Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Summary of European Commission’s
proposal for a new organic regulation
June 2014
Contents
1.
Summary
2
2.
Why the need for a new regulation
3
3.
What the Commission are proposing to do
4
4.
How the Commission is going to do it
4
5.
When the Commission plans to do it
5
6.
Who will be affected by the proposals?
5
7.
Which sections are open to some negotiation?
5
8.
Detail on Key changes
5
8.1 Scope
5
8.2 Production rules
6
a) Livestock
8
b) Plant production
9
c) Aquaculture and seaweed
10
d) Processing
10
e) Win e
11
8.3 Labelling
11
8.4 Trade regime
11
8.5 Certification and controls
12
8.6 Delegated Acts
14
1
1.
Summary
The European Commission included in its 2013 work programme a new proposal for
revision of the legislative and non-legislative framework for organic production in the EU.
The aim of the review is to target inconsistencies, gaps and ineffective measures,
introduce simpler rules and reduce regulatory costs.
The Commission put forward 3 options for the way forward on Organic Regulations.
o Improved status quo: better enforcement of current legislation + adjustments
o Market-driven option: providing conditions for EU producers to benefit from further
market developments, accepting that some organic requirements are not possible in
practice and should therefore be permissible in organic production.
o Principle-driven option: refocus organic farming on principles, removing exemptions
and derogations. This would make organic production stricter and not as easy for
producers to abide by, potentially making organics a more niche market.
An online consultation was open in 2013 with around 44,000 responses being received. A
Legislative Proposal, Impact Assessment and Action Plan were published on the 24th
March. There has been a focus on reducing administrative burdens.
The proposal follows the principle-driven option. This has raised a number of concerns in
the UK as the proposed stricter rules in some areas could impact unfavourably on further
growth in the sector. For example, the removal of the ability to issue derogations, such as
on the use of non-organic feed, is likely to be disruptive to the sector.
The proposal removes the possibility of parallel conventional and organic production on
the same holding which is also likely to stifle introductions to the sector. We are concerned
that this will affect the UK more than some other Member States due to the large number
of current parallel producers on large farms.
We have concerns about the removal of the power to introduce retailer exemptions from
the Regulation, this could create unnecessary administrative burden without any gain for
consumers and could be a disincentive to retailers stocking organic products.
There is also a large number of delegated acts in the proposal that can be used to
supplement various provisions e.g. conversion rules and scope of the regulation. This
could result in change without sufficient consultation and offers the Commission greater
flexibility to amend the Regulation and causes uncertainty.
However, there are some positive aspects in the proposal. The introduction of a risk-based
approach to controls so that low risk operators are no longer subject to annual inspections
could help reduce costs. There are some beneficial provisions that enable a level playing
field across Member States, such as defined actions to be taken in the event of noncompliance. There are also a number of helpful provisions on trade including developing
trade agreements and the requirement for equivalence agreements with third countries to
be reciprocal to encourage export of EU organic produce.
2
2.
Why the need for a new Regulation
When adopting the current organic Regulation (EC No 834/2007) the European Council
requested that the Commission submit a report in light of experience gained from the
application of the regulation on a number of specific issues. Based on this report the
Council adopted conclusions in May 2013 and called on the Member States and on the
Commission to develop the organic sector by reviewing the current legal framework, with a
view to improving its usability while providing for a period of stability and certainty, aiming
at further clarification and simplification, and addressing the current outstanding issues
requiring further development.
The Commission therefore began its review of the application of the current organic
legislation in 2012. This was based on a questionnaire sent to Member States and
submitted to stakeholders that identified a number of issues which could cause problems
for trade and undermine consumer confidence in organic products. A Report of the
European Court of Auditors on "The audit of the control system governing the production,
processing, distribution and imports of organic products" (June 2012) also highlighted
some specific issues with the current control system.
An external evaluation of the overall organic system, carried out by the Thunen Institute of
Farm Economics in conjunction with the Organic Research Centre in the UK (2013),
indicated that the EU legislation on organic farming generally provides a sound basis for a
sustainable development of organic production in the European Union but that there were
a number of areas where the regulatory framework could be improved e.g. harmonisation
of interpretation and enforcement in Member States. For the full report click this link.
