Page 1
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 1/168
EMPIRICAL ASSESSMENT OF ECO-CERTIFICATION SCHEMES IN
ECUADORIAN BANANA PRODUCTION
A Thesis
Presented to Faculty of the Graduate School
of Cornell University
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Master of Science
by
Cristian J. Melo
August 2004
Page 2
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 2/168
© 2004 Cristian J. Melo
Page 3
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 3/168
ABSTRACT
Ecolabeling has become increasingly popular as an environmental
governance tool due to recent challenges to state-based environmental
regulations (Constance and Bonnano 1999, Dryzek 1997, Kettl 2002,
Kirchhoff 2000, Mazmanian and Kraft 2001), and the increasing reliance on
market-based incentives to replace command and control regulatory efforts.
Yet, it has been reported that data on the environmental benefits of
ecolabeling programs is lacking (OECD 1997). I considered that a
comparison of the risk reduction behaviors of certified versus non-certified
operations will contribute to the knowledge of the environmental
effectiveness of third party ecolabeling schemes.
I chose to investigate banana production, due to the fact that this is
one of the most important traded commodities (only behind cereals), and
reports from scientist and activist’s organizations denouncing on the
environmental damage caused by banana farming. The research was
conducted in Ecuador, the world’s leading exporter of bananas. I compared
the environmental performance of certified farms holding either Fairtrade
(FT) or Rainforest Alliance (RA) certification with non-certified farms of
similar size. Controlling for size is essential, as size is correlated with level of
technology (and capitalization), which is the basis of risk reductionassessment in this study.
Page 4
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 4/168
A field survey of the risk reduction practices of 47 farms (10 certified
large (RA), 13 certified small (FT), 15 non-certified large and 9 non-certified
small) was conducted. The environmental performance of each farm was
assessed against a set of best management behaviors derived from an agro-
ecological comparison of the certification standards with the Ecuadorian
environmental bylaws for banana production. Farms of the same
characteristics (size and certification) were grouped presenting opportunity to
compare large certified farms (RA) to large uncertified farms and small
certified (FT) to small uncertified farms.
The empirical findings indicate that certified farms exhibit relatively complex
environmental management systems. They implemented a comprehensive
set of risk reduction measures compatible with the requirements of the
certification standards. Conversely, non-certified farms exhibited partial,
unstructured compliance with one or other risk reduction criteria. The results
indicate that both large and small certified farms outperformed non-certified
ones. In fact, the worst performing certified farm (of any size) has an
observed higher risk reduction score than the best of the non-certified farms.
The cross-sectional analysis reported here does not allow us to address the
question of whether certification represents an incentive that enhances
investments by farms seeking to differentiate themselves or a reward to firmsthat have already made investments in environmental protection.
Regardless of this ambiguity, from a pragmatic perspective, the
environmental accomplishments of small and large certified farms speak in
Page 5
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 5/168
favor of using ecolabels to encourage and/or acknowledge better
environmental behavior. However, it must be stated that ecocertification is a
tool for differentiating “the better farms” from others. Ecocertification can not
reach producers who lack the willingness or the resources to improve their
practices, and it should not be assumed that private efforts can assume all
the regulatory functions of the nation-state. State-regulations are needed to
set the minimum levels of environmental conservation practice that must be
obeyed by all the producers.
Page 6
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 6/168
iii
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Cristian J. Melo was born in Quito-Ecuador. He did his undergraduate
studies at the Department of Biology of the “Pontificia Universidad Catolica
del Ecuador.” After joining an Ecuadorian non-profit, he acquired some seven
years-worth experience with the successes, challenges and failures that are
part of the quest for the grail of Sustainable Development. Influenced by his
work experience, he move away from his biological sciences background and
looked forward to further education in natural resources policy. His wish was
granted by a Fulbright Grant and the support of Cornell University. His
research was conducted in ecolabeling, motivated by the lack of knowledge
in this area. After finishing his studies, his professional development plans
are contingent on living in the same city as his wife, something that he has
not done in the last two years.
Page 7
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 7/168
iv
To Nora
Page 8
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 8/168
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I thank my advisor, Dr. Steven Wolf. Beyond support and guidance, I
must say that our intellectual relationship forced me to reevaluate and rethink
on my worldview. I acknowledge Tom Gavin, the second member of my
Committee for his comments and questions. My special thanks to Barbara
Knuth, Chair of the Department of Natural Resources. I also acknowledge
the influence of Cornell’s faculty members Marianne Krasny, Lindy Williams,
David A. Lee, Ross Lloyd and Tim Fahey in one or other stage of my
research. Also, I would like to express my thanks to my DNR colleagues and
Cornell’s administrative people for spicing my life quite a bit.
I thank the Ecuadorian Fulbright Commission, the U.S. Department of
State, and the Institute for International Education for their economic support
and several opportunities to interact with other exchange students.
I express my no-names thanks to all the producers that were willing to
spend two or three hours of their time with me. Reybancorp (Favorita Holding
Company), Conservation and Development, Rainforest Alliance, Fairtrade
and the “El Guabo” Association of Small Banana Producers are also
acknowledged by their openness.
Finally I must thank my wife, Nora. Her support at the distance is
commendable, and she is the only person I know that could search
bibliography in applied phylogenetics and ecolabeling at the same time.
Page 9
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 9/168
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 The limits of state-based regulations 1
1.2 Ecolabeling 3
1.3 Bananas 8
1.3.1 Environmental impacts of banana plantations 10
1.3.2 Social impacts of banana production 13
1.4 Ecuador’s banana industry 16
1.4.1 Certification schemes operating with the Ecuador’s banana
industry
18
1.4.2.1 Rainforest Alliance (RA) 20
1.4.2.2 Fairtrade Labeling Organizations International (FLO) 22
1.4.2.3 The Ecuadorian Environmental Management Bylaws for the
banana sector
25
1.5 Research question 25
CHAPTER TWO: METHODS 28
2.1 Agro ecological assessment of banana production 28
2.2 Field survey of production practices and risk reduction 31
2.2.1 Important indicators 31
2.2.2 Different approaches toward risk reduction: end of pipe and
process measures
33
2.2.3 Implications of farm size for sample design 35
2.3 Field survey 36
2.3.1 Farm selection 40
Page 10
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 10/168
vii
2.3.2 Data gathering 42
2.3.3 Notes on the field work 42
2.4 Data coding and risk reduction evaluation 44
2.4.1 Use of land 45
2.4.2 Agrochemical management 46
2.4.3 Waste management 49
2.4.4 Water quality 56
2.4.5 Total risk reduction score 63
2.4 Statistical analysis 63
CHAPTER 3: RESULTS 65
3.1 Comparison of normative schemes: Ecuadorian
Environmental Management Bylaws for Banana Production,
Rainforest Alliance and Fairtrade certification standards
65
3.1.1 Use of land 65
3.1.2 Agrochemical management 68
3.1.2.1 Agrochemicals restrictions 75
3.1.2.2 Crop management 75
3.1.2.3 Agrochemical storage facilities 77
3.1.2.4 Occupational health and training 77
3.1.3 Waste management 78
3.1.4 Water quality 81
3.1.5 Implications of the comparison of the norms 863.2 Empirical assessment of eco-certification schemes in
Ecuadorian banana production
87
3.2.1 By risk reduction criteria 87
Page 11
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 11/168
viii
3.2.1.1 Use of land (UL) 87
3.2.1.2 Agrochemical management (AM) 91
3.2.1.3 Waste management (WM) 101
3.2.1.4 Water quality (WQ) 106
3.2.2 Total risk reduction score (TT) 111
3.2.3 Differences between certified and non-certified small farms 112
3.2.4 Differences between certified and non-certified large farms 119
3.2.5 Differences between certified and non-certified farms 121
CHAPTER 4: CONCLUSION 126
APPENDIX 1: SURVEY “A” 130
APPENDIX 2: SURVEY “B” 135
APPENDIX 3: VARIABLES DICTIONARY 137
REFERENCES 145
Page 12
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 12/168
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Tethering banana plants using plastic cord 14
Figure 2: Stacking banana plants using bamboo 15
Figure 3: Study framework 27
Figure 4: Inputs and outputs of banana production (plantation level) 29
Figure 5: Inputs and outputs of banana production (processing
facility)
30
Figure 6: Farms locations 39
Figure 7: Histogram of risk reduction scores for use of land (UL) by
farm size and certification status
89
Figure 8: Fairtrade-certified organic rustic (no-technology based)
banana plantation
92
Figure 9: Rainforest Alliance-certified farm buffer zone (Reybancorp
S.A., Quevedo-Los Rios)
93
Figure 10: Histogram of risk reduction scores for agrochemical
management (AM) by farm size and certification status
98
Figure 11: Fertilizers storage at the side of the processing facility of a
non-certified farm (Naranjal-Guayas).
99
Figure 12: Pesticides mixing area of a non-certified farm (Naranjal-
Guayas)
100
Figure 13: Histogram of risk reduction scores for waste management(WM) by farm size and certification status
103
Figure 14: Rejected banana (unfit for exportation) in a no-certified
farm (Naranjal-Guayas).
104
Page 13
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 13/168
x
Figure 15: Banana stalks open-dump in a non-certified banana farm
(Naranjal-Guayas).
105
Figure 16: Area used for burning plastic waste in a non-certified farm
(Naranjal-Guayas)
107
Figure 17: Histogram of risk reduction scores for water quality (WQ)
by size of farm and certification status
109
Figure 18: Histogram of the total risk reduction scores by size of farm
and certification status
115
Figure 19: Dot plot for the total risk reduction score by farm size and
certification status
116
Page 14
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 14/168
xi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: List of certified and non-certified farms by location (province-
location) and type of crop management
Table 2: Variables, indicators, labels and coding for use of land (UL) 47
Table 3: Variables, indicators, labels and coding for agrochemical
management (AM)
50
Table 4: Variables, indicators, labels and coding for waste
management (WM))
57
Table 5: Variables, indicators, labels and coding for water quality
(WQ)
59
Table 6: Comparison of the RSAB, Fairtrade and Rainforest Alliance
standards for use of land
66
Table 7: Comparison of the RSAB, Fairtrade and Rainforest Alliance
standards for agrochemical management
69
Table 8: Comparison of the RSAB, Fairtrade and Rainforest Alliance
standards for waste management
79
Table 9: Comparison of the RSAB, Fairtrade and Rainforest Alliance
standards for water quality
83
Table 10: Median, mean, minimum, maximum and standard deviation
for small and large non-certified and certified farms scores
for use of land
90
Table 11: Median, mean, minimum, maximum and standard deviation
for small and large non-certified and certified farms scores
for agrochemical management
94
Page 15
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 15/168
xii
Table 12: Median, mean, minimum, maximum and standard deviation
for small and large non-certified and certified farms scores
for waste management
102
Table 13: Median, mean, minimum, maximum and standard deviation
for small and large non-certified and certified farms scores
for water quality
108
Table 14: Median, mean, minimum, maximum and standard deviation
for small and large non-certified and certified farms total risk
reduction scores
112
Table 15: Farms risk reduction scores and percentage of maximum
score for use of land (UL), agrochemical management (AM),
waste management (WM), water quality (WQ) and total risk
reduction score (TT), ordered by total risk reduction score
113
Table 16: Differences between average risk reduction score by index
(expressed as percentage of the index maximum possible
score) of certified versus non-certified small farms
117
Table 17: Differences between average risk reduction score by index
(expressed as percentage of the index maximum possible
score) of certified versus non-certified large farms
120
Page 16
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 16/168
xiii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
APBN Association of Small Banana Producers of “Naranjal” (EC)
APPBG Association of Small Banana Producers of “El Guabo” (EC)
BNP Banana National Program (EC)
CYD Conservation and Development (EC)
EPA Environmental Protection Agency (US)
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
FLO Fairtrade Labeling Organizations International
FT Fairtrade
INEN National Institute for Normalization (EC)
ISO International Standardization Organization
MAG Ecuadorian Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock (EC)
OECD Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
PAN Pesticides Action Network
RA Rainforest Alliance (US)
RSAB Ecuador’s environmental bylaws for banana production
SAN Sustainable Agriculture Network (US)
SICA Agricultural information service of the MAG (EC)
UNEP United Nations Environmental Program
WHO World Health Organization
WTO World Trade Organization
Page 17
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 17/168
1
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 The limits of state-based regulations
In 1992, the United Nations (UN 1993) called for developing a system
of sustainable development through trade. Their assumption was that
economic development can occur in a way that can be environmentally
sustainable, without the natural resources costs that are traditionally
associated with increased economic activity – pollution, ecological
simplification, reductions in stocks of non-renewable resources. At the same
time, the traditional system of state based environmental regulation was
being challenged as too expensive or cumbersome. It was argued that the
economic cost of implementing the recommended measures, and enforcing
compliance, diminished the economic competitiveness of local firms,
industrial sectors and national economies (Dryzek 1997, Kettl 2002, Kirchhoff
2000, Mazmanian and Kraft 2001). Furthermore, supporters of state-based
environmental regulations realized that controls could not be enforced
beyond the physical and legal boundaries that define a nation. Beyond
inability to enforce regulations abroad, the local enforcement power of the
traditional state-based environmental regulation was challenged by the
emergence of the WTO-sponsored free trade. Global free trade rules mayforce a nation to change their environmental law if a regulation is found to
function as a trade barrier (Constance and Bonnano 1999).
Page 18
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 18/168
2
In parallel to weakened faith in state-based regulation, a new set of
environmental governance tools was emerging (Kettl 2002, Goodman 2000).
These new tools seek to utilize the market to achieve better environmental
outcomes. Their designers believe that proper use of market-based
incentives could lead to sustainable development (Hempel 1996). Developed
as voluntary compliance systems, they cannot be considered as a trade
barrier because their regulatory power is based in consumer’s preferences.
While it can be argued that existence of a “green market” is a prerequisite for
incentive-based policies to work, once the market for environmental services
is established the economic actors are free to creatively find alternatives to
provide consumers with the desired product.
An additional advantage of market based policies is that the
compliance verification and enforcement can be transferred to the private
sector, opening a door for the development of two-way relationships between
environmental groups and the industry. These environmental groups
positioned themselves as third party regulators, facilitating transactions
between producers and consumers by enhancing communication and
reducing information asymmetries. Through these arrangements, private
non-profit organizations and commercial actors could develop new ways of
addressing environmental problems unresolved by state-based regulations.
Ecolabeling emerged as one of these promising market-based tools,
because it provides economic incentives to producers that invest in resource
conservation. Because ecolabeling is a relatively new phenomenon, there
Page 19
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 19/168
3
are gaps in the knowledge about this environmental governance strategy.
The OECD (1997) recognizes that there is a lack of information of the
environmental benefits of ecolabeling, and makes a call for research in this
topic. This thesis represents a novel attempt to evaluate the significance of
leading eco-labeling initiatives for natural resource conservation through
empirical assessment of behaviors of certified producers of bananas relative
to non-certified producers. The study was conducted in Ecuador, the world’s
largest exporter of bananas. The analysis allows us to evaluate the
environmental risk reduction practices of farms operating under a certification
scheme, and compare them with the risk reduction practices deployed in
similar non-certified farms. As envisioned in this study, risk reduction results
from innovation associated with changes in management routines, training of
workers, and investments in alternative technologies. Results inform
understanding of performance of eco-labeling initiatives and the larger
question of practical significance of voluntary schemes of market-based
environmental governance.
1.2 Ecolabeling
Ecolabeling has emerged as one of the promising tools operating
under the premises of market based incentives. It has been described as an
alternative way to promote better environmental performance by helping theconsumers to identify “green” products (Dosi and Moreto 2001, Consumers
International 1999). In agriculture, it has been seen as a tool for encouraging
the incorporation of new technologies (van Ravenswaay and Blend 1997,
Page 20
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 20/168
4
Goodman 2000). In its simplest form, an ecolabeling program is comprised of
a certification body that develops a set of guidelines, a differentiated product
(often signaled by a label or symbol), a group of consumers [market] that are
willing to acquire these differentiated products, and producers that want to
provide these products in order to have access to a new market niche or to
compete against firms pursuing similar programs (Markandya 1997). Thus,
ecolabeling offers a unique opportunity to generate an interesting feedback
mechanism between producers, certification bodies and consumers
(Markandya 1997): the consumer’s willingness-to-pay for certified goods
encourages the production of more of these differentiated products, and this
increased supply of certified goods contributes to the growth of the market.
Certification systems have become common all around the world and
across many product categories. Some of these programs are set by a
nation-state and have a country restricted market, like the Swedish
Environmental Choice, the German Blue Angel, the Nordic Swan, the
Canadian Environmental Choice Program (OECD 1997) or the U.S.
Department of Agriculture National Organic Program (USDA 2002). Others
have been set up by supra-national governments (like the European Union
Ecolabel Award Scheme) (OECD 1997) or supra-national institutions like the
International Organization for Standardization (ISO), which “networks
national standards institutes from 148 countries” (ISO 2004).
While eco-certification has and continues to grow rapidly, there are
critics. Government labeling programs based in mandatory technical
Page 21
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 21/168
5
regulations have been identified as a form of protectionism and thus illegal
under WTO rules governing technical barriers to trade (TBT). Prominent
examples include the yellow-fin tuna/dolphin safe case and the European
requirement to label products that contain genetically-modified ingredients
(Constance and Bonnano 1999, Dankers 2003, Isaac and Kerr 2003, Jones
et al. 1999, Joshi 2004, Ward 1997). While the ISO certification system is not
a TBT due to its voluntary nature, it too has come under criticism. Its critics
claim that it could degrade the credibility of all the third party ecolabeling
systems because each firm sets its goals and timeframes without being
required to prove compliance (Cadwell 1998, Curkovic 2001, Kimerling
2001).
Beyond the controversy that surrounds national or supra national
certification systems, some of the most widely recognized certification
schemes were born as initiatives of the private, non-profit sector (thus called
third party certification systems). Some of the best know environmentally-
concerned programs are the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) (1993) and
the Marine Stewardship Council (1997). According to the FAO Ad-hoc Expert
Meeting on Socially and Environmentally Responsible Banana Production
and Trade (FAO 2000), some of the more relevant certification groups
working with agricultural products are Rainforest Alliance, several organic
certification organizations grouped on the International federation of Organic Agriculture Network (IFOAM), and the social justice movements grouped in
the Fairtrade Labeling Organizations International (FLO).
