Assessing the Ecological Impacts of Agricultural Eco-Certification and Standards

Copyright Š 2012 EcoAgriculture Partners EcoAgriculture Partners

!"

" # $ % Telephone: +001 202 393 5315

&

' ( )

* ( )

, )

-

.

) .

& /

4 ( # 6 ' ! $ 4

( / 7 # 8 # ; # < = # # 7 % %

/ ( & )

Internal report. " # $ /

-

ii

> ?4 @ ?77 6B

'

& & ) ' ) ) # ) % ( , & ? DFG ( 4 ,

& # # ( # & (

( ' (

, = ) & #

)

#

& ( )

'

&

& (

&

( ' ' #

& , # & # ,

( & &

'

&

) ' # ) & ( ) , & '

& '

'#

' H

( ' (

'

& 6 #

( '

, ( )

= '# , ( '

& # )

(

&

* # I

-

( & )

4

' ) & )

& # #

J , ' #

# (

J # ( # ' ) ' )

' & ) & #

( '# )

& 4 ' & )

# ) & '

& ) ) * ' ) '

4 ' &

/ K )

& # ) L ' ) L 'J %K ( & '

& #

J K

'

J GK J MK ( L

; ( 6 & )

-

iii

Impact Assessment Practices, Methods and Tools N& #

&

( & ' # )

) ,

' " F

#

)

) ' L ' &

( & 7 )

# ) O ) *

# ( # # ( #

4 O '

) , ,

# ) ' )

# #

' # )

&

= ) & # & ( & ' &

*

' & ( '

)

& 4 ) ( & (

(

& ' (

) ,# ) '

& ( &

* # ( (

& & *' #

# - *' & ( & & (

,# ) L ' # # ( & ' & & * (

# )

L * & ) ,# ' #

) ( ( )

#

) L ' Q' ( R ( ) S ( '

* #

& '

&

'

& # '

I '# ) ( ) ' & vast frontier of potential opportunities for cost-effective monitoring of ecological impacts of

& I # ) , &

( & ( # ,# ' & & '#

( ( & ' &

$ & ( '

#

( )

'

*

#

(

& # ( ( '

# ) * &

#

iv

Toward Improved Impact Assessment Approaches and Methods 4 #

( & '

# ' # , ( ( ) & , #

& # 4 # ) V ' W '

&

( '

H

'

& ('

4 (' ' (

# & R& *

#

& ' # ( &

) L

)

# # 'H I # (

'

( & #

; ( - ' )

( & # '

'

'

& ' & &

# X K# '

( ' ( & ) '

# ' '

) #

; ( 6 & )

-

v

(

' H # ( L ' I #

# ( L #

# ) L '

' V

L 'W # )

' ' L

& &

& ( & *'

) & ' 4 ' &

#

&

) L '# ) L '# ( & '#

' & 4

' O ( ( )

'

# (

(

( "

& ' # & #

)

#

* ' ( ) ,# #

7

) , (

V & W )

& (

& # ' #

&

( ('

& & ('

<

- Q'

' *

*

Y ('

' ' ( Y

'

'

( '# # & '

&

vi

N!4 !4 * & ' iii

1 % ' 7 ' F < 6 & ) F & ) Z 7

-

# 7 4 8 *

& ' 8 Which ecological impacts are being assessed? ........................................................................................................ 12 Which cropping systems are being evaluated? ........................................................................................................ 12 Where have impact assessment studies taken place? ........................................................................................... 15 At what scale have impact assessment studies taken place? .............................................................................. 16

7 4 18 Types of methods and tools for ecological impact assessment ............................................................................. 19 Using proxies to assess impacts .................................................................................................................................... 20 Methods and tools to assess watershed functions and services ........................................................................... 21 Methods and tools to assess rare, threatened, and endangered species............................................................ 22 Methods and tools to assess ecosystem composition and function ..................................................................... 25 Methods and tools to assess soil characteristics ....................................................................................................... 27 Methods and tools to assess carbon sequestration and greenhouse gas emissions ....................................... 28 G 4 ) &

7 30 < ,

7 * H 6 &

& 31 H ( 35 ! ) 4 7 ! ] 37 M 7 , = G Partnerships G% ! * G% F < GG

; ( 6 & )

-

vii

-- !$ * / ' 4 6 G_ * Q/ < 6 & )

4 51 * / - Z 53 * $/ & ) 4 F% * / < - & ) FG * I/ & 7 7

FM * ;/ - * ( ' 70 * =/ 6 4 ( ' 73

4 Q< 4 ( /

(

12 4 ( %/ 7 )

& 22 4 ( / 7 # # 23 4 ( G/ 7

'

%F 4 ( M/ 7

' & 27 4 ( F/ 7

( L 28

I ;?6 I / 7 & &

2 I %/ 6

9 I / ' & 13 I G/ <

F I M/

17 I F/ 4' &

( 19 I / =

32 I ^/ -'

G I _/ & 38 I / ` ' ( G

QN> Q * / 7 & &

3 Q * %/ , ' G Q * / Q , Q7- / )

) , ) (

] 11 Q * G/ N # ( & '# ' & / & ) & G Q * M/

' %G

viii

!46N$? 4 N!

'

& & ) '

) ) #

& ( ' )

# # # # % # , &

* ? DFG ( ) ) # # (

# ) ' ? D ( (' % ? D _ ( (' % % X7 O 7 % K 4 )

( )

' # ( & #

, / b

; (

( ( ) % % ^# ' ? DM ( X IN 7 % _K

b

# &

% # )

(' 6 X6 K# )

( ( ' 6

O %Gd % _ % X6 ) ( K b 6

d % _ % #

G#^^G X% Md

( 'K# )

,' , MF# # _d & % _ X6 ) ( K b 4 ( ! ) , X !K )

# ) ) ( ' X ! % K b I

) M^ & # ) O ) M Md % XI I ) ( K b <

7 $ S &

( & 7 O (

? & ! j & & ) ( ' )

'

'

4 * ' &

,

' ' & '

# ( % ' ( (

(' < &

^ ( & ' ) & ( '

# ' ( '

#

, #

#

X < % K )

& # )

' & #

? S & % _ 6 ) ( ' $ & I Z ' $ & ( (

# ) & ' ( ' * ( # ( &

$ &

# __ #

X

K )

&

; ( 6 & )

-

1

) ( ' 6 & ' ) L '

) '

& 4 '

(

,

&

# # & #

&

&

= ) & #

)

#

& ( )

'

& (

& ( # )

&

/ #

( ' ' #

& , # & # ,

( & &

'

& XI J Q * K

& &

#

(

& ' ( &

& #

# ( ) , &

Figure 1: Motivations for improving impact assessment of agricultural eco-standards.

As part of the interviews conducted for this study, we asked respondents to rate the importance of each of eleven possible motivations for improving the assessment of ecological impacts of agricultural eco-standards, as â&#x20AC;&#x153;very important,â&#x20AC;? â&#x20AC;&#x153;important,â&#x20AC;? â&#x20AC;&#x153;somewhat important,â&#x20AC;? or â&#x20AC;&#x153;not important.â&#x20AC;? All eleven of the possible motivations were seen as important or very important by the majority of respondents. Responses were scored as follows: very important = 5, important = 3, somewhat important = 1, not important = 0. Mean importance ratings equal the total scores for each motivation divided by the number of respondents.

2

Box 1: Motivations for improving impact assessment of agricultural eco-standards "

' ' & &

# & ) ( ) &

#

# &

' H 6 & & ) ) & ) *

'

) & '

&

N ) )

,Y

# (' ,

7 ' H & (

' & ( ,

# ) (

'

& # ) (

& ( & & ) L )/ VI ) ) & ' ( & " '] Q S

#

'# , Q ) & ' ( W V4

(

) ( 4

( ) & (

! ( '

( ' (

& W VQ

& '#

& ) # & ' kW

4

' < X < % K L < ( X)

'

( K & & '

&

' < ( & & ) '

' )

(

' '# - Y ( ' & ( Y & - -

(

,

( '

#

( )

)

&

( '

Y( )

* 4

& ) )

( '

&

= ) & #

' &

( , ) * #

& ) #

( '

# #

# X

& )

' K B # ' &

#

( )

4 #

; ( 6 & )

-

3

' & ( & ' & &

I # , &

# &

' ( ( '

& ) 4

) Y ) Y &

&

L &

* L ( ( ( '

Box 2: Some key terms 4

'# ) ) # )

, ( )

*

/

& '

# # & )

( # # # & # '

& ' (

Eco-standard: # #

(

& &

7 & )# # & '

)

Practices: 7

L

'

X H # # & #

K Processes: (

'

X , & H # R K Proxy: # L '#

( & ' )

# L '# & 4 *'

# L '#

Outcomes: 4 ( ' # #

)

Impacts: 4

( ' # #

( (

# & ( ( )

)

Results-orientation:

# # #

'

&

)

# )

&

' X # & (

K ! / $ V

W V W < S ; -

6 X% K# /RR))) R R R R- G q <q q &

G

#

' )

& ( Y ( Y ,

, ' & ( ' 4 ' , '

& (' )

( ,

) , ,

& )

& ( 4 # )

& ) & ) &

# ' , ( (

(

)

4 '

( '

& 4

'

' &

( & '

*

# )

' ' '

& 4 '

L / 4 ) *

( ' ,

, ' ( & ' ' & ] % "

*

, ] = ) L #

) ) ' & ' (

*

] "

&

'

'] "

, '

] " & , ' ( & ' ' & / K )

& # ) L ' ) L 'J (K ( & ' & X # # # KJ K

'

#

& ' ' &

(

J K

' & (' J K ( L

4

' ) ' &

) ,

#

<

4

& I ) Introduction# ) ( w' ( the Study Methodology ! * ) ( * Impact Assessment Practices, Methods and Tools ) 4 ) # Toward Improved Impact Assessment Approaches and Methods# ) ,

& I '# ) ( * Making it Happen 4

# & Q * & & #

, ' ( 4

Literature Cited Appendices & '

' # )

4

# ) Q * %

; ( 6 & )

-

5

% 4?$B 7 4=N$N<N;B " )

/ K & )

J %K

& ) L

( ( w' ( ) 4 4 6

' & *

Literature Review 4 & ) * * )

( ' , ( & ' ' & X ' L K & ' & ( '# L '#

X ' L %K I (

L # ) & ) ) & ' & ) '

# ('

( 4 & # ) (

( X; # ;

# " (

K#

# ) (

"

( '

? & ' 4

6

4 X x 4 & x ' z H # 4 K 6 # )

(

I

# ) ( , ') ' & X * Q

K 4

)

'

& & ( '

X &

#

' # ( & * Q K Q

&

' ( (O & & ) #

# ) ' * & ) "

& & '

'

' '

I ' L # )

* & ' &

" & )

(

#

( & ' (

(O & & ) ' XQ * J Q * GK I ' L %# )

' , '

# # & )

& ( & ' ' & (' & ) X)

# ( & ' & # '

# #

( L K "

'

& ' ( &

) 4 '

( & # ) ( (

( ' "

F

& ) ' & # )

)

H )

/ K

' , J (K '

)

& ( J K ' # # ) ' )

*'

( )

J K * )

' J K *

'# '

Interviews and Questionnaire "

'

& # # , ' & # #

' &

)

"

( L X &

& & ' 7 , 'K & )

(' ,'

* '

X * ' L * $ ' & ) K " L

& ) ) % & N ( # ! & ( # $ ( %

# )

) &

( H # & # ' & # )

, R

'

" ( H # & # '

X # <K & ( &

# # ' X # ( ' { N |K & )

H )

S ) ,

& ) & ) & *

; ( 6 & )

-

7

7- 4 7 !4 -6 4 # 7 4=N$ !$ 4NN< N

&

( & '

#

( '

4

& ) *

( * )

& ' ( ' , ( & ' ' &

& )

& ( '

, # L '

# H * )

& ( (

*

Existing Impact Assessment Activity 4 * ' # # &

# & ' Q * %# ( & #

) # ( ( #

' ( '

* Y #

'

( & ' )

Q' #

X (

# Q7- K ' # ( '

"

Q7-

& # X K

Q7- & ( *' , ' &

4

X

J *'

J

K (

XI %K I #

Q7- ' ( & & # X #

& K# '

'#

' (

L '# # & & '# )

&

(

& ) L '

'

( &

( & XI %K = ) & #

(

'

4 (

' ' * & # L # #

'# & '

, #

& , &

) (

N

#

( ' # ' L H *

( , 4

# )

* L *

#

8

Figure 2: Range of approaches for assessing ecological effects of eco-standards.

The horizontal axis represents a spectrum of assessment approaches from low-cost methods that simply document or quantify the adoption of improved practices, to more rigorous and costly methods that indirectly or directly assess ecological outcomes and impacts themselves.The vertical axis shows the range of scales and levels

canopy cover or adoption of riparian buffers) may function both as a direct measure of one outcome of interest

! !

' # (

( (

)

' XQ , 6 & % K 4 &

R & R )

& ' ('

(' )

)

L

) & &

&

I # Q & S Q

#

( & (

*' 1

Q

*' & *' (' L ( ,

; ( 6 & )

-

9

4 6 ( ( Q X6 QK L

(

& '# )

# # # ' (

& 4

) w

,

' w

( ' ' ' ( ( &

Q' #

' Y '

( '

Y '

& '

& I # ' ( L

#

& #

" * % ( ' & 6 & ) X- % K ' & Q7- R

)

I

& ' * & ' ( Q7- #

& ) ,Y

Y ' L &

N

,

( &

( V W

Q7- & ) &

Q7- (

X Q * K '#

'

& Q7- & ( *

& ( = ) & # # &

( ( H ( ) Q7- & ( 4

* &

X # *

(

( '

' K

, H

Q7-

Q

' (

& # O '

) , ( ('

& !;N Y '

)

H & )

(

( ! & # * )

&

X # ( , & K & ( & &

H (' (

X % K N & ) & ) F

'

)

4

( H X ( ' & ) K

& ) (' Q , 6 & X% K

& ) & ( )

) ( ' 4 L ' w ' (' & *

X #

K ) ( # ) ' *' ( ' ) ( ' &

10

Box 3: Banking on BMPs: how much do we know about their impacts?

# 6

X% K

& )

(

XQ7- K

'

4 Q7-

, ( )

V( , ( *W )

( ' &

* & ' 4 # ' & )

& & Q7-

' / b ' b H X 'K b R ' & X ' ' K b ? ) )

X #

# ( K b L ) X #

# ( K b ? H X

K b ?

H ('

& (

4 ' & &

Q7- / b

"

*

& R ' 7 *

# O '

!

# ) ( ) b ) ' ( ) Q7- / ) )

L )

b 7 M d ) #

) % X%_dK )

* & ' # M Q7- b " & Q7- ) # H ) ) & '

L '

& ) 4 & ) (

(' )

Q7-

)

' & = ) & # & ( '

& ) Y & ( ) & '

' Q7- Y

Q7-

)

& I '#

' & ) ' ' (

Q7-

'

& ' ' & (

&

V ( W

Q ) ) H , '

F # )

( ) # )

' ) & # )

, # )

)

; ( 6 & )

-

11

Which ecological impacts are being assessed? "

&

& ) X4 ( K I

#

)

I # ) & ) ) L '

4 w

4 *

)

# # 4

(

X4 ( K

Which cropping systems are being evaluated?

4 O '

) ,

,

' XI K 4

, ' w

/ K

& )

& ( & '

J %K (

(

#

)

& ( J K ( '

' ' & '

( & ' , XQ , 6 & % K # ) Table 1: Ecological attributes assessed in impact studies of agricultural eco-standards. "

#

$

categories of the preceding boldface line.Totals exceed the sum of individual lines because some studies examined more than one category or sub-category of impact.

12

Ecological attributes assessed

Number of studies examining attribute (n=36)

Watershed functions and services " L ' R

" L ' ) R

" L ' X # w ) # '# w K Rare, threatened, or endangered biodiversity 6 #

R

6 #

Ecosystem composition and function

( R

(

- ( R

- (

Soil characteristics L ' , R

Greenhouse gas emissions or carbon sequestration ;

( L R

9 F 1 8 6 F 5 9 F 3 7 1 10 10 6 F

( ' ' & & #

) ( & , ' ( ( ' , )

) #

' " ' )

XI K = ) & #

( & ' & &

)

#

' X # 6

; ( % J $ % GJ Q @ % K 7 ) &

Y ' )

' ! & # (

)

' Q7-

#

& & ) 4 & ( ' & (

& & ' '# ) (

(

4

' ( ' &

*#

('

" ' )

( XI K N , '

&

) ( & ' ' ' '

( & I #

, L ' ( L '# ' & # )

' ' L ) ( & '#

,

Figure 3: Cropping systems evaluated.

The chart indicates the percentage of the 36 reviewed ecological impact assessment studies that focus on each of the indicated crops or products.

; ( 6 & )

-

13

Box 4: Organic farming, biodiversity, and ecosystem services: a review of the evidence 7

( (

#

#

H ( ( '

# )

& = # ) H

, ' '

X)

K ( & ' ' &

6 & ) &

L 'Y( 'Y

& ( & '

& I # ' (' Q X% MK

M F X^GdK )

'

& ' I ) & & ( * # (

' ( (

J ) & # &

X= % MK Q X% MK

( ' & ( # ( ' (' I

X% MK ' L &

& )

( (

& & ' X$} ` % K N

# ? $

( ( I ' - O 7 ' # ? X , % FK

& '

& '# ' & ) &

& '# & & XQ % MJ = % MJ I % MK "

' & # & ) & &

& & (

(

(

L ' X #

( & 'K X; % K Q ,

X% ^K

( & ' # ('

' ' " # ? # ` X% FK

)

H

& ' (

& ' & &

<

X % M ' K

# (

& '

& X; % K '

) Y d

H Y

'

& ' X; % K 7 ' & ) )

( & ' ' # # w

* ( ' I # )

& X # Q7-

( # #

#

& K

'

& ( & '

* ( X" ( % J I % MJ ; ( % K

# ) '

(

'

* ' & ' N

# # & '

# ) , '

XQ % MK $

* ) ( ' ' (

'

& ( # ,

G

O S X= % MK 4

& L

( & ' ' &

) , * ( '

X= % MK/ b b b b

b

b b

)

' 7 ' ,

#

( '

I ) & # ( & ' &

* , ( X # & ( ' # )

& (

& K $ ( & ' (' '# '

# ( # '# ' 4 ' ( '

H L <

' ( ( (

O ' &

I ) &

# )

' '

& ( & ' ' & ('

#

# ) #

X" ' 4 % K 7 '

# # ' ' (

( '

&

& &

! & #

# #

X< % J ~ < % K ) & ( ' ( (

XQ % K

& ( & ' # ' J Q * G '

Where have impact assessment studies taken place?

4 O ' F & ) XF^dK ,

XI GK #

( w

'

# (

& ( ' '

' ) '

&

# (

) , (

& * &

; ( 6 & )

-

15

Figure 4: Location of impact assessment studies.

The chart indicates the geographic distribution of the 36 impact assessment studies reviewed.

# & ( '# (

'

' &

XI GK

At what scale have impact assessment studies taken place?

