
majority or 19 MS. In total, 143 control bodies operate in these
countries. In 5
MS (DK, EE, FI, LT, NL), the control system is based on public control
authorities. Finally,
a mixed system is in place in 4 MS (ES, LU, MT and PL).
3.2.
Identified problems
·
In
MS with a system of private control bodies, each operator is free to
choose any of the control bodies that have been approved by the competent
authority(ies) to operate in the MS territory. The high competition among control
bodies can entail loosening control requirements: operator may choose or
change control body with a view of having lower requirements, sanctions etc.
("control body shopping"). ·
The
control bodies charge operators with a fee for their control and
certification services. In general, fees are not regulated and vary across and
within MS; information on the amount of fees charged to operators and on the
methodology for applying them is not publicly made available by control bodies. The stakeholders' consultation showed
that for small farms the control and certification costs – together with
the record keeping obligations – are considered amongst the major barriers to
entry into the organic system. Annex 10, with the cost of controls in the EU
organic production scheme, provides details.
3.3.
Conclusion
With a view to
addressing the identified problems, the following actions have been taken
(taken into account in the impact assessment as part of the baseline
scenario). ·
Commission
Regulation (EU) No 392/2013 to amend the implementing rules on the
control system was adopted in April 2013. The new provisions, applicable as
from 1 January 2014, enhance supervision on Control Bodies. ·
A
new cycle of audits by the Commission to assess the proper functioning
of the organic control system both in MS and in Third Countries and recognised
Control Bodies for imports into the EU resumed in 2012 and are now part of the
annual work programme of the Food and Veterinary Office in DG SANCO. and
the following action is proposed to be taken: ·
Group
certification, as a sub-option under the principle-driven (3)
policy option to address the problems that small farmers face in entering
the system. Please see further details in Annex 16, Small farms and
enterprises: simplification, group certification.
4.
Supervision and control chain
4.1.
Roles and responsibilities
The chart below
shows the authorities and bodies in the supervision and control chain Chart: the
organic supervision and control chain (Source: Zorn et al, Economic Concepts of
Organic Certification, 2009) In detail, their roles
and responsibilities are as follows: European Commission ·
Supervision on MS
to ensure that they fulfil their responsibilities, through: o
the assessment of information on the
functioning of the control system. MS provide specific notifications on
irregularities and their follow up as well as regular reporting on their
supervision and control activities under the Multiannual National Control Plans
as required by the general provisions in the food and feed official controls; o
system audits.
The Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) in DG SANCO, in close cooperation
with DG AGRI, carries out audits on the control systems set up for the organic
production and labelling of organic products. In terms of scope, these audits
assess the performance of the Competent Authorities as well as the organisation
of the controls carried out by Control Bodies, including import controls,
controls of operators producing, preparing and distributing organic products,
controls of the labelling and marketing of organic products, and verification
procedures and audits[7]. DG AGRI carries out audits on the implementation of Rural Development
Programmes that in most cases include amongst agri-environmental measures
support to the conversion to, or maintenance of, organic farming. These audits
verify the implementation of the measure supporting organic farming from the
point of view of any risk for the Fund. In particular, they assess the system
for the cross notification of findings detected respectively by the control
bodies (during their inspection and certification of organic operators) and by
the Paying Agency for rural development (during its on-the-spot checks). ·
Supervision of the Third Countries and of
the Control Bodies/Control Authorities recognised as equivalent, through
the assessment of information on notified irregularities and their follow-up as
well as through the assessment of annual reports and through on-the-spot
examinations and audits by the FVO[8]. MS ·
Set-up the organic control system, in compliance
with the official controls in food and feed, and ensure its proper functioning ·
Ensure that any operator who complies with the
organic rules and who pays a reasonable fee is entitled to be covered by the
control system ·
Notify irregularities and infringements to the
organic provisions to other MS and to the Commission[9] ·
Investigate irregularities and infringements to
the organic provisions that are notified by other MS and inform them of the
results of action taken ·
Take measures and put in place procedures for
the exchange of information amongst control bodies, and with the paying agency for
rural development in case of irregularities by operators who benefit from rural
development support (notably for the conversion to or maintenance of organic
farming as part of agri-environmental measures[10]) ·
Publish an updated list of organic operators ·
Report to the Commission on supervisory and
control activities on organic, as part of the multiannual national control
plans and annual reports under the official food and feed controls legislation Competent authority in MS ·
Approve, suspend and withdraw approval of
control bodies ·
Define a catalogue of measures in case of
infringements and irregularities Accreditation Body ·
Accreditation and surveillance of Control
Bodies. Accreditation is a third party
attestation related to a conformity assessment body (in this context a control
body performing certification in the organic sector) conveying formal
demonstration of its competence to carry out specific conformity assessment
tasks. Accreditation is performed by an authoritative body – whose authority is
generally derived from government. Regulation No 834/2007 introduced the
mandatory requirement of accreditation for control bodies, by setting out that
they shall be accredited to the most recent version of standard EN 45011 or ISO
Guide (article 27.5.c)[11]. Subsequent legislative developments entailed
additional requirements: ·
Regulation
No 765/2008 on accreditation and market surveillance[12],
applicable as from 1 January 2010, provides for the first time a comprehensive
and harmonized framework for accreditation. Accreditation may only be granted
by a (single) national accreditation body, which shall be member of the
European Cooperation for Accreditation (EA) and shall have successfully
undergone peer evaluation. ·
The
EA, in cooperation with DG AGRI, recently developed guidelines for the accreditation
of organic production certification with a view to addressing the specific
features and needs of the sector[13]. Control body Vis-à-vis the competent authority(is) || Vis-à-vis other control bodies || Vis-à-vis operators · Reporting obligations: list of operators + summary report of control activities || || · Carry out an annual physical inspection of each operator + additional risk-based visits · Information if operator changes control body or withdraws from the control system · Immediately exchange information in case of irregularities/infringements · Exchange relevant information on control results || · Hand over control file if operator changes control body · Immediately exchange information in case of irregularities/infringements · Exchange relevant information on control results || · Verify the operator's declaration and documentary accounts · Take and analyse samples · Draw up a control report · Provide documentary evidence (certificate) to each compliant operators · Prohibit operator from marketing organic products, if case of irregularities or infringements
4.2.
Identified problems
4.2.1.
Supervision by the Commission
·
The ECA recently audited the effectiveness of
the organic production control system, focusing on how the various actors
involved had carried out their responsibilities. In its special report No 9/2012,
published on 26 June 2012[14],
the Court concluded that MS' reporting to the Commission was very
limited, often incomplete and subject to major delays. At the time of the audit, organic
production issues were not included in the annual audit work programme
by the FVO, which considered food safety as the main risk factor. A
recommendation was therefore made to remedy the identified weaknesses. ·
A second identified problem for the Commission's
supervision of MS is that, apart from the infringement procedure, there are
currently no specific EU enforcement measures in the organic sector in
case MS do not comply with their responsibilities. Community enforcement measures set out
under the food and feed controls apply in case of evidence of a serious failure
in a MS' control system which may constitute a possible and widespread risk for
human health, animal health or animal welfare. They are not relevant for
organic as such. NB. this problem does not refer to the
possible misuse of EU funds, in case the irregularities concern beneficiaries
of support under the CAP that are dealt with through conformity clearance
procedures. ·
As concerns the import regime, the
control system does not provide the same level of supervision with regard to
CBs recognised by the Commission for the purpose of equivalence as for CBs in
the EU which are supervised by MS Competent Authorities. Please see annex No 12, The EU trade
regime for organic products, for further details on the identified issues and
on the proposed actions to address them.
4.2.2.
Supervision by MS Competent Authorities
·
ECA's audit identified several shortcomings in
supervision of control bodies by the MS competent authorities: in three of the
six audited MS with a system of private control bodies, the Court concluded
that the procedures for approving, withdrawing or supervising control bodies
were not sufficiently detailed. These findings were confirmed by the
audits carried out in 2012 and 2013 by the FVO and by DG AGRI, which identified
shortcomings in several MS. ·
Another aspect that weakens competent
authorities' supervision of control bodies is the fact that most MS do not have
a graduated system of sanctions towards non-compliant control bodies.
The only measure clearly set out by the organic control legislation is the
withdrawal of control bodies' approval. It is not effective as most of the
times it would be disproportionate for the findings of the audit on control
bodies and hence very rarely used in practice.
4.2.3.
Accreditation
·
By their very nature, the surveillance
activities carried out on control bodies by the national accreditation body overlap,
to a certain extent, with the supervisory activities carried out by the
competent authorities. This entails a duplication of activities and increases the
cost of the control system. ·
There are no specific rules in the
organic legal framework as regards the cooperation and the exchange of
information between MS competent authorities and accreditation bodies. As a consequence, the situation largely varies
across MS. ·
The requirements on accreditation are not the
same for control bodies in the EU and in Third Countries. Accreditation bodies based in Third
Countries that are not members of the European cooperation for Accreditation
(EA) and are not signatories to the Multilateral Recognition Agreement (MLA)
under the auspices of the International Accreditation Forum at international
level may not adhere to the same level of surveillance on control bodies
applicable in the EU. This may lead to an uneven playing field
amongst control bodies, and ultimately amongst operators, in the EU and in
Third Countries.
4.3.
Opinion by MS and stakeholders
During
the hearing held by the Commission services on 25 and 26 October 2012 to
discuss supervision and control issues, the following remarks were made: o
FiBL (Research Institute for Organic Agriculture, Austria): supervision should enhance risk orientation; importance of
qualifications of accreditation bodies; supervise the effectiveness of control
bodies o
DakkS (National Accreditation Body, Germany): the surveillance approach needs to be risk-oriented (focus on non-compliant
control bodies); surveillance by different institutions should be well
coordinated o
IFOAM (International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movement): accreditation – need
to improve standards; clear requirements of experience of accreditation bodies o
Certisys (Belgian control body): request for regulated tarification system for controls (fees
to control bodies) o
Copa-Cogeca: Commission to strengthen supervision of MS through more frequent audits; MS to
strengthen supervision of control bodies – need for harmonized approach to
supervision of control bodies in the EU A
representative from the European cooperation for Accreditation (EA) made a presentation
to the ISSG group in its meeting of 30 May 2013, describing all the various
formal and practical steps of accreditation.
4.4.
Conclusion
With
a view to addressing the identified problems, the following actions have been
taken (taken into account in the impact assessment as part of the baseline
scenario). ·
Commission
Regulation (EU) No 392/2013 was adopted in April 2013 to amend the
implementing rules on the control system for organic production. The new
provisions, applicable as from 1 January 2014, enhance MS supervision and
control activities. ·
Commission
audits
resumed in 2012 and are now regularly carried out to assess the proper
functioning of the organic control system. The audit
reports identify shortcomings, on which recommendations for remedial action are
made to the Competent Authorities, and describe good control practices[15]. and
the following actions are proposed to be taken: ·
Clarification of
the general rules for the accreditation of Control Bodies, both in the
EU and in Third Countries, in respect of the standard against which they should
be accredited and of the conditions to be fulfilled by the accreditation
bodies, under the improved status quo (1) policy option. This will
enhance legal certainty for the organic sector and ensure a level playing-field
for control bodies, and ultimately operators, in the EU and in Third Countries. ·
Introduction
of a system of electronic certification, integrated in a EU-web
database, under the improved status quo (1) policy option. This
will contribute to the competitiveness of organic operators, to simplification,
and through the improvement of transparency and traceability, to the
enhancement of the supervision and control chain.
5.
Control frequency
5.1.
Minimum control frequency and risk based
approach
As a
general rule, all operators shall be subject to verification of compliance at
least once per year (article 27 of Regulation No 834/2007). The
implementing rules regulation qualifies this annual verification of compliance
as a physical inspection (article 65 of Regulation No 889/2008). Exception: can
be inspected less frequently than once per year: ·
wholesalers who
deal only with pre-packaged products and ·
retailers who
do not produce or prepare organic products, do not store organic products other
than in connection with the point of sale, do not import organic products and
have not contracted to a third party the activities of production, preparation
including labelling, storage or import of organic products Regulation
(EC) No 834/2007, while maintaining in any event the obligation of an annual
verification of compliance for all operators, introduces a risk-based
approach to controls. Namely, it sets out that the nature and frequency of
the controls shall be determined on the basis of an assessment of the risk of
occurrence of irregularities and infringements. Commission
Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 details the implementing rules as follows: ·
in
addition to the annual inspections, the control body or control authority shall
carry out random control visits, primarily unannounced, based on the general
evaluation of the risk of non-compliance with the organic production rules. Three risk factors shall be taken into account
for the risk evaluation: (1)
the results of previous controls, (2)
the quantity of products concerned and (3)
the risk of exchange of products. DG AGRI gave practical guidance for
control bodies and control authorities as to how the risk based approach to
control should be applied in chapter 8 of its Working document on official
controls in the organic sector, 2011[16]. ·
New
provisions will
apply as from 1 January 2014 for the risk assessment and the related
organization of the control visits: - the
risk analysis shall provide the basis for the intensity (=number) of the
unannounced or announced control visits - random
visits in addition to the annual inspection shall be carried out on at least 10%
of operators in accordance with the risk category - at
least 10% of the total annual inspections and additional random visits
shall be unannounced Example:
a control body with 100 operators shall carry out at least 100 annual physical
inspections and 10 additional random, risk-based, visits = 110 in total. At
least 10% of them=11 inspection and control visits shall be unannounced.
5.2.
Identified problems
·
Wholesalers
and retailers might be treated differently in different MS as
regards to the control frequency. In addition, it is not clear who – the MS
competent authority or the control body - should determine the control
frequency for these operators. ·
The
risk based approach, applying to the organic sector as from 1 January
2009, is still relatively new. ECA's
recent audit on organic production detected shortcomings related to risk
assessment in 7 out of the 12 selected control bodies. ·
Some
MS and stakeholders
consider that the mandatory physical inspection of all operators prevents
the full implementation of the risk-based approach. Operators
with a consistently clean record cannot be inspected with less frequency. This does
not represent an efficient use of resources, which should rather focus on
riskier operators. So far, the major fraud cases in the organic sector (Gatto
con gli stivali, Italy, 2011) did not affect the yearly inspected producers but
traders selling conventional products as organic with import certificates:
control visits to address effectively such cases are more difficult and
time-consuming. ·
The
current control rules that require annual inspection of all operators
(articles 27(3) and 28 of Regulation No 834/2007) do not allow group
certification[17]
that is accepted for small producers in Third Countries as a measure of
equivalent control effectiveness in case of imports.
5.3.
Position by Stakeholders
The
Inter-Service Steering Group (ISSG) set up as part of the process for the
Impact Assessment of the review of the organic farming regulation organised a hearing
on 25/26 October 2012 to discuss supervision and control issues[18]. Main
remarks/suggestions on the risk-based approach: o
FiBL (Research Institute for Organic
Agriculture): Focus should be put on 10 % of operators with risk of
irregularities; the burden for compliant operators should be reduced by
removing the obligation for a mandatory annual inspection; flexible risk
assessment o
DakkS (National Accreditation Body for Germany): intensification of risk-oriented
controls, in particular in third countries o
Finnish Food Safety Authority (Evira): lowered inspection frequency should be an
option for the future; additional inspections should focus on higher risk
operators o
Ecocert Group (Control Body): need for guideline for risk based inspections o
IFOAM (International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movement): clear guidance on how
risk-based inspections should work is needed for consistency across EU and
outside. The contribution that IFOAM subsequently developed - June 2013 - states
that the focus on the risk-based approach should not undermine the audit
approach (announced inspection) of each operator; moreover, parameters for risk
classification as well as possible risk-orientated control measures need to be
pre-defined at EU level. o
Certisys (Belgian control body): annual inspection needed for wholesalers; no
parallel selling & communication rules for retailers; notification in case
of subcontractors is not clear. The stakeholders'
consultation showed the following results on the minimum control
frequency: while only 49,7% of stakeholders participating to the
consultation actually know that organic operators are inspected at least once
per year, the majority of respondents (57%) are for maintaining the annual
inspection[19]. The free contributions
submitted to the consultation show that the European Poultry Association, the
Soil Association, Bio-Austria, the FNSEA, Synalaf are in favour of the annual
inspection. Only 35% of
respondents to the public consultation would support a reduced control
frequency for operators with a proven clean record (in addition to FiBL and
IFOAM, this was also the position by the Norwegian Food Safety Authority). As for group
certification, 70% of respondents to the public consultation would support
it, with variations across stakeholders' categories (from 55% for farmers up to
80% for public authorities in Third Countries). In detail, Slow Food,
the Soil Association, the Women of Europe for a Common Future are in favour.
Bio-Austria and Copa-Cogeca are against. IFOAM EU is positive towards group
certification, under conditions still to be developed.
5.4.
Conclusion
With a view to
addressing the identified problem, the following action has been taken: ·
Commission Regulation (EU) No 392/2013 was adopted in April 2013 to amend the implementing rules on the
control system. The new provisions, applicable as from 1 January 2014, further
enhance the risk-based approach. This action is taken into account in the
impact assessment as part of the baseline scenario. and the following
action is proposed to be taken: ·
Reinforce the risk-based approach under the
policy-driven option (3) by adapting the control frequency through
the removal of the obligation of a mandatory annual physical inspection for all
operators independently from their risk profile. This action is
expected to lead to a fairer balance of the control pressure on operators by
reducing the burden on those with a proven track record of compliance with the
rules. It is also expected
to help achieve better control effectiveness, by targeting MS resources towards
higher risk situations and operators, and control efficiency.
6.
Paper-based certification
There
are two different types of certificates provided by Regulation (EC) No
834/2007: the documentary evidence attesting that an operator has placed
his undertaking under the organic control system (Article 29) and the certificate
of inspection that accompanies a given lot of imported organic products and
certifies that the product has been produced according to equivalent production
rules and subject to equivalent control measures (Article 33).
6.1.
Documentary evidence
More than 225 000
organic producers[20]
submitted their operation to the organic control system, in accordance with
Article 28 of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007, and were registered in the EU-27 in
2011. Documentary
evidence is issued by the control authority or control body after a
satisfactory annual inspection of the operator under its control and is
generally valid for a year until the next annual inspection. Operators throughout
the organic production chain have to verify that the operators from whom they
purchase organic products are subject to the control system and have valid
documentary evidence. Equally, they must provide documentary evidence attesting
their status as organic operators at the request of other operators, control
authorities or control bodies. Documentary
evidence is drawn up on the basis of a model in EU legislation (annex XII to
Regulation No 889/2008) that is not mandatory in its layout and text. Identified problems ·
Different models
of documentary evidence exist across and within MS, depending on
specific conditions and needs, which make the control of documents and products
by both control bodies and competent authorities more difficult. A questionnaire
prepared to gather structured information on the existing situation showed that
only in 12 MS a harmonised model for documentary evidence (= a compulsory model
detailing the content, wording and layout of information) exist at MS level[21]. ·
Paper-based documentary evidence is vulnerable
to forgery, fraudulent issuance or continued use during
the stated period of validity despite withdrawal or suspension of the operator. ·
Documentary evidence does not enable a real-time
verification that the amount of products originating from the operator
is within the estimated production quantities or exceeds these. ·
Consumers cannot easily access traceability
information. Consumers buying organic products are
paying a premium price based on their trust in the integrity of the system,
symbolised by the organic logo. The responses to the public consultation show
that they place very high value in traceability of organic production and
information about the organic operator. They are not offered a user-friendly
means of verifying who carried out the last substantial production process. Operators in third
countries not recognised as equivalent must subject their operations to a
control body or control authority accredited for EU-equivalent organic
production certification. Equivalent production rules and control measures must
include an annual inspection and issuance of documentary evidence to the
operator. Consequently, the above listed problems equally apply to
documentary evidence issued to such third country operators. Whilst
recognised CBs and CAs must maintain an up-to-date list of certified operators
on their website, they have no obligation to publish the equivalent documentary
evidence, which presents an added risk.
6.2.
Certificate of inspection
A certificate of inspection
is a document issued by the control authority or control body of the exporter
in accordance with Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008 to certify the
organic status of the product for import into the EU. The certificate is only
valid for the lot of organic products identified on the certificate. The original
paper-based certificate of inspection must be presented for endorsement at
import into the EU. The certificate of
inspection is the only document indicating the organic nature of the
imported products as the customs import declaration does not allow the
identification of organic products. The presence of a certificate of inspection
can be indicated on the customs import declaration, but this is optional and
handled differently by MS. Unless national customs require the identification
of the certificate of inspection on the customs import declaration, there is
no link between the certificate and the customs import declarations. The certificate of
inspection, which must be based on a mandatory model (Annex V of Regulation
(EC) No 1235/2008), is not linked to the documentary evidence issued to
the operators in the third countries. To be considered equivalent, control
measures must enable the traceability of processed products' ingredients and
control bodies and control authorities must be able to provide the documentary
evidence therefore. Recognised control
bodies and control authorities can only issue certificates for products
exported from third countries and belonging to product categories for which
they are recognised. Identified problems ·
Cumbersome
administration of the original certificate of inspection (delays /not presented
at import). Operators complain about the administrative burden of presenting an
original paper-based certificate of inspection at every import and about the
delays in forwarding the originals that pose problems for the clearance of perishable
imported organic goods. ·
Paper-based certificate of inspection is vulnerable
to forgery and fraudulent issuance. Fraudulent issuance implies a
certificate being issued for a scope, geographical or product category, for
which the third country or the CB/CA is not recognised or whose recognition has
been reduced. Equally, fraudulent issuance can concern a processed product for
which the CB/CA has not verified that the ingredients were purchased from
operators under the control of a recognised CB/CA, from an EU country or from a
recognised third country. ·
Traceability of
organic chain behind imported organic products is difficult. Equivalent control
systems should ensure traceability throughout the organic production chain.
Where this is based on obtaining copies of equivalent documentary evidence, the
above-described problems apply in equal measure to recognised Third countries,
recognised Control Bodies or Control Authorities. Recognised CBs and CAs have
to publish a web-based, up-to-date list of certified operators. Whilst this
facilitates the verification of the status of an operator, it does not
necessarily facilitate traceability of organic products covered by a
certificate of inspection. ·
Under the import regime with recognised Control
Bodies MS no longer have a verification role before the certificate of
inspection is issued as it was the case for import authorisations. However, MS
continue to endorse the certificate of inspection upon entry into the EU.
6.3.
Conclusion
With a view to
addressing the identified problems, a system of electronic certification
integrated in a EU web-database is proposed to be introduced, under the improved
status quo (1) policy option.
7.
Irregularities, infringements and sanctions
7.1.
State of play
Regulation No 882/2004 on food and
feed official controls to verify compliance with the rules aiming, in
particular, at guaranteeing fair practices and protecting consumer interests,
including labelling (article 1), includes the following enforcement measures: ·
When
the competent authority identifies non-compliance, it shall take
action to ensure that the operator remedies the situation (article 54),
with a wide choice of measures that it deems appropriate. NB: The competent
authority cannot delegate action to be taken in case on non-compliance (article
5.1). ·
MS shall
lay down the rules on sanctions applicable to the infringements
of feed and food law and take all necessary measures to ensure they are
implemented. Sanctions shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive; the
provisions on infringements shall be notified to the Commission
(article 55). According
to Regulation No 834/2007 on organic production and labelling ·
when an irregularity is found, the control authority or
control body shall ensure that the reference to organic production is removed
from the entire lot affected, and where severe infringements or with
a prolonged effect are found the operator shall be prohibited from
marketing organic product for a period to be agreed (article 30). ·
Information on infringements and irregularities shall be immediately
communicated between Control Bodies, Control Authorities, MS and where
appropriate the Commission (article 30). ·
The
competent authority has the following responsibilities: -
when
approving a control body, take into account the measures
that it intends to apply in case of detection of irregularities and/or
infringements (article 27.5); -
as
part of its supervision of control bodies, take cognisance of the
irregularities and infringements found and corrective measures applied (article
29). Regulation No 889/2008 requires
the control body or control authority to take action in
substantiated suspicion that an operator intends to place on the market a
non-compliant product. It has recently been amended to require Competent
Authorities to adopt and communicate to control bodies a catalogue
at least listing infringements and irregularities that affect the organic
status of the products and corresponding measures to be applied (new
article 92d). This provision will apply as from 1.1.2014. In
case organic operators benefit from financial support under the CAP,
MS shall adopt all legislative, regulatory and administrative provisions and
take any other measures necessary to ensure the effective protection of the EU
financial interests, according to Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005
on the financing of the CAP[22].
In particular, they shall prevent and pursue irregularities and recover lost
sums. They
shall communicate to the Commission irregularities and suspected fraud cases in
the organic sector that have or would have consequences for the EU budget
through the OLAF's Irregularities Management System (IMS).
7.2.
Identified problems
·
The
legal provisions are not clear and/or not entirely consistent. The
terms in the food and feed official controls and the organic
regulation differ: the former refers to "non-compliance" and
"sanctions", while the latter mentions "irregularities",
"infringements" and corresponding "measures". The two acts
are not entirely consistent: the food and feed official control regulation
prevents the competent authorities from delegating to control bodies the
measures to be taken in case of non-compliance, which creates a problem for
control bodies in the organic sector. The
organic farming regulations include the terms "irregularity",
"severe infringement" and "infringement with a prolonged
effect" without providing a definition. When
organic operators benefit from financial support under the CAP, the EU
provisions on the protection of the EC financial interests - both in the
general and sectoral legislation – apply which include specific definitions for
irregularities and fraud[23]. Irregularities
and fraud, when referred to in the organic sector, include therefore both the
unlawful use of the organic labelling provisions, through the marketing of
conventional products or products not complying with the organic rules, and the
potential misuse of EU funds – in the latter case, with additional
responsibilities for sound financial management by MS and the intervention by
OLAF. ·
The
absence of specific tolerance levels and/or the lack of a harmonised
approach is dealt with in Annex 11. ·
The
ECA concluded in its special report 9/2012 that in several MS the
competent authorities have not defined detailed categories of non-compliance
and corresponding sanctions. Namely, this was the case for 3 out of the 6
audited MS (Germany, France and the UK). ·
As
a consequence, each CB defines the non-compliance and applies sanctions in a
different way, with considerable differences in control results. This situation
leads to operators being sanctioned differently, across MS and even
within the same MS, for the same case of non-compliance. ·
On-the-spot
audits carried out by the FVO in 2012 confirmed weaknesses in some MS' follow
up to cases of non-compliance. They did not always ensure that
irregularities were followed-up and sanctions were imposed in a systematic and
timely manner.
7.3.
Position by stakeholders
The
stakeholders' hearing held on 25 and 26 October 2012 in the context of the
Impact Assessment process for the review of the EU political and legal
framework for organic production showed the following remarks and suggestions. ·
BMWFJ
(Federal Ministry of Economy, Family and Youth, Austria): there should be one
single sanction catalogue for the EU, one single sanction catalogue for
equivalent CBs ·
Copa-Cogeca
(Committee of Professional Agricultural Organisations-General Committee for
Agricultural Cooperation): need to clarify infringement and irregularity and
corresponding sanctions and to promote good practice. Statistics for each MS/CB
should be published annually by the Commission. ·
DakkS
(National Accreditation Body for Germany): suggestion to set up a clearing
facility for complaint cases. ·
Ecocert
group (Control Body): need to define irregularities and infringements; EU
catalogue of sanctions; EU practical guidelines with stakeholders'
participation ·
EOCC
(European Organic Certifiers Council): define irregularity/infringement; set
out a basic EU sanction policy ·
FiBL
(Research Institute of Organic Agriculture): envisage an international
complaint procedure at EU level, a rapid alert system and a whistleblower
system. ·
IFOAM:
guidance on sanctions, with procedures and measures relevant to all operators
in case they fail to meet the requirements of good organic quality management.
7.4.
Evaluation and studies
Amongst
the wide array of studies carried out within the CERTCOST project, one
consisted in the statistical analysis of German supervision and control data:
all CBs' activities for a two-year period, 2006-2008 were reviewed. The number
of irregularities and infringements detected and the sanctions imposed showed
significant statistical differences with regard to sanction behaviour. This
underpins the first recommendation included in the report "Improving the
organic certification system – How to increase the effectiveness and efficiency
of organic certification". It is recommended to harmonise supervision of
the certification system, namely to clearly define at EU level different
types of non-compliance and sanctions to allow an easy understanding by all
stakeholders – to be developed in a participatory process; to harmonise the
use of terms and definitions as well as data collection specifications, and to
produce and publish annually a supervision report at EU level.
7.5.
Conclusion
With a view to
addressing the identified issues, the following action has been taken (taken
into account in the impact assessment as part of the baseline scenario): ·
Commission
Regulation (EU) No 392/2013 was adopted in April 2013 to amend the
implementing rules on the control system for organic production. The new
provisions, applicable as from 1 January 2014, require the Competent authorities
to adopt and communicate to the Control bodies a catalogue of infringements and
irregularities affecting the organic status of the products and corresponding
measures to be applied to the operators concerned. ·
The Commission proposal (COM(2013)265 final) to
review Regulation No 882/2004 on official food and feed controls
includes new provisions that aim at a more effective enforcement. In
particular, MS will be required to ensure that the financial penalties
applicable to intentional infringements at least offset the economic advantage
sought by the perpetrator of the violation. and the following
action is proposed to be taken: ·
define irregularities and infringements and require MS to set measures that ensure the liability of all
operators in the control chain, under the policy-driven option (3).
