Evaluation of the EU legislation on

organic farming
Study report




Sanders, J. (ed.) 2013: Evaluation of the EU legislation on organic farming. raunsch!eig:
"h#nen $nstitute of %arm Economics.

This study, financed by the European Commission, has been carried out by the Thnen-
Institute (Germany) in cooperation with the Oranic !esearch Centre ("nited #indom),
$orschunsinstitut fr bio%oischen &andbau (Swit'er%and), Or(ade )r*che ($rance) and the
Institute for European En+ironmenta% ,o%icy ("nited #indom)-
The information and +iews set out in this report are those of the authors and do not
necessari%y ref%ect the officia% opinion of the Commission- The Commission does not
uarantee the accuracy of the data inc%uded in this study- .either the Commission nor any
person actin on the Commission/s beha%f may be he%d responsib%e for the use which may be
made of the information contained therein-



&ro'ect
(oordinator: 0rn Sanders
Thnen Institute of $arm Economics
$edera% !esearch Institute for !ura% 1reas, $orestry and $isheries
)undesa%%ee 23
45667 )raunschwei8Germany



(ore evaluation
team: 0rn Sanders, #atrin 9ander
Thnen Institute, Germany

Susanne ,ade%, 1n:a ;ieweer
Oranic !esearch Centre (O!C), "nited #indom

<atthias Sto%'e, )eate =uber, Otto Schmid
$orschunsinstitut fr bio%oischen &andbau ($i)&), Swit'er%and

&aura .ocentini, 1%ice >e+ot, Thierry C%ement
Or(ade )r*che, $rance

0ana ,o%a?o+a, C%unie #een%eyside
Institute for European En+ironmenta% ,o%icy (IEE,), "nited #indom




)raunschwei8Germany, @@
nd
.o+ember @364


Executive Summary i
Executive Summary
Objectives and scope of the evaluation
The first EU legislation on organic farming, Council Regulation (EEC) 2092/91 in 1991, has been
identified as one important driving force for the development of the EU organic farming sector. It
provided a legal definition of organic farming through production rules and defined control and
labelling requirements. This provided a basis for protecting consumers and organic farmers against
false and misleading organic claims. Following on from the European Action Plan for Organic Food
and Farming, the original regulations have been substantially revised, resulting in Council
Regulation (EC) 834/2007 and additional implementing regulations. This report presents the
results of an evaluation of the relevance and effectiveness of Council Regulation (EC) 834/2007
and its implementing rules with respect to the objectives of the Regulation and the objectives of
organic production as laid down in the Regulation.
The study consists of three parts:
Part A provides a concise description of the
development of the EU organic sector and the world market in organic products;
support measures applied to the EU organic farming sector;
applicable organic farming legislation and its development;
model of the intervention logic of the legislation.
Part B answers eight evaluation questions used to assess the Regulation with regard to the
adequacy of the scope;
adequacy of the production and processing rules;
adequacy of the overall control system;
adequacy of the import regime;
consumer perceptions of organic farming;
degree of simplification of the current legislative measures compared to the legal framework
applicable before 2009;
creation of EU added value through the EU legislative framework for organic farming;
contribution to the sustainable development of the organic farming sector.
Part C draws overall conclusions and policy recommendations and indicates areas for
improvement.
ii Executive Summary

The evaluation covers 27 EU Member States (Croatia has not been considered) but focuses on 13
case study countries
1
to examine in detail the different aspects of implementation of measures
laid down by the legislation. The period under examination is from 2009 onwards. However, the
period since 2000 is used as a reference point to encompass the situation governed by the
previous legislation on organic farming.
Descriptive part
Development of the EU organic sector and the world market in organic products
In 2011, more than 9.5 million hectares were managed organically on nearly 240000 farms in the
European Union. This corresponds to an average share of 5.4% of the total agricultural area. In
recent years, the organic farming sector has experienced a dynamic evolution. In the 27 Member
States, the organic area has more than doubled between 2000 and 2011 and expanded by 53%
between 2005 and 2011, i.e. after the accession of the Central and Eastern European countries.
However, the bulk of this expansion occurred mainly in only a few countries: Spain, France,
Germany and Poland. A similar dynamic development can also be observed in the demand for
organic food. The total value of the EU-27 organic market was approximately 19.7 billion EUR in
2011. By far the largest organic market in the EU was Germany with 6.6 billion EUR. Sales per
capita were particularly high in Denmark (162 EUR), Luxembourg (134 EUR) and Austria (127
EUR). Not surprisingly, the EU-12 countries have relatively low market values and per capita
consumption. The current situation of organic supply and demand in EU Member States is also
reflected in the numbers of processors and importers. These are located mostly either in
countries characterised by a large organic market, a large organic area or both. From a global
perspective, the EU organic farming sector is one of the key players with a 26 % share of the
global organic area and the second largest market for organic food in the world.
Support measures applied to the EU organic farming sector
Support for organic farming is provided in a variety of different ways across EU Member States.
Most Member States have implemented specific area payments to compensate for additional
costs or income foregone resulting from organic management. Payments have been
implemented under Axis 2 (Improving the environment and the countryside) of their rural
development programmes (RDP)
2
or under Article 68 of Council Regulation (EC) 73/2009
3
(Specific
support to farmers). A large number of Member States or regions have also implemented support

1
Austria, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Slovenia, Spain,
United Kingdom.
2
Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European
Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD).
3

Council Regulation (EC) 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers
under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers.

Executive Summary iii

for organic farming under Axis 1 (Improving the competitiveness of the agricultural and forestry
sector), although in most cases with no or with only partly special provisions for organic farming.
In very few cases, organic farming is also addressed under RDP measures of Axis 3 (Improving the
quality of life in rural areas).
In some EU countries, organic farms may also benefit from (partly) special provisions in the
framework of quality support programmes under Article 68 of Council Regulation (EC) 73/2009,
as well as from contributions to producer organisations under the Common Market Organisation
(CMO) for fruit and vegetables. Besides CAP measures, a wide range of other national or regional
policy instruments exist, such as financial support for producing, processing and marketing
organic products, training, advice and information policies as well as support for research on
aspects of organic farming.
EU organic farming legislation and its development
The current organic farming legislation describes the underlying objectives and principles of
organic agriculture and sets organic production requirements. Thus, the legislation provides a
legal definition of organic farming and formulates certain objectives with respect to
environmental protection, the preservation of natural resources (including biodiversity),
application of high animal welfare standards and production methods based on natural
substances and processes. Furthermore, it defines the control and labelling requirements thereby
providing a legal basis for supply chain activities. The regulatory framework follows the general
structure of EU legislation with Council Regulation (EC) 834/2007 for basic issues and the
Commission Regulation (EC) 889/2008 and 1235/2008 for implementing rules. Since 2009 the
legislative framework has been supplemented several times, e.g. with rules on aquaculture
(Regulation (EC) 710/2009), wine production (Regulation (EC) 203/2012) in 2009, trade with third
countries (Regulation (EC) 508/2012) in 2012 and controls (Regulation (EC) 392/2013) in 2013.
Model of intervention logic
The overarching objective of the Regulation is to establish a basis for a sustainable development
of organic farming in the EU. The three global objectives of the EU Regulation on organic farming,
as defined in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) 834/2007 are ensuring the effective functioning of the
internal market, guaranteeing fair competition and ensuring consumer confidence and
protecting consumer interests. In the model of intervention logic, the global objectives have
been linked to specific objectives, which were derived from the rules on organic production,
controls, labelling and for trade with third countries. In doing so, the expected logical cause-and-
effect relations envisaged by the rules have been reconstructed.
iv Executive Summary

Replies to the evaluation questions
Methods and data sources
A range of different methods and data sources was used to gain a comprehensive basis for
answering the eight evaluation question, including:
analyses of the regulatory environment of organic farming in the 13 case study countries
primarily by means of interviews with stakeholders and an analysis of national regulations,
private standards and grey literature. These provided an in-depth knowledge of the
implementation, adequacy and effectiveness of the organic farming legislation in individual
EU Member States;
a case study analysis of the fraud case Gatto con gli stivali to understand how effectively the
control system prevents fraud;
a case study analysis of three potential suspect cases of organic products imported from
countries outside of the EU to understand the adequacy and effectiveness of the import
regime;
semi-structured interviews with EU-level stakeholders/experts to collect specific information
on the adequacy and effectiveness of the Regulation. This was supported by a review of, a
large number of relevant documents;
a web-based consumer survey with 3 000 respondents conducted in six Member States
(Estonia, France, Germany, Italy, Poland and the United Kingdom) to fill the gaps in the
literature regarding the degree of knowledge about, and the perception of the EU organic
logo;

a web-based stakeholder survey with 265 respondents conducted to collect the views from a
larger number of different actors. This information was verified through the bibliographic
research.

Adequacy of the scope of the Regulation
The scope of Council Regulation (EC) 834/2007 on organic farming covers unprocessed and
processed agricultural products used for food and feed, vegetative propagating materials and
seeds, yeast and aquaculture. Mass catering is explicitly excluded. The same applies to non-food
products (such as cosmetics and textiles). The situation is, however, less clear for a number of
non-food products closely linked to organic agriculture such as wool, beeswax or some essential
oils. The first evaluation question looks at whether or not the current scope is adequate to meet
the needs of operators and consumers of organic food.
The evaluation concluded that the scope of the Regulation is mostly adequate to meet the
current needs of the organic farming supply and distribution chain. It is not fully adequate to
meet the needs of consumers of organic products.
Executive Summary v

A basic requirement for the adequacy of the scope is that it is clearly formulated and fully
understood by the implementing and enforcing bodies. According to the stakeholders, this is true
in most cases except for the organic status of non-food agricultural raw materials (wool,
beeswax, etc.) that have been produced according to the requirements of Regulation (EC)
834/2007. For these products, there is uncertainty as to how their organic status can be
communicated on the final product. The current situation, with no clear guidance on their
certification and labelling, can lead to confusion.
Mass catering using organic ingredients is regulated in 11 of the 13 case study countries through
national and/or private standards.
4
The importance of organic mass catering varies from less than
1 to more than 10 % of total organic sales in the case study countries. There is no indication of
cross border trade in procurement and catering services of organic food. A need for a flexible
approach to the development of organic mass catering (both in public canteens and in private
restaurants) was identified, due to the difficulty of obtaining all organic ingredients used in the
preparation of a wide variety of dishes. Stakeholders expressed concern that inclusion of mass
catering within the remit of the Regulation would reduce flexibility and increase the regulatory
burden which could potentially stifle growth of the sector. However, there was also support
among some stakeholders for inclusion of mass catering. Key reasons for this were improved
transparency for consumers and greater visibility and recognition of organic products in Green
Public Procurement
5
in countries where there are no national rules. The exclusion of mass
catering from the scope of the Regulation is therefore judged to be adequate for the current
needs of the organic farming supply and distribution chain, but maybe not fully adequate to
protect consumer interests.
As far as non-food products are concerned, industry trade data suggest growth in the market
particularly for cosmetics and textiles. Many cosmetics, textiles, household cleaning products and
some other non-food products using the term organic are found in the market place. As not all
of them are certified according to a recognised organic standard, and consumers may not be
aware that such products are not covered by the Regulation, the use of the protected terms is
considered to be potentially confusing. However, including them in the scope of the Regulation
would require specific characteristics of non-food products to be taken into account making the
Regulation more complicated. There are European and international initiatives for both organic
cosmetics and organic textiles which aim to define what constitutes a valid organic claim. As with
organic mass catering, the exclusion of organic cosmetics and textiles from the scope is adequate

4
Mass catering is regulated at a national level in Austria, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, and Slovenia, whilst
private standards for mass catering exist in Italy (various), Germany (BIOLAND), Spain (CAAE), Czech Republic (Pro-Bio),
the Netherlands (Stichting EKO-Keurmerk) and the United Kingdom (Soil Association).
5
Green Public Procurement is a voluntary instrument developed by the European Commission to encourage
environmental criteria to be considered in public procurement. The GPP core criteria for catering refer explicitly to
Regulation (EC) 834/2007 and state that a minimum percentage of food which must be organically produced may be
specified. GPP guidelines do not provide further details about the potential implications for labelling or verification.
vi Executive Summary

in terms of meeting the current needs of the organic farming supply and distribution chain, but
does not fully ensure consumer confidence in terms of clarity of the use the protected terms.
Adequacy of the production rules
According to Article 3 of the Regulation, organic production is an integrated farm management
system which aims to contribute to high levels of biodiversity, preserve natural resources, respect
high animal welfare standards and produce high quality food in response to consumer demand.
The underlying principles of organic production (Article 4 to 7) emphasise the need for prevention
in preference to direct intervention for certain problems (e.g. pests, diseases, weeds) in designing
systems. They also restrict the use of external inputs. Most inputs are completely prohibited and
oblige organic producers to adopt certain husbandry practices considered beneficial to achieve the
aims. The objectives and principles are operationalised by a number of production rules, which
complete the legal definition of organic farming in the European Union. The second evaluation
question examines whether these production rules provide a good framework to achieve the
objectives of organic production and contribute to achieving the global objectives of the
Regulation.
The evaluation concluded that the production rules are generally adequate in terms of
achieving the global objectives of the Regulation and the objectives of organic production.
A basic precondition for the adequacy of the legal framework is that the Regulation leads to a
harmonised concept of organic production in the EU. This in turn requires that the rules are
implemented uniformly in national law and that Member States do not apply a large number of
additional rules not covered by the scope of the Regulation. The analysis of provisions provides
evidence that this precondition is fulfilled since all case study countries have implemented the
existing EU legislation on organic farming in national law and only a limited number of additional
provisions exist.
According to the views of stakeholders, stating objectives and principles directly in the Regulation
has promoted a harmonised perception of the organic farming concept. However, differences in
interpretation and consequent variations in national implementation in certain sectors may
hinder the full potential of the impact of the Regulation. For example, by requiring only a limited
part of the feed to be produced on the farm itself or in the same region, the Regulation does not
fully guarantee the link between livestock production and the land. Another example is the
insufficient clarity in the definition of multi-annual crop rotation which may result in the
application of short rotations.
As far as the objective of establishing a sustainable management system is concerned, there is
sound scientific evidence that organic production practices have a positive impact on
biodiversity, soil fertility and minimising water and air pollution. Some of the positive impacts can
be directly attributed to rules (e.g. ban of synthetic N fertilisers, herbicides, strict limitation on
Executive Summary vii

other fertilisers and crop protection products, use of multi-annual crop rotations including
legumes, requirement to use organic fertilisers and manures). The restrictions of input use and
the incentive to use forage for livestock also have a direct impact on the reduced use of energy,
but there are no rules directly addressing the sustainable use of energy, for example in
greenhouse production, processing, packaging or transport. The rules also have some positive
impact on limiting water and air pollution (e.g. decreasing nitrogen leaching, eutrophication and
CO
2
emissions), but there are no rules directly addressing water use (except for aquaculture) or
climate change. Some evidence is presented that soils under organic management have higher
organic carbon concentrations than conventionally managed land and thus a potential for carbon
sequestration. They can also capture more water and are therefore potentially more resilient to
extreme weather events. The rules also include detailed animal welfare provisions going beyond
most animal welfare legislation. However, the objectives of the Regulation on this issue cannot
be achieved by rules alone. Further improvement in animal welfare could be achieved through
better monitoring of the existing rules. There is no scientific literature on the environmental
impacts of organic production of greenhouses and of organic processing so judgement about
these sectors is not possible.
As far as the objective of providing high quality products is concerned, the production rules result
in lower residues in organic products and contribute to food safety, but there is so far no strong
evidence of the increased nutritional and organoleptic value of organic products. The consumer
survey, carried out as part of the evaluation, shows that most organic products meet consumer
expectations regarding high quality and protection of the environment.
The system of exceptional rules, established to allow regional differences in climate, sector
development and specific husbandry practices to be taken into account, is not fully adequate. A
definitive judgement is difficult because of a lack of reliable data on organic supplies, but for the
sectors examined (young poultry, feed and seed) the present system of exceptional rules appears
to hinder rather than support the development of organic supplies.
The GMO provisions are adequate to ensure the lowest possible adventitious presence of GMOs
in organic products. Very few cases of contamination were reported but stakeholders are
concerned about additional burdens if thresholds were to be lowered. Concerns were also
expressed in relation to future availability of certain GMO-free critical ingredients and about the
reliability of GM-free vendor declarations.
The common framework of the production rules provides a good basis for fair competition.
Distortion of competition may however occur if differences in implementation of the Regulation
affect production costs, thereby giving competitive advantages to operators in some countries.
This can arise due to a number of reasons, such as the lack of clarity in the Regulation resulting in
different implementation (e.g. fertigation practices applied in some Member States in
greenhouse production), issues that are left to the discretion of EU Member States (e.g.
definition of slow growing strains of poultry) or issues arising from stricter national rules for all
viii Executive Summary

agricultural producers including organic ones (e.g. the licensing of plant protection agents).
However, the evaluation is hindered by the lack of comparable data on costs of organic
production and intra-EU trade in the affected sectors, making a definitive judgement on the
potential distortion of competition difficult to reach.
Adequacy of the overall control system
In order to ensure that organic operators along the supply-chain comply with the rules of organic
farming and that consumers confidence in organic products is justified, an effective control
system has to be in place in all Member States. This consists of two elements: a) annual on-site
controls of organic operators carried out by private accredited control bodies or designated
public control authorities and b) the public surveillance system, which encompasses the entire EU
framework of activities of national competent authorities and accreditation bodies to supervise
and monitor the organic control system at the level of the control bodies. The third evaluation
question examines how well the control system achieves the global objectives of the Regulation,
in particular in relation to fair competition among organic farmers within the EU and consumer
confidence in organic products. Particular attention is paid to how adequately the control system
ensures organic operators compliance with the production rules, and whether the procedures of
the control system are implemented effectively in the Member States.
The evaluation concluded that the overall control system of organic farming is largely
adequate in terms of achieving the global objectives of the Regulation but with some
shortcomings in implementation.
The requirement for annual on-site controls is considered adequate to ensure compliance with
the Regulation, but risk-oriented approaches could achieve the same result at a lower cost.
However, such approaches are yet to be developed for the organic control system. Additional
risk-based controls required by the Regulation are in general adequate to ensure fair competition
and consumer confidence. In fact, stakeholders and scientific literature stress the potential of
dynamic risk-based inspections to improve the effectiveness of the control system and to reduce
costs for organic operators.
So far, however, risk-based inspections are implemented differently and only to a limited extent
in the Member States. Thus, the potential of this approach to increase the effectiveness of
controls is not fully exploited. Guidance at EU level may be necessary to ensure a harmonised
approach. This is also true for other elements of the control system that are not consistently
implemented in the Member States. Information from the 13 case study countries revealed, for
example, that the application of residue testing varies greatly among Member States and even
within one Member State. In addition, different sanctions are being applied for the same
infringement.
Executive Summary ix

As laid down in the Regulation, all organic operators are subject to the control system. Member
States may, however, exempt operators who sell products directly to the final consumer and do
not produce, prepare, store these products other than in connection with the point of sale. This
exemption is justified as being adequate in cases where such operators only sell packed and
labelled food, because the risk of commingling and incorrect labelling is low. At the same time,
the supervision system has to ensure that such retail businesses are notified to the respective
competent authorities and that the conditions for exemption are periodically verified.
No indication could be found that the distribution of responsibilities among the main actors
involved in the control system is inadequate. As far as the national system of supervision over the
control bodies is concerned, the evaluation reveals that for some Member States competent
authorities may not fulfil their supervisory role fully due to insufficient procedures for supervision
and limited resources. The analysis of the Gatto con gli stivali' fraud case showed that there may
be some deficiencies in the exchange of information between the different actors of the control
system.
Finally, the consumer survey revealed that for the most part consumers trust the actors of the
organic control system, but this is built on perceptions rather than factual knowledge which
might be due either to the lack of or poorly targeted consumer information about organic
farming and its control system.
Adequacy of the import regime
In the last two decades, organic supply and distribution chains have become increasingly globally
organised. As a result, a large number of products sold on the EU market are imported. For
farmers and consumers in the EU, it is important that organic products from third countries are
produced in accordance with equivalent requirements and that the control systems guarantee
the same level of conformity as within the EU. The fourth evaluation question explores whether
the current import regime is adequate to achieve the global objectives of the Regulation of
ensuring an effective functioning of the internal market, fair competition and protection of
consumer interests.
The evaluation concluded that the import rules are largely adequate in terms of achieving the
global objectives of the Regulation but with some shortcomings in implementation.
A key element of the import rules is the assessment of the equivalence of production and control
rules in third countries, whilst at the same time recognising that production conditions in
countries outside the EU can be different from those within the EU. The Regulation provides
three different mechanisms for this purpose. Firstly, equivalency is recognised by the inclusion of
a country in the third country list (i.e. the national organic legislation of the country in question
is formally recognised as being equivalent to that of the EU). Secondly, individual imports can be
authorised by Member State authorities at the request of an importer located in the EU. This
option was the most relevant import procedure under the previous organic regulation and is due
x Executive Summary

to be phased out in July 2014. Thirdly, EU control bodies can be authorised by the European
Commission to carry out controls in third countries. This latter approach has been in force since
July 2012.
Findings from the literature review and views of stakeholders reveal that there are shortcomings
with respect to the equivalence assessment for all import procedures. For recognition of third
countries, the concerns are related to work capacities required at the Commission in the long
term to follow up on the equivalence assessment. For import authorisations, there is the risk of
different interpretations of equivalency by control bodies and various approaches have been
adopted for issuing import authorisations by Member States. An import procedure based on
recognised control bodies addresses this problem, but this requires significant administrative
input from the Commission and control bodies need clear instructions to carry it out in a more
uniform manner.
In order to ensure functioning of the internal market, import procedures are required to allow a
smooth, continuous and timely delivery of products from third countries. In this respect, a key
consideration is whether or not the shift from import authorisations to control body recognition
creates market distortions. An analysis of the database of the Organic Farming Information
System (OFIS) shows that the number of import authorisations dropped since July 2012 but is still
relatively high. A more detailed analysis of import authorisations reveals that the phasing out of
import authorisations is unlikely to have an immediate negative impact on import flows.
However, a key question is whether the market mechanisms will function properly. Since it is
difficult to anticipate fully the reactions of the market in response to the phasing out of the
import authorisations, it is useful to monitor supply and, where necessary, take action to avoid
potential undersupply of certain imported products.
Another concern with regard to a smooth, continuous and timely delivery of products from third
countries which applies to all three import regimes, is the administrative procedure implemented
to issue certificates of inspection. Importers complain that the procedures implemented by some
third country control bodies are slow and the paper-based procedure further slows down the
process.
The adequacy of the import regime is also determined by the effectiveness of the control system
in third countries; i.e. whether the system is able to ensure that production and processing of
organic food really complies or is equivalent with the EU rules. Findings from the review of
publications and the results of the stakeholder survey provide no indication that the control
system in third countries is less effective per se than the control system in the EU. The results of
the import case study suggest that the risk of fraud could be reduced by specific preventive
measures (e.g. training for operators), risk-orientated control or residue sampling. These are still
not very common in some third countries. Furthermore, there were concerns regarding the
supervision of control bodies operating in third countries. The surveillance of recognised control
bodies has become highly relevant, when Member State authorities are no longer involved in
Executive Summary xi

assessing single imports with respect to their equivalence. More experience gained over a longer
period would be needed to come to a sound judgement on this issue.
Consumer perception of organic farming
Consumer demand for organic food has been a key factor for the development of organic farming
in the EU. For the sake of consumer protection and fair competition, Council Regulation (EC)
834/2007 lays down specific rules for labelling organic products. A key element of these rules is
the new EU organic logo which aims to improve recognition of organic products in all EU
countries and to provide consumers with confidence that organic food is produced entirely in line
with the Regulation. The use of a logo requires consumer understanding of the concept of
organic farming as well as knowledge of and trust in the organic logo. For this reason, the fifth
evaluation question examines consumers' understanding of the concept of organic farming and
knowledge of the EU organic logo and other compulsory indications.
The evaluation concluded that while the concept of organic farming is largely understood by
most consumers in the EU, the new EU organic logo and the other compulsory indications are
so far not very well recognised by consumers.
Most of the participants in the survey were familiar with the main issues of organic farming, such
as growing without the use of synthetic chemicals and genetically modified seeds and the use of
production methods which protect the environment. However, a number of the consumers
surveyed mistakenly believe, for example, that organic food needs to be produced on small
farms or needs to be produced locally neither of which are requirements of the Regulation.
Given the generally good understanding of the concept of organic farming, the results to some
extent contradict previous research which found knowledge of organic principles to be generally
quite low.
Recognition of the EU organic logo, which was introduced in 2010 and whose use became
compulsory without exceptions in July 2012, was limited. About a quarter of all respondents had
seen the EU organic logo before. A comparative analysis of the EU organic logo and other organic
and non-organic food logos showed that in all six countries except Italy the EU organic logo was
better known than the old EU organic logo. However, in all countries other organic logos exist in
the market place which are better known than the EU organic logo.
Furthermore, the results reveal that consumers knowledge about additional mandatory
indications is low. Less than 10% of the respondents were aware of the additional mandatory
indications, such as EU Agriculture or non-EU Agriculture and the code number of the control
body. The reason could be that the code number is not easy to recognise and remember since it
has no clear visual image. The respondents favoured the existence of the indications EU/non-EU
Agriculture, yet they did not believe this indication to be wholly adequate in improving
recognition. In a globalised world, many processed products contain ingredients from EU and
non-EU countries. These products need therefore to be labelled with EU/non-EU Agriculture
xii Executive Summary

the gain of information might be low. Therefore, in its present form this indication might not be
very promising in supporting consumers purchase decisions. According to the Regulation,
products can be labelled with the name of a country if 98% of all raw materials have been
farmed in that country. This is rarely the case for processed food products so by allowing only 2%
of raw materials to be from outside the country indicated, the Regulation is much stricter than
similar indications on regional food.
Familiarity with the production standards and the logo alone is not enough to affect consumption
decisions. Trust is also an important element. Although the level of trust in the EU organic logo is
relatively high according to the results of the consumer survey, the purchase relevance of the
logo is still limited. Only 13% of respondents consider the EU organic logo to be relevant for their
purchasing decisions and other organic logos were perceived to be more important at the point
of sale. This is probably due to the fact that the EU organic logo was only recently introduced and
is still not well-known.
Probably for the same reason, the majority of respondents do not perceive the EU logo as an
indication for quality. On the other hand, typical attributes of organic farming such as freedom
from chemical residues and from synthetic additives were perceived as quality indicators by a
large share of consumers indicating that the EU organic logo has a potential to serve as quality
indicator.
Simplified administration and management
The EU introduced the first regulation for organic food in 1991 (EEC/2092/91) with the aim of
protecting organic farming by ensuring fair competition between producers and improving the
credibility of such products in the eyes of consumers. Over the next 15 years, the regulation was
amended many times, until a comprehensive revision was initiated resulting in Council
Regulation (EC) 834/2007 with implementing rules and repeal of the previous regulation. The
sixth evaluation question aims to establish whether this revision of the legal framework has
contributed to simplification in terms of the administration and management of the legal
measures, compared to the legal framework in existence prior to that. Simplification is
understood here to mean the reduction of red tape for both producers and administrations by
making rules more transparent, easier to understand and less burdensome to comply with.
The evaluation concluded that the current legislative framework for organic farming has
significantly improved the transparency of the legislative measures applicable before 2009, but
has not resulted in a simplified administration and management.
Several changes contributed to greater transparency such as the inclusion of objectives,
principles and key production rules in the main legislative text, the introduction of title and
article headings and the bringing together of related provisions of the production rules (e.g.
general farm and conversion rules). Nevertheless, there is lack of precision and lack of clarity in
Executive Summary xiii

some terms. Areas where this was felt to be particularly relevant included the status of animals in
the case of non-simultaneous conversion, soil protection rules, definition of a region, as well as
the definition of terms such as irregularities and infringements or high quality. Furthermore,
the structure of the two regulations has created uncertainty and resulted in control bodies and
competent authorities spending more time on clarifying interpretations.
Furthermore, there is greater transparency in the approval process for various permitted
substances as a result of the inclusion of clear criteria in the Regulation and also through the
formation of an expert group (EGTOP) to develop evidence-based recommendations. However,
the approval process is time consuming and labour intensive and does not fulfil all expectations
of operators. Furthermore, the expert recommendations cannot replace a political process for
more complex decisions. No change was made to the approval process for permitted products
(rather than substances) that can be used by operators. This is handled either at national level or
by individual control bodies but in some case study countries there is a lack of guidance to
operators regarding what products can be used.
While there is a greater transparency, the new regulatory regime has not significantly reduced
administration and management for operators, control bodies or competent authorities, for
example, because of the need for more interpretation of the legislation. Red-tape remains a
barrier for operators to become organic, especially for small-holders. As far as the inclusion of
exceptional rules rather than derogations is concerned, stakeholders noted some limited
improvements for farmers (due to the removal of exceptional rules for feeding ruminants) and
for control bodies (due to reduced need to grant the exceptions). However, any reductions on the
side of the control are offset by increases in workload for competent authorities who are now
responsible for granting authorisations under the exceptional rules, and for the Commission
which has to approve the use of exceptional rules in specific Member States.
The EU added value of the organic farming legislation
Any activity at EU level, such as the EU legislation on organic farming, requires that this results in
EU added value which is understood here as the extra value of EU action compared to similar
action taking place only at regional or national level. In the case of the organic farming legislation,
EU added value is particularly relevant, since organic farming has the potential to contribute to
several EU priorities and is specifically targeted by EU-funding instruments. The seventh
evaluation question looks at the extent to which the organic farming legislation has provided EU
added value, over and above what would have been achieved by the independent action of
Member States or regions. Particular attention is given to the coherence with EU policy priorities,
effectiveness in delivering these priorities and to the question of whether subsidiarity is ensured.
The evaluation concluded that the legislation provides EU added value through good
coherence with EU global objectives for organic farming and other key EU priorities, and that it
is generally effective in delivering these priorities, although some linkages could be improved.
xiv Executive Summary

The documentary analysis shows that there is particularly good coherence between the
legislation and EU priorities for innovation, agricultural product quality, agri-environment,
biodiversity, water quality, soil conservation, animal welfare as well as consumer protection and
food labelling. There is also good coherence with issues related to the EU priorities for the
internal market, climate change mitigation, sustainable production and consumption, food safety
and competitiveness. Furthermore, there are some opportunities to improve coherence through
improved linkages between the legislation and specific elements of EU priorities for sustainable
use of water and market data collection.
As far as the delivery of EU policy priorities is concerned, the results of the evaluation provide
evidence that the legislation is effective in creating EU added value for environmental, climate
mitigation and animal welfare priorities. There is generally good complementarity with EU
funding instruments, particularly the CAP and the funds for research and information. The
legislation is however only moderately effective in achieving the EU priority of better regulation.
Effectiveness of the legislation could be improved by making clearer links between objectives,
general principles and detailed rules, and by translating objectives for water and energy use, and
habitat management into operational rules.
Little evidence is available to judge the allocation of responsibilities according to the principle of
subsidiarity, and it was found that the views of competent authorities differ on this issue.
Contribution of the organic farming legislation to the sustainable development of the organic
sector
The overarching objective of Council Regulation (EC) 834/2007 is to provide the basis for the
sustainable development of the organic farming sector. Although the term is not defined in the
Regulation, the legislation does make clear that a sustainable development has to be seen in the
context of the dual societal role of organic production methods, i.e. providing food in response to
consumer demand for organic products, and delivering public goods that contribute to the
protection of the environment and animal welfare, as well as to rural development. The eighth
evaluation question considers the extent to which the organic farming legislation has contributed
to the sustainable development of the sector, and whether this development has been
economically, environmentally and socially sustainable.
The evaluation concluded that, within the context of wider market influences and other
factors, the legislation has contributed to the development of the sector. This development is
sustainable, particularly in situations where there is a supportive policy environment.
Regulation (EC) 834/2007 has maintained the impetus created by the previous legislative
framework in supporting a strong EU domestic and import market for organic food, principally
through defining detailed rules for organic farming. By unifying a previously fragmented policy
area, the legislation has provided an important basis for growth of the sector. The contribution to
Executive Summary xv

market development may be somewhat weakened because some production rules allow a
broader interpretation and thus may have adverse effect on fair competition between actors in
different parts of the EU (for example the definition of region for feed and factory farming for
manure).
As far as the economic sustainability of this development is concerned, the legislation provides a
clear basis for developing organic businesses and for designing supportive policies, particularly
those funded under Member States rural development programmes. However, it should be
recognised that organic farmers decisions are influenced by a wide range of external pressures,
not just by the legislation.
Furthermore, there is sound evidence that the Regulation has established a framework which
guides farmers to practices beneficial for the environment. However, environmental
sustainability of growth in the sector relies partly on the way in which the rules and organic
concept have been interpreted, rather than being exclusively attributable to the legislation. The
environmental opportunities for the future, where the organic production rules could play a role,
include the potential to close the productivity gap between organic and conventional systems
and the opportunities for increased organic conversion of low-intensity farming systems and
holdings.
Limited evidence is available on the social sustainability of the sector's development, but there is
a clear potential for socio-economic benefits if organic development can be targeted at small
farms in disadvantaged rural areas, for example through group certification and tailored support
measures in RDPs.
Overall conclusions and recommendations
The evaluation shows that the EU legislation on organic farming generally provides a sound basis
for a sustainable development of organic production in the European Union. However, the
analysis also points to a number of areas where the regulatory framework could be improved.
Based on the description of the economic and regulatory framework of the organic farming
sector and the judgement of the eight evaluation questions, six types of measures addressing two
different fields of action can be derived: a) ensuring the adequacy of the legal provisions and b)
increasing the effectiveness of the legal provisions.
The first field of action encompasses three measures concerned with ensuring the adequacy of
the legislation, i.e. that the state achieved by the rules is sufficient in relation to the objective laid
down in the Regulation. Very few areas have been identified, where more detailed rules should
be considered at EU or Member State level (e.g. provisions with respect to organic pullet rearing
and hatchery). In many cases the rules are adequate but there is a lack of a harmonised
interpretation and enforcement in Member States. For this reason, it is suggested that more
xvi Executive Summary

guidance and clarification be provided for Member State authorities, control bodies and other
actors. For example, clarification of the meaning of terms such as sustainable use of natural
resources or guidance on how objectives like high biodiversity can be translated into
operational rules. Furthermore, there are areas where more guidance or harmonised
enforcement is difficult because sufficient information is not available. Collecting and making
available more information to support the Commission and Member State authorities in
streamlining the rules and monitoring their implementation (e.g. through the collection of
market data) could improve this situation.
The second field of action refers to rules that are judged to be adequate but whose impact could
be increased, i.e. the extent to which objectives pursued by an intervention are achieved. This
could be realised by a) changes to the provisions (e.g. by shifting from the annual control to a
risk-based control system), b) the use of certain support measures and tools (e.g. well-targeted
output-based criteria for the monitoring of animal welfare outcomes, that can be monitored as
part of inspection systems and be used by operators in self-assessment) or by c) providing more
information and capacity building to relevant actors (e.g. an information campaign addressing
consumers to raise awareness regarding the common concept, the EU organic logo and the
additional compulsory indications).


Rsum excutif xvii

Rsum excutif
Objectifs et champ de lvaluation
Etabli en 1991, le premier Rglement (CEE) 2092/91 du Conseil concernant le mode de production
biologique fut lun des moteurs du dveloppement du secteur europen de lagriculture
biologique. Ce texte fournissait une dfinition lgale de lagriculture biologique base sur le
respect de rgles de production, et dfinissait des exigences en matire de contrle et
dtiquetage. Cette base de rfrence permettait ainsi de protger les consommateurs et les
producteurs biologiques des allgations fausses et trompeuses. Suite au Plan daction europen
en matire d'alimentation et d'agriculture biologique, ce cadre rglementaire a t rvis
significativement et remplac par le Rglement (CE) 834/2007 du Conseil et ses Rglements
dapplication. Ce rapport prsente les rsultats de lvaluation de la pertinence et de lefficacit du
Rglement (CE) 834/2007 du Conseil et de sa mise en uvre vis--vis des objectifs du Rglement
et des objectifs de lagriculture biologique tels que dfinis par le rglement.
Ltude est constitue de trois parties distinctes :
La partie A fournit une description concise des thmes suivants
dveloppement de la production biologique de lUE et du march mondial des produits
biologiques;
mesures de soutien appliques au secteur europen de lagriculture biologique;
cadre rglementaire de lagriculture biologique et son volution;
logique dintervention de la rglementation.
La partie B rpond huit questions dvaluation qui interrogent
ladquation du champ dapplication de la rglementation;
la cohrence des rgles de production et de transformation;
lefficacit du systme de contrle;
la pertinence du rgime dimportation;
la perception des consommateurs sur lagriculture biologique;
le degr de simplification du cadre rglementaire actuel compar au cadre lgislatif avant
2009;
la cration de valeur ajoute associe au cadre rglementaire de lagriculture biologique;
la contribution du cadre rglementaire au dveloppement durable du secteur.
xviii Rsum excutif

La partie C prsente les conclusions gnrales et les recommandations pour lamlioration du
rglement, en indiquant les marges damlioration.
Lvaluation couvre les 27 Etats-Membres de lUE (la Croatie na pas t incluse dans le champ
dtude) mais considre plus particulirement 13 pays
6
pour lesquels ont t ralises des
tudes de cas afin dtudier en dtail les diffrents aspects de la mise en uvre des mesures
dfinies dans la rglementation. La priode dtude est prise en compte partir de 2009.
Cependant, les annes comprises entre 2000 et 2009 servent de rfrence de comparaison pour
la situation en vigueur avant 2009.
Partie descriptive
Evolutions du secteur biologique UE et du march mondial
En 2011, dans lUnion Europenne, plus de 9,5 millions dhectares taient cultivs selon les
principes de lagriculture biologique dans prs de 240 000 fermes, soit lquivalent de 5,4 % de la
SAU totale. La production biologique a connu une forte volution ces dernires annes, la surface
biologique ayant lchelle des 27 Etats Membres, plus que doubl entre 2000 et 2011. Cette
volution a notamment t marque par lintgration des pays dEurope Centrale et dEurope de
lEst avec une hausse de 53% des surfaces entre 2005 et 2011. Cependant, lvolution des
surfaces concerne plus particulirement certains pays de lUE-15 : Espagne, France, Allemagne et
la Pologne. Une dynamique de dveloppement similaire est observe au niveau de la demande
pour des aliments biologiques. La valeur totale du march biologique de lUE-27 atteignait ainsi
19,7 milliards dEUR en 2011. Le march allemand domine largement avec 6,6 milliards dEUR
tandis que les ventes par habitant sont particulirement leves au Danemark (162 EUR),
Luxembourg (134 EUR) ainsi quen Autriche (127 EUR), les pays de lUE-12 prsentant des chiffres
relativement plus faibles en termes de valeurs de march et de consommation par habitant. La
situation de loffre et de la demande en produits biologiques dans les Etats-Membres sexprime
galement travers le nombre de transformateurs et dimportateurs, principalement localiss
dans les pays caractriss par de gros volumes de march et/ou de large surface de production
biologique. A lchelle mondiale, le secteur biologique europen est lun des acteurs-cls avec
26 % des superficies et le deuxime plus gros march daliments biologiques au monde.
Mesures de soutien appliques au secteur EU de lagriculture biologique.
Le soutien lagriculture biologique est assur de diffrentes manires selon les Etats-Membres.
La plupart des Etats Membres ont mis en uvre des paiements la surface spcifiques pour
compenser les cots plus levs ou les pertes de revenus rsultant du mode de gestion
biologique. Les paiements ont t distribus au titre de laxe 2 (Amlioration de lenvironnement

6
Autriche, Bulgarie, Rpublique Tchque, Danemark, Estonie, France, Allemagne, Italie, Pays-Bas, Pologne, Slovnie,
Espagne, Royaume-Uni.
Rsum excutif xix

et le lespace rural) des programmes de dveloppement rural (PDR)
7
ou au titre de larticle 68 du
Rglement (CE) 73/2009
8
du Conseil (Soutien spcifique aux agriculteurs). Un grand nombre
dEtats-Membres ou de rgions ont galement dvelopp des mesures de soutien l'agriculture
biologique au titre de laxe 1 (Amlioration de la comptitivit des secteurs agricoles et
sylvicoles) bien que, dans la plupart des cas, les mesures ne soient pas ddies, ou seulement
partiellement, au mode de production biologique. Dans quelques rares cas, lagriculture
biologique est galement soutenu au titre de laxe 3 du PDR (Qualit de vie en milieu rurale et
diversification de lconomie rurale).
Dans certains Etats-Membres, les fermes biologiques peuvent galement bnficier de soutiens
(en partie) spcifiques en faveur de lamlioration de la qualit des produits agricoles au titre de
larticle 68 du Rglement (CE) 73/2009 du Conseil ainsi que des aides aux organisations de
producteurs dans le cadre de lorganisation commune de march fruits et lgumes. En dehors des
mesures de la politique agricole commune, il existe une large gamme dinstruments de soutien
issus de politiques publiques nationales ou rgionales tels que des soutiens financiers pour la
production, la transformation et la commercialisation de produits biologiques, des politiques de
formation, de conseil et dinformation, ainsi que le financement de projets de recherche sur
lagriculture biologique.
Cadre rglementaire appliqu lagriculture biologique et volution
La rglementation dcrit les objectifs et principes de lagriculture biologiques et impose un
ensemble de rgles de production. Ainsi, la lgislation dfinit en quoi consiste effectivement
lagriculture biologique et formule certains objectifs en lien avec la protection de
lenvironnement, la prservation des ressources naturelles (dont la biodiversit), lapplication de
normes leves pour le bien-tre animal et des mthodes de production partir de substances et
de procds naturels. De plus, il tablit des exigences en termes de contrle et dtiquetage et,
par ce biais, fournit une base lgale lensemble des activits de la filire. Le cadre rglementaire
suit la structure gnrale de la lgislation europenne avec le Rglement (CE) 834/2007 du
Conseil concernant les points sensibles et les fondamentaux et les Rglements (CE) 889/2008 et
1235/2008 de la Commission qui dfinissent les rgles dapplication. Depuis 2009, le cadre
lgislatif a t complt plusieurs fois par de nouvelles dispositions (Rglement (CE) 710/2009
pour la production danimaux aquacoles, Rglement (CE) 203/2012 pour la production viticole,
Rglement (CE) 508/2012 pour les changes avec les pays tiers ainsi le Rglement (CE) 392/2013
sur les contrles en 2013.

7
Rglement (CE) 1698/2005 du Conseil du 20 septembre 2005 concernant le soutien au dveloppement rural par le
Fonds europen agricole pour le dveloppement rural (FEADER).
8
Rglement (CE) 73/2009 du Conseil du 19 janvier 2009 tablissant des rgles communes pour les rgimes de soutien
direct en faveur des agriculteurs dans le cadre de la politique agricole commune et tablissant certains rgimes de
soutien en faveur des agriculteurs.
xx Rsum excutif

Logique dintervention de la rglementation
Lobjectif principal de la rglementation est dtablir une base pour un dveloppement durable
de la production biologique dans lUE. Les trois objectifs gnraux de la rglementation
communautaire sur lagriculture biologique tels que dfinis dans larticle 1 du Rglement (CE)
834/2007 sont : assurer le bon fonctionnement du march intrieur , garantir une
concurrence loyale et donner confiance aux consommateurs et protger leurs intrts . Dans
le cadre logique, les objectifs gnraux ont t relis des objectifs spcifiques, dcoulant des
rgles de production, du contrle, de ltiquetage et dchanges avec les pays tiers. Les relations
de cause effet attendues de la mise en uvre des rgles de production ont ainsi t
reconstitues.
Rponses aux questions dvaluation
Mthodes et sources des donnes
Diffrentes mthodes et sources de donnes ont t utilises pour obtenir une base cohrente
de rponse aux huit questions dvaluation :
Analyse de lenvironnement rglementaire des exploitations certifies en production
biologique dans les treize pays o des tudes de cas nationales ont t conduites, par le biais
dinterviews avec les parties prenantes et par lanalyse des rglementations nationales, des
standards privs et de la littrature grise. Cela a fourni une bonne connaissance de la mise en
uvre, de ladquation et de lefficacit de la lgislation dans chaque Etat-Membre;
Analyse de la fraude Gatto con gli stivali pour comprendre lefficacit du systme de
contrle dans la prvention des fraudes;
Analyse de trois cas potentiellement suspects de produits biologiques imports de pays tiers
pour comprendre dans quelle mesure le rgime dimport est adquat et efficace;
Des entretiens semi-directifs avec des parties prenantes et experts au niveau europen pour
collecter des informations spcifiques sur ladquation et lefficacit de la rglementation. De
nombreux documents pertinents ont galement t examins ;
Un sondage, via internet, auprs des consommateurs. Ce sondage a t conduit dans six
Etats-Membres (Allemagne, Estonie, France, Italie, Pologne et Royaume-Uni) et a permis de
rcolter 3 000 rponses, comblant ainsi le manque dinformation de la littrature et
permettant dvaluer le degr de connaissance et la perception des consommateurs sur le
logo biologique europen ;
Un sondage, via internet, auprs des parties prenantes, avec au total 265 rponses. Il a
permis de connaitre les points de vue dun nombre important dacteurs varis et de vrifier la
robustesse des informations issues de la recherche bibliographique.
Rsum excutif xxi

Adquation du champ dapplication de la rglementation
Le champ dapplication du Rglement (CE) 834/2007 du Conseil pour la production biologique
couvre les produits agricoles bruts et transforms destins lalimentation humaine et animale,
le matriel de reproduction vgtative et semences, les levures et les produits de laquaculture.
La restauration collective en est explicitement exclue, tout comme les produits non-alimentaires
(tels que les cosmtiques et les textiles). La situation est cependant moins claire pour certains
produits non-alimentaires troitement lis la production biologique tels que la laine, la cire
dabeille ou certaines huiles essentielles. La premire question dvaluation interroge
ladquation du champ dapplication du rglement vis--vis des besoins des oprateurs et des
consommateurs de produits biologiques.
Lvaluation conclut que le champ dapplication de la rglementation est globalement adquat
pour satisfaire les besoins actuels des oprateurs de la production et de la distribution de
produits issus de lagriculture biologique, mais n'est pas totalement adquat pour rpondre
aux besoins des consommateurs de produits biologiques.
Pour tre considr comme tant adquat, le champ dapplication du rglement, doit tre
formul clairement et totalement compris par les services mettant en uvre cette
rglementation. Selon le point de vue des oprateurs, ceci est en effet le cas, except pour le
statut des matires premires non-alimentaires mentionnes prcdemment (laine, cire
dabeille, etc.) produites conformment au cahier des charges du rglement (CE) 834/2007. Les
rgles en matire de communication sur le statut de ces productions sur les produits finaux sont
considres comme peu claires. La situation actuelle, sans rgles prcises sur la certification et
ltiquetage, peut crer de la confusion.
La restauration collective utilisant des ingrdients biologiques est rglemente dans onze des
treize pays dtude de cas par des standards privs et/ou publiques
9
. Limportance de la
restauration collective (restauration caractre social et restaurants privs) varie entre moins de
1 % et 10 % du total des ventes biologiques dans les pays tudis. Il ny a pas dindication
dchanges transfrontaliers de matires premires et de produits finis biologiques.
Lencadrement dun tel secteur requiert de la flexibilit car il est difficile dobtenir en qualit
biologique tous les ingrdients ncessaires pour la ralisation dun grand nombre de plats. Les
intervenants interrogs craignent que lintgration du secteur au sein de la rglementation UE
rduise la flexibilit et augmente la charge administrative, ce qui aurait pour impact dtouffer le
potentiel de dveloppement du secteur. Cependant, certains dentre eux y sont favorables, en
raison principalement de la ncessit damliorer la transparence pour les consommateurs et
dassurer une meilleure visibilit et reconnaissance des produits biologiques dans lattribution

9
La restauration collective est rglemente au niveau national en Autriche,, Estonie, France, Allemagne, Slovnie et au
Danemark alors que des standards privs pour la restauration collective existe en Italie (variable), Allemagne
(BIOLAND), Espagne (CAAE), Rpublique Tchque (Pro-Bio), au Pays-Bas (Stichting EKO-Keurmerk) et au Royaume-Uni
(Soil Association).
xxii Rsum excutif

des marchs publics verts
10
dans les pays o il ny a pas de rglementation nationale. Ainsi,
lexclusion de la restauration collective du champ dapplication du rglement est juge surtout
adquate vis--vis des besoins actuels des oprateurs de la filire, mais peut-tre seulement
partiellement adquate pour protger les intrts des consommateurs.
En ce qui concerne les produits non-alimentaires, les donnes sur les changes commerciaux
suggrent une croissance de ce march, particulirement sur les segments des cosmtiques et
des textiles. De nombreux produits textiles, cosmtiques, dentretien mnager ou autres,
employant la mention biologique sont vendus dans les magasins. Dans ce cas, lemploi de
lallgation biologique ou bio est considre comme susceptible de porter confusion
tant donn que ces produits ne sont pas tous certifis par un standard biologique reconnu et
que les consommateurs peuvent ne pas tre informs de lexclusion de ce type de produits de la
rglementation EU sur la production biologique. Cependant, leur intgration au sein du champ
dapplication de la rglementation impliquerait la prise en compte des spcificits des produits
non-alimentaires, ce qui aurait pour consquence de compliquer la rglementation. Dautre part,
dans les secteurs cosmtiques et textiles, des initiatives europennes et internationales visant
identifier les allgations bio valides sont en place. Comme dans le cas de la restauration
collective, il est conclu que lexclusion des cosmtiques et des textiles du champ dapplication est
adquate pour satisfaire les besoins actuels de la chane de production et de distribution de
produits issus de lagriculture biologique, mais ne permet pas de garantir pleinement aux
consommateurs la clart des conditions dutilisation des termes faisant rfrence la production
biologique.
Cohrence des rgles de production
Selon lArticle 3 du Rglement (CE) 834/2007 du Conseil, la production biologique est un systme
de gestion intgre de lagriculture qui contribue atteindre un niveau lev de biodiversit,
prserver les ressources naturelles, respecter des normes leves en matire de bien-tre animal
et produire des denres alimentaires de haute qualit en rponse la demande des
consommateurs. Les principes sous-jacents de la production biologique (Articles 4 7)
privilgient la mise en uvre de pratiques prventives face lmergence de certains problmes
(maladies, ravageurs, adventices). Ils restreignent galement lutilisation dintrants extrieurs,
pour la plupart totalement interdits, et obligent les leveurs adopter certaines pratiques
dlevage cohrentes avec les objectifs noncs. Les objectifs et principes sont traduits
oprationnellement par des rgles de production qui compltent le cadre lgal de lagriculture
biologique dans lUnion Europenne. La seconde question dvaluation interroge dans quelle

10
Les marchs publics verts sont des instruments volontaires dvelopps par la Commission Europenne afin
d'encourager l'intgration de critres environnementaux dans la passation de marchs publiques. Le critre principal
pour la restauration collective fait explicitement rfrence au Rglement (CE) 834/2007 et propose de spcifier un
pourcentage minimum d'aliments produits en conformit avec les rgles biologiques. Les guides pour ce type de
marchs ne fournissent pas de prcisions concernant d'ventuelles implications en termes d'tiquetage et de
vrification.
Rsum excutif xxiii

mesure les rgles de production permettent datteindre les objectifs spcifiques de la production
biologique ainsi que les objectifs gnraux de la rglementation.
Lvaluation conclut que les rgles de production sont gnralement adquates pour satisfaire
les objectifs gnraux de la rglementation ainsi que les objectifs de la production biologique.
Un des pralables principaux pour assurer la cohrence du cadre rglementaire est que la
rglementation aboutisse un concept harmonis de lagriculture biologique lchelle de lUE.
Ceci ncessite que les rgles soient mises en uvre de manire uniforme dans les
rglementations nationales et que les Etats-Membres najoutent pas un trop grand nombre de
rgles additionnelles hors du champ des textes europens. Lanalyse de la mise en uvre montre
que ces pr-requis sont acquis tant donn que tous les pays dtude de cas ont traduit
nationalement la rglementation communautaire et que le nombre de dispositions additionnelles
reste limit dans ces pays.
Selon le point de vue des parties prenantes, une perception harmonise du concept dagriculture
biologique a bien t promue par la formulation explicite dans le rglement dobjectifs et de
principes. Cependant, des divergences dinterprtation et par voie de consquence de mise en
uvre nationale des rgles dans certains domaines ont pu diminuer limpact de la
rglementation en termes dharmonisation. Par exemple, la rglementation ne garantit pas
totalement le lien entre la production animale et sol puisquelle exige seulement quune partie de
lalimentation soit produite sur la ferme ou dans la mme rgion. Autre exemple, le manque de
prcision quant la dfinition des rotations multi-annuelles qui peut amener des rotations
courtes. Concernant lobjectif dtablir un systme de gestion durable pour l'agriculture, des
recherches scientifiques dmontrent limpact positif de lagriculture biologique sur la
biodiversit, la fertilit des sols et la rduction de la pollution de leau et de lair. Certains de ces
impacts positifs dcoulent directement des rgles nonces par le rglement (ex. interdiction
dengrais minral azot et herbicides, encadrement strict des autres engrais et pesticides,
rotation pluriannuelle des cultures comprenant les lgumineuses, utilisation obligatoire
deffluents et autres engrais organiques). La restriction des intrants extrieurs et lincitation
fournir une part de lalimentation du btail en fourrages et pturages prsentent galement un
impact direct de rduction de la consommation dnergie, mais il ny a aucune disposition
concernant de manire directe lutilisation durable de la ressource nergie (notamment
concernant la production sous-serres, la transformation, lemballage ou le transport). Les rgles
de production ont galement un impact direct sur la rduction de la pollution de leau et de lair
(pratiques entrainant une rduction du lessivage des nitrates, de leutrophisation et de lmission
de CO
2
), mais aucune rgle naborde de faon directe la gestion quantitative de leau (except en
aquaculture) ou le changement climatique. Certaines recherches rvlent des concentrations de
matire organique dans les sols des exploitations biologiques suprieures ceux des
exploitations conventionnelles, indiquant ainsi une capacit suprieure la squestration du
carbone ainsi quune meilleure rtention de leau, ce qui permet de ce fait une meilleure
rsistance la scheresse. Les rgles comprennent enfin des dispositions dtailles en matire de
xxiv Rsum excutif

bien-tre animal. Cependant, les objectifs de la rglementation ce sujet ne peuvent pas tre
atteints uniquement par ltablissement de rgles. Des amliorations supplmentaires
concernant le bien tre animal restent possibles, notamment par un meilleur suivi des rgles
existantes. Enfin, limpact environnemental des cultures sous serres et celui de la production de
denres alimentaires biologiques transformes nont pas fait lobjet de recherches scientifiques
et il nest donc pas possible de conclure sur ces deux secteurs.
Concernant lobjectif de produire des produits de haute qualit, les pratiques exiges par la
rglementation limitent les rsidus au sein des produits biologiques et contribuent la scurit
sanitaire des aliments, mais aucune recherche ne dmontre pour linstant une valeur
nutritionnelle et organoleptique suprieure des produits biologiques. Lenqute auprs des
consommateurs ralise dans le cadre de cette valuation rvle que la plupart des produits
biologiques correspondent aux attentes des consommateurs en termes de qualit et quune part
importante de consommateurs estime que la production biologique participe la protection de
lenvironnement.
La justification des rgles exceptionnelles, prvues par le rglement au titre des disparits
rgionales dues au climat, au dveloppement de secteur ou des pratiques spcifiques
dlevage, est remise en question. Il est difficile dmettre un jugement dfinitif en raison du
manque de donnes fiables sur loffre en intrants biologiques, pourtant, pour les secteurs tudis
(poulettes, aliment du btail et semences) il semble que le systme actuel des rgles
exceptionnelles a limit, plutt que soutenu, le dveloppement de loffre.
Les dispositions concernant les OGM sont estimes adquates pour limiter le plus possible les
risques de contaminations accidentelles des produits biologiques. Seuls de rares cas de
contamination ont t recenss et les intervenants interrogs soulignent la lourdeur des charges
qui leur incomberaient si les seuils de tolrance taient revus la baisse. Dautres inquitudes
sont mises concernant la disponibilit future de certains ingrdients non OGM indispensables et
la fiabilit des dclarations des vendeurs attestant des produits sans OGM.
Le cadre gnral des rgles de production fournit une base adquate pour garantir la
concurrence loyale mais des distorsions de comptitivit peuvent survenir si des divergences de
mise en uvre de la rglementation affectent les cots de production et procurent un avantage
concurrentiel aux oprateurs de certains pays. Cela peut survenir pour plusieurs raisons : manque
de clart dans la rglementation qui donne lieu des interprtations diffrentes (ex : ferti-
irrigation utilise sous serres dans certains Etats-Membres), dispositions laisses la subsidiarit
des Etats-Membres (ex : dfinition des souches croissance lente en volaille) ou distorsions
provenant de rgles nationales plus strictes tablies par certains pays et sappliquant
lensemble des producteurs, dont les producteurs biologiques (ex : autorisations de mise sur le
march des pesticides). Cependant, lvaluation est limite par le manque de donnes de cots
de production comparables dun pays lautre et de donnes dchanges intra-communautaires.
Rsum excutif xxv

Il nest donc pas possible de formuler un jugement ferme sur ces dsquilibres potentiels
concernant les distorsions de concurrence.
Efficacit du systme de contrle
Pour garantir que les oprateurs de la filire biologique se conforment aux rgles de lagriculture
biologique tout le long de la chaine dapprovisionnement et que la confiance des consommateurs
dans les produits biologiques est justifie, un systme de contrle effectif doit tre mis en place
dans tous les Etats-Membres. Ce systme consiste en deux lments: a) des contrles annuels sur
place des oprateurs biologiques, raliss par des organismes de contrle privs accrdits ou
par des autorits publiques de contrle dsignes et b) un systme de surveillance public qui
englobe lensemble des activits des autorits nationales comptentes et des organismes
daccrditation pour superviser et surveiller le systme de contrle au niveau des organismes de
contrle. La troisime question dvaluation interroge la capacit du systme de contrle
garantir les objectifs gnraux de la rglementation, en particulier en ce qui concerne la
concurrence loyale entre les producteurs biologiques de lUE et la confiance des consommateurs
dans les produits biologiques. Une attention particulire est porte la capacit du systme de
contrle assurer le respect du cahier des charges par les oprateurs de la filire biologique ainsi
qu la mise en uvre effective au sein des Etats-Membres des procdures du systme de
contrle.
Lvaluation conclut que le systme gnral de contrle de lagriculture biologique est
largement appropri pour atteindre les objectifs gnraux de la rglementation. Cependant,
des dfaillances sont signaler au niveau de sa mise en uvre.
Lobligation de contrles annuels sur place est considre comme tant efficace pour assurer le
respect de la rglementation. Cependant, des approches orientes sur le risque permettraient le
mme rsultat un moindre cot. Cependant, de telles approches restent dvelopper au sein
du systme de contrle biologique. Des contrles supplmentaires, bass sur lanalyse du risque
et exigs par la rglementation, permettent gnralement dassurer la concurrence loyale et la
confiance des consommateurs. En fait, les acteurs interrogs et la littrature scientifique
soulignent le potentiel des inspections bases sur lanalyse dynamique du risque pour amliorer
lefficacit du systme de contrle et rduire les cots pour les oprateurs biologiques.
Cependant, jusqu prsent, les inspections bases sur lanalyse du risque sont mises en uvre
de diffrentes manires et seulement partiellement dans les Etats-Membres. Ainsi, le potentiel
de ces inspections nest pas totalement utilis et pour assurer une approche harmonise, des
orientations de niveau europen seraient ncessaires. Cela vaut galement pour dautres
lments du systme de contrle qui ne sont pas mis en uvre de manire homogne dans les
Etats-Membres. Les informations obtenues lors des 13 tudes de cas nationales rvlent, par
exemple, que lapplication de lanalyse des rsidus varie grandement parmi les Etats-Membres et
xxvi Rsum excutif

mme au sein dun Etat-Membre. Egalement il arrive que diffrentes sanctions soient appliques
pour la mme infraction.
Comme le prvoit la rglementation, chaque oprateur de la filire biologique est soumis au
systme de contrle. Toutefois, les Etats-membres peuvent exempter du systme de contrle les
oprateurs qui vendent les produits directement au consommateur final et qui ne produisent,
prparent ou stockent pas de produits dautres fins que le point de vente. Cette exemption est
justifie car elle est adquate, dans les cas o ces oprateurs vendent exclusivement des
produits pr-emballs et pr-tiquets, en raison du faible risque de confusion et derreur
dtiquetage. Dans le mme temps, le systme de supervision doit sassurer que de tels
commerces de dtail sont notifis auprs des autorits comptentes respectives et que les
conditions dexemption sont priodiquement vrifies.
Aucun rsultat na rvl dinadquations dans la rpartition des responsabilits parmi les
acteurs principaux impliqus dans le systme de contrle. En ce qui concerne le systme de
surveillance national des organismes de contrle, lvaluation rvle, pour certains Etats-
Membres, que les autorits comptentes peuvent ne pas assurer pleinement leur rle de
superviseur en raison dune insuffisance des procdures de supervision et de ressources limites.
Lanalyse du cas de fraude Gatto con gli stivali a montr quil peut exister des dficiences dans
lchange dinformation entre les diffrents acteurs du systme de contrle.
Enfin, le sondage auprs des consommateurs a rvl que les consommateurs ont confiance dans
les oprateurs du systme de contrle biologique mais que cette confiance rsulte davantage
dun sentiment gnral que dune connaissance prcise du systme. Cela est peut-tre d un
manque dinformation ou une information mal adapte des consommateurs concernant
lagriculture biologique et son systme de contrle.
Pertinence du rgime dimportation
Depuis une vingtaine dannes, lorganisation de loffre et la distribution des produits biologiques
sont de plus en plus globalises, en consquence de quoi, une quantit croissante de produits est
importe sur le march UE. Il est important, pour les producteurs europens comme pour les
consommateurs, que les produits biologiques provenant des pays tiers soient fabriqus suivant
des normes quivalentes et que les systmes de contrle assurent un niveau de conformit
quivalent celui qui est atteint dans lUE. La quatrime question dvaluation tudie dans quelle
mesure le rgime dimportation est efficace pour atteindre les objectifs globaux du Rglement
vis--vis du fonctionnement effectif du march communautaire, de la comptition loyale et de la
protection des intrts des consommateurs.
Lvaluation conclut que les rgles dimportation sont efficaces pour atteindre les objectifs
globaux du Rglement. Cependant, certaines dfaillances sont signaler au niveau de leur
mise en uvre.
Rsum excutif xxvii

Un des lments cls du rgime dimportation est lapprciation de lquivalence des modes de
production et des rgles de contrle des pays tiers, qui toutefois considre bien que les
conditions de production hors UE peuvent tre diffrentes de celles de lUE. La rglementation
prvoit trois procdures dquivalence possibles. Premirement, lquivalence est accorde
lchelle du pays, qui est alors inclus dans la liste des pays tiers (c.--d. que la rglementation
nationale biologique du pays en question est formellement reconnue comme quivalente celle
de lUE). Deuximement les importations individuelles peuvent tre autorises par les autorits
dun Etat-Membre sur la demande dun importateur localis dans lUE. Cette option tait la
procdure dimportation plus pertinente sous le rgime prcdent et elle est amene
disparaitre en juillet 2014. Troisimement, les autorits de contrle UE peuvent tre autorises
par la Commission Europenne raliser des contrles dans les pays tiers. Cette dernire
approche est en vigueur depuis juillet 2012
La littrature et le point de vue des oprateurs rvlent des lacunes dans lapprciation de
lquivalence et ce pour tous les types de procdures dimportation. Pour le rgime pays
quivalents, ces lacunes concernent la capacit de la Commission, suivre lquivalente sur le
long terme. Pour les autorisations dimportation, il existe un risque dinterprtations diffrentes
des rgles dquivalence selon les organismes de contrle et les Etats-Membres ont adopt
diffrentes approches pour accorder les autorisations dimportation. Enfin, la procdure
dimportation sappuyant sur des organismes de contrle reconnus, sattle ce problme mais
ncessite une contribution administrative importante de la part de la Commission et les autorits
de contrle ont besoin dinstructions claires pour agir de manire plus uniforme.
Pour assurer le fonctionnement du march intrieur, les procdures dimportation doivent
assurer un approvisionnement rgulier, continu et en temps voulu des produits, depuis les pays
tiers. A cet gard, llment important considrer est de savoir si le passage du rgime
dautorisation dimportation celui des organismes quivalents cause ou non des distorsions sur
le march. Une analyse des donnes du systme dinformation sur lagriculture biologique (OFIS)
montre que le nombre de demandes dimportation a chut depuis juillet 2012 mais reste
relativement leves. Une analyse plus dtaille des autorisations dimportation montre que
labandon progressif de ces autorisations ne devrait pas induire deffet ngatif immdiat sur les
flux dimportation. Toutefois, une question cl est de savoir si les mcanismes de march
fonctionneront correctement. Puisquil est difficile de totalement anticiper les ractions du
march en rponse labandon progressif des autorisations dimportation, il semble utile de
surveiller loffre et de prendre, si ncessaire, les mesures adquates pour viter un sous-
approvisionnement de certains produits imports.
Un autre point qui concerne lapprovisionnement rgulier, continu et en temps voulu depuis les
pays tiers, pour les trois rgimes dimportation, est la procdure administrative de dlivrance des
certificats dinspection. Les importateurs regrettent que les procdures mises en place par
certains organismes de contrle des pays tiers soient lentes et que le support papier ralentisse
encore plus ces procdures.
xxviii Rsum excutif

Lvaluation du caractre adquat du rgime dimportation est galement dtermine par
lefficacit du systme de contrle dans les pays tiers, c'est--dire si le systme est capable de
garantir que la production et le transformation des produits biologiques est vraiment conformes
ou est quivalent aux rgles europennes. En ce qui concerne lefficacit des systmes de
contrle dans les pays tiers compare lUE, aucune diffrence particulire na t identifie lors
de lanalyse des publications ou des rsultats du sondage auprs des parties prenantes. Les
rsultats de ltude de cas importation suggrent que les risques de cas de fraudes pourraient
tre rduits par des mesures prventives spcifiques (par exemple, la formation des oprateurs),
des contrles bass sur une valuation du risque ou la mesure des rsidus qui sont encore peu
utiliss dans certains pays tiers. Par ailleurs, des proccupations concernent la supervision des
organismes de contrle oprant dans les pays tiers. La surveillance par des organismes de
contrle reconnus est devenue trs pertinente, dans la mesure o les autorits des Etats-
Membres ninterviennent plus dans loctroi dquivalence chaque cas dimportations. Toutefois
davantage de retours dexprience sur le long terme sera ncessaire pour avoir un jugement
quilibr de cette question.
Perception des consommateurs sur lagriculture biologique
La demande des consommateurs daliments produites selon les principes de lagriculture
biologique a t un facteur cl dans le dveloppement de lagriculture biologique dans lUE. Pour
la protection des intrts des consommateurs et pour une comptition loyale, le Rglement (CE)
834/2007 tablit des rgles en matire dtiquetage pour les produits issus de lagriculture
biologique. Un des lments cls de ces rgles dtiquetage est lintroduction du nouveau logo
biologique de lUnion Europenne, destin amliorer la reconnaissance des produits
biologiques sur tout le territoire de lUE et fournir aux consommateurs la garantie que
lalimentation biologique est produite entirement en conformit avec la rglementation.
Lutilisation dun logo requiert la comprhension du concept de lagriculture biologique aussi bien
que la connaissance de ce logo et la confiance des consommateurs dans ce logo. Pour cette
raison, la cinquime question dvaluation tudie la comprhension quont les consommateurs
du concept de lagriculture biologique ainsi que leur connaissance du logo UE et des autres
mentions obligatoires.
Lvaluation conclut que mme si le concept dagriculture biologique est largement compris de
la plupart des consommateurs de lUE, le nouveau logo biologique UE et les autres mentions
obligatoires ne disposent pas dune grande notorit auprs des consommateurs.
La plupart des participants lenqute connaissait les principales caractristiques de lagriculture
biologique telles que la non utilisation de produits chimiques de synthse ou dorganismes
gntiquement modifis, lutilisation de procds respectueux de lenvironnement. Cependant,
une part importante des rpondants ont galement accord certains attributs nappartenant pas
aux dispositions lgales de lagriculture biologique tels que doit tre produit dans de petites
exploitations ou doit tre produit localement . Le niveau de comprhension du concept
Rsum excutif xxix

dagriculture biologique, globalement bon, rvl par ltude vient contredire, dans une certaine
mesure, les rsultats dtudes antrieures convenant dune comprhension gnralement limite
des principes de lagriculture biologique.
La reconnaissance du logo biologique UE, introduit en 2010 et devenu obligatoire sans exception
depuis juillet 2012, savre tre limite. Environ un quart des participants ont dclar avoir dj
vu le logo biologique UE. Une analyse comparative de ce logo avec dautres logos alimentaires
biologiques et non-biologiques a montr que dans les six pays, except lItalie, le logo UE tait
toutefois mieux connu que le prcdent. Cependant, dans tous les pays, dautres logos
biologiques existent sur le march et disposent dune meilleure reconnaissance que le logo
biologique UE.
Par ailleurs, les rsultats rvlent que le niveau de connaissances des consommateurs relatif aux
autres mentions obligatoires est plutt faible. Moins de 10% des participants connaissaient les
autres mentions obligatoires telles que mention Agriculture UE ou Agriculture non-UE et
numro de code de lorganisme de contrle. Cela pourrait tre li au fait que le numro de code
nest pas facile reconnatre et mmoriser car il ne dispose pas dune identification visuelle
claire. Les personnes interroges souscrivent davantage la mention Agriculture UE / non-UE ,
sans toutefois la considrer comme tout fait suffisante pour une reconnaissance amliore.
Dans un monde globalis, beaucoup de produits contiennent des ingrdients issus de pays UE et
non-UE. Ces produits devraient donc pouvoir tre tiquets Agriculture UE / non-UE mais le
gain dinformation reste faible. Ainsi, dans sa forme actuelle, cette indication ne semble donc pas
orienter les consommateurs dans leur acte dachat. Selon la rglementation, les produits
biologiques peuvent tre tiquets avec le nom dun pays dans le cas o 98% de la matire
premire provient de ce pays, mais cest un cas qui se prsente rarement pour les produits
agroalimentaire. En autorisant uniquement 2% des matires premires trangres au pays
indiqu, la rglementation est bien plus stricte que dautres indications de production
alimentaire rgionale.
La connaissance des rgles de production et du logo nest pas suffisante pour orienter les
dcisions dachat. La confiance des consommateurs est galement un lement important. Bien
que la confiance dans le logo UE biologique soit en moyenne relativement leve selon les
rsultats du sondage auprs des consommateurs, limportance du logo dans lacte dachat reste
limite. Seulement 13% des participants considrent le logo biologique UE comme ayant une
influence sur la dcision dachat, et les autres logos biologiques ont t perus comme plus
importants. Cela est probablement d au fait que le logo biologique UE soit rcent et encore peu
connu.
Cest probablement aussi la raison pour laquelle la majorit des participants ne peroivent le logo
UE comme un indicateur de qualit. Dun autre cot, les attributs attachs typiquement
lagriculture biologique telles que labsence de rsidus chimiques et dadditifs synthtiques sont
xxx Rsum excutif

perus comme des indicateurs de qualit par une large majorit des consommateurs indiquant
que le logo biologique UE peut potentiellement servir comme un indicateur fort de qualit.
Administration et gestion simplifie
LUnion Europenne a tabli la premire rglementation communautaire relative la production
biologique en 1991 (CEE/2092/91) dans le but de protger lagriculture biologique en
garantissant la concurrence loyale entre les producteurs et en amliorant la crdibilit des
produits aux yeux des consommateurs. Durant les 15 annes suivantes, la rglementation fera
lobjet de plusieurs amendements, jusqu sa rvision complte qui rsultera dans labrogation
des rglements et leurs remplacement par le Rglement (CE) 834/2007 du Conseil avec ses
rglement dapplications. La sixime question dvaluation vise tablir si la rvision du cadre
rglementaire a contribu la simplification des mesures lgales, en termes dadministration et
de gestion, par rapport au cadre rglementaire existant pralablement.
La simplification dsigne ici la rduction de la lourdeur administrative, la fois pour les
producteurs et les administrations, obtenue par la conception de rgles plus transparentes, plus
comprhensibles et moins contraignantes mettre en uvre.
Lvaluation conclut que le cadre lgislatif actuel pour lagriculture biologique a permis
damliorer de manire significative la transparence des mesures lgislatives applicables avant
2009, mais na pas simplifi ladministration et la gestion du dispositif.
Plusieurs modifications ont contribu amliorer la transparence telles que lintgration des
objectifs, principes et rgles cls de production dans le texte principal de rfrence, lintroduction
de titres et sous-titres et le regroupement de rgles de production connexes (exemple des rgles
de production gnrales et rgles de conversion). Toutefois, certains termes manquent de
prcision ou de clart, en particulier en ce qui concerne le statut des animaux dans le cas de
conversion non simultane, les rgles de protection des sols, la dfinition de la rgion et la
dfinition de termes tels que irrgularits et infractions ou haute qualit. En outre, la structure
des deux rglements a cr de lincertitude et provoqu un surcrot de travail pour les organes de
contrle et les autorits comptentes pour interprter les textes.
De plus, le procd dapprobation des diffrentes substances autorises a t rendu plus
transparent, grce ltablissement de plusieurs critres clairs dans la rglementation et par la
constitution dun groupe dexperts (EGTOP) charg de mettre au point des recommandations.
Cependant, le processus dapprobation reste long et mobilise beaucoup de ressources sans
satisfaire toutes les attentes des oprateurs. De plus, les recommandations des experts ne
peuvent remplacer une procdure politique dans les cas les plus complexes. Aucun changement
na t introduit en ce qui concerne lapprobation de produits autoriss (par opposition aux
substances) pouvant tre utiliss par les oprateurs. Cette disposition continue dtre gre au
niveau national ou par les organismes de contrle individuels mais dans certains des pays dtude
Rsum excutif xxxi

de cas, il existe un manque daccompagnement des oprateurs concernant les produits
utilisables.
Bien quil ait amlior la transparence, le nouveau rgime rglementaire na pas
significativement simplifi ladministration et la gestion pour les oprateurs, les organismes de
contrle et les autorits comptentes, par exemple en raison des marges dinterprtation. Les
lourdeurs administratives restent un frein la conversion pour les oprateurs, en particulier les
petits. En ce qui concerne lintgration des rgles exceptionnelles en remplacement des
drogations, les parties prenantes ont not peu davancs pour les agriculteurs (dues la
suppression de rgles exceptionnelles pour lalimentation des ruminants) et pour les services de
contrles (dues la rduction du besoin daccorder les exceptions). Nanmoins, les rductions au
niveau du contrle sont contrebalances par une augmentation de la charge de travail pour les
autorits comptentes qui sont responsables des autorisations concernant les rgles
exceptionnelles et pour la Commission qui doit approuver lutilisation des rgles exceptionnelles
dans des Etats-Membres.
La valeur ajoute de la lgislation EU pour lagriculture biologique
Toute activit entreprise au niveau de lUE, telle que la lgislation UE sur lagriculture biologique,
doit apporter une valeur ajoute UE, qui peut tre dfinie comme la valeur ajoute dune
intervention lchelle communautaire par rapport une action similaire mise en uvre
lchelle rgionale ou nationale. Dans le cas de la rglementation de lagriculture biologique, la
valeur ajoute UE est particulirement importante dans la mesure o lagriculture biologique
peut contribuer plusieurs priorits de lUE et est particulirement cible par des financements
europens. La septime question dvaluation vrifie dans quelle mesure la lgislation
europenne sur lagriculture biologique contribue une valeur ajoute UE suprieure celle qui
aurait t obtenue par une action isole dEtats-Membres ou de rgions. Une attention
particulire est accorde la cohrence vis--vis des priorits de la politique de lUE, la capacit
servir ces priorits, et la question de savoir si la subsidiarit est garantie.
Lvaluation conclut que la lgislation dgage une valeur ajoute europenne, par sa bonne
cohrence avec les objectifs gnraux de lUE pour lagriculture biologique et avec les autres
priorits cls de lUE, auxquels elle contribue efficacement, bien que certains liens puissent tre
renforcs.
Les analyses documentaires montrent quil existe une cohrence particulirement bonne entre la
rglementation et les priorits de lUE pour linnovation, la qualit des produits agricoles, lagri-
environnement, la biodiversit, la qualit de leau, la conservation des sols, le bien-tre animal
tout autant que la protection du consommateur et ltiquetage des produits alimentaires. Elles
montrent aussi une bonne cohrence avec les priorits de lUE pour le march intrieur,
lattnuation du changement climatique, les modes de production et de consommation durables,
la scurit alimentaire et la comptitivit. Par ailleurs, la cohrence peut tre amliore avec
xxxii Rsum excutif

certains lments spcifiques des priorits de lUE concernant lutilisation durable de leau et de
la collecte de donnes de march.
Concernant la ralisation des priorits de la politique de lUE, les rsultats de lvaluation
montrent que la rglementation est efficace pour gnrer une valeur ajoute qui contribue aux
priorits environnementales, dattnuation du changement climatique et de bien-tre animal, et
se rvle tre gnralement complmentaire des moyens de financement europens tels que la
PAC et les fonds pour la recherche et linformation. En revanche, sa contribution la priorit de
lUE pour mieux lgifrer reste limite et pourrait tre amliore en tablissant des liens plus
clairs entre les objectifs, les principes gnraux et les rgles dtailles, ainsi quen traduisant, en
rgles oprationnelles, les objectifs dutilisation durable de leau et de lnergie et de gestion des
habitats.
Peu dlments permettent de juger de lallocation des responsabilits concernant le principe de
subsidiarit et il a t constat que les avis des autorits comptentes diffrent sur ce point.
Contribution du cadre rglementaire au dveloppement durable de lagriculture biologique
Lun des objectifs principaux du Rglement (CE) 834/2007 est de fournir la base pour le
dveloppement durable du secteur de lagriculture biologique. Bien que ce terme ne soit pas
dfini dans la rglementation, cette dernire insiste sur le fait que le dveloppement durable doit
tre vu dans le contexte du double rle socital des modes de production biologique, c.--d.
produire des aliments en rponse une demande des consommateurs pour des produits
biologiques, et produire des biens publics qui contribuent la protection de lenvironnement et
au bien-tre animal, ainsi quau dveloppement rural. La huitime question dvaluation vise
valuer dans quelle mesure la rglementation a contribu au dveloppement durable du secteur,
c'est--dire sur le plan conomique, environnemental et social.
Lvaluation conclut que, dans un contexte o se mlent des influences conomiques de
march et dautres facteurs, la rglementation a contribu au dveloppement du secteur. Ce
dveloppement est durable, particulirement dans des situations o lenvironnement politique
est favorable.
Le Rglement (CE) 834/2007 a maintenu limpulsion cre par lancienne rglementation en
encourageant un march domestique et dimportation daliments biologiques fort,
principalement par la dfinition de rgles dtailles pour lagriculture biologique. En unifiant le
cadre rglementaire, auparavant fragment, la rglementation a fourni une base importante
pour le dveloppement du secteur. La contribution au dveloppement du march peut tre
quelque peu affaiblie parce que certaines rgles de production peuvent tre interprtes de
faons plus ou moins strictes, entrainant ainsi des distorsions de comptitivit entre les acteurs
de diffrentes rgions de lUE (par exemple la dfinition dune rgion pour lalimentation
animale et de lagriculture industrielle pour le fumier).
Rsum excutif xxxiii

Concernant la durabilit conomique de ce dveloppement, la rglementation propose une base
claire pour le dveloppement des entreprises biologiques et pour llaboration de politiques de
soutien, particulirement celles issues des programmes de dveloppement rural des Etats-
Membres. Cependant, il est important de noter que les dcisions des producteurs biologiques
sont influences par un large ventail de facteurs extrieurs, en dehors de la lgislation.
De plus, la rglementation a tabli un cadre qui encourage les agriculteurs adopter des
pratiques favorables lenvironnement. Toutefois, la viabilit cologique du dveloppement du
secteur dpend en partie de la manire dont les rgles et le concept de lagriculture biologique
sont interprts, et ne peut tre entirement attribu la lgislation. Les bnfices
environnementaux pour le futur dans lesquelles la production biologique peut jouer un rle,
incluent le potentiel de rduction des carts de productivit entre les systmes biologique et
conventionnel et la conversion des systmes de production extensifs.
La durabilit sociale du secteur nest pas vraiment dmontre mais il existe un fort potentiel en
termes de bnfices sociaux-conomiques si le dveloppement pouvait tre favoris dans les
petites exploitations des zones rurales dsavantages, au travers, par exemple, de la certification
de groupes ou de mesures adaptes du rglement de dveloppement rural.
Conclusions gnrales et recommandations
Lvaluation montre que la rglementation UE relative la production biologique fournit, dune
manire gnrale, une base solide pour le dveloppement durable de la production biologique
dans lUnion Europenne. Cependant, lanalyse rvle galement un certain nombre de points
damlioration possibles du cadre rglementaire. Suite la description du contexte conomique
et rglementaire du secteur de lagriculture biologique et aux jugements issus des huit questions
dvaluation, peuvent tre dduits six types dactions, regroupes en deux domaines qui sont
garantir la pertinence des dispositions lgales et amliorer lefficacit de ces dispositions.
Afin de garantir la pertinence du cadre lgislatif par rapport aux objectifs tablis dans la
rglementation, trois types de recommandations peuvent tre formules. Tout dabord, pour
quelques domaines seulement, lintroduction de rgles plus dtailles devrait tre envisage au
niveau europen ou celui des Etats-Membres (par exemple concernant les dispositions
dincubation et dlevage de poulets biologiques). Ensuite, dans de nombreux cas, les rgles
actuelles sont satisfaisantes, mais leur interprtation et mise en uvre manque dhomognit
entre Etats-Membres. Pour celles-ci, il est suggr de clarifier les dispositions et daccompagner
davantage les autorits des Etats-Membres les organismes de contrle et les autres acteurs, par
exemple, en clarifiant le sens de termes comme utilisation durable des ressources naturelles
ou en expliquant comment des objectifs tels que un niveau lev de biodiversit peuvent tre
traduits en rgles oprationnelles. Enfin, dans certains domaines, une mise en uvre plus
adquate ou mieux harmonise est difficile du fait dun manque dinformation. Rassembler et
xxxiv Rsum excutif

mettre disposition de la CE et des Etats-Membres davantage dinformation pour la
simplification des rgles et le suivi de leur mise uvre ( travers, par exemple, des donnes de
march) permettraient damliorer la situation.
Le deuxime champ daction se rfre aux rgles juges pertinentes mais dont limpact pourrait
tre augment, cest dire dont on pourrait amliorer latteinte des objectifs poursuivis. Cela
pourrait tre ralis par un changement des dispositions (par exemple, en remplaant le contrle
annuel par un systme bas sur lanalyse du risque), lutilisation de certaines mesures de soutien
et outils (par exemple des critres prcis et cibls de rendement pour le suivi des rsultats en
matire de bien-tre animal, pouvant tre aussi bien utiliss lors des contrles dinspection ou
par les oprateurs eux-mmes lors dauto-valuation) ou par un niveau plus lev dinformation
et le renforcement des capacits des acteurs (par exemple une campagne dinformation destine
aux consommateurs pour sensibiliser au concept UE dagriculture biologique, au logo biologique
UE et aux indications additionnelles obligatoires).




Table of Contents I

Table of Contents
Executive Summary i
Rsum excutif xvii
Part A Descriptive part 1
1 Evaluation of the EU legislation on organic farming An introduction 3
Jrn Sanders
2 Development of the EU organic sector and the world market in
organic products
15
Jrn Sanders, Helga Willer
3 EU organic farming legislation and its development 25
Jrn Sanders, Otto Schmidt
4 Support measures applied to the EU organic farming sector 31
Jrn Sanders
5 Intervention logic of the EU legislation on organic farming 41
Susanne Padel, Anja Viehweger, Jrn Sanders


Part B Replies to the evaluation questions 51
6 Adequacy of the scope of the Regulation 53
Susanne Padel, Liz Adams, Carolyn Foster
7 Adequacy of the production rules 73
Susanne Padel, Anja Vieweger, Laura Nocentini, Alice Devot, Otto Schmid,
Matthias Stolze

8 Adequacy of the overall control system 131
Matthias Stolze, Beate Huber, Jochen Neuendorff
II Table of Contents

9 Adequacy of the import regime 165
Beate Huber, Jochen Neuendorff, Matthias Stolze
10 Consumer perception on organic farming 191
Katrin Zander, Raffaele Zanoli
11 Simplified administration and management of the organic
farming legislation
219
Susanne Padel, Carolyn Foster
12 The EU added value of the organic farming legislation 235
Jana Polkov, Clunie Keenleyside, Henrietta Menadue
13 Contribution of the organic farming legislation to the sustainable
development of the organic farming sector
255
Jana Polkov, Clunie Keenleyside, Henrietta Menadue


Part C Overall conclusions and recommendations
271
14 Towards an improved legislative framework for organic farming Overall
conclusions and recommendations
273
Jrn Sanders, Susanne Padel, Laura Nocentini, Matthias Stolze, Beate Huber,
Katrin Zander, Jana Polkov, Clunie Keenleyside



List of References 295
Bibliography 297
Regulations 319
Directives 321

&ist of Tab%es III

=ist of "a,les

Tab%e 6-6F O+er+iew of e+a%uation themes and E+a%uation Tuestions (ET) 2
Tab%e 6-@F Share of participants in different consumption c%asses (in percentae) 6@
Tab%e @-6F >e+e%opment of the oranic area in E" <ember States between @333
and @366 6E
Tab%e @-@F Chanes of the oranic area per %and use cateory in E" <ember States
between @33E and @366 65
Tab%e @-4F Chanes in oranic %i+estoc? production in E" <ember States between
@33E and @363 6B
Tab%e @-DF #ey data on oranic farmin in different %oba% reions in @366 @3
Tab%e @-2F Chanes in oranic sa%es per capita (%eft) and tota% sa%es in E" <ember
States between @33E and @366 @@
Tab%e D-6F O+er+iew of oranic action p%ans or simi%ar support schemes in E"
<embers States imp%emented in @33E-@366 4B
Tab%e 7-6F Estimates of caterin sa%es +a%ues in @366 in some <ember States based
on nationa% sources 25
Tab%e 7-@F Summary of the main aruments of mass caterers in the case study
countries reardin inc%usion8eAc%usion of mass caterin 73
Tab%e E-6F &in? between the production ru%es in !eu%ation (EC) 54D8@33E and
re%ated pro+isions in !eu%ation (EC) 55B8@335 E7
Tab%e E-@F ,roduction ru%es and oranic ob:ecti+es and princip%es 53
Tab%e E-4F <anaement of the non-oranic seed eAceptiona% ru%e in @366 in E"
<ember States where case studies were carried out 63E
Tab%e E-DF 1na%ysis of the e+o%ution of the eAceptions ranted (+o%ume and di+ersity)
compared to the de+e%opment of oranic areas between @33E and @366 635
Tab%e E-2F .umber of eAceptiona% ru%es that are in use for specific sectors based on
!eu%ation (EC) 54D8@33E and (EC) 55B8@335 6@@
Tab%e 5-6F ;iews of sta?eho%ders reardin the importance of annua% inspections and
additiona% ris?-based inspections to ensure fair competition (mean +a%ues) 642
Tab%e 5-@F 1+erae number of contro% +isits of oranic contro% bodies and contro%
authorities per operator and year

(one contro% body8contro% authority per
country) 647
Tab%e 5-4F ;iews of sta?eho%ders reardin the inc%usion of the retai% sector in the
contro% system (mean +a%ues) 6D6
Tab%e 5-DF ;iews of sta?eho%ders reardin the importance of samp%in and testin,
systematic in+estiations and the definition of non-comp%iance and
sanction cateories to ensure fair competition (mean +a%ues) 6D2
Tab%e 5-2F ;iews of sta?eho%ders reardin the differences in the contro% system
between <ember States (mean +a%ues) 6D7
Tab%e 5-7F <ean +a%ues of eAtent of trust in different actors or institutions in
different countries 62D
I; &ist of Tab%es

Tab%e 5-EF <ean +a%ues of eAtent of confidence in contro% bodies and ru%es in
different countries 62D
Tab%e B-6F The different approaches and options of the import reime 677
Tab%e B-@F ;iews of sta?eho%ders reardin the eCui+a%ence of oranic standards and
contro%s in third countries compared to E" reCuirements 67B
Tab%e B-4F .umber of import authorisations per product roup notified in the period
36-36--@6-37-@364 6E@
Tab%e B-DF &ist of third countries and re%e+ant specifications 6ED
Tab%e B-2F .umber of countries where at %east one contro% body is reconised to
carry out contro%s and issue certificates of inspection in third countries
differentiated for indi+idua% product cateories 6E7
Tab%e B-7F Identified irreu%arities in unprocessed oranic foods so%d on the German
mar?et between @33@ and @366, differentiated by country of oriin 6E5
Tab%e B-EF ;iews of contro% bodies and authorities reardin the effecti+eness
of the contro% system for imported oranic products (mean +a%ue) 656
Tab%e B-5F ;iews of importers reardin the effecti+eness of the contro% system for
imported oranic products 656
Tab%e 63-6F Share of consumers i+in a correct answer with reard to the %ea%
definition of specific production reCuirements of oranic food (in
percentaeG n [ 233 per country) 6B2
Tab%e 63-@F Share of consumers i+in a correct answer with reard to the %ea%
definition of specific production reCuirements of oranic food
differentiated in the %e+e% of eApertise and consumption of oranic food
(in percentae) 6B7
Tab%e 63-4F Share of consumer ha+in seen the E" %oo before
(in percentaeG n [ 233 per country) 6BE
Tab%e 63-DF Share of answers with reard to meanins of the E" %oo
(in percentaeG n [ 233 per country) 6B5
Tab%e 63-2F &oos tested in the consumer sur+ey 6BB
Tab%e 63-7F Share of %oos reconised by respondents as oranic %oos
(in percentaeG n [ 233 per country) @33
Tab%e 63-EF Share of respondents bein aware of additiona% mandatory indications
(n [ 233 per country) @3@
Tab%e 63-5F >eree of confidence in different (oranic) %oos (<ean +a%ues) @3D
Tab%e 63-BF Share of respondents trustin in the respecti+e indications
(in percentaeG n [ 233 per country) @32
Tab%e 63-63F ;iews of consumers reardin trust in oranic food by freCuency of
oranic food consumption (<ean areement with statements) @37
Tab%e 63-66F Share of respondents indicatin the re%e+ance of different (oranic) %oos
for the purchase decision on oranic food (inpercentae) @3E
Tab%e 63-6@F Share of respondents identifyin different characteristics of hih Cua%ity
products (in percentaeG n [ 233 per country) @63
&ist of Tab%es ;

Tab%e 63-64F Share of respondents for which different %oos indicate hih product
Cua%ity (in percentaeG n [ 233 per country) @66
Tab%e 66-6F Structure of !eu%ation (EC) 54D8@33E compared with o%d reime @@@
Tab%e 6@-6F E" priorities direct%y re%ated to common ru%es in !eu%ation (EC) 54D8@33E

on interna% mar?et with oranic products @D3
Tab%e 6@-@F E" priorities indirect%y re%ated to common ru%es in E" oranic farmin
%eis%ation

on interna% mar?et with oranic products @D4


;I &ist of $iures

=ist of %igures
$iure 6-6F O+er+iew of too%s used to ather data and information for answerin the
e+a%uation Cuestions (ET) E
$iure @-6F Share of oranic area in the tota% uti%ised aricu%tura% area (%eft) and share
of E"-@E tota% oranic area (riht) in different <ember States in @366 67
$iure @-@F Oranic sa%es per capita (%eft) and tota% oranic sa%es (riht) in E" <ember
States in @366 @6
$iure @-4F .umber of oranic importers and processors in @366 @4
$iure @-DF >istribution of oranic food sa%es by sin%e mar?et in @366 and the ten
countries with the %arest mar?ets for oranic food @366 @D
$iure 4-6F O+er+iew of the E" %eis%ati+e framewor? of oranic farmin @7
$iure D-6F <aintenance payments in @366 and a+erae pub%ic eApenditure per ha in
@335-@33B in E" <ember States 4D
$iure D-@F O+er+iew of identified nationa% or reiona% pub%ic measures addressin
oranic farmin which are not (co-) funded by the E1$!> or E1G$ in @33E-
@366 4E
$iure 2-6F G%oba% ob:ecti+es of !eu%ation (EC) 54D8@33E and re%e+ant ob:ecti+es of
the C1, @33E-@364 in re%ation to the %eis%ati+e measures of the
reu%ation DD
$iure 2-@F G%oba%, intermediate and specific ob:ecti+es of !eu%ation (EC) 54D8@33E
in re%ation to its %eis%ati+e measures D7
$iure 2-4F The different types of production ru%es in re%ation to the specific princip%es
and ob:ecti+es of the !eu%ation (EC) 54D8@33E D5
$iure 2-DF &abe%%in and contro% ru%es, and ru%es of trade with third countries in
re%ation to the specific ob:ecti+es of the !eu%ation (EC) 54D8@33E DB
$iure 7-6F ;iews of sta?eho%ders reardin the co+erae of mass caterin in the
!eu%ation (n[ @72) 2B
$iure 7-@F ;iews of sta?eho%ders reardin co+erae of cosmetics and teAti%es in the
!eu%ation (n[ @72) 72
$iure E-6F .umber and cateorisation of production ru%es for different sectors in
!eu%ation (EC) 54D8@33E EE
$iure E-@F Compensation of %oca% %and-use intensity by %andscape comp%eAity 5D
$iure E-4F ;iews of consumers reardin the a+ai%abi%ity of oranic products BE
$iure E-DF Share of area rown with eAceptiona% ru%e non-oranic seeds of tota%
oranic area, @366 (ha) 632
$iure B-6F ;iews of consumers reardin trust in oranic products comin from
other countries (<ean areement with statements) 65D
$iure 63-6F ;iew of consumers reardin the indication KE"8non-E" 1ricu%tureK
(<ean areement with statements) @34
&ist of $iures ;II

$iure 63-@F ;iews of consumers reardin trust in oranic food
(<ean areement with statements) @37
$iure 63-4F ;iews of consumers reardin the E" %oo for oranic products
(<ean areement with statements) @35
$iure 66-6F ;iews of sta?eho%ders whether the new oranic farmin %eis%ation is
more transparent than !eu%ation (EEC) @3B@8B6 (@6B respondents) @@4
$iure 6@-6F E" added +a%ue test @42
$iure 6D-6F O+er+iew of measures to ensure the adeCuacy and increase the
effecti+eness of the %eis%ation @B6

;III &ist of 1bbre+iations

=ist of 3,,reviations
3%$ 1nti $raud Initiati+e
3AES \sterreichische 1entur fr Gesundheit und Ern]hrunssicherheit
1ustrian 1ency for =ea%th and $ood Safety
3$3 1ssocia'ione Ita%iana per %K1rico%tura )io%oica
Ita%ian 1ssociation for Oranic 1ricu%ture
3B$ 1nima% .eeds IndeA
3BS$ 1merican .ationa% Standards Institute
/$C )undes+erband der Industrie- und =ande%sunternehmen
$edera% 1ssociation of <anufacturers and >istributors
(33E Comit( 1nda%u' de 1ricu%tura Eco%^ica
1nda%usian Committee for Oranic 1ricu%ture
(3& Common 1ricu%tura% ,o%icy
(EE Centra% and Eastern European
(E2"(+S" Economic ana%ysis of certification systems for oranic food and farmin
(1S Cytop%asmic <a%e Steri%ity
(+S1+S Cosmetics Oranic Standard
/E%23 >epartment for En+ironment, $ood and !ura% 1ffairs
/A S3B(+ >irectorate for =ea%th and Consumers of the European Commission
E3%2/ European 1ricu%tura% $und for !ura% >e+e%opment
E3A% European 1ricu%tura% Guarantee $und
E3D E" 1dded ;a%ue
E( European Commission
E(+E& European Consortium for Oranic ,%ant )reedin
EE( European Economic Community
EA"+& EApert Group for Technica% 1d+ice on Oranic ,roduction
EB2/ European .etwor? for !ura% >e+e%opment
E+3& European Oranic 1ction ,%an
E+(( European Oranic Certifiers Counci%
EU European "nion
&ist of 1bbre+iations I_

EUE12 ,o%and, C'ech !epub%ic, Cyprus, &at+ia, &ithuania, S%o+enia, Estonia,
S%o+a?ia, =unary, <a%ta, )u%aria, !omania
EUE15 )e%ium, Greece, &uAembour, >enmar?, Spain, .ether%ands, Germany,
$rance, ,ortua%, Ire%and, Ita%y, "nited #indom, 1ustria, $in%and,
Sweden
%3+ $ood and 1ricu%ture Oranisation
%E/E2$+ $edera'ione Ita%iana 1rico%tura )io%oica e )iodinamica
Ita%ian $ederation of Oranic and )iodynamic 1ricu%ture
%B3 $(d(ration nationa%e dKaricu%ture bio%oiCue des r(ions de $rance
.ationa% $ederation of Oranic 1ricu%ture reions of $rance
%& $ramewor? ,roramme
Af2S Gese%%schaft fr !essourcenschut'
Society for !esource ,rotection
ACA Greenhouse Gas
A1 Genetica%%y <odified
A1+ Genetica%%y <odified Oranism
A+"S G%oba% Oranic TeAti%e Standard
A&& Green ,ub%ic ,rocurement
CBD =ih .ature ;a%ue
$(E3 Istituto per %a Certifica'ione Etica ed 1mbienta%e
En+ironmenta% and Ethica% Certification Institute
$%+31 Internationa% $ederation of Oranic 1ricu%ture <o+ements
$+3S Internationa% Oranic 1ccreditation Ser+ice
$21E+2A3B$( Trainin on impro+ed ris? manaement too%s for oranic inspectors
(&eonardo >a ;inci L &ife%on &earnin ,roram)
$S+ Internationa% Standards Oranisation
B .itroen
BA+s .on-Go+ernmenta% Oranisations
BS% .ationa% Sanitation $oundation
BU"S .omenc%ature of Territoria% "nits for Statistics
+%$S Oranic $armin Information System
F=A \?o-&andbaueset'
German Oranic $armin &aw
_ &ist of 1bbre+iations

&A$ ,rotected Georaphica% Indication
&A+ ,rotected >esination of Oriin
2/& !ura% >e+e%opment ,roramme
2E%$" !eu%atory $itness and ,erformance ,roramme
S3U
S(+% Standin Committee of Oranic $armin
SG3= (Company name of a >utch inspection body for oranic production)
S1Es Sma%% and <edium Si'ed Enterprises
U33 "ti%isab%e 1ricu%tura% 1rea
US/3 "nited States >epartment of 1ricu%ture






&ist of country codes _I

=ist of countr* codes
3" 1ustria
E )e%ium
A )u%aria
(H Cyprus
(I C'ech !epub%ic
/E Germany
/G >enmar?
EE Estonia
ES Spain
%$ $in%and
%2 $rance
A2 Greece
CU =unary
$E Ire%and
$" Ita%y
=" &ithuania
=U &uAembour
=D &at+ia
1" <a%ta
B= .ether%ands
&= ,o%and
&" ,ortua%
2+ !omania
SE Sweden
S$ S%o+enia
SG S%o+a?ia
UG "nited #indom
_II &ist of authors

=ist of authors
(ha-ter 1 0rn Sanders
(ha-ter 2 0rn Sanders, =e%a Mi%%er
(ha-ter 3 0rn Sanders, Otto Schmid
(ha-ter 4 0rn Sanders
(ha-ter 5 Susanne ,ade%, 1n:a ;ieweer, 0rn Sanders
(ha-ter 8 Susanne ,ade%, &i' 1dams, Caro%yn $oster
(ha-ter 9 Susanne ,ade%, 1n:a ;ieweer, &aura .ocentini, 1%ice >e+ot, Otto
Schmid, <atthias Sto%'e
(ha-ter : <atthias Sto%'e, )eate =uber, 0ochen .euendorff
(ha-ter > )eate =uber, 0ochen .euendorff, <atthias Sto%'e
(ha-ter 10 #atrin 9ander, !affae%e 9ano%i
(ha-ter 11 Susanne ,ade%, Caro%yn $oster
(ha-ter 12 0ana ,o%Z?o+Z, C%unie #een%eyside, =enrietta <enadue
(ha-ter 13 0ana ,o%Z?o+Z, C%unie #een%eyside, =enrietta <enadue
(ha-ter 14 0rn Sanders, Susanne ,ade%, &aura .ocentini, <atthias Sto%'e, )eate
=uber, #atrin 9ander, 0ana ,o%Z?o+Z, C%unie #een%eyside
&ist of eAperts in case study countries _III

=ist of e)-erts in case stud* countries
3" !obert >a%mo%in Independent eApert, 1ustria
A ;yara Stefano+a European $orum on .ature Conser+ation and
,astora%ism, "nited #indom
(I 0iri "rban !esearch Institute of Oranic $armin, Swit'er%and
/E =ei?e #uhnert
Christina 9ure?
&and und <ar?t, Germany
/G #irsten &und 0ensen
&ars =o%densen
>anish 1ricu%ture ` $ood Counci%, >enmar?
EE 1iri ;etemaa
<erit <i??
Estonian Oranic $armin $oundation, Estonia
ES &%uc <ercad(
$e%iu &^pe'
0os( <- Gi%
Centre de !ecerca en Economia i >esen+o%upament
1roa%imentari-",C-I!T1, Spain
%2 Thierry C%(ment
1%ice >e+ot
Or(ade-)r*che, $rance
$" $rancesco So%fane%%i
!affae%e 9ano%i
"ni+ersitP ,o%itecnica de%%e <arche, Ita%y
B= C-0- #oopmans
C-<- ;erwer
&ouis )o%? Institute, The .ether%ands
&= "rs'u%a So%tysia? 1ro )io Test, ,o%and
S$ 1namari:a S%abe Institute for Sustainab%e >e+e%opment, S%o+enia
UG Caro%yn $oster
Suanne ,ade%
Oranic !esearch Centre, "nited #indom

















PART A

Descriptive part




Chapter 1
Evaluation of the EU legislation on organic farming
An introduction

1.1 Bacground and aims of the evaluation
For many decades, the European organic sector was characterised by a system of voluntary
private standards and third party inspection of those farms who wanted to use these organic
labels. This changed when European governments introduced national legislation on organic
farming in the 1980s. France was the first country to introduce such a legal framewor in 1980,
followed by !ustria in 198" and #enmar in 198$. The aims of these state rules were to protect
consumers from misleading claims and creating a level playing field for organic producers.
%n response to the growing consumer demand for certified organic products, and with the aims of
protecting organic farming, as well as ensuring fair competition between producers, and
transparency at all stages of production and processing across the E&, the European 'ouncil
introduced in 1991 an E&(wide definition of organic farming with the )egulation *EE'+ ,09,-91
1
.
The regulation sets out rules for organic crop production with reference to agricultural products
and foodstuffs. The most commonly used terms in the different European countries, e.g. organic,
biological, and ecological,
!
were protected. )ules on organic livestoc and foodstuffs were
introduced eight years later with )egulation *E'+ 180.-1999, supplementing the e/isting organic
regulation. These legislative measures are understood as one of the most important driving
forces for the organic farming sector in the E& *#abbert, ,001+. The regulatory framewor
facilitated trade of organic products within and outside the E& and provided the possibility to
address organic farming specifically under the European agri(environment measure *)egulation
*EE'+ ,0$8-9,+.
#espite E&(wide rules for organic farming, internal trade of organic products was still hampered
mainly due to many different national and private standards and their implementation *European
'ommission, ,00.+. To minimise this problem, the European 'ommission
"
recognised the need to
develop common ob0ectives, a multilateral concept of e1uivalence and a further harmonisation
of inspection re1uirements, as well as to put more emphasis on the E& organic logo. %n the

1
Full references of all regulations mentioned in this report are given in the 2ist of )eferences.
!
#ifferent spellings and the terms used in other European languages were also included in the legislation.
"
The European 'ommission is hereinafter also called 'ommission.
. 'hapter 1 Evaluation of the E& legislation on organic farming 3 !n introduction

European !ction 4lan for 5rganic Food and Farming *E5!4+
#
of ,00., the European 'ommission
proposed therefore to improve and reinforce the 'ommunity6s organic farming standards as well
as import and inspection re1uirements, and specified a number of actions with respect to
standards and inspection *ibid.+. 'onse1uently, )egulation *EE'+ ,09,-91 was revised, which
resulted in the adoption of the new 'ouncil )egulation *E'+ 8".-,00$
$
in ,00$ and the
'ommission %mplementing )egulation *E'+ 889-,008 *production and labelling+ and *E'+
1,"7-,008 *import+ in ,008. This new organic farming legislation, which came into force on the
1
st
of 8anuary ,009, describes the underlying ob0ectives and principles of organic agriculture, sets
organic production standards and defines the control and labelling re1uirements. 9ince then the
legislative framewor has been supplemented, e.g. by rules on a1uaculture in ,009 *)egulation
*E'+ $10-,009+ and wine production in ,01, *)egulation *E'+ ,0"-,01,+, amending )egulation
*E'+ 889-,008.
%n view of these changes to the regulatory framewor and the dynamic development of the
organic farming sector, the 1uestion arises, to what e/tent the new organic farming legislation
has proven to be ade1uate to achieve its ob0ectives and to what e/tent has it contributed to a
sustainable development of organic farming in the E&. !gainst this bacground, this evaluation
aims to e/amine the ade1uacy
%
and effectiveness
&
of the 'ouncil )egulation *E'+ 8".-,00$ and its
implementing rules with respect to:
ensuring the effective functioning of the internal maret, guaranteeing fair competition and
to ensuring consumers6 confidence *i.e. with respect to the global ob0ectives of the )egulation
as set out in !rticle 1+
establishing a sustainable management system for agriculture, producing products of high
1uality and producing a wide variety of foods and other agricultural products that respond to
consumers6 demand for goods produced by the use of processes that do not harm the
environment, human health, plant health or animal health and welfare *i.e. with respect to
the ob0ectives of organic production as set out in !rticle "+.
;ore specifically, this wor addresses eight evaluation 1uestions that are grouped under seven
evaluation themes *see Table 1.1+. %n answering the evaluation 1uestions, the role of each of the
legislative measures applied within the organic legislative framewor is assessed. The
e/amination period is mainly from ,009 onwards. The period since ,000 is used as a reference to
cover the situation governed by the previous legislation on organic farming. Furthermore, the
period from ,01" onwards is taen into consideration to evaluate the ade1uacy and 0ustification
of phasing out e/ceptional production rules and the abolition of the import authorisations for

#
The action plan is hereinafter also called E& 5rganic !ction 4lan *E5!4+.
$
'ouncil )egulation *E'+ 8".-,00$ is hereinafter also called )egulation.
%
!de1uacy is defined here as the state of being sufficient in relation to intervention<s ob0ectives.
&
Effectiveness is defined here as the e/tent to which ob0ectives pursued by an intervention are achieved.
'hapter 1 Evaluation of the E& legislation on organic farming 3 !n introduction 7

products from third countries, as well as to conte/tualise the E& added value of the organic
farming legislation.
The evaluation itself is carried out in the framewor of the )egulatory Fitness and 4erformance
4rogramme *)EF%T+ of the European 'ommission. The programme aims to identify burdens,
inconsistencies, gaps and ineffective measures, in order to mae E& legislation more effective
and efficient in achieving its public policy ob0ectives *European 'ommission, ,01,+.
Ta'le 1.1( 5verview of evaluation themes and Evaluation =uestions *E=+

9ource: 5wn presentation.
1.! )ethodologies and methodological challenges
1.!.1 *eneral considerations
Evaluating the degree of ade1uacy of the )egulation, and its implementing rules, ideally re1uires
a+ to measure the distinct effects of the rules on the ob0ectives and b+ to have clear thresholds
indicating whether an impact is ade1uate and effective or not. These re1uirements are however
not always given. Therefore this evaluation lie many other evaluation e/ercises is facing two
main challenges.
First, 1uantitative methods using robust data would be well suited to measure the effects of the
rules on the ob0ectives. %n the case of organic farming legislation, however, such data is rarely
Theme 1 ( To what e/tent is the scope of the Regulation ade1uate to match the current needs of the organic
farming supply and distribution chain and those of the consumers of organic products> *E= 1+
Theme , To what e/tent have the organic production rules been ade1uate to achieve the global ob0ectives of the
)egulation and the general ob0ectives of organic production, as laid down in the regulation> *E= ,+
Theme " ( To what e/tent has the overall control s+stem of organic farming, from the 'ommission, through ;ember
9tates competent authorities, control authorities, control bodies to accreditation bodies, been ade1uate
to achieve the global ob0ectives of the )egulation> *E= "+
Theme . ( To what e/tent have the import rules been ade1uate to achieve the global ob0ectives of the )egulation>
*E=.+
Theme 7 ( To what e/tent is the concept of organic farming understood by the consumers in the E&> *E= 7+
Theme ? ( To what e/tent has the current legislative framewor for organic farming contributed to achieving a
simplified administration and management of the legislative measures applied to the organic sector as
compared to the legal framewor applicable before ,009> *E= ?+
Theme $ ( To what e/tent has the E& legislative framewor for organic farming created EU added value, notably by
introducing common rules on the internal maret> *E= $+
( To what e/tent has the E& legislative framewor for organic farming contributed to the sustaina'le
development of the organic farming sector> *E= 8+
? 'hapter 1 Evaluation of the E& legislation on organic farming 3 !n introduction

available. !lso, it is worth noting that 1uantitative approaches alone are often less effective for
understanding the mechanisms by which a particular provision results in the observed impact.
Thus there is a danger to measure an impact but not to understand it fully, which is described in
social science as a 'artesian trap. To avoid this, a mi/ of 1uantitative and 1ualitative methods is
often used, which may result in a more comprehensive evaluation of an intervention *)ao and
@oolcoc, ,00"A Bamberger et al., ,010+.
!nd second, if it is possible to measure the effects of rules on the ob0ectives, any 0udgement of
their ade1uacy re1uires clear thresholds to 1ualify them. The challenge of this evaluation is that
the ob0ectives of organic production and the ob0ectives of the )egulation use several ill(defined
terms and the )egulation does not suggest any thresholds that clearly indicate whether an
ob0ective is achieved or not. For e/ample, the )egulation lays down that organic production aims
to establish a sustainable management system for agriculture that contributes to a high level of
biological diversity, but it does not provide any definition as to what a high level of biodiversity
means and also does not suggest any 1uantitative thresholds that could be used.
To address these challenges, the following common evaluation approach was applied. First,
0udgement criteria were deduced for each evaluation 1uestion 3 either from the intervention
logic of the organic farming legislation *see 'hapter 7+ or the bacground of the evaluation
1uestion. Each criteria was operationaliCed by specifying several indicators and *if applicable+
thresholds as well as by defining relevant terms. This evaluation used available statistics, the
views of staeholders and e/perts, the findings from documentary analyses *including scientific
evidence where it e/ists+, the outcomes from specific case studies and surveys as data sources.
To arrive at the 0udgement these different pieces of information were subse1uently triangulated
and critically reflected following usual approaches in social science *!lvesson and 9Dldberg,
,000A 9ilvermann, ,010+. %n the case of contrary results, reasoning was given, why certain results
were given a higher priority or a greater importance than others. Finally, based on the
0udgement, recommendations were developed that show in which area the E& legislation on
organic farming could be improved to ensure its ade1uacy and to improve its effectiveness.
1.!.! Tools used for data gathering
! range of different data and information sources were used for the different evaluation
1uestions *see Figure 1.1+ that are described in more detail below.
'hapter 1 Evaluation of the E& legislation on organic farming 3 !n introduction $

,igure 1.1( 5verview of tools used to gather data and information for answering the
evaluation 1uestions *E=+

9ource: 5wn presentation.
-ational case studies
%n order to gain an in(depth nowledge of the implementation and ade1uacy of the organic
farming legislation in individual ;ember 9tates, national data was collected in 1" E& ;ember
9tates *!ustria, Bulgaria, 'Cech )epublic, #enmar, Estonia, France, Eermany, %taly, Fetherlands,
4oland, 9lovenia, 9pain, &nited Gingdom+. The choice of countries reflects a+ different siCes of the
national organic sector *share of organic land area, share of organic farms+, b+ different maret
shares *total and per capita+, c+ different certification and control systems, and d+ a balanced
representation of E&(17 and E&(1, ;ember 9tates.
.

