FROM SUSTAINABLE SUPPLY CHAINS

Beagle sustainable solutions Project, training en communicatie voor duurzame ontwikkeling FROM SUSTAINABLE SUPPLY CHAINS TO SUSTAINABLE LANDSCAPES

Beagle sustainable solutions Project, training en communicatie voor duurzame ontwikkeling FROM SUSTAINABLE SUPPLY CHAINS TO SUSTAINABLE LANDSCAPES Desk study on the usability of supply chain programmes for landscape management Commissioned by The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Department for Environment and Water Executed by Beagle sustainable solutions André Brasser June 2012 1

CONTENT SUMMARY 1. INTRODUCTION 3 2. INCENTIVES FOR LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT IN SUPPLY CHAIN PROGRAMMES 9 3. BEST PRACTICES IN LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT THROUGH SUPPLY CHAIN PROGRAMMES 16 4. LESSONS LEARNED 23 5. RECOMMENDATIONS 26 SOURCES 2

Summary Supply chain programmes provide opportunities for landscape management. The programmes encourage sustainable land practices at the concession or farm level, but their standards include incentives to improve management at the landscape level. To comply with these standards, companies have to meet a series of criteria that deal with land valuation, land-use zoning and land rights. These have a direct impact on landscapes. The main drivers to start working on these issues include impact from NGOs, pressure from investors and financiers, the need to comply with the law and voluntary standards, and to a lesser extent resource scarcity. The greatest potential for landscape-level management lies at the interface between supply chains and governments in producing countries. The issues of set-aside lands, land tenure and land-use governance make national and local governments in producing countries important stakeholders. Roundtables are in need of welldeveloped land use planning and these tiers of government are supposed to produce such plans. However, they lack the capacity to do so and are not members of roundtables or other governing bodies in supply chains. A select group of early movers in supply chain programmes are responding to the challenges of sustainable landscape management. Their motivation is their well-understood self-interest in reducing risks and increasing their position in strategic sourcing areas. They are looking to develop new arrangements and are creating different types of partnerships with stakeholders in producing countries, specifically with local governments and NGOs. A still limited list of best practices is being built up, but these are mainly implemented on a stand-alone basis. Supply chain programs do not proactively take the lead on this issue. Connecting expertise and scaling up investments could bring the support practitioners need. This support should be focused on three main issues - Including governments in producing countries in supply chain programmes and improving their capacity to design and implement appropriate land use legislation - Creating robust biodiversity corridors through set aside land criteria in voluntary standards in line with national land use planning - Finding opportunities for compensation for land owners that are setting aside lands. 3

1. Introduction Landscape degradation and food production risks More and better managed agricultural land is needed to meet the increasing global demand for food, feed, fuel and fibre. But the current trend of continuing land degradation in combination with the increasing competition for land and weak land use governance are threating the functioning of ecosystems at the landscape level, thus putting production systems at risk. The practices promoted by sustainable supply chain programmes are one of the major responses to meet this challenge. The programmes encourage sustainable land use practices at the concession or farm level. They might offer also a suitable way to mitigate the risks of land degradation at the landscape level. Further growth of agricultural production will have considerable implications for land use and natural systems. The FAO predicts that continuing economic growth and further expansion of the world population to around 9 billion by 2050 will result in a 70% increase in demand for food, feed, fuel and fibre. A projected population increase of 27 % and a wealth increase of 83 % by 2030 would imply that the demand for agricultural production would be 50 % higher than today's. Even if agricultural productivity increases at current rates, it would be necessary to expand the global agricultural area by roughly 10% to meet demand (EEA 2010), which amounts to 120 million hectares, mainly in sub-saharan Africa and Latin America (ADB 2010). More production on less land The question that arises is where can this land be found? Land and water constraints are expected to compromise the ability of key agricultural production systems to meet demand (FAO, 2010 ). Furthermore, the global distribution of land and water resources is not advantageous for the countries that need to produce more in the future. The average availability of cultivated land per capita in low-income countries is less than half that in high-income countries, and such cultivated land as there is, is generally less suitable for cropping (FAO 2011). In addition, many agricultural systems are depleting soil fertility, biodiversity and water resources. In many regions there are large gaps between potential and actual crop yields. Every year, an estimated 12 million hectares of agricultural land, which could potentially produce 20 million tonnes of grain, are lost to land degradation, adding to the billions of hectares that are already degraded As the scarcity of land and water resources becomes increasingly apparent, competition between municipal and industrial demands will intensify, and competition between different agricultural commodities will become pervasive. Livestock, staples and non-food crops, including liquid biofuels, will compete for the same lands and water, while urban land use will grow further, all at the expense of natural lands and the carbon stocks they retain. This will result in 4

further habitat loss, greenhouse gas emissions and negative impacts on biodiversity, especially if this expansion occurs in forests, grass-, peat-, and wetlands, or if large monoculture plantations are created. Furthermore, impoverishment of local people and increased food insecurity could become common if unsustainable biofeedstock expansion occurs. Even if direct impacts are minimized, other impacts, which are more difficult to control, may emerge as a result of indirect land-use changes (iluc) (Hennenberg 2010). Rush for land The predicted scarcity of agricultural land leads to increased large-scale land acquisitions. At the global level it is estimated that between 2000 and 2010 an area equivalent to more than eight times the size of the United Kingdom has been subject to large-scale land acquisition (ILC 2012). The more immediate drivers identified by ILC include market demands for food, biofuels, raw materials, and timber. An emerging driver is carbon offset markets, especially forest carbon, which have already prompted large-scale land acquisitions. Specifically, African countries are competing to attract investments and thus have a poor bargaining position, which does not attract rural investments. Due to inadequate legislation, only the local elites benefit from such land deals. These large-scale acquisitions undermine national legislation on land use and natural resource management. De-listing of protected areas and commodity production in protected areas has been reported. Due to unclear land rights, this leads to tensions between smallholders and the companies that acquire the land. Production systems at risk Across the world, a series of agricultural production systems are coming increasingly at risk due to the combination of excessive demographic pressure and unsustainable agricultural practices. The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD 2008) has also stressed that, to successfully meet development and sustainability goals, a fundamental shift in agriculture is needed, leading to protection of a natural resource base and ecological provisioning of agricultural systems (Hennenberg 2009). The figures on palm oil are illustrative. The global production of palm oil, for example, from 2006-2011 has increased by 34.6%, from 37.3 to 50.3 million t. Most of this expansion has occurred in Indonesia, through extensive conversion of tree and peat forest on the islands of Sumatra and Borneo. During this period, palm oil became the leading global edible oil, driven primarily by increased consumption in India and China. The industry's production area in Indonesia expanded from 4.3 million to 7.5 million ha between 1995 and 2011. Growth continues at a rate of roughly 300,000 ha/year. The effects on tree and peat forests have been dramatic, and even national parks, such as Tesso Nilo National Park in Sumatra, have been planted with oil palm, which has removed habitat for the elephant, tiger and rhinoceros. Though still at a low level yet, the increasing capacity to produce biodiesel from palm oil has contributed to further increases in demand. 5

