Methodology for the Assessment

of Bioplastic Feedstocks

February 2022
Authors
Erin Simon, Plastic and Material Science, World Wildlife Fund
Alix Grabowski, Plastic and Material Science, World Wildlife Fund
Kori Goldberg, Plastic and Material Science, World Wildlife Fund
David Kuhn, Corporate Resilience, World Wildlife Fund
Jessica LaMay Zeuner, Plastic and Material Science, World Wildlife Fund

Acknowledgments
The Bioplastic Feedstock Alliance (BFA) thanks those who provided expertise and review of the
methodology during the 2021 update, including:
External reviewers:
Michael Carus (Founder and Managing Director, Nova-Institute)
Hazel Culley (Sector Lead and Head of Consulting, FMCG & Retail, twentyfifty)
Jessica Fanzo, PhD (Bloomberg Distinguished Professor of Global Food Policy & Ethics, Johns Hopkins
University)
Christopher Lamoureux (Manager, Policy and Stakeholder Engagement, Social Accountability
International)
Jason Locklin, PhD (Professor and Director, New Materials Institute, University of Georgia)
Helen Mant (Sector Lead, Food and Agriculture, twentyfifty)
Nicola Noponen (Sector Lead, Chemicals and Polymers