The New Regionalism in Global Organic - Ricerca sull'intelligenza artificiale specializzata al MIT

The New Regionalism in Global Organic
Agricultural Governance Through Standards:
A Cross-Regional Comparison

(cid:129)
Sandra Schwindenhammer*

Astratto
In recent years, scholars in global environmental politics have contributed to the devel-
opment of regional environmental governance (REG) research. This article contributes to
the ongoing debate from an international relations perspective. It provides ﬁndings from
a comprehensive qualitative comparative analysis of the six regional organic agriculture
standards (OAS) in Europe, East Africa, the Paciﬁc, Central America, and Asia. Building on
research on norm localization, the analysis draws attention to interactions between the
global and regional regulatory levels, regional issue-speciﬁc normative infrastructures,
and the pooling of different sources of political authority by transnational entrepreneurs
and regional agents. The analysis serves three purposes in the light of the ongoing debate
on REG: (1) to conduct systematic comparative research; (2) to locate regional OAS within
the context of conceptual debates about global norm and policy diffusion, critical norm
research, policy mobilities, and comparative regionalism; E (3) to outline future areas
of research.

In recent years, scholars in global environmental politics have directed sustained
attention to the regional in environmental cooperation and, così, contributed
to the development of regional environmental governance (REG) research (per esempio.,
Balsiger and VanDeveer 2012; Gruby 2017). While early REG studies involved
descriptive analyses and single case studies, most recent research has put forward
more systematic conceptualizations and a larger number of cases in quantitative
research (Balsiger and Prys 2016; Haas 2016). Regionalization is expected to in-
crease the effectiveness and legitimacy of environmental politics. Regions are more
conducive to promoting norm diffusion than other regulatory entities, create and
sustain culturally embedded authority, and manage asymmetries of power and
voice better than other regulatory scales (Conca 2012, 127–131). Regions can also

* I thank the members of the research network “Food Policy and Governance” of the European
Consortium for Political Research and the three anonymous reviewers from GEP for insightful
comments on earlier drafts of this article; the interviewees for the time they granted me; E
Farhood Badri for his support in accomplishing this study.

Global Environmental Politics 18:3, agosto 2018, doi:10.1162/glep_a_00469
© 2018 by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

io
T
.

e
D
tu
G
e
P
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

1
8
3
8
6
1
8
1
8
2
6
5
G
e
P
_
UN
_
0
0
4
6
9
P
D

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

o
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Sandra Schwindenhammer

(cid:129) 87

compensate for implementation gaps as early adopters of global norms (Acharya
2014, 108).

Any study on REG should take into account its embeddedness in the inter-
national system (Balsiger and Prys 2016). In this regard, theory development in
REG can beneﬁt from current attempts of international relations (IR) scholars
to consolidate the fragmented ﬁeld of research on comparative regionalism
(Börzel and Risse 2016). Comparative regionalism draws our attention to the
multifold interactions between state and nonstate actors, norms, istituzioni,
and processes at various interacting regulatory levels that constitute a dynamic
and complex global system (Söderbaum 2016, 30). As Gruby (2017, 13) rightly
argues, REG is embedded within interlinked political interactions at local, Rif-
gional, and global levels. Even though theory development in REG research is
gaining momentum, some research gaps remain. The knowledge of public–
private and private REG arrangements, interactions between state and nonstate
actors on different regulatory levels, and social mechanisms of REG is still lim-
ited (Haas 2016, 447). More research is particularly needed regarding if (E
how) external actors can induce cooperative REG arrangements (Balsiger and
Prys 2016, 258).

The article contributes to ﬁlling these gaps. It focuses on an area that has,
so far, not received sufﬁcient attention in REG research—regional organic agri-
cultural governance through standards. Regional organic agriculture standards
(OAS) are an important part of the global food regime of public, private, E
public–private institutions and norms on different regulatory levels. While global
OAS set general frameworks, regional OAS focus on context-speciﬁc production
and consumption patterns ( Vogl et al. 2005, 22). Although scholars from IR
and public policy have done research on OAS (per esempio., Arcuri 2015; Daugbjerg
2012; Schwindenhammer 2017, 2016), we know little about the emergence of
regional OAS.

The analysis asks why and how regional OAS evolve. It provides ﬁndings
from a qualitative comparative analysis of the six regional OAS that have
emerged worldwide. The analysis has three purposes in the light of the ongoing
debate on REG. The ﬁrst purpose is to serve the need for more comparative re-
search (Balsiger and VanDeveer 2012, 8). The second purpose is to locate regional
OAS within the context of conceptual debates about the “mutually constitutive
relationship between global and regional environmental governance” (Gruby
2017, 13). The research is done within an integrative framework for analysis
that combines different literatures, including global policy and norm diffusion
(Biedenkopf et al. 2017; Finnemore and Sikkink 1998), critical norm research
(Acharya 2004), comparative regionalism (Risse 2016; Söderbaum 2016), E
policy mobilities (Prince 2012; Temenos and McCann 2012). The framework
argues that exogenous and endogenous conditions (independent variables) inﬂu-
ence the development of regional OAS (dependent variable). The main assump-
tion is that regional OAS setting involves the construction of ideas and the
formation of identity in particular regional settings of collective action. Building

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

io
T
.

e
D
tu
G
e
P
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

1
8
3
8
6
1
8
1
8
2
6
5
G
e
P
_
UN
_
0
0
4
6
9
P
D

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

o
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

88 (cid:129) The New Regionalism in Global Organic Agricultural Governance Through Standards

on the work of Acharya (2004) on norm localization, I introduce “sponsored
norm localization” as a slightly modiﬁed causal mechanism. I argue that in regions
that lack endogenous conditions conducive to OAS setting, transnational entre-
preneurs can step in and sponsor the regional issue-speciﬁc normative infra-
structure needed. The third purpose is to outline future areas of research.

The Regional in Organic Agricultural Governance Through Standards

Organic agriculture (OA) is a growing segment of the global food regime. As of
the end of 2016, it has been practiced in 178 countries with 57.8 million hect-
ares of agricultural land managed organically (Willer et al. 2018, 22). There are
almost 2.7 million organic producers, with more than 80 percent coming from
Asia, Africa, and Latin America (Willer et al. 2018, 23). OA serves as a laboratory
for analyzing the cross-level interplay between state and nonstate actors and the
increased use of voluntary approaches to regulation.

OAS have proliferated on all geographical levels. Since 1980, the standards
of the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM)
have provided the ﬁrst globally agreed-upon private OAS reference framework.
In 1999, WHO and FAO released the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC)
guidelines to facilitate the international harmonization of the requirements for
organic products in terms of production, marketing, inspection, and labeling.
Next to these global OAS, there is a signiﬁcant turn to the regional in OA gover-
nance through standards.

Regional OAS exist in Europe, East Africa, the Paciﬁc, Central America, E
Asia (Tavolo 1). The spread of regional OAS has paved the way toward a “new
regionalism for organic agriculture” (UNCTAD et al. 2012UN, io). According to the
senior ofﬁcer of the FAO Organic Agriculture Programme, this new regionalism
stems from “a general increase of regional integration processes, as well as

Tavolo 1

Summary Table of Regional OAS

Acronym

Regional OAS

EC 834/2007

European Council Regulation No 834/2007

EAOPS

POS

AROS

ASOA

HORCA

East African Organic Products Standard
Paciﬁc Organic Standard

Asia Regional Organic Standard

ASEAN Standard for Organic Agriculture

Harmonized Organic Regulations for
Central America, Panama, and the
Dominican Republic

OAS-Setting Period

2005–2007
2005–2007
2006–2008
2010–2012
2012–2014
2010–2012

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

io
T
.

e
D
tu
G
e
P
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

1
8
3
8
6
1
8
1
8
2
6
5
G
e
P
_
UN
_
0
0
4
6
9
P
D

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

o
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Sandra Schwindenhammer

(cid:129) 89

the growth of domestic organic markets in developing countries and intra-regional
trade” (Nadia Scialabba, cited in UNCTAD et al. 2012B, 38). Interest in intra-
regional and interregional trade has brought state and nonstate actors together
to formulate regional OAS based on regional commonalities (UNCTAD et al.
2012UN, iii). Today, regional production conditions and the need for regional
standards are commonly accepted aspects of OA governance and “something we
have to work with, rather than eradicate or resolve” (UNCTAD et al. 2006, 15).
Regional OAS can vary in form and content. Applying the differentiation of
REG arrangements according to the coordinating agency, regulatory substance,
and nature of territoriality (Balsiger and VanDeveer 2012, 7–8), most regional
OAS-setting processes start with nonstate actors as the rule-making agency and
end with governmental actors taking over regulatory control (Arcuri 2015). IL
scope of issues addressed exceeds single-issue arrangements, since OA cuts across
environmental, health, social, developmental, and trade policies. If we attempt
to locate regional OAS and use geographical scale as an ordering concept (Allen
and Cochrane 2007, 1167), we ﬁnd that they are part of governance systems
involving territories and actors belonging to several neighboring states (De
Lombaerde et al. 2010, 741). The jurisdictional nature of regional OAS formally
corresponds with state borders but can also exceed regional boundaries when
standards are applied in other regional contexts.

In any case, the use of the terms regional and region is highly ambiguous.
There is an increasing pluralism of deﬁnitions of regions, scales, and spaces (De
Lombaerde et al. 2010, 739). Following a relational approach, regions involve
ﬂuid and overlapping sets of political relations, networked across spaces that
have little respect for geographical scales, which questions the usefulness of
conceptualizing regions as territorially ﬁxed (Allen and Cochrane 2007, 1163).
In contrast to neofunctionalist and rational choice approaches that rest on
assumptions of ﬁxed and instrumental motives of actors, constructivism has
brought ideational and normative elements to the study of regionalism (Acharya
2016, 120). Regions are not ﬁxed geographic and cultural entities but dynamic
and socially constructed areas of social life (Acharya 2016, 122; Haas 2016, 431).
Regions can be contested and reconstructed through social practices and in dis-
course (De Lombaerde et al. 2010, 739). Regional values and preferences are not
independent but can be shaped in processes of social interaction (Söderbaum
2016, 28).

From a constructivist perspective, regional OAS setting is, così, a dynamic
and open-ended process. The knowledge and rationality of policy actors are
constructed in regional OAS setting through accumulating new information
about experiences and context-speciﬁc conditions, also from multiple places
(Allen and Cochrane 2007, 1171). Policy agents make up the regional in re-
gional OAS setting and deﬁne their own role within it. Expert response indicates
mutually consistent role expectations in regional OAS setting. Transnational
agents perceive their role as managing regional learning processes and building
capacity (I1). “We were facilitating but not guiding the regional process too

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

io
T
.

e
D
tu
G
e
P
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

1
8
3
8
6
1
8
1
8
2
6
5
G
e
P
_
UN
_
0
0
4
6
9
P
D

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

o
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

90 (cid:129) The New Regionalism in Global Organic Agricultural Governance Through Standards

much. We showed examples and to some extent also provided funds for those
things to happen” (I1). Regional agents see the role of transnational actors as
“acting as mediators,” “providing ﬁnancial resources,” and “coming from the
outside” (I3)—a perception that corresponds with the self-perception of the
transnational actors: “Myself and [two representatives from international orga-
nizations] are the ones who have moved the experience from one part of the
world to the others” (I1).

An Integrative Framework

The integrative framework for analysis combines different literatures relevant to
regional OA governance through standards, including global norm and policy
diffusion, critical norm research, policy mobilities, and comparative regional-
ism. Starting from the general distinction between the classical “global norm
diffusion perspective” and the critical “transnational perspective” in IR norm
research (Zwingel 2012, 16), the framework takes advantage of the different
approaches’ explanatory strengths while compensating for their weaknesses.
The framework argues that exogenous and endogenous conditions inﬂuence
regional OAS.

The global norm diffusion perspective treats international norms as causes
that produce effects within domestic contexts (or fail to do so) (Zwingel 2012,
116). Norm life-cycle models (Finnemore and Sikkink 1998) or the world cul-
ture model (Meyer et al. 1997) cover general tendencies of international norm
development. While for Finnemore and Sikkink (1998, 895–896), the success of
a global norm depends on whether it reaches wide acceptance, Meyer et al.
(1997, 148) see “transnational forces at work” that lead to structural similarities
and isomorphism. Allo stesso modo, classical approaches to policy transfer track the
diffusion of policies across space in relation to macro-level processes (Dobbin
et al. 2007). The incoherence between world models and local conditions serves
as a starting point for “extensive internal decoupling” (Meyer et al. 1997, 173).
Norm reinterpretation and contestation indicate the questioning of the validity
of a global norm (Zimmermann 2016, 107).

Proponents of the transnational perspective criticize the global norm dif-
fusion perspective in several respects. From their point of view, classical models
conceptualize the spread of norms as a simple dichotomy between adaptation and
rejection (Wiener 2009, 179), barely questioning the dominance of Western con-
cepts of norms (Epstein 2012, 140–141). Although “even the strongest global
forces are subject to local inﬂections” (Zwingel 2012, 121), classical models leave
domestic dynamics of norm creation and appropriation underestimated (Zwingel
2012, 118). They neglect local reactions to global norm promotion and the inten-
tional reinterpretation of ideas across cultural, spatial, and temporal contexts
(Zimmermann 2016; Großklaus 2015). Allo stesso modo, policy mobility scholars criti-
cize classical approaches to policy transfer for ﬁxating only on the act of transfer
between countries while holding the rest of the world still (Prince 2012, 191).

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

io
T
.

e
D
tu
G
e
P
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

1
8
3
8
6
1
8
1
8
2
6
5
G
e
P
_
UN
_
0
0
4
6
9
P
D

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

o
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Sandra Schwindenhammer

(cid:129) 91

Acharya introduced the concept of “norm localization” as the reframing of
foreign norms by regional agents to ensure a better ﬁt to their cognitive priors,
identities, and normative frameworks (Acharya 2004, 245). Regional agents re-
deﬁne foreign norms, which they take as generally good and desirable but not
fully consistent with their existing cognitive prior (Acharya 2014, 100). Norm
localization may start with the reinterpretation of a foreign norm but may
develop into more complex processes of reconstitution to make the norm con-
gruent with the preexisting regional normative order (Acharya 2004, 244). IL
success of norm diffusion depends on the extent to which a foreign norm ﬁts
to the existing regional set of values, such as discourse, the legal system, E
bureaucratic agencies (Acharya 2004, 243). The better the cultural match of
the foreign norm, the more likely it is that it will become localized. The norm
localization concept shifts the understanding of entrepreneurship from outsider
proponents committed to a universal moral agenda (Finnemore and Sikkink
1998) or to a global policy “marketplace” (Prince 2012, 191) toward insider
proponents committed to a localized normative order. Transnational entre-
preneurs “are guests not actors, they bring in new ideas, and new incentives,
but it is the locals who buy and use them” (Acharya 2014, 108).

Although the norm localization concept adds high analytical value in
pointing to the impact of endogenous conditions, it rests on two assumptions
that need further conceptual clariﬁcation: the assumption of a preexisting re-
gional issue-speciﬁc normative infrastructure and the prioritization of regional
agents over transnational entrepreneurs.

Norm localization implies that regional actors reconstruct foreign norms to
create congruence with existing regional beliefs (Acharya 2014, 100). Allo stesso modo,
scholars of norm translation, norm appropriation, policy transfer, and policy
mobilities highlight the impact of existing domestic structures, processes, E
beliefs in norm or policy diffusion. Zimmermann (2016, 106) points to the im-
portance of domestic discursive processes, frames, and “existing worldviews” in
norm translation. Zwingel (2012, 120) argues that each state represents a mix of
various value systems that can overlap with and differ from global norms.
Großklaus (2015, 1257) highlights the dialectic relationship between foreign
and domestic ideas and their “contextualisation and re-contextualisation into
existing structures.” Similarly, policy mobilities literature considers history and
context central rather than treating them as background (Prince 2012, 193). IL
authors of the 2017 special issue of Global Environmental Politics argue that do-
mestic factors are of great importance for understanding the global diffusion of
emissions trading systems in different jurisdictions (Biedenkopf et al. 2017).
They apply a bottom-up perspective and highlight the “strong strategic compo-
nent” in policy making (Müller and Slominski 2017, 53). Learning from abroad
serves as a strategic tool for domestic policy makers “to enhance argumentative
power vis-à-vis other stakeholders” (Müller and Slominski 2017, 63).

