Oxfam Germany reaction to the Rainforest Alliance statement

We are glad that Rainforest Alliance has made a detailed statement in reaction to our findings. However, some points in the statement require clarification and rectification.

A preliminary remark: The aim of our study was not to check the Rainforest Alliance or the compliance with the relevant SAN standards, but the working conditions on the pineapple and banana plantations that produce fruit for German supermarkets. A large share of the checked plantations are certified by Rainforest Alliance.

The investigations of Oxfam Germany and Rainforest Alliance arrive at different results. However the conclusions can be that there is ground for further investigation, such as why the results differ and how the working conditions for the laborers on the pineapple and banana plantations can be improved. The main difference between the research approach of Oxfam and the Rainforest Alliance is that Oxfam involved the unions and put emphasis on the involvement of workers. This is an omission in the research approach of Rainforest Alliance. Oxfam Germany approached the assertion of the Rainforest Alliance with a wide range of evidence that supports their investigation: the survey of workers and tours of plantations (when possible), interviews with farm managers, evaluation of documents and interviews with experts, unions, government representatives, parliamentarians, and NGOs.

Oxfam and the Rainforest Alliance seem agree on the limits of certifications. Rainforest Alliance stated that many of the problems on the farms and working conditions are systematic in nature and cannot be solved quickly by certification and certification standards alone. Oxfam Germany agrees, to really improve the situation supermarkets and their suppliers should pay enough to at least cover the costs of sustainable production, including a living wage.

Rainforest Alliance (RA) indicates to investigate the current allegations, and their first results do not confirm the allegations made by Oxfam. RA mentions various stakeholders that are involved in audits and investigations. It is striking that unions aren’t mentioned. Unions are experts on working conditions on plantations and labor rights and a partner - it is incomprehensible that the RA doesn’t consider them in their investigations and audits.

Rainforest Alliance mistakenly alleges that Oxfam’s investigations are only based on interviews with laborers. The investigation of Oxfam is based on a wide range of evidence, on the one hand interviews with workers, market analysis and interviews with union experts, governments, parliamentarians, scientists, non-governmental organizations and business representatives and on the other hand, tours of plantations and the analysis of documents, as far as possible and available. Only one plantation was visited, all others denied access and interviews, despite repeated requests. 

Contrary to the assertion of Rainforest Alliance, Oxfam didn’t find the use of banned pesticides, but did find the use of pesticide that have been classified by the World Health Organization as highly or extremely hazardous. Furthermore Oxfam found the use of pesticides that have not been approved by the EU or pesticides that have been classified as probably carcinogenic by the US Environmental Protection Agency or international cancer research agency IARC.

Rainforest Alliance claimed its first investigations have revealed no evidence to support the results of Oxfam. Rainforest Alliance acknowledges that they found two problems: in the first place they found evidence of workweeks that exceeded the statutory 60-hour limit. And in the second place Rainforest Alliance found flaws in the warning systems that should warn personnel that pesticides are being sprayed.