Food Supply Sector and Biodiversity Conservation Best Practice Benchmarking
Outcome of a workshop by the European Union Business and Biodiversity Platform September 2010 Table of Contents
1. Introduction ...... 3 1.1. Background to the document – why a guidance document?...... 3 1.2. Purpose, scope and target of the document ...... 3 1.3. Nature and structure of the document ...... 4
2. Food supply sector and biodiversity ...... 4 2.1. Definition of the scope and interdependencies with other sectors ...... 4 2.2. Food supply links to biodiversity ...... 4 2.2.1. Impacts and dependency ...... 4 2.2.2. Benefits ...... 5 2.3. Policy and legislative context relevant to the food supply sector and biodiversity and standards ...... 6 2.3.1. Global context regarding business and biodiversity policy ...... 6 2.3.2. European biodiversity policy ...... 6 2.3.3. Other international convention and initiatives ...... 10 2.3.4. Local biodiversity action plan ...... 12 2.4. Main stakeholders ...... 12
3. Classification and evaluation of available best practices ...... 18 3.1. Common approach and key steps of biodiversity integration in business ...... 18 3.1.1. The business case for biodiversity and ecosystems ...... 18 3.1.2. The key action points for business ...... 19 3.2. Sector specific approach to implement Business & Biodiversity actions (adaptation of 3.1 to sector specificities) ...... 20 3.3. Classification and analysis of existing best practices ...... 20 3.3.1. Introduction to the analysis grid ...... 20 3.3.2. Selected best practices ...... 21 3.3.3. Global best practices analysis ...... 22
4. Case studies of the participants ...... 25 4.1. Unilever case study ...... 25 4.2. Findus case study ...... 26 4.3. Carrefour case study ...... 27 4.4. Amorim case study ...... 28
5. Gaps and needs: Best practices analysis ...... 29
6. Conclusions...... 30
2 1. Introduction
1.1. Background to the document – why a guidance document?
The global loss of biodiversity has become one of the major environmental challenges of the 21st century. Biodiversity is defined as the variability among living organisms within species, between species, and between ecosystems.
The concern for biodiversity is integral to sustainable development, competitiveness, economic growth and employment, and improved livelihoods. Many of the services that biodiversity and ecosystems provide are currently threatened. These are timber production, water supply, waste treatment, natural hazard protection, regulation of air quality, regulation of regional and local climate, regulation of erosion, etc. In the long run, the loss of ecosystem services threatens business opportunities as well.
Companies have been getting more and more involved in dialogues with governments and conservation organizations. In 2007, The High Level European Conference on Business and Biodiversity in Lisbon called on businesses, governments, the EU and NGOs to:
• Continue raising awareness of the strong competitive advantage to be gained by conserving biodiversity. • Promote the use of a wide range of market mechanisms, corporate responsibility and regulatory schemes to conserve biodiversity. • Support large and small businesses with operational tools for conservation of biodiversity and measuring their performance in meaningful ways. • Encourage new incentives to develop and strengthen partnerships between companies, governments at all levels, NGOs and universities/the scientific world.
Within this context, this guidance document aims at helping businesses find solutions to biodiversity challenges related to their activities ensuring a fair income and sustainable growth, while providing benefits for biodiversity and ecosystems.
1.2. Purpose, scope and target of the document
This document is not meant to develop new methods. It provides companies with the information needed to act towards biodiversity conservation. The main available publication and case studies related to business and biodiversity are presented and analyzed through a business perspective.
Indeed, many best practices, guidance principles and initiatives on biodiversity conservation have been published over the last years and months. While many of them give general recommendations mainly useful only at corporate level, others are more relevant to local level operations or for a specific product or service. Selecting the right method or guide as well as the right support from stakeholders may be a difficult task.
Therefore, the final objective of this document is to guide companies toward the most appropriate tools and methods for integrating biodiversity conservation into business activities, taking into account economic constraints and environmental benefits. Moreover, this document has been designed to be a useful guide for large companies as well as SME’s.
In addition, this guide aims at addressing the specificity and needs of the sector. The food supply sector has the particularity of being a complex collective of diverse businesses (see section 2.1). This document targets several activities included within this sector: the food processing industry, the packaging industry and food retail industry.
Moreover, the food supply sector is characterized by few publications specific to the sector and its whole value chain and their relationships with biodiversity. The actions implemented to integrate
3 biodiversity into food supply activities are more product-specific and no global guidelines dedicated to the sector have been published yet.
1.3. Nature and structure of the document
Part 2 is a general overview of information necessary to a good understanding of the food supply specific issues regarding biodiversity.
Part 3 presents all relevant studies and methods specific to the food supply sector. An analysis grid has been included to offer the reader, “at a glance”, a good overview of each method’s content. The reader should be able to choose the most convenient support (publication, method, tool) addressing its needs. The final part of this chapter presents an analysis of relevant case studies developed by companies participating in the B@B Platform.
2. Food supply sector and biodiversity
2.1. Definition of the scope and interdependencies with other sectors
The food supply chain encompasses the full range of activities and services required to bring a food product from its conception to its end use. The chain includes suppliers to agriculture, farmers and fishermen, processors, packaging industries, wholesalers, retailers and buyers; a range of technical, business and financial service providers; and the final markets into which the food product is sold, whether local, national, regional or global.
The entities participating in the food supply chain definition of the B@B platform are mainly the food processing industry, the packaging industry, the retailers and the consumers. Although farmers are not considered within the scope of this sector but within the agriculture sector, the food supply industry has a high dependency on agricultural and fishery supply chains. More so, this industry is directly dependent on the services delivered by ecosystems, ranging from water cycling and purification, to climate regulation and soil formation. An important link exists between these two sectors and certain issues and actors are highly inter-connected.
This document aims at promoting cross-sectoral cooperation with the agricultural sector. However, the biodiversity issues related to these two sectors are tackled separately in order to properly address their respective challenges.
2.2. Food supply links to biodiversity
2.2.1. Impacts and dependency
The food supply industry is tightly linked to raw materials consumption derived from living systems, including grains, oilseeds, fish, livestock, fruits and vegetables, forest products and markets considerable quantities of these resources every day. Therefore, it has strong, although indirect links with the following key issues:
• Habitat fragmentation: Agricultural conversion plays a vital role for society while causing biodiversity loss through the removal and fragmentation of natural ecosystem areas and replacement of species assemblages with exotic or domesticated taxa. There is a wide scientific consensus that fragmentation, when coupled with habitat loss, has had an overall negative impact on biodiversity, in terms of both total number of species in an area and abundance within individual species. Many scientists consider the destruction and fragmentation of natural habitats to be a leading cause in0 the decline and loss of native species. Negative impacts of fragmentation include decreases in mobility and dispersal of organisms and other natural resources (water, nutrients), increases in mortality resulting from increased exposure to threats (e.g. hunting, fire), and increases in competition from innovative species.
4 • Land use change: Agricultural expansion is the most important proximate cause of land use change globally, followed by infrastructure development and deforestation. Driven by global population growth, pressures for increased food as well as fuel production have been one of the primary drivers to convert nature into land for agricultural use. Changes in landscape due to such activities are generally recognized in the literature as major causes of the loss of biodiversity. Agricultural expansion, particularly in connection with predicted increases in the demand for meat in the coming decades, is predicted to increase the level of land use change, converting forests into grazing land. Current predictions indicate that a 10% increase in meat demand by 2020 and a 15% increase by 2030 only in the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) countries would lead to an additional deforested area of 16.5 million hectares compared to the baseline. • Water scarcity: According to IFPRI, in 2025, 72% of the world’s water use will be for irrigation. Moreover, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment found that 5-20% of freshwater use exceeds long-term sustainable supply and roughly 15-35% of irrigation withdrawal is estimated to be unsustainable. • Climate change: By the end of the century, climate change may be the dominant direct driver of biodiversity loss and changes to ecosystem services globally, such as crop cultivation. This will create an imbalance in the raw material supply and demand, leading to considerable price increases. • Overexploitation of fishery resources: Increasing demand for seafood has been matched by increasing fishing capacity, leading to species depletion. According to a 2008 UN report, the world's fishing fleets are losing $50 billion USD each year through depleted stocks and poor fisheries management. The report, produced jointly by the World Bank and the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), asserts that half of the world's fishing fleet could be scrapped with no change in catch. Businesses related to fishing are already experiencing direct impacts through a decreased supply of fish for food or feed. • Deforestation: Forests provide valuable ecosystem goods and services, serve as a habitat for a wide range of flora and fauna and hold a significant standing stock of global carbon. Deforestation, mainly conversion of forests for agricultural activities, has been estimated at an alarming rate of 13 million hectares per year (in the period 1990-2005). Deforestation results in immediate release of the carbon stored in trees as CO2 emissions. It is estimated that deforestation contributed globally to approximately 20% of annual greenhouse gas emissions in the 1990s. According to the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, reducing and/or preventing deforestation is the mitigation option with the largest and most immediate carbon stock impact in the short term. • Pollution and waste production: Such environmental impacts may have a consequence on environment fragmentation and create selective pressures on species. This might also lead the industry to pay taxes based on the “polluter pays” principle, thus creating new costs.