The palm-oil industry can take various courses to meet growing global demand without converting natural land cover. Yields per hectare can be doubled. Degraded lands can be used for expansion, such as the alang-alang grasslands, which regenerated after the forest fires and extensive uncontrolled land clearing that occurred in the late 1990s. Merely by planting on alang-alang areas and improving yields, palm oil could provide economic development benefits without the undesirable ecological effects. In practice such alternative courses of expansion are still rare. Multi-stakeholder Initiatives Food companies with a longer term vision on the continuity of their supply chains are increasingly recognizing the importance of sustainability issues. Not only in palm oil, but also in other agricultural commodities.to establish production standards and industry practices, these companies have started to participate in multi-stakeholder initiatives. In addition to existing initiatives for e.g. timber and coffee, a series of initiatives has been established over the last decade. These include the Roundtable for Sustainable Palm Oil, Roundtable on Responsible Soy, the Better Sugar Cane Initiative (Bonsucro), Roundtable for Responsible Biofuels, and the Better Cotton Initiative. Efforts are underway to create global standards for beef production through the Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef. Leading companies are also analyzing their own environmental impacts and taking measures to mitigate and reduce them. This requires the companies to engage in sustainable supply chain programmes and gain a better understanding of the sustainability issues present in the countries or regions where they source their commodities. Although many companies may be taking these actions to maintain or improve their reputations, others mention to be concerned about the availability of their long-term supply. Whatever the reason, these considerations have been helpful in encouraging producers to certify their operations because sustainability is increasingly being demanded by U.S. and European markets and customers. In just three years, roughly 8% of global palm-oil production has been certified under the Roundtable for Sustainable Palm Oil standard. Further growth depends amongst others on the impact of shifting trade flows and economic development in countries such as Brazil, China, and India. To achieve the required changes in production practices sustainability considerations should e.g. also become mainstream among companies and consumers in these important markets This will be a key challenge in the future (McLaughlin 2011). Beyond the farmgate The supply chain initiatives are trying to meet their sustainability goals mainly through certification against an agreed standard. Production improvements are achieved at the farm or concession level. Based on the megatrends in land and water scarcity identified above interventions at the landscape level will be increasingly required to improve or maintain production capacity at a desired level. In other words continued availaibility of sufficient arable soil, water, nutrients and other ecosystem services. Though not an urgent issue in 6

many regions yet, it can be predicted that it will become one, starting with commodities in regions where there is little room to move away from degrading production areas due to reasons such as e.g. capital destruction, high costs or lack of suitable production opportunities elsewhere. But also in areas that provide basic growing conditions, issues such as expansion and land tenure disputes can not be solved inside the farmgate. They require some kind of sustainable land management at the landscape level already now. Private companies can contribute to landscape management through ecologically-sensitive management of on-farm soils, water, vegetation, crop mixes, agrochemicals, farm and livestock wastes, energy and infrastructure for irrigation, drainage, transport and on-farm processing as well as by retaining natural habitat in and around farmed areas. These production practices are covered in the criteria of the various certification standards. But to prevent unsustainable expansion and counteract the threats that regions will loose their ability to provide the necessary growing conditions, interventions beyond the farm gate are needed. In general, the issues emerging at the landscape level are : - land conversion : where to find land for sustainable expansion ; - competing claims : how to resolve land tenure and reconcile claims; - land use governance : proper legislation and implementation. Why should supply chain companies be concerned with these issues? In some situations, it makes business sense for a private farm or food company to use the landscape as a lens to examine business development and operation, so as to: - Understand the landscape (and ecosystem) context for business development, reducing potential conflicts over natural resources; - Ensure reliable access to resources and ecosystem services critical to production and business models; - Ensure compliance and reduce the cost of compliance -- with current and future land policies and regulations: e.g., if production lies within a biological corridor; - Strengthen their negotiation position with public authorities, communities and supply chain partners; - Identify potential allies and business partners for scaling up: e.g., enroll more farmers, identify innovative suppliers; - Gain reputational benefits, or preferred access to markets, with buyers, suppliers and regulators from demonstrating good stewardship. In this desk study we try to get a better insight how companies response to these concerns and what role sustainable supply chain programmes play in these. 7

Objectives The objective of this desk study is to identify the extent to which the current supply chain programmes are confronted with issues at the landscape level. The leading question is whether voluntary standards can be used as a tool to mitigate the risks of landscape degradation. And if so, how this can be supported. This leads to the following sub-questions: 1. What incentives for improved landscape management are included in supply chain programmes? 2. What are the drivers for implementation? 3. What are the best practices? 4. What are the lessons learned? 5. How can implementation be improved? The desk study focuses on the major multi-stakeholder initiatives. Programmes not directly linked to one of the major supply chain programmes such as e.g. regional land planning programmes or multiple land use programmes are not taken into account. An internet search has been carried out to find general information on the role of landscape issues in supply chain programmes. In addition, a literature search has been conducted for specific projects and studies. These were focused on the commodities soy, palm oil, sugar cane, cotton, coffee, cocoa, tea and timber. But also some studies on biofuels and beef have been taken into account. The literature search has been complemented by a series of interviews with experts in supply chain programmes and landscape approaches in Solidaridad and other organisations. 8

2. INCENTIVES FOR LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT IN SUPPLY CHAIN PROGRAMMES Supply chain programmes for the various commodities are gaining momentum and are gradually increasing their market shares. They focus on input efficiency and better management practices. As such, they are a good tool for sustainable intensification at farm level. But do their standards also include criteria that have an impact at the landscape level. And could these be regarded as incentives to improve landscape management? Certification is the key tool of sustainable supply chain programmes. Though the initiatives are at different stages of development, they are all structured in a similar way. The core is a voluntary standard, with a set of principles providing the general orientation of action. For each principle there are criteria that further detail how exactly to comply with these principles. To facilitate this process, technical guidance, recommendations or indicators for assessing compliance with the criteria are available. Many of the most important standards are member of the ISEAL Alliance, the global association for social and environmental standards. A closer look at the standards reveals that they acknowledge the role of landscape management. Their primary scope, though, is concerned with the concession or farm level. Nevertheless, many standards include criteria that have a direct impact on land expansion and land use zoning, most of them related to biodiversity conservation. An analysis of biofuel standard initiatives revealed seven biodiversity-related criteria to mitigate the impact of indirect land use change (van Dam et al. 2010). These included references to specially mentioned grasslands or forests and officially listed area, protected under different forms of national and international legislation. Other studies also identify the inclusion of landscape criteria in certification standards. Conservation of areas of significant biodiversity value are fairly well covered by these standards. But impact studies generally conclude that impacts are hard to assess yet. According to Hennenberg (2008) all the standards fell short in effectively promoting agricultural practices with low negative impacts on biodiversity Landscape criteria A quick review of ten of the most relevant commodity standards shows that most of them include about five to ten items that deal to some extent with landscape issues. This does not necessarily imply that they all play a major role in the certification process. In the cocoa, coffee and tea standards the concept of high conservation value (HCV) is an issue, but much more modestly than in the rapidly expanding crops soy, palm oil, sugar cane and biofuels, where land use and controlled expansion of production areas outside sensitive natural areas is an important topic. Related to that, land rights are a key issue, whereas this is less important in the tree crops coffee, cocoa, tea 9