From a constructivist perspective, a policy’s successful mobilization does
not only depend on political will and the strategic use of regional infrastructures.

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

io
T
.

e
D
tu
G
e
P
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

1
8
3
8
6
1
8
1
8
2
6
5
G
e
P
_
UN
_
0
0
4
6
9
P
D

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

o
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

92 (cid:129) The New Regionalism in Global Organic Agricultural Governance Through Standards

Contextual speciﬁcities elucidate cognitive backgrounds, shape the constitution
and ﬂow of knowledge, determine central actors’ successful cooperation, and en-
able them to mobilize a favored policy (Werner and Strambach 2018, 24–25).
Allo stesso modo, Temenos and McCann (2012, 1390–1391) argue that the mobilization
of policies beneﬁts from imported policy models and necessitates an “ongoing
practical and participatory learning endeavor.” They highlight the importance of
how the local political ground is prepared for globally mobile policies and how
policies can be implemented through learning, adoption, and molding (Temenos
and McCann 2012, 1394). There is a need for a regional issue-speciﬁc normative
infrastructure that serves as the basis for OAS setting and allows for rereading the
meaning of global norms in context (Zwingel 2012, 126). Tuttavia, in regional
OA governance, preexisting regional structures, processes, and beliefs cannot be
taken for granted, especially in the developing world.

The original norm localization concept prioritizes regional agents over
transnational entrepreneurs and is, as Acharya (2014, 112) self-critically re-
marks, state-centric, neglecting the role of nonstate actors. According to Zwingel
(2012, 116), norm translation is an open negotiation process in which various
norm proponents are involved. Transnational entrepreneurs are increasingly
seeing it as part of their political project to promote regional normative change
(Söderbaum 2016). In doing so, they are no longer merely “guests” (Acharya
2014, 108). Transnational entrepreneurs cooperate with regional agents and en-
gage as active “brokers” or “translators” between and within different regional
contesti (Risse 2016, 91). I argue that the cooperation between state and non-
state agents from different regulatory levels can be mutually reinforcing. How-
ever, to take into account the blurred functional division of labor between the
public and the private sectors, it is necessary to widen the original norm local-
ization concept to include the interaction of different sources of political
authority (Boström and Tamm Hallström 2013). Political authority exists when
an “organization has decision-making power over a particular issue and is
regarded as exercising that power legitimately” (Cutler et al. 1999, 5). I differenti-
ate between legal, moral, and technical authority sources (Schwindenhammer
2016). Legal authority refers to the constitutionally institutionalized delega-
tion of competencies by democratic procedures and is thus exclusively exer-
cised by state actors.1 Moral authority is based on the credibility with which
actors pursue goals in the public interest. Technical authority rests on the
promise of more rational policy outcomes by providing knowledge-based ex-
pertise or ﬁnancial means. Authority pooling implies that both state and non-
state actors can exercise moral and technical authority at the same time, while
state actors additionally exercise legal authority (Schwindenhammer 2016,
106–108).

1. Although legal authority can be delegated by state to nonstate actors, state actors remain
the only authorities that ultimately set the rules of the game and provide legal checks and
balances.

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

io
T
.

e
D
tu
G
e
P
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

1
8
3
8
6
1
8
1
8
2
6
5
G
e
P
_
UN
_
0
0
4
6
9
P
D

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

o
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Sandra Schwindenhammer

(cid:129) 93

Sponsored Norm Localization

The integrative framework argues that exogenous and endogenous conditions
inﬂuence regional OAS.2 The conceptual limitations of the global norm dif-
fusion perspective do not invalidate the impact of global norms per se. REG is
both enabled and constrained by external agendas (Gruby 2017, 25). I argue that
global norms provide points of orientation that still weave into regional nor-
mative conﬁgurations. There are two exogenous conditions that may inﬂuence
regional OAS: global norms and OAS reference frameworks, and transnational
norm entrepreneurs.

Tuttavia, I also agree with Risse (2016, 90) that global norm diffusion is
an “active process.” Global norm diffusion depends on the context into which
norms are being brought (Zwingel 2012, 125). In line with the transnational
perspective, I argue that regional agents are not simply passive recipients that
download global norms but rather that they actively engage in processes of
norm translation, interpretation, and incorporation (Risse 2016, 90). Endoge-
nous conditions that may inﬂuence regional OAS include regional agents (insider
norm proponents); regional OA norms, policies, and styles of policy making; E
regional OA knowledge and resources.

Building on the work of Acharya, I introduce sponsored norm localization as
a slightly modiﬁed causal mechanism that works in regions without the issue-
speciﬁc normative infrastructure needed for OAS setting. In regions where endog-
enous conditions conducive to OAS setting are absent, weak, or still nascent,
transnational entrepreneurs can step in and sponsor the regional issue-speciﬁc
normative infrastructure. In sponsored norm localization, transnational entre-
preneurs are neither only guests who bring in new ideas that regional actors
buy and use (Acharya 2014, 108) nor strategic global policy consultants who
only promote widely taken-for-granted and pervasive knowledge (Prince 2012,
194). The components of global OAS reference frameworks are often unequi-
vocal and need regional discursive ﬁltering and reinterpretation. In regions that
lack the issue-speciﬁc normative infrastructure, regional agents may not know
what to buy from global frameworks and how to use global OA norms. In
sponsored norm localization, transnational entrepreneurs enable regional agents
to localize global norms in their regional contexts. They engage as active brokers
who help regional agents build the market for buying and using global norms,
questo è, to prepare the ground upon which regional OAS can be developed.
Transnational entrepreneurs tap the regional potential where it exists, raise or
advance regional OA awareness, and help deﬁne regional OAS as an issue of
political concern. They provide expertise; increase regional knowledge, for
esempio, through regional surveys or reports; and provide ﬁnancial resources.
Transnational entrepreneurs engage in regional network building (per esempio., regional

2. These conditions have to be understood as exogenous and endogenous to the region, not to the

process of regional OAS setting.

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

io
T
.

e
D
tu
G
e
P
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

1
8
3
8
6
1
8
1
8
2
6
5
G
e
P
_
UN
_
0
0
4
6
9
P
D

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

o
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

94 (cid:129) The New Regionalism in Global Organic Agricultural Governance Through Standards

working groups) and facilitate multistakeholder cooperation between state
and nonstate actors. Transnational entrepreneurs foster the pooling of legal,
moral, and technical sources of political authority. Regional OAS setting is
closely linked to the moral authority of transnational entrepreneurs but also
touches on knowledge-based expertise of contextual conditions (per esempio., regional
agricultural traditions and techniques) that relates to the moral and technical
authority of regional agents. While the exercise of moral and legal authority
may add legitimacy and help overcome mutual distrust, technical authority may
provide problem-solving resources for OAS setting.

The issue-speciﬁc normative infrastructure is not only a vehicle for top-
down norm diffusion but allows regional agents to discover or redeﬁne their
interests. Regional values, preferences, and identities are not ﬁxed and indepen-
dent but can be shaped in processes of social interaction and intersubjective
understanding between transnational and regional agents (Söderbaum 2016,
28). According to Gruby (2017, 24), “the so-called regional voice is not one
but many voices that are seeking both shared and context-speciﬁc goals in
political struggles that are simultaneously local, regional, and global.” The re-
gional issue-speciﬁc normative infrastructure provides institutional opportuni-
ties for the regional formation, articulation, or modiﬁcation of preferences and
the mutual understanding of beliefs. I argue that (sponsored) norm localization
may also involve “acquiring and incorporating new norms and understandings
into one’s belief systems” (Risse 2016, 90). Even though ﬁxed policy objectives
cannot be taken for granted, this does not mean that regional agents do not
have any strategic interests at all. Tuttavia, interests such as obtaining economic
beneﬁts from organic trade need to be seen in the light of the regional construc-
tion of identity and purpose.

