International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements

1
Joint Organic congress - Odense, 30-31 May
2006 The organic movements appraisal
of the proposed new
organic regulation
International Federation of Organic Agriculture
Movements
2
Das Netzwerk der IFOAM EU

Charikleia D. Minotou
Thomas Dosch
Joost Guijt
3
Influence Policy
European Commission
European Parliament
Positions
Contact to national MEPs
National Members (board members)
Member States Article 14 committee
4
IFOAM EU topics in Brussels

• Examples
• Organic Revision of Regulation 2092/91
• Rural development Regulation
• GM seed/GMO coexistance
• Organic action plan on organic farming
• 7th Research Framework programme
• Particular topics, e.g biodiverstiy, soil
  protection strategy
• Public Procurement Organic week in EU canteens
• Information gathering/Networking

5
IFOAM EU topics in Brussels

• Examples
• Organic Revision of Regulation 2092/91
• Rural development Regulation
• GM seed/GMO coexistance
• Organic action plan on organic farming
• 7th Research Framework programme
• Particular topics, e.g biodiverstiy, soil
  protection strategy
• Public Procurement Organic week in EU canteens
• Information gathering/Networking

6
What happened so far

• European Action plan on Organic Food and Farming
  launched in June 2004
• Council October 2004
• September 2005 COM non paper with key questions
• Commission published draft Revision proposal
  December 2005
• Council discussion under Austrian Presidency the
  proposal

7
The concerns of the sector

• Major concerns
• Legal uncertainty
• No proper Stakeholder Involvement
• Time scale Completeness
• Content

8
Stakeholder involvement

• Concern
• No proper and formal stakeholder involvement -
  either in the regulation itself, or in the means
  of agreeing the proposals
• Management Committee set to replace Standing
  Committee
• Would like
• Formal consultation as we review this proposed
  new regulation
• Formal stakeholder stakeholder involvement
  written into article 31
• Standing Committee to remain

9
Time scale and completeness

• Concern
• Timescale too short for proper consultation and
  consideration of a completely new text
• We only have half the picture (no annexes)
• Would like
• Sufficient time for the detailed consideration
  necessary to ensure a well constructed regulation
  that everyone can support
• At least an outline of the annexes so we know the
  whole context

10
Scope and definitions (12)

• Concern
• Scope too narrow
• Definition of GMOs
• Would like
• Catering and restaurants to be included
• The term organic protected (though not
  necessarily with detailed standards) for all
  products of organic agriculture
• The same definitions of GMOs as in the existing
  regulation

11
Objectives and principles (36)

• Concern
• Very limited objectives and unsure of their
  purpose
• Confusion over aspirational principles or
  over-arching rules
• Many essential aspects missing
• Legal impact unclear
• Outcome of the Organic Revision project not used
• Would like
• Use the 4 IFOAM principles as the objectives of
  organic farming
• Use the output of the Organic Revision project
  (yet to report) for drawing up the objectives and
  principles

12
Production rules and flexibility (716)

• Concern
• Some key rules missing - unclear of the division
  between production rules in the regulation and in
  the annexes
• Flexibility good, but impossible to assess
  implications (eg potential for distortion of
  trade) without clear criteria
• Would like
• At least an outline of the annexes so we know the
  whole context
• Clear criteria and an open process for deciding
  on flexibility

13
Labelling (1720)

• Concern
• EU-ORGANIC text unnecessary and
  counter-productive
• Restrictions on private organisations covered by
  existing laws
• Use of terms referring to organic production less
  protected
• Would like
• EU logo voluntary (and redesigned)
• No text fragment
• Concentrate instead on a harmonised certifier
  code
• Delete Article 20
• Legal coverage should not only cover the terms
  organic, etc., but include terms of equivalent
  intent, as formulated in Codex A. Guidelines

EU - ORGANIC
14
Control (2225)

• Concern
• New REGULATION (EC) No 882/2004 on official
  controls
• 882/2004 rules not adapted for organic
  agriculture
• Powers of private bodies restricted and/or
  centralised to authorities
• Would like
• Surveillance of competent authorities must be
  strengthened but organic farming should be
  removed from 882/2004
• Delete Article 24.3
• Control bodies must be able to issue sanctions

15
Imports (27)

• Concern
• Codex Guidelines are inadequate (only general
  guidance, only indicative input lists, inadequate
  cover of organic certification systems
• No recognition of IFOAM standards and
  accreditation
• Would like
• Recognition of the IFOAM Guarantee system
  (standards, certification criteria and
  accreditation)

16
The positive aspects

• The new structure is more logical and easier to
  understand than the current regulation
• The attempt to formulate basic principles as a
  starting point to develop detailed, certifiable
  standards from these agreed principles
• The inclusion of wine and aquaculture within the
  scope of the regulation
• The objective to decrease the details and number
  of derogations

17
More positive aspects

• The possibility of certain flexibility to deal
  with regional variations, as it can provide an
  alternative for much derogation and facilitate
  development
• The intention to use a risk-based approach to
  determine necessary inspection
• A better accessibility proposed for imported
  products from outside the EU

18
Further steps....???

• Austrian presidency presented compromise paper to
  Council
• Council working group May/June
• Finish Presidency will take over
• September 2006 European Parliament
• November 2006 Adoption of new Regualtion...?
• .......or German Presidecy to continue
  (01.01.2007)?

19
Conclusions

• We have called for, and support, a major revision
• We recognise the good intentions in the new
  proposals
• We have some grave concerns
• We will continue to observe and influence the
  process
• We want constructive engagement, but we need
• one stage process (articles and annexes)
• realistic timescale for analysis, consultation,
  discussion
• participation in the process (and in the S/M
  committee)
• removal of the various restrictions on the
  private bodies