Sustainability Standards for Bioenergy

Published by: WWF Germany, Frankfurt am Main, November 2006Authors: Uwe R. Fritsche, Katja Hünecke, Andreas Hermann, Falk Schulze, Kirsten Wiegmann with contributions from Michel Adolphe, Öko-Institut e.V., DarmstadtContact/Editor: Imke Lübbeke, WWF Germany, Office Berlin, Phone: +49 030 308742-22, e-mail: luebbeke@wwf.deLayout: Astrid Ernst, Text- und Bildgestaltung, Bremen

© WWF Germany, Frankfurt am Main

Any reproduction in full or in part of this publication must mention the title and credit the abovementioned author as the copyright owner.

Cover photos: Sonnenblumenfeld © Marek Czaenoljd

WWF Germany 3

Foreword Sustainability standards for bioenergy are a key issue from an environmental and nature-protection viewpoint. The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) Germany is promoting activities in this direction. To further the ongoing discussion and offer a concrete proposal for standards, WWF Germany commissioned a brief study from the Öko-Institut (Institute for Applied Ecology). The study provides an overview of key ecological and social impacts of bioenergy and develops a core set of standards which could ensure the sustainability of future bioenergy supplies.

The scientific work was based on existing studies, other research results and information already available within the Öko-Institut.

This final report summarizes the key findings of this work. It should be understood as a discussion paper that aims to promote further discussion and implementation on different policy levels and with different stakeholders. The report is not a position paper of WWF Germany.

WWF and Öko-Institut would like to thank all contributors – especially those who participated in the discussions on the drafts of this study at the informal “Biomass Round Table” organized by WWF Germany from spring to fall 2006 in Berlin – for their valuable comments, critique and helpful hints.

We would also like to thank Jean-Francois Dallemand (JRC-Ispra) and Ingmar Juergens (FAO) for their input and detailed review.

Berlin, November 2006 Imke Lübbeke, WWF Germany

Darmstadt, November 2006 The Authors (Öko-Institut)

WWF Germany 4

Foreword ............................................................................................................................................. 3

Report Overview ................................................................................................................................... 6

1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 71.1 Global potential of bioenergy .................................................................................................... 81.2 Sustainability issues of bioenergy development ....................................................................... 91.3 Standards and certification schemes .......................................................................................... 9

2. Key Environmental and Social Concerns of Bioenergy Production and Core Sustainability Standards ................................................................................................................. 102.1 Land use, land availability and land-use conflicts .................................................................. 10

2.1.1 Clarification of land ownership .................................................................................... 132.1.2 Avoiding negative impacts from bioenergy-driven changes in land use ...................... 132.1.3 Priority for food supply and food security .................................................................... 14

2.2 Loss of biodiversity and deforestation .................................................................................... 152.2.1 No additional negative biodiversity impacts ................................................................ 16

2.3 Greenhouse-gas emissions ...................................................................................................... 182.3.1 Minimization of greenhouse-gas emissions ................................................................. 18

2.4 Soil erosion and other forms of soil degradation .................................................................... 192.4.1 Minimization of soil erosion and degradation .............................................................. 19

2.5 Water use and water contamination ......................................................................................... 192.5.1 Minimization of water use and avoidance of water contamination .............................. 20

2.6 Socio-economic problems and standards ................................................................................ 202.6.1 Improvement of labor conditions and worker rights .................................................... 202.6.2 Ensuring a share of proceeds ........................................................................................ 212.6.3 Avoiding human health impacts .................................................................................... 21

2.7 Summary of recommended standards ..................................................................................... 212.8 Standards in perspective .......................................................................................................... 22

3. Legal Situation and Implementation Options for Sustainability Standards ................................... 233.1 International, European and national policy analysis ............................................................. 23

3.1.1 Legal framework on an international level ................................................................... 233.1.2 Legal framework at the European level ........................................................................ 243.1.3 Legal framework at the National Level ........................................................................ 27

3.2 Instruments (examples) ........................................................................................................... 283.2.1 Feed-in tariffs ................................................................................................................ 283.2.2 Tax exemption/reduction .............................................................................................. 283.2.3 (Admixture) Quotas ...................................................................................................... 293.2.4 Import regulations ......................................................................................................... 29

Contents

4. Implementation of Sustainability Standards for Bioenergy ........................................................... 304.1 The “Ideal” regulation ............................................................................................................. 304.2 Bottom-up activities and further approach .............................................................................. 314.3 Recommendations on implementing sustainability standards ................................................ 314.4 Beyond bioenergy: sustainable carbon? .................................................................................. 32

References ......................................................................................................................................... 33

Annexes ............................................................................................................................................... 36A-1a Procedural framework for further work ............................................................................... 36A-1b Environmental prioritization of crops .................................................................................. 36A-2 Synopsis of certification systems ........................................................................................... 40A-3 Synopsis of environmental standards for biomass ................................................................. 44A-4 Synopsis of social standards for biomass ............................................................................... 63A-5 Biomass criteria for certification of green electricity ............................................................ 72A-6 List of URLs for relevant sources of criteria and standards .................................................. 76

List of Acronyms ................................................................................................................................. 78

WWF Germany 5

This report begins in Section 1 with an introduction to key bioenergy issues, summarizing “drivers”, global potential, the key issues of sustainable biomass and standards.

Section 2 gives a brief description of key potential problems and conflict areas arising from increased bioenergy supply, and derives core sustainability standards for each problem area. The standards were determined on the basis of a broad review of existing labeling and certification schemes for bio-based products and previous work carried out by the authors. A distinction is made between the use of biogenic residues/wastes and the dedicated cultivation of bioenergy crops. Our study focuses on the latter.

Section 3 discusses the legal background to implementing sustainability standards with special focus on international rules, EU legal settings and certain German laws. Legal instruments are also briefly described.

Approaches to implementing sustainability standards for biomass is introduced in Section 4, which also draws conclusions from the previous sections and gives recommendations, above all on the need to begin introducing sustainability standards for bioenergy. Furthermore, some open questions are addressed.

The report closes with a reference section, a list of acronyms and annexes – offering additional thoughts on environmental assessment methods – and synopses with details on sustainability standards for biomass.

Report Overview

Figure 1: Pechoro-Ilychskiy Nature Reserve, Russian Federation Forest canopy seen from the ground with its autumn colors as the leaves start to change. © WWF-Canon / Per Angelstam

WWF Germany 6

Biomass has been used by human beings as a source of food, fodder, fiber, building material and energy since the dawn of civilization. Biomass is defined as the totality of plants in the terrestrial and marine biosphere that convert CO2, water and solar energy into an abundance of organic materials. Biomass also includes the animals that feed on plants (and other animals), as well as a variety of destruents – including bacteria and fungi – which transform plants and animals and their organic wastes back into water and CO2.

All this takes place within a complex web of organic materials, soil and plant matter, marine flows, cycling of nutrients and detritus, and much more. This is what we, in short, call life.

Biomass can be read as “the stuff of life”, i.e. everything that living beings are made of, and includes the organic material resulting upon their deaths1.

Terrestrial biomass, i.e. anything that lives on land, dominates the use pattern of human interaction with plants and animals, from agriculture to hunting and forestry, while marine biomass (living beings in the oceans) is currently used mostly in fishing and (some) harvesting of algae.

The largest share of today’s human “appropriation” of terrestrial biomass is dedicated to the provision of food, fodder, and fiber. Currently, only around 10 percent of biomass is directly used for energy purposes, but residues from agriculture and forestry and their downstream processing nevertheless find their way into cooking stoves, furnaces and power plants. Marine biomass is - as yet - not used as an energy source at all2.

1. IntroductionThese figures should be kept in mind when considering the sustainability of bioenergy3:

First and foremost, the pressure on land, biodiversity, soil, etc. results from non-energy biomass supply, i.e. (non-sustainable) agriculture, and (again non-sustainable) forestry4.

Today, all forms of bioenergy (biomass used for energy, including biofuels) supply some 10 percent of the world primary energy demand, representing about 90 percent of the global contribution of all renewable energies (REN21 2006).

The biggest proportion of bioenergy use today is supplied by organic wastes, and – in a few (but nevertheless relevant) regions – by the unsustainable use of forests or bush land.

Given the likelihood of further rises in oil prices and the persistence of relatively low commodity prices for agricultural and forestry mass products – as well as increasing concerns on global climate change – the supply and use of bioenergy will be accorded more attention in the future.

While the share of bioenergy in the OECD’s energy supply has decreased over the last decades5, biomass is an important energy source in developing countries6 as shown in the following table.

1 Biomass is also the main source of pre-historic deposits which we call fossil fuels – coal, natural gas, and crude oil.2 See Richter (2006) for a discussion of “aquatic” biomass, focusing on marine resources, their role in feedstock provision and their potential for energy conversion.3 See FAO’s definition of the following terms (FAO 2006a): Bioenergy: energy from biofuels. Biofuel: fuel produced directly or indirectly from biomass such as fuelwood, charcoal, bioethanol, biodiesel, bio-gas (methane) or biohydrogen. Biomass: material of biological origin excluding material embedded in geological formations and transformed to fossil, such as energy crops, agricultural and forestry wastes and by-products, manure or microbial biomass. Bioenergy includes all wood energy and all agro-energy resources. Wood energy resources are fuelwood, charcoal, forestry residues, black liquor and any other energy derived from trees. Agro-energy resources are energy crops, i.e. plants purposely grown for energy such as sugar cane, sugar beet, sweet sorghum, maize, palm oil, seed rape and other oilseeds, and various grasses. Other agro-energy resources are agricultural

and livestock by-products such as straw, leaves, stalks, husks, shells, manure, droppings and other food and agricultural processing and slaughter by-products.4 It should be noted, however, that about half of the global forestry products are for firewood (FAO 2000). Furthermore, bioenergy supply could grow far more rapidly than traditional agriculture or forestry – especially if fossil energy prices remain high or rise further, and revenues for agricultural and forest products continue to decline.5 There are some exceptions to this trend, e.g., Austria, Denmark, Finland, and Sweden. Drastically higher shares of bioenergy are also expected in Germany in the future (Fritsche et al. 2004).6 In developing countries, some 35% of primary energy comes from biomass (on average); in some African countries even as much as 90%. The energy supply of approx. 2 billion people depends almost exclusively on biomass, where “traditional“ bioenergy (wood, manure) still plays an important role in cooking (Karekezi 2004).

WWF Germany 7

1.1 Global potential of bioenergy The following table indicates the potential contribution of biomass to the global energy supply in the year 2050.

Table 1: Primary Energy Demand, Renewables and Biomass in Selected Regions (2000)

data in EJ/a total primary energy

total renewables total biomassbiomass share of primary energy

Africa 21.5 10.8 10.5 49%

Latin America 18.8 5.3 3.3 18%

Asia w/o China 48.2 16.1 15.0 31%

China 48.4 10.0 9.0 19%

Middle East 16.3 0.1 0.0 0%

CIS + Central Europe 43.7 1.7 0.6 1%

OECD 223.3 12.7 6.8 3%

World 420.3 56.7 45.2 11%

Source: OEKO (2005)

Table 2: Global Bioenergy Production Potentials for Biomass in 2050

Potential (EJ) Main Assumptions and Remarks

Agricultural Residues

15–70 Based on estimates from various studies. Potential depends on yield/product ratios, total agricultural land area, type of production system. Extensive production systems require that residues be left, so as to maintain soil fertility; intensive systems allow for higher rates of residue-energy use.

Organic Wastes 5–50 Based on estimates from various studies. Includes the organic fraction of MSW and waste wood.Strongly dependent on economic development and consumption, and the uses to which biomaterials are put. Higher values possible by more intensive use of biomaterials.

Dung 5–55 Use of dried dung. Low-range value based on current global use; high value reflects technical potential. Utilization (collection) over longer term is uncertain.

Forest Residues 30–150 Figures include processing residues.Part is natural forest (reserves). The (sustainable) energy potential of the world’s forests is unclear. Low-range value based on sustainable forest management; high value reflects technical potential.

Energy Crops (current agri-cultural land)

0–700(100–300)

Potential land availability 0–4 gigahectares (Gha), though 1–2 is closer to the average. Based on productivity of 8–12 dry tonnes/ha/yr (higher yields are likely with better soil quality). If adaptation of intensive agricultural production systems is not feasible, bioenergy supply could be zero.

Energy Crops (marginal land)

60–150 Potential maximum land area of 1.7 Gha Low productivity is 2–5 dry tonnes/ha/yr.Bioenergy supply could be low or zero due to poor economics or competition with food production.

Total 40–1,100 (250 –500)

Pessimistic scenario assumes no land for energy farming, only use of residues; optimistic scenario assumes intensive agriculture on better quality soils.( ) = most realistic in a world aiming for large-scale bioenergy use.

Source: Adjusted from WWI/gtz (2006)

WWF Germany 8

Various studies on global bioenergy potential use a margin spanning from a few hundred to more than 1,000 EJ – depending on the assumptions they make on agriculture, yields, population, etc. (Fallot et al. 2006, Hoogwijk 2004).

The tropical regions of Latin America and Africa could become a “green Eldorado” for bioenergy, as they already are for traditional agricultural products (WBGU 2003). But other regions of the world could also produce substantial amounts of bioenergy in addition to the potential of bioenergy from residues and wastes.

In the most optimistic scenarios, bioenergy could provide for over twice the current global energy demand without competing with food production, forest-protection efforts and biodiversity. In the least favorable scenarios, however, bioenergy could supply only a fraction of current energy use, perhaps even less than it provides today.

Given this huge range, there is an opportunity to shape the future development of biomass, especially in the direction of sustainable supply practices.

On the other hand, there is a considerable risk of unsustainable bioenergy development, as the global rise of the so-called “green revolution” in agriculture showed in the mid-1960s and 70s, when industrialized high-input cash crops like oil palm, soy beans and sugarcane spread rapidly and intensively around the globe.

1.2 Sustainability issues of bioenergy development

Against this background, serious concerns have been raised about the sustainability of future bioenergy development, both for residues and for dedicated energy crops7.

Sustainability involves economic, environmental and social issues. This study focuses on the latter, although they are also linked to economic issues8.

The purpose of this study is not to evaluate certain sustainability dimensions as better than others, or to discuss trade-offs between them (which exist), but rather to safeguard bioenergy against environmental and social problems which could arise from economically-driven development9.

It should also be emphasized also that bioenergy could – compared to fossil fuels – drastically reduce greenhouse-gas emissions if managed appropriately (see Section 2.3). Bioenergy also offers significant opportunities to improve sustainable development, especially in smaller-scale rural areas, as underlined by the examples given in TERI (2005) for India and Janssen et al. (2005) for Tanzania.

It should be noted, however, that research on sustainable bioenergy systems is a very young science, so that few studies and empirical, field-derived data are available as yet. This applies even more to sustainability issues of bioenergy in developing (mostly Southern) countries, where semi-arid, arid and tropical climates restrict the application of results from “Northern” countries, which have different soils and climates and use different farming systems10.

1.3 Standards and certification schemes The sustainability standards discussed in Section 2 are meant as basic principles for defining the “rules” by which sustainable bioenergy development should play.

A set of criteria and indicators can be derived from these standards to “measure” compliance and be implemented into voluntary or legal systems like product labeling and certification, but also in (government) support schemes (e.g. subsidies or preferential treatment of some products).

This study focuses on sustainability standards, while drawing substantially on existing labeling and certification schemes for bio-based products11.

It does not look into certification itself, nor monitoring or verification. These aspects need to be addressed after the core set of standards has been agreed and implementation has begun.7 See for example Cameron (2006), EEB/BLI/T&E (2006), and

Neuhaus (2006), as well as the global considerations raised in WWI/gtz (2006).8 Since it is hard to clearly distinguish between economic and social issues, some more “macro” economic concerns are included in the social dimensions (see Section 2.6).9 The study does not deal with the sustainability of “traditional” biomass (e.g., small-scale use of wood for cooking), and bio-based materials (agricultural commodities, timber, paper, fibers etc), even though they dominate current global biomass use.

10 A notable exception is the Expert Workshop on Sustainable Bioenergy Cropping Systems for the Mediterranean which focused on semi-dry and dry climates (JRC/EEA 2006).11 For details on the sustainability standards in existing certification schemes, see Annexes 3-5. Annex 2 gives a synopsis of the organizational issues relevant for the governance structure of a certification scheme..

WWF Germany 9

access to documents with details on these initiatives and organizations.

The sustainability standards for bioenergy presented in the subsequent subsections follow the logic of cumulative compliance, i.e. sustainable bioenergy developments must meet all of the core standards simultaneously. If a project fails to comply with any one of the core standards, it should be considered unsustainable.

Furthermore, the standards developed here have an impact focus, i.e. they are expressed with respect to the area of concern only. As a consequence, the cross-impact effects of standards are not explicitly addressed; e.g. the effects of the agrochemicals standards listed under “water protection” also have a protective impact on biodiversity and soil.

Recommended standards are shown in the text in lightly shaded boxes for easier recognition.

In Annex 1, an additional instrument is discussed which goes beyond the core standards: the choice of bioenergy farming systems also determines impacts on biodiversity, soil, etc. The various farming systems should therefore be given a relative ranking, favoring schemes with low environmental risks and penalizing those where risks are relatively high. The aims of this relative ranking is to prioritize bioenergy crop-production schemes (several crops) within a given region.

Relative ranking is thus in line with the core standards suggested here. Details on methodology can be found in Annex A-1.

2.1 Land use, land availability and land-use conflicts

One of the central conflict areas in cultivating bioenergy crops is land use, which varies depending on crops species, cultivation methods and soil and climatic conditions14. Depending on its spatial distribution and cultivation practices, increased bioenergy cropping could result in the loss of habitats and the endangerment or extinction of rare species, obstruction of migration

This section offers a generic description of potential problems and conflict areas arising from increased bioenergy use; a distinction is made between residues/wastes and the dedicated cultivation of bioenergy crops. The study focuses on the latter. After briefly introducing the potential problems and conflicts, standards are developed to safeguard against the respective risks. In order to design a core set of sustainability standards, this brief study draws on other work that has been carried out on the sustainability of energy systems, especially those using bioenergy. This section focuses on annual and perennial energy crops and also addresses residues and wastes (e.g. agricultural residues) where appropriate.

Preventing environmental degradation and socio-economic disruption from activities associated with bioenergy supply is seen as a basic principle of sustainability. In the longer term, a process-oriented development of more refined criteria and indicators involving relevant stakeholders will be needed (see Section 4.3).

The standards derived here are based on an evaluation of various studies12, as well as the following standards and certification schemes:• American Tree Farm System;• European Green Electricity Network (EUGENE)13;• EUREPGAP Protocol for Fresh Fruit and Vegetables;• Fairtrade Labeling Organizations International (FLO); • Flower Label Program (FLP);• Forest Stewardship Council (FSC);• Green Gold Label Program;• Impact Basel Criteria for Responsible Soy Production;• RSPO Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Palm Oil Production; • Sustainable Agricultural Standards;• Sustainable Forestry Initiative Standard (SFIS) 2005 - 2009 Standard;• Utz Kapeh - Codes of Conduct.

Annexes 3-5 give a synopsis of citations taken from key sections of these sources. See also Annex 6 for Internet

2. Key Environmental and Social Concerns of Bioenergy Production and Core Sustainability Standards

12 AIDE (2006), Fritsche et al. (2004), LowCVP (2006), Lewandowski/Faaij (2004), OEKO/Alterra (2006)13 The EUGENE standards were analyzed within the EU-sponsored CLEAN-E project coordinated by the Öko-Institut, which also covered the following labels for bioenergy: Ecolabel Austria, Bra Miljöval Sweden, naturemade star Switzerland,

Green Power Australia, Green-e USA, Environmental Choice Canada, Ecoenergia Finland, Gruener Strom Label + OK power Germany, Milieukeur – Netherlands, naturemade (see Annex 5).14 See, for example, EEA 2006, Elbersen et al. 2005, Fritsche et al. 2004, OEKO/Alterra 2006.

WWF Germany 10

patterns and corridors, and degradation of soils, and water bodies15.

The land-use effects of bioenergy-cropping systems must be considered with reference to current land use (if any): if bioenergy production replaces intensive agriculture, the effects can range from neutral to positive; if it replaces natural ecosystems (forests, wetlands, pasture, etc.) the effects will be mostly negative.

In terms of quantity, however, land use for non-energy purposes will - in all probability - prove more important in the next decades:

An increase in agricultural land use is to be expected in the developing world due to population growth, changes in diet and increasing opportunities to export food and fodder. The degradation and salinization of currently cultivated land, limits of irrigation, and ongoing desertification could reduce available land for agriculture, thus increasing the pressure for agriculture-induced changes in land use (FAO 2003, WBGU 2004).

Yet modern farming practices, improved breeding and pest management could well counterbalance these trends. Climate change will be another important driver of changes in farming and land-use systems.

At the same time, demand for wood products (timber, paper, etc.) will increase worldwide (FAO 2000) in parallel to economic development, which will also cause additional pressure on land from settlements and transport infrastructure.

Land allocation will be driven by both policy decisions and the differential net private benefit derived from different land uses (i.e. food vs. energy vs. biomaterials).

Potential future increases in bioenergy cropping must be seen in this context - it is one of several pressures for increased land use.

Furthermore, land requirements for bioenergy cropping compete with other land uses only when fertile land is considered.

Since the share of degraded land which could, in principle, be used for bioenergy farming systems is (unfortunately) increasing globally, making use of this land for bioenergy production represents a potential of 25 percent of global primary energy use, even when low yields are assumed16.

In order to minimize land-use conflicts, the development of economically viable and environmentally sound options for making use of such land (also taking social implications into account) should be a priority for sustainable bioenergy17.

This study emphasizes land use as a complex and important issue. To show the full range of aspects, subsections 2.1.1 and 2.1.3 are included in Section 2.1, even though they refer to socio-economic issues and are not mentioned again in the socio-economic section.

15 On the other hand, appropriately selected and managed bioenergy cultivation could also positively affect (i.e. enhance) soil quality, habitats and the biodiversity of current arable land, and modern biomass use could help reduce air pollution e.g. from coal or heavy fuel oil.

16 The global potential for biomass plantations on degraded land is estimated at about 1 billion hectares, i.e. 1000 million hectares (Lal 2006), which represents a minimum bioenergy potential of about 100 EJ/year.17 Encouraging evidence that such a strategy is possible comes from India, where rural projects address the production of biofuels made from Jatropha, a perennial, nitrogen-fixing plant which grows on poor soils and requires little irrigation to become established (TERI 2005). The Brazilian “Social Biodiesel” program has similar goals, but uses castor and oil palm (Kaltner et al. 2005).

WWF Germany 11

Figure 2: Sunflower © WWF-Canon / Chris Martin Bahr

Spotlight: Biofuel development in Brazil

The supply of sugarcane in Brazil is mainly based on monocropping in large farms (up to 100,000 ha), with intensive use of machines and agrochemicals. Following restrictive environmental legislation in the 1990s, burning crops before harvest has been prohibited in the state of Sao Paulo, which accounts for the largest share of Brazil’s sugarcane production. The resulting mechanization of the harvesting process is only possible when crops are grown on slopes with a gradient of less than 12% and on farms larger than 500 ha. The abolition of pre-harvest field burning has significant environmental benefits, such as the elimination of air emissions and a reduced risk of forest fires (Pinto et al. 2001).

The sugarcane crop has expanded to more degraded or poor areas (mainly ex-extensive pastures). It contributes to soil recovery by adding organic matter and chemical-organic fertilizer, thus improving the soil’s physical-chemical condition and making it possible to use it for Brazilian agriculture again.

It is recognized in Brazil today that sugarcane causes relatively little soil loss through erosion. This situation is actually improving as a result of the progressive increase in harvesting without straw burning and the use of reduced soil-preparation techniques, leading to very low values compared to those obtained by direct plantation in annual crops.

Since sugarcane is not irrigated in Brazil, environmental problems caused by irrigation to water quality, nutrients inflow and erosion are low.

The problem of biodiversity loss is not significant, since sugarcane is cultivated on degraded or poor land, and mainly on “recycled” extensive pasture – but not on new, uncultivated land. This could only happen if cultivation expanded to the Cerrado or forest land as a result of extreme demand: this is unlikely in the foreseeable future, however (Kaltner et al. 2005).

The prospects for expanding the global biofuel market could eventually be limited by resource and cost constraints. The country exported two billion liters in 2005 because of foreign demand, making it the world’s largest exporter. Ethanol production would have to increase by 2010 to keep pace with demand, which would put pressure on land and transport infrastructures (Neuhaus, 2006).

In Brazil, experience with the Proalcool program gathered in the 1980s shows that rapid expansion of energy-source production can lead to the devastation of ecosystems. Potential risks to biomass energy resources also include deforestation and the degradation of other conservation land. Monocrop cultivation reduces biodiversity and soil fertility and degrades land. Excessive use of fertilizers and pesticides is responsible for the pollution of land and water resources. There is also a risk of competition for land between food production and biomass resources. Bioenergy is not necessarily carbon-neutral, and additional, often fossil energy is required for crop cultivation and fuel transportation. In addition, increasing international trade in bioenergy and biomass will create further competitive pressure on unsustainable production.

Yet with improved legislation and environmental enforcement – according to Kaltner et al. (2005) – and significant expertise improving land-use management, the problems faced in the early days of the Proalcool program have been reduced.

It should also be mentioned that the expansion of agriculture over the last 40 years has occurred mostly in degraded pasture areas and “dirty fields”, and not in forest areas. There has been relatively little expansion of sugarcane plantations into Cerrados areas (Kaltner et al. 2005).

In the near future, therefore, driven by growing demand for biofuels, sugarcane plantations are more likely to grow by replacing other crops and pastures or recycling degraded areas than by expanding into newly cultivated areas.

WWF Germany 12

shift to other areas (e.g. forested or fallow), which could lead to the significant deterioration of habitats, GHG emissions, etc.

Bioenergy development has an indirect influence on land-use activities before and outside the project; e.g. it also impacts on land prices and rents. Mechanisms need to be considered to avoid the negative impacts of such shifts19.

The key mechanism proposed here is to make use of land-use policies in a country or region in which bioenergy developments will occur – in order to safeguard against indirect effects.

If land-use policies and their implementation in a given country or region are effective in preventing negative impacts from land-use changes (e.g. by controlling access to and use of high-nature-value areas and habitats, cultural sites, etc.), the indirect effects of bioenergy developments on overall land-use will be small20. In this case, bioenergy development should be concentrated on available arable land21.

If a country or region has ineffective (or no) land-use policies, negative impacts of “shifts” in land-use due to bioenergy development are possible. In this case, bioenergy crop development must be restricted to areas that are not in competition with other uses. Only then can the potential “shift” with its respective impacts be avoided.

2.1.1 Clarification of land ownershipAlongside questions of land use, land-ownership structures – i.e. who controls the property that is to be used for bioenergy crop cultivation – are a fundamental issue. If an industrialized form of bioenergy crop cultivation is practiced, then the land required will most probably be controlled by large land owners or (trans)national companies.

This could cause conflicts with the right to democratically regulate land access and the implementation of human rights guaranteeing sufficient food. Depending on the social situation and historical developments, the requirements of the industrial-style cultivation of bioenergy crops could come into conflict with the requirements of diversified agriculture driven by family businesses, cooperatives and rural communities aiming at supplying food and income for the local population. Similarly, disputes could arise between small and large land owners.

Land ownership should be equitable, and land-tenure conflicts should be avoided. This requires clearly-defined, documented and legally established tenure-use rights. To avoid leakage effects, poor people should not be excluded from the land. Customary land-use rights and disputes should be identified. A conflict register might be useful in this context.

2.1.2 Avoiding negative impacts from bioenergy-driven changes in land use

Since land-use changes can lead directly to biodiversity impacts, greenhouse-gas emissions and the degradation of soils and water bodies, a key issue for any sustainability standard is to avoid negative land-use changes. The specific standards for these areas of concern presented later18 will not be enough to prevent the indirect effects of bioenergy developments, as they only relate to a given site, plantation, process unit or regional activity.

A biomass plantation can be established on land previously used for grazing or cash crops and fully comply with all the specific standards that will be elaborated later. The previous land-use might, however,

18 The other aspects covered by standards concern biodiversity, GHG emissions, soil and water (see later subsections). In addition, a minimum “land-use efficiency” standard might be considered in future extensions of the core list of sustainability standards that is suggested here. For this, careful consideration must be given to the potential biodiversity impacts of efficient (often translated into “intensive”) land use.

19 Positive impacts also need to be taken into account in this context, for example the restoration of degraded land by bioenergy activities, e.g. planting perennial plants.20 This should also be the case for non-bioenergy land-use changes with the result that the effectiveness of existing policies and their implementation can be considered on the basis of other land-intensive activities (e.g. mining, recreation, etc.).21 Land-use policies are in place in most industrialized countries to regulate access to, for example, high-nature-value land, migration corridors and habitats of threatened or endangered species. In these countries, bioenergy farming systems should be concentrated on arable land, since such a “shift” would not then be possible. Additionally, the “development” of fallow land or the conversion of grasslands into bioenergy farming schemes would be avoided. The potential of competition with food/fodder production is considered in Section 2.1.3.

WWF Germany 13

Furthermore, organic agriculture requires more land than intensive, industrialized farming. Given that the share of organic farming is to increase in industrialized countries, more land will be needed to feed people and to provide organically-grown fodder for animal products like meat, milk and dairy products. In analyses of sustainable bioenergy potential in Germany and the EU, up to 30 percent of agricultural production was assumed to originate from organic or “environmentally oriented” farming, thus reducing the land potentially available for bioenergy crops (Fritsche et al. 2004; EEA 2006).

In developing countries, where agriculture is currently quite extensive, there is little difference between the yields of organic and conventional farming. Organic farming can even raise yields over time thanks to lower yield variation23.

The increased use of biogenic residues and wastes as an energy resource is in indirect competition to food supplies, mainly in poor areas of developing countries where these materials are used as inexpensive fertilizers, soil conditioners or fodder.

Food security is a basic human need which should not be compromised by bioenergy development, i.e. cultivating energy crops to the disadvantage of food crops should be avoided.

Yet, compliance with this standard is extremely difficult to measure, since there is no direct link between food (in)security and bioenergy, and quantified expressions of food-security levels only seem possible on a country-wide scale, where factors such as employment, income distribution, welfare expenditure, legal rights (especially to land ownership), and education are far more important than the impact of local bioenergy crop production (FAO 2005; FAO 2006b).

Furthermore, income for the rural poor from bioenergy development could bolster food security24.

Rules on classifying land “without competition” are needed to operationalize such a mechanism. Land that is physically or chemically degraded can often be assumed to fall into this category. The rules on classification should include an assessment of the potential environmental value of currently “unused” degraded or marginal land (abiotic aspects, biodiversity), and should prioritize areas where bioenergy cropping would be beneficial.

Focusing bioenergy development on degraded land would not only improve soil quality (if appropriate farming systems and management practices are applied), but also avoid pressure on “undeveloped” natural land.

Modern satellite surveys, GIS-based inventories of bioenergy production sites and farming locations, combined with the digital mapping of relevant land characteristics, could help check compliance with this standard at reasonable cost.

2.1.3 Priority for food supply and food securityA second potential conflict area is often seen in competition between the use of land for food and for bioenergy production. This conflict is closely linked to the land-use issues, but also involves special issues relating to food security. Available analyses on this issue suggest that, in general, bioenergy cropping is not a cause of hunger, nor a direct driver of food insecurity22.

On the contrary, bioenergy crops could be a means of alleviating poverty and improving food security through income generation (FAO 2006a). Globally, food production is balanced (i.e. enough food of adequate quality is available), but there is unequal access to food within developing countries (WBGU 2004). Food security is not just a problem of production but of access.

Yet, related to the land-ownership issue (see above), a switch to large-scale bioenergy cropping can also entail locally adverse impacts.

22 Food security is indicated by a plethora of factors, such as the percentage of people who are chronically undernourished, adult literacy (particularly female), the proportion of household income spent on food, population growth, per capita GDP growth, agriculture‘s contribution to GDP, health expenditure as a percentage of GDP, the proportion of adults infected with HIV, the number of food emergencies, the UNDP Human Development Index, the degree of export dependence, domestic food production (food availability), purchasing power

(food access), access to water and sanitation facilities (food utilization), etc. See FAO (2006b), for example.23 See FAO (2002) and http://geb.uni-giessen.de/geb/volltexte/2003/128324 Bioenergy might be able to attract sufficient finance to enable investment in raising the general productivity levels of agriculture in a region and thus offset the (potentially bioenergy-induced) competition for land.

WWF Germany 14

Spotlight: The Case of Soy Expansion in South America

“More than rainforests, the bush savannah biomes of South America are threatened by soy expansion. Unlike forests, savannahs can be converted directly to soy plantations, and millions of hectares of Argentine Chaco and Brazilian Cerrado have been converted to soy plantations in the past decade” (AIDE 2004).

The expected expansion of soy is mainly driven by exports to Europe and other industrialized countries, where it is currently used as animal feed. In the future, though, soy oil could also be extracted and processed into biodiesel28.

Soy production in the Brazilian Cerrado is large-scale and highly mechanized. Only 4% of the farms are larger than 1000 ha, but they cover as much as 60% of the cultivated area. When land is cleared for cultivation, charcoal producers remove the trees. The rest of the vegetation is gathered into piles by tractors or bulldozers and burned. After clearing, the soil is ploughed and prepared for sowing. Soybean crop is sown in October or November when the rain sets in; it is harvested in April or May (FAO 1994). Soybeans are grown in rotation with maize and winter wheat, but also as monoculture. Reduced tillage operations are being used more frequently due to problems with erosion. These methods, however, increase the need for herbicide treatment.

In Brazil, soybean production has expanded rapidly in recent decades; sometimes the land is used for only a short period of time, after which new areas are exploited (FBOMS 2004).

Soybean cultivation in the Cerrado causes 8 tonnes of soil loss per ha per year (Kaltner et al. 2005). Loss of organic matter in the soil is a serious problem in the soybean-producing areas of Brazil due to the warm climate, dry winters, quick decomposition of crop residues, etc. (Herzog 2004). The heavy use of fertilizers and pesticides has led to groundwater contamination (Clay 2004).

The loss of habitat is the most serious threat to biodiversity in the Cerrado area. Although the Cerrado is very rich in biodiversity, only 1.5% of this land is protected today. The expansion of soybean cultivation could severely reduce biodiversity in the Cerrado area (Kaltner et al. 2005).

Decisions on bioenergy production nevertheless have regional impacts, with the result that a regional risk assessment is needed which analyzes the potential impact of biomass production on the local and regional food supply (Lewandowski/Faaij 2004).

Good examples of such standards already exist (FSC and RSPO, see Annex 3).

2.2 Loss of biodiversity and deforestationApart from land use, other potential conflicts between biodiversity and bioenergy crop cultivation are also possible, depending on cultivation forms25 and harvest procedures.

25 Depending on, for example, the crop type, rotation schemes, pest management, fertilizer use, irrigation, field size.26 However, this would have the negative effect of increasing land requirements (in the case of industrialized agriculture).

These conflicts can be minimized by more extensive forms of cultivation26, combining crop types and rotation schemes, and small-scale structuring of cultivation.

Furthermore, the creation of ecological “stepping-stones” (small-scale, distributed biotopes) and migration corridors in farming areas could alleviate negative impacts.

The following are of particular concern: conversion from extensive, “high-nature-value” farming to more intensive monocropping, and the conversion of primary forests27 and other habitats into energy plantations, both of which would lead to a severe loss of biodiversity.

27 A primary forest is a forest that has never been logged and has developed following natural disturbances and under natural processes, regardless of its age (definition from the Convention on Biological Diversity)28 Brazil’s PetroBras recently announced the development of “H-Bio”, a mixture of biodiesel made from plant oil and fossil diesel.

WWF Germany 15

29 http://www.biodiv.org/convention/default.shtml 30 Note that residues from vegetation in these areas could, however, be used as bioenergy.

According the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)29, efforts should be made to protect ecosystems and habitats containing high diversity, large numbers of endemic or threatened species, and wildernesses needed by migratory species which are of social, economic, cultural or scientific importance and representative, unique or associated with key evolutionary or other biological processes.

On the level of species and communities, there is particular interest in threatened, wild relatives of domesticated or cultivated species; species of medicinal, agricultural or other economic value or social, scientific or cultural importance; and species that are important for research into the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, such as indicator species and described genomes and genes of social, scientific or economic importance.

The IUCN Red List catalogs and highlights threatened species (listed as Critically Endangered, Endangered and Vulnerable). Its information can be used to provide information on the conservation status of individual species.

It needs to be taken into account that the information is based on an assessment of only a small portion of the world’s described species; however, amphibians, birds, mammals, conifers and cycads have been comprehensively assessed.

Another database establishing the conservation status of plants is the UNEP-WCMC Threatened Plants database.

Furthermore, it has been suggested that the “human appropriation of net primary production” (HANPP) be used as an aggregated indicator for the loss of biodiversity (Haberl et al. 2005). In this respect, perennial bioenergy crops might be less damaging to biodiversity than an intensively managed annual farming system (Haberl/ Erb 2006).

2.2.1 No additional negative biodiversity impacts

In the context of biodiversity impacts, it is necessary to distinguish between the conservation of natural habitats, ecosystems and species on the one hand and sustainable farming/production practice on the other, which can help to preserve agro-biodiversity.

Areas to be protected:

• High-nature-value areas (e.g. intact close-to-nature ecosystems, natural habitats, primary and virgin forests), land needed to maintain critical population levels of species in natural surroundings, and relevant migration corridors must be excluded from bioenergy cropping areas30.

• Adequate buffer zones must be maintained for habitats of rare, threatened or endangered species, as well as for land adjacent to areas needing protection.

Production practices:

• Management plans and farming operations must ensure the protection of high-nature-value farming systems (e.g. on grass land or small patterned traditional farming systems) as well as nature-oriented forestry.

• To preserve genetic diversity, a minimum number of crop species and varieties, as well as structural diversity within the bioenergy cropping area must be demonstrated in management plans.

• As a precautionary measure, the use of genetically modified organisms (GMO) as bioenergy crops should be excluded, since they could have adverse environmental impacts31.

• Appropriate fire-protection strategies are needed, and the use of fire to clear or prepare land for production should only be permitted if it is known to be the preferred ecological option.

• Alien species should only be cultivated under conditions of careful control and monitoring; effects on wildlife species should be blocked.

31 This is recommended even though GMO-based soybean oil, for example, is in reality dominating Brazilian production (illegally) and could be used as a biofuel as part of the “H-Bio” process.

WWF Germany 16

As already stated, the digital mapping of relevant areas in countries and regions could help check the compliance of bioenergy operations with the standards.

Furthermore, farm-based annual inventories of agrochemical use are already part of subsidy schemes

for agriculture (e.g. for cross-compliance in the EU see Section 3.1.2, for national implications Section 3.1.3). These could be combined with the work of agricultural consultants to enhance farmers’

Spotlight: Palm-oil production in Malaysia

The world’s largest producer of palm oil is Malaysia, where production has grown rapidly in recent decades by 4 percent per annum32. Malaysian oil palm is grown mainly in peninsular Malaysia. In this region, almost all land that is suitable for oil-palm plantation has been cleared and used for planting purposes since the 1960s. Palm oil is an attractive candidate for biodiesel production, because it yields a high level of oil per hectare. While most palm oil is used for food purposes, the demand for palm biodiesel is expected to increase rapidly, particularly in Europe.

The land-use regime supplying palm oil involves plantations that were set up after large areas of tropical forest had been cleared. These plantations range from small groves to large estates which are often larger than 1000 ha. The area of oil-palm cultivation today is close to 3 million ha, corresponding to 8.4% of Malaysia’s land area.

