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

Chapter 2: Actors – Government 38Other institutional structures consistent withdemocratic principles include documented rulemakingprocesses requiring meaningful responsesto criticism, structured adjudication by experts,and transparency (see for example Meidinger,2006). These systems seem to be stimulatingengagement in policy and practices from a widerrange of community participants than had previouslyparticipated in many locations. For example,a wider range of stakeholders are engaged inforest policy in Estonia, Latvia, and Russia due inlarge part to the increase in forest certification inthose countries. Potentially, certification may becontributing to new models for how policy shouldbe made (Cashore, et al., 2006).Meidinger (2006) notes that, in many places,forest policy traditionally was limited to governmentagencies working in close relationships withthe forest industry, foresters, and landowners.Policies reflected the needs and desires of thoseinterests, not others. Regulatory and legal challengeshad limited success. The FSC openedup that closed system by creating a parallelregulatory program and threatening the brandsof companies that depend on global markets(Meidinger, 2006). Such public participation andtransparency requirements are now a part of theISEAL Standard-Setting Code of Good Practice forstandards and certification schemes, reflectingthe practice of greater public participation in othersectors as well.By contrast, Vandergeest (2007) maintains thatthe transnational certification of shrimp farmingleaves local communities out of basic decisionmaking regarding resource management, suchas setting standards and certifying producers. Inthat respect, certification schemes can be lessdemocratic than community-based managementapproaches aligned with local governance structures.In southern Thailand, community-basedapproaches to shrimp farm management havedeveloped in response to national and provinciallaws allowing local zoning and decision makingthough village administrative units. Examiningthe regulation of shrimp farming in several districtsin southern Thailand, Vandergeest foundthat regulations varied, but often were tied tolocal ecological and social contexts, which meantdifferent environmental problems and hencedifferent solutions. In contrast, all of the transnationalcertification schemes for shrimp farming(including those of the Aquaculture CertificationCouncil, EurepG.A.P., the U.K. Soil Association,Naturland, and others) had immutable technicalstandards developed separately from communities,essentially by an overlapping network ofinternational technical experts. The technicalenvironmental standards of these schemes wereentirely distinct from their “social” standards,which were established to respect local laws,protect worker rights, and assure local access topublic resources. Despite the presence of socialstandards, the technical standards for practicessuch as siting and waste management did notinvolve local communities in formulating locallyspecific guidelines, monitoring, or enforcement.To many Southern NGOs, this lack of meaningfulinput into technical standards and decisionmaking is a major criticism of transnational certificationschemes, and a basis for their opposition(Vandergeest, 2007).Transparency, public participation, and effectiveadjudication are important democratic principlesthat may be applied, or enhanced, through acredible certification scheme. But the overarchingissue of how certification schemes are heldaccountable, and to whom, goes beyond theseprocedural requirements. Traditionally, accountabilitymay have implied a clear hierarchy withlegitimate decision makers at each level whoseconcerns must be addressed. But voluntary certificationsystems by their nature reflect a morenetworked approach to problem solving andaccountability. Accountability should be consideredat multiple levels, perhaps the most obviousbeing at the level of the certifiers who audit theperformance of firms claiming to meet a standard.Meidinger (2006) discusses accountabilityin the forest certification realm as a “package ofactors, norms, and institutions,” which cannotbe considered separately. This package includesNGOs, consumers, producers, retailers, governments,and others, which influence one anotherto develop new values and solutions over time.Toward Sustainability: The Roles and Limitations of Certification