Methodology

for the
Assessment
of Bioplastic
Feedstocks
Bioplastic Feedstock
Alliance

Erin Simon
Alix Grabowski

Methodology for the Assessment of Bioplastic Feedstocks - Version # 14

Bioplastic Feedstock Alliance
Methodology for Assessment of Bioplastic Feedstocks
Introduction
The Bioplastic Feedstock Alliance is a multi-stakeholder working group dedicated to a sustainable vision for biobased
plastics. Through informed science, collaboration, education, and innovation, the group strives to responsively guide the
selection and harvesting of feedstocks for biobased plastics in order to encourage an economically prosperous and
sustainable flow of materials, creating lasting value for present and future generations. For the sake of this tool, the BFA
refers to a bioplastic as any plastic derived wholly or partially from biomass.

As we transition to a future economy no longer dependent on fossil-derived energy and raw materials for industrial
production, issues related to food security, land competition, water, safe labor practices and overall environmental
performance will become increasingly important. The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) supports the responsible
management of these resources responding to increasing demands, regardless of the end use and providing a voice for
conservation at the table. WWF engages on these issues using credible, science-based information and transparent multi-
stakeholder initiatives.

WWF’s role in the Bioplastic Feedstock Alliance (BFA) is in organizing thought leadership around these unknown and
known variables in order to enable progress on decreasing our dependency on oil and increasing our conservation of the
world’s most precious places and species.

Over the past decade there has been an increase in the development of bioplastics technology and investment in
infrastructure to bring solutions to scale. In a proactive approach, the BFA formed as a multi-stakeholder initiative to
come to agreement on the broader impacts the industry could have and how to mitigate risks such as food security, land
use change and resource scarcity for the bioplastic feedstocks. The main objective of the BFA is to develop a
methodology for assessing feedstocks at the regional level (or as close to the source of production as possible) in order to
secure a common understanding of sustainability considerations based on best known science. Having a broad set of
views coming together from science based perspectives in agreeing on a methodology for assessment (both qualitative and
quantitative) will help the industry drive positive change at scale.

Current membership within the BFA is supported by prominent consumer brand companies and a number of other
scientific and academic institutions along with suppliers and producers participating in this sector. The credibility and
transparency of the BFA as a multi stakeholder initiative is based on the many (and varied) organizations who are
currently contributing to the work. With an overall goal of global adaption of this methodology, the BFA is open to
additional participation for those organizations with interest, whether economically, environmentally or socially, in the
bioplastics sector.

This document showcases the methodology agreed upon to provide guidance on how to assess risks and make more
transparent decisions on a bioplastic feedstock in order to have a more positive impact on the environment, society and the
economy. This tool will allow brands and producers to rate potential bioplastic feedstock solutions on a defined,
qualitative scale on a series of criteria that are key to the expected environmental sustainability of the bioplastic feedstock
and the region in which it is being produced by allowing the user to (i) compare different bioplastic feedstocks and
different production systems across key criteria in terms of environmental and social sustainability; (ii) understand what
kinds of changes to production systems would result in more sustainable production; and (iii) identify opportunities for
management programs that would track progress and improve sustainability over time.

As has been learned with biofuels, there is no simple or single formula that can be applied globally to bioplastic
feedstocks, but there are some common indicators of performance. Using the best available data, each feedstock needs to
be evaluated at the most specific regional level possible taking into consideration not only the energy required to produce;
agricultural chemical inputs; impacts on biodiversity, soil, air, and water; but also social issues regarding land use, labor,
and food availability. The same feedstock grown in different regions or different feedstocks grown in the same region
will provide different results due to regional agronomic variations - soil type, rainfall, input use, and cultivation
techniques. Focusing on a standard set of key performance indicators will facilitate understanding the tradeoffs and risks
that each of the crops may present within a given region. What is important is that the methodology is standardized and
performance can be monitored.
Methodology for the Assessment of Bioplastic Feedstocks - Version # 14
Scope
The scope of the work for the BFA is land use change to initial processing, where initial processing includes activities
that directly affect the landscape where the feedstock is grown (for example: sugarcane mill operations would be
considered initial processing if their operations, water use and discharges etc,. affect the area directly surrounding the cane
growing operations). In making the decision about what plastic to use for a product, what it is made of, how it is made
and how it contributes to impacts on the life cycle of a system needs to be done with a series of tools. This methodology
provides an assessment tool for one piece of the system and needs to be considered as one tool in the toolbox. The BFA
chose to address this piece of the system due to the lack of data and agreed upon tools, not because it was deemed more
important or more valuable in the overall impact of a product. This tool does not take into consideration logistics beyond
the farm level, manufacturing process, use or end of life. These were excluded due to the dilution that their inclusion
would have created to the methodology in increasing its overall complexity. This methodology was designed and
developed with the best known science at the time to the knowledge and judgment of BFA and is intended to be updated
as more science becomes available.

Process
The BFA agreed upon a set of Guiding Principles in order to set the tone for the premise of the work. These principles set
the priorities under which the BFA would complete its work. It is under these principles, detailed below, that our
methodology was developed.

BFA Guiding Principles

1. Commitment to be credible and transparent
2. Maintain environmental responsibility and conservation of natural resources and biodiversity
3. Protect or enhance the health and welfare of farmers and their communities
4. Minimize adverse effects on global resources (ie. Food, land, water)
5. Actively engage multi stakeholders
6. Use of science based systems approach
7. Drive use of appropriate best practices in feedstock risk mitigation
8. Provide opportunity for innovation
9. Technology neutral
10. Global adoption linking theory to on the ground good agricultural practices

Goals
The BFA began the process of developing the assessment tool by first determining what the ultimate goal of this tool
would be, what that ideal solution could be. By setting this lofty standard, it provides the bioplastic industry with
something tangible to strive for. This set of goals created the foundation for the methodology, allowing the further
elucidation into what would be required to meet these goals in order to drive the measurement of success.

An optimal bioplastic feedstock is one that:

1. Is legally sourced, conforms to Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and is produced in a safe and healthy
way for workers and surrounding communities
2. Is one that is derived from renewable biomass whose production is sustainably managed
3. Does not adversely impact food security and affordability and maintains or improves social and economic conditions
along with ecosystem services in producing communities
4. Does not result in destruction of critical ecosystems, loss of High Conservation Value (HCV) habitats or deforestation
5. Provides environmental benefits with minimal environmental impacts

Indicators
Each of the above goals is complex and requires a number of aspects to be addressed in a feedstock. Within each of these
goals it was important to determine what indicated success or failure against each of those goals. The BFA identified
thirteen indicators for the goals.

Methodology for the Assessment of Bioplastic Feedstocks - Version # 14

Aggregated Indicator List – 13 Indicators
Biodiversity
Land Use Change Impacts
Chemical Use: Nutrients & Pest Management
Legal Production
Co-Product and Waste Management
Local and/or Indigenous Communities
Cradle to Gate GHG
Occupational Health & Safety
Ecosystem Services
Soil Management
Food Security
Water Management
Labor Rights

The table below contains the 13 Indicators aligned with the 5 Goals.

1. Is legally sourced, conforms to UDHR and is produced in a safe and healthy way for workers and surrounding
communities
Chemical Use: Nutrients & Pest Management
Co-product and Waste Management
Labor Rights
Land Use Change Impacts
Legal Production
Occupational Health & Safety
Water Management
2. Is one that is derived from renewable biomass whose production is sustainably managed
Biodiversity
Chemical Use: Nutrients & Pest Management
Co-product and Waste Management
Cradle to Gate GHG
Land Use Change Impacts
Soil Management
Water Management
3. Does not adversely impact food security or affordability and maintains or improves social and economic conditions along
with ecosystem services in producing communities**
** Infrastructure and logistic impacts included

Ecosystem Services
Food Security/Affordability
Local and/or Indigenous Communities
Soil Management
Water Management

4. Does not result in destruction of critical ecosystems, loss of HCV habitats or deforestation

Biodiversity
Chemical Use: Nutrients & Pest Management
Land Use Change Impacts
Local and/or Indigenous Communities
Soil Management
Water Management

5. Provides environmental benefits with minimal environmental impacts* **

*Includes key impact categories: ecosystem services, biodiversity, water, air, soil and land use (direct and indirect)
** Infrastructure and logistic impacts included
Biodiversity
Chemical Use: Nutrients & Pest Management
Co-product and Waste Management
Cradle to Gate GHG
Land Use Change Impacts
Soil Management
Water Management

Methodology for the Assessment of Bioplastic Feedstocks - Version # 14

 Each of the above indicators in itself is complex and requires different assessment methods in order to consider the
potential environmental, social and economic impacts that each feedstock could have on them. The depth to which any
interested party can assess a feedstock depends on the amount of data they have for each of these indicators. In terms of
1st generation feedstocks, there is typically more data available; however in focusing out to 2nd and 3rd generation
solutions, it is still important that the tool can help identify risks and opportunities for improvement. To accommodate the
variability in data availability, the assessment tool has 3 tiers: Executive Level Screening, Survey and Assessment. The
first tier requires the least amount of information and would be used to just screen out those feedstocks that are not viable
at a high level while the second and third tiers provide more detailed in depth study to assess.
The Method & Tiers
Each tier of the Method assumes a certain amount of information is available along with a level of expertise for
assessment. As with all assessments, the BFA has also identified the risk at each tier if a final decision was to be based on
much less information. Below is a table depicting the main differences between each tier of the methodology.

Executive Level Screening

Survey Assessment
(ELS)
3rd Party Assessment of 5 Key
FORMAT ELS yes/no survey 13 Indicator Datasheets
Indicators
WHO Brands & Producers Brands & Producers 3rd Parties Determined
BFA determines quantitative
High level understanding of assessment methods for key
In depth qualitative data on all 13
REQUIRED qualitative impacts of indicators to put values on
indicators & metrics
feedstocks. potential risk with higher quality
data.
Aggregate data into Scorecard and use
All Yes’s =go Survey + Assessment = Best
GATE percent goal achievement to determine
ANY No’s =stop Possible Data for Decision
best solution
If final decision is based off of Survey
If final decision is based off of
If final decision is based off of results, depending on identified risk and
Survey + the Assessment results,
RISK just the ELS, the risk is HIGH availability of information for datasheets,
the risk is LOW that not all
LEVEL that not all information is the risk is MODERATE to LOW that not
information is considered for
considered for decision. all information is considered for
decision.
decision.

Executive Level Screening

When an organization begins to investigate the many options for bioplastic feedstocks, there might be the desire to have
some sort of litmus test for narrowing that list down to the most viable options for more in depth assessment. Due to the
overall complexity of this type of choice and the potential for tradeoffs, there is no “Black List” of feedstocks. Any such
list would be accurate only under a certain set of conditions and would not account for regional variation. To allow for a
high level assessment of many feedstocks, the BFA developed the Executive Level Screening, at this tier; the user follows
the screening at a high qualitative level in order to identify major risks. This GO (move onto Survey Tier)/NO GO
(feedstock less viable) type screening should weed out those feedstocks without clear identified major risks and
progresses them forwarded to the next tier of the Method.

Executive Level Screening Instructions

The Executive Level Screening (ELS) was designed to act as a go/no go tool to help users decide which feedstocks should
be screened further and pursued. In this tool, use the feedstocks currently under consideration and run each one through
the ELS. This screening, although very high level, is still considered to provide input on extremely risky considerations.
For best results, the use of background information and scientifically based responses will guide the user more accurately.
At this step, if all questions are answered with “yes”, then the user can move onto the second tier, Survey.. Some
questions have a follow up question if the first response is a “No,” if the follow up question result is a “Yes,” then the tool
considers that overall question as a “Yes.” Using the ELS will help pare down the number of feedstocks in consideration
for the Survey level by identifying what the BFA considers very extreme issues. The user may choose to override the
ELS and move forward with feedstocks into the Survey level, this tool is meant to highlight issues early on and reduce the
workload.
Methodology for the Assessment of Bioplastic Feedstocks - Version # 14
Survey
Once the user has identified the most viable options and regions in which they would be produced, they would use the
Survey level of the Method. At the Survey level the user runs each feedstock/region through the 13 Indicator Datasheets.
These datasheets have been developed to survey each indicator qualitatively and quantitatively when suitable and to
clearly identify risks. The datasheets act as scorecards under each indicator and provide the user the opportunity to
identify potential opportunities and impacts for each feedstock. Each metric in the datasheet is scored and this score was
determined by the Digital Logic Method as a way to weigh the value of the metrics. Each indicator provides a list of
mitigation activities recommended by the BFA. As this Method falls far up the value chain as a decision making tool, it
does not provide the opportunity for measuring progress overtime. It does however identify existing management
systems, standards and certification programs that do exist connecting this decision with existing sustainable agriculture
practices.

