Why
certification of agrofuels won't work
Arguments in favour of certification often explain that a company
wanting to sell its products as sustainably produced has to have
some way of proving this. A consumer who wants to buy socially and
environmentally friendly products needs a label that they can trust
on the products. When the problem is framed in this way, certification
seems to be the obvious answer. But the certification of timber
products provides three lessons that are important in any consideration
of whether certification of agrofuels might help to prevent the
worst excesses of a destructive industry.
First, the certification system has to be credible. The standards
have to be clear and have to be interpreted consistently by third
party certifiers. To prevent a conflict of interest in the assessment,
there has to be no commercial relationship between the certifier
and the company being certified. In the timber sector, no certification
system has achieved these basic requirements.
The products have to be tracked from where they are grown to where
they are sold. The problems of developing a rigorous chain of custody
control for timber products was pointed out in a 2007 report by
the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Part
of the problem, notes OECD, is that "Wood is processed into
many different products and sourced from many different wood species,
origins and owners." Paper mills, for example, can source their
wood chips from a wide range of sources (from thinnings from thousands
of different forestry operations, waste from a range of sawmills
and from recycling schemes). In order to accommodate the industry,
in 2004, the Forest Stewardship Council amended its chain of custody
certification. The new “mixed sources” label allows FSC's logo to
appear on products that contain as little as 10 per cent FSC-certified
material.
A label that guarantees that only a small percentage of the product
comes from well-managed sources, doesn't indicate the percentage
that is actually certified and relies on companies to confirm that
the rest is not from destructive monocultures or clearcut forests,
is guilty of misleading consumers.
The second lesson is that even if a perfect certification system
were to be developed (which has not so far happened), there is nothing
to prevent the industry from setting up its own, far weaker, certification
scheme. FSC, PEFC, CSA, SFI, AFS, MTCC, LEI, CERFLOR, Certfor –
as this alphabet soup shows, this is precisely what has happened
with the certification of timber products. NGOs who have spent the
last fifteen years wrapping their heads around the pros and cons
of the various schemes can tell the difference. Consumers cannot.
Third, while a voluntary certification scheme can reward companies
that meet its standards by giving them a “green seal”, certification
can do nothing to prevent the worst companies from continuing their
destructive operations. In theory, if a consumer only buys agrofuel
credibly certified as coming from well-managed operations then that
consumer will be avoiding buying products that come from vast, chemical-soaked,
monoculture plantations. But buying certified agrofuel does not
prevent the destruction, because one consumer buying certified products
does nothing to prevent others from buying uncertified products.
There is no evidence that any of these lessons from certification
of wood products are being applied in the certification of agrofuels.
The Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels, run by the Ecole Polytechnique
Federale de Lausanne in Switzerland, is drawing up "sustainability
standards for sustainable biofuels" and is currently inviting
comments on "Version Zero" of its draft standard. Sitting
on the Steering Board is Heiko Liedeker, who was FSC's director
from 2001 to 2008. Liedeker consistently ignored reports from WRM
and other NGOs explaining how FSC certification of industrial tree
plantations was undermining local struggles. Other Steering Board
members include oil company representatives, Cameron Rennie of BP,
Julio Cesar Pinho of Petrobras and Paloma Berenguer of Shell.
Getting involved in a discussion about the content of the principles
and criteria for agrofuel certification may seem like an important
thing to do. If the standard is weak enough it will allow the certification
of almost any agrofuel plantation. But getting involved in the writing
of the standards is to miss the point. The standards will do nothing
to prevent the abuses carried out by the worst agrofuel plantation
companies. The Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels will provide a
way for Europe and North America to claim that their demand for
agrofuels is somehow sustainable. It is little more than a green
fig leaf allowing business as usual to continue.
Discussions about “sustainable agrofuels” distract us from working
towards genuine ways of reducing carbon emissions such as demanding
tough legislation on energy efficiency and massive state investment
in improved building standards, public transport, high voltage direct
current electricity grids and solar and wind power.
Trying to persuading consumers to buy “sustainable agrofuels” may
sound like a first small step towards bigger steps, which will eventually
lead to real change. But the reality is that certifying agrofuels
helps greenwash a hugely destructive industry and impedes the development
of urgently needed structural changes.
By Chris Lang, http://chrislang.org
