Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
CAPSACentre for Alleviation of Poverty through Sustainable Agriculture
alaw a pVol 33. No 2. Aug 2016 forum
RESEARCHARTICLE
Promoting Sustainable Agriculture Production and Products in the Asia and Pacific RegionBy S.V.R.K. Prabhakar, Daisuke Sano and Masakazu Ichimura
arious forms of sustainable agriculture have been promoted in the Asia and Pacific region, with
Vorganic agriculture constituting the single most important form. There is a commonality in the way sustainable agriculture has been defined, but often these definitions miss nuances such as
its relation to climate change. Several sustainable agriculture indicators have been proposed, but with limited application on the ground. So far, certification has been the major method of promoting sustainable agriculture, but this approach has several limitations. Certification-based market access for poor and marginal farmers has been a major issue and there is a need to adopt non-certification means of promoting products from these farmers. Identifying a common set of sustainable agriculture indicators could help in operationalizing, harmonizing and promoting sustainable agriculture concepts on the ground. Existing sustainable agriculture indicators need to be improved with respect to social, climate change and biodiversity dimensions to bring more products into the gamut of sustainable agriculture.
BackgroundAgriculture contributes a significant proportion of the national gross domestic product (GDP) of the Asia and Pacific region (APR), although its share has been declining over the years because of economic structural changes. Between 1999 and 2009, expansion of the agricultural area in the APR was insignificant. Farmland decreased in Australia, New Zealand, the Republic of Korea and Japan, Samoa, China and India, while it increased in countries such as Fiji, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, Vanuatu, Viet Nam, the Philippines, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Pakistan, Indonesia and Thailand (FAOSTAT, 2015). These trends are largely due to increasing pressure on and competition for agricultural land from urbanization, industrial growth and transportation. As a result of intensive farming practices, growing pressure on agricultural ecosystems is leading to land degradation, soil erosion and loss of soil fertility. Land scarcity is a challenge in India and China (FAO, 2014) and erosion is prevalent in some parts of India and regions to the north of China.
By region, East Asia followed by South and South-West Asia are the heaviest users of fertilizers at 445 kg/ha and 150.38 kg/ha, respectively. Pesticide use, in terms of active ingredient, however, has decreased in China, India, the Republic of Korea, Japan and Viet Nam over the past decade, while it increased in countries such as Thailand, Australia, New Zealand and Pakistan (FAOSTAT, 2015). There is increasing farm mechanization in crop production in the APR, although mechanization itself remains limited. While India and Japan possess the largest number of tractors in the region, at over 2 million, Indonesia records the use of only 4,000 (FAO, 2014). In addition to these trends, the region is also experiencing rapid change in dietary patterns towards consumption of meat products, which puts further pressure on agricultural land for the supply of animal feed and fodder.
These trends are putting increasing pressure on agricultural sustainability. Arresting these trends is of paramount importance for the region to develop sustainably, especially in terms of food and nutritional
S.V.R.K. Prabhakar Senior Policy Researcher and
Task Manager, Climate Change Adaptation, Institute for Global
Environmental Strategies (IGES), Japan
Daisuke SanoDeputy Programme Managing
Director, IGES, Japan
Masakazu IchimuraDirector, CAPSA-ESCAP
security. Countries in the APR have promoted several policies and programmes for sustainable agriculture, but these are often uncoordinated. However, with the advent of global frameworks such as Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which are comprehensive, there is even more impetus for developing sustainable agriculture. Identifying appropriate indicators could help achieve this.
Definition of sustainable agricultureFAO defines sustainable development in the context of agriculture as “the management and conservation of the natural resource base, and the orientation of technological and institutional change in such a manner as to ensure the attainment and continued satisfaction of human needs for present and future generations. Such sustainable development (in the agriculture, forestry, and fisheries sectors) conserves land, water, plant and animal genetic resources, is environmentally non-degrading, technologically appropriate, economically viable and socially acceptable" (Corsin, Funge-Smith, & Clausen, 2007). Stephen R. Gliessman defines sustainable agriculture as “a whole-systems approach to food, feed and fibre production that balances environmental soundness, social equity, and economic viability among all sectors of the public, including international and intergenerational peoples. Inherent in this definition is the idea that sustainability must be extended not only globally but indefinitely in time, and to all living organisms including humans” (Stephen, 1998). The Sustainable Agriculture Initiative Platform defines it as “the efficient production of safe, high quality agricultural products, in a way that protects and improves the natural environment, the social and economic conditions of farmers, their employees and local communities, and safeguards the health and welfare of all farmed species” (Sustainable Agriculture Initiative Platform, 2010). These definitions call for the preservation of the natural resource base, they consider the food security of current and future generations, emphasize economic and environmental well-being, and advocate systems and ecological approaches. While some definitions focus on food production alone, others go beyond production and cover the 'farm to bin' concept, as in the case of the definition given by the Sustainable Agriculture Initiative Platform. The difference is that such definitions extend the benefits of sustainable agriculture to the well-being of consumers and call for efficient food supply chains that minimize food waste and uphold food security, and climate
change adaptation and mitigation goals. Most sustainable agriculture definitions do not explicitly mention climate change. However, climate-smart agriculture could be understood as an extended form of sustainable agriculture that could help address climate change issues upfront (CCAFS, 2016)
Indicators for sustainable agriculture
Several indicators have been proposed for sustainable agriculture and products (Figure 1). Christen and O'Halloranetholtz (2012) opined that any sustainable development indicators for agriculture should satisfy a set of criteria including scale of observation, transparency of how the indicators will be used, cost of collecting the data and the scale at which the indicators will be used (e.g. farm or regional level, etc.) (Christen and O'Halloranetholtz, 2012).
