Rainforest Alliance/UTZ Subsequent to its January 2018 merger with UTZ, the Rainforest Alliance published a new Sustainable Agriculture Standard in June 2020.1 While including several new requirements, the new combined standards largely follow the Rainforest Alliance’s previous standards, which are stronger than UTZ’s. Audits to this standard will become mandatory in mid-2021.2 Until then the two separate schemes will continue in operation, so comments on the UTZ scheme and standards are included below. Governance of the Rainforest Alliance and UTZ schemes is less balanced than at Fairtrade, with the Standards Committee that oversees them being somewhat industry-heavy. There’s room for improvement with regard to transparency: the Rainforest Alliance publishes detailed audit summaries on its website, but UTZ does not appear to make audit reports public at this time and neither scheme makes available details of grievances. Traceability is also a concern – physical traceability is not required and mass balance is a permitted and widely used option, meaning uncertified commodities could end up in products carrying the Rainforest Alliance or UTZ seal. The Rainforest Alliance’s Sustainable Agriculture Standard3 entirely prohibits the use of GMOs as well as deforestation and destruction of other natural ecosystems, but concerns have been raised about certified operations; in 2019 the Rainforest Alliance admitted identifying severe non-compliances among certificate holders in West Africa with respect to traceability, deforestation and farming in protected areas. This led to the decertification of some of the certificate holders,4 and warnings to or the suspension of several of the implicated CBs, which were mostly approved by UTZ.5 In addition, although the standards contain relatively strong provisions with regard to FPIC and community and Indigenous rights, an independent review of the effectiveness of the schemes showed that both UTZ and the Rainforest Alliance have been unable to significantly contribute to ensuring [cocoa] farmers achieve a living income or reducing child labour.6 Unfortunately, implementation is a clear weakness, allowing certification of highly problematic cocoa in recent years. 1
Rainforest Alliance (2020d)
2 Rainforest Alliance (2020, 1 July) 3 Both the 2017 and 2020 versions. 4 Rainforest Alliance (2019, 29 April) 5 Mufson, S. (2019, 29 October) 6 ABVV-FGTB/Horval et al. (2018) p.3
Governance and decision making
• The Rainforest Alliance Standards
Committee (overseeing both schemes) is responsible for discussing and deciding on a response to feedback received during stakeholder and public consultation periods, as well as for approving draft versions of standards. The 10 to 15 members of the Committee include representatives of various stakeholder
groups (producers, industry, certification bodies and NGOs). They are appointed by the Rainforest Alliance Board of Directors, which also approves the final versions of new standards.7 The current Standards Committee is industry-heavy, considering it currently includes four
7 Rainforest Alliance & UTZ (2018)
Greenpeace International - Destruction: Certified
63
