Better Sugar Meeting report, London, UK, 23/24 June 2005

Better Sugar MeetingSugar Quay, London, 23/24 June 2005

Meeting Report

Contents:

1. Introduction and background to meeting......................................................................................32. Context for work on sugarcane Better Management Practices....................................................3

2.1. Characteristics of sugar........................................................................................................32.2. Industry structure and supply chain......................................................................................4

3. Environmental and social impacts of sugarcane production........................................................63.1. Land use...............................................................................................................................63.2. Water use..............................................................................................................................73.3. Chemical use........................................................................................................................73.4. Labour practices...................................................................................................................83.5. Technological adaptation.....................................................................................................9

4. Factors affecting the prospects for the Initiative........................................................................104.1. Production issues................................................................................................................104.2. Finance and capital.............................................................................................................124.3. Public sector.......................................................................................................................13

5. Taking the work forward............................................................................................................136. Options for an Initiative going forward......................................................................................15

6.1. The structure of a collaborative initiative...........................................................................156.2. Options for an initiative moving forward...........................................................................186.3. Immediate next steps..........................................................................................................20

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In June 2005, thirty stakeholders in the global sugarcane industry identified the key social and environmental impacts of sugarcane production and discussed how best to address these impacts through a collaborative approach.

KEY ISSUES

Producers who adopt better management practices can expect more efficient production to increase their net margins, improve social and environmental outcomes and are more likely to retain preferential access to sectors of the market concerned with responsible (or sustainable) sugar. The business case and financing of such practices are crucial.

The better practices1 that are appropriate will vary with the huge extremes in the scale and intensity of production, but the principles behind them remain the same.

Government intervention is very important in the sugarcane sector in many countries and will need to be taken into account.

1 "A distinction was drawn between “better” and “best” management. It was suggested that there are no best management practices as with constant improvement today's best is tomorrow's norm. BMP is used throughout this document to reflect Better Management Practices."

1

Better Sugar Meeting report, London, UK, 23/24 June 2005

IMPACTS

There was broad consensus about the key global impacts of sugarcane production and processing:

field environmental impacts were ranked by importance and with soil health ranked first, followed by water use, effluents and habitat loss;

labour impacts were ranked as health and safety, child labour, casualisation oflabour and wage levels;

community impacts were ranked by access to water, health and education; and

milling impacts were ranked as social issues (food safety and worker safety), mill environmental issues including energy and water use and a range of other issues.

AREAS OF UNCERTAINTYIncluded: The best point of entry into the market chain--the thinking is that it may be the mill but this may

not always be the case. the appropriate criteria for evaluating impacts (which underlines the importance of technical

working groups see below) The potential benefits of employing transgenic technologies in sugarcane The wider environmental consequences of large increases in ethanol production from sugarcane,

to replace fossil fuel use.

CONCLUSIONS AND WAY FORWARD

A Better Sugarcane Initiative could influence the industry through a collaborative, transparent approach and thus address the key impacts of sugar production.

The first step is to set up a small steering committee of up to ten people who have the ambition and resources to drive the Better Sugarcane Initiative forward.

The steering committee would take on responsibility for managing subsequent activities which are likely to include – the coordination of technical working groups and commissioning of research, sharing of information and networking with other interested parties, convening and arranging subsequent meeting of the whole group

2

Better Sugar Meeting report, London, UK, 23/24 June 2005

1. Introduction and background to meeting

There is unprecedented interest in the environmental and social impacts associated withcommodity production. One approach to understanding and reducing them is through the development of Better Management Practices (BMPs) for commodity production developed through multi-stakeholder partnerships. The International Finance Corporation (IFC) and World Wildlife Fund (WWF) have joined forces to pursue such an approach, working with a range of stakeholders on priority commodities – including soy, cotton, sugar and palm oil. Sugar is a promising commodity in terms of private sector interest and the potential gains from a approach to reduce impacts to acceptable levels.

This document summarises a meeting held on 23rd and 24th June 2005 at the headquarters of Tate & Lyle. The meeting was held under the Chatham House Rule. The purpose of the meeting was to identify the principal social and environmental impacts of sugar cane production and to discuss how best to address them. To focus discussion, impacts of consumption were specifically excluded from the agenda as were the impacts of sugar produced from sugar beet. The group of participants (‘participants’) included representatives of unions, producer groups, banks, branded goods companies, traders, intergovernmental organisations, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and research institutes (annex 1).

2. Context for work on sugarcane BMPs

This section provides an overview of the context for the discussion at this meeting, drawing on presentations and discussion.

2.1. Characteristics of sugar

Market: Sugar is a volumetric not a value-added product. The world market for sugar is distorted by surplus and subsidised sugar. Sugar is considered the most volatile of the soft commodities that are traded, with a gradual downward trend in real (inflation-adjusted) world sugar prices. Regional price differences exist; for instance, there is a premium over benchmark world market prices for Asia as a result of regional deficit an increasing number of producing countries are exploring the benefits of using sugar cane to produce energy in the form of both electricity from bagasse and ethanol.

Sugar has a number of characteristics that make it an important input to a range of industrial processes, including sweetness, flavour, texture, body and energy. Sugarcane is transformed into value-added ingredients for use in the food, beverage, pharmaceutical, cosmetic, paper, packaging and building industries. Additionally, by-products reduce input costs: for example, bagasse is burned to achieve energy self-sufficiency in mills and filter press mud from mills is spread on fields to reduce inorganic fertiliser use. There is potential to generate additional value from current production. It can also be used to co-generate energy for use in mills or for sale on national grids or to be used as a source of ethanol. In fact, the combination of increased income from multiple product streams as well as reduced costs makes sugar an increasingly attractive crop in some countries.

Production: Sugarcane is a perennial grass grown commercially between 30N and 30S. Access to water is crucial with much sugarcane production irrigated. Planting cycles can be long – four to 20 years or more – making long-term investment in land, plantations and mills the key to business success.

3

Better Sugar Meeting report, London, UK, 23/24 June 2005

Processing: Sugarcane is aggregated through processing at the mills. The resulting raw sugar is less perishable than many other commodities, enabling storage, speculation and stockpiling – for instance, millers are known to stockpile to ensure a steady flow of income over the year, but this requires considerable working capital.

2.2. Industry structure and supply chain

Producer: Sugarcane is often the best cash crop to grow, so support for the sector is often politically expedient. Production is split between large-scale producers as found in parts of Brazil to very small-scale producers as found widely in Asia. In some countries, such as South Africa, the trend is toward more and smaller producers selling cane into mills to support economic empowerment. In Brazil, by contrast, large-scale growing is expanding. Key choices that affect producer net margins are input use and efficiency, technology (irrigation and mechanisation costs ), and overall on-farm management practices. There was wide agreement that producers who adopt BMPs can expect more efficient production to increase their net margins.

