 |
|
|
|
|
EcoRange: Market-Oriented Environmental Certification
for Rangeland Pastoral Industries -
7. Perceptions from industry, conservation and consumer groupsPart of the EcoRange project report series
by Christine King and Lester Pahl
November 2005
RIRDC Publication No 04/168 RIRDC Project No DAQ-276A
This report discusses the perceptions and expectations of industry, conservation and consumer groups with regard to the development and application of environmental certification in agriculture.
Perceptions of these three categories of stakeholders were explored using a qualitative research method known as convergent interviewing. In this way EcoRange interviewed representatives of 24 state or national organisations, eight from each category of stakeholder.
Industry, conservation and consumer groups all have a desire for agriculture to be profitable, ecologically sustainable and socially beneficial. These groups are generally in favour of the application of environmental certification to agriculture, providing it can contribute to these outcomes.
The following paragraphs outline the broad principles and processes that these stakeholders wish to see incorporated within agricultural environmental certification.
Stakeholder expectations for environmental certification
Certification standards and performance criteria
Industry groups preferred environmental certification to occur on a national industry-wide scale, and to be based on existing agricultural related standards such as quality assurance. It should contain regional performance measures, Australian industry best management practices, and be applied to the whole supply chain.
Conservation and consumer groups did not appear to have a preference for any particular type of standard. However, they did expect environmental certification to address the whole supply chain, and operate at regional, national and global scales.
Conservation groups emphasised three key criteria for environmental certification: ecosystem function, biodiversity conservation, and prices reflecting the true cost of production. In relation to the cost of production, both conservation and consumer groups felt that the current retail price of some products did not adequately reflect their full environmental and social costs.
Conservation and consumer groups believed that minimum environmental performance measures should be combined with existing best practice and continuous improvement processes. For these two groups it was important that environmental certification should question whether a land use should exist in the first place, rather than just apply a continuous improvement process to it.
Consumer groups also placed particular emphasis on food safety.
Uptake and expected outcomes
Industry groups unanimously
believed that environmental certification should be voluntary. While both
conservation and consumer groups also displayed a general preference for
environmental certification to be voluntary, they desired some form of
regulatory back-up to ensure that standards were met.
All three categories of stakeholders expected environmental certification to be simple and easy to use, but not simplified at the expense of beneficial outcomes.
Also, all three categories of stakeholders expressed a preference for environmental certification to address triple-bottom line issues – social, financial, and environmental. Conservation and consumer groups emphasised the need for all three issues to have equal status.
Development
Industry groups generally
believed that they should play the major role in the development of environmental
certification, but also saw significant roles for retailers and other members
of supply chains. Consumer education regarding products and production
practices was regarded as critical to the success of environmental certification.
Conservation and consumer groups had a preference for environmental certification to be developed through multi-stakeholder collaboration. They placed much importance on education, saying this was needed for primary producers, consumers and the wide community.
Operation
Industry and conservation
groups were generally in favour of product labelling, and indicated a preference
for a single national label.
Consumer groups believed that a number of labels were required to satisfy the need for consumer choice. These labels must be trustworthy and informative, and should indicate certification of sustainability and food safety across the chain.
The industry groups held mixed views about auditing, varying from self-auditing to independent audits. Conservation groups placed importance on independent auditing, and highlighted the need for public transparency. Consumer groups generally did not address the topic of auditing, but their strong requirement for trust and credibility suggests that independent audits would be preferable.
Conclusions
While there is much agreement
amongst industry, conservation and consumer groups with regard to the broad
principles and processes for agricultural environmental certification,
many significant issues will need to be worked through before this can
be successfully implemented. In particular, there is a need for agreement
on a working definition for sustainability and sustainable practices, including
environmental, economic and social performance targets.
The most contentious issue of all is likely to be the higher costs of food and fibre arising from environmental certification, and who will pay for these. Primary producers believe that their labour, inputs and capital are under-valued, conservation and community groups believe that many social and environmental costs are not fully accounted for, and consumers are either not able or not willing to pay more for food and fibre. Consumer-driven improvement in environmental, economic and social standards of agricultural communities is unlikely if they are unable or unwilling to pay more for these products.
Finally, it may be inequitable and unrealistic to expect supply chains and/or consumers to pay for a number of the wide community expectations of agriculture. Under these circumstances consideration could be given to the role of governments in bringing about the changes expected by stakeholder groups. Governments have at their disposal a range of policy instruments that can be brought together to achieve environmental, economic and social objectives. For example, the Integrated Product Policy of the European Commission draws on fiscal, legislative, market and a number of other policy instruments to address the environmental aspects associated with the life cycle of products.
Recommendations
Industry, conservation and
consumer groups have put forward the following principles and broad processes
as requirements for environmental certification in agriculture.
Environmental certification
should:
 
|