and also cotton. Consequently, land tenure is not identified as a specific issue for certification in these standards. But in the commodities where they are a major issue, land tenure is weakly covered as a Worldbank study revealed (de Man 2012). Environmental Impact Assessment and limits to expansion are well covered in the standards of rapidly growing crops, more specifically where they deal with protected areas and riparian zones. Cut-off dates are also frequently used as a tool to prohibit further land conversion. For soy, for example, May 2009 is the reference date, after which land is no longer allowed to be converted into soy production land. For sugar cane it is January 1 st 2008, whereas the Utz standard for coffee uses two years before the date of certification. Apart from the Rainforest Alliance generic standard for sustainable agriculture SAN, the RSB standard for biofuels includes the most extensive set of landscape criteria. The RSB standard is the only one that specifically mentions food security in its standard. This is directly related to the competition between food and other crops and their effects on indirect land use change. Again, inclusion of landscape relevant parameters in standards does not imply that these standards have an impact on landscape management. But it does show that standards could be a tool to realize such an impact. Table 1: Landscape criteria in voluntary standards RTRS RSPO RSB BSI BCI SAN FSC Utz coffee Utz Cocoa Cut-off date X X X X X X X HCV mapping X X X X X X X X Riparian zones X X X X X X X Env. Impact X X X X X X X X X Assess. Protected Areas X X X X X X X X Area of expansion X X X X X X Buffer zones X X X Corridors X X X X Land use maps X X Land rights X X X X X Food security X Expansion and governance To conclude this quick review, we can confirm that voluntary standards in supply chain programmes do have instruments in place to control expansion. The fact that standards are applicable on the farm level only restricts their effectiveness. But criteria for such items as corridors, buffer zones and land use mapping provide an opportunity to include landscape-level impacts at a wider scale, specifically in cases where larger, new concessions are being certified against one of the standards (see e.g. Olam case in Gabon in chapter 3). All these criteria relate to land expansion and conversion. The two other main landscape issues identified, competing claims (including land rights) and governance, are not covered, but this does not mean that these Utz tea 10

issues are excluded from supply chain programmes; on the contrary. Charges on involvement in deforestation, land right abuses and weak governance, including corruption and problems with local communities, appear to be a major driver for companies to become involved in supply chain programmes (see e.g. the NBPOL case in chapter 3) This is motivated by a desire to maintain a long-term presence in the production areas. As a result, it is increasingly in the interest of the companies themselves to resolve disputes about land rights, conversions and other sensitive issues with local communities and NGOs in the areas where they operate. And though the standards may not include criteria to solve these landscape issues directly, they do provide a platform to work on them. In the end it depends on the implementation practices of the company if these opportunities are taken seriously. This desk study aims to identify the best cases. The literature revealed five main drivers for companies to become involved in landscape issues through supply chain programmes. These are: 1. Impact of NGOs 2. Pressure from investors/financiers 3. Compliance with the law 4. Compliance with voluntary standards 5. Resource security 1. Impact of NGOs, Global NGOs have built up a track record in influencing private company policies on landscape issues. Both by creating pressure to start working on sustainability as by supporting willing companies with he implementation. According to one of the respondents there is an overwhelming pressure to get buyers and NGOs to comply. Thatʼs one of the reasons why major companies want to be sure not to destroy valuable habitats. There is quite a lot of evidence of campaigns that impacted the decision making in major companies. In 2009 Greenpeace accused Indonesian palm oil producer PT Sinar Mas Agro Resources & Technology of illegally logging virgin rain forest lands, reducing habitat for orangutans and gibbons. Sinar Mas is an Indonesian chemical and lumber products conglomerate. This led one of their main buyers, Unilever, to decide shift to a different supplier. A Unilever spokesman said that the claims were too serious for us to ignore. This was six months after Unileverʼs pledge to switch to RSPO certified palm oil. In 2010 Nestlé decided to make a similar policy shift, ceasing to buy palm oil from Sinar Mas after a two-month Greenpeace campaign. As a response, Nestlé decided to partner with The Forest Trust (TFT), a non-profit organisation that works with companies to establish sustainable supply chains. Together with TFT, Nestlé has established Responsible Sourcing Guidelines and has committed to ensuring that its products do not have a 11

deforestation footprint. This was in line with Nestléʼs pledge to achieve sustainable palm oil by 2015. For supplier companies, such a commitment is a strong message that they should change their sourcing strategies. In the Nestlé case one of their major suppliers, the world's second largest palm oil company Golden-Agri Resources Limited (GAR), agreed to a new standard to conserve vulnerable carbon-rich forests and peatlands in Indonesia. They also started a partnership with The Forest Trust to save vulnerable forests while remaining profitable. GAR developed a Forest Conservation Policy and a set of measures to ensure that their plantations are not developed at the expense of carbon-rich forests, or on peatlands, which are major carbon storage sites. Though still cautious about the final result, this led Greenpeace to state, This shows that the private sector can quickly change its practices around forest destruction if the right factors are in place. Itʼs a simple yet effective way to conserve forests. This model need not be confined to palm oil; any product with a link to forest destruction can switch on this supply chain approach. Such NGO/private company partnerships can in turn be an incentive for governments to change land-use governance. In 2009, Unilever committed not to buy palm oil from newly deforested plantations. By that time they were working in a coalition with Greenpeace, urging the Indonesian government to stop deforestation for a 2-3 year period. In this period an HCVA map could be compiled to set the basis for a new land-use policy at federal, provincial and district level. Such maps exist for small parts of the archipelago only. Eventually, Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono signed a twoyear moratorium on granting new permits to clear rainforests and peatlands, according to a Reuters report. This was a condition under Indonesia's billion dollar forest conservation partnership with Norway. One of the unintended side effects of Indonesia's move was that it further encouraged already existing interest in palm oil expansion in other areas. This e.g. led Sime Darby, the largest palm oil producer in the world, to lease 220,000 hectares of land in Liberia. It is considering buying a further 300,000 hectares for palm oil plantations in Cameroon. Despite the Indonesian ban, it still wants to reach 1 million hectares of plantation land worldwide by 2015. Referring to accusations from Friends of the Earth, the company says it does not clear virgin or high conservation value (HCV) forest, nor does it burn land. We have developed guidelines and policies that are in line with those of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil with regard to the environment, biodiversity and employee welfare. These guidelines and policies are applicable in all our operations regardless of their geography.... Our investments are long term commitments both from the perspective of our internal stakeholders but also from the perspective of external stakeholders, especially the communities in and around our operations, the company stated. 12

2. Pressure from investors/financiers Socially Responsible Investment is gaining increasing recognition as a way to manage investment risk. While some investors have developed exclusion policies for specific funds, others have engagement policies across all funds, aimed at influencing the behaviour of the companies being invested in. Engagement policies may cover such areas as environmental impact, labour rights, and human rights. Companies that operate according to sustainability standards are increasingly regarded as being less exposed to a number of risks including: compliance risks due to violation of regulations in producer countries; social risks due to conflicts with indigenous peoples, local communities, labourers and NGOs; reputation risks as unsustainable practices can damage their reputations; and possibly market risks due to the loss of market share as more and more buyers demand sustainable products. In 2001 the four main Dutch banks -- ABN Amro, ING, Fortis and Rabobank -- were the first commercial financial institutions in the world to establish a forest palm oil policy. The banks promised to ensure that when making new investments in the oil palm sector, their clients would respect national laws and relevant international conventions; they would not be involved in clearing of High Conservation Value Forests; they would respect the rights and wishes of local communities; and they would not be involved in the burning of forestland. The commitments made by these Dutch banks provided an important incentive for the emergence of the RSPO and further international engagement by the financial sector. Also on standards developed by the Worldbank/IFC such as the Environmental Social Performance Standards. These include standards on land acquisition (standard 5) and biodiversity conservation and sustainable management of living natural resources (standard 6). Sustainability standards developed by the Worldbank/IFC are influential. Private sector banks often adopt them for their own lending standards as an attempt to decrease the risks of their investments. An example of the impact of these standards is the moratorium on lending to the oil palm sector, which the Worldbank announced in 2009. This was triggered by complaints that a group of ngoʼs brought to the IFC ombudservice. The complaints listed a series of social conflicts between local communities and palm oil companies. An internal audit found that IFC funding of leading palm oil company the Wilmar Group, violated the IFC's own procedures. It took 18 months of consultations with stakeholders, including the private sector, NGOs, farmers, indigenous communities, development experts, and governments, to adopt a new framework and restart lending to the sector. This is a good example how sustainability criteria are gradually gaining influence in financiers decision making procedures. In this case the availability of an ombudservice has been of key importance. 13