8.
Fraud cases reported in the media
A non-exhaustive selection of articles, translated and available
on-line by PressEurop, is shown below[24] || Politika, 8.8.2011, Warsaw, Circulation: 200,050[25] The article refers to particularly attractive conditions for subsidy-hunters in Poland in the case of organic walnuts, amongst other things due to alleged lax controls by the control bodies. || Die Welt, 25 February 2013[26] - City: Berlin, Circulation: 263 000 The article reports the investigation launched in 2011 and revealed by the weekly Der Spiegel. || Die Tageszeitung, 21 May 2013, City: Berlin, Circulation: 57,000[27] The article covers the Green War operation. Fraud in the organic farming sector is described as thriving international industry, made up of a complex network of companies bearing all the marks of traditional organised crime. The president of Federbio, the umbrella organisation for organic producers, processors and distributors in Italy, is quoted: "They have been able to carry on because supervisors have failed time and time again to do their jobs". ANNEX 10: COSTS
OF CONTROLS IN THE EU ORGANIC PRODUCTION SCHEME
1.
Introduction
This
annex aims at providing: ·
an
overview of the main types of costs resulting from the EU organic control and
certification system, and ·
some
concrete examples as to the actual level of costs borne by different actors
along the chain. It is
based on information from the CERTCOST - Economic Analysis of Certification
Systems in Organic Food and Farming – project[28].
2.
Overview of the main types of control related
costs in the organic chain
The
most evident cost of the organic production control system is the cost for
obtaining a documentary evidence (=certificate) that the operator's production
meets the requirements set by the EU organic regulation. Certification costs
are considered to be a major factor for operators to decide about participating
in a particular quality scheme, including organic. The
distribution of the costs of controls between different actors of the chain
varies among MS. It largely depends on the choice of the control system set-up
made by the MS and on the choice of the public measures to support operators'
certification costs that are implemented by the MS.
2.1.
Control system set-up
Each MS has the
possibility to: ·
delegate
control and certification of operators
to one or more private control bodies which it has to first approve[29] and
then supervise[30]
(this is known as "system A" and is currently used by 18 MS),
or ·
confer
the control and certification of operators to one of more public control
authorities (this is known as "system B" and is currently
used by 5 MS, or ·
set-up
a mixture of both (system of control bodies and control authorities) known as
"system C", currently used by 4 MS. Currently,
there are approximately 150 private control bodies and 40 public control authorities
operating in the EU. The
different implications on the distribution of control costs between the
different actors in "system A" and "system B" are shown in
Table 1 below. Table 1: Overview
of main types of control related costs incurred by different actors along the
chain Actor || System of private control bodies (=System A) || System of public control authorities (=System B) Competent authority (= MS) || Costs related to approval and supervision of control bodies || No costs of approval and supervision but direct control cost of control authorities Control body (private entity) || Costs of accreditation to EN 45011 Costs of control and certification of operators (in terms of resources needed) NOTE: The costs incurred by control bodies are fully compensated by the fees charged to the operators || N/A Control authority (public entity) || N/A || Costs of control and certification of operators, in terms of resources needed NOTE: These cost are (partly) compensated by fees charged to operators Operators (farmers, processors, traders, etc.) || Fees paid to control body for control and certification (=inspection fees) || Fees paid to control authority for control and certification (=inspection fees) or no fees (controls and certification free of charge – e.g. Denmark)
2.2.
Public support of certification costs
MS
have the possibility to implement support schemes, which may compensate the
organic farmers for their control costs. The
current rural development programmes give the possibility, under Axis 1, to use
measure 132: "Participation of farmers in food quality schemes[31]".
Several MS or regions use this measure to cover part of the control and
certification costs incurred by farmers (Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Estonia, Germany, Greece, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, most regions of Italy and Spain and parts of the UK). However, not all farmers that apply
can be supported as resources are limited. Certification
costs of organic processors or other organic operators are not supported in any
of the EU countries except Denmark. In Denmark, the control of organic farmers,
processors and other organic operators is provided by the public control
authorities free of charge. It is
to be added that organic farmers can be also subsidized under other measures
in Axis 1, 2 and 3 of the rural development programmes. Out of these,
agri-environmental payments under measure 214 are the most important. With the
exception of the Netherlands and France[32],
all MS have implemented specific area payments for organic farming under the
measure 214. However, those payments are not meant to cover directly the
certification costs but rather overall organic management.[33]
3.
Concrete examples of control related costs in
some MS
3.1.
Inspection fees paid by operators to control
bodies and to control authorities
In
general, inspection fees mainly depend on type of operator (e.g. higher fees
for processors than for farmers), complexity of operations (e.g. higher fees
for operators with parallel production), and size of operations. Inspection
fees also largely vary both across MS and, within MS, across control bodies. According
to the CERTCOST project, the inspection fee is the most relevant monetary
expenditure for organic operators with respect to the certification costs. The
level of the inspection fee has been estimated on average as 900 – 1000 € per
farm, which corresponds to a share of up to 0.4 % of the raw income[34] of a
farm and up to 1 % of the organic turnover of processors. For
the CERTCOST study countries[35],
the median of the inspection fee amounts to 500 € per farm, (ranging from 318 €
in the Czech Republic to 647 € in the UK). For processors, the median varies
considerably from 477 € per processor in the Czech Republic up to 1.400 € per
processor in the UK. To
illustrate the variety of fees across the EU, tables 2 and 3 provide
information on fees charged by selected control bodies/control authorities in
different MS. Table 2: Fees
of selected control bodies (2009-2010 data extracted from the CERTCOST
database) Control body || Fee for farmers || Fee for processors ABCERT, Germany || Control fees for farmers are based on the type of production and the area farmed. The minimum control fee (lump sum) for farmers is 195 € and the maximum is 440 € per year. If inspection time included in the lump sum is exceeded, further time is charged with 65 € per hour. || Control fees for processors are structured into a lump sum based on the type of production and the time spent for controlling. The minimum fee is 160 € and the maximum fee is 260 € per year. Time spent for inspection and certification is charged with 65 € per hour. Bio-dynamic Agriculture Association (BDAA), UK || Fees are set in bands according to farm size, different rates for horticulture and top fruit. A 50ha mixed farm (cropping and livestock) would have paid about €720 in 2009 || Fees are set in bands according to turnover, lower rates apply for on-farm processing Biokont CZ, Czech Republic || Basic fee: 8.4 € + travel costs: 24.4 € excl VAT; variable fee according to the size of the holding: 1,2 €/ha + inspector's time, which is priced at 14.3 €/15 minutes. Holdings with parallel conventional production must pay extra 20%. || Basic fee: 8.4 € + travel costs: 24.4 € excl. VAT; Variable fee according to size of the annual organic turnover: Less than 200000 €: 78.8 €, 200000 - 800000 €: 201.7 € > 800000 €: 399.2 €, plus inspector's time which is priced at 14.3 €/15 minutes. Processors with parallel conventional production must pay extra 20%. HS certifiering, Sweden || Plant production: < 20 ha: € 312, 20 - 50 ha: € 399.75, 50 - 100 ha: € 438.75, 100 - 200 ha: € 477.75, 200 - 500 ha: € 507, > 500 ha: € 585. Animal production incl. plant production: < 20 ha: € 390, 20 - 50 ha: € 516.75, 50 - 100 ha: € 575.25, 100 - 200 ha: € 672.75, 200 - 500 ha: € 731.25, > 500 ha: € 828.75. Poultry production > 3000 animals: € 575.25 || Processing on the farm: € 165.75, Processing, simple, only organic: € 370.50, Processing, simple, not fully converted: € 516.75, Processing, comprehensive, fully converted: € 517.75, Processing, comprehensive, not fully converted: € 711.75 Table 3: Fees
of selected control authorities (2009-2010 data extracted from the CERTCOST
database) Control authority || Fee for farmers || Fee for processors Comité de Agricultura Ecológica de la Comunidad de Madrid, Spain || Basic application fee: 170 € + a variable fee according to Ha, type of crop and number and type of animals. Variable fee: Crops: from 6 €/ha to 55 €/ha, maximum variable fee: 2100 € for each crop. Animals: from 0.9/each to 1,75 €/each depending on type, maximum variable fee for each animal species: 1000 €. || Basic fee: Mixed organic and conventional processors: 550 €; 100 % organic processors: 350€. Variable fee depending on the number of labels - e.g. 21,5 € for 2000 labels. Danish Plant Directorate, Denmark || Free of charge || N/A Danish Veterinary and Food Administration, Denmark || N/A || Free of charge National Supervisory Authority for Welfare and Health, Finland || N/A || 1st time registration fee: 105 € 1st time control : 72 € Basic control fee: 72 € Variable control fee: 95 €/hour Approval of derogations: 95 €/case In
order to calculate the total control and certification cost incurred by an
operator, the operator's effort connected to documentation of practices
relevant for organic standard, preparing for the control visit and the control
visit itself must be added to the inspection fee paid by the operator. The
CERTCOST project calls these additional costs "opportunity costs" and
calculates that their level ranges from 133 € per year for a farmer in the Czech Republic to 590 € per year for a farmer in the UK (for processors the range is higher).
3.2.
Cost of approval and supervision of control
bodies borne by the national authorities
For
CERTCOST study countries, the workload of competent authorities for supervising
the private control bodies ranges from 33 € per operator in the Czech Republic to 79 € per operator in Germany (2008 data). As
part of the impact assessment, MS have been requested in 2013 to complete this
information. According
to an estimate provided by the German administration, approximately 300 working
hours are spent on an approval of one control body. This amount of working
hours, using the hourly earning rate for Germany (category clerk) provided by
the EU Standard Cost Model, translates to an amount of 8.340 € per approval of
one control body. Regarding
supervision, the German administration estimates that approximately 120 working
hours (= 3.336 €) is spent annually per supervision of one control body. Other
national administrations provided similar estimates: 92 hours (= 2.318 €) for
annual supervision of one control body in Sweden and 155 hours (= 558 €) in Romania. According
to an estimate by the French administration, two full time persons are assigned
annually for the approval of the 9 control bodies and their supervision, for a
total of approximately 2.800 working hours. Using the hourly earning rate for
France (category clerk) provided by the EU Standard Cost Model, this translates
to an estimated amount of EUR 6.688 for the approval and annual supervision of
one control body.
3.3.
Cost of accreditation
The
cost of accreditation is paid by control bodies as compulsory accreditation to
EN 45011 (ISO 65 Guide). The cost includes a fee paid for the 1st
time accreditation and an annual fee for maintenance of accreditation. Table 4:
Cost for the CB of accreditation for selected MS (2009-2010 data extracted from
the CERTCOST database) Member State || Fee paid for the 1st time accreditation || Annual fee for maintenance of accreditation Czech Rep. || 10722 € || 2600 € France || 3135 € || Fixed annual fee of € 2289; Variable fee: 0,225*(Fixed fee * N° of systems accredited)+ 0,039 *(fixed fee*No of equivalences) Germany || Fees depend on the number of employees of the control body: at least 2540 Euro (for bodies with 1-2 employees) excluding travel costs || At least 605 Euro (for bodies with 1-2 employees) Spain || 6.903 € || 4.125 € Italy || 1550 € accreditation fee + 860 €/day for inspector || From 0,15 to 2,5% of the organic turnover of the control body (minimum fee 2066 €) Austria || Basic fee: 5595 € plus 36 € per scheme (organic, PDO/PGI, TSG) || 2180 € per standard area, e.g. product certification
3.4.
Aggregated control data
CERTCOST
estimates that about 1500 staff full time years were spent by the competent
authorities, accreditation bodies, control authorities and control bodies on
organic control in the 27 EU countries in 2008. With
1500 employees the annual cost of the workforce of the organic certification
sector was estimated to about EUR 35-55 million.
4.
Conclusions
It
has been observed that: ·
In
the system of private control bodies (=system A), the costs of control and
certification are borne by the operators. In addition, the MS competent
authority bears the costs for approval and supervision of control bodies. One
can assume that the fees charged by private control bodies are set in such a
way as to fully cover all costs incurred by the control body, including costs
of accreditation. ·
In
the system of public control authorities (=system B), the costs of control and
certification are borne by the operators (but seem to be generally lower than
in system A) or by the administration (in case controls and certification of
operators is provided free of charge). It
is not known whether the fees charged by the public competent authorities fully
cover all costs incurred by the control authority. ·
In
some MS, the costs for control and certification paid by operators are (partly)
compensated by support paid under the RD Programmes. Given
that the certification fee is a major cost item in the total cost of organic
certification, it could be reduced by reducing the cost for the control visit
and thus the corresponding control fee. This could be achieved by reducing the
number of control visit per operator, e.g. by introducing a risk-based control
system where low-risk operators are controlled less often than high-risk
operators. The
conclusion from CERTCOST underpins the proposed action to reinforce the
risk-based approach under the policy driven option (3). ANNEX 11: PRESENCE
OF NON-AUTHORISED SUBSTANCE RESIDUES IN ORGANIC PRODUCTS This
Annex describes the issues related to the presence of non-authorised plant
protection products residues. The issues identified are examined in relation to
the situation in the EU and concerning imported organic products, as well as in
relation to the perception and expectations of consumers.
1.
Overview EU legislative Framework
The EU organic production legislative framework defines in a
detailed way the substances and plant protection products that can be used
by producers (Annex II of R. 889/2008 established in accordance with the
provisions in Art. 16 of R. 834/2007). The
EU organic production legislative framework does not lay down rules on any
tolerance levels for accidental presence of any substance other than those
explicitly authorised in Annex II of R. 889/2008. The substances explicitly authorised under organic production
rules have to comply with the horizontal EU legislation. In particular, plant
protection products that are authorised for use in organic production follow
the rules under relevant EU legislation concerning the placing of plant
protection products on the market (Regulation No 1107/2009[36])
and the maximum residue levels (MRL) (Regulation No 396/2005[37]).
As a result, the list of substances and plant protection products authorised in
organic farming is very limited. By principle, the use of most of synthetic
substances used as pesticides in conventional agriculture is not authorised in
organic farming. Organic
production is established according to the principles of precaution and
prevention (Art. 4 of R. 834/2007), developed in different parts of the
relevant legislation such as:
the
maintenance of plant health by preventative measures (Art. 5(f) of R.
834/2007)
disease
prevention and veterinary treatment (Art. 14(1)(e) of R. 834/2007
For
the implementation of the organic production control system, operators are
required to take precautionary measures in order to reduce the risk of
contamination by unauthorised products or substances and the cleaning
measures to be taken in storage places and throughout the operator's production
chain (Art. 63(c) of R. 889/2008). Article
30(1) of R. 834/2007 stipulates that "Where an irregularity is found
as regards compliance with the requirements… shall ensure that no
reference to the organic production method is made in the labelling and
advertising of the entire lot or production run affected by this irregularity,
where this would be proportionate to the relevance of the requirement that has
been violated and to the nature and particular circumstances of the irregular
activities". Article
91 (1) of R. 889/2008 requires operators, in case of suspicion, to only
put organic products in the market after elimination of any doubt as to
compliance with organic production rules. In case of substantiated suspicion
with regard to compliance with EU organic production rules, Article 91(2)
of that Regulation enables control bodies and control authorities to
suspend/prohibit the marketing of the products as organic. Article
8 of R. 882/2004 on Official Food and Feed Controls stipulates that
MS Competent authorities shall carry out official controls in accordance with
documented procedures. These procedures shall contain information and
instructions for staff performing official controls including, inter alia, the
areas referred to in Annex II, Chapter II, which, under point 5 require: "Sampling
procedures, control methods and techniques, interpretation of results and
consequent decisions".
2.
Identified issues
On
different occasions, residues of plant protection products not authorised
for use under organic production rules are found in products
labelled as organic. This is regularly reported, among others, by the European
Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in its annual reports on pesticide residues in
food Such
cases can be differentiated between:
substances
that are authorised under horizontal EU legislation (i.e. in conventional
production) but not authorised under the specific EU organic production
legislation and,
substances that
are not authorised under horizontal EU legislation. In the latter case,
the products cannot be marketed, even as conventional.
Under
the following paragraphs, the issues related to the accidental presence of pesticide
residues in organic products that are not authorised under the specific EU
organic production rules are examined[38].
As "accidental"[39]
is considered the presence of any substance for which it can be established
that no use[40]
by the operator of the substance in question was made and that all the measures
necessary to avoid such contamination were taken. The origin of such accidental
presence may be related to:
spray drift
on the organic plant products by plant protection products used in
neighbouring farms or cross-contamination in storage facilities;
environmental
pollution in case substances persist in the soil or the water where organic
production is established;
EFSA noted in its 2010 report[41] that
"3,571 samples of organic origin were taken in 2010 by a total of 28
countries, which corresponds to 4.9% of all surveillance samples taken overall
in the reporting countries. For fruit and nuts, a lower rate of MRL exceedances
(0.9%) was found in comparison to conventionally grown fruit and nuts (2.9%).
For vegetables, the exceedance rates of the surveillance samples were 1.0% and
3.8% respectively for organic and conventionally grown products. Overall, the
MRL exceedance rate for organic food was 0.8%. In total, 131 different
pesticides were found in organic products in measurable concentrations; of
those, 26 pesticides were found in at least five samples. It is noted that
25 out of these 26 substances are not allowed in organic farming". It
should be noted that the issue of accidental presence of pesticide residues in
organic products is closely linked to the approach applied by the laboratories
that perform the relevant analysis of samples. This relates in particular to:
the scope
of analysis, i.e. which and how many substances are/or have to be
sought in the sample analysis performed by the laboratories;
the ‘limit
of determination’ (LOD)[42],
i.e. the validated lowest residue concentration which can be quantified and
reported by the laboratory, which may vary according to the substance, the
nature of the product (i.e. processed/unprocessed) and/or equipment used for
the analysis of the sample.
At
present, no specific harmonised guidelines exist at EU level concerning the
approach to be used by official laboratories for samples of organic products
and interpretation of the results. Guidance is available for samples of
conventional products[43].
2.1.
Situation in the EU
In
the absence of specific EU rules concerning the accidental presence of
pesticide residues in organic products, different approaches are implemented in
form of national legislation adopted in some MS or guidelines put forward by
stakeholders. In MS
like Italy[44]
or Belgium[45]
specific provisions were adopted in form of legislation to deal with accidental
or technically unavoidable presence of pesticide residues and/or interpretation
of analysis results. Discussions are on-going in the Czech Republic[46]
and in other MS concerning the approach to adopt. IFOAM EU
Group[47]
has issued/updated in 2012 a set of guidelines on the matter prompting an action
level (general value of 0.01 mg/kg). Residues found equal or above the
action level in an organic product trigger an investigation with reference to
Article 91(1) of R. 889/2008. Products are not automatically decertified and no
such specific level has been set for such decertification. "By this
approach strong detailed investigations are made of the most serious
contaminants". IFOAM EU Group stresses that "organic
agriculture is a method, which cannot be replaced by the absence or presence of
residues under or above a certain level". It underlines that "organic
legislation is structured as legislation for a process based agriculture and
food processing system. In the discussion about the need for harmonisation in
the residue topic, we might make the mistake of transforming a more or less
privately developed action level into a strict decertification level in the EU
legislation". In its contribution of 14 May 2013, IFOAM EU Group
claimed that "it could be a mistake to transform a more or less
privately developed action level into a strict decertification level". EOCC[48]
issued in 2013 specific guidelines[49]
concerning presence of pesticide residues in organic products that uses an action
level (set at 0.02 mg/kg). Findings equal or above the action level require
an investigation. Reference is made to Art. 91(2) of R. 889/2008. The decision
to block or not the product can be taken by the control body of the operator.
For findings below the action level, the control body requires the operator to
investigate the case and eliminate the cause. Reference is made to the
provisions of Art. 91(1) of R. 889/2008. The
approach promoted by BNN[50],
the Organic Traders and Processors Association in Germany uses an orientation
value (set at 0.010 mg/kg). BNN members use the orientation value as a "critical
level", meaning in practice that products exceeding it are not
commercialised as organic. In its contribution of 7 July 2013, BNN stated the
following: "… Therefore,
pesticide residues might be evidence of illegal use of substances not permitted
in organic agriculture. But those residues might as well be tracked back to
unavoidable or accidental contamination. A threshold would have to reliably
differentiate between usage of pesticides and unavoidable or accidental
contamination. Because of the multitude of pesticides, plants, combinations and
application techniques, defining such a threshold might be difficult and would
imply the risk of decertification of products although they had been produced
and processed according to organic regulations. This as well would result in an
amount of extra-costs not yet estimated". BNN
praised a "Case-by-case
evaluation and investigation of pesticide findings in organic products still
seems the most appropriate answer, preventing extra-costs and cutback of
cultivation areas."
2.2.
Situation concerning imported products
Organic
products can be imported in the EU under 3 different regimes, namely import
authorisations granted by MS (in phase-out), from Third Countries or from CBs
(Control Bodies/Control Authorities) recognised under the equivalency regime. At
different occasions in the past, questions were raised by stakeholders and MS
concerning imported organic products containing low levels of accidental
presence of residues of pesticides and other substances in organic products.
This was for example the case with imports of organic fruits from different
Third Countries containing residues of DDAC[51] in 2012
(quaternary ammonium compound) or endosulfan in soya beans in 2011. A
specific approach concerning the presence of pesticides in organic products was
recently adopted by the US[52]. It
consists in establishing a threshold such as a critical level (5% of the
US tolerance level for conventional products[53])
above which any product cannot be commercialised as organic. Products below
this threshold can still be commercialised as organic provided no use of the
substance was made by the producer and that an investigation was carried out to
identify the causes of the contamination. In addition, products that contain
lower or equal to 0.01 parts per million (equivalent of 0.01mg/kg) of
pesticides can still be commercialised as organic. Investigations are also
required in this case in order to identify the source of contamination. In
the margins of the meeting of the Enlarged AGOF[54]
of April 2013, a representative of a Third country recognised by the EU under
the equivalency regime, sent the following statement: "… notes that zero tolerance for
the low-level presence of residues not included in the approved list of
substances in EC No. 889/2008 may
unnecessarily restrict trade by not sufficiently taking into consideration
growing conditions in Third Countries. This
potentially constitutes a trade concern for many of the European Union’s (EU)
key organic trade partners. Despite the implementation of accepted
isolation measures, farm size, geography and climate can in some cases lead to
the unintended low-level presence of residues on organic commodities from plant
protection products used in conventional production. … is concerned
that an approach that does not consider growing conditions in Third
Countries could lead to trade disruptions due to the unintended and unavoidable
low-level presence of residues of non-listed substances. This situation could
constitute a serious and unnecessary trade irritant for key EU trading
partners." Bio
Suisse,
[55]
the federation of Swiss organic farmers, developed a decision chart concerning
presence of pesticide residues in organic products. It sets at 0.01 mg/kg the
general level which triggers an investigation and suspends marketing of the
products in question. For products with substances below 0.01 mg/kg marketing
is possible but investigations are carried out to identify the source of
contamination.
2.3.
Conclusion
The
different initiatives adopted so far with respect to the presence of pesticide
residues in organic products do not necessarily convey towards the same
approach. They substantially differ on issues related to: ·
Action
level:
the level of pesticide residues that needs to be reached in order for any
action to be considered. ·
The
actions that are taken, such as investigations with regard to presence
of pesticide residues in organic products. ·
Critical
level: the
level of pesticide residues that, when exceeded, prevents the products from
being commercialised as organic. In
several of the different approaches examined, particularly in Europe, the value
of 0.01 mg/kg is used for the interpretation of the results of samples
taken on organic products – value generally known as the "baby-food
directive" limit[56].
However, this value is used differently as shown above. Technical
progress with laboratories allows currently the detection of substances in
products at very low levels[57]. The
absence of specific tolerance levels in the EU organic legislation and/or the
lack of a harmonised approach concerning the presence of pesticide residues in
organic products, together with the interpretation of the analysis results, may
have the following impacts: ·
uncertainty
for producers and Control Bodies/Control Authorities; ·
potential
differences in treatment of producers according to the MS and to the CB
involved; ·
economic
losses, in case products cannot be commercialised as organic. Similar
impacts can occur with respect to international trade of organic products. In
addition, there are risks of delays in EU customs as products remain without
clearance until the situation is clarified.
3.
Consumers' expectations
The
public consultation of January to April 2013 in the framework of the review of
the EU policy on organic production comprised a series of closed questions on
the issue of pesticides. The replies showed that: ·
80%
of respondents buy organic products because they want to avoid food containing
pesticide residues or residues of other synthetic substances; ·
61%
of respondents agreed that testing all organic products for pesticide residues
should be made compulsory, even if it would increase production costs and so
make them dearer for consumers. However, a significant share was against (25%)
or had no opinion (14%);
88% of
respondents agreed that the level of pesticide residues for organic
products be set at a lower level than for conventional products;
·
The issue of presence of non-authorised
substance residues is very sensitive for the public, as shown by the results of
the public consultation: In
addition to the replies to the questionnaire, several free text contributions
from respondents concluded along the same lines. Interesting reaction presented
below from a group of respondents on the issue. "… If a food may be classified as
organic or not (in case of pesticide content) has to be decided on a case by
case basis by control authorities and control bodies. These decisions
require clear procedures and a clear legal framework that should be further
developed. …"
4.
Conclusions
With
a view to address the shortcomings that can occur as a result of the different
approaches applying in the EU concerning the interpretation of the results on
accidental presence of pesticide residues in organic products, different
options can be envisaged. These options, combined with the establishment of a
requirement for an investigation on the causes of the contamination (see below)
aim to maintain a high level of consumer trust. They may however produce
different results and impact differently on operators.
4.1.
Investigation requirement
The
precondition for the application of any of the options envisaged below is to
clearly set a requirement for an investigation concerning the causes for
presence of pesticide residues in organic products. Such investigations
have always to take place in order to confirm that the presence of pesticides
in the products is accidental or not, to guarantee the principles of organic farming
and also to allow taking any appropriate measures to avoid accidental
contamination of organic products in the future.
4.2.
A critical level for the commercialisation of
organic products
Option
No 1 (improved status quo) and Option No 3 (principle driven) foresee the
introduction of a critical level for non-authorised substance residues,
beyond which products may not be commercialised as organic - regardless of
whether the presence of such residues is proven to be accidental or not. Such a
level could, for instance, be based on the "baby-food directive"
limit (see above). These
options offer operators with a clear legal framework concerning the
commercialisation of their products in case of accidental presence of pesticide
residues above a certain level. They acknowledge the possibility for accidental
presence of pesticides / technically unavoidable in organic products resulting
thus in less economic loses. Such options are considered compatible with the
proposed risk based approach regarding controls and are not expected thus to
create additional controls costs.
4.3.
