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: [email protected]: 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: [email protected]
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