#ata collection included:
national documents such as regulations, selected private standards, national scientific and
grey literature and documents describing the set(up of the national control systemA

.
9ince the evaluation started in ,01,, 'roatia has not been considered.
E/ 1 E/ ! E/ " E/ # E/ $ E/ % E/ & E/ .
9
c
o
p
e
4
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
r
u
l
e
s
'
o
n
t
r
o
l
s
y
s
t
e
m
%
m
p
o
r
t
r
e
g
i
m
e
'
o
n
s
u
m
e
r
p
e
r
c
e
p
t
i
o
n
9
i
m
p
l
i
(
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
E
&
(
a
d
d
e
d
v
a
l
u
e
9
u
s
t
a
i
n
.
#
e
v
e
l
o
p
.
)eview of documents
#ata gathering
%nterviews
5ther relevant legislations
4rivate standards
E& or national policy documents
9cientific publications
Consumer surve+
-ational case studies
,raud case stud+
0mport case stud+
Documentar+ anal+sis
1emi2structured intervie3s
1taeholder surve+
8 'hapter 1 Evaluation of the E& legislation on organic farming 3 !n introduction

semi(structured interviews with national organic staeholders
4
to gather their views in
relation to the scope of the )egulation, implementation of the rules in certain production
sectors, control system, potentials for simplification, E& added value of the )egulation and
sustainable development of the organic sectorA
data and information on a+ E;5 contamination and availability of E;5(free additives,
b+ certification and control systems and c+ products labelled as organic in the maret
originating from non(food scopes.
,raud case stud+
%n order to understand how effective the control system prevents fraud, and thus ensures
consumer confidence and fair competition on the organic maretplace, information and data
have been collected about the fraud case 6Eatto con gli stivali6 affecting a number of E& ;ember
9tates. HEatto con gli stivali6 was one of the largest fraud cases in the E& concerning organic
products covered by the E& legislation. !ppro/imately $0" 000 tons of falsely(labelled
conventional products were sold as organic, corresponding with an estimated financial damage
of around ,,0 million E&).
%n a first step, ey deficiencies were identified, described and related to the responsibilities of
relevant actors of the control system *control bodies, competent authorities, accreditation
bodies, E& 'ommission+, by analysing:
several public documents such as press releases, press reports and case summaries, as well as
material from two worshops
15
organised to analyse and discuss the causes and
conse1uences of the fraud caseA
several unpublished internal documents *minutes from meetings, internal communications+
e/changed between operators, control bodies and authorities in different E& ;ember 9tates
and email e/changes on the fraud caseA
interviews with staeholders *representatives of the %talian fiscal police, control bodies,
competent authorities and operators in different ;ember 9tates of the European &nion+.
To identify which results of the case studies are specific to the fraud case and which results can
be generalised, in a second step, personal or telephone interviews and email consultations were
conducted with ey(actors from the European 5rganic 'ertifiers 'ouncil *E5''+, %talian

4
%n total ,.? interviews were carried out with representatives of the following target groups: competent authorities,
authority for-ministry of agriculture, authority for-ministry of environment, authority for-ministry of consumers affairs,
organic producer organiCation, farm advisor, scientist, control bodies, environmental FE5, organic retailer, organic
mass caterer, companies dealing with cosmetics-te/tiles, product(specific business groups, product(specific wholesaler,
trader or processor.
15
B2E(E/pert(@orshop: H4otentials for improvement of the control system6 in Bonn *#E+ in ;arch ,01,A !F%-FE#E)B%5
worshop: 6The maing of cats in bootsH in Bologna *%T+ in 9eptember ,01,.
'hapter 1 Evaluation of the E& legislation on organic farming 3 !n introduction 9

Federation of 5rganic and Biodynamic !griculture *FE#E)B%5+, %F5!; E& Eroup, competent
authorities of different ;ember 9tates *!ustria, Eermany, %taly) and representatives of the E&
'ommission.
0mport case stud+
The import case(study was carried out to understand the ade1uacy and effectiveness of a+ the
procedures set(out in the import regime, b+ the supervision of recognised control bodies and
control authorities and c+ the control measures applied and the control system in place in third
countries. Three relevant cases of organic products imported from countries outside of the
European &nion were chosen for the case study: 5rganic bananas from 2atin !merica, organic
soybeans from 9outh(Eastern Europe and organic tea from !sia. The three products were
selected, because they all were affected by fre1uently occurring residue cases *pesticides, E;5s+
in the years ,010 to ,01, and all three were of high maret importance.
%n a first step, based on internal documents of a control body, three e/emplary suspect cases
under the current import regime were analysed, with regard to ey deficiencies of the control
system currently implemented in third countries, the supervision currently taing place and the
procedures of the applied import regime.
%n a second step, the results of the analysis were discussed and reflected with ey(e/perts and
staeholders involved in controls and trade with organic products from third countries.
Furthermore, preventive measures addressing potential riss associated to imported products
were derived as well as targeted control measures that could be implemented by control bodies
during their control visits in third countries.
Documentar+ anal+sis 6in addition to case studies7
%n addition to documents analysed and reviewed in the case studies, a large number of further
documents were reviewed, such as:
)egulation *E'+ 8".-,00$, )egulation *E'+ 889-,008 and )egulation *E'+ 1,"7-,008A
international standards for te/tiles and cosmetics *E5T9, %95, Fature, '59;59+, as well as E&
regulations on te/tiles, cosmetics and eco(labelsA
scientific publications on the impact of organic production rules on the environment and
animal welfareA
publications on the effectiveness of *organic+ certification systems, including material
provided from the 'ommission with respect to ;ember 9tate and staeholder responses to
the 'ommission survey on the application of 'ouncil )egulation *E'+ 8".-,00$, as well as
publication and internal woring documents of the E&(funded research pro0ect 'E)T'59T
publications dealing with the E& import regime for organic productsA
10 'hapter 1 Evaluation of the E& legislation on organic farming 3 !n introduction

published studies that deal with the recognition of the new E& logo by consumers, as well as
material from the 'E)T'59T(pro0ect on product labelling and willingness(to(payA
documents, academic articles and policy studies that a+ deal with relevant E& priorities and
strategies, b+ address impacts of organic farming relating to E& priority areas or c+ focus on
the sustainable development of the organic sector.
1emi2structured intervie3s 6in addition to case studies7
%n addition to interviews carried out in the case studies, additional ey persons were interviewed
to collect specific information on the ade1uacy and effectiveness of the )egulation. %nterviews
were carried out with:
representatives of the European 'ommission #E !griculture and )ural #evelopment *5rganic
Farming &nit+ to get insights on a+ the import regime *approval of third countries, approval of
control bodies, follow(up in case of imported products which do not comply with the rules+,
b+ control system *supervision and e/change of information with ;ember 9tates+, c+
production rules *sustainable management, e/ceptional rules+ and d+ the results of the %rish
4residency =uestionnaire on 'ouncil )egulation *E'+ 8".-,00$ on organic production and
labelling of organic productsA
importers to e/amine the effectiveness of the import regime. ! special focus was laid on the
1uestion whether there is any difference e/perienced so far between the old and the new
import system, as well as on the 1uestion whether there are differences perceived between
products imported from countries listed on the Third 'ountry 2ist and products from countries
not listedA
control bodies already approved under the revised import scheme, to get an insight in first
e/perience with the new import system and to cross(chec the results gathered so farA
representative of &F'T!#, to e/amine the effectiveness of the import regime and crosschec
results from the analysisA
members of the E& E/pert Eroup for Technical !dvice on 5rganic 4roduction *EET54+ to
e/plore the potential of further simplification of selected rules.
1taeholder surve+
%n order to collect the views from a larger number of different actors and to verify information
gained through the bibliographic research, a web(based staeholder survey was conducted. The
1uestionnaire included closed and open 1uestions. For the survey, two e/isting address
databases *maintained by FiB2 and by the !nti(Fraud %nitiative+ of 1.0,7 staeholders were used.
%n total, ,?7 staeholders responded to the staeholder survey, which corresponds to a response
rate of ,? I. ! ma0ority of the responses came from Eermany *$7 responses+, %taly *"8+, the &G
*19+, !ustria *18+, 'Cech )epublic *17+, Belgium *17+, France *1"+ and the Fetherlands *10+. !bout
one(1uarter of respondents were representatives of control bodies or control authorities
'hapter 1 Evaluation of the E& legislation on organic farming 3 !n introduction 11

respectively, and another 1uarter from organic operators. The staeholder survey was mainly
used to:
gather data about the ade1uacy and effectiveness of the organic control system and the
impacts of e/ceptionsA
assess whether the procedures of the import regulation from third countries represent
administrative barriers for E& companiesA
e/plore whether procedures of the import regime are ade1uate and effective to assure
conformity of organic products imported from third countries with E& re1uirementsA
gather views from staeholders on the ade1uacy of the scope of the )egulation and the
degree of simplification achieved by the current legislative framewor as compared to the
legal framewor applicable before ,009.
Consumer surve+
%n order to fill the gaps in the literature regarding the degree of nowledge on, and the
perception of the E& organic logo, a web(based consumer survey was conducted in si/ ;ember
9tates. =uestions covered nowledge of organic farming, recognition and nowledge of the E&
logo and the compulsory indications, their contribution to ensuring consumer confidence and
related attitudes. The selection of study countries too maret siCe and different organic
Hlabelling traditions6 into account and included ;ember 9tates where a+ the old European logo
was the most important organic logo and no well(nown national logos e/ist *%taly and 4oland+, b+
countries where the old E& logo was used additionally to an important national logo *Estonia and
France+ and c+ countries where the old E& logo was of minor relevance and well(established
national logos e/ist which are appreciated by consumers *Eermany and &G+ *see e.g. 4adel, ,010
for details+.
The recruitment of participants was conducted by one maret research agency in all si/ countries.
%n total, " 000 interviews were included in the analysis, 700 in each study country. ! gender
1uota was set in advance to one third men and two third women, which is fre1uently observed
when analysing food purchase behaviour *9piller et al., ,00.A Jander and Kamm, ,010+. The age
of the participants was between 18 and $7 years. 5n average, about one fifth of the respondents
stated that they never or almost never buy organic food. !bout half of them buy organic food
occasionally and about "0 I buy organic food regularly, at least once per wee *Table 1.,+.

1, 'hapter 1 Evaluation of the E& legislation on organic farming 3 !n introduction

Ta'le 1.!( 9hare of participants in different consumption classes *in percentage+

9ource: 5wn presentation based on the results of the consumer survey.
1." 1tructure of the evaluation report
This evaluation report is divided into three parts: a+ descriptive part, b+ answers to the eight
evaluation 1uestions and c+ overall conclusions and recommendations.
4art ! *descriptive part7 provides a concise description of the development of the E& organic
sector in the conte/t of the world maret of organic products *'hapter "+, support measures
applied to the E& organic farming sector *'hapter .+ and the applicable organic farming
legislation and its development. The descriptive part includes also a model of the intervention
logic of the )egulation, showing the relationship between the legislative measures, the e/pected
impacts, the ob0ectives of the measures, and the ob0ectives of the legislation as a whole and in
relation to other relevant policies *'hapter 7+.
%n 4art B *replies to the eight evaluation 8uestions+, the ade1uacy of the scope of the )egulation
*'hapter ?+, the production and processing rules *'hapter $+, the overall control system *'hapter
8+ and the import regime *'hapter 9+ is e/amined. Furthermore, the consumer nowledge about
the concept of organic farming *'hapter 10+ and the degree of simplification of the current
legislative measures compared to the legal framewor applicable before ,009 *'hapter 11+ is
analysed. !t the end of 4art B, two overarching issues of the )egulation are addressed: the
creation of E& added value through the legislative framewor for organic farming at E& level
*'hapter 1,+ and the contribution of the )egulation to the sustainable development of the
organic farming sector *'hapter 1"+. The answer to each evaluation 1uestion includes a
description of the conte/t of the 1uestion, the 0udgement criteria and data sources used, a
detailed description of the results including the reasoning followed in the analysis, as well as the
resulting 0udgement for each 1uestion.

All DE EE ,R 0T P9 U:
-on2organic consumers 21 19 20 24 19 17 25
never-almost never 21 19 20 24 19 17 25
;ccasional organic consumers 50 40 57 51 52 54 48
less than once per month 20 16 23 22 19 20 19
about once or twice per month 31 24 35 29 33 34 29
Regular organic consumers 29 41 22 26 29 29 26
about once per wee 22 31 16 20 23 21 22
several times per wee 7 10 6 6 6 9 5
Question: How often do you buy organic food?
'hapter 1 Evaluation of the E& legislation on organic farming 3 !n introduction 1"

%n 4art ', overall conclusions and polic+ recommendations are presented *'hapter 1.+ based on
the descriptive part and the answers to all evaluation 1uestions. The overall conclusions indicate
in which way the e/isting legislative framewor could be further developed to ensure that the
ob0ectives of the )egulation and the ob0ectives of organic production are achieved in an
ade1uate and effective way.



Chapter 2
Development of the EU organic sector and the world market
in organic products

2.1 The EU organic production
Organic production in the EU
In 2011, more than 9.5 million hectares were managed organically on nearly 240 000 farms in the
European Union. his corresponds to an a!erage share of 5.4 " of the total agricultural area. #s
indicated in $igure 2.1 %right&, the largest organic area is located in 'pain with a share of 1(.0 " of
EU)2( total organic area, followed *y Italy %11.5 "& and +ermany %10.( "&. In relation to the share
of organic area in the total agricultural area of a ,em*er 'tates %$igure 2.1, left&, #ustria is the
leading country within the EU with a share of nearly 20 " in 2011. # relati!ely high share was also
o*ser!ed in 'weden %15.4 "&, Estonia %14.- "& and the ./ech 0epu*lic %10.- "&. 1n the other
hand, the relati!e importance is rather low in ,alta, 2ulgaria, Ireland, 0omania, the 3etherlands,
.yprus, 4u5em*ourg and 6ungary with a share of less than 7 " in the total U##.
.orresponding to the distri*ution of the organic area in the EU, most organic producers are
located in the two ,editerranean EU countries Italy %appro5imately 42.000 holdings& and 'pain
%appro5imately 72.200 holdings&. .ountries each with more than 20.000 organic farms are
8oland, $rance, +ermany, #ustria and +reece. #ppro5imately -0 " of all organic farms in the EU
are located in these se!en ,em*er 'tates.
#n a!erage share of 5.4 " of the organic area in the total U## illustrates that the o!erall si/e of
the organic farming industry is still rather small at EU le!el. 6owe!er, what ma9es the sector !ery
interesting is the dynamic de!elopment in the last decade. In all 2( ,em*er 'tates as a whole
the organic area has more than dou*led *etween 2000 and 2011 and e5panded *y 57 " *etween
2005 and 2011, i.e. after the accession of the .entral and Eastern European countries %see a*le
2.1&. he num*er of organic holdings increased in these two periods on a!erage *y (5 " %2000 :
2011& and 45 " %2005 : 2011&, respecti!ely. he a!erage farm si/e of the EU)2( ,em*er 'tates
increased from 71 ha to 40 ha *etween 2000 and 2011.
1; .hapter 2 <e!elopment of the EU organic sector and the world mar9et in organic products
Figure 2.1 'hare of organic area in the total utilised agricultural area %left& and share of EU)
2( total organic area %right& in different ,em*er 'tates in 2011


'ource= 1wn presentation *ased on data from the 1rganic<ata3etwor9 'ur!ey.
1

#lthough there has *een a common regulatory framewor9 for organic producers and a single
mar9et for organic products, the de!elopment of organic farming differs su*stantially *etween
,em*er 'tates. he organic land area grew particularly in 'pain %>1.240.9(- ha& as well as in
8oland %>5-(.412 ha&, $rance %>;05.20- ha& and +ermany %>4;9.;07 ha&. In relati!e terms,
highest growths rates were o*ser!ed particularly in +reece and some of the EU)12 countries
%.yprus, 2ulgaria, 4at!ia, 4ithuania, 8oland, Estonia and 0omania&, al*eit ) apart from 8oland :
from a !ery low a*solute le!el. 1n the other hand, the organic land area grew only moderately in
<enmar9 and Italy. It seems that *oth countries ha!e reached a certain plateau with only limited
potential for further growth if framewor9 conditions are not changed. In the case of .yprus,
2ulgaria, 4ithuania, 8oland, Estonia and 0omania, high growth rates were also o*ser!ed in the
period 2005 to 2011.
2
his is also true for 'pain, 2elgium and 'weden, where the organic area has
more than dou*led. ?ery low or negati!e growth rates were achie!ed in this period in 8ortugal,
6ungary, the 3etherlands, Italy and the United @ingdom.
!
'uch national figures hide considera*le
differences in upta9e *etween specific regions within the country.

1
he EU)funded proAect B<ata networ9 for *etter European organic mar9et informationB %1rganic<ata3etwor9& aims to
increase the transparency of the European organic food mar9et through *etter a!aila*ility of mar9et intelligence a*out
the sector to meet the needs of policy ma9ers and actors in!ol!ed in organic mar9ets. <ata collection of pu*lically
a!aila*le organic mar9et data was carried out for the year 2011 and some of this data is made a!aila*le for this report.
2
In the case of .yprus, the period refers to 2005 to 2010.
!
In the case of 8ortugal, the period refers to 2005 to 2010.
,in.
,a5.
C
0.2 "
19.( "
5.4"
0" 2" 4" ;" -" 10" 12" 14" 1;" 1-"
E'
I
<E
$0
U@
84
#
'E
.D
+0
01
8
$I
4?
'@
<@
4
EE
6U
2E
IE
34
'I
2+
4U
.E
,
in " of total U##
F 7
7 ) F ;
; ) F 10
10 ) F 15
G 15
.hapter 2 <e!elopment of the EU organic sector and the world mar9et in organic products 1(
his data ma9es it clear that the e5pansion of the organic area too9 mainly place in the EU)15. In
total, ;1 " of the growth *etween 2000 and 2011 was o*ser!ed in these countries %79 " in the
EU)12&. he differences in growth *etween the EU)15 and the EU)12 can also *e o*ser!ed for the
period 2005 to 2011 and 2010 to 2011. It is howe!er worthwhile noting that a su*stantial part of
the recent growth in the EU)15 is mainly due to farm con!ersions in 'pain. Indeed, a*out one)
third of the area e5pansion in the EU *etween 2005 and 2011 was in 'pain.
Ta"le 2.1 <e!elopment of the organic area in EU ,em*er 'tates *etween 2000 and 2011
a&
In the case of .E, +0 and 4U data from 2010 has *een carried forward to 2011.
'ource= 1wn calculation *ased on Eurostat data, national data pro!ided *y $i24)#,I and the 1rganic<ata3etwor9 'ur!ey.
#


#
'tructural data of the $i24)#,I sur!ey is in most cases *ased on Eurostat data. 6owe!er, the Eurostat data *ase does
not include all data a!aila*le from all countries %e.g. crop and li!estoc9 data from +ermany& and therefore national
sources are used too. $urthermore, national figures are used *y $i24 and #,I as soon as then are a!aila*le, which is
often *efore data is entered into the Eurostat data*ase. 6owe!er, in principle, the data should *e the same. <ata for
the year 2011 ha!e *een collected in the framewor9 of the 1rganic<ata3etwor9)proAect.
1- .hapter 2 <e!elopment of the EU organic sector and the world mar9et in organic products
<etailed data on organic land use is a!aila*le for all EU ,em*er 'tates for the period 200( to
2011. In 2011, 79 " of the EU)2( organic area was used for ara*le cropping and 4- " for
permanent grassland. he remaining area was used for permanent crops or otherHnon)classified
land use acti!ities. 2etween 200( and 2011, the organic ara*le area and permanent pasture grew
*y 0.(5 million and 1.7 million hectares, respecti!ely. he ara*le area e5panded particularly in
$rance, 8oland, 'pain and 'weden, whereas a remar9a*le decrease of a*out 1;(.000 ha was
o*ser!ed in Italy %a*le 2.2&, which was pro*a*ly due to a decrease of organic support payments
%see Danoli et al., 2010&. 1rganic grassland increased mainly in 'pain *ut also in $rance, the ./ech
0epu*lic, 8oland and +ermany.
Ta"le 2.2 .hanges of the organic area per land use category in EU ,em*er 'tates
*etween 200( and 2011

a&
In the case of 2E, .E, +0 and 4U data from 2010 has *een carried forward to 2011.
'ource= 1wn calculation *ased on Eurostat data, national data pro!ided *y $i24)#,I and the 1rganic<ata3etwor9 'ur!ey.
.hanges in organic li!estoc9 production *etween 200( and 2011 are shown in a*le 2.7. he
num*er of *o!ine animals increased particularly in $rance %> 7;-.000&, 'weden %> 147.000&, and
<enmar9 %> 11(.000&. he <anish and $rench organic farming sector e5perienced also the *iggest
.hapter 2 <e!elopment of the EU organic sector and the world mar9et in organic products 19
increase in organic pig production. # su*stantial e5pansion in the organic poultry sector was
o*ser!ed in $rance, +ermany, Italy and <enmar9. In contrast, the num*er of organic *o!ine
animals decreased particularly in Italy. $or pig and poultry this is true for +reece and the United
@ingdom, respecti!ely.
Ta"le 2.! .hanges in organic li!estoc9 production in EU ,em*er 'tates *etween 200(
and 2010
a


a&
In the case of .E, 4I, 4U and 8 data from 2010 has *een carried forward to 2011.
'ource= 1wn calculation *ased on Eurostat data, national data pro!ided *y $i24)#,I and the 1rganic<ata3etwor9 'ur!ey.
The EU organic production in a glo"al conte$t
In a glo*al conte5t, the EU is one of the main producers of organic food. Iorldwide a*out 7(
million hectares were under organic agricultural management in 2011 %Iiller et al., 2017&. #s
20 .hapter 2 <e!elopment of the EU organic sector and the world mar9et in organic products
indicated in a*le 2.4, most of the organic area is in 1ceania %12.2 million hectares& and Europe
%10.; million hectares, from which more than 9.5 million hectares are in the EU&, followed *y
4atin #merica %;.9 million hectares&, #sia %7.( million hectares&, 3orthern #merica %2.; million
hectares& and #frica %1.0 million hectares&. hus, 2; " of the glo*al organic area is in the EU. 1nly
1ceania has a higher share with 77 ", most of which is e5tensi!e grassland with a relati!e low
mar9et output. #lmost ;0 " of the ;.7 million hectares organic ara*le land worldwide is located
in the EUJ it should *e noted though that a *rea9down *y land use is not a!aila*le for all
countries. his is a*out three times as much as in the United 'tates and 20)times as much as in
4atin #merica. he EU also has a second leading role in the production of organic permanent
crops with a share of 7( " in the glo*al permanent cropland area, followed *y 4atin #merica
%29 "& and #frica %1; "&.
2etween 2000 and 2011, the organically managed area increased glo*ally *y appro5imately 21
million hectares. In the same period, the organic area e5panded *y a*out 5 million hectares in
the EU. hus, roughly spea9ing, one)Kuarter of the glo*al growth is due to the e5pansion in the
EU.
Ta"le 2.# @ey data on organic farming in different glo*al regions in 2011

'ource= 1wn calculation *ased on Iiller et al. %2017&.
#ccording to the recent $i24)I$1#, sur!ey on glo*al organic agriculture, almost 1.- million farms
were managed glo*ally organically %Iiller et al., 2017&. ,ore than three)Kuarters of the organic
producers are in #sia, #frica and 4atin #merica, while 17 " are located in the EU. 3ot surprisingly,
the a!erage organic farm si/e !aries su*stantially *etween indi!idual glo*al regions ranging from
2 ha in #frica to -;2 ha in 1ceania.
EU%2&
'and use %in 1 000 ha&
#ra*le crops 157 2;0 7 ;(7 (22 1-2 1 711 7(
8ermanent crops 40- 25; 95; 99 (55 ;5 59
8ermanent gra/ing ;2 ;01 4 552 2-; 4 -74 1 174 11 (5;
1ther U## H 3ot classif. 450 2 5-9 77( 11 1 0-( 121 777
Organic area
otal %in 1 000 ha& 1 0(4 7 (0; 9 51- 1 119 ; -5- 2 ;70 12 1-;
'hare of glo*al organic area 7" 10" 2;" 7" 1-" (" 77"
'hare of total agricultural area 0.1" 0.7" 5.4" 0.;" 1.1" 0.(" 2.9"
(roducers
otal %in 1 000 3& 540 9-- ;19 479 27; -07 54 ;4- 715 --9 1; ;59 14 17-
Farm si)e
#!erage farm si/e %in ha& 2 ; 40 20 22 15- -;2
*orth Oceania +frica +sia Other 'atin
European +merica +merica
countries
.hapter 2 <e!elopment of the EU organic sector and the world mar9et in organic products 21
2.2 The EU market for organic food
The market for organic food in the EU
he total !alue of the EU)2( organic mar9et was appro5imately 19.( *illion EU0 in 2011 %'chaac9
et al., 2017&. #s indicated in $igure 2.2 %right&, *y far the largest organic mar9et in the EU was
+ermany with ;.; *illion EU0 followed *y $rance %7.; *illion EU0&, the United @ingdom %1.9 *illion
EU0& and Italy %1.( *illion EU0&. 'ales per capita were particularly high in <enmar9 %1;2 EU0&,
4u5em*ourg %174 EU0& and #ustria %12( EU0&. 3ot surprisingly, relati!ely low mar9et !alues and
per capita consumption can *e o*ser!ed in EU)12 countries %see $igure 2.2, left&.
Figure 2.2 1rganic sales per capita %left& and total organic sales %right& in EU ,em*er
'tates in 2011

'ource= 1wn presentation *ased on data from the 1rganic<ata3etwor9 'ur!ey.
Ihile the organic land area increased *y 7- " *etween 200; and 2011, the organic mar9et grew
*y 5; " in this period. E!en if *oth growth figures cannot *e directly compared, they indicate
that *oth supply and demand ha!e de!eloped in the same dimension at EU le!el. he highest
mar9et growth was o*ser!ed in $rance %>.2.055 million EU0& and +ermany %>.1.990 million EU0&
: thus in the two countries with the largest organic mar9et %a*le 2.5&. he United @ingdom is the
only country in the EU where the organic food sales declined *etween 200; and 2011 %) ;(5
million EU0&. he reasons for this are not fully understood, *ut shorter periods of stagnation or
e!en decline ha!e also *een o*ser!ed in other countries. #mong the EU)12 countries, the organic
mar9et grew particularly strongly in 0omania %>(0 million EU0&, 8oland %> (0 million EU0&,
'lo!enia %> 74 million EU0& and the ./ech 0epu*lic %> 72 million EU0&.
<E
$0
U@
I
#
E'
<@
'E
34
2E
$I
84
IE
01
4U
.D
+0
'I
6U
8
EE
2+
4
4?
'@
.E
,
0 1 2 7 4 5 ; (
,io. L
,in.
,a5.
1 LHpers.
1;2 LHpers.
LHperson
F 20
20 ) F 50
50 ) F 100
100 ) F 150
G 150
22 .hapter 2 <e!elopment of the EU organic sector and the world mar9et in organic products
Ta"le 2., .hanges in organic sales per capita %left& and total sales in EU ,em*er 'tates
*etween 200( and 2011
'ource= 1wn calculation *ased on national data pro!ided *y $i24)#,I and the 1rganic<ata3etwor9 'ur!ey.
he current organic supply and demand situation in EU ,em*er 'tates is also reflected in the
num*ers of processors and importers. In 2011, there were more than 75.000 organic processing
companies and 1.;00 importers of organic products in the EU. #s shown in $igure 2.7, many
processors are located either in countries characterised *y a large organic mar9et, a large organic
area or *oth %+ermany, $rance, Italy, 'pain and the United @ingdom&. Interestingly, the num*er
of processing companies is also relati!ely high in +reece. 8resuma*ly, this is mainly due to small
processing plants for organic oli!e oils. $urthermore, many import companies are located in
+ermany, the 3etherlands, <enmar9, 'weden and $rance. In total, only a*out 1.500 processors
and less than 100 importers were located in EU)12 countries in 2011. hese figures show clearly
that the processing infrastructure in the EU)12 is still underde!eloped, *ut data do not e5ist for
all countries. he lac9 of processing facilities entails that organic processed food products
consumed in the EU)12 are Kuite often imported from the EU)15 ,em*er 'tates.
Chapter 2 Development of the EU organic sector and the world market in organic products 23
Figure 2.3: Number of organic importers and processors in 2011
a


a
No data on processors and importers for !" C#" $U" %! and on importers for $! and &'( Data for 'E" $! and U) from 2010(

&ource* EU+,&!!(
The EU market for organic food in a global context
-hile some data e.ists for the EU organic food market" there is much less market information at
a global level( ccording to &ahota /20130 global sales of organic food and drink reached
12(2(billion U& dollars in 2011( ccording to data compiled b3 4i5$ and 6' the two biggest single
markets are the United &tates /share of 77 8 in global sales0 and the European Union /share of
71 8 in global sales" see 4igure 2(70( Even if 9 8 of the total organic arable area and :: 8 of the
total organic permanent crop area is located in sia" frica and $atin merica" the market share
of these three regions in the global sales organic food and drink is much less than 10(8( !he high
degree of sales concentration highlights that most organic food production in these regions is
e.port;geared as a result of limited domestic market opportunities(
't is interesting to note" that in the United &tates half of the turnover is made up of fresh fruit and
vegetables" but animal products are increasing in importance( 4ruit and vegetables were also the
pioneer organic products in EU countries and the3 now have market shares between one third
and one fifth of man3 national markets( nimal products" especiall3 milk and dair3 products but
also eggs" are achieving higher market shares in the EU than in the U&( lso dr3 products and
bread have a higher importance in man3 EU countries(
N
u
m
b
e
r
%rocessors
'mporters
0
1 000
2 000
3 000
7 000
: 000
1 000
< 000
2 000
9 000
10 000
'mporters
%rocessors
6! &) 5= EE $! $> +, &' 'E %$ ?U 4' C@ D) 5E &E N$ =+ U) E& '! 4+ DE
1
1
71
:
73
3
:2
3
<0
;
19
2
101
2
1:0
;
192
22
210
1<
320
3
3:2
2<
722
9
:1<
231
191
121
133
203
1 011
22:
1 :01
:
2 1<<
9:
2 <29
101
1 3<:
13
2 <2:
1<9
2 90:
29<
24 .hapter 2 <e!elopment of the EU organic sector and the world mar9et in organic products
Figure 2.# <istri*ution of organic food sales *y single mar9et in 2011 and the ten countries
with the largest mar9ets for organic food 2011

'ource= 1rganic<ata3etwor9 'ur!ey.
#ccording to the EuropeanM.ommission %2010&, there is e!idence that the growth of demand for
organic products in the EU outpaces the growth of organic food supply. ,ore recently, 'ahota
%2017& reported howe!er that there is an o!ersupply in certain sectors of the EU organic food
industry since the demand is not 9eeping pace with supply. # certain degree of im*alance
*etween domestic supply and demand is a Kuite typical characteristic of the organic mar9et,
since a con!ersion period of usually up to two years allows only a medium)term response of the
supply)side to changes of the demand)side.
Intra)EU trade and imports from third countries represent an important part of domestically
consumed organic products in most ,em*er 'tates as shown in a recent study %Eco/ept, 200-&.
In !iew of the growing demand for organic food, it can *e assumed that trade *etween EU
,em*er 'tates and imports from third countries ha!e increased in the last years.
,


,
#s mentioned earlier, relia*le information on imports and e5ports are still rare. # comprehensi!e study on the +erman
situation has *een pu*lished recently. #ccordingly, the share of imported organic products that could also *e produced
in the country !aries from 2 to 95 " %'chaac9 et al., 2011&. ?ery high import rates were e.g. o*ser!ed for tomatoes
%-0."& and peppers %90 "&, mainly due to the all year round demand for products that can *e grown in +ermany only
seasonally, or linseed %95 "&. he importance of %glo*al& organic trade is also *ecoming clear through data from $rance.
#ppro5imately 70 " of consumed organic food products %in !alue& are imported in $rance %European .ommission,
2010&. In 200-, one)third of all organic imports were tropical productsJ another third were products for which $rance
has no clear comparati!e ad!antage %e.g. aKuaculture, soya, ,editerranean products, etc.& and a final third were
products for which $rance is competiti!e *ut where domestic supply was too low compared to domestic demand %e.g.
cereals, mil9, meat, fruit and !egeta*les&.
'wit/erland
7"
1thers
;"
.anada
4"
EU
41"
United 'tates
of #merica
44"
Napan
2"
United 'tates
of #merica
+ermany
$rance
.anada %2010&
United @ingdom
Italy
'wit/erland
#ustria
Napan %2010&
'pain
0 5 000 10 000 15 000 20 000 25 000
0etails sales in million L


Chapter 3
EU organic farming legislation and its development

3.1 Introduction
The legislative framework of the EU organic farming sector is determined by Council Regulation
(EC) 83!"##$ on organic %roduction and labelling of organic %roducts which came into force in
&anuary "##' and re%ealed Council Regulation (EEC) "#'"!'() The organic farming legislation
describes the underlying ob*ectives and %rinci%les of organic agriculture and sets organic
%roduction re+uirements) The Regulation legally defines what organic farming actually is and
formulates certain claims with res%ect to environmental %rotection, %reservation of natural
resources (including biodiversity), a%%lication of high animal welfare standards and %roduction
method based on natural substances and %rocesses) -urthermore, it defines re+uirements with
regard to controls, trade with third countries (i)e) not EU .ember /tates) and labelling of organic
food %roducts and sets a regulatory framework for su%%ly0chain activities) 1y defining these two
areas, the Regulation aims to %rovide the basis for the sustainable develo%ment of organic
%roduction)
2etailed rules for the im%lementation have been laid down in Commission Regulation (EC)
88'!"##8 on organic %roduction and labelling of organic %roducts and Commission Regulation
(EC) ("33!"##8 on im%orts of %roducts from third countries) /ince "##' the legislative framework
has been su%%lemented several times, such as by rules on a+uaculture in "##' (Regulation (EC)
$(#!"##') and wine %roduction in "#(" (Regulation (EC) "#3!"#(") both amending Regulation
(EC) 88'!"##8) 4n overview of the %resent legislative framework of the EU organic farming sector
is given in -igure 3)() Com%ared to its %redecessor, the new regulatory framework follows the
general structure of Community legislation laying down clear com%etences to the Council (basic
issues) and the Commission (ad*ustment of technical rules and u%dating the list of in%uts allowed
in organic farming))
The legal framework itself is embedded in the general rules on agricultural %roduction,
%rocessing, marketing, labelling and controls such as Regulation (EC) 88"!"## (Controls and
com%liance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules) or Regulation (EU)
((5'!"#(( (6rovision of food information to consumers), which a%%ly to organic o%erators as
well)
7n the following, the ob*ectives and %rinci%les as laid down in the Regulation are described)
-urthermore, ma*or changes of the legislation as com%ared to the legislation a%%lied to organic
farming %rior to "##' are highlighted)
"5 Cha%ter 3 EU organic farming legislation and its develo%ment

Figure 3.1: 8verview of the EU legislative framework of organic farming

a
4mended by Commission Regulation (EC) ("3!"##8 9 33!"#(( 9 "5!"#(( 9 ("5!"#(" 9 3#3!"#("(8rganic %roduction,
labelling and control), Commission Regulation (EC) $(#!"##' (8rganic a+uaculture and seaweed %roduction),
Commission Regulation (EC) "$(!"#(# (8rganic %roduction logo), Commission Regulation (EC) "#3!"#(" (8rganic wine
%roduction) and Commission Regulation (EC) 3'"!"#(3 (Control system for organic %roduction))
b
4mended by Commission Regulation (EC) 33$!"##' 9 $(!"#(# 9 3'#!"#(( 9 (#8!"#(( 9 ("5$!"#(( 9 ("5!"#(" 9
3#8!"#(" 9 $3(!"#(" 9 ("3(!"#(3 (Trade with third countries))
/ource: 8wn illustration ada%ted from Euro%ean Commission ("#("))
3.2 Obectives and principles of organic farming
The normative basis of organic farming is laid down in a number of ob*ectives and %rinci%les)
4ccordingly organic %roduction shall %ursue the following three ob*ectives (4rticle 30$ of Council
Regulation (EC) 83!"##$):
establish a sustainable management system for agriculture;
aim at %roducing %roducts of high +uality; and
aim at %roducing a wide variety of foods and other agricultural %roducts that res%ond to
consumers< demand for goods %roduced by the use of %rocesses that do not harm the
environment, human health, %lant health or animal health and welfare)
-urthermore, organic farming is to be based on the following four overall %rinci%les:
the a%%ro%riate design and management of biological %rocesses based on ecological systems
using natural resources;
the restriction of the use of e=ternal in%uts;
the strict limitation of the use of chemically synthesised in%uts to e=ce%tional cases;
the ada%tation, where necessary, of the rules of organic %roduction taking account of sanitary
status, regional differences in climate and local conditions, stages of develo%ment and
s%ecific husbandry %ractices)
Council Regulation
(EC) 83!"##$
!cope" obectives" principles
#roduction Imports $abelling Controls
>eneral
rules
2etailed
rules
2etailed
rules
2etailed
rules
2etailed
rules Commission Regulation
(EC) 88'!"##8
Commission Regulation
(EC)("33!"##8
0 6lants
0 ?ivestock
0 6rocessing
a b
>eneral
rules
>eneral
rules
>eneral
rules
>eneral
rules
Cha%ter3 EU organic farming legislation and its develo%ment "$

7n addition, s%ecific %rinci%les are defined for farming, %rocessing of organic food and %rocessing
of organic feed) The ob*ectives and %rinci%les are im%lemented through various %roduction rules
as well as rules on controls, labelling and trade with third countries) The definition of ob*ectives
and %rinci%les is a new element of the EU legislation on organic farming, which sha%es the basic
orientation of the organic sector towards sustainability and food +uality) @owever, an e=%licit link
between ob*ectives and %rinci%les and the %roduction rules is not given in the Regulation)
4s laid down in 4rticle (, the rules a%%ly to %roducts originating from agriculture and
a+uaculture, i)e) live and un%rocessed agricultural %roducts, %rocessed agricultural %roducts for
use as food and feed as well as vegetative %ro%agating material and seeds for cultivation)
Com%ared to Regulation (EEC) "#'"!'(, the sco%e of the current organic legislation also covers
organic yeasts for food and feed, organic a+uaculture and organic wine) Aot covered by the
Regulation are %roducts of hunting and fishing of wild animals as well as mass catering, which can
however be regulated by national law, and non0agricultural %roducts that are not included in
4nne= 7 of the EU Treaty (and therefore not sub*ect to the C46))
3.3 !pecific rules
#roduction rules
Corres%onding to the ob*ectives and %rinci%les of organic %roduction, the %roduction rules
(4rticle (( B "" of Council Regulation (EC) 83!"##$) lay down %rovision for:
%lant %roduction (e)g) cultivation %ractices, fertilisation strategies, %revention techni+ues to
avoid disease, seeding strategies);
livestock %roduction including a+uaculture animals (e)g) husbandry %ractices and housing
conditions, breeding strategies, feeding rules and %rovision with regard to disease %revention
and veterinary treatments);
%roduction of seaweed (e)g) collection and cultivation %ractices); as well as
%roduction of %rocessed feed and food (e)g) se%arate handling from non0organic feed and
food, restricted substances and techni+ues))
-urthermore, s%ecific arrangements are made with regard to the conversion %eriod as well as
%roducts and substances used in organic farming and the criteria for their authoriCation)
4ccording to their nature, %roduction rules are obligations (most common ty%e), restrictions,
%rohibitions or %ermissions (see -igure 3)3))
The system of derogations no longer e=ists that was in %lace in the legislation %rior to "##') 7t has
been re%laced by either %ermanent rules, or by e=ce%tional %roduction rules, which are limited
either for a certain time or under certain conditions) -or e=am%le, non0organic feed can only be
"8 Cha%ter 3 EU organic farming legislation and its develo%ment

used until a certain date instead of allowing a certain %ro%ortion of non0organic ingredients in the
diet for certain animal s%ecies)
$abelling
7n order to create more trans%arency for consumers, the Regulation contains rules on labelling of
organic %roducts (4rticle "3 B "5)) 4ccordingly, the use of terms referring to organic %roduction is
restricted to %roducts that are %roduced in accordance with the rules laid down in the organic
farming legislation) 7n the case of %rocessed food, at least '3E by weight of its ingredients of
agricultural origin must be organic) -urthermore, the labelling rules %rescribe that certain
%roduct indications are com%ulsory) This includes the code number of the involved control body,
the new Community organic %roduction logo and an indication of the %lace where the agricultural
raw materials were farmed, the last two had not been re+uired before)
Controls
The legislation on organic farming re+uires that all activities %erformed by o%erators at all stages
of %roduction, %re%aration and distribution of organic %roducts are sub*ect to a control system)
This has to be set u% and managed to conform to the rules on official controls on food and feed
law) 7t defines a number of re+uirements with regard to the set0u% of the control system,
adherence to the control system, documentary obligations, measures in the case of
infringements and irregularities as well as rules on the e=change of information (4rticle "$ B 3())
The overall control system consists of two elements: a) the annual on0site controls of organic
o%erators and b) the %ublic surveillance system, which in turn encom%asses the entire EU
framework of activities of national com%etent authorities and accreditation bodies to su%ervise
and monitor the organic control system at the level of the control bodies)
4ccordingly, .ember /tates must designate one or more com%etent authorities res%onsible for
the controls) These com%etent authorities may delegate control tasks to %rivate control bodies
under certain conditions (e)g) with regard to an effective coordination between the com%etent
authority and the control body or with regard to the technical ca%acity of the control body)) The
rules on controls sti%ulate that all organic o%erators at various stages of the su%%ly0chain must
submit their activities to the control system and s%ecify the kind of documentary evidence that is
re+uired from them and from the control bodies) 7n the case of irregularities, the rules foresee
that %roducts cannot be marketed as organic) 7f a severe infringement is found, the control
authority or body may %rohibit the o%erator from marketing organic %roducts for a certain
%eriod) 7n order to guarantee that a %roduct is %roduced organically, it is re+uired that com%etent
authorities, control authorities and control bodies e=change relevant information on the results
of the controls B %articularly if irregularities or infringements occur)
Com%ared to the legislation a%%lied to organic farming %rior to "##', the link to the 8fficial -ood
and -eed Control (8--C) has been made more e=%licit) 4ccreditation to the Euro%ean /tandard
EA 3#(( or 7/8 53 (international standards for certification) is now mandatory for control bodies
Cha%ter3 EU organic farming legislation and its develo%ment "'

in the EU) -urthermore, the risk based a%%roach of the 8--C can be a%%lied to organic farming as
well)
%rade &ith countries outside the EU 'third countries(
/ince international trade with organic %roducts is of increasing im%ortance due to the growth of
the organic sector and increasing demand, legal arrangements are made for the trade with third
countries (4rticle 3" B 33)) The Regulation s%ecifies two different a%%roaches for this) -irst,
%roducts from third countries may be %laced on the market as organic, %rovided that %roduction
and control re+uirements com%ly e=actly with Regulation (EU) 83!"##$) 6roof of com%liance is
%rovided through ins%ections of control bodies that are authorised by the EU) 4%%lications for
recognition under this o%tion have to be submitted until 3( 8ctober "#() @owever, this
com%liance a%%roach is not yet im%lemented) /econd, organic %roducts from outside the EU may
be sold as organic in the EU if %roduction rules and control re+uirements are e+uivalent to the EU
rules) Thus, organic %roducts may be im%orted, if the a%%lied rules are not e=actly the same but
in line with the %rinci%les and ob*ectives of organic farming as laid down in the Regulation) This
a%%roach recognises that %roduction conditions in countries outside the EU can be different from
those within) The e+uivalency is recognised either by bilateral agreements (i)e) in this case, the
country in +uestion is included in the EU list of third countries) or by control bodies which are
a%%roved and su%ervised for this %ur%ose by the EU Commission) -or a transitional %eriod until (
&uly "#( e+uivalence can also be confirmed by .ember /tates authorities at the re+uest of an
im%orter located in the EU (im%ort authorisation)) This o%tion was the most relevant im%ort
%rocedure under the %revious organic regulation)


Chapter 4
Support measures applied to the EU
organic farming sector

4.1 Introduction
For more than 20 years, European policies for organic farming have been developed on a number
of levels. The first scheme specifically targeted at organic farming was introduced in Denmark in
!"#, shortly followed by other countries. $s part of the %ac&harry reform of the 'ommon
$gricultural (olicy )'$(* in !!2, the introduction of agri+environment programmes provided a
unified framework for supporting conversion to and maintenance of organic production across
the E,. Today there are a wide range of different policy measures in E, %ember &tates that are
financed by different funding sources and that address organic farming in one of a number of
ways- with special provision )e.g. higher payment rates for organic farming*, with partly special
provisions )e.g. higher payment rates for organic and other specified types of farming* or where
organic farming is at least mentioned specifically )e.g. as one of a number of target groups* but
without any special provisions. .n the following, based on the results of a previous study )&anders
et al., 20*, the support measures applied to organic farming are briefly described.
4.2 Support measures addressing organic farming under current rural
development programmes
$ccording to the 'ommunity &trategic /uidelines for 0ural Development, %ember &tates are
encouraged to make use of the contribution of organic farming to the environmental and animal
welfare ob1ectives of the '$(. %ost E, countries have followed this recommendation and
provide specific area payments for organic farming under $2is 2 ).mproving the environment and
the countryside* of their rural development programmes. .n addition, some %ember &tates have,
to a varying degree, also implemented policy measures addressing organic farming under $2is
).mproving the competitiveness of the agricultural and forestry sector* and $2is 3 ).mproving the
4uality of life in rural areas and encouraging diversification of the rural economy*.
32 'hapter 5 &upport measures applied to the E, organic farming sector
4.2.1 Support under Axis 1: Improving the competitiveness of the
agricultural and forestr sector
.n 22 %ember &tates or their regions, organic farming was addressed in one or several of the
following 6 rural development programme )0D(* measures under $2is in the period 200#+20.
Setting up of oung farmers )%easure 2*- .n the '7ech 0epublic, applications are selected
on the basis of a point system, where organic farmers receive e2tra points. .n three &panish
and two .talian regions, organic farmers receive higher payment rates than conventional
farmers. Furthermore, in some regions in .taly and &pain organic farming is mentioned as a
reason for intervention or as one of several target groups.
!odernisation of agricultural holdings )%easure 2*- .n Flanders )8elgium*, %adeira
)(ortugal* and 9orth 0hine+:estphalia )/ermany* higher grants are given to organic farmers
investing in agricultural holdings to improve the overall performance of the farm; in $ustria
this is limited to organic livestock farmers investing in farm buildings. <rganic livestock
farmers along with other groups of )non+organic* farmers receive higher investment grants in
%ecklenburg+:estern (omerania and 8avaria )/ermany*. .n 8ulgaria, organic farmers receive
the same level of support as non+organic farmers; however a minimum of = > of the %easure
25 funds is reserved for investments re4uired for conversion to organic farming. ?igher
evaluation scores are given for applications related to organic farming in 'yprus, '7ech
0epublic, @atvia and &lovakia. Furthermore, various countries have mentioned organic
farming as one of several target groups, but it is not clear what direct advantage for organic
farmers this implies.
Adding value to agricultural and forestr products )%easure 23*- .n 8avaria )/ermany* and
&lovenia, pro1ects related to organic food production, processing or marketing receive higher
support rates. .n Estonia, a sub+scheme specifically targets organic farming as well as
conventional dairy farmers referring to specific circumstances of the organic and dairy
sectors. 0ather than higher grants, a higher priority is given to pro1ects related to organic
farming under the selection schemes in 'yprus, the '7ech 0epublic, @atvia and &lovakia. $
tiered support scheme is used in $ustria and in two regions in &pain to determine the level of
support within which organic farming is one criterion among others to be eligible to receive a
top+up grant. .n 8ulgaria, Denmark, ?ungary, %alta, 0omania and some regions of &pain,
organic farming has been defined as a )particular* target group or reason for intervention, but
no special provisions are made for organic farming.
"articipation of farmers in food #ualit schemes )%easure 32*- %ember &tates have
adopted different approaches to refund certification and inspection costs of organic farmers.
&everal countriesAregions use %easure 32 to cover parts of the certification and inspection
cost incurred by farmers )$ustria, 8elgium, 'yprus, Estonia, /reece, %alta, the 9etherlands,
(oland, (ortugal, &lovenia, most regions of .taly and &pain as well as parts of the ,B*.
Flanders and :allonia )8elgium* as well as /reece introduced support schemes for organic
farmers in 20. These schemes are usually also open to farmers participating in other
approved 4uality schemes.
'hapter 5 &upport measures applied to the E, organic farming sector 33
Information and promotion activities )%easure 33*- .n some %ember &tates, %easure 32
is combined with %easure 33, which supports information and promotional activities for
products or foodstuffs covered by approved 4uality schemes. .n %alta and Estonia, only
organic producers may receive support through %easure 33. <ther countries offer no
special provisions for organic producers.
Setting up of producer groups )%easure 52*- .n &lovenia, financial support is given to
organic farmers who set up producer groups and therewith strengthen the institutional
structure of the primary sector. This measure is however not e2clusively targeted at organic.
Farmers producing other special agricultural products )e.g. food labelled as (rotected
Designation of <rigin )(/<* or (rotected /eographical .ndication )(/.** are also eligible for
aid.
.n addition to the measures described above, many %ember &tates have implemented specific
training courses or advice for organic farming under %easure )Cocational training and
information actions* andAor %easure 5 ),se of advisory services*. &ince both activities are also
relevant for conventional farmers, organic farming is, in most cases, neither addressed nor
mentioned under these measures.
4.2.2 Support under Axis 2: Improving the environment and the
countrside
.n 2= %ember &tates or their regions, organic farming is addressed in one or both of the following
two 0D( measures under $2is 2 in the period 200#+20.
Agri$environment paments )%easure 25*- For organic farming agri+environment payments
are undoubtedly the most important support measure of the rural development programmes.
:ith the e2ception of the 9etherlands and France, all %ember &tates have implemented
specific area payments for organic farming in the framework of nationalAregional agri+
environmental schemes )%easure 25* to compensate for additional costs andAor income
foregone resulting from organic management. Differentiation of seven land types is used
including arable land, grassland, vegetables and herbs, greenhouse crops, perennials and
orchards, vineyards, and olive trees. There are large variations in the payment rates for the
same land type across countries. For e2ample, maintenance payment rates per hectare for
grassland varied between 3! Euro and 5=0 Euro across the E, )Figure 5.*. Even greater
variations were observed for conversion payments. Differences in payment rates are the
result of a number of factors including a* different payment differentiations within the
broader land types )e.g. a specific cereal payment is likely to lead to a higher payment rate
than an average arable payment*, b* different economic assumptions and c* different cost
35 'hapter 5 &upport measures applied to the E, organic farming sector
and income foregone components in payment calculations.
1
Furthermore, policy priorities,
budget allocations and constraints, consideration of different bio+physical land characteristics
and the inclusion of )area+based* livestock payment components are also relevant factors.
%igure 4.1: %aintenance payments in 20 and average public e2penditure per ha in 200"+
200! in E, %ember &tates

&ource- &anders et al. )20*.


1
$ccording to 0egulation )E'* 6!"A200= payment rates shall cover additional costs or income foregone resulting from
organic management )i.e. only those commitments going beyond the relevant mandatory re4uirements established by
E, or national legislation*. The level of payments is defined by %ember &tates based on the following parameters-
differences in yield, production costs, prices and transaction costs. ,sually %ember &tates define a typical regional
organic farm and a conventional reference farm to calculate the additional costs. $s reported by &anders et al. )20*
not all countriesAregions compensate 00 > of the additional costs )e.g. 8E, 'D, F., (@, &E, and &.*. .n most countries
which do not compensate 00 > of the additional costs, there are large variations between individual crops or land use
types. &ince additional costs are calculated on the basis of a typical farm, low compensation levels do not necessarily
mean that all farmers are only partially compensated. The real implications of compensation levels depend very much
on the selected organic and conventional reference farms.
,B .E @C EE @, &B 8/ 'E 0< (@ DE @T ?, $T &. (T F. E& 8E %T &E /0 .T 'D
&E ,B (@ EE 8/ 'E &B .E ?, @T @C @, E& DE (T &. $T F. /0 8E .T 'D
0
00
200
300
500
=00
600
E
,
0

p
e
r

h
a
Maintenance payments organic grassland
0
00
200
300
500
=00
600
E
,
0

p
e
r

h
a
Average public expenditure per ha land
,B 9@ 8/ EE ?, @C 'E (T E& %T DB &B 8E @T @, (@ F. &. DE .T &E $T F0 /0 'D
0
00
200
300
500
=00
600
E
,
0

p
e
r

h
a
Maintenance payments organic arable land
#=0
Cariation within the %ember states
'hapter 5 &upport measures applied to the E, organic farming sector 3=
?igh payment rates do not necessarily guarantee a high level of support for organic farms.
&cheme access problems, as reported from several %ember &tates, can reduce the potential
positive impacts of high support payments. $verage public e2penditure for organic support
payments under the agri+environmental measure per certified organic hectare varied
between # Euro and 35 Euro for the period 200" to 200!. <n average, public e2penditure
amounted to 63 Euro per hectare for the E,+2# )e2cluding .reland, 0omania and England*.
&ubstantial differences between the %ember &tates also e2ist in the design and application of
eligibility criteria and re4uirements such as payment limits, stocking rates and additional
scheme re4uirements beyond organic standards which are not necessarily reflected in the
payment rates.
.t is important to note that a wide range of options for combining organic with agri+
environmental payments e2ists across most %ember &tates covering nearly all the key agri+
environmental themes. FTopping upG organic support payments through other agri+
environmental payments utilises the comparative advantages of organic farms in providing
environmental benefits and public goods, and grants additional financial support to organic
farms.
Animal &elfare )%easure 2=*- 'ataluHa )&pain* provides additional support for organic
livestock farmers under %easure 2= aiming to cover additional costs or income foregone
due to commitments regarding feeding facilities or free outdoor access. .n some other
countries, specific organic livestock payments are integrated in %easure 25.
4.2.' Support under Axis ': Improving the #ualit of life in rural areas and
encouraging diversification of the rural econom
.n the '7ech 0epublic, organic farming was addressed in two 0D( measures under $2is 3 in the
period 200#+20-
(iversification into non$agricultural activities )%easure 3*
Encouragement of tourism activities )%easure 33*.
8oth measures aim to diversify the rural economy through grants for the introduction or
e2pansion of activities related to local services, products, trade and tourism. &imilar to provisions
made for $2is measures, pro1ects related to organic farming are awarded higher points in the
'7ech 0epublic which may increase the likelihood to receive support. 0eferences to organic
farming are also made in ?ungary under %easure 33.
36 'hapter 5 &upport measures applied to the E, organic farming sector
4.' Support measures addressing organic farming under CA" "illar 1
8esides rural development programmes, some E, %ember &tates provide financial support for
organic farmers in the framework of $rticle 6" of 0egulation )E'* #3A200! as well as top+ups in
the 'ommon %arket <rganisation for fruit and vegetables.
The E, rules for direct support schemes under the '$( (illar
2
allow %ember &tates to support
specific types of farming and 4uality )so+called I$rticle 6" measureJ*. France is using this measure
+ instead of 0D( %easure 25 )agri+environment schemes*
'
K for conversion and maintenance
payments for organic farming. 0omania is following a dual approach- while maintenance
payments are paid under 0D( %easure 25, $rticle 6" is used to finance conversion payments. .n
Denmark, the current 0D( e2tensification scheme under %easure 25, which provides area
payments for organic farmers, is stepwise replaced by a similar $rticle 6" measure. .n addition
/reece, .taly, &pain and &weden have also implemented specific support to farmers for improving
the 4uality of agricultural products. These schemes are targeted not only at organic farmers, but
also at farmers participating in other food 4uality schemes.
The Fruit and Cegetables 0egime of '$( (illar aims to increase the use of environmentally+
friendly cultivation and production techni4ues. To receive a grant, producer organisations have to
prepare an operational programme in which they describe how their activities contribute to the
specific national goals defined in the national strategies for sustainable operational programmes.
&pecific provisions are made for organic producer organisations. The 'ommunity co+financing
rate for organic production in the operational programmes is 60 > of the eligible costs )usually
=0 >* with a ma2imum financial contribution of 5. > of the total value of marketed produce. .n
general, support for the environmental actions covers additional costs and income foregone
resulting from that action. &everal %ember &tates have, however, made country+specific
provisions regarding the type of eligible costs related to organic farming. .n 8elgium, .reland, the
9etherlands and &weden, only e2penditure for specific e4uipment or means of production is
eligible for aid )e.g. for packing and storing of organic products, use of organic dung and
compost*. &upport for training and advisory costs are granted in /ermany and $ustria. The '7ech
0epublic provides support for planting new organic orchards. .n &pain, financial support is either
given as a per+hectare payment or is based on invoices for specific cost items.


2
&chemes are based on 'ouncil 0egulation )E'* #3A200! establishing common rules for direct support schemes for
farmers.
'
For the contracts concluded by 200A France implements conversion and maintenance payments for organic farming
under $2is 2 of its rural development programmes through agri+environment payments )%easure 25*. These
payments will continue to be carried out until the end of the contracts, having a duration of =+# years.
'hapter 5 &upport measures applied to the E, organic farming sector 3#
4.' )ther national or regional organic support measures
%ember &tates and regions have also introduced a wide range of other national andAor regional
policy instruments not )co+*financed by the E, )see Figure 5.2*. E2amples include financial
support for producing, processing and marketing organic products, a range of communication
policies as well as support for research pro1ects related to organic farming. .n many cases, the
identified measures have some similarities to those implemented under rural development
programmes. This is particularly the case for investment aids, marketing aids and support for
training programmes and advisory services. &ome of them could probably also be financed under
the 0D( %easures , 5, 2 and 23. 'learly, some %ember &tates forgo the opportunity of
co+financing these measures through the E, in order to retain greater fle2ibility in programme
planning and implementation or to avoid reporting duties.
%igure 4.2: <verview of identified national or regional public measures addressing organic
farming which are not )co+* funded by the E, in 200#+20

&ource- &anders et al. )20*.
%arm
invest$
ment
!ar*eting
+ "ro$
cessing
Certifi$
cation +
,egulation
-raining
+ Advice
Informa$
tion +
Education
"u.lic
procure$
ment
"romotion
campaigns
+ events
Institu$
tional
support
,esearch )thers
A-
/E
/0
C1
C2
(3
EE
%I
%,
(E
0,
4U
IE
I-
56
5-
5U
!-
75
"5
"-
,)
S3
SI
ES
SE
U3
(ublic support measures not )co+* financed by E$F0D or E$/F available in the whole country
(ublic support measures not )co+* financed by E$F0D or E$/F available only in certain regions
3" 'hapter 5 &upport measures applied to the E, organic farming sector
4.4 )rganic action plans
9ational or regional organic action plans provide a strategic instrument to coordinate different
supply+push and demand+pull instruments tailored to local conditions. .n total, # national and 0
regional action plans or similar support schemes that have been implemented in 200# + 20 were
identified in E, %ember &tates )Table 5.*. .n many cases, action plans bundle '$( measures and
complementary nationalAregional measures not )co+* funded by the E,. The action plans differ
substantially with respect to policy targets, running period, types of actions specified, financial
resources, number of previous action plans, and initial year of implementation reflecting different
support strategies and developmental stages of the E,Js nationalAregional organic sectors.
'hapter 5 &upport measures applied to the E, organic farming sector 3!
-a.le 4.1: <verview of organic action plans or similar support schemes in E, %ember
&tates implemented in 200#+20

&ource- <wn presentation based on information supplied by national e2perts and amended by data from /on7alve7 et al.
)20*.
A- $ustria 20 + 203 5 200 20 > + 203
/E Flandern 200" + 202 2 2000 + + +
/0 8ulgaria 200# + 203 0 200# " > 203
C1 'yprus + + + + + +
C2 '7ech 0epublic 20 + 20= 2005 = > 3 >
b
+
(3 Denmark 20 K 203A= 2 !!= = >
c
+ 2020
EE Estonia 200# + 203 0 200# ca. 3 >
d
3 >
e
203
%I Finland 200# + 20= + 200# + + +
%, France 20 + 203 200" 6 > + 202
(E /ermany since 2002 0 2002 +
f
+ +
f
0, /reece + + + + + +
4U ?ungary + + + + + +
IE .reland 200" + 202 0 200" = > + 202
I- .taly + + + + + +
56 @atvia 200# + 203 200# 0 > + 203
5- @ithuania + + + + + +
5U @u2embourg 200! + 20 0 200! ca. = >
g
+ +
!- %alta + + + + + +
75 9etherlands 200" + 20 2 200 +
h
+ +
"5 (oland 20 + 205 200# ca. 5>
i
+ 203
i
"- (ortugal + + + + + +
,) 0omania + + + + + +
S3 &lovakia 20 + 203 2006 = > + +
SI &lovenia 200= + 20= 200# 20 > 0 >
1
20=
ES
k
&pain 200# + 200A 0 200# + + +
SE &weden 200#+200 0 + 20 > + 200
U3
l
&cotland since 20 0 200# + + +
:ales 200= + 200 !!! 0+=> + 200
a* 0elated to the annual turnover
b* 60> of organic food sales shall be organic products produced in the '7ech 0epublic.
c* Doubling the area under organic management
d* 20 000 ha organically managed area
e* &hare of organic food produced in Estonia in the total foood market
f* 9o targets were set out in the Federal <rganic Farming &cheme. $lthough, as part of its national sustanability strategy,
/ermany aims to achieve a share of 20 > in the long+run.
g* Doubling the area under organic management of the year 2006
h* $nnual growth of the organically managed area by = >
i* 600 000 ha organically managed area; target and target year of the previous action plan
1* &hare of organic food produced in &lovenia in the total foood market
k* 0egional action plans were also implemented in $ndalucLa, $sturias, 'astilla+@a %ancha, 'ataluHa, E2tremadura and (aLs Casco.
l* .n England, the regional organic action plans were phased out in 200.
EU !em.er States 8
,egion
,unning period 7um.er of
previous
actions
plans
1ear of imple$
mentation of
the first
action plan
9uantitative targets -arget ear
&hare of organic
land area in
the total ,$$
&hare of
organic food
in the total
food market
a

Chapter 5
Intervention logic of the EU legislation on organic farming

5.1 Introduction
The implementation of the EU legislation on organic farming in 1991 was a response to a growing
consumer demand for certified organic products. In order to protect consumers and organic
farmers against false and misleading organic claims and thereby to ensure transparency at all
stages of production and processing as well as a fair competition a legal definition of organic
farming and EU-wide rules for organic production were needed. Although the legal framewor
was amended se!eral times in the past twenty years and totally re!ised in "##$% the underlying
logic of the policy inter!ention is still applicable.
In the following% a model of inter!ention logic is presented that shows the relationships between
indi!idual rules% the e&pected impacts% the ob'ecti!es of the rules and the ob'ecti!es of the
legislation as a whole. In the conte&t of this e!aluation% the main aim of de!eloping the
inter!ention logic model is to pro!ide the basis for the 'udgement of the ade(uacy of the defined
regulatory instrument or measures. These are the different areas of rules that e&ist in the
regulation) i. e. rules on production% labelling% controls and trade with third countries. In *art + of
this report% the ade(uacy of these rules is e!aluated regarding the ob'ecti!es of the ,egulation
and ob'ecti!es of organic production being pertinent to needs% problems and issues of the sector)
and the effecti!eness of the instruments in achie!ing the ob'ecti!es.
5.2 Approach
The main steps in drawing up the inter!ention logic can be summari-ed as.
identifying the aims of the inter!ention and correlating needs from official documents)
ordering the identified aim-related statements into a hierarchy of global ob'ecti!es%
intermediate ob'ecti!es and specific or operating ob'ecti!es)
reconstructing the e&pected logical cause-and-effect relations en!isaged by the regulator.
The approach builds on the /0uidelines for 1ngoing E!aluation of ,ural 2e!elopment
*rogrammes "##$-"#134) adapted to the specific tas of the e!aluation of pro!isions in the
organic sector% as shown in the 1rganic Action *lan E!aluation Toolbo& 56ampin% "##78.
42 Chapter 5 Intervention logic of the EU legislation on organic farming
Apart from the Council Regulation (EC) 834/2007 itself, the European Action Plan for Organic
Food and Farming (EOAP) from 2004 was taken into account because it sets out the direction for
EU policy development for organic farming. The action plan also refers to other policy
instruments supporting the development of the sector under the CAP. It is therefore important to
consider the linkages of the organic legislation to the goals of the CAP. Additionally, horizontal EU
policy measures such as the official food and feed control system (Regulation (EC) 882/2004)
were considered.
To describe the context of the policy intervention, the next section summarises the global
objectives of Regulation (EC) 834/2007, as well as the relevant objectives of the CAP (2007-2013).
This provides the basis for the characterisation of the relationship between global, intermediate
and specific objectives as well as between the specific objectives and the rules for production,
labelling, control and the trade with third countries.
5.3 Global policy intervention context
5.3.1 Global objectives of the Regulation (EC) 834/2007
The global objectives of the EU Regulation on organic farming are defined in Article 1 of
Regulation (EC) 834/2007 as well as in the recitals of the Regulation. Accordingly, the Regulation
aims to provide the basis for the sustainable development of organic production while ensuring
the effective functioning of the internal market, guaranteeing fair competition, ensuring
consumer confidence and protecting consumer interests. The establishment of a basis for a
sustainable development of organic farming in the EU can be classified as the overarching
objective of the Regulation. It is further specified and contextualised by the three objectives
ensuring the effective functioning of the internal market, guaranteeing fair competition and
ensuring consumer confidence and protecting consumer interests. Following the standard
evaluation terminology, they are classified here as global objectives of Regulation (EC) 834/2007.
In order to understand the meaning and relevance of these global objectives, it is important to
consider the (past) specific needs of the organic farming sector in the EU and its development in
the last twenty years as well as the aims and provisions of the CAP and the EU Treaty. Both
aspects are shortly outlined in the following.
Ensuring a functioning of the single market. The EU policy is based on the fundamental
assumption that an internal market is essential for economic growth and the development of
markets in the EU (and therewith for achieving the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy). The
significance of the internal market is specified in the EU Treaty, which highlights its role for a
sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth and price stability as
well as a highly competitive social market economy (European Union, 2012). Accordingly, the
organic sector development is fostered if organic operators in all Member States have access to
the 500 million consumers in the EU. In the past trade with organic products on the internal
Chapter 5 Intervention logic of the EU legislation on organic farming 43
market was particularly hampered by different national and private organic logos, which were
often required to get access to regional markets - mainly because retailers did not market
products without the logo of the national/local inspection and certification body or because
consumers did not recognise them as organic (European Commission, 2004b). Against this
background, the EU Regulation on organic farming aims to ensure functioning of the single
market, which is mainly achieved by common provisions for the labelling of organic products and
the control system.
Guaranteeing fair competition. Closely related to the functioning of the single market is the
prevention of unfair competition. Indeed policies that lead to a distortion of competition (and
therefore hamper economic development) are not compatible with the internal market and are
therefore prohibited as laid down in the EU Treaty. In relation to organic farming this means that
an expansion of organic farming at EU-level (and therewith a full exploitation of organic farmings
potential contribution to the CAP) is primarily fostered, if there is a level playing field for all
organic producers in the EU. Rules should not lead to an economic advantage for organic farmers
in certain regions, if organic farmers in other regions are disadvantaged by these rules and
thereby the development of organic farming in these regions is hampered.
In relation to organic farming, fair competition includes also a further aspect. Products issued
from organic farms need to be distinguished from those issued from conventional farms, in
particular as regards the claim to produce organically. This is achieved by a legal definition of
organic production methods, and a protection of the term organic as regards agricultural
products. It specifies the claims of organic farming with respect to environmental protection,
preservation of natural resources (including biodiversity), application of high animal welfare
standards and production methods based on natural substances and processes. By doing so, the
legal definition of organic farming (which is operationalized by various production rules) provides
a basis for consumer trust, financial remuneration for the provision of public goods and a basis to
take action against fraud and infringements.
Ensuring consumer confidence and protecting consumer interests. A sustainable development
requires that supply and demand grow hand in hand and that the share of organic products
becomes large enough to establish a stable market (European_Commission, 2010). This puts
consumers in a key position for the development of organic farming. It is therefore crucial to
ensure consumer confidence in compliance with the rules and to protect consumer interests with
regard to the product quality and the impact of organic farming on the environment, human
health and animal welfare.
These global objectives form the normative basis for the specific rules on production, processing,
controls, labelling and trade with third countries (see Figure 5.1). Besides these rules, there are a
number of other instruments that aim to foster the development of organic farming at EU-level.
These include a) instruments used to support organic producers as part of CAP measures and b)
the use of funds to promote the organic logo. The EU also provides statistical information; and
44 Chapter 5 Intervention logic of the EU legislation on organic farming
supports research and development projects aimed at improving various aspects of organic
production (see e.g. European_Commission, 2010). Also relevant are a number of horizontal
measures such as the legislation on controls (Regulation (EU) 882/2004) and labelling (Regulation
(EU) 1169/2011). These instruments are not part of this evaluation but provide the context for
the impact of the instruments evaluated here. In many cases it might be difficult to clearly
separate the impact of one from the other.
Figure 5.1: Global objectives of Regulation (EC) 834/2007 and relevant objectives of the
CAP 2007-2013 in relation to the legislative measures of the regulation

Source: Own illustration.
Chapter 5 Intervention logic of the EU legislation on organic farming 45
5.3.2 Global objectives of the CAP for 2007-2013
As described at the beginning, the implementation of the EU legislation on organic farming is
closely related to specific needs of the organic sector (bottom-up reasons for the policy
intervention). In order to understand fully the context of the policy intervention, it is also
important to consider objectives of the CAP, notably the objectives of the EU rural development
policy, which provide more general reasons for the policy intervention (top-down reasons for the
policy intervention).
As stated in Article 3 of the Council Regulation (EC) 1698/2005, the current EU rural development
policy aims to improve a) the competitiveness of agriculture and forestry by supporting
restructuring, development and innovation; b) the environment and the countryside by
supporting land management; and c) quality of life in rural areas and encouraging diversification
of economic activity. The European Action Plan for Organic Food and Farming points out that
organic farming is particularly considered as a way to improve the environment, but can also
make contributions to achieving the other two aims. For this reasons, the Commission strongly
recommended Member States to make full use within their rural development programmes of
the instruments available to support organic farming (European_Commission, 2004a). In order to
ensure the contribution of the organic farming sector to the aims of EU rural development
policies, a clear definition of organic management practices including production rules is needed.
Food quality is a vital part of the EU agri-food sectors strategy in the global marketplace and
therefore another important issue of the CAP and its recent reforms (European_Commission,
2009). A wide range of support instruments exist at EU-level aiming to encourage farmers to
produce high quality food (e.g. support for food quality schemes under Pillar 1 and 2 of the CAP).
The decisive contribution of organic farming to the creation of products of high quality has again
been expressed in the EOAP. As described above, detailed production and processing rules are
needed to ensure that organic farming contributes to the CAP food quality strategy.
Simplifying the CAP is a key challenge that is addressed through various horizontal policy
initiatives of the Commission. The main objective of CAP simplification is a revision of the legal
framework as well as the reduction of administrative burdens for farmers. Simplification was also
one of the aims of the process of revision of the previous organic regulation. Recital 4 of the
Regulation links it to developing common objectives and establishing common principles that
ensure an effective functioning of the internal market. The importance of simplification is further
confirmed by Evaluation Question 6 being dedicated to it. It is obvious that simplification of the
CAP cannot be a reason for policy intervention in a narrow sense but indicates the direction of
the development of the CAP which is also relevant for the EU legislation on organic farming and
its possible revisions in the future.
46 Chapter 5 Intervention logic of the EU legislation on organic farming
5.4 Intermediate objectives of the Regulation (EC) 834/2007
Intermediate objectives (Figure 5.2) are mainly used to reconstruct the relationships between
global and specific objectives of the Regulation. The figure therefore repeats global objectives
(see above) on the right hand side with arrows indicating links between the two levels.
Figure 5.2: Global, intermediate and specific objectives of Regulation (EC) 834/2007 in
relation to its legislative measures

Source: Own illustration.
The first intermediate objective refers to the aim of organic production of developing a
sustainable system of agriculture (Article 3a). The different means by which this is to be
achieved are developed in specific objectives for the production rules (see below). This
intermediate objective is linked to the global objective guaranteeing fair competition reflecting
the need to protect organic farmers and to provide a basis for the delivery of public goods.
:hapter ; Inter!ention logic of the EU legislation on organic farming 9$
A second intermediate ob'ecti!e is to establish >common objectives and principles to underpin the
rules? 5Article 1.18. This addresses the need to remo!e the barriers for internal trade as they were
recognised in the E1A*. It is e&pected that such a harmonised perception of the concept of
organic farming will lead to >improving and reinforcing the communitys organic farming
standards, import and inspection requirements?. It thereby contributes to a functioning of the
internal maret and fair competition among operators as well as transparency and consumer
confidence.
The third intermediate ob'ecti!e is stated as one of organic production. >producing a wide variety
of products that respond to consumers demand? 5Article 3c8. The instrument of legislation is seen
as playing an important role in the policy framewor of the de!elopment of the agricultural
maret 5,ecital "8 and refers to the global ob'ecti!e of >ensuring consumer confidence and
protecting consumer interests?.
As mentioned abo!e% the intermediate ob'ecti!es ha!e mainly been used to lin global ob'ecti!es
with the specific ob'ecti!es of the specific instruments. They are not used to de!elop indicators
and criteria for the 'udgement of these ob'ecti!es.
5.5 $elationship bet3een measures and ob"ectives
5.5.1 $ules of organic production
Atatements about the specific ob'ecti!es of the production rules are found in Article 3 of the
,egulation. The principles applicable to farming and to the processing of food and feed 5Articles ;
to $8 represent a summary of statements on the detailed rules 5in ,egulation 5E:8 739< "##$ and
in the implementing rules8. In the model of the production rules 5=igure ;.38% these ha!e been
lined to the specific ob'ecti!es. =igure ;.3 maes it clear that there are !ery few mono-causal
linages% where one rule is set to pursue one ob'ecti!e% but many rules can be seen as
contributing to more than one specific ob'ecti!e of the production rules.
97 :hapter ; Inter!ention logic of the EU legislation on organic farming
-igure 5.3. The different types of production rules in relation to the specific principles and
ob'ecti!es of the ,egulation 5E:8 739<"##$

Aource. 1wn illustration.
5.5.2 $ules for labelling4 control and trade 3ith third countries
5abelling rules
Apecific ob'ecti!es of the labelling rules and the reasons why they ha!e been implemented are
found in ,ecitals "3 to "$. The main reason for the aim of protecting the term /organic4 5and
biological% ecological and other deri!ati!es8 from use on non-organic products% is to maintain
consumer confidence and ensure fair competition 5,ecital "38. Using the common logo on pre-
pacaged products that contain almost e&clusi!ely 5E 9; F8 organic ingredients is aimed at
creating clarity for the consumer 5,ecital "9 and ";8. The logo can be used alongside national and
pri!ate organic logos 5,ecital "C8. :onsumers should also be informed about the place where the
:hapter ; Inter!ention logic of the EU legislation on organic farming 99
agricultural raw materials originate 5,ecital "$8. In =igure ;.9 a summary of the rules lined to
specific ob'ecti!es is pro!ided. This illustrates that the specific ob'ecti!e of protecting the term
/organic4 is not only supported by the labelling% but also by se!eral control rules.
-igure 5.(. 6abelling and control rules% and rules of trade with third countries in relation to
the specific ob'ecti!es of the ,egulation 5E:8 739<"##$

Aource. 1wn illustration.
Control rules
The specific ob'ecti!es of the control rules are stated in ,ecital 31. As illustrated in =igure ;.9 the
first ob'ecti!e is to ensure that the acti!ities of all operators% along the whole supply chain 5from
production to distribution8% are submitted to a control system% so that organic products are
produced in accordance with the re(uirements. This contributes to ensuring both effecti!e
functioning of the maret and consumersG confidence.
;# :hapter ; Inter!ention logic of the EU legislation on organic farming
The second ob'ecti!e is to ensure that the control system is set up and managed in accordance
with the rules laid down in ,egulation 5E:8 77"<"##9% on official controls of food and feed. At
community le!el% this regulation aims to establish a harmonised framewor of general rules for
the organisation of controls that enforce food and feed law% animal health and animal welfare
rules. =urther% it aims to monitor and !erify that the rele!ant re(uirements thereof are fulfilled by
business operators at all stages of production% processing and distribution. Important aspects
rele!ant to the organic control system are. regularity and ris basis of controls% super!ision and
auditing of control bodies% regular communication of results to the competent authority%
immediate action in the case of non-compliances% access of the public to information on the
control acti!ities and the establishment of national procedures on sanctions 5see *adel 5"#1#8 for
further details8.
The control rules lin also to the operational ob'ecti!es for labelling as they represent an
important instrument to pre!ent misuse of the term /organic4.
$ules for the import from third countries
The main aim of the rules for imports from third countries 5,ecital 338 is to allow those products
to be placed on the :ommunity maret as organic% which ha!e been produced in accordance with
production rules and are sub'ect to control arrangements that are in compliance with% or
e(ui!alent to the rules of ,egulation. The following two recitals 539 and 3;8 mae clear that the
assessment of e(ui!alency has to tae the international legal framewor of the :ode&
Alimentarius into account. Apart from this specific aim% the rules for import from third countries
also support the protection of the term /organic4.
5.6 Concluding remar,
The model of inter!ention logic presented here conte&tualises the global ob'ecti!es of the
,egulation and the ob'ecti!es of organic production% which pro!ide the normati!e reference to
'udge the ade(uacy of organic production rules 5E!aluation Duestion "8% control rules 5E!aluation
Duestion 38% import rules 5E!aluation Duestion 98 and labelling rules 5E!aluation Duestion ;8 as
well as to 'udge the EU added !alue 5E!aluation Duestion $8 and the contribution of the
legislation to the sustainable de!elopment of the sector 5E!aluation Duestion 78. The normati!e
basis to 'udge the ade(uacy of the scope 5E!aluation Duestion 18 and the degree of simplification
5E!aluation Duestion C8 has been deduced from the bacground of the corresponding e!aluation
(uestions.














PART B

Responses to the evaluation
questions




Chapter 6
Adequacy of the scope of the Regulation

6.1 Introduction
Evaluation uestion 1
To what extent is the scope of the Regulation adequate to match the current needs of the
organic farming supply and distribution chain and those of the consumers of organic products?
In answering this question the following aspects need to be examined in more detail:
Whether the exclusion of mass catering from the scope of the current Regulation is still
adequate?
Whether there is a case for the inclusion of additional products under the scope of the
Regulation, such as non-food products partly made from agricultural raw materials e!g!
textiles, cosmetics" or products closely related to agriculture e!g! beeswax, mat#, essential
oils"?
Council Regulation (EC) 834/2007 on organic farming is limited to unprocessed and processed
agricultural products used for food and feed, vegetative propagating materials and seeds, east
(for food and feed) as !ell as products from a"uaculture# $%en conceiving t%e Regulation, t%e
Council %ad alread %ig%lig%ted t%e dnamic evolution of t%e organic farming sector and stressed
t%e need to re&e'amine t%e ade"uac of t%e current scope
1
# $it%in t%is conte't, in recent ears,
particular attention %as (een paid to mass catering and non&food products (European
Commission, 20)2)#
!ass catering
2
is e'plicitl e'cluded from t%e Regulation (EC) 834/2007 (*rticle )(3)) (ut can (e
regulated ( national organic regulations and/or private standards# +urt%ermore, t%e mass
catering sector is su(,ect to %ori-ontal E. rules on %giene and food la(elling# *t t%e time of
conceiving t%e Regulation, t%e inclusion of t%e catering sector !as ,udged to (e premature and
t%e protection of terms referring to organic production considered sufficient

1
/ee *rticle 4) for details#
"
*ccording to t%e definition in *rticle 2(aa) of Regulation (EC) 834/2007, 0mass catering operations means the
preparation of organic products in restaurants, hospitals, canteens and other similar food business at the point of sale
or deli$ery to the final consumer1#
24 C%apter 3 *de"uac of t%e scope of t%e Regulation

(European4Commission 20)2)# 5n t%e meantime t%e mar6et %as evolved and t%e Commission %as
stressed t%at developments in t%is sector need to (e follo!ed closel (i(id)#
7ar6ets are also developing for 8organic8 non#food products t%e most si-a(le of !%ic% are
cosmetic products and te'tiles# 9%ese are not in *nne' 5 of t%e E. 9reat
$
and t%erefore outside
t%e scope of t%e Regulations# /ome of t%ese non&food products are regulated in individual
7em(er /tates t%roug% national regulations and/or private organic standards# +urt%ermore,
some product categories are covered ( ot%er %ori-ontal E. regulations or measures, suc% as t%e
voluntar E. Ecola(el sc%eme# 5n its report on t%e application of t%e Regulation t%e Commission
points to t%e pro(lem t%at t%e inclusion of non&agricultural products !ould c%ange t%e
Regulation fundamentall, (ut also recognised t%e mar6et gro!t% of te'tiles and cosmetics !%ic%
ma6e reference to organic production#
9%e e'clusion of non&food products also concerns products t%at fall outside *nne' 5 of t%e E.
9reat (ut are closel lin6ed to agricultural products t%at are covered, suc% as (ees!a', essential
oils and medicinal %er(s# 9%is %as led to consumer confusions and t%e Commission recognises t%e
need for clarification on suc% products, and !%et%er, & if produced in compliance !it% t%e
re"uirements : t%e ma (e certified in accordance !it% t%e Regulation (European Commission,
20)2)#
*gainst t%is (ac6ground, t%e aim of Evaluation ;uestion ) is to esta(lis% !%et%er t%e e'isting
scope
%
meets t%e current needs of t%e organic farming suppl and distri(ution c%ain and of
consumers of organic products# 5n particular, it !as considered !%et%er t%e scope is clear,
!%et%er t%e current e'clusion of mass catering from t%e scope remains ade"uate, !%et%er t%ere
is a case to include non&food items (suc% as te'tiles and cosmetics) partl made from agricultural
ra! products#
*fter t%e introduction, t%e ,udgment criteria and approac% are descri(ed# 9%e presentation of t%e
results addresses t%e clarit of t%e scope, t%e ade"uac of t%e current e'clusion of mass catering
and considers t%e case for t%e inclusion of non&food items to meet t%e needs of t%e organic
sector and of consumers# +inall, t%e ,udgement in response to t%e evaluation "uestion is
presented#


$
*nne' ) of t%e 9reat on t%e functioning of t%e European .nion lists all products su(,ect to t%e C*< of t%e E.#
%
9%ere are t!o furt%er issues t%at are often discussed in t%e connection !it% t%e scope of t%e Regulation, !%ic% are
%o!ever not directl related to it and t%erefore not e'plored %ere= +irst, inputs used in organic production t%at are not
products from agriculture (suc% as feed or seeds)# 9%e are defined t%roug% t%e production rules and in particular
t%roug% t%e aut%orisation of su(stances to (e used in t%e production rules# *nd second, products !%ic% are covered (
t%e scope of t%e Regulation (ut for !%ic% no implementing rules e'ist (suc% as certain livestoc6 species)# 9%e are
covered in C%apter 7> t%e approval process for inputs is discussed in C%apter ))#
C%apter 3 *de"uac of t%e scope of t%e Regulation 22

6." Approach
9%e ans!er to Evaluation ;uestion ) is (ased on several ,udgement criteria !%ic% !ere deduced
directl from t%e evaluation "uestion itself=
()) The current scope of the E& Regulation is 'or is not( sufficiently clear to different
sta)eholders
* (asic re"uirement for t%e ade"uac of t%e scope is t%at it is clearl formulated and full
understood ( t%e implementing and enforcing (odies# 9o assess !%et%er t%e scope is clear
to different sta6e%olders, vie!s of competent aut%orities, ministries of agriculture and
control (odies from t%e )3 case stud countries !ere considered#
(2) The e*clusion of the scope +eets 'or does not +eet( the current needs of the organic
far+ing supply and distri,ution chain
(3) The e*clusion of the scope +eets 'or does not +eet( the current needs of consu+ers
9%e ade"uac of t%e e'clusion of products outside t%e scope is ,udged ( e'amining to
!%at e'tent t%e needs of t%e organic farming suppl and distri(ution c%ain and t%ose of t%e
consumers of organic products are met# 9%is !as e'amined separatel for e'clusion of mass
catering and for t%e non&food scopes of cosmetics, te'tiles and (&products of organic
agriculture# 9o assess t%e needs, first t%e presence of additional scopes in national organic
regulations and important private reference standards %as (een revie!ed# $%ile additional
provisions and scopes reflect t%e needs of t%e organic farming sector in certain countries,
t%e ade"uac of !%at s%ould (e regulated at E. level also depends on ot%er factors and for
t%is reason additional aspects !ere ta6en into consideration# *s a second indication of t%e
needs of t%e organic sector, t%e importance of t%e mar6et %as (een ta6en into
consideration# 9%is %as (een done ( analsis of e'isting mar6et data and t%e presence of
non&food&products la(elled as organic# 5f t%e corresponding mar6ets are still small and
premature, it can (e "uestioned !%et%er t%ere is a need to regulate t%e corresponding
production !it%in Council Regulation (EC) 834/2007# 5f t%e mar6et %as reac%ed a significant
level, one ma as6 !%et%er t%ere are ot%er private or E. initiatives !%ic% are satisfing or
%ave t%e potential to satisf t%e needs of t%e industr# +or t%is reason, e'isting literature
and information a(out ot%er private and E. instruments !ere revie!ed# +inall, a fourt%
indication is given ( t%e responses to t%e !e(&(ased consumer surve carried out in
Estonia, +rance, ?erman, 5tal, <oland and t%e .nited @ingdom# +urt%ermore, and most
importantl, t%e vie!s of sta6e%olders (including mass caterers and pu(lic procurement
institutions and te'tiles and cosmetic (usinesses) from t%e )3 case stud countries as !ell
as e'pert vie!s, including Commission officials !ere used#
23 C%apter 3 *de"uac of t%e scope of t%e Regulation

6.$ Results
6.$.1 Clarity of e*isting scopes in the current Regulation
%indings from an analysis of pro$isions and other pri$ate or public initiati$es
9%e scope is set out in *rticle ) of Regulation (EC) 834/2007 concerning operators and products,
and in *rticle 42 concerning products for !%ic% detailed production rules are not laid do!n# *lso
t%e implementing rules (Regulation (EC) 88A/2008) refer to t%e scope in t%e several articles t%at
mainl relate to production rules (e#g# *rticle ) and 7 regarding livestoc6 species covered), for
furt%er details see C%apter 7#
&iews of sta'eholders
5n t%e intervie!s %eld in t%e )3 case stud countries t%e sta6e%olders !ere mostl of t%e opinion
t%at t%e current scope of t%e E. Regulation is clearl formulated# 9!o e'ceptions !ere identified
!%ere t%e scope is not completel clear=
5t is not clear %o! agricultural non#food ra- +aterials (products closel related to organic
agriculture) can communicate organic status in t%e final product# /uc% ra! materials are
produced organicall in Europe, (ut at present not processed into organic food products# 9%e
follo!ing products !ere specificall mentioned= !ool, leat%er, (ees!a'
.
, essential oils (used
in food (ut also in cosmetics), trees and flo!ers and medicinal %er(s#
9%e definition of !%at is covered ( t%e +ass catering e*clusion !as considered to (e
unclear# Representatives from a control (od and t%e competent aut%orit in t%e .nited
@ingdom !ere concerned a(out a lac6 of clarit of !%at t%e e'emptions cover# 5n t%eir vie!,
t%e definition could (e misunderstood to e'empt as Bsimilar food (usinesses8 6itc%ens t%at
produce (ul6 food products for on!ard sale to restaurants and %ospitals and do not sell
directl to t%e final consumer# 9%is !ould (e undesira(le from t%e point of vie! of fraud
prevention# Cac6 of clarit of !%at is covered ( t%e mass catering e'clusion is also e'pressed
( t%e situation in +rance and Estonia# 5ntervie! partners in (ot% countries indicated t%at
(some) mass catering operators are re"uired to meet all re"uirements t%at appl to
processing (usinesses and in /pain t%e !ere also of t%e opinion t%at t%is !ould (e desira(le
(see 9a(le 3#2 (elo!)#

.
9%e Regulation (EC) 88A/2008 re"uires t%e use of (ees!a' from organic units in apiaries#
C%apter 3 *de"uac of t%e scope of t%e Regulation 27

6.$." Adequacy of current e*clusion of +ass catering fro+ the scope
!eeting the needs of the organic sector
%indings from an analysis of pro$isions and other pri$ate or public initiati$es
7ass catering is regulated at a national level in si' of t%e )3 case stud countries (*ustria,
Denmar6, Estonia, +rance ?erman, and /lovenia), !%ilst private standards for mass catering
e'ist in 5tal (various), ?erman (E5FC*GD), /pain (C**E), C-ec% Repu(lic (<ro&Eio), t%e
Get%erlands (/tic%ting E@F&@eurmer6) and t%e .nited @ingdom (/oil *ssociation)# 9%e +renc%
rules su(mit private mass caterers to control and certification, !%ereas pu(lic caterers are
e'empt# *ccording to t%e Commission8s o!n surve from 20)) (European Commission, 20)2)
seven 7em(er /tates (*ustria, ?erman, Denmar6, Estonia, Catvia, Cit%uania and /lovenia) %ad
introduced national rules on mass catering, !%ile private standards e'ist in ten ot%er 7em(er
/tates (Eelgium, C-ec% Repu(lic, /pain, +inland, Hungar, 5reland, 5tal, t%e Get%erlands, /!eden
and t%e .nited @ingdom)#
9%e mass catering sector re"uires some fle'i(ilit, since it is difficult to o(tain all t%e organic
ingredients re"uired !%en producing a !ide range of dis%es# Iarious approac%es %ave (een
adopted to overcome t%is# +or e'ample, under ?erman la! caterers can use organic indications
in relation to one ingredient in a mi'ed menu (e#g# organic potatoes), one component (e#g# all
vegeta(les) or organic dis%es ()00K of agricultural ingredients %ave to (e organic) (7@.CGI,
20)))# /ome private standards also e'plicitl address t%e need for fle'i(ilit in t%eir rules for
organic mass catering# +or e'ample, under t%e ?erman E5FC*GD rules t%e caterer enters into a
0gastronomic partnership contract1 t%at o(liges restaurants to use at least 70K organic
ingredients (!it% some fle'i(ilit to start !it% proportions), and for canteens an organic s%are of
at least 30K is re"uired
6
# 9%e +ood for Cife Catering 7ar6 of t%e /oil *ssociation for sc%ools and
ot%er canteens distinguis%es (et!een a (ron-e, silver and gold a!ard# +or t%e gold a!ard at least
)2K of t%e ra! materials %ave to (e certified organic#
/

(ar'et data
*t present t%ere are no data on t%e si-e of t%e organic mar6et for mass catering in Europe, (ut
data do e'ist in some 7em(er /tates# 9%e E. funded researc% pro,ect FrganicDataGet!or6
0

carried out a surve in 20)2 !it% t%e aim of collecting and collating national data# 9a(le 3#)
presents catering data for t%ose case stud countries, !%ere suc% information !as reported for
20))# 9o give an estimate of t%e relative importance of catering, t%e ta(le also s%o!s t%e value of
domestic retail sales (t%roug% s%ops and direct sales as is s%o!n in 9a(le 2#2, (ut not including

6
/ee %ttp=//!!!#(ioland#de/verar(eiter/gastronomie6on-ept#%tml#
/
/ee %ttp=//!!!#sacert#org/catering/standards/silverandgold#
0
/ee %ttp=//!!!#organicdatanet!or6#net#
28 C%apter 3 *de"uac of t%e scope of t%e Regulation

food consumption outside t%e %ouse/catering)# Estimated sector si-e in countries !it% national
rules ranges from more t%an )0K in Denmar6 to less t%an )K in /lovenia# 9%e largest sector
estimate !as reported from 5tal !%ic% %as no national rules (ut several private standards,
!%ereas t%e sector in t%e .nited @ingdom (!it% one private standard) is estimated to (e !ort%
less t%an )K of t%e total organic mar6et#
Ta,le 6.11 Estimates of catering sales values in 20)) in some 7em(er /tates (ased on
national sources

/ource= FrganicDataGet!or6 /urve 20)3 (unpu(lis%ed)#
&iews of sta'eholders
/ta6e%olders8 vie!s regarding t%e ade"uac of t%e e'clusion of mass catering in meeting t%e
needs of t%e organic sector !ere o(tained t%roug% t%e !e(&(ased sta6e%older surve and
t%roug% personal intervie!s in t%e case stud countries !it% people emploed in t%e field of
mass catering or pu(lic procurement using organic products and !it% control (odies and
competent aut%orities#
Fne "uestion in t%e sta6e%older surve as6ed a(out t%e inclusion of mass catering, to !%ic% t%e
respondents could e'press t%eir level of agreement on a 7 point scale# 9%e ma,orit of t%e 232
respondents agreed !it% t%e statement in full, follo!ed closel ( t%ose c%oosing not to ans!er
t%is "uestion (+igure 3#))# 9%ere !as little variation (et!een t%e responses from t%e different
countries, e'cept t%at all respondents from Denmar6 disagreed !it% t%e statement# *greement
!as also less pronounced among respondents from national and competent aut%orities, !%ere a
%ig%er proportion (22K of a total of 33 responses compared !it% AK in t%e !%ole sample
disagreed !it% t%e statement)#
Country
*ustria ) 032 34 ) )30 2#7
C-ec% Repu(lic 2A 2 33 7#2
Denmar6 A0) )02 ) 003 )0#4
+rance 3 722 )28 3 A)) 4#0
?erman 3 2A0 300 3 8A0 4#4
5tal ) 720 280 2 000 )3#A
Get%erlands 73) )20 88) )3#7
/lovenia 34 0 34 0#)
.nited @ingdom ) A03 )8 ) A2) 0#A
Catering as 2
of total sales
7io# L 7io# L K
Total organic sales
including catering
7io# L
3o+estic organic sales
e*cluding catering
4rganic catering
sales
C%apter 3 *de"uac of t%e scope of t%e Regulation 2A

5igure 6.11 Iie!s of sta6e%olders regarding t%e coverage of mass catering in t%e Regulation
(nM 232)

/ource= F!n data from !e(&(ased sta6e%older surve#
$%en as6ing a(out t%e si-e of t%e organic mass catering mar6et in t%e case stud countries, most
intervie!ees descri(ed t%e mar6et as small# 5n +rance, t%e Get%erlands and t%e .nited @ingdom
t%e respective sectors !ere descri(ed as significant and gro!ing (ut varia(le (et!een t%e
different regions and in importance of commercial (restaurants) and pu(lic (canteens in sc%ools
and %ospitals) catering#
)3 intervie!ees !or6ing !it% organic food in mass catering !ere as6ed to consider !%et%er t%e
current e'clusion of mass catering in t%e scope of t%e E. Regulation s%ould (e lifted# /even !ere
against, five !ere in favour and t%ree !ere unsure# 9a(le 3#2 summarises t%e main arguments for
eac% countr of t%ose intervie!ees, as !ell as from control (odies and competent aut%orities,
illustrating, !%ere relevant, differing opinions among sta6e%older groups#
n
totall largel partl Geit%er/
nor
partl 5 donNt
6no!
0
)0
20
30
40
20
30
70
largel totall
*gree Disagree
Question: Do you agree withs the following statement? Mass catering shourd be subject of teh EU organic
farming legislation.
30 C%apter 3 *de"uac of t%e scope of t%e Regulation

Ta,le 6."1 /ummar of t%e main arguments of mass caterers in t%e case stud countries
regarding inclusion/e'clusion of mass catering

9%e follo!ing a((reviations are used to indicate different groups of sta6e%olders= competent aut%orities (C*), staff of
ministries (7in), organic producer organisations (<F), control (odies (CE), mass caterers (7C), cosmetics O te'tiles
companies (Cos, 9e'), organic (usiness groups and ot%er operators suc% as retailers (ot%er)#
/ource= F!n data from national case studies#

AT 9%e national code' is sufficient for t%e limited si-e of t%e sector> t%ere is limited suppl of organic ra!
materials for catering (7C)
B6 5nclusion could provide clarit (if clear and simple), (ut also prevent development if too restrictive (7C)
C7 Cimited suppl of organic food> mig%t lead to increases in costs, (ut also limited recognition (
government (7C)
/%ould (e left of private standards and CEs (CE)
38 Gational rules are seen as sufficient as t%ere is no international trade> E. rules could (e less strict t%an
national rules and t%us undermine consumer confidence (C*, 7C)
3E Gational rules e'ist and are considered to (e !or6ing !ell (7in),
(ut inclusion in t%e E. rules !ould improve consumer protection (C*, <F, 7C)
EE Gational rules e'ist and catering is seen as important (C*)
CEs are concerned a(out national rules (eing too restrictive and e'pect inclusion to provide more clarit
E9 5nclusion could promote t%e organic sector, (ut could also limit, if too restrictive (7C)
Fne official (elieves t%at processing rules s%ould appl, !%ereas anot%er !ould li6e to see more
clarification
5R Gational rules e'ist, (ut onl appl to pu(lic catering (7in, C*)> e'isting rules are not adapted to
restaurants and num(er of restaurants %as decreased since t%e implementation (CE)>
differing vie!s regarding inclusion> danger of slo!ing t%e development (7C, <F) (ut also potential to
improve protection and avoid distortion (et!een 7em(er /tates (7C)
IT 9%ere are some private sc%emes (C*) (ut complicated and time&consuming registration (CE)>
5nclusion is li6el to slo! t%e development and increase costs to operators (especiall small
ones) and consumers (7C)> (ut could improve t%e recognition in green pu(lic procurement (7C)
:; E'isting private sc%emes are considered sufficient (C*, 7C, Ft%er)
P; Got important, as t%ere is no mass catering (C*)
9I 5nclusion could improve a!areness a(out organic and avoid distortion (et!een 7/ in tourism (CE)
&8 E'isting private sc%emes are considered sufficient> concern regarding regulator (urden imposed on
operators (C*, CE)
C%apter 3 *de"uac of t%e scope of t%e Regulation 3)

9%e vie!s e'pressed can (e clustered in lig%t of t%e development of t%e mar6et and !%et%er or
not national legislation is present# 5n several countries !it% !ell&esta(lis%ed mar6ets and !it%
national legislation (*ustria, Denmar6, +rance, ?erman) or functioning private sc%emes
(Get%erlands, .nited @ingdom) intervie!ees e'pressed little desire for inclusion of mass catering
in t%e E. Regulation# Ho!ever, some intervie! partners in 5tal and ?erman !ere in favour of
inclusion to en%ance (ecause of improved consumer protection and improved recognition as part
of green pu(lic procurement (see also analsis on green pu(lic procurement (elo!)# Ft%er
intervie! partners in favour of t%e inclusion of mass catering in t%e Regulation came mainl from
countries !it% less developed organic mar6ets# /ome participants in favour of inclusion
emp%asised t%e need for a clear and simple regulation t%at !ill not increase production costs#
9%e ade"uac of national rules for mass catering !ere not part of t%is evaluation, (ut some
comments from sta6e%olders indicate t%at some aspects are seen as pro(lematic# +or e'ample, a
control (od in Estonia mentioned t%at 0the authorities require that mass caterers ha$e to follow
the same rules as processors), !%ic% implies t%at t%e are not e'empt in t%e sense of t%e
Regulation# *lso, some sta6e%olders in +rance !ere of t%e vie! t%at t%e current +renc% rules for
restaurants are too restrictive, indicated ( a slo!ing do!n in gro!t% of t%e sector since t%e
provisions came into force#
7ost intervie!ees !ere of t%e opinion t%at t%ere is no cross (order trade of mass catering
products in t%e E., t%erefore t%at t%e a(sence of mass catering from t%e scope of t%e Regulation
%ad no impact on competition#
Fn t%e ot%er %and, several sta6e%olders put for!ard t%e argument t%at setting E. standards for
mass catering could increase recognition of organic food in pu(lic procurement, ( giving greater
visi(ilit and prominence to organic products#
*ther factors and instruments
9%e European Commission8s ?reen <u(lic <rocurement (?<<) guidelines
<
address organic food
under t%e %eading of catering ( suggesting t%e inclusion of a minimum percentage of organic
food in procurement contracts for pu(lic canteens (European Commission, 20)))# Ft%er t%an t%is
t%e guidelines do not provide furt%er details or rules for organic catering, !%ic% !ould (e,
%o!ever, needed to implement t%em# 5t is, e#g#, unclear %o! ad%erence to certain re"uirements
can (e verified and in !%ic% !a references can (e made to t%e term Borganic8# 9%us t%e

<
?reen <u(lic <rocurement (?<<) is defined in t%e Commission Communication on pu(lic procurement for a (etter
environment (CF7 (2008) 400) as 0a process whereby public authorities see' to procure goods, ser$ices and wor's with
a reduced en$ironmental impact throughout their life cycle when compared to goods, ser$ices and wor's with the same
primary function that would otherwise be procured#1 9%e ?<< guidelines are a voluntar instrument to encourage
environmental criteria to (e considered in pu(lic procurement and include food and catering as one of )0 priorit
sectors#
32 C%apter 3 *de"uac of t%e scope of t%e Regulation

implementation of t%ese E. guidelines is difficult in t%ose 7em(er /tates !%ere no national
rules for organic catering e'ist#
!eeting the needs of consu+ers
&iews of sta'eholders
*ssessment of t%e ade"uac of t%e provisions in meeting t%e needs of consumer !as (ased on
t%e opinions of e'perts intervie!ed !%o are involved in mass catering in t%e case stud
countries# 5mproved protection of consumers from misleading claims, t%e prevention of fraud
and loss of consumer confidence !ere important reasons given ( t%ose sta6e%olders !%o !ere
of t%e vie! t%at mass catering s%ould (e included in t%e scope of t%e Regulation (see 9a(le 3#2)#
9%ere !ere also e'pectations t%at including mass catering !ould promote greater a!areness
among consumers and a consistenc of "ualit# Ho!ever, lac6 of consumer demand for organic
mass catering !as also one of t%e main reasons given ( sta6e%olders for not including it in t%e
scope of t%e Regulation#
6.$.$ Adequacy of e*clusion of non#food products fro+ the scope
!eeting the needs of the organic sector
%indings from an analysis of pro$isions and other pri$ate or public initiati$es
*ccording to t%e information of intervie!ed industr e'perts, t%e most significant (organic) non&
food product areas in terms of mar6et si-e are cosmetics and te'tiles neit%er of !%ic% is included
in t%e scope of Regulation (EC) 834/2007#
*t E. level, all cos+etics are su(,ect to Regulation (EC) )223/200A (E. Cosmetics Regulation)
!%ic% aims to ensure t%at consumers8 %ealt% is protected and t%at t%e are !ell informed, (
monitoring t%e composition and la(elling of products# 5t provides for t%e assessment of product
safet and t%e pro%i(ition of animal testing, and also regulates t%e use of some claims on
cosmetic products# Gatural/organic cosmetic products must compl !it% t%e re"uirement, (ut
t%e Regulation does not cover organic or natural claims#
5n t%e conte't of use of organic ingredients in cosmetics= t%e term Borganic8 is fre"uentl used in
con,unction !it% t%e term Bnatural8 cosmetics# Fne of t%e case stud countries (*ustria) %as
national rules for natural and organic cosmetics# 9%is legislation defines !%at constitutes natural
and organic cosmetics and also outlines provisions related to ingredients, additives, processing
(permitted p%sical and c%emical treatments), minimum s%are of organic ingredients, la(elling
C%apter 3 *de"uac of t%e scope of t%e Regulation 33

and issues concerning transition period
1>
# <rovisions for organic cosmetics also e'ist in private
reference standards of <ro&Eio (C-ec% Repu(lic), Gature et progrPs (+rance) and t%e /oil
*ssociation (.nited @ingdom)#
/ome standards use t%e A2K minimum level of organic ingredients for an organic la(el, (ut appl
t%is onl to t%ose ingredients t%at can potentiall (e o(tained from organic agriculture and not to
ot%er components# 9%is is pro(lematic for products t%at contain onl a ver small proportion of
possi(le organic ingredients# +or e'ample, in t%e case of a s%ampoo t%at tpicall contains onl
2K ra! materials from agriculture> a A2K t%res%old implies t%at a product containing onl
4#72K organic ingredients can (e la(elled as organic#
9%ere are t!o international private initiatives (G*9R.E and CF/7F/) aiming to develop an
international standard for natural and organic cosmetic# Eot% use t%ree la(el categories= a (asic
la(el t%at re"uires onl natural ingredients !it% a definition of !%at is meant ( natural, a
medium la(el !it% some organic ingredients and an organic la(el !%ere A2K of possi(le
ingredients %ave to (e organic# G*9R.E is an initiative of several (rand o!ners# 5t re"uires t%at
onl natural, some nature&identical and derived natural ra! materials ma (e used and provides
a definition of t%ese terms# 9%e natural materials including t%e starting materials for derived
natural ra! materials s%ould prefera(l (e of organic grade#
11
9%e CF/7F/ /tandard %as (een
developed ( five organisations (ED5H in ?erman, CF/7EE5F and ECFCER9 in +rance, 5CE* in
5tal, and /oil *ssociation in t%e .nited @ingdom) t%at %ave formed an um(rella (od to define
common re"uirements and definitions for organic and/or natural cosmetics#
1"

5n 20)0, t%e Commission (D? /*GCF) esta(lis%ed a !or6ing group to e'amine claims currentl
used !it% respect to cosmetic products (including natural and organic claims) and to identif
some categories for !%ic% t%e use of specific common criteria s%ould appl#
1$
$it%in t%is conte't
t%e e'istence of a !or6ing group of t%e 5nternational /tandards Frganisation (5/F) is also
important as it see6s to develop internationall accepted definitions for organicall gro!n
cosmetic ingredients#
1%
/everal European standard o!ners for organic cosmetics are represented
in t%is group# 9%e Commission concluded t%at duplication (et!een t%e t!o initiatives s%ould (e
avoided#

1>
Gatural su(stances are defined as su(stances of plant, mineral and some animal origin and t%eir mi'tures# Reaction
products of t%ese natural products s%all (e considered as c%emicall modified natural products (o!n translation from
Eundesministerium fQr ?esund%eit (200A))#
11
/ee %ttp=//!!!#natrue#org#
1"
/ee %ttp=//!!!#cosmos&standard#org#
1$
%ttp=//ec#europa#eu/consumers/sectors/cosmetics/files/pdf/organic4standard4en#pdf#
1%
%ttp=//!!!#iso#org/iso/%ome/store/catalogue4tc/catalogue4detail#%tmRcsnum(erM32203#
34 C%apter 3 *de"uac of t%e scope of t%e Regulation