Reytar et al. (2014) grouped these indicators into policy, practice and performance indicators covering water, climate change, land conversion, soil health and pollution but clearly excluding economic and social dimensions (Reytar, Hanson & Henninger, 2014). Their review indicated that most indicators are either irregularly collected or are not proximate enough to environmental sustainability, and are less relevant to policy decision-making, especially in the areas of water, climate change and nutrient use. While the indicators proposed by Reytar et al. (2014) and Christen and O'Halloranetholtz (2012) constitute a mix of macro and micro indicators, OECD-proposed indicators constitute mostly macro indicators appropriate for policy decision-making at the national level (OECD, 2013). In addition to these indicators, the SDGs include a number of indicators that are applicable to promoting sustainable agriculture and filling the gaps in the
CAPSA palawija forum2
Land Water Atmosphere and climate
Management Social
Type of indicators
Nu
mb
er
of
ind
icato
rs
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Figure 1. Number of sustainable agriculture indicators 1
proposed in the literature
1 (Christen and O'Halloranetholtz, 2012; OECD, 2013; Reytar, Hanson and Henninger, 2014)
FROM THE EDITOR
3Vol 33. No 2. Aug 2016
Dear Palawija readers,
Ensuring the sustainability of agricultural systems has become a critical need in view of a rising global population and emerging challenges, such as land degradation and climate change. In this context, organic agriculture is receiving increasing attention across the world, including in the Asia-Pacific region, where a number of research organizations have studied or reviewed the potential of organic agriculture. The role of certification standards and mechanisms in promoting sustainable and/or organic agriculture is also attracting greater scrutiny and analysis.
This issue of Palawija Forum shares two articles on the topic of certification, with particular reference to the Asia-Pacific region. The article entitled “Promoting sustainable agriculture production and products in the Asia and Pacific Region” by S.V.R.K. Prabhakar and Daisuke Sano of the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), Japan, with contributions from CAPSA, highlights the role of organic agriculture certification in promoting sustainable agriculture in the region.
Astrid Offermans of the International Centre for Integrated Assessment and Sustainable Development (ICIS), Maastricht University, the Netherlands, in her article entitled “Sustainability certification in Indonesia: the road towards sustainability?” discusses the impact of certification schemes on smallholder farmers in Indonesia.
A success story on Thailand's carbon footprint labelling programme for agri-products as a tool for leading Thailand's transition to a low carbon economy is presented in this issue.
Information on the 2016 edition of The World of Organic Agriculture is also shared. The book provides a comprehensive review of recent developments in organic agriculture globally.
We hope you enjoy reading this issue and we welcome your feedback and contributions for future issues of this Forum.
Editor
social area (http://uncapsa.org/palawija/pn1608_Table-A.pdf).
Gaining access to sustainable agriculture markets
In the APR, the speed of change in food consumption habits along with rapid economic development and increased disposable income has far outpaced the speed with which the agricultural producers could catch up, leading to marginalization of some producers in developing countries. Agricultural producers who have been producing for subsistence and those who have recently been exploring market opportunities for greater profits do not have the capacity to produce for these emerging markets. Small and marginal farmers, in particular, are left out of these emerging value-added food markets. These producers need to build capacity to reach the level of quality that consumers demand in the rich and niche emerging urban markets in APR.
Initiatives for providing market access to small and marginal farmers in developing countries have focused on building appropriate infrastructure, such as transportation, storage facilities, processing, credit, information, and health and education services (Maximo, 2011). Other market access instruments have focused on reducing market risks and transaction costs through innovative institutional support mechanisms (Table 1). Several institutions and programmes funded by donor agencies and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are facilitating new and innovative measures of increasing market access for farmers in the region. These measures are often isolated and are not well supported by national initiatives; hence, there is still a large proportion of farmers who can benefit from market access. Sustainable agriculture products could provide a means of gaining market access, as health-conscious urban consumers are growing in the region. Government initiatives lack focus on gaining market competitiveness, which is achieved by
4
product specialization, quality control and targeting niche markets. This has been the focus of initiatives led by NGOs and bi- and multilateral agencies. Product certification has played a significant role in such approaches.