Some of these impacts and dependencies have already been tackled for many years through environmental management implemented by businesses. Biodiversity is an issue that is now also integrated into sustainable business strategies.
Considering the complexity of the food supply chain and the multiplicity of actors, the abilities to foresee these abrupt changes are limited. Businesses may have to face significant and unexpected challenges that will have an impact on business turnover.
Moreover, this sector is the one most likely to be subject to pressure from consumers, from NGOs and corporate social responsibility rating agencies regarding biodiversity impacts.
2.2.2. Benefits
Better biodiversity risk anticipation and management give rise to new opportunities for companies:
5 • Security of supply: Good management practices of resource and conservation programmes will improve the ecosystems on which the sector depends and ensure the continued provision of essential services. • Visibility and Market differentiation: Trading with producers that are reducing their impacts on ecosystems and certificating products through biodiversity-relevant standards (e.g. fair trade schemes, organic certification, integrated farming schemes, specific products standards such as palm oil, soy, sugar, etc.) will be preferred. • Opportunities for investment and increased efficiency: The reduction of biological resources use or degradation through development of new technologies will help improve efficiency. • Brand reputation and company image: Risks connected with company image and reputation may arise in the context of access to new markets and of relationships with customers and shareholders who have become more aware of ecological issues. Building sustainable partnerships with stakeholders and identifying common goals can contribute positively to a business’s goodwill.
2.3. Policy and legislative context relevant to the food supply sector and biodiversity and standards
2.3.1. Global context regarding business and biodiversity policy
The UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) was adopted at the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit in 1992. It committed governments to the development of national strategies for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity. The European Union is one of the 191 signatory parties to the CBD.
In 2005, two multi-stakeholder meetings, organized by the CBD Secretariat and others, examined ways to strengthen business engagement in the implementation of the CBD. This emerging consensus to engage business in the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity is reflected in the Decisions of the CBD. Decision VIII/17 was the first decision by the Conference of the Parties focusing exclusively on business and was adopted at its eighth meeting in Curitiba, Brazil, in March 2006. It covers the engagement of Parties with the business community when developing and implementing national biodiversity strategies and action plans; the participation of business in Convention processes; the compilation, dissemination and strengthening of the ‘business case’ for biodiversity; and the compilation and development of good biodiversity practice.1
2.3.2. European biodiversity policy
At the Gothenburg Summit in 2001, EU leaders adopted the 6th Environmental Action Programme. This programme sets the objective to ‘halt the loss of biodiversity by 2010’. This very ambitious goal surpassed the one set by world leaders in 2002 to ‘achieve a significant reduction in the current rate of biodiversity loss by 2010’.
This 6th Environmental Action Programme was an addition to the Lisbon Strategy, which is an action and development plan for the European Union between 2000 and 2010. Its aim is to make the EU ‘the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion’ by 2010. The main fields are economic, social, and environmental renewal and sustainability. EU leaders decided to add the environmental dimension commenting that ‘failure to reverse trends that threaten future quality of life will steeply increase the costs of society or make those trends irreversible’.
1 During the CBD COP10 (Nagoya, October 2010) the Decision on Business Engagement was adopted: http://www.cbd.int/nagoya/outcomes/ 6 Within the initial years after the adoption of the 6th Environmental Action Programme it became clear to policy makers and stakeholders within different sectors that a major shift in thinking on the role of business in biodiversity was needed in order to reach the goals set for 2010. In response to CBD Decision VIII/17 on private sector engagement, the European Initiative on Business and Biodiversity was developed. The initiative was developed in a multi-stakeholder consultation process which involved EU, governmental, business and NGO representatives. It underlines that businesses have a crucial role in biodiversity conservation and seeks strong commitment from the business sector.
The initiative was concluded at the High-Level Conference on Business and Biodiversity which was held in Lisbon, Portugal, in November 2007. At this meeting the ‘Message from Lisbon’ was issued, stating that ‘…there is a strong business case for biodiversity, including the competitive advantage gained from conserving biodiversity and using biological resources in a sustainable way, and recognizing that competitive markets also have an enormous potential to mobilize private resources and stimulate innovation’.
The Business @ Biodiversity Platform is one of the technical facilities being developed to facilitate the process following the Message from Lisbon to involve businesses in biodiversity conservation.
Natura 2000
Natura 2000 is the centrepiece of EU nature and biodiversity policy. It establishes an EU-wide network of protected areas under the Habitats Directive aimed at ensuring the long term survival of Europe’s most valuable and threatened species and habitats as designated under the 1992 Habitats Directive and the 1979 Birds Directive. Natura 2000 includes:
• The Special Areas of Conservation (SAC)2 designated by Member States under the Habitats Directive upon the Sites of Community Importance (SCI) status. • The Special Protection Areas (SPAs)2 designated by Member States under the Birds Directive.
Over the last 25 years, a network of 26,000 sites has been set up in all the Member States. This network covers over than 850.000 km2, representing 18% of the EU-27 land area.
Information on progress regarding the establishment of the Natura 2000 network is given by the Natura 2000 Barometer.
The map of Natura 2000 sites can be viewed at: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/distribution-of-natura-2000-sites-across-eu- member-states-1
The Birds Directive
The Birds Directive3, adopted in 1979, relates to the conservation of wild birds and ensures protection for all of Europe’s wild birds, including 194 species and sub-species identified among EU-27 Member States as particularly threatened and in need of special conservation measures. While aiming at ensuring species survival over the long term, this should consider ecological, scientific and cultural requirements as well as economic and recreational requirements (Article 2). This Directive requires:
• Member States to designate Special Protection Areas (SPAs)4 for 194 particularly threatened species and all migratory bird species.
2 SAC aim to maintain and restore the habitats and species at a favourable conservation status. 3 Directive 2009/147/EC 4 SPAs are scientifically identified areas critical for the survival of the targeted species, such as wetlands. They are part of the Natura 2000 ecological network set up under the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC. 7 • Member States to ban activities that directly threaten birds, including the deliberate killing or capture of birds, the destruction of their nests and taking of their eggs, and associated activities such as trading in live or dead birds (with a few exceptions). • The establishment of rules that limit the number of bird species that can be hunted (82 species and sub-species) and the periods during which they can be hunted. It also defines hunting methods which are permitted (e.g. non-selective hunting is banned).
More information on the Birds Directive can be found at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/birdsdirective/index_en.htm
The Habitats Directive
The Habitats Directive5 was adopted in 1992. This Directive is meant to promote the maintenance of biodiversity including economic, social, cultural and regional requirements. The Directive includes about 450 species of animals and 500 species of plants, which are considered as rare, threatened or endemic. 230 habitat types, which are considered as in danger of disappearing, are also targeted for conservation in their own right.
The Directive provides rules banning the downgrading of breeding and resting places for certain strictly protected animal species, with some exceptions granted under very specific conditions. The Directive also sets the Natura 2000 network of protected areas, providing a high level of safeguards against potentially damaging developments.
More information on the Habitats Directive can be found at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/habitatsdirective/index_en.htm
What still needs to be done in Natura 2000 sites?
Some of the main areas still in development are:
• Completion of the selection of sites in particular in the offshore marine environment. • Ensuring appropriate legal protection and management of the sites, e.g. through the establishment and implementation of management plans containing the conservation objectives and measures. • Improving financial sustainability for Natura site managers, e.g. through improved public, private and innovative funding mechanisms. • Improving stakeholder participation and general communication and public awareness about the importance and benefits of Natura 2000.
What are business opportunities and constraints within the Natura 2000 network?
Human activities are not excluded from Natura 2000 areas. The Natura 2000 network includes nature reserves; however, most of its areas continue to be privately owned with the assurance that these lands are sustainably managed both ecologically and economically. Increasing the focus on sustainable site management is recognized to ensure long-term conservation.
Investment opportunities promoting sustainable use of sites and access for visitors are extremely important in achieving the role of the Natura 2000 network to contribute to local economic development.
SMEs operating nature-based activities are well settled within the Natura 2000 network. Hence, the network provides obvious opportunities for “pro-biodiversity businesses”. Indeed, many of them directly depend on biodiversity. Moreover, many Natura 2000 sites, thanks to their Natura 2000 status, attract visitors and funding for specific types of activities.
