On EUDR and the role of voluntary schemes

On August 15th Earthsight published an article titled: “Academic study confirms green labels fall short of requirements set by upcoming EU deforestation law”. However, a critical reading of the article shows that their bias against voluntary schemes has led them down a euro-centric path of preconceived conclusions and subjective opinions that do not do justice to the role voluntary sustainability schemes play in our global system.

The article states that the study found that none (of the labels) is “fully aligned” with the most important requirements of the EUDR relating to deforestation and legality and goes on to state that there is a “failure across the board to fully meet core EUDR requirements”.

The first mistake here is Eartsight’s assumption that global schemes should be “fully aligned” with European legislation such as the EUDR. The RSPO has always welcomed EUDR as an important piece of legislation which will hopefully contribute significantly to diminishing Europe’s contribution to deforestation. The RSPO’s gap analysis between the EUDR and our standard shows that it is in a very good position to support its members with demonstrating compliance. But it also showed some differences.????

When it comes to the legality criteria it is important to recognise that all of the nine legality criteria are covered in the RSPO growers standard. Seven of them explicitly and two fall under the broader obligation to respect the laws of the producing country.?

With regards to the definition of “forest”, RSPO and other schemes have been completely transparent from the start about the fact that our definition of “forest” deviates from the EUDR definition. The EU legislators could have chosen to use the same qualitative methodology as the voluntary schemes use but instead chose to use a simplified quantitative definition, which was unfortunate.? If the RSPO would align its global standards “fully” to regional demands this can create issues in other parts of the world. The EU is a very important player and can be proud of the fact that it is the main consumer of sustainably produced palm oil. But it is not the beginning and end of the world. As a global standard we have other regions and other legislation to take into account.

To solve this dilemma of not being fully aligned but still wanting to be a good tool for EUDR compliance, RSPO has chosen a flexible and pragmatic approach. RSPO is currently developing a new traceability, trade and certification system called “prisma”. Prisma will allow growers to upload EUDR compliant information, even if that is information that is not demanded on the basis of the RSPO? standards. This means importers into Europe will be able to use it to demonstrate EUDR compliance whilst companies that are not supplying to the EU market will not have to produce the same kind of evidence.

The article also states, “All schemes assessed had a lenient attitude towards non-compliance, with actors being allowed to retain certification despite violating laws, increasing the risk of EUDR non-compliance”.

Simply barring companies that breach the standard from membership is possible and certainly the easiest way of punishing them. But it is not the most sustainable. Once you have excluded them, you have no leverage and they have no incentive? to become more sustainable. Allowing companies to stay on as members, after they have committed a wrong-doing, on the condition that they follow a strict path to improvement with measurable milestones, is hard work but is often the more sustainable pathway. This does not increase the risk of EUDR non-compliance. On the contrary, excluding companies from membership after a violation is the best way to ensure they will be less compliant and no longer eligible to supply to the European market. The result on the ground is worse working conditions, more deforestation and overall less sustainable practices.

Finally, it is important to know that all of the five labels that are subject of the study are so much broader than the EUDR, which only focuses on two elements, i.e. deforestation and legality. The RSPO Standards include explicit requirements on health and safety, governance, Free Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC); harassment, pesticide use, waste and water management, to name but a few..

I am not saying voluntary standards are a silver bullet to solving our sustainability challenges. Neither is legislation. But the key is to develop a smart mix where they are complementary and mutually reinforcing. I believe that EUDR could have been more effective and robust if there had been a better use of voluntary labels. I welcome criticism as it will make us all do better. But true sustainability can only be achieved through cooperation. And by trying to pit voluntary labels against legislative measures, instead of looking for mutual reinforcement, Earthsight is doing both voluntary certification and legislation a disservice and not contributing to long term sustainability.?

Ruben Brunsveld

Deputy Director EMEA

Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil