Destruction Certified. Greenpeace Slams Voluntary Certifications Schemes
Greenpeace launched a salvo against voluntary certifications in its latest report Destruction: Certified.
“Certification is not a solution to deforestation, forest degradation and other ecosystem conversion. In this report, we show how certification on its own has not helped companies meet their 2020 commitments to exclude deforestation from their supply chains.
Ultimately the aim is to inform decision making by governments and companies on what role certification can play as a tool for cleaning up supply chains, what reforms are required and what other measures are needed to address the wider biodiversity and climate crises.”
“Certification is not a solution to deforestation, forest degradation and other ecosystem conversion. In this report, we show how certification on its own has not helped companies meet their 2020 commitments to exclude deforestation from their supply chains.
Ultimately the aim is to inform decision making by governments and companies on what role certification can play as a tool for cleaning up supply chains, what reforms are required and what other measures are needed to address the wider biodiversity and climate crises.”
The report was met with indignation by certification bodies with some in the palm oil trade calling it an attack on palm oil. This was no attack on palm oil. This was a broad salvo against all commodities that the group saw as being harmful to planet and people.
The reaction from the Forest Stewardship Council which certifies timber can be read here. Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil response here. International Sustainability and Carbon Certification here. Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification here.
Interestingly enough, the national palm oil certification schemes for Malaysia and Indonesia weighed in with their protests as well. This was odd for a few reasons.
As for palm oil as a feedstock under the Renewable Energy Directive, any concerns with its deforestation impact has long been addressed by the ISCC.
Gross Overestimation of EU Influence by Greenpeace Et al
If there was a flaw in Greenpeace’s recommendations to the EU, it is in the gross overestimation of the EU’s influence on forests and human rights.
The EU may lead in ambition but it does not have the clout to completely dictate what happens in the rest of the world.
EU consumption of soy and derived products pales in comparison to China’s demand for soy. EU consumption of palm oil is half that of India where price and geopolitics rule over sustainability. The EU definitely has no influence over what happens when Canada’s boreal forests are clear cut for toilet paper demand in the US.
Even the EU proposal for a carbon tax is being challenged by the US so how much weight exactly should be given to Greenpeace’s suggestions to the EU?
Not that much.
In a separate but related action, two petitions have been put together to demand new EU legislation on corporate accountability. Details on the proposed new legislation can be accessed through this webpage at European Parliament.
The two petitions collected digital signatures from “Over half a million people across the globe” to tell the EU to hold business accountable.
Getting half a million netizens to sign two online petitions supporting a common cause is no easy task even for chair-bound activists. Not to diminish its accomplishment but the use of pop platforms like Avaaz or SumOfUs to collect signatures actually makes it harder for the EU Commission to gauge what its citizens want. These online petition platforms have low credibility as anyone can sign a petition, even sign the same petition multiple times using different online accounts.
This appears to be of minor consequence to the European Parliament as it prepares to act on the proposed legislation and “flex its influence beyond EU borders.”
Palm Oil Producing Countries Agree with Greenpeace
This may come as a shocker but for once, the Secretariat of the Council for Palm Oil Producing Countries (CPOPC) agreed with the overall message from Greenpeace.
In a blog published on its website, the CPOPC criticized the EU MEPs for putting the onus of responsible sourcing on “due diligence” by corporations.
The blog went on to support Greenpeace’s suggestion that the EU should “put in place targeted and inclusive measures, trade and aid partnerships and programmes to support small holders and communities in producing countries” and offered that the member states of the CPOPC are most ready to meet recommendations as put forward by Greenpeace.
A careful assessment of what Greenpeace has suggested in due diligence for the new proposed EU legislation shows in fact that the main palm oil producing countries of Indonesia, Malaysia and Colombia are in fact most ready when compared to other commodities like soybeans or cattle if we limit the scope of the legislation to within the EU’s influence.
This is where the pioneering work of voluntary certification schemes like the RSPO have already put in place some of the proposals made by Greenpeace. A palm oil supply chain that is accountable, enforceable, traceable and without the “mass balance” supply as national certification schemes are added.
The CPOPC hopes that EU-ASEAN Joint Working Group on vegetable oils will become “a model of intergovernmental co-operation to find solutions to global problems.”
Finding a mutually acceptable definition of “sustainable vegetable oils” for food and biofuels at the EU-ASEAN JWG should be easy enough if the soy and cattle industries can catch up to the palm oil industry in a hurry but to leave their responsible sourcing to the “due diligence” of for profit entities would be the worst possible decision by the MEPs.
Will national certification schemes do better as the CPOPC says? Considering the failure of voluntary non-governmental certification schemes, it is high time to support government mandated certification schemes to create impact on global sustainability.
