1

PROJECT SUMMARY

THE ECONOMICS OF ECOSYSTEMS AND BIODIVERSITY: PROMOTING A SUSTAINABLE

AGRICULTURE AND FOOD SECTOR

Donor EU Partnership Instrument

Implementing organisation UNEP TEEB Office

Partner countries: Brazil, China, India, Malaysia, Mexico, Thailand, Indonesia

Project duration: January 2019 to December 2022

Website: http://teebweb.org/agrifood/projects/partnership-instrument/

UN Environment focal point: Dr Salman Hussain (salman.hussain@unep.org)

Overall Project Objectives and Context

The core project goal is to stimulate biodiversity conservation and ecosystem service provisioning for agricultural landscapes for the seven countries in scope. This project aims to protect biodiversity and

contribute to a more sustainable agriculture and food sector in seven EU partner countries (Brazil, China,

India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mexico and Thailand), with a view to moving towards a level playing field by

avoiding unfair competition through low environmental standards. It is based on an internationally agreed

methodological framework, introduced in the G8+5 context by the EU, addressing the economics of

ecosystems and biodiversity.

‘The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity’ (TEEB) initiative, hosted by UN Environment, has

developed an Evaluation Framework that provides a comprehensive and universal approach to capture all the positive and negative impacts and externalities across the entire agri-food value chain. It is a frame of

reference that can enable us to answer the question “what should we value, and why?” It can be used to

evaluate a policy question, a business question or an accounting question. For this project, it will be used to

test interventions that have already been applied or are proposed in the seven countries in scope that claim to

stimulate positive livelihood and biodiversity benefits, and specifically whether they produce any hidden or unaccounted for outcomes on natural, human, social and manmade capitals.

Importantly, the focus of the project is on biodiversity and ecosystems, which are said to underpin the delivery of the Sustainable Development Goals. This focus is further justified owing to (i) the size of the

areas of natural ecosystems in these partner countries, (ii) the cumulative pressures (e.g. agricultural

encroachment onto native forests) that affect changes in both their extent and condition, and ( iii) the loc al-level and global-level dependence on the ecosystem services provided by these ecosystems. The drivers

underlying changes in extent and condition vary within these countries, but there are some commonalities,

especially in relation to the scale of the agri-food environmental footprint. Globally, food systems are now

the source of 60% of terrestrial biodiversity loss, 24% of greenhouse gas emissions, 33% of soil degradation,

1

overfishing of 29 % commercial fish populations and over-exploitation of 20 % of the world's aquifers . The situation in each of the seven countries is consistent with these global statistics; for instance, agric ulture is

the principal cause of habitat loss and degradation, affecting 87.4% of the flora under some level of

extinction threat in Brazil, a country that ranks as the most biodiverse globally vis -à-vis flora. As such,

options for interventions to be assessed and then (if viable) implemented in each country will be guided by their potential to improve ecosystems and biodiversity. Ecosystems and biodiversity lie at the core of TEEB

and as such this position vis-à-vis agricultural landscapes is consistent with the value proposition of TEEB.

The project will bring together governments, business and other key actors (stakeholders) from civil soc iety to implement activities with a view to influencing decisions and behaviors in partner countries. For the f irs t

time, the methodological framework developed by The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) will be applied to an industrial sector across its entire value chain, assessing scenarios with a view to

promote change.

Additionally, this project will create momentum for a deeper operationalization of TEEB in Brazil, China, India and Mexico where a project on ‘Natural Capital Accounting and Valuation of Ecosystem Services’ is

already ongoing, a project that focuses on the application of macro-level natural capital accounting using the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting Experimental Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA-EEA).

Problem and Situation Analysis

The food and drink industry is the EU's biggest manufacturing sector in terms of jobs and value added. In the main, the EU imports unprocessed agricultural goods, whereas exports from the EU are principally processed

food products. In this regard, the sector is important for the EU not only in terms of jobs (export -oriented)

but also in terms of the quality of primary products (import-orientated) that are then processed within the

EU. If EU citizens are concerned about the quality of the food they eat, they are less aware of the impact that

production and processing across the agri-food supply chain has on their health.

