[MPWG] QUESTION OF THE MONTH: Certification Schemes

Mon Dec 6 09:13:54 CST 2004

I think certification already exist for anyone who wants it. A grower can 
advertise growing or producing something in a certain way for a targeted 
customer. A buyer can contact a grower and asked for something to be 
produced by certain standards. It is all driven by demand and commerce not 
someone else imposing their will.
Patricia mentions the organic standards we now have. I can' think of a 
better example of what not to do. Those standards have become meaningless 
since the USDA intervention. The intervention resulted because many little 
organic factions accrross the country were trying to impose their own 
standards and charge fees for it etc. The term organic is simply a feel good 
thing for certain groups especially what we call the yuppies. It has nothing 
to do with quality or even the way something was produced. Grace G. ( I 
won't give her last name) was the USDA employee who developed those 
standards. She has completely removed herself from that corrupt process and 
left her job tp live on a small farm in Vermont. In fact she has been one of 
my classmates in the Holistic educator training conducted by The Allan 
Savory Center.
As soon as we try to impose certain standards on something we have doomed 
the creative process of doing it better and we have dealt a blow to man's 
natural tendency to conserve natural resources that sustain him.
Trying to work with an existing certification system is very difficult when 
the standards are set up to protect a certain group that does not really 
have a stake in the resource.
Managing resources has to come from a holistic perspective. Outlawing moss 
harvest will just excacerbate the problem if the problem is that someone 
does not want someone doing it.
Looking at it in a broader perspective which includes the people harvesting 
allows us to have strategies that make sense. For example, letting them 
harvest it or just monitoring followed by actions which pertain to that 
harvested area only would be a first step. Rest after post harvest allows 
for the moss to return if that is what is wanted. A private landowner can 
not be required to have moss if they don't want moss. Fred Hays

>From: pankaj oudhia <pankajoudhia at yahoo.com>
>To: mpwg at lists.plantconservation.org
>Subject: RE: [MPWG] QUESTION OF THE MONTH: Certification Schemes
>Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 06:31:45 +0000 (GMT)
>
>Very true Fred.
>
>In my country many certification agencies both from government and 
>non-governmental side have been emerged .They are having different criteria 
>for certification.But in fact the basic trade is in progress without any 
>such certification.Every buyer fixes his own criteria and the suppliers 
>fulfilling the criteira are allowed. Both are not willing to adopt any 
>standard certification procedure.
>
>Influenced by a foreign certification company when one of herb growers 
>adopted certification procedure for the Bramhi(Bacopa monnieri) ,he 
>experienced very bitter experience.
>
>regards
>Pankaj Oudhia
>http://www.pankajoudhia.com
>
>Center for Sustainable Resources <sustainableresources at hotmail.com> wrote:
>Before asking these questions you would need to ask why you would want such
>a certification?, if this process is constitutional, what people outside
>your little circle of influence think of it.
>Who does this process stand to benefit? Probably no one unless you work for
>a government agency that wants to control people. Stakeholders include
>primarily growers and buyers because they have a stake in such products.
>Consumers have little to no stake in this. Such a process would put unfair
>stipulations on property ownership and the property owner's pursuit of
>happiness, and would be unconstitutional in this country unless done
>volintarily, even then would be bias and be about political agenda only.
>What is needed is less certification, less regulation, less government, 
>more
>democracy, incentives to produce the stuff intentionally ( if you want to
>pay someone for something then you are buying the right to say how you want
>it), less attacking by environmentalist and other people who don't have a
>stake in this. Fred Hays
>
> >From: Patricia_DeAngelis at fws.gov
> >To: mpwg at lists.plantconservation.org
> >CC: stephen.rae at gmail.com
> >Subject: [MPWG] QUESTION OF THE MONTH: Certification Schemes
> >Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 16:36:19 -0500
> >
> >Back after a long hiatus: The MPWG Question of the Month!
> >
> >For those MPWG Listservers who are not on the Native Plant Listserve, you
> >have been missing a really exciting conversation on moss harvesting. I
> >encourage you to see how the discussion began a few days ago and the
> >interesting postings that have ensued. The e-mail from Stephen Rae (at
> >the very bottom of this e-mail) provided a nexus to the MPWG: the issue 
>of
> >chain of custody.
