How do organisations in Chinese agriculture perceive sustainability certification schemes? An exploratory analysis

Abstract

AbstractMotivationInitiatives to promote sustainable practices in agriculture in China have been little documented in the literature. Preliminary investigations suggested the way that agricultural certification schemes worked in China differed considerably from such schemes in Europe and the US.PurposeWe investigated how sustainability certification schemes (SCSs) were perceived by farmers, processors, government staff and other stakeholders in Chinese agriculture.We examined three types of certification: sustainability standards for agricultural exports; organic labelling for the domestic market; and certification of ecological practices.Methods and approachWe interviewed 16 stakeholders in 2013–14 about their experiences and perceptions of certification. Interviews were transcribed and coded to derive themes and interpretations.FindingsCertification was rigorous for agricultural exports because importers, mainly in high‐income countries, demanded standards — and were prepared to pay a premium for those standards. It was in the best interests of Chinese exporters to certify their produce. Some farming companies had specific farms that were run to make sure the standards were upheld: their farms producing for the domestic market operated differently.Certification of produce as organic was less systematic, with proliferation of labels used to try to convince domestic consumers that the food so labelled was safe. No one standard was used. Farmers were concerned that organic production was costly but that they would not get a price to reflect those costs. Most actors expected the State to set standards and police them.A public scheme intended to be payment for environmental services also certified land managers; but the scheme as applied operated to pay farmers on low incomes often in marginal lands an income supplement — payments were not necessarily linked to environmental services.Policy implicationsIn China, the perception of stakeholders was that central government should set and monitor standards. Certification was not seen as something that private enterprise could or even should establish. This appreciation translated into dependence on central government to coordinate and regulate all collective actions for pursuing social and environmental sustainability, leaving little space for market‐led initiatives to flourish.