Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

A forest of evidence: third-party certification and multiple forms of proof—a case study of oil palm plantations in Indonesia

  • Published:
Agriculture and Human Values Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In recent years, new forms of transnational regulation have emerged, filling the void created by the failure of governments and international institutions to effectively regulate transnational corporations. Among the variety of initiatives addressing social and environmental problems, a growing number of certification systems have appeared in various sectors, particularly agrifood. Most initiatives rely on independent third-party certification to verify compliance with a standard, as it is seen as the most credible route for certification. The effects of third-party audits, however, still need to be empirically investigated. This article provides a critical assessment of the notion of ‘evidence’ which is at the heart of auditing practices. It focuses on the case of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) and fieldwork carried out in Indonesia, the world’s largest producer of palm oil. In this country, some non-governmental organizations decided to participate in the RSPO in order to use this platform to tackle the issue of land conflicts. They managed to include important clauses regarding indigenous and land rights in the RSPO standard. In practice, however, auditors rarely recognize as valid evidence the forms of proof put forward by local communities. As a result, the whole process risks compounding local power imbalances.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. This work has been translated into English as: On Justification: The Economies of Worth. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006.

  2. Quotes from writings of Thévenot (1993, 1997) that have not been published in English were translated by the author of this article.

  3. It should be noted however that "the issue in distinguishing several regimes is not to create ideal-types isolating 'pure' situations; it is, overall, to apprehend tensions arising from their conjunction in the 'living together' and to shed light on those pressures and oppressions which arise when one regime and its invested powers take hegemony over others regimes" (Thévenot 2011, p. 197).

  4. The standard includes eight principles: (1) commitment to transparency, (2) compliance with applicable laws and regulations, (3) commitment to long-term economic and financial viability, (4) use of appropriate best practices by growers and millers, (5) environmental responsibility and conservation of natural resources and biodiversity, (6) responsible consideration of employees and of individuals and communities affected by growers and mills (which includes issues of land rights, wages and conditions of workers, bargaining power, freedom of association, child labor, and so on), (7) responsible development of new plantings, and (8) commitment to continuous improvement in key areas of activity (RSPO 2007b). For a detailed analysis of the RSPO Principles and Criteria, refer to Partzsch 2011.

  5. RSPO uses a mechanism to approve certification bodies that is based on accreditation against ISO/IEC Guide 65:1996 and/or ISO/IEC Guide 66:1999. The generic accreditation is also supplemented by a set of specific RSPO certification process requirements. At the time of writing, however, the RSPO was in the process of transferring the task of accreditation to an external organization called Accreditation Services International (ASI). This accreditation service is already used by the Forest Stewardship Council and the Marine Stewardship Council and is now at its pilot implementation phase with RSPO.

  6. One heated debate was related to the criterion 7.3 according to which new plantings, since November 2005, have not replaced primary forest or any area required to maintain or enhance one or more High Conservation Values (RSPO 2007b). The issue of Free Prior and Informed Consent is also particularly controversial.

  7. As part of the seventh principle, the standard also states that no new plantings are established on local peoples’ land without their free, prior, and informed consent, dealt with through a documented system that enables indigenous peoples, local communities, and other stakeholders to express their views through their own representative institutions (Criterion 7.5). Criteria 6.4 and 7.6 address the issue of compensation for loss of legal or customary rights.

Abbreviations

ASI:

Accreditation Services International

GPS:

Global Positioning System

HGU:

Hak guna usaha (business use permits)

IEC:

International Electrotechnical commission

ILO:

International Labour Organization

ISO:

International Organization for Standardization

NGO:

Non-governmental Organization

RSPO:

Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil

SKT:

Surat keterangan tanah (land notification letter)

References

  • Allaire, G. and R. Boyer. 1993. La grande transformation de l’agriculture. Régulation et conventions dans l’agriculture et l’agro-alimentaire. Paris, France: INRA-Economica.

  • Bain, C., and L. Busch. 2005. The limits of audits. In Hide or confide, ed. G.J. Hofstede, 141–145. Amsterdam: Reed Business Information.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bain, C., B.J. Deaton, and L. Busch. 2005. Reshaping the agri-food system: The role of standards, standard makers and third party certifiers. In Agricultural governance: Globalization and the new politics of regulation, ed. V. Higgins, and G. Lawrence, 71–83. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bain, C., and M. Hatanaka. 2010. The practice of third-party certification: Enhancing environmental sustainability and social justice in the global south? In Calculating the social: Standards and the re-configuration of governing, ed. V. Higgins, and W. Larner, 56–74. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barham, E. 2002. Towards a theory of values-based labeling. Agriculture and Human Values 19: 349–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartley, T. 2003. Certifying forests and factories: States, social movements, and the rise of private regulation in the apparel and forest products fields. Politics & Society 31: 433–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernstein, S., and B. Cashore. 2007. Can non-state global governance be legitimate? An analytical framework. Regulation & Governance 1: 347–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bingen, J., and L. Busch. 2006. Agricultural standards: The shape of the global food and fiber system. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boltanski, L. and L. Thévenot. 1991. De la justification: Les économies de la grandeur. Paris, France: Gallimard. (English translation 2006: On justification: The economies of worth. Princeton: Princeton University Press).

