« Protecting the rainforests | Main | Renewable Energy Strategy »

Greenpeace versus Unilever (Round Two)

“Gratuitously stirring a pot that absolutely didn’t need to be stirred just to make a phoney effect” – I guess that was one of the more polite comments I received from colleagues about my piece (posted 1st May) regarding Greenpeace’s direct action against Unilever as part of its palm oil campaign. I certainly plead guilty to the pot-stirring, but there was nothing phoney about it: the interface between business and NGOs is one that I spend a lot of time reflecting on, and this provides a particularly interesting case study.

To say that these things “all come out in the wash” would not just be a cliché, but a rather insulting cliché. However, there is something of a coming-out-in-the-wash effect going on in terms of the ‘working relationship’ between Greenpeace and Unilever.

The prize for Greenpeace in taking on Unilever was not just to be sure that the company was doubling and re-doubling its efforts on securing “sustainable palm oil”, but that Unilever would undertake to spearhead a business-led call for an immediate moratorium on further deforestation in Indonesia linked to palm oil cultivation.

That’s exactly what Unilever is now doing – with the only bone of contention between them the question as to whether Unilever would have done that without its headquarters being invaded by troops of orang-utan lookalikes. Unilever said it would; Greenpeace says is wouldn’t. Whatever, as some would say.

But things move fast these days. A couple of days after Unilever made its announcement (at The Prince of Wales’s May Day Summit on Climate Change) Greenpeace issued its latest report, The Hidden Carbon Liability of Indonesian Palm Oil – the front cover of which has a big tick against Unilever on “support a halt to deforestation”, and a big cross against Nestle, P&G and Kraft.

It’s an excellent report (adding a lot more context and specific detail to the earlier report, Burning up Borneo), and key reading for anyone interested in this debate. I’m sure it won’t make Unilever colleagues feel any less uncomfortable about the pressure they’re now under, but they will at least see it as a more ‘level playing field’ in terms of the share of the clod of earth that Greenpeace is now hurling at all the big palm oil players.

One really interesting divide emerges. Some time ago, Unilever decided to direct (almost) all its efforts through the RSPO – the Round Table on Sustainable Palm Oil. “It is essential that all those involved sign up to agreed criteria to make sustainability work on the ground – but this is not an easy process, and is taking longer than we would all like. That is why we chair the Round Table on Sustainable Palm Oil”.

Greenpeace thinks the RSPO is a total waste of space: “the organisation’s impact on the ground in terms of halting industry expansion into rainforests and peatlands has been negligible. At present, the RSPO scheme does not prohibit palm oil producers from being involved in forest conversion, and has no assessment of, or limits on, GHG emissions from the development of palm oil plantations.

Again, you’ll have to judge for yourself on this one. At the risk of being accused yet again of grotesque bias, I have to say that Unilever really didn’t have much choice here. Unilateral action on its part would have counted for very little – even if it is the world’s biggest consumer of palm oil .

And it’s simply not true to say that nothing has happened, In just three years, producers responsible for 40% of total palm oil production have joined the RSPO, have agreed on a Certification Programme for sustainable palm oil (which is more than can be said for most other agricultural commodities in the world today), which includes sanctions against companies that flout the certification standards – and those companies do include expansion onto land of high conservation value.

Here’s the fit between Greenpeace’s demands and the RSPO:
(1) No new plantings within mapped forest areas
(2) No plantations resulting in the degradation of peatlands
(3) No plantations post-November 2005 resulting in degradations of High Conservation Value forests
(4) No plantations established on indigenous people’s land without Free, Prior and Informed Consent
(5) Establish full supply chain traceability.

Unilever has pointed out that the first four of these are included in the new standards, and Unilever itself (though not other RSPO members) has committed to (5). As it has to be if it is to achieve its goal of ensuing that all the palm oil it uses is sourced from sustainable producers by 2015.

Too slow? Probably. RSPO still pretty dodgy in terms of its membership? Couldn’t agree more. Best way to go in an imperfect world? I think so.

Posted by Jonathon Porritt on June 20, 2008 2:12 PM |

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)





TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.jonathonporritt.com/jpblog/mt-tb.cgi/62

Subscribe to this blog's feed
[What is this?]