The production and processing methods of the agri-food sector and the agricultural raw materials sector1 have an impact on the environment and biodiversity globally. These sectors depend on well-functioning

ecosystems that can provide such services as pollination, biological plant protection and pest control, w ater

regulation, soil formation, erosion prevention etc. However, the biodiversity and habitats that provide these

critical ecosystem services are being depleted and degraded at unprecedented rates, partly by the agricultural sector. Not only is global sustainability at stake partly due to a non-sustainable agricultural sector, but the

latter is itself at risk in business terms because of the progressive degradation of the environment. The reason

this risk is often not attended to and mitigated is because of (i) a lack of awareness of the dependencies of

agri-business on ecosystems and biodiversity, and (ii) the fact that the natural environment is often a ‘public

good’ implying that, although environmental stewardship has a social net benefit, individual private agents (such as farmers and agri-businesses) are not incentivized to conserve nature. The existence of a public good

requires some form of intervention, such as regulation or a collectively-agreed industry response (which

might be stimulated by the threat of regulation).

A series of actions could be taken to promote sustainable production practices, therein moving towards a

level playing field for EU producers in the agri-business sector. There are options to be assessed as potential solutions:

1 The agri-food and non-food sectors are collectively termed ‘agri-business’ in this document. The project will assess both sectors.

2

1. Information-provision for farmers and agri-businesses is a key opportunity on the supply-side. Agricultural extension2 work is concerned with informing farmers of the opportunities to improve their

production systems, i.e. to stimulate the adoption of innovations. To date it has been typically focused solely on yields per hectare as a performance metric, whereas the metrics to assess the sustainability of farming

systems, whilst including average yield levels, also would include inter alia yield variability (which affects

food security), impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem resilience (agriculture is impossible in the medium

term without well-functioning ecosystems that ensure pollination of crops or biological control of plant

diseases), and greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural production. Interventions have, to date, failed to consider the linkages and dependencies within the agri-food system and across agricultural landscapes ; this

project intends to do so in a holistic manner.

2. Whereas agricultural extension tends to entail information provision, dissemination and advocacy for

changes in agri-food production systems from experts (agricultural engineers, hydrologists, plant sc ientis ts

etc.) to farmers, an alternative is peer-to-peer learning. This has been particularly important in the adoption of agro-ecological practices, in part because agro-ecology is a social movement as much as it is a c ollec t ion

of management practices3. There is the potential – in the increasingly globally-connected world – for peer-to-

peer learning not to be restricted to peers in the same locality, or even in the same country.

3. The application of macro accounting also provides an opportunity linked with information-provision.

The Systems of Environmental-Economic Accounting Experimental Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA-EEA) is

being applied under the ‘Natural Capital Accounting and Valuation of Ecosystem Services’ project in four of

the countries in scope for the current project (Brazil, India, China, and Mexico). The application of SEEA-

EEA entails two elements that might contribute to the current project with its focus on the agri-food sector: (i) the development of ecosystems extent and ecosystem condition accounts; and (ii) biodiversity and carbon

accounts. SEEA-EEA is about looking back from the current time period, i.e. bringing together datasets from

disparate sources and where applicable applying bio-physical and economic modelling so as to populate

ecosystem accounts for (say) 2017 going back to 2010. The provision of these data and information c an be

informative for decision-making in that it reveals trends in changes in ecosystem condition and changes in land cover/land use which can signal to decision-makers that there is a need to focus on reform in the agri-

food sector, particularly as one of the main causes globally of the loss of natural habitats is agricultural

encroachment. However, in order to be informative, there is a need to mainstream the outcomes of the

statistical analysis of SEEA-EEA application, and this is a major component of the UN Environment/TEEB

inputs to the ‘Natural Capital Accounting and Valuation of Ecosystem Services’ project. There are potential co-benefits/synergies between the SEEA-EEA project and the current project arising from mainstreaming

those outputs of the SEEA-EEA project that are relevant to the agricultural sector for these four countries.