Certification for promoting sustainable agricultureOrganic agriculture remains the single largest form of sustainable agriculture being promoted globally today. Applying the concepts of sustainability to practical production and consumption contexts has led to focused approaches, such as organic agriculture. There are several organic certification standards that offer a perspective on sustainable agriculture. Most of these agricultural standards have sustainability as a basis, though they may vary in the definition they adopt. These standards and the indicators used therein support an idea that sustainable agriculture need not be left to concepts alone, but can be translated into practical applications.
Detailed discussion on certification is beyond the scope of this paper. Certification can provide an
important means of operationalizing sustainable agriculture, keeping in view the consumers safety and preferences. There are, however, both pros and cons. Pros include the ability of producers to access to markets where such standards are
enforced, price premiums, capacity-building of producers and stakeholders in the supply chain in all aspects of food quality, reduction in food loss due to improved capacity and support services, increased consumer confidence and a better ability to create brand equity among the consumers and markets. However, enforcing certification as a means of promoting sustainable agriculture could alienate small and marginal producers who cannot afford or technically comply with formal certification schemes. This is where Fairtrade is helping by improving the market access through product certification. This is achieved through organizing small-scale farmers into groups, building their capacity to produce quality goods and linking them with the markets through the marketing of Fairtrade certified produce (Fairtrade, 2016). Through this initiative, in 2015, Fairtrade was able to link nearly 40,000 smallholder farmers in the Pacific region alone.
Table 1. Ways in which market access has been improved in some of the countries in the Asia and Pacific region
Country Market access examples Reference
Farmer–supermarket linkages, community cooperatives,
training and capacity-building
Dalton (2006); Food and
Agriculture Organization
(2016)
Farmer–supermarket linkages, farmer associations,
training and capacity-building
APAARI (2008)
Contract farming, self-help groups, cooperatives, farmers
markets, subsidies for investment in market infrastructure,
information technology
APAARI (2008); Praveen
(2014)
Farmer field schools, participatory market chain
approaches, contracts between farmers and market chain
partners, capacity-building of farmers, farmer groups and
farmer–private sector partnerships
AUSAID (2006); Shepherd,
(2006); Food and Agriculture
Organization
(2016)
Farmer–private sector linkages, CODEX marketing
standards, infrastructure improvement, Fairtrade
certification schemes (also applicable in many other
Pacific countries)
Martin and Jagadish (2011);
IFAD (2014); Wickramasinghe
(2015)
Developing enterprises around special food produce,
capacity-building, technological infusion, farmers
cooperatives, farmer–trader linkages
APAARI (2008); Food and
Agriculture Organization
(2016)
Fairtrade certification, capacity-building, market linkages Fairtrade (2016)
Farmer to trader linkages, private sector linkages, and
leadership of lead farmers
Food and Agriculture
Organization (2016)
Cambodia
China
India
Indonesia
Papua New
Guinea
Philippines
Samoa
Thailand
Source: Authors
CAPSA palawija forum
2
SHORT ARTICLE
5
Several forms of organic agriculture certifications are being issued in the region (http://uncapsa.org/palawija/pn1608_Table-B.pdf) and countries vary in their capacity to provide certification for sustainable agriculture production (see Figure 2 for the current capacity). It is apparent that Japan, the Republic of Korea and China have largest number of certification agencies. Certified organic agriculture in APR is yet to make significant progress in terms of its share of the total agricultural area. There is high demand for organic produce in the Republic of Korea, while certified organic agriculture as a percentage of total agricultural area is highest in Bangladesh. Lack of harmonization in certification schemes and higher prices in comparison to conventional agricultural products have fragmented the market and reduced the potential to promote sustainable agriculture to a large extent.
Experience from existing regional/international effortsSustainable agriculture has been widely promoted from cooperatives at the local level to cooperation and partnerships among independent producer associations at regional and international levels (Table 2). These partnerships have significantly contributed to the capacity-building of producers. They were able to influence governments to promote sustainable agriculture policies. They also connected smallholder farmers to emerging markets through technology transfer, capacity-building, product specialization and public–private partnerships. While the Association of Southeast
Asian Nations (ASEAN) leads the way in terms of regional cooperation for promoting sustainable agriculture, there is large potential for other subregions to follow suit. Small steps have been made in the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) in developing a SAARC Agriculture Vision 2020 and SAARC Regional Coordinated Programme on Agroforestry. The SAARC Agriculture Vision 2020, in particular, talks about the need to develop a region-wide agriculture standard to promote agricultural exports and regional cooperation in areas of food security, safety and natural resource conservation, with a focus on local contexts.
