Food Policy 27 (2002) 301318

www.elsevier.com/locate/foodpol

Organic certification and the UK market:

organic imports from developing countries
H.R. Barrett a,, A.W. Browne a, P.J.C. Harris bc, K. Cadoret c
a

Geography Subject Group, School of Science and the Environment, Coventry University, Coventry,
CV1 5FB, UK
b
Biology Subject Group, School of Science and the Environment, Coventry University, Coventry,
CV1 5FB, UK
c
International Research Department, Henry Doubleday Research Association, Ryton-on-Dunsmore,
Coventry, CV8 3LG, UK
Accepted 15 July 2002

Abstract
Demand within the UK for organic food is increasing dramatically. Much of this demand
is met by imports, including many product categories from the developing world. Organic
standards in Europe are rigorous, with all stages of the organic marketing chain regulated by
law and guaranteed within each member state by a competent authority. The paper provides
a detailed review of current mechanisms of certification and inspection and discusses the
obstacles to becoming certified that confront organic producers in the developing world. The
paper goes on to report on the breadth and acceleration of organic imports into the UK from
the developing world, utilising data recently made available by the European Commission and
the UKs organic regulatory authority. Already over 60 countries are involved in this increasingly global trade and some countries, for example, Brazil, Mexico and Sri Lanka, dominate
current import authorisations. Cost-effective certification is essential for an expansion of
this trade.
2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Organic certification; UK organic market; Organic exports from developing countries;
Obstacles to certification; Globalisation of organic trade

Corresponding author. Tel: +44 024 76888444; fax: +44 024 76888447.
E-mail address: h.barrett@coventry.ac.uk (H.R. Barrett).

0306-9192/02/$ - see front matter 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 3 0 6 - 9 1 9 2 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 3 6 - 2

302

H.R. Barrett et al. / Food Policy 27 (2002) 301318

The organic market

The global organic market is estimated to be worth US$11 billion, the equivalent
of 2% of the total food market, with organic imports from developing countries
calculated to be worth US$500 million (IIED, 1997; Blowfield, 1999; Robins et al.,
2000). Europe boasts the worlds largest organic market, with an estimated
value of US$5 billion in 1997 (Willer and Yussefi, 2000). The most important
organic product groups in the EU market are vegetables, fruit, potatoes, milk products
and cereals (Michelson et al., 1999). Within Europe, the UK ranks fifth in terms of
turnover for organic products, which in 1998/9 stood at over half a billion US dollars
(Soil Association, 1999). The UK market, together with that of Switzerland, Denmark
and Sweden, are recording the highest annual growth rates in organic sales within
Europe, estimated to be in excess of 30% (Willer and Yussefi, 2000). The Soil
Association calculates that in 1999 the UK market for organic products grew by an
astonishing 40% (Soil Association, 1999) and they predict that by 2002 the organic
market will be worth US$1.5 billion in retail sales, representing 78% of the food
market (Robins et al., 2000).
Whilst the demand for organic foods in Europe is increasing, supply continues to
lag behind (FAO, 2001). Although in 1999 the UK domestic supply of organic produce grew by 25%, it could not meet the increasing demand. As a result, 70% of
organic food sold in the UK is imported (Soil Association, 1999). The percentage
share of imports for some commodities, including fresh produce and beverages, is
above 80%. At the other end of the scale the import shares of organic meat produce
and eggs are minimal at 5% and 0% respectively (Soil Association, 1999). Most
imports of organic food into the UK, particularly cereals (except rice) and milk
products come from other European countries. However, many certified organic fresh
fruits, vegetables and herbs, rice and the raw materials for beverages (fruit juices
such as orange, pineapple and mango, as well as tea and coffee) originate from
countries outside Europe, with developing countries supplying much of this demand.
This is a situation that mirrors the export of non-organic food products from these
countries. In 2000 the EU listed current import authorisations for the import of
organic food from over 60 developing countries (European Commission, 2000).
Within the EU, the UK ranks third as a first destination for the import of organic
produce from developing countries, some way behind Germany and the Netherlands
(European Commission, 2000).
Over the last ten years there has been increased interest in organic markets by
mainstream retailers. Supermarkets in the UK, for example, are currently boosting
the number of organic lines in their stores and investing heavily in advertising
organic food. It is estimated that supermarkets now sell 70% of all organic fruit and
vegetables (FAO, 2001). There is thus a great opportunity for producers in
developing countries to benefit from the expansion of the organic market in Europe,
and in particular those countries, such as the UK, where the market for certified
organic food continues to grow (Dolan et al., 1999).
The trade in organic food differs from other food commodity networks due to the
need for organic certification. This paper, therefore, focuses on the issues surrounding

H.R. Barrett et al. / Food Policy 27 (2002) 301318

303

the organic certification of farmers wishing to export organic produce to the EU and
UK. The research uses a range of newly published and unpublished data, in addition
to interviews with key players in the organic marketing network. These include six
certification bodies, five UK importers, and producers and organic organisations in
Ghana, Guatemala, Kenya, South Africa and Zambia. The paper outlines the complex
suite of EU regulations that govern the import of organic produce into EU member
states, including the UK, and explains, in detail, the procedures. The obstacles to
certification of producers in developing countries wishing to export to the EU are
examined. In particular, the appropriateness and cost of certification based largely
on EU standards, are explored. The paper indicates, for the first time, the breadth
and acceleration of involvement of producers in developing countries in global
organic markets. It is hoped that this paper will provide the basis for research and
policy concerned with the different actors and commodities trading in the global
organic food market.