I F & ) # )

'

) / # # # # 4 ( X _dK ,

& XI MK 4

& )

'

#

)

,

I & '

)

& ( X K ! & # ( ( ,

& #

GGd ( '

XI MK 7

( & ' # )

('

) 6 '# ) '

#

<

' ( & ' )

' X; K '

I * # % G ' *

' 6 ( ( - N X6 -NK = & @ I X= @IK F

) w

#

# = @I X$ % GK 4 '

= @I ) ) (

# ( ; # '# & ' &

( & 6

& & '

)

( & 6

&

7 Q H # )

' ( & ) # '#

# ) L ' ( & ( ( ( # 6 )

& ' '

(

(' , ' X6 ) ( K N & # ? & ' (

- * (

(

` ' X; % _K 4 ' (

(

&

(

Figure 5: Scale of impact assessment studies.

The chart indicates the proportion of the 36 reviewed impact assessment studies that was conducted at each

%

a farm. Farm scale refers to studies looking at a single farm while â&#x20AC;&#x153;cluster of farmsâ&#x20AC;? refers to studies examining

&

' ((( *(( ((( +

*(( ((( * ((( / 2) was categorized as regional.

; ( 6 & )

-

17

& ' # ' # ( #

X; % _K 4 & '

H )

) ' )

&

(

w &

(

# ' '

( ) (

' I #

- O - $ ( j X ( -

O K & '

& ) )

L *

& & '

X ( @ % _K )

# ( ' Q H & V * & O W X- K ' ) * N *

- ( ' Q H & #

@ (

L ' ) X(

& ) K# # ) # L ' ( # & H # X < % ^K 4

'

&

Q H & - & Q H &

&' & ) & X- % K &' &

) ) # , 4

'

(

L ( # &

X- % K # ( ' &

L Y

(

(' & ) ) #

' )

H )

- ' ,

,

& '

Impact Assessment Methods and Tools $ & ' (

#

& '

& (

# & ) ' ' ( & (

& ( '#

'# ) # #

( # ) & )

& (

&

X)

# ( & ' & # '

# ( L # K "

( ' * # # ) # '

& ' ( &

(

18

4

& )# )

* Q ' ( ^ & ) # ' # )

( & # #

( "

('

( & ) % & ) N # ^^ R ) ' ( &

Types of methods and tools for ecological impact assessment

( # L ' &

) # & # ' X I %K '#

& ' XI FK

& # '

' I # (

' ( R & # #

<

' (

& ; '

#

(

) ; ( - ' #

& ) (

" V( ( ,W (

' &

*

Q ( ,

)

& & (

Q7-

Figure 6: Types of methodologies to evaluate ecological impacts of sustainable agriculture. "

/

and/or remotely sensed observations. Calculator methods synthesize multiple data sources or measuresâ&#x20AC;&#x201D; including data from building block methods, farm records, and pre-existing data setsâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;to provide an integrated assessment of a given system component. Multi-criteria methods compile and integrate data on several system components to provide a more comprehensive assessment of sustainability. Spatially explicit models may fall into any of these categories, depending on their purpose and scope.

; ( 6 & )

-

19

V W ' H Y ( ( , #

# & ) # * Y ' I # I 4 # & (' ? & #

( I < (# ? & ' ( # 7 *

)

( * 4

)

S

(' X # H # & , # ' # K XI *

# * I K Q' ' & & & & ' (

#

& & '

)

* & & "

(' ` X% K & )

( ' V7 W & ' &

& ' S ( '

#

( ( # * #

4 ' & ( '

X # &

( 'K , ( V W 7

' ' & '

' I # ` ' S I 7 , * (

H 'H

# # ( # ) # ' # I *

# * I "

&

) & ) #

' ( ( , # )

(

I # O ' # # ( ( ' & '

# ) & # '

#

' & (' ) , '

( ' #

( ( ,

Using proxies to assess impacts - * '

( & #

#

# * # '

= ) & #

*

- * & ' -

'# ' ( ' )

- * '

' ( (

' & ' * ( ' 4' ' * )

( , ( ' I # 20

) ' ( Y )

( L & ' )

Y & ( *'

( ' X # ; % _K = ) & # * ( L &

4

)

& ' (

*' , I # ( *' & & ( & ' ' &

"

(

( ( & '

' &

# & H

( * )

*

* '

& ( ( & ' * #

# * # *

( L '# ( *

#

*

) ' # ,

O * *' 4

&

& & ( & ' ' ( & ' ( ) & ' * ) & & X` % K #

L ' (

'

) ) *' * /

' ' , ' ( &

( XQ ) % K

& *' & '

& & , ( ' '

&

& * )

# ) # ( # #

X # % K N * & ' & (

,

X # 6? < % K * ; H & * ' (

Methods and tools to assess watershed functions and services "

& ) L ' ) ( & ' )

) ( X4 ( %K - '

& ) ) L ' )

' = ) & #

( )

/ ) ) )

' ) # ) ' '

) #

) &

& ( ' # ' &

&

* X #

) K & )

# # &

) ) ( & 4

&

Y

; ( 6 & )

-

21

Table 2: Methods and tools to assess watershed functions and services. ; < > @

B < @ * ' @ 36).

Method or tool Frequency of use

R ( ) L ' ) (

units ? )

) (

I ( # # ( ' X #

K I R )

7

) & '

- ' ' X # # * # K

common common L L none common

# ,

#

' (

) &

)

; &

' & ( '

#

' L '

X4 ( %K 4

(

Y

& &

& )

( ' *'

' (

# '

)

#

( X # & K )

( '

& , ) & X # ' # # O

K Z (

&

X # ` , % GJ ` (' $ % J Q ( % ^K I * # )

'

X- 4 K (

'

' &

X` (' $ % K 4

( ) #

? X` (' $ % K ` X- , % K * I * '

)

( '

Methods and tools to assess rare, threatened, and endangered species

* #

H (

X4 ( K

) #

( &

) & * #

( 7

)

&

& #

X4 ( K = ) & # 6

'

22

&

#

( ('

, ' X6 ) ( K Q & ' & ' (' O

& #

) X- % K #

* ( & ' #

'

( (O w # ' #

& H #

O '

( & ' X4 & 8 % J "

% %K

# & )

( & ' # / Vk

&

)

'

( & ' & ( & ' W X"

% %/%MK ! & # & ) ) '

( # 4 & 8 X% K ) ( X ' K )

&

( )

&

7 ' ' *

'

&

( & '

X Q * GK

' '

& #

( ' ( ( ) ' '

&

# )

' ( ( & ' ! & #

( ' & &

L ' (

" & ' X '

) K# (

)

X

Q7- K (

' & '

&

, '

# # #

Table 3: Methods and tools to assess rare, threatened, and endangered species. ; < > @

B < @ * ' @ 36).

Method or tool Frequency of use N ( X # (

& K 6 ( X # (

& K & '

< R # #

& ' X &

& ) K &

( * # #

X # ( H # #

* K - ' ' X # #

( # K

common common common L L L common

; ( 6 & )

-

23

'

, ' 4

'

, (

' ) , & &

X & )

'

* K ' ( & ) ' & #

& ' (

L

# ( & *

& ) ' # ( & ' & * # ( 4 * ( & '

& L ' & & ( & ' ( w # # ( )

Box 5: Insights from the forestry sector

' '

/ % %# ' M

) I )

XI K

%GM

)

' (' - I X- I K X / I - I ) ( K 4 & *

& # ( )

(&

( & ' ' & #

(

'

&

& & & ) , '

'

/ b

b

b

%G

% _ I VI w

W X`

% _K

( & )

& # #

I

& ) & & # )

' )

'

L % _ '

( & ' & ) F )

( & '

)

& X& ` O, % _K 4 & )

' & H ) ' L $ ( & ) #

, & X # K

# )

) ' ' # * ( & ' & ( Q7-

#

& (

& &

( ( & ' ; X% K L &

V$

& ( & ']W = ' I

( ( & '

)

( # ( # & #

( ) w

(

( & ' ; S ( L

( & '

) ,

' & # O

& b % ^ ' (' &

( & ( (' *

( , '

# )

&

L

& = & @ I 4 & )

, '

& ' , ) ) ( # ' & ( ) 4 '

' # ) # # &

' & L

4

* O ) ,

( &

'

J

( & )

, ' ; ) # (

' &

& # (O

& ( X K# #

(

( &

Q

' #

'

# (

, #

' Q I - I ( <

& 7 ' <S

& '

X& K# O '

# & (

) ' '

*

( & '# & )

& ( & ' I #

'

X< $ 6K & ( & (

&

' ( , ) & S # )

' ( *

' X 7 % _K 6

&

'

& I # ) O

& # 7 X% K ) ( & H '

( & ) ' ( & '

' '

Methods and tools to assess ecosystem composition and function 6 ' & , ( & ' &

' & 7 '

L ( X # (

K R

) '

'

( X # 'K &

& ) '

; ( 6 & )

-

25

'

#

& '

X4 ( GK 4 ) (

' '

"

'#

(

, ( & '

'

X __^KJ

) & #

) ' ) & ) '# ) ' '

' & &

#

( ( ,

& (

X # 7 % _J ` % J - , % K ! & # & & ' (

# ' ( ) & N )

)

( & & ) & ' '

' L ' &

( & &

' & X # # # , ) K X4 ( GK ! '

L & ' & #

' &

,

& X # I % J < (

% K

( ' # & ) & )

L ' &

( ) ( #

, , ) # ( # & ( ' & &

#

N

# ( ( &

' ' ' &

&

4 # & ) ' ' &

H

'

' (

' &

#

& (

( )

( ( ' = ) & # ( '

' L &

( )

& ' &

Table 4: Methods and tools to assess ecosystem composition and function. ; < > @

B < @ * ' @ 36).

Method or tool Frequency of use N '

6 '

I ( & &

I ( ( & & ' &

X # &

( (

K

' R ( ' - ' ' X # # # K

%F

common common none L L common

Methods and tools to assess soil characteristics L '

& (& & Y '

, )

H 4

& ' X4 ( MK 4

L & X

& ' L K *'

X # K ) X4 ( MK 6

) L ; & & '

#

' ( ( ( H ) '

' 4 # ) & # ) L

&

' - * #

# ' & ' X I# ;# =

* K *

' ( ' (' # )

L H *

# ) '

L )

L ' ( # )

' ( '

)

( # &

(

& '

( I * # ' (' "

X% K

H

& ( '

#

< $ 6

'

& & ) w )

# ( ' L

' X< ' , % %J $ & % K 6 ' ' ( (

& # ) ( *

)

X7 I # __^K "

' ) L

*

#

Table 5: Methods and tools to assess soil characteristics and soil ecosystem services. ; < > @

B < @ * ' @ 36).

Method or tool Frequency of use N X # =# #

& K 6 X # =#

#

& K & ' & ) L ' * X # K ' &

('

common L common common

; ( 6 & )

-

27

( ' & # ( # (

Methods and tools to assess carbon sequestration and greenhouse gas emissions

' #

( )

#

X;=;K

)

# H ( (

& & ( & ( , X4 ( FK 4

& ' & & ( ) ,#

' L * ( & ( X L ( , ( S ( Y '

(

Y( (

K 4 & ' & ) &

'#

& #

( ' ;=; I ;=;

' & ( X # = % J - ' % K "

*

#

& ( ' * ' # )

& ( ( X4 ( FK ! & #

) ( ( ) (' & "

( & ' '

& ' (' # )

#

'#

' ( ,

& X % J !Â&#x20AC;z H % K 4 , ) #

& ' (

*

) ) & # ) & #

X # % J

% K I # ' ' ) ( '

Table 6: Methods and tools to assess carbon sequestration and greenhouse gas emissions. ; < > @

B < @ * ' @ 36).

Method or tool Frequency of use

( , & )

unit

)

agricultural operations

( ' X # & K ? = & @ X= @K

28

common L L L

# '

' ) #

(

'

( , X # % J - ' % K

' (' X% K & ) (

X< $ 6K

6

$ $ X6 $$K

& 4

< $ 6 ( )

( '

( & ( 4 ' & ( ('

&

< $ 6 * &

'# '

( )

( '

' ( & ( ,

X % K -

( , ;=;

&

( )( , - ( ' & & '

( ' L (

(

'# ' ) & & - ( ;=; ' ' ( *

# ' (

' ) ( ) ' # ( (

& ' w

' #

!

( ) ' &

( (

'# ) ,

(

' & &

& ' (

( & # ' ) ' ( ,

X # '( K H

L

)

( ,

& &

; ( 6 & )

-

29

G 4N" 6$ 7-6N@ $ 7- 4 7 !4 --6N = !$ 7 4=N$ 4 & ) & )

(

* &

$ # ) & #

' 4 & ( ' ( )

(

)

(

)# 'H ( )

I &

# (' * L ( )

# ( #

/ "

, ' ( Y # (

' ( '] "

'

'

Y #

( '

) ( ' ] )

'

# (

(

( '

] % "

( ) * ] "

) L

' (' * ('

] "

( ' ] "

L & ( ] "

L

*

( ' ] 4 ) L

) ' # ( #

& I # )

L # & & )

&

& '

#

' (

/ D

companies.There is a lot of resistance from farmers to additional data collection.The big question with impact assessment is: whatâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s in it for farmers?â&#x20AC;?

EG H

&

, ' ( (

'

'# ) # XI # - K ' & '

# &

' &

# ( ( )

4

& & #

H

&

, ' ( I #

(

&

' ( V ' W &

Q

, ' *

(

30

' & '

(

V ( W

' ( # ( , ' L

I #

' (

&

, '

( ' XI # - QK Q

'

'

6 ( '

(

(' #

(' #

V6

L 'W

, ' ( )

( & '#

&

! )

& ( ( #

( & , #

( ' #

' ( L ' ' ('

# &

# & # 4

( # ' J ' (

# ) # & XI # - K & '#

( & ' & ) & , ' L

*

# &

# )

4 ( # #

( (

w ' (' ( ('

(' ( '

Linking Approaches to Maximize Relevance and Cost-Effectiveness 4 ' ( &

( & '

# ' # , ( ( ) & , #

& # 4 & V W

' (

' XI ^K

( '

' (

#

& R& *

#

# # &

I Q#

(

4 * )

' ( ( & L ( #

L

&

# V W &

) L

)

# # 'H I

# (

'

( &

#

; ( - ' )

( & # ' '

' '

X # # ) #

K

&

# '

# Q (

' ; ( 6 & )

-

31

A: Do impact assessments add value as management tools for farmers or supply chain actors?

Adds value for farmers

Ă&#x2122;

Adds value for other supply chain actors

Ă&#x2122;

Impact assessment studies are â&#x20AC;&#x153;public goodsâ&#x20AC;? for the entire eco standards field

On/near farm water quality Watershed impact across large areas or clusters of certified farms Impacts on species of conservation concern Changes in animal assemblages Vegetation composition/structure

Deforestation rates

Invasive species Erosion/soil loss rate Soil quality/soil health Changes in carbon stocks Greenhouse gas emissions (including energy use)

Figure 7: Heuristic for understanding impact assessment opportunities and constraints.

The three-panel series indicates key opportunities and constraints for assessing different types of ecological impacts of agricultural eco-standards. Panel A analyzes whether assessments add value for farmers and/or

value to individual entities. Panel B analyzes the extent to which each impact assessment category might be satisfactorily evaluated using existing audit data or supplemental data collected by local actors, or whether

Panel C analyzes whether a landscape scale perspective is needed to understand impacts, and, if so, whether this must be spatially explicit, considering the location and

J

!

of conservation concern, ecosystem composition and function, soil, and greenhouse gas emissions/carbon < J

B

% additional discussion.

32

; ( 6 & )

-

33

Figure 8: Pyramid of impact assessment approaches.

The diagram suggests a model by which impact assessment efforts may combine multiple approaches, data types, and methodologies to strike an optimal balance between relevance for multiple stakeholders, cost-effectiveness,

%

X K#

V

' W ( # ' )

4 * & '

( ' ( & ) '

# ' '

I # '

'

X

L

K# ' (

X

( ' ' & K#

' (

& ) ' & ' # ) # & )

# ) (

' H # ( L ' Q

' ) ' # ) ' (

# (

&

G

' V

L 'W # )

' ' L

& &

( ' &

' &

'

&

#

( & '

#

( * I 7

L ' ' & & ( # ) #

( ) * #

L ' & ' (

X #

K

( # ' & L

X

V O W K R

)

)

( ) 4

L '

'

'

O

&

Q ' ( ' , ) & '

L ' &

(

' ( ) '

'

Standardization and Collaboration

& ) # ) ( * & ( H

( (' ) , ' ) 4 ) L * '

&

H /

â&#x20AC;&#x153;Every stakeholder group realizes the limits of where they can go on their own.We need standardized metrics that can be measured through the audit, as well as others that can be measured through additional research conducted by third parties.This would include not only farmlevel work, but also aggregated work. Multi-stakeholder efforts can help overcome the challenges of measuring sustainability and demonstrating impact at scale.â&#x20AC;?

G

# H &

' ) ' I # &

# X ( & K -

( - -

Y

Y O

& #

'R # ) # ( & '# '# ) # ( ' # )

& & N

& '

# < S , H & '

) * & / ) # # ( & '# '# ( # X)

' &

'

; ( 6 & )

-

35

K 4 # <S & &

& R

) , - , ' & H

) , ( ' X N K 4

& & &

* ) ( ) &

, # N &

# # & ( ' 4

'

(

N (

, & '

' ' )

H * '

V (

'

( ' W ) # & H

& H

# #

= ) & #

' , ' (' I # ( & ' &

' (' - # <# N # (

( & ' ) ( ) ' ' X # ) K

' ) * & X # 'K

& ' # )

) # # # ( ' X( ( K N ( #

& & &

#

' &

'

'

&

& , 4 ( &

)

! & # ' ( &

&

# # J ( *

#

& & ' X

& (' - K , ' ( (

*

( ( & ) '

&

#

(

& ( &

# # & #

( ( & ( *

) ) ' / b )

*

( &

X

' ( )

I 4 I 7 , K

( ' ) b

( & &

'

4

) & 'H & '

#

( )

' XI ^K ' F

) &

#

&

( & b ( ) ,

) ) , &

) ,

(

' "

)

& & # ) , ) H ) ' )

'

' b

V, ) ( W (

(

4

& (

' & )

# ) (

& & ( )

(

Are New Tools and Methods Needed?

7 4 #

( &

( ' '

4 ) '

& ( ' (

*

# ) &

H )

'

& ( (

( XI _K N& # & ) (

# )

& (

(' & 4

) * ) &

#

' (

* N #

&

) & )

& X( & ' K# *

'# ) ) & ) L XI _K "

) # ( & '# '

# &

& ' ) & * & ' ( ('

& # )

)

( ) , N& # ) L #

V W

# &

) / â&#x20AC;&#x153;Itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s not so much a challenge of the precision of the tools, but how we get them into practice in a L G H

4 I _ ) )

' I &

&

I # ' & #

' #

( ' ,

&

I # I 7 ,

# ( ( ' ) O

? #

; ( 6 & )

-

37

Figure 9: Importance of improvements in assessment methods and tools.

The graph summarizes responses from representatives of ten eco-standards bodies and nine eco-standards support organizations. Responses were scored as follows: top priority = 3, medium priority = 1, less important = 0.Total scores were divided by the number of respondents to generate mean importance ratings.