Challenges and tasks for futurePromoting sustainable agriculture requires operationalizing sustainable agricultural principles
on the ground, and product certification has been a major approach. The current means of accessing emerging food markets through structured certification programmes works very well for affluent farmers and farmers who have good access to extension and credit facilities. However, small-scale and marginal farmers, who use few or no market inputs in agricultural production and whose agricultural produce can be relatively free of harmful chemicals, are yet to gain market access with high-value and high-quality agricultural products. This can be achieved through proper identification of these farmers, targeted capacity-building to help them comply with necessary standards or practices and connections to
Certification agencies
OA as % of total agriculture
Viet Nam
China
Philippines
Sri Lanka
Malaysia
Japan
India
Bangladesh
Thailand
Rep. of Korea
Indonesia
Pakistan
5
4
3
2
1
0Per capita organic demand
Certification agencies: 1=10-20: 2=20-30: 3=30-40: 4=40-50; 5=>50. Organic agriculture (OA) as percentage of total agriculture: 1=0-0.4; 2=0.4-0.8; 3=0.8-1.2; 3=1.2-1.6; 4=1.6-2.0; 5=>2.0. Per capita organic demand (million US$): 1=0-5; 2=5-10; 3=10-15; 4=15-20; 5=>20.
Figure 2. Capacity of certified organic agriculture in selected countries in Asia and Pacific region
Source: Authors
Vol 33. No 2. Aug 2016
appropriate market channels and specific consumers in urban areas. Such an approach could open up new markets for these producers at national and regional levels, leading to economic well-being and poverty reduction.
Sustainable agriculture indicators have been discussed in the literature, but have not been well implemented in practice. There is a need for further research on how these indicators can be combined to produce a meaningful measure for farm- and policy-level decision-making. There are no known examples of using sustainable agriculture indicators in a systematic manner at these levels. Research is needed to show how best to improve these indicators for promoting sustainable agriculture. The main challenge remains agreeing on a common purpose and set of indicators that is applicable from farm to higher administrative levels. While most existing sustainable agriculture certifications aim at operationalizing these indicators, they only use a fraction of the
sustainable agriculture indicators that could be chosen, leaving many out of the sustainability assessment. Most importantly, the existing certifications often emphasize crop-management indicators and place less importance on social indicators or emerging environmental concerns, such as climate change or biodiversity, preventing farmers from obtaining certification.
Agricultural producers in the Asia and Pacific are heterogeneous in terms of their economic capacity and agricultural production skills, and improving their access to emerging sustainable agriculture markets cannot be done through a blanket approaches and policies. There is a need for targeted policies and capacity-building initiatives that are well integrated into the existing agricultural extension systems of the countries, rather than stand-alone systems.
(List of references can be made available upon request)
Table 2. Major partnership efforts to promote sustainable agriculture in the Asia and Pacific region
Partnership initiative Nature and scope
Reference
A country partnership that is market driven for sustainable agricultural development, developed
by the World Economic Forum
(World Economic Forum, 2015; World Economic Forum, 2016)
Support for smallholder farmers, private sector and Governments in Viet Nam and Indonesia
(Rainforest Alliance, 2016)
Regional alliance of national federations of small-scale farmers for the benefit of small farmers, working towards a vision of self-reliance and prosperity
(Asian Farmers’ Association for Sustainable Rural Development, 2016)
A platform of multi-stakeholder partnerships working to transform agriculture in South-East Asia in partnership with World Economic Forum and ASEAN
(Grow Asia, 2016)
A partnership that aims to improve the agricultural food security information systems and human resource development
(ASEAN, 2014)
A private sector partner providing opportunities in advanced learning for ASEAN students in sustainability aspects of the food industry
(AFH, 2014)
A partnership that seeks to optimize the contribution of businesses towards the realization of ASEAN Strategic Plan of Action on Food Security
(ASEAN CSR Network, 2014)
Based on the SAARCResolution on Agroforestry, SARCOPA aims to promote agroforestry in the SAARC countries through building the related capacity, technical cooperation and establishing demonstrations and related guidelines and codes
(SAARC, 2016)
New Vision for Agriculture (NVA)
Rainforest Alliance
Asian Farmers’ Association for Sustainable Rural Development (AFA)
Grow Asia
ASEAN and Japan Cooperation in Food, Agriculture and Forestry
ASEAN Food Industries Human Resource Development Association (AFH)
Leveraging business in ASEAN for food security and sustainableagriculture (LAB)
SAARC Regional Coordinated Programme on Agroforestry (SARCOPA)
6 CAPSA palawija forum
SHORTARTICLE
Sustainability Certification in Indonesia1The Road towards Sustainability?