Digital Logic Method Process Description

Digital Logic Method (DL) is a method to assign weighting values to properties of a solution or material in question when
each property has different importance. Via pair-wise comparison between each property, a set of weighting factors can be
determined based on different importance of each property. Therefore, we use this method to assign values to each metric
question within each INDICATOR.

Survey Scorecard
At the completion of all 13 Indicator Datasheets, the scores are aggregated into the Survey Scorecard. This tool allows
the user to syphon all the data they collected for each feedstock into a format that measures the feedstock’s progress
against each of the 5 Goals of the Methodology. Using the Indicators identified for each of these Goals previously and
weighing them equally (10 pts available for each), the user can compare how each solution performs against each goal.
The BFA has not set a bar for requirements at this stage. This is a decision making tool and the user is responsible for
taking this information, the clear tradeoffs identified and the opportunities available for improvement of risks and coming
to a conclusion that best aligns with their organizations mission.

Survey Level Instructions

The Survey has been set up as explained above in the form of 13 datasheets that allow the user to score each
feedstock/regional pairing against the 13 Indicators then aggregate them all onto one scorecard to measure against the 5
goals set by the BFA for an ideal feedstock. The BFA advises that the user begins with the Ecosystem Services datasheet
as it will help to identify key services impacted by the new feedstock for further assessment in other Indicators. Once all
13 are complete, the user should pull the scores into the Scorecard for assessment of each feedstock against the goals. It is
at this point that the user will need to determine which feedstock and corresponding tradeoffs are chosen for production
and further mitigation efforts. The Methodology is a decision making tool and not a management program. There are
however many agricultural best management programs, certifications, standards and roundtables developed for
measurement and improvement over time that are recommended below.

Assessment Level Review

Of the 13 indicators, there are a handful that stood out in complexity and importance. These indicators were identified as
having an opportunity for a much more quantitative assessment providing the data and expertise for assessment was
available. Food Security, Biodiversity, Ecosystem Services and Land Use Change Impacts all require a more rigorous
approach in order to quantify the identified risks within the Survey Level. Once a user has identified the most viable
solution via the Survey, they have the opportunity to complete a further deep dive on these 4 indicators to help increase
transparency further for potential opportunities and risks. It is often valuable to work with a third party to do this
assessment. This has the advantages of both lending credibility to the results, as well as providing the necessary expertise.
By completing this additional level of review for these indicators, the user should have all the best science and data
available when proceeding forward with a bioplastic feedstock solution.

Production Management and Risk Mitigation

This tool is a decision making methodology for assessing risk and understanding the tradeoffs across various feedstock
opportunities. It is not a method for production management, measurement and improvement over time. There are
however many of these management programs in the forms of certifications, roundtables, standards and Best Management
Practices (BMPs) for a number of crops in consideration today. Within each of the Indicators we include

Methodology for the Assessment of Bioplastic Feedstocks - Version # 14

recommendations for next steps and opportunities for on the ground assessment, measurement and verification specific to
their metrics. In addition to those recommendations, the BFA sought to connect this tool to other systems in sustainable
agriculture.

The BFA recommends that for all feedstock material from the crops evaluated by the Field to Market Fieldprint
Calculator (corn, soy, cotton, wheat, rice, potatoes, and eventually sugar beet & alfalfa) being sourced from the United
States that the Fieldprint Calculator be used to evaluate a feedstock’s fieldprint at the grower level as well as inform the
development of subsequent mitigation and sustainable action plans. http://www.fieldtomarket.org/

Bonsucro is a multi-stakeholder standard setting organization for global sugarcane production. It is a metric based
standard that does not prescribe practices to producers; however, it sets the bar for outcomes at the farm and milling level.
Bonsucro’s production standard is recognized by the European Union’s Renewable Energy Directive. Additionally,
Bonsucro is in the process of becoming a full member of ISEAL. The production standard addresses social, economic and
environmental aspects of sugarcane farming and milling. The BFA recommends that the Bonsucro production standard
and associated carbon metric tools be used when sourcing sugarcane derivatives for bioplastic feedstocks.
http://www.bonsucro.com/

For those harvest feedstocks sourced globally, the BFA recommends the use of Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil
(RSPO) for palm oil, Round Table for Responsible Soy (RTRS) for sustainable soy, and the Forest Stewardship Council
(FSC) for tree based products. For other feedstocks, the Roundtable on Sustainable Biomaterials (RSB) is recommended.
RSB is also a modular system, which recognizes other credible certification schemes, like Bonsucro. Using this modular
function, it is possible to certify biomaterials through many stages of the supply chain with RSB.

Climate change is already directly impacting agriculture, and its impact is only expected to worsen in the future. Building
resiliency into the system and adapting strategy to account for changing climate and increasing numbers of climate events
will be key to maintaining a stable supply and mitigating the effects of shocks caused by extreme weather events.
Diversification of feedstocks and growing locations are adaptation strategies that effectively build resiliency into the
production system. More information about climate change adaptation can be found at www.flowingforward.org.

Excellent water management is important for all crops and regions and can be seen in each of the 5 Goals of this
Methodology so the BFA recommends the following options for addressing water management and risk mitigation:
First, employ mitigation responses suggested in the Water Risk Filter by inputting data into the tool which will identify
mitigation responses that will correspond to the specific crop and basin risk. Although this solution provides just one-off
solutions and is not a holistic response, the BFA would recommend this as a first step followed by full water stewardship
activities to mitigate more substantial water risk. http://waterriskfilter.panda.org/MitigationTools.aspx

Second, the BFA would recommend the implementation of the AWS Standard (in Beta, finalization expected early 2014).
The AWS is a step-wise approach to mitigating water risk, and is designed to work in any industry or geography. The
AWS overlaps with governmental regulations required in that region, all crop production standard, and ISO standards etc.
It is designed to address current and future risk for water management. In the AWS Appendix B (guidance for the AWS
Standard) there is more guidance on how to comply with each step of the Standard along with references (tools and
methodologies) and examples. http://www.allianceforwaterstewardship.org/what-we-do.html#water-stewardship-standard

Indirect Land Use Change (ILUC) as a part of overall Land Use Change (LUC) is reviewed at a very high level in this
methodology. WWF, Ecofys and EPFL have developed a methodology to reduce ILUC called the Low Indirect Impact
Biofuel (LIIB) Methodology. LIIB was designed to distinguish biofuels with a low risk of causing indirect impacts but
can be used for all biomass production. It develops concepts proposed for mitigation of indirect land use change and other
indirect impacts into a practical and cost effective methodology that can be used by policy makers and voluntary
certification schemes that wish to stimulate production with low risk of unwanted indirect impacts. http://www.liib.org/

Methodology for the Assessment of Bioplastic Feedstocks - Version # 14

Exercise Information
Feedstock Evaluated
Geographical Boundary*
Level of Data / Information** (Circle Local/ Production Site(s) Regional National
One)
State of Project (Circle One) Feedstock in Production OR Feedstock Being Considered
Method Version
Name of Reviewer
Date

*The geographical boundary is defined as the area where the crop is grown. Ideally, local data and information from an
actual production site is used for this exercise, but that is not always available. For this exercise, indicate in this field
where, to the best of your knowledge, the feedstock is or will be grown – be as specific as possible. Example 1: It is
known that ethanol is being obtained from a specific mill – the geographical boundary is the mill’s sourcing area.
Example 2: It is unknown which mills are being sourced from, but they are all in Sao Paulo State. The geographical
boundary is Sao Paulo State. A national geographic boundary may also be used, but will make some questions more
difficult to answer and decrease the confidence of the results.

**Local data is more representative than regional data, which is more representative than national data. Therefore the
most specific data available should be used when answering the screening questions and worksheets. In this field, indicate
which level of data was used when making this evaluation. Generalize to the level of data used MOST OFTEN if
necessary.

Comments:

Methodology for the Assessment of Bioplastic Feedstocks - Version # 14

 BFA Executive Level Screening

Step 1: Identify crop and sourcing regions for particular crop

Step 2: Review each Feedstock for the following questions Result

1. Is this already a cultivated feedstock in these regions? Yes OR No
If no – Is the new feedstock known to be non-invasive? Yes OR No
2. In sourcing regions, can you legally source this feedstock? Yes OR No
3. In the sourcing region can you obtain this feedstock from sources that adhere to labor and
Yes OR No
Operational Health & Safety (OHS) regulations?
4. Identify key environmental problems with the feedstock. Key problems are those that cause
a severe or major and lasting impact on the environment and that are known to occur. List
them here or on an attached sheet. List mitigation systems / plans for each issue.
Potential Environmental Issues (list for reference)
 threatens/impacts local species and protected area (endangered species and local
biodiversity) directly and indirectly (e.g. land use change)
 increases the need for toxic chemicals (pest or nutrition management)
 increases the overall carbon footprint (crop per se or its co-product or waste)
 impairs the local ecosystem services directly and indirectly (e.g. land use change)
 deteriorates the local soil conditions due to the plantation or poor soil management
 pollutes the local water resources
 utilizes water from already water stressed area
Are there mitigation systems that are / will be used to address all the identified environmental
risks? If even one risk is missing a mitigation plan or system than NO must be marked. It is
highly unlikely that there are zero key problems with a feedstock, but if this is the case, answer
YES. Yes OR No
5. List known social and economic issues associated with this feedstock.
Potential Economic Issues (list for reference)
 increasing the price of dietary staples in developing countries
 low wages and unfair prices for farmers and laborers
 import tariffs
 impact on local, incumbent plastics’ technologies
 requires additional infrastructure investments
Potential Social Issues (list for reference)
 abuses to worker’s rights including unhealthy working conditions and informal child
labor
 policy targets that lead to human rights abuses
 impacts on land ownership and control
 processes used to acquire land
 impacts on social relationships (cooperation or conflict)
 livelihood activities displaced
 barriers to participation
 negative impacts on customary practices related to natural resource access or
management
 impacts on food security
Are there mitigation systems in place that can address these economic and social issues? If even
one risk is missing a mitigation plan or system than NO must be marked. Yes OR No
6. Are there recognized crop management systems (ex. RSB, Bonsucro) in these regions?
Yes OR No
If yes – Is the proposed production system compliant with or better than the recognized
Yes OR No
systems?
7. Can you verify that this region is not identified on the FAO Low Income Countries with a
Food Deficit list? http://www.fao.org/countryprofiles/lifdc/en/ Yes OR No
If no – Is it clear that this crop would not create food supply disruption or affect other Yes OR No
ecosystem services?
8. Does or will the cultivation of this feedstock maintain or increase food affordability in the
Yes OR No
region?
9. Is it clear that no critical ecosystems and high conservation value (HCV) habitats exist in the
Yes OR No
regions of crop cultivation?
If no – Is or will this crop be produced in a way which does not put any priority places at
Yes OR No
risk (direct and indirect)?

Methodology for the Assessment of Bioplastic Feedstocks - Version # 14

 10. Is there land in the region whose condition would be improved by the cultivation of this crop? Yes OR No

The ELS is designed to allow a user to identify high level risks at a very qualitative level. A “Yes” for each of
the ten questions indicates a higher likely hood of the particular feedstock as a viable solution and should be
SCORE
then considered for review at the BFA Survey level. A single “No” in itself may not be a reason to not move
forward, however “Yes Answers” provide higher confidence in the solution moving forward.

Methodology for the Assessment of Bioplastic Feedstocks - Version # 14

 BFA Survey Level Screening
ECOSYSTEM SERVICES GOALS: 3
Why Is It Important:
Human beings benefit from multi-dimensional resources that are supplied by nature. Nature provides society with ecosystem services such as water
and air purification, pest and disease control, primary food production and cultural and spiritual inspiration. Cultivating agricultural products for the
purposes of providing feedstocks for biofuel and bioplastics may interrupt the self-regulatory process and even disrupt the ability to do so from
natural ecosystem. The demand for water from the growing agricultural products may pose threats to other species in that ecosystem which may
cause degraded living conditions, migration, or even the extinction of those species in that given ecosystem. Similarly, pesticides may cause damage
to other living species populations in that ecosystem. Those threats may change the dynamic of species within the ecosystem and decrease the
populations of necessary species thereof, and thus lead to irreversible destructive situations for that given ecosystem and even the agricultural
products cultivated as feedstocks.

