Round Table on Responsible Soy Association

August, 2011

An insight on a hot Brazilian topic

In an attempt to better understand the recent developments on the proposed new Brazilian Forest Code the RTRS Secretariat interviewed Ana Cristina Barros from The Nature Conservancy (TNC, Brasilia, Brazil) and Karin Kaechele from Instituto Centro de Vida (ICV, Mato Grosso, Brazil). Also John Landers from Associação de Plantio Direto no Cerrado (APDC, Brasilia, Brazil) shared reflections on the potential forest and agricultural change in paradigm.

In January 1934 the first Brazilian Forest Code was installed, limiting the use of property, respecting existing vegetation, taking into account the common interest of the Brazilian people. Since the mid-1990s several attempts have been made to "bend" the Brazilian Forest Code. In 2008, a working group was created to discuss the Code with representatives of three Ministries: Agriculture, Environment and Agrarian Development. Because of lack of consensus among its members the Agriculture Minister Reinhold Stephanes decided to dissolve the group in January 2009. A committee of the House of Representatives later drafted a report on the reformulation of the forest code, which was put to a vote in the House of Representatives in May of this year.

Table: events overview

In accordance with his frank and direct style John Landers said: "This is a nation divided by a common cause - everyone agrees the forests should be preserved, it is merely a question of dividing the cost equally. By incorporating degraded pastures into soybean production in rotation with highly productive pastures, through land use intensification we can achieve a de-forestation mitigation potential of up to 2.5 hectares per hectare in this system. So, we have the technology for Zero De-forestation of native forest and other high conservation value areas. Does this not warrant a premium? If the payment of environmental services had been included in the Forest Code, all this polarization and bad feeling between farmers and environmentalists could have been avoided and the farmer rightly recognized as the number one Ally of Conservation, as he is in Europe, USA, Canada, and Australia. A huge environmental conscience has evolved in today´s Brazilian farmer and the average consumer, who is co-responsible for environmental damage caused to produce agricultural products, only wants the farmer as a scapegoat to hide his(her) own responsibility.  RTRS will hopefully redress this and that is the reason why APDC has joined and contributed in all phases of this effort".

Expected impacts of the proposed forest code

Ana Cristina, TNC Country Representative, explained: "the new text for the Brazilian Forest Code regulates land use and deforestation throughout the country (Project Law 1876/99). The by the House of Representatives approved bill, the first step in the process of making converting the new code into national law, potentially brings a series of changes that threaten the ability for Brazil to reconcile agriculture production and conservation, although some positive changes could also occur."

The 3 major negative changes, according to TNC and ICV, included in the bill approved by the House of Representatives are:

• Amnesty: illegal deforestation before June 2008 is pardoned and restoration of these areas will not be an obligation.
• State governments are empowered to legislate over basic provisions of the Forest Code, including deforestation in permanent protected areas (APPs) – riparian forests, top of mountains and slopes.
• “Small” holders (with areas smaller than 4 rural modules - up to 400 hectares) have no requirement to maintain set asides (legal reserves) in their properties as required in the previous Forest Code (80% in the Amazon; 35% in the Savannas of the Amazon Region; and 20% in other biomes). What is happening right now, for instance in Mato Grosso and Sao Paulo, is that properties bigger than 400 hectares are being split in several smaller ones, therefore they won´t have the obligation to answer to this forest code. This has caused large areas of recent deforestation and will lead to more deforestation in a near future.
• According to ICV one enormous problem is that no scientific analysis was made to define the decisions or the issues discussed on the new version. The Brazilian Science Academy and the Brazilian Society for Scientific Progress has made innumerous claims, asking for participation. Unfortunately the Representatives did not take in consideration scientific or solid analysis.

According to TNC the positive changes included in the bill approved by the House of Representatives are:

• Including the Permanent Protection Areas (called APPs - such as riparian forests, top of mountains and high slopes) into the percentage of set asides (legal reserves), limiting the total amount of conservation to the maximum area of APPs. This prevents that in certain areas conservation imposed by the two mechanisms adds more than 50% of the farmland – according to TNC data.
• Creation of a compensation mechanism for legal reserves, based on tradable quotas, a market based instrument that benefits both those with deficits of legal reserves (those who will buy the quotas) and those who protected more than required by law (those who will send the quotas).

According to ICV, the Forest Code approved by the House of Representatives, has lost the opportunity to include the discussion of Payment for Ecosystem Service (like REDD+) in this bill.

Also according to ICV, the argument used by some representatives that there is a need to change the forest code just to expand the agriculture area is a fallacy. The scientist Gerd Sparovek has proven that even if the forest code were implemented as it is today, around 104 million hectares with native vegetation could be legally converted into agricultural use (reference below). Sparovek also analyzed that Brazil has around 103 million hectares of riparian forest, of which 44 million degraded. The new forest code does not require restoration of those degraded area.

Forest Code repercussions in society

Brazilian society is aware of this Forest Code discussion. The main stakeholder groups in the discussion are environmental entities -most of them against part of the new proposal- and rural producer representatives -most of them agree with the entire new version of the code-.

TNC mentioned that a group of NGOs in Brazil promoted an opinion poll during in the week of the 3^rd of June, executed by research institute Datafolha, and the results were impressively pro-forests, including a strong support to any veto from President Dilma Roussef, expected to give her final verdict within the next 3 months. The main findings were:

• Two thirds of Brazilian population declared to know about the voting of the new Forest Code. The portion that declared to be well informed on this issue was modest.
• 79% declared they were against pardoning the sanctions and fines (19% accepted that possibility) and 77% declared they were against the idea of lifting the obligation to restore the forest (while 21% found that possibility is acceptable).
• 79% agree with an eventual Presidential veto if the Senate decides to validate the version proposed by the house.

Multi-stakeholder approach

Several civil society organizations have joined forces by creating the Brazilian Forest Dialogue. This initiative started in 2005 and is formed by environmental NGOs and forest companies which decided to demonstrate their opinion and influence other groups.

The Brazilian Forest Dialogue wrote a letter about the New Forest Code proposal and spread it among government representatives and all society, putting some common points of view between forest producers and environmental NGOs, in order to show that an agreement between landowners and NGOs is possible and constructive. TNC is one of the founders of the Forest Dialogue (www.dialogoflorestal.org.br) and believe that this kind of initiatives is the key to achieving democratic decisions.

Karin highlighted that if this new forest code is approved in its current form, it will become difficult for Brazil to achieve the commitments made on international level regarding climate change issues. A second severe problem is that the government, by accepting the new code, sends a mixed message about illegal operations, and that future law changes could again deliver amnesty to illegal operations. In the first place this is not fair to others that do comply with the law, but above all it should not be allowed for neither citizens nor companies to disobey legislation under any circumstances.

Ana Cristina highlighted that any approved Forest Code proposal must contain means to allow real implementation on the ground, understanding that the worst type of law is the one that is not implemented. Based on that, there is a strong need to adjust the new Forest Code by including the first and urgent implementation of the Environmental Registry System (Cadastro Ambiental Rural – CAR) and the empowerment of the Environmental Agencies.  Ana Cristina said: "Presidential disapproval in the last stage of the ongoing legislative process is our final opportunity to revert changes that encourage deforestation and directly affects Brazilian commitments towards reducing carbon emissions derived from land use."

RTRS position on deforestation

The RTRS standard for responsible production consists of 5 principles, each of them consisting of criteria and a total of 98 auditable indicators which have to be complied with in order to be able to certify RTRS. Principle number 4, Environmental Responsibility, sets out the standard´s requirements in relation to protection of biodiversity. Biodiversity protection within the RTRS standard does NOT include zero deforestation of all native vegetation. It DOES mean zero deforestation of native forest.

The criterion 4.4 says that no expansion should take place over native forest. The RTRS defines native forest as areas of native vegetation of 1ha or more with canopy cover of more than 35 % and where some trees (at least 10 trees per hectare) reach 10m in height (or are able to reach these thresholds in situ (ie. in that soil/climate combination)). This criterion is in line with the soy moratorium.