Page 22
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 22/168
6
This type of private, non-profit certification initiatives is extremely
interesting from an environmental governance perspective. Cadwell (1998)
considered that “voluntary, private, and relatively transparent programs are at
less risk of WTO discipline than government-sponsored eco-seals.” Thus,
certification systems provide interested parties (non profit organizations,
retailers, consumer associations and individual consumers) with a way to
promote their values at the international level, avoiding the conflict that
surrounds state-based regulations.
Third party certification also has advantages for the producers, which
can get certain compensations for their “better” behavior, in the form of
premium prices, access to an exclusive market, protection against boycotts,
or public image improvement. Also, it can be that the procedures and
technology needed to achieve the “certified” status force the producer to
become more efficient, thus generating further profits by achieving a lower
production cost and higher yields than competitors. Thus, an ecolabeling
program presents a unique opportunity for a win-win situation in which
environmental and/or socially concerned actors can interact positively with
progressive producers. This interaction has the potential for improved
environmental performance at the producer level (thus achieving the social
goals of the certification systems stakeholders), while offering the producers
tangible economic benefits.
Despite the popularity of ecolabeling as an environmental governance
tool, there has been limited research on the empirical effects of these
Page 23
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 23/168
7
initiatives. The published research focuses on analysis of various schemes
with an eye toward criticizing one or another set of standards and
assessment of the social effects of some of these initiatives (Murray and
Raynolds 2000, Raynolds 2000, Bray 2002). This literature recognizes the
ambiguity of ecolabeling programs. Simultaneously, they can be seen as a
way to promote socially conscious community-based economic development,
as part of marketing campaigns of multinational corporations, and as a
strategy of environmental management.
While this controversy remains, the present research is based on
comparisons of norms and commitments structuring the various certification
schemes and their empirical effects, due to the fact that little or no fieldwork
has been reported. The need for hands-on research is mentioned in
documents such as the OECD (1997), that mentions that it is “too early or too
difficult” to evaluate the environmental effects of ecolabeling. Even more, this
documents reports that “data relating to the environmental benefit achieved
through eco-labelling is lacking.” (OECD 1997). Some of the questions that
surround this issue were exposed in the Ecolabeling and the Greening of the
Food Market Conference (Lockeretz 2002), which raised questions about
ecolabeling and the consumers, the interaction between different seals, and
also highlighted the overwhelming need for empirical studies.
There are several reasons for the lack of empirical studies in
ecolabeling systems. In order to have validity, a study of ecolabeling must
face methodological constrains, due to the multidisciplinary and multivariate
Page 24
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 24/168
8
nature of the task. If direct measures of “improved environmental
performance” are not practical, the research protocols must be designed to
gather information about the best management practices known for that
activity. Also, there is a need for a sizeable sample of certified and non-
certified operations whose owners have to be willing to participate in the
research. And, finally, it can be hypothesized that certification systems need
a period of time before its effects can be measured.
Given the lack of empirical data on effectiveness of eco-certification as
an environmental management strategy, there is a need to study
environmental risk reduction (understood as a set of behaviors and
investments that will reduce the negative environmental impact of an activity)
achieved by certified producers of agricultural products. To make sense of
these data, risk reduction practices on certified farms must be compared to
the practices of non-certified farms. I present the results of such a
comparative analysis through a case study of banana production in Ecuador.
While a case study cannot support global inference, bananas as the fifth
largest agricultural commodity trade in the world and Ecuador as the world’s
leading banana exporter (Chambron 1999) suggest that this case is
significant and perhaps analytically significant.
1.3 Bananas
Since bananas were introduced to the American public at the 1876
Philadelphia Centennial Exhibition, along with the Hand and Torch of
Page 25
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 25/168
9
Barthodi's "Statue of Liberty1," American consumers have been faithful in
their increasing demand for more of these colorful fruits (Baxter 1998).
Bananas have been recognized as a good source of energy and vitamins
since the beginnings of the century (see Prescott 1918) and they can be
harvested all year round (Chambron 1999). Moreover, as far back as 1899
and the founding of the United Fruit Company, bananas can be reliably
shipped from the remote parts of the world in which they are grown to the
avid consumers in the developed word (Soluri 2000).
Bananas are the fifth most valuable agricultural trade commodity in
the world (Chambron 1999). According to the Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the global trade of bananas in the
year 2000 was 14 million metric tons (Mt), with the U.S. consuming 4 million
Mt (28%) (FAO 2001a). Most of these bananas were of the Dwarf Cavendish
variety (Baxter 1998), and most of them were grown in one of five countries:
Ecuador, Costa Rica, Colombia, Philippines and Guatemala. These five
countries account for 71% of the world production. Ecuador is the largest
exporter in the world, producing 28% of the total (FAO 2001a).
While banana consumers and producers are counted in the millions,
five companies control 86% of the total trade (Chambron 1999). While one
of these corporations had labeled the fruit as “the perfect food for life,”(Baxter 1998) the environmental and social costs of raising bananas had
1 Free Library of Philadelphia. 2001. http://libwww.library.phila.gov/CenCol/. Accessed 11-10-2002.
Page 26
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 26/168
10
been transferred to the workers and the environment of the countries in
which the fruit is grown. It is estimated that less that 10% of the retail price
accrues to producers, with the exporters (50%) and retailers (40%) capturing
the rest of the revenue (Banana Link 2002). According to some activist
organizations, this distribution insures that producers cannot afford to pursue
conservation. In order to maximize their profits, producers are motivated to
increase yields without regards of environmental or social conditions (Human
Rights Watch 2002, Chambron 1999). While some producers simply have no
resources to devote to natural resource conservation and community welfare,
the general institutional problem of lack of incentives and rules to motivate
firms to contribute positively to society leads to a pattern of unsustainable
economic activity.
1.3.1 Environmental impacts of banana plantations
The environmental impacts of banana plantations have received a
token share of attention by scholars. Commercial banana farming is a high
input monoculture that exerts a heavy toll on the ecosystems that support it.
A monoculture replaces highly diverse ecosystems, with large surfaces
cultivated with a few varieties of the same species or clones of the same
organism. In order to maintain a high production rate, banana plantations
require the intensive use of pesticides and fertilizers that combined with theuse of water for artificial irrigation and the lack of systems designed to stop
or delay the potential runoff, can generate on-site and off-site degradation
(UNEP 2001, Castillo et al. 1999). Also, banana production generates
Page 27
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 27/168
11
significant amounts of organic and inorganic waste that, if inadequately
disposed, can contribute to the degradation of the already weakened local
ecosystems (Chambron 1999, Astorga 1998, Mortensen et al. 1998,
Henriques et al. 1997, Jeger et al. 1996).
There are reports that this intensive use of agrochemicals has
impacted the water quality of whole regions. It is reported the level of nitrates
in Costa Rican waters are approaching or surpassing international
permissible levels (UNEP 2001). Some other studies have linked
agrochemical use in banana production with nitrate water pollution in the
Canary Islands (Muños –Carpena et al. 2002) and agrochemical pollution in
Santa Lucia and Jamaica (Dasgupta and Perue 2003). Likewise, the banana
plantations’ fungicide run-off was blamed for the so-called Taura Syndrome,
which devastated the shrimp farming industry in Ecuador in the late 90’s
(Colburn 1997, Stern 1999).
Moreover, a study conducted in banana plantations in Costa Rica
found that avian populations were commonly exposed to agrochemical
residuals (Mortensen et al. 1998) and that plantations had a lower avian
biodiversity than forested areas (Matlock et al. 2002). While adequate
pesticide storage is a problem in most developing countries (Haines1985),
pesticide management and storage in banana plantations has been calledsloppy (Henriques et al. 1997), as there are concerns about the “less costly
alternative” mentality that drives some of the plantation owners. They are
likely to select the cheaper product without regards of its potential risk, even
Page 28
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 28/168
12
if other less toxic alternatives are available. The same disregard for human or
environmental health has been denounced in relation with the Pesticide
Action Network’s ban on the herbicide paraquat (Mora 2003).
Some authors have expressed concerns about banana plantations
solid and liquid waste generation and disposition. Astorga (1998) mentions
that “the volume of waste produced is double the volume of bananas
produced. One fifth of this waste requires special treatment.” Plastic bags,
sometimes impregnated with pesticides, end up in the rivers adjacent to the
plantation (Henriques et al. 1997, Baxter 1998, Chambron 1999).
Likewise, plantations can have problems with adequate management
of other plastic residuals. In the words of Astorga (1998) “the polypropylene
string used for underpinning or tethering, are normally left littering the
plantation, affecting the fertility of the soil.” Due to the lack of recycling
facilities, the bags used for bunch protection are a source of pollution being
either dumped alongside roads or riverfronts, or burned. Furthermore, stalks
and non-exportable fruit are routinely dumped, producing undesirable
environmental effects (Astorga 1998, Henriques et al. 1997).
Banana production takes a toll on forest remnants, directly by the
conversion of rainforest to plantations or indirectly by requiring wood tosupport production. For example, the Ecuadorian banana industry’s demand
for bamboo stakes is partially responsible for the loss of half of Ecuador’s
wild bamboo stands in the last 20 years, according to a report of the
Page 29
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 29/168
13
International Network for Bamboo and Rattan (INBAR 2001). These stakes
are used to tether the banana plants to ensure they remain upright (see
Figure 1 and Figure 2). It can be calculated that if half of the banana
producers use wild bamboo for staking material, approximately 60,000
hectares of wild bamboo stands are mowed down every year (following the
empirical rule of 1 hectare of bamboo for 10 hectares of banana2).
1.3.2 Social impacts of banana production
The social impacts of commercial banana farming are difficult to
quantify, but the term and connotations of the “banana republic” label, when
applied to a developing country, speaks for itself. Authors have focused on
the social problems generated by the banana trade (Soluri 2000, Striffler
2002) and some non-profit organizations have denounced the conditions
under which the workers of banana plantations live (see Human Right
Watch’s “Tainted Harvest” (2002)), Fairtrade Foundation’s “Unpeeling the
Banana Trade” (2000), Banana Link’s “Human and Environmental Cost of
Banana Trade” (2002)).
Banana plantations not only use child labor to reduce their operating
costs (Human Right Watch 2002), the workers of banana plantations are
exposed to longer than average working hours, their wages are not sufficientto cover the basic need of subsistence for their families, and they are
2 J. Meza, Reybancopr S.A., July 2003.
Page 30
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 30/168
14
Figure 1: Tethering banana plants using plastic cord. Note the plastic bags
used for fruit protection.
Page 31
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 31/168
15
Figure 2: Stacking banana plants using bamboo. Note the plastic bags used
for fruit protection.
Page 32
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 32/168
16
regularly exposed to agrochemicals (Human Rights Watch 2002, Karlsson
2004). Unions are discouraged in some countries, but in Ecuador unions and
pro-union efforts are actively prosecuted (Human Right Watch 2002).
1.4 Ecuador’s banana industry
Ecuador’s banana industry accurately reflects the contradictions that
can be found in any producing nation. The banana trade accounts for 22% of
the total of exports, and it is the second leading export for the whole country
(El Universo 2003a). According to the results of the Third National Agriculture
Census (SICA 2003), 28,619 Ecuadorian producers hold 189,331 hectares
dedicated to the production of bananas. One hundred and thirty thousand
workers receive wages from this activity (El Comercio 2003), with 1.1 million
people (out of 12.5 million) benefiting directly or indirectly (FAO 2001b)
After the social struggle of the late 60’s and early 70’s, almost all the
land dedicated to this activity is in hands of Ecuadorians or companies with
Ecuadorian capital (Striffler 2002). These producers, working under contract
farming arrangements, mainly sell their bananas to one of the main
transnational banana companies (Dole, Chiquita, Del Monte, Fyffes and
Bonita) or their Ecuadorian subsidiaries. The relationships between
producers and exporters are contentious, with the producers denouncing thatthe price per unit (so called “caja”) does not cover their minimum production
cost (Macas 2003). The Ecuadorian government has been trying to regulate
this market, imposing an official price per box. However, this price (according
Page 33
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 33/168
17
to the exporters) does not adequately reflect the market price fluctuations,
thus introducing market distortions that make Ecuadorian bananas less
competitive (El Universo 2003b).
Also, as a by product of a neoliberal-driven reform, the Banana
National Program (BNP) (in charge of regulating, controlling and monitoring
the industry) was suppressed in 1998 (D.E. 439, RO 97-S, December 29,
1998) and replaced by the policy-making Banana National Council. This
newly created institution is charged with development of the industry and
fixing the referential price (UNEP 2002), but it does not have controlling or
monitoring functions. A report by the UNEP (2002) concluded that while
some of the extension services provided by the BNP have been assumed by
exporters and producers unions, the “functions relating to the creation and
implementation of controls and monitoring are still missing,” and
acknowledges that “many producers do not comply with the existing
standards and regulations.”
Data from the last agricultural census indicates that relatively few
banana farms are large (20% of the farms are bigger than 100 hectares),
while a large number of farms are small (37% of the farms are in the 0-10
hectares range) (SICA 2003). However, the former account for 64% of the
total surface dedicated to bananas, and the latter account for only the 8% ofit (SICA 2003). In fact, several of the interviewed persons mentioned that
during the last five years the pressures generated by the complexity of
banana farming and market distortions (that favored larger holdings and
Page 34
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 34/168
18
heavy-input management) have forced small and medium farmers to change
their management systems to more capital intensive ones, get out of banana
production, or sell their holdings to larger operations3
. These changes in
structure of banana farming will obviously enhance the concentration of
production.
Data from Ecuador’s Banana National Program shows that from 1989
to 1999 the percentage of farms that are considered technology-based (TB)
has increased from 30% to 70%; in the same period, semi-technology-based
(ST) farms have increased from 10% to 20% and rustic (no-technology-
based, NT) farms have decreased from 70% to 10% (UNEP 2002). These
designations reflect a farm’s reliance on external inputs (agrochemicals,
artificial irrigation, power in TB farms, with few or no external inputs in NT
farms) and crop management practices (TB usually being a banana
monoculture, with NT describing more diverse crop systems). These data
show that Ecuadorian producers have switched to high-impact, high yield
management systems, disregarding the environmental services provided by
less intensive producers.
1.4.2 Certification schemes operating with the Ecuador’s banana
industry
At the time of the field work reported in this thesis, three certification
systems were operating in Ecuador: Rainforest Alliance Certification System
3 V. Chacon, APPBN, July 2003; V. Mawyin, EPELDATOS, June 2003.
Page 35
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 35/168
19
(also know as ECO-O.K. or Better Banana Program), Fairtrade (under the
umbrella of Fairtrade Labeling Organizations International, FLO), and organic
under several organizations affiliated with the International Federation or
Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM), like Naturland and Skal
International.
Interestingly, Ecuador’s market share of each of these certification
programs does not exactly reflect their international popularity. In the
international arena Rainforest Alliance emerges as the largest program, with
an international participation of about 15% of the global trade of bananas
(approximately 1870000 MT) (FAO 2001c), organic is the second program
certifying 67600 MT per year and Fairtrade becomes the third with 22000 MT
per year.
In Ecuador, at the time of the study (summer of 2003), 7000 hectares
were certified by Rainforest Alliance. Fairtrade was second, with 2000
hectares. Ecuadorian Organic banana sector was at a starting point; after
consulting with producers association’s representatives, and faced with the
lack of an official body representing organic banana producers it was
possible to identify only one organic producer not affiliated with a Fairtrade
Cooperative. It is possible that more producers have moved to organic
agriculture recently, or that their farms were/are in the process of becomingcertified; nevertheless, the research protocol was designed to include only
Fairtrade and Rainforest Alliance certified farms. Both organizations are
Page 36
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 36/168
20
described briefly in the next part of this manuscript. A detailed comparison of
the norms of these programs is conducted later in the paper.
1.4.2.1 Rainforest Alliance (RA)
Rainforest Alliance, a non profit U.S. conservation organization, is well
known by it involvement in several ecocertification initiatives, which include
systems for several agricultural products (banana, cocoa, coffee, citrus and
ferns), timber products (SmartWood) and tourism (SmartVoyager). In
agriculture, Rainforest Alliance acts as the secretariat of the Sustainable
Agriculture Network (SAN), which represents conservation groups in nine
Latin and Central America countries (Belize, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica,
Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Mexico) that share
Rainforest Alliance’s vision of sustainable development (Rainforest Alliance
2004).
Rainforest Alliance stated mission is to “protect ecosystems and the
people and wildlife that depend on them by transforming land-use practices,
business practices and consumer behavior” (Rainforest Alliance 2004).
Rainforest Alliance actively engages the industry in programs designed to
“conserve biodiversity and provide sustainable livelihoods. Ecolabeling is
their principle strategy for both recognizing and engaging different economicgroups that range from multinational banana companies (Chiquita Brand) to
cooperatives of small producers of cocoa and coffee (Rainforest Alliance
2004).
Page 37
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 37/168
21
As seen in its rhetoric, Rainforest Alliance actively engages industry
into its programs, favoring participative approaches instead of confrontational
ones. This is evident in the case of the banana industry, in which Rainforest
Alliance has been criticized because of their engagement of Chiquita in their
Banana certification program (then known as Eco-O.K. or Better Banana
Program). In the early 90’s, this particular program was seen as a betrayal of
the traditional anti-multinational stand of social and environmentally
concerned organizations (Bendell 2003).
In the context of the Ecuadorian banana industry, Rainforest Alliance
certifies 100% of all Reybancorp S.A.4 banana operations. It is expected that
if new farms are acquired by this company, they will be included in the
certification system in due time. Thus, in the 2002 the certified surface was of
7000 hectares. In 2004 Rainforest Alliance reports a total surface of 9124
hectares (Rainforest Alliance 2004b). Rainforest Alliance’s Ecuadorian
partner in the Sustainable Agriculture Network, Conservation and
Development (CYD), conducts the scheduled and un-scheduled farm audits
that verifies that the company operations follow the certification standards.
This organization also collaborates with the development of standards for
other products (ex. cocoa) and certification initiatives (tourism).
