Fair Trade producers in Mexico depend heavily on organic certification to reap price premiums for both labels, and will be hurt on more than one front by the recently released USDA rule requiring them to change certification practices, researchers say. In a recent article in Salon, later followed by a post on Gristmill, Samuel Fromartz detailed the consequences of a USDA ruling that would force a radical change in the way grower groups in the global South certify their products. The USDA ruling, Fromartz writes:
[T]ightens organic certification requirements to such a degree that it could sharply curtail the ability of small grower co-ops to produce organic coffee -- not to mention organic bananas, cocoa, sugar and even spices.
In his blog on the subject, Fromartz says he only hit the tip of the iceberg. So I hunted around a bit, seeking to find out more about how the ruling would impact producers in developing nations. I contacted Aimee Shreck and Christy Getz, two researchers who have published on organic and Fair Trade in developing nations. And notably, I got in touch with Tad Mutersbaugh, a professor of geography at the University of Kansas. Mutersbaugh's research focuses on international certification standards, and he's worked with organic and Fair Trade certified grower groups in Oaxaca, Mexico. He was familiar with the recent USDA ruling, and expressed his concern about the implications the ruling would have for small farmers in organic and Fair Trade grower groups.
In the email exchange we had, Mutersbaugh made a distinction that I had not yet heard. It is written in the USDA ruling, and refers to grower groups' use of "internal inspectors" versus "external inspectors."
Internal inspectors generally come from the region they certify, but are specially educated by the larger grower organization in how to certify farms. They are usually true believers in the organic project, says Mutersbaugh, and work for low wages in order to get the job done, charging as little as $1 per inspection. In contrast, external inspectors cost $150 per day, and are also much slower.
"I once attended an external inspection where we managed to do four fields in a day (at $150/day rate) because the inspector simply could not take all of the walking," Mutersbaugh wrote in an email message. "I then went on an internal inspection where we literally ran down through a canyon and up a mountain, performing 10 inspections in a day at the cost of just $1 per inspection!"
But the USDA ruling prohibits use of internal inspectors, a move that, according to Mutersbaugh, will have dire consequences for small-scale producers. "The only way to do inspections is by using 'internal inspectors'," he said. "If external inspectors are used, the cost will be absolutely prohibitive."
Costs are a big deal to small growers involved in these cooperative groups. Mutersbaugh notes that the $15 organic premium per 100 pound sack can significantly help these farmers, who often earn less than $1,000 a year. He also notes that many of these farmers are indigenous women whose husbands have migrated in search of work. And, Mutersbaugh says, because only a percentage of Fair Trade coffee is actually sold as Fair Trade, since the supply of Fair Trade exceeds the demand, the organic certification is that much more important for these growers.
Organic certification, Mutersbaugh writes, "is ... the key for farmers who want to get Fair Trade market access. If they produce coffee that is 'double certified' as Fair Trade and organic, and their coffee is gourmet quality, they will gain market access. This is why farmers spend so much -- and it really is costly -- to gain access to Fair Trade Certified/organic markets."
In response to worries about organic standards being broken, Mutersbaugh admits this is a "concern" not held only by the USDA -- Mexican grower groups worry about it as well. But external certification has its own problems. Mutersbaugh cites an example where a village had been offered certification by an external inspector, but without actual inspections. "Basically," Mutersbaugh said, "the external inspector would simply invent the paperwork! These [organizations] have come to be called 'chafa' (as in wheat chaff) certifiers, but they pose a real challenge."
Mutersbaugh hammered home two points related to corruption and certification:
- "Internal inspectors do not, in my experience, certify their own villages: They certify other villages outside of their regional organizations."
- "Internal inspectors are accredited. They must receive training and pass examinations approved by the national level certifier."
Mutersbaugh also tied the USDA ruling into the bigger picture of international conservation, development, and the global economy. He wondered why it took ten years for the organic price premium to increase by five cents a pound. (In June of 2007, the price for a 100-pound sack of organic coffee will jump from $15 to $20.) The cost for certification over this 10-year time period has "skyrocketed," he said, but "this price is simply not reflective of ... the cost to certify."
In addition to this, he added, certified-organic producer families are often key partners in crafting conservation infrastructure. These farmers not only produce coffee, but also habitat. Their fields and conserved lands offer water filtration services, and their conservation support preserves biodiversity and endangered species. Grassroots environmentalists in Mexico often work with networks of certified organic growers to preserve prime conservation land. "What of the songbirds protected, butterflies?" he asked.
Mutersbaugh offered a two-part compromise as a way to alleviate some of the USDA's concerns and strengthen certification processes:
- There should be a "thoroughgoing accreditation process" for internal inspectors, he said. This would allow internal inspectors to be accredited by external bodies, therefore making the system more credible, but still affordable.
- The organic premium should be increased to $30 a sack (30 cents a pound) "so that internal inspectors can afford to be inspectors rather than migrants to the U.S" Many good inspectors, he said, leave the business because it is such a low-paying and thankless job. A premium increase to 40 dollars a sack would be a "better bet," he adds, but he doesn't think that's realistic.
But as Mutersbaugh and the other researchers I contacted noted, barriers to entry in organic production are high, and U.S. consumers need to be willing to compensate grower groups in order to help them develop the infrastructure needed to support organic. If it takes 40 dollars a sack -- well, for U.S. consumers, that's just 25 cents more per pound than we're paying now. "Imagine," Mutersbaugh says, "getting a raise only once a decade!"
Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change
Global boiling declares war on Thanksgiving
Climate Citizen: Michael Pollan on agriculture and health care
Comments
View as Threaded
Chris Schults Posted 4:25 am
12 Apr 2007
Look out! It's a media shower!
