Talk:Rainforest Alliance

Introduction
The introduction looks like it has been copied and pasted from the alliance`s website. I didn`t check if it actually were, but either way it should be rewritten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.15.221.172 (talk) 13:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The whole article is a dump of one page after another from the website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.54.170.210 (talk) 03:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Rainforest Alliance as a Marketing Tool
The Rainforest Alliance logo is not mentioned as a marketing tool abused by large organisations to greenwash customers into thinking that their products are ethical. If the article is neutral, then it needs to be mentioned that somewhere along the line the 'rainforest alliance' logo is a significant marketing tool to promote the item. If an item is 'rainforest alliance' certified, then it needs to be stated that not ALL the ingredients are. emphasis goes to the Galaxy chocolate bar scandal, where only a small amount of the chocolate bar is rainforest alliance 'certified' but this is not mentioned. a significant portion of the bars ingredients damage rainforests considerably. For a product to qualify as 'Rainforest alliance' certified only part of its ingredients need to be responsibly sourced. The abuse of this rule is of large corporations who own many if not all brands of a product. Rainforest alliance is not an effective corporation but is one that has reached the headines for all the wrong reasons and for the article to be neutral and not biased it needs to be mentioned in the article.

>> There is a whole criticism section that deals with this- did you actually read the article before posting this? Apart from that, most of what you're saying is factually incorrect. E.g. 'the Galaxy chocolate bar scandal, where only a small amount of the chocolate bar is rainforest alliance 'certified' but this is not mentioned.' The Galaxy bar is clearly labelled to show that it's the cocoa in the bar that's certified, not the whole bar. Go look at a bar if you can. BTW this is common to all standards including Fairtrade (another 'marketing tool abused by large organisations to greenwash customers into thinking that their products are ethical') (KitKat is Fairtrade certified but uses the same palm oil as Galaxy http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/forests/kit-kat-give-orang-utan-break-20100317 ) Mtl1969 (talk) 11:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Kitkat and Galaxy are owned by the same company (mars) who use the easily identifiable 'Rainforest Alliance' symbol to associate ethical origin of their product. this isnt the case and in order for the article to be neutral it needs to emphasise the interests of the multinationals (financial) as well as the (prehaps genuine) interests of the Rainforest Alliance. If the Rainforest Alliance was truly an ethical organisation it would not endorse a product on such a large scale (tv advertising) when such a small portion of the product (cocoa) is ethically sourced ('as checked by the RA'). The Rainforest Alliance is used to sell chocolate bars to ethically-conscious people but aside from the truth it hid a lot of lies.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.205.30 (talk) 15:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Article reads like a Press Release
I have slimmed down the main intro to remove the bits that read like a corporate press release, and just leave in the facts. Added the phrase "published aims" as the intro assumed everything had been achieved. Everything up to the "Criticisms" section (which seems fairly neutral now) is still subjective, and smacks of corporate copy-and-paste. No time to make the necessary changes, but have put POV tag in until this is resolved. Basically, if it reads like a press release then it can't be neutral.

--Farnishk (talk) 09:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Issue with Banara wood
Gibson was among the first to use Smartwood for guitars. Did they inadvertently misjudge the population of Banara wood available, and that’s what lead to Gibson producing these in such small numbers? I thought I saw a news article about the issue coming up, and that's why the Banara wood Les Paul guitars are so much more expensive than the others when you can find them, even that species of Banara was possibly endangered. Did the rainforest alliance ever comment? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.233.118.135 (talk) 15:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Biased view-not suported by facts
I removed the name of Unilever from the Fairtarde Lite crticism in the introduction. It is simply impossible that crticism was made in 2004 to Unilever in regard to Rainforest Alliance, given the fact that Unilever only launched Rainforest Alliance product towards the end of 2007. I cannot vouch the same for the other companies so i've left the references.

There is a clear pattern here of a certain contributor who also contributes heavily tothe Fairtrade pages and whose sole aim is to make comparisons between Rainforest Alliance and Fairtrade, seeing Fairtrade as the golden standard. I think it would be fairer to judge each system on its merits and acknowledge that they can co-exist, rather than act like they're competiting Mtl1969 (talk) 11:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Timeline
I added references and tried to take the sales-y tone out of the timeline. If you have ideas for how to do the references differently, let's discuss.Greenbegood 00:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

SNS Complaint
I've deleted the SNS sentence in the criticism section b/c the complaint referenced was not upheld by the Swedish Consumer Ombudsmun, so I mentioning the case is a moot point. For more information, see this link: --SanDiegoLocal 20:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Undue weight: comparisons to Fair Trade
I deleted the comparison to Fairtrade in the introductory section b/c it doesn't cite the original source of the "Fairtrade lite" critique. If someone can establish the original source, I can see the validity in keeping the criticism. Otherwise, you're referencing an article that essentially says, "some have called the Rainforest Alliance Fairtrade Lite." We need to know the "who" before it's a credible statement.--SanDiegoLocal 18:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Why does the intro to the Rainforest Alliance entry contain a comparison to an entirely different organization with a different mission and different goals? This is absurd.