3. Compliance with the law Companies that aim to be present for the long term in strategic sourcing areas have a desire to build up predictable and professional relations with governments. For this compliance with the law is a primary objective, as it is in every voluntary standard. Proper implementation increases the predictability of governments. From this perspective weak governance and enforcement is undesirable and should be a serious concern to those companies. There are numerous cases where land use policies and commitments made by the federal government -in Indonesia, for example- are frustrated by regional governments. Indonesia is a case in point. Regional governments have an interest in selling concessions in marginal lands that will be degraded in a few years. They receive an income from the sale of concessions, whereas tax incomes are collected by the federal government once the land is in production. The Environmental Impact Assessment policy in Indonesia looks clear on paper and land use planning seems transparent, but the poorly synchronized policies at the federal, provincial and regional level give rise to many misfits. Community lands, for example, are not included in the provincial land use plans. These are updated every 5-7 years but as long as the community lands indicated on the maps of the district level are not included, land conflicts will not be resolved. Similar conflicts with the Malaysian government are seen in the Sarawak province of Borneo. The government encourages private sector expansion, which includes ʻNative Customary Landsʼ. It plans to almost double the area under oil palms to 1 million hectares, including planting on customary lands at a rate of 60,000 100,000 hectares per year. Native land owners are expected to surrender their lands to the State for 60 years, to be developed as joint ventures with private companies, in which the State acts as Trustee on behalf of the customary owners. There is a lack of clarity about exactly how native landowners gain any benefit during these schemes and how they can reclaim their lands on the expiry of the lease. Some 40 palm-oil-related land disputes have now been filed with the courts of Sarawak. Without legal and procedural reforms in Sarawak, wide compliance with the RSPO standard seems unlikely. Procedural reforms, by both the Government and companies, would be needed to bring them into line with international law and industry best practice (Colchester et al. 2007). The forest law in Brazil provides another example how landscape issues enter the agenda of supply chain companies. Depending on the region of operation, 20-80% of the land should be set aside for nature conservation. Illegal land use in legally protected lands is widespread. Full compliance with the environmental legislation would require drastic changes in agricultural land use. Agricultural areas should be taken out of production and converted back to natural vegetation. This is highly improbable. In the new, still heavily debated forest law, owners of already deforested land will be allowed to 14

compensate their natural reserves outside of their own lands, so there is pressure to properly identify the protected areas, corridors and high conservation value areas where such compensation could occur. Clarity about land rights is needed, as well as transparent and accountable bookkeeping. This is an issue, as is the reliability of the institutes responsible. Although the final design still unresolved, it is clear that landscape issues have to be dealt with. 4. Compliance with voluntary standards Once companies are members of one of the multi-stakeholder initiatives, they are supposed to comply with criteria in voluntary standards, in addition to the legal criteria. In countries with weak or absent enforcement of land use legislation, there are cases where supply chain parties set an example by seeking compliance with voluntary standards. In countries with better developed land use legislation, such as Brazil, compliance with the legal standards is already a challenge. Here legal compliance is the main driver for companies to implement land use policies. In other words, there should be clear added value to setting aside more land as prescribed in e.g. the RTRS standard. This added value is supposed to be in proper compensation for the extra areas of set-aside lands and better prices paid on premium markets. A WWF (2012) review of the functioning of voluntary standards developed in multi-stakeholder initiatives pointed out the very small relative market share of most initiatives. Some of them have just started, with the very first patches of certified product just on the market. The review stressed the importance of market demands, notably in emerging economies such as China, India, Indonesia, and Brazil. It will be difficult to implement landscape issues through voluntary standards if there is insufficient demand for more sustainable products. At the same time, the supply chain programmes themselves influence demand for certified commodities by educating market players on the risks of relying on unsustainable supply chains. 5. Resource security The risks of resource scarcity are increasing for companies that depend on agricultural supply chains (KPMG 2011). It is estimated that we are losing ecosystem services, with an annual value equivalent to around 50 billion, from land-based ecosystems alone. This is a very general figure that does not directly impact the balance sheets of any company. It is however a signal for strategy developers. This loss can have important implications for the longterm viability of the businesses that depend on these services, in particular those with agricultural supply chains. As Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services decline, this is increasingly translating into business risk and opportunity linked to reputational risk, security of supply, and legal compliance. As yet, though, it is only an indirect incentive for companies to engage in supply chain programmes. A survey of 31 companies in the food, beverage and tobacco sectors painted a picture of early-stage response, pilot projects, developing but incompletely applied 15

management tools, and reactive rather than proactive management. Companies differed in their approaches; a number had innovative and forward-thinking practices, but even these failed to demonstrate comprehensively applied risk assessment processes. Hence, risks may be unmanaged and future (biodiversity) business development perspectives opportunities missed (Natural Value Initiative, 2009). Interviews with leading companies showed that increasing prices for food and resources were regarded as upcoming risks, but only a small minority had a policy in place for resource scarcity. As indicated above landscape management aimed at maintaining favourable growing conditions for production areas could be part of such a policy. This is not the case yet. If they implement a resource scarcity policy, then it is related to cost saving and government regulation (PWC 2011). 16

3. BEST PRACTICES IN LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT THROUGH SUPPLY CHAIN PROGRAMMES A select group of early movers in supply chain programmes are responding to the challenges of sustainable landscape management. Their motivation is their well-understood self-interest in reducing risks and increasing their position in strategic sourcing areas. They are looking to develop new arrangements and are creating different types of partnerships with stakeholders in producing countries, specifically with local governments and NGOs. A still limited but convincing list of best practices is being built up. The main concern for the multi-stakeholder initiatives running supply chain programmes is to establish and maintain the credibility of its standard and attract new members and funding. The main objective is to increase its market from the niche to the mainstream. None of the initiatives has a programme in place to develop coordinated approaches at the landscape level to mitigate the risks of production system degradation on the wider scale. There are separately running initiatives, however, that build up expertise in how to deal with landscape issues. Most of these build on HCV initiatives. In some cases these are triggered by the goal of becoming compliant with voluntary standards; other incentives prevail in other cases. It turned out to be difficult to find cases specifically targeted at the landscape issues. This study has revealed a limited bit not limitative number of these, which are represented below. In general, three types of initiatives can be distinguished. Projects and programmes led by private companies, NGOs and governments. In many cases a mix of these three is involved. In addition, there are many integrated land-use and land-planning programmes targeted at specific regions. These are not subject of this study. Companies NGOs Governments 1.Olam-Gabon 2.Mondi-South Africa 3.Wilma- Indonesia 4.NBPOL- PNG 5.RTRS mapping HCV 6.Soy moratorium 1.HCV mapping 2.RCA mapping 3.Combined cocoa/ timber certification 4.Biomass Mozambique 5.RT REDD 6. Smartland Brazil sugar cane zoning 17