The New Regionalism in OA Governance: Results and Discussion

Aiming at a systematic and contextualized analysis of regional OAS, I opted for
comprehensive coverage instead of carrying out an in-depth analysis of one case.3
I included the six regional OAS that represent the universe of cases. I received
empirical data from IOs, NGOs, and regional working group meetings (standards,
reports, and website material) and eight semistructured expert interviews con-
ducted from 2012 A 2014 (coded as I1–I8). I sampled the interviews to reduce
randomness as much as possible. The sample includes principal protagonists
from the public and private sectors who participated in at least one regional
OAS-setting process.4 To validate the integrative framework, I applied the method
of structured focused comparison (George and Bennett 2005) and took snap-
shots at a number of speciﬁc moments to ﬁnd and interpret diagnostic evidence.

3. For an in-depth case study of a regional OAS, see Schwindenhammer (2016).
4. To maintain the anonymity of the interviewees, I do not provide further information about

individual organizational membership.

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

io
T
.

e
D
tu
G
e
P
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

1
8
3
8
6
1
8
1
8
2
6
5
G
e
P
_
UN
_
0
0
4
6
9
P
D

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

o
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Sandra Schwindenhammer

(cid:129) 95

Exogenous and Endogenous Conditions
Each ﬁnal standard document refers to global OA norms and at least one global
OAS reference framework (Vedi la tabella 2). All standards refer to the CAC guide-
lines. The regional OAS in Europe, East Africa, the Paciﬁc, and Asia also refer
to the IFOAM standards. Tuttavia, the reference to global OAS frameworks does
not imply that regional OAS just copy global standards. Global OAS refer-
ence frameworks tend to be abstract and open to interpretation ( Vogl et al.
2005, 22). They allow for considerable variation on different regulatory
levels (Daugbjerg 2012).

Transnational entrepreneurs participated in ﬁve out of six regional
OAS-setting processes (Tavolo 2). IFOAM engaged in East Africa, Europe, IL
Paciﬁc, Central America, E, at ﬁrst, Asia. Transnational entrepreneurs from
the public sector participated in East Africa, Central America, E, at ﬁrst, Asia.
The entrepreneurial involvement highly varied from advocacy in the EU to the
provision of ﬁnancial resources in Central America and a more comprehensive
engagement in OAS setting in East Africa, the Paciﬁc, and Asia. Transnational
entrepreneurs also raised global awareness of regional OAS. The new regional-
ism for OA only gained momentum when transnational entrepreneurs pro-
moted the idea of regional OAS to enhance global organic trade, “starting
with intra-regional trade in developing countries” (UNCTAD et al. 2012UN, iii).
In 2002, IFOAM, UNCTAD, and FAO established the International Task Force
on Harmonization and Equivalence in Organic Agriculture (ITF) to facilitate
regulatory harmonization, recognition, and equivalence. In 2008, the ITF devel-
oped the Guide for Assessing Equivalence of Standards and Technical Regula-
zioni (EquiTool) and the International Requirements for Organic Certiﬁcation
Bodies (IROCB) as practical tools for equivalence and mutual standard recogni-
zione. In 2009, UNCTAD, FAO, and IFOAM launched the Global Organic Market
Access Project (GOMA) as a follow-up to their work in the ITF. GOMA pursued
the objectives of promoting regional OAS, EquiTool, and IROCB.5

Regional agents actively engaged in all regional OAS-setting processes.
Tuttavia, their level of organization, OA awareness, and engagement varied
depending on the regional context. Whereas East Africa lacked community-
building processes, the close economic, political, and sociocultural connections
within the EU enabled regional agents to act as one regional subject with its
own identity. Regional OA norms, policies, and styles of policy making turned
out to be more or less compatible with the multistakeholder approach to regional
OAS setting promoted by transnational entrepreneurs. While the approach con-
ﬂicted with the existing set of regional expectations in Central America (Bowen
2013, 18) and the style of OA policy making within the EU, it was accepted in
East Africa, the Paciﬁc, and Asia. The initial level of regional OA knowledge and

5. In 2012, GOMA revised EquiTool and IROCB and introduced a new instrument, the Common
Objectives and Requirements of Organic Standards (COROS), to serve regional OAS setting.

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

io
T
.