An oil-palm plantation continues to yield for 25–30 years, and the palm trees can be harvested after 3 years. Harvesting is possible all-year round. Herbicides are used annually in the plantations; insecticides, however, are used mainly in the nursery before the oil-palm seedlings are transplanted (Herzog 2004).

The main environmental problems arising from oil palm are habitat conversion, threats to critical habitats of endangered species, the use of poisons to control rats, and water pollution from processing waste products.

In Malaysia, oil-palm plantations are also expanding, often at the expense of the rain forest. Land transformation from rain forest to oil-palm plantations reduces the number of mammals from 75 to 10 species per hectare.

For oil-palm plantations there is a risk of losing organic matter in the soil during the establishment period; later, however, the plantations seem to redeem their soil organic-matter content. Yet erosion has been worsened by planting trees in rows up and down hillsides rather than on contours around them, and by establishing plantations and infrastructure on slopes steeper than 15 degrees (Herzog 2004).

Run-off from palm-oil-mill effluents into rivers is creating problems for the aquatic ecosystems (Kittikun et al. 2000).

The creation of oil plantations in Malaysia is regarded as the main cause of the air pollution that has been affecting many neighboring counties in Southeast Asia (Clay 2004).

32 The expansion of oil-palm plantations over the last 35 years was due to the introduction of synthetic rubber. This led to a shift from rubber trees to oil palms; in addition, government grants encouraged poor farmers to start oil-palm plantations in the tropical rain forest.

WWF Germany 17

Since bioenergy has the biggest number of registered projects in the pipeline (32.5%) for the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)35, significant insights and data on GHG balances can be also expected from a whole range of bioenergy projects36.

All in all, credible ranges of GHG balances for bioenergy can be expected in the near future, if adequate funding is available and data from real-world projects is used.

2.3.1 Minimization of greenhouse-gas emissionsSince GHG emissions are caused not only by bioenergy cultivation, but also by downstream processing, a GHG standard for bioenergy needs to address both:

• A maximum life-cycle GHG balance of bioenergy cultivation of 30 kg/GJ must be demonstrated37. This limit represents a 67% reduction on the life-cycle GHG emissions from (unprocessed) crude-oil combustion.

• The processing of bioenergy crops - especially to biofuels – must demonstrate a minimum conversion efficiency of 67%, taking into account by-products for which proof of use must be given. A maximum direct GHG emission factor of 60 kg/GJ input should apply for the process energy.

In future stages of establishing bioenergy standards, GHG emission limits can be developed for final bio-based products such as liquid biofuels for transport or heating (e.g. bioethanol, biodiesel), solid chips or pellets for combustion, biogenic gases (such as biogas, bio-SNG or woodgas), bio-electricity (to take into account the different conversion routes) and by-products.

2.3 Greenhouse-gas emissionsThe purpose of bioenergy is usually to reduce greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions, since its use is carbon-neutral33.

At the same time, nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions, both from fertilizer application and the production of fertilizers, could partially offset CO2 neutrality. Moreover, fossil energy inputs into bioenergy production and downstream processing reduce net GHG savings, especially if coal is used to process energy (as in first-generation ethanol production).

Furthermore, the overall balance of GHG emissions from bioenergy supply depends on the effective use of by-products from bioenergy conversion, (e.g. oil cake, glycerin, bagasse) and processing, which could offset at least some of the GHG emissions from bioenergy cultivation. GHG benefits from by-product utilization can vary significantly, since markets for by-products depend on quantity and develop over time.

Last but not least, the conversion of forested, pasture or savannah-type land to (annual) bioenergy crops cultivation could cause higher GHG emissions from released soil carbon and cleared biomass than is fixed by the cultivation of energy crops. This leads to a change in carbon stocks which needs to be considered in the overall GHG balance.

Current knowledge on the GHG balances of biofuels indicates quite a broad range (Larson 2006), but it is already possible to quantify the different bioenergy crops, conversion routes and by-product utilization rates (OEKO 2006) for specified regions like the EU. Some data is also available on life-cycle GHG balances in other regions like the USA and some developing countries (Brazil, China, India), and countries like Thailand are conducting research in this field34.

33 This means that the carbon dioxide released from the use of bioenergy (e.g. combustion of biofuels) will be “captured” by plants grown in the next production cycle, i.e. the net release to the atmosphere is zero.34 See Bauen et al. (2006) for a general methodology; WWI/gtz (2006) and Hill (2006) for a review of LCA data for the USA; and the GTZ country studies for Brazil (Kaltner et al. 2005), China (Gehua et al. 2006), India (TERI 2005), and Tanzania (Janssen et al. 2005). Some data from research in Thailand can be found in JGSEE (2006).

35 Data from June 2006, published in FAO 2006c.36 In this context, it should be noted that the UNFCCC’s CDM Methodology Panel has only approved a few methodologies for biofuels up to now because of uncertainties in determining “leakage”, i.e. GHG emissions from activities outside the CDM project boundaries. The inclusion of the MethPanel in the further development of a GHG accounting methodology (and database) for bioenergy crops should be considered. Lessons can be drawn from bioenergy projects under the CDM, where each project-design document requires an assessment of leakage.37 This figure is based on the calorific value (= lower heating value) of the bioenergy delivered at the field, including all inputs (e.g. fertilizer, pesticides, fossil fuel and electricity for mechanical equipment), direct emissions from fertilizer application, and potential soil carbon release. No crediting for by-products or other allocation is allowed in the determination of the GHG emission factor.

WWF Germany 18

• Maximum (soil-specific) slope limits for bioenergy crop cultivation;

• Maximum extraction rates for agricultural and forestry residues (specific for soil and crop/crop rotation);

• Acceptable removal levels for agro- and forestry residues, so that humus and organic C soil content is not negatively affected;

• Use of farming and harvesting practices that reduce erosion risks and adverse soil compaction (irrigation schemes, harvesting equipment);

• Irrigation schemes to prevent salinization; exclusion of crops and cropping systems for which such schemes are not applicable (specific to soil type and semi-dry/dry regions).

Furthermore, a qualitative standard on the toxicity and biodegradability of agrochemicals is needed (e.g. a positive list of chemicals and user guidelines); non-chemical pest treatment and organic fertilizers should be preferred39.

2.5 Water use and water contaminationAgricultural water use is a serious concern, especially in arid and semi-arid regions where water is scarce and highly variable throughout the year. An increase in irrigated land could lead to water scarcity, a lowering of water tables and reduced water levels in rivers and lakes. The potential effects of increased water abstraction include salinization, loss of wetlands and the disappearance of habitats through inundation caused by dams and reservoirs. In general, the competition for water between agriculture, urban land uses and nature has been increasing in the more arid parts of the world in recent years (JRC/EEA 2006).

Apart from potential conflicts on the amount of water available for irrigation, other impacts on ground and surface water supplies could come from agrochemicals (fertilizers, pesticides) applied during cultivation. New conversion plants, especially for biofuels, offer options for controlling water pollution, but existing processing facilities (e.g. for palm oil) could cause discharges of organically contaminated effluent (Kittikun et al. 2000).

On the other hand, a simplified approach to GHG accounting should be developed for the small-scale farming of bioenergy crops using rural-systems to avoid excessive compliance costs.

2.4 Soil erosion and other forms of soil degradation

Increases in annual bioenergy crops could lead to further soil erosion: the overuse of irrigation, agrochemicals and heavy harvesting equipment can degrade fertile soils38. Soil erosion is a special problem in regions with limited soil cover that experience long, dry periods followed by heavy bursts of rainfall on steep slopes with unstable soils. In addition to water erosion, erosion can also be caused by wind. The problem is most serious in open, flat or undulating terrain with sandy soils, where soil cover is limited over the year and there are no windbreaking landscape elements. Wind erosion can be a particular problem in flatter zones with intensive agriculture. Soil erosion and degradation are worsened by field enlargement and the inappropriate use of machinery (EEA 2005).

By contrast, perennial bioenergy crops could improve soils and help reduce erosion on arable land currently in use by creating year-round soil coverage. Perennial biomass crops are particularly efficient in soil coverage, especially after they have been establish for one to two years. (EEA 2006, Elbersen et al. 2005).

As regards agricultural and forestry residues (e.g. straw, wood thinnings), their use as energy carriers or feedstocks for biofuel conversion could reduce humus creation and soil carbon and increase plant-nutrient exports, which would then have to be compensated. Soil erosion and degradation can result from the cultivation of energy plants and the extraction of agricultural residues.

2.4.1 Minimization of soil erosion and degradation

Against this background, a standard on soil should comprise the following:

• The exclusion (or significant restriction) of bioenergy crops requiring intense tilling and below-surface harvesting (e.g. sugar beets);

38 On the other hand, appropriate bioenergy farming systems could be operated on degraded land (see footnote 16), thereby increasing soil carbon, and helping to restore such land for sustainable use.

39 This standard also relates to the protection of biodiversity and water bodies.

WWF Germany 19

2.5.1 Minimization of water use and avoidance of water contamination

Standards should cover both agricultural water use and the protection of water bodies from the impact of agriculture. The following requirements must be met:

• Optimized farming systems requiring low water input should be used, e.g. agro-forestry systems in dry regions

• Critical irrigation needs in semi-dry and dry regions should be avoided by applying water-management plans (long-term strategies and implementation program) providing a sustainable and efficient water supply for irrigation;

• The quality and availability of surface and ground water must be maintained, avoiding the negative impacts of agrochemical use (by timing and quantity of application);

• No untreated sewage water for irrigation;

• Re-use of treated waste-water must be part of the agricultural management system.

2.6 Socio-economic problems and standards

The multitude of possible social conflicts connected with the cultivation of energy crops precludes the development of a detailed set of standards within the limited scope of this paper. The following key standards are suggested as “generic”, i.e. without special reference to geographical or political conditions.

The existing indicators in the field of socio-economic problems are managemeent rules, which exist in the agricultural and forestry sectors in the form of “good practice”. They are available for different forms of farming, such as organic agriculture and forestry labels. Existing labor standards (ILO) seem to be transferable to bioenergy production and processing.

2.6.1 Improvement of labor conditions and worker rights

Labor conditions comprise aspects such as wages, illegal overtime, child labor and slavery. The number of workers on plantations has increased relative to the number of permanent workers, who are exposed to greater risks. Women often help their husbands, neither entering into contracts with the company nor receiving remuneration. There have been cases where

companies have not provided workers with tools or safety equipment, and safety training has been lacking. Some migrant workers have to pay recruiting agencies and sign contracts that are often in a foreign language. In many cases, migrants sign whatever they are offered by companies. A working day often lasts 12 to 14 hours, and workers are sometimes put under great pressure by production quotas.

As regards working conditions, it is important to protect workers against forced labor, unequal pay and illegal overtime. Minimum wages, the rights of pregnant women and the elimination of child labor should feature in a social view on biomass production.

Children and women often work in the fields. It is especially important for them that standards are established for sustainable (i.e. “socially” sustainable) biomass farming.

Social criteria in the field of workers’ rights can be described by work contracts which comply with ILO standards. An overview of these is provided in Annex 3.

WWF Germany 20

Figure 3:Piles of rice husks. The valuable by-product of rice production, rice husks are used as biomass fuel. © WWF-Canon / Adam OSWELL

and harm their animals (Bickel/Dros 2003). Harvesting is dangerous work carried out using sharp tools; cutting and planting green cane causes skin irritations. Burned cane can also cause skin irritation. Smoky and polluted environments are a danger to health, as are the residues of toxins used in weed control. Medical care is often not available on the plantations. Furthermore, exposure to the sun, insects and snakes and uncomfortable positions during work all impact on human health (Zamora et al. 2004).

A safe and healthy working environment also requires safe machines, physical protection, sufficient lighting and fire drills. All workers should be given periodic training to enable them to do their jobs in accordance with health-protection requirements (Lewandowski/Faaij 2004).

This is related to agreements on workers’ rights: occupational-health impacts are regulated by the ILO Convention. Important indicators include first aid kits, medical attendance and regular information about the dangers and risks of the work. They help prevent accidents and provide a safe and healthy work environment.

2.7 Summary of recommended standardsThe core list of standards introduced in the previous subsections can be broadly categorized in a governance system in terms of scope, the need for regional adjustment, and the time horizon for implementation. This can be summarized as follows:

The supply systems for bioenergy – i.e. the cultivation of bioenergy crops, the collection of biogenic residues and wastes and their respective downstream processing – must comply with ILO standards on workers‘ safety, workers‘ rights, wage policies, child labor, seasonal workers’ conditions, and working hours during harvest time.

2.6.2 Ensuring a share of proceeds

In addition, a standard on income distribution and poverty-reduction issues (share of proceeds) seems necessary, although this can only be discussed in detail with respect to regional and local conditions and project specifics.

2.6.3 Avoiding human health impactsThe cultivation of bioenergy crops can cause not only land-use conflicts, but also direct impacts on human health, depending on the type of crop and harvesting procedures.

Pesticides are the primary cause of health risks for agricultural workers. Air pollutants caused by field burning can lead to adverse health effects, especially as a result of the cultivation of sugar cane and palm oil. Furthermore, it is not certain how well workers are educated about the health risks of using pesticides. The use of spraying aircraft can cause pesticides to drift outside of the target area, damage other farmers’ crops

WWF Germany 21

Table 3: Summary of Sustainable Biomass Standards

Standard Scope Regional Adjustment Time Horizon

Clarification of land ownership regional/local no short-to-medium term

Avoiding negative impacts from bioenergy-driven changes in land use

global no short term

Priority for food supply and food security regional/local yes medium-to-long term

No additional negative biodiversity impacts regional/local yes medium-to-long term

Minimization of greenhouse gas emissions global no short term

Minimization of soil erosion and degradation regional/local yes short-to-medium term

Minimization of water use and avoidance of water contamination

regional/local yes short-to-medium term

Improvement of labor conditions and worker rights regional/local no short term

Ensuring a share of proceeds regional/local no short term

Avoiding human health impacts regional/local no medium-to-long term

Source: Compiled by Öko-Institut

As this synopsis indicates, only two of the recommended standards for sustainable biomass have a global scope, i.e. both concern global commons and require no further regional adjustment. The time horizon for possible implementation is short in both cases, i.e. a few years (assuming adequate resources for developing methodologies and data).

Both food security and biodiversity protection have regional-to-local scopes, need further adjustment and will require more time to develop into “operational” standards with the help of criteria and indicators. Therefore, their time horizon for a “fully” developed set of criteria and indicators on a global scale is in the range between 10 and 20 years, although more rapid progress can be expected if efforts are concentrated on key areas (e.g. relevant export countries).

Soil- and water-protection standards also have regional-to-local scope and require adjustment, but this could be carried out within a 5- to 10-year time horizon.

Socio-economic standards also have a near-term perspective, depending on the existing systems and practices. However, a medium-to-long-term time horizon might be more appropriate if share-of-proceeds considerations are included.

2.8 Standards in perspective

Once discussions with stakeholders have started, and work begins on refining standards in line with regional conditions and translating them into criteria and indicators, greater emphasis can be placed on the respective reference system (or baseline scenario) and on determining whether an effect of bioenergy supply is positive or negative. The environment’s “carrying capacity”, which has to be regionally differentiated, could also be included within such future activities.

Furthermore, future work on criteria and indicators needs to take potential regional thresholds (e.g. critical sizes of habitats to be protected) and flexibility

potential into account by balancing a bioenergy project’s “underperformance” in terms of one criterion (or set of criteria) with its “overachievement” in terms of another40.

In some cases, a combination of thresholds (minimum protection levels), flexible protection strategies and tools to measure and evaluate different kinds of (cumulative) impacts, associated costs and benefits might be more feasible than suggesting certain limitations in terms of zero negative impact.

One example is the discussion of land-use change and bioenergy vs. food crops in the light of different categories of land quality. Limited and regulated by policy and legal frameworks, land allocation for marketable commodities will (more or less) happen (and is happening) in the way that maximizes net private benefits to the land users/owners. Policies seeking to restrict bioenergy crop production to degraded land may thus be too static and unrealistic; they may also be economically inefficient. It might be just as effective and more economically efficient to guarantee food security by giving careful consideration to harmonizing national food security and national energy and development strategies, monitoring and projecting energy vs. food-commodity prices, and strictly applying the precautionary principle.

All in all, the core standards will require further efforts on implementation. This is beyond the scope of this study, but Section 4.3 recommends some next steps for gathering more knowledge.

Following these lines of activity, an exchange of stakeholder views is necessary on the practicability of the sustainability standards in real-world projects; the standards would need to be reviewed in the light of practical experience.

40 Some thought is given to this issue from a procedural perspective in Annex 2.

WWF Germany 22

The development and implementation of standards on biomass as an energy source can be supported and regulated by a range of different policy instruments on different regulatory levels. There are three main categories of technology-policy instruments (RAND 2000):

• Financing knowledge infrastructure (direct subsidies for selected actors, provision of capital or financial and economic incentives), e.g. the international and national financing institutions (ADB, EBRD, EIB, GEF, IDB, KfW, etc.);

• Leading, stimulating and catalyzing knowledge dissemination (not the focus of this paper);

• Facilitating laws and regulations, standards, economic instruments such as private certification schemes for biomass, international multilateral environmental agreements, or legislation at the EU level.

The focus in Section 3.1 is on facilitating policies relating to conventions, laws and regulations – and on instruments to implement standards in policy areas.

Section 3.2 describes existing private certification systems such as the “Round Table on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO)” and the “Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)” and makes an initial assessment of a sustainable biomass certification system.

3.1 International, European and national policy analysis

3.1.1 Legal framework on an international level

This chapter describes the basic conditions that regulate sustainable biomass standards in an international agreement. It also outlines the main GATT/WTO principles to be taken into account when setting up sustainable biomass standards.

Multilateral environmental agreementsOne option for regulating sustainable biomass standards in a legally binding form would be to adopt a multilateral environment agreement (MEA) or integrate the standards in existing international agreements (e.g. ISO). In general, it would be desirable for a sustainable biomass standard to be internationally regulated, because this would require the acceptance of such standards under international (trade) law.

3. Legal Situation and Implementation Options for Sustainability StandardsAn international agreement on biomass standards could establish basic principles and requirements with worldwide recognition, appeal and influence. Yet, regardless of whether the final decision on an international agreement is reached in a “consensus-forming procedure” or by unanimous/majority vote, the standards agreed are unlikely to be ambitious.

Moreover, using international environmental agreements for sustainable biomass standards involves problems:

International agreements take a long time, and full implementation by the contracting parties can take a very long time. Furthermore, many MEAs are neither complied with nor enforced; they are often inadequately implemented due to a combination of factors and problems (such as limited jurisprudence in international environmental law or soft commitments). In many MEAs, these converge to create a context that is not conducive to achieving the commitments agreed to by the states. These problems can be observed at all levels (international, regional and national), as well as at the negotiating stage41.

In view of these arguments, regulating biomass standards in an international agreement will have to be pursued over a longer period. In order to advance quickly with the implementation of standards, they should not constitute the first step in developing and introducing biomass standards.

GATT/WTO PrinciplesThere are persistent concerns that standards for biomass production could potentially cause arbitrary discrimination and/or disguised green protectionism. In order to avoid such risks, specific core principles of the WTO must be adhered to when drafting regulations for biomass standards on an international, supra-national and national level.

The trade in biomass is covered by the WTO rules. The Agreement on Agriculture42 applies to the trade in ethanol43.

41 See: http://www.unep.org/dec/support/mdg_meeting_col.htm

WWF Germany 23

42 Agreement on Agriculture, April 15 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1A, THE LEGAL TEXTS: THE RESULTS OF THE URUGUAY ROUND OF MULTILATERAL TRADE NEGOTIATIONS 33 (1999), 1867 U.N.T.p. 410. [Not reproduced in I.L.M.].43 Annex 1 of the Agreements on Agriculture refers to the Harmonized System (HS) Chapters 1 to 24 less fish and fish products; ethanol is included by HS 2207.

Up until to the Uruguay Round, agricultural products were covered by the GATT. The WTO’s Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) was then negotiated between 1986 and 1994. It was intended as a first step towards fairer competition and a less distorted agricultural sector.

The approach of the AoA is to replace various trade restrictions such as quotas, domestic support, export subsidies and non-tariff measures by “tariffs only”. In order to reach this goal, the Members are to reduce their trade-restricting measures in the agricultural sector according to specific targets (“Schedules”). The intention of the Doha Negotiation Round was to further liberalize the trade in agricultural products, but the negotiations were suspended in July of this year due to irreconcilable positions in the two agriculture legs of the triangle of issues.

Sustainability standards for biomass fall in the category of “non-trade” concerns, i.e. non-tariff measures. Generally speaking, these are acceptable under the AoA if they do not represent arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination. If the sustainability standards are linked to subsidies (whether as such or in combination with other instruments such as admixing quotas), it is questionable whether they are admissible under WTO law. This might be the case if they were to fall into the “green box”. However, “green box” measures are generally decoupled from production. This question cannot be answered in this report, but will nevertheless have to be pursued further.

However, with regard to biofuels, ministers agreed to negotiate freer trade on environmental goods and services by reducing or eliminating tariffs and non-tariff barriers. The term “environmental goods” was not defined in the Doha Ministerial Declaration. However, ethanol was included in two product lists of potential candidate goods by the OECD and APEC.

The Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade is relevant for standardization issues44. Under the agreement, countries have the right to adopt the standards they consider appropriate, for example for human, animal or plant life or health, for the protection of the environment or to meet other consumer interests. They can also take necessary measures to ensure that their standards are met. International standards should be used where appropriate, but the TBT Agreement does not require Members to

change their levels of protection as a result. Furthermore, the TBT Agreement discourages any methods that would give domestically produced goods an unfair advantage. The same essentially holds true with regard to labels and certification schemes: the issue of unincorporated (non-product-related) Processes and Production Methods (PPMs) has triggered a discussion within the WTO on the extent to which the TBT Agreement covers and allows unincorporated PPM-based measures: it remains unresolved.

Thus, under WTO law, special standards for biomass products designated for imports can be adopted, provided they are not arbitrary or discriminatory.

Standards adopted via international or multilateral agreements will encounter no criticism from the WTO. Subsidies might, on the other hand, prove difficult to maintain if the liberalization of the agricultural sector progresses.

3.1.2 Legal framework at the European levelThe European Commission has no explicit competence in the field of energy policy; however, several competences established by the ECT (European Community Treaty) enable the Commission to regulate on energy matters.

For example, Art. 3 lit. u), ECT refers to Community measures in the energy sector. The EC organs can therefore exercise the competence in Art. 308 ETC and, in the absence of an explicitly established competence in the Treaty for energy policy, laws can be based on Art. 95 ECT if the functioning of the internal market is affected45. Where environmental aspects of energy policy are covered, the competence can be derived from Art. 175 para. 2 ECT. Whereas Art. 95 ECT only needs a qualified majority, a unanimous vote is required for Art. 175 para. 2 ECT.

Basically, there are two options for legislating on biomass standards and related questions such as the control or labeling of biomass at the European level: either in a separate, new law on biomass standards to which existing energy legislation can be linked, or by integrating them into existing sector legislation on biomass, such as:

44 Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, April 15, 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization: Annex 1B, THE LEGAL TEXTS: THE RESULTS OF THE URUGUAY ROUND OF MULTILATERAL TRADE NEGOTIATIONS, 33 I.L.M. 1145.

WWF Germany 24

45 Kloepfer, Umweltrecht, § 16 Rn. 13; Grabitz/Hilf, Das Recht der Europäischen Union, Band I, Art. 3 Rn. 18.

• The Directive 2001/77/EC on the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market46: The Directive entered into force on 27 October 2001 and allows changes to be made to national promotion systems for renewable energy up to a possible, European-wide promotion system. The main purpose of the Directive is to boost renewable energy’s contribution to power generation in the internal electricity market and to create a basis for a future Community framework in this field. A major goal of the Directive is to raise renewable energy’s share of gross power consumption to 22.1% by 2010. This aspect of Directive 2001/77/EC means that a harmonized promotion framework cannot be expected before the end of 2012. A common promotion framework with the aim of effectively promoting the use of renewable energy sources will be set up after an evaluation has been issued of the different promotion models in the Member States (Art. 4 para. 2, sentence 4, lit. d).

• The Directive 2003/30/EC on the promotion of the use of biofuels or other renewable fuels for transport47: This Directive aims at promoting the use of biofuels and other renewable fuels to replace diesel or petrol for transport purposes in each Member State, with a view to contributing to objectives such as meeting climate-change commitments, security of environmentally-friendly supplies and promoting renewable energy sources.

• The Directive 2003/96/EC restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity48: An extensive Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity will be introduced for the first time on the basis of Directive 2003/96/EC. A minimum taxation rate of €0.50 per MWh for electricity applies since 1 January 2004 (Art. 10 para. 1 Annex I, Table C Directive 2003/96/EC).

46 Directive 2001/77/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2001 on the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market, OJ L 283, 27. October 2001, p. 33.47 Directive 2003/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 May 2003 on the promotion of the use of biofuels or other renewable fuels for transport, OJ L 123, 17.5.2003, p. 42.48 Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity, OJ L 283, p. 51–70.

According to Art. 15, the Member States may provide tax exemption and tax reductions for electricity produced by renewables (Art. 15 para. 1 lit. b). The implementation of this Directive will fundamentally change the taxation system in Germany (especially the taxation system on biofuels).

• Import regulations on biomass, e.g. Council Regulation (EC) No. 2501/200149: The Community‘s common commercial policy must be consistent with and consolidate the objectives of development policy, in particular the eradication of poverty and the promotion of sustainable development in the developing countries. Regulation 2501/2001/EC provides for some special incentive arrangements to protect labor rights and the environment. For instance, the special incentive arrangements for the protection of the environment may be granted to a country which effectively applies national legislation incorporating the substance of internationally acknowledged standards and guidelines on sustainable tropical-forest management.

• Council Regulation (EC) No. 1782/2003 for direct support schemes50 and Commission Regulation (EC) No. 796/2004 for the implementation of cross-compliance51: Cross-compliance is a series of standards that farmers have to meet in order to receive their subsidy payments in full. The full payment of direct aid is linked to compliance with rules relating to agricultural land, agricultural production and land use. These rules serve to incorporate basic standards on the environment, food safety, animal health and welfare, and good agricultural and environmental conditions in common market organizations. There are two main elements, Statutory Management Requirements (SMRs) and Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition (GAEC) standards.

49 Statements on a Council Regulation applying a scheme of generalized tariff preferences for the period from 1 January 2002 to 31 December 2004, OJ, L 346, 31.12.2001, p. 60.50 Council Regulation (EC) of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers.51 Commission Regulation (EC) of 21 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system provided for in of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers.

WWF Germany 25

Farmers will be inspected to check that they are meeting these standards, and breaches may result in sanctions being imposed. The SMRs require compliance with a small number of articles from 19 EC Directives / Regulations relating to environmental, public, animal and plant health, and animal welfare. Nine of these applied for cross-compliance purposes in 200552, a further 7 applied in 200653, while the remaining 3 will apply as of 1 January 200754. The cross-compliance provisions could be seen as supplementary options for incorporating sustainable standards for biomass. However, cross-compliance means direct payments linked to compliance with standards regulated in 19 different EC Directives or Regulations.

Thus the linked standards are important issues on cross-compliance as an option for incorporating sustainable standards. Biomass support schemes are already taken into account by Council Regulation (EC) No. 1782/2003. According to Art. 88, aid amounting to €45 per hectare per year is to be granted for areas where energy crops are sown and used under the conditions laid down in Chapter 5 of the Council Regulation. Energy crops are defined as crops supplied essentially for products considered as feedstock for biofuels, as listed in Article 2, point 2 of Directive 2003/30/EC55, and electrical and thermal energy generated from biomass. The Council Regulation establishes a maximum guaranteed area and says that the aid is granted only in respect of areas whose production is covered by a contract between the farmer and the processing industry. According to the Council Regulation, the provisions should be reviewed after a prescribed period, taking into account the implementation

of the Community biofuels initiative56. The review of energy crops scheme could be seen as a way to maintain the balance between biomass promotion and land use.

The advantage of a separate regulation defining the biomass standards in the European Union is that existing laws can be linked to that regulation. In this case, future changes to the biomass standards only require one regulation to pass the parliamentary process instead of several. Furthermore, the existing regulations, e.g. on the generation of electricity or transport fuels from biomass, are not overloaded with details from the biomass standard.

Up to now, the feed-in tariffs (pricing systems) and renewable portfolio standards (quota systems) used in the Directive 2001/77/EC and Directive 2003/30/EC do not demand production standards for the biomass to be used. In future, the feed-in-tariffs and the quotas for biomass could be linked to sustainable biomass standards.

An important prerequisite for applying feed-in tariffs, quota systems or import regulations only to biomass produced according to a sustainable standard is to make the standard transparent. As explained above, in order to be acceptable under WTO law, the standards should be agreed in international or multilateral forums. Certification systems (i.e. labels) are admissible but need to be non-discriminatory and must not result in unnecessary barriers or disguised restrictions on international trade. Labels that relate to PPMs are still being discussed at the WTO. Subsidies for agricultural products may become more controversial if a new round of negotiations is initiated at the WTO.

Therefore, parallel to the market regulation instruments, transparent production standards and corresponding labeling requirements must be introduced via EC legislation and/or private certification systems. Several options are possible for defining production standards and labeling:52 For example, Art. 6, 13, 15 and Art. 22 lit. b of the Council

Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, pp. 7–50.53 For example, Art. 3 of the Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, OJ L 230, 19.8.1991, pp. 1–32.54 For example, Art. 4 of the Council Directive 98/58/EC of 20 July 1998 concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes, OJ L 221, 8.8.1998, pp. 23–27.55 Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 May 2003 on the promotion of the use of biofuels or other renewable fuels for transport (see above).

56 According to Article 92, the Commission is to submit a report to the Council by 31 December 2006 on the implementation of the scheme, accompanied where appropriate by proposals taking into account the implementation of the EU biofuels initiative.

WWF Germany 26

• The EC legislation defines different levels of sustainable standards for biomass reflected by different labels. They would be legally binding for every producer in the EU or importer who wants to benefit from feed-in tariffs, quotas or tax reductions. The tariff system or the quotas can be clustered according to different sustainable biomass standards: minimum standards can correspond with a base-line of feed-in tariffs, tax reduction or quotas, whereas higher standards can be rewarded with a higher feed-in tariff or tax reduction.

• The EC legislation defines only minimum sustainable biomass standards reflected by a label, which are legally binding for every producer/importer. Higher standards can be set up by private certification systems and are only binding to those who participate in the system (see the parallel system for labeling organic food, Regulation (EC) No. 2002/92). The reward for the higher standard will depend on the market and will not be recognized in the pricing system, quota or tax reduction.

European legislation versus national legislationAlthough it is widely recognized that EU legislation has great advantages over national legislation, since it can reach solutions for transnational environmental problems, legislation at the European level is not per se the most efficient solution to environmental problems (Calliess 2003). The EU is bound by the WTO, because it is also a member of this organization. Furthermore, it should be borne in mind that all negotiations on the international trade in biomass fall under the competency of the EU anyway.

General arguments to be taken into account for a regulation of biomass standards on an EU level include the following:

• The European Union is one of the biggest energy markets in the world, hence a Europe-wide standard will be of significance to European producers of biomass and importers.

• A regulation at the European level will help avoid distortion of competition in the EU and prevent a “race to the bottom” in environmental standards.

• However, biomass standards laid down on a European level are likely to be based on the lowest common denominator, thereby lacking in ambition.

• European legislation might suffer from time lag if there are significant differences among the 25 Member States about the goals and shape of the legislation.

The conflict between the advantages of a central solution at the European level and those of decentralized national implementation is reflected in the principle of subsidiarity in the ECT. In areas that do not fall within the Community’s exclusive competence (such as energy policy), the Community‘s actions must be in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. The principle of subsidiarity (Art. 5 ECT) applies

“Only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved by the Community.”

The environmental impacts (e.g. negative impacts on biodiversity, protection of water bodies, soil erosion and degradation) and the socio-economic conditions (e.g. workers’ rights, income levels) of biomass production in the European Union can vary considerably. Therefore, EU legislation on biomass standards gives Member States the option of adapting it to their individual situations and needs.

In order to establish a level-playing field for sustainable biomass (e.g. reduce distortion of competition and avoid a “race to the bottom” in environmental standards), European legislation should introduce minimum standards, which would also be in line with the subsidiarity principle. An “opt-up” clause can be included for Member States wishing to lay down stricter standards. However, the detailed design of a EU legislation on biomass standards and labeling conditions still has to be researched.

3.1.3 Legal framework on a National LevelAt the national level, Art. 74 para. 11 of the German Constitution fundamentally empowers the federation to regulate energy matters. Regulations can be categorized into provisions for energy saving and for energy generation57.

WWF Germany 27

57 Kloepfer, Umweltrecht, § 16 Rn. 12.

Legislation on biomass standards can be either regulated in a separate law and linked to sector legislation, or integrated into sector legislation. The same arguments mentioned for separate legislation at the European level (see Section 3.1.2) also apply to the national level. Important examples of sector legislation in Germany which are relevant to biomass standards are:

• The Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG)58: The aim of the EEG is to promote the generation of electricity from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market on the basis of feed-in obligations and the network operators’ duty to reimburse. The purpose of the EEG is to develop renewable energy as an important element of environmental and climate protection. The idea is to raise renewable energy’s share of power generated in Germany to at least 12.5% by 2010. Only electricity exclusively produced from renewable energy sources like biomass will be promoted (Art. 3 EEG).

• The Biomass Ordinance59 regulates special environmental requirements (Art. 5) related to the technical generation of electricity from biomass. These requirements can be seen as a starting point for linking existing legal regulation with sustainable biomass standards.

• The Petroleum Tax Act60 : Implementation of Directive 2003/96/EC (see above) will result in fundamental amendments to Petroleum Tax Act. The German Federal Government intends to replace the law by a new regulation (“Energy Taxation Act“).

• The Direct Payment Compliance Act61 and Direct Payment Compliance Ordinance62: Although the EC Council Regulations automatically apply at the national level, European provisions, e.g. the Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition (GAEC), have been implemented into German law and concretized by the above-mentioned regulation. The relevant authorities in the German Länder have to check the enforcement of the cross-compliance regulations. Generally speaking, cross-compliance is more relevant at the European level.

58 Act dated 21 July 2004, BGBl. I 2004, p. 1918; last amended on 7 July 2005, BGBl. I 2005, p. 1970.59 Ordinance dated 21 June 2001, BGBl. I 2001 p. 1234; last amended on 9 August 2005, BGBl. I 2005 p. 2419.60 Act dated 21 December 1992, BGBl. I 1992, p. 2150, p. 2185

As in most countries, the public sector (national or regional governments and public companies) and major individual energy consumers are expected to use their position to advance renewables (such as energy from biomass) by creating guaranteed demand for renewable energy and technologies over a given period of time. Research is still required to determine how – and to what extent - public procurement can take biomass standards into account.

3.2 Instruments (Examples)Suitable instruments for framing sustainable standards for biomass are described in the following chapter. A prerequisite for legal promotion is the generation of energy from renewable sources, e.g. from biomass. A key issue to be clarified in further research is whether current legal instruments can be combined with extensive conditions on biomass standards.

3.2.1 Feed-in tariffsThe German Energy Act (EEG) currently operates a system of guaranteed prices (feed-in tariffs) for renewable electricity (or heat) as a way of promoting renewable energy; similar regulations exist in about 40 other countries. Operators of specifically defined categories of technical facility are guaranteed access to the grid to feed in electricity and paid legally-defined, fixed minimum prices (for biomass see Art. 8 para. 1 EEG).

3.2.2 Tax exemption/reductionSince biofuels (e.g. biodiesel) complement fossil fuels well, they have been exempted from petroleum tax for many years. Since 2003, reduced tax rates have applied for mixtures of biofuels and petroleum; the tax rates are based on the percentage of biofuels in the mixture63.

The market for biodiesel has grown continuously in recent years due to its exemption from petroleum tax.

(1993, p.169); last amended on 22 December 2004, BGBl. I 2004, p. 3702.61 Act dated 21 July 2004; BGBl. I 2004, p. 1763, 1767.62 Ordinance dated 4 November 2004, BGBl. I 2004, p. 2778, amended by ordinance dated 26 May 2006, BGBl. I 2006, p. 1252. 63 See Art. 2a of Petroleum Taxation Act (this article was implemented by the Act dated 23 July 2002, BGBl. I, p. 2778); last amendment to Act dated 22 December 2004, BGBl. I, p. 3702.

WWF Germany 28

The current Petroleum Taxation Act will be replaced by the Energy Taxation Act as a result of the implementation into national law of both Directives 2003/96/EC “restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity” and Directive 2003/30/EC “on the promotion of the use of biofuels or other renewable fuels for transport.”64 One of the major amendments will be the repeal of tax exemptions on biofuels; as of 1 August 2006, biofuels will also be subject to tax (with the exception of biofuels used in agriculture and forestry). The German Federal Government decided to tax biofuels on the basis of the results of its biofuel report (BuReg 2005). The report concluded that biofuels were being “over-promoted” by tax exemptions. As a result, government policy will change in this respect: tax exemptions and tax reductions for biofuels will be gradually replaced by admixture quotas. The instruments of the Energy Taxation Act will therefore not constitute prior instruments for the introduction of sustainable standards.

Another possibility for linking sustainable standards with tax instruments is provided within the scope of the Electricity Taxation Act65. This regulation promotes and establishes a tax exemption for the generation of electricity from renewable sources (Art. 9 para. 1 StromStG).

3.2.3 (Admixture) QuotasThe German Federal Government recently submitted a draft Biofuel Quota Act (“Biokraftstoffquotengesetz”) mapping out admixture quotas for biofuels. Instead of tax exemptions and tax reductions, the use of biofuels is to be promoted by legally defined mixture quotas which will increase over time. The Biofuel Quota Act is a part of the implementation into national law of Directive 2003/96/EC.

This draft German national regulation includes a provision which empowers the German government to establish sustainability requirements for biofuels that are eligible to participate in the quota system. The German Parliament recently called on the government to make use of this provision and to draft such an ordinance for minimum sustainability standards by mid-2007.

64 Act dated 15 July 2006, BGBl. I, p. 1534.65 The Electricity Taxation Act (Stromsteuergesetz, StromStG) entered into force as a part of the “Act for the Introduction of the Ecological Tax Reform” on March 24, 1999, BGBl. I, p. 378; the last amendment to the Act is dated 29 December 2003, BGBl. I, p. 3076.

3.2.4 Import regulations

Import regulations are often passed by supranational organizations, because they regulate regional (supranational) markets. Linking biomass standards to this instrument could be significant for policy making on a European level. One example is the above-mentioned Council Regulation 2051/2001/EC, which is legally binding in the Member States. However, as pointed out above, import restrictions like quotas go against the “tariffs only” principle of the Agreement on Agriculture.

Several of the EU Member States are at various stages of establishing national regulations on the sustainability of biofuels. Furthermore, initiatives to require certification in Belgium, the Netherlands and the UK have drafted sustainability requirements for their (voluntary) national schemes of supporting biofuels. In these drafts, imported bioenergy and biofuels are required to “report” on their sustainability profile, although there is o compulsory compliance. This “loose” concept assumes that it will be the role of the private sector and the customers to make use of this information.

One step closer to legally binding standards, the upcoming German ordinance specifying sustainability standards for biofuels within its quota law might implicitly also establish such requirements for imported biofuels. Similarly, Switzerland is considering introducing sustainability standards for imported biofuels, especially ethanol.