Company led cases Cases Olam : Gabon concession Olam International is one of the worldʼs largest agricultural processors and supply chain managers. In November 2010, the government of Gabon granted Olam a 300,000ha concession. The company planned to develop a total of 100,000ha of palm oil plantations. Its subsidiary, Olam Palm, has committed to developing Olamʼs oil palm business in full compliance with the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) certification system. Maintaining biological and social High Conservation Values (HCVs) is a key requirement of any new planting under the RSPO system, and Proforest was tasked with carrying out HCV assessments for Olam Palmʼs first three concessions in Gabon. But of the 52,000ha Olam was initially given to survey, 18,000ha turned out to be protected under the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, while a further 13,000 ha was an important high-value conservation area. The findings, which came up during Olam s environmental and social impact assessment, caused much embarrassment. Olam went to great lengths to get its first 8,000ha approved by the RSPO including a LIDAR aerial survey, ESIA, HCV assessment, as well as RSPO verification. Proforestʼs HCV report for Olam enabled the company successfully to complete RSPOʼs New Plantings Procedure, and set a quality benchmark for any future work related to RSPO certification of palm oil development in Gabon and the Congo Basin. This was welcomed by conservation organisations, but the company responded that it did not know whether it will be able to replicate such intensive methodology for future lots. We have to work out the commercial viabilities of these studies, a spokesman said. It seems as if a better mechanism to share the costs should be in place first. 2. Mondi, South Africa Mondi is a leading pulp and paper company that in 2004 started a New Generation Plantations project in the SiyaQhubeka Forests (South Africa) on the shore of Lake St. Lucia in North Kwazulu Natal. Mondi formed a partnership with local organisations and established a 120 km corridor between the isimangaliso Wetland park and a forestry plantation. It also resolved a long history of dispute between local forestry operations and environmentalists in a true partnership. As a result, 9000 ha (4500 ha of Mondi land) returned to HCV ecosystem. The plantation areas, including the associated wetlands, natural forests and key ecological networks, have now become part of the Wetland Park and form a buffer between the Park local communities and commercial farming areas. Mondiʼs New Generation Plantation minimizes the negative impacts of plantation by using: 18

1.Integrated land use planning based on good governance and active consultation with local stakeholders, particularly with respect to land acquisition. 2.Detailed planning, including Environmental Impact Assesment and integrated land use planning. 3 Highly productive FSC certified plantation forest. 4. Meaningful participation of stakeholders including NGOs, government, communities and the park authority. The results were well-planned, protected natural areas with functioning buffers, SME development in forestry, tourism and other areas. The Mondi Wetland programme was significant in establishing Mondiʼs credibility with the media, NGOs, local communities, and the government. It also attracted market investors. It eventually resulted in the Susfarms standard for sugarcane producers, the Sustainable Sugarcane Farm Management System. 3. Wilmar, HCV mapping palm oil As a member of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil, Wilmar International Limited (Wilmar) has committed to achieving full compliance with the RSPO standard for sustainability in all of its existing and future operations. In line with this commitment, the company imposed a voluntary moratorium in November 2007 on the development of all new estates in West Kalimantan province to conduct High Conservation Value (HCV) full assessments, prior to widespread clearance of natural vegetation. The results of these assessments are being used by Wilmar to form plantation development and HCV management plans to ensure the maintenance of present HCVs. Wilmarʼs willingness to suspend nearly all aspects of plantation development (in particular land clearance) throughout the HCV assessment process demonstrates its serious commitment to achieve RSPO compliance. 4. NBPOL- Smallholder dialogues Papua New Guinea To settle land disputes and increase sourcing security, the UK based palm oil company NBPOL set up a series of dialogues between local governments and companies. Part of this dialogue deals with developing legislation and part is focused on arranging contracts between governments and the smallholder companies. As of August 2009, 93.6% of all NBPOLʼs small holders are RSPO compliant. In March 2011, the company opened a processing facility in the UK to process the supply of the more than 8000 certified sustainable smallholder Palm Oil growers.. 5. HCV-mapping RTRS Cerrado Brazil RTRS is working at a landscape level with HCV extension maps to develop a roadmap for expansion. The overall goal of this project is to reduce the negative impact of soy expansion on high biodiversity ecosystems and areas of high conservation value (environmental or social) in Brazil via the development of a generic methodology and national processes to create 19

broad-scale suitability maps and site-scale HCV assessment guidance for responsible soy expansion. The project will provide tools to the RTRS to strengthen their principle mechanism for limiting the expansion of soy into natural habitats. The two main objectives are: 1. To create the methodology and guidance for the development of national broad-scale maps that guide responsible expansion of soy production, based on the experience in Brazil; and create the guidance for site-level HCV assessment in the RTRS soy production standard. 2. To produce Brazilian broad-scale maps for responsible expansion of soy production for endorsement by RTRS, guidance for site-level HCV assessment and definition of biodiversity-friendly practices. At the national level, the global guidance will be interpreted for local circumstances. On macro-scale national maps, various types of land will be marked: a) areas available for expansion; b) areas where no expansion may occur; and c) areas for which an HCV assessment first needs to be done. Also, specific country- or regional guidance on carrying out HCV assessments and biodiversity-friendly practices will be developed. Such work will be overseen by national multi-stakeholder groups and will be implemented by national technical groups and/or specialist mapping organizations. National projects will commence first in Brazil, and in the second phase in Argentina, Bolivia and Paraguay. 6. Soy moratorium, Brazil The Soy Moratorium is a multi-stakeholder initiative that was established in 2006 with a commitment from major soy buyers not to acquire soybeans from areas in the Amazon biome that had been deforested after July 2006. The Moratorium was signed by the corporate membership of the Brazilian vegetable oil association, ABIOVE, and the national grain exporters association, ANEC. Together, ABIOVE and ANEC members are reported to represent around 94% of Brazilʼs soybean industry. Under the Moratorium, soy farmers must register their holdings in order to be included on the approved supplier listings for ABIOVE and ANEC members. NGO stakeholders monitor registered properties using a combination of remote sensing data and on-the-ground compliance checks. The Soy Moratorium was initially limited to a two-year commitment, but has since been renewed by signatories every year since 2008. The Moratorium has been widely hailed as an example of a successful initiative by its supporters, such as Greenpeace, who are calling for similar initiatives to be developed for other sectors such as cattle ranching. Initiatives such as the Soy Moratorium are likely to have significant benefits in reducing ILUC risk in a particular region. NGO led cases 1. The Nature Conservancy, HCV Mapping East Kalimantan A landscape-scale HCV mapping across East Kalimantan Province (ca.18 million ha), following methods outlined in the revised HCV Toolkit for 20