By Astrid Offermans
Backgroundustainability certification is big business for
Scash crops all around the world. When it comes to coffee, for example, Indonesia
exports around 47,000 tons of certified coffee annually with an estimated value of US$ 91,000,000. Depending on the scheme, certification promises premium prices, training and investments in infrastructure or agricultural equipment, with the idea of improving the livelihoods of smallholders. However, the benefits to Indonesia's farmers appear marginal.
In 2015, a four-day workshop, organized by the International Centre for Integrated Assessment and Sustainable Development (ICIS), Maastricht University, and funded by the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW) and Indonesia's Directorate General of Higher Education (DIKTI), brought together a number of Indonesian and Dutch experts on the matter. Participants shared insightful and interesting ideas about the pitfalls and successes of private and public certification and agreed that more needs to be done to improve the certification process and ensure farmers reap the rewards.
From the 1980s, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and businesses from the Global North began to set voluntary private standards to regulate crop production in the Global South. The intention was to increase the sustainability of production through contributing to safer, environmentally friendly and more efficient agricultural practices. The development of certification schemes followed a steep growth curve and, currently, we see around 465 eco-label schemes in 199 countries, covering 25 industries, including agriculture (www.ecolabelindex.com). In the ICIS research programme “Global Certifying Partnerships: A Southern Perspective”, there is explicit focus on certification of cash crops. Examples include the certification of coffee (UTZ certified, Fairtrade, 4C, Coffee and Farmer Equity (CAFÉ) practices, Rainforest Alliance), palm oil
(Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO)), and cocoa (Sustainable Agriculture Network (SAN), UTZ certified, Fairtrade).
Sustainability standards for these cash-crop schemes range from factors such as ending child labour to the construction of wastewater ponds, to limiting the use of pesticides and fertilizer. The standards are generally accompanied by education and training programmes for farmers.
The impact of these standards on smallholders is ambiguous, but research reveals moderately positive effects on the environment and farmers' health. Certified farmers also receive slightly higher prices for their products compared to uncertified farmers. However, in other ways, farmers remain vulnerable. Around 90 per cent of the 1.24 million hectares of coffee plantations in Indonesia are owned and cultivated by smallholders. These smallholders generally own plots of 1-2 ha and often face economic hardship. Farmers are sometimes in debt and their incomplete understanding of market pricing and price-setting mechanisms, as well as their limited access to markets, puts them in a weak position (Hidayat et al., 2015).
ICIS's research results reveal that under certification schemes, profits to farmers do not increase significantly because certification involves higher costs. Also, the slightly higher farmgate prices result from improvements in the quality of the products rather than from the certificate (Sri Astuti et al., 2015). Most Indonesian smallholders still do not participate in any certification scheme.
The Government's responseThe growing number of certification schemes also implies that the Indonesian Government is increasingly confronted with Northern-based initiatives to regulate the production of Indonesian crops. The proliferation of different certification initiatives and standards has brought confusion.
1 A version of this article was first published on Inside Indonesia: www.insideindonesia.org/certification-curse-or-blessing
Astrid Offermans Post-doctoral Researcher, International Centre for Integrated Assessment and Sustainable Development (ICIS), Maastricht University, the Netherlands
Contact:[email protected]
Vol 33. No 2. Aug 2016 7
The Government is also sensitive to how global certification schemes impact on Indonesia's sovereignty over its own agricultural markets and on their dependency on foreign powers (Wijaya and Glasbergen, 2016).
According to Atika Wijaya from ICIS, liberalization of the agricultural market that accompanied reformasi initially encouraged the Government to adopt a passive attitude towards the standards and leave implementation to the market and private actors. However, the Indonesian Government has become increasingly active. In response to RSPO, the Minister for Agriculture issued Law No. 19/2011, which instituted a national standard, Indonesian Sustainable Palm Oil (ISPO). The goal was to reach more smallholders and increase the competitiveness of Indonesian palm oil in the global market. Similar initiatives can be observed for cocoa and coffee and in Malaysia. These public standards are comparable to the private standards, though they tend to be compulsory instead of voluntary and less strict in terms of requirements. The question is, however, whether these public standards will do a better job than the private standards in improving the vulnerable position of farmers.
The benefits of organizingFarmer organization is important for the livelihoods of coffee, cocoa and palm oil farmers. Farmers who are organized in cooperatives, or who are linked to a company, generally hold a stronger position than those farmers who are less effectively organized, or who do not belong to any type of organization. They also profit from economies of scale, a more powerful position in the market and opportunities for credits, learning and training.
