issct council meeting, durban 16/03/2006 the better sugarcane initiative – impacts and benefits on...

ISSCT Council Meeting, Durban 16/03/2006

The Better Sugarcane Initiative – The Better Sugarcane Initiative – Impacts and Benefits on the Global Impacts and Benefits on the Global

Sugarcane IndustrySugarcane Industry

The Better Sugarcane Initiative – The Better Sugarcane Initiative – Impacts and Benefits on the Global Impacts and Benefits on the Global

Sugarcane IndustrySugarcane Industry

R Quirk, H Morar, R Perkins,R Quirk, H Morar, R Perkins,

G Kingston, W BurnquistG Kingston, W Burnquist


Why interest in the initiative?

• Interest by consumers and marketers in environmental & social provenance of food ingredients.

• WWF & IFC initiate multi-stake holder programs to link market preference for products from endorsed BMP environments.

• Work in progress for cotton, soy, palm oil, sugar, salmon aqua-culture.

• Best or Better Management?


Better Sugarcane or Better Sugar?

• Sugar – commodity– Little value adding at production source.– Most sugar consumed in processed food in

developed nations.– Thus little opportunity for consumer to

make choices about source.

• Sugarcane – the base resource– Sugar.– Ethanol, Electricity, Paper, Chemicals, by-

products etc.


Working group meeting 23-24 June 2005

• Initial group sectors– Finance 7– Market /buyer 9– Prod’n & Tech. 10 (5+5)– Social & Labour 4– WWF 3

• Agreed need for prod’n & processing in environ., socially & economically sustainable manner.

• Goal to be met through BSI.

• Stakeholders will be engaged to develop relevant, performance based & verifiable criteria to describe sustainable practices in value chain.

• BSI also foster implementation of BMP as these often more profitable.


Working group process

Background• Sugarcane

– semi-perennial grass, replant 4-6 yrs– grown latitudes ±30˚– producer scale “n” x 106 t to <1 ha– large biomass– high nutrient & water use – chemicals– central processing at mills– products – sugar, syrups, ethanol, filter

mud, bagasse, ash, vinasse, chemicals, paper


Background• Mills may provide important social

services to remote communities.• Most of world’s sugar production (~70%)

consumed in domestic markets.• Sugar production & marketing regulated

by complex of public & private policies & institutions.

• Opportunity for BMP initiative with support of financiers & sugar buyers.




Background• Setting the scene (presentations on WWF web site)

– Global overview of sugar markets & policies.– The practices of growing sugarcane.– Global overview of environmental impacts of sugarcane

production.– Global overview of social impacts of sugarcane production.– Field issues - water use, effluents, soil health & degradation.– Habitat loss and protecting ecosystem function.– Occupational health & safety.– Transgenic sugarcane.– Mill issues & co-products.

• Groups prioritized issues / impacts


Key global impacts & priority issues

• Field environmental impacts– Soil health (chemical &

physical fertility, organic matter, biodiversity

– Water use (water demand, water use efficiency)

– Generation of effluents (soil erosion, chemicals & nutrients in run-off / drainage)

– Loss of habitat



• Labour issues– Work place health &

safety– Child labour– Casualisation of labour;

~18M sugar workers

– Wage levels


• Community impacts– Access to water– Health– Education



• Processing impacts– Food safety– Worker safety– Mill environmental

issues• Dust• Noise• Smoke & ash• Effluents (BOD, vinasse)

– Water use



The way forward

• Elements to BMP’s in key areas will have global perspective & local refinement for implementation.

• Some thought that the mill might provide a focus for implementation / verification of BMP’s.

• Public policy support important for BMP’s & incentives.

• Blend of public & private finance.• Equator Principles for IFC finance not currently

relevant to BMP issues.• Process for incentives, other than improved

profit not clear.


Working Group agreed:– To maintain open, honest, respectful

communications;– To develop protocol for external

communications;– To form steering committee reflecting

interests of stakeholders;– On the previous key global impacts.

The way forward


Goals (re-stated)

• To define better sugarcane production and processing practices to benefit the production system, its value chain economics as well as ecological and social environments.

• To develop performance-based and verifiable standards, and

• To foster their implementation for measurable reduction in key impacts.


BSI structure

Steering CommitteeDrives process• 7 members (+4 open)• Chairman

Multi-stakeholder forumFeedback, final sign-off on stds • <100 institutions & experts• Annual regional meetings

Cane production

Cane processing + co-products

Social / community

Technical working groups Propose draft standards• Paid leader + 6-8 experts

SecretariatDay-to-day running• Paid Coordinator• 0.5 FTE Technical help


Impacts & benefits

• Concerns (to be managed)– Uncertainty about process & implications.– Cost & finance of management change.– Degree of control of agenda.– Access to technology.– Loss of un-sustainable production areas.

• Benefits– Quadruple bottom line sustainabilty

• Improved profits, maintenance of resources, no or reduced off-site impacts & social equity.

• Progress with Better Management Practices– Australia, South Africa, Florida, Brazil

• Build on current initiatives.

issct council meeting, durban 16/03/2006 the better sugarcane initiative – impacts and benefits on...

Documents

issct council meeting

working group meeting

w burnquist slide

better management

sugar commodity little

base resource sugar

w burnquist g kingston

r perkins