Product oriented approach
Option
2 (market-driven approach) suggests that organic production will shift from
process to a product oriented approach. Such approach will imply
intensification of samples on organic products. The method used for the
analysis of the results of the samples taken could either consist on specific
to the organic products threshold or using an approach based on the
"baby-food" directive limit as described above. On the basis of the
information gathered on the presence of pesticide residues in organic products,
such approach may be considered disproportionate[58]. In
all cases, such approach would result in additional costs for the organic
operators and finally higher prices for consumers. Comparative tables – sampling results by production
(TABLE I: EU+NCP – SURVEILLANCE SAMPLING: RESULTS BY PRODUCTION TYPE FOR ANIMAL
PRODUCTS, BABY FOOD, CEREALS, FRUIT, VEGETABLES AND OTHER PLANT PRODUCTS IN
EFSA 2010 REPORT) Animal products Production type || N° of samples || Samples with no measures residues || Samples with residues below or at the MRL || Samples with residues above the MRL N° || % || LCL(a) || UCL(b) || N° || % || LCL(a) || UCL(b) || N° || % || LCL(a) || UCL(b) Battery production || 13 || 13 || 100 || 80.7 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 19.3 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 19.3 Domestic or cultivated || 56 || 54 || 96.43 || 87.9 || 98.9 || 2 || 3.57 || 1.1 || 12.1 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 5.1 Free range production || 69 || 68 || 98.55 || 92.3 || 99.7 || 1 || 1.45 || 0.3 || 7.7 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 4.2 Industrial production || 214 || 194 || 90.65 || 86 || 93.9 || 20 || 9.35 || 6.1 || 14 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 1.4 Non-organic production || 1287 || 1226 || 95.26 || 94 || 96.3 || 61 || 4.74 || 3.7 || 6 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0.2 Organic production || 229 || 180 || 78.6 || 72.8 || 83.4 || 48 || 21 || 16.2 || 26.7 || 1 || 0.44 || 0.1 || 2.4 Other organic method || 1 || 1 || 100 || 22.4 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 77.6 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 77.6 Production method unknown || 3335 || 2803 || 84.05 || 82.8 || 85.3 || 526 || 15.8 || 14.6 || 17 || 6 || 0.18 || 0.1 || 0.4 Traditional production || 55 || 54 || 98.18 || 90.4 || 99.6 || 1 || 1.82 || 0.4 || 9.6 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 5.2 Wild or gathered || 2 || 1 || 50 || 9.4 || 90.6 || 1 || 50 || 9.4 || 90.6 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 63.2 Total || 5261 || 4594 || 87.3 || 86.4 || 88.2 || 660 || 12.5 || 11.7 || 13.5 || 7 || 0.1 || 0.1 || 0.3 (a): Lower confidence limit; (b): Upper confidence limit Baby food Production type || N° of samples || Samples with no measures residues || Samples with residues below or at the MRL || Samples with residues above the MRL N° || % || LCL(a) || UCL(b) || N° || % || LCL(a) || UCL(b) || N° || % || LCL(a) || UCL(b) Industrial production || 252 || 252 || 100 || 98.8 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 1.2 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 1.2 Non-organic production || 365 || 327 || 89.59 || 86 || 92.3 || 36 || 9.86 || 7.2 || 13.4 || 2 || 0.55 || 0.2 || 2 Organic production || 297 || 268 || 90.24 || 86.3 || 93.1 || 27 || 9.09 || 6.3 || 12.9 || 2 || 0.67 || 0.2 || 2.4 Other organic method || 2 || 2 || 100 || 36.8 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 63.2 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 63.2 Production method unknown || 878 || 791 || 90.09 || 87.9 || 91.9 || 55 || 6.26 || 4.8 || 8.1 || 32 || 3.64 || 2.6 || 5.1 Traditional production || 34 || 34 || 100 || 91.8 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 8.2 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 8.2 Total || 1828 || 1674 || 91.6 || 90.2 || 92.8 || 118 || 6.5 || 5.4 || 7.7 || 36 || 2.0 || 1.4 || 2.7 (a): Lower confidence limit; (b): Upper confidence limit Fruit, vegetables and other plant
products Production type || N° of samples || Samples with no measures residues || Samples with residues below or at the MRL || Samples with residues above the MRL N° || % || LCL(a) || UCL(b) || N° || % || LCL(a) || UCL(b) || N° || % || LCL(a) || UCL(b) Domestic or cultivated || 3 || 3 || 100 || 47.3 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 52.7 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 52.7 Industrial production || 80 || 75 || 93.8 || 86.2 || 97.2 || 4 || 5 || 2 || 12.2 || 1 || 1.3 || 0.3 || 6.7 Integrated Pest Management || 377 || 176 || 46.7 || 41.7 || 51.7 || 193 || 51.2 || 46.2 || 56.2 || 8 || 2.1 || 1.1 || 4.1 Non-organic production || 24204 || 12723 || 52.6 || 51.9 || 53.2 || 10455 || 43.2 || 42.6 || 43.8 || 1026 || 4.2 || 4 || 4.5 Organic production || 2482 || 2189 || 88.2 || 86.9 || 89.4 || 269 || 10.8 || 9.7 || 12.1 || 24 || 1 || 0.7 || 1.4 Other organic method || 1 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 77.6 || 1 || 100 || 22.4 || 100 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 77.6 Outdoor / open-air growing condition || 1613 || 825 || 51.2 || 48.7 || 53.6 || 732 || 45.4 || 43 || 47.8 || 56 || 3.5 || 2.7 || 4.5 Production method unknown || 27922 || 12097 || 43.3 || 42.7 || 43.9 || 15068 || 54 || 53.4 || 54.5 || 757 || 2.7 || 2.5 || 2.9 Traditional production || 1842 || 944 || 51.3 || 49 || 53.5 || 856 || 46.5 || 44.2 || 48.8 || 42 || 2.3 || 1.7 || 3.1 Under glass / protected growing condition || 425 || 246 || 57.9 || 53.1 || 62.5 || 173 || 40.7 || 36.1 || 45.4 || 6 || 1.4 || 0.7 || 3 Wild or gathered || 45 || 39 || 86.7 || 73.7 || 93.7 || 6 || 13.3 || 6.3 || 26.3 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 6.3 Total || 58994 || 29317 || 49.7 || 49.3 || 50.1 || 27757 || 47.1 || 46.6 || 47.5 || 1920 || 3.3 || 3.1 || 3.4 (a): Lower confidence limit; (b): Upper confidence limit || Cereals Production type || N° of samples || Samples with no measures residues || Samples with residues below or at the MRL || Samples with residues above the MRL N° || % || LCL(a) || UCL(b) || N° || % || LCL(a) || UCL(b) || N° || % || LCL(a) || UCL(b) Industrial production || 6 || 5 || 83.3 || 42.1 || 96.3 || 1 || 16.67 || 3.7 || 57.9 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 34.8 Integrated Pest Management || 20 || 16 || 80 || 58.1 || 91.8 || 4 || 20 || 8.2 || 41.9 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 13.3 Non-organic production || 1654 || 1054 || 63.72 || 61.4 || 66 || 580 || 35.07 || 32.8 || 37.4 || 20 || 1.21 || 0.8 || 1.9 Organic production || 554 || 509 || 91.88 || 89.3 || 93.9 || 43 || 7.76 || 5.8 || 10.3 || 2 || 0.36 || 0.1 || 1.3 Outdoor / open-air growing condition || 88 || 64 || 72.73 || 62.6 || 80.9 || 23 || 26.14 || 18.1 || 36.2 || 1 || 1.14 || 0.3 || 6.1 Production method unknown || 1501 || 935 || 62.29 || 59.8 || 64.7 || 535 || 35.64 || 33.3 || 38.1 || 31 || 2.07 || 1.5 || 2.9 Traditional production || 367 || 273 || 74.39 || 69.7 || 78.6 || 87 || 23.71 || 19.6 || 28.3 || 7 || 1.91 || 0.9 || 3.9 Wild or gathered || 10 || 7 || 70 || 39 || 89.1 || 3 || 30 || 10.9 || 61 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 23.8 Total || 4200 || 2863 || 68.2 || 66.7 || 69.6 || 1276 || 30.4 || 29.0 || 31.8 || 61 || 1.5 || 1.1 || 1.9 (a): Lower confidence limit; (b): Upper confidence limit || ANNEX 12: THE EU
TRADE REGIME FOR ORGANIC PRODUCTS The
EU Trade regime is provided in Title VI of Council Regulation No 834/2007,
which covers in fact import rules only.
1.
Import regime
Two
basic import regimes are provided: imports of compliant products and imports of
products providing equivalent guarantees. The 'equivalence regime' itself has
been developped according to three different approaches. The different possible
approaches to import organic products into the EU are summarised in the
following table. Table: The
different approaches and options of the import regime Approach || Option || Status Equivalence with EU production rules and control system || Option 1: Import authorisations granted to importers by MS competent authorities, consignment by consignment. || Implementation started under Council Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91. Prolongation as transitional measures under Council Regulation No 834/2007. To be halted in July 2014. Option 2: Recognition of third countries having a national system complying with principles and production rules equivalent to EU rules and applying control measures with equivalent effectiveness to EU rules. || Implementation started under Council Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91, currently under Article 33 (2) of Regulation 834/2007. Option 3: Recognition of control bodies competent to carry out controls and issue certificates in third countries on products produced according to principles and production rules equivalent to EU rules and applying control measures with equivalent effectiveness to EU rules. In principle for imports from non-recognised countries. || Implementation under Article 33(3) of Regulation 834/2007. Compliance with EU rules || Option 4: Recognition of control bodies competent to carry out controls on products produced according to the EU rules and principles, and to issue a documentary evidence. Accreditation according to EN 45011. || Implementation according to Article 32 of Regulation 834/2007, postponed until October 2014. Imported products may
bear the EU organic logo.
2.
Equivalence
Because
the compliance regime is not yet applied, only organic products produced
according to equivalent production rules and controlled according to equivalent
control measures can currently be imported into the EU. The
term ‘equivalent’ is defined in Council Regulation 834/2007, "in
describing different systems or measures, means that they are capable of
meeting the same objectives and principles by applying rules which ensure the
same level of assurance of conformity". A more general definition of
equivalence is provided in Codex Alimentarius Guidelines[59].
2.1.
Equivalence assessment and recognition
2.1.1.
Third Countries recognised for the purpose of
equivalence
The
following box summarises the process for recognition of a third country
as equivalent. Summary of the EU process for recognition
of a Third Country as equivalent · The starting point is an official request from the Third Country. · The Commission services check if the preconditions listed in the Commission regulation are met: "The request shall be completed by a technical dossier, which shall comprise all the information needed". · Once the preconditions are met, the assessment of the request can start and two co-reporting MS are appointed to assist the Commission. · A side-by-side comparison of production standards and control systems is built up; then the assessment of equivalency can start, which may lead to the identification of differences with EU rules, ranging from minor variances to significant differences. The assessment has to take into account the relevant Codex Alimentarius guidelines. Additional information is usually needed to clarify points where there are differences. This generates exchanges of mails/letters on technical questions. When the examination is complete, a list of "critical differences" can be built up. · The Commission assisted by co-reporting MS decides on critical differences. In the case of a mutual recognition, a negotiation on acceptance of those differences usually takes place with the third country. · Once the issues linked to critical differences are solved, the competent unit in DG AGRI may organise a mission in the Third Country for on-the-spot verification, the objective of which is to verify the effectiveness of the control system. The mission report has to be agreed by both sides. · If it can be concluded that the Third Country's production standard is equivalent and that the control measures are of equivalent effectiveness to those in force in the EU, the Third Country is proposed for inclusion in the list annexed to the Commission Regulation. The entire internal Commission procedure is followed: inter-service consultation, vote in the relevant committee, where a majority is necessary, written procedure, translations and publication in the EU official journal. The
EU recognizes presently 11 countries as equivalent: Australia, New Zealand, Argentina, Costa Rica, India, Israel, Tunisia, Switzerland, United States, Canada and Japan. While in general these agreements are unilateral, in recent years
the Commission has developed mutual equivalence arrangements with third
countries, notably with the U.S., Canada, Switzerland and Japan. Besides
these countries, there are presently 16 applications from other countries:
China, Turkey, Serbia, Taiwan, Thailand, Peru, Chili, Bolivia, Colombia, Paraguay, Salvador, Honduras, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Mexico and the Dominican Republic. The assessment of equivalence with those countries is underway. Some
countries recognised as equivalent have applied to extend the scope of their
recognition. For example, after the adoption of rules for the production of
organic wine, Australia, New Zealand and Argentina have applied for the
recognition of their own wine-making rules as equivalent to the EU ones. Japan, Canada and Israel have similar requests on processed products including imported ingredients.
For each of these requests, the Commission has to follow the same process as
for a third country recognition, which is technical, long and
resource-consuming; delays generate trade irritants with applicant countries.
2.1.2.
CBs recognised for the purpose of equivalence
The
process to recognise CBs as equivalent is similar to the process to recognise a
third country. However, a CB applying for equivalence recognition shall provide
a technical dossier which includes an assessment report demonstrating and
confirming the equivalence of the production standards and control measures
applied by the CB to the EU production standard and control measures. The
assessment report is defined in Regulation 1235/2008 as follows: "means
the assessment report referred to in Articles 32(2) and 33(3) of regulation
(EC) No 834/2007 drawn up by an independent third party fulfilling the
requirements of ISO Standard 17011 or by a relevant competent authority, which
includes information on document reviews, including the descriptions referred
to in relevant Articles of Regulation 1235/2008, on office audits, including
critical locations and on risk-oriented witness audits conducted in
representative third countries." The EU recognition is granted to a CB for
a 3-year period. The
Commission currently recognizes 60 CB's, operating in more than 130 countries.
Imports from equivalent CB's are currently the main route for imports of
organic products. There is anecdotic evidence of the decline of import
authorisation by more than 90 % as the equivalence regime for CB's started to
apply in 2012.
2.1.3.
Issues with the equivalence regime
The
recognition of third countries as providing equivalent guarantees offers the
most stable and reliable approach to organic imports. It is applicable to
countries with sufficient administrative capacities to manage a control system
as efficient as the EU one. However, the initial assessment of equivalence is a
complex process, which has in the past led to some delays in the treatment of
applications by the Commission. In addition, the monitoring of equivalence
(assessment of annual reports, follow up of irregularities, etc) is
resource-consuming. The
decision on the acceptability of minor differences is the result of a global
negotiation, which can in practice lead to somewhat different rules applying
to producers in the EU and in a third country. In addition, equivalence needs
to be re-assessed each time there is a substantial change in the EU legislation
or in the third country standard. The
recognition of CBs as providing equivalent guarantees allows imports of organic products from non-recognised countries.
The system has been implemented from July 2012 and has already shown some
weaknesses: –
burdensome equivalency assessment, since each CB can be recognised according to its own standard, or
other non-EU standard, –
it has been reported that CBs compete on the
possibility to decide on exceptional rules (seeds,
conversion period, non-organic ingredients), which creates unfair
competition for EU producers for which exceptions shall be decided by MS
competent authorities, –
it has been questioned whether control
measures implemented by CBs to address the specific risks for organic
integrity are appropriate and sufficient. Regulation
(EC) No 834/2007 makes no distinction between equivalent production standards
and control measures applied by the competent administration of a third country
or applied by a private CB seeking recognition. This ignores the fact that
differences in the standard applied by control bodies can have an effect on the
costs to operators under their control and consequently distort the competition
among control bodies. Whilst MS and third countries have control systems in
place that supervise the use of exceptions, the fact that recognised CB can
themselves grant exceptions to the rules can lead to concede a commercial
advantage to operators under their control. The
Commission is required to assess all applications received for
recognition for the purpose of equivalence, whatever the economic interest for
the EU and its operators. This is a major source of concern to the Commission
services, in view of the technical complexity of some files, requiring
significant internal resources. Any
import of organic product is subject to submission of an original
certificate of inspection, issued either by a CB directly
recognised by the Commission or under the supervision of a recognised Third
country,
for the release for free circulation into the EU. It can create delays because
of the time needed for forwarding the original certificate, and is considered
as an excessive administrative burden by the operators.
2.1.4.
Compliance
Under
the compliance regime, products imported from third countries have to comply
with the same production rules that are applicable in the EU, i.e. with
Regulation 834/2007 and its implementing legislation as well as with all other
relevant EU legislation. From
the international angle, the two regimes – equivalence and compliance - appear
as parallel mechanisms of ensuring respect for the WTO national treatment
principle. The EU is the only major importer of organic products recognizing
CB's for the purposes of equivalency. All other large organic markets (US, Canada, Japan) require CB's to comply with the countries' production standard. Moving
from a system of equivalence to a system of compliance for CB's would reduce
discretion in deciding 'equivalence' with the EU standard, thus levelling the
field between internal and external producers of organic products. But
for the implementation of compliance, a clear and stable organic standard is
needed. In the EU, there are two decision taking levels: the Commission and
MS, which makes difficult the direct application of the EU organic standard in
third countries. The current legislation provides in particular with the
possibility to grant exceptions to the organic rules in certain situations,
notably according to Article 22 of Regulation 834/2007 (exceptional production
rules). The exceptions are dealt with at MS level. The removal of the MS
decision level on production rules seems to be a pre-condition to the
applicability of the compliance regime. In
view of the practical difficulties, the application of the compliance regime has
been postponed to October 2014, and it has been decided to apply the
equivalence regime first. The
following table provides a comparison between the equivalence and the
compliance regimes: Pros and cons of equivalence and
compliance for CBs under the current rules Equivalence || Compliance Production rules Pros: Easier adaptation to local conditions. Flexibility in definition of 'equivalence' Cons: Conflicts of interest, since CBs can be inclined to adapt their production rules in order to keep their clients, · Production rules progressively watered down because of competition with other CBs. || Pros: Clear and transparent production rules, applicable to all 3rd countries Increased consumer's confidence in imported organic products as they all will be produced in compliance with EU rules Simplification Cons: Need to provide rules for treatment of exceptions, which are granted by MS in the EU. · Group certification cannot be applied in third countries if not authorised in the EU. Competition among producers Cons: Non-equivalent production rules or control measures being applied, thus creating unfair competition between EU and 3rd countries producers. || Pros: Level playing field in the EU and outside. Procedure for recognition Cons: Costly and burdensome application which includes assessment that the standard owned by the CB is equivalent to the EU production rules and control system, provided by an assessment body. Recognition is limited to certain third countries and for categories of products. CBs have to apply for a scope extension every time they start working on new categories of products or new countries. || Pros: Application focussing on accreditation and on CBs control and certification procedures, less costly and burdensome. Recognition without geographical limits and for all products covered by the scope of the EU legislation. Controls Cons: Complex because any non-compliance has to be assessed against each own CB standard. || Pros: Simpler - possible to standardize treatment of non-compliances Risk lowered Annex 12 The
workload associated with both regimes has also to be taken into account. It is
illustrated by the following table: Workload for the implementation of
equivalence and compliance for CBs Equivalence || Compliance Application by CB Technical dossier includes a report from the accreditation body that the CB meets the conditions to control products against its own standard and control system, as well as an assessment that the standard owned by the CB is equivalent to the EU production rules. || Technical dossier includes a report from the accreditation body that the CB meets the conditions to control products against the EU production rules and control system. Examination of applications by the Commission Complex and burdensome procedure for the Commission to assess applications, notably to check the equivalence of the CB production rules and control system with the EU ones. The experience has shown that this procedure is potentially source of mistakes and subsequently to unfair competition || Less burdensome procedure Recognition Publication of a complex list of CBs with categories of products for which the CB standard has been recognised as equivalent and countries where the standard is applied, potentially source of errors – proved by experience. || Recognition by publication of a list of CBs without product categories and countries where the standard is applied. Supervision Obligation for CB to notify any change to its production rules or control procedures. Annual report complex because the equivalence assessment has to be updated according to changes in the EU legislation or to the CB production rules and control system. Complex audits. || Obligation for CB to notify any change to its control procedures. Annual report and audits less complex.
3.
Supervision
The
Commission assisted by co-reporting MS supervises the recognised third
countries and CBs, based on: – annual reports, including assessment
reports resulting from the accreditation body's surveillance of the CB. – assessing notified irregularities and on
their follow-up by the third country or by CB. Most of the notified
irregularities are notified by MS, which remain responsible for the control of
imported products on the market; in most cases, it is about findings of
non-allowed substance residues in organic products. – on-the-spot examinations the Commission
may undertake or ask experts to undertake. The supervision
of both recognised countries and CBs does not provide proportionate sanctions.
The EU can only decide to withdraw a CB or a country from the list. The
implications and risks of such process were not fully envisaged when adopting
Regulation (EC) No 834/2007. In addition,
surveillance of recognised CBs is carried out by accreditation bodies. CB's
operating within the EU shall be accredited. Therefore, they are subject to the
provisions of Council Regulation No 765/2008[60].
It is considered that the accreditation of CBs operating in third countries by
an accreditation body signatory of an agreement implemented by the
International Accreditation Forum (IAF) is equivalent. Accreditation body
members must declare their common intention to join the IAF Multilateral Recognition
Agreement (MLA) recognising the equivalence of other members' accreditations to
their own. However, in the context of the application of
equivalence to CB's operating in 3rd countries, the EU accepted
accreditation could be made by an international supervisory or accreditation
body that is specialised in organic agriculture. This allowed IOAS
(International Organic Accreditation Service, created by IFOAM and not a member
of IAF) to be able to accredit control bodies for equivalence. Actually, 28
CB's (almost half of the total recognized CB's) are accredited by this
organisation. Besides the issue of principle that it raises (e.g. accepting
recognition of private companies' standards as equivalent to the EU's organic
farming regulations), such delegation of powers is particularly challenging, as
it charges private companies operating in the global market to manage the
equivalency. The
Commission needs to ensure equal treatment between organic producers in the EU
and in third countries. The accreditation of CB's recognised for the purpose of
equivalence in third countries based on the EU framework for accreditation would
create a level playing field in the organic trade.
4.
Possible impacts of a move to compliance on
developing countries
In
this part the possible impacts of the implementation of the compliant regime,
in particular for developing countries, are analysed.
4.1.
Analysis of the standard
A
sample of CBs already recognised as equivalent by the EU for their activities
in third countries has been chosen in order to assess the possible impact of a
move from equivalence to compliance. The
system on recognised control bodies permits imports from 113 developing
countries, including 37 least developed countries (LCDs). The
sample was selected with a view to cover different situations in terms of CBs'
size or location of the headquarter and on the basis of significant differences
noted in the inventories of differences established by the accreditation or
assessment bodies when assessing the equivalence of the organic production
rules and control measures. It cannot therefore be considered as exhaustive but
focuses on relevant cases. The sample includes: –
One CB headquartered in the EU; –
One CB headquartered in the US; –
One CB headquartered in Latin America; –
One CB headquartered in India; –
One CB headquartered in Africa. The
analysis of the differences shows that: ·
Most provisions included in standards applied by
CBs are identical to EU provisions. ·
Cases where the provisions are different are
mostly related to provisions of the EU Regulation on which MS have to decide. The
following table displays examples of provisions considered as equivalent to
those of the EU Regulation: Table 1: "equivalent"
provisions applied by CBs in third countries where the EU Regulations provide
for MS decision Reference in the EU legislation || Description of provision applied by CBs and comparison with EU || Location of the CBs concerned R889, Art 36 || Derogations granted by CBs in order to shorten the conversion period, on the basis of documentary evidence. In the EU, only MS competent authorities can decide on retroactive recognition of the conversion period, in strictly limited cases (application of agri-environmental measures on the basis of an EU scheme). || EU, Latin America, Africa R834, Art 19.2.c || Derogation granted by CB for the use of non-organic agricultural ingredients in organic processed products. In the EU, a list has been adopted at EU level (annex IX to Regulation 889/2008). In addition, MS can allow the use of other non-organic agricultural ingredients on a temporary basis. || Africa R889, Art 47 || Derogation granted by CB in case of catastrophic circumstances (force majeure). In the EU, only MS can decide. || Africa R889, Art 39 || Derogation granted by CB for the tethering of animals in small holdings. In the EU, only MS can decide. || Africa R889, Art 45 || Derogation to use non-organic seeds granted by CB. , Because of the absence of seeds database, the decision is usually taken on the basis of declarations of three local seeds suppliers showing that no organic seeds are available. In the EU, there is an obligation for MS to manage a computerized database to show the availability of organic seeds. || EU, Latin America, Africa India R834, Art 28.1.a || No notification of activity to the competent authority but to the CB. In the EU: notification to MS competent authority. || Africa R834, Art 14.1.b.iii or R889, Art 14.7 || Reference is made to national legislation instead of EU legislation || Africa CBs
in third countries take the opportunity of the equivalence regime to decide on
many aspects that are dealt with by MS competent authorities in the EU. It is
particularly noticeable for the Africa based CB. In
other words, although in the EU the decision to grant derogations is made by
public authorities, under the equivalence regime it is often the CB – a private
company – that takes this decision. Yet, in some instances the derogation
granted can have a decisive economic impact for the operator concerned, who is
the customer of the private CB. This situation can lead CBs to compete on the
possibility to decide on exceptional rules and derogations. The
following table shows that in similar cases, some CBs apply strict
provisions with no flexibility instead of taking the role of an EU MS: Table 2: Stricter
"equivalent" provisions applied by CBs in third countries where the
EU Regulations provide for MS decision Ref. || Description || Location of the CBs concerned R834, Art 19.2.c || The use of non-organic agricultural ingredients in organic processed products is strictly limited to the list of annex IX to Regulation 889/2008 (the one adopted at EU level). In the EU, MS can allow the use of other non-organic agricultural ingredients on a temporary basis. || EU, US R889, Art 39 || Tethering of animals in small holdings is not allowed. In the EU, MS can grant derogations. || US, Latin America R889, Art 27.4 || There is no possible exception to use non-allowed substances for the traditional decorative coloring of boiled eggs, like there is in the EU. || US R889, Art 40 || No parallel conventional production allowed on organic holdings. In the EU, there are some possibilities according to Article 11 and to Article 22 of Council Regulation 834/2007. || Latin America These
examples show that on certain issues compliance with more stringent EU rules is
possible. The
following table displays other examples of "equivalent" provisions
applied by CBs in third countries which would not be possible with the current
provisions of EU regulation under a compliance regime: Table 3: Other
"equivalent" provisions currently applied by CBs in third countries
which would not be possible under a compliance regime Ref. || Description || Location of the CBs concerned R834, Art 27-28 || Group certification || Africa, Latin America, India, EU R889, Annex II.6 || Calcium carbide is allowed for flower induction of pineapple (ethylene is allowed by Annex II) || India R834, Art 12.1.d || CBs may authorize the use of products for purposes different than those mentioned in the annexes || Africa Group
certification is currently not allowed in the EU. Group certification is by
contrast developed in India, in African countries and in Latin America. The
move to a compliance regime without introduction of group certification in the
EU standard would have a significant impact. According to AGRO-ECO Louis Bolk
Institute (AGOF meeting, 11 April 2013), the majority of products imported
from developing countries, all categories, are produced under the group
certification scheme. The analysis of trade flows of a short list of
developing countries from Latin America, Asia and Africa (see below) shows
indeed that group certification is used by a slight majority of the control
bodies assessed. If compliance should be applied under the current European
legislation, the organic products concerned would therefore need to apply
individual control rules to be accepted in the EU .Nevertheless, the
implementation of an individual certification could entail disproportionate
administrative burden and cost for organic producers in some of those
developing countries. The
two other provisions mentioned are about the authorization of substances in
organic farming. Calcium carbide is not allowed in the EU, but it is accepted
in the Indian CB's standard, with the argument that it is cheaper than
substances accepted in the EU, and despite the risks associated with its use.
The Africa based CB's standard allows the CB to authorize the use of the
substances authorized by the EU organic standard, such as plant protection
products, but for different purposes, although they have not been evaluated for
these different uses. These
elements indicate that under the currently applied equivalence regime, some
provisions of the EU standard are somehow abused; the CBs concerned can take
advantage of the flexibility associated with the recognition for the purpose of
equivalence, which can potentially lead to unfair competition.
4.2.
Analysis of the trade flows
With
a view to assess any possible impact on the trade flows imported into the EU
from developing third countries, we have collected data from the annual reports
received by 31 March 2013 from the control bodies recognized for the purpose of
equivalence by the EU. The ACP country
coverage for this analysis includes: Botswana || Fiji || Madagascar || Senegal Burundi || Ghana || Mauritius || South Africa Cameroon || Guyana || Mozambique || Swaziland Côte d'Ivoire || Jamaica || Nigeria || Tanzania Dominican Republic || Kenya || Papua New Guinea || Uganda Ethiopia || Lesotho || Rwanda || Zimbabwe The
list is composed based on the quantities imported from the selected ACP
countries and on the activity of CBs in the region. These
24 countries are covered by the equivalent CBs system: 21 CBs are active in
these countries, with 3 of them being active in 10 countries or more. The
data gathered from the CBs' annual reports (annual report were available for 17
CBs; 4 CBs were recognised as equivalent in 2013) shows that a total of 234.224
tons of organic products were imported into the EU from the 24 third countries
concerned, during the period ranging from 1 July to 31 December 2012 (the
equivalent CBs system was applied as from 1 July 2012). The following table
identifies the products corresponding to the highest quantities imported. Table 4: Main
organic products imported from a limited list of developing countries into the
EU from 1 July to 31 December 2012 Products (or group of products) || Quantity (tons) Bananas || 145865 Coffee || 38352 Citrus fruit || 21619 Cocoa || 15869 Grapes || 2414 Dates, figs, pineapples, avocados, guavas, mangoes… || 2128 Fruit juices || 1716 Fruit and nuts || 714 Tea || 657 Vanilla || 623 Plants used primarily in perfumery, in pharmacy or for insecticidal, fungicidal or similar purposes || 618 Other fruit, fresh || 516 Coconuts, Brazil nuts and cashew nuts || 511 Ginger, saffron, curcuma, thyme, curry and other spices || 368 Natural honey || 167 The
imported products are mostly plant products. The only animal product imported
in substantial quantities is honey (167 tons). Livestock products as such
hardly appear in the list. Group
certification was investigated too. Data shows that out of the 17 equivalent
control bodies concerned, 10 of them apply group certification for a total of
129 producers groups. This data shows the significance of
the practice of group certification in developing countries. It
was also noted that 2 exceptions allowed by the current EU production rules are
commonly applied by the equivalent control bodies: the retroactive recognition
of the conversion period and the use of non-organic seeds. The move to
compliance, if accompanied by a suppression of these exceptions, would result
in more stringent rules for organic producers in developing countries, as they
would be for EU organic producers. More stringent organic rules would entail
costs, but also maintain EU consumers' confidence in organic products, which
will be to the benefit of both EU and developing countries' producers.
5.
Exports
Export
of organic products is not addressed in Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007.
The provisions for the recognition of third countries are unilateral. In recent
cases, the Commission has been following a reciprocal approach. In most cases
such mutual recognition has been achieved through parallel administrative
arrangements and only in the case of Switzerland through a bilateral agreement.