5 Directive 92/43/EEC 8 Natura 2000 has different implications depending on the sector. Some opportunities can be highlighted for each sector; however, the legislation also presents constraints. Article 6 (Managing and protecting Natura 2000 sites) of the Habitats Directive includes some general constraints, including6: “Paragraphs 6(1) and 6(2) require that, within Natura 2000, Member States:
• Take appropriate conservation measures to maintain and restore the habitats and species for which the site has been designated to a favourable conservation status. • Avoid damaging activities that could significantly disturb these species or deteriorate the habitats of the protected species or habitat types.
Paragraphs 6(3) and 6(4) lay down the procedure to be followed when planning new developments that might affect a Natura 2000 site. Thus:
• Any plan or project likely to have a significant effect on a Natura 2000, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, shall undergo an Appropriate Assessment to determine its implications for the site. The competent authorities can only agree to the plan or project after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned (Article 6.3). • In exceptional circumstances, a plan or project may still be allowed to go ahead, in spite of a negative assessment, provided there are no alternative solutions and the plan or project is considered to be of overriding public interest. In such cases the Member State must take appropriate compensatory measures to ensure that the overall coherence of the N2000 Network is protected. (Article 6.4)”.
Agriculture and food supply
Almost 50% of the EU-27 territory is covered by farmland, including arable land and permanent grassland. Therefore, agriculture plays a key role in land management and holds an important responsibility in natural resources and biodiversity conservation. Most of the European landscapes and countryside have been structured by agricultural activities. Hence, the resulting habitats depend on the continuation of biodiversity-friendly land management methods.
A large proportion of the Natura 2000 network is under farmland. In many cases, this farmland consists of semi-natural habitat types listed in Annex I of the Habitats Directive (e.g. hay meadows and various sorts of land used for grazing).
Opportunities for agricultural and food supply activities within the Natura 2000 network can be underlined, such as the priority given by many Member States to Natura 2000 sites by co- financing agri-environmental measures. Certain projects under the Life-Nature programme have determined agricultural practices that contribute to maintain or enhance sites in terms of habitats or species7.
Moreover, coexisting agriculture land and Natura 2000 sites present advantages such as8:
• Sites are exploited in a sustainable way which is more suitable for the land. Moreover, the continuous human presence often implies fewer costs than outsourcing land management to an external body. • Farmers get incomes for the environmental services they provide in a transparent way, well-accepted by their fellow citizens. • EU regions presenting the greatest biodiversity are generally farmed the least intensively, and therefore receive preferential EU support.
6 Source : http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/guidance_en.htm 7 Source: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/envir/report/en/n2000_en/report_en.htm 8 Source: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/envir/report/en/n2000_en/report_en.htm 9 • Related activities become more attractive, including selling products (meat, cheese, wines etc.) labelled as coming from Natura 2000 sites, promotion of rural tourism linked to biodiversity, etc.
Read more about Natura 2000 Farming Best Practice at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/gp/farming_intro.html
The goal of halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010 was not achieved. Hence, new and improved policy steps need to be developed to take forward the efforts in the coming years. Biodiversity conservation and the financial and business sector involvement must now be integrated into new long-term economic strategies for Europe. In September 2010 the Belgian presidency hosted the conference ‘Biodiversity after 2010 – biodiversity in a changing world’. The European policy message for the 10th Conference of the Parties to the Con6vention on Biological Diversity in October 2010, Nagoya, Japan was developed during this event.
2.3.3. Other international convention and initiatives
As stated before, the food supply sector involves a multiplicity of actors and the entire value chain has to face biodiversity issues. Policy and legislation listed in this document refer to all these different actors.
Ecosystem related treaties and conventions
RAMSAR
Ramsar is an intergovernmental treaty providing the framework for national action and international cooperation for the conservation and wise use (“the maintenance of their ecological character, achieved through the implementation of ecosystem approaches, within the context of sustainable development”) of wetlands and their resources. It overlaps with the Habitats directive. It is the only global environmental treaty dealing with a particular ecosystem, and the Convention’s member countries cover all geographic regions of the Planet. The Ramsar Convention sponsors and hosts a number of wetland-related programmes and activities directed to the Ramsar and wetland community and to the general public.
Endangered species related treaties and conventions
CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species)
CITES is the common name for the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, established in 1973, which regulates international trade in threatened species and products derived from them. Trade in wildlife and wildlife products can put severe pressure on some species of animals and plants, and, linked with other factors such as habitat loss, can bring some species close to extinction.
CITES currently provides protection to more than 30,000 species of animals and plants, whether they are traded as live specimens or used to make other products. The treaty includes three levels of protection, which are listed in three appendices to the treaty:
• Appendix I lists species threatened with extinction. Trade in specimens of these species is permitted only in exceptional circumstances. • Appendix II includes species not necessarily threatened with extinction, but in which trade must be controlled in order to avoid use incompatible with their survival. • Appendix III includes species that are protected in at least one country, which has asked other countries for assistance in controlling the trade.
Each country adopts its own domestic legislation to ensure that CITES is implemented at the national level. There is some variation as to the requirements from one country to another, and it
10 is always necessary to check national laws, which may have stricter requirements than those of the convention. The EU CITES regulations are implemented directly in the Member States.
The IUCN Red List
The IUCN Red List of Threatened SpeciesTM, which is the world's most comprehensive and scientifically based inventory of the global conservation status of plant and animal species, evaluates the extinction risk of thousands of species and subspecies in all regions of the world. The Red List includes three main categories of threatened species:
• Critically Endangered Species are those that face an extremely high risk of extinction in the immediate future, because the population has declined by 80 percent or more over the last 10 years, is confined to a very small area of habitat, or has fewer than 250 mature individuals. The Javan rhino is one example. • Endangered Species are those facing a very high risk of extinction in the near future, because the population has declined by 50 percent or more over the last 10 years, is confined to an area of less than 5,000 square kilometres of fragmented habitat, or has fewer than 2,500 mature individuals. Examples include the cheetah, tiger and African wild dog. • Vulnerable Species are those that face a high risk of extinction in the medium-term, because the population has declined by 30 percent or more over the last 10 years, is confined to an area of less than 20,000 square kilometres of fragmented habitat, or has less than 10,000 mature individuals. Vulnerable species include the Komodo dragon, India bison, humphead and rainbow parrotfish, seahorses, giant clam, great white shark, polar bear, African lion and elephant, hippopotamus, and rockhopper penguin. Many parrots, amphibians, bats and eagles are also listed as vulnerable, as are several trees, including the shea butter, sandalwood, red cedar and Brazil nut trees.
Since its establishment in 1963, the number of species covered by the Red List is increasing continuously: by 1988, it covered all bird species, and by 1996 all mammals were included. By 2007, 41,415 species worldwide had been assessed. The Red List is compiled by IUCN’s Species Programme using data from the Species Survival Commission and other partners. It produces the Red List in cooperation with BirdLife International, the Zoological Society of London, Conservation International and Nature Serve. While the IUCN Red List is a global assessment, a number of countries have also developed their own national and regional red lists for plants and animals.
The Common Fisheries Policy
The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) is the European Union's instrument for fisheries and aquaculture management. The first common measures in the fishing sector date from 1970, when it was agreed that, in principle, EU fishermen should have equal access to Member States' waters.
The Common Fisheries Policy was reformed in 2002 to ensure sustainable exploitation of living aquatic resources. The reform introduced a precautionary approach to protect and conserve living aquatic resources, and to minimize the impact of fishing activities on marine eco-systems. The reform aimed to contribute to efficient fishing activities within an economically viable and competitive fisheries and aquaculture industry, providing a fair standard of living for those who depend on fishing activities and taking into account consumers’ interests.
The CFP sets quotas for the amount of each species that can be caught. Each country is given a quota based upon the total available and their traditional share of the catch (Total Allowable Catch, TAC). TACs are fixed annually by the council of ministers in December. They consider proposals drawn up by the European Commission in consultation with its own scientific advisers (Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee of Fisheries STECF), the views of non EU fishing nations and those of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES).
11
Labels
The following labels concern the food products and integrate among other criteria the promotion of biodiversity conservation. They also help to improve traceability as regards product sourcing.
• EU organic product label indicates that the product has been grown within sustainable cultivation systems. • The Fairtrade Mark carried by a product means the producers and traders have met fair trade standards. The standards are designed to address the imbalance of power in trading relationships, unstable markets and the injustices of conventional trade. • FSC (Forest Stewardship Council) promotes the responsible management of the world’s forests, for example for packaging raw material. • MSC (Marine Stewardship Council) encourages sustainable fishing and seafood traceability. • RSPO (Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil) promotes the growth and use of sustainable palm oil. • RTRS (Round Table on Responsible Soy Association) promotes responsible soy production.
Packaging and waste directive
The EU first introduced measures on the management of packaging waste in the early 1980s. Directive 85/339/EEC covered the packaging of liquid beverage containers intended for human consumption only but it was too vague to bring about the effective harmonization of national policies.
In 1992, the Commission came forward with a Proposal for a Council Directive on Packaging and Packaging Waste which led to the adoption of Directive 94/62/EC.
