Skip to main content

Participation in Standard Setting for the Agro-food Industry

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Democracy and Globalization

Part of the book series: Economic Analysis of Law in European Legal Scholarship ((EALELS,volume 10))

  • 273 Accesses

Abstract

Public and private standards are two different governance systems for the global agro-food system. The public standards are set by so called three sisters, the Codex Alimentarius Commission, the World Organisation for Animal Health and International Plant Protection Convention. Private standards are set by a wide variety of private organisations. This chapter asks the question of where the different sets of standards gain their legitimacy from and focus on participation as a way to create legitimacy. It finds that the three international organisations provide more or less transparent procedure to set their standards but a democratically control or election of the experts in the drafting committees is missing. Additionally favours the institutional setup of the organisations some interests, especially less and least developed countries and small-scale producers have difficulties to get their voice heard. So there is room for improvement. Concerning private voluntary standards the findings are also that improvement is needed. Due to the variety of different voluntary private standards a single finding apart from the fact, that also these kind of standards are not set by democratically elected and controlled bodies. The standard-setting bodies differ widely between single corporations and multi-stakeholder-initiatives. The private voluntary standards system provides options that can create meaningful participation, in particular because it can tackle issues that the WTO does not regulate such as environmental and social aspects of production and allows procedures to bring all relevant stakeholders together. However, the voluntary private system has also some flaws, mainly that it depends on the willingness of powerful corporations to improve the participation in the system. In the end, I argue that both governance systems can complement each other, but much improvement is needed in both systems to come to well-functioning solution.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Anderson (2010), p. 3011.

  2. 2.

    Anderson et al. (2010), p. 3.

  3. 3.

    Anderson (2010), p. 3011 ff.

  4. 4.

    Anderson et al. (2010), p. xviii.

  5. 5.

    Schleifer (2017), p. 688.

  6. 6.

    Busch (2011), p. 55 ff.

  7. 7.

    For trends in market concentration, see for example: Busch and Bain (2004), p. 329 ff.

  8. 8.

    Busch (2011), p. 56 f.

  9. 9.

    Busch (2011), p. 58.

  10. 10.

    Lee (2006), p. 8, available at https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/5494707/private-food-standards-and-their-impacts-on-developing-countries, accessed 31.October.2020.

  11. 11.

    Ibid.

  12. 12.

    GlobalGAP, ‘Tesco Nurture Module’ Globalgap.org, https://www.globalgap.org/uk_en/for-producers/globalg.a.p.-add-on/nurture-module/, accessed 19 September 2020.

  13. 13.

    Busch (2011), p. 58, 60.

  14. 14.

    Henson and Humphrey (2010), p. 1633.

  15. 15.

    Quality Assurance International, https://www.qai-inc.com/, accessed 19 September 2020.

  16. 16.

    Busch (2011), p. 61f.

  17. 17.

    Busch (2011), p. 58.

  18. 18.

    Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Preamble, available at https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/marrakesh_decl_e.pdf.

  19. 19.

    Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, Annex A No.1, available at https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/15sps_02_e.htm.

  20. 20.

    Pauwelyn (1999), p. 644.

  21. 21.

    Wouters and Geraets (2012), p. 483 ff; Hemler (2016), p. 250 ff; Bohanes and Sandford (2008), para 125, available at http://www.ssrn.com/link/SIEL-Inaugural-Conference.html, accessed 8 October 2020.

  22. 22.

    Tamiotti (2007), paragraph 18.

  23. 23.

    Panel Report, EC – Sardines, WT/DS231/R, paragraph 7.113, available at https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/SS/directdoc.aspx?filename=Q:/WT/DS/231R.pdf&Open=True, accessed 31 October 2020.

  24. 24.

    Sifonios (2018), p. 277ff.

  25. 25.

    Schroder (2011), p. 71 ff.

  26. 26.

    Sifonios (2018), p. 277 ff.

  27. 27.

    Sifonios (2018), p. 298 ff.

  28. 28.

    Grossmann (2003), p. 90 ff.

  29. 29.

    WTO, ‘Labour standards: consensus, coherence and controversy’ (Wto.org, 17 December 2018), https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/bey5_e.htm, accessed 15 June 2019.

  30. 30.

    Trebilcock et al. (2013), p. 656 ff.

  31. 31.

    See ‘Review of the Operation and Implementation of the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures’, 11 March, G/SPS/12 paragraph 18 available at https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/SS/directdoc.aspx?filename=Q:/G/SPS/12.pdf&Open=True accessed 31 October 2020; ‘Review of the Operation and Implementation of the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures’, 11 July2005, G/SPS/36, paragraph 42 available at https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/SS/directdoc.aspx?filename=Q:/G/SPS/36.pdf&Open=True accessed 31 October 2020. Are these available online?

