Day 1 - Session 4 - IPIECA

Bioenergy and Food
Security Projects
Implementing biofuels sustainability schemes –
Coverage of socio-economic sustainability issues
and limitations
Andrea Rossi
IPIECA-CONCAWE Workshop, Brussels, 18-19 September 2012

Main socio-economic dimensions
that may be affected by bioenergy development
• Access to land
• Employment, wages and labour conditions
• Income generation and inclusion of smallholders
• Local food security
• Community development
• Energy security and local access to energy
• Gender equity
‹#›
2

Factors determining socio-economic impacts
of bioenergy production
• The local socio-economic context
• the regional, national and local policy environment
• the types of bioenergy, feedstocks and processing
technologies
• the way production (especially feedstock production) is
managed
• the scale and ownership of production
• the types of business models found along the bioenergy
supply chain
3
‹#›

Bioenergy policies and socio-economic sustainability
‹#›
4

Voluntary standards and socio-economic sustainability
‹#›
5

Coverage of socio-economic sustainability: overview
‹#›
6

Socio-economic sustainability:
coverage and limitations
• Relatively broad set of socio-economic sustainability
issues covered by voluntary standards (beyond
requirements of regulatory frameworks)
• But, in most cases, lack of specific compliance indicators,
benchmarks and thresholds, especially with regard to food
security
‹#›
7

BEFS Operator Level Food Security
Assessment Tool
Key environmental and socioeconomic issues to consider in
assessing operator level impacts on food security:
1. Change in the supply of food (crops and livestock) to
the domestic market
2. Resource availability and efficiency of use (land,
water and fertilizers)
3. Physical displacement, change in access to
resources, compensation and income generation
‹#›
8

BEFS Operator Level Food Security
Assessment Tool
For each indicator, specific benchmarks and thresholds
are included to allow for a desk level assessment of a
planned or existing project’s impact on food security:
• Potential Benefit for Food Security
• No Significant Influence on Food Security
• Potential Risk to Food Security
www.fao.org/bioenergy/foodsecurity/befsci/operator-tool
‹#›
9

THANK YOU!
http://www.fao.org/bioenergy/foodsecurity/befs
PLEASE DO NOT HESITATE TO CONTACT US:
E-mail: BEFS-Project@fao.org
Phone: +39 06 57055376
Fax: +39 06 570 53369
‹#›
10

Sustainability standards and biofuels
Contributions to understanding impacts
18 Sept 2012
Sustainable Biofuels Regulation Workshop
Kristin Komives, ISEAL M&E Senior Manager
Photo © Rainforest Alliance

Outline
1. Setting the stage
› The ISEAL Alliance
› ISEAL and impacts
measurement
› Standards and biofuels
2. Measuring impacts of biofuels
› Which impacts?
› What can standards
systems contribute?
Photo © Aid for Trade Foundation

Setting the stage
Photo © Rainforest Alliance

What is the ISEAL
Alliance?
› Founded 2002
› Membership organisation
• Of standards and
international
accreditation bodies
› ISEAL defines credibility for
social and environmental
standard systems.
Photo © Simon Rawles | Fairtrade International

The ISEAL Alliance: A Growing Movement…
Full Members
Associate Members

ISEAL members and
biofuels
› Supply chain standards
• E.g. RSB (Roundtable for
Sustainable Biofuels)
› Feedstock standards -
production for the food or
fuel market
• Agricultural standards,
e.g. Bonsucro, Rainforest
Alliance
UTZ Certified

Codes & Credibility
Principles
Codes define good practice
and are conditions of
membership.
› Standard-Setting Code (since
2004)
› Impacts Code (since 2010)
› Assurance Code (In 2012)
Key “Credibility Principles”
inform the Codes
› Public consultation on-going
Photo © Rainforest Alliance

Impacts are at the
heart of ISEAL’s work
Credible standards deliver
expected impacts effectively
and efficiently
› To do this, each part of the
system must operate well
• The standard
• The assurance process
• Capacity building and other
supporting strategies
• Monitoring, evaluation, and
internal learning
Photo © Charlie Rainforest Watson| Rainforest Alliance Alliance