Results from the Commission’s 2013 online consultation showed that the main reason that
consumers chose to buy organic products was their concern about the environment (83%),
followed by the integrity of organic products with regard to GMOs and non-authorised
substances’ residues (81%). 74 % of all respondents requested that the European organic
standard be strengthened. Around 40% of respondents stated that this should be done by
making the rules stricter and/or introducing sanctions. The majority of interviewees (78%)
indicated that they were prepared to pay more for organic goods. For the full results of the
consultation click this link.
Throughout the review process, the Commission held enlarged advisory group meetings,
involving representatives of the European organic farming sector to discuss issues at
stake and seek advice, data, experience and suggestions. These revealed the significant
growth in the sector. There has been a fourfold increase in the organic market in ten years
but the area in organic production has only doubled. The increased demand is therefore
being supplied by imports. As a consequence there are lost opportunities for EU
producers creating a risk of a limitation to EU organic market expansion and a risk of
limitation to the environmental benefits for the EU associated with organic farming.
The Commission identified a number of obstacles to the development of organic
production in the EU e.g. insufficient conversion to organic farming, small farmers not
3
joining, complex legislation and high administrative burden. Other key issues they
identified include the risks of loss of consumer confidence resulting from fraud cases,
weaknesses in controls and the rules being watered down with exceptions. They also
identified that exceptions and different rules applied to third country imports through the
equivalence regime results in unfair competition and threat to the functioning of the internal
market.
The Commission therefore concluded that the existing organic policy and legal framework
does not provide the appropriate basis for the sustainable development of organic
production in the EU.
3.
What the Commission is proposing to do
The aims of the Commission’s proposal are to:








4.
Clarify the rules,
Address gaps in the legislation,
Simplify where possible,
Encourage fair competition for farmers and operators,
Address consumers evolving concerns (environment, quality),
Remove exceptions to the rules,
Streamline the control system and
Reform the trade regime.
How the Commission is going to do it.
The proposal includes a number of transitional measures (Art 39-43) that would be set out
in delegated acts. These relate to conversion to organic farming, origin of plant
reproductive material, animals for breeding purposes and young stock of aquaculture
animals amongst others. The transitional measures would cease to apply on 31 December
2021 but without seeing the delegated acts it is difficult to evaluate how useful the
transitional measures may be.
The Commission has also developed an Action Plan to assist the transition to the new
system. The Action Plan presents the European Commission’s strategy for organic
production, controls and trade for the forthcoming decade and promotion of growth of the
sector. Some of the key actions the Commission sets out to help the transition to the new
regulation include: publishing an informative document setting out the rules applying to
conversion as well as support measures in the CAP; promotion of support for information
measures intended for farmers and producers under CAP; development of an electronic
certification system; and support and cooperation with trade partners in developing
countries. For more information click this link.
4
5.
When the Commission plans to do it.
This Regulation would apply from 1 July 2017. A number of the transitional measures
would cease to apply on 31 December 2021. Products produced in accordance with
Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 and placed on the market before 1 July 2017 would be able
to continue to be marketed after that date until stocks are exhausted.
6.
Who would be affected by the proposals?
All organic operators, consumers, control bodies and competent authorities would be
affected by the proposal.
7.
Which sections are open to negotiation?
The whole proposal and associated annexes are open to negotiation as we are at the very
beginning of the negotiation process. We have similar concerns to many other Member
States so there is potential to negotiate some significant changes. The proposal clearly
shows the Commission’s direction of travel towards stricter rules and the removal of
exceptions. However, the transitional measures can also be negotiated to help the sector
move towards the new requirements and the UK will be fully involved throughout the
negotiation process to ensure we get the best outcome for the UK organic sector.
8. Detail on key changes
8.1 Scope
The scope of the regulation is clarified in article 2. The Commission has confirmed that
everything covered under the scope of the current regulation would remain under the
scope of the new regulation. The regulation primarily covers agricultural products,
processed agricultural products and other products which are linked to agricultural
products (covered in annex 1 to the Treaty of the European Union) with some specific
additions outlined in annex 1 to this regulation e.g. sea salt. Hunting and fishing of wild
animals remain outside the scope of the new regulation. Some stakeholders have voiced
concerns about the prescriptive list in annex 1 creating uncertainty– for example yoghurts
containing added fruits, nuts or cocoa are included but it is unclear whether yoghurts
containing added vegetables would be within the scope.
Mass catering operations also remain exempt as they do not have any implications for
other Member States as National rules do not affect the functioning of the single market.