Vermonterinexile 14:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Rainforest Alliance has repeatedly tried to mislead consumers into thinking it is fair trade (see http://www.beveragedaily.com/news/ng.asp?n=73252-mcdonald-s-fair-trade-coffee) - I think comparisons between the different certification systems are not only interesting to have, but necessary.152.2.62.44 17:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You actually believe that an inaccurate newspaper headline is grounds to believe that the organization is purposely misleading consumers? The organization would have zero ability to control what headlines are assigned to articles. Your sourcing is entirely inadequate.

Vermonterinexile 20:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It is remarkable that same people who insist that the introduction section should contain criticism and a comparison to Fairtrade are the same people who contribute heavily to the Fairtrade page. Of course no criticism appears in teh introduction there. This article is very biased. Mtl1969 10:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * We all devote some time on Wikipedia trying to bring in our own perspective and improve the articles here. As I said before, all the contributions I've made on the RA page were made in good faith and I truly believe make the article more interesting and complete. As for the fair trade page, yes there are criticisms - even in the lead paragraph, please see it for yourself. Actually, there are so many criticisms I even created an extra page for them on top of that, see fair trade debate. And who are you to criticize my impartiality, all your contributions have been to Unilever-related articles and topics... Vincentl 11:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Vincent1, i did not name any user in particular- so i cannot have been critisising your impartiality. If you feel that I am addressing you, that says more about how you see yourself. Also, I cannot see any criticism in the Fairtrade certification page(one word, not 'Fair Trade') introduction, which is the one i was referring to. i have refrained from making edits in any of the pages as i prefer to reach consensus first on the discussion page- no need to get offended. Also, if you look at my contributions you will see that your allegations that i only contribute to Unilever articles are simply not trueMtl1969 13:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. I just added criticism sections on the Fairtrade page (including the lead). In the future, please assume good faith (WP:GF) and instead of bashing the work of editors, please try to make constructive comments and suggestions. Thank you Vincentl 15:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Suspicous edits
I am noticing a trend: Vincent1 and now with 96.200.81.27 both seem to only add criticisms to this section, particularly negative comparisons to Fair Trade. Considering Vincent1's history of contributions to Fair Trade entries, I suspect a political bias is behind these edits.Vermonterinexile 21:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * How is this any suspicious? I think Rainforest PR people are doing enough to promote the organization on wikipedia and clearly do not need help with that. All I am doing is providing a counter point of view, therefore making the article a bit more neutral overall. Judging from the number of registered users and ip addresses making edits on the page, I think I`m not the only one trying to add some critical elements to it.


 * By the way, for your information, I am not working for a fair trade organization therefore I have no "political bias". I would consider myself however a fair trade enthusiast and yes, I am knowledgeable on the topic and have written a lot on here on Wikipedia - as opposed to you Vermonterinexile who has only contributed to the RA page. Vincentl 18:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * My earlier edits were intended to remove biased words like "lack of" and take each issue, such as implementation of standards, on its own, with points and counterpoints. It does not necessarily follow that these topics come under an overall header of Criticism. That POV is biased. I do agree that some of the language reads like an advert and I tried to take some of that out, but you removed that when you reverted all my changes.Vermonterinexile 21:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. I reworded the subtitles.Vincentl 23:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Mcdonald's UK
Mcdonald's UK have switched to rainforest alliance coffee and theres a lot of info on it on their Make up your own mind site. Can we add this info to the article. I am unsure how to phrase it. Magic Pickle 11:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Suspicious edits
The edits by 65.182.28.194 seem a bit suspicious to me... the Criticism section was deleted and replaced by some very Pro-Rainforest Alliance texts.

Next time, before deleting anything, please discuss changes on the discussion page. Quebecois1983 03:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * 65.182.28.194 has once again deleted the Criticism section - I flagged the article for NPOV. I can't revert the deletion forever... anybody has any suggestions? Quebecois1983 18:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Definition is biased against the Rainforest Alliance
The definition of the Rainforest Alliance cites a criticism by a relatively small publication in the third line that makes the entry lopsided and biased against this organization. The citation is also the first in a list of many that contain praise and non-opinionated facts about what we do. That criticism was made by someone with an apparent bias and is given undue prominence. For example, the second article cited as backup for the criticism also contains the opposite opinion: "Some would argue that the fair-trade model itself is flawed, and that the Rainforest Alliance offers a better solution to help coffee farmers escape the poverty trap," which helps prove that the criticism, presented alone and with such prominence, misrepresents the reality of press coverage and praise we receive.

It is also biased in its narrow-minded focus on our agriculture program. While it's true we are one of the biggest certifiers of agricultural products in the world, we certify far more area of forestland for sustainable forest management than agricultural land -- more than 40 million hectares of forests compared to nearly 300,000 hectares of farms. We also do extensive work in sustainable tourism. Therefore, a criticism that compares Rainforest Alliance to Fair Trade is far less important in understanding what is the Rainforest Alliance since Fair Trade does not certify forests or work in tourism, so it should not be so highly placed in the definition.

My colleagues have tried to edit the definition but were countered by one or more people with a bias against this organization and apparent sympathies with Fair Trade.

I would appreciate it if the criticism of the Rainforest Alliance would be given its due prominence -- either toward the end of the definition or erased completely, considering it comes from only one article, hundreds of articles praise the work we do, and agriculture is only one of our three programs -- an unfavorable comparison to Fair Trade has nothing to do with sustainable forestry or tourism.