Although cultivating agricultural products as feedstocks for bioplastics may impair the ecosystem services, they may also be able to benefit the
ecosystem services. Many legumes, such as soybeans and peanuts, have the ability of fixing nitrogen from the atmosphere which can provide an
input channel for introducing nutrition for soil and therefore the ecosystem. Excess nitrogen in the soil may also be harmful for plant life and other
species in that ecosystem and cultivating agricultural crops as feedstocks for bioplastics should not impair the ecosystem services at that region. To
assess the direct and indirect impacts of feedstocks, identifying what the ecosystem services provides in the area and who the potential beneficiaries
are is necessary. Balancing the fact that some feedstocks can provide benefits for ecosystem services with the assurance of their total impact is vital.
Quantitative tools and methods may be required to assess the full impact of feedstocks on ecosystem services.

Metric Result Score Comment RISK?

What are the direct and indirect ecosystem services (ecological
processes beneficial to people) currently provided by this area?
For example, water yield, water quality, soil retention, soil
carbon storage, GHG mitigation, air quality, food, fuel, fiber
production, pest regulation, disease regulation, recreation (e.g., List Services N/A
hunting and fishing, wildlife viewing), biodiversity
conservation/loss, and other cultural and aesthetic services.
Could be thought of as “services” and “dis-services” in lieu of
baseline conditions.
1. Does or will the production of this feedstock disrupt access to
ecosystem services identified above? Yes = 0
Answer questions 1A only if you answered YES to this No = 3.80
question.
A. Have relevant beneficiaries of these ecosystem services
Yes= 1.87
been identified and engaged in order to identify their
No= 0
concerns?

2. Is or will the feedstock displace natural perennial vegetation?

Yes = 0
(In general, any shift of native perennial vegetation to an exotic
No = 1.82
monoculture results in substantial loss in ecosystem services.)

3. Is or will the feedstock be a perennial or an annual variety?

Perennial = 1.18
(In general, perennial crops have less of a negative impact on
Annual = 0
ecosystem services than annual monocultures.)
4. Are there existing Payment for Ecosystem Services, (PES)
schemes either in the region or for the crop that are relevant
Yes = 1.51
and are / will be replicated and/or other incentivizing
No =0
mechanisms that will be jointly implemented with relevant
government agencies and/or non-profits?
5. Does the project include a rigorous plan and committed
funding for the monitoring and evaluation of proposed
feedstock production strategy on key target ecosystem Yes = 1.69
services? No = 0
Adaptive management and cost-effectiveness of management
decisions.

__ /10 Add up total metric scores.

TOTAL SCORE
(10 Pts. Possible for each indicator)

Methodology for the Assessment of Bioplastic Feedstocks - Version # 14

 IDENTIFIED
If any of the metric scores highlight a risk it should be identified here.
RISKS

BFA recommends the use of the InVEST tool, Earth Genome Project tools, and/or similar tools to map and quantify
the biophysical and economic value of changes in ecosystem service provision to get a more detailed understanding
NEXT STEPS of the impacts from land-use change and the resultant tradeoffs to society.
Identify baseline services and known interactions with the crop.

Methodology for the Assessment of Bioplastic Feedstocks - Version # 14

 BFA Survey Level Screening
BIODIVERSITY GOALS: 2,4,5

Why Is It Important:
While land conversion has clear and obvious risks to biodiversity, feedstock production may threaten species and habitats through additional
direct and indirect pathways. Species of special concern may inhabit the project site, even if it has already been modified from its natural
condition, or they may use the site as a migration or dispersal corridor. Development of the area for feedstocks may imperil populations of such
species. Species and habitats occurring outside the project site may also be placed at risk from a number of threats emanating from it:
construction and operation of the project may result in the exploitation of off-site natural resources (including species) by project laborers;
activities currently in the project area may be displaced elsewhere, including nearby protected areas; invasive species may be introduced
intentionally or accidentally and spread beyond the project site; new infrastructure (e.g., roads, canals) may open up previously inaccessible areas
to settlement or exploitation; and downstream aquatic systems may be affected if a project alters hydrology or water quality (through erosion and
sediment load), including the introduction of agrochemical pollution (water-related risks are detailed further). Many of these risks can be
minimized through careful project design.

Under no circumstances should a feedstock expansion be permitted to take place within a recognized or proposed protected area or other
critical natural habitats. Indirect impacts to protected areas in proximity to the project site or in a shared watershed may also occur. Potential
impacts must be assessed as part of a detailed biodiversity assessment. Project design (e.g., the retention/establishment of buffer and riparian
protection zones) and management (e.g., use of integrated pest management) may be able to prevent or minimize indirect impacts to protected
areas.

Producing more does not automatically have to lead to a loss of biodiversity. In order to protect biodiversity and the quality of eco-systems in
general we need to reallocate agriculture land. Two examples are given below:

The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) was created in an effort to improve soil, water and wildlife
resources by encouraging and paying farmers to plant long-term resource-conserving cover plants on some lands. Farmers can receive annual
rental payments for planting permanent vegetation on their idle, highly erodible farmland. Contract duration is between 10 and 15 years.

In June 2001 another CRP program, called the Farmable Wetlands Pilot program was started to help restore the wetlands in Iowa, Minnesota,
Montana, Nebraska, and North and South Dakota. Healthy wetlands provide numerous ecosystem benefits, including reduction in downstream
flood damage potential, improved surface and groundwater quality, recharge of groundwater supplies and reduce nutrient (N and P) discharge to
surface water.

Metric Result Score Comment RISK?

1. Does or will feedstock cultivation directly affect or be in
close proximity (follow local legislation, or if lacking
consider areas upstream or adjacent to) to any protected Yes = 0
areas or areas designated as environmentally important by No = 0.87
national legislation or international conventions (e.g.
Ramsar, World Heritage Sites)?
2. Does or will feedstock cultivation affect any areas
identified as priorities for either biodiversity conservation or Yes = 0
cultural importance by local community members (e.g. No = 1.05
burial sites, sacred forests)?
3. Does or will the project increase access and/or activity, to
areas that were previously inaccessible or lacking Yes = 0
infrastructure? (e.g. build roads, trains, facilitate No = 0.95
movements on river networks)
Yes =
4. Does or will the feedstock cultivation land provide habitat
0.93
for native fauna? (Ex. pollinators, birds, aquatic species)
No = 0
5. Does or will feedstock cultivation or processing affect any
terrestrial species of concern (critically endangered,
endangered or vulnerable species per International Union for
Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List); rare or threatened
habitat types (details?); or nationally or internationally
recognized biological priorities? Yes = 0
No = 1.17
Consider the impacts of habitat conversion, disturbance, or
fragmentation, including disruption or fragmentation or
dispersal of migratory pathways and inclusion of species that
are non-native (invasive or genetically modified organism
(GMO)) to the larger region.

Methodology for the Assessment of Bioplastic Feedstocks - Version # 14

 Global threatened species are listed on: www.redlist.org;
national/regional threatened species can be found in that
country’s ministry of environment or equivalent.
For threatened habitats, should refer to country-level guidance.
6. Does or will feedstock cultivation or processing affect any
aquatic species of special concern (critically endangered,
endangered or vulnerable species per IUCN Red List)?
Aquatic covers both salt and fresh water. Consider the impacts Yes = 0
of downstream habitat conversion, disturbance, fragmentation, No = 1.16
water abstraction or water pollution and inclusion of species
that are non-native (invasive or GMO) to the larger region (ex.
coral reef ecosystems).
7. Is there the potential for unintended negative consequences
on natural resources (including animal species) in
Yes = 0
surrounding areas during project development or operation?
No = 0.82
(ex. night production effect on nocturnal species;
introduction of humans as predators)
8. Does or will feedstock cultivation or processing require the
Yes = 0
draining of wetlands or altering hydrological regimes? (ex.
No = 1.17
peat bogs, brackish water)
9. Are or will aquatic systems within feedstock cultivation site
be adequately buffered and protected from agricultural Yes =
activities? 0.97
No = 0
Detail buffer plans.
10. Did or will you create and implement a management plan
Yes =
for biodiversity management (species and habitat) to assure
0.91
that those of special concern and existing ecosystems are not
No = 0
adversely affected?

__ /10 Add up total metric scores.

TOTAL SCORE
(10 Pts. Possible for each indicator)

IDENTIFIED
If any of the metric scores highlight a risk it should be identified here.
RISKS

Verify that the project includes a rigorous plan and committed funding for the monitoring and
NEXT STEPS
evaluation of proposed crop production strategy and its impacts on biodiversity.

Methodology for the Assessment of Bioplastic Feedstocks - Version # 14

 BFA Survey Level Screening
CHEMICAL USE: Nutrients & Pest
Management
GOALS: 1,2,4,5

Why Is It Important:
Agrichemical use is a factor that may have multiple impacts on the environment, the health and well-being of the workers, as well as the local
community. In the case of plant nutrition products, soil and foliar analysis should be performed prior to any application, and a plant nutrition
expert should make the application recommendation. Agrochemicals can be properly used on site, judiciously and in a targeted fashion using
available expertise. There should be no use of hazardous agrochemicals listed as Classification I or II in the World Health Organization's
Recommended Classification of Pesticides by Hazard. Agrochemicals must be prepared and applied by trained personnel with appropriate
protective gear and in accordance with the law and producer guidelines—and not by children or pregnant women. Potential impacts on local
communities of chemical run-off and spraying must be assessed and managed.

In the case of pest control, a scouting program should exist to identify and monitor pest pressure, and physical, mechanical, or biological means
should be part of the strategy to reduce pest pressure and/or habitat that is host to pests prior to any pesticide application. Pesticides should be
reviewed for their relevant legal registrations and for their toxicity and environmental persistence. Criteria for selecting products should include
reducing overall toxicity for both aquatic and terrestrial organisms as well as overall efficacy. Records of all applications should be maintained.
Application technology should be appropriate and strive for accurate application, reduced drift, and increased safeguards against worker exposure.
Strict adherence to worker safety practices and re-entry intervals is a must.

Given the technical nature of pest control and the potential impacts these products may have on workers and the environment, it is important that
there be adequate technical support in terms of reviewing crop condition and making control recommendations. Appropriate selection of crop
protection products, precise application methodologies, and timely field monitoring can greatly reduce chemical applications.

Metric Result Score Comment RISK?

Nutrient Management
1. Are synthetic nutrients going to be used for this feedstock
in this region? Yes = 0
Answer questions 1A and 1B only if you answered Yes to No = 2.64
this question.
A. Are or will nutrient management systems be used for
the production of this feedstock that allow for
quantitative monitoring? Yes = 0.87
No = 0
Explain nutrient management of crop incl. amount, timing and
method (per hectare or acre).
B. Are or will there be t activities (crop rotation, buffer
zones, no-till, replacing chemicals w/ compost etc)
being done and considered effective to reduce the Yes = 1.01
amount of synthetic nutrients used? No = 0
If yes, list activities in comment column.
2. Are there future risks for this area that would increase the
need for or impact from nutrient use?
Consider major climate events, soil organic carbon content,
soil structure related to compaction, depth of the top layer of Yes = 0
soil related to erosion etc. No = 1.72
Answer question 2A only if you answered Yes to this
question.

A. Will mitigation activities be put in place to reduce No = 0

future risks of increased nutrient use? Yes = 0.87

Pest Management
3. Are regulated chemicals used for pest management on
this feedstock in this region?
Regulated signifies requirements for training, handling, Yes = 0
equipment etc. Use WHO Recommended Classification of No = 3.01
Pesticides and Guidelines 2009 for guidance on chemicals.
Answer questions 3A, 3B, and 3C only if you answered Yes
to this question.

Methodology for the Assessment of Bioplastic Feedstocks - Version # 14

 A. Are or will pest managements systems be used for this
feedstock in this region that allow for quantitative
monitoring?
Yes = 0.88
Include historical use of pest management chemicals – No = 0
amount, timing and method? (per hectare)
*NOTE: Verify that chemical quantities are not double
counted for both nutrient and pest management.
B. Are or will there be activities (pest confirmation before
application, parasitic insects or other examples of
Integrated Pest Management (IPM)) being done to Yes = 1.03
reduce the amount of regulated pesticides used? No = 0
If Yes, list activities.
C. Can you verify that none of the pesticides being used
are classified as either 1A or 1B on the World
Health Organization pesticide classification system
in use for this feedstock and that the production of this Yes = 1.10
feedstock compliant with World Bank Operational No = 0
Policy OP 4.09?
See APPENDIX A for World Bank Operational Policy OP
4.09.
4. Are there future risks for this area that would increase the
need for or impact from regulated pesticide use?
Consider pesticide resistance and mutation, new pests, Yes = 0
possibility for pests to be carriers for other destructive factors No = 1.74
etc.
Answer question 4A only if you answered Yes to this
question.
A. Will mitigation activities be put in place to reduce
future risks of increased pesticide use? Yes = 0.88
If yes, explain the activities. No = 0
Refer to NEXT STEPS for tools to plan mitigation activities.