  32. 32.

    FAO, ‘Report of the Evaluation of the Codex Alimentarius and other FAO and WHO Food Standards Work’, paragraph 138 (Fao.org, 15 November 2002), http://www.fao.org/3/y7871e/y7871e00.htm, accessed 8 October 2020.

  33. 33.

    WTO, ‘World Trade Report 2012’, 14.

  34. 34.

    Henson and Humphrey (2010), p. 1636.

  35. 35.

    Henson and Humphrey (2010), p. 1637 f.

  36. 36.

    Henson and Humphrey (2010), p. 1638.

  37. 37.

    Shaw et al. (2006), p. 1050.

  38. 38.

    Henson and Humphrey (2010), p. 1639.

  39. 39.

    Henson and Humphrey (2010), p. 1638 f.

  40. 40.

    Henson and Humphrey (2012), p. 105.

  41. 41.

    Henson and Humphrey (2012), p. 109. The mentioned Guide contained general requirements for third-party operating a product certification system.

  42. 42.

    Henson and Humphrey (2009), p. 9. https://www.fsis.usda.gov/shared/PDF/Codex_al32_09Dbe.pdf. accessed 31 October 2020.

  43. 43.

    Steven Jaffee, Spencer Henson, Luz Diaz Rios, ‘Making the Grade: Smallholder Farmers, Emerging Standards, and Development Assistance Programs in Africa. A Research Program Synthesis’, World Bank Report No. 62324-AFR, 2011, 27. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/2823/623240SR0White0W110Making0the0Grade.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y accessed 31 October 2020.

  44. 44.

    World Bank, ‘Horticultural Producers and Supermarket Development In Indonesia’, Report No. 38543-ID, 2007, vii. Same as above.

  45. 45.

    FAO, ‘The State of Agricultural Commodity Markets – Trade and food security: achieving a better balance between national priorities and the collective good’, 2015, 32 http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5090e.pdf accessed 31 October 2020.

  46. 46.

    Thomas (2014), p. 733.

  47. 47.

    Schouten and Bitzer (2015), p. 120, 176.

  48. 48.

    Bodansky (1999), p. 93, 599.

  49. 49.

    Risse (2006), p. 183 ff.

  50. 50.

    Subsection c) of Art. 25 ICCPR, which guarantees equal access to public services, can be seen as non-discrimination clause on a special issue. provide full reference to the document, as this does not seem complete. It is complete—it is an International Human Rights Treaty: https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CCPR.aspx.

  51. 51.

    CESCR, ‘General Comment No. 15’, paragraph 48. provide full reference to the document, as this does not seem complete Usually these documents are cited that way in human rights literature, they are all available at https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/TBSearch.aspx?Lang=en&TreatyID=9&DocTypeID=11.

  52. 52.

    CESCR, ‘General Comment No. 18’, para 42.

  53. 53.

    CESCR, ‘General Comment No. 19’, para 26 and para 69.

  54. 54.

    CESCR, ‘General Comment No. 23’, para 25.

  55. 55.

    CESCR, ‘General Comment No. 23’, para 21 and para 59.

  56. 56.

    Grant and Keohane (2005), p. 31 ff.

  57. 57.

    Annex A No. 3 a) of the SPS Agreement.

  58. 58.

    Article 2 of the CAC Procedural Manual, 24th edition, 2015, available at… http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5079e.pdf accessed 31 October 2020.

  59. 59.

    FAO, Codex Alimentarius http://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/about-codex/observers/observers/about/en/, accessed 3 January 2020.

  60. 60.

    Section 2 of the CAK Procedural Manual, 24th edition, 2015, available at … http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5079e.pdf.

  61. 61.

    Scott (2009), p. 246.

  62. 62.

    Post (2005), p. 170.

  63. 63.

    OIE, ‘Resolution XVI of 71st General Session’ 2003, available at https://www.oie.int/fileadmin/Home/eng/About_us/docs/pdf/A_Reso_2003_WP.pdf, accessed 8 October 2020.

  64. 64.

    OIE, ‘Sixth Strategic Plan 2016-2020’, 83, SG/17, available at http://www.oie.int/fileadmin/Home/eng/About_us/docs/pdf/6thSP_ANG.pdf, accessed 16 June 2019.

  65. 65.

    Thiermann and Babcock (2005), p. 747 ff.

  66. 66.

    Scott (2009), p. 249.

  67. 67.

    OIE, ‘Procedures used by the OIE to set standards and recommendations for international trade, with a focus on the terrestrial and aquatic animal health codes’, available at http://www.oie.int/fileadmin/Home/eng/Internationa_Standard_Setting/docs/pdf/A_OIE_procedures_stand___recom_2011.pdf, accessed 16 June 2019.

  68. 68.

    Art. 50.5 General Rules of the World Organisation For Animal Health (OIE), 2011, last revised 2013, available at https://www.oie.int/fileadmin/Home/eng/About_us/docs/pdf/basic_text/A_BasicTexts_part_1.pdf, accessed 8 October 2020.

  69. 69.

    IPPC, ‘2018-2019 Procedure Manual Standard Setting’, available at https://www.ippc.int/static/media/files/publication/en/2018/10/IPPCProcedureManual_StSet_2018_2018-10-15.pdf, accessed 16 June 2019.

  70. 70.

    IPPC, Rule VI Voting Procedures, Annex 8: Rules of Procedure of the Commission Phytosanitary Measures, available at https://www.ippc.int/static/media/files/publication/en/2015/03/RoP_of_CPM_Bureau_StdSet_2015-03-03.pdf, accessed 8 October 2020.

  71. 71.

    Scott (2009), p. 249.

  72. 72.

    Landwehr (2007), paragraph 7; Scott (2009), p. 330.

  73. 73.

    Appellate Body Report, EC – Hormones, WT/DS26,48/AB/R, paragraphs 163 ff. https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/SS/directdoc.aspx?filename=q:/WT/DS/26ABR-00.pdf&Open=True accessed 31 October 2020.

  74. 74.

    Appellate Body Report, EC – Hormones, WT/DS26,48/AB/R, paragraph 170. https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/SS/directdoc.aspx?filename=q:/WT/DS/26ABR-00.pdf&Open=True accessed 31 October 2020.

  75. 75.

    Henson and Humphrey (2010), p. 1631.

  76. 76.

    Smythe (2009), p. 98.

  77. 77.

    Livermore (2006), pp. 81, 783–786; Smythe (2009), p. 93 ff.

  78. 78.

    Scott (2009), p. 251.

  79. 79.

    FAO, ‘Report of the Evaluation of the Codex Alimentarius and other FAO and WHO Food Standards Work’ (Fao.org, 15 November 2002), paragraph 24, available at http://www.fao.org/3/y7871e/y7871e00.htm, accessed 15 June 2019.

  80. 80.

    Review of the Operation and Implementation of the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, 11 July 2005, G/SPS/36, paragraph 43, available at https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/FE_S_S009-DP.aspx?language=E&CatalogueIdList=36318&CurrentCatalogueIdIndex=0&FullTextHash=&HasEnglishRecord=True&HasFrenchRecord=True&HasSpanishRecord=True, accessed 31 October 2020.

  81. 81.

    WTO, ‘Labour standards: consensus, coherence and controversy’, https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/bey5_e.htm, accessed 16 June 2019.

  82. 82.

    Fairtrade, ’Standards for small-scale Producer Organisations’, https://www.fairtrade.net/standards/our-standards/small-producer-standards.html, accessed 16 June 2019.

  83. 83.

    ISEAL Alliance, ‘Setting Social and Environmental Standards – ISEAL Code of Good Practice’, Version 6.0, December 2014, Clauses 5.2, 5.4, 5.6, available at https://www.isealalliance.org/sites/default/files/resource/2017-11/ISEAL_Standard_Setting_Code_v6_Dec_2014.pdf, accessed 16 June 2019.

  84. 84.

    Hachez and Wouters (2011), p. 702 ff.

  85. 85.

    Fuchs et al. (2011), pp. 28, 361.

  86. 86.

    Hachez and Wouters (2011), p. 702 ff.

  87. 87.

    Busch (2011), p. 59.

  88. 88.

    Shaw et al. (2006), p. 1051 ff.

References

  • Anderson K (2010) Globalization’s effects on world agricultural trade, 1960–2050. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 365(1554):3007–3021

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson K, Cockburn J, Martin W (2010) Introduction and summary. In: Anderson K, Cockburn J, Martin W (eds) Agricultural price distortions, inequality, and poverty. World Bank

    Google Scholar 

  • Bodansky DM (1999) The legitimacy of international governance: a coming challenge for international environmental law. Am J Int Law 93:596–624

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bohanes J, Sandford ID (2008) The (untapped) potential of WTO rules to discipline private trade-restricting conduct. Working Paper presented at the Society of International Economic Law Inaugural Conference (Geneva, 15-17 July 2008)

    Google Scholar 

  • Busch L (2011) Quasi-states? The unexpected rise of private food law. In: van der Meulen BMJ (ed) Private food law. Wageningen Academic Publishers, pp 51–73

    Google Scholar 

  • Busch L, Bain C (2004) New! Improved? The transformation of the global agrifood system. Rural Sociol 69(3):321–346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • FAO (2002) Report of the Evaluation of the Codex Alimentarius and other FAO and WHO Food Standards Work, 15 November 2002

