Last week I published this post about what brands might do as zero deforestation approaches are seen to need re-working, given we are 1000 days or so away from some big stated deadlines.
That post is linked below, as is a response by Anita Neville from Golden-Agri Resources.
Now, again below, is some further commentary from Chris Wille, now independent but for 24 years the chief of sustainable agriculture at the Rainforest Alliance. It’s well worth reading as part of the discussions about solutions.
Take a look below, and I hope we can keep the debate going. My view is the government engagement, and financial/enforcement incentives angle is the most important, yet the hardest part. Chris suggests focusing on farmers, not internal targets. See below.
Here’s Chris’s comments on the above:
“Instead of starting a countdown clock on the Zero DF by 2020 commitments, perhaps we should take this moment – 1,000 days out – to, as you suggest, reset our thinking. There is already too much attention on deadlines and not enough on continuous improvement. Pledges and deadlines may be useful in raising funds for NGOs and awareness in market countries, but they ignore and even insult the one and only stakeholder group that can actually make changes – farmers. It’s the tail trying to wag the dog.
(When we say “farmers,” we mean the millions of unorganized smallholders, cooperatives, and the plantation managers and farmworkers employed by agribusiness companies. The challenges are the same for all.)
The Zero DF pledges, while mostly welcomed and well intentioned may be diverting our “community” from the real work which – as we know – is slow, sweaty, slippery with setbacks, and out there on the ground, shoulder to shoulder with the farmers. During more than three decades in promoting sustainable agriculture in the tropics (or anywhere), we know what works. Unfortunately, it’s complicated and difficult and requires tailored approaches to local situations.
Getting farms on the sustainability track requires respecting farmers, recognizing their constraints, customs and traditional knowledge and providing incentives, motivation, self-organization modules, training, tools, technical assistance in problem solving, customized Sustainable Farm Management Practices (SFMPs), access to inputs and credit, land and water rights, and better markets. Farmers must be empowered as entrepreneurs and supported in dealing with their governments.
Farmers must be willingly engaged in our shared struggle toward sustainability. Simply demanding that they meet deadlines set by strangers in far-away cities won’t make it happen.
The Zero DF pledges made by downstream companies can help stimulate and fund these essential activities on the ground, but somebody has to do the work. Many companies, including the pledgemakers, are now directly engaged with farmers, often teamed with local NGOs. That’s necessary and positive, but the pledges themselves don’t help. The Zero DF pledges conflate innumerable challenges into one and make it seem that meeting deadlines is simply a matter of funding and will.
The Zero DF pledges dumb down sustainability and CSR. Compressing a wildly complex challenge into Twitter-size bites and campaign headlines is diversionary and perhaps counterproductive.
All of the actions necessary for moving farms from the environmentally negative end of the scale toward the resilient and regenerative end have been spelled out in detail in the sustainability standards developed by NGOs and (later) the private sector. NGOs, brands and eco-pundits often focus too much on certification, overshadowing the important mechanisms and processes that may or may not lead to a seal on pack – the organizing, empowering and training of farmers.
This time-tested model of supply chain and farm mapping; social-economic and environmental surveys, farm assessments, organizing, development of SFMPs, training, technical assistance and all the rest is often unfortunately referred to as simply, “certification.” The model is slow and flawed, but all the steps are necessary for true, lasting progress – except certification. Certification is just a validation, useful in several ways, but not essential.
The Zero DF pledges were concocted out of frustration with this model or a desire to replace it with something easier and more manageable by northern NGOs. Those vows were taken in a heady haze of ambiguity. There were no metrics or definitions, no way to define success. Hundreds of studies and “tool” developments since, we don’t even agree on what Zero DF means or who gets to decide. It would be equally easy for a brand to claim that its commitment has already been met – or can never be made.
The Zero DF pledges have another fatal flaw: they pretend that deforestation happens in a vacuum, isolated from the socio-political, ecological and economic currents. Pledge promoters have had some forehead-slapping revelations regarding the need to consider indigenous peoples, smallholders, farm management realities and so on. It’s not possible to address any issue alone, whether it be deforestation, climate-change adaptation, pesticides, farm economics, water or wildlife conservation, or workers’ rights. The interlocking interrelatedness of the Three Es are a basic tenet of sustainability.
So, let’s get back to basics – the nitty-gritty work with farmers. Applaud brands for making these pledges. Standing ovations for those that are implementing grassroots programs with farmers. Recognize, even embrace the complexity of the challenge. Measure and reward continuous improvement. Downplay deadlines. Stop looking for scapegoats and accelerate the implementation of science-based, proven, practical solutions.”
Chris Wille was chief of sustainable agriculture at the Rainforest Alliance for 24 years. He’s now an advisor, consultant and facilitator, a “Conservation Consigliere”.
Given the pressing need for solutions here, send your thoughts to me at tobias dot webb at innovation-forum.co.uk and I’ll see if I can add them on here.
Our forthcoming events
- How business can tackle modern slavery and forced labour – 7-8 March 2018 – London
- How business can make smallholder supply chains resilient – 13-14 March 2018 – London
- Can innovation and technology make agriculture sustainable? – 5-6 April 2018 – Washington DC
- How business can tackle deforestation – 18-19 April 2018 – Washington DC