11/02/2009 (CSR Asia) - Some of the World’s most prominent sustainable agriculture standards are coming under attack – their credibility and viability threatened by large international NGOs that are fed up with slow progress. But can these attacks create such confusion and mistrust that companies give up and go back to the less-than-sustainable “old ways”?

FSC - old friends parting ways
In September 2008, Friends of the Earth (FoE) became the first international environmental NGO to back out of their support for the FSC (Forest Stewardship Council). FoE was one of the founding members of FSC, which was established to ensure that timber – of tropical origin in particular – came from legal sources and was produced under a set of rigorous sustainability standards.

The FSC has had its share of controversies, most often linked to a lack of credibility of third-party auditors, and in some cases allegations of corruption, casting doubts on the credibility of the standard. However, until very recently, the major international NGOs has defended FSC as the best option available for consumers, retailers and manufacturers wanting assurance that they were not inadvertently contributing to large-scale deforestation and depletion of tropical timer species such as teak.

The decision has not been taken lightly – in fact, one website contains a correction from FoE which clarifies that the position is lead by Friends of the Earth UK, and some of FoE’s national organisations continue to support the standard. Also, Friends of the Earth does not entirely dismiss the standard, but wants a full review before they will reconsider their position.

RSPO - nipping progress in the bud?
A similar situation is arising for the newly established RSPO (Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil) standard. Several of the first companies to have become certified have come under heavy fire by Greenpeace who claims that the standard is toothless and has major gaps.

Greenpeace points out – correctly – that there is still evidence of massive deforestation taking place in connection with oil palm production, and are urging plantations and manufacturers to support a moratorium on deforestation. This is a relatively easy demand, and appears to be a no-brainer for any responsible company. Companies refusing to sign up are thus easy targets for charges of “Greenwash”.

As always, however, the reality is more complex. A number of the companies not signing up are pointing out that Greenpeace’s definition of deforestation is so narrow that it could stop companies from using previously logged, degraded land where a few trees has managed to re-establish. So in their view, the moratorium on deforestation would amount to a moratorium on all new plantings – a premise which would be unacceptable to most producers. Producers also find it unacceptable that Greenpeace completely dismisses the Principles and Criteria of the RSPO, which go a long way (if not 100%) to halting deforestation. The RSPO does explicitly ban any development in primary forest areas, and areas containing “high conservation values”, e.g. endangered species.

Whether producers are overreacting or whether Greenpeace are undervaluing the work of the RSPO is an open question. Most likely, both sides have valid points. The real issue is that a lack of communication and engagement has created a no-win situation, with increasingly deep trenches being built. The few parties attempting to bridge the gap are viewed with suspicion and as sell-outs.

The big picture – a forest without trees?

From the rhetoric of FoE on timber, and Greenpeace on palm oil, it is difficult to imagine what they see as the solution. Are we to understand that timber and palm oil cannot be sustainably produced? Or that the standards developed through many years of multi-stakeholder consultation and review are void, and that FoE and Greenpeace are somehow more experts and more qualified to develop a standard than the hundreds of organisations which have contributed.

Perhaps these standards do represent too many compromises – the art of the possible – rather than a final solution. The impatience of the two organisations is entirely understandable – large-scale deforestation by timber and palm oil companies is still taking place, and FSC and RSPO have not stopped this from happening. Of course, criticism is important. Human nature and the logic of growing organisations do mean that it can be difficult to see and to admit ones own flaws.

But dismissing these standards, and attacking the companies attempting to adhere to them cannot possibly be constructive. Of course certification should not be a “get-out-of-jail-free card”, and companies claiming to be sustainable must be able to demonstrate that they can document their progress and be open to engagement and criticism. However, it seems illogical to exclusively attack these organisations, rather than focusing on those that are still engaged in the worst kinds of destruction and violations. Where are the campaigns to stop such “cowboys”? It is a real concern that while Greenpeace and FoE are focused on undermining the companies that are at least attempting to get it right with the assistance of the FSC and RSPO standards, others cutting down the world’s remaining trees – unnoticed and unharmed.