Is NM an alternative to actual certifications?    Rather a complement, with different inputs and outcomes. No comparison is possible. Less science, more confidence, with all the problems and benefits this  implies. 
How would you describe the key principle of certification?    Algorithm of a vote of confidence, structured holarchically. The key motto: "Don´t trust us. Trust your Certifier." 
Who is the guardian of the veracity?    The certifier. The ultimate instance is the administration board. 
Why to tap identity of certain certifiers?   Trust your certifier. You will certainly know his or her identity and this trust is the key. In case you wanted to know identity of our members, first unveil yours, send us a request and we will react. NM is not important. The key is the peer-to-peer algorithm between producers and consumers, which goes beyond the founders.
What is the cost of certification?  

Cost for certification of producers is 0. 

Cost for certification of businesses, institutions and individuals is 3 USD. 

 But the certification is rather not very scientific, is it?     Yes, we know and agree. 
And what about guarantees?   No guarantees, just probabilities.  Yes, we know. 

So, why not to rely on existing certifications?  


Almost none of them treats sustainability, from the point of view of the ecocidal monoculture production. Certifications are great. We feel they are not fast nor popular, nor complete enough to stop destruction.  


How about the legal foundation of the NoMonocultures organization?


The NM organization is rather less important. It is not the legal figure either. The key is the peer-to-peer algorithm and that mechanism goes beyond the founders.  Don´t trust us. Trust your Certifier.