Interview - Gerald A. Herrmann, IFOAM

Click here for
other visits and interviews from Planeta Orgânico



	Planeta Organico interviews Gerald Herrmann, IFOAM's president, who will be the Keynote speaker at 2007 BioFach America Latina's opening ceremony. In this interview, Gerald answers some questions from Pedro Santiago, president of the Brazilian Chamber for Organic Agriculture.

Planeta Orgânico: Could IFOAM support the Brazilian organic movement to accelerate the pending approval of the organic regulation in Brazil?

Gerald A. Herrmann: I am aware of the process going on in Brazil and actually expect that the decree on the organic regulation will be signed in August or September this year. IFOAM, a democratic federation itself, appreciates the efforts of the ministry to include stakeholders in the process for example by establishing the ‘Camara Setorial da Agricultura Organic’. One very important issue that is now clarified is the use of the word organic, which in the past could be used for any product from vegetal origin. Another important topic is that the regulation will recognize Participatory Guarantee Systems for local markets, which is a good thing for the organic movement, also outside of Brazil.

The regulation offers an opportunity for regional harmonization of organic standards and regulations within Latin America and Caribbean, IFOAM also appreciates the involvement of the Brazilian government in the global harmonization process on organic agriculture regulations.

After signing of the decree, the movement cannot lay back, but has an important role to play, to constantly feed the government structures with findings from those who live the regulation. Experiences in the EU have taught us that a regulation may seem the end of the legislative process, but actually is the beginning of another one. Ownership is very important, and for the organic movement to be able to influence or even steer further developments, it needs continuous attention and cooperation. I trust that the organic and agroecological movement are able to perform as balancing power for the benefit of the sector.

Planeta Orgânico: In Brazil various organizations are involved in participatory certification (for instance EcoVida), a certification system which is approved by the Brazilian government for the domestic market. IFOAM is involved in developing Participatory Guarantee Systems (PGS’) in many regions of the world. Why IFOAM is engaged? What are the benefits of PGS? Could this help to develop regional trade with organic products Latin America, Asia, Africa?

Gerald A. Herrmann: Let me first explain that any system using the methods of Organic Agriculture and being based on the Principles of Organic Agriculture is regarded by IFOAM as ‘Organic Agriculture’ and any farmer practicing such system can be called an ‘organic farmer’. Organic Agriculture brings valuable contributions to the farmer and to the society in general, outside the market place. IFOAM supports the adoption of Organic Agriculture regardless how the products are guaranteed and marketed.

IFOAM regards third party certification as a reliable tool for guaranteeing the organic status of a product, and one that appears to be most relevant in an anonymous market, like the international organic market. IFOAM has developed a comprehensive system of Norms and an accreditation program to promote and develop reliable third party certification. But third party certification definitely is not ‘universal’ and not the only tool to describe organic agriculture.

Apart from third party certification there are other methods of organic quality assurance for the market place. These can be in the form of self-declarations or Participatory Guarantee Systems. There are also situations where the relation between the consumer and the producers are strong enough to serve as a sufficient trust building mechanism, and no particular other verification is needed.

Organic production that relies only on export markets is vulnerable to external changes in the global market and is confronted with increasing competitiveness. Also, in the context of local markets third party organic certification could be considered ‘overdone’ for direct marketing purposes and is too much of a cost burden for small-scale farmers.

Participatory Guarantee Systems are mostly flexible and emphasize a learning process. IFOAM sees a potential in these participatory systems and has embarked on a process for capacity building and further development of such systems. It is in their nature that they are localized and diverse, so while some general principles can be agreed upon they are not standardized to the same extent as third party certification. Also Participatory Guarantee Systems support and encourage producer groups to work together and to improve their farming practices through the sharing of knowledge and experiences, which are potentially missed out by organic farmers who function in the third party certification system.

Surely, Participatory Guarantee Systems can be used as a tool for improving local socio-economic and ecological conditions by encouraging small-scale production and product processing. In local markets they help smallholders to have their products recognized as organic. Networks between consumers and smallholders are enhanced and the impetus for smallholders to expand their production base is reinforced. EcoVida is a positive example of such a network that we often refer to. IFOAM supports therefore the EcoVida seminar to be held at the end of October.

In Brazil the potential for domestic organic markets is immense. Participatory Guarantee Systems provide a mechanism for smallholders who produce relatively low volumes of different crops to sell their cash crops as verifiably organic.

We are proud that these initiatives using their own written standards are often based on IFOAM Principles and Basic Standards.