Regarding other types of vegetation (like the cerrado, or other biomes), there are 2 phases:

a)  For the short term, an interim approach is being used. RTRS uses zoning maps OR the CDB maps. If neither zoning maps nor CDB maps exist, an HCVA assessment needs to take place.

b)  For the medium term, the RTRS will develop official RTRS approved macro-scale maps which will provide biodiversity information and a system which will orient responsible expansion of RTRS soy. This work should be completed before 31^st December 2012 for Paraguay, Brazil, Argentina and Bolivia. These maps will have 4 categories:

• Category 1 Areas = areas which are critical for biodiversity (hotspots), where stakeholders agree there should not be any conversion of native vegetation.
• Category II Areas = areas with high importance for biodiversity where expansion of soy is only carried out after an HCVA assessment which identifies areas for conservation and areas where expansion can occur.
• Category III Areas = areas where existing legislation is adequate to control responsible expansion (usually areas with importance for agriculture and lower conservation importance).
• Category IV Areas = areas which are already being used for agriculture and where there is no remaining native vegetation except legal reserves so no further expansion is occurring.

August, 2011
Tucumán, Argentina

Interview with Viluco, first Argentine producer to certify RTRS

After going through a long and intensive process among soy value chain stakeholders (supply, demand, and civil society), the on consensus based standard for responsible soy production has become a certification system this year, first implemented and audited in June this year. Grupo A. Maggi (Brazil), one of the producers that at the beginning made up the forum for dialogue which later in 2006 gave rise to the association we know as RTRS, obtained the RTRS certification for a portion of its fields. The second one to certify its production – first one in Argentina – is Argentine company Viluco. Between 2011 and 2012 the RTRS will be sharing the first experiences of this and other producers from different countries such as Paraguay, Uruguay, Bolivia, United States, China and India.

This time we will tell you about the experience of Viluco S.A., a company that has been contributing to the creation of the different RTRS tools for two years, providing their views in the multiple processes prior to the existence of the certification scheme, among which we can mention the creation of the RTRS standard, the Argentine National Interpretation of the generic standard, and the field tests of the standard performance.

The Viluco team 

Viluco S.A. is an Argentine agricultural company based on no-till practice in 100 per cent of their farms. Although soy is the main crop, corn and wheat also play an important role for their work system sustainability.

The company currently has 55,000 hectares, both own and rented, distributed in the provinces of Tucumán, Santiago del Estero, Catamarca and Salta.

Some weeks after having obtained certification, Viluco sold the first 6,000 credits, equivalent to 6,000 tons of certified soy, through the RTRS Certificate Trading Platform.

In an interview with the RTRS, Valeria Mattiacci, Engineer and a Quality Analyst at Grupo Lucci, talks about Viluco’s experience with the RTRS certification, the certification processes in general and their objective, and the central role that sustainability plays among the company goals.

Before the RTRS certification, what other certification schemes did you implement? What are the major elements of those previous processes?

This certification is the first one achieved by the agricultural sector. Other certification schemes such as Globalgap and AC (Agricultura Certificada) were assessed, but we finally implemented RTRS because it is the most complete scheme since its five principles are based on:

• Legal compliance and good business practices

• Responsible labour conditions

• Responsible community relations

• Environmental responsibility

• Good agricultural practices

Other companies belonging to the holding Viluco is part of have implemented ISO 9001, ISO 14001, HACCP, BRC and  GlobalGAP.

What are the main reasons for obtaining the RTRS certification?

Opening up of new markets, international recognition, resource use efficiency, and the  identification of our strengths and weaknesses, apart from continuous process improvement. Besides, being able to demonstrate objectively that we work in a responsible way, caring for the environment.

What activities did you carry out to prepare the RTRS certification?

All the staff received both internal and external training on the RTRS, and activities related to spraying, fertilization, agrochemical use, first aid, and employee rights were performed. Besides, meetings with other producers were held to make them know about the RTRS. As regards infrastructure, warehouses and sheds were modified in order to comply with all the rules. The quality department carried out audits to follow up contractors more thoroughly.

Viluco workers trained in use of agrochemicals

The RTRS began to certify producers this year; Viluco was the first one in Argentina. If you had to evaluate the certification process, what positive aspects would you highlight and what recommendations would you make to the RTRS and to other producers that may be interested in doing the same?

The whole process was positive since Viluco S.A. has always worked in the same way. Perhaps what we needed was a better organization when providing data and the certification helped us a lot on this point.  Moreover, thanks to this process, we have dealt with other entities that are part of the different communities where our farms are located. Rural schools have always been emphasized through our Foundation (Fundación Vicente Lucci)and thanks to certification we started to make contact with hospitals, the fire brigade, etc. The most complex thing was the cultural change to reach the RTRS certification, as it is difficult to obtain the stakeholders’ commitment and the requirements of this protocol demand both internal and external commitment (suppliers, contractor, and  communities).