This Directive aims to harmonize national measures in order to prevent or reduce the impact of packaging and packaging waste on the environment and to ensure the functioning of the Internal Market. It contains provisions on the prevention of packaging waste, on the re-use of packaging and on the recovery and recycling of packaging waste.
In 2004, the Directive was reviewed to provide criteria clarifying the definition of the term 'packaging' and increase the targets for recovery and recycling of packaging waste. In 2005, the Directive was revised again to allow new Member States transitional periods for attaining the recovery and recycling targets.
2.3.4. Local biodiversity action plan
At the national, regional or local level conservation organizations and partnerships are encouraged to conserve and enhance biodiversity through drawing up and implementing Biodiversity Action Plans (BAPs). Each plan sets out a series of actions which need to be taken to ensure that the decline of a species is stopped and its situation improved within a number of years.
2.4. Main stakeholders
The environmental performance of the food industry sector has to be managed by different actors, ranging from farmers to manufacturers, packaging producers, retailers, governments, federations and civil society. New partnerships must thus be created and their assignment will be to develop the design and implementation of sustainable consumption and production in order to ensure concrete and continuous improvement regarding biodiversity protection.
12 Main European or international organizations/federations (non-exhaustive list)
CIAA
The Confederation of the Food and Drink Industries of the EU’s mission is to represent the food and drink industry’s interests at both European and international levels. Moreover, CIAA contributes to the development of a legislative and economic framework addressing competitiveness, food quality and safety, consumer information and respect for the environment. http://www.ciaa.be/asp/index.asp
COPA-COGECA
Copa is the Committee of Professional Agricultural Organizations in the European Union, which represents the European farmers while bringing together 60 EU farmers’ organizations.
Cogeca is the General Confederation of Agricultural Cooperatives in the European Union, which represents European agri-cooperatives while bringing together 35 EU agricultural cooperative organizations. http://www.copa-cogeca.be/
EUROCOMMERCE
EUROCOMMERCE represents the retail, wholesale and international trade sectors in Europe. Its membership includes commerce federations, European and national associations representing specific commerce sectors and individual companies. http://www.eurocommerce.be/
EUROPEAN FOOD SUSTAINABLE CONSUMPTION AND PRODUCTION ROUND TABLE
The European Food SCP Round Table is an initiative co-chaired by the European Commission and food supply chain partners, supported by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) and the European Environment Agency. The European Food SCP Round Table’s vision is to promote a science-based, coherent approach to sustainable consumption and production in the food sector across Europe, while taking into account environmental interactions at all stages of the food supply chain. The Round Table comprises 24 member organizations representing the European food supply chain. Participation is also open to consumer representative organizations and environmental or nature conservation NGOs. http://www.food-scp.eu/
EUROPEAN RETAIL ROUND TABLE (ERRT)
The ERRT is a network of business leaders established to express large retailers’ views on a range of issues of common interest. Their businesses operate worldwide and represent a cross- section of the retail sector. The ERRT’s mission is to promote active retail engagement in a range of important EU issues, such as energy efficiency, sustainable consumption, healthy diets, effective consumer information, recycling and waste management, etc. Its aim is also to provide a bridge of communication between leading retailers and top European policy makers. http://www.errt.org/
EUROPEN
The European Organization for Packaging and the Environment (EUROPEN) is an industry and trade organization that presents the opinion of its members on topics related to packaging and the environment. Members of EUROPEN are identified as companies which support a united trade and industry organization, dedicated to satisfactorily resolving the environmental challenges facing the packaging chain in an active and co-operative manner without favouring any specific packaging material or system. http://www.europen.be/
13 EUROCOOP and BEUC
EUROCOOP is the European community of consumer cooperatives. Its members are the national organizations of consumer cooperatives in 17 European countries. Founded in 1957, EUROCOOP, as the first consumer organization in Europe, has made its expertise available to the European institutions for the promotion of consumer interests. It has developed close and privileged relations with, in particular, the European Commission, the European Parliament and the European Economic and Social Committee. http://www.eurocoop.org/home/en/default.asp
BEUC, the European Consumers' Organisation has a membership of 43 well respected, independent national consumer organizations from 31 European countries (EU, EEA and applicant countries). BEUC acts as the umbrella group in Brussels for these organizations and its main tasks are to represent their members and defend the interests of all of Europe's consumers. http://www.beuc.org/Content/Default.asp
FAO
The Food and Agricultural Organization of United Nations (FAO) Department is helping countries achieve sustainable gains in agriculture to feed a growing world population, while respecting the natural environment, protecting public health and promoting social equity. The department helps farmers to diversify food production, reduce the drudgery of farming, market their products and conserve natural resources. www.fao.org/
FLO
The Fairtrade Labeling Organizations International (FLO) represents 24 organizations working to secure a better deal for producers. FLO owns the FAIRTRADE Mark - the product label that certifies international fair-trade standards have been met. Environment preservation is part of these standards. http://www.fairtrade.net/
FSC
FSC is an independent, non-governmental, not-for-profit organization established to promote the responsible management of the world’s forests. Established in 1993 as a response to concerns over global deforestation, FSC is widely regarded as one of the most important initiatives of the last decade to promote responsible forest management worldwide. The FSC label provides a link between responsible production and consumption of forest products, enabling consumers and businesses to make purchasing decisions that benefit people and the environment as well as providing ongoing business value. FSC is nationally represented in more than 50 countries around the world. http://www.fsc.org/
GLOBALG.A.P
GLOBALG.A.P is a private sector body that sets voluntary standards for the certification of production processes of agricultural (including aquaculture) products around the globe. The GLOBALG.A.P standard is primarily designed to reassure consumers about how food is produced on the farm by minimizing detrimental environmental impacts of farming operations, reducing the use of chemical inputs and ensuring a responsible approach to worker health and safety as well as animal welfare. GLOBALG.A.P serves as a practical manual for Good Agricultural Practice (G.A.P.) anywhere in the world. The basis is an equal partnership of agricultural producers and retailers who wish to establish efficient certification standards and procedures. http://www.globalgap.org/
14 ISEAL (not specific to the food supply sector)
The ISEAL Alliance is the global association for social and environmental standards for all sectors. Working with established and emerging voluntary standard systems, ISEAL develops guidance and helps strengthen the effectiveness and impact of these standards. ISEAL also works with companies, non-profits and governments to support their referencing and use of voluntary standards. The ISEAL code brings a high degree of credibility to the standard setting of organizations such as FLO. The ISEAL Code of Good Practice is the international normative reference for good standard setting practices. http://www.isealalliance.org/
Marine Stewardship Council
The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) develops experts’ standards for sustainable fishing and seafood traceability. They ensure that MSC-labelled seafood comes from, and can be traced back to, a sustainable fishery. http://www.msc.org/
The European Livestock and Meat Trading Union (UECBV)
UECBV, founded in 1952, is the mouthpiece of national federations representing livestock markets and traders (cattle, horses, sheep, pigs), meat industry (slaughterhouses, cutting plants and meat preparation plants) and meat traders (beef, horsemeat, sheep meat, pig meat). It represents forty-seven national or regional federations in the twenty-seven Member States of the European Union and also in Croatia, Norway, Russia, Serbia, Switzerland, and Turkey. Through the national federations, UECBV is representing around 20,000 trading and industrial companies at EU level. Most of them are SMEs. Members of the joint UECBV-CLITRAVI Taskforce on climate change issues committed to take up the climate change and sustainability challenges by promoting a modern and efficient livestock-meat production and processing, making use of the best available practices and technologies in order to green their activities. http://www.uecbv.eu/en/index.phpv
UTZ Certified
UTZ CERTIFIED is an independent not-for-profit organization developing and implementing worldwide certification standards and traceability systems for professional, socially and environmentally responsible coffee, cocoa, palm oil and tea production and sourcing. Independent certifiers conduct annual inspections to ensure producers comply with the UZT CERTIFIED Code of Conduct. In October 2007 the Good Inside Cocoa Program was launched in cooperation with Cargill, Heinz Benelux, Mars, Nestlé, Ahold and ECOM. http://www.utzcertified.org/
World Cocoa Foundation (WCF)
World Cocoa Foundation (WCF) was formed in 2000 to promote economic and social development as well as environmental conservation in cocoa growing communities. Today, it plays a leading role in developing and managing effective, on-the-ground programmes, raising funds, and acting as a forum for discussion on the cocoa farming sector’s needs. The WCF comprises nearly 60 member companies, including Ferrero, Kraft, Nestlé and Cargill. http://www.worldcocoafoundation.org/
RSPO (Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil)
RSPO is a global stakeholder initiative created in 2004 to promote the growth and use of sustainable palm oil. Participants include growers, processors, traders, retailers, banks, NGOs and manufacturers, such as Nestlé, Unilever, Carrefour, Cadbury Schweppes, Ferrero and Heinz. Its work is focused on the Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Palm Oil Production that a company has to enforce to be certified. The certification assures the transparency and traceability of RSPO palm oil all along the supply chain (grower, processor, etc). 15 www.rspo.org/
RTRS (Round Table on Responsible Soy Association)
The Round Table on Responsible Soy is the global platform composed of the main soy value chain stakeholders who share the objective of promoting responsible soy production through collaboration and dialogue among the involved sectors, in order to foster economic, social and environmental sustainability. http://www.responsiblesoy.org/
Sustainable Agriculture Initiative (SAI)
SAI Platform is an organization created by the food industry to communicate worldwide and to actively support the development of sustainable agriculture involving the different stakeholders of the food chain. SAI Platform supports agricultural practices and agricultural production systems that preserve the future availability of current resources and enhance their efficiency. This increases agriculture's contribution to the optimal satisfaction of society's environmental, economic and social requirements. http://www.saiplatform.org/
Trade Union / Farmers Union
The Trade Union and the Farmers Union correspond to national or international confederations respectively representing employees in private sector enterprises or farmers. These organizations can provide an interesting support for SMEs with regard to biodiversity issues and best practice implementation.