__ /10 Add up total metric scores.

TOTAL SCORE
(10 Pts. Possible for each indicator)

IDENTIFIED
If any of the metric scores highlight a risk it should be identified here.
RISKS

Verify that the project includes a rigorous plan and committed funding for the monitoring and evaluation of
proposed crop production chemical use strategy and its impacts.
NEXT STEPS BFA recommends that the user verifies that site abides by EPA (EPCRA) Hazardous Chemical Storage Reporting
Requirements.
See APPENDIX A for EPCRA explanation.

Methodology for the Assessment of Bioplastic Feedstocks - Version # 14

 BFA Survey Level Screening
Co-Product & Waste Management GOALS: 1,2,5

Why Is It Important:
Feedstock processing sites generate many different types of co-products and waste products that can be used to generate electricity (bagasse in
sugarcane, fiber and nutshell in palm oil), as waste products that have high nutritional values and can be used as animal feed or other products, or
as soil amendments to improve structure and characteristics of the soil. Utilizing those co-products and waste can provide many environmental
and economic benefits. For example, the production of electricity with these co-products can reduce the overall energy inputs into the process,
thereby impacting the environmental profile of the process. Therefore, in order to maximize environmental benefits, it is important that these co-
products and processes are incorporated into the processing model. In many cases, these benefits are needed to make the overall carbon balance
negative.

Cogeneration at the processing mill represents an important opportunity for feedstock production. Cogeneration is a viable technology for many
feedstocks. Currently, not all sites have the necessary cogeneration capacity to burn the crop’s residue for electricity generation. Furthermore, the
existing cogeneration is not universally efficient. For example, in 2008, Datagro (Datagro 2008) estimated that the typical sugarcane mill of Brazil
that cogenerates electricity with bagasse utilizes 550 to 600 kg of low-pressure steam to crush one metric ton of sugarcane. More advanced
technology uses between 380 and 420 kg of steam per metric ton of sugarcane (Datagro 2008). The implementation of this improved technology
represents as much as a 36% increase in efficiency. Even with the development of new technology, the Brazilian situation is evolving so rapidly
that the environmental profile of sugar cane is now updated more or less every two years. It is for this reason that it is important to address co-
products for each situation being considered.

Besides considering a feedstocks carbon footprint as the one of the environmental indicators, there are additional environmental improvements to
be made by using processing residues as agricultural inputs. In the case of sugarcane, the filter cake and vinasse (or stillage) can supplant the use
of a significant amount of chemical fertilizer and urea which alleviate the burden of managing chemicals use. In Brazil, it is estimated that using
vinasse and filter cake as soil amendments avoids the use of 1,449,010 metric tons of chemical fertilizers (Datagro 2008). Furthermore, in palm oil
extraction mills, similar opportunities exist, and with efficient boilers, excess electricity can be produced for the national grid, and palm oil mill
effluent (POME) can be used to generate methane gas for fuel or can also be applied in the field as a nutritional supplement.

Waste management systems for processing facilities should be reviewed. These systems should include all solid and liquid wastes, whether from a
primary process or from a peripheral co-product process.

Metric Result Score Comment RISK?

1. Does or will production and initial processing of this
feedstock produce usable co-products that substitute
current resource use for a net environmental benefit? (ex. Yes = 2.00
Electricity generation) No = 0
List co-products and their uses, residues used as soil
conditioners and stabilizers are considered co-products.
2. Does the proposed use of this feedstock increase the
efficiency of the cropping system? (i.e. is the feedstock a
waste product that will become a co-product, or a more
Yes = 1.19
efficient use of a current co-product?)
No = 0
Verify that the proposed change is a net environmental benefit,
consider whether the new use interferes with traditional uses
such as fodder, local fuel, or soil conditioner.
3. Have you verified that the current or proposed rate of
feedstock residue removal from the field does not have a
negative impact on soil quality or stability?
The amount of residue that can be removed without negatively Yes = 1.19
affecting soil is dependent on the feedstock and local No = 0
conditions, including soil composition and geography. The
optimal amount should be determined at the local level. If you
are not removing crop residue from the field, answer YES.
4. Is biomass (any part of the feedstock or its residue) being
disposed of instead of being utilized as a co-product?
Yes = 0
Crop residue left on the field for soil stabilization and material
No = 3.79
that is re-incorporated into the cultivation process (i.e. soil
conditioner etc.) should not be considered waste.
5. Have all waste flows been identified and a management
plan for their proper disposal been implemented? Yes = 1.83
Consider not just biomass but all waste flows. List waste flows No = 0
and their disposal methods.

Methodology for the Assessment of Bioplastic Feedstocks - Version # 14

 A. Are there negative environmental impacts
associated with the waste disposal methods Yes = 0
above? No = 2.26
Explain impacts.

TOTAL SCORE __ /10 Add up total metric scores. (10 Pts. Possible for each indicator)

IDENTIFIED
If any of the metric scores highlight a risk it should be identified here.
RISKS
Verify that the project includes a rigorous plan and committed funding for the monitoring and evaluation of
proposed crop production strategy and its impacts on co-product and waste management.
NEXT STEPS BFA recommends the application of the ISO 14044 methodology for dealing with multiple output processes to do a
more complete assessment of the management of co-products and waste.

Methodology for the Assessment of Bioplastic Feedstocks - Version # 14

 BFA Survey Level Screening
FOOD SECURITY GOALS: 3
Why Is It Important:
The World Food Summit of 1996 defined food security as existing “when all people at all times have access to sufficient, safe, nutritious food to
maintain a healthy and active life”. Food security is often defined as including both physical and economic access to food that meets people's
dietary needs as well as their food preferences. According to the World Health Organization, food security is built on three pillars:
 Food availability: sufficient quantities of food available on a consistent basis.
 Food access: having sufficient resources to obtain appropriate foods for a nutritious diet.
 Food use: appropriate use based on knowledge of basic nutrition and care, as well as adequate water and sanitation.
Food security is a complex sustainable development issue, linked to health through malnutrition, but also to sustainable economic development,
environment, and trade. (WHO)

Today, the most widely used raw materials to produce bioplastics are sugar and starch. Although industry can transform many kinds of cellulosic
based raw materials such as agricultural residues and woods into sugars at current stage of industrial development, bioplastics are mainly
produced from 1st generation feedstocks such as corn, sugar cane and sugar beet. The first generation technology used should be considered as a
critical bridging tool for the 2nd and 3rd generation technologies based on cellulosic and direct utilization of CO2 in fermentation. Today the
bioplastics industry is so small that its impact on food security is negligible. If the bioplastics industry is growing and keeps using food crops
measures should be in place to secure food security. To avoid this competition with food it is of key importance to further develop and implement
2nd and 3rd generation technologies. Utilizing those commodities to produce bioplastics may steer food commodities from being consumed as
food and/or feed for live stocks into feedstocks to produce bioplastics. Large scale use of food for bioplastics may put an extra burden on food
insecure areas. Furthermore, the food displacement may directly lead to increased land use and elevated prices for all agricultural sectors due to
the intrinsic intertwined relations in the agricultural commodity market.

Although it is critical to identify the impact of food displacement, understanding the implications of food displacement can be extremely
complicated, and the cause and effect may not be readily apparent or may be difficult to identify especially at a local level. This is an issue that
requires assessment and understanding of crop conversion implications and the cause and effect of the changes. For purposes of the
methodology, local and regional changes are contemplated, but policy makers should be aware that the implications/impacts of these changes
extend far beyond local ones. This is an area that requires a careful assessment and evaluation prior to making a decision.

World Health Organization, Food Security, http://www.who.int/trade/glossary/story028/en/

Scor
Metric Result Comment RISK?
e
1. Is this region identified on the FAO Low Income Countries
Yes = 0
with a Food Deficit list?
No = 0.91
http://www.fao.org/countryprofiles/lifdc/en/
2. Is this particular feedstock a dietary staple for the
communities in this area? (FAO stat database) Yes = 0
Answer questions 2A, 2B, and 2C only if you answered Yes to No = 3.84
this question.
A. If it is a dietary staple, is the part of the crop used for
bioplastics used for food consumption? Yes = 0
Identify portion used for bioplastic and portion used for food No = 1.06
consumption.
B. Are there additional dietary staple crops being produced in
this area besides this crop? Yes = 0.87
No = 0
Identify additional dietary staples.
C. Is this feedstock a dietary staple and a part of a crop
Yes = 0
rotation typically and therefore not produced every
No = 0.90
season?
3. Does or will the increased demand on this feedstock affect Yes = 0
food prices? No = 1.16
4. Does or will the transfer of land for increased production
Yes = 0
create a food security issue? (ie land previously used for
No = 1.20
food – moved to non-food production)
5. Over the past 5 years, how many instances have occurred
where crop production fell more than 10% per capita?
(question asked to understand potential for future events) ≤ 2 = 0.98
≥3=0
Identify crops affected. Is the feedstock being assessed at risk for
these events?

Methodology for the Assessment of Bioplastic Feedstocks - Version # 14

 6. Is there an option for additional crops from other regions or
food stores to supplement the feedstock used for bioplastic? Yes = 0.86
This becomes a question of economics, available infrastructure No = 0
and logistics.
7. Does or will increased production efficiencies from
cultivation of this feedstock help to increase or maintain
current food availability from this feedstock? Yes = 1.05
Consider if it is possible and achievable to divert this feedstock No = 0
for food use in the event of a shortage as well as effects on
regional land use.

__ /10 Add up total metric scores.

TOTAL SCORE
(10 Pts. Possible for each indicator)

IDENTIFIED
If any of the metric scores highlight a risk it should be identified here.
RISKS
Verify that the project includes a rigorous plan and committed funding for the monitoring and evaluation of proposed
crop production strategy and its impacts on food security.
NEXT STEPS IPC Acute Food Insecurity Reference Table for Household Groups
http://www.fews.net/ml/en/info/pages/scale.aspx

Methodology for the Assessment of Bioplastic Feedstocks - Version # 14

 BFA Survey Level Screening
CRADLE to GATE GHG GOALS: 2 ,5

Why Is It Important:
A methodology for greenhouse gas accounting needs to be identified and used consistently in order to ensure a dependable assessment of GHG
emissions can be achieved, allowing for meaningful comparisons across feedstock production systems. This is a critical component for
developing a consistent and meaningful metric.

Overall product decisions need to be based on all life cycle emissions not just cradle to gat. The scope of this methodology is only Cradle to Gate,
it is important to consider this aspect of the survey as a piece of your overall life cycle assessment. A project feasibility and GHG life cycle
assessment should be conducted by qualified assessors to fully document not only the economic viability of the overall project, but also evaluate
the GHG balance from both the production of the biomass as well as the downstream processing, taking into account factors such as direct and
indirect land conversion (to our best scientific knowledge), agricultural inputs, energy requirements, transportation, end use, by-product use, and
waste streams. A rigorous and credible assessment determining the net GHG balance should be an essential aspect of all feedstock proposals.
Without this assessment, the project’s benefits are questionable.

Ideally the fertilizer, energy, transportation, processing inputs, and land use change impacts will be neutral or negative from a carbon standpoint.
Clearly, achieving at least carbon neutrality within the scope of land use to farm gate is an indication of the potential for success downstream in
carbon reductions. This will vary depending on the nature of the crop.

Crop production practices contribute to GHG emissions. Practices such as pre-harvest burning, soil tillage, excessive nitrogen applications, and
irrigation are all elements that must be considered as they impact emissions and so project viability. Nitrogen use and GHG accounting need to be
monitored closely.

Metric Result Score Comment RISK?