Figure 4: Thuya woodchips. Essaouira, Morocco © WWF-Canon / Michel Gunther

WWF Germany 29

The previous section provided a brief summary of the legal background on sustainability standards for biomass. The following section presents possible approaches to the future implementation of such standards along with some further recommendations for action.

The study focuses on the implementation of a legally binding system of bioenergy sustainability standards, taking into account existing voluntary systems from which experience could be integrated. The regulations could make use of existing certification systems, reinforcing voluntary systems like the RSPO or FSC, for example. These systems offer some experience on certification which might be also useful for bioenergy.

The question as to the possible role of existing voluntary systems has to be answered on the basis of a qualitative evaluation of each system and the definition of how sustainable bioenergy is provided.

When considering the legal implementation of national, European and international sustainability standards for bioenergy, the following questions arise:

• Should a regulation be legally binding (e.g. a convention/law), or have restricted authority, or no binding force like a voluntary agreement or certification for biomass?

• What scope should a possible regulation have?

• How can a regulation be made compatible for other levels (e.g. relationship between an EU regulation and national regulations)?

• And what should be the time horizon for implementation?

Coherence and reciprocity are required to avoid discrimination against actors in the custody chain as far as possible. Furthermore, the respective governance structures must be considered; the extent and type of stakeholder involvement in particular can be seen as crucial to the overall acceptance of sustainability standards for bioenergy66.

4. Implementation of Sustainability Standards for Bioenergy

66 See Annex 2 for a synopsis of key organizational and governance issues involving existing certification schemes for biomass.

4.1 The “Ideal” regulationStandardized GuidelinesIdeally, each level (international, European, national and local) should introduce sustainable standards for biomass by means of regulations that are consistent with the other levels:

• Internationally, an agreement on objectives relating to standards for bioenergy is recommended that regulates the framework conditions for handling sustainability criteria on the bioenergy sector. The agreement would establish environmental, social and economic criteria for the different sectors based on the core standards recommended in Section 2 and the key organizational elements of Section 4.

• The next step in refining objectives would be taken at the EU level: the international framework agreement must conform to the EU legal framework. EU regulation should be more detailed than the international regulation and go beyond the international agreement’s minimum criteria. Concrete instruments could be applied at the European level (e.g. all the instruments mentioned above: feed-in tariffs, admixture quotas, tax exemption, import regulations).

• At the national level, the implementation of EU regulation is the most important requirement; the above-mentioned instruments are also significant at this level as regards possible links with sustainable standards.

Enforcement of Regulation One or more certification bodies are needed to monitor and verify the compliance of both bioenergy production and conversion with the sustainability standards. Certification institutions for sustainability standards can be:

• government institutions (certification according to government guidelines);

• private certification institutions (certification according to government guidelines and [possibly stricter] private guidelines);

• a special case could be voluntary agreements among biomass producers (companies in the chain of custody, e.g. RSPO) whose statutes or internal regulations contain several biomass standards and require their members’ compliance; but they would not have a monitoring system and would be based on goodwill.

WWF Germany 30

As regards the object of certification, two options exist:

• government regulation on minimum biomass standards, or

• government minimum and private standards with the latter going beyond the requirements of a possible EU regulation, as is the case in organic food, where voluntary schemes (for example Fair Trade and labels such as Demeter or Bioland) require tighter standards.

4.2 Bottom-up activities and further approach

Various activities “from the ground up” could be envisioned to advance sustainability standards. This process has already started, and several activities aiming for future legislation to implement sustainability standards already exist, are in discussion or under consideration67. This can be regarded as a good start, as legislation on the international, European and even at a national level can take a long time and requires a number of consulting procedures. At the same time, private institutions (e.g. FSC, RSPO, Responsible Soy) are discussing the bioenergy issue and whether and how to integrate bioenergy into their systems.

As regards players, bilateral and multilateral financing institutions like the EIB or GEF are in a prime position to implement sustainability standards for their (project-financing) operations. Their existing rules of operation can be extended to cover sustainability standards, and they could cooperate with existing initiatives such as FSC to establish procedures for monitoring and verifying such standards (e.g. by a certification scheme). This approach would be similar to the implementation of the CDM.

Furthermore, governments could incorporate the outcomes of such start-up activities into the (medium- to longer-term) endeavor of establishing the “ideal” approach, i.e. voluntary or private activities could be merged with regulatory approaches on all levels.

In this way, the approaches are not antagonistic, but could be seen as synergistic over time.

However, a broad variety of parallel activities with different scopes and fragmented relevance for the different players could involve the danger of proliferation, becoming a hindrance to future sustainable bioenergy development, as speakers and panelists at the recent CURES/UNF/HBF conference on sustainable bioenergy in October 2006 in Bonn already warned.

Against this background, it is worthwhile mentioning that several consultative activities exist which aim to bring a focus to the various initiatives, and to further the alignment of both the standards under discussion and the organizational issues of how to proceed.

An informal multilateral process started recently with a two-day meeting in Amsterdam to exchange views of (draft) national sustainability requirements for bioenergy and biofuels between Belgian, British, Dutch and German governmental representatives, and “observers” from the European Commission.

Another informal meeting is taking place in Switzerland at the end of November 2006 to define the scope of work on a related research project of the Swiss Federal Agency for Energy on sustainability criteria for biofuels; it will bring together representatives of UN organizations, EU Member State governments, NGOs, researchers and interested privatesector actors.

The FAO is sponsoring the formulation of a UN Energy report on sustainable bioenergy which, it is hoped, will be presented at CSD-15 in the spring of 2007.

The G8 GBEP has decided to act as an information exchange on activities to develop and implement sustainability standards for bioenergy between its members, and the IEA Bioenergy Task 40 will prepare a report on this issue during its next working phase which starts in 2007.

4.3 Recommendations on implementing sustainability standards

All the standards suggested in Section 2 need refinement as regards their regional scope. Their applicability to both large-scale operations and smallholder activities should be taken into account. Furthermore, this process must actively involve stakeholders from both civil society and industry.

WWF Germany 31

67 Examples are the sustainability standards under development for the ordinance of the German biofuel quota law, and the list of sustainability standards of the Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership in the UK.

Implementing the core standards in support schemesIt is recommended that, as a start, a set of negative standards (“to be avoided”) be implemented to support schemes on a national and EU level; these standards should be legally binding, and could be implemented in the short-term.

International and national financing institutions (ADB, EBRD, EIB, GEF, IDB, KfW etc.) should be encouraged to introduce sustainable bioenergy standards for their operations. This could also help establish good practices and try out monitoring, certification and verification schemes.

Implementing the core standards in trade arrangementsA multilateral setting is required for international arrangements on the bioenergy trade (i.e. import restrictions); the G8, UNCTAD/UNEP and FAO initiatives seem appropriate forums.

Options for establishing sustainability standards for bioenergy under the WTO rules need to be explored in more detail, although the negotiation of a coherent framework could take decades.

Nevertheless, bodies like the EU should partner with interested countries like Brazil or South Africa to create bilateral or multilateral agreements on sustainable bioenergy imports that are subject to standards and verification procedures. Such agreements could form an important first step in forging future “true” multilateral agreements and demonstrate the applicability of the general approach.

Making use of experience from existing certification schemesVoluntary schemes like the FSC and RSPO should be discussed in parallel and seek to include relevant economic players and customer organizations. National governments and supranational bodies like the GEF should be included as forerunners.

The active participation of both civil society and representatives from the affected industries is required in all activities.

Formation of a core group of actorsTo proceed, a core group of actors should be formed which could raise resources to manage the overall process of information exchange on the subject of (national or regional) forerunners, demonstration cases and good practice in general, and to actively work towards the inclusion of NGOs and industry.

WWF should consider becoming one of these actors and invite other NGOs to join. Concurrently, WWF should continue actively seeking partners, e.g. from the EU Commission, FAO, GEF and dedicated industry representatives. Players such as the UN Foundation or the Heinrich Böll Foundation should consider supporting this process.

The recent linking of activities like the FAO International Bioenergy Platform with the G8 Global Bioenergy Partnership at the “office” level could constitute a model with which to make a start.

Bilateral donors could add resources and capacity-building elements for developing countries; existing initiatives like the UNEP/UNCTAD/UN Foundation on biofuels and the IEA Bioenergy Task 40 could participate.

The G8-GBEP, the European Commission and several countries are in the process of formulating sustainability standards for bioenergy, and donor agencies, industry associations and NGOs are holding meetings, conferences and workshops to exchange views and opinions.

Since a variety of actors are currently positioning themselves in the bioenergy “arena”, the time is right to suggest such a formation starting with a loose focal point of exchange and moving on to create a coherent framework for truly sustainable bioenergy development on a global scale.

4.4 Beyond bioenergy: sustainable carbon?

Agreement on the core standards and their implementation would be an important step in establishing bioenergy and biofuels as a basic element of a sustainable (global) energy strategy, as has been previously suggested (Fritsche/Matthes 2003).

At the same time, from a scientific point of view it would also be worth considering broadening the scope of the endeavor – in parallel to these implementation activities: the core standards could become an umbrella under which the various biomass-derived products – from coffee to textiles, from fruit to timber – might be integrated with respect to minimum sustainability requirements.

In this process, the standards could move from voluntary approaches for the “willing” to market conditionalities for sustainable global trade.

WWF Germany 32

ReferencesAIDE (AIDEnvironment) 2004: Managing the

Soy Boom: Two scenarios of soy production expansion in South America; Dros, Jan Maarten; report commissioned by WWF Forest Conversion Initiative; Amsterdam - www.aidenvironment.org

AIDE (AIDEnvironment) 2006: Betere biomassa; Achtergronddocument en principes voor duurzame biomassa; Richert, Wolfgang/Sielhorst, Sven/Kessler, Jan Joost; Amsterdam - http://lyskamm.aidenvironment.org/public/files/A1447_Betere_Biomassa_FINAL.pdf

Bauen, Ausilio et al. 2006: A methodology and tool for calculating the carbon intensity of biofuels; draft final report by E4tech/ECCM/Themba Technology; London - www.lowcvp.org.uk/uploaded/documents/FWG-P-06-03%20Carbon%20Certification%20Methodology%20-%20final%20draft.pdf

Bickel, Ulrike/Dros, Jan Maarten 2003: The impacts of soybean cultivation on Brazilian ecosystem. Three case studies; commissioned by WWF Forest Conversion Initiative; Amsterdam - http://assets.panda.org/downloads/impactsofsoybean.pdf

BuReg (German Federal Government) 2005: Biofuel report; parliamentary document BT-Drucks.15/5816; Berlin

Calliess, C. 2003: Die Umweltkompetenz der EG nach dem Vertrag von Nizza – Zum Handlungsrahmen der europäischen Umweltgesetzgebung; in: Zeitschrift für Umweltrecht 2003, p. 129 (133)

Cameron, Alasdair 2006: Green or grey? Sustainability issues of biofuel production, in: Earthscan May Issue - www.earthscan.co.uk/news/printablearticle.asp?sp=&v=1&UAN=638

Clay, J. 2004: World Agriculture and the Environment. A Commodity-by-Commodity Guide to Impacts and Practices; Island Press

Edinburgh Centre for Carbon Management (ECCM)/IIED/ADAS/Imperial College 2006: Draft Environmental Standards for Biofuels; R. Tipper et al., report commissioned by the LowCVP; London

EEB (European Environment Bureau)/ BLI (BirdLife International)/T&E (Transport and Environment) 2006: A sustainable path for biofuels in the EU - Report and conclusions from the stakeholder conference organized by BirdLife International, the EEB and T&E, 7 June 2006, Brussels - www.eeb.org/activities/agriculture/conferenceresultsAsustainablepathforbiofuelsintheEU.htm

EEA (European Environment Agency) 2005: Agriculture and environment in EU-15 - the IRENA indicator report. EEA Report no. 6/2005; Copenhagen

EEA (European Environment Agency) 2006: How much bioenergy can Europe produce without harming the environment? Copenhagen - http://reports.eea.europa.eu/eea_report_2006_7/en/eea_report_7_2006.pdf

Elbersen, Berien et al. 2005: Large-scale biomass production and agricultural land use – potential effects on farmland habitats and related biodiversity. Technical report; EEA study contract EEA/EAS/03/004; Wageningen/Copenhagen

Fallot, Abigaïl et al. 2006: The assessment of biofuel potentials on global and regional scales in the tropical world; in: Energy for Sustainable Development vol. X no. 2, pp. 80-91

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) 1994: Plant production and protection series, no. 27; Rome

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) 2000: Global Forest Products Outlook Study; Rome

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) 2002: Organic agriculture, environment and food security; N. El-Hage Scialabba/C. Hattam (eds.); Environment and Natural Resources Series - 4; Rome - www.fao.org/docrep/005/Y4137E/y4137e00.htm

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) 2003: World agriculture: towards 2015/2030. An FAO perspective; Rome - www.fao.org/docrep/005/y4252e/y4252e00.htm

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) 2005: Food Insecurity in the World 2005; Rome - ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/008/a0200e/a0200e.pdf

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) 2006a: Introducing the International Bioenergy Platform (IBEP); Rome - ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/009/A0469E/A0469E00.pdf

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) 2006b: The State of Food Insecurity in the World; Rome

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) 2006c: Bioenergy projects under the Climate Change Mitigation Regime and their contribution to sustainable development; Jürgens, Ingmar/Müller, Adrian; Rome (forthcoming)

WWF Germany 33

FBOMS (Brazilian Forum of NGOs and Social Movements for the Environment and Development) 2004: Relation between expansion of soy plantations and deforestation - Understanding the dynamics. Executive Summary; Forests Work Group; Sao Paulo

Fritsche, Uwe R./Matthes, Felix C. 2003: Changing Course – A Contribution to A Global Energy Strategy; An Öko-Institut Policy Paper prepared for Heinrich Boell Foundation; World Summit Papers No 22; Berlin - http://www.oeko.de/service/ges

Fritsche, Uwe R. et al. 2004: Stoffstromanalyse zur nachhaltigen energetischen Nutzung von Biomasse. Öko-Institut/FhG-UMSICHT/IZES/IE/IFEU/TU München; final report to the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety; Darmstadt etc. (in German) www.oeko.de/service/bio

Gehua, Wang et al. 2006: Liquid Biofuels for Transportation - Chinese Potential and Implications for Sustainable Agriculture and Energy in the 21st Century - Assessment Study; funded by BMELV/FNR; Beijing - www.gtz.de/de/dokumente/en-biofuels-for-transportation-in-china-2005.pdf

Haberl, Helmut et al. 2005: Human appropriation of net primary production as determinant of avifauna diversity in Austria; in: Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment vol. 110 (2005) pp. 119–131

Haberl, Helmut/Erb, Karl-Heinz 2006: Assessment of Sustainable Land Use in Producing Biomass; in: Renewables-Based Technology, J. Dewulf/H. van Langenhove (eds.), pp. 175 - 192

Herzog, Helmut 2003: Agronomy and world crops I. Lectures for the MSc. Program “International agricultural sciences”; Humboldt University; Berlin

Hill, Jason et al. 2006: Environmental, economic, and energetic costs and benefits of biodiesel and ethanol biofuels; in: PNAS vol. 103 no. 30, pp. 11206–11210 - www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0604600103

Hoogwijk, Monique M. 2004: On the global and regional potential of renewable energy sources; dissertation University of Utrecht

IE (Institute for Energy and Environment)/BFH (Federal Agency for Wood Research)/UH (University of Hohenheim)/OEKO (Öko-Institut - Institute for applied Ecology) 2005: Sustainable Strategies for Biomass Use in the European Context: Analysis in the charged debate on national guidelines and

the competition between solid, liquid and gaseous biofuels; final report sponsored by German BMU; Leipzig/Hamburg/Hohenheim/Darmstadt - www.ie-leipzig.de/Biomassenutzung/E-Biomasse.htm

Janssen, Rainer et al. 2005: Liquid Biofuels for Transportation in Tanzania: Potential and Implications for Sustainable Agriculture and Energy in the 21st Century; funded by BMELV through FNR; Dar-el-Salaam - www.gtz.de/de/dokumente/en-biofuels-for-transportation-in-tanzania-2005.pdf

JGSEE (Joint Graduate School of Energy and Environment, King Mongkut’s University of Technology) 2006: Energy balance and GHG-abatement cost of cassava utilization for fuel ethanol in Thailand; Thu Lan N.T., Shabbir H. Gheewala, Savitri Garivait; Bangkok (submitted to Energy Policy)

JRC (European Commission Joint Research Centre)/EEA (European Environment Agency) 2006: Proceedings of the Expert Consultation Meeting „Sustainable Bioenergy Cropping Systems for the Mediterranean“ Madrid, February 9-10, 2006; organized by the European Commission Joint Research Centre (IES Ispra) and the EEA together with CENER and CIEMAT - http://streference.jrc.cec.eu.int

Kaltner, Franz et al. 2005: Liquid Biofuels for Transportation in Brazil: Potential and Implications for Sustainable Agriculture and Energy in the 21st Century; funded by BMELV through FNR; Rio de Janeiro - www.gtz.de/de/dokumente/en-biofuels-for-transportation-in-brazil-2005.pdf

Karekezi, Stephen et al. 2004: Traditional Biomass Energy: Improving Its Use and Moving to Modern Energy Use; background paper for the International Conference for Renewable Energies; Bonn - www.renewables2004.de/pdf/tbp/TBP11-biomass.pdf

Kittikun, A.H. et al. 2000: Environmental Management for Palm Oil Mill; in: Proceedings of the Internet Conference on Material Flow Analysis of Integrated Bio-Systems (March-October 2000) - www.ias.unu.edu/proceedings/icibs/ic-mfa/

Lal, R. 2006: Land area for establishing biofuel plantations; in: Energy for Sustainable Development vol. X no. 2, pp. 67-79

Larson, Eric D. 2006: A review of life-cycle analysis studies on liquid biofuel systems for the transport sector; in: Energy for Sustainable Development vol. X no. 2, pp. 109-126

WWF Germany 34

Lewandowski, Ines/Faaij, André 2004: Steps towards the Development of a Certification System for Sustainable Bio-Energy Trade; Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development and Innovation, Department of Science, Technology and Society at Utrecht University, Report NWS-E-2004-31; Utrecht

Neuhaus, Esther 2006: Energy revolution in Brazil: Biofuels for sustainable development; FBOMS (Brazilian Network of NGOs and Social Movements for Environment and Development) - www.fboms.org.br/gtenergia/biofuels_CDS14.pdf

Oehme, Ines 2006: Development of ecological standards for biomass in the framework of green electricity labeling; WP 2.2 report from the CLEAN-E project, sponsored by the European Commission; Vienna

OEKO (Öko-Institut – Institute for applied Ecology) 2005: Criteria for assessing environmental, economic and social aspects of biofuels in developing countries. Study commissioned by the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation an Development; Darmstadt - www.oeko.de/oekodoc/234/2005-002-en.pdf?PHPSESSID=1f22129a6ef47c765231437d871099ab

OEKO (Öko-Institut – Institute for applied Ecology) 2006: Life-Cycle Analysis of Renewable and Conventional Electricity, Heating, and Transport Fuel Options in the EU until 2030; Fritsche, Uwe R. et al.; final report for EEA; Darmstadt (forthcoming)

OEKO (Öko-Institut – Institute for applied Ecology)/Alterra 2006: Environmentally compatible biomass potential from agriculture; Kirsten Wiegmann/Uwe R. Fritsche (Öko-Institut)/Berien Elbersen (Alterra); final report for EEA; Darmstadt/Wageningen

Pinto, Luís F.G. et al. 2001: Feasibility of Agroforestry for Sugarcane Production and Soil Conservation in Brazil; in: Sustaining the Global Farm. Selected papers from the 10th Int. Soil Conservation Organization Meeting; D. Scott/R. Mohtar/G. Steinhardt (eds.); p. 317-320

Pinto, Luís F.G. /Bernardes, Silveira B./Sparovek, Gerd 2003: Feasibility of Cultivation of Sugarcane in Agroforestry Systems; in: Scientia Agricola vol. 60, no. 3, p. 489-493

RAND 2000: Stimulating industrial Innovation for sustainability: an International Analysis; E.

Frinking/J.P. Kahan/M. Pöyhönen, RAND Europe RE-2000.16, p. 52

REN21 (Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century) 2006: Renewables Global Status Report 2006 update; Paris www.ren21.net

Richter, Ines 2006: Sustainable aquatic biomass: Overview on material use and considerations on options and limits for energy use – working paper; with support from Kirsten Wiegmann and Uwe R. Fritsche, Öko-Institut (Institute for applied Ecology), Darmstadt Office (forthcoming)

SEI (Stockholm Environment Institute) 2005: Advancing Bioenergy for Sustainable Development; Guideline for Policymakers and Investors Volumes I-III; Sivan Kartha/Gerald Leach/Sudhir Chella Rajan, prepared for World Bank ESMAP (Energy Sector Management Assistance Program)

TERI (The Energy and Resources Institute) 2005: Liquid Biofuels for Transportation: India country study on potential and implications for sustainable agriculture and energy; funded by BMELV through FNR; New Delhi - www.gtz.de/de/dokumente/en-biofuels-for-transportation-in-india-2005.pdf

UN (United Nations Organization) 2006: News Center - Download from 14.07.2006

WBGU (German Advisory Council on Global Change) 2003: World in Transition – Towards Sustainable Energy Systems; Berlin - www.wbgu.de/wbgu_jg2003_engl.pdf

WBGU (German Advisory Council on Global Change) 2004: World in Transition – Fighting Poverty through Environmental Policy; Berlin - www.wbgu.de/wbgu_jg2004_engl.pdf

WTO (World Trade Organization) 1998: Council for Trade in Services, Energy Services, Background Note by the Secretariat, S/C/W/52, 9 of September 1998; Geneva, p. 3.

WWI (Worldwatch Institute)/gtz (Deutschen Gesellschaft für technische Zusammenarbeit GmbH) 2006: Biofuels for Transportation - Global Potential and Implications for Sustainable Agriculture and Energy in the 21st Century; S. Hunt et al., prepared for BMELV; Washington DC

Zamora, R. et al. 2004: Los vínculos entre el comercio y el desarrollo sostenible en la agricultura de Centroamérica. - www.tradeknowledgenetwork.net/pdf/tkn_trade_sd_agi_es.pdf

WWF Germany 35

A-1a Procedural framework for further work

The main challenge of standards for sustainable biomass from the environmental perspective is to avoid any additional pressure on wildlife and farmland biodiversity, soil and water quality, and atmosphere/climate compared to the present reference situation. A number considerations relating to biodiversity protection and soil and water conservation were formulated above to make this possible.

The standards recommended in Section 2 need further refinement, as they will vary according to regional soils and climates, current land use and farming practices. In order to systematically integrate these factors and take account of their regional variations, a general procedure should be designed for deriving criteria and indicators which would then be used within national or regional contexts.

This general procedure should include:

• establishing national environmental targets, e.g. share of extensive farming (organic, traditional, integrated, etc.) or grasslands conservation;

• identifying protected areas (habitats, migration routes) by country and species;

• identifying land for biomass production (agriculture, forestry, cuttings/residues) by country;

• identifying extraction rates for residues by environmental zone and crop/residue;

• setting environmental priorities for crops (crop mixes according to environmental zoning)

The first three points create a general framework of the land potential from a top-down view; the last two are part of good-practice guide for the cultivation and/or extraction of biomass.

AnnexesA-1b Environmental prioritization of cropsIn order to identify a crop mix for each environmental zone and country that will maximize environmental benefits, risk matrices have to be developed that help to prioritize potential biomass crops according to the pressure they exert on the environment.

An assessment scheme has already been worked out for agricultural bioenergy in Europe (EEA 2006) which is briefly introduced in the following68. This approach could be transferred to different regions and countries in order to prepare a specific set of indicators by country and/or environmental zone.

This assessment scheme was designed to identify the environmentally compatible potential of biomass in Europe. However, it has not been implemented (e.g. standardization scheme, cross-compliance obligation) so far.

Since this method already covers the European regions and countries, it should be suitable for transfer to other countries and environmental (pedo-climatic) zones in the world.

The starting point is that a crop mix needs to be identified for each environmental zone and country that will have the greatest environmental benefits. The mixes should support environmentally sound farming practices that are specifically adapted to reducing the environmental problems and risks that are typical of the respective environmental zones of Europe. Risk matrices have therefore been developed that help prioritize potential biomass crops according to their environmental pressures (specific for each environmental zone):

First, a selection was made of the main environmental and ecological pressure indicators needed to describe potential problems and/or benefits caused by the cultivation of energy crops. The indicators vary from one environmental zone (region, country) to another.

68 A more detailed description can be found in EEA (2006).

WWF Germany 36

The next step was a crop-by-crop analysis. This provides a crop-specific description of the problems and benefits of each potential energy crop. The characteristics to be incorporated are:

a. Climatic suitabilityb. Present land usec. Present farming systemsd. Present environmental problems.

Examples are given below for linseed as an annual crop and for short rotation coppice (SRC) of willow and poplar as perennial crops.

Table A-1: Overview of Pressures per Crop - Linseed (annual crop)

Aspect score reason source

Erosion A low riskespecially winter linseed ifeu

Soil compaction A intensive rooting Elbersen et al. 2005

Nutrient inputs into surface and groundwater

A low to medium demand, good fixation Elbersen et al. 2005

Pesticide pollution of soils and water B low, as improved breeding is more competitive

Elbersen et al. 2005; ifeu; Marten

Water abstraction A low water demand ifeu

Increased fire risk --- --- ---

Diversity of crop types A high, as currently rather uncommon FAO

Link to farmland biodiversity A/B low input use, open crop structure with weeds, may provide fodder in autumn

Own assessment

Source: EEA (2006); scores A through E reflect the intensity of the respective environmental risks, with A indicating the lower bound, and E the upper bound.

Table A-2: Overview of Pressures per Crop – SRC poplar and willow (perennials)

Aspect score reason Source

Erosion A permanent crop own assumption

Soil compaction A deep rooting, permanent crop Elbersen et al. 2005, Kaltschmitt

Nutrient inputs into surface and groundwater

A low fertilizer use,N-storage in rhizomes Elbersen et al. 2005, Kaltschmitt

Pesticide pollution of soils and water

A young plants are not very competitive, afterwards no plant protection is necessary

Elbersen et al. 2005; Kaltschmitt

Water abstraction C high transpiration ratio: 800l/kg dm

Elbersen et al. 2005; Kaltschmitt

Increased fire risk --- not in dry regions ---

Diversity of crop types A currently not very common,birds nesting inside plantations

Ownassumption

Link to farmland biodiversity

A/B No/low pesticide use; nesting habitat; provides winter shelter

Own assessment

Source: EEA (2006); scores A through E reflect the intensity of the respective environmental risks, with A indicating the lower bound, and E the upper bound.

WWF Germany 37

An initial selection of biomass crops for each environmental zone was to be derived from given mixes of crops already grown for food, non-food and energy purposes. This included commercial settings as well as serious long-term experiments. The latter was chosen as there is still less experience with perennial energy crops.

The main biomass crops were prioritized according to their environmental pressures for every environmental zone. The result was a selection of biomass crop mixes for each environmental zone which is not expected to exert any additional pressure on farmland biodiversity. The prioritization was carried out by risk matrices in which the different crops were rated according to the environmental and ecological pressure indicators specified in the crop-by-crop analysis. As examples, Table A-3 shows the prioritization of annual crops for the Atlantic Central and Lusitanian Zones.

Table A-3: Prioritization of Annual Crops for the Atlantic Central and Lusitanian Zone

Atlantic Central Lusitanian

Dou

ble

crop

ping

linse

ed (o

il)

Oth

erC

erea

ls

culti

vate

dgr

ass

Clo

ver.a

lfalfa

Hem

p

Sorg

hum

only

Lus

itan

Mus

tard

seed

Whe

at

Sunfl

ower

Rap

e

Suga

r-be

ets

Pota

toes

Mai

ze

Erosion A A A A A A/B A A (B) A B/C B C C C

soil compaction A A A A/B A/B A A A A A A C C B

nutrient inputs to surface and groundwater

A A A B B A A B A A/B B/C B B C

Pesticide pollution of soils and water

A B A A A A B/C B A B C B B C

water abstraction --- A A A A B A B B B B B C A/B

Increased fire risk --- --- --- C --- --- A --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

diversity of crop types

A A B A A B B A C A (B/C)

A/B B A/B B/C

Link to farmland biodiversity

B A/B B A A/B B B B B/C A/B B/C B B/C B/C

Source: OEKO/Alterra 2006

WWF Germany 38

The figure below gives an overview of the working steps for selecting biomass crops with an environmentally higher priority by environmental zone.

The EEA study identified crop mixes. The next step towards environmentally compatible biomass production would be to create guidelines for environmentally sound farming practices for each crop.

Priorisation of cropsfor each environmental zone

Risk matrix for each crop

Information about environmental zone crop information

Descriptionof zones German FME

sustainablebiomass

Environmentalproblems by

zone

IRENA EEAbiofuels

Environmentaleffects caused

by crop

reports

Expertknowledge

Crop suitibilityby zone

Statistics:FAO, IENICA, …

reports

EEA biofuels

Germanstudy

Priorisation of cropsfor each environmental zone

Risk matrix for each crop

Information about environmental zone crop information

Descriptionof zones German FME

sustainablebiomass

Environmentalproblems by

zone

IRENA EEAbiofuels

Environmentaleffects caused

by crop

reports

Expertknowledge

Environmentaleffects caused

by crop

reports

Expertknowledge

Crop suitibilityby zone

Statistics:FAO, IENICA, …

reports

EEA biofuels

Germanstudy

Crop suitibilityby zone

Statistics:FAO, IENICA, …

reports

EEA biofuels

Germanstudy

Figure A-1: Overview of the working steps for selecting biomass crops with an environmentally higher priority by environmental zone

WWF Germany 39

Table A-4: Organizational elements and criteria of RSPO, PEFC and FSC compared to a (fictitious) “sustainable biomass certification (SBC)” body

RSPO PEFC FSC “SBC”

BASICS

Basis for company participation

Voluntary Membership in Association under Swiss Law (Art. 60)

voluntary voluntary voluntary

Scope of certification system

Limited to members of RSPONo certification of third parties; entire supply chain for palm oil

All forest types throughout the world (where a PEFC accredited national scheme exists)

All forest types throughout the world

All types of biomass (limitations: special plants, whole production process)

GOVERNANCE

Governance structure

Form of legal entity: private association General assembly (all members of RSPO)Executive Board, 16 Members (economic, social, environment organ.)Secretariat (daily management)

National Governing Bodies, each appointing voting delegates to the PEFC CouncilGeneral assembly Board of DirectorsMajority voting on all decisions (forest industry holds majority)

FSC International Center, Regional Offices, National Initiatives. Membership / General assembly. Board of Directors. Balanced representation of 3 chambers (economic, social, environment) at all levels (incl. North/ South differentiation); with equal voting power and consensus orientation

Structure should reflect all dimensions of sustainability and balance of powers

Representation Ordinary members (restricted to 7 categories, e.g. actors in the custody chain including banks, investors, environmental, social and develop. NGOs) affiliated members (exterior to 7 categories)

Academic, government, industry and consulting sectors; strong support of forest industry and forest owner, weak or no support of social and environmental NGOs

Academic, government, industry and consulting sectors; supported by all segments of civil society, particularly large international social and environmental NGOs

Broad scope reflecting the dimensions of sustainability

WWF Germany 40

A-2 Synopsis of certification systems Voluntary schemes for the certification of sustainable biomass (e.g. RSPO, PEFC and FSC) are currently being discussed as implementation options for bioenergy sustainability standards. They already aim to include relevant economic players and customer organizations in their standard-setting process.

Disregarding whether voluntary schemes could (or even should) ever be a substitute for government regulation, it is interesting to consider which organizational structures already exist and how they would need to be adjusted if a certification scheme for sustainable biomass were to be set up. The following table provides the key organizational elements of RSPO, PEFC and FSC, and – in the last column – a fictitious sustainable biomass scheme (SBC).

RSPO PEFC FSC “SBC”

STANDARDIZATION

Development of standards

General Assembly (international) establishes the principle guidelines for the general policy of RSPO. Guidance Document for RSPO Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Palm Oil Production

Endorsement of national forest certification schemes, whose standards vary greatly

Based on worldwide set of ten principles and criteria; adapted to national or regional conditions by national working groups with stakeholder participation

- Important criteria; - Adaptation to

heterogeneous biomass sources on regional level

Scope of the standardization process

Environmental, social, economic issues

Forest management and chain-of-custody certification; Environmental, social, silvicultural, economic issues

Forest management and chain-of-custody certification; Environmental, social, silvicultural, economic issues

Similar

Public input No public input from non-RSPO membersAffiliated Members (no voting rights, limited access to information)

Limited public consultation; incomplete transparency and stakeholder participation

Subject to public review; complete transparency; broad stakeholder participation

Similar;quality of public review focus on transparency

Approval General Assembly PEFC Council National General Assembly + Accreditation Service International on behalf of FSC International

Depending on governance structure

Updating to the standard

Open (meeting of the Assembly once a year)

Every 5 years Every 5 years Updating necessary

Certification Body Qualifications (Accreditation)

Reviewer A national accreditation body; independent from PEFC

Accreditation Service International (ASI) on behalf of FSC

similar

Evaluation Process

Variable; depends on national accreditation body

ASI audits the applying certification body`s documents and office

Adaptation to the certification process for biomass

Approval Recognition of accreditation by national body by PEFC Council

FSC Board of Directors makes a decision based on ASI findings

Separation of powers and decision on superior level necessary

Monitoring No inspections by PEFC

Annual inspections of certification body’s office and field work by ASI

important

Renewal No regulation Every 5 years important

WWF Germany 41

RSPO PEFC FSC “SBC”

Verification (Judging Conformance to the Standard)

Reviewer None Accredited third party auditor (Certification body)

FSC-accredited third party auditor (Certification body)

likewise structure necessary to achieve high reliability of the certification system

Evaluation Process

None Certification on regional level allowed; random inspection after award of certificate; auditor reviews documentation, conducts a field assessment. Annual audits; results not regularly and/or not published in their entirety

Certification of Forest Management Units; evaluation of FMU before award of the certificate; auditor reviews documentation, conducts field assessments and consults relevant stakeholders. Annual audits; audit results made public

Necessary for internal/external transparency and reliability/ confidence in the certificate

Approval None Certification body decides, based on feedback from the auditors and the applicant (client); no peer reviews required

Certification body decides, based on feedback from the auditors, the applicant (client) and two impartial peer reviews.

Necessary for internal/external transparency and reliability/ confidence in the certificate

Public input (file a protest)

None Any member of the public can file a dispute if there is a disagreement with the decision or ongoing compliance to the standard.

Any member of the public can file a dispute if there is a disagreement with the decision or ongoing compliance to the standard.

Necessary for internal/external transparency and reliability/confidence in the certificate

Product Tracking and Claims

Material tracking

No label in place Chain of Custody tracks products from forest through each stage of manufacturing and distributionEither physical separation, batch definition or volume calculation

Chain of Custody tracks products from forest through each stage of manufacturing and distribution.Either physical separation for pure products or mixture with strict control of all non-FSC-sources

Chain of custody from plant to end-product

On-product label

One label with two optional claims depending on content (100% or less then 100% PEFC)

Three product labels (pure, mixed and recycled label), various claims describing real content

Differences: label necessary for source tracking (see “green electricity label”)

Use of non-certified sources and labeled products

Avoidance of illegal or unauthorized harvested wood

Avoidance of wood from forest areas which have been illegally harvested, where traditional or civil rights are violated, been cleared for plantation or other use, from forests with threatened High Conservation Values and of GMO trees

equivalent

Source: compiled by author

WWF Germany 42

This synopsis indicates that most of the key elements for a – again: fictive – “SCB” already exists. Work in the UK already discussed the rectification scheme with respect to the credibility of any sustainability standard (ECCM/IIED/ADAS/Imperial College 2006), and ongoing work will focus more on the practical implication of monitoring and verifying compliance.

In that respect, experiences from existing voluntary schemes are worth to consider, even if legally binding sustainability standards seem more appropriate for biomass69.

69 It is beyond this brief study to discuss the pros and cons of voluntary vs. mandatory standards for sustainable biomass. In principle, we consider legally binding standards to be superior (see Section 4), but pragmatically, voluntary schemes might provide a well-needed start (“entry option”).

WWF Germany 43

A-3

Syn

opsi

s of

env

ironm

enta

l sta

ndar

ds fo

r bio

mas

s

Am

eric

an T

ree

Farm

Sys

tem

Bas

el C

riter

ia fo

r Res

pons

ible

Soy

Pro

duct

ion

Prot

ocol

forF

resh

Fru

it an

d Ve

geta

bles

(E

UR

EPG

AP)

Bio

dive

rsity

4: F

ores

t ow

ners

pro

vide

tim

ely

rest

ocki

ng o

f de

sira

ble

spec

ies o

f tre

es, c

ompa

tible

with

regi

onal

ec

osys

tem

s on

harv

este

d ar

eas a

nd id

le a

reas

whe

re

tree-

grow

ing

is th

e la

nd u

se o

bjec

tive

4.1:

Lan

d m

ust b

e re

fore

sted

with

nat

ural

seed

ing,

sp

rout

ing,

dire

ct se

edin

g, o

r ref

ores

tatio

n w

ith tr

ee

seed

lings

5.3:

Whe

re p

resc

ribed

fire

is u

sed,

the

fore

st o

wne

r m

ust p

lan

appr

opria

tely

for i

ts a

pplic

atio

n5.

3.1:

Lan

dow

ner a

ffirm

s tha

t if a

nd w

hen

pres

crib

ed

fire

is u

sed,

it is

con

duct

ed in

acc

orda

nce

with

the

owne

r’s m

anag

emen

t pla

n an

d w

ith st

ate

and

loca

l la

ws a

nd re

gula

tions

5.3.

2: O

n-si

te v

isit

confi

rms p

resc

ribed

fire

s, if

used

, w

ere

cond

ucte

d in

acc

orda

nce

with

the

man

agem

ent

plan

and

app

licab

le la

ws a

nd re

gula

tions

6: F

ores

t man

agem

ent a

ctiv

ities

con

tribu

te to

th

e co

nser

vatio

n of

bio

dive

rsity

and

mai

ntai

n or

en

hanc

e ha

bita

t for

nat

ive

fish,

wild

life,

and

pla

nt

spec

ies,

with

em

phas

is o

n na

tura

l pla

nt a

nd a

nim

al

com

mun

ities

and

rare

pla

nts a

nd a

nim

als

6.1:

Lan

dow

ners

are

enc

oura

ged

to c

onfe

r with

thei

r lo

cal n

atur

al re

sour

ce a

genc

ies,

stat

e na

tura

l res

ourc

e he

ritag

e pr

ogra

ms,

or o

ther

kno

wle

dgea

ble

sour

ces

abou

t rar

e sp

ecie

s or s

peci

es o

f con

cern

that

occ

ur

on th

eir p

rope

rty6.

1.I:

Whe

re p

ract

ical

, man

agem

ent p

lans

con

side

r an

d ad

dres

s opp

ortu

nitie

s to

prot

ect r

are

spec

ies a

nd

spec

ial h

abita

t fea

ture

s6.

1.2f

: For

est o

wne

r or f

ores

ter r

espo

nsib

le fo

r de

velo

ping

the

owne

r’s m

anag

emen

t pla

n ha

s mad

e a

reas

onab

le e

ffort

to lo

cate

and

secu

re in

form

atio

n th

at d

enot

es th

e lo

catio

n of

rare

spec

ies o

r spe

cies

of

conc

ern;

app

ropr

iate

sour

ces o

f inf

orm

atio

n in

clud

e,

3.1.