4 Reybancorp S.A. is the banana production division of Favorita Fruit Holding Company,
which was formed by the association of the Ecuadorian Wong Group with theCommonwealth Development Corporation (UK) and International Finance Corporation (IFC).This company is one of the main Ecuadorian suppliers for Chiquita Brands (Favorita FruitCompany 2002).
Page 38
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 38/168
22
Interestingly, the program certifies “farms” as productions units. Even
if all of the farms of a given company are certified, such as Reybancorp, the
company itself does not hold the certification. Likewise, a farm can be “de-
certified” without affecting others, as long as the problem is localized. By
localized I mean farm-specific rather than a general failure of the whole
company’s environmental management system.
The Rainforest Alliance Certification Standards used for this study are
the English version of the Complete Standards for Banana Production 9.99
(RA 1999) which were the latest available (online) when this study was
conducted. In March 2004 Rainforest Alliance released a modified version for
public consultation. Once this dialogue is complete, this new set of norms will
replace previous versions.
1.4.2.2 Fairtrade Labeling Organizations International (FLO)
According to the Fairtrade Labeling Organizations International, the
concept of Fairtrade has existed for over 40 years, beginning as a
partnership between non-profit importers and retailers in developed countries
and small-scale producers in developing countries (FLO 2004a). Fairtrade
Labeling Organizations International (FLO) is an umbrella organization that
networks 17 Fairtrade initiatives. Among other products, FLO has standardsfor traditional developing-world crops, like coffee, tea, rice, bananas,
mangoes, cocoa and sugar; FLO reports that certification protocols for other
products (cut flowers) are under consideration.
Page 39
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 39/168
23
Recently, the FLO certification unit became a limited company, FLO-
Cert, in order “to make Fairtrade’s certification and trade auditing operations
more transparent,” (FLO 2004b), enhancing “the autonomy of its producer
certification and trader registration decisions, and facilitates compliance with
the ISO Standards for Certification Bodies (ISO 65)” (FLO 2004b); thus, the
auditing process has become independent of the certification body itself.
Fairtrade mission is to address the unfairness of international
commerce through the development of alternative commercialization chains
to bypass trading monopolies in order to transfer the benefits of this trade to
the hands of the producers thereby increasing the welfare of small farmers
and workers in developing countries (FLO 2004a).
There are two key concepts behind this rhetoric: social justice (which
includes the environment) and the unfairness of international trade. Both of
them have impacts in the way Fairtrade relates with other social and
economic actors. By creating an alternative commercialization value chain,
Fairtrade confronts the trading multinationals; likewise, Fairtrade support of
labor standards might be seen as challenge to the labor practices of these
companies. This implies that Fairtrade has a confrontational approach
towards the multinationals that monopolize the banana trade: these
companies are the cause of the problems that Fairtrade is trying to address.These two concepts also shape Fairtrade’s environmental strategy and
incentives system: Fairtrade economically encourages low-impact or
alternative (organic) management systems, and imposes restrictions on
Page 40
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 40/168
24
some high-yield high-impact practices. Accordingly, under the Fairtrade
premium guidelines, organic small farmers are awarded the maximum
premium price (FLO 2004).5
The Fairtrade Standards analyzed in this document are the English
version Fairtrade Standards for Bananas and Small Farmers Organizations
25.05.2002 (FT 2002). Subsequent to this analysis, an updated version of
these standards was released. Under the FLO system for small holder
certification, the certificate can only be held by a small farmers’ organization.
The small farmer organization has the responsibility of accounting for its
members. FLO delegates some of the surveillance functions to the local
organizations. Additionally, there is an independent auditing system (FLO-
Cert). This reliance on the human capital available within its local partners, in
conjunction with third party verification, makes this program attractive to
proponents of community-based collective action.
In the context of Ecuadorian Banana production, FLO works with 1
plantation and 3 small holders organizations (FLO 2004c). While official
information about the certified surface was not available, published data on
one of Fairtrade certifier’s “El Guabo” Association of Small Banana Farmers
reports that it represents 340 producers and covers approximately 2000
hectares (El Comercio 2004). Without considering the other certified
5 Fairtrade awards premiums for business support, social, environmental and business
development and organic production. Thus, an organic small farmer will be granted the threepremium components.
Page 41
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 41/168
25
associations of farmers, this data makes FLO the second largest certification
organization working in Ecuador.
1.4.2.3 The Ecuadorian Environmental Management Bylaws for the
banana sector
In order to compare the environmental management practices of
certified operations to some standard, I will elaborate the Ecuadorian
domestic regulations governing banana production. This law is known as the
“Environmental Management Bylaws for the Banana Sector (RSAB for its
acronym in Spanish: Reglamento de Saneamiento Ambiental Bananero)
(RSAB 2001)). This law rules the environmental behavior of all Ecuadorian
banana producers (Perez 2001). This decree is complemented with the D.E.
2294, RO 573 of November 22, 1994 that bans the establishment of new
plantations. A report by the UNEP considers that the RSAB was created with
the objective to “control the environmental impacts caused by the use of
agrochemicals and the expansion of the agricultural frontier” (UNEP 2002).
The Decree 2294 was created not only to regulate the expansion of the
agricultural frontier, but also with the objective of protecting zones with high
biodiversity and promote conversion to other crops (UNEP 2002).
1.5 Research question
Motivated by the lack of empirical evidence about the environmental
effects of ecolabeling, the free-trade challenges to state-based environmental
Page 42
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 42/168
26
regulations, and the increasing reliance on market-based incentives to
achieve public policy objectives, my research question concerns the
environmental risk-reduction level of certified versus non-certified operations.
Is there any difference between the environmental-risk reduction level of
certified and non-certified Ecuadorian banana farms? Environmental risk
reduction is understood as the deployment of practices to prevent
environmental impacts (environmental degradation) before they occur.
To answer my question, I rely on an input/output agro-ecological
model to structure comparison of three normative systems that operate in the
context of Ecuadorian banana production. Comparison of Fairtrade,
Rainforest Alliance and the Ecuadorian laws for banana production lead to
identification of a set of best management practices against which the
environmental behaviors of certified and non-certified farms are empirically
evaluated. A field-based assessment of relevant farming practices of paired
samples of banana farms allow me to make an accounting of production
practices and address the significance of eco-certification through an
analysis of risk reduction (i.e., implementation of practices and strategies that
mitigate environmental risks). Chapter 2 (Methods) presents the
methodology of my study: comparison of the three sets of norms (2.1);
derivation of my definition of risk reduction (2.2); sampling procedure (2.3);
data coding and risk reduction assessment (2.4). Chapter 3 (Results)presents the results of the comparison of the norms (3.1) and the comparison
of farming practices (3.2). Chapter 4 interprets these results in a theoretical
and policy context. The global logic of the study is illustrated in the Figure 3.
Page 43
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 43/168
27
Figure 3 Study framework
Rainforest
Alliance
Ecuadorian
LawFairtrade
Inputs-Outputs agro ecological model
Derivation of environmental risk reduction criteria
Construction of the survey
Comparison of norms
Differences between certified and no certified
farms
Certified
(1) Norms structuring
production
(2) Major categories of risk
(areas of concern)
(3) Risk reduction measures
(4) Risk reduction indicators
Large farms
(1) Sampling protocol
(3) (4) Survey design
Risk reduction evaluation-field survey(2) (3) (4) Risk reduction
scoring system
Non-certified
Small farmsSmall farms
Large farms
Risk reduction comparative analysis
Differences between
small farms
Differences between
large farms
Inferences about the empirical effects of
certification
Rainforest
Alliance
Ecuadorian
LawFairtrade
Inputs-Outputs agro ecological model
Derivation of environmental risk reduction criteria
Construction of the survey
Comparison of norms
Differences between certified and no certified
farms
Certified
(1) Norms structuring
production
(2) Major categories of risk
(areas of concern)
(3) Risk reduction measures
(4) Risk reduction indicators
Large farms
(1) Sampling protocol
(3) (4) Survey design
Risk reduction evaluation-field survey(2) (3) (4) Risk reduction
scoring system
Non-certified
Small farmsSmall farms
Large farms
Risk reduction comparative analysis
Differences between
small farms
Differences between
large farms
Inferences about the empirical effects of
certification
Page 44
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 44/168
28
CHAPTER TWO
METHODS
2.1 Agro ecological assessment of banana production
To structure the analysis of certification norms (and the domestic law)
in such a way as to inform field-based empirical analysis of production
behaviors, a simple input/output model of banana production was developed.
The model presents the inputs and outputs of the two main phases of export
banana production at the farm level (farm-level, Figure 4 and the packaging
facility, Figure 5). It does not cover operations outside the plantation, such as
those actions that occur after the packaged bananas leave the farm. In order
to focus the analysis in the environmental implications of banana production,
labor and capital, critical social inputs, are omitted.
The inputs of a banana plantation could be categorized as
agrochemicals, energy, water, land and other materials (bamboo, plastics,
etc). In terms of outputs of the plantation we have water, soil and air
pollution, which lead to water, soil and air degradation, forest degradation
(directly, due forest conversion or indirectly, due to the over exploitation of
forest resources), and waste production. The product of the plantation phase
is raw banana (banana bunches), which are cut in the plantation andtransported to the processing facility. The processing facility is a structure for
cutting, cleaning, and packaging bananas. In order to perform the basic
Page 45
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 45/168
29
Figure 4: Inputs and outputs of banana production (farm level)
Banana
Plantation
Insecticides
Nematocides
Fungicides
Herbicides
Fertilizers
Water
Energy
Inorganic waste
Organic waste
Water pollution
Soil pollution
Air pollution
Raw Banana
Landscape
Modification
Water depletion
Soil depletion
NRR depletion
To PackagingSheet
Original
Landscape
Biodiversity loss
DrainageChannels
ForestReplacement
OtherMaterials
Inputs Outputs
Page 46
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 46/168
30
Figure 5: Inputs and outputs of banana production (processing facility)
Water
Energy
Packaging
materials
Post-
harvesting
treatments
Fungicides
Raw
Bananas
Packaging
Sheet
Inorganic
waste
Organic waste
Water pollution
Soil pollution
Air pollution
Water depletion
Soil depletion
NRR depletion
Infrastructure
Processed
BananaShipment
Inputs Outputs
Packaging
Shed
Page 47
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 47/168
31
postharvest treatment of bananas, a packaging facility needs water, energy,
packaging materials, and a delivery system for the post harvest fungicide
treatment. Similarly to the plantation, the packaging facility may directly
pollute water, soil and air or by generating wastes that might lead to water,
soil and air degradation. The product of this operation is packaged bananas
(in boxes) that can be shipped to the markets.
Recognizing that all production systems generate environmental risks,
our pragmatic concern is risk reduction. Measures for environmental risk
reduction were clustered according to the perceived sources of risk, or the
potential natural resource that can be degraded or affected by the byproducts
of the activity. According to the model, the major sources of risk can be
grouped into four categories: land use management, agrochemical
management, water quality management, and waste management. These
four categories of risk structure both the comparison of the three sets of
production norms (results presented in subchapter 3.1) and the field survey
of production practices (results presented in subchapter 3.2).
2.2 Field survey of production practices and risk reduction
2.2.1 Important indicators
The focus of the empirical research was on categories of risk derived
from the agro-ecological model (use of land, water quality, agrochemical and
waste management). The comparison of norms identified a set of
Page 48
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 48/168
32
management strategies to deal with those problems. In turn, the empirical
survey was designed to acquire information about the following management
procedures and technical practices:
1. Risk of banana plantations regarding use of land
a. Replacing forested areas with new plantations
b. Degrading forest remnants or natural bamboo stands
c. Establishing buffer zones or vegetation that could act as forest
remnants, under the assumption that these will provide
ecological services (e.g., refuges for wildlife) along with sources
of timber or bamboo, thereby relaxing pressure on existing
forest
2. Risk associated with agrochemical management
a. Pest/disease management system
b. Pest monitoring system and records (management complexity
as a proxy for environmental risk reduction)
c. Fertilizers management system and records
d. Pesticides training and records
e. Agrochemical storage facility environmental safety parameters
3. Risk associated with waste managementa. Organic waste management system
b. Inorganic waste management system
Page 49
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 49/168
33
4. Risk of banana plantations for water quality
a. Weed and nematode management system
b. Pest control methods
c. Restrictions on agrochemical products used in the farm
d. Processing facility solid waste and latex filtering systems
e. Processing facility post harvest residuals treatment system
f. Agrochemical storage/mixing area waste water treatment
system (for pesticides and fertilizers)
g. Organic waste management system
h. Vegetative barriers or buffer zones alongside water courses
2.2.2 Different approaches towards risk reduction: end of pipe and
process measures
The comparative analysis made evident that Fairtrade, Rainforest
Alliance and the Ecuadorian Law include two types of environmental risk
reduction techniques. The first consists of a series of actions and feedback
mechanisms designed to minimize pollution before it is produced. These are
referred to as process measures. The second set of measures deal with
pollutants after they have been produced, and mainly consists on physical
systems designed to either modify outflows or delay its release to the
environment. These measures are known as end-of-pipe solutions. In orderto acquire information on each, I used two different survey forms and data
collection techniques.
Page 50
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 50/168
34
A qualitative methodology, using in-depth semi structured interviews
was chosen for the process measures and a binary survey was used for end-
of-pipe measures.
The first form (Appendix 1: Survey “A”) collects information about farm
practices and was filled in during a semi-structured interview with either the
plantation owner or the farm manager. This technique was chosen over a
closed survey because it provided a frame for interviewing any sort of farmer
using the same set of questions (similar to a closed survey), but I considered
that the relative openness of the format was advantageous because it
permits feedback from the producer. This characteristic was especially
appealing because the survey was designed to be applied to a wide range of
people. Therefore, I considered that interaction between the researcher and
the producer was needed to compensate for the gaps that are created by
cultural or conceptual differences (i.e., literacy, use of technical jargon,
familiarity with certain concepts).
The second survey form (Appendix 2: Survey B,), which collects
information about end-of-pipe risk reduction measures, was designed to be
filled by the researcher working alone. Hence, it consists of an itemized
check list about farm infrastructure (agrochemical storage facility, products in
the agrochemical storage facility, processing facility, buffer zones) that couldbe visually compiled. Thus, only the presence or absence of infrastructure
was evaluated.
Page 51
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 51/168
35
2.2.3 Implications of farm size for sample design
While neither Rainforest Alliance or Fairtrade program screen
applicants by farm size, in Ecuador FLO mostly certifies small banana
farmers associations (FLO 2004b), while Rainforest Alliance certifies large
operations (32 operations, 9,124 hectares, average of 285 hectares/farm
(Rainforest Alliance 2004b). Therefore, I chose to evaluate certified farms
against non-certified farms of similar size (small certified (FT) farms with
small non-certified farms, and large certified (RA) with large non-certified
farms).
This pairing was influenced by information that indicates that
Ecuadorian banana farms are differentiated by size. The agricultural census
links small holdings with low-technology-farming (the prevalence of banana
production infrastructure such as packaging facilities, irrigation systems,
funicular lines6 and agricultural equipment is lower in small holdings than in
large holdings) (SICA 2002), and Chang (1999) reported important yield
differences between technology-based (1845 boxes/ha), semi-technology
based (1294 boxes/ha), no-technology based (1094 boxes/hectare) farms.
Therefore, I assumed that large banana farms are most likely to follow the
industrial model of “chemical-intensive monoculture,” and small farmers
follow more traditional farming methods (Barret et al. 2001).
6 Funicular lines are a basic requirement for improving the “yield” of a banana plantation:
farmer whose farm is lacking funiculars can produce bananas, but some of them will berejected at the processing facility due to cosmetic damage.
Page 52
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 52/168
36
By using paired comparison groups I argue that the results reflect the
differences attributable to certification, instead of reflecting capital and
resources availability .
2.3 Field survey
The study was conducted in the western lowlands of Ecuador from the
24th of June to the 20th of August of 2003. A total of 47 farms7 in 5 provinces
were visited, and interviews and field inspections conducted in each one (see
Figure 6, Table 5). The sample covers 9 non-certified farms of less than 50
hectares (small) deemed comparable with 13 Fairtrade certified farms, and
14 large (>50 has) farms comparable with 10 Rainforest Alliance certified
farms.
Geographically, the field work was conducted in the Ecuadorian
Provinces of Los Rios, Guayas, El Oro, Cañar y Azuay. The first three
provinces account for 77% of the total surface dedicated to banana
production in Ecuador (SICA 2003) and were included because this area is
considered the core of Ecuadorian banana production. The provinces of
Azuay and Cañar, which account for 3.85% of the total banana production
7 While a producer’s name was considered confidential since the beginning of the research,
the farm names or other specific identification criteria is withheld due requests fromproducers; thus, the name of the closest city or town or community is used for geographicalreferences.
Page 53
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 53/168
Page 54
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 54/168
38
Table 1 (Continued)
Non-certified farms (n=24)
Province LocationFarm
characteristicsSize(has)
BananaProduction
Surface(has)
Productionrate (boxes
hectare year)
Los Rios Quevedo T, C 233 230 1600
“ 279 225 1800
“ 45 42 1800
Guayas Naranjal T, C 220 155 1800
“ 157 81 2000
“ 196 136 1900
“ 140 115 2000
“ 150 71 1500
“ 210 120 1800
“ 166 102 1700
“ 123 123 1800
“ 64 63 1800
“ 143 130 1600
“ 105 70 1800“ 50 50 1700
Jesus T, C 300 290 1900
Maria “ 15 9 1500
“ 30 15 1500
Cañar El Triunfo T, C 120 120 1700
“ 11 11 1500
“ 45 44 1600
“ 30 30 1500
“ 28 28 1500“ 10 10 1800
T, Technology based
C, Cavendish
Page 55
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 55/168
39
Figure 6 Farms locations
Page 56
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 56/168
40
surface in Ecuador (SICA 2003), were included because these “highland”
provinces are home to small certified (Fairtrade) and non-certified producers.
All of the farms visited were at a maximum distance of 30 kilometers from a
main road. Thus, it can be said that all the farms were located alongside the
Quito - Quevedo - Guayaquil Highway , the Guayaquil – Naranjal-Machala
Highway or the Guayaquil-El Triunfo Road.