World Business Council for Sustainable Development
The World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) is a CEO-led, global association of some 200 companies dealing exclusively with business and sustainable development. The Council provides a platform for companies to explore sustainable development, share knowledge, experiences and best practices, and to advocate business positions on these issues in a variety of forums, working with governments, non-governmental and intergovernmental organizations. In 2008, the WBCSD along with the World Resources Institute and Meridian Institute developed the Corporate Ecosystem Services Review (ESR) to help companies better manage the risks and opportunities linked to their dependence and impacts on ecosystems. http://www.wbcsd.org/templates/TemplateWBCSD5/layout.asp?MenuID=1
Food and retail industries participating in the EU B@B Platform9
CARREFOUR
Carrefour has been making efforts to protect biodiversity and natural resources for the past 15 years. The Group considers this a part of its civic duties and important to the sustainability of its activities. Carrefour has thus instituted a policy of responsible fishing aimed at achieving greater sustainability for sea products, fighting against illegal fishing, and raising awareness of Carrefour employees and consumers.
Carrefour is also committed to preventing deforestation and has been involved, since 1997, in initiatives aimed at controlling the sourcing of wood. Since 1998, Carrefour has been working with the WWF to promote Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certified species.
The Group also aims to promote palm oil production which respects and protects both people and the environment. The Group became a member of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) in 2006. In 2009, the first RSPO-certified palm oil was released on the market and
9 A list from September 2010. 16 Carrefour committed to use this certified oil in all own-brand products throughout the world by 2015.
CORTICEIRA AMORIM
CORTICEIRA AMORIM transforms a natural raw material, extracted cyclically from the trees without harming them, promotes the economic and social sustainability of areas at risk of desertification, makes available high value added products that maintain the intrinsic characteristics of cork, in an integrated transformation process that practically does not produce waste. The Group has regulated its activity by adopting and strengthening sustainable development practices.
FINDUS
Findus France aims at being the first company in the world having 100% of its fish products MSC certified and coming from a sustainable and environmentally-friendly supply by 2012. As a leader of sea products and the frozen-food market, Findus France has already been involved in a policy of halieutic resource preservation for several years. It has established a charter of principles which considers the legal aspects and fishery management assessment according to ecosystems criteria. Today, 35% of the French MSC products available on the market are Findus products. Findus France is the world’s first buyer of MSC certified products. The consumer demand in France supports this commitment since 40% of them choose to purchase fish from a sustainable supply source.
For more information read (only in French): http://www.findus.fr/doc/CP%20Peche%20Responsable%2027.04.10.pdf
LECLERC
The Leclerc Group is a retailer that takes into account its responsibility with regards to sustainability. Its development integrates sustainability principles, treating the individual with respect and protecting the environment. The company’s first innovative involvement in environmental protection was in 1996, with the removal of disposable bags and the introduction of reusable, exchangeable and recyclable bags. The company has developed a progressive and pragmatic approach to reduce its impact on the environment, involving all stakeholders, from suppliers to customers. Some of the Group’s main actions related to biodiversity include: the “Clean up Nature” initiative consisting of annual clean-up operations by children and environment protection groups, the "Environmental Progress Contract" aimed at supporting suppliers of brand marks to reduce their environmental impact, a partnership with the Tropical Forest Trust to progressively sell only FSC wood products, and the adoption of an action plan to reduce the company’s impact on forests.
NESTLE
Nestlé’s Corporate Business Principles include commitments to environmental sustainability. Nestlé applies a life cycle approach to assess the impacts of its activities and strives to continuously improve its operational efficiency and environmental performance. Nestlé has been implementing projects to reduce the company’s use of non-renewable energy and other natural resources, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, to eliminate waste and to improve the environmental performance of its packaging.
Nestlé has adopted rigorous standards to reduce water consumption in its plants and facilities and invests in helping farmers become better stewards of water. For example, to prevent any long-term impact of nitrate contamination caused by agricultural intensification around the Vittel and Contrex sources in the Vosges region of eastern France, Nestlé Waters established in 1992 an agricultural advisory firm, Agrivair, to assist farmers in improving their agricultural practices; e.g. through crop rotation, pesticide elimination and the composting of all animal waste. This is achieved by closely supporting local farmers with targeted grants, research and technical assistance. 17 SOFIPROTEOL
Sofiprotéol is the financial and industrial actor of the French vegetable oil and protein sector. Thanks to the production of various types of oil and protein, Sofiprotéol can act towards biodiversity conservation through crop rotation and crop diversification within a field. It thus helps preserve soil quality by restoring elements such as nitrogen, potassium, organic matter, etc., and by reducing soil erosion. In addition, the introduction of new crops allows wildlife to house and feed throughout the year. The company pays attention to all these factors thus fighting against biodiversity depletion.
UNILEVER
In 1996, Unilever co-founded the Marine Stewardship Council with WWF, and produced its first sustainability report containing eco-efficiency indicators. By 2009-10, in addition to reducing the environmental impacts of its manufacturing operations for its three key performance indicators (of CO2 from energy, water use and total waste), the company had a range of supply chain and sustainable sourcing programmes underway, many of which have an indirect or direct influence on biodiversity. These include commitments to source its major raw materials (oil palm and tea) to high-level sustainability standards endorsed by RSPO (which Unilever also co-founded) and Rainforest Alliance. Both of these standards have critical criteria linked to biodiversity and conservation. For other raw materials, Unilever has developed an in-house Sustainable Agriculture Code for which biodiversity is one of the 11 key “indicators” covered by the system. In 2010 Unilever was named food industry sector leader in the Dow Jones Sustainability World Indexes for the 12th year running – the only company ever to have achieved this.
3. Classification and evaluation of available best practices
3.1. Common approach and key steps of biodiversity integration in business
Economic activity is one of the major drivers of biodiversity loss and Europe is still losing biodiversity at an alarming rate. Key direct drivers of biodiversity decline are habitat change, climate change, invasive species, over-exploitation and pollution. Business can help reduce these pressures by managing and mitigating their impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services. They should systematically review their operations in relation to biodiversity and ecosystem services (BES) and assess how direct and indirect drivers of change in ecosystem services may affect their business10.
Practically all businesses have an impact on biodiversity, either through their supply chains or the investments they make. The EU Business @ Biodiversity Platform therefore promotes the practical integration of biodiversity issues in the selected priority sectors and addresses the market-based approach to conservation and viable use of biodiversity and its ecosystem services. The links between business, biodiversity and ecosystem services vary across sectors and even within sectors. These links depend on the location of the business, the source of its raw materials, in some cases the location of its customers, and/or the production technology employed. Broadly, these links can be grouped into business impacts on biodiversity, on the one hand and business dependence on ecosystem services on the other hand. 1
3.1.1. The business case for biodiversity and ecosystems
Biodiversity business is defined as: “Commercial enterprise that generates profits through production processes which conserve biodiversity, use biological resources sustainably and share the benefits arising out of this use equitably.”11
10 TEEB – The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity Report for Business, 2010 11 Bishop, J., Kapila, S., Hicks, F., Mitchell, P. and Vorhies, F. (2008). Building Biodiversity Business. Shell International Limited and the International Union for Conservation of Nature: London, UK, and Gland, Switzerland 18 This definition reflects the three over-arching goals of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which also calls for increased efforts to enlist the private sector in biodiversity conservation, sustainable use and equitable benefit sharing. In both the environmental and business communities, there is growing recognition of the potential to conserve biodiversity on a commercial basis.
The business case for biodiversity is easy to make when a firm depends directly on biodiversity to operate. For businesses that do not directly and apparently depend on ecosystem services, the emphasis needs to be on how biodiversity and ecosystem services (BES) indirectly impact their core business.
3.1.2. The key action points for business
The business case for biodiversity and ecosystems is getting stronger. The companies that understand and manage the risks presented by biodiversity loss and ecosystem decline, and that move quickly to seize business opportunities, are more likely to thrive.
According to TEEB’s recommendations1, business can show leadership on biodiversity and ecosystems:
1. Identify the impacts and dependencies of your business on biodiversity and ecosystem services (BES). The first step is to assess business impacts and dependencies on biodiversity and ecosystems, including both direct and indirect linkages throughout the value chain, using existing tools while also helping to improve them. 2. Assess the business risks and opportunities associated with these impacts and dependencies. Based on this assessment, companies can identify the business risks and opportunities associated with their impacts and dependencies on BES, and educate their employees, owners, suppliers and customers. Economic valuation of BES impacts and dependencies can help to clarify risks and opportunities. 3. Develop BES information systems, set SMART targets, measure and value performance, and report on your results. Biodiversity and ecosystem strategies for business are likely to include improved corporate information system, development of quantitative BES targets and performance indicators, and their integration into wider business risk and opportunity management processes. A key step for building trust with external stakeholders, while creating peer pressure within industry, is for business to measure and report their BES impacts, actions and outcomes. 4. Take action to avoid, minimize and mitigate BES risks, including in-kind compensation (‘offsets’) where feasible. BES targets may build on the concepts of ‘No Net Loss’, ‘Ecological Neutrality’ or ‘Net Positive Impact’ and include support for biodiversity offsets where appropriate. Industry associations will continue to play a key role in developing and promoting robust and effective biodiversity performance standards and impact mitigation guidelines for their members. 5. Grasp emerging BES business opportunities, such as cost-efficiencies, new products and new markets. Business can support the growth of green markets and help design efficient enabling conditions for biodiversity and ecosystem service markets. Such opportunities may be facilitated by engaging with public agencies, accountancy and financial standard setting bodies, conservation organizations and communities. 6. Integrate business strategy and actions on BES with wider corporate social responsibility initiatives. There is potential to enhance both biodiversity status and human livelihoods, and help reduce global poverty, through the integration of BES in corporate sustainability and community engagement strategies. 7. Engage with business peers and stakeholders in government, NGOs and civil society to improve BES guidance and policy. Business can bring significant capacity to conservation efforts and has a key role to play in halting biodiversity loss. Business needs to participate more actively in public policy discussions to advocate appropriate regulatory reforms, as well as developing complementary voluntary guidelines.
19 3.2. Sector specific approach to implement Business & Biodiversity actions (adaptation of 3.1 to sector specificities)
Considering the large number of products sold and the complexity of the supply chains, it is difficult for companies within this sector to control the management of every natural resource that goes into their products. This is probably one of the reasons why currently no specific best practice guidance has emerged within the food industry sector. The development of best practices is fostered by the type of resource focusing on specific issues. The initial approaches are product-oriented initiatives rather than fully integrated biodiversity protection guidance within the food sector supply chain.
This has led to the publication of social and environmental standards dedicated to the production of a specific food product, such as the one delivered by the Rainforest Alliance or the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil’s (RSPO) Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Palm Oil Production. These standards have not been analyzed within this guide since they are product-specific and only one standard by product exists making a comparison impossible.
Despite the product-oriented approach particular to the food supply sector, the first steps for the integration of biodiversity concerns into food supply businesses are similar to other sectors:
• To define the dependency and impacts of business on ecosystem services. • To identify the risks incurred in case of ecosystem services scarcity and define priority areas for further actions. • To implement the identified best practices related to the defined priority areas into core activities.
3.3. Classification and analysis of existing best practices
3.3.1. Introduction to the analysis grid
The selected best practices are analyzed according to different criteria (e.g. their relevance to the sector, their efficiency recognition, etc.) enabling companies to choose the relevant approach according to their level of progress as regards biodiversity conservation actions. An analysis grid is used to that end and comprises of five main categories.
The first category concerns the “characteristics of the best practice” and gives a quick overview to the reader. A short description is given and answers to the following questions:
• What type of best practice is it (guide, method, assessment tool, certification scheme, etc.)? • What is the diffusion level of this approach? • Who and for whom has it been designed (which sector and users)? • Has this initiative been used by a wide panel of companies? • Is it possible to quantify the results?
The second part “scope” helps the reader to rapidly identify the value chain scope of the approach and at which stage of the project it can be used. It tries to address the following points:
• Is this tool covering only the enterprise of the upstream or downstream value chain? • When to use the tool? Which progress step does it address (definition of strategy, concrete action, impacts assessments, etc.)?
A third part named “benefits” tackles the results obtained:
• Does the tool take into account or analyze:
o The ecological benefits on biodiversity threats (habitat loss and degradation, invasive species, climate change, pollution and overexploitation)? 20 o The financial benefits (cost reduction, reputation and brand value, security of supply, innovation, sales and prices, risk mitigation)? o The social benefits (for employees as well as local communities or other associations and NGOs)?
The part on “success factors” is devoted to the companies which are interested in replicating the approach:
• What level of human and financial resources has to be provided? • Does the tool describe the factors allowing efficiency and success for the approach implementation? • What are the limits of the approach?
The last category concerns the “monitoring and external communication”:
• Are there key performance indicators to assess the actions implemented? • Are the results obtained easily releasable?
3.3.2. Selected best practices
Global best practices
A set of global best practices to facilitate biodiversity integration into business has been developed over the years. Through the following analysis grid, we have classified the selected best practices to help companies navigate and select the most appropriate material for its specific goals and issues.
• The first tool considered is the Natural Value Initiative – an initiative led by UNEP FI and Fauna & Flora International – assessing the dependency on biodiversity and ecosystem services of 31 companies within the Food, Beverage and Tobacco sectors. This initiative has been designed in the primarily for the financial sector (investors and rating agencies). • The second tool assessed is the Corporate Ecosystem Services Review (ESR) - developed by the WBCSD/WRI - which consists of a structured methodology that helps managers proactively develop strategies to manage business risks and opportunities arising from their company’s dependences and impacts on ecosystems. • The third tool is the Business and Biodiversity Interdependence Indicator (BBII) developed in 2006 by Orée12 in the report “Integrating biodiversity into business strategy”. The analysis chart includes about twenty criteria leading to five composite indicators characterizing the interactions between biodiversity and businesses.
Sectoral best practices
As previously stated, the food supply industry is characterized by few publications specific to the sector and its whole chain value and their relationships with biodiversity. The actions implemented to integrate biodiversity into food supply activities are more product-specific and no global guidelines dedicated to the sector have been published yet.
12 Since 1992, the non-profit organization Orée brings companies and local authorities together so as to develop a joint reflection on their environmental impacts and, in particular, on environmental management and its practical implementation at the landscape level. 21 3.3.3. Global best practices analysis
Best practices characteristics
NVI: ESB analysis Corporate Business and Ecosystems Biodiversity Services Review Interdependence (ESR) Indicator (BBII) (Orée) Methodology type Assessment tool Self-assessment Self-assessment tool (guide, assessment tool, tool and method and guide method) Level of approach Sectoral approach Global approach Global approach (sectoral or global) National or international International International National initiative initiative initiative initiative (France) Targeted user Mainly investors Companies Companies (company, investors, other) Creation date Recent initiative, Recent initiative, Recent initiative, 2009 published in 2008 published in 2008 Type of initiative Consortium of WRI (World Orée, FRB (French founders and international Resource Institute), Foundation for contributors organisations WBCSD, Meridian Research on (organization/companies Institute Biodiversity) involved/size) Scope of the initiative / Designed for Method applicable to Designed for all types Replication potential companies with an all types of of companies. The agricultural chain companies. Toolkit indicators can be designed to be applied to semi- replicated: excel finished or finished questionnaire to goods or to companies’ assess the company operations, in case of a dependencies and group or a impacts on multinational company ecosystems Possibility to quantify Yes Yes Yes results/benefits
The NVI approach has been developed to assess food, beverage and tobacco companies and the results aim at being used by investors. The two other methods are global methods, applicable to any type of business. In addition, as the NVI approach is investors oriented, it is more applicable to corporate groups whereas the two other methods are adaptable to any type of business (SMEs and large companies).
The ESR approach is the only one which makes available a ready-to-use tool (report and excel questionnaire) allowing the company to assess its dependences and impacts on ecosystems. External support is also provided through training sessions, community network and consultants. The NVI method is based on a benchmark from public available information (internet, sustainable development reports, etc). Finally the BBII proposes a self-assessment method leading to a unique interdependency indicator based on 23 criteria as well as economic analysis and thoughts from economists and French companies from different sectors on an accounting system taking into account biodiversity.