Impact and ISEAL’s Credibility Principles
Draft for public consultation Sept 2012

Stakeholders demand better information
on results and impacts
Most organisations today
MYTH ANECDOTE OBSERVATION COMPARISON REPLICATED RRC
Systematic
Indicators
+ Research
Strategy
Adapted from Rainforest Alliance

The Impacts Code as a response….
Code compliance is a membership requirement
› Full compliance by Dec 2013
› Or 2 years after becoming an Associate Member
What does the Code require?
› Clear articulation of sustainability goals
› Theory of change
› On-going monitoring (output and outcome indicators)
› Periodic outcome and impact evaluations (could be external)
› Public sharing of information and results
› Internal learning and improvement

Impacts of biofuels
Photo © Rainforest Alliance

Issues of primary concern in studies
Category of impact
Planet
People
Profit
Specific concerns
Greenhouse gas emissions
Land conversion
Competition for water
Biodiversity
Deforestation
Food prices and food insecurity
Employment in rural areas
Access to land for the poor
Rural employment / ag and rural development
National energy security
Economic growth in developing countries
Adapted from Michalopoulos et al 2011

Challenges for
biofuels impact
evaluation
› Impacts at different scales
• Adding up = gaps and
double-counting
› Differences across
contexts (“hotspots”)
› A “complex” system
› “Avoiding harm” or
“better than…” research
› Traceability of feedstock
Simon Rawles Fairtrade Foundation

What can standard systems
contribute?
Photo © Rainforest Alliance

Scope of concerns
vs. standards
› Concerns about biofuels
are systemic, regional,
national, or international
›Scope of standard systems
is generally the certified
entity and the activities and
resources it controls
› Some standards try to go
beyond boundary
›Certified biofuels are small
part of market
Simon Rawles Fairtrade Foundation

Standard systems’ assurance and M&E
systems match their scope
› Compliance with standard
• Practice –based: are practices implemented?
• Performance–based or metric: outcomes achieved?
› Monitoring and evaluation
• Goal = are they achieving their intended outputs, outcomes,
and impact?, are strategies and standard effective?
» Monitoring – focus on certified entity and direct, shortterm
results
» Outcome and impact evaluation – may be broader and
could potentially pick up landscape level issues

Contribution of
standards?
› Site level information
› Average outcomes for
certified crops or
operations in particular
regions
› Participate in systemlevel
or regional-level
discussions and
evaluations

Maximizing the
contribution
› Relevant site-level indicators
› Methods for aggregating
site level data
› Regional studies to which
they can contribute
›Financial support for data
collection and processing
› Small organisations, with limited
means for M&E
› Info gathering is costly and should
not fall on farmers
Simon Rawles Fairtrade Intl

Thank you!
For questions or further information, contact:
Kristin Komives (kristin@isealalliance.org)
Norma Tregurtha (norma@isealalliance.org)
Photo © Rainforest Alliance

WINROCK INTERNATIONAL
Building capacity for monitoring compliance
with standards
IPIECA Seminar
Biofuels sustainability standards and regulations
Brussels
www.winrock.org
Jessica Chalmers
September 18 th , 2012

Winrock Objectives
• Non-profit organisation that aims to:
– Empower the disadvantaged and accelerate economic development
opportunities through effective management of natural resources
– Build local and regional capacity to apply and improve available technology
– Mobilize investment
– Use robust science and economics to inform its work
Why bioenergy & biofuel?
• Development benefits of bioenergy
– New sources of revenue and jobs for rural areas
– Strengthened rural infrastructure (roads, communications, technical
services, production inputs, governance)
– Increase quantity and reliability of local energy supply
www.winrock.org

Presentation Overview
• Common items for compliance
• Relevant tools and techniques
– focus on exploring remote sensing
• Assessing compliance vs monitoring
outcomes
www.winrock.org

Common items for compliance
within standards (environmental)
Land cover /land use
Need to identify at 1ha scale. Satellite data with a 30m or higher (max 60m) is considered sufficient to serve
as reliable evidence of the land cover but may not be conclusive (EU guidance for RED)
Carbon stocks
Biological diversity
Water quality
Water availability
Soil health
Avoid high carbon stocks
Proxies using land cover and assigning carbon stock numbers
Some no-go area approach; protected areas,
‘highly biodiverse’ grasslands*
(At least) No detriment to water quality
Often requires water management plan
(At least) No detriment to water availability
Often requires water management plan
(At least) no detriment to soil health
References to sustainable residue removal rates
www.winrock.org

