Farmers’ Perceptions of the Organic Control and Certification Process in Tyrol, Austria

Abstract

Organic farming is a demand-led—rather than policy-driven—development. The introduction of regulations, controls and certification was intended to protect consumers from fraud, and to protect producers from unfair competition. The farmers’ willingness to participate in organic schemes is a prerequisite, which depends on their attitudes to the certification process. By means of three focus groups—conducted in April 2019, in Kematen, in the district of Innsbruck-Land—this study attempted to identify Tyrolean farmers’ perceptions of organic certification, as well as the influential factors, with the aim of highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of the certification system. Overall, the farmers perceived a great variety of differing standards. In particular, compliance with the regulations on animal husbandry and labelling requirements were seen to be hard to achieve. The farmers felt that the retailers were forcing them to comply with additional requirements, and that they were not receiving adequate support from their control body or their organic farming associations. They stated that the inspectors’ attitudes were often crucial to the control’s outcome, and were negative about the regulations or inspectors that did not reflect their underlying values. More scope should therefore be given for a cultural adaption of the inspection process, and there should be information symmetry between all of the stakeholders within organic certification.

1. Introduction

Today, there are more than 2.9 million organic producers worldwide, cultivating around 70 million hectares of land, resulting in sales of organic products of over 97 billion US dollars. Although these numbers illustrate the global success of organic farming in the past 30 years, just 1.4% of the total agricultural area is cultivated organically [1].

According to Rahmann et al. [2] (pp. 29–40), organic production and its certification are viewed as the most reliable and safest food production monitoring system. In the European Union (EU), organic certification is based on the concept of third-party certification (TPC), which consists of various tools which reduce information asymmetry between organic producers, processors and consumers regarding the integrity of organic goods [3]. These tools include legal instruments, such as regulations; financial instruments, such as subsidies; and communication instruments that reflect the interrelationship between the regulator and the regulated citizen, such as control and certification [4]. In this case, organic certification means an independent, impartial and competent certification body giving third-party assurance—based on an inspection—through a certificate that a product or process meets a certain standard [5,6]. In addition to the mandatory regulations set by the EU and the national public or private standards set by organic farming associations or retailers [6], organic farmers can also be affected by mainstream measures in the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), and other provisions or rural development programmes for information, marketing or research purposes [7]. The specific design of policies may influence an individual’s awareness through policy-induced cues [8,9], and may thus affect farmers’ choices with regard to the adoption of organic farming [10,11].

The adoption of organic farming practices is voluntary, and depends on farmers’ willingness to participate in the respective policy scheme of TPC [12,13]. If products are brought to the market with the claim that they are ‘organic’, TPC is obligatory in the European Union (EU). Organic farmers must comply with the legal requirements of organic production, fulfil administrative tasks, and undergo at least one annual control to prove their conformity in order to be certified as organic [5], which is a prerequisite for access to the organic market, and for the receipt of subsidies for organic farming. In order to accept these additional tasks, compared with conventional production, farmers’ attitudes, perceptions, beliefs, values, goals and experiences all play essential roles [12,14,15,16,17]. For example, the implementation of these policy-related tasks is influenced by the farmers’ attitudes and perceptions of the policy’s objective and its financial appropriateness [15]. Therefore, farmers’ attitudes determine the quality of the impact of the organic certification scheme [18], and thus the growth of organic agriculture [4,8].

1.1. Farmers’ Perception of ‘Organic’

In order to understand the ways in which farmers perceive organic certification, it is important to understand the ways in which they perceive organic agriculture. Having developed out of “traditional sustainable agriculture, farmers’ innovations and the results of scientific research”, different types of organic agriculture exist due to local differences in culture, quality of life, spirituality and values [11]. These different forms of organic farming practices may lead to different interpretations of the initial purpose of organic agriculture, as well as of the overall perception of organic production and attitudes towards sustainable agriculture [16]. For instance, some farmers see organic farming as a way to conserve traditional agricultural methods, some relate it to a ‘clean’ production method through modern technology, and others see it as a market niche, and thus as an opportunity to improve their business [19]. Therefore, based on this potential for various perceptions of ‘organic’, a major difficulty appears to be the use of the same understanding of organic farming within “the context of legal terminology” [11].

1.2. Farmers’ Perceptions of Organic Standards and Regulations

Organic standards and regulations not only influence farmers’ decisions to adopt organic farming but can also lead to its abandonment [12,20,21]. The perception of the ease or difficulty of complying with these requirements can be influenced by different actors and conditions. Mostly, the perceived difficulties relate to farm management, particularly the extent of the changes required in order to comply with organic standards and regulations; for instance, the ban of certain agricultural inputs (feed supplements or pesticides) or regulations concerning animal welfare, which decreases yields and productivity, or increases the labour required [12]. Farmers with small enterprises struggle with problems related to farm management [20]. The perceived high number of detailed rules—and the resulting rigidity of the organic certification scheme—may therefore have an impact on the flexibility of chosen farming practices and lead to a feeling of ‘over-regulation’ [11,17,18]. Another perceived problem is the inconsistency and instability of the regulations [22]. Frequent changes in requirements can result in farmers perceiving the organic certification scheme to be an unpredictable framework, leading to insecurity about their ability to comply with regulations and, furthermore, about their future income [23].