( ' & ' (

( &

) ( )

#

( &

'

'

I ( & '# ) & #

' & #

) &

( ( & "

( &

( ( # )

' ,

'

& # # (

( X * # * =K O ) ' # & (

'

* #

( , #

- & )

(

)

) L

'

&

#

& , ' (

& # '

,

&

38

' &

' &

,

I # *'

* ( & '

L ' ( & # # )

X # ` % K 7 ( ( & ' *

= ( =

X- , % J * ;K ) ( * & ' ( ) , ' &

& I

( & '# (

* &

Q' ' *

#

' V W )

( (

( ' (

#

&

#

&

( & ' '

#

#

)

* &

)

& * = ) & # & ) '

(

#

( &

* )

' ) (

; ( 6 & )

-

39

M 7 ` !; 4 = -- !

4 & )

& )

4

)

( " &

) ) & )

( &

) #

(

# # &

&

* M M ' ! '# '

' (

XI K = ) & # & ( '

( ) ( ' '#

(

*

( )

&

N

#

) ,

,

) ( )

&

(

Figure 10: Key opportunities and barriers.

The chart indicates opportunities and barriers to moving toward a more rigorous, outcome-based approach

' *'

representatives of 10 eco-standards bodies and 9 eco-standards support organizations. Respondents were asked to characterize each factor as â&#x20AC;&#x153;mainly an opportunity,â&#x20AC;? â&#x20AC;&#x153;mainly a barrier,â&#x20AC;? or â&#x20AC;&#x153;not important either way.â&#x20AC;?

G

Q ) ) ) , ' ( Y

' " ( * ( )

' ,

< S V < W & ' ( ( '

, ' (

) , ' ) # ' 4 & ' _Md & )

' & & (O & # ) ' d ( '

, '

X < % K I # (

( & )

'S

4

( ' V , 'W ( ' (

# & &

7

& , ' ,

N

# L ) &

) # &

'

#

' & , ' & & & #

# )

( ' , V , W ( N

' #

(

& ) , 4 *

( # ' & )

)

' ( & '

N ) (

L ( ' (' & )

&

I # 6

' & &

( ' X * K ) I # ' &

& & & # '

'

, = ) & #

Y ' ) ( & 'Y)

& ( ' ( '

( ' XI K I

# # ( # Y ) )

Y , ' & ' # ) '

X # Q

( '# # ( K

H

(

(

) (

#

' & ( ('

, X #

&

K 4 # ( *

' ' ( (

&

'

) , ' )

! & # (

* #

; ( 6 & )

-

G

&

J (

' & J '

' *

Partnerships -

' ( ) )

' # & #

# ' ( V & W ( & ( (' * * )

& ' ( (

/ b &

J b &

( (' H J b & 'H &

Y

( '

J b & &

Y #

L < S

,

& # ' ' )

# ) '

& )

I # ( , ) &

j -

< # ) ? & )

( I < ( ? & ' ( & I 4 N

( )

'

'

(

&

N S

&

4 * ( '

&

# '

)

O # ( & (

,

&

L

) ( ) & ) ,

(

$

)

) ,

,

& ' ' ) ' & &

' & * # ( ,

L

Next Steps O ) ' #

( w ' & '

4 <

J - & - -

' J

G%

' &

' )

J O &

I

& ' , & ( ' J N

' &

& # '

('

( & 4

('

) # #

(

4

( )

& ) # ) (' ) ,

I

# &

) , ) ,

&

O

4 ) , ) # #

& & *

( H ( & (

H ( )

H *

O I # ) ,

(

# # '

N ( , (' & &

'

& &

( & '

)

)

*'

) ,

) , (

H

'#

) ' #

( ' ,

(

#

& ' & Q'

' *

*

Y ('

' ' ( Y

'

'

( '# # & '

&

; ( 6 & )

-

G

F < 4 6 4?6 4 $ ( # @ # % _ & #

# ( $ # , (

; ~#

( # ; '

Q , )# # 7 # # ! # < & # % - (

'

)

# ^FX K/ F

# ; 7 # 6 % _ (

/

'

* & '

I '

& # XMK/ %F_ % F

Q , # ` # Q H # 4 # Q # 8 # Q , ) , # 7 #

# # $ ( # $ # $, ' # I # I (

# # ; # < # = # ` # 7 # - # 7 , # 8 # 6 ( # # # = # 4 I *# I & - # "

# % ^ <

( ) ( & ( /

L '# (

& ' Q ' Q

'# G X_K/ %%_ % ^

# ; # - ) # ; # 7 # 8 # ` # $ # ,# 8 # 8 ( # 8 # ` ' Q ) # 4 # Q O # # - H

# ; # @ # # # < # @ L # 7 = # I % =

(

, H -

! '

# X ^K/ F ^ F G% # ; 7 # 6 % ' ' #

( ' ) H 4 ! ) - ' # ^_XGK/ ___ % # ; # ; ( # < = 7 $ # < % ^

' 6 & ) & 6 # / ^ % Q H # = % I )

'

X 6K - - ' ; '# %MX%K/ M_ Q )# 8 # ; # 4 # O # # & - # 4 # Q # # # 8 # # 7 # I # < # = ) # 8 # = H# 7 # = # 7 # < # 6 # < 7 = # ! # 7 # 8 # 7 # 7 # 7 # < # 7 # 6 # ! ; O # # N& # " # - '# < # - # # 6 ( 8 # 7 # & # 7 # & 7 # - # % Z '

( & ' & '# '# -

!

'

# GXG K/ ^MMM ^MF Q # 8 # # 8 " ( # % M 4

( & ' ( / ' 8

'# G%X%K/ %F %F_

Q # $ @ # % - ( & ' &

Q & ' & # X^K/ ^% ^ M Q , # 6 & # 8 % 4 & ( &

V ( W

6

I # " # $ Q % Q

/RR))) (

R Q ( # 7 # 8 # 6 # ; # 6 # ; 7 # % ^ '

* ) 8 &

# XMK/ G _ GM% ! z H# 7 #

H H # ; # # # # # 6 & # Q # & & # 8 $ ( ' # 6 % $ '

' < $ 6 6 & # MX_K/ %% %%

# I __^ ' L

( & ' Q

# G^X K/ GM M% ,# # H & H# ` # & # 7 - # I % F ; ( X / ( K (

# #

' 7 ' & '# MXMK/ G % <7 % % ; ( & ' ' , /RR ( & ' ' ,

GG

# " Q ; ) # ! % G < S

Q

# MGXFK/ M MÂ MGM # 8 7 $ # 6 __ '

 ' 8

" ' # # ! ) B , $ # 7 # Q HH # < ; # $ % ^ I

' < $ 6

* 4 ;

6 # GFXMK/ G FÂ G% $ # # ' # I # %

& /RR ))) $ & # # = # ! - # 6 % $ &

( ' -

% ;

6 ' X ; 6 S K / G ^_Â _ < # # ! & ` # # & # 7 # 7 # 6 & ,# ; % ^ I

* &

# Q H 7 O

Â&#x201E;Â&#x2026; I Â&#x2020; X w K ? & ' Â&#x2026; - # -

( # Q H $ # - % G Q & '

' ' & Q '# ^X K/ ^ $} # 4 ` # Q % "

(

(

] & )

& )

; ' ) H # ' & # _^X K/ M F $ , # 8 # $ ( ' # 6 # ,# $ # ` *# 6 # Q # 8 # = # 7 # H # 6 # " # 8 - # % %

6 & # _X% K/ M _ I % % I 7 , /RR ))) , R

R I # > # I # Q # B # > <Â&#x2021;# B % 6 of ecosystem services: an opportunity for spatially *

;

# % XFK/ M%% M M

I # 6 # ! # < # I ( # 6 # 8 # - # ( # $ # 8 ' # # 7 ) # I # # 6 # 4 ) # 7 # 7 '# " # " # 7 # 7 # $ I ( ,# < % M Q ( & ' & ' * Q ' < # XGK/ G G G ; ( # 6 # - # # 7 # 6 # ' # " 7 # 8 % - & '

& / )

8 '# GG/ _%Â ^ ; # 7 # ` # ( # 4 % _ & 6 ? & ` ' < # `

# ` ' ; # 4 # - # $ - # 7 % &

management practices: conventional versus organic

6 & ) -

# X %K/ _M %G ; # Q ` # ) # N 8 #

( ,# 6 6 # & # = 7 # " # $ " # 7 ( # Q ! # 4 # 8 ( ) # ; % _ =

4 7 # % ? & '# ; & # ! ) B , ; # 6 # % $

& ( & '] N '*# X%K/ M FM = # 7 # # # - &# - # < & # 4 # 4 ) # 8 # $ I # 6 # - # ` # ) # Q # # I # # 7 # # 7 $ 7 # % ^ =

% % M L (' ' -

! '

# MX% K/ _G _Â _GGG = # 8 % 4 I 4 X@ K - ? & ' ( #

(' ? & /RR))) & R ( R R ( R R = # $ # - , # # " # 8 # * # # ; # - & # % M $ ( ( & '] Q & # %%X K/

N H N

7 & X IN 7K % _ N # ' / % _ IN 7# Q # ; ' < %

& ' & / <

< # < # ?`

; ( 6 & )

-

GM

< % 4 < / & '

& ) ( ' % < # < # ?` 8 # 8 % 6 & /

6 - & # % -

= # ? 6 & # ! ) 8 ' ` # 7 # % _ I w

I

/RR)))

` # 8 # # ; # ` '# ` # < # # ` # $ # ` ' Q ) # 4 # Z # # # 4 * # 8 % 6 ' (

&

'

# % XFK/ % _G G ` # 7 # (

H',# # Q # 7 # Q

# $ # - # $ # ; # # = # - # ` # 8 # N # I # - # 6 # # #

H # # # # $ ) # # 4O O # 4

, # 4 % & ( & '

( 8 '# G^X%K/ _ ` # @ # - # $ # " # # ; # % ? & (

/RR))) & R ( R R ( R (

R ` ('# 8 $ # % - 4 <R " 4/ 7

(

) & ( ' 8 =' # %X K/ _ %F ` # # 6 # 8 # ; & # 8 # Q # Q 7 '# = % F 6

& '

'

' H -

! '

# X %K/ GM%%Â GM% ` ,# 4 % G < , # # ) / '

!O & # ` '

# ? Q , '# Q , '#

` # ; # @ " # # ,# 4 ' # < % ( ' X - K/

) <7# ( # !