Land cover identification from
freely available satellite imagery
Screenshots from the CANASAT Project, Brazil, illustrating
changes in cane distribution from crop year 2005/6 to 2008/9.
www.dsr.inpe.br/laf/series
Source: CANASAT Project (2009).
www.winrock.org

US Cropland Data Layer
www.nassgeodata.gmu.edu/CropScape
www.winrock.org

Global tools for monitoring
carbon stocks and change
BioCarbon Tracker uses satellite data to
• map the ecosystems where biocarbon is stored
• identify vegetation at risk from land use change and
• monitor where high biocarbon stock land such as forest is converted to
agriculture (soil carbon not yet included).
Source: http://biocarbontracker.com/
www.winrock.org

Tools to address carbon stock
requirements: regional scale
• Under discussion – create go and no-go area mapping to demonstrate compliance with
RED carbon criteria.
– Options: hard distinctions vs indicative risks
Impact
“High threat”
High Negative Impact
Moderate Negative Impact
Range of change in
GHG emissions
TBD
TBD
Notes
Ranges are likely to demonstrate that even accounting for errors
the impact is negative.
The outcome on paper is negative, but the ranges are based on
numbers that suggest they can be mitigated with best agricultural
management practices.
Moderate Positive Impact
“Low threat”
High Positive Impact
• Issues
TBD
TBD
– No clear support for approach
– Potentially substantial uncertainty
The outcome on paper is positive, but the ranges are too
uncertain to determine the impact without more precise data.
Ranges are likely to demonstrate that even accounting for errors
the impact is positive.
• Coarse scale estimates of carbon stocks can help develop threat assessments at
national scales (using MODIS data).
• Forest carbon estimates improving but others e.g., pasture land not well assessed
– Still based on good identification of land cover so appropriate geographic scale and
www.winrock.org availability of satellite data (e.g., for 2008 reference date) are issues

Tools to address carbon stocks:
site scale
Source: Pearson et al, 2005 www.winrock.org/.../TAP_presentation-M3DADIvsCONV_2006.pdf
www.winrock.org

Biodiversity tools
• Integrated Biodiversity
Assessment Tool (IBAT)
• High Conservation Value
areas
– Referenced by a number of
standards
– A framework for regional
and site scales
– Includes social values
– Requires trained /
experienced people to
undertake
Remote sensing: Identifying habitats and suitability has been done through the
use of RS but measuring function within an ecosystem is challenging.
www.winrock.org

Other uses of RS
Water consumption
Harvest practice
Annual total ET in Imperial Valley (California, US) in the
period Oct 1997 – Sep 1998. The image dimension is
approx 75 km x 75 km, pixel size is 30 m (source:
Thoreson et al., 2009 cited in eLEAF/Winrock paper).
Differences between burned (dark) and unburned fields
in Brazil. Presented by Dr. Bernardo Rudorff at Winrock
workshop on RS for monitoring biofuels, Jan 2012.
www.winrock.org
Residues: there is not a good operational sensor that can estimate dry
cellulosic matter well.

Optical satellite data: infrastructure
the elephant in the room
• Lack of trained data analysts
• Lack of clear demand/promotion
for this approach from potential
users
• Lack of infrastructure for some
developed and developing nations
for downloading RS data
• Landsat 5 failure this year with a
serious potential loss of data
• Some regions have problems
getting cloud-free imagery and
need supplementary RS data
(may incur costs)
Landsat active ground station. Green circles download Landsat 7 data, red
circles Landsat 5, red and green Landsat 5&7, and yellow circles are
potential future stations
(http://landsat.usgs.gov/about_ground_stations.php).
• Small field sizes (