Frganic te*tiles are not covered ( an national organic regulations in t%e case stud countries,
(ut provisions e'ist in t%e private standards of t%e /oil *ssociation (.nited @ingdom) and
Gaturland (?erman)#
/ince 2003, an international !or6ing group on ?lo(al Frganic 9e'tile /tandard (?F9/) %as gained
more interests !it% )2 certification (odies !or6ing to t%e standard glo(all# 5n 20)2, t%e num(er
of ?F9/&certified te'tile facilities glo(all reac%ed 2#AA2 in 22 countries, a )0#4K increase on t%e
previous ear (/oil *ssociation, 20)3)# ?F9/ (uilds on t%e legal definition of organic produce in
t%e E. and t%e ./* and is modelled on 5+F*7 draft standards# ?F9/ allo!s for t%e certification
of products containing a minimum of 70K certified organic fi(res (Bmade !it% organic8) and a
minimum A2K organic fi(res (8organic8)# 9%e standard covers t%e entire suppl c%ain and
incorporates social and environmental responsi(ilit criteria# 5n 20)), t%e ./D* Gational Frganic
<rogramme (GF<) formall recognised ?F9/ ( allo!ing te'tile products produced in accordance
!it% ?F9/ to (e sold as organic in t%e ./* (ut not refer to GF< certification or displa t%e ./D*
organic seal (./D*, 20)))#
* recent stud of la(elling options for te'tiles investigated various polic options paing
particular attention to e'isting legislation (7atri' 5nsig%t, 20)2)# Frganic la(elling of te'tiles, or
more precisel lin6ing t%e use of t%e term Borganic8 for natural fi(res (e#g# cotton) to t%e Council
Regulation (EC) 834/2007, !as investigated# 9%e rationale for considering t%ese options referred
to some evidence of increasing consumer interest in environmental la(elling, t%e danger t%at
misleading environmental claims can distort t%e mar6et and affect consumer confidence in
genuine la(els# 9%e stud concluded t%at including te'tiles in t%e scope of t%e E. organic
Regulation could %ave a modest positive impact in terms of avoiding misleading claims, (ut
!ould re"uire a significant cost for developing t%e standard and some effort for t%e ma,orit of
t%e industr to adapt la(els# 9%e report dra!s attention to t%e recent e"uivalenc agreement
(et!een t%e E. and t%e ./ suggests t%at t%is ma provide an opportunit for t%e E. to recognise
organic te'tile and clot%ing products (7atri' 5nsig%t, 20)2)#
*part from specific organic la(els, operators are also a(le to use voluntar ecological la(els suc%
as t%e E. Ecola(el# 9%is allo!s for Borganic cotton8 to (e displaed ne't to t%e Ecola(el !%ere at
least A2K of t%e cotton is certified organic#
(ar'et estimates
*ccording to one industr estimate (?fa$, undated), t%e mar6et s%are of natural cos+etics is at
present appro'imatel 3#2K (in 20))) of t%e total mar6et for cosmetics in t%e E.# 5n addition
t%ere are anot%er 7#8K of products in t%e Bnear natural8 categor, !%ic% restrict certain
ingredients (e#g# para(enes) (ut do not fulfil t%e strict re"uirements of certified natural/organic
cosmetic# 9%ere are no data on trade, (ut clear indication t%at it ta6es place#
Data on t%e si-e of t%e mar6et for organic te*tiles are not collected in all 7em(er /tates, (ut t%e
E. mar6et for organic clot%ing and te'tiles !as estimated to (e !ort% appro'imatel 883 million
C%apter 3 *de"uac of t%e scope of t%e Regulation 32

Euro to ) (illion Euro in 20)) (7atri' 5nsig%t, 20)2)#
1.
9%is figure !as e'trapolated from data on
t%e organic te'tiles mar6et in t%e .nited @ingdom# Frganic cotton accounts for over A0K of t%e
mar6et representing a(out 0#7K of glo(al cotton production# 9%ere is a glo(al mar6et for organic
fi(res (mainl cotton) and te'tiles#
&iews of sta'eholders
5n t%e sta6e%older surve a ma,orit of respondents !ere of t%e vie! t%at (ot% cosmetics and
te'tiles s%ould (e regulated at European level, (ut more t%an one t%ird of respondents c%ose not
to ans!er t%e "uestion# *greement !as ver strong among all operators (producers, processors
and importers) and least strong among respondents from national and competent aut%orities#
9%ere !as little variation in responses according to countr#
5igure 6."1 Iie!s of sta6e%olders regarding coverage of cosmetics and te'tiles in t%e
Regulation (nM 232)

/ource= F!n data from !e(&(ased sta6e%older surve#
9%e ma,orit of sta6e%olders intervie!ed !ere also of t%e opinion t%at some provisions for t%e
use of t%e term organic for non&food scopes (including te'tiles and cosmetics) s%ould (e made at
European level# 9%e main reasons given !ere ensuring fairer competition, improving
transparenc (including t%e use of common logo for all organic products as mentioned ( +renc%
and Dutc% te'tile companies)# *n official of t%e +renc% 7inistr !as also concerned t%at e'isting
private standards are not functioning effectivel or are allo!ing products t%at contain a ver lo!
percentage of organic to ma6e use of t%e term#

1.
Evidence provided also ( Her(ert Cad!ig from ?F9/ during t%e %earing on E. organic polic and legal frame!or6 on
28 /eptem(er 20)2 in Erussels#
0
)0
20
30
40
20
30
70
80
Cosmetics s%ould (e su(,ect of t%e
E. organic farming legislation
t
o
t
a
l
l

l
a
r
g
e
l

p
a
r
t
l

G
e
i
t
%
e
r
/
n
o
r
5

d
o
n
8
t

6
n
o
!
C
e
f
t

(
l
a
n
6
*gree
p
a
r
t
l

l
a
r
g
e
l

t
o
t
a
l
l

Disagree
t
o
t
a
l
l

l
a
r
g
e
l

p
a
r
t
l

G
e
i
t
%
e
r
/
n
o
r
5

d
o
n
8
t

6
n
o
!
C
e
f
t

(
l
a
n
6
*gree
p
a
r
t
l

l
a
r
g
e
l

t
o
t
a
l
l

Disagree
0
)0
20
30
40
20
30
70
80
9e'tiles s%ould (e su(,ect of t%e
E. organic farming legislation
nn
33 C%apter 3 *de"uac of t%e scope of t%e Regulation

+urt%ermore, a ma,or concern for sta6e%olders is Bgreen!as%ing8, i#e# use of unsu(stantiated
environmental claims !%ic% ris6 t%e integrit of t%e sector, distort t%e mar6et and undermine
consumer confidence in genuine claims# 5n contrast, in t%e vie! of some (for e'ample a ?erman
sta6e%older) e'tending t%e use of t%e term organic or (iological to non&food items !it%out clear
provisions carries t%e ris6 t%at trust in t%e terms could (e lost#
Ho!ever in contrast to t%e !e(&(ased sta6e%older surve, t%e intervie!s revealed t%at ver fe!
sta6e%olders !ere of t%e opinion t%at organic cosmetics and te'tiles s%ould (e regulated (
inclusion in t%e E. Regulation on organic food# +or (ot% cosmetics and te'tiles one reason given
!as t%e fact t%at non&food scopes are outside t%e scope of agricultural legislation and (ot%
sectors s%ould (e rat%er regulated ( t%e respective European aut%orities# +or cosmetics,
anot%er important reason !as t%e limited suppl of ingredients in t%e European mar6et (e#g#
mentioned ( an *ustrian cosmetic compan)# Concerns !ere also voiced ( t!o sta6e%olders
(Denmar6 and .nited @ingdom) t%at inclusion in t%e Regulation could %inder or ta6e resources
a!a from t%e development of t%e rules for t%e agricultural sector# 9%e Danis% respondent !as
also concerned t%at t%e current regulator sstems !ould (e too slo! to respond to c%anging
conditions in t%e mar6et and t%at t%e inclusion of non&food scopes !ould create too muc%
comple'it# 5ntervie!ees from a .@ organic producer organisation and control (od suggested
t%at recognition of and support for t%e organic sector8s on&going attempts to %armonise private
standards !ould (e sufficient#
5ndustr e'perts in t%e field of cosmetics and te'tiles outlined t%at t%e current approac% to t%e
regulation of organic food cannot (e transferred to non&food sectors# 9%e most important tas6 of
an standard for natural/organic cosmetics is t%e evaluation of all t%e main ingredients resulting
in a positive list# .nli6e food products, !%ere aiming for nearl )00K organic is possi(le, t%e
percentage of ingredients t%at can (e organic in cosmetics and (od&care products is relativel
lo! (for e'ample less t%an 2K in a s%ampoo) and varies considera(l (et!een different product
categories# Regulating cosmetics as part of t%e E. Regulation !ould t%erefore re"uire a different
standard t%an t%at !%ic% currentl e'ists for food# 5t !as also pointed out t%at t%ere are
diverging vie!s in t%e sector of natural cosmetics as to !%at constitutes a valid organic claim#
*lso for te'tiles, e'perts e'pressed t%e vie! t%at an organic standard for te'tile products (rat%er
t%an te'tiles fi(res) s%ould not onl aim to address t%e organic status of t%e ra! materials, (ut
also t%e processing and manufacturing stages of t%e suppl c%ain, and specif processing and
manufacturing tec%nologies and ingredients (suc% as des) t%at are used in t%e final product#
.nli6e for cosmetics, several intervie! partners from te'tile companies !ere of t%e vie! t%at
t%ere is common understanding in t%e sector as to !%at constitutes a valid organic claim# /ome
pointed to a strong need to include fairness criteria in relation to la(our in an organic te'tile
standard, (ecause of concerns a(out la(our conditions in t%e te'tile sector#
Ft%er products for !%ic% t%e intervie! partners !ould li6e to see t%e situation clarified is
regarding t%e coverage of t%e Regulation and organic claims for non&food products closel
C%apter 3 *de"uac of t%e scope of t%e Regulation 37

related to organic agriculture, suc% as !ool, leat%er, medicinal plants, essential oils for use in
cosmetics and pet food# 5ntervie! partners in +rance suggested t%at t%e approval process for
inputs for organic agriculture s%ould (e removed from t%e control (odies#
!eeting the needs of consu+ers
+resence of non-food products labelled as organic
5n eac% case stud countr a small sample of stores !as visited to o(serve t%e e'tent to !%ic%
organic claims are (eing made on non&food items# * !ide range of products !as reported
including man organic (or (iological/ecological) cosmetic products !it% and !it%out certification
mar6s, several te'tile products, %ouse%old cleaning agents and ot%er products=
*mong t%e cos+etics and ,ody#care products man %ad some reference to certification
using t%e logos of or ma6ing reference to national or private organic logos (e#g# from *5*E,
Eal6an(iocert, ED5H, Eio/uisse, C%art Cosme(io, Cosmeti"ue Eio, Demeter, Ecocert,
Ecocontrol, Eco&?arantie, 5CE*, Gatrue, G/+& *G/5, Frganic +ood +ederation, /oil *ssociation,
./D*&Frganic) as !ell as using o!n logos of some companies# /ome (ut not all products list
t%e percentage of organic ra! material on t%e la(el# 9%ere !ere also a num(er of products
using t%e term Borganic8 in t%e name t%at did not mention organic in t%e list of ingredients or
ma6e an reference to certification#
5n t%e categor of te*tile products using t%e term organic or e"uivalent, onl t!o certification
mar6s !ere reported, !%ic% are t%e ?erman Gaturland and t%e ?F9/ mar6#
5n t%e categor of household cleaning products a num(er of products carried t%e E. Ecola(el
and an *5*E or ECFCER9 logo#
9%ere !as a !ide variet of other products mar6eted !it% an organic association including
cotton (uds, nappies, mattresses, C%ristmas trees, fertilisers, stationer, cat litter, electric
lig%t (ul(s and !ater# 5n t%e ma,orit of cases t%e reasoning for t%e organic claim !as not
furt%er specified#
9%is !ide variet of products ma6ing organic claims confirms t%e vie! of sta6e%olders operating
in t%e organic non&food sector t%at t%ere is confusion around t%e use of t%e term organic# *
recent ruling of t%e .@ *dvertising /tandards *genc on t%e use of t%e term organic on a (od
care product refers to fact t%at 0a consumer presented with a product using the term organic
prominently on the label would expect the product to be independently accredited or to use a high
proportion of organic ingredients1#
16


16
%ttp=//!!!#organicmonitor#com#
38 C%apter 3 *de"uac of t%e scope of t%e Regulation

Results of the consumer sur$ey
9%e responses to t%e !e(&(ased consumer surve indicate t%at t%ere appears to (e some unmet
demand for organic te'tiles and cosmetics# *ppro'imatel 2K of responses received from
consumers indicated t%at t%e are not a(le to (u all t%e organic te'tiles and cosmetic products
t%e !ant#
6.% ?udge+ent and conclusions
Eased on t%e results presented in t%e section a(ove, it is concluded that the scope of the
Regulation is +ostly adequate to +atch the current needs of organic far+ing supply and
distri,ution chains= ,ut is not fully adequate to +eet the needs of consu+ers of organic
products, ta6ing t%e follo!ing into account=
Cac6 of clarit e'ists mainl !it% regard to non&food products closel related to organic
agriculture, suc% as !ool, (ees!a', some essential oils and %er(s for medicinal use#
5n some 7em(er /tates national and/or private provisions e'ist for organic mass catering#
9%ere is limited evidence of intra&communit trade, so t%e a(sence of a uniform E. standard
does not impact on t%e fairness of competition among operators in catering services# 9%ere is
some support among sta6e%olders for t%e inclusion of mass catering under t%e scope of t%e
Regulation to improve clarit for consumers and to increase potential for recognition of
organic farming !it%in green pu(lic procurement# Ho!ever, inclusion could increase t%e
regulator (urden on t%e sector and t%erefore %as t%e potential to %inder rat%er t%an t%e
support t%e development of t%is sector#
Iarious non&food products (suc% as (od care products and cosmetics, %ouse%old cleaning
products and te'tiles) using organic claims are found in retail outlets# 9%is is li6el to cause
confusion for consumers and could undermine trust in t%e organic la(el for food products#
Ho!ever, t%e la(elling re"uirement of a minimum of A2K of organic ingredients t%at applies
to organic food is not transfera(le to cosmetics and te'tiles# <rivate standards and
international initiatives e'ist !%ic% are developing %armonised and accepted minimum
criteria for t%e regulation of suc% products#
3etailed considerations
Council Regulation (EC) 834/2007 on organic farming is limited to unprocessed and processed
agricultural products used for food and feed, vegetative propagating materials and seeds, east
(for food and feed) as !ell as products from a"uaculture# 7ass catering is e'plicitl e'cluded,
!%ereas non&food products (suc% as cosmetic, te'tiles and some products closel related to
organic agriculture) are not in *nne' 5 of t%e E. 9reat# 9%e evaluation "uestion considers
!%et%er t%e current scope is ade"uate to meet t%e needs of operators and consumers of organic
food#
C%apter 3 *de"uac of t%e scope of t%e Regulation 3A

9%e evaluation is (ased on sta6e%older responses to t%e !e(&(ased surve, an analsis of
national provisions from )3 national case stud countries as !ell as ot%er E. or private
initiatives# Go official statistical data on t%e development of t%e si-e of t%e respective sectors in
t%e E. !ere availa(le# 9%e assessment of t%e sectors8 needs t%erefore mainl relies on vie!s of
sta6e%olders, particularl of mass caterers and cosmetic/te'tile operators as !ell as ot%er
sta6e%olders# /ome estimates of t%e si-e of respective sectors and o(servations a(out t%e
presence of organic non&food items in some stores !ere also considered#
,larity of the scope
*ccording to t%e sta6e%oldersN opinion t%e scope of t%e Regulation is sufficientl clear e'cept t%e
"uestion %o! t%e organic status of agricultural non&food ra! materials (products closel related
to organic agriculture suc% as (ees!a', essential oils, medicinal %er(s, and s%eep !ool) t%at are
produced according to t%e re"uirements of Regulation (EC) 834/2007 and t%e implementing rules
can (e communicated on t%e final product# 9%e current situation !it% no clear guidance
regarding la(elling leads to confusion in t%e organic sector and disadvantages producers of suc%
products t%at are closel related to organic agriculture#
+urt%ermore, alt%oug% mass catering is clearl e'cluded, t%ere is a ris6 t%at t%e e'emption is
interpreted differentl !it% respect to !%at tpes of (usiness are e'cluded# Fn t%e one %and,
processing (usinesses t%at suppl caterers (rat%er t%an providing catering t%emselves) could (e
e'cluded under Bsimilar food (usinesses8# Fn t%e ot%er %and, some catering (usinesses are
re"uired in some 7em(er /tates to meet t%e same re"uirements as processors t%us
contradicting t%e intention of t%e e'emption#
9%us it is ,udged t%at t%e scope of t%e Regulation is sufficientl clear to different sta6e%olders
e'cept t%e "uestion %o! producers of agricultural non&food ra! materials can communicate
organic status of t%eir products# +urt%ermore, t%ere are some concerns t%at t%e e'clusion of
mass&catering mig%t (e interpreted differentl#
(ass catering
9%e results s%o! t%at t%e e'clusion of mass catering operations from t%e scope of t%e Regulation
is mostl ade"uate to matc% t%e current needs of t%e organic farming suppl and distri(ution
c%ains, (ut not full ade"uate in meeting t%e needs of organic consumers#
Gational or private mass catering standards e'ist in several 7em(er /tates# 9%e illustrate t%at
t%e development of organic mass catering (ot% in pu(lic canteens and in private restaurants
re"uires some fle'i(ilit, due to t%e difficult of o(taining all organic ingredients used in t%e
preparation of a !ide variet of dis%es# E'isting national or private standards ta6e t%is into
account ( eit%er allo!ing caterers to use organic indications in relation to onl one ingredient
(e#g# organic potatoes) or one component (e#g# all vegeta(les) in a mi'ed menu or ( setting
relative minimum percentages of organic ingredients t%at %ave to (e used# Fne reason for t%e
70 C%apter 3 *de"uac of t%e scope of t%e Regulation

e'clusion of mass&catering from t%e scope of t%e Regulation is t%at rules could limit t%e fle'i(ilit
t%at is re"uired for t%is sector to develop#
Gational estimates indicate t%at t%e catering sector in (ot% pu(lic and private canteens and
restaurants accounts for (et!een less t%an )K (/lovenia, .nited @ingdom) and up to more t%an
)0K (Denmar6, 5tal, Get%erlands) of total organic sales in selected case stud countries (ut
t%ere is no clear lin6 (et!een sector si-e and t%e presence of rules# *t present, t%ere is no
evidence of cross (order trade in procurement and catering services# 9%e fact t%at different rules
for mass catering appl in different 7em(er /tates t%erefore does not contradict t%e aims of t%e
organic Regulation of guaranteeing fair competition, (ut it is possi(le t%at t%e a(sence of
common rules could %ave prevented suc% trade from developing# Eecause of limited intra&
communit trade, t%e e'istence of different national rules for mass catering does not necessaril
undermine consumer confidence#
9%ere !as some support for inclusion of mass catering in t%e Regulation among sta6e%olders>
important reasons mentioned are improved transparenc for consumers in countries !%ere
t%ere are no national rules and more clarit and greater visi(ilit of organic products in green
pu(lic procurement (?<<)# ?<< is a voluntar instrument developed ( t%e European Commission
to encourage environmental criteria to (e considered in pu(lic procurement# 9%e ?<< Core
criteria for catering refer e'plicitl to Regulation (EC) 834/2007 and state t%at a minimum
percentage of food !%ic% must (e organicall produced ma (e specified# ?<< guidelines do not
provide furt%er details a(out t%e potential implications for la(elling or verification# 9%e inclusion
of mass catering in t%e scope of t%e Regulation could t%erefore support and encourage t%e use of
organic ingredients in line !it% ?<< guidelines# Ho!ever, inclusion could potentiall limit gro!t%
(ecause it !ould restrict fle'i(ilit and t%e need for catering (usiness to (e certified represents a
disincentive for (usiness to engage#
-on-food items cosmetics, textiles"
5t is concluded t%at t%e e'clusion of cosmetics and te'tiles from t%e scope of t%e Regulation
meets t%e needs of t%e organic suppl c%ains (ut does not full meet t%e needs of consumers#
Go official data on si-e of t%e mar6et for organic cosmetics and te'tiles e'ist, (ut according to
industr sources t%ere %as (een gro!t% particularl for cosmetics and te'tiles# 9%is is particularl
relevant !%en considering t%e aims of t%e Regulation in ensuring consumer confidence and
protecting t%e interests of consumers# 7an cosmetics, te'tiles, %ouse%old cleaning products
and some ot%er non&food products using t%e terms Borganic, (iological, ecological8 are found in
t%e mar6et place, (ut not all of t%em are certified according to a recognised standard, despite a
!idespread e'pectation t%at t%is is re"uired for organic products# Consumers are unli6el to
6no! t%at t%e protection of t%e terms in *rticle 23 of t%e Regulation (EC) 834/2007 onl refers to
agricultural products# 9%e use of t%e protected term in t%e la(elling of non&food items is
t%erefore creating consumer confusion# * more %armonised and universal approac% and use of a
common logo could improve recognition and trust among consumers#
C%apter 3 *de"uac of t%e scope of t%e Regulation 7)

Ho!ever, cosmetics and te'tiles re"uire regulations t%at consider t%e specific c%aracteristics of
t%ese respective products and t%e la(elling rule of SA2K of organic ingredient for organic
products cannot (e transferred as suc%# Developing ne! provision for suc% products !ould
increase t%e level of comple'it of Regulation (EC) 834/2007# 5n t%e case of cosmetics, t%e li6el
percentage of organic ra! materials in t%e final product can (e ver lo!# 9%e main tas6 of an
standard is to develop a positive list of all permitted ingredients, especiall non&agricultural ones,
to define !%at Bnatural8 means in t%is conte't and !%ic% ra! materials from organic agriculture
s%ould (e used# 5n t%e case of te'tiles, t%e standards need to cover t%e !%ole suppl c%ain and
t%e inclusion of fairness criteria is considered essential ( most industr e'perts#
+or (ot% product categories, initiatives ( t%e European Commission !ere identified, and in t%e
case of cosmetics an 5/F !or6ing group also e'ists !%ic% are aimed at defining valid organic
claims for t%ese sectors# 9%ese initiatives could ac%ieve some of t%e o(,ectives of t%e Regulation
in relation to t%ese scopes#



Chapter 7
Adequacy of the production rules

7.1 Introduction
Evaluation Question 2
To what extent have the organic production rules been adequate to achieve the global
objectives of the Regulation and the general objectives of organic production, as laid down in
the Regulation?
In answering this question the following aspects need to be examined in particular:
General structure and scope of the organic production rules with respect to promoting a
harmonised concept of organic production in the !"
#dequac$ of production rules for plants, livestoc%, feed and processed food, including their
consistenc$ across the sectors covered"
#dequac$ and justification of exceptional production rules, particularl$ on the use of non&
organic $oung poultr$, the use of non&organic feed, the use of non&organic seeds and the
role of the seed database"
#dequac$ and justification of the transitional measures concerning animal housing
conditions"
#dequac$ of the general rule on prohibition of the use of G'(s to ensure the lowest
possible adventitious presence of G'(s in organic products and, at the same time, to avoid
undue constraints and additional burden on organic operators"
Organic production is an integrated farm management system which aims to preserve natural
resources, apply high animal welfare standards and produce high quality food. The underlying
principles of organic production are made operational by a number of production rules, which
provide the legal definition of organic farming in Europe. The production rules provide a basis for
achieving the aims of organic agriculture and the global objectives of the Regulation of ensuring
consumer confidence and fair competition. However, the etent to which the production rules
contribute to these objectives is open to question. !n this contet, it is worth mentioning that
some organic operators in the E" wor# to private standards which are stricter than the E" rules
in certain areas, and while assessing the impact of the rules it is not always possible to clearly
differentiate between these private standards and the E" rules.
$% &hapter $ 'dequacy of the production rules

'fter a short description of the approach, results are presented in relation to the structure and
scope of the production rules, promoting a harmonised perception of the concept of organic
farming, establishing a sustainable management system, meeting the consumer related aims of
the Regulation, justification for eceptional and transitional production rules, adequacy and
consequences of the ()O *genetically modified organism+ prohibition, impact on fair
competition and consistency of the rules across all sectors. The final section presents the
judgement in response to the evaluation question.
7.2 Approach
The answer to Evaluation ,uestion - is based on several judgement criteria which were deduced
from the model of intervention logic and from the bac#ground of the evaluation question.
.ecause of the etended number of production rules, sectors and )embers /tates, the
application of the Regulation is not described ehaustively, but eamples are used to support the
arguments. The main data sources and indicators used for the analysis involved an in depth loo#
at the regulatory rules and implementation rules in the 01 case study countries. &onsensus in the
scientific literature, results from other relevant E"2funded research projects as well as
sta#eholder3epert opinions on the subject and the results of a consumer survey *1 444
respondents in si of case study countries+ were also ta#en into consideration. !n the following,
the judgement criteria for the second evaluation question are shortly described5
*0+ The general structure and scope of organic production rules has (or has not pro!oted a
har!onised concept of organic production in the E"
The general structure and scope of organic production rules can only promote a
harmonised concept of organic production, if they are implemented uniformly in national
law and if )ember /tates are not applying a large number of additional rules not covered
by the scope of the Regulation. This was eplored based on an analysis of the provisions in
the Regulations *E&+ 61%3-44$ and *E&+ 6673-446 and its implementation in national law.
' common understanding of organic farming across the E" can be facilitated by the
objectives and principles of organic farming as laid down in 'rticle 1 8 $. !n order to
evaluate whether this has been achieved, references to them in national regulations and
private reference standards as well as the perception of sta#eholders were used.
*-+ The production rules are (or are not adequate to esta#lish a sustaina#le !anage!ent
syste! of agriculture
's outlined in &hapter 0, the definition of a sustainable management system in the
Regulation does not provide a useable concept to evaluate the adequacy of the production
rules. 9or this evaluation, the adequacy was assessed mainly based on the analysis of
findings in relevant scientific literature *comparing organic with conventional farming and
thus using conventional farming practices as a reference+ and eamples of implementation
in the 01 case study countries.
&hapter $ 'dequacy of the production rules $:

*1+ The rules are (or are not adequate for providing varied and high quality products and
satisfying consu!er de!and for a variety of goods
/imilarly to the second criteria, the adequacy of the rules in providing varied and high
quality products and satisfying consumer demand for a variety of goods produced by the
use of processes that do not harm the environment, human, animal or plant health was
analysed based on evidence in the scientific literature, sta#eholder views on the
implementation and responses to the consumer survey.
*%+ The e$ceptional rules for the use of non%organic seed& feed and young poultry as 'ell as
for transitional !easures regarding ani!al housing are (or are not (ustified adequately
The aim of the eceptional rules is to allow the organic farming sector a transition towards
harmonised provisions. 'gainst this bac#ground, the evaluation of the adequacy of the
justification of the eceptional rules considered the use of eceptions and the availability of
organic supplies in the case study countries; and actions still needed or already ta#en to
phase out eceptional rules. <here data were not available, epert judgement was used. '
similar approach was used to evaluate the adequacy of the justification for the transitional
measures regarding animal housing.
*:+ The rules are (or are not adequate to e$clude the use of )*+s and li!it it to
adventitious or technically unavoida#le presence
The adequacy of the rules to eclude the use of ()Os and limit it to adventitious
*happening by chance rather than by design or as an integral part+ or technically
unavoidable presence was evaluated based on data of contamination cases in the case
study countries, additional restrictions in private provision and other factors *including co2
eistence measures+ and sta#eholder views regarding the additional burden arising from
those rules.
*=+ The production rules are (or are not adequate to ensure a fair co!petition
9air competition requires a level playing field for organic operators. This could potentially
be impaired a+ due to different interpretations of the Regulation *because of lac# of clarity
or because of issues left to the discretion of the competent authority+ and specific
national3regional rules or b+ due to the harmonised standard not allowing national3regional
fleibility *albeit in line with the general concept of organic farming+ in response to
different climatic or geographic conditions. These aspects were analysed by eploring the
impact of eamples of distortions *alterations of fair competition+ using epert estimates,
as well as sta#eholder opinions.
*$+ There is (or is not consistency #et'een the rules for different sectors
The E" legislation provides a legal framewor# for different livestoc# and crop sectors. The
consistency of the rules for the different sectors was judged based on documentary analysis
of the Regulations *E&+ 61%3-44$ and *E&+ 6673-446 and sta#eholder views.
$= &hapter $ 'dequacy of the production rules

7., -esults
7.,.1 .ro!oting a har!onised concept of organic far!ing
!n the following, the structure and scope of the production rules of the Regulation and its
implementation in national law is eplored. The subsequent section deals with the question of
whether the objectives and principles of organic production as laid down in 'rticle 1 8 $ have led
to a common understanding of organic farming.
7.,.1.1 /tructure and scope of the production rules
)indings from the anal$sis of provisions
The legal framewor# for the production rules is set out by &ouncil Regulation *E&+ 61%3-44$ and
&ommission Regulation *E&+ 6673-446 *see also &hapter 1+. The &ouncil Regulation states
objectives and principles of organic agriculture *'rticle 1 and %+, and more specific principles
*'rticle :2$+ and rules for the respective sectors *'rticle 62--+; details are contained in the
&ommission Regulation. The lin# between the main rules and more detailed provisions for
implementation in the &ommission Regulation is illustrated in Table $.0.
Ta#le 7.10 >in# between the production rules in Regulation *E&+ 61%3-44$ and related
provisions in Regulation *E&+ 6673-446

/ource5 Regulation *E&+ 61%3-44$ and Regulation *E&+ 6673-446.
Council -egulation (EC 1,232447 Co!!ission -egulation (EC 11532441
Heading 'rticle ?o 'rticle ?o
/cope 0 0, =*a+, $, -:, :7, 7:*:+
(eneral production rules 6204 2
(eneral farm production rules 00 'nne !@
Alant production rules 0- 12=, %62:= */eed database+, 'nne !,!!, B
Aroduction rules seaweed 01 =*a+ 2 =*e+, -7*a+, 1=*a+
>ivestoc# production rules 0% $2-:, 'nne !!!, !@, @, @!!
Aroduction rules for aquaculture animals 0: -:*a+2*t+, 16*a+, 'nne @, @!, @!!
Aroducts and substances used and criteria for their
authorisation
0= 1*0+, : *0+, =*d+
&onversion 0$ 1=216, 16, =-
Aroduction of processed feed 06 -42--, -=, :72=4, 'nne @ C@!
Aroduction of processed food 07 -=2-7, -7*a+ DwineE, 1421:, 'nne @!!!, !B
(eneral rules for production of organic yeast -4 -$*a+, 'nne @!!!
&riteria for inputs processing -0 --*g+, -%*-+, -:*m+, -$ *0+*a+, -$*a+, -6, -7*c+
9leibility -- 172:=
&hapter $ 'dequacy of the production rules $$

The E" production rules cover agricultural products *food and feed+, seeds and vegetative
propagating materials, yeast *for food and feed+ and products from aquaculture *'rticle 0 of
Regulation *E&+ 61%3-44$+. This scope is further detailed in several articles of Regulation *E&+
6673-4465 'rticles 0 and $ for livestoc# species; 'rticle =*a+ for seaweed; 'rticle -:*a+ for
aquaculture species; 'rticle :7 for feed products and 'rticle 7:*:+ for pet food.
1

/ections of the production rules in Regulation *E&+ 61%3-44$ vary in the number and type of rules
*9igure $.0+. The livestoc# production rules are most detailed, followed by aquaculture. The &ouncil
Regulation also contains specific sections on seaweed production3collection, whereas wild
collection of plants and mushroom production are only regulated in the &ommission Regulation
*E&+ 6673-446 and not mentioned in the scope. The &ouncil Regulation also contains specific
provisions for the production of organic yeast but not for other microorganisms *e.g. algae+.
6igure 7.10 ?umber and categorisation of production rules for different sectors in
Regulation *E&+ 61%3-44$

/ource5 Own presentation based on classification of rules in Regulation *E&+ 61%3-44$.


1
The situation regarding pet food is unclear, as this is not considered as feed in the sense of Regulation *E&+ 61%3-44$,
but is referred to in Regulation *E&+ 6773-446 *'rticle 7:*:++.
Arohibition on the use of ()Os
Arohibition on the use of ionising radiation
(eneral farm production rules
Alant production rules
Aroduction rules for seaweed
>ivestoc# production rules
Aroduction rules for aquaculture animals
Aroducts and substances used in farming and
criteria for their authorisation
&onversion
(eneral rules on the production of processed feed
(eneral rules on the production of processd food
(eneral rules on the production of organic yeast
&riteria for certain products and substances
in processing
/ection overarching eceptional production rules 04
0
1
-
0
0
:
7
%
1
-
0
0
0
:
-
0:
0:
7
:
-
1
%
0
0
0
1
-
0
-
-
0
4 : 04 0: -4 -: 14 1:
Arohibition Obligation Restriction Aermission Eceptional rule
n
$6 &hapter $ 'dequacy of the production rules

'll )ember /tates have implemented the eisting E" legislation on organic farming in national
law, with .ulgaria having done so very recently. !n addition, some )ember /tates apply their
own rules for agricultural products not covered by the implementing rules *such as certain animal
species, other aquatic plants, and micro2algae, e.g. spirulina+. The following additional provisions
were identified in national legislation in the 01 case study countries. Aet food is regulated at a
national level in four countries *'ustria, Fenmar#, 9rance, and the ?etherlands+. Other provisions
in several )ember /tates refer to specific livestoc# species5 rabbits *'ustria, &Gech Republic,
Estonia, 9rance, !taly, /lovenia+; deer *'ustria, Fenmar#, /lovenia+; ostriches *9rance, !taly+ and
heliculture *production of snails for food+ *9rance, /pain+. 9urther species are only listed in one
country5 mouflon */lovenia+ and nutria3quail *Estonia+.
7.,.1.2 Creating a co!!on understanding of organic agriculture through
the defined o#(ective and principles of organic production
)indings from the anal$sis of provisions
!n most case study countries, national organic far!ing legislation or guidelines refer in full to the
E" &ouncil Regulation. /pecific reference to some, but not necessarily all aspects of the
objectives and principles of the organic farming legislation were found in 'ustria, Fenmar#,
/pain, 9rance, the ?etherlands, Aoland, and in the "nited Hingdom implementation guidelines.
Arinciples in private reference standards reflect the specific traditions from which the standard
develops. 9or eample, the standards of .io2'ustria *'ustria+ refer to the living, healthy soil as
the precondition for healthy plants, animals and human food *humans+ as the central point of all
rules. /imilarly, .ioland *(ermany+ standards emphasise the importance of a closed organic
system. /everal private standards also cover additional areas to the Regulation, for eample
.ioland and ?aturland *(ermany+, Femeter *in several countries+, '!'. *!taly+, ?ature et ArogrIs
and the /oil 'ssociation *"nited Hingdom+ refer to social objectives and principles and &''E
*/pain+ to rural development goals. .ioland *(ermany+ and .io2'ustria *'ustria+ refer to the
'nimal ?eeds !nde *'?!+, which they required to be used to monitor and assess animal health
and welfare. The standards of ?ature et ArogrIs *9rance+ favour local production and emphasise
that economic, social and environmental aspects are important.
*iews of sta%eholders
<hen as#ed about a common understanding of organic agriculture, the majority of interviewed
sta#eholders *across all case study countries and affiliations+ in the first instance agreed that
there is a common understanding of the objectives and principles in Europe, and that stating
them as part of the Regulation is an important way to create this common understanding.
However, many answered Jyes, butKJ, adding several eamples of different interpretations of the
rules in different E" )ember /tates and by different control bodies *e.g. regarding crop
protection agents, fertilisers, limits and thresholds for pesticides3fungicides, graGing
requirements, breeds for pigs and poultry and additives in food processing+. !nterviewees across
&hapter $ 'dequacy of the production rules $7

all sectors commented on a lac# of detail in the Regulation with regard to environmental impact
and animal welfare, and felt that the objectives and principles apply mainly to primary
production but not to the whole supply chain *e.g. processing, distribution, retail+. /ta#eholders
also commented on the absence of criteria for social and economic sustainability as well as on
contradictions between statements in the objectives and principles and the actual rules; e.g.
animal welfare aims contrasting with routinely carried out practices of mutilation such as
dehorning or tail doc#ing.
Fespite general agreement with the overall statement as discussed above, opinions on a
common understanding vary in different sectors and )ember /tates. !nterviewees in Fenmar#
felt that a common understanding eists for organic mil# production but less so in other sectors
li#e organic poultry or pigs. !n the case of egg production, interviewees in 9rance and 'ustria
refer to a regional or ?orth2/outh divide, with regard to free2range access and housing systems.
' majority of sta#eholders involved in processing felt that a common understanding eists, but
some saw the Regulation as wea# in sustainability issues li#e water and energy use; whereas
others found the limitations on input2use too strict. There was greater agreement that a common
understanding has been achieved in Fenmar#, (ermany and the &Gech Republic, whereas
sta#eholder opinions in 9rance, !taly, /pain, and the ?etherlands tended to be more divided; in
9rance and /pain a consistent confusion among consumers regarding organic products was
mentioned.
Too wide margins for interpretation were repeatedly emphasised in most countries, especially so
in 9rance, /pain, !taly, Fenmar#, Estonia, 'ustria and the "nited Hingdom. /ome differences
between types of respondents were found. Organisations that wor# more directly with the
Regulation, such as competent authorities and control bodies share the view that a common
understanding has been achieved. They confirmed the role of objectives and principles for
creating a common understanding of organic farming. Responses indicate however that control
bodies are uncertain whether they are legally enforceable or not. !n contrast to competent
authorities and control bodies, the majority of business groups *e.g. producers, traders, and
retailers+ do not agree that a common understanding has been achieved.
7.,.2 Esta#lishing a sustaina#le !anage!ent syste! of agriculture
This section presents the results related to the adequacy of production rules to achieve the
objectives of organic production to establish a sustainable management system of agriculture.
'rticle 1 of Regulation *E&+ 61%3-44$ specifies that this should be achieved by5
respecting natureLs systems and cycles and sustains and enhances the health of soil, water,
plants and animals and the balance between them;
contributing to a high level of biological diversity;
64 &hapter $ 'dequacy of the production rules

ma#ing responsible use of energy and the natural resources, such as water, soil, organic
matter and air; and
respecting high animal welfare standards and in particular meets animals species2specific
behavioural needs.
Ta#le 7.20 Aroduction rules and organic objectives and principles

/ource5 Own analysis based on the Regulations *E&+ 61%3-44$ and *E&+ 6673-446 and scientific literature.
.roduction rules
.rohi#itions 7A0 2 (a iii and (c8
?o mineral nitrogen fertilisers D'5 0-.0 *e+E
?o herbicides, only authorised products can be used
D'5 0- *h+, .5 'nne !!E

?o landless livestoc# production D.5 0=E
?o hydroponic production D.5 %E
?o use of ()Os D'5 7E
Only permitted fertilisers 5 low2soluble mineral fertiliser D'5 % *b+
iiiE and soil conditioners when need proven D.5 1, 'nne !E

Only authorised plant protection products when established
threat D'5 0-.0 *h+, .5 'nne !!E

9eed primarily from holding or same region *with eceptions+
D'5 0%.0 *d+E

/toc#ing density and use of livestoc# manure restricted to
maimum of 0$4 #g ?3ha and year D.5 1 C0:.0E

)ultiannual crop rotation including legumes and other green
manures D'5 0-.0 *b+E

Tillage and cultivation practices that maintains organic matter,
and protects soil D'5 0-.0 *a+E

)aintain crop health through prevention *natural enemies,
the choice of species and varieties, crop rotation+ cultivation
techniques and thermal processes D'5 0-.0 *g+E

?umber of livestoc# limited to minimise overgraGing, poaching,
soil erosion or pollution D'5 0%.0 *b+ ivE

)anage entire holding organically *with eceptions+ D'5 00E
Only organic seed *with eceptions+ D'5 0-.0E
Only organic feed *with : M eceptional rule for monogastrics+
D'5 0% *d+ iiE

/trict control of e$ternal inputs 7A0 2 (#8& !ini!isation of the use of non%rene'a#le
resources 7A0 9 (#8 and recycling of 'astes and #y%products 7A0 9 (c8
+#ligations to use good hus#andry practises and prevention 7A0 2 (a iv and 9
.reference for inputs fro! organic origin (Art 2# 'ith e$ceptions (Art 2d
-espect
natures
syste!s3
cycles
Contri#ute
to #io%
diversity
*a:e responsi#le use
'rticle numbers refer to
&ouncil Regulation *E&+ 61%3-44$ D'E and
&ommission Regulation *E&+ 6673-446 D.E
of natural resources
Energy ;ater /oil
Air <
cli!ate
&hapter $ 'dequacy of the production rules 60

' number of rules from the &ouncil Regulation *E&+ 61%3-44$ and the &ommission Regulation
*E&+ 6673-446 have possible *direct and indirect+ positive impacts in relation to several of these
objectives. These rules are listed in Table $.-. Fetailed evidence regarding the effectiveness of
the production rules, as reported in the scientific literature and by sta#eholders, is provided in
the following sections.
7.,.2.1 -especting nature=s syste!s and cycles
)indings from the anal$sis of provisions
Organic farming management relies as much as possible on natural processes and cycles. Thus,
respecting both is a primary element of organic farming
2
and is reflected in a number of
production rules. There are however three specific issues, raised in the case studies and widely
discussed in the )ember /tates, which are not evenly or consistently implemented in the
different )ember /tates, and as a result are limiting the positive impact of the Regulation on
promoting the respect for naturesJ systems and cycles. These are5
/ignificant gap in the >lin: to the land (land%#ased livestoc:? rule0 the share of feed that
must come from the farm itself is set at a minimum of at least =4M for herbivores and -4M
for pigs and poultry *'rticle 07 of Regulation *E&+ 6673-446+. !n cases where this is not
possible, the Regulation requires the feed to be produced Oin co&operation with other organic
farms primaril$ in the same regionP. This is widely interpreted as meaning that %4M and 64M
of the feed stuff respectively can come from anywhere. !n particular, the interpretation of the
word QregionJ varies from being defined as ?"T/ - to E", or even world level depending on
the )ember /tate.
,
!n the cases where the definition is E"3world, there is effectively no lin#
to the land at all of the feed stuff. Therefore the Regulation does not prevent organic
livestoc# from developing independently from crop production, even if this is not the case on
most farms. ,uantitative data on the number of landless organic farms or the current share

2
'ccording to 'rticle : of Regulation *E&+ 61%3-44$ organic farming shall be based 8 in additional to the overall
principles 8 among others on the following specific principles5
a+ the maintenance and enhancement of soil life and natural soil fertility, soil stability and soil biodiversity preventing
and combating soil compaction and soil erosion, and the nourishing of plants primarily through the soil ecosystem;
b+ the minimisation of the use of non2renewable resources and of farm inputs;
c+ the recycling of wastes and by2products of plant and animal origin as input in plant and livestoc# production;
d+ ta#ing account of the local or regional ecological balance when ta#ing production decisions;
e+ the maintenance of animal health by encouraging the natural immunological defence of the animal, as well as the
selection of appropriate breeds and husbandry practices;
f+ the maintenance of plant health by preventative measures, such as the choice of appropriate species and varieties
resistant to pests and diseases, appropriate crop rotations, mechanical and physical methods and the protection of
natural enemies of pests;
g+ the practice of site2adapted and land2related livestoc# production.
,
@"T/ 25 9rance, !taly; ;hole country5 /lovenia, Aoland, Estonia, Fenmar#; +ther5 &Gech Republic, (ermany; E"3'orld5
'ustria, ?etherlands, /pain, .ulgaria, the "nited Hingdom.
6- &hapter $ 'dequacy of the production rules

of feedstuff produced at farm level is not available to assess the actual impact of the
interpretation of this rule.
Authorisation of crop cultivation in su#strate *e.g. peat, compost, various peat alternatives
and their mitures+5 !n certain countries crop production in substrate *e.g. in
raised3demarcated beds+ without direct connection to the soil is permitted.
2
This can be
considered as not respecting natureJs systems because it allows intensive production in
greenhouses *for eample, the use of soluble, organic fertilisers through irrigation+.
@o co!!on definition or !ini!u! require!ents regarding crop rotation0 There is a lac# of
any specific criteria with which the crop rotation should comply, apart from stating that it
should be multi2annual and should include legumes *'rticle 0-*0++. Therefore the actual
practices depend on the farmersJ individual choice *based on agronomic and economic
constraints and aims+ and the interpretation of control bodies. !n etreme cases, this can lead
to very intensive rotations, such as soya3soya3wheat as seen in /outhern 9rance; or
monocultures of vegetables, such as tomatoes as a main crop every year in greenhouse
production. ' few private standards have additional requirements5 -4M legumes in arable
crop rotations as main crops to maintain a stable humus2content *?aturland, (ermany or .io
'ustria, 'ustria+.
+cientific evidence
.ound to strict rules regarding nutrient cycling and restricted use of input, organic agriculture
guides farmers to establish agro2ecosystem management and other progressive management
practices, and thus implements a system approach to farming *>amp#in, 0774, ?iggli et al., -446+.
This system approach can induce synergetic environmental effects. !ndeed, several authors found
that the pest control measures used in organic farming significantly support the provision of
ecosystem services *&rowder et al., -404; Hrauss et al., -400; Rehnder et al., -44$+ including
pollination *HolGschuh et al., -446+. The promotion of high nature value elements on farms li#e
hedgerows, beetle ban#s and habitats for other beneficial insects in grass or wildflower strips
along field margins becomes ecologically and agronomically much more attractive in combination
with a ban on pesticides *?iggli et al., -446+.
7.,.2.2 Contri#uting to high levels of #iological diversity
)indings from the anal$sis of provisions
The Regulation aims to contribute to high levels of biodiversity *'rticle 1*a++ but does not
elaborate further in the form of a specific set of rules. However, 'rticle 0- of Regulation *E&+

2
Fenmar# *as long as the substrates are comparable to organic soil and premied substrate contain only peat, clay,
stone meal, lime, organic soil or organic produced manure+, /weden *minimum volumes of substrates per plant+, !taly
and /pain.
&hapter $ 'dequacy of the production rules 61

61%3-44$ additionally mentions that organic production shall use cultivation practices that
enhance soil biodiversity. 'lthough such practices are not clearly defined, the Regulation
provides a list of rules that may indirectly protect or contribute to high levels of biological
diversity *see Table $.-+.
+cientific evidence
There is an abundance of scientific evidence on the positive impact of organic production on
biodiversity. )any studies have concluded that holdings using fewer inputs play a very important
role in preserving biodiversity *The /oil 'ssociation, -444; .engtsson et al., -44:; Hole et al.,
-44:, /mith et al., -400+. This is especially the case on organic holdings that combine cultivation
of a wide variety of crops, compleity of landscapes and reduced environmental disruption.
.engtsson et al. *-44:+ analysed =1 studies and concluded that the species diversity is on average
14M higher on organic than on conventional land. Of the studies analysed by .engtsson, 6%M
found a positive impact of organic farming on the species richness, whereas 0=M did not. 9uller
et al. *-44:+ showed that organic fields can support =6204:M more plant species, and $%20:1M
greater abundance, compared with conventional fields. RoschewitG et al. *-44:+ concluded that,
as organic systems are characterised by diverse seed ban#s, organic fields could be viewed as
self2sufficient ecosystems for plants, therefore not relying on immigration from surrounding
habitats to maintain species pools.
>oo#ing in more detail, organic farming practices are beneficial for some species of birds. Hragten
et al. *-446a, -446b+ found the home range density of s#ylar#s and vulnerable lapwings on
organic farms to be three times that on conventional farms. (abriel et al. *-404+ recorded higher
overall bird diversity on conventional farms, but generalist species and members of the crow
family were found in higher densities on organic farms. On organic arable land, the floral diversity
*(abriel et al., -44=; (abriel et al., -44$+ and the diversity of predatory insects *Afiffner und >u#a,
-441+ is higher than on conventional arable land. .outin et al. *-446+ identified higher species
richness in semi2natural habitats on organic farms compared with conventional farms. The
differences in the biodiversity performance between organic and conventional farming systems
are more pronounced on arable land than on grassland *?iggli et al., -446+. There is evidence
that organic farms can etend their biodiversity benefits beyond the farm boundary into
surrounding landscapes and farms *e.g. (abriel et al., -404; Hodgson et al., -404; RundlSf et al.,
-446+. The species richness is, however, largely dependent on landscape type *Tscharnt#e et al.,
-44:+ *see figure below+. <hereas in simple landscapes *and mainly in arable cropping+ the
differences in species richness are mostly significant, in more comple landscapes, in particular
when non2organic low2input farming systems are compared with more intensive organic farming
systems, only few or no significant differences are found *(omiero et al., -400+. /imilar
conclusions were reached in the recently finished E"2funded research project Q.io2.ioJ.
9


9
/ee website5 http533www.biobio2indicator.org3scientific2publications.php.
6% &hapter $ 'dequacy of the production rules

The prevalent high biodiversity generally found on organic farms significantly supports ecosystem
services such as natural pest control *&rowder et al., -404; Hrauss et al., -400; Rehnder et al.,
-44$+ or pollination *HolGschuh et al., -446+. "lber et al. *-447+ observe that the increased plant
diversity on organic farms arose from the compleity of the system including crop rotation,
absence of herbicides and other synthetic pesticides. &oncerning landscape diversity, organic
farming may perform better because of more diverse crop rotations *?orton et al., -447+ and
higher implementation rates of structural elements such as hedges and fruit trees */chader et al.,
-447+. However, landscape effects are very farm and site specific. Therefore, no general trend
can be determined */teiner, -44=+.
6igure 7.20 &ompensation of local land2use intensity by landscape compleity

/ource5 Tscharnt#e et al. *-44:+.
The positive impacts of organic production on biodiversity assessed in the scientific studies *e.g.
.engtsson et al., -44:; 9uller et al., -44:; Hole et al., -44:; /mith et al., -400a; /chader et al.,
-40-+ derive from5
directly related aspects from the Regulation5 ban of synthetic mineral fertilisers, herbicides
and chemical pesticides, use of organic fertilisation, lower stoc#ing density, more diverse
rotation; and
general organic production practices partly required in private production standards or
national regulations in non2E" countries5 use of cover crops, use of legumes, less tillage,
higher presence of semi2natural habitats in total "'' such as hedges, trees or grass strip
corridors.
*iews of sta%eholders
)any interviewed sta#eholders stated that they thought that organic farming generally
contributes to a high level of biodiversity, but saw the lac# of detail regarding the rules related to
>andscape type
/imple &omple
/
p
e
c
i
e
s

r
i
c
h
n
e
s
s
Etensive farming
!ntensive farming
&hapter $ 'dequacy of the production rules 6:

biodiversity as a major shortcoming in the production rules, for eample in relation to habitat
management or species richness. Aroducer organisations and environmental ?(Os for eample
argued that farmers, who would li#e to enhance biodiversity on their land through certain
strategies or methods, cannot find any measures or instructions in the Regulation that would
directly increase species richness *e.g. regulations regarding habitat management+. /ta#eholders
from environmental ?(Os and ministries for the environment also argue that the protection of
biodiversity needs to be tied directly into the system of organic agriculture, and clear instructions
and measures, as well as suggestions for impact monitoring indicators need to be included in the
rules.
7.,.2., *a:ing responsi#le use of energy and natural resources
Energy
)indings from the anal$sis of provisions
The Regulation does not provide eplicit rules regarding the responsible use of energy. However,
several rules have some possible direct or indirect impacts; particularly limiting the use of
chemically synthesised inputs *e.g. ? fertiliser+ has a significant impact on energy consumption
*see Table $.-+. Tet the Regulation does not include any direct provision on the use of fossil
energy, transport, pac#aging, heating, energy saving measures, etc.
+cientific evidence
The energy use in agriculture essentially consists of direct consumption of fossil energy *e.g. fuel
and oil+ as well as indirect energy consumption resulting from the production of synthetic
fertilisers and pesticides transport of imported feedstuffs and from investment goods such as
buildings. .ecause of the very limited use of synthetic mineral fertilisers *in particular the ban on
chemically synthesised nitrogen fertilisers+ and pesticides *no use of chemically synthesised
pesticides ecept pheromones and a few products for insect traps+, several studies have shown
that the energy consumption is lower in organic than in conventional farming *!T&29i.>, -44$;
/tolGe et al., -444; >amp#in, -44$+. This is a positive side effect that can thus be attributed to the
Regulation. Thomassen et al. *-446+ found that the energy efficiency of organic mil# production
was significantly higher compared to conventional production. They concluded that the use of
concentrate feed in particular is a major driver of energy inefficiency and its reduction has the
potential for reducing energy use. ?emece# et al. *-44:+ demonstrated, on the basis of long2term
field eperiment data, a lower energy use per ha and per product unit overall in organic systems
for all major crops in /witGerland. However, for certain crops *e.g. potatoes broccoli, lettuce+,
organic farming can sometimes offset the reduced usage of man2made chemical inputs by
increased mechanical labour, increasing the amount of fuel used compared to conventional
farming *@en#at, -40-; <illiams et al., -44=; Aimentel et al., 0761+. 9or potatoes, a slightly higher
energy use was calculated per ton of organic potatoes *?emece# et al., -44:+. <illiams et al.
*-44=+ found higher energy use per #ilogram of product within organic tomato production as a
6= &hapter $ 'dequacy of the production rules

result of reduced yields but similar levels of fossil2fuel inputs. /ome other studies have shown
that the positive impacts of organic farming resulting from the non2use of synthetic
nitrogen3pesticides may be mitigated and might even be reversed, depending on the specific
practices and crops involved *Fe .ac#er et al", -447; 'GeeG and Hewlett, -446; (omiero et al.,
-400+. Therefore, for most crops the energy use, both land related or product2unit related is
generally lower, with some eceptions li#e potatoes or tomatoes, where disease pressure in
organic farming is high and organic yields relatively low. <hile mil# and beef production is more
efficient on organic farms, as a result of greater energy efficiency in forage production through
the use of grass2clover leys, organic poultry production has been shown to have a slightly lower
energy efficiency due to higher feed conversion ratios */chader et al., -40-; >einonen et al.,
-40-a, >einonen et al., -40-b+.
*iews of sta%eholders
'nswers to the web2based sta#eholder survey refer to the fact that there are no requirements on
responsible energy use and resource saving, such as the use of less pac#aging, waste
management or energy efficient management of crop production in greenhouses. /ome
processors also mentioned the need to include and implement environmental *sustainability+
management systems, better adapted to the organic food industry. This need is also reflected in
the (erman research report by .ec# et al. *-40-+. /ta#eholders *across all categories+ would li#e
to see instructions and measures on the responsible use of energy in organic agriculture along
the whole production chain, to improve the coherence of organic production.
;ater (quality and quantity
)indings from the anal$sis of provisions
Regarding water quality and limiting pollution, there are several direct and indirect effects in
organic agriculture resulting from specifications in the rules *Table $.-+. Regarding water use, the
Regulation does not provide any direct requirements ecept for aquaculture, but organic
production uses potentially less water because of individual choices and cultivation practices.
+cientific evidence
Than#s to the strict limitation of chemically synthesised inputs in plant production, organic
farming significantly helps reduce residues of plant protection products and chemical fertilisers in
water, thus improving 'ater quality *)ahU and Aortet, -40-+. Rotations including legumes and
green manures, the use of farmyard manure as fertiliser and the limitation of stoc#ing densities
and total amount of livestoc# manure reduce the input and availability of rapidly soluble
nitrogen, and therefore reduce leaching of nitrates. /everal studies show that nitrogen leaching
can be reduced by %48=%M through organic farming *e.g. Edwards et al., 0774; Tounie and
<atson, 077-; Eltun, 077:; &ondron et al., -444; (oulding, -444; Haas et al., -440; Hirchmann
and .ergstrSm, -440; )Vder et al., -44-; /topes et al., -44-; 'uerswald et al., -441; Aacini et al.,
-441; /hepherd et al., -441; Osterburg and Runge, -44$+. .ased on a statistical comparison of 0-
&hapter $ 'dequacy of the production rules 6$

studies, )ondelaers et al. *-447+ conclude that the nitrate leaching rate is on average 7#g3ha in
organic production versus -0 #g3ha in conventional agriculture. !mportant differences are noted
among the studies due to differences in soil, regions, fertilisation practices and measurement. !n
contrast to the results mentioned above, in some comparative crop rotation eperiments nitrate
leaching has been reported at the same levels in organic and conventional rotations *Horsaeth
and Eltun, -444+, especially if calculated per #ilogram of harvest *)ondelaers et al., -447+.
>oo#ing at the impact per #g output, ?emece# et al. *-44:+ found higher eutrophication impacts
per output for some organic crops compared to conventional. !n some places, these higher
nutrient loads on arable land are attributed to the greater use of organic fertilisers in the organic
system, because the life cycle assessments used by ?emece# et al. *-44:+ assume relatively high
fertilisation rates for organic farms. Ta#ing the data by ?emece# et al. *-44:+ and projecting
them at sector level, using statistical data and an economic model, /chader *-447+ found on
average 1:M lower eutrophication rates on organic farms per hectare. The following facts
underline the lower eutrophication potential of organic farming found in literature */chader et
al., -40-+5
Organic farming systems have lower nutrient application levels, which reduces the absolute
quantity of nutrient loads that can be emitted from the system due to the ban of mineral
nitrogen fertilisers, lower stoc#ing rates and restrictions on the use of manure;
The quantity of directly available nitrogen is much lower in organically managed soils;
.ecause nutrients cannot be imported easily into the systems, the opportunity cost of
nitrogen losses is higher for organic farms than for conventional farms */tolGe et al., -444+.
This implies a need for more efficient nutrient management in organic systems, although this
does not eliminate losses. !n addition, nitrate leaching can be high at the point of transition
from the fertility building phase of the rotation to the cropping phase.
!n animal husbandry, outdoor production of pigs and poultry *not specifically organic but with
access to pasture+ increases the ris# of nitrate losses, if ecrements are concentrated in certain
sectors and vegetation cover is allowed to deteriorate *Eri#sen et al., -44-, -44=; FegrU et al.,
-44$; /alomon et al., -44$; Halberg et al., -404+. 'lso for organic systems the report of the
Epert (roup for Technical 'dvice on Organic Aroduction *E(TOA+ on poultry pointed out that
the minimum outside area for laying hens of % m
-
can sometimes lead to a pressure of nitrogen
that eceeds 0$4 #g3ha3year *E(TOA, -40-+. 9or herbivores, the maimum stoc#ing density
*related to the limit of 0$4 #g ?3ha+ is being implemented at the farm level, but higher stoc#ing
rates may occur on specific fields.
There could be a positive impact of organic production practices in relation to 'ater use& partly
related to production rules. 9or eample, /tanhill *0774+ and >otter *-441+ found that organic
crops show higher ability to cope with drought than conventional ones, mainly because organic
farming practices commonly increase and stabilise soil organic matter. )ore recently, a 9rench
study comparing 0:0 organic holdings to -60 conventional ones *&aplat, -44=+ revealed that only
6M of the organic areas were irrigated, whereas 11M of conventional holdings used irrigation.
66 &hapter $ 'dequacy of the production rules

*iew of sta%eholders
' few sta#eholders *primarily processors+ mentioned that the issue of water2use and quality
should be regulated in the Regulation, whereas the majority of interviewees did not mention this
issue.
/oil and organic !atter
)indings from the anal$sis of provisions
There are certain sets of rules which have a direct, positive impact on soil and its organic matter
content *Table $.- above+. !n particular, these include good soil management practices and
mandatory rotations including legumes and other green manure crops, and organic fertilisation
practices using only products listed in 'nne ! *especially manure and compost+, which contribute
to a high level of organic matter.
+cientific evidence
Organic agriculture encompasses a number of different activities within the system approach,
which aim at increasing the organic matter content in the soil. )ost important amongst these is
the ban on mineral fertilisers, which necessitates meeting the nutrient demand of the crops with
organic fertilisers *)Vder et al., -44-+. 'lso, crop rotations that include short2term clover grass
leys support the development of fertile soils *Aimentel et al., -44:+. Etended crop rotations,
incorporating grass2clover and forage legumes, the application of organic fertiliser *e.g. slurries
and manure+ and avoiding bare soils are all practices that have been shown to have the potential
to prevent soil carbon losses and build soil carbon stoc#s *9reibauer et al., -44%; /mith et al.,
-44$; >al, -446; /mith et al., -446; Fiacono and )ontemurro, -400+. These practices, although
desirable, are not commonly found in modern agricultural systems, whereas they are a core
element of organic production systems *(attinger, -40-+.
There is also clear scientific evidence that soils under organic management have higher biological
activity, both in terms of species and general biomass. Results from the /wiss long2term trial
show that organic soils contains -4 to 14M more microbial biomass, 14 to %4M more
earthworms, 74M more spiders *with high diversity+ and %4M more mycorrhiGae *)Vder et al.,
-44-; Afiffner and >u#a, -44$, 9lieWbach et al., -44$+. )oreover, the content of organic matter
improves the soil characteristics. Tuomisto et al. *-40-+ found in their meta2analysis, a $M higher
soil organic matter content on organic farms compared to conventional farms. Organic soils thus
show improved water retention properties and allow the crops to cope better with drought.
!nvestigation of five plots in RutGendorf *<einviertel >ower 'ustria+ differing in soil quality as well
as in fertilising methods *cover crops, compost, dung, conventional fertiliser+, revealed a
significant increase of saturated hydraulic conductivity in organic tilled soils compared to
conventional tilled soils. .est effects were obtained with compost, followed by dung and green
manure3cover crops *>oner, -447+. The positive effects of organic farming practices on soil
structure results in beneficial effects on soil erosion */iegrist et al., 0776; /hepherd et al., -44-+.
&hapter $ 'dequacy of the production rules 67

(attinger et al. *-40-+ carried out a meta2analysis of $% pairwise comparisons of organic and non2
organic farming systems, finding significantly higher soil organic carbon concentrations in soils
under organic management.
*iews of sta%eholders
Regarding the protection and management of the soil, the views diverged slightly in different
countries. )ost interviewees across all affiliations and )ember /tates, but particularly in the
"nited Hingdom and Estonia, stated that soil protection and soil fertility management are at the
core of organic production systems.
Air quality and greenhouse gas ()A) e!issions
)indings from the anal$sis of provisions
There is no direct provision regarding the prevention of air pollution in the Regulation. However,
some rules stated in the Regulation can have indirect effects on (H( emissions, e.g. the
restrictive use of synthetic chemical inputs and on direct gaseous emissions from pesticides *see
Table $.-+.
+cientific evidence
'ir contamination ris# by pesticide spray is minimal in organic farming due to the ban of synthetic
pesticides */tolGe et al., -444, /chader et al., -40-+. ?evertheless, the application of powdered
and fluid substances permitted by organic standards may cause a short2time impairment of air
*/tolGe et al., -444+.
The objectives of organic production in 'rticle 1 of the Regulation *E&+ 61%3-44$ only refer to the
responsible use of air but do not directly mention the impact on climate. .ecause of the specific
mentioning of climate change in the contet of the &ommon 'gricultural Aolicy *&'A+ the
following section also summarises studies that have investigated the greenhouse gas emissions in
relation to organic agriculture.
Fue to lower stoc#ing rates, per hectare, organic farming generally performs better with respect
to (H( emissions than conventional farming */chader et al, -40-+. HSrtenhuber et al. *-404,
-400+ showed that, when considering deforestation due to growing feed concentrates for
imports and including the effects of carbon sequestration, the carbon footprints per unit of
product may be in favour of organic production for 'ustrian dairy systems. <hen considering the
impact per unit of product, some studies have highlighted that increasing mil# yield, through
feeding increased amounts of concentrates can decrease greenhouse gas *(H(+ emissions per #g
of mil# produced *>ovett et al., -44:; >ovett et al., -44=; (arwes, -447; Rehetmeier et al., -40-+.
's mil# production is estimated to be -4M lower on organic dairy farms, it is assumed that
methane emissions per #g mil# will be higher *e.g. Aiorr and <erner *0776+ in /tolGe et al. *-444+.
However, >amp#in *-44$+ highlights that average yield per cow on organic dairy farms is typically
74 &hapter $ 'dequacy of the production rules

only about 04 M lower than conventional, and there is no significant difference in the meat
output per animal, so this effect may be outweighed by other farm or sector level considerations,
such as stoc#ing rates and reliance on bought in feeds from off farm. !ncreased mil# yields can
also lead to a decrease in animal fertility and health leading to an increase in the overall
replacement rate. !ncreases in herd siGe, due to a greater number of replacements3young stoc#
on the farm, would result in greater emissions overall *?ova# and 9iorelli, -447+. Others have
suggested that increasing the roughage content of the diet will result in an increase in methane
emissions under organic management *de .oer, -441+, but &ederberg and )attson *-444+ found
that the nitrous oide emissions associated with synthetic fertiliser manufacture more than
offsets the greater amounts of methane released by organic dairy cattle.
!n addition, organic farms try to maintain a closed production system as far as possible.
'ssessments of greenhouse gas emissions within beef and dairy production by /chader *-447+
and Haas et al. *-440+ found that this approach manifests through a reliance on home grown
sources of feed for livestoc#. >ower emissions associated with concentrate feed have also been
reported in comparisons of organic and conventional dairy production in /weden, Fenmar# and
the ?etherlands *&ederberg and )attsson, -444; XYrgensen et al., -44:; Thomassen et al., -446+.
<ithin an assessment of the environmental impacts of a 077= QbaselineJ and a number of 044M
organic conversion scenarios in Fenmar#, Falgaard et al. *-440+ also found that domestically
produced, organic grass3clover has less impact than conventional forage, due to a lac# of
fertiliser application, with the increased efficiency contributing to lower energy use, and
associated emissions, per livestoc# unit.
' recent literature review also compared the total (lobal <arming Aotential *(<A+ of organic
products, finding no significant differences overall between the greenhouse gas emissions
resulting from the production of conventional and organic products *Hnudsen et al., -400+.
Organic systems also avoid the ?
-
O emissions associated with mineral nitrogen fertiliser, as the
main source of ? is biological nitrogen fiation, within the fertility building ley period of the crop
rotation. Fespite this, there are only a few studies available which compare ?
-
O2emissions from
organic and conventional farming systems. &hirinda et al. *-404+ found no differences in ?
-
O2
emissions between farming systems. 9lessa et al. *-44-+ and /ehy *-441+ found lower ?
-
O2
emissions in organic farming systems per ha, and calculated ?
-
O2emissions per output weight to
be equal to /wiss non2organic farming systems. ' >ife &ycle 'ssessment by ?emece# et al. *-44:+
showed lower ?
-
O2emissions in organic farming systems for both area and product output *1= or
06M respectively+ than conventional. (attinger et al. *-404+ conclude that organic farming
systems have a lower ?
-
O2emission potential than conventional farming systems, because in
general, there is a linear relationship between ?2!nput und ?
-
O release and in organic farming
systems ?2supply is up to :4M lower than conventional. !n summary, data uncertainty
concerning ?
-
O emissions from different fertilisers and from the soil does not allow general
conclusions to be drawn on the impact of organic farming.
&hapter $ 'dequacy of the production rules 70

/ince the performance of organic agriculture regarding &O
-
emissions is highly correlated to
energy use, the same arguments apply as for the discussion of energy use in the section above.
"nli#e the energy use though, net emissions of &O
-
*i.e. gross emissions subtracted by the
sequestration rate+ need to be ta#en into account. There are indications that organic farming
performs better regarding carbon sequestration due to the incorporation of fertility building
grass2clover leys and the use of livestoc# manures within diverse crop rotations *Olesen et al.,
-44=; ?iggli et al., -447, /mith et al., -400b+. /everal long2term trials from the "nited /tates,
(ermany, and /witGerland *)Vder et al., -44-+ show that organic farming systems are able to
sequester more carbon from the atmosphere than the best performing conventional
counterparts. ' meta2analysis of $% studies conducted by (attinger et al. *-40-+ confirms higher
soil organic carbon concentrations and stoc#s in top soils under organic farming management
compared to conventional. 9lessa et al. *-40-+ argues however that differences in the
sequestration potential need to be interpreted with caution, since they depend very much on the
conventional management system. ' particularly positive effect can be epected if conventional
stoc#less systems are compared, while differences are rather small between organic and
conventional farms both using farm manure as an important ?2input.
There have been few direct comparisons of methane generation between organic and
conventional production *>amp#in, -44$+ although /tolGe et al. *-444+ point out that 64M of
organic farms will have ruminants, compared to =4M of conventional farms. This could lead to
higher &H
%
emissions from organic production overall, although the potential effect is reduced as
the stoc#ing density is generally lower in organic systems. The specifications within the
Regulations for at least =4M of the dry matter in daily rations of herbivores to consist of
roughage, fresh or dried fodder, or silage has led some authors to conclude that a conversion to
organic agriculture will result in higher levels of methane being emitted *de .oer, -441+.
'lthough not specifically about organic farms, a study by Fairy&o *-40-+ found that within a
sample of %0: farms in England, /cotland and <ales, increased concentrate feed rates were
associated with a higher carbon footprint per litre of mil#, questioning these assumptions.
Reliance on high cereal diets results in severe difficulties relating to health and longevity of
herbivores, which are by their physiology more suited to diets high in roughage *Rollitsch et al",
-44%+. ' high cereal diet would also result in mil# and meat produced with concentrates grown
on arable land with high inputs of nitrogen fertiliser *?iggli et al", -447+ and directly contributes
to land2use change and deforestation overseas from the production of imported feed such as
soya and maiGe *El2Hage /cialabba and )Zller2>indenlauf, -404+.
7.,.2.2 -especting high ani!al 'elfare standards& in particular !eeting
ani!als? species%specific #ehavioural needs
)indings from the anal$sis of provisions
The Regulation provides very detailed rules in terms of animal health care, feeding and housing
*'rticle 0% of &ouncil Regulation *E&+ 61%3-44$ and 'rticle $ to -: of Regulation *E&+ 6673-446+.
7- &hapter $ 'dequacy of the production rules

Aarticularly relevant are specifications of housing design and indoor stoc#ing rates *'rticle 0%*e+
with detailed implementing rules in 'rticle 04 to 0- of Regulation *E&+ 6673-446+. These state
that at least half of floor area should be solid floor *no slats+, and ban the use of flat dec#s or
cages for piglets and of cages for poultry. /ome transitional and eceptional rules eisting in
Regulation *E&+ 6673-446 are also directly lin#ed to animal welfare, such as the allowing of
tethering for small holdings. The eceptional rule requires regular eercise, access to bedded
areas, good management and additional control visits, but it is not clear to what etent the
control visits ta#e the animal welfare outcomes into account. 9or eceptions related to housing
conditions and stoc#ing densities, farmers have to present a plan to the competent authority and
control body showing how they will ensure compliance after this period of transition *until the
end of -401+.
+cientific evidence
!n the E"2funded research project Econ<elfare, organic rules were compared with general
animal welfare standards and private non2organic welfare standards for farm animals. The
project concluded that animal welfare is already on a high level compared with the requirements
of the general E" legislation *9errari et al., -404+. /chmid and Hnutti *-447+ compared the main
added requirements of E" organic production rules with other welfare standards, and found
differences related to the prohibition of certain housing systems *e.g. fully slatted floors for
cattle+ and improvements in eisting ones *e.g. access to bedding+. To develop organic standards
to become more adequate to the highest welfare standards, /chmid and Hnutti suggested to
provide more indoor space for all species of animals and to include measures for transport and
slaughter, which are almost entirely missing at present *ibid+.
9ocussing only on organic production rules and their impact on animal health and welfare,
Rahmann and (odinho *-40-+ emphasised that some practices in organic animal husbandry are
considered to demonstrate inadequate respect for animal welfare. /ome of these practices are
directly authorised in the Regulation *mainly under transitional or eceptional rules+, such as the
temporary tethering of cows. Other eamples include the use of conventional breeds that are not
robust enough and not adapted to organic farming conditions *e.g. hybrid poultry bred for
intensive systems+, high mortality rates of piglets, meat quality problems due to non2appropriate
feeding, #illing of male chic#s in poultry floc#s due to the lac# of multi2purpose lines, large poultry
floc#s leading to difficulties in ensuring sufficient and adequate outdoor runs, short life
epectancy of organic dairy cows in some countries, and high reliance of the mil# production on
concentrate feeds *cereal and soya+ instead of having a strong roughage basis.
Hovi et al. *-441+ carried out a detailed assessment of animal welfare in organic farming in the
"nited Hingdom under the previous regulation, but some findings are still relevant. The report
concluded that standards can have both positive and negative impact on welfare; training and
advice and health planning appear to be the most promising way to promote welfare and there is
a need to ensure consistent enforcement of eisting standards through certification.
&hapter $ 'dequacy of the production rules 71

/ome other studies investigating health and welfare on different types of farms used a range of
indicators. 9or eample, Hilbride et al. *-40-+ concluded that enterprises participating in organic
or farm assurance inspections were more li#ely to comply with welfare legislation in animal
health inspections and that such membership could be included in the ris#2based selection of
farms for inspection. !n contrast, in a study of %4 organic paired with %4 non2organic farms for
housing type and herd siGe, >angford et al. *-446+ found no significant differences in building
dimensions and in other aspects of cow housing and health between conventional and organic.
Referring to the same study of 64 paired dairy farms, Rutherford et al. *-446+ found lameness to
be less prevalent on organic farms and Has#ell et al. *-447+ found no difference in somatic cell
counts of dairy cows. /imilarly, 9all et al. *-447+ and )Zller et al. *-404+ found no difference in
udder health in paired farm studies in /weden and (ermany respectively. Erma#ov *-40-+ found
no indication of a better health status of organic tur#eys, based on a comparison meat inspection
data of organic and conventional carcasses in one (erman slaughter house between -44% and
-447. ?o other studies that directly compare health or welfare for other species could be
identified.
*iew of sta%eholders
(enerally, interviewed sta#eholders thin# that the production rules allow the achievement of
animal welfare in organic livestoc# production through the mandatory access to open2air areas,
the use of organic feed and the rules concerning maimum stoc#ing density. 't the same time,
they recommend to develop specific provisions to strengthen the animal husbandry guidelines
*choice of species, animal floc# siGe, minimum time spent on pasture, transport and slaughter
conditions+. /ta#eholders from 'ustria and (ermany commented on the absence of an
appropriate animal welfare assessment system. )any interviewees considered the authorisation
of cattle dehorning and tethering as non2compliant with animal welfare standards. Regarding the
use of non2organic feed, views vary significantly. )any interview partners were of the opinion
that the animal welfare assurance is one of the reasons for consumers to buy organic products,
and commented on the fact that there is now less of a distinction between organic and
conventional production due to the increasing animal welfare requirements in conventional
systems in recent years.
7.,., .roducing products of high quality and responding to consu!er
de!and
This section presents the results related to the objectives of organic production aimed at
Pproducing products of high qualit$, and Pproducing a wide variet$ of products in response to
consumer demand for foods and products produced b$ the use of processes that do not harm the
environment, human health, plant health or animal health and welfare, *'rticle 1*b+ and 1*c++ as
well as related to the global objective of Oensuring consumers- confidence and protection of
consumers- interests, *'rticle 0+.
7% &hapter $ 'dequacy of the production rules

To answer the question as to whether the rules are adequate to produce products of high quality
and in response to consumer demand, plant and livestoc# production rules, the processing rules
of the Regulation and the implementation in )ember /tates are considered. Relevant eternal
factors are highlighted and eamples from the case studies supporting the arguments are made.
7.,.,.1 .roducing products of high quality
#nal$sis of provisions
The production rules prohibit the use of chemical pesticides *'rticle 0-*0++ and limit allopathic
treatment for animals *'rticle 0%*e++ but do not specify maimum thresholds for the residue
content in organic products. The number of permitted inputs in food processing
B
is considerably
lower than for conventional agriculture. Obligations to use certain practices include the use of
slow growing strains of livestoc#, open2air access, and feed requirements appropriate to the
livestoc# species.
7

+cientific evidence
'n E"2funded study on quality and safety of organic and low input foods *,>!9, -447+ showed
with regard to food safety that organic production methods resulted in lower levels of
nutritionally undesirable compounds such as heavy metals, mycotoins, pesticide residues and
glycol2al#aloids in a range of crops and mil#. ' Futch literature review on food quality, safety and
health impact of organic production *@an der @ijver et al., -447+ comes to similar conclusions but
epresses some reservations about livestoc# products.
6
Thus, the food safety of crop2based
products is improved mainly than#s to the prohibition of chemical pesticides and the non2use of
mineral fertilisers. 9or animal2based products, the obligation to use roughage in the diet and
limitation on allopathic treatment are li#ely to have a positive effect; however, for monogastrics
the obligation to give access to pasture *free2range+ and the restrictions on the use of allopathic
treatment require good management abilities on the part of the holder *e.g. @aarst et al., -446+.

B
'nne @!!! of Regulation *E&+ 6673-446 with /ection '5 9ood additives including carriers and /ection .5 Arocessing aids
and other products which may be used for processing.
7
E.g. appropriate breeds shall be chosen *'rticle 0%*0+*c+*iv+ of Regulation *E&+ 1%%3-44$; in the choice of breeds or
strains, account shall be ta#en of the capacity of animals to adapt to local conditions, their vitality and their resistance
to disease *'rticle 6 of Regulation *E&+ 6673-446+; animals must have permanent access to open air *'rticle 0%*0+*b+*iii+
of Regulation *E&+ 61%3-44$+, prohibition of landless livestoc# production *'rticle 0= of Regulation *E&+ 6673-446+, use
of certain products and substances in feed *'rticle -- of Regulation *E&+ 6673-446+.
1
The literature review leads the author to conclude that a number of well2conducted studies show clear evidence of the
following5 in the plant sector, organic products contain less rather than more fungal toins, the nitrate content of
organic crops is generally lower than for conventional crops *occasionally some result show the opposite+, there are a
limited number of comparative studies showing that conventional products contain more pesticides residues than
organic; regarding animal production, there are clear indications that eggs from free2range hens contain more dioins,
that the prevalence of antibiotic resistant bacteria in organic pigs and chic#ens is lower than with conventional breed
animals and that the prevalence of &ampylobacter is higher in organic broilers.
&hapter $ 'dequacy of the production rules 7:

9or several potential food safety ris# factors not only direct restrictions in the E" organic rules
but also indirect measures can play a potential role */chmid, -44-; '99/', -441+. ' recent
systematic review concluded that organic food consumption may reduce eposure to pesticide
residues and antibiotic resistant bacteria */mith2/pangler et al., -40-+.
There is very little evidence of an impact of organic practices on the nutritional value of products
and even less regarding health. 'ccording to a study conducted in -441 by the 9rench 9ood
'gency *'9//', -441+ the fact that organic crops are often more eposed to environmental stress
*due to a usually higher pest and disease pressure+ would slightly increase the content of the
following micronutrients5 iron, magnesium, vitamin & and antioidants *these molecules
intervene in the defence system of plants+. 'ccording to Raiffaud *-404+, promoting graGing for
ruminants improves the flavour and the nutritional composition of products li#e mil# or cheese,
because of the abundance and the varieties of wildflower meadows. ' comparison of
conventional and organic dairy products found better nutritional quality of organic mil# *Aalupi et
al., -40-+
5
, probably related to a difference in feeding regime *the higher level of fresh forage
encouraged by the Regulation+. /imilarly, the meta2analysis of results related to organic mil#
production *Hahl et al., -400+ shows that organic dairy products contain significantly higher levels
of protein or total omega21 fatty acid. The systematic reviews of Fangour et al. *-447+ and of
/mith2/pangler et al *-40-+ concluded that there is no strong evidence of the higher nutritional
value of organic products compared to conventional ones, but /mith2/pangler et al. pointed to
the limitations of such analysis in terms of the number of studies and their heterogeneous
nature. !n contrast, .randt et al. *-400+ concluded that the content of secondary metabolites is
approimately 0-M higher in organic produce resulting from the different fertility management
system between both systems. /ome studies *,>!9, -447; van der @ijver et al., -447+ concluded
that it was premature to draw conclusions in the field of health.
'ccording to Raiffaud *-404+, the numerous scientific studies on the impact of organic practices
on the taste of products have not shown significant differences to conventional ones. @arious
production parameters *e.g. varieties and species used, the duration of rearing or the crop
conditions+ may influence the flavour, ma#ing rigorous comparison more difficult. !n the E"2
funded research project E&ROAO>!/, a comparative analysis of relevant sensory related
requirements in regulations and standards for mainly processed organic products was made
using an impact matri */chmid, -447+. The empirical verification of product qualities through
consumers and sensory laboratory testing showed significant standards2related impacts for oil
and salami, but no impact for apples, biscuits and tomato sauce. These effects were related to
processing rules, such as the use of additives *non2use of nitrates3nitrites for meat products+ and

5
/ignificantly higher amounts of protein, '>', n21, &>'7, @', EA' and FA' in organic dairy products than in conventional
products, as well as a higher ratio of n21 to n2= *approimately twofold+ and n272desaturase inde, indicate that the
organic dairy product may have a premium nutritional quality.
7= &hapter $ 'dequacy of the production rules

restrictions on etraction methods and heat treatment of plant oils that are found in some
private standards but not in the E" Regulation for organic production *Espig et al., -400+.
7.,.,.2 .roducing a variety of organic food in response to consu!er
de!and
Results of the consumer surve$
!n the survey of 1444 consumers in = countries, carried out as part of this evaluation, consumers
were as#ed to indicate the degree of their personal agreement to a list of statements regarding
organic food on a scale from 0.
14
The majority of consumers agreed with the statement that most
organic products meet their epectations regarding high quality, and many believe that organic
production does protect the environment. 's a further indication of whether the variety of
products meets the demand, consumers were as#ed whether they are able to buy all the
products they want in organic quality. 's shown in 9igure $.1, only about -4M of questioned
consumers agree with this statement, nearly half of them *%6M+ stated that, at present, they
cannot buy all the organic products they would li#e.
' further question aimed to determine which organic products consumers most feel are lac#ing.
The results show that many see the greatest gaps in the supply of fresh fruit, vegetables, salad
and meat *fresh and processed+, but also mil# and dairy products, bread and fresh fish are not
perceived to be available in sufficient quantities.
*iews of sta%eholders
The majority of the interviewed sta#eholders shared the opinion that the production rules are
adequate to satisfy consumer demand. !t is li#ely that sta#eholders involved in production *such
as farmersJ organisations, farm advisors and control bodies+ will have answered this question
considering the feasibility of producing specific products under the rules rather than considering
the availability for consumers. Regarding processing, more than half of them *in particular from
competent authorities, ministries and producer organisations+ were certain that the processing
rules of the Regulation enable the production of a broad range of products. The other half of
respondents thin#s that consumers have different epectations in relation to quality and
pac#aging and want fewer additives. /ome processers would li#e to have more additives allowed,
so they can produce a wider range of products *e.g. they cited specific flavour restrictions for
yoghurts or the restricted list of stabilisers for melted cheese as limiting what they could
produce+. Others questioned whether all food products should be available as organic in the first
place and were not convinced that high quality or good taste can be guaranteed by rules.

14
9or further details of the consumer survey see &hapter 0 and 04.
&hapter $ 'dequacy of the production rules 7$

6igure 7.,0 @iews of consumers regarding the availability of organic products

/ource5 Own data from consumer survey.
7.,.,., Ensuring consu!er confidence and protecting consu!er interests
*iews of sta%eholders
<ith regard to assessing the adequacy of production rules to contribute to the global objectives
of ensuring consumer confidence and protecting consumer interests, mainly the views of
sta#eholders are considered. The issue will be eplored in more detail in response to Evaluation
,uestion : in &hapter 04, where further results of the consumer survey are presented. 'cross all
countries and sectors, sta#eholders share the opinion that the production rules *as well the
respective labelling rules+ are strict, clear, detailed and sufficiently integrated to ensure
consumer confidence and protect consumer interests. Especially when compared with the
alternatives *e.g. integrated or conventional agriculture, regional labels+ the organic production
system is seen as the most clearly defined and the most strictly controlled sector. The lists of
restricted ingredients and additives are considered to help ensure consumer confidence. One of
the main epectations is that inputs and the number of additives are very restricted *at present
only :4 processing additives are permitted compared with 1-4 additives for conventional food
processing+ with some private standards having reduced the number further.
7.,.2 Custification for e$ceptional and transitional rules
This section evaluates the three main eceptional measures providing temporary authorisation to
use non2organic inputs *young poultry, feed and seeds+ and the transitional rules for animal
housing. !n order to assess the justification for non2organic input use, the following aspects were
considered5 a+ current availability of organic farm inputs; b+ reasons for undersupply; c+ actions
FonLt #now
?o
Tes
.uestion: #re all the products $ou would li%e to bu$ available in organic qualit$?
Total FE EE !T "H A> 9R
4M
04M
-4M
14M
%4M
:4M
=4M
$4M
64M
74M
044M
76 &hapter $ 'dequacy of the production rules

ta#en *or needing to be ta#en+ to develop an appropriate supply; d+ evolution of the supply in the
past years; e+ implications of the eceptional rule, considering the li#ely impact on developing
supplies, and where appropriate on achieving the objectives of organic farming and on consumer
confidence. <here quantitative evidence was available it is presented, along with the analysis of
provisions, epertsJ points of view and literature.
7.,.2.1 -egulatory (ustification of e$ceptional rules
)indings from the anal$sis of provisions
Eceptional rules intend to provide fleibility, enabling adaptation of the production rules to
specific climatic, geographical and structural constraints or stages of development *'rticle -- of
Regulation *E&+ 61%3-44$ and &hapter = of Regulation *E&+ 6673-446+. One important area for
eceptions are several rules arising from the principle Orestricting the use of external inputs to
inputs from organic production, *'rticle %*b+ of Regulation *E&+ 61%3-44$+. Eceptions can be
granted where they are necessary to ensure access to inputs which are not available in an organic
form on the mar#et *'rticle --+. This also states that they should be #ept to a minimum and
where appropriate limited in time.
Eceptions can be granted by the competent authority of the )ember /tates if inputs are not
available in an organic form on the mar#et in the short or medium term *or during catastrophic
circumstances where temporary measures are necessary to protect organic production+.
*iews of sta%eholders
The sta#eholders agreed to a large etent that the eceptional rules are adequate, provided that
they are transitional and of a temporary nature. This was particularly stressed by sta#eholders
from 'ustria, Estonia, /pain, !taly and Aoland. The main arguments supporting the eceptional
rules underline the need to address the insufficient supply of organic inputs.
7.,.2.2 E$ceptional rules for using non%organic young poultry
)indings from the anal$sis of provisions
'rticle %- of Regulation *E&+ 6673-446 provides that a+ non2organic young poultry up to 1 days
old can be introduced when constituting or reconstituting a floc# and b+ until 10 Fecember -40%
*initially 10 Fecember -400+, non2organic
11
reared pullets for egg production of not more than 06
wee#s may be brought into an organic livestoc# unit, when organically reared pullets are not

11
'mong producers these pullets are often referred to as part2organic, because the article states that the organic feeding
and disease prevention rules must be complied with by the pullet rearing enterprise.
&hapter $ 'dequacy of the production rules 77

available in sufficient numbers. There are currently no specific E" rules for the production of
organic chic#s or for the rearing of organic pullets.
)indings from the anal$sis of other publications and information
&urrent availability of organic pullets0 Out of the 01 countries studied, eceptions provided by
'rticle %- apply in all )ember /tates under various conditions, ecept for Fenmar#, which has
set up national rules for the production of organic young poultry. Here, farmers must be supplied
with organic young poultry for laying hens as well as for broiler production. The supply in young
organic poultry is thus adequate in Fenmar#. 'lso in (ermany the use of non2organic poultry is
forbidden, but producers can use non2organic eggs for hatching without derogations. Here, some
regions li#e ?orth Rhine2<estphalia are starting to implement stricter rules; for eample that
from 0
st
)arch -401 mied floc#s *organic and non2organic chic#s+ have to be formed, and
unavailability2declarations have to be issued by suppliers. !n many other )ember /tates, the
production of broilers or laying hens relies on the use of non2organic chic#s, fed with organic
food since the age of one day. Eperts from 'ustria, Fenmar#, 9rance and the ?etherlands
reported that there was no need for eceptional rules for young poultry, while eperts from the
&Gech Republic, Estonia, !taly, Aoland and /lovenia stressed that there is no or only a limited
supply of organic young poultry in their countries.
&auses of the undersupply of organic young poultry5 The lac# of an E" standard regulating young
organic poultry production constrains the development of the sector, as countries are reluctant
to develop national standards on their own to avoid potential disadvantages for their producers.
This is referred to in Recital *1+ of &ommission Regulation *E&+ :4:3-40- of 0% Xune -40-, Othe
development of harmonised organic production rules for $oung poultr$ at !nion level is complex/
the viewpoints on technical requirements var$ widel$ between the parties concerned.P 's a result,
Recital 1 states that Oin order to allow more time to develop detailed rules for the production of
organic pullets, the exceptional rule for using non&organic pullets should be prolonged.P
'ctions to develop the supply of organic chic#s and pullets have been ta#en in Fenmar#, mainly
to satisfy issues of organic principle *animal welfare+. The )inisterial Order ?[000- of
-0 ?ovember -446 of production and mar#eting of organic pullets sets provisions related to
mar#eting conditions, feeding, welfare demands *physical production demands+, prohibitions on
trimming of bea#s and the use of allopathic veterinary medicinal products and treatments.
'ccording to Fanish operators and eperts interviewed, the provision enforcing the use of
organic pullets led to the development of an appropriate production of organic pullets. !n 9rance
and the "nited Hingdom producers tend to support the introduction of E" standards for rearing
organic pullets, but wish to maintain eceptions on using non2organic chic#s for the time being. !n
9rance, producers appreciate the great diversity of breeding species that the eceptional rule
allows them. <hen interviewed, the operators also highlighted that introducing organic chic#s
from organic breeding stoc#s will a+ raise the price of organic pullets *see further below+ and b+
bring strong technical and sanitary constraints in breeding stoc# management, particularly
044 &hapter $ 'dequacy of the production rules

because of the mandatory open2air access areas.
12
' team of researchers
1,
, establishing the
actions needed to allow organic young poultry supply to develop, mainly recommend5
The introduction of specific requirements in the Regulation covering the following areas5
D /tandards for the #eeping of organic parent floc#s and organic hatcheries suitable for use
in the organic table bird production system from day old;
D /tandards for the #eeping of young poultry for the purpose of egg production.
The management of a database for organic young poultry and hatching eggs, similar to that
which already eists for seeds, to ma#e the supply situation in the E" transparent and the use
of organic poultry and organic hatching eggs easier.
!mplications of the eceptional rule for using non2organic pullets5 The eistence of these
eceptional rules *one of them with no end date, the other etended recently+ has an adverse
effect on the development of the organic supply. !n case study countries, authorities and3or
operators agreed that a 044M organic supply would be possible if there were no mar#et
perturbation such as that caused by the eceptional rule. To postpone the ending date hampers
the development of supplies and is seen as being unfair by eperts for sectors that have started
to adapt to the end of the eception. !n Fenmar#, the use of conventional young poultry has
been prohibited for many years which fostered the development of a mar#et for young organic
poultry. Fifferences in supply, whether it is from *non2+organic chic#s or part2organic pullets,
leads to important differences in costs. !n the "nited Hingdom, eperts estimate full organic
rearing of pullets to be approimately %4M more epensive than part2organic pullets and in
9rance the price of organic chic#s is estimated to be twice as high as of conventional day2olds.
12

7.,.2., E$ceptional rules for using non%organic feed
)indings from the anal$sis of provisions
9or the feeding of pigs and poultry, 'rticle %1 of Regulation *E&+ 6673-446 with reference to
'rticle --*-+*b+ of Regulation *E&+ 61%3-44$ authorises the use of a maimum percentage of non2
organic high protein feed when organic quality high protein feed is not available.
19
!nitially, the

12
This point would not affect northern countries that require access to open2air areas only if weather conditions permit.
1,
/ee .\>< *-40-+ for details.
12
Eample of costs of production difference in the "nited Hingdom *echange rate E"R3 (.A ] 0.07+5
&osts of organic chic#s for broilers5 (FA 4.$43per bird *4.61 E"R+ whereas non2organic chic#s li#ely at (.A 4.%43per
bird *4.%$ E"R+
9ully organic reared pullets for layers *using non2organic chic#s+5 (.A =.44 to =.7:3 per bird *$.0- to 6.-: E"R+
whereas part2reared *free range using only organic feed+5 (.A %.%4 to %.$4 *:.-- to :.:6 E"R+.
!T'@! *-404+ compared in 9rance the price of conventional chic#s of slow growing strains of -7.=0 E"R for 044 heads to
the price of organic chic#s of intermediary growing strains of =: E"R for 044 head.
19
This rule does not apply to herbivores.
&hapter $ 'dequacy of the production rules 040

eception was in force between -447 and -404. !n -40-, the :M rate was etended until the end
of -40%.
)indings from the anal$sis of other publications and information
&urrent availability of organic high protein feed5 Typical feeds with high protein content for
monogastrics are usually various soya products, corn gluten or potato protein; containing specific
amino acids such as lysine and methionine. !t is not possible to estimate the availability of
organically sourced protein feed in the E", official data on feedstuff demand and availability do
not eist. The !&OAA project *!mproved contribution of local feed to support 044 M organic feed
supply to pigs and poultry 2 &ORE Organic !! funded+ will assess available feed resources and the
current demand in selected )ember /tates. ' survey on feed resources is now in progress in 0-
countries, ma#ing use of national information to provide best estimates. ' report is due at the
end of the project in October -40%.
1B

!nterviewed eperts declared that these types of protein crops are not available in sufficient
quantities from organic sources at E" level, and that the majority of pig and poultry farmers rely
on the eceptions of the :M non2organic high protein feed rule. !nsufficient supply of organic
feed was specifically mentioned by eperts from 'ustria, &Gech Republic, (ermany, Fenmar#,
Estonia, 9rance
17
and /lovenia. They are concerned about the threat represented by imports of
organic feedstuff from third countries *mostly &hina and !ndia+; with little guarantee on control
and large carbon footprints. The recent cases of melamine contamination in organic soya
imported from &hina and fa#e organic soya traded from !taly have had an impact on the demand
for locally produced protein feedstuffs, which the mar#et is unable to meet.
&auses of the systematic use of the :M of non2organic protein eceptional rule5 !nterviewed
eperts stated that a 044M diet from available organic feedstuff could hardly meet animal
requirements *mostly with high performance breeds+, and supplementation with non2organic
high protein feed *as well as amino acids+ is a necessity to reach a balanced supply of methionine
and lysine for the high performance standards. ?atural amino2acids are provided by corn gluten
or potato protein incorporated in the :M of non2organic authorised ingredients, and by
increasing the share of soya in feed. The obligation of 044M organic feed would force farmers to
find new sources of natural amino2acids, since corn gluten or potato protein are not available
organically *E(TOA, -400+.
.
' number of potential high protein feed sources *rapeseed, peas and
beans but also micro2algae+ could be developed as alternatives, but some require further
research. 's part of the E"2funded EE& *organic+ -47-370 Revision Aroject, /undrum et al. *-44:+

1B
The report will present estimates of organic stoc# numbers of all animals *including herbivores+ and of organic
production of concentrated feedstuffs including protein, bro#en down by crop3type in 0- countries as well as balancing
calculations and tentative conclusions.
17
9or eample in 9rance, according to epert estimates, the need for organic soya for animal feed is around ::444 tons,
and national production is :444 tons, which means that 74M of organic soya for feed is imported *mainly from third
countries+.
04- &hapter $ 'dequacy of the production rules

carried out a meta2analysis of the available literature to evaluate whether restrictions in protein
supply can be compensated for by other measures that are more in line with organic objectives
and principles. The report concluded that due to the restricted availability of feedstuffs with a
high content of limiting amino acids, growth rates and protein accretion of organic pigs and
poultry are clearly lower in organic compared to conventional production. However, it claimed
that there is sound scientific proof that both poultry and pigs can compensate to a high degree
for imbalanced feed rations without the onset of specific health and welfare problems, with the
eception of the animalJs first wee#s of life. /trains with a high genetic yield capacity seem to be
more sensitive to suboptimal feed rations than slow growing strains or robust breeds. There also
are numerous studies that describe the undesirable side effects of breeding for high protein
accretion, especially in poultry production, ma#ing the lower intensity of feeding potentially an
asset of organic production and suggesting that organic production of pigs and poultry needs to
be protected from unwanted intensification through feed ingredients */undrum et al., -44:+. !t is
worthwhile noting that the !&OAA project will determine new approaches of ration formulation.
!mplications of the eceptional rule for using non2organic high protein feed5 !n the current
situation, the financial implications of the phasing2out of this eceptional rule would represent an
increase of the total feeding costs
11
to reach the required level of 044M organic feed, because of
the higher price for organic protein feed.
15
'nother impact would come from the change of the
feeding content. /ince some high value protein feedstuffs *e.g. potatoes protein, maiGe gluten,
soya meal+ used to balance rations are not *or not fully+ available from organic sources, farmers
will increase the overall protein content when increasing the share of organic raw materials to
achieve a diet that provides adequate amounts of the limiting amino acids.
&onsumers perceive organic husbandry as a production method based on natural3healthy feed
*e.g. Ranoli et al. -44%+. They are not aware of the details of production standards and might
epect livestoc# used for organic meat to have been fed 044M organic feed. However, it can be
assumed that they would prefer local feed sources, if as#ed to choose between imported organic
and local conventional feedstuff. ' preference for local food is often seen in consumer surveys.
'lso the organic principles for farming oblige to farmers to practice land2related livestoc#
production and the feeding rule also epress a preference for feed from the farm or region.
's an immediate and transitional measure, the use of synthetic amino acids for organic
monogastric feed production is discussed in some )ember /tates *for eample (ermany+. The
argument is made that in this case animal needs and species2specific feeding should have higher
priority than the principles to use 044M organic inputs. However, some representatives of the

11
'ccording to "nited Hingdom epert interviewed, to move from 7:M to 044M will cost producer ^ (.A 0:3t in
increased feed cost and ^1p3doG in production cost.
15
This assumption does not ta#e into account potential adjustments *adaptation of breeds, authoriGation of synthetic
amino2acids, etc.+.
&hapter $ 'dequacy of the production rules 041

organic farming movement, e.g. in (ermany, strongly dismissed this suggestion as not being in
line with organic principles and stated that instead the search for alternative solutions needs to
be intensified. Aromising alternatives are already developed5 methods to produce methionine via
enGymatic fermentation based on organic raw materials, or the use of insect larvae or algae as a
protein source for feed *method in development+. These new techniques are considered by
interviewed eperts as very promising, but not ready for a broad practical use yet.
7.,.2.2 E$ceptional rules for using non%organic seed
)indings from the anal$sis of provisions
'rticle %: of Regulation *E&+ 6673-446 authorises the use of non2treated, non2organic seeds and
vegetative propagation materials when organic ones are not available on the mar#et *'rticle --
of Regulation *E&+ 61%3-44$+. This provision is supported through the establishment of a seed
database in each )ember /tate, listing the varieties for which organic seeds or seed potatoes are
available *'rticle %6 of Regulation *E&+ 6673-446+. !t allows the competent authority to grant
individual eceptions to farmer requests to use non2organic seeds with adequate justification.
24

The &ommission Regulation also provides for an 'nne *'nne B of Regulation *E&+ 6673-446+ to
register species for which organic seeds are available in sufficient quantities and for a significant
number of varieties. However, this 'nne remains empty.
9urther, the Regulation lac#s a definition of organic seed in general. Ecept the eclusion of
()Os, it does not specifically identify which breeding techniques are suitable for organic
production. &ontroversial breeding methods are heavily discussed in the sector and several
national standards ta#e clearer stands on which techniques are allowed for organic plant
breeding than the E" Regulation. The main critical issue is the use of &)/2hybrids *cytoplasmic
male sterility+ in organic agriculture; a method that uses cell fusion techniques to combine
species that under normal conditions cannot be crossbred. )ost sta#eholders argue that this
breeding method is little different from genetic engineering and should not be allowed for
organic seed production. !n (ermany for eample, private standards forbid the use of &)/2
hybrids5 Femeter since -44:, ?aturland since -446 and .ioland since -447 *Organic )ar#et !nfo,
-401+.

24
The Regulation provides for % possible justifications5
a+ ?o variety of the species is registered in the database;
b+ ?o supplier is able to deliver the seed or seed potatoes before sowing or planting in situations where the user has
ordered the seed or seed potatoes in reasonable time;
c+ The variety is not registered in the database and the user is able to demonstrate that none of the registered
alternatives of the same species are appropriate and that the authoriGation therefore is significant for his
production;
d+ !t is justified for use in research, test in small2scale field trials or for variety conservation purposes agreed by the
competent authority of the )ember /tate.
04% &hapter $ 'dequacy of the production rules

)indings from the anal$sis of other publications and information
&urrent availability of organic seeds and propagation material0 The organic seed mar#et is
growing, but levels of supply vary between )ember /tates and crops. !n 'ustria, (ermany,
Fenmar# and 9rance the organic seed supply is reaching satisfactory levels overall, according to
interviews with authorities and professionals *see also 9igure $.%+, eceptions for seeds were
reported to be necessary in .ulgaria *although farmers usually use their own seeds+, the &Gech
Republic, /pain, !taly, Aoland and the "nited Hingdom. The sectors that mostly rely on eception
requests are fruit and vegetable producers, as they use a wide range of species and varieties. To
assess the degree of use of the eceptional rule system, the share of the organic area grown with
conventional non2treated seeds *eceptional seeds+ has been compared with total organic area,
for three different crops in eight )ember /tates. The data are presented as an inde, the highest
proportion for each crop being given an inde of 044.
'mong the countries observed, supply of organic varieties of wheat, maiGe and potatoes seems
to be limited in !taly *the highest rate of use of non2organic seeds+. This might also be the case in
Fenmar# and Estonia, where the use of species or varieties classified in &ategory 1 with general
eception *see definition of categories below+ means that there is no record2#eeping of non2
organic seeds used. This may lead, in turn, to farmers favouring cheaper non2organic seeds, even
when adequate organic supply is available for specific varieties. However, very high levels of
organic supply for soft wheat have been achieved in 'ustria and the "nited Hingdom. 9or maiGe,
the share of organic areas cultivated from organic seed is close to 044M in the ?etherlands,
'ustria and /pain. Organic supply for seed potatoes is adequate in 'ustria, .ulgaria, Fenmar#,
the ?etherlands and the "nited Hingdom *inde below 14 M+.
21



21
/ta#eholders in the "nited Hingdom mentioned that supply of organic seed potatoes has fallen dramatically in the last
two years, because one major supplier withdrew from the organic mar#et.
&hapter $ 'dequacy of the production rules 04:

6igure 7.20 /hare of area grown with eceptional rule non2organic seeds of total organic
area, -400 *ha+

/ource5 Own calculation.
The system of national seed databases encourages the use of the available organic seed supply
nationally by ma#ing it easier to find information about availability. The management of the
eceptional rule system is done on )ember /tate level based on three categories5 0+ where
organic seed availability for species3varieties is sufficient, eceptions are no longer granted; -+
species or varieties with partial availability of organic seed, so eceptions apply and 1+ species or
varieties where there is no organic seed available, so a general authorisation to use non2organic
material is given. Table $.1 provides an overview of the level of use of the database in selected
E" )ember /tates.
Of the twelve countries studied
22
, only 9rance and the ?etherlands developed a list of species for
which organic seed supply is sufficient in quantity and diversity *&ategory 0+.
2,
The majority of
countries operate a regime where eceptions have to be justified for each species on a case by
case basis *see category - in Table $.1+. Requested eceptions vary significantly and can reach up

22
Fata from &Gech Republic could not be analysed.
2,
?o conventional seeds can be used by the operators for these crops, ecept for eceptional cases under appropriate
justifications *e.g. specific use such as pop2corn+.
"H
?>
!T
E/
EE
FH
.(
'T
Aotatoes
)aiGe *grain and
not forage+
<heat
*soft wheat+
4 -4 %4 =4 64 044 04 14 :4 $4 74
?ote5 The inde is calculated from the quantitative data registered in the statutory annual report of -400 for each )ember /tate
*'rticle :% of Regulation *E&+ 6673-446+. The amount of non2treated conventional seeds granted through derogations were
converted in areas, using the following seeding rate 2 soft wheat *#g3ha+5 0$:; grain maiGe *#g3ha+5 14; potatoes *#g3ha+5 -444.
*This does not cover all the non2organic seeds use, because some non2treated seed can be used without requiring derogation
when there is permanent derogation5 !n Fenmar#, general derogations are granted on soft wheat and grain maiGe species, whereas
in Estonia, general derogations are granted on soft wheat and potatoes varieties+. Then the corresponding area were divided by the
total organic area, and indeed so that the ma rate was equalled to 044. !n "nited Hingdom, data concerning maiGe are not available
but organic maiGe cultivation is very limited.
04= &hapter $ 'dequacy of the production rules

to %444 varieties of around =44 species *"nited Hingdom+. The third category, a list of species
and varieties under permanent eception, is active in si )ember /tates.
&auses for undersupply0 The reasons for the low level of organic seed use are twofold5
'ccording to !T'. *9rench Organic 9arming Technical !nstitute+ very few producers are
compliant with organic breeding principles. To further develop organic seed supply and
quality, research studies are launched by multi2actor partnerships !T'. and E&O2A.
*European &onsortium for Organic Alant .reeding+ and are addressed in some research
projects *e.g. /O>!.')+.
22

Organic seeds are more epensive than non2treated conventional ones, which is an adverse
incentive at individual and collective level to use or develop organic seed production. Odefey
et al. *-400+ compared the production costs of some organic enterprises with conventional in
five countries. .ased on 9'F? data, they showed that seeds represent an important share of
variable production costs in organic crop production *from -0M in /weden to 1:M in 9rance
for wheat; from 06M in (ermany to -:M in /weden for potatoes+. !ndeed, the average costs
for organic seeds are higher than for conventional seeds *two to four times higher in /weden
and (ermany for wheat; two to five times higher in /weden and 'ustria for potatoes+. 's a
result, the potential to use non2treated conventional seeds under the eceptional rule leads
to financial advantages.
Reporting of the =
th
E&O2A. meeting on Organic /eed Regulation in -400 FSring et al. *-40-+
suggested several ways to reduce farmersJ disincentive of paying higher prices for organic seeds5
compare conventional non2treated seed price with organic seed price and put the price
difference in a fund to develop organic seed supply for certain crops *e.g. potatoes+ in smaller
countries;
compensate farmers through their membership to organic farmer associations or by
government subsidies;
ma#e traders pay a premium for crops produced from organic seeds *seen as the most
feasible solution+.


22
http533www.solibam.eu3.
&hapter $ 'dequacy of the production rules 04$

Ta#le 7.,0 )anagement of the non2organic seed eceptional rule in -400 in E" )ember
/tates where case studies were carried out

/ource5 Own data from on case studies and annual national reports.

Category 1 Category 2 Category ,
Out of derogation ?umber of species and varieties (eneral authoriGation to use
concerned by derogation non organic material
'T ?one :: sp. 01 sp.
:-- var.
.( ?one := sp. ?one
0:- var.
FE ?one 0-% sp. 064 sp.
0$1 var.
FH :%= sp. _ 0$4 sp.
77 var.
EE ?one 0$ sp. 'll species not available in
6% var. *incl. -6 tomato var.+ the database
E/ ?one $4 sp. yes
c
9R TE/ *_01 sp.+
a
1 444 var., belonging to 0%7 sp. 6 sp. and $ var. of vegetables
are registered in the data base
'lert screen5 var. that will soon 0: sp. and 1 var. of field crop
be included in &ategory 0
b
?> TE/ *`$4 sp.+ 0:7 sp. 'rable5 6 sp.
`04=% var. @egetable5 7 sp.
&overed5 : sp.
A> ?one -40 sp. ?one
0 =-7 var.
's long as organic seed material is
available, no derogation is granted
/! ?one &a. 77 sp. ?one
&a. 1%= var.
@ar. database prepared by the )inistry
"H ?one &a. :76 sp. ?one
&a. % 444 var.
var. ] varieties, sp. ] species
a+ Eceptional cases of derogation for these species have been granted.
b+ !n -4045 carotte nantaise, chicorUe frisUe, oignon jaune hybride, triticale.
c+ The national report does not mention category 1 as such but states that, in /pain there is no offer of organic seed for many
species, including 5 maaG, chic#peas, lentils, bitter vetch, canola, garlic, asparagus.
046 &hapter $ 'dequacy of the production rules

!mplications of the eceptional rules for using non2organic seeds5 (enerally, eceptions have
increased over the past years. The overview *Table $.%+ shows that there is only a limited number
of cases where the quantity of seed under the eceptional rule has decreased with regard to the
respective organic area5 for potatoes in !taly, for wheat and spelt in Fenmar# and for carrots in
!taly and the ?etherlands *of the thirteen )ember /tates considered, complete data was only
available for Fenmar#, /pain, !taly, the ?etherlands, Aoland and the "nited Hingdom+.
29
The
diversity of the varieties managed through the databases has increased in most cases. This data
and the previous information on the use of the seed management database, shows generally an
etensive and increasing use of the eceptional rule system at E" level. 'ccordingly, 'nne B of
the Regulation has remained empty, showing the limited progress made towards supply of
organic seeds and propagating material at E" level.
Ta#le 7.20 'nalysis of the evolution of the eceptions granted *volume and diversity+
compared to the development of organic areas between -44$ and -400
2B


/ource5 Own calculation based on national reports and Eurostat.