Producers also need to make sure that their cane is harvested at the optimal time, transported to the mill as quickly as possible. Unfortunately some producers do not have control over these factors.

Miller: Major capital investment is required for sugarcane milling. It takes 5-7 years to pay back the bank debt on building a mill and longer to get a return on the equity invested. Milling is volume-driven, and economies of scale are essential, requiring mill owners to ensure that their suppliers are efficient and not distracted by better prices elsewhere (when there is competition from multiple purchasers); this can lead millers to provide extension services and better prices. Cooperation is often key.

A dominant strategy for millers is to store up large inventories of raw sugar and then sell it over the year to realise higher prices during the off season. This strategy can lessen the ability of cane suppliers to negotiate high prices with the miller. However, in some cases there are fewer risks – particularly in remote rural locations where farmers have few alternatives other than reverting to subsistence.

In Africa at least, millers can become default public service providers, as they are not only the largest provider of organised labour in an area, but also the future potential provider of jobs. In some cases services provided by millers – such as provision of schools or clinics – may become a substitute for poor public sector provision of services.

The chief operating risks to processors include access to qualified personnel, reasonable infrastructure for the transfer of sugar from the mill to market and the need to manage cash flow and short-term debt. Millers are often providers or guarantors of credit and thus are a potential point of entry for BMPs (eg potentially through innovative finance support packages to farmers and loan conditionalities from investors).

Consumer: Most sugar does not cross international borders. In most developing countries, sugar remains a ‘treat’ or luxury item for the poorest consumers. In developed countries, food processing, price, traceability and substitutes drive consumption. In developed countries most sugar is found in processed food, so food manufacturers are the “consumers” of sugar. Those who buy products from retailers that contain sugar have no say about where that sugar comes from or how it was produced. The increasing importance of traceability makes it hard for manufacturers and retailers to claim they know where product ingredients come from but not how they are produced. Whilst consumption

4

Better Sugar Meeting report, London, UK, 23/24 June 2005

issues and the various drivers of demand were outside the scope of the meeting, the direction of the demand is a key issue – sugar is, or could be, an input into a wide range of products.

Financier: A number of financial institutions have demonstrated interest in incorporating clear incentives into contracts to deliver environmental and social benefits which reduce risk without eroding competitive advantage. Today’s better practice is tomorrow’s norm – and financiers can help show the way forward; responding to initiatives such as the Equator Principles and proving mindful of corporate social responsibility issues. To be useful, better practices need to be commodity-specific and it is important to use simple metrics to measure the improvement in performance that they effect. Ideally improved performance using better practices could achieve a price premium, although it is more probable that improved performance will reduce costs and possibly become a precondition of supply to the high value-added (brand holders) section of the industry.

Figure 1 Financial dynamics of the sugar industry

Capital intensive

Substantial time required for investment recovery

Mutual interdependence

Policy intervention

Level and volatility of earnings often profoundly influenced by domestic

sugar policy

Seasonal

Volume driven Economies of scale & high levels of capacity utilisation desirable

High working capital requirement

Price levels Price volatility

Managing cash flow & short term debt

Volatility in output and unit costs

Security of raw material supply &

processing capacity

Characteristic Consequence Financial challenge

Profitability of growing & processing necessary for a sustainable industry

Trade unions: the sugar industry employs an estimated 18 million workers and there is concern about working conditions throughout the supply chain. BMPs could offer a better and more secure working life. Yet, while employment or cane purchase contracts might include clauses that help smallholders and workers, there is a risk that if the bar is set too high, some large employers might not survive. In addition, the important conditions crucial to worker health and safety might be swamped by extraneous conditions, ignored or easily circumvented if enforcement is lax, or if enforcement is not efficient at providing incentives for industry take-up. Finally, there is some evidence that labour conditions may be poorer on some government estates and small farms than on larger private plantations.

Governments: The importance and complexity of national government policies on sugar is well recognised – presenting both potential barriers to adoption of better practices and opportunities for success. If the domestic environment for sugar production is poorly managed, the result can be conflict and damage to both the social and economic values of the crop. Sugar is a large user of labour in rural areas (both of smallholders and wage labourers), providing investment and income (and subsequent multipliers) in rural areas. More than one participant suggested during the meeting that the overall public policy environment is critically important in determining the domestic performance of the industry. Still others said that regulations are based on what is politically possible and that while that may result in compliance it is unlike to produce the next generation of better practices. A prosperous sugar industry requires considerable capitalisation which in turn hinges on the confidence levels of investors. For instance, a participant suggested that the votes of

5

Better Sugar Meeting report, London, UK, 23/24 June 2005

smallholders and wage workers on large holdings are often key concerns for government in its decisions over location and regulation of the sugar industry: in some areas, sugar mills can be the only source of employment for 25,000 people. At the macro level, sugar is also a good source of tax revenue and important to the national balance of payments. Investment in BMPs would require both assurances from, and confidence in, the government – and possibly collaborative working structures – to ensure successful adoption. Options for deregulating public sector intervention in favour of greater industry self-regulation in a future sugar industry were also discussed.

The supply chain: The ‘roles’ of industry participants are changing. There is a trend away from mills growing sugar themselves to the outgrowing of sugar cane by smallholders. Ties are evolving that link participants along the market chain together, particularly as finance and information systems develop. Furthermore, trends towards conglomeration, higher industry standards and greater retailer demands are common to many agriculture sectors and likely to become more common for sugar as well. BMPs offer the potential to drive more transparent and collaborative ways of working. There is a need to enhance understanding of the potential supply chain drivers (the value proposition for different actors along the chain) of better practices and of those industry participants that appear to exert the most influence over the industry – including mills, futures markets and commodity traders.

3. Environmental and social impacts of sugarcane production

Discussion focused on sugarcane production which has a range of impacts that are causes for concern even though many can be mitigated. The major impacts include:

field environmental impacts were ranked by importance and with soil health ranked first, followed by water use, effluents and habitat loss;

labour impacts were ranked as health and safety, child labour, casualisation oflabour and wage levels;

community impacts were ranked by access to water, health and education; and

milling impacts were ranked as social issues (food safety and worker safety), mill environmental issues including energy and water use and a range of other issues.