2.3.1 Farm selection
A snowballing sampling method was used for non-certified farms,
starting with two banana growers’ leaders8 (Tashakkori and Teddlie 1998).
Once contact information was provided by these key informants, non-certified
producers were visited in person. The goals of the study, confidentiality of the
information and a detailed explanation of the measures taken for protecting
producer’s identity were discussed before asking for permission to collect
data. The owners of 47 non-certified farms agreed to participate in the study
(see Table 1).
For certified farms, contact was made by visiting the “El Guabo”
Association of Small Banana Producers (APPBG), which represents the
Fairtrade certified producers and Ecuador’s Rainforest Alliance partner,
Conservation and Development (Conservacion y Desarrollo, CYD). Once
8 V. Mawyin of EPELDATOS and V. Chacon of APPBN
Page 57
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 57/168
Page 58
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 58/168
Page 59
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 59/168
43
in the interview he mentioned that “the Roundoup (gliphosate based
herbicide) was more expansive that the Herbazid (paraquat-based
herbicide).” After hearing this information, I asked him if he used “weed
killers” (matayerbas). He immediately responded that “yes, I do use those”
and show me his records of weed killers use. Thus, if I had been using a
yes/no questionnaire, I would have missed this point. When doing field
research, I argue that a researcher should acknowledge cultural differences
even if conducted in his/her native language.
A factor that was not considered when designing the field work was
the relative danger of doing research in poverty-stricken areas where rule of
law is suspect. When the research was conducted, the Ecuadorian Province
of Los Rios was going through a period of crisis: the banana prices were at
their lowest point, the economic sector was barely recovering from a strike
that involved all the banana producers, and producers were downsizing their
operations. The combination of economic constraints with the almost
stereotypical lawlessness of rural areas generated a dangerous situation, in
which the normally mild level of violence suddenly became high (for Latin
America). Thus, when an old “friend” came to my hotel at midnight and told
me to “get away fast, because some bad people are asking about you,” I had
to lose almost two week of contacting producers (and the opportunity to visit
their farms). Thus, I must say that the sample is not as large as it could havebeen, but I was not going to stay to learn if my acquaintance was right about
his worries.
Page 60
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 60/168
44
2.4 Data coding and risk reduction evaluation
The information collected in the field using Questionnaire A was coded
using a variable dictionary (Appendix 3). Thus, the narrative collected in the
interviews was transformed into quantitative information. Each narrative was
transcribed to a survey form, with standardized responses. This process was
viewed as the best way to standardize the answers of people (producers or
farm administrators) with surprisingly different backgrounds (as an example,
the producer’s education level varied from only a few years of primary school
to graduate studies in agronomy and business management). The
information collected using the Questionnaire B was collected in binary form
(yes/no), thus there was no need for further coding or standardization. The
compiled information (Questionnaires A and B) was entered into a Microsoft
Excel for processing.
After this processing, each variable data was in either quantitative,
yes/no or categorical formats (maximum of three categories). Then, I
proceed to code the yes/no variables in binary form, assigning values of 1 for
responses that conformed to the theoretical best management practices, and
0 for negative answers. For the categorical variables, the “best” management
practice (the one that presented lower environmental risk, according to the
literature) was awarded a score of 1, with the second best being awarded ascore of 0.5 and the “worst” practice (in some cases absence of practice)
was awarded a 0.
Page 61
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 61/168
45
Finally, there were some variables labeled “conditional,” because their
coding depends on the presence/absence of a physical entity coded
elsewhere in the survey (such as a river or water course, or a specific farm
facility). For conditional variables, if the value of the determinant variable is 0,
the value of the dependent variable is always 1. If the determinant variable
has a value of 1, then the dependent variable is scored in a way in which the
best possible practice is awarded 1 point.
Several variables were aggregated to build four indexes that reflect
the four main risk categories identified in the agro-ecological assessment of
banana production (use of land, agrochemical management, waste
management and water quality). Additionally, I create an aggregate index
(total risk reduction score) that combines the four component scores. The
construction of each of these indexes (logic, variables, coding, and scoring
system) is discussed in detail in the following sections (2.4.1 to 2.4.5).
2.4.1 Use of land
The risks that banana plantations present toward forest remnants,
national parks or other ecosystems have led the national law and both
certification systems to seek to control the expansion of the agriculture
frontier. All the systems included norms that ban replacing existing forest,regulate the indirect impacts of the industry demands over natural resources
(like bamboo stands) and force the plantation owners to establish buffer
zones and vegetative barriers.
Page 62
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 62/168
46
Therefore, this index covers changes in land cover in the last ten
years, pressures on natural stands of bamboo, and the existence of
measures to compensate the establishment of the plantation: a plantation will
have a highest score when it was not established by clearing rainforest (10
years), uses plastic or bamboo from plantations (instead bamboo from
natural stands) for tethering the banana plants, and its owner dedicated as
much land to vegetative barriers or buffer zones as for banana production.
The Table 2 provides details about the indicators, variables and the scoring
system for this index, which has a maximum value of 4. The algorithm for the
risk reduction score of a banana plantation regarding use of land (UL) is:
UL = LAND + (TEMA +TMSO) + VEBF + RVS
RVS=VSUR/BANS
2.4.2 Agrochemical management
The comparative analyses of the norms show that the certification
standards and the law share several strategies to deal with the risks
stemming from agrochemicals. The assessment of the norms indicate that
the risk can be addressed by a) restricting the use of agrochemicals b)
improving product selection, and storage and handling practices, c) training,
d) implementing crop/pest monitoring systems, e) maintaining records as partof this monitoring system.
Page 63
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 63/168
Table 2: Variables, indicators, labels and coding for use of land (UL)
Variable National Law1 Fair Trade2 Rainforest Alliance3 Label Land cover change Plantations can not
be established inEcosystems ofEcological Value
Plantations can notbe established incritical habitats,primary forest ofadvanced states ofsecondary forest
LAND
Tethering material TEMA
Source of tetheringmaterial
Only wood fromauthorized sources(plantations) can beused in certifiedplantations
TMSO
Reforestationareas and bufferzones
Buffer zones alongwater bodies,drainage channels,roads or shrimp poolsare required
Buffer zones alongrivers, water bodiesand secondaryforest are required
Buffer zonesaround protectedand natural areas,rivers, roads andfacilities arerequired
VEBF
Page 64
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 64/168
Table 2 (Continued)
Variable National Law1 Fair Trade2 Rainforest Alliance3 Label
Banana plantationsurface
Slopes of more than60° must becovered withgrasses and trees
Areas not suitablefor production mustbe recuperated
BANS
Vegetative barriersor forestry areasurface
Buffer zones must beplanted with non-commercial,ornamental species
No agriculturalactivities in thebuffer zone, areallowed;reforestation with
native species isrecommended
Buffer zone must bereforested withnative specieswhen available
VSUR
Ratio of vegetativebarrier or forestryarea/bananasurface
RVS
1 Ecuadorian Environmental Bylaws for Banana Production
2 Fairtrade Standards for Bananas and Small Farmers Organizations version 25.05.2002
3 Rainforest Alliance Complete Standards for Banana Production version 9.99
Page 65
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 65/168
49
Consequently, the agrochemical management index covers the crop
management system (agrochemicals, monitoring and records), training and
agrochemical storage. A farm will have a higher score when it does not use
agrochemicals (organic or low impact farming).
While farms that use agrochemicals will score lower than an organic
one, conventionally-managed plantations will score higher if its managers
use products not included in the PAN Persistent Organic Pollutants (Dirty
Dozen), restricts or bans the use of a whole family of chemicals, and have a
system of analysis and records that permit feedback between field reports
and agrochemicals decision making. The details about the variables and
variable coding used for this index are in Table 3. The maximum value for
this index is of 12. The formula for this index is as follows:
AM=HMET+HPRO+HERR + IMHW+ IMMR+ NMET+ NHOW+ FMET+
FREC+PTRA+PTRE+ASI
ASI = [(ADWL+AWAR+AICF+AIWL+ANWS)/5]
2.4.3 Waste management
The waste management index addresses risk reduction of organic
(banana waste and stalks) and inorganic (plastics) wastemanagement/disposal practices. A farm will score higher if it
manages/disposes its waste according to the criteria specified in the norms
Page 66
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 66/168
Table 3: Variables, indicators, labels and coding for agrochemical managem
Variable National Law1 Fair Trade2 Rainforest Alliance3 Label
Weeds controlmethod
Herbicides are notallowedPlanting of covercrops is required [3months]
Mechanical control ofweeds or use ofground cover isrecommended
HMET
Products usedfor weedscontrol
Pesticides included inWHO class 1 a+b,PAN “dirty dozen”and FAO UNEP’s PICare banned.
Pesticides included inPAN “dirty dozen”and FAO UNEP’sPIC are banned
HPRO
Records forherbicides use
Record keeping isrequired, withproduct, doses,frequency and date
Record keeping isrequired, includingbrand name, genericname, concentration,time, dose, area and
justification
Farms must be ableto demonstrate a“continual reductionin toxicity andquantity ofagrochemicals used”
HERR
Page 67
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 67/168
Table 3 (Continued)
Variable National Law1 Fair Trade2 Rainforest Alliance3 Label Pest monitoringevaluationsystem
Producer shouldimplement ICMpractices
IPM must beemployed,emphasizingphysical, cultural,mechanical andbiological practices
IMHW
Monitoring system(soil, water, insects,leaves, roots,diseases and yields)must be implemented
A monitoring andevaluation systemmust be implementedfor the use ofchemical products
Pest controlrecord keeping
Pesticides recordkeeping isrequired, withproduct, doses,frequency and date
Record keeping isrequired, includingbrand name, genericname, concentration,time, dose, area and
justification
Farms must be ableto demonstrate a“continual reductionin toxicity andquantity ofagrochemicals used”
IMMR
Nematodescontrol method
Nematocides,pesticides andfertilizers can only beused following ICMcriteria
NMET
Analysis beforenematocidesapplication
Written analysis and justification is requiredbefore usingagrochemicals
There must bewritten proceduresfor each plannedactivity
NHOW
Page 68
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 68/168
Table 3 (Continued)
Variable National Law1 Fair Trade2 Rainforest Alliance3 Label Fungal diseasescontrol method
Triazoles,bensimidazoles orEstrobilurinas(fungicides) arebanned for groundbased applications
Less cycles of aerialfumigation thanregional average arerequired; producershould implement ICMpractices.
Use of mechanicalcontrols againstBlack Sigatoka issuggested; IPMtechniques must beimplemented
FMET[0, 1]
Fungicidesrecord keeping
Record keeping,with product,doses, frequencyand date
Record keeping,including brand name,generic name,concentration, time,dose, area and
justification
Farms must be ableto demonstrate a“continual reductionin toxicity andquantity ofagrochemicals used”
FREC[0, 0.5, 1]
Pesticidetraining forworkers
Pesticideapplicationcompanies, andagrochemicalexporters,importers andproducers mustprovide workerswith adequatetraining
After a year, anagronomist oradequately trainedtechnician must be incharge of ICM
Producers areresponsible forproviding adequatetraining for theworkers, includingpesticides,environmentaleducation, safety,emergencyprocedures.
PTRA
Page 69
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 69/168
Table 3 (Continued)
Variable National Law1 Fair Trade2 Rainforest Alliance3 Label Pesticidetraining records
Pesticideapplicationcompanies, andbanana producersmust publishinformativematerial about thedangers ofpesticides, and firstaid measures incase of pesticidepoisoning
Before realizing anaerial application ofpesticides, theproducer mustinform workers andcommunity leadersso they can takeprotective measures
PTRE
Agrochemicalon-farm storageindicators
Storage andmanagement mustbe done accordingto according totoxicity andformulation (ruleINEN 1927:92)
Storage material mustbe kept in a “hazard-proof manner” withadequate order andcleanliness; theproducer must complywith the nationallegislation regardingpesticides
Storage andmanagement mustbe done accordingto specific rules(toxicity andformulation)
ASI
Agrochemicalson-farm storage
ASTO
Page 70
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 70/168
Table 3 (Continued)
Variable National Law1 Fair Trade2 Rainforest Alliance3 Label Restrictedaccess toagrochemicalsstorage facility
It must have a doorthat must be keeplocked
If an individualproducer needs tostorageagrochemicals, hemust do it in aseparated, weatherprotected, locked box
Facility must be“secure against theftand vandalism.”
ADWL
Warning signalsoutside pesticidestorage facility
Warning sings inlocal language arerequired, the signalsmust be easilyreadable andcomprehensible toilliterate workers
AWAR
Non-combustiblefloor/ceiling
Concrete must beused on the floor ofthe facility; thefloor must bedesigned in a waythat permitsdealing withaccidental spills
Storage box must beprotected fromweather
Concrete must beused on the floor ofthe facility; the floormust be designed ina way that permitsdealing withaccidental spills
AICF
Non-combustibleandimpermeablewalls
Walls must bepainted to permitdetection ofpossible filtrations
Storage box must beprotected fromweather
Walls and floor mustbe “impermeable,non combustibleand non corrosive”
AIWL
Page 71
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 71/168
Table 3 (Continued)
Variable National Law1 Fair Trade2 Rainforest Alliance3 Label Non combustibleshelves
Shelves and palletsare made of non-absorbent materials;materials are not indirect contact withthe floor
ANWS[0, 1]
1 Ecuadorian Environmental Bylaws for Banana Production
2 Fairtrade Standards for Bananas and Small Farmers Organizations version 25.05.2002
3 Rainforest Alliance Complete Standards for Banana Production version 9.99
Page 72
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 72/168
56
or if it engages in an alternate use of bananas not fit for export (sold for local
consumption, cattle feed or composted). The information about the variables
and coding used for this indicator is available in the Table 4. The WM index
has a maximum possible value of 3. The formula for this index is:
WM=ORWM1+ORWM2+INWM
2.4.4 Water quality
The risk that banana production presents for water quality is well
documented. Indeed, the assessment of the norms indicates that all the
certification systems share this concern. Strategies previously discussed as
part of other area of concern, namely vegetative barriers, buffer zones, use
of agrochemicals and organic waste disposal, have a risk reduction potential
for water quality. Nevertheless, the standards and the law also include
specific end-of-pipe measures to reduce risk to this media and require the
farms to have solid and latex retention systems, post-harvest residuals
treatments systems, and agrochemical waste water containment/treatment
system. For a complete list of this index indicators, variables and variable
coding, see Table 5. The maximum value for this index is 11. The index is
calculated as follows:
WQ= HMET+ HPRO+ NMET + FMET+ SLRS + PHTS + OWW1 + OWW2 +
(PSTO + PWTS)+ (FSTO + FWTS) + (WAOP + BSWA)
Page 73
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 73/168
Table 4: Variables, indicators, labels and coding for waste management (
Variable National Law1 Fair Trade2 Rainforest Alliance3 Label Organic wastemanagement(waste banana)
Organic waste(banana) must bedeposited in a placeat least 10 m. fromirrigation channels,roads and houses
Composting isrecommended.Each farm musthave a “sanitarydumping place.”This facility mustbe located atleast 100 m. fromany water body
Composting of organicwaste is stronglyrecommended; ifcomposting is notfeasible, adequatedisposition (landfill) isrecommended
ORWM1
Organic wastemanagement(banana stalks)
Banana stalks shouldbe returned to theplantation
Composting isrecommended.Each farm musthave a “sanitarydumping place.”This facility mustbe located atleast 100 m. fromany water body
Composting of organicwaste is stronglyrecommended; ifcomposting is notfeasible, adequatedisposition (landfill) isrecommended
ORWM2
Page 74
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 74/168
Table 4 (Continued)
Variable National Law1 Fair Trade2 Rainforest Alliance3 Label Inorganic wastemanagement
Open-fire plasticwaste burning isprohibited; producermust send plasticwaste to authorizeddisposal facilities(600˚C incinerators,landfills)
Recycling isrecommend ifavailable
All plastic waste mustbe collected, reusedand adequatelydisposed ; trashburning is prohibited
INWM
1 Ecuadorian Environmental Bylaws for Banana 2 Fairtrade Standards for Bananas and Sma
Organizations version 25.05.2002
3 Rainforest Alliance Complete Standards for Banana Production version 9.99
Page 75
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 75/168
Table 5: Variables, indicators, labels and coding for water quality (WQ
Variable National Law1 Fair Trade2 Rainforest Alliance3 Label
Weeds controlmethod
Herbicides are notallowedPlanting of cover cropsis required [3 months]
Mechanical control ofweeds or use ofground cover isrecommended
HMET
Products usedfor Weedscontrol
If not local rule isapplicable, theproducers mustfollow the FAOagrochemicalsrecommendations
Pesticides included inWHO class 1a+b,PAN “dirty dozen” andFAO UNEP’s PIC arebanned
Pesticides included inPAN “dirty dozen”and FAO UNEP’sPIC are banned
HPRO
Nematodescontrol method
Nematocides,pesticides andfertilizers can only beused following ICM
criteria∗
NMET
Artificial Nematocidescan be used only ifnon-chemical andbiological control arenot effective
Fungal diseases
control method
Triazoles,
benzimidazoles orestrobilurines(fungicides) arebanned for ground-based spraying
FMET
Page 76
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 76/168
Table 5 (Continued)
Variable National Law1 Fair Trade2 Rainforest Alliance3 Label Solids/latexretention system
Solid waste andlatex tramps mustbe built in allpackaging facilities,to clean the wastewater fromprocessing banana
Water waste form thepackaging facility mustbe treated in a filtersystem [2 years]
Solid waste and latexfiltering systems arerequired
SLRS
Packaging facilitypost harvestresidualstreatment system
Packaging facilitiesmust have a systemto collect and treatthe residuals of thepost-harvesttreatment
Packaging facilitiesmust have a system tocollect and treat theresiduals of the post-harvest treatment [2years]
Packaging facilitiesmust have a systemto collect and treatthe residuals of thepost-harvesttreatment
PHTS
Pesticides on-farm storage
ASTO
Pesticides onfarm storagefacilitywaste/spillagetreatment system
Adequatedisposition ofagrochemicalresiduals liquidwaste is required(sedimentationtanks or similar)
All spraying equipmentmust be washed in adesigned facility, andwaste water must befiltered with carbon orcharcoal
Facilities foradequate treatmentof agrochemicalresiduals arerequired; waste watermust be treated
PWTS
Page 77
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 77/168
Table 5 (Continued)
Variable National Law1 Fair Trade2 Rainforest Alliance3 Label Fertilizers onfarm storage
FSTO
Fertilizers onfarm storagefacility liquidwaste/spillagetreatment system
Adequatedisposition ofresiduals(sedimentationtanks or similar) arerequired
A sanitary dumpingplace must be used todispose of toxic waste;waste water must befiltered
Facilities foradequate treatmentof agrochemicalresiduals arerequired; wastewater must betreated
FWTS
Treatment forwaste banana
Organic waste(banana) must bedeposited in a placeat least 10 m. fromirrigation channels,roads, houses; thisorganic waste mustnot contain plasticwaste (19)
Use of organicwaste/manure asfertilizer isrecommended
No solid wasteshould be directeddirectly towards anysource of water
ORWM
Treatment forbanana bunchstalks
Organic waste(banana stalks)should be returnedto the plantation
Use of organicwaste/manure asfertilizer isrecommended
No solid wasteshould be directeddirectly towards anysource of water
ORWM
Water course onplantation
Buffer zones alongwater bodies,drainage channels,roads or shrimppools
Buffer zones alongrivers, water bodiesand secondary forest
Buffer zones aroundprotected andnatural areas, rivers,roads and facilities.