In 2012, the Commission signed a mutual equivalence arrangement with the US. The
possibility offered to recognise third countries for the purpose of equivalence
provides an alternative to bilateral agreements. Negotiations can be entered
into when the technical dossier is considered satisfactory and at short notice
as they do not require a mandate. They are conducted only on organics and thus
avoid being slowed down by blockages on other trade issues. Importantly
however, there is no assurance to obtain a quid pro quo in parallel
administrative arrangements unlike negotiations for a bilateral agreement. Issues on exports The
absence of a specific export policy for organic products hampers the
future potential growth of the EU market. An export policy would be important
to allow EU organic producers to benefit from fast growth of the World market
for organic products. Developing mutual recognition agreements is necessary to
focus discussion on equivalence with 3rd countries in the areas of
key economic and political interest to the EU, allowing better value for the
sector in full respect of the EU international obligations. The
development of a specific export policy is in line with the support from
citizens and stakeholders to request more market access for EU organic products
from third countries.
6.
Conclusions
The
shortcomings of the trade regime for organic products are addressed differently
under the 3 policy options. Option
1 includes the following improvements: ·
implementation of electronic certification ·
harmonisation of accreditation rules for control
bodies active in third countries with the rules for control bodies operating in
the internal market. Option
2 proposes the re-introduction of import authorisations. Under
option 3 the following actions are developed: ·
Specific export policy, with a general mandate
from the Council in order to negotiate organic equivalency agreements with
third countries and the development of specific provisions on export in the
basic Regulation on organic farming, in particular the introduction of an
export certificate for the certification of organic products intended for
export. ·
Balanced approach towards equivalence with third
countries – Equivalence with third countries negotiated on the basis of mutual
and reciprocal agreements. Multilateral agreements for countries having very
similar systems to the ones existing in the EU will be possible. ·
Imports from non-recognised third countries
based on control bodies applying a regime of compliance. There
are concerns that the compliance regime, with more stringent production rules,
would become an obstacle for organic producers in developing countries willing
to export to the EU. But this analysis shows that compliance with more
stringent EU production rules is possible. However, the issue of group
certification which is widely applied in developing countries is raised. The
application of option 3 without its sub-option on group certification would
request the growers to be individually certified and in some developing
countries it would entail disproportionate burden and costs. Option
3 would be beneficial, because: –
It would remove any possibility for CBs to
compete on the granting of exceptions to the rules, with the associated risk of
dilution of organic production rules; –
It would prevent abuses leading to unfair
competition for EU and third country producers. ANNEX 13:
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF ORGANIC FARMING This
Annex summarises current data and research results on the environmental impacts
of organic farming. It also takes into account preliminary results of the
external evaluation on the EU organic farming policy available in September
2013. Firstly
the possible direct and indirect impacts of the provisions of the EU organic
standard on environment have been analysed. They are summarised in a table in
paragraph 2.6.4 of the report and are described here with more details.
Secondly a literature review has been conducted. It has to be noted that in
some areas, notably on the impacts on greenhouse gas emissions, water and
energy savings, data is partial and it is difficult to draw conclusions. This
Annex also includes a presentation of the issue of environmental performance
management when producing organic agricultural products.
1.
Impacts of organic farming on the environment
The
environmental impact of organic farming has not been extensively studied
hitherto. Existing scientific studies are somewhat divided on the impacts
related to greenhouse gas emissions, land use and energy use. More research is
needed in this field. Nevertheless, as shown hereafter, there is clear evidence
that organic farming, when compared to conventional agriculture, has positive
effects on biodiversity, soil and water. The
EU rules on organic farming and their possible (direct and indirect) positive
impact areas are summarised in the following table: Source: Interim report (September 2013) for
Evaluation of the EU legislation on organic farming
1.1.
Biodiversity
According
to the preliminary results of the evaluation of EU legislation on organic
farming, some practices favourable to biodiversity are directly prescribed by
the EU regulation (e.g. ban of synthetic mineral fertilisers, use of organic
fertilisation, multiannual crop rotations including the use of legumes and
cover crops, lower stocking rates, no use of herbicides and chemical
pesticides). Others are indirect results of the above prescriptions (such as
more likely use of spring sown crops because the ban on herbicides may lead to
a higher prevalence of weeds) or reflect common practices of organic farmers,
such as higher presence of landscape features like hedges, trees or grass strip
corridors, shallow tillage, or use of local/endangered breeds and varieties.
The scientific literature underlines positive impacts derived from general
organic production practices in increasing significantly abundance of plants,
birds and predatory insects, particularly in simple landscapes, such as regions
with a high prevalence of arable production. The studies do not necessarily
make a clear distinction between direct and indirect impacts.
1.2.
Energy
The
strict limitation of the use of chemically synthesised inputs or the incentive
to use forage rather than concentrated feed for livestock have an indirect
impact on the sustainable use of energy. Scientific literature found, for most
organic crops, the energy use to be lower, both per unit area and per unit
yield, than in conventional production (with some exceptions like potatoes or
tomatoes, where disease pressure in organic farming is high and organic yields
relatively low).
1.3.
Greenhouse gas emissions (GHG)
Greenhouse
gas emissions are generally lower per hectare in organic than conventional
farming[61].
In particular, organic farms avoid the N2O emissions associated with
the manufacture and use of mineral nitrogen fertiliser, since the main sources
of nitrogen are biological nitrogen fixation and organic nitrogen, more slowly
released. The incorporation of fertility building grass-clover leys and the use
of livestock manures within diverse crop rotations also contribute to enhanced
carbon sequestration. However, related to the quantities produced, GHG
emissions remain equivalent or, sometimes higher for organic production.
1.4.
Air quality and water management
Regarding
air and water protection, positive impacts arise from the prohibition of most
synthetic pesticides and fertilisers as well as from limits on stocking rates
and organic fertilisers use. Scientific literature demonstrates that organic
farming contributes to preventing nitrogen leaching and eutrophication. Regarding
water use, the organic farming Regulation does not provide any direct requirements,
but organic production uses potentially less water because of individual
choices and cultivation practices[62]. Quantitative
and qualitative management of water is little addressed in the organic
production rules, except for plant production rules which contain a reference
to the Nitrates Directive and for aquaculture rules.
1.5.
Soil
The
organic legislation contributes directly to soil health and quality through the
obligations to use organic fertilisers and manure and to practise a crop
rotation, even if the diversity of the rotation is not further specified.
Individual management decisions at farm level influence the impact of the
rotation and of the use of machines (e.g. cultivation for weed control) on soil
structure. The positive impact of organic farming on soil is significant and
abundantly documented in scientific literature[63]. However,
the fact that organic farming relies on the use of copper fungicides as one of
the main phytosanitary treatments is potentially negative for the environment,
because copper can accumulate in soils. This issue is particulary relevant for
certain crops (grapevine, apple, potato) where multiple applications of copper
fungicides is common. To address this concern, the organic farming legislation
has limited the amount of copper that can be applied as fungicide to 8
kg/ha/year in 2002 and reduced it further to 6 kg/ha/year from 2006 onwards[64].
There have also been EU research projects[65]
that have looked for possible solutions to replace copper fungicides (e.g.
REPCO, Blight-MOP). A solution can be found in the combination of resistant
varieties, preventive management methods and alternative treatments. However,
the fact that the issue remains a concern for civil society was underlined
during an ISSG meeting. Further improvements and solutions should continue to
be looked for.
1.6.
Land use
There
is an ongoing debate on whether extensive production systems are better for the
environment than intensive production systems. Because intensive production
systems use less land to produce the same amount of agricultural products, they
would allow to preserve natural areas intended to protect nature and
biodiversity and would therefore be more environmentally friendly[66].
To be able to conclude on which system is better for the environment, a
scientific study taking into account all the impacts of both systems would be
needed, but it is not possible to conclude with the current scientific
knowledge. It is
important to note that EU organic agriculture is more extensive than
conventional agriculture, but it is still far more intensive than many
conventional agricultural systems in the world. It is because agriculture is in
general very intensive in the EU. In most regions of the world,
organic production performs equally or even better than conventional
agriculture in terms of yields, thanks to practices like crop rotation or
intercropping. In
any case, the potential for converting to organic farming in the most intensive
growing areas of the EU is not seen as very significant. However, a study from
the JRC[67]
(Joint Research Centre) highlighted that the production of organic products, as
well as other quality labelled products, may be a key element to prevent land
abandonment and to maintain traditional landscapes. Food
security, which remains a key objective of the
CAP, is regularly raised as an argument against the development of organic
farming. In fact, lower yields are observed on organic crops such as cereals or
oilseeds compared with conventional agriculture in Europe. However, there is
potential to increase yields in organic farming systems[68],
while high yields in conventional systems in the EU rely on mineral nitrogen,
phosphates and potassium fertiliser inputs.
2.
Environmental performance
2.1.
Ecolabel for food and drink products
Some
years ago, it was envisaged that the concerns regarding the need to consider
the whole lifecycle of food and feed products could be addressed by applying
the EU Ecolabel to food and feed products, including organic ones. In this
respect, the recently revised Ecolabel Regulation (66/2010)[69]
required the Commission to carry out a study on the feasibility of developing
Ecolabel criteria for food and feed products, with a special attention to
organic products. This study[70],
completed in October 2011, underlined in particular the confusion that could
result for the consumer about the meaning of the Ecolabel and the organic logo.
As an alternative to placing the Ecolabel on organic products, it was suggested
"to amend the Organic certification […] to cover the full life cycle of food
products, including the processing and packaging and [it was called] on the
European Commission to give due consideration to this option, to improve the
performance of the existing Organic Regulation." Along
this line, a request has been formulated by IFOAM EU to have operators
downstream of primary production, i.e processors and traders, manage their
environmental performance via an EMS (e.g. ISO 14001 or EMAS). Citizens
expressed a similar opinion during the on-line public consultation on the
review of the EU policy on organic agriculture[71].
Indeed, a large number of respondents, namely 24458 (61%), requested that
producers and traders should be required to implement an EMS to improve their
environmental performance in addition to other European requirements. Such a
move would respond to the above-mentioned recommendation from the EUEB that the
organic farming legislation should cover a wider part of the life cycle of food
products. This would in turn reduce the need to establish an Ecolabel for food
and drink products. These
expectations have been looked into (see section 2.1 below) and taken up as a
sub-option in the present impact analysis.
2.1.
EMS
An EMS is a tool that provides organisations with a method to systematically manage and
improve the environmental aspects of their production processes. It helps
organisations to achieve their environmental obligations and performance goals.
In addition to EMAS and EN ISO 14001, non-formal EMS exist in the EU. Many of
them have been adopted by both private and public organisations. These EMS are mostly designed to cover organisations with a specific size (e.g. SMEs) and
organisations coming from specific areas or specific sectors of activities. With
regard to the extent of the use of EMS, some data could be found only for EMAS
via the EMAS helpdesk[72].
This data indicates that EMAS is not much used in the food processing and trade
sectors, and that EMAS registration in these sectors is most popular in Germany, followed by Italy and Spain. In the other MS the number of registrations is low (see
following two tables). Table
1: Number of EMAS registered companies per relevant sector and category || Food processing || Wholesale agri-business || Retail agri-business || Total Micro enterprises || 17 || 1 || 1 || 818 Small enterprises || 39 || 5 || 1 || 1181 Medium enterprises || 37 || 3 || 1 || 1044 Large enterprises || 47 || 2 || 0 || 703 Total || 140 || 11 || 3 || 3746 Table
2: Number of EMAS registered companies per relevant sector and Member State || Food processing || Wholesale agri-business || Retail agri-business || Total DE || 77 || 8 || 2 || 771 IT || 23 || 1 || || 1081 ES || 16 || 1 || || 1126 AT || 3 || 1 || || 257 DK || 1 || || || 59 BE || 1 || || || 48 CY || 8 || || 1 || 51 GR || 1 || || || 41 CZ || 5 || || || 26 SE || 3 || || || 22 HU || 1 || || || 23 PL || 1 || || || 41 PT || || || || 59 UK || || || || 52 Given
the low numbers of registered companies in the agri-food processing and trade
sectors and the fact that the EMAS scheme has been in place for nearly 20
years, it does not seem that these sectors choose to improve their
environmental performance on a voluntary basis via EMAS. Such sectors may
prefer other EMS (ISO 14001 or simplified EMS). However, no data was found to
confirm or refute whether such a choice was made. Should
an additional requirement for applying an environmental management scheme be
imposed on organic processors and traders, this is likely to involve for those
operators additional administrative burden and costs. It is difficult to assess
whether this would, in turn, have an impact on consumers' behaviour.
Nevertheless the online public consultation has shown that the respondents are
prepared to pay more for organic products. 16,06% of respondents are prepared
to pay up to 10% more, 39,71% between 10 and 25% more and 10,65% between 25 and
50% more. Also 79,21% of respondents buy organic products because they are
concerned about the environment. A study was carried out in 2009 to analyse the costs and benefits to
organisations of EMAS registration as well as the incentives and barriers for
potential new registrants[73]. The
results indicate that for all sizes of organisation the costs in the
first year are between 1.5 and 2 times higher than annual costs over subsequent
years (see table 3 below). The costs faced by organisations increase relative
to the size of the organisation, but micro and small organisations faced higher
fixed and external costs than medium and large organisations. This suggests
that, the costs faced by micro and small organisations in the first year act as
a significant barrier to registration. In
contrast, medium and large organisations seem to benefit from economies of
scale, with a higher proportion of costs borne internally by environmental
departments and lower external costs associated with the use of consultants. In
order to address this issue, EMAS in its latest revision offers
derogations for small organisations (Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1221/2009[74]),
i.e. verification of full EMS and audit program validated in a four-yearly
frequency (instead of a three-yearly frequency); validated updated
environmental statement every two years (instead of every year). In
addition, in order
to facilitate the process towards EMAS-registration and maintenance of EMAS
registration for small and medium sized organisations (SMEs), EMAS Easy, a lean
and standardized methodology has been developed with small and micro businesses
in mind[75]. Implementing
EMAS via the EMAS Easy methodology is one way for SMEs to reduce their first
year and annual implementation costs. Data originating from the study on the
Costs and Benefits of EMAS to Registered Organisations were combined with
recent estimates based on data provided by SMEs during evaluations performed at
EMAS capacity building seminars for SMEs, and during various EMAS Easy coaching
in different MS. This resulted in the indicative numbers on cost reductions
that are included in Table 4 below. On top
of the figures on potential annual efficiency savings, the EMAS 'Toolkit for
small organisations' provides many other examples of benefits/costs savings. The
data in the 2009 study on the costs and benefits of EMAS further indicate that
the costs of registration are highest in Northern Europe and lowest in the new MS;
but this largely reflects general cost differences between the countries.
Ongoing annual costs are again highest in Northern Europe and lowest in Southern Europe, due to the lower average cost of internal staff. Increased
efficiency and energy savings were identified as main benefits for
registered organisations (see tables 5 and 6 below for indicators). In terms of
quantified benefits, the results show clear evidence of substantial financial
savings following EMAS adoption from increased energy and resource efficiency.
However, this comes with the caveat that additional efficiency improvements are
unlikely to be achievable year on year, meaning that the cost saving may tail
over the long term once all possible measures have been implemented. The
second most widely acknowledged benefit of EMAS was a reduction in negative
incidents. Regarding market access, it appears that EMAS registration may be
more important for retaining existing customers than for winning new business.
Survey respondents also indicated that EMAS has improved relationships with
regulators more than with any other stakeholder group. Finally, while many
organisations also had expectations of regulatory relief from EMAS
registration, the evidence of organisations actually benefiting from regulatory
relief was limited. In
addition, the results of this study indicate that financial support provides
the greatest stimulus for organisations to register, much more than guidance
documents and technical support, helpful as they may be. For SMEs in the supply chain, EMAS
registration of client companies can have a direct impact. A growing number of
small companies will need to demonstrate (or have already demonstrated) a recognized track
record of systematic environmental management. In fact, often supplier
companies are required to have EMAS registration in order to gain market
access. For instance, in industry sectors close to the customer, suppliers note
that their customers request EMAS registration[76]. The
public consultation has shown that this is important for the citizens and
consumers in the EU. With the
introduction of the requirement for certain organic operators to set up an EMS,
the most impacted MS will be the ones with the highest production of organic
processed products: Germany, France and Italy. It will entail increased
efficiency and energy savings, which are likely to more than compensate the
additional costs, as shown by the results of the above mentioned 2009 study on
the costs and benefits of EMAS. As shown in the following tables, potential
annual efficiency savings for small enterprises amount to 20.000 to 40.000
Euro, with the annual cost to run the system at 22.000 Euro. For medium
enterprises, the savings exceed 100.000 Euro, while the annual cost is 17.000
Euro. However, the implementation cost the first year is higher than the
savings. For micro-enterprises, the savings do not compensate for the
additional costs. Therefore, the obligation to run an EMS would have an
economic impact on micro-enterprises. Table 3: EMAS Estimated
Actual Costs by Organisation Characteristics Organisation Characteristic || First Year Costs || Annual Costs Size || Region/Sector/Ownership || External Costs || Internal Costs || Fixed Costs || Total Costs || External Costs || Internal Costs || Fixed Costs || Total Costs SME || Southern Europe || € 3,507 || € 11,483 || € 19,439 || € 34,428 || € 1,857 || € 8,110 || € 8,110 || € 17,676 Northern Europe || € 10,409 || € 19,866 || € 9,592 || € 39,867 || € 2,317 || € 9,570 || € 9,570 || € 16,907 New Member States || € 5,502 || € 20,725 || € 2,475 || € 28,702 || € 1,575 || € 23,950 || € 23,950 || € 26,825 Large || Southern Europe || € 6,297 || € 23,673 || € 27,879 || € 57,849 || € 3,272 || € 16,442 || € 16,442 || € 34,283 Northern Europe || € 8,819 || € 48,625 || € 17,637 || € 75,081 || € 3,630 || € 28,023 || € 28,023 || € 42,602 New Member States || € 9,375 || € 18,125 || € 7,950 || € 35,450 || € 1,500 || € 14,000 || € 14,000 || € 22,000 SME || Public || € 9,132 || € 15,328 || € 18,103 || € 42,563 || € 2,785 || € 11,833 || € 11,833 || € 20,657 Private || € 5,023 || € 13,141 || € 16,045 || € 34,209 || € 1,735 || € 8,295 || € 8,295 || € 17,076 Large || Public || € 8,804 || € 28,267 || € 16,490 || € 53,560 || € 2,045 || € 17,451 || € 17,451 || € 25,930 Private || € 6,931 || € 37,498 || € 24,347 || € 68,775 || € 3,813 || € 23,706 || € 23,706 || € 42,067 SME || Manufacturing || € 4,879 || € 11,211 || € 19,687 || € 35,776 || € 1,364 || € 7,252 || € 7,252 || € 16,856 Services || € 5,860 || € 15,972 || € 13,769 || € 35,601 || € 1,865 || € 10,297 || € 10,297 || € 17,601 Large || Manufacturing || € 6,942 || € 35,484 || € 24,335 || € 66,762 || € 3,571 || € 22,113 || € 22,113 || € 34,177 Services || € 8,563 || € 29,289 || € 18,398 || € 56,250 || € 4,025 || € 16,656 || € 16,656 || € 26,464 Source: Study on the costs and benefits of EMAS to
registered organisations (2009) Table 4: Costs and potential
annual efficiency savings in EMAS Organisation size || Potential annual efficiency savings (€) || First year implementation costs of EMAS (€) || EMAS Annual costs (€) || EMAS Easy First year implementation costs (€) || EMAS Easy Annual costs (€) Micro || 3,000 – 10,000 || 22,500 || 10,000 || 11,000 || 2,200 Small || 20,000 – 40,000 || 38,000 || 22,000 || 17,000 || 3,300 Medium || Up to 100,000 || 40,000 || 17,000 || || Large || Up to 400,000 || 67,000 || 39,000 || || Source:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/emas/tools/emaseasy_en.htm Table 5: Benefit likelihood
indicators by organization size Organisation size || Energy and resource saving || Financial saving || Improved stakeholder relationships || Improved staff recruitment/ retention || Increased market opportunities || Productivity improvement || Reduction in negative incidents Micro || +++ || 0 || +++ || + || + || 0 || ++ Small || +++ || 0 || ++ || 0 || + || + || ++ Medium || +++ || 0 || ++ || 0 || + || + || +++ Large || +++ || 0 || +++ || 0 || + || + || +++ Source:
Study on the costs and benefits of EMAS to registered organisations (2009) Table 6: Benefit likelihood
indicators by relevant industry sectors Sector || Energy and resource saving || Financial saving || Improved stakeholder relationships || Improved staff recruitment/ retention || Increased market opportunities || Productivity improvement || Reduction in negative incidents Agriculture, forestry and fishing || + || 0 || + || + || 0 || 0 || +++ Food, drink and tobacco || ++ || 0 || + || 0 || 0 || + || ++ Textiles, leather, footwear and clothing || ++ || 0 || ++ || + || 0 || 0 || +++ Retail trade and repair || - || - || - || - || - || - || - Hotels and catering || ++ || + || + || + || + || + || + Source: Study on the costs and benefits of EMAS to
registered organisations (2009) Another recent
study presented in an information letter of the German state of Saxony[77]
established a comparison between various systems of environmental management,
i.e. EMAS, ISO 14001 and two simplified systems applied in Saxony. The results
of this comparison are presented in the table below. Environmental management systems (EMS) || Environmental management approaches (EMA) EMAS || DIN EN ISO 14001 || ÖKOPROFIT® || Qualitätsverbund umweltbewusster Betriebe (QuB) (Quality association of environmentally conscious firms) || || || || Basis || European Regulation which includes the requirements of the standard ISO 14001 || Private‑sector standard, not legally binding || Licence agreement with the cities of Graz and Munich, municipal project sponsors required || Participation criteria || || || || Scope || Up to now EU‑wide, from 2010 worldwide || Worldwide || Worldwide, most widespread in Austria and Germany || Germany‑wide || || || || Target group || Organisations of all kinds with their locations || Organisations of all kinds || Small and medium‑sized enterprises (SMEs) in all sectors, also suitable for municipal firms and agricultural holdings || Small and medium‑sized enterprises (SMEs) in all sectors || || || || Project aim || Continual improvement of environmental performance, compliance with the environmental rules, environmental declaration for the public, image gain through European award || Continual improvement of the environmental management system, image gain through internationally valid certificate || Reduced operating costs through environmental relief, legal certainty, networking in the region, image gain through regional award, establishment of responsibilities || Image gain through award of the QuB seal, legal certainty, Reduced operating costs through environmental relief, establishment of responsibilities, networking in the region || || || || Requirements || Very high || High || Medium || Medium || || || || Focal points as regards content || Environmental management system, environmental statement, involvement of employees, compliance with the legal provisions, continual improvement of environmental performance || Environmental management system || Subject areas: organisation and communication, data and monitoring, energy, emissions, waste, water, hazardous substances, law, purchasing, health and safety at work, welfare; flexible setting of subject focal points possible || Subject areas: legal inventory, location, resource consumption (input/ output balance), emissions, waste, hazardous substances, energy, environmentally relevant installations, staff training courses, product information, customer satisfaction, safety at work || || || || Initial introductory work for the participant || 12 to 18 months || 12 to 18 months || About 12 months, 10 half‑day workshops, four half‑day on‑the‑spot discussions, mandatory worksheets (Excel) || About. 6 months Four half‑day workshops, about two on‑the‑spot discussion days, documentation (QuB files) || || || || Initial examination || Validation of the environmental declaration by state‑approved and monitored environmental experts, entry in the EMAS register with participation of the environmental authorities responsible || Certification by accredited certification associations || 90‑minute commission examination by environmental experts from the business chambers and the municipal project sponsor || Half‑day entrance examination by environmental auditors from LGA Intercert || || || || Proof || Validated environmental declaration, EMAS register entry and registration certificate, use of the EMAS logo || Certificate, monitoring sign || Certificate of the municipal sponsors use of the ÖKOPROFIT® logo || Certificate of LGA-Intercert GmbH, use of the QuB seal || || || || Period of validity and continuation || 3 years; annual validation of the updated environmental statement (relief for SMEs) || 3 years; annual monitoring audits || 2 years; continuation possible in the ÖKOPROFIT® club and/or in the course 'From ÖKOPROFIT® to Öko Audit' || 2 years; in the meantime possible to take part in a working group; Guide on action to further development towards EMAS available || || || || Costs of introduction || Depend on firm size and environmental relevance || Depend on firm size and environmental relevance || Own share €1 500 to €2 000 for SMEs, no additional examination costs || Own share €500 to €1 000 € for SMEs, certification costs €290 (up to 10 staff) up to €1 030 (> 100 staff) || || || || Support || Support for SMEs in accordance with Saxony's guidelines on medium‑sized enterprises Advice: €240 per day's work, maximum 30% of costs, maximum 20 days' work in three years Validation: 50% of costs, maximum €5 000 || Support for SMEs in accordance with Saxony's guidelines on medium‑sized enterprises Advice: €240 per day's work, maximum 30% of costs, maximum 20 days' work in three years Certification: 50% of costs, maximum €5 000 || Regional licence financed by Saxony; support for SMEs in accordance with Saxony's guidelines on medium‑sized enterprises Project support for group projects up to 50% of expenditure, maximum €20 000, in the case of participation by more than 10 SMEs maximum €26 000 || Support for SMEs in accordance with Saxony's guidelines on medium‑sized enterprises Project support for group projects up to 50% of expenditure, maximum €20 000, in the case of participation by more than 10 SMEs maximum €26 000 Individual projects: Advice: €240 per day's work, maximum 30% of costs, maximum 20 days' work in three years || || || || Added value || Membership of the Saxony environmental alliance possible, independently of that list of administrative‑law facilities, 30% fee reduction || Membership of the Saxony environmental alliance possible, then the list of administrative‑law facilities applies || Basis for UMS, Membership of the Saxony environmental alliance possible || Basis for UMS, Membership of the Saxony environmental alliance possible || || || || Further information || www.emas.de www.emas-register.de || www.din.de || www.umweltallianz.sachsen.de/oekoprofit www.arqum.de/datenbank || www.qub-info.de www.umweltallianz.sachsen.de || || || || Source:
English translation of "Umweltallianz Sachsen - Infobrief Sonderausgabe. Der
stufenweise Einstieg ins Umweltmanagement. August 2010". Simplified
environmental management approaches, such as those described in the above
table, though seemingly less burdensome, would however not necessarily be
available to all operators in the EU and outside. Nevertheless, they could
constitute a first step towards the implementation of a more complete EMS. Both Ökoprofit and QuB are part of the 20 non-formal EMS that are considered
compatible with EMAS[78]. ANNEX 14: ANIMAL
WELFARE
1.
Introduction
The
citizens of the European Union have become more and more concerned about the
ethical treatment of animals in the last years. The European
organic farming standard provides high level animal welfare standards. Further
attention is being paid to this issue in the context of the review.
2.
Legal background
The Lisbon
Treaty 2009 recognizes animals as sentient beings and requires that the Union
and the MS shall pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals in
formulating and implementing the Union’s policies on agriculture, fisheries,
transport and research. 3 horizontal legal documents are relevant in animal
welfare: (1)
Council Directive 98/58/EC[79]
concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes and European
Convention for the Protection of Animals kept for Farming Purposes (to protect
farm animals against any unnecessary suffering or injury caused by their
housing), (2)
Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005[80] on
the protection of animals during transport and related operations and amending
Directives 64/432/EEC and 93/119/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1255/97 and (3)
Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009[81] on
the protection of animals at the time of killing. Horizontal
legislation on animal welfare is currently being reviewed according to the
Commission Staff Working paper of 19.1.2012[82]. In
2012, the European Union Strategy for the Protection and Welfare of Animals
2012-2015[83]
was adopted, which contained important indications to consider for farm animals
in organic farming. The Strategy has foreseen in its general objectives a level
of protection of animal welfare, which is in line with citizens' concerns. The
level playing field on animal welfare is also important at international level
to ensure global competitiveness of EU operators.
3.
Current legislation on organic farming and
animal welfare
There
are no separate rules for animal welfare in the current Regulation (EC) No 834/2009,
but there are several important references to the application of
high animal welfare standards throughout the documents. In
Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 animal welfare is mentioned in: -
whereas (1)" …The
organic production method thus plays a dual societal role, where it on the one
hand provides for a specific market responding to a consumer demand for organic
products, and on the other hand delivers public goods contributing to the
protection of the environment and animal welfare, as well as to rural
development.". -
whereas (17) "Organic
stock farming should respect high animal welfare standards and meet animals'
species-specific behavioural needs while animal-health management should be
based on disease prevention. In this respect, particular attention should be
paid to housing conditions, husbandry practices and stocking densities.