UN Environment is also championing Inclusive Wealth Reporting, which looks at changes across a range of

capital stocks. The Inclusive Wealth approach also presents an opportunity in that the information-provis ion

includes natural capital but is not limited to natural capital – and stakeholders in business, government and

civil society are also interested in promoting (for instance) the technical skills for upscaling agro-ec ologic al practices, as captured in changes in human capital.

4. On the demand side, the establishment of sustainability standards and certification look at the environmental, social and economic performance of agricultural products across the supply chain. This

approach takes advantage of the high interconnectivity between the EU and partner countries, highlighting

the mutual impacts on consumers and producers, which are often found halfway across the world. Through

these sustainability standards and certification, consumers can make informed decisions related to the

products they are purchasing and the price premiums that they are willing to pay for goods that have a superior environmental and/or social performance. At the same time, consumers can send a clear message to

2 Agricultural extension consists in advisory services to farmers helping them for production, on the basis of the application of scientific research and

new knowledge to agricultural practices. 3 http://www.fao.org/agroecology/database/detail/en/c/443399/; http://www.fao.org/agroecology/knowledge/science/en/;

http://www.fao.org/agroecology/knowledge/practices/en/

3

producers regarding the market advantage of producing sustainability-certified products and enables

preferential market conditions for such goods.

5. Market-based interventions including the establishment of a Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) scheme wherein one/a group of beneficiaries directly compensate a second individual/group which is

providing some benefit to them in terms of enhanced ecosystem service provisioning. For instance, upstream

farmers might modify their production processes so as to increase the flow rate and quality of freshwater

available to downstream users, the latter users compensating the upstream farmers.

6. This PES example pertains to locally-derived ecosystem services that have local beneficiaries . There are global initiatives that compensate ecosystem-service providers (including agents in the agricultural sector)

for the provision of ecosystem services, an example being the UN-REDD which considers the provis ion of

biodiversity benefits as a co-benefit to carbon sequestration4.

7. Other forms of market-based interventions include influencing the banking sector. This might range from

stimulating the establishment of micro-credit facilities for smallholders to promote sustainability, all the way through to influencing the lending practices of major financial institutions such as Rabobank5 that lend to

multinational processors in the agri-food sector. The Natural Capital Finance Alliance (NCFA) 6 has an on-

going work stream that is relevant.

8. In terms of fiscal interventions by governments, a further set of opportunities are reforms to taxes and

subsidies in order to create a level playing field between producing countries and taking into account environmental externalities. Some of the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) interventions pay farmers

for measures that improve biodiversity and ecosystem health, and these may feature in future CAP reforms.

There are also instances where subsidies that stimulated unsustainable agricultural production practices have

been removed, such as subsidies for pesticides and taxing their over-use or inappropriate applic ation. Suc h

practices which stimulate fairer competition, free resources and promote environmental protection need to be encouraged.

9. Governments – both at national and regional/local level – also have a role in shaping the agri-food sector’s impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems via legislation on land tenure. As well as the aforementioned public

good issue in the agri-food/biodiversity nexus, a farming enterprise may not take those actions that positively

impact on both the private profitability of the farm and on conservation (i.e. ‘win-win’ outc omes) bec ause the private benefits are realized in the future, and the farmer himself/herself may not benefit. This might

occur if the farmer is a tenant farmer or faces uncertainty vis-à-vis future tenure arrangements. This tenure

issue affects all investment decisions, those positively impacting on ecosystems and biodiversity being a sub-

set. Thus it may be in the best interests of the farm to for example adopt agro-ecological practices but not in

the interests of the farmer.

10. Intra-government jurisdictions of line ministries can also be an obstacle against reform towards sustainability in the agri-food sector, and thus finding mechanisms to mitigate this is equally an opportunity,

albeit one that it is difficult for a single project alone to influence. For instance, if the agriculture and forestry

ministries are separated, each with their independent mandates and targets, then it may be more challenging

to insinuate the needs of the agricultural sector vis-à-vis hydrological ecological services (freshwater availability and freshwater quality) into the forestry ministry’s afforestation/avoided deforestation strategies.