Indonesia. The Daemeter study combines detailed mapping and development of management recommendations that can be used directly by land use planners and forestry or oil palm managers with operations that fall within areas covered by the study, Past, present and future projected forest cover has been systematically evaluated to map large forest blocks (HCV 2) and rare and endangered ecosystems (HCV 3) over one-third of Kalimantan, and is developing a framework for determining minimum required management action based on current and future threats. Recommendations could, under certain circumstances, permit partial conversion of HCV 3 ecosystems, a potentially controversial issue that merits genuine debate. The project originated to support strategic planning for the Berau Forest Carbon Program.It will support a wide range of sustainability initiatives, including certification of responsible practices for forestry and agri-business, low emissions development planning, REDD+ program development and responsible investment screening. The aim of the programme is to bring the forest under effective management by 2015 2. Conservation International, RCA-mapping Brazil, São Paulo It is possible to promote more intensive cattle production in São Paulo state, integrated with sugarcane production in the same areas. Such a scheme would have the potential to mitigate iluc caused by the displacement of ranching to other areas, especially the agricultural frontier in the Brazilian Amazon. This is the outcome of the RCA mapping for São Paulo State pilot tested by CI. The Responsible Conservation Area (RCA) approach takes account of the needs of market players, which requires it to be feasible at the level of individual production units. This is in contrast to methodologies that aim to identify the national or global (sustainable) potential for energy crops or agricultural expansion in general. The RCA concept is also useful for other parties, such as (national) governments and NGOs. In the RCA methodology, an area is considered suitable for responsible cultivation if it is ensured that the area: 1) can be used for environmentally and socially responsible energy crop cultivation; and 2) such energy crop cultivation would not cause unwanted indirect effects. The five aspects that are evaluated in the identification of RCAs are: High Conservation Values (P1), Carbon stocks (P2), Formal and customary land rights (P3), Risk of unwanted displacement effects (P4), and Agricultural suitability. 3. Solidaridad/IPAM, Roundtables and REDD The success of REDD+ is limited by a lack of engagement by farmers. The success of the commodity roundtables is limited by the high costs of farm certification. The RT-REDD programme, which started at the end of 2011, is designed to overcome these limitations, linking a process that has funds but 21

needs farmers (REDD+) with processes that have farmers but need funds (commodity roundtables) to achieve significant GHG emission reductions. By linking the compliance systems of these roundtables to REDD+ MRV systems, certified farmers gain access to resources that remunerate on-farm forest conservation. And REDD money is being used to compensate for the opportunity costs of setting aside lands. The programme started up by developing usable carbon measuring tools and a search for pilot areas where both sustainable supply chain and REDD programmes are running on the ground. 4. Solidaridad, biomass Mozambique The project seeks a combined solution for soil degradation, deforestation and energy use. It started a project that combines forestry with agriculture (agroforestry). The idea is to improve food production and produce biomass for energy generation at the same time. Farmers learn to prevent soil exhaustion, and the forest provides shades and fertilizer for their land. This gives small scale farmers an alternative for their unsustainable slash-and-burn techniques. The aim is to develop a supply chain for agricultural and forestry by-products from small holder producers to be used for electricity and heat production. As a result agricultural practices will be improved leading to better use of existing lands. It should lead to more efficient agricultural land use, reduced slash and burn activities, improved nutrient cycling and biomass energy production. 5. Solidaridad, combined cocoa/timber certification, Ghana Certification is used to reconcile the competing land claims of forestry and cocoa leading to the development of a sustainable land use model for the Kakum conservation area in Ghana. The project facilitates the efforts of logging companies to achieve Forest Stewardship Council certification by engaging with cocoa farmers living in/around forest reserves. The project supports them to form a group for the purposes of training them on Good Agricultural Practices. This enables the cocoa farmers to become Utz Certified and the logging companies FSC certified project. 6. Solidaridad/Hult Business school, Smartland, Argentina Feasibility study conducted by the Hult Business school, London in the Yaboti Biosphere Reserve to include social and ecological corridors as sustainable set asides within an environment of expanding large scale tea production. The results showed that such a combination of commodity certification and biodversity conservation could be possible, but more in depth research was needed to develop a bankable business model. 22

Government led cases 1. Brazil, Mapping sugar cane and palm oil expansion A number of countries have established agroecological zoning, which restricts the production of certain commodity crops to specific areas. A good example of this is the implementation of agroecological zoning areas for sugarcane and palm oil production in Brazil. The State of São Paulo had originally already developed an agro-ecological zoning approach for expansion of sugarcane, and a larger survey, the National Agro- Ecological Zoning for Sugarcane (ZAE Cana) study, which defined lands suitable for sugarcane production based on environmental, economic and social criteria has led the Government to propose new legislation (in September 2009) that will restrict the permissible lands for sugarcane farming and processing in any area of native vegetation, or in the Amazon, Pantanal or Upper Paraguay River Basin regions. The result is that approximately 64Mha became available for sugarcane, compared to the approximate 8.9Mha already under cultivation. In addition, the land use dynamics in Brazil illustrate that expanding sugarcane does not necessarily lead to indirect land use change. IGBE statistics as well as recent studies demonstrate a national trend of increasing livestock density from 0.4 head of cattle per hectare in 1920 to 1.0 head per hectare in 2006. This will vary regionally, but it gives an indication of the general trend towards intensification. Expanding sugarcane onto pastureland in the Central-South region is now well accepted as a land use dynamic. 23

4. LESSONS LEARNED Supply chain programmes are developing rapidly, focusing mainly on increasing their relevance and market share. Their emphasis is on certification at the farm level, but issues beyond the farm gate are important drivers and are increasingly relevant for the programmesʼ success. Specifically, the issues of set-aside lands, land tenure and land use governance have an impact on the landscape level, which makes national and local governments in producing countries important stakeholders. But these organisations are not members of the governing body, the Roundtable, which liest at the core of the initiatives. A group of early movers are looking for new arrangements to better include governments in producing countries. One of the major reasons for starting supply chain programmes has been the weak governance and lack of legislation in producing countries. Supply chain partners aiming to increase their sustainability performance responded by developing their own standards for their own operations, without direct participation of governments in producing countries. The increasing pressure on the land, in combination with free rider problems, has led to a re-evaluation of the role of governments. Landscape-scale issues cannot do without a referee to settle land use and land tenure disputes. National and local government bodies should become better placed to play such a role. There is increasing recognition that integrated approaches to rural landscape management are often the best way to meet current and future demands for food, feed, fiber and fuel, rural poverty alleviation, income generation, and conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services. The expertise that is building up in the first pilot projects is revealing different ways to integrate local governance in supply chain programmes. They can be generally clustered into three main themes, focusing on: 1. Creating sustainable buffers and corridors; 2. Establishing new partnerships; 3. Building knowledge beyond supply chains Creating sustainable buffers and corridors -The Mondi case in South Africa shows how to build functioning corridors and buffer zones at the landscape scale The key to success is the concerted approach, which involves all players. The added value of including supply chain programmes is the standard they set for sustainable land management. In this case FSC for timber production. In Argentina a programme has recently started to promote certified beef production on the pampas as a buffer against further expansion of soy. In Namibia such an approach has shown some success on a small scale in preventing desertification. 24