WAOP
Page 78
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 78/168
Table 5 (Continued)
Variable National Law1 Fair Trade2 Rainforest Alliance3 Label
Buffer stripalongside waterbodies ordrainagechannels
Pesticides/fertilizerscan not be usedwithin 10 m. ofwater wells.
Pesticides/fertilizers/manure can not be appliedin a 2 m. strip boardingprimary an secondarydrainage channels
Buffer strips alongwater bodies must beof at least 10 m.
BSWA
* The “El Guabo” Association of Small Banana Producers ban the use of non-organic nema
1 Ecuadorian Environmental Bylaws for banana production
2
Fairtrade Standards for Bananas and Small Farmers Organizations version 25.05.20023 Rainforest Alliance Complete Standards for Banana Production version 9.99
Page 79
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 79/168
63
2.4.5 Total risk reduction score
This index reflects a farm’s total risk reduction achievements, instead
of focusing on specific categories of risk as in the previous presentation of
results. To produce an aggregate score, the results of the indexes were
normalized by dividing each of the four component scores by the hypothetical
maximum possible score, then aggregating across the four risk categories
and dividing by four. This approach allows me to present the total risk
reduction score on a 0 to 1 scale, as well as on a percentage basis.
The total risk reduction scores can be used to make comparisons
across categories of farms (e.g., small certified with small non-certified), as
well as to assess risk reduction relative to hypothetical maximum. Thus, the
total risk reduction score is calculated according to the following formula:
TT= (UL/4 + AM/12 + WM/3 + WQ/11)/4
2.5 Statistical analysis
Non-parametric Mann Whitney U tests were used to establish if the
differences between the risk reduction scores of paired comparison groups
were statistically significant (α=0.05) (Ryan and Joyner 2001). This test relieson median values and was chosen due to the fact that the data form certified
farms are highly skewed (non-normal), and the samples were relatively
small.
Page 80
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 80/168
64
Under such conditions, the median is considered as a more
appropriate representation of the population (Ott and Longnecker 2001).
Unless noted the median is the statistic reported in the results section,
because it offers a more accurate representation of the population (Ott and
Longnecker 2001).
.
Page 81
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 81/168
65
CHAPTER 3
RESULTS
3.1 Comparison of normative schemes: Ecuadorian Environmental
Management Bylaws for Banana Production, Rainforest Alliance and
Fairtrade certification standards
3.1.1 Use of land
The results of the comparison are included in the Table 6. One of the
major concerns with banana production is the pressure that it exerts on
natural ecosystems by expanding the agricultural frontier. The most effective
strategy to deal with this issue is to regulate new plantations. Indeed, both
certification systems ban the establishment of plantations replacing forested
areas or other valuable ecosystems. While the RSAB does not include any
prevision for this case, a separate regulation bans the opening of new
plantations (D.E. 2294, RO 573, November 22, 1994).
Similarly, the use of buffer zones and vegetative barriers is part of the
risk reductions strategies common to all of the systems, and is one that has
high potential for enhancing the environmental performance of a plantation. A
buffer zone, planted with appropriate species, would reduce the leaching ofagrochemicals to water courses, would provide a patch for wildlife, has the
Page 82
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 82/168
Table 6: Comparison of the RSAB1, Fairtrade2 and Rainforest Alliance3 standards f
Natural areas
National law1 Fairtrade2 Rainfo- Plantations can not be established in
virgin forest, national parks or otherEcosystems of Ecological Value (3.2.1)
Plantations cacritical habita
advanced stat
- - Natural areaconserved an
- - Expansion establishment the certification
- - If wood is usemust come fro
- - Only wood fro(plantations)
- - Biological comigrate betwee
- - The producer strategies to
species, follow
Page 83
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 83/168
Page 84
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 84/168
68
potential to become a source of bamboo or other wood products, and can act
as an erosion-control barrier. In fact, all the norms require that the producers
must establish buffer zone along river sides, wells, and water courses.
Additionally, all identify this area as a no agrochemical zone. However, the
certification systems go beyond the law. Fair Trade norms mandate that
sloped areas must be revegetated while Rainforest Alliance requires the
same of “areas not suitable for production.”
Other differences are worth noting. Rainforest Alliance standards
include requirements that reflect concern with wildlife and natural habitat
protection that are missing from the RSAB and Fairtrade standards. For
example, RA norms require use of wood from plantations, no hunting or
commercial collection of plants or animals, and attention to biological
corridors. Fairtrade requires the farmer to show “agricultural diversification”
(FT 2002), thus introducing a different strategy to regulate a farmer‘s use of
land.
3.1.2 Agrochemical management
Each of the three systems attempt to regulate risk related to
agrochemical use. The measures presented in the norms can be clustered
as follows; crop management, agrochemical storage and handling, andoccupational safety and training. See Table 7 for the results of the
comparison.
Page 85
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 85/168
Page 86
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 86/168
Table 7 (Continued)
Agrochemical storage
National law1 Fairtrade2 RainforPesticides should be stored in
adequate facilities (specific indicatorsfor pesticide storage)(3a to 3g)
If individual farmers wish to storeagrochemicals, he must do it inseparated, weather protected,
boxes that can be locked (3.5.7)
Pesticides shouldfacil
Storage and management must bedone according to rule INEN 1927:92(classification according to toxicity and
formulation) (4a to 4h)
- Agrochemicalsaccording to their
class and formuvisib
The Storage facility must be located atleast 10 meters from housing facilities,schools, diary arms facilities and water
courses (3a)
If individual farmers wish to storeagrochemicals, he must do it inseparated, weather protected,
boxes that can be locked (3.5.7)
Recommendedagrochem storainfrastructure
infrastructure, 120200 m. from sour
(
Walls must be painted to permitdetection of possible filtrations (3d)
- Walls and floor mnon combustibl
(
- - Ceiling re
It must have a door that must be keeplocked (3f)
- Restricted access,against theft an
Good ventilation required (3c) - Good ventilatiorequ
- - Only the minimapesticides mu
- - Showers, eyewa(
Page 87
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 87/168
Table 7 (Continued)
Agrochemical managementNational law1 Fairtrade2 Rainf
An accredited professional must bein charge of pesticide application (1,
15)
-
Record keeping, with product, doses,frequency and date is required (15)
Record keeping for any agrochemicalapplication is required (3.5.8, 3.5.9,
3.5.10)
Record keepinapplication
Written analysis and justification isrequired before using pesticides (3.1.1)
There must beeach plan
Storage and management must bedone according to rule INEN 1927:92(classification according to toxicity
and formulation) (4a to 4h)
-
- - Farms must becontinual red
quantity of agro
- Producer should implement ICMpractices (3.1.2.1)
IPM “must be ephysical, cul
biological pra
- Monitoring system (soil, water, insects,
leaves, roots, diseases and yields) mustbe implemented and application ofpesticides/fertilizers must be done
according to ICM criteria (3.1.1, 3.5.8)
For the use o
monitoring amust be implzoning and tim
be takingapplic
Page 88
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 88/168
Page 89
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 89/168
Table 7 (Continued)
Occupational safety and training
National law1 Fairtrade2 Rainf Adequate facilities (showers) must be
available for workers(8a, 8b)- Adequate facil
available
Adequate personal protection equipmentmust be provided (2, 5, 6 , 8a, 8d, 9)
Adequate personal protectionequipment must be provided
(4.4.2.4 GS [4.2.4.3 GS])
Adequate equipment m
After any application, the producer must“post” warnings displaying written text plus
a “hand, skull or any other symbol” thatsignal that people should no enter (18)
- After applicatimust be delimitpictograms wa
to the ar
Pregnant women, children and “sick”people should not apply pesticides (8)
Pregnant or nursing women,people under 18, persons with
reduced mental capabilities andwith chronic or respiratorydiseases should not apply
pesticides (4.4.2.5)
Pregnant or nunder 18, and
suffering chdiseases shou
The [pesticide application, exporters,importers and producers of agrochemicals]are responsible for designing contingencyplans; furthermore, they must train their
personal to be able to react adequately (7).
-
Pesticide application companies, andagrochemical exporters, importers andproducers must provide workers with
adequate training (8a and 8d)
The producer organization mustprovide their members/personalwith adequate training in
agrochemical storage, applicationand disposal of their residuals
(4.4.2.3)
Producersproviding adeworkers, in
environmenemergency
Page 90
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 90/168
Table 7 (Continued)
Occupational safety and training
National law1 Fairtrade2 RainfPesticide application companies, and
banana producers must publishinformative material about the dangers of
pesticides, and first aid measures incase of pesticide poisoning (11)
The training must increase theworkers awareness on
agrochemical danger, health issuesand first aid (4.4.2.6)
Exporters must provide [the producers]with technical assistance in agronomic
and environmental concerns (28)
-
Exporters must provide [the producers]with training on pesticides; also they are
responsible for implementingcomprehensive environmental programs
(31 and 32)
-
- - Certified fenvironmentathe workers an
1 Ecuadorian Environmental Bylaws for banana production
2 Fairtrade Standards for Bananas and Small Farmers Organizations version 25.05.2002
3 Rainforest Alliance Complete Standards for Banana Production version 9.99
- No equivalent criteria
Page 91
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 91/168
75
3.1.2.1 Agrochemicals restrictions
On product selection (what products can be used on the crop), both
certification standards regulate chemicals banned in international
agreements or by specialized international institutions. Rainforest Alliance
and Fairtrade ban the use of the FAO/UNEP prior consent products (PIC)
and Pesticides Action Network “dirty dozen” (Persistent Organic Pollutants,
POP). Fairtrade also bans the Word Health Organization (WHO) class 1a+b
(extremely toxic chemicals), prohibits the use of any herbicide, Tremox (post
harvest fungicide), and propose a gradual phase out of Thiabendazol (post
harvest fungicide). On the other hand , Rainforest Alliance bans the use of
highly persistent soil disinfectants, requires that all the products used in the
crop had been approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), and mandates the producers to show a “progressive reduction in
toxicity and quantity of the pesticides used” (RA1999).
3.1.2.2 Crop management
Interestingly, both certification systems use different terms to describe
their prescribed crop management. Fairtrade embraces a wider term,
integrated crop management system (ICM), while Rainforest Alliance
employs integrated pest management (IPM) to describe their recommendedpractices.
Page 92
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 92/168
76
Nevertheless, both systems strongly encourage producers to
implement a system of best management practices when dealing with pest
control and crop management. Thus, Fairtrade or Rainforest Alliance certified
producers must implement a pest monitoring system, have written
procedures for each farm practice, keep detailed records of the use of
pesticides, encourage the use of laboratory analysis and professional
consultants to make informed decisions on crop management practices, and
require the producers to document a detailed monitoring system. These
requirements are not found in the RSAB. Requirements of the national law
related to agrochemicals are focused on basic record keeping and use of
accredited professionals in making pesticide management decisions.
3.1.2.3 Agrochemical storage facilities
Both Rainforest Alliance and the RSAB have detailed indicators about
the agrochemical storage facility itself and adequate storage and handling
practices. Rainforest Alliance and the RSAB require that the agrochemical
storage building must be roofed, that the walls and shelves must be made of
impermeable, non combustible material (RA) or that they should be painted
to identify seepage (RSAB 2001). Both require that it must have restricted-
access and have good ventilation. Also, both systems require a buffer zone
between this facility and other infrastructure. The RSAB mandates a 10meter buffer zone between the storage facility and vulnerable areas such as
other facilities (processing facilities, housing and offices), schools, and water
courses. Rainforest Alliance safety zone is wider. It requires at least 60
Page 93
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 93/168
77
meters from other facilities or public buildings, 120 meters from water
courses and 200 meters from sources of drinkable water. Rainforest Alliance
includes norms that address signage and worker safety that are lacking in
the RSAB.
Applied to pesticide storage and handling, Rainforest Alliance
standards include detailed guidelines to transport, manage, and store
pesticides according to toxicity and formulation. The RSAB refers the
producer to a standard with similar scope and criteria published by the
Ecuadorian Normalization Institute (Rule NTE INEN 1927:9210). On the other
hand, Fairtrade’s standards encourage small producers to reduce their use of
agrochemicals and minimize the quantities kept at the farm. For
agrochemical storage, Fairtrade require that the producers keep
agrochemicals in an isolated, waterproofed, locked box.
3.1.2.4 Occupational health and training
Rainforest Alliance, Fairtrade and the RSAB have similar
requirements on occupational health and training. All of them ban pregnant
women, minors and people suffering from illness from pesticide-related work.
They also state that the farm must provide personal protection equipment
adequate for each task. Nevertheless, Rainforest Alliance standard is theonly one that presents detailed instructions about what is the adequate
10 This is a standard for agrochemical management, transport and storage practices.
Page 94
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 94/168
78
protection equipment for each labor. No detailed definitions are provided by
Fairtrade or the Ecuadorian law.
The most striking difference between the systems comes when
defining whose responsibility it is to provide workers with adequate training.
The RSAB mentions that this is a responsibility of the banana exporters,
agrochemical importers and producers. Fairtrade delegates this duty to the
producers association. Rainforest Alliance states that the producers must
provide training for the workers. The RSAB engages actors in all the industry,
under the assumption that if a producer can not provide training to their
workers, at least the agrochemical companies or the banana exporters
should provide this training. Rainforest Alliance forces the producer to
assume this duty, while Fairtrade makes the producers’ association
responsible for providing agrochemical training.
3.1.3 Waste management
There are no large differences between the waste management
requirements present in the three systems studied. All of them focus in
regulating organic and inorganic waste disposal practices, and avoiding
water pollution by agrochemical residues or waste. See Table 8 for the
results of this comparison.
On organic waste, Rainforest Alliance, Fairtrade and the Ecuadorian
Law suggest that the organic waste (bananas unfit for exportation) might be
Page 95
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 95/168
Table 8: Comparison of the RSAB1, Fairtrade2 and Rainforest Alliance3 standards for w
General practices and inorganic wasteNational law1 Fairtrade2 Rainfo
- Recycling and reusing arerecommended (3.6)
Reduction, reurecom
Waste manage
- There must be written proceduresfor each planned activity (3.6.7)
Waste managemrequired (type
- - Waste separreq
Waste burning is prohibited (20) - Burning trasOpen-fire plastic waste burning isprohibited (20)
- Burning tras
Producers must recover all the plasticwaste from the plantation, and sendthem to adequate disposal facilities
(authorized forms: 600˚C incinerators,landfills) (20)
Packaging stations and riverbanksmust be free of waste [3 months]
(3.6.1.)
All plastic wasreused and aIncinerators ccomplies with
per
Page 96
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 96/168
Table 8 (Continued)
Organic wasteNational law1 Fairtrade2 Rainfo
- Open dumps
Organic waste (banana stalks) shouldbe returned to the plantation (19)
- Surplus bananshould be retu
(
The use of organic digesters and otheralternatives for organic waste
management is recommended (19)
Use of organic waste/manure asfertilizer is recommended (3.6.4)
Composting of orecommended
feasible, adequarecomme
Organic waste (banana) must bedeposited in a place at least 10 m.from irrigation channels, roads,
houses; this organic waste must notcontain plastic waste (19)
Each farm must have a “sanitarydumping place” covered with awaterproof membrane, drainagechannel and lixiviates treatment.
This facility must be located at least100 m. from any water body. “Toxicwaste must be dumped in this area”
(3.6.5)
Landfill musrecommendstandards and
considering imptreatment of lixivan final sealing.
used to dispdangerous mate
1 Ecuadorian Environmental Bylaws for banana production
2 Fairtrade Standards for Bananas and Small Farmers Organizations version 25.05.2002
3 Rainforest Alliance Complete Standards for Banana Production version 9.99
- No equivalent criteria
Page 97
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 97/168
81
used in a composting system, and that the stalks could be returned to the
plantations. Second, all the systems regulate the use of landfills for organic
waste disposal. These norms control distances from the landfill to other
buildings, roads and water courses, and require that it fulfill certain
requirements (residuals treatment, drainage channel). Rainforest Alliance
rules that this landfill must comply with the requirements of the World Health
Organization (WHO), thus WHO toxic Materials are banned. Fairtrade
contemplates two different disposal places. One for organic matter, and one
for other kinds of material (including toxic waste).
On inorganic waste, the RSAB approves only two ways for dealing
with inorganic residues (plastics): 600ºC incinerators and authorized landfills
(maintained by local authorities). Open-fire trash burning (a common practice
to deal with plastic residues) is banned. A similar trash-burning prohibition is
found in the Rainforest Alliance norms. However, both Rainforest Alliance
mandate that the producer must keep records of the quantities of all kinds of
waste the farm produces, suggest that they should establish a “reduce, reuse
and recycle” program, and mandate that all reusable material have to be
reused or sent to the supplier, in the case of agrochemical containers.