Infrastructure
Resources
Tools and
techniques
Significant bottleneck
No bottleneck
Presence of ground stations to receive satelllite data
Internet speeds to download data
Storage capacity for data - hardware
Potential data gap from failure of
Landsat 5
Availability of technical analysts to
interpret existing data
No freely available global radar to
avoid cloud cover issues
Lack of thermal band on
Landsat continuation mission
Availability of products
to facilitate use of data
Some optical data not
freely available
Freely available optical data (e.g.,
MODIS, Landsat)
Understanding of needs and capabilities
between users and providers of data
Existence of techniques
for monitoring
www.winrock.org
Awareness of the capacity of existing
data to meet monitoring needs

Assessing compliance vs monitoring
outcomes: the case of water
• Some requirements of standards include: water management plans, water
footprints, reduction of water use by X%
• But what about the appropriate context? – river basin availability
Water Stress Indicator – major river basins
Source: Smahktin et al, 2005
www.winrock.org

Monitoring outcomes is the essential feedback
loop for delivering sustainable biofuels
e) Evaluate
performance
and outcomes
a)
Establish
baseline
and
identify
threats
d) Monitor & verify
performance and
outcomes
c) Develop &
implement
strategy, policy,
practices to
mitigate threat
and optimize
benefits
b) Identify
performance
requirements to
mitigate threats
www.winrock.org

Links across geographic scales
are critical
www.winrock.org

Conclusions: building capacity
for monitoring
• Objectives of standard and therefore the requirements for building capacity may differ
between standards, actors and within different national settings
• Generally, tools and techniques to assess compliance are available – different scales
• Remote sensing is underutilised, not a panacea but could make substantial contributions
and could reduce admin burden
– Freely available imagery (Landsat and MODIS) could be used to a much greater
extent than currently but..
• Will they be acceptable for compliance? At what scales?
– Dialogue between potential users and RS scientists needed
• Investment in infrastructure needed (failure of Landsat 5, future of Landsat?)
• Need to train analysts in utilising the information
• Need ground-truth data for validation of RS data
• Enabling access to imagery is key
• Creating new and user-friendly products likely to be needed
• We need to focus on monitoring outcomes not just one-off assessments for compliance.
– Assessment and monitoring across temporal and geographic scales is needed –
context and baseline data
– Communication network needed to co-ordinate data across geographic scales (top
www.winrock.org
down and bottom up) Are we really delivering biofuels sustainably?

Thank you!
• Winrock web: www.winrock.org
• Jessica Chalmers (London-based)
JChalmers@winrock.field.org
+44 (0) 7985 499 061
www.winrock.org

Satellite data (optical)
Scale (Resolution)
Large (>60m)
1000m
Sensor
SPOT
Vegetation*
Swath
Width
Frequency
of Passes
Spectral
Resolution
2,250km 10 days 4 bands
250-500m MODIS* 2,330km 8-16 day 7 bands
Comment
Useful mapping scale: global. General scale for identifying land cover: 100-1000ha. This
imagery has been used to map large area croplands and cropland types. It can be used to
identify broad forest categories such as broadleaf and conifer, but likely high error with
other woody land cover like shrub lands. Able to map large grassland areas but has
very limited ability to determine grassland conditions.
Medium (10-60m)
56m IRS AWiFS 796km 8-16 days 8 bands
30m
Landsat* 185km 16 days 8 bands
DMC
600km 4 days 3 bands
Useful mapping scale: national. General scale for identifying land cover: 1-5ha. This imagery
has routinely been used to map crop types across regional areas and more recently has
reached national scales for countries as large as the US. Has been used to identify different
forest types but is relatively limited. Has been used to determine grassland conditions in
numerous studies with varying degrees of accuracy.
15-60m ASTER 60km 16 days 15 bands
Small (>10m)
2.5-5m SPOT-5 60km 5 days** 5 bands
1-4m Ikonos 11.3km 5 days** 4 bands
0.5-2m WorldView-2 16.4km 3 days** 8 bands
Useful mapping scale: sub-national. General scale for identifying land cover: 2-50m. This
imagery can be used to map cropland types. More often high resolution is used for identifying
crop conditions for purposes such as determining irrigation or fertilization deficits. Can be
used to map different forest types grassland conditions and other detailed land cover
dynamics.
www.winrock.org