1: C

lear

ance

of p

rimar

y ve

geta

tion

and

Hig

h C

onse

rvat

ion

Valu

e Are

as to

cre

ate

agric

ultu

ral l

and

afte

r 31

July

200

4 is

pro

hibi

ted;

this

app

lies i

rres

pect

ive

of a

ny c

hang

es in

land

ow

ners

hip

or fa

rm m

anag

emen

t th

at h

ave

take

n pl

ace

afte

r thi

s dat

e; fa

rm d

evel

opm

ent

shou

ld a

ctiv

ely

seek

to u

tiliz

e de

grad

ed a

nd a

band

oned

ag

ricul

tura

l lan

d3.

1.2:

Gro

wer

mus

t dem

onst

rate

that

they

hav

e ac

tivel

y an

d su

ffici

ently

com

pens

ated

for t

he lo

ss o

f nat

ural

ec

osys

tem

s thr

ough

such

mea

sure

s as:

rest

orat

ion

activ

ities

on

the

farm

to e

nhan

ce b

iodi

vers

ity, p

rocu

ring

and

prot

ectin

g ar

eas o

f nat

ural

veg

etat

ion

loca

lly,

finan

cing

con

serv

atio

n in

itiat

ives

that

dire

ctly

resu

lt in

the

prot

ectio

n of

nat

ural

eco

syst

ems l

ocal

ly (e

.g. h

elpi

ng to

es

tabl

ish

one

or m

ore

prot

ecte

d ar

eas;

ass

istin

g fu

ndin

g fo

r pro

tect

ed a

rea

man

agem

ent)

3.3.

1: A

n un

ders

tand

ing

of th

e pl

ant a

nd a

nim

al sp

ecie

s an

d ha

bita

ts th

at e

xist

insi

de a

nd a

roun

d th

e fa

rm sh

ould

be

est

ablis

hed:

info

rmat

ion

for l

arge

farm

s sho

uld

incl

ude:

pr

esen

ce o

f pro

tect

ed a

reas

in th

e lo

calit

y of

the

farm

; de

tails

of a

ny le

gally

pro

tect

ed, r

ed-li

st, r

are,

end

ange

red

or e

ndem

ic sp

ecie

s in

and

arou

nd th

e fa

rm in

clud

ing

popu

latio

n an

d ha

bita

t req

uire

men

ts; i

dent

ifica

tion

of

the

rang

e of

hab

itats

and

eco

syst

ems w

ithin

the

farm

; an

unde

rsta

ndin

g of

impo

rtant

loca

l con

serv

atio

n is

sues

; fo

r ind

ivid

ual s

mal

lhol

ders

, a b

asic

und

erst

andi

ng o

f any

im

porta

nt lo

cal c

onse

rvat

ion

issu

es, s

peci

es o

r hab

itats

w

ill b

e su

ffici

ent

3.3.

2: A

pla

n to

mai

ntai

n an

d in

crea

se b

iodi

vers

ity in

and

ar

ound

the

farm

shou

ld b

e de

velo

ped

and

impl

emen

ted;

fo

r lar

ge fa

rms a

nd g

roup

s the

re m

ust b

e a

docu

men

ted

plan

whe

reas

for i

ndiv

idua

l sm

allh

olde

rs, a

mor

e in

form

al

verb

ally

-com

mun

icat

ed p

lan

may

be

adeq

uate

13b:

A k

ey a

im m

ust b

e th

e en

hanc

emen

t of

envi

ronm

enta

l bio

dive

rsity

on

the

farm

thro

ugh

a co

nser

vatio

n m

anag

emen

t pla

n; th

is c

ould

be

a re

gion

al a

ctiv

ity ra

ther

than

an

indi

vidu

al o

ne

WWF Germany 44

Am

eric

an T

ree

Farm

Sys

tem

Bas

el C

riter

ia fo

r Res

pons

ible

Soy

Pro

duct

ion

Prot

ocol

forF

resh

Fru

it an

d Ve

geta

bles

(E

UR

EPG

AP)

Bio

dive

rsity

but a

re n

ot li

mite

d to

cou

nty,

stat

e an

d fe

dera

l ag

enci

es, u

nive

rsity

and

ext

ensi

on p

rogr

ams a

nd

loca

l kno

wle

dge

6.2:

For

est m

anag

emen

t act

iviti

es m

ust m

aint

ain

or

enha

nce

habi

tat f

or o

wne

r’s d

esig

nate

d fis

h, w

ildlif

e,

and

plan

t spe

cies

as i

dent

ified

in th

e m

anag

emen

t pl

an6.

2.1:

For

est m

anag

emen

t act

iviti

es m

ust m

aint

ain

or im

prov

e ha

bita

t for

ow

ner’s

targ

et g

ame

and

non-

gam

e fis

h an

d w

ildlif

e sp

ecie

s

Soil

5: F

ores

try p

ract

ices

mai

ntai

n or

enh

ance

the

envi

ronm

ent,

incl

udin

g ai

r, w

ater

, soi

l, an

d si

te

qual

ity

2.1.

1: S

oil s

uita

bilit

y m

aps o

r soi

l sur

veys

shou

ld

be a

ppro

pria

te to

the

scal

e of

ope

ratio

n an

d sh

ould

in

clud

e in

form

atio

n on

soil

type

s, to

pogr

aphy

, roo

ting

dept

h, m

oist

ure

avai

labi

lity,

ston

ines

s and

ferti

lity;

this

in

form

atio

n sh

ould

be

used

to p

lan

rota

tions

, pla

ntin

g pr

ogra

mm

es, e

tc.

2.1.

2: F

ertil

izer

app

licat

ion,

usi

ng e

ither

min

eral

or

orga

nic

ferti

lizer

s, sh

ould

be

suffi

cien

t to

mai

ntai

n so

il fe

rtilit

y w

hils

t not

exc

eedi

ng th

e ne

eds o

f the

cro

p;

quan

tity

of fe

rtiliz

er a

pplie

d an

d tim

ing

of fe

rtiliz

er

appl

icat

ion

shou

ld b

e ca

refu

lly c

onsi

dere

d so

as t

o m

axim

ize

bene

fits a

nd m

inim

ize

loss

es o

f fer

tiliz

er;

reco

rds s

houl

d be

kep

t of a

ll ap

plic

atio

ns o

f fer

tiliz

er;

crop

rota

tions

(inc

ludi

ng p

astu

re) s

houl

d be

use

d as

ap

prop

riate

to m

aint

ain

soil

cond

ition

, red

uce

relia

nce

on a

groc

hem

ical

s and

to m

axim

ize

plan

t hea

lth; w

here

ro

tatio

ns a

re n

ot e

mpl

oyed

, ade

quat

e ju

stifi

catio

n m

ust b

e pr

ovid

ed2.

1.3:

Fie

ld c

ultiv

atio

n te

chni

ques

that

min

imiz

e so

il er

osio

n sh

ould

be

adop

ted;

mec

hani

cal c

ultiv

atio

n sh

ould

be

use

d on

ly w

here

pro

ven

to im

prov

e or

mai

ntai

n so

il st

ruct

ure,

and

to a

void

soil

com

pact

ion

2.4.

2: A

fter h

arve

st, r

esid

ue sh

ould

be

reta

ined

whe

re so

il er

osio

n ris

k is

sign

ifica

nt o

r a c

over

cro

p or

rota

tion

crop

sh

ould

be

plan

ted.

Bur

ning

shou

ld n

ot b

e us

ed to

rem

ove

resi

dues

4b: M

aint

ain

soil

cond

ition

, red

uce

relia

nce

on

agro

chem

ical

s and

max

imiz

e pl

ant h

ealth

, gro

wer

s m

ust r

ecog

nize

the

valu

e of

cro

p ro

tatio

ns a

nd se

ek to

em

ploy

thes

e w

hene

ver p

ract

icab

le; w

here

rota

tions

ar

e no

t em

ploy

ed, g

row

ers m

ust b

e ab

le to

pro

vide

ad

equa

te ju

stifi

catio

n5c

: fiel

d cu

ltiva

tion

tech

niqu

es th

at m

inim

ize

soil

eros

ion

mus

t be

adop

ted

5e: f

or su

bstra

tes t

hat a

re n

ot in

ert,

docu

men

ts m

ust

dem

onst

rate

its s

uita

bilit

y

WWF Germany 45

Am

eric

an T

ree

Farm

Sys

tem

Bas

el C

riter

ia fo

r Res

pons

ible

Soy

Pro

duct

ion

Prot

ocol

forF

resh

Fru

it an

d Ve

geta

bles

(E

UR

EPG

AP)

Agr

oche

mic

al5.

2: A

pplic

atio

n of

fore

st c

hem

ical

s mus

t not

exc

eed

the

leve

ls n

eces

sary

to a

chie

ve sp

ecifi

c m

anag

emen

t ob

ject

ives

5.2.

1: C

hem

ical

s are

app

lied

only

whe

n ne

cess

ary

to

mee

t spe

cific

man

agem

ent o

bjec

tives

5.2.

2: M

anag

emen

t pla

ns c

onsi

der i

nteg

rate

d pe

st

man

agem

ent a

s a p

refe

rred

mea

ns o

f con

trolli

ng

inse

ct p

ests

, pat

hoge

ns, a

nd v

eget

ativ

e co

mpe

titio

n5.

2.3:

Che

mic

als a

re a

pplie

d in

acc

orda

nce

with

EP

A-a

ppro

ved

labe

ls a

nd m

eet o

r exc

eed

all h

uman

he

alth

and

env

ironm

enta

l saf

ety

requ

irem

ents

on

the

labe

l, an

d in

loca

l, st

ate,

and

fede

ral l

aw

2.2.

1: G

row

ers s

houl

d ap

ply

reco

gniz

ed IC

P/IP

M

tech

niqu

es o

n a

prev

entiv

e ba

sis;

non

-che

mic

al p

est

treat

men

ts a

re p

refe

rred

ove

r che

mic

al tr

eatm

ents

. all

use

of c

hem

ical

s sho

uld

be ju

stifi

ed; p

rote

ctio

n of

cro

ps

agai

nst p

ests

, dis

ease

s and

wee

ds sh

ould

be

achi

eved

with

th

e ap

prop

riate

min

imum

pes

ticid

e in

put;

ther

e sh

ould

be

a pl

an to

redu

ce p

estic

ide

use

whe

reve

r po

ssib

le; s

elec

tive

prod

ucts

that

are

spec

ific

to th

e ta

rget

pe

st, w

eed

or d

isea

se a

nd w

hich

hav

e m

inim

al e

ffect

on

othe

r org

anis

ms,

wor

kers

and

con

sum

ers s

houl

d be

use

d w

here

ava

ilabl

e2.

2.1:

Gro

wer

s sho

uld

only

use

che

mic

als t

hat a

re

offic

ially

regi

ster

ed in

the

coun

try o

f use

and

are

re

gist

ered

for u

se o

n th

e cr

op th

at is

to b

e pr

otec

ted

whe

re

such

offi

cial

regi

stra

tion

sche

me

exis

ts, o

r, in

its a

bsen

ce,

com

plie

s with

the

spec

ific

legi

slat

ion

of th

e co

untry

of

dest

inat

ion;

a li

st o

f all

prod

ucts

that

are

app

rove

d fo

r use

on

soy

shou

ld b

e ke

pt a

nd re

gula

rly u

pdat

ed2.

3.1:

Use

of c

hem

ical

s whi

ch a

re b

anne

d in

the

coun

tries

pur

chas

ing

the

soy

prod

ucts

shou

ld a

lso

be

avoi

ded;

reco

rds o

f che

mic

al u

se sh

ould

be

mai

ntai

ned

and

perio

dica

lly a

sses

sed

to e

nsur

e th

at u

se is

stab

le o

r de

crea

sing

2.3.

1: A

groc

hem

ical

s sho

uld

only

be

appl

ied

by q

ualifi

ed

pers

ons w

ho h

ave

rece

ived

the

nece

ssar

y tra

inin

g an

d sh

ould

alw

ays b

e ap

plie

d in

acc

orda

nce

with

the

prod

uct

labe

l2.

3.1:

Par

ticul

ar p

reca

utio

ns sh

ould

be

take

n w

hen

pest

icid

es a

re a

pplie

d ae

rially

to a

void

drif

t int

o w

ater

bo

dies

(spr

ings

,stre

ams e

tc),

natu

ral v

eget

atio

n, h

uman

se

ttlem

ents

and

oth

er la

nd u

ses

2.3.

1: G

row

ers a

nd/o

r sup

plie

rs sh

ould

be

able

to p

rovi

de

evid

ence

of r

esid

ue te

stin

g

3e 5

: Pes

ticid

e tre

atm

ents

app

lied

durin

g th

e pl

ant

rear

ing

stag

e m

ust b

e re

cord

ed5d

#1:

Che

mic

al fu

mig

atio

n of

soils

mus

t be

just

ified

5e #

4: W

here

che

mic

als a

re u

sed

to st

erili

ze

subs

trate

s for

reus

e, d

ate,

type

of c

hem

ical

use

d,

met

hod

of st

erili

zatio

n an

d op

erat

or m

ust b

e ke

pt6a

3: F

ertil

izer

app

licat

ion,

usi

ng e

ither

min

eral

or

orga

nic

ferti

lizer

s, m

ust m

eet t

he n

eeds

of t

he c

rops

as

wel

l as m

aint

aini

ng so

il fe

rtilit

y6c

#1:

All

appl

icat

ions

of s

oil a

nd fo

liar f

ertil

izer

s m

ust b

e re

cord

ed in

a c

rop

diar

y or

equ

ival

ent;

reco

rds m

ust i

nclu

de: l

ocat

ion,

dat

e of

app

licat

ion,

ty

pe a

nd q

uant

ity o

f fer

tiliz

er a

pplie

d, th

e m

etho

d of

ap

plic

atio

n, a

nd o

pera

tor

6d #

2: A

ny a

pplic

atio

n of

nitr

ogen

in e

xces

s of

natio

nal o

r int

erna

tiona

l lim

its m

ust b

e av

oide

d6e

#1:

Fer

tiliz

er a

pplic

atio

n m

achi

nery

mus

t be

kept

in

goo

d co

nditi

on, w

ith a

nnua

l cal

ibra

tion

to e

nsur

e ac

cura

te d

eliv

ery

of th

e re

quire

d qu

antit

y of

ferti

lizer

6f #

3: F

ertil

izer

s mus

t be

stor

ed c

over

ed in

a c

lean

, dr

y lo

catio

n w

here

ther

e is

no

risk

of c

onta

min

atio

n of

wat

er so

urce

s; fe

rtiliz

ers m

ust n

ot b

e st

ored

with

nu

rser

y st

ock

10a

4: A

cur

rent

list

of a

ll pr

oduc

ts th

at a

re u

sed

and

appr

oved

for u

se o

n cr

ops b

eing

gro

wn

mus

t be

kept

; thi

s lis

t mus

t tak

e ac

coun

t of a

ny c

hang

es in

pe

stic

ide

legi

slat

ion;

che

mic

als t

hat a

re b

anne

d in

the

Euro

pean

Uni

on m

ust n

ot b

e us

ed o

n cr

ops d

estin

ed

for s

ale

in th

e Eu

rope

an U

nion

8c #

3: Q

uant

ity o

f spr

ay m

ix c

alcu

latio

n m

ust

cons

ider

: vel

ocity

of a

pplic

atio

n, su

rfac

e ar

ea to

be

cove

red,

pre

ssur

e of

app

licat

ion

syst

em.

8d #

1: A

ll ap

plic

atio

ns o

f pes

ticid

es m

ust a

lway

s in

clud

e: c

rop

nam

e, lo

catio

n, d

ate

of a

pplic

atio

n,

trade

nam

e an

d na

me

of o

pera

tor;

pest

icid

e ap

plic

atio

n re

cord

s mus

t als

o in

clud

e: re

ason

for

appl

icat

ion,

tech

nica

l aut

horiz

atio

n, q

uant

ity o

f

WWF Germany 46

Am

eric

an T

ree

Farm

Sys

tem

Bas

el C

riter

ia fo

r Res

pons

ible

Soy

Pro

duct

ion

Prot

ocol

forF

resh

Fru

it an

d Ve

geta

bles

(E

UR

EPG

AP)

Agr

oche

mic

alpe

stic

ide

used

, app

licat

ion

mac

hine

ry u

sed

and

pre-

harv

est i

nter

val

8k 4

: Pes

ticid

e st

ore

mus

t be

able

to re

tain

spill

age

(e.g

. to

prev

ent c

onta

min

atio

n of

wat

er c

ours

es);

empt

y co

ntai

ners

mus

t be

kept

secu

re u

ntil

disp

osal

is

pos

sibl

e; o

bsol

ete

pest

icid

es m

ust o

nly

be d

ispo

sed

of th

roug

h a

certi

fied

or a

ppro

ved

chem

ical

was

te

cont

ract

or o

r sup

plyi

ng c

ompa

ny

Wat

er5:

For

estry

pra

ctic

es m

aint

ain

or e

nhan

ce th

e en

viro

nmen

t, in

clud

ing

air,

wat

er, s

oil,

and

site

qu

ality

2.1.

4: W

ater

cou

rses

, wet

land

s and

swam

ps sh

ould

be

prot

ecte

d, in

clud

ing

mai

ntai

ning

app

ropr

iate

ripa

rian

buffe

r zon

es a

long

all

bodi

es o

f wat

er; c

onta

min

atio

n of

su

rfac

e an

d gr

ound

wat

er th

roug

h ru

n-of

f of s

oil,

nutri

ents

or

che

mic

als,

or a

s a re

sult

of in

adeq

uate

dis

posa

l of

was

te, s

houl

d be

avo

ided

2.1.

5: U

ntre

ated

sew

age

wat

er sh

ould

nev

er b

e us

ed fo

r irr

igat

ion;

wat

er su

pply

for fi

eld

irrig

atio

n sh

ould

be

sust

aina

ble

and

effic

ient

; pla

ns fo

r wat

er m

anag

emen

t, ap

prop

riate

to th

e sc

ale

of u

se, s

houl

d be

dev

elop

ed to

op

timiz

e w

ater

usa

ge a

nd re

duce

was

te a

nd e

nsur

e th

at th

e ef

fect

s of w

ater

use

on

loca

l wat

er re

sour

ces (

grou

ndw

ater

an

d su

rfac

e w

ater

) are

sust

aina

ble

3.4.

1: H

azar

dous

che

mic

als a

re st

ored

and

dis

pose

d of

in

an

appr

opria

te w

ay; f

ertil

izer

s, pe

stic

ides

and

oil

mus

t be

stor

ed c

over

ed in

a c

lean

, dry

loca

tion

able

to c

onta

in

spill

age

whe

re th

ere

is n

o ris

k of

con

tam

inat

ion

of w

ater

so

urce

s and

sepa

rate

from

oth

er m

ater

ials

; sur

plus

spra

y m

ix, o

il, a

nd c

hem

ical

con

tain

ers s

houl

d be

dis

pose

d of

in

an e

nviro

nmen

tally

resp

onsi

ble

way

(e.g

., re

turn

ed to

the

vend

or) w

ith n

o ris

k of

con

tam

inat

ion

of w

ater

sour

ces o

r to

hum

an h

ealth

4a 5

: A c

orre

ctiv

e ac

tion

plan

mus

t be

deve

lope

d se

tting

out

stra

tegi

es to

min

imiz

e al

l ide

ntifi

ed ri

sks

in n

ew a

gric

ultu

ral s

ites,

such

as s

pray

drif

t or w

ater

ta

ble

cont

amin

atio

n6f

#3:

Fer

tiliz

ers m

ust b

e st

ored

cov

ered

in a

cle

an,

dry

loca

tion

whe

re th

ere

is n

o ris

k of

con

tam

inat

ion

of w

ater

sour

ces

7c #

1: U

ntre

ated

sew

age

wat

er m

ust n

ever

be

used

fo

r irr

igat

ion

8k #

4: P

estic

ide

stor

e m

ust b

e ab

le to

reta

insp

illag

e (e

.g. t

o pr

even

t con

tam

inat

ion

of w

ater

cour

ses)

reco

mm

enda

tions

see

7

GH

G

Air

Po

llutio

n5:

For

estry

pra

ctic

es m

aint

ain

or e

nhan

ce th

e en

viro

nmen

t, in

clud

ing

air,

wat

er, s

oil,

and

site

qu

ality

3.4.

1: W

aste

and

pol

lutio

n sh

ould

be

min

imiz

ed a

nd

prop

erly

man

aged

3.4.

1: A

ll m

ediu

m a

nd la

rge

oper

atio

ns sh

ould

hav

e a

stra

tegy

for m

inim

izin

g w

aste

and

pol

lutio

n, w

hile

for

smal

lhol

ders

the

appr

oach

can

be

mor

e in

form

al p

rovi

ded

that

the

outc

ome

is a

ccep

tabl

e; a

stra

tegy

for m

inim

izin

g

WWF Germany 47

Am

eric

an T

ree

Farm

Sys

tem

Bas

el C

riter

ia fo

r Res

pons

ible

Soy

Pro

duct

ion

Prot

ocol

forF

resh

Fru

it an

d Ve

geta

bles

(E

UR

EPG

AP)

Air

Po

llutio

nw

aste

shou

ld in

clud

e: so

urce

s of w

aste

and

pol

lutio

n ar

e id

entifi

ed, a

ll th

e po

ssib

le w

aste

pro

duct

s (e.

g. p

aper

, ca

rdbo

ard,

pla

stic

, cro

p de

bris

, oil,

rock

woo

l and

oth

er

subs

trate

s) a

nd p

ollu

tant

s (e.

g. c

hem

ical

s, oi

l, fu

el, n

oise

, lig

ht, d

ebris

, pac

khou

se e

fflue

nt, e

tc.)

shou

ld b

e id

entifi

ed

in a

ll ar

eas o

f the

farm

bus

ines

s

GM

O2.

3.1:

See

d m

ater

ial m

ust b

e fr

om n

on-G

MO

stra

ins;

gr

ower

shou

ld p

rovi

de c

ertifi

cate

s of o

rigin

and

affi

davi

ts

cove

ring

all s

eed

purc

hase

d2.

3.1:

Whe

re m

achi

nery

(inc

ludi

ng p

lant

ers,

harv

este

rs,

trans

porte

rs, e

tc) i

s sha

red

with

oth

er p

rodu

cers

who

may

be

usi

ng G

MO

stra

ins,

all m

achi

nery

shou

ld b

e th

orou

ghly

cl

eane

d be

fore

use

2.3.

1: S

oybe

an h

arve

st sh

ould

not

con

tain

GM

O re

sidu

es

grea

ter t

han

the

limits

set b

y th

e pu

rcha

ser a

nd sh

ould

al

way

s be

with

in E

U li

mits

3f 2

: Use

of G

MO

cul

tivar

s mus

t be

agre

ed w

ith

indi

vidu

al c

usto

mer

s prio

r to

plan

ting

3f #

3: S

uppl

iers

mus

t inf

orm

all

cust

omer

s of a

ny

deve

lopm

ents

rela

ting

to th

e us

e or

pro

duct

ion

of

prod

ucts

der

ived

from

gen

etic

mod

ifica

tion

befo

re

enga

gem

ent

Fors

t Ste

war

dshi

p C

ounc

il (F

SC )

Pan-

Euro

pean

For

est C

ounc

il (P

EFC

)

Bas

isA

ll na

tiona

l FSC

stan

dard

s and

all

FSC

fore

st m

anag

emen

t cer

tifica

tions

fulfi

ll th

e in

tern

atio

nal F

SC p

rinci

ples

and

crit

eria

. Th

e cr

iteria

of a

ll na

tiona

l PEF

C st

anda

rds a

nd a

ll en

dors

ed sc

hem

es sh

all b

e co

mpa

tible

and

con

sist

ent w

ith th

e Pa

n-Eu

rope

an O

pera

tiona

l Lev

el G

uide

lines

fo

r Sus

tain

able

For

est M

anag

emen

t (M

CPF

Lis

bon

1998

).

Bio

dive

rsity

6: F

ores

t man

agem

ent s

hall

cons

erve

bio

logi

cal d

iver

sity

and

its a

ssoc

iate

d va

lues

, w

ater

reso

urce

s, so

ils, a

nd u

niqu

e an

d fr

agile

eco

syst

ems a

nd la

ndsc

apes

, and

, by

so

doin

g, m

aint

ain

the

ecol

ogic

al fu

nctio

ns a

nd th

e in

tegr

ity o

f the

fore

st6.

2: S

afeg

uard

s sha

ll ex

ist w

hich

pro

tect

rare

, thr

eate

ned

and

enda

nger

ed sp

ecie

s and

th

eir h

abita

ts; c

onse

rvat

ion

zone

s and

pro

tect

ion

area

s sha

ll be

est

ablis

hed,

app

ropr

iate

to

the

scal

e an

d in

tens

ity o

f for

est m

anag

emen

t and

the

uniq

uene

ss o

f the

affe

cted

re

sour

ces;

inap

prop

riate

hun

ting,

fish

ing,

trap

ping

and

col

lect

ing

shal

l be

cont

rolle

d6.

3 Ec

olog

ical

func

tions

and

val

ues s

hall

be m

aint

aine

d in

tact

, enh

ance

d, o

r res

tore

d,

incl

udin

g:a)

For

est r

egen

erat

ion

and

succ

essi

on.

b) G

enet

ic, s

peci

es, a

nd e

cosy

stem

div

ersi

ty.

6.4

Rep

rese

ntat

ive

sam

ples

of e

xist

ing

ecos

yste

ms w

ithin

the

land

scap

e sh

all b

e pr

otec

ted

in th

eir n

atur

al st

ate

and

reco

rded

on

map

s, ap

prop

riate

to th

e sc

ale

and

inte

nsity

of o

pera

tions

and

the

uniq

uene

ss o

f the

affe

cted

reso

urce

s.

4.2

a. N

atur

al re

gene

ratio

n sh

ould

be

pref

erre

d, p

rovi

ded

that

the

cond

ition

s are

ad

equa

te to

ens

ure

the

quan

tity

and

qual

ity o

f the

fore

sts r

esou

rces

and

that

the

exis

ting

prov

enan

ce is

of s

uffic

ient

qua

lity

for t

he si

te.

4.2

b. F

or re

fore

stat

ion

and

affo

rest

atio

n, o

rigin

s of n

ativ

e sp

ecie

s and

loca

l pr

oven

ance

s tha

t are

wel

l ada

pted

to si

te c

ondi

tions

shou

ld b

e pr

efer

red,

whe

re

appr

opria

te. O

nly

thos

e in

trodu

ced

spec

ies,

prov

enan

ces o

r var

ietie

s sho

uld

be u

sed

who

se im

pact

s on

the

ecos

yste

m a

nd o

n th

e ge

netic

inte

grity

of n

ativ

e sp

ecie

s and

loca

l pro

vena

nces

hav

e be

en e

valu

ated

, and

if n

egat

ive

impa

cts c

an

be a

void

ed o

r min

imiz

ed.

4.2

c. F

ores

t man

agem

ent p

ract

ices

shou

ld, w

here

app

ropr

iate

, pro

mot

e a

dive

rsity

of b

oth

horiz

onta

l and

ver

tical

stru

ctur

es su

ch a

s une

ven-

aged

stan

ds

and

the

dive

rsity

of s

peci

es su

ch a

s mix

ed st

ands

. Whe

re a

ppro

pria

te, t

he

prac

tices

shou

ld a

lso

aim

to m

aint

ain

and

rest

ore

land

scap

e di

vers

ity.

WWF Germany 48

Fors

t Ste

war

dshi

p C

ounc

il (F

SC )

Pan-

Euro

pean

For

est C

ounc

il (P

EFC

)

Bio

dive

rsity

6.5

Writ

ten

guid

elin

es sh

all b

e pr

epar

ed a

nd im

plem

ente

d to

: con

trol e

rosi

on;

min

imiz

e fo

rest

dam

age

durin

g ha

rves

ting,

road

con

stru

ctio

n, a

nd a

ll ot

her m

echa

nica

l di

stur

banc

es;

6.9:

Use

of e

xotic

spec

ies s

hall

be c

aref

ully

con

trolle

d an

d ac

tivel

y m

onito

red

to a

void

ad

vers

e ec

olog

ical

impa

cts

6.10

: For

est c

onve

rsio

n to

pla

ntat

ions

or n

on-f

ores

t lan

d us

es sh

all n

ot o

ccur

, exc

ept i

n ci

rcum

stan

ces w

here

con

vers

ion:

a) e

ntai

ls a

ver

y lim

ited

porti

on o

f the

fore

st m

anag

emen

t uni

t; an

db)

doe

s not

occ

ur o

n hi

gh c

onse

rvat

ion

valu

e fo

rest

are

as; a

ndc)

will

ena

ble

clea

r, su

bsta

ntia

l, ad

ditio

nal,

secu

re, l

ong

term

con

serv

atio

n be

nefit

s ac

ross

the

fore

st m

anag

emen

t uni

t9.

Man

agem

ent a

ctiv

ities

in h

igh

cons

erva

tion

valu

e fo

rest

s sha

ll m

aint

ain

or e

nhan

ce

the

attri

bute

s whi

ch d

efine

such

fore

sts.

Dec

isio

ns re

gard

ing

high

con

serv

atio

n va

lue

fore

sts s

hall

alw

ays b

e co

nsid

ered

in th

e co

ntex

t of a

pre

caut

iona

ry a

ppro

ach.

10.2

: [pl

anta

tions

:] D

esig

n an

d la

yout

of p

lant

atio

ns sh

ould

pro

mot

e th

e pr

otec

tion,

re

stor

atio

n an

d co

nser

vatio

n of

nat

ural

fore

sts,

and

not i

ncre

ase

pres

sure

s on

natu

ral

fore

sts;

wild

life

corr

idor

s, st

ream

side

zon

es a

nd a

mos

aic

of st

ands

of d

iffer

ent a

ges

and

rota

tion

perio

ds, s

hall

be u

sed

in th

e la

yout

of t

he p

lant

atio

n, c

onsi

sten

t with

the

scal

e of

the

oper

atio

n; sc

ale

and

layo

ut o

f pla

ntat

ion

bloc

ks sh

all b

e co

nsis

tent

with

the

patte

rns o

f for

est s

tand

s fou

nd w

ithin

the

natu

ral l

ands

cape

10.4

: [pl

anta

tions

:] Se

lect

ion

of sp

ecie

s for

pla

ntin

g sh

all b

e ba

sed

on th

eir o

vera

ll su

itabi

lity

for t

he si

te a

nd th

eir a

ppro

pria

tene

ss to

the

man

agem

ent o

bjec

tives

; in

orde

r to

enha

nce

the

cons

erva

tion

of b

iolo

gica

l div

ersi

ty, n

ativ

e sp

ecie

s are

pre

ferr

ed

over

exo

tic sp

ecie

s in

the

esta

blis

hmen

t of p

lant

atio

ns a

nd th

e re

stor

atio

n of

deg

rade

d ec

osys

tem

s; e

xotic

spec

ies,

whi

ch sh

all b

e us

ed o

nly

whe

n th

eir p

erfo

rman

ce is

gre

ater

th

an th

at o

f nat

ive

spec

ies,

shal

l be

care

fully

mon

itore

d to

det

ect u

nusu

al m

orta

lity,

di

seas

e, o

r ins

ect o

utbr

eaks

and

adv

erse

eco

logi

cal i

mpa

cts

10.5

: [pl

anta

tions

:] Pr

opor

tion

of th

e ov

eral

l for

est m

anag

emen

t are

a, a

ppro

pria

te to

the

scal

e of

the

plan

tatio

n an

d to

be

dete

rmin

ed in

regi

onal

stan

dard

s, sh

all b

e m

anag

ed so

as

to re

stor

e th

e si

te to

a n

atur

al fo

rest

cov

er10

.7: [

plan

tatio

ns:]

Mea

sure

s sha

ll be

take

n to

pre

vent

and

min

imiz

e ou

tbre

aks o

f pes

ts,

dise

ases

, fire

and

inva

sive

pla

nt in

trodu

ctio

ns; i

nteg

rate

d pe

st m

anag

emen

t sha

ll fo

rm

an e

ssen

tial p

art o

f the

man

agem

ent p

lan,

with

prim

ary

relia

nce

on p

reve

ntio

n an

d bi

olog

ical

con

trol m

etho

ds ra

ther

than

che

mic

al p

estic

ides

and

ferti

lizer

s10

.8: [

plan

tatio

ns:]

No

spec

ies s

houl

d be

pla

nted

on

a la

rge

scal

e un

til lo

cal t

rials

and

/or

exp

erie

nce

have

show

n th

at th

ey a

re e

colo

gica

lly w

ell-a

dapt

ed to

the

site

, are

not

in

vasi

ve, a

nd d

o no

t hav

e si

gnifi

cant

neg

ativ

e ec

olog

ical

impa

cts o

n ot

her e

cosy

stem

s

4.2

e. T

endi

ng a

nd h

arve

stin

g op

erat

ions

shou

ld b

e co

nduc

ted

in a

way

that

do

es n

ot c

ause

last

ing

dam

age

to e

cosy

stem

s. W

here

ver p

ossi

ble,

pra

ctic

al

mea

sure

s sho

uld

be ta

ken

to im

prov

e or

mai

ntai

n bi

olog

ical

div

ersi

ty.

4.2

f. In

fras

truct

ure

shou

ld b

e pl

anne

d an

d co

nstru

cted

in a

way

that

min

imiz

es

dam

age

to e

cosy

stem

s, es

peci

ally

to ra

re, s

ensi

tive

or re

pres

enta

tive

ecos

yste

ms

and

gene

tic re

serv

es, a

nd th

at ta

kes t

hrea

tene

d or

oth

er k

ey sp

ecie

s - in

pa

rticu

lar t

heir

mig

ratio

n pa

ttern

s - in

to c

onsi

dera

tion.

4.2

g. W

ith d

ue re

gard

to m

anag

emen

t obj

ectiv

es, m

easu

res s

houl

d be

take

n to

ba

lanc

e th

e pr

essu

re o

f ani

mal

pop

ulat

ions

and

gra

zing

on

fore

st re

gene

ratio

n an

d gr

owth

as w

ell a

s on

biod

iver

sity

.4.

2 h.

Sta

ndin

g an

d fa

llen

dead

woo

d, h

ollo

w tr

ees,

old

grov

es a

nd sp

ecia

l rar

e tre

e sp

ecie

s sho

uld

be le

ft in

qua

ntiti

es a

nd d

istri

butio

n ne

cess

ary

to sa

fegu

ard

biol

ogic

al d

iver

sity

, tak

ing

into

acc

ount

the

pote

ntia

l effe

ct o

n he

alth

and

st

abili

ty o

f for

ests

and

on

surr

ound

ing

ecos

yste

ms.

4.2

i. Sp

ecia

l key

bio

tope

s in

the

fore

st su

ch a

s wat

er so

urce

s, w

etla

nds,

rock

y ou

tcro

ps a

nd ra

vine

s sho

uld

be p

rote

cted

or,

whe

re a

ppro

pria

te, r

esto

red

whe

n da

mag

ed b

y fo

rest

pra

ctic

es.

WWF Germany 49

Fors

t Ste

war

dshi

p C

ounc

il (F

SC )

Pan-

Euro

pean

For

est C

ounc

il (P

EFC

)

Soil

6.5:

Writ

ten

guid

elin

es sh

all b

e pr

epar

ed a

nd im

plem

ente

d to

: con

trol e

rosi

on;

min

imiz

e fo

rest

dam

age

durin

g ha

rves

ting,

road

con

stru

ctio

n, a

nd a

ll ot

her m

echa

nica

l di

stur

banc

es10

.6: [

plan

tatio

ns:]

Mea

sure

s sha

ll be

take

n to

mai

ntai

n or

impr

ove

soil

stru

ctur

e,

ferti

lity,

and

bio

logi

cal a

ctiv

ity; t

echn

ique

s and

rate

of h

arve

stin

g, ro

ad a

nd tr

ail

cons

truct

ion

and

mai

nten

ance

, and

the

choi

ce o

f spe

cies

shal

l not

resu

lt in

long

term

so

il de

grad

atio

n

5.1.

a. F

ores

t man

agem

ent p

lann

ing

shou

ld a

im to

mai

ntai

n an

d en

hanc

e pr

otec

tive

func

tions

of f

ores

ts fo

r soc

iety

, suc

h as

pro

tect

ion

from

[…] s

oil

eros

ion

[…] a

nd fr

om a

dver

se im

pact

s of w

ater

such

as fl

oods

or a

vala

nche

s.5.

2.a.

Spe

cial

car

e sh

ould

be

give

n to

silv

icul

tura

l ope

ratio

ns o

n se

nsiti

ve so

ils

and

eros

ion

pron

e ar

eas a

s wel

l as o

n ar

eas w

here

ope

ratio

ns m

ight

lead

to

exce

ssiv

e er

osio

n of

soil

into

wat

erco

urse

s. In

appr

opria

te te

chni

ques

such

as

deep

soil

tilla

ge a

nd u

se o

f uns

uita

ble

mac

hine

ry sh

ould

be

avoi

ded

on su

ch

area

s. Sp

ecia

l mea

sure

s to

min

imiz

e th

e pr

essu

re o

f ani

mal

pop

ulat

ion

on

fore

sts s

houl

d be

take

n.5.

2.c.

Con

stru

ctio

n of

road

s, br

idge

s and

oth

er in

fras

truct

ure

shou

ld b

e ca

rrie

d ou

t in

a m

anne

r tha

t min

imiz

es b

are

soil

expo

sure

[…].

Agr

oche

mic

al6.

6: P

rom

ote

the

deve

lopm

ent a

nd a

dopt

ion

of e

nviro

nmen

tally

frie

ndly

non

-che

mic

al

met

hods

of p

est m

anag

emen

t and

striv

e to

avo

id th

e us

e of

che

mic

al p

estic

ides

W

orld

Hea

lth O

rgan

izat

ion

Type

1A

and

1B

and

chl

orin

ated

hyd

roca

rbon

pes

ticid

es;

pest

icid

es th

at a

re p

ersi

sten

t, to

xic

or w

hose

der

ivat

ives

rem

ain

biol

ogic

ally

act

ive

and

accu

mul

ate

in th

e fo

od c

hain

bey

ond

thei

r int

ende

d us

e; a

s wel

l as a

ny p

estic

ides

ba

nned

by

inte

rnat

iona

l agr

eem

ent,

shal

l be

proh

ibite

d if

chem

ical

s are

use

d, p

rope

r eq

uipm

ent a

nd tr

aini

ng sh

all b

e pr

ovid

ed to

min

imiz

e he

alth

and

env

ironm

enta

l ris

ks6.

7: C

hem

ical

s, co

ntai

ners

, liq

uid

and

solid

non

-org

anic

was

tes i

nclu

ding

fuel

and

oil

shal

l be

disp

osed

of i

n an

env

ironm

enta

lly a

ppro

pria

te m

anne

r at o

ff-si

te lo

catio

ns10

.7: [

plan

tatio

ns:]

Plan

tatio

n m

anag

emen

t sho

uld

mak

e ev

ery

effo

rt to

mov

e aw

ay

from

che

mic

al p

estic

ides

and

ferti

lizer

s, in

clud

ing

thei

r use

in n

urse

ries

2.2.

c. T

he u

se o

f pes

ticid

es a

nd h

erbi

cide

s sho

uld

be m

inim

ized

, tak

ing

into

ac

coun

t app

ropr

iate

silv

icul

tura

l alte

rnat

ives

and

oth

er b

iolo

gica

l mea

sure

s.2.

2 d.

In c

ase

ferti

lizer

s are

use

d th

ey sh

ould

be

appl

ied

in a

con

trolle

d m

anne

r an

d w

ith d

ue c

onsi

dera

tion

to th

e en

viro

nmen

t.5.