Regulations governing the marketing of organic products in the EU

Certification of organic produce within the EU, whether produced domestically or
imported, is regulated by Regulation (EEC) 2092/91. This regulation was introduced
in 1991 to provide protection for both the consumer and producer, by harmonising
the definition of organic production among EU member states and by providing a
legal framework for accrediting private sector certification bodies (Willer and Yussefi, 2001). This is implemented in each member state by a national competent
authority which, in the UK, is the United Kingdom Register of Organic Food Standards (UKROFS) part of the Department for Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs
(DEFRA). It is a good example of direct registration. Inspection and certification in
the UK, including of importers of produce from developing countries, may be carried
out by any one of seven organisations, including UKROFS itself (Fig. 1), although
not all are active in developing countries. Soil Association Certification Ltd. (SAC),
Irish Organic Farmers and Growers Association (IOFGA) and Bio-dynamic Agricul-

Fig. 1. Bodies involved with inspection and certification of organic produce in the UK.

304

H.R. Barrett et al. / Food Policy 27 (2002) 301318

tural Association (BDAA) operate to their own standards that go beyond the minimum EU/UKROFS standards; the other bodies follow EU/UKROFS standards.
It is illegal in the EU to sell as organic any product that has not been properly
certified. In order to be marketed in the EU as organic, goods that are imported from
third countries must meet strict production and procedural standards, as well as specific import rules that are outlined in Article 11 of Regulation (EEC) 2092/91, which
are described below. The general principle applied is that of equivalence. Agricultural
production, processing, documentation, inspection and certification are required to
be of equivalent standard to EU Regulations. The regulations governing import of
organic produce apply to crop and livestock products, both unprocessed and processed. The regulations do not have to be identical, but must prove to be of comparable effectiveness or equivalent. In practice this requires procedures and actions in
the third country that demonstrate that the legislatory targets of the Regulation have
been met (Schmist and Haccius, 1998). Member states cannot agree on what constitutes equivalence, and tend to apply their own national standards. This flexibility
allows third countries to develop their own organic food production and certification
systems. A further principle is that of inspection of all stages of the import chain
including production, export, import and processing.
All organic produce marketed in the UK must bear the words Organic Certification followed by the appropriate EU code for the certification body licensing the
last operation. Thus, for example, a UK packer licensed with SAC must include
Organic Certification UK5 on the product (UKROFS is UK1 etc.). Each of the
certification bodies approved by UKROFS may have its own symbol scheme. Certification by a private sector body, which allows the display of their symbol on organic
produce, is a separate issue from the legal requirements that establish the organic
nature of the produce, but may be an important marketing consideration. The high
profile and public acceptance of some private symbols is a very strong marketing
incentive, which may influence which certification organisation a grower selects
(see below).
Regulations governing the authorisation to import organic produce into the EU
from developing countries
There are three routes by which imported organic produce can enter the EU market. These are set out under Article 11 of Regulation 2092/91. The first route is
Article 11(1), under which countries become listed. At the moment the only
developing country to be awarded this status is Argentina; the other five listed countries are all in the developed world. Therefore, most producers in developing countries have to seek another route, most commonly using Article 11(6) whereby each
consignment of produce is given import authorisation. There is a third route under
Article 11(7); however producers in developing countries are unlikely to be able to
make use of this regulation. In addition to the EU legal standards for organic production there are international voluntary standards established by the International
Federation of Organic Agriculture (IFOAM) and independent standards operated by
private sector bodies as a requirement for the display of their own organic symbols.

H.R. Barrett et al. / Food Policy 27 (2002) 301318

305

Import under Article 11(1)

A non-EU country may be registered by law as operating production rules and
systems of inspection equivalent to those operating within the Community. This is
sometimes referred to as the front door. Registration requires an official diplomatic
request to the European Commission in Brussels by the third country government;
applications from private bodies do not suffice. Registration means inclusion on a
list. Third countries recognised under Regulation (EEC) 2092/91 Article 11(1) Annex
(EEC) 94/92 are currently Argentina, Australia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Israel and
Switzerland. Inclusion on the list is for a fixed term and then requires renewal. The
EU sends missions to check every 45 years that the countries still comply. Axelsson
Nycander (2000, p.9) reports an official of the European Commission as stating that
about 20 countries have applied for being listed. A larger number of countries have
signalled interest, but did not come back with complete applications. The reason
given for this is that the costs and complicated language of the Regulation frightens
off many developing countries that then decide not to put forward a formal application. It is likely that a number of countries in Eastern Europe, along with a few
OECD countries, are most likely to become listed in the next few years.
Within those countries that are listed there are inspection and certificate-issuing
bodies recognised by the EU. These can issue a certificate allowing the product to
be imported into the EU by an importer approved by the competent body of the EU
Member State. In most cases the approved inspection and certificate issuing bodies
are the same and there are currently two in Argentina, seven in Australia, two in
the Czech Republic, two in Hungary, one in Israel and two in Switzerland. The
inspection and certification bodies may be government departments or non-governmental organisations (NGOs). Being a listed country greatly facilitates the
exporting process. Although each consignment of organic produce under Article
11(1) requires a certificate issued by an authority or body listed in Annex 94/92,
there is no need for the importer to provide any further details or evidence of inspection and certification in country of origin.
Import under Article 11(6)
Soon after implementation of Regulation 2092/91, the procedures for accessing
the EU market through the front door were found, by both EU member states and
exporters to the EU, to be ineffective and inhibiting trade. In 1992 a second path was
opened, Article 11(6), referred to as the back door. Under this Article, importers of
third country organic produce may apply for an import authorisation. The European
Commission does not process applications for import authorisations; they are investigated and approved by the competent authority in each individual member state. For
example, in the UK, UKROFS must be convinced that both the organic production
standards and inspection procedures are EU equivalent (EN 45011/ISO65). The
approval of local inspection bodies by UKROFS is constantly monitored. Interestingly, UKROFS does not issue an approved list because bodies can be removed
from the list at short notice, particularly when EU regulations change and the overseas standards do not change fast enough to comply with the new EU requirements.