Moreover, the choice of breeds should take account of their capacity to adapt
to local conditions. The implementing rules for livestock production and
aquaculture production should at least ensure compliance with the provisions of
the European Convention for the Protection of Animals kept for Farming purposes
and the subsequent recommendations by its standing committee (T-AP)." - whereas (31) " In order to ensure
that organic products are produced in accordance with the requirements laid
down under the Community legal framework on organic production, activities
performed by operators at all stages of production, preparation and
distribution of organic products should be submitted to a control system set up
and managed in conformity with the rules laid down in Regulation (EC) No
882/2004 of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls
performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law,
animal health and animal welfare rules." In
Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 it is mentioned in: -
Article 3 (a) (iv) that organic farming
"respects high animal welfare standards and in particular meets animals’
species-specific behavioural needs)". According to Article 3 (c) organic
farming methods "aim at producing a wide variety of foods and other
agricultural products that respond to consumers’ demand for goods produced by
the use of processes that do not harm the environment, human health, plant
health or animal health and welfare." -
Article 5 that "In addition to the overall
principles set out in Article 4, organic farming shall be based on the
following specific principles: … (h)
the observance of a high level of animal welfare respecting species-specific
need….." -
Article 14 laying down the livestock production
rules that "1. In addition to the general farm production rules laid down
in Article 11, the following rules shall apply to livestock production: … (b)
"with regard to husbandry practices and housing conditions: (i)
personnel keeping animals shall possess the
necessary basic knowledge and skills as regards the health and the welfare
needs of the animals; (ii)
husbandry practices, including stocking
densities, and housing conditions shall ensure that the (exemption for veterinary, welfare, safety reason for individual
animals for a limited period of time) developmental,
physiological and ethological needs of animals are met; (iii)
the livestock shall have permanent access to open
air areas, preferably pasture, whenever weather conditions and the state of the
ground allow this unless restrictions and obligations related to the protection
of human and animal health are imposed on the basis of Community legislation; (iv)
the number of livestock shall be limited with a
view to minimising overgrazing, poaching of soil, erosion, or pollution caused
by animals or by the spreading of their manure; (v)
organic livestock shall be kept separate from
other livestock. However, grazing of common land by organic animals and of
organic land by non-organic animals is permitted under certain restrictive
conditions; (vi)
tethering or isolation of livestock shall be
prohibited, unless for individual animals for a limited period of time, and in
so far as this is justified for safety, welfare or veterinary reasons; (vii)
duration of transport of livestock shall be
minimised; (viii)
any suffering, including mutilation, shall be
kept to a minimum during the entire life of the animal, including at the time
of slaughter;…..." In
concrete terms, the organic animal welfare standards are higher than
in conventional farming. They are guaranteed by bigger space and special areas
available for the animals and maximum stocking densities. The
stocking density in buildings shall provide for the comfort, the well-being and
the species-specific needs of the animals which, in particular, shall depend on
the species, the breed and the age of the animals. Throughout the
lifetime of the animals, their access to open-air areas (depending on climatic
conditions) has to be ensured. Organic stock farming should respect the
animals' species-specific behavioural needs (that may go beyond Community
welfare standards). The transport of the animals shall ensure that the welfare
of animals is kept at the highest possible level. In
the Organic farming legislation there are no references to the horizontal
legislation of animal welfare, but general rules apply.
4.
Results of the consultations with consumers and
stakeholders
Results of
public consultation have shown that 66% of the respondents would like to
see higher animal welfare standards not only for organic farming, but for
all types of farming methods (conventional).
55% of the
respondents agreed that they choose organic because organic production
respects animal welfare.
One of the
free contributions of the consultation referred to other guidelines:
"the EU regulation should at least aspire to the guidelines/standards
of farming associations: prohibition of dehorning cows, castration; more
space per animal (other organizations [eg. Neuland] have better housing
conditions than EU organic provisions).
In general,
respondents would like to see stringent standards, for example:
"Strengthen the animal welfare standards and ban the mass animal
husbandry".
Reference
to other standards of organic farming: " Animal welfare rules should
be strengthened - the only good rules are '…' - their harmonization is
needed but to higher standards."
There are
two important organizations advocating animal welfare issues Eurogroup
for Animals and Compassion in World Farming (CIWF). Consulted
organisations suggest that allopathic tranquilisers, or electrical stimulations
should not be permitted.
5.
improvements in animal welfare standards of
organic farming requested by animal welfare organisations
Origin of
animals: in principle the animals need to have organic origin, but
exemptions are permitted, therefore non-organic animals are allowed if
there are not enough available animals of organic origin. The poultry
reared on organic farms for example should come from slow-growing strains
of organic origin or the rearing should avoid intensive methods in order
to avoid suffering of the animals.
Eurogroup
for Animals suggests that exceptions or permission for derogations
regarding tethering should be not accepted. Compassion in World Farming
(CIWF) requests that close confinement or tethering should only be
accepted for veterinary reason. Conditions
for keeping the animals: tethering or isolation of livestock should be
prohibited but tethering and isolation may be allowed only for the
following exceptional reasons: veterinary, welfare, safety for individual
animals for a limited period of time). The current rules provide that
" tethering or isolation of livestock shall be prohibited, unless for
individual animals for a limited period of time, and in so far as this is
justified for safety, welfare or veterinary reasons". Organic
stock farming should respect high animal welfare standards and meet
animals' species-specific behavioural needs while animal-health management
should be based on disease prevention. CIWF requests that ducks for
example should have access to water at any time. The idea is that all the
needs of the animals, including nutritional and physiological, should be
covered. To ensure this, there is pressure from the advocating
organisations to allow the use of amino-acids and certain other substances
which today are not allowed under the EU organic production rules. The
current legislation provides that "husbandry practices, including
stocking densities, and housing conditions shall ensure that the
(exemption for veterinary, welfare, safety reason for individual animals
for a limited period of time) developmental, physiological and ethological
needs of animals are met."
CIWF
requests that castration or mutilation should not be allowed without a
pain relief. Where cattles are required not to have horns, disbudding
should be practiced. Eurogroup asks that no physical castration should be
permitted. According to the current legislation suffering,
including mutilation, shall be kept to a minimum level. The duration of transport should be optimised:
minimisation or maximisation of the trip. Eurogroup suggests that the
duration of the transport should not exceed 8 hours. Up to know the
minimisation of travel is encouraged according to the legislation.
Consulted organisations suggest that allopathic tranquilisers or
electrical stimulations should not be permitted. According to the
legislation, the use of sedative substances for transport is already forbidden
except under veterinary supervision and that duration of transport of
livestock shall be minimised.
Pre-stunning
is encouraged by the advocating organisations and it is indeed applied as
one of the methods in organic farming. Organic legislation provides
that "any suffering, including mutilation, shall be kept to a minimum
during the entire life of the animal, including at the time of
slaughter".
The
large majority of the concerns of the animal welfare organisations are
addressed under the existing EU legislation. In fact, the main problem is
implementation of these rules and the possibility for exceptions. Better
enforcement of animal welfare rules and removal of exceptions would improve the
situation as regards animal welfare.
6.
Options and their impacts
Baseline
scenario:
The animal welfare standard is higher in organic farming than in conventional.
It is notably characterised by mandatory access to open-air areas and by rules
of maximum stocking density. Improved
status quo: no change Market-driven
option: Deterioration
of animal welfare because exceptional production rules would be integrated,
meaning that an authorisation from the MS competent authority would not be
required any more (dehorning, tethering of animals in small holdings,
indoors final fattening phase of adult bovines for meat production, allowing
non-organic origin of animals for breeding purposes). The exceptions would
allow the farmers/operators to be more flexible in making choices. It makes the
processes to manage animals faster and cheaper. The non-organic originated
breeds are more vastly available, therefore it is less costly. Principle-driven
option:
The removal of exceptional rules leads to the improvement of animal welfare. It
would make the already strict rules even more stringent. The removal of
exceptions for mutilations, castration, isolation or permanent tethering
involves changes in the organisation of holdings, which can entail significant
economic impacts, in particular in case new buildings would be needed. However,
option 3 includes the possibility for competent authorities to authorize the tethering
of cattle in micro-enterprises under certain conditions.
7.
Conclusion
Many
of the requests of the animal welfare organisations are already covered by the
current legislation but putting an end to certain exceptions (ex: isolation, mutilations)
would be an improvement in relation to the implementation of today's rules. The
removal of exceptions is included in the principle driven option which is the
preferred option of animal welfare organisations. ANNEX 15: SMALL
FARMS AND ENTERPRISES: SIMPLIFICATION; GROUP CERTIFICATION
8.
Introduction
In
recent years small farms have received increased attention in the political
debate. Small
farms play an important role in supporting rural employment and maintaining the
social fabric of rural areas and thus contribute to the objective of balanced
territorial development. In addition, structural diversity in the farming
systems contributes to the attractiveness and identity of rural regions. The
brief published in July 2011 by DG AGRI[84]
showed that at the time of the last comprehensive survey (2007) the economic
dimension of 40% of the EU farms was below 1 European Size Unit (ESU). The ESU
is the potential gross value added of the agricultural holding calculated as
the sum of the standard gross margins (SGM). The value of one ESU was 1200 Euro
at the time of the study. 56% of the EU farms had an economic dimension below 4
ESU. This
annex provides background information on small agricultural holdings in the EU;
highlights the main problems they face in entering in the organic sector;
outlines the possible simplification measures; and describes group
certification, to underpin its proposed introduction in the EU as part of the
sub-option under the principles-driven option.
9.
Data on small agricultural holdings in the EU
69%
of all agricultural holdings have less than 5 ha of utilized agricultural area
(UAA). This corresponds to a total of more than 8.3 million holdings. Table 1. Share of holdings in
different size classes in the EU || < 5 ha || 5-9.9 ha || 10-19.9 ha || 20-29.9 ha || 30-49.9 ha || 50-99.9 ha || 100 ha or over EU-27 || 69,20 || 10,88 || 7,51 || 3,15 || 3,29 || 3,26 || 2,70 Source: European Commission – DG AGRI L2 Data
Source: EUROSTAT (2010) These
small holdings: –
account for 7% of the total UAA in the EU, –
keep 18% of the total livestock, –
employ 44% of the agricultural labour force, –
generate 18% of the standard output in the EU. Graph 1. Share of agricultural holdings in
different size classes in the EU Source: European Commission – DG AGRI L2. Data
Source: EUROSTAT Graph
2 shows that 73% of agricultural holdings have an output lower than 8 000
euros. This means that more than 73% of agricultural holdings are microenterprises
(turnover below 10 000 euros). Graph 2. Share of agricultural holdings in
different output classes in the EU Source:
European Commission – DG AGRI L2. Data Source: EUROSTAT Managers
of small farms tend to have another source of income elsewhere. Graph 3. Labour force categories: number
of persons and farm work (AWU) in the holding by working time (% AWU) and agricultural size of farm (UAA) Source: European Commission – DG AGRI L2. Data
Source: EUROSTAT Farms
with small areas are specialized in general field cropping, mixed
crop-livestock farming, olives, poultry, fruit (including citrus) and
vineyards. Managers
of small farms are usually less well trained than those of bigger farms. Graph 4. Agricultural training of farmers
according to farm size Source: European Commission – DG AGRI L2. Data
Source: EUROSTAT
9.1.
Difficulties for small agricultural holdings to
join the organic sector
9.1.1.
Current situation
Small
farms are under-represented in the organic sector. The share of small organic
holdings is much lower than the share of small conventional holdings. While 69%
of all agricultural holdings have less than 5 ha, only 18,7% of organic
holdings have less than 5 ha. Average farm size in the EU is 14 ha. Average
size of organic holdings is 33,6 ha. Graph 5. Share of holdings in different
size classes Source:
European Commission–DG AGRI L2. Data: EUROSTAT, Farm structure survey 2012
9.1.2.
Issues
The
main problems that small farms face to enter the organic sector can be
summarized as follows: ·
The
volume produced is usually insufficient to get access to the main
channels to market organic products: supermarkets, specialized shops in cities. ·
Many
small farms are located in remote areas, where there is little interest
to sell organic products directly to consumers. ·
Inspection
and certification costs, together with the administrative
burden linked to record keeping, are not always proportionate to the
volume produced. They are considered to represent the main obstacles to enter
the organic sector[85]. ·
Farmers
are often less well trained than those with bigger farms, and face
difficulties in dealing with the requirements of organic certification. ·
Unequal
treatment in
the EU and in third countries as group certification is not allowed in the EU
while being accepted for organic producers in third countries as a measure of
equivalent control effectiveness[86]. The
high percentage of micro and small farms in the EU (see previous section) gives
an indication of the importance of these issues.
10.
Simplification
DG
AGRI organised an internal brainstorming on simplification in the field
of organic farming, in the context of the ongoing review of the organic policy
and legal framework. The workshop, held on 19 March 2013, identified the
following three areas where simplification would have an important impact and
implementation is likely to succeed:
EU organic
production rules. Clear and simple production
rules, with no or less derogations that generate red tape, in particular
when they have to be authorised by the public authorities upon individual
requests of the operator, could mean significant reduction in the
administrative burden for farmers and other operators, as well as cost
savings for the national administrations.
Controls:
a risk-based control – rather than controlling all operators once per year
- would ensure better efficiency in a situation where several MS are
confronted with budgetary efforts to cope with the economic and financial
crisis. Electronic certification and, possibly, group certification also
bring simplified individual administrative requirements for operators.
Streamlined
approach to trade, as the current two-fold import
system (compliance/equivalency) is very complex to manage and supervise.
As
part of the stakeholders' consultation, a technical meeting with experts
took place on 26 June 2013 to examine further the issues faced by small farms
and operators. The meeting concentrated on gathering ideas for facilitating the
conversion of small farms to the EU organic scheme, including through
simplified requirements – which would also benefit larger farms and operators.
A concrete suggestion was made to have a single administrative document giving
a full description of the farm, to be updated once a year, which would
represent a substantial simplification. The
proposals for simplification, as briefly outlined above, have been further
explored in the impact assessment process as a cross-cutting theme for the
review of the organic legal and political framework. They
have been taken into account under the proposals to address the identified
issues that have been put forward under the various options. Further details
are set out in annex 6 on the EU organic production rules, annex 8 on the logo
and labelling, annex 9 on the control system and annex 12 on the EU trade
regime for organic products.
11.
Group certification, currently implemented in
Third Countries
In some third
countries, notably developing countries, a system of group certification
has developed to provide small farmers an opportunity to have access to the
global organic market, in particular the EU market. This
is the case for the following countries, out of the 11 currently recognised for
the purpose of equivalency: Canada, Costa Rica, and India. Several of the
currently 60 recognised control bodies for the import of organic products under
equivalency also apply group certification in a number of third countries – non
exhaustive list: Ecuador, Mexico; Belize, Ghana, Madagascar, Senegal; Indonesia, Nepal.
11.1.
Definition
The
concept of group certification is defined or outlined in the following
documents – nb non-exhaustive list: ·
IFOAM norms for organic production and
processing The
International Federation for Organic Farming (IFOAM) norms for organic
production and processing – updated version dated 2012[87] -
define group certification as "the certification of an organized group of
small-scale producers with similar farming and production systems. The
requirements for group certification apply only to such groups when the
certification applies to the group as a whole and when special inspection
arrangements have been applied". The
accreditation requirements for group certification are as follows: –
groups shall be constituted of operations with
similar production systems. –
large farming units, processing units and
traders shall not be included in the inspection arrangements for such groups. –
group members shall be in geographic proximity. –
a viable internal control system that assures
compliance of individual members with production standards in an objective and
transparent manner is required. –
the group shall have coordinated marketing. ·
national standards In
the organic farming regulation for Costa Rica[88],
a group is defined as the producers in a common geographic
area with common crop(s), a central management responsible for compliance with
the organic rules and an internal control system. The
central management shall be in charge of the proper functioning of the internal
control system, which shall ensure the annual inspection of each member of the
group. The
external inspection body (certifying agency) shall inspect annually at least 20
% of the members of each group. In
the Indian National Programme for Organic Production (NPOP), the
guidelines for the certification of grower groups set up a size limit of 4
hectares for participating farms[89].
Farms with land holding above 4 ha can also belong to a group but they
have to be inspected annually by the external Inspection and Certification
Agency (Control Body). The total area of such farms shall be less than 50% of
the total area of the group. Processors and exporters can be a part of the same
group but they have to be inspected annually by the Control Body. The
NPOP specifies how many farmers from a grower group have to be subject to
external inspections annually. Depending on the total number of members of the
group, this number varies between about 1% to12%, for surveillance inspections. Under
the Canada Organic Regime (COR)[90], a
grower group may be organised as a co-operative or as a structured group of
producers affiliated to a processor. All
members of the group shall apply similar production systems and should be in
geographical proximity. The practices of the grower group association shall be
uniform and reflect a consistent process or methodology, using the same input
and processes. Participation in the group shall be limited to those members who
market their organic production only through the grower group, unless the
member is individually certified. The
group shall have in place an effective and documented internal control system,
including a mechanism to remove non-compliant group members from the list. The
external Control Body shall suspend or cancel the certification granted to the
grower group as a whole in cases where the grower group's internal control
system fails to act on non-compliances. ·
the Commission's services guidelines on
imports of organic products In
2008 the Commission services, in cooperation with the MS, updated guidelines -
not intended to produce legally binding effects – on imports of organic
products into the EU under equivalency[91]. These
guidelines include a specific section on the evaluation of the equivalence of
organic producers group certification schemes applied in Third Countries.
Namely, they clarify the scope (who can be considered as a group), the main
features of the internal control system to be set up, and the role and
responsibilities of the external control body, including in respect of the risk
factors to take into account. ·
the European cooperation for Accreditation's
guidelines The
European cooperation for Accreditation (EA) developed guidelines for the
certification of the growing number of schemes entering the market
through focus on the specific characteristics of the production process rather
than of the products themselves. Such guidelines, applicable to its members –
the (single) Accreditation Bodies in the EU that assess Control Bodies in Third
Countries recognised and/or to be recognised as equivalent - as from 9 July
2013[92],
refer specifically to group certification. Namely,
group certification is defined as "a special case of certification where
the scheme owners specify that less extensive sampling can be applied by
certification bodies, through a focus on the management system of the umbrella
organisation in combination with inspection of a sample of the sites. These
schemes are often used to support small size producers that according to the
scheme owner are at risk of being left out of the market unless these special
conditions are applied. In the certification process the audit of the
effectiveness of the supporting internal management/control system is
essential." The
guidelines set out requirements for group certification. The following aspects
are worthwhile mentioning: ·
Group members are not identified in the
certificate and are not entitled to sell marked products or make claims
of being certified on their own. ·
Producers shall
be part of group certification only where the cost of certification would
exceed 2% of the individual producer’s turnover. The
specific guidelines for the accreditation of organic production
certification, which will apply as from 1 January 2014[93], set
out a number of risk criteria for the office and witness/review audits to be
conducted by Accreditation Bodies for the initial accreditation and the
re-accreditation of control bodies. Group
certification, for the control bodies in Third Countries, is considered an
increase factor for the minimum on-site time to be devoted to the Accreditation
Bodies' office assessments (+ one day).
11.2.
Experiences and evaluation
·
IFOAM has been
working for several years on the concept of group certification, calling the
stakeholders together to develop a consensus on the requirements for
smallholder groups. From
2001 to 2003, workshops were organised in the margins of the Biofach and a
consensus was found on the issues of smallholder definition, group
non-compliances and sanctions and the rate of re-inspection. A
compilation of results, addressing group certification in the context of developing
countries, was published. IFOAM
also initiated a pilot project[94]
on Group Certification in the EU, which ran from August 2006 to
March 2008. The project was coordinated by Agro Eco. It took place in Turkey, in France, in Italy and in Spain. The
pilot project objectives were to assess whether group certification in Europe
is effective and efficient, compared to individual certification; whether it
can be combined with other benefits, besides reducing costs; and whether it can
accommodate the diversity of production and marketing channels. Group
certification was found effective in the pilot project with a centralised
marketing channel and good product flow control (Turkey). In the other pilot
projects, most of the internal control system documentation was complete,
except for centralised documents of production and sales. Farmers,
sometimes combined with consumers, were successfully used as internal
inspectors. However, the internal inspectors failed to detect some
non-conformities, partly related to the maintenance of the ICS documentation
and partly to the differences between the internal regulation and the EU
regulation. The risk of non-conformities was considered low, either because of
product flow control and general low use of inputs (pilot project in Turkey) or
because of the social control within the group, the strict internal regulation,
and the additional market surveillance (pilot projects in France, Italy and
Spain). The
results showed than an internal control system does not only serve organic
certification, but also has other benefits, such as farmer-to-farmer advice,
quality improvement, joint marketing or promoting a specific agricultural
region. The
overall costs of group certification in the first one or two years, when the
ICS is set up, are higher than the costs of individual certification but in the
subsequent years group certification is cheaper than individual certification. The
coordinator of the project recommended in particular to further discussing the
objectives, target groups and criteria for farmers to be eligible for group
certification. A follow up project was suggested but did not finally take
place. ·
The CERTCOST project, Economic Analysis
of Certification Systems in Organic Food and Farming, included a report on the
potential of alternative certification systems[95]. The
report reviewed the certification schemes alternative to the EU organic system
– US, Japan, group certification based on an internal control system, and
participatory guarantee systems - as well as non-organic certification schemes
with a view to identifying promising elements for the improvement of the EU
system. It then provided an in-depth analysis of three promising elements:
risk-based inspection, social network factors, and training and capacity building. Social
networking and social control – which ultimately represents a compliance
mechanism - are important elements in participatory guarantee systems and in
group certification based on an internal control system. Under
a group certification, social control can be very high as the products are
often collected and sold jointly as a single lot, so that any deviating farmer
can jeopardise the certification of a large product lot.
11.3.
Opinion by stakeholders
In
the hearing organised on 25 and 26 October on control issues, IFOAM
asked to alleviate the certification cost and paperwork burden for small-scale
producers. In particular, IFOAM asked to: -
Recognize group certification for small-scale
producer not only in developing countries (inside/outside EU). -
Strengthen the risk-based approach to control,
by increasing control on high-risk operations and decreasing control (and cost)
on low-risk ones. -
Consider Participatory Guarantee Systems and
social control opportunities in EU COM revisions. The public
consultation on organic farming asked participants whether group
certification, which is allowed for organic farmers in some non-EU countries,
should be allowed in the EU. This was the case for 70% of respondents,
with some variations across the categories of stakeholders (from 55% for
farmers up to 80% for public authorities in Third Countries)[96]. In
detail, in the free contributions accompanying or complementing the
replies to the online questionnaire, the following stakeholders expressed their
favourable opinion on group certification in the EU: Slow Food, the Soil
Association, the Women of Europe for a Common Future and IFOAM EU. Bio-Austria
and Copa-Cogeca are against. Many
stakeholders specifically raised the problems linked to inspection and
certification costs, as well as administrative burden: "There
should be help for small farms to be able to certify their farms as organic, as
now very small farms cannot afford it[97]."
"There are too many small farms, which cannot afford the control costs[98]."
"There is a need to favour the creation of new farming systems in Europe, though the bureaucratic burden for small farmers is too high[99]."
"Costs of certification should be lowered to promote small organic farming
concepts[100]."
"It should not be the case that the controls and requirements of organic
production, result in excluding or less favouring small farmers[101]." "Primarily,
the review should prioritise small-scale and local production as opposed to
large-scale and intensive production. This includes minimising the burden on
farmers in terms of paper-work. Grants offered should focus on small-scale,
local and co-operative arrangements. Small-scale and local production should be
further encouraged through provision of FREE training for those interested in
benefiting their community with local organic produce. There should be
incentives for switching to organic production focused on the education of the
next generation of farmers in organic methods. This includes providing
investment in training at school, college and life-long learning in how
small-scale and local production is the only realistic long-term prospect for
agriculture[102]."
12.
Conclusions
With
a view to addressing the identified problems, it is proposed to introduce
group certification as a sub-option in the principle-driven (3) policy option. In
particular, the proposal consists in removing the obstacles to group
certification in the basic act - thereby amending the provisions in article
27.3 of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 that foresees an annual inspection on
each operator and article 28.1 that requires any operator to adhere
to the control system – and introducing the possibility of group certification,
according to criteria and conditions to be detailed in delegated and/or
implementing acts. Expected
impacts: ·
Group
certification would reduce the certification costs that currently seem to
represent a barrier to entry into the scheme for small farmers. The cost
reduction would possibly not occur in the first year, in which the group
certification is implemented, but from the subsequent years. ·
New
organic agricultural products would be brought on the EU market, providing
additional supply of organic raw material for organic processors, retailers and
traders. ·
Group
certification could also contribute to higher sales volumes, if joint marketing
and promotion is used. ·
The
social effects of group certification are positive, as local networks are
strengthened. ·
Facilitate
the introduction of compliance under the EU trade regime. ·
Repatriation
of responsibilities in case of non-compliances leading to a potential situation
where a compliant farmer would lose its organic status, because the whole group
is decertified, can be seen as a negative effect of group certification. ·
The
consequences for the receipt of support under the CAP have to be considered.
The experience in third countries has shown that the decertification of a whole
group is a measure decided only as the last resort. In case it happens, MS will
have to get back the amounts granted to the group members. N.B.: In addition, with
a view to keep the administrative and cost burden for organic micro-enterprises
as low as possible, option 3 also includes an exemption from the obligation to
set up an EMS as well as the possibility for competent authorities to allow the
tethering of cattle under certain conditions (see annexes 13 and 14). ANNEX 16:
ASSESSMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
1.
Introduction
The
current EU regulatory framework for the organic production imposes a number of
information obligations that generate significant administrative costs for
organic operators, private control bodies and public authorities. In
line with the Commission's general approach for reducing administrative burden
imposed by the EU legislation, this annex aims at assessment of the
administrative costs connected with the relevant options analysed under the
present review. The
Commission's guidelines for the Impact assessment define administrative costs
as the costs incurred by enterprises, the voluntary sector, public authorities
and citizens in meeting legal obligations to provide information on their
action or production, either to public authorities or to private parties.
Information is to be construed in a broad sense, i.e. including labelling,
reporting, registration, monitoring and assessment needed to provide the
information. The
administrative costs consist of two different components: the business-as-usual
costs and administrative burdens. While the business-as-usual costs correspond
to the costs resulting from collecting and processing information which would
be done by the entity even in the absence of the legislation, the
administrative burden stem from the part of the process which is done solely
because of a legal obligation.
2.
Work done and results obtained
The
Commission's methodology for the assessment of administrative burden contained
in the Impact assessment guidelines was used as far as possible.
2.1.
Mapping of information obligations
As a
first step, a detailed mapping of the information obligations imposed on
operators, control bodies and public authorities by the existing EU regulatory
framework for the organic production has been carried out. The
mapping resulted in a list of 135 information obligations that are imposed by
Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007, and its implementing rules, Commission
Regulations (EC) No 889/2008 and No 1235/2008. Only the information obligations
remaining under the baseline scenario have been considered. A detailed
description of all the information obligations is presented in table 1 (see
Table 1). Out of these 135 obligations, 80 are imposed on operators (farmers,
processors, importers of organic products and/or retailers), 11 on private
control bodies and 41 on national administration in the MS and 3 on national
administration in Third countries. It is
to be noted the obligation requiring MS to set-up a control system which is
either run by public control authorities or by private control bodies, and in
the latter case also the related approval and supervision of control bodies by MS,
have not been considered as an information obligation imposing administrative
burden. This is because the existence of a control system as such is inherent
to the organic certification scheme and thus needs to be considered as a
business-as-usual cost. Nevertheless, the quantitative data that have been
provided by MS on the approval and supervision of control bodies are presented
in Annex 10 dealing with cost of controls.
2.2.
Qualitative assessment
Qualitative
assessment of the information obligations imposed by the existing EU regulatory
framework for organic production was carried out with the help of the MS and
representatives of the organic sector. MS
and the members of AGOF were asked to identify five information obligations
which impose the most significant administrative burden for them. Furthermore,
they were asked to identify the actions/activities required to complete the
information obligation and to quantify the burden where possible. Replies
from 17 MS and 3 organic farming umbrella organisations have been received. Based
on the replies received from the MS and from the members of the AGOF, and on
the basis of the information available to the Commission, the significance of
each information obligation has been rated as high, medium or low[103].
Out of the total of 135 information obligations, 30 have been rated as high, 21
as medium and 84 as low.). It is
to be noted that during the data gathering process several MS mentioned a high
administrative burden linked to audits conducted by the Food veterinary Office
and to the implementation of the organic farming scheme (as part of
agri-environmental measures) co-financed under the Regulation (EC) No 1698/2008
on support from rural development by the EAFRD. A detailed study on the
administrative burden reduction associated with the implementation of certain
rural development measures[104],
including the measure supporting organic farming, was conducted in 2011. For
each information obligation, it has been assessed whether the obligation is
going to be maintained or removed under the three main policy options, i.e.
"the improved status quo", "the market-driven option" and
"the principle-driven option". The
assessment showed that 37 out of the total of 142 information obligations are
going to be removed under the principle-driven policy option. In comparison,
under the market-driven policy option and the improved status quo policy
option, 34 and no obligations would be removed respectively. The
greatest administrative saving in the number of obligations achieved under the
principle-driven policy option can be explained by the fact that all
exceptional production rules and derogations, which are connected with a high
number of information obligations, are proposed to be removed under this policy
option. The
present Annex does not consider the economic impacts on the operators, such as
possible higher production costs for the farmers who were benefiting from
exceptional rules. This is analysed in the main report and in Annex 6. The
positive impacts in saving administrative costs has to be balanced with the
costs for national administrations and control bodies in adjusting the
implementation, e.g. procedures, checklists, etc. that any change in the
legislation entails. The
complete list with all information obligations resulted from the mapping,
included their significance (high-medium-low) as rated by the MS and the sector
and their evolution under the three main policy options (maintained-removed) is
presented in table 1.