But forest location does influence agricultural productivity and so ideally the two ministries would co-

develop such land use plans. There are other examples: (i) the development of hydro may be under the

purview of energy ministry but choices to divert water bodies/store freshwater will affect the agricultural

4 https://www.cbd.int/forest/redd-plus/default.shtml 5 https://www.rabobank.com/en/about-rabobank/in-society/sustainability/food-supply/index.html 6 http://www.unepfi.org/ecosystems/ncfa/

4

sector; and (ii) the health ministry might incur the costs of treating farmers suffering from pesticide

poisoning, but within government it is primarily choices made in the agriculture ministry that determine the

incidence of pesticide poisoning.

(1) to (10) above represent some of the main categories of options to explore to find solutions that reduce the impact of the agri-food sector on ecosystems and biodiversity. A cross-cutting theme for all 10 categories is

that direct engagement with farmers, agri-businesses and their associations, governments and civil soc iety

in the sector is a very powerful form of advocacy. In order to be successful, this engagement must not only

present challenges (e.g. industry’s dependency on ecosystem functioning and biodiversity, and the associated risks from habitat loss and degradation) but also identify and in particular promote solutions (e.g. tools and

methodologies to facilitate actions taken by stakeholders and change agents from private business , such as

Natural Capital Protocol sector guides).

Assessing proposed solutions for agri-food sustainability: The TEEBAgriFood Evaluation

Framework

Many specific interventions in the categories (1) to (10) above that either have already been applied or are proposed in the seven countries in scope for this project claim to stimulating positive livelihood and

biodiversity benefits, but there is a need for this project to challenge this so as to avoid the promotion of

interventions that either (i) do not achieve what they purport, and/or (ii) achieve some positive outcomes b ut

also have negative impacts that are hidden/unassessed/unreported/out of scope.

This is the rationale for the development of the TEEBAgriFood Evaluation Framework, i.e. to provide a

comprehensive and universal framework that captures all the positive and negative impacts and externalities

across the entire agri-food value chain. It is a frame of reference that can enable us to answ er the ques tion

“what should we value, and why?” It can be used to evaluate a policy question, a business question or an

accounting question7. The TEEBAgriFood schematic (Figure 1) below provides a visual illustration of some

of the impacts and externalities that might be omitted were we not to apply a holistic and comprehensive evaluation framework.

7 For more details, see Chapter 3 in the TEEBAgriFood Interim Report: http://www.teebweb.org/publication/teebagfood -interim-report/

5

Figure 1. The visible and invisible flows of agricultural production

The schematic in Figure 1 above refers to the impacts and dependencies that occur within the farm gate but the Evaluation Framework looks at inter-linkages across the value chain, and trade-offs across capital stoc ks

in the eco-agri-food systems complex. This is illustrated in the schematic below (Figure 2).

Figure 2. The eco-agri-food systems complex

The focus of the current project is on biodiversity and ecosystems. This focus is justified owing to (i) the size

of the areas of natural ecosystems in these partner countries, (ii) the cumulative pressures (e.g. agric ultural

encroachment onto native forests) that affect changes in both their extent and condition, and ( iii) the loc al-

level and global-level dependence on the ecosystem services provided by these ecosystems. The drivers

6

underlying changes in extent and condition vary within these countries, but there are some commonalities,

especially in relation to the scale of the agri-food environmental footprint.

The TEEBAgriFood Evaluation Framework is not limited to just an exclusive focus on ecosystems and

biodiversity. As such, it includes not only the stock of natural capital but also other types of capital stock: ( i)

human capital, e.g. techniques and technologies developed through Agricultural Knowledge, Science and

Technology [AKST]; (ii) manmade capital, e.g. agricultural plant and machinery; and (iii) social capital, e.g.

the community bonds that allow the co-management of common property resources so as to avoid the ‘Tragedy of the Commons’8. With reference to flows of benefits, the TEEBAgriFood Framework considers

not only the flow of ecosystem services that the ecosystems in agricultural landscapes provide but also other

impacts such as human health outcomes arising from decisions made across the value chain.