2. b

. […

] Ina

ppro

pria

te u

se o

f che

mic

als o

r oth

er h

arm

ful s

ubst

ance

s or

inap

prop

riate

silv

icul

tura

l pra

ctic

es in

fluen

cing

wat

er q

ualit

y in

a h

arm

ful w

ay

shou

ld b

e av

oide

d.

Wat

er6.

5: W

ritte

n gu

idel

ines

for t

he p

rote

ctio

n of

wat

er re

sour

ces s

hall

be p

repa

red

10.6

: Tec

hniq

ues a

nd ra

te o

f har

vest

ing,

road

and

trai

l con

stru

ctio

n an

d m

aint

enan

ce,

and

the

choi

ce o

f spe

cies

shal

l not

resu

lt in

adv

erse

impa

cts o

n w

ater

qua

lity,

qua

ntity

or

subs

tant

ial d

evia

tion

from

stre

am c

ours

e dr

aina

ge p

atte

rns

5.1.

a. F

ores

t man

agem

ent p

lann

ing

shou

ld a

im to

mai

ntai

n an

d en

hanc

e pr

otec

tive

func

tions

of f

ores

ts fo

r soc

iety

, suc

h as

pro

tect

ion

[…]

of w

ater

re

sour

ces a

nd fr

om a

dver

se im

pact

s of w

ater

such

as fl

oods

or a

vala

nche

s.5.

2. b

. Spe

cial

car

e sh

ould

be

give

n to

fore

st m

anag

emen

t pra

ctic

es o

n fo

rest

ar

eas w

ith w

ater

pro

tect

ion

func

tion

to a

void

adv

erse

effe

cts o

n th

e qu

ality

and

qu

antit

y of

wat

er re

sour

ces.

Inap

prop

riate

use

of c

hem

ical

s or o

ther

har

mfu

l su

bsta

nces

or i

napp

ropr

iate

silv

icul

tura

l pra

ctic

es in

fluen

cing

wat

er q

ualit

y in

a

harm

ful w

ay sh

ould

be

avoi

ded.

5.2

c. C

onst

ruct

ion

of ro

ads,

brid

ges a

nd o

ther

infr

astru

ctur

e sh

ould

be

carr

ied

out i

n a

man

ner t

hat [

…] a

void

s the

intro

duct

ion

of so

il in

to w

ater

sour

ces a

nd

that

pre

serv

e th

e na

tura

l lev

el a

nd fu

nctio

n of

wat

er c

ours

es a

nd ri

ver b

eds.

Prop

er ro

ad d

rain

age

faci

litie

s sho

uld

be in

stal

led

and

mai

ntai

ned.

GH

G

Air

Pol

lutio

n

WWF Germany 50

Fors

t Ste

war

dshi

p C

ounc

il (F

SC )

Pan-

Euro

pean

For

est C

ounc

il (P

EFC

)

GM

O6.

8: U

se o

f bio

logi

cal c

ontro

l age

nts s

hall

be d

ocum

ente

d, m

inim

ized

, mon

itore

d an

d st

rictly

con

trolle

d in

acc

orda

nce

with

nat

iona

l law

s and

inte

rnat

iona

lly a

ccep

ted

scie

ntifi

c pr

otoc

ols;

use

of g

enet

ical

ly m

odifi

ed o

rgan

ism

s sha

ll be

pro

hibi

ted

Flow

er L

abel

Pro

gram

mFa

irtra

de L

abel

ling

Org

anis

atio

ns In

tern

atio

nal (

FLO

)

Bio

dive

rsity

8.7:

Spe

cial

atte

ntio

n m

ust b

e gi

ven

to th

e pr

otec

tion

of th

e fa

una

and

flora

insi

de

the

farm

and

the

surr

ound

ing

area

s8.

23: T

o pr

otec

t the

surr

ound

ings

and

to e

ncou

rage

wild

life,

tree

s and

bus

hes

shou

ld b

e pl

ante

d es

peci

ally

at t

he fa

rm’s

bou

ndar

ies

3.1.

2.2:

The

org

aniz

atio

n en

sure

s tha

t its

mem

bers

hav

e id

entifi

ed c

onse

rvat

ion

area

s, bu

ffer z

ones

aro

und

wat

er b

odie

s and

wat

ersh

ed re

char

ge a

reas

app

ropr

iate

to

the

regi

on, w

hich

will

not

be

culti

vate

d an

d to

whi

ch a

groc

hem

ical

s will

not

be

appl

ied.

3.1.

2.3:

New

pla

ntin

g in

virg

in fo

rest

are

as is

pro

hibi

ted

3.1.

2.4:

Buf

fer z

ones

are

mai

ntai

ned

as re

quire

d to

pro

tect

wat

er b

odie

s and

w

ater

shed

rech

arge

are

as, v

irgin

fore

sts,

and/

or o

ther

lega

lly p

rote

cted

are

as a

nd to

pr

otec

t agr

icul

tura

l plo

ts fr

om p

oten

tially

pol

lutin

g so

urce

s suc

h as

road

s.3.

1.2.

5: In

ope

ratio

ns in

are

as o

f low

bio

dive

rsity

, whe

re b

uffe

r zon

es a

re b

are

or

undi

ffere

ntia

ted

from

cas

h cr

ops o

r in

area

s not

suita

ble

for c

ultiv

atio

n, m

embe

rs

shou

ld p

lant

tree

s/bu

shes

or o

ther

wis

e en

cour

age

rege

nera

tion

of n

atur

al fl

ora

and

faun

a.3.

5.1.

1: T

he o

rgan

izat

ion

ensu

res t

hat i

ts m

embe

rs u

se fi

re to

cle

ar o

r pre

pare

land

fo

r pro

duct

ion

only

if it

is k

now

n th

at th

is is

the

pref

erre

d ec

olog

ical

opt

ion.

Soil

8.2:

A p

rogr

amm

e ha

s to

be e

labo

rate

d by

the

com

pany

for c

onse

rvin

g th

e en

viro

nmen

t and

the

sust

aina

ble

use

of n

atur

al re

sour

ces (

wat

er, s

oil,

air)

8.3:

Org

anic

ferti

lizer

and

com

post

ed o

rgan

ic w

aste

shou

ld b

e us

ed fo

r the

im

prov

emen

t and

car

e of

the

soil

in th

e pl

anta

tions

in o

rder

to re

duce

che

mic

al

ferti

lizer

inpu

t

3.4.

1.1:

Mem

bers

und

erta

ke p

roce

dure

s and

pra

ctic

es d

esig

ned

to re

duce

and

/or

prev

ent s

oil e

rosi

on c

ause

d by

win

d, w

ater

, and

/or h

uman

or

anim

al im

pact

3.4.

1.2:

Mem

bers

und

erta

ke p

roce

dure

s and

pra

ctic

es d

esig

ned

to e

nhan

ce fe

rtilit

y an

d so

il st

ruct

ure

3.4.

1.3:

Pro

duce

r ens

ures

that

wat

er m

anag

emen

t, til

lage

pra

ctic

es, a

nd/o

r use

of

irrig

atio

n w

ater

doe

s not

lead

to o

r con

tribu

te to

con

tam

inat

ion

of w

ater

supp

lies,

exce

ssiv

e sa

liniz

atio

n of

soil

or d

eser

tifica

tion

Agr

oche

mic

al8.

1: P

ollu

tion

of so

il, w

ater

and

air

with

pes

ticid

es, f

ertil

izer

s, ch

emic

als a

nd w

aste

m

ust b

e av

oide

d w

here

ver p

ossi

ble

8.8:

Wild

life

Toxi

city

has

to b

e ta

ken

into

acc

ount

, esp

ecia

lly w

hen

spra

ying

pe

stic

ides

in th

e op

en fi

eld

8.16

: Was

te o

f all

kind

s, es

peci

ally

pes

ticid

e, fe

rtiliz

er a

nd c

hem

ical

resi

dues

, mus

t no

t be

disp

osed

of i

nto

the

soil,

dra

ins a

nd w

ater

cour

ses;

pes

ticid

e re

sidu

es sh

ould

be

dilu

ted

(e.g

. 1:1

0) a

nd sp

raye

d un

der t

he c

rops

insi

de th

e gr

eenh

ouse

s

3.2.

1.1:

Mat

eria

ls L

ist m

ay n

ot b

e us

ed o

r oth

erw

ise

sold

, han

dled

, or d

istri

bute

d by

th

e or

gani

zatio

n *(

FLO

pub

lishe

s a li

st o

f mat

eria

ls th

at c

anno

t be

used

, com

pris

ing

data

from

the

WH

O C

lass

I A

&B

, PA

N’s

‘Dirt

y D

ozen

’ and

FA

O/ U

NEP

Prio

r In

form

ed C

onse

nt P

roce

dure

Lis

ts p

lusF

LO sp

ecifi

c ad

ditio

nal m

ater

ials

, the

FLO

Pr

ohib

ited

Mat

eria

ls L

ist i

s an

inte

gral

par

t of t

his s

tand

ard)

WWF Germany 51

Flow

er L

abel

Pro

gram

mFa

irtra

de L

abel

ling

Org

anis

atio

ns In

tern

atio

nal (

FLO

)

Agr

oche

mic

al8.

17: E

mpt

y pe

stic

ide

or c

hem

ical

con

tain

ers o

r dru

ms m

ust b

e tri

ple

rinse

d at

a

safe

pla

ce b

efor

e re

turn

ing

to th

e su

pplie

r; if

retu

rnin

g is

not

pos

sibl

e, c

onta

iner

s m

ust b

e pu

nctu

red

afte

r bei

ng c

lean

ed a

nd sh

ould

be

disp

osed

off

by in

cine

ratio

n or

bur

ial,

taki

ng a

ll pr

ecau

tions

for t

he e

nviro

nmen

t and

hea

lth a

nd st

rictly

co

ntro

lled;

the

re-u

se o

f pes

ticid

e an

d ch

emic

al c

onta

iner

s and

dru

ms f

or d

rinki

ng

wat

er o

r foo

d st

orag

e is

stric

tly p

rohi

bite

d

3.2.

1.2:

Agr

oche

mic

als a

re u

sed,

han

dled

and

stor

ed c

orre

ctly

acc

ordi

ng to

thei

r sp

ecifi

c ch

arac

teris

tics (

toxi

city

) in

orde

r to

avoi

d da

nger

to p

eopl

e an

d th

e en

viro

nmen

t; ag

roch

emic

als a

re a

pplie

d on

ly b

y tra

ined

per

sons

3.2.

1.4:

Agr

oche

mic

als a

re o

nly

used

for t

he c

rops

for w

hich

they

are

spec

ifica

lly

labe

led

and/

or re

gist

ered

in th

e pr

oduc

er’s

cou

ntry

3.2.

1.5:

Saf

e st

orag

e an

d di

spos

al o

f all

agro

chem

ical

s and

thei

r con

tain

ers

3.2.

1.6:

Are

as fo

r pre

parin

g ag

roch

emic

als f

or u

se a

re e

quip

ped

to h

andl

e sp

ills a

nd

othe

r mis

hand

ling

effe

ctiv

ely

(for

exa

mpl

e w

ith a

bsor

bent

mat

eria

l); sp

ills m

ust n

ot

be a

llow

ed to

seep

into

soil

or w

ater

supp

lies

3.2.

1.7:

Writ

ten

reco

rd o

f all

agro

chem

ical

s pur

chas

ed, u

sed

and

disp

osed

of

Wat

er8.

6: S

peci

al a

nd e

ffect

ive

mea

sure

s hav

e to

be

take

n to

pro

tect

drin

king

wat

er

sour

ces,

sprin

gs, g

roun

d w

ater

, sur

face

wat

er, r

iver

s, di

kes a

nd la

kes h

ave

to b

e ta

ken

8.9:

For

the

supp

ly o

f irr

igat

ion

wat

er th

e co

mpa

ny m

ust i

mpl

emen

t an

envi

ronm

enta

l wat

er m

anag

emen

t sys

tem

, whi

ch m

inim

izes

wat

er c

onsu

mpt

ion

and

cons

erve

s gro

und

and

surf

ace

wat

er.

8.10

: Con

sum

ptio

n of

wat

er a

nd e

nerg

y ha

s to

be re

cord

ed a

nd d

ocum

ente

d fo

r the

va

rious

gre

enho

uses

and

sect

ors

8.11

: Irr

igat

ion

mus

t be

done

with

met

hods

and

syst

ems m

inim

izin

g w

ater

co

nsum

ptio

n as

far a

s pos

sibl

e (e

.g. d

rip ir

rigat

ion,

wat

er a

pplic

atio

n di

rect

to

the

root

zon

e et

c.) a

nd b

y us

ing

adeq

uate

mea

surin

g an

d co

ntro

lling

met

hods

(te

nsio

met

ers e

tc.).

8.12

: Whe

re p

ossi

ble

rain

wat

er sh

ould

be

colle

cted

in w

ater

rese

rvoi

rs o

f ade

quat

e ca

paci

ty; l

ower

ing

of th

e gr

ound

wat

er le

vel o

r any

oth

er n

egat

ive

effe

ct o

n th

e av

aila

bilit

y an

d qu

ality

of d

rinki

ng a

nd ir

rigat

ion

wat

er fo

r the

surr

ound

ing

com

mun

ities

and

farm

ers m

ust b

e av

oide

d8.

20: A

ll w

aste

wat

er, e

spec

ially

thos

e co

ntam

inat

ed w

ith p

estic

ides

and

/or

chem

ical

s hav

e to

be

spec

ially

trea

ted

(e.g

. set

ting

basi

ns, c

arbo

n fil

ters

, che

mic

al

deto

xific

atio

n w

ith so

dium

-hyp

ochl

orid

e N

aOC

l) be

fore

safe

dis

posa

l in

acco

rdan

ce w

ith th

e la

w

3.2.

1.8:

Avo

id o

f air

spra

ying

of a

groc

hem

ical

s ove

r riv

ers a

nd o

ther

wat

er so

urce

s of

sign

ifica

nt si

ze3.

4.1.

4: U

se o

f irr

igat

ion

met

hods

and

syst

ems t

hat m

inim

ize

wat

er c

onsu

mpt

ion

as

muc

h as

is fe

asib

le fo

r the

ope

ratio

n in

que

stio

n3.

4.1.

5: U

se o

f wat

er fo

r pro

cess

ing

oper

atio

ns in

the

mos

t effi

cien

t man

ner p

ossi

ble

3.4.

1.6:

Avo

id o

f the

low

erin

g of

the

grou

ndw

ater

leve

l or a

ny o

ther

neg

ativ

e ef

fect

on

the

avai

labi

lity

and

qual

ity o

f drin

king

and

irrig

atio

n w

ater

for t

he su

rrou

ndin

g co

mm

uniti

es a

nd fa

rmer

s3.

4.1.

7: W

aste

wat

er is

han

dled

in a

man

ner t

hat d

oes n

ot h

ave

a ne

gativ

e im

pact

on

wat

er q

ualit

y, so

il he

alth

and

stru

ctur

e or

food

safe

ty3.

4.1.

8: D

isch

arge

of w

aste

wat

er fr

om a

ny sy

stem

with

whi

ch th

e or

gani

zatio

n or

its

mem

bers

are

invo

lved

in a

way

that

doe

s not

:· p

ollu

te w

ater

that

mig

ht b

e us

ed a

s par

t of a

hum

an o

r ani

mal

drin

king

supp

ly

· con

tam

inat

e so

il or

cro

ps w

ith c

hem

ical

s or t

heir

by-p

rodu

cts

· con

tam

inat

e cr

ops o

r soi

l with

exc

essi

ve n

utrie

nts o

r con

tam

inat

e ha

rves

tabl

e cr

ops w

ith p

atho

geni

c m

icro

bes,

atte

ntio

n sh

ould

be

paid

to th

e ju

dici

ous h

andl

ing

of a

nim

al m

anur

es n

ear w

ater

bod

ies o

r flow

s

GH

G

Air

Po

llutio

n8.

14: W

aste

and

pol

lutio

n re

duct

ion

mus

t be

give

n hi

gh p

riorit

y8.

21: A

ir po

llutio

n an

d un

plea

sant

smel

ls d

ue to

pes

ticid

e or

che

mic

al a

pplic

atio

n or

inci

nera

tion

in th

e op

en a

ir ne

ar h

ousi

ngs m

ust b

e st

rictly

avo

ided

3.3.

2.1:

The

org

aniz

atio

n en

sure

s tha

t its

mem

bers

do

not b

urn

was

te if

ther

e is

an

envi

ronm

enta

lly le

ss d

amag

ing

alte

rnat

ive.

WWF Germany 52

Flow

er L

abel

Pro

gram

mFa

irtra

de L

abel

ling

Org

anis

atio

ns In

tern

atio

nal (

FLO

)

GM

O3.

6.1.

1 Th

e or

gani

zatio

n en

sure

s tha

t its

mem

bers

do

not g

row

any

GM

O p

rodu

cts.

3.6.

1.2.

Mon

itorin

g of

pos

sibl

e G

MO

usa

ge b

y ne

ighb

ors a

nd w

here

nec

essa

ry

addi

tiona

l pre

caut

ions

to e

nsur

e th

at th

eir c

rops

or a

ny se

edor

pro

paga

tion

mat

eria

l sav

ed fo

r fut

ure

plan

tings

are

not

con

tam

inat

ed b

y G

MO

tra

its3.

6.1.

3: N

o us

e of

any

pro

duct

s der

ived

from

GM

Os i

n pr

imar

y pr

oduc

tion

or in

pr

oces

sing

3.6.

1.4.

Inpu

ts, p

roce

ssin

g ai

ds, a

nd in

gred

ient

s are

trac

ed b

ack

one

step

in th

e bi

olog

ical

cha

in to

the

dire

ct so

urce

org

anis

m fr

om w

hich

they

are

pro

duce

d to

en

sure

that

they

are

no

long

er re

gard

ed a

s GM

Os

Gre

en G

old

Labe

l Pro

gram

Inte

rnat

iona

l fed

erat

ion

of o

rgan

ic a

gric

ultu

re

mov

emen

ts (I

FOA

M)

Rou

ndta

ble

Sust

aina

ble

Palm

oil (

RSP

O)

Bio

dive

rsity

2: A

gric

ultu

re m

anag

emen

t sys

tem

is b

ased

on

land

-res

ourc

e pl

anni

ng: c

olle

ctio

n an

d co

ntin

uous

m

onito

ring

of u

tiliz

atio

n of

nat

ural

reso

urce

s and

liv

ing

cond

ition

s are

use

d fo

r the

land

reso

urce

pl

anni

ng, d

ata

abou

t; cl

imat

e, w

ater

and

soil,

land

us

e, v

eget

atio

n co

ver a

nd d

istri

butio

n, a

nim

al

spec

ies,

utili

zatio

n of

wild

pla

nts

2.1.

1: O

pera

tors

shal

l tak

e m

easu

res t

o m

aint

ain

and

impr

ove

land

scap

e an

d en

hanc

e bi

odiv

ersi

ty q

ualit

y.

2.1.

2: C

lear

ing

of p

rimar

y ec

osys

tem

s is p

rohi

bite

d.

2.2.

2 La

nd p

repa

ratio

n by

bur

ning

veg

etat

ion

shal

l be

rest

ricte

d to

the

min

imum

. 2.

4.1

. Wild

har

vest

ed p

rodu

cts s

hall

only

be

certi

fied

orga

nic

if th

ey a

re d

eriv

ed fr

om a

stab

le a

nd su

stai

nabl

e gr

owin

g en

viro

nmen

t. Th

e pe

ople

who

har

vest

, gat

her,

or w

ildcr

aft s

hall

not t

ake

any

prod

ucts

at a

rate

that

ex

ceed

s the

sust

aina

ble

yiel

d of

the

ecos

yste

m, o

r th

reat

en th

e ex

iste

nce

of p

lant

, fun

gal o

r ani

mal

spec

ies,

incl

udin

g th

ose

not d

irect

ly e

xplo

ited.

4.

1.2

Ope

rato

rs sh

all u

se o

rgan

ic se

ed a

nd p

lant

mat

eria

l of

app

ropr

iate

var

ietie

s and

qua

lity.

4.

3.1

Div

ersi

ty in

pla

nt p

rodu

ctio

n an

d ac

tivity

shal

l be

assu

red

by m

inim

um c

rop

rota

tion

requ

irem

ents

and

/or

varie

ty o

f pla

ntin

gs. M

inim

um ro

tatio

n pr

actic

es fo

r an

nual

cro

ps sh

all b

e es

tabl

ishe

d un

less

the

oper

ator

de

mon

stra

tes d

iver

sity

in p

lant

pro

duct

ion

by o

ther

m

eans

. Ope

rato

rs a

re re

quire

d to

man

age

pres

sure

fr

om in

sect

s, w

eeds

, dis

ease

s and

oth

er p

ests

, whi

le

mai

ntai

ning

or i

ncre

asin

g so

il or

gani

c m

atte

r, fe

rtilit

y,

mic

robi

al a

ctiv

ity a

nd g

ener

al so

il he

alth

.

5.1:

Asp

ects

of p

lant

atio

n an

d m

ill m

anag

emen

t tha

t ha

ve e

nviro

nmen

tal i

mpa

cts a

re id

entifi

ed, a

nd p

lans

to

miti

gate

the

nega

tive

impa

cts a

nd p

rom

ote

the

posi

tive

ones

are

mad

e, im

plem

ente

d an

d m

onito

red,

to

dem

onst

rate

con

tinuo

us im

prov

emen

t5.

2: S

tatu

s of r

are,

thre

aten

ed o

r end

ange

red

spec

ies

and

high

con

serv

atio

n va

lue

habi

tats

, if a

ny, t

hat e

xist

in

the

plan

tatio

n or

that

cou

ld b

e af

fect

ed b

y pl

anta

tion

or m

ill m

anag

emen

t, sh

all b

e id

entifi

ed a

nd th

eir

cons

erva

tion

take

n in

to a

ccou

nt in

man

agem

ent p

lans

an

d op

erat

ions

5.5:

Use

of fi

re fo

r was

te d

ispo

sal a

nd fo

r pre

parin

g la

nd fo

r rep

lant

ing

is a

void

ed e

xcep

t in

spec

ific

situ

atio

ns, a

s ide

ntifi

ed in

the A

SEA

N g

uide

lines

or

othe

r reg

iona

l bes

t pra

ctic

e7.

3: N

ew p

lant

ings

sinc

e N

ovem

ber 2

005

(whi

ch is

th

e ex

pect

ed d

ate

of a

dopt

ion

of th

ese

crite

ria b

y th

e R

SPO

mem

bers

hip)

, hav

e no

t rep

lace

d pr

imar

y fo

rest

or

any

are

a co

ntai

ning

one

or m

ore

Hig

h C

onse

rvat

ion

Valu

es

WWF Germany 53

Gre

en G

old

Labe

l Pro

gram

Inte

rnat

iona

l fed

erat

ion

of o

rgan

ic a

gric

ultu

re

mov

emen

ts (I

FOA

M)

Rou

ndta

ble

Sust

aina

ble

Palm

oil (

RSP

O)

Bio

dive

rsity

4.3.

2 Fo

r per

enni

al c

rops

, the

cer

tifyi

ng b

ody

shal

l set

m

inim

um st

anda

rds f

or o

rcha

rd/p

lant

atio

n flo

or c

over

an

d/or

div

ersi

ty o

r ref

uge

plan

tings

in th

e or

char

d.

Soil

3.3:

Gen

eral

pla

nnin

g, m

anag

emen

t and

util

izat

ion

of la

nd re

sour

ces a

nd th

e pr

eser

vatio

n of

soil

ferti

lity

are

defin

ed a

nd e

xecu

ted

4.5:

Mea

sure

s hav

e to

be

take

n to

min

imiz

e so

il ru

n-of

and

sedi

men

tatio

n

2.2.

1 A

ll op

erat

ors s

hall

take

defi

ned

and

appr

opria

te

mea

sure

s to

prev

ent e

rosi

on.

2.2.

3 C

rop

prod

uctio

n, p

roce

ssin

g an

d ha

ndlin

g sy

stem

s sh

all r

etur

n nu

trien

ts, o

rgan

ic m

atte

r and

oth

er re

sour

ces

rem

oved

from

the

soil

thro

ugh

harv

estin

g by

the

recy

clin

g, re

gene

ratio

n an

d ad

ditio

n of

org

anic

mat

eria

ls

and

nutri

ents

. 2.

2.4

Gra

zing

man

agem

ent s

hall

not d

egra

de la

nd o

r po

llute

wat

er re

sour

ces.

2.2.

5 R

elev

ant m

easu

res s

hall

be ta

ken

to p

reve

nt o

r re

med

y so

il an

d w

ater

salin

izat

ion.

4.2:

Pra

ctic

es m

aint

ain

soil

ferti

lity

at, o

r whe

re

poss

ible

impr

ove

soil

ferti

lity

to, a

leve

l tha

t ens

ures

op

timal

and

sust

aine

d yi

eld.

4.3:

Pra

ctic

es m

inim

ize

and

cont

rol e

rosi

on a

nd

degr

adat

ion

of so

ils7.

2: S

oil s

urve

ys a

nd to

pogr

aphi

c in

form

atio

n ar

e us

ed fo

r site

pla

nnin

g in

the

esta

blis

hmen

t of n

ew

plan

tings

, and

the

resu

lts a

re in

corp

orat

ed in

to p

lans

an

d op

erat

ions

7.4:

Ext

ensi

ve p

lant

ing

on st

eep

terr

ain,

and

/or o

n m

argi

nal a

nd fr

agile

soils

, is a

void

ed

Agr

oche

mic

al5:

Man

agem

ent s

yste

m is

bas

ed o

n an

inte

grat

ed

syst

em o

f pes

t con

trol:

use

of b

anne

d pe

stic

ides

is

proh

ibite

d, u

se o

f res

trict

ed p

estic

ides

is c

ontro

lled

and

a ad

min

istra

tion

is k

ept u

p to

dat

e, st

ock

is k

ept

in a

sepa

rate

and

lock

ed st

orag

e, b

iolo

gica

l con

trol

agen

ts a

nd o

rgan

ic p

estic

ides

, as w

ell a

s tra

ditio

nal

know

ledg

e an

d sk

ills r

egar

ding

alte

rnat

ivel

y no

n-ch

emic

al p

est c

ontro

l hav

e to

be

iden

tified

and

im

plem

ente

d in

the

agric

ultu

ral m

anag

emen

t sys

tem

6.1:

Man

agem

ent p

lan

is b

ased

on

an in

tegr

ated

pl

ant n

utrit

ion

appr

oach

6.2:

Ava

ilabi

lity

of fe

rtiliz

er a

nd o

ther

pla

nt n

utrie

nt

reso

urce

s are

opt

imiz

ed

4.4.

2 N

utrie

nts a

nd fe

rtilit

y pr

oduc

ts sh

all b

e ap

plie

d in

a w

ay th

at p

rote

cts s

oil,

wat

er, a

nd b

iodi

vers

ity.

Res

trict

ions

may

be

base

d on

am

ount

s, lo

catio

n, ti

min

g,

treat

men

ts, m

etho

ds o

r cho

ice

of in

puts

app

lied.

4.

4.4

Man

ures

con

tain

ing

hum

an e

xcre

men

t (fe

ces

and

urin

e) a

re p

rohi

bite

d fo

r use

on

crop

s for

hum

an

cons

umpt

ion.

Exc

eptio

ns m

ay b

e m

ade

whe

re d

etai

led

sani

tatio

n re

quire

men

ts a

re e

stab

lishe

d by

the

stan

dard

-se

tting

org

aniz

atio

n to

pre

vent

the

trans

mis

sion

of

pest

s, pa

rasi

tes a

nd in

fect

ious

age

nts a

nd to

ens

ure

that

m

anur

es a

re n

ot m

ixed

with

oth

er h

ouse

hold

or i

ndus

trial

w

aste

s tha

t may

con

tain

pro

hibi

ted

subs

tanc

es.

4.4.

5 M

iner

al fe

rtiliz

ers s

hall

only

be

used

in a

pro

gram

ad

dres

sing

long

-term

ferti

lity

need

s tog

ethe

r with

oth

er

tech

niqu

es su

ch a

s org

anic

mat

ter a

dditi

ons,

gree

n m

anur

es, r

otat

ions

and

nitr

ogen

fixa

tion

by p

lant

s. 4.

4.6

Min

eral

ferti

lizer

s sha

ll be

app

lied

in th

e fo

rm

in w

hich

they

are

nat

ural

ly c

ompo

sed

and

extra

cted

an

d sh

all n

ot b

e re

nder

ed m

ore

solu

ble

by c

hem

ical

tre

atm

ent,

othe

r tha

n ad

ditio

n of

wat

er a

nd m

ixin

g w

ith o

ther

nat

ural

ly o

ccur

ring,

per

mitt

ed in

puts

. Und

er

exce

ptio

nal c

ircum

stan

ces,

and

afte

r con

side

ratio

n of

all

4.6:

Agr

oche

mic

als a

re u

sed

in a

way

that

doe

s not

en

dang

er h

ealth

or t

he e

nviro

nmen

t4.

6: N

o pr

ophy

lact

ic u

se, a

nd w

here

agr

oche

mic

als a

re

used

that

are

cat

egor

ized

as W

orld

Hea

lth O

rgan

izat

ion

Type

1A

or 1

B, o

r are

list

ed b

y th

e St

ockh

olm

or

Rot

terd

am C

onve

ntio

ns, g

row

ers a

re a

ctiv

ely

seek

ing

to id

entif

y al

tern

ativ

es, a

nd th

is is

doc

umen

ted

WWF Germany 54

Gre

en G

old

Labe

l Pro

gram

Inte

rnat

iona

l fed

erat

ion

of o

rgan

ic a

gric

ultu

re

mov

emen

ts (I

FOA

M)

Rou

ndta

ble

Sust

aina

ble

Palm

oil (

RSP

O)

Agr

oche

mic

alre

leva

nt in

form

atio

n, a

nd h

avin

g re

gard

to A

ppen

dix

1,

the

stan

dard

setti

ng o

rgan

izat

ions

may

gra

nt e

xcep

tion

to th

is re

quire

men

t. Th

ese

exce

ptio

ns sh

all n

ot a

pply

to

min

eral

ferti

lizer

s con

tain

ing

nitro

gen.

4.

4.7

Chi

lean

nitr

ate

and

all s

ynth

etic

nitr

ogen

ous

ferti

lizer

s, in

clud

ing

urea

, are

pro

hibi

ted.

6.4.

1 A

han

dler

or p

roce

ssor

is re

quire

d to

man

age

pest

s an

d sh

all u

se th

e fo

llow

ing

met

hods

acc

ordi

ng to

thes

e pr

iorit

ies:

a

. pre

vent

ativ

e m

etho

ds su

ch a

s dis

rupt

ion,

elim

inat

ion

of h

abita

t and

acc

ess t

o fa

cilit

ies;

b

. mec

hani

cal,

phys

ical

and

bio

logi

cal m

etho

ds;

c . s

ubst

ance

s acc

ordi

ng to

the A

ppen

dice

s of t

he

IFO

AM

Bas

ic S

tand

ards

; d

. sub

stan

ces (

othe

r tha

n pe

stic

ides

) use

d in

trap

s.6.

4.2

Proh

ibite

d pe

st c

ontro

l pra

ctic

es in

clud

e, b

ut a

re

not l

imite

d to

, the

follo

win

g su

bsta

nces

and

met

hods

: a

. pes

ticid

es n

ot c

onta

ined

in A

ppen

dix

3;

b . f

umig

atio

n w

ith e

thyl

ene

oxid

e, m

ethy

l bro

mid

e,

alum

inum

pho

sphi

de o

r oth

er su

bsta

nce

not c

onta

ined

in

App

endi

x 4;

c

. ion

izin

g ra

diat

ion.

6.

4.3

The

dire

ct u

se o

r app

licat

ion

of a

pro

hibi

ted

met

hod

or m

ater

ial r

ende

rs th

at p

rodu

ct n

o lo

nger

org

anic

. The

op

erat

or sh

all t

ake

nece

ssar

y pr

ecau

tions

to p

reve

nt

cont

amin

atio

n, in

clud

ing

the

rem

oval

of o

rgan

ic p

rodu

ct

from

the

stor

age

or p

roce

ssin

g fa

cilit

y, a

nd m

easu

res t

o de

cont

amin

ate

the

equi

pmen

t or f

acili

ties.

App

licat

ion

of p

rohi

bite

d su

bsta

nces

to e

quip

men

t or f

acili

ties s

hall

not c

onta

min

ate

orga

nic

prod

uct h

andl

ed o

r pro

cess

ed

ther

ein.

App

licat

ion

of p

rohi

bite

d su

bsta

nces

to

equi

pmen

t or f

acili

ties s

hall

not c

ompr

omis

e th

e or

gani

c in

tegr

ity o

f pro

duct

han

dled

or p

roce

ssed

ther

ein.

Wat

er4.

1: E

ffici

ency

and

pro

duct

ivity

of a

gric

ultu

ral w

ater

us

e fo

r bet

ter u

tiliz

atio

n of

lim

ited

wat

er re

sour

ces

has t

o in

crea

se

2.2.

4 G

razi

ng m

anag

emen

t sha

ll no

t deg

rade

land

or

pollu

te w

ater

reso

urce

s. 4.

4: P

ract

ices

mai

ntai

n th

e qu

ality

and

ava

ilabi

lity

of

surf

ace

and

grou

nd w

ater

WWF Germany 55

Gre

en G

old

Labe

l Pro

gram

Inte

rnat

iona

l fed

erat

ion

of o

rgan

ic a

gric

ultu

re

mov

emen

ts (I

FOA

M)

Rou

ndta

ble

Sust

aina

ble

Palm

oil (

RSP

O)

Wat

er4.

2: o

nito

ring

of th

e irr

igat

ion

perf

orm

ance

4.4:

Wat

er q

ualit

y ha

s to

be m

onito

red

on b

iolo

gica

l, ph

ysic

al a

nd c

hem

ical

qua

lity

4.6:

Irrig

atio

n ha

s to

be p

lann

ed in

a lo

ng te

rm

prog

ram

4.7:

Lon

g te

rm st

rate

gies

and

impl

emen

tatio

n pr

ogra

m h

ave

to b

e de

velo

ped

on w

ater

use

und

er

scar

ce c

ondi

tions

4.8:

Was

te w

ater

re-u

se h

as to

be

part

of th

e ag

ricul

ture

man

agem

ent s

yste

m

2.2.

5 R

elev

ant m

easu

res s

hall

be ta

ken

to p

reve

nt o

r re

med

y so

il an

d w

ater

salin

izat

ion.

2.

2.6

Ope

rato

rs sh

all n

ot d

eple

te n

or e

xces

sive

ly e

xplo

it w

ater

reso

urce

s, an

d sh

all s

eek

to p

rese

rve

wat

er q

ualit

y.

They

shal

l whe

re p

ossi

ble

recy

cle

rain

wat

er a

nd m

onito

r w

ater

ext

ract

ion.

2.4.

5 O

pera

tors

shal

l tak

e m

easu

res t

o en

sure

that

wild

, se

dent

ary

aqua

tic sp

ecie

s are

col

lect

ed o

nly

from

are

as

whe

re th

e w

ater

is n

ot c

onta

min

ated

by

subs

tanc

es

proh

ibite

d in

thes

e st

anda

rds.

GH

G5.

6: P

lans

to re

duce

pol

lutio

n an

d em

issi

ons,

incl

udin

g gr

eenh

ouse

gas

es, a

re d

evel

oped

, im

plem

ente

d an

d m

onito

red

Air

Po

llutio

n5.

3: W

aste

is re

duce

d, re

cycl

ed, r

e-us

ed a

nd d

ispo

sed

of in

an

envi

ronm

enta

lly a

nd so

cial

ly re

spon

sibl

e m

anne

r5.

6: P

lans

to re

duce

pol

lutio

n an

d em

issi

ons,

incl

udin

g gr

eenh

ouse

gas

es, a

re d

evel

oped

, im

plem

ente

d an

d m

onito

red

GM

O2.

3.1

The

delib

erat

e us

e or

neg

ligen

t int

rodu

ctio

n of

ge

netic

ally

eng

inee

red

orga

nism

s or t

heir

deriv

ativ

es to

or

gani

c fa

rmin

g sy

stem

s or p

rodu

cts i

s pro

hibi

ted.

Thi

s sh

all i

nclu

de a

nim

als,

seed

, pro

paga

tion

mat

eria

l, an

d fa

rm in

puts

such

as f

ertil

izer

s, so

il co

nditi

oner

s, va

ccin

es

or c

rop

prot

ectio

n m

ater

ials

. 2.

3.2

The

use

of g

enet

ical

ly e

ngin

eere

d or

gani

sms o

r th

eir d

eriv

ativ

es is

pro

hibi

ted.

Thi

s sha

ll in

clud

e an

imal

s, se

ed a

nd fa

rm in

puts

such

as f

ertil

izer

s, so

il co

nditi

oner

s, va

ccin

es o

r cr

op p

rote

ctio

n m

ater

ials

. 2.

3.3

The

use

of g

enet

ical

ly e

ngin

eere

d se

eds,

polle

n,

trans

gene

tic p

lant

s or p

lant

mat

eria

l is n

ot a

llow

ed.

2.3.

4 O

rgan

ic p

roce

ssed

pro

duct

s sha

ll no

t use

in

gred

ient

s, ad

ditiv

es o

r pro

cess

ing

aids

der

ived

from

G

MO

s.

Prea

mbl

e: th

ere

is n

o ge

netic

ally

mod

ified

(GM

) pal

m

oil a

vaila

ble

in th

e m

arke

t, an

d th

ere

will

not

be

for

man

y ye

ars t

o co

me:

hen

ce n

o cr

iterio

n on

GM

oil

palm

is in

clud

ed

WWF Germany 56

Gre

en G

old

Labe

l Pro

gram

Inte

rnat

iona

l fed

erat

ion

of o

rgan

ic a

gric

ultu

re

mov

emen

ts (I

FOA

M)

Rou

ndta

ble

Sust

aina

ble

Palm

oil (

RSP

O)

GM

O2.

3.5

Inpu

ts, p

roce

ssin

g ai

ds a

nd in

gred

ient

s sha

ll be

tra

ced

back

one

step

in th

e bi

olog

ical

cha

in to

the

dire

ct

sour

ce o

rgan

ism

*(s

ee d

efini

tion)

from

whi

ch th

ey a

re

prod

uced

to v

erify

that

they

are

not

der

ived

from

GM

Os.

2.3.

6 C

onta

min

atio

n of

org

anic

pro

duct

by

GM

Os

resu

lting

from

circ

umst

ance

s bey

ond

the

cont

rol o

f the

op

erat

or m

ay a

lter t

he o

rgan

ic st

atus

of t

he o

pera

tion

and/

or p

rodu

ct.

2.3.

7 O

n fa

rms w

ith sp

lit (i

nclu

ding

par

alle

l) pr

oduc

tion,

th

e us

e of

gen

etic

ally

eng

inee

red

orga

nism

s is n

ot

perm

itted

in a

ny p

rodu

ctio

n ac

tivity

on

the

farm

.