The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts to amend the list of products in
annex 1 with the restriction that only products which are closely linked to agricultural
products shall be eligible for inclusion in the list. Defra had concerns about the potential
future inclusion of textiles and cosmetics in the scope. However, the Commission indicated
that it did not intend to include textiles and cosmetics as they do not fit under the
5
framework of CAP and it would result in a number of complex requirements that DG AGRI
is not equipped to deal with e.g. allergens and dyes.
Retailer exemption - The ability to exempt certain retailers from the control system has
been removed. The current regulation enables Member States to exempt from the control
system ‘operators who sell products directly to the final consumer or user provided they do
not produce, prepare, store other than in connection with the point of sale or import such
products from a third country or have not contracted out such activities to a third party’.
This exemption has been interpreted differently in different Member States which has
resulted in difficulties with management, supervision and control. Therefore the
Commission is seeking a harmonised approach across the EU. This is a key concern for
the UK as it could put additional costs and administrative burden on small retailers who
sell organic products and could result in a decline in the number of retailers choosing to
sell organic. The conclusions from Defra’s initial consultation corroborate this concern and
suggest that there is very little risk associated with retailers who only stock pre-packaged
goods and therefore the current system exempting those low risk retailers should remain.
8.2 Production rules
Removal of exceptions - The proposal seeks to remove all existing exceptions to the rules
including the use of non-organic stock e.g. poultry; use of non-organic feed; and the use of
non-organic seed. The aim of this change is to provide clarification, simplification and
harmonisation of the rules. The Commission suggested that exceptions hinder the
development of organic production, undermine consumer confidence, distort the market
and they have a high administrative burden. The impacts associated with the removal of
these exceptions have not been fully evaluated in the Commission’s Impact Assessment
and there could be significant impacts where the market is not yet fully developed. Defra’s
initial consultation indicated that the removal of exceptions may be possible for some
sectors with adequate transitional measures, but other sectors were not sufficiently
developed. Therefore, the exceptions need to be considered on a case-by-case basis to
ensure that where it is clear that the sector is not sufficiently developed to cope with the
removal, transitional measures or permanent inclusion of the exception is considered. A
further evaluation of the impact associated with specific exceptions is detailed in the
attached assessment of the impacts.
In order to ensure a smooth transition from the current exceptions, the Commission would
be empowered to adopt delegated acts providing for exceptions to the new regulation that
would cease to apply on 31 December 2021. Without seeing these delegated acts it is
difficult to evaluate how useful they would be.
Requirement for Organic agricultural holdings to be entirely organic – The Commission
identified that the risk of non-compliance is higher in mixed agricultural holdings than
entirely organic holdings. The proposal therefore introduces a new requirement which
prohibits mixed organic and non-organic holdings. This is a significant concern for the UK
as a high percentage of organic operators have mixed holdings. The results of the
stakeholder discussions suggest that a number of operators would drop out of organics
6
and others may be deterred from entering the organic market. This is a key concern as
there has been a continued decline in organic conversion and land in the UK. Areas fell by
24% and 3.9% respectively during 2013 to 24 thousand hectares of in conversion land and
551 thousand hectares of organic land. There are concerns that this new requirement
could have an even greater adverse effect.
As a result, consumers may see increased prices from higher production costs alongside a
reduced EU supply. The impact of this would depend on the definition of holding which is
not currently defined in the proposal. Concerns about this provision have been raised by a
number of other Member States and as negotiations develop we will ensure the
Commission is aware of the negative implications of this change.
The proposal does permit the agricultural holding to be split into clearly separated units
which are not all managed under organic production during the conversion period. It is not
yet clear how this would work in relation to the organic status of the products produced
organically during that period. However, by affording the farmer the opportunity to convert
parts of their holding over a period of time, it reduces the risk associated with conversion
as it allows them to trial organic production and see whether it is a viable option for their
farm business. However, this is not seen as a sufficient measure to counteract the
negative impacts of the requirement for the whole holding to be managed as organic.
