Group Certification. Internal Control Systems in Organic Agriculture: Significance, Opportunities and Challenges

About 80% of the world’s organic producers are smallholders in low and middle income countries, for whom individual certification would be unaffordable and administratively too complex to manage. These producers are recognised as organic due to group certification, a system in which groups of farmers implement an Internal Control System (ICS) and are certified by a third party certification body, which assesses the performance of the ICS and performs a representative number of spot-check inspections of group members. The approach of using ICS based group certification was pioneered by IFOAM – Organics International (IFOAM) and Fair Trade over the past twenty years has been adopted by the entire organic sector, including the EU and the US National Organic Programme. Very similar approaches are used, and have been further developed, by other voluntary sustainability certification programmes. Group certification is the only way that smallholder farmers in low-income countries can access certified international markets and besides reducing certification costs and complexity it also provides other important benefits. Yet, despite the (increasing) global importance of group certification in organic agriculture, there have been few studies that explicitly address the specific issues related to it. This study aims to fill that gap. It examines the current scale and scope of group certification by region and country and draws on a literature review, a stakeholder survey and expert interviews in order to identify the strengths of, success factors, and challenges facing, ICS. It assesses the importance of the individual elements of ICS, how effectively they are implemented and the opportunities for the further development of group certificatio

Nachhaltigkeitsbewertung von Landwirtschaftsbetrieben nach den SAFA-Leitlinien

To promote a common concept of sustainability assessment, the FAO published guidelines for the Sustainability Assessment of Food and Agriculture Systems (SAFA). The aim of this paper is to present and discuss a method, which operationalises the SAFA-Guidelines at farm level, based on the concept of Multi-Criteria Analysis. The assessment method determines the degree of goal achievement of the 58 SAFA subthemes using a set of over 300 indicators, which is adapted according to farm type and region. It is therefore globally applicable, able to identify differences in different areas of sustainability between farms and can complement existing methods such as LCA

Uncertainty Assessment in Multi-Criteria Sustainability Assessments

How can indicator weights for multi-criteria sustainability assessments be determined based on experts' opinions? How do different opinions affect the results of sustainability assessments

Taking a snapshot of Extension and Advisory Systems performance and outcomes: insights on a semi-quantitative evaluation approach

Purpose To evaluate pluralistic Extension and Advisory Services (EAS) systems performance and outcomes, and share the experiences made with applying a participatory semi-quantitative approach allowing for cross-country comparability. Design/methodology/approach The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) developed the ‘Extension and Advisory Services (EAS) System – Yardstick’ (EAS-Y), a semi-quantitative assessment approach relying on expert-based scores to evaluate the EAS system performance on the one hand, and users’ scores to measure the system outcomes on the other. The tool was applied in three countries, Costa Rica, Ecuador, and Peru. Findings Results revealed an overall weak performance on most assessed criteria. Experts pointed out a lack of adequate policies addressing agricultural extension, insufficient funding, and poor infrastructure. On the other hand, the increased focus on sustainability, increased inclusiveness levels, and steady uptake of digitalization technologies are areas where progress was recently made. On the outcomes side, users perceived EAS contributed mainly to acquiring technical skills, while less to entrepreneurial and social skills. Practical Implications EAS-Y represented a user-friendly and cost-effective solution to identify performance gaps and assess outcomes in a semi-quantitative way. Therefore, we consider the latter has the potential to be applied to prioritize areas for intervention and guide decision-making processes. Theoretical implications The commonly existing data gap not allowing for a quantitative evaluation of pluralistic EAS systems can be overcome using a participatory evaluation tool that relies on expert and user’s judgments. Originality/Value We used an innovative evaluation approach to assess pluralistic extension systems in three Latin American countries

Representative Farm-Based Sustainability Assessment of the Organic Sector in Switzerland Using the SMART-Farm Tool