e
D
tu
G
e
P
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

1
8
3
8
6
1
8
1
8
2
6
5
G
e
P
_
UN
_
0
0
4
6
9
P
D

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

o
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

S
e
C
R
tu
o
S
e
R

D
N
UN

e
G
D
e
l
w
o
N
K

G
N
io
k
UN
M

sì
C
io
l
o
P

D
N
UN

,
S
e
io
C
io
l
o
P

l
UN
N
o
io
G
e
R

,
S

M
R
o
N
UN
O

l
UN
N
o
io
G
e
R

M
R
o
N

R
e
D
io
S
N
IO

S
T
N
e
N
o
P
o
R
P

l
UN
N
o
io
T
UN
N
S
N
UN
R
T

S
R
tu
e
N
e
R
P
e
R
T
N
E

S
UN
O

l
UN
B
o
l
G

l
UN
N
o
io
G
e
R

S
k
R
o
w
e
M
UN
R
F

H
C
UN
o
R
P
P
UN

e
C
N
e
R
e
F
e
R

G
N
io
T
T
e
S
–
S
UN
O

M
R
o
N

F
o

e
P
sì
T

N
o
io
T
UN
z
io
l
UN
C
o
l

l
UN
N
o
io
G
e
R

S
UN
O

S
N
o
io
T
io
D
N
o
C

S
tu
o
N
e
G
o
D
N
E

S
N
o
io
T
io
D
N
o
C

S
tu
o
N
e
G
o
X
E

S
io
N
UN
H
C
e

l
UN
S
tu
UN
C

sì
R
o
T
tu
T
UN
T
S

l
UN
N
o
io
G
e
R

C
io
N
UN
G
R
o

l
UN
N
o
io
G
e
R

)
sì
l
N
o

G
N
io
sì
B
B
o
l
(

H
G
io
H

sì
R
o
T
UN
l
tu
G
e
R

U
E

D
e
z
io
N
UN
G
R
o

sì
l
H
G
io
H

M
UN
O
F
IO

,
S
e
N

io
l
e
D
io
tu
G
C
UN
C

sì
C
io
l
o
P

C
io
l
B
tu
P

M
R
o
N

7
0
0
2
/
4
3
8
C
E

k
R
o
w
e
M
UN
R
F

D
N
UN

l
UN
N
o
io
T
UN
N

P
tu
o
R
G
U
E

S
D
R
UN
D
N
UN
T
S

M
UN
O
F
IO

G
N
io
k
UN
M

N
o
io
T
UN
z
io
l
UN
C
o
l

w
o
l

T
N
e
C
S
UN
N

C
UN
E

UN
O

l
UN
N
o
io
T
UN
N

D
N
UN

S
e
io
C
io
l
o
P

S
D
R
UN
D
N
UN
T
S

S
N
o
io
T
UN
l
tu
G
e
R

C
E

,
S
T
N
e
G
UN

P
E
N
U

S
T
N
e
M
e
v
o
M

C
io
N
UN
G
R
o

D
UN
T
C
N
U

S
D
R
UN
D
N
UN
T
S

M
UN
O
F
IO

G
N
io
k
UN
M
sì
C
io
l
o
P

N
o
io
T
UN
z
io
l
UN
C
o
l

l
UN
N
o
io
T
UN
N

T
N
e
C
S
UN
N

M
UN
O
F
IO

,
S
e
N

io
l
e
D
io
tu
G
C
UN
C

e
T
UN
v
io
R
P
–
C
io
l
B
tu
P

M
R
o
N

D
e
R
o
S
N
o
P
S

S
P
O
UN
E

M
tu
io
D
e
M

,
sì
T
io
N
tu
M
M
o
C
C
ﬁ
io
C
UN
P

UN
O

l
UN
N
o
io
T
UN
N

D
N
UN

S
e
io
C
io
l
o
P

S
D
R
UN
D
N
UN
T
S

sì
T
io
N
tu
M
M
o
C
C
ﬁ
io
C
UN
P

e
H
T

F
o

T
UN
io
R
UN
T
e
R
C
e
S

C
io
N
UN
G
R
o

l
UN
N
o
io
T
UN
N

,
S
T
N
e
M
e
v
o
M

S
D
R
UN
D
N
UN
T
S

M
UN
O
F
IO

G
N
io
k
UN
M
sì
C
io
l
o
P

N
o
io
T
UN
z
io
l
UN
C
o
l

M
UN
O
F
IO

,
S
e
N

io
l
e
D
io
tu
G
C
UN
C

e
T
UN
v
io
R
P
–
C
io
l
B
tu
P

M
R
o
N

D
e
R
o
S
N
o
P
S

S
O
P

M
tu
io
D
e
M

UN
O

l
UN
N
o
io
T
UN
N

C
io
N
UN
G
R
o

l
UN
N
o
io
T
UN
N

O
UN
F

M
UN
O
F
IO

,
S
e
N

io
l
e
D
io
tu
G
C
UN
C

e
T
UN
v
io
R
P
–
C
io
l
B
tu
P

M
R
o
N

D
e
R
o
S
N
o
P
S

S
O
R
UN

H
G
io
H

l
UN
N
o
io
T
UN
N

N
UN
E
S
UN

S
D
R
UN
D
N
UN
T
S

D
N
UN

S
e
io
C
io
l
o
P

UN
O

S
D
R
UN
D
N
UN
T
S

D
N
UN

S
e
io
C
io
l
o
P

,
S
T
N
e
M
e
v
o
M

S
T
N
e
M
N
R
e
v
o
G

N
UN
E
S
UN

B
C
O
R
IO

,
S
O
R
O
C

D
UN
T
C
N
U

,
S
D
R
UN
D
N
UN
T
S

M
UN
O
F
IO

G
N
io
k
UN
M
sì
C
io
l
o
P

N
o
io
T
UN
z
io
l
UN
C
o
l

,
S
D
R
UN
D
N
UN
T
S

M
UN
O
F
IO

B
C
O
R
IO

,
S
O
R
O
C

G
N
io
k
UN
M

N
o
io
T
UN
z
io
l
UN
C
o
l

,
S
e
N

io
l
e
D
io
tu
G
C
UN
C

sì
C
io
l
o
P

C
io
l
B
tu
P

M
R
o
N

UN
O
S
UN

S
D
R
UN
D
N
UN
T
S

D
N
UN

S
e
io
C
io
l
o
P

e
R
tu
T
l
tu
C
io
R
G
UN

C
io
N
UN
G
R
o
N
o

)
sì
l
N
o

T
R
o
P
P
tu
S

D
UN
T
C
N
U

l
UN
io
C
N
UN
N
ﬁ
(

M
tu
io
D
e
M

UN
O

l
UN
N
o
io
T
UN
N

S
e
io
T
io
R
o
H
T
tu
UN

T
N
e
T
e
P
M
o
C

O
UN
F

M
UN
O
F
IO

S
e
N

io
l
e
D
io
tu
G
C
UN
C

e
T
UN
v
io
R
P
–
C
io
l
B
tu
P

G
N
io
k
UN
M
sì
C
io
l
o
P

l
UN
N
o
io
G
e
R

N
o
io
T
UN
z
io
l
UN
C
o
l

M
R
o
N

UN
C
R
O
H

S
T
l
tu
S
e
R

l
UN
C
io
R
io
P
M
E

F
o
w
e
io
v
R
e
v
O

e
l
B
UN
T

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

io
T
.

e
D
tu
G
e
P
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

1
8
3
8
6
1
8
1
8
2
6
5
G
e
P
_
UN
_
0
0
4
6
9
P
D

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

o
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Sandra Schwindenhammer

(cid:129) 97

resources differed from rather low in East Africa (I2), to medium in the Paciﬁc
(Mapusua and Maccari 2007) and Central America (GOMA 2010) and from
medium (and later high) in Asia (Kung Wai 2011) to high in the EU (I7).

Although exogenous and endogenous conditions varied, regional OAS
evolved in all cases (Tavolo 2). Thus the causal mechanism through which the
six OAS evolved needs further empirical investigation.

Sponsored Norm Localization in East Africa, the Paciﬁc, and Asia
The East African Organic Products Standard (EAOPS), the Paciﬁc Organic
Standard (POS), and the Asia Regional Organic Standard (AROS) provide
empirical evidence of regional OAS that evolved through sponsored norm local-
ization. While the idea of regional OAS gained ground globally, EAOPS, POS,
and AROS were the ﬁrst regional OAS ever developed between state and non-
state agents from different regulatory levels. While multistakeholder OAS setting
was “ground-breaking for the East African Community” (I2), it was accepted by
the Paciﬁc Community and Asian stakeholders right from the beginning (I3).
The multistakeholder approach today “serves as a successful and replicable
model for developing regional standards worldwide” (UNEP and UNCTAD
2010, 37).

In all cases, transnational entrepreneurs gave the impetus for regional OAS
setting. In East Africa, the merger of two transnational projects enhanced the
awareness of OA among regional agents. In 2005, the IFOAM Organic Standards
in East Africa program and the UNEP/UNCTAD Promoting Production and
Trading Opportunities for Organic Agricultural Products in East Africa project
joined forces to pursue the goal of a regional OAS. In the Paciﬁc, IFOAM ini-
tiated the Organic Standards for the Paciﬁc project in cooperation with the
Italian Ethical and Environmental Certiﬁcation Institute to develop POS in
2006. In Asia, IFOAM, FAO, and UNCTAD gave the impetus for the develop-
ment of AROS in the context of GOMA in 2010.

In all cases, transnational entrepreneurs sponsored the issue-speciﬁc nor-
mative infrastructure needed for regional OAS setting. In East Africa, IFOAM,
UNEP, and UNCTAD cooperated with representatives from the national stan-
dard bureaus, organic movements, organic certifying bodies and the East African
Business Council in the Regional Standard Technical Working Group (RSTGW).
In the Paciﬁc, IFOAM brought together the secretariat of the Paciﬁc Community,
representatives of national organic movements, government bodies, organic
imprese, and NGOs from the Paciﬁc island countries and territories in a
Regional Organic Task Force. In Asia, the creation of the GOMA–Asia Working
Group allowed for cooperation between IFOAM, FAO, UNCTAD, and regional
agents from East Asia, Southeast Asia, and South Asia, with most agents coming
from the latter two regions.

In all cases, transnational entrepreneurs and regional agents collectively
pooled moral, technical, and legal sources of political authority. In East Africa,

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

io
T
.

e
D
tu
G
e
P
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

1
8
3
8
6
1
8
1
8
2
6
5
G
e
P
_
UN
_
0
0
4
6
9
P
D

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

o
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

98 (cid:129) The New Regionalism in Global Organic Agricultural Governance Through Standards

transnational entrepreneurs “tried to stand back and not to push” (I2) to let
regional agents “discuss and decide what they wanted to do” (I2). RSTGW
allowed for the exchange of global OA norms and regional values. It conducted
a systematic comparison of global OAS reference frameworks (CAC guidelines
and IFOAM standards) with nascent East African organic policies, standards,
and market institutions. Although traditional African agriculture provided sig-
niﬁcant growth opportunities at that time, the East African organic market
and regulatory frameworks turned out to be “almost non-existent” (I2). Trans-
national entrepreneurs took the early stage of organic sector development into
consideration, helped to develop the capacities of regional agents, and enabled
them to “gain ownership” (I1). The dialogue between transnational entrepre-
neurs and regional agents enabled the formation of regional OA preferences
and improved the mutual understanding of East African agricultural systems.
EAOPS basically reﬂects the regional agents’ own ideas of “what organic is
and what the relevant issues are” (I2). By means of pooling moral and technical
authority sources, IFOAM, UNCTAD, and UNEP provided normative, proce-
dural, and technical expertise and helped to answer the regional agents’ ques-
zioni: “What is organic?,” “How do you develop a regional standard?,” “How do
you approach the process?,” and “How do you formulate a standard docu-
ment?" (I1). The EAOPS draft text developed through ongoing input from a
series of national and regional consultations. National NGOs working with
local farmers contributed most of the relevant regional knowledge (I1).