This year to date we have tracked hundreds of articles that are about us or mention us and few to none of those compare us unfavorably to Fair Trade. Rather, they simply talk about the conservation work we do. I made a short list of article for which I could find their links, which I will paste here:

From Popular Mechanics, “Timber Racket,” May 07 (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4215504.html) “Rainforest Alliance is one of a number of groups that track and certify legitimately logged lumber in order to provide consumers with a more informed choice. The group’s SmartWood program is the leading certifier for the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), a nonprofit organization that runs the gold standard of sustainable-forestry certification systems.”

From Audubon magazine, “Knock on Wood,” Nov-Dec 06 (http://audubonmagazine.org/audubonathome/audubonathome0611.html) "A scattering of small U.S.-based furniture manufacturers have very recently begun to take an important new step themselves. In the autumn of 2005 the Rainforest Alliance joined with South Cone’s Gerry Cooklin to organize a first-ever meeting in High Point, North Carolina, a traditional center for U.S. furniture making and wholesaling, aimed at establishing a green furniture manufacturer’s advocacy group. By early 2006, 17 small furniture manufacturers had formed the new Sustainable Furniture Council."

From Irish Independent, “Fair Play,” 2/23 (no link available) "...the Rainforest Alliance, an ecologically minded alternative to Fairtrade. Formed in 1986 in New York, their remit is to conserve biodiversity and ensure sustainable livelihoods. Part of their work involves certifying farms that meet their rigorous ethical and ecological standards. The produce of the farm is then stamped with the Rainforest Alliance logo and thus the consumer can be assured that they are buying ethical and quality goods."

From Financial Times, "Rainforest Alliance: Activists invoke business ethic" May 04, 2005 (http://search.ft.com/iab?queryText=Rainforest%20Alliance&aje=true&id=050504006470&location=http%3A%2F%2Fsearch.ft.com%2FftArticle%3FqueryText%3DRainforest+Alliance%26aje%3Dtrue%26id%3D050504006470&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fsearch.ft.com%2Fsearch%3FqueryText%3DRainforest+Alliance) "Recent campaigns such as the anti-sweatshop protests against big clothing manufacturers have shown that activists can push companies into changing business practices. But once an issue has been highlighted, the next step is not as clear. This is often where the Rainforest Alliance, a New York-based conservation group, steps in. "The Rainforest Alliance has developed a system of auditing and certification to overhaul, for example, the way that crops and timber are produced, or the way that tourism is managed. It now operates in more than 50 countries, working with farmers, governments, businesses, scientists and local communities."

From Associated Press (reprinted in the link here on the Chicago Business site and in dozens of major world media) "McDonald's UK to sell eco-friendly coffee" (http://chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=23398) "(AP) - Fast-food giant McDonald's Corp. announced Monday it would sell only eco-friendly coffee at its 1,200 restaurants in the United Kingdom and Ireland. The Kenco coffee, sold by Kraft Foods Inc., is certified by the conservation organization Rainforest Alliance — a distinction that comes from products grown on farms that meet the alliance's standards for environmental and worker protection."

Dozens or more than 100 media around the world published stories recently highlighting the Rainforest Alliance's role in helping Scholastic source sustainably produced paper for the final Harry Potter book. This is one:

USA Today "Hefty final Harry Potter book will go easy on trees," 3/20 (http://www.usatoday.com/life/books/news/2007-03-20-potter-green_N.htm) "Scholastic announced Tuesday that it had agreed with the Rainforest Alliance, a conservation organization that works with the business community, on tightened environmental standards for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, coming out July 21 in the United States with a first printing of 12 million."

Rainforest Alliance Guatemala 19:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The Rainforest Alliance might deserve a little flak for its some of its programs. It would appear from its success a certifing agricultral goods to be raisng environmental awarenss, and I'm sure it is. However, in reviewing and researching RFA I can find almost no reference to how many times corps. or producers have lost their certifications for being out of compliance. Very suspicious. It makes them at least appear to be a semi-rubber stamp for industry. Solarking 03:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Redundant Criticism -- It's Cited Twice
The criticism in the second paragraph is redundant. It is already written in the same words in the designated criticism section. It should be erased from the general overview of Rainforest Alliance and retained only in the criticism section. Leaving it as is has sabotaged the definition, obviously ruining its neutrality.Rainforest Alliance Guatemala 22:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * According to Lead policy, "the lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies" - the second paragraph describing the criticism therefore should stay. In the future, please assume good faith (WP:Good faith) and refrain from using words such as "saboteurs" in discussions on the talk page. Thank you, Vincentl 12:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Vincent1, note that a line from a narrowly distributed newspaper like the Manchester Evening News does not deserve a place in the lead to this definition when weighed against the hundreds of other articles published this year alone that praise the Rainforest Alliance, as I noted in the entry above. The article you cited to back up the second criticism in the lead, from the Guardian, also says the Rainforest Alliannce model is superior to that of Fairtrade, a fact you do not mention. Therefore, those criticisms do not amount to the "most important points" of the article, but rather they are trivial. You might also notice that the Fairtrade definition does not suffer criticisms in the lead, another indication that our definition is unorthodox and biased against us.Rainforest Alliance Guatemala 18:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I do agree with you that a little too much prominence might be given to RA criticism - I am however reluctant to cut anything from the existing page since these are all valid points backed up by credible sources. What I do suggest however is adding content: both to the lead and to the article. Writing a neutral history of the organization might be a good start. Flesh out the article a little more and the criticism will not be as nearly as prominent.Vincentl 20:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Imaginary Opponents Are Not Valid
There is no citation to back up the claim in the "further criticism" section to back up the claim that "opponents claim Rainforest Alliance standards lack strict guidelines on child labor." There is, however, a link to the standards that clearly state our rules about child labor: no children under 15 can work. Making up imaginary criticisms and couching them in the phrase "opponents claim" has undermined the neutrality of this definition. These baseless criticisms ultimately hinder our work to improve the quality of life for thousands in developing countries and conserve forests and wildlife. Saboteurs of this page, please consider that fact above the more trivial goal of promoting your favorite competing certifier. 22:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Rainforest Alliance Guatemala
 * That's fine. I removed the reference to the issue. Again, in the future, please assume good faith before insulting contributors to the page.Vincentl 12:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Similar to the child labor issue, the minimum implenentation of standards 'criticism' was not cited except to link to the Rainforest Alliance standards page, which delinated standards not criticism, so I moved up. Vermonterinexile 21:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