22
Scope NVI: ESB Corporate Business and Analysis Ecosystems Biodiversity Services Interdependence Review (ESR) Indicator (BBII) (Orée) Value chain Suppliers Yes Yes Yes scope Corporate Customers Covered steps Priority Yes Yes Yes ecosystem services identification Risk and Yes Yes Yes opportunity assessment Strategy No Yes Yes definition Actions No Yes No
The NVI, the ESR and the BBII methods can be used for an assessment of the business dependency on biodiversity and ecosystem services.
While ESR leads companies step by step through the definition and monitoring of their strategy and action plan, the NVI is more a tool for companies to benchmark themselves against their competitors. Finally the BBII gives economic thoughts on integrating enterprise economy into global natural ecosystems and may be less practical to define and implement a strategy at company level. However, this tool proposes a complete monitoring and accounting tool (“bilan biodiversité”) which may lead to a complete reform of the accountability.
Benefits NVI: ESN Corporate Business and Analysis Ecosystems Biodiversity Services Review Interdependence (ESR) Indicator (BBII) (Orée) Ecological n.a. Yes yes services/Threats on biodiversity Financial/Economic Yes Yes Yes benefits Social benefits n.a.
The NVI method does not directly analyze the ecological services threatened by business activities. The NVI approach considers the financial risks and opportunities regarding biodiversity issues rather than the environmental impacts and compares businesses on this basis. Five interdependent categories of performance are the components of the NVI analysis: competitive advantage, governance, policy and strategy, management and implementation, and reporting.
The ESR method considers all impacts on biodiversity, but businesses are encouraged to select priority ecosystem services.
As for the BBII approach, it includes five types of criteria:
23 • Criteria directly related to living systems. • Criteria related to business strategies. • Criteria related to current markets. • Criteria related to compensatory measures. • Criteria related to impacts on biodiversity.
Through these criteria, most of the environmental or financial benefits are covered.
None of these initiatives focuses specifically on social impacts.
Success factors Business and Corporate NVI: ESB Biodiversity Ecosystems Services Analysis Interdependence Review (ESR) Indicator (BBII) (Orée) Financial resources Low Low to high Low to medium needed Human resources Low Medium needed Level of governance Low Medium to high needed Possible economic No information No information No information support (public grants, etc) Limits of the Assessment based 1. The results of the The results of the approach on a benchmark assessment are assessment are not and not on not standardized. standardized. No information from absolute value. companies 2. A risk/opportunity approach is used for selecting priority ecosystem services, thus leading to the potential consideration of only some ecosystem services.
The NVI approach is not initially aimed at realizing a company’s self-assessment. This tool has been designed for investors and no detailed methodology is outlined for companies to conduct a risk and opportunity assessment of themselves.
However, as this method ranks companies regarding biodiversity dependency, it is a relevant benchmarking tool. It also gives important information on the main criteria carefully taken into account by investors and rating agencies.
As for the ESR, a company can easily use this tool and implement it internally (complete and practical method as well as a free excel sheet tool). In addition, if this method is brought to fruition, biodiversity conservation actions would be implemented and concrete results would be obtained. However, this method might need some expert support (internal or external through consultancy to ensure the most efficient outputs for the company). External training might need an important human and financial investment to be implemented within a company.
As the BBII approach is a self-assessment leading to one final score by criterion, the results between different companies may be difficult to compare if not done by the same people because
24 of the potential subjectivity of responses to some criteria (results will depend on the perception and knowledge of the assessor).
Only the NVI approach proposes a final ranking of the best in class businesses and sector average.
4. Case studies of the participants
The following case studies have been presented by members of the EU B@B Platform during the Food Supply workshop held in Brussels in September, 2010.
4.1. Unilever case study
Introduction
• Name of the Company: Unilever. • Name of the Project: Transferring knowledge from farm-based projects to supply chain action.
Objectives
• Aim: Unilever undertook a 10-year journey to understand the practical ways in which farming systems can impact on and improve a wide range of social and environmental outcomes. Biodiversity is one of the 11 “indicators” of sustainability Unilever uses when working with the farms where its raw materials are grown. • Background and rationale: Biodiversity programmes were implemented on a range of “Lead Agriculture Programmes” on Unilever and supplier farms. By understanding the type of actions that could be taken by farmers, with appropriate local advice, Unilever has been able to develop a “Code” and realistic expectations of the types of changes that its suppliers and farmers should be able to make, and the likely consequences. • Expectations - Benefits to biodiversity and the company: Embracing biodiversity issues in Unilever Sustainable Agriculture programme has ensured that biodiversity issues will be considered, and prioritized, as part of Unilever sustainability work with its suppliers. Although programmes involving improving efficiency of resource use, reducing pollution and improving yield, quality or social welfare may have higher priority in the first phase of any sustainability programme for many of Unilever’s suppliers, these are likely to have indirect biodiversity benefits. Furthermore, forward-thinking farmers and suppliers already engage with biodiversity issues, and others will be willing to take action given suitable local advice, support and encouragement.
Partners
• Stakeholders involved: In addition to the farmers and local experts involved in the lead Agriculture programmes, Unilever has been advised by a “Sustainable Agriculture Advisory Board” composed of sustainability experts from the agricultural, academic and NGO worlds.
Outputs
• Achieved benefits for the company and for biodiversity: The Lead Agriculture programmes themselves have demonstrated that important habitats can be conserved and improved on farms, without harming profitability, and with benefits to the local ecology, workforce and local community. • Lessons learned: Now Unilever needs to share its findings within its suppliers community.
25 Recommendations
• Applicability: Where other food businesses source their raw materials from the same farmed landscape as Unilever does, there is greater potential for landscape-scale benefits if Unilever works together with its farmers on sustainable agriculture (including biodiversity issues). Unilever, and other food businesses, also need to learn from the farmers what they are already doing and how to value these actions and support other farmers to engage in similar ways.
4.2. Findus case study
Introduction
• Name of the Company: Findus. • Name of the Project: Fish for Life – Driving sustainable seafood.
Objectives
• As a major seafood producer, Findus has been involved in supplying fish for over 200 years. As such, it is both its duty and its interest to actively support good fisheries management and Findus firmly believes that sustainable practice is the only way to safeguard fish as a key global food resource both now and for future generations. This is why the company has long been actively involved in sustainable fisheries initiatives and why it developed the ‘Fish for Life’ approach. The aim is to purchase only from responsibly managed sources. It also gives consumers’ access to responsibly sourced seafood through its Young’s and Findus brand products. • In applying its ‘Fish for Life’ approach, the Findus Group applies a rigorous assessment process based on ‘Ten Principles for Responsible Fish Procurement’ to its own wild caught fish purchase. These provide measures and indicators to qualify the sourcing approach and help to promote the company’s values throughout the entire supply chain, from boat to plate. • However, the Findus Group also supports independent certification schemes, such as the MSC, as it believes these are a key route to the worldwide application of scientifically- endorsed sustainability standards. • The goal of the Findus Group is to be 100% MSC labelled by 2012 and that all the wild catches would be labelled “fish for life”.
Partners
• The Findus group is actively engaged with fisheries to help them initiate and support projects, policies and actions which make a valid contribution to long term sustainability. • The Findus Group is also actively working with bodies such as the GAA, GlobalGap and WWF in the development of credible standards for a number of farmed species and supports progress towards a consumer facing sustainability label for farmed fish through the establishment of the Aquaculture Stewardship Council.
Outputs
• 92% of Findus Group’s supply fisheries have either already achieved certification or are engaged in the MSC process. • Findus has undertaken work with suppliers in the Eastern Baltic to reduce illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and help implement a recovery plan. This has recently resulted in a marked improvement in the status of the cod stock and is a good demonstration that measures taken by business, based on good scientific knowledge, can achieve positive and substantial change. • Fish for Life has been adopted across the Findus Group. It is widely recognized as one of the leading business improvement programmes of its type and has won a number of
26 awards, most recently (March 2010) being the UK stage winner of the European Business Commitment to the Environment Awards.
Conclusions and Recommendations
• If fisheries fail the FFL health-check, Findus will not quit working with them but will try to make them improve their processes, practices and quality. • The next step for the FFL program is to bring a third party in the system so as to assess the system and test it. • The KPI and targets of the FFL program are difficult to establish since information from the fisheries and on the stocks of fish is hard to obtain and evolves quickly. Work is in progress in order to make some information available to the public domain.
4.3. Carrefour case study
Introduction
• Name of the Company: Carrefour. • Name of the Project: Sustainability self-assessment program for suppliers and biodiversity management.
Objectives
• Since 2002 the department responsible for Environment and the purchase department have been working on biodiversity issues. This subject is integrated in the purchasing policy thanks to a self assessment tool developed in 2005. • This tool is aimed at the suppliers’ self-assessment based on 49 criteria around management, environment and biodiversity, society and economy. • Through this evaluation, suppliers can compare their positions in terms of biodiversity integration and more generally regarding their clients’ requirements.
