Toward SuSTainabiliTy: The roleS and limiTaTionS of ... - Resolve

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Chapter 2: Actors – NGOs and Civil Society 21public awareness of sustainable seafood havehelped to build its market.All told, foundations have been more importantto the development of U.S.-based certificationschemes than those in other parts of the world—particularly Europe, where other sources of fundinghave contributed significantly to the developmentand scaling up of certification. 2 Over a span ofnearly 20 years, donors have collectively investedmore than $150 million in the leading certificationorganizations and processes (Clay, 2005).Conroy (2007a) identifies several factors favoringfoundation and NGO leadership in developingthe standards and certification movement. Thesefactors include greater efficiency, in the contextof globalization, of working with standards thatcan be applied across national boundaries ratherthan with regulatory agencies in many countries,as well as a preference for private standards asless susceptible than national regulations to theWTO’s prohibition on process and productionmethods standards in international trade. Conroyalso notes that foundations and NGOs did notnecessarily make a decision to choose betweenactivist campaigns and certification initiatives, butrecognized the symbiotic relationship in whichsome groups raised public awareness of a problem(thereby raising the issue of reputational riskfor the company as well as consumer pressurefor action), while other groups leveraged thoseefforts by allying themselves with companies topress for certification as a solution.NGOs as Standard DevelopersAs the primary founders of many certificationschemes, NGOs have held a central seat at thetable to identify and set standards. The WWF tookthe lead in organizing the initial exploratory meetingfor the FSC in 1992 with other environmentalNGOs, social actors, retailers, government officials,and some forest company officials. A WWF2 Sources have included corporate allocations and publicfunding, including bilateral, multilateral, and guaranteedmarkets through favorable public procurement policies.While there is no central data source to cite, it is believedthat the bilateral and multilateral sources of funding combinedrepresent total investments that are three timesthat of all foundations combined.representative served on the FSC’s interim board,and the WWF continued to play a leading role inthe 1993 founding meeting in Toronto (Bartley,2007b; Cashore, et al., 2004). The RainforestAlliance had at that time already developeda forest certification standard and tested it inIndonesia, and so they worked with the WWF andothers to design the FSC standard. These playersdeveloped the FSC’s nine (later ten) principles forresponsible forest management and a governancestructure that gave equal weight to environmental,social, and business sectors. The structure didnot include government representatives.In the case of the MSC, numerous NGOs, industryplayers, and consultants came to the table todevelop its principles and criteria in meetingsaround the world starting in 1996. The processultimately involved more than 300 organizationsand individuals in workshops in Australia, NewZealand, Germany, the United States, Canada,South Africa, and Scandinavia over three years(Gulbrandsen, 2009). This initial NGO participationproved crucial to the MSC’s credibility lateron, when some NGOs were critical of early certifications.Although some felt the application ofthe principles and criteria was weak, few attackedthe standards themselves.NGOs from the global South have also playeda role in the formation of certification systems.For example, Southern NGOs, together withthe Rainforest Alliance, created the SustainableAgriculture Network in 1991. They first developeda standard for coffee, then moved to bananas;today the standard covers more than 25 crops inthe tropics. These groups own the standard, andthe Rainforest Alliance owns the trademarked sealthat signifies certification on a product package orlabel. The Rainforest Alliance also worked with theUnited Nations and a broad stakeholder groupto set up the Sustainable Tourism StewardshipCouncil and a global standard for sustainabletourism. 33 http://sdt.unwto.org/en/content/sustainable-tourismstewardship-council-stscToward Sustainability: The Roles and Limitations of Certification
Chapter 2: Actors – NGOs and Civil Society 22More recently, NGOs have played a leading rolein setting standards through multi-stakeholderroundtables. Since 2004, for example, the WWFhas hosted the Aquaculture Dialogues. More than2,000 people—including producers, NGOs, academics,and others—have participated in thesediscussions to date, which seek to identify theprimary environmental impacts associated withaquaculture and agree upon standards to minimizethese impacts. Of the eight dialogues started(for farmed shrimp, salmon, tilapia, bivalves, abalone,pangasius, trout, and cobia and seriola), fourhave been completed, with standards approved bythe multi-stakeholder steering committees. 