29
Fecreased in greater proportion than the area or increased in smaller proportion.
2B
/ufficient data allowing the analysis of both a+ eceptions granted and b+ organic areas for the selected species
*potatoes, wheat and spelt, carrots+ were available only in : countries. One of the limiting criteria was the different
units used to specify the volume of eceptions, which prevented a clear view of the total amount granted.
.otatoes Organic area 16M n. a. 26M 7M :=M 214M
/eeds under eception *quantity+ 0:-1M 006M 27:M -0$M -6%M 2-7M
Fiversity *?umber of varieties
effected by the eceptions+
66M -=M 11M 01-M 6:M 01M
Organic area :-M n. a. 201M 2-=M n. a. 200M
/eeds under eception *quantity+ 2$7M $11M 0%M 2$:M 61%M 0-4M
Fiversity *?umber of varieties
effected by the eceptions+
2$0M =M 27M 044M 6M 2:M
Organic area %0M n. a. 2-:M :4M n. a. n. a.
Carrots /eeds under eception *quantity+ 001M 0$%M 27:M %%M -0M 27-M
Fiversity *?umber of varieties
effected by the eception+
201M 4M n. a. -1M 044M 2-M
&alculation is based on Eurostat data for organic areas *ecept for (ermany, based on data of 9i.>2')! surveys+ and national seeds
reports. <hen registered in seed units, the derogations were changed into #g using the following coefficient5 potatoes *4.4:+;
wheat and spelt *4.4444%:+ and carrot *4.444440-+. Then, the rate of change was calculated 5 D*average of -400 and -404+ 2
*average of -44=24$+E 3 *average of -44=24$+.
"E
;heat
< /pelt
lands !ar:
-44$ data is the average -44=2-44$, and the -400 data is the average of -404 and -400 *ecept for FH where only the -44=
data were available+.
Fen% /pain Italy @ether% .oland
&hapter $ 'dequacy of the production rules 047

)andatory use of organic seeds would reduce the ris# of contamination with pesticides and
()Os from using conventional seeds and propagation material. However, organic principles also
require the use of locally adapted varieties, of which seeds are less li#ely to be available in
organic quality. 'llowing the use of non2organic seeds can thus be seen as a necessity for the
sector to develop, even though it impedes or slows down the development of organic seed
production.
Fatabase management5 The interviewed eperts see the seed database as such as a good tool to
manage the eceptional rules for seeds. Tet the use differs among )ember /tates. /ome
countries *e.g. !taly, Estonia, /lovenia+ do not use it as an interactive tool and the information
available is in certain cases limited to a list of species established once a year; the use of the
three categories is uneven; the reporting format is not harmonised, all of which limits the
analysis of the valuable data gathered annually at national level.
7.,.2.9 Transitional !easures concerning ani!al housing
)indings from the anal$sis of provisions
Transitional measures were designed to allow progressive adaptation to the production rules
required by the E" organic specifications. Regarding animal housing conditions *stoc#ing density,
'rticle 7:*-++ and cattle tethering in buildings eisting before 'ugust -444 *'rticle 7*0++,
transitional measures were intended to end on 10 Fecember -404, but have been etended in a
significant number of )ember /tates until the 10 Fecember -401.
27
The transitional measure
concerning tethering of animals still applies in ten of the thirteen studied countries *'ustria,
.ulgaria, &Gech Republic, (ermany, Fenmar#, Estonia, 9rance, the ?etherlands, Aoland and
/lovenia+; and the measure regarding stoc#ing density in nine of the thirteen studied )ember
/tates *as above but not in /lovenia+. !n countries which have etended these measures
operators had a thirteen year transition period from -444 to -401. (iven the cost of a building
and the depreciation period, which is generally twenty years, the thirteen year transition period
provided by the Regulation
21
does not cover all buildings requiring renewal according to the
requirements. To support the transition, specific aid is offered under rural development
programmes, which enables farmers to invest in new buildings corresponding to the standards.
However, this aid is offered3implemented with specific provisions for organic farming only in very
few countries *e.g. 'ustria, parts of (ermany+.
25



27
There also is a permanent eception rule related to structural constrains, the tethering eemption for small holders in
'rticle 17 of Regulation *E&+ 6673-446.
21
.uildings that were built just before the rules were introduced in -444 will 01 years old at the end of -401.
25
/ee information about )easure 0-05 )odernisation of agricultural holdings in /anders et al. *-400+.
004 &hapter $ 'dequacy of the production rules

*iew of sta%eholders
)ost interviewees thin# that transitional measures concerning animal housing are adequate.
<ithout a transition period there would have been the ris# that a large number of farmers quit
organic farming. 9urthermore, it has helped to maintain supply on the mar#et. However, when
as#ed whether the transitional rules should continue or stop after -401, views differ. On one
hand, some interview partners in (ermany, Estonia, !taly and the ?etherlands thin# that
tethering is not in line with the current RegulationJs principles and that the sector has had
sufficient time to adapt and reorganise. On the other hand, some interviewees suggested that
tethering of cattle, when done in conditions that respect animal welfare *regular eercise
provided, access to outdoor pasture, spacious stables with sufficient bedding, etc.+, could be
allowed permanently *&Gech Republic, Aoland, ?etherlands+.
7.,.9 I!ple!entation of the rule on prohi#ition of )*+ and
consequences
This section addresses the adequacy of the rule that prohibits of the use of ()Os to ensure their
lowest possible adventitious presence in organic products and, at the same time, to avoid undue
constraints and additional burden on organic operators.
7.,.9.1 Threshold levels for and reported cases of )*+ conta!ination
)indings from the anal$sis of provisions
'ccording to 'rticle % of Regulation *E&+ 61%3-44$ (enetically )odified Organisms *()Os+ and
products produced from or by ()Os are incompatible with the concept of organic production
and consumersJ perception of organic products. They should therefore not be used in organic
farming or in the processing of organic products. The provisions aim for lowest possible presence
of ()Os in organic products. The eisting labelling thresholds represent ceilings which are
eclusively lin#ed to the adventitious and technically unavoidable presence of ()Os *Recitals 7
and 04 and 'rticle 7 of Regulation *E&+ 61%3-44$+.
,4


,4
()Os and products produced from or by ()Os shall not be used as food, feed, processing aids, plant protection
products, fertilisers, soil conditioners, seeds, vegetative propagating material, micro2organisms and animals in organic
production. 9or the purpose of the prohibition referred to in paragraph 0 concerning ()Os or products produced from
()Os for food and feed, operators may rely on the labels accompanying a product or any other accompanying
document, affied or provided pursuant to Firective -4403063E&, Regulation *E&+ 06-73-441 or Regulation *E&+
06143-441 concerning the traceability and labelling of genetically modified organisms and the traceability of food and
feed products produced from genetically modified organisms. Operators may assume that no ()Os or products
produced from ()Os have been used in the manufacture of purchased food and feed products when the latter are not
labelled, or accompanied by a document, pursuant to those Regulations, unless they have obtained other information
indicating that labelling of the products in question is not in conformity with those Regulations *'rticle 7 of Regulation
61%3-44$+.
&hapter $ 'dequacy of the production rules 000

)ost case study countries do not have additional national i!ple!entation rules; however, a
few countries and regions have set additional restrictions in their national regulations or
directives. Eamples are &atalonia in /pain, where given the etended distribution of () crops
*particularly () maiGe for animal feeding+ the control authority *&&A'E+ does no longer accept
non2organic maiGe and soya. !n 9rance, the principle of non2dilution is followed where the
threshold of 4.7M applies for each ingredient ta#en separately. 9or eample, if a product
containing 4.:M maiGe gluten, which contains more than 4.7M () maiGe, then these ingredients
have to be labelled as ()O.
,1
!n the "nited Hingdom, it is the shared interpretation of control
bodies and the competent authority not to permit any inputs that have tested positive for ()Os,
even if the result is below the threshold of 4.7M.
Only very few private standards in the case study countries have additional )*+%related
restrictions. .io2'ustria *'ustria+ tolerates mied feed with ()O contamination up to a
threshold of maimal 4.0M. &ertified mied feedstuffs have to be listed separately in the
infoBgen database and can only be produced with 044M organic compound feed plants. !n
9rance the private standard of .iocohUrence requires a threshold maimal 4.0M, but only a few
organic cereals, oil2 and protein2rich crop processors are involved in this standard. 'lso the
9rench umbrella organisation 9?'. aims for a specific label for organic products with a threshold
of 4.0M in order to assure consumers that the products are indeed ()O2free.
)indings from the anal$sis of cases of G'( contamination of organic products
!n order to verify if the general rule prohibiting the use of ()Os is adequate to ensure the lowest
possible adventitious presence in organic products, cases of ()O contamination in the case
study countries, which led to the loss of the organic status of products *between -400 and -40-+,
were investigated. !n most of the countries, no ()O contamination of organic products was
reported. The following cases were reported by competent authorities or control bodies5 !n
/pain, one case of contaminated maiGe in -400 and two cases in -40-; in !taly one case of
contaminated feed in -400 and four cases in -40-; in Aoland one case of fishmeal mied with
soya meal. 'vailable statistics *e.g. from '(E/ about ()O2contamination of soya in 'ustria
,2
+
reveal that cases of ()O contamination of more than 4.7M in organic products are etremely
rare and mainly concern etra2E" imports. This is due to the shortfall in organic proteins for
animal feed on the E" mar#et *especially soya for monogastrics+, that leads to imports of high
protein content raw materials. These imports increase the ris# of ()O contamination *lac# of
traceability, limited organic supply and high prices leading to fraud+. !n the opinion of some
sta#eholders *mainly producers+, the production rules should therefore ensure the development
of plant2based protein production in the E" *e.g. peas, faba beans and other legumes as well as
clover and alfalfa+ to avoid the ()O contamination ris# of etra2E" imports of soya.

,1
'ccording to the 9rench guideline -40- of the Regulations *E&+ 61%3-44$ and *E&+ 6673-446.
,2
/ee5 http533www.ages.at3ages3ernaehrungssicherheit3schwerpun#ta#tionen3untersuchung2von2gvo2in2lebensmitteln2
soja.
00- &hapter $ 'dequacy of the production rules

+cientific evidence
!n the scientific literature only a few figures could be found for Europe, regarding the additional
costs a further lowering of the threshold would raise. !n a &anadian study by Huygen et al. *-441+
the costs of lowering thresholds from 0M to 4.0M for eport () wheat doubled, depending on
the type of segregation and transport system in the supply chain. !n Europe these costs might
differ strongly between countries and type of products. Regarding seeds, Then C /tolGe *-44=+
estimated the costs for lowering ()O thresholds and showed that the current safety margin of
4.7M for the labelling of adventitious or technically unavoidable presence of () components in
food and feed leads to significant investments and higher annual costs for organic food
production in Europe. Total yearly co2eistence costs for E" food and feed processors in the case
study countries range from about :4444 E"R to 664444E"R. >ower thresholds li#e 4.0M for
adventitious presence of () seed in non2() batches are li#ely to increase these costs and the
associated constrains on farmers, processors, traders and retailers. ?o further targeted studies
are available identifying eact costs and measures necessary to establish seed purity at low
*QGeroJ+ thresholds. /uch detailed and targeted studies would be a basic condition for the E"
decision ma#ing process.
*iews of sta%eholders
The large majority of the sta#eholders were of the opinion that the prohibition of ()Os in
organic food and farming is a basic principle and is necessary for the consumer perception of
organic products. Only two sta#eholders wanted the position of ()Os to be discussed, revised
and considered in organic production *processors in (ermany and Fenmar#+. 'lso there is a
general agreement of the large majority of sta#eholders that the limit of 4.7M for labelling is
sufficient. ' few sta#eholders, however, thin# that there should be a Gero ()O tolerance for
seeds and feed *in /pain, 9rance and /lovenia+.
>oo#ing at the feedbac# of a few industry sta#eholders in countries with lower thresholds *!taly,
9rance and /pain+, opinions varied if such a measure would reduce the li#elihood of product
contamination, or only increase the costs for the farmer3processor. /ome retailers saw it as ris#y
to require a 4M ()O content. They argued that, if under such a regime cases of contamination
would be found, consumer confidence towards the products might decrease and the whole
organic sector might be considered as Qnot reliableJ.
The competent authority as well as some producers and processers in the "nited Hingdom and
/pain mentioned some difficulties with the interpretation of the 4.7M ()O threshold. /ome
control bodies and competent authorities see this as an acceptable threshold for organic food,
whereas others do not accept ()O contamination in organic food above 4.0M, and decertify
these products *one certifier in the "nited Hingdom+. The EO&& guide *European Organic
&ertifiers &ouncil, representing -6 of the -:4 E" control bodies+ also suggests to harmonise the
practices and processes in case of contamination ` 4.0M.
&hapter $ 'dequacy of the production rules 001

7.,.9.2 +ther factors
Coe$istence legislation
)indings from the anal$sis of provisions
&oeistence aims to achieve a sufficient segregation between () and non2() crops, including
organic production in compliance with the legal obligation for labelling defined in the legislation.
!n -441, the &ommission had issued guidelines to allow the co2eistence of () and non2()
crops through buffer Gones *()O2free+ *European &ommission, -441+. !n -404 the E" co2
eistence guidelines were adapted and published *European &ommission, -404+. The current
situation can be summarised as follows5 &o2eistence is regulated by individual countries and
vary widely in siGe *e.g. from 0: metres in /weden, 0:42144 metres in (ermany for maiGe, to 644
metres in >uembourg *Favison, -404++. The guidance also provides the possibility to designate
()O2free Gones, effectively allowing E" )ember /tates to ban the cultivation of () crops in
their territory without invo#ing the safeguard clause.
,,
However these rules are introduced and
implemented in a patchwor# fashion in the European "nion.
,2
'ustria *with regional variations+,
Fenmar# and the ?etherlands have introduced and implemented coeistence legislation for
()Os, including specific guidance for organic production; whereas .ulgaria, &Gech Republic,
(ermany *with regional variations+ and Estonia, have coeistence legislation but without specific
rules for organic production. The other case study countries */pain, !taly, Aoland, /lovenia and
the "nited Hingdom+ have not introduced such legislation.
+cientific evidence
<inter et al. *-400+ question the effectiveness of ()2coeistence measures in (ermany, as ris#
mitigation measures are not separated from coeistence measures in the legislation. They argue
that the measures aim at solving the conflicts between the individual landowners and thus fail to
recognise the systemic character of the conflict between agricultural systems. The systemic
conflict can, according to the authors, better be solved by non2binding landscape planning or a
legally binding land2use plan, yet to be developed. .inding agricultural planning should therefore
be introduced, e.g. establishing ()O2free Gones. /uch measures are considered compatible with
constitutional guarantees and with E" law.
*iews of sta%eholders
There are diverging opinions if national coeistence legislation is helpful in protecting organic
farming from ()O contamination. The main problems mentioned are5

,,
The safeguard clause allows )ember /tates under certain circumstances to provisionally restrict or prohibit the use
and3or sale of that ()O as or in a product on its territory *Firective -4403063E& *see 'rticle -1++.
,2
http533www.gmo2safety.eu3coeistence3%%7.european2patchwor#.html *04 )ay -401+.
00% &hapter $ 'dequacy of the production rules

Often coeistence legislation operates on the national level of )ember /tates or
administrative regions, which leads to strong variations of implementation;
Only a few regions have a strict legislation, e.g. the Qgenetic engineering precaution lawJ in
'ustria;
&riteria for a safe distance between organic and () crops are variable and highly difficult to
establish.
!n /lovenia and 'ustria, different sta#eholders argue for the establishment of ()O2free Gones
with specific ()O2free labelling. There are also debates at national levels and in the European
Aarliament, e.g. on ()O2free labelling of food products or ()O2free regions.
,9,,B
/everal national
operators in different countries mentioned that they are still missing guidelines concerning the
coeistence rules for both producers and processors, whereas in countries li#e Fenmar# or
'ustria such guidelines for () and non2() producers eist *e.g. distance rules between fields or
rules on shared use of machinery and transport equipment+.
Availa#ility of critical ingredients
)indings from the review of relevant publications
'n 'ustrian study investigated the feasibility of ()O2free labelling *'(E/, -44=+. !n the case of
@itamins .-, .0- and & *ascorbic acid+ the production is already mainly ()O2based, but it is
claimed that after ultrafiltration, no traces of ()Os are found in the final product. 9urthermore,
inspections at the place of production *'sia, &hina+ can rarely be done, ma#ing the verification of
the information on the certificates problematic. 'nother study about vitamin producers in &hina
showed similar results *.ioconnect, -446+. .ased on these studies as well as additional
information provided by the database of infoBgene
,7
, the current situation can be described as
follows5
@itamin .-5 There is only one provider listed in the infoBgen2database and this provider does
not guarantee ()O2free supply since 9ebruary -404.
@itamin .0-5 the European producer *9rance+ uses ()O and the &hinese producers do not
provide relevant information;
@itamin & *ascorbic acid+5 There is no information from &hinese producers. One European
producer delivers from chemical synthesis, the other from ()O2production, but the

,9
/ee5 http533www.greens2efa.eu3gmo2free2labelling2of2food2products26%:7.html.
,B
/ee5 http533www.gmo2free2regions.org.
,7
!nfoBgen is an association that was founded in -440 by several organic inspection bodies from 'ustria, (ermany and
/witGerland. The association aims to provide information about the production of food without the use of genetically
modified organisms. 9or this purpose, an online public database has been established.
/ee5 http533www.infogen.com3en3.
&hapter $ 'dequacy of the production rules 00:

information could not be verified. Thus the availability of ()O2free production cannot be
supposed as secure;
@itamin E5 Three producers gave the information to produce from chemical synthesis without
()O. One producer gave the information to produce from etraction of ()O raw material.
!n view of the current situation, the 'ustrian public agency '(E/ *-40-+ concluded that, since
9ebruary -404, @itamin .- from ()O2free production is no longer available.
*iews of sta%eholders
/ta#eholders *mainly producers, processors and certifiers+ in several case study countries
*'ustria, (ermany, Fenmar#, 9rance, Aoland, /lovenia and the "nited Hingdom+ raised concerns,
mainly about the availability of @itamin .- and .0- for feed, and in particular with regard to the
reliability of the ()O2free vendor declaration. !n some countries *'ustria, (ermany+ the
products with Qproved specificationJ *meaning5 with ()O2free2declaration+ are listed in the
infoBgen database of specified, authorised production means for the use in organic farming and
processing. /everal sta#eholders *mostly certifiers in !taly, /lovenia and Aoland+ mentioned that a
big problem is the reliability of the ()O2free vendor declaration provided by the producers of
ingredients. The declarations differ substantially in the formulation, and it is not defined in the
E" Regulation what they should include. /pecial efforts might be needed now to initiate ()O2
free production of these ingredients in Europe *e.g. through an /)E2supported research and
development project+.
9urthermore, a major issue for many different supply2chain actors in the majority of countries is
also the availability of ()O2free and organic protein feed.
7.,.9., Constraints and additional #urden on organic operators through
the prohi#ition of )*+s
+cientific evidence
!n the scientific literature only a few figures could be found on what additional costs coeistence
implies for organic producers and other supply chain actors. !n the "/, a fast2growing mar#et for
organic food and higher use of ()2varieties of several major crops eist simultaneously.
&oeistence between those differentiated products relies on interventions, such as physical
distancing and product segregation.
The costs and feasibility of coeistence along the supply chain were investigated in the E"2
funded project &o2Etra. &oleno *-446+ found the following strategies for segregation in various
region of 9rance5 defining () and non2() silos and production Gones which resulted in $4M
increase in transportation costs; specifying the timing of () and non2() crops delivery at silos
and3or using local management rules at each stage of the supply chain *both cost2neutral+.
00= &hapter $ 'dequacy of the production rules

.ecause organic products already have to be segregated from conventional crops, it is difficult to
assess the additional costs coming from the coeistence situation. )any companies were found
to use a prevention threshold which is lower than the labelling threshold *generally 4.0M+ which
was found to be easy to implement, as long as the () pressure is very wea#. The &o2Etra
project found that all )ember /tates of the E" that have legally defined ()O2free products are
using the threshold of 4.0M.
(reene and /mith *-404+ point out in a study about coeistence in the "/' that the costs
required to support the coeistence in all mar#ets are carried disproportionately by producers
and consumers of organic food.
Fata to assess the costs for a lower threshold in organic production are incomplete. The purity
and availability of non2() seeds is crucial to #eep organic farming ()O free. >ower thresholds
of 4.0M for adventitious presence of () seed in non2() batches are li#ely to increase these
costs and the associated constraints on farmers, food and feed processors, traders and retailers
*Then and /tolGe, -447+. /egregation of () and organic products results in additional costs but
might also generate consumer choice and thus creation of niche mar#ets for non2() labelled
products.
*iews of sta%eholders
9or the large majority of sta#eholders it is clear that the prohibition of the use of ()Os leads to
constraints and additional burdens on organic operators. Only a minority of sta#eholders
mentioned no additional burden. The burden for producers is lower in countries li#e !taly or
9rance, where the cultivation of ()Os is not allowed. Here the burden concerns mainly
processors of feed *soya and maiGe+. The main problems are higher costs and difficulties related
to the availability of specific ingredients free from ()Os. <ith regard to ()O contamination
ris#s in food processing, a clear majority of respondents *mainly from the industry+ consider this
prohibition as a strong burden. Higher costs are mentioned in particular for feed processors and
seed companies for epensive threshing and separating seeds or in processing feed. However,
there seem to be differences between countries due to different implementation. /ta#eholders
argued that it is difficult for organic operators to bear the costs of ()O contamination, while
they are the only operators to guarantee ()O2free products. Operators that are trying to
implement internal management procedures to safeguard against contamination feel penalised
by an increase in costs. One middle siGe processor in (ermany eplained5 01rotecting organic
products from geneticall$ modified impurities costs me one wor%er plus 23 333 !R each $ear,.
' number of other problems were mentioned by the interviewed sta#eholders5
Higher costs for analysis, administrative wor# and control as well as costs for separation in
processing and logistics, particularly for feed *soya, linseed and maiGe+; which increases costs
for organic feed *processors and farmer organisations in several countries+.
&hapter $ 'dequacy of the production rules 00$

/everal sta#eholders mentioned that the organic production rules alone cannot guarantee
the full eclusion of ()Os. The responsibility should lie on ()O growers3processors using
()O ingredients, and not on the organic sector5 Qthe polluter pays principleJ.
!n Estonia, sta#eholders *producers, processors+ reported that feed manufacturers cannot
have organic and conventional production at the same time, because the contamination ris#
is high. This requirement for full separation implies that organic feed processing is not
economically viable, and as a consequence there are no organic compound feed processors in
Estonia.
Aroducers and processors in several countries stated that farmers3operators that can prove
that they have done everything they can to guard against possible contamination, should not
be penalised for accidental presence of ()Os under the limit of 4.7M.
Foubts were raised, whether sufficient control, supervision and accurate analysis is really
useful if the presence is technically avoidable *which is also hard to define+ or adventitious
*&Gech Republic, !taly, /lovenia+.
'lso the ris# of contamination through the use of manure from ()O farms was mentioned.
!t was mentioned that the E" Regulation is not strict enough regarding the provision of
evidence on inputs produced from, or with ()Os. &urrently, the ()O2free vendor
declaration is sufficient, but it is rarely possible for the control body to estimate the reliability
of the declaration or of the company issuing it.
7.,.B I!pact of the production rules on fair co!petition
Ensuring fair competition is one global objectives of the Regulation *'rticle 0 Regulation *E&+
61%3-44$+. ' #ey question is to what etent this is possible for two main reasons5 a+
implementing rules differ between )ember /tates Rules, and b+ rules are harmonised at E" level
but different geographic, climatic and economic conditions could lead to different costs of
production. !n this section, both aspects are addressed. <here quantitative evidence could be
gathered, it is presented below; where not, proies and theoretical reasoning are used to judge
whether the distortion is li#ely to be significant. The assessment of the contribution of the
control system and the import rules to fair competition is covered in &hapters 6 and 7.
7.,.B.1 Cases of different interpretation of the -egulation
)indings from the anal$sis of provisions and other information
/ome of the rules laid down in Regulation *E&+ 61%3-44$ and 6673-446 are not precisely defined
and leave room for different interpretation through the enforcing bodies. The following areas
with room for interpretation, possibly leading to unfair competition, were identified5
006 &hapter $ 'dequacy of the production rules

)reenhouse production *substrate and &O
-
+5 The Regulation does not provide any specific
requirements or relevant production rules regarding greenhouse crops. 's a result, there are
different applications in the E", mostly for a+ the cultivation in a su#strate& which is
authorised in some )ember /tates for the cultivation of all plants
,1
*Fenmar#, !taly, Aoland,
/lovenia+, and in other )ember /tates limited to plants grown and sold in pots, mostly for
ornamental plants, herbs and aromatic plants *'ustria, 9rance, the ?etherlands and the
"nited Hingdom+; and b+ for fertilisation practices *such as fertigation *see /ection $.1.1.0+ or
the use of &O
-
enrichment

to enhance photosynthesis
,5
+. ' definitive judgement on this issue
is not possible due to lac# of data. !t can be assumed however, that these differences have an
impact on yields and production costs *fertilisation+ and therewith on competition. !n this
contet also the use of energy *see /ection $.1.-.1+ which is at present not regulated, is most
li#ely having an impact.
Fefinition of region in relation to the origin of feed !aterials5 9eed is an important
production cost, which suffers from high volatility in price and insufficient production,
particularly protein crops. Regulation *E&+ 61%3-44$ states that with regard to feed, the rule
is to Oprimaril$ obtain feed for livestoc% from the holding where the animals are %ept, or from
other organic holdings in the same regionP but does not define QregionJ. 'rticle 07*-+ of
Regulation *E&+ 6673-446 specifies thresholds for home or regionally produced feedstuff for
monogastrics at -4M and for herbivores at =4M. The potential distortion of competition from
differences in the interpretation of the term QregionJ thus only applies to the -4M of feed for
monogastrics. Fepending on the price difference between sources *local, E" )ember /tates
or third countries+, the definition of QregionJ can significantly impact feed prices, wor#ing
against growers from areas where the rule is more strictly applied
24
. However, at present
organic producers of monogastrics animals in the E" have no restrictions regarding the origin
of the other 64M. !f it is assumed that the price difference between local and internationally
sourced feed *including transport+ is around 0:M *)agdelaine and Riffard, -404+, and that
feed ma#es up =4M of the variable production costs *?ayet, -40-+, then the difference
between local and international supply would be only approimately -M of the total variable
costs. 9or herbivores, the impact can be more important since it concerns =4M of the
feedstuff, but a majority of their diet consists of forage, which usually comes from the farm or
region and is not commonly transported over long distances. Therefore, particularly for
herbivores but also for monogastrics, the impact of different definitions of QregionJ solely on
fair competition is limited.

,1
<ith possible varied condition on the quality or the quantity of the substrate.
,5
The use of &O
-
as fertiliser is authorised in most countries *for eample the "nited Hingdom, Fenmar#, !taly, the
?etherlands, >ithuania, /weden, >atvia, Aortugal 8 even though it is not always used+ and forbidden in only a few
*9rance, Aoland+. &O
-
is not included in the list of authoriGed fertiliGers, soil conditioners and nutrients in 'nne ! to
Regulation *E&+ 6673-446.
24
!n the case study countries the following definitions of region were used5 ?"T/ - *9rance, !taly+; whole country
*/lovenia, Aoland, Estonia, Fenmar#+; other *&Gech Republic, (ermany+; E"3world *'ustria, ?etherlands, /pain,
.ulgaria, the "nited Hingdom+.
&hapter $ 'dequacy of the production rules 007

Aousing conditions for poultry *'rticle 04 and 'rticle 0- Regulation *E&+ 6673-446+5 9or
laying hens, the indoor maimum density is = animals per m
-
, but the application of this
maimum density in multilevel systems varies in the case study countries. )ultilevel32tier
systems are forbidden in /pain and not used in 9rance, but widely applied in 'ustria,
(ermany, and the ?etherlands which influences production costs. !ntra2E" trade data on
organic poultry are not available. )agdelaine and Riffard *-404+ compared a 9rench system
*ground level = animals3m
-
+ with a Futch one using multilevel systems *7 or 0: animals3m
-
+.
The difference found in production costs was mainly due to the difference in cost of feedstuff
and not the investment costs. However, the investment costs in the multilevel systems can be
much lower than the ground level system. 'ccording to )agdelaine and Riffard *-404+
housing costs represent just :M of the total production costs. The potential distortion of
competition related to the housing conditions is therefore li#ely to be low, but organic egg
production is characterised by relatively low profit margins and the need to tightly control
costs of production.
Fefinition of >factory far!ing? for the use of non%organic fertilisers *'rticle 1 Regulation *E&+
6673-446+5 The Regulation states, where the nutritional needs of plants cannot be met by
good cultivation practices and crop rotation, farmyard manure
21
may be used, as long as it is
not sourced from Qfactory farming originJ. Tet, factory farming is not defined and therefore
different interpretations eist throughout the E", either on national or control body level.
9actory farming is often defined as land2less livestoc# production *&Gech Republic, Fenmar#,
Estonia, 9rance, !taly and Aoland+; by a maimum stoc#ing rate *e.g. 'ustria5 - livestoc# units
*>"+3ha; (ermany -.: >"3ha; &Gech Republic5 1 >"3ha+ or by a total number of livestoc# units
*ma. 0:4 >" in the &Gech Republic+. These definitions also consider other criteria such as the
dependence on eternal inputs or the lac# of respect for the basic principles of animal
welfare to qualify for Qfactory farmingJ. Other )ember /tates prefer to give positive lists of
what is authorised as non2organic manure *.ulgaria and the ?etherlands+ or a combination of
both *e.g. 9rance+. ' wide consensus eists to favour manure from etensive farming, yet the
rule is applied in such varied ways that access to fertiliser material differs depending on the
)ember /tates and this could potentially lead to unfair competition *yet quantitative analysis
is not possible+.
7.,.B.2 Issues left to the discretion of national co!petent authorities
)indings from the anal$sis of provisions and other information
The Regulation provides a list of issues to be implemented according to the principle of
subsidiarity5 E" )ember /tates can define their own criteria with regard to their national contet

21
9armyard manure, dried farmyard manure and dehydrated poultry manure, composted animal ecrements, including
poultry manure and composted farmyard manure included and liquid animal ecrements *'nne ! Reg. *E&+ 6673-446+.
0-4 &hapter $ 'dequacy of the production rules

and priorities. <hereas it is sometimes necessary to leave room to adapt the rules to their
climatic, geographic and3or social conditions, the rules mentioned in this section are eamples of
potential distortions of the competition within the E". The following areas were identified5
Fefinition of slo' gro'ing strains and !ini!u! slaughter age0 The Regulation states that
broilers should either a+ not be slaughtered before the age of 60 days, or b+ belong to slow
growing strains; and here E" )ember /tates have the responsibility to define slow growing
strains. !n the countries where poultry product case studies were conducted, the definitions
are a miture of specified strains and3or maimum daily weight growth, ranging from 1:
g3day *e.g. in 9rance, Fenmar#+ to %:g3day *e.g. in Aoland and the "nited Hingdom+. !n &Gech
Republic, .ulgaria and /pain, the definition is set eclusively through a list of slow growing
strains and Estonia applies only the 60 days rule. These varied definitions induce differences
in production costs5 for eample, a 1 #g chic#en grown at 1: g3day is slaughtered
approimately at the age of 6= days; grown at %: g3day, it is already slaughtered at == days.
's there is no access to trade data for organic broilers, it just can only be assumed that a
different definition potentially creates unfair mar#et conditions.
Ti!e during 'hich poultry runs !ust #e left e!pty #et'een #atches *E& 6673-446 'rticle
-1*:++5 )ember /tates were epected to define the minimum time during which poultry runs
must be left empty for vegetation to recover3regrow. The times implemented vary
significantly5 0% days *.ulgaria+, -6 days *'ustria, Aoland+, %4 days */pain, !taly+, := days
*9rance+, =4 days *in Fenmar#, the "nited Hingdom or the ?etherlands for laying hens+.
22
's a
result, the required open2air areas may vary significantly to satisfy the rule and ensure
continuous production, therefore potentially creating distortion in competition. This has been
particularly reported in the case of Fenmar#, which implemented a rather strict rule *=4 days+
compared to other countries.
The use of conventional seeds0 9leibility under 'rticle %:*0+*b+ of Regulation *E&+ 6673-446
allows )ember /tates to authorise the use of non2organic seeds. Tet, the national
implementation of the seed2database system appears to be uneven according to the )ember
/tates *see /ection $.1.%.% above+. 'uthorisations for the use of non2organic seeds mean a
financial benefit for the respective farmer. Feleuran *-400+ states that a major obstacle for
an increased use of organic seeds is the higher price compared to conventionally produced
and non2treated seeds. However, the importance of this price difference seems to be
dependent on the crop species and seed sourcing decisions also depend on the siGe of the
farm5 in several countries *e.g. "nited Hingdom, 9rance+ smaller producers usually use a
higher percentage of organic seeds than larger ones. ' thorough analysis of seed costs
*organic and non2treated conventional+ in the different )ember /tates would be necessary to
assess whether the impact of the seed mar#et on competition is significant. Aroducers in
countries with low availability are li#ely to have a competitive advantage.

22
!n other countries there are no specifications5 (ermany, Estonia, &Gech Republic, and /lovenia.
&hapter $ 'dequacy of the production rules 0-0

7.,.B., Issues arising fro! national regulations applying to general
agriculture
)indings from the anal$sis of provisions and other information
>i#e all farmers, organic farmers are subject to their national legal system, which in some
countries may increase the level of constraints and possibly costs of production for organic
producers. The main issue causing distortion of competition in this area is the access to
pesticides. The E" Regulation provides a positive list of authorised plant protection products.
%1

The use of these products depends on national mar#et authorisation schemes, which are not
harmonised and cause some significant differences. 9or eample, the "nited Hingdom has
accepted most of the products listed in the 'nne, whereas in 9rance, Fenmar# and Aoland a
wide range of products is not authorised *e.g. Ayrethrins, etracted from Q&hrysanthemum
cinerariaefoliumJ are not permitted in Fenmar# and Aoland+. Even without ta#ing climatic
differences into account, this impacts production conditions and productivity of horticultural
producers in the different )ember /tates.
7.,.B.2 Issues arising #ecause of lac: of fle$i#ility to respond to different
regional conditions
9air competition could potentially also be impaired due to the harmoniGed standard not allowing
national3regional fleibility to respond to different climatic or geographic conditions that eist
throughout E".
*iews of sta%eholders
/ta#eholders in 'ustria, Fenmar#, 9rance, (ermany, the ?etherlands and in /pain were
concerned that setting a level playing field with common rules is difficult, because the conditions
vary between different )ember /tates. .eside general concerns, the following eamples were
mentioned in the case studies countries, but due to a lac# of additional information no further
eploration of the potential distortion was possible5
Thresholds for the application of plant protection products5 The thresholds set for the
application of the authoriGed plant protection products of sulphur and copper *in 'nne !! of
Regulation *E&+ 6673-446+ do not allow farmers to respond adequately in areas that have a
high disease pressure for fungal diseases. This was mentioned by an organic producer
organisation in 'ustria in relation to the use of sulphur for wine growers and by a farm advisor

2,
To be used if plants cannot be adequately protected from pests and diseases by the use of adequate varieties, rotation
and cultivation techniques *'nne !! of Regulation *E&+ 6673-446+.
0-- &hapter $ 'dequacy of the production rules

*of the organic farming department of a federal chamber of agriculture+ in (ermany in relation
to use of copper for potato growers.
-egional differences in ho' !andatory outdoor access for poultry is i!ple!ented5 The
representative of an organic egg business group in 9rance and the control body of a federal
state in /pain were concerned that the climatic conditions in the ?orth allow poultry
producers not to have to offer mandatory outdoor access for poultry and thus also not have to
struggle with the build2up of disease pressure in the outdoor run.
Cli!atic conditions in the /outh5 The competent authority of a federal state in /pain was
particularly concerned that the constraints they face in producing forage because high
temperature and shortage of water are not sufficiently recogniGed.
7.,.7 Consistency of the production rules across sectors
Evaluation ,uestion - as#s to consider also the consistency of provision across the sectors for
which rule have been developed. Arevious sections of this report have illustrated differences in
the implementation of the rules with respect to crops and livestoc# production. This section loo#s
at the provisions and highlights additional eamples mentioned by sta#eholders.
)indings from the anal$sis of provisions
Table $.: shows the number of eceptional rules foreseen in 'rticle -- of Regulation *E&+
61%3-44$ that are at present implemented according to Regulation *E&+ 6673 -446 and compares
the numbers between different sectors. !t shows that a higher number of rules are in force for
livestoc# as for crop production, whereas two eceptions foreseen *"se of food and feed
additives produced by ()Os or required by other E& law+ are not implemented.
Ta#le 7.90 ?umber of eceptional rules that are in use for specific sectors based on
Regulation *E&+ 61%3-44$ and *E&+ 6673-446

/ource5 Own allocation of eceptional rules to specific sectors.
E$ceptional rules in -egulation (EC 1,232447 and ;hole Crops Givestoc: .rocessing
-egulation (EC 11532441 used for specific sectors far!
&limatic, geographical or structural constrains *'rticle -- *-+a+ 0 0 -
?on2availability of organic farm inputs *'rticle -- *-+b+ 0 1
'ccess to ingredients of non2agricultural origin *'rticle -- *-+c+ 0
/pecific management in organic livestoc# *'rticle -- *-+d+ 0
"se of specific processing substances *'rticle -- *-+e+ 0
&atastrophic circumstances *'rticle -- *-+f+ 0 1
"se of food and feed additives produced by ()Os *'rticle -- *-+g+
"se of feed and feed additives required by other E& law *'rticle -- *-+h+
Total 2 2 5 2
&hapter $ 'dequacy of the production rules 0-1

/ome inconsistencies were found regarding the level of detail in which specific production
sectors are regulated, particularly the livestoc# rules, which are more detailed and prescriptive
compared to the crop production rules *see also 9igure $.0+. <hereas severe restrictions are in
place regarding the use of inputs for disease control in crop production, the livestoc# sector has a
comparably long list of allowed inputs if they are considered justified to avoid any suffering of the
animal. <hilst there are restrictions for the use of inputs in farming, the processing rules do not
contain much detail regarding how to ensure that the quality of raw materials is preserved
throughout the whole supply chain. /ince the main focus of the general principles of organic
agriculture is aimed at farming, food processing may not be sufficiently addressed.
' further potential inconsistency is the fact that food products can be labelled as organic if 7:M
of the ingredients are organic, whereas for feed products 044M organic is the stated aim *with
eceptions until -40% in place+.
There is also inconsistency in access to mar#et because of the conversion rules. /econd2year in2
conversion products from arable and forage production can be used as organic animal feed,
whereas in orchard production a three2year conversion period applies and there is no possibility
to sell in2conversion products on the organic mar#et.
7.2 Cudge!ent and conclusions
.ased on the results presented in the section above, it is concluded that the production rules
are generally adequate in ter!s of achieving the glo#al o#(ectives of the -egulation and the
o#(ectives of organic production, as laid down in &ouncil Regulation *E&+ 61%3-44$, ta#ing the
following into account5
There is sound scientific evidence that the Regulation has established a framewor# which
guides farmers to adopt practices supporting the aims of organic agriculture of contributing
to higher levels of biodiversity, increased soil fertility and minimiGing water and air pollution.
/ome of these effects can be directly lin#ed to the rules laid down in the Regulation, and
some are derived from stricter national and private standards of certain )ember /tates.
However, the production rules do not fully limit the intensification of some production
sectors, such as housing conditions for poultry *despite the eistence of detailed rules+ or
greenhouse production *with no common implementing rules at E" level+. 'lso, some
objectives stated in the Regulation addressing the whole sector *e.g. responsible use of
natural resources+ and some terms *e.g. Qsustainable developmentJ, Qrespect for natures
systems and cyclesJ, Qsustainable useJ, QregionJ or Qfactory farmingQ in relation to input use+,
which could have a potential impact on intensification, are not further defined.
The production rules form a good basis for producing products of high quality and satisfying
consumer demand for a variety of food products.
0-% &hapter $ 'dequacy of the production rules

The system of eceptional rules, established to allow regional differences in climate, stage of
sector development and specific husbandry practices to be ta#en into account, seems to be
not fully adequate. ' definitive judgement is difficult because of a lac# of reliable data on the
availability of organic supplies, but for some sectors the present system appears to hinder
rather than support development and increased use of organic supplies.
The ()O provisions are adequate to ensure the lowest possible adventitious presence of
()Os in organic products. @ery few cases of contamination were reported over the past
years. However, sta#eholders are concerned about the constraints and additional burdens if
the labelling thresholds were to be lowered further *mainly due to higher costs for separating
and analysis+. There are concerns about future availability of ()O2free ingredients *in
particular some enGymes and vitamins .-, .0- and ascorbic acid+, as well as the reliability of
()O2free vendor declarations.
The common framewor# of production rules appears to provide generally a good basis for fair
competition among producers. The analysis of provisions and other information indicates
however for some areas *such as definition of QregionJ in relation to feed use or Qfactory
farmingJ for manure use+ the absence of precise definitions has a potential negative impact
on fair competition, but the lac# of data does not allow firm conclusions to be drawn. 9urther
mar#et analysis and the collection of comparative data of costs of production in different
)ember /tates would be necessary to carry out an objective assessment.
Fetailed considerations
Organic production is an integrated farm management system which aims to contribute to high
levels of biodiversity, preserve natural resources *energy, soil, water, climate and air+, respect
high animal welfare standards and produce high quality food in response to consumer demand.
The underlying principles of organic production are operationaliGed by production rules which
provide the legal definition of organic farming in the E". This evaluation question eamines
whether the production rules are adequate to achieve the objectives of organic agriculture, as
well as to ensure fair competition among producers and consumer confidence.
The judgement is based on several criteria which were deduced from the model of intervention
logic and the bac#ground of the evaluation question. The most frequently used indicators were
the provisions in the Regulations *E&+ 61%3-44$ and 6673-446, specific provisions in the national
rules and selected private standards in 01 case study countries, consensus in scientific literature
and results from relevant E" projects, as well as responses to the consumer survey and
sta#eholder3epert opinions on the subject.
General structure and scope of the production rules for farming and processing of food and feed
The general structure and scope of the production rules has mainly generated a harmonised
concept of organic production in the E".
&hapter $ 'dequacy of the production rules 0-:

The scope of the production rules is covered in different articles of both Regulations *E&+
61%3-44$ and 6673-446. The rules cover agricultural products *food and feed+, vegetative
propagating materials and seeds, yeast *for food and feed+ and products from aquaculture
*'rticle 0 of Regulation *E&+ 61%3-44$+. 'll )ember /tates have implemented the eisting E"
legislation on organic farming in national law. 9or agricultural products not covered by the
implementing rules *such as additional animal species, other aquatic plants or micro2algae+
)ember /tates are free to apply their own rules, but the number of additional provisions
identified in the case study countries is limited. Thus, a basic precondition for promoting a
harmonised concept of organic production is fulfilled.
/ta#eholders who wor# more closely with the Regulation *e.g. control bodies or competent
authorities+ feel that stating objectives and principles in the &ouncil Regulation has contributed
to creating a common understanding of the core concept of organic farming, but this opinion is
less widespread among producers or organic business groups *e.g. traders or retailers+. /ome of
the private standards state additional aims and objectives of organic farming, for eample related
to social and economic sustainability, which are at present not part of the Regulation, indicating
that there are differing epectations as to what organic farming can and should deliver. /ome
control bodies are uncertain as to whether objectives and principles are legally binding.
Aroducers, traders or retailers have no direct contact with the E" Regulation, and rely on the
interpretation of the rules through their control bodies and farmersJ associations. This indicates
that objectives and principles are not communicated directly to all involved parties. There is no
guidance for operators in areas where different interpretation is possible.
The objectives of organic farming stated in the Regulation use some terms that are not very well
defined and therefore challenging to operationaliGe in control procedures. /uch terms include
Qsustainable developmentJ, Qrespect for natureJs systems and cyclesJ, Qsustainable useJ and
Qproduct qualityJ. !n some cases, the lac# of precise definitions creates challenges for a
harmonised implementation of the organic principles in the translation into rules. 'lso lac# of
specific provisions for the management of natural resources *water, air or energy+ implies that
the producersJ individual choices are crucial in ensuring that the objectives of the Regulation are
met.
stablishing a sustainable management s$stem of agriculture
The production rules are adequate to establish a sustainable management system of agriculture.
!t is worth noting that organic practices are also influenced by national and private standards in
force *which might be stricter in some areas than the E" Regulation+; an isolated analysis of the
E" Regulation alone is not always possible.
The E" Regulation and national organic legislation have established a framewor# that guides
producers to establish an agro2ecosystem management that induces synergetic environmental
effects, but rules that have particular impact on each of the stated objectives are in several
places and their lin# to the objectives is not always clearly evident.
0-= &hapter $ 'dequacy of the production rules

The Regulation thus has contributed to its objective of respecting nature?s syste!s and cycles.
However, differences in interpretation of some unclear provisions can lead to variable
application, hindering the full potential of the impact of the Regulation. 9or eample, the
Regulation does not guarantee the lin# between livestoc# production and the land, by requiring
only a limited part of the feed to be produced on the farm itself or in the same region *where
QregionJ ranges from ?"T/ - to E"2level in the different countries+. This enables organic livestoc#
production to develop independently from crop production. Other eamples of issues lac#ing
clarity3definition are sustainable crop rotations *which ensure diversity over time and thus
maintain soil fertility, humus content and reduce pest, disease and weed pressure+, the
authorisation of growing plants in substrate, without direct connection to the soil or defining
substrate requirements. Eamples of very intensive rotations *e.g. soya3soya3wheat+ or
monocultures of vegetables *tomatoes as main crop every year in greenhouse production+ being
certified were reported in the case studies.
There is sound scientific evidence that organic production practices have a positive impact on
#iodiversity. /ome can be directly related to rules *e.g. ban of synthetic ? fertilisers, herbicides,
strict limitation on other fertilisers and crop protection products, use of multi2annual crop
rotations including legumes, limited stoc#ing density+ whereas others are the result of frequently
used production practices or stricter private standards *e.g. shallow tillage, higher presence of
hedges, trees or grass strip corridors, higher prevalence of spring sown crops+. Together they
significantly contribute to increases in the abundance of plant, bird and predatory insect species.
9urther improvements could be made by providing further guidance as to what biodiversity
attributes are aimed at and which practices have a positive impact on reaching higher levels of
biodiversity or addressing rare and endangered species.
/everal studies have shown that the prohibition of some and strict limitation of other, chemically
synthesised inputs and the incentive to use forage rather than concentrated feed for livestoc#
have a direct impact on the use of energy. However, there are no further rules that directly
address the sustainable use of energy *e.g. for greenhouse production, processing, pac#aging or
transport+. /cientific literature also shows that the restrictions applied by the production rules
have some positive impact on limiting 'ater and air pollution *li#e decreasing nitrogen leaching,
eutrophication and &O
-
emissions+ which derive from rules restricting the use of synthetic inputs
and requiring good management practices. 9urthermore, there are no rules directly addressing
'ater use ecept for aquaculture. The objectives or the rules do not directly address climate
change, but the literature reveals potentials with regard to lower greenhouse gas emissions per
hectare and higher organic carbon concentrations. The obligation to use organic fertilisers and
manure contributes directly to soil health and quality, even though the amount of legumes to be
used and the diversity of the rotation are not further specified. The review of scientific literature
reveals further that individual management decisions at farm level influence the impact of the
rotation and the use of machines *e.g. cultivation for weed control+ on soil structure.
&hapter $ 'dequacy of the production rules 0-$

The review of scientific literature reveals that ani!al 'elfare on organic farms is already on a
high level compared to requirements of the general E" legislation. However, some provisions of
the Regulation are discussed critically in the literature and among sta#eholders, such as the
stoc#ing densities in houses which are less restrictive than some private standards, a requirement
for more animal2specific feeding requirements, and the need for specific transport and
slaughtering rules. /ome tools for monitoring welfare outcomes for self2evaluations of farmers,
as well as part of control visits and introducing minimum requirements have been proposed in
the literature and by sta#eholders to improve animal welfare conditions on organic farms. The
analysis identified some areas where greater clarity or guidance on how the objectives are to be
translated into operational rules would increase the coherence of organic production practices
with the principles5 land2based livestoc# production, crop rotation, biodiversity and animal
welfare, greenhouse production, energy use, water management and social aspects. This might
also allow for a more consistent application of the rules across all )ember /tates.
1roducing products of high qualit$ in response to consumer demand
The production rules are adequate for providing varied and high quality products and satisfying
consumer demand for a variety of goods. Regarding food safety, the rules restricting the use of
pesticides and synthetic fertilisers result in lower residues in organic products and contribute
directly to this objective. There is no strong scientific evidence of an impact of organic practices
on the nutritional and organoleptic value of products. ?evertheless, a clear majority of
consumers in si countries surveyed and sta#eholders in the 01 case study countries share the
opinion that the production rules contribute to delivering products of high quality and in
response to consumer demand. ?evertheless, nearly half of the consumers surveyed stated that
at present they can buy many, but not all, the products they would li#e in organic quality.
4ustification for exceptional and transitional rules
The justification for eceptional and transitional rules is not fully adequate. The Regulation
justifies the use of eceptional rules on the use of non2organic inputs *young poultry, feed and
seeds+ with a need to address problems of limited supply of organic inputs. /uch rules should be
time limited. They could be justified if there is no negative impact on the development of organic
supplies, if they do not disadvantage some producers or go against consumersJ epectations.
.ecause of lac# of data on these issues, the impact of the eceptional rules could not be assessed
in sufficient detail to come to a well2founded judgement. The following judgement is therefore
largely based on epert and sta#eholder views in the case study countries, and data from the
national seed databases. 'll eceptional rules for the use of non2organic inputs contradict the
principle of preference for organic inputs *'rticle %*b++, and there is no evidence that the present
system has helped to develop the organic supplies. However, removing eceptions would
potentially contradict the objectives of organic production to use adapted local varieties if such
varieties are only available in conventional quality.
'part from Fenmar#, the eceptional rule for the use of non%organic young poultry *currently
not time limited+, and for the use of 06 wee#2old part%organic pullets for egg production *due to
0-6 &hapter $ 'dequacy of the production rules

epire 10 Fecember -40%+ are both etensively used in the case study countries; only Fenmar#
has already abandoned this option. Elsewhere the sector uses non2organic chic#s and relies on
pullets *for layers+ that have been fed with organic feed since the first day of life. The level of
undersupply and progress made over the past years could not be assessed because of a lac# of
data. 'ccording to sta#eholders, the eistence of the eceptional rule itself and the lac# of an E"
standard for pullet2rearing hamper the development of organic supplies for organic pullets.
There is not sufficient data available on the scale of use of non%organic feed in organic
agriculture or the availability of organic supply to carry out a quantitative analysis of the etent of
use of this rule. There is a general consensus among many organic producer organisations,
processors and traders, that organic protein crop production *at E" level+ is insufficient to meet
the demand; and that most monogastrics2breeders ma#e use of the eceptional rule that allows
:M of the feed to come from conventional high protein crops or industrial by2products *such as
potato or maiGe protein+. Transition to 044M organic diets would require the development of
organic supply chains at E" level. !f this is not the case, it is li#ely to lead to increased reliance on
etra E"2imports in the short and medium term, which would contradict the aim of local sourcing
of feed. 'lternative protein supplies are already being developed5 methods to produce
methionine via enGymatic fermentation based on organic raw materials, or the use of insect
larvae or algae as protein source for feed. These new techniques seem to be very promising, but
they are not ready for broad practical use yet.
The eceptional rule for non%organic seeds remains necessary to provide varieties adapted to the
local conditions as required by the crop production rules, even in )ember /tates *e.g. 'ustria,
(ermany, Fenmar#, 9rance+ where the organic seed supply is reaching overall satisfactory levels
*in particular, but not only, for fruit and vegetables and forage production with many different
species and varieties+. The current system did not lead to significant improvements in the supply
of organic seeds at E" level. 9rance and Fenmar# made significant efforts to push organic seed
use forward and were able to develop *for some species+ an organic supply that meets national
needs. !n order to increase the use of organic seeds, financial incentives *or constraints+ in favour
of organic seed production and use could play an important role. The seed database and the
national reports appear to be useful tools to manage the eceptional rule system, but have some
shortcomings mainly in relation to a lac# of regular updates of lists of available species and
varieties. 'dditionally, further guidance could be provided on organic seed production, and
organic plant breeding methods3techniques could be described which are suitable for organic
production and are in line with the objectives and principles.
!nterviewed sta#eholders have contrasting views and only little scientific evidence has been
found on whether certain livestoc# rules such as tethering are in coherence with the animal
welfare objective of organic husbandry systems. Thus, the evaluation results do not provide a
robust basis for firm judgement of the adequacy of the transitional !easures concerning animal
housing. 's far as the length of the transition period is concerned, this period is judged to be
adequate ta#ing into account a -42year depreciation period and the fact that organic farmers
&hapter $ 'dequacy of the production rules 0-7

were able to apply for investment grants for reconstructions of livestoc# housings under rural
development programmes.
Impact of the G'( provisions
The rules are adequate to eclude the use of ()Os and limit it to adventitious or technically
unavoidable presence. The analysis of the consequences of the prohibition of ()Os in the 01
case study countries showed that very few cases of contamination with ()Os were reported in
-400 and -40-. There is some evidence in the literature that lower thresholds, as implemented,
e.g. in 'ustria and 9rance, would lead to higher costs and difficulties related to the availability of
specific ()O2free ingredients. ()2co2eistence rules and requirements play an important role in
protecting organic products from possible contamination with ()Os. )ainly due to subsidiarity
issues, there is however strong variation in implementation regarding () coeistence rules and
requirements at national3regional level. /ome countries have not implemented these rules *li#e
Aoland, /lovenia, the "nited Hingdom+, whereas for eample 'ustria and Fenmar# have
elaborated genetic engineering precaution laws and guidelines for operators. .ecause of the
global increase of () crops, it is li#ely that more sectors will be faced with the challenge of an
increased ris# of ()O2contamination. This will lead to increasing costs to further realise the
Qprevention2strategyJ which is currently adopted by most companies of the *organic+ food
industry in the E" even if very few *or no+ () crops are cultivated in the E". !n general, the rules
were seen by many sta#eholders as adequate, but a significant number of sta#eholders epress
concerns regarding additional burdens arising from higher costs for analysis and control,
separation in processing and logistics, seed production and handling, as well as concerns about
the availability of certain critical ingredients *additives, enGymes and vitamins+.
Impact of the production rules on fair competition
The production rules are mostly adequate to ensure fair competition by providing a broad and
solid common ground of harmonised rules that apply to all producers. Fistortion of competition
may however occur if different implementations of the Regulation affect production costs, giving
competitive advantages to operators in some countries. These arise from a+ the lac# of detail in
the rules *e.g. no rules for greenhouse production+; b+ lac# of definition of certain terms at E"
level *e.g. QregionJ in the origin of feed, stoc#ing densities in housing for poultry, use of non2
organic manure from factory farming+; c+ issues that are left to the discretion of E" )ember
/tates *e.g. definition of slow2growing strains of poultry+ and d+ issues arising from national rules,
namely licensing of plant protection agents. !mpact is probably limited in some cases, but due to
the lac# of production cost and mar#et data, assessing the actual level of potential distortion was
not possible. The same applies also to the question whether setting a level playing field with
common rules sufficiently respects different climatic or geographic conditions without negatively
affecting the fair competition among organic farmers. !f sufficient data were available, it would
be relevant to also consider the cumulative impact of the whole regulatory framewor# *e.g. for
vegetables5 greenhouse production rules, seed availability, fertilisation and pesticide
regulations+; this could be more significant when accumulated, even if the impact of each
individual rule appears to be limited.
014 &hapter $ 'dequacy of the production rules

The most prominent eample of distortion because of differences in the general legal framewor#
for agriculture impacting on organic producers is access to plant protection products. This varies
between countries because the mar#eting of these products is managed through national mar#et
authorisation schemes that are not harmonised at E" level. /ignificant discrepancies have been
identified at a national level in several countries. /ome have not authorised the use of many
pesticides which are allowed in the anne of Regulation *E&+ 6673-446 *e.g. copper salts,
pyrethrins, neem etracts+. This has a significant impact on the production conditions in the
different )ember /tates, particularly in horticulture and fruit3wine production.
5onsistenc$ of the rules across the different sectors
The rules are largely consistent across the different sectors, but some inconsistencies were found
in the Regulation regarding the level of detail in which specific production sectors are addressed,
with the livestoc# rules being much more detailed compared to the crop production rules. &rop
production also has severe restrictions regarding the use of inputs for plant protection *disease
control+. 9or livestoc#, the desire to avoid any suffering of the animal has resulted in several
treatments being permitted. The stated principles of organic production are mainly aimed at
farming. The processing principles and rules contain very limited detail to ensure that the quality
of raw materials is preserved throughout the supply chain, or that responsible use is made of
natural resources *such as energy+. 9urther, the Regulation does not fully succeed in limiting the
intensity of some specialist production systems, such as poultry or greenhouse production.
Fifferent labelling requirements eist for organic food products *b7:M for food+ but aiming for
044M for organic feed.



Chapter 8
Adequacy of the overall control system

8.1 Introduction
Evaluation Question 3
To what extent has the overall control system of organic farming, from the Commission,
through Member States competent authorities, control authorities, control bodies to
accreditation bodies, been adequate to achieve the global objectives of the regulation?
n answering this question the following aspects needs to be examined in more detail!
Supervisory role of the Commission over the Member States control systems"
Supervisory role of the Member States over control bodies"
#xchange of information between the Commission and the Member States, and within the
Member States"
$dequacy of the annual inspection requirement and application of ris% based assessment for
the nature and frequency of controls of organic operators"
$dequacy of distribution of responsibilities among the main actors involved in the control
system, including application of the accreditation system"
$dequacy and justification of the exemptions from the control system, notable regarding the
retail sector and their application by the Member States&
In order to ensure that consumers confidence in organic products is justified, and thus that
organic farmers, processors and importers comply with the rules of organic farming, an effective
control inspection system has to be in place in all Member States. For this reason, specific rules of
the overall control system were laid down in Council egulation !"C# $%&'())* !+rticle (* to %,#.
+s described in Chapter %, the overall control system consists of two elements- a# the actual
control of organic operators carried out by private accredited control bodies or designated public
control authorities and b# the public surveillance system, which encompasses the entire ".
framewor/ of activities of national competent authorities and accreditation bodies to supervise
and monitor the organic control system at the level of the control bodies.
+gainst this bac/ground the aim of "valuation 0uestion % is to understand whether the
instruments provided by Council egulation !"C# $%&'())*, targeted at the organic control
system, are ade1uate for achieving the global objectives of the egulation, i.e. for ensuring the
,%( Chapter $ +de1uacy of the overall control system

effective functioning of the internal mar/et, guaranteeing fair competition, ensuring consumer
confidence and protecting consumer interests. More specifically the aim is to e2plore whether
the organic control system is ade1uate to ensure organic operators compliance with the organic
rules so that the entire organic sector can function. If the overall control system is not effective in
ensuring full compliance with the rules in all Member States a# fair competition among organic
farmers within the ". and b# consumers confidence in organic products is not guaranteed.
3his chapter is organised as follows- First of all the judgement criteria, the respective indicators
used and the information basis to answer the evaluation 1uestion are described. Subse1uently,
the results from the different evaluation tools and thus the empirical basis for answering the
evaluation 1uestion are presented. Finally, the judgment and conclusion are presented.
8.2 Approach
Setting up a control system entails putting in place processes and procedures to monitor and
verify that the re1uirements laid down in the ". legislation on organic farming are fulfilled by
organic operators in all Member States at all stages of production, processing, import and
distribution and that they wor/ in practise as intended. 3his involves, first of all, that the
procedures foreseen in a control system are ade1uate and thus reasonably sufficient to allow for
such verification and monitoring. Secondly, from the perspective of the "uropean .nion to
ensure fair competition and consumer confidence, the control procedures should be
implemented consistently and effectively to ensure comparable results across all Member States.
3hus, 4ade1uacy addresses in this conte2t whether the procedures and processes of the control
system are reasonably sufficient without being abundant, while 4effectiveness means whether
the procedures and processes of the control system are suitable to produce the desired outcome.
3herefore, "valuation 0uestion % was answered on the basis of two underlying judgement
criteria-
!,# The control system is (or is not) adequate to ensure organic operators compliance !ith
the organic production rules
3he prere1uisite for a functioning control system that guarantees both fair competition and
consumer confidence is that the procedures implemented are ade1uate and effective to
ensure organic operators compliance with the organic production rules. +gainst this
bac/ground the following aspects were analysed-
the ade1uacy of the annual inspection re1uirements5
the ade1uacy of the additional ris/6based inspections of organic operators5
the ade1uacy and justification of +rticle ($!(# of Council egulation !"C# $%&'())*,
which allows Member States to e2empt operators that sell products directly to the final
consumer or user from the control system.
Chapter $ +de1uacy of the overall control system ,%%

3he information basis for this judgement criterion builds on interviews with national
competent authorities and control bodies from ,% Member States, the web6based
sta/eholder survey
1
, re6analysis of data from the ".6funded research project C"3C7S3
2

and the review of scientific literature and public documents.
!(# The procedures of the control system as descri"ed in Article 2#$%1 of Council &egulation
('C) 8%()2**# are (or are not) effectively implemented in +em"er ,tates
3o ensure fair competition for organic operators on the one hand and to guarantee
consumers trust on the other, in each Member State the control system needs to be
consistently and effectively implemented. 3herefore, the following aspects were analysed-
the level of harmoni8ation'consistency in the Member States procedures for setting6up
national control systems and the differences in the control procedures5
the ade1uacy of distribution of responsibilities among the main actors involved in the
control system, including application of the accreditation system5
the public surveillance system in place supervising the functioning and 1uality of the
organic control system5
the e2change of information between the Commission and the Member States, and
within the Member States5
consumers trust in the procedures of the organic control system and in the actors of the
organic sector.
3he information basis used to analyse the effectiveness of procedures of the control system
consists of documentary analyses !cross6country comparison# of the control procedures
implemented and interviews with national competent authorities and control bodies from ,%
Member States, the case study results from the 9atto con gli stivali4 fraud case, the review of
relevant public documents and scientific literature, the consumer survey, and the web6based
sta/eholder survey.
3he evaluation 1uestion e2amines the ade1uacy and effectiveness of the control system primarily
on the basis of e2periences of actors involved in the overall control system. :ossible limitations
through sta/eholder biases were minimised by involving all sta/eholder groups of the organic
control system !see also ;ouse, ())%#.

1
3he survey was responded by (<= "uropean sta/eholders mainly from 9ermany, Italy, the .nited >ingdom, +ustria, the
C8ech epublic, ?elgium, France and the @etherlands. More details about the web6based survey are given in Chapter
,.(.
2
3he C"3C7S36project was carried out under the ".s Seventh Framewor/ :rogramme for esearch. 3he overall
objective of the project has been to provide recommendations to improve the organic food certification systems in
"urope in terms of efficiency, transparency, and cost effectiveness. 3he reason for this has been the need for a
strengthened competitiveness of the "uropean organic food sector by means of reducing incidence of non6compliance
and thereby increases consumersA trust.
,%& Chapter $ +de1uacy of the overall control system

8.% &esults
8.%.1 Adequacy of the control system to ensure compliance
Adequacy of the annual inspection requirements
'indings from the analysis of provisions
+rticle (*!%# of Council egulation !"C# $%&'())* specifies that all organic operators shall be
subject to a verification of compliance at least once a year !e2emptions are possible for
wholesalers dealing only with pac/aged products and operators selling to the final consumer or
user as described in +rticle ($!(##. Control authorities or control bodies shall carry out at least
once a year a physical inspection of all operators !+rticle <=!,# of Council egulation !"C#
$$B'())$#.
It is worthwhile noting that other areas wor/ with considerably lower control fre1uencies. For
e2ample, the ". legal framewor/ for the rural development programmes re1uires annual on6the6
spot chec/s of at least = C of all beneficiaries
%
!which could be halved under certain conditions#.
(

(iews of sta%eholders
+s shown in 3able $.,, sta/eholder surveyed found mandatory annual inspections to be an
important measure to ensure fair competition among organic operators !mean (.(#
-
. 3here are
no big differences in the opinions of the different sta/eholder groups. +s far as mandatory annual
inspections are concerned, control bodies'control authorities, competent authorities, processors
and organic operator organisations are slightly more positive !mean D(.(# than importers and
retailers !mean E,.$#. Furthermore, most sta/eholders perceive mandatory annual inspections as
an important measure to ensure consumer confidence in organic products !mean (.)#. 3his was
particularly stressed by sta/eholders from Fenmar/ and the .nited >ingdom5 but to less e2tent
by sta/eholders from :oland.

%
+rticle ,( of Commission egulation !"C# ,B*='())< laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council
egulation !"C# ,<B$'())=.
(
3o put the fre1uency of organic controls in the conte2t of food safety controls !which aim to control microbiological
and chemical ha8ards in the supply chain and, thereby, minimise the ris/ to consumers health#, two illustrative
e2amples are given here- the 9erman federal state 4?aden6GHrttemberg controlled %.*C of the farms and %< 6 &%C of
other actors of the food chain !MJK ?aden GHrttemberg, (),(# in (),,. In the .nited >ingdom, hygiene controls
were conducted on &BC of the mil/ producing holdings and on (=C of the egg production sites !Food Standards
+gency, (),(#.
-
Measured on a *6point Ji/ert scale ranging from L% !total agreement# to 6% !total disagreement#.
Chapter $ +de1uacy of the overall control system ,%=

Ta"le 8.1. Kiews of sta/eholders regarding the importance of annual inspections and
additional ris/6based inspections to ensure fair competition !mean values#

Source- 7wn data from web6based sta/eholder survey.
Scientific evidences
Morn et al. !(),)# analysed the control frequency in 9ermany based on data from ())< of nine
organic control bodies. "ach operator was subject of ,.,& controls per year !announced and
unannounced controls#. ;owever, the control fre1uency per operator varied considerably
between the control bodies and between operators. 3heir analysis shows that in ())<, 9erman
producers have been controlled less fre1uently than processors and with a similar fre1uency as
importers. 3he average control visits were between ,.)) and ,.(( controls per year for
producers, between ,.)B and ,.%( controls per year for processor and between ,.)) and ,.(,
controls per year for importers. 3herefore, control bodies comply with the re1uirements of the
egulation of at least one annual control plus additional random control. 9iven the 9erman
default fre1uency of additional random controls of ,)C, two control bodies achieved less than
,.,) annual control visits per operator !Morn et al., (),)#.
Githin the C"3C7S36project, the number of control visits was collected from five organic control
bodies and'or control authorities from the C8ech epublic, Fenmar/, 9ermany, Italy and the
.nited >ingdom !one control body'control authority per country#. 3able $.( shows the average
number of annual control visits !announced and unannounced# per operator for the years
())* 6())B. 3he average number of annual control visits varies between the five countries- they
were lowest in the C8ech epublic !average ,.), 6 ,.)= annual control visits per operator# and
Fenmar/ !average ,.)( 6 ,.)& annual control visits per operator# and highest in Italy !average
,.&& 6 ,.=< annual control visits per operator#. 3hus, in the C8ech epublic and in Fenmar/,
additional random controls are below = C while in Italy on the other hand around =) C of the
operators were additionally randomly visited. Contrary to the results of Morn et al& !(),)# from
Mean value n Mean value n
:roducer (.) ,< (.& ,<
:rocessor (.% B (.& B
etailer ,.$ ,$ ,.B ,$
Importer ,.* ,* (.) ,*
7rganic 7perator 7rganisations (.( %% (.( %%
Control ?ody'Control +uthority (.= =& (.% =&
Competent +uthority (.( (( (., ((
9overnmental +uthority ,.B ,< (., ,<
Total 2.2 2*- 2.% 2*-
)uestion! *ow important are the following measures of the control system to ensure fair competition among organic operators
+producers, processors etc&,? +Measured on a -.point /ic%ert scale, 01 2 total agreement" 3 2 neutral" .1 2 total disagreement,
+andatory annual inspection Additional ris/$oriented
of organic operators inspections
,%< Chapter $ +de1uacy of the overall control system

nine 9erman control bodies !())< data#, ())*6())B data collected from one 9erman control
body in the C"3C7S36project showed that 9erman producers were visited more fre1uently than
processors and importers. In Italy on the other hand importers were more fre1uently controlled
than processors and producers.
Ta"le 8.2. +verage number of control visits of organic control bodies and control authorities
per operator and year

!one control body'control authority per country#

Source- 7wn analysis based on data from one control body or control authority per country collected in the C"3C7S36
project !Moschit8 et al&, ())B#.
+lbersmeier et al. !())B# suggested varying auditing intervals, auditing depth, unannounced spot
chec/s of ris/6based approaches superior to standard control procedures to ensure non6
opportunistic behaviour of operators. Several authors propose using specific approaches !moral
ha8ard theory, statistic approaches# to determine optimum control intensities and thus ris/6
based inspections !;irschauer, ())&5 +lbertsmeier et al&, (),)5 Fabbert, (),,#.
+de1uacy of the control system is also determined by the cost of the system. Stol8e et al. !(),(#
calculated in the C"3C7S36project the whole range from the certification fees to opportunity
costs of organic operators and the administrative costs at the various levels of farmers and
0ermany
())* ,.)* ,.)* ,.)& ,.)<
())$ ,.,< ,.,B ,.)< ,.,)
())B ,.(& ,.(* ,.)$ ,.)=
C1ech &epu"lic
())* ,.), ,.), n.d. n.d.
())$ ,.)( ,.)( n.d. n.d.
())B ,.)= ,.)< ,.)% ,.,%
2enmar/
())* ,.)& ,.)& n.d. n.d.
())$ ,.)( ,.)( n.d. n.d.
())B ,.)% ,.%) n.d. n.d.
Italy
())* ,.=) ,.&B ,.=% %.))
())$ ,.=< ,.== ,.<) (.B)
())B ,.&& ,.&% ,.=) %.<)
3nited 4ingdom
())* ,.,( ,.,& ,.,) ,.,<
())$ ,.,< ,.,* ,.,& ,.()
())B ,.,( ,.%) ,.)B ,.,,
3otal number of operators from the five control bodies- ())*- ,= =$<, ())$- ,= B,=, ())B- ,* *B<5 9ermany- $) C producer,
,< C processor, & C importer5 C8ech epublic- ())* N ())$ only producer, ())B- $<.= C producer, ,( C processor, ,.= C im6
porter5 Italy- $&.$ C producer, ,= C processor, ).( C importer5 .>- == C producer, %$ C processor, * C importer5 Fenmar/-
only producer5 n.d. O no data
Total 5roducers 5rocessors Importers
Chapter $ +de1uacy of the overall control system ,%*

processors, standard owners, competent authorities and the control bodies. esults revealed
that with respect to the certification cost, the inspection fee is the most relevant monetary
e2penditure for organic operators !on average B))6,))) ". per farm#. It corresponds to a share
of up to ).&C of the raw income
6
of a farm and up to ,C of the organic turnover of processors.
Since the major cost item of control bodies depends on the number of on6site controls and
thereto connected office wor/
#
, the authors conclude that the costs of certification could be
reduced by reducing the cost for the on6site control visit and thus the corresponding control fee
!e.g. by strengthening ris/6based control systems#. Fabbert !(),,# concluded on the basis of the
results from the C"3C7S36project that once effective ris/6based control systems have been
implemented, the Commission could consider lowering the inspection fre1uency for proven low6
ris/ operators.
Mar/eting literature suggests that consumer trust in certification or control systems is crucial
particularly for organic products !Pahn et al., ())=#. Consumer trust is however a
multidimensional and dynamic construct, which is determined by the perceived strictness of
standards and controls, domestic origin of the product and familiarity with the organic label.
Ghile organic labels signal to the consumer that compliance with the egulation is ensured
through regular inspections !Panssen and ;amm, (),,5 Stol8 et al&, (),,#, no research results
were found showing, which control fre1uency consumers perceive to be ade1uate. +s Panssen
and ;amm !(),(# pointed out, consumers have in general rather limited /nowledge about
organic production standards and the organic control system.


6
aw income is calculated as revenues minus variable and fi2ed costs, however, without the imputed labour costs of the
farm family.
#
+ccording to Stol8e et al. !(),(#, control bodies dedicate && C !median# of the total time spent on certification to on6
site controls, whereby the values varied considerably. Furthermore, preparatory wor/ and wor/ after the inspection
visit in terms of processing records amount around %)C of the control bodies wor/load.
,%$ Chapter $ +de1uacy of the overall control system

Adequacy of the additional ris/$"ased inspections
'indings from the analysis of provisions
+ccording to +rticle (*!%# of Council egulation !"C# $%&'())*, the nature and fre1uency of the
controls shall be determined on the basis of an assessment of the ris/ of occurrence of
irregularities and infringements. Control authorities or control bodies shall carry out random
control visits, primarily unannounced, based on the general evaluation of the ris/ of non6
compliance with the organic production rules, ta/ing into account at least the results of previous
controls, the 1uantity of products concerned and the ris/ for e2change of products !+rticle <=!&#
of Council egulation !"C# $$B'())$#.
3he document analysis conducted in the ,% case study countries showed that so far only +ustria,
"stonia, 9ermany, Italy and the @etherlands have national guidelines for ris/6based inspections
or criteria respectively. 3hus mandatory ris/6based controls are carried out differently across
Member States.
(iews of sta%eholders
Sta/eholders responding to the sta/eholder survey e2pressed that additional ris/6based
inspections are important to ensure fair competition among organic operators !see 3able $.,#.
:roducers, processors and control bodies'control authorities consider additional ris/6based
inspections slightly more important !mean D(.%# than retailers and importers !mean E(.)#. +s/ing
for areas which could improve the effectiveness of the control system, ,= C of the respondents
!a total of ,<& sta/eholders responded to this 1uestion# suggested additional ris/6based controls.
3his was particularly mentioned by control bodies !=#, traders !&#, competent authorities !%#, and
organic operator organisations !%# and by 9erman !*# and Italian sta/eholders !&#.
Scientific evidence
3he objective of a ris/6based inspection approach is to focus resources on ris/y operators with
regards to the fre1uency and intensity of controls !+lderman and 3abor, ,B$B#. Conversely, these
ris/6based inspections can also be used to identify low ris/ operators. Ghile so far ris/6based
control systems are largely based on 1ualitative approaches !Fabbert, (),,#, there are a number
of studies analysing the use of alternative approaches for estimating the ris/ potential of organic
operators. ;irschauer !())&# proposes using the moral6ha8ard theory to establish models for the
determination of optimum control intensities. In contrast to this, Fabbert !(),,# and 9ambelli et
al. !(),(# consider 1uantitative approaches to enhance the effectiveness and the usefulness of
1ualitative ris/6based approaches. 3heir analysis provided evidence that the probability of non6
compliance is higher for operators who have already been non6compliant. Furthermore, they
found farm si8e, comple2ity of operations and presence of pig and poultry production to be
determinant for slight non6compliances. ;owever, they consider data collected so far from
control bodies !e.g. structural data from organic operators# insufficient for ris/6based inspections
!Fabbert, (),,#. 9ambelli et al. !(),(# concluded that based on currently available data a ris/6
Chapter $ +de1uacy of the overall control system ,%B

based inspection strategy is 1uite difficult to implement. 3herefore, the results from the
C"3C7S36project suggest including personal information about operators !e.g. age of operators,
enterprise type, total turnover, liabilities and debt, solvency# additionally to the already collected
data !Fabbert, (),,5 9ambelli et al., (),(#. Morn et al. !(),%# stress that organic operators
personal financial situation and that of his operation could also influence his compliance
behaviour- operators with serious li1uidity problems will be more inclined to be dishonest.
;owever, any approach to collect more detailed data about the operators would need to ta/e the
data protection legal framewor/ of the ". into account as e2pressed in the charter of
fundamental rights of the "uropean .nion !"uropean .nion, (),)#.
?ased on comprehensive calculations on the total cost of organic certification, Stol8e et al.
!(),(# concluded that reducing the number of control visits per operator by introducing ris/6
based inspection could reduce the certification costs considerably.
+lbersmeier et al. !())B# state that the ris/6based approach contrasts sharply with some of the
e2pectations in agribusiness that auditing should be more standardi8ed and e1ual across all
operators. 3hey consider ris/6based approaches to be useful to ensure non6opportunistic
behaviour of operators. ;owever, this approach re1uires additional s/ills and competences from
control authorities'bodies since different auditing intervals, auditing depth, unannounced spot
chec/s and differentiated auditing focuses are needed. 3herefore, it is necessary to provide
specific training for control body staff carrying out ris/6based controls !+lbersmeier et al., ())B#.
Morn et al. !(),%# highlight that applying more sophisticated ris/ analysis tools re1uires technical
and methodological s/ills which are so far not available to control bodies but could be provided
by e2ternal technical services.
'indings from the review of relevant publications
Similar conclusions were also drawn by Maresca et al. !(),%#. 3hey concluded in the ".6project
IM679+@IC
8
that a more ris/6based and investigative control system would re1uire a mi2 of
measures including unannounced inspections, 1uic/ follow6up in case of non6conformities, use of
cross6chec/s by the control bodies, and targeted sampling and testing. 3his mi2 of control
measures however re1uires an improved training of inspection staff.

8
3he IM679+@IC6project !3raining on improved ris/ management tools for organic inspectors# aims to facilitate an
open6minded e2change between control bodies in "urope on state6of6the6art inspection methodologies and techni1ues
to optimi8e consumer protection and fair competition on the emerging green mar/et for products from organic
farming. It is funded by the ". Jeonardo Fa Kinci N Jifelong Jearning :rogramme.
,&) Chapter $ +de1uacy of the overall control system

Adequacy and 7ustification of Article 28(2) of Council &egulation ('C) 8%()2**# !hich allo!s
+em"er ,tates to e8empt operators !ho sell products directly to the final consumer or user
from the control system
'indings from the analysis of provisions
+rticle ($!(# of Council egulation !"C# $%&'())* enables Member States to e2empt operators
who sell products directly to the final consumer or user from the control system if these
operators do not produce, process, pac/, label or store organic products elsewhere, do not
import organic products from third countries and'or outsource these activities to a third party.
3he document analyses of national regulations and other relevant documents showed that in all
,% case study countries operators selling organic products directly to the final consumer are
e2empted from submission to the control system provided that the operator does not produce,
prepare, process, store other than in connection with the point of sale, or import such a product
from a third country, or has not contracted out such activities to a third party. It further showed
that the interpretation of the conditions for granting the e2emptions varies, so that operators
may be treated differently across Member States.
(iews of sta%eholders
3he sta/eholder survey showed varying results with respect to the 1uestion whether retailers
should be e2empted from the organic control system !see 3able $.%#. :roducers and control
bodies'control authorities on the one hand and sta/eholders from France and Italy favour to a
large e2tent the inclusion of retailers in the organic control system !means D,.<#. Sta/eholders
from Fenmar/ on the other hand responded that retailers should not be included in the control
system !mean 6,.$# however without specifying any reasons. :rocessors and sta/eholders from
the .nited >ingdom were neutral about this.
3he most important arguments to include retailers in the control system were ensuring consumer
confidence. Sta/eholders consider retailers to ta/e a /ey role as they are in direct contact with
the consumers. 3herefore, to ensure consumer confidence in organic products, retailers should
be included in the control system !* sta/eholders, % from +ustria#. Si2 sta/eholders considered
the ris/ of incorrect labelling and commingling with non6organic products to be high.
Furthermore, it was mentioned that the entire organic supply chain should be subject to the
control system !& sta/eholders# and that retailers should ta/e responsibility when they sell
organic products !% sta/eholders#. ,B sta/eholders however !among them < control bodies, %
competent authorities, ( national authorities# ta/e the view that retail of pac/ed food should not
be subject of the control system as there is no ris/ for commingling and incorrect labelling.
etailers should only be included in the control system 45when they sell organic products which
are not originally pac%aged by a company covered by the scope of the organic regulation6. Some
of these sta/eholders argued that including retailers of only pac/ed food in the control system
would increase costs but without giving more security to the consumer. Seven sta/eholders
!among them % control bodies# found that the retail sector should be e2empted in general.
Chapter $ +de1uacy of the overall control system ,&,

Ta"le 8.%. Kiews of sta/eholders regarding the inclusion of the retail sector in the control
system !mean values#

Source- 7wn data from web6based sta/eholder survey.
'indings from the review of relevant publications
3here is one study analysing the ())= to (),, inspection data from , )(= inspections of retailers
with processing operations from 9ermany. +ccording to this study !@euendorff, (),(#, so far no
information on severe infringements and fraud cases concerning the e2empted retail operations
is available. @euendorff !(),(# considers the ris/ of non6compliances with the production and
labelling rules of the ". legislation on organic production to be 1uite low if retail operations only
deal with pac/ed and labelled food because the ris/ of commingling with conventional products
and incorrect labelling is low.
@euendorff !(),(# shows that written warnings needed to be issued only in a limited number of
cases and no references to the organic production needed to be withdrawn and no prohibition of
mar/eting the organic products were issued. 7n the basis of these results, @euendorff !(),(#
defined the following ris/ categories for not e2empted processing operations in the retail sector-
9o! ris/. off6ba/ing of bread, roasting and grinding of coffee, selling of organic drin/s5
+edium ris/. portioning and pac/ing of organic cheese, meat and sausages, preparation of
mincemeat5
'nhanced ris/. preparation of organic salads, organic snac/ food5
n
:roducer ,.* ,<
:rocessor ).( B
etailer ,.( ,*
Importer ).$ ,<
7rganic operator organisation ).B %%
Control body ' control authority ,.< =)
Competent authority ,.) ()
9overnmental authority ,., ,<
9ermany ,.( =&
Fenmar/ 6,.$ =
France (., ,)
Italy ,.* (*
.nited >ingdom ) ,%
C8ech epublic ,.& ,&
:oland ).* <
Total 1.% 1:8
+ean value
)uestion! 7lease indicate the degree of your personal agreement to the following statement! 8The retail sector should be fully
included in the control system&8 +-.point /ic%ert scale, 01 2 total agreement" 3 2 neutral" .1 2 total disagreement,
,&( Chapter $ +de1uacy of the overall control system

and suggested introducing a ris/6based inspection approach for processing operations in the
retail sector.
?ased on the e2perience of a 9erman control body, @euendorff !(),%# reported that some
retailers undertoo/ a preparation activity !crisped organic bread in their retail outlet# without
notifying it to the competent authorities. 3his suggests that the e2emption from the control
system is only justified if the conditions for granting it are periodically verified.
8.%.2 'ffectiveness of the implemented control system in +em"er ,tates
Consistency in the +em"er ,tates procedures of setting$up national control systems and the
differences in the control procedures
'indings from the analysis of provisions
3he document analysis conducted in the ,% case study countries revealed that only Fenmar/,
9ermany, Italy and Slovenia statutorily regulate residue sampling and analysis of organic
products. In the .nited >ingdom, national testing procedures for organic food are currently being
developed. In Member States without statutorily regulated residue sampling and analysis
approaches, each control body has its own procedures with respect to the number of analyses
and the ma2imum threshold to evaluate the level of contamination, to assess the level of
corresponding sanctions, and to determine if the products should be declassified or whether the
certificate should be withdrawn from the operator.
3he document analysis showed further that only four of ,% Member States have a common
catalogue for issuing of sanctions- 9ermany !9erman egulation on approval of control#, "stonia
!not very detailed#, the C8ech epublic !+ct. @o. (&('()))#, and the @etherlands !S>+J sanction
regulation ,&#. In Italy, the national accreditation body provides a classification of non6
compliance and sanction. France, :oland and the .nited >ingdom are currently developing
sanction catalogues or plan to do so soon respectively. In +ustria, the regional federal
government of Korarlberg urge the compilation of a standardi8ed catalogue of sanctions to
ensure that the different control bodies handle infringements and irregularities e1ually. +s a
conse1uence, each control body might define +rticle %) in a different way. 3his leads to
operators being sanctioned differently for having committed the same infringement !"uropean
Court of +uditors, (),(#.
(iews of sta%eholders
+bout && C of the sta/eholders surveyed indicated that there are differences in the effectiveness
of the control system across Member States. :articularly retailers !agreement <% C#, importers
!=% C# and control bodies'authorities !=, C# too/ the view of differences in the effectiveness of
the control system. In contrast to these sta/eholders, the majority of processors !agreement ) C#
and national authorities !agreement (= C# too/ a different view. From a country perspective,
Chapter $ +de1uacy of the overall control system ,&%

sta/eholders from France !B) C agreement# and Fenmar/ !$< C# strongly supported the
statement of differences in the effectiveness of the control system whereas the majority of the
C8ech sta/eholders disagreed !disagreement %< C# and only (, C of the sta/eholders from the
.nited >ingdom !*, C do not /now# agreed to this statement. 3he areas of differences in the
effectiveness across the Member States are to a large e2tent similar to the issues raised with
respect to different interpretation of the control rules.
3he sta/eholder survey highlighted the need for a more harmonised control system in the ".. In
total, =) C of the sta/eholders surveyed indicated that the control rules are interpreted
differently in the Member States while %( C did not /now. 3he results varied only marginally
between the different sta/eholder groups. etailers, control bodies'control authorities, national
authorities and importers found to a slightly higher e2tent that the control rules are differently
interpreted across the Member States !agreement D== C#. ;owever, there were larger
differences between the sta/eholders from different countries- $) C of the French sta/eholders
and *, C of the Fanish sta/eholders but no sta/eholder from the C8ech epublic !=* C do not
/now# found that control rules are interpreted differently. 3he following areas where control
rules are interpreted differently across the Member States were mentioned- residue sampling,
testing and analysis !,= C5 particularly mentioned by control bodies#, criteria for ris/6based
approaches != C#, control fre1uency !& C#, share of unannounced controls !& C#, issuing of
sanctions !& C#, and accreditation process for control bodies !& C#. +s to the latter, the need for
harmonisation of control processes with respect to both between accreditation bodies within a
Member State and between Member States was particularly highlighted by three 9erman
sta/eholder surveyed !two competent authorities, one organic sector organisation#. Clear and
harmonised guidelines for accreditors are suggested to improve harmonisation in accreditation
procedures. In this respect, a Finish sta/eholder suggested to establish only one ". accreditation
body.
3he need for a more harmonised control system was also e2pressed in the interviews carried out
in the case study countries. @ine of ,( competent authorities and ,, of (, control bodies'control
authorities interviewed stressed the need for such a harmonisation5 notably from the C8ech
epublic, 9ermany, Fenmar/, France, Spain, Italy, :oland, and Slovenia. 3he interviewed control
bodies'authorities or competent authorities from +ustria, the @etherlands and the .nited
>ingdom gave partly contradictory answers. Ghile some control bodies or competent authorities
in these countries see areas which would need harmonisation, others do not. +dditionally to the
areas already identified in the web6based sta/eholder survey, competent authorities and control
bodies mentioned in the interviews the following areas, where the control system should be
harmonised across the Member States- information e2change between control authorities or
control bodies, the management in case of suspicion of infringements and irregularities,
e2emption of retailers according to +rticle ($ of the egulation, and non6conformity follow6ups
and sanctions as well as non6compliance categories. 3he Standing Committee of 7rganic Farming
!SC7F# was considered to be a useful means to harmonise the control system.
,&& Chapter $ +de1uacy of the overall control system

;owever, there are also sta/eholders voicing the ris/ that the ". organic farming legislation
regulates too much and does not leave enough space for effective controls !Qregulatory over%ill
should be avoided6#. 3herefore, a moderate fle8i"ility in the control rules might be re1uired and
Qany initiatives to further harmonise the control system need to be adequate and appropriate6.
Instead of more detailed rules, the sta/eholders interviewed suggested that the organic farming
legislation should put more emphasis on the liability of organic operators. Changes in the whole
system should be well considered on the aspect of how much improvement can be achieved by
more harmonisation.
"ven though half of the sta/eholders !== C# state that there is a need for fle2ibility due to
regional differences, on average, they were 1uite neutral about this !mean ).%#. :rocessors
!mean ,.,# and interviewees from Fenmar/ !mean ,.,#, Central and "astern "uropean countries
:

!mean ,.,# and the .nited >ingdom !mean ).$# slightly agreed to the need for regional fle2ibility.
:roponents consider that each Member State represents an own culture and tradition.
Fifferences in the implementation of control rules could therefore sometimes be necessary as
the situation in the Member States is different. 3herefore, the ". organic farming legislation
might not be able to be uniformly applied in each Member State. Sta/eholders from France
however were against regional fle2ibility in the control system !mean 6,.(#.
Few differences were identified with regard to sta/eholders view on the importance of different
control measures to ensure fair competition. Sta/eholders surveyed found an e2plicit sampling
and testing policy !mean ,.$# to be an important means of ensuring fair competition among
organic operators !see 3able $.&#5 to a slightly less e2tent than additional ris/6based inspections
!mean (.%#, systematic investigation and follow6up of detected residue cases !mean (.%#,
mandatory annual inspections !mean (.(# and definition of non6compliance and sanction
categories !mean (.,#. 3here are no big differences in the opinions of the different sta/eholder
groups. Control bodies'control authorities, competent authorities and governmental authorities
are more positive than the other sta/eholders.

:
?ulgaria, C8ech epublic, "stonia, ;ungary, Jatvia, Jithuania, :oland, Slova/ia and Slovenia.
Chapter $ +de1uacy of the overall control system ,&=

Ta"le 8.(. Kiews of sta/eholders regarding the importance of sampling and testing,
systematic investigations and the definition of non6compliance and sanction
categories to ensure fair competition !mean values#

Source- 7wn data from web6based sta/eholder survey.
Fifferences in the control system become a problem in cases when differences lead to unfair
competition. Indeed, *$ C of the sta/eholders surveyed !see 3able $.=# were of the opinion that
differences in the implementation of the control rules lead to unfair competition between
organic operators !mean ,.=#. 3here are only minor differences between the sta/eholder groups.
;owever, Fanish sta/eholders were rather neutral !mean ).<# whereas sta/eholders from Italy
!mean (.,# and :oland !mean (.)# supported this statement more strongly. 3he sta/eholders in
general slightly agreed to the statement that differences in the control system could disturb the
functioning of the internal mar/et !<< C, mean ,.)#. :articularly retailers and importers !mean
,.= and ,.&, respectively# and sta/eholders from Italy !mean ,.$# supported this statement more
strongly whereas governmental authorities were rather neutral !mean ).%#. Interestingly, about
(= C of the organic producers, %% C of the processors, =) C of the importers and =% C of the
retailers reported in the sta/eholder survey that the competitiveness of their operation is or has
been affected as a result of differences in the control systems of the Member States.
,ystematic investigation
compliance categories
Mean value n Mean value n Mean value n
:roducer (., ,< (.= ,< ,.B ,<
:rocessor ,., B (.) B ,.< B
etailer ,.= ,$ (., ,$ ,.B ,$
Importer ,.( ,* (.( ,* ,.* ,*
7rganic 7perator 7rganisations ,.% %% (.) %% ,.B %%
Control ?ody'Control +uthority ,.B =& (.% =& (.( =&
Competent +uthority (.( (( (.< (( (.& ((
9overnmental +uthority ,.$ ,< (.& ,< (., ,<
Total 1.8 2*- 2.% 2*- 2.1 2*-
)uestion! *ow important are the following measures of the control system to ensure fair competition among organic operators
+producers, processors etc&,? +-.point /ic%ert scale, 01 2 total agreement" 3 2 neutral" .1 2 total disagreement,
and follo!$up of
detected residue cases
2efinition of non$
and sanctions for control "odies
and testing policy
'8plicit sampling
,&< Chapter $ +de1uacy of the overall control system

Ta"le 8.-. Kiews of sta/eholders regarding the differences in the control system between
Member States !mean values#

Source- 7wn data web6based sta/eholder survey.
Scientific evidence
3he analysis of ())*6())B data of control bodies'control authorities from the C8ech epublic,
Fenmar/, 9ermany, Italy and the .nited >ingdom collected in the C"3C7S36project !Moschit8
et al&, ())B# revealed that the share of unannounced controls of all control visits varies
considerably between both the five control bodies or control authorities respectively and the
years ())* to ())B. 3he share of unannounced controls thus amounted for the 9erman control
body <.& C in ())* and increased to ,B., C in ())B. In Fenmar/ and in the .nited >ingdom, the
share of unannounced controls was below ,) C while in Italy the share was around ,) C for the
years ())* to ())B. 3hese results are confirmed by Morn et al. !(),)# who found considerable
differences in the share of unannounced controls of nine 9erman control bodies of =.$ C to
,B.& C !())< data#.
It is worthwhile noting that Fabbert et al. !(),(# concluded in the C"3C7S36project that there is
a need to further clarify the definitions of ;infringement and ;irregularity with corresponding
sanctions as well as to promote good practice. 3hey recommend guidelines to create a
harmonised system of sanctions to be applied under +rticle %) in the event of infringements or
irregularities !harmonised scales# in all Member States and by all control bodies. egulation !"C#
$%&'())* uses the term Qris% of occurrence of irregularities and infringements as regards
compliance with the requirements laid down in this regulationR !+rticle (*#. 3his has essentially
the same meaning as the e2pression 4ris/ of non6compliance. ;owever, a wider understanding of
ris/ could include further aspects. "specially the si8e of the potential damage to the organic
mar/et and consumer trust is important !Fabbert et al., (),(#.
2ifferences in the
control system "et!een
'3 +em"er ,tates <
Mean value nO(,B Mean value nO(,B Mean value nO(,B
:roducer )., ,$ ,.< ,$ ,., ,$
:rocessor ,.( B ).B B ,.) B
etailer )., ,B ,.* ,B ,.= ,B
Importer ).( ,$ ,.% ,$ ,.& ,$
7rganic 7perator 7rganisations ).= %= ,.( %= ).$ %=
Control ?ody'Control +uthority )., =$ ,.< =$ ).B =$
Competent +uthority ).& (( ,.= (( ,.) ((
9overnmental +uthority ).< ,< ,.% ,< ).% ,<
Total *.% 1.- 1.*
)uestion! To which extent does the #9 organic farming legislation meet its general aims with respect to the actual control
procedures? +-.point /ic%ert scale, 01 2 total agreement" 3 2 neutral" .1 2 total disagreement,
to meet national
< are necessary
to fair competition
mar/et and do not lead organic operators conditions
of the '3 internal
< distur" the functioning
competition "et!een
< lead to unfair
Chapter $ +de1uacy of the overall control system ,&*

Furthermore, Fabbert !(),,# concluded that the mandatory accreditation of control bodies has
so far led only to a limited e2tent to a more harmonised supervision of the control system among
Member States. ;e suggests a concerted action of accreditation bodies, e.g. by drawing up codes
of 9ood :ractice as encouraged by the ". Commission.
1*

Adequacy of distri"ution of responsi"ilities among the main actors involved in the control
system= including application of the accreditation system
'indings from the analysis of provisions
3he basic distribution of responsibilities in the control system is defined in +rticle (* of the
egulation !"C# $%&'())*. +ccordingly, Member States may designate one or more competent
authorities responsible for controls in respect of the obligations established by the egulation.
3he competent authority may confer its control competences to one or more other control
authorities and'or delegate control tas/s to one or more control bodies. In that case, the
Member States has to designate authorities responsible for the approval and supervision of such
bodies.
For delegating control tas/s to a particular control body, the egulation re1uires among others
that the control body is accredited to the most recently notified version of "uropean Standard "@
&=),, or IS7 9uide <=.
(iews of sta%eholders +control bodies and competent authorities,
3he Spanish competent authority stressed that harmoni8ation is re1uired between egulation
!"C# $$('())& and egulation !"C# $%&'())* to better clarify the surveillance procedures that
competent authorities should e2ecute on control bodies and control authorities. 3he egulation
on organic farming should establish more clearly the control procedures the competent authority
has to e2ert over the control authority. +n +ustrian control body highlighted that there should be
only one national authority responsible for organic agriculture and no involvement of several
authorities and public institutions. 7ne Italian control body felt that there is no coordination
between national and regional authorities, and that some regions even do not perform any
supervisory activity.
3he sta/eholder survey provided no indication that the distribution of responsibilities in the
control system with respect to accreditation "odies is inade1uate. 7nly one sta/eholder from
Fenmar/ !scientist# mentioned that in Fenmar/ the distribution of responsibilities between the
control authority and the accreditation body needs to be clearer.