- HCV is a frequently used tool for setting aside natural lands. It works from the bottom up through stakeholder engagement, whereas Protected Areas listing and land-use zoning plans have a much more top-down approach. It works from the small to medium level and creates a language that industry can understand. But in the absence of land-use plans that identify conservation priorities, relying solely on the HCV approach on a particular property may result in the fragmentation of natural land cover and reduction of habitat quality. Conducting land-use planning in advance of an HCV assessment on a particular property and defining areas in which agriculture can expand could help avoid this. This requires a joint approach of public and private partners as could be concluded from the OLAM case in Gabon. -Setting aside lands is nothing more than starting of landscape-scale planning. The lands need to be managed and the land owner compensated for the costs of management. A company needs to be enabled if HCV is to become a productive financial asset, using ecotourism or a REDD programme, for example. Tax incentives for companies managing have been mentioned. Biodiversity banking as piloted under the new Brazilian forest law is an option. Some quotes: - Stop building useless islands of conservation as a solution to land use problems - Land use criteria in standards (e.g. HCV) work if land use governments are involved as in the case of the sugar cane zoning in Brazil. - The drive for integrated landscape approaches used to come from the conservation community with concepts like ecoagriculture. There is increasing recognition from agribusiness that such an approach is beneficial from the business perspective as well. Establishing new partnerships Landscape-scale problems are by definition outside the supply chain. Forward-thinking companies know that they depend on a geographical space and have to contribute to manage that space well. They are eager for methods to spread the risks and share the costs. Companies that are in the game for the longer term -because of requirements of their financiers (e.g. IFC)- are in need of a reliable government and good regulation. An increasing number of cases are providing examples of how to build this up, as in the OLAM case in Gabon. To be successful, this should be approached from multiple levels: at both the local level and at high level to secure strategic land issues. Land-use plans still have to be developed by governments. This is not an issue for Roundtables. The role of supply chain programmes is to indicate where the areas for special protection should be (HCV). Many cases show that local roundtables have to be developed. In these fora also proactive regional governments should be included together with other key stakeholder 25

as private banks, companies and local NGOs. Much of these stakeholder have been involved in e.g. the NBPOL case. Another example is the UNEPinitiated International Rice Platform. The advantage of rice as a commodity is that is mainly produced for domestic markets, so good contacts with local governments are usually already in place. Some quotes - Companies realize that they have to build up normal relations with stakeholders in producing countries. That has changed compared with 10 years ago. - There is no shortcut; it is tailor-made work you build up around willing companies that are there for the longer term. - You should offer companies a framework for cooperation. That does not exist yet. Create ʻsafe havensʼ for doing business. Building knowledge beyond supply chains The roundtablesʼ prime concern clearly is with the issues surrounding the certification standard. Respondents indicate that the roundtables could have an additional role as knowledge centres for landscape issues and other topics. They can connect supply chain programmes to the many projects on regional land planning, integrated land use, etc. that are implemented outside supply chain programmes. Such a platform could unlock the knowledge built up in stand-alone, small-scale projects and share it with other practitioners and potential public and private financiers. Some quotes - Donʼt focus on certification only. Thatʼs just one tool. Roundtables can act as community of practice. - Bonsucro should be a community of change instead of a certification plant. A learning platform, bringing together expertise and creating a body of evidence. - You need a platform to share, become visible and connect to financiers. Roundtables would provide such a platform. 26

5. RECOMMENDATIONS TO SUPPORT LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT IN SUPPLY CHAIN PROGRAMMES Much of the expertise on how to solve landscape issues around land tenure, land-use governance and legislation is being built up on a stand-alone basis. Supply chain programmes do not proactively take the lead on this issue. Connecting expertise and scaling up investments could bring the support practitioners need. The suggestions presented below are a menu of options that is not meant as a coherent implementation programme. It is a first set of ideas with which to start building such a programme. On creating sustainable buffers and corridors -The biodiversity business school Facilitate the development of business models that compensate the opportunity costs of setting aside lands. Collect, develop and share the knowledge on how to use REDD, Payment for Environmental Services, biodiversity banking and other models that are being developed - Biodiversity banking Further implementation of sustainable supply chain programmes will result in an increasing supply of set aside (HCV) lands that are not necessarily connected to key biodiversity conservation areas that are in demand for better protection. A biodiversity banking system, inspired on the wetland banking system in the USA, could help bridge supply and demand and conserve biodiversity in priority areas. - Sleeping with the enemy As a variant to the banking model, biodiversity management authorities could take the lead to connect certified commodity programmes to key areas where they implement conservation programmes. The Smartland exercise of Solidaridad in Argentina is such a case. This would be a paradigm shift where biodiversity conservation is possible thanks to agriculture. On building knowledge beyond supply chain - The Governments academy Practical training in how to set up integrated land use plan. Some governments are light years ahead of others. Bringing these people together in a training setting helps to bridge knowledge gaps. - Knowledge hubs There is too little knowledge on landscape management in companies, NGOs, governments. Inventorize the existing practitioner networks, learning platforms, and courses on landscape management. Develop new platform or facilitate improved use of exiting platforms by e.g. scholarships and link it to 27

on the ground project implementation. - HCV Training People doing the assessments have a huge training gap. There are not enough trained ecologists to make sensible recommendations. Better-trained experts reduce the risk of ending up with a small islands of cases rather than a landscape scale. - One set for all standards Many of the Multistakeholder Initiatives are member or associate member of the ISEAL Alliance. This could provide the platform to share expertise on landscape issues in supply chains and develop a set of generic landscape criteria applicable for all standards. On establishing new partnerships - The local roundtable for sustainable landscapes Landscape management is a generic issue that plays a role in every regional supply chain programme. At the local level the various governments, companies, banks, NGOs and other stakeholders are condemned to work with each other to find solutions for the landscape issues at the local scale. These local roundtables could be facilitated by the global roundtable involved. E.g. RSPO for palm oil cases, TRTS for soy cases, etc. - Safe havens for sustainable business This is a precursor of the suggestion above. It focuses on regions where early moving companies and proactive local governments are working. Facilitate a participative approach with the local governments, companies and NGOs, private banks, public funders and companies. - The extended roundtable Create local government membership in existing roundtables. This could be operationalised in combination with the idea of the local roundtables. Government representatives of selected local roundtables could be appointed in rotation. 28

Sources LITERATURE 1. Introduction Landscape degradation and food production risks 1. ADB (2011) Greening growth in Asia and the Pacific http://beta.adb.org/features/report-greening-growth-asia-and-pacific 2. Brussaard e.a. (2010) Reconciling biodiversity conservation and food security: scientific challenges for a new agriculture http://www.gscsa2011.org/linkclick.aspx?fileticket=etfzvvgpqw%3d&tabid=3249 3. CCAFS/CGAIR, Commission on sustainable agriculture and climate change (2011), Achieving food security in the face of climate change http://ccafs.cgiar.org/sites/default/files/assets/docs/climate_food_commissionspmnov2011.pdf?utm_source=commission+on+sustainable+agriculture+and+cli mate+change&utm_campaign=b7c84bc3bf- Commission_SPM_launch11_16_2011&utm_medium=email 4. EEA 2010, The European environment, State and Outlook 2010, assessment of global megatrends http://www.eea.europa.eu/soer/europe-and-the-world/megatrends 5. FAO 2011, The state of the worldʼs land and water resources for food and agriculture (SOLAW) http://www.fao.org/nr/solaw/en/ 6. Henneberg K.J. ( 2010) Conservation Biology essay, The Power of bioenergy related standards to protect biodiversity 7. ILC (2012) Land rights and the rush for lands http://www.landcoalition.org/sites/default/files/publication/1205/ilc%20gsr% 20report_ENG.pdf 8. Levitt (2011) Palm oil giants target Africa in land grab following Indonesia deforestation ban. http://www.theecologist.org/news/news_analysis/823928/palm_oil_giants_tar get_africa_in_land_grab_following_indonesia_deforestation_ban.html 9.Nestlé-GAR case on palmoil http://www.tftforests.org/news/item.asp?n=12128 29