comparissons
Should we compare fair trade as a "light green peace"? We better should be punishing companies, that does not care about the environment & people; instead of criticizing between certifications, who (to varying degrees) are concerned about the future of all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhojeda (talk • contribs) 17:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Introduction too bloated
I have made a recent change to the introduction, as it seemed pretty redundant to me considering the sections following the introductory paragraph goes on to explain these points anyway. From my point of view, it's almost as if it is trying to put forward a "positive" point of view of loads of bullet points of the good things the Rainforest Alliance is doing, and reeks of advertising ploys. Either way it seems to big as an introduction in comparison to other articles, and isn't very easy on the eyes. Forgive me if I'm wrong. Ronius (talk) 13:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Is Rainforest alliane a competitor to Fairtrade certification? We need a list of similar groups
The terms Fairtrade and Fair Trade Certified are very specific to one organization, overseen by the FLO International, and their certification body, FLO-CERT.

Question: Is Rainforest Alliance considered an alternative to Fairtrade? Do other certifications with similar social justice goals, from totally separate organizations, exist? RK (talk) 20:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Comparison of RA to Fair Trade?? Apples to oranges.
Please note the following.

From Fair Trade's website, "We are 24 organizations working to secure a better deal for producers. From our headquarters in Bonn, Germany, we set international Fairtrade standards and support Fairtrade producers."

Fine. They are not a non-profit, whatever they are.

The mission statement of Rainforest Alliance, which is a non-profit organization, is "Rainforest Alliance works to conserve biodiversity and ensure sustainable livelihoods by transforming land-use practices, business practices and consumer behavior." RA is clearly concerned with far more than Fair Trade is concerned with. Nothing about setting international Fairtrade standards. They have set their own standards for the Rainforest Alliance certification, as a means to their wider goals so-stated.

RA is reviewed on a prominent "independent charity evaluator," web site as a 4-star (highest) organization. If one checks out the details of their report on RA, we find that ~94% of RA's expenses are devoted to Program Expenses. As one who uses this site frequently to get a non-biased overview of non-profits, I can testify that 94% going to Program Expenses is a VERY high rate compared to the average non-profit. (The other 6% goes to the Administrative and Fundraising categories.)

I really have to agree with the RA representative who weighed in above ("Definition is biased against the Rainforest Alliance"). Making a big deal about comparing RA's specific certification methods, or its certification label, with those of Fair Trade really seems beside the point. It seems to me that there is no place for this issue in the introductory section, that it deserves no more than a brief mention in the "Controversy" section, something like "Some claims have been made that the Rainforest Alliance certification has a lower bar than the Fair Trade certification.", with appropriate references and possibly some discussion.

(Isn't this almost like stating in Walter Johnson's intro paragraph that "Well, though he was a great pitcher, he really couldn't compare as a hitter with Ty Cobb."? Maybe a bad analogy, but "apples to oranges" does hit the nail on the head I think.)

By the way, from Audubon magazine, March-April 2011, pp. 32ff, other organizational labels which are used by food producers include Food Alliance, Demeter Biodynamic, Bird Friendly and FishWise. None of these labels/organizations are exactly like either RA or Fair Trade, but they are all attempting to help the consumer make food-wise and (possibly) ethical choices in the food store. Mesmer1944 (talk) 19:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mesmer1944 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
 * This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
 * There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
 * It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
 * In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:19, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

How to compare RA to Fair trade
The criticism section says that RA shouldn't be criticised for not having "minimum pricing" requirements, because "organic" doesn't have these requirements either and it doesn't get this criticism. The problem with that response is that "organic" says something specific, more similar to "low fat". No one expects "organic" or "low fat" to imply that the farmers are unionised.

RA is more like Fair trade because they're both vague, general certifications. Ethical certifications. Comparing the two is so normal, RA even published their own comparison (but it's not very useful; it just talks about goals rather than substance).

To properly compare them, we have to look at what they do cover, and when.

Just scraping the surface, it seems Fair trade covers all the topics of RA, plus some more, and Fair trade have higher requirements for certifying a whole product (e.g. bar of chocolate), while RA lets a product be certified if just one of the main ingredients is RA certifiable (e.g. the cocoa is RA but the sugar and palm oil aren't, but the bar still gets the RA logo).

Does anyone know of websites that look at the policies of these organisations (rather than just repeating and comparing what each claims on its website)?

Here's one: . Gronky (talk) 18:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair Expectations: Rainforest Alliance v. Fairtrade

Suspicious edits
The user Mel1277 added in March 7 2014, five new paragraphs to the critisism and responses section, all of which are in favor of fairtrade alliance. Only one of the mentioned reports has a source, and that source is hosted on the official rainforest alliance webpage. I suggest either removing these sections, or adding relevant sources and also balance the section (I assume there are reports reaching other resulst). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.243.174.171 (talk) 03:17, November 19, 2014
 * It looks like most of the content you are referring to has been removed. Thank you for the report. Mamyles (talk) 19:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Rainforest Alliance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140326114146/http://sanstandards.org/sitio/sections/display/3 to http://sanstandards.org/sitio/sections/display/3
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061115093034/http://www.rainforest-alliance.org:80/programs/agriculture/certified-crops/documents/standards_2005.pdf to http://www.rainforest-alliance.org/programs/agriculture/certified-crops/documents/standards_2005.pdf
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.transfairusa.org/content/about/board.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Rainforest Alliance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061115093034/http://www.rainforest-alliance.org/programs/agriculture/certified-crops/documents/standards_2005.pdf to http://www.rainforest-alliance.org/programs/agriculture/certified-crops/documents/standards_2005.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:09, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Request for edits
Hello Wikipedia community – My name is Rachel Young, and I work for the Rainforest Alliance. Given the conflict of interest, I am requesting edits to update outdated and subjective information across this page. I’m new to this side of Wikipedia, so please correct me if I’m not adhering to the best practices for formatting edits, citations, etc. Thanks in advance for considering these changes.

SIDEBAR

CHANGE the old Rainforest Alliance Certified seal TO the new Rainforest Alliance logo (Reasoning: The logo represents the Rainforest Alliance as an organization; the seal is only used in relation to their certification work. The seal currently on this page is also outdated, as of September 2020.) File:Rainforest Alliance logo.svg

CHANGE the product shot with the old seal TO a new product shot with the Rainforest Alliance's new certification seal

REMOVE “Headquarters – New York City” (Reasoning: The Rainforest Alliance does not have headquarters. They have offices in more than 20 locations and staff spread across more than 30 countries. Source: https://www.rainforest-alliance.org/contact)

INTRODUCTION

CHANGE “The Rainforest Alliance is an international non-governmental organization (NGO) based in New York City and Amsterdam, with operations in more than 60 countries.” TO “The Rainforest Alliance is an international non-governmental organization (NGO), with staff in more than 30 countries and operations in more than 70 countries. ”

ADD AFTER SECOND SENTENCE “It states that its mission is “to create a more sustainable world by using social and market forces to protect nature and improve the lives of farmers and forest communities.” ”

CHANGE “Its main work is the provision of an environmental certification for sustainability in forestry, agriculture, and tourism.” TO “Its main work includes the provision of an environmental certification for sustainability in agriculture.”

ADD AT THE END OF THE FIRST PARAGRAPH “In parallel to its certification program, the Rainforest Alliance develops and implements long-term conservation and community development programs in a number of critically important tropical landscapes where commodity production threatens ecosystem health and the well-bring of rural communities.”

CHANGE “They are a product-oriented multistakeholder governance group combining the interests of companies, farmers, foresters, communities, and consumers to produce sustainable and harmonious goods and services.” TO “They are a product-oriented multistakeholder governance group combining the interests of companies, farmers, foresters, communities, and consumers to produce sustainable and harmonious goods. ”
 * ✅. The offices map only shows locations in about 20 countries. Heartmusic678 (talk) 14:56, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

MERGER WITH UTZ

CHANGE “The Rainforest Alliance’s work continues in Latin America, Africa, and South and Southeast Asia.” TO “The Rainforest Alliance’s work continues in Latin America, Africa, and Asia.”

CHANGE “The new Rainforest Alliance plans to release a new certification standard in 2019, building upon the existing Rainforest Alliance Sustainable Agriculture Standard and the UTZ Certification Standard. The UTZ and Rainforest Alliance certification programs are running separately and in parallel until the publication of the new program in 2020. Additionally, releasing one standard will help the 182,000 cocoa, coffee, and tea farmers currently certified under both standards, avoiding a double administrative load of working with two standards and certification systems.” TO “The new Rainforest Alliance released a new certification standard in 2020, building upon the previous Rainforest Alliance Sustainable Agriculture Standard and the UTZ Certification Standard. ”

CHANGE “The two certification programs will continue to operate in parallel, and farms will continue to be either Rainforest Alliance or UTZ certified until the release of the new standard in 2020.” TO “The two previous certification programs will continue to operate in parallel, and farms will continue to be either Rainforest Alliance or UTZ certified until they transition to the new 2020 standard. Audits against the new standard will start in July 2021. ”
 * ✅. Replaced press release source with this. Heartmusic678 (talk) 15:25, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