Environmental Management System – Some organic operators (excluding microenterprises1, farmers or seaweed/aquaculture producers) will be required to develop an
environmental management system (EMS) for improving their environmental performance
under the proposal. The Commission has introduced this provision to ensure that organic
operators meet consumer expectations that organic products are produced in a more
environmentally friendly way. The detailed requirements of the EMS will be set out in a
delegated act and it is therefore currently unclear whether this will be an unnecessary
administrative burden with limited benefit or whether it is a useful requirement that will
reduce the environmental impacts associated with production. Certain operators will face
an additional fixed cost. Ultimately this cost will be passed on to the consumer. Whilst the
purpose of the proposal is to increase the environmental benefits of organic production,
the additional cost in the supply chain may result in reduced organic production and
therefore overall reduced environmental benefits. Defra’s initial discussions with
stakeholders revealed that a number of larger operators already have EMS in place and if
these were recognised under the new requirement it would reduce the burden as
additional audits would not be welcome. There was some support for this requirement,
provided that it was not overly burdensome or costly.
Conversion –The rules for conversion and the conversion periods set out are the same as
those in the current regulation. The current regulation permits the competent authority to
retroactively recognise as being part of the conversion period land parcels that have not
been treated with products not authorised for organic production. However, the proposal
1
enterprise which employs fewer than 10 persons and whose annual turnover and/or annual
balance sheet total does not exceed EUR 2 million
7
removes this provision and has added a provision that states no conversion period is
necessary for cases where the land has been left ‘fallow’ for at least the time period
required for conversion. However, the proposal does not define fallow and it could be
interpreted in a number of ways making it difficult to evaluate the impacts of this change.
Stakeholders have suggested that the maintenance of the current practice is favoured as it
currently works well and the term fallow could result in greater uncertainty and
inconsistency between Member States.
Lists of authorised products – The lists of authorised plant protection products; fertilisers,
soil conditioners and nutrients; feed materials; feed additives and processing aids and
products for cleaning and disinfection are not yet provided in the proposal and are likely to
be added through delegated/implementing acts. Article 19 sets out the criteria for the
inclusion of products in these lists which are similar to the current regulation. However the
impacts of these changes are unclear until the delegated acts are published.
a) Livestock production rules (Part II of Annex II)
Requirement for Organic livestock to be born and raised on organic agricultural holdings –
The proposal states that non-organically raised animals would be no longer permitted to
be brought onto a holding for breeding purposes. There is only the ability to bring in nonorganic breeding replacements if they are rare breed and there is no exception if organic
stock is not available in sufficient numbers. This provision is likely to affect some sectors
more than others, and is likely to result in increased production costs. These costs could
be passed on to the consumer but consumers may benefit from increased confidence in
organic livestock products. Stakeholders voiced concerns that this would be extremely
difficult for certain livestock sectors where the breeding stock is not currently available.
Part organic pullets – An exception to use part organic pullets has been in place in the
current regulation to allow time for the Commission to develop standards for pullet rearing.
As the proposal removes the ability to use part organic pullets, rearing standards have
been provided in the proposal under annex II part II.
Feed ingredients – The use of certain feed materials and additives and processing aids is
limited to those pursuant to Article 19 and will therefore be listed under an
implementing/delegated act. The impacts of these changes are unclear until the authorised
lists are published in delegated acts by the Commission. It could have a negative impact
on feed processors if materials they are currently using are no longer allowed. This may
lead to increased costs or the necessity to alter ingredients.
Non-organic feed materials from plant origin will be no longer permitted for use. This is a
significant concern for the pig and poultry sectors that have had an exception to allow the
use of 5% non-organic feed due to the lack of availability of organic ingredients that
contain the essential amino acids required for good animal welfare. Sourcing these feed
ingredients remains extremely difficult and will become increasingly problematic if the
increased percentages of feed to be produced from the ‘region’ are introduced.
Consumers may benefit in terms of increased confidence from this proposal. However they
8
may also face a price increase if processors pass their costs to consumers. The proposal
also states that specific non-organic ingredients will no longer be allowed to be temporarily
authorised. This is a concern as temporary authorisations provide necessary flexibility
under catastrophic circumstances when organic feed materials become unavailable.
Feed source– The percentage of feed required to be ‘produced on the farm or if this is not
feasible, from the same region’ has increased from 60% to 90% for bovine, ovine and
caprine; and from 20% to 60% for porcine and poultry. The impact associated with this
depends on the definition of region which is not defined in the proposal. If ‘region’ is
confined to a small area, farmers may face difficulty in changing farm cropping patterns to
grow more feed. On the other hand, if region is interpreted as Europe then this provision
would have reduced impact but the increased percentages may still not be achievable for
some species. Stakeholders have suggested that the required amounts of cereal and
protein feed ingredients are not produced in Europe meaning that this provision could
cause serious problems. The Commission introduced this provision to ensure organic
meat production meets consumer expectations. In their stakeholder consultation 49% of
respondents stated that organic livestock should be fed with 100% feed from the farm or
region. However, it has been suggested that a percentage requirement is not an
appropriate way to achieve this goal.