306

H.R. Barrett et al. / Food Policy 27 (2002) 301318

Import under Article 11(6) was originally regarded as a provisional arrangement

until 31 July 1995. However, its applicability has been extended a number of times,
most recently to 2005. Import authorisation must be obtained for each importing
country.
Article 11(6) appears to function quite well for exporters, but many complain that
EU member states cannot agree on what constitutes equivalence, and tend to apply
their national certification standards rather than EU ones. UKROFS adheres to the
legal position and examines equivalence strictly against EU standards. Although each
country assesses equivalence there is a process (Article 14) under which one country
can dispute authorisations awarded by another country and this can be resolved and
a common position arrived at by negotiations, usually held in Brussels.
Import authorisation is generally not required for every individual consignment
but it names the inspection body, producers, processors, exporters and importers.
Authorisation may be open-ended or may be granted with an expiry date and can
be revoked. Minor changes, such as the addition of another related product from the
same producer, may be added to authorisations, but substantial changes in inspection
body, product, producer, exporter or importer require a fresh authorisation. Once
within the EU, organic produce may be re-exported to other member states without
the requirement for further authorisation.
Most inspection for Article 11(6) authorisation is done by bodies from countries
within the EU or by bodies from Article 11(1) countries. These are already approved
by the competent authority in the importing EU country and, by definition, satisfy
the EU requirements for inspection standards. The European inspection bodies most
active in developing countries include Institut fu r Markto cologie (IMO)
ko-Garantie GmbH
(Switzerland), Ecocert International, Lacon and BCS O
(Germany), Ecocert F and Ecocert SARL (France), and SKAL (The Netherlands).
A wider range of international, regional and local bodies are active in Latin America,
including a number based in the USA.
UK approved inspection bodies play a relatively small role in developing countries. Out of the 366 current import authorisations of organic produce from
developing countries into the EU only 61 (17%) are certified by UK bodies
(European Commission, 2000). Three private sector bodies SAC, Organic Food Federation (OFF) and Organic Farmers and Growers Ltd. (OF&G) are named on current
import authorisations. In general, European bodies such as Ecocert and IMO are
expanding their certification activities overseas, where the majority of their business
is located. UK bodies have reduced certification overseas because they are so overworked with the expansion in demand for certification within the UK.
Certification by a private sector body, which allows the display of their symbol
on organic produce, is a separate issue from the legal requirements that establish the
organic nature of the produce. The certification bodies, such as the Soil Association
can impose their own additional requirements for the award of a symbol, providing
the basic organic certification is at least equivalent to the EU/UKROFS standards.
Internationally, IFOAM has established a set of basic organic standards which many
private and public sector certification bodies use as a basis for developing their own
local standards (IFOAM, 1997). IFOAM seeks to harmonise international organic

H.R. Barrett et al. / Food Policy 27 (2002) 301318

307

standards and provides accreditation to certification bodies that meet IFOAM standards.
Organic produce from only a few developing countries enters the EU certified by
a local inspection body. Only six developing countries exporting organic produce to
the EU use indigenous inspection bodies (Bolivia, Brazil, China, Egypt, Nicaragua
and Peru). Of the 205 current authorisations for these countries, a third (68) are
for indigenous inspection bodies (European Commission, 2000). An example of the
successful development of local certification is Bio Latina. Bio Latina is formed
from an association of several Latin American certification bodies including BIO
MUISCO in Colombia, BIOPACHA in Bolivia, CENIPAE in Nicaragua and INKA
CERT in Peru. In the late 1990s these independent local certification bodies decided
to form a single company. It is one of the few indigenous bodies that has demonstrated equivalence in import authorisations granted under Article 11(6) (Guanilo,
2000). There are clear financial benefits of using an indigenous inspection body,
with charges made by indigenous bodies being significantly lower than European
agencies. Local certification bodies also have other advantages, such as knowledge
of local conditions and the ability to communicate in local languages. These are
summarised in Table 1.
Import under Article 11(7)
A 1995 amendment to Article 11 (Article 11(7)) allows requests by an EU member
state for a third country inspection body to be added to the list under Article 11(1).
A view has been put forward (Axelsson Nycander, 1999), and repeated in other
reports, that, in theory, this opens another opportunity for exporters in unlisted countries to gain access to the European market, by approving a body in a country not
listed under Article 11(1). So far, only one organisation, SKAL Holland, operating
in Hungary, has been licensed for inspections in Hungary (an Article 11(1) country)
by this mechanism. There is uncertainty about Article 11(7), but UKROFS interpret
Table 1
The advantages and disadvantages of local certification programmesa
Advantages
Lower costs for producers
Better knowledge of local conditions and languages
Better information flow between certification body and producer
Develops trust between producers and certifier
More possibilities for making unannounced inspections
Keeps money in the local economy
Disadvantages
Lack of competence and information at start-up phase
Difficulties in obtaining international recognition (EN45011)
High initial investment costs may take resources from other activities
Conflicts of interest may lead to struggles of control
a

Source: Adapted from Rundgren (1998).