10. Scherr and Mc Neely (2008) Biodiversity conservation and agricultural sustainability: towards a new paradigm of ecoagriculture landscapes. http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/363/1491/477.full 11. Toulmin (2011) Land tenure and international investments in agriculture, a report by the High level Panel of Experts on food Security and Nutrition http://www.cifor.org/nc/online-library/browse/viewpublication/publication/3522.html 12.UNEP Yearbook (2010) Ecosystem management p.13-20 http://www.unep.org/yearbook/2010/pdf/1_ecosystem_mgmt_2010_low.pdf 13. UNEP (2011) Food en ecological security, Identifying synergy and trade offs http://www.unep.org/ecosystemmanagement/portals/7/documents/unep_polic y_series/food%20and%20ecological%20solutions%20js.pdf 2. Incentives for improved landscape management in supply chain programmes 14. Code of conduct Utz Certfied coffee http://www.utzcertifiedtrainingcenter.com/home/images/documentos/coffeegroupmultigroup/enutz20 09codeofconductnovember2010.pdf 15. Code of conduct Utz Certified cocoa http://www.utzcertifiedtrainingcenter.com/home/images/documentos/cocoaindividualmultisite/enut ZCERTIFIEDCodeofConductforCocoaforIndividualCertification.pdf 16. Code of conduct Utz Certfied tea http://www.utzcertifiedtrainingcenter.com/home/images/documentos/teaindividualmultisitegroupmult igroup/1en_utzteacodeofconduct1.0_farm.pdf 17. Colchester e.a (2007) Forest Peoples Programme, Land is Life, Land rights and oil palm developments in Sarawak. http://www.forestpeoples.org/sites/fpp/files/publication/2010/08/sarawaklandisl ifenov07eng.pdf 18. Ecoagriculture brief (2011) Private sector investment in landscape management: when do private market incentives converge with public inititatives. http://landscapes.ecoagriculture.org/documents/files/private_sector_investme nt_in_landscape_management_when_do_private_market_incentives_converg e_with_public_initiatives.pdf 30

19. Forest Stewardship Council standard for timber http://www.fsc.org/fileadmin/webdata/public/document_center/international_fsc_policies/standards/fsc_std _01_001_V4_0_EN_FSC_Principles_and_Criteria.pdf 20. Forest Peoples programme/wilmar http://www.forestpeoples.org/topics/palm-oil-rspo/news/2011/11/pressrelease-new-report-exposes-human-rights-abuses-wilmar-group- http://news.mongabay.com/2011/0403- world_bank_palm_oil.html#ixzz1otnubfbv 21. IISD e.a (2010) The State of Sustainability Initiatives Review 2010: Sustainability and Transparancy http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2010/ssi_sustainability_review_2010.pdf 22. de Man (2012) Agricultural commodities thatrespect land rights and food security; how to include land governance issues in sustainable commodity standards? http://www.rdeman.nl/site/download/2012-04_world_bank_paper_rdm.pdf 23. Mc Laughin (2011) Land food and biodiversity http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01768.x/full 24. Pacheco (2011) Landscape transformation in Tropical Latin America http://www.cifor.org/nc/online-library/browse/viewpublication/publication/3303.html 25. Principles and criteria Roundtable on Sustainable Palmoil (RSPO) http://www.rspo.org/sites/default/files/rspo%20principles%20&%20criteria_ 1.pdf 26. Principles and criteria Roundtable of Resposibe soy (RTRS) http://www.responsiblesoy.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&i d=207&itemid=92&lang=en 27. Principles and criteria Roundtable of sustainable biofuels (RSB) http://rsb.epfl.ch/files/content/sites/rsb2/files/biofuels/version%202/pcs%20v 2/11-03-08%20RSB%20PCs%20Version%202.pdf 28. Principles and criteria Better Sugercane Initiative/Bonsucro (BSI) http://www.bonsucro.com/assets/bonsucro_production_standard_march_201 1_3.pdf 29. Principles and criteria Better Cotton Initiative (BCI) http://www.bettercotton.org/files/bcsinfopack/2a_production_principles_and _Criteria_2.0_final_eng_ext.pdf 31

30.. Sparovek (2010) Brazilian Agriculture and Environmental Legislation: Status and Future Challenges. 31. PWC duurzaamheidsbarometer (2011) 32. Rabobank policy on palm oil http://www.rabobank.com/content/images/rabobank's%20position%20on%20 palmoil_tcm43-107432.pdf 33. Rainforest Alliance, SAN Sustainable Agriculture standard http://sanstandards.org/userfiles/file/san%20sustainable%20agriculture%20 Standard%20July%202010.pdf 34. The Natural Value Initiative (2009) The Ecosystem service benchmark http://www.unepfi.org/fileadmin/documents/ecosys_benchmark.pdf 35. The Natural Value Initiative (2009) Managing biodiversity and ecosystemrisk in companies with an agricultural supply chain http://www.naturalvalueinitiative.org/download/documents/publications/lsnv_ Oct09.pdf 36. Unilever/Greenpeace moratorium http://news.mongabay.com/2011/0519- indonesia_moratorium.html#ixzz1oqpvhy3q http://www.unilever.com/images/sd_how%20to%20establish%20a%20morato rium%20on%20deforestation%20for%20palm%20oil%20in%20indonesia%20 - %20Recommendations%20developed%20by%20Unilever%20100909_tcm13-186448.pdf 37. Van Dam e.a (2010) From the global efforts on certification of bioenergy towards an integrated approach based on sustainable land use planning 38.WWF (2008) The palm oil financing handbook 39. WWF (2010) Certification and Roundtables, do they work? 3 Best practices 40. Cape Action Programme http://www.capeaction.org.za/index.php?c=bio&p=13 32

41. CI (2011) Responsible Conservation areas for biofuels in Sao Paulo http://www.hcvnetwork.org/resources/assessments/2011.05.04_rca_report_ SaoPaulo.pdf 42. Daemeter HCV inventory East Kalimantan http://www.daemeter.org/news/landscape-level-hcv-mapping-across-eastkalimantan-indonesia-is-now-published/ 43. Daemeter (2011) Overcoming Barriers to effective implementation of HCV in RSPO http://www.daemeter.org/wpcontent/uploads/2011/06/hcv_rspo_fgd_summary-report.pdf 44. Ernst&Young(2011) Biofuels and indirect land use change The case for mitigation http://www.endseurope.com/docs/111005a.pdf 45. Mondi wetland and plantation forest http://www.newgenerationplantations.com/pdf/case6.pdf 46. OLAM, Gabon http://www.proforest.net/projects/experience.2011-08-24.4580766855 47. This is Africa (2011) OLAM, Gabon http://www.thisisafricaonline.com/news/fullstory.php/aid/308/lessons_learned. html?current_page=2 48. Winrock (2009) Implications of biofuel sustainability standards for Brazil http://www.winrock.org/files/casestudy2_implications_%20biofuel_sustainabil ity_standards_brazil.pdf Literature search supported by Frans van Roosmalen PEOPLE INTERVIEWED Daan Wensing IUCN The Netherlands Desiree van Immerzaal, PhD Utrecht University Thea Hillhorst, Royal Institute of the Tropics, Amsterdam Pieter Sijbrandij, Solidaridad Brazil, Fatima Cardoso, Solidaridad Brazil Pitha Verweij, Copernicus Instituut Utrecht Gert van der Bijl, Solidaridad, Nl Christopher Stewart, Proforest Sven Sielhorst, Solidaridad Nl Jan Willem Molenaar, Aidenvironment 33