Certification is one way to organize farmers, but does certification lead to more benefits than being organized? PhD researcher Ibnu Muhammad from ICIS found that certified farmers experience more benefits regarding representation/negotiation, capacity-building, networking, economy and community support compared to the uncertified farmers. However, he also found that organization has a stronger influence on the perceived benefits than certification. This means that farmers experience a higher increase in their perceived benefits when they evolve from being unorganized to organized, compared to evolving from uncertified to certified.
The Indonesian Government could consider empowering farmers to form cooperatives, or support cooperatives that function well already. This does not necessarily mean government-initiated cooperatives, as these may not fully correspond to farmers' needs or guarantee
farmers' motivation to participate. Rather, an investment in collective processing and value adding (which implies more focus on end products instead of only intermediate products) could further help to empower farmers to improve their livelihoods.
Value creationWhat does 'adding value' actually mean? In supermarkets, uncertified coffee is generally less expensive. If you pay more for certified coffee compared to uncertified coffee, where does this additional price end up?
According to coffee experts Surip Mawardi and Esther Sri Astuti, roasters benefit most from the additional price being paid for certified coffee (see Figure 1). In the robusta coffee value chain, and only looking at Indonesian actors, Sri Astuti found that certified coffee – on a kilogram basis – cost around 29,331 Indonesian Rupiah (US$ 2.50) more than conventional coffee. Farmers only receive 1.36 per cent of this additional price (US$ 0.034). The roasters receive 95.47 per cent (US$ 2.386), traders receive 1.47 per cent (US$ 0.036), and the exporters receive around 1.7 per cent (US$ 0.042).
Smallholders benefit more in the arabica value chain (around US$ 0.15 for 1 kg certified coffee) compared to the robusta value chain. This is because of the high coffee quality and the high demand for this type of coffee in the domestic market. Indonesian consumers are willing to pay more for good quality arabica coffee. The fact that the coffee is certified is not an important factor for them. The certification process, however, and particularly the training that is part of it, leads to higher quality coffee beans and higher prices in the domestic market.
The fact that roasters benefit most from certification makes sense from an economic point of view as the roaster adds value to a raw product and transforms it into a consumer product. However, it is the farmer that adjusts his/her practices to make the product more sustainable, and yet farmers receive a smaller financial benefit. Also, as most roasters are located abroad, financial benefits of value creation hardly benefit Indonesian actors.
Cocoa expert Soetanto Abdoellah argues that value creation in Indonesia could help to keep the younger generation motivated and enthusiastic about taking over their parents' cocoa plantations, instead of migrating to the cities to search for alternative job opportunities. While the younger generation lacks pride in being a cocoa producer, they demonstrate an interest in processing, trading
8 CAPSA palawija forum
in end products and using small mechanical technologies.
Plantation instead of crop certificationMost coffee and cocoa smallholders grow at least two to three crops at the same time. The current certification system is highly inefficient (both private and public) because it demands a separate certification process (with separate certification costs) for all different crops. According to Soetanto, exploring possibilities for plantation or farmer-based certification, instead of crop-based certification, could be worthwhile. This could even develop into a new niche market for the Indonesian Government following recent trends towards the so-called landscape and commodity-driven approaches towards certification.
Currently, certification costs are too high for poor smallholders. In some cases, exporters (for coffee) or companies (for palm oil) take over the certification costs. Consequently, these exporters or companies hold the certificates, creating a dependency relationship for the smallholders. Alternatively, traders pay the certification costs. But when traders pay, farmers are locked into trading with them to repay the debts. This lock-in leads to higher costs for farmers, as the involvement of traders implies the addition to the value chain of another actor trying to make profit. In the usual certification process, where farmers are able to pay for certification themselves, the traders are ruled out or work for the exporter. Experts at the 2015 workshop organized by ICIS suggested that the Government could offer subsidies for certification costs so that farmers can avoid engaging with middlemen.
Using farmers' knowledge to increase sustainability may be a way to include impoverished and excluded farmers in the governance system. Jacqueline Vel of the has Van Vollenhoven Instituteemphasized that many farmers are left behind, particularly those living in areas prone to conflict, or in areas where companies decide to withdraw. They may lose part of their production and do not have a chance to fulfil the certification criteria and become certified. Currently, the author observes a lack of knowledge about the ideas of these impoverished farmers regarding the creation of more sustainable agricultural production. Better use of their knowledge regarding possibilities, opportunities and barriers for more sustainable agriculture may lead us, step-by-step, towards improving the economic, social and environmental prospects of production, with or without certification.
ConclusionAlthough the results of ICIS' research reveal moderately positive impacts of certification, we cannot avoid being somewhat critical about certification and its effects on smallholders. Increasingly, we wonder whether positive results of certification cannot be more efficiently and more inclusively realized in different ways, for example through organization and the provision of training that may allow smallholders to reap the rewards that seem to go along with certification, without being confronted with the negative effects such as new dependency relations, higher costs, administrative burdens and impacts on long-lasting sociocultural relationships.