3.1. Land use

Concerns were raised over the clearance of natural habitat for agricultural crops including sugarcane. Yet there was no consensus among participants over the role of sugarcane in this regard. Bio-ethanol derived Sugarcane has considerable potential to displace fossil fuels. The consequences of increased land use under sugarcane, and attendant expansion of sugarcane land into natural habitats, needs to be assessed.

As a grass, sugar cane can be grown in more fragile or marginal areas where other conventional crops are likely to fail or are too difficult to farm – such as on steep slopes or in riparian areas or wetlands – that often harbour greater concentrations of biodiversity. Such marginal lands are often not good agricultural land, as a higher level of inputs (lime and fertiliser) is required to sustain productivity on inhospitable soils. It was suggested that farmers can be inefficient when using such lands. An example from Zambia showed that the internal rate of return is higher when marginal land is left uncultivated.

6

Better Sugar Meeting report, London, UK, 23/24 June 2005

Burning the crop before harvesting is not allowed for a zone of several kilometres around cities in some countries. Pollutants produced by burning are among those that better practices could limit; including local impacts such as smoke and ash, carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide and carbon monoxide, and macro impacts such as greenhouse gas release. Smoke and ash are regarded as aggravating and nuisance pollutants respectively. The sugarcane growing phase was reported to be greenhouse neutral.

Alongside these potential negative impacts, sugar has some distinct advantages for soils, being a long-term crop that generates tremendous organic matter that can enhance soil fertility. In addition, not being an annual crop, requiring annual ploughing, it is valuable in minimising soil erosion.

3.2. Water use

The link between sugar production and water use is well established; sugar cane production uses a lot of water and exerts a negative impact on wetlands (through direct drainage of wetlands for cane fields and also indirect impacts caused by high levels of water abstraction for irrigation). Yet the efficiency of water use in terms of biomass production is better than many other crops. In addition, better irrigation practices are already well known for most irrigation technologies and for any given soil type. Most result in efficiency gains. A major challenge for BMPs is that water remains a free good in some sugar industries, lowering incentives to restrict use, although there are trends towards cost-recovery. Access to irrigation technology and hence efficiency gains are uneven in the industry, however, and tend to be concentrated in larger farms.

Yet beyond productive efficiency, the long-term consequences of irrigation on land are poorly appreciated; understanding the precise biological and chemical impacts will require new data. Some soils associated with sugarcane production can be degraded through salinity and sodicity (alkalinity of water), and some groundwater resources are prone to over-exploitation, contamination and marine intrusion. The impact is wide at a micro and macro level since diverted water can degrade both habitat and the hydrological basis of environmental services.

3.3. Chemical use

Inefficient use of agrochemicals in the production of sugarcane translates into effluent flows (run-off and leaching) and atmospheric emissions, and increased cost of production. The key issue is how to increase the efficiency of the use of agrochemicals and thus reduce their overall impact in a measurable way. Many of the answers lie in the adoption of mutually reinforcing BMPs. For example, increases in organic matter (or soil carbon) reduce fertilizer, pesticide and water use as well as overall effluents from sugarcane producing areas. Computer software programs have been developed in Australia (the ‘Pesticide use risk management tool for landholders’) to address these issues. Equally important are the enabling mechanisms to support small farmers implement BMPs in a sustainable manner.

Participants discussed impacts that occur at several levels, including those local to the farm, the local watershed and catchment area, and downstream freshwater and marine areas where cumulative impacts can be concentrated. It was suggested that risks were greater at the field or local level than at macro level, but new evidence (e.g. the Meso-American and Great Barrier Reefs) suggests that the cumulative impacts on fragile marine environments such as coral reefs are far more important than previously thought.

7

Better Sugar Meeting report, London, UK, 23/24 June 2005

Other specific biodiversity and habitat impacts raised at the meeting included:

Everglades, Florida, USA – development for agriculture has impacted on the overall flow of freshwater in the system and phosphorous runoff has impacts on fish and bird populations, and has increased invasive species such as cattails.

Indus Delta, South Asia – irrigation (not only of sugarcane) uses up to 90% of the available freshwater resources, reducing the volume of water flowing in the river and into the delta. This has negative impacts in terms of the size and segmentation of river dolphin populations and the mangrove ecosystem in the delta.

Many of the soils on which sugarcane is grown lose their vitality owing to monoculture, excessive use of fertilizers and pesticides, and excessive tillage. Once degraded, the system is more prone to pathogens. Over time, processes such as leaching, eutrophication and turbidity contribute to off-farm impacts. In common with water, there are technologies and management innovations that can address these impacts (e.g. ‘salt-shakers’ (a colloquialism for a lime applicator) in Australia that neutralise the acidity throughout the drainage system, and ‘Safegauge’ software is proving an effective risk management tool.). Other better practices that have been piloted include accreditation chemical applicators and successful self-regulation linked to cane supply contracts.

BMPs will need to reduce overall use of farm chemicals per ton of sugarcane produced. The potential for using BMPs is significant– but may require more information gathering and analysis than is feasible for small farms. It was argued during the meeting that positive incentives to mills combined with careful enforcement could enhance successful take-up. In addition, there is evidence that reducing inputs is a good way of reducing losses from the system – for instance, where appropriate, leaving mulch on the surface can substantially increase surface organic matter and reduce herbicide inputs. Other components of a BMPs approach include residue management, lime application to reduce soil acidity, split application of fertiliser and extension and training. BMPs have been pioneered in many cane growing regions.

There remain major challenges for better effluent management, including during major climatic events. There is also a potential tension between devising global standards and location-specific ones. Finally, there are a number of issues arising from identifying the most significant indicators that are not only meaningful, but measurable and monitorable. Verification and its cost is another major challenge not only for sugarcane but any other commodity.

4. Labour practices

Poor labour practices remain a concern throughout the sugar supply chain in several countries. It is not known how many workers are employed on a permanent or temporary basis in either the sugarcane plantations or the mills. The IUF represents a combined union membership 12 million workers across all agricultural commodities. It is estimated that for every four legal workers there may be one illegal worker, making an estimated total of 15 million. Between 6–26% of these workers are female (approx. 1–4 million workers). In addition, many people work informally as smallholders, or provide services (directly or indirectly) to the industry – for example through cane-cutting.

There is an apparent trend towards casualisation (using companies that provide contract labour) of labour, and this is a cause for concern. The concern here is that workers terms and conditions of labour are eroded as they are shifted from being permanent employees with stronger rights under labour law, to temporary workers with weaker employment rights.

8

Better Sugar Meeting report, London, UK, 23/24 June 2005

There are many outstanding gaps in understanding of the drivers of labour use and the importance of wage labour. Conditions and levels of unionisation vary widely across the sugarcane industry. The chief social and labour risks to a BMPs approach include the quality of improvements to worker health and safety, the relative impacts on small as distinct from large sugarcane producers, and wider changes in industry practices – such as the trend, in some countries towards outsourcing cane.