In the current project, the other changes in capital stock in agricultural landscapes (i.e. non-natural c apital) and flows of benefits/dis-benefits other than changes in ecosystem services will be within scope only so f ar

as they impinge on changes in the state of the ecosystem and biodiversity. In summary, options for

interventions to be assessed and then (if viable) implemented in each country will be guided by their

potential to improve ecosystems and biodiversity. Ecosystems and biodiversity lie at the core The Economics

of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) and as such this position vis -à-vis agricultural landscapes is consistent with the value proposition of TEEB.

Partner countries

The selected partner countries for this project are each large in terms of land mass, diverse in terms of

agricultural production systems, rich in terms of the biodiversity, and are ‘open economies’ – inputs to and

exports from their respective agri-food sectors are globally traded. These international trade patterns also

have a large but indirect, often unaccounted impact on biodiversity, e.g. the production of agricultural

feedstuffs for export.

For each of the seven countries in scope, agricultural landscapes are affected by different c ountry-specif ic

Drivers and Pressures which in turn determine State. Further, the current project will be implemented w ithin

the context of an extant policy context. That policy context might be characterized as: (i) a Response by

national and sub-national (regional) policy-makers to directly influence the State of agricultural landscapes by applying sector-specific policies, thereby mitigating negative Impacts and promoting positive Impacts;

(ii) decisions made that affect the agricultural sector without a specific and singular focus on just the

agricultural sector, e.g. federal labor laws that apply to all industrial sectors; and (iii) the policy landscape

beyond national boundaries, e.g. World Trade Organization rules. Overall, the “Global Biodiversity Outlook

4” concluded that drivers linked to agriculture are the major source of biodiversity loss in land ecosystems.

A fundamental (and complex) component of the current project is to conduct a complete Driver-Pressure-

State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) assessment for agricultural landscapes in each country in scope. This is

necessary so as to determine (i) the geographical/sub-sector focus of the project in each country, i.e. where

the project can have the biggest positive impact on biodiversity and (ii) how potential policy interventions by

national and sub-national governments, businesses and civil society interface with previous and on-going initiatives in each country, i.e. developing synergies and complementarities and avoiding duplication, as well

as learning lessons from previous interventions.

8 Hardin, G. 1968. The Tragedy of the Commons. Science, (13)1243-1248.

7

Stakeholders

The TEEBAgriFood Framework is closely aligned with the Natural Capital Coalition (NCC)9, a development

of the TEEB for Business Coalition. Whereas the TEEBAgriFood Framework focuses on determining the sustainability impacts of production system, the NCC is concerned with implementation by the business

sector. The NCC was set up: (i) to bring together work being undertaken by business in relation to natural

capital; and (ii) to engage key actors (stakeholders) from business, government and civil society in an open

source collaboration, aimed at shaping the future of business thinking and action on natural capital. The NCC

through its collaboration with change agents from inter alia business and finance, accountancy, scienc e and

academia, and conservation bodies, created the Natural Capital Protocol (NCP).10

The Natural Capital Protocol is a framework designed to help generate credible and actionable information

for business managers to inform their decisions. It builds on a number of approaches that already exist to

help business measure and value natural capital, including the Corporate Ecosystem Services Review (WRI,

WBCSD and the Meridian Institute. 201211) and the Guide to Corporate Ecosystem Valuation (WBCSD, IUCN, ERM, and PwC. 201112). The Protocol has developed two sector guides that are pertinent to the

current proposal: (i) Food and Beverages; and (ii) Apparels – relevant for agricultural non-food raw

materials.13

Business is a key constituency in the change process, but business is not the only actor or stakeholder to improve sustainability in the agri-food sector, and so the application of NCP-for-business is to be

complemented with actions targeting other change agents. For instance, government policy needs to provide

an appropriate enabling environment to catalyse change in the economy.

Stakeholders will also include: the European Union; Local Ministries and Agencies; Trade unions; Associations, federations in the sector.

As TEEB seeks to respond to cross-sectoral policy questions, the project will bring together a wide range of

different actors within government, academia, civil society and business working at different levels (e.g.

local, national, or regional). Due attention will be paid to gender and geographic balance.

Ministries and sub-national government

The Ministry of Agriculture and/or the Ministry of Environment for each country is to chair/co-chair

the national project Steering Committee, which would include cross-ministry representation. Sub-

national government will be engaged, potentially through pilot watershed level assessments

(depending in the specifics of pilot projects selected). Ministries of Agriculture will have a key role as a political stakeholder.

