Source >>>
- Published on March 26, 2021
Status is reachableNico RoozenHonorary President at Solidaridad Network29 articles Following
The activist Greenpeace warriors stated aim for their report is ‘to inform decision making by governments on what role certification can play’. Their conclusions are damning: ‘certification schemes must not be accepted as a way to demonstrate compliance with legal requirements’. With impeccable timing, the report was delivered just as the EU is considering whether to include the RSPO palm oil certification scheme in new regulatory frameworks on palm oil imports. However, the report completely fails to present an unbiased assessment of the effectiveness of certification.
The report claims that, contrary to appearances, destruction is certified by NGOs developing and supporting certification as a tool for change around sustainability issues. Of course, Greenpeace is well-known for criticizing solution-oriented NGOs. It has advocated against palm oil for many years, calling for a full boycott, blocking shipments to European harbors, and pushing anti-palm oil messaging in close cooperation with opportunistic marketers who mislead consumers.
Empty analyses don’t advance the debate about certification.
Fair enough, radical criticism could help keep us on our toes. However, Greenpeace is not playing fair. It does not provide transparent, peer reviewed scientific research data to back up its extreme conclusions. Instead, it presents sloppy analyses and biased strategies which will polarize in the short term and are ineffective in the long run. We need constructive engagement rather than this destructive criticism.
The scope of the report includes seven commodities, all tainted by the same negative analysis. Let’s take a closer look at the palm oil case.
A new paradigm
In its own words, the Greenpeace report is designed to prevent the European Union from recognising that the RSPO demonstrates ‘compliance with legal requirements for the protection of forest, ecosystems and human rights, considering all the limitations of certification schemes and their issues with regard to effectiveness and credibility’.
By advocating this position Greenpeace is ignoring the growing consensus among stakeholders that only a smart mix of instruments – including certification based on voluntary standards – will contribute to the development of a more sustainable palm oil sector.
Legislation, regulation, and due diligence are now recognized as effective tools for market transformation. This is the end of the neoliberal era when solutions were left to the market alone. However, let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Engagement from businesses and consumers, and the self-resolving capacities of the market are crucial for effective regulation. Underpinning mandatory systems with proven voluntary schemes could be part of a mix of instruments. For example, without voluntary schemes, due diligence measures could lead to businesses leaving vulnerable producers and workers behind to avoid supply chain risks.
This is the end of the neoliberal era when solutions were left to the market alone. Governments can only drive sustainability with a smart mix of tools.
That’s why the EU is considering accepting the de facto situation of high RSPO acceptance in European markets (86% in 2019) as a starting point for legal compliance. Building on existing commitments for sustainable development from businesses will generate an exciting dynamic between governments and market players. By contrast, Greenpeace is advocating the outdated and ineffective concept of ‘ law enforcement only’. I understand from well-informed officials in Brussels that the European Commission is not impressed by the Greenpeace report and recommendations, and that the EU will reject them.
Theory of change
The first generation of certification – organic and fair trade consumer labels – were trailblazers for sure. Conscious consumers were in the driver’s seat, building alliances with innovative farmers in order to buy their produce at preferential rates. The second generation were certification schemes supporting Corporate Social Responsibility. These led to many consumer goods companies taking sustainability into account in their sourcing strategies. Since it merged with Utz Certified, the new Rainforest Alliance label has become a leading CSR concept.
The third generation took decades to emerge. It is the concept of commodity Roundtables for (hidden) ingredients, which is currently building a sector-wide engagement of businesses. RSPO is the most successful among them. Now it is the turn of the fourth generation, which will see governments playing a decisive role. National policies and standards are the change makers on the producer side, and market regulations and due diligence on the consumer side. More and more frequently, global scientific, commercial, and regulatory partnerships are leading the transformation.
There is no silver bullet. A variety of instruments is needed to bring sustainability to scale. Campaigning could play a role, raising awareness on critical issues in a particular sector, though Greenpeace-style disinformation is unhelpful. What is crucial is building fast-moving communities for change.
Beyond polarization
Dialogue and partnerships around sustainability start with a deep understanding of the realities of agriculture. At the end of the day, only farmers can change farming. A successful transformation is all about creating new economic perspectives for farming communities. Building an alternative business case for sustainable farming generates energy and unites people. Unlocking the potential of palm oil is a more uniting proposition.
Palm oil plays an important role in developing countries. It’s an affordable cooking oil for millions of poor consumers. There is no realistic alternative for them. ‘Neglecting this demand of the poor is a crime against humanity,’ was rightly applauded during a recent farmer consultation on challenges in the sector.
Moreover, palm oil is a highly productive crop, offering millions of farmers a living income. The contribution of palm oil to GDP is significant, helping economies to escape from the poverty stage of underdevelopment. According to research by Stanford University, at least 1.3 million people were lifted from poverty in Indonesia as a direct result of the expansion of the palm oil industry. Worldwide, that figure is 4.5 million. As the share of smallholders’ land is expected to reach 50% by 2021, palm oil will only become more important.