308

H.R. Barrett et al. / Food Policy 27 (2002) 301318

the article as meaning the EU member states may approve further inspection bodies
in countries already listed under Article 11(1) and not inspection bodies in countries
not listed under Article 11(1) (Cook, 2000). Thus, Article 11(7) is very unlikely to
offer an alternative entry route to the EU for organic imports from developing countries.
Voluntary accreditation schemes
There is no forum in Europe, or elsewhere, for governments to discuss and
exchange information on issues relevant to organic production, certification and
trade. Most discussion and policy recommendations to governments are made by
voluntary accreditation schemes, of which IFOAM is the most influential. IFOAM
is an international body that aims to promote the organic movement and has a membership of about 700 organisations (research, certification, education and growers).
IFOAM provides a forum, publishes basic standards and awards its own accreditation
to organisations and their production standards through the IFOAM Accreditation
Programme (IAP). IFOAM was established to harmonise standards developed by
private/voluntary sector bodies. It sets minimum standards, which provide certification programmes with a basis for developing detailed local production standards.
IAP accredited certifying agencies administer certification but IFOAM also wants to
be recognised as a body awarding accreditation to ISO65 standard via its offshoot
the International Organic Accreditation Service (IOAS).
However, IFOAM/IOAS accreditation has no legal status in the EU, although
IFOAM accreditation is said by Sweden to be almost acceptable as satisfying EU
equivalence. Officially, IFOAM accreditation of an inspection body does not influence UKROFS in their scrutiny of applications for import authorisation under Article
11(6) but there is a perception among importers that such accreditation does carry
some weight in UKROFS.
IFOAM also has aims that relate to workers rights, their basic needs, adequate
economic return and satisfaction from their work and a safe working environment.
They also aim to encourage organic farming associations to function along democratic lines and uphold the principles of equality of power. The expectation is that
organic production will result in social benefits for producers.
IFOAM standards have been a major influence on the development of national
laws regulating organic farming, including Regulation 2092/91 and the Codex Alimentarius guidelines that were set up by FAO and WHO. IFOAM wishes to establish
international standards that will be a minimum throughout the world. It is an
important lobbyist of the UK and member states concerning organic agriculture.

Obstacles in the certification process

The certification process is complex and involves the connected, yet legally separated, processes of certification and annual re-inspection. Once production units have
an organic certificate they must be inspected annually in order to keep the certificate.

H.R. Barrett et al. / Food Policy 27 (2002) 301318

309

The two processes are thus highly interlinked and both are necessary in order to
enter the organic trade chain. However, when wishing to get their produce
certified/inspected as organic, producers in developing countries face many obstacles.
These include the cost and applicability of certification, as well as knowledge concerning the choices available to them in terms of which certifier they decide to
choose.
Cost and applicability of certification to producers in developing countries
In terms of inspection, producers in back door countries must either pay for
international inspection or use local inspection bodies that have been accredited by
European certifiers, such as IMO (Switzerland), to undertake the audit that must
satisfy EU regulations.
International certification and inspection can be very expensive. For example, in
2000 SAC charged individual producers a certification fee of 200 plus inspection
costs of 350 per day per inspector plus airfares, accommodation and other expenses.
In the same year Ecocert (Germany) charged 303 per inspector per day, plus 350
travel time, plus travel and subsistence at cost price, plus taxes (Giersemehl, 2000).
For many small farmers one option for reducing the high costs of international certification is to form a producer group or co-operative and apply for certification as a
group rather than as individual producers (Barrett et al., 2001; Harris et al., 2001).
There are special schemes in operation for the organic certification of groups and
the EU is currently developing group certification guidelines. The group pays one
fee for the certification (Soil Association, 2001) making this a viable way for
smallholders to afford organic certification for their produce. For example, SAC
currently charge 800 for group certification (up to 100 members). Provided that the
internal system functions well and that all units are internally inspected each year,
then organic inspection by the certification body is reduced to an audit of the system
with only 1020% of the farms in the group being inspected (Myers, 2000;
Alonso, 2001).
Currently different certifiers have different approaches to deal with producer group
certification. This can create a situation whereby recognition of group certification
may be problematic for EU importers (Algra and Rijninks, 2000). However there
are many examples of producer groups that have been successful in exporting organic
produce, in particular coffee and cotton, to Europe (Barrett et al., 2001). However
it should be noted that many of these are associated with fair trade organisations or
companies that support ethical business practice and who pay the costs of certification
whilst guaranteeing markets.
Local inspection bodies are likely to be cheaper than international certifiers, as
well as having other advantages such as knowledge of local conditions and the ability
to communicate in local languages. However, local inspection bodies also have disadvantages that must be considered alongside the cost saving (see Table 1). In particular, they may have difficulties in obtaining and maintaining international recognition. This has led many importers in the EU to advise producers to use international
inspectors in order to ensure an export market.