The proposal still allows the use of up to 100% in conversion (second year) feedstuffs if it
is produced on the agricultural holding. However, the maximum amount of first year
conversion feedstuffs permitted for use has declined from 20% to 15% and there is a
reduction from 30% to 20% for bought in-conversion (second year) feedstuffs. There is
also a potential change to the transhumance requirements. Previously feed consumed
during transhumance was allowed to make up 10% of the total feed ration and the
proposal now limits transhumance to 35 days.
Dehorning – The proposal introduces a ban on dehorning and other mutilations.
Clarification is required on what the dehorning ban covers to evaluate whether some
current UK practices would be permitted or not. There are concerns relating to both animal
welfare and health and safety of farm workers if all types of dehorning were to be banned.
b) Plant production rules (Annex II part I).
Requirement for plant and plant reproductive material to be organically produced – The
proposal requires organically produced plant reproductive material to be used for the
production of plants and plant products. This requirement means that Member States can
no longer authorise the use of non-organic seed or vegetative propagating material if
they’re not available in organic form. The Commission argues that this will contribute to the
development of the market for organic seeds and ensure that organic products meet
consumer expectations. This is likely to have significant impacts as there is a range of
seeds that are not currently available in organic form as their production is not
commercially viable. If these seeds were made available it could increase the production
costs of organic crops and therefore increase the cost for consumers. If the seeds were
9
not made available it could limit the range of organic products available to consumers
which would restrict the growth of the sector. The Commission would be empowered to
adopt a delegated act to set out transitional rules for the move the rules for plants and
plant products. It is difficult to determine the implications of these changes without knowing
the proposed transitional measures. The proposal introduces one exception to this rule
that plant reproductive material from a production unit in conversion to organic production
can be used or where the use of non-organic reproductive material is justified for use in
research or for genetic resources conservation purposes agreed by the Competent
Authority.
Organic Seeds database - The organic seeds database is still required in the proposal,
however the details for establishment of the database would be set out in a delegated act
so it is unclear whether there will be any changes to the current system.
c) Seaweed and aquaculture production rules (Annex II part III).
More detailed EU rules for seaweed and aquaculture have been included in the proposal.
In the current regulation, Member States are permitted to certify to national or private
standards for aquaculture. This will no longer be possible with the new regulation. See
article 12 and the specific production rules set out in Part III of Annex II for more detail.
d) Processed food and processed feed production rules (Annex II part IV)
Agricultural Ingredients - As in the current regulation, the proposal requires processed food
to be produced mainly (95%) from organic agricultural ingredients. However, the proposal
removes the ability for the Competent Authority to authorise the use of non-organic food
and feed materials where they are not available on the market in organic form. It does
retain a list of permitted non-organic agricultural ingredients (see list in annex II, part IV
paragraph 2.2.4). Compared to Annex IX in the current regulation (889/2008) this list has a
reduction in the types of edible fruits, nuts and seeds authorised for use, reduction in types
of edible spices and herbs authorised for use, reduction in types of sugars, starches and
other products from cereals and tubers authorised for use. The listings for animal products
and fats and oils remain the same as in the current regulation. There is a concern that
more flexibility to temporarily authorise might be required for catastrophic circumstances if
ingredients become unavailable. Equally, there are certain ingredients such as certain
types of hops for beer that are not available in organic form and would need to continue to
be permitted for use to allow the continuation of production of certain products. There are
concerns that this provision will hinder the development of new types of organic products if
non-organic agricultural ingredients are not permitted for use where they are not available
in organic form.
Permitted substances – In the proposal, permitted processing aids, food additives and
food enzymes to be used as food additives have to be authorised for use in organic
production pursuant to Article 19. This list has not yet been published and therefore the
potential changes cannot be evaluated. As in the current regulation, the proposal retains
ability to use natural flavourings; colours for stamping meat and eggshells; drinking water
and salt; minerals, vitamins, amino acids and micronutrients as far as their use is legally
required.
