11
Dec
New European Union Organic Regulations Increase Rigor of Import Standards
(Beyond Pesticides, December 11, 2024) A recent report published by the Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL) unpacks the impacts of new European Union (EU) organic regulations that are going into effect in 2025 with a “completely new set of rules for the certification of smallholder producer groups.†These regulations represent a major shift from the current “equivalence” to a “compliance” system with all EU legal requirements. The change announced almost three years ago, to provide time for transition, is intended to improve consumer trust in the organic label and eliminate a “patchwork of rules and derogations [exemptions] in place [that] did not give sufficient certainty and security†(European Commission 2017). The new EU Organic Regulation 2018/848 aims to encourage the sustainable development of organic production in the EU, guarantee fair competition for farmers and operators, prevent fraud and unfair practices, and improve consumer confidence in organic products.
According to the FiBL report, “The new EU Organic Regulation 2018/848 aims to encourage the sustainable development of organic production in the EU, guarantee fair competition for farmers and operators, prevent fraud and unfair practices, and improve consumer confidence in organic products.â€
More than 7 in 10 organic producer groups globally will need to change their structure to maintain their certification, according to FiBL analysis. This EU regulation comes into effect within two years after the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) published the Strengthening Organic Enforcement (SOE) final rule. (See Daily News here.)
Environmental and public health advocates welcome the improvement of organic regulations to strengthen the global marketplace and consumer trust in certified organic. However, advocates continue to demand reimagining the Farm Bill and agricultural support programs to, among other objectives, emphasize greater access for young, beginning, and farmers of color who face disproportionally significant barriers to entry. The National Young Farmers Coalition notes that Rural Prosperity and Food Security Act of 2024, advanced by retiring Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) contains provisions center on “the needs of young and Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) farmers and ranchers across the country . . .â€Â
Key Takeaways
Before moving forward, there are some terms that require definition for ease of future reference in this article. In EU Law, “third country†refers to a non-EU member country or a country where citizens do not have the right of free movement within the EU (Iceland, Lichtenstein, Norway, or Switzerland). “Control Bodies (CBs)†refer to organic regulators (e.g., third-party certifiers in the U.S. context) who oversee the certification process at the local, state/provincial, or national levels. “Global majority†refers to non-EU or U.S. peoples, not including First Nations, Aboriginal, and Indigenous peoples of the Americas, to account for historical power dynamics and counteract legacies of Western imperialism/colonialism in discussing policy language.
There are a few critical takeaways concerning the new EU-wide organic regulations listed below:
- The shift to “compliance†versus “equivalence†for imported organic products into the European Union;
- In spite of requests from organic and development associations in Global Majority countries to extend the exemption for “compliance systems†to December 31, 2025, the EU Commission set the end of the derogation period for October 15, 2025. This means that products not in “compliance†will not qualify for organic certification in Europe starting on October 16, 2025, even though “most certified organic producer groups in third countries are not yet fully aware of the potential non-compliance, the severity, and the resulting sanctions.â€
- New definitions and binding legal requirements, including “Group of Operators†and Internal Control System (ICS) requirements.
- Third country organic producer groups consisting of smallholder farmers are facing a multitude of regulatory changes between 2023 and 2026, including the SOE 2023 update from the U.S. National Organic Program and the EU Regulation on Deforestation-free Products.
- In surveys FiBL conducted with third country producer groups, 32% of respondents expect annual costs to increase by 50% to more than 100% and 43% of respondents expect certification costs to go up by 50% to over 200%. However, 82% plan to adapt to the new regulations.
Diving Deeper
EU organic policy was overhauled in 2018 and entered into force in January 2022. This change in certification standards is considered an extension of this legally binding legislation and goes into effect on January 1, 2025. The new regulations have far-reaching implications that vary based on commodity type, geographic region, and/or country of origin. See Chapters 5 through 7 of the report for more detailed analysis, including page 19 for a timeline of regulatory transition from equivalence to compliance models. See Figure 5: Transition from equivalence to compliance for imports from third countries (which are currently under third-country control body equivalence) on page 19 of the report. Â
Group of Operators
According to the FiBL report, a new definition for “Group of Operators†(GoO) aims to “reduce the inspection and certification costs and the associated administrative burdens, strengthen, local networks, contribute to better market outlets, and ensure a level playing field…†for third country producers, particularly producers that make up the Global Majority.
The new definition for GoO can be found on page 21 of the FiBL report. Among other stipulations in the new regulation, a Group of Operators must have an ICS. IFOAM-International describes ICS as:
“[T]he part of a documented quality assurance system that allows an external certification body to delegate the periodic inspection of individual group members to an identified body or unit within the certified operator. This means that the third party certification bodies only have to inspect the well-functioning of the system, as well as to perform a few spot-check re-inspections of individual smallholders.â€
There are other parameters to consider, including the fact that members of a GoO must be in the same geographic zone, have a “legal personality,†membership capped at 2,000 members, among others. Broadly speaking, there are three types of producer groups that will be affected by making ICS mandatory for EU organic certification: those who already have ICS built into their organization (group type I), processor/exporter organized groups (group type II), and groups with 100% external control without ICS (group type 3). More details on this are in Section 4.1.2 (pages 34-37) of the report.