Biogenic CO2 uptake and emissions should be accounted for and reported separately from non-biogenic uptake and emissions as per the GHG
Protocol or upcoming ISO 14067 standards in a transparent and in a well-documented manner. Whether using the GHG Protocol, IPCC’s Global
Warming Potential, or the ISO 14067 standard, consistency in the choice of methodology across feedstocks is a must for comparability. The user
should identify the method of choice and provide transparency in assumptions by completing a meta data table (see attached). In certain cases this
will lead to “negative” GHG values in a cradle-to-gate assessment reflecting environmental reality at that point in the life cycle. Users of cradle-
to-gate data generated with this approach will subsequently be able to model true end-of-life fate and associated release of biogenic as well as
non-biogenic carbon in the context of the intended application as well as with respect to regional specificities in terms of available infrastructure
and technology for recovery and disposal.
Industry average data is acceptable for country of origin at this tier of the methodology; however, it may not be representative of the local
conditions.
For non-conventional crops (feedstock not previously grown in region or for that purpose or industrially grown), the BFA recommends using
experimental or small scale data vs. industrially validated peer reviewed data.
Functional Unit Definition: 1 kg of biomass
See APPENDIX A for ISO 14044 and ISO 14067
1. After evaluating, are the combined
biogenic and non-biogenic (fossil) Industry
GHG emissions for this crop negative, Negative Avg data
neutral or positive at the farm gate? Neutral See score use is an
Consider crop uptake of CO2 as well as Positive identified
chart for
fossil emissions from cultivation equipment, risk.
worksheet
agricultural chemicals, etc. score
Local Data
2. How representative is the data you are
Regional Data
assessing?
Country Data

Scoring Table: find the cell that represents your answers to questions 1 and 2 above. This is your score for the GHG
worksheet.
Local Data Regional Data Country Level Data
Negative 10 7.69 5.39
Neutral 7.32 5.01 2.70
Positive 0 0 0

__ /10 Add up total metric scores.

TOTAL SCORE
(10 Pts. Possible for each indicator)
Methodology for the Assessment of Bioplastic Feedstocks - Version # 14
 IDENTIFIED
If any of the metric scores highlight a risk it should be identified here.
RISKS

If the GHG assessment was completed using industry average data or broad assumptions, there is an inherent risk in
moving forward with the chosen feedstock. Due to the limited scope of this Methodology, the information produced
by this GHG Cradle to Gate assessment should be included and refined to contribute to the overall Life Cycle
Assessment of the bioplastic product in consideration.
Links to the calculation methods and tools can be found here:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-10-2.html
http://www.ghgprotocol.org/
NEXT STEPS http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=59521
NOTE Regarding Indirect Land Use Change (ILUC) – it was discussed and agreed that although there are many
methods for measuring and assessing ILUC, there is not globally agreed method. It was the concern of the BFA is to
commit to one before they are all scientifically vetted. In the mean time because we value the risk of ILUC, we still
feel this needs to be qualitatively addresses in the methodology until a methodology for measuring it can be agreed
upon. As this is a living document we will adjust the methodology as better science guides us. This qualitative
assessment of ILUC will be included under the Land Use Change INDICATOR.

Below is an example of a table that could be included with the feedstock LCA to help determine the fundamental building blocks of the LCA quickly
and easily.

Primary product Bio-based PX Functional Unit Mass, kg of PX

from corn starch

Co-product(s) Bio-Based System Cradle to Gate: Input material production (fertilizer,

Gasoline Boundary: (included pesticide, fossil fuels, electricity, yeast, enzymes,
unit processes) chemicals), depreciable capital, transportation,
Allocation avoidance Sub-division, agricultural production, PX production (liquefaction,
method(s) system expansion hydrolysis, catalytic conversion, etc)

Allocation method(s) Mass ratio,

economic ratio
Impact category GHG Intensity: net mass g CO2eq/kg of PX
metric(s)
PM2.5 emissions: mass g PM2.5/kg of PX

Methodology for the Assessment of Bioplastic Feedstocks - Version # 14

 BFA Survey Level Screening
LABOR RIGHTS GOALS: 1

Why Is It Important:
Crop labor requirements, depending on the region and the crop, may vary considerably, from having labor needs on a full-year basis to having
intensive seasonal needs for a short period, such as harvesting. Many crops for producing biofuels and bioplastics can be cultivated in the
developing countries and regions. Brazil and Argentina, for example, are the main producers and exporters of agricultural commodities such as
sugar cane and soybean. Some of these developing countries may have labor rights issues like child labor or forced and bonded labor. These issues
can be more frequent in the case of agriculture work due to the relatively low requirement for workers’ education and skill levels.

In the case of having high seasonal needs and poor labor availability locally, the producers must bring in migrant workers from other regions, and
this also requires providing adequate housing, health facilities, education, etc. This may lead to substandard living conditions for workers and their
families. The optimal scenario, from a social standpoint, is to have minor, if any, seasonality in the crop production, which allows for a full-time
and stable labor force, and to have a labor force that is already living in the region. This scenario places fewer stresses on the local communities---
from not having migrants and temporary workers to providing year-round employment.

The long-term sustainability of any agricultural venture must contemplate full compliance with local labor law and the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, at a minimum. Evaluating compliance with labor rights is not an easy task, even in the best of circumstances. Many of the issues are
not necessarily specific to just one workplace or industry, but may be a reflection of national circumstances. NGO’s and others can provide valuable
input into this assessment and can help highlight key concerns that one may have with regard to workplace practices in a particular region or
industry, and they should be consulted. Many of these issues are extremely complicated, and for this reason, seeking appropriate guidance is
recommended.

Metric Result Score Comment RISK?

1. Does or will the production of this crop meet the following
labor right standards?
a) Child Labor: ILO Conventions 138 and 182, Recommendation 146
b) United Nations Convention on Rights of the Child
c) Slave and Bonded Labor: ILO Conventions 29 and 105 Yes to All = 2.45
d) Freedom of Association: ILO Conventions 87, 11 and 98
e) Equal Pay and Discrimination: ILO Conventions 100 and 111 No To Any = 0
f) Universal Declaration on Human Rights
g) SA8000 Standard
(If this is for new production, score for likelihood of new site to comply)
See Appendix A Regulatory Definitions
2. Will or does the project increase employment or, through
Increase = 2.10
substitution, reduce employment in the region?
Neutral = 1.05
(Referring to long term production employment not site
Reduce = 0
establishment.)
3. Do or will all workers including those employed by Yes = 1.68
subcontractors have contracts? No = 0
4. Will or does the project accommodate worker composition by Primarily Local = 1.82
either supporting local labor when available or enabling a Migrant w/Support = 1.82 Need to define “support”
migrant work force if necessary? Migrant w/o Support = 0
5. Is the local social infrastructure sufficient to address the
Yes = 1.95
needs of the labor force (health care, education, housing,
No = 0
etc.)?

__ /10 Add up total metric scores.

TOTAL SCORE
(10 Pts. Possible for each indicator)

IDENTIFIED
If any of the metric scores highlight a risk it should be identified here.
RISKS

BFA recommends the user to look as close to farm level as possible for compliance and work with producers to include
in labor codes along with audit or 3rd party review. Listed here are potential 3 rd party organizations who could verify
labor standard practices: Fair Labor Association, Human Rights Watch, International Labour Conference's Committee
NEXT STEPS on the Application of Standards (part of United Nations’ International Labour Organization), International Labor Rights
Forum, Institute for Global Labour and Human Rights, Worldwide Responsible Accredited Production (WRAP),
Student/Farmworker Alliance, Worker Rights Consortium

Methodology for the Assessment of Bioplastic Feedstocks - Version # 14

 BFA Survey Level Screening
LAND USE CHANGE IMPACTS GOALS: 1,2,4,5

Why Is It Important:
The selection of land for feedstock production can have significant impact on the ability to achieve the climate change goals of bioplastic
production as well as the minimization of environmental and biodiversity impacts. Given the expansion of agricultural land use to meet biofuel
and food and fiber production, enormous pressure has been placed on areas rich in biodiversity and of conservation value. By discounting these
attributes, the expansion into a particular feedstock may negate any climate change benefit and, in fact, increases the likelihood of further climatic
and environmental impacts. The project site must not include the conversion of any natural habitats such as forests, grasslands, peat lands, or
other wetlands as part of the production area. As discussed in “Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases through Emissions
from Land Use Change” by Timothy Searchinger, to reduce GHG emissions, the land use change must increase the carbon benefit of the land.
“…to generate greenhouse benefits, the carbon generated on land to displace fossil fuels (the carbon uptake credit) must exceed the carbon storage
and sequestration given up directly or indirectly by changing land uses (the emissions from land use change).”

Many of the criticisms of the biofuels expansion have to do with land use changes which lead to large land conversions of areas rich in
biodiversity that act as valuable carbon sinks. This factor has put countries such as Indonesia among the highest carbon emitters in the
world (Indonesia now ranking third) as vast extensions of tropical rainforest have been cleared for producing pulp and palm oil, rich carbon
sinks such as peat lands have been drained, and many species have been driven towards extinction due to lost habitat. Should a project require
such land conversion, it should not be approved.

As summarized in the recent Gallagher Review: “…the balance of evidence shows a significant risk that current policies will lead to net
greenhouse gas emissions and the loss of biodiversity through habitat destruction. This includes the effects arising from the conversion of
grassland for cropland.” It is for this reason that idle and marginal lands should be investigated for feedstock production. While the issue of
defining degraded, abandoned, marginal, and idle land has been the topic of debate and discussion, for the purposes of this methodology, marginal
lands are defined as underutilized or idle agricultural lands that have economic production potential and require minimal conversion for
establishing the crop in question.

The best case scenario to reduce feedstock production impacts on biodiversity and food production would be to promote projects on underutilized
agricultural lands that are currently not being used for any agricultural activity and are suitable for the feedstock crop in question. This approach
would limit or negate the food displacement issue both locally and globally, reduce pressures on existing natural habitats, minimize biodiversity
loss, and the land conversion would most likely be positive from a carbon sequestration standpoint. Many such lands may be perfectly adequate
for feedstock production as some of the crops are tolerant of a wide range of soil types and conditions. Understanding previous land use and the
suitability of the soils is critical in making a judgment.

While marginal lands may be attractive as their conversion does not represent major carbon emissions, it should be noted that these lands may
harbor biodiversity or have social value, and these assessments need to be carried out. While there may be millions of available hectares of land
that had previously been deforested and then left idle, these areas may have settlers or play a role as a wildlife migratory corridor or protected
zone.

Searchinger, T, R Heimlich, RA Hought, F Dong, A Elobeid, J Fabiosa, S Tokgoz, D Hayes, and T H Yu. 2008 Use of US croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change.
Science, 1126, p 1238-1240
Gallagher, Ed, The Gallagher Review of the indirect effects of biofuels production, Executive Summary, Renewable Fuels Agency, page 9. July 2008
Joint International Workshop on High Nature Value Criteria and Potential for Sustainable Use of Degraded Lands, Paris, June 30-July 1, 2008: Issue Paper: Degraded Land and Sustainable Bioenergy Feedstock
Production

Metric Result Score Comment RISK?

1. Does the establishment of this feedstock require the
conversion of natural ecosystems, critical natural habitats, Yes = 0
or carbon sinks to crop land (e.g. forests, peat lands, No = 3.06
wetlands, grasslands)?
2. Does or will the production of this feedstock maintain the
Yes = 2.43
current use of the land or represent an improved use of that
No = 0
land (ex. Using marginal or degraded lands)?
3. Reflecting on the above questions and identified impacts on
Ecosystem Services Datasheet, if demand increases on this
feedstock in the future, what is the likely hood of any of the Low = 2.46
identified impacts becoming problematic? High = 0
Identify issues.
4. Does or will the post change land use add net long term
social or environmental value to the community that was not Yes = 2.05
available previously? No = 0
Identify added value.

Methodology for the Assessment of Bioplastic Feedstocks - Version # 14

 __ /10 Add up total metric scores.
TOTAL SCORE
(10 Pts. Possible for each indicator)

IDENTIFIED
If any of the metric scores highlight a risk it should be identified here.
RISKS

Verify that the project includes a rigorous plan and committed funding for the monitoring and evaluation of
NEXT STEPS proposed crop production strategy and its impacts on land use change.

NOTE Regarding Indirect Land Use Change (ILUC) – The BFA membership discussed and agreed that
although there are many methods for measuring and assessing ILUC, there is no globally agreed-upon method or one that
is technically sophisticated enough. It was a concern of the BFA is to commit to one before they are all scientifically
vetted. In the mean time because we value the risk of ILUC, we still feel this needs to be qualitatively addresses in the
methodology until a methodology for measuring it can be agreed upon. As this is a living document and we will adjust
the methodology as better science guides us. That said, if the user has the data and the capability to quantitatively assess
ILUC, it should be assessed as thoroughly as possible.

Methodology for the Assessment of Bioplastic Feedstocks - Version # 14

 BFA Survey Level Screening
LEGAL PRODUCTION GOALS: 1
Why Is It Important:
Cultivating crops for the use of feedstocks for biofuels and bioplastics requires land and labor which may potentially pose legal
issues. The land being used may not be intended to be used as agricultural land; therefore, it is not compliant with the local zoning
law. In addition, because of the urbanization progress of many developing countries and regions, the intended agricultural land may
not comply with the current and future land use plans for that given area. Utilizing land to cultivate crops could also involve land
acquisition. This process shall have general consensus from all the stakeholders, like the local government, nearby farmers, and
people from local community. Business or agricultural practices should not continue with the major disproval from any of the
stakeholders even if the practices per se comply with the local and national laws and plans.