Sust

aina

ble

Agr

icul

tura

l Sta

ndar

dsSu

stai

nabl

e Fo

rest

ry In

itiat

ive

Stan

dard

(SFI

S)

Utz

Kap

eh C

odes

of C

ondu

ct

Bio

dive

rsity

all e

xist

ing

natu

ral e

cosy

stem

s, bo

th a

quat

ic a

nd te

rres

trial

, m

ust b

e id

entifi

ed, p

rote

cted

, con

serv

ed a

nd re

stor

ed th

roug

h a

cons

erva

tion

prog

ram

; the

pro

gram

mus

t inc

lude

the

rest

orat

ion

of n

atur

al e

cosy

stem

s or t

he re

fore

stat

ion

of a

reas

with

in th

e fa

rm

that

are

uns

uita

ble

for a

gric

ultu

re, t

he p

rogr

am m

ust i

nclu

de th

e es

tabl

ishm

ent a

nd m

aint

enan

ce o

f sha

de tr

ees f

or th

ose

crop

s tra

ditio

nally

gro

wn

with

shad

e, in

are

as w

here

the

agric

ultu

ral,

clim

atic

and

eco

logi

cal c

ondi

tions

per

mit

farm

mus

t mai

ntai

n th

e in

tegr

ity o

f aqu

atic

or t

erre

stria

l eco

syst

ems

insi

de a

nd o

utsi

de o

f the

farm

, and

mus

t not

per

mit

thei

r des

truct

ion

or a

ltera

tion

as a

resu

lt of

man

agem

ent o

r pro

duct

ion

activ

ities

on

the

farm

prod

uctio

n ar

eas m

ust n

ot b

e lo

cate

d in

pla

ces t

hat c

ould

pro

voke

ne

gativ

e ef

fect

s on

natio

nal p

arks

, wild

life

refu

ges,

biol

ogic

al

corr

idor

s, fo

rest

ry re

serv

es, b

uffe

r zon

es o

r oth

er p

ublic

or p

rivat

e bi

olog

ical

con

serv

atio

n ar

eas

cutti

ng, e

xtra

ctin

g or

har

vest

ing

trees

, pla

nts a

nd o

ther

non

-tim

ber f

ores

t pro

duct

s is o

nly

allo

wed

in in

stan

ces w

hen

the

farm

im

plem

ents

a su

stai

nabl

e m

anag

emen

t pla

n th

at h

as b

een

appr

oved

by

the

rele

vant

aut

horit

ies,

and

has t

he a

ll th

e pe

rmits

requ

ired

by

law

; if n

o ap

plic

able

law

s exi

st, t

he p

lan

mus

t

4.1:

Pro

gram

Par

ticip

ants

shal

l hav

e pr

ogra

ms

to p

rom

ote

biol

ogic

al d

iver

sity

at s

tand

and

la

ndsc

ape

leve

ls:

1. P

rogr

am to

pro

mot

e th

e co

nser

vatio

n of

nat

ive

biol

ogic

al d

iver

sity

, inc

ludi

ng sp

ecie

s, w

ildlif

e ha

bita

ts, a

nd e

colo

gica

l or n

atur

al c

omm

unity

ty

pes,

at st

and

and

land

scap

e le

vels

.2.

Pro

gram

to p

rote

ct th

reat

ened

and

end

ange

red

spec

ies.

3. P

lans

to lo

cate

and

pro

tect

kno

wn

site

s as

soci

ated

with

via

ble

occu

rren

ces o

f cr

itica

lly im

peril

ed a

nd im

peril

ed sp

ecie

s and

co

mm

uniti

es. P

lans

for p

rote

ctio

n m

ay b

e de

velo

ped

inde

pend

ently

or c

olla

bora

tivel

y an

d m

ay in

clud

e Pr

ogra

m P

artic

ipan

t man

agem

ent,

coop

erat

ion

with

oth

er st

akeh

olde

rs, o

r use

of

ease

men

ts, c

onse

rvat

ion

land

sale

s, ex

chan

ges,

or

othe

r con

serv

atio

n st

rate

gies

.

11.B

.1: D

efor

esta

tion

is p

rohi

bite

d11

.B.2

: Com

ply

with

the

rele

vant

loca

l and

na

tiona

l reg

ulat

ions

with

resp

ect t

o la

nd u

se

and

bio-

dive

rsity

con

serv

atio

n fo

r all

new

pl

antin

gs11

.B.5

: Con

serv

e al

l the

fore

st p

atch

es th

at a

re

not u

sed

for c

offe

e pl

antin

gs11

.B.7

: Sha

de tr

ees s

houl

d pr

efer

ably

be

nativ

e tre

e sp

ecie

s11

.B.1

0: A

llow

nat

ive

vege

tatio

n to

gro

w

alon

g w

ater

stre

ams t

o co

ntro

l ero

sion

, filte

r ou

t agr

oche

mic

als a

nd p

rote

ct th

e w

ildlif

e ha

bita

t11

.B.1

1: P

rote

ct th

reat

ened

and

end

ange

red

spec

ies a

nd h

abita

ts, a

nd ta

ke a

dequ

ate

mea

sure

s to

rest

rict h

untin

g or

com

mer

cial

co

llect

ion

of fl

ora

and

faun

a on

the

farm

WWF Germany 57

Sust

aina

ble

Agr

icul

tura

l Sta

ndar

dsSu

stai

nabl

e Fo

rest

ry In

itiat

ive

Stan

dard

(SFI

S)

Utz

Kap

eh C

odes

of C

ondu

ct

Bio

dive

rsity

have

bee

n de

velo

ped

by a

com

pete

nt p

rofe

ssio

nal;

harv

estin

g of

thre

aten

ed o

r end

ange

red

plan

ts o

r spe

cies

is n

ot p

erm

itted

; ce

rtific

atio

n of

farm

s tha

t hav

e ar

eas t

hat h

ave

defo

rest

ed w

ithin

the

two

year

s prio

r to

the

first

mom

ent o

f con

tact

rega

rdin

g ce

rtific

atio

n is

not

per

mitt

edm

inim

um se

para

tion

of p

rodu

ctio

n ar

eas f

rom

nat

ural

eco

syst

ems

whe

re c

hem

ical

pro

duct

s are

not

use

d; v

eget

ated

pro

tect

ion

zone

m

ust b

e es

tabl

ishe

d by

pla

ntin

g or

by

natu

ral r

egen

erat

ion

betw

een

diffe

rent

per

man

ent o

r sem

i-per

man

ent c

rop

prod

uctio

n ar

eas o

r sy

stem

s; th

e fa

rm m

ust e

stab

lish

and

mai

ntai

n ve

geta

tion

zone

s be

twee

n th

e cr

op a

nd a

reas

of h

uman

act

ivity

, as w

ells

as b

etw

een

prod

uctio

n ar

eas a

nd o

n th

e ed

ges o

f pub

lic o

r fre

quen

tly tr

avel

ed

road

s pas

sing

thro

ugh

or a

roun

d th

e fa

rm; t

hese

zon

es m

ust c

onsi

st

of p

erm

anen

t nat

ive

vege

tatio

n w

ith tr

ees,

bush

es o

r oth

er ty

pes

of p

lant

s, in

ord

er to

pro

mot

e bi

odiv

ersi

ty, m

inim

ize

any

nega

tive

visu

al im

pact

s and

redu

ce th

e dr

ift o

f agr

oche

mic

als,

dust

and

oth

er

subs

tanc

es c

omin

g fr

om a

gric

ultu

ral o

r pro

cess

ing

activ

ities

inve

ntor

y of

wild

life

and

wild

life

habi

tats

foun

d on

the

farm

mus

t be

crea

ted

and

mai

ntai

ned;

eco

syst

ems t

hat p

rovi

de h

abita

ts fo

r wild

life

livin

g on

the

farm

, or t

hat p

ass t

hrou

gh th

e fa

rm d

urin

g m

igra

tion,

m

ust b

e pr

otec

ted

and

rest

ored

; far

m ta

kes s

peci

al m

easu

res t

o pr

otec

t thr

eate

ned

or e

ndan

gere

d sp

ecie

shu

ntin

g, c

aptu

ring,

ext

ract

ing

and

traffi

ckin

g w

ild a

nim

als m

ust b

e pr

ohib

ited

on th

e fa

rm. C

ultu

ral o

r eth

nic

grou

ps c

an h

unt o

r col

lect

fa

una

in a

con

trolle

d m

anne

r and

in a

reas

des

igna

ted

for t

hose

pu

rpos

es u

nder

the

spec

ial c

ondi

tions

farm

er m

ust k

eep

an in

vent

ory

of th

e w

ild a

nim

als h

eld

in c

aptiv

ity

on th

e fa

rm, a

nd im

plem

ent p

olic

ies a

nd p

roce

dure

s to

regu

late

and

re

duce

thei

r ten

ancy

end

ange

red

or th

reat

ened

spec

ies m

ust n

ot b

e he

ld in

cap

tivity

farm

is a

llow

ed to

bre

ed w

ild a

nim

als i

n ca

ptiv

ity w

hen

the

farm

has

th

e re

quire

d co

nditi

ons a

nd th

e pe

rmits

stip

ulat

ed la

wfa

rms t

hat r

eint

rodu

ce w

ildlif

e in

to n

atur

al h

abita

ts m

ust h

ave

the

appr

opria

te p

erm

it fr

om th

e re

leva

nt a

utho

ritie

s and

com

ply

with

the

cond

ition

s est

ablis

hed

by la

w, o

r rei

ntro

duce

the

anim

als v

ia d

uly

auth

oriz

ed a

nd e

stab

lishe

d pr

ogra

ms

exot

ic w

ildlif

e m

ust n

ot b

e in

trodu

ced

into

the

farm

.

4. D

evel

opm

ent a

nd im

plem

enta

tion

of c

riter

ia,

as g

uide

d by

regi

onal

ly a

ppro

pria

te sc

ienc

e, fo

r re

tent

ion

of st

and-

leve

l wild

life

habi

tat e

lem

ents

(e

.g.,

snag

s, m

ast t

rees

, dow

n w

oody

deb

ris, d

en

trees

, nes

t tre

es).

5. A

sses

smen

t, co

nduc

ted

indi

vidu

ally

or

colla

bora

tivel

y, o

f for

est c

over

type

s and

hab

itats

at

the

indi

vidu

al o

wne

rshi

p le

vel a

nd, w

here

cr

edib

le d

ata

are

avai

labl

e, a

cros

s the

land

scap

e,

and

inco

rpor

atio

n of

find

ings

into

pla

nnin

g an

d m

anag

emen

t act

iviti

es, w

here

pra

ctic

al a

nd w

hen

cons

iste

nt w

ith m

anag

emen

t obj

ectiv

es.

6. S

uppo

rt of

and

par

ticip

atio

n in

pla

ns o

r pr

ogra

ms f

or th

e co

nser

vatio

n of

old

-gro

wth

fo

rest

s in

the

regi

on o

f ow

ners

hip.

7. P

artic

ipat

ion

in p

rogr

ams a

nd d

emon

stra

tion

of

activ

ities

as a

ppro

pria

te to

lim

it th

e in

trodu

ctio

n,

impa

ct, a

nd sp

read

of i

nvas

ive

exot

ic p

lant

s and

an

imal

s tha

t dire

ctly

thre

aten

or a

re li

kely

to

thre

aten

nat

ive

plan

t and

ani

mal

com

mun

ities

.8.

Pro

gram

to in

corp

orat

e th

e ro

le o

f pre

scrib

ed

or n

atur

al fi

re w

here

app

ropr

iate

.4.

2: P

rogr

am P

artic

ipan

ts sh

all a

pply

kno

wle

dge

gain

ed th

roug

h re

sear

ch, s

cien

ce, t

echn

olog

y,

and

field

exp

erie

nce

to m

anag

e w

ildlif

e ha

bita

t an

d co

ntrib

ute

to th

e co

nser

vatio

n of

bio

logi

cal

dive

rsity

:1.

Col

lect

ion

of in

form

atio

n on

crit

ical

ly

impe

riled

and

impe

riled

spec

ies a

nd c

omm

uniti

es

and

othe

r bio

dive

rsity

-rel

ated

dat

a th

roug

h fo

rest

in

vent

ory

proc

esse

s, m

appi

ng, o

r par

ticip

atio

n in

ext

erna

l pro

gram

s, su

ch a

s Nat

ureS

erve

, st

ate

or p

rovi

ncia

l her

itage

pro

gram

s, or

oth

er

cred

ible

syst

ems.

Such

par

ticip

atio

n m

ay in

clud

e pr

ovid

ing

nonp

ropr

ieta

ry sc

ient

ific

info

rmat

ion,

tim

e, a

nd a

ssis

tanc

e by

staf

f, or

in-k

ind

or d

irect

fin

anci

al su

ppor

t.

WWF Germany 58

Sust

aina

ble

Agr

icul

tura

l Sta

ndar

dsSu

stai

nabl

e Fo

rest

ry In

itiat

ive

Stan

dard

(SFI

S)

Utz

Kap

eh C

odes

of C

ondu

ct

Bio

dive

rsity

2. A

met

hodo

logy

to in

corp

orat

e re

sear

ch

resu

lts a

nd fi

eld

appl

icat

ions

of b

iodi

vers

ity

and

ecos

yste

m re

sear

ch in

to fo

rest

man

agem

ent

deci

sion

s.

Soil

9.1:

Far

m m

ust e

xecu

te a

soil

eros

ion

prev

entio

n an

d co

ntro

l pr

ogra

m th

at m

inim

izes

the

risk

of e

rosi

on a

nd re

duce

s exi

stin

g er

osio

n; p

rogr

am a

ctiv

ities

mus

t be

base

d on

the

iden

tifica

tion

of

soils

affe

cted

by

or su

scep

tible

to e

rosi

on, a

s wel

l as s

oil p

rope

rties

an

d ch

arac

teris

tics,

clim

atic

con

ditio

ns, t

opog

raph

y an

d ag

ricul

tura

l pr

actic

es fo

r the

cro

p9.

2: F

arm

mus

t hav

e a

soil

or c

rop

ferti

lizat

ion

prog

ram

bas

ed o

n so

il ch

arac

teris

tics a

nd p

rope

rties

, per

iodi

c so

il or

folia

ge sa

mpl

ing

and

anal

ysis

, and

adv

ice

from

a c

ompe

tent

and

impa

rtial

pro

fess

iona

l or

auth

ority

; num

ber o

f soi

l or f

olia

ge sa

mpl

es m

ust c

orre

spon

d w

ith

the

size

of t

he p

rodu

ctio

n ar

ea, t

ypes

of s

oil,

and

varia

tions

in it

s pr

oper

ties,

as w

ell a

s res

ults

of p

revi

ous a

naly

ses;

pro

duce

r mus

t ke

ep a

naly

ses

resu

lts o

n th

e fa

rm fo

r a tw

o-ye

ar p

erio

d; o

rgan

ic a

nd n

on-o

rgan

ic

ferti

lizer

s mus

t be

appl

ied

so a

s to

avoi

d an

y po

tent

ial n

egat

ive

impa

cts o

n th

e en

viro

nmen

t; fa

rm m

ust g

ive

prio

rity

to o

rgan

ic

ferti

lizat

ion

usin

g re

sidu

es g

ener

ated

by

the

farm

9.3:

Far

m m

ust u

se a

nd e

xpan

d its

use

of v

eget

ativ

e gr

ound

cov

er

to re

duce

ero

sion

and

impr

ove

soil

ferti

lity,

stru

ctur

e an

d or

gani

c m

ater

ial c

onte

nt, a

s wel

l as m

inim

ize

the

use

of h

erbi

cide

s; th

ere

mus

t be

a ve

geta

tive

grou

nd c

over

est

ablis

hmen

t and

exp

ansi

on p

lan

that

indi

cate

s the

are

as w

ith e

xist

ing

cove

r, as

wel

l as a

reas

whe

re

cove

r will

be

esta

blis

hed

in th

e fu

ture

9.4:

Far

m m

ust p

rom

ote

the

use

of fa

llow

are

as w

ith n

atur

al o

r pl

ante

d ve

geta

tion

in o

rder

to re

cove

r nat

ural

ferti

lity

and

inte

rrup

t pe

st li

fe c

ycle

s; fa

rm m

ust h

ave

a pl

an th

at in

dica

tes t

he fa

llow

te

chni

ques

or p

ract

ices

and

thei

r tim

ing;

thes

e ar

eas m

ust b

e id

entifi

ed in

the

field

s and

on

the

farm

map

; bur

ning

is n

ot a

llow

ed to

pr

epar

e la

nd9.

5: N

ew p

rodu

ctio

n ar

eas m

ust o

nly

be lo

cate

d on

land

with

the

clim

atic

, soi

l and

topo

grap

hic

cond

ition

s sui

tabl

e fo

r int

ensi

ty

leve

l of t

he a

gric

ultu

ral p

rodu

ctio

n pl

anne

d; e

stab

lishm

ent o

f new

pr

oduc

tion

area

s mus

t be

base

d on

land

use

cap

acity

stud

ies t

hat

dem

onst

rate

long

-term

pro

duct

ion

capa

city

; cut

ting

of

2.3:

Pro

gram

Par

ticip

ants

shal

l im

plem

ent

man

agem

ent p

ract

ices

to p

rote

ct a

nd m

aint

ain

fore

st a

nd so

il pr

oduc

tivity

:1.

Use

of s

oils

map

s whe

re a

vaila

ble.

2. P

roce

ss to

iden

tify

soils

vul

nera

ble

to

com

pact

ion

and

use

of a

ppro

pria

te m

etho

ds to

av

oid

exce

ssiv

e so

il di

stur

banc

e.3.

Use

of e

rosi

on c

ontro

l mea

sure

s to

min

imiz

e th

e lo

ss o

f soi

l and

site

pro

duct

ivity

.4.

Pos

t-har

vest

con

ditio

ns c

ondu

cive

to

mai

ntai

ning

site

pro

duct

ivity

(e.g

., lim

ited

rutti

ng, r

etai

ned

dow

n w

oody

deb

ris, m

inim

ized

sk

id tr

ails

).5.

Ret

entio

n of

vig

orou

s tre

es d

urin

g pa

rtial

ha

rves

ting,

con

sist

ent w

ith si

lvic

ultu

ral n

orm

sfo

r the

are

a.6.

Crit

eria

that

add

ress

har

vest

ing

and

site

pr

epar

atio

n to

pro

tect

soil

prod

uctiv

ity.

7. M

inim

ize

road

con

stru

ctio

n to

mee

t m

anag

emen

t obj

ectiv

es e

ffici

ently

.

4.A

.2: U

se o

f tec

hniq

ues t

o m

aint

ain,

impr

ove

and

prev

ent t

he lo

ss o

f soi

l stru

ctur

e an

d fe

rtilit

y, u

sing

e.g

. sha

de tr

ees,

com

post

, cov

er

crop

s, ni

troge

n fix

ing

plan

ts, m

ulch

ing,

etc

.4.

A.2

: Com

post

mad

e of

cof

fee

by-p

rodu

cts

shou

ld b

e co

mpl

etel

y de

com

pose

d be

fore

us

e to

pre

vent

mou

ld fo

rmat

ion

and

loss

of

nitro

gen

in th

e so

il4.

A.3

: Use

of t

echn

ique

s to

prev

ent s

oil

eros

ion,

e.g

. cro

ss li

ne p

lant

ing

on sl

opes

, dr

ains

, sow

ing

gras

s, tre

es a

nd b

ushe

s on

bord

ers o

f site

s, m

ulch

ing

etc.

WWF Germany 59

Sust

aina

ble

Agr

icul

tura

l Sta

ndar

dsSu

stai

nabl

e Fo

rest

ry In

itiat

ive

Stan

dard

(SFI

S)

Utz

Kap

eh C

odes

of C

ondu

ct

Soil

natu

ral f

ores

t cov

er o

r bur

ning

to p

repa

re n

ew p

rodu

ctio

n ar

eas i

s not

pe

rmitt

ed

Agr

oche

mic

al8.

1: In

tegr

ated

pes

t-man

agem

ent p

rogr

am b

ased

on

ecol

ogic

al

prin

cipl

es fo

r the

con

trol o

f har

mfu

l pes

ts (i

nsec

ts, p

lant

s, an

imal

s an

d m

icro

bes)

. The

pro

gram

mus

t giv

e pr

iorit

y to

the

use

of p

hysi

cal,

mec

hani

cal,

cultu

ral a

nd b

iolo

gica

l con

trol m

etho

ds, a

nd th

e le

ast

poss

ible

use

of a

groc

hem

ical

s, pr

ogra

m m

ust i

nclu

de a

ctiv

ities

for

mon

itorin

g pe

st p

opul

atio

ns, t

rain

ing

pers

onne

l tha

t mon

itor t

hese

po

pula

tions

, and

inte

grat

ed p

est m

anag

emen

t tec

hniq

ues;

farm

mus

t co

llect

and

reco

rd th

e de

taile

d in

form

atio

n ab

out p

est i

nfes

tatio

ns8.

2: F

arm

mus

t dem

onst

rate

by

agro

chem

ical

inve

ntor

ies a

nd u

se

reco

rds t

hat i

t rot

ates

che

mic

al p

rodu

cts a

nd re

duce

s the

ir us

e fo

r cr

op p

rodu

ctio

n8.

3: F

arm

mus

t im

plem

ent t

he p

roce

dure

s and

hav

e th

e ne

cess

ary

equi

pmen

t for

mix

ing

and

appl

ying

agr

oche

mic

als,

as w

ell a

s m

aint

ain,

cal

ibra

te a

nd re

pair

appl

icat

ion

equi

pmen

t, in

ord

er

to re

duce

to a

min

imum

was

te a

nd e

xces

sive

app

licat

ions

; far

m

mus

t des

igna

te a

nd tr

ain

pers

onne

l who

will

be

resp

onsi

ble

for t

he

impl

emen

tatio

n of

thes

e pr

oced

ures

8.4:

Fol

low

ing

chem

ical

or b

iolo

gica

l sub

stan

ces c

anno

t be

used

on

certi

fied

farm

s:a.

Agr

oche

mic

als o

r bio

logi

cal o

r org

anic

subs

tanc

es th

at a

re n

ot

lega

lly re

gist

ered

in th

e co

untry

for u

se o

n th

at p

artic

ular

cro

p.b.

Agr

oche

mic

als t

hat a

re p

rohi

bite

d by

the

Uni

ted

Stat

es

Envi

ronm

enta

l Pro

tect

ion

Age

ncy

(EPA

) or b

y th

e Eu

rope

an U

nion

.c.

Sub

stan

ces t

hat h

ave

been

iden

tified

as P

ersi

sten

t Org

anic

Po

lluta

nts (

POP)

in th

e St

ockh

olm

agr

eem

ent (

ww

w.ch

em.u

nep.

ch/p

ops/

defa

ult.h

tml).

d. A

groc

hem

ical

s inc

lude

d in

Ann

ex II

I of t

he R

otte

rdam

agr

eem

ent

that

are

pro

hibi

ted

or se

vere

ly re

stric

ted

by th

e U

nite

d N

atio

n En

viro

nmen

tal P

rogr

am’s

Prio

r Inf

orm

ed C

onse

nt (P

IC) p

rogr

am

(ww

w.p

ic.in

t).e.

All

Pest

icid

e Act

ion

Net

wor

k D

irty

Doz

en p

rodu

cts.

2.2:

Min

imiz

e ch

emic

al u

se re

quire

d to

ach

ieve

m

anag

emen

t obj

ectiv

es w

hile

pro

tect

ing

empl

oyee

s, ne

ighb

ors,

the

publ

ic, a

nd th

e fo

rest

en

viro

nmen

tm

inim

ized

che

mic

al u

se re

quire

d to

ach

ieve

m

anag

emen

t obj

ectiv

es: u

se o

f lea

st-to

xic

and

narr

owes

t-spe

ctru

m p

estic

ides

nec

essa

ry to

ac

hiev

e m

anag

emen

t obj

ectiv

es, u

se o

f pes

ticid

es

regi

ster

ed fo

r the

inte

nded

use

and

app

lied

in

acco

rdan

ce w

ith la

bel r

equi

rem

ents

, use

of

inte

grat

ed p

est m

anag

emen

t whe

re fe

asib

le,

supe

rvis

ion

of fo

rest

che

mic

al a

pplic

atio

ns b

y st

ate-

train

ed o

r cer

tified

app

licat

ors u

se o

f bes

t m

anag

emen

t pra

ctic

es (B

MPs

), ap

prop

riate

to th

e si

tuat

ion;

for e

xam

ple:

a.

Not

ifica

tion

of a

djoi

ning

land

owne

rs o

r nea

rby

resi

dent

s con

cern

ing

appl

icat

ions

and

chem

ical

s use

d;b.

app

ropr

iate

mul

tilin

gual

sign

s or o

ral

war

ning

s;c.

con

trol o

f pub

lic ro

ad a

cces

s dur

ing

and

imm

edia

tely

afte

r app

licat

ions

;d.

des

igna

tion

of st

ream

side

and

oth

er n

eede

d bu

ffer s

trips

;e.

use

of p

ositi

ve sh

utof

f and

min

imal

-drif

t spr

ay

valv

es;

f. ae

rial a

pplic

atio

n of

fore

st c

hem

ical

s par

alle

l to

buffe

r zon

es to

min

imiz

e dr

ift;

g. m

onito

ring

of w

ater

qua

lity

or sa

fegu

ards

to

ensu

re p

rope

r equ

ipm

ent u

se a

nd p

rote

ctio

n of

stre

ams,

lake

s, an

d ot

her w

ater

bod

ies;

i. ap

prop

riate

stor

age

of c

hem

ical

s;j.

filin

g of

requ

ired

stat

e re

ports

; or

k. u

se o

f met

hods

to e

nsur

e pr

otec

tion

of

thre

aten

ed a

nd e

ndan

gere

d sp

ecie

s.

very

det

aile

d re

quire

men

ts fo

r fer

tiliz

ers a

nd

pest

icid

es (s

ee U

tz K

apeh

Cod

es o

f Con

duct

/ V

ersi

on 2

006,

no.

5 a

nd 7

), on

ly so

me

impo

rtant

poi

nts:

estim

ates

of t

he q

uant

ity a

nd ty

pe o

f fer

tiliz

erfe

rtiliz

ers a

re a

pplie

d ju

dici

ousl

yup

to d

ate

and

com

plet

e lis

t of a

ll th

e so

il an

d fo

liar f

ertil

izer

s ino

rgan

ic fe

rtiliz

er a

pplic

atio

n eq

uipm

ent t

o en

sure

acc

urat

e fe

rtiliz

er

deliv

ery

stor

age

of a

ll in

orga

nic

and

orga

nic

ferti

lizer

s in

a m

anne

r tha

t red

uces

the

risk

of c

onta

min

atio

n of

wat

er st

ream

s and

so

urce

s, us

ing

a sp

illag

e re

tent

ion

syst

em to

ca

tch

leak

ing

liqui

d fe

rtiliz

ers,

sepa

rate

from

cr

op p

rote

ctio

n pr

oduc

ts to

pre

vent

cro

ss

cont

amin

atio

n an

d in

a se

cure

are

ano

cro

p pr

otec

tion

prod

ucts

that

are

ban

ned

in th

e Eu

rope

an U

nion

, the

USA

and

/or

Japa

n; p

rodu

cer m

ust o

nly

use

and

stor

e cr

op p

rote

ctio

n pr

oduc

ts th

at a

re o

ffici

ally

re

gist

ered

and

per

mitt

ed in

his

cou

ntry

fo

r use

on

coffe

e; If

ther

e is

no

offic

ial

regi

stra

tion

sche

me

for c

rop

prot

ectio

n =>

FA

O In

tern

atio

nal C

ode

of C

ondu

ct o

n th

e D

istri

butio

n an

d U

se o

f Pes

ticid

espr

otec

tion

of c

offe

e ag

ains

t pes

ts, d

isea

ses

and

wee

ds m

ust b

e do

ne w

ith th

e ap

prop

riate

m

inim

um in

put o

f cro

p pr

otec

tion

prod

uct

up to

dat

e an

d co

mpl

ete

list o

f all

the

crop

pr

otec

tion

prod

ucts

WWF Germany 60

Sust

aina

ble

Agr

icul

tura

l Sta

ndar

dsSu

stai

nabl

e Fo

rest

ry In

itiat

ive

Stan

dard

(SFI

S)

Utz

Kap

eh C

odes

of C

ondu

ct

Agr

oche

mic

al8.

5: F

arm

mus

t hav

e a

plan

for r

educ

ing

the

use

of W

orld

Hea

lth

Org

aniz

atio

n C

ateg

ory

I and

II p

rodu

cts,

and

for e

limin

atin

g th

e us

e of

C

ateg

ory

1 pr

oduc

ts w

ithin

thre

e ye

ars f

rom

the

time

of c

ertifi

catio

n;

farm

s tha

t use

thes

e pr

oduc

ts m

ust d

emon

stra

te th

e fo

llow

ing:

1) n

o te

chni

cally

or e

cono

mic

ally

via

ble

alte

rnat

ives

exi

st fo

r tha

t typ

e of

in

fest

atio

n; 2

) the

infe

stat

ion

has h

ad, o

r wou

ld h

ave

had,

sign

ifica

nt

econ

omic

con

sequ

ence

s (th

at su

rpas

s the

eco

nom

ic th

resh

old

for

dam

age)

and

, 3) s

teps

are

bei

ng ta

ken

to su

bstit

ute

Cat

egor

y I a

nd II

pr

oduc

ts.

deta

iled

list o

f req

uire

men

ts fo

r the

stor

age

of p

estic

ides

, the

mix

ing,

the

trans

port

of

pest

icid

es a

nd th

e di

spos

al o

f the

em

pty

pest

icid

e co

ntai

ners

Wat

er2.

6: N

atur

al w

ater

cha

nnel

s mus

t be

prot

ecte

d by

est

ablis

hing

pr

otec

ted

zone

s on

the

bank

s of r

iver

s, st

ream

s, cr

eeks

, lak

es, w

etla

nds

and

arou

nd th

e ed

ges o

f oth

er n

atur

al w

ater

bod

ies;

farm

s mus

t not

al

ter n

atur

al w

ater

cha

nnel

s to

crea

te n

ew d

rain

age

or ir

rigat

ion

cana

ls;

prev

ious

ly c

onve

rted

wat

er c

hann

els m

ust m

aint

ain

thei

r nat

ural

ve

geta

tive

cove

r or,

in it

s abs

ence

, thi

s cov

er m

ust b

e re

stor

ed4.

1: F

arm

mus

t hav

e a

wat

er c

onse

rvat

ion

prog

ram

that

ens

ures

the

ratio

nal u

se o

f wat

er re

sour

ces

4.1:

Far

m m

ust k

eep

an in

vent

ory

and

indi

cate

on

a m

ap th

e su

rfac

e an

d un

derg

roun

d w

ater

sour

ces f

ound

on

the

prop

erty

; rec

ord

of th

e an

nual

wat

er v

olum

e pr

ovid

ed b

y th

ese

sour

ces a

nd th

e am

ount

of

wat

er c

onsu

med

by

the

farm

4.2:

All

surf

ace

or u

nder

grou

nd w

ater

exp

loite

d by

the

farm

for

agric

ultu

ral,

dom

estic

or p

roce

ssin

g pu

rpos

es m

ust h

ave

the

resp

ectiv

e co

nces

sion

s and

per

mits

from

the

corr

espo

ndin

g le

gal o

r en

viro

nmen

tal a

utho

ritie

s4.

3: F

arm

s tha

t use

irrig

atio

n m

ust e

mpl

oy m

echa

nism

s to

prec

isel

y de

term

ine

and

dem

onst

rate

that

the

volu

me

of w

ater

app

lied

and

the

dura

tion

of th

e ap

plic

atio

n ar

e no

t exc

essi

ve o

r was

tefu

l; fa

rm m

ust

dem

onst

rate

that

the

wat

er q

uant

ity a

nd th

e du

ratio

n of

the

appl

icat

ion

are

base

d on

clim

atic

info

rmat

ion,

ava

ilabl

e so

il m

oist

ure,

and

soil

prop

ertie

s and

cha

ract

eris

tics

4.4:

Far

m m

ust h

ave

appr

opria

te tr

eatm

ent s

yste

ms f

or a

ll of

w

aste

wat

ers i

t gen

erat

es4.

5: F

arm

mus

t not

dis

char

ge o

r dep

osit

indu

stria

l or d

omes

tic

was

tew

ater

into

nat

ural

wat

er b

odie

s with

out d

emon

stra

ting

that

the

disc

harg

ed w

ater

com

pile

s with

the

resp

ectiv

e le

gal r

equi

rem

ents

, and

th

at th

e w

aste

wat

er’s

phy

sica

l and

bio

chem

ical

see

agro

chem

ical

sO

bjec

tive

3: P

rogr

am P

artic

ipan

ts sh

all m

eet o

r ex

ceed

all

appl

icab

le fe

dera

l, pr

ovin

cial

, sta

te,

and

loca

l wat

er q

ualit

y la

ws a

nd m

eet o

r exc

eed

best

man

agem

ent p

ract

ices

dev

elop

ed u

nder

U.S

. En

viro

nmen

tal P

rote

ctio

n A

genc

y–ap

prov

ed

stat

e w

ater

qua

lity

prog

ram

s or o

ther

fede

ral,

prov

inci

al, s

tate

, or l

ocal

pro

gram

s:1.

Pro

gram

to im

plem

ent s

tate

or p

rovi

ncia

l BM

Ps

durin

g al

l pha

ses o

f man

agem

ent a

ctiv

ities

.2.

Con

tract

pro

visi

ons t

hat s

peci

fy B

MP

com

plia

nce.

3. P

lans

that

add

ress

wet

-wea

ther

eve

nts (

e.g.

in

vent

ory

syst

ems,

wet

-wea

ther

trac

ts, d

efini

tions

of

acc

epta

ble

oper

atin

g co

nditi

ons)

.4.

Mon

itorin

g of

ove

rall

BM

P im

plem

enta

tion.

Prog

ram

Par

ticip

ants

shal

l hav

e or

dev

elop

, im

plem

ent,

and

docu

men

t rip

aria

n pr

otec

tion

mea

sure

s bas

ed o

n so

il ty

pe, t

erra

in, v

eget

atio

n,

and

othe

r app

licab

le fa

ctor

s:1.

Pro

gram

add

ress

ing

man

agem

ent a

nd p

rote

ctio

n of

stre

ams,

lake

s, an

d ot

her w

ater

bod

ies a

nd

ripar

ian

zone

s.2.

Map

ping

of s

tream

s, la

kes,

and

othe

r wat

er

bodi

es a

s spe

cifie

d in

stat

e or

pro

vinc

ial B

MPs

an

d, w

here

app

ropr

iate

, ide

ntifi

catio

n on

the

grou

nd.

6.A

.1: P

rodu

cer s

houl

d ha

ve ra

infa

ll re

cord

s an

d sy

stem

atic

rain

fall

fore

cast

met

hods

av

aila

ble

to d

ecid

e on

the

appl

icat

ion

of

irrig

atio

n w

ater

6.B

.1: P

rodu

cer u

ses t

he m

ost e

ffici

ent a

nd

com

mer

cial

ly p

ract

ical

wat

er d

eliv

ery

syst

em

to e

nsur

e th

e be

st u

tiliz

atio

n of

wat

er re

sour

ces,

the

prod

ucer

shou

ld sh

ow th

e ef

ficie

ncy

of h

is

irrig

atio

n sy

stem

in te

rms o

f the

am

ount

of

wat

er u

sed

per M

T of

cof

fee

prod

uced

6.B

.2: P

rodu

cer h

as re

cord

s tha

t ind

icat

e th

e da

te o

f irr

igat

ion,

the

quan

tity

of w

ater

use

d an

d w

here

the

irrig

atio

n w

ater

was

use

d6.

C.1

: Pro

duce

r sho

uld

each

yea

r ass

ess t

he

risks

of p

hyto

sani

tary

, che

mic

al o

r phy

sica

l po

llutio

n or

con

tam

inat

ion

of ir

rigat

ion

wat

er

sour

ces;

fo

cus s

houl

d be

on

mou

ld p

reve

ntio

n, th

e pr

oduc

er sh

ould

und

erta

ke p

reve

ntiv

e or

co

rrec

tive

actio

ns in

cas

e of

con

tam

inat

ion

or

pollu

tion,

thes

e sh

ould

be

docu

men

ted

6.D

.1: I

rrig

atio

n w

ater

is e

xtra

cted

from

su

stai

nabl

e so

urce

s9.

B.1

: Wat

er m

anag

emen

t pla

n w

ith th

e ob

ject

ive

of (r

e-)u

sing

wat

er e

ffici

ently

and

m

inim

izin

g th

e am

ount

of w

ater

use

d in

the

proc

ess

9.B

.3: T

reat

the

cont

amin

ated

wat

er c

omin

g ou

t of t

he w

et p

roce

ssin

g un

it to

min

imiz

e th

e im

pact

on

wat

er st

ream

s and

sour

ces

WWF Germany 61

Sust

aina

ble

Agr

icul

tura

l Sta

ndar

dsSu

stai

nabl

e Fo

rest

ry In

itiat

ive

Stan

dard

(SFI

S)

Utz

Kap

eh C

odes

of C

ondu

ct

Wat

erch

arac

teris

tics d

o no

t deg

rade

the

rece

ivin

g w

ater

bod

y; if

lega

l re

quire

men

ts d

o no

t exi

st, t

he d

isch

arge

d w

aste

wat

er m

ust c

ompl

y sp

ecia

l min

imum

par

amet

ers

4.6:

Far

ms t

hat d

isch

arge

was

tew

ater

into

the

envi

ronm

ent m

ust

esta

blis

h a

wat

er-q

ualit

y m

onito

ring

and

anal

ysis

pro

gram

that

take

s in

to a

ccou

nt p

oten

tial c

onta

min

ants

and

app

licab

le la

ws;

pro

gram

m

ust i

ndic

ate

the

was

tew

ater

sam

plin

g po

ints

and

freq

uenc

y an

d th

e an

alys

es to

be

carr

ied

out;

a le

gally

acc

redi

ted

labo

rato

ry m

ust

cond

uct a

ll an

alys

es fo

r at l

east

thre

e ye

ars

4.7:

No

depo

sit i

nto

natu

ral w

ater

bod

ies a

ny o

rgan

ic o

r ino

rgan

ic

solid

s4.

8: R

estri

ctio

n of

the

use

of se

ptic

tank

s to

the

treat

men

t of d

omes

tic

was

tew

ater

(gra

y w

ater

and

sew

age)

and

non

-indu

stria

l was

tew

ater

to

pre

vent

neg

ativ

e im

pact

s on

unde

rgro

und

or su

rfac

e w

ater

; tan

ks

and

thei

r dra

inag

e sy

stem

s mus

t be

loca

ted

in so

ils su

itabl

e fo

r th

is p

urpo

se; w

aste

wat

er fr

om th

e w

ashi

ng o

f mac

hine

ry u

sed

for

agro

chem

ical

app

licat

ions

mus

t be

colle

cted

and

mus

t not

be

mix

ed

with

dom

estic

was

tew

ater

or d

isch

arge

d to

the

envi

ronm

ent w

ithou

t pr

evio

us tr

eatm

ent

4.9:

If to

tal o

r par

tial c

ompl

ianc

e w

ith th

e re

quire

men

ts o

f thi

s st

anda

rd th

at re

late

dire

ctly

or i

ndire

ctly

to th

e co

ntam

inat

ion

of

natu

ral w

ater

bod

ies c

anno

t be

prov

en, t

he fa

rm m

ust c

ondu

ct a

su

rfac

e-w

ater

qua

lity

mon

itorin

g an

d an

alys

is p

rogr

am; p

rogr

am m

ust

indi

cate

the

sam

plin

g po

ints

and

freq

uenc

y, a

nd m

ust b

e co

ntin

ued

until

it c

an b

e pr

oven

that

farm

act

iviti

es a

re n

ot c

ontri

butin

g to

the

degr

adat

ion

of th

e qu

ality

of t

he re

ceiv

ing

wat

er b

odie

s

3. Im

plem

enta

tion

of p

lans

to m

anag

e or

pro

tect

st

ream

s, la

kes,

and

othe

r wat

er b

odie

s.4.