4 Tomaintain the standards and recognize accreditedcertification bodies, the WWF (in partnership withIDH, the Dutch sustainable trade initiative) hascreated the Aquaculture Stewardship Council—afarmed fish alternative to the wild fisheries certificationprogram of the MSC. 5In some cases, NGOs have responded to standardsthat were first created by government or industrybodies. For example, NGOs have been leaders increating one of the first certification schemes forcarbon offsets—the CDM Gold Standard—basedon standards outlined in the Kyoto Protocol forthe Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). TheGold Standard is discussed more fully in Chapter4; it is essentially a means to create an additional,more rigorous standard above the “floor” establishedby the Protocol.Implementing Standards andCertification SystemsNGOs as Standard System OwnersAs discussed in Chapter 1, standards typically arehoused in an organization created specifically toown or hold the standard. For maximum credibility,this organization usually is independentof the NGOs that might have driven its creationand from the industry players that will be evaluatedagainst the standard. So, for example, theFSC was created as a separate organization to4 www.worldwildlife.org/what/globalmarkets/aquaculture/aquaculturedialogues.html5 www.ascworldwide.orgown the forest standards developed by NGOsand interested industry players. Similarly, theAquaculture Stewardship Council recently wascreated to own the standards developed throughthe multi-stakeholder Aquaculture Dialogues.Standards system owner organizations often arefunded by donors that also support environmentalNGOs, and NGO representatives and industryrepresentatives typically serve on their governingbodies, but the organizations maintain separateidentities.The responsibility of the standards system owneris to maintain the integrity and credibility of thestandard and to engage a network of other players,including auditors, certification bodies, andaccreditation bodies, as discussed in Chapter 1.These roles are not always separate; some standardsystem owners do auditing and certificationin house, while others may contract out for theseservices (Gilbert, Rasche, &, Waddock, 2011). Thestandard system owner may also license a logoor label for use by certified entities. The systemowner also is responsible for reviews or updates ofthe standards over time to maintain credibility, asscientific understanding and technology improve.Civil Society Organizationsas Governance ParticipantsThe governance of standards systems typicallyincludes decision-making bodies such as boardsthat run the organization and the system, as wellas technical bodies that focus on maintainingmeaningful standards. Including a broad range ofstakeholders in standard setting and governanceincreasingly is considered a fundamental componentof credible third-party certification schemes,to minimize bias (Cashore, 2002; Mena & Palazzo,forthcoming). The ISEAL Alliance, introduced inChapter 1, recognizes multi-stakeholder governanceas a core principle necessary for effective,credible certification schemes. 6NGOs are actively engaged in governance roles.For example, the FSC’s three-chambered GeneralAssembly includes two chambers dominated byNGOs—the environmental and social chambers6 www.isealalliance.org/our-work/defining-credibilityToward Sustainability: The Roles and Limitations of Certification
Page 4 and 5: PrefaceIn 2008, the David and Lucil
Page 6 and 7: AcknowledgementsThe Steering Commit
Page 8 and 9: IntroductionOver the past ten years
Page 10 and 11: Introduction 3work at the scale req
Page 13: Chapter1Setting the ContextTo set t
Page 17 and 18: Chapter 1: Setting the Context 10Ce
Page 19 and 20: Chapter 1: Setting the Context 12wi
Page 21 and 22: Chapter 1: Setting the Context 14Ch
Page 23 and 24: Chapter 1: Setting the Context 16th
Page 25 and 26: Chapter2Why and How Actors Engagein
Page 27: Chapter 2: Actors - NGOs and Civil
Page 31 and 32: Chapter 2: Actors - NGOs and Civil
Page 37 and 38: Chapter 2: Actors - Government 30(U
Page 39 and 40: Chapter 2: Actors - Government 32th
Page 41 and 42: Chapter 2: Actors - Government 34Go
Page 43 and 44: Chapter 2: Actors - Government 36Dr
Page 45 and 46: Chapter 2: Actors - Government 38Ot
Page 47 and 48: Chapter 2: Actors - Business 40Chap
Page 49 and 50: Chapter 2: Actors - Business 42Box
Page 51 and 52: Chapter 2: Actors - Business 44Figu
Page 53 and 54: Chapter 2: Actors - Business 46Box
Page 55 and 56: Chapter 2: Actors - Business 48Inte
Page 57 and 58: Chapter 2: Actors - Business 50Exte
Page 59 and 60: Chapter 2: Actors - Business 52Impo
Page 61 and 62: Chapter 2: Actors - Business 54pote
Page 63 and 64: Chapter 2: Actors - Business 56Obse
Page 65 and 66: Chapter 3: Impacts 58Figure 3.1: Th
Page 67 and 68: Chapter 3: Impacts 60were able to t
Page 69 and 70: Chapter 3: Impacts 62threatened, an
Page 71 and 72: Chapter 3: Impacts 64respect to man
Page 73 and 74: Chapter 3: Impacts 66does not neces
Page 75 and 76: Chapter 3: Impacts 68Alliance (Fort
Page 77 and 78: Chapter 3: Impacts 70improve worker
Page 79 and 80:
Chapter 3: Impacts 72policy instrum
Page 81 and 82:
Chapter 4: Pathways to Impact 74Fig
Page 83 and 84:
Chapter 4: Pathways to Impact 76LEE
Page 85 and 86:
Chapter 4: Pathways to Impact 78on
Page 87 and 88:
Chapter 4: Pathways to Impact 80and
Page 89 and 90:
Chapter 4: Pathways to Impact 82of
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Chapter 4: Pathways to Impact 88Box
Page 97 and 98:
Chapter5TrendsThis chapter on trend
Page 99 and 100:
Chapter 5: Trends 92Figure 5.2 Tren
Page 101 and 102:
Chapter 5: Trends 94or coffee certi
Page 103 and 104:
Chapter 5: Trends 96involve tough,
Page 105 and 106:
Chapter 5: Trends 98also about the
Page 107 and 108:
Chapter6RecommendationsThis final c
Page 109 and 110:
Recommendations 102These observatio
Page 111 and 112:
Recommendations 104look for incenti
Page 113 and 114:
Recommendations 1061. Basic Discove
Page 115:
TowardSustainabilityThe Roles andLi
show all

Toward SuSTainabiliTy: The roleS and limiTaTionS of ... - Resolve

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?