Participants stressed the right of workers to a safe working environment and the need for safer practices in the field. There is a strong efficiency-based business case for provision of acceptable working conditions for workers. However, there are also concerns over enforcement and monitoring of terms and conditions of work – particularly in relation to small producers. There may also be incentives not to adopt good practices, including the under-reporting of health and safety incidents in a bid to reduce insurance costs. On this issue, there were potential conflicts and tradeoffs of BMPs that need to be better understood. For instance, while green cane harvesting can reduce costs, it provides 6-12 % more bagasse passing through the mill. Mechanical harvesting also tends to pull up the stubble or underground bud-pieces of some plants and this results in the crop having to be replanted more regularly. Manual cutting, by contrast, uses more labour, but under the right conditions can be more efficient in terms of cost and reduced impact on the crop. In many parts of the world, manual cutting is associated with burning and the loss of organic matter which can force growers to use additional inputs.

Scale is a significant factor in determining the potential of a BMPs approach. Large employers can obtain internal economic benefits through providing direct benefits to workers and stimulating multiplier benefits in the surrounding community. For example, extension services in South Africa and in Guyana include caring for the impact of high HIV infection rates among seasonal workers. Smallholder benefits rely on the impact of a BMPs approach further along the supply chain, and its potential to ensure equitable contracts and payment on time. While there are BMPs for both small and large sugarcane growers, they will not tend to be the same in detail but will involve a common set of principles. The selection of BMPs depends on scale and capital, land, and labour intensity of production.

Participants agreed on the importance of tackling harmful child labour. There are conflicting definitions and practices with child labour globally. Countries have different minimum working ages – ranging from 14 upwards. The International Labour Organisation (ILO) definition of abusive child labour is that “children are prevented from fully developing” – a definition that focuses less on the age at which work is commenced, and more on the type of the labour and the ability to remain in school and develop other skills. Furthermore, most international agreements accept child labour on a family’s own farm so long as it does not endanger the children. Enforcement presents challenges as child labour might be seasonal or sporadic and easily masked from inspectors – in addition in rural areas, it might be considered essential to the functioning of business or during busy harvest periods. On this issue, multinational corporations might be especially vulnerable – particularly those using product sourced from smallholders or family farms. BMPs would need to address these issues and the trade-offs between small and large-scale producers and long-term employment impacts.

5. Technological adaptation

Mechanisation sometimes replaces wage jobs in production with smaller numbers of workers required in both field and mill. For instance, in Australia it was reported that one mechanised billet planter had replaced 60 workers and a mechanised cutting machine replaced 110 workers. However, as already mentioned, the availability and adoption of technology is variable incomplete, and the

9

Better Sugar Meeting report, London, UK, 23/24 June 2005

absence of basic technology (including personal protective equipment) is widespread and continues to raise concerns of inadequate worker protection.

The group reached no consensus over the impact of technological adaptation in the sugar industry. Some technologies have the potential to directly replace workers and others are adaptations to more efficient practices that have long-term implications for workers. For instance, a move to green cane harvesting requires no burning and in some parts of Australia this can retain up to 25 tons of organic matter per hectare. This may reduce the need for inputs of chemicals and herbicides (since the retained organic matter covers the soil surface reducing weed growth and increased organic matter in the soil retains more water and nutrients).

There are some benchmark data to measure the impact of technological adaptation, given in tonnes produced per person. In Australia, where levels of mechanisation are extremely high, sugarcane producers produce 10,000 tons per employee. Production will be lower on smallholder farms – but the quality of employment needs to be better understood and BMPs identified and disseminated. In Brazil, the world’s largest and fastest growing sugar producer, an estimated 25% of cutting is mechanised. Limiting access to technology might retain current levels of employment, but the quality of the jobs needs to be measured.

6. Factors affecting the prospects for the Initiative

6.1. Production issues

Alongside conventional sugar production, a number of existing developments and innovations may affect the potential for using a BMPs approach for sugarcane cultivation and processing. The remainder of this section highlights a number of practices or elements of practices that offer potential as part of a BMPs approach and which were raised during the meeting. However it should be noted that some (particularly GM cane) may have negative connotations in some markets.

Supply management

Supply management through national bodies ended for many agri-food commodities during the 1980s. While these bodies experienced mixed success and failure, the potential to re-capture the perceived benefits has seen contemporary versions of supply management regimes gain traction with a number of governments and private sector participants. There are two main trends in supply management in the sugar industry: public-led (e.g. India and Thailand) and private-led (e.g. Australia and South Africa).

Public-led supply management adheres closely to the previous models of commodity agreements, with national governments intervening in domestic markets in an attempt to ensure that financial benefits trickle to farmers.

India: Using government-set statutory minimum prices combined with monthly releases of sugar by mills, the aim is to stabilise market activity. Yet, the structure is not working smoothly; it is producing classic boom-and-bust results – in lean times, cane producers ‘cut corners’ and payment time lags lengthen. The flow of finance appears critical to this system – currently the monthly releases are sold mainly to traders who can create payment problems for upstream mills and farmers.

Thailand: The use of statutory minimum prices to benefit farmers has encountered problems owing to mill overcapacity that creates ‘hot’ prices. Farmers enter a bidding war, and traders aggregate

10

Better Sugar Meeting report, London, UK, 23/24 June 2005

from farmers to sell to mills in bulk. The powerful situation of the farmer is exacerbated by government loans to farmers, which are rarely repaid, ensuring that inefficient production practices are perpetuated – including lack of cane zoning, the area of cane grown to supply a specific mill.

Private-led supply management focuses on self-regulation to limit the size of the market. It attempts to blend the net benefits to all participants of previous commodity management systems with market approaches, including BMPs. The government is often a willing and equal partner in sugarcane production. Currently, an estimated 55-60% of global sugarcane is produced under self-regulating systems.

South Africa: The South African Sugar Association is an umbrella body that self-regulates the industry and ensures transparency in trades between millers and sugarcane growers. As part of the Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) system, land has been sold to smallholders. A smallholder micro-credit system exists, and two mills have been sold to BEE groups.

Australia: In New South Wales, growers have formed a sellers’ cooperative with 650 sugarcane growers. Here, the cooperative owns the mills, half of the refinery, and the producers own and share the more specialized, costly equipment.

