Organic conference in Kyiv a great success

228 participants from 25 countries attended the first international organic conference in the capital of Ukraine from 10 – 12 April 2008. The event in Kyiv (three million inhabitants), formerly Kiev, was intended to incentivise countries in the region to engage intensively with organic agriculture and marketing. Eugene Milovanov from the Organic Federation of Ukraine and his co-organiser Gerald Herrmann from Organic Services were very pleased that the conference was such a success.

Picture: The organizers were very satisfied with the event 

The aim of the conference that hosted some high-level speakers was to present status quo reports from Ukraine and neighbouring countries, to learn from the experience of the EU and to build up a network of players. Examples of best practice were presented in the working groups with the aim of stimulating discussion and emulation.

There are very diverse levels of development among the organic movements in the countries that made up the former Soviet Union. Whilst the dictatorial conditions prevailing in White Russia practically preclude the development of organic structures, in Georgia, a small country in the Caucasus, there are 400 members in the organic association Elkana. And whereas the 90 large-scale businesses in Ukraine are wholly export oriented, for Georgia the priority is establishing its own domestic market. All the participants at the conference agreed, however, that there was huge development potential in the various national markets and in exporting. Obstacles to trade arising from national legislation, language difficulties and the lack of organisational structures are the main problems faced by the emerging organic movement in Eastern Europe outside the EU.

(picture on the left/Ulrich Hellberg: one-day excursion to a 8000 hectare farm with 460 employees, which works according to organic standards since 30 years: Semen Antonets explains to a group of farm visitors the soil. Large fields and trees as windbreaks)

But there were no language barriers at the excellently organised Kyiv organic conference. Just under half of the 228 people taking part came from Ukraine, with a good quarter from the other former Soviet Republics and the rest from Western Europe (mainly Germany). Outstanding were Gerald Herrmann and Susanne Krause from Organic Services, as co-organisers with the Organic Federation of Ukraine. About 30 helpers associated with the Ukrainian organic association made sure everything in the coffee breaks and in the office ran without a hitch. With 42 lectures, briefing the presenters and speakers, and providing simultaneous interpreting from English into Russian and Russian into English was a masterpiece of organisation. Everything down to the last detail had been prepared, including a shuttle service from the hotels to the conference venue in the Agricultural University of Ukraine (picture).

Right at the beginning of the conference, the political perspective was dealt with by representatives from the Ukrain Ministry of Agriculture, the EU, FAO, IFOAM and the Organic Federation of Ukraine. Oleksandr Demydov, from the Ukrainian Ministry of Agriculture in Kyiv, talked about the progress made in organic agriculture in Ukraine in recent years. He said that 260 000 ha (0.6 % of agricultural land) were being cultivated organically. In terms of organic area, Ukraine was 19th out of 200 countries. The aim was to raise the organic production of the complete agricultural harvest to not less than 10 % by 2015, which is an increase by a factor of almost 20. He explained that an action plan for organic agriculture and an organic law were being prepared. Since there was currently hardly any domestic organic marketing in Ukraine, he recommended creating specialist organic stores in his country.

(Podium: Rainer Krell, Eugene Milovanov, Sergey Melnychuk, Isabelle Peutz, Gerald Herrmann, Oleksandr Demydov)

Isabelle Peutz, representing the EU Commission’s Directorate General for Agriculture at the conference, saw great opportunities: “There are 490 million consumers in the EU on Ukraine’s doorstep.” This was important for animal feed and products like wine as well. From January 1. 2009 the new Organic Regulation allowed organic wines to be labelled as such. She pointed out that the organic market in the EU had developed best of all in countries where the government was itself aiming to promote organic development by, for example, initiating its own programmes.

(picture on the right: the initiator of the conference Eugene Milovanov together with Viktor Ananias and an Victor Suprunov, member of an organic farm - carrying a bag that was created for the conference - in front of the university)

Rainer Krell, who represented the FAO in Rome, expressed his conviction that organic involved more than just a method of cultivating the land. He stressed the point that a worldwide change in lifestyle was called for, and this move towards sustainable development had already been achieved in some countries. His message was that organic agriculture could deliver far more than just food without residues – it was able to make a big contribution to feeding the world and promoting health. As a member of FAO, Ukraine could in the same way as other countries put forward joint projects for consideration.

IFOAM President, Gerald Herrmann (in the front of picture) reminded people of the time when the world was divided into two blocks. In the meantime, the pioneers from those days had moved a long way forward and now an organic network had been created covering the whole of Europe. Since there were no longer any barriers, anybody could now get involved and help to shape developments.

Marco Schlüter from the IFOAM EU Group gave a clear explanation of how the representation of organic interests in Brussels functioned. “Although the industry lobby is much bigger and better, the NGOs operate very effectively and are well received by parliamentarians and the administration. It is important to be a part of the Brussels structure in order to play a part.” Mr Schlüter also went into the process leading up to the organic action plan, and into its main drawback, namely the shortage of finance.

Hanspeter Schmidt (picture on the right), a lawyer well known for specialising in organic issues, dealt with the new EU Organic Regulation. He explained that it contained more or less the same as the existing version, but it was differently structured. He criticised the fact that only wine and aquaculture, but not textiles and cosmetics, had been included. His recommendation to the burgeoning organic movements in Eastern Europe: it was better if they worked out guidelines for themselves rather than leaving it to governments. Mr Schmidt regretted the ‘huge problems’ that the postponement of the EU organic logo was going to cause.

Professor Ulrich Hamm (picture) from the University of Kassel – an expert in the statistics of organics – stated in his talk that the world was increasingly dividing into countries using and not using gene technology. However, more and more retail food chains were on the side of organics in order to give their customers maximum food safety. For him, only certified organic agriculture could guarantee protection of food from undesirable pesticide pollution or gene technology by controlling the whole production process from the farmer’s field to the consumer’s plate. (picture: Hamm criticised an adulterating press article)

Professor Hamm warned against introducing high levels of subsidy per unit of land. In his opinion, the market with its high or low prices was the better regulator. Surplus production led to the collapse of prices and ultimately to a return to conventional farming, as could be seen in isolated cases in Germany, Denmark and Austria. Instead, the ‘polluter pays’ system ought to be introduced, whereby artificial fertilisers and pesticides were taxed and therefore made more expensive. Consequently, he recommended that the countries of Eastern Europe should devise their own organic legislation, in order that both producers and consumers enjoyed the protection of the law. He also advocated the introduction of a national organic logo so that consumers would be in a better position to support domestically produced organic products.

The part of Professor Hamm’s talk dealing with the organic industry’s orientation towards the domestic market or exporting was particularly interesting. The advantages of catering for domestic consumers were greater independence and creating a variety of marketing structures. The disadvantages were the long time it took and the relatively low conversion rate over the years.  Also, large scale production brought no cost advantages. Concentrating on exports - and there is currently strong demand worldwide - producers were very dependent on exchange rates and on individual large-scale customers. High levels of investment in the early phase were usually unavoidable.

(picture: Gerold Rahmann, head of the research institute in Trenthorst, describes its activities)
 

At the end of the conference, and to the applause of the audience, IFOAM President Gerald Herrmann read out the ‘Kyiv-Declaration’ that stated among other things: “Market development must focus on domestic as well as regional and export markets and should not favour one market sector alone. Financial support programmes should be targeted equally to supporting farmers, market development and raising consumer awareness.”

(picture: Eugene Milovanov proudly presents the first official stamps of an organic conference)

www.organic.com.ua

There will be another article concerning the countries which were presented at the conference.

Internet:

Organic Federation of Ukraine: www.organic.com.ua

The presentations of the speakers will be on this website beginning May 2008.

FAO-Brochure concerning organic agriculture: www.fao.org/organicag

Avalon Foundation: www.avalon.nl