Table 3: Opportunities, limitations and challenges for RS and agricultural productivity
Opportunities
Quantifying annual yields on
an area basis – simulation
modeling
Limitations and challenges
Requires high resolution imagery and availability of ground truth data
While substantial data is available through existing satellites there is a lack of trained analysts
Multiple data sources are combined in simulation modeling and require co-operation between numerous
disciplines (agronomist, meteorologist, RS experts etc)
Optimizing yield through
monitoring yield development
throughout the growth cycle
Currently only products offered are by private companies, which increases the price
Requires field validation to support results
Has to be dealt with seasonally and not on average
Need at least weekly imagery
Need to know data on cultivation cycle,harvest timings therefore collaborations between RS scientists,
agronomists, meteorologists are needed
www.winrock.org

Generating better and timely data:
the potential role of remote sensing
Carbon stocks
Biodiversity
Water
consumption
Water quality
Productivity
Analysis and
interpretation /
modeling
Land cover
Crop type
Rainfall Evapotranspiration
Leaching of
rainfed
cropping
systems
N in leaves
Crop yield
Biomass
production
Example
parameters
gathered by a
sensor
Surface temperature
Soil moisture
Vegetation
indices
Monitoring compliance is one use but RS can be used in an active management approach to
optimise productivity with given resource base, providing farmers with real-time information
www.winrock.org

Winrock International
Enterprise & Agriculture
- Supports growth of small &
medium-sized enterprises
- Enhance productivity & connect
farmers to markets
- Develops public & private
partnerships
Environment: Forestry, Energy
& Ecosystem Services
- GIS techniques & imagery for
natural resource management
- Carbon stock surveys &
measurement
- Watershed management
Empowe
-rment &
civic
engagement
US Programs:
Specific focus
on domestic
development
challenges
facing rural
communities
The Henry A.
Wallace
Center for
Agricultural
and
Environmental
Policy
Agriculture
Unit
Forestry &
Natural
Resources
Management
Ecosystem
Services
Clean Energy
- Promotion of
commercially
viable RE
systems
Civil Society
strengthening
Women’s
empowerment
Youth
leadership &
education
www.winrock.org

MEASURABLE IMPACTS OF
VOLUNTARY STANDARDS:
THE ENVIRONMENT
A PRESENTATION AT THE
IPECA BIOFUEL WORKSHOP 18-19 SEPT
©2009 Rainforest Alliance

©2009 Rainforest Alliance 54

©2009 Rainforest Alliance 55

IN KEY CONSUMER MARKETS
42%
Australia
35%
Canada
42%
U.S.
39%
Germany
44%
Sweden
44%
Denmark
54%
U.K.
44%
Finland
Prompted Awareness of Rainforest Alliance Certified

THROUGH GREAT COLLABORATIONS…

RAINFOREST ALLIANCE ORGANIZATION
RA President
Programs
Communications,
Finance, Development,
Legal, HR
RA-Cert
Tourism
Evaluation &
Research
Climate
Agriculture
Forestry
Forestry cert
Sustainable Value
Chains
SmartSource
Ag cert
Sustainable
Landscapes
TREES
Carbon
verification
SAN
SECRETARIAT
58

THE VALUE CHAIN APPROACH OF OUR MISSION
Capacity Building:
Producer support
and Training
Certification:
Sustainable Forestry
Sustainable Agriculture
Carbon validation / verification
Market
development and
corporate
engagement
Systems development, operations, and governance
Training and support for producers
Auditing / certification /
verification Chain of custody -
traceability
Corporate
engagement
Marketing support
and brand awareness
producers / processors buyers / exporters / importers distributors / brands / retailers / industry groups consumers
LAND USE PRACTICES BUSINESS PRACTICES CONSUMER BEHAVIOR

USING CERTIFICATION TO TRANSFORM
MARKETS AT SCALE
RAINFOREST ALLIANCE CERTIFIED TM

SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE PROGRAM
• First global Sustainable Agriculture Standard founded in 1993 with a
network of NGOS in the developing world: the Sustainable Agriculture
Network (SAN);
• Over 575,000 certified farms. 1.8 m ha of certified agricultural land;
• 31crops grown in 38 countries sold by 3000+ companies worldwide.
61
61

