Better Sugarcane Initiative
Steering Committee meeting
18th and 19thJanuary 2007
Tate and Lyle, London, UK
Minutes
Summary of main discussion topics and decisions
Theme / Topic / DecisionsCommunication and messaging / Addressing engagement blocks
To date BSI has not been able to engage a wide membership. This could be due to current messaging about ‘standards’.
Standards have been seen by some producer organisations as discriminatory i.e. they will not be feasible or realistic for many. Others see them as regulatory in nature. This has lead to a misperception that BSI is intending to move towards compulsory standards that will create trade barriers. / Remove use of the term “standards”
To alleviate concerns and misunderstandings surrounding the term ‘standards’, the Steering Committee agreed that ‘standards’ will be removed from communication material.
‘Standards’ will only used by BSI when referring to existing government standards (legislation)andto refer to standards as a ‘one of a suite of potential tools for measuring whether sustainability is being achieved’.
It should be recognised, however, that BSI is focused on improving the sustainability of the sugarcane sector and thus reaching agreement on how better practice is measured and demonstrated is still a key goal of the initiative. At this stage the key term for BSI to highlight instead of ‘standards’ is ‘measurable improvement’.
Explaining the BSI process
It was also felt that BSI should be more specific about what it intends to address and how. This would both to help potential stakeholders better understand the process and alleviate some of the misinterpretations about BSI. / Define Principles and Criteria
To provide more concrete information about the focus of BSI it was agreed that draft Principles and draft Criteria would be developed which are applicable at the global level.
P&C will be determined by: reviewing the top 6-10 key social and environmental impacts; collating P&C from other initiatives; determining P&C for the 6-10 issues accordingly. The draft P&C will form the defining focus for TWG work, although TWGs will revisit the draft Criteria and go further to add indicators as well.
Developing a communications strategy
It should be clear that BSI is about “nobody losing” and ideally that “everyone gaining”. This message is not currently being effectively communicated.
BSI needs to effectively communicate to different audiences: companies who want to minimise risk; emerging markets i.e. biofuels; the Brazilian sector; millers; and producers – the message to producers needs to be what they can gain from BSI.
BSI needs a more sophisticated communications strategy than some other roundtables because 80% of sugar is domestically traded. Most farmers are aiming primarily at domestic, rather than international markets. The relevance of BSI to domestic markets needs to be explained. / IFC communications department to help with messaging
IFC offered the services of its communications department to look at the communications material and strategy that BSI has developed so far. The comms department can help develop a revised communications strategy, messages and briefs, taking into account the issues that have been discussed at this meeting. Materials reviewed by IFC should include these minutes.
To improve understanding of how P&C and even indicators would work, BSI will produce 3-4 case studies from ‘more sustainable’ sugarcane farms (Australia, Vietnam, India, South Africa, Brazil…) showing how the farm practices fit under the BSI draft P&C developed (to be developed) by BSI and how performance could be measured.
Theme / Topic / Decisions
Biofuels and the need for measurability
While the current market for sugarcane is mostly sugar, the potential for sugarcane as a biofuel crop is real and is the focal point of interest in BSI for several companies.
Government bodies in the EU are already looking to BSI amongst others to setsustainability criteria.
The WTO disciplines will likely discourage the EU from developing mandatory standards for biofuels, however mandatory reporting is likely to become the law in the EU. / Responding to demand for biofuels standards
BSI should consider its role in a) defining sustainability and b) providing mechanisms to measure sustainability of sugarcane production whether for sugar or for biofuel.
Companies are looking to the RSPO (Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil) to assess sustainability of palm oil. Therefore BSI should, with the TWGs, begin to develop indicators and acceptable performance levels for key impacts.
Although growers may now be comfortable working towards general targets, legislation or voluntary standards systems may require more.
Technical Working Groups / Identifying a coordinator with global expertise for the Social and Community TWG
Identifying a leader for the social and community technical working group has been a major challenge as it seems that most expertise is locally or regionally focused. / Focusing on developing a team of experts for the Social and Community TWG
BSI will approach a range of individuals and institutions (with particular emphasis on academics and researchers) to identify people with globally recognised expertise. By so doing, it is hoped that the SC will be able to identify the logical person to lead the social and community TWG.
