{"id":37207,"date":"2024-12-11T00:01:24","date_gmt":"2024-12-11T05:01:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/?p=37207"},"modified":"2024-12-11T10:13:49","modified_gmt":"2024-12-11T15:13:49","slug":"new-european-union-organic-regulations-increase-rigor-of-import-standards","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/2024\/12\/new-european-union-organic-regulations-increase-rigor-of-import-standards\/","title":{"rendered":"New European Union Organic Regulations Increase Rigor of Import Standards"},"content":{"rendered":"

(Beyond Pesticides<\/em>, December 11, 2024) A recent report published by the Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL)<\/a> unpacks the impacts of new European Union (EU) organic regulations that are going into effect in 2025 with a \u201ccompletely new set of rules for the certification of smallholder producer groups.\u201d 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 \u201cpatchwork of rules and derogations [exemptions] in place [that] did not give sufficient certainty and security\u201d (European Commission 2017). The new EU Organic Regulation 2018\/848<\/a> 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.<\/p>\n

According to the FiBL report, \u201cThe 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.\u201d<\/p>\n

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<\/a>. (See Daily News <\/em>here<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

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<\/a> notes that Rural Prosperity and Food Security Act of 2024<\/a><\/em>,\u00a0advanced by retiring Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) contains provisions center on \u201cthe needs of young and Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) farmers and ranchers across the country . . .\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/u><\/p>\n

Before moving forward, there are some terms that require definition for ease of future reference in this article. In EU Law, \u201cthird country<\/em>\u201d 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). \u201cControl Bodies (CBs)\u201d <\/em>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. \u201cGlobal majority<\/em>\u201d 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.<\/p>\n

There are a few critical takeaways concerning the new EU-wide organic regulations listed below:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. The shift to \u201ccompliance\u201d versus \u201cequivalence\u201d for imported organic products into the European Union;<\/li>\n
  2. In spite of requests from organic and development associations in Global Majority countries to extend the exemption for \u201ccompliance systems\u201d to December 31, 2025, the EU Commission set the end of the derogation period for October 15, 2025. This means that products not in \u201ccompliance\u201d will not qualify for organic certification in Europe starting on October 16, 2025, even though \u201cmost certified organic producer groups in third countries are not yet fully aware of the potential non-compliance, the severity, and the resulting sanctions.\u201d<\/li>\n
  3. New definitions and binding legal requirements, including \u201cGroup of Operators\u201d and Internal Control System (ICS) requirements.<\/li>\n
  4. 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<\/a>.<\/li>\n
  5. 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.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Diving Deeper<\/u><\/p>\n

    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.\u00a0See Figure 5: Transition from equivalence to compliance for imports from third countries (which are currently under third-country control body equivalence) on page 19<\/a> of the report.\u00a0\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

    Group of Operators<\/u><\/p>\n

    According to the FiBL report, a new definition for \u201cGroup of Operators\u201d (GoO) aims to \u201creduce the inspection and certification costs and the associated administrative burdens, strengthen, local networks, contribute to better market outlets, and ensure a level playing field…\u201d for third country producers, particularly producers that make up the Global Majority.<\/p>\n

    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<\/a> describes ICS as:<\/p>\n

    \u201c[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.\u201d<\/p>\n

    There are other parameters to consider, including the fact that members of a GoO must be in the same geographic zone, have a \u201clegal personality,\u201d 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.<\/em><\/p>\n

    Equivalence versus Compliance<\/u><\/p>\n

    Simply put, an \u201cequivalence\u201d 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 \u201cequivalence\u201d to \u201ccompliance\u201d systems can be found starting on page 17 of the report.<\/p>\n

    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.<\/p>\n

    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 \u201cprovide…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 \u201cequivalent\u201d certification.\u201d<\/p>\n

    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 \u201cmeans that certain substances accepted in third countries under the \u2018equivalence\u2019 regime cannot be used anymore.\u201d 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\u2014if they want to remain certified organic\u2014continue.<\/p>\n

    There are 43 third country control bodies that are recognized for certification under the new \u201ccompliance\u201d 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<\/a> of the report for further details on the transition for non-EU member states.<\/em><\/p>\n

    Main Recommendations <\/u><\/p>\n

    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:<\/p>\n