There is a developing standoff between competing approaches to high carbon stock and forest clearance – and the devil is in the detail about HCS definition
(From the weekly Innovation Forum Business Brief. Sign up at: http://innovation-forum.co.uk. There’s also a new free management briefing from Innovation Forum on this topic which you can download here.)
A dispute has arisen in the world of forest product supply chains over the definition of “high carbon stock” (HCS) forest. Major palm oil and pulp and paper companies have promised to preserve HCS forest, and the definition is therefore significant both for the development of their businesses, and for tropical forest conservation.
Greenpeace, forests group TFT and Golden Agri-Resources (GAR), the largest Indonesian palm oil producer, started work on an HCS definition in 2011, which has evolved into what is now known as the “HCS Approach”.
With the huge expansion of commitments to no-deforestation and protection of HCS forests by many companies, including Indonesian pulp and paper giants APP and APRIL, a multistakeholder steering group was set up to oversee HCS, culminating in publication of a toolkit in April 2015.
The approach is based on the premise that high levels of carbon dioxide are locked up in tropical forests, and are linked with abundant biodiversity.
The focus of the HCS Approach – field tested over a number of years – is on identifying viable areas of forest for protection in order to implement no deforestation practically, and does not have a fixed carbon threshold above which forest cannot be converted to palm oil plantation.
But now, depending on how you view it, an attempt it being made to either update or to amend this definition.
In 2014, a coalition of palm oil companies led by Malaysia’s Sime Darby convened a expert group to study the issue and come up with its own definition. An initial draft of the expert group’s report was published in June. While up for consultation, this proposes that a line between HCS forest and lower-grade forest be drawn at 50 tonnes of carbon per hectare.
Greenpeace is not happy. It attacked the Sime Darby-led initiative on its launch as “greenwashing” and an attempt to undermine the existing HCS Approach and delay its adoption by more companies.
Greenpeace UK forest campaign team leader Richard George told Innovation Forum that the proposed new definition would allow more forest clearance, and was “an attempt by the Malaysian palm oil industry to muddy the waters”.
New approach support
But the Sime Darby-led initiative is not without its high-level supporters. The steering committee for its high carbon stock study report is co-chaired by green luminary Jonathon Porritt. He told Innovation Forum that the Greenpeace/TFT/GAR approach was too restrictive and could hinder rather than help the conservation cause.
The HCS Approach would put so much forest out of bounds to palm oil producers that they could give up their concessions, opening up the possibility that the land would be handed to logging companies, or that local communities would clear it for agriculture, Porritt says.
The idea of zero deforestation is “not helpful” in very poor countries that want to obtain some benefit from their natural resources, and has “got in the way of minimising deforestation”, Porritt argues.
Palm oil companies are “genuinely trying to implement better practices”, and should be allowed a workable threshold that enables them to become “more active guardians” of their concessions.
Furthermore, a 50 tonnes per hectare threshold would still be much lower than most companies would like and would place “almost all forest off-limits,” Porritt says.
The very many companies that use palm oil, meanwhile, will surely hope that the dispute can be resolved to the satisfaction of all by having all parties agreeing to one HCS methodology.
There is some cause for hope – some big palm oil companies are working with both sides, for example. Greenpeace’s Grant Rosoman, chair of the HCS Approach steering group, says that there is indeed common ground between the two sides “including how forest areas are identified and the importance of no development on high carbon soils such as peatlands”.
But the worst outcome is competing definitions that create confusion about what is, and what isn’t, sustainable. This only serves as a distraction from the more central issue – that of halting forest destruction.
Any comments? Do get in touch firstname.lastname@example.org
Come and debate these topics here:
How business can tackle deforestation – A make or break issue for Asia’s corporate reputation
28th-29th September 2015, Singapore
With: TFT, Cargill, Asia Pulp & Paper, Unilever, Sime Darby, Neste Oil, Monsanto, UBS, Mars, Greenpeace, WWF, Golden Agri-Resources, UBS, Musim Mas, Rainforest Alliance, Great Giant Pineapple, Forest Peoples Programme and many more. Sponsored by Robertsbridge and Wilmar.
And here’s a list of other events where we will be debating the pros and cons of certification:
Ethical Trade and Human Rights Forum (with ETI)
Transforming supply chains for responsible business at scale
October 19-20, London – For draft agenda go here, contact Boris.Petrovic@innovation-forum.co.uk
How business can tackle deforestation
Innovation in sustainable forestry: Technology, risk and collaboration
November 2-3 London – For more information go here.
Sustainability: Why current consumer engagement fails – and how to fix it
November 9th-10th 2015, London – For more information go here.
“Sustainable seafood sourcing: How business can manage global risk and collaborate for sustainable improvements“
25th-26th November 2015 in London – For more information go here.
How to engage with – and improve the lives of – smallholder famers
March 2016, London – For draft agenda contact Boris.Petrovic@innovation-forum.co.uk
For general inquiries contact: Charlenne.Ordonez@innovation-forum.co.uk