Maki Hatanaka

Certify Sustainable Aquaculture

Certifications limited contribution to sustainable aquaculture should complement public and private governance. Aquaculture, the farming of aquatic organisms, provides close to 50% of the worlds supply of seafood, with a value of U.S.

Differentiated Standardization, Standardized Differentiation: The Complexity of the Global Agrifood System

125 billion. It makes up 13% of the worlds animal-source protein (excluding eggs and dairy) and employs an estimated 24 million people (1). With capture (i.e., wild) fisheries production stagnating, aquaculture may help close the forecast global deficit in fish protein by 2020 (2). This so-called “blue revolution” requires addressing a range of environmental and social problems, including water pollution, degradation of ecosystems, and violation of labor standards.

Governing sustainability: examining audits and compliance in a third-party-certified organic shrimp farming project in rural Indonesia

In recent years the production and consumption of food have become both more transnational and diversified. Concurrent with these transformations has been the increasing use of standards to differentiate both agricultural products and processes. Historically standards were understood as “natural market lubricants,” but today they are increasingly viewed as tools for competitive advantage. As the use of standards has proliferated, the need to ensure compliance has also increased. Third-party certification (TPC) is one way to ensure compliance and it is becoming increasingly prominent in the global agrifood system. This chapter examines the complex effects that the widespread implementation of standards and TPC is having on the global agrifood system. What is occurring is not simple standardization and differentiation, but rather differentiated standardization and standardized differentiation. In the first instance, whereas we have standardization, it is differentiated, as multiple options remain. For example, while TPC for food safety and quality is becoming increasingly common, what such certification means continues to have considerable diversity. In the latter case, different kinds of agricultural practices are becoming standardized (i.e., organic). That is, difference (e.g., alternative agriculture) is becoming standardized, so that it is increasingly becoming the same globally. In concluding, we argue that standardization and differentiation are both taking place simultaneously in the global agrifood system, and that analyses of the globalization of food and agriculture must begin to recognize this.

The Practice of Third-Party Certification: Enhancing Environmental Sustainability and Social Justice in the Global South?

Drawing on a case study of an organic shrimp project in Indonesia, this paper provides a preliminary assessment of the use of third-party certification (TPC) to make shrimp aquaculture more environmentally sustainable in a rural setting in Indonesia. Specifically, I examine three processes of TPC: (1) the development of standards, (2) the communication of standards, and (3) the enforcement of standards. My research indicates that TPC is based on technoscientific norms and values and Western ideas of rationality. Thus, implementing TPC in rural settings in the global South may pose additional difficulties, resulting from cultural and structural differences. Consequently, TPC may not be able to be successfully implemented everywhere in the world, especially in the rural South, in its current form.

Patchworks of Sustainable Agriculture Standards and Metrics in the United States

Third-party certification (TPC) has emerged over the past decade as a key mechanism to govern the agri-food system. Increasingly both nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and food retailers assert that if standards for food safety and quality are to be credible in the public eye, then they must be accompanied by independent audits conducted by third parties (Bain, 2010; Busch and Bain, 2004; Freidberg, 2004). In particular, a variety of activist NGOs are using TPC in an effort to ensure that food and agricultural production is conducted in a manner that is environmentally sustainable and/or socially just (Barrientos, 2000; Bonanno and Constance, 1995; Klooster, 2005; Renard, 2003). NGOs use TPC to deliver information about the specific quality of products (e.g., fair trade, organic, good labour practices, and animal welfare) to concerned consumers. In this way, NGOs are attempting to link concerned consumers with producers whose method of farming is sustainable and ethical (Barrientos, 2000; Gereffi et al., 2001; Raynolds et al., 2007). At the same time, NGOs are pressuring major food retailers to implement TPC as a means to demonstrate that their globally sourced products are produced in a socially and environmentally responsible manner (Freidberg, 2004; O’Rourke, 2006). Concern about the potential loss of reputation and the need to minimize liability has motivated many of these retailers to develop their own standards that are independently certified to communicate a product’s quality.