The agricultural sector faces serious environmental, social and economic challenges. In response, there has been a proliferation of labels and certifications aiming to ensure minimum farm sustainability performance. Organic agriculture (OA) a prominent example, having received substantial research attention relating to agronomic and environmental performance. While international OA movements are evolving to include broader sustainability aspirations, limited research exists on the social and economic performance of OA. To address this, we conducted a representative farm-based assessment of the Swiss organic sector to evaluate its contribution to sustainability across a wide range of themes based on the FAO Sustainability of Agriculture and Food Assessment (SAFA) Guidelines. We assessed 185 farms using the Sustainability Assessment and Monitoring RouTine (SMART) Farm Tool, chosen through stratified random sampling by farm type and agricultural zone. The results indicate that the Swiss organic sector makes a substantially positive contribution to sustainability, with average scores for theme goal achievement of 62% (Good Governance), 77% (Environmental Integrity), 70% (Economic Resilience), and 87% (Social Well-being). A set of 45 influential indicators (28 for plant production/mix farms and 30 for livestock farms) were selected based on the ability to explain variance (using Principal Component Analysis) and importance for goal achievement. The indicator sets explained a large amount of variation (ca. 70% for both farm types) and revealed a snapshot of management topics relevant to sustainability performance across the sector. These covered socio-political engagement, emissions to air and water, biodiversity, animal welfare, profitability, vulnerability, product quality, local economy, capacity building, and workplace risks. The spread of results across the sample, and comparisons to secondary data (literature and official statistics), revealed the importance of both well-studied issues (e.g., wide spread of energy consumption, variable yield levels/stability, local value chain dynamics) and more novel insights (e.g., strong political engagement, variable price premiums, lacking social security of farming families, insecure land tenure). We propose these topics as a basis for deeper analysis, designing improvement measures and conducting comparative research. This would bring much-needed breadth into the typically narrow debate surrounding the relative merits of OA

Using the Sustainability Monitoring and Assessment Routine (SMART) for the Systematic Analysis of Trade-Offs and Synergies between Sustainability Dimensions and Themes at Farm Level

When trying to optimize the sustainability performance of farms and farming systems, a consideration of trade-offs and synergies between different themes and dimensions is required. The aim of this paper is to perform a systematic analysis of trade-offs and synergies across all dimensions and themes. To achieve this aim we used the Sustainability Monitoring and Assessment Routine (SMART)-Farm Tool which operationalizes the Sustainability Assessment of Food and Agriculture Systems (SAFA) Guidelines by defining science-based indicator sets and assessment procedures. It identifies the degree of goal achievement with respect to the 58 themes defined in the SAFA Guidelines using an impact matrix that defines 327 indicators and 1769 relations between sustainability themes and indicators. We illustrate how the SMART-Farm Tool can be successfully applied to assess the sustainability performance of farms of different types and in different geographic regions. Our analysis revealed important synergies between themes within a sustainability dimension and across dimensions. We found major trade-offs within the environmental dimension and between the environmental and economic dimension. The trade-offs within the environmental dimension were even larger than the trade-offs with other dimensions. The study also underlines the importance of the governance dimension with regard to achieving a good level of performance in the other dimensions

Do organic farming initiatives in Sub-Saharan Africa improve the sustainability of smallholder farmers? Evidence from five case studies in Ghana and Kenya

Organic agriculture (OA) is often regarded as a sustainable agricultural pathway for smallholder farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa, and an increasing number of initiatives promoting OA were initiated over the last decades. However, holistic empirical evidence on the effects of such initiatives on the sustainability of smallholder farmers is still scanty. We analyzed the effects of five initiatives promoting OA on farm-level sustainability. We selected farmers exposed to the initiatives (n = 678) and control farms (n = 957) in five different case studies, two implemented in Ghana and three in Kenya. We used a farm-level multi-criteria assessment tool that evaluates to what extent the environmental, social, economic, and governance sustainability goals formulated in the FAO-SAFA Guidelines are addressed by farmers. We found that the initiatives had limited effects on reducing farmers reliance on chemical inputs use (pesticides and synthetic fertilizers) and uptake of organic or agro-ecological practices. Nevertheless, the results show that the initiatives were able to trigger significant (p-value < 0.05) positive effects mainly for the environmental sustainability goals. In contrast, the goals within the economic, social and good governance sustainability dimensions were rarely affected. Moreover, certified initiatives had more frequently a positive sustainability effect compared to uncertified initiatives