310

H.R. Barrett et al. / Food Policy 27 (2002) 301318

Local certification is seen as one way to reduce costs to producers in developing

countries as fees would be locally determined and reflect local incomes as opposed
to fees decided by organisations in Europe whose costs are determined by European
market conditions (Barrett et al., 2001). Local certification has a number of advantages. For certification to be accepted by the EU, a local body has to demonstrate
that their organic production and inspection standards are equivalent to but not necessarily identical to the EU regulations as set out in Regulation (EEC) 2092/91 and
EN45011. This means it can have more locally appropriate standards. For example,
it is quite common for organic farmers in Africa and India to use plant material such
as neem, garlic and pepper in natural pesticide sprays. In the EU Standards neem is
only allowed to be applied to the roots of mother plants. Other plant material is not
specifically allowed, apart from a small number including derris and pyrethrum. In
tropical countries pests can multiply at an alarming rate and farmers need recourse
to pesticides in some acceptable form. A lot of research has been undertaken on
neem and when used correctly it should be acceptable (Ahmed and Grainge, 1985;
NRC, 1992). Local certification bodies may well allow the use of such natural pesticides that would not normally be allowed under EU Standards (Myers, 2000).
There are a number of local certifiers in Article 11(6) countries; some like Bio
Latina are very successful. The certification fees charged by Bio Latina in Peru, for
example, are significantly lower than those charged by European agencies. An
UNCTAD study in Bolivia has estimated that certification costs were reduced by
50% when local certification replaced overseas inspection Bodies (UNCTAD, 1996).
However, there are no local certification bodies in the poorest countries or in subSaharan Africa. Unfortunately little progress has been made towards developing such
procedures in the poorest developing countries. In Kenya, the Association for Better
Land Husbandry (ABLH), in partnership with the Soil Association has begun a local
scheme that it is hoped will evolve into a national certificate (ABLH, 1999). In South
Africa a number of bodies including the Rainman Landcare Foundation have begun
the process of consultation on developing a local certification body (Auerbach, 2000).
The setting up of local certification mechanisms is a medium term goal for many
developing countries, which will involve building local capacity. This could perhaps
be best achieved in the short term by expanding the international accreditation of
local inspection bodies in the expectation that they would eventually evolve into
local certifiers.
Which certifier to choose
Producers may not be able to choose the cheapest certification body, as importers
may insist on the use of a particular certifier because of the problems of EU approval
and the demands of the customer, which in the UK market is increasingly the multiple retail chains. Some UK supermarkets, for example, are insisting that one particular UK certifier certifies all their organic produce. J.Sainsbury plc has announced
that they are committed to have all own-label organic products certified by IFOAM
accredited bodies by 2003 (CAB, 2000). As the Soil Association is currently the
only UK certification body to be IFOAM accredited Sainsbury is committing itself

H.R. Barrett et al. / Food Policy 27 (2002) 301318

311

to only selling own-brand food that has been certified by SAC. There is some concern
that this may infringe free trade principles and it is possible that a test case will be
taken to the WTO by the other UK certifiers.
Partly for historic reasons, the Soil Association Certification Ltd Symbol remains
the UK market leader and the organic symbol most recognised by the general public
as guaranteeing the authenticity of the product. The desire by supermarkets and other
retailers to provide consumers with what is perceived as the firmest guarantee has
led some of them to insist on SAC. As a result, importers of produce from developing
countries may, for commercial reasons, decide to obtain the Soil Association symbol.
This may involve a certain degree of duplication because while UKROFS requires
importers to demonstrate that the third country producers and exporters are EU equivalent, SAC may additionally insist that the importer demonstrate that the third country producers and exporters meet standards equivalent to those of the SAC. Clearly
then, producers in developing countries need to be aware of such trends and demands
if they wish to export to the UK market. Thus the choice of certifier may determine
market success for such producers.

Organic production from developing countries

Despite the cost and complexity of organic certification for the EU market, an
increasing amount of organic produce from developing countries is entering this
market, most of this produce entering through authorisations issued under Article
11(6). Although data are scarce and unreliable, it does appear that a relatively small
number of developing countries account for a large proportion of current EU authorisations.
Many types of project exist with the aim of assisting organic trade from developing
countries. These range from government programmes, fair trade organisations to
business partnerships and co-operation with certification bodies. For example in 1994
the Swedish International Development Agency (SIDA) initiated the EPOPA programme (Export Promotion of Organic Products from Africa). The programme is
subcontracted out to Agro Eco Consultancy in the Netherlands and currently has
projects in Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda, which are exporting coffee and cotton (van
Elzakker and Tulip, 2000). An example of partnerships with the fair trade sector is
TWIN Trading that works with 19 producer groups (250,000 producers) in ten
developing countries. TWIN offers a premium for organic coffee, cocoa and tea,
producing products such as Cafe Direct and Divine Chocolate (Browne et al., 2000).
They operate revolving funds at fair trade rates to finance the credit needs of smallscale farmers. Geest is a good example of a business partnership. The company plan
to convert banana production in the Windward Islands from conventional to organic
systems. They will assist large-scale farmers to convert as well as the many smallscale producers. Support is given in terms of technical advice (training local extension officers) and premiums for organic bananas (Pierse, 2000).

