COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION - SYNOPSIS REPORT accompanying the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on an Action Plan for the Development of Organic Production
Date: 2021-03-25
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: EU action, agri-foodstuffs, agricultural production, aquaculture, consumer information, organic certification, organic farming, organic product, sustainable agriculture, utilised agricultural area

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 25.3.2021  SWD(2021) 65 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION - SYNOPSIS REPORT    accompanying the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions  on an Action Plan for the Development of  Organic Production {COM(2021) 141 final}  
 
 
INTRODUCTION 

This Staff Working Document presents a synopsis of the consultation activities related to the 
Action  Plan  for  the  Development  of  the  Organic  Production,  as  set  out  in  the  consultation 
strategy for the initiative, notably the roadmap consultation, the open public consultation and 
additional submissions from stakeholders. As for the latter, stakeholders were invited several 
times  to  submit  additional  position  papers  and  documents  and  they  did  so  also  directly,  not 
only linked to the roadmap or open public consultation. 

The  roadmap  consultation  ran  from  4  September  to  23  October  2020,  and  the  open  public 
consultation was carried out between 4 September and 27 November 2020, via the website of 
the European Commission in all official EU languages. The consultations aimed at gathering 
information  and  feedback  from  EU  citizens  and  relevant  stakeholders  (public  authorities, 
businesses and their associations, NGOs, research and academic institutions) as input into the 
finalisation of the Action Plan. 

Targeted consultation activities were also carried out with the competent authorities of the EU 
Member States responsible for organic production (at different meetings of the Committee on 
Organic  Production);  with  business  and  professional  organisations  having  activities  at  EU 
level  in  the  organic  sector  (producers,  retails,  processors);  with  EU  citizens  and  consumer 
organisations and with civil society organisations active at EU level in organic farming (e.g. 
meeting of the Civil Dialogue Group); and with several non-EU countries. 

OVERVIEW OF RESPONSES  

A total of 124 replies were received on the roadmap consultation. EU citizens provided most 
contributions  to  this  consultation,  accounting  for  33%  of  all  respondents  (41  responses), 
followed by business associations (23% - 28 responses) and company/business organisations 
(19% - 23 responses). NGOs submitted 16 responses (13%), public authorities accounted for 3 
replies (2%), academic/research institutions and trade unions participated with 2 replies each 
(2%)  and  1  reply  came  from  a  non-EU  citizen.  The  remaining  6%  (8  responses)  of 
respondents identified themselves as ‘other’. 

The  open  public  consultation  attracted  841  replies,  of  which  one  response  was  a  duplicate, 
resulting in 840 responses being considered for the assessment of replies to the consultation.  

Figure 1. Number of respondents to the public consultation by country of origin 

1 

 
 
 
EU  citizens  provided  most  contributions  to  this  consultation,  accounting  for  52%  of  all 
respondents  (437  responses),  followed  by  company/business  organisations  (16%  -  133 
responses) and business associations (8% - 69 responses). NGOs submitted 51 responses. Of 
all  the  respondents,  academic/research  institutions  accounted  for  4%  (36  respondents)  and 
public authorities for about the same share with 33 responses. 1% of the responses stemmed 
from  environmental  organisations  (9  responses),  from  non-EU  citizens  (9  responses),  and 
from  trade  unions  (5  responses).  Two  consumer  organisations  submitted  responses.  The 
remaining 7% (56 responses) of respondents identified themselves as ‘Other’. 

In  addition,  87 documents  attached to  the public consultation,  16 documents  attached to  the 
roadmap,  and  7  additional  submissions  were  retained  for  analysis,  for  a  total  of  110 
documents. 

RESULTS FOR THE CLOSED AND OPEN QUESTIONS OF THE PUBLIC CONSULTATION 

More  than  three  quarter  of  the  respondents  (78%)  recognised  the  presence  of  obstacles  to 
greater  production  and  consumption  of  organic  food  in  the  EU  (sum  of  respondents  that 
indicated  “strongly  disagree”  or  “somewhat  disagree”  for  the  option  “I  don’t  see  any 
problems”).  The  obstacles  perceived  as  most  important  (sum  of  “strongly  agree”  and 
“somewhat agree”) were “Insufficient financial incentives for producers to convert to organic 
production”  (76%),  followed  by  “Competition  with  other  ways  of  producing  and/or  other 
schemes”  (74%)  and  “Low  consumer  awareness  of  the  benefits  of  organic  production  for 
climate and the environment” (73%).  