3.1.4 Water quality
The risk for water quality presented by the banana industry is an
important concern for both the certification systems and the Ecuadorian law
for the environmental health of banana production. This shared concern
Page 98
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 98/168
82
follows the logic which says that misguided management of agrochemicals,
fertilizers (organic or synthesized), and waste disposal practices will
negatively affect the quality of the water courses that go through the
plantation, while erosion control measures (buffer zones, reforestation of
non-productive or sloped areas) and deforestation control measures will
enhance water quality. Water is the means by which the impact of banana
plantations can reach beyond its borders, affecting other industries (like
shrimp farming) or the livelihood of adjacent communities. Therefore, all the
aforementioned risk reduction strategies can be understood as a demand for
practices that will reduce the plantation’s environmental risk to water. See
Table 9 for the comparison of standards.
Both certification systems and the RSAB require the establishment of
buffer zones along side water courses and other water sources. Likewise,
restrictions on agrochemical use and management (like the RSAB ban on
ground-based application of certain fungicides, or Fairtrade Ban on
herbicides) can be seem as measures that will reduce the potential risk of
agricultural practices. Also, Rainforest Alliance, Fairtrade and the National
Banana Law require that the waste water from the Agrochemical Storage
Facilities or from cleaning pesticide application equipment and clothes be
treated and filtered (carbon or charcoal filters are suggested).
The measures identified above only deal with risk of the farming stage
of banana production. Thus, both certification systems and the RSAB have
Page 99
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 99/168
Table 9: Comparison of the RSAB1, Fairtrade2 and Rainforest Alliance3 standards f
General practices
National law1 Fairtrade2 RainfBuffer zones along water bodies,
drainage channels, roads or shrimppools (14c)
Buffer zones along rivers, waterbodies and secondary forest (3.2.2)
Buffer zonesnatural area
facilitie
Water wells must not be sprayed(aerial fumigation) (25)
-
- Water bodies natural courses mustnot be altered (3.4.5)
Changing thealtering the
proh
- - No solid wadirectly towar
- - Residual wateranalyzed. Res
national lastandards befo
- - The plantatiorecycling a
packaging fac- - Fuel storag
requir- - No solid wadirectly towar
Page 100
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 100/168
Table 9 (Continued)
Pesticide residuals
National law1 Fairtrade2 RainfoPesticides waste and pesticide-pollutedwaste water must be adequately treated
(sedimentation wells) (21)
Pesticides waste and pesticide-polluted waste water must betreated (carbon or charcoal
filtered) (3.4)
Pesticide-polluteadequate
Packaging facilities must have a systemto collect and filter the residuals of the
post-harvest treatment (21)
Packaging plant waste water mustbe filtered [2 years] (3.4.3)
Packaging facilitto collect and tr
post-harves
Pesticide’s application clothes must bewashed separately (8c)
All spraying equipment must bewashed in a designed facility, andwaste water must be filtered with
carbon or charcoal
Pesticide’s apequipment must
in a specially waste water m
Adequate disposition of agrochemicalresiduals (sedimentation tanks or similar)
are required (17)
A sanitary dumping place must beused to dispose of toxic waste
(3.6.5)
Facilities for aagrochemicals
- Waste water from mixing ofpesticides must be done in a place
with impermeable floor. Wastewater must be treated (3.4.3)
Any equipmeagrochemicals
specially des
1 Ecuadorian Environmental Bylaws for banana production
2 Fairtrade Standards for Bananas and Small Farmers Organizations version 25.05.2002
3 Rainforest Alliance Complete Standards for Banana Production version 9.99
- No equivalent criteria
Page 101
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 101/168
85
measures to deal with the environmental risk presented by the processing
stage of banana production. Processing consists of a series of steps
beginning with the arrival of the banana bunches from the plantation and
ends with bananas cleaned, treated, packed and ready for shipment. These
steps require significant quantities of water. Both certification protocols and
the RSAB require that the water from the processing facility must be treated
adequately. However, Rainforest Alliance and the law discriminate between
the water polluted with organic matter that should be treated with a solid and
latex retention system, and the agrochemical-polluted waste water that
comes from the residuals of post-harvest treatment to be treated with a
carbon, sand and gravel sedimentation chamber (post-harvest treatment
system, PHTS). Fairtrade acknowledges only one source of waste water, and
requires the producers to treat these residuals with a PHTS.
Similarly, some of the risk for water quality arises from the organic
waste that come form this facility. Discarded banana (bananas not fit for
exportation), stalks and plastic residues from either plantation or the
processing itself, if inadequately disposed could pollute water courses. Thus,
both certification systems and the law require that packaging stations and
riverbanks must be free of these pollutants. The RSAB also requires that the
organic residues dump must be at least 10 meters away from any water
course. Both Rainforest Alliance and Fairtrade have more detailed criteria fororganic waste disposal, requiring that this place must meet international
criteria (e.g., WHO). However, Rainforest Alliance standards specify that
WHO toxic or dangerous waste can not be disposed in this organic waste
Page 102
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 102/168
86
dump; while Fairtrade states that organic matter might be dumped in a
“special dumping area”, it also requires that “toxic waste” must be dumped in
a “sanitary dumping place.”
3.1.5 Implications of the comparison of norms
The general foci of concern and regulation within the three normative
systems are shared widely, even if there are some differences in emphases.
The comparative analysis indicates that there is a common understanding of
environmental risks among actors engaged in regulating the banana sector.
Also, similar concerns are reflected in the literature on environmental risks of
banana production (Chambron 2000, Astorga 1998, Morensen 1998,
Henriques 1997, Jeger 1996 and others)
The fact that all of the norms respect the basic agro-ecological model
and rely on similar strategies to mitigate a set of commonly regarded risks
leads me to conclude that the management practices recommended in the
standards assessment will effectively reduce the environmental risks of
banana production. Therefore, by identifying the practices recognized as best
management practices, and surveying farms’ conformity with them, I am able
to evaluate relative risk reduction. The more closely a farm approaches the
theoretical best -- implementation of 100% of the best management practices – the higher their risk reduction rating and the lower their potential
environmental impact.
Page 103
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 103/168
87
3.2 Empirical assessment of eco-certification schemes in Ecuadorian
banana production
I urge the reader to remember that the methodology allows to
compare certified farms versus non-certified farms of similar size (small
certified (FT) versus small non-certified, and large certified (RA) versus large
non-certified). In constructing the histograms, full colors (black/white) are
used for small farms and shades of gray are used for large farms. While it is
interesting to reflect on relative scores of farms certified under FT and RA
(and to ask which of these schemes is observed to reduce risk more
effectively), I view these scores to be a reflection, in some measure, of farm
size and related factors of access to capital and level of technology.
3.2.1 By risk reduction criteria
3.2.1.1 Use of land (UL)
The summary of the results for use of land (UL) is in Table 10.
Overall, certified farms have higher scores than non-certified farms. The
median UL score for small certified farms is 4.0 versus 1.0 for non-certified
(out of 4 points), and the median UL score for large certified farms is 2.59
versus 1.0 for large non-certified farms. These differences are statisticallysignificant (Mann-Whitney Test, p<0.0002 for small farms, p<0.0000 for large
farms).
Page 104
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 104/168
88
The data distribution (Figure 7) shows that certified farms are likely to
have higher scores than non-certified ones. The large certified farms (RA)
scores fall between 2 and 4, with 30 % of the scores in the 2 to 3 range and
70 % higher than 3. Comparable large non-certified farms scores are
between 0 and 3, with 60% of the scores being lower than 2 and 40%
between 2 and 3. A similar pattern was found in the sample of small farms.
All certified small farms (FT) scores fell between 2 and 4, with 23% in the 2-3
range and 77% scoring over 3, while non-certified small farms scores are in
the 0-3 range, with 56% of them scoring less than 2.
At the level of index individual components, there is an outstanding
difference in frequency of farms that dedicate land to vegetative barriers or
buffer zones (VEBF). All the certified farms (23 out of 23) had buffer zones or
vegetative barriers, but only 12.5% of non-certified plantations (3 of 24)
engage in this practice. The average vegetative barrier/plantation ratio (RVS)
in a non-certified farm is 0.01, or 1% of the farm surface. This information
can be compared with the average 14% RVS for large certified farms (RA),
or the average 57% RVS for Fairtrade farms (see Figure 8)11 Certified farms
are more likely to engage in this risk reduction practice and the amount of
land that they dedicate to this alternative use of land is likely to be higher
than in non-certified farms.
11 Fairtrade RVS varies from 6% (average) in technology based plantations to 100% in no
technology based organic farms (in which the surface dedicated to other plants is higherthan the surface dedicated to banana).
Page 105
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 105/168
Page 106
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 106/168
90
Table 10: Median, mean, minimum, maximum and standard deviation for
small and large non-certified and certified farms scores for use of land
(out of 4 points)
Farm Size Small farms (<50 has) Large farms (>50 has)
Status Non-certified
(n=9)
Certified FT
(n=13)
Non-certified
(n=15)
Certified RA
(n=10)
Median 1.00 4.00 1.00 2.59
Mean 1.45 3.34 1.40 2.49
Min 1.00 2.01 1.00 2.01
Max 2.07 4.00 2.10 2.93
SD 0.54 0.83 0.34 0.32
As explained before, farms with higher scores engage in relatively
more risk reduction practices than the others. Therefore, the results
consistently show that certified farms engage in more practices to reduce the
risk stemming from land use in banana production. While the sample did not
show if certification or the law function to protect virgin forest, due to the fact
that all the farms were established in areas previously used for agriculture,
the results indicate that certified farms are more likely to have vegetative
barriers or buffer zones, and that the surface dedicated to this alternative use
of land is likely to be higher.
There is some evidence to support the hypothesis that this risk
reduction behavior might reduce the risk of banana production to forest
Page 107
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 107/168
91
remnants and bamboo natural stands. The responses on tethering practices
(TEMA) show that 56% of the certified farms and 70% of the non-certified
farms uses bamboo for stakes. Therefore, the fact that the average RVS for
RA certified farms is 14%, and the FT average RVS is 57% (or higher for the
rustic farms) indicate that certified farms (RA) are over the empirical optimal
ratio of 1:10 bamboo/banana surface. On the other hand, only 12.5% of the
non-certified farms have buffer zones, and the average RVS is of 1%.
While no detailed information was gathered about the coverage of
bamboo in the certified farms’ buffer zones, the field inspection showed that
bamboo is one of the favored species (see Figure 9). Consequently, it is
expected that certified farms exert lower pressures on wild bamboo stands
and natural forest remnants. Thus, it is likely that certification is effectively
addressing this area of concern.
3.2.1.2 Agrochemical management (AM)
The summary of the results for the Agrochemical Management index
(AM) is in Table 11. As was the case in reviewing risk reduction related to
land use practices, certified farms consistently have higher scores than non-
certified. The median AM score for small certified small farms is 11.00 versus
4.90 for non-certified (out of 12 points), and the median AM score for largecertified farms is 9.50 versus 4.00 for non-certified farms. These differences
are statistically significant (Mann-Whitney Test, p<0.0001 for small and
p<0.0000 for large farms).
Page 108
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 108/168
92
Figure 8: Fairtrade-certified organic rustic (no-technology based) banana
plantation. Note young cocoa plants and shade trees.
Page 109
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 109/168
93
Figure 9: Rainforest Alliance-certified farm buffer zone (Reybancorp
S.A., Quevedo-Los Rios). Note that the buffer zone is formed with bamboo
and other species and that a nearby non-certified banana plantation (top-right corner) reaches the river banks.
Page 110
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 110/168
94
Table 11: Median, mean, minimum, maximum and standard deviation for
small and large non-certified and certified farms scores for agrochemical
management (out of 12 points)
Farm Size Small farms (<50 has) Large farms (>50 has)
Status Non-certified
(n=9)
Certified FT
(n=13)
Non-certified
(n=15)
Certified RA
(n=10)
Median 4.90 11.00 4.00 9.50
Mean 5.49 10.85 4.06 9.70
Min 4.00 10.00 3.00 9.50
Max 7.50 12.00 5.50 10.50
SD 1.20 0.47 0.74 0.42
The data distribution (Table 11, Figure 10) shows that all certified
farms have higher scores than non-certified ones. Overall, large certified
farms scored from 9 to11 risk reduction points (RRP) while the large non-
certified farms score less than 6 RRP. Small certified farms scores vary from
a minimal of 10 RRP to a maximum score of 12 RRP, while non-certified
small farms scores are within 4 to 7 points. There is no overlap between the
two distributions. There is a gap of 4 RRP between the maximum score of
large non-certified farms and the minimum score of large certified ones. The
gap between the maximum score of small non-certified versus the minimum
score of small certified farms is 2.5 RRP. These results imply that a certified
producer engages in practices that are not common for the non-certified
Page 111
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 111/168
Page 112
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 112/168
96
by the certifiers audition team, while in non-certified farms product availability
and price will be the deciding factor for product selection.
Certification also influences the likelihood of a farm manager
conducting technical analyses before using agrochemicals. On nematocides,
as mentioned previously, all the non-certified large farmers used
nematocides. Nevertheless, only 66% used soil analysis results to
determinate if this application was needed. On the other hand, 80% of the
RA certified farms use nematocides, but all of them conducted soil analysis
periodically14. This finding indicate that reliance on technical tools reduce the
likeness of useless agrochemical applications. Therefore, the certified farms’
reliance on technical analysis can be seen to contribute to optimization of
agrochemical use.
We observe striking differences in two variables, IMMR (records for
insecticide use) and pesticide training (PTRA). Certified farms, regardless of
their size, consistently showed records of their use of insecticides (100%),
but non-certified farm failed to keep insecticide use records. The responses
for pesticide training indicate a worrisome difference between certified and
non-certified farms. All the certified farms provided pesticide training to their
workers and could show records of training events. Only one small non-
14
Indeed, during the interview the soil analysis result was used by the administrator of oneof the certified farm to argue that there was no need to use nematocides in his plantation
Page 113
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 113/168
97
certified producer indicated that he provided training for his workers, but he
did not keep records of these events.15.
Due to the lack of training, it is not surprising that pesticide
management in banana farms has been described as sloppy (Jeger et al.
1996). Indeed, some of the non-certified farms have agrochemical storage
and handling practices that justify the use of this adjective. See Figure 11 for
fertilizers storage and Figure 12 for the “pesticide mixing area” of a non-
certified farm. Only 16% of non-certified farms have any sort of warning
signals outside of the agrochemical storage facility. Likewise, only 37.5% of
the agrochemical facilities had non-combustible, impermeable floors and
ceilings, and only 16% of them had impermeable shelves for storage. These
farms do not fulfill even the minimal requirements for reducing the risk of
agrochemical storage and handling.
Interviews with certified farms indicate that they have found more than
one way to provide these services. The company that owns the certified
farms (RA), Reybancorp S.A., delegates this responsibility to the farm
manager (usually an agronomist) who organizes talks on specific topics, or
major training events with the support of the company environmental
department. FT certified producers’ association provides training services for
them and their workers, therefore sharing the costs of maintaining
15 This person was retired from the Banana National Program, and had worked as an
extensionist for 20 years before becoming an entrepreneur. Interestingly, his farm scoreshigher than the others in this category.
Page 114
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 114/168
98
Figure 10: Histogram of risk reduction scores for agrochemical management
(AM) by farm size and certification status
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12
Risk Reduction Score (AM)
P e r c e n t o f
o b s e r v a t i o n s
Non-certified large
Non-certified small
Certified large (RA)
Certified small (FT)
Page 115
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 115/168
99
Figure 11: Fertilizers storage at the side of the processing facility of a
non-certified farm (Naranjal-Guayas). Note the roof, and fuel (diesel) tanks
close to the fertilizer.
Page 116
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 116/168
100
Figure 12: Pesticides mixing area of a non-certified farm (Naranjal-
Guayas). Note that the surface is permeable (wood), lack of spill containment
systems and lack of mixing/measurement equipment.
Page 117
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 117/168
101
specialized personnel. Therefore, it can be plausibly argued certification
encourages producers into finding innovative ways to utilize the resources
already available (like trained personnel), or into alternative pathways to
overcome the weakness of individual producers by encouraging collective
action.
3.2.1.3 Waste management (WM)
The summary of the results for the Waste Management index (WM) is
in the Table 12. The data show that certified farms consistently have higher
scores than non-certified. The median WM score for small certified small
farms is 3.00 risk reduction points (RRP) versus 2.00 RRP for non-certified
(out of 3 points). The median WM score for large certified farms is 3.00 RRP
versus 1.00 RRP for non-certified farms. No significance test was performed
because all certified farms reached the maximum possible score.
The data distribution (Table 12, Figure 13) is highly skewed, with all
the certified farms scoring 3 out of 3 risk reduction points (RRP). The data of
non-certified farms have a wider spread. Of the small non-certified farms,
22% scored 1 RRP, 66.7% scored 2 RRP and 11% scored 3 RRP. Of the
large non-certified farms 13% scored 0 RRP, 40% scored 1 RRP, 26.7%
scored 2 RRP and 20% scored 3 RRP.
The data from the waste management individual components indicate
that good practices for dealing with waste-bananas (ORWM1) (Figure 14) are
Page 118
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 118/168
102
widely distributed. In fact, all the certified farms and 88% of the non-certified
farms reported having a secondary use for rejected bananas (instead of just
discarding them). However, 62.5% of the non-certified farmers engaged in
the recommended practice of returning the stalks to the plantation (ORWM2),
with the rest (37.5%) dumping the stalks elsewhere (see Figure 15). All the
certified farms reported following adequate stalks disposal practices.
Table 12: Median, mean, minimum, maximum and standard deviation for
small and large non-certified and certified farms scores for waste
management (out of 3 points)
Farm Size Small farms (<50 has) Large farms (>50 has)
Status Non-certified
(n=9)
Certified FT
(n=13)
Non-certified
(n=15)
Certified RA
(n=10)
Median 2.00 3.00 1.00 3.00
Mean 1.89 3.00 1.53 3.00
Min 1.00 3.00 0.00 3.00
Max 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
SD 0.60 0.00 0.99 0.00
The data from the waste management individual components indicate
that good practices for dealing with waste-bananas (ORWM1) (Figure 14) are
widely distributed. In fact, all the certified farms and 88% of the non-certified
farms reported having a secondary use for rejected bananas (instead of just
Page 119
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 119/168
103
Figure 13: Histogram of risk reduction scores for waste management (WM)
by farm size and certification status
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0 1 2 3
Risk Reduction Score (WM)
P e r c e n t o f o b s e r v a t i o n s Non-certified large
Non-certified small
Certified large (RA)
Certified small (FT)
Page 120
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 120/168
104
Figure 14: Rejected banana (unfit for exportation) in a no-certified farm
(Naranjal-Guayas). Note that some of the organic waste is collected for
sending it back to the plantation.
