The Better Sugar Cane Initiative
Home Contact French
Spanish
Portuguese
 
 
BSI Standard  
Public Consultation  
1

Principle 4.
Actively manage biodiversity and ecosystem services
 
4.1
Criterion - To assess impacts of sugarcane enterprises on biodiversity and ecosystems services.
Indicator
Processing & Milling
Agriculture
Verifier
Standard
Notes
Aquatic oxygen demand per unit mass product
 
kg/t
1 kg COD or 0.5 kg BOD5
Oxygen demand by calculation of quantity and analysis of runoff. Environmental burden can be expressed in terms of either COD or BOD5, depending on routine measurements available.
Percent of areas defined internationally or nationally as legally protected or classified as High Conservation Value areas (interpreted nationally and officially as described in Appendix 1) planted to sugarcane after the cut off date of 1 January 2008.
%
0
To prevent expansion or new sugarcane development into areas of critical biodiversity (including HCVA categories 1-4). National definitions of HCVA to take precedence over international where both exist. In the absence of national HCVA maps or data base, credible documentary evidence required that no HCVA converted after 1 Jan 2008.
Also includes soils with a large risk of significant soil stored carbon such as peat lands, mangroves, wetlands and certain grasslands.
Existence and implementation of an environmental management plan (EMP) taking into account endangered species, habitats and ecosystems as well as reference to ecosystem services and alien invader plant and animal control, as described in Appendix 4. Coverage of issues required in Appendix 4.
 
%
90
To protect any existing riparian areas, wetlands or other significantly affected natural habitats in a satisfactory state, to provide habitat corridors and to conserve any rare, threatened or endangered species. The EMP should focus on risks, management responses, and implementation.
Use of co-products does not affect traditional uses (e.g. fodder, natural fertilizer, local fuel) or affect the soil nutrient balance or soil organic matter
Yes/No
Yes
Use of agricultural co-products as inputs must not jeopardize local uses or adversely affect soil quality
Soil and leaf nutrient status
 
%
>80
% fields fertilized based on soil or leaf analysis
Nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizer (calculated as phosphate equivalent) applied per hectare per year
 
kg/ha/y
<120
Environmental burden is kg phosphate equivalent as defined in Appendix 1 - measuring risk (i.e. amounts applied) rather than level in downstream water. Quantities of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizer applied calculated as the phosphate equivalent as a measure of potential effects on eutrophication per hectare per year. To minimise losses from over application and consequent ground water or downstream contamination.
Herbicides and pesticides applied per hectare per year
 
kg active ingredient/ha/y
5
To minimise air, soil and water contamination. Quantities of pesticide (including herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, nematicides, ripeners) applied calculated as a measure of potential toxic effects on the environment. Also note the requirement to use only products registered for use and at registered rates and to comply with the Stockholm convention on persistant organic pollutants and requirements in relation to agrochemicals rated as 1a, 1b or 2 under World Health Organisation (WHO) classification.
 
 
 
Key To Indicators:
Symbol indicates to whom it applies
4.2
Criterion - To implement measures to mitigate adverse impacts where identified.
Indicator
Processing & Milling
Agriculture
Verifier
Standard
Notes
Documented plan and implementation of mitigation measures
Yes/No
Yes
Existence of a list of identified adverse impacts such as smoke, fallout from fires, water pollution downstream, drift from agrochemical spraying and noise. Existence of a mitigation plan, and verification of the implementation of mitigation measures, including consultation with affected stakeholders. Programs with objectives developed at the sectorial level can be considered.
 
Key To Indicators:
Symbol indicates to whom it applies
   
     
 
The Better Sugar Cane Initiative is an Associate Member of the ISEAL Alliance.

 

The BSI is a not-for-profit company limited by guarantee, registered in the United Kingdom
Contact:
  David Willers-General Manager
Better Sugar Cane Initiative (BSI)
20 Pond Square
© Better Sugar Cane Initiative Ltd
bsi.willers@btinternet.com
Natasha Schwarzbach-Communications Manager
London UK N6 6BA P: 0044 (0) 20 8348 0303
© bettersugarcane.com All rights reserved
:
  natasha@bettersugarcane.com