National Organic Standards Board

Certification, Accreditation and Compliance Subcommittee Proposal 

Eliminating the Incentive to Convert Native Ecosystems to Organic Production

August 29, 2017

I INTRODUCTION

The Organic Food Production Act (OFPA) of 1990 (as amended) and Regulations promulgated by the 

NOP to implement the Statute, NOP Policy documents, and NOSB Recommendations and Principles 

include a clear bias towards protection of the natural resources present on an organic operation, 

including the physical, hydrological, and biological features of the farm. The soil, water, wetlands, 

woodlands, and wildlife must be maintained or improved by the organic operator through production 

practices implemented in accordance with the Act and Regulations. Organic agricultural systems rely 

upon the soil health, biodiversity, and conservation of ecosystem-based benefits such as pollinator 

habitat, for crop health, vigor, protection from pests, and more. Materials approved for use in organic 

agriculture are strictly reviewed before approval to determine their effects on the environment during 

manufacture, use, and disposal to represent the least toxic choice. This bias towards ecosystem 

preservation is also found within the organic marketplace with consumer expectations that organic 

farms and ranches will be examples of excellent land stewardship. 

Along with this strong environmental protection within the regulatory framework that oversees organic 

production, is the requirement that land cannot produce organic crops or livestock until 36 months have 

passed between the application of a prohibited substance and the harvest of an organic crop. This threeyear transition can be a challenge for farm operators who must follow organic regulations but cannot 

enter the organic marketplace with their production. Using land that has not had any prohibited 

substances applied to it provides an immediate entry into the organic marketplace for crops or livestock, 

without the three year wait. Fallow land that had previously been cropped can meet this requirement, 

as well as land that has never been cropped. There is a risk that native ecosystems, many of which 

provide habitat for endangered, threatened, and at-risk species of all types, could be destroyed if they 

are converted to organic agricultural crop or livestock production. The lack of the three-year transition 

timeframe is an incentive to convert these native ecosystems to immediate agricultural production.

Over the last two and a half years, the NOSB has received public comment describing loss of High Value 

Conservation and fragile ecosystem acreage when farmers transition to organic production. The NOSB 

has been asked to review this issue and propose incentives and disincentives to reduce conversion of 

native ecosystems.

The NOSB discussion document from January 10, 2016, provided background and encouraged public 

comment from a wide cross-section of stakeholders to determine if the NOSB should recommend to the 

NOP a Rule change, Guidance, or other mechanisms to address this issue.

II BACKGROUND

The NOP provided Guidance on Biodiversity in 2016 (NOP 5020) encouraging the protection and 

maintenance of a high level of biodiversity on farms because it brings benefits not only to the entire 

ecosystem in that geographic area, but also to the farmer. Advantages to certified organic operations 

that implement these types of production practices include: 1) decreased dependence on outside 

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 1/175
fertility inputs; 2) reduced pest management applications and costs; 3) more reliable sources of clean 

water; and 4) better pollination (NOP 5020). 

III RELEVANT AREAS OF THE STATUTE, RULE and RELATED DOCUMENTS

The Organic Food Production Act (OFPA) of 1990, as amended, 7 U.S.C., Chapter 94:

7 U.S.C. 6504 (2) ...not be produced on land to which any prohibited substances, including synthetic 

chemicals have been applied during the 3 years immediately preceding the harvest of the agricultural 

products;

7 U.S.C. 6513(f) Management of wild crops; (2) include a 3 year history of the management of the area 

showing that no prohibited substances have been applied; (3) include a plan for the harvesting and 

gathering of wild crops assuring that such harvesting or gathering will not be destructive to the 

environment and will sustain the growth and production of the wild crop;

7 U.S.C. 6518 National Organic Standards Board,

6518 (b) Board composition, (4) three shall be individuals with expertise in areas of environmental

protection and resource conservation; (6) one shall be an individual with expertise in the fields of 

toxicology, ecology, or biochemistry;

The OFPA Preamble to the Final Rule establishing the NOP states: “[t]he use of ‘conserve’ [in the 

definition of organic production] establishes that the producer must initiate practices to support 

biodiversity and avoid, to the extent practicable, any activities that would diminish it. Compliance with 

the requirement to conserve biodiversity requires that a producer incorporate practices in his or her 

organic system plan that are beneficial to biodiversity on his or her operation.” (65 FR 80547, December 

20, 2001) 

7 CFR 205.2 Definitions: 

Natural Resources of the operation: Physical, hydrological and biological features of a production 

operation, including soil, water, wetlands woodlands and wildlife.

Organic production: production system that is managed to respond to site-specific conditions by 

integrating cultural, biological and mechanical practices that foster cycling of resources, promote 

ecological balance, and conserve biodiversity.

7 CFR 205.200 Producer ...must maintain or improve the natural resources of the operation, including 

soil and water quality.

7 CFR 205.202 Land requirements.

Any field or farm parcel from which harvested crops are intended to be sold, labeled, or represented as 

“organic” must:

(b) Have had no prohibited substances, as listed in 205.105, applied to it for a period of 3 years 

immediately preceding harvest of the crop;

NOP 5020, effective 1/15/16, Guidance, Natural Resources and Biodiversity Conservation.

16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq, Endangered Species Act.

