Within and Beyond Certification: Farmer self-determination through the Participatory Guarantee System in the Peruvian Andes?

Many agri-food products are labelled with sustainability claims. However, the standards of most certification schemes are set and enforced by actors based in the global North, and are intended for consumers in those countries. The Participatory Guarantee System was introduced to change this. Does it always deliver what is promised?
by Sarah Steinegger 

‘not all that is sweet is sugar’

After exploratory fieldwork in August 2022, I returned to Abancay in February 2024 for an extended research period. Having read about the implementation of the Participatory Guarantee System (PGS) around the globe, and with the interviews from 2022 in mind, I took up fieldwork with high expectations: to explore a promising alternative to third-party certification that would allow smallholder and family farmers to maintain their diverse farm structures and actively participate in a certification scheme that reflects the Quechua Andino principles of reciprocity. While I still believe in the potential of the PGS, my case study in Abancay taught me (once again) that ‘not all that is sweet is sugar’. Indeed, the reality on the ground often differs from the ideal, which points to the complexities and challenges of implementing well-intentioned schemes, and the importance of research into the factors involved. 

Why the Participatory Guarantee System in the first place 

Third-party certification schemes have been criticized for having mixed sustainability outcomes, being based on standard setting and enforcement by external actors mostly from the global North, being costly for smallholder and family farmers, and promoting specific (cash) crops rather than diversified farm structures.  

As an alternative to third-party certification schemes, the PGS has been implemented in several countries around the world. By involving farmers and other food system stakeholders in the certification process, it promises to be adaptable to local contexts. Furthermore, unlike other certification schemes, it does not inherently encourage farmers to specialize in particular (export) crops, as it certifies producers rather than individual products.  

Why the Participatory Guarantee System is relevant in the context of Peru 

While organic-labelled avocados and other foods from Peru fill grocery shelves in countries like Switzerland, much of Peru’s agriculture relies heavily on the use of synthetic inputs – ironically, often imported from Europe, including Switzerland. These chemicals harm the health of soils, insects, farmers, and consumers. In response, the National Association of Ecological Producers of Peru (ANPE) introduced the PGS in 2004 for the domestic market. It is aimed at promoting healthy and safe products and providing small-scale organic farmers with a more inclusive certification process.  

In the Apurimac region in the Andes, which includes the province of Abancay, food system actors see the PGS as more than just a tool for the promotion of healthy food. They also see it as a way to revalorize the Quechua Andino culture and ancestral farming practices that have nurtured rich agricultural biodiversity for generations. With its focus on farmer-to-farmer evaluations, the PGS aligns with the Quechua Andino principles of reciprocity and collective organization, offering a governance model rooted in local traditions.

Why the Participatory Guarantee System in the province of Abancay is no panacea

My fieldwork in the province of Abancay suggests that the PGS does provide farmers with enhanced self-determination by fostering collective activities like annual farm visits and weekly markets in the city of Abancay. These events provide farmers with a platform for the exchange of goods like food and seeds, and for the sharing of experiences and knowledge. However, the impact of the PGS is uneven. Especially for farmers living further away from the city, the PGS does not make much difference. Furthermore, the supposed participatory essence of the PGS is often overshadowed by the heavy reliance on NGO involvement. Farmer participation is based on which national or international NGOs are active in the region, and the duration of their engagement.  

I interpret the way in which NGOs engage with the PGS as an echo of colonial dependencies. Nowadays, it is not the colonialist and hacendado (landlord) from Spain or Italy who prescribes solutions, but the ‘engineer’ (i.e. NGO staff): many farmers rely more on these NGO interventions rather than on fellow farmers. This reliance disrupts how knowledge and experiences have been shared among farmers and communities, especially since NGOs frequently focus their efforts on the same individuals. Reflecting on this case study as a young, white, and female researcher adds layers of complexity and prompts deeper discussion about positionality and the impact of NGO interventions.  

Behind the Research

I am immensely grateful to my research participants, who shared their experiences and opinions with me during my research stay: farmers, re-sellers, NGO staff, and employees of the regional office of the agrarian authority. I developed this research in Abancay in collaboration with IDMA Apurímac, and Sarah-Lan Mathez-Stiefel and Christoph Oberlack from the Centre for Development and Environment (CDE) at the University of Bern. Furthermore, I conducted a focus group discussion and a part of the interviews with Mariona Pérez Milà and Tereza Louman, who wrote their master thesis on a related topic. A part of the interviews and conversations took place thanks to Gloria Naty Cereceda Espinoza, who translated from Quechua to Spanish, and who accompanied me during the last month of fieldwork. I was able to share and develop thoughts and interpretations in conversations with friends in Abancay, which constitutes a major contribution to this research.