Consumers may think of “organic” as a descriptive label, a set of specific rules and regulations, or a general “vibe”. That “organic” conveys meaning to consumers at all is largely due to the long existence of regulations that define what exactly the term “organic" means and restrict when it can be applied.
A well-known adage for how to be of service to those less fortunate than oneself is to provide “a hand up, not a hand out”. In this vein, there are many African farmers who simply want their small businesses to be treated on equal footing to those in the developed world. The protectionism that surrounds developed-world agriculture is currently a huge impediment to reducing global income inequality and driving growth in low- and middle-income countries.
Given the rigorous enforcement systems implemented by organic certification agencies, already in place largely due to the vanguard of European regulations, we should rationalise organic regulations for exporters worldwide. The current system of equivalency disadvantages exactly those who first-world societies claim are deserving of a hand up.
By means of example, European wine producers are able to certify their wines as “Organic” according to EU legislation. This process is complex and time-consuming, but it is achievable for a growing percentage of farmers. The EU legislation is clear, there is one set of rules, and the means of auditing and enforcement are adapted to European business norms. Similarly, American wine producers are able to certify their wines as “made with organic grapes” according to US legislation. Again, the process is not easy, but it is a single set of regulations, a single audit trail, and a single system to keep track of.
Between Europe and the United States, there is an “equivalency agreement”, which essentially says that European wines certified to the EU standard can be sold as organic in the United States, and American wines certified to the American standard can be sold as organic in Europe. This “equivalency” is a key part of harmonising the organic trade and promoting the growth of organic products in both markets. The EU and the US might disagree on minor points about regulation, but they have enough trust in each other to accept the other party’s standards.
I wish to raise a tension existing in this arrangement with respect to commercial fairness and competition, which is the non-acceptance of “equivalency” from third countries. In South Africa, for example, we do not have a globally-recognised organic standard of our own. As a local grower, the most logical choice of certification is against the EU standard. But, importantly, the “equivalency” between EU and US standards does not apply to third countries. So while we might follow the exact same rules as a European producer, we are not allowed to sell our wines as organic in the United States without a separate, costly, and confusing second certification with the U.S. standard.
In Africa, we are essentially required to maintain separate certifications for each country that we wish to sell to. This practice disadvantages the global south vis à vis northern peers, and is the type of trade protectionism that has proven decade after decade to disfavour consumer choice, increase prices, and favour large corporates over small growers.
The tension here is not only between the United States and the E.U. Other major markets such as Japan are creating their own organic standards, and the equivalency agreements that are politically negotiated between northern, developed countries gloss over the existence of third country certification.
The South African government and agriculture ministry needs to prioritise the negotiation of organic equivalency agreements with major export markets and. Due to the European market’s centrality to South African exports and intentionally-recognised regulatory framework, South Africa should adopt the EU organic standard as its own, potentially by putting into South African law an equivalency framework allowing South African farmers to use a single standard and certification scheme to export their goods as organic on a globally-recognised basis.
“Organic” carries a legally-binding, specific, and verifiable meaning. That meaning varies slightly from country to country based on differences in national legislation in developed countries. The failure to contemplate developing countries in equivalency agreements is an unfair trade practice whose ultimate victim is consumers who value sustainably-grown agricultural goods.