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 2/175
NOSB Recommendation May, 2009, Implementation of Biodiversity Conservation in Organic Agriculture 

Systems. - “Conversion of native habitat to crop production has consequences to biodiversity that must 

be considered and the producer should discuss such planned conversion with his or her Certifier before 

action is taken.”

NOSB Policy and Procedures Manual, Principles of Organic Agriculture Organic agriculture, adopted 

2001, 1.1, Organic agriculture...is an ecological production management system that promotes and 

enhances biodiversity, biological cycles, and soil biological activity.

While there is no specific reference to the protection of native ecosystems in the Organic Foods 

Production Act of 1990, 7 U.S.C. 6506 General Requirements (11) states the program established under 

this title can “require such other terms and conditions as may be determined by the Secretary to be 

necessary and consistent with this title”.

The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), in Section 2119 (7 U.S.C. 6518) can “advise the Secretary 

on any other aspects of implementation of this title”. 

The proposal below is an NOSB recommendation to the Secretary, advising him of a need to address this 

important issue. The discussion document provided numerous instances of unaltered native ecosystems 

that are either at risk or have been destroyed for agricultural production, illustrating this issue is real 

and should be addressed. Numerous examples were provided that this destruction is occurring on land 

that subsequently is used for organic production. 

There are other regulations within the U.S. law that seek to protect specific areas, such as the 

“sodsaver” provision1

, which specifically addresses the protection of prairie potholes in the United 

States.

IV DISCUSSION and PUBLIC COMMENT

The discussion document preceding this proposal listed organic standards from other countries and 

organic control bodies that protect native ecosystems including Australia, Argentina, Bolivia, IFOAM, 

(International Federation of Organic Agricultural Movements) and New Zealand. The NOP has 

Memoranda of Agreement and Equivalencies with several of the above listed countries. In addition, 

there are other ecolabels around the world providing consumers the assurance that high conservation 

value ecosystems were not destroyed in the production of their food or fiber.

The control bodies listed above can verify their standards using a variety of methods, including satellite 

images, Google Earth, and old photographs of ecosystems. Aerial images help to show intact forests and 

grasslands versus row crops. Ground-truthing is required, and some accept affidavits from disinterested 

parties that have been submitted by the producer. USDA Farm Service Agency records and NRCS records 

can be used as documentation in the United States. 

This issue of conversion of native ecosystems to agricultural production has been discussed through 

public comment and on the Board for two years. The discussion document received only positive 

comments supporting the need to address this issue in a timely manner. Consumers, retailers, scientists, 

 

1 https://www.rma.usda.gov/data/pothole/, 

https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/44876/7105_err120_reportsummary.pdf?v=41056

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 3/175
environmentalists, organic producers, and certifiers all agreed that the time has come to address this 

issue. 

The NOSB puts forward the proposal below to provide protections for these ecosystems through 

removal of the incentive to immediately gain access to the organic market after the destruction of these 

native ecosystems. It is understood that the operator requesting organic certification may not be the 

entity that destroyed the ecosystem. Organic production is more environmentally beneficial in many 

cases than nonorganic production practices. Taking these situations into account, the NOSB does not 

wish to ban the use of this land forever from organic agricultural production. However, the NOSB does 

want to provide a strong disincentive for both the production of annual and perennial crops on land 

where this loss of biodiversity and species has occurred. A 10-year “wait period” provides a strong 

disincentive for perennial crops such as tree fruits, nuts, and others, which can need five to ten years in 

order to produce a crop. Any shorter timeframe would not provide a sufficient disincentive to these 

perennial crop operators to destroy native ecosystems since they would be waiting for their crops to 

mature to productive levels during that shorter time period anyway. The proposal below does not 

prevent operators from wild harvest of crops from these native ecosystems, such as collection of prairie 

seed, as long as they meet the wild harvest requirements of 7 CFR 205.207. In addition, this wait period 

would not affect lands that have been enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program, since these lands 

have all been previously cropped.

The NOSB, along with the NOP, will continue working on this issue with the goal of providing future NOP 

guidance and further information on how to identify native ecosystems and their conversion date to 

agricultural production. 

V QUESTION

The NOSB would like to receive feedback from certifiers on possible economic impact this rulemaking 

may have on their certified operations:

How many operations, crops, and acreage would have been impacted if this rule had been in place in 

2016?

VI PROPOSAL

Add the following in italics to the organic regulation.

Subpart C- Organic Production and Handling Requirements

205.200 General

The producer or handler of a production or handling operation intending to sell, label, or represent 

agricultural production as “100 percent organic”, “organic” or “made with organic (specified ingredients 

or food groups (s)” must comply with the applicable provisions of this subpart. Production practices 

implemented in accordance with this subpart must maintain or improve the natural resources of the 

operation, including soil and water quality.

(a) A native ecosystem site that has not been previously grazed or cultivated cannot be certified 

as organic as provided for under this regulation for a period of 10 years from the date of 

conversion to crop or livestock production. 

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 4/175
Motion to approve the proposal on eliminating the incentive to convert native ecosystems to organic 

production” for rulemaking. 

Motion by: Harriet Behar

Seconded by: Tom Chapman

Yes: 4 No: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: 1 Recuse: 0 

Approved by Scott Rice, Subcommittee Chair, to transmit to NOSB August 29, 2017

NOSB October 2017 proposals and discussion documents 5/175