RAINFOREST ALLIANCE PROGRAMS

SUSTAINABLE FORESTRY CERTIFICATION

CHANGE “As of October 1, 2018, the Rainforest Alliance transitioned its certification business, including all related services, personnel and clients, to Nature Economy and People Connected (NEPCon), a non-profit organization based in Copenhagen, Denmark, with a global network. NEPCon has been a member of the FSC since 1996.” TO “As of October 1, 2018, the Rainforest Alliance transitioned its sustainable forestry certification business, including all related services, personnel and clients, to Preferred by Nature (formerly NEPCon), a non-profit organization based in Copenhagen, Denmark, with a global network. Preferred by Nature has been a member of the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) since 1996. ”

SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE CERTIFICATION

REMOVE “cattle” FROM “The Rainforest Alliance's sustainable agriculture program includes training programs for farmers and the certification of small, medium and large farms that produce more than 100 different crops, including avocado, cattle, cinnamon, coffee, palm oil, and potatoes, as well as tea, cocoa, and bananas.” (Reasoning: The Rainforest Alliance is phasing out cattle certification, and it is not in the scope of the 2020 Certification Program. Source: https://www.rainforest-alliance.org/articles/our-journey-to-more-sustainable-cattle-ranching)

CHANGE “In recent years, the Rainforest Alliance has greatly expanded its work with smallholders, who now account for 75% of the farmers (more than 783,000 farmers in all) certified by the organization.” TO “In recent years, the Rainforest Alliance has greatly expanded its work with smallholders, who now account for 90% of the farms (more than 2,000,000 farmers in all) certified by the organization.”

CHANGE “To obtain certification, farms must meet the Sustainable Agriculture Standard, which is designed to conserve ecosystems, protect biodiversity and waterways, conserve forests, reduce agrochemical use, and safeguard the well-being of workers and local communities.” TO “To obtain certification, farms must meet the Sustainable Agriculture Standard, which is designed to conserve ecosystems, protect biodiversity and waterways, conserve forests, reduce agrochemical use, improve livelihoods, and safeguard the rights and well-being of workers and local communities. ”

CHANGE “More than 7 million hectares of farmland—are being managed sustainably under Rainforest Alliance certification, as of 2018.” TO “More than 5 million hectares of farmland—are being managed sustainably under Rainforest Alliance certification, as of 2019. ”
 * ✅. Included cattle phase out in edit. Left out the 90% part of the edit (unsourced) and the crops that aren't mentioned in the Impact section of the organization's site. Heartmusic678 (talk) 17:13, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

CROP STANDARDS AND CRITERIA

CHANGE “The organization requires that 50% of criteria under a certain principle (group of criteria) be achieved, and 80% overall. Several of these criteria are "critical" and must be complied with for a farm to earn certification.” TO “The Rainforest Alliance 2017 Sustainable Agriculture Standard was based on a gradual improvement system where more requirements had to be met each year. For a farm to get certified for the first time, it was required to achieve 100% of the “Critical” criteria and 50% of continuous improvement criteria under a certain principle (group of criteria). ”

CHANGE “They include an ecosystem conservation program, protection of wild animals and waterways, the prohibition of discrimination in work and hiring practices, the prohibition of contracting children under the age of 15, the use of protective gear for workers, guidelines about agrochemical use and the prohibition of transgenic crops.” TO “The Farm Requirements of the new 2020 Sustainable Agriculture Standard include core requirements and improvement requirements. Core requirements outline key sustainable agriculture practices that always have to be met in order to achieve certification and are measured according to a pass/fail model. They include an ecosystem conservation program, protection of wild animals and waterways, implementation of an “assess-and-address” system to monitor and mitigate risks of child labor, forced labor, discrimination and workplace violence and harassment, the use of protective gear for workers, guidelines about agrochemical use, and the prohibition of transgenic crops.”

ADD AT THE END OF THE PARAGRAPH “Improvement requirements are designed to further promote and measure progress on sustainable practices. They are divided between mandatory and self-selected. Some improvement requirements are pass/fail while others are measured with Smart Meters.

Smart Meters give farmers a way to set goals for their farm based on what’s most beneficial and feasible within their specific context. Rather than having predefined targets set by the Rainforest Alliance, farmers themselves will set the targets for these improvements and define the necessary actions needed to achieve them. For example, while all farms have to appoint a person or committee dedicated to addressing gender equality and carry out a basic risk assessment, they can each set their own annual targets to tackle more specific gender gaps related to their context.”

RAINFOREST ALLIANCE CERTIFIED SEAL

CHANGE “As of 2015, more than 4,300 companies buy or sell products from Rainforest Alliance Certified farms, and the Rainforest Alliance Certified seal can be seen in more than 120 countries.” TO “As of 2019, more than 5,000 companies buy or sell products from Rainforest Alliance Certified farms, and the Rainforest Alliance Certified seal can be seen in more than 160 countries. ”

SUSTAINABLE TOURISM

CHANGE “As of October 1, 2018, NEPCon assumed management of the Rainforest Alliance Sustainable Tourism Standards for Hotel and Lodging Services and Inbound Tour Operators. These standards include all elements of the Global Sustainable Tourism Council (GSTC) Criteria for Hotels and Tour Operators.” TO “As of October 1, 2018, Preferred by Nature (formerly NEPCon) assumed management of the Rainforest Alliance Sustainable Tourism Standards for Hotel and Lodging Services and Inbound Tour Operators. Currently, tourism businesses may use the Rainforest Alliance’s green frog seal when they achieve certification according to Preferred by Nature’s Sustainable Tourism Standard, recognized by the Global Sustainable Tourism Council. ”
 * ✅ with minor edits for language. The certified seal fact source says the Rainforest Alliance seal is on products in 100+ countries, not 160+ . Heartmusic678 (talk) 13:05, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

RAINFOREST ALLIANCE 2020 CERTIFICATION PROGRAM

CHANGE “Rainforest Alliance (RFA) certification has been extended in recent years to products such as pineapples, coffee, cocoa, bananas, tea and palm oil, among others.” TO “Rainforest Alliance certification has been extended in recent years to products such as pineapples, hazelnuts, coconut oil, orange juice, and vegetables, among others.”

CHANGE “In order to obtain the Rainforest Alliance seal, compliance with certain environmental criteria is required.” TO “In order to obtain Rainforest Alliance certification, compliance with certain environmental, social, and economic criteria is required.”

CHANGE “The new program includes new features with respect to the previous one, asking for more demanding requirements in environmental and social terms.” TO “The new program includes new features with respect to the previous one, asking for more demanding requirements in environmental, social, and economic terms.”

ADD NEW SECTION/HEADING: LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT

ADD “The Rainforest Alliance develops and implements long-term conservation and community development programs in a number of critically important tropical landscapes where commodity production threatens ecosystem health and the well-being of rural communities. It co-designs these initiatives with local community partners and focus on improving rural livelihoods through sustainable local economies.

The Rainforest Alliance uses an integrated landscape management approach that expands focus beyond a single farm or forest to cover a far wider geographical area that encompasses producers, companies, communities, local governments, and non-governmental organizations. Its landscape management programs involve a diverse range of stakeholders that means that all land users can discuss common interests and determine collective actions.

Many of the Rainforest Alliance’s landscape programs include training in land management best practices such as climate-smart agriculture and sustainable forestry as well as trainings that help rural producers diversify their income streams or add value to their products (i.e., supporting a forest community to produce furniture, instead of selling raw timber). They also use a mix of other strategies to help build sustainable economies: opening access to sustainable financing through partnerships with lending institutions and helping rural producers improve their financial management skills, facilitating public-private partnerships and connecting farmers and forest communities to new markets.”
 * ✅. The first two paragraphs of the new section are verbatim from here, so I did a rewrite. Heartmusic678 (talk) 12:55, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

CRITICISM AND RESPONSE

MINIMUM PRICE ISSUES

ADD AFTER FOURTH PARAGRAPH “The Rainforest Alliance 2020 Certification Program promotes a shared responsibility approach and includes two new requirements for the buyers of Rainforest Alliance Certified commodities: the Sustainability Differential and Sustainability Investments. The Sustainability Differential is a mandatory additional cash payment made to certified producers over and above the market price of the commodity; this payment is completely free of restrictions or requirements on how it is used. The Sustainability Investments are mandatory cash or in-kind investments from buyers of Rainforest Alliance Certified products to certified producers for the specific purpose of helping them meet the Sustainable Agriculture Standard.

To address the structural inequalities in the cocoa sector, persistently low incomes, and the challenges farmers face in negotiating prices in an extremely price-sensitive environment, the Rainforest Alliance will be introducing a minimum Sustainability Differential under their cocoa program at $70 per MT as of July 2022. ”
 * ✅. Heartmusic678 (talk)

CHANGE HEADING “LAWSUIT FILED AGAINST RAINFOREST ALLIANCE” TO “LEGAL PETITION FILED AGAINST THE RAINFOREST ALLIANCE”

REMOVE “The nonprofit Truth in Advertising also reported that WASH was suing Rainforest Alliance for allegedly misrepresenting how earth-friendly its certified products actually are.” (Reasoning: This was a legal petition, not a lawsuit.)

ADD AT THE END OF THE PARAGRAPH “The legal case was settled out of court and the terms remain confidential on the request of both parties.”
 * ❌. Please provide sources that support this part of the edit request. Sources label the claim as a civil suit. Heartmusic678 (talk) 13:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

LATIN AMERICAN BANANA GROWERS

ISSUES

CHANGE “The publication of the new Rainforest Alliance standard has caused concern in the banana sector of several countries, especially due to the circumstances in which it has been published: the context of the coronavirus pandemic, which has had a worldwide impact. In particular, the reaction facing the new standard has been remarkable in Latin America. Several Latin American producer and exporter associations, who normally work together with the Rainforest Alliance certifier and share its ambitions and sustainable objectives aiming at reducing the climate footprint, have challenged its new standards.” TO “The publication of the 2020 Rainforest Alliance standard has caused concern amongst some actors in the banana sector of several Latin American countries. Several Latin American sector and exporter associations, who normally work together with the Rainforest Alliance and share its ambitions and sustainable objectives aiming at reducing the climate footprint, have challenged its new standards. ”

REMOVE “They consider that the process that has led to the creation of these new standards counts with three major flaws: (1) the application of the standard will increase production costs, (2) it will also leave small farmers, who don't count with the economic means to make this extraordinary investment, out of the possibility to obtain the certification, losing therefore access to the European market, where this certification is key for trade purposes, and (3) the unilateral nature of the socialization process that has excluded most of the comments from the banana sector. These banana groups have been particularly concerned about the updates in the areas of production costs, living wages and other social components, agrochemical management and air application guidelines, and finally, shared responsibility.” (Reasoning: This is not fact. It came from one stakeholder’s opinion. There is no supporting data, and the issues have been resolved.)