Production systems

Transgenics: The focus of the Better Sugarcane work is to reduce the impacts of sugarcane production and processing. Toward that end, there is considerable research on the development of transgenic or GM sugarcane varieties. Since none of these varieties are currently being produced commercially, there is still some question as to whether GM sugarcane varieties would reduce the impacts of sugarcane production to acceptable levels. There is a related question as to whether consumers in certain countries would be receptive to GM sugarcane being in the marketplace at all. One participant argued that transgenic sugar is a “BMP” because it reduces input use and costs while increasing land use efficiency. Another participant argued that the goal of the initiative should be to reduce impacts to acceptable levels. The group should be agnostic about whether GM technology is used or not, but that buyers or investors would likely add additional criteria such as GM.

In 2004, there were 81 million hectares of transgenic crops in 17 countries, with annual growth of 20%. Although no commercial transgenic sugar is currently in production, research is being funded by the sugar industry and conducted by an international consortium for sugarcane biotechnology. Varieties are being developed to increase internal efficiency in production, providing beneficial input traits (e.g. pest and disease resistance and flower-growth suppression) and product quality traits (e.g. higher sucrose content). Environmental and social benefits are expected with reduced environmental impacts of sugarcane production; expansion of production to new areas; and reduced pesticide use with consequent benefits for worker health.

The risks also need to be considered: the risk of poor enforcement is often mentioned in relation to concerns over contamination and catchment dispersal issues. Access to genes and the access of production from these genes to markets can be a cause for concern owing to the considerable concentration in the commercial ownership of gene patents. In some markets, there is consumer resistance to GM products. There are also emerging regulatory issues such as the release of GM crops and their impact on related species in the wild. However the risk for escape of genes from sugarcane is less than for many sexually propagated crops as cane sets viable seed in relatively few natural environments and commercial crops are propagated with vegetative material. There is also some evidence of long-term resistance of pests to the herbicides used with transgenic crops such as soy in Argentina or Paraguay, as well as concerns over access to adequate information and technical

11

Better Sugar Meeting report, London, UK, 23/24 June 2005

assistance on crop and pesticide rotations to reduce resistance and other longer term issues. Finally, there is some concern from GM soy (about protein levels) and cotton (about fibre quality) crops that important economic traits may be adversely impacted by an apparently unrelated genetic modification. This may be less important for sugarcane because sugar is a 98-99.9% pure crystalline product, with other significant constituents in raw sugar being mineral matter, other CHO molecules (carbohydrate related) and natural colourants that develop in process. However, these are largely market issues, not social or environmental impacts and will be addressed by markets for the product.

Diversification

The range of diversified sugar products and uses for by-products exposes the industry to constantly evolving opportunities in current and new market sectors and exposes it to expanded risk portfolio. For instance, a drop in particle board manufacture, fuel prices and chemical additives to sweetener will have market impacts for sugar made from cane. Similarly, increases in prices for any product for which sugar from cane or a by-product can be substituted also offer the industry additional opportunities. The wide customer base of sugar may make it difficult to use certification to exert pressure on global production.

6.2. Finance and capital

Finance may be key to BMP up-take, in at least some instances, and could play a significant role in driving the agenda forward if appropriate screens (e.g. targeted and easy to measure) could be developed for financial markets . There was a strong feeling among a number of participants that financial incentives or the business case for each BMP that addresses standards could play an important role in producers adopting a BMP approach. The difficulty is in ensuring that financial incentives delivered to key sectors give incentives for genuine and lasting change and, at the very least, do not undermine other players in the market chain. Participants stressed the need for the financial returns to extend beyond financial benefits to farmers.

Some form of blended public and private finance was proposed. Blended finance could give the sugar company the “headroom” to implement a BMP approach and the conditionality of financing could provide the discipline to implement change. In practice, few good examples of blended finance exist. A “green field” cane mill in northern Vietnam highlighted how to provide farmers with income so they could start in business, whilst ensuring that the company’s liability was not open-ended. These issues were addressed by micro-credit systems including placing farmers’ savings into loans cooperatives coupled with cross-guarantees to ensure loan recovery. A 98% loan recovery rate was achieved in the Vietnamese project.

Some participants noted that there is a need to address the lack of connectivity between business and concessional finance in order to provide blended finance. Others observed that, currently, most of the lending to sugar is through futures. Enforcement needs to be built into any BMP approach so that well-financed producers, for example, can’t “go around” the mill that financed them.

It was also suggested that the Equator Principles, which are a framework for financial institutions to manage environmental and social issues in project financing, could have some utility in developing and nurturing a BMP approach to production. Applying IFC environmental and social policies to certain types of lending could help leverage better performance. However, the Equator Principles currently only apply to project finance investments, (which is likely to limit their application to the establishment and refurbishment of mills). Thus for at least some of the funding that may be

12

Better Sugar Meeting report, London, UK, 23/24 June 2005

needed, (e.g. working capital), the Equator Principles are not applicable. Furthermore, finance for sugarcane is increasingly integrated within a wider system as sugar and its by-products are diversified as inputs into many industrial processes, including those sectors that receive preferential public policy incentives. For instance, in India, long-term loans are available for power generation.

6.3. Public sector

In rural areas where public sector provision of education and health facilities can be very limited, large plantations and mills may find themselves filling these gaps. Whilst participants recognised the difficulty of private enterprises taking on public roles, many participants felt that such social provisions are important and often be justified additionally because they are good for the bottom line.

Public sector regulation also has impacts on sugarcane production. For example, in NSW, Australia it is forbidden to clear any vegetation for any purpose, without State approval, and in South Africa it is necessary to apply for a permit to clear if the area has not been used in 10 years. In addition, in South Africa there are competing and complementary aspects of land use for biodiversity protection through buffer zones and parks and protected areas.

Subsidies are widely seen as distorting at the global level, and yet often key at the local level to support local enterprise and infant industries. In the case of sugarcane, they can also safeguard rural employment and investment in transition to better sugarcane production practices. Specific aspects of the policy mix need to be understood at a domestic level for local impacts since policy interventions will have unforeseen outcomes. In Brazil, for instance, the likely impacts of proposed tax breaks for smallholders to grow sugarcane dedicated to bio-ethanol production requires further investigation. There are risks that need to be assessed for BMP approaches as public subsidies can distort pricing of some inputs to sugarcane production or milling operations, e.g. free or subsidized access to water in many countries.

The proposed price cut by 38% for sugar within the EU owing to phase-out of preferential buying is expected to have a significant impact on Least Developed Country (LDC) producers – with some of the poorest losing the most – while enhancing global economic efficiency. Where some countries lose, the more efficient producers like Brazil will most likely expand their production to take advantage of access to new markets.