(List of references can be made available upon request)
Figure 1. Percentages of the overall additional price paid for certified coffee compared to conventional coffee divided per actor. The roasters in this study only cover Indonesian-based roasters.
Vol 33. No 2. Aug 2016 9
83.65%
5.28%
5.66% 5.41%
16.35%
Arabica
Roaster Exporter Farmer Trader
95.47%
1.70%
1.36%
1.47%
4.53%
Robusta
Roaster Exporter Farmer Trader
100%=29,331 Indonesian Rupiahs per kilogram of certified coffee (USD 2.50)
100%=38,850 Indonesian Rupiahs per kilogram of certified coffee (USD 3.31)
10
Thailand's Carbon Footprint Labelling Programme for Agri-productsBy Pongvipa Lohsomboon, Phakamon Suparphan, Pathom Chaiyapruksaton and Mimansha Joshi Shrestha
Pongvipa Lohsomboon Deputy Executive Director, Thailand Greenhouse Gas Management Organization
(TGO)
Phakamon Suparphan Project Manager, Carbon
Business Office, TGO
Pathom Chaiyapruksaton, Project Manager, Carbon
Business Office, TGO
Mimansha Joshi Shrestha, Project Official, Carbon
Business Office, TGO
1 CFP takes into account the quantity of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from each production unit throughout the whole life
cycle (cradle to grave) of a product. The carbon footprint thus reflects the carbon dioxide equivalent in tons (tCO e) of the GHG 2
emissions released from raw material acquisition, manufacture, use, waste management and final disposal, including related transport, for all stages.2 CFR or the global warming reduction label demonstrates achieving a reduction in the product's carbon footprint as required by the TGO's Carbon Labelling Programme. An assessment of CFR is based on the concept of product life. It uses the carbon footprint for the base year and the present year in order to evaluate the reduction in carbon footprint of the product against the TGO's requirement.3 Data from IPCC AR4.4 UNFCCC National Reports.
SUCCESSSTORY
o promote and support activities related to
Tmitigating climate change, the Thailand Greenhouse Gas Management
Organization (TGO) has initiated and implemented 'carbon labelling'. Established in 2009, in collaboration with National Metal and Materials Technology Center of the National Science and Technology Development Agency, the scheme aims to encourage industries and stimulate improvement in their production technologies to reduce emissions. It also aims to raise awareness, so that consumers are able to take into account sustainability in selecting products according to information on carbon footprint and emissions.
Currently, the types of carbon footprint labelling promoted in Thailand include Carbon Footprint for
1Products (CFP) and Carbon Footprint Reduction 2(CFR) labels. As effective measures to mitigate
the impacts of climate change, the CFP and CFR on-pack labels help consumers to easily identify emissions based on a life-cycle (from business to consumer) approach, and also provide an opportunity for companies to publicize such information on their products.
The agricultural sector is one of the most prominent sectors participating in the CFP and CFR schemes in Thailand. Agriculture contributes greatly to the world's GHG emissions which are projected to increase by 15 per cent by 2030 over 2010 levels, amounting to nearly 7 billion tons of carbon per year. This sector can thus play a significant role in combating the problem of
3climate change. Thailand, where agriculture is a
leading economic activity, emitted a total of 2.8 million tons in 2000 and more than 70 per cent of these emissions were agricultural
4emissions. The country exported 20,816,974 tons of agricultural products in 2011, worth US$ 26,242,813,000, and in 2013 exported 10.3 million tons of rice, making it the top rice-exporting country in the world.
As of June 2016, 1,817 products from 418 companies have been registered for the CFP label. Of this, 846 products from 280 companies were from the agricultural sector, representing 67 per cent of companies that have CFP labels.
Similarly, 155 products from 37 companies have been registered for the CFR label. The products include ceramic tiles, wall and floor tiles, dish cleaners, textiles, cement, rice bags, cooking oil and other products, giving an expected GHG emissions reduction of 892,277 tCO e. Of these 2
155 products, a total 62 products are from 17 agricultural sector companies; they have a combined GHG reduction potential of 45,343 tCO e, and these 17 companies represent 2
46 per cent of all companies that have CFR labels.
These numbers denote strong participation from agricultural commodity producers. One of the many reasons for the agricultural sector having a high share of labels is that labelled products are preferred in foreign markets. The Thai Government thus aims to promote the CFR label in this sector.
CAPSA palawija forum
11Vol 33. No 2. Aug 2016
The CFP label also confers numerous benefits. Consumers have product information, giving them an opportunity to make environmentally friendly purchasing decisions and hence participate in GHG emission reduction. Similarly, producers can use the labels as a green incentive for market promotion, to underscore their commitment to corporate social responsibility, identify emissions hotspots in their supply chain, be efficient in their production processes and prepare for potential impacts of climate policy on production in the near future.