1*
3he "uropean Cooperation for +ccreditation !"+# has established a dedicated tas/ force to foster harmoni8ed
supervision of the organic control system. + specific mandatory document for "+ national accreditation bodies has
been developed and approved in Pune (),% !"uropean Cooperation for +ccreditation, (),%#.
,&$ Chapter $ +de1uacy of the overall control system

'indings from the fraud case analysis
3he fraud case 49atto con gli stivali indicated that an inade1uate distribution of responsibilities
may hamper a quic/ information e8change. 3he fraud case was a penal procedure of the Italian
ta2 investigation and details about this investigation were only available to the organic control
system to the e2tent communicated by the prosecuting authority !ohrdan8, (),(#. 3here was no
official interface ensuring that information on suspicious cases from, for e2ample, the ta2
investigation is transmitted to authorities of the organic control system. 3hus, the competent
authorities of the possibly fraud6affected Member States had to rely on information from
different actors of the organic sector which was often not very reliable and sometimes
contradictory. Fetails on the fraud case are given in the subse1uent section on 4Information
e2change between the actors involved in the control system.
'indings from the review of relevant publications
Schul8e et al. !())B# emphasi8e that an effective co6ordination between competent authorities,
the accreditation body and the control bodies is needed to establish an effective and efficient
control system.
Adequacy of the pu"lic surveillance system in place
'indings from the analysis of provisions and other information sources
3he public surveillance system encompasses the entire ". framewor/ of activities of national
competent authorities and accreditation bodies as described in the ". organic farming legislation
to supervise and monitor the organic control system at the level of the control bodies.
+ /ey6element of the supervision of control bodies are office and witness audits
11
. In all case
study countries with a system of private control bodies, the competent authorities conduct one
office audit per year at the control body. ;owever, the num"er of !itness audits conducted by
the competent authorities varies considerably between Member States. Ghile in +ustria, the
C8ech epublic, Spain and 9ermany the competent authority conduct & 6 = witness audits, and at
least one in the .nited >ingdom, ?ulgaria and Italy, so far no witness audits were conducted in
:oland and Slovenia !Slovenia plans to do so in (),%#. 7wn inspections of organic operators are
conducted by the competent authority only in +ustria !about () per year#, 9ermany !about ()
per year# and :oland.
(iews of sta%eholder
+s far as the general assessment of the adequacy and effectiveness of the national approval and
surveillance system for control bodies is concerned, all competent authorities of the ,% case

11
Gitness audits are accompanied on6site inspection visits carried out by a competent authority with the aim to inspect
!or audit# control bodies themselves.
Chapter $ +de1uacy of the overall control system ,&B

study countries e2pressed that the system of their country is implemented ade1uately and
effectively. 3he control bodies interviewed in ?ulgaria, "stonia, France, the @etherlands, :oland
and Slovenia were positive towards the surveillance system. ;owever, five control bodies from
Italy, +ustria, the C8ech epublic and from the .nited >ingdom considered the supervision
system of the competent authority over the control bodies ineffective. 3he French control body
considered the national supervision system to be effective through the double re1uirements of
approval and accreditation
12
. In 9ermany, one competent authority and an organic sector
organisation states that control effectiveness of the accreditation body over the control bodies
could be improved. 3he Slovenian competent authority reports that the accreditation body is
very strict, reliable and impartial. 7ne control body from the .nited >ingdom and :ortugal ta/e
the view that the accreditation body lac/s technical competence in organic farming.
Fifferent assessments as regards the ade1uacy and effectiveness of the public surveillance
system were not only e2pressed in the interviews but also in the web6based survey. 3he
sta/eholder survey showed that &* C of the control bodies consider the supervision through the
national competent authorities to be ade1uate to ensure the functioning of the control system
!&% C do not agree#. ;owever, *% C of control bodies from Italy and <) C from Central and
"astern "uropean countries !?ulgaria, C8ech epublic, "stonia, ;ungary, Jatvia, Jithuania, :oland,
Slova/ia and Slovenia# ta/e the view that the supervision is not ade1uate and not functioning.
3here is criticism that the supervision of competent authorities focuses too much on formal
re1uirements involving e2tensive reporting. 7n the other hand, the information collected seems
often not to be used. +n e2ample is the collection procedures and use of statistical data. It is
suggested that competent authorities should audit more fre1uently and thoroughly to ensure a
really effective control system.
3he control bodies highlighted that some competent authorities are not endowed with the
financial and human resources which would be re1uired to do the supervision properly. 3his was
particularly highlighted by sta/eholders from the .nited >ingdom. +lso in +ustria, two control
bodies found the personnel infrastructure of the competent authority insufficient. In this conte2t
also lac/ing competence of competent authority staff was mentioned. +n Italian control body
criticised that supervision in Italy was criticised for not being substantial enough and focused on
documentary and bureaucratic information.
Scientific evidence
Morn et al. !(),(# compared the official data on sanctions reported from the 9erman competent
authority to the "uropean Commission with the primary data of the issued sanctions from one
9erman control body. 3hey found mista/es in the reporting in the year ())$ due to careless
reporting by the control body. "ven though these mista/es were 1uite obvious, they were not

12
In accordance with +rticle (*!=#!c# of Council egulation $%&'())* the control bodies are submitted to a double control
to ensure that the minimum control re1uirements are applied- a# from the accreditation body !audit every ,= months#
and b# from the competent authority !audit once a year#.
,=) Chapter $ +de1uacy of the overall control system

noticed by both the control body and the competent authority. 3he authors conclude that the
use of the supervision reports might be limited, possibly because of the data structure and
1uality.
Information e8change "et!een the actors involved in the control system
(iews of sta%eholders
3he effectiveness of the organic control system is very much affected by the frequency of
information e8change. +bout *$ C of control bodies meet more than twice a year and have
established a continuous dialogue with the national competent authority !+ustria, ?elgium, C8ech
epublic, France, 9ermany, ;ungary, Ireland, Italy, Jithuania, :oland, and Sweden#. Control
bodies from Spain, :ortugal and Slova/ia meet twice a year while one control body from Spain
and the .nited >ingdom e2change information with the competent authority only once a year.
esponses from the control bodies in 9ermany and Italy are contradictory. For e2ample, si2
9erman control bodies surveyed in the sta/eholder survey stressed that there is a lot of
information e2changed with the competent authorities via different information e2change
platforms while one seems to have no information e2change at all. Similarly, while the
4coordination table initiated by the Italian Ministry of +griculture was considered to be an
effective tool for information e2change !more than twice a year# for nine control bodies, one
control body responded to have no meeting at all with the Italian competent authority. In the
case of 9ermany and Italy, this situation is probably due to the administrative structure of both
countries with a national'federal competent authority and regional competent authorities.
+ctors of the organic control system use different approaches to e8change information. For
cases of infringement a regulated information e2change already e2ists, the 7rganic Farming
Information System !7FIS#. In case of suspicion every Member State has the possibility of
information e2change with other Member States. Interviews carried out with the competent
authorities from the C8ech epublic, :oland, the @etherlands and Italy revealed that information
between Member States is e2changed during SC7F6meetings and by personal contacts with peers
!C8ech epublic, Italy, :oland and the @etherlands#. SC7F is considered to be effective and
helpful for information e2change. 3he Slovenian competent authority considers the 7FIS
database enables 1uic/ e2change of information between Member States. Control bodies in
+ustria, 9ermany, France, and Spain established institutionally 1uite intense communication
through national associations of control bodies. ?ut also C8ech, :olish, Slovenian and .> control
bodies meet regularly. 3he "stonian control body interviewed pointed out that information
e2change has improved while the ?ulgarian control bodies have only contact via e6mail.
Competent authorities from Italy and Spain criticised that communication between the national
authorities and the regional competent authority is not effectively organised. In Spain, the
regional authorities who implement the ". legislation seem to have no established
communication and information e2change platform. + 9erman control body complained that
they do not have sufficient access to relevant official data sources, which could be used to
Chapter $ +de1uacy of the overall control system ,=,

prepare the control visit and allow them to focus during the on6site inspection on more relevant
issues.
'indings from the review of relevant publications
3he "uropean Court of +uditors !(),(# found in two Member States visited that the information
flow between the control system for organic production and for policy support under the agri6
environment measures to be insufficient. In France, the results of the chec/s made by the control
bodies were not communicated to the paying agency for the agri6environment subsidies. 3he
Court of +uditors concluded that there is the ris/ that non6compliances affecting the conditions
for receiving agri6environment payments, detected by a control body, do not result in a reduction
or recovery of the payment. Ji/ewise, in the .nited >ingdom they found no reverse flow of
information and the ris/ that non6compliances concerning organic farming practices detected by
the paying agency as a result of their inspections do not result in sanctions imposed by the
control body.
:esults of the fraud case analysis
3he fraud case 9atto con gli stivali4 was until now one of the largest fraud cases in the ".
concerning organic products covered by the ". legislation on organic production. 3he press
release of the Italian 9uardia di Finan8a !ta2 investigation# reported on a volume of
appro2imately *)%.))) tons of false6labelled conventional products sold as organic and financial
damage estimated at around (() million "., representing appro2imately ,) C of the total
turnover of the Italian organic mar/et. 3he subse1uent analysis is based on the results of the +nti
Fraud Initiative !+FI# seminar in Italy as well as personal interviews with actors involved in the
fraud case and an evaluation of correspondence e2changed between competent authorities and
control bodies.
+ccording to Feder?io !(),(#, mainly from ())* to ())B, a networ/ of at least () fraudulent
operators sold conventional products produced in Italy and omania as organic to several ".
Member States !mainly +ustria, ?elgium, France, ;ungary, the @etherlands, Spain and
Swit8erland#. 3he fa/e products were cereals !barley, rye, spelt, wheat#, corn, sorghum, fla2,
peas, faba beans, soybeans, canola, sunflowers and mashed apples.
3he fraudulent trade companies supported by two employees of the largest Italian control body
changed4 the conventional status of the commodities to organic by
fudging conformity certificates !documentary evidences according to +rticle (B of egulation
!"C# $%&'())*#, the production plan !according to +rticle *, of egulation !"C# $$B'())$#,
proofs of land ownership and tenancy agreements, contracts as well as delivery notes and
invoices5 and
fudging of invoices of commercial transactions which never happened in reality.
,=( Chapter $ +de1uacy of the overall control system

Fue to the missing international verification of conformity certificates and boo//eeping
documents through cross chec/s, the detection of the fraud was difficult for control bodies.
Furthermore, the fraudulent activities were facilitated by multiple certifications of organic
operators. 3he Italian organic operators involved in the fraud were often inspected by different
control bodies for different activities. Indeed, one of the main actors in the fraud case, the Italian
company Sunny Jand S.:.+., was inspected by two control bodies- one controlled the
trading'processing activities while the other one controlled the import activities.
3he fraud case came to light during an inspection conducted by the Italian ta2 investigations at
the trading company Sunny Jand. +s a conse1uence of the inspection, the Italian ta2 investigation
started broad e2aminations of various trading companies and control bodies which lasted for
more than one year. Italian competent authorities as well as several control bodies were involved
in these investigations, but they were bound to secrecy. Furing the ta2 investigation, in May
(),,, Sunny Jand changed to another control body. ;owever, the original control body
confirmed the organic status of Sunny Jand to the one that too/ over without informing about
the on6going investigations of the Italian ta2 police and the suspicion of fraud. 3he fraud case
went public with a press conference of the Italian ta2 investigation !Comando :rovinciale 9uardia
di Finan8a Kerona# on < Fecember (),,. 3his press conference immediately attracted the
interest of the large international news agencies distributing the information internationally.
;owever, no information was distributed by the Italian Ministry for +griculture, waiting for
official information from the judicial authority and Italian ta2 investigation. 3hus, information
about the Italian fraud case came to competent authorities of the possibly fraud6affected
Member States through press publications and by different actors of the organic sector and not
through information e2change procedures of the organic control system. For e2ample in
9ermany, the fraud news was delivered to the competent authority by a 9erman control body,
which in turn was informed by an Italian control body. 3hus, there was no official communication
to the actors of the organic control system.
7n B Fecember (),,, the Italian Ministry for +griculture confirmed the press release of the
Italian ta2 investigation to the "uropean Commission and to competent authorities of the other
Member States. 3en days later, after a consultation between the and the Member States, the
competent authorities of the Member States informed the national control bodies providing a list
of companies possibly involved in the fraud, a product list and a preliminary list of commercial
transactions from Italian trading companies to their direct clients in the Member States. ;owever
at that time, the ".6clients of the Italian fraudulent companies had already sold most fraudulent
lots to other companies. Moreover, most of the () trading companies on the list had already left
the organic control system. 3he situation of voluntary sales withdrawal of Italian companies from
the control system, the suspensions, police investigations and sales to further ".6clients, made
the traceability of the falsified lots very comple2. 3o conclude, deficiencies in the information
e2change were one /ey problem of the 9atto con gli stivali4 fraud case. 3he case study revealed
deficiencies at following levels-
Chapter $ +de1uacy of the overall control system ,=%

+ctive phase of the fraud case
Control bodies and control authorities-
Missing information e2change according to +rticle %, egulation !"C# $%&'())* relating to
the authenticity of conformity certificates !documentary evidences# issued by other control
bodies, of contracts, of invoices and of delivery notes through cross chec/s5
Missing information e2change according to +rticle %, egulation !"C# $%&'())* relating to
the parallel certification of one operator by different control bodies5
Missing information e2change according to +rticle %, egulation !"C# $%&'())* relating to
operators changing the control body5
Missing centralised internet publication of conformity certificates !documentary evidences#.
:hase after publication of the fraud
Control bodies and control authorities-
Missing information e2change according to +rticle %, egulation !"C# $%&'())* relating to
the fraud facts identified during the co6operation with the Italian ta2 investigation.
Competent authorities-
Feficiencies on ensuring a co6ordinated approach and 1uic/ information e2change to identify
and to report operators and lots affected by the fraudulent activities on the national level5
Feficiencies on ensuring a co6ordinated approach and 1uic/ information e2change to identify
and to report operators and lots affected by the fraudulent activities between ".6Member
States.
Information e2change between control bodies as well as between control bodies and competent
authorities was one of the /ey deficiencies complicating a 1uic/ sei8ure of potentially non6
compliant organic products in the Member States.
Consumers confidence in the organic control system
:esults of the consumer survey
egarding consumer trust in the actors of the organic sector the consumer survey reveals that
respondents do trust but their confidence is not very pronounced !see 3able $.<#.
,=& Chapter $ +de1uacy of the overall control system

Ta"le 8.6. Mean values of e2tent of trust in different actors or institutions in different
countries
a

Source- 7wn data from consumer survey.
3here is no clear picture whether consumers prefer publicly or privately organised controls of
organic operators !see 3able $.*#. Consumers agree that stricter control rules are needed.
Furthermore, they would appreciate the publication of control results from organic operators on
the internet.
Ta"le 8.#. Mean values of e2tent of confidence in control bodies and rules in different
countries

Source- 7wn data from consumer survey.
All 2' '' >& IT 59 34
Mean ).* ).= ).< ).< ).B ).B ,.)
n ($)= &*$ &&% &*( &$& &** &=,
Mean ,.) ,.) ,.) ).B ,.) ,.) ,.,
n ($&, &$( &&B &*% &B) &** &*)
Mean ).= ).% ).= ).& ,.) ).% ).*
n (*BB &<$ &&( &<% &B, &<B &<<
Mean ,., ).B ,., ).B ,., ,.( ,.(
n (*(( &=( &%) &=$ &$& &<* &%,
Mean ).* ).% ).* ).= ,.) ).B ).$
n ($&B &** &== &*= &B% &$, &<$
Mean ).< ).% ).< ).= ).$ ).$ ).*
n (*=( &*< &&% &=% &*& &*, &%=
7rganic processors
)uestion! Considering organic products, to which extent do you trust the following actors or institutions? + -.point /ic%ert scale, 01 2
very high confidence, 3 2 neutral, .1 2 no confidence,
Inspectors controlling organic farms
and processors
7rganic farmer
3he supermar/et where you usually
buy organic products
3he organic food shop where you
usually buy organic products
7rganic labels
All 2' '' >& IT 59 34
Mean ,.& ,.& ,.( ,., ,.* ,.& ,.%
n (*%< &*( &%, &&* &$= &<% &%$
Mean ,., ).B ,.* ).B ).< ,.= ,.(
n (*<( &<& &=( &=, &$, &<( &=(
Mean ,.< (.) ,.( ,.< ,.B ,.< ,.,
n (*)* &$= &)$ &<& &$& &=< &,)
Mean ,.B (., (.) ,.* (.) (., ,.=
n ($=( &$B &<< &*) &B, &*B &=*
3he 4organic inspections should be done
by public institutions'authorities
7rganic inspection of farms should be
done by independent private inspectors
Stricter control rules are needed
Control results from organic operators
should be published in the internet
)uestion! ;o you thin% the government or the #uropean Commission should be more active to maintain or increase trust in organic
products? 7lease indicate to which extent you agree to the following statements& +-.point /ic%ert scale, 01 2 very high confidence, 3 2
neutral, .1 2 no confidence,
Chapter $ +de1uacy of the overall control system ,==

(iews of sta%eholders
3he 1uestion whether the control system is ade1uate or not to ensure consumer protection was
also addressed in the sta/eholder survey. In total, $, C of the surveyed sta/eholders consider the
organic control system to be highly effective in ensuring consumer protection. +s very important
are seen- mandatory annual inspections !$% C#, additional ris/ inspection !$) C# and systematic
and follow up investigation !$( C#. +ccording to the sta/eholder survey, the following control
aspects are less important for ensuring consumer confidence- no differences in the control
system of the Member States !<B C#, an e2plicit sampling and residue testing policy !<% C# and
the definition of non6compliance categories and sanctions !<< C#.
Scientific evidence
+ research study from 9ermany !Stol8 et al., (),,# showed that organic consumers had a high
level of trust in organic inspectors and organic farmers. 3rust in organic labels and in organic
processors was significantly lower than consumer trust in organic inspectors and organic farmers.
esults of the C"3C7S3 project !Panssen and ;amm, (),,# revealed that organic consumers
from the C8ech epublic, Fenmar/, 9ermany and Italy trust organic certification schemes in
particular. 3rust in organic certification systems was largely intertwined with perceived stricter
control and familiarity with the organic logo. Consumers however have a low level of factual
/nowledge about organic production standards and the organic control system !Panssen and
;amm, (),(#. 3his is also confirmed by research from Sawyer et al& !())B#, Mc"achern and
Garnaby !())$# and ;oogland et al& !())*#.
8.( ?udgement and conclusions
?ased on the results presented in the section above, it is concluded that the overall control
system of organic farming is largely adequate in terms of achieving the glo"al o"7ectives of the
&egulation= "ut !ith some shortcomings as regards its implementation, ta/ing the following
into account-
+nnual inspection re1uirements are ade1uate to ensure fair competition and consumer
confidence, although ris/6based approaches could achieve the same aims at lower costs.
;owever, guidance at ". level may be necessary to ensure a harmonised approach.
+dditional ris/6based inspections re1uired by the egulation are in general an ade1uate tool
to ensure fair competition and consumer confidence. ;owever, they are implemented
differently across the Member States and in several countries only to a limited e2tent. +t
present, the full potential of ris/6based approaches is not e2ploited. Further development of
ris/6based approaches is necessary so that they can be applied to the organic control system.
"2emption from the control system for operators who sell products directly to the final
consumer or user are ade1uate and justified in cases where such operators only sell pac/ed
,=< Chapter $ +de1uacy of the overall control system

and labelled food. In such cases, the upstream actors of the organic supply chain were already
subject to the control system. ;owever, there is an indication that this e2emption is only
justified if the supervision system ensures that such retail businesses are notified to the
respective competent authorities and that the conditions for the e2emption are periodically
verified.
@ot all elements of the control system are consistently implemented across the Member
States. 3his leads to a situation whereby, between Member States and even within one
Member State, organic operators and products could be differently evaluated with respect to
residues, and also operators could receive different sanctions for committing the same
infringement. 3hus for these areas, fair competition among organic operators and among
control bodies cannot be not guaranteed.
3here is no robust indication that the distribution of responsibilities among the main actors
involved in the control system is inade1uate.
3he national supervision systems are not fully ade1uately and effectively implemented in
some Member States due to insufficient procedures for supervision and limited resources of
competent authorities to fulfil the supervisory role.
3here are some deficiencies in the e2change of information illustrated by the analysis of the
recent organic fraud case.
Consumers largely have confidence in the organic control system. ?ut this trust is built upon
perceptions and not on factual /nowledge.
2etailed considerations
3he aim of "valuation 0uestion % is to evaluate to what e2tent the overall control system of
organic farming, from the Commission, through Member States competent authorities, control
authorities, control bodies and accreditation bodies, has been ade1uate to achieve the global
objectives of the egulation. If the control system does not effectively ensure full compliance
with the rules across all Member States a# fair competition among organic farmers within the ".
and b# consumers confidence in organic products is not guaranteed. 3herefore, it is particularly
relevant to assess the functioning of the control system by evaluating whether or not the
established processes and practices do lead to unfair competition or barriers to the production
and mar/eting of organic products. 3he mar/eting of organic products would also be distorted if
consumers confidence in organic products was not ensured.
3he judgement is based on documentary analyses !cross6country comparison# of the control
procedures that have been implemented, interviews with national competent authorities and
control bodies from ,% Member States, the case study results from the 9atto con gli stivali4 fraud
case, data from the C"3C7S36project, the consumer survey, and the review of scientific
literature and public documents. +n important information basis was the sta/eholder survey
which was responded to by (<= "uropean sta/eholders.
Chapter $ +de1uacy of the overall control system ,=*

$dequacy of the annual inspection requirements
+nnual inspection re1uirements are ade1uate to ensure fair competition and consumer
confidence. ?ut ris/6based approaches could achieve the same aims at lower costs.
3here was consent between all sta/eholder groups surveyed that mandatory annual inspections
are important measures to ensure fair competition among organic operators and to ensure
consumer confidence in organic products. Indeed, mandatory annual inspection is often used in
the organic sector to demonstrate the integrity and authenticity of organic products to the
consumer. It seems to be a convincing argument which is easy to communicate to the consumer-
organic operators are inspected every year. Scientific literature shows that consumer trust is
connected to the perceived strictness of the standards and regular controls. ;owever, scientific
literature also reveals that consumers have a very limited /nowledge about the organic control
system. Consumers have trust in the actors or logos rather than in specific elements of the
organic inspection system. For consumers it is important that the certification process is
trustworthy and that it ensures compliance. +ccording to scientific literature, control bodies
comply with the re1uirements of the egulation of at least one annual control plus additional
random controls. ;owever, the share of unannounced controls varies considerably between
control bodies and the Member States.
Scientific literature shows that the amount of the certification fee is not marginal, does matter to
organic operators and loads the consumer price for organic products by around , C. +s
certification costs are particularly determined by the number of on6site controls, those could be
reduced by reducing the number of on6site control visits for instance by strengthening ris/6based
inspection approaches. Scientific literature so far provides no evidence that annual inspections
are the prere1uisite for high detection rates of non6compliances. ;owever, there is a body of
literature suggesting that ris/6based approaches ensure non6opportunistic behaviour of
operators. 3here is evidence that the probability of non6compliance is higher for operators who
have already been non6compliant and low for operators who are compliant.
In contrast to the annual visit of each organic operator, other areas wor/ with considerably lower
control fre1uencies. For e2ample, the ". legal framewor/ for the rural development programmes
re1uires annual on6the6spot chec/s of = C of all beneficiaries !which could be halved under
certain conditions#.
$dequacy of the additional ris%.based inspection
is/6based inspections are in general an ade1uate tool to ensure fair competition and consumer
confidence. ?ut the application of additional ris/6based inspection is done differently and to a
limited e2tent in the Member States.
3here was consent between all groups of sta/eholders surveyed that additional ris/6based
inspections are important measures to ensure fair competition among organic operators. In line
,=$ Chapter $ +de1uacy of the overall control system

with the provisions of +rticle (*!%# of egulation !"C# $%&'())* and +rticle <=!&# of egulation
!"C# $$B'())$ control bodies should apply systematic ris/ assessments of their operators against
ris/ factors lin/ed to the nature of their operation. ;owever, the documentary analysis showed
that not all Member States have established national guidelines for ris/6based inspection and
thus ris/6based inspection is done differently and used to different e2tent across the Member
States. 3his is confirmed by both, sta/eholder responses and scientific literature which highlights
that there is no harmonised understanding of what criteria for ris/6based inspection could be
used and how e2actly ris/ analysis should be carried out.
3here is broad consent among the sta/eholders surveyed and interviewed and in scientific
literature that ris/6based inspection could a# improve the organic control system considerably
and b# reduce the certification costs for organic operators as a result of reducing the number of
on6site control visits for low6ris/ operators. Scientific literature suggests comprehensive and
dynamic ris/6based approaches which determine auditing intervals, auditing depth, unannounced
spot chec/s and differentiated auditing focuses, cross6chec/s along the entire supply chain and
targeted sampling and testing. 3hese suggestions from research go beyond the currently used
approaches for additional ris/6based inspection and still need to be further developed so that
they can be used in the organic control system. Furthermore, such dynamic approaches are not
compatible with static approaches li/e mandatory annual control visits. 3hus the full potential of
ris/6based approaches is currently not used in the organic control system.
$dequacy and justification of $rticle <=+<, of Council :egulation +#C, =1>?<33- which allows
Member States to exempt operators who sell products directly to the final consumer or user from
the control system
"2emptions from the control system for operators who sell products directly to the final
consumer or user are ade1uate and justified in cases where such operators only sell pac/ed and
labelled food.
+rticle ($!(# of Council egulation !"C# $%&'())* enables Member States to e2empt retail
operators who sell products directly to the final consumer or user from the control system if
these retail operators do not produce, process, pac/, label or store organic products elsewhere,
do not import organic products from third countries and'or outsource these activities to a third
party. +ll ,% case study countries use this article and e2empt retailers which sell pac/ed and
labelled food. 3he results of the web6based survey showed that sta/eholder views vary whether
retailers should be e2empted from the control system or not. 7pponents, particularly producers
and control bodies'control authorities, favour the inclusion of the retail sector in the control
system to a large e2tent because retailers are in direct contact with the consumers and therefore
have a particular responsibility to ensure consumer confidence. ;owever, both sta/eholder
groups might have vested interests !non6e2clusion of the perceived most powerful actor,
principle of same re1uirements for all, business opportunity for control bodies if all actors of the
supply chain are included#. + few sta/eholders mentioned the ris/ of commingling organic
products with conventional products and incorrect labelling. ;owever, ,B sta/eholders !among
Chapter $ +de1uacy of the overall control system ,=B

them < control bodies, % competent authorities, and ( national authorities# ta/e the view that
retail of pac/ed food does not bear any ris/ of commingling and incorrect labelling. In cases
where retailers sell pac/ed and labelled food, the upstream actors of the organic supply chain are
subject to the control system. +dditional controls of retailers which sell the pac/ed and labelled
food may increase costs for the retailers but might neither increase consumer confidence nor fair
competition among organic operators.
3his view is supported by the only research study identified in this conte2t !@euendorff, (),(#
which argues that there is a low ris/ of commingling with conventional products and incorrect
labelling on the basis of ())=6(),, inspection data of one 9erman control body.
3he 9erman study by @euendorff !(),%#, on the other hand, showed one problem which was not
raised by sta/eholders- etailers which start preparation or processing activities and which do
not submit their activities to the control system as re1uired could be rarely identified and
penali8ed by the competent authorities. 3hus, the e2emption of retailers selling only pac/ed and
labelled food is only justified and ade1uate if the supervision system of the Member States can
ensure that such retail businesses are notified and the conditions are periodically verified.
/evel of harmoni@ation'consistency in the Member StateAs procedures of setting.up national
control systems and the differences in the control procedures
3he results of the documentary analyses in the case study countries, the sta/eholder survey and
research results indicate that not all elements of the control system are consistently
implemented in the Member States.
3he documentary analysis conducted in the case study countries identified areas which are
regulated differently in the Member States, namely ris/6based inspections, residue sampling,
testing and analysis, issuing of sanctions, and accreditation processes for control bodies.
Furthermore, the review of scientific literature identified differences in the number of
unannounced controls. 3hese areas were also mentioned by the sta/eholders.
+ll sta/eholder groups agreed that an e2plicit sampling and testing policy for control bodies and
the definition of sanction categories contribute to ensure fair competition. ;owever, Fenmar/,
9ermany, Italy and Slovenia were the only countries of the ,% case study countries where residue
sampling and analysis of organic products is statutorily regulated, which in turn leaves in all
Member States without statutory re1uirements the procedure for testing and analysis at the
responsibility of the control bodies. Similarly, only four of ,% national case studies defined the
issuing of sanctions according to +rticle %) of egulation !"C# $%&'())* !9ermany, "stonia, the
C8ech epublic and the @etherlands#. 3his leads to the situation that between Member States
and in the case of regional implementation even within a Member State a# organic operators and
products are evaluated differently with respect to residue testing and b# operators could be
sanctioned differently for having committed the same infringement. For these areas, fair
competition among organic operators may not be ensured. Fifference in the control procedures
,<) Chapter $ +de1uacy of the overall control system

can also lead to unfair competition between control bodies within a Member State. 3his involves
the ris/ that the way control procedures are implemented could influence operators control
body choice and might cause differences in the certification fees !ris/ of race to the bottom#.
esearch results and sta/eholders suggest introducing a harmonised system for issuing sanctions.
;owever, it is challenging to define non6compliance and sanctions in a uniform way without
losing the fle2ibility re1uired for ac/nowledging the specific conte2t of each case, which in turn
could also lead to unfair competition among organic operators.
3he need for harmonisation of control processes between accreditation bodies across Member
States was only highlighted by three 9erman sta/eholders !two competent authorities, one
organic sector organisation#. + similar conclusion was also drawn by Fabbert !(),,# who argued
in the C"3C7S36project that the effectiveness of mandatory accreditation on harmonised
supervision procedures seems to be 1uite limited.
+s far as residue testing and analysis is concerned, on the one hand sta/eholders strongly
demand a common ". framewor/, while at the same time there is also a great uncertainty
between the Member States and within the organic sector as to how and to what e2tent residue
testing and analysis should be regulated in the ". organic farming legislation. 3his contradiction
might be due to two reasons- First, mandatory residue testing conflicts with the process oriented6
approach of organic farming. +s there is no scientific technology at hand which allows the
unambiguous identification of whether a product has been produced in compliance with the
organic rules or not, process orientated control is indispensable. In case of doubt, residue testing
could provide evidence about the use of unauthorised substances. Second, there is a
controversial discussion surrounding the 1uestion whether the introduction of thresholds on
pesticide residues ma/e sense or not. 3he supporters argue for clear criteria for control bodies to
decide whether there may be breaches of the organic regulations or any irregularity. ;owever,
opponents argue that in a world of increasingly 1uic/ly degrading and prohibited pesticides, the
introduction of a threshold would lead to the non6identification of prohibited pesticide
applications and thus undermine organic integrity.
3his conflict between setting clear rules and leaving fle2ibility to the Member States is also
reflected in the results of the sta/eholder survey. :articularly sta/eholders from Fenmar/,
Central and "astern "uropean countries and from the .nited >ingdom were slightly in favour of
regional fle2ibility in the control system. Fifferences in the implementation of control rules might
be necessary to ac/nowledge the different conditions for agriculture in the Member States.
Sta/eholders voiced the ris/ that the ". organic farming legislation regulates too much and does
not leave enough space for effective controls.
;owever, to ensure fair competition, the implemented control procedures have to lead to the
same result which is compliance with organic rules and comparable levels of sanction for similar
severity of infringement. Gith respect to the areas identified where the control system does not
Chapter $ +de1uacy of the overall control system ,<,

seem to be uniformly implemented in the Member States !residue sampling, testing and analysis,
ris/6based approaches, share of unannounced controls, and issuing of sanctions# there might be
different ways to ensure that the control rules will lead to the same results. 3herefore there is
the need to distinguish carefully between a# areas where harmonisation needs to be achieved
through more detailed and mandatory rules, b# areas which where providing general guidelines
or a common framewor/ would be sufficient, or c# areas which could be easily harmoni8ed by
providing information or information e2change platforms.
$dequacy of distribution of responsibilities among the main actors involved in the control system,
including application of the accreditation system
3here is no robust indication that the distribution of responsibilities among the main actors
involved in the control system, including in respect of accreditation, is inade1uate.
7ne +ustrian control body, one Spanish competent authority and one Italian control body
pointed out deficiencies in the responsibilities among actors involved in the control system. 3hey
mentioned scattered responsibilities between different national authorities, not well6defined
lin/s between the surveillance activities of competent authorities and accreditation. Fue to the
fact that these deficiencies were mentioned by only three interviewees and that these
deficiencies were not raised in the sta/eholder survey, the information basis is considered to be
too wea/ to draw any conclusions. 7nly one Fanish sta/eholder mentioned deficiencies in the
distribution of responsibilities accreditation bodies. 3hus, there is no indication that distribution
of responsibilities with accreditation bodies is an issue.
3he 9atto con gli stivali4 fraud case identified a problem related to allocation of responsibilities-
detailed information about suspicious fraudulent organic actors identified by the ta2 investigation
was not transferred to the Ministry of +griculture, as the competent authority. 3his might point
to the general problem that information on fraud cases detected by other actors cannot not be
used by the actors of the organic control system.
7ublic surveillance system
3he public surveillance system encompasses the entire ". framewor/ of activities of national
competent authorities and accreditation bodies as described in the ". organic farming legislation
to supervise and monitor the organic control system at the level of the control bodies. 3he
national supervision system is not ade1uately and effectively implemented in some Member
States.
+ll competent authorities interviewed in the ,% case study countries indicated that the national
approval and surveillance system is appropriate in the respective country and control bodies
interviewed in France, the @etherlands, :oland, ?ulgaria, "stonia and Slovenia were positive
about the national surveillance system. Furthermore, also the French and 9erman control body
reported that the national supervision system is effective through the double re1uirements of
approval by the competent authority and accreditation through the national accreditation body.
,<( Chapter $ +de1uacy of the overall control system

3he positive view is however only partly confirmed by the results of the sta/eholder survey. For
e2ample, <) C of the control bodies from Central and "astern "uropean countries and *% C of
Italian control bodies responding to the survey mentioned that national supervision is not fully
ade1uate and functioning. Furthermore, the control bodies interviewed in Italy, +ustria, the
C8ech epublic and the .nited >ingdom considered the supervision system of the competent
authority over the control bodies not to be fully effective. Moreover, several control bodies
argued that the competent authorities of two Member States are not endowed with the financial
and human resources that would be re1uired to do the supervision properly and that the
competent authority staff lac/ competence. Ghile in the case study countries all competent
authorities interviewed conduct annual office audits, only a limited number of witness audits
were conducted in the .nited >ingdom, ?ulgaria, and Italy and no witness audits were conducted
in :oland and Slovenia. 7nly a 9erman competent authority and organic sector organisation
stated that control effectiveness of the accreditation bodies over the control bodies could be
improved whereas the Slovenian competent authority reports that the accreditation body is very
strict, reliable and impartial. Jac/ of technical competence in organic farming of accreditors was
mentioned by two sta/eholders from the .nited >ingdom and :ortugal. 3he 9atto con gli stivali4
fraud case study identified deficiencies in the on6site supervision of control bodies due to for
instance ineffective control procedures or not controlling the right sections of an organic
enterprise. 3he varying number of witness audits and the deficiencies identified in the fraud case
might be due to the above6mentioned limited resources of competent authorities.
Furthermore, the sta/eholder survey revealed that the information collected from competent
authorities for supervision is often not used. esearch found one case of obvious incorrect
reporting by a 9erman control body which was neither detected by the control body nor by the
competent authority. 3his also indicates that at least some competent authorities do not chec/
the information provided for supervision purposes carefully or do not use the information. 3he
sta/eholder survey and research suggest that this might be due to data structure and 1uality.
In some Member States the information collected in the course of supervision activities was
reported to be not substantial and too focused on formal re1uirements, thus the information
might not be useful for supervision. +lso the "uropean Court of +uditors !(),(# observed
insufficient procedures for supervision in some Member States.
"ven though these might be single cases the findings presented about public surveillance system
give an indication that some competent authorities may not fully fulfil their supervisory role over
the control bodies. Supervision of control bodies is an important means to ensure both fair
competition and consumer confidence. In some Member States, the implementation of the
national supervision seems not to ensure these.

Chapter $ +de1uacy of the overall control system ,<%

nformation exchange between the actors involved in the control system
3here are some deficiencies in the e2change of information illustrated by the fraud case study.
3he sta/eholder interviews showed that a continuous and mostly institutionalised information
e2change is established between the control bodies at national level in most case6study
countries. Furthermore, the control bodies indicated in the web6based survey that there is an
established continuous dialogue between the control bodies and the competent authorities in
most countries.
;owever, the results from the 9atto con gli stivali4 fraud case study highlighted deficiencies in
information e2change which at least facilitated the fraud. First, there was a lac/ of information
e2change between different national control bodies controlling different areas of the same
operator. Furthermore, there were two different control bodies involved in the process and there
was also a lac/ of information e2change between the original control body and the one that too/
over later. 3hus, even though there seems to be an established dialogue between control bodies
in Italy, in this specific case, no procedures were effective in ensuring information e2change to
impede fraud. Second, information e2change was lac/ing between control bodies active in
different Member States which made it difficult to prove the authenticity of certificates. Finally,
information e2change between competent authorities to identify and to report operators and
lots affected by the fraudulent activities on the national level was too slow so that the fraudulent
lots were already sold and thus could not be ta/en from the organic mar/et. 3hus, information
e2change across competent authorities in the affected Member States did not function in the
actual fraud case.
Feficiencies in the e2change of information have also been revealed by the "uropean Court of
+uditors !"uropean Court of +uditors, (),(#. 3he court found in two Member States which have
been visited that the information flow between the control system for organic production and for
policy support under the agri6environment measures to be insufficient. 3his again stresses the
lac/ing of interfaces between actors of the control system and, in this case, actors responsible for
agri6environmental schemes.
ConsumersA confidence in the organic control system
Consumers largely have confidence in the organic control system.
3he consumer survey revealed that consumers trust largely in the actors of the organic control
system but their trust is not very pronounced. 3his is confirmed through scientific literature
showing a high level of consumer trust in inspectors controlling organic operators, which is
significantly higher than consumer trust in organic labels. ;owever, there is evidence from
various researches that consumers /nowledge about the organic control system is very limited.
Sta/eholders perceive the procedures of the control system to be effective to ensure consumer
trust, even though consumers have almost no /nowledge about these procedures. 3rust is built
upon perceptions and not on factual /nowledge which might be due to lac/ing or not tailored
consumer information about organic farming and its control system.



Chapter 9
Adequacy of the import regime

9.1 Introduction
Evaluation Question 4
To what extent have the import rules been adequate to achieve the global objectives of the
regulation (i.e. to ensure the effective functioning of the internal market, to guarantee fair
competition and to ensure consumer confidence)?
n answering this question the lessons learned from the application of the equivalence principle
need to be examined, drawing on the experience gained with the expiring import regime based
on import authorisations managed b! "ember #tates, and with the import regime based on
recognition of equivalent third countries managed b! the $ommission.
In the last two decades, organic supply and distribution chains have become increasingly globally
organised and a large number of products sold on the EU market are imported (Halberg et al.,
2!". #lthough no detailed data is available about the share of products imported into the EU,
there are few indicators showing the relevance of imports for the organic market. $or e%ample, the
EU &ember 'tates have been granting around (. import authorisations annually (European
)ourt of #uditors, 2*2" and there are around *.! approved importers in the EU, mostly located
in +ermany, the ,etherlands, the United -ingdom, .enmark, 'weden and $rance (see $igure 2./".
0ypical products which are imported include coffee, cacao, tea, tropical fruits but also products
which are grown in Europe (1iller and -ilcher, 2*2". #ccording to 'chaack et al. (2**", for
e%ample 23 4 of linseeds, *3 4 of potatoes, ** 4 of barley, and 5 4 of wheat sold on the +erman
market were imported from non6EU countries in 2272*. 0his illustrates that imported
organic products are competing with organic products grown in Europe. $or ensuring fair
competition and consumer protection it is of high importance that production rules are
e8uivalent with the EU re8uirements and that the control systems ensure the same level of
assurance of conformity as within the EU. 9n the other hand, it is relevant for functioning of the
internal market that administrative procedures allow for timely delivery of the products at a
reasonable cost.
:e8uirements for imported products and the recognition and supervision procedures of control
authorities and control bodies in third countries are specified in #rticle /2 and // of :egulation
(E)" 5/(72;. #s shown in 0able 2.*, the import rules comprise of four different procedures to
place organic products from third countries on the EU market. #ccordingly, organic products may
*!! )hapter 2 #de8uacy of the import regime

be imported when the e8uivalence
1
is assured through import authorisations (<rocedure *, only
applicable until =uly 2*("
2
, the recognition of a third country (<rocedure 2" or the recognition of
a control body using e8uivalent standards (<rocedure /, in force since =uly 2*2". .etails on the
re8uirements are given in )hapter / and in 'ection 2./.*. >esides the e8uivalence approach,
products may also be imported that are certified by a control body and comply fully with the EU
:egulation (compliance approach, <rocedure (". However this approach has not yet been
implemented and therefore has not been considered here.
a!le 9.1" #pproaches and procedures of the import regime

'ource? 9wn presentation based on :egulation (E)" 5/(72;.
In the following section, the @udgment criteria and approach are described. 0his is followed by a
presentation of the results with regard to the ade8uacy of the import procedures, effectiveness
of the control system and the degree of consumer confidence in imported organic products.
$inally, the @udgement in response to the evaluation 8uestion is presented.

1
#ccording to #rticle 2 of :egulation (E)" 5/(72; the term Ae8uivalenceB means that applied systems and measures
Care capable of meeting the same objectives and principles b! appl!ing rules which ensure the same level of assurance
of conformit!.D
2
Under the previous import regime (:egulation (EE)" 22*722", the ma@ority of products were imported on the basis of
import authorisations. 0his has changed since the )ommission recognises control bodies to carry out controls in third
countries.
Approach #rocedure $tatus
In force since *.;.2*2
,ot yet implemented
a
a" Implemeting rules e%ist but the deadline for submitting applications from control bodies has been postponed until /* 9ctober 2*(
<rocedure /? %ecognition of control !odies
complying with principles and production rules
e8uivalent to EU rules and applying control
measures with e8uivalent effectiveness to EU
rules (:ecognition by the )ommission"
Implemented under :egulation
(E)" *2/3725
)ompliance with
the EU :egulation
<rocedure (? %ecognition of control !odies
applying the EU :egulation by the )ommission
E8uivalence with
the EU :egulation
<rocedure *? &ranting authorisations to
importers
Implemented under :egulation
(EE)" 22272*
&ember 'tates shall no longer grant
any authorisation from =uly 2*(
<rocedure 2? %ecognition of third countries
having a national system complying with
principles and production rules e8uivalent to EU
rules and applying control measures with
e8uivalent effectiveness to EU rules (:ecognition
by the )ommission"
Implemented under :egulation
(EE)" 22272*
)hapter 2 #de8uacy of the import regime *!;

9.2 Approach
0he ade8uacy of the import regime is evaluated on the basis of several @udgement criteria, which
were deduced from the model of intervention logic (see )hapter 3" and the background of the
evaluation 8uestion. 0he following criteria were used for this evaluation 8uestion?
(*" #rocedures of the import regime 'import authorisation managed !y (em!er $tates)
recognition of equivalent third countries) recognition of control !odies operating in third
countries *ith equivalent rules+ are 'or are not+ adequate to assure conformity of organic
products imported from third countries *ith E, requirements and to ensure a timely
delivery of these products
1hile within the EU the structures, responsibilities, controls and surveillance are clearly
defined, the situation in third countries is more comple%. 0he framework conditions
(climate, socio6economic situation, knowledge on organic agriculture, etc." often differ
substantially from the situation within the EU. 0his is particularly the case in developing
countries where a functioning legal structure or access to advisory services is not always
given. 0he import procedures have to reflect these different conditions while at the same
time ensuring the same level of assurance of conformity but also a timely delivery of the
products at a reasonable cost. 0o evaluate the ade8uacy of the import procedures,
available publications and documents were reviewed, an import case study was carried out
and a web6based stakeholder survey was conducted complemented by semi6structured
interviews with European )ommission representatives, recognised control bodies and
importers.
(2" he control system is 'or is not+ effective
1hile the first criterion is focussing on the general concept of the import regime, the
second criterion deals with the effectiveness of controls, i.e. the concrete output of a
specific element of the import regime. $urthermore, this criterion also addresses the
8uestion of whether public institutions involved in supervising control bodies are
functioning effectively (or not" focussing on the specific challenges related to supervision of
operations in third countries. &eans for assessing this criterion were scientific literature
(e.g. results from EU6funded )E:0)9'06pro@ect" and other documents from European and
private bodies, the results of the import case study and a stakeholder survey which was
complemented by semi6structured interviews with European )ommission representatives,
recognised control bodies and importers. It is worth noting that the difficulties to assess the
effectiveness of controls as pointed out in )hapter 5 also apply for controls in third
countries.

*!5 )hapter 2 #de8uacy of the import regime

(/" Consumers have 'or have not+ confidence that the import regime assures conformity of
organic products imported from third countries regime *ith organic products produced in
the E,
$rom a market perspective, it is essential that consumers can trust organic products from
third countries as being produced and controlled in an e8uivalent way as organic products
from the EU. If this is not the case, the import regime would not be ade8uate. In order to
assess consumer confidence in products from third countries, the results of the consumer
survey from the si% study countries were used (see )hapter * for details".
9.- %esults
9.-.1 Adequacy of the import procedures
In the following, the results of the ade8uacy of the import procedures are described. $irst,
information about the general feasibility and problems related to the import procedure focussing
on the e8uivalence approach is presented. 'ubse8uently, findings with regard to the ade8uacy of
the three specific import procedures ensuring e8uivalence (import authorisation, recognition of
third countries, recognition of control bodies operating in third countries" are described.
9.-.1.1 Adequacy of the import procedure in general
%iews of stakeholders
0he response of stakeholders to the web6based survey indicates that the rules and procedures of
the import regime are in general perceived as e8uivalent with the EU re8uirements and thus
meet the same ob@ectives and principles as the regulatory re8uirements within the EU. #lmost
half of the surveyed stakeholder agreed totally or largely that the production and processing
standards for imported organic products are e8uivalent to the EU re8uirements (see 0able 2.2".
In order to e%press differences between stakeholder groups, individual ratings were transformed
in a seven6point metric ranging from E/ (total agreement" to 6/ (total disagreement" with
indicating neither agreement nor disagreement. 0he mean value of the metric was *./. 9n
average, e8uivalence was particularly positively assessed by control bodies (*.;", producers (*.3",
processors (*.(", whereas competent authorities (*.2", organic operator organisations (*.*" and
governmental authorities (.;" were more reluctant in their agreement.
)hapter 2 #de8uacy of the import regime *!2

a!le 9.2" Fiews of stakeholders regarding the e8uivalence of organic standards and
controls in third countries compared to EU re8uirements

'ource? 9wn data from web6based stakeholder survey?
#s far as the equivalence of the control system is concerned, !* 4 of the stakeholders agreed
that the system is e8uivalent to EU re8uirements. 0he mean value was *.* where again the
control bodies (*.!" and producers (*.(" had the highest agreement whereas competent
authorities (*.", organic operator organisations (.;" and governmental authorities (.3" agreed
only partly.
Interestingly, survey participants were much more sceptical whether the procedures to follo* up
on suspected or detected irregularities of imported products are ade8uate to ensure fair
competition and functioning of the internal market. #s shown in 0able 2.2, only (34 agreed with
that, while /(4 disagree. <roducers largely agreed (mean value *./" whereas the ma@ority partly
agreed (mean value of all stakeholders .2". 0he most critical @udgement came from
governmental authorities (./".
&indings from the review of publications
#ccording to :egulation (E)" *2/3725 the release of products from third countries for free
circulation in the EU re8uires that products are accompanied by an original certificate of
inspection at customs when entering the EU. 0o be accepted, the certificate of inspection must
have been issued by a control body recognised through an import authorisation by a &ember
'tates authority (<rocedure *" or

by the control authority or control body from a recognised third
country (<rocedure 2" or by a recognised control authority or control body in the third country
(<rocedure /".
-


-
'ee #rticle */(2" to (;" and #nne% F of :egulation (E)" *2/3725 for details.
n // !( (* 3 25 * ; *!
' () *( +, + (- . * /
n / 3 (/ * 22 *5 ! *5
' (. +. +( . (- 0 * 1
n *! (2 /2 ** / 2( *3 /(
' 1 +( () . (. (+ / ()
2uestion3 4lease indicate the degree of !our personal agreement to each of the following statements.
totally
0he production and processing
standards for imported organic products
are e8uivalent to the EU re8uirements
0he control system for imported
organic products is e8uivalent to the
EU re8uirements
In case of suspected or detected irre6
gularities of imported organic products?
the e%isting procedures are ade8uate to
ensure fair competition and functioning
of the EU internal market
Agree .isagree I don/t
0no*
1either2
nor
totally largely partly partly largely
*; )hapter 2 #de8uacy of the import regime

,euendorff (2;" reported, irrespective of import procedures, that EU6importers perceived the
e%isting model of the certificate of inspection as a !urden, mainly because administrative
procedures implemented by control bodies in third countries are slow and the procedure is
paper6based (no electronic database so far". Importers and the first recipient of organic products
from third countries need to be defined before the import of the organic products takes place. If
there is a change, the certificate must be re6issued by the control body or control authority
operating in the third country.
5esults of the import case stud! anal!sis
#ccording to the results of the interviews carried out in the import case study, import companies
as well as control bodies state that the certificate of inspection does not allow the EU import
company to ensure full tracea!ility of organic products, because only the e%port company and
the latest processor in the third country are mentioned, but not, e.g., the farm(s" where the raw
material is produced. $or this reason, importers often consider the traceability of organic
products in third countries as not fully ade8uate.
9.-.1.2 Adequacy of the import procedure !ased on granting import
authorisations to importers '#rocedure 1+
&indings from the anal!sis of provisions
0he import procedures based on granting authorisations to importers are regulated by
transitional rules set out in #rticle *2 of :egulation (E)" *2/3725. $or issuing an import
authorisation a certificate of inspection from a control body is needed. )ompetent authorities
decide whether the control system deems to be e8uivalent with EU re8uirements. 0here are no
EU rules on how a control body has to prove its competency and how supervision of a control
body has to be guaranteed. ,ational competent authorities (e.g. +ermany" usually re8uire an I'9
!3 accreditation
4
of control bodies or an e8uivalent assessment as proof for technical
competence, impartiality and professional integrity. 'ince =uly 2*2, import authorisations are
only granted for products that are not certified by a recognised control body or originated from a
recognised third country. #s the implementing regulation for imports sets out, e%isting
authorisations shall e%pire on * =uly 2*( at latest and &ember 'tates may not grant new
authorisations beyond that date.

4
I'9 !3 is an international 8uality norm for certification bodies operating a product certification system. 0his
standard has been revised recently by I'97IE) *;!3.
'ee? http?77www.iso.org7iso7home7newsHinde%7newsHarchive7news.htmIrefidJ:ef*!3;
)hapter 2 #de8uacy of the import regime *;*

6ata on requests for import authorisations
#s a result of the implementation of the import procedure based on recognised control bodies,
one could e%pect that the number of import authorisations decreased. In fact, data from the
9rganic $arming Information 'ystem (9$I'"
3
shows that the number of issued authorisations
dropped from (3 for the period *.*.2*2 to /*./.2*2 to *25 for the same period in 2*/.
>etween *.*.2*/ to 2*.!.2*/, ((2 import authorisations were granted K mainly for cacao,
coffee, tea, a8uaculture products, bee products, wine and fresh and processed herbs, fruit and
vegetables (see 0able 2./". )onsidering that import authorisations are only re8uested for imports
not covered by the other two import procedures (i.e. <rocedure 2 and /", the number is however
still relatively high.
9n the basis of the re8uested import authorisations, four main reasons can be deduced why
import authorisations were re8uested?
$irst, because certain products were not covered by the scope of recognised countries. $or
e%ample, this was the case for imports of wine from #rgentina or a8uaculture products from
)hina.
'econd, because no control body has been recognised so far to carry out controls and issue
certificates of inspections in a certain country. 0his was the case for imports of spices from
&yanmar.
0hird, because the control body carrying out the control was not recognised by the
)ommission, although other control bodies operating in this country were recognised. 0his
was the main reason for re8uesting import authorisation in the first half of the year 2*/.
#nd fourth, the recognition for a third country or control body has been withdrawn and
issued certificates were no longer sufficient for e%ports. 0his was e.g. the case for India where
the recognition for processed agricultural products for use as food was withdrawn in spring
2*/, which led to a situation where no control body operating in the country was directly
recognised by the )ommission and subse8uently numerous import authorisations were
issued.
# key 8uestion in this conte%t is whether the phasing out of the import authorisations will have a
negative impact on imports from third countries or not. <ossible effects can be deduced on the
basis of theoretical considerations. 0he first reason will probably become less relevant in the
future, since the EU implemented rules for wine production in 2*2 and it can be e%pected that
control bodies will e%tend their scope. 0he might also be valid for a8uaculture where the rules
came into force in 2*. #s far as the second reason is concerned, it can be e%pected that such
products will be certified by recognised control bodies only or similar products will be imported
from other countries where recognised control bodies are operating. # similar shift is also likely
with regard to the third reason. In all three cases, little negative effects on the supply of products

3
'ee http?77ec.europa.eu7agriculture7ofisHpublic7inde%.cfmL 'wiss import authorisations have been e%cluded.
*;2 )hapter 2 #de8uacy of the import regime

from third countries can be e%pected. 0here are however few specific cases, where the phasing
out of the import authorisation could lead to a certain market failure. 0his could happen, if food
specialities are produced in only certain countries, no substitutes e%ist in other countries and
where control bodies have no incentive to re8uest for a recognition to carry out controls (e.g.
because it is not economically viable even if a demand for such products e%ist". <roblems could
also occur, if recognised control bodies are not able or not willing to e%pand their activities even
if a demand for such products e%ists. # further case is the withdrawal of the recognition of third
countries or control bodies or limitations of scopes granted earlier as in the case of India.
1ithdrawals bear the risk of trade distortion depending on the trade volume affected.
a!le 9.-" ,umber of import authorisations per product group notified in the period
*.*.62*.!.2*/

'ource? 9wn calculation based on 9$I'.
&indings from the review of publications
1eaknesses in the system used for granting import authorisations were identified by the
European )ourt of #uditors (2*2", who stated that it is Cextremel! difficult to ensure a
harmoni7ed approach b! the competent authorities (8) when issuing import authorisationsD.
0hey further noted that C"ember #tates do not activel! check whether control bodies charged
with issuing the certificates of inspection keep their accreditation up to date and whether the
scope of the accreditation provided is pertinent to ensure equivalence with 9: standardsD.
$urthermore only documentary checks are done and none of the &ember 'tates carry out on6
the6spot inspections. 0he report finally concluded that the )ommission does not have access to
sufficient reliable data to be able to assess whether import authorisations granted by &embers
'tates satisfy the conditions established by the :egulation.
)oncerns about the different interpretation of rules in third countries were mentioned by )oli
(2*2". 'he argued (from the control bodiesB perspective" that under the procedure based on
#roducts E4amples
1ine 6 /2
>ee products Honey, pollen 25
#8uaculture products #lgae products, spirulina, chlorella, shrimps (
and seaweed
<rocessed fruit .ried fruit, pulp, @uice (/
9ther process products 'oy bean flower (3
)acao, coffee 6 (;
0ea +reen and black tea 3*
9ther products Herbs, fresh fruit and vegetables or import authoriMations *(2
comprising of various products of the categories above
otal 442
1um!er of import authorisations
)hapter 2 #de8uacy of the import regime *;/

import authorisations, control bodies operating in third countries with the same agronomic
conditions, took different decisions about conversion period reduction, on derogations for the
use of non6organic seeds or on use of non6organic agricultural ingredients. Fery often lower
re8uirements were used to achieve a competitive advantage over competing control bodies. 0he
conse8uence of this was according to )oli (ibid" that Cimported organic products, even if certified
b! control bodies and authorised b! 9: $ompetent ;uthorities, were not managed in equivalent
s!stems.D $rom that she concluded that there is a need for more transparency and clear specific
instructions for control bodies.
)oncerns with regard to unfair competition were also reported by #bay et al. (2**" who carried
out a focus group discussion with stakeholders to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the
import procedure based on recognised control bodies compared to granting import
authorisations. 'takeholders stressed particularly the problem that &ember 'tates apply
different approaches for issuing import authorisations and that it is difficult or very time
consuming in some &ember 'tates to get an import permit.
9.-.1.2 Adequacy of the import procedure !ased on recognition of third
countries '#rocedure 2+
&indings from the anal!sis of provisions
:egulation (E)" 5/;72; allows the import of organic products from non6EU countries, if the
country is included in the )ommissionBs list of third countries, which re8uires that the national
organic legislation in these countries complies with principles and production rules e8uivalent to
the EU rules and that the control measures are of e8uivalent effectiveness. 0he procedure for
re8uesting inclusion is defined in #rticle 5 of :egulation (E)" *2/3725. #ccordingly, the third
country has to submit a technical dossier, which includes among others?
the production standards appliedL and
the control system applied in the third country, including the monitoring and supervisory
activities carried out by the competent authorities.
)urrently, ** countries are included in the list of third countries. #s shown in 0able 2.(,
recognition is specified for particular product categories. Unprocessed plant products, processed
agricultural food products and vegetative propagating materials and seeds for cultivation may be
imported from all third countries included in the list, whereas e%ceptions e%ist e.g. with regard to
seaweed and wine. $urthermore some third countries are also recognised with regard to live
animals or unprocessed animal products as well as processed agricultural feed products. 0he list
further specifies the origin of recognised products. $or most third countries the EU recognises
only those products that have been produced within the third country but not the ones
*;( )hapter 2 #de8uacy of the import regime

imported.
5
9nly for Israel, 'witMerland and U'# imported products are accepted if certain
conditions are met.
a!le 9.4" Nist of third countries and relevant specifications

'ource? 9wn aggregation of information provided in #nne% I of :egulation (E)" 3572*2 and :egulation (E)" *2372*/
amending #nne% III of :egulation (E)" *2/3725.
&indings from the review of publications
<roblems with regard to the import regime based on the recognised third countries were
identified in the )E:0)9'06pro@ect. #bay et al. (2**" reported that some recognised third
countries are occasionally e%porting certified products which are fraudulent. 0his problem was
also addressed by the European )ourt of #uditors who concluded in their report that Cthe
$ommission does not have sufficient information to satisf! itself that the control s!stem for
organic production in third countries recognised as equivalent continues to fulfil the regulator!
requirements as long as the! keep this status (European )ourt of #uditors, 2*2".
# critical note on the third countries list was given by >all (2*2" from the I$9#& EU +roup if the
recognition is based on a bilateral agreement. He remarked with regard to the bilateral
agreement recognising the U' ,ational 9rganic <rogram and the EU legislation on organic
farming as being e8uivalent that such agreements improve prospects for trade but also bear the
risk of market distortions. He illustrated this concern by the following two e%amples? CThe :#
<=4 list of permitted additives contains several additives such as Tragacanth >um which are not
permitted in the 9: regulations. Therefore :# processors could make an organic product
containing Tragacanth >um and sell it in the 9: but 9: manufacturers could not produce and sell

5
If, for e%ample, a company in )osta :ica produces chocolate and all the ingredients are originated from )osta :ica, the
product would be recognised. 9n the contrary, if only one ingredient, e.g. milk powder, has been imported, the product
would not be in the scope of the third country recognition.
,nprocessed 6ive animals or Aquaculture #rocessed agric. #rocessed agric. 7egetative prop.
plant products
a
unprocessed products and products for use products for use material and seeds
animal products sea*eeds as food
!
as feed for cultivation
#rgentina
#ustralia
)anada
)ost6:ica
India
Israel
=apan
'witMerland
0unesia
United 'tates
,ew Oealand
a" 'eaweed not included apart from )anada and U'#.
b" 1ine not included apart from U'#.
)hapter 2 #de8uacy of the import regime *;3

the same product. #imilarl! the addition of $alcium $arbonate to food as a source of calcium is
permitted in the :# organic rules, but 9: organic regulations onl! allow it where addition is
required b! other 9: legislation.D 0o maintain trust in the light of such concerns, he stressed that
Cthe process whereb! equivalence is developed must be transparent. deall! it must be monitored
and reported on publicall! b! the $ommission and the "ember #tates who conduct equivalence
assessments.D 0he re8uest for more transparency for the assessment of e8uivalent standards has
also been raised by various stakeholders (#$I, 2**L E9)), 2**".
8
#nother problem was
mentioned by the )ommission who stated that the bilateral e8uivalence system is arriving at its
limits in terms of administrative burden
9
and for resources so a plea was made to move towards
multilateral agreements (European )ommission, 2*2".
0he European )ourt of #uditors identified weaknesses in the management of the list of
e8uivalent third countries caused by the fact that the )ommissions resources for treating
re8uests of inclusion in the list of e8uivalent third countries is inade8uate. #n e%ample given was
that out of 23 applications for inclusion in the list of e8uivalent third countries received between
2 and 2** only 5 could be e%amined (European )ourt of #uditors, 2*2".
9.-.1.- Adequacy of the import procedure !ased on recognition of control
!odies '#rocedure -+
&indings from the anal!sis of provisions
$or products not imported from a recognised third country, #rticle //(/" of :egulation (E)"
5/(72; lays down that the )ommission may recognise control bodies competent to carry out
controls and issue certificates of inspection in third countries. $or the recognition, control bodies
have to submit a technical dossier, which includes among others?
an overview of the activities of the control body in the third countryL
a description of the production standards and control measures applied in the third countries,
including an assessment of the e8uivalence of these standardsL and
a copy of the assessment report issued by an assessment body
9
confirming performance of
the control body and the e8uivalence of the implemented production standards and control
measures.

8
0he E9)) called for e8uivalency criteria to be made public to indicate which elements where non6negotiable baselines
for e8uivalency, both for #nne% IF and for #nne% III. 0he E9)) also asked for a base line for control body standards.
0hey raised concern on the reliability of the overall system in the absence of clarity on e8uivalency criteria.
9
# key challenge for the )ommission is to ensure continued e8uivalence considering the rapid growth of the sector and
the dynamics of the legislation.
9
#ssessment bodies are e.g. competent authorities (either of the third country concerned or of a &ember 'tate",
national accreditation body with competence in organic agriculture or an international supervisory or accreditation
body that is specialiMed in organic agriculture.
*;! )hapter 2 #de8uacy of the import regime

>ecause control bodies cannot refer to the EU :egulation as applied standard but have to submit
a standard e8uivalent, each of these standards is assessed individually by the )ommission. 'ingle
regional standards e8uivalent with EU rules are not foreseen in the import rules. 9nce a control
body has been recognised, it needs to undergo regular on6the6spot evaluation, surveillance and
multiannual re6assessment of their activities by an assessment body.
#ccording to #nne% IF of :egulation (E)" 3272*2, 3/ control bodies have been so far
recognised to carry out controls and issue certificates of inspection in third countries that are all
together operating in *2! non6EU &ember 'tates (see also 0able 2.3".
a!le 9.3" ,umber of countries where at least one control body is recognised to carry out
controls and issue certificates of inspection in third countries differentiated for
individual product categories

'ource? 9wn aggregation of information provided in #nne% II of :egulation (E)" 3572*2 amending #nne% IF of
:egulation (E)" *2/3725.
&indings from the review of publications
Fery little published evidences were identified about the ade8uacy of the procedure based on
recognised control bodies. 0his is not a surprise, since this import procedure has been
implemented very recently. 0he new approach is welcomed by several stakeholders mainly
because it is e%pected to create a more level playing field for all actors involved in organic trade
(E9)), 2*2, -alter, 2*2". However, some concerns with regard to degree of e8uivalence and
management of the import procedure where e%pressed before the implementation of the new
import regime. #bby et al. (2**" reported e.g. that stakeholders were concerned whether the
#frica /; ** * /! * 2
#sia
a
/ ** / /* * *
Europe *5 * * *; * (
9ceania 2 2 5
,orth #merica * *
'outh #merica
b
2/ *! ! 22 / /
otal 3: 11 113 5 1:
a
Including &iddle East.
b
Including )aribbean and )entral #merica.
c
'ome products are e%cepted, see #nne% IF of :egulation (E)" 3272*2 for details.e%ceptions apply.
119
,nprocessed
plant products
c
6ive animals or
unprocessed
animal products
Aquaculture
products and
sea*eeds
#rocessed agric.
products for use
as food
c
#rocessed agric.
products for use
as feed
7egetative prop.
material and seeds
for cultivation
)hapter 2 #de8uacy of the import regime *;;

new approach would result in a common interpretation of e8uivalency.
1:
# similar concern was
also voiced by the European 9rganic )ertifiers )ouncil (E9))" who criticised in 2*2 that it is not
yet defined which degree of variation is possible when applying e8uivalence for certain
production rules (E9)), 2*2". $urthermore, -alter (2*2" e%pected that 3 to ! recognised
control bodies are insufficient to cover all countries involved in providing material for the
European market without providing more details why this will be the case and which material are
likely not to be covered.
It is worth noting that an International 0ask $orce on HarmoniMation and E8uivalence (I0$" and
later on the +lobal 9rganic &arket #ccess (+9&#" pro@ect, an initiative run by U,)0#., $#9 and
I$9#&, have been working on minimiMing potential trade distortive effects by mutual
recognition7e8uivalence of organic standards7regulations. 1ithin the pro@ect the elaboration of
various regional standards was supported. #s a result of this pro@ect 0warog (2*/"
recommended that technical standards should not be embedded in their entirety in the
legislation itself but kept separate and linked to the regulation7legislation by reference. >y doing
so, control bodies would have the possibility to apply regional standards and trade barriers could
be reduced, which may improve the flow of goods. ,ot a regional but an international
e8uivalence standard has been developed by #ccredited )ertification >odies (22". 0he
AE8uivalent European Union 9rganic <roduction P <rocessing 'tandard for 0hird )ountriesB
combines, rationalises and simplifies :egulation (E)" 5/(722 and the more detailed
implementing rules in :egulation (E)" 552725 and adapts them for use in third countries.
#ccording to ,icolls (2*/", representing the International #ccredited )ertification >odies (I#)>",
*( control bodies approved by the EU are applying this standard though according to current
procedures the standard has to be submitted by each control body individually.
It is further worth noting that importers e%pected that they have to intensify their own 8uality
management system in order to compensate the reduced overview7checks by the &ember
'tates competent authorities (under the import authorisation procedure" when certificates are
issued by recognised control bodies (#bay et al., 2**".
9.-.2 Effectiveness of the control system for imported organic products
1hile the previous section was focussing on the general concept applied to assure conformity of
organic products imported from third countries with EU re8uirements, this section deals with the
effectiveness of two specific elements of the control system? a" controls in third countries and b"

1:
0he 8uestionnaire included a prioritisation of the issues and concerns. ;; stakeholders completed the 8uestionnaire.
&ost respondents came from Europe with importers, governmental authorities and certification bodies being the most
relevant stakeholder groups. &ore than ;4 of the respondents had a more than si% year professional e%perience in
organic imports or certification, respectively.
*;5 )hapter 2 #de8uacy of the import regime

supervision of control bodies carrying out controls and issuing certificates of inspection in third
countries.
9.-.2.1 Effectiveness of controls in general
&indings from the review of publications
.ata on residue analyses of organic products from EU and third countries provide a first insight to
assess the effectiveness of the control system in third countries. 'uch an analysis focussing on
the organic products sold on the +erman market has been carried out by the +erman federal
state >aden 1Qrttemberg (&N:F, 2**". #s shown in 0able 2.!, the highest number of
irregularities has been found in the period 22 to 2** in products from Italy (2.2 4 of samples
taken", followed by Egypt (2.* 4", +reece (5.2 4" and #rgentina (3.! 4". 0here is no indication
that imported products have more often residue findings indicating irregularities. However, the
number of samples per country varied and was not representative. $urthermore, it is important
to keep in mind that the threshold applied by >aden61Qrttemberg does not prove that a product
is compliant K it @ust proves that the sample has no residues (irregularities are not only relating to
pesticide applications and proper application of pesticides does not necessarily lead to residues
in products".
a!le 9.5" Identified irregularities in unprocessed organic foods sold on the +erman
market between 22 and 2**, differentiated by country of origin

'ource? &N:F (2**".

Country of origin
+ermany * **3 2.
Italy !;2 2.2
'pain /5/ (.2
Israel *// 2./
0he ,etherlands */ /.5
$rance 22 6
'outh #frica 32 /.(
+reece 3! 5.2
Egypt (( 2.*
#rgentina /! 3.!
&orocco 25 /.!
9ther
b"
/(2 (.
otal - :98 4.4
a" .ue to deception or e%ceedance of the &inistry.
b" 9ther countries and unknown origin.
1um!er of samples $amples *ith irregularities
a"
';+
)hapter 2 #de8uacy of the import regime *;2

Information about the effectiveness of controls in third countries is also provided by various
publications. Huber (2*2" and ,euendorff (2*2" for e%ample reported about stakeholder
discussions carried under the roof of the #nti6$raud Initiative
11
, an initiative that aims to improve
cross border communication among inspection and certification bodies, trade companies, label
organisations and authorities to strengthen organic integrity. 0he discussions among the e%perts
show that fraud prevention does not need a new control system or stricter rules. 1hat is
necessary is to improve enforcement of organic regulations. 'imilar conclusions were also drawn
by I$9#& (I$9#&, 2*2".
5esults of the fraud case anal!sis
9ne approach to assess the effectiveness of controls is the analysis of fraud cases. 0here is no
systematic documentation on fraud cases in third countries publicly available, but useful insights
can be derived from recent fraud cases in the EU. 0he two recent fraud cases detected in Italy,
A+atto con gli stivaliB (see )hapter 5 for further details" and A+reen 1arB ($eder>io, 2*/", show
that detection of fraud cases is facilitated when public structures are cross6linked with those
involved in organic controls, i.e. when data transfers between different public bodies and cross6
checks are possible. In both cases, there was strong criminal intention to evade ta%.
)onse8uently, they have been investigated and made public by the Italian +uardia $inanMia and
not by the organic control system.
5esults of the import case stud! anal!sis
In the import case study, carried out in the framework of this evaluation, three suspicious cases
with organic banana, tea and soybeans were analysed. #lthough all three products were
imported based on an import authorisation, the findings of the case study can be applied to the
other import procedures as well. 0he results of the case study do not indicate that the control
system in third countries is generally ineffective. However, the suspicious cases illustrate an
insufficient implementation of preventive measures and a lack of enforcement of risk6orientated
control measures by control bodies operating in third countries. >oth lead to an enhanced risk of
import of non6compliant products into the EU.
#ccording to the stakeholders interviewed, a limited knowledge of organic farming techni8ues is
a common and high risk. 9rganic production of banana, tea and coffee in third countries is often
based on Aorganic farming by neglectB (organic tea" or Aorganic farming by replacement of inputsB
(organic banana, organic soybean". A9rganic farming by neglectB describes a production system
based on the non6use of prohibited inputs, but without implementing supportive techni8ues, e.g.
to improve soil fertility or strengthening plant and animal health to reduce the vulnerability to
diseases or other negative effects. $armers operating Aorganic farming by replacement of inputsB
do often not understand that organic farming re8uires more than using approved fertiliMers and
pesticides, e.g. a change in crop rotation and in soil fertility management. >oth approaches are

11
'ee www.organic6integrity.org7.
*5 )hapter 2 #de8uacy of the import regime

not appropriate for organic farming and increase the risk of using prohibited inputs. 0he
stakeholder interviews revealed that one of the most important preventive actions on farm level
is to ensure sufficient training of farmers before they become certified. 'uch trainings assure that
farmers and operators along the subse8uent supply chain (processors, e%porters" can identify
areas where the organic product is at particular risk and implement preventive measures to avoid
these risks. However, in many third countries, it is still difficult for farmers to get access to
specific organic advisory services or trainings (,euendorff, 2!".
# number of stakeholders confirmed that the control measures currently implemented are often
not fully ade8uate to address the specific risks for organic integrity. 0he use of unannounced
inspections and 8uick follow6up inspections in case of suspect and non6compliances, laboratory
analysis during the production phase (e.g. leaf analysis, input analysis, dust analysis of storage
facilities" is uncommon in many third countries. .etection of the risk of non6compliances in third
countries was considered by different stakeholders as being substantially lower than in the EU
&ember 'tates for all three value chains.
9.-.2.2 Effectiveness of controls of different import procedures
%iews of stakeholders
In the web6based survey, stakeholders were asked to assess the effectiveness of the control
system for imported organic products. >elow the results are shown differentiating between the
three import procedures and stakeholder groups.
#s shown in 0able 2.;, about 35 4 of the surveyed control authorities and control bodies (3
participants in total" assessed the import authorisations as being effective while 2 4 perceived
it as only slightly or not at all effective (average mean value *.;". 0here were some variations
among the countries, for +ermany, being the country issuing the most import authorisations, the
mean value for import authorisations was 2. whereas the &editerranean countries rated in
average *.* and )entral and Eastern European countries *.;.
&ore than two6thirds perceived the control system in recognised third countries as effective and
* 4 only as slightly effective. 0he mean value for the third country list was 2. varying between
*.; ()entral and Eastern European countries" and 2.* (&editerranean countries".
9nly ( 4 assessed the new systems with recognised control !odies as being effective, 2!
perceived it as only slightly or not at all effective. $or the recognition of control bodies the mean
value was 2.* with a rather moderating rating in +ermany (*.(" and in the &editerranean
countries (*.!". >y contrast, )entral and Eastern European countries assessed the effectiveness as
e%tremely effective (2.!". However, this result is based on only si% individual ratings and one may
to bear in mind that )entral and Eastern European countries are importing relatively few organic
products from third countries.
)hapter 2 #de8uacy of the import regime *5*

a!le 9.8" Fiews of control bodies and authorities regarding the effectiveness of the
control system for imported organic products (mean value"

'ource? 9wn data from web6based stakeholder survey.
#mong the surveyed importers (*( participants in total", ;2 4 assessed both the import
authorisations as well as the third country list as effective. #bout 2* 4 assessed the system with
recognised control !odies to be effective regarding controls. 0he low rate needs to be
considered against the background, that this procedure has been implemented recently.
<resumably for this reasons, !( 4 were not able to give an assessment (see 0able 2.5".
a!le 9.9" Fiews of importers regarding the effectiveness of the control system for
imported organic products

'ource? 9wn data from web6based stakeholder survey.
n * *; 2 * **
' + ++ *- (1 + ++
n ( *( *! 3 **
' 1 +1 *+ (, ++
n ! ( * *2 * *;
' (+ 1 +, +- + *-
$or imports from countries listed on
the third country Nist
$or imports certified by regime control
bodies recognised for their operations
in third countries (new system"
$or imports based on import
authorisation
2uestion3 ?ow effective is the control s!stem for imported organic products to ensure fair competition and functioning of the
9:@internal market?
**
e%tremely very moderately slightly
I don<t
0no*
1ot at all
effective
Effective
n * 3 ( 2 2
' / *) +0 (- (-
n ! ( 2 2
' -* +0 (- (-
n * 2 2 2
' / (- (- )-
2uestion3 ?ow effective is the control s!stem for imported organic products to ensure fair competition and functioning of the 9:@internal
market?
$or imports based on import
authorisation
$or imports from countries listed on
the third country Nist
$or imports certified by regime control
bodies recognised for their operations
in third countries (new system"
Effective
1ot at all
effective
I don<t
0no*
e%tremely very moderately slightly
*52 )hapter 2 #de8uacy of the import regime

&indings from the review of publications
#s far as irregularities are concerned, it is interesting to note that the +erman competent
authority was able to follow up and close ;3 out of * reported irregularities originating from
other EU &ember 'tates or recognised third countries, whereas for irregularities reported on
products imported according to #rticle //(/" of :egulation (E)" 5/(72; (recognised control
!odies" and #rticle *2 of :egulation (E)" *2/3725 (import authorisations" this was possible
only for 23 notifications out of !5 (>NE, 2*/". 0he likely reason is that for countries with
competent authorities a contact partner is available and there is usually a better flow of
information. )ompetent authorities in recognised third countries or EU &ember 'tates have a
direct contact to the control bodies approved by them. )ontrary to this, the supervisory bodies
responsible for the supervision of control bodies covered by #rticle //(/" (control bodies
operating e8uivalent systems in third countries" and #rticle *2 (import authorisations" are not
involved in the system of information e%change for irregularities operated between the &ember
'tates, the )ommission and the third countries control bodies.
9.-.2.- Effectiveness of supervision
&indings from the anal!sis of provisions
#s described in 'ection 2./.*.2, there are no EU rules on how supervision of a control body is
guaranteed under the procedure based on import authorisations. In fact, however, the re8uest
for import authorisations allowed the competent authorities to get an insight into inspection and
certification practices of a control body and to easily intervene (i.e. not issuing an import
authorisation" if doubts e%ist on the e8uivalence with re8uirements or on the effectiveness of
controls.
'upervision of control bodies from recognised third countries is carried out by the national
competent authorities. 0he ade8uacy of the implemented supervisory system is assessed
annually by the )ommission on the basis of the annual reports of the recognised third countries
which among others describe the monitoring and supervisory activities carried out, the results
obtained and corrective measures taken.
%ecognised control !odies are supervised by the assessment bodies and the )ommission.
#ccording to #rticle *2 of :egulation (E)" *2/3725, the control body has to send annually a
report to the )ommission that describe in particular the control activities carried out by the
control body or control authority in the third countries in the previous year, the results obtained,
the irregularities and infringements observed and the corrective measures taken. $urthermore
the annual report has to contain the most recent assessment report or update of such report,
which includes the regular on6the6spot evaluation, surveillance and multiannual reassessment.
)hapter 2 #de8uacy of the import regime *5/

#lthough assessment bodies play a key role in supervising recognised control bodies operating in
third countries, there is no defined relationship or stream of communication defined in the
:egulation between the )ommission and the assessment bodies. 0he import guidelines describe
in this respect only the minimum re8uirements for the surveillance and the assessment reports
that are submitted by the control bodies to the )ommission. 0he European )ooperation for
#ccreditation (E#" has elaborated A+uidelines on the #ccreditation of 9rganic <roduction
)ertificationB (European )ooperation for #ccreditation, 2*/" as encouraged by the EU in the
import guidelines.
&indings from the review of publications
0he review of literature reveals some general shortcomings of the supervision of control bodies
that are not related to a specific import procedure. ,euendorff (2;", for e%ample, reported
that control authorities and control bodies see specific risks in the lack of e%pertise for
accreditation of control bodies operating in third countries without referring to a specific import
procedure. $urthermore, some actors have further mentioned the varying 8uality of
accreditation of control bodies operating in third countries as a problem, e.g. missing witness
audits, missing know6how in organic agriculture and the missing cooperation among control
bodies operating in third countries (ibid". .abbert (2**" recommended based on the results of
the )E:0)9'06pro@ect that there is generally a need to harmonise supervision of the certification
system, approval of control bodies, and data collection, as well as specifically to strengthen
supervision in third countries. He further suggested a concerted action of accreditation bodies
involved, e.g. by drawing up codes of +ood <ractice as encouraged by the EU )ommission to
improve this situation.
)oncerns with regard to the surveillance of recognised control bodies were addressed in several
stakeholder position papers. #$I (2**" and I$9#& (2*/" pointed out that it is necessary to
strengthen the surveillance of certification since there are no cross checks of single imports by
national competent authorities anymore as it is the case for import authorisations. 0he E9))
(2*2" concluded that the main challenges concerning the import procedure based on recognised
control bodies lies in the shift of roles and responsibilities towards the )ommission. #s a result,
the E9)) e%pects a need for additional labour resources at the level of the )ommission and
assessment bodies. 1ith the end of import authorisations, the role of competent authorities is
strongly reduced and with that, an important security lock has to be replaced. I$9#& (2*2" and
the E9)) (2*2" suggested that this could be facilitated by making it mandatory for control
bodies to disclose the e8uivalency standards, e.g. on their websites.
*5( )hapter 2 #de8uacy of the import regime

9.-.- Consumer confidence in imported organic products
5esults of the consumer surve!
0he results of the consumer survey show that the origin of organic products is an important
aspect for many (but not for all" consumers. #lmost every second participant of the consumer
survey considers the origin when buying organic products and ! 4 welcome the fact that the
new EU organic logo differentiates between AEU agricultureB and A,on6EU agricultureB.
)onsumersB knowledge of organic farming in third countries and the import re8uirements seems
however to be limited. $or e%ample, *( 4 of the respondents assumed that organic products
could legally not be imported from overseas and 2; 4 were not sure about it.
0he consumer survey reveals further that 23 4 of the test persons think that organic products
produced outside Europe are of the same 8uality as EU organic products, while /; 4 disagree
with this statement (mean value 6.(, see $igure 2.*". )omparing the 8uality of domestic organic
products with organic products from other EU6countries, ratings are slightly but not substantially
different? /* 4 agree and /* 4 disagree with the corresponding statement (mean value 6.*".
0his result is also reflected in the responses to the 8uestion whether participants are convinced
that regardless of the country of origin, all products labelled as organic are really organic. 9nly
/* 4 have this opinion, while 3 4 are sceptical and disagree (mean value 6./". However, this
scepticism refers to foreign organic products from within the EU as well as from third countries.
=igure 9.1" Fiews of consumers regarding trust in organic products coming from other
countries (&ean agreement with statements"

'ource? 9wn data from consumer survey.
I am convincing that, regardless of the
country of origin, all products labelled
as organic are really organic products
9rganic products from other European
countries are of the same 8uality as
organic domestic products
9rganic products produced outside of
Europe are of the same 8uality as
European products
0otally
disagree
0otally
agree
,either7
nor
6/ 62 6* E* E2 E/
#ll .E EE $: I0 <N U-
)hapter 2 #de8uacy of the import regime *53

9.4 >udgement and conclusions
>ased on the results presented in the section above, it is concluded that the import regime is
largely adequate in terms of achieving the glo!al o!?ectives of the %egulation !ut *ith
shortcomings in implementation, taking the following into account?
<rocedures of the import regime are generally ade8uate to assure conformity of organic
products imported from third countries. However some shortcomings were identified with
regard to the working resources re8uired to assess the e8uivalence at the )ommission and
varying interpretation of e8uivalency by the control bodies. $urthermore, importers complain
that procedures for issuing certificates of inspection implemented by some third country
control bodies are slow, compounded by the fact that they are paper6basedL
)ontrol systems implemented in some third countries displayed shortcomings in particular as
regards the application of specific preventive measures (e.g. training for operators" and risk6
orientated controls. 0here are also concerns about the supervision of control bodies
operating in third countries, in particular whether supervision is sufficient. $urthermore,
stakeholders have indicated that procedures to follow up on irregularities are not always
satisfactoryL and
)onsumers have some reservations towards organic products not produced in their country.
0his attitude does however not differ substantially between organic products from other EU6
countries and organic products from third countries.
.etailed considerations
In the last two decades, organic supply and distribution chains have become increasingly globally
organised and a large number of products sold on the EU market are imported. $or farmers and
consumers in the EU, it is important that organic products from third countries are produced
according to e8ual re8uirements and that the control systems ensure the same level of assurance
of conformity as within the EU. $urthermore, it is relevant that administrative procedures allow
for timely delivery of the products at a reasonable cost. 0he evaluation 8uestion e%amines to
what e%tent the import rules have been ade8uate to ensure an effective functioning of the
internal market, fair competition (considering the application of the e8uivalence principle" and
confidence of consumers.
0he evaluation is based on relevant publications and documents, the findings of an import case
study, the results from two web6based surveys targeting stakeholders and consumers and
complementary interviews with stakeholders.
;dequac! of the import regime with regard to the assessment of the equivalence
# key element of the import rules is the assessment of the e8uivalence of production and control
rules in third countries, whilst at the same time recognising that production conditions in
countries outside the EU can be different from those within the EU. 0he :egulation provides for
three different mechanisms for this purpose. $irstly, e8uivalency is recognised by the inclusion of
*5! )hapter 2 #de8uacy of the import regime

a country in the third country list (i.e. the national legislation of the country in 8uestion is
formally recognised as being e8uivalent to that of the EU". 'econdly, EU control bodies can be
authorised by the European )ommission to carry out controls in third countries. 0his latter
approach has been in force since =uly 2*2 and replaces the authorisation of individual imports
by &ember 'tate authorities at the re8uest of an importer located in the EU. 0his third option
was the most relevant procedure under the previous organic regulation and is due to be phased
out in =uly 2*(.
0he response of stakeholders to the web6based survey indicates that the rules and procedures of
the import regime are in general perceived as e8uivalent with the EU re8uirements. 0he analysis
of the individual import procedure however reveals some specific shortcomings.
0he import procedure based on recognised third countries seems to lead to ade8uate
assessments of the e8uivalence. 0he stakeholder criti8ue regarding this import procedure is
limited and concerns a lack of transparency in assessing e8uivalency in bilateral negotiations and
occasional problems related to fraudulent products imported from recognised third countries.
In contrast, a number of shortcomings were identified with respect to the import procedure
based on import authorisations. 0he review of literature shows that there are several concerns
with regard to varying interpretation of e8uivalency and different approaches for issuing import
authorisations which is mainly due to the fact that the recognition of e8uivalence is carried out
by different competent authorities of the &ember 'tates. <roblems with varying interpretation
of the e8uivalency were reported with respect to the interpretation of e%ceptional rules (e.g. use
of non6organic seeds or non6organic ingredients" and conversion rules (recognition of conversion
period prior application for certification". )onse8uently, the rules do not sufficiently prevent that
control bodies operating in third countries aim to achieve an advantage against competitors by
granting more fle%ibility for e%ceptions (e.g. less strict interpretation of conditions for separating
organic and conventional farm units or less strict interpretation of conversion period" and that
&ember 'tates authorities assess such conditions as being e8uivalent. #s long as all &ember
'tates are involved in assessing the e8uivalence, a harmonised assessment of the e8uivalence is
rather difficult, as the European )ourt of #uditors (2*2" argued. 'ince the procedure is not fully
ade8uate to ensure e8uivalent production and control conditions and therewith to ensure a fair
competition and the protection of consumer interests, it is concluded in this respect that phasing
out the possibility to grant import authorisations is ade8uate.
In )ouncil :egulation (E)" 5/(72;, the shortcomings associated with the import authorisation
have been addressed by introducing the new import procedure based on recognised control
bodies. 0his approach allows a harmonisation of the e8uivalent assessment by providing a
common and stricter framework and shifting responsibilities from the 2; &ember 'tates to the
)ommission. 0he review of literature shows that stakeholders generally acknowledge the
attempt to harmonise the assessment of e8uivalence but also see a need for more transparency
and clear specific instructions for control bodies. 'ome concerns were raised by individuals
(before the implementation of the new system" whether the recognition of control bodies results
)hapter 2 #de8uacy of the import regime *5;

in a common interpretation of e8uivalence. However, this general concern was not based on real
e%periences of the new system. In view of the recent implementation of this approach a firm
@udgment of its ade8uacy is not yet possible.
;dequac! of the import regime to ensure a smooth, continuous and timel! deliver! of product at
reasonable costs
# second key issue with regards to the import procedures is the 8uestion of whether they are
able to ensure smooth, continuous and timely delivery of imported products at a reasonable cost.
0he analysis has shown that some shortcomings e%ist regarding the administration of the import
regime itself and certain procedures implemented to issue certificates of inspection and different
custom procedures in &ember 'tates.
:egarding the administration of the list of recognised third countries, the )ourt of #uditors
(2*2" critically noted that there is a significant backlog in assessing applications for e8uivalence
caused by limited resources at the )ommission. 0he high administrative effort needed to
recognise the e8uivalence can be seen as one reason why only ** countries have been
recognised so far. 0he problem of administration is however not only limited to the recognition
itself but refers also to follow6up assessments of the e8uivalency when national legislation are
changed.
Nimited working capacities seems also to be a challenge for the recognition of (and on6going
supervision of recognised" control bodies operating in third countries. 'ince control bodies
cannot refer to the EU :egulation but have to submit a standard e8uivalent to EU rules within
their application for recognition, every standard has to be assessed individually and re8uires
working capacities. $urthermore, one may e%pect that even more working capacities are needed
at the )ommission if &ember 'tates may no longer grant import authorisations and therefore
the number of re8uests for recognition from control bodies are likely to increase.
#nother relevant 8uestion with regard to ensuring the smooth, continuous and timely delivery of
products is whether the new import system based on recognised control bodies is able to cover
all imports that have been administered or are still being administered by import authorisations.
#n analysis of 9$I' data on import authorisations showed that the number of import
authorisations dropped drastically when the procedure for recognised control bodies became
operational. Ret, during the first three months of 2*/, still *25 import authorisations were
issued by &ember 'tates which account for (( 4 of the respective period in 2*2 when the
procedure of recognised control bodies was not yet functional. # more detailed analysis of
import authorisations reveals that the phasing out of import authorisations will not likely have
immediate negative impacts on import flows. Instead it is more likely to assume that without
import authorisations additional control bodies will re8uest recognition or already recognised
control bodies will e%pand their activities. &arket disturbances are only likely in very specific
cases (e.g., the withdrawal of the recognition of third countries". # key 8uestion will be whether
the market mechanisms will properly function. 'ince it is difficult to fully anticipate the reactions
*55 )hapter 2 #de8uacy of the import regime

of the market in response to the phasing out of the import authorisations, it seems to be useful
to monitor the supply and to take ade8uate actions if market failures are observed.
# third issue with regard to ensuring smooth, continuous and timely delivery of product refers to
the procedures implemented to issue certificates of inspection, which needs to accompany a
product along its transport from the e%porting country to the destination in Europe. 9ne study
reported about complaints from importers that administrative procedures implemented by third
countries control bodies are slow and the paper6based procedure further slows down the
process. It is obvious that electronic procedures would allow a faster and less burdensome
procedure for international trade. However in view of the limited information identified in the
framework of this evaluation, a sound @udgement is not possible.
9ffectiveness of the control s!stem
0he control system in third countries has to ensure that production and processing of organic
food complies or e8ually complies with the EU rules. 0he data and information presented in
'ection 2./ provides no indication that the control system in third countries is, in general, less
effective than the control system in the EU. However, this also implies that some of the
shortcomings of the EU control system, as discussed in )hapter 5, are also true for controls in
third countries (e.g. deficits in the e%change of information between different authorities as
identified in the fraud case analysis".
0he specific re8uirements of an effective control system in third countries are illustrated by the
results of the import case study. #ccordingly, preventive measures (such as training for organic
operators aiming to empower them to identify specific risks", risk6based inspections or residue
sampling are an important means to address the specific risk for the organic integrity in third
countries, but which are still not very common. 0hese findings are in line with discussions carried
out under the roof of the #nti6$raud Initiative, which pointed out that fraud prevention does not
need stricter rules but a better enforcement of e%isting measures.
0he stakeholder survey addressed differences with regard to the effectiveness in the three
import procedures. #lthough the number of respondents was rather low, the results provide at
least some indications. #ccordingly, stakeholders do not perceive substantial differences with
regard to the effectiveness of controls in recognised third countries and in countries that use
import authorisation to place their products on the EU market. &ost stakeholders assess the
control systems as very or moderately effective. )ontrol systems in third countries are slightly
more positively assessed, which might be due to the fact that recognised third countries have a
functioning legal structure for surveillance of organic production and awareness of organic
agriculture is e%pected to be much higher than in countries with only a few organic operators.
'uch structures as well as the available know6how on organic agriculture and organic certification
are likely to reduce the risk of irregularities. 9nly few participants were of the opinion that the
control system based on recognised control bodies is effective. 0his result is certainly influenced
by the fact that the assessment was rather based on assumptions than on real e%periences, since
the survey was carried out si% months after the implementation of this import procedure.
)hapter 2 #de8uacy of the import regime *52

0he effectiveness of the control system is also determined by the supervision of control bodies.
$indings from the analysis of provisions show that the EU :egulation does not set specific rules
for the supervision of control bodies operating under the import regime based on recognised
third countries and import authorisations. However, the inclusion in the third country list
re8uires that third countries carry out ade8uate monitoring and supervision activities. Under the
regime of import authorisations, control bodies are implicitly supervised by &ember 'tates
authorities since they get an insight into the inspection and certification practises of control
bodies and may not issue an authorisation. 0he review of publications shows that less formalised
supervision systems may have a negative impact on the effectiveness of controls in third
countries. 0his problem has been addressed by the )ommission with the recognition of control
bodies and clear supervision guidelines for assessment bodies as well as by encouraging
assessment bodies introducing specific re8uirements for the accreditation of control bodies
operating in third countries (European co6operation for #ccreditation, 2*/".
'ome of the stakeholders however remain sceptical, whether the supervision system for the
import procedure based on recognised control bodies is robust enough. #s the review of
literature reveals, stakeholders raised concerns whether supervisory bodies have sufficient
working capacities to carry out their duties and responsibilities. However, more e%periences
gained over a longer period would be needed to come to a sound @udgment, whether the
supervision has been sufficiently strengthened by the recent activities.
$urthermore, the findings from the analysis of provisions reveal that neither the :egulation nor
the import guidelines foresee a direct link between the )ommission and the assessment bodies.
0he reporting is only done from the control body to the )ommission and it is the control body
which has to submit the assessment report of the assessment body to the )ommission. 0here is
an e%change between the )ommission and the assessment bodies but this e%change is not
formally defined. 'ubse8uently assessment bodies are not necessarily involved in the
management of irregularities, for e%ample, if a control body does not react promptly to a suspect
case. Even severe problems, for e%ample suspension or withdrawal of accreditation has according
to the legal provisions to be communicated by the control body to the )ommission.
0he stakeholder survey revealed furthermore concerns about the procedures to follow up on
suspected or detected irregularities of imported products. 0his assessment is supported by the
statistics of the +erman >NE for 2*2, where ;3 4 of the reported irregularities originating in the
EU or in recognised third countries could be followed up and closed, while for the other import
procedures (based on recognised control bodies and import authorisations" only /; 4 could be
followed up and closed.
$onsumer confidence
#ccording to the results of the consumer survey, consumers trust more domestic organic
products than organic products from other countries. Interestingly, no substantial differences
regarding trust in organic products from other EU6countries and non6EU6countries seem to e%ist.
0he results of the survey need to be interpreted with caution, since scepticism towards imported
*2 )hapter 2 #de8uacy of the import regime

organic product could also be a result of the limited knowledge of consumers about the control
system in foreign countries and import re8uirements. 0hus, no robust evidence was identified to
assume that the import regime as such is not ade8uate to ensure consumer confidence.


Chapter 10
Consumer perception on organic farming

10.1 Introduction
Evaluation Question 5
To what extent is the concept of organic farming understood by the consumers in the EU?
In answering this question the following elements needs to be examined:
How developed is the degree of nowledge of the concept of organic farming !such as the
awareness on general ob"ectives and principles of organic farming# products covered by the
scheme# special production requirements# etc$%?
How developed is the degree of nowledge of the European organic logo? How developed is
the degree of nowledge of the other compulsory indications that accompany the logo
!&code number& and &place of farming of the raw materials&%? To what extent do they
contribute to ensuring consumer confidence? To what extent does mentioning of &place of
farming of the raw materials& influence consumer&s decision? To what extent is the European
logo considered as a guarantee for the quality of agricultural products?
Consumer demand for organic food has been a key factor for the development of organic farming
in the EU. In order to encourage the demand for organic food, a number of market measures
have been implemented in several Member States (see Chapter !. "esides this, at EU level, the
labelling rules for organic products laid do#n in $egulation (EC! %&'())* are another important
demand+oriented support instrument. ,hese rules provide a legal basis for the use of terms
referring to organic production and thus contribute to the functioning of the internal market. -
key element of the labelling rules in the $egulation is the ne# EU organic logo, #hich aims to
improve the recognition of organic products in all EU countries and to provide consumers #ith
confidence that organic food is produced entirely in+line #ith the EU $egulation. -fter a t#o+year
transition period for the organic food sector to comply #ith revised EU labelling rules, the ne#
EU logo for organic food, became mandatory on all pre+packaged organic products produced in
the EU in .uly ()/(.
1
,he use of a logo re0uires ho#ever consumer understanding of the concept
of organic farming as #ell as kno#ledge of and trust in the organic logo (.anssen and 1amm,
()/(2 3augb4erg et al., ()/&2 ,eisl et al., ())%!. So far, neither aspect has been studied

1
,he logo #as introduced in .uly ()/). In the transition period, it #as possible to use e5isting packaging material or to
place products produced, packaged and labelled before / .uly ()/) on the market not bearing the ne# EU logo.
/6( Chapter /) Consumer perception on organic farming

comprehensively in relation to the ne# organic EU logo. -gainst this background, the aim of
Evaluation 7uestion 8 is to understand ho# consumers perceive the organic farming concept and
the European organic logo #hich #as introduced in order to make the recognition of organic
products easier for them.
,his chapter is structured as follo#s9 ,he follo#ing section describes the criteria used to evaluate
consumer perceptions of organic farming. Subse0uently the results of a revie# of literature and a
consumer survey carried out in si5 Member States (Estonia, :rance, ;ermany, Italy, <oland and
the United =ingdom! are presented for each criterion separately. - 4udgement of the results and
conclusions are included in the fourth section of the chapter.
10.2 Approach
Evaluation 7uestion 8 #as ans#ered on the basis of several 4udgement criteria, #hich #ere
deduced from the evaluation 0uestion itself and the model of the intervention logic based on the
$egulation (EC! %&'())*. In order to apply these criteria, consumers #ere surveyed by means of
a #eb+based 0uestionnaire in si5 case study countries (Estonia, :rance, ;ermany, Italy, <oland
and the United =ingdom!. In total, & ))) persons participated in the survey (8)) per country2 for
details on the methodology see Chapter /!. In addition, relevant literature #as revie#ed.
,he follo#ing 4udgement criteria #ere used9
(/! Consumers knoledge !or lack thereof" a#out the concept of organic farming
>nly if consumers kno# about the advantages of organic production can they act according
to their preferences at the point of purchase. ,his is particularly important since organic
food tends to be more e5pensive and additional #illingness to pay needs to be activated.
,he indicator used #as the share of consumers? #ith specific kno#ledge of the legal
definition of organic farming. In addition, differences in the kno#ledge according to the
fre0uency of purchasing organic food and of participants? self+assessment of being e5pert
on organic farming #ere analysed.
((! Consumers recognise and kno !or do not kno" the compulsor$ E% logo
=no#ledge of the e5istence and meaning of the EU logo is a precondition for the fulfilment
of the global ob4ective of the $egulation of increasing consumer confidence and
transparency. In order to assess to #hat e5tent consumers recognise the EU logo, three
indicators #ere used9 a! share of test persons having seen the EU logo before, b! share of
respondents kno#ing the meaning of this logo, and c! their kno#ledge of the EU logo
compared #ith other organic and non+organic logos.
-gainst the background of various alternative logos for organic products in the market
place, the EU organic logo and other organic and non+organic food logos #ere compared
#ith the aim of yielding additional insights. -dditionally, a fake organic logo #as used. ,he
Chapter /) Consumer perception on organic farming /6&

rationale is that comparing a ne#ly introduced logo #ith logos #hich have been present in
the market for many years #ill al#ays disfavour the ne# logo. ,herefore using a fake logo
gives the ne# logo the chance to e5hibit its potential regarding easy recognition by
consumers and market success.
(&! Consumers kno !or do not kno" a#out additional compulsor$ indications
,he legislation defines that besides the EU logo itself, t#o additional compulsory
indications are placed on the product. ,he @place of production of ra# materials? (EU'non+
EU agriculture! #as introduced in order to provide additional information and to avoid
Adeceptive practices and any possible confusion amongst consumersB ($ecital (* of
$egulation (EC! %&'())*!. ,hese aims can only be achieved if consumers kno# about the
indication and believe it to be sufficient #ith respect to its information content.
:urthermore, the @code number of the control body? needs to appear in the labelling. In
order to evaluate consumers? kno#ledge, their a#areness about additional indications in
general and about those #hich are compulsory #as chosen as indicators.
(! &he indications contri#ute !or do not contri#ute" to consumers confidence and trust in
organic farming
-fter ans#ering the 0uestion of consumers? kno#ledge of these indications the ne5t
criteria aims to e5plore #hether they increase consumer confidence and trust. >nly then,
can a long term impact on markets be e5pected. ,o 4udge the contribution of the additional
compulsory indication, consumer confidence in the EU organic logo, their trust in the
indications and their opinions and perceptions of organic products #ere used as indicators.
(8! Indications are !or are not" relevant for consumers purchase decisions
,he $egulation aims at contributing to an effective functioning of the internal market for
organic food. ,his includes Aproviding conditions under which this sector can progress in line
with production and maret developmentsB ($ecital &!. ,his aim re0uires the mandatory
indications to be relevant for consumers? purchase decisions. ,his criterion #as evaluated
by asking consumers directly for those organic and non+organic logos #hich they perceive
to be relevant for their purchase decision.
(C! Consumers perceive !or do not perceive" the E% logo as an indicator for 'ualit$
-ccording to -rticle &, organic production aims at producing products of high 0uality.
7uality perception differs according to individual preferences and intended use of a
product. ,herefore consumers? opinion is decisive for the evaluation of the achievement of
this specific aim. ,he first indicator used #as consumers? understanding of food 0uality2 the
second, #hether (and #hich! organic and non+organic logos indicate high product 0uality.
/6 Chapter /) Consumer perception on organic farming

10.( )esults
10.(.1 *noledge of consumers a#out the concept of organic farming
'cientific evidence
Earlier studies indicated that many consumers lack kno#ledge on the ob4ectives and production
standards of organic farming (1arper and Makatouni, ())(2 1ughner et al., ())*2 McEachern and
Darnaby, ())%2 MesEas 3EaF et al., ()/)2 .anssen and 1amm, ()/(2 <adel, ()/)!. ,his includes
kno#ledge on the certification system and on the implication of the introduction of a ne# EU
#ide logo for organic farming (MesEas 3EaF et al., ()/)2 .anssen and 1amm, ()/(2 ,eisl et al.,
())%!.
(esults of the consumer survey
-ccording to the results of the consumer survey carried out for this evaluation, most consumers
#ere a#are of the concept of organic farming and the selected production re0uirements since
their ans#ers #ere mostly correct (,able /)./!. 1o#ever going more into detail, some
shortcomings in the level of kno#ledge became obvious. >nly t#o thirds of the respondents
kne# that organic products cannot be gro#n from genetically modified seeds. ,his share is even
lo#er in relation to the re0uirements of processing #ith ionising radiation. -lso, about a 0uarter
#ere not sure about the e5istence of a third+party inspection and control system. Interestingly,
only less than half of the test persons kne# that organic food need not be produced on small
farms and need not be produced locally according to the legal definition.
,here are some differences bet#een countries (,able /)./!. Dhile on average across all countries
about t#o third of the participants kne# that organic food needs to be gro#n from ;M>
(genetically modified organism! free seeds, this share is markedly lo#er in the United =ingdom
and in ;ermany. ,he topic of ionising radiation obviously is most prominent in Italy since the
share of correct ans#ers is highest for participants from that country. In ;ermany, Estonia and
the United =ingdom the kno#ledge about the third+party control and inspection system is
lo#est. >nly about one 0uarter of the respondents in Estonia and in <oland #as able to give
correct ans#ers regarding the statement @>rganic food is locally produced? and @>rganic food is
produced on small farms?. In fact, on average the farm siFe of organic farms in many countries is
higher than that of conventional farms. ,his holds true also in Estonia and in <oland (EU$>S,-,,
()/&2 SFeremeta, ())C!.
Chapter /) Consumer perception on organic farming /68

&a#le 10.1+ Share of consumers giving a correct ans#er #ith regard to the legal definition of
specific production re0uirements of organic food (in percentage, n G 8)) per
country!

Source9 >#n data from consumer survey.
=no#ledge of the legal definition of organic farming #as also tested against respondents being
e5perts on organic food or not (self+assessment!
2
and regular organic consumers vs. occasional
and non+organic consumers. $espondents #ho felt that they have good kno#ledge of organic
food also sho#ed that they had better kno#ledge by e5hibiting a higher share of correct ans#ers
to all statements, but still #ith important errors (,able /).(!. -ll differences are significant.
Comparing the ans#ers of regular, occasional and non+consumers of organic food sho#s that
fre0uency of organic purchases seems to be a good predictor of the kno#ledge of organic
farming principles.
(


2
$espondents #ere asked to indicate their degree of agreement #ith the t#o follo#ing statements on a *+point scale (/+
totally agree, *+totally disagree!9 @In comparison to an average consumer, I kno# a lot about organic food@ and @<eople
#ho kno# me, consider me as an e5pert in the field of organic food.? ,he numbers of both ans#ers #ere summed up
and participants #ith scores bet#een ( and C #ere classified as @e5perts?, those #ith scores bet#een * and 6
@neither'nor? and those #ith scores higher than /) as @no e5pert?.
(
:or the definition of individual groups see ,able /.(.
All ,E EE -) I& ./ %*
Is gro#n #ithout the use of chemicals %C %( %8 %8 6( %8 6)
May be gro#n from genetically modified seeds
a!
C* C( CC *& */ *) 8*
Is processed #ithout artificial additives %) *( *6 *( %6 %* %/
Is processed #ithout ionising radiation 8C 8( 8( C/ CC 8% *
Is sub4ect to a third+party system of control
and certification
*/ C 8* %/ %( %6 88
Is produced on small family farms
a!
8 86 (* 8( 8& ( 88
Is produced locally
a!
6 (* & 8( &) C)
Cannot be imported from overseas
a!
86 8( 8* C C8 8% 86
Is produced by methods protecting the
environment
%( C* *C %% 6 %* *8
a! ,hese aspects are not part of the legal definition regarding organic farming. ,he numbers are the share of correct ans#ersH
)uestion: The following statements refer to the legal definition of organic food products$ To the best of your nowledge# please
indicate whether they are true or false$
/6C Chapter /) Consumer perception on organic farming

&a#le 10.2+ Share of consumers giving a correct ans#er #ith regard to the legal definition of
specific production re0uirements of organic food differentiated in the level of
e5pertise and consumption of organic food (in percentage!

Source9 >#n data from consumer survey.
10.(.2 Consumers recognition and knoledge of the compulsor$ E% logo
'cientific evidence
Some earlier studies e5ist on the kno#ledge of the mandatory EU logo. -ccording to
Eurobarometer (()/(!, on average over all (* EU Member States, (J of the respondents
indicated to kno# the EU organic logo on organic farming. ,his share #as higher in 3enmark
(&6J!, :rance (&%J!, Ku5embourg (&*J! and -ustria (&CJ!. ,he lo#est share of respondents
kno#ing the EU logo #as found in $omania (/)J!, <oland (/(J!, "ulgaria (/&J! and Spain
(/J!. -#areness of at least one of several logos tested #as higher among respondents #ith
higher education levels. ,he only logo better kno#n than the EU organic logo on average across
all countries #as the :airtrade logo. >ther European logos such as @<rotected designation of
origin? (<3>! or @<rotected geographical indication? (<;I! scored #orse regarding a#areness
although they #ere introduced much earlier than the ne# EU organic logo. In Italy more people
#ere a#are of <;> and <;I than of the EU organic logo (Eurobarometer, ()/(!.
- :rench study compared the kno#ledge of the EU logo of all :rench consumers #ith that of
organic consumers (-gence "io, ()/(!. >n average of all :rench consumers, the kno#ledge of the
a"
0on
a"
;roup siFe (n! /8% C(&
Is gro#n #ithout the use of chemicals %C L 6) %% *6 LLL
May be gro#n from genetically modified seeds *) C8 LLL */ C% 8C LLL
Is processed #ithout artificial additives %8 *% LLL %8 %/ */ LLL
Is processed #ithout ionising radiation C% 8/ LLL C/ 8* * LLL
Is sub4ect to a third+party system of control and
certification
% C8 LLL %) *& 8C LLL
Is produced on small family farms 6 C LLL 8) & LLL
Is produced locally 8 LLL * ( ( LLL
Cannot be imported from overseas C% 8% LLL C 86 8& LLL
Is produced by methods protecting the
environment
%6 *% LLL %8 %& *) LLL
a! <robability of error9 L /) J, LLL / J.
)uestion: The following statements refer to the legal definition of organic food products$ To the best of your nowledge# please
indicate whether they are true or false$
1rganic consumer
%%
E2pert 0o
E2pert
)egular 1ccasional
%C6 /8)% 8/)
Chapter /) Consumer perception on organic farming /6*

EU logo had increased from about /&J in ()/) to (J in ()/(. ,he share of people kno#ing the
EU organic logo #as higher among organic consumers (/J in ()/) and C/J in ()/(. In
comparison, in ()/( 6& J of the intervie#ees kne# the national -" logo (-griculture "iologi0ue!
(-gence "io, ()/(!.
- recent ;erman study indicates that only /8J of the test persons stated to kno# the EU organic
logo. In contrast, *8J kne# the ;erman "io+Siegel. Interestingly, (&J indicated to kno# a fake
environmental logo. So, kno#ledge of the EU organic logo #as lo#er than kno#ledge of a fake
logo. -sked for the meaning of the logos only &/J of those #ho indicated to kno# the EU logo
stated to be a#are of the meaning of the logo. In contrast, *8J of the test persons #ho kne#
the ;erman "io+Siegel also #ere a#are of its meaning (Meyer+1Mfer and Spiller, ()/&!.
(esults of the consumer survey
In the research carried out as part of this evaluation, the issue of kno#ledge of the EU organic
logo #as approached step#ise. -t the very beginning of the intervie# respondents #ere asked in
an @unprompted? manner for their kno#ledge of the EU logo. In order to avoid any manipulation
they #ere not informed about the topic of the research beforehand. ,he 0uestion @1ave you
seen this logo before? #as contested by a 0uarter of all test persons #ith @yes? (,able /).&!. ,his
share #as highest in Estonia and in :rance and lo#est in <oland and the United =ingdom. ,he
share of consumers having seen the EU logo before #as significantly higher among regular
consumers (&CJ! compared to occasional consumers ((&J! and non+organic consumers (/&J!.
&a#le 10.(+ Share of consumer having seen the EU logo before
(in percentage2 n G 8)) per country!

Source9 >#n data from consumer survey.
,he numbers found in this survey are similar to (but sometimes slightly lo#er than! the
respective country results of the Eurobarometer (()/(!9 ;ermany &&J, Estonia &J, :rance
&%J, Italy (J, <oland /(J, and the United =ingdom ((J. ,he reason for slightly higher
numbers in the Eurobarometer (()/(! might be that the 0uestion on the a#areness of this logo
#as set in the conte5t of food #hile in the present study no conte5t at all #as given. ,his
approach #as used in order to avoid any bias due to conte5t effects. 1o#ever, the coincidence is
0uite high, given that different samples #ere used.
/6% Chapter /) Consumer perception on organic farming

,est persons #ere then asked @#here have you seen it? in order to verify their earlier ans#ers.
>ut of those #ho stated that they had seen the EU logo before 8Jremembered to have seen
the logo on food. ,his share #as higher among ;erman respondents (C*J!and lo#est in the
United =ingdom (8J!. -bout ()J stated not to remember #here they had seen it. ,he share of
#rong ans#ers @have seen it on clothing? #as very small #ith less than /J.
,he subse0uent 0uestion aimed at investigating if consumers really kno# the message of the EU
organic logo by putting an open 0uestion on their understanding of the logo. ,he ans#ers #ere
coded according to categories (,able /).!. >nly a small share of respondents kne# that the EU
logo indicates organic food according to common European standards (EU organic food!. - larger
share of the respondents kne# that this logo indicates organic food (>rganic food!. -ns#ers in
these t#o categories can be interpreted as correct ans#ers. -nother small share of respondents
associated the logo #ith Europe or the European Union (Europe, EU! or something natural,
ecological etc. (Nature, environment, natural!. >n average, almost one third of the ans#ers #as
#rong and another 8)J ans#ered @3on?t kno#, not sure? or indicated that they #ere not sure
about the meaning of the logo. =no#ledge #as particularly lo# in the United =ingdom.
&a#le 10.3+ Share of ans#ers #ith regard to meanings of the EU logo (in percentage2
n G 8)) per country!

Source9 >#n data from consumer survey.

All ,E EE -) I& ./
a"
%*
EU >rganic (food! 8 C C * & 8 /
>rganic (food! /( / /C /( // / (
Europe, EU * & 8 % 6 /C &
Nature, environment, natural, ecological // % /8 // 6 /6 C
>ther #rong ans#ers / % /) /C ( (( 6
3onOt kno#, not sure 8) C) * C ( *6
&otal 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
)uestion: *an you tell us in your own words what this logo stands for?
a! ,he share of test persons kno#ing that the EU logo stands for organic food in <oland is higher than the share of people
#ho has seen the logo before. ,his might be an indicator for people to search in the internet for correct ans#ers.
Chapter /) Consumer perception on organic farming /66

,he ans#ers to this 0uestion #ere also differentiated by being an organic consumer or not. ,he
share of respondents correctly assigning the EU logo to organic farming according to EU
legislation (i.e. those #ho referred to ?EU >rganic (food!?! #as significantly highest among regular
consumers (*J! follo#ed by occasional consumers (8J! and by non+organic consumers (/J!.
In order to relate the results on kno#ledge of the EU organic logo #ith other organic and non+
organic logos, participants #ere sho#n % to /) different food logos including some non+organic
ones (,able /).8!. ,his approach #as used in order to assess the degree of confusion among test
persons regarding (organic! food logos. :or each country up to three important organic logos, the
:airtrade logo, an animal #elfare logo #here available (for Italy another @green? logo #as
selected!, a non+organic 0uality food logo, a fake organic logo, the EU organic logo, the old EU
logo and the ;erman @"iosiegel? #ere presented to the test persons.
&a#le 10.5+ Kogos tested in the consumer survey

Source9 >#n compilation.

()) Chapter /) Consumer perception on organic farming

Dhen confronted #ith these food logos and asked to identify those indicating organic food, best
kno#n on average #ere the national organic logos (>rganic logo / in Estonia and :rance,
"iosiegel in ;ermany! (,able /).C!. ,he ;erman "iosiegel #as also #ell kno#n in <oland and in
Italy. ,he reason for this is the e5port into these countries of ;erman organic products carrying
the logo. In this @prompted? 0uestion the EU organic logo #as recognised as an organic logo on
average by less than /)J of the respondents. ,his share #as a little higher in Estonia and <oland.
In Italy the old EU logo is still better kno#n than the ne# one.
Consumers? confusion becomes obvious #hen looking at the numbers for the fake organic logo.
,his logo scores 0uite high in :rance, Italy and in <oland. In <oland it #as the most kno#n organic
logo and in Italy its score #as identical #ith the old EU logo, second after the ;erman "iosiegel.
,hese results reflect the history of labelling of organic food (organic labelling traditions! in the
study countries. National organic logos #ere established and are #ell kno#n in ;ermany, :rance
and Estonia. In the United =ingdom, one private logo is very prominent in the market, #hereas
Italy and <oland #ere lacking #ell kno#n organic logos. In both countries the old EU logo #as
#idely used previously (e.g. .anssen and 1amm, ()/(!. -dditionally, the ;erman "iosiegel is
rather #ell kno#n for t#o main reasons9 first, ;erman organic products e5ported to these
countries bear this logo and second, the logo includes the protected term Pbio@.
&a#le 10.4+ Share of logos recognised by respondents as organic logos
(in percentage2 n G 8)) per country!

Source9 >#n data from consumer survey.
,E EE -) I& ./ %*
E% organic logo 25 24 25 15 24 10
>ld EU organic logo /8 /6 & (/
;erman "iosiegel 6 (( (6 &% / 8
>rganic logo / 8 *& 6C /6 (C )
>rganic logo ( (% n'a (* * n'a (*
>rganic logo & &C / ( 8 / (
:ake organic logo /C /% &C &
:airtrade logo 8( / / /( 8 *)
-nimal #elfare'OgreenO logo /) n'a &/ /* & /C
Non+organic 0uality food logo /( C ( C / &6
3onOt kno# any of these logos ( & / /& /8 C
3onOt kno#'remember / 8 / % /( (
)uestion: +hich of the following logos do you recognise as organic food logo?
Chapter /) Consumer perception on organic farming ()/

In some countries confusion e5ists regarding e5isting non+organic logos. In Estonia and the United
=ingdom nearly half of all respondents believed the non+organic 0uality logo to be organic. In
;ermany and in the United =ingdom a very high share of respondents associated the :airtrade
logo #ith organic farming. -lthough the share of products #hich are certified against the
:airtrade and organic standards is increasing, the :airtrade logo in itself does not certify organic
production.
10.(.( Consumers knoledge a#out additional compulsor$ indications
'cientific evidence
,o the authors? kno#ledge, only .anssen and 1amm (()/(! reported on a study in #hich focus
groups participants #ere asked about their opinion on the mandatory indications on origin of the
ra# materials. ,hey report a lot of @scepticism? around this indication (.anssen and 1amm, ()/(9
&C!. ,est persons generally re4ected the statement @the indication EU or non+EU, #ithout the
specific country is sufficient? (ibid!.
(esults of the consumer survey
,able /).* e5hibits the share of consumers #ho #ere a#are of the additional mandatory
indications. >nly /)J of the respondents stated that they kno# about these indications
(@unprompted? 0uestion!. ,his share #as markedly higher in Italy and markedly lo#er in the
United =ingdom. >n average of all countries, more than t#o thirds of the test persons #ere not
a#are of any additional indications.
-sked for the indications #hich accompany the EU logo, most participants ans#ered that the
term @bio? or @organic? accompanies the EU logo. -lso #ell+kno#n #as the code number of the
control body #hich is mandatory already since $egulation (EEC! ()6('6/. Kess kno#n #as the
mandatory indication on place of farming of the ra# materials (EU agriculture or non+EU
agriculture!. Instead, people assumed the country of origin to accompany the EU logo.
Comparing the ans#ers of organic and non+organic consumers sho#s that the a#areness of
additional compulsory indications is highest among regular consumers (/6J!, follo#ed by
occasional (%J! and by non+organic consumers ((J!.

()( Chapter /) Consumer perception on organic farming

&a#le 10.6+ Share of respondents being a#are of additional mandatory indications (n G 8))
per country!

Source9 >#n data from consumer survey.
-dditionally, test persons #ere asked for their opinion on the indication on the place of farming
of the ra# materials, @EU -griculture? or @non+EU -griculture?. ;enerally, test persons #elcomed
the fact that the EU organic logo differentiates bet#een EU agriculture and non+EU agriculture
(:igure /)./!. ,he agreement to this statement #as highest in Italy and lo#est in the United
=ingdom. -t the same time, on average, respondents thought this differentiation not to be
sufficient. ,his #as particularly the case in Italy and in :rance and to an e5tent (less than average!
in <oland and in the United =ingdom.
All ,E EE -) I& ./ %*
Question A , --- .-- .-- .-- .-- .-- .--
Non
-#are J /) // * 6 /* //
Not a#are J */ *C 86 *6 C% 8& %6
3onOt =no# J /6 /& && /8 /8 &C C
Question 7 /01 .2 ,3 2, 4. .. //
J 6* 6% 6* 6% 6* /)) 6/
J %/ %* %/ *) %% *C C%
J %* %* *% 6% 6( %) *&
J %8 %8 *) % 68 *8 6/
J *C *% & ** *8 6& %C
J %/ *C *& ** %% %C **
J C& 8* C% */ C( %(
)uestion 5: This logo is the EU organic farming logo$ 6rom 7uly /-8- the EU organic logo is obligatory for all organic pacaged food
products within the European Union$ 5re you aware of additional indications that accompany the EU organic logo?
)uestion 9 !only for respondents answering )uestion 5 with &yes& %: +e will now show you a list of indications of which some
accompany the mandatory EU logo and some don&t$ :lease state which indications# in your opinion# accompany the EU logo$
Code number of the >rganic Control "ody
Kocally produced
EU or Non+EU agriculture
7uality product
Country of origin
Dithout ;M>
"io'>rganic
!total n%
!total n%
Chapter /) Consumer perception on organic farming ()&

-igure 10.1+ Qie# of consumers regarding the indication @EU'non+EU -griculture?
(Mean agreement #ith statements!

Source9 >#n data from consumer survey.
,he degree of agreement #ith these statements #as compared bet#een organic consumers and
non+organic consumers. ,he ans#ers to the first statement #ere significantly different. $egular
organic consumers agreed more (mean /.C! than occasional organic consumers (mean /./! and
non+organic consumers (mean ).8! to the first statement (see ,able /).%!. Dith respect to the
second statement no significant differences could be detected.
10.(.3 Contri#ution of compulsor$ indications to consumers confidence
and trust in organic farming
'cientific evidence
Consumers? trust is a precondition for a logo to be successful in the market place. Much #ork has
been done to e5plore the role of confidence and trust for successful labelling (e.g. .anssen and
1amm, ()/(, 3augb4erg et al., ()/&, ;olan et al., ())/!. Dith regard to the ne# EU organic logo,
Meyer+1Mfer and Spiller (()/&! found that in ;ermany only CJ trust this logo. ,he share of
people trusting in the ne# EU organic logo #as even lo#er than the trust in a fake environmental
logo. Siriei5 et al. (()//! report on the results of focus groups9 Dhile the organic farmers? labels
mostly increased trust, the additional EU label #as only valuable for a fe# participants.
(esults of the consumer survey
Consumer confidence in the EU organic logo #as evaluated in comparison #ith other organic and
non+organic logos. ,est persons #ere asked about their confidence in all those logos they
identified before as organic logos (see ,able /).C!. ,he results in ,able /).% sho# that most
respondents had some confidence in the EU organic logo. ,his #as relatively lo# in :rance and in
,otally
disagree
I #elcome the fact that the ne# EU organic
logo differentiates bet#een OEU agricultureO
and ONon+EU agricultureO.
:or food products, I think the indication of
origin OEUO or ONon+EUO, #ithout the specific
country of origin, is sufficient.
-ll 3E EE :$ I, <K U=
,otally
agree
Neither'
nor
+& +( +/ ) R/ R( R&
Question: Below you find a list of different statements regarding organic food. Please indicate to which extent you agree
or disagree with the following statements. (+3 = total agreement, 0 = neithernor, !3 = total disagreement".
() Chapter /) Consumer perception on organic farming

;ermany9 both countries have strong national logos. Compared to the old EU logo, confidence in
the EU organic logo varied bet#een countries. ,rust in the old EU logo #as high in those
countries in #hich it had been #idely used in the market place before, such as Estonia, Italy and
<oland. In countries in #hich it #as not present before, a lo# degree of kno#ledge coincides #ith
little confidence.
&a#le 10.5+ 3egree of confidence in different (organic! logos (Mean values!