Figure 2. Obstacles to greater production and consumption of organic food in the EU today 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
A  majority  of  respondents  (63%)  considered  organic  food  too  expensive  for  consumers  and 
reported a lack of consumer awareness  of the EU label  (63%) together with  the presence of 
too  many  ecological  food  schemes  that  can  be  confused  with  organics  (59%).  When  asked 
about  other  existing  obstacles  to  the  greater  production  and  consumption of  organic  food  in 
the  EU,  respondents  identified  the  price  of  conventional  products  as  the  first  obstacle  (43 
mentions).  A  lack  of  trust  in  the  EU  organic  label  and  of  information  about  the  health  and 
environmental  benefits  of  organic  farming  were  also  identified  as  obstacles  by  12  and  11 
respondents. 

Concerning the impacts  of the COVID-19 crisis  on the food system  and  the production  and 
consumption  of  organic  food,  a  large  majority  of  respondents  (85%)  considered  that  “the 
crisis has shown our reliance on seasonal organic farming”. A majority of respondents (59%) 
considered  that  the  crisis  has  “strengthened  organic  farming  and  its  role  in  the  EU  food 
supply”. The crisis has “accelerated the structural changes in food consumption in favour of 
organic farming” for 53% of the participants. The greater demand for organic products will 
be maintained after the COVID-19 crisis according to 51% of the respondents. 

Figure 3. Measures important to stimulate the production of organic products 

Overall, there was a high level of agreement on the nine actions proposed for developing the 
organic production sector in the EU (from 57% to 91%). There was a large consensus (91% of 
the  replies)  on  raising  awareness  of  the  environmental  and  climate  benefits  of  organic 
farming. The level of support was above 80% for four actions: (i) school schemes to promote 
healthy  diets  (83%),  (ii)  organic  products  in  public/private  offices  and  canteens  (83%),  (iii) 
increasing the visibility and choice of organic products at retailers (83%), and (iv) more public 
procurement of organic products (81%). Two actions related to promotion were supported by 
more than three quarters of the respondents: information campaigns on the EU organic logo 
(78%) and targeting promotion campaigns of agricultural products on organic products (77%). 
The  price  competitiveness  of  organic  products  should  be  improved  for  76%  of  the 
participants.  Finally,  57%  of  the  respondents  indicated  that  the  EU  organic  logo  is  not 
sufficiently  recognised.  When  asked  about  other  actions  to  develop  the  organic  production 

3 

 
 
 
 
sector  in  the  EU,  respondents  first  mentioned  the  need  to  inform  consumers  better  (47 
mentions), particularly on the health (12) and social (9) benefits of organic farming. The need 
to  inform  about,  and  apply,  the  true  costs  (taking  account  of  externalities)  of  conventional 
agriculture was also a recurring action mentioned (37) and public procurement was identified 
as a positive factor to increase demand for organic products (27 mentions). 

There was a high level of agreement on the seven actions proposed for improving consumer 
confidence in the organic production sector in the EU (from 70% to 92%). There was a large 
consensus  (91%  of  the  replies)  that  information  on  organic  producers  should  be  transparent 
and available for consumers and that actions are needed to help consumers clearly distinguish 
between the EU organic logo and other environmental/quality schemes. It should be easier to 
trace organic products back to their origin for 88% of respondents and more effort is needed to 
tackle  fraud  in  the  organic  sector  for  84%  of  respondents.  There  is  also  a  need  to  further 
explore the reasons for the lack of consumer confidence (86%) and for more effort to tackle 
fraud in the organic sector (84%). Finally, respondents stated that compliance with the rules 
for organic production must be better controlled by public authorities (77%) and information 
technologies  should  be  used  more  often  to  improve  the  tracing  of  organic  products  (70%). 
When  asked  about  other  important  actions  to  improve  consumer  confidence  in  the  organic 
production  sector  in  the  EU,  respondents  identified  the  need  for  more  transparency  and  for 
more  efforts  to  tackle  fraud,  especially  in  third  countries,  as  the  most  important  actions  (35 
mentions). Informing consumers (23) and combining the EU organic label with a local/origin 
label  (18)  were  also  mentioned.  Respondents  were  more  divided  on  the  need  for  more 
controls:  21  mentioned  that  controls  are  already  sufficient  while  10  mentioned  the  need  to 
increase them. 