Potential legality issues in regards to labor practices also need to be taken into consideration when planning to acquire or utilize
land for feedstocks crops. Issues in sourcing, minority rights, and appropriate resettlement and economic displacement policies
exist in many countries, especially developing countries where a large amount of feedstocks crops and commodities come from.
Therefore, it is rather important to conduct a comprehensive study on them.

This is a complicated issue, the variation in business and agricultural practices along with those regionally specific legal concerns,
makes it pivotal to lead a complete study on land and labor issues before the beginning of business and agricultural investments.
Additionally, further assurance that all the products are produced/harvested and traded in compliance with all applicable local,
national, and ratified international laws and regulations is vital.

Metric Result Score Comment RISK?

1. Is or will the feedstock production compliant with
Yes =
international and local laws, regarding zoning and land use
2.10
plans?
No = 0
2. Is or will the feedstock production compliant with
Yes =
international and local laws, regarding water, air, and soil
2.25
emissions?
No = 0
3. Is or will the feedstock production be compliant with the
World Bank resettlement and economic displacement
Yes =
policies, including Operational Policy on Indigenous People
2.02
4.10 and Involuntary Resettlement 4.12?
No = 0
See APPENDIX A for regulatory definitions and further
guidance.
4. Is local governance of feedstock production in accordance Yes =
with Minority Rights in International Law? 2.08
See APPENDIX A for regulatory definitions. No = 0
5. Do you have internal company processes in place to address
Yes =
future changes in the legal and regulatory landscape and a
1.56
mechanism to audit the supplier to ensure continued
No = 0
compliance? Explain.
__ /10 Add up total metric scores.
TOTAL SCORE
(10 Pts. Possible for each indicator)

IDENTIFIED
If any of the metric scores highlight a risk it should be identified here.
RISKS

Verify that the project includes a rigorous plan and committed funding for the monitoring and evaluation of
proposed crop production strategy and its impacts on legality.
NEXT STEPS BFA recommends the user to look as close to farm level as possible for compliance and work with producers to
include audits or 3rd party review.

Methodology for the Assessment of Bioplastic Feedstocks - Version # 14

 BFA Survey Level Screening
LOCAL AND/OR INDIGENOUS
GOALS: 3,4
PEOPLE
Why Is It Important:
Local and/or Indigenous Communities describes the people who live in the areas where the crop feedstock is being produced. Sometimes when
commercial production of a crop comes into a new area, it can displace available ecosystem resources or services that were historically used as
part of the commons. For example, utilizing water to cultivate crops may deprive local community from using it as drinking source. In addition,
developing land for feedstock crops may raise the concerns for social and cultural issues. As excerpted from the 2050 Criteria, ‘The rights of local
people are respected, which can be assessed by: demonstrated and no-contested rights to utilize the land and recognition of and respect for other
legal or customary rights; negotiations with indigenous people based on FPIC (Free, Prior, and informed Consent); as well as other potential
measures. Issues of gender representation, representation of traditionally marginalized groups, health and clean water, resource diversion and
scarcity, ecosystem services, and potential impacts on livelihoods and smallholders, are considered and structured into consultations. Engagement
and dispute resolution processes and instances are fully transparent’.

With the rapid expansion of many of the crops for feedstocks, the rights of local communities, landholders, indigenous cultures and communities,
and subsistence farmers are at greater risk of being violated. In order to ensure the well-being of the local communities, the land acquisition
process must include free, prior, and informed consultation with participation and support by all stakeholders involved. Ongoing conflict or
uncertainty over land and resource tenure can seriously undermine the viability and, therefore, the sustainability of the project, as well as the
project’s ability to contribute to poverty reduction. If there is no credible evidence that the land and/or resources were acquired in an open and
transparent fashion and if there are significant unresolved disputes over the land, the project should not be approved.

World Wildlife Fund. The 2050 Criteria: Guide to Responsible Investment in Agricultural, Forest, and Seafood Commodities. Report, 2012

Metric Result Score Comment RISK?

1. Does or will the production of this feedstock have a negative
impact on the access to material (ex. physical resources) or Yes = 0
immaterial (ex. Sense of community, innovation, intellectual No = 1.12
capital) resources for local and/or indigenous communities?
2. Does or will the production of this feedstock result in
delocalization or migration for local and/or indigenous Yes = 0
communities? No = 1.17
Delocalization: To remove from a native or usual locality.
3. Does or will the production of this feedstock have a negative
Yes = 0
impact on the cultural heritage or respect of indigenous rights for
No = 1.11
local and/or indigenous communities?
4. Does or will the production of this feedstock provide local Yes = 0.98
employment for local and/or indigenous communities? No = 0
5. Does or will the production of this feedstock maintain or
Yes = 1.11
improve the secure living conditions for local women and men
No = 0
including indigenous communities?
6. Does or will the production of this feedstock maintain fair Yes = 0.99
market prices for local crops? No = 0
7. Are there potential impacts from production that will / do
negatively affect the safe & healthy living conditions for local Yes = 0
and /or indigenous communities? (ex. effluent, air emissions and No = 1.24
pollution, drinking water) List potential impacts.
8. Was there or will there be Free, Prior and Informed Consent
(FPIC) in changing the use of this land? (Whether or not it is
Yes = 1.22
specifically called FPIC, this is the principle that a community
has the right to give or withhold its consent to proposed projects
No = 0
through participation and influence on decisions that may affect
the lands they customarily own, occupy or otherwise use)
9. Will or does the production site meet ILO Convention 169 –
Indigenous and Tribal People Convention, Convention Yes = 1.06
concerning indigenous and tribal peoples in Independent Unknown = 0
Countries? No = 0
See APPENDIX A for ILO Convention 169

__/10 Add up total metric scores.

TOTAL SCORE
(10 Pts. Possible for each indicator)

Methodology for the Assessment of Bioplastic Feedstocks - Version # 14

 IDENTIFIED
If any of the metric scores highlight a risk it should be identified here.
RISKS
Verify that the project includes a rigorous plan and committed funding for the monitoring and evaluation of
NEXT STEPS proposed crop production strategy and its impacts on local and indigenous communities.

Methodology for the Assessment of Bioplastic Feedstocks - Version # 14

 BFA Survey Level Screening
OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH &
GOALS: 1
SAFETY

Why Is It Important:
Agriculture ranks as one of the most hazardous industries. Workers can be exposed to toxic chemicals, heavy machinery, and the work itself in
many cases is physically demanding. These potential risks may increase when the business and agricultural practices occur in developing
countries and regions where local laws may have relatively lower health and safety standards for such occupations. The amount of agricultural
chemicals used for cultivating feedstock crops should be considered as an important factor for occupational health. Additionally, business entities
should evaluate whether the agricultural labor practices, such as harvesting and processing of crops, will pose any additional physical threats to
workers. Whether those processes will involve heavy machinery and whether workers have been through safety training for machinery work are
all essential queries that businesses and agricultural entities should ask before any production begins. In areas where heavy machinery is not
applicable and hand harvesting is common, the operation shall also assess the overall physical impact of these practices on the human body. When
the instability of the local political environment threatens the health and safety of the workers, it is necessary for businesses and agricultural
entities to carefully evaluate the issues. Further evaluation may identify that the cultivation of feedstock crop may have the potential to stabilize
the local community through increased employment and local infrastructure. The balance of the above implications of production is important in
meeting the needs of the labor force.

Overall, it is critical that the operation have a comprehensive health and safety program that not only trains the workers on the health and safety
aspects of their jobs, but also proactively seeks to reduce accident risk through risk assessments, investigation of causes of accidents, and seeking
worker and labor representatives’ input into process improvements that reduce worker risk.

Metric Result Score Comment RISK?

1. Does the production of this feedstock pose potential worker
safety issues? (high agro chemical use, low tech or Yes = 0
unregulated harvesting practices, unsafe working No = 2.40
conditions)
Hand = 0
2. Will or does the harvesting and processing of this feedstock
Both = 0.69
be mechanized or done by hand?
Mech. = 1.38
Yes = 0
3. Is there active political unrest in this area?
No = 1.92
Yes = 2.10
4. Is medical care accessible to the work force in this region?
No = 0
5. Will or does production comply with ILO Convention 184
Yes = 2.19
– regarding Safety and Health in Agriculture Convention?
No = 0
See APPENDIX for regulatory definitions

__ /10 Add up total metric scores.

TOTAL SCORE
(10 Pts. Possible for each indicator)

IDENTIFIED
If any of the metric scores highlight a risk it should be identified here.
RISKS

BFA recommends that once the farm level production site is known that it is a requirement for the operation to have
a comprehensive health and safety program that not only trains the workers on the health and safety aspects of their
NEXT STEPS jobs, but also proactively seeks to reduce accident risk through risk assessments, investigation of causes of
accidents, and seeking worker and labor representatives’ input into process improvements that reduce worker risk.

Methodology for the Assessment of Bioplastic Feedstocks - Version # 14

 BFA Survey Level Screening
SOIL MANAGEMENT GOALS: 2,3,4,5

Why Is It Important:
Loss of topsoil is a key threat to sustainable agriculture. Globally, soils are being lost at an alarming rate, and the loss of soil organic matter is
currently one of the greatest sources of carbon emission. Methods to reduce and mitigate soil erosion include practices such as conservation and
no till sowing, cover crops or groundcover, buffer zones, and sediment traps. Another key practice to mitigate soil erosion is the reincorporation
of organic matter, crop stubble, or organic process waste. These practices increase soil carbon, providing a positive benefit in net carbon balance.
An overall management plan should be developed around the maintenance and improvement of soil organic content. There is extensive research
highlighting the productivity benefits of implementing these practices and the importance of soil organic matter.

Metric Result Score Comment RISK?

1. What is the current soil condition for the region in Underutilized and
question? Degraded = 1.36
Verify that the net benefit of the new use of land is better Healthy = 0.68
than the old use. At risk = 0
2. Will / are soil management practices be utilized in this
region for production of this feedstock? (ex. No Till, Soil
Amendments, frequency of soil tests, use of compost) Yes = 1.33
Detail the practices. No = 0
Answer question 2A only if you answered Yes to this
question.
A. Is there a certification or standard in place that
Yes= 1.15
incentivizes adherence to these soil management
No = 0
practices?
3. Do the local producers have access to soil best
management practices and expertise for that region? Yes = 2.80
Answer question 3A only if you answered No to this No = 0
question.
A. If local practices or expertise are not available, can
and will you bring that in to the region via Yes= 1.32
consultant or training programs to educate farmers No= 0
on better soil management practices?
4. Taking into consideration the climate, soil, topography
Increase = 1.71
and land use to produce this feedstock in this region,
Neutral = 0.85
what is the potential to increase or decrease the soil
Decrease = 0
health (ex. Erosion or added nutrients)? Explain.
5. Can and will you install a system that incentivizes
adherence to good soil management practices reducing Yes = 1.65
feedstock production impacts on soil health? List No = 0
activities.

__ /10 Add up total metric scores.

TOTAL SCORE
(10 Pts. Possible for each indicator)

IDENTIFIED
If any of the metric scores highlight a risk it should be identified here.
RISKS

Verify that the project includes a rigorous plan and committed funding for the monitoring and
evaluation of proposed crop production strategy for soil management.
NEXT STEPS
Find more information on soil management here:
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/soils/health/

Methodology for the Assessment of Bioplastic Feedstocks - Version # 14

 BFA Survey Level Screening
WATER MANAGEMENT GOALS: 1,2,3,4,5

Why Is It Important:
Agriculture is responsible for about 70% of the water withdrawn (rivers, lakes, groundwater) and used by human populations. Expansion of the
agricultural landscape will add pressure to this finite resource. The efficiency of water use in agriculture is highly variable and subject to waste
due to inadequate or non-existing management systems and inefficient irrigation systems. A complete assessment of water resource requirements
should be conducted, taking into consideration crop needs, soil field capacity, hydrological conditions, precipitation distribution, downstream
human and environmental needs and uses, and impacts water use will have on the watershed and regional ecology. This assessment needs to be
conducted regardless of water source: groundwater (blue), surface water (blue), or rain water (green). Aquifers and natural bodies of water
should be monitored to ensure that they are adequately being recharged and that their use for agricultural purposes is not altering the natural
hydrologic regime. This evaluation is critical in water-scarce regions, and water extraction should not deprive downstream users of this scarce
resource nor impact biodiversity.