Page 121
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 121/168
Page 122
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 122/168
106
Figure 15: Banana stalks open-dump in a non-certified banana farm
(Naranjal-Guayas). Note the presence of plastic residue with the stalks, and
that here was running water at the bottom of the ravine. For scale, the stalks
are approximately 1.7 meters long.
Page 123
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 123/168
107
Figure 16: Area used for burning plastic waste in a non-certified farm
(Naranjal-Guayas). Note recently dumped residues and the residues of
previous plastic burning.
Page 124
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 124/168
108
The data distribution shows no overlap between the scores of certified
and non-certified farms (Figure 17). There is a gap of 2 risk reduction points
between the maximum score of large non-certified farms and the minimum
score of large certified ones. The gap is 1 risk reduction point for small
farms.
Table 13: Median, mean, minimum, maximum and standard deviation for
small and large non-certified and certified farms scores for water quality
(out of 11 points)
Farm Size Small farms (<50 has) Large farms (>50 has)
Status Non-certified
(n=9)
Certified FT
(n=13)
Non-certified
(n=15)
Certified RA
(n=10)
Median 5.00 9.00 3.00 8.00
Mean 4.78 9.08 2.93 8.20
Min 2.00 8.00 0.00 8.00
Max 7.00 10.00 6.00 9.00
SD 1.75 0.62 1.48 0.40
Two variables that compile the presence absence of end-of-pipe
systems at the level of the packaging facility inform our understanding of how
certification systems work to reduce the risk of water pollution. The agro-
ecological model indicates that the general consensus is that there are two
sources of pollution at the end processing facility, organic waste from
Page 125
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 125/168
Page 126
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 126/168
110
preparing and cleaning bananas, and the post-harvest treatment residuals.
The assessment of the norms indicates that it is recommended that the
farmers have solid and latex filtering/retention system (SLRS) at the end of
the processing process, and a treatment system to collect the post harvest
residuals (PHTS). These investments avoid direct release of organic waste
and fungicides to water courses. However, Fairtrade norms suggest another
approach, phasing fungicides out of the post harvest mixture, hence making
it unnecessary to build and service the PHTS.
The results indicate that large certified farms employ a conventional
end-of-pipe approach, due to the fact that all of them have SLRS and PHTS
to treat the effluents of the processing facility. On the other hand, 54% small
certified farmers have already built a SLRS, and 46% are in the process of
building them. Nevertheless, none of them had plans to build PHTS. Rather,
73% of them replaced the post-harvest fungicides thiabendazole or imazalil
for an organic product (Citrex) that is likely to pose a lower environmental
risk.16 This risk reduction measure is evidently more attractive due to the fact
that it addressed the problem at its root, therefore avoiding the need of a
sand-gravel-charcoal filtering system. Due to the lack of information about
the environmental risk of this product, I treated it as if it has the same risk as
conventional fungicides. However, Fairtrade commitment to implement
process measures is worth mentioning and contrasts with the fact that all thenon-certified farms lack both SLRS and PHTS, and all of them use
thiabendazole or imazalil in their post harvest treatment.
16 Citrex® 100L is a fungicide/bactericide produced by Citrex Inc (US).
Page 127
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 127/168
111
3.2.2 Total risk reduction score (TT)
As mentioned before, the total risk reduction score is an aggregate of
the previously named components. Due to the fact that it incorporates all the
variables included in the four previously discussed indexes, the total risk
reduction score presents a wider view of the farm, and how it affects its
surroundings. A farm score will be higher when it incorporates the best
practices identified in the assessment of the norms. Therefore, it can be
argued that farms with high risk reduction scores are likely to produces less
environmental degradation.
The summary of the results for the total risk reduction score (TT) is in
the Table 14. Certified farms consistently have higher scores than non-
certified (see Table 15). The median TT small certified farm achieved 91% of
the ideal farm score versus 46% for non-certified and the median TT score
for large certified farms is of 78% of the maximum possible score versus
34% for non-certified farms. The differences are statistically significant
(Mann-Whitey Test, p<0.0001 for small farms and p<0.0000 for large farms).
The distribution of the scores of certified and non-certified farms do
not overlap, with a gap of 19% between the maximum score of a non-
certified small farm and the minimum score of a small (FT) certified one. Thegap between large certified and non-certified farms is of 20% (See Figure 18,
Figure 19).
Page 128
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 128/168
112
Table 14 Median, mean, minimum, maximum and standard deviation for
small and large non-certified and certified farms total risk reduction scores
(out of 1 point)
Farm Size Small farms (<50 has) Large farms (>50 has)
Status Non-certified
(n=9)
Certified FT
(n=13)
Non-certified
(n=15)
Certified RA
(n=10)
Median 0.46 0.91 0.34 0.78
Mean 0.44 0.87 0.34 0.77
Min 0.32 0.76 0.12 0.73
Max 0.57 0.94 0.53 0.82
SD 0.08 0.06 0.12 0.03
The data shows that the risk reduction scores of certified farms are
consistently higher than the scores of non-certified farms. Thus, under the
assumption that farms of similar size have the same potential of generating
environmental degradation due to the similarities in agricultural practices, it is
highly likely that certified farms will have a lower environmental impact than
comparable non-certified ones
3.2.3 Differences between certified and non-certified small farms
When looking at the results for small farms, there is an evident
difference between certified and non-certified ones. The difference between
means is of 45% points and the difference between medians is of 43% points
Page 129
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 129/168
113
Table 15: Farms risk reduction scores and percentage of maximum score for
use of land (UL), agrochemical management (AM), waste management
(WM), water quality (WQ) and total risk reduction score (TT), ordered by total
risk reduction score
Farms UL% ofmax.score
AM% ofmax.score
WM% ofmax.score
WQ% ofmax.score
TT% ofmax.score
NCL, T 1.0 25% 2.8 23% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 3.8 13%
NCL, T 2.0 50% 2.6 22% 0.0 0% 1.0 9% 5.6 19%
“ 1.0 25% 2.6 22% 1.0 33% 2.0 18% 6.6 22%
“ 1.0 25% 2.6 22% 1.0 33% 2.0 18% 6.6 22%
“ 1.0 25% 2.6 22% 1.0 33% 2.0 18% 6.6 22%
“ 1.0 25% 2.9 24% 1.0 33% 2.0 18% 6.9 23%
“ 1.0 25% 3.0 25% 1.0 33% 3.0 27% 8.0 27%
“ 2.0 50% 2.0 17% 1.0 33% 4.0 36% 9.0 30%
“ 1.0 25% 2.1 18% 3.0 100% 3.0 27% 9.1 30%
“ 2.0 50% 2.1 18% 2.0 67% 3.0 27% 9.1 30%
NCS, T 2.0 50% 3.9 33% 1.0 33% 2.0 18% 8.9 30%
NCL, T 1.0 25% 3.5 29% 2.0 67% 3.0 27% 9.5 32%NCS, T 1.0 25% 3.9 33% 2.0 67% 3.0 27% 9.9 33%
“ 1.0 25% 3.0 25% 1.0 33% 5.0 45% 10.0 33%
“ 2.0 50% 3.9 33% 2.0 67% 3.0 27% 10.9 36%
“ 2.1 52% 2.1 18% 3.0 100% 4.0 36% 11.2 37%
NCL, T 2.0 50% 2.0 17% 2.0 67% 5.0 45% 11.0 37%
“ 2.0 50% 2.3 19% 3.0 100% 4.0 36% 11.3 38%
“ 2.0 50% 3.3 28% 3.0 100% 4.0 36% 12.3 41%
“ 1.0 25% 3.5 29% 2.0 67% 6.0 55% 12.5 42%
NCS, T 1.0 25% 4.3 36% 2.0 67% 6.0 55% 13.3 44%
“ 1.0 25% 4.3 36% 2.0 67% 6.0 55% 13.3 44%
“ 1.0 25% 6.5 54% 2.0 67% 7.0 64% 16.5 55%
“ 2.0 50% 5.5 46% 2.0 67% 7.0 64% 16.5 55%
Page 130
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 130/168
114
Table 15 (Continued)
Farms UL
% of
max.score
AM
% of
max.score
WM
% of
max.score
WQ
% of
max.score
TT
% of
max.score
CL, T 2.0 50% 8.5 71% 3.0 100% 8.0 73% 21.5 72%
“ 2.0 51% 8.5 71% 3.0 100% 8.0 73% 21.5 72%
“ 2.0 51% 8.5 71% 3.0 100% 8.0 73% 21.5 72%
“ 2.5 64% 8.5 71% 3.0 100% 8.0 73% 22.0 73%
“ 2.6 66% 8.5 71% 3.0 100% 8.0 73% 22.1 74%
“ 2.7 68% 8.5 71% 3.0 100% 8.0 73% 22.2 74%
“ 2.7 69% 8.5 71% 3.0 100% 8.0 73% 22.2 74%
“ 2.9 73% 8.5 71% 3.0 100% 8.0 73% 22.4 75%
“ 2.5 64% 9.5 79% 3.0 100% 9.0 82% 24.0 80%
“ 2.6 66% 9.5 79% 3.0 100% 9.0 82% 24.1 80%
CS, ST 2.0 50% 9.5 79% 3.0 100% 8.0 73% 22.5 75%
CS, T 3.1 78% 9.0 75% 3.0 100% 8.0 73% 23.1 77%
CS, ST 2.0 51% 9.5 79% 3.0 100% 9.0 82% 23.5 78%
CS, T 3.0 76% 9.5 79% 3.0 100% 9.0 82% 24.5 82%
CS, ST 3.0 76% 9.5 79% 3.0 100% 9.0 82% 24.5 82%
CS, NT 2.1 53% 11.0 92% 3.0 100% 9.0 82% 25.1 84%
“ 4.0 100% 10.0 83% 3.0 100% 9.0 82% 26.0 87%
“ 4.0 100% 10.0 83% 3.0 100% 9.0 82% 26.0 87%
“ 4.0 100% 10.0 83% 3.0 100% 9.0 82% 26.0 87%
CS, ST 4.0 100% 10.0 83% 3.0 100% 9.0 82% 26.0 87%
CS, NT 4.0 100% 10.0 83% 3.0 100% 10.0 91% 27.0 90%
“ 4.0 100% 10.0 83% 3.0 100% 10.0 91% 27.0 90%
“ 4.0 100% 10.0 83% 3.0 100% 10.0 91% 27.0 90%
NCL non-certified large farms (>50 has), NCS non-certified small (<50 has)
CL certified large farms (RA), CS certified small (FT)
T technology based crop management, ST semi-technology based, NT no
technology based
Page 131
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 131/168
115
Figure 18: Histogram of the total risk reduction score by farm size and
certification status
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Total Risk Reduction Score
P e r c e n t o f o b s e r v a t i o n s
Non-certified large
Non-certified small
Certified large (RA)
Certified small (FT)
Page 132
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 132/168
Figure 19: Dot plot for total risk reduction score by farm size and certification
Page 133
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 133/168
Page 134
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 134/168
118
Agrochemical management is second area of risk reduction for which
important differences were found. At the level of index components, certified
and non-certified small farms are differentiated by agrochemical restrictions,
agrochemical storage, pesticide training and records keeping practices.
Certified small farms comply with restrictions on herbicides and nematocides,
in contrast with non-certified farms that reported a 100% of reliance on
herbicides for weeds control (9 out of 9) and 44% of reliance in nematocides
(4 out of 9).
Moreover, certified small farms used storage boxes for keeping small
quantities of agrochemicals on-farm, thereby achieving the maximum score
for the agrochemical storage facilities (ASI). On the other hand, non-certified
farms had problems meeting the requirements for agrochemical storage; the
average storage facility scored 0.71 ASI (out of 1 point), and all of them
lacked waste water treatment systems. Finally, all the certified small farmers
and their workers had access to training events (13 out of 13); only one non-
certified producer reported that he conducted training events for his workers.
However, both certified and non-certified small farmers face similar
capital and technology constrains, and are subject to the same pressures
that discriminate against small holdings. The field survey narrative indicates
that small certified farmers have access to two resources that are notavailable for non-certified producers: the “El Guabo” Association of Small
Banana Producers (APPBG) and the premium offered by the Fairtrade
commercialization system. Through the APPBG, small certified producers
Page 135
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 135/168
119
have access to services in agrochemical procurement, agrochemical storage,
pesticide training, inorganic waste management and extension. Fairtrade
premium compensates no-technology-based farmers for the low yield of their
farms, and also offers a source of capital to do the investments required to
improve the environmental performance of small farms. Thus, certification
appears to be a worthy alternative for the problems of small farmers, as long
as they have access to their own market niche (Hellin and Higman 2002).
These benefits are not present in any form for non-certified producers.
Small non-certified banana producers must face capital constrains, the
collapse of the state-sponsored extension services, and restrictions on his
ability to ship his fruit to the market. It is not surprisingly that small farmers
reported that they are being “pushed out of business”.
3.2.4 Differences between certified and non-certified large farms
The results show that certified large farms outperform non-certified
ones. The differences between the average certified and non-certified farm is
of 0.43 (out of 1 point), the difference between medians is similar, of 0.44
(out of 1 point). There is no overlap between the risk reduction scores of
certified and non- certified farms, and the differences are spread among all
the risk reduction indexes (see Table 17, Figure 19)
Starting with use of land, one of the differentiation factors is that all the
certified farms (10 out of 10) have areas allocated to vegetative barriers and
Page 136
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 136/168
120
buffer zones, in contrast with the non-certified producers (2 out of 15, or
13%). The average RA certified buffer zone covers 11% of the surface of the
farm, and that these areas have been forested with bamboo, several species
of native and introduced trees. It is interesting to note that it was reported
that using land for vegetative barriers and buffer zones does not imply that
that land is going to be unproductive: by producing bamboo and wood,
certified plantations are providing ecological services that are economically
sustainable.
Table 17: Differences between average risk reduction score by index
(expressed as percentage of the index maximum possible score) of certified
versus non-certified large farms
Type of farms UL AM WM WQ
Non-certified large C 35% 22% 51% 27%
Certified large (RA) D 62% 73% 100% 75%
Difference C-D 27% 50% 49% 48%
UL use of land, AM agrochemical management, WM waste management,
WQ water quality
The agrochemical management is second area of concern for which
important differences were found. While all the large farms use the same
kind of compounds (fertilizers, herbicides, fungicides, nematocides and
insecticides), the differences in the frequencies of use of laboratory-based
diagnostics, field monitoring and record keeping practices show that certified
Page 137
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 137/168
Page 138
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 138/168
122
of the not-structured compliance with one or another risk reduction practice
found in non-certified farms. Therefore the answer to my initial research
question is that, indeed, certified farms have a higher risk reduction level
than non-certified farms of equal size. A summary of the findings follows:
1. Certified farms are more likely to allocate land for vegetative
barriers and buffer zones
All the certified farms implemented buffer zones but only 3 out of 24
non-certified farms engaged in this practice (12.5%), even if the
National Law (RSAB) requires that all farms must allocate land for this
use. Because research done elsewhere indicates that buffer zones
are highly efficient at removing nutrients from the flow of agricultural
fields, and can delay the release of other agrochemicals to water, the
non-certified farms failure at deploying buffer zones suggest that their
environmental impact is higher than it should be.
2. Certified farms are more likely to provide training for their
workers
The use of agrochemical is widely acknowledged as one of the major
risk generating factors associated with banana production, and
increasing the farms’ workers awareness of the risk of these
substances is one of the ways for dealing with this issue. Sadly, thistask has been overlooked by the large farms owners and
administrators, and is inaccessible for small farmers due its cost and
Page 139
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 139/168
123
lack of state-provided extension services. The only producers that
provided training for his workers was one of a kind, because he was a
former employee of the late Banana National Program and he had the
training and the motivation to engage in this task.
3. Certified farms are more likely to restrict some agrochemicals.
Two related facts exemplify this difference: a) Fairtrade bans the use
of herbicides, and small certified farms did not report using these
products while all the rest of the farms (large certified included) used
chemicals for weeds control, b) large certified farms used allowed
herbicides, but 53% of the large non-certified and 11% of the small
non-certified farms used paraquat based herbicides, that presents a
higher environmental risk that glyphosate based ones (EXTOXNET
1996a, 1996b, Baylis 2000). Therefore, the data indicates that
certification regulates agrochemical use following two approaches,
either banning an entire family of products, or regulating which
products can be used in the crop.
4. Certified farms are more likely to use technical assessment tools
before using a product
The best example of this is found in the results for nematocides use in
large farms. In all certified large farms, it was reported that soilanalyses were performed before determining the need for a
nematocides application and nematocides were applied in only 8 out
Page 140
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 140/168
124
of 10 farms (80%). On the other hand, while all the non-certified large
farms had used nematocides in the previous year (100%), only 66% of
them have performed laboratory analysis before the nematocides
application, with the rest determining the need of nematocides using
empirical assessment tools. The practice of trusting empirical
observations to do pest management is especially worrisome when
dealing with highly toxic products; the lack of an adequate
management system unnecessarily increases the risk of these
practices.
5. Certified farms are more likely to keep detailed records of the use
of agrochemicals.
Keeping adequate records is a mandate of practically both certification
systems (and it is included in the national law), since it is the base for
developing and implementing an integrated crop management system.
Indeed, certified large farms excelled in this aspect, having detailed
systems to records all of their agrochemical-related activities. On the
other hand, only 6% of the large non-certified farms keep records of
their use of herbicides and fungicides, and none of them keep records
of their use of insecticides. All the small certified farmers keep records
of their use of insecticides, and 92% keep records of their use of
fungicides. Contrariwise, none of the non-certified small farmers keeprecords of insecticides, and only 56% of them keep records of
fungicides use.