> >
> >Almost any discussion on the sustainability of wild-harvested medicinal
> >plants turns toward chain of custody (i.e. in essence, the ability to 
>trace
> >the material on the shelf back to the hole in the ground that it came
> >from). Chain of custody, along with such issues as authenticity of
> >materials, sustainability of harvest, and monitoring efforts are all part
> >of the bigger issue that (ideally) might be managed through certification
> >programs. And there are many certification programs out there. Why hasn't
> >any one program come to the fore as THE certification program for
> >monitoring medicinal plants?
> >
> >Perhaps it is because of the broad range of issues. Bear with me as I
> >oversimplify the issues to make a point. Certification of medicinal 
>plants
> >in trade means different things to different people - to consumers, it
> >includes safety and reliability issues; to manufacturers it includes raw
> >material quality and consistency; to land managers, it includes
> >sustainability of harvest and regeneration of populations.
> >
> >In an ideal world, all of these issues (and more) would be of concern to
> >everyone in the equation. But, this is not the case in the real world. As
> >far as I can ascertain, the main reason that one part of this equation is
> >not concerned about another part of the equation is not for lack of
> >concern, it's for lack of awareness.
> >In keeping with MPWG's goal of bringing together diverse perspectives on
> >medicinal plant issues, I asked one of our members (thank you, Jennifer) 
>to
> >come up with a list of considerations for medicinal plant certification
> >programs. Please respond to any or all of the considerations listed
> >below. In your response, please feel free to include any additional links
> >that will be informative on the issue. Thanks!
> >
> >Patricia S. De Angelis, Ph.D.
> >Botanist - Division of Scientific Authority
> >Chair - Plant Conservation Alliance - Medicinal Plant Working Group
> >US Fish & Wildlife Service
> >4401 N. Fairfax Dr., Suite 750
> >Arlington, VA 22203
> >703-358-1708 x1753
> >FAX: 703-358-2276
> >Working for the conservation and sustainable use of our green natural
> >resources.
> >
> >
> >- - - - - -
> >
> >1. Briefly describe where you fit into the medicinal plant equation. 
>(i.e.
> >are you a consumer, manufacturer, raw materials buyer?)
> >
> >2. Who should be involved in selecting / adopting appropriate
> >certifications / standards?
> >
> >What is the best way to facilitate participation of a wide range of
> >stakeholders?
> >(I include this because the National Organic Standards Board found that
> >while they had formed a reasonably inclusive coalition, the standards 
>were
> >pretty much created by producers and processors only)
> >
> >3. What should be included in the scope of certifications / standards?
> >
> >What environmental issues fall within the scope of consideration?
> >Organic vs. Non-Organic
> >
> >How important are issues of social equity? such as IPRs and sharing of
> >research findings; ownership (community level, corporate level, national
> >level) of genetic resources/seed banks; access to med plants and
> >community/public health; protection of cultural context of and rights to
> >med plant use; economic security; emphasis on health and economic 
>security
> >for the poorest; and viability of small farms
> >
> >4. Under whose authority do (should) certifications fall?
> >
> >How much should be voluntary and how much should be mandatory?
> >How to reconcile authority of government agencies like FDA USDA FWS BLM,
> >local municipalities and regional and national governments, with rights 
>of
> >landowners, communities, producers, businesses, end users
> >
> >5. How will certifications / standards be communicated to
> >producers; processors; distributors; consumers; general public
> >
> >6. How should standards be enforced?
> >
> >7. Who pays for public education and enforcement?