National policy institutions and universities

National institutions will be employed to carry out project work with technical support from the

TEEB Office and the international policy research community. In each country in scope, the projec t will aim at expanding the TEEB community, reaching out to institutions and experts across a range

of disciplines such as ecosystem economics, health, nutrition, food security and agronomy.

Agricultural community

9 http://naturalcapitalcoalition.org/ 10 http://naturalcapitalcoalition.org/protocol/ 11 http://www.wri.org/sites/default/files/corporate_ecosystem_services_review_1.pdf 12 https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/2011-013.pdf 13 http://naturalcapitalcoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/NCC_Apparel_WEB_2016-07-12.pdf

8

The connection between livelihoods and biodiversity is direct, particularly for communities and

smallholder (especially women) farmers in areas adjacent to biodiversity-rich areas. The agricultural

community includes farmers’ groups, NGOs, trade organisations, agri-businesses etc., and these stakeholder groupings will be represented on the Steering Committee.

International stakeholders

The TEEB Office will also serve as a knowledge platform for sharing findings and best practices for

mainstreaming biodiversity with other governments, institutions and countries at international level. This may lead to replication and upscaling of pilot areas and lessons learned as inputs in other

countries. The Steering Committee may include representation from international projects

operational in the seven countries in scope.

Relevance to SDGs, Regional, National or Subnational Priorities

The EU aims to engage with selected partner's countries (Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mexic o

and Thailand) to take joint action on reducing biodiversity loss, by using an internationally agreed methodology and by promoting EU standards.

The Global Strategy for the European Union’s Foreign and Security Policy, adopted in June 2016, s tresses the importance to enhance energy and environmental resilience. There are political commitments that have

been signed by the EU and all partners on halting the loss of biodiversity and environmental degradation

globally. This project will contribute directly to achieving the objectives of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020, while at international level it will contribute to the implementation of the Strategic Plan for

Biodiversity 2011-2020 under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), including the Aichi Targets.

Among the EU commitments under the CBD, the most pertinent are the targets to address the underlying

causes of biodiversity loss by mainstreaming biodiversity, notably: Aichi Target 7 'By 2020 areas under

agriculture, aquaculture and forestry are managed sustainably, ensuring conservation of biodiversity; and Target 5 ‘to reduce the rate of loss of all natural habitats, including forests, where feasible to zero'.

In summary, the proposed action is framed in and is consistent with a large policy context as follows:

The Global Strategy for the European Union’s Foreign and Security Policy

The EU Biodiversity Strategy14 (including notably target 6: By 2020, the EU has stepped up its

contribution to averting global biodiversity loss.)

CBD Aichi targets15

The Sustainable Development Goals with explicit focus on SDG 15 and where relevant 14 (Protect,

restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat

desertification, halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss)

The EU-Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Mexico and Thailand sectorial dialogues on environment

which include sustainable development cooperation

The EU-CELAC dialogue conducted under the "Joint Initiative on Research and Innovation (JIRI).

Following the Cancun Declaration16 adopted at the 2016 December CBD CoP, in which governments

commit to mainstream biodiversity across all sectors, the project will contribute to incorporating biodiversity values into national accounting and reporting systems and will encourage sectors that depend or have an

impact on biodiversity to adopt integrated approaches for its conservation and sustainable use. In addition,

14 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52011DC0244&from=EN 15 https://www.cbd.int/sp/targets/ 16 http://www.cbd.int/cop/cop-13/hls/Cancun%20Declaration-EN.pdf

9

and in line with the Declaration, the project will contribute to supporting sustainable production and

consumption throughout value chains, the safe and sustainable application of technologies, and the phas ing

out of harmful incentives and strengthening of positive incentives.

In terms of national policy initiatives and strategies, an initial mapping has been conducted for each of the partner countries as documented separately in preliminary country studies. Such mapping will be elaborated

in future workstreams.

