Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
on mangrove reforestation, members of the committee noted that they generally felt
disempowered by the process. For example, one committee member commented,
It's bizarre. We are not allowed to decide what sustainable shrimp farming is by ourselves. It
is our ponds. It is our sustainability
Only with the support and persuasion of a European
consultant did they listen to our argument.
:::
In other words, because Green Soil's position was based scientific knowledge, and
the committee's position on experiential knowledge, the committee tended to feel
that they were marginalized in the standards-development process. Reflecting this
position, another committee member commented,
[Certifiers] push their ideas because they have power. They develop universal standards
based on their own perspectives and ideas. Then, they impose such standards on suppliers
throughout the world. They just determine that their standards are the standards
:::
They
won't listen to different perspectives or opinions from us. They are not flexible.
Thus, while the standards-development process was formally democratic, in prac-
tice, farmers had limited voice because their experiential knowledge lacked credi-
bility from Green Soil's perspective.
Additionally, the requirement that the standards be grounded in science tended to
make the standards fixed and standardized, which limited their adaptability to local
conditions. Commenting on what he felt was problems with the organic standards,
one farmer observed,
It is no doubt that Green Soil's standards are great and ideal. However, they also need to see
and understand the local conditions. They need to understand that local farmers have long
been producing shrimp in our own way and to change such method will take a long time.
However, their stance is rather, “This is our standard. You have to meet our standards if you
want to sell your products as organic.” Their tolerance level is very low.
Thus, whereas fixed science-based standards allows for uniform products across
production sites, they may also lead to standards that are inappropriate for local
conditions and limit farmer ingenuity.
In sum, organic certification transformed both the standards-development pro-
cess and the standards. First, while developing standards was a participatory
open-ended process based on mutual understanding before certification, following
certification it became a formal process based on scientific evidence. Second, the
standards themselves become more standardized, fixed, and rigid. The result is that
both the standards-development process and the standards themselves were based
more on notions of objectivity and calculability, as opposed to democracy and trust.
3.4.2
Measures of Sustainable Farming
Prior to organic certification, there were no measures to gauge the extent to which
farmers were adhering to the standards in the sustainable shrimp project. As farmers
were solely accountable for adhering to the standards, how to interpret and imple-
ment the standards was their decision. Thus, compliance and accountability was
Search WWH ::
Custom Search