REMOVE “But the arrival of the new requirements has called into question Rainforest Alliance's leadership and its management of the standard's socialization process.” (Reasoning: This is an opinion of the banana producers; it is not factual.)

REMOVE “There are around 400 seals of this style, which stand out for their voluntary nature, with regulations related to the environmental, social, ethical and food safety areas.” (Reasoning: This implies that there are 400 different types of certification for bananas.)
 * ✅ with a rewrite. Heartmusic678 (talk) 15:14, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

REACTION OF THE BANANA INDUSTRY

ADD AT THE BEGINNING OF THE SECTION “Following the publication of the 2020 Sustainable Agriculture Standard, the Rainforest Alliance received a letter from banana sector organizations in Latin America expressing concerns with respect to certain elements of the new program, based on the unique challenges specific to perishable crops and the contract cycles of banana farms. In response to this concern, the Rainforest Alliance conducted an immediate roundtable discussion on 23 July 2020 with more than 40 participants including Rainforest Alliance leadership and technical experts.”

CHANGE “In view of the lack of compliance with the above-mentioned criteria, banana growers' associations from Ecuador, Costa Rica, Colombia and Guatemala, published an open letter on July 17, 2020 to call on RFA to offer explanations about the process of socialization of the norm. In the letter, they set out their complaints, considering that only 2% of their demands had been taken into account. On July 23, 2020, they held a virtual meeting with Rainforest Alliance, in which the banana growers exchanged their perspectives on the new standard. As Juan José Pons, coordinator of Ecuador's Banana Cluster, stated, the standard "does not take into account the immense effort and related costs that we have made in the recent years, both in social and environmental matters. Our investment is not reflected in the final price, it has had no return, quite the contrary, European supermarkets always impose lower and lower prices". Despite the fact that this meeting led to new meetings of technical analysis of the standard, banana growers believe that Rainforest Alliance has not changed its position, and has remained firm on its standards. TO "Banana growers' associations from Ecuador, Costa Rica, Colombia and Guatemala, published an open letter on July 17, 2020 to call on the Rainforest Alliance to offer explanations about the process of socialization of the norm. In the letter, they set out their complaints, considering that only 2% of their demands had been taken into account. On July 23, 2020, they held a virtual meeting with the Rainforest Alliance, in which the banana growers exchanged their perspectives on the new standard. As Juan José Pons, coordinator of Ecuador's Banana Cluster, stated, the standard "does not take into account the immense effort and related costs that we have made in the recent years, both in social and environmental matters. Our investment is not reflected in the final price, it has had no return, quite the contrary, European supermarkets always impose lower and lower prices." (Reasoning: We have changed our position. Source: https://www.rainforest-alliance.org/business/reimagining-certification/how-were-working-with-the-banana-sector-to-implement-and-improve-our-new-certification-program/)

REMOVE "Despite RFA's refusal to attend, the guilds and retail groups that participated agreed that RFA has the obligation to define the concept of Shared Responsibility, as well as to convene a specific committee for its development, made up of representatives from both producers and retail groups.” (Reasoning: We met with the banana growers. Source: https://www.rainforest-alliance.org/business/reimagining-certification/how-were-working-with-the-banana-sector-to-implement-and-improve-our-new-certification-program/)
 * ❌. The meeting was called by banana associations in late November. More than one source says RFA wasn't present for the November meeting: and . There are no November meetings with banana associations indicated on the RFA source provided. Heartmusic678 (talk) 15:16, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

CHANGE “Rainforest Alliance responded by organizing another roundtable, in which they invited both European retailers and different banana groups.” TO “The Rainforest Alliance responded by organizing several roundtables, addressing the concerns of those sector organizations around pesticide use and other topics.”

CHANGE “In order to show the on-going dialogue around the new certification program, Rainforest Alliance introduced in an article the organization's efforts to work with the banana sector to implement the new standards. In the article, Rainforest Alliance referred to the roundtable that took place on December 18, 2020 as the meeting that ended the round of discussions with the banana sector and that will lead to the implementation of the standard, even if the organization has not yet defined the mechanism and scope for implementing Shared Responsibility and the Sustainability Differential.” TO “This series of roundtables were concluded by the Rainforest Alliance on December 18, 2020 and outcomes were publicly shared. The Rainforest Alliance invites these sector organizations to lessen the impact of pesticide use and continue to increase the sustainability of the sector. Ongoing discussions on the scope for implementing shared responsibility and the Sustainability Differential are planned for the first half of 2021. All actors are invited to participate.”
 * with a rewrite to consolidate the details of the issues and response sections and maintain neutrality. Any unsourced or solely primary sourced details were omitted from the updates. Heartmusic678 (talk) 15:16, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again for considering. RachelY38 (talk) 15:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)RachelY38
 * Hello, your request has been answered. Heartmusic678 (talk) 15:20, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Rainforest Alliance logo.svg