Finally, palm oil is the most efficient edible oil. Sustainability starts with using this comparative advantage. High productivity per hectare means a smaller footprint in terms of land use, carbon emissions, water use, etc. Palm oil production uses six times less energy, seven times less nitrogen, and 14 times fewer pesticides than soybean oil. It is true that palm oil production has damaged forests. At the same time, it has saved many trees. Land clearing would have been much more extensive and the loss of biodiversity much greater for other edible oils. A proud farmer shared some disruptive thinking with me: ‘palm oil has saved the world from an ecological disaster’. There is some truth to this. A farmer’s wisdom can help to demystify dominant thinking.
FAO diagram highlighting the differences in productivity.
Discriminating against palm oil in favor of vegetable oil from European sources is not a smart choice. Pressure on land use will grow in Europe in the coming decades because of urbanization, the urgent need to restore natural ecosystems, and the extensification of land use as Europe transitions to more sustainable agriculture. More palm oil imports replacing sunflower and rapeseed oil could help enable this transformation.
As for deforestation, the lesson learned is that neglecting the economic aspect will not bring a substantial reduction in forest losses. Forests are hard to maintain unless trees are worth more standing than cleared. An economic response is required to disincentivize competing land use and make maintaining forests a valuable alternative. A global effort to develop viable agroforestry systems and effective mechanisms for payments for environmental services will be decisive for upscaling sustainability.
These economic factors are sorely missing from the Greenpeace report. Only by taking into account the interests of upcoming economies and farmers will we engender the trust needed to build the partnerships that can create a global strategy for change.
The rate of deforestation has decreased from 16 million hectares per year in the 1990s to an estimated 10 million hectares per year between 2015 and 2020, according to UNEP. 55% of the losses are caused by non-agricultural activities, like mining, infrastructure, timber logging, and charcoal production. The slow-down in deforestation for agriculture is the result of intensification of production, innovation, farmer support, and certification. The urgent need to bring deforestation down to much lower levels requires regulation, due diligence, and new business models. We cannot ignore the root cause of deforestation – poverty.
Greenpeace’s report: scoring strongly insufficient.
The Greenpeace report breathes the spirit of the past. It’s another example of a Western-dominated NGO presenting harsh criticism and prescribing a long list of system ‘improvements’ without consulting stakeholders and ignoring the feedback of the organizations it assesses. This kind of attitude has no place in a global world with rapidly changing power relations and strong voices from southern partners.
Greenpeace scheme scoring: strongly insufficient of extremely low.
Remarkably, Greenpeace rated all nine certification schemes poorly on 20 different criteria. Its so-called ‘certification scheme scorecard’ is dominated by low scores, leading to its general conclusion that ‘certification is a weak tool, ending up in greenwashing products linked to deforestation, ecosystem destruction and right abuses’. The term ‘greenwashing’ figures over 20 times, casting doubt on the motivation of the NGOs engaging with the schemes. Doubting their true intentions is a common theme in the report. Greenpeace prefers to play the role of high priest to judge others’ values. Positioning yourself as a moral authority is rather arrogant.
‘First among certification’s several inherent weaknesses,’ says Greenpeace, ‘is that it’s a market-based mechanism, in which the primary incentive producers and consumer companies have for meeting environmental and social standards is not sustainable production but the reward of increased market access and sales.’ Nothing wrong with that. If markets reward good practices and punish bad ones, this mechanism could turn out to be a decisive power for change. Moreover, many upstanding business leaders are aware that their business will fail if the world collapses.
National ownership
Greenpeace uses a narrow lens to examine sector dynamics. Western markets are becoming increasingly irrelevant from the perspective of sectoral transformation. EU imports represent only 9.9% of global consumption of palm oil – a figure which will drop further due to the gradual phasing out of biodiesel made from palm oil. North America accounts for another 2.6%. Consumption is concentrated in Asia, primarily India, China and Indonesia. Production is concentrated in Indonesia and Malaysia; with some upcoming producing countries in Africa and Latin America. These new producers are minimizing deforestation by growing palms on previously used agricultural land. Ironically, China is becoming a palm oil-producing country, not on its own territory, but through significant investments in large plantations in other countries around the globe. The scale of their operations brings the need for an Asian commitment to sustainability sharply into focus.
From this perspective, a promising development is the emergence of national sustainability standards for palm oil production in countries such as Indonesia (ISPO) and Malaysia (MSPO). Those schemes are not ambitious enough, according to Greenpeace, but I believe these locally-owned standards will be real catalysts for change. National ownership of the sustainability agenda will turn out to be a decisive factor. India is the first country to recognize the ISPO and MSPO standards. Looking through a wider lens, we can see a positive dynamic between first mover communities, facilitated by voluntary standards (RSPO, Rainforest Alliance, Organic), and regulations from local governments moving from norm to law.
Positive change
Solidaridad Asia is a leading CSO supporting the implementation of the national standards in Indonesia and Malaysia. The Dutch government is supporting these efforts and advocates a broader European engagement. Intensified cooperation in Asia has been initiated with the Indian and Chinese governments to make national standards the norm for their palm oil imports.
The recently revitalised EU – ASEAN dialogue offers an important platform for building bridges and partnerships based on a common agenda, ending an era of polarization. It is likely that the EU will recognize the relevanceof the national standards and values the impact they have already had. I believe itis seriously considering supporting the implementationandcontinuous improvementof national standards.
We will thus enter palm oil’s maturity stage looking at real sectoral transformation. Hopefully, Greenpeace will shift to solution-oriented approaches along with the rest of us.
Nico Roozen