SUSTAINABLE FORESTRY
• Pioneers of sustainable forestry certification; helped establish the Forest
Stewardship Council (FSC) in 1993
• Collaboration with companies and forest enterprises to harvest forest products
using the most holistically sustainable methods possible.; focus on creating
market access.
• Leader in FSC certification: 72 million hectares across 72 countries.
62

CLIMATE PROGRAM
• Carbon Verification & Validation: confirms carbon projects are conservationoriented
and meet established international standards for carbon sequestration.
• Sustainable Agriculture Climate Module:
- Climate mitigation: add-on to existing standard with robust climate criteria.
- Climate change adaptation: preparation for impacts on crops.
• Carbon Credits: our climate services enable company and community-run projects
to benefit financially from carbon credit payments.

BUIDING CAPACITY AT PRODUCER LEVEL
ONLINE TRAINING PLATFORM
WWW.SUSTAINABLEAGRICULTURETRAINING.ORG
64

Environmental
Social
Economic
COMPREHENSIVE CERTIFICATION CRITERIA
65
The Sustainable Agriculture Network Standard
10 PRINCIPLES
Must score minimum of 50% in
each principle
99 CRITERIA
Must score a minimum of 80%
overall
15 CRITICAL CRITERIA
Must score 100% in all 15
1. Social and Environmental
Management System
2. Ecosystem Conservation
3. Wildlife Protection
4. Water Conservation
5. Fair Treatment and Good Working
Conditions for Workers
6. Occupational Health and Safety
7. Community Relations
8. Integrated Crop Management
9. Soil Management and Conservation
10. Integrated Waste Management

COLLABORATING -----
• Collaboration :with RTS and other standard systems
• Supporting standard development.
• Leading harmonization.
• Raising the bar and seeking solutions.
• Field-proofing policy.

....AND DIFFERENTIATING
• COMPREHENSIVE: Environmental, economic, and social components
• CREDIBLE: 25 years developing and delivering sustainability certification
• Focus on BIODIVERSITY and NO DEFORESTATION
– No high value ecosystem destruction since 2005
– 2.4. Management plan for extraction; threatened species cannot be harvested
– 2.5. Separation between production areas and natural ecosystems
– 2.8. Integration of trees in the productive landscape
– 9.3. Vegetation required to reduce soil erosion
– 9.4/5. No burning or land clearing for agriculture
• RIGOROUS: Detailed standards with thorough audits
• Applies to LARGE PLANTATIONS AND SMALLHOLDERS
• LOCAL INTERPRETATION guidelines
• Does not deal with TERMS OF TRADE

IN BIOFUEL ARENA...
• How does the Rainforest Alliance fit into the sustainable palm oil
landscape?
• Robust environmental criteria, including species monitoring and biodiversity
conservation, and mitigation of any damage resulting from deforestation since November
1999.
• Boots on the ground: Field based staff working in the field, including 9 organizational
partners in Latin America alone. Capacity to monitor and evaluate during and after the
certification process.
• Traceability to origin
• Power of the frog seal to engage consumers in specific markets/brands
• Diversification of sources of certified sustainable palm oil will allow large companies who have made wide
commitments to achieve their public targets.
• How does Rainforest Alliance certification compare with that of the
RSB and ISCC?
• Sourcing policies and SmartSouce mapping and supply chain analysis. Develop protocols for
alignment of standards;
• Joint training with other cert systems, NGOs and Technical Assistant providers; s and joint
auditing, combi-certs;
• Supporting the roundtables and stakeholder engagement;
• Brazil. Bonsucro and IMAFLORA (SAN Partner) already working together;
• How does Rainforest Alliance Certified palm oil compare to RSPO
Certified palm oil?
68

MEASURABLE IMPACTS – A SHORT LIST
• Biodiversity on farms – fauna and flora
• Biodiversity impacts in broader landscapes
• Water conservation
• Water quality
• Pesticides and chemical use and abuse
• Riparian protection
• Soil conservation
• Soil fertility
• Habitat change – fragmentation and connectivity
• Economic sustainability: productivity, prices and market access
• Social sustainability: workers’ and children’s welfare; community and family
cohesion
69