Water quality should be evaluated in order to make sure the water is not contaminated and is of sufficient quality for crop needs. Water sources
should be protected with buffer zones to avoid contamination risks and soil erosion impacts and to ensure the viability of the aquatic ecosystem.
Water should be monitored routinely in order to assess water quality and identify any issues in a timely fashion.

Discharge water from processing facilities should also be evaluated in order to evaluate impacts the cultivation may have on water quality.
Discharge water quality should meet, at a minimum, national legal standards, and be consistent with the World Bank Pollution and
Abatement Handbook, which establishes wastewater management guidelines. A monitoring program should be in place, and discharge water
treatment facilities should be in place if discharge water does not meet guidelines.

Consider whether your crop will have enough water but operates in a situation where half the population doesn’t have access to safe drinking
water, this gets to the context issue and will help indicate whether the crop will be grown in an area ripe for water conflict/reputational risk. For
all water management data, you should use the best available information including peer reviewed work. i.e. WFN data or best resource peer
reviewed at a more granular level (journal articles for specific crops in specific regions).

Scor RIS
Metric Result Comment
e K?
Identify Watershed & Catchment:
Quantity & Governance
1. According to the Water Footprint Network, what is the water footprint
Blue
of this crop?m3/ton Informing on final overall – not
Green
See definitions at the end of this datasheet scored
Grey
Use regional specific location, not country level.

2. According to the Water Footprint Network, is this watershed a water Yes = 0

stressed area? No = 1.12

3. Does the feedstock’s growing season overlap with the region’s blue
Yes = 0
water stressed months??
No = 1.17
Use Water Footprint Network Water Scarcity Maps – See Appendix B
4. If using irrigation (Blue) water do you have the appropriate permits for
Yes = 0.86
withdrawal of this water? (This is referring to WFN Blue water)
No = 0
If not using irrigation, ignore question and answer yes.
5. According to ClimaScope or Atlas Aqueduct, is this watershed at risk
for decreased availability in the future? (i.e. decreased rainfall, *Still determining best option, for
increased consumption) Yes = 0 time being use one for
http://climascope.tyndall.ac.uk/Map/Details?mapid=39946&overlayid=0 No = 1.08 comparisons.
http://aqueduct.wri.org/atlas See instructions in Appendix.
See Appendix B for Details
6. Are there regulatory agencies (ex. a government’s “inspection
Yes= 0.89
branch”) that address and enforce water management in the area for
No=0
quantity and quality on a holistic level (surface and groundwater)?
7. Are you participating in the management of water at a catchment level
and/or linking your water management into the catchment level plan
goals?
Yes = 0.93
http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/planning/131506.aspx
No = 0
An Environmental Flow or eFlow assessment would be ideally included
in a catchment level plan and could be used to ensure water use is within
sustainable limits,
Methodology for the Assessment of Bioplastic Feedstocks - Version # 14
 Water Quality (related to Grey Water)
Yes=0
8. Is this watershed already stressed by water pollution?
No= 1.07
9. Does this feedstock historically require mitigation activities due to
Yes=0
overall negative impact on water pollution (eutrophication,
No= 0.96
acidification or ecotoxicity)?
10. Use the WHO / UNICEFF Joint Monitoring program (JMP) for
Both + = 0.88
Water Supply and Sanitation Tool to determine if there is adequate
1+/1- = 0.44
access to drinking water and sanitation in the country of production.
No=0
See Appendix B for Details
11. Will or does your feedstock land impact/impair local community’s
Yes= 0
access to water or further contribute to over allocation from water
No= 1.05
basin?

__ /10 Add up total metric scores. (10 Pts. Possible for each indicator)
TOTAL SCORE
WFN Blue, Green and Grey values shown on final scorecard.

IDENTIFIED
If any of the metric scores highlight a risk it should be identified here.
RISKS

Verify that the project includes a rigorous plan and committed funding for the monitoring and evaluation
of proposed crop production strategy for water management.

In general, the BFA would recommend the following options for addressing water management and risk
mitigation:
First, employ mitigation responses suggested in the Water Risk Filter by inputting data into the tool
which will identify mitigation responses that will correspond to the specific crop and basin
risk. http://waterriskfilter.panda.org/MitigationTools.aspx
Although this solution provides just one-off solutions and is not a holistic response, the BFA would
recommend this as a first step followed by full water stewardship activities to mitigate more substantial
NEXT STEPS water risk.

Second, the BFA would recommend the implementation of the AWS Standard (in progress toward
certification). The AWS is a step-wise approach to mitigating water risk, and is designed to work in any
industry or geography.
http://www.allianceforwaterstewardship.org/what-we-do.html#water-stewardship-standard
The AWS overlaps with governmental regulations required in that region, all crop production standard,
and ISO standards etc. It is designed to address current and future risk for water management. In the
AWS Appendix B (guidance for the AWS Standard) there is more guidance on how to comply with each
step of the Standard along with references (tools and methodologies) and examples.

Blue water footprint – Volume of surface and groundwater consumed as a result of the production of a good or
service. Consumption refers to the volume of freshwater used and then evaporated or incorporated into a product. It
also includes water abstracted from surface or groundwater in a catchment and returned to another catchment or the
sea. It is the amount of water abstracted from groundwater or surface water that does not return to the catchment
from which it was withdrawn.
Green water footprint – Volume of rainwater consumed during the production process. This is particularly relevant
for agricultural and forestry products (products based on crops or wood), where it refers to the total rainwater
evapotranspiration (from fields and plantations) plus the water incorporated into the harvested crop or wood.
Grey water footprint – The grey water footprint of a product is an indicator of freshwater pollution that can be
associated with the production of a product over its full supply chain. It is defined as the volume of freshwater that is
required to assimilate the load of pollutants based on natural background concentrations and existing ambient water
quality standards. It is calculated as the volume of water that is required to dilute pollutants to such an extent that
the quality of the water remains above agreed water quality standards.

Methodology for the Assessment of Bioplastic Feedstocks - Version # 14

APPENDIX A

Regulation and Policy Definitions

BIODIVERSITY
IUCN Red List of Threatened Species List
www.redlist.org

CHEMICAL USE
World Bank OP 4.09 - Pest Management
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/PROJECTS/EXTPOLICIES/EXTOPMANUAL/0,,contentMDK:20064720~menuP
K:64701637~pagePK:64709096~piPK:64709108~theSitePK:502184,00.html
In assisting borrowers to manage pests that affect either agriculture or public health, the Bank supports a strategy that promotes the use
of biological or environmental control methods and reduces reliance on synthetic chemical pesticides. In Bank-financed projects, the
borrower addresses pest management issues in the context of the project's environmental assessment.

WHO Recommended Classification of Pesticides by Hazard

http://www.who.int/ipcs/publications/pesticides_hazard/en/
1A Defined as “Extremely Hazardous”
1B Defined as “Highly Hazardous”

EPA Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) Hazardous Chemical Storage Reporting
Requirements
http://www.epa.gov/oem/content/epcra/epcra_storage.htm
For any hazardous chemical used or stored in the workplace, facilities must maintain a material safety data sheet (MSDS), and submit
the MSDSs (or a list of the chemicals) to their State Emergency Response Commission (SERC), Local Emergency Planning
Committee (LEPC) and local fire department. Facilities must also report an annual inventory of these chemicals by March 1 of each
year to their SERC, LEPC and local fire department. The information must be made available to the public.

FOOD SECURITY
Food and Agriculture Organization of United Nations
FAO Low Income Countries with a Food Deficit List
http://www.fao.org/countryprofiles/lifdc/en/
FAO Database
http://faostat.fao.org/site/291/default.aspx

IPC Acute Food Insecurity Reference Table for Household Groups Link
http://www.fews.net/ml/en/info/pages/scale.aspx

CRADLE TO GATE GHG

ISO 14044:2006 Environment Management – Life Cycle Assessment – Requirements and Guidelines
http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=38498
ISO 14044:2006 specifies requirements and provides guidelines for life cycle assessment (LCA) including: definition of the goal and
scope of the LCA, the life cycle inventory analysis (LCI) phase, the life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) phase, the life cycle
interpretation phase, reporting and critical review of the LCA, limitations of the LCA, relationship between the LCA phases, and
conditions for use of value choices and optional elements.

ISO/DIS 14067.2 Carbon Footprint of Products- Requirements and Guidelines for Quantification and Communication
http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=59521

LABOR RIGHTS
Child Labor: ILO Conventions 138 and 182, Recommendation 146
ILO Convention 182 Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, 1999
http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:12100:0::NO::P12100_INSTRUMENT_ID:312327
Basis of #182 –
A child is anyone under the age of 18
For the purposes of this Convention, the term the worst forms of child labor comprises:
Methodology for the Assessment of Bioplastic Feedstocks - Version # 14
  all forms of slavery or practices similar to slavery, such as the sale and trafficking of children, debt bondage and serfdom and
forced or compulsory labor, including forced or compulsory recruitment of children for use in armed conflict;
 the use, procuring or offering of a child for prostitution, for the production of pornography or for pornographic performances;
 the use, procuring or offering of a child for illicit activities, in particular for the production and trafficking of drugs as defined in
the relevant international treaties;
 work which, by its nature or the circumstances in which it is carried out, is likely to harm the health, safety or morals of children.
ILO Convention 138 Minimum Age Convention, 1973
http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:12100:0::NO::P12100_INSTRUMENT_ID:312283
Basis of #138 – Convention concerning Minimum Age for Admission to Employment
ILO Recommendation 146 Minimum Age Recommendation, 1973
http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:12100:0::NO::P12100_INSTRUMENT_ID:312484
Basis of R#146
To ensure the success of the national policy provided for in Article 1 of the Minimum Age Convention, 1973, high priority should be
given to planning for and meeting the needs of children and youth in national development policies and programmes and to the
progressive extension of the inter-related measures necessary to provide the best possible conditions of physical and mental growth for
children and young persons.

United Nations Convention on Rights of the Child

http://www.un.org/cyberschoolbus/humanrights/resources/child.asp (looking for better site still)
THIS DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD to the end that he may have a happy childhood and enjoy for his own
good and for the good of society the rights and freedoms herein set forth, and calls upon parents, upon men and women as individuals,
and upon voluntary organizations, local authorities and national Governments to recognize these rights and strive for their observance
by legislative and other measures progressively taken in accordance with the following principles…

Slave and Bonded Labor: ILO Conventions 29 and 105

ILO Convention 105 Abolition of Forced Labor Convention, 1957
http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO:12100:P12100_INSTRUMENT_ID:312250:NO
Basis of #105 – Convention concerning the Abolition of Forced Labor
ILO Convention 29 Forced Labor Convention, 1930 – this makes more sense than 20
http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO:12100:P12100_INSTRUMENT_ID:312174:NO
For the purposes of this Convention the term forced or compulsory Labor shall mean all work or service which is exacted from any
person under the menace of any penalty and for which the said person has not offered himself voluntarily.

Freedom of Association: ILO Conventions 87, 11 and 98

ILO Convention 98 Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949
http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO:12100:P12100_INSTRUMENT_ID:312243:NO
Basis of #98 –
 Workers shall enjoy adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of their employment.
 Such protection shall apply more particularly in respect of acts calculated to:
 make the employment of a worker subject to the condition that he shall not join a union or shall relinquish trade union
membership;
 cause the dismissal of or otherwise prejudice a worker by reason of union membership or because of participation in union
activities outside working hours or, with the consent of the employer, within working hours.
ILO Convention 87 Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize Convention, 1948
http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO:12100:P12100_INSTRUMENT_ID:312232:NO
And/or
ILO Convention 11 Right of Association (Agriculture) Convention, 1921
http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO:12100:P12100_INSTRUMENT_ID:312156:NO
One or both of these make more sense than #89.

Equal Pay and Discrimination: ILO Conventions 100 and 111

ILO Convention 100 Equal Remuneration Convention, 1951
http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO:12100:P12100_INSTRUMENT_ID:312245:NO
Basis of #100 –
For the purpose of this Convention
 the term remuneration includes the ordinary, basic or minimum wage or salary and any additional emoluments whatsoever payable
directly or indirectly, whether in cash or in kind, by the employer to the worker and arising out of the worker's employment;
 the term equal remuneration for men and women workers for work of equal value refers to rates of remuneration established
without discrimination based on sex.
ILO Convention 111 Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958
http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO:12100:P12100_INSTRUMENT_ID:312256:NO
Methodology for the Assessment of Bioplastic Feedstocks - Version # 14
Basis of #111 –
For the purpose of this Convention the term discrimination includes:
(a) any distinction, exclusion or preference made on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, political opinion, national extraction or
social origin, which has the effect of nullifying or impairing equality of opportunity or treatment in employment or occupation;
(b) such other distinction, exclusion or preference which has the effect of nullifying or impairing equality of opportunity or treatment
in employment or occupation as may be determined by the Member concerned after consultation with representative employers' and
workers' organizations, where such exist, and with other appropriate bodies.
 Any distinction, exclusion or preference in respect of a particular job based on the inherent requirements thereof shall not be
deemed to be discrimination.
 For the purpose of this Convention the terms employment and occupation include access to vocational training, access to
employment and to particular occupations, and terms and conditions of employment.