However, it is important to challenge the assumption that farmers have sufficient knowledge about regulations, since this is not always the case [24]. Polman and Slangen [25] (p. 417) state that farmers’ lack of knowledge of the requirements and underlying regulations is decisive in their willingness to remain in an agricultural environmental scheme. In organic farming, one of the reasons for this lack of knowledge is the large number of diverse schemes, both mandatory and voluntary, run by organic farming associations [5,22]. According to Kirner et al. [20] (p. 101), farmers have issues with the support they receive from organic associations about meeting the requirements for certification. This lack of clarity can lead to confusion and additional costs for farmers, and—furthermore—to a negative disposition towards compliance with organic standards and regulations [5].

1.3. Farmers’ Perceptions of Inspectors and the Certification Process

In general, most farmers perceive organic control to be legitimate and an important component in their operations [26,27]. The exceptions are farmers who market directly [19], and those who perceive control as a “signal of distrust and a limitation of their choice autonomy” [28]. Despite these findings, controls have been identified as one of the main reasons for smallholders abandoning the organic certification scheme [12,20]. This can be explained by various factors that may influence the perceived costs and benefits of control [28]. First, it should be made clear that there is no general perception of control, due to the different interpretations of the regulations [27]. For instance, some farmers perceive the controls of the organic farming association to be effective [27], while others struggle, for example, with the frequency of them [20].

Inspectors’ actions and behaviour can also influence farmers’ perceptions of organic control [20]. According to Schulze et al. [27] (p. 516), farmers seem to have different impressions of inspectors in terms of their knowledge and the care they take during controls. For instance, a farmer’s ability to comply with regulations can be perceived as being dependent on the inspector’s competence to inspect. This problem is highlighted by Anneberg et al. [29] (p. 57) in relation to animal welfare controls, with farmers stating: “they can always find something if they want to”. Therefore, the competence and behaviour of inspectors are essential aspects in the control process in terms of farmers’ willingness to continue with inspections [22]. According to Schulze et al. [27] (p. 516), the responsible control body plays a major role in the control’s quality. Another aspect of the certification process influencing the farmers’ perceptions is the bureaucracy involved [20]. The farmers perceive the required day-to-day documentation of records to be too complex [23] and time-consuming [12,27]. They consider the ‘desk work’ involved to be more considerable than their ‘real work’ [18], leading to the assumption that farmers perceive administrative tasks as not being something that a farmer does, which therefore do not match their self-identity.

Although “organic production systems and certification systems are often closely related”, farmers may make distinct decisions regarding organic practices and organic certification [30]. Compliance is often dependent on the farmers’ ability to change their behaviour [31]. Thus, intrinsic motivations—such as values—often relate to a farmer’s positive attitudes towards a long-term commitment to organic farming [12]. Therefore, besides attempting to evaluate certain positive or negative perceptions, it is also important to learn more about the attitudes that define which (motivational) factors play a key role in the first place [32], especially from farmers, who are “actors who are often missed in discussions of private regulation and institutionalization at the global level” [33].

Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess farmers’ perceptions of the current organic control and certification, in order to identify the potential strengths and weaknesses that might influence farmers’ willingness to participate in the organic certification scheme.

1.4. Research questions

Based on the above-mentioned scientific literature, the following research questions were developed, with the intention of being put to farmers, regarding the conditions in the province of Tyrol, Austria.

• How do organic farmers perceive the standards and regulations that apply to their farms?
• How do organic farmers perceive inspectors’ behaviour and competence?
• How do organic farmers perceive the certification process administered off-site?
• How do socio-behavioural factors influence farmers’ perceptions of the organic control and certification process?

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

The Province of Tyrol, in Austria, was used as the case study. In Tyrol, the study area was the political district of Innsbruck-Land (Figure 1). The selection of the study area was determined by the assumption that farmers would not be willing to participate in focus groups if the venue was more than an hour away from their farms; i.e., we were looking for a centrally-located study area in Tyrol.

Tyrol is in the west of Austria, in the eastern Alps (Figure 1). The agriculture there is therefore shaped by high altitudes and steep conditions. With an annual precipitation of over 800 mm, and an average temperature below 10 °C [34], Tyrol, compared with other regions in Austria, is quite a harsh environment for crop production due to a short vegetation period and the risk of frosts. As such, 40% of Austrian farms located in extremely exposed sites are in Tyrol, which is why Tyrolean farmers specialise in grassland management for dairy and meat production [35].

According to Schermer [22] (p. 90), organic control plays a special role in Tyrol, compared with other Austrian provinces. A nationwide study by Kirner and Schneeberger [36] (p. 230) showed that Tyrol had the lowest percentage of farmers who definitely wanted to remain organic. Besides the perceived high costs of certification, one major reason for this was their issues with controls and inspectors, which played a significantly greater role here than in other provinces [22,36]. These problems included the perception of an administrative burden, particularly for small farms that were operated as a sideline, with the confusion arising from the different guidelines, as well as the farmers’ self-perception as ‘free Tyrolean farmers’ who do not want to be controlled [22].