These benefits can help manufacturers to promote a positive image and reduce costs, thus improving their competitiveness in the global market. For example, Thanakorn Vegetable Oil Products Co. Ltd. has successfully registered to label 684,000 soybean oil bottles (1.0 L) and 100,800 sunflower oil bottles (0.5 L) with the CFP label, while also offsetting its overall GHG emissions. Likewise, the Charoen Pokphant Foods Company (CPF) boasts 145 products, ranging from animal feed, to farm produce, food
and trade products, which have been certified with the CFP label. This makes CPF the company with the highest number of products certified with the CFP label in the world.
Moreover, as green jobs are an imperative for development, the emergence of consultants and verifiers offering services in carbon footprinting provides opportunities for growth. CFP has a total of 78 consultants, representing 6 consultant entities, and 40 verifiers, representing 4 verifier entities.
Overall, CFP and CFR labels as mitigation measures engage both producers and consumers. For companies to build the right tools and meet expectations of consumers and customers, they must tailor their business practices to fit customers' needs, which are now increasingly focused on sustainability. CFP and CFR labels can be valuable tools to help companies achieve these outcomes and ultimately lead Thailand's transition to a low carbon economy.
NEWS AND ACTIVITIES
CAPSA and the Network Activities Group (NAG), in collaboration with the Asian and Pacific Centre for Transfer of Technology (APCTT) and the Centre for Sustainable Agricultural Mechanization (CSAM), organized a "Multi-stakeholder Dialogue on Strengthening Local Capacities for Climate-resilient Agriculture in Myanmar's Dry Zone" from 30 to 31 May 2016 in Nay Pyi Taw, Myanmar. The event was implemented under an ongoing project entitled "An Integrated Rural Economic and Social Development Programme for Livelihoods Improvement in the Dry Zone of Myanmar", which is supported by the Livelihoods and Food Security Trust Fund (LIFT).
Around 50 participants from a wide range of stakeholders including union and regional governments, universities, international and local non-governmental organizations (NGOs), community-based organizations, multilateral and bilateral organizations, the private sector and farmer associations took part. Two region ministers, two Members of Parliament and the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Irrigation were among the participants.
Over the course of two days, the Multi-stakeholder Dialogue examined the roles of different government and non-government stakeholders, and reviewed various technical, policy and programmatic interventions. Overall, the event highlighted the importance of strengthening the capacities of smallholders, other vulnerable communities and women. It adopted a set of concrete recommendations to address existing needs in order to promote climate-resilient agriculture in the Dry Zone.
Multi-stakeholder Dialogue on Strengthening Local Capacities for Climate-resilient Agriculture in Myanmar's Dry Zone
12
CAPSA-ESCAPJl. Merdeka 145
Bogor 16111 INDONESIA
P: +62 251 8343277 8356813 F: +62 251 8336290
www.uncapsa.org
PUBLICATIONINFO
The World of Organic Agriculture 2016Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL) and IFOAM – Organics International 2016
rganic agriculture is practised in 172
Ocountries, with 43.7 million hectares of agricultural land managed organically by
approximately 2.3 million farmers. Global sales of organic food and drink reached US$ 80 billion in 2014.
The seventeenth edition of The World of Organic Agriculture provides a comprehensive review of recent developments in organic agriculture globally. It includes contributions from representatives of the organic sector throughout the world and provides comprehensive organic farming statistics that cover area under organic management, specific information about land use in organic systems, numbers of farms and other operator types, as well as selected market data.
The book also contains information on the global market for organic food, information on standards and regulations, and organic policy. It provides insights into current and emerging trends in organic agriculture in Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean, North America and
Oceania, as well as reports on the organic sector in Australia, Canada, the Pacific Islands, Thailand and the United States of America. It provides brief updates for various countries in Asia, as well as Latin America and the Caribbean.
New additions to this edition are an article on organic cotton from the Textile Exchange and a chapter reviewing eight key commodities certified by selected Voluntary Sustainability Standards (VSS).
The comprehensive data presented in this publication serve as an important tool for stakeholders, policymakers and authorities, as well as researchers and extension professionals. The information provided has proven useful in development programmes and in supporting strategies for organic agriculture and markets.
Source: http://www.organic-world.net/yearbook/yearbook-2016.html
Other reading and resources:
Organic Agriculture and Post-2015 Development Goals: Building on the Comparative Advantage of Poor FarmersAsian Development BankJune 2015http://www.adb.org/publications/organic-agriculture-and-post-2015-development-goals
Organic Farming for Sustainable AgricultureDilip Nandwani (Ed.)Springer, 2016http://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-3-319-26803-3
CAPSA palawija forum