Expected Results

The main expected results of the project are:

R.1 European policies, best practices and lessons learned in the application of various interventions in the

agri-business sector and/or by private companies in the sector are evaluated by the respective

administrations, operators and civil society of the EU partner countries in scope.

R.2 Enhanced understanding and application of the TEEBAgriFood methodology to the agri-business sec tor

for the EU partner countries in scope, and enhanced understanding of the values of biodiversity and

ecosystem services to achieve resilient, secure supply from the agri-food sector. A menu of proposed options

for changes in the agri-food sector for the EU partner countries in scope are assessed under the TEEBAgriFood Framework.

R.3 Recommendations are provided for both land use change and shifts in agricultural production systems

and supply chains that have the potential to increase agricultural resilience, reduce supply chain risks for

private companies in the sector, improve human health and reduce greenhouse gas production.

R.4 Roadmap of concrete steps to implement a change developed and implemented, leading to a more level

playing field between the agri-business sector of the EU and partner countries. This includes the promotion

of natural capital and biodiversity accounting applying through the testing and application of the Natural

Capital Protocol.

R.5 Increased visibility of the EU as a global actor promoting biodiversity highlighted in international fora,

with outreach and dissemination to the global community.

The specific objectives (SOs) of the project are:

SO.1 Uptake of intervention options by the agri-business community via increased knowledge adoption and

inter alia the application of the Natural Capital Protocol, subsequently leading to changes in the dominant

business model

SO.2 Non-business actors (such as civil society, consumers, trade unions , regulators, local and national government etc.) use data and methods generated in the project to influence the sustainability of the agri-

business sector.

The TEEBAgriFood Framework17 will be used to assess the sectors for the EU Partner countries in sc o pe.

The focus in this action is capturing the value of ecosystems services, protecting biodiversity and promoting

17 The current published version of the Evaluation Framework can be found here: http://www.teebweb.org/agriculture -and-food/#framework. The Framework that is to be published in the upcoming TEEBAgriFood ‘Foundations’ report is an evolution of t his

previous version, but retains the same core components. The ‘Foundations’ report is due to be published in Q1 2018 and thus the Framework will be finalized before the current EC Partnership Instrument project is contracted .

10

well-functioning ecosystems the framework, but the scope will include inter alia employment, food security,

human health etc. if (and only if) such inclusions ultimately affect biodiversity outcomes in agricultural

landscapes. The action aims to be comprehensive, from farm to fork (i.e. across the entire value chain) . The TEEBAgriFood Framework allows decision-makers (regulators, agri-business and farmers) to see explic itly

any trade-offs that arise through the application of different measures, as compared with Business-As-Usual

(BAU).

Work Packages and Activities

The logic for the sequencing of work packages (WPs) in the project is as follows:

WP1. Country specific analysis on: (i) the types of interventions that have been applied (or alternatively

could be applied) to improve biodiversity outcomes in the agri-food sector across the value chain, with a

focus on lessons learned; and (ii) for each change agent (government, food processing and distribution agri-

businesses, farmers, civil society) determine their respective roles in the change agenda.

WP2. Via desk review and stakeholder consultation, provide a policy mapping for each country in scope,

framed with reference to the Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) approach.

WP3: Through the integration of results from WP1 and WP2, and in consultation with the EU and

stakeholders in the partner countries, determine and refine the pilot projects to be developed. For eac h pilot project, there is a need to set out a Business-As-Usual (BAU) scenario as a counterfactual to compare it with

Policy-on scenario(s).

WP4: Early engagement with the agri-business community via business network discussions leading to

twinning, focusing on the Natural Capital Protocol.

WP5: Scenario analysis of each Business-As-Usual versus Policy-on scenario using the TEEBAgriFood

Evaluation Framework. Applying this Framework, determine the constituency of beneficiaries and of losers

in comparing the two scenarios.

WP6: Using the outcomes of WP4 and WP5, develop a roadmap of concrete steps to implement a c hange , i.e. which actors and institutions would need to be involved, what actions would need to be taken, and w hat

obstacles would need to be overcome to enact change.

WP7: Deliver the change and ensure project sustainability. The project will support change agents through

the provision of training (including media) and technical assistance.