In order to find out more about farmers’ perceptions and attitudes towards certain aspects of the certification and control procedure, three focus groups were formed. The focus group sessions took place in April 2019, in a seminar room at the Higher Federal Education (HBLFA) in Kematen, Tyrol, and involved between five and eight organic farmers per focus group.

Potential participants were identified using the IACS (Integrated Administration and Control System) database. The Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Regions and Tourism gave special permission for the requested data to be used after the submission of a research proposal that included a confidentiality agreement. The data received contained the contact details of organic farmers (names, address, telephone and/or mobile phone number and/or email address) and operational numbers including the allocation of areas (grassland, arable land, vineyard, orchards and mountain pastures), and the number of livestock units (LU) and farm animals (cattle, sheep, goats, pigs and horses).

Since focus groups are a qualitative data collection method, the purpose of the study determines the sample size and sampling strategy [37]. Therefore, a mixed sampling approach, known as purposeful (non-randomised) stratified sampling, provided the strategy for the formation of focus groups with a suitable composition [38]. Other than the participants’ shared characteristic of being organic farmers, this strategy was intended to provide groups that had sufficient differences within them to stimulate a lively discussion. These differences were considered in the sampling strata, and were seen in the responsible control body, the farming system, and membership of an organic farming association. Here, the farming system was determined using the operational data (areas, livestock units, farm animals) provided by the IACS database and the responsible control bodies for potential candidates through the e-Cert and bioC online databases [39,40], which also contain information about the membership of certain organic farming associations (e.g., Bio Austria).

The participants were recruited over the telephone and, where requested, with an additional follow up email including a personal, signed invitation three weeks before the first focus group was held.

The concept for the focus group was based on the questionnaire concept developed by Krueger and Casey [37] (pp. 52–60) for focus groups. The discussions lasted between fifty and seventy minutes, and were recorded and saved by an audio device.

2.2. Participants

Of the participating 18 farmers, four were female and 14 were male; the average age was 43 years, and the average farm size was 10.28 ha (arithmetic means). Thirteen of the 18 farms were dairy farms, of which eight farms also included arable farming. Only three farmers were not specialized in dairy farming, with two of them focusing on beef production, and one having laying hens and cultivating potatoes and fruits.

All of the subjects gave their informed consent for inclusion before they participated in the study. The study was conducted and approved according to the guidelines of the University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna.

2.3. Data Processing and Analysis

The focus group discussions were recorded and subsequently transcribed to produce a pure verbatim protocol. The codebook for the further analysis of the German transcript was developed based on the inductive category formation developed by Mayring [41] (p. 195), followed by his concept of summarising qualitative content analysis, including three main steps of data processing: (1) paraphrasing: all none-content-bearing text was cut; (2) generalising: the resulting paraphrases were generalised to the defined level of abstraction; (3) summarizing: the cutting or combining of identical paraphrases. The resulting categories (

Table 1. Categories and codes used in the summarising qualitative content analysis, according to Mayring [41] (p. 195), according to level of abstraction.

Categories	Codes
Tasks necessary for certification	Organic production and labelling rules Administrative tasks
Tasks of inspectors and control bodies	Behaviour and competence of the inspector Certification process that is administered off site
‘organic’ in general and the role of control within it	General understanding of organic farming Legitimacy of the control for organic farming
Intrinsic factors	Values & beliefs Knowledge & information Self-identity Self-efficacy & perceived controllability (In)dependence
Extrinsic factors	Social factors Economic factors

) were further developed and adjusted within the coding process. The final codes resulted from the revision after coding about half of the given material. ATLAS.ti (Scientific Software Development GmbH 2019) served as a tool for the assignment of the codes to certain parts of the transcript.

The analytical framework was provided by the model of Leeuwis [42] (pp. 65–83) in order to understand farmers’ practices and their responses to the proposed alternatives, and included four basic variables: the evaluative frame of references, their perceived self-efficacy, social relations and perceived social pressure, and the perceived effectiveness of the socioeconomic environment. In this study, the proposed alternative refers to organic certification, including the control, as well as the related tasks required to obtain certification, as outlined in

Table 2. Methodological framework based on the model developed by Leeuwis [42] (pp. 51–116) to understand farmers’ practices and their responses to proposed alternatives.

Focus Group Key Questions	Research Questions	Leeuwis [42] (2004)		Socio-Behavioural Factors
What does ‘organic’ mean for you?	How do farmers perceive the term ‘organic’?	What do farmers believe to be true?	Evaluative frame of reference—the basis for reasoning about practice	Values & beliefs Knowledge & information Self-identity
How did you learn about the requirements for organic certification?	What sources of information do farmers use to learn about the requirements?
What did you want to achieve by converting to organic?	What do farmers aspire to achieve by becoming organically certified?	What are farmers’ beliefs about consequences?
How easy or difficult is it to meet the requirements for certification?	How do farmers perceive (their ability to meet) regulations and standards?	What do farmers believe they are able to do by themselves and they are allowed and/or expected to do?	Perceived self-efficacy & Social relations and perceived social pressure	Self-efficacy & perceived controllability Economic factors Social factors (In)dependence
What is your experience of inspectors’ competence and behaviour?	How do farmers perceive inspectors’ behaviour and competence?	What do farmers believe they are able to do with the expected support?	Perceived effectiveness of the socio-economic environment	Knowledge & information Social factors Economic factors (In)dependence
What is your experience of the certification process administered by the control body?	How do farmers perceive the certification process that is administered off-site?
How would you assess the need for the process?	How do farmers perceive the legitimacy of organic farming control and certification?