/RR )))

GF

< # " # ` # < - # Q # 6 # # ! # Q )# # ! # 8 # O # = @ # 7 % &

6 ( ( - N & & Q '# %GX%K/ ^ < (

# # ` # # <

# # 6 % Analysis of historic changes in regional ecosystem & &

# X%K/ F F F^ < # ` # 4 H# - # " # 7 # N # Q I # 7 % < $ 6

- - ' ; '# % X K/ ^^ F < ' # , # - % % $ & $ 7 < $ 6 ) , 8 6 # % X %K/ %M _Â %G 7 # 8 # 7 # # 6 # 6 # ;

( # < # 7 O # # <' # = # - '# $ # 7 # 7 # % _ 4 , ( )

# ( & '

4

'# X K/ %M 7 O # 4 7 # 8 %

- # (

7 # $ I # ` __^ 6 '

S

6 & ) ; ' # FXGK/ GG Â M 7

, # # Q H # # ! # $ # 7 # # L # # 6 H - H # ___ 6 ; ' & / '

Q H H -

6 # FMX K/ Â % 7 % 7 & & ) X@ %K /RR R N & # Z # % G ? '

4

# 6 # !

- '# $ # ) # 7 - '# 8 % ( /

& 7 # ^X GK/ M F

- ,# 8 # - ,# 7 # # # - ,# ; # B # 8 # ` # ; # & # 6 ` # %

) L ' L ' )

" 4 4

Q # MGXMK/ %M - , # @ #

# < # @ '# 7 ) '# 8 %

' /

)

# %X_K/ - , # $ # ! ) # ; # $ %

L ' & & / V (

W

7 6 # GX K/ %_ ^ - # # Q # # ~ # - # " # < # ` # ` # ; & # $ # # 6 # # < # I # # O @ & # I # ; ( # 6 # 8 # ; # ` # 7 # & '# - # B # $ # " , # # I , # 6 % $

( ' Q H *

# %XMFM K/ % % G - # 8 # & 7 # 8 # $

# 8 % 4 ( ' & & ) % / ( ' ' ( $ & # " # 7 ( & $ & # < # ?` 6 % 4 Q7- (

6 "

? & '# (

6 # 4 # , # # " # # # 8 # = # B # $ , # 4 # 6 # < $ '# Q % 4

w

# -

- # ^ / ^ 6 # ` # I # ; 6 # " # ; # 7 # $ ` # B # $ __ - (' ) / & )

& & L X6? < K ? $ # = ( , ! ? $ 6 ) "

6

# 4 # H 6 # 6 ; ( # 6 %

&

& ( & ' ( # %_X K/ F

6 # - # = '# # 8 # # < # I # 7 # # 6 H# ; # 6 % '

' -

# ^^X K/ ^% 6 % 6 / 6 ( ' & # ' X& % K Q ? & '

# )

/RR (

R 6? < % /RR))) ) R R

# # = # ! # Q ) # # < ,'# 7 # 7

# # # " # ~ # Q # Q # " # < ) # # = # # - & # # " # < # # 7 7 # % Q

, ( ,

-

! '

# ^X%GK/ _^__ _ G

# Q # Q # O # 4 %

L ' X I K

IB ^/ I & < Q # & # # @ " 4 % % /RR ) R ! { ( ! ) ,| % /RR R R ( R 'R M 4 # ; H# 8 % I

the implementation of measures for improving ( ' ) 6 ( ' & -

_

I '

' # 8 ' % # @ # # ^ % ^^ 4 H# - = ) # - ___ ='

( '

' - - ' ; '# % X K/ M_Â _ @ # ! # = ( # $ # ` # = ( # 7 % G !

$ -

% G

6 ( # ! ) N # < @ ` O,# 7 # - H# I ~ # 6 % _

( & ' 4 ( # " # !

; ( 6 & )

-

G

" , # " # ` # 8 # < - # # = # 7 " # 8 % 6

& '

6 & # _XGK/ G^% G__ "

# # Q # ` = # % %

( & '/ * &

&

( & ' `-7; & ' " ( # # N # N ; L& # %

' /

#

( Q & ' & # %/ M MM " # 6 # - # 6 , # 7 %

- < # %/ ^F _ " '# 4 # % 4

' &

( ' ' 4 # 6

Q # G X K/ F^ F ~ < {~

' < | % Q & ' N - ) ( /RR ( & '

G^

-- !$ > / 4?$B 4 67 NI 6 I 6 !

I )

'/ &

and standards. 4 & ) ) *

4

& ) ) (

' & ( & '#

' / K )

& # ) L ' ) L 'J (K ( & '

& X # # # KJ K

'

#

& ' ' &

(

J K ( L # * ( , (' & ' w ('

X # & ) )

(

&

#

) ,

' ( KJ K

' & (' X *

' L '# )

L

' & ( K 4 ( & ' ' &

) (

*

X

) (

& )K

' ( &

4

& )# ) & ' & ) ' &

4 & ) ) O

( ('

*

, X%K ( ) I

X * # & #

K#

' , '

* )

# / K

' , J (K

' )

& ( J K ' # # ) ' )

*'

( )

J K * )

' J K *

'# ' "

& ) )

# ) & & ) '

& *

% Consultations with key stakeholders and partners. 4 ) ,

) , ' '

4

) ( & )/ & )

N L

'

) , - % 4

) (

( ) I X

& ( ' K & # ,' # #

& ) ) ( N H

O

# ( # ( 4 &

! # 6 # ? & # " & '# ( I < (# < # ( ' # 6 N (

" " I # Q Q & ' N - # " & 7 # Q & '

; ( 6 & )

-

G_

4 # 6 ( ( - N # 6 4 ( 6 ( '# I N

# I # ?4~ # & # ( , # , & & Q & ' 4 = & @ ! ) ,# ! # ) ,

' &

Report on current practices and methodological challenges in impact assessment of agricultural

4 )

) components: b # ' (O & ' b 6 & ) '

b 6 ,

b , ' & )

&

( & ' ' services b 6 * #

(

, ) ) , ) , G % % N / 4 ) & I

, ) ) , 4 ) , * (

* '

*

4 ) , S ) (

, ) #

#

4

& # ) ,

) ' , '

# & #

# )

& 4 ) , )

& (' I # )

50

-- !$ > Q/ < 4 6 4?6 6 @ " 6 = 4 67 I )

; # ;

# " (

# #

) )

& ( 4 ) ( )

'

(

/ b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b

'

agriculture ( ( & ' cacao

( L coffee

(

eco-agriculture

eco-management impact assessment eco-services

' & ' ecosystem services

erosion emissions impact assessment impact-level eco-agricultural assessment

&

oil palm # # soil management L ' sugar cane (

(

(

; ( 6 & )

-

51

b b b b b b

(

tropical eco-agriculture )

) &

) )

!

R

H

/

b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b

52

G

I I )

XI K ; X?4~K

N H X NK I N

7 & X IN 7K I X I K ` ' R I 7 , ! j - I X- I K 6

6 ( (

' X6 K 6 ( ( - N X6 -NK

7 ' Q X 7Q K ( , ( & X K ( I ' & X I K Unilever " I X" IK

-- !$ > / -6 Z? 4 N!! 6 - & )# ) ,

) L # )

)

& ' & ' 7 , ' ' L ) & & & & R

& & L 4 ) L

& & Thank you for participating in this study on the state of tools and methodologies for assessing the ecological

J O

G + % funded by the International Finance Corporationâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;will identify key opportunities, gaps, and needs for improving

H J particularly on watershed- and landscape-scale impacts, for which empirical evidence is particularly lacking. As a participant, you will receive a copy of the review study when completed, and will be invited to participate in an emerging community of practice of scientists and eco-standards experts interested in accelerating progress toward improving the credibility and effectiveness of eco-standards as a means of protecting or restoring biodiversity and ecosystem services. %

< NP <

% <

H

/ +

treated as anonymous. In other words, results will be aggregated to a level that responses cannot be associated with particular individuals or their organizations. If you have any questions about with this survey, please contact & Q V*! N(N PXP 'P*' Y J /

Z A. Basic information To begin, we request a bit of information about you and your organization: A1 B / A2 ! ' H / A3. "

' ' ) )

' ) ,] A4. B R / A5. Q w' ( ' )

X 'K/ A6. 4 ) * '

R ' ,

& & R

(

) X

, ( * (

K/

- X # # # K

'

'

' !

' X # '

'

R

'

'

K !

"

X #

'

'

L , K

'

' !

; ( 6 & )

-

53

6 # # ( X # ( & ( ' K

'

'

' !

B. Current activities [ / /

H standards system are collected and analyzed. Outcome-level data are data on actual changes in environmental characteristics

H J

management practices). For instance, an example of a practice-based standard or result is the adoption of best management

$ B

biomass or biological oxygen demand in a stream abutting the farm.