Universal Declaration on Human Rights

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards
one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

ILO (International Labor Organization) Site:

http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:12000:2948000572381400::::P12000_INSTRUMENT_SORT:4

Social Accountability International SA 8000 Standard

http://www.sa-intl.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.ViewPage&PageID=937
1. Child Labor: No use or support of child labor; policies and written procedures for remediation of children found to be
working in situation; provide adequate financial and other support to enable such children to attend school; and employment
of young workers conditional.
2. Forced and Compulsory Labor: No use or support for forced or compulsory labor; no required 'deposits' - financial or
otherwise; no withholding salary, benefits, property or documents to force personnel to continue work; personnel right to
leave premises after workday; personnel free to terminate their employment; and no use nor support for human trafficking.
3. Health and Safety: Provide a safe and healthy workplace; prevent potential occupational accidents; appoint senior manager to
ensure OSH; instruction on OSH for all personnel; system to detect, avoid, respond to risks; record all accidents; provide
personal protection equipment and medical attention in event of work-related injury; remove, reduce risks to new and
expectant mothers; hygiene- toilet, potable water, sanitary food storage; decent dormitories- clean, safe, meet basic needs;
and worker right to remove from imminent danger.
4. Freedom of Association and Right to Collective Bargaining: Respect the right to form and join trade unions and bargain
collectively. All personnel are free to: organize trade unions of their choice; and bargain collectively with their employer. A
company shall: respect right to organize unions & bargain collectively; not interfere in workers’ organizations or collective
bargaining; inform personnel of these rights & freedom from retaliation; where law restricts rights, allow workers freely elect
representatives; ensure no discrimination against personnel engaged in worker organizations; and ensure representatives
access to workers at the workplace.
5. Discrimination: No discrimination based on race, national or social origin, caste, birth, religion, disability, gender, sexual
orientation, union membership, political opinions and age. No discrimination in hiring, remuneration, access to training,
promotion, termination, and retirement. No interference with exercise of personnel tenets or practices; prohibition of
threatening, abusive, exploitative, coercive behavior at workplace or company facilities; no pregnancy or virginity tests under
any circumstances.
6. Disciplinary Practices: Treat all personnel with dignity and respect; zero tolerance of corporal punishment, mental or
physical abuse of personnel; no harsh or inhumane treatment.
7. Working Hours: Compliance with laws & industry standards; normal workweek, not including overtime, shall not exceed 48
hours; 1 day off following every 6 consecutive work days, with some exceptions; overtime is voluntary, not regular, not more
than 12 hours per week; required overtime only if negotiated in CBA.
8. Remuneration: Respect right of personnel to living wage; all workers paid at least legal minimum wage; wages sufficient to
meet basic needs & provide discretionary income; deductions not for disciplinary purposes, with some exceptions; wages and
benefits clearly communicated to workers; paid in convenient manner – cash or check form; overtime paid at premium rate;
prohibited use of labor-only contracting, short-term contracts, false apprenticeship schemes to avoid legal obligations to
personnel.
9. Management Systems: Facilities seeking to gain and maintain certification must go beyond simple compliance to integrate the
standard into their management systems and practices.

LEGAL PRODUCTION
World Bank resettlement and economic displacement policies

Methodology for the Assessment of Bioplastic Feedstocks - Version # 14

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTSOCIALDEVELOPMENT/EXTINVRES/0,,contentMDK:20486618~
menuPK:1242235~pagePK:148956~piPK:216618~theSitePK:410235,00.html
Involuntary displacement occurs when the decision of moving is made and imposed by an external agent and when there is no
possibility to stay. Involuntary displacement can be caused by environmental degradation, natural disasters, conflicts or development
projects. It is associated with loss of housing, shelter, income, land, livelihoods, assets, access to resources and services, among others.
Displacement affects not only those physically displaced but also the resident population (people who are not directly affected and
thus do not move but feel the impact of losing their neighbors and resources) as well as the host population (those who receive
displaced persons and could be positively or adversely affected by this situation).
Resettlement is a process to assist the displaced persons to replace their housing, assets, livelihoods, land, access to resources and
services and to restore their socioeconomic and cultural conditions. In addition to development-induced displacement, the Bank also
works on the other causes of displacement, such as natural disasters, climate change and conflict.

Resettlement and Displacement Considerations NOT Covered in Regulations 1:

World Bank Resettlement and Economic Displacement Policies including World Bank Involuntary Resettlement 4.12 are useful;
HOWEVER some potential impacts are not included and must be called out individually:
 It does not explicitly cover displacement that occurs in the project area prior to, or in anticipation of, company involvement in
a project
 It does not explicitly cover temporary displacement or lost access to assets or resources
 It does not cover the involuntary restriction of access to resources that people depend upon other than those in legally
designated parks and protected areas
 It does not cover displacement that occurs because of a project’s adverse impacts on the environment or natural resources that
people depend upon
 It does not cover indirect social and economic impacts, or indeed impacts on all human rights, despite the fact that addressing
these can be critical to mitigating the risk of impoverishment, and failing to address them will place the burden of these
impacts on those displaced
 It does not cover resettlement that is voluntary in nature but nonetheless, requires measures to safeguard against
impoverishment and other adverse impacts and to maximize development benefits

Minority Rights: International Standards and Guidance for Implementation

http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/MinorityRights_en.pdf
This United Nations’ policy pays attention to issues such as the recognition of minorities’ existence, their rights to non-discrimination
and equality, the promotion of multicultural and intercultural education, the promotion of their participation in all aspects of public
life, etc.

Involuntary Resettlement 4.12

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/PROJECTS/EXTPOLICIES/EXTOPMANUAL/0,,contentMDK:20064610~menuP
K:64701637~pagePK:64709096~piPK:64709108~theSitePK:502184,00.html
To address involuntary resettlement caused by Bank-financed development projects. The main objective of the policy is to avoid
involuntary resettlement to the extent feasible, or to minimize and mitigate its adverse social and economic impacts. (see website
above)

Operational Policy on Indigenous People 4.10

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/PROJECTS/EXTPOLICIES/EXTOPMANUAL/0,,contentMDK:20553653~menuP
K:4564185~pagePK:64709096~piPK:64709108~theSitePK:502184,00.html
This policy contributes to the Bank's mission of poverty reduction and sustainable development by ensuring that the development
process fully respects the dignity, human rights, economies, and cultures of Indigenous Peoples. For all projects that are proposed for
Bank financing and affect Indigenous Peoples, the Bank requires the borrower to engage in a process of free, prior, and informed
consultation.

LOCAL & INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES

ILO Convention 169 Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989
http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO:12100:P12100_INSTRUMENT_ID:312314:NO
Convention concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries

1
Interview: Davidson, Sarah. Interview conducted by Zdilla, Katherine. World Wildlife Fund. April 15 th, 2014.
Methodology for the Assessment of Bioplastic Feedstocks - Version # 14
Guidelines on Free, Prior and informed Consent (FPIC)
http://www.unredd.net/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=1333&Itemid=53
Indigenous people’s right to free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) has been recognized by United Nations. This guidelines and
corresponding UN-REDD program is obliged to promote respect for the local and indigenous communities. Based on this guidelines,
indigenous peoples should be guaranteed the collective right to give or withhold their free, prior and informed consent to relevant
activities that take place in or otherwise impact their lands, territories and resources.

The 2050 Criteria

awsassets.panda.org/downloads/the_2050_critera_report.pdf
World Wildlife Fund (WWF) developed this criteria to address the widespread insufficiency of food, fiber, and bioenergy to meet the
needs of human society. A rapidly growing global population, accelerating consumption, dietary shifts, climate change and other
factors are driving unprecedented price volatility, resource shortages, and other risks in soft commodity supply chains. The 2050
Criteria seeks to untangle this complexity. Providing distilled guidance based on leading industry practice, The 2050 Criteria is
designed to serve as a field guide for investors to access mainstream agricultural, forest, and seafood commodities in a responsible
manner.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH & SAFETY

ILO Convention 184 - Safety and Health in Agriculture Convention
http://www.ilo.org/public/english/standards/relm/ilc/ilc89/pdf/c184.pdf
This series of manuals has been developed by International Labor Organization to help union affiliated representing agricultural
workers to tackle health, safety, and environmental problems (HS&E).

Methodology for the Assessment of Bioplastic Feedstocks - Version # 14

APPENDIX B
Water Management Tools

ClimaScope link
http://climascope.tyndall.ac.uk/Map/Details?mapid=39946&overlayid=0

Water Catchment link

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/planning/131506.aspx

WFN Water Scarcity Maps

http://www.waterfootprint.org/?page=files/WaterStat-WaterScarcity

1. Download Monthly blue water scarcity map “Images (tiff)”

2. Look at months that cover crops growing season,
3. If the region you are growing in and the growing season have identified blue water scarcity (identified by colors yellow,
orange and red) in ANY month of the growing season, answer “yes” for this metric.

Watershed Risk Tools

1. Climascope (crop specific but more complicated)

a. Go to http://climascope.tyndall.ac.uk/Map/Details?mapid=39946&overlayid=0
b. In upper right hand select “featured maps”, then select “2C Ecomapper HadCM3”
c. In another tab open http://ecocrop.fao.org/ecocrop/srv/en/cropFindForm
d. Under plant name search for crop you are looking at (ex. Corn) – hit “search”
e. Click “view” next to the desired crop, then “datasheet”
f. From the data sheet you will pull the “optimal” min and max for rainfall and temperature
g. Back in Climascope, you use these ranges to adjust the 4 layers (2 temp, 2 rain) on the map. Use the triangle slides
on each of those 4 layers. Use temp range on temp slides (both) and do the same on the rainfall layers.
h. Zoom into the area of the world you are considering and here is how you read it:
i. You are looking at 2025 assuming a 2°C temp increase – there are two colors (blue is rainfall and red is
temp) – where the blue is you have the right range of rainfall, where the red is you have the right temp
range for your crop. Where they overlap is where you are ideally growing that crop. In areas where there
is only blue, you have enough rainfall but not the right temperature (too hot or cold), where there is only
red, you have the right temp but not enough rainfall.

2. Atlas, Aqueduct (not crop specific but is very data reliable)

a. Go to http://aqueduct.wri.org/atlas
b. In the upper left select “projected change”
c. On the right side on the Current Conditions tab select “2025 – A1B”
d. Zoom to the area of the world you are considering.
e. Use the color of that area and the Legend on the right bottom corner to determine water stress in 2025.

WHO / UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP) for Water Supply and Sanitation

1. Go to http://www.wssinfo.org/documents-
links/documents/?tx_displaycontroller%5Bcategory%5D=&tx_displaycontroller%5Byear%5D=&tx_displaycontroller%5Bre
gion%5D=&tx_displaycontroller%5Bsearch_word%5D=&tx_displaycontroller%5Btype%5D=country_files
2. Under “Country List” tab scroll down to country being assessed
3. Select country and download Excel data file
4. Under the Excel tab “Trends_W” – Estimated Trends of Drinking Water Coverage
a. Look at the “Rural” data and add up the percent of “other unimproved” and “surface water” in 2011 (or latest date).
i. If it is greater than 50%, this country does not have majority access to quality drinking water and would not
score (+) for this portion.
ii. If it is less than 50%, this country does have majority access to quality drinking water and would score (+)
for this portion.
5. Under the Excel tab “Trends_S” – Estimated Trends of Sanitation Coverage
a. Look at the “Rural” data and add up the percent of “other unimproved” and “open defecation” in 2011 (or latest
date).
i. If it is greater than 25%, this country does not have adequate access to quality sanitation and would not
score (+) for this portion.

Methodology for the Assessment of Bioplastic Feedstocks - Version # 14

 ii. If it is less than 25%, this country does have adequate access to quality sanitation and would score (+) for
this portion.
6. To determine the overall score for this question:
a. If the region has adequate access to both drinking water and sanitation, it gets the most points.
b. If the region has adequate access to either drinking water or sanitation and is lacking for the other, it gets half the
points.
c. If the region has adequate access to neither drinking water nor sanitation, it gets zero points.

Methodology for the Assessment of Bioplastic Feedstocks - Version # 14