Published March 2021. CSPO Watch
The reaction from the Forest Stewardship Council which certifies timber can be read here. Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil response here. International Sustainability and Carbon Certification here. Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification here.
Interestingly enough, the national palm oil certification schemes for Malaysia and Indonesia weighed in with their protests as well. This was odd for a few reasons.
- For one, if any group should have protested Greenpeace’s report, it should have been the “soybeans and derived products ( read animal feed )” which Greenpeace said has an “EU embodied deforestation” that is almost four times that of palm oil.
- For two, the palm oil industry, whether in SE Asia or Latin America stands most ready to meet an EU legislation if issues like deforestation and human rights are the primary concerns. 87% of palm oil imported into the EU is already certified under the ISCC and RSPO. Greenpeace may not like the RSPO as evidenced by its long-standing campaign including “Sustainable Palm Oil is A Con” but they cannot deny the fact that it was the RSPO which led the drive towards the import of sustainable vegetable oils into the EU.
- For three, the problem with the “mass balance system” has been addressed by the implementation of national palm oil certifications. This is especially the case for SE Asian sources of palm oil which have removed questionable supplies of uncertified palm oil with the implementation of the Malaysian Sustainable Palm Oil and the Indonesian Sustainable Palm Oil schemes.
As for palm oil as a feedstock under the Renewable Energy Directive, any concerns with its deforestation impact has long been addressed by the ISCC.
Gross Overestimation of EU Influence by Greenpeace Et al
If there was a flaw in Greenpeace’s recommendations to the EU, it is in the gross overestimation of the EU’s influence on forests and human rights.
The EU may lead in ambition but it does not have the clout to completely dictate what happens in the rest of the world.
EU consumption of soy and derived products pales in comparison to China’s demand for soy. EU consumption of palm oil is half that of India where price and geopolitics rule over sustainability. The EU definitely has no influence over what happens when Canada’s boreal forests are clear cut for toilet paper demand in the US.
Even the EU proposal for a carbon tax is being challenged by the US so how much weight exactly should be given to Greenpeace’s suggestions to the EU?
Not that much.
In a separate but related action, two petitions have been put together to demand new EU legislation on corporate accountability. Details on the proposed new legislation can be accessed through this webpage at European Parliament.
The two petitions collected digital signatures from “Over half a million people across the globe” to tell the EU to hold business accountable.
Getting half a million netizens to sign two online petitions supporting a common cause is no easy task even for chair-bound activists. Not to diminish its accomplishment but the use of pop platforms like Avaaz or SumOfUs to collect signatures actually makes it harder for the EU Commission to gauge what its citizens want. These online petition platforms have low credibility as anyone can sign a petition, even sign the same petition multiple times using different online accounts.
This appears to be of minor consequence to the European Parliament as it prepares to act on the proposed legislation and “flex its influence beyond EU borders.”
Palm Oil Producing Countries Agree with Greenpeace
This may come as a shocker but for once, the Secretariat of the Council for Palm Oil Producing Countries (CPOPC) agreed with the overall message from Greenpeace.
In a blog published on its website, the CPOPC criticized the EU MEPs for putting the onus of responsible sourcing on “due diligence” by corporations.
The blog went on to support Greenpeace’s suggestion that the EU should “put in place targeted and inclusive measures, trade and aid partnerships and programmes to support small holders and communities in producing countries” and offered that the member states of the CPOPC are most ready to meet recommendations as put forward by Greenpeace.
A careful assessment of what Greenpeace has suggested in due diligence for the new proposed EU legislation shows in fact that the main palm oil producing countries of Indonesia, Malaysia and Colombia are in fact most ready when compared to other commodities like soybeans or cattle if we limit the scope of the legislation to within the EU’s influence.
This is where the pioneering work of voluntary certification schemes like the RSPO have already put in place some of the proposals made by Greenpeace. A palm oil supply chain that is accountable, enforceable, traceable and without the “mass balance” supply as national certification schemes are added.
The CPOPC hopes that EU-ASEAN Joint Working Group on vegetable oils will become “a model of intergovernmental co-operation to find solutions to global problems.”
Finding a mutually acceptable definition of “sustainable vegetable oils” for food and biofuels at the EU-ASEAN JWG should be easy enough if the soy and cattle industries can catch up to the palm oil industry in a hurry but to leave their responsible sourcing to the “due diligence” of for profit entities would be the worst possible decision by the MEPs.
Will national certification schemes do better as the CPOPC says? Considering the failure of voluntary non-governmental certification schemes, it is high time to support government mandated certification schemes to create impact on global sustainability.
Published March 2021. CSPO Watch