> >
> >URLS / LINKS
> >http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/arc/iso65.htm informative: ISO65
> >http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/arc/nop.htm informative: NOP
> >http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/NOP/standards.html NOP standards
> >http://www.ifoam.org/ International Federation of Organic Agriculture
> >Movements
> >http://www.fairtrade.net/ Fairtrade Labeling Organizations International
> >
> >
> >
> >----- Forwarded by Patricia De Angelis/ARL/R9/FWS/DOI on 12/03/2004 03:10
> >PM -----
> >|---------+------------------------------------------------->
> >| | Stephen Rae |
> >| | Sent by: |
> >| | native-plants-bounces at lists.plantconse|
> >| | rvation.org |
> >| | |
> >| | |
> >| | 12/03/2004 01:26 PM |
> >| | Please respond to Stephen Rae |
> >| | |
> >|---------+------------------------------------------------->
> >
> > 
> >----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
> > |
> > |
> > | To: native-plants at lists.plantconservation.org
> > |
> > | cc:
> > |
> > | Subject: [PCA] Moss Harvesting
> > |
> >
> > 
> >----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >The observation on perhaps restricting moss harvesting to areas in the
> >PNW that are slated for timber harvest has merit. If the harvest
> >method is clearcutting or the second or third entry for seed tree
> >removal, then there will be little of the pre-existing upper strata
> >that define a mature or late successional forest. Consequently, the
> >mosses within such areas would suffer from the major change in
> >temperature, relative humidity and direct insolation following canopy
> >removal.
> >
> >I know there is resistance to regulation, but why not request some
> >type of verification regarding place of harvest. For instance, a
> >before and after digital image could be attached to the materials
> >presented for sale to distributors. Or, a mandatory collection tag
> >with GPS coordinates. Then, a periodic spot check could be
> >accomplished. Should such a method be initially voluntary, then we
> >could assess compliance and effects. Should compliance be much short
> >of satisfactory then a less voluntary method could be justified.
> >
> >In any case, each jurisdiction should establish permanent plots to
> >evaluate the re-establishment of mosses within harvest areas. I would
> >think that several academic institutions would be interested in such a
> >project. And, it wouldn't necessarily be very expensive to run. The
> >results would be helpful in determining cumulative effects and,
> >therefore, management opportunities.
> >
> >Stephen P. Rae
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >native-plants mailing list
> >native-plants at lists.plantconservation.org
> >http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/native-plants_lists.plantconservation.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >MPWG mailing list
> >MPWG at lists.plantconservation.org
> >http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/mpwg_lists.plantconservation.org
> >
> >To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to 
>MPWG-request at lists.plantconservation.org
> >with the word "unsubscribe" in the subject line.
> >
> >Disclaimer
> >Any advice given on this list regarding diagnosis or treatments etc.
> >reflects ONLY the opinion of the individual who posts the message. The
> >information contained in posts is not intended nor implied to be a
> >substitute for professional medical advice relative to your specific
> >medical condition or question. All medical and other healthcare 
>information
> >that is discussed on this list should be carefully reviewed by the
> >individual reader and their qualified healthcare professional. Posts do 
>not
> >reflect any official opinions or positions of the Plant Conservation
> >Alliance.
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>MPWG mailing list
>MPWG at lists.plantconservation.org
>http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/mpwg_lists.plantconservation.org
>
>To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to MPWG-request at lists.plantconservation.org 
>with the word "unsubscribe" in the subject line.
>
>Disclaimer
>Any advice given on this list regarding diagnosis or treatments etc. 
>reflects ONLY the opinion of the individual who posts the message. The 
>information contained in posts is not intended nor implied to be a 
>substitute for professional medical advice relative to your specific 
>medical condition or question. All medical and other healthcare information 
>that is discussed on this list should be carefully reviewed by the 
>individual reader and their qualified healthcare professional. Posts do not 
>reflect any official opinions or positions of the Plant Conservation 
>Alliance.
>
>Yahoo! India Matrimony: Find your life partneronline.
>_______________________________________________
>MPWG mailing list
>MPWG at lists.plantconservation.org
>http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/mpwg_lists.plantconservation.org
>
>To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to MPWG-request at lists.plantconservation.org 
>with the word "unsubscribe" in the subject line.
>
>Disclaimer
>Any advice given on this list regarding diagnosis or treatments etc. 
>reflects ONLY the opinion of the individual who posts the message. The 
>information contained in posts is not intended nor implied to be a 
>substitute for professional medical advice relative to your specific 
>medical condition or question. All medical and other healthcare information 
>that is discussed on this list should be carefully reviewed by the 
>individual reader and their qualified healthcare professional. Posts do not 
>reflect any official opinions or positions of the Plant Conservation 
>Alliance.