Equivalence versus Compliance
Simply put, an “equivalence†system means that the organic certification standards in one country meet the same standards of countries to which they seek to export their products. The historical progression from “equivalence†to “compliance†systems can be found starting on page 17 of the report.
A different transition period applies to the fourteen countries with national organic certification systems that the EU recognizes through an equivalency agreement. The countries that qualify include Argentina, Australia, Canada, Costa Rica, India, Israel, Japan, New Zealand, Tunisia, the United States, as well as the United Kingdom, Switzerland, and Chile through trade agreements.
Compliance means that all organic imports must abide by all EU legal requirements In the past, internal control systems (ICSs) were considered a non-binding EU guideline for third country producer groups with the goal to “provide…a pathway towards sustainable production and income generation for an (estimated) thousand-plus organic smallholder supply chains in Latin America, Africa and Southeast Asia benefiting more than a million organic producers by granting them access to the European market via “equivalent†certification.â€
There are some additional implications that will place short-term strain on organic producers in third countries, however the new regulation will provide substantial improvement in safeguarding organic integrity across the board. A shift to a compliance system “means that certain substances accepted in third countries under the ‘equivalence’ regime cannot be used anymore.†Additionally, there will be tighter requirements on producing the same crop organically and non-organically on the same farmland, crop rotation and diversity (e.g. legumes, cover crops, green manure for perennials, etc.), and documentation of potential contamination risks. These measures are welcomed by organic advocates; but concerns around equity and accessibility for hundreds of thousands of farmers who have to adjust rapidly to the new regulations—if they want to remain certified organic—continue.
There are 43 third country control bodies that are recognized for certification under the new “compliance†system as of October 31, 2024. Some control bodies have already decided to abandon third country certification under the new regulations (FiBL third country survey data corroborates this, with 18% of respondents indicating that may stop or reduce organic certification as a result of these new regulations). There are some potential policy remedies in place or that advocates are hoping to be put into effect in the coming transitional years. See Figure 5: Transition from equivalence to compliance for imports from third countries (which are currently under third-country control body equivalence) on page 19 of the report for further details on the transition for non-EU member states.
Main Recommendations
FiBL proposes the following main recommendations (in bold) to minimize negative short-term impacts of the new organic regulations, with additional Beyond Pesticide in italics:
- EU importers and brands should collaborate with small-scale and non-EU producers to consider their challenges and future costs in trade contracts and trading practices. This is particularly important given the ongoing tensions between farmers, environmentalists, and policymakers over the Mercosur-EU Trade Deal and the continuous importation of toxic pesticide products banned in Global North countries. See Daily News here, here, and here for further analysis.
- Development of tailored, “user-friendly†resources or handbooks relevant to small-scale producers to minimize confusion and increase compliance with new rules. Streamlining paperwork for U.S.-based small-scale organic producers has continuously been raised as a critical area of concern by organic advocates, researchers, and farmers. See Daily News here.
- Targeted training and support programs can support producer groups as they adapt to the new regulations, including but not limited to support and market access programs and legal advisory services, and development of regional-specific guidance. An IPES-Food report released earlier this summer highlights the impact of organic certification and producer group certification systems contributing to territorial markets across the globe. See Daily News here.
- Going one step further than the previous recommendation, certifying bodies and EU policymakers can offer regional-specific accommodations, including flexibility of this transition period in terms of temporary exemptions based on crop-by-crop, geographical, or allowable input/substances. In the U.S. context, organic operations come in different scales and models. More support is needed to support small-scale producers; however, some are banding together to increase their efficiency while upholding values. See Daily News here.
- Customs authorities can develop task forces for the 1-2 year transition period (2025-2027) to answer questions for producer groups as they navigate compliance with new regulations. Strengthening customs and import regulations is a critical feature of the U.S. SOE rule, among other updates. See Daily News here for further analysis.
Keeping Organic Strong in the United States
In the context of the U.S., FiBL does not believe that the new SOE rule, which went into effect as of March 2024, “are not likely to require legal adaptions in the setup or composition of currently NOP-certified producer groups. However, some new rules have additional certification implications for re-organization according to the Group of Operator rules since many groups are certified according to both [U.S. and EU] standards.â€
The main changes in the Strengthening Organic Enforcement (SOE) rule include new requirements for certification of “grower group operations†for imported and exported organic products. New rules include the addition of unannounced on-site inspections for certified operations, standards certificates of organic operation, foreign conformity assessment systems, labeling of nonretail containers, annual update requirements for certified operations, compliance and appeals processes, and calculations for organic content of multi-ingredient products. Advocates applaud the improvement of organic standards in terms of compliance, oversight, and trade implications.
Beyond Pesticides will continue to monitor any additional repercussions or impacts that the EU regulations may impose on the U.S. organic community.
Call to Action
See Keeping Organic Strong to learn more about the history of U.S. organic regulations. As mandated in the Organic Food Production Act (OFPA), the National Organic Standards Board is required to hold public hearings twice a year for open comment periods on organic standards, including updates from subcommittees on a plethora of focus areas including the sunset of materials on the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances, equity and barriers to access organic certification, development of new regulations, among other areas.
Beyond Pesticides provides resources and comments for every measure brought up in the fall and spring meetings each year so communities across the nation can become more familiar with the process and demand integrity in organic products.
All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.
Source: The Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL)