. According to Leeuwis [42] (pp. 65–83), the evaluative frame of references includes the perception of technical and socio-economic consequences, as well as the perception of the (un)certainty, likelihood and risks of farming practices. In our research, those practices refer to organic farming practices. This perception is based upon the knowledge and experience of organic farmers, which can originate from various sources. The perceived environmental effectiveness involves the farmer’s perception of the effectiveness of the agro-support network [42] (e.g., supply of organic seeds, the organization of marketing, the governmental price policy, the availability of services like advice or information), as well as farmers’ perception about the effectiveness of the (inter)community organization among the farmers [42]. The perceived self-efficacy depends on the perceived availability of skills and competences, and the ability to mobilize resources to control or accommodate risks [42]. In this study, to become organically certified through the fulfillment of the needed requirements is to comply with organic regulations. Social relations and perceived social pressure illustrate “perceived desires and expectations from other actors, resources that others are perceived to mobilize in order to persuade as well as the valuation of expectations, resources and relationships” [42].

3. Results

3.1. Farmers’ Perceptions of Standards and Regulations

The farmers did not perceive compliance with the set regulations to be difficult, but rather to be dependent on several aspects. One of these was the farming system. For instance, compliance with the regulations and the conversion were perceived to be more difficult for arable farms than for farms with livestock alone, such as dairy farms (Box 1). Another aspect was the intensity of the farming, with farmers perceiving that compliance with the regulations was easier for extensively managed farms than intensively managed ones. The use of fertilisers and pesticides were mentioned here. Furthermore, the supply of information from the control body was perceived to facilitate the requirements for certification (Box 1).

Box 1. Summary of the farmers’ generalised statements about organic production rules.

• Ease of conversion depends on the farming system, with it being easier for dairy farms and harder for arable farms, for example.
• Meeting the requirements is easy
  …as long as you work normally and are not operating too intensively.
  …provided the control body serves as source of information.

Another factor cited as influencing the ease of certification was the implementation of new requirements for organic farmers. The farmers perceived that there had been a change in the regulations here, as well as a recent increase in requirements, with new standards introduced by organic farming associations and retailers (Box 2). Although the farmers perceived that changes in regulations, such as the reduction in the proportion of permitted conventional feedstuff, had boosted the credibility of organic certification, farmers’ acceptance did not relate to the new requirements set by organic farming associations and retailers. The farmers claimed that there were too many different regulations and requirements, and viewed the distinction between different organic standards as being problematic. The differences in the standards set by the EU, the organic farming association and the retailers were perceived to be negative for the implementation of organic practices, and for the development of organic farming in general. Furthermore, the farmers stressed the need for uniform requirements to communicate one organic standard in order to avoid confusion among consumers (Box 2).

Box 2. Summary of farmers’ generalised statements about the consistency and diversity in the regulations and standards.

• The requirements set by the EU are sufficient.
• There are more and more requirements such as the ones issued by the organic farming association.
• Different requirements lead to confusion and do not communicate to consumers that there is one standard of organic farming.

With regard to the additional requirements of the organic farming associations, the farmers did not agree on the ease of meeting these requirements (Box 3). Some said that being informed and believing in their success were enough to comply, while others perceived the requirements as being much harder to fulfil. One new requirement in particular, set by a farming association in relation to an increase in grazing days, was discussed by all of the focus groups. The new requirement for pasture grazing was hard for farmers to meet due to restricted access to pastures (e.g., because of the location of the farm or inadequate infrastructure, such as roads without traffic) and the limited area that was suitable for grazing. Such requirements were perceived as obstacles to certification, particularly for small farmers.

Box 3. Summary of farmers’ generalised statements about the requirements set by the organic farming associations.

• Additional requirements set by organic farming associations…
  …can be met without difficulty provided you have the information and you believe it can work.
  …are too much and hard to fulfil.
• It is difficult to meet the new pasture requirements if you don’t have the access or quality of the required expanse of land.

Similar to the requirements set by the organic farming associations, the requirements set by the retailers were perceived mainly negatively. According to the farmers, the need to comply with both sets of standards was determined by the purchasing retailer (Box 4). The farmers reported that the retailers used additional requirements for commercial purposes, as well as to regulate the supply of products such as milk (Box 4). The livestock/dairy farmers in particular complained about the new specifications for loose housing systems, where again small farmers were said to struggle with this and consequently with obtaining certification. Thereby, farmers claimed that the available area—often including steep planes—and the high costs of rebuilding the stables impede the farmers’ ability to convert to loose housing systems.

Box 4. Summary of farmers’ generalised statements about the requirements set by the retailers.