Partners
• Carrefour suppliers are deeply involved in this assessment since they self-evaluate. • As regards partnership with NGOs, Carrefour has built strong relationships with various NGOs such as WWF on its various actions.
Outputs
• In 2009, 2200 suppliers have been contacted and 1000 of them answered entirely the questionnaire sent by Carrefour. • The suppliers’ action regarding biodiversity conservation is categorized between four stages depending on their progress level. The average rating for biodiversity conservation criteria is 2.31 (4 being the best). For example, rating 2 corresponds to the first consideration of products’ impacts on biodiversity and reference to recognized labels and official documents (Red Lists, CITES), and few actions at local level. Rating 4 corresponds to clear actions on the product lines, active participation in working groups and deployment of local biodiversity conversation program at local level. • Suppliers have a direct access to results and can thus implement action plans to improve their performance.
Conclusions and Recommendations
• This tool is seen as a free consulting tool by suppliers since the best practices can be implemented by other suppliers to improve their performance. The implementation of an award can also help motivate the suppliers. • At this stage, this voluntary approach builds on the client relationship, more so than assessing the performance of the suppliers. 27 4.4. Amorim case study
Introduction
• Name of the Company: Corticeira Amorim, SGPS, S.A. (www.amorim.com). • Name of the Project: Natural Cork: a wine industry’s contribution to sustainability.
Objectives
Objectives of the promotion of an independent life cycle assessment study:
To regain retailer confidence following the stopper campaign fostering plastic and aluminium use as raw material. To differentiate cork as regards product quality and sustainability.
Objectives of the FSC certification of Corticeira Amorim’s products:
To promote the responsible consumption of forest products through Corticeira Amorim’s involvement as regards FSC certification of forest management systems in Portugal.
Objectives of the Green Cork Programme:
To encourage cork stopper recycling in Portugal, France, USA, Italy and South Africa and in the same time help finance conservation programmes.
Objectives of the initiative for the Enhancement of the Value and Sustainability of Cork Oak Forests and Associated Biodiversity:
To increase knowledge by encouraging research projects on enhancing the value and sustainability of cork oak forests and related biodiversity. To disseminate and reward best practices in the management of cork oak forests and associated biodiversity.
Partners
• Partnership within the cork recycling programme in USA with:
o American Airlines o Sodexo o Sole and Spier Wines
• Partnership within the scope of the Business and Biodiversity initiative for the Enhancement of the Value and Sustainability of Cork Oak Forests and Associated Biodiversity:
o Portuguese Government, namely AFN (National Forestry Authority) and ICNB (Institute for the Conservation of Nature & Biodiversity) o Quercus - Associação Nacional de Conservação da Natureza (www.quercus.pt) o WWF Portugal (www.wwf.pt)
Outputs
The promotion of an independent life cycle assessment study has allowed to:
• Highlight the better environmental performance of cork stopper in comparison to aluminium and plastic closures. • Convince the retailer to switch back to cork due to the consideration of its benefits to the environment and biodiversity.
28 The FSC certification of Corticeira Amorim’s products led to:
• Certify the main industrial units in the cork line. By the end of 2009, eleven Corticeira Amorim units had received this certification. • Prevent further degradation of the world’s forests. • A higher awareness amongst key audiences of cork forests’ sustainability credentials, strengthening the role of cork products as key enablers of those credentials.
The Green Cork Programme helps Corticeira Amorim to:
• Recycle more than 20 million cork stoppers and to reincorporate this raw material into the manufacture of other high value added cork products. • Extend the life cycle of cork and prolong the CO2 retention associated with cork products. • Finance part of the “Creating forests, protect biodiversity” project, which will plant only indigenous Portuguese trees such as the cork oak (Quercus Suber).
The initiative for the Enhancement of the Value and Sustainability of Cork Oak Forests and Associated Biodiversity led to:
• The launching of an award for research work in this sector. In two editions of this contest (the first in 2008) a total of 20 projects from different research centres were submitted. • Free technical advisory service for forestry producers provided by Corticeira Amorim for identifying opportunities and adopting best practices in the management of cork oak forests. • The launching in 2009 of a best practices award. Besides rewarding forest owners, it also seeks to promote best practices in the management of cork oak forests.
Recommendations
All these initiatives implemented by Corticeira Amorim helped to regain retailer confidence and to be in accordance with company’s policy regarding environmental impacts reduction.
To achieve the retailer switch-back to cork stopper use, the following process was undertaken:
• Understand the retailer need. • Differentiate Amorim (R&D, Quality, Sustainability, Closure Debate) but also provide added knowledge on the retailer’s product lines. • Reduce their financial costs and their environmental costs. • Engage retailers with joint activities. • Follow up meetings on a regular basis.
5. Gaps and needs: Best practices analysis
The gaps and needs analysis covers use and applications of existing best practices as well as needs for additional guidelines. It has been completed thanks to companies’ participation and according to their perceptions of what is strongly needed. The following expectations were highlighted:
• Presentation of tools by experts and company using them
The presentation of the various tools and methods analyzed in this document raised interest among the participants of the workshop. These methods can indeed be useful for companies to tackle biodiversity issues by giving an overview of a company’s interdependencies with ecosystem services, providing examples for action plans, etc. However, more information on these tools and methods is required to give the companies a better knowledge of them:
29
o Matching tools to a company’s specific situation and targets. o Highlight the tool’s scientific value, the associated requirements (ecological studies, inventory of species, etc), and the results to be expected, etc.
It was thus suggested to organize technical meetings moderated by experts on the tools in order to go deeper into the methodologies and answer all the potential questions of the workshop participants.
Furthermore, feedback from companies that have applied the tools would be complementary to the technical presentation by tackling practical and economical subjects such as:
o Estimation of the resources and time required for implementation. o Overview of the competencies required, internally and externally. o Feedback from companies on the cost and benefit.
• Additional case study presentations and feedback on projects’ implementation
The presentation of case studies is an efficient way to share good practices between the workshop participants and provide them with new ideas. It was thus suggested to feed regularly the EU B@B Platform website with case studies from participants and other companies on their experience in acting for biodiversity, the solutions they chose, the results obtained, etc.
Along with the technical presentations and the feedbacks about the tools and methods, and if generalized, the upload of various case studies can serve as a very useful database for the workshop participants, as well as attracting new companies in the workshop.
• Specific session on monitoring indicators by experts
A specific session on indicators for monitoring actions would be useful for businesses. This session undertaken by scientific experts would provide companies with information on assessment means aiming to communicate obtained results with regard to biodiversity conservation.
• Broadening participation in the platform
The companies participating in the Platform represent key sectoral stakeholders which integrate biodiversity in their core business activities.
During the workshop, the participants mentioned the interest of broadening the panel of stakeholders involved in the food supply sector. The possible participation of NGOs or scientific experts was discussed. This would allow knowledge sharing regarding biodiversity research.
6. Conclusions
In order to address biodiversity issues, the food supply sector should work in close collaboration with other sectors such as agriculture. However, the sector specific constraints should be taken into consideration.
It has also been acknowledged that a global approach (non product-specific) is needed in order to promote best practices.
30 The European Union Business and Biodiversity Platform
The EU Business and Biodiversity Platform is a unique facility within the European Commission's Initiative where businesses can come together to share their experiences and best practices, learn from their peers, and voice their needs and concerns to the European Commission. The Platform aims to strengthen the link between the business sector and biodiversity conservation. The IUCN European Union Representative Office, in partnership with PwC, ECNC and ELO, implements the B@B Platform which is funded by the European Commission. More information at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/biodiversity/business.
IUCN IUCN, International Union for Conservation of Nature, helps the world find pragmatic solutions to our most pressing environment and development challenges. IUCN supports scientific research, manages field projects, and brings governments, NGOs, the UN and companies together to develop policy, laws and best practice. www.iucn.org
PwC The French SBS practice (www.pwc.fr/dd), member of PricewaterhouseCoopers Advisory France and a part of PricewaterhouseCoopers Sustainable Business Solutions (SBS) network (www.pwc.com/sustainability) is dedicated to providing clients with environmental/sustainability advisory services.
ECNC The ECNC, European Centre for Nature Conservation, works for the conservation and sustainable use of Europe’s nature, biodiversity and landscapes, developing partnerships with organizations, institutes and businesses. www.ecnc.org
ELO ELO, European Landowners’ Organization, is committed to promoting a sustainable and prosperous countryside and to increasing awareness relating to environmental and agricultural issues. www.europeanlandowners.org
Contact Shulamit Alony Regional Business and Biodiversity Officer IUCN European Union Representative Office 64 Boulevard Louis Schmidt 1040 Brussels, Belgium Telephone: +32 2 739 0319 Fax: +32 2 732 9499 [email protected]
This Platform is implemented with financial support from the European Commission. The points of view expressed in this document are those of the consultants. They do not represent the official point of view of the Commission.