3.
Conclusions
The
assessment has revealed that the most advantageous option in terms of reduction
of the number of information obligations is the principle driven option: under
this option, 37 information obligations out of the total of 135 obligations
contained in the present organic legislation would be removed. This is mainly
due to the fact the principle driven option puts an end to numerous exceptions
and derogations which are currently possible. At
the same time, the present impact analysis has looked into any new significant
information obligation that would be introduced under the three main policy
options. The results show that no new significant information obligations will
be introduced except for the request to introduce an EMS (e.g. ISO 14001 or
EMAS). This request takes part of a sub-option of the principle-driven option
and concerns processors and traders of organic products. Some data on costs and
benefits of EMAS are available in Annex 13. These costs would be borne by
processors and traders, while there would be no significant administrative
burden for national administration or control bodies coming from the
introduction of ISO 14001 or EMAS requirement. In
order to keep the administrative burden and cost as low as possible for small
farms and micro-enterprises, it is necessary to exempt them from certain
requirements and to facilitate their access to and continued participation in
the organic scheme. This is notably the case in the principle-driven option. The
Commission has already done a significant effort to facilitate implementation
of the most burdensome information obligations to the national authorities and
to the organic sector. In particular, the Commission has developed and put in
place the Organic Farming Information System (OFIS) which greatly facilitates
the obligation of information exchange on irregularities which is absolutely
necessary for a proper functioning of the control system. The OFIS is
continuously being developed, e.g. a new module for equivalent control bodies,
allowing them submitting requests for recognition and subsequent annual reports,
has been recently introduced in order to ease the burden linked to the
recognition process. However, it is difficult to progress more without change
in the legislative framework. Table 1 The
present table shows the detailed mapping of the information obligations (IOs)
imposed on operators, control bodies and public authorities by the existing EU
regulatory framework, i.e. the Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007, and its
implementing rules, Commission Regulations (EC) No 889/2008 and No 1235/2008. The table
contains information on the significance of each IO that has been classified as
"high", "medium" or "low". Based on the replies
received from MS, the members of AGOF and experts, the rating "high"
was attributed in case the IO was identified by two or more actors as the most
burdensome, the rating "medium" in case it was identified by one
actor and the rating low for all the remaining obligations (not identified as
burdensome by any of the actors). It has been
analysed if the IOs will be removed or maintained under each of the three
policy options of the impact assessment. Number 1 stands for those IOs that
will be maintained and number 0 has been attributed to the IOs to be removed
under each policy option. N° crt || Target group || Type of rules || Description || Short description || Legal reference || Type IO || Frequency || Signifi-cance || Improved status quo || Market driven || Principle driven 1 || Operators || General production rules || “Operators using such non-organic products purchased from third parties shall require the vendor to confirm that the products supplied have not been produced from or by GMOs.” || Request vendor declaration on no presence of GMOs || RCE 834/2007 Article 9(3) || 8 || when the triggering event occurs || Low || 1 || 1 || 1 2 || Operators || General farm production rules: Simoultaneous production || Simoultaneous production “Where, in accordance with the second subparagraph, not all units of a holding are used for organic production, the operator shall keep the land, animals, and products used for, or produced by, the organic units separate from those used for, or produced by, the non-organic units and keep adequate records to show the separation.” || Keep records to show separation in case of parallel production (farm level) || RCE 834/2007 Article 11 || 8 || when the triggering event occurs || High || 1 || 1 || 0 3 || MS/CA || Autorisation of products and substances used in farming || Request for a new substance/technique “When a member state considers that a product or substance should be added to, or withdrawn from the list referred to in paragraph 1, or that the specifications of use mentioned in subparagraph (a) should be amended, the Member State shall ensure that a dossier giving the reasons for the inclusion, withdrawal or amendments is sent officially to the Commission and to the Member States.” || Request for modification of technical annexes of R 889/2008 || RCE 834/2007 Article 16(3)(b) and Article 21 (2) || 6 || when the triggering event occurs || Low || 1 || 0 || 1 4 || MS/CA || Autorisation of products and substances used in farming || “Member States may regulate, within their territory, the use of products and substances in organic farming for purposes different than those mentioned in paragraph 1 provided their use is subject to objectives and principles laid down in Title II and the general and specific criteria set out in paragraph 2, and in so far as it respects Community law. The Member State concerned shall inform other Member States and the Commission of such national rules.” || Inform on introduction of national rules relating to the use of products and substances || RCE 834/2007 Article 16(4) || 2 || when the triggering event occurs || Low || 1 || 0 || 0 5 || Operators || Plant production: Use of fertilisers and soil conditioners || “Operators shall keep documentary evidence of the need to use the product (products referred to in Annex I to this Regulation).” || Keep documentary evidence of the need to use fertilisers and soil conditioners listed in Annex I || RCE 889/2008 Article 3(1) || 8 || when the triggering event occurs || Medium || 1 || 0 || 1 6 || Operators || Plant production: Use of produtcs against pest, disease and weed management || “Operators shall keep documentary evidence of the need to use the product (products referred to in Annex II to this Regulation).” || Keep documentary evidence of the need to use plant protection products in Annex II || RCE 889/2008 Article 5 (1) || 8 || when the triggering event occurs || High || 1 || 0 || 1 7 || MS/CA || Seaweed production: simoultaneous production || Parallel production. “Where minimum separation distances are set Member States shall provide this information to operators, other Member States and the Commission.” (minimum separation distances between organic and non-organic production units) || Infrorm on minimum separation distances for seaweed in case of parallel production || RCE 889/2008 Article 6b (2) || 2 || when the triggering event occurs || Low || 1 || 1 || 0 8 || Operators || Seaweed production || “An environmental assessment proportionate to the production unit shall be required for all new operations applying for organic production and producing more than 20 tonnes of aquaculture products per year (…) The operator shall provide the environmental assessment to the control body or control authority.” || Prepare an environmental assessement (seaweed production of more than 20 tons per year) || RCE 889/2008 Article 6b (3) || 8 || Initial set up || Low || 1 || 1 || 1 9 || Operators || Seaweed production || “Documentary accounts shall be maintained in the unit or premises” (to verify that the harvesters have supplied only wild seaweed produced) ; “documentary evidence shall be available that the total harvest complies with this Regulation” (when seaweed is harvest from a shared or common harvest area) || Keep records and evidence in case of sustainable harvesting of wild seaweed || RCE 889/2008 Article 6c (1) (3) || 8 || Regularly || Low || 1 || 1 || 1 10 || Operators || Seaweed production || “Culture density or operational intensity shall be recorded and shall maintain the integrity of the aquatic environment by ensuring that the maximum quantity of seaweed which can be supported without negative effects on the environment is not exceeded.” || Record density in seaweed production || RCE 889/2008 Article 6d (3) || 8 || Regularly || Low || 1 || 1 || 1 11 || MS/CA || Animal production: poultry || Use of slow-growing poultry strains: “The competent authority shall define the criteria of slow-growing strains or draw up a list thereof and provide this information to operators, other Member States and the Commission.” || Define slow-growing poultry strains || RCE 889/2008 Article 12 (5) || 1 || Initial set up || Low || 1 || 0 || 1 12 || Operators || Animal production: simultaneous production of organic and non-organic livestock || “Operators shall keep documentary evidence of the use of provisions referred to in this Article.” (in case of simultaneous production of organic and non-organic livestock) || Keep records in case of simultaneous production of livestock || RCE 889/2008 Article 17 (5) || 8 || when the triggering event occurs || High || 1 || 1 || 0 13 || Operators || Animal production: poultry || “The operator shall keep documentary evidence of the application of this period cleaning premises (between batches of poultry).” Not applicable for free range poultry. || Keep documentary evidence of application of period of keeping empty runs for poultry || RCE 889/2008 Article 23 (5) || 8 || Regularly but not for free range || Medium || 1 || 1 || 1 14 || Operators || Animal production: use of allopathic medicines || Records of documented evidence of the occurrence of such circumstances shall be kept for the control body or control authority. || Keep records of treatment with chemically-synthesised allopatic veterinary medicinal products or antibiotics in animals || RCE 889/2008 Article 24 (4) || 8 || when the triggering event occurs || Low || 1 || 1 || 1 15 || Operators || Aquaculture || “Defensive and preventive measures taken against predators under Council Directive 92/43/EEC and national rules shall be recorded in the sustainable management plan.” || Record measures taken against predators (aquaculture) || RCE 889/2008 Article 25b || 8 || Regularly || Low || 1 || 1 || 1 16 || Operators || Aquaculture || “Operators shall keep documentary evidence of the use of provisions referred to in this Article.” || Keep records in case of simultaneous production of aquaculture animals || RCE 889/2008 Article 25c (3) || 8 || Regularly || Low || 1 || 1 || 0 17 || Operators || Aquaculture || “Documentary evidence of their origin and treatment shall be provided for the control body or control authority.” || Keep documentary evidence on the origin of aquaculture animals || RCE 889/2008 Article 25d (1) || 8 || Regularly || Low || 1 || 1 || 1 18 || Operators || Aquaculture || “Documentary evidence shall be maintained.” || Keep documentary evidence in case of escape of aquaculture animals || RCE 889/2008 Article 25f (5) || 8 || Regularly || Low || 1 || 1 || 1 19 || Operators || Aquaculture || “Documentary evidence shall be maintained.” || Keep documentary evidence on the use of oxygen in aquaculture || RCE 889/2008 Article 25h (4) || 8 || Regularly || Low || 1 || 1 || 1 20 || Operators || Aquaculture || “Records shall be kept of how, where and when wild seed was collected to allow traceability back to the collection area.” || Keep records on the use of wild seed (aquaculture - production of bivalve shellfish) || RCE 889/2008 Article 25o (1) || 8 || Regularly || Low || 1 || 1 || 1 21 || Operators || Aquaculture || “The report shall be added as a separate chapter to the sustainable management plan.” || Prepare report on the bottom cultivation of molluscs (aquaculture) || RCE 889/2008 Article 25q (2) || 2 || Regularly || Low || 1 || 1 || 1 22 || Operators || Aquaculture || “Whenever veterinary medicinal products are used, such use is to be declared to the control body or the control authority before the animals are marketed as organic. Treated stock shall be clearly identifiable.” || Declare use of veterinary medicinal products in aquaculture || RCE 889/2008 Article 25t (5) || 8 || when the triggering event occurs || Medium || 1 || 1 || 1 23 || Operators || Processed feed and food || “When non-organic products are also prepared or stored in the preparation unit concerned, the operator shall inform the control authority or control body thereof and keep available an updated register of all operations and quantities processed;” || Inform CB and keep records in case of parallel processing || RCE 889/2008 Article 26 (5) (c) || 8 || when the triggering event occurs || High || 1 || 1 || 1 24 || Operators || Processed feed and food: authorisation of non-organic ingredients || Where an ingredient of agricultural origin is not included in Annex IX to this Regulation, that ingredient may only be used under the following conditions: “The operator has notified to the competent authority of the Member State all the requisite evidence showing that the ingredient concerned is not produced in sufficient quantity in the Community in accordance with the organic production rules or cannot be imported from third countries;” || Notify to the CA evidence in case of use of ingredients not included in Annex IX || RCE 889/2008 Article 29 (1) (a) || 1 || Exceptionally || High || 1 || 1 || 0 25 || MS/CA || Processed feed and food: authorisation of non-organic ingredients || “Where an ingredient of agricultural origin is not included in Annex IX to this Regulation, that ingredient may only be used under the following conditions(…) The competent authority of the Member State has provisionally authorised, the use for a maximum period of 12 months after having verified that the operator has undertaken the necessary contacts with suppliers in the Community to ensure himself of the unavailability of the ingredients concerned with the required quality requirements;” || Authorisation of non-organic ingredients || RCE 889/2008 Article 29 (1) (b) || 6 9 || Exceptionally || High || 1 || 0 || 0 26 || MS/CA || Processed feed and food: authorisation of non-organic ingredients || Where an authorisation as referred to in paragraph 1 has been granted, the Member State shall immediately notify to the other Member States and to the Commission, the following information:”(a) the date of the authorisation and in case of a prolonged authorisation, the date of the first authorisation; (b) the name, address, telephone, and where relevant, fax and e-mail of the holder of the authorisation; the name and address of the contact point of the authority which granted the authorisation; (c) the name and, where necessary, the precise description and quality requirements of the ingredient of agricultural origin concerned; (d) the type of products for the preparation of which the requested ingredient is necessary; (e) the quantities that are required and the justification for those quantities; (f) the reasons for, and expected period of, the shortage; (g) the date on which the Member State sends this notification to the other Member States and the Commission. The Commission and/or Member States may make this information available to the public. || Notification of non-organic ingredient authorisations granted and possibly their publication || RCE 889/2008 Article 29 (2) || 1 || Exceptionally || Low || 1 || 0 || 0 27 || MS/CA || Processed feed and food: authorisation of non-organic ingredients || “Where a Member State submits comments to the Commission and to the Member State which granted the authorisation, which show that supplies are available during the period of the shortage” “The Member State (...) shall inform the Commission and the other Member States of the measures it has taken or will take, within 15 working days from the date of receipt of the information.” || Reply to comments concerning a non-organic ingredient authorisation || RCE 889/2008 Article 29 (3) || 2 || Exceptionally || Low || 1 || 0 || 0 28 || MS/CA || Processed feed and food: authorisation of non-organic ingredients || “In case of an extension as referred to in the second subparagraph of paragraph 1, the procedures of paragraphs 2 and 3 shall apply” || Notification and reply to comments in case of an extension of notification of authorisation of a non-organic ingredient || RCE 889/2008 Article 29 (5) || 1 2 || Exceptionally || Low || 1 || 0 || 0 29 || Operators || Processed feed and food: simoultaneous organic and non-organic collection || “The operator shall keep the information relating to collection days, hours, circuit and date and time of reception of the products available to the control body or control authority.” || Keep information relating to collection and transport of products in case of simultaneous collection of organic and non-organic products || RCE 889/2008 Article 30 || 8 || Regularly || Medium || 1 || 1 || 1 30 || Operators || Processed feed and food: labelling/traceability when transport and packaging || “Operators shall ensure that organic products are transported to other units, including wholesalers and retailers, only in appropriate packaging,(…) The information referred to in points (a) to (d) of the first subparagraph may also be presented on an accompanying document, if such a document can be undeniably linked with the packaging, container or vehicular transport of the product. This accompanying document shall include information on the supplier and/or the transporter.” || Keep information relating to packaging and transport || RCE 889/2008 Article 31 (1) || 4 || Regularly || Low || 1 || 1 || 1 31 || Operators || Processed feed and food: transport and packaging || “Both the expediting and the receiving operators shall keep documentary records of such transport operations available for the control body or control authority of such transport operations.” || Keep documentary records of transport operations || RCE 889/2008 Article 31 (2) (c) || 8 || Regularly || Low || 1 || 1 || 1 32 || Operators || Processed feed and food: transport of feed || “Operators shall record these operations,” || Record cleaning measures if vehicles also used for transport of non-organic products || RCE 889/2008 Article 32 (b) (i) || 8 || Regularly || Low || 1 || 1 || 1 33 || Operators || Processed feed and food: transport of feed || “The operator shall keep documentary records of such transport operations available for the control body or control authority;” || Record transport operation in case vehicles also used for transport of non-organic products || RCE 889/2008 Article 32 (b) (iii) || 8 || Regularly || Low || 1 || 1 || 1 34 || Operators || Processed feed and food: transport of feed || “During transport, the quantity of products at the start and each individual quantity delivered in the course of a delivery round shall be recorded.” || Record quantity during transport || RCE 889/2008 Article 32 (d) || 7 || Regularly || Low || 1 || 1 || 1 35 || Operators || Aquaculture: transport of live fish || “Documentary evidence shall be maintained for paragraphs 1 to 3.” || Keep documentary evidence on transport of live fish || RCE 889/2008 Article 32a (4) || 8 || Regularly || Medium || 1 || 1 || 1 36 || Operators || Transport || “The result of these verifications shall be explicitly mentioned in the documentary accounts referred to in Article 66.” || Record result of verification upon reception of products || RCE 889/2008 Article 33 || 8 || Regularly || Low || 1 || 1 || 1 37 || Operators || Trade from 3C || “The result of this verification shall be explicitly mentioned in the documentary accounts referred to in Article 66 of this Regulation.” || Record verification of imported consignments || RCE 889/2008 Article 34 || 8 || Regularly || Low || 1 || 1 || 1 38 || Operators || Storage || “Operators shall record these operations.” || record cleaning measures of storage facilities is also used for storage of non-organic products || RCE 889/2008 Article 35 (4) (c) || 8 || Regularly || Medium || 1 || 1 || 1 39 || MS/CA || Conversion rules || No information obligation, but strong burden for MS. The competent authority may decide to recognise retroactively as being part of the conversion period any previous period in which: (a) the land parcels were subject of measures defined in a programme implemented pursuant to Regulations (EC) No 1257/99, (EC) No 1698/2005, or in another official programme, provided that the measures concerned ensure that products not authorised for organic production have not been used on those parcels, or (b) the parcels were natural or agricultural areas which were not treated with products not authorised for organic production. The period referred to in point (b) of the first subparagraph can be taken into consideration retroactively only where satisfactory proof has been furnished to the competent authority allowing it to satisfy itself that the conditions were met for a period of at least three years. || Retroactive recognition of conversion period || RCE 889/2008 Article 36 (2) || || when the triggering event occurs || HIgh || 1 || 1 || 0 40 || MS/CA || Conversion rules || No information obligation, but strong burden for MS. In the case of parcels which have already been converted to or were in the process of conversion to organic farming, and which are treated with a product not authorised for organic production, the Member State may shorten the conversion period referred to in paragraph 1 in the following two cases: (a) parcels treated with a product not authorised for organic production as part of a compulsory disease or pest control measure imposed by the competent authority of the Member State; (b) parcels treated with a product not authorised for organic production as part of scientific tests approved by the competent authority of the Member State. || Shortening of conversion period || RCE 889/2008 Article 36 (4) || || If needed || Medium || 1 || 1 || 1 41 || MS/CA || Conversion rules || In the case of parcels which have already been converted to or were in the process of conversion to organic farming, and which are treated with a product not authorised for organic production, the Member State may shorten the conversion period referred to in paragraph 1 in the following two cases: (a) parcels treated with a product not authorised for organic production as part of a compulsory disease or pest control measure imposed by the competent authority of the Member State; (b) parcels treated with a product not authorised for organic production as part of scientific tests approved by the competent authority of the Member State. In the cases provided for in points (a) and (b) of the first subparagraph, the length of the conversion period shall be fixed taking into account of the following factors: (a) the process of degradation of the product concerned shall guarantee, at the end of the conversion period, an insignificant level of residues in the soil and, in the case of a perennial crop, in the plant; (b) the harvest following the treatment may not be sold with reference to organic production methods. The Member State concerned shall inform the other Member States and the Commission of its decision to require compulsory measures. || Information on decision to require compulsory measures (disease or pest control measures) || RCE 889/2008 Article 36 (4) || 2 || when the triggering event occurs || Low || 1 || 1 || 1 42 || Operators || Labelling || “The indications referred to in paragraph 1 shall be marked in a conspicuous place in such a way as to be easily visible, clearly legible and indelible.” || Labelling (code number, logo, place of farming) || RCE 834/2007 Article 24(2) || 3 || Regularly || Low || 1 || 1 || 1 43 || CB/control authorities || Labelling || Where terms as refered to in Article 23(1) are used: the code number referred to in Article 27(10) of the control authority/body to which the operator who has carried out the most recent production or processing operation is subject, shall also appear in the labelling. || Labelling (code number of CB) || RCE 834/2007 Article 24(1) || 3 || Regularly || High || 1 || 1 || 1 44 || Operators || Control || “Notify his activity to the competent authorities of the Member State where the activity is carried out;” || Notification of activity to the CA || RCE 834/2007 Article 28 (1)(a) || 1 || Initial set up || Medium || 1 || 1 || 1 45 || Operators || Control || “The operator shall verify the documentary evidence of his suppliers.” || Verification of documentary evidence of suppliers || RCE 834/2007 Article 29 (2) || 8 || Regularly || Medium || 1 || 1 || 1 46 || MS/CA || Control: Infringements || “Where an irregularity is found … the control authority or control body shall ensure that no reference to organic production method is made … Where a severe infringement or infringement with prolonged effect is found, the control authority or control body shall prohibit the operator concerned from marketing products ... for a period to be agreed with the competent authority of the Member State.” || Prohibition to label or refer to organic production and/or to market products || RCE 834/2007 Article 30 (1) || 8 || when the triggering event occurs || High || 1 || 1 || 1 47 || CB/control authorities || Control: Infringements || “Where an irregularity is found … the control authority or control body shall ensure that no reference to organic production method is made … Where a severe infringement or infringement with prolonged effect is found, the control authority or control body shall prohibit the operator concerned from marketing products ... for a period to be agreed with the competent authority of the Member State.” || Prohibition to label or refer to organic production and/or to market products || RCE 834/2007 Article 30 (1) || 8 || when the triggering event occurs || Medium || 1 || 1 || 1 48 || MS/CA || Control: Infringements || Where a Member State finds irregularities or infringements relating to the application of this Regulation in a product coming from another Member State and bearing indications as referred to in Title IV of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 and Title III and/or Annex XI of this Regulation, it shall inform the Member State which designated the control body or control authority and the Commission thereby. || Notification of irregularities between MS || RCE 834/2007 Article 30 (2) RCE 889/2008 Article 92 (2) || 10 || when the triggering event occurs || High || 1 || 1 || 1 49 || MS/CA || Control: Infringements || “The competent authorities, control authorities and the control bodies shall exchange relevant information on the results of their controls with other competent authorities, control authorities and control bodies.” || Exchange of information on results of controls || RCE 834/2007 Article 31 || 10 || Regularly || High || 1 || 1 || 1 50 || CB/control authorities || Control: Infringements || “The competent authorities, control authorities and the control bodies shall exchange relevant information on the results of their controls with other competent authorities, control authorities and control bodies.” || Exchange of information on results of controls || RCE 834/2007 Article 31 || 10 || Regularly || Medium || 1 || 1 || 1 51 || CB/Control authorities || Control || By 31 January each year at the latest the control authorities and control bodies shall transmit to the competent authorities a list of the operators which were subject to their controls on 31 December of the previous year. || List of operators || RCE 834/2007 Article 27(14) || 10 || Annually || Low || 1 || 1 || 1 52 || CB/Control authorities || Control || A summary report of the control activities carried out during the previous year shall be provided by 31 March each year. || Summary report on CB activities || RCE 834/2007 Article 27(14) || 2 || Annually || High || 1 || 1 || 1 53 || Operators || Control: Infringements || “In case of such doubt, the operator shall immediately inform the control body or authority.” || Inform the CB in case of doubt || RCE 889/2008 Article 91 (1) || 2 || when the triggering event occurs || Medium || 1 || 1 || 1 54 || MS/CA || Control || Member States shall designate an authority or approve a body for the reception of such notifications || Designate or approve a body || RCE 834/2007 Article 28 (3) || || Once for all new operations || Low || 1 || 1 || 1 55 || CB/Control authorities || Control || The control authorities and control bodies shall keep an updated list containing the names and addresses of operators under their control. This list shall be made available to the interested parties. || Keep updated list of operators || RCE 834/2007 Article 28(5) || 4 || Regularly || Low || 1 || 1 || 1 56 || MS/CA || Control || “The Member States shall make available to the public, in an appropriate manner including publication on the Internet, the updated lists referred to in Article 28(5) of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 containing updated documentary evidence related to each operator, as provided for in Article 29(1) of that Regulation and using the model set out in Annex XII to this Regulation. The Member States shall duly observe the requirements of the protection of personal data as laid down in Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council” || Publish list of operators || RCE 889/2008 Article 92 (a) || 4 || Initial set up and regular update || HIgh || 1 || 1 || 1 57 || Operators || Control: minimum requirements || “When the control arrangements are first implemented, the operator shall draw up and subsequently maintain: (a) a full description of the unit and/or premises and/or activity; (b) all the practical measures to be taken at the level of the unit and/or premises and/or activity to ensure compliance with the organic production rules; (c) the precautionary measures to be taken in order to reduce the risk of contamination by unauthorised products or substances and the cleaning measures to be taken in storage places and throughout the operator's production chain; (d) the specific characteristics of the production method used, where the operator intends to request documentary evidence in accordance with Article 68(2).” || Control arrangements and undertaking necessary to enter the scheme || RCE 889/2008 Article 63 (1) || 10 || Initial set up || High || 1 || 1 || 1 58 || Operators || Control: minimum requirements || “The description and the measures … shall be contained in a declaration, signed by the responsible operator.” || Sign declaration of control arrangements and undertaking || RCE 889/2008 Article 63 (2) || 8 || Initial set up || Low || 1 || 1 || 1 59 || Operators || Control: minimum requirements || “For the application of Article 28(1) of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 the operator shall notify the following information to the competent authority:” || Notification of activity to the competent authority || RCE 889/2008 Article 63 (3) || 1 || Initial set up || Low || 1 || 1 || 1 60 || Operators || Control: minimum requirements || “The operator responsible shall notify any change in the description or of the measures referred to in Article 63 and in the initial control arrangements set out in Articles 70, 74, 80, 82, 86 and 88 to the control authority or control body in due time.” || Notification of any change in control measures || RCE 889/2008 Article 64 || 1 || when the triggering event occurs || High || 1 || 1 || 1 61 || Operators || Control: minimum requirements || “A control report shall be drawn up after each visit, countersigned by the operator of the unit or his representative.” || Sign the control report || RCE 889/2008 Article 65 (3) || 8 || At each control || Low || 1 || 1 || 1 62 || Operators || Control: minimum requirements || “Stock and financial records shall be kept in the unit or premises and shall enable the operator to identify and the control authority or control body to verify:” || Keep stock and financial records || RCE 889/2008 Article 66 (1) (2) || 8 || Regularly || Low || 1 || 1 || 1 63 || Operators || Control: minimum requirements || “The operator shall: (a) give the control authority or control body, for control purposes, access to all parts of the unit and all premises, as well as to the accounts and relevant supporting documents; (b) provide the control authority or control body with any information reasonably necessary for the purposes of the control; (c) submit, when requested by the control authority or control body, the results of its own quality assurance programmes. 