Participatory organic certification in Mexico: an alternative approach to maintaining the integrity of the organic label

Abstract

Over the past two decades the growth of the organic sector has been accompanied by a shift away from first party, or peer review, systems of certification and towards third party certification, in which a disinterested party is responsible for the development of organic standards and the verification of producer compliance. This paper explores some of the limitations of the third party certification model and presents the case of Mexico as an example of how an alternative form of participatory certification has emerged. The paper suggests that participatory guarantee systems (PGS) are reflective of the growing ''beyond organic'' movement, which focuses on reconstructing the local and re-embedding food systems into their socio-ecological contexts. It argues that PGS offers a number of benefits for producers and consumers, particularly in the South, but that it faces a number of challenges as well, such as a lack of formal recognition, social conflicts and dependence on donated resources.

Norwegian farmers ceasing certified organic production: Characteristics and reasons

“…The South is leading with regard to the alternative certification systems (IFOAM, 2009;Nelson et al, 2010). In Norway, the PGS approach may be particularly appealing for deregistrants who retain organic methods and who are involved in consumer-direct marketing.…”

Participatory Guarantee Systems (PGS) in Mexico: a theoretic ideal or everyday practice?

“…Due to its high degree of standardisation, TPC is deemed by some to be incapable of accounting for the diverse economic, ecological and sociocultural environments of organic farming (Fouilleux and Loconto 2017;Källander 2008;Meirelles 2003) or allowing the adaptation of organic production systems to local contexts, a core element of organic farming (Raynolds 2004;Vogl et al 2005). TPC is also associated with the so-called "conventionalization" of organic farming (Darnhofer 2006;Nelson et al 2010). TPC's focus on outcome and the provision of guarantees through annual visits by external inspectors are considered contradictory to farmers' self-determination and empowerment, an impediment to their political involvement and an encouragement of the concentration of power in the hands of TPC bodies (Andrade 2015;Beck and Walgenbach 2003;Källander 2008;Meirelles 2003;Schulze et al 2006;Velleda Caldas et al 2014).…”

“…Most of these alternatives can be classed as Participatory Guarantee Systems (PGS) (Nelson et al 2010(Nelson et al , 2016Raynolds 2004;Vogl and Axmann 2016).…”

“…PGS are also promoted as less costly and less bureaucratic than TPC (Nelson et al 2010;Sacchi et al 2015), more flexible and better adapted to the realities of smallholder farmers (Nelson et al 2016), and advocated as tools to foster their inclusion in organic production (Coscarello and Rodríguez-Labajos 2015). They are considered as a means for empowering smallholders and local stakeholders (Boza Martínez 2013;Nelson et al 2016), facilitating market access and strengthening local markets (IFOAM 2007;Käl-lander 2008).…”

“…They are considered as a means for empowering smallholders and local stakeholders (Boza Martínez 2013;Nelson et al 2016), facilitating market access and strengthening local markets (IFOAM 2007;Käl-lander 2008). PGS have also been promoted as mechanisms to facilitate sustainable community development (IFOAM 2007;Nelson et al 2010), foster knowledge creation and farmer-to-farmer knowledge exchange (Home et al 2017;Kirchner 2014), enhance farming communities' livelihoods (IFOAM 2007), support family agriculture (Coscarello and Rodríguez-Labajos 2015) and increase food security (Home and Nelson 2015;Nelson et al 2010) and food sovereignty (Nelson et al 2016).…”