262
Amplifying complementary actions across a value chain: Coordinated initiatives
across agrifood value chains have become a widespread approach to challenges
such as the inclusion of small-scale producers in modern markets, exclusion of
illegal practice, or achieving zero deforestation associated with specific commodities. Such initiatives, often linked to certification, have demonstrated positive outcomes but are not alone a sufficient solution to environmental and social
challenges (DeVries et al. 2017). Climate change action faces multiple potentials
for leakage, trade-offs or inequitable outcomes (Vermeulen et al. 2016), for
which supply chain approaches may provide partial solutions. For a nutrient supply company, for example, helping to raise smallholder productivity might
involve higher company-level emissions as more mineral fertiliser is manufactured to meet demand, but a value-chain and landscape approach might demonstrate how this is more than offset by gains in local livelihoods and resilience,
coupled with reduced deforestation. For an insurance company, the returns to a
crop weather insurance product might increase if issued with lower premiums for
farmers who use agro-ecological approaches, climate-adapted breeds or other
proven practices for climate adaptation or mitigation. Value chain initiatives can
also broaden private-sector inclusion beyond multi-nationals to relevant national
companies and small enterprises.
Balancing group versus individual accountability: Monitoring, reporting and
accountability at the level of the value chain may be more meaningful and
sensible than separate accounting by individual companies. On the other hand,
targets and reporting that happen only at the group level may fail to provide
incentives for action by the actual players involved, especially when the group
is the whole of the global agrifood sector, as in the Statement of Ambition on
Climate- Smart Agriculture. A mechanism to link individual and group accountability seems essential. The Paris Agreement itself provides one promising
model, in which parties commit their individual contributions to an agreed
global target. Likewise, individual companies and their alliances may find
value in coordinating actions and reporting on the multiple standards and targets set by their regulators, shareholders, financiers and global agendas such as
the SDGs, for reasons of efficiency and effectiveness. There may be a strong
rationale to building climate-risk assessment into regular monitoring and evaluation protocols, not as standalone CSA initiatives, but through the integration
of additional indicators into existing reporting and accountability on social and
environmental performance.
Moving beyond dispersed local activities and outcomes to broader system-wide
change: While much positive impact may come from the global sum of activities and outcomes at the level of individual farms, companies or value chains,
more systemic action is likely necessary to achieve targets to reduce emissions by 30% while improving livelihoods and increasing food production by
up to 50%. Impacts at this scale will arise from a mix of public- and privatesector action. Recognising the importance of the system-wide enabling environment, the WBCSD Climate-Smart Agriculture initiative includes an action
S. Vermeulen
Amplifying complementary actions across a value chain: Coordinated initiatives
across agrifood value chains have become a widespread approach to challenges
such as the inclusion of small-scale producers in modern markets, exclusion of
illegal practice, or achieving zero deforestation associated with specific commodities. Such initiatives, often linked to certification, have demonstrated positive outcomes but are not alone a sufficient solution to environmental and social
challenges (DeVries et al. 2017). Climate change action faces multiple potentials
for leakage, trade-offs or inequitable outcomes (Vermeulen et al. 2016), for
which supply chain approaches may provide partial solutions. For a nutrient supply company, for example, helping to raise smallholder productivity might
involve higher company-level emissions as more mineral fertiliser is manufactured to meet demand, but a value-chain and landscape approach might demonstrate how this is more than offset by gains in local livelihoods and resilience,
coupled with reduced deforestation. For an insurance company, the returns to a
crop weather insurance product might increase if issued with lower premiums for
farmers who use agro-ecological approaches, climate-adapted breeds or other
proven practices for climate adaptation or mitigation. Value chain initiatives can
also broaden private-sector inclusion beyond multi-nationals to relevant national
companies and small enterprises.
Balancing group versus individual accountability: Monitoring, reporting and
accountability at the level of the value chain may be more meaningful and
sensible than separate accounting by individual companies. On the other hand,
targets and reporting that happen only at the group level may fail to provide
incentives for action by the actual players involved, especially when the group
is the whole of the global agrifood sector, as in the Statement of Ambition on
Climate- Smart Agriculture. A mechanism to link individual and group accountability seems essential. The Paris Agreement itself provides one promising
model, in which parties commit their individual contributions to an agreed
global target. Likewise, individual companies and their alliances may find
value in coordinating actions and reporting on the multiple standards and targets set by their regulators, shareholders, financiers and global agendas such as
the SDGs, for reasons of efficiency and effectiveness. There may be a strong
rationale to building climate-risk assessment into regular monitoring and evaluation protocols, not as standalone CSA initiatives, but through the integration
of additional indicators into existing reporting and accountability on social and
environmental performance.
Moving beyond dispersed local activities and outcomes to broader system-wide
change: While much positive impact may come from the global sum of activities and outcomes at the level of individual farms, companies or value chains,
more systemic action is likely necessary to achieve targets to reduce emissions by 30% while improving livelihoods and increasing food production by
up to 50%. Impacts at this scale will arise from a mix of public- and privatesector action. Recognising the importance of the system-wide enabling environment, the WBCSD Climate-Smart Agriculture initiative includes an action
S. Vermeulen