10
Yeast - The requirement for yeast and yeast products to be calculated as agricultural
ingredients has been in place since the 31st Dec 2013 and remains a requirement in the
proposal.
e) Wine production (Annex II part V)
There are no changes to the production rules in the current regulation (see article 14 and
the specific production rules set out in Part V of Annex II). However, substances permitted
for use would need to be pursuant to article 19 and we do not yet know what will be
included in the lists of authorised substances. As stated in the current regulation, the
proposal also states that certain oenological practices, processes and treatments shall be
re-examined by the Commission before 1 August 2015 with a view to phase out or to
further restrict those practices, it is unclear how this would work with the new regulation
coming into force in 2017.
8.3 Labelling (Chapter IV)
The labelling requirements in the proposal are largely the same as in the current
regulation. As before, processed food should only be labelled as organic where at least
95% by weight of its agricultural ingredients are organic.
Indication ‘EU’ or ‘non-EU’ – The proposal provides that in relation to labelling ingredients
origin, small quantities by weight of ingredients may be disregarded provided that the total
quantity of the disregarded ingredients does not exceed 5% of the total quantity by weight
of agricultural raw materials. This is an increase in percentage from the current 2% for
labelling of origin of minor ingredients. This would be positive for producers of processed
goods who may benefit from increased flexibility and potentially decreased production
costs. Consumers may be negatively affected through the restriction of information
concerning the good they are purchasing.
Unlike the current regulation, there are no specific references to labelling requirements in
the proposal applicable to: organic feed; in-conversion products of plant origin; vegetative
propagating material and seeds for cultivation. The labelling requirements in the proposal
only cover organically produced products, ingredients or feed materials. This leaves the
labelling of in-conversion products of plant origin and vegetative propagating materials and
seeds unclear.
8.4 Trade regime
Equivalence agreements - In order to tackle unbalanced equivalence agreements where
Third Countries can export to the EU but exports to Third Countries are limited, the
proposal phases out the system of unilateral equivalency in exchange for a reciprocal
recognition of equivalence approach through trade agreements with key export markets.
This could have significant benefits for EU producers who would have better access to
international markets and a more level playing field with other international producers.
However, there are some concerns that the Commission would favour Third Countries in
11
which there is export potential for EU producers, potentially excluding less developed
countries.
Shift to compliance regime – In order to tackle inconsistencies with equivalent standards
for control bodies in Third Countries, the proposal removes the provisions for equivalence
agreements with control bodies. Control body recognition would shift to a compliance
regime which requires the control bodies to certify that exporters fully comply with the EU
regulations. Recognition of current equivalent control authorities and control bodies would
expire on 31 December 2018. The Commission argues that this would result in fairer
competition and reduce the current disadvantages to EU producers of cheaper Third
Country imports resulting from less stringent production rules. However there are some
concerns that it will limit the number of exporters from developing countries where the
environmental conditions are very different to those in the EU and as a result may not be
able to meet the strict EU requirements. This could have knock on effects for producers in
the EU not being able to source products and ingredients and could result in a decline in
product variety available to consumers. In order to create a level playing field for the
supervision of control bodies by the Commission, the proposal includes a new requirement
for the accreditation of Control Bodies that certify exporters to be members of IAF.
Stakeholders have voiced concerns that the changes would create a two tiered system
where some operators would have to be compliant to EU standards whereas others (in
countries with trade agreements) would only have to show equivalence to EU standards
resulting in trade advantages for some operators. This could also result in a loss of
consumer confidence due to confusion about which imports were produced to what
standards.
A delegated act would be used to develop transitional measures from the old trade regime
to the new regime to minimise the impact.
Exports – The proposal also includes a provision to develop export certificates to improve
traceability of imports and exports. Details would be developed in a delegated act and
therefore it is difficult to evaluate the potential implications.
8.5 Certification and Control system
Group certification – The proposal introduces the possibility of group certification for smallscale farms (< 5Ha) to reduce certification cost and administrative burden. The detailed
arrangements for group certification would be established in delegated and implementing
acts providing additional criteria to the current 5ha limit which is not sufficient on its own.
Therefore it is difficult to evaluate the potential benefits. The impact would depend on the
current structure of organic producers within the UK and whether they would be in a
position to benefit from this change. There has been general stakeholder support for this
provision but concerns about how it would work in practice.
12
Limit to one certifier – The proposal restricts operators from being certified by more than
one control body for the same groups of products across different stages of the organic
supply chain to reduce the risk of fraud. There are concerns about this change as some
operators are certified by more than one control body to gain access to new markets and
this change could restrict access to trade.