7. Taking the work forward

On the second day of the meeting, participants were given a choice of four breakout groups. Each working group was tasked with discussing and ranking key issues relating to one of four key impact areas: community, environment, labour and mill issues. The following sections report on the findings of these groups and key points from the plenary discussion around each.

1. Community: The definition of community developed by this group was the ‘economic catchment area’ of the sugarcane production and milling industry in question. The group identified and ranked key issues in the following order (most important first): community access to water (adequate in quality and quantity), ensuring a reasonable standard of living; community health, and social provision – particularly education. Whilst the group agreed on the real-world importance of social provision by the sugar industry in the absence of state provision, it questioned whether the private sector should ever completely replace public sector provision. A need for both a long-term and short-term perspective was also stressed. The working group cautioned that the sugar industry’s role

13

Better Sugar Meeting report, London, UK, 23/24 June 2005

must be placed in context – for instance, what is the role of inefficient farming practices by other, non-sugarcane growing farmers in driving environmental change?

2. Environment: This working group defined a number of performance indicators for more sustainable sugarcane production and then explored whether BMPs exist to achieve key standards on environmental impacts. The group concentrated most on local issues of environmental benefit. Soil health was considered the most important on-farm issue to address through a BMP approach using key indicators such as trends in levels of soil carbon or organic matter; fertilizer use per unit of cane produced; overall reduction of pesticide toxicity per unit of cane. Other key environmental impacts and associated indicators identified by the group were (in order of importance): water efficiency (e.g. water use per metric tonne of cane produced); control of effluents in run-off (e.g. erosion and agrochemicals); and improving habitat (associated with indicators such as compliance with the law as a minimal baseline, no net loss of on-farm habitat and crediting farms that create habitat from marginal land).

The working group also suggested key elements for identifying, analyzing, and disseminating information on BMPs that actually reduce the most significant impacts to acceptable levels. These could include identifying not only BMPs but their champions around the world, documenting and making the business case for BMPs, communicating BMPs through workbooks, meetings, websites and other publications, as well as strategies for reducing impacts at an industry-wide level through a BMPs approach. This could include the development of national government strategies as well as private sector market chain strategies.

3. Mills: There was broad consensus from all participants on the need to devote a separate working group to mill issues in any initiative going forward, as they are a “centre for change” for many along the market chain. The mill working group agreed that exploiting the close links between mills and growers offered the best chance of reducing the impacts of production. They suggested establishing a Better Practice Forum to provide guidance throughout the industry on (in order of importance): social issues (operationalising health and safety for workers and on food and product safety practice), local environmental issues (emissions monitoring systems, water usage and treatment, effluent, vinasse, and air), energy use, co-generation (power generation and carbon credits), ethanol, by-products, extension services and the system of payments by mills to farmers.

It was noted in particular that benchmarks could focus industry action on continuous improvement, yet the tools to improve impacts beyond existing benchmarks may vary tremendously, particularly across national boundaries. It was further noted that production standards for mills do exist, but they generally lack environmental and social indicators. A better understanding of current baseline standards is essential to help develop workable future standards that reduce impacts by encouraging the adoption of BMPs.

4. Labour: This working group focused on prioritising key labour impacts. Broad consensus emerged around health and safety issues and child labour as the most important issues followed by casualisation of labour and then wages. The consensus was less stable on ranking or prioritizing these impacts than in other groups. Forced and prison labour were also raised as issues. To increase positive, measurable impacts for labour, the group envisaged a key driver would be through tapping into the ‘reputation risk’ shouldered by companies. It was thought that this could result in an increased commitment to reducing impacts through BMPs to the extent that exposure for a particular company and the financial returns could be demonstrated from addressing, and ultimately improving, labour impacts. Other participants commented on the need to facilitate safe and secure workplaces – especially outside of the factory – including cane cutting and other field operations, and including the “indirect” workers associated with either plantations or mills from the wider community. Others also raised concerns as to how BMPs would be enforced when growers sell to

14

Better Sugar Meeting report, London, UK, 23/24 June 2005

multiple mills, and when the impact of mill “values” over-ride local values. There was disagreement and debate among the group over what commitments could be reasonably expected from mills to workers and whether this should include such issues as permanent employment contracts and whether salary levels should exceed local labour market rates to qualify for Better Sugar.

8. Options for an Initiative going forward

8.1. The structure of a collaborative initiative

Participants agreed that some kind of ‘Better Sugarcane Initiative’ could offer a means to influence the industry through a collaborative approach with a view to addressing the key impacts of sugar production. Participants were divided randomly into four groups to discuss the structure and design of such an Initiative, and were invited to report back with a series of organograms. Each of the four proposals is presented below.

Group 1

15

Sugar BMPs consortium

Secretariat [2/3/4]?

Steering committee [10-12]

Working groups: Communications and messaging; positive impacts; field; labour practices; community; mill.

Links to other initiatives –

including SAI, cotton BMPs

Government? Associations

Accreditation/ certification body

Missing key players [recruit] – including

retail, soft drinks, energy traders

Better Sugar Meeting report, London, UK, 23/24 June 2005

Group 2

Group 3

16

Driving group (5)

Secretariat

Interested parties forum

LABOUR IMPACTS

COMMUNITY IMPACT

MILL

FIELD

Working Groups

Steering committee [6-9] (WWF, IFC,

other)

Field

Mill Market

Community/ social

Labour

Water

Better Sugar Meeting report, London, UK, 23/24 June 2005

Group 4

STEERING COMMITTEE (or Executive Committee): ** 8-10 members ** Coordinator (ex-officio) ** Twice annual face-to-face meets ** Conference calls ** Financials/ sponsors

LEGAL ENTITY: Contracts, receive funds, accounting, payments

MULTI-STAKEHOLDER FORUM ** Less than 100 institutions and experts ** Two meetings per annum in regions ** Funded by participant contributions

TECHNICAL WORKING GROUPS Each with 6-8 experts and one leader

CANE PRODUCTION

CANE PROCESSING

SOCIAL/ COMMUNITY

OTHER?

Some key similarities between the approaches included: Keeping the Better Sugarcane Initiative “small” (suggestions ranged from 50-100) so that the

group can be flexible and focus on the content of the work and find other ways to consult with and disseminate findings to a much larger group of stakeholders.

Establishing a smaller, focused steering committee (SC) from the members of the whole that oversees the Better Sugarcane Initiative, including the technical working groups, but that is responsible to the group as a whole.

Ensuring through a multi-stakeholder, consultative process, or regular fora, that interested parties not present at the meeting or part of the Initiative could be involved.