• Whether you have additional requirements to meet depends on the purchasing retailer.
• Requirements for loose housing are used to regulate milk supply.
• Retailers see a commercial advantage in imposing more requirements, which also makes it hard for consumers to differentiate between organic products.
• Requirements for loose housing are hard for small farms to meet and wouldn’ generalised statements about the requirements set by the rett fit with their farm management, which makes it difficult for them to maintain organic production.

During the discussions, the farmers also talked about specific regulations. Regulations concerning the labelling of organic products were perceived to be complicated and impractical, especially for direct sales from the farm gate (Box 5). The farmers also discussed the authorisation of conventional feedstuff, which was perceived to be necessary in certain situations (Box 5). Difficulties in the provision of organic seed for permanent grassland, and in the veterinary treatment of animals were mentioned too (Box 5). Due to the perceived ineffectiveness of the veterinary remedies permitted for organic animals, the farmers were critical of them.

Box 5. Summary of the farmers’ generalised statements about certain requirements.

• The labelling requirements are impractical and unnecessary for direct sales from the farm and result in bigger and therefore more expensive labels.
• It is good to allow conventional feed stuff if no organic fodder is available […].
• It’s hard to meet the requirement for the use of organic seeds for permanent grassland because they are difficult to get hold of.
• The veterinary treatments allowed in organic farming do not seem to be effective.

Although the regulations about the administrative workload involved in organic certification do not directly apply to farm management, the farmers still perceived them to be an important requirement. The farmers felt that dealing with paper documents was old-fashioned compared with digital alternatives, such as online forms (Box 6). They also stated that there were many needless evaluations, because the available (digital) data—for instance, from the Agrarmarkt Austria (Agency of the Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Regions and Tourism responsible for handling subsidies, agricultural marketing and market and price reporting) (AMA) Mehrfachantrag (Application for area-related financial support through agricultural measures)—was being ignored. Hence, the farmers believed that the paperwork required for certification could be organised much more efficiently (Box 6).

Box 6. Summary of farmers’ generalised statements about the administrative workload.

• Having to deal with paper rather than online documents is old-fashioned and redundant.
• Too much unnecessary calculation is required.
• Farmers deal with the paperwork in different ways, but it is always important to have the documents complete and up to date.

3.2. Farmers’ Perception of the Controls and Inspectors

The farmers perceived that providing the necessary records and the inspectors’ performance were crucial to the control process and the outcome. The statements that were recorded about the farmers’ general perception of the inspectors were very variable.

The perception ranged from complete satisfaction with the inspectors’ performance, to a desire to change the control body, or even a desire to abandon the organic certification altogether due to the inspector’s incompetence and inappropriateness (Box 7). Another reason cited for why other farmers would not becoming organically certified was the general aversion to undergoing controls, with the farmers pointing out that the AMA control was more accurate than the organic control, and that the controls are also an opportunity to find out information. The farmers also criticised the frequency of certain aspects of the controls, with the inspectors’ annual measurements of the stables and pens being deemed unnecessary, because the size of stables and pens do not change annually, but only in the rare case of reconstruction (Box 7).

Box 7. Summary of the farmers’ statements about organic control.

• Whether the control is annoying or ok depends on the inspector.
• Being prepared in terms of records is the most important aspect in order to avoid problems with the control.
• Problems with the inspector can cause farmers to change control body or to stop getting certified.
• Farmers don’t want to be controlled.
• The organic controls are less accurate than AMA controls.
• Controlling certain requirements annually is unnecessary.
• The organic control shouldn’t be a control and shouldn’t be called a control because I can find out information during an inspection.

The farmers’ inconsistent perceptions of the inspectors were reflected in their perceptions of the inspectors’ competences. These differing perceptions related to the inspectors of the different control bodies, as well as to the competence of individual inspectors (Box 8). The farmers assumed that there was a difference in the inspectors’ training between the different control bodies. Some farmers also perceived female inspectors to be less preferable due to a lack of knowledge about farm management, while others perceived them not to be ‘problematic’ (Box 8). In general, the inspectors’ levels of knowledge were perceived to be quite inadequate, which the farmers traced back to the number of different standards and requirements.

Box 8. Summary of the farmers’ generalised statements about the inspectors’ competence.

• The inspector was accurate and didn’t miss anything.
• The training and competences of the inspectors varies between control bodies.
• Female inspectors cause problems because they don’t know farm procedures.
• It’s almost impossible for the inspector to know every standard for each farmer because there are too many different requirements.

In relation to the perception of the inspectors’ behaviour, the inspectors’ intentions and attitudes—in particular—were highlighted as being crucial. While some of the inspectors were perceived to be quite professional, others were perceived to be motivated by the detection of irregularities. The farmers stated, for instance, that the inspectors tried to intimidate them by noting that non-organic fodder was used, although the fodder was for the farmers’ children’s petting animals. According to the farmers questioned, this could be due to the inspectors’ desire to prove themselves (Box 9). Other negative perceptions of the inspectors’ behaviour related to the handling of information about potential irregularities between the inspectors, in order to deliberately detect non-compliance or deal with irregularities inappropriately (Box 9).

Furthermore, the farmers’ predisposition towards the inspectors, and also towards control in general, was perceived to be a determining factor in the inspectors’ behaviour.

Box 9. Summary of the farmers’ generalised statements about the inspectors’ behaviour.