Risk based approach to official controls – The proposal removes the requirement for
mandatory annual verification of compliance through inspections. This would allow low risk
operators to be physically inspected less than once a year while higher risk operators
would be more closely targeted. The Commission argue that this would be a more efficient
use of resources. This could over time result in better compliance with regulations as
operators have the incentive of reduced resources spent on inspections if they can prove
they are low risk. The impacts would be dependent on the methodology used to calculate
risk. Defra has seen general support for the move to a risk based approach to controls and
the view that it would be in line with the UK Governments approach to earned recognition.
Control system provisions moved to Official Food and Feed Controls (OFFC) regulation –
The provisions relating to the control system have been moved into the OFFC regulation
(recast 882/2004) so that all control requirements for organic production are in one
regulation. The regulation replacing EC Reg 882/2004 is currently being negotiated
meaning the implications are currently unknown. Concerns have been voiced about the
movement of the control to a regulation under DG SANCO rather than DG AGRI who do
not have the same level of expertise on organic production requirements. The Commission
has confirmed that the organic committee under DG AGRI would be involved in the
development of the organic specific control measures.
Residue testing – The proposal introduces new provisions that mean where any nonauthorised products or substances are present beyond given levels the product can’t be
marketed as organic. This represents a major change of approach from the current
regulation in which controls are process focussed rather than product focussed. Currently,
in the UK, if an unauthorised substance is discovered in a product an investigation into the
cause of the presence of unauthorised substance should be carried out to establish
whether it was intentional or adventitious. However, this approach is not harmonised
across Member States. The Commission suggest that by providing a regulatory baseline,
fair competition will be supported.
There has been strong opposition to this change in the initial stakeholder meetings. The
change of approach would mean that any products contaminated with unauthorised
substances unintentionally (e.g. from neighbouring farms) would still lose their organic
status and this could result in a number of complex liability issues. This raises a number of
concerns as a fully compliant organic producer could suffer the consequences of loss of
the ability to sell their products as organic even though they have met the organic
production standards. There would also be additional costs to industry for laboratory tests.
These costs are difficult to quantify as testing requirements are to be detailed in a
delegated act. On the other hand, a harmonised approach is favourable and a clear
penalty on the presence of non-authorised substance residues will increase efforts to
13
prevent contamination. The Commission argues that this could reduce the future risk of
eroding consumer confidence in the organic market.
Action in the event of non-compliances – The proposal empowers the Commission to
adopt delegated acts to lay down rules on actions and measures to be taken in the case of
non-compliance or suspicion of non-compliance with the aim to harmonise the actions
taken across the EU for the same type of non-compliance. This would create a level
playing field across the EU to ensure the proper functioning of the internal market.
However, without seeing the categorisation of types of non-compliance and the suggested
actions it is difficult to assess the potential implications.
8.6 Delegated Acts
Throughout the proposal the Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts to amend
annexes and lay down certain detailed rules, as well as implementing acts for lists such as
recognised control bodies and authorised substances. Under the Lisbon Treaty delegated
acts were introduced to give the Commission ‘limited powers to make minor changes to
laws, provided these do not affect the "core" legislation decided by Parliament and the
Council’. The Commission is given the power to adopt ‘non-legislative acts of general
application to supplement or amend certain non-essential elements of a legislative act’.
The process for adopting delegated acts is as follows: The Commission drafts the
delegated act and submits it to the European Parliament (EP) and Council. No formal
opinion of a committee (e.g. SCOF) is needed; the Commission will be assisted by an
expert group and might consult other stakeholders. The EP and Council will be given a
period of time set by the legislative act in which to object. The delegation of power to the
Commission may be revoked at any time by the EP and/or the Council. If there is no
objection the delegated act is adopted and will enter into force. If there is an objection from
either the EP or the Council the delegated act will not be adopted.
There are concerns that a number of the provisions in this proposal under delegated acts
are not non-essential elements (despite being covered only in the annexes) and therefore
should not be amended by the Commission without sufficient consultation with Member
States or assessment of the impacts. Furthermore, these acts have not yet been published
which makes it difficult to evaluate the potential impacts of the proposals and causes a
large degree of uncertainty for producers and operators.
Defra’s legal team are currently reviewing the use of delegated and implementing acts in
the proposal to evaluate whether they have been used in compliance with the Lisbon
Treaty. A specific working party covering delegated and implementing acts has been
requested for the Commission to explain their intentions to Member States.
14