2. In addition to the requirements set out in paragraph 1, importers and first consignees shall submit the information on imported consignments referred to in Article 84.” || Provide information and access to facilities to the CB || RCE 889/2008 Article 67 (1) (2) || 8 || Regularly || Medium || 1 || 1 || 1 64 || Operators || Control: plant production records || “Plant production records shall be compiled in the form of a register and kept available to the control authorities or bodies at all times at the premises of the holding. In addition to Article 71 such records shall provide at least the following information:” || Keep register of plant production records || RCE 889/2008 Article 72 || 2 || Regularly || High || 1 || 1 || 1 65 || Operators || Control: seaweed || “Seaweed production records shall be compiled in the form of a register by the operator and kept available for the control authorities or control bodies at all times at the premises of the holding. It shall provide at least the following information:” || Keep register of seaweed production records || RCE 889/2008 Article 73b (1) || 2 || Regularly || Low || 1 || 1 || 1 66 || Operators || Control: animal production || “Livestock records shall be compiled in the form of a register and kept available to the control authorities or bodies at all times at the premises of the holding. Such records shall provide a full description of the herd or flock management system comprising at least the following information:” || Keep register of livestock records || RCE 889/2008 Article 76 || 2 || Regularly || High || 1 || 1 || 1 67 || Operators || Control: animal production || “Whenever veterinary medicinal products are used the information according to Article 76(e) is to be declared to the control authority or body before the livestock or livestock products are marketed as organically produced.” || Declare use of veterinary medicinal products || RCE 889/2008 Article 77 || 1 || when the triggering event occurs || High || 1 || 1 || 1 68 || Operators || Control: animal production || “Livestock treated shall be clearly identified, individually in the case of large animals; individually, or by batch, or by hive, in the case of poultry, small animals and bees.” || Identify livestock treated with veterinary medicinal products || RCE 889/2008 Article 77 || 3 || when the triggering event occurs || Low || 1 || 1 || 1 69 || Operators || Control: beekeeping || A map on an appropriate scale listing the location of hives shall be provided to the control authority or control body by the beekeeper. Where no areas are identified in accordance with Article 13(2), the beekeeper shall provide the control authority or control body with appropriate documentation and evidence, including suitable analyses if necessary, that the areas accessible to his colonies meet the conditions required in this Regulation.” || Provide a map listing location of hives || RCE 889/2008 Article 78 (1) || 10 || Regularly || Low || 1 || 1 || 1 70 || Operators || Control: beekeeping || The following information shall be entered in the register of the apiary with regard to the use of feeding: type of product, dates, quantities and hives where it is used.” || Keep register of the apiary || RCE 889/2008 Article 78 (2) || 10 || when the triggering event occurs || Medium || 1 || 1 || 1 71 || Operators || Control: beekeeping || ” Whenever veterinary medicinal products are to be used, the type of product, including the indication of the active pharmacological substance, together with details of the diagnosis, the posology, the method of administration, the duration of the treatment and the legal withdrawal period shall be recorded clearly and declared to the control body or authority before the products are marketed as organically produced. || Record use of veterinary medicinal products in beekeeping || RCE 889/2008 Article 78 (3) || 1 || when the triggering event occurs || Medium || 1 || 1 || 1 72 || Operators || Control: beekeeping || The zone where the apiary is situated shall be registered together with the identification of the hives. The control body or authority shall be informed of the moving of apiaries by a deadline agreed on with the control authority or body. || Register zone of situation of apiary and inform the CB in case of move || RCE 889/2008 Article 78 (4) || 10 || Initial set up/when the trigerring event occurs || Low || 1 || 1 || 1 73 || Operators || Control: beekeeping || Particular care shall be taken to ensure adequate extraction, processing and storage of beekeeping products. All the measures to comply with this requirement shall be recorded. || Record measures on extraction, processing and storage of beekeeping products || RCE 889/2008 Article 78 (5) || 10 || Regularly || Low || 1 || 1 || 1 74 || Operators || Control: beekeeping || The removals of the supers and the honey extraction operations shall be entered in the register of the apiary. || Record removals of the supers and the honey extraction || RCE 889/2008 Article 78 (6) || 10 || Regularly || Low || 1 || 1 || 1 75 || Operators || Control: aquaculture || “The following information shall be provided by the operator in the form of a register which shall be kept up to date and made available for the control authorities or control bodies at all times at the premises of the holding” || Keep register of aquaculture production record || RCE 889/2008 Article 79b || 2 8 || Regularly || Low || 1 || 1 || 1 76 || Operators || Control: Imported products || “On request of the control authority or control body, any details on the transport arrangements from the exporter in the third country to the first consignee and, from the first consignee's premises or storage facilities to the consignees within the Community shall be provided.” || Provide details on transport arrangements for imported products if requested by CB || RCE 889/2008 Article 83 || 2 8 || Upon request || Low || 1 || 1 || 1 77 || Operators || Control: Imported products || “The importer shall, in due time, inform the control body or control authority of each consignment to be imported into the Community, providing:” || Inform of each consignment to be imported || RCE 889/2008 Article 84 || 2 || Each time a consignment is imported || High || 1 || 1 || 1 78 || Operators || Control: Imported products || “Where the importer performs the import operations by different units or premises, he shall make available on request the reports referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 63(2) of this Regulation for each of these facilities.” || Provide declaration of control arrangements and undertaking for each unit run by the importer || RCE 889/2008 Article 85 || 2 || Upon request || Low || 1 || 1 || 1 79 || CB/Control authorities || Control: Imported products || The request for inclusion shall consist of a technical dossier, which shall comprise all the information needed for the Commission to ensure that the conditions set out in Article 33(3) of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 are met for products intended for export to the Community, namely:(a) an overview of the activities of the control body or control authority in the third country or third countries, including an estimate of the number of operators involved and the expected nature and quantities of agricultural products and foodstuffs intended for export to the Community under the rules set out in Article 33(1) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007;(b) a description of the production standards and control measures applied in the third countries, including an assessment of the equivalence of these standards and measures with Titles III, IV and V of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 as well as with the associated implementing rules laid down in Regulation (EC) No 889/2008;(c) a copy of the assessment report as set out in the fourth subparagraph of Article 33(3) of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007:(i) proving that the control body or control authority has been satisfactorily assessed on its ability to meet the conditions set out in Article 33(1) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007;(ii) confirming that it has effectively implemented its activities according to those conditions; and(iii) demonstrating and confirming the equivalence of the production standards and control measures referred to in subparagraph (b) of this paragraph;(d) proof that the control body or control authority has notified its activities to the authorities of each of the third countries concerned and its undertaking to respect the legal requirements imposed on it by the authorities of each of the third countries concerned;(e) the Internet website where the list of operators subject to the control system can be found, as well as a contact point where information is readily available on their certification status, the product categories concerned, as well as suspended and decertified operators and products;(f) an undertaking to comply with the provisions of Article 12;(g) any other information deemed relevant by the control body or control authority or by the Commission || Request for inclusion in the list of recognized control bodies and control authorities for the purpose of equivalency || RCE 1235/2007 Article 11 (3) || 6 || Initial set up and upon expiry of inclusion || HIgh || 1 || 1 || 1 80 || CB/Control authorities || Control: Imported products || by 31 March every year, the control body or control authority shall send a concise annual report to the Commission. The annual report shall update the information of the technical dossier referred to in Article 11(3); it shall describe in particular the control activities carried out by the control body or control authority in the third countries in the previous year, the results obtained, the irregularities and infringements observed and the corrective measures taken; It shall furthermore contain the most recent assessment report or update of such report, which shall contain the results of the regular on-the-spot evaluation, surveillance and multiannual reassessment as referred to in Article 33(3) of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007; the Commission may request any other information deemed necessary; || Annual report by recognized control bodies and control authorities || RCE 1235/2007 Article 12 (1) b || 2 || Annually || HIgh || 1 || 1 || 1 81 || Third countries || Control: imported products || Equivalency Third country. The Commission shall only be required to consider a request for inclusion which meets the following preconditions. The request for inclusion shall be completed by a technical dossier, which shall comprise all the information needed for the Commission to ensure that the conditions set out in Article 33(1) of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 are met for products intended for export to the Community, namely: (a) general information on the development of organic production in the third country, the products produced, the area in cultivation, the production regions, the number of producers, the food processing taking place; (b) an indication of the expected nature and quantities of organic agricultural products and foodstuffs intended for export to the Community; (c) the production standards applied in the third country as well as an assessment of their equivalence to the standards applied in the Community; (d) the control system applied in the third country, including the monitoring and supervisory activities carried out by the competent authorities in the third country, as well as an assessment of its equivalent effectiveness when compared to the control system applied in the Community; (e) the Internet or other address where the list of operators subject to the control system can be found, as well as a contact point where information is readily available on their certification status and the product categories concerned; (f) the information the third country proposes to include in the list as referred to in Article 7; (g) an undertaking to comply with the provisions of Article 9; (h) any other information deemed relevant by the third country or by the Commission. || Request for inclusion in the list of recognized third countries for the purpose of equivalence || RCE 1235/2007 Article 8 (2) and Article 9 (1) a || 10 || Initial set up and update || Low || 1 || 1 || 1 82 || Third countries || Control:imported products || Equivalency Third country. The Commission shall only be required to consider a request for inclusion when the third country undertakes to accept the following conditions: (…) (b) the annual report referred to in Article 33(2) of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 shall update the information of the technical dossier referred to in Article 8(2) of this Regulation; it shall describe in particular the monitoring and supervisory activities carried out by the competent authority of the third country, the results obtained and the corrective measures taken || Annual report by recognized third countries || RCE 1235/2007 Article 9 (1) b || 3 || Annually || Low || 1 || 1 || 0 83 || MS/CA || Control:imported products || Equivalency Third country and control bodies. For each request received, and after appropriate consultation with Member States in accordance with the specific internal rules of procedure, the Commission shall nominate two Member States to act as co-reporters. The Commission shall divide the requests between the Member States proportionally with the number of votes of each Member State in the Committee on organic production. The co-reporting Member States shall examine the documentation and information as set out in Articles 4, 8 and 11 related to the request and shall draw up a report. For the management and review of the lists, they shall also examine the annual reports and any other information referred to in Articles 5, 9 and 12 related to the entries on the lis || Co-reporting obligations of MS || RCE 1235/2007 Article 16 (2) || 10 || For each request received / continuous supervision || High || 1 || 1 || 1 84 || Operators || Control: Outsourcing of operations || “All the practical measures, including inter alia an appropriate system of documentary accounts, to be taken at the level of the unit to ensure that the products the operator places on the market can be traced to, as appropriate, their suppliers, sellers, consignees and buyers.” || Keep documentary accounts to ensure traceability in case of sub-contracting || RCE 889/2008 Article 86 (c) || 8 || Regularly || Low || 1 || 1 || 1 85 || Operators || Control: feed preparation || “For the purposes of proper control of the operations, the documentary accounts referred to in Article 66 shall include information on the origin, nature and quantities of feed materials, additives, sales and finished products.” || Keep documentary accounts for units preparing feed || RCE 889/2008 Article 89 || 8 || Regularly || Low || 1 || 1 || 1 86 || Operators || Control: Imported products || “The original of the certificate referred to in this paragraph shall accompany the goods to the premises of the first consignee; thereafter the importer must keep the certificate at the disposal of the control authority or the control body for not less than two years.” || Import certificate must accompany the goods and be kept by the importer for at least 2 years || RCE 834/2007 Article 33 (1) || 4 || Regularly || Medium || 1 || 1 || 1 87 || Operators || Control: Imported products || Certificate of inspection 1. The release for free circulation in the Community of a consignment of products referred to in Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 and imported in accordance with Article 33 of that Regulation shall be conditional on: (a) the submission of an original certificate of inspection to the relevant Member State’s authority; and || Certificate of inspection (import certificate) must be submitted to the MS authority || RCE 1235/2008 Article 13 (1) (a) || || Regularly || High || 1 || 1 || 1 88 || MS/CA || Control: Imported products || “(b) on the verification of the consignment by the relevant Member State’s authority and the endorsement of the certificate of inspection in accordance with paragraph 8 of this Article.” || Certificate of inspection must be endorsed by the MS authority before free circulation || RCE 1235/2008 Article 13 (1) (b) and 13 (8) || 8 || Regularly || High || 1 || 1 || 1 89 || Operators || Control: Imported products || “The first consignee or, where relevant, the importer may make a copy for the purpose of informing the control authorities and control bodies in accordance with Article 83 of Regulation (EC) No 889/2008. Any such copy shall carry the indication ‘COPY’ or ‘DUPLICATE’ printed or stamped thereon.” || Copy of certificate of inspection for control and notification purposes || RCE 1235/2008 Article 13 (6) || 4 || Regularly || Low || 1 || 1 || 1 90 || Operators || Control: Imported products || “The first consignee shall, at the reception of the consignment, complete box 18 of the original of the certificate of inspection, to certify that the reception of the consignment has been carried out in accordance with Article 34 of Regulation (EC) No 889/2008. || Signature of the import certificate of the first consignee || RCE 1235/2008 Article 13 (9) || 4 || Regularly || Low || 1 || 1 || 1 91 || Operators || Control: Imported products || The first consignee shall then send the original of the certificate to the importer mentioned in box 11 of the certificate, for the purpose of the requirement laid down in the second subparagraph of Article 33(1) of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007, unless the certificate has to further accompany the consignment referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article.” || Sending the import certificate by the first consignee to the importer || RCE 1235/2008 Article 13 (9) || 4 || Regularly || Low || 1 || 1 || 1 92 || CB/control authorities || Control: Imported products || 3. To be accepted, the cetificate of inspection must have been issued by the control authority or control body …. 4. The authority of body issuing the certificate of inspection shall …. || Issueing of the certificate of inspection and endorsment of box 15 || RCE 1235/2008 Article 13 (3)(4) || 4 || Regularly || Medium || 1 || 1 || 1 93 || MS/CA || Control: Imported products || “After this preparation, the endorsed original of the certificate of inspection shall accompany the consignment, and shall be presented to the relevant Member State’s authority, which shall verify the consignment for the purpose of its release for free circulation.” || Procedure for warehousing or inward processing || RCE 1235/2008 Article 14 (1) || 9 || Regularly || Low || 1 || 1 || 1 94 || MS/CA || Control: Imported products || “After this procedure, the original of the certificate of inspection shall, where relevant, be returned to the importer of the consignment, referred to in box 11 of the certificate to fulfil the requirement laid down in the second subparagraph of Article 33(1) of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007.” || Procedure for warehousing or inward processing || RCE 1235/2008 Article 14 (1) || 4 || Regularly || Low || 1 || 1 || 1 95 || Operators || Control: Imported products || “For each of the batches which results from the splitting, an extract of the certificate of inspection shall be submitted to the relevant Member State’s authority, in accordance with the model and the notes set out in Annex VI. || Procedure for splitting into different batches || RCE 1235/2008 Article 14 (2) || 2 || Regularly || Low || 1 || 1 || 1 96 || MS/CA || Control: Imported products || The extract from the certificate of inspection shall be endorsed by the relevant Member State’s authorities in box 14.” || Procedure for splitting into different batches || RCE 1235/2008 Article 14 (2) || 2 || Regularly || Low || 1 || 1 || 1 97 || Operators || Control: Imported products || “A copy of each endorsed extract from the certificate of inspection shall be kept together with the original certificate of inspection by the person identified as the original importer of the consignment and mentioned in box 11 of the certificate of inspection. This copy shall carry the indication ‘COPY’ or ‘DUPLICATE’ printed or stamped thereon.” || Procedure for splitting into different batches || RCE 1235/2008 Article 14 (2) || 4 || Regularly || Low || 1 || 1 || 1 98 || Operators || Control: Imported products || “After the splitting, the endorsed original of each extract of the certificate of inspection shall accompany the batch concerned, and shall be presented to the relevant Member State’s authority, which shall verify the batch concerned for the purpose of its release for free circulation.” || Procedure for splitting into different batches || RCE 1235/2008 Article 14 (2) || 8 || Regularly || Low || 1 || 1 || 1 99 || MS/CA || Control: Imported products || which shall verify the batch concerned for the purpose of its release for free circulation.” || Procedure for splitting into different batches || RCE 1235/2008 Article 14 (2) || 8 || Regularly || Low || 1 || 1 || 1 100 || Operators || Control: Imported products || “The consignee of a batch shall, at the reception thereof complete the original of the extract of the certificate of inspection in box 15, in order to certify that the reception of the batch has been carried out in accordance with Article 34 of Regulation (EC) No 889/2008.” “The consignee of a batch shall keep the extract of the certificate of inspection at the disposal of the control authorities and/or control bodies for not less than two years.” || Procedure for splitting into different batches || RCE 1235/2008 Article 14 (2) || 4 || Regularly || Low || 1 || 1 || 1 101 || MS/CA || Control: Imported products || “Where a competent authority of a third country recognised in accordance with Article 33(2) of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 or a control authority or control body recognised in accordance with Article 33(3) of that Regulation is notified by the Commission after having received a communication from a Member State informing it of a substantiated suspicion of an infringement or irregularity as regards compliance of imported organic products with the requirements laid down in that Regulation or this Regulation, it shall investigate the origin of the suspected irregularity or infringement and…” || Notification of irregularities in imported products || RCE 1235/2008 Article 15 (4) || 1 || Regularly || Low || 1 || 1 || 1 102 || Third countries || Control: Imported products || “Where a competent authority of a third country recognised in accordance with Article 33(2) of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 or a control authority or control body recognised in accordance with Article 33(3) of that Regulation is notified by the Commission after having received a communication from a Member State informing it of a substantiated suspicion of an infringement or irregularity as regards compliance of imported organic products with the requirements laid down in that Regulation or this Regulation, it shall investigate the origin of the suspected irregularity or infringement and shall inform the Commission and the Member State which sent the initial communication of the result of the investigation and of the action taken. That information shall be sent within 30 calendar days ... " || Reply to notification of irregularities in imported products || RCE 1235/2008 Article 15 (4) || 2 || Upon request || Low || 1 || 1 || 1 103 || CB/control authority || Control: Imported products || “Where a competent authority of a third country recognised in accordance with Article 33(2) of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 or a control authority or control body recognised in accordance with Article 33(3) of that Regulation is notified by the Commission after having received a communication from a Member State informing it of a substantiated suspicion of an infringement or irregularity as regards compliance of imported organic products with the requirements laid down in that Regulation or this Regulation, it shall investigate the origin of the suspected irregularity or infringement and shall inform the Commission and the Member State which sent the initial communication of the result of the investigation and of the action taken. That information shall be sent within 30 calendar days ... " || Reply to notification of irregularities in imported products || RCE 1235/2008 Article 15 (4) || 2 || Upon request || Low || 1 || 1 || 1 104 || MS/CA || Control: Imported products || “The Member State which sent the initial communication may ask the Commission to request additional information, if needed, which shall be sent to the Commission and to the Member State concerned." || Request for additional information in case of irregularities in imported products || RCE 1235/2008 Article 15 (4) || 2 || If needed || Low || 1 || 1 || 1 105 || MS/CA || Control: Imported products || "In any case, after receiving a reply or additional information, the Member State which sent the initial communication shall make the necessary entries and updates in the computer system referred to in Article 94(1) of Regulation (EC) No 889/2008” || Update of OFIS - module Irregularities imports || RCE 1235/2008 Article 15 (4) || 2 || Regularly || Low || 1 || 1 || 1 106 || MS/CA || Control || Information on the competent authorities, control authorities and bodies “Members States shall regularly transmit the following information to the Commission:(a) the names and addresses of the competent authorities and where appropriate their code numbers and their marks of conformity; || Information on designation of the competent authority || RCE 834/2007 Article 35 (a) RCE 889/2007 Article 94 (1) a || 2 || Initial set up and regular update || Low || 1 || 1 || 1 107 || MS/CA || Control || Information on the competent authorities, control authorities and bodies “Members States shall regularly transmit the following information to the Commission: (b) lists of control authorities and bodies and their code numbers and, where appropriate, their marks of conformity.” || List of control bodies and control authorities || RCE 834/2007 Article 35 (b) RCE 889/2008 Article 94 (9) b || 2 || Annually || Low || 1 || 1 || 1 108 || MS/CA || Statistical information || Annual statistical information for the implementation and follow-up of the Regulation “Member States shall transmit to the Commission the statistical information necessary for the implementation and follow-up of this Regulation” “Member States shall provide the Commission with the annual statistical information on organic production referred to in Article 36 of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 by using the computer system enabling electronic exchanges of documents and information made available by the Commission (Eurostat) before 1 July each year.” || Statistics || RCE 834/2007 Article 36 RCE 889/2008 Article 93 (1) || 2 || Annually || High || 1 || 1 || 1 109 || MS/CA || Control: exceptions || Authorisations for tethered cattel || || RCE 889/2008 Article 95 (1) || 2 || Exceptionally || Medium || 1 || 0 || 0 110 || Operators || Control: exceptions || Authorisation from MS housing conditions and stocking densities (till 31/12/2013). “The operators benefiting from this extension shall present a plan to the control authority or control body, containing the description of arrangements which are intended to ensure compliance with the provisions of the organic production rules by the end of the transitional period.” || || RCE 889/2008 Article 95 (2) || 2 || Exceptionally || Low || 1 || 0 || 0 111 || Operators || Wine || “Operators using ‘Organic logo of the EU’ shall keep recorded evidence, for a period of at least five years after they placed on the market that wine obtained from organic grapes, including of the corresponding quantities of wine in litres, per wine category and per year;” || || RCE 889/2008 Article 95 (10a) (b) || 8 || Regularly || Low || 1 || 1 || 1 112 || Operators || Aquaculture and seaweed production || “Operators benefiting from this measure shall notify the facilities, fishponds, cages or seaweed lots which are concerned to the competent authority.” || Transitional measure for aquaculture and seaweeds units to operate under national rules || RCE 889/2008 Article 95 (11) || 1 || Exceptionally || Low || 1 || 1 || 1 113 || Operators || Exceptions || “The control authority or control body is notified of the harvest of each of the products concerned at least 48 hours in advance” || Inform CB prior to the harvest in case of parallel production || RCE 834/2007 Article 22(2) RCE 889/2008 Article 40(1) (a) iii || 1 || Each harvest || Medium || 1 || 0 || 0 114 || Operators || Exceptions || Paralel production “The producer informs the control authority or control body of the exact quantities harvested on the units concerned and of the measures applied to separate the products;” || Inform CB after the harvest in case of parallel production || RCE 889/2008 Article 40 (1) (a) (iv) || 2 || Each harvest || Low || 1 || 0 || 0 115 || MS/CA || Exceptions || "The conversion plan and the control measures referred to in Chapter 1 and 2 of Title IV have been approved by the competent authority; this approval shall be confirmed each year after the start of the conversion plan" || Annual approval and confirmation of conversion plans by the MS || RCE 889/2008 Article 40(1) (a) (v) || 8 || Exceptionally || Low || 1 || 0 || 0 116 || Operators || Exceptions || “Appropriate measures, notified in advance to the control authority or control body, have been taken in order to guarantee the permanent separation between livestock, livestock products, manure and feedingstuffs of each of the units;” || Notify separation measures in case of parallel production of same animal species authorised for research or educational purposes || RCE 889/2008 Article 40 (2) (a) || 1 || Exceptionally || Low || 1 || 0 || 0 117 || Operators || Exceptions || “The producer informs the control authority or control body in advance of any delivery or selling of the livestock or livestock products; || Advance notification of selling or delivery in case of parallel production of same animal species authorised for research or educational purposes || RCE 889/2008 Article 40 (2) (b) || 2 || Exceptional, for research, educational purposes || Low || 1 || 0 || 0 118 || Operators || Exceptions || The operator informs the control authority or control body of the exact quantities produced in the units together with all characteristics permitting the identification of the products and confirms that the measures taken to separate the products have been applied.” || Information on quantities produced in case of parallel production of same animal species authorised for research or educational purposes || RCE 889/2008 Article 40 (2) (c) || 2 || Exceptional, for research, educational purposes || Low || 1 || 0 || 0 119 || Operators || Exceptions || “The operator shall keep documentary evidence of the use of this provision.” || Keep documentary evidence in case of exceptional authorisation to run organic and non-organic beekeeping units on the same holding || RCE 889/2008 Article 41 || 8 || Regularly || Low || 1 || 0 || 0 120 || MS/CA || Exceptions || Prior authorisation of MS: Where the conditions laid down in Article 22(2)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 apply, and with prior authorisation of the competent authority, (a) when a flock is constituted for the first time, renewed or reconstituted and organically reared poultry are not available in sufficient numbers, non-organically reared poultry may be brought into an organic poultry production unit, provided that the pullets for the production of eggs and poultry for meat production are less than three days old; || Authrisation of MS to bring non-organic reared poultry to the holding || RCE 889/2008 Article 42 (a) || || When MS grants exceptions || Low || 1 || 0 || 0 121 || Operators || Exceptions || (herd, bees,feed, wine) “Upon approval by the competent authority, the individual operators shall keep documentary evidence of the use of the above exceptions.” || Keep documentary evidence on the use of exception granted by the MS in case of catastrophic circumstances || RCE 889/2008 Article 47 || 8 || when the triggering event occurs || Low || 1 || 0 || 0 122 || MS/CA || Exceptions || “Member States shall inform each other and the Commission on the exceptions they have granted under points (c) and (e) of the first paragraph.” || Inform othe MS and Commission of exceptions granted in case of catastrophic circumstances || RCE 889/2008 Article 47 || 2 || when the triggering event occurs || Low || 1 || 0 || 0 123 || MS/CA || Exceptions || Member state may authorise use of non-organic seeds or vegetative material || Authorisation of non-organic seeds || RCE 889/2008 Article 45(1)(b) || 6 || when the triggering event occurs || High || 1 || 0 || 0 124 || CB/Control authorities || Exceptions || Member state may delegate the responsibility for granting the authorisation referred to paragraph 1(b) to another public administration under their supervison or to the control authorities or control bodies. || Authorisation of non-organic seeds || RCE 889/2008 Article 45(4) || 6 || when the triggering event occurs || HIgh || 1 || 0 || 0 125 || Operators || Exceptions || "The authorisation shall be granted only to individual users for one season at a time and the authority or body responsible for the authorisation shall register the quantities of seed or seed potatoes authorised" || Authorisation of non-organic seeds || RCE 889/2008 Article 45(7)) || 2 || Exceptionally || HIgh || 1 || 0 || 0 126 || MS/CA || Seeds data base || “Each Member State shall ensure that a computerised database is established for the listing of the varieties for which seed or seed potatoes obtained by the organic production method are available on its territory.” || Seed database set-up || RCE 889/2008 Article 48 (1) (2) || 4 || Initial set up and regular update || High || 1 || 0 || 0 127 || MS/CA || Seeds data base || “Each Member State shall inform the Commission and the other Member States of the authority or private body designated to manage the database.” || Information on body designated to manage the seed database || RCE 889/2008 Article 48 (3) || 2 || Initial set up and regular update || Low || 1 || 0 || 0 128 || MS/CA || Seeds data base || “Varieties for which seed or seed potatoes produced by the organic production method are available shall be registered in the database referred to in Article 48 at the request of the supplier.” || Registration of available seed in the seed database || RCE 889/2008 Article 49 (1) || 7 || Upon request of a supplier || Low || 1 || 0 || 0 129 || Operators (suppliers) || Seeds data base || For registration, the supplier shall:(a) demonstrate that he or the last operator, in cases where the supplier is only dealing with pre-packaged seed or seed potatoes, has been subject to the control system referred to in Article 27 of Regulation (EC)No 834/2007; (b) demonstrate that the seed or seed potatoes to be placed on the market comply with the general requirements applicable to seed and seed potatoes; (c) make available all the information required under Article 51 of this Regulation, and undertake to update this information at the request of the manager of the database or whenever such updating is necessary to ensure that the information remains reliable. || Information to be provided by supplier for registration to the seed database || RCE 889/2008 Article 50 (1) || 2 || Initial set up and regular update || Medium || 1 || 0 || 0 130 || Operators (suppliers) || Seeds data base || “The supplier shall immediately inform the manager of the database if any of the registered varieties are no longer available. The amendments shall be recorded in the database.” || Inform manager of the seed database if registered varieties are no longer available || RCE 889/2008 Article 51 (2) || 2 || When registered varieties are no longer available || Medium || 1 || 0 || 0 131 || MS/CA || Seeds data base || “The supplier shall immediately inform the manager of the database if any of the registered varieties are no longer available. The amendments shall be recorded in the database.” || Update of seed database || RCE 889/2008 Article 51 (2) || 2 || When registered varieties are no longer available || Low || 1 || 0 || 0 132 || MS/CA || Seeds data base || The information in the database referred to in Article 48 shall be available through the Internet, free of cost, to the users of seed or seed potatoes and to the public. Member States may decide that any user who has notified its activity in accordance with Article 28(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 may obtain, on request, an extract of data concerning one or several groups of species from the database manager. || Publish the seed database on the Internet || RCE 889/2008 Article 52 (1) || 2 || Continously || Low || 1 || 0 || 0 133 || MS/CA || Seeds data base || “The Member States shall ensure that all users referred to in paragraph 1 are informed, at least once a year, about the system and how to obtain the information in the database.” || Inform the users about the seed database || RCE 889/2008 Article 52 (2) || 2 || Annually || Low || 1 || 0 || 0 134 || MS/CA || Seeds data base || “The competent authority of the Member State shall, before 31 March each year, collect the reports and send a summary report covering all authorisations of the Member State from the previous calendar year to the Commission and to the other Member States.” || Seed report || RCE 889/2008 Article 55 || 2 || Annually || High || 1 || 0 || 0 135 || MS/CA || Seeds data base || “The information shall be published in the database referred to in Article 48.” || Publish the seed report in the seed database || RCE 889/2008 Article 55 || 4 || Annually || Low || 1 || 0 || 0 ANNEX 17: REFERENCE
DOCUMENTS 1.
Economic data - organic farming sector ·
Facts and figures on organic agriculture in
the European Union – European Commission - DG Agriculture
and Rural Development – October 2013 ·
Eurostat – Agriculture and Fisheries -
Statistics in focus 10/2010 ·
Eurobarometer report n° 389 (What Europeans think of food security, food quality and the
relation between agriculture & the countryside - July 2012) ·
The world of organic agriculture statistics
and emerging trends 2013 – FIBL and IFOAM ·
Analyse der Entwicklung des ausländischen
Angebots bei Bioprodukten mit Relevanz für den deutschen Biomarkt (analysis of imports of organic products with relevance for the
German organic market) – BÖLN (Bundesprogramm Ökologischer Landbau and andere
Formen nachhaltiger Landwitschaft), Diana Schaak et al; 2011. ·
Organic Monitor: the Global Market for
Organic Food and Drink: Business Opportunities and
Future Outlook (Third edition, 2010). ·
L'Agriculture biologique – ses acteurs, ses produits, ses
territoires, édition 2012. Agence Bio (France) + dossier de presse: le
marché des produits bio, septembre 2013. ·
Gain Report Number: NL3003 Export
opportunities for U.S. organics in the EU market –
2/11/2013 The Hague ·
Organic versus conventional farming, which
performs better financially? An overview of organic
field crop and milk production in selected Member States. Farm Economics
Briefs, No 4, November 2013, European Commission, DG Agriculture and Rural
Development. 2.
Legal texts and related documents Organic
farming ·
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 of 24 June
1991 on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring
thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 198, 22.7.1991, p. 1) and
amendments ·
Council Regulation (EC) No.