• The inspector only ticks off a checklist and you watch.
• The inspector was compelled to find something.
• Inspectors are stricter if they are young and want to prove themselves.
• Farmers’ negative attitude towards an inspector can make it more difficult for the inspector to report irregularities […].

3.3. Farmers’ Perceptions of the Certification Process Administered off-Site

Compared with the other aspects of the certification, there was much less discussion about the certification process that was administered off-site. Generally, the farmers perceived it to be simple, and to automatically result in certification, or did not even realise that—after the inspection on site—the assessment of the inspector’s report by a person not involved in the reported inspection was an independent process within the overall certification procedure (Box 10).

Box 10. Summary of the farmers’ generalised statements about the off-site certification process.

• You can see already during control if everything is ok and then you sign.
• You don’t realize the certification is administered off-site.
• The certification administered off-site is totally automatic.
• The certificate is simply mailed if the control was OK.

3.4. Farmers’ Perceptions of the Control’s Legitimacy

Generally, all of the farmers agreed on the importance of control for organic farming, and the necessity of it for the implementation of standards and regulations. The reasons for this were identified as being the prevention of fraud, and the resulting credibility of the organic certificate. The control was also perceived to be a measure to stop farmers who only produce organically for the financial advantages that organic certification brings (Box 11). Although the farmers believed that there will always be ‘black sheep’ who exploit the organic certification system, their view was that a greater level of deception is not possible. Furthermore, the control was perceived to protect the organic farmers’ image through the traceability of their products (Box 11).

Box 11. Summary of the farmers’ generalised statements about the control’s legitimacy.

• Control is very important for the credibility of organic farming.
• The organic control prevents fraud on a big scale.
• There are two types of farmers, those who do it for the money and those who do it out of conviction. The control is important to maintain the standard.

3.5. Farmers’ Perceptions of the Term ‘Organic’ in General

The farmers perceived organic farming on different levels. The first level related to their general understanding of the term ‘organic’ (Box 12). Different perceptions about the basic meaning were identified. Some farmers included short transport routes, for instance, and therefore regionality, in the concept of organic food production. Others perceived the term ‘organic’ to be independent from certification, instead presuming conviction, ideology or patriotism in being defined as an organic farmer (Box 12).

Box 12. Summary of the farmers’ generalised statements about their general understanding of the term ‘organic’.

• ‘Organic’
  …means regional, small and simple.
  …isn’t about regionality.
  …means producing in a certain way with certain requirements.
  …does not depend on certification.
• You need to be a patriot to be organic.
• Being organic
  …is an ideology.
  …a traditional form of agriculture.
  …out of conviction should be a requirement.
• ‘Organic’ means higher quality and a differentiation from mainstream products.
• ‘Organic’ is about passing on healthy soil to the next generation.

Another perception of ‘organic’ farming differentiated organic products from conventional products by differing quality levels. ‘Organic’ was seen as a traditional form of agriculture, as well as a way to provide appropriate farming conditions for future generations (Box 12).

The second level of the understanding of ‘organic’ related to farming practices. Some farmers related a closed circular system to organic farming, while others perceived their farming practices to be innately organic, citing factors such as the use of organically-produced concentrates, and structural factors, such as their farms’ sizes and locations (Box 13). The sustainable handling of resources, as well as the avoidance of synthetic fertilisers and pesticides, and the resultant cost savings, were also assigned to organic farming (Box 13). The farmers also said that they wanted to set themselves apart from conventional farmers by adopting organic farming practices. The point on which the farmers did not agree was the inclusion of certain requirements concerning tethering, veterinary treatment and the cleanliness of the animals in organic animal husbandry (Box 13).

Box 13. Summary of the farmers’ generalised statements about their understanding of organic farm management.

• ‘Organic’ is about representing a more sustainable way of farming, but is also something that the farmer really believes in.
• ‘Organic’ is about having a healthy closed circular system for extensive production of food on an appropriate scale.
• Whether the stable has tethering or loose housing is secondary to being organic.
• ‘Organic’ does not include how clean the animals are.
• ‘Organic’ does include animal welfare.
• We would be organic anyway through the use of organically produced concentrates as well as the size and location of the farm and because we want to work that way.
• We organic farmers do it right. We look after the soil, get off the tractor and scratch the surface to check the weeds. Conventional farmers don’t do that.

4. Discussion

4.1. Values and Beliefs

The farmers viewed compliance with standards and regulations differently. According to Kirner et al. [20] (p. 100), the reasons for opting out of the organic certification scheme are associated with organic regulations. Although meeting the necessary requirements for certification was perceived as being feasible within the focus groups, the participating farmers noted that being an organic farmer out of conviction was essential in order to deal with the potential difficulties, such as additional working hours, as was also seen in Karali et al. [12] (p. 954). Papadopoulos et al. [43] (p. 18) also identified ideological values as being the most important factor in the adoption of organic farming practices. Therefore, the perception of the organic certification scheme depends on its consistency with past experiences, existing values and needs, and current conditions [17,30]. The farmers in the focus groups understood organic farm management to be a small-structured, extensive and, in some cases, also a traditional and more regional method of production. Moreover, the perception of ‘organic’ as a way of life, a certain attitude, or an ideology may strengthen the perceived independence of ‘organic’ from certification, and therefore from the implementation of standards and regulations [44]. Although the standards and regulations aim to define organic farming and serve as the basis for organic certification [4], this complex quality of organic farming is still embedded in local cultures, values and beliefs [11]. As such, the negative perceptions can be explained through a discrepancy perceived by the farmers in the objectives of the organic certification scheme [15,30], and their insecurity about the purposefulness of requirements and the legitimacy of regulations [45].