I’d like to share with you the results of our project in East Africa. The OSEA project (Regional Cooperation for Organic Standards and Certification capacity in East Africa), aims at improving income and livelihood of rural communities in East Africa, through facilitation of trade in organic products by means of a regional standard and regional certification cooperation. The East African Organic Products Standard (EAOS) is the second regional organic standard in the world, following that developed by the European Union. The EAOS and associated East African Organic Mark ensures to consumers that produce so labeled has been grown in accordance with a standardized method based on traditional methods supplemented by scientific knowledge, and based on ecosystem management rather than the use of artificial fertilizers and pesticides. As organic produce generally sells at premium prices in rapidly growing overseas markets, it is hoped that the standard will increase sales and profits for small farmers in the region. A way to enhance this is that the East African Organic Mark can also be used on organic products verified through a Participatory Guarantee System. This is a wonderful result of the project that positions local efforts and markets in a global world.

Another example is that FAO-India and the Indian Ministry of Agriculture initiated a program for the establishment of a Participatory Guarantee System for India within a technical cooperation program for the promotion of Organic Agriculture.

You see that Participatory Guarantee Systems, through their localized and diverse nature have global potential!

Planeta Orgânico: For years IFOAM is campaigning against the use of GMO’s in agriculture. In Brazil this is quite an acute situation. How do you assess the present situation and what is the way forward for the organic movement?

Gerald A. Herrmann: Indeed, there is no doubt about the incompatibility of GMO’s with Organic Agriculture’s principles. IFOAM is opposed to genetic engineering in all of agriculture, in view of the unprecedented danger it represents for the entire biosphere and the particular economic and environmental risks it poses for organic producers. IFOAM believes that genetic engineering in agriculture causes negative and irreversible environmental impacts through the release of organisms which have never before existed in nature and which cannot be recalled. There is a pollution of the gene-pool of cultivated crops, micro-organisms and animals and of off farm organisms. Releasing GMO’s imply denial of free choice, both for farmers and consumers and a violation of farmers' fundamental property rights and endangerment of their economic independence. These are all unacceptable threats to individuals, humanity and our earth. These practices are incompatible with the Principles of Organic Agriculture (for the Portuguese version of the Principles, please see http://www.ifoam.org/about_ifoam/pdfs/POA_folder_portugese.pdf).

While IFOAM is advocating a total ban on GMO’s in all agriculture, we cannot ignore the fact that GMO’s are already in use, in some countries like Brazil, even in wide-spread use.

Informed consumers do not want GMO’s. Therefore IFOAM urges the introduction of mandatory and comprehensive labeling for genetically engineered agricultural products as it is necessary to secure the right of consumer choice. Labeling is of importance to producers and consumers of organic food, as well to organic inspection and certification bodies. This is because certain products from conventional agriculture or of non-agricultural origin are still permitted in organic production. In order to ensure that genetic engineering does not enter the organic production chain through such compounds, reliable and comprehensive labeling is needed. At the same time, IFOAM thinks that introducing a threshold level for GMO contamination in organic regulations would put an unnecessary burden on organic producers, as the level of contamination is beyond their influence. The potential on contamination of organic produce with GMO’s is really about how strict the introduction of GMO’s is regulated, and not about the organic regulation itself. At the same time I understand the wish of the organic movement to stay GMO free to all means. Our advocacy efforts, also in coordination with environmental NGO’s concentrate on bringing the problem back were it comes from: GMO’s and its proponents.

But the case is broader; GMO’s are just an example of a presently dominant concept of so called civilization that leads to loss of biodiversity and climate change. These are phenomena caused by man and the effects are closely interdependent. The ideas at the base of current conventional agriculture are standardization and intensification, best expressed by huge monocultures.

However, ecological stability is based on diversity. I observe, fortunately, a global movement from different directions coming together for the common cause of defending diversity against destructive and threatening tendencies in agricultural produc¬tion, land use and food production. A diversity of movements from gmo-free regions, consumers, those combating hunger and poverty, seed savers, subsistence farmers, women groups and so-called ‘anti-globalization’ movements struggle to overcome the daunting challenges facing humankind in the future. The Organic Agriculture Movement is part of this bigger movement that has turned to the only proven principle of adaptation to changing circumstances that natural history has provided us: diversity. IFOAM is engaged in organizing ‘Planet Diversity’, a global festival and congress of Diversity in May 2008, during the Meeting of the Convention on Biological Diversity and its Protocol on Biosafety in Bonn, Germany. In holding the event parallel to these significant international meetings, we also aim to impact and lobby the government negotiations, especially those on liability and redress for damage caused by GMO’s. "Planet Diversity" will celebrate natural and agricultural biodiversity, the cultural di¬versity of food and agriculture. Its primary goal is to discuss how farmers, con¬sumers, food producers and their communities can cooperate to enrich and defend this diver¬sity. Please look here (http://www.gmo-free-regions.org/planetdiversity.html) for further information and feel invited to take part!