Like for the previous question, there was a large consensus  supporting the actions proposed 
for  stimulating  the  production  of  organic  products  (from  74%  to  91%  of  the  replies).  The 
largest share of respondents agreed that, in order to stimulate conversion from conventional to 
organic farming, it is important to provide sufficient training and advice (91%) and that it is 
necessary to strengthen local and small-scale processing and foster short supply chains (90%). 
Respondents recognised the need for organic producers to receive help to better organise (e.g. 
in producer organisations) to improve their bargaining power in the supply chain (88%). There 
is  also  a  need  to  improve  information  and  data  on  developments  in  the  organic  market  to 
facilitate  decisions  for  producers  (87%).  They  agreed  on  the  fact  that  organic  production 
should benefit from financial support, including from the Common Agricultural Policy. 

Concerning  the  question  on  the  organic  animal  production  sector,  respondents  agreed  that 
“Producers should be helped to find appropriate organic feed for animal nutrition” (86%) and 
that  “More  research  is  needed  to  identify  and  develop  best  practices  on  feeding  methods 
suitable  for  organic  feed,  and  alternative  feeding  ingredients”  (82%).  A  similar  level  of 
agreement  applied  to  the  opinion  that  “Organic  animal  production  should  benefit  from 
specific  support”  (82%),  followed  by  “Aquaculture  should  be  supported  to  gain  more 
knowledge on breeding and feeding methods, including through research” (78%).  

Regarding  the  question  on  the  main  environmental  advantages  of  organic  production, 
respondents  identified the beneficial effects  of organic production in  relation  to  biodiversity 
(92%),  the  protection  of  soil  quality  (88%)  and  of  water  quality  (84%).  Organic  production 
promotes a circular economy for 83% of the respondents and it ensures a responsible use of 
energy and natural resources for 80%. It promotes carbon neutrality, it allows for adaptation to 
a changing climate and it helps reduce air pollution for 78% of the participants. 

More  than  two  thirds  of  the  respondents  agreed  strongly  with  the  statement  that  the 
sustainable  use  of  water  in  organic  farming  and  the  replacement  of  plastics  in  packaging 
should  be  promoted.  Greater  investment  in  research  and  innovation  and  the  maintenance  of 

4 

 
 
 
networks  of  organic  farms  received  equal  levels  of  support.  A  notably  smaller  share  of 
respondents  agreed  strongly  with  the  suggestion  to  phase  out  the  use  of  contentious  inputs, 
such as copper. Here, only 38% of respondents agreed strongly. It must be noted though that 
strong support for this suggestion was largest among respondents identifying as citizens and 
academia/ research institutions.  

There was a consensus that the “development of the organic sector requires a mix of EU and 
Member  State  support  as  well  as  private  initiative”.  More  than  70%  of  respondents  agreed 
with  this  statement  strongly,  and  another  23%  agreed  at  least  somewhat.  Mirroring  this 
statement,  84%  of  the  respondents  strongly  disagreed  (63%)  or  somewhat  disagreed  (21%) 
with  the  idea  of  leaving  the  development  of  the  organic  sector  to  the  market  alone.  The 
response patterns suggest that more than half of the respondents (59%) see national authorities 
as  mainly  responsible  for  promoting  organic  production.  When  asked  about  any  other 
additional actions to strengthen the production and consumption of organic food, respondents 
suggested to  re-balance the costs between conventional  and organic products  (36 mentions), 
improve  the  income  and  working  conditions  for  farmers  (29)  and  identified  the  need  of 
research to foster innovation (23). 

Figure 4. Development of the organic sector: public support or private initiative? 

Respondents also identified as important the need to assist farmers in accessing markets as a 
way  to  support  the  organic  sector  (15),  improving  biodiversity  on  farms  (13),  further 
supporting farmers during conversion (11) and conducting research on the impacts of organic 
agriculture (11). 

Finally, additional actions related to education on organic farming (9), support for small scale 
farming  (8)  and  developing  farm  advisory  services  (5)  were  mentioned  and  concerns  were 
raised regarding the power of retailers (6). 