WP8: A cross-cutting work package on Communications and mainstreaming, including website/social

media, as well as activities to mainstream natural capital in business assessments via roundtables on the

Natural Capital Protocol

Specific activities associated with each of the WPs are set out in turn below.

WP1: Country specific analysis – lessons learned from previous interventions

Activity 1.1

‘Warm up’ meetings to the seven countries in scope, to be coordinated with the EU Delegations

11

Activity 1.2

Development of seven discussion papers (one per country) on Opportunities for agri-food sector reform to improve biodiversity outcomes

Activity 1.3

Policy consultation workshops (Latin America, Asia) to discuss the seven Opportun it ies paper and share lessons learned across the seven countries

Activity 1.4

Consultation with representatives of each category of change agents across the seven countries in scope to elicit options for the structure, content and form/delivery mechanism for the operational

guidelines

Activity

1.5

Development of operational guidelines on ‘How and why to value biodiversity and ecosystem

services applying the TEEBAgriFood Evaluation Framework’ for government, farmers, agri-business, and civil society, using examples from the seven countries in scope

WP2: Policy mapping

Activity 2.1

Development of initial desk-based baseline assessment of policy mapping for each of the s even countries in scope, based on a DPSIR approach

WP3: Determine and refine the pilot projects

Activity 3.1

Development of background documents and a stakeholder invitee list for an inception workshop for each of the seven countries in scope

Activity 3.2

Hosting and facilitating an inception workshop for each country in scope, and agreeing a long list of potential interventions

Activity 3.3

Post-workshop review of workshop outcomes to be developed

Activity

3.4

Formation of a country-level Project Steering Committee

Activity 3.5

Review by the country-level Project Steering Committee of the Workshop Report, pilo t p ro ject selection, and options appraisal for a host policy institution

Activity 3.6

Project workshop(s) to decide the pilot projects across the seven countries

WP4: Engaging agri-business with the Natural Capital Protocol and Agro-ecology networks

Activity 4.1

Implement country by country collaboration with NCC

Activity

4.2

Work towards setting up national business and biodiversity platforms and, where these exis t ,

engage with them and support these through the sub-actions

Activity 4.3

Promote the NCP application (using and facilitated by the networks under Activity 4.2)

Activity 4.4

Dedicated TEEBAgriFood/NCP application training programs for agri-business

Activity

4.5

Gather practical cases of NCC/TEEBAgriFood application within the food and beverage s ector

that demonstrate clear progress towards the TEEBAgriFood objectives

12

WP5: Making the case for change

Activity 5.1

Provision of technical backstopping by the TEEB Office for the scenario analysis being led by host policy institutions

Activity 5.2

Making the case: training workshop on the application of modelling of the intended change

Activity

5.3

Development by the host policy institutions of complete scenario analyses for each of the p ilo t

projects agreed in WP3

Activity 5.4

Second in-country Project Steering Committee to discuss methodologies applied and in terim findings of host policy institutions

WP6: Develop a roadmap of concrete steps to implement a change

Activity 6.1

Second in-country stakeholder workshop (one for each country in scope) to d is cuss s cenario analysis findings and to develop a roadmap of concrete steps to implement a change

Activity 6.2

Third in-country Steering Committee meeting convened

Activity

6.3

Host policy institution to prepare a stakeholder workshop report with agreed next steps for

implementation

Activity

6.4

Third workshop to discuss a roadmap of concrete steps to implement a change

WP7: Deliver the change and ensure project sustainability

Activity 7.1

Create an enabling environment for change implementation

Activity 7.2

Use all available UN Environment and EC channels to improve the visibility and buy-in fo r the project and its outcomes

Activity 7.3

Provide an update to Operational Guidelines for specific change agents

Activity

7.4

Final national project workshop (one per country)

Activity 7.5

Final pan-seven country project workshop

WP8: Communicating biodiversity benefits and mainstreaming

Activity 8.1

Develop a communications strategy

Activity

8.2

Develop and maintain a project website

Activity

8.3

Develop content for the TEEB newsletter (TEEBrief), and for TEEB social media

Activity 8.4

Participation in outreach events to disseminate project objectives