Serum Anti-Müllerian Hormone Is Significantly Altered by Downregulation With Daily Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone Agonist: A Prospective Cohort Study

Research Question: What is the effect of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH)-agonist treatment on serum anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH)?Design: This prospective cohort study conducted in a tertiary university hospital comprised patients (n = 52) who self-administered daily triptorelin (0.1 mg/0.1 mL) subcutaneously for 14 days from menstrual cycle day 21 ± 3, between July 2015 and March 2016. Enrolled women were 18–43 years old, considered normal ovarian responders, with a planned GnRH agonist controlled ovarian stimulation protocol. The primary endpoint was to evaluate the effect of GnRH agonist on serum AMH levels after 7 and 14 days of treatment.Results: Under GnRH agonist treatment, serum AMH was significantly decreased vs. baseline on day 7 (mean change from baseline: −0.265 ng/mL; 95% confidence interval [CI], −0.395 to −0.135 ng/mL; p &lt; 0.001). On day 14, serum AMH was significantly increased (mean change from baseline: 0.289 ng/mL; 95% CI, 0.140–0.439 ng/mL; p &lt; 0.001). Although the median change in AMH from baseline was only −14.9% on day 7 and +17.4% on day 14, from day 7 to 14 AMH significantly increased by 0.55 ng/mL (43.8%; p &lt; 0.001), which is of paramount clinical importance. A linear, mixed-effect model demonstrated that GnRH agonist treatment for 7 and 14 days had a highly significant effect on serum AMH concentration after adjustment for confounding factors (age, body mass index, baseline antral follicle count, and visit). AMH assay precision was excellent (four aliquots/sample); coefficient of variation was 1.2–1.4%.Conclusions: GnRH agonist treatment had a clinically significant effect on serum AMH, dependent on treatment duration. The clear V-shaped response of AMH level to daily GnRH agonist treatment has important clinical implications for assessing ovarian reserve and predicting ovarian response, thus AMH measurements under GnRH agonist downregulation should be interpreted with great caution

Assessing agro-ecological practices using a combination of three sustainability assessment tools

This paper is based on results from the research project UNISECO, which is funded by European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 773901.We would like to thank all the farmers, farm organisations and stakeholders of the multi-actor platforms of the UNISECO project who contributed to the data collection. We also like to thank Andreas Basler whose corrections improved the comprehensibility of the paper.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Comparative Analysis of Organic Farming in the EU: Implications for Crop Protection Costs, Labour, and Income

The European Union (EU) aims to increase the adoption of organic farming as part of its Farm to Fork Strategy. However, farmers face various adoption hurdles, such as the efficacy of crop protection, as well as implications for crop yields, costs, labour and ultimately farm income. Yet, we currently lack comprehensive large-scale empirical evidence on the economics of organic farming in the EU. Therefore, this study assesses the economic performance of organic farming in the EU using a large-scale cross-country dataset. It consists of an unbalanced panel of 151,560 non-organic and 10,531 organic farms from the European Farm Accountancy Data Network, covering seven different farm types and 16 EU countries. Our analysis specifically focuses on crop protection expenditures, total crop specific costs, as well as labour and gross farm income on a per hectare basis. We find that organic farming adoption significantly reduces crop protection expenditures as well as total crop specific costs across all farming types. Differences in farm-level labour inputs between organic and non-organic farms turned out to be only minor. Farm income is smaller for organic farms without subsidies but higher when accounting for subsidies. However, all effects are highly heterogeneous across farm types and across space. Our study contributes to a better understanding of the economic implications of organic farming within the EU. These insights can inform both practitioners and policy decision-makers and facilitate the achievement of regional organic farming targets