Iden

tifica

tion

and

prot

ectio

n of

non

-for

este

d w

etla

nds,

incl

udin

g bo

gs, f

ens,

vern

al p

ools

, and

m

arsh

es o

f sig

nific

ant s

ize.

5. W

here

regu

latio

ns o

r BM

Ps d

o no

t cur

rent

ly

exis

t to

prot

ect r

ipar

ian

area

s, us

e of

exp

erts

to

iden

tify

appr

opria

te p

rote

ctio

n m

easu

res.

GH

G

Air

Po

llutio

n11

.A.2

: Man

agem

ent p

lan

with

the

obje

ctiv

e of

re

duci

ng a

nd/o

r rec

yclin

g w

aste

and

pol

lutio

n

GM

O8.

6: F

arm

mus

t tak

e st

eps t

o av

oid

intro

duci

ng, c

ultiv

atin

g or

pr

oces

sing

tran

sgen

ic c

rops

8.6:

Whe

n ne

arby

tran

sgen

ic m

ater

ials

are

acc

iden

tally

intro

duce

d in

to a

cer

tified

farm

’s c

rop,

the

farm

mus

t dev

elop

and

exe

cute

a p

lan

to is

olat

e th

e cr

ops a

nd p

rovi

de fo

llow

-up

in o

rder

to c

ompl

y w

ith th

e re

quire

men

ts o

f thi

s crit

erio

n

2.5:

Pro

gram

Par

ticip

ants

that

util

ize

impr

oved

pl

antin

g st

ock,

incl

udin

g tre

es d

eriv

ed th

roug

h bi

otec

hnol

ogy,

shal

l use

soun

d sc

ient

ific

met

hods

an

d fo

llow

all

appl

icab

le la

ws a

nd in

tern

atio

nal

prot

ocol

s. pr

ogra

m fo

r app

ropr

iate

rese

arch

, te

stin

g, e

valu

atio

n, a

nd d

eplo

ymen

t of i

mpr

oved

pl

antin

g st

ock,

incl

udin

g tre

es d

eriv

ed th

roug

h bi

otec

hnol

ogy

3.C

.1+2

: Alth

ough

GM

O c

offe

e is

cur

rent

ly

not c

omm

erci

ally

ava

ilabl

e an

d w

ill p

roba

bly

not b

e so

in th

e fo

rese

eabl

e fu

ture

, the

pro

duce

r m

ust c

ompl

y w

ith a

ll th

e re

leva

nt re

gula

tions

in

the

coun

try o

f pro

duct

ion

once

he

is in

volv

ed

in (t

rial)

plan

tings

of G

MO

cof

fee

and

info

rm

his c

lient

onc

e he

is in

volv

ed in

(tria

l) pl

antin

gs

of G

MO

cof

fee

WWF Germany 62

A-4

Syn

opsi

s of

soc

ial s

tand

ards

for b

iom

ass

FLO

(for

sm

all f

arm

ers

and

wor

kers

)FL

P

labo

r co

nditi

ons

4.3.

2.2:

Leg

ally

bin

ding

labo

r con

tract

s4.

3.2.

3: a

ll pe

rman

ent w

orke

rs h

avin

g th

e be

nefit

s of a

pro

vide

nt fu

nd o

r pen

sion

sc

hem

e4.

3.2.

4: A

dequ

ate

sick

leav

e re

gula

tion

4.3.

2.5:

Wor

king

hou

rs a

nd o

verti

me

regu

latio

n4.

3.2.

1: C

ondi

tions

of e

mpl

oym

ent l

ike

mat

erni

ty le

ave,

soci

al se

curit

y pr

ovis

ions

no

n-m

onet

ary

bene

fits,

etc.

at l

east

the

prov

isio

ns a

s lai

d ou

t in

the

Col

lect

ive

Bar

gain

ing

Agr

eem

ent o

r the

Agr

eem

ent s

igne

d be

twee

n th

e w

orke

rs‘ c

omm

ittee

m

ust b

e fu

lfille

d

7: N

ot se

ason

al o

r tem

pora

ry w

ork

shal

l be

done

by

wor

kers

on

perm

anen

t co

ntra

cts;

pro

visi

ons f

or n

on-p

erm

anen

t and

seas

onal

wor

kers

, inc

ludi

ng fr

eedo

m

of a

ssoc

iatio

n, sh

ould

be

not l

ess f

avor

able

than

for p

erm

anen

t wor

kers

; eve

ry

wor

ker s

hall

get a

cop

y of

thei

r con

tract

4: H

ours

of w

ork

shal

l com

ply

with

app

licab

le la

w a

nd in

dust

ry st

anda

rds;

no

exce

ss o

f 48

hour

s wor

k pe

r wee

k, o

ne d

ay o

ff ev

ery

wee

k, o

verti

me

is v

olun

tary

an

d sh

all n

ot e

xcee

d 12

hou

rs p

er w

eek

10: N

o fo

rced

labo

r, in

clud

ed b

onde

d or

invo

lunt

ary

pris

on la

bor (

ILO

C

onve

ntio

ns 2

9 an

d 10

5); w

orke

rs a

re n

ot re

quire

d to

lodg

e „d

epos

its“

or th

eir

iden

tity

pape

rs w

ith th

eir e

mpl

oyer

wag

es4.

3: W

ages

in li

ne w

ith o

r exc

eedi

ng n

atio

nal l

aws a

nd a

gree

men

ts o

n m

inim

um

wag

es o

r the

regi

onal

ave

rage

4.3.

1.1:

Sal

arie

s are

in li

ne w

ith o

r exc

eedi

ng re

gion

al a

vera

ge a

nd o

ffici

al

min

imum

wag

es fo

r sim

ilar o

ccup

atio

ns4.

3.1.

2: R

egul

arly

pay

men

t in

lega

l ten

der a

nd p

rope

rly d

ocum

ente

d

3: W

ages

and

ben

efits

mee

t at l

east

lega

l or i

ndus

try m

inim

um st

anda

rds,

suffi

cien

t to

mee

t bas

ic n

eeds

of w

orke

rs a

nd th

eir f

amili

es a

nd to

pro

vide

som

e di

scre

tiona

ry in

com

e; p

ay sh

ould

be

in c

ash,

dire

ct to

the

wor

kers

, pro

mpt

ly a

nd in

fu

ll

heal

th4.

4: F

LO fo

llow

s ILO

Con

vent

ion

155

4.4.

1.1:

Wor

kpla

ces,

mac

hine

ry a

nd e

quip

men

t are

safe

and

with

out r

isk

to h

ealth

. if

requ

ired:

insp

ectio

ns b

y in

depe

nden

t ins

pect

ion

agen

cy4.

4.1.

2: N

ot a

llow

ed to

wor

k w

ith th

e ap

plic

atio

n of

pes

ticid

es: p

erso

ns y

oung

er

than

18

year

s, pr

egna

nt o

r nur

sing

wom

en, p

erso

ns w

ith in

capa

cita

ted

men

tal

cond

ition

s; p

erso

ns w

ith sp

ecia

l dis

ease

s 4.

4.2.

2: T

rain

ing

in h

andl

ing

agro

chem

ical

s: st

orag

e, a

pplic

atio

n an

d di

spos

al,

rele

vant

hea

lth p

rote

ctio

n an

d fir

st a

id; i

nfor

mat

ion

of a

ll re

leva

nt in

form

atio

n on

th

e pr

oduc

ts in

the

loca

l lan

guag

e 4.

4.2.

3: A

dequ

ate

pers

onal

pro

tect

ive

equi

pmen

t4.

4.2.

4: W

orke

rs’ c

apab

ility

and

aw

aren

ess o

f the

che

mic

als t

hey

are

usin

g,

rele

vant

hea

lth p

rote

ctio

n an

d fir

st a

id a

re im

prov

ed th

roug

h tra

inin

g.4.

4.2.

5: O

ccup

atio

nal h

ealth

and

safe

ty c

omm

ittee

with

the

parti

cipa

tion

of

wor

kers

5: C

ompl

y w

ith in

tern

atio

nally

reco

gniz

ed h

ealth

and

safe

ty st

anda

rds (

ILO

C

onve

ntio

n 17

0); f

ree

and

appr

opria

te p

rote

ctiv

e cl

othi

ng a

nd e

quip

men

t; sa

fe a

nd

hygi

enic

wor

king

env

ironm

ent;

wor

kers

and

thei

r org

aniz

atio

ns m

ust b

e co

nsul

ted,

tra

ined

and

allo

wed

to in

vest

igat

e sa

fety

issu

es; s

uppl

y w

ith d

rinki

ng w

ater

, cle

an

toile

ts a

nd sh

ower

s and

was

hing

faci

litie

s; h

ousi

ng sh

ould

com

ply

at le

ast w

ith

the

min

imum

stan

dard

s for

size

, ven

tilat

ion,

coo

king

faci

litie

s, w

ater

supp

ly a

nd

sani

tary

faci

litie

s. (I

LO C

onve

ntio

n 11

0, A

rticl

es 8

5-88

)6:

Ass

essm

ent o

f the

risk

s of t

he c

hem

ical

s use

d, m

easu

res t

o pr

even

t any

da

mag

e to

the

heal

th o

f wor

kers

; com

pani

es sh

all r

ecor

d an

d re

duce

pes

ticid

e an

d fe

rtiliz

er; n

o ba

nned

, hig

hly

toxi

c (W

HO

I) o

r car

cino

geni

c pe

stic

ide

and

chem

ical

; saf

ety

inst

ruct

ions

and

re-e

ntry

inte

rval

s mus

t be

stric

tly o

bser

ved

and

mon

itore

d, sp

rayi

ng, h

andl

ing

and

stor

ing

pest

icid

es a

nd c

hem

ical

s sho

uld

be d

one

by sp

ecia

lly tr

aine

d pe

ople

with

suita

ble

equi

pmen

t

WWF Germany 63

FLO

(for

sm

all f

arm

ers

and

wor

kers

)FL

P

child

labo

r4.

1: F

LO fo

llow

s ILO

Con

vent

ions

29,

105

, 138

and

182

on

child

labo

r and

forc

ed

labo

r4.

1.1.

1: F

orce

d or

bon

ded

labo

r mus

t not

occ

ur4.

1.1.

2: C

hild

ren

are

not e

mpl

oyed

(con

tract

ed) b

elow

the

age

of 1

5

9: N

o us

e of

chi

ld la

bor;

no w

orke

rs u

nder

the

age

of 1

5 ye

ars o

r und

er th

e co

mpu

lsor

y sc

hool

-leav

ing

age;

chi

ldre

n un

der 1

8 sh

all n

ot w

ork

in h

azar

dous

co

nditi

ons (

ILO

Con

vent

ion

138)

; ade

quat

e tra

nsiti

onal

eco

nom

ic a

ssis

tanc

e an

d ap

prop

riate

edu

catio

nal o

ppor

tuni

ties s

hall

be p

rovi

ded

to a

ny re

plac

ed c

hild

w

orke

rs

child

labo

r4.

1.1.

3: C

hild

ren

may

onl

y w

ork

if th

eir e

duca

tion

is n

ot je

opar

dize

d an

d th

ey d

o no

t exe

cute

task

s, w

hich

are

esp

ecia

lly h

azar

dous

for t

hem

due

to th

eir a

ge

unio

ns4.

2: F

LO fo

llow

s ILO

Con

vent

ions

87

and

98 o

n fr

eedo

m o

f ass

ocia

tion

and

colle

ctiv

e ba

rgai

ning

wor

kers

and

em

ploy

ers s

hall

have

the

right

to e

stab

lish

and

to jo

in o

rgan

izat

ions

of

thei

r ow

n ch

oosi

ng, a

nd to

dra

w u

p th

eir c

onst

itutio

ns a

nd ru

les,

to e

lect

thei

r re

pres

enta

tives

and

to fo

rmul

ate

thei

r pro

gram

mes

wor

kers

shal

l enj

oy a

dequ

ate

prot

ectio

n ag

ains

t act

s of a

nti-u

nion

dis

crim

inat

ion

in re

spec

t of t

heir

empl

oym

ent

4.2.

1.1:

Rig

ht to

col

lect

ive

barg

aini

ng4.

2.2.

1: F

LO e

xpec

ts th

at th

e w

orke

rs w

ill b

e re

pres

ente

d by

trad

e un

ions

and

that

th

e w

orke

rs w

ill b

e co

vere

d by

a C

olle

ctiv

e B

arga

inin

g A

gree

men

t (C

BA

); if

no

inde

pend

ent a

nd a

ctiv

e un

ion

exis

ts in

the

regi

on a

nd th

e se

ctor

, all

the

wor

ker’s

w

ill d

emoc

ratic

ally

ele

ct a

wor

ker’s

com

mitt

ee

1: R

ight

s of a

ll w

orke

rs to

form

and

join

trad

e un

ions

and

to b

arga

in c

olle

ctiv

ely

shal

l be

reco

gniz

ed (I

LO C

onve

ntio

ns 8

7 an

d 98

); w

orke

rs re

pres

enta

tives

shal

l no

t be

subj

ect o

f dis

crim

inat

ion

and

shal

l hav

e ac

cess

to a

ll w

orkp

lace

s nec

essa

ry

to e

nabl

e th

em to

car

ry o

ut th

eir r

epre

sent

atio

n fu

nctio

ns. (

ILO

Con

vent

ion

135)

chan

ge o

f loc

al

com

mun

ities

w

ay o

f life

, ec

onom

y an

d cu

lture

1.1.

1.1:

Pro

mot

ion

of so

cial

and

eco

nom

ical

dev

elop

men

t of s

mal

l far

mer

s1.

2.: M

embe

rs o

f the

fairt

rade

org

aniz

atio

ns a

re sm

all p

rodu

cers

; of e

very

Fa

irtra

de-c

ertifi

ed p

rodu

ct so

ld b

y th

e or

gani

zatio

n, m

ore

than

50%

of t

he v

olum

e m

ust b

e pr

oduc

ed b

y sm

all p

rodu

cers

disc

rim

inat

ion

1.4:

FLO

follo

ws I

LO C

onve

ntio

n 11

1 on

end

ing

disc

rimin

atio

n of

wor

kers

1.4.

1: R

estri

ctio

n of

new

mem

bers

may

not

con

tribu

te to

the

disc

rimin

atio

n of

pa

rticu

lar s

ocia

l gro

ups

2: A

cces

s to

jobs

and

trai

ning

on

equa

l ter

ms,

irres

pect

ive

of g

ende

r, ag

e, e

thni

c or

igin

, col

or, m

arita

l sta

tus,

sexu

al o

rient

atio

n, p

oliti

cal o

pini

on, r

elig

ion

or so

cial

or

igin

(ILO

Con

vent

ions

100

and

111

); ph

ysic

al h

aras

smen

t or p

sych

olog

ical

op

pres

sion

, par

ticul

arly

of w

omen

wor

kers

, mus

t not

be

tole

rate

d

land

rig

hts

WWF Germany 64

FSC

PEFC

labo

ur

cond

ition

sco

mpl

ianc

e w

ith IL

O n

orm

sco

mpl

ianc

e w

ith IL

O n

orm

s

wag

esco

mpl

ianc

e w

ith IL

O n

orm

sco

mpl

ianc

e w

ith IL

O n

orm

s

heal

th4.

2: F

ores

t man

agem

ent s

houl

d m

eet o

r exc

eed

all a

pplic

able

law

s and

/or r

egul

atio

ns c

over

ing

heal

th a

nd sa

fety

of e

mpl

oyee

s and

thei

r fam

ilies

6.2.

b. W

orki

ng c

ondi

tions

shou

ld b

e sa

fe, a

nd g

uida

nce

and

train

ing

in sa

fe

wor

king

pra

ctic

e sh

ould

be

prov

ided

.

child

labo

urco

mpl

ianc

e w

ith IL

O n

orm

sco

mpl

ianc

e w

ith IL

O n

orm

s

unio

ns4.

3: R

ight

s of w

orke

rs to

org

aniz

e an

d vo

lunt

arily

neg

otia

te w

ith th

eir e

mpl

oyer

s sha

ll be

gu

aran

teed

as o

utlin

ed in

Con

vent

ions

87

and

98 o

f the

Inte

rnat

iona

l Lab

or O

rgan

izat

ion

(ILO

).co

mpl

ianc

e w

ith IL

O n

orm

s

chan

ge o

f loc

al

com

mun

ities

w

ay o

f life

, ec

onom

y an

d cu

lture

4: F

ores

t man

agem

ent o

pera

tions

shal

l mai

ntai

n or

enh

ance

the

long

-term

soci

al a

nd e

cono

mic

w

ell-b

eing

of f

ores

t wor

kers

and

loca

l com

mun

ities

4.1:

Com

mun

ities

with

in, o

r adj

acen

t to,

the

fore

st m

anag

emen

t are

a sh

ould

be

give

n op

portu

nitie

s fo

r em

ploy

men

t, tra

inin

g, a

nd o

ther

serv

ices

4.4:

Man

agem

ent p

lann

ing

and

oper

atio

ns sh

all i

ncor

pora

te th

e re

sults

of e

valu

atio

ns o

f soc

ial

impa

ct. C

onsu

ltatio

ns sh

all b

e m

aint

aine

d w

ith p

eopl

e an

d gr

oups

(bot

h m

en a

nd w

omen

) dire

ctly

af

fect

ed b

y m

anag

emen

t ope

ratio

ns.

4.5:

Mec

hani

sms f

or re

solv

ing

grie

vanc

es a

nd fo

r pro

vidi

ng fa

ir co

mpe

nsat

ion

in th

e ca

se o

f los

s or

dam

age

affe

ctin

g th

e le

gal o

r cus

tom

ary

right

s, pr

oper

ty, r

esou

rces

, or l

ivel

ihoo

ds o

f loc

al

peop

les,

mea

sure

s sha

ll be

take

n to

avo

id su

ch lo

ss o

r dam

age

5.4:

For

est m

anag

emen

t sho

uld

striv

e to

stre

ngth

en a

nd d

iver

sify

the

loca

l eco

nom

y, a

void

ing

depe

nden

ce o

n a

sing

le fo

rest

pro

duct

.

6.1

a. F

ores

t man

agem

ent p

lann

ing

shou

ld a

im to

resp

ect t

he m

ultip

le

func

tions

of f

ores

ts to

soci

ety,

hav

e du

e re

gard

to th

e ro

le o

f for

estry

in

rura

l dev

elop

men

t, an

d es

peci

ally

con

side

r new

opp

ortu

nitie

s for

em

ploy

men

t in

conn

ectio

n w

ith th

e so

cio-

econ

omic

func

tions

of f

ores

ts.

6.1

c. A

dequ

ate

publ

ic a

cces

s to

fore

sts f

or th

e pu

rpos

e of

recr

eatio

n sh

ould

be

pro

vide

d ta

king

into

acc

ount

the

resp

ect f

or o

wne

rshi

p rig

hts a

nd th

e rig

hts o

f oth

ers,

the

effe

cts o

n fo

rest

reso

urce

s and

eco

syst

ems,

as w

ell a

s th

e co

mpa

tibili

ty w

ith o

ther

func

tions

of t

he fo

rest

.6.

1 d.

Site

s with

reco

gniz

ed sp

ecifi

c hi

stor

ical

, cul

tura

l or s

pirit

ual

sign

ifica

nce

shou

ld b

e pr

otec

ted

or m

anag

ed in

a w

ay th

at ta

kes d

ue re

gard

of

the

sign

ifica

nce

of th

e si

te.

6.2.

a. F

ores

t man

agem

ent p

ract

ices

shou

ld m

ake

the

best

use

of l

ocal

fore

st

rela

ted

expe

rienc

e an

d kn

owle

dge,

such

as o

f loc

al c

omm

uniti

es, f

ores

t ow

ners

, NG

Os a

nd lo

cal p

eopl

e.

disc

rim

inat

ion

com

plia

nce

with

ILO

nor

ms

com

plia

nce

with

ILO

nor

ms

land

rig

ht2:

Lon

g-te

rm te

nure

and

use

righ

ts to

the

land

and

fore

st re

sour

ces s

hall

be c

lear

ly d

efine

d,

docu

men

ted

and

lega

lly e

stab

lishe

d2.

2: C

omm

uniti

es w

ith le

gal o

r cus

tom

ary

tenu

re o

r use

righ

ts sh

all m

aint

ain

cont

rol,

to th

e ex

tent

ne

cess

ary

to p

rote

ct th

eir r

ight

s or r

esou

rces

, ove

r for

est o

pera

tions

unl

ess t

hey

dele

gate

con

trol

with

free

and

info

rmed

con

sent

to o

ther

age

ncie

s2.

3: M

echa

nism

s to

reso

lve

disp

utes

ove

r ten

ure

clai

ms a

nd u

se ri

ghts

3: L

egal

and

cus

tom

ary

right

s of i

ndig

enou

s peo

ples

to o

wn,

use

and

man

age

thei

r lan

ds,

terr

itorie

s, an

d re

sour

ces s

hall

be re

cogn

ized

and

resp

ecte

d3.

3: S

ites o

f spe

cial

cul

tura

l, ec

olog

ical

, eco

nom

ic o

r rel

igio

us si

gnifi

canc

e to

indi

geno

us p

eopl

es

shal

l be

clea

rly id

entifi

ed in

coo

pera

tion

with

such

peo

ples

, and

reco

gniz

ed a

nd p

rote

cted

by

fore

st

man

ager

s3.

4: In

dige

nous

peo

ples

shal

l be

com

pens

ated

for t

he a

pplic

atio

n of

thei

r tra

ditio

nal k

now

ledg

e re

gard

ing

the

use

of fo

rest

spec

ies o

r man

agem

ent s

yste

ms i

n fo

rest

ope

ratio

ns

6.1.

b. P

rope

rty ri

ghts

and

land

tenu

re a

rran

gem

ents

shou

ld b

e cl

early

de

fined

, doc

umen

ted

and

esta

blis

hed

for t

he re

leva

nt fo

rest

are

a. L

ikew

ise,

le

gal,

cust

omar

y an

d tra

ditio

nal r

ight

s rel

ated

to th

e fo

rest

land

shou

ld b

e cl

arifi

ed, r

ecog

nize

d an

d re

spec

ted.

WWF Germany 65

Ethi

cal T

radi

ng In

itiat

ive

(ETI

)C

lean

clo

thes

Cam

paig

n (C

CC

) B

asel

Crit

eria

for R

espo

nsib

le S

oy P

rodu

ctio

n

labo

r co

nditi

ons

6.1:

Wor

king

hou

rs c

ompl

y w

ith n

atio

nal l

aws a

nd

benc

hmar

k in

dust

ry st

anda

rds

6.2:

No

exce

ed o

f 48

hour

s per

wee

k, a

t lea

st o

ne d

ay

off f

or e

very

7 d

ay p

erio

d on

ave

rage

, ove

rtim

e is

vo

lunt

ary

and

shal

l not

exc

eed

12 h

ours

per

wee

k1.

1: N

o fo

rced

, bon

ded

or in

volu

ntar

y pr

ison

labo

r1.

2: W

orke

rs a

re n

ot re

quire

d to

lodg

e „d

epos

its“

or

thei

r ide

ntity

pap

ers w

ith th

eir e

mpl

oyer

and

are

free

to

leav

e th

eir e

mpl

oyer

afte

r rea

sona

ble

notic

e8.

1: W

ork

perf

orm

ed m

ust b

e on

the

basi

s of

reco

gniz

ed e

mpl

oym

ent r

elat

ions

hips

est

ablis

hed

thro

ugh

natio

nal l

aw a

nd p

ract

ice

9.1:

Phy

sica

l abu

se o

r dis

cipl

ine,

the

thre

at o

f ph

ysic

al a

buse

, sex

ual o

r oth

er h

aras

smen

t and

ve

rbal

abu

se o

r oth

er fo

rms o

f int

imid

atio

n sh

all b

e pr

ohib

ited

No

use

of fo

rced

, inc

ludi

ng b

onde

d or

pris

on, l

abor

(I

LO C

onve

ntio

ns 2

9 an

d 10

5)N

o re

quire

men

t to

lodg

e „d

epos

its“

or id

entit

y pa

pers

w

ith th

eir e

mpl

oyer

hour

s of w

ork

shal

l com

ply

with

app

licab

le la

ws a

nd

indu

stry

stan

dard

sno

exc

eed

of 4

8 ho

urs p

er w

eek,

at l

east

one

day

of

f for

eve

ry 7

day

per

iod

on a

vera

ge, o

verti

me

is

volu

ntar

y an

d sh

all n

ot e

xcee

d 12

hou

rs p

er w

eek

Obl

igat

ions

to e

mpl

oyee

s und

er la

bor o

r soc

ial

secu

rity

law

s and

regu

latio

ns a

risin

g fr

om th

e re

gula

r em

ploy

men

t rel

atio

nshi

p sh

all n

ot b

e av

oide

d th

roug

h th

e us

e of

labo

r-onl

y co

ntra

ctin

g ar

rang

emen

ts,

or th

roug

h ap

pren

tices

hip

sche

mes

whe

re th

ere

is

no re

al in

tent

to im

part

skill

s or p

rovi

de re

gula

r em

ploy

men

tYo

unge

r wor

kers

shal

l be

give

n th

e op

portu

nity

to

parti

cipa

te in

edu

catio

n an

d tra

inin

g pr

ogra

mm

es

4.2.

1: A

ccep

tabl

e pa

y an

d co

nditi

ons;

pay

and

co

nditi

ons i

n ac

cord

ance

with

nat

iona

l law

s and

re

gula

tions

or s

ecto

r or t

rade

uni

on st

anda

rds;

la

bor l

aws,

unio

n ag

reem

ents

or d

irect

con

tract

s of

empl

oym

ent d

etai

ling

paym

ents

and

con

ditio

ns o

f em

ploy

men

t sho

uld

be a

vaila

ble

in th

e la

ngua

ges

unde

rsto

od b

y th

e w

orke

rs o

r exp

lain

ed c

aref

ully

to

them

by

a se

nior

com

pany

offi

cial

; acc

ess t

o po

tabl

e w

ater

and

segr

egat

ed sa

nita

ry a

nd b

athi

ng fa

cilit

ies;

if

wor

ker i

s req

uire

d to

live

on

the

farm

, the

n ad

equa

te,

affo

rdab

le h

ousi

ng, m

edic

al, e

duca

tiona

l and

wel

fare

am

eniti

es m

ust b

e pr

ovid

ed4.

3.1:

For

ced

labo

r, in

clud

ing

slav

e la

bor,

debt

bon

dage

an

d ex

ploi

tatio

n of

pris

on in

mat

es m

ust b

e pr

ohib

ited;

w

orke

rs m

ust n

ot b

e ob

liged

to lo

dge

a ‘g

uara

ntee

pa

ymen

t’ or

the

orig

inal

s of t

heir

iden

tity

pape

rs w

ith

thei

r em

ploy

er

wag

es5.

1: W

ages

and

ben

efits

pai

d fo

r a st

anda

rd w

orki

ng

wee

k m

eet,

at a

min

imum

, nat

iona

l leg

al st

anda

rds

or in

dust

ry b

ench

mar

k st

anda

rds;

wag

es m

eet b

asic

ne

eds a

nd to

pro

vide

som

e di

scre

tiona

ry in

com

e5.

2: P

rovi

ding

of w

ritte

n an

d un

ders

tand

able

in

form

atio

n ab

out t

he w

orke

rs e

mpl

oym

ent

cond

ition

s in

resp

ect t

o w

ages

bef

ore

they

ent

er

empl

oym

ent a

nd a

bout

the

parti

cula

rs o

f the

ir w

ages

fo

r the

pay

per

iod

conc

erne

d ea

ch ti

me

that

they

are

pa

id5.

3: D

educ

tions

from

wag

es a

s a d

isci

plin

ary

mea

sure

sh

all n

ot b

e pe

rmitt

ed n

or sh

all a

ny d

educ

tions

from

w

ages

not

pro

vide

d fo

r by

natio

nal l

aw b

e pe

rmitt

ed

with

out t

he e

xpre

ssed

per

mis

sion

of t

he w

orke

r co

ncer

ned

Livi

ng w

ages

are

pai

dW

ages

and

ben

efits

mee

t at l

east

lega

l or i

ndus

try

min

imum

stan

dard

s and

are

suffi

cien

t to

mee

t bas

ic

need

s of w

orke

rs a

nd th

eir f

amili

es a

nd to

pro

vide

so

me

disc

retio

nary

inco

me

No

dedu

ctio

ns fr

om w

ages

as a

dis

cipl

inar

y m

easu

reph

ysic

al a

buse

, thr

eats

of p

hysi

cal a

buse

, unu

sual

pu

nish

men

ts o

r dis

cipl

ine,

sexu

al a

nd o

ther

ha

rass

men

t, an

d in

timid

atio

n by

the

empl

oyer

is

stric

tly p

rohi

bite

d

4.2:

Acc

epta

ble

pay

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith n

atio

nal l

aws

and

regu

latio

ns o

r sec

tor o

r tra

de u

nion

stan

dard

s; p

ay

mee

ts o

r exc

eeds

the

natio

nal m

inim

um w

age

or a

re

gion

al a

vera

ge if

no

min

imum

wag

e ex

ists

and

mus

t en

able

an

adeq

uate

stan

dard

of l

ivin

g, a

min

imum

wag

e sh

ould

be

esta

blis

hed

and

adju

sted

from

tim

e to

tim

e in

co

nsul

tatio

n w

ith re

leva

nt p

artie

s

heal

th3.

1: S

afe

and

hygi

enic

wor

king

env

ironm

ent;

prev

ent a

ccid

ents

and

inju

ry to

hea

lth a

risin

g ou

t of,

asso

ciat

ed w

ith, o

r occ

urrin

g in

the

cour

se o

f wor

k3.

2: R

egul

ar a

nd re

cord

ed h

ealth

and

safe

ty tr

aini

ng

Safe

and

hyg

ieni

c w

orki

ng e

nviro

nmen

t be

st o

ccup

atio

nal h

ealth

and

safe

ty p

ract

ice

shal

l be

prom

oted

4.3.

2: S

afe

and

heal

thy

wor

king

env

ironm

ent;

adeq

uate

pr

otec

tive

equi

pmen

t sho

uld

be a

vaila

ble

to la

bore

rs

at th

e pl

ace

of w

ork

to c

over

all

pote

ntia

lly h

azar

dous

op

erat

ions

; acc

iden

t and

em

erge

ncy

proc

edur

es sh

ould

WWF Germany 66

Ethi

cal T

radi

ng In

itiat

ive

(ETI

)C

lean

clo

thes

Cam

paig

n (C

CC

) B

asel

Crit

eria

for R

espo

nsib

le S

oy P

rodu

ctio

n

heal

th3.

3: A

cces

s to

clea

n to

ilet f

acili

ties a

nd to

pot

able

w

ater

, and

, if a

ppro

pria

te, s

anita

ry fa

cilit

ies f

or fo

od

stor

age

shal

l be

prov

ided

3.4:

Acc

omm

odat

ion,

whe

re p

rovi

ded,

shal

l be

clea

n,

safe

, and

mee

t the

bas

ic n

eeds

of t

he w

orke

rs3.

5: C

ompa

ny o

bser

ving

the

code

shal

l ass

ign

resp

onsi

bilit

y fo

r hea

lth a

nd sa

fety

to a

seni

or

man

agem

ent r

epre

sent

ativ

e

exis

t and

inst

ruct

ions

shou

ld b

e cl

early

und

erst

ood

by a

ll w

orke

rs, w

orke

rs tr

aine

d in

Firs

t Aid

shou

ld b

e pr

esen

t in

both

fiel

d an

d ot

her f

arm

ope

ratio

ns a

nd fi

rst

aid

equi

pmen

t sho

uld

be a

vaila

ble

at w

orks

ites;

reco

rds

shou

ld b

e ke

pt o

f all

acci

dent

s and

sick

day

s and

pe

riodi

cally

revi

ewed

; acc

iden

t ins

uran

ce;

4.3.

3: T

rain

ing

mus

t be

give

n to

all

wor

kers

ope

ratin

g da

nger

ous o

r com

plex

equ

ipm

ent o

r sub

stan

ces,

for

smal

lhol

ders

trai

ning

reco

rds s

houl

d no

t be

requ

ired

but a

nyon

e w

orki

ng o

n th

e fa

rm sh

ould

be

adeq

uate

ly

train

ed fo

r the

job

they

are

doi

ng

child

labo

r4.

1: T

here

shal

l be

no n

ew re

crui

tmen

t of c

hild

labo

r4.

3: C

hild

ren

and

youn

g pe

rson

s und

er 1

8 sh

all n

ot

be e

mpl

oyed

at n

ight

or i

n ha

zard

ous c

ondi

tions

4.4:

Con

form

to th

e pr

ovis

ions

of t

he re

leva

nt IL

O

stan

dard

s.

No

child

labo

rO

nly

wor

kers

abo

ve th

e ag

e of

15

year

s or a

bove

th

e co

mpu

lsor

y sc

hool

-leav

ing

age

shal

l be

enga

ged

(ILO

Con

vent

ion

138)

Ade

quat

e tra

nsiti

onal

eco

nom

ic a

ssis

tanc

e an

d ap

prop

riate

edu

catio

nal o

ppor

tuni

ties s

hall

be

prov

ided

to a

ny re

plac

ed c

hild

wor

kers

4.3.

1. C

hild

labo

r [...

] sho

uld

not b

e us

ed o

n th

e fa

rm;

only

wor

kers

abo

ve th

e m

inim

um sc

hool

leav

ing

age

in th

e co

untry

or w

ho a

re a

t lea

st 1

5 ye

ars o

ld

may

be

empl

oyed

; no

wor

kers

und

er th

e ag

e of

18

shou

ld c

ondu

ct h

azar

dous

wor

k; a

dequ

ate

trans

ition

al

econ

omic

ass

ista

nce

and

appr

opria

te e

duca

tiona

l op

portu

nitie

s mus

t be

offe

red

to a

ny c

hild

wor

kers

w

ho m

ay h

ave

to b

e di

smis

sed;

in p

lace

s whe

re w

hole

fa

mili

es w

ork

toge

ther

on

farm

s, ch

ildre

n an

d ot

her

rela

tives

may

wor

k on

fam

ily-o

wne

d an

d ru

n fa

rms

prov

ided

that

they

are

not

ther

eby

prev

ente

d fr

om

atte

ndin

g sc

hool

unio

ns2.

1: R

ight

to jo

in o

r for

m tr

ade

unio

ns o

f the

ir ow

n ch

oosi

ng a

nd to

bar

gain

col

lect

ivel

y2.

2: O

pen

attit

ude

tow

ards

the

activ

ities

of t

rade

un

ions

and

thei

r org

aniz

atio

nal a

ctiv

ities

, wor

kers

re

pres

enta

tives

are

not

dis

crim

inat

ed a

gain

st a

nd h

ave

acce

ss to

car

ry o

ut th

eir r

epre

sent

ativ

e fu

nctio

ns in

th

e w

orkp

lace

2.4:

Whe

re th

e rig

ht to

free

dom

of a

ssoc

iatio

n an

d co

llect

ive

barg

aini

ng is

rest

ricte

d un

der l

aw,

the

empl

oyer

faci

litat

es, a

nd d

oes n

ot h

inde

r, th

e de

velo

pmen

t of p

aral

lel m

eans

for i

ndep

ende

nt a

nd

free

ass

ocia

tion

and

barg

aini

ng

Free

dom

of a

ssoc

iatio

n an

d th

e rig

ht to

col

lect

ive

barg

aini

ngR

ight

of a

ll w

orke

rs to

form

and

join

trad

e un

ions

an

d to

bar

gain

col

lect

ivel

y sh

all b

e re

cogn

ized

(ILO

C

onve

ntio

ns 8

7 an

d 98

) W

orke

rs‘ r

epre

sent

ativ

es sh

all n

ot b

e th

e su

bjec

t of

dis

crim

inat

ion

and

shal

l hav

e ac

cess

to a

ll w

orkp

lace

s nec

essa

ry to

ena

ble

them

to c

arry

out

th

eir r

epre

sent

atio

n fu

nctio

ns (I

LO C

onve

ntio

n 13

5 an

d R

ecom

men

datio

n 14

3)

Empl

oyer

s sha

ll ad

opt a

pos

itive

app

roac

h to

war

ds

the

activ

ities

of t

rade

uni

ons a

nd a

n op

en a

ttitu

de

tow

ards

thei

r org

aniz

atio

nal a

ctiv

ities

.

4.2.

2: F

reed

om o

f ass

ocia

tion

and

barg

aini

ng; r

ight

of

empl

oyee

s and

con

tract

ors t

o fo

rm a

ssoc

iatio

ns a

nd

barg

ain

colle

ctiv

ely

with

thei

r em

ploy

er, i

n ac

cord

ance

w

ith C

onve

ntio

ns 8

7 an

d 98

of t

he In

tern

atio

nal L

abor

O

rgan

izat

ion

WWF Germany 67

Ethi

cal T

radi

ng In

itiat

ive

(ETI

)C

lean

clo

thes

Cam

paig

n (C

CC

) B

asel

Crit

eria

for R

espo

nsib

le S

oy P

rodu

ctio

n

chan

ge o

f loc

al

com

mun

ities

w

ay o

f life

, ec

onom

y an

d cu

lture

4.1.

2: C

omm

unic

atio

n an

d co

nsul

tatio

n w

ith lo

cal

com

mun

ities

and

oth

er a

ffect

ed o

r int

eres

ted

parti

es;

shou

ld b

e de

sign

ed o

r agr

eed

with

loca

l com

mun

ities

an

d ot

her a

ffect

ed o

r int

eres

ted

parti

es4.

1.3:

Sys

tem

for d

ealin

g w

ith c

ompl

aint

s and

gr

ieva

nces

4.3.

4: G

row

ers s

houl

d de

al fa

irly

with

loca

l bus

ines

ses

and

mak

e ef

forts

to c

ontri

bute

to th

e lo

cal e

cono

my

whe

reve

r pos

sibl

e; m

axim

izin

g lo

cal e

mpl

oym

ent,

usin

g lo

cal g

oods

and

serv

ices

whe

reve

r pos

sibl

e,

payi

ng fo

r goo

ds a

nd se

rvic

es p

rom

ptly

, sup

porti

ng,

as fa

r as i

s pra

ctic

al, a

ny p

roje

cts t

hat i

mpr

ove

loca

l in

fras

truct

ure

or fa

cilit

ies;

(Thi

s crit

erio

n do

es n

ot

appl

y to

indi

vidu

al sm

allh

olde

rs)

disc

rim

inat

ion

7.1:

No

disc

rimin

atio

n in

hiri

ng c

ompe

nsat

ion,

acc

ess

to tr

aini

ng, p

rom

otio

n, te

rmin

atio

n or

retir

emen

t ba

sed

on ra

ce, c

aste

, nat

iona

l orig

in, r

elig

ion,

age

, di

sabi

lity,

gen

der,

mar

ital s

tatu

s, se

xual

orie

ntat

ion,

un

ion

mem

bers

hip

or p

oliti

cal a

ffilia

tion

No

disc

rimin

atio

n in

em

ploy

men

t. Eq

ualit

y of

op

portu

nity

and

trea

tmen

t reg

ardl

ess o

f rac

e, c

olor

, se

x, re

ligio

n, p

oliti

cal o

pini

on, n

atio

nalit

y, so

cial

or

igin

or o

ther

dis

tingu

ishi

ng c

hara

cter

istic

shal

l be

prov

ided

(ILO

con

vent

ions

100

and

111

)

4.2.