In the Paciﬁc, transnational entrepreneurs “moved the successful experi-
ence from East Africa to another world region” (I3). Solid data on the state of
OA in the Paciﬁc backed up the OAS-setting process and allowed for the cross-
level exchange of global norms and regional values in the Regional Organic Task
Force. IFOAM commissioned a professional assessment of the state of regional
and national OA production, policies, and market developments (Mapusua and
Maccari 2007). The results helped to identify the underlying objectives of
national regulatory frameworks and draw conclusions about the challenges and
obstacles experienced in the Paciﬁc organic sector. The interplay of moral and
technical authority sources, complemented by networking in the Regional Organic
Task Force, paved the way for the POS. Transnational entrepreneurs and regional
agents commonly deﬁned what OA meant in the Paciﬁc and soon reached mutual
consent on the POS as a shared governance aim. “The Paciﬁc Island countries are
small and have very limited capacity. Going for the regional solution was ex-
tremely natural” (I4). The Regional Organic Task Force received feedback on
socioeconomic and cultural demands from a series of regional workshops,
national consultations, and trainings. The POS is the ﬁrst regional OAS in the
world to include the issues of climate change mitigation and adaptation. The most
important achievement in regional OAS setting “was to start standard-setting in
the Paciﬁc over again and to make it better adapted to local conditions” (I4).

In Asia, the GOMA–Asia Working Group cooperated with seven govern-
ments to compare national OAS and certiﬁcation requirements with COROS

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

io
T
.

e
D
tu
G
e
P
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

1
8
3
8
6
1
8
1
8
2
6
5
G
e
P
_
UN
_
0
0
4
6
9
P
D

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

o
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Sandra Schwindenhammer

(cid:129) 99

and IROCB. The systematic comparison of national regulations and the global
tools for equivalence and mutual standard recognition provided the knowledge
base needed for the development of AROS (Bowen 2013, 15). The ﬁndings re-
vealed regulatory fragmentation and the need for improved equivalence (I5)
and corresponded with the growing interest among regional agents to reduce
regulatory fragmentation and to foster intraregional trade as a development op-
zione (Kung Wai 2011, 122–123). The GOMA–Asia Working Group commis-
sioned a Drafting Group to develop the AROS draft text. The Drafting Group
organized national consultations and workshops in the Philippines, Laos, E
South Korea. The standard draft went through three revisions (2011–2012). It
was prepared with input from governments, nonstate agents, and the members
of the GOMA–Asia Working Group. The ongoing dialogue between trans-
national entrepreneurs and regional agents raised the general awareness of the
beneﬁts of regional OA production, processing, and marketing and allowed for
the exchange of global norms and regional values. Key aspects of the debate
involved the provision of food safety, the utilization of locally available renew-
able resources, the control of environmental pollution, and the propagation of
healthy food (I5). The discourse between transnational entrepreneurs and re-
gional agents improved the mutual understanding of cultural traditions and
context-speciﬁc environmental conditions, Per esempio, regarding the high cul-
tural importance of rice production and consumption and the need for farming
systems adapted to tropical climate conditions. The exchange of ideas ﬁnally
contributed to the common understanding of AROS as a regional benchmark
for equivalence and for adoption by countries in the region that had not set
their own national OAS (Kung Wai 2014, 165).

In East Africa, it took some time until governments conceived EAOPS as
an appropriate and legitimate governance goal. Transnational entrepreneurs and
nonstate regional agents promoted regional OAS setting “towards the govern-
ments in particular” (I2). Especially UNEP and UNCTAD “managed to give that
wider perspective” (I1) by exercising legal and moral authority. In the Paciﬁc,
governmental actors engaged in multistakeholder OAS setting from the begin-
ning. Their early commitment was key to the success of POS (I2). In Asia, IL
governments’ commitment relied on the traditions of “non-interference and
consensus-seeking” (I5). Similar to East Africa, the legal authority sources of
FAO and UNCTAD played a key role in getting the Asian governments involved.
It would have been “difﬁcult for IFOAM to manage this with its NGO partners
alone” (I2). FAO and UNCTAD had “much better access to the governments and
their arguments were getting weight by coming from UN organizations” (I5).

Norm Localization in Asia, the EU, and Central America

The ASEAN Standard for Organic Agriculture (ASOA), EC 834/2007, and the
Harmonized Organic Regulations for Central America, Panama and the Dominican
Republic (HORCA) provide empirical evidence of regional OAS that emerged

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

io
T
.

e
D
tu
G
e
P
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

1
8
3
8
6
1
8
1
8
2
6
5
G
e
P
_
UN
_
0
0
4
6
9
P
D

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

o
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

100 (cid:129) The New Regionalism in Global Organic Agricultural Governance Through Standards

through classical norm localization. While transnational entrepreneurs did not
participate in the setting of ASOA, they lobbied for a regional OAS within the
EU and provided ﬁnancial resources in Central America. In this regard, the three
cases fundamentally differ from the multistakeholder OAS-setting approach of
EAOPS, POS, and AROS.

In all cases, regional governmental actors gave the impetus for regional
OAS setting. In Asia, regional governments initiated the development of a second
regional OAS (ASOA) soon after AROS was completed. The successful multi-
stakeholder cooperation in the context of AROS had opened a window of oppor-
tunity for the development of a new OAS in the context of the Association of
Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). In 2012, the Task Force on ASEAN Standards
for Horticultural Produce and Other Food Crops discussed adopting AROS as
an ASEAN standard. The discussion led to the establishment of the Special Task
Force on the ASEAN Standards for Organic Agriculture for further consultation
among ASEAN member states.6 In the EU, the European Commission (EC) con-
sidered drafting a directive to deﬁne and control organic farming for the ﬁrst time
in the late 1980s.7 The EC also initiated the review process of the European legal
framework for OA in 2005. In June 2007, EC 834/2007 replaced (EEC)2092/91,
setting out new principles, aims, and rules for European organic production and
labeling.8 In Central America, a group of governmental actors, the Competent
Authorities on Organic Agriculture, gave the impetus for the development of
HORCA in 2004.

In Asia, the Special Task Force agreed to use AROS as a working document
to develop ASOA in the context of the ASEAN in April 2013 (Kung Wai 2014,
165). In doing so, governmental actors took advantage of the issue-speciﬁc nor-
mative infrastructure and the results of the multistakeholder OAS-setting pro-
cess UNCTAD, FAO, and IFOAM had started three years earlier. In the EU,
regional agents claimed an already existing normative infrastructure, including
common agricultural policies, traditions, and a shared history (I7). In Central
America, almost all countries already had national OAS that had been devel-
oped “to service EU imports or exports to the EU” (I8). The European legal
framework served as the benchmark for regional OAS setting. For the Central
American countries, “the easiest way to get approved by the EU as a trading
partner is to have a standard that is identical with the EU standard” (I7).

Although transnational entrepreneurs and nonstate regional agents were
not involved in the development of ASOA, their preparatory work in developing
AROS prepared the ground for the subsequent public OAS (Kung Wai 2015,

6. In 2015, the Special Task Force obtained a new mandate to develop certiﬁcation and recogni-

tion arrangements between ASOA and the ASEAN member states’ national OAS.

7. Several European countries had started developing national organic regulations before the 1980s.
These bottom-up processes also inﬂuenced the setting of (EEC)2092/91 (Schwindenhammer 2017,
1688).

8. In 2014, the EC proposed a complete revision of the EU organic legislation; it is still under

negotiation.

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

io
T
.

e
D
tu
G
e
P
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

1
8
3
8
6
1
8
1
8
2
6
5
G
e
P
_
UN
_
0
0
4
6
9
P
D

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

o
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Sandra Schwindenhammer

(cid:129) 101

159). With minor revisions, the ASOA basically reﬂects the content of AROS. In
the EU, transnational entrepreneurs advocated regional OAS setting, but “the
Ministries of Agriculture and the Commission developed the organic standard”
(I7). The EC turned to the IFOAM EU Group “as the primary source of organic
expertise” (Schlüter and Blake 2009, 8). Tuttavia, the formalized rules of policy
making and a “strong agricultural lobby that is afraid of external intervention”
(I7) might explain why the EU did not cooperate with IFOAM on an equal
footing. In Central America, transnational entrepreneurs deﬁned their role as
providing “the necessary resources to ﬁnish the process that the authorities
started” (GOMA 2010, 12). GOMA’s ﬁnancial support enabled regional agents
to resume work on the regional OAS, which was started in 2004 but stalled by
2007 (GOMA 2010, 12). Tuttavia, the multistakeholder approach to regional
OAS setting promoted by GOMA did not match the existing set of regional
expectations. “Lacking an early, comprehensive discussion of assumptions and
expectations, the cooperating parties, including the government authorities,
soon learned that they had different operating concepts” (Bowen 2013, 18).
The Competent Authorities on Organic Agriculture aimed at facilitating intra-
regional trade and enabling Central America to negotiate equivalence agree-
ments “as a bloc” (UNCTAD et al. 2012B, 15). Regional OAS setting “was not
about making a standard better adapted to local conditions” (I8). Traditional
OA values, knowledge, and practices were not as important as fostering intra-
regional trade and “harmoniz[ing] a system that had already been harmonized
with the EU regulation” (I8).