834/2007 of 28 June 2007 on organic production and labelling of organic
products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No. 2092/91 and amendments ·
Report from the Commission to the European
Parliament and the Council on the application of
Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 on organic
production and labelling of organic products Com
2012(212) final ·
Commission Regulation (EC) No.
889/2008 of 5 September 2008 with detailed
rules on production, labelling and control and amendments ·
Commission Regulation (EC) No.
1235/2008 of 8 December 2008 with detailed rules concerning import of organic
products from third countries and amendments ·
Commission Decision 2009/427/EC of 3 June 2009
establishing the Expert Group for Technical Advice on Organic Production
(EGTOP). ·
Commission Decision 2010/C 262/03 of 28 September
2010 appointing the members of the group for technical advice on organic
production and drawing up the pool list. ·
Commission Decision No 391/2004 of 23 April 2004
on the advisory groups dealing with matters covered by the common agricultural
policy UE OJ L 120, 24.4.2004, p. 50 ·
Codex Alimentarius Guidelines for the
Production, Processing, Labelling and Marketing of Organically produced foods
(GL 32-1999) ·
Commission interpretative notes (RIPAC): Note No
2012/3, Exemption from control, Council Regulation No 834/2007, article 28(2)
and No 2012-02, May 2012. Controls
and accreditation ·
Regulation No 882/2004 of the European
Parliament and of the Council on official controls performed to ensure the
verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal
welfare rules (OJ L 165, 30.4.2004, p. 1). ·
Proposal for a Regulation of the European
Parliament and of the Council on official controls and other official
activities performed to ensure the application of food and feed law, rules on
animal health and welfare, plant health, plant reproductive material, plant
protection products and amending Regulations (EC) No 999/2001, 1829/2003,
1831/2003, 1/2005, 396/2005, 834/2007, 1099/2009, 1069/2009, 1107/2009,
Regulations (EU) No 1151/2012, [….]/2013 [Office of Publications, please insert
number of Regulation laying down provisions for the management of expenditure
relating to the food chain, animal health and animal welfare, and relating to
plant health and plant reproductive material], and Directives 98/58/EC,
1999/74/EC, 2007/43/EC, 2008/119/EC, 2008/120/EC and 2009/128/EC (Official
controls Regulation) - COM(2013) 265 final of 6.5.2013 ·
Working document of the Commission services on
official controls in the organic sector (AGRI H3 – July 2011) ·
Special Report No 9/2012 (discharge 2011) -
'Audit of the control system governing the production, processing, distribution
and imports of organic products' from the European Court of Auditors', 25 June
2012 ·
Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 setting out the requirements for
accreditation and market surveillance relating to the marketing of products and
repealing Regulation (EEC) No 339/93 – OJ L 218, 13.8.2008, p. 30 ·
European co-operation for Accreditation (EA): o
EA Guidelines on the Accreditation of
Certification of Primary Sector Products by Means of Sampling of Sites (Ref:
EA-6/04:2011) o
EA Cross Border Accreditation Policy and
Procedure for Cross Border Cooperation between EA Members (Ref: EA-2/13 M:2012) o
EA Policy for the Accreditation of Organic
Production Certification (Ref: EA-3/12 M: 2013) ·
Commission services' working document:
Guidelines on imports of organic products into the European Union, 15.12.2008. Other
legal texts and related documents quoted in the report ·
Regulation (EU)
No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of
21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and
foodstuffs - OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1. ·
Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on the provision of food
information to consumers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1924/2006 and (EC) No
1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing
Commission Directive 87/250/EEC, Council Directive 90/496/EEC, Commission
Directive 1999/10/EC, Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council, Commission Directives 2002/67/EC and 2008/5/EC and Commission
Regulation (EC) No 608/2004 – OJ L 304, 22.11.2011, p. 18. ·
Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of
plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives
79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC - OJ L 309, 24.11.2009, p. 1–50 ·
Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 23 February 2005 on maximum residue levels of
pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal origin and amending
Council Directive 91/414/EEC Text with EEA relevance - OJ L 70, 16.3.2005, p.
1–16 ·
Commission Directive of 14 May 1991 on infant
formulae and follow-on formulae (91/321/EEC) - OJ L 175, 4.7.1991, p. 35–49 ·
Council Directive 98/58/EC of 20 July 1998
concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes, OJ L 221,
8.8.1998, p. 23–27 ·
Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 of 22 December
2004 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations and
amending Directives 64/432/EEC and 93/119/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1255/97, OJ
L 3, 5.1.2005, p. 1–44 ·
Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 of 24
September 2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing (Text with
EEA relevance), OJ L 303, 18.11.2009, p. 1–30 ·
Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food
and feed – UE OJ L 268, 18.10.2003, p. 1. ·
Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the
environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive
90/220/EEC – UE OJ L 106, 17.4.2001, p. 1. ·
Regulation (EC) No 1830/2003 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 concerning the traceability
and labelling of genetically modified organisms and the traceability of food
and feed products produced from genetically modified organisms and amending
Directive 2001/18/EC – UE OJ L 268, 18.10.2003, p. 24. ·
Guidelines for the Development of Equivalence
Agreements regarding Food Import and Export Inspection and Certification
Systems (CAC/GL 34-1999). ·
Commission Recommendation of 13 July 2010 on
guidelines for the development of national co-existence measures to avoid the
unintended presence of GMOs in conventional and organic crops, OJ C 200 of 22
July 2010 ·
Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June
2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy, OJ L 209, 11/08/2005,
p. 1. · Regulation (EC) No 1221/2009 of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 25 November 2009 on the voluntary participation by organisations in
a Community eco-management and audit scheme (EMAS), OJ L 342, 22.12.2009, p. 1 ·
Council Regulation
(EC) No 814/2000 of 17 April 2000 on information measures relating to the
common agricultural policy–OJ L 100, 20.04.2000, p. 7. 3.
Policy ·
Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament - European Action
Plan for Organic Food and Farming - {SEC(2004)739}2004 and Commission staff
working document - Annex to the Communication from the Commission {COM(2004)415
final} ·
The reform of the CAP towards 2020 - Consultation
Document for Impact Assessment (DG AGRI) ·
Commission staff working paper – Impact
Assessment - Common Agricultural Policy towards 2020, accompanying proposals
for Regulations of the European Parliament and of the Council (SEC(2011) 1153 final/2). ·
Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the
application of Council Regulation (EC) No 3/2008 on information provision and
promotion measures for agricultural products on the internal market and in
third countries COM(2010) 692 final. ·
Commission staff working document accompanying the Report from the Commission to
the European Parliament and the Council on the application of Council
Regulation (EC) No 3/2008 on information provision and promotion measures for
agricultural products on the internal market and in third countries. 4.
Studies – Research projects ·
External evaluation of the legislation on
organic farming, draft final
report, September 2013. Coordination: Thünen Institute of Farm Economics
Braunschweig/Germany. ·
A decade of EU-funded, low-input and organic
agriculture research (2000-2011) European
Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation ·
CERTCOST
(European research project on certification of organic food – 2008-2011):
economic analysis of certification systems for organic food and farming. www.certcost.org ·
QualityLowInputFood (integrated project funded by the European Commission – 2004-2009). ·
ICOPP (Improved
contribution of local feed to support 100 % organic feed supply to pigs and
poultry) - project coordinated by the International Centre for Research in
Organic Foods Systems (ICROFS) and funded under the CORE Organic II - FP7
ERA-Net project) ·
SOLIBAM
(Strategies for Organic and Low-input Integrated Breeding and Management), 7th Framework programme- http://www.solibam.eu ·
Study report: Use and efficiency of public
support measures addressing
organic farming – Institute of Farm economics - Thünen Institute –financed by
the European Commission, November 2011 ·
Short Food Supply Chains and Local Food
Systems in the EU. A State
of Play of their Socio-Economic Characteristics – European Commission, JRC
Scientific and Policy Reports, May
2013 ·
EU Ecolabel for food and feed products – feasibility study (ENV.C.1/ETU/2010/0025) – Oakdene Hollins
Research and Consulting ·
A meta-analysis of the differences in
environmental impacts between organic and conventional farming, Mondelaers, K; et al, 2009, British Food Journal 111 (10):
1098-1119. ·
Can Organic Farming Feed Us All? Brian Halweil, World Watch Magazine, May/June 2006, Volume 19, No. 3. ·
Le Bio peut-il nourrir durablement la planète? Marc
Dufumier – Professeur d'agriculture comparée et développement agricole à
AgroParisTech, Grand débat sur la Bio, journée débat organisée par la Chambre
Régionale d'Agriculture des Pays de la Loire, France, le 19/11/2010. ·
Assessing the risk of farm abandonment in the
EU - European Commission, JRC Scientific and Policy
Reports – 2013 ·
The Reliability of Certification: Quality Labels as a Consumer Policy Tool – Jahn et al. Journal of Consumer policy (2005) 28: 53-73. ·
The influence of subjective and objective
knowledge on attitude, motivations and consumption of organic food. Aertens et al. British Food Journal, Vol. 113 No 11, 2011 pp.
1353-1378. ·
Consumer knowledge, consumption, and
willingness to pay for organic tomatoes, Mesias et al. British Food Journal
Vol. 114 No.3, 2012 pp. 318-334. ·
Consumer attitudes towards organic versus
conventional food with specific quality attributes – Stolz et al, NJAS – Wageningen Journal of Life
Sciences 58(2011) 67- 72. ·
Consumer perception of different organic
certification schemes in five European countries - Janssen, M. and Hamm, U.
(2011). Organic Agriculture 1(1):31-43. ·
Consumer market study on the functioning of
voluntary food labelling scheme for consumers in the EU. Draft final report by Ipsos and London Economics Consortium.
September 2013 ·
The state and consumer confidence in
eco-labelling: organic labeling in Denmark, Sweden,
The UK and the US – Kim Mannemar Sønderskov - Carsten Daugbjerg. Department of
Political Science, Aarhus University, Denmark. Agric Hum Values (2001)
28:507-517. ·
Les enjeux de la production d’agriculture
biologique en France” http://www.agreste.agriculture.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/analyse501207.pdf, Biblio AB_enviro_RMT_DevAB ·
Pilot Project Group certification in Europe, end report, Agro Eco, Ferko Bodnár, May 2008. The pilot project
was funded through the "IFOAM-Growing Organic" programme and the
"Fund for Sustainable Biodiversity Management" of the Dutch
government ·
Study on administrative burden reduction
associated with the implementation of certain rural development measures, 11 August 2011, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/analysis/external/rd-simplification/index_en.htm ·
Study on the costs and benefits to
organisations of EMAS registration (2009)- Study
Contract No. 07.0307/2008/517800/ETU/G.2 – Milieu, environmental law and policy ·
What is a small farm? European Commission, Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development – EU Agriculture Economic Briefs: Brief No 2 ·
Informe Empleo verde en
una economía sostenible (2012), Luis M. Jiménez Herrero
(OSE) y Ana Leiva (FB). 5.
Others ·
Commission Communication — EU best practice
guidelines for voluntary certification schemes for agricultural products and
foodstuffs. EU OJ 2010/C 341/04, 16.12.2010, p. 5. ·
European Food Safety Authority – 2010 EU Report
on Pesticide Residues in Food ·
BNN (Bundesverband Naturkost Naturwaren):
Orientation Value for pesticides - A guideline to evaluate pesticide residues
in organic products
(http://www.n-bnn.de/html/img/pool/BNNOrientierungswert_EN_1208.pdf) ·
"10 years of organic monitoring
2002-2011" Baden-Württemberg
(http://www.mlr.baden-wuerttemberg.de/mlr/bro/10_Jahre_Oekomonitoring_engl.pdf). ·
USDA Organic – National Organic Programme:
Instruction – Responding to
Pesticide Residue Testing, NOP 2613 of 4 March 2013 (http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5102727 ·
Bio-Suisse – evaluation of pesticide residues in
bud products:http://www.bio-suisse.ch/media/en/pdf2011/e_bio_suisse_decision_chart_pesticide_06122011.pdf ·
Italian Ministerial Decree No 309 of 13 January
2011 on "accidental and technically unavoidable contamination of
phytosanitary products in organic farming". ·
Order of the Regional Government of Wallonia on
organic production and labelling
of organic products, 11th of February 2010, Annex I, Chapter 3 concerning
planning, execution and interpretation of analysis mentions. ·
IFOAM EU Group “Guideline for Pesticide Residue
Contamination for International Trade in Organic” ·
EOCC – Pesticide Residues Guideline: A guidance
document for the certification decision making process Version: January 2013 [1] OJ L 189 of 20.7.2007, p. 1. [2] DG AGRI prepared in 2011 a Working
document on official controls in the organic sector (http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/organic/files/eu-policy/data-statistics/control_guidelines_version_08072011_en.pdf) to explain a number of aspects of the
control system set by EU organic legislation and by EU horizontal legislation
on food and feed controls. It also produced two interpretative notes on
specific control aspects for the organic sector: RIPAC Notes No 2 and 3/2012. [3] See under section 4 for an overview of
the findings of the audits carried out by the FVO. [4] The proposal extends mandatory fees to
most official controls: however, the official controls performed for the
verification of compliance with the rules governing the organic production and
labelling of organic products are exempted from mandatory official control
fees. [5] The Commission services produced an
interpretative note (RIPAC): Note No 2012/3, Exemption from control, Council
Regulation No 834/2007, article 28(2). [6] Interpretative note (RIPAC note) No
2012-02, May 2012. [7] The FVO carried out, between January 2012 and July
2013, audits to six MS (Portugal, Poland, Italy, Romania, United Kingdom and
Germany). [8] The FVO carried out, between January
2012 and July 2013, audits to three TCs (India, Tunisia and Israel). Please see
annex 12, The EU trade regime for organic products, for more details on the
Commission's supervision. [9] Please see section 7 of this annex for
further details. [10] For a comprehensive review of support to
organic farming under the CAP, Study Report: Use and efficiency of public
support measures addressing organic farming, 2011, http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/external-studies/2012/organic-farming-support/full_text_en.pdf [11] The standard specifies the conditions
that control bodies have to fulfil, in respect of their organisation and
functioning, to be able to operate the (organic) certification system. It is
superseded by international standard EN ISO/IEC 17065:2012. The date of
cessation of presumption of conformity is set on 15 September 2015, in the
Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of Regulation
(EC) No 765/2008, Decision No 768/2008/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1221/2009
of the European Parliament and the Council, published in the Official Journal C
258 of 7.9.2013. [12] Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 of the
European Parliament and the Council of 9 July 2008 setting out the requirements
for accreditation and market surveillance relating to the marketing of products
and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 339/93 – OJ L 218 of 13.8.2008, p. 30. For
the purpose of this Regulation, accreditation shall mean an attestation by a
national accreditation body that a conformity assessment body meets the
requirements set by harmonised standards and, where applicable, any additional
requirements including those set out in relevant sectoral schemes, to carry out
a specific conformity assessment activity. Please see further information on
accreditation in the Europa website: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/single-market-goods/internal-market-for-products/accreditation/index_en.htm [13] EA Policy for the Accreditation of
Organic Production Certification (Ref: EA-3/12 M: 2013), http://www.european-accreditation.org/publication/ea-3-12-m [14] European Court of Auditors Special
Report No 9/2012: Audit of the control system governing the production,
processing, distribution and imports of organic products (26 June 2012), www.eca.europa.eu [15] All MSs and TCs visited by the FVO between January 2012
and July 2013 had control systems for organic production in place, with Control
Bodies (CBs) entrusted with inspection and certification tasks. In general,
staff of the Competent Authorities and CBs were competent and had the powers to
fulfil their tasks. The shortcomings found refer to weaknesses in market controls
and in the import control system for organic products, as well as a lack of
appropriate supervision of CBs. The audits also show significant differences
between CBs regarding the quality and intensity of inspections at operators -
mitigated in some countries by harmonised provisions on sanctions, risk
assessments of operators, off-farm verification programmes and sampling.
Furthermore, a wide range of shortcomings related to derogations, exemptions
and management of animals were found, and not all inspections observed by the
audit teams were effective. The audits also revealed problems regarding a clear
separation of accreditation and supervision tasks, which in some cases led to
duplications and incomplete checks. The FVO presented the audit findings in the
meeting of the Standing Committee on Organic Farming (SCOF) of
26 September 2013. [16] http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/organic/files/eu-policy/data-statistics/control_guidelines_version_08072011_en.pdf. [17] Under the group certification scheme,
group members operate under contractual or binding membership requirements that
specify their commitment to comply with the organic production rules and allow
inspection. Please see further details in annex 16, Small farms and
enterprises: simplification, group certification. [18] A technical meeting with experts took
place on 26 June 2013 to examine the issues identified for small farms, including
in respect of the control system (e.g. cost of certification, group
certification as applied in Third countries, reflections on possible simplified
requirements for small farms). [19] Full report posted in the Europa organic
farming page: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/organic/files/eu-policy/of_public_consultation_final_report_en.pdf [20] Farmers which produce, produce and
process or produce and import organic products. [21] Information as of September 2013: a
compulsory model for the content, wording and layout of information exists at
MS level in CR, CZ, DK, EE, EL, FI, DE, IT, LT, NL, PL, SK. In the other 16 MS
the model varies. [22] Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of
21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy, OJ L 209,
11/08/2005, p. 1. [23] Irregularity shall mean an infringement
of a provision of Community law resulting from an act or omission by an
economic operator which has or would have the effect of prejudging the general
budget of the Community or budget managed by them, either by reducing or losing
revenue accruing from own resources collected directly on behalf of the
Community or by an unjustified item of expenditure (Regulation No 2988/959,
article 1.2). Fraud, in respect of expenditure, is
defined by the Convention on the protection of the Communities' financial
interests as any intentional act or omission relating to the use of
presentation of false, incorrect or incomplete statements or document which has
as its effect the misappropriation or wrongful detention of funds from the
general budget of the EU or budget managed by or on behalf of the EU;
non-disclosure of information. [24] Translation online at Press-europe: http://www.presseurop.eu/en/category/section/economy/agriculture [25] http://www.polityka.pl/rynek/1518054,1,jak-polacy-doja-unie-na-eko-zywnosci.read [27] http://www.taz.de/Italien-und-Lebensmittelbetrueger/!116553/ [28] It is a research project under the EU
7th Framework Programme, run by a consortium of 11 institutions (universities,
research centres and two private control bodies working in the organic sector)
from 11 countries, from 2008 to 2011. The full set of reports is available
under www.certcost.org. The most relevant information regarding
the cost of controls is to be found in report D21.b (Report on total costs of
three organic certification systems in six European countries with particular
focus on organic supply chain) http://www.certcost.org/Lib/CERTCOST/Deliverable/D21_B.pdf. [29] Approval of control bodies is to be
understood as (one-off) verification carried out by the competent authority to
ascertain that the control body to which tasks will be delegated fulfils all
conditions and requirements set by Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007. [30] Supervision of control bodies is to be
understood as the (continued) verification carried out by the competent
authority to ascertain that the control body performs the delegated tasks in a
satisfactory manner. [31] See Annex 3, Main instruments of the
Common Agricultural Policy supporting the organic farming policy, for more
details. [32] France has implemented conversion and
maintenance payments for organic farming under the 1st pillar of the
CAP on the basis of Article 68 of Regulation No 73/2009. [33] A detailed mapping of the public support
measures which are currently in place in the EU MS can be found in a study
report "Use and efficiency of public support measures addressing organic
farming – Institute of Farm economics - Thünen Institute – financed by the
European Commission, November 2011. The main results are presented in Annex 2
to this report. [34] Raw income is calculated as revenues
minus variable and fixed costs however without the imputed labour costs of the
farm family. [35] Czech Republic, Germany, Denmark, Italy,
UK, Switzerland and Turkey [36] Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the
placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council
Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC - OJ L 309, 24.11.2009, p. 1–50. [37] Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 23 February 2005 on maximum residue
levels of pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal origin and
amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC - Text with EEA relevance - OJ L 70,
16.3.2005, p. 1–16 [38] Similar issues can arise with substances
used for other purposes, for instance cleaning and disinfection of buildings
and installations which are not authorised under the EU legislative framework
on organic production but can however be detected in organic products. [39] The term "technically
unavoidable" or "inadvertent" are also used to describe such
cases. [40] It should be noted that the term
"use" is not defined under the EU organic production legislation. [41] http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/3130.pdf - See comparative tables at the end of this
annex. [42] Definition from the REGULATION (EC) NO
396/2005 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 23 February 2005 on
maximum residue levels of pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal
origin and amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC. [43] Method Validation and Quality Control
Procedures for Pesticide Residues Analysis in Food and Feed. Document N°
SANCO/12495/2011 [44] Ministerial Decree No 309 of 13 January
2011 on "accidental and technically unavoidable contamination of
phytosanitary products in organic farming". [45] Order of the Regional Government of
Wallonia on organic production and labelling of organic products, 11th of
February 2010, Annex I, Chapter 3 concerning planning, execution and
interpretation of analysis mentions. [46] Guideline for handling pesticide
residues in Czech organic production – FiBL, 6 June 2013 [47] IFOAM EU Group “Guideline for Pesticide
Residue Contamination for International Trade in Organic” (http://www.ifoam-eu.org/workareas/regulation/pdf/Guideline_IFOAMEU_pesticides_residues_contamination_03.12.pdf) [48] European Organic Certifiers Council. [49] Pesticide Residues Guideline: A guidance
document for the certification decision making process Version: January 2013 (http://eocc.nu/home/pdf/guidelines/EOCC_task_force_residues.pdf) [50] BNN Orientation Value for pesticides1 –
A guideline to evaluate pesticide residues in organic products (http://www.n-bnn.de/html/img/pool/BNNOrientierungswert_EN_1208.pdf) [51] Didecyldimethylammonium chloride. [52] NOP 2613 of 4 March 2013 - (http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5102727) [53] US tolerance levels are in general much
higher than EU MRL due to the different interpretation or treatment of the
statistic data obtained by the pesticide residue trials. [54] EU
Advisory Group for Organic Farming. [55] http://www.bio-suisse.ch/media/en/pdf2011/e_bio_suisse_decision_chart_pesticide_06122011.pdf [56] Directive 2006/141/EC also encompasses
the specific rules on the presence of pesticides residues in infant and
follow-on formulae, previously set out in Commission Directive 1999/50/EC. It
requires that baby food contains no detectable levels of pesticide residues,
meaning not more than 0.01 milligrams of pesticide residues per kilogramme. [57] Costs for sampling of organic products
may vary from one laboratory to the other. In general, it is estimated that
they can vary from EUR 75 for one simple analysis to EUR 150 or higher for
multiple pesticides residues analysis. [58] Other than EFSA (see above), see also
"10 years of organic monitoring 2002-2011" Baden-Württemberg (http://www.mlr.baden-wuerttemberg.de/mlr/bro/10_Jahre_Oekomonitoring_engl.pdf). [59] CAC/GL 20-1995 [60] Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 9 July 2008 setting out the requirements for
accreditation and market surveillance relating to the marketing of products and
repealing Regulation (EEC) No 339/93 (Text with EEA relevance) - OJ L 218,
13.8.2008, p. 30. [61] “Les enjeux de la production d’agriculture
biologique en France” http://www.agreste.agriculture.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/analyse501207.pdf, Biblio AB_enviro_RMT_DevAB [62] Stanhill (1990) and Lotter (2003) found
that organic crops show higher ability to cope with drought than conventional
ones, mainly due to better soil properties. More recently, a French study comparing
151 organic holdings to 281 conventional ones (Caplat, 2006) revealed that only
8 % of the organic areas were irrigated, whereas it reached 33% in conventional
holdings. [63] Interim report (May 2013) for Evaluation
of the EU legislation on organic farming. [64] Commission Regulation (EC) No 473/2002. OJ L 75, 16.3.2002, p. 21 [65] European
Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation - A decade of
EU-funded, low-input and organic agriculture research (2000-2011). [66] Mondelaers, K; et al, 2009, A meta-analysis of the differences in environmental
impacts between organic and conventional farming, British Food Journal 111
(10): 1098-1119. [67] Assessing the risk of farm abandonment
in the EU - European Commission, JRC Scientific and Policy Reports – 2013. [68] Nafferton Ecological Farming Group (NEFG) (Newcastle
University) September hearing [69] Regulation (EC) No 66/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25
November 2009 on the EU Ecolabel, OJ L 27 of 30.1.2010, p.1 [70] http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ecolabel/documents/Ecolabel_for_food_final_report.pdf [71] http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/organic/files/eu-policy/of_public_consultation_final_report_en.pdf
(page 70) [72] Data requested in July and September 2013. [73] Study on the costs and benefits of EMAS
to registered organisations (2009). Milieu Ltd and Risk and Policy Analysis Ltd
for DG Environment of the European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/emas/pdf/news/costs_and_benefits_of_emas.pdf [74] Regulation
(EC) n° 1221/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November
2009 on the voluntary participation by organisations in a Community
eco-management and audit scheme (EMAS), repealing Regulation (EC) No 761/2001
and Commission Decisions 2001/681/EC and 2006/193/EC, O.J. L 342, 22.12.2009,
p.1 [75] http://ec.europa.eu/environment/emas/tools/emaseasy_en.htm [76] http://ec.europa.eu/environment/emas/tools/faq_en.htm#Section4Question0 (question 3) [77] https://publikationen.sachsen.de/bdb/artikel/11704 [78] http://ec.europa.eu/environment/emas/tools/faq_en.htm (see question 4) [79] Council Directive 98/58/EC of 20 July 1998 concerning
the protection of animals kept for farming purposes, OJ L 221, 8.8.1998, p.
23–27 [80] Council Regulation
(EC) No 1/2005 of 22 December 2004 on the protection of animals during
transport and related operations
and amending Directives 64/432/EEC and 93/119/EC and Regulation (EC) No
1255/97, OJ L 3, 5.1.2005, p. 1–44 [81] Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 of 24 September 2009 on
the protection of animals at the time of killing (Text with EEA relevance), OJ
L 303, 18.11.2009, p. 1–30 [82] Commission Staff Working Paper, Executive Summary of the Impact Assessment (19.1.2012) [83] Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the
European Economic and Social Committee on the European Union Strategy for the
Protection and Welfare of Animals 2012-2015 (15.2.2012) [84] European Commission, Directorate General
for Agriculture and Rural Development – EU Agriculture Economic Briefs: Brief
No 2, What is a small farm? [85] Via Campesina on behalf of IFOAM EU at
the hearing of 25 and 26 October 2012 on the EU organic production – controls
and enforcement. On the cost of control, please see annex No 10 for further
details. [86] According to Agro Eco Louis Bolk
Institute, the majority of organic products imported by the EU from developing
countries, all categories, are now produced by producer groups (presentation to
the AGOF meeting, 11 April 2013). [87] http://www.ifoam.org/sites/default/files/page/files/ifoam_norms_version_august_2012_with_cover.pdf. The IFOAM Accreditation Criteria (IAC)
were first approved by the General Assembly in 1992, and have been subsequently
updated on various occasions. [88] Executive decree No 29782/2001 (Reglamento
de agricoltura organica), chapter V. [89] http://www.apeda.gov.in/apedawebsite/organic/ORGANIC_CONTENTS/English_Organic_Sept05.pdf, section 5. [90] The requirements for obtaining group
certification of organic products under the Canada Organic Regime are set out
in the Canada Organic Office Operating Manual (version 2012, part F). [91] Guidelines on imports of organic
products into the European Union, 15.12.2008, http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/organic/files/news/download-material/guidelines_for_imports_en.pdf. Guidelines on group certification were
formerly published as Commission service guidance document on 6 November 2003. [92] EA Guidelines on the Accreditation of
Certification of Primary Sector Products by Means of Sampling of Sites,
EA-6/04:2011, http://www.european-accreditation.org/publication/ea-6-04-m [93] EA Policy for the accreditation of
Organic Production Certification, Ref: EA-3/12 M: 2013, http://www.european-accreditation.org/publication/ea-3-12-m [94] Pilot Project Group certification in
Europe, end report, Agro Eco, Ferko Bodnár, May 2008. The pilot project was
funded through the "IFOAM-Growing Organic" programme and the
"Fund for Sustainable Biodiversity Management" of the Dutch
government. [95] Deliverable No 21, 13.12.2011, H.
Moschitz (editor). [96] Full report available in the Europa
organic farming homepage http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/organic/files/eu-policy/of_public_consultation_final_report_en.pdf [97] Free contribution No DE 206 + 8.7 [98] Free contribution No DE 152 + 8.7 [99] Free contribution No FR 788 [100] Free contribution No EN 129 [101] Free contribution No FR 373 [102] Free contribution No EN 056 [103] As a first
step, the rating "high" was attributed in case the information
obligation was identified by two or more actors as the most burdensome, the
rating "medium" in case it was identified by one actor and the rating
low for all the remaining obligations (not identified as burdensome by any of
the actors). As a second step, the rating has been revised, in particular of
the information obligations rated as medium, based on the information that is
available to the Commission in the Organic Farming Information System (OFIS)
and in other reports received from the MS, namely the "seed report". [104] Study on administrative burden reduction
associated with the implementation of certain rural development measures,
11 August 2011, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/analysis/external/rd-simplification/index_en.htm