4.2. Farming Systems and Management

If the legal requirements that are necessary for organic certification were in line with the farmers’ underlying values and beliefs [42], the ease or difficulty of meeting the standards and regulations were perceived by the interviewed farmers as being dependent on the farming system, as well as the intensity of the farm. While Schermer [22] (p. 87) states that Tyrolean farmers have difficulties with the feeding requirements and animal husbandry, the focus groups also revealed struggles with labelling requirements, the procurement of certified seeds, and the veterinary treatment of the animals in organic farming. The ability to fulfil the requirements and thus become organically certified therefore greatly depended on the farmers’ perceived self-efficacy, which was also crucial for the effect of the further promotion of organic farming, such as through subsidies [18].

The administrative task is perceived to be time-consuming, especially for small farmers [18,22]. According to the farmers in the focus groups, the use of existing digital data (e.g., Mehrfachantrag) could decrease the bureaucratic workload, save time during the control and therefore enable the control of other aspects of farm management. This desire for a change in dealing with the paperwork for the certification could be related to the perceived importance of having all of the documents complete and up to date, in order to avoid problems during the control.

4.3. The Implementing Party: Retailers and Organic Farming Associations

The identified farmers’ perceptions of the standards and regulations appeared to be influenced not only by their perception of ‘organic’, but also by their view of the implementing party [15]. While the requirements set by the EU were perceived to be adequate and easier to meet, the standards set by the retailers were perceived rather negatively. This can be explained by the EU’s uniform and clear definition of organic farming, which is appreciated [4], while the farmers in the focus groups did not appreciate the retailers’ use of the word ‘organic’ for commercial purposes—for example, in an advertisement—which may lead to an unrealistic expectation for organic production among consumers [12,46]. Moreover, the perception of new additional requirements being used to limit the number of potentially complying farms—and therefore the supply of organic products—led to a feeling of exploitation, and was seen by the farmers as a risk to the future of organic agriculture.

In comparison with the additional requirements set by the retailers, the standards set by the organic farming associations were perceived in various ways. In one case, the farmers stated that pasture-grazing requirements were related to the area that was available for pasture grazing in Germany, due to their implementation by a German organic farming association. Having such comprehensive standards and regulations that do not correspond to site-specific conditions due to a standardisation of requirements is not desirable [11]. Therefore, local organic farming associations should support local adaptions of requirements [11]. Unfortunately, the farmers said that they saw no advantage in being a member of an organic farming association, except that it offered a better marketing opportunity, and their membership depended on the retailers’ requirements, instead of organisational commitment [47]. This does not reflect the assumption of Kirner and Schneeberger [36] (p. 231), that farmers who are members of an organic farming association are more likely to stay organic.

Due to the observed farmers’ perception of an increase in different standards, the associated risk of additional costs, and the confusion among consumers created by a failure to communicate a single standard, the Tyrolean farmers yearned for a uniform guideline for organic farming [22]. As described by Vogl et al. [11] (p.20), the farmers perceive the diversification of the legal framework of organic farming as a threat to farmers’ willingness to convert, and furthermore, to the future growth of organic production. Although the farmers are free to decide whether to adopt certain standards, with the increasing range of requirements, they “develop a quasi-mandatory nature”, and farmers feel forced to comply due to their dependence on the purchasing retailer [45].

Therefore, the farmers in the focus groups perceived small farms, in particular, to be disadvantaged more by the additional standards of this kind. One reason given was their limited financial capacity to adapt to loose-housing requirements through expensive constructions, for instance. Thus, the financial support through subsidies was perceived to be manipulative and financially disadvantageous in the long term. Karali et al. [12] (p. 955) explained the advantage that larger farms have of being better able to handle the extra workload produced by the additional requirements.

Organic farmers appeared not to receive sufficient support, either from their respective organic farming association or from policies, which can even lead to them abandoning organic farming altogether [20]. Through greater motivation to fulfil the social norms established by their peer group of organic farmers, increasing the number of conversions to organic farming is perceived to be one possible way to promote organic farming in Tyrol [45]. Sufficient encouragement through the agro-support network and (inter)community may also be able to overcome the lack of knowledge among organic farmers. This knowledge gap may be due to the provision of inadequate information, but may also be due to the fact that, according to the focus groups, the farmers do not know where to find out about the regulations. Given that the farmers’ decision-making is influenced by the information they have [15], this insecurity could lead to the perception that they have less influence over the implementation of the certification requirements, which could then go on to hamper their certification [5,25].