Source9 >#n data from consumer survey.
,he EU organic logos are only fairly trusted. >n average, confidence is highest for the @3emeter?
logo (>rganic logo &!, but this #as not tested in :rance #here it is not #idely used and the
@Nature S <rogres? logo #as tested instead. In the United =ingdom, the @Soil -ssociation? logo
(>rganic logo /! #as trusted most. Interestingly, on average the non+organic food 0uality logos
have rather high levels of confidence, but there are large differences bet#een countries.
<articularly in Estonia, Italy and <oland these logos are trusted, and in all countries e5cept :rance
also the :airtrade logo has a good reputation.
,E EE -) I& ./ %*
E% organic logo 8ean 1.1 1.3 0.9 1.( 1.( 1.(
n 115 123 113 55 115 31
>ld EU organic logo Mean ).6 /. ).% /.& /.C /.)
n /% C8 %8 /C6 6C (/
;erman "iosiegel Mean ).6 /./ ).& /./ /.( ).6
n 8* /)& /( /%( /6) (C
>rganic logo / Mean ).6 /. ).% /./ /.( /.*
n (8* &&C 8% 68 // /%&
>rganic logo ( Mean /.) n'a ).( /. n'a /.(
n /& n'a // & n'a /(C
>rganic logo & Mean /.8 (.% /.( /.C /.& ).
n /*% C // (8 & %
:ake organic logo Mean /.) /./ ).( /./ /.( ).6
n *% *( /8C /C& ()8 (/
:airtrade logo Mean /.& /. ). /. /.& /.
n (88 C8 C6 8* (8 &&8
-nimal #elfare'OgreenO logo Mean /./ n'a ).% /./ /.6 /.&
n 8) n'a /6 %) /( %/
Non+organic food 0uality logo Mean ).% /.C /./ /.8 /. /.(
n 8% ((& 6 &) C8 /%8
)uestion: To what extent do you have confidence in the following organic logos when you are looing for organic food? !Test persons
were presented only those logos which they identified before as organic% !3;point <icert scale# =, > very high confidence# - > neutral# ;,
> no confidence%
Chapter /) Consumer perception on organic farming ()8

Dith respect to the mandatory additional indications most persons trusted the indication
@EU'non+EU -griculture?, follo#ed by the Code number of the control body (,able /).6!. -gain,
there are large differences bet#een countries and the indication of origin is trusted most in Italy
and <oland. Interestingly, the Code number of the control body is highly trusted in Italy. ,he
reason is that Italian consumers have been informed a lot about ho# to recognise a true organic
product in the past (before the introduction of the EU organic logo!. ,he mandatory code number
of the control body #as considered the most credible assurance that use of the term @bio? #as
genuine.
&a#le 10.9+ Share of respondents trusting in the respective indications (in percentage2 n G 8))
per country!

Source9 >#n data from consumer survey.
,rust in the indication of the place of production of ra# materials (EU agriculture or non+EU
agriculture! #as highest among regular consumers (8/J! follo#ed by occasional consumers
(&6J! and non+organic consumers (/CJ!.
Dhen asked about their degree of agreement to various statements regarding organic products it
turned out that confidence in organic production and European labelling generally is not very
high (:igure /).(!. >n average, respondents slightly agreed #ith the statement that they have a
good feeling in terms of organic products, but they are less sure that organic products really are
organic. ,hey only slightly disagreed #ith the statement that organic #as only about marketing
#hereas their agreement in that organic products fulfil strict rules is some#hat higher. -t the
country level, respondents in Estonia have the best feeling regarding organic products. ,he EU
logo seems to increase consumers? confidence in Italy and in <oland because of the rather high
degree of agreement #ith the statement @the EU logo for organic products guarantees that the
products are really organic?. Consumers in these countries are used to trust in EU logos since the
old EU logo played an important role in these national markets. ,he agreement to the statement
@I have great trust in the control system behind an EU+#ide organic logo? is only small and the
mean over all countries is very close to neither agreement nor disagreement.
All ,E EE -) I& ./ %*
EU or Non+EU agriculture &% &8 (% ) % 8( (8
Code number of the organic control body (& () /* /* 8* /% //
Neither of them (( & ( (/ * /( &(
I donOt kno# (8 /8 &8 (% /) (( &C
)uestion: +hich of the two following indications increase your trust in organic food production?
()C Chapter /) Consumer perception on organic farming

-igure 10.2+ Qie#s of consumers regarding trust in organic food (Mean agreement #ith
statements!

Source9 >#n data from consumer survey.
,he fre0uency of purchasing organic food has a significant impact on trust in organic food
production (,able /)./)!. ,he level of agreement to almost all statements #as significantly lo#er
among non+organic consumers than among occasional consumers than among regular
consumers. ,he only e5ception is the third statement on marketing #here regular consumers
agree to a lesser e5tent than occasional or non+organic consumers.
&a#le 10.10+ Qie#s of consumers regarding trust in organic food by fre0uency of organic
food consumption (Mean agreement #ith statements!

Source9 >#n data from consumer survey.
In terms of organic products, I do have a
good feeling
I am sure that products sold as organic are
really organic products
>rganic is only about marketing
>rganic products fulfil strict rules
,he EU logo for organic products guarantees
that the products are really organic
I have great trust in the control system
behind an EU+#ide organic logo
-ll 3E EE :$ I, <K U=
,otally
disagree
,otally
agree
Neither'
nor
+& +( +/ ) R/ R( R&
Question: Below you find a list of different statements regarding organic food. Please indicate to which extent you agree
or disagree with the following statements. (+3 = total agreement, 0 = neithernor, !3 = total disagreement".
In terms of organic products, I do have a good feeling /.* /./ +).&
I am sure that products sold as organic are really organic products ).% ). +).
>rganic is only about marketing +).8 +)./ ).C
>rganic products fulfil strict rules /.8 /.) ).&
,he EU logo for organic products guarantees that the products are
really organic
/.& ).% ).)
)uestion: 9elow# you will find some statements concerning organic products$ :lease indicate to which extent you agree or
disagree with the following statements$ !3;point <icert scale# =, > total agreement? - > neutral? ;, > total disagreement%
1rganic Consumer
)egular 1ccasional 0on
Chapter /) Consumer perception on organic farming ()*

10.(.5 )elevance of compulsor$ indications for consumers purchase
decisions
(esults of the consumer survey
In order to e5plore the relevance of compulsory indications for consumers? purchase decisions
consumers #ere asked to indicate those (organic! food logos #hich they consider to be
important for their purchase decision. In using this approach, purchase relevance of the EU logo
can be compared #ith that of other (organic! logos. Since only a fe# of the test persons #ere
a#are of the additional mandatory indications, their relevance for the purchase decision is minor.
,herefore, they are not e5plicitly addressed in this section.
,he relevance of the EU organic logo for consumers? purchase decisions #as tested in a
comparative manner by asking consumers to indicate out of the logos they recognised as organic
logos those #hich they perceived to be important in their purchase decisions on organic food. In
all countries e5cept Italy, the ne# EU organic logo is more relevant for purchase decisions than
the old EU organic logo (,able /).//!. In Italy the old EU logo is still on the shelves. National logos
are very important in Estonia and in :rance (>rganic logo /! and in ;ermany the "iosiegel #as
most important. ,he ;erman "iosiegel #as also relevant in <oland and in Italy. In the United
=ingdom the :airtrade logo #as most relevant.
&a#le 10.11+ Share of respondents indicating the relevance of different (organic! logos for
the purchase decision on organic food (inpercentage!

Source9 >#n data from consumer survey.
,E EE -) I& ./ %*
243 2.3 240 ,0, ,1. 218
E% organic logo : 1( 1( 5 15 21 3
>ld EU organic logo J / * (6 /C /
;erman "iosiegel J C) % & ( (6 (
>rganic logo / J /8 C *& // /& (C
>rganic logo ( J % n'a & n'a /
>rganic logo & J /6 / / ( ) /
:ake organic logo J 8 C 8 ( ( (
:airtrade logo J (* C & % &C
-nimal #elfare'?green? logo J n'a / * ( C
Non+organic 0uality food logo J & &C ) 8 // /%
None of these logos J /* // /) /( /& /%
3onOt kno# J C // * /) /( %
)uestion: +hich one of the following logos do you consider to be relevant for your purchase decision regarding organic food?
!Test persons were presented only those logos which they identified before as organic%
!total @%
()% Chapter /) Consumer perception on organic farming

In addition to the direct 0uestion on purchase relevance, respondents? general attitudes to#ards
the EU organic logo help to understand the acceptance of the EU organic logo by the market. >n
average, test persons agree #ith the statements listed in :igure /).& regarding the EU organic
logo. ,he degree of agreement to the statement @It?s a good idea to have an EU+#ide logo for
certified products? is higher in those countries #here kno#ledge of and trust in the logo is higher,
such as Italy and <oland as compared to ;ermany and the United =ingdom. ,he latter have
strong organic logos9 in ;ermany the national "iosiegel and in the United =ingdom the private
logo of @Soil -ssociation?. ,he ans#ers to the subse0uent statements are consistent #ith this first
statement.
-ll organic logos #ere of higher purchase relevance for organic consumers than for non+organic
consumers. Dithin the group of organic consumers, regular organic consumers perceived these
logos to be more important for their purchase decisions than occasional organic consumers. ,his
tendency holds also true for the EU organic logo. >ut of regular organic consumers almost ()J
considered this logo #hen purchasing organic food #hile only &.8J of non+organic consumers
indicated this logo to be relevant for their purchase decisions.
-igure 10.(+ Qie#s of consumers regarding the EU logo for organic products
(Mean agreement #ith statements!

Source9 >#n data from consumer survey.

ItOs a good idea to have an EU+#ide logo for
certified organic products
Dithout the mandatory EU organic logo,
some food products are hard to identify
as organic in the store
,here are more than enough organic logos
already and a ne#, mandatory organic logo
#ill 4ust add comple5ity to the market
It is a good idea to have the same minimum
standards for organic products all over the EU
It is difficult to identify organic products
in the store
,otally
disagree
,otally
agree
Neither'
nor
+& +( +/ ) R/ R( R&
-ll 3E EE :$ I, <K U=
Question: Below you find a list of different statements regarding organic food. Please indicate to which extent you agree
or disagree with the following statements. (+3 = total agreement, 0 = neithernor, !3 = total disagreement".
Chapter /) Consumer perception on organic farming ()6

-ttitudes of non+organic consumers to#ards the EU organic logo #ere statistically different
regarding the first four statements of :igure /).&. ,he degree of agreement #as lo#er among
non+organic consumers to the first, second and fourth statements. Interestingly, agreement to
the statement @there are more than enough organic logos already and a ne#, mandatory organic
logo #ill 4ust add comple5ity to the market? #as higher among non+organic consumers.
10.(.4 .erception of consumers ith respect to the E% logo as an
indicator for 'ualit$
'cientific evidence
,he $egulation intends organic food to be perceived as food #ith high 0uality standards. ,he
perception of high 0uality needs to be understood against the background of consumers?
e5pectations regarding specific product 0uality. ,o the authors? kno#ledge, only little research
e5ists on #hether organic food is perceived as high 0uality food. Tanoli et al. (())! found out
that higher product 0uality #as an important reason for buying organic food in several European
countries. Many consumers understand organic food to be good food (Siriei5, ()//!. 7uality
parameters associated by consumers #ith organic food are better taste and a fresher product.
,his refers particularly to fresh fruit and vegetables. 1o#ever, perceived 0uality depends on the
specific product and may vary. ,herefore <earson et al. (()/)! identify only a #eak general
association of organic food and high 0uality products by consumers.
(esults of the consumer survey
In order to understand consumers? perceptions of high product 0uality, they #ere asked for the
properties a high 0uality product should have. :ree from any chemical substances, such as
residues from treatment in the production of ra# materials, or additives fre0uently used in food
processing #ere, on average, the most important 0uality attribute in all countries (,able /)./(!.
,his #as immediately follo#ed by freshness. Interestingly, good taste #as less important. >rganic
production as such #as no direct 0uality attribute for three 0uarters of the respondents.
1ealthiness #as particularly important in Estonia. In ;ermany high animal #elfare standards
#ere among the first t#o attributes. ;ood taste #as particularly important in the United
=ingdom. :or Italian consumers freedom from chemical substances #as follo#ed by organic
production. Interestingly, those attributes #hich are commonly associated #ith high 0uality
products, such as highest hygienic standards and good appearance #ere not among the top three
properties of a high 0uality product according to consumers? understanding in all countries.
(/) Chapter /) Consumer perception on organic farming

&a#le 10.12+ Share of respondents identifying different characteristics of high 0uality
products (in percentage, n G 8)) per country!

Source9 >#n data from consumer survey.
$egular organic consumers rank free of chemical residues and of synthetic additives, organic
production and higher animal #elfare standards higher than occasional and non+organic
consumers9 freshness, good taste, healthiness and good appearance seem to be less important to
regular organic consumers.
,est persons #ere then asked to select those logos #hich indicate high product 0uality out of all
initially presented logos. ,here #ere important differences bet#een countries (,able /)./&!. ,he
EU organic logo served as 0uality indicator most fre0uently in Italy, follo#ed by <oland and
Estonia. National organic logos served as indicators for high product 0uality in ;ermany, Estonia
and :rance. In the United =ingdom the private @Soil -ssociation? (logo /! #as a signal for high
product 0uality. Non organic 0uality logos #ere highly appreciated as 0uality indicators in Estonia
and in the United =ingdom.
All ,E EE -) I& ./ %*
:ree of chemical residues ( 8 ( & 8C ) (6
:ree from synthetic additives ) / 8 &8 ) 88 (C
:reshness &% & C (* &/ * 8
;ood taste (* /6 &6 (& /C () 8
>rganically produced (C (8 /6 (* &% &) /8
1ealthiness ( /* & ( /( (6 /6
Naturalness (& (/ (/ &) (& (6 /C
1igh animal #elfare standards (& 8 C () (/ /( &8
1ighest hygienic standards (/ () C (% &/ (( /6
:air producer prices /6 (( /% (% /* C ((
;ood appearance C & % & ( 8 /&
Convenience ( ( ( ( / / &
)uestion: +hich characteristics does a high quality product need to have from your point of view? !Aaximum of three answers%$
Chapter /) Consumer perception on organic farming (//

&a#le 10.1(+ Share of respondents for #hich different logos indicate high product 0uality (in
percentage2 n G 8)) per country!

Source9 >#n data from consumer survey.
>n average of all countries, regular organic consumers selected the EU organic logo, the three
organic logos /, (, and &, the :airtrade logo, the fake logo, the old EU logo and the ;erman
"iosiegel more often than occasional and non+organic consumers. ,he share of @3on?t kno#?
ans#ers #as much lo#er among regular organic consumers (/&J! than among occasional ((/J!
and non+organic consumers (6J!.
,est persons additionally #ere asked for their agreement to the statement @>rganic products
meet my e5pectations of a high 0uality product? (* point Kikert scale, R& totally agree, +& entirely
disagree!. ,he mean value over all countries #as ).% indicating slight agreement. ,he degree of
agreement #as much higher in <oland (mean /.&! and in Italy (mean /.(! and lo#est in ;ermany
and in :rance (mean ).C!. -s e5pected from the results presented above, regular consumers
agree to a much larger e5tent to this statement (mean /.8! than occasional (mean ).%! and non+
organic consumers (mean +)./!.
,E EE -) I& ./ %*
E% organic logo 19 21 15 (0 25 1(
>ld EU organic logo & // * (8 /
;erman "iosiegel 8 // * (C /6 8
>rganic logo / (C & 8% /8 % &)
>rganic logo ( / n'a 8 () n'a (C
>rganic logo & ( / & / /
:ake organic logo /) /) C (% /% 8
:airtrade logo (% /) /) * & &
-nimal #elfare'?green? logo % n'a 8* C % /*
Non+organic food 0uality logo C C) /8 () &) &
None of these logos // & & & 8
3onOt kno# / (( /C &/ &/ ((
)uestion: :roducers use logos in order to indicate specific product characteristics$ +hich logos generally indicate a high product
quality?
(/( Chapter /) Consumer perception on organic farming

10.3 ;udgement and conclusions
"ased on the results presented in the section above, it is concluded that the concept of organic
farming is largel$ understood #$ most consumers in the E%, taking the follo#ing into account9
the ma4ority of the respondents #ere familiar #ith the main issues of organic farming, such as
gro#ing #ithout the use of synthetic chemicals, production by methods protecting the
environment or gro#n #ithout the use of genetically modified seeds2 but
a large share of consumers surveyed also agreed #ith @incorrect? statements as being part of
the legal definition, such as @needs to be produced on small farms? and @needs to be produced
locally?2 and
a 0uarter of respondents to the consumer survey recognise the ne# EU organic logo #hich
#as introduced in ()/) and became compulsory #ithout e5ception in .uly ()/(.
,etailed considerations
Kabelling rules for organic products have been recognised as an important support measure to
foster the development of organic farming. :or this reason, Evaluation 7uestion 8 e5amines
consumers? perception of organic farming and the effects of the labelling rules of $egulation (EC!
%&'())*.
"efore the introduction of the mandatory EU logo, Member States used different logos for
organic food. In some countries national logos placed together #ith other private logos #ere #ell
kno#n in the market places and in some countries the old EU logo #as #idely used. ,hese
different labelling histories #ere assumed to have an impact on consumers? opinions and
perception of the EU organic logo. ,herefore, based on a revie# of literature, a #eb+based survey
#as carried out in si5 study countries (Estonia, :rance, ;ermany, Italy, <oland, United =ingdom2
8)) participants in each country! representing those different labelling traditions. ,he study
countries serve as e5amples of consumer perception of the EU logo. $esults might differ bet#een
countries #ith different specific conditions such as past promotion campaigns for the EU organic
logo.
,he main elements of the consumer survey #ere the degree of kno#ledge of the concept of
organic farming and of the EU organic logo and the compulsory additional indications. -dditional
0uestions referred to the contribution of the mandatory indications to consumer confidence and
trust in organic farming and on their impact on consumers? purchase decisions. :inally,
consumers? perception of the EU logo as an indicator for the 0uality of food #as evaluated.
,he approach of using a #eb+based survey is #ell suited for covering the opinions and
perceptions of a #ide range of consumers. $epresentativeness in its pure form usually cannot be
achieved in empirical social research. Instead, researchers aim at avoiding systematic biases by
e5cluding particular groups of consumers. - disadvantage of #eb+based surveys is that non+users
of the internet cannot be addressed. Nevertheless, there is no reason to assume that non+users
Chapter /) Consumer perception on organic farming (/&

of the internet have opinions and perceptions of the EU organic logo #hich are systematically
different to that of internet users. ,herefore, this approach is assumed to give a realistic picture
of consumers? opinions and perceptions at least in the study countries.
,he participants in the survey included buyers and non+buyers of organic food (non+organic
consumers!, since the strengthening of the organic market suggested in the European -ction <lan
for >rganic :ood and :arming re0uires to target also organic as #ell as non+organic consumers.
"oth need to become convinced of the advantages, the reliability and the 0uality of organic
farming and to become able to recognise its labelling.
Bnowledge of consumers about the concept of organic farming
=no#ledge of the sub4ect in 0uestion is considered essential for consumers? confidence and
purchase decisions (e.g. .anssen and 1amm, ()/(, 3augb4erg et al., ()/&, ,eisl et al., ())%!. ,he
revie# of literature reveals that better kno#ledge generally increases organic consumption and
that reliable information on specific aspects of organic farming could augment consumers?
#illingness to pay.
Consumers? kno#ledge of the concept of organic farming is high regarding the use of synthetic
chemicals in production and processing, but lo# #ith respect to issues not covered by the legal
definition, such as local production and production on small farms (on average less than 8)J
gave correct ans#ers!. Since organic farming has a long history, better kno#ledge of the concept
of organic farming might have been e5pected. 1o#ever, the interpretation of the results depends
on the perspective. ,he survey addressed all consumers and not only organic ones. -bout ()J of
the respondents classified themselves as non+organic consumers, #hich have much little
understanding of the organic farming concept than consumers buying organic food.
Comparing the high share of correct ans#ers regarding the concept of organic farming #ith
observed market shares of organic food of only a fe# percentages (see Schaack et al., ()/&!, one
may argue that many consumers do not buy organic food although kno#ing the concept and
main principles. -t the same time higher purchase fre0uency #as found to be linked #ith better
kno#ledge. ,herefore, the results of the survey sho# that kno#ledge is one, but not the only,
factor influencing purchase decisions on organic food.
*onsumersC recognition of and nowledge about the compulsory EU logo
;enerally, kno#ledge of the ne# EU organic logo turned out to be limited. Dith some differences
bet#een studied countries, about a 0uarter of all respondents had seen the EU organic logo
before. ,hese results are similar to the results from Eurobarometer (()/(!. ,he small deviations
found may be due to the fact that different samples #ere used and different conte5ts #ere
given.
- comparative analysis of the EU organic logo and other organic and non+organic food logos
sho#ed that in all si5 countries e5cept Italy the EU organic logo #as better kno#n than the old
(/ Chapter /) Consumer perception on organic farming

EU organic logo. 1o#ever, in all countries other organic logos e5ist in the market place, #hich
#ere better kno#n than the EU organic logo. ,his is not surprising, given that the EU organic logo
although introduced to the market in ()/) became compulsory #ithout e5ceptions only in .uly
()/(.
,he high share of respondents in Italy, <oland and in :rance recognising the fake organic logo
#hich includes the term @bio? as an organic logo, might serve as an indicator that consumers are
missing some minimal information on the meaning of the logo. ,he EU organic logo does not give
any e5planation on itself but it must be accompanied by the code number of the control body
#hich needs to @include a term #hich establishes a link #ith the organic production method?
($egulation %%6'())% -rticle 8%(b!!. In practise, terms used in European countries are e.g. @"I>?,
@EC>?, @U=>?, @E=>?, @>$;? and ?V=> (one per country!. ,his indication supports consumers to link
the EU logo #ith organic farming2 ho#ever the term @organic agriculture? is not mandatorily
accompanying the EU logo. Dhen designing the EU organic logo it #as agreed on not having a
clear reference to organic by including e.g. the term @bio? because it might have been
meaningless in some countries due to different languages.
$esults might have been different if the EU organic logo #ould have been tested together #ith
the additional mandatory indications. 1o#ever, in line #ith earlier research (Eurobarometer,
()/(, -gence "io, ()/(! the EU logo (and the additional indications! #as tested separately. ,his
approach also takes into consideration the fact that generally logos are meant to be e5pressive
#ithout any additional information.
,he rather high share of people having recognised the EU organic logo in :rance of about &%J
(results are also reflected by -gence "io (()/(! and Eurobarometer (()/(!! may serve as an
e5ample for the impact of a #ell suited combination of the (old! national and the (ne#! EU
organic logo9 the EU organic logo al#ays going together #ith the #ell+kno#n national -"+logo
and being promoted 4ointly.
$esults also indicated that on average test persons agreed to the statement @It?s a good idea to
have an EU+#ide logo for certified organic products?. ,herefore increasing kno#ledge of the EU
organic logo should be aimed at and seems to be promising for the organic market. ,his #ould
foster the achievement of global ob4ectives of the EU $egulation on organic farming such as
enhancing consumer confidence in organic food and contributing to the functioning of the
internal market by establishing a common organic logo.
*onsumersC nowledge about additional compulsory indications
-dditional compulsory indications such as the indication of the place of farming of the ra#
materials (EU agriculture and non+EU agriculture! and the code number of the control body (in
force already since $egulation (EEC! ()6('6/! #ere introduced in order to increase information
and to reduce consumers? confusion. - precondition for the achievement of this aim is that
Chapter /) Consumer perception on organic farming (/8

consumers must kno# about the indications and believe them to be sufficient #ith respect to
information content.
,he results sho# that consumers? kno#ledge on additional mandatory indications is lo#. Dith
only % to 6 out of /)) test persons being a#are of the additional mandatory indications, such as
@EU agriculture? or @non+EU -griculture? and the code number of the control body, it must be
concluded that the aims in this respect are not met to a satisfactory degree. >nly in Italy, #here
the code number of the control body #as communicated to consumers as a reliable indicator for
organic food, #as kno#ledge higher. ,he reason is supposed to be that the code number is not
easy to recognise and remember since it has no clear visual image. :or this reason, the relevance
of the code number of the control body for supporting consumers to understand the meaning of
the EU logo might be limited.
-ccording to the $egulation, products can be labelled #ith the name of the country if 6%J of all
ra# materials have been farmed only in one country, #hich is ho#ever rarely the case for
processed food products (EU $egulation %&'())*, -rticle ((c!!. ,est persons slightly #elcomed
the e5istence of the indications @EU -griculture? and @non+EU -griculture?. 1o#ever, on average
they did not believe this indication to be fully sufficient. ,his result is in line #ith the results from
.anssen and 1amm (()/(!. In a globalised #orld, many processed products contain ingredients
from EU and non+EU countries. ,hese products need therefore to be labelled #ith @EU'non+EU
-griculture? W the gain of information might be lo#. ,herefore, in its present form this indication
might not be very promising in supporting consumers? purchase decisions. "y allo#ing only (J of
ra# materials not to be from the country indicated, the $egulation is stricter than some other
indications on regional food (e.g. products #ith protected geographical indications such as @;utes
aus 1essen?
3
or @;eprXfte 7ualitYt Schles#ig+1olstein?
5
!. Council $egulation (EC! 8/)'())C on the
protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural product
stipulates e.g. that in the case of the origin of the ra# material for <;I products 4ust the
production and'or processing and'or preparation of a product takes place in the defined
geographical area, but not that all ra# materials have to originate from that area.
*ontribution of compulsory indications to consumersC confidence and trust in organic farming
=no#ledge of the production standards and of the logo is not enough to affect consumption
decisions. Instead trust is also needed (e.g. .anssen and 1amm, ()/(2 3augb4erg et al., ()/&!. ,he
survey results suggest that consumers have some confidence in the EU logo2 more respondents
trusted the logo than did not trust it. :urthermore, #ith the e5ception of <oland, in all countries
trust in the EU organic logo is the same or higher than in the old EU logo. ,hese results are
supported by test persons? opinions and perceptions on organic food in general and the role of

3
http9''###.gutes+aus+hessen.de'unsere+Feichen'gepruefte+0ualitaet+hessen.html.
5
http9''###.gFsh.de'gueteFeichen'das+0ualitaetssiegel'.
(/C Chapter /) Consumer perception on organic farming

the EU organic logo in particular. Dith regard to additional indications, on average about )J of
the respondents trust in the indications on the origin of the ra# materials and a smaller share in
the code number of the organic control body ((&J!. 3ue to a targeted promotion campaign
before the introduction of the EU organic logo, this last share is higher in Italy. -lthough, on
average there is some trust in the EU organic logo, this could be increased by better
communicating underlying standards and certification systems in order to contribute to the EU
$egulations? general ob4ective of ensuring consumers? trust.
-t this point, it might be helpful to differentiate bet#een organic and non+organic consumers.
$egular organic consumers sho#ed a higher degree of trust also in the EU logo. >n the one hand,
this may serve as an indication that increasing trust may increase organic consumption. >n the
other hand, it stresses the need to directly address also non+organic consumers by
communicating the e5istence of independent certification systems.
(elevance of compulsory indications for consumersC purchase decisions
Since the kno#ledge of the EU organic logo #as only limited, purchase relevance of compulsory
indications #as also e5pected to be lo#. ,he results of the survey prove this assumption. ,he EU
organic logo is considered to be relevant for the purchase decision by only /&J of all
respondents. 3ue to the limited kno#ledge #hich in turn is due to the fact that the EU organic
logo #as only recently introduced, other organic logos #ere perceived to be much more
important at the point of sale.
1o#ever, against the background of the short presence in the markets and the lack of promotion
campaigns, purchase relevance, at least in countries #ithout strong national or private logos such
as <oland and Italy, is notable.
:erception of consumers with respect to the EU logo as an indicator for quality
,he survey results sho# that the ma4ority of test persons do not perceive the EU logo as an
indication for 0uality, not#ithstanding some differences bet#een countries. ,his is not a surprise
bearing in mind that the kno#ledge of the EU logo turned out to be lo#.
In order to e5amine the potential of the EU logo as an indicator for 0uality, it is useful to consider
#hether test persons perceive organic food itself as a 0uality indicator. ,he results of the survey
indicate that this is true only for a 0uarter of all respondents. 1o#ever, typical properties of
organic food such as freedom from chemical residues and from synthetic additives are highly
ranked 0uality attributes. :urthermore, #hen asked test persons for their opinion on the
statement @>rganic products meet my e5pectations of a high 0uality product?, regular organic
consumers agreed on average #hile non+organic consumers #ere more sceptical. ,his finding
corresponds also to the result that regular organic consumers mentioned typical attributes of
organic food, such as lo# residues of chemicals and additives, more fre0uently than occasional or
non+organic consumers. ,his consumer group selected the EU logo more often as a 0uality
Chapter /) Consumer perception on organic farming (/*

indicator and agreed to a higher degree to the statement that organic food meets their
e5pectations of a high 0uality product.
:rom that it can be concluded that organic food meets important consumer e5pectations
regarding 0uality attributes particularly for regular organic consumers but at the same time some
e5pectations of consumers regarding 0uality of organic food are not al#ays fulfilled. :rom the
ans#ers to the 0uestion of 0uality characteristics it can be deduced that these properties are
particularly freshness and good taste. ,hus, the EU organic logo has a potential + particular for
regular organic consumers + to serve as 0uality indicator given improved kno#ledge of the logo.

Chapter 11
Simplified administration and management of the organic
farming legislation

11.1 Introduction
Evaluation Question 6
To what extent has the current legislative framework for organic farming contributed to
achieving a simplified administration and management of the legislative measures applied to
the organic sector as compared to the legal framework applicable before 2009?
In answering this question, the following groups of actors need to be considered farmers, other
operators !processors, importers, retailers", #ember $tates% &ompetent 'uthorities, #ember
$tates% accreditation bodies, control authorities and control bodies, and (uropean &ommission)
The European Union introduced its first regulation for organic food in 1991 (EEC/2092/91)

with
the aim to protect organic farming b ensuring fair competition between producers and
impro!ing the credibilit of such products in the ees of consumers" #!er the ne$t 1% ears& until
200'& the regulation was amended (0 times& through ' Council and )2 Commission regulations as
well as two *cts of *ccession" *s part of the European *ction +lan for #rganic ,ood and ,arming
(European Commission& 200(a) the EU Council called on the Commission to re!iew the legal
framewor- for with a !iew .to ensure simplification and overall coherence.& as well as /to reduce
the level of detail where possible. (0ecital ( of 0egulation (EC) 1)(/2002)" The Commission
wor-ing document to the *ction +lan stated in particular the need to simplif the rules related to
animal husbandr (European Commission& 200(b)" The outcome of this process is the current
0egulation (EC) 1)(/2002 with ob3ecti!es& general and sector specific principles as well as
production rules for the !arious sectors and separate Commission 0egulations with more detailed
implementing rules" The new regulations also include pro!isions on information e$change
between authorities regarding information from control bodies and the #rganic ,arming
4nformation 5stem (#,45) has been set up to facilitate such e$change"
1

*gainst this bac-ground the aim of this e!aluation 6uestion is to establish whether the total
re!ision of the legal framewor- for organic farming has contributed to simplification in terms of

1
http7//ec"europa"eu/agriculture/ofis8public/inde$"cfm"
220 Chapter 11 5implified administration and management of the organic farming legislation
administration and management of the legal measures& compared to the legal framewor- in
e$istence before"
Efforts to simplif the legislati!e framewor- for organic food and farming should be seen in the
conte$t of the Common *gricultural +olic framewor-& where such actions should ha!e the goal
of /reducing red tape for both farmers and administrations b* making rules more transparent,
easier to understand and less burdensome to compl* with+ (European Commission& 200%a)"
+otential further areas for simplification could also be clarit& language structure& accessibilit
and a reduction in the comple$it of technical details to ma-e the rules as eas to compl with as
possible and b remo!ing some unnecessar re6uirements" This is part of the EU strateg for
better and smarter regulation which re9affirms the need to consider the !iews of affected
sta-eholders and to reduce red tape for both operators and administrations
(European8Commission& 200%b: European8Commission& 2010: European8Commission& 2012)"
4n the conte$t of this e!aluation& simplification is understood to refer mainl to the transparenc
of the structure of the rules and the administrati!e burden of the rules for !arious operators"
Changes considered with potential impact on transparenc are7 stating ob3ecti!es and principles&
changes to the structure of the production rules& changes to the control sstems through lin-ing
it with the 0egulation (EC) 112/200( (#fficial ,ood and ,eed Control) and changes to the
appro!al process of !arious permitted inputs through inclusion of criteria" The appro!al process
also considers the role of the e$pert ;roup for Technical *d!ice on #rganic +roduction (E;T#+)"
#ther acti!ities of E;T#+& such as technical ad!ice on an matter relating to the area of organic
production are not considered in this chapter" The main change considered with impact on the
administrati!e burden is the replacement of derogations with e$ceptional rules"
*fter this introduction and listing the 3udgement criteria and sources& results are presented
related to the transparenc of the new framewor-& its impact on the appro!al processes for
permitted inputs& bureaucrac and administration for operators at !arious le!els and the
6uestion of whether inclusion of e$ceptional rules has contributed to simplification"
11.2 Approach
The answer to E!aluation <uestion ' is based on se!eral 3udgement criteria which were mainl
deri!ed from the concept of simplification in the conte$t of the C*+ set out abo!e" The following
criteria are e$amined7
(1) The new regulations Council !egulation EC" #$%&2''( and the implementing rules in
Commission !egulation EC" ##)&2''#" are or are not" more transparent compared with
the previous one and repealed Council !egulation EEC" 2')2&)1
This was 3udged on the basis of documentar analsis of the 0egulations and !iews of
sta-eholders& e$perts from E;T#+ and staff of the European Commission"
Chapter 11 5implified administration and management of the organic farming legislation 221
(2) The approval of su*stances to *e included in the Anne+ has or has not" *een made
simpler under the new rules
This was 3udged on the basis of documentar analsis of the regulations and !iews of
e$perts from the E;T#+ in relation to the appro!al process and the European Commission
were considered"
()) The new Council and Commission regulations have or have not" reduced red tape for
operators and administration
This was 3udged on the basis of the !iews of sta-eholders in the 1) case stud countries"
(() The inclusion of e+ceptional rules and adaptation to local conditions rather than
derogations has or has not" simplified administration and management
To 3udge whether the current legislati!e framewor- has contributed to simplifing
administration and management of the legislati!e measures& the (different) !iews and
e$periences of those sta-eholders that are directl in!ol!ed in the administration and
management of the legislati!e measures should ob!iousl be considered" To achie!e this&
the opinions of competent authorities& control bodies and organic operators (producers&
processors& wholesalers& retailers& business groups) from the 1) case stud countries ha!e
been gathered" ,urthermore& the !iews of E;T#+ members and EU Commission officials
ha!e also been ta-en into account"
11.$ !esults
11.$.1 Transparenc, of the !egulation compared with the previous
instrument
Changes to the structure of the !egulation
,indings from the anal*sis of provisions
Council 0egulation (EEC) 2092/91 was one regulation with se!eral *nne$es& of which *nne$ 4 (*
to C) contained the main production rules" The new regulator framewor- consists of one Council
0egulation and two Commission regulations (see also Chapter )) with implementing rules" #f
issues related to simplification set out b the Commission in the conte$t of better regulation:
repealing& codification and re9casting are particularl rele!ant in this conte$t" Table 11"1 gi!es an
o!er!iew of sections& headings and articles of 0egulation (EC) 1)(/2002 and the related
implementing rules& compared with 0egulation (EEC) 2092/91"
222 Chapter 11 5implified administration and management of the organic farming legislation
Ta*le 11.1- 5tructure of 0egulation (EC) 1)(/2002 compared with old regime

5ource7 #wn presentation based on 0egulation (EC) 2092/91& 0egulation (EC) 1)(/2002& 0egulation (EC) 119/2001 and
0egulation (EC) 12)%/2001"
The following changes are most rele!ant to simplification7
.*/ectives and principles ha!e been included in one section" The 6uestion of whether
ob3ecti!es and principles ha!e contributed to more common understanding of organic
agriculture was addressed in Chapter 2"
The production rules in Council 0egulation (EC) 1)(/2002 brought together !arious sections
from *nne$ 4 of 0egulation (EEC) 2092/91& whereb re6uirements related to the whole farm
(rather than crops or li!estoc-) and farm con!ersion rules that were pre!iousl in se!eral
different places were brought together" The section includes criteria for the appro!al of
substances listed in !arious *nne$es" *lso a statement of setting out conditions for fle$ibilit
was included allowing organic production to be adapted to local conditions where necessar"
These e$ceptional rules replaced the pre!ious sstem of derogations" ,or li!estoc- production
Council !egulation Council !egulation Commission !egulations
EEC" 2')2&)1 EC" #$%&2''(
*rticle *rticle =eading *rticle
4 *im& 5cope and >efinition
19) 1 5cope 1 0eg" (EC) 1)(/2002
1 0eg" (EC) 12)%/2001
( 2 >efinitions 2
*nne$ ?4 2 0eg" (EC) 12)%/2001
' )92 44 #b3ecti!es @ principles
*nne$ 4
2 1922 444 0ules of production 5ee Table 2"1 for details
*nne$ 4 (*& A&C)
*nne$ 44 (A)
*nne$ 4?
% 2)92' 4? Babelling %29'2 0eg" (EC) 1)(/2002
1C9 229)1 ? Controls ')9'9 0eg" (EC) 1)(/2002
11 )29)) ?4 Trade with outside EU 1921 0eg" (EC) 12)%/2001
*nne$es 0eg" (EC) 12)%/2001
1)91% )(9() ?44 ,inal @ transitional rules 9)99( 0eg" (EC) 1)(/2002
*nne$ 44 9 4D *nne$ 49D4? 0eg" (EC) 1)(/2002
Chapter 11 5implified administration and management of the organic farming legislation 22)
it remo!ed the situation where national rules could be stricter than the EU rules"
2
Eost
detailed rules pre!iousl stated in the !arious *nne$es of 0egulation (EEC) 2091/91 were
transferred with !er few changes to their content& but some new areas were introduced (e"g"
a6uaculture& wine)"
The control rules were lin-ed to 0egulation (EC) 112/200( (see also Chapter 1)"
The mandator use of a common EU logo in the la*elling rules is also li-el to ha!e impro!ed
transparenc for consumers (see Chapter 10)"
-iews of stakeholders and experts
4n general& the introduction of the principles and ob3ecti!es in a legal conte$t was broadl
welcomed as contributing to the understanding of the concept of organic farming& although
opinions as to the e$tent to which this had impro!ed o!erall transparenc were mi$ed" 4n the
sta-eholder sur!e the ma3orit of respondents agreed that the new organic farming legislation is
more transparent than the pre!ious regime (see ,igure 11"1)"
0igure 11.1- ?iews of sta-eholders whether the new organic farming legislation is more
transparent than 0egulation (EEC) 2092/91 (219 respondents)

5ource7 #wn data form web9based sur!e of sta-eholders"
There was some concern that the ob3ecti!es and principles ha!e introduced se!eral terms that
are not legall defined (e"g" sustainabilit) which could reduce their impact in the implementation
or lead to length discussion about their interpretation in the conte$t of the 0egulation"

2
Council 0egulation (EC) 110(/1999 amending Council 0egulation (EEC) 2092/91"
n
totall largel partl Feither/
nor
partl 4 donGt
-now
0
10
20
)0
(0
%0
'0
20
largel totall
*gree >isagree
Question: Do you agree with the following statement? The new organic farming legislation (Council Regulation
(EC) No. 8!"#$$% an& the im'lementing rules) is more trans'arent than Regulation (EEC) #$(#"().
Beft
blan-
22( Chapter 11 5implified administration and management of the organic farming legislation
Boo-ing in greater detail at the !iews that emerged from the inter!iews in case stud countries&
some competent authorities (CHech 0epublic& Estonia& ,rance and the United Iingdom)& control
bodies (*ustria& CHech 0epublic& Estonia& ,rance) and Einistr of *griculture respondents
(*ustria& ;erman) suggested that there needs to be greater precision and clarit, of definition in
order to facilitate a common interpretation& and conse6uentl implementation& across Eember
5tates" *reas where this was felt to be particularl rele!ant included the status of animals in the
case of non9simultaneous con!ersion& soil protection rules& definition of a region& and& more
generall clearer definitions of terms used in the 0egulation such as Jirregularities and
infringementsK and a definition of Jhigh 6ualitK" #ne competent authorit was of the contrar
opinion that 0egulation (EC) 1)(/2002 is more precise thereb gi!ing less room for
interpretation"
The need for clearer and more precise definitions was echoed b a number of producer
representati!es who felt that certain areas were too open to interpretation" Eight organic
producer organisations and farm ad!isors from *ustria& CHech 0epublic& Estonia& ,rance& and the
United Iingdom called for more closel defined production rules in order to remo!e ambiguit
and limit room for interpretation" E$amples gi!en of areas where Eember 5tates ha!e differing
interpretations include housing conditions for cal!es& authorised inputs& soil protection& definition
of a poultr house& greenhouse crop production and the use of substrates" *s one producer
organisation representati!e put it& /where there%s no intention for there to be flexibilit* !)))" it
should be clearer what the intended interpretation should be" (L)" It should be absolutel* clear
within the .egulation what the intention of that is and the interpretation) There shouldn%t be an*
regional interpretation+"
#ne competent authorit and one control bod felt that more detailed rules are not needed but
rather a more unified and harmonised interpretation e$pressed as a balance between fle$ibilit
and harmonisation" *nother competent authorit cautioned against harmonisation at the
e$pense of simplification" 11 respondents (competent authorities& control bodies and farm
ad!isors) in eight countries (*ustria& CHech 0epublic& >enmar-& Estonia& ,rance& 4tal& +oland&
5lo!enia and the United Iingdom) e$pressed a desire for some -ind of a harmonised& EU9le!el&
interpretation of the 0egulation7 //where there is a question, I don%t think it%s down to an
individual certifier or even a group of control bodies in a #ember $tate to come up with our own
interpretation of it) It should be the &ommission that sa*s what the intention of that part of the
.egulation is and how it should be applied." #ne suggestion was to create an /overarching
document or web based reference for common interpretation+)
1' respondents (from competent authorities& Einistries of *griculture& control bodies& organic
producer organisations& farm ad!isors& business groups) in se!en countries (*ustria& CHech
0epublic& 5pain& ,rance& 4tal& +oland and 5lo!enia) commented on the control s,stem in terms of
its transparenc and the consistenc of enforcement and sanctions" The lin- between organic
farming inspection sstems and the sstem of official controls in accordance with 0egulation (EC)
112/200( is !er much welcomed" =owe!er& three respondents (competent authorit& control
Chapter 11 5implified administration and management of the organic farming legislation 22%
bod& Einistr of *griculture) obser!ed that this has introduced an e$tra laer of comple$it" 4t
was suggested that control sstems would benefit from greater harmoniHation between
0egulation (EC) 112/200( and 0egulation (EC) 1)(/2002 to better clarif the sur!eillance
procedures competent authorities should perform on control bodies and control authorities"
5e!eral respondents (competent authorities& Einistries of *griculture& control bodies& organic
producer organisations and business groups) felt that interpretation of infringements and
sanctions b Eember 5tates differed greatl and that clarification of the sstem is re6uired to
ensure greater transparenc and a more harmonised interpretation" 5uggestions included a
common European standard for non9compliance and sanction to ma-e the reporting of control
bodies comparable or a /(uropean platform for sharing information between control bodies and
competent authorities." #ne control bod obser!ed that the definitions of terms could allow for
clearer comprehension to a!oid different interpretations between Eember 5tates& especiall
regarding the terms Jirregularities/infringementsK and Jinspections/controlsK"
*s regards the separation of the principles & main rules and implementing rules into separate
documents& opinions were mi$ed" 5e!eral representati!es from competent authorities& control
bodies& producer organisations and organic business groups in si$ countries (*ustria& ,rance& 4tal&
+oland& 5lo!enia and the United Iingdom) were concerned that the split of the 0egulation into
Council and Commission 0egulations has made it more difficult to see the coherence of the
legislati!e pro!ision and has compounded the lac- of clarit" 5pecific concerns were that the
implementing rules can be read on their own without reference to the ob3ecti!es and principles"
This concern was reiterated b one of the E;T#+ e$perts" =owe!er& another E;T#+ e$pert was
of the opinion that whilst splitting the 0egulation had not simplified the situation& it had
contributed to o!erall transparenc" 4nter!iewees from control bodies (*ustria& 5lo!enia and the
United Iingdom) and Einistries of *griculture (*ustria& ;erman) commented on the practical
difficult of reading the regulations as issues are spread throughout the separate documents"
5e!eral respondents suggested that the detail in 0egulation (EC) 1)(/2002 needed to be pared
down to a few& clear basic principles and ob3ecti!es with no rules and focus in greater detail in
the implementing rules in 0egulation (EC) 119/2001"
#ther sta-eholders (competent authorities in ,rance and the United Iingdom& producer
organisations in ,rance& 5lo!enia and the United Iingdom as well as control bodies in the United
Iingdom) 6uestioned how well the principles and ob3ecti!es are aligned with the implementing
rules" 4t was pointed out that there are inconsistencies *etween the o*/ectives of the !egulation
and the production rules applied which could 3eopardise deli!er of the aspirations set out in
0egulation (EC) 1)(/20027
/012 is good but it needs to be carried through b* implementing rules which are progressive
and live up to the high expectations) !L) There%s no real mechanism within the exceptional
rules for ensuring that there is progression and evaluation of that progression.:
22' Chapter 11 5implified administration and management of the organic farming legislation
/There needs to be more of a focus and a facilit* to look at things like environmental
performance and energ* use) There are some openings for that in 012 but it needs to be
stated more explicitl*."
/.ules prohibiting the use of amino acids in feed processing act against the principle of
sustainabilit*, as the* lead to higher emissions and act against animal welfare provisions."
#ne e$pert from E;T#+ highlighted that shared information !ia the .0IS s,stem about imports&
e$ceptional rules& irregularities and frauds has contributed to more transparenc& as has the
inclusion of criteria for appro!al of substances in the *nne$es"
The Commission e$pressed the !iew that the structure of the new regulations and the fact that
production rules are now defined at the le!el of the Council 0egulation has contributed to
transparenc because it ma1es changing the rules easier" 5imilarl the considered that the
replacement of derogations b fle$ibilit rules has contributed to transparenc although it was
not specified wh this should be the case"
11.$.2 The approval process for permitted su*stances
,indings from the anal*sis of provisions
#ne ma3or change of the 0egulation is the inclusion of criteria for the appro!al process for
permitted inputs (*rticle 1' of 0egulation (EC) 1)(/2002 for products used in farming and *rticle
21 for use in processing)" Changes to the appro!al process included the introduction of an E$pert
;roup for Technical *d!ice on #rganic +roduction (E;T#+) in order to assist the Commission in
e!aluating products& substances and technologies which can be used in organic production"
$

#ther acti!ities of the E;T#+& such as technical ad!ice on an matter relating to the area of
organic production are not considered in this section" 4t is worth noting that the EU appro!al
process at present onl co!ers generic substances and not the appro!al of specific trade products
for use b organic operators: this is currentl handled either at national or at control bod le!el"
%

Bists of products that can be used b organic operators are published in se!eral countries (e"g"
*ustria& ;erman& and ,rance) and are made a!ailable b some control bodies to their members&
but the do not e$ist in all Eember 5tates"
-iews of stakeholders
,our competent authorities (>enmar-& the Fetherlands& +oland and 5lo!enia) did not ha!e a clear
opinion on whether the EU appro!al procedure has been simplified and three (Estonia& 4tal& and

$
A Commission >ecision 2009/(22/EC of ) Mune 2009& the Commission established the E$pert ;roup for Technical
*d!ice on #rganic +roduction (E;T#+)"
%
5ee also in!entor of the implementation of input appro!al process under regulations in !arious EU Eember 5tates
<BI%9CT92002902%'% http7//www"organic9research"net/organicinputs"htmlN@BO0"
Chapter 11 5implified administration and management of the organic farming legislation 222
5pain) felt there had been no change" Two (*ustria& United Iingdom) were of the !iew that the
appro!al procedure has become more transparent& in so far as people -now better what is
e$pected and what le!el of detail is needed" 4t is important to note that the appro!al procedure
applies to generic substances but not to the appro!al of specific products" The CHech competent
authorit and one control bod were concerned that at present there is not enough clear
information for operators on what products the can or cannot use"
5taff of the Commission and E;T#+ members shared the !iew that the appro!al process has not
become easier but is now more transparent" +articularl for crop protection agents it is now
simpler to introduce new generic substances and the criteria against which dossiers ha!e to be
e!aluated are more transparent" The E;T#+ process with clear rules of operation& using criteria
set out the 0egulation& and the publication of its reports has impro!ed the e$pertise and
transparenc of the process"
*ccording to Commission staff& the introduction of the appro!al procedure for substances has
created e$pectation in the input industr& which submits more and more re6uests for appro!als
and the current procedure is !er time consuming and should therefore be changed" 4t was felt
that future pro!isions should focus on identification of the best substances for organic agriculture
rather than all& and ma-e it possible to remo!e as well as add substances to the lists"
,indings from the anal*sis of other publications and information
Aoth the Commission and E;T#+ agreed that the appro!al process for substances from the
constitution of a dossier b the Eember 5tate to either inclusion of the substance in the
respecti!e *nne$ of the Commission 0egulation or re3ection has generall ta-en a long period of
time" Aefore the setting up of the E;T#+ in 2009& the Commission used ad9hoc e$port groups to
help e!aluating the substances and tended to gather dossiers in batches to achie!e a critical mass
to be e$amined b the e$pert" This process could ta-e up to fi!e ears on a!erage& sometimes
e!en more" #nce the E;T#+ was operational& the process was streamlined and it is estimated
that the minimum period of time to get a substance appro!ed (or re3ected) has been reduced to
appro$imatel two to three ears& if all conditions along the process are optimal" *s before&
dossiers are not e$amined on a continuous basis& but in batches to reach critical mass" >elas can
occur if dossiers presented b the Eember 5tates are incomplete and further wor- from the
national administrations is re6uired" >elas can also occur because the wor-ing procedures of
the E;T#+ foresee the constitution of sub9groups with a !iew to appoint e$perts with ade6uate
e$perience to the tpe of substances and sub3ect under consideration"
221 Chapter 11 5implified administration and management of the organic farming legislation
*fter E;T#+ has pro!ided written recommendations& the normal legislati!e procedure has to
ta-e place& before a decision on inclusion (or re3ection) is ta-en" #f the four E;T#+ reports
2

related to the appro!al of substances (plant protection products& fertilisers and soil conditioners&
feed additi!es& organic food) onl one has so far resulted in changes to 0egulation (EC) 119/2001"
#ne inter!iewed e$pert !iewed this as inhibiting inno!ation and constituting a handicap for the
further de!elopment of sector& both in primar production and in food processing"
11.$.$ Impact on *ureaucrac, red tape" and administration for operators
and authorities
4t is not eas to separate the impact of specific changes aimed at simplification from the o!erall
impact of the new regime compared to the old one& because se!eral new areas were introduced
(e"g" a6uaculture& wine)" The total administrati!e burden of competent authorities and control
bodies will also ha!e been affected b the fact that the number organic operators and the siHe of
the mar-et ha!e increased since the 0egulation was introduced" *ll this is li-el to result in
greater wor-load for administration at !arious le!els" ,or e$ample& some inter!iewees in
;erman pointed out with a slightl ironic undertone that /each deleted regulation was followed
b* two new ones+) This needs to be -ept in mind when interpreting the responses of the !arious
sta-eholders"
-iews of stakeholders and experts
*s-ed whether the new 0egulation had reduced bureaucrac the o!erwhelming response of
sta-eholders in the case stud countries was that this is not the case" * ma3orit of respondents
who e$pressed an opinion (90 inter!iewees) belie!ed that it has remained the same& with some
belie!ing that the situation had got worse" This was described b a couple of respondents as an
ine!itable conse6uence of a more comple$& more comprehensi!e regulator framewor- (e"g"
control bodies in 5pain& competent authorit in ;erman)" Ean respondents attributed it to the
increased need to interpret aspects of the legislation" #nl 12 respondents belie!e that
bureaucrac has been reduced and onl in certain areas" *reas cited b respondents were
imports& in!oicing& and documentar e!idence" =owe!er& none of these respondents elaborated
on the particular aspects that ha!e contributed to this reduction"
Boo-ing in greater detail& opinions !aried according to the tpe of sta-eholder" *ll e$cept one of
the organic producer organisations inter!iewed (1' out of 12) commented that bureaucrac had
not been reduced for farmers and growers and in some cases had increased" #nl two
respondents elaborated on their answer" #ne attributed the increase in bureaucrac to the lac-

2
5ee http7//ec"europa"eu/agriculture/organic/eu9polic/e$pert9recommendations/e$pert9group8en" #ne further report
of E;T#+ is related to the mandate to re!iew the pro!isions for organic poultr production and is not related to input
appro!al"
Chapter 11 5implified administration and management of the organic farming legislation 229
of clarit in the regulations which& according to them& has created confusion resulting in more
time and effort being spent on interpretation (see also 11")"1)" * second commented that
bureaucrac has increased in particular for small scale producers and is seen as a ma3or barrier
for them in ta-ing up organic production (4tal)" #nl one inter!iewee& from a producer
organisation in the Fetherlands was of the opinion that there had been some reduction in
bureaucrac resulting from the mo!e towards 100Q organic feed for ruminants& but did not
pro!ide further details" +resumabl this referred to the fact that record -eeping in relation to
different feed inputs has been simplified"
*mong other organic operators (processors& wholesalers& retailers& and business groups) the
ma3orit !iew was that bureaucrac had increased or staed the same with onl se!en of %%
inter!iewees disagreeing" 0easons gi!en include national e$ceptional rules creating more
bureaucrac: too bureaucratic for small scale producers: documentar e!idence (/,rom a
theoretic point of view the bureaucrac* concerning the documentar* evidence as in 'rticle 29
should decrease) 3owever, what we can notice from our experience is that the bureaucrac*
increased+)"
#nl one competent authorit was of the opinion that bureaucrac had been reduced due to
what the see as the greater precision of the 0egulation resulting in fewer resources being spent
on issues of interpretation" 4n contrast& competent authorities in the other twel!e case stud
countries saw the situation unchanged or worsened" 0easons gi!en include& for e$ample& /The
dut* of providing exception Rwhich wasS given to the competent authorit*.& or /lack of clarit* and
consistenc* in the .egulation+"
The pre!ailing opinion among control bodies in nine of the thirteen case stud countries was that
bureaucrac has not been reduced& and might e!en ha!e increased because more time is being
spent on interpreting and clarifing the 0egulation" #ne comment was concerned whether such
interpretation wor- is being replicated across all Eember 5tates7 /To start with the .egulation
has to be clear so it%s not open to interpretation/) it%s a huge waste of resources and it would be
far better to have some kind of &ommission based entit* to make decisions on) 4ot where there
are regional differences, but on simple procedural things and interpretation and implementation."
4n contrast& control bodies in Estonia and 5lo!enia were of the opinion that situation had
impro!ed slightl for them partl due to there being less need for authorisations (Estonia)& and as
a result of the control bod transferring some of its administrati!e tas-s to the competent
authorit (5lo!enia)" * similar was e$pressed b a Aulgarian control bod without howe!er
specifing an reasons"
,our 4talian respondents (control bod& organic producer organisation& organic retailer and
en!ironmental F;#) as well as one *ustrian control bod commented that the control sstem
was o!erl bureaucratic especiall for small scale producers and operators" 4t was felt that a
simplified control sstem might be put in place for small scale operators& possibl through small
group certification"
2)0 Chapter 11 5implified administration and management of the organic farming legislation
Commission staff e$pressed the !iew that the inclusion of the main production rules in the
Council 0egulation has led to a clear separation of tas-s between the Council and the
Commission and has made changing some of the rules easier"
11.$.% Simplification through the inclusion of e+ceptional rules and
fle+i*ilit,
,indings from the anal*sis of provisions
4n *rticle 22 the 0egulation (EC) 1)(/2002 replaced the sstem of derogations (e"g" for the use of
certain non9organic or restricted inputs) with a sstem of e$ceptional rules that allows the
adaptation to local conditions rather than derogations"
-iews of stakeholders and experts
0espondents from control bodies were split in their opinion of whether or not the inclusion of
e$ceptional rules and adaptation to local conditions as compared to the pre!ious regime of
derogations has simplified administration and management for them" ,i!e respondents& from
Aulgaria& CHech 0epublic& Estonia& 4tal and 5lo!enia thought that this change had simplified their
administration but did not specif reasons" Fine control bodies in eight countries (*ustria&
Estonia& ,rance& 4tal& the Fetherlands& +oland& 5pain and the United Iingdom) were of the
opinion that inclusion of e$ceptional rules had not led to a corresponding simplification in terms
of administration" E$planations gi!en included the need to manage the referral process to the
national competent authorit as well as the difficult of managing and controlling e$ceptions"
#ne control bod pointed out that as the did not issue man derogations under the terms of
their pri!ate standard& a change in bureaucrac with respect to the e$ceptional rules was not
e$pected"
0epresentati!es from competent authorities were mostl of the !iew that there was no real
simplification through the inclusion of e$ceptional rules due to the fact that the are responsible
for administrating the e$ceptional rules at national le!el" #nl two competent authorities (CHech
0epublic& 5lo!enia) were of the !iew that inclusion of e$ceptional rules and appro!al at the le!el
of the competent authorit had contributed to transparenc because there is onl one authorit
ta-ing decisions which has increased clarit for operators"
E$perts from E;T#+ were of the !iew that the mo!e to e$ceptional rules has not made a great
difference compared to the pre!ious derogation regime& because Eember 5tates must grant
e$ceptions and inform each other about them" #ne e$pert pointed out that in some cases
suppliers of organic ingredients& who ha!e an interest in them being used& should be gi!en
opportunit to challenge non9compliance with e$ceptional rules" =e referred to the e$ample of
*nne$ 4D (Fon9organic agricultural raw materials for processing) and the related e$ceptional rule
(*rticle 22(c) of 0egulation (EC) 1)(/2002) and suggested that this could be replaced b the
statement that organic ingredients ha!e to be used when a!ailable and the obligation for
Chapter 11 5implified administration and management of the organic farming legislation 2)1
processors to declare in a public space (e"g" their website or #,45) when the had to use non9
organic raw materials" Tith that information potential suppliers can challenge a processor that
claims not to find certain ingredients and there is no need for the administration to maintain and
update lists of what is and is not a!ailable"
Commission staff was of the !iew that e$ceptional rules did not simplif the administration in the
Commission as the e$ceptions need to be appro!ed"
11.% 3udgement and conclusions
Aased on the results presented in the section abo!e& it is concluded that the current legislative
framewor1 for organic farming has significantl, improved the transparenc, compared with of
the legislative measures applica*le *efore 2'')4 *ut has not resulted in simplified
administration and management& ta-ing the following into account7
#b3ecti!es& principles and production rules are now defined at the le!el of Council 0egulation
(EC) 1)(/2002" The structure of the new regulations& whereb the implementing rules are
contained in separate Commission 0egulations& runs the ris- that not all rele!ant sections are
considered b operators" There is a lac- of clarit of some terms (e"g" region& irregularities and
infringements& high 6ualit)"
The appro!al process of permitted substances and practices has been clarified and criteria
ha!e been laid down& but there are concerns about the length of the appro!al process"
The new 0egulation and the replacement of derogations with e$ceptional rules ha!e not
o!erall resulted in reduced red tape and administration"
5etailed consideration
The European Union introduced the first 0egulation (EEC) 2092/91 for organic food in 1991 with
the aim to protect organic farming b ensuring fair competition between producers and
impro!ing the credibilit of such products in the ees of consumers" *fter numerous
amendments a total re!ision resulted in Council 0egulation (EC) 1)(/2002 and separate
Commission 0egulations of implementing rules" This chapter e!aluates whether this total re!ision
of the legal framewor- has contributed to simplification in terms of administration and
management of the legal measures& compared to the legal framewor- in e$istence before"
The 3udgement compared current pro!isions with pre!ious ones and considered the !iews of
sta-eholders& including operators and bodies directl in!ol!ed in the administration and
management of the legislation (such as competent authorities and control bodies) in 1) case
stud countries& the !iews of the European Commission and of members of E;T#+"
2)2 Chapter 11 5implified administration and management of the organic farming legislation
Transparenc* of the rules
Council 0egulation (EC) 1)(/2002& in con3unction with the detailed rules for the implementation
ha!e been laid down in Commission 0egulation (EC) 119/2001& has resulted in greater
transparenc compared with Council 0egulation (EEC) 2092/91 because of the inclusion of
ob3ecti!es and principles in the legislati!e te$t& through the introduction of titles and article
headings and b bringing together related pro!isions (e"g" general farm and con!ersion rules)"
The total re!ision which included the repealing of the pre!ious legislation is a recasting effort" A
setting out ob3ecti!es of the 0egulation and the ob3ecti!es and principles of organic production&
0egulation (EC) 1)(/2002 has contributed to transparenc and the codification of the legislati!e
framewor-"
=owe!er& this is partl undermined b the structure of the new regulator regime& whereb the
implementation rules are presented separatel from the main 0egulation" *s a result se!eral
articles in different sections need to be consulted when interpreting specific rules which has
contributed to the obser!ed practise of reading and appling specific implementing rules without
due consideration of ob3ecti!es and principles" *lso& there is lac- of precision and lac- of clarit of
some terms (such as Jirregularities and infringementsK or Jhigh 6ualitK) ma-ing a common
interpretation& and conse6uentl implementation& across the Eember 5tates difficult (see also
Chapter 2)" This has created uncertaint and re6uires more time to be spent on tring to clarif
interpretations" This is particularl the case for control bodies and competent authorities" *lso&
there appears to lac- of clarit regarding the sur!eillance procedures between 0egulation (EC)
112/200( and 0egulation (EC) 1)(/2002"
The approval process of permitted substances
*s confirmed b sta-eholders and e$perts& the process of appro!al of substances permitted for
use in organic farming and processing has become more transparent through the inclusion of
criteria (but not necessaril easier)" The E$pert ;roup for Technical *d!ice on #rganic +roduction
(E;T#+) de!elops e!idence9based recommendations for appro!al& but this cannot and should not
replace the need for a political process" The current appro!al process at EU le!el has not (et) led
to substance remo!al" 4t does not fulfil all e$pectations of operators in terms of how 6uic-l
substances are appro!ed" *ccording to !iews of e$perts and European Commission& the process is
also labour intensi!e in its present form and sstems ma not be able to perform& should the
!olume of appro!al re6uests increase"
The current appro!al process at EU le!el co!ers onl generic substances" Fo change was made to
the appro!al process for permitted products that can be used b operators" This is handled either
nationall or b control bodies& but in some case stud countries there is a lac- of guidance to
operators regarding what products can be used"

Chapter 11 5implified administration and management of the organic farming legislation 2))
.eduction of red tape for operators and authorities
*ccording to the !iews of sta-eholders& new regulator regime has not significantl reduced
bureaucrac (administration and management) for operators& control bodies or competent
authorities& e"g"& because of the need for interpretation" 0ed9tape is a barrier for operators to be
organic& particularl for small9holders in respect of control sstems" Ean of the detailed
pro!isions in the production rules (e$cept derogations) that re6uired administration were
transferred with onl minor changes to the new implementing rules& impling that no reduction
in administration could be e$pected" Few areas co!ered and sector growth ma be contributing
factors to the o!erall administrati!e burden& at least for control bodies and competent
authorities"
$implification through introduction of exceptional rules
5ta-eholders were split in their opinion of whether or not the inclusion of e$ceptional rules and
adaptation to local conditions rather than derogations has o!erall simplified administration or
reduced management and bureaucrac" 5ome limited impro!ements were noted for farmers
(due to the remo!al of e$ceptional rules for feeding ruminants) and for control bodies (due to
reduced need to grant the e$ceptions)" =owe!er& an reductions on the side of the control are
balanced out b increases in wor-load for competent authorities who are now responsible for
granting the authorisations under the e$ceptional rules and for the Commission which has to
appro!e the use of e$ceptional rules in specific Eember 5tates"



Chapter 12
The EU-added value of the organic farming legislation

12.1 Introduction
Evaluation Question 7
To what extent has the EU legislative framework for organic farming created EU added value,
notably by introducing common rules on the internal market?
The EU added value (EAV) is the value resulting from an EU activity which is additional to the
value that would have resulted from a similar activity at regional or national level by public
authorities and the private sector (Yellow Window !""")# The principle of EAV has long been
used for assessing different policy options before see$ing political agreement# A range of
methodological and political interpretations have been put forward to define the EAV principle
most commonly in relation to EU spending programmes (%edarova&'ergstrom et al# !"(!)# This
study uses a theoretical concept of an )added value test* to determine if EU action will provide
clear additional benefits compared to actions by other EU policies or actions by individual
%ember +tates using three simple criteria as depicted in ,igure (!#(#
Figure 12.1 EU added value test

+ource- Adapted from European .arliament (!"(()#
!olic" priorities
What do we want/
EU action should provide clear additional
benefits compared to actions by individual
%ember +tates-
To achieve EU policy ob0ectives etc#
To achieve territorial cohesion etc#
#u$sidarit"
Who should act/
Effectiveness
1ow well is it done/
!23 4hapter (! The EU&added value of the organic farming legislation

These three EAV criteria are defined for the purpose of this evaluation 5uestion as follows-
%!olic" priorities& (What do we want/) are defined not 0ust as the ob0ectives of 6egulation (E4)
7289!"": itself but also the $ey EU priorities to which these ob0ectives are directly related# This
definition was chosen because organic production operates within the broader conte;t of EU
agricultural and food policy# %oreover the three global ob0ectives of the 6egulation (ensuring
the effective functioning of the internal mar$et guaranteeing fair competition and thereby
deliver public goods for the environment animal welfare and rural development and ensuring
consumers* confidence) clearly impinge upon other EU priorities#
<n addition to the EU priorities which directly relate to these ob0ectives (and thereby to common
rules for the organic mar$et) certain priorities are also considered to be indirectly related to the
common rules for the organic mar$et# This is because they have a clear $noc$&on effect on the
organic sector and re5uires policy coherence at an EU level#
)Effectiveness& (1ow well is it done/) is defined as the e;tent to which the ob0ectives and the EU
priorities pursued by the intervention are achieved# ,ollowing the theory of EU added value in
%edarova&'ergstrom et al# (!"(!) the assessment of )effectiveness* has to be supplemented by
the assessment of )complementarit"& with public funding instruments= i#e# the e;tent to which
organic farming legislation provides a sufficient legal basis for ensuring the effective use of the
portion of the EU budget which could be regarded as supporting the organic sector# This
assessment is made only briefly as its full development is outside the scope of the study#
)#u$sidiarit"& (Who should act/) means that action at the EU level should be underta$en only
when the ob0ective of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the %ember +tates
acting at national regional or local level# 6ather the action can be better achieved at the Union
level for e;ample due to the scale involved and possible economies of scale or the need for
territorial cohesion (EU Treaty Article (:8)#
The aim of Evaluation >uestion : is therefore to assess whether the 6egulation has delivered its
own and related EU policy priorities to an e;tent that would not have been achieved by
independent action of %ember +tates# This will be addressed through the following sub&
5uestions-
Are the global ob0ectives of the 6egulation and the common rules coherent with $ey EU policy
priorities/
To what e;tent is the 6egulation effective in achieving its own ob0ectives and the $ey EU
policy priorities these ob0ectives are related to/
To what e;tent is the 6egulation effective in ensuring subsidiarity in delivering its general
ob0ectives across the EU/

4hapter (! The EU&added value of the organic farming legislation !2:

The chapter first provides an overview of the approach used outlining the evaluation criteria the
indicators and the information sources# <t then presents the results of the evaluation for each
criterion# ,inally it summarises the results from the Evaluation >uestion : and presents a
0udgment of the e;tent to which EU added value is achieved through the organic legislation
framewor$#
12.2 'pproach
Evaluation >uestion : was answered using 0udgement criteria deduced from the model of the
intervention logic the bac$ground of the evaluation 5uestion and the interpretation of the EU
added value test described above# These 0udgement criteria included-
(() (egulation )EC* +,-.2//7 is designed )or is not designed* in a 0a" that is coherent 0ith
the 1e" EU priorities
(!) The design and implementation of (egulation )EC* +,-.2//72 and in particular the
common rules2 are )or are not* effective in-
3 achieving EU level ob0ectives for fair competition consumer confidence and the
functioning of internal mar$et in organic products=
3 supporting $ey EU priorities=
3 providing complementarity with funding instruments
(2) (egulation )EC* +,-.2//7 ensures )or does not ensure* su$sidiarit" $" allocating actions
to the EU onl" 0here the o$4ectives 0ould not $e achieved $" giving responsi$ilit" for
these actions to 5em$er #tates acting individuall"
The available literature on policy implications of the organic farming legislation is limited (.adel
et al# !"":a= .adel et al# !"":b= +chmid et al# !"":= ?abbert !""()# The literature tends to
focus on the relative merits of private national and EU standards on achievements and issues in
the gradual refinement of the legal definition from the core organic principles and on regulatory
aspects of individual rules# There are few evaluations that 0ustify the EU added value of the
overarching policy framewor$ compared to the absence of an EU framewor$ or other
counterfactual policy scenarios# ?ue to the limited availability of such comprehensive data
findings have been gathered on individual policy issues based on a review of EU policy
documents policy studies and grey literature from the (2 case study countries# <t is of note that
the answers collected from the case study sta$eholders vary significantly in 5uality and
usefulness particularly for 5uestions re5uiring a broad EU&wide $nowledge# Therefore discretion
has been used in processing the case study information and when commenting on the limitations
and 5uality issues in this evidence# The results presented here largely focus on the aggregate
outcomes of 5ualitative scoring#
!27 4hapter (! The EU&added value of the organic farming legislation

12., (esults
12.,.1 Coherence 0ith 1e" EU priorities
This section focuses on the degree of coherence between the 6egulation and relevant $ey EU
priorities# The $ey EU priorities have been identified in legal acts and policy documents which are
contemporary with the 6egulation (E4) 7289!"": i#e# applying largely to the same period
covering year !"": until now# The typology used to structure the $ey EU priorities distinguishes
several different types of policy related to 6egulation (E4) 7289!"":# These are-
#trategic and hori6ontal priorities such as
3 enhancing innovation and promoting level playing field on the internal mar$et
1
=
3 improving availability of EU&wide data and encouraging research
2
=
3 ensuring food safety
,
=
3 promoting better regulation
-
=
'gricultural and rural development priorities such as
3 stabilising farm income and preventing land abandonment
7
=
3 improving competitiveness improving environment and the countryside and
enhancing 5uality of life
8
=
3 encouraging adaptation of agriculture to climate change
7
=
3 adding value to 5uality products
+
=
Environment and climate priorities such as
3 improving protection of water biodiversity soil
9
=

1
@isbon strategy +trategy EU!"!" (4A%(!"(") !"!")#
2
European +tatistical .rogramme !""7&!"(!= EU ,.3 and ,.: research programmes replaced by ,ramewor$
programme for research and innovation !"(8&!"!" (B1oriCon !"!"B) 4A%(!"(()7"D#
,
6egulation (E4) (:79!""! on general principles and re5uirements of food law 6egulation (E4) :3:9!""D on the placing
on the mar$et and use of feed= 6egulation (E4) 77!9!""8 on official controls along the food chain to be amended by
the proposed regulation 4A%(!"(2) !3E#
-
4ommunication on better regulation for growth and 0obs in the European Union (4A%(!""E)D:) replaced by
4ommunication on EU 6egulatory ,itness (4A%(!"(!) :83)#
7
6egulation (E4) :29!""D on direct payments#
8
6egulation (E4) (3D79!""E on rural development#
7
White paper & Adapting to climate change- towards a European framewor$ for action (4A%(!""D)(8:)#
+
6egulations (E4) E"D9!""3 on .F< and (E4) E("9!""3 on .FA= replaced by 6egulation (E4) ((E(9!"(! on 5uality
schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs= 4ommunication on agricultural product 5uality policy
(4A%(!""D)!28)#
9
Water ,ramewor$ ?irective !"""93"9E4= Gitrates ?irective D(93:39EE4= .esticides 6egulation D(98(89EE4= (replaced
by replaced by the +ustainable Use of .esticides ?irective E4 ((":9!""D in force since !"(2)= 1abitats ?irective
D!9829EE4= 4ommunication on halting the biodiversity loss (4A% (!""3)!(3)= 4ommunication on a thematic strategy
for soil protection (4A%(!""3)!2() 6egulation (E4) (3D79!""E on rural development#
4hapter (! The EU&added value of the organic farming legislation !2D

3 mitigating climate change and improving air protection
1/
=
3 enhancing sustainable production and consumption by improved resource and energy
use and improved waste management
11
=
3 incentivising sustainable production and consumption through the promotion of EU
Ecolabel and the use of green public procurement)
12
=
'nimal 0elfare priorities
1,
=
Consumer priorities such as regulating labelling of products= ensuring consumer protection
and health#
1-

4oherence has been assessed in two steps# ,irst e;plicit lin$ages have been e;amined between
the global ob0ectives of the 6egulation and the EU priority outputs as specified in the $ey legal
acts and policy documents# +econd it has been considered whether specific rules e;ist in the
6egulation which can help to achieve the EU priorities# The results have been scored 5ualitatively
on a scale of good2 good 0ith issues and no lin1age. The results of the scoring for the category of
EU priorities that are directly related to the 6egulation are presented in some detail in Table (!#(#
Where good lin$ages e;ist between the global ob0ectives of the 6egulation specific rules and the
EU priority outputs it is concluded that good coherence e;ists# This underpins a potential
positive effect on EU added value# To determine whether such positive effect occurs in practice
one needs to further consider the other two criteria of EU added value (effectiveness and
subsidiarity)#

1/
4ommission staff wor$ing document on a low&carbon roadmap (+E4(!"(()!77)= ?ecision on the effort of %ember
+tates to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions (8"39!""D9E4)= 4ommunication on a thematic strategy for soil
protection (4A%(!""3)!2()= 6egulation :89!""D on rural development#
11
4ommunication on sustainable production and consumption (4A%(!""E)333)= Waste framewor$ directive
(!""79D79E4)#
12
4ommunication on green public procurement (4A%(!""7)8"")= 6egulation (E4) 379!"(" on Ecolabel#
1,
EU Treaty= Animal health strategy !"":&!"(2 (4A%(!"":)E2D)= .roposal for 6egulation on Animal 1ealth (4A%(!"(2)
!3")#
1-
Various labelling directives (?irective D"98D39EE4 ?irective (DDD9("9E4 ?irective !"""9(29E4 ?irectives !""!93:9E4
and !""79E9E4 and 6egulation (E4) 3"79!""8 on labelling of foods and food ingredients (all replaced by 6egulation (E4)
((3D9!"(( with a new re5uirement on environmental labelling in force from !"(8)= EU 4onsumer +trategy !"":&!"(2=
EU 1ealth +trategy !""7&!"(2 (4A%(!"":) 32")#
!8" 4hapter (! The EU&added value of the organic farming legislation

Ta$le 12.1 EU priorities directly related to common rules in 6egulation (E4) 7289!"":

on
internal mar$et with organic products

+ource- Awn presentation based on the review of 6egulation (E4 7289!"": and EU policy priorities)#
EU polic" area EU priorit"
a*
:lo$al o$4ective of the #pecific rule provided 'ssessment of
(egulation directl" related in the regulation the coherence
to EU polic" area )!: ; pu$lic
goods* )<es.=o*
<nnovation and the ,unctioning of the mar$et= Yes Food
4onsumer confidence Yes & indirect Food with
issues
,ood safety 1ealth 4onsumer confidence Yes & but with Food with
some inconsistencies issues
4ompetitiveness ,air competition including Yes & indirect Food with
.ublic goods (.F) for issues
rural development
Agri&environment ,air competition including Yes Food
.F for environment
Agricultural product ,unctioning of the mar$et= Yes & indirect Food
5uality 4onsumer confidence=
,air competition
Water policy ,air competition including Yes & Water 5uality Food
4onsumer confidence Go & Water use Go lin$age
'iodiversity ,air competition including Yes Food
.F for environment=
4onsumer confidence
+oil ,air competition including Yes Food
.F for environment=
4onsumer confidence
4limate change ,air competition including Yes H indirect and Food with
mitigation and .F for environment= not fully covering issues
air policy 4onsumer confidence the priority
+ustainable production ,air competition including Yes H indirect and not Food with
and consumption (+.4)- .F for environment= covering energy use issues
6esource and energy ,unctioning of the mar$et= and waste
use= waste 4onsumer confidence
'nimal Animal welfare ,air competition including Yes Food
0elfare .F for animal welfare=
4onsumer confidence
Consumers @abelling 4onsumer confidence= Yes Food
,unctioning of the mar$et
4onsumer protection 4onsumer confidence Yes Food
a) The inventory comprises priority areas as defined in legal acts and policy documents contemporaneous with the 6egulation
7289!"":# ,ull references are provided in the immediately preceding section#
#trategic and
hori6ontal
priorities
'gricultural
and rural
development
Environment
and climate .F for environment=
internal mar$et ,air competition=
4hapter (! The EU&added value of the organic farming legislation !8(

<n certain instances the lin$age between the global ob0ective of 6egulation (E4) 7289!"": and
the EU priority can be clearly traced but there is no relevant rule in the 6egulation# <n these cases
it is hard to see how the lin$age could lead to achieving these priorities on different farms in
different regions# <n other instances the lin$age between ob0ectives and rules are rather wea$ or
inconsistent# All such cases have been 0udged as presenting good coherence 0ith issues2 thus
indicating a shortcoming in the proposed EU added value#
<f no global ob0ective is set out in the 6egulation when a directly related EU priority e;ists this
has been classified as an issue with no lin1age2 where the opportunity to add value has been
missed#
:ood coherence has been identified between the global ob0ectives of the organic farming
legislation and several directly related EU priorities# There is a good potential for delivering EU
added value in the following policy priority areas however the actual outcomes might not reflect
this potential (see 4hapter : for details)-
Innovation in the group of horiContal EU priorities=
'gricultural product >ualit" and agri-environment in the group of agricultural priorities=
?iodiversit"2 0ater >ualit" and soil in the group of EU environmental priorities=
'nimal 0elfare=
Consumer protection and la$elling#
:ood coherence 0ith issues has been identified in the lin$age between the 6egulation and the
directly related EU priority areas regarding internal mar$et food safety EU climate policies
sustainable production and consumption and competitiveness# @in$ages e;ist between the global
ob0ectives and the EU priorities= however the potential for delivering EU added value could be
strengthened as described below-
Internal mar1et The subordination of the public good benefits for the environment and rural
development to the ob0ective of fair competition & with strong private rather than public good
aspects for operators H may reduce the coherence between ob0ectives and priorities# There
can be a ris$ of simply duplicating general mar$et and competition policies if the public
goods foreseen in the legal definition of the organic farming are not effectively delivered on
the ground#
Food safet" <ssues are noted in the inconsistent lin$age between 6egulation (E4) 7289!"":
and the framewor$ for Afficial ,ood and ,eed 4ontrols (6egulation (E4) 77!9!""8)# <t is
ac$nowledged that these inconsistencies may be largely overcome by the proposed
!8! 4hapter (! The EU&added value of the organic farming legislation

amendment to 6egulation (E4) 77!9!""8
17
and amendment to 6egulation (E4) 77D9!""7 with
a view to reinforcing controls#
18

Competitiveness- +ome inconsistency is noted between the global ob0ective of fair
competition and the absence of specific provisions to overcome barriers for smaller farms
17

and processors in accessing organic mar$ets such as group certification for EU farmers#
EU climate policies 4ertain issues are observed in the relative lac$ of re5uirements on
sustainable energy use in processing and pac$aging and lac$ of accompanying measures to
address the transport footprint#
1+

#ustaina$le production and consumption- 4ertain issues are noted due to the lac$ of
relevant 5uantitative rules for energy use and waste reduction in the processing and
pac$aging phases#
=o lin1age between the 6egulation and a related EU priority has been identified in only one $ey
policy area# The definition of the organic method refers to )water protection* and some of the
effects of organic production on reducing water pollution can be directly related to the rules as
described in 4hapter :# <n contrast there is no 5uantified or specific provision under the rules in
the 6egulation for sustainable use of water for e;ample in organic crop production under glass
or polytunnels which re5uires high levels of water use (see 4hapter :)# This gap is particularly
apparent against the bac$drop of a long&standing EU commitment to improve the status of
surface and underground water bodies formulated in !""" in the Water ,ramewor$ ?irective
19
#
<n addition to the identification and assessment of the $ey policy priorities several other EU
priorities have been identified as indirectly relevant to the common rules in the EU legislation on
organic farming# Although there is no e;plicit lin$age between them and the intervention logic
they have $noc$&on effects for sta$eholders in the organic sector and are important for ensuring
policy coherence at an EU level# Table (!#! provides an overview of this but without scoring
levels of coherence#

17
The proposed regulation 4A%(!"(2) !3E final#
18
4ommission 6egulation (E4) 2D!9!"(2#
17
The definition of a )small farm* varies depending on the criteria used#
1+
E;plicit rules with potential benefits for climate change mitigation and adaptation are provided for soil management on
farms but not for energy use and transport#
19
The commitment to improved sustainability of water use in particular has been reinvigorated more recently by the
publication of the 'lueprint to safeguard Europe*s waters 4A%(!"(!) 3:2 which puts a particular emphasis on
reducing agricultural water use and water use for irrigation#
4hapter (! The EU&added value of the organic farming legislation !82

Ta$le 12.2 EU priorities indirectly related to common rules in EU organic farming
legislation

on internal mar$et with organic products

+ource- Awn presentation#
The previous evaluation 5uestions draw attention to two of these )indirectly related* EU
priorities which merit special note for the coherence analysis# ,irstly regarding simplification
and better regulation although not e;plicitly stated in the EU legislation on organic farming
4hapter (( demonstrates that these priorities were among the central drivers for drafting the
6egulation and for the significant review of the previous legislative framewor$# Therefore one
can note a coherence benefit for this EU priority area# +econdly regarding data and information
4hapters 3 : 7 and (2 point out the salience of unavailable statistical data on the organic
mar$et for the implementation of the framewor$ and the evaluation of intra&EU impacts and this
EU polic" area EU priorit" :lo$al o$4ective #pecific rule provided
of the regulation in the regulation
'etter regulation
a)
G9A G9A
6esearch
b)
G9A G9A
?ata
c)
,unctioning of the mar$et Yes H partial
d)
<nformation
e)
G9A G9A
+tabilise income
f)
,air competition Yes & indirect
g)
.reventing land abandonment
h)
.F for environment= Go
.F for rural development
6ural development policy95uality of life
i)
.F for rural development Go
Adaptation of agriculture to climate change
0)
.F for environment= Yes H indirect
,unctioning of the mar$et
4A. simplification
$)
G9A G9A
Environment +ustainable production and consumption- .F for environment G9A
Freen public procurement ecolabel
l)
Consumers 1ealth
m)
4onsumer confidence Yes H indirect
a) 4A%(!""E) D:= 4A%(!"(!) :83#
b) EU ,.&3 and ,.&: 6esearch .rogramme (replaced by 1oriCon !"!")#
c) European +tatistical .rogramme !""7&!"(!#
d) .artial* denotes that the rule is not fully covering the needs identified in the EU priority with a potential negative effect on the
global ob0ective )functioning of the mar$et*#
e) 6egulation 29!""7#
f) EU Treaty= 6egulation :29!""D#
g) )<ndirect* denotes that there is a whole set of rules pursuing other goals specified in the regulation that can potentially contribute
to this EU priority#
h) 6egulation :29!""D#
i) 6egulation (3D79!""E#
0) 4A%(!""D)(8:= 6egulation :89!""D#
$) 4A%(!""E)E"D#
l) 4A%(!""7)8""= 6egulation on eco&labelling (D7"9!""" (replaced by 6egulation 379!"(")= new EU guidelines on environmental
footprinting introduced by 4A%9!"(29"(D3#
m) EU 1ealth +trategy !""7 H !"(2= EU Treaty#
'gricultural
and rural
development
@ori6ontal
priorities
!88 4hapter (! The EU&added value of the organic farming legislation

appears to be lin$ed to the missing ob0ective in the 6egulation#
2/
<t therefore appears that data
and information are in fact priorities directly related to organic farming legislation#
12.,.2 Effectiveness of the design and implementation of the (egulation
This section focuses on synthesising the assessments that were carried out in 4hapter 3 ((#
.revious chapters have underlined a number of achievements as well as issues in the design and
implementation of 6egulation (E4) 7289!"":# The summary of these findings is complemented by
information from a brief literature review#
'chieving the glo$al o$4ectives of functioning of internal mar1et2 fair competition and
consumer confidence at an EU level
6egulation (E4) 7289!"": sets out these three global ob0ectives in 0ustifying the e;istence of the
EU framewor$ for common rules on the organic production method# The assessment of achieving
these ob0ectives is therefore set against the bac$drop of the core EU policies focusing on the
mar$et competition agriculture and consumers#
6egarding the ob0ective of smooth functioning of the internal mar1et certain benefits have
been achieved by the introduction of the new logo the implementation of an EU&wide control
system and the harmonisation and simplification of the production rules under 6egulation (E4)
7289!"": but there are some shortcomings that prevent operators having access to all EU
consumers# The aggregate outcome for achieving the ob0ective of a functioning internal mar$et is
therefore good with issues# The main shortcomings result from-
The ambiguous allocation of control responsibilities due to the vague lin$age of the control
system for 6egulation (E4) 7289!"": to official controls in the food and feed sector under
6egulation (E4) 77!9!""8 although this may be improved by the proposed regulation on food
safety and hygiene
21
=
<ssues in the interpretation and harmonised implementation of rules by %ember +tates
(4hapter :) a low level of familiarity of consumers with the new EU organic logo and with
some aspects of the concept of organic farming (4hapter (") which indicates a need to raise
public awareness of the content and scope of standards and of the EU logo=
The lengthy process and lac$ of clarity regarding approval of non&organic products for
operators which might limit access to approved inputs in some %ember +tates (4hapter (()=

2/
There is a clear reference to statistical information necessary for the implementation and follow&up of the 6egulation
at Article 23 of the 6egulation however its implementation does not lead to sufficient data to analyse and understand
the whole organic sector#
21
4A%(!"(2) !3E#
4hapter (! The EU&added value of the organic farming legislation !8E

The lac$ of state&of&art electronic tools for documentary evidence for EU products and
inspection= and lac$ of a legal basis for collecting comparable and comprehensive statistical
data on the organic mar$et Europe wide (4hapter !)
22
= and
The need for improved communication between and within the control system (4hapter 7)#
6egarding the ob0ective of fair competition2 all evaluation 5uestions une5uivocally note the
considerable benefits of having a unified EU framewor$ for organic legislation# <n particular
positive impacts are reported to occur due to the common framewor$ for the production rules
and the control system which have increased transparency and the protection of organic farmers
against false and misleading organic claims# 1owever there are some issues that negatively affect
aggregate outcomes for achieving the ob0ective of fair competition# These arise from-
varying interpretations of certain production rules due to- a) the lac$ of detailed rules such as
for greenhouse production b) lac$ of definition of certain terms at EU level such as )region*
in the origin of feed stoc$ing densities in housing for poultry and use of non&organic manure
from factory farming= c) issues that are left to the discretion of EU %ember +tates such as
the definition of slow growing strains and access to non&organic seed= and d) issues arising
from national rules namely licensing of plant protection agents# All these differences can
involve varied levels of costs to organic producers thereby potentially affect fair competition
(4hapter :)=
the fact that the e;istence of e;ceptional rules has hampered the development of organic
supplies (4hapter :)=
differences in the control procedures between %ember +tates in particular with regard to
issuing of sanctions for similar severity of infringement residue sampling testing and
analysis ris$&based approaches and share of unannounced controls (4hapter 7)=
some smaller producers in the EU have difficulty in paying certification costs in countries
where these costs are not covered by support offered in the 6?.
2,
# ,urthermore EU
producers have no access to group certification despite the latter being allowed to producers
in third countries under e5uivalency standards (European 4ourt of Auditors !"(!)=
The legal definition of organic production methods in the 6egulation also provides a basis for the
provision and remuneration of associated public goods# Thus achievements in fair competition
can also be lin$ed to EU environmental priorities#

22
A6FAG<4?ATAGETWA6I http-99www#organicdatanetwor$#net9dw&news&
detail#html/Jt;KttnewsLE'ttKnewsLE?M("!:Jc1ashMedbb8eDfbE!D::E"283"Ee23D:bf!c!:#
2,
%any countries include certifications costs as part of 4A. .illar ! support for organic farming only 4N EE ,< 1U @U .T
and +I have not offered support for certification# +ee http-99www#bfafh#de9bibl9lbf&pdf9landbauforschung&
sh9lbfKsh22D#pdf (page 2()#
!83 4hapter (! The EU&added value of the organic farming legislation

<n relation to EU environmental priorities a wide range of benefits have been achieved by
defining organic production principles and rules# 'ased on the detailed evidence in 4hapter :
there is sound scientific evidence that organic production practices have a positive impact on
biodiversity some of which can be directly related to the production rules (e#g# no use of
fertilisers and crop protection products using multi&annual crop rotations including legumes and
limited stoc$ing density) whereas others result of fre5uently used production practices (e#g#
shallow tillage higher presence of hedges trees or grass strip corridors higher prevalence of
spring sown crops)# +ome of the concerns are lin$ed with the incomplete translation of some
ob0ectives into operational rules for e;ample in relation to habitat management for biodiversity
and the sustainable use of energy and water use#
2-
This has to be interpreted in the conte;t of the
4ardiff process initiated in (DD7 which re5uires the full integration of agreed environmental
priorities in other EU policies# The aggregate assessment of outcomes of the design and
implementation of organic production rules for climate change mitigation in particular is very
comple;
27
# The EU animal welfare priorities have been supported with generally good outcomes
although improvement is possible and certain issues e;ist for e;ample in relation to the
tethering of animals on small farms#
<n relation to the ob0ective of consumer confidence evidence demonstrates that it has been one
of the $ey drivers of the e;pansion of the organic sector (European 4ommission !"("= !"(!)#
4hapter (" underlines that consumers have a general awareness of the main concept of organic
production but poor $nowledge of the details# Ather data show that consumers e;press
preferences for standards higher than those in 6egulation (E4) 7289!"": increased levels of food
safety and authenticity and that they tend to be generally confused by the different
environmental and geographic claims on added&value food products (European 4ommission
!""Da= !"("= !"(!= +engstschmid et al# !"(")# ?isentangling the effect of the organic legislative
framewor$ from the effect of these other factors is difficult# Ta$ing account of this uncertainty
the aggregate outcome for achieving the ob0ective of consumer confidence is found to be
generally good although certain issues have been noted that can be detrimental to achieving this
ob0ective# These can be to some e;tent ascribed to 6egulation (E4) 7289!"": but not always
fully as noted below# They include-
Inowledge of and trust in the EU logo is limited but it only became mandatory in !"(" with
a transition period until Ouly !"(!# There is a need to promote both the logo and what it
means# Also one needs to bear in mind that the prevention of deceptive organic claims is a

2-
Ane may e;pect that the basic management for these issues is enforced through the standards for good agricultural
and environmental condition (FAE4) which apply to all farmland# 1owever the implementation of the FAE4
framewor$ is often wea$ and in intensively managed areas the standards are li$ely not to prevent agricultural practices
affecting sustainability thresholds for soil and water resources and biodiversity (?iaC&4haveC et al# !"(2= .olP$ovP et
al# !"(2)#
27
Available studies focus on carbon se5uestration in organic soils (@a+alle and 1epperly !""7= Fattinger !"(!a=
Fattinger et al# !"(!b= Giggli et al# !""D) G
!
A emissions energy use efficiency in the organic sector (Niesemer !"":=
+engstschmid et al# !"(") productivity issues and F1F intensity of organic products (Tuomisto et al# !"(!= +eufert et
al# !"(!)# ,or climate change adaptation the issues already mentioned for soil and water use priorities apply#
4hapter (! The EU&added value of the organic farming legislation !8:

core responsibility of main consumer policies#
28
The re5uirements on the labelling of
provenance do not meet consumer preference for a more specific geographic indication of
the country of origin than )EU9non&EU agriculture* (4hapter (")=
Although consumers largely have confidence in the organic control system this trust is built
upon perceptions and not on factual $nowledge (4hapter 7)#
Ather 1e" EU priorities
The previous sections note achievements and issues in the delivery of benefits toward the global
ob0ectives of the 6egulation and their effect on the related EU priorities# This section provides an
overview of achievements and issues in the design and implementation of 6egulation (E4)
7289!"": in relation to other $ey EU priorities as listed in Tables (!#( and (!#!#
<n the group of strategic and horiContal priorities ensuring food safety promoting innovation and
encouraging better regulation are an e;plicit focus of core EU policies# ,or food safet" a range of
rules in 6egulation (E4) 7289!"": ensure that organic products have consistent standards that
are clearly higher than the EU legal baseline# 4hapter : sets out the relevant organic production
rules related mainly to the much lower number of permitted inputs compared with conventional
agriculture including the prohibition of chemical pesticides limited allopathic treatment for
animals and restricted use of inputs in processing# A recent systematic review concluded that
organic food consumption may reduce e;posure to pesticide residues and antibiotic resistant
bacteria (+mith&+pangler et al# !"(!)# Therefore the area of food safety is a strong asset for EU
added value particularly if the stringency of the control system is improved#
Enhancing innovation2 initially introduced with the adoption of the @isbon +trategy in !""" is an
EU priority that has drawn only anecdotal evidence in the organic sector# While only little
evidence e;ists on the benefits to the innovation of social and human capital through the
implementation of 6egulation (E4) 7289!"": (4hapter (2) still fewer consolidated results e;ist
for technological innovation (.adel et al# !"("= European 4ommission !"(!)# An the positive
side one can reasonably e;pect that restrictions on the use of conventional farming methods
and the implementation of alternative crop protection and disease management would lead to
benefits from technological innovation on the ground# An the other hand lengthy approval
process for the inputs and substances to be authorised by the 6egulation is observed as one of the
inhibiting factors for innovation (4hapter (()#
<n relation to the EU priority of promoting $etter regulation2 4hapter (( demonstrates the
improved structure of ob0ectives better codification more transparent approvals of substances
and a clearer separation of tas$s between EU institutions in comparison with the pre&!"":
framewor$# 1owever previous sections also identify issues in the production rules relating to the

28
Gotably 6egulation (EU) ((3D9!"(( which replaced several sets of previous EU rules# <t includes a new re5uirement on
environmental labelling in force from !"(8#
!87 4hapter (! The EU&added value of the organic farming legislation

administrative burden and red tape# Af note similar issues tend to arise in other young policy
areas and a learning curve is generally needed at all governance levels before a robust regulatory
framewor$ is developed and reliable enforcement is ensured#
Complementarit" 0ith funding instruments
The assessment of complementarity with funding instruments falls within the )effectiveness*
criterion of EU added value# Accordingly one has to e;amine whether the common rules provide
a sufficient legal basis to ensure that the EU funds supporting organic producers and the organic
sector are used effectively# This involves on the one hand e;amining whether the benefits
provided by organic farming are coherent with the nature of benefits targeted by the EU funds=
and on the other hand whether the control system is sufficiently rigorous to ensure these
benefits are achieved on the ground# The sources of EU funding are described in 4hapter 8#
27

<n relation to the 4A. funding there is generall" good complementarit" for achieving synergistic
benefits for the global ob0ectives of 6egulation (E4) 7289!"": that support the functioning of the
internal mar1et for organic products and the effective use of C'! funds. <n particular these
findings relate to the 4A. .illar ! support for access to organic mar$ets organic producer groups
the development of new products and the development of business s$ills# These support
measures are essential firstly in helping to overcome barriers that these producers may
e;perience when accessing organic mar$ets (Eurobarometer !"(!)# Avercoming these barriers
and creating short supply chains is a necessary step for lin$ing organic producers to consumers
where lac$ of such lin$ages hampers growth of organic mar$ets# +econdly these support
measures can promote innovative improvements in the technological social and human capital
needed for further enlargement of EU organic mar$ets (?augb0erg and +Qnders$ov !"(!= AE4?
!"":= +anders et al# !"(()#
There is also generall" good complementarit" 0ith funding instruments in achieving benefits for
EU environmental priorities in s"nerg" 0ith the effective use of the C'! funds. The introduction
of a strict control system considerably improved conditions for the effective disbursement of
funds for organic land management compared to the previous EU framewor$# As pointed out in
4hapter 8 the eligibility criteria for organic support under the agri&environment measure in the
!"":&!"(2 period varies hugely between different 6?.s# +ome of these differences such as
those in stoc$ing rates may simply reflect the varying environmental needs based on the need
analysis underta$en by %ember +tates in relation to the particular local and regional conditions
(as noted in 4hapter 8)# 1owever in the light of findings from the previous evaluation 5uestions
such divergences may also potentially mas$ wea$ implementation and uneven interpretation of
the production rules in 6egulation (E4) 7289!"":#

27
This support is governed by general eligibility criteria aimed at rural development and is not dedicated to organic
production per se#
4hapter (! The EU&added value of the organic farming legislation !8D

The shortcomings in the organic control system as identified in 4hapter 7 and by the European
4ourt of Auditors (!"(!) further indicate that the delivery of actual environmental outcomes
which are targeted by the 4A. .illar ! support might be undermined in individual cases# This
could wea$en complementarity between the organic farming legislation framewor$ and the
ob0ective for the effective use of the 4A. funds# Additional shortcomings in the complementarity
between 6egulation (E4) 7289!"": and 4A. funds further discussed in 4hapter (2 are the lac$
of additional supportive measures in 6?.s to facilitate and encourage organic certification of
1igh Gature Value (1GV) farms and the barriers to organic certification for smaller producers
indicated by the mid&term evaluation of the !"":&(2 6?.s and other sources (A<6 !"(!= ?wyer
et al# !"(!)# This suggests that an opportunity has been missed to deliver EU priorities for 1GV
farmland (and the associated rural communities) by increasing the level of organic certification
among 1GV farms that already manage land in ways close to the organic standard or need
improvement only in certain aspects of management such as animal welfare#
The concerns regarding the effectiveness and rigorousness of the organic farming framewor$
does not act as a hindrance to the complementarity of funds supporting information campaigns
and research#
12.,., EBtent to 0hich (egulation ensures su$sidiarit"
According to the EU Treaty action at the EU level should be underta$en only when the ob0ective
of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the %ember +tates for e;ample due to
the scale involved or the need for territorial cohesion# This criterion therefore e;amines the
allocation of responsibilities between EU and national levels from both perspectives# An the one
hand the assessment e;amines whether the 6egulation enables actions at EU level that have
clear added value over what would have been achieved by national policies# An the other hand it
e;amines whether the allocation of responsibilities at a national level is sufficient in relation to
the subsidiarity needed at the national level# A 5uestionnaire to sta$eholders in (2 case studies
has provided a limited number of answers varying both in 5uality and rates of response and the
assessment based on these is necessarily brief and focuses on principles rather than details#
The eBtent to 0hich the design of (egulation )EC* +,-.2//7 ena$les actions at EU level that
have clear added value over 0hat 0ould have $een achieved $" national policies
+ince the (D7"s several European countries have developed policies for organic farming in
con0unction with private organic certification schemes (+anders et al# !"((= ?augb0erg and
+Qnders$ov !"(")# Arganic farming policies in the EU&(E during the (D7"s and (DD"s promoted
highly divergent approaches with some %ember +tates focussing on interventions to stimulate
the supply side of the organic mar$et (e#g# +weden) others either on the demand&side or both
sides of the mar$et simultaneously (e#g# ?enmar$) while the UI for e;ample promoted only
passive intervention in organic mar$ets (?augb0erg and +Qnders$ov !"(")# The introduction of
the first EU organic farming regulation in (DD( and the unified framewor$ for the land&based
organic payments under the agri&environment measure through the %ac+harry reform in (DD!
!E" 4hapter (! The EU&added value of the organic farming legislation

created conditions for the convergence of these various types of organic policy across the EU#
Although it is difficult to e;tricate causalities about the interaction between supply and demand
factors the EU organic mar$et did e;perience continuous growth with both types of factor
playing a role# This growth coincided with the con0oint development of the unified legal
framewor$ for organic farming and a steady shift towards increasingly more focussed support for
organic farming as goal in itself under three policy reforms ((DD! !""" and !"":)# This long&
standing political commitment at high level has given e;pression to EU citiCens* interest in
maintaining consumer confidence in products labelled as organic# The underlying conviction has
been that organic products are lin$ed to guarantees of food integrity from seed through to sale
and to guarantees that production and processing are managed under a holistic system which
promotes the environment sustainable resource use animal welfare food safety nutrition and
human health financial viability of agricultural holdings and rural development across the EU
(+anders et al# !"(()# +antacaloma (!"":) indicates that common rules for certification also give
EU buyers the confidence that a product meets organic 5uality and process standards thus
enabling both the EU and non&EU organic producers to access new e;port and domestic mar$et
opportunities and premium prices#
The eBtent to 0hich the competent authorities are satisfied 0ith the level of discretion
afforded to them in the (egulation
The results of the assessment of this criterion are based on the interviews in the case study
countries# There was a high response rate from competent authority interviewees on whether or
not they were happy with the level of discretion afforded %ember +tates# Although a relatively
large number maintain that they are happy with the level of discretion there appears to be a
degree of ambivalence on this issue. Almost an e5ual number responded positively as negatively#
A $ey issue to emerge from the responses is a great uncertainty between the sta$eholders within
the organic sector about the allocation of responsibilities between the EU and national levels on
the interpretation of certain rules in particular the e;tent to which the organic farming
legislation should regulate residue testing and analysis and the e;tent to which national
authorities should be responsible for interpretation themselves# Ather areas of uncertainty about
the allocation of responsibilities relate to the interpretation of the e;ceptional rules on non&
organic chic$ens non&organic feed and non&organic seed= certain confusion between the
responsibilities for e;ceptional rules on the use of tethering in small&holdings and the transitional
rules# Ane case study respondent suggests that there too much responsibility rests with the
national authorities and that operators should have more responsibility#
'n" specific provision currentl" set in the (egulation at an EU level that should instead $e
delegated to the national.regional level
Anly a moderate number of competent authority sta$eholders responded# There appears to be a
high degree of ambivalence on this issue with almost an e5ual number responding positively as
negatively (E-8)# An the one hand the reasons most often cited for maintaining the present
balance of responsibilities at the EU and national levels refer to the high importance of the EU
common framewor$ and the need for harmonised rules# A few respondents also emphasised that
public surveillance over private control bodies re5uires strict EU&wide rules# An the other hand
4hapter (! The EU&added value of the organic farming legislation !E(

the respondees who wish to have more provisions set at national level refer to the need for
fle;ibility# E;amples are the production processes affected by local climatic and agricultural
conditions (e#g# the rule on housing conditions for outdoor poultry) or consumer e;pectations
influenced by social and cultural values (e#g# animal welfare rules)# Alternatively respondents
refer to the need for enforcing control at national level such as determining aspects of ris$
analysis and the intensity of chec$s#
12.- Cudgement and conclusions
'ased on the results presented in the section above it is concluded that the organic farming
legislation provides EU added value2 nota$l" $" defining the common rules for the organic
mar1et ta$ing the following into account-
There is particularly good coherence between the legislation and EU priorities for innovation
agricultural product 5uality agri&environment biodiversity water 5uality soil conservation
animal welfare as well as consumer protection and food labelling= and there is good
coherence with issues related to the EU priorities for the internal mar$et climate change
mitigation sustainable production and consumption food safety and competitiveness#
,urthermore there are some opportunities to improve coherence through improved lin$ages
between the legislation and specific elements of EU priorities for sustainable use of water and
mar$et data collection#
The legislation is effective in creating EU added value for environmental climate mitigation
and animal welfare priorities and there is a generally good complementarity with EU funding
instruments particularly the 4A. and the funds for research and information# The
effectiveness could be improved by ma$ing clearer lin$s between ob0ectives general
principles and detailed rules and by translating ob0ectives for water 5uantitative
management energy use and habitat management into operational rules# The legislation is
only moderately effective in achieving the EU priority of better regulation#
The framewor$ achieves clear added value at EU level going beyond what could be achieved
by national policies alone# @ittle evidence is available to 0udge the allocation of responsibilities
according to the principle of subsidiarity and it was found that the views of competent
authorities differ on this issue#
Detailed considerations
This evaluation 5uestion has addressed the e;tent to which the EU legislative framewor$ for
organic farming has created EU added value notably by introducing common rules on the
internal mar$et# To determine if the legislation provides clear additional benefits compared to
actions by other EU policies or actions by individual %ember +tates the concept of an )added
value test* was used by addressing the following three 5uestions- a) whether the global
ob0ectives of the regulation and the common rules are coherent with $ey EU policy priorities=
b) whether the 6egulation is effective in achieving its own ob0ectives and those of $ey related EU
!E! 4hapter (! The EU&added value of the organic farming legislation

policy priorities= and c) whether the 6egulation is effective in ensuring subsidiarity in delivering
its ob0ectives across the EU#
The 0udgment is based on a review of EU policy documents policy studies and grey literature
from the (2 case study countries and to a more limited e;tent on the survey responses of case
study sta$eholders# ,urthermore
Coherence with related EU policy priorities
There is good coherence between global ob0ectives of the 6egulation and $ey EU priorities
related to which these ob0ectives are related although opportunities e;ist to improve lin$ages
with specific aspects of some $ey policies# .articularly good coherence is noted in relation to EU
priorities for innovation agricultural product 5uality agri&environment biodiversity water
5uality soil conservation animal welfare as well as consumer protection and food labelling# Food
coherence with issues is observed in relation to a number of other $ey EU priorities such as the
internal mar$et climate change mitigation sustainable production and consumption food safety
and competitiveness# ,urthermore lin$ages with $ey policies could be improved where there is
an absence of ob0ective or specific rules under 6egulation (E4) 7289!"": on sustainable water
use and collection of mar$et data#
Effectiveness in achieving the objectives of the egulation and supporting key EU priorities
The legislative framewor$ is generally effective in achieving global ob0ectives and supporting EU
priorities# <n particular the effectiveness in achieving fair competition and smooth functioning of
the internal mar$et has been 0udged as good with issues# <mportant benefits for EU added value
have been created by the creation of minimum common rules for the EU&!:= the introduction of
a strict control system= and the recent introduction of an EU logo# There are certain concerns
with achieving the EU priority of better regulation due to sometimes varied interpretation of
production rules certain e;ceptional rules established in the 6egulation and the lengthy process
of inputs authorisation which may inhibit innovation and development# There are opportunities
to improve the effectiveness of implementation of the EU priority for data and information
which is limited by the lac$ of an ob0ective and specific re5uirements on collection and reporting
of mar$et data in a comparable and consistent manner# The conclusions are largely positive
about the effectiveness of the 6egulation (E4) 7289!"": for creating added value for EU
environmental climate and animal welfare priorities# There is a wide range of benefits delivered
by the implementation of the organic farming framewor$ at EU level and these are discussed in
4hapter :# 1owever 4hapter : concludes that the lin$s between ob0ectives general principles
and detailed rules should be made clearer and a consideration should be given that the
ob0ectives for water and energy use and for habitat management are translated into operational
rules#
,or the ob0ective of consumer confidence it is concluded that the design and implementation of
6egulation (E4) 7289!"": has been effective in contributing to European added value albeit with
certain issues# This overall good contribution is a conse5uence of sustained consumer confidence
throughout the implementation of the 6egulation and its steady role in underpinning the
4hapter (! The EU&added value of the organic farming legislation !E2

successful development of the organic sector# 1owever the contribution to EU added value for
consumer confidence could decrease unless there is improved consumer $nowledge and
understanding of both the logo and the scope of the control system#
4omplementarity with funding instruments has been assessed as part of the criterion of
effectiveness# There is a generally good complementarity between the organic farming
framewor$ and the EU funding instruments# The organic farming framewor$ has improved the
legal basis for payments provided from the 4A. funds especially the second pillar of the 4A.#
There are opportunities to increase complementarity between the legislation and EU rural
development ob0ectives for 1GV farming and the competitiveness of small farms by e;tending
the use of a range of .illar ! measures# Also there are synergistic benefits delivered by the
organic farming framewor$ and the funds for research and information#
Ensuring subsidiarity
6elating to the criterion of subsidiarity outstanding benefits are provided by the 6egulation for
enabling actions at EU level# These are actions that have clear added value over what would have
been achieved by national policies as well actions that are necessary for maintaining coherence
with related EU priorities# <t is noted that common rules for certification give EU buyers the
confidence that a product meets organic standards thus enabling both EU and non&EU organic
producers to access new mar$et opportunities and premium prices associated with the added
value of organic products and processes# 6esponses to survey 5uestions about the allocation of
specific responsibilities between actors according to the principle of subsidiarity reveal varying
attitudes amongst competent authorities with some calling for a more )command&and&control*
oriented approach and others see$ing more fle;ibility#



Chapter 13
Contribution of the organic farming legislation to the
sustainable development of the organic farming sector

13.1 Introduction
Evaluation Question 8
To what extent has the EU legislative framework for organic farming contributed to the
sustainable development of the organic farming sector?
The overarching objective of Council Regulation (EC) 834/2007 is to rovi!e "the basis for the
sustainable development of the organic farming sector" (#rticle $)% alongsi!e the effective
functioning of the internal &ar'et% guaranteeing fair co&etition% ensuring consu&er confi!ence
an! rotecting consu&er interests( )esite this overarching objective% the concet of the
sustainable !evelo&ent in the conte*t of organic far&ing re&ains so&e+hat elusive( ,t is not
!efine! in the Regulation% although the legislation !oes &a'e clear the -!ual societal role. of the
organic ro!uction &etho! that /on the one hand provides for a specific market responding to a
consumer demand for organic products, and on the other hand delivers public goods contributing
to the protection of the environment and animal welfare, as well as to rural development"
(Recital 3)( ,t also &a'es reference to the contribution &a!e b0 organic livestoc' ro!uction to
sustainable agriculture (Recital $4)( The &ain focus of the Regulation is on !efining &ore
e*licitl0 the objectives% rinciles an! rules alicable to organic ro!uction( ,t sets out ver0
clearl0 that organic ro!uction shoul! ursue the objective of establishing /a sustainable
management system for agriculture that respects nature's systems and cycles and sustains and
enhances the health of soil, water, plants and animals and the balance between them;
contributes to a high level of biological diversity; makes responsible use of energy and the natural
resources, such as water, soil, organic matter and air; and! respects high animal welfare
standards and in particular meets animals" species#specific behavioural needs" (#rticle 3)(
The Regulation thus &a'es clear that organic ro!uction covers both &ar'et goo!s an! ublic
goo!s% an! that these shoul! be ro!uce! through sustainable agricultural &anage&ent( ,n
ans+ering Evaluation 1uestion 8a !efinition of -sustainabilit0. has been chosen to suit this broa!
scoe% covering the econo&ic% environ&ental an! social asects of !evelo&ent as use! b0 the
223 Chater $3 Contribution of the organic far&ing legislation to the sustainable !evelo&ent 4