Page 141
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 141/168
125
6. Certified farms are more likely to display adequate waste
management practices.
All certified farms had waste disposal practices for organic and
inorganic waste that are compatible with the local legislation. On the
other hand, while 88% of the large and 86% of the small non-certified
farms managed their “banana-waste” adequately and most of them
disposes of the stalks sending them back to the plantations (46% of
the large and 88% of the small farms), only 20% of the large and 11%
of the small non-certified farms disposed of their plastic waste in ways
approved by the law. Even more, the two methods of inorganic waste
disposal recorded (burning it or throwing it) generate an unnecessary
risk for the environment, and are banned by law.
7. Certified farms are more likely to engage in practices that should
reduce the impact of banana production in the quality of the
water.
By implementing all of the previously discussed practices, certified
farms are more likely to engage in practices that reduce their impact in
water resource quality. For example, non-certified farms fail to
implement even mandatory measures such as buffer zones and
waste-water treatment systems. On the other hand, certified farms
fulfill these requirements or go beyond them, implementing alternativerisk reduction measures which should have the same effect.
Page 142
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 142/168
126
CHAPTER 4
CONCLUSION
Motivated by the lack of empirical evidence about the environmental
effects of ecolabeling, the free-trade challenges to state-based environmental
regulations, and the increasing reliance on market-based incentives to
achieve public policy objectives, my research question addresses
environmental risk-reduction achieved by certified farms.
To be able to answer my question, I developed an inputs outputs agro
ecological model to structure the comparison of two certification standards
(Rainforest Alliance and Fairtrade) with Environmental Bylaws for Banana
Production. Findings of this comparison indicate that the general foci of
concern and regulation are widely shared by these three normative systems.
These findings indicate that there is a common understanding of risks and
fate-transport in the environment, and similar concerns are reflected in the
literature on environmental risks of banana production (Chambron 2000,
Astorga 1998, Morensen 1998, Henriques 1997, Jeger 1996 and others).
Therefore, I identified a set of best management practices to assess the
environmental risk reduction behaviors of certified farms. I developed
matched samples of certified and un-certified farms controlling for farm size.
Certified farms exhibited relatively complex environmental
management systems; as a part of these systems, they implemented a
comprehensive set of risk reduction measures compatible with the
Page 143
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 143/168
127
requirements of the certification standards. Conversely, non-certified farms
exhibited only a spotted, unstructured compliance with one or other risk
reduction criteria. The results indicate that both large and small certified
farms outperformed non-certified ones; in fact, the worst performing certified
farm (of any size) have a higher risk reduction score that the best of the non-
certified farms. The environmental accomplishments on small and large
certified farms speak in favor of using ecolabels to encourage/acknowledge
operations with a better environmental behavior.
The findings also inform on a breakdown in enforcement of the
existent environmental laws, and on the non-certified farmers lack of access
to extension services who might supply for that regulation failure. The
suppression of the Banana National Program generated a gap in the state
ability to regulate, control and monitor the banana industry; likewise this
neoliberal driven reform affected the state-capacity for supplying services for
resources-constrained producers (UNEP 2002).
However, the cross sectional nature of this study implies that the
causality between ecocertification and farms practices can not be
established. The results provide a snapshot of the farms, thus they do not
reflect the progress of certified farms in function of time, and how their
behavior is influence by changes in certification protocols and other externalfactors. Further research is needed for understanding the forces that drive
this process, and further clarification of the interrelationship producers,
ecolabeling systems, and the environment.
Page 144
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 144/168
Page 145
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 145/168
129
Consequently, the findings support the need for a state –enforced set
of rules and regulations. The Ecuadorian banana production case
exemplifies the effects of demolishing the state-enforcement abilities: the
scores of non-certified farms do not reach the minimum level set in Ecuador’s
Environmental Bylaws for Banana Production (RSAB), and certification does
not reach those farms. Therefore, state-regulations are needed to set the
minimum levels of environmental behavior that must be obeyed by all the
producers.
Finally, the findings inform on openings for improvement for non-
certified producers. The actors involved in improving the environmental
performance of Ecuadorian banana production should focus their efforts on
addressing issues associated with agrochemical management and water
quality, due to the fact that small and large non-certified producers exhibited
a marked weakness at fulfilling the requirements for these both areas for risk
reduction.
Page 146
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 146/168
130
APPENDIX 1
SURVEY “A”
Locality: __________________ (write the name of the closest town)
Farm code: __________________ (two letters for locality + three numbers)
1. General information
a) Non-certified large Non-certified small
Certified large Certified small
b) Farm surface: _____________ hectares
c) Banana plantation surface: _______ hectares
d) Years in production: ________ years
e) Traditional agricultural land (Y/N): __
f) Banana variety: Cavendish Valery Filipino Others
g) Density: ________ plants/hectare
h) Production rate: _____ boxes/ha/year
i) Ratio: ______
2. Farm practices
2.1 Tethering
a) Bamboo Plastic Both None
b) Source: ____________________________________________________
Page 147
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 147/168
Page 148
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 148/168
132
2.3.2 Insecticides
a) Which method is used for pest control? _______________________
Chemical Mechanical None Other: ___________________
b) How does the farmer decide that is time for insecticide application?
_____________________________________________________________
Cyclic applications Monitoring None Other: _________________
c) Does the farmer keep records? (Y/N) ___ Type: _____________________
2.3.3 Nematocides
a) Which method is used for nematode control? ______________________
Chemical Mechanical None Other: _______________________
b) How does the farmer decide that there is a need for nematode control?
___________________________________________________________
Cyclic applications Visual None Other: _________________
Lab Analysis Before application? (Y/N) ___
Page 149
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 149/168
133
c) Does the farmer keep records? (Y/N) ___ Type: _____________________
d) Products used last time? _______________________________________
2.3.4 Fungicides
a) Main fungal disease? _________________________________________
b) Which method is used for fungal diseases control? __________________
Chemical Mechanical None Other: _______________________
c) How does the farmer decide that there is a need for fungal diseases
control?
___________________________________________________________
Cyclic applications Visual None Other: _________________
Lab Analysis Before application? (Y/N) ___
d) Who is responsible for fungicides application?
_____________________________________________________________
e) Does the farmer keep records? (Y/N) ___ Type: ____________________
Page 150
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 150/168
134
2.3.5 Training
a) Is pesticide training available for the farm workers? (Y/N) ______
b) If a)=yes, who is in charge? _____________________________
c) Records? ____________________________________________
d) Frequency? __________________________________________
2.4 Waste management
a) What does the farmer do with rejected banana? ___________________
Secondary use Which? ______________________________________
b) What does the farmer do with stalks? ___________________________
c) What does the farmer do with inorganic waste (plastic)?
_____________________________________________________________
2.5 Water quality
a) Water course (superficial) in the plantation? (Y/N) ____
b) Buffer strips/buffer zone along water course? (Y/N) ____
Page 151
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 151/168
135
APPENDIX 2
SURVEY “B”
Farm code: __________________ (two letters for locality + three numbers)
1. General checklist
Item Yes No
On-farm pesticides storage facilities
On-farm fertilizers storage
On-farm processing facilities
2. Pesticides storage facility
Item Yes No
Door with lock
Warning signals
Non-combustible floor and ceiling
Non-combustible walls
Non-combustible shelves
Waste water treatment system
Banned products on storage facility (dirty dozen, FAO PIC,
WHO class 1 a+b)
Which?
Page 152
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 152/168
Page 153
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 153/168
137
APPENDIX 3
VARIABLES DICTIONARY
LABEL Description Values
CODE Farm identification code unique
GCOD Group code 1 non-certified large
2 non-certified small
3 certified large (RA)
4 certified small (FT)
TTAL Farm total surface continuous (hectares)
BVAR Banana variety 1 Cavendish
2 Valery
3 Filipino
4 Others
DENS Plantation density continuous (plants/hectare)
RATE Production rate continuous (boxes/hectare/year)
RTIO Ratio boxes/bunch
LAND Land cover change 0 recently cleared forest (<10
years)
1 traditional agricultural land
TEMA Tethering material 0 bamboo stakes
0 both bamboo stakes and plastic
1 plastic
1 none
Page 154
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 154/168
138
LABEL Description Values
{value depends on TEMA}
TEMA 0 1
Provider 0 0
Plantation 0 1
Provider and
plantation
0 0.5
TMSO Source of tethering material
None 0 0
VEBF Reforestation areas and
buffer zones
0 no
1 yes
BANS Banana plantation surface continuous [hectares]
VSUR Vegetative barriers or
forestry area surface
continuous [hectares]
RVS Ratio of vegetative barrier
or forestry area/banana
surface
continuous (0 to 1)
HMET Weeds control method 0 chemical
1 cultural
1 none
{value depends on HMET}
HMET 0 1
allowed 0.5 0
HPRO Products used for weeds
control
banned 0 0
Page 155
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 155/168
139
LABEL Description Values
{value depends on HMET}
HMET 0 1
accounting 0 0
accounting +
application
0.5 0
HERR Records for herbicides use
accounting, +
applications + field
reports
1 0
IMHW Pest monitoring evaluation
system
0 no
1 yes
1 not use of insecticides
IMMR Pest control record keeping 0 no
1 yes
1 not use of insecticides
NMET Nematodes control method 0 chemical
1 cultural
1 none
{value depends on NMET}
NMET 0 1
yes 1 1
NHOW Analysis before
nematocides application
no 0 1
Page 156
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 156/168
Page 157
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 157/168
141
LABEL Description Values
PTRA Pesticide training for
workers
0 no
1 yes
PTRE Pesticide training records 0 no
1 yes
PTWH Responsible for training open field
PTFR Frequency of training
events
continuous (times per year)
ASTO On-farm agrochemical
storage facility
0 no
1 yes
HERB Banned products on ASTO
(dirty dozen, FAO PIC,
WHO class 1 a+b)
0 yes
1 no
BPAI Banned product active
ingredient
open
{value depends on ASTO}
ASTO 0 1
no 1 0
ADWL Restricted access to
agrochemicals storage
facility
Yes 1 1
{value depends on ASTO}
ASTO 0 1
No 1 0
AWAR Warning signals outside
pesticide storage facility
Yes 1 1
Page 158
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 158/168
142
LABEL Description Values
{value depends on ASTO}
ASTO 0 1
No 1 0
AICF Non-combustible floor and
ceiling
Yes 1 1
{value depends on ASTO}
ASTO 0 1
No 1 0
AIWL Non-combustible,
impermeable walls
Yes 1 1
{value depends on ASTO}
ASTO 0 1
No 1 0
ANWS Non combustible shelves
Yes 1 1
{value depends on ASTO}
ASTO 0 1
No 1 0
PWTS Pesticides on farm storage
facility waste/spillage
treatment system
Yes 1 1
ORWM1 Organic waste
management (waste
banana)
0 open dump
1 cattle, pigs or poultry feed
1 composting
1 municipal dump
ORWM2 Organic waste
management (banana
stalks)
0 dump
1 returned to plantation
1 composting
1 municipal dump
Page 159
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 159/168
Page 160
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 160/168
144
LABEL Description Values
FSTO Fertilizers on-farm storage 0 no
1 yes
{value depends on FSTO}
FSTO 0 1
No 1 0
FWTS Fertilizers on farm storage
facility liquid waste/spillage
treatment system
Yes 1 1
WAOP Water course on plantation 0 no
1 yes
{value depends on WAOP}
WAOP 0 1
No 1 0
BSWA Buffer strip alongside water
bodies or drainage
channels
Yes 1 1
Page 161
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 161/168
Page 162
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 162/168
Page 163
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 163/168
147
Extension Toxicology Network (EXTOXNET). (1996a). Pesticide InformationProfiles: Paraquat. Extension Toxicology Network. Updated June1996. Accessed March 2004.[http://extoxnet.orst.edu/pips/paraquat.htm]
Extension Toxicology Network (EXTOXNET). (1996b). Pesticide InformationProfiles: Glyphosate. Extension Toxicology Network. Updated June1996. Accessed January 2004.[http://extoxnet.orst.edu/pips/glyphosa.htm]
FAO. (1990). “The community's toolbox: The idea, methods and tools forparticipatory assessment, monitoring and evaluation in communityforestry.” Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome 1990. .
FAO (2000). “Ad-hoc Expert Meeting on Socially and Environmentally
Responsible Banana Production and Trade.” Food and AgricultureOrganization, Rome 2002. .
FAO. (2001a). "Banana statistics 1990-2000." FAO CCP: BA/TF 01/02. Accesed July 2004.[http://www.fao.org/es/esc/common/ecg/28387_en_BAN_COMP2001.pdf]
FAO. (2001b). “Contribution of bananas to income, employment and foodsecurity in Ghana and Ecuador.” FAO Committee on commodityproblems, Intergovernmental group on bananas and on tropical fruits.
San Jose, Costa Rica. CCP: BA/TF 01/4
FAO. (2001c). A Golden Fruit For All. Working Group on Environmentally andSocially Responsible Horticulture Production and Trade.[http://www.fao.org/es/ESC/common/ecg/29090_en_WorkingGoldenFr uit.pdf]
Fairtrade Foundation. (2002). “Unpeeling the banana trade.” FairtradeFoundation, UK.
Favorita Fruit Company(2002). Company Profile. Favorita Holding Company.
Updated July 2002. Accessed July 2004.[http://www.favoritafruitcompany.com/english/html/company.htm]
FLO. (2002). “Fairtrade Standards for Bananas and Small FarmersOrganizations.” Fairtrade Labelling Organizations International,version 25.05.2002
Page 164
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 164/168
Page 165
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 165/168
149
Isaac G and W. Kerr. (2003). “Genetically Modified Organisms at the WorldTrade Organization: A Harvest of Trouble.” Journal of World Trade37(6): 1083-1095.
Jeger M, Waller J, Johanson A and S. Gowen. (1996). “Monitoring in bananapest management.” Crop Protection 15: 391-397.
Jones J, Bureau J and S. Marette. (1999). “Food safety: protection orprotectionism?” OECD Observer 216: 27-30
Joshi M. (2004). "Are Eco-Labels Consistent with World Trade Organization Agreements?" Journal of World Trade 38(1): 69-92.
Karlsson S. (2004). "Agricultural pesticides in developing countries."Environment 46(4): 22-41.
Kettl D. (2002). “Environmental Governance: A Report on the NextGeneration of Environmental Policy.” Washington D.C., BrookingsInstitution Press.
Kimerling J. (2001). "Corporate ethics in the era of globalization: the promiseand peril of international environmental standards." Journal of
Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 14(4): 425-255.
Kirchhoff S. (2000). “Green Business and Blue Angels.” Environmental andResource Economics 15: 403-420.
Lockeretz W (edt). (2002). “Ecolabels and the greening of the food Market:proceedings of a conference.” Tufts University, Boston,Massachusetts, November 7-9 2002.
Macas. G. (2003). “2000 hectareas bananeras de El Oro estanabandonadas, segun el SESA.” Santa Rosa, El Universo October 032003.
Markandya A. (1997). “Eco-Labelling: An Introduction and Review.” [In: Eco-Labelling and International Trade. (1997). Zarrilli S, Jha V. and R.
Vossenaar (edts). United Nations Conference on Trade andDevelopment, St. Martin Press Inc. U.S. 1997]
Matlock R., Rogers D., Edwards P., and S. Martin. (2002). “Aviancommunities in forest fragments and reforestation areas associatedwith banana plantations in Costa Rica.” Agriculture, Ecosystems &Environment 91: 199-215.
Page 166
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 166/168
Page 167
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 167/168
151
Rainforest Alliance. (2004). “Sustainable Agriculture Network.” Rainforest Alliance, New York. Accesed May 2004.[http://www.rainforestalliance.org/programs/agriculture/san/index.html]
Rainforest Alliance. (2004). “Certified Area Summary and Farm.” Rainforest Alliance, New York. Updated March 2004. Accesed March 2004.[www. Rainforest-alliance.org/programs/cap/farm-list.pdf ]
SICA. (2003). “Third Agricultural Census.” Agriculture Information System ofthe Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock. Project SICA-World Bank-INEC. Updated July 2004. Accessed July 2004.[http://www.sica.gov.ec/censo/]
Soluri J. (2000). “People Plants, and Pathogens: The Eco-social Dynamics ofExport Banana Production in Honduras, 1875-1950.” Hispanic
American Historical Review 80: 463-501
Stern A. (1999). “Shrimps, bananas and mangroves: A dispute resolved.”The Environmentalist 19: 317-323.
Striffler S. (2002). “In the Shadows of State and Capital.” Durham & London,Duke University Press.
UN. (2003). “The Global partnership for environment and development : aguide to Agenda 21.” New York, United Nations
UNEP. (2001). “Environmental Outlook: Latin America and the Caribbean.”Mexico DF, Mexico, United Nations Environmental Program.
UNEP. (2002). “Integrated Assessment of Trade Liberalization and Trade-Related Policies: A country Study on the Banana Sector in Ecuador.”New York and Geneva, United Nations.
USDA. (2002). “The National Organic Program.” USDA. Updated April 2002, Accessed May 2004. [http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/indexIE.htm]
Van Ravenswaay E.O. and J.R. Blend. (1997). “Using Ecolabeling to
Encourage Adoption of Innovative Environmental Technologies in Agriculture.” Department of Agricultural Economics. Michigan StateUniversity, Staff Paper 97-19.
Ward H. (1997). "Trade and the Environment: Issues in Voluntary Eco-labelling and Life Cycle Analysis." Review of European Communityand International Law (RECIEL) 6: 139-148.
Page 168
8/10/2019 Melo Empical Assestment of Eco Cerficiation Scheme in Ecuadorian Banana Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/melo-empical-assestment-of-eco-cerficiation-scheme-in-ecuadorian-banana-production 168/168
152
RSAB. (2001). “Reglamento de Saneamiento Ambiental Bananero.”[Enviormental Bylaws for Banana Production]. RO No. 395, 22-08-2001
D.E. 2294. (1994). “Prohíbese realizar nuevas siembras de banano,correspondiéndole al Programa Nacional del Banano velar por elestricto cumplimiento de la presente disposición.” [There is a ban onthe establishment of new banana plantations, and the BananaNational Program is in charge of enforcing this regulation].Suplemento RO 573, 22-11-1994.