COMBINED  ANALYSIS  OF  CLOSED/OPEN  QUESTIONS  AND  POSITION  PAPERS  SUBMITTED  TO 
THE PUBLIC CONSULTATION ON PROPOSED THEMES AND ACTIONS 

As for the different themes in the Action Plan, all of them are to varying extent supported by 
the quantitative and qualitative inputs from the open public consultation: 

  All 15 themes received strong support or support in the quantitative responses. Among all 
themes,  a  slightly  lesser  degree  of  support  was  given  to  Themes  1.1  ‘Promoting  the  EU 
Logo’;  1.4  ‘Preventing  food  fraud  and  enhancing  controls’;  2.3  ‘Supporting  the 
organisation  of  the  food  chain;  and  3.3  Funding  research  on  alternatives  to  contentious 
inputs. 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
  Four themes were mentioned as relevant aspects in relation to the Action Plan particularly 
often  in  the  qualitative  inputs  (30  and  more  position  papers  and  responses  to  open 
questions):  Themes  1.1  Promoting  the  EU  logo;  1.2  ‘Promoting  organic  canteens  and 
increasing  the  use  of  green  public  procurements’;  2.1  ‘Encouraging  conversion, 
investments and exchanges of best practices’; and 2.3 ‘Supporting the organisation of the 
food chain’. 

  Additional  themes  that  were  highlighted  by  some  qualitative  contributions  (15  to  29 
position  paper  and  responses  to  open  questions)  refer  to  themes  1.5  ‘Improving 
traceability’;  2.4  ‘Reinforcing  local  and  small-scale  processing  and  fostering  short  trade 
circuits’; 3.1 ‘Enhancing genetic biodiversity’; and 3.2 ‘Reducing carbon footprint’. 

As for the different actions in the Action Plan: 

  Most  of  the  22  actions  (41  sub-actions)  received  strong  support  or  support  in  the 
quantitative responses. For three actions, no quantitative information was available. In the 
qualitative responses, the 41 sub-actions were referenced to varying degrees. 

  General  support  for  all  actions  was  strongest  for  Axis  3.  Slightly  more  than  half  of  the 
sub-actions  under  Axis  1  received  strong  support  through  quantitative  responses.  Most 
sub-actions in Axis 2 received strong support. 

  For two actions, no information was provided through the quantitative inputs: Action 13 
‘raise awareness and provide better information about group certification’; and Action 15 
‘design  measures  for  organic  farming  with  special  focus  on  gender  and  social  aspects. 
Aspects of both actions were however mentioned by contributors in the position papers. 

  The qualitative contributions provided a more variable number of references to the 41 sub-
actions.  Two  sub-actions  received  many  qualitative  contributions  (between  22  and  33 
position  papers  and  answers  to  open  questions):  sub-actions  2a  -  ‘allocate  budget  in 
agricultural promotion policy, use for raising consumer awareness and stimulate demand’, 
and sub-action 9b ‘ensure best use of new CAP to support’. 

  Four further (sub-)actions were referred to in some of the contributions (12 to 22 position 
papers and responses to open questions): 1c ‘identify events to inform about organics’; 9a 
‘assess Member State circumstances and needs’; 15 ‘design measures for organic farming 
with  special  focus  on  gender  and  social  aspects’;  and  Action  20  ‘funding  research  on 
alternatives  to  contentious inputs’. The remaining 35  (sub-)actions were  only referred to 
by few or no contributions (up to 11 position papers and responses to open questions).  

The qualitative  responses also  provided additional  specifications for the  actions proposed in 
the Organic Action Plan. Respondents proposed ideas for actions and sub-actions. At the same 
time,  respondents  provided  input  on  how  to  implement  concretely  the  different  actions  and 
sub-actions.  

Contributors provided divergent opinions on the role of retailers in the organic value chain. In 
relation  to  increasing demand  for, and consumption of, organic products, contributors saw a 
need to ensure the affordability of organic products for consumers while ensuring profitability 
for  producers;  and  to  ensure  local  accessibility  of  (quality)  organic  products.  Other  actions 
mentioned  related  to  the  structure  of  the  organic  distribution  network  and  price  competition 
and  asked  for  measures  that  avoid  independent  retailers  being  disadvantaged.  Certification 
was also seen as an indirect obstacle to the distribution of organic food.  

General concerns relating to aspects covered in the draft Organic Action Plan were also raised 
by about a quarter of all contributors. They included aspects related to strategies, targets and 
the  monitoring  of  both,  the  regulatory  framework  related  to  organic  agriculture  (e.g., 
inconsistencies,  exclusion  of  certain  products),  controversial  opinions  on  the  contribution  of 

6 

 
 
 
organic farming to global issues of sustainability, questions about the general policy approach, 
and consumers and demand. 

7