2003 E5 6trateg0 on 6ustainable )evelo&ent
1
% +hich recognises that these three asects can
reinforce each other(
#gainst this bac'groun!% the ai& of Evaluation 1uestion 8 is to establish the e*tent to +hich the
E5 legislative fra&e+or' has contribute! to the sustainable !evelo&ent of the organic far&ing
sector( This +ill be a!!resse! through the follo+ing sub78uestions9
:as the E5 legislative fra&e+or' for organic far&ing contribute! to the !evelo&ent of the
organic far&ing sector an!% if so% to +hat e*tent; <as the resulting !evelo&ent of the
organic far&ing sector (if confir&e!) econo&icall0% environ&entall0 an! sociall0 sustainable;
The evaluation of the first sub78uestion focuses on the ai& of /providing conditions under which
this sector can progress in line with production and market developments" (Recital 3)( The
Regulation sets this ai& in both olic0 an! &ar'et conte*ts% ointing out first that /the legislation
on organic production plays an increasingly important role in the agricultural policy framework"
an! secon! that it is /closely related to developments in agricultural markets" (Recital 2)( =oth
asects are consi!ere! here(
The evaluation of the secon! sub78uestion focuses on the econo&ic% environ&ental an! social
sustainabilit0 of the resulting !evelo&ent% articularl0 in the conte*t of rural !evelo&ent%
rovision of environ&ental ublic goo!s an! ani&al +elfare(
The chater first rovi!es an overvie+ of the aroach use!% outlining the ju!ge&ent criteria an!
the infor&ation sources( ,t then resents the results of the evaluation for each criterion( >inall0%
it resents the results fro& the Evaluation 1uestion 8 an! a ju!g&ent of the e*tent to +hich the
E5 legislative fra&e+or' has contribute! to the sustainable !evelo&ent of the organic far&ing
sector(

1
The 2003 Rene+e! E5 6ustainable )evelo&ent 6trateg0% a!ote! b0 the Euroean Council% refines the initial
sustainabilit0 goals of the 200$ ?oteborg 6trateg0( ,t !efines econo&ic roserit0 un!er the first sustainabilit0 illar as
ai&ing at -a prosperous, innovative, knowledge#rich, competitive and eco#efficient economy which provides high living
standards and full and high#$uality employment throughout the EU.( -Environ&ental rotection. is !efine! as -the
capacity to support life in all its diversity, respect the limits of the planet's natural resources and ensure a high level of
protection and improvement of the $uality of the environment; prevention and reduction of environmental pollution
and promotion of sustainable consumption and production to break the link between economic growth and
environmental degradation.( >urther% the 6trateg0 !efines social e8uit0 an! cohesion as the +a0 of -promoting a
democratic, socially inclusive, cohesive, healthy society.( The recentl0 a!ote! E52020 6trateg0 has brought further
refine&ent into these basic goals (Euroean Council% 2003)(
Chater $3 Contribution of the organic far&ing legislation to the sustainable !evelo&ent 4 227

13.2 Approach
Evaluation 1uestion 8 +as ans+ere! using ju!ge&ent criteria !e!uce! fro& the &o!el of the
intervention logic% the bac'groun! of the evaluation 8uestion an! the !efinition of sustainable
!evelo&ent !escribe! above( The ju!ge&ent criteria inclu!e9
($) The legislative frameor! helps "or does not help# the development of the sector b$
structuring a specific mar!et in response to consumer demand
(2) The legislative frameor! helps "or does not help# the development of competitive
organic businesses ithin the ider agricultural conte%t
(3) The development of the sector is "or is not# economicall$ sustainable as a result of
re&uirements set ithin the legislative frameor!
(4) The development of the sector provides "or does not provide# a sustainable suppl$ of
environmental public goods and benefits for animal elfare as a result of re&uirements
set ithin the legislative frameor!
(2) The development of the sector contributes "or does not contribute# to sustainable socio'
economic benefits for rural areas as a result of re&uirements set ithin the legislative
frameor!
)ue to the brea!th of the toic% onl0 a brief revie+ of relevant E57+i!e literature an! selecte!
national literature has been carrie! out( Certain ele&ents of infor&ation gathere! in $3 @e&ber
6tates% base! on intervie+s +ith authorities an! sta'ehol!ers in the sector% have been a
co&le&entar0 source( <here relevant% reference is &a!e to the ju!ge&ents of Evaluation
1uestions 2 an! 2 about the ro!uction rules an! consu&er un!erstan!ing% resectivel0(
,n ter&s of the contribution of E5 organic far&ing fra&e+or' to socio7econo&ic asects of rural
!evelo&ent such as rural !iversit0% rural e&lo0&ent an! for !evelo&ent of hu&an caital%
consoli!ate! evi!ence is &issing( >or these t0es of assess&ents evi!ence of inci!ental benefits
has been collecte! fro& an arra0 of e*a&les in the E5 Rural Revie+ ublications fro& 20$0 to
20$3 +hich +ere ro!uce! b0 the Euroean Aet+or' for Rural )evelo&ent (EAR)) un!er the
Co&&ission.s ausices(
2
#!!itional infor&ation has been collecte! fro& a ool of recent >#B
reorts on organic agriculture that inclu!e e&irical case stu!ies for eight E5 @e&ber 6tates(

2
# total of 23 e*a&les across $4 @e&ber 6tates have been i!entifie! +hich !iscuss benefits an! otential issues
relating to rural !iversit0% rural e&lo0&ent an! other asects of social sustainabilit0% +hilst highlighting the role of
organic far&ing( To !istil the aroriate criteria for anal0sing e*a&les% reco&&en!ations in recent an7Euroean
stu!ies have been use! on sustainable co&etitiveness ()+0er et al(% 20$2)% bio!iversit0 an! green gro+th in rural
areas (Coble0 et al(% 200DE @ills et al(% 200DE FolG'ovG et al(% 20$$E ,C> ?:H et al(% 20$2)( >or si&licit0% all e*a&les are
reference! in the te*t as E5 Rural Revie+ !atabase (20$0720$3)( The full references to all issues of the E5 Rural Revie+
that have been revie+e! to ro!uce the !atabase are rovi!e! in the reference list(
228 Chater $3 Contribution of the organic far&ing legislation to the sustainable !evelo&ent 4

13.3 (esults
13.3.1 Contribution of the legislation b$ structuring a specific mar!et in
response to consumer demand
The !evelo&ent of the sector !een!s on &eeting consu&er re8uire&ents no+ an! in the
future( This re8uires a closel0 !efine! &ar'et +hich !istinguishes clearl0 bet+een organic an!
other foo!% +hile &eeting the varie! !e&an!s of organic consu&ers +hich +ill !iffer bet+een
laces an! +ill change over ti&e( The role of the legislative fra&e+or' is to !efine the scoe of
the &ar'et +hilst allo+ing sufficient fle*ibilit0 to satisf0 consu&er nee!s% an! to hel consu&ers
in i!entif0ing ro!uce +hich &eets those nee!s( Regulation (EC) 834/2007 has &aintaine! the
i&etus create! b0 the revious legislative fra&e+or' in suorting a strong E5 !o&estic an!
i&ort &ar'et for thus !efine! organic foo!% rinciall0 b0 rovi!ing !etaile! rules for organic
ro!uction an! rocessing% intro!ucing a unifie! an! strict control &echanis&% an! thus unif0ing
a reviousl0 frag&ente! olic0 area(
Fan7Euroean statistics sho+ that there is an un&et !e&an! for organic foo! (Euroean
Co&&ission% 20$0E Chater 7)% +hich coul! to so&e e*tent be &et b0 ro!uction +ithin the E5(
Thus the overall level of demand !oes not aear to be a barrier to !evelo&ent of the &ar'et%
although there are li'el0 to be substantial regional !ifferences in !e&an! gro+th( Brganic
consu&tion reresente! aroun! 2 I of total foo! e*en!iture in the E57$2 in 2007( # &uch
lo+er level +as reache! in the E57$2% affecte! b0 lo+er urchasing o+er of consu&ers in
general (Euroean Co&&ission% 20$0)% an! +here ro!uction% consu&tion an! tra!e have
gro+n &uch faster but fro& a far lo+er base( ?ro+ing !isosable inco&e has been an i&ortant
factor for gro+th in the E57$2 an! &ore recentl0 also in the CJech Reublic an! 6lovenia
(6antacolo&a% 2007a)( Bn the other han!% there have been lo+ or negative gro+th rates in
Fortugal% :ungar0% the Aetherlan!s% ,tal0 an! the 5H% but national figures hi!e consi!erable
!ifferences in uta'e bet+een secific regions +ithin the countr0 (Chater 2)( ,t is aarent that
re!icting future levels of !e&an! b0 consu&ers% an! the role of the legislative fra&e+or' in
such !evelo&ent is not straightfor+ar!( >urther&ore% there are &ultile non7olic0 factors
involve! an! regional !ifferences +hich +ill affect organic sta'ehol!ers in !ifferent +a0s(
The legislative fra&e+or'% b0 !efining co&&on stan!ar!s% has la0e! an i&ortant role in
enabling the &ar'et to !evelo through !o&estic ro!uction% intra7Euroean tra!e an! i&orts(
<here !o&estic organic ro!uction is insufficient to &eet !e&an!% organic retailers have relie!
on substantiall0 increasing intra'E) trade and imports fro& outsi!e the E5 (Euroean
Co&&ission% 20$0)( The i&ort regi&e establishe! un!er the E5 legislation la0e! a role in the
rai! increase in i&orts fro& thir! countries in the E57$2% +hile intra7E5 tra!e increase! in E57
$2 &ar'ets in articular (Euroean Co&&ission% 20$0)( :o+ever% there are &an0 contributing
factors% an! !iverse nee!s !eveloe! in in!ivi!ual countries in relation to the t0es of organic
ro!ucts &isse! b0 local consu&ers(
Chater $3 Contribution of the organic far&ing legislation to the sustainable !evelo&ent 4 22D

There are in!ications that local food mar!ets are i&ortant to the sector% reflecting consu&er
reference for short sul0 chains an! the role of 6@E suliers an! rocessors( @e&ber 6tate
suort &easures% rather than the Regulation itself% see& to have ha! a 'e0 effect here b0
ro&oting enhance! infor&ation e*change% articularl0 bet+een ro!ucers an! consu&ers%
ai&e! at sti&ulating innovation% gro+th in &ar'ets an! enhance! co&etitiveness for the
organic far& sector (6antacolo&a% 2007a an! 2007bE E!+ar!son an! 6antacolo&a% 20$3)( ,t is of
note that the regulator0 basis rovi!e! b0 Regulation 834/2007 +as an essential legal re7
con!ition for the i&le&entation an! a!&inistration of the fun!e! suort &easures( #ll of this
has ha! a 'noc'7on effect on creating +ell7establishe! organic &ar'ets in Aorthern Euroe an!
?er&an0 in articular% an! on local sustainabilit0 issues in rural !evelo&ent (:Kring et al(% 200$E
)arnhofer% 2002E Hratochvil% 2003E )+0er et al(% 20$2)( # &ajorit0 of e*a&les in the E5 Rural
Revie+ !atabase (EAR) 20$0a et se8() reort that organic ro!uction has resulte! in i&rove!
co&etitiveness of local foo! ro!ucts (20 of the 23 e*a&les)( This is 8uite often !ue to
&ar'eting initiatives ta'en b0 in!ivi!ual ro!ucers% +ho use oortunities offere! b0 the
legislative fra&e+or'% rather than being a !irect effect of the Regulation er se( 6uch initiatives
can result in a &ultilier effect for rural e&lo0&ent through gro+th in rocessing% &ar'ets an!
far& !iversification( Bn the other han!% the >#B case stu!ies illustrate that i&rove!
co&etitiveness of organic far&ers in the CJech Reublic an! :ungar0 +as associate! +ith
ac'ages of olic0 &easures in!irectl0 associate! +ith the legislative fra&e+or' +hich ai&e! to
!evelo &ar'eting s'ills% short foo! chains an! 'noc'7on effects on increasing local !e&an! for
8ualit0 ro!uce (6antacolo&a% 2007aE E!+ar!son an! 6antacolo&a% 20$3)(
13.3.2 Contribution of the legislation to the development of competitive
organic businesses ithin the ider agricultural conte%t
The ju!ge&ent of Evaluation 1uestion 2 an! 7 (see Chaters 7 an! $2) conclu!es that !istortion
of co&etition &a0 occur if differing interpretations of the Regulation affect ro!uction costs%
giving co&etitive a!vantage to oerators in so&e countries( There is roo& for interretation of
E5 rules% in so&e cases @e&ber 6tates have resonsibilit0 for !efinitions% in a range of situations
inclu!ing greenhouse substrates an! fertilisers% the &eaning of -region. in the rule on the origin
of fee!% an! of -factor0 far&ing. for the use of non7organic fertiliser in organic cros% housing
con!itions for oultr0% slo+ gro+ing strains% an! &ini&u& slaughter age of broilers an! the use
of conventional see!s)(
Chater $$ also notes concerns about the length of the product approval process an! the lac' of
gui!ance to oerators about arove! ro!ucts in so&e @e&ber 6tates( These issues &a0 cause
roble&s for the !evelo&ent of the sector% for e*a&le if the lac' of organic rotein fee! is an
obstacle to &aintaining or !eveloing an organic livestoc' business% or if innovative aroaches
serving the !evelo&ent of the sector are slo+e! !o+n or inhibite!(
230 Chater $3 Contribution of the organic far&ing legislation to the sustainable !evelo&ent 4

#nother line of argu&ent ta'en b0 so&e co&&entators an! intervie+ees in the case stu!0
countries is that Regulation (EC) 834/2007 !oes not give sufficient roo& for the organic sector to
!evelo +here necessar0 to a!!ress ne+ oortunities (,>B#@% 20$2)( Concern has been voice!
b0 certain @e&ber 6tates about the fle%ibilit$ nee!e! for !evelo&ent in +ell7establishe!
&ar'ets +here gro+th reache! a lateau for a erio! of ti&e(
3
Fossible sti&uli coul! for e*a&le
be given b0 e*ten!ing the scoe an! use of substances% i&le&enting stricter stan!ar!s for
livestoc' co&arable to Regulation (EEC) 20D2/D$% or intro!ucing higher stan!ar!s to a!!ress full
life c0cle i&acts (>#B% 20$$E :alberg% 2008E ,>B#@% 20$2E 6engstsch&i! et al(% 20$$)(
#ccess to suitable processing facilities is a vital lin' in the organic sul0 chain% an! the
re8uire&ents for the rocessing sector are set out in the Regulation( There is no available
evi!ence on the ositive or negative effect of the legislative fra&e+or' on the relative
i&ortance of organic rocessing in in!ivi!ual @e&ber 6tates( ,n a &ajorit0 of @e&ber 6tates%
about a 8uarter of organic far&s are engage! in rocessing (e(g( of cheese) but this is not so
co&&on in other arts of the Euroean 5nion (Euroean Co&&ission% 2008)( The vast &ajorit0
of rocessors are still foun! in the E57$2% an! bet+een 2003 an! 20$$ the nu&ber of rocessors
gre+ b0 2D I in the E57$2 co&are! to onl0 7I in the E5 $2(
*
,t +oul! be a threat to the
!evelo&ent of the sector if organic far&ers +ho co&l0 +ith the legislative an! certification
re8uire&ents +ere to lose so&e of the a!!e! value of their ro!uce because of a lac' of suitable
rocessing facilities(
+
=arriers to establishing ne+ rocessing facilities have not been
s0ste&aticall0 researche!E ho+ever% the lac' of !ata on the E5 organic &ar'et clearl0 &a'es it
!ifficult to ta'e infor&e! !ecisions about &ar'et oortunities% an! is li'el0 to be a contributing
factor( There are a nu&ber of a!!itional factors +hich are li'el0 to coinci!e +ith other barriers to
6@Es entering green &ar'ets% inclu!ing legislative co&le*it0% costs associate! +ith &eeting
higher stan!ar!s% re! tae% an! lac' of e*tension services (Eurobaro&eter% 20$2)(

3
,ntervie+ees fro& )en&ar' argue! e(g( that gro+th of the organic sector continues u to a certain lateau level +here
it beco&es !ifficult to attract ne+ consu&ers an! increase nu&ber of organic ro!ucers b0 conversion because the
legislative an! econo&ic con!itions together li&it further i&rove&ent in the rofitabilit0 of ro!ucers(
*
B+n calculation base! on !ata for registere! rocessors for selecte! @e&ber 6tates for +hich infor&ation is available9
=elgiu&% Aetherlan!s% 6+e!en% )en&ar'% >inlan!% 5nite! Hing!o&% ?reece% >rance% 6ain% ?er&an0 an! ,tal0 (E57$2)E
an! for CJech Reublic% Catvia% % :ungar0% Folan!% 6lovenia an! 6lova'ia (E57$2) fro&
htt9//asso(eurostat(ec(euroa(eu/nui/sho+(!o;!atasetLfoo!Mact2NlangLen(
+
>or e*a&le +hen organic &il' is sol! on conventional &ar'ets% or organic far& outut is transorte! for rocessing
fro& the E57$2 countries to the E57$2 an! thus so&e value7a!!e! for the local econo&0 is lost (Euroean Co&&ission%
20$0)( The lac' of rocessing observe! on &ountain far&s an! is one of the &ain threats to i&roving their viabilit0 b0
a!!e! value ro!ucts across the &ajorit0 of E5 @e&ber 6tates (6antini et al(% 20$3)(
Chater $3 Contribution of the organic far&ing legislation to the sustainable !evelo&ent 4 23$

13.3.3 Contribution of the legislation to the economic sustainabilit$ of the
sector
The econo&icall0 sustainable !evelo&ent of the sector re8uires not just a relativel0 stable
&ar'et that &eets consu&er re8uire&ents% but also actors along the +hole sul0 chain able to
&aintain rofitable organic businesses +ithin the +i!er foo! sector that is !o&inate! b0
conventional agricultural ro!uction an! rocessing( The anal0sis therefore focuses on the lin's
bet+een the re8uire&ents of the Regulation an! the !rivers of the !ecisions &a!e b0 far&ers
an! other organic businesses to join an! re&ain in the sector(
)uring the lifeti&e of Regulation (EC) 834/2007% far& conversion across the E5727 has continue!%
albeit at a slo+er rate than that seen in E57$2 fro& 2000 to 2002( 6ince 20$$ overall
!evelo&ent has largel0 stabilise! across the E5% +ith 2(4 I all E5 far&lan! certifie! as organic%
concentrate! &ainl0 in 6ain% ,tal0% Folan!% >rance% ?er&an0% #ustria an! ?reece (Chater 2)(
The &ain effect of the Regulation on this !evelo&ent is the stable polic$ frameor! +hich
&a'es it ossible for far&s an! businesses to esti&ate the i&act of organic ro!uction an!
rocessing re8uire&ents on their rofitabilit0% co&are! to conventional ro!uction( >or the
sector to gro+% a sufficient nu&ber of far&ers &ust be convince! that conversion to organic
ta'es lace in a stable invest&ent environ&ent an! can be an econo&icall0 viable otion( ,n
a!!ition% a high roortion of those far&ers &ust be able to &aintain their organic business for
the longer ter&( The organic legislative fra&e+or' aears to have create! so&e oortunities
in less intensive conventional far&ing s0ste&s% such as &i*e! livestoc' cro far&s% e*tensive
livestoc' s0ste&s or !r0lan! cro s0ste&s
,
% although e*act !ata for the rates of these conversions
are &issing% causalities are uneas0 to e*tricate an! the effects var0 across E5 regions(
,t is of note that stabilit0 of environ&ent for certain t0e conversions% such as to organic
horticulture% is affecte! b0 the fact that the0 re8uires fairl0 a!vance! technologies an! &a0
involve heav0 invest&ent in s'ills an! &anage&ent 'no+7ho+ (glasshouses% use of arove!
substances for cro rotection
-
)( 6o&e of these &etho!s are governe! b0 the ro!uction rules in
Regulation (EC) 834/2007% +ith certain issues !ebate! in the sector an! !iffering interretations%
as !iscusse! in revious sections( 5nless these a&biguities in the interretation of the
fra&e+or' are resolve!% it can be e*ecte! that a otential e*ansion of organic horticulture

,
Bf note% in lo+ intensit0 s0ste&s% the loss in ro!uctivit0 co&are! to conventional agriculture +ill be lo+er or +ill not
ta'e lace at all( There is also otential to i&rove organic ro!uct co&etitiveness an! far& inco&e ()+0er et al(%
20$2)% an! targeting regional or local &ar'ets &a0 re!uce co&arative econo&ic !isa!vantage in globalise! foo!
&ar'ets (Euroean Farlia&ent% 20$0)(
-
The basic ro!uction rules re8uire the use of cro rotations an! biological control as a 'e0 ractice to revent est an!
athogen ris'( :o+ever use of certain organic rotection substances is arove! in accor!ance +ith Regulation (EC)
834/2007( These are authorise! b0 the Co&&ission( Aovel substances that &a0 be !eveloe! to enhance rotection
an! i&rove 0iel!s +ill have to be authorise! as +ell(
232 Chater $3 Contribution of the organic far&ing legislation to the sustainable !evelo&ent 4

+ill have a 'noc'7on effect at an E5 level on the increasing a&ount of gui!ance nee!e! for the
interretation of the rules an! the increasing nu&ber of alications for aroval of substances(
# 'e0 role of Regulation (EC) 834/2007 has been in setting the regulator$ basis for other polic$
tools that +ere in!isensable in creating favourable econo&ic con!itions for the organic sector
8
(
6ul07si!e olic0 tools facilitate! b0 the !etaile! regulator0 basis in the Regulation inclu!e e(g(
the fun!e! &easures for organic &anage&ent an! ro&otion% financial suort to facilitate
access to &ar'ets an! set u ne+ ro!ucer grous% the !evelo&ent of 8ualit0 ro!ucts%
e*tension services% an! training (Euroean Co&&ission% 20$0E 6an!ers et al(% 20$$)( The !e&an!
si!e of the &ar'et benefitte! fro& fun!s for ro&otion% infor&ation% &ar'et research an! the
use of a unifie! ublicl0 oerate! organic logo% +hich are tools that also coul! not be use!
+ithout the E57+i!e !efinition of organic foo! in the Regulation ()augbjerg an! 6On!ers'ov%
20$2E 6an!ers et al(% 20$$)( #vailable stu!ies !o not 8uantif0 the e*tent to +hich a clear
regulator0 basis enable! the rai!it0 of !eveloing such suorting environ&ent( :o+ever%
research inclu!ing >#B concurs on the fact that the co&bination of varie! olic0 tools an!
fun!ing has been one of the 'e0 factors that &a!e the E5 organic sector increasingl0 co&etitive
an! viable (Ae&es% 200DE 6an!ers et al% 20$$)
.
(
The ositive effect of these olic0 &easures% artl0 enable! b0 the organic legislation fra&e+or'%
cannot al+a0s overco&e other agricultural drivers% such as co&&o!it0 &ar'ets% re7structuring
an! technolog0 change( These continue to ose a range of barriers to organic conversion or start7
u organic rocessing
1/
( ,n a!!ition% the recent !evelo&ent of secialise! an! intensifie!
organic ro!uction s0ste&s &a0 also be a barrier for so&e otential organic far&ers% !ue to oor
access to 'no+le!ge an! technolog0% or because the0 see this as a !ilution of organic rinciles%
an! therefore a societal an! environ&ental !isincentive(
The administrative burden on organic oerators in relation to certification an! recor! 'eeing
re8uire&ents% an! the a!!itional re! tae +ith the alications for aroval of non7organic
inuts an! substances% has been cite! b0 case stu!0 intervie+ees as a !eterrent% concurring +ith

8
This outco&e coinci!es +ith the reco&&en!ation b0 the BEC) on the irrelaceable role of &i* of olic0 instru&ents in
achieving i&rove! environ&ental &anage&ent% co&are! to the use of an0 single instru&ent alone (BEC)% 2007)(
.
6uort a0&ents to organic far&ing account for onl0 473I of gross far& inco&e% ho+ever% the0 reresent a ver0
significant roortion of far& fa&il0 inco&e% var0ing fro& $3I in #ustria to 28I in ?er&an0% 47I in the 5H an! 72I in
)en&ar' (Aieberg et al(% 2007)( =esi!es fun!ing an! suorting olic0 &easures% other &ain factors for the
co&etitiveness of E5 organic sectors inclu!e co&arativel0 high rices co&are! to conventional ro!uce% an! lo+er
ro!uction costs fro& re!uce! inuts (Ae&es% 200D)(
1/
Bther barriers ertain to the secificities of organic agriculture unrelate! to the for&al regulator0 fra&e+or'% such as
slo+ !evelo&ent of organic sul0 chains for certain organic sub7sectors% long ro!uction c0cles an! cro rotations
that re8uire a longer ti&e to ta'e environ&ental an! econo&icall0 favourable effect% higher technical ris's (est
&anage&ent% cli&atic con!itions) an! &ore !ifficult &anage&ent lanning than in conventional agriculture(
Chater $3 Contribution of the organic far&ing legislation to the sustainable !evelo&ent 4 233

the generic fin!ing on the E57+i!e obstacles to 6@Es entering the green &ar'ets(
11
6tolJe et al(
(20$2) foun! that the total costs of organic certification reresent u to 0(4 I of the ra+ inco&e
of a far& an! u to $ I of the organic turnover of rocessors (against the bac'groun! of an
esti&ate! average net &argin for rocessors of aroun! 3 I)( Together +ith another +ea'ness in
the organic legislation fra&e+or'% lac' of access to grou certification for s&aller far&s% these
are otentiall0 i&ortant issues that are li'el0 to have !i&inishe! oortunities for organic
conversion in certain E5 regions( <here the loss of unecono&ic &i*e! fa&il0 far&s an! se&i7
subsistence far&s to either intensification or lan! aban!on&ent is a &ajor tren!% it has been
attribute! artl0 to revailing agricultural !rivers an! artl0 to a failure of E5 an! @e&ber 6tate
agricultural an! rural !evelo&ent olicies (Heenle0si!e et al(% 20$$E )+0er et al(% 20$2E
Heenle0si!e et al(% forthco&ing)( 5navailabilit0 of grou certification for these far&s in the
organic legislation fra&e+or' thus &eans not onl0 re!uce! oortunities for the !evelo&ent of
the sector but also a re!uce! chance to hel safeguar! so&e of the social an! environ&ental
benefits currentl0 rovi!e! b0 these far&s% articularl0 in areas of :igh Aature Palue far&ing
(Heenle0si!e et al(% 20$$E )+0er et al(% 20$2E Heenle0si!e et al(% forthco&ing)(
The reversion of organic units to conventional far&ing is another otential bra'e on the
!evelo&ent of the sector( <hile the sector is regar!e! as 8uite stable in eight @e&ber 6tates
+here less than 2 I far&ers leave the sector annuall0% in several @e&ber 6tates the rates of
far&ers 8uitting +ere as high as D7$3 I bet+een 2002 an! 2007 (Euroean Co&&ission% 20$0)
12
(
This in!icates a consi!erable !egree of vulnerabilit0 +ithin the sector( ,t is of note that the
!ecision to revert is usuall0 a result of several factors of +hich the Regulation is just one(
6cientific stu!ies reveale! that for &ost far&ers econo&ic reasons +ere the &ost i&ortant
follo+e! b0 !ifficulties +ith certification% control an! organic ro!uction techni8ues (Huhnert et
al(% 20$3E 6ah& et al(% 20$3)( Reasons +hich relate !irectl0 to rovisions in the Regulation are% for
e*a&le% the obligation to fee! beef cattle +ith $00 I organic fee!% the nee! to 'ee a +i!e
range of recor!s% or the rohibition of tethering of livestoc'(
#lthough there is no suggestion that the Regulation as a +hole is a barrier to econo&ic
sustainabilit0 several grous of sta'ehol!ers in!irectl0 e&hasise the issue of scarce suppl$ of
organic inuts an! ingre!ients as an i&ortant cause of an arra0 of challenges to the
!evelo&ent of the sector( The s&ooth functioning of the rules that govern the use of inuts an!
substances is therefore an essential re7con!ition for the re!ictable an! reliable !evelo&ent

11
6tolJe et al (20$2) rovi!e the &ost co&lete 8uantitative evi!ence available to !ate on co&arative certification
costs( ,t is of note that the e&irical infor&ation co&es fro& si* &e&ber states +ith relativel0 ver0 large far&s
co&are! to E5 average (C:% CQ% )E% )H% ,T an! the 5H)( ,n none of these countries are the :AP far&ing s0ste&s or the
organic sector characterise! b0 s&all fa&il0 an! se&i7subsistence far&s artl0 outsi!e current C#F suort% an! none
of the& have onl0 an e&br0onic organic sector( Therefore certain !iscretion is nee!e! in interreting the evi!ence in
relation to e*a&les in other @e&ber 6tates in the E57$2 +ith revailing s&all far& o+nershi(
12
=ulgaria has seen &uch higher rates of loss u to 32 I of far&ers leaving the organic sector annuall0 bet+een 2002
an! 2007 for reasons inclu!ing both the cessation of far&ing activit0 an! reversion to conventional agriculture(
234 Chater $3 Contribution of the organic far&ing legislation to the sustainable !evelo&ent 4

of the organic sector( Farticular issues in the ro!uction rules an! the e*cetional rules that are
!ifficult for ro!ucers to co&l0 +ith% as !iscusse! in revious sections% create an obstacle to
conversion an! la0 a role in reversion to conventional far&ing( Brganic ro!ucers intervie+e!
un!erline that the0 nee! reliable rules% certitu!e about the +a0 these are interrete! an! a
ti&el0 aroval rocesses to have the confi!ence to &a'e a long7ter& business invest&ent(
13.3.* Contribution of the legislation to a sustainable suppl$ of
environmental public goods and benefits for animal elfare
The anal0sis in Chaters 7 an! $2 conclu!es that organic ro!uction has beneficial environ&ental
i&acts% generall0 goo! ani&al +elfare i&acts an! contributes fairl0 +ell to +i!er E5
objectives( ,t is also note! that the environ&ental role of the Regulation coul! be strengthene!
b0 a!!itional gui!ance on bio!iversit0 conservation an! habitat &anage&ent% an! on the
sustainable use of energ0 an! +ater( :o+ever% the environ&ental sustainabilit0 of !evelo&ent
of the sector relies artl0 on the +a0 in +hich @e&ber 6tates% rivate sche&es% an! in!ivi!ual
far&ers have i&le&ente! the rules an! interrete! the organic concet% rather than being
+holl0 attributable to the legislation( This section rovi!es an anal0sis of so&e 'e07issues of ho+
!evelo&ent of the sector affects the sul0 of environ&ental ublic goo!s articularl0 for
cli&ate change an! bio!iversit0% an! e*a&ines the e*tent to +hich the legislation can secure a
sustainable sul0 of these(
#t a first glance% it is obvious to assu&e that the sul0 of environ&ental ublic goo!s has
increase! as a result of the increase of organic lan! area in the E5 an! that the Regulation has
contribute! to this b0 rovi!ing a regulator0 fra&e+or' an! !efining ro!uction rules for organic
far&ing( There is ho+ever an ongoing !iscussion in scientific literature to +hat e*tent average
loer $ields fro& organic s0ste&s an! otentiall0 higher lan! use re8uire&ents &a0 re!uce the
aggregate! sul0 of environ&ental ublic goo!s% +hich in turn coul! also be relate! to the
ro!uction rules (e(g( on the use of estici!es or nutrient &anage&ent)(
13

#ccor!ing to a recent &eta7revie+ b0 6eufert et al( (20$2)% the erfor&ance of organic s0ste&s
varies substantiall0 across !ifferent far&ing s0ste&s an! environ&ental an! cli&atic situations%
+hile onl0 generic !ifferences in 0iel!s bet+een organic an! conventional agriculture have been
stu!ie!( :o+ever% there is soun! evi!ence that soils in organic s0ste&s have better +ater hol!ing

13
# &eta7revie+ b0 Tuo&isto et al (20$2) conclu!es% correson!ing to the evi!ence !iscusse! in Chater 7% that organic
far&ing ractices generall0 have ositive i&acts on the environ&ent er unit of area% for e*a&le higher soil organic
&atter content an! lo+er nutrient losses (nitrogen leaching% nitrous o*i!e e&issions an! a&&onia e&issions)E
ho+ever% the0 generall0 have higher lan! use re8uire&ents er ro!uct unit( The fin!ing is base! on a &eta7revie+
inclu!ing 7$ stu!ies that a!!ress E5 agriculture onl0% co&aring organic an! conventional far&ing an! rovi!ing
8uantitative results on at least one of the range of environ&ental i&acts(
Chater $3 Contribution of the organic far&ing legislation to the sustainable !evelo&ent 4 232

caacit0 an! infiltration ratesE therefore organic agriculture aears to have higher 0iel!s than
conventional s0ste&s un!er con!itions of !rought an! e*cessive rainfall (6eufert et al(% 20$2)(
)ata for organic far&ing is generall0 insufficient to esti&ate 0iel! tren!s (Bffer&ann% 2003%
8uote! in Aieberg% 2007)( To be able to e*a&ine the relationshi bet+een the organic far&ing
legislation an! the overall ro!uctivit0 tren!s% not onl0 accurate !ata but also better
un!erstan!ing of counterfactual scenarios +oul! be nee!e!( ,t is of note that the &ajorit0 of
stu!ies un!er the &eta7revie+ b0 6eufert et al( co&are organic s0ste&s to co&&ercial high7
inut conventional s0ste&s +ith above average 0iel!s( This co&arison therefore has li&itations
for illustrating the otential i&act of organic conversion% articularl0 on &e!iu& or lo+er7
intensit0 far&s% since the counterfactual scenario involves the !eletion of natural resources for
the ro!uction of &ineral fertilisers (@alingreau% 20$2)% as +ell as affecting +ater% soil an!
bio!iversit0 (FolG'ovG et al(% 20$3% 20$$E 5n!er+oo! et al% 20$3)( >urther&ore% >#B (20$$)%
6eufert et al( (20$2) an! Tuo&isto et al( (20$2)% all oint to the otential to increase ro!uctivit0
in organic s0ste&s through i&rove! nutrient &anage&ent% research an! innovation( #s
in!icate!% there are also cli&ate a!atation oortunities associate! +ith the &aintenance of
0iel!s in organic s0ste&s in e*tre&e cli&atic con!itions(
The turnover of organic producers leaving the sector &a0 affect the environ&ental sustainabilit0
of !evelo&ent of the sector% because organic &anage&ent re8uires ti&e to ta'e effect on soils%
+ater an! bio!iversit0( Thus environ&ental benefits &a0 not be realise! on the groun! if organic
&anage&ent is 8uic'l0 aban!one!( Carbon se8uestration in soil is a articular e*a&le of a
benefit that is reversible an! can be easil0 lost b0 changes in soil &anage&ent after reversion to
conventional &etho!s( #nother otential concern is the lac' of environ&ental safeguar!s +hen
E5 agricultural lan! +hich is currentl0 aban!one! or subject to &ini&u& cultivation is brought
into cro ro!uction% +hether organic or conventional (:art et al(% 20$3) or +hen se&i7natural
astures are agriculturall0 i&rove!% for e*a&le for organic livestoc' s0ste&
1*
( ,t is i&ortant to
e&hasise that no evi!ence of such environ&ental !a&age e*ists relating to organic conversion
so far an! that such ractices +oul! contra!ict the objectives of organic ro!uction as !efine! in
#rticle 3(a)(ii) of the Regulation (contribution to a high level of bio!iversit0)( :o+ever% there are
no secific re8uire&ents in the Regulation that +oul! rohibit such ractices(

1*
The first loughing an! re7see!ing of se&i7natural grasslan!s% +ith loss of highl0 valuable habitat an! release of soil
carbon% is not banne! b0 C#F rules on er&anent asture (=eaufo0% 20$$E )RaJ7ChaveJ et al(% 20$3E FolG'ovG et al(%
20$$E Tuc'er an! FolG'ovG et al(% 20$3)( ,t coul! ossibl0 ta'e lace as art of conversion to organic far&ing if far&
rofitabilit0 is at sta'e% +ithout being accounte! for in official statistics(
233 Chater $3 Contribution of the organic far&ing legislation to the sustainable !evelo&ent 4

13.3.+ Contribution of the legislation to sustainable social benefits for
rural areas
Consoli!ate! evi!ence of the contribution of the E5 organic far&ing fra&e+or' to socio7
econo&ic asects of rural !evelo&ent is &issing% an! +here stu!ies highlight actual benefits to
rural !evelo&ent rovi!e! b0 the organic far&ing sector% the0 &ost often assu&e that the E5
organic far&ing legislation in!irectl0 create! a facilitative olic0 environ&ent (:Kring% 200$E
Fo&&er% 200$E Fugliese% 200$E ,fC6% 2004a an! 2004bE )arnhofer% 2002E ,>B#@ 2003E
@Snchhausen et al(% 2003E 6chKfer% 2007)( The assess&ents here have therefore use! evi!ence of
inci!ental benefits i!entifie! in e*a&les ro!uce! b0 the Co&&ission.s Euroean Aet+or' for
Rural )evelo&ent (EAR))
1+
% recent >#B reorts that inclu!e e&irical case stu!ies on organic
agriculture in eight E5 @e&ber 6tates an! a brief revie+ of 'e0 E57+i!e sources on foo! sul0
chains% s&all far&s an! 6@Es(
The !evelo&ent of a!!e! value organic ro!ucts often has 'noc'7on effects on revitalising
short food suppl$ chains in rural areas% for e*a&le through !irect sales b0 in!ivi!ual far&ers
(e(g( far& shos)E collective !irect sales (e(g( far& shos or sale oints for &an0 far&sE co7
oerative shos)E an! co7oeration (e(g( bet+een urban an! rural artners via organic bo*
sche&es)E secialist organic shos selling &ore !irectl0 to consu&ers than via suer&ar'etsE
localise! artnershis aroun! organic retailE an! for&all0 organise! grous +ho offer organic
catering services (E5 Rural Revie+ !atabase% 20$0720$3)( 6everal e*a&les also illustrate certain
benefits of the e&erging organic sector for i&rove! co&etitiveness of s&allhol!ings( This can
be attribute! to the oortunit0 for selling their organic ro!uce to a cooerative an! thus
strengthening the local foo! chain (=elgiu&% ?reece% 6ain% an! ,tal0) (E5 Rural Revie+ !atabase%
20$0720$3)( >#B case stu!ies un!erline that e&erging organic far&s in the CJech Reublic an!
:ungar0 rel0 largel0 on such short sul0 chains (6antacolo&a% 2007a)( >urther&ore%
!iversification on organic far&s can rovi!e a!!itional sources of inco&e% for e*a&le through
!eveloing on7far& rocessing facilities for organic ro!uce or through lin'ages +ith local eco7
touris&(
The e*a&les in the EAR) !atabase an! the >#B case stu!ies &a'e little reference to the
!evelo&ent of human s!ills on organic far&s% but this &a0 reflect the lac' of e*tension an!
training services to !evelo these s'ills rather than a lac' of effect( 6antacolo&a (2007a) !oes
note that organic ro!uction in the CJech Reublic an! :ungar0 is !eveloing ne+ s'ills a&ong
far&ers% articularl0 in ter&s of recor! 'eeing an! &ar'eting( Ae&es (200D) oints out that
organic far&ers often nee! &ore ti&e an! greater &anagerial efforts to ac8uire the necessar0
'no+le!ge of organic ractices% rices an! &ar'eting oortunities( The sa&e stu!0 observes

1+
#ll e*a&les are reference! in the te*t as E5 Rural Revie+ !atabase (20$0720$3)( The full references to all issues of the
E5 Rural Revie+ that have been revie+e! to ro!uce the !atabase are rovi!e! in the reference list(
Chater $3 Contribution of the organic far&ing legislation to the sustainable !evelo&ent 4 237

that in the E5 there generall0 ten!s to be &uch better access to e*tension services an! cutting7
e!ge aca!e&ic research for conventional far&ers than organic ones( ,t is notable that in E57$2
the rovision of technical assistance% a!visor0 services an! &ar'eting suort to organic far&ers
(articularl0 for conversion fro& conventional to organic) has often relie! on not7for7rofit
organisations% as !e&onstrate! in >#B case stu!ies (6antacalo&a% 2007a% 2007b)(
,t is i&ortant to note that no !irect correlation has been foun! in evi!ence collecte! bet+een
the organic legislative fra&e+or' an! the effects on social sustainabilit0( Bn the basis of the
revie+e! literature% it is ho+ever clear that the !evelo&ent of the organic sector coul!
otentiall0 bring socio7econo&ic benefits% articularl0 to !isa!vantage! rural areas% but achieving
this +ill re8uire i&rove! rovision an! careful targeting of olic0 suort &easures(
13.* 0udgement and conclusions
=ase! on the results resente! in the section above% it is concluded that the E) legislative
frameor! for organic farming has contributed to the development of the organic farming
sector% ta'ing the follo+ing into account9
Regulation (EC) 834/2007 has &aintaine! the i&etus create! b0 the revious legislative
fra&e+or' to suort a strong E5 !o&estic an! i&ort &ar'et for organic foo!% rinciall0
through !efining !etaile! rules for organic ro!uction an! rocessingE unif0ing a reviousl0
frag&ente! olic0 area% an! intro!ucing a unifie! an! strict control &echanis&( Bf note are
&an0 other factors be0on! the E5 legislative fra&e+or' that influence the !evelo&ent of
the organic sector co&&o!it0 &ar'ets% E5 suort olic0 for conventional an! organic
far&ing% national olicies% an! consu&er !e&an! for organic ro!ucts)(
It is further 1udged that the E) legislative frameor! has contributed to the economic and
environmental sustainabilit$ of this development2 and that there are opportunities to increase
this and social sustainabilit$ of future development% because9
,n general the Regulation rovi!es a clear basis for the !evelo&ent of ne+ organic
businesses( :o+ever var0ing roortions of organic far&ers leave the sector each 0ear% an!
the !evelo&ent of rocessing facilities lags behin! the nee!s of certain organic sub7sectors
in so&e E5 regions% in articular in &ountain areas( This in!icates a !egree of econo&ic
vulnerabilit0 for so&e organic oerators(
6ince the Regulation ca&e into force the E5 organic sector has continue! to gro+(
Aevertheless% barriers to organic conversion continue to e*ist an! therefore the rovision of
the regulator0 basis b0 the organic legislative fra&e+or' is an essential re7con!ition for a
&i* of &easures to create a suortive olic0 environ&ent for the actors in the sector
(a!vice% training% infor&ation% lan! base! organic a0&ents% ro&otion% research)(
Aeither the legislative fra&e+or' nor the i&le&entation of suorting olicies aear to
have been +holl0 effective in !eveloing organic ro!uction for s&all an! se&i7subsistence
238 Chater $3 Contribution of the organic far&ing legislation to the sustainable !evelo&ent 4

lo+7intensit0 far&s as +ell as s&all7scale rocessors +ho coul! benefit econo&icall0 fro&
organic conversion( )evelo&ent of these arts of the sector has the otential to !eliver
associate! socio7econo&ic an! environ&ental benefits in so&e arts of the E5(
The Regulation has contribute! to the environ&ental sustainabilit0 of the sector but this
relies artl0 on the +a0 in +hich @e&ber 6tates% rivate sche&es% an! in!ivi!ual far&ers
have i&le&ente! the rules% not just on the legislation itself( 6o&e environ&ental benefits of
organic far&ing% articularl0 for arable lan!% ta'e effect over a consi!erable erio! of ti&e%
an! thus gro+th in the sector +ill be &ost sustainable +here there is stabilit0 of conversion
rather than rai! turnover(
)evelo&ent of the organic sector has otential to bring socio7econo&ic benefits an! hence
!eliver ublic goo!s( Realising this otential re8uires clearer targeting of suortive E5
olicies% articularl0 those in R)Fs% or consi!ering grou certification for s&all E5 ro!ucers(
3etailed consideration
The overarching objective of the Regulation is to rovi!e the basis for the sustainable
!evelo&ent of the organic far&ing sector( This evaluation 8uestion has a!!resse! the
achieve&ents to+ar!s this objective in t+o stages( >irstl0 the assess&ent a!!resses the e*tent to
+hich the E5 legislative fra&e+or' for organic far&ing has contribute! to the !evelo&ent of
the organic far&ing sector% focusing on the ai& of rovi!ing con!itions un!er +hich this sector
can rogress in line +ith ro!uction an! &ar'et !evelo&ents( 6econ!l0% it a!!resses the e*tent
to +hich the resulting !evelo&ent is econo&icall0% environ&entall0 an! sociall0 sustainable an!
the contribution of the legislation to this(
The ju!ge&ent is base! on a brief revie+ of relevant E57+i!e literature an! selecte! national
literature% an! infor&ation gathere! fro& intervie+s +ith authorities an! sta'ehol!ers in the $3
case stu!0 countries% lus selecte! socio7econo&ic e*a&les fro& the !atabase &aintaine! b0
the Co&&ission.s Euroean Aet+or' for Rural )evelo&ent(
%ontribution to the development of the organic farming sector
Regulation (EC) 834/2007 has &aintaine! the i&etus create! b0 the revious legislative
fra&e+or' in suorting a strong E5 !o&estic an! i&ort &ar'et for organic foo!% rinciall0
through !efining !etaile! rules for organic ro!uction an! rocessing( The Regulation unifie! a
reviousl0 frag&ente! olic0 area an! intro!uce! a unifie! an! strict control &echanis&% +hich
is an i&ortant i&rove&ent for the fair co&etition an! s&ooth functioning of the &ar'et( The
&ar'et un!erins the sul0 chain an! hence la0s a 'e0 role in achieving gro+th of the sector(
The contribution to &ar'et !evelo&ent &a0 be so&e+hat +ea'ene! because so&e
ro!uction rules allo+ a broa!er interretation an! thus &a0 have a!verse effects on fair
co&etition bet+een actors in !ifferent arts of the E5 (for e*a&le the !efinition of -region. for
fee! an! -factor0 far&ing. for &anure)(
Chater $3 Contribution of the organic far&ing legislation to the sustainable !evelo&ent 4 23D

Economic sustainability of the development of the organic farming sector
The econo&ic sustainabilit0 of organic !evelo&ent !een!s on the abilit0 of &an0 thousan!s of
in!ivi!ual ro!ucers to create an! &aintain econo&icall0 viable organic businesses on the basis
of the rules( ,n general the Regulation rovi!es a clear basis for !evelo&ent of ne+ organic
businesses an! also a justification an! basis for 'e0 suorting olices% articularl0 those fun!e!
un!er @e&ber 6tates. R)Fs( There is ho+ever significant variation bet+een @e&ber 6tates in
the roortion of organic far&ers leaving the sector each 0ear% for reasons that are rarel0 stu!ie!
in !eth( 6uorting olicies clearl0 have a beneficial role but &a0 not be al+a0s sufficient to
overco&e e*ternal ressures( 6trengthening the rules &a0 have an i&act on the one han!% b0
enforcing the interest of consu&ers as +ell as the transarenc0 an! consistenc0 of the organic
concetE on the other han!% b0 increasing the re8uire&ents ut on organic far&s(
6o&e of the barriers to organic conversion coul! be re!uce! b0 filling gas in the &i* of E5 an!
national &easures that are nee!e! to create a suortive olic0 environ&ent% inclu!ing the
rovision of technical a!vice% e*tension services an! trainingE accessibilit0 to attractive C#F agri7
environ&ent an! other R)F suortE an! i&rove! institutional caacit0 to !esign an! !eliver
aroriate olic0 ac'ages +ith suorting &easures(
Environmental sustainability of the development of the organic farming sector
There is soun! scientific evi!ence that the Regulation has establishe! a fra&e+or' +hich gui!es
far&ers to the ractices beneficial for the environ&ent( 6till% the environ&ental sustainabilit0 of
!evelo&ent of the sector relies artl0 on the +a0 in +hich @e&ber 6tates% rivate sche&es%
an! in!ivi!ual far&ers have i&le&ente! the rules an! interrete! the organic concet% rather
than being +holl0 attributable to the legislation( The environ&ental oortunities for the future%
+here the organic ro!uction rules coul! la0 a role% inclu!e9 the otential to close the
ro!uctivit0 ga bet+een organic an! conventional s0ste&s through i&rove! nutrient
&anage&ent% research an! innovationE an! the oortunities for increase! organic conversion of
lo+7intensit0 far&ing s0ste&s% +ith associate! otential for a!!ing value to far& ro!ucts an!
for securing the continuation of e*isting beneficial &anage&ent of 'e0 se&i7natural habitats an!
secies% eseciall0 on :igh Aature Palue far&lan!( <hile these oortunities &erit attention%
there nee!s to be &ore effort &a!e to e*a&ine the& together +ith aroriate counterfactual
scenarios for organic 0iel!s in a range of far&ing situations% base! on accurate !ata fro& the
sector(
&ocial sustainability of the development of the organic farming sector
,t is !ifficult to reach a clear ju!ge&ent on the social sustainabilit0 of !evelo&ent of the sector%
but on the basis of the li&ite! evi!ence available it is clear that the !evelo&ent of the organic
sector has the otential to bring socio7econo&ic benefits( :o+ever% a!!itional effort +ill be
nee!e! to achieve econo&icall0 sustainable sector !evelo&ent in !isa!vantage! rural areas
+ith s&all far&s an! a nee! to !evelo organic 6@Es( >or e*a&le% this &a0 re8uire consi!ering
grou certification for s&all far&ers un!er the legislative fra&e+or' +hile ensuring access to the
270 Chater $3 Contribution of the organic far&ing legislation to the sustainable !evelo&ent 4

C#F suort for lo+ intensit0 far&ing s0ste&s an! rovision of targete! ac'ages of suort in
@e&ber 6tates. R)Fs( These coul! rovi!e careful targete! -soft. &easures for a!vice% training
an! facilitation% as +ell as R)F suort for cooeratives an! ne+ invest&ent in far& buil!ings
an! e8ui&ent% rocessing an! &ar'eting(












PART C

Overall conclusions and
recommendations



Chapter 14
Towards an improved legislative framework for organic
farming Overall conclusions and recommendations

14.1 ntroduction
The European organic farming sector has been characterised by continuous growth; between
2000 and 2011 the organic area in EU Member States more than doubled. n 2011! more than ".#
million hectares of agricultural land was managed organically in the European Union! on nearly
2$0000 farms. This translates into an a&erage share of #.$' of the total agricultural area. (n
e)ually dynamic de&elopment can be obser&ed with regard to demand for organic food. The total
&alue of the EU*2+ organic mar,et was appro-imately 1".+ billion EU. in 2011. /ot surprisingly!
from a global perspecti&e! the EU organic farming sector is a ,ey player with a share of 20' in
the global organic area and the second largest mar,et for organic food in the world.
The first EU legislation on organic farming! 1ouncil .egulation 2EE13 20"24"1 in 1""1! has been
identified as one important dri&ing force for this de&elopment 25abbert et al.! 2002; Stol6e and
7amp,in! 200"3. t pro&ided a legal definition of organic farming through production rules as well
as defined control and labelling re)uirements. This helped to protect organic farmers and
consumers against false and misleading organic claims. 8ollowing on from the European (ction
9lan for :rganic 8ood and 8arming 2European 1ommission! 200$3! the original regulation was
substantially re&ised! resulting in 1ouncil .egulation 2E13 ;<$4200+ and its implementing
regulations.
The focus of this e&aluation has been to e-plore the ade)uacy of the current rules 2in force since
200"3 on organic production! controls! labelling and for trade with third countries! with respect to
achie&ing their ob=ecti&es. These ob=ecti&es are laid down in (rticles 1 and < of the .egulation.
The rules aim to >provide a basis for sustainable development of organic production, while
ensuring the effective functioning of the internal market, guaranteeing fair competition, and
ensuring consumer confidence and protecting consumer interests? 2global ob=ecti&es of the
.egulation3. 8urthermore! organic production shall >establish a sustainable management system
for agriculture, aimed at respecting natures systems and cycles, contributing to high levels of
biodiversity, protecting natural resources, producing products of high quality and a wide variety
of foods and other agricultural products that respond to consumers demand 2ob=ecti&es of
organic production3.
The global ob=ecti&es of the .egulation are closely related to specific needs of the organic sector
in the EU and its de&elopment o&er the last twenty years. The sector was characterised! for
2+$ 1hapter 1$ Towards an impro&ed legislati&e framewor, for organic farming
@ :&erall conclusions and recommendations
e-ample! by different national and pri&ate organic standards! different logos and the need for the
protection of the term AorganicB in the conte-t of agricultural products. The e-tent to which the
ob=ecti&es of the .egulation are still rele&ant or whether the .egulation should pursue additional
or alternati&e ob=ecti&es has not been part of this e&aluation.
Cesides e-amining the ade)uacy of the rules for production! control! trade with third countries
and labelling! the e&aluation has also addressed a number of other rele&ant issues! such as a3
whether the scope of the .egulation is ade)uate to meet the current needs both of the organic
sector and consumers of organic products; b3 whether the current legislati&e framewor, has
contributed to achie&ing a simplified administration and management of the legislati&e
measures; and c3 the e-tent to which the legislation has created EU*added &alue and contributed
to a sustainable de&elopment of the organic farming sector.
n the following sections! and in line with the structure of the .egulation! conclusions and
recommendations are made! firstly regarding the scope of the legislation and secondly regarding
the rules for production! controls! trade with third countries and labelling. These are based on
the descripti&e part and the replies to the e&aluation )uestions. Subse)uently! conclusions and
recommendations are made with respect to the lin, between the EU legislation on organic
farming and other EU policy areas. n the final section of this chapter! the indi&idual
recommendations are grouped into si- types of measures within two fields of action.
14.! Conclusions and recommendations in relation to the scope of the "#
legislation on organic farming
Dhen concei&ing the .egulation! the 1ouncil pointed to the dynamic e&olution of the organic
farming sector and stressed the need to e-amine the ade)uacy of the current scope 2see (rticle
$1 of .egulation 2E13 ;<$4200+3. n relation to this! particular attention has been paid in recent
years to the areas of mass catering and non*food products 2e.g. te-tiles! cosmetics3.
The analysis has shown that the scope of the .egulation is mostly ade)uate to match current
needs of organic farming supply and distribution chains! but not fully ade)uate to meet the
needs of consumers of organic products! ta,ing the following into accountE
7ac, of clarity e-ists mainly with regard to non*food products closely related to organic
agriculture! such as wool! beeswa-! some essential oils and herbs for medicinal use.
n some Member States national and4or pri&ate pro&isions e-ist for organic mass catering.
There is limited e&idence of intra*community trade! so the absence of a uniform EU standard
does not impact on the fairness of competition among operators in catering ser&ices. There is
some support among sta,eholders for the inclusion of mass catering under the scope of the
.egulation to impro&e clarity for consumers and to increase potential for recognition of
organic farming within green public procurement. Fowe&er! inclusion could increase the
1hapter 1$ Towards an impro&ed legislati&e framewor, for organic farming 2+#
@ :&erall conclusions and recommendations
regulatory burden on the sector and therefore has the potential to hinder rather than the
support the de&elopment of this sector.
Garious non*food products 2such as body care products and cosmetics! household cleaning
products and te-tiles3 using organic claims are found in retail outlets. This is li,ely to cause
confusion for consumers and could undermine trust in the organic label for food products.
Fowe&er! the labelling re)uirement of a minimum of "#' of organic ingredients that applies
to organic food is not transferable to cosmetics and te-tiles. 9ri&ate standards and
international initiati&es e-ist which are de&eloping harmonised and accepted minimum
criteria for the regulation of such products.
Cased on this =udgement! the following recommendations are made that aim to ensure the
ade)uacy of the legislation with respect to achie&ing its ob=ecti&es.
Clarifying the scope
The analysis showed that the current scope of the EU .egulation is generally understood by
consumers! but a lac, of clarity e-ists with regard to non*food products closely related to organic
agriculture. t is therefore recommended that the legal situation is clarified as to how an
organic claim can $e communicated on such non%food products if the& are produced in
accordance with Regulation '"C( )*4+!,,-.
Mass catering
Sta,eholders remain concerned that the increased regulatory burden entailed by the inclusion of
organic mass catering could stifle potential growth of the sector. Fowe&er! greater clarity would
ma,e it easier to promote the use of organic raw materials in public procurement! encourage
intra*EU trade in this area and impro&e clarity for consumers! particularly in Member States
where no national rules on organic mass catering e-ist. t is therefore recommended not to
e.tend the scope to include mass catering/ $ut to encourage 0em$er 1tates to e.plore
possi$ilities for encouraging the use of organic products in the conte.t of green pu$lic
procurement/ in particular in the area of mass catering.
Non-food products
To include non*food products! their specific characteristics need to be considered! which ris,s
ma,ing the .egulation more complicated. Fowe&er! consumer confusion with regard to non*food
products using organic claims should be addressed. t is therefore recommended not to e.tend
the scope of the Regulation to cover cosmetics and te.tiles/ $ut to e.plore 'taking e.isting
initiatives into account( what constitutes a legitimate organic claim and whether this provides
opportunities for an organic claim and+or logo to $e used on such products.
2+0 1hapter 1$ Towards an impro&ed legislati&e framewor, for organic farming
@ :&erall conclusions and recommendations
14.* 1pecific conclusions and recommendations in relation to the rules
of the "# legislation on organic farming
14.*.1 Production rules
:rganic production is an integrated farm management system which aims to preser&e natural
resources! apply high animal welfare standards and produce high )uality food. The ob=ecti&es and
principles of organic production are operationali6ed through production rules in the .egulation
and the related implementing rules which pro&ide the legal definition of organic farming in the EU.
The analysis has shown that the production rules are generally in terms of achie&ing the global
ob=ecti&es of the .egulation and the ob=ecti&es of organic production! as laid down in 1ouncil
.egulation 2E13 ;<$4200+! ta,ing the following into accountE
There is sound scientific e&idence that the .egulation has established a framewor, which
guides farmers to adopt practices supporting the aims of organic agriculture of contributing
to higher le&els of biodi&ersity! increased soil fertility and minimi6ing water and air pollution.
Some of these effects can be directly lin,ed to the rules laid down in the .egulation! and
some are deri&ed from stricter national and pri&ate standards of certain Member States.
Fowe&er! the production rules do not fully limit the intensification of some production
sectors! such as housing conditions for poultry 2despite the e-istence of detailed rules3 or
greenhouse production 2with no common implementing rules at EU le&el3. (lso! some
ob=ecti&es stated in the .egulation addressing the whole sector 2e.g. responsible use of
natural resources3 and some terms 2e.g. Asustainable de&elopmentB! Arespect for natures
systems and cyclesB! Asustainable useB! AregionB or Afactory farmingA in relation to input use3!
which could ha&e a potential impact on intensification! are not further defined.
The production rules form a good basis for producing products of high )uality and satisfying
consumer demand for a &ariety of food products.
The system of e-ceptional rules! established to allow regional differences in climate! stage of
sector de&elopment and specific husbandry practices to be ta,en into account! seems to be
not fully ade)uate. ( definiti&e =udgement is difficult because of a lac, of reliable data on the
a&ailability of organic supplies! but for some sectors the present system appears to hinder
rather than support de&elopment and increased use of organic supplies.
The HM: pro&isions are ade)uate to ensure the lowest possible ad&entitious presence of
HM:s in organic products. Gery few cases of contamination were reported o&er the past
years. Fowe&er! sta,eholders are concerned about the constraints and additional burdens if
the labelling thresholds were to be lowered further 2mainly due to higher costs for separating
and analysis3. There are concerns about future a&ailability of HM:*free ingredients 2in
particular some en6ymes and &itamins C2! C12 and ascorbic acid3! as well as the reliability of
HM:*free &endor declarations.
1hapter 1$ Towards an impro&ed legislati&e framewor, for organic farming 2++
@ :&erall conclusions and recommendations
The common framewor, of production rules appears to pro&ide generally a good basis for fair
competition among producers. The analysis of pro&isions and other information indicates
howe&er for some areas 2such as definition of AregionB in relation to feed use or Afactory
farmingB for manure use3 the absence of precise definitions has a potential negati&e impact
on fair competition! but the lac, of data does not allow firm conclusions to be drawn. 8urther
mar,et analysis and the collection of comparati&e data of costs of production in different
Member States would be necessary to carry out an ob=ecti&e assessment.
Cased on this =udgement! the following recommendations are made with a &iew to ensuring the
ade)uacy and increasing the effecti&eness of the legislation in achie&ing its ob=ecti&es.
tructure and scope of the production rules
The production rules pro&ide a system*based framewor, relying on principles with emphasis on
the need for pre&ention instead of direct inter&ention against certain problems 2pests! diseases!
weeds3! restricting the use of e-ternal inputs 2with some prohibitions3! and defining practices
that contribute to a &ariety of beneficial outcomes. Scientific literature confirms that the systems
approach deli&ers on many aspects of the o&erall ob=ecti&e of organic production. Stating
ob=ecti&es and principles in the main .egulation has contributed to a common understanding of
the concept of organic agriculture! but some uncertainty for some control bodies and control
authorities as to whether these are legally binding was obser&ed. (lso! the lin, between specific
production rules and the ob=ecti&es they are designed to support is not always clear. t is
therefore recommended that the legal te.t is simplified to clarif& the legal status of the
o$2ectives and principles of organic production. t is also recommended that further guidance is
provided on how specific rules link to the o$2ectives of organic production and that there is
further clarification of am$iguous terms. 3ialogue on the interpretation of the rules is to $e
encouraged at all levels $etween the Commission/ national authorities and control $odies.
!dequacy of the production rules to achieve the ob"ectives of organic production
The organic rules already ha&e a strong! positi&e influence on high le&els of biodi&ersity and soil
and water protection! but practices that ha&e a direct positi&e impact 2e.g. instructions on habitat
management! ecological focus areas! etc.3 are not clearly defined. There are! for e-ample! no
detailed rules on the responsible use of energy and water. n the case of water! howe&er! such
rules would be useful only in those regions where water is a scare resource. t is therefore
recommended that wa&s to address the issues of the sustaina$le use of energ& and water and
$iodiversit& conservation and ha$itat management are e.plored.
Dhilst the organic production rules already contain many good pro&isions with potential impact
on animal welfare! the ob=ecti&e of Brespecting high animal welfareA cannot be achie&ed by rules
alone! but further impro&ement in animal welfare could be achie&ed through better monitoring
of e-isting rules to raise farmersB awareness. t is therefore recommended that ade4uate well%
targeted output%$ased criteria are developed for the monitoring and enforcement of animal
2+; 1hapter 1$ Towards an impro&ed legislati&e framewor, for organic farming
@ :&erall conclusions and recommendations
welfare outcomes that can $e used $& operators in self%assessment and also as part of control
visits.
!dequacy of the production rules to ensure fair competition
The current rules appear to pro&ide a good basis for fair competition! but some problems arise
from different implementation in the Member States! which may ha&e implications for
production costs. This could be caused by lac, of detail in the EU .egulation! by issues that are
left to the discretion of EU Member States or by issues arising from national rules that also apply
to organic producers. 9ro&iding more guidance on the definition of certain terms 2see abo&e3
would help to reduce the amount of differences in interpretation and implementation across the
Member States.
The a&ailability of comparable data on costs of production or intra*EU trade! which would be
re)uired to assess the )uantitati&e impact of &arious rules on potential distortion of competition!
is &ery limited. 8or e-ample! only rough estimates are currently possible to assess the impact of
&arying definitions of the term AregionB on feeding costs and the competiti&eness of organic
farmers. t is recommended that a consistent "#%wide approach is taken to the definition/
collection and pu$lication of statistics and market data for the organic sector.
#$ceptional rules
E-ceptional rules were pro&ided for in the basic legislation in order to encourage and facilitate
con&ersion at the beginning of the entry into force of this legislation when harmonisation had not
yet been attained. t is the nature of e-ceptional rules that they are an e-ception from the norm
and should be time limited. The e&aluation e-amined three of them that allow for the use of non*
organic inputs 2young poultry! feed for monogastrics and seeds3. Each case is different regarding
the e-tent of use of the e-ception and the a&ailability of organic inputs.
The e-ceptional rules for the use of non*organic young poultry consist of two partsE a3 use of non*
organic chic,s 2less than < days old! currently not time limited3 and b3 use of part*organic reared
pullets 2complying with rules on feeding and &eterinary treatment inputs but not with those on
origin of animals and housing; due to e-pire on <1 5ecember 201$3. Coth e-ceptional rules are
e-tensi&ely used in all of the case study countries e-cept in 5enmar,! where national rules ha&e
been introduced. n the other countries! no data on the le&el of undersupply and progress made
were a&ailable. (ccording to sta,eholders! the e-istence of the e-ceptional rule itself and the lac,
of an EU standard for pullet*rearing ha&e hampered the de&elopment of supplies of entirely
organic pullets. t is therefore recommended that provision is made for organic pullet rearing
and hatcher& at "# level/ followed $& a phasing out of the e.ceptional rule on the use of part%
organic pullets.
There are insufficient data regarding the use of the e-ceptional rules for use of non*organic
protein feed for monogastrics or the a&ailability of organic supplies! conse)uently no )uantitati&e
analysis of the =ustification of this rule could be made. Sta,eholders and e-perts belie&e that
1hapter 1$ Towards an impro&ed legislati&e framewor, for organic farming 2+"
@ :&erall conclusions and recommendations
most monogastrics breeders feed # ' con&entional high protein crops and by*products 2such as
potato protein! mai6e gluten products3. The organic 2and general3 production of pulses in the EU
is insufficient to meet the demand of the European li&estoc, sector! but there may be promising
early stage de&elopment of alternati&e feed products for monogastrics. Mo&ing )uic,ly to 100 '
organic feed could result in a high reliance on e-tra*EU imports used to balance rations! rather
than stimulating EU supplies of high )uality protein. This may conflict with consumersB
preference for local production and for feed from the farm or region. t might also result in
further pressure to allow synthetic amino acids as feed ingredients. (lthough this could
compromise the credibility of organic farming which generally tries to a&oid synthetic inputs! it is
also li,ely that some pressure is needed to stimulate change. t is therefore recommended that
the development of organic high protein feed supplies in the "# is supported through research
and knowledge e.change as well as specific CAP measures/ and that the development of suppl&
and demand 'suppl& $alance( of organic high protein feeds supplies in "urope is monitored.
The e-ceptional rule for non*organic seed is also widely used. :f the case study countries!
(ustria! 5enmar,! 8rance! and Hermany were able to de&elop 2for some species3 an organic
supply to meet national needs. Fowe&er! at EU le&el the current system did not lead to significant
impro&ements in the supply of organic seeds. n countries where the organic seed supply for
some species is reaching satisfactory le&els! phasing out the e-ceptional rules may restrict access
to locally adapted and traditional &arieties as re)uired by the organic principles and crop
production rules. This is particularly the case for sectors where many different species and
&arieties are grown! such as fruit and &egetables and forage production. The seed database
appears to be a useful tool for managing the e-ceptional seed rules system! but some
shortcomings were obser&ed. t is therefore recommended that the use of the seed data$ase is
harmonised and improved through regular updating of lists of availa$le species and varieties
and that further e.change of information $etween countries is facilitated in order to $roaden
the market.
:&erall! the analysis led to the conclusion that monitoring of supply balances is necessary to
ma,e a sound =udgement on the =ustification of such e-ceptions. 8or the cases e&aluated! there is
a clear indication that the e-istence of e-ceptional rules has impeded the de&elopment of organic
supplies in the EU! partly because of higher costs of organic supplies which act as a disincenti&e
for their use.
14.*.! Rules on controls
Since 1""1! organic farming in the EU has been regulated to ensure that consumer confidence in
organic products is =ustified! that fair competition is guaranteed and that the internal mar,et is
functioning. To this end! 1ouncil .egulation 2E13 ;<$4200+ foresees a two*fold control system of
competent authorities delegating control measures to control authorities and control bodies!
which implement audits specific to organic production. (gainst the bac,ground of a continuously
2;0 1hapter 1$ Towards an impro&ed legislati&e framewor, for organic farming
@ :&erall conclusions and recommendations
e-panding organic sector! after two decades of regulation of organic farming at EU le&el! this
e&aluation e-amines! among other things! whether the current control system is ade)uate to
achie&e the global ob=ecti&es of the .egulation as mentioned abo&e.
The o&erall control system of organic farming was =udged to be largely ade)uate in terms of
achie&ing the global ob=ecti&es of the .egulation! but with some shortcomings in
implementation! ta,ing the following into accountE
(nnual inspection re)uirements are ade)uate to ensure fair competition and consumer
confidence! although ris,*based approaches could achie&e the same aims at lower costs.
Fowe&er! guidance at EU le&el may be necessary to ensure a harmonised approach.
(dditional ris,*based inspections re)uired by the .egulation are in general an ade)uate tool
to ensure fair competition and consumer confidence. Fowe&er! they are implemented
differently across the Member States and in se&eral countries only to a limited e-tent. (t
present! the full potential of ris,*based approaches is not e-ploited. 8urther de&elopment of
ris,*based approaches is necessary so that they can be applied to the organic control system.
E-emption from the control system for operators who sell products directly to the final
consumer or user are ade)uate and =ustified in cases where such operators only sell pac,ed
and labelled food. n such cases! the upstream actors of the organic supply chain were
already sub=ect to the control system. Fowe&er! there is an indication that this e-emption is
only =ustified if the super&ision system ensures that such retail businesses are notified to the
respecti&e competent authorities and that the conditions for the e-emption are periodically
&erified.
/ot all elements of the control system are consistently implemented across the Member
States. This leads to a situation whereby! between Member States and e&en within one
Member State! organic operators and products could be differently e&aluated with respect to
residues! and also operators could recei&e different sanctions for committing the same
infringement. Thus for these areas! fair competition among organic operators and among
control bodies cannot be not guaranteed.
There is no robust indication that the distribution of responsibilities among the main actors
in&ol&ed in the control system is inade)uate.
The national super&ision systems are not fully ade)uately and effecti&ely implemented in
some Member States due to insufficient procedures for super&ision and limited resources of
competent authorities to fulfil the super&isory role.
There are some deficiencies in the e-change of information illustrated by the analysis of the
recent organic fraud case.
1onsumers largely ha&e confidence in the organic control system. Cut this trust is built upon
perceptions and not on factual ,nowledge.
1hapter 1$ Towards an impro&ed legislati&e framewor, for organic farming 2;1
@ :&erall conclusions and recommendations
Cased on this =udgement! the following recommendations are made which aim to ensure the
ade)uacy and increase the effecti&eness of the legislation with respect to achie&ing its ob=ecti&es.
%rganic control system based on risk-assessment
To a&oid opportunistic beha&iour on the part of organic operators and to ensure that control
measures are not o&erly predictable! the control system should adopt a toolbo- approach
whereby control measures can be applied according to ris,! operator type and conte-t. The core
element of such an approach is therefore ris,*based. This would allow for the identification of
low*ris, and high*ris, operators! thereby creating a more targeted and dynamic approach to the
control process. Such a system needs to be de&eloped as a learning system which is able to adapt
to changing influences on and challenges for the integrity of organic farming. t is important to
bear in mind that such a dynamic approach is not compatible with the static approach of the
mandatory annual control &isits as currently implemented in the .egulation. To improve the
effectiveness of the organic control s&stem/ it is therefore recommended that the organic
control s&stem is $ased on risk%assessment.
n particular it is recommended thatE
ris,*classification tools are used to determine Blow and high ris,A operators as well as type of
control 2announced4unannounced3! control fre)uency! control depth and a selection of
additional control measures. The intention of ris,*based approaches is not to reduce the total
number of controls! but to base the control fre)uency on ris, assessment. 8urthermore! gi&en
that regular annual controls can be communicated easily to consumers to ensure consumer
confidence! ris,*based approaches could be used to ad=ust control duration and control depth
of annual! on*the*spot &isits depending on the ris, classification of operators. Fowe&er! to
maintain the random nature of the control procedure for organic operators! dynamic changes
in the control fre)uency and depth are re)uired;
the use of a set of control measures embedded in the o&erall ris, approach is enforced to be
applied dynamically; for e-ample! consisting of inspection of animal welfare parameters! use
of residue sampling! testing and analysis during the production process! use of cross*chec,s
along the entire organic supply chain! ris,*based and detailed re&iew of boo,,eeping
accounts! and prompt follow*up in case of non*conformities;
the use of new technological de&ices and analysis techni)ues for on*site controls should be
e-plored;
specific training for control bodies and inspectors on ris,*based controls at EU and national
le&el should be introduced ta,ing into account that a ris,*based approach re)uires additional
,nowledge and competences 2compared to an annual control approach3 to address
ade)uately different ris, cases.
2;2 1hapter 1$ Towards an impro&ed legislati&e framewor, for organic farming
@ :&erall conclusions and recommendations
upervision systems of the Member tates over control bodies and control authorities
The super&isory system of the Member States should aim to pre&ent opportunistic beha&iour on
the part of control bodies and control authorities. So far the notion of super&ision of control
bodies as implemented in some Member States is that of focusing too much on formal
re)uirements in&ol&ing e-tensi&e reporting. The super&isory systems of Member States should
consist of a &ariety of tools and procedures to be applied dynamically in order to ma,e the
process more efficient.
1ompetent authorities are re)uired to ensure that the control tas,s delegated to control bodies
or control authorities are carried out properly. To monitor the wor, of these bodies! competent
authorities use audits and other super&ision measures. The effecti&eness of super&ision could be
impro&ed by strengthening guidance so that a common understanding of the organic farming
legislation among control bodies4control authorities e-ists. Huidance is particularly important!
since a ris,*based approach is not a static system but re)uires additional s,ills as described
abo&e. (s competent authorities are in direct contact with the control bodies and control
authorities! they could ta,e particular responsibility to con&ey the ,ey concepts of organic
farming and the EU organic farming legislation to control bodies and control authorities. t is
therefore recommended that the knowledge/ skills and capa$ilities of the competent
authorities is increased through ade4uate capacit& $uilding and training.
&nformation e$change between the actors inside and outside the control system
Effecti&e information e-change should be )uic, and efficient for all control bodies! control
authorities and competent authorities in order to speed up reaction times. 8urthermore! in order
to increase the effecti&eness of on*site controls! it would be useful to gi&e control bodies access
to e-isting operator data so that such information does not need to be collected again during the
control &isit. This would allow inspectors to focus more on the actual inspection during an
inspection &isit. t is therefore recommended that the Organic 5arming nformation 1&stem
'O51( is improved and that the Commission considers whether it is appropriate to e.tend its
application to other actors in the control s&stem.
rregularities and non*compliances may be detected not only by the actors of the organic control
system! but also through ta- and customs in&estigations or other authorities. This is a ,ey lesson
learned from the recent fraud case AHatto con gli sti&aliB which highlighted deficiencies in
information e-change between different public authorities. t is therefore recommended that
the awareness of 0em$er 1tates $e raised in this respect and that 0em$er 1tates are advised
to e.plore whether and to what e.tent interfaces $etween the organic control s&stem and
customs or ta. authorities could $e esta$lished.
1hapter 1$ Towards an impro&ed legislati&e framewor, for organic farming 2;<
@ :&erall conclusions and recommendations
14.*.* Rules for trade with third countries
n the last two decades! organic supply and distribution chains ha&e become increasingly globally
organised and a large number of products sold on the EU mar,et are imported. 8or farmers and
consumers in the EU! it is important that organic products from third countries are produced in
accordance with e)ual re)uirements and that the control systems guarantee the same le&el of
assurance of conformity as within the EU. 8urthermore! it is rele&ant that administrati&e
procedures allow for timely deli&ery of the products at a reasonable cost.
The import regime was =udged to be largely ade)uate in terms of achie&ing the global ob=ecti&es
of the .egulation but with some shortcomings in implementation! ta,ing the following into
accountE
9rocedures of the import regime are generally ade)uate to assure conformity of organic
products imported from third countries. Fowe&er some shortcomings were identified with
regard to the wor,ing resources re)uired to assess the e)ui&alence at the 1ommission and
&arying interpretation of e)ui&alency by the control bodies. 8urthermore! importers complain
that procedures for issuing certificates of inspection implemented by some third country
control bodies are slow and that they are paper*based;
1ontrol systems implemented in some third countries displayed shortcomings in particular as
regards the application of specific pre&enti&e measures 2e.g. training for operators3 and ris,*
orientated controls. There are also concerns about the super&ision of control bodies
operating in third countries! in particular whether super&ision is sufficient. 8urthermore!
sta,eholders ha&e indicated that procedures to follow up on irregularities are not always
satisfactory; and
1onsumers ha&e some reser&ations towards organic products not produced in their country.
This attitude does howe&er not differ substantially between organic products from other EU*
countries and organic products from third countries.
Cased on this =udgement! the following recommendations are drawn that aim to ensure the
ade)uacy and increase the effecti&eness of the legislation with respect to achie&ing its ob=ecti&es.
1onsidering that the control system on imports has to pro&ide e)ui&alent effecti&eness with the
EU rules! it is clear that many recommendations for the rules on controls 2see 1hapter 1$.<.2.3
are also applicable for the import rules. :ne e-ample of this is ris,*based approaches! which
allow for an ade)uate response to situations where there is a higher ris, of irregularities due to
deficient ,nowledge of organic agriculture standards or techni)ues.
!dministration of equivalence assessments
The import system applied in the EU does not re)uire full compliance with EU rules but rather
with e)ui&alent rules and procedures for standards and control systems adapted to the specific
framewor,. Ensuring e)ui&alence is &ital to guarantee fair competition with European producers
2;$ 1hapter 1$ Towards an impro&ed legislati&e framewor, for organic farming
@ :&erall conclusions and recommendations
and to maintain organic integrity and subse)uently consumer trust. The e&aluation results
re&ealed concerns about the administration of e)ui&alence assessment because the growing
number of recognised third countries and control bodies has led to an increasing administrati&e
wor,load! in particular! for the 1ommission. t is therefore recommended that $odies involved
in the administration of the e4uivalence assessment have sufficient working capacities to deal
with the growing num$er of recognised third countries and control $odies.
The current system of recognised control bodies re)uires control bodies to issue a standard
e)ui&alent to the EU .egulation for their operations in third countries! which also needs to be
submitted with the application for recognition. 8urthermore! e-isting standards! once appro&ed
to be e)ui&alent! need to be continuously refined and further de&eloped in line with any changes
to the EU .egulation. This in turn re)uires a continuous re*assessment of the e)ui&alence. t is
therefore recommended that possi$ilities to simplif& the recognition and assessment
procedures 'e.g. $& separating the recognition of control $odies from the recognition of
technical standards( are e.plored.
&mport authorisation system
The current system of import authorisations will be phased out by Iuly 201$. 1onsidering the
administrati&e burden associated with this system and the challenges it has faced in achie&ing
harmonised implementation! the disad&antages of this option are ob&ious and thus the phasing
out of the import authorisation is =ustified. n &iew of the relati&ely high number of authorisations
re)uested in 201< and uncertainty as to whether the mar,et will function properly! it is however
recommended that the suppl& development is monitored and ade4uate action taken if severe
market failures are o$served resulting from the phasing out of import authorisations.
trengthening supervision of control bodies
Super&ision of control bodies plays a ,ey role in ensuring an effecti&e control system. t
guarantees a le&el playing field among control bodies and helps to pre&ent possible unfair
competition among operators which could result from &arying interpretation of standards. Under
the system of recognised control bodies! super&ision is carried out by the 1ommission!
competent authorities and accreditation bodies. The findings from the analysis of pro&isions
re&ealed that there is no direct lin, between accreditation bodies and the 1ommission. t is
therefore recommended that consideration is given to esta$lishing direct communication
$etween accreditation $odies and the Commission especiall& with respect to complaints and
irregularities.
14.*.4 Rules on la$elling
7abelling rules for organic products pro&ide a legal basis for the use of terms referring to organic
production and contribute to the functioning of the internal mar,et. ( ,ey element of the
labelling rules is the EU organic logo! which aims to increase recognition of organic products in all
1hapter 1$ Towards an impro&ed legislati&e framewor, for organic farming 2;#
@ :&erall conclusions and recommendations
EU countries and to pro&ide consumers with confidence that organic food is produced entirely in
line with the .egulation.
The analysis has shown that the concept of organic farming is largely understood by most
consumers in the EU! ta,ing the following into accountE
The ma=ority of the respondents were familiar with the main issues of organic farming! such
as growing without the use of synthetic chemicals! production by methods protecting the
en&ironment or grown without the use of genetically modified seeds; but
( large share of consumers sur&eyed also agreed with AincorrectB statements as being part of
the legal definition! such as Aneeds to be produced on small farmsB and Aneeds to be produced
locallyB; and
( )uarter of respondents to the consumer sur&ey recognise the new EU organic logo which
was introduced in 2010 and became compulsory without e-ception in Iuly 2012.
Cased on this =udgement! the following recommendations are made which aim to increase the
effecti&eness of the legislation with respect to achie&ing its ob=ecti&es.
Consumers knowledge of organic farming
1onsumersB ,nowledge and understanding of the concept of organic farming is essential for
consumersB confidence and purchasing decisions. The analysis has shown that consumersB
,nowledge is high regarding some basic principles of organic farming 2such as the ban of
synthetic chemicals3 but a large proportion of consumers sur&eyed mista,enly belie&e that
organic food Aneeds to be produced on small farmsB and Aneeds to be produced locallyB neither of
which are re)uirements of the .egulation. Jnowledge of the core concept of organic agriculture
could be enhanced and confidence in the independent certification system could be
strengthened through information campaigns. This will re)uire =oint efforts from the EU and
Member States and the organic sector. t is therefore recommended that there is continued
support for well%targeted information and awareness raising campaigns which e.plain the
common concept of organic farming/ the certification s&stem/ the "# organic logo and the
additional compulsor& indications.
%rganic #' logo
The specific challenge for the EU organic logo is that &arious organic logos had already been
established in many Member States prior to the introduction of the EU organic logo in 2010.
Some countries had longstanding national logos 2e.g. Estonia! 8rance and Hermany3; some had
primarily well*established pri&ate logos 2e.g. United Jingdom3. n other countries foreign national
logos 2the Herman Ciosiegel3 and the old EU logo were and still are important in the mar,et 2taly
and 9oland3. Fowe&er! organic logos 2apart from the EU logo3 do not e-ist in all Member States.
The new EU logo itself is not self*e-planatory because it does not use any specific term referring
to organic farming. 5ue to language differences! no single term could be found to suit all
2;0 1hapter 1$ Towards an impro&ed legislati&e framewor, for organic farming
@ :&erall conclusions and recommendations
Member States. Si- months after it became fully mandatory! the new EU logo is recognised by
about a )uarter of consumers. .ecognition is higher in 8rance! where it has been clearly
associated with the well*established 8rench national (C logo. The logo has to be accompanied by
the code number of the control body which includes C:! E1:! EJ:! :.H! KJ: or LJ:! but
consumers do not necessarily lin, this indication with the logo. t is therefore recommended that
options are e.plored to associate or connect terms referring to organic farming more closel&
with the logo.
(dditional compulsory indications such as the origin of raw materials 2EU and non*EU agriculture3
were introduced in order to increase the le&el of information and to reduce consumer confusion
at the point of sale. (ccording to the .egulation! products can be labelled with the name of the
country if ";' of all raw materials ha&e been farmed only in one country. Cy allowing only 2' of
the ingredients to come from outside the country in )uestion! &ery few products can be labelled
with an indication of the country of origin. (t the moment! the rules for organic food are in this
respect stricter than pro&isions for some products with geographic indications 2e.g. products can
be labelled as 9rotected Heographical ndication! if among others the production and4or
processing and4or preparation of a product ta,es place in the defined geographical area3. 0ore
fle.i$ilit& concerning geographic indication ma& $e useful to allow regional organic food to
compete with other regional food in man& markets.
14.*.6 1implified administration and management
(s part of the European (ction 9lan for :rganic 8ood and 8arming 2European 1ommission! 200$3
the EU 1ouncil called on the 1ommission to re&iew the legal framewor, regarding simplification
and o&erall coherence. Simplification in the conte-t of the 1(9 framewor, should ha&e the goal
of reducing red tape for both farmers and administrations by ma,ing rules more transparent!
easier to understand and less burdensome to comply with 2European 1ommission! 200#3.
The analysis has shown that the current legislati&e framewor, for organic farming has
significantly impro&ed the transparency of the legislati&e measures applicable before 200"! but
has not resulted in simplified administration and management! ta,ing the following into accountE
:b=ecti&es! principles and production rules are now defined at the le&el of 1ouncil .egulation
2E13 ;<$4200+. The structure of the new regulations! whereby the implementing rules are
contained in separate 1ommission .egulations! runs the ris, that not all rele&ant sections are
considered by operators. There is a lac, of clarity of some terms 2e.g. region! irregularities
and infringements! high )uality3.
The appro&al process of permitted substances and practices has been clarified and criteria
ha&e been laid down! but there are concerns about the length of the appro&al process.
The new .egulation and the replacement of derogations with e-ceptional rules ha&e not
o&erall resulted in reduced red tape and administration.
1hapter 1$ Towards an impro&ed legislati&e framewor, for organic farming 2;+
@ :&erall conclusions and recommendations
Cased on this =udgement! the following recommendations are made that aim to increase the
effecti&eness of the legislation with respect to achie&ing its ob=ecti&es.
(ransparency of the legal framework
n setting out ob=ecti&es of the .egulation and the ob=ecti&es and principles of organic
production! .egulation 2E13 ;<$4200+ has contributed to transparency of the legislati&e
framewor,. Fowe&er! the structure of the implementing rules 2.egulation 2E13 ;;"4200;3 still
re)uires an operator to consult a high number of articles when interpreting particular issues.
There is also a lac, of definition or clarity of some terms pre&enting a unified and harmonised EU
wide interpretation. t is therefore recommended that the Commission maintains a
consolidated version of the whole regulator& framework for organic food and farming on its
we$site/ with a ta$le of contents and an inde./ which links the o$2ectives and principles more
directl& with the detailed rules.
implification of the approval process of substances
The appro&al process of permitted substances has become more transparent through laying
down criteria! but there are concerns about the length of time it ta,es for a decision to be
granted and the ability of the procedure to cope with greater &olume of applications. (s yet!
there has been no action on re&iewing and potentially remo&ing substances from the (nne-es of
.egulation 2E13 ;;"4200;. The EU le&el process needs to focus on generic substances and
strategic issues 2including potential reduction of lists3! building on the clear impro&ements that
ha&e been made with the technical ad&ice e-perts through the EHT:9 process. Since the
appro&al of products is usually carried out by national authorities and control bodies! guidance to
operators about products &aries among Member States. t is therefore recommended that wa&s
are e.plored to improve $oth the approval process for products used in organic farming and
the information availa$le to operators in all 0em$er 1tates/ including in those countries where
no such information e.ists at present.
14.4 Conclusions and recommendations in relation to the links $etween
the "# legislation on organic farming and related "# policies
14.4.1 "# added value
:rganic production operates not =ust within the conte-t of wider EU agricultural! food and rural
de&elopment policy! but also other EU policies. EU added &alue is =udged by the e-istence of a
European dimension for the policy in )uestion! the coherence of legislation with ,ey EU priorities!
the achie&ement of both the global ob=ecti&es of .egulation 2E13 ;<$4200+ and the ob=ecti&es of
related EU policies! and the e-tent to which these achie&ements would not ha&e been possible
through national policies alone.
2;; 1hapter 1$ Towards an impro&ed legislati&e framewor, for organic farming
@ :&erall conclusions and recommendations
The analysis has shown that the organic farming legislation pro&ides EU added &alue! notably by
defining the common rules for the organic mar,et! ta,ing the following into accountE
There is particularly good coherence between the legislation and EU priorities for inno&ation!
agricultural product )uality! agri*en&ironment! biodi&ersity! water )uality! soil conser&ation!
animal welfare as well as consumer protection and food labelling; and there is good
coherence with issues related to the EU priorities for the internal mar,et! climate change
mitigation! sustainable production and consumption! food safety and competiti&eness.
8urthermore! there are some opportunities to impro&e coherence through impro&ed lin,ages
between the legislation and specific elements of EU priorities for sustainable use of water and
mar,et data collection.
The legislation is effecti&e in creating EU added &alue for en&ironmental! climate mitigation
and animal welfare priorities! and there is a generally good complementarity with EU funding
instruments! particularly the 1(9 and the funds for research and information. The
effecti&eness could be impro&ed by ma,ing clearer lin,s between ob=ecti&es! general
principles and detailed rules! and by translating ob=ecti&es for water )uantitati&e
management! energy use and habitat management into operational rules. The legislation is
only moderately effecti&e in achie&ing the EU priority of better regulation.
The framewor, achie&es clear added &alue at EU le&el going beyond what could be achie&ed
by national policies alone. 7ittle e&idence is a&ailable to =udge the allocation of responsibilities
according to the principle of subsidiarity! and it was found that the &iews of competent
authorities differ on this issue.
Cased on this =udgement! the following recommendations are made to impro&e the ade)uacy
and effecti&eness of the legislation in pro&iding EU added &alueE
upporting related #' policy priorities
The organic legislation is directly rele&ant to strategic and hori6ontal EU priorities and to ,ey EU
priorities and funding instruments for agriculture! rural de&elopment! en&ironment! climate!
animal welfare and consumers. The legislati&e framewor, is generally effecti&e in supporting
these EU priorities. There are! howe&er! some gaps in the lin,age to climate and en&ironmental
priorities related to sustainable use of water and energy! as well as the potential &ulnerability of
gra6ed semi*natural pastures and landscape features on Figh /ature Galue 2F/G3 farmland to
changes in management because these are not currently addressed by specific organic
re)uirements. nvestigating possi$ilities to address the issues of the sustaina$le use of energ&
and water/ $iodiversit& conservation and ha$itat management was alread& recommended
a$ove.
There is generally good complementarity between the legislation and the related EU funding
instruments. The organic legislation has impro&ed the legal basis for payments pro&ided from the
1(9 funds! especially the second pillar of the 1(9! by the introduction of a strict control system.
1hapter 1$ Towards an impro&ed legislati&e framewor, for organic farming 2;"
@ :&erall conclusions and recommendations
There are opportunities to further impro&e complementarity between the legislation and EU
rural de&elopment ob=ecti&es for the competiti&eness of small farms in F/G farming systems.
These can be realised by pro&iding ad&ice to farmers through rural de&elopment policy on the
a&ailable measures to support con&ersion of e-isting Figh /ature Galue and semi*subsistence
farms to organic production. t is therefore recommended that R3P managing authorities are
provided with information on the potential socio%economic and environmental $enefits of
organic farming/ in particular in 789 farming s&stems and semi%su$sistence farms/ and
guidance on using R3P measures to achieve this.
14.4.! 1ustaina$le development of the organic farming sector
Sustainable de&elopment is a ,ey EU priority. The stage of organic sector de&elopment &aries
considerably between Member States! from those in the early stages of de&elopment to well
established! maturing mar,ets. 5e&elopment of the sector re)uires growth in production!
processing and mar,ets. The legislation is only one factor among many that influence this
de&elopment. :thers include commodity mar,ets! support payments for con&entional and
organic farming and consumer demand for organic products. Sustainability is understood in
terms of the inter*related concepts of economic! en&ironmental and social sustainability.
The analysis has shown that the EU legislati&e framewor, for organic farming has contributed to
the de&elopment of the organic farming sector! ta,ing the following into accountE
.egulation 2E13 ;<$4200+ has maintained the impetus created by the pre&ious legislati&e
framewor, to support a strong EU domestic and import mar,et for organic food! principally
through defining detailed rules for organic production and processing; unifying a pre&iously
fragmented policy area! and introducing a unified and strict control mechanism. :f note are
many other factors beyond the EU legislati&e framewor, that influence the de&elopment of
the organic sector 2e.g. commodity mar,ets! EU support policy for con&entional and organic
farming! national policies! and consumer demand for organic products3.
8urthermore! the analysis has shown that the organic farming legislation has contributed to the
economic and en&ironmental sustainability of this de&elopment and that there is potential to
impro&e the social sustainability of future de&elopment! ta,ing into accountE
n general the .egulation pro&ides a clear basis for the de&elopment of new organic
businesses. Fowe&er &arying proportions of organic farmers lea&e the sector each year! and
the de&elopment of processing facilities lags behind the needs of certain organic sub*sectors
in some EU regions! in particular in mountain areas. This indicates a degree of economic
&ulnerability for some organic operators.
Since the .egulation came into force the EU organic sector has continued to grow.
/e&ertheless! barriers to organic con&ersion continue to e-ist and therefore the pro&ision of
the regulatory basis by the organic legislati&e framewor, is an essential pre*condition for a
2"0 1hapter 1$ Towards an impro&ed legislati&e framewor, for organic farming
@ :&erall conclusions and recommendations
mi- of measures to create a supporti&e policy en&ironment for the actors in the sector
2ad&ice! training! information! land based organic payments! promotion! research3.
/either the legislati&e framewor, nor the implementation of supporting policies appear to
ha&e been wholly effecti&e in de&eloping organic production for small and semi*subsistence
low*intensity farms as well as small*scale processors who could benefit economically from
organic con&ersion. 5e&elopment of these parts of the sector has the potential to deli&er
associated socio*economic and en&ironmental benefits in some parts of the EU.
The .egulation has contributed to the en&ironmental sustainability of the sector but this
relies partly on the way in which Member States! pri&ate schemes! and indi&idual farmers
ha&e implemented the rules! not =ust on the legislation itself. Some en&ironmental benefits of
organic farming! particularly for arable land! ta,e effect o&er a considerable period of time!
and thus growth in the sector will be most sustainable where there is stability of con&ersion
rather than rapid turno&er.
5e&elopment of the organic sector has potential to bring socio*economic benefits and hence
deli&er public goods. .ealising this potential re)uires clearer targeting of supporti&e EU
policies! particularly those in .59s! or considering group certification for small EU producers.
Cased on this =udgement! the following recommendations are made to impro&e the ade)uacy
and effecti&eness of the legislation in supporting economically! en&ironmentally and socially
sustainable de&elopment of the EU organic sector.
#conomic sustainability of the development of the organic farming sector
Economic sustainability of organic de&elopment depends on many thousands of indi&idual
producers and processors creating and maintaining economically &iable organic businesses on
the basis of the rules. n general the legislation pro&ides a clear basis for de&elopment of new
organic businesses and also for ,ey supporting policies which ha&e an important role. Since the
.egulation was introduced the EU organic sector continued to grow. Fowe&er! there is significant
&ariation between Member States in the proportion of organic farmers lea&ing the sector each
year for reasons that are poorly understood. Figh turno&er rates are not economically
sustainable and reduce the efficiency of supporting polices and funding. t is recommended that
research covering all "#%!- 0em$er 1tates is carried out to e.amine the role of the production
and control rules for organic operators when deciding to enter or leave the sector.
#nvironmental sustainability of the development of the organic farming sector
The e&idence of en&ironmental sustainability of organic de&elopment re&eals that this relies
partly on the way in which Member States! pri&ate schemes! and indi&idual farmers ha&e
implemented the rules and interpreted the organic concept! rather than being wholly
attributable to the legislation. 8uture organic de&elopment will ta,e place in the conte-t of
pressure to maintain net EU food production! and the generally lower yields of the organic sector
compared to con&entional production. :pportunities to impro&e en&ironmental sustainability
1hapter 1$ Towards an impro&ed legislati&e framewor, for organic farming 2"1
@ :&erall conclusions and recommendations
includeE e-ploiting the climate resilience of organic yields in e-treme weather conditions;
encouraging organic con&ersion of land that already has limited producti&e capacity; and closing
the producti&ity gap between organic and con&entional systems through impro&ed nutrient
management! research and inno&ation. t is recommended that 0em$er 1tate agricultural and
environmental authorities are provided with research%$ased information on the $enefits of
specific t&pes of organic production for climate adaptation and resource protection.
ocial sustainability of the development of the organic farming sector
:n the basis of the limited e&idence a&ailable! it is clear that the de&elopment of the organic
sector has the potential to bring social benefits! but effort will be needed to achie&e socially
sustainable sector de&elopment! especially among farming communities with little e-perience in
organic re)uirements. n some cases con&ersion in the EU is hampered by the lac, of an option
for group certification which is a&ailable to producers outside the EU. t is therefore
recommended that the introduction of group certification for small producers is considered.
14.6 Concluding remarks
The replies to the e&aluation )uestions show that the EU legislation on organic farming generally
pro&ides a sound basis for a sustainable de&elopment of organic production in the European
Union. Fowe&er the conclusions and recommendations draw attention to a number of areas
where the regulatory framewor, could be impro&ed. The indi&idual recommendations presented
abo&e can be grouped into si- types of measure addressing two different fields of actionE a3
ensuring the ade)uacy of the legal pro&isions! and b3 increasing the effecti&eness of the legal
pro&isions. The proposed measures are briefly described in the following paragraphs 2see also
8igure 1$.13.
5igure 14.1: :&er&iew of measures to ensure the ade)uacy and increase the
effecti&eness of the legislation

SourceE :wn illustration.
nformation
0easures to increase the
effectiveness of the legislation
0easures to ensure the
ade4uac& of the legislation
5etailed 9ro&isions
Huidance and 1larification
1hanges of 9ro&isions
Use of 1ertain Tools
nformation and 1apacity Cuilding
2"2 1hapter 1$ Towards an impro&ed legislati&e framewor, for organic farming
@ :&erall conclusions and recommendations
0easures to ensure the ade4uac& of the legislation
The first field of action encompasses three measures 25etailed 9ro&isions! Huidance and
1larification! nformation3 to ensure the ade)uacy of the legislation! i.e. that the regulated state
is sufficient in relation to the ob=ecti&e laid down in the .egulation. Gery few areas ha&e been
identified! where more detailed rules should be considered at EU or Member State le&el. This
refers mainly to pro&isions with respect toE
organic pullet rearing and hatchery at EU le&el which should be followed by a phasing out of
the e-ceptional rule on the use of part*organic pullets;
sustainable use of energy and water;
protection and management of semi*natural habitats and features for biodi&ersity.
n many cases the rules themsel&es are ade)uate but there is a lac, of a harmonised
enforcement in Member States. 8or this reason! it is recommended that more guidance and
clarification is pro&ided to
the organic industry on the legal situation with regard to how to communicate an organic
claim on non*food products closely lin,ed to organic agriculture! when they are produced
according to .egulation 2E13 ;<$4200+;
the organic industry and Member State authorities on how the organic mass catering sector
can be regulated through national or pri&ate pro&isions;
the organic industry on what constitutes legitimate organic claims on non*food products
2such as te-tiles and cosmetics3 and whether this pro&ides opportunities for an organic claim
and4or logo to be used on such products;
control bodies and Member State authorities on the legal status of the ob=ecti&es and
principles of organic production! how specific rules lin, to the ob=ecti&es of organic
production and clarification of ambiguous terms within them 2e.g. sustainable use of natural
resources! high animal welfare3.
8urthermore! there are areas where more guidance or harmonised enforcement is difficult
because sufficient information is not a&ailable. 8or this reason! it is suggested that more
information is pro&ided to support the 1ommission and Member State authorities in streamlining
the rules and monitoring their implementation! including
impro&ing the collection of statistical data on the organic mar,et and costs of production;
supporting further research and ,nowledge e-change about the de&elopment of organic high
protein feed supplies to monitor the de&elopment of supply and demand 2supply balance3 of
organic high protein feeds supplies in Europe;
harmonising and impro&ing the seed database through regular updates of lists of a&ailable
species and &arieties and e-change of information between countries to broaden the mar,et.
1hapter 1$ Towards an impro&ed legislati&e framewor, for organic farming 2"<
@ :&erall conclusions and recommendations
0easures to increase the effectiveness of the legislation
The second field of action includes three measures 21hanges of 9ro&isions! Use of 1ertain Tools!
nformation and 1apacity Cuilding3. t encompasses rules that are =udged to be ade)uate but
whose desired impact could be increased! i.e. the e-tent to which ob=ecti&es pursued by an
inter&ention are achie&ed.
This could be realised by adaptation of the provisions as regards
a shift from annual controls to a ris,*based control system;
direct communication between accreditation bodies and the 1ommission especially with
respect to complaints and irregularities;
group certification of small producers;
additional indications associated more closely with the EU organic logo 2such as common
terms referring to organic farming3;
more fle-ible rules with respect to the indication of the place of origin of agricultural raw
material;
simplified recognition and assessment procedures 2e.g. by separating the recognition of
control bodies from the recognition of technical standards3;
or the use of specific procedures and tools such as
well*targeted! output*based criteria for the enforcement and monitoring of animal welfare
outcomes that can be used by operators in self*assessment and also as part of control &isits;
monitoring of supply de&elopment to obser&e the effects of the phasing out of import
authorisations;
or by pro&iding more information/ including
impro&ing the :rganic 8arming nformation System 2:8S3 and enlarging its application to
other actors of the control system where appropriate;
supporting or launching well*targeted information and awareness raising campaigns which
e-plain the common concept of organic farming! the certification system! the EU organic logo
and the additional compulsory indications;
publishing a consolidated &ersion of the whole regulatory framewor, for organic food and
farming on the internet! including a table of contents and an inde-! which lin,s the ob=ecti&es
and principles more clearly with the detailed rules;
impro&ing the information a&ailable on appro&ed products used in organic farming to
operators in all Member States! including in those countries where no such information e-ists
at present;
2"$ 1hapter 1$ Towards an impro&ed legislati&e framewor, for organic farming
@ :&erall conclusions and recommendations
pro&iding .59 managing authorities with information on the potential socio*economic and
en&ironmental benefits of organic farming! in particular in the Figh /ature Galue farming
systems and semi*subsistence farms! and guidance on using .59 measures to achie&e this;
carrying out research to e-amine the role of the production and control rules for organic
operators when deciding to enter or lea&e the sector;
pro&iding Member State agricultural and en&ironmental authorities with research*based
information on the benefits of specific types of organic production for climate adaptation and
resource protection;
and capacit& $uilding! including
increasing at EU le&el the ,nowledge! s,ills and capabilities of the competent authorities
through specific training;
establishing an institutional interface between the organic control system and customs or ta-
authorities bearing in mind that irregularities and non*compliances may not only be detected
by the actors of the organic control system but also by other acti&ities;
ensuring that bodies in&ol&ed in the administration of the e)ui&alence assessment ha&e
sufficient wor,ing capacity to deal with the growing number of recognised third countries and
control bodies.
These measures may contribute to ensuring the ade)uacy and increasing the effecti&eness of the
.egulation and therewith may impro&e the basis for a sustainable de&elopment of the organic
farming sector in the future. Dhen re&ising the EU legislation on organic farming! it is worth
bearing in mind that o&er the past 20 years! sta,eholders ha&e gained a large body of e-perience
on practical implementation of the legislation. 8urther de&elopment of the legislation should ta,e
this e-perience into account.
