B1. ]

H

a mandatory part of the

If so, please check all of the environmental outcomes that are included: " L ' N! 4= I 67R-6N$? 4 N! ?! 4 " L ' $N"! 46 7RNII 4= I 67 " L ' X # ) w ) # ' R ) & ( '# w K - R (

#

N! 4= I 67R-6N$? 4 N! ?! 4 - R (

#

! 4= ?66N?!$ !; < !$ -

( X # (

( # # * K N! 4= I 67R-6N$? 4 N! ?! 4

( X # (

( # # * K ! 4= ?66N?!$ !; < !$ - - ( X #

K N! 4= I 67R-6N$? 4 N! ?! 4 - ( X #

K ! 4= ?66N?!$ !; < !$ -

X # =# #

& K N! 4= I 67R-6N$? 4 N! ?! 4 ;

)

R

N

& & ( X 'K qqqqqqqqq ! ( & B2. ^

H

J

H

H

# /

have been included: " L ' N! 4= I 67R-6N$? 4 N! ?! 4 " L ' $N"! 46 7RNII 4= I 67 " L ' X # ) w ) # ' R ) & ( '# w K - R (

#

N! 4= I 67R-6N$? 4 N! ?! 4 - R (

#

! 4= ?66N?!$ !; < !$ -

( X # (

( # # * K N! 4= I 67R-6N$? 4 N! ?! 4

( X # (

( # # * K ! 4=

MG

?66N?!$ !; < !$ - - ( X #

K N! 4= I 67R-6N$? 4 N! ?! 4 - ( X #

K ! 4= ?66N?!$ !; < !$ -

X # =# #

& K N! 4= I 67R-6N$? 4 N! ?! 4 < & ' &

X # & K & ( '

' X # # ( # K

'# # ' & ;

)

R

N

& & ( X 'K qqqqqqqqq ! ( & B3. To your knowledge, have third-party researchers not commissioned by your organization conducted studies

H _ # /

outcomes for which such research has been conducted: " L ' N! 4= I 67R-6N$? 4 N! ?! 4 " L ' $N"! 46 7RNII 4= I 67 " L ' X # ) w ) # ' R ) & ( '# w K - R (

#

N! 4= I 67R-6N$? 4 N! ?! 4 - R (

#

! 4= ?66N?!$ !; < !$ -

( X # (

( # # * K N! 4= I 67R-6N$? 4 N! ?! 4

( X # (

( # # * K ! 4= ?66N?!$ !; < !$ - - ( X #

K N! 4= I 67R-6N$? 4 N! ?! 4 - ( X #

K ! 4= ?66N?!$ !; < !$ -

X # =# #

& K N! 4= I 67R-6N$? 4 N! ?! 4 < & ' &

X # & K & ( '

' X # # ( # K

'# # ' & ;

)

R

N

& & ( X 'K qqqqqqqqq ! ( & B4. To your knowledge, are there any places where the long-term

H standards system have been evaluated, over a period of at least four years? If so, please check all of the environmental outcomes for which such evaluation or research has been conducted: " L ' N! 4= I 67R-6N$? 4 N! ?! 4 " L ' $N"! 46 7RNII 4= I 67 " L ' X # ) w ) # ' R ) & ( '# w K - R (

#

N! 4= I 67R-6N$? 4 N! ?! 4 - R (

#

! 4= ?66N?!$ !; < !$ -

; ( 6 & )

-

55

( X # (

( # # * K N! 4= I 67R-6N$? 4 N! ?! 4

( X # (

( # # * K ! 4= ?66N?!$ !; < !$ - - ( X #

K N! 4= I 67R-6N$? 4 N! ?! 4 - ( X #

K ! 4= ?66N?!$ !; < !$ -

X # =# #

& K N! 4= I 67R-6N$? 4 N! ?! 4 < & ' &

X # & K & ( '

' X # # ( # K

'# # ' & ;

)

R

N

& & ( X 'K qqqqqqqqq ! ( & C. Methods & tools Now, we would like to ask about the types of tools and methods that have been used to assess outcome-level ecological effects

H / <

<

/

H standards body itself as well as work by other partners or researchers.

C1a J /

H standards system on watershed functions and services, including water quality and water quantity?

R ( ) L ' ) (

? )

) (

I ( R X # K I R )

7

) & '

- ' ' X # # * # K N R X K/ qqqqqqqq C1b. %

/ improvements on existing tools/methods to assess impacts on watershed functions and services, including water quality and water quantity: 7

4 ' X K

R

7 ' X K < X K 7

4 ' X K ( '

R X # 7 ' X K )

K < X K 7

' # 4 ' X K ( * & ' 7 ' X K < X K

MF

7

( (' R&

4 ' X K 7 ' X K < X K

N

( & # )

& ] - ( / qqqqqqqq C2a J /

H standards system on rare, threatened or endangered species?

N ( X # ( & K 6 ( X # ( & K & '

< R # #

& ' X &

& ) K &

( * # # X # ( H # #

* K - ' ' X # #

( # K N R X K/ qqqqqqqq C2b %

/ improvements on existing tools/methods to assess impacts on rare, threatened or endangered species.

7

4 ' X K

R

7 ' X K < X K 7

4 ' X K ( '

R X # 7 ' X K )

K < X K 7

' # 4 ' X K ( * & ' 7 ' X K < X K 7

( (' R& 4 ' X K 7 ' X K < X K {

_ % > |||||||| C3a. J /

H standards system on ecosystem composition and function?

N '

X # )

L K 6 '

I ( & &

I ( ( & & ' & X # & K

' & & ('

; ( 6 & )

-

57

' R ( ' - ' ' X # # # K N R X K/ qqqqqqqq C3b. -

) ' ,

) improvements * R

ecosystem composition and function.

7

4 ' X K

R

7 ' X K < X K 7

4 ' X K ( '

R X # 7 ' X K )

K < X K 7

' # 4 ' X K ( * & ' 7 ' X K < X K 7

( (' R& 4 ' X K 7 ' X K < X K {

_ % > |||||||| C4a. J /

H standards system on carbon sequestration, greenhouse gas emissions, and avoided deforestation?

( , X ( & R ( ) K & )

X #

# ( K

-

R

( ' X # & K ? = & @ X= @K

( L &

N R X K/ qqqqqqqq C4b. %

/

H impacts on carbon sequestration, greenhouse gas emissions, and avoided deforestation.

7

4 ' X K

R

7 ' X K < X K 7

4 ' X K ( '

R X # 7 ' X K )

K < X K 7

' # 4 ' X K ( * & ' 7 ' X K < X K

58

7

( (' R&

4 ' X K 7 ' X K < X K

Other than those listed above, which other improvements _ % > |||||||| C5a. J /

H standards system on soil characteristics?

N =#

& 6 =#

& & '

X =#

& K < =#

&

& ' X &

& ) K

* ' & (' - ' ' X # # # K

R management N R X K/ qqqqqqqq C5b. %

/

H impacts on soil characteristics (e.g. soil pH, organic matter or percent ground cover).

7

4 ' X K

R

7 ' X K < X K 7

4 ' X K ( '

R X # 7 ' X K )

K < X K 7

' # 4 ' X K ( * & ' 7 ' X K < X K 7

( (' R& 4 ' X K 7 ' X K < X K {

_ % > |||||||| C6.

_ % check all that apply.

R N

R - X # K 6

('

R 6

) , ' N qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq

; ( 6 & )

-

59

"

( &

) ,

R ' ( & ' ' & ] qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq C7. How does your organization develop or select tools and methods for assessing outcome-level ecological results of your

H % / > " * (

" & *

* " & & )

" & ( )

& )

D. Drivers, motivations, and barriers (2 questions) J < /

$ ~

H # /

D1. To the extent that you/your organization see a need to expand or improve outcome-level assessment of ecological

_ % $

important, somewhat important, or not important: ]

etc.) ]

traders, etc.)

Demonstrating impact to environmental or â&#x20AC;&#x153;watchdogâ&#x20AC;? groups

# [

# [

# [

Demonstrating impact to public sector or trans-national regulatory,

standard-setting, or trade bodies # [

Demonstrating impact to your own organizationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s board, staff, donors, or

shareholders # [

Demonstrating impact to your producers / supplies

# [

]

/

H

standards system itself # [

Q

/

manage natural resources and reduce environmental impacts # [

Q

/

production quality, yields, or reliability # [

Developing an empirical knowledge base to inform strategic and policy

decisions # [

"

H

system # [

%

> ||||||||| D2. What do you see as the key factors that might support or hinder your organization and its partnersâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;within the next 5-15 yearsâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;in moving toward a more rigorous, outcome-based approach to the assessment, monitoring, and improvement

H _ % D

L D

barrier,â&#x20AC;? or â&#x20AC;&#x153;not important either way.â&#x20AC;?