Ensuring that key groups that are not thus far are recruited to become part of this work, including such groups as retailers, soft drinks companies, public sector actors, ISO (international sugar organisation), FAO, and UNCTAD.

Identifying complementary process so that the work of the Initiative adds value rather replicates existing programs of others such as the ISSCT working groups on a number of issues and the Ethical Trading Initiative.

Working in a focussed, prioritized way on improving social, environmental, production and processing impacts and wherever possible using the business case to reinforce the need for improvement.

Developing further information and data on key impacts as well as ways to reduce them. This would be best gathered, analysed and used to define desired results and identify a range of BMPs that could be adopted to achieve them. There was consensus that technical working groups for each of the four main impact areas should move forward on this approach.

However, the group strategies also reflected some potentially different approaches as well: One such issue is whether the technical working groups are composed entirely of Initiative

members or of experts entirely or mostly outside of the group. The main implications are where most expertise lies for the technical groups and how to ensure overall management of such groups so that their products reflect the overall approach of the Initiative.

17

Better Sugar Meeting report, London, UK, 23/24 June 2005

The level of detail also varied considerably but at least part of this may have been related to the short amount of time devoted to this exercise. One group included a timeframe detailing the drafting of goals, objectives and budgets during the next two months, hiring a coordinator during the next four months, and forming the SC and technical working groups within three and six months respectively; during 2006 to create a website and complete and implement strategies on communication, confidentiality, funding and consultation; during 2007 to draft standards and begin consultation; and during 2008 for better sugar to hit the market.

One group suggested the Initiative’s structure should rest on voluntary commitments by SC members, with peer pressure forming the major enforcement and motivation for the management of each working group by each member of the SC.

One group mentioned the importance of developing an interim structure for the Initiative – possibly using the WWF and IFC as key players or advocates.

In response to a request from a participant to understand how similar groups have been organized and run, a short presentation was provided on the management of other initiatives, including palm oil. The initiative structure presented by Group 4 most closely represents these ongoing commodity-specific initiatives. For palm oil, a consultant was used to drive the process. There are seven groups of stakeholders represented on a SC [4 seats for growers (with three countries and smallholders holding these seats), four NGOs (two social and two environmental), processors, manufacturers, retailers, etc.]. Founded in 2003, the palm oil roundtable has 80 members, each paying annual membership fees of Euro 2,000.

Currently, there are five commodity-specific groups (cotton, palm oil, salmon, shrimp, and soy) that follow the same general organization structure and operating procedures. Although there are similarities among these Initiatives, for instance, these are performance-based programmes; the focus of each Initiative moving forward has been tailored to the commodity and the membership. For instance, the oil palm initiative has been largely driven by the identification and endorsement of prescriptive standards (BMPs) rather than a measurable reduction of impacts. The Cotton Initiative is more market driven with the drafting of principles and criteria just finalised and moving towards the development of measurable standards. The Soy Roundtable has been more process and issue focussed and only now is beginning to focus on identifying and prioritizing key impacts and how to best address them. The Salmon Dialogue has been largely driven by producers who want to address key issues that have been identified by NGOs.

8.2. Options for an initiative moving forward

There appeared to be general agreement among participants that BMPs could address some crucial environmental and social impacts identified by the group that associated with sugarcane production. Participants were interested in learning from other commodity initiatives. To this end, they suggested that it makes sense to focus on the most significant impacts of sugarcane production within a simple process and a streamlined Initiative structure leading to clear guidance on BMPs. The potential to reduce the impacts of sugarcane production through BMPs appears strongest when harnessing market-based drivers and incentives. This requires the development of a clear ‘business case’ for BMPs. It also suggests that the work should probably begin in a small number of countries (5-10) where there are willing and committed partners along the market chain that can help to understand how the Better Sugarcane Initiative might be best supported on the ground before there is any attempt to take the initiative global. The Initiative would be seen as adding value to, and learning from, programs already in place, rather than to “re-badge” these activities.

There continues to be concerns regarding the degree to which such a program could be self-regulatory or how much government and other players would need to be involved. In all likelihood

18

Better Sugar Meeting report, London, UK, 23/24 June 2005

this will vary considerably from one country to another and may well ultimately reflect the degree to which governments in any given production area are already involved in the sugarcane industry. Clearly, self-regulation of the global sugar industry would require a significant body of peers that have significant market or financial clout to help guide industry development. This umbrella body would need to develop private structures to regulate its own members, provide credit, and ensure that extension is available to growers. Overall, the value proposition for the players along the market chain must be equitable, and it is likely that to succeed the group would need to find new ways to align financial incentives along the value chain which could include forward contracting, asset development and management, equity in mills or beyond, and measurement of the on-the ground improvements that can be achieved by BMPs. A number of participants requested guidance in these areas.

Several participants stressed the value of an approach that uses mills as agents for change. This was seen as providing incentives to adapt, adopt and monitor BMPs on the ground. Indeed, it was noted that mills are already a centre for change and mobility for many involved in the production and processing of sugarcane in the market chain. To this end, there was a call for the following:

Establish common principles and benchmarks that cross national boundaries but that can be adapted to local conditions.

Develop appropriate indicators that are relevant at large and small scale as well as for wage labour and smallholder production systems, and to production systems utilizing different production and management technologies.

Address wider issues of short- and long-term adaptability within the context of future changes in markets resulting from changes in subsidy systems as well as increased petroleum prices.

Share information on BMPs to reduce impacts that are applicable throughout the industry, provided they are not proprietary and seen as providing individual companies with competitive advantage.

Financing of BMPs is crucial. The proposed investigation of blended finance received a mixed response, and it is clear that further investigation would be necessary to ensure that delivery of incentives for sustainability is feasible. Still, there was broad support for the need to develop appropriate financing packages to deliver Better Sugarcane.

Participants stressed the value of market mechanisms and market-based incentives to drive Better Sugarcane. While regulations and performance based standards provide guidelines, innovation and technology turn these norms into forces for genuine progress and change in a field or factory. Large investments coupled with opportunities for business innovation across the market chain offer the best opportunities for genuine and lasting change. Also, opportunities exist at the farm level to exclude or reduce marginal land from production, thereby reducing inputs, reducing impacts and increasing net profits. Such actions could be encouraged by market and/or public sector initiatives.

A number of participants stressed the importance of an overall communication strategy for obtaining feedback on and broader involvement in the work of the Initiative and promoting and disseminating BMPs. Development of BMP guidance for improving impacts was identified by every working group as a key activity, and it was frequently identified during the plenary discussions.