312

H.R. Barrett et al. / Food Policy 27 (2002) 301318

Quantities and type of organic goods produced in developing countries

A recent report commissioned for the Commission of the European Communities
on Agriculture and Fisheries states that data on organic products is very scarce. It
is complicated by the fact that no clear distinction is made between organic and
other types of food products in any official statistical accounts (Michelson et al.,
1999). There are thus no exact or reliable figures on the quantities or value of certified
organic produce being produced in developing countries. The FAO (2001) has
recently published a report that describes organic production and trade in organic
fruit and vegetables in seven developing countries. However they warn that the data
used are only estimates. Willer and Yussefi (2000) carried out a survey to ascertain
the extent to which organic agriculture is practised throughout the world (Table 2).
They base their work on the number of organic farms and the area of land under
organic management in selected countries but this gives no indication of type of
product, volume or value of the organic output from these farms. Their data are
Table 2
Area and percentage of land under certified organic management in Africa, Asia and Latin Americaa
Country

AFRICA
Egypt
Madagascar
Malawi
Mauritius
South Africa
Tanzania
Uganda
Zimbabwe
ASIA
China
Israel
Rep. Korea
Sri Lanka
LATIN AMERICA
Argentina
Brazil
Chile
Costa Rica
Dominican Rep.
El Salvador
Peru
Trinidad & Tobago
Uruguay
a

Date

1999
1998
1998
1995
1998
1998
1999
1999
1997
1999
1998
1995
1999
1999
1998
1995
1997
1996
1998
1999
1999

Number of
Area of land under
organic farms organic management
ha1

220
1000
2
3
35
7000

1237
100
1000
1200
200
4000
1000
2000
80
150

Adapted from Willer and Yussefi (2000).

Percentage of
agricultural area

2667

0.08

80
175

0.01
0.15

4000
5250
1000

0.01
0.06
0.005

14,000
ca. 5083
902

0.01
0.1
0.04

380,000
100,000
2700
9000

0.22
0.2
0.02
0.31

4900
12,000

0.31
0.04

1300

0.01

H.R. Barrett et al. / Food Policy 27 (2002) 301318

313

patchy and information from many developing countries are not available. Table 2
gives an indication of the land under certified organic management for countries
where data are available. What this shows is that the area of land under certified
organic production in these selected countries is very small, with proportions of well
under 0.5% of the total agricultural area being managed organically. Clearly much
larger areas are organic by default, but the produce from these farms cannot be
exported to the EU as organic, as they have no certification to demonstrate they
to adhere to Regulation (EEC) 2092/91.
Whilst the quantity and value of organic produce being grown and exported from
developing countries is unclear, there is certainly an expanding export trade. Many
types of organic produce are imported into the UK from third countries. Table 3
shows the share of organic sales in the UK met by imports. Whilst imports of cereals
(excluding rice), baby foods, multi ingredient foods and beverages are imported from
other European countries, many fruits, vegetables and herbs, rice and the raw
materials for beverages, such as orange, mango and pineapple juice as well as tea
and coffee, originate from outside Europe (Soil Association, 1999). Livestock and
fisheries products currently represent only a very small proportion of organic imports,
because EU countries can currently meet demand from domestic sources. But there
is also the complicating factor that EU regulations associated with the importation of
organic livestock and fisheries products have only recently been published (Council
Regulation (EC) No. 1804/1999 published in July 1999). Among the Article 11(1)
countries, only Argentinas and Switzerlands specifications include processed and
unprocessed livestock products. Honey is the only livestock product currently
included on import authorisations under Article 11(6), with only one current authorisation from a developing country, namely Tanzania.
There are no reliable published figures on the quantity or value of certified organic
produce being imported into the EU although the European Commission has recently
asked each member state to collate these figures on an annual basis (Fransella, 2001).
DEFRA has provided estimated annual quantities of organic imports into the UK by
country and product for the nine developing countries they have reliable data for
Table 3
Share of organic sales in the UK met by imports, April 1999a
Commodity
Fruit, vegetables and herbs
Cereals/baked
Dairy
Meat
Eggs
Babyfoods
Multi-ingredient
Beverages
a

Source: Soil Association (1999).

Share met by import(%)

82
70
40
5
0
70
80
90

314

H.R. Barrett et al. / Food Policy 27 (2002) 301318

(Table 4). Table 4 demonstrates that the volume of organic imports from these nine
developing countries is very variable with almost 5500 tonnes being imported from
Mexico and only 160 tonnes from Egypt.
Origin of organic produce from developing countries exported to the EU and the
UK
Organic produce imported into the EU under Article 11(6) originates from at least
60 countries (Table 5). Most of these countries have few listed import authorisations
compared with developed countries such as USA and Turkey. This authorisation data
does not provide an indication of the volume or value of the trade as authorisation can
be for a single product or for many. Similarly there may be an authorisation for
import into only one EU member state or several authorisations for import of the
same produce into different member states. The concentration of authorisations, however, is interesting. Over half the 1019 EU authorisations from developing countries
under Article 11(6) are from only seven countries, with three countries, namely India,
Mexico and Sri Lanka accounting for over a third of authorisations. At the other
end of the scale eight countries have only one authorisation.
The UK currently has 152 authorisations for the import of organic produce from
developing countries under Article 11(6). Over half these authorisations are concentrated in five countries, Sri Lanka, India, South Africa, Mexico and Brazil. In terms
of the relative volumes of imports the products imported from Sri Lanka are dominated by desiccated coconut and coconut milk. Organic fruit, tea and spices are also
significant. As would be expected, imports from India are dominated by tea. Other
items include nuts and spices. The main import from Mexico is coffee, with fruit,
vegetables and edible oils completing the list. Brazils organic exports to the UK
comprise concentrated orange juice, oranges, cashew nuts and cane sugar. It is interesting to note that some countries specialise in exporting a small number of organic
products to the UK market. For example, 70% of the tonnage imported from Brazil
Table 4
Total metric tonnes (estimated) of organic produce imported into the UK annually from selected
developing countriesa
Country