Legitimation and De-legitimation in Non-State Governance: LEO-4000 and Sustainable Agriculture in the United States

Abstract Efforts to increase sustainability are increasingly being promulgated using non-state forms of governance. Currently, there are multiple multi-stakeholder initiatives (MSIs) working to develop sustainability standards and metrics for US agriculture. These include: LEO-4000, Field to Market, and the Sustainability Consortium. Using Paul Thompson’s (2010) tripartite sustainability framework, the proposed sustainability standards and metrics of the three MSIs are assessed. Our findings indicate that the current political economic stakeholder nexus is producing incremental adjustments to the status quo of industrial agriculture. Put differently, the standards and metrics being produced by these initiatives are largely advancing programs of sustainable intensification in which sustainability is equated with increasing resource efficiencies. Hence, our research problematizes the efficacy of non-state governance approaches for transformative change in food and agriculture. The findings in this chapter are based on fieldwork conducted between 2011 and 2013.

Multi-stakeholder initiatives and the divergent construction and implementation of sustainable agriculture in the USA

Abstract Multi-stakeholder initiatives have proliferated as a leading form of standard-development, as they are understood to be more legitimate than other forms of non-state governance. The legitimacy of multi-stakeholder initiatives is a result of their perceived congruence with normative democratic principles. Using a case study of a multi-stakeholder initiative to develop a National Sustainable Agriculture Standard (LEO-4000) for the United States, this chapter examines the practices and politics of legitimation in non-state governance. The analysis of LEO-4000 indicates that, first, the simultaneous construction of legitimacy and standards affects the kinds of standards developed. Second, understandings of legitimacy are influenced by the standpoint of actors. Third, legitimacy has become a strategic dimension of standard-development, which actors use to further their interests. Based on these findings, we contend that non-state governance that relies on normative democratic principles for legitimation is constrained in its ability to develop stringent standards. Thus, there may be limits to non-state governance as a regulatory tool, and to achieve non-economic objectives such as increased sustainability. For rural areas, the implication is that they are becoming enmeshed in an emerging system of non-state governance that continues to be highly contested, particularly regarding who has the right to govern such areas. The findings in this chapter are based on qualitative data, including 34 interviews and participant-observation.

Organic Certification and the Rationalization of Alternative Food and Agriculture: Sustainable Shrimp Farming in Indonesia

Multi-stakeholder initiatives (MSIs) have emerged as a leading institutional approach for advancing sustainability globally. This paper examines three prominent MSIs that have developed sustainability metrics and a standard for US agriculture: Field to Market, the Stewardship Index for Specialty Crops and the National Sustainable Agricultural Standard Initiative. Using data from interviews and content analysis of initiative reports, two sets of analyses are presented. First, building on Paul Thompsons tri-partite theorization of sustainability, how each initiative is conceptualizing agricultural sustainability is analyzed. We find that two contrasting visions of sustainable agriculture for the USA have emerged from the three MSIs. One vision is a resource sufficiency approach focused on eco-efficiencies and the other vision is a functional integrity approach that emphasizes the maintenance of resilient agricultural and ecological systems. Second, we examine the governance practices of the MSIs to explain why such divergent conceptualizations of sustainability have been mapped out. We find that far from being a neutral forum, the internal dynamics of MSIs often reflect and reproduce existing power relationships among stakeholders. In concluding, we suggest that incremental improvements in sustainability can be achieved using MSIs, but more transformative changes may require other forms of governance.

Third-party certification in the global agrifood system

Alternative forms of food and agriculture have emerged in response to problems associated with industrialized food and agriculture. They consist of a variety of forms, including fair trade, organic agriculture, local markets, community-supported agriculture, and urban gardens. While the forms of alternative food and agriculture diverge, they generally share a common vision of sustainable, just, and ethical agriculture and safe and healthy food. Recently, alternative agrifood initiatives have proliferated and alternative forms of food and agriculture have become a significant component of the global agrifood system.