Planeta Orgânico: In Brazil (and other regions of the world) the production of bio-fuels (plant oils, sugar alcohol) has become a new export-oriented business sector with a strong impact on agriculture production. How do you see the development? Is IFOAM working on guidelines for organic bio-fuel production?

Gerald A. Herrmann: I must say, I do not like the term ‘biofuels’ as it suggests to have something to do with organic. As you know, in other languages like Portuguese, organic can also be referred to as bio, biological, etc. So, for clarity reasons I’d like to promote the term ‘agrofuels’, expressing clearly what we are talking about.

At a first glance, agrofuels are very attractive, and I observe that many people really think they are. The proponents picture a sunny world where we have overcome CO2 emissions, while being able to live the same standard of living (or even higher, in terms of energy use) as we do now. However, taking a closer look, I must conclude that the most important problems that arise in both current and many proposed agrofuel schemes mirror, and even exacerbate the problems inherent in the Green Revolution models of agricultural production; High productivity and rapid profits are emphasized at the expense of ecosystem and human health and equitable rural development. Clearly any production of energy crops based on Green Revolution technologies will not meet the Principles of Organic Agriculture. Even if there were potential in terms of energy production, other effects, like environmental and social ones must be evaluated.

The extremely high land requirements to produce sufficient amounts of biomass on arable land in temperate climates such as the US and Canada, but especially the EU, call sustainability of such production systems in these areas into great question, and mean that North-South trade issues will be very important. Food security problems will increase, also in regions that one currently may consider food secure, like the EU.

The case of Brazil, which has had both the longest experience, and seems to exhibit potential for possibly more sustainable energy crop production, should be examined more in depth, to understand to what extent some of the initial problems really can be resolved, and what potential might exist to incorporate, for example, sugarcane for agrofuel production into an organic agriculture crop rotation system. If organic agrofuels are to be considered as a larger-scale development option, then studies would have to be done on the yield of various agrofuel stocks that can be produced using organic methods, when incorporated into diverse organic agriculture systems.

I think that organic agrofuels will not be rewarded in the market as ‘organic’ and so will have difficulties to compete with conventionally grown energy stocks. I see however potential in optimizing organic production systems by reusing and recycling resources for energy use through on-farm processing to increase farm-level sustainability and self-sufficiency. This again should not be competing with using vegetable by-products for making compost; the so-called ‘black gold’ organic farmers depend upon.

I wonder whether IFOAM needs a separate chapter on organic agrofuels in the IFOAM Benchmark for Standards, since we are talking here of organic plant production, and so, crops for energy use would have the same requirements as organic crops for human consumption or animal feed. To ensure that agrofuel production is sustainable at the farm level and throughout the processing phase, it should not displace or compromise food production or nutrient needs, or diminish biodiversity or sustainable management of natural resources. Crop rotation is mandatory, while GMO’s and deforestation are prohibited practices.

Many environmental NGOs and research institutions express their worries and do not support the current wave of agrofuel development. Also Miguel Altieri concludes that: “contrary to the false claims of corporations that promote these “green fuels,” the massive cultivation of corn, sugar cane, soybean, oil palm and other crops presently pushed by the fuel crops industry—all to be genetically engineered—will not reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but will displace tens of thousands of farmers, decrease food security in many countries, and accelerate the deforestation and environmental destruction of the Global South.”
We’d better listen to those concerns before embarking on something like large scale organic agrofuel production.

Questions to IFOAM’s president from Pedro Santiago, president of Organic Agriculture Organic Chamber

Santiago: What are the IFOAM plans for Latin America, since there is in Latin American an IFOAM’s representative?

Gerald A. Herrmann: Since June 2007, so very recent, IFOAM has an official representative in Latin America & the Caribbean. We are glad that Ms. Patricia Flores brings her many years of experience and insight especially when assisting in bridging the dynamics in the LA&C Region to the Head Office and to IFOAM in general. Her role is to function as “eyes and ears” for World Board and staff at Head Office to better understand what is going on in the region, but at the same time to function as our voice, so that the movement in Latin America is closer connected to our global activities. Her function enables IFOAM to be present at important meetings in the region. It reduces not only costs and time for traveling but is a means to directly link to members and to directly follow up in Spanish language.