Assessing the focus of the Milling and Co-products TWG
Since most of the major environmental and social impacts of sugarcane production take place at field level, initiating work by a Milling and Co-products TWG has been lower on the priority list for BSI.
However, during discussions about how to make BSI work, mills were identified as a pivotal point of engagement with small-holders and credit and input suppliers as they are their first unit of aggregation in the value chain.
Furthermore, mills emerged from discussions as perhaps the lever for change. It was agreed that BSI should engage mills regardless of small-holder or large-holder growing patterns. There are some 2,000 mills globally.
Mill best practice is already established – it is just a case of whether mills can afford or are required to implement the new energy and water technologies. / Use the Milling and Co-products TWG as a mechanism to engage mills and small growers
It was decided that the Milling and Co-products TWG could be the vehicle for engaging mills around the world i.e. this TWG will focus as much on engaging mills as much as on developing good practice documentation.
BSI could integrate with milling groups through ISSCT at international and regional conferences.
BSI needs to think through an engagement strategy and strategy for working with mills, including looking at the role mills can play in encouraging recruitment to BSI both up and down the chain.
Theme / Topic / Decisions
Engaging small-growers / Making sure BSI is realistic for small-growers
Small-growers represent a challenge to BSI and should not be overlooked as principles, criteria and measurement systems are developed. Smallholders are limited in the level of auditing that can be achieved and BSI is limited by the complexity of having to track product from so many small-growers. / Develop a strategy for working with small-holders via mills
Mills are the first unit of aggregation for small-growers. Even in places where there is no mill zoning and farmers are free to sell their cane to any mill, progressive mills offering more to the farmers earn farmer loyalty. Mills could be the unit at which BSI works with small-growers – with certificates of “good practice” being given at the level of the mill.
Mills are emphasised as key for BSI and a strategy for engaging and working with mills, including for the involvement of small-holders, needs to be developed as a priority.
Governance and coordination / TWG management
The TWGs currently have no governance structure. A transparent structure is required so channels of communication, reporting, and decision-taking are clear. / Develop TWG governance structure
The governance structures of other commodity roundtable TWGs will be reviewed and an applicable structure for BSI will be developed.
Engaging the Brazilian sugar sector / The challenge of engaging Brazil
Brazil is an important country for BSI to engage and involve. This has been difficult due to language barriers and the absence of a person / people on the ground to represent BSI.
It is clear that engaging people on a one-on-one basis is necessary in Brazil. / Potential BSI-IFC job-share in Brazil
The IFC is intending to contract a focal person in Brazil to work on sugarcane environmental issues. This person could be shared with BSIto engage with the industry and build the one-to-one contact with the sugarcane sector.
At a later date a meeting to bring identified people together should be planned.
Membership and funding requirements / Raising the capital required to kick-start BSI activities
BSI has sought to engage a number of progressive companies in the Steering Committee with a fee of $25,000 per year or a general membership fee of $2,000. To date the funds are not sufficient to cover the secretariat costs; the costs of the TWGs; and other key activities such as fundraising for the future and communications development.
Other commodity roundtables have had major seed funds from 2-3 organisations. BSI has tried to manage without this. However it is clear that this is not working. / Identify 2-3 seed funders
Two members are willing to commit substantial seed funding to BSI and request other companies to do the same as a one-off ‘kick-start’ budget on top of or aside to membership fees.
Participants list
NameRole18 Jan19 Jan
Robert QuirkChairYesYes
Rachel WisemanMinutesYesYes
Richard PerkinsCoordinatorYesYes
Hari MorarTate & Lyle PlcYesYes
Olivier GenevieveEthical SugarYesYes
Beril GundogduEthical SugarYesYes
Jason ClayWWF USYesYes
Jane EarleyWWF USYesYes
Mark EcksteinFacilitatorYesYes
Nora FermInternational Labour Rights FundYesYes
Francesco GiannettiUNICAYesYes
Catherine CassagneInternational Finance CorporationYesYes
Jan MeyerTechnical Advisor to BSIYesYes
Paloma BerenguerShellYesNo
Clare WennerBritish SugarNoYes
Rebecca HeatonBPNoYes
Tony LassCadbury Schweppes PlcNoYes
Fiona CubittCargillNoYes
Daudi LelijveldCargillNoYes
Unable to attend
Harry OttThe Coca-Cola Company (participated in sessions 2 and 5 by phone)
David CroftCadbury Schweppes