All in all, the empirical ﬁndings yield mixed results. While the regional
OAS in East Africa and the Paciﬁc emerged from sponsored norm localization,
the OAS in the EU and Central America evolved through classical norm locali-
zation. In Asia, one regional OAS emerged from sponsored norm localization
(AROS) and the other from classical norm localization (ASOA) (Tavolo 2). IL
key to success in all regions was the regional issue-speciﬁc normative infra-
structure. In regions that initially lacked the regional issue-speciﬁc normative
infrastructure (East Africa, the Paciﬁc, Asia), transnational entrepreneurs en-
gaged as active brokers stepped in and sponsored it. In the development of
EAOPS, POS, and AROS, transnational entrepreneurs raised regional OA knowl-
edge and awareness and helped deﬁne regional OAS as an appropriate gover-
nance goal. Transnational entrepreneurs engaged in regional network building
and facilitated multistakeholder cooperation between state and nonstate actors
from different regulatory levels. Regional agents and transnational entrepre-
neurs perceived and treated each other as equal and legitimate actors and col-
lectively pooled legal, moral, and technical sources of political authority. In
regions where the regional issue-speciﬁc normative infrastructure already existed
(EU) or had been widely consolidated (Central America and, at a later stage,
Asia), transnational entrepreneurship merely resembled the classical advocacy
role Acharya accords to outsider norm proponents in norm localization (Acharya
2014, 108).

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

io
T
.

e
D
tu
G
e
P
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

1
8
3
8
6
1
8
1
8
2
6
5
G
e
P
_
UN
_
0
0
4
6
9
P
D

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

o
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

102 (cid:129) The New Regionalism in Global Organic Agricultural Governance Through Standards

Implications for OA Governance and Research

The structured focused comparison serves the need for more comparative REG
research and provides new theoretical and empirical insights into OA gover-
nance through standards in East Africa, Europe, the Paciﬁc, Asia, and Central
America. The analysis locates regional OAS in the context of conceptual debates
about norm and policy diffusion, critical norm research, comparative regional-
ism, and policy mobilities. Any analysis of regional OAS should take their
normative and institutional embeddedness in the international system into
account. The combination of norm diffusion and critical norm research is a
valuable approach in this regard. The integrative framework for analysis
broadens the perspective beyond single REG processes and avoids the pitfalls
of generalized system-level explanations. The combinatorial design takes advan-
tage of the different approaches’ explanatory strengths while compensating for
their weaknesses. The analysis has shown that exogenous conditions still pro-
vide the normative ground on which regional OA governance through standards
takes place today. Endogenous conditions either enable or constrain regional
OAS setting. The hypothesized causal mechanism of sponsored norm localiza-
tion directs our attention to regional issue-speciﬁc normative infrastructures and
the pooling of different sources of political authority by transnational entre-
preneurs and regional agents. In the light of the empirical results, my answer
to the open question in REG research—whether external actors can induce
cooperative REG arrangements (Balsiger and Prys 2016)—is, yes, they can, Ma
their commitment is highly contextual.

Critics might arguably state that the research design only allows for draw-
ing conclusions on OA governance. Therefore the explanatory value of the
detected causal mechanism cannot be easily transferred to other ﬁelds in
REG. There is a need for more cross-sectoral comparative analysis. Inoltre,
it is open to dispute whether a continuum would be more adequate in depict-
ing nuances between sponsored and classical norm localization. The empirical
ﬁndings also indicate interregional effects. The European standard served as a
benchmark for the HORCA, and the development approach to EAOPS provided
a replicable model for OAS setting in the Paciﬁc and Asia. The open question is
how and under which conditions regional OAS exceed regional boundaries.
Inoltre, the study does not assess the effectiveness of regional OA gover-
nance through standards. The unanswered question is still whether, and if so, A
what extent, regional OAS “serve best to protect justiﬁed consumer expectations
and producer interests” ( Vogl et al. 2005, 22). Future research has to assess the
conditions under which coalitions of state and nonstate entrepreneurs from dif-
ferent regulatory levels enable effective regional OA governance and mutual
standard recognition in interregional trade. While some authors argue that
especially IFOAM will play a key future role (Freyer et al. 2015), others, including
this study, detect an overall transformation of private into public OAS (Arcuri
2015). The overall question to be tackled by future research is which type of

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

io
T
.

e
D
tu
G
e
P
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

1
8
3
8
6
1
8
1
8
2
6
5
G
e
P
_
UN
_
0
0
4
6
9
P
D

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

o
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Sandra Schwindenhammer

(cid:129) 103

public–private cross-level interaction is needed in which ﬁeld of REG to make it
more effective and legitimate.

Sandra Schwindenhammer is an assistant professor of international relations at
Justus-Liebig-University Giessen, Germany. She is co–principal investigator for
the project TANNRE (www.uni-giessen.de/tannre; 2017–2020), funded by the
German Federal Ministry of Education and Research. She obtained her PhD from
Technische Universität Darmstadt (2011) and held an interim professorship at
Humboldt University of Berlin (2015–2016). Her research focuses on inter-
national norms, norm entrepreneurship, and global agricultural politics. Her latest
publications are “Global Organic Agriculture Policy-Making Through Standards
as an Organizational Field: When Institutional Dynamics Meet Entrepreneurs,"
Journal of European Public Policy (2017), and “The Rise, Regulation, and Risks of
Genetically Modiﬁed Insect Technology in Global Agriculture,” Science, Tecnologia,
and Society (forthcoming 2019).

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

io
T
.

Riferimenti

Acharya, Amitav. 2004. How Ideas Spread: Whose Norms Matter? Norm Localization
and Institutional Change in Asian Regionalism. International Organization 58 (2):
239–275.

Acharya, Amitav. 2014. Transnational Civil Society as Agents of Norm Diffusion. In
Reducing Armed Violence with NGO Governance, edited by Rodney Bruce Hall, 97–113.
Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

Acharya, Amitav. 2016. Regionalism Beyond EU-Centrism. In The Oxford Handbook of
Comparative Regionalism, edited by Tanja A. Börzel and Thomas Risse, 109–130.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Allen, John, and Allan Cochrane. 2007. Beyond the Territorial Fix: Regional Assemblages,

Politics and Power. Regional Studies 41 (9): 1161–1175.

Arcuri, Alessandra. 2015. The Transformation of Organic Regulation: The Ambiguous

Effects of Publicization. Governance & Regulation 9 (2): 144–159.

Balsiger, Jörg, and Miriam Prys. 2016. Regional Agreements in International Environ-

mental Politics. International Environmental Agreements 16: 239–260.

Balsiger, Jörg, and Stacy D. VanDeveer. 2012. Navigating Regional Environmental

Governance. Global Environmental Politics 12 (3): 1–17.

Biedenkopf, Katja, Patrick Müller, Peter Slominski, and Jørgen Wettestad. 2017. introduzione:
A Global Turn to Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading? Experiments, Actors, E
Diffusion. Global Environmental Politics 17 (3): 1–11.

Börzel, Tanja, and Thomas Risse. 2016. The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Regionalism.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Boström, Magnus, and Kristina Tamm Hallström. 2013. Global Multi-stakeholder

Standard Setters: How Fragile Are They? Journal of Global Ethics 9 (1): 93–110.