As of now we only have the means for doing this on part time basis, which of course does not do justice to all challenges or requests. There are limits as well in terms of her mandate and possible accomplishments. Ms. Flores will work for LA&C in the global context of IFOAMs mission but and can not for instance assist in setting up a local organic market. I trust however, that with the help of the movement she can function as a central point of mutual information, and that we can develop from there.

Santiago: We often hear from certifiers non accredited by IFOAM, that there are already official organic standards in UE, USA and Japan, so IFOAM is not so strong and necessary as it used to be. What is IFOAM’s position about these comments?

Gerald A. Herrmann: Indeed IFOAM’s role and position changed over time. In the eighties we had the only global, democratically agreed upon standards. Nowadays over 60 regulations exist. This development reflects the interest of governments and intergovernmental agencies to engage in organic; it reflects to a great extent our success. But now, by introducing so many regulations trade barriers have been created and standards are not harmonized any longer. IFOAM sees its role in moderating and shaping the harmonization process and that needs a reference. We are happy to have the UN organizations for Food and Agriculture (FAO) and Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) at our side.

Being “IFOAM accredited” has apart from facilitation of mutual acceptance among certifiers merits in itself. Accreditation by government or private agencies is quite a formalistic act and paper oriented. However, organic certification bodies should be striving for more. Organic is not just like any certification business, it is part of a sector of social innovators. To stay at the forefront and to learn from others, looking for common solutions to problems that undoubtedly arise now and in future, IFOAM accreditation facilitates progress.

Another aspect is, as said, that the IFOAM norms are democratically decided upon by the membership and so, the movement owns them. But who owns for instance the EU regulation? And, when lobbying officials, with what information and benchmark are the respective movements going to inform the administration? Don’t get me wrong: there are certainly merits in official government regulations; they can mean protection from abuse of the organic claim enhancing trust and credibility but it is not difficult to predict that when organic goes mainstream a private “watchdog” gets more and more important. Civil servants and governments, how well their intentions may be, are caught in slow processes and a framework of existing laws that once decided are hard to change, even if there are new insights or methods on organic practices that deserve to be taken up. So, there is a role for the movement in keeping an internationally agreed upon document and guarantee system alive.

Santiago: What are IFOAM actions concerning the EU certifiers that would be free of some procedures that on the other hand would be mandatory to non-European certifiers? How is this issue? How would stay the position of representatives offices outside Europe of UE certifiers?

Gerald A. Herrmann: I am happy that you ask this question since there seems to be a misunderstanding on the new import regulation. Before this year, so under the old regime, all imports were based on an assessment of equivalency with EU Regulation 2092/91. There were two options: First a third country could apply for inclusion in the so called ‘Third Country List’, e.g. Argentina and Costa Rica are listed. The second option for EU approval when exporting from e.g. Brazil is based on equivalence determination by Member States of the European Union and single lot import authorizations on the request of importing companies. By the way the IOAS assisted third country certifiers with equivalence reports for general acceptance.
Now, as far as I know, under the new regime imports either have to meet EU Regulation 2092/91 (compliance) or have to meet standards equivalent to the EU Regulation. There are the following options: For compliance the EU will set up an inspection body list, which is not yet published as implementation procedures still need to be elaborated. For equivalence the regime as currently valid will stay in place, however one option is added, which again is an inspection body list. As far as I am informed, control bodies need to apply for getting placed on the lists as mentioned. The EU does not any longer differentiate between control bodies from the EU or from outside. The application procedure will be the same for both.

I understand that under the new import regulation the options to access the EU market have increased, and there are now more ways to enter the market. To get acknowledged as third country takes time and asks for the organic regulation in that specific country to be equivalent. However, not all countries have organic regulations; some prefer to have a regulation better adapted to local conditions. The possibility for operators for exporting under compliance or equivalency of their (local!) inspection body adds to the options, and potentially reduces costs as there are no external inspectors needed.
IFOAM was active in lobbying for broadening the import options, sometimes even against the position of some EU certifiers. Organic products should be traded, not for the sake of trade, but for the sake of the farmers, who, without selling their products, will not be able to convert their land to organic. Let us not forget that IFOAMs goal is global: organic for the good of our living planet!