3: E

qual

ity o

f opp

ortu

nity

for a

ll em

ploy

ees a

nd

cont

ract

ors;

gro

wer

mus

t ens

ure

equa

lity

of o

ppor

tuni

ty

and

treat

men

t for

all

empl

oyee

s and

con

tract

ors,

rega

rdle

ss o

f rac

e, c

olor

, sex

, rel

igio

n, p

oliti

cal o

pini

on,

natio

nalit

y, so

cial

orig

in o

r oth

er d

istin

guis

hing

ch

arac

teris

tics

land

rig

hts

4.4.

1: R

ight

to u

se th

e la

nd c

an b

e de

mon

stra

ted

and

does

not

dim

inis

h th

e le

gal o

r cus

tom

ary

right

s of o

ther

us

ers;

pro

of o

f ow

ners

hip

or u

se ri

ghts

; whe

re th

ere

are

othe

r pot

entia

l rig

hts,

the

grow

er m

ust d

emon

stra

te th

at

thes

e rig

hts a

re u

nder

stoo

d an

d ar

e no

t bei

ng th

reat

ened

or

redu

ced

WWF Germany 68

EUR

EPG

AP

Sust

aina

ble

Agr

icul

tura

l Sta

ndar

dsIF

OA

M

labo

ur

cond

ition

s12

f #1:

Em

ploy

men

t con

ditio

ns m

ust c

ompl

y w

ith

loca

l and

nat

iona

l reg

ulat

ions

with

rega

rd to

wag

es,

wor

kers

age

, wor

king

hou

rs, w

orki

ng c

ondi

tions

, jo

b se

curit

y, u

nion

s, pe

nsio

ns a

nd a

ll ot

her l

egal

and

he

alth

requ

irem

ents

12f #

2: G

row

ers a

nd p

acke

rs m

ust c

onsu

lt w

ith

thei

r cus

tom

ers t

o en

sure

com

plia

nce

with

spec

ific

com

pany

pol

icie

s reg

ardi

ng w

orke

r wel

fare

12f #

3: O

n si

te li

ving

qua

rters

mus

t be

habi

tabl

e an

d ha

ve th

e ba

sic

serv

ices

and

faci

litie

s

5.3:

Dire

ct h

ire o

f wor

kfor

ce, e

xcep

t whe

n a

cont

ract

or is

ab

le to

pro

vide

spec

ializ

ed o

r tem

pora

ry se

rvic

es u

nder

the

sam

e en

viro

nmen

tal,

soci

al a

nd la

bor c

ondi

tions

requ

ired

by

this

stan

dard

5.6:

Lab

or c

ontra

ct o

r col

lect

ive

agre

emen

t5.

10: F

orce

d la

bor i

s pro

hibi

ted,

incl

udin

g w

orki

ng u

nder

the

regi

men

of i

nvol

unta

ry im

pris

onm

ent,

in a

gree

men

t with

ILO

C

onve

ntio

ns 2

9 an

d 10

5 an

d na

tiona

l law

s

8.1:

Ope

rato

rs sh

all h

ave

a po

licy

on so

cial

ju

stic

e; o

pera

tors

who

hire

few

er th

an te

n (1

0)

pers

ons f

or la

bor a

nd th

ose

who

ope

rate

und

er a

st

ate

syst

em th

at e

nfor

ces s

ocia

l law

s may

not

be

requ

ired

to h

ave

such

a p

olic

y8.

2: In

cas

es w

here

pro

duct

ion

is b

ased

on

viol

atio

n of

bas

ic h

uman

righ

ts a

nd c

lear

cas

es o

f so

cial

inju

stic

e, th

at p

rodu

ct c

anno

t be

decl

ared

as

org

anic

8.

3: O

pera

tors

not

use

forc

ed o

r inv

olun

tary

labo

r

wag

esse

e la

bor c

ondi

tions

5.4:

Pay

men

t pol

icie

s and

pro

cedu

res t

hat g

uara

ntee

the

com

plet

e pa

ymen

t of w

orke

rs o

n th

e da

tes a

gree

d up

on in

the

labo

r con

tract

; pay

men

t mus

t tak

e pl

ace

at th

e w

orkp

lace

, or

by a

noth

er a

rran

gem

ent a

gree

d up

on b

y th

e w

orke

r; de

taile

d an

d co

mpr

ehen

sive

exp

lana

tion

of th

e sa

lary

pai

d an

d of

any

de

duct

ions

mad

e, a

llow

ing

the

wor

ker t

o ap

peal

in th

e ca

se

of p

erce

ived

dis

crep

anci

es.

5.5:

Wor

kers

mus

t rec

eive

pay

in le

gal t

ende

r gre

ater

than

or

equ

al to

the

regi

onal

ave

rage

or t

he le

gally

est

ablis

hed

min

imum

wag

e; in

cas

es w

here

the

sala

ry is

neg

otia

ted

thro

ugh

colle

ctiv

e ba

rgai

ning

or o

ther

pac

t, th

e w

orke

r mus

t ha

ve a

cces

s to

a co

py o

f thi

s doc

umen

t dur

ing

the

hirin

g pr

oces

s; fo

r pro

duct

ion,

quo

ta o

r pie

cew

ork,

the

esta

blis

hed

pay

rate

mus

t allo

w w

orke

rs to

ear

n a

min

imum

wag

e ba

sed

on a

n ei

ght-h

our w

orkd

ay u

nder

ave

rage

wor

king

con

ditio

ns,

or in

cas

es w

here

thes

e co

nditi

ons c

anno

t be

met

heal

th8e

1: W

orke

rs w

ho h

andl

e an

d ap

ply

pest

icid

es m

ust

be tr

aine

d8f

#1:

Wor

kers

mus

t be

equi

pped

with

suita

ble

prot

ectiv

e cl

othi

ng in

acc

orda

nce

with

labe

l in

stru

ctio

ns a

nd a

ppro

pria

te to

the

pose

d he

alth

and

sa

fety

risk

s8f

#3:

Pro

tect

ive

clot

hing

and

equ

ipm

ent m

ust b

e st

ored

sepa

rate

ly fr

om p

estic

ides

12b

1: F

orm

al tr

aini

ng m

ust b

e gi

ven

to a

ll ap

prop

riate

wor

kers

ope

ratin

g da

nger

ous o

r co

mpl

ex e

quip

men

t

5.15

: All

wor

kers

and

thei

r fam

ilies

mus

t hav

e ac

cess

to

med

ical

serv

ices

dur

ing

wor

king

hou

rs a

nd in

cas

e of

em

erge

ncy;

whe

n le

gisl

atio

n re

quire

s, fa

rms m

ust c

ontra

ct

the

serv

ices

of a

doc

tor o

r nur

se w

ith th

e ne

cess

ary

equi

pmen

t to

prov

ide

thes

e se

rvic

es

very

det

aile

d st

anda

rds o

n oc

cupa

tiona

l hea

lth a

nd sa

fety

(see

Su

stai

nabl

e Agr

icul

ture

Sta

ndar

ds, p

oint

6)

WWF Germany 69

EUR

EPG

AP

Sust

aina

ble

Agr

icul

tura

l Sta

ndar

dsIF

OA

M

heal

th12

b 4:

Acc

iden

t and

em

erge

ncy

proc

edur

es m

ust

exis

t and

inst

ruct

ions

mus

t be

clea

rly u

nder

stoo

d by

al

l wor

kers

12c

#1: F

irst A

id b

oxes

mus

t be

pres

ent a

t all

perm

anen

t site

s and

in th

e vi

cini

ty o

f fiel

d w

ork

mor

e de

tails

for h

andl

ing

of p

estic

ides

in th

e EU

REP

GA

P Pr

otoc

ol fo

r Fre

sh F

ruit

and

Vege

tabl

es p

oint

8

child

labo

ur5.

8: It

is p

rohi

bite

d to

dire

ctly

or i

ndire

ctly

em

ploy

full-

or

part-

time

wor

kers

und

er th

e ag

e of

15;

in c

ount

ries w

here

th

e IL

O C

onve

ntio

ns h

ave

been

ratifi

ed: C

onve

ntio

n 13

8,

Rec

omm

enda

tion

146

(min

imum

age

); fa

rms c

ontra

ctin

g m

inor

s bet

wee

n th

e ag

es o

f 15

and

17 m

ust k

eep

a re

cord

of

the

spec

ial i

nfor

mat

ion

for e

ach

min

or (f

or d

etai

ls se

e Su

stai

nabl

e Agr

icul

ture

Sta

ndar

ds);

wor

kers

bet

wee

n 15

and

17

Yea

rs o

ld m

ust n

ot w

ork

mor

e th

an e

ight

hou

rs p

er d

ay o

r m

ore

than

48

hour

s per

wee

k; th

eir w

ork

sche

dule

mus

t not

in

terf

ere

with

edu

catio

nal o

ppor

tuni

ties;

thes

e w

orke

rs m

ust n

ot b

e as

sign

ed a

ctiv

ities

that

cou

ld p

ut

thei

r hea

lth a

t ris

k5.

9: M

inor

s bet

wee

n 12

and

14

year

s old

may

wor

k pa

rt-tim

e on

fam

ily fa

rms i

f the

y ar

e fa

mily

mem

bers

or n

eigh

bors

in

a c

omm

unity

whe

re m

inor

s hav

e tra

ditio

nally

hel

ped

with

agr

icul

tura

l wor

k; sc

hedu

le fo

r the

se m

inor

s inc

ludi

ng

scho

ol, t

rans

porta

tion

and

wor

k m

ust n

ot e

xcee

d te

n ho

urs o

n sc

hool

day

s or e

ight

hou

rs o

n no

n-sc

hool

day

s, an

d m

ust n

ot

inte

rfer

e w

ith e

duca

tiona

l opp

ortu

nitie

s; sp

ecia

l con

ditio

ns

mus

t be

fulfi

lled

(for

det

ails

see

Sust

aina

ble A

gric

ultu

re

Stan

dard

s).

8.6

Ope

rato

rs sh

all n

ot h

ire c

hild

labo

r; ch

ildre

n ar

e al

low

ed to

exp

erie

nce

wor

k on

thei

r fam

ily‘s

fa

rm o

r a n

eigh

borin

g fa

rm p

rovi

ded

that

:a.

such

wor

k is

not

dan

gero

us o

r haz

ardo

us to

th

eir h

ealth

and

safe

ty;

b. it

doe

s not

jeop

ardi

ze th

e ch

ildre

n‘s

educ

atio

nal,

mor

al, s

ocia

l, an

d ph

ysic

al

deve

lopm

ent;

c. c

hild

ren

are

supe

rvis

ed b

y ad

ults

or h

ave

auth

oriz

atio

n fr

om a

lega

l gua

rdia

n

unio

ns5.

12. R

ight

to fr

eely

org

aniz

e an

d vo

lunt

arily

neg

otia

te th

eir

wor

king

con

ditio

ns in

a c

olle

ctiv

e m

anne

r as e

stab

lishe

d in

ILO

Con

vent

ions

87

and

98, n

ot im

pede

wor

kers

fr

om fo

rmin

g or

join

ing

unio

ns, c

olle

ctiv

e ba

rgai

ning

or

orga

nizi

ng fo

r ide

olog

ical

, rel

igio

us, p

oliti

cal,

econ

omic

al,

soci

al, c

ultu

ral o

r any

oth

er re

ason

s; p

erio

dica

l opp

ortu

nitie

s fo

r wor

kers

to m

ake

deci

sion

s reg

ardi

ng th

eir r

ight

s and

al

tern

ativ

es to

form

any

type

of o

rgan

izat

ion

for n

egot

iatin

g th

eir w

orki

ng c

ondi

tions

8.4:

Em

ploy

ees a

nd c

ontra

ctor

s of o

rgan

ic

oper

atio

ns h

ave

the

free

dom

to a

ssoc

iate

, th

e rig

ht to

org

aniz

e an

d th

e rig

ht to

bar

gain

co

llect

ivel

y

WWF Germany 70

EUR

EPG

AP

Sust

aina

ble

Agr

icul

tura

l Sta

ndar

dsIF

OA

M

chan

ge o

f loc

al

com

mun

ities

w

ay o

f life

, ec

onom

y an

d cu

lture

7.1:

Res

pect

are

as a

nd a

ctiv

ities

that

are

impo

rtant

to th

e co

mm

unity

soci

ally

, cul

tura

lly, b

iolo

gica

lly, e

nviro

nmen

tally

an

d re

ligio

usly

7.2:

Pol

icie

s and

pro

cedu

res f

or c

onsu

lting

and

con

side

ring

the

inte

rest

s of l

ocal

pop

ulat

ions

and

com

mun

ity in

tere

st

grou

ps re

gard

ing

new

wor

ks, p

rodu

ctio

n ar

eas,

or o

pera

tiona

l ch

ange

s tha

t cou

ld h

ave

a ne

gativ

e im

pact

on

thei

r qua

lity

of

life

7.3:

Pol

icie

s and

pro

cedu

res f

or p

riorit

izin

g th

e hi

ring

and

train

ing

of a

loca

l lab

or fo

rce

and

for c

ontra

ctin

g an

d ac

quiri

ng lo

cal s

ervi

ces a

nd p

rodu

cts

7.4:

Pro

tect

ion

and

cons

erva

tion

of c

omm

unity

nat

ural

re

sour

ces,

colla

bora

te w

ith th

e de

velo

pmen

t of t

he lo

cal

econ

omy,

and

con

tribu

te fa

irly

tow

ards

the

cost

s of t

he

com

mun

ity in

fras

truct

ure

7.5:

Hel

p w

ith e

nviro

nmen

tal e

duca

tion

effo

rts in

the

loca

l sc

hool

syst

em a

nd m

ust s

uppo

rt an

d co

llabo

rate

with

loca

l re

sear

ch in

are

as re

late

d to

this

stan

dard

5.17

: Mec

hani

sms t

o gu

aran

tee

acce

ss to

edu

catio

n fo

r the

sc

hool

-age

chi

ldre

n th

at li

ve o

n th

e fa

rm5.

18: E

duca

tiona

l pro

gram

dire

cted

tow

ards

adm

inis

trativ

e an

d op

erat

ive

pers

onne

l (fa

rm w

orke

rs) a

nd th

eir f

amili

es

disc

rim

inat

ion

5.2:

Far

m m

ust n

ot d

iscr

imin

ate

in it

s lab

or a

nd h

iring

po

licie

s and

pro

cedu

res a

long

the

lines

of r

ace,

col

or, g

ende

r, ag

e, re

ligio

n, so

cial

cla

ss, p

oliti

cal t

ende

ncie

s, na

tiona

lity,

sy

ndic

ate

mem

bers

hip,

sexu

al o

rient

atio

n, m

arita

l sta

tus

or a

ny o

ther

mot

ive

as in

dica

ted

by a

pplic

able

law

s, IL

O

Con

vent

ions

100

and

111

, and

this

stan

dard

; far

m m

ust o

ffer

equa

l pay

, tra

inin

g an

d pr

omot

ion

oppo

rtuni

ties a

nd b

enefi

ts

to a

ll w

orke

rs fo

r the

sam

e ty

pe o

f wor

k; fa

rm m

ust n

ot

influ

ence

the

polit

ical

, rel

igio

us, s

ocia

l or c

ultu

ral c

onvi

ctio

ns

of w

orke

rs

8.5:

Ope

rato

rs sh

all p

rovi

de th

eir e

mpl

oyee

s and

co

ntra

ctor

s equ

al o

ppor

tuni

ty a

nd t

reat

men

t, an

d sh

all n

ot a

ct in

a d

iscr

imin

ator

y w

ay

land

rig

hts

WWF Germany 71

A-5

Bio

mas

s cr

iteria

for c

ertifi

catio

n of

gre

en e

lect

ricity

The

follo

win

g ov

ervi

ew fo

r sus

tain

abili

ty c

riter

ia fo

r bio

mas

s use

d in

cer

tifica

tion

sche

mes

for g

reen

ele

ctric

ity is

bas

ed o

n O

ehm

e (2

006)

.

Euge

ne

Aus

tria

n Ec

olab

el U

Z 46

B

ra M

iljöv

al

Ecoe

nerg

ia

Cou

ntry

Eu

rope

A

ustri

a

Swed

en

Finl

and

Res

pons

ible

bo

dyN

on-p

rofit

mem

bers

hip-

base

d or

gani

zatio

n of

gre

en e

nerg

y la

belin

g bo

dies

in E

urop

e

Fede

ral M

inis

try o

f Agr

icul

ture

and

Fo

rest

ry, E

nviro

nmen

t and

Wat

er

Man

agem

ent

The

Swed

ish

Soci

ety

for N

atur

e C

onse

rvat

ion

Suom

en lu

onno

nsuo

jelu

liitto

(Fin

nish

A

ssoc

iatio

n fo

r Nat

ure

Con

serv

atio

n)

Ene

rgy

crop

sD

edic

ated

ene

rgy

crop

s, w

here

cro

ps

are

grow

n fo

r ene

rgy

Prim

ary

biom

ass:

pla

nts o

r par

ts o

f pl

ants

dire

ctly

use

d fo

r ele

ctric

ity

gene

ratio

n w

ithou

t che

mic

al c

onve

rsio

n (w

oode

n, c

ellu

losi

c or

oil-

cont

aini

ng

biom

ass)

Ene

rgy

fore

st

Fore

stry

Fo

rest

ry a

nd a

rbor

icul

tura

l mat

eria

l (w

ood

from

exi

stin

g pl

anta

tions

, nat

ural

an

d se

mi-n

atur

al w

oodl

and

and

urba

n fo

rest

ry)

Fore

stry

bio

mas

s, fr

ee o

f hal

ogen

ated

or

gani

c c

ompo

unds

: woo

d fr

om fo

rest

s, op

en fi

elds

and

ene

rgy

woo

d fie

lds

firew

ood,

chi

ps, r

esid

ues f

rom

scan

tling

pr

oduc

tion,

woo

d or

bar

k pe

llets

, gas

pr

oduc

ed fr

om w

ood,

cha

rcoa

l, ch

oppe

d st

raw

Woo

d fu

elC

hipp

ed w

ood,

woo

d re

sidu

e fr

om

the

mec

hani

cal f

ores

t ind

ustry

, bar

k an

d sa

wdu

st fr

om th

e fo

rest

pr

oces

sed

fuel

s orig

inat

ing

from

woo

d (p

elle

ts

and

briq

uette

s)

Agr

icul

ture

an

d ag

ricu

ltura

l re

sidu

es

Res

idua

l stra

w fr

om a

gric

ultu

reA

gric

ultu

ral b

iom

ass:

agr

icul

tura

l pla

nts,

crop

resi

dues

, unt

reat

ed o

r pro

cess

ed b

y-pr

oduc

ts (e

.g. s

traw,

oil

seed

s, et

c.)

Stra

w fu

el a

nd o

ther

fuel

s fro

m

agric

ultu

ral l

and

B

iom

ass g

row

n on

fiel

ds (‚

ener

gy

will

ows‘

, stra

w, re

ed c

anar

y-gr

ass)

Woo

d re

sidu

es,

was

te w

ood

Urb

an w

aste

woo

d co

llect

ed se

para

tely

(u

npai

nted

, unt

reat

ed, o

r unp

ress

uriz

ed

woo

d, n

ot c

onta

inin

g pl

astic

s, or

m

etal

s); r

esid

ues o

f the

woo

d in

dust

ry

(e.g

. saw

dust

)

saw

resi

dues

Cle

an w

aste

woo

d

(indu

stri

al)

biom

ass

resi

dues

Bio

mas

s res

idue

s fro

m la

ndsc

ape

and

park

man

agem

ent;

vege

tabl

e pr

oces

sing

bi

omas

s res

idue

s fro

m fo

od in

dust

ry

Seco

ndar

y bi

omas

s: re

sidu

es o

f ut

iliza

tion

of o

rgan

ic m

atte

r; es

peci

ally

fo

r hum

an o

r ani

mal

nut

ritio

n; u

tiliz

atio

n in

hou

seho

lds o

r ind

ustry

, whe

re o

rgan

ic

mat

ter h

as u

nder

gone

a c

hem

ical

al

tera

tion

(e.g

. man

ure

and

liqui

d m

anur

e, g

arba

ge o

f can

teen

s or k

itche

ns)

The

pulp

indu

stry

‘s so

-cal

led

‚luta

r‘ a

re

also

app

rove

d

Bio

fuel

s fro

m th

e pu

lp a

nd p

aper

in

dust

ry (b

lack

liqu

or a

nd tr

ee b

ark)

,

natu

ral v

eget

atio

n ha

rves

ted

from

sh

ores

and

wat

erw

ay a

reas

/ re

ed

cana

ry g

rass

, com

mon

reed

)

WWF Germany 72

Euge

ne

Aus

tria

n Ec

olab

el U

Z 46

B

ra M

iljöv

al

Ecoe

nerg

ia

GM

O

no b

iofu

el fr

om G

MO

biom

ass f

uel

Ded

icat

ed e

nerg

y cr

ops u

sed

in n

ew

gene

ratin

g st

atio

ns sh

all c

ome

from

FS

C (F

ores

t Ste

war

dshi

p C

ounc

il)

certi

fied

sour

ces.

A g

ener

atio

n st

atio

n is

“ne

w”

if it

has e

nter

ed o

pera

tion

afte

r Jan

uary

1, 2

001.

For

exi

stin

g ge

nera

ting

stat

ions

usi

ng w

ood

(fro

m

dedi

cate

d en

ergy

cro

ps a

nd fo

rest

ry a

nd

arbo

ricul

tura

l mat

eria

l), th

e pl

ant w

ill

have

to d

raw

an

actio

n pl

an to

ens

ure

that

the

woo

d us

ed w

ill b

e pu

rcha

sed

from

FSC

cer

tified

sour

ces w

ithin

a

time

of 4

yea

rs.

Afte

r bur

ning

bio

fuel

, the

nut

rient

s in

the

ash

mus

t be

retu

rned

to th

e ty

pe o

f gr

ound

from

whi

ch it

has

orig

inat

ed.

(Det

ails

of t

he c

riter

ia se

e re

port.

)

Woo

d fu

el sh

ould

com

e fr

om F

SC-

certi

fied

fore

stry

ope

ratio

ns o

r fro

m

fore

stry

ope

ratio

ns th

at d

o no

t fel

l in

the

follo

win

g ar

eas:

key

bio

tope

s, ac

cord

ing

to th

e R

egio

nal F

ores

try

Boa

rd o

r the

equ

ival

ent a

ccor

ding

to

the

parti

cula

r cou

ntry

’s d

efini

tion

and

met

hodo

logy

cf.

FSC

6.1

.1b)

· na

tura

l fo

rest

s (FS

C 6

.1.1

a); ·

was

te la

nd; ·

un

culti

vate

d m

eado

w a

nd p

astu

re la

nd

(FSC

6.2

.1a)

; · n

atur

ally

leaf

-dom

inat

ed

dam

p or

wet

land

s (FS

C 6

.1.2

b); ·

the

mou

ntai

nous

zon

e ab

ove

the

natu

re

cons

erva

tion

boun

dary

as d

efine

d by

the

Swed

ish

Soci

ety

for N

atur

e C

onse

rvat

ion

The

Finn

ish

Ass

ocia

tion

for N

atur

e C

onse

rvat

ion

requ

ires a

cha

in o

f cu

stod

y (v

erifi

catio

n of

orig

in) a

nd th

e ty

pe o

f raw

mat

eria

l use

d (c

hips

from

a

rege

nera

tion

cut,

chip

s fro

m sm

all-

size

d st

emw

ood

from

silv

icul

tura

l cu

tting

s, et

c.) t

o be

kno

wn.

Agr

icul

ture

/ so

il

For b

iofu

el su

ch a

s stra

w, a

nd th

eir

equi

vale

nt, w

hich

are

cul

tivat

ed o

n ag

ricul

ture

land

, cul

tivat

ion

shou

ld

be c

arrie

d ou

t with

the

goal

to re

duce

w

ater

and

pes

ticid

es u

se, a

nd ta

king

into

co

nsid

erat

ion

natio

nal b

est p

ract

ices

.

For ‚

ener

gy fo

rest

s‘, s

traw

fuel

s, an

d th

eir e

quiv

alen

t, w

hich

are

cul

tivat

ed

on a

gric

ultu

ral l

and

good

wat

er

prot

ectio

n pr

actic

es m

ust b

e ad

opte

d du

ring

culti

vatio

n.

WWF Germany 73

Gru

ener

Str

om L

abel

O

k-Po

wer

N

atur

emad

e B

asic

N

atur

emad

e St

ar (a

dditi

onal

crit

eria

)

Cou

ntry

G

erm

any

G

erm

any

Sw

itzer

land

Sw

itzer

land

Res

pons

ible

bo

dyG

ruen

er S

trom

Lab

el e

.V.

(EU

RO

SOLA

R e

.V.,

BU

ND

, V

ERB

RA

UC

HER

INIT

IATI

VE

e.V.

, IP

PNW

, BdE

e.V

., N

AB

U e

.V.,

DN

R

et a

l.

Ener

gieV

isio

n e.

V. (Ö

ko-I

nstit

ut,

Verb

rauc

her-Z

entra

le N

ordr

hein

-W

estfa

len,

WW

F G

erm

any)

VU

E (a

ssoc

iatio

n es

tabl

ishe

d to

pr

omot

e en

viro

nmen

t- fr

iend

ly

elec

trici

ty) I

ts a

dvis

ory

boar

d co

nsis

ts o

f rep

rese

ntat

ives

from

N

GO

, ren

ewab

le e

nerg

y as

soci

atio

ns,

asso

ciat

ion

for w

ater

eco

nom

y,

elec

trici

ty p

rodu

cers

, dis

tribu

tors

, su

pplie

rs, b

ulk

pow

er u

sers

.

VU

E (a

ssoc

iatio

n es

tabl

ishe

d to

pr

omot

e en

viro

nmen

t- fr

iend

ly

elec

trici

ty) I

ts a

dvis

ory

boar

d co

nsis

ts o

f rep

rese

ntat

ives

from

N

GO

, ren

ewab

le e

nerg

y as

soci

atio

ns,

asso

ciat

ion

for w

ater

eco

nom

y,

elec

trici

ty p

rodu

cers

, dis

tribu

tors

, su

pplie

rs, b

ulk

pow

er u

sers

.

Ene

rgy

crop

sB

iom

ass i

n ac

cord

ance

with

bio

mas

s re

gula

tion

(Fed

eral

Law

Gaz

ette

I 20

01,

1234

)

All

plan

ts a

ccor

ding

to th

e EE

G

Woo

d re

sidu

es,

was

te w

ood

Bio

mas

s reg

ulat

ion

excl

udes

was

te

woo

d, if

PC

B o

r PC

T >

0.00

5% (m

ass)

, m

ercu

ry >

0.0

001%

(mas

s)

GM

O

No

use

of g

enet

ical

ly m

odifi

ed p

lant

s fo

r ele

ctric

ity p

rodu

ctio

n

biom

ass f

uel

gene

ral o

r w

ood

fuel

Bio

mas

s fue

l nee

d to

be

com

ply

with

cr

iteria

of o

rgan

ic fa

rmin

g (A

GÖ

L or

EEC

Reg

ulat

ion

2092

/91)

. The

se

crite

ria d

o no

t app

ly fo

r cul

tivat

ed

biom

ass f

or c

ofer

men

tatio

n in

rura

l bi

ogas

pla

nts (

< 50

0 kW

e) a

nd th

ereb

y co

ntrib

utes

to e

nerg

y ou

tput

by

50%

at

the

max

imum

.

Bio

mas

s fro

m d

edic

ated

cul

tivat

ion

(rap

esee

d oi

l, w

hole

pla

nt, s

hort

rota

tion

woo

d) sh

all c

ome

from

cer

tified

org

anic

fa

rmin

g or

FSC

(For

est S

tew

ards

hip

Cou

ncil)

cer

tified

fore

stry

.

Trop

ic ti

mbe

r sha

ll co

me

from

FSC

(F

ores

t Ste

war

dshi

p C

ounc

il) c

ertifi

ed

fore

stry

. Unt

reat

ed w

ood

com

ply

with

a

stan

dard

whi

ch is

orie

nted

tow

ards

th

e FS

C (c

riter

ia fo

r pla

nts u

sing

woo

d fu

el o

r was

te w

ood)

.

Agr

icul

ture

/ so

il B

iom

ass f

rom

ded

icat

ed c

ultiv

atio

n (r

apes

eed

oil,

who

le p

lant

, sho

rt ro

tatio

n w

ood)

shal

l com

e fr

om c

ertifi

ed o

rgan

ic

farm

ing.

The

long

-term

ferti

lity

and

prod

uctiv

ity

of th

e so

il us

ed to

pro

duce

the

fuel

has

to

be

ensu

red.

Bio

mas

s fro

m d

edic

ated

cul

tivat

ion

need

to c

ompl

y w

ith g

uide

lines

for

inte

grat

ed c

rop

prot

ectio

n (c

riter

ia fo

r fe

rmen

tatio

n of

gre

en b

iom

ass)

.

WWF Germany 74

Mili

euke

ur

Gre

en P

ower

G

reen

-e

Envi

ronm

enta

l Cho

ice

Cou

ntry

N

ethe

rland

s A

ustra

lia

USA

(New

Eng

land

, NY,

Mid

Atla

ntic

, O

H, T

X, I

L, M

I)

Can

ada

Res

pons

ible

bo

dySt

icht

ing

Mili

euke

urA

ustra

lian

Gov

ernm

ent,

Dep

. of

Ener

gy, U

tiliti

es &

Sus

tain

abili

ty

Non

-Pro

fit C

ente

r for

Res

ourc

e So

lutio

ns, C

A. I

n ea

ch, G

reen

-e w

orks

w

ith R

egio

nal A

dvis

ory

Com

mitt

ees

Envi

ronm

ent C

anad

a‘s e

cola

belin

g pr

ogra

m

Ene

rgy

crop

sB

iom

ass w

ithin

the

mea

ning

of t

he

Elec

trici

ty C

ode

1998

, 36a

par

.1 su

b j.

This

law

defi

nes B

iom

ass a

s „th

e bi

olog

ical

ly d

egra

dabl

e fr

actio

n of

pr

oduc

ts, w

aste

mat

ters

and

resi

dues

fr

om a

gric

ultu

re, i

nclu

ding

pla

nt a

nd

anim

al m

atte

r, fo

rest

ry a

nd re

late

d br

anch

es o

f ind

ustry

, as w

ell a

s ind

ustri

al

and

hous

ehol

d w

aste

whi

ch is

who

lly

biol

ogic

ally

deg

rada

ble.

The

acce

ptab

ility

of v

ario

us

ener

gy c

rops

will

dep

end

upon

th

e ag

ricul

tura

l and

har

vest

ing

prac

tices

use

d, a

nd w

heth

er

thes

e ar

e co

nsid

ered

sust

aina

ble.

En

ergy

cro

ps so

urce

d fr

om c

rop

activ

ities

that

cle

ar, o

r hav

e cl

eare

d af

ter 1

990,

exi

stin

g ol

d gr

owth

or n

ativ

e fo

rest

s, w

ill n

ot

be a

ccep

ted.

All

ener

gy c

rops

D

edic

ated

ene

rgy

crop

s (b)

Agr

icul

ture

an

d ag

ricu

ltura

l re

sidu

es

Agr

icul

tura

l was

tes t

hat a

re so

lid re

sidu

es a

risin

g fr

om th

e ha

rves

ting

and

proc

essi

ng o

f agr

icul

tura

l cr

ops t

hat m

ight

oth

erw

ise

be se

nt to

land

fill a

nd/o

r in

cine

rate

d

GM

O

Bio

mas

s fue

l U

tiliz

atio

n of

any

mat

eria

ls (i

nclu

ding

w

aste

s) d

eriv

ed fr

om fo

rest

s oth

er th

an

sust

aina

bly

harv

este

d pl

anta

tion

fore

sts

is e

xclu

ded.

Pla

ntat

ion-

deriv

ed w

aste

s sh

ould

not

be

sour

ced

from

pla

ntat

ions

th

at c

lear

, or h

ave

clea

red

afte

r 199

0,

exis

ting

old

grow

th o

r nat

ive

fore

sts.

Sust

aina

bly

man

aged

pla

ntat

ions

, ut

iliza

tion

of a

ny m

ater

ials

(in

clud

ing

was

tes)

from

hig

h co

nser

vatio

n va

lue

fore

sts,

such

as

old

gro

wth

fore

sts,

othe

r na

tive

fore

sts,

and

ecol

ogic

ally

se

nsiti

ve si

tes (

for e

xam

ple,

are

as

of re

mna

nt n

ativ

e ve

geta

tion)

ar

e no

t acc

epta

ble

unde

r Gre

en

Pow

er.

If g

ener

ated

from

ded

icat

ed e

nerg

y cr

ops:

i) u

se o

nly

dedi

cate

d en

ergy

cr

ops t

hat h

ave

been

sour

ced

from

op

erat

ions

that

hav

e im

plem

ente

d a

soun

d en

viro

nmen

tal m

anag

emen

t sy

stem

and

are

adh

erin

g to

soun

d en

viro

nmen

tal m

anag

emen

t pra

ctic

es,

and

ii) e

nsur

e th

e ra

te o

f har

vest

doe

s no

t exc

eed

leve

ls th

at c

an b

e su

stai

ned.

„Cle

an b

iom

ass“

mea

ns o

rgan

ic m

ater

ials

that

ha

ve, a

t no

stag

e in

thei

r life

cycl

e, b

een

treat

ed

with

org

anic

and

/or i

norg

anic

subs

tanc

es to

cha

nge,

pr

otec

t or s

uppl

emen

t the

phy

sica

l pro

perti

es

of th

e m

ater

ials

(inc

ludi

ng in

ter a

lia sy

nthe

tic

chem

ical

pes

t-con

trol p

rodu

cts,

fung

icid

es, w

ood

pres

erva

tives

, pai

nts,

varn

ishe

s or o

ther

surf

aces

co

atin

gs, h

alog

enat

ed c

ompo

unds

and

/or c

ompo

unds

co

ntai

ning

hea

vy m

etal

s).

Agr

icul

ture

/ s

oil

Ani

mal

or a

nim

al-r

elat

ed b

iom

ass

is p

erm

itted

for t

he la

bel o

nly

if th

e bi

omas

s app

lied

has b

een

gath

ered

from

pr

oces

ses i

n w

hich

the

mai

n pr

oduc

t fu

lfils

the

crite

ria o

f Org

anic

Far

min

g (E

KO

) or M

ilieu

keur

crit

eria

for f

arm

ing.

i) U

se o

nly

woo

d-w

aste

s and

/or a

gric

ultu

ral w

aste

s th

at h

ave

been

sour

ced

from

ope

ratio

ns th

at h

ave

impl

emen

ted

a so

und

envi

ronm

enta

l man

agem

ent

syst

em a

nd a

re a

dher

ing

to so

und

envi

ronm

enta

l m

anag

emen

t pra

ctic

es, i

i) en

sure

the

rate

of h

arve

st

does

not

exc

eed

leve

ls th

at c

an b

e su

stai

ned,

and

iii

) not

use

was

tes f

rom

spec

ies t

hat a

re li

sted

in th

e C

ITES

App

endi

ces.

WWF Germany 75

A-6 List of URLs for relevant sources of criteria and standards

General Systems for Biomass Products

American Tree Farm System www.treefarmsystem.org

Basel Criteria for Responsible Soy Production assets.panda.org/downloads/05_02_16_basel_criteria_engl.pdf

Clean Clothes Campaign (CCC) www.cleanclothes.org/codes/ccccode.htm

EUREPGAP: Protocol for Fresh Fruit and Vegetables

www.agribusinessonline.com/regulations/eurepprotocol.pdf

Ethical Trading Initiative (ETI) www.ethicaltrade.org

Fairtrade Labelling Organisations International (FLO) www.fairtrade.net

Flower Label Programm (FLP) www.fairflowers.de

Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) www.fsc.org

Green Gold Label www.controlunion.com/certification/program/Program.aspx?Program_ID=19

International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movement (IFOAM)

www.ifoam.org

Pan-European Forest Council (PEFC) www.pefc.org

RSPO Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Palm Oil Production

www.rspo.org

Sustainable Agricultural Standards www.rainforest-alliance.org/programs/agriculture/certified-crops/standards.html

Sustainable Forestry Initiative Standard (SFIS) www.aboutsfb.org

Utz Kapeh - Codes of Conduct www.utzkapeh.org

Green Electricity

Austrian Ecolabel – Austria www.umweltzeichen.at

Bra Miljöval – Sweden www.snf.se/bmv/english.cfm

Ecoenergia – Finland www.ekoenergia.info/english/

Environmental Choice – Canada www.environmentalchoice.ca

Eugene Standard www.eugenestandard.org

Green-e – USA www.green-e.org

Green Power – Australia www.greenpower.com.au

Gruener Strom Label – Germany www.gruenerstromlabel.de

Milieukeur – Netherlands www.milieukeur.nl

naturemade – Switzerland www.naturemade.ch

ok-power – Germany www.ok-power.de

WWF Germany 76

WWF Germany 77

List of Acronyms

ADB Asian Development Bank

AoA Agreement on Agriculture

CBD Convention on Biological Diversity

CDM Clean Development Mechanism

CIS Commonwealth of Independent States

EBRD European Bank for Reconstruction and Development

EC European Council

EEA European Environment Agency

EEB European Environmental Bureau

EEG Renewable Energy Sources Act (Erneuerbare Energien-Gesetz)

EIB European Investment Bank

EJ ExaJoules

EU European Union

EUGENE European Green Electricity Network

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

FLP Flower Label Program

FLO Fairtrade Labeling Organizations International

FSC Forest Stewardship Council

GAEC Good agricultural and environmental condition

GATS General Agreement on Trade in Services

GATT General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade

GEF Global Environment Facility

GHG greenhouse gases

GIS geographical information system (with digital spatial database)

GTZ Deutschen Gesellschaft für technische Zusammenarbeit GmbH

HANPP human appropriation of net primary production

IDB Inter-American Development Bank

ILO International Labor Union

ISO International Organization for Standardization

IUCN International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources

KfW Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau

MEA multilateral environment agreement

NGO Non-governmental Organization

WWF Germany 78

OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

OEKO Öko-Institut (Institute for applied Ecology)

PPM Processes and Production Methods

RSPO Round Table on Sustainable Palm Oil

SBC Sustainable Biomass Certification Body

SMR Statutory Management Requirements

SRC short rotation coppice

UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

WBGU Wissenschaftlicher Beirat der Bundesregierung Globale Um-weltveränderungen (German Government’s Advisory Council Global Change)

WWF World Wide Fund for Nature

WWI WorldWatch Institute

WWF Germany 79

WWF is one of the world‘s largest and most experienced independent conservation organisations, with almost 5 million supporters and a global network active in more than 100 countries.

WWF‘s mission is to stop the degradation of the planet‘s natural environment and to build a future in which humans live in harmony with nature, by• conserving the world‘s biological diversity,• ensuring that the use of renewable resources is sustainable and• promoting the reduction of pollution and wasteful consumption.

WWF Germany

Rebstöcker Straße 55D-60326 Frankfurt a. M.

Tel.: +49 069 / 7 91 44 - 0Fax: +49 069 / 61 72 21E-Mail: info@wwf.de

WWF GermanyWWF Office BerlinHackescher MarktGroße Präsidentenstraße 10

D-10178 Berlin

Tel.: + 49 (0) 30 / 308742-0 Fax: + 49 (0) 30 / 308742-50

© C

opyr

ight

des

WW

F In

tern

atio

nal ®

Reg

iste

red

char

ity n

umbe

ry b

y In

tern

atio

nal •

Nov

embe

r 200

6