Numerous methods have been established around the world for promoting organic production status and food quality.\u00a0 Mostly involving Organic producers, processors, traders and governmental agencies (Kallander,2008).<\/p>\n

Developed in Europe and USA, the first agricultural organic certification systems were released more than thirty years ago. Initially, most of these primary certifications were organized by farmers organizations, based on simple practical standards where which member was committed to visit and verify each other (Kallander, 2008). These initial simple model systems appeared to have several resemblances between to what is today known as Participatory Guarantee System practices, before the third-party certification and government regulations were introduced to the market (Kallander, 2008).<\/p>\n

The modern concept of certification, according to Kallander (2009:4), relates to a \u2018set of procedures which guarantee certain principles characterised by norms or established standards\u2019. At its early stages, these sets of standards later known as certification became an important market instrument for organic products where the producers could access a special market with premium prices (Kallander, 2008). Although with the increased organic production and consumption scale worldwide, it appears to be found these processes have become less viable for the organic producers (Nelson, et al., 2009).<\/p>\n

Throughout the years market access for organic products has become more competitive. And Certification has now become a legal requirement for exporting and sale in most of the countries (Nelson, et al., 2009).\u00a0 As the result of these regulations, third-party certification models \u2013 a process which certification is certified by an independent agency \u2013 were introduced as legal requirements for attesting the use organic labels (Nelson et al., 2009). However, the new regulations can potentially be devastating for small-scale producers who can\u2019t afford the process and although still want to distinguish the products in the marketplace (Nelson, et al., 2009). Critics like Nelson, et al., (2009:228) argue that \u2018it promotes an input substitution vision of organic agriculture in its grassroots levels and its inaccessibility to many small-scale producers\u2019.<\/p>\n

The costs and bureaucracy associated with the third-party, considered the mainstream for the organic certification can be overwhelming for small-scale producers (Mutersbaugh, 2002). To address these problems, many producers have gathered in cooperatives and established their own internal systems of control (Nelson, et al., 2009). Within this system, only a small sample of a producer organization\u2019s land can be verified by a third party, therefore the costs of certification can be reduced by being shared between the producers (Mutersbaugh, 2002, cited in Nelson, et al., 2009). However, the attempt to reduce the costs of certification within this alternative can sometimes generate even higher costs in terms of time, financial and material resources in comparison to the total costs of mainstream organic certification (Gomez Tovar et al., 2005, cited in Nelson, et al., 2009:231). Another alternative option to reduce costs is to receive assistance from NGO\u2019s.<\/p>\n

Behind the many reasons why these \u2018alternative\u2019 methods of certification vary are often the consequences of high certification costs, disagreement with the model for ensuring credibility, or often a need to fortify farmers (Kallander, 2008). Overall, this necessity for certification exists where there is a \u2018gap\u2019 between producers and consumers and the query of how to organise a decent system that shapes and increase trust (Kallander, 2008).<\/p>\n

In terms of addressing the entities and spheres of responsibility throughout these processes, third-party certification (TPC) can still be considered an emerging regulatory mechanism in both the public and private spheres of the modern agriculture system, as food shops demand their suppliers to provide TPC, and government agencies are also moving to implement it (Hatanaka & Busch, 2005). Third-party certifiers can be usually classified by private or public organizations responsible for accessing, evaluating, and certifying safety and quality claims. It is commonly based on providing information about the commodity and its production processes, although claiming independence from other participants involved in food or agricultural production such as shops or suppliers (Hatanaka & Busch, 2005).<\/p>\n

To limit responsibility and increase trust and legitimacy among costumers, third-party certifiers often appeal to technoscientific values such as autonomy, objectivity and transparency (Hatanaka & Bush, 2005). Although not all are suitable for small-scale operators and local market channels. In fact, the high costs, the amount of paperwork required and bureaucracy of it can act as a barrier to the entry for smallholder producers (Lundberg and Moberg cited in Home et al., 2017). It all appears to become a political dimension imposed on developing countries by the global north (Home et al., 2017). In an attempt to try and reduce some of the impacts, import markets started limiting the rule that each individual farm had to be inspected annually by the certification body (Home et al., 2017).<\/p>\n

Along with the critiques raised against the mainstream of organic certification, some of them highlight the concerns of a system as the organic sector has grown in scale it has also become \u201cconventionalized\u201d and a full-fledged industry (Buck et al., 1997 Guthman, 2002 cited in Nelson, et al., 2009:227. Buck et al. (1997) and Guthman, (2002) quoted in Nelson, et al., (2009:227) claim its values have lost connection with the integrated ideas of pioneers\u2019 movements.<\/p>\n

Lundberg & Moberg (2009) argue that due to strict national import protocols and the high fees imposed by the international certification bodies tends to turn development into agroindustry with main companies running the plantations. Therefore, supporting local trade systems as well as local certifications can bring several advantages for small-scale farmers (Lundberg & Moberg, 2009).<\/p>\n

In terms of analysing the organic definition, some concepts created by international regulatory bodies we can fit the purposes to break down the organic paradigm, although failing to capture the essence of the real organic ideal (Nelson, et al., 2009). The mainstream certification systems have also been criticized for their potential to actively abolish the wider ideological aspects of the organic movement, which can be considered as a threatening to the dominant capitalist society (Goodman, 2000; cited in Nelson, et al., 2009). It can also increase the dependency of Southern countries on the rich nations of the North, a process referred to \u201cbiocolonialism\u201d (Gomez Tovar et al., 1999, cited in Nelson, et al., 2009:229).<\/p>\n

The extensive bureaucracy associated with certification, which has increased as the result of the need to comply with international standards, can be a difficult process for organic producers (Nelson, et al., 2009). And in many cases, it is a significant challenge to provide agencies with the required documentation (Nelson, et al., 2009). Therefore, turning the organic label almost unreachable for small-scale and low-income producers (Raynolds, 2000; Mutersbaugh, 2002, 2005, IFAD, 2003 cited in Nelson, et al., 2009:229). In response to\u00a0 these \u00a0concerns,\u00a0 a\u00a0 growing\u00a0 number\u00a0 of\u00a0 initiatives\u00a0 have\u00a0 emerged \u00a0that defines themselves as \u2018\u2018beyond organic\u201d (Nelson, et al., 2009:230) These initiatives seek to implement an alternative and holistic vision of sustainable food systems than that maintained by \u00a0 the conventionalized organic sector (Nelson, et al., 2009).<\/p>\n