F

& ( '

' (

for assessing such outcomes

7 ' ' 7 ' ( ! ) ' < &

' ) ' H 7 ' ' 7 ' ( ! ) ' & ( ' ( ) )

) , 7 ' ' these issues 7 ' ( ! ) ' & ( ' 7 ' ' 7 ' ( ! ) ' 7 & R X , K ' 7 ' ' * ,

7 ' ( ! ) ' * # # ' H 7 ' '

R ' 7 ' ( ! ) ' E. Additional info/referrals (1 question) J / /

 /

H

% > |||||

; ( 6 & )

-

F

-- !$ > $/ !4 6@ " 4 7-< 4 " ) & ) & )

& ) ' * & L A. Basic information Name of Interviewee: Organization: Position: Date: Interviewer(s): B. Current activities - ) L & ' L Q

QG# b , ( ) )

) J # (' ) # ) ' ) # )

' ) #

b # '

)

) X # & J

J

)

K b # ' * )

' & b 4 *

& ) , ( # ) ' ]

& L * X )

( ' R

' K] C. Methods & tools - ) L & ' L # % # # G #

b , (

X # ) ) ' & # )

# ) )

' & ) ,

* # K b , L # # ( R

* b "

& ) # )

] = )

] = ) ) R ( ( ]

F%

- ) L & ' L (# %(# (# G(#

b , ( '

' ) (

' & $ ' H ' & ' &

) , # '

] b V * & W '# L )

& )

( L ) 'J ) ) ( J )

( ( ( J ' )

( &

X #

# K 4 &

& *

D. Drivers, motivations, and barriers - ) L L $ # b , ' ( V( W

&

/ ) ) ' ( R ] b "

( # )

& X 'K & ( ' R (

R(

& ] b ' H S R

' &

) & ) & ] " ' R ) ' ] - ) L L $%# b " ' & V) ' ) W H

&

( ' ] " ) ' H X # ( ' # # # # K ] b $ ' & ' )

&

( ] b ' ' * )

&

(

] E. Additional info/referrals (approx 5 minutes) b ,

X K , ) , ) ) )

XN # ( ,# , L K b , & X * # & # K ) )

& ) R & ) ,

; ( 6 & )

-

F

-- !$ > / < 4 NI - 6 N! !4 6@ " $ Organization

Interviewee

G

; " Â&#x160; I )

7 ` ! j $ - -

-

I

= - O

$ & 6

H ( ` '

Title 7 7 7 7 ( ' &

$ # & 6

- I $ ' 7 ( , ' 8 Â&#x160; 7

?4~ 4 < 7

Eco-standards umbrella organizations, supporters, advocates, and partners ( ' $ ; &

$

Conservation International Q ( H ( Q $ # I #

I ) J 7 # I #

I ) - L ( N ) &

' - O 7 H I

6 , @ , N # ( Q & ' <

` ` & - , 7 7 7 J ( ' $

6 8 < < ' Associate ( I < ( $ & $

" & 7 Q , = - # Q # Q & ' ' &

~

' <

- ' - N - O 7 ` ' XI 7 , K 8

Â&#x160; 6 L '

FG

Description, purposes, and strengths

6 # ( (

assessment of

( L ' # #

'

,

Method/tool name (type)

= ( =

X

K

Compares &

(

(

, sites representing mature or ( &

community type

Major data requirements

)

(O &

' w

overall assessment ratings

Potential limitations 2

Level of data required

- , %

Relevant citation(s)

; ( 6 & )

-

<

$ & ' J (

) *' & ( L '

Scale of application; range of uses

4 ( H &

#

#

& 4 * )

( '

# V< & L W H / X K )Y L ' (

' ( (' R & ) L J X%K Y L # * J X K

Y ( L #

& ) #

# # R

-- !$ > I/ !4 ;6 4 @ 7 4=N$ !$ 7N$ < IN6 !; N<N; < 7- 4

FM

FF

Description, purposes, and strengths

6 % J 4

; H %

I 7 , % %

1 I 4

tool to structure

( ( ' F ^ #

)

&

civil society partners

I $ 1

# #

# '( # )

?

< )

? J & precise impact # ( rather performance estimates relative to regional (

, J * &

I

( &

#

* ' J ) # '# J other management practices

Relevant citation(s)

6 L * & & ) # )

( (' , ) ( &

Level of data required

I & ) * #

on the farm system

Scale of application; range of uses

Potential limitations

Major data requirements

Computer( holistic farm-level ( '

& #

#

J calculates 12

( F^ J

management tool I ? '# X

K secure online tool permitting ) * operational

' environmental impact

6 % X

K

Method/tool name (type)

N *

(

as a practical measurement resource for '

J

information that farm managers ) ' ' & Online tool to

( & ' in 11 categories of w

I 4 X

K

; X

' K

Description, purposes, and strengths

Method/tool name (type)

I $ 1 for application on '

! # )

(

northern European

*

'

'J ) # ( & )

clm 2012

= %

Relevant citation(s)

; ( 6 & )

-

1

I

supply chain greenhouse gas ' J ' ) ' relevant to eco

assessment

6 ' J &

of the accuracy of calculator results

measurements in

*

Information on

management such as

& ,

J H J ' J

J J

vegetation I ( G L

Level of data required

Scale of application; range of uses

Potential limitations

Major data requirements

F

F^

< = X< &

=' 'K X K

" # * & # * L

'#

& # management

# ) & )

history

Scale of application; range of uses

Level of data required

3 <

? ' ? $

( ' J ) versions integrate ;

(

( '

) J prior applications in #

?

2 <

6 L

' *

$ &

)

' '

)

w ) &

J

(O

) J & (

' w ) )

J * parameters of each & )

the accuracy of the & ( 'J a relatively simple )

input parameters for Q H )

)

)

L

' *

of management

) # # #

'

) )

varying physical

management activities

Potential limitations

" Assessment Tool X " 4K X K

Major data requirements

Description, purposes, and strengths

Method/tool name (type)

Q , ) %

" 4 % %

Relevant citation(s)

Description, purposes, and strengths

7 X * ( &

& K management ( & ' conservation O #

conservation target

#

' #

evaluation

Method/tool name (type)

Potential limitations

a management tool than as an impact assessment tool per J ' ( & '

' & (

Major data requirements $ ( & '

# )

( ( & ' # * #

2

Level of data required 7 %

Relevant citation(s)

; ( 6 & )

-

<

? ( & ' conservation O '

*

Scale of application; range of uses

F_

70

Estimate greenhouse gas emissions # '

N%# =G# !%N # H #

( # & , emissions ? *' ,J ' ( ( L

;

# = %

# 6 __

& (' & #

#

) ' as an input parameter in soil loss

'

& Q7-# *'

'

Q7-

' &

' # # # ) w

( )

& 7 ( *'

' ' '

& # ( '

'

(

assessment

Use, suitability, and credibility Relevant Citation(s) for eco-standards impact assessment

Percent soil surface cover in agricultural areas

Main purpose

Proxy measure or tool

4 ( H & *'

* & ( &

'

# )

)

&

-- !$ > ;/ N7 -6N> IN6 !; ;6 ?<4?6 < ? 4 ! Q < 4B

<

& '

! &

- ( '

? *'

' & & (' ( # ) #

#

Q * # ) # location

Use, suitability, and credibility Relevant Citation(s) for eco-standards impact assessment

; ( 6 & )

-

4 *'

' ( # & < (

%

(

Q7- )

(

L

* '# ( , ' &

*'#

(

Z ' ' & < (

% -

& & & (' ) & ' (

4 *' ; 'H ) *'

= ) & # &

* ' (

( )

R '

7

, )

(

& '

'

` %

) H X)

& ? & (

J

& ( K )

in agricultural research for many ) years

V W '

` %

(' ? & (

& '

' ) & chain

Main purpose

Proxy measure or tool

71

72

- *' ( & ' & & ( (

& & ) &

J

X # ( # ) # K ) &

# # (' )

=

(

'

? & (

J H #

#

( L '

` %

Use, suitability, and credibility Relevant Citation(s) for eco-standards impact assessment

Main purpose

Proxy measure or tool

Description

=

( ' measure surface

# # * X #

K

Advantages

Limitations

$ 'H

'

) J ' L & * & V #W

) effective resolution < $

(

Can create very realistic

' ' J 6 X< $ 6K ('

( & #

, then measures the & '#

# )

J

, essentially functions as a

J laser altimeter or range ( & (

L

(

' from large-footprint < $ 6

Active remote sensing technologies '

) & X 6K measures the strength of the return signal

Technology

7 $ __ J N & Z __^J 6 %

Key citations

; ( 6 & )

-

$ , % %J < Useful for assessing forest % tree species composition

# )

' (

( & ( , # *' #

# species

- *'

& ' X(

K

' ( ( L

Sample applications for monitoring eco

4 (

H &

' ( ' &

&

V W # & & ( ( ' - &

' X #

K

w

! ) &

# # L ' X # ) L '

( & K & = ) & #

' (

( '

)

-- !$ > =/ 6 7N4 ! !; 4NN< IN6 !; ;6 ?<4?6 < ? 4 ! Q < 4B

73

G

; $ & ' w ( , J

(' & '

w J ) ,

M

M , ; & J (

change at the scale

(' comparing images from

I < $ 6 X

w K

Limitations

) ' & ( # ( J many image analysis

L & ( & ) '

changes in height or elevation over large

&

& #

'

J ' ( ' stitch together imagery

* H

coverage

6 L V

W

& J

' changing surfaces

) & areas or agricultural

( '

remain constant

< < (

* # ) (

& )

(

Advantages

Passive remote sensing technologies Multispectral sensing X # < # -N4# the electromagnetic 4 6K ' ('

point in an image for

( X * ' M ( #

K

6 X6 &

K

Description

Technology

; ) % G

7 I __^J Q H %

Monitor soil erosion J

* opportunities to use changes in forest height

(

( L

- & '

J

J

& L '

!$@ )

characteristics

@ % GJ 6 %

Key citations

Create high-resolution

# particularly in regions that '

&

Sample applications for monitoring eco

Description

='

sensors measure the electromagnetic energy ('

#

& ' ) ( )

spectra Combined technologies ;

( )

'H

# (

' # &

Image fusion ( multiple remote sensing

higher resolution images

( 'H for a greater variety of characteristics than a single image

='

X

'K

Technology

7

, ___J 8 %

' )

& # ' # ) & ( '# other socio-economic or &

4 ,

" , % J

#

# $ % ^J

& '# )

% & ( 'J

( ,

' vary in resolution or

J image resolution may (

)

Various images may ( & (

' ( * & (

< , ) &

('

J ) ) &

6

)

greater accuracy for

'

; ( 6 & )

-

4 H = )

___J 8 %

Key citations

7 &

# ) #

Sample applications for monitoring eco

$ (' hyperspectral sensors & ' ' ( 'H

Limitations

4 (

&

(

)

#

< 47# )

) ( )

Advantages

75