  • Busch, L., and C. Bain. 2004. New! improved? The transformation of the global agrifood system. Rural Sociology 69: 321–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colchester, M., N. Jiwan, Andiko, M. Sirait, A.Y. Firdaus, A. Surambo, and H. Pane. 2006. Promised land: Palm oil and land acquisition in Indonesia—Implications for local communities and indigenous peoples. Report by Forest Peoples Programme and Sawit Watch.

  • Friedmann, H., and P. McMichael. 1989. Agriculture and the state system: The rise and decline of national agricultures, 1870 to the present. Sociologia Ruralis 29: 93–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, D., A. Kalfagianni, and T. Havinga. 2011. Actors in private food governance: The legitimacy of retail standards and multistakeholder initiatives with civil society participation. Agriculture and Human Values 28: 353–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gereffi, G., R. Garcia-Johnson, and E. Sasser. 2001. The NGO-industrial complex. Foreign Policy 125: 56–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hatanaka, M., C. Bain, and L. Busch. 2005. Third-party certification in the global agrifood system. Food Policy 30: 354–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lucas, A., and C. Warren. 2003. The state, the people, and their mediators: The struggle over agrarian law reform in post-new order Indonesia. Indonesia 76: 87–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marti, S. 2008. Losing Ground: The Human Rights Impacts of Oil Palm Plantation Expansion in Indonesia. Report by Friend of the Earth, LifeMosaic and Sawit Watch, February.

  • Murdoch, J., T. Marsden, and J. Banks. 2000. Quality, nature, and embeddedness: Some theoretical considerations in the context of the food sector. Economic Geography 76: 107–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Partzsch, L. 2011. The legitimacy of biofuel certification. Agriculture and Human Values 28: 413–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pattberg, P. 2005. The forest stewardship council: Risk and potential of private forest governance. Journal of Environment & Development 14: 356–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pentland, B.T. 2000. Will auditors take over the world? Program, technique and the verification of everything. Accounting, Organizations and Society 25: 307–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Power, M. 1997. The audit society: Rituals of verification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raynolds, L. 2002. Consumer/producer links in fair trade coffee networks. Sociologia Ruralis 42: 404–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raynolds, L., D. Murray, and A. Heller. 2007. Regulating sustainability in the coffee sector: A comparative analysis of third-party environmental and social certification initiatives. Agriculture and Human Values 24: 147–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • RSPO. 2007a. Certification Systems. Final document approved by RSPO Executive Board: June.

    Google Scholar 

  • RSPO. 2007b. RSPO Principles and criteria for sustainable palm oil production. Including Indicators and Guidance: October.

  • Silvius, M. and A. Kaat. 2006. Peatland degradation fuels climate change. Report from the Peat-CO2 study of Delft Hydraulics, Wetlands International and Alterra for the 12th UN-FCCC summit of Nairobi.

  • Tanner, B. 2000. Independent assessment by third-party certification bodies. Food Control 11: 415–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thévenot, L. 1993. Des marchés aux normes. In La grande transformation de l’agriculture: Régulation et conventions dans l’agriculture et l’agro-alimentaire, ed. G. Allaire, and R. Boyer, 33–51. Paris: INRA-Economica.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thévenot, L. 1997. Un gouvernement par les normes: Pratiques et politiques des formats d’information. Cognition et information en société 8: 205–241.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thévenot, L. 2001a. L’environnement en chose publique: Une comparaison franco-américaine. In Cadre de vie, environnement et dynamiques associatives, ed. J.P. Blais, C. Gillio, and J. Ion, 203–219. Paris: PUCA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thévenot, L. 2001b. Pragmatic regimes governing the engagement with the world. In The practice turn in contemporary theory, ed. K. Knorr-Cetina, T. Schatzki, and E. Savigny, 56–73. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thévenot, L. 2006. L’action au pluriel: Sociologie des régimes d’engagement. Paris: La Découverte.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thévenot, L. 2007. Reconnaissances: Avec Paul Ricoeur et Axel Honneth. In La quête de reconnaissance: Regards sociologiques, ed. A. Caillé, 269–283. Paris: La Découverte.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thévenot, L. 2011. Conventions for measuring and questioning policies. The case of 50 years of policy evaluations through a statistical survey. Historical Social Research 36(4): 192–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wakker, E. 2005. Greasy Palms: The Social and Ecological Impacts of Large-scale Palm Plantation Development in Southeast Asia. Report by Friends of the Earth, January.

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank An Ansoms, Tim Bartley, Julien Charles, Emmanuelle Cheyns, Priscilla Claeys, Cornelia Flora, Raymond Jussaume, Richard Lee, Olga Malets, Marc Mormont, Geoffrey Wood, Isabel Yepez del Castillo, and the anonymous reviewers and editor for their insightful comments on earlier drafts of this paper. The author also thanks the Fond National de la Recherche Scientifique (FNRS) for funding the research on which the paper is based and last but not least the villagers, NGO members, and auditors who agreed to participate in the research. The views presented here are the responsibility of the author and should not be attributed to these individuals or organizations.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laura Silva-Castañeda.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Silva-Castañeda, L. A forest of evidence: third-party certification and multiple forms of proof—a case study of oil palm plantations in Indonesia. Agric Hum Values 29, 361–370 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-012-9358-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-012-9358-x

Keywords

Navigation