    Google Scholar 

  • FAO (2015) The State of Agricultural Commodity Markets – Trade and food security: achieving a better balance between national priorities and the collective good

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs D, Kalfagianni A, Havinga T (2011) Actors in private food governance: the legitimacy of retail standards and multistakeholder initiatives with civil society participation. Agric Human Values 28:353–367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant R, Keohane RO (2005) Accountability and abuses of power in world politics. Am Polit Sci Rev 99(1):29–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grossmann MR (2003) Multifunctionality and non-trade concerns. In: Cardwell MN et al (eds) Agriculture and international trade. CAB International Publishing

    Google Scholar 

  • Hachez N, Wouters J (2011) A glimpse at the democratic legitimacy of private standards: assessing the public accountability of GLOBALG.A.P. J Int Econ Law 14(3):677–710

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hemler C (2016) Private standards im Recht der Welthandelsorganisation. Nomos

    Google Scholar 

  • Henson S, Humphrey J (2009) The impacts of private food safety standards on the food chain and on public standard-setting processes. Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme, Codex Alimentarius Commission, 32nd Session

    Google Scholar 

  • Henson S, Humphrey J (2010) Understanding the complexities of private standards in global agri-food chains as they impact developing countries. J Dev Stud 46(9):1628–1646

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henson S, Humphrey J (2012) Private standards in agri-food chains. In: Marx A et al (eds) Private standards and global governance: economic, legal and political perspectives. Edward Elgar Publishing

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaffee SH, Spencer Diaz Rios L (2011) Making the Grade: Smallholder Farmers, Emerging Standards, and Development Assistance Programs in Africa A Research Program Synthesis. World Bank Report No. 62324-AFR

    Google Scholar 

  • Landwehr O (2007) Article 3 SPS – harmonization. In: Wolfrum O et al (eds) WTO - technical barriers and SPS measures. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee GC-H (2006) Private food standards and their impacts on developing countries. European Commission, DG Trade Unit G2

    Google Scholar 

  • Livermore MA (2006) Authority and legitimacy in global governance: deliberation, institutional differentiation and the Codex Alimentarius. N Y Univ Law Rev 81:766

    Google Scholar 

  • Pauwelyn J (1999) The WTO agreement on sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures as applied in the first three SPS disputes. J Int Econ Law 2(4):641–664

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Post DL (2005) Standards and regulatory capitalism: the diffusion of food safety standards in developing countries. ANNALS Am Acad Polit Soc Sci 598(1):168–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Risse T (2006) Transnational governance and legitimacy. In A Benz and Y Papadopoulos (eds) Governance and democracy: comparing national, European and international experiences. Routledge

    Google Scholar 

  • Schleifer P (2017) Private regulation and global economic change – the drivers of sustainable agriculture in Brazil. Governance 30(4):687–703

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schouten G, Bitzer V (2015) The emergence of Southern standards in agricultural value chains: a new trend in sustainability governance? Ecol Econ 120:175–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schroder HZ (2011) Harmonization, equivalence and mutual recognition of standards in WTO law. Wolter Kluwer

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott J (2009) The WTO agreement on sanitary and phytosanitary measures: a commentary. Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw D, Newholm T, Dickinson R (2006) Consumption as voting: an exploration of consumer empowerment. Eur J Market 40(9):1049–1067

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sifonios D (2018) Environmental process and production methods (PPMs) in WTO law. Springer

    Google Scholar 

  • Smythe E (2009) In whose interests? Transparency and accountability in the global governance of food: agribusiness, the CAK, and the WTO. In: Clapp J, Fuchs DA (eds) Corporate power in global agrifood governance. MIT Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Tamiotti L (2007) Article 2 TBT. In: Wolfrum R et al. (eds) WTO - technical barriers and SPS measures. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers

    Google Scholar 

  • Thiermann AB, Babcock S (2005) Animal welfare and international trade. Revue Scientifique Et Technique - Office International des Epizooties 24(2):747

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas CA (2014) The uses and abuses of legitimacy in international law. Oxford J Legal Stud 34(4):729–758

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trebilcock M et al (2013) The regulation of international trade, 4th edn. Routledge

    Google Scholar 

  • World Bank (2007) Horticultural Producers and Supermarket Development In Indonesia. Report No. 38543-ID

    Google Scholar 

  • Wouters J, Geraets D (2012) Private food standards and the World Trade Organization: some legal considerations. World Trade Rev 11(3):479–489

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • WTO, World Trade Report 2012

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sven Stumpf .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Stumpf, S. (2021). Participation in Standard Setting for the Agro-food Industry. In: Sieber-Gasser, C., Ghibellini, A. (eds) Democracy and Globalization. Economic Analysis of Law in European Legal Scholarship, vol 10. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69154-7_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69154-7_10

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-69153-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-69154-7

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics