|
BSI Standard, Public Comments - Phase 2
|
|
The BSI wishes to thank all those individuals and companies who have taken the time and effort to comment on the Standard. The comments on the BSI Standard received during the public consultation phase 2 from 12th November 2009 to 12th January 2010 (midnight UK time) are shown below.
Comments were obtained from the following contributors:
Kevin Ogorzalek - World Wildlife Fund
UNICA - Brazil
Matthew Weller - GHD
|
|
|
General BSI Comments
|
|
Comments |
|
BSI Expert Opinions |
|
This standard should be expanded to include certification of biodiesel from sugarcane.
|
|
Biodiesel is not usually made from cane. Ethanol (from any source) can be used to repalce methanol in the production of biodiesel. The major input for biodiesel is vegetable oil. Work underway to produce oils suitable for biodiesel directly from carbohydrates has started in Brazil, but is still far from commercial use.
|
| |
We need to have an option (specific indicator), a non compulsory RED compliant standard, which will specify the “no go areas” for this standard.
|
|
New indicator 4.3 has been included for this purpose |
| |
The BSI Standard is a great step in the right direction, although there may be potential to have the Standard work towards meeting requirements held in Nations with more stringent workplace, environmental and safety laws. Even looking at scoring the Standard to provide levels of achievement, Bronze/Silver/Gold.
|
|
Different levels of achievement have been considered by BSI. They would be of value to provide incentives for continuous improvement - but the complexity of management of certificates of differing value would be a complication. At present this will not be introduced. |
Principle 1. Obey the Law
|
1.1 Criterion – To comply with relevant applicable laws.
|
| |
Comments |
|
BSI Expert Opinions |
|
Should also recognize the UN Declaration of Human Rights
|
|
The UN Declaration of Human Rights (1948) can be referenced. While being a historical document, it is not legally binding as there are no signatories. We refer however see appendix to the UN Declaration of rights of Indigeneous Peoples (2007) |
| |
It is essential to ensure that the standard establish a “level playing field”, to prevent that producers from some countries are prone to higher exigencies (demands) than other foreign producers.
Therefore, the last sentence of this “notes” must be re- formulated in this way:
Aiming to ensure a level playing field between different growers around the world, ONLY the indicators included in this standard need to be used for a definition of relevant laws. |
|
The standard relates to Impact. The laws might refer to some best practices and the indicators in the standard aim to measure the impacts which results from the combined action of many different measures. The operators still has to comply with all the laws. Hence, we cannot refer to only indicators as they look at only the result, we must at least refer to the criterion level.
|
| |
It could be an option to offer extra points for exceeding the applicable laws - beyond compliance towards best practice.
|
|
Different levels of achievement have been considered by BSI. They would be of value to provide incentives for continuous improvement - but the complexity of management of certificates of differing value would be a complication. At present this will not be introduced.
|
|
1.2 Criterion – To demonstrate clear title to land in accordance with national practice and law.
|
| |
Comments |
|
BSI Expert Opinions |
|
There is an opportunity to link this criterion to cultural heritage, to ensure indigenous people have their rights respected.
|
|
Rights of indigenous people are covered by this criterion. |
Principle 2. Respect Human Rights and Labour Standards
2.1 Criterion - To Comply with ILO labour conventions governing child labour, forced labour, discrimination and freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining.
|
|
Comments |
|
BSI Expert Opinions |
|
All ILO conventions listed in Appendix should be listed in the notes and indicators to ensure compliance with the core ILO conventions.
Additionally, production of sugarcane in non-signatory should still meet the conventions in order to meet certification - this should be made clear.
|
|
The Conventions specifically adressing the criteria are referred to as definition in the notes. |
| |
This should also address education in addition to health, safety and morals for large farms in addition to small farms. E.g. all children living on the farm have access to quality primary school educaton.
|
|
Education is essential for children and work of children shall not interfere with the child's schooling . The access of quality primary school education is essential and facilitating the access to education shall be encouraged especially for large farms. When discussed ealier, it was felt that this should be part of the progress requirements and not part of the minimum requirements of this version of the standard.
|
| |
Should also be verified through record keeping of payroll records and employment applications.
|
|
Agree this can be specified in the notes. See audit guidance.
|
| |
Recommend changing "should" to "shall" to ensure compliance. Fine line between prescription and guidance here.
|
|
Agree |
| |
The criterion must quote: “to comply the ILO conventions, ratified by the country,..” |
|
The note specifies “the more strict regulation or ratified convention”. We will clarify by adding “ratified convention by the country”. While conventions cover especially all relevant ILO convention, they are not restricted to ILO conventions; the term applies to all conventions.
|
|
|
2.2 Criterion - To respect and protect human rights and labour standards for employees and workers including migrant, seasonal and other contract labour.
|
|
Comments |
|
BSI Expert Opinions |
|
Management system should be demonstrable by the producers to ensurecompliance beyond the one or two day audits. Question here is: are workers
getting their social benefits? Are workers actually getting paid? Are workers free to leave? Audit must find a way to demonstrate this. This should go into the guidance document or notes.
|
|
See Audit guidance for additional details on sampling method and verification through documents, interviews and visual checks. |
| |
As other initiatives and our discussions at the AGM, we need to include in the “notes” that, “the existence of “codes of conduct” in the contract of suppliers need to be considered as a proof of compliance.” At least in the beginning, the standard value must be reconsidered to ensure an adjustment period. |
|
A specific reference to” codes of conduct “will be included as a possible proof of compliance.
A lower standard value will be considered. |
|
2.3 Criterion - To provide a safe and healthy working environment in work place operations.
|
|
Comments |
|
BSI Expert Opinions |
|
This means 15 accidents are permissable per year amongst 480 workers. This is good. However, the producer should have an ability to prevent fake injuries - some type of system to prove accidents occur. Additionally, guidance document or local industry should consider how can the producer change systems to prevent accidents? Need to also find a way to avoid under-reporting.
|
|
The producer shall focus on the prevention of accidents. It is up to the producer to find what are the best practices to be used for preventing such accidents. BSI is checking the number of declared accidents. Since some interviews need to be done to check some other criteria (especially 2.1) some questions can be verify if the number of accidents seem in line with the declaration.
|
|
Auditor should visibly review actual equipment to ensure quality and quantity for workers depending on the task for which the equipment is intended. Key is to review gear on site.
|
|
The visual review is important to evaluate the adequacy of the personal protective equipment. |
| |
Is 5 years regular updating for a worker? This needs clarification. Should consider health and safety for employees and workers, so that the notes always say "employess and workers." All employees and workers should receive health and safety training before every new job and once a year.
|
|
It is specified that training for health & safety is to be done for new employees and then updated within a maximum of 5 years. Agree that the terminology "employees and workers" should be used consistently.
|
| |
Records should be kept to ensure potability of water. Samples should be taken once a year and sent to reputable, independent lab to ensure compliance with this. Visual check does not ensure quality as many harmful organisms are not visible to the naked eye.
|
|
The visual is meant to verify the access to the water source. It can also detect if water source is protected from chemical spillage. The potability of water shall correspond to the legal requirements.
|
| |
The mill and farms should be able to spell out clearly the requirements per person or per task based on international norms. What is the contents list required for first aid kits? Audits should check stocking list against what actually is present. Additional checklists in the mill area should include whether anti-venom available nearby from the mill or local hospital and if it is accessible?
|
|
See guidance. The criterion covers the access to the first aid and medical facilities, as well as availability of a first aid trained person. |
| |
The indicator must include: “in agreement with national laws, if existing” |
|
Wording will be included
|
2.4 Criterion - To provide employees and workers (including migrant, seasonal and other contract labour) with at least the national minimum living wage.
|
|
Comments |
|
BSI Expert Opinions |
|
Clarify the indicator so that it is greater than or equal to the national minimum wage. However, in an area where workers are well-documented to be malnourished, there should be a documented and proven attempt by the farm or milling operation to ensure that the minimum wage meets the needs for human needs. SAI for SA8000 has a simple formula that can accomodate this issue in a positive direction.
|
|
I agree that minimum wage may be insufficient to meet basic needs. The living wage notion to tackle this issue was included in the earlier version but proved impractical during the pilots. The indicator on living wage has been taken away for now, and work on finding a more suitable indicator.
|
2.5 Criterion - To provide clear, equitable and comprehensive contracts.
|
|
Comments |
|
BSI Expert Opinions |
|
National working card is different than a contract. Both should be required in countries where they both exist.
|
|
Although the national working card is different to a contract, this can be the first step when available towards all workers having a contract.
|
Principle 3. Manage input, production and processing efficiencies to enhance sustainability
3.1 Criterion - To monitor production and process efficiency; to measure the impacts of production and processing so that improvements are made over time.
|
|
Comments |
|
BSI Expert Opinions |
|
This criteria should also be stated that in addition to monitoring, there must be compliance in order to meet the standards. It should not be "with a view to minimising" it should be "a plan to reduce to specific targets." The standard should also be clearly demarcated as a minimum performance level.
|
|
May be some merit in this |
|
Need to define "supplementary," but should account for effective rainfall and irrigation use efficiency. In water stressed areas, mills should create a water management plan for their suppliers to aid in irrigation efficiencies and timings to secure environmental flows as well as future production and livelihoods.
|
|
Explained in Appendix
|
| |
This should be clarified to ensure that it is in addition to the accident frequency above, or is it not?
|
|
This is in addition to the accident frequency, which has to do only with safety
|
| |
Should increase to 90% to improve logistics and ensure that sucrose recovery improves along with all other resource use efficiencies. 75% is a waste of 25% of all salaries and wages in the mill operating period.
|
|
90% is unrealistic, and would exclude most of the world's sugar industry. This is affected among other things by the weather. |
| |
Notes must be reformulated in this way: “In the case of bioelectricity export, the fuels bought exclusively for this purpose, won’t be considered as raw materials.”
|
|
This is already incorporated in Version 2. Some minor word changes are made for clarification. |
| |
The standard value above 70% must exclude producer units in the North – East of the country.
|
|
An overall time efficiency of 70% is already very low. It is not sensible to reduce it.
|
3.2 Criterion - To monitor climate change impacts.
|
|
Comments |
|
BSI Expert Opinions |
|
This criteria should also be stated that in addition to monitoring, there must be compliance in order to meet the standards. It should not be "with a view to minimising" it should be a plan to reduce to specific targets" or "lead to substantial reductions." The standard should be clearly demarcated as a minimum performance level.
|
|
Compliance with what? The standard represents the minimum performance level |
|
Is this low enough to begin to eliminate burning and reduce N2O/CH4 emissions? The indicator should be at a level that will begin to phase out burning, and the math should have the math to back it up. Though eliminating burning is prescriptive, it is a management practice directly attributable to greenhouse gases, particulate emissions, and other noxious gases that have direct, negative impacts on human health and the environment.
|
|
Burning is not a major factor in carbon emissions, and reducing GHG emissions will never be an incentive to stop burning. GHG emissions are far more sensitive to other issues such as cane yield, power export and fertilizer use. |
| |
The European RES-D states a default value of 24 g CO2eq/MJ for Ethanol from sugarcane. This value already includes 9 g CO2eq/MJ from transport to Europe. How do the 29 g accumulate over the value chain? Are calculation spreadsheets available? The threshold should be in line with RES-D for future compatibilty of the standards.
|
|
The standard is consistent with a 71 % reduction in GHG available as a RED default. This is way better than any other crop. Actual values, not defaults will be encouraged, so that improvements can be measured over time.
|
Principle 4. Actively manage biodiversity and ecosystem services
4.1 Criterion - To assess direct and indirect impacts of sugarcane enterprises on biodiversity and ecosystems services.
|
|
Comments |
|
BSI Expert Opinions |
|
In General: This Criterion is very week and not in compliance with EU RED. There should be a very clear GHG reduction target e.g 35 % by 2023 and 50 % by 2016
|
|
See above |
|
Criteria text should move from just assessing to also comply with and implement management systems to achieve level of performance within the indicators.
|
|
Most of this is provided by the indicators themselves |
| |
Should also prohibit direct return of mill effluent into a river, stream, or lake. There should be an adequate wetland or man-made filter system to avoid impacts on freshwater and marine habitats. Who does the routine measurement? This needs clarification and subsequently undertaken by a certified and independent laboratory.
|
|
Requires notes in guidance document. Mills may return effluent to a water course if it complies with country's effluent laws - covered by obey the laws. Mill labs do measurements. Audit process to establish reliability of all mill lab measurements. |
| |
Good. In guidance document, there should be recommendations on how to conduct an HCV assessment. Additionally, the Brazilian eco-zoning maps should be recognized as equivilent, given that the legislation prevents conversion of all natural habitats. Should also include remediation technique agreed upon by the management committee in order to certify sugarcane that has cleared HCVA post 1 January 2008- this would have to require significant protection of biodiversity and restoration.
|
|
Notes should be included in guidance document |
| |
The indicator could not be used on the farm level, what is the influence of a farmer on the national precentage of protected areas. Principle 4 is vey weak and won't help to stop conversion.
|
|
|
| |
This is a mixture between results of HCV and legal requirements, how can a famer influence the existence and implementation of EMP. In general there is not cut-off date in the standard
|
|
All farmers should have their own environmental management plan -and are part of a bigger picture.
|
| |
How is this supposed to be controlled and monitored/measured? Consider combining with probes taken for next criteria. "Jeopardize" should be defined.
|
|
Need a comment in guidance - soil sampling should allow monitoring of soil quality. Only co-products of interest are bagasse and molasses - unlikely to be an issue in most cases. Wording recommended by RFA.
|
| |
How does 5 kg AI stack up against average uses? Recommend setting it at a national level of best performance due to variable production issues and pest outbreaks. Should clarify that not only Stockholm Convention POPs, but also WHO Class 1A, 1b, and 2 should also be banned. Eventually link compliance to herbicides and pesticides banned in Europe.
|
|
Using national levels may be a good refinement for future versions
|
| |
The criterion is too full, “fat”, especially for a criterion considered as essential for certification. The number of indicators must be reduced. |
|
The second and third indicators are long winded but wording has been agreed after input from critical players. This criterion had been criticised in the past for being too weak. With the inclusion of the environmental management plan which covers a wider spectrum on its own it may be worth considering reducing the remaining indicators. However all these indicators are relevant and should be reasonable to comply with. Perhaps the indicator values may need further adjustment. A suggestion is being circulated to the TWG for input.
|
| |
Must be added at the end of this “notes”: “The environmental impact can be expressed in terms of either COD or BOD, only if there are “disposals” / “rejects” directly thrown in water courses, depending on routine measurements available.” |
|
This only applies if treated effluent is returned to water courses. If no effluent is returned, the indicator is of course zero. |
| |
Include in “notes”: “An area due to anthropic process, used for agricultural – pastoral isn’t by definition an HCVA.”
| |
Is this not covered by the fact that only HCVA categories 1-4 apply here? Further explanation may be needed. |
| |
Moreover, the specific criterion for the European legislation must be created separately. Likewise the last sentence of “notes” must be removed. |
|
This has been done in Version 3 |
| |
This indicator must be included in another criterion, its exclusive own criterion. Its wideness (breadth) justifies this assumption. Furthermore, the indicator must be simplified as: “Existence of an Environment Management Plan”. The value of the standard for this indicator must be: “The Environment Management Plan must take into account 60% of the list in the Appendix 4.” The Appendix must be simplified as suggested above |
|
This suggested wording is simple and concise. Members would need to agree for it to be changed as some members contributions formed the existing text. This new option for the EMP indicator and the Appendix 4 content would need to be circulated to the TWG for comment. |
| |
As the criterion 4.1 is compulsory and extremely “full”, also because the indicator 4.1.3 treats the main question of this indicator, it would be better to exclude this indicator. Not because we don’t consider this indicator as important, but it is in order to be clearer and more particle for the auditors. |
|
This was included to comply with the RFA and RTFO. If members think it is unimportant, it can be removed. |
4.2 Criterion - To consult relevant stakeholders and implement appropriate mitigation where adverse impacts are identified.
|
|
Comments |
|
BSI Expert Opinions |
|
Should also include long-term monitoring to ensure that desirable outcomes are being met in relation to downstream impact.
|
|
Verification of the implementation of measures is included. The notes can be modified to include the effectiveness on positive outcome.
|
Principle 5. Commit to continuous improvement in key areas of their businessPrinciple
5.1 Criterion - To train employees and other workers in all areas of their work and develop their general skills.
|
|
Comments |
|
BSI Expert Opinions |
|
Please clarify as to how this will be calculated. Will workers be paid for undertaking the trainings?
|
|
Training is part of the job and hence has to be paid. It is v unusual for workers to be paid for being trained. Most mills already report this number
|
| |
The value of the standard is inacceptable for any company in Brazil. |
|
This value is reported routinely for a number of sugar mills around the world. |
| |
As mentioned in the first standard version’s comments, the amount doesn’t reflect the quality of training. |
|
Whether money or time is used to measure training, there is no guarantee on the training quality. The impact is lost time frequency rate, already included. |
| |
This value is very higher than the sector average. For this first end version of the BSI standard, the value should be 0.3%, in order to have a best acceptance. |
|
Pilot studies indicated this to be a reasonable level. |
5.2 Criterion - To continuously improve the status of soil and water resources.
|
|
Comments |
|
BSI Expert Opinions |
|
Should account for effective rainfall, not just irrigation, so that ecosystems are not hampered to eliminate or reduce hydrologic or environmental flows.
|
|
This has been proposed before but not agreed to - however it does merit consideration in future versions
|
| |
Should be higher, at least 30 or 40% to maintain ground cover as well as eliminate the potential for secondary burning.
|
|
Expected that 20% will already prevent secondary burning but a higher number is obviously desirable. |
| |
Fine, as long as the un-measured fields are in fallow, but fields planted to cane should all be measured.
|
|
Ultimately every field will be measured but allowance made to start with. Perhaps should say that at least 50% of fields should have been sampled.
|
5.3 Criterion - To continuously improve the quality of sugarcane and products from the sugar mill.
|
|
Comments |
|
BSI Expert Opinions |
|
This should be raised to 11% or at least set a national bar of performance, whereby the top quarter percentile national recovery is the de facto standard with 10% being the global floor.
|
|
Sounds good - consider in future versions. Top quarter percentage would exclude 75 % of producers?! Standard proposed has been set after considering performance in most sugar producing countries - it is not arbitrary.
|
|
5.4 Criterion - To promote energy efficiency.
|
|
Comments |
|
BSI Expert Opinions |
|
Requires clear calculator spreadsheet for farmers to use in order to ensure consistency of their reporting.
|
|
Good idea - has already been suggested. Spreadsheets will be available for farmers |
|
5.5 Criterion - To reduce emissions and effluents. To promote recycling of waste streams where practical.
|
|
Comments |
|
BSI Expert Opinions |
|
Requires clear calculator spreadsheet for farmers to use in order to ensure consistency of their reporting.
|
|
Good idea - has already been suggested. Spreadsheets will be available for farmers |
5.6 Criterion - To foster effective and focused research, development and extension expertise.
|
|
Comments |
|
BSI Expert Opinions |
|
Is this for farmgate cane price or sugar end use sale? Needs to be clarified. Also, mandating research in a country that has no infrastructure for research puts farms in an unfair position. Need to specify from a cost accounting standpoint what is included in a cost of sales due to variations between accounting methods.
|
|
Guidance doc should explain. There is no need to calculate cost of sales. The denominator is sales revenue, which is easy to calculate and more difficult to manipulate. |
|
5.7 Criterion - For expansion or new sugarcane projects to ensure transparent, consultative and participatory processes that addresses cumulative and induced effects via an environmental and social impact assessment.
|
|
Comments |
|
BSI Expert Opinions |
|
Needs to ensure no deleterious impacts on freshwater resources for downstream users, while also taking into account best available climate change science in order to prove future feasibility. Also, if there is displacement of foodcrops, there must be a mitigation. Should be accompanied by a standard ESIA to ensure global consistency. Recommend utilizing an existing one, or developing ESI such as that used by the RSB or ISCC.
|
|
The ESIA shall be performed using a "recognized methodology". Several sources have been included in the guidance, this can be further expanded. |
5.8 Criterion - To ensure active engagement and transparent, consultative and participatory processes with relevant stakeholders, as well as with local communities and to provide clear grievance mechanisms.
|
|
Comments |
|
BSI Expert Opinions |
|
90% seems unrealistic in highly contentious issues. Recommend refining to "provide evidence of good faith effort that conflicts are trying to be resolved, as well as that the meetings are had." Not everything can be solved.
|
|
OK - Agree that it may be difficult to achieve for some issues. If the issue is having a major impact then it has to be solved. |
| |
In a practical view, as we comment in the first version, we would like to stress the fact that this indicator is inapplicable. To require the agreement of all stakeholders in all decisions is impossible. This indicator is very complex to assess, measure, etc...
The existence of these difficulties has always been criticised by certifying bodies in the different round tables concerned. It is not a practical indicator for a metric standard. We repeat: “This indicator must be excluded”. The indicator 5.8.1 treats already, in an effective way, the questions included in the 5.8 criterion.
|
|
|
5.9 Criterion - To promote economic sustainability.
|
|
Comments |
|
BSI Expert Opinions |
|
Needs refining. Mandating profitability is tough. What should be done is that the standard encourages profitability and that over a series of years the mill and farms are profitable. A specific level of value add is unreasonable. An economic indicator is good but this needs to be better formed to account for economic fluctuations like price of sugar, ethanol, oil, and currencies. A management system to monitor financial results is what is needed to ensure long term economic sustainability with accompanying performance against the budget.
|
|
Perhaps guidance could include some flexibility. Value added is NOT the same thing as profitability. Many sugar companies already report value added, and show how it is distributed to the workers, government (tax), shareholders and retained earnings for investment. |
|
Appendix 1.
|
|
Comments |
|
BSI Expert Opinions |
|
Definition of "significantly affected" should include all habitats, not just endangered habitats.
|
|
|
| |
Scientist sources must be given with more accuracy. Furthermore, including definitions that are not related with the standard seems to be nonsense.
|
|
|
Appendix 3.
|
|
Comments |
|
BSI Expert Opinions |
|
We must include some average values for some variables data; take for example the soil carbon content. We must include a table of these values.
| |
Soil carbon content only comes into the calculation if there is a direct land use change after January 2008, or if degraded land is used, in which case a credit is given. Since carbon stock values are unknown, default values based on IPCC work for different countries are used and one twentieth (5%) of the emissions arising from the land use change are included per year, as calculated and published by PAS 2050. This is consistent with RED at present.
|
| |
It is absolutely essential to keep transparency of data used. Moreover, the methodology must be adapted to deserve (be recognised by) the European Union requirements. |
|
Attempts have been made to ensure that the calculation method is consistent with the EU requirements.
|
| |
As the EU, only calculate the emissions until the mill door, the BSI could include distribution’s standards (default values), like those used by the EU. |
|
I am not sure how we could include default values for distribution. This depends on where the ethanol is made and where it is being shipped to.
|
| |
This could be achieved through a BSI formal declaration, with document showing EU methodology compliance.
|
|
|
| |
Potential to refer to Country based emission factors related to energy and water consumption.
|
|
Country based energy emission factors are now included.
|
Appendix 4.
|
|
Comments |
|
BSI Expert Opinions |
|
Only one table must stay (be maintained), including biodiversity, environment services, soil, water, air, agro chemicals, fertilizers, plagues (pests and diseases), soil fertility, plans of burn elimination and erosion control. We must treat 60% of these points on the Environment Management Programme.
|
|
This would also need approval of the members to be changed. Since it is a relatively new indicator to take into account criticism of earlier versions where issues were not addressed, it may benefit from circulation to the Agriculture TWG for comment. |
| |
Potential to identify levels of Environmental Management, where systems allow for improvement of the overall EMP process, identify how these can be applied to different locations.
|
|
Agree in principle that identifying different levels of Environmental Management would provide an opportunity for continuous improvement. The indicator is the number of issues addressed in the Environmental Management Plan but there is scope to score the degree of implementation of the plan for each issue. However to build this into the issue of certificates of differing value would be complex and not practical at this stage.
|
|
|
|
|