Permalink
Samuel Fromartz Posted 7:21 am
12 Apr 2007
But the question is whether the system worked, and I heard - as you did - that it did work and was designed for these special cases.
Samuel Fromartz
Author
Organic Inc.
Permalink
Emily Brown Rosen Posted 12:32 pm
12 Apr 2007
Permalink
tad mutersbaugh Posted 12:18 am
13 Apr 2007
I have read the summary, and it appears contradictory on this point. I do know that at least one Mexican certifier has told associated grower groups to keep following their (arduous and expensive) accreditation procedures. In my view, they certainly should be permitted to continue. I sat through a village inspector training course and had to work to pass the exam. And then inspectors have to prove their mettle during field evaluations. This training, at least in the case with which I am most familiar, is quite rigorous. (and not a fluke, I've seen these done since 2000). Also, this group does have inspectors sign 'conflict of interest' forms, and I know that inspectors are evaluated on an annual basis, although I have not investigated the content of those evaluations.
So, I'm unsure of how far this ruling reaches (also having seen only the summary). Does it apply only to certifiers who do not meet these norms, or is it to be generally applied to all Mexican certifiers?
tad
Permalink
Samuel Fromartz Posted 12:47 am
13 Apr 2007
For those who don't know the background, the regs instituted a wall that prevented certifiers from working directly for the companies they certify. That created distance that gave integrity to certification.
The question, though, as Ted points out, is whether internal inspection can be overseen in a way that has integrity.
Samuel Fromartz
Author
Organic Inc.
Permalink
Stephanie Ogburn Posted 1:05 am
13 Apr 2007
An added note: certifiers in the US also sometimes think the USDA's tendency to force this separation (that is, the tendency to say you can't be a certifier if you're also a farmer in the grower group) is overkill and highly inconvenient. One farmer I interviewed who also spun off his own certification business had a heck of a time getting his business accredited because he was a grower in the area where he'd be certifying. After jumping through a lot of hoops, he did it--but perhaps separation of interests (which is the traditional approach to addressing corruption) is not the best way to deal with potential corruption. One fix does not all problems solve.
Stephanie
http://www.stephaniepaigeogburn.com
Permalink
Stephanie Ogburn Posted 1:33 am
13 Apr 2007
Stephanie
http://www.stephaniepaigeogburn.com
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 3:15 am
13 Apr 2007
Permalink
Emily Brown Rosen Posted 5:41 am
13 Apr 2007
The USDA ruling applies to all certification agencies that are accredited by USDA. (we reserve the term "accreditation" to mean the approval process of the certification agencies, in this case by USDA. IFOAM is an international accreditor) If the Mexican certifier is USDA accredited, then they are responsible for hiring, supervising and evaluating all inspectors they use. The practice has been that the certifier will inspect 20% of the grower group farms a year, and that the grower group must provide sufficient oversight of all members to make sure this is a good sampling. I'm not sure who is hiring the 'village level' inspectors you describe, but if it is not the accredited certifier, then it may not be permited, unless we can work out a better understanding with USDA of how to structure this. I don't think this recent announcement is really a done deal, it has not been consistently provided to all USDA certifiers yet, and may be applied in a case by case basis as certifiers are renewed. There also is a lot of interest in finding a solution that is not so draconian.
There is a list of all USDA accredited agencies at http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/CertifyingAgents/Accredited.h ...
So it is easy to check if the agency is in good standing. Granted, there are problems with the current system of accreditation of the USDA approved agencies, but at least there is a system for oversight.
Emily
Permalink
TheSSG Posted 8:51 am
15 Apr 2007
I'm not all about the free market, and letting companies regulate themselves. While any way you go, there will be corruption, I think that Government/External sources are easier to monitor and less prone to corruption.
This is like if we let GM do all the EPA policing...
Not a good idea...
I know it sucks for the farmers, but I stil think it's a move in the right direction.
Permalink
tad mutersbaugh Posted 6:55 am
16 Apr 2007
That said, perhaps there is room for certifiers to become more directly involved in credentialing and evaluations? Emily's idea - I hope I'm not misrepresenting it -- merits serious consideration. In practice there are very few villagers who have the skills set necessary to work as inspectors (accounting, speak Spanish, speak local indigenous language, are sufficiently mobile but not likely to migrate to the US, and can pass exams to become registered with certifying agencies). Over time this group has tended to become more and more professionalized, yet their village lifeways allow them to live and work for less than urban-based professionals. Perhaps this group can be accommodated within the USDA framework.
In a broader context, and as the study cited by Ron Steenblik points out (also supported by many research studies), the contemporary certification template reflects an ongoing evolutionary process and will likely develop in new directions in years ahead. Why, as Stephanie asks, should the USDA insist on idealized forms of service-provider/client separation that may not be effective at achieving organic outcomes under Mexican conditions? Even the ISO Guide 65 on certification states that certification systems may not place limits on who can be certified (section 4.1). In practice, insistence upon a costly system does this by setting a minimum farm-size such that only farms over, say, 25 hectares can afford to certify.
It is my sincere hope that some middle ground may be found that can accommodate USDA concerns without placing organic certification beyond the reach of those who need it the most.
Despite the strange attractiveness of ideal separation to TheSSG, the real-life effect of disqualifying Internal or Group-based certification would be to exclude tens of thousands of impoverished Mexican farmers from organic farming*.
*for my economic arguments, see papers at
http://www.uky.edu/~tmute2/mutersbaugh/
tad
tad
Permalink