Metric tonnes

Brazil
Bolivia
Chile
China
Dominican Republic
Egypt
India
Mexico
Sri Lanka
a

Adapted from Fransella (2001).

2640
358
470
616
1295
160
1033
5494
730

Principal crop by volume

Citrus products
Diverse
Diverse
Diverse
Bananas
Vegetables
Tea
Coffee
Coconut products

H.R. Barrett et al. / Food Policy 27 (2002) 301318

315

Table 5
Number of current import authorisations for the import of organic produce into the EU from developing
countries under regulation (EEC) 2092/91 Article 11(6)a
Country
(USA
(Turkey
India
Mexico
Sri Lanka
China
Brazil
South Africa
Guatemala
Bolivia
Peru
Madagascar
Egypt
Dominican Republic
Paraguay
Morocco
Tunisia
Columbia
Burkina Faso
Costa Rica
Tanzania
Chile
El Salvador
Zimbabwe
Uganda
Indonesia
Nicaragua
Honduras
Ecuador
Pakistan
a

Number
337)
239)
115
113
103
61
56
51
36
35
34
34
33
32
27
25
20
19
19
15
13
13
11
10
10
10
9
9
9
7

Country

Number

Sudan
Guinea
Cameroon
Togo
Thailand
Philippines
Malawi
Ghana
Ethiopia
Mauritius
Cuba
Zambia
Vietnam
Vanuatu
Kenya
Uruguay
Tonga
Papua New Guinea
Nepal
Ivory Coast
Comoros Islands
Burma
Seychelles
Namibia
Jamaica
Guyana
Gambia
Gabon
Cape Verde
Belize

6
6
6
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Adapted from European Commission (2000).

is citrus based; tea comprises 85% of the imports from India; vegetables comprise
100% of the imports from Egypt as do bananas from the Dominican Republic
(Fransella, 2001). On the other hand, other countries export a diverse list of organic
products to the UK. China, for example, exports 14 different products to the UK
market, including rice, sunflower seeds, soya beans and green tea.

Potential for the export of organic produce to the EU market from

developing countries
There is considerable demand for organic produce in developed countries and this
is likely to increase substantially over the next decade (Dolan et al., 1999). Globally

316

H.R. Barrett et al. / Food Policy 27 (2002) 301318

the EU is the largest organic market with some member states, including the UK,
recording annual growth in organic sales in excess of 40%. Domestic production is
not able to keep pace with such increased demand and thus much of the organic
produce consumed in the UK is imported. Developing countries represent a source
of a wide range of organic produce, especially tea, coffee, cocoa, herbs and spices
as well as tropical and sub-tropical fruits and vegetables. It is clear that the trade in
organic foodstuffs is globalising rapidly, with increasing numbers of producers in
developing countries becoming involved.
The trade in organic foodstuffs is, however, different from other food commodity
networks due to the additional need for certification. Regulation (EEC) 2092/91 regulates certification of organic produce in the EU and certification is an absolute
requirement for any producer wishing to export organic produce to the EU. Most
developing countries must go through Article 11(6), where international certification
bodies dominate the certification process. The development of local certification and
inspection bodies is desirable, as certification would become cheaper and more
appropriate to local conditions. This, it is suggested could evolve through the international accreditation of local inspection bodies. This could be facilitated through
donor and business support and would involve the building and enhancing of local
capacity. Local certification would also represent a step towards EU recognition of
equivalence of national standards under Article 11(1), which would facilitate organic
trade to Europe. In the meantime group certification appears to be a realistic way
in which small-scale farmers can enter international markets for certified produce,
and thus benefit from the premium this attracts. If producers in developing countries
are to participate in the growing international market for organic foodstuff, and
especially if they wish to export to the UK market, it is important that the certification
process is made more efficient and affordable for producers. This may be a long
way off, but this paper has shown that there are initiatives which can be taken now
which will not only facilitate organic exports from the developing world, but will
ensure the growing demand for organic foodstuffs in the UK is met.

Acknowledgements
This paper is an output from a research project funded by the United Kingdom
Department for International Development (DFID) for the benefit of developing
countries. The views expressed are not necessarily those of DFID. Thanks are due
to all the individuals who provided valuable information through interviews and
access to documents.

References
Ahmed, S., Grainge, M., 1985. Use of indigenous plant resources in rural development: potential of the
neem tree. International Journal of Development Technology 3, 123130.
ABLH (Association for Better Land Husbandry), 1999. Organic Certification Scheme. Pamphlet.