Guidelines would need to be developed to address standards of environmental and social performance as well as credible verification. There was general agreement that this should be a focus of any Better Sugarcane Initiative going forward. To aid this, disaggregated performance data is needed from around the world on reducing key impacts, as is data on which BMPs work best under which types of conditions. Research and analysis is needed on both these issues. At a local

19

Better Sugar Meeting report, London, UK, 23/24 June 2005

level, the costs and benefits of BMPs need to be quantified and promoted. Principles and guidelines will likely prove useful tools to achieve this. For instance, how can producers best elevate organic matter levels in their soil. A complementary option is to identify BMP champions so that the more progressive growers or associations in the sugarcane industry can become role models.

8.3. Immediate next steps

The following immediate next steps were identified:

By July 22, WWF and IFC will draft:--Goals and Objectives for the Better Sugarcane Initiative--A Memorandum of Understanding to guide the use and sharing of confidential data--Options for the development of the Steering Committee--Budget for the first year (both core costs and

By July 22, send in draft the meeting report to all participants for their comment or clarifications.

Suggestions or revisions on any of the five documents should be received by August 5 or the documents will be considered acceptable.

Any organization wishing to be part of the steering committee (or at least discussing what this might entail) should make this known to either WWF or the IFC.

20

Better Sugar Meeting report, London, UK, 23/24 June 2005

Annex I – Participants in the better sugar better business meeting, 23-24 June 2005

First name Last name Organisation EmailRoger Bradshaw Rabobank roger.bradshaw@rabobank.comWilliam Burnquist UNICA william@ctc.com.br Jorge Chullen IUF jchullen@rogers.comJason Clay WWF-US jason.clay@wwfus.orgToby Cohen Czarnikow tcohen@czarnikow.comJonathan Drake Cargill Jonathan_Drake@cargill.comMark Eckstein IFC meckstein@ifc.orgIain Ferguson Tate & Lyle Iain.ferguson@tateandlyle.comDavid Grant SABMiller David.grant@sabmiller.comDavid Haworth Illovo dhaworth@illovo.co.zaGraham Kingston BSES gkingston@bses.org.auTony Lass Cadbury-Schweppes tony.lass@csplc.comRegis Leal University of Campinas regislv@lnls.brSue Longley IUF Sue.Longley@iuf.orgJames Macgregor IIED james.Macgregor@iied.orgRoger McElrath BSR rmcelrath@bsr.orgHarri Morar Tate & Lyle Harri.Morar@tateandlyle.comMacadou Ndaw IFC mndaw@ifc.orgRichard Perkins WWF-UK rperkins@wwf.org.ukJoel Posters ABN Amro joel.posters@nl.abnamro.comRobert Quirk Farmer rgquirk@bigpond.comK Raghunandan E.I.D.Parry raghunandank@parry.murugappa.comP Ramababu E.I.D.Parry ramababup@parry.murugappa.comLotar Schulz Noodsberg Canegrowers lotar@schulz.co.zaMarcelo Tabarelli University of Pernambuco mtrelli@ufpe.brDuncan Tate Tate & Lyle duncan.tate@tateandlyle.comBruce Tozer Rabobank Bruce.Tozer@Rabobank.comJan-Kees Vis Unilever jan-kees.vis@unilever.comHalina Ward IIED halina.ward@iied.orgKeith Ward TSB Booker-Tate Keith.Ward@booker-tate.co.ukDavid Willers Southern African

Business Forum and Sugar Consultant

Djw26@aol.com

Rachel Wiseman WWF International rachelwiseman@onetel.com

21

Better Sugar Meeting report, London, UK, 23/24 June 2005

Annex II – Better Sugar Dialogue- Agenda

Purposes of meeting: to identify the principal social and environmental impacts of sugarcane production and to discuss how best to address these impacts through a collaborative approach. Impacts of consumption are specifically excluded from this agenda.

23 June

Chaired by Mark Eckstein, IFC and Jason Clay, WWF

Morning Getting an overview

8-8:30 Coffee

8:30-9:00 Welcome and Introductions

9:00-10:00 A Global Overview of Sugar Markets and Policies—Implications for Production, followed by questions and discussion Roger Bradshaw, Rabobank

10:00-10:15 An outline of sugarcane growing practices Robert Quirk, Australia

10:15-10:30 Questions and plenary discussion on growing practices

10:30-11:00 Coffee

11:00-11:10 A Global Overview of the Environmental Impacts of Sugarcane Production Jason Clay, WWF

11: 10-11:45 Questions and plenary discussion on environmental impacts

11:45-11:55 Social Impacts of Sugarcane Production Michelle Lapinski, Business for Social Responsibility

11:55-12:30 Questions and plenary discussion of social impacts

12:30-1:30 Lunch

Identifying the issues

1:30-1:40 Water use – Graham Kingston, BSES

1:40-1:50 Questions and plenary discussion on water use

1:50-2:00 Farm effluents – Graham Kingston, BSES

2:00-2:10 Questions and plenary discussion on effluents

2:10-2:20 Soil health and degradation – Graham Kingston, BSES

2:30-2:40 Habitat loss and protecting ecosystem function – Rachel Wiseman, WWF

2:40-2:45 Questions on habitat loss and ecosystem function

2:45-3:15 Discussion of the key field impacts

22

Better Sugar Meeting report, London, UK, 23/24 June 2005

3:15-3:45 Tea

3:45-4:00 Sugar cane and labour issues Jorge Chullen, IUF

4:00-4:15 Questions and plenary discussion on sugarcane and labour issues

4:15-4:30 Transgenic sugar cane William Burnquist, Brazil

4:30-5:00 Questions and plenary discussion on transgenic sugarcane

5:00-5:10 Mill Issues (including mill effluent) and co-products Regis Leal, Brazil

5:10-5:30 Plenary discussion on mill issues and co-products

5:30-6:00 Wrap-Up for the Day

6:30-9:30 Reception and Dinner on Tate and Lyle’s barge on the Thames

24 June

Designing a way forward Facilitated by Halina Ward of IIED

8:30-9:00 Coffee with participatory exercise: from your perspective, what could a collaborative consortium achieve?

9:00-10:30 Plenary discussion on key challenges in designing the onward processIntroduction of possible working group topics

10:30-11:00 Coffee

11:00-11:30 Plenary Discussion to agree on working group tasks

11:30-12:30 Four parallel working groups.

12:30-1:30 Lunch

1:30-2:30 Report back on morning working groups

2:30-3:30 Parallel working group sessions: designing an ongoing collaborative initiative

3:30-4:00 Coffee

4:00-4:45 Report back from afternoon working groups and plenary discussion

4:45-5:30 Next steps

5:30-6:00 Wrap-up

23