IS IT WORKING?
UNILEVER SUSTAINABLE TEA:
LEAPFROGGING TO MAINSTREAM
IMD-2-0157
20.09.2010
70

OTHER INDEPENDENT STUDIES
• COSA Cocoa impact study
• and would like to have any data or studies we have available to make the case
• ProForest Colombia Test results.
• The Brazil coffee study
• Toward Sustainability: The Roles and Limitations of Certification
www.resolv.org/certificationassessment.
• Through the assessment, the Steering Committee found substantial evidence
of improvements in social, environmental, and economic practices resulting
from certification at the site level…. However, the evidence of broader or
longer-term impacts is more limited…… it is difficult to attribute outcomes
directly to certification. Consequently, additional coordinated research on the
impacts of certification……….is a top priority.
71

AND MEASURING THE IMPACTS OF OUR WORK..
COSA STUDY COTE D’IVOIRE (EXAMPLE)
PRODUCTION—NOT PRICE—DRIVING REVENUE
Yield in
Kilograms per
Hectare (2011)
Revenue in
USD per
Hectare (2011)
576 334
$922 $542
Certified Non-certified
Certified Non-certified
Based on a survey of 117 RA-certified cocoa farms and 135 control farms
* Difference is significant with 95% confidence
72

KTDA TEA IMPACT STUDY
*LEI WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY BY YUCA WAARTS , 2012
• 350+ farmers from 4 Kenyan tea
factories within KTDA between
• July 2010 to February 2012
• Impact assessment of:
i. Farmer Field School (FFS)
training only
ii.
iii.
iv.
Rainforest Alliance (RA)
training only
FFS + RA training combined
No training programs
(control group)
• FFS + RA highest increase in knowledge of GAPs,
followed by the RA only group.
• RA only group had significantly higher knowledge
level, especially in environmental GAPs, than other
groups.
• RA training showed in: better waste and water
management, productivity, soil conservation, health &
safety, wildlife protection, and green leaf quality.
• Among the RA trained farmers:
• 97% were satisfied with the training
• 80% would recommend training
• 84% said they benefitted from the training
73

RWANDA TEA
• http://www.rainforest-alliance.org/multimedia/rwanda-tea-farmer
74

THE NEED FOR LAND HUSBANDRY
‘The food industry (for various reasons) cares about
what happens on farms. The fuel industry is only
interested in compliance’
Chris Wille,
Chief of Agriculture,
Rainforest Alliance
75

THANK YOU !
Mohammad Rafiq mrafiq@ra.org
Senior Vice President, Programs
The Rainforest Alliance works to conserve biodiversity and ensure sustainable livelihoods
by transforming land-use practices, business practices and consumer behavior.

• Supporting standard development. (we supported both the Roundtable on
Sustainable Biofuels and the International Sustainability and Carbon Certification
standards. As the oldest and most experienced standard and cert system, we
contribute hard-earned knowledge about how to guide improvements on
plantations, which produce mostly food but also biomass for biofuels)
• Leading harmonization. (with support from Packard and now CLUA, we have led
efforts to build unity, alignment and collaboration among the roundtables, the SAN
standard and the two biofuels standards. This is beginning to pay off, as the RSB has
“recognized” the SAN standard, and Bonsucro is working with IMAFLORA to find
common ground)
• Raising the bar and seeking solutions. (we have led or participated in coalitions
working on biofuels related issues such as the definition of high conservation value
ecosystems, “go” and “no-go” planting areas, equity and self-empowerment for
small holders, biological corridors and buffer zones, and the troublesome Indirect
Land Use Change. We and WRI have developed a Forest Cover Monitoring
Methodology that uses satellite imagery and boots-on-the-ground verification. The
SAN standard-setting process serves as a model for the others, and the SAN
standard itself is the backbone of all the new standards.)
• Field-proofing policy. (The RA and SAN feed information from the field to
policymakers and support our sister NGOs in biofuels policy reform. We are not
vocal in policy forums; instead we support groups like BirdLife in Europe and
National Wildlife Federation and NRDC in the US, helping them see and “proof”
the implications of policy changes.)
77