H.R. Barrett et al. / Food Policy 27 (2002) 301318

317

Algra, J., Rijninks, M., 2000. Small farmers and organic certification: a problem inventory. Novo Trade,
The Netherlands.
Alonso, N., 2001. The Soil Association. Personal communication.
Auerbach, R., 2000. The Rainman Landcare Foundation, South Africa. Personal communication.
Axelsson Nycander, G., 1999. Council Regulation No 2092/91: Consequences for the Import of Organic
Products from Developing Nations. Swedish International Development Authority (SIDA). (English
version 2000).
Axelsson Nycander, G., 2000. Securing Access to the EU Market: Organic Exports from Developing
CountriesCase study on Uganda. Swedish International Development Authority (SIDA). (English
version 2000).
Barrett, H.R., Browne, A.W., Harris, P.J.C., Cadoret, K., 2001. Smallholder Farmers and Organic Certification: Accessing the EU Market from the Developing World. Biological Agriculture and Horticulture
19 (2), 183199.
Browne, A.W., Harris, P.J.C., Hofny-Collins, A.H., Pasiecznik, N.M., Wallace, R.R., 2000. Organic Production and Ethical Trade: Definition, Practice and Links. Food Policy 25, 6989.
Blowfield, M., 1999. Ethical Trade: A Review of Developments and Issues. Unpublished Report for NRI,
University of Greenwich, UK.
CAB International, 2000. Organic Update. E-mail Newsletter, October.
Cook, A., 2000. United Kingdom Register of Organic Food Standards, UK, personal communication.
Dolan, C., Humphry, J., Harris-Pascal, C., 1999. Horticulture Commodity Chains: The Impact of the UK
Market on the African Fresh Vegetable Industry, IDS Working Paper 96, University of Sussex, UK.
European Commission, 2000. 7165/VI/94 EN rev 24. List of Imported Products from Third Country in
Accordance with Article 11 (6) of the Regulation (EEC) No. 2092/91. Update of 30 June 2000.
FAO, ITC and CTA, 2001, World Markets for Organic Fruit and Vegetables: opportunities for developing
countries in the production and export of organic horticultural products. FAO, Rome.
Fransella, R., 2001. UKROFS, personal communication.
Giersemehl, A., 2000. Ecocert, Germany. Personal communication.
Guanilo, O.L., 2000. Bio Latina an Association of Latin American Certifiers. In: Building Trust in
Organics: A Guide to Setting Up Organic Certification Programmes. International Feration for Organic
Movements. Tholey Theley, Germany, pp. 140142.
Harris, P.J.C., Browne, A.W., Barrett, H.R., Cadovet, K., 2001. Facilitating the inclusion of the resourcepoor in organic production and trade: opportunities and constraints posed by certification. Henry
Doubleday Research Association, Coventry, UK.
IFOAM, 1997. Basic Standards for Organic Agriculture and Processing and Guidelines for Coffee, Cocoa
and Tea: Evaluation of Inputs. International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements. Thorley
Theley, Germany.
IIED (International Institute for Environment and Development), 1997. Changing Consumption and Production Patterns: Unlocking Trade Opportunities. Nick Robins and Sarah Roberts (Eds.). United
Nations Department of Policy Co-ordination and Sustainable Development, United Nations, New
York, USA.
Michelson, J., Hamm, U., Wynen, E., Roth, E., 1999. The European market for organic products: growth
and development. Organic farming in Europe: economics and policy, Vol. 7. Universitat
Hohenheim, Germany.
Myers, J., 2000. Independent consultant (inspection experience), personal communication.
National Research Council (NRC), 1992. Neem: A Tree for Solving Global Problems. National Academy
Press, Washington DC.
Pierse, D. 2000. Geest Bananas, UK. Personal communication.
Robins, N., Roberts, S., Abbot, J., 2000. Who Benefits? A Social Assessment of Environmentally Driven
Trade. IIED, London.
Rundgren, G., 1998. Building Trust in Organics: A Guide to Setting Up Organic Certification Programmes.
IFOAM, Tholey Theley, Germany.
Schmist, H., Haccius, M., 1998. EU Regulation Organic Farming. A Legal and Agro-Ecological Commentary on the EUs Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2092/91. Magraf Verlag, Weikersheim, Germany.
Soil Association, 1999. The Organic Food and Farming Report 1999. Soil Association, Bristol, UK.

318

H.R. Barrett et al. / Food Policy 27 (2002) 301318

Soil Association, 2001. Soil Association Certification Ltd. International Fees, 31st January 200131st
January 2002 (unpublished). Soil Association, Bristol, UK.
UNCTAD, 1996. Organic Production in Developing Countries: Potential for Trade, Environmental
Improvement and Social Development. UNCTAD/COM/88, Geneva, Switzerland.
Van Elzakker, B., Tulip, A., 2000. Not Aid but Trade: Export of Organic Products from Africa. In
Proceedings 13th IFOAM Scientific Conference, Basel, Switzerland. Pp. 567-570.
kologie & Landbau, Bad Du rkhWiller, H., Yussefi, M., 2000. Organic Agriculture Worldwide. Stiftung O
eim, Germany.
kologie & Landbau, Bad Du rkhWiller, H., Yussefi, M., 2001. Organic Agriculture Worldwide. Stiftung O
eim, Germany.