4.4. Control and Inspectors

The observed perception of the control depended on the inspectors’ competence and behaviour while on their farms. As there is no ‘pure’ form of control; this leads to various interpretations and differences in the documents used within the control [44]. The differences in the individual inspectors’ expertise and experience can be responsible for the variations in the control’s outcomes [24]. While some farmers perceived the competence of the inspectors from a certain control body to be proper and adequate, others highlighted differences in the quality of the audits [48]. One reason for this may be that the inspectors, who also undertake controls also for other certification schemes, may have specific qualifications, and may therefore detect certain irregularities more than others [49]. Such a disregard for the control body’s responsibility to offer sufficient control quality [50] can cause dissatisfaction among the farmers, and may lead to a change in the control body, or ultimately to a lack of organic certification altogether [3,27]. Referring to the results of the focus groups, these different perceptions could be explained by divergent expectations regarding the inspectors’ knowledge about farm management, as seen as in the farmers’ aspiration to be controlled by an inspector who is also a farmer.

As with the inspectors’ competences, their behaviours were also perceived differently. The perception of most of the farmers was related to their individual experiences with the inspectors, and thus did not depend on the control body. This could be explained by the perceived relationship between the inspectors’ own intentions and attitudes and their behaviour during the control. For instance, the farmers perceived young inspectors to be stricter, due to their desire to prove themselves [48]. Therefore, negative perceptions of an inspector’s behaviour could be related to the farmers’ feeling of being misunderstood, as well as to their perception that an inspector does not actually want them to comply with the set standards [29]. Furthermore, the detection of an irregularity does not mean a farmer deliberately intended to violate the applied standards and regulations, but may have been due to misinformation from the control body or another actor. Nevertheless, the inspectors appear to be unable or unwilling to differentiate between a deliberate violation of the rules and an unintentional one [45]. The farmers perceived the rating of infringements in terms of sanctions as varying, and being dependent on the inspector, with farmers often perceiving the detection of small discrepancies with production or labelling rules to be incomprehensible. This perception can be explained by the farmers’ different expectations of the purposes of the control due to their perception of organic practices and the term ‘organic’ [44].

On the part of the organic farmers, the acceptance of being controlled is an essential prerequisite for an unproblematic control process. This acceptance requires the perception of the control as part of being organic, with the farmers’ independence possibly impeding their desire to become certified [18,22]. The perception of the inspectors as being insincere can lead to a violation of trust between the farmer and the certifying party, with trust being essential to the inspection process [13].

4.5. Support and the Provision of Information

From the farmers’ point of view, infringements could be avoided by receiving better support from the control body, and the inspector in particular, but especially by there being an agreement on the information supplied in the guidelines provided by the different actors involved in the certification process. According to Padel et al. [5] (p. 12), one of the main problems with the current organic certification system is this lack of coherence, all the way from the operator, inspector and control body to the competent authority. Therefore, the farmers perceived the advice given by the inspectors to be helpful and desirable, and perceived the inspectors to be more competent if they offered advice during the control. The fact that the farmers stated that they currently received information from the inspector may therefore give rise to an aspiration to receive more advice during the controls [44]. However, the fact that the inspectors are not supposed to give the farmers additional information once again shows the gap in the farmers’ knowledge about the responsibilities within the organic certification process, and also reveals an unanticipated shift in the responsibilities within organic certification. Moreover, the farmers’ lack of knowledge about the independent procedure and the potential consequences of the certification administered off-site once again highlight the need for clarification about the responsibilities of the different actors within organic certification [5].

According to the survey on the deregistration of Californian organic farmers conducted by Sierra et al. [51] (p. 39), 41% of the respondents stated that regulatory-related assistance—like less paperwork, help with the application and registration, and more trained and experienced organic certifiers—would have helped them to continue to farm organically. This further highlights the importance and weighting of the study results for a policy design promoting a competent certification process.

5. Conclusions

The farmers’ perceptions of the standards and regulations, and of the inspectors, were inconsistent, and often depended on the farmers’ perceptions of organic production in general. Ideological motivators seemed to be essential here for dealing with the possible difficulties accompanying organic certification, according to the farmers. Nevertheless, the inspectors’ personal behaviour was seen as being crucial to the outcome of the control. In contrast, the certification processes administered off-site were not even considered to be an independent part of the control.

Intrinsic factors—such as values and beliefs, knowledge and information, and perceived self-efficacy—shape farmers’ attitudes and perceptions. Regarding the extrinsic factors, retailers in particular generate social pressure through distorted consumer expectations. It also seems that farmers do not receive enough support from their agro-support networks, such as their organic farming associations. Therefore, the information asymmetry within organic certification, and among all of the stakeholders involved, needs to be addressed. This would be supported by more standardised training for all of the inspectors, irrespective of their control body. Consideration should also be given to cultural traits in the implementation of the standards and regulations, in order to protect consumers from fraud and producers from unfair competition, and thus to promote organic agriculture.

In this study, farmers were given the opportunity to state their opinions, and they were able to explain their reasoning during focus group discussions. The social dynamics resulting from the conversation with like-minded farmers in such focus group discussions, and a qualitative analysis were seen by the authors as being beneficial in order to address the aims of this study. Nevertheless, there is a potential for a mixed method approach, combining focus groups and structured quantitative methods, which is suggested for upcoming studies.