What are your market prospects? Is there a market for certified soy and what do you think are its opportunities?

I think there are big opportunities for selling certified soy/credits. In our case, since we obtained the certification we have received proposals to sell our certificates, perhaps not at a high price, but the proposals exist. This has only just begun and I think that there will be an increasing demand for certified soy.

Certified soy silo

What are your expectations for the future regarding the RTRS?

Viluco S.A has opened this road and expectations are high as regards the RTRS since we are thinking of including all our own fields next year and our goal for 2013 is to include the rented fields as well; we also continue promoting implementation by our soy suppliers.

August, 2011

Lead Auditors for the RTRS Production Standard

The Lead Auditor course on the RTRS Standard for Responsible Soy Production will take place in Buenos Aires at the end of September (date to be defined). This course is aimed at: auditors, certification and accreditation bodies, consultants, professionals having knowledge of audit processes, certification standards and their assessment, and people wanting to learn about the RTRS Production Standard. Besides, it is an obligatory requirement for those auditors wishing to certify under the RTRS Production Standard.

For further information, please contact info@responsiblesoy.org.

The RTRS secretariat will continue creating training spaces for auditors and producers. We welcome ideas and proposals to understand needs and evaluate opportunities.

IT Platform Training

In July, two RTRS recognised certification bodies - SGS and Schutter- were trained on the use of the IT Platform (Central Registry Platform) developed in order for certification bodies to enter all the information related to the audit process they are carrying out. The use of the platform allows for better monitoring of audit processes and centralisation of information.

Certificate Trading Platform Training

The RTRS secretariat offers training on the use of the Certificate Trading Platform for those producers interested in obtaining the RTRS certification and those companies wishing to start buying certificates.  Such training may be performed via telephone or skype, having internet to guide participants through the different platform parts. Training requests can be made by calling at +54 11 4519 8005 or by sending an email to info@responsiblesoy.org.

July, 2011

Defining India National Interpretation

The National Technical Group (NTG) from India –created to reach a consensus on the National Interpretation of the RTRS Standard for India- held its 3rd meeting on July 21 at the  Shreemaya Hotel in the city of Indore. During this meeting, India’s legal aspects and agricultural practices were analyzed in relation to the requirements of the RTRS Production Standard and guidance was added for auditors and producers. The India NTG has been working on the interpretations since 2009, when the standard field version was approved.

The document is currently being reviewed by the NTG to be finalised. Once the document has been approved by the NTG and reviewed by the RTRS secretariat, it will be sent to the Executive Board for its revision and final approval. It is expected that these interpretations can be used for the first certifications in India this year.

This meeting was attended by members from the 3 RTRS constituencies, the Technical Group national coordinator, Ashok Kumar, and Cecilia Gabutti from the RTRS executive secretariat.

Members of National Technical Group (NTG) in India

Field visit

In order to make a training approach adapted to the local context, through local representatives, the RTRS carried out a field visit to producers working on the standard in a village called Ujjain/Agar, around 100 km from Indore. Control Union was invited to carry out an audit drill there, which made it possible to make adjustments and identify aspects where the training process needs reinforcing.

A field visit to producers working on the standard in a village called Ujjain/Agar

At present, there are 22000 small producers working in order to comply with the RTRS requirements. It is expected that around 15000 producers obtain the certification this year. Organizations like Basix, ASA, Solidaridad and others have been involved in cooperation projects with the RTRS for 2 years by organizing and training producers.

Farmworker women of the town of Ujjain/Agar

Courses

On July 25, 26 and 27, the Lead Auditor course on the RTRS Standard for Responsible Soy Production was held for the first time in India at the Residency Hotel in Bhopal.

In addition to auditors from different certification bodies, the course was attended by members of the national accreditation body from India and people responsible for the Internal Control System of the groups working under the SOYPSI Programme, created to promote and train producers in the RTRS standards so that they are prepared for the first certifications in this country.

August, 2011
Buenos Aires, Argentina

On July 22, LSQA, a certification body from Uruguay, obtained the RTRS preliminary recognition to carry out audits and to certify under the RTRS standards for responsible soy production and Chain of Custody.

See:

http://www.responsiblesoy.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=205&Itemid=85&lang=en, to find the LSQA contact and the rest of certification bodies that have obtained the RTRS preliminary recognition.