List of References












Bibliography 297

Bibliography
Chapter 1
Alvesson, M. and Skldberg, K. (2000) !e"le#sive Me$hodology. %ondon Sage
Ba&berger, M., !ao, '. and (ool)o)k, M. (20*0) +sing Mi#ed Me$hods in Moni$oring and ,val-a$ion.
,#perien)es "ro& .n$erna$ional /evelop&en$. 0oli)y !esear)h (orking 0aper 1221, (ashing$on 3he
(orld Bank, /evelop&en$ !esear)h 4ro-p
/abber$ S (200*) /er 5ko6%andba- als 7b8ek$ der 0oli$ik. .n !een$s, 9.6:. ed. ;. (issens)ha"$s$ag-ng <-&
5kologis)hen %andba- =reising6(eihens$ephan, 0;.60>.0?.200*. Berlin /r. Ks$er, pp. ?962?
,-ropean @o&&ission (2002) ,-ropean A)$ion 0lan "or 7rgani) =ood and =ar&ing. @o&&ission S$a"" (orking
/o)-&en$. Br-ssels ,-ropean.@o&&ission
,-ropean @o&&ission (20*2) ,+ !eg-la$ory =i$ness. @o&&-ni)a$ion "ro& $he @o&&ission $o $he ,-ropean
0arlia&en$, $he @o-n)il, $he ,-ropean ,)ono&i) and So)ial @o&&i$$ee and $he @o&&i$$ee o" $he
!egions, @7M(20*2) 72;, Br-ssels ,-ropean @o&&ission
0adel S (20*0) 3he ,-ropean reg-la$ory "ra&eAork and i$s i&ple&en$a$ion in in"l-en)ing organi) inspe)$ion
and )er$i"i)a$ion sys$e&s in $he ,+. @,!3@7S3 deliverable **, BeAb-ry, +K. Available a$
h$$pCC)er$)os$.orgC%ibC@,!3@7S3C/eliverableC/*2D/**.pd". (A))essed >.1.20*?)
!ao, '. and (ool)o)k, M. (200?) .n$egra$ing E-ali$a$ive and E-an$i$a$ive Approa)hes in 0rogra& ,val-a$ion.
.n Bo-rg-ignon, =.:. and 0ereira da Silva, %. eds. 3he .&pa)$ o" ,)ono&i) 0oli)ies on 0over$ry and
.n)o&e /is$rib-$ion ,val-a$ion 3e)hniF-es and 3ools. BeA Gork 7#"ord +niversi$y 0ress, pp. *;16*90.
Silver&an, /. (20*0) E-ali$a$ive !esear)h. %ondon Sage
Spiller, A., %H$h, M. and ,nneking, +. (2002) Analyse des Ka-"verhal$ens von Sel$en6 -nd 4elegenhei$skI-"ern
-nd ihrer Bes$i&&-ngsgrHnde "HrCgegen den Ka-" von 5ko60rod-k$en. =inal repor$ B%,60ro8e)$
027,?;;, Bonn 4es)hI"$ss$elle B-ndesprogra&& 5kologis)her %andba- in der B-ndesans$al$ "Hr
%andAir$s)ha"$ -nd ,rnIhr-ng
Jander, K. and 9a&&, +. (20*0) @ons-&er pre"eren)es "or addi$ional e$hi)al a$$rib-$es o" organi) "ood. =ood
E-ali$y and 0re"eren)e 2*(1) 291610?
Chapter 2
,)o<ep$ (200>) 3he Spe)ialised 7rgani) !e$ail !epor$ ,-rope. =reising ,)o<ep$
,-ropean @o&&ission (20*0) An analysis o" $he ,+ organi) "ar&ing se)$or. Br-ssels ,-ropean @o&&ission
Saho$a A (20*?) 3he 4lobal Marke$ "or 7rgani) =ood K /rinks. .n (iller 9, %erno-d :, Kil)her % eds. 3he (orld
o" 7rgani) Agri)-l$-re. S$a$is$i)s and ,&erging 3rends 20*?. !esear)h .ns$i$-$e o" 7rgani) Agri)-l$-re
(=iB%) =ri)k .n$erna$ional =edera$ion o" 7rgani) Agri)-l$-re Move&en$ (.=7AM) Bonn pp. *?*6*?>
S)haa)k /, !a&pold @, (iller 9, !ippin M, von Koerber 9 (20**) Analyse der ,n$Ai)kl-ng des a-slIndis)hen
Angebo$s bei Bioprod-k$en &i$ !elevan< "Hr den de-$s)hen Bio&ark$. Bonn Agrar&ark$ .n"or&a$ions6
4esells)ha"$ &b9

29> Bibliography

S)haa)k /, %erno-d :, 0adel S, (iller 9 (20*?) 3he 7rgani) Marke$ in ,-rope. .n (iller 9, %erno-d :, Kil)her %
(,ds.) (20*?) 3he (orld o" 7rgani) A)hri)$-re. S$a$is$i)s and ,&erging 3rends 20*?, =ri)k !esear)h
.ns$i$-$e o" 7rgani) Agri)-l$-re (=iB%), Bonn .n$erna$ional =edera$ion o" 7rgani) Agri)-l$-re
Move&en$ (.=7AM)
(iller 9, %erno-d :, Kil)her % (,ds.) (20*?) 3he (orld o" 7rgani) Agri)-l$-re. S$a$is$i)s and ,&erging 3rends
20*?, =ri)k !esear)h .ns$i$-$e o" 7rgani) Agri)-l$-re (=iB%), Bonn .n$erna$ional =edera$ion o" 7rgani)
Agri)-l$-re Move&en$ (.=7AM)
Janoli !, 4a&belli /, Sol"anelli = (20*0) @o&e sopravvivere nel biologi)o -no s$-dio delle a<iende agri)ole
&ar)higiane &edian$e d-ra$ion analysis. !ivis$a di ,)ono&ia Agraria (!,A L .B,A). Anno %M' L n. * L
4ennaio6 &ar<o 20*0. ,di<ioni S)ien$i"i)he .$aliane, Bapoli p. ;?6>2
Chapter 3
,-ropean @o&&ission (20*2) 7rgani) prod-)$ion in $he ,+. 0resen$a$ion a$ $he *
s$
.SS4 &ee$ing, *2
$h
:-ly
20*2, Br-ssels (Belgi-&)
Chapter 4
4on<alve<, '., S)h&id, 7. and (iller, 9. (20**) 7rgani) A)$ion 0lans in ,-rope in 20**. .n (iller, 9. and
Kil)her, %. (eds.) 3he (orld o" 7rgani) Agri)-l$-re 6 S$a$is$i)s and ,&erging 3rends 20**. =ri)k
!esear)h .ns$i$-$e o" 7rgani) Agri)-l$-re (=iB%), Bonn .n$erna$ional =edera$ion o" 7rgani) Agri)-l$-re
Move&en$ (.=7AM), pp. *;06*;>
Sanders :, S$ol<e M, 0adel S (,ds.) (20**) Use and efficiency of public support measures addressing organic
farming, Bra-ns)hAeig 3hHnen6.ns$i$-$e o" =ar& ,)ono&i)s
Chapter 5
,-ropean @o&&ission (2002a) European Action Plan for Organic Food and Farming Br-ssels ,-ropean
@o&&ission
,-ropean @o&&ission (2002b) ,-ropean A)$ion 0lan "or 7rgani) =ood and =ar&ing. @o&&ission S$a""
(orking /o)-&en$. Br-ssels ,-ropean @o&&ission
,-ropean @o&&ission (2009) Agricultural product quality policy @o&&-ni)a$ion "ro& $he @o&&ission $o $he
,-ropean 0arlia&en$, $he @o-n)il, $he ,-ropean ,)ono&i) and So)ial @o&&i$$ee and $he @o&&i$$ee
o" $he !egions, Br-ssels ,-ropean @o&&ission
,-ropean @o&&ission (20*0) An analysis of the EU organic farming sector. Br-ssels ,-ropean @o&&ission
,-ropean +nion (20*2) @onsolida$ed version o" $he 3rea$y o" $he ,-ropean +nion. Official Journal of the
European Union, 11(@ ?2;) *?62;
%a&pkin B, S)h&id 7, /abber$ S, Mi)helsen :, Janoli ! (,d.) (200>) 7rgani) a)$ion plan eval-a$ion $oolbo#
(7!4A0,3). =inal o-$p-$ o" $he 7!4A0 resear)h pro8e)$ (AAA.orgap.org) "or $he ,-ropean
@o&&ission Aberys$Ay$h .ns$i$-$e o" Biologi)al, ,nviron&en$al and !-ral S)ien)es, Aberys$Ay$h
+niversi$y (.B,!) and =ri)k !esear)h .ns$i$-$e o" 7rgani) Agri)-l$-re (=iB%)
0adel S (,d.) (20*0) 3he ,-ropean !eg-la$ory =ra&eAork and i$s .&ple&en$a$ion in .n"l-en)ing 7rgani)
.nspe)$ion and @er$i"i)a$ion Sys$e&s in $he ,+, BeAb-ry 3he 7rgani) !esear)h @en$re 6 ,l& =ar&
(7!@)
Bibliography 299

Chapter 6
B-ndes&inis$eri-& "Hr 4es-ndhei$ (2009) 5s$errei)his)hes %ebens&i$$elb-)h. (ien B-ndes&inis$eri-& "Hr
4es-ndhei$
,-ropean @o&&ission (20**) B-ying greenN A handbook on green p-bli) pro)-re&en$. Br-ssels ,-ropean
@o&&ission
,-ropean @o&&ission (20*2) !epor$ "ro& $he @o&&ission $o $he ,-ropean 0arlia&en$ and $he @o-n)il on $he
appoli)a$ion o" @o-n)il !eg-la$ion (,@) Bo >?2C2007 on organi) prod-)$ion and labelling o" organi)
prod-)$s. Br-ssels ,-rropean @o&&ission
4"a( (-nda$ed) !a-s a-s de& %abel6/s)h-ngel. .n"obros)hHre Hber Ba$-rkos&e$ik6%abel. Bad Sooden6
Allendor" 4esells)ha"$ "Hr angeAand$e (ir$s)ha"$se$hik
Ma$ri# .nsigh$ %$d (20*2) S$-dy o" $he need and op$ions "or $he har&onisa$ion o" $he labelling o" $e#$ile and
)lo$hing prod-)$s, =inal !epor$ "or $he ,-ropean @o&&ission /4 ,n$erprise and .nd-s$ry
MK+%B' (20**) ,+6'erordn-ng 5kologis)her %andba-. /Hsseldor" Minis$eri-& "Hr Kli&as)h-$<, +&Ael$,
%andAir$s)ha"$, Ba$-r6 -nd 'erbra-)hers)h-$< des %andes Bordrhein6(es$"alen
Soil Asso)ia$ion (20*?) 7rgani) Marke$ !epor$. Bris$ol Soil Asso)ia$ion
+S/A (20**) %abeling o" 3e#$iles $ha$ @on$ain 7rgani) .ngredien$s. 0oli)y Me&o **6*2. (ashing$on +ni$ed
S$a$es /epar$&en$ o" Agri)-l$-re
Chapter 7
A4,SCB7K+ (200;) Ma)hbarkei$ss$-die <-r A-slob-ng Ogen$e)hnik"reiP -nd 'er&eid-ng von 4'7 bei
%ebens&i$$el a-s $ieris)her ,r<e-g-ng, 'ienna 5s$errei)his)he Agen$-r "Hr 4es-ndhei$ -nd
,rnIhr-ngssi)herhei$ 4&b9
A4,S (20*2) Mi$$eil-ng <-r 'er"Hgbarkei$ von 'i$a&in B2 a-s gen$e)hnik"reier 0rod-k$ion.
h$$pCCAAA.ages.a$C-ploadsC&ediaCMi$$eil-ngDgen$e)hnik"reiesD'i$a&inDB2D20**D02.pd" (a))essed
0*.0>.20*?)
A-ersAald K, Kein< M, =iener 0 (200?) Soil erosion po$en$ial o" organi) vers-s )onven$ional "ar&ing eval-a$ed
by +S%, &odelling o" )ropping s$a$is$i)s "or agri)-l$-ral dis$ri)$s in Bavaria, Soil -se and Manage&en$,
*9 ?016?**
A<ee< 4S,, 9eAelle$$ K% (200>) 3he )o&para$ive energy e""i)ien)y o" organi) "ar&ing, in .=7AM organi) Aorld
)ongress, )-l$iva$e $he "-$-reQ >629 :-ne 200>, Modena, .$aly
Ba$ary 0, BRldi A, Klei8n /, 3s)harn$ke 3 (20*0) %ands)ape6&odera$ed biodiversi$y e""e)$s o" agri6
environ&en$al &anage&en$ a &e$a6analysis. 0ro). !. So). B 22 :-ne 20** 'ol. 27> Bo. *7*? *>926
*902
Be)k A, Kahl :, %iebl B (,ds.) (20*2) Analysis o" $he )-rren$ s$a$e o" knoAledge o" $he pro)essing and F-ali$y o"
organi) "ood and o" )ons-&er pro$e)$ion, =ri)k =.B%
Beng$sson :, Ahns$r& :, (eib-ll A@ (2001) 3he e""e)$s o" organi) agri)-l$-re on biodiversi$y and ab-ndan)e a
&e$a6analysis. :o-rnal o" Applied ,)ology, 22 2;*62;9
Bio)onne)$ (200>) 4M76"ree addi$ives and pro)essing "or organi) prod-)$ion. An e#plora$ory s$-dy on
obs$a)les and sol-$ions. /el"$ %.S @ons-l$.
?00 Bibliography

B5%( (20*?) ,iAeissversorg-ng von Bio6Monogas$riern, S$ell-ngnah&e des B5%(6'ors$ands <-r 0osi$ion der
A4 ,iAeiss"H$$er-ng -nd 'ors)hlag "Hr eine B5%(60osi$ion. B-nd 5kologis)he %ebens&i$$elAir$s)ha"$,
posi$ion paper, **.2.20*?
Bo-$in @, Baril A, Mar$in 0A (200>) 0lan$ diversi$y in )rop "ields and Aoody hedgeroAs o" organi) and
)onven$ional "ar&s in )on$ras$ing lands)apes. Agri)-l$-re ,)osys$e&s and ,nviron&en$, *2? *>16*9?
@apla$ :, Mise en pla)e e$ analyse dS-ne )olle)$e de donnTes agro6environne&en$ale s-r les pra$iF-es de
lSagri)-l$-re biologiF-e, =BAB, 200;
@ederberg @., Ma$$son B. (2000) %i"e )y)le assess&en$ o" &ilk prod-)$ion U a )o&parison o" )onven$ional
and organi) "ar&ing. :o-rnal o" @leaner 0rod-)$ion >, 296;0
@hirinda B, @ar$er MS, Alber$ K!, A&b-s 0, 7lesen :,, 0or$er :!, 0e$ersen S7 (20*0) ,&issions o" ni$ro-s o#ide
"ro& arable organi) and )onven$ional )ropping sys$e&s on $Ao soil $ypes. S, Agri)-l$-re, ,)osys$e&s
and ,nviron&en$ *?; *99620>
@olTno =@ (200>) Si&-la$ion and eval-a$ion o" 4M and non64M segrega$ion &anage&en$ s$ra$egies a&ong
,-ropean grain &er)han$s. :o-rnal o" =ood ,ngineering >> (?) ?0;6?*2
@ondron %M, @a&eron K@, /i 9:, @lo-gh 3:, =orbes ,A, M)%aren !4, Silva !4 (2000) A )o&parison o" soil and
environ&en$al F-ali$y -nder organi) and )onven$ional "ar&ing sys$e&s in BeA Jealand, BeA Jealand
:o-rnal o" Agri)-l$-ral !esear)h, 2? 22?62;;
@roAder /(, Bor$h"ield 3/, S$rand M, Snyder (, (20*0) 7rgani) agri)-l$-re pro&o$es evenness and na$-ral
pes$ )on$rol. Ba$-re, 2;*096**2
/algaard$ 3, 9alberg B, 0or$er :! (200*) A &odel "or "ossil energy -se in /anish agri)-l$-re -sed $o )o&pare
organi) and )onven$ional "ar&ing. Agri)-l$-re, ,)osys$e&s K ,nviron&en$ >7, 1*6;1
/ango-r A, /odhia S, 9ay$er A, Allen ,, %o)k K, +a-y ! (2009) B-$ri$ional F-ali$y o" organi) "oods a sys$e&a$i)
revieA. A&eri)an :o-rnal o" @lini)al B-$ri$ion 'ol 90 (?) ;>06;>1
/e Ba)ker ,, Aer$sens :, 'erg-)h$ S, S$e-rba-$ ( (2009) Assessing $he e)ologi)al so-ndness o" organi) and
)onven$ional agri)-l$-re by &eans o" li"e )y)le assess&en$ L a )ase s$-dy o" leek prod-)$ion. Bri$ish
=ood :o-rnal, *** (*0) *02>6*0;*
/egrT A, /ebo-)he @, 'erhT / (2007) @onven$ional vers-s al$erna$ive pig prod-)$ion assessed by &-l$i)ri$eria
de)ision analyses. Agron. S-s$ain. /ev. 27 (9) *>16*91
/ia)ono M, Mon$e&-rro = (20**) %ong6$er& e""e)$s o" organi) a&end&en$s on soil "er$ili$y. S-s$ainable
Agri)-l$-re 'ol-&e 2. Springer, pp. 7;*67>;
,dAards @A, %al !, Madden 0, Miller !9, 9o-se 4 (*990) !esear)h on in$egra$ed arable "ar&ing and organi)
&i#ed "ar&ing in $he Be$herlands, S-s$ainable agri)-l$-ral sys$e&s, Ankeny, .oAa, Soil and (a$er
@onserva$ion So)ie$y, pp. 2>7629;
,4370 (20*2) !epor$ on 0o-l$ry. ,4370C2C20*2. Br-ssels @o&&ission o" $he ,-ropean @o&&-ni$ies
,l69age B, S)ialabba B, MHller6%indenla-" M (20*0) 7rgani) agri)-l$-re and )li&a$e )hange. !eneAable
Agri)-l$-re and =ood Sys$e&s 21 (Spe)ial iss-e2) *1>6*;9
,l$-n ! (*991) @o&parisons o" ni$rogen lea)hing in e)ologi)al and )onven$ional )ropping sys$e&sS, Biologi)al
Agri)-l$-re and 9or$i)-l$-re, **, pp. *0?6**2
,riksen :, 9er&ansen :,, S$r-dshol& K, Kris$ensen K (200;) 0o$en$ial loss o" n-$rien$s "ro& di""eren$ rearing
s$ra$egies "or "a$$ening pigs on pas$-re. Soil +se and Manage&en$ 22 21;62;;
,riksen :, 0e$ersen S7, So&&er S4 (2002) 3he "a$e o" ni$rogen in o-$door pig prod-)$ion. Agrono&y 22 >;?6
>;7
Bibliography ?0*

,r&akov (20*2) ,rgebnisse der =leis)h-n$ers-)h-ng bei 0-$en a-s kologis)her -nd konven$ioneller 9al$-ng.
%eipi<ig +niversi$y o" %eip<ig
,-ropean @o&&ission (200?) @o&&ission !e)o&&enda$ion o" 2? :-ly 200? on g-idelines "or $he
develop&en$ o" na$ional s$ra$egies and bes$ pra)$i)es $o ens-re $he )oe#is$en)e o" gene$i)ally
&odi"ied )rops Ai$h )onven$ional and organi) "ar&ing. 7""i)ial :o-rnal % *>9, 29.07.200? ?;627
,-ropean @o&&ission (2009) @o&&-ni)a$ion "ro& $he @o&&ission $o $he ,-ropean 0arlia&en$, $he @o-n)il,
$he ,-ropean ,)ono&i) and So)ial @o&&i$$ee and $he @o&&i$$ee o" $he !egions on Agri)-l$-ral
0rod-)$ E-ali$y 0oli)y @o&&-ni)a$ion "ro& $he @o&&ission @7M (2009) 2?2 "inal. Br-ssels
@o&&ission o" $he ,-ropean @o&&-ni$ies
,-ropean @o&&ission (20*0) @o&&ission !e)o&&enda$ion o" *? :-ly 20*0 on g-idelines "or $he
develop&en$ o" na$ional )o6e#is$en)e &eas-res $o avoid $he -nin$ended presen)e o" 4M7s in
)onven$ional and organi) )rops. 7""i)ial :o-rnal @ 200, 22.7.20*0 *61
=all B, ,&an-elson +, Mar$insson K, :onsson S (200>) +dder heal$h a$ a SAedish resear)h "ar& Ai$h bo$h
organi) and )onven$ional dairy )oA &anage&en$. 0reven$ive 'e$erinary Medi)ine >? (2) *>;6*91
=errari 0 e$ al. (20*0) !epor$ on (dis6) advan$ages o" )-rren$ ani&al Ael"are s$andards "or ani&als, based on
$he &ain "indings o" ,+ and na$ional resear)h pro8e)$s. ,)on(el"are pro8e)$ repor$ /2.?.
AAA.e)onAel"are.e-
=lessa 9, !-ser ! /rs)h 0, Ka&p 3, :i&ene< MA M-n)h :@, Beese = (2002) .n$egra$ed eval-a$ion o"
greenho-se gas e&issions "ro& $Ao "ar&ing sys$e&s in so-$hern 4er&any Spe)ial )onsidera$ion o"
B27 e&issions. Agri)-l$-re ,)osys$e&s and ,nviron&en$ 9**716*99
=lessa 9, MHller /, 0lass&ann K, 7s$erb-rg B, 3e)hen A6:, Bi$s)h 9, Bieberg 9, Sanders :, Meyer <- 9ar$lage 7,
Be)k&ann ,, Anspa)h ' (20*2) S$-die <-r 'orberei$-ng einer e""i<ien$en -nd g-$ abges$i&&$en
Kli&as)h-$<poli$ik "Hr den Agrarsek$or. %andba-"ors)h-ng, Sonderhe"$ ?;*
=liessba)h A, 7berhol<er 96!, 4-ns$ %, MIder 0 (2007) Soil organi) &a$$er and biologi)al soil F-ali$y indi)a$ors
a"$er 2* years o" organi) and )onven$ional "ar&ing. Agri)-l$-re, ,)osys$e&s and ,nviron&en$, **>
27?62>2
=lys8 A, @ederberg @, 9enriksson M, %edgard S (20*2) 3he in$era)$ion be$Aeen &ilk and bee" prod-)$ion and
e&issions "ro& land -se )hange L )ri$i)al )onsidera$ions in li"e )y)le assess&en$ and )arbon "oo$prin$
s$-dies o" &ilk. :o-rnal o" @leaner 0rod-)$ion 2> *?26*22
=reiba-er A, !o-nsevell M/A, S&i$h 0, 'erhagen : (2002) @arbon seF-es$ra$ion in $he agri)-l$-ral soils o"
,-rope. 4eoder&a *22, *62?
=-ller !:, Bor$on %!, =eber !,, :ohnson 0:, @ha&berlain /,, :oys A@, Ma$heAs =, S$-ar$ !@, 3oAnsend M@,
Manley (:, (ol"e MS, Ma)/onald /(, =irbank %4 (2001) Bene"i$s o" organi) "ar&ing $o biodiversi$y
vary a&ong $a#a. Biology %e$$ers, * 2?*62?2
4abriel /, !os)heAi$< ., 3s)harn$ke 3, 3hies @ (200;) Be$a diversi$y a$ di""eren$ spa$ial s)ales plan$
)o&&-ni$ies in organi) and )onven$ional agri)-l$-re. ,)ologi)al Appli)a$ions *; 20**6202*
4abriel /, Sai$ SM, 9odgson :A, S)h&-$< +, K-nin (,, Ben$on 34 (20*0) S)ale &a$$ers $he i&pa)$ o" organi)
"ar&ing on biodiversi$y a$ di""eren$ spa$ial s)ales. ,)ology %e$$ers *? (7)>1>6>;9
4abriel /, 3s)harn$ke 3 (2007) .nse)$ pollina$ed plan$s bene"i$ "ro& organi) "ar&ing. Agri)-l$-re, ,)osys$e&s
and ,nviron&en$ **> 2?62>
4arAes / (2009) 4ra<ed %ives$o)k are 4ood neAs "or $he +K. 0ra)$i)e Ai$h S)ien)e ,#$ra)$ 2 !ed-)ing
,&issions "ro& %ives$o)k
?02 Bibliography

4a$$inger A, MHller A, 9aeni M, 7ehen B, Biggli + (20*0) Kli&aleis$-ngen des Biolandba-s 6 =ak$en -nd
9in$ergrHnde. =ri)k =iB%.
4a$$inger A, M-ller A, 9aeni M, Skinner @, =liessba)h A, B-)h&ann B, Mader 0, S$ol<e M, S&i$h 0, S)ialabba
B,69 (20*2) ,nhan)ed $op soil )arbon s$o)ks -nder organi) "ar&ing. 0ro)eedings o" $he Ba$ional
A)ade&y o" S)ien)es *09, *>22;6*>2?*
4a$$inger A, M-ller A, 9aeni M, Skinner @, =liessba)h A, B-)h&ann B, Mader 0, S$ol<e M, S&i$h 0, S)ialabba
B,69, Biggli + (20*2) ,nhan)ed $op soil )arbon s$o)ks -nder organi) "ar&ing. 0ro) Ba$l A)ad S)i + S A
4o&iero 3, 0i&en$el /, 0aole$$i M4 (20**) ,nviron&en$al .&pa)$ o" /i""eren$ Agri)-l$-ral Manage&en$
0ra)$i)es @onven$ional vs. 7rgani) Agri)-l$-re, @ri$i)al !evieAs in 0lan$ S)ien)es, ?0(*) 916*22
4o-lding K(3 (2000) Bi$ra$e lea)hing "ro& arable and hor$i)-l$-ral landS, Soil +se and Manage&en$, *; *216
*1*
4reene @, S&i$h K (20*0) @an 4ene$i)ally ,ngineered and 7rgani) @rops @oe#is$Q
h$$pCC"ar&do).illinois.ed-Cpoli)yC)hoi)esC20*02C20*02*2C20*02*2.pd"
4rnroos :, SeppIlI :, 'o-$ilainen 0, Se-ri 0, Koikkalainen K (200;) ,nergy -se in )onven$ional and organi) &ilk
and rye bread prod-)$ion in =inland. Agri)-l$-re, ,)osys$e&s and ,nviron&en$, **7(26?) *096**>
9aas 4, (e$$eri)h =, Kpke + (200*) @o&paring in$ensive, e#$ensi"ied and organi) grassland "ar&ing in
so-$hern 4er&any by pro)ess li"e )y)le assess&en$. Agri)-l$-re, ,)osys$e&s and ,nviron&en$ >? 2?6
1?
9alberg B, 9er&ansen :,, Kris$ensen .S, ,riksen :, 3vedegaard B, 0e$ersen BM (20*0) .&pa)$ o" organi) pig
prod-)$ion sys$e&s on @7
2
e&ission, @ seF-es$ra$ion and ni$ra$e poll-$ion. Agrono&y "or S-s$ainable
/evelop&en$ ?072*67?*
9askell M, %ang"ord =, :a)k M, SherAood %, %aAren)e A, !-$her"ord K (2009) 3he e""e)$ o" organi) s$a$-s and
&anage&en$ pra)$ises on so&a$i) )ell )o-n$s on +K dairy "ar&s. :o-rnal o" /airy S)ien)e, *>0 ?7716
?7>0
9odgson :A, K-nin (,, 3ho&as @/, Ben$on 34, 4abriel / (20*0) @o&paring organi) "ar&ing and land sparing
op$i&i<ing yield and b-$$er"ly pop-la$ions a$ a lands)ape s)ale. ,)ology %e$$ers *?(**) *?1>6*?;7
9oeppner :(, ,n$< M9, M)@onkey B4, Jen$ner !0, Bagy @B (2001) ,nergy -se and e""i)ien)y in $Ao @anadian
organi) and )onven$ional )rop prod-)$ion sys$e&s. !eneAable Agri)-l$-re and =ood Sys$e&s 2*(*)
;06;7
9ole /4, 0erkins A:, (ilson :/, Ale#ander .9, 4ri)e 0', ,vans A/ (2001) /oes organi) "ar&ing bene"i$
biodiversi$yQ Biologi)al @onserva$ion, *22 **?6*?0
9ol<s)h-h A, S$e"an6/eAen$er ., Klei8n /, 3s)harn$ke 3 (2007) /iversi$y o" "loAer6visi$ing bees in )ereal "ields
e""e)$s o" "ar&ing sys$e&, lands)ape )o&posi$ion and regional )on$e#$. :o-rnal o" Applied ,)ology 22
2*629
9ol<s)h-h A, S$e"an6/eAen$er ., 3s)harn$ke 3 (200>) Agri)-l$-ral lands)apes Ai$h organi) )rops s-ppor$ higher
pollina$or diversi$y. 7ikos **7 ?126?;*
9r$enh-ber S, %inden$hal 3, A&on B, Mark-$ 3, Kirner %, Jolli$s)h ( (20*0) 4reenho-se gas e&issions "ro&
sele)$ed A-s$rian dairy prod-)$ion sys$e&sU&odel )al)-la$ions )onsidering $he e""e)$s o" land -se
)hange. !eneAable Agri)-l$-re and =ood Sys$e&s 21 (02) ?*;6?29
9r$enh-ber S, %inden$hal 3, Jolli$s)h ( (20**) !ed-)$ion o" greenho-se gas e&issions "ro& "eed s-pply
)hains by -$ili<ing regionally prod-)ed pro$ein so-r)es $he )ase o" A-s$rian dairy prod-)$ion. :o-rnal
o" $he S)ien)e o" =ood and Agri)-l$-re 9*(;) ***>6**27
Bibliography ?0?

:Vrgensen +, /algaard 3, Kris$ensen ,S (2001) Bio&ass energy in organi) "ar&ingU$he po$en$ial role o" shor$
ro$a$ion )oppi)e. Bio&ass and Bioenergy 2>, 2?7622>
Kilbride A%, Mason SA, 9oney&an 0@, 0ri$)hard /4, 9epple S, 4reen %, (20*2) Asso)ia$ions be$Aeen
&e&bership o" "ar& ass-ran)e and organi) )er$i"i)a$ion s)he&es and )o&plian)e Ai$h ani&al Ael"are
legisla$ion. 'e$erinary !e)ord *70 (;) *126*1>
Kir)h&ann 9, Bergs$r& % (200*) /o organi) "ar&ing pra)$i)es red-)e ni$ra$e lea)hingQ @o&&-ni)a$ions in
Soil S)ien)e and 0lan$ Analysis ?2(7) 9976*02>
Kn-dsen M, 9er&anse :, 9alber$ B, Andreasen %, (illia&s A (20**) %."e @y)le Asssess&en$ o" 7rgani) =ood
and =ar&ing Sys$e&s Me$hodologi)al @hallenges !ela$ed $o 4reenho-se 4as ,&issions and @arbon
SeF-es$ra$ion. 7rgani) Agri)-l$-re and @li&a$e @hange Mi$iga$ion A !epor$ o" $he !o-nd 3able on
7rgani) Agri)-l$-re and @li&a$e @hange
Korsae$h A, ,l$-n ! (200>) Bi$rogen &ass balan)es in )onven$ional, in$egra$ed and e)ologi)al )ropping sys$e&s
and $he rela$ionship be$Aeen balan)e )al)-la$ions and ni$rogen r-no"" in an >6year "ield e#peri&en$ in
BorAay, Agri)-l$-re, ,)osys$e&s and ,nviron&en$, 79 (26??) *9962*2
Krag$en S, /e Snoo 4! (200>a) =ield6breeding birds on organi) and )onven$ional arable "ar&s in $he
Be$herlands. Agri)-l$-re, ,)osys$e&s and ,nviron&en$, *2; (?62) 2706272
Krag$en S, 3ri&bos KB, /e Snoo 4! (200>b) Breeding skylarks (Ala-da arvensis) on organi) and )onven$ional
arable "ar&s in 3he Be$herlands. Agri)-l$-re, ,)osys$e&s and ,nviron&en$, *2; (?62) *;?6*;7
Kra-ss :, 4allenberger ., S$e""an6/eAen$er . (20**) /e)reased "-n)$ional diversi$y and biologi)al pes$ )on$rol in
)onven$ional )o&pared $o organi) )rop "ields. 0los 7ne ; *69
Kris$ensen 3, Mogensen %, Kn-dsen M3, 9er&ansen :, (20**) ,""e)$ o" prod-)$ion sys$e& and "ar&ing
s$ra$egy on greenho-se gas e&issions "ro& )o&&er)ial dairy "ar&s in a li"e )y)le approa)h. %ives$o)k
S)ien)e *20, *?;6*2>
%a&pkin B9 (*990) 7rgani) =ar&ing. .psAi)h =ar&ing 0ress Books
%a&pkin B9 (2007) 7rgani) "ar&ingWs )on$rib-$ion $o )li&a$e )hange and agri)-l$-ral s-s$ainabili$y. 0aper
presen$ed a$ $he (elsh 7rgani) 0rod-)ers @on"eren)e, *>$h 7)$ 2007
%ang"ord =M, !-$her"ord KM/, SherAood %, :a)k M@, %aAren)e AB, 9askell M: (20**) Behavio-r o" )oAs
d-ring and a"$er peak "eeding $i&e on organi) and )onven$ional dairy "ar&s in $he +ni$ed Kingdo&.
:o-rnal o" /airy S)ien)e92 (2) 72;671?
%einonen ., (illia&s A4, (ise&an :, 4-y :, Kyria<akis . (20*2a) 0redi)$ing $he environ&en$al i&pa)$s o"
)hi)ken sys$e&s in $he +ni$ed Kingdo& $hro-gh a li"e )y)le assess&en$ Broiler prod-)$ion sys$e&s.
0o-l$ry S)ien)e 9* >621
%einonen ., (illia&s A4, (ise&an :, 4-y :, Kyria<akis . (20*2b) 0redi)$ing $he environ&en$al i&pa)$s o"
)hi)ken sys$e&s in $he +ni$ed Kingdo& $hro-gh a li"e )y)le assess&en$ ,gg prod-)$ion sys$e&s.
0o-l$ry S)ien)e 9 2;620
%o$$er /6( (200?) 7rgani) Agri)-l$-re, :o-rnal o" S-s$ainable Agri)-l$-re, 2* (2) 196*2>
%ove$$ /K, Shalloo %, /illon 0, 7WMara =0 (200;) A sys$e&s approa)h $o F-an$i"y greenho-se gas "l-#es "ro&
pas$oral dairy prod-)$ion as a""e)$ed by &anage&en$ regi&e. Agri)-l$-ral Sys$e&s >>, *1;6*79
%ove$$ /K, S$a)k %:, %ovell S, @allan :, =lynn B, 9aAkins M, 7WMara =0 (2001) Manip-la$ing ,n$eri) Me$hane
,&issions and Ani&al 0er"or&an)e o" %a$e6%a)$a$ion /airy @oAs 3hro-gh @on)en$ra$e
S-pple&en$a$ion a$ 0as$-re. :o-rnal o" /airy S)ien)e >>, 2>?;62>22
%-n<er , (2009) .nves$iga$ion o" organi) "ar&ing on sa$-ra$ed hydra-li) )ond-)$ivi$y o" $he soil. /isser$a$ion
B7K+, 'ienna A-s$ria
?02 Bibliography

MIder 0, =liessba)h A, /-bios /, 4-ns$ %, =ried 0, Biggli + (2002) Soil "er$ili$y and biodiversi$y in organi)
"ar&ing. S)ien)e 29; *;926*;97
Magdelaine 0, !i""ard @ (20*0) Analyse )o&parTe des dyna&iF-es des "iliXres avi)oles biologiF-es a- sein de
lW+nion ,-ropTenne, !appor$ de syn$hXse, pro8e$ avibio .3A'.
Mahe 3, 0or$e$ = (20*2) %es en8e-# de la prod-)$ion dWagri)-l$-re biologiF-e en =ran)e, @en$re dWT$-des e$ de
0rospe)$ives, Bo.10. Available a$
h$$pCCAAA.agres$e.agri)-l$-re.go-v."rC.M4Cpd"Canalyse10*207.pd"
Mondelaers K, Aer$sens :, 'an 9-ylenbroe)k 4 (2009) A &e$a6analysis o" $he di""eren)es in environ&en$al
i&pa)$s be$Aeen organi) and )onven$ional "ar&ing, Bri$ish =ood :o-rnal *** (*0) *09>6***9
M-ller A, 7lesen :,, /avis :, /y$r$ova K, 4a$$inger A, %a&pkin B, Biggli + (20*2) !ed-)ing 4lobal (ar&ing and
Adap$ing $o @li&a$e @hange 3he 0o$en$ial o" 7rgani) Agri)-l$-re. (orking 0aper. =ri)k
=ors)h-ngsins$i$-$ "Hr Biologis)hen %andba- (=iB%)
MHller +, Sa-erAein 9 (20*0) A )o&parison o" so&a$i) )ell )o-n$ be$Aeen organi) and )onven$ional dairy )oA
herds in (es$ 4er&any s$ressing dry period rela$ed )hanges. %ives$o)k S)ien)e, *27 ?06?7
Baye$ (20*2) .ndi)a$e-rs $e)hniF-es e$ e)ono&iF-es en po-le$s de )hair bio. AAA.bio6
proven)e.orgC.M4Cpd"C0resen$a$ionDB**D@A2;D0o-le$sDdeD)hair.pd", (a))essed 09.09.20*?)
Be&e)ek 3, 9-g-enin6,lie 7, /-bois /, 4aillard 4 (2001) 5kobilan<ier-ng von Anba-sys$e&en i& s)hAei<e6
ris)hen A)ker6 -nd =-$$erba-, =A% S)hri"$enreihe, 'ol. 1>. !e)kenhol< ,idgenssis)he
=ors)h-ngsans$al$ "Hr Agrarkologie -nd %andba- (=A%)
Biggli +, =liessba)h A, 9epperly 0, S)ialabba B (2009) %oA 4reenho-se 4as Agri)-l$-re Mi$iga$ion and
Adap$a$ion 0o$en$ial o" S-s$ainable =ar&ing Sys$e&sS. !o&e =ood and Agri)-l$-re 7rgani<a$ion o" $he
+ni$ed Ba$ions (=A7)
Biggli +, =liessba)h A, S$ol<e M, Sanders :, S)hader @, (yss 4, Bal&er 7. 0"i""ner %, (yss , (200>)
4esells)ha"$li)he %eis$-ngen der biologis)hen %andAir$s)ha"$. =ri)k =ors)h-ngsins$i$-$ "Hr Biologis)hen
%andba- (=iB%)
Bor$on %, :ohnson 0, :oys A, S$-ar$ !, @ha&berlain /, =eber !, =irbank %, Manley (, (ol"e M, 9ar$ B (2009)
@onseF-en)es o" organi) and non6organi) "ar&ing pra)$i)es "or "ield, "ar& and lands)ape )o&ple#i$y.
Agri)-l$-re, ,)osys$e&s and ,nviron&en$ *29 (*6?) 22*6227
Bovak SM, =iorelli :% (2009) 4reenho-se gases and a&&onia e&issions "ro& organi) &i#ed )rop6dairy
sys$e&s a )ri$i)al revieA o" &i$iga$ion op$ions. Agrono&y "or S-s$ainable /evelop&en$, 22
7lesen :,, S)helde K, (eiske A, (eisb8erg M!, As&an (A9, /8-rh--s : (200;) Modelling greenho-se gas
e&issions "ro& ,-ropean )onven$ional and organi) dairy "ar&s. Agri)-l$-re, ,)osys$e&s and
,nviron&en$, **2 (26?) 2076220
7rgani) Marke$ .n"o (20*?) 7rgani) breeding vers-s @MS hybrids. Available a$ h$$pCCAAA.organi)6
&arke$.in"oCAebCKnoAD9oAChybridsC2*9C0C0C*2;00.h$&l Y%as$ a))essed ;.;.20*?Z
7s$erb-rg B, !-nge 3 (eds.) (2007) Ma[nah&en <-r !ed-<ier-ng von S$i)ks$o""ein$rIgen in 4eAIsser 6 eine
Aassers)h-$<orien$ier$e %andAir$s)ha"$ <-r +&se$<-ng der (asserrah&enri)h$linie. Bra-ns)hAeig
=ors)h-ngsans$al$ "Hr %andAir$s)ha"$.
0a)ini @, (ossink A, 4iesen 4, 'a<<ana @, 9-irne ! (200?) ,val-a$ion o" s-s$ainabili$y o" organi), in$egra$ed
and )onven$ional "ar&ing sys$e&s a "ar& and "ield6s)ale analysis, Agri)-l$-re, ,)osys$e&s and
,nviron&en$, 91(*) 27?62>>
0"i""ner %, %-ka 9 (200?) ,""e)$s o" loA6inp-$ "ar&ing sys$e&s on )arabids and epigeal spiders L a paired "ar&
approa)h. Basi) and Applied ,)ology 2 **76*27
Bibliography ?01

0"i""ner %, %-ka 9 (2007) ,ar$hAor& pop-la$ions in $Ao loA6inp-$ )ereal "ar&ing sys$e&s. Applied Soil ,)ology
?7 *>26*9*
0i&en$el /, Berardi 4, =as$ S (*9>?) ,nergy e""i)ien)y o" "ar&ing sys$e&s 7rgani) and )onven$ional
agri)-l$-re. Agri)-l$-re, ,)osys$e&s and ,nviron&en$ 9 ?196?72
0i&en$el /, 9epperly 0, 9anson :, /o-ds /, Seidel ! (2001) ,nviron&en$al, ,nerge$i), and ,)ono&i)
@o&parisons o" 7rgani) and @onven$ional =ar&ing Sys$e&sS, Bios)ien)e, 11 (7) 17?61>2
!ah&ann 4, 4odinho (,d.) (20*2) 0ro)eedings o" 2nd 7rgani) Ani&al 9-sbandry @on"eren)e, Sep$e&ber
20*2, 9a&b-rg .=7AM, v3., Sena$ B-ndes"ors)h-ng and .S7=A!
!eganold :, ,llio$$ %, +nger G (*9>7) %ong6$er& e""e)$s o" organi) and )onven$ional "ar&ing on soil erosion.
Ba$-re ??0 ?
!os)heAi$< ., 4abriel /, 3s)harn$ke 3, 3hies @ (2001) 3he e""e)$s o" lands)ape )o&ple#i$y on arable Aeed
spe)ies diversi$y in organi) and )onven$ional "ar&ing. :o-rnal o" Applied ,)ology 22>7?6>>2
!-ndl" M, Beng$sson :, S&i$h 94 (200>) %o)al and lands)ape e""e)$s o" organi) "ar&ing on b-$$er"ly spe)ies
ri)hness and ab-ndan)e. :o-rnal o" Applied ,)ology 21 >*?6>20
!-$her"ord KM/, %ang"ord =M, :a)k M@, SherAood %, %aAren)e AB, 9askell M: (2009) %a&eness prevalen)e
and risk "a)$ors in organi) and non6organi) dairy herds in $he +ni$ed Kingdo& 3he 'e$erinary :o-rnal
*>0 916*01
Salo&on ,, \kerhiel& 9, %indahl @, %indgren K (2007) 7-$door pig "a$$ening a$ $Ao SAedish organi) "ar&sU
Spa$ial and $e&poral load o" n-$rien$s and po$en$ial environ&en$al i&pa)$. Agri)-l$-re, ,)osys$e&s
and ,nviron&en$ *2* (2) 20762*>
S)hader @ (2009) @os$6e""e)$iveness o" organi) "ar&ing "or a)hieving environ&en$al poli)y $arge$s in
SAi$<erland, /isser$a$ion, .ns$i$-$e o" Biologi)al, ,nviron&en$al and !-ral S)ien)es, Aberys$Ay$h,
Aberys$Ay$h +niversi$y, (ales
S)hader @, 0"i""ner %, S)hla$$er @, S$ol<e AM (2009) +&se$<-ng von Agrar-&Ael$&assnah&en a-" bio6 -nd
konven$ionellen Be$rieben der S)hAei<. .n Mayer :, Al"ldi 3, %eiber = e$ al. (eds) (er$e L (ege 6
(irk-ngen Biolandba- i& Spann-ngs"eld <Ais)hen ,rnIhr-ngssi)her-ng, Mark$ -nd Kli&aAandel.
Bei$rIge <-r *0. (issens)ha"$s$ag-ng 5kologis)her %andba-, **6*?
S)hader @, S$ol<e M, 4a$$inger A (20*2) ,nviron&en$al per"or&an)e o" organi) "ar&ing. .n Boye, :... and
Ar)and, G. (eds) 4reen 3e)hnologies in =ood 0rod-)$ion and 0ro)essing, pp. *>?62*0, =ood ,ngineering
Series 0ar$ ?, Springer BeA Gork, /ordre)h$, 9eidelberg, %ondon
S)h&id 7 e$ al (20*2) @li&a$e relevan)e and s-s$ainabili$y o" Bavarian agri)-l$-ral b-sinesses
h$$pCCorgprin$s.orgC209>;C*CS)h&idDe$DalD20*2DKli&aAirksa&kei$.pd"
S)h&id 7, Kn-$$i S (2009) 7-$)o&e6orien$ed approa)hes "or reg-la$ing ani&al Ael"are in organi) "ar&ing, in
*0$h ,-ropean .=SA Sy&posi-&, *0$h ,-ropean .=SA Sy&posi-&, *.7.2009, Aarh-s, /en&ark
Sehy + (2002) B276=reise$<-ngen a-s A)kerbden. 0h/ 3hesis. 3e)hni)al +niversi$y M-ni)h
Shepherd M, 0ear)e B, @or&a)k B, 0hilipps %, @-$$le S, Bhogal A, @os$igan 0, +nAin ! (200?) An assess&en$ o"
$he environ&en$al i&pa)$s o" organi) "ar&ingS, /,=!A, A/AS, ,l& =ar&, .4,!
Siegris$ S, S)ha-b /, 0"i""ner %, MIder 0 (*99>) /oes organi) agri)-l$-re red-)e soil erodibili$yQ 3he res-l$s o" a
long$er& "ield s$-dy on loess in SAi$<erland. Agri)-l$-re, ,)osys$e&s and ,nviron&en$ ;9 21?62;1
S&i$h :, (ol"e M, (oodAard %, 0ear)e B, %a&pkin B (20**a) 7rgani) =ar&ing and Biodiversi$y A revieA o"
$he li$era$-re. Aberys$Ay$h 7rgani) @en$re (ales
S&i$h %, 0adel S, 0ear)e B (20**b) Soil @arbon SeF-es$ra$ion and 7rgani) =ar&ing An overvieA o" )-rren$
eviden)e. Aberys$Ay$h 7rgani) @en$re (ales
?0; Bibliography

S&i$h 0, Mar$ino /, @ai J, 4Aary /, :an<en 9, K-&ar 0, M)@arl B, 7gle S, 7WMara =, !i)e @, S)holes B, Siro$enko
7 (2007) Agri)-l$-re. @li&a$e @hange 2007 Mi$iga$ion. @on$rib-$ion o" (orking 4ro-p ... $o $he
=o-r$h Assess&en$ !epor$ o" $he .n$ergovern&en$al 0anel on @li&a$e @hange. @a&bridge +niversi$y
0ress
S&i$h 0, Mar$ino /, @ai J, 4Aary /, :an<en 99, K-&ar 0, M)@arl B, 7gle S, 7SMara =, !i)e @, S)holes !:,
Siro$enko 7, 9oAden M, M)Allis$er 3, 0an 4, !o&anenkov ', S)hneider +, 3oAprayoon S, (a$$enba)h
M, S&i$h :+ (200>) 4reenho-se gas &i$iga$ion in agri)-l$-re. 0hilosophi)al 3ransa)$ions o" $he !oyal
So)ie$y
S&i$h6Spangler, @., e$ al. (20*2) Are 7rgani) =oods Sa"er or 9eal$hier 3han @onven$ional Al$erna$ivesQ A
Sys$e&a$i) !evieA, Annals o" .n$ernal Medi)ine 17(1) ?2>6?;;
Soil Asso)ia$ion (2000) 3he Biodiversi$y Bene"i$s o" 7rgani) =ar&ing. Bris$ol Soil Asso)ia$ion
S$anhill 4 (*990) 3he )o&para$ive prod-)$ivi$y o" organi) agri)-l$-re, Agri)-l$-ral ,)osys$e&s and
,nviron&en$, ?0 *62;
S$einer !S (200;) %andn-$<-ngen prIgen die %ands)ha"$. /isser$a$ion ,39 JHri)h
S$ol<e M, 0iorr A, 9Iring A, /abber$ S (2000) ,nviron&en$al and reso-r)e -se i&pa)$s o" organi) "ar&ing in
,-rope. 7rgani) "ar&ing in ,-rope ,)ono&i)s and 0oli)y, 'ol-&e ;, S$-$$gar$
S$opes @, %ord ,., 0hilipps %, (oodAard % (2002). Bi$ra$e lea)hing "ro& organi) "ar&s and )onven$ional "ar&s
"olloAing bes$ pra)$i)e. Soil +se and Manage&en$. 'ol-&e *>, .ss-e S-pple&en$ s*, pages 21;L2;?
3ho&assen MA, 'an @alker K:, S&i$s M@:, .epe&a 4%, de Boer .:M (200>) %i"e )y)le assess&en$ o"
)onven$ional and organi) &ilk prod-)$ion in $he Be$herlands. Agri)-l$-ral Sys$e&s 9; >16*07
3s)harn$ke 3, Klein AM, Kr-ess A, S$e""an6/eAen$er ., 3hies @ (2001) %ands)ape perspe)$ives on agri)-l$-ral
in$ensi"i)a$ion and biodiversi$yL e)osys$e& servi)e &anage&en$. ,)ololgy %e$$ers > >176>72
3-o&is$o 9%, 9odge ./, !iordan 0, Ma)/onald /( (20*2) /oes organi) "ar&ing red-)e environ&en$al
i&pa)$sQ66a &e$a6analysis o" ,-ropean resear)h. :o-rnal o" ,nviron&en$al Manage&en$ **2 ?096?20
+lber %, S$ein&ann 99, %i&ek S, .ssels$ein : (2009) An on6"ar& approa)h $o inves$iga$e $he i&pa)$ o"
diversi"ied )rop ro$a$ions on Aeed spe)ies ri)hness and )o&posi$ion in Ain$er Ahea$. (eed !esear)h
291?2612?
'enka$ K (20*2) @o&parison o" 3Aelve 7rgani) and @onven$ional =ar&ing Sys$e&s A %i"e @y)le 4reenho-se
4as ,&issions 0erspe)$ive. :o-rnal o" S-s$ainable Agri)-l$-re ?; ;206;29.
(illia&s A4, A-dsley ,, Sandars /% (200;) /e$er&ining $he environ&en$al b-rdens and reso-r)e -se in $he
prod-)$ion o" agri)-l$-ral and hor$i)-l$-ral )o&&odi$ies. Main !epor$. /e"ra !esear)h 0ro8e)$ .S0201.
.S0201, /.!.0
Go-nie /, (a$son @A (*992) Soil ni$ra$e6B levels in organi)ally and in$ensively &anaged grassland sys$e&sS,
Aspe)$s o" Applied Biology, Bo. ?0 Bi$ra$e and =ar&ing Sys$e&s, pp. 2?162?>
Jehe$&eier M, Ba-dra))o :, 9o""&ann 9, 9ei[enh-ber A (20*2) /oes in)reasing &ilk yield per )oA red-)e
greenho-se gas e&issionsQ A sys$e& approa)h. ani&al ;, *126*;;
Jehnder 4, 4-rr 4M, KHhne S, (ade M!, (ra$$en S/,(yss , (2007) Ar$hropod pes$ &anage&en$ in organi)
)rops. Ann-al !evieA o" ,n$o&ology, 12 176>0
Chapter 8
Albers&eier =, S)h-l<e 9, :ahn 4, Spiller A (2009) 3he reliabili$y o" $hird6par$y )er$i"i)a$ion in $he "ood )hain
=ro& )he)klis$s $o risk6orien$ed a-di$ing. =ood @on$rol 20 92769?1
Bibliography ?07

Albers&eier =, S)h-l<e 9, Spiller A (20*0) Sys$e& dyna&i)s in "ood F-ali$y )er$i"i)a$ions develop&en$ o" an
a-di$ in$egri$y sys$e&. .n$erna$ional :o-rnal on =ood Sys$e& /yna&i)s * ;96>*
Alder&an @(, 3abor !9 (*9>9) 3he )ase "or risk6driven a-di$s. :o-rnal o" A))o-n$an)y, *;7(?) 116;*
/abber$ S (20**) .&proving $he organi) )er$i"i)a$ion sys$e& 6 !e)o&&enda$ions "ro& $he @,!3@7S3 pro8e)$.
/eliverable 22 o" $he ,+ =07 @,!3@7S3 pro8e)$, AAA.)er$)os$.org
/abber$ S, Abay @, !osi BelliXre S, Boya)i M, @o&pagnioni A, =rs$er ., 4a&belli /, 9a&& +, 9ar$&ann M,
9-ber B, :anssen M, Melby :espersen %, %ipper$ @, Mos)hi$< 9, 0al-an %, 0eris %, Miran B, Meinsha-sen
=, 0adel S, 0-lga A, !Hegg ,, Sol"anelli =, S$ol<e M, Karahan +ysal 7, 'ine :, Janoli !, Jorn A (20*2)
,)ono&i) analysis o" )er$i"i)a$ion sys$e&s in organi) "ood and "ar&ing Syn$hesis repor$. /eliverable
2? o" $he ,+ =07 @,!3@7S3 pro8e)$, AAA.)er$)os$.org
,-ropean )o6opera$ion "or A))redi$a$ion (20*?) ,A 0oli)y "or A))redi$a$ion o" 7rgani) 0rod-)$ion @er$i"i)a$ion.
Available a$ AAA.e-ropean6a))redi$a$ion.orgCp-bli)a$ionCea6?6*26& (a))essed ?0.0;.20*?).
,-ropean @o-r$ o" A-di$ors (20*2) A-di$ o" $he )on$rol sys$e& governing $he prod-)$ion, pro)essing,
dis$rib-$ion and i&por$s o" organi) prod-)$s. Spe)ial !epor$ Bo 9. ,-ropean +nion
,-ropean +nion (20*0) @har$er o" =-nda&en$al !igh$s o" $he ,+. 7""i)ial :o-rnal o" $he ,-ropean +nion, 11(@
>?C02).
,-ropean +nion (20*2) @onsolida$ed version o" $he 3rea$y o" $he ,-ropean +nion. 7""i)ial :o-rnal o" $he
,-ropean +nion 11(@ ?2;) *?62;
=ederBio (20*2) 7pera<ione ]4a$$o )on gli S$ivali]. 3-$$i gli appro"ondi&en$i.
h$$pCCAAA."ederbio.i$C)o&-ni)a$i6s$a&pa.phpQnid^191
=ood S$andards Agen)y (20*2) M-l$i6ann-al na$ional )on$rol plan "or $he +ni$ed Kingdo& :an-ary 2007 $o
Mar)h 20*? 0rogress in 20** $oAards i&ple&en$a$ion 6 repor$ "or $he ,-ropean @o&&ission. Gork
=ood S$andards Agen)y
4a&belli /, Janoli !, Sol"anelli =, /abber$ S, %ipper$ @, Jorn A (20*2) Modelling o" )er$i"i)a$ion sys$e&s 6 repor$
on e)ono&i) &odelling res-l$s and a)$ions $o in)rease e""i)ien)y and )os$6e""e)$iveness o" inspe)$ion
pro)ed-res. /eliverable 20 o" $he ,+ =07 @,!3@7S3 pro8e)$, AAA.)er$)os$.org
9irs)ha-er B (2002) A &odel6based approa)h $o &oral ha<ard in "ood )hains. AgrarAir$s)ha"$ 1? (1) *926201
9oogland, @3., de Boer :, Boerse&a :: (2007) =ood and s-s$ainabili$y /o )ons-&ers re)ogni<e, -nders$and
and val-e on6pa)kage in"or&a$ion on prod-)$ion s$andardsQ Appe$i$e, 29(*) 27617
:ahn 4, S)hra&& M, Spiller A (2001) 3he reliabili$y o" )er$i"i)a$ion F-ali$y labels as a )ons-&er poli)y $ool.
@ons-&er 0oli)y 2>(*) 1?67?
:anssen M, 9a&& + (20**) @ons-&er per)ep$ion o" di""eren$ organi) )er$i"i)a$ion s)he&es in "ive ,-ropean
)o-n$ries. 7rgani) Agri)-l$-re *, ?*62?
:anssen M, 9a&& + (20*2) 0rod-)$ labelling in $he &arke$ "or organi) "ood @ons-&er pre"eren)es and
Aillingness6$o6pay "or di""eren$ organi) )er$i"i)a$ion logos. =ood E-ali$y and 0re"eren)e 21, 9622
Mares)a !, Bar$els +, Br-)kner S, 4i$$erle :, S)hil)hegger 9, Ssol$ysiak +, Be-endor"" : (20*?) 3raining needs
and e#is$ing $raining )on)ep$s "or organi) inspe)$ors in "o-r &e&ber s$a$es o" $he ,-ropean +nion.
/eliverable o" $he (0 2 and (0 ? o" $he ,+ %eonardo pro8e)$ .!M67!4AB.@, AAA.ir&6organi).e-
M),a)hern M 4, (arnaby 4 (200>) ,#ploring $he rela$ionship be$Aeen )ons-&er knoAledge and p-r)hase
behavio-r o" val-e6based labels. .n$erna$ional :o-rnal o" @ons-&er S$-dies, ?2(1) 2*2622;
M%!' Baden (Hr$$e&berg (20*2) :ahresberi)h$ 20** L _berAa)h-ng %ebens&i$$el, Bedar"sgegens$Inde,
Kos&e$ika, 3rinkAasser, =-$$er&i$$el. S$-$$gar$ Minis$eri-& "Hr %Indli)hen !a-& -nd
'erbra-)hers)h-$< Baden (Hr$$e&berg.
?0> Bibliography

Mos)hi$< 9, (rner =, S$ol<e M (2009) !epor$ on $he da$a )olle)$ion )on)ep$ and availabili$y o" inspe)$ion
da$a in)l-ding $he da$a base "or s$a$is$i)al analysis in (02.2 and 2.*. /eliverable 9 o" $he ,+ =07
@,!3@7S3 pro8e)$, AAA.)er$)os$.org
Be-endor"" : (20*2) ,n$Ai)kl-ng eines S$andardkon$rollprogra&&s &i$ %ei$"aden "Hr das Kon$roll6ver"ahren in
%ebens&i$$elges)hI"$en -nd 6verka-"ss$ellen na)h den ,46!e)h$svors)hri"$en <-& 5kologis)hen
%andba-. 4$$ingen 4"!S 4esells)ha"$ "Hr !esso-r)ens)h-$< &b9
Be-endor"" : (20*?) Bio<er$i"i<ier-ng i& ,in<elhandel 6 %egal, illegal, gan< egalQ 5kologie -nd %andba- *;>(2)
2262?.
!ohrdan<, / (20*2) /ie ,4 5ko6'erordn-ng L AblI-"e des Kon$rollver"ahrens bei +nregel&I[igkei$en. ,#per$
@ons-l$a$ion =ederal Minis$ry o" =ood, Agri)-l$-re and @ons-&er 0ro$e)$ion 4er&any, 2;.?.20*2
SaAyer ,B, Kerr (A, 9obbs :, (2009) .n$erna$ional &arke$ing o" organi) "oods @ons-&ers, s$andards, and
har&oni<a$ion. :o-rnal o" .n$erna$ional =ood K Agrib-siness Marke$ing, 2*(*), 226;;
S$ol< 9, S$ol<e M, Boland 9, Kriege6S$e""en A, Morgner M, 9er&anoAski !, Ba-&gar$ %, S)hneider = (20**) Bio
&i$ 4esi)h$ 6 ,r"olgs)han)en einer k-ndennahen -nd innova$iven Marke$ings$ra$egie. =ri)k
S$ol<e M, 9ar$&ann M, Mos)hi$< 9 (20*2) !epor$ on $o$al )os$s o" $hree organi) )er$i"i)a$ion sys$e&s in si#
,-ropean )o-n$ries Ai$h par$i)-lar "o)-s on organi) s-pply )hains. /eliverable 2*B o" $he ,+ =07
@,!3@7S3 pro8e)$, AAA.)er$)os$.org
Jorn A, %ipper$ @, /abber$ S (20*0) Analyse der Kon$roll6 -nd Sank$ionshI-"igkei$en gro[er 5ko6Kon$rolls$ellen
in /e-$s)hland, in %oy :60, MHller !A, (,ds.), Agrar6 -nd ,rnIhr-ngs&Irk$e na)h de& Boo&.
0ro)eedings 29. :ahres$ag-ng der 4esells)ha"$ "Hr (ir$s)ha"$6 -nd So<ialAissens)ha"$en des %andba-s
e.'. 'ol. 21 27*62>2
Jorn A, %ipper$ @, /abber$ S (20*2) S-pervising a sys$e& o" approved priva$e )on$rol bodies "or )er$i"i)a$ion
3he )ase o" organi) "ar&ing in 4er&any. =ood @on$rol 21 12161?2
Jorn A, %ipper$ @, /abber$ S (20*?) An analysis o" $he risks o" non6)o&plian)e Ai$h $he ,-ropean organi)
s$andard A )a$egori)al analysis o" "ar& da$a "ro& a 4er&an )on$rol body. =ood @on$rol ?0 ;926;99

Bibliography ?09

Chapter 9
A))redi$ed @er$i"i)a$ion Bodies (20*0) ,F-ivalen$ ,-ropean +nion 7rgani) 0rod-)$ion K 0ro)essing S$andard
"or 3hird @o-n$ries. A))redi$ed @er$i"i)a$ion Bodies.
http://organicstandardcomua/files/standards/en/eu/EU!"#equi$alent!"#standardpdf %accessed &
August "#&"'
Abay @, Karahan +ysal 5, Miran B, Boya)i M, 9-ber B, S$ol<e ,M (20**) !epor$ on eval-a$ion o" $he revision o"
@o-n)il !eg-la$ion (,@@) no 2092C9*, i&por$ regi&e in $Ao e#por$ing non6,+ )o-n$ries (3!, @9) and
on an in$erna$ional level. /eliverable *9 o" $he ,+ =07 @,!3@7S3 pro8e)$
A=. (20**) Min-$es o" $he A=. 7 &ee$ing L *? 7)$ober 20** in Br-ssels, (orkshop on $he ,-ropean .&por$
S)he&e "or 7rgani) 0rod-)$s, see AAA.organi)6in$egri$y.org
Ball (20*2) A s-&&ary o" $he di""eren$ in$erna$ional s$andards and reg-la$ory sys$e&s. .n S<ere&e$a A, Ball K,
Blake =, S)hlH$er M, 3-s<ynski % (ed.) ,-ropean 7rgani) !eg-la$ions (,@) Bo >?2C2007, >>9C200> and
*2?1C200>. An ,val-a$ion o" $he =irs$ 3hree Gears. %ooking "or =-r$her /evelop&en$. Br-ssels .=7AM
,+ 4ro-p, 296?0.
B%, (20*?) ,le)$roni) le$$er sen$ by $he 4er&an B-ndesans$al$ "Hr %andAir$s)ha"$ -nd ,rnIhr-ng on
2>.0?.20*? $o 4er&an )on$rol bodies and a-$hori$ies
@oli M (20*2) BeA i&por$ regi&e e#perien)e "ro& .@,A. .n S<ere&e$a A, Ball K, Blake =, S)hlH$er M, 3-s<ynski
% (ed.) ,-ropean 7rgani) !eg-la$ions (,@) Bo >?2C2007, >>9C200> and *2?1C200>. An ,val-a$ion o"
$he =irs$ 3hree Gears. %ooking "or =-r$her /evelop&en$. Br-ssels .=7AM ,+ 4ro-p, ??6?2
/abber$ S (20**) .&proving $he organi) )er$i"i)a$ion sys$e& 6 !e)o&&enda$ions "ro& $he @,!3@7S3 pro8e)$.
/eliverable 22 o" $he ,+ =07 @,!3@7S3 pro8e)$, AAA.)er$)os$.org
,7@@ (20*2) An eval-a$ion o" neA ,+ r-les "or i&por$ing organi) prod-)$s 6 $he vieApoin$ o" )er$i"i)a$ion
bodies. .n S<ere&e$a A, B.K., Blake =, S)hlH$er M, 3-s<ynski % ed. ,-ropean 7rgani) !eg-la$ions (,@)
Bo >?2C2007, >>9C200> and *2?1C200>. An ,val-a$ion o" $he =irs$ 3hree Gears. %ooking "or =-r$her
/evelop&en$. Br-ssels .=7AM ,+ 4ro-p, pp. ?26??.
,-ropean @o&&ission (20*2) !evieA o" $he poli$i)al and legal "ra&eAork "or organi) prod-)$ion L 0reli&inary
res-l$s o" $he a-$-&n 20*2 hearings held in $he )on$e#$ o" $he .&pa)$ Assess&en$. 0resen$a$ion by /4
A4!.C9? a$ $he &ee$ing o" $he ,B%A!4,/ A/'.S7!G 4!7+0 7B ]7!4AB.@ =A!M.B4] on Monday *0
/e)e&ber 20*2
,-ropean @o&&ission 200>. 4-idelines on i&por$s o" organi) prod-)$s in$o $he ,-ropean +nion. *1.*2.200>.
!ev.*. Br-ssels ,-ropean @o&&ission
,-ropean @o-r$ o" A-di$ors (20*2) A-di$ o" $he )on$rol sys$e& governing $he prod-)$ion, pro)essing,
dis$rib-$ion and i&por$s o" organi) prod-)$s. Spe)ial !epor$ Bo 9. ,-ropean +nion. %-#e&bo-rg
,-ropean @o-r$ o" A-di$ors
=,/,!B.7 (20*?) 0ress release $o ]4reen (ar .nF-iery]. Available a$ AAA."ederbio.i$C)o&-ni)a$i6
s$a&pa.phpQnid^72?. A))essed on 22.02.20*?
9alberg, B., AlrVe, 9.=., Kn-dsen, M.3. and Kris$ensen, ,.S. 200;. 4lobal /evelop&en$ o" 7rgani) Agri)-l$-re
@hallenges and 0rospe)$s. (alling"ord @AB. 0-blishing.
9-ber B (20*2) 9oA $o preven$ "ra-d in $he organi) se)$orQ .n S<ere&e$a A, Ball K, Blake =, S)hlH$er M,
3-s<ynski %. (ed.) ,-ropean 7rgani) !eg-la$ions (,@) Bo >?2C2007, >>9C200> and *2?1C200>. An
,val-a$ion o" $he =irs$ 3hree Gears. %ooking "or =-r$her /evelop&en$. Br-ssels.=7AM ,+ 4ro-p, 22621
.=7AM ,+ 4ro-p (20*2) 0osi$ion paper on a)$ions re)o&&ended "or i&proving $he )redibili$y o" organi)
i&por$s "ro& $hird )o-n$ries. Br-ssels .=7AM ,+ 4ro-p.
?*0 Bibliography

Kal$er A (20*2) .&por$ and in$erna$inal $rade . &ain$aining $r-s$ a&ong prod-)ers and $raders. .n S<ere&e$a
A, B.K., Blake =, S)hlH$er M, 3-s<ynski %. ed. ,-ropean 7rgani) !eg-la$ions (,@) Bo >?2C2007,
>>9C200> and *2?1C200>. An ,val-a$ion o" $he =irs$ 3hree Gears. %ooking "or =-r$her /evelop&en$.
Br-ssels .=7AM ,+ 4ro-p, pp. ?26?1
M%!' (20**) *0 :ahre 5ko6Moni$oring. S$-$$gar$ Minis$eri-& "Hr %Indli)hen !a-& -nd 'erbra-)hers)h-$<
Be-endor"" : (200;) =ood 0rod-)$ .&por$s "ro& 3hird @o-n$ries in$o $he ,-ropean +nion L A 4-ide.
4$$ingen 4"!S 4esells)ha"$ "Hr !esso-r)ens)h-$< &b9
Be-endor"" : (2007) !isiko&anage&en$ bei .&por$en von 0rod-k$en des kologis)hen %andba-s a-s
/ri$$lIndern. 4$$ingen 4"!S 4esells)ha"$ "Hr !esso-r)ens)h-$< &b9
Be-endor"" : (20*2) Be$$er sa"e $han sorry L !e)o&&enda$ions o" $he An$i6=ra-d .ni$ia$ive. .n @on"eren)e
0ro)eedings o" $he 2s$ )on"eren)e on organi) se)$or develop&en$ in @en$ralC,as$ern ,-ropean and
@en$ral Asian @o-n$ries, *2.6*1.02.20*2, .<&irC3-rkey
Bi)olls A. (20*?) 0ersonal )o&&-ni)a$ion, *1 Mar)h 20*?.
S)haa)k /, !a&pold @, (iller 9, !ippin M, von Koerber 9 (20**) Analyse der ,n$Ai)kl-ng des a-slIndis)hen
Angebo$s bei Bioprod-k$en &i$ !elevan< "Hr den de-$s)hen Bio&ark$. Bonn Agrar&ark$
.n"or&a$ions64esells)ha"$ &b9
3Aarog S.( 20*?) %e$ $he good prod-)$s groA and "loA. +np-blished.
(iller 9, Kil)her % (,ds.) (20*2) 3he (orld o" 7rgani) Agri)-l$-re 6 S$a$is$i)s and ,&erging 3rends 20*2, =ri)k
!esear)h .ns$i$-$e o" 7rgani) Agri)-l$-re (=iB%) and Bonn .n$erna$ional =edera$ion o" 7rgani)
Agri)-l$-re Move&en$s (.=7AM).
Chapter 10
Agen)eB.7C@SA20*2*0eBaro&X$reAgen)eB.7C@SA20*2. 0ress !elease. 7nline a$
h$$pCCAAA.agen)ebio.orgC)o&&-niF-es6e$6dossiers6de6presse. A))essed 01.0;.20*?
/a-gb8erg @, S&ed S, Anderson %M (20*?) B-ying e)o6labelled prod-)eQ KnoAledge o" prod-)$ion s$andards,
$r-s$ in labels and organi) )ons-&p$ion. (orking paper. .ns$i$-$e o" =ood and !eso-r)e ,)ono&i)s,
+niversi$y o" @openhagen
,-robaro&e$er (20*2) ,-ropeans a$$i$-des $oAards "ood se)-ri$y, "ood F-ali$y and $he )o-n$ry side. Spe)ial
,-robaro&e$er ?>9. 7nline a$ h$$pCCe).e-ropa.e-Cagri)-l$-reCs-rveyC20*2C?>9Den.pd". A))essed
21.?.20*?.
,+!7S3A3 (20*?) =ar& s$r-)$-re in ,s$onia. 7nline a$ h$$pCCepp.e-ros$a$.e).e-ropa.e-C s$a$is$i)sDe#plainedC
inde#.phpC=ar&Ds$r-)$-reDinD,s$onia. A))essed on *1.2.20*?
4olan ,, K-)hler =, Mi$)hell %, 4reene @, :ess-p A (200*) ,)ono&i)s o" "ood labeling. :o-rnal o" @ons-&er
!esear)h 22 **76*>2
9arper 4@, Maka$o-ni A (2002) @ons-&er per)ep$ion o" organi) "ood prod-)$ion and "ar& ani&al Ael"are.
Bri$ish =ood :o-rnal *02(?C2C1) 2>76299
9-ghner !S e$ al. (2007) (ho are organi) "ood )ons-&ersQ A )o&pila$ion and revieA o" Ahy people p-r)hase
organi) "ood. :o-rnal o" @ons-&er Behavio-r ;(1) 926**0
:anssen M, 9a&& + (20*2) 3he &anda$ory ,+ logo "or organi) "ood )ons-&er per)ep$ions. Bri$ish =ood
:o-rnal **2(26?) ??16?12
M),a)hern M4, (arnaby 4 (200>) ,#ploring $he rela$ionship be$Aeen )ons-&er knoAledge and p-r)hase
behavio-r o" val-e6based labels. .n$erna$ional :o-rnal o" @ons-&er S$-dies ?2(1) 2*2622;
Bibliography ?**

Mes`as /`a< =:M, Mar$`ne<6@arras)o 0lei$e =, Mar$`ne< 0a< :M, 4aspar 4ar)`a 0 (20**) @ons-&er knoAledge,
)ons-&p$ion, and Aillingness $o pay "or organi) $o&a$oes. Bri$ish =ood :o-rnal **2(?) ?*>6??2
Meyer69"er M v, Spiller A (20*?) An"order-ngen an eine na)hhal$ige %and6 -nd ,rnIhr-ngsAir$s)ha"$ /ie
!olle des Kons-&en$en. K3B%6S)hri"$ 100. 7nline a$ AAA.-ni6goe$$ingen.deCdeCs$-die6<-6
bekann$hei$6-nd...C2?0>20.h$&l. A))essed *2.2.20*?
0adel S (20*0) 3he ,-ropean reg-la$ory "ra&eAork and i$s i&ple&en$a$ion in in"l-en)ing organi) inspe)$ion
and )er$i"i)a$ion sys$e&s in $he ,+. @,!3@7S3 deliverable **, BeAb-ry, +K. 7nline a$
h$$pCC)er$)os$.orgC%ibC@,!3@7S3C/eliverableC/*2D/**.pd". A))essed >.1.20*?
Siriei# %, /elan)hy M, !e&a-d 9, Jepeda % (20**) 9oA do )ons-&ers rea)$ in "ron$ o" individ-al and )o&bined
s-s$ainable "ood labelsQ A +K "o)-s gro-p s$-dy. (orking paper M7.SA 20**6*. Mon$pellier. 7nline a$
h$$pCCAAA*.&on$pellier.inra."rCbar$oliC&oisaCbar$oliC doAnloadC&oisa20**Dpd"C(0D*D20**.pd".
A))essed 21.?.20*?
Spiller A, %H$h M, ,nneking + (2002) Analyse des Ka-"verhal$ens von Sel$en6 -nd 4elegenhei$skI-"ern -nd ihrer
Bes$i&&-ngsgrHnde "HrCgegen den Ka-" von 5ko60rod-k$en. =inal repor$ B%,60ro8e)$ 027,?;;. YAAA
do)-&en$Z. +!% h$$pCCCAAA.orgprin$sCorgC220*
S<ere&e$a A (200;) 7rgani) "ar&ing and &arke$ in 0oland. ,B7AS S-&&ers)hool.
h$$pCCAAA.google.deC-rlQsa^$Kr)$^8KF^Kesr)^sKso-r)e^AebK)d^?K)ad^r8aKved^0@,2E=8A@K-rl
^h$$pa?Aa2=a2=AAA.enoas.orga2=pol01$a2=do)a2=7rgani)a2120"ar&inga2120anda2120&ark
e$a2120ina21200oland.pd"Kei^EKpS+)8'9>7d$AbB?G9.@gK-sg^A=E8@B4-e+?"=0'/?e20S200loK
&*:p0-EKbv&^bv.22?227>7,d.G&s. A))essed *1.2.20*?
3eisl M=, !-bin :, Boble$ @ (200>) Bon6dir$y dan)ingQ .n$era)$ions be$Aeen e)o6labels and )ons-&ers. :o-rnal
o" ,nviron&en$al 0sy)hology 29 *206*19
Janoli ! (ed.) (2002) 3he ,-ropean )ons-&er and organi) "ood. 7rgani) Marke$ing .ni$ia$ives and !-ral
/evelop&en$ series 'ol-&e 2. Aberys$Ay$h, (ales
Chapter 11
,-ropean @o&&ission (2002a) ,-ropean A)$ion 0lan "or 7rgani) =ood and =ar&ing Br-ssels ,-ropean
@o&&ission
,-ropean @o&&ission (2002b) ,-ropean A)$ion 0lan "or 7rgani) =ood and =ar&ing. @o&&ission S$a""
(orking /o)-&en$. Br-ssels ,-ropean.@o&&ission.
,-ropean @o&&ission (2001a) Si&pli"i)a$ion and Be$$er %egisla$ion "or $he @o&&on Agri)-l$-ral 0oli)y.
@o&&-ni)a$ion "ro& $he @o&&ission o" *9 7)$ober 2001, @7M(2001) 109, Br-ssels ,-ropean
@o&&ission.
,-ropean @o&&ission (2001b) A s$ra$egi) revieA o" be$$er reg-la$ion in $he ,-ropean +nion. @o&&-ni)a$ion
o" *2 Bove&ber 200; "ro& $he @o&&ission $o $he @o-n)il, $he ,-ropean 0arlia&en$, $he ,-ropean
,)ono&i) and So)ial @o&&i$$ee and $he @o&&i$$ee o" $he !egions, @7M(200;) ;>9, Br-ssels
,-ropean @o&&ission.
,-ropean @o&&ission (20*0) S&ar$ !eg-la$ion in $he ,-ropean +nion @o&&-ni)a$ion "ro& $he @o&&ission
$o $he ,-ropean 0arlia&en$, $he @o-n)il., $he ,-ropean ,)ono&i) and So)ial @o&&i$$ee and $he
@o&&i$$ee o" $he !egions, @7M(20*0) 12?, Br-ssels ,-ropean @o&&ission.
,-ropean @o&&ission 20*2. ,+ !eg-la$ory =i$ness. @o&&-ni)a$ion "ro& $he @o&&ission $o $he ,-ropean
0arlia&en$, $he @o-n)il, $he ,-ropean ,)ono&i) and So)ial @o&&i$$ee and $he @o&&i$$ee o" $he
!egions, @7M(20*2) 72;, Br-ssels ,-ropean @o&&ission.
?*2 Bibliography

Chapter 12
/abber$ S (200*) /er 5ko6%andba- als 7b8ek$ der 0oli$ik. .n !een$s, 9.6:. ed. ;. (issens)ha"$s$ag-ng <-&
5kologis)hen %andba- =reising6(eihens$ephan, 0;.60>.0?.200*. Berlin /r. Ks$er, pp. ?962?
/a-gb8erg @, SVnderskov M (20*2) ,nviron&en$al 0oli)y 0er"or&an)e !evisi$ed /esigning ,""e)$ive 0oli)ies
"or 4reen Marke$s. 0oli$i)al S$-dies ;0 2, ?9962*>
/ia<6@have< !, K-nen ,, (alden /, =inger&an K, Arya %, Kre$s)h&er B, 0olRkovR :, =ar&er A, BoAyer @,
Menad-e 9, Alberi)i @, 3oop 4 (20*?) S$-dy on $he opera$ion o" $he sys$e& "or $he bio"-els and
bioliF-ids s-s$ainabili$y s)he&e. A repor$ "or /4 ,nergy. ,)o"ys, .,,0, (inro)k .n$erna$ional
/Ayer :, .lbery B, K-binakova K, B-)kAell A, Menad-e 9, 9ar$ K, Kni)kel K, Man$ino =, ,r8ave) , (20*2) 9oA 3o
.&prove 3he S-s$ainable @o&pe$i$iveness And .nnova$ion 7" 3he ,+ Agri)-l$-ral Se)$or, /ire)$ora$e
4eneral =or .n$ernal 0oli)ies, 0oli)y /epar$&en$ B S$r-)$-ral And @ohesion 0oli)ies, ,-ropean
0arlia&en$, Br-ssels.
h$$pCCAAA.e-roparl.e-ropa.e-C)o&&i$$eesC"rCs$-diesdoAnload.h$&lQlang-age/o)-&en$^,BK"ile^
72911
,-robaro&e$er (20*2) ,-ropeansW a$$i$-des $oAards "ood se)-ri$y, "ood F-ali$y and $he )o-n$ryside, Spe)ial
,-robaro&e$er ?>9C(ave ,B77.2 L 3BS 7pinion K So)ial, ,-ropena @o&&ission, =A7 (20*0)
4-idelines "or s&allholder gro-p &anage&en$ o" organi) and "air$rade )er$i"i)a$ion. !o&e =A7
,-ropean @o-r$ o" A-di$ors (20**) .s agri6environ&en$ s-ppor$ Aell designed and &anagedQ Spe)ial !epor$
B-&ber 7, %-#e&bo-rg ,-ropean @o-r$ o" A-di$ors
,-ropean @o-r$ o" A-di$ors (20*2) A-di$ o" $he )on$rol sys$e& governing $he prod-)$ion, pro)essing,
dis$rib-$ion and i&por$s o" organi) prod-)$s. Spe)ial !epor$ Bo 9. ,-ropean +nion. %-#e&bo-rg
,-ropean @o-r$ o" A-di$ors
4a$$inger A4, M-llera A, 9aeni M, Skinner @, =liessba)h A, B-)h&ann B, MIder 0, S$ol<e M, S&i$h 0, ,l69age B,
Biggli + (20*2) ,nhan)ed $op soil )arbon s$o)ks -nder organi) "ar&ing. 0BAS pp*6;
%aSalle 3, 9epperly 0 (200>) !egenera$ive organi) "ar&ing A sol-$ion $o global Aar&ing. 3he !odale .ns$i$-$e,
K-$<$oAn, +SA
Medarova6Bergs$ro& K, 'olkery A, Baldo)k / (20*2) @ri$eria "or &a#i&ising $he ,-ropean added val-e o" ,+
b-dge$ $he )ase o" )li&a$e )hange. Br-ssels .,,0
Biggli +, =liessba)h A, 9epperly 0, S)ialabba B (2009) %oA 4reenho-se 4as Agri)-l$-re Mi$iga$ion and
Adap$a$ion 0o$en$ial o" S-s$ainable =ar&ing Sys$e&sS, !o&e =ood and Agri)-l$-re 7rgani<a$ion o" $he
+ni$ed Ba$ions (=A7)
7,@/ (2007) .ns$r-&en$ Mi#es "or ,nviron&en$al 0oli)y. 0aris 7,@/
7.!, ,)orys, +niversi$y o" 4lo-)es$ershire and 0olish A)ade&y o" S)ien)es, .ns$i$-$e o" 4eography and Spa$ial
7rganisa$ion (20*2) Syn$hesis o" Mid63er& ,val-a$ions o" !-ral /evelop&en$ 0rogra&&es 20076
20*?. =inal !epor$
0adel S, :espersen %M, S)h&id 7 (2007a) !esear)h $o s-ppor$ $he revision o" $he ,+ !eg-la$ion on organi)
agri)-l$-re. ,,@ 2092C9* (7rgani)) !evision /anish !esear)h @en$re "or 7rgani) =ood and =ar&ing
(/A!@7=), +niversi$y o" Aarh-s, =a)-l$y o" Agri)-l$-ral S)ien)es (A+./:=)
0adel S, Biggli +, 0ear)e B, S)hl-$er M, S)h&id 7, @-o)o ,, (iller 9, 9-ber M, 9alberg B, Mi)heloni @ (20*0)
.&ple&en$a$ion A)$ion 0lan "or organi) "ood and "ar&ing resear)h. 3e)hnology 0la$"or& b7rgani)sc
E%.= (2009) Advan)ing organi) and loA6inp-$ "ood. E%.= .n$egra$ed !esear)h 0ro8e)$
0adel S, !)klinsberg 9, 'erhoog 9, S)h&id 7, de (i$ :, AlrVe 9=, K8eldsen @ (2007b) Balan)ing and in$egra$ing
basi) val-es in $he develop&en$ o" organi) reg-la$ions and s$andards proposal "or a pro)ed-re -sing
Bibliography ?*?

)ase s$-dies o" )on"li)$ing areas. ,,@2092C9* (7rgani)) !evision (SS0,6@3620026102?97) 0ro8e)$ repor$
/ 2.?. Aberys$Ay$hC38ele +niversi$y o" (ales, AberysAy$h (+(A) and /anish !esear)h @en$re "or
organi) =ar&ing (/A!@7=).
0olRkovR :, Ber&an S, Ba-&ann S, =relih6%arsen A, von 3oggenb-rg :, =ar&er A (20*?) 3he s-s$ainable
&anage&en$ o" na$-ral reso-r)es Ai$h a "o)-s on Aa$er and agri)-l$-re. A repor$ $o $he S37A 0anel o"
$he ,-ropean 0arlia&en$. Br-sselsC%ondon .ns$i$-$e "or ,-ropean ,nviron&en$al 0oli)yd 0aris B.7
.n$elligen)e Servi)ed Berlin ,)ologi) .ns$i$-$e.
Sanders :, S$ol<e M, 0adel S (20**) +se and e""i)ien)y o" p-bli) s-ppor$ &eas-res addressing organi) "ar&ing.
Bra-ns)hAeig 3hHnen6.ns$i$-$e o" =ar& ,)ono&i)s.
San$a)olo&a, 0 (2007) 7rgani) )er$i"i)a$ion s)he&es &anagerial skills and asso)ia$ed )os$s. Syn$hesis repor$
"ro& )ase s$-dies in $he ri)e and vege$able se)$ors. !o&e =A7
S)h&id 7, 9-ber B, Jiegler K, :espersen %, 9ansen :, 0lakol& 4, 4ilber$ :, %o&ann S, Mi)heloni @, 0adel S
(2007) Analysis o" ,,@ !eg-la$ion 2092C9* in rela$ion $o o$her na$ional and in$erna$ional organi)
s$andards
Sengs$s)h&id 9, Sprong B, S)h&id 7, S$o)kebrand B, S$ol< 9, Spiller A (20**) ,+ ,)olabel "or "ood and "eed
prod-)$s 6 "easibili$y s$-dy. /4 ,nviron&en$, Br-ssels ,-ropean @o&&ission
Se-"er$ ', !a&ank-$$y B, =oley :A (20*2) @o&paring $he yields o" organi) and )onven$ional agri)-l$-re.
Ba$-re, Bo 2>1, pp22962?2
S&i$h6Spangler, @., e$ al. (20*2) Are 7rgani) =oods Sa"er or 9eal$hier 3han @onven$ional Al$erna$ivesQ A
Sys$e&a$i) !evieA, Annals o" .n$ernal Medi)ine 17(1) ?2>6?;;
3-o&is$o 9%, 9odge . /, !iordan 0, Ma)/onald /( (20*2) /oes organi) "ar&ing red-)e environ&en$al
i&pa)$sQ A &e$a6analysis o" ,-ropean resear)h. :o-rnal o" ,nviron&en$al Manage&en$, Bo **2, pp.
?096?20
GelloA (indoA e$ al. (2000) .den$i"ying $he )ons$i$-en$ ele&en$s o" $he ,-ropean Added 'al-e (,A') o" $he
,+ !3/ progra&&es )on)ep$-al analysis based on pra)$i)al e#perien)ee =inal !epor$
Jiese&er : (2007) ,nergy -se in organi) "ood sys$e&s. !o&e =A7
Chapter 13
Bea-"oy 4, :ones 4, Ka<akova G, M)4-rn 0, 0o-# M, S$e"anova ' (20**) 0er&anen$ 0as$-res and MeadoAs
adap$ing @A0 0illar * $o s-ppor$ p-bli) goods. !epor$ "or $he ,-ropean @o&&ission and $he SAedish
!-ral /evelop&en$ Be$Aork. ,=B@0
/arnho"er . (2001) 7rgani) =ar&ing and !-ral /evelop&en$ So&e eviden)e "ro& A-s$ria. So)iologia !-ralis,
Bo 21, (2)
/a-gb8erg @, SVnderskov M (20*2) ,nviron&en$al 0oli)y 0er"or&an)e !evisi$ed /esigning ,""e)$ive 0oli)ies
"or 4reen Marke$s. 0oli$i)al S$-dies ;0 2, ?9962*>
/Ayer :, .lbery B, K-binakova K, B-)kAell A, Menad-e 9, 9ar$ K, Kni)kel K, Man$ino =, ,r8ave) , (20*2) 9oA 3o
.&prove 3he S-s$ainable @o&pe$i$iveness And .nnova$ion 7" 3he ,+ Agri)-l$-ral Se)$or, /ire)$ora$e
4eneral =or .n$ernal 0oli)ies, 0oli)y /epar$&en$ B S$r-)$-ral And @ohesion 0oli)ies, Br-ssels
,-ropean 0arlia&en$
,B!/ (20*0a) !-ral /iversi$y, ,B!/ ,+ !-ral !evieA, .ss-e ?, :an-ary 20*0 ,
h$$pCCenrd.e).e-ropa.e-CappD$e&pla$esC"iledoAnload.)"&Qid^?,?=2@2260??*699A?6A/1=6
@21==?;9,=;>
?*2 Bibliography

,B!/ (20*0b) !-ral /evelop&en$ and @li&a$e @hange, ,B!/ ,+ !-ral !evieA, .ss-e 2, May 20*0,
h$$pCCenrd.e).e-ropa.e-CappD$e&pla$esC"iledoAnload.)"&Qid^*0*A?>;,6@>@069?;96>9*26
@22021//,22/
,B!/ (20*0)) @-l$iva$ing )o&pe$i$iveness o" $he ,+ "ar&, agri6"ood and "ores$ se)$ors, ,B!/ ,+ !-ral !evieA,
.ss-e 1, 7)$ober 20*0, h$$pCCenrd.e).e-ropa.e-CappD$e&pla$esC"iledoAnload.)"&Qid^79;,>29*6
=29*6,=2;602,@6901/@?,2>>9=
,B!/ (20*0d) ,&ploy&en$ and So)ial .n)l-sion, ,B!/ ,+ !-ral !evieA, .ss-e ;, /e)e&ber 20*0,
h$$pCCenrd.e).e-ropa.e-CappD$e&pla$esC"iledoAnload.)"&Qid^09A,/0;26/99/6072260;2@6
2B;=;,27>1=B
,B!/ (20**a) Agri)-l$-ral prod-)$ F-ali$y a s-))ess "a)$or "or ,+ r-ral areas, ,B!/ ,+ !-ral !evieA, .ss-e >,
:-ly 20**, h$$pCCenrd.e).e-ropa.e-CappD$e&pla$esC"iledoAnload.)"&Qid^**?0>=7;69=A>6>2A06@0?B6
1=,07=9>B;>>
,B!/ (20**b) =ores$ry and r-ral develop&en$, ,B!/ ,+ !-ral !evieA, .ss-e 9, Bove&ber 20**,
h$$pCCenrd.e).e-ropa.e-CappD$e&pla$esC"iledoAnload.)"&Qid^,/17*22@6,0@76?,976,70,6
,20,@9,>@@B*
,B!/ (20*2a) !-ral ,n$reprene-rship, ,B!/ ,+ !-ral !evieA, .ss-e *0, :an-ary 20*2 ,
h$$pCCenrd.e).e-ropa.e-CappD$e&pla$esC"iledoAnload.)"&Qid^,/1>0>A@6992A627A/692>=6
0/?0>>7*;9*0
,B!/ (20*2b) %o)al =ood and Shor$ S-pply @hains, ,B!/ ,+ !-ral !evieA, .ss-e *2, :-ly 20*2,
h$$pCCenrd.e).e-ropa.e-CappD$e&pla$esC"iledoAnload.)"&Qid^,>=22,0>60A216=2726??=B6
A;?09,?A/;0*
,dAardson (, San$a)olo&a 0 (20*?) 7rgani) s-pply )hains "or s&all "ar&er in)o&e genera$ion in developing
)o-n$ries. @ase s$-dies in .ndia, 3hailand, Bra<il, 9-ngary and A"ri)a. !o&e =A7
,-robaro&e$er (20*2) SM,s, !eso-r)e ,""i)ien)y and 4reen Marke$s !epor$, =lash ,-robaro&e$er ?22 6 3BS
0oli$i)al K So)ial, ,-ropean @o&&ission
,-ropean @o&&ission (200>) 4-idelines on i&por$s o" organi) prod-)$s in$o $he ,-ropean +nion (200>),
)hap$er >
,-ropean @o&&ission (20*0) An analysis o" $he ,+ organi) se)$or. Br-ssels ,-ropean @o&&ission
,-ropean 0arlia&en$ (20*0) !epor$ on "air reven-es "or "ar&ers A be$$er "-n)$ioning "ood s-pply )hain in
,-rope (2009C22?7)
=A7 (20**) 7rgani) agri)-l$-re and )li&a$e )hange &i$iga$ion. A repor$ on $he ro-nd $able on organi)
agri)-l$-re and )li&a$e )hange. !o&e =A7
9alberg B (200>) ,nergy -se and greenho-se gas e&ission in organi) agri)-l$-re. .n$erna$ional )on"eren)e
7rgani) agri)-l$-re and )li&a$e )hange, ,ni$a @ler&on$, =ran)e
9Iring AM, /abber$ S, 7""er&ann =, Bieberg 9 (200*) Bene"i$s o" 7rgani) =ar&ing "or So)ie$y, in 7rgani) =ood
and =ar&ing, 200*, /en&ark
9ar$ K, Allen B, %indner M, Keenleyside @, B-rgess 0, ,ggers :, B-)kAell A (20*?) %and as an environ&en$al
reso-r)e, !epor$ 0repared "or /4 ,nviron&en$, %ondon .ns$i$-$e "or ,-ropean ,nviron&en$al 0oli)y
9rabalovR A, (oll&-$hovR 0 (200>) 0oli)y ins$r-&en$s "or organi) "ar&ing )en$ral and ,as$ern ,-ropean
@o-n$ries, F-o$ed in ,-ropean @o&&ission (20*0) An analysis o" $he ,+ organi) se)$or. Br-ssels
,-ropean @o&&ission
."%S (2002a) 5kologis)her %andba- -nd na)hhal$ige !egionalen$Ai)kl-ng. =rank"-r$ .ns$i$-$ "Hr landli)he
S$r-k$-r"ors)h-ng
Bibliography ?*1

."%S (2002b) 5kolandba- -n !egionalen$Ai)kl-ng 6 a-" die S)hni$$s$ellen ko&&$ es an. =rank"-r$ .ns$i$-$ "Hr
landli)he S$r-k$-r"ors)h-ng
.=7AM (200;) 7rgani) Agri)-l$-re and !-ral /evelop&en$. Br-ssels .=7AM
.=7AM (20*2) ,-ropean 7rgani) !eg-la$ions (,@) Bo >?2C2007, >>9C200> and *2?1C200>, An ,val-a$ion o"
$he =irs$ 3hree Gears %ooking "or =-r$her /evelop&en$, .=7AM ,+ 4ro-p, Br-ssels .=7AM
Keenleyside @, Allen B, 9ar$ K, Menad-e 9, S$e"anova ', 0ra<an :, 9er<on ., @le&en$ 3, 0ovella$o A, Ma)ie8)<ak
M, Boa$&an B (20**) /elivering environ&en$al bene"i$s $hro-gh en$ry level agri6environ&en$
s)he&es in $he ,+. !epor$ 0repared "or /4 ,nviron&en$, %ondon .ns$i$-$e "or ,-ropean
,nviron&en$al 0oli)y.
Keenleyside e$ al. ("or$h)o&ing) 3he high na$-re val-e "ar&ing )on)ep$ $hro-gho-$ ,+627 and i$s &a$-ri$y "or
"inan)ial s-ppor$ -nder $he @A0. .ns$i$-$e "or ,-ropean ,nviron&en$al 0oli)y %ondon
Kra$o)hvil ! (200;) Biologis)her %andba- -nd na)hhal$ige ,n$Ai)kl-ng Kongr-en<en, /i""eren<en -nd
9era-s"order-ngen
K-hner$ 9, Behrens 4, 9a&& +, MHller 9, Bieberg 9, Sanders :, S$roh& ! (20*?) A-ss$iege a-s de&
kologis)hen %andba- +&"ang L 4rHnde L 9andl-ngsop$ionen. Bra-ns)hAeig :ohann 9einri)h von
3hHnen6.ns$i$-$, ?*9 p, 3hHnen !ep ?
Malingrea- :0, ,va 9, Maggio A (20*2) B0K (ill $here be eno-gh plan$ n-$rien$s $o "eed a Aorld o" 9 billion in
2010Q =oresigh$ and 9ori<on S)anning Series. :!@, %-#e&bo-rg ,-ropean @o&&ission
MHn)hha-sen S von, Kni)kel K, 4o-n$aras K, 0e$er S (200;) Bei$rag des kologis)hen %andba-s <-r
,n$Ai)kl-ng lIndli)her !I-&e =alls$-dien in vers)hiedenen !egionen /e-$s)hlands
Be&es B (2009) @o&para$ive analysis o" organi) and non6organi) "ar&ing sys$e&s A )ri$i)al assess&en$ o"
"ar& pro"i$abili$y. !o&e =A7
Bieberg, 9., e$ al. (2007) 7rgani) "ar&s in a )hanging poli)y environ&en$ i&pa)$s o" s-ppor$ pay&en$s, ,+6
enlarge&en$ and %-#e&bo-rg re"or&. 9ohenhei& .ns$i$-$ "Hr landAir$s)ha"$li)he Be$riebslehre.
7,@/ (2007) .ns$r-&en$ Mi#es "or ,nviron&en$al 0oli)y. 0aris 7,@/
0olRkovR :, Ber&an S, Ba-&ann S, =relih6%arsen A, von 3oggenb-rg :, =ar&er A (20*?) 3he s-s$ainable
&anage&en$ o" na$-ral reso-r)es Ai$h a "o)-s on Aa$er and agri)-l$-re. A repor$ $o $he S37A 0anel o"
$he ,-ropean 0arlia&en$. Br-sselsC%ondon .ns$i$-$e "or ,-ropean ,nviron&en$al 0oli)yd 0aris B.7
.n$elligen)e Servi)ed Berlin ,)ologi) .ns$i$-$e.
0olRkovR :, 3-)ker 4, 9ar$ K, /Ayer :, !ay&en$ M (20**) Addressing biodiversi$y and habi$a$ preserva$ion
$hro-gh Meas-res applied -nder $he @o&&on Agri)-l$-ral 0oli)y. !epor$ 0repared "or /4 Agri)-l$-re.
Br-sselsC%ondon .ns$i$-$e "or ,-ropean ,nviron&en$al 0oli)y.
0o&&er 4 (200*) /ie S$ell-ng des 5kologis)hen %andba-s in einer &-l$i"-nk$ionalen %andAir$s)ha"$. 0osi$ion
o" ,)ologi)al =ar&ing in M-l$i"-n)$ional Agri)-l$-re. %andn-$<-ng -nd %anden$Ai)kl-ng, Bo 2?, (2)
pp*>06*>2
0-gliese 0 (200*) 7rgani) "ar&ing and s-s$ainable r-ral develop&en$ a &-l$i"a)e$ed and pro&ising
)onvergen)e. So)iologia !-ralis, Bo 2*, (*)
Sah& 9, Sanders :, Bieberg 9, Behrens 4, K-hner$ 9, S$roh& ! and 9a&& + (20*?) !eversion "ro& organi) $o
)onven$ional agri)-l$-re a revieA. !eneAable Agri)-l$-re and =ood Sys$e&s (in press)
Sanders :, S$ol<e M, 0adel S (20**) +se and e""i)ien)y o" p-bli) s-ppor$ &eas-res addressing organi) "ar&ing.
Bra-ns)hAeig 3hHnen6.ns$i$-$e o" =ar& ,)ono&i)s.
San$a)olo&a 0 (2007a) 7rgani) )er$i"i)a$ion s)he&es &anagerial skills and asso)ia$ed )os$s. Syn$hesis repor$
"ro& )ase s$-dies in $he ri)e and vege$able se)$ors. !o&e =A7
?*; Bibliography

San$a)olo&a 0 (2007b) @er$i"i)a$ion )os$s and &anagerial skills -nder di""eren$ organi) )er$i"i)a$ion s)he&es 6
Sele)$ed @ase S$-dies. !o&e =A7
San$ini =, 4-ri =, 4o&e< y 0alo&a S (20*?) %abelling o" agri)-l$-ral and "ood prod-)$s o" &o-n$ain "ar&ing,
,-ropean @o&&ission :oin$ !esear)h @en$re, .ns$i$-$e "or 0rospe)$ive 3e)hnologi)al S$-dies,
0-bli)a$ions 7""i)e o" $he ,-ropean +nion, %-#e&bo-rg
S)hI"er M (2007) 3he role o" organi) agri)-l$-re in ne$Aorks o" r-ral develop&en$
Sengs$s)h&id 9, Sprong B, S)h&id 7, S$o)kebrand B, S$ol< 9, Spiller A (20**) ,+ ,)olabel "or "ood and "eed
prod-)$s 6 "easibili$y s$-dy. /4 ,nviron&en$. Br-ssels ,-ropean @o&&ission
Se-"er$ ', !a&ank-$$y B, =oley :A (20*2) @o&paring $he yields o" organi) and )onven$ional agri)-l$-re.
Ba$-re, Bo 2>1, pp. 22962?2
S$ol<e M, 9ar$&ann M,.Mos)hi$< 9 (20*2) !epor$ on $o$al )os$s o" $hree organi) )er$i"i)a$ion sys$e&s in si#
,-ropean )o-n$ries Ai$h par$i)-lar "o)-s on organi) s-pply )hains. @,!3@7S3
h$$pCCAAA.)er$)os$.orgC%ibC@,!3@7S3C/eliverableC/2*DB.pd"
3-o&is$o 9%, 9odge ./, !iordan 0, Ma)/onald /( (20*2) /oes organi) "ar&ing red-)e environ&en$al
i&pa)$sQ 6 A &e$a6analysis o" ,-ropean resear)h. :o-rnal o" ,nviron&en$al Manage&en$, Bo **2,
pp?096?20
+nderAood e$ al. (20*?) Agri)-l$-re and )li&a$e )hange and agri)-l$-re and biodiversi$y (S$-dy *) -nder $he
pro8e)$ on 3he $e)hnologies "or "eeding *0 billion people. !epor$ $o $he S37A 0anel o" $he ,-ropean
0arlia&en$. Br-sselsC%ondon .ns$i$-$e "or ,-ropean ,nviron&en$al 0oli)yd 0aris B.7 .n$elligen)e
Servi)ed Berlin ,)ologi) .ns$i$-$e.
Chapter 14
/abber$ S, 9Iring A, Janoli ! (2002) 0oli$ik "Hr den 5ko6%andba-. S$-$$gar$ +l&er
,-ropeanD@o&&ission (2002) ,-ropean A)$ion 0lan "or 7rgani) =ood and =ar&ing Br-ssels ,-ropean
@o&&ission
,-ropean @o&&ission (2001) Si&pli"i)a$ion and Be$$er %egisla$ion "or $he @o&&on Agri)-l$-ral 0oli)y.
@o&&-ni)a$ion "ro& $he @o&&ission o" *9 7)$ober 2001, @7M(2001) 109, Br-ssels ,-ropean
@o&&ission.
,-ropean @o&&ission (20*2) Appli)a$ion o" @o-n)il !eg-la$ion (,@) Bo >?2C2007 on organi) prod-)$ion and
labelling o" organi) prod-)$s. !epor$ "ro& $he @o&&ission $o $he ,-ropean 0arlia&en$ and $he
@o-n)il, Br-ssels ,-ropean @o&&ission.
S$ol<e M, %a&pkin B (2009) 0oli)y "or organi) "ar&ing !a$ionale and )on)ep$s. =ood 0oli)y, ?2 2?76222

List of Regulations 317
Regulations
Council Regulation (EC) No 1980/2000 of the European arlia!ent an" of the Council of 17 #ul$ 2000 on a
re%ise" Co!!unit$ eco&la'el a(ar" sche!e) *# L237/1+ 21)9)2000)
Council Regulation (EC) N* 178/2002 of the European arlia!ent an" of the Council of 28 #anuar$ 2002
la$ing "o(n the general principles an" re,uire!ents of foo" la(+ esta'lishing the European -oo"
.afet$ /uthorit$ an" la$ing "o(n proce"ures in !atters of foo" safet$) *# L31)1+ 1)2)2002)
Council Regulation (EC) No 882/2000 of the European arlia!ent an" of the Council of 29 /pril 2000 on
official controls perfor!e" to ensure the %erification of co!pliance (ith fee" an" foo" la(+ ani!al
health an" ani!al (elfare rules+ *# L 191+ p) 1+ 28)1)2000)
Co!!ission Regulation 208/2000 concerning the la'elling of foo"s an" foo" ingre"ients (ith a""e"
ph$tosterols+ ph$tosterol esters+ph$tostanols an"/or ph$tostanol esters
Council Regulation (EC) No 1920/2002 of the European arlia!ent an" of the Council of 20 3ece!'er 2002
on nutrition an" health clai!s !a"e on foo"s+ *# L 000/9+ 30)12)2002)
Council Regulation (EC) No 1332/2008 of the European arlia!ent an" of the Council of 12 3ece!'er 2008
on foo" en4$!es *# L 310/7+ 31)12)2008)
Council Regulation (EC) No 1330/2008 of the European arlia!ent an" of the Council of 12 3ece!'er 2008
on fla%ourings an" certain foo" ingre"ients (ith fla%ouring properties for use in an" on foo"s *#
310/30+ 31)12)2008)
Council Regulation (EC+ E5R/6*7) N* 1101/2008 of the European arlia!ent an" of the Council of 22
*cto'er 2008 on the trans!ission of "ata su'8ect to statistical confi"entialit$ to the .tatistical *ffice
of the European Co!!unities+ *# L 300/70+ 10)11)2008)
Council Regulation (EC) No 727/2009 of the European arlia!ent an" of the Council of 13 #ul$ 2009 on the
placing on the !ar9et an" use of fee"+ *# L 229/1+ 01)09)2009)
Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of the European arlia!ent an" of the Council 19 #anuar$ 2009
esta'lishing co!!on rules for "irect support sche!es for far!ers un"er the co!!on agricultural
polic$ an" esta'lishing certain support sche!es for far!ers+ *# L 30/12+ 31)01)2009
Council Regulation (EC) No 223/2009 of the European arlia!ent an" of the Council of 11 7arch 2009 on
European statistics
Council Regulation (EC) No 22/2010 of the European arlia!ent an" of the Council of 21 No%e!'er 2009 on
the E5 Ecola'el+ *# L 27/1+ 31)01)2010)
Council Regulation (EC) No 1129/2011 of the European arlia!ent an" of the Council of 21 *cto'er 2011 on
the pro%ision of foo" infor!ation to consu!ers+ *# L 300/18+ 22)11)2011)
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 10 #ul$ 1992 on the protection of geographical in"ications an"
"esignations of origin for agricultural pro"ucts an" foo"stuffs+ *# L 208+ 20)7)1992)
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2082/92 of 10 #ul$ 1992 on certificates of specific character for agricultural
pro"ucts an" foo"stuffs+ *# L 208+ 20)7)1992)
Council Regulation (EC) No 1800/1999 of 19 #ul$ 1999 supple!enting Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 on
organic pro"uction of agricultural pro"ucts an" in"ications referring thereto on agricultural pro"ucts
an" foo"stuffs to inclu"e li%estoc9 pro"uction
Council 3ecision 2002/100/EC of 20 -e'ruar$ 2002 on Co!!unit$ strategic gui"elines for rural "e%elop!ent
(progra!!ing perio" 2007 to 2013)+ 20)02)2002
?*> %is$ o" !eg-la$ions

@o-n)il !eg-la$ion (,@) Bo 1*0C200; o" 20 Mar)h 200; on $he pro$e)$ion o" geographi)al indi)a$ions and
designa$ions o" origin "or agri)-l$-ral prod-)$s and "oods$-""s, 7: %9?, ?* .?.200;.
@o-n)il !eg-la$ion (,@) Bo >?2C2007 o" 2> :-ne 2007 on organi) prod-)$ion and labelling o" organi) prod-)$s
and repealing !eg-la$ion (,,@) Bo 2092C9*
@o-n)il !eg-la$ion (,@) Bo ?C200> o" $he ,-ropean 0arlia&en$ and o" $he @o-n)il *7 /e)e&ber 2007 on
in"or&a$ion and pro&o$ion a)$ions "or agri)-l$-ral prod-)$s on $he in$ernal &arke$, 7: % ?, p *,
1.*.200>.
@o&&ission !eg-la$ion (,@) Bo >>9C200> o" 1 Sep$e&ber 200> laying doAn de$ailed r-les "or $he
i&ple&en$a$ion o" @o-n)il !eg-la$ion (,@) Bo >?2C2007 on organi) prod-)$ion and labelling o" organi)
prod-)$s Ai$h regard $o organi) prod-)$ion, labelling and )on$rol
@o-n)il !eg-la$ion (,@) Bo 9;7C200> o" 29 Sep$e&ber 200> a&ending !eg-la$ion (,@) Bo >?2C2007 on organi)
prod-)$ion and labelling o" organi) prod-)$s
@o&&ission !eg-la$ion (,@) Bo *2?1C200> o" > /e)e&ber 200> laying doAn de$ailed r-les "or i&ple&en$a$ion
o" @o-n)il !eg-la$ion (,@) Bo >?2C2007 as regards $he arrange&en$s "or i&por$s o" organi) prod-)$s
"ro& $hird )o-n$ries
@o&&ission !eg-la$ion (,@) Bo *212C200> o" *1 /e)e&ber 200> a&ending !eg-la$ion (,@) Bo >>9C200>
laying doAn de$ailed r-les "or i&ple&en$a$ion o" @o-n)il !eg-la$ion (,@) Bo >?2C2007 on organi)
prod-)$ion and labelling o" organi) prod-)$s Ai$h regard $o organi) prod-)$ion, labelling and )on$rol
@o-n)il !eg-la$ion (,@) Bo 72C2009 o" *9 :an-ary 2009 a&ending !eg-la$ion (,@) Bo *;9>C2001 on s-ppor$
"or r-ral develop&en$ by $he ,-ropean Agri)-l$-ral =-nd "or !-ral /evelop&en$ (,A=!/), 7: % ?0C*00,
?*.0*.2009
@o&&ission !eg-la$ion (,@) Bo 7*0C2009 o" 1 A-g-s$ 2009 a&ending !eg-la$ion (,@) Bo >>9C200> laying
doAn de$ailed r-les "or $he i&ple&en$a$ion o" @o-n)il !eg-la$ion (,@) Bo >?2C2007, as regards laying
doAn de$ailed r-les on organi) aF-a)-l$-re ani&al and seaAeed prod-)$ion
@o&&ission !eg-la$ion (,+) Bo 27*C20*0 o" 22 Mar)h 20*0 a&ending !eg-la$ion (,@) Bo >>9C200> laying
doAn de$ailed r-les "or $he i&ple&en$a$ion o" @o-n)il !eg-la$ion (,@) Bo >?2C2007, as regards $he
organi) prod-)$ion logo o" $he ,-ropean +nion
@o&&ission .&ple&en$ing !eg-la$ion (,+) Bo 22;C20** o" 2 May 20** a&ending !eg-la$ion (,@) Bo
>>9C200> laying doAn de$ailed r-les "or $he i&ple&en$a$ion o" @o-n)il !eg-la$ion (,@) Bo >?2C2007
on organi) prod-)$ion and labelling o" organi) prod-)$s Ai$h regard $o organi) prod-)$ion, labelling
and )on$rol
@o&&ission .&ple&en$ing !eg-la$ion (,+) 101C20*2 o" *2 :-ne 20*2 a&ending and )orre)$ing !eg-la$ion (,@)
Bo >>9C200> laying doAn de$ailed r-les "or $he i&ple&en$a$ion o" @o-n)il !eg-la$ion (,@) Bo
>?2C2007 on organi) prod-)$ion and labelling o" organi) prod-)$s Ai$h regard $o organi) prod-)$ion,
labelling and )on$rol.
@o-n)il !eg-la$ion (,@) Bo **1*C20*2 o" 2* Bove&ber 20*2 on F-ali$y s)he&es "or agri)-l$-ral prod-)$s and
"oods$-""s, 7: % ?2?C*, *2.*2.20*2.
@o&&ission .&ple&en$ing !eg-la$ion (,+) Bo 20?C20*2 o" > Mar)h 20*2 a&ending !eg-la$ion (,@) Bo
>>9C200> laying doAn de$ailed r-les "or $he i&ple&en$a$ion o" @o-n)il !eg-la$ion (,@) Bo >?2C2007,
as regards de$ailed r-les on organi) Aine.
@o&&ission .&ple&en$ing !eg-la$ion (,+) Bo ?22C20** o" > April 20** a&ending !eg-la$ion (,@) Bo
>>9C200> laying doAn de$ailed r-les "or $he i&ple&en$a$ion o" @o-n)il !eg-la$ion (,@) Bo >?2C2007
on organi) prod-)$ion and labelling o" organi) prod-)$s Ai$h regard $o organi) prod-)$ion, labelling
and )on$rol
/ire)$ives ?*9

!irecti"es
,-ropean @o&&ission (200;) 0roposal "or a /ire)$ive o" $he ,-ropean 0arlia&en$ and o" $he @o-n)il
es$ablishing a "ra&eAork "or $he pro$e)$ion o" soil and a&ending /ire)$ive 2002C?1C,@,
@7MC200;C02?2 "inal, 22.09.200;.
@o&&ission /ire)$ive *999C*0C,@ o" > Mar)h *999 providing "or deroga$ions "ro& $he provisions o" Ar$i)le 7 o"
@o-n)il /ire)$ive 79C**2C,,@ as regards $he labelling o" "oods$-""s
@o&&ission /ire)$ive 2002C;7C,@ o" *> :-ly 2002 on $he labelling o" "oods$-""s )on$aining F-inine, and o"
"oods$-""s )on$aining )a""eine
@o&&ission /ire)$ive 200>C1C,@, )on)erning $he )o&p-lsory indi)a$ion on $he labelling o" )er$ain "oods$-""s o"
par$i)-lars o$her $han $hose provided "or in /ire)$ive 2000C*?C,@
@o-n)il /ire)$ive 90C29;C,,@ o" 22 Sep$e&ber *990 on n-$ri$ion labelling "or "oods$-""s
/ire)$ive 9*C;7;C,,@ o" *2 /e)e&ber *99* )on)erning $he pro$e)$ion o" Aa$ers agains$ poll-$ion )a-sed by
ni$ra$es "ro& agri)-l$-ral so-r)es. 7: %?17C*, ?*.*2.*99*.
/ire)$ive 9*C2*2C,,@ o" *1 :-ly *99* )on)erning $he pla)ing o" plan$ pro$e)$ion prod-)$s on $he &arke$, 7: %
2?0, *9.>.*99*.
/ire)$ive 92C2?C,,@ o" 2* May *992 on $he )onserva$ion o" na$-ral habi$a$s and o" Aild "a-na and "lora. 7:
%20;C7, 22.7.*992.
/ire)$ive 9>C1>C,@ o" 20 :-ly *99> )on)erning $he pro$e)$ion o" ani&als kep$ "or "ar&ing p-rposes. 7: %22*C2?,
>.>.*99>.
/ire)$ive 2000C;0C,@ o" $he ,-ropean 0arlia&en$ and o" $he @o-n)il o" 2? 7)$ober 2000 es$ablishing a
"ra&eAork "or a @o&&-ni$y a)$ion in $he "ield o" Aa$er poli)y. 7: %?27C*, 22.*2.2000.
/ire)$ive 2000C*?C,@ o" $he ,-ropean 0arlia&en$ and o" $he @o-n)il o" 20 Mar)h 2000 on $he appro#i&a$ion
o" $he laAs o" $he Me&ber S$a$es rela$ing $o $he labelling, presen$a$ion and adver$ising o" "oods$-""s.
/ire)$ive 200>C9>C,@ o" $he ,-ropean 0arlia&en$ and o" $he @o-n)il o" *9 Bove&ber 200> on Aas$e and
repealing )er$ain /ire)$ives ((as$e =ra&eAork /ire)$ive). 7: %?*2C?, 22.**.200>.
/ire)$ive 2009C*27C,@ o" $he ,-ropean 0arlia&en$ and o" $he @o-n)il o" ?0 Bove&ber 2009 on $he
)onserva$ion o" Aild birds. 7: %20C7, 2;.*.20*0.
/ire)$ive 2009C2>C,@ o" $he ,-ropean 0arlia&en$ and o" $he @o-n)il o" 2? April 2009 on $he pro&o$ion o" $he
-se o" energy "ro& reneAable so-r)es and a&ending and s-bseF-en$ly repealing /ire)$ives
200*C77C,@ and 200?C?0C,@, 7: % *20C*;, 1.;.2009.




























Johann Heinrich von Thnen Institute
Institute of Farm Economics
Bundesallee 50
38116 Braunschweig
Germany

bw@ti.bund.de
www.ti.bund.de