Bowen, Diane. 2013. Review of Key Systemic Issues and Findings Resulting from Activities of the ITF
and the GOMA Project. New York: United Nations Forum on Sustainability Standards.
Conca, Ken. 2012. The Rise of the Region in Global Environmental Politics. Global Environ-

mental Politics 12 (3): 127–133.

e
D
tu
G
e
P
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

1
8
3
8
6
1
8
1
8
2
6
5
G
e
P
_
UN
_
0
0
4
6
9
P
D

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

o
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

104 (cid:129) The New Regionalism in Global Organic Agricultural Governance Through Standards

Cutler, UN. Claire, Virginia Hauﬂer, and Tony Porter. 1999. Private Authority and Inter-
national Affairs. In Private Authority and International Affairs, edited by A. Claire
Cutler, Virginia Hauﬂer, and Tony Porter, 3–28. Albany: State University of
New York Press.

Daugbjerg, Carsten. 2012. The World Trade Organization and Organic Food Trade:

Potential for Restricting Protectionism? Organic Agriculture 2 (1): 55–66.

De Lombaerde, Philippe, Fredrik Söderbaum, Luk van Langenhove, and Francis Baert.
2010. The Problem of Comparison in Comparative Regionalism. Review of Inter-
national Studies 36 (3): 731–753.

Dobbin, Frank, Beth Simmons, and Geoffrey Garrett. 2007. The Global Diffusion of
Public Policies: Social Construction, Coercion, Competition, or Learning? Annual
Review of Sociology 33: 449–472.

Epstein, Charlotte. 2012. Stop Telling Us How to Behave: Socialization or Infantilization?

International Studies Perspectives 13 (2): 135–145.

Finnemore, Martha, and Kathryn Sikkink. 1998. International Norm Dynamics and

Political Change. International Organization 52 (4): 887–917.

Freyer, Bernhard, Jim Bingen, Milena Klimek, and Rebecca Paxton. 2015. Feeding the
World: The Contribution of the IFOAM Principles. In Re-thinking Organic Food and
Farming in a Changing World, edited by Bernhard Freyer and Jim Bingen, 81–106.
Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

George, Alexander L., and Andrew Bennett. 2005. Case Studies and Theory Development in

the Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: CON Premere.

GOMA. 2010. Harmonization and Equivalence. The Newsletter of GOMA 1 (2): 1–19.
Großklaus, Mathias. 2015. Appropriation and the Dualism of Human Rights: Under-
standing the Contradictory Impact of Gender Norms in Nigeria. Third World
Trimestrale 36 (6): 1253–1267.

Gruby, Rebecca L. 2017. Macropolitics of Micronesia: Toward a Critical Theory of

Regional Environmental Governance. Global Environmental Politics 17 (4): 9–27.

Haas, Peter M. 2016. Regional Environmental Governance. In The Oxford Handbook of
Comparative Regionalism, edited by Tanja A. Börzel and Thomas Risse, 430–456.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kung Wai, Ong. 2011. Organic Asia 2010. In The World of Organic Agriculture: Statistics
and Emerging Trends 2011, edited by Helga Willer and Lukas Kilcher, 122–127.
Frick, Svizzera: Research Institute of Organic Agriculture.

Kung Wai, Ong. 2014. Developments in Asia. In The World of Organic Agriculture: Statistics
and Emerging Trends 2014, edited by Helga Willer and Julia Lernoud, 165–169.
Frick, Svizzera: Research Institute of Organic Agriculture.

Kung Wai, Ong. 2015. Organic Asia 2014. In The World of Organic Agriculture: Statistics
and Emerging Trends 2015, edited by Helga Willer and Julia Lernoud, 154–162.
Frick, Svizzera: Research Institute of Organic Agriculture.

Mapusua, Karen, and Michele Maccari. 2007. An Overview of Organic Agriculture in the

Paciﬁc. Bonn, Germany: IFOAM—Organics International.

Meyer, John W., John Boli, George M. Thomas, and Francisco O. Ramirez. 1997. World
Society and the Nation-State. American Journal of Sociology 103 (1): 144–181.
Müller, Patrick, and Peter Slominski. 2017. The Politics of Learning: Developing an
Emissions Trading Scheme in Australia. Global Environmental Politics 17 (3): 51–68.
Prince, Russell. 2012. Policy Transfer, Consultants and the Geographies of Governance.

Progress in Human Geography 36 (2): 188–203.

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

io
T
.

e
D
tu
G
e
P
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

1
8
3
8
6
1
8
1
8
2
6
5
G
e
P
_
UN
_
0
0
4
6
9
P
D

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

o
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3

Sandra Schwindenhammer

(cid:129) 105

Risse, Thomas. 2016. The Diffusion of Regionalism. In The Oxford Handbook of Comparative
Regionalism, edited by Tanja A. Börzel and Thomas Risse, 87–108. Oxford: Oxford
Stampa universitaria.

Schlüter, Marco, and Francis Blake. 2009. History of the EU Organic Regulation and
Its Recent Revision. In The New EU Regulation for Organic Food and Farming: (EC)
No 834/2007. Background, Assessment, Interpretation, edited by IFOAM EU Group,
8–13. Brussels: IFOAM.

Schwindenhammer, Sandra. 2016. Authority Pooling and Regional Organic Agriculture
Standard-Setting: Evidence from East Africa. Journal of Environmental Policy and
Planning 18 (1): 102–120.

Schwindenhammer, Sandra. 2017. Global Organic Agriculture Policy-Making through
Standards as an Organizational Field: When Institutional Dynamics meet Entre-
preneurs. Journal of European Public Policy 24 (11): 1678–1697.

Söderbaum, Frederik. 2016. Old, New and Comparative Regionalism: The History and
Scholarly Development of the Field. In The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Region-
alism, edited by Tanja A. Börzel and Thomas Risse, 430–456. Oxford: Oxford
Stampa universitaria.

Temenos, Cristina, and Eugene McCann. 2012. The Local Politics of Policy Mobility:
Apprendimento, Persuasion, and the Production of a Municipal Sustainability Fix. Environ-
ment and Planning A: Economy and Space 44 (6): 1389–1406.

UNCTAD, FAO, and IFOAM. 2006. Strategy on Solutions for Harmonizing International

Regulation of Organic Agriculture. Rome: UNCTAD, FAO, and IFOAM.

UNCTAD, FAO, and IFOAM. 2012UN. Let the Good Products Flow! Global Organic Market

Access in 2012 and Beyond. Rome: UNCTAD, FAO, and IFOAM.

UNCTAD, FAO, and IFOAM. 2012B. Proceedings of the Global Organic Market Access

Conferenza. Rome: UNCTAD, FAO, and IFOAM.

UNEP and UNCTAD. 2010. Organic Agriculture: Opportunities for Promoting Trade,
Protecting the Environment and Reducing Poverty: Case Studies from East Africa. Geneva,
Svizzera: UNEP and UNCTAD.

Vogl, Christian R., Lucas Kilcher, and Hanspeter Schmidt. 2005. Are Standards and
Regulations of Organic Farming Moving Away from Small Farmers’ Knowledge?
Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 26 (1): 5–26.

Werner, Paul, and Simone Strambach. 2018. Policy Mobilities, Territorial Knowledge
Dynamics and the Role of KIBS: Exploring Conceptual Synergies of Formerly
Discrete Approaches. Geoforum 89: 19–28.

Wiener, Antje. 2009. Enacting Meaning-in-Use: Qualitative Research on Norms and

International Relations. Review of International Studies 35 (1): 175–193.

Willer, Helga, Julia Lernoud, and Laura Kemper. 2018. The World of Organic Agriculture
2017: Summary. In The World of Organic Agriculture: Statistics and Emerging Trends
2018, edited by Helga Willer and Julia Lernoud, 22–32. Frick, Svizzera: Research
Institute of Organic Agriculture.

Zimmermann, Lisbeth. 2016. Same Same or Different? Norm Diffusion Between Resistance,
Compliance, and Localization in Post-conﬂict States. International Studies Perspectives
17 (1): 98–115.

Zwingel, Susanne. 2012. How Do Norms Travel? Theorizing International Women’s
Rights in Transnational Perspective. International Studies Quarterly 56 (1): 115–129.

D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D

F
R
o
M
H

T
T

:
/
/

D
io
R
e
C
T
.

io
T
.

e
D
tu
G
e
P
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D

F
/

1
8
3
8
6
1
8
1
8
2
6
5
G
e
P
_
UN
_
0
0
4
6
9
P
D

B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T

o
N
0
8
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
Scarica il pdf