Organic certification systems and farmers' livelihoods in New Zealand

Abstract

Certification is becoming increasingly important in organic agriculture for the marketing of organic products. This makes certification central for organic farmers and can have major effects on their livelihoods. Over time, different certification schemes have been developed. Third Party Certification (TPC) currently is the prevailing certification scheme in developed countries. External auditing to encompassing standards makes it relatively expensive. Thus, Participatory Guarantee Systems (PGS) have been developed to cater for farmers who cannot afford high certification fees. The research aim of this study is to identify the effects these certification schemes on farmers' livelihoods in New Zealand and what the specific differences between the schemes are. Therefore, the study compares three certification schemes in New Zealand, namely BioGro, AgriQuality (both TPC) and OrganicFarmNewZealand (PGS), with respect to their impacts on the farmers' livelihoods. The research was carried out using a qualitative research approach with semi-structured interviews of farmers and staff from the above-mentioned certification organisations. From the collected data, several topics emerged that were sorted and analysed using the Sustainable Livelihood Framework to identify the links between certification schemes and organic farmers' livelihoods. It was found that all certification systems that were part of this study contributed to the 'success' of their farmers, when success is defined as the achievement of farmers' livelihood goals. The TPC schemes (AgriQuality and BioGro) formed the basis of success for many large and medium-scale farmers. They accommodated complex and large, but also some smaller production systems, and allowed for the export of products. They generally supported business and export oriented agriculture. On the other hand, the PGS (Organic Farm New Zealand) was very important for the success of small-scale farmers, supposedly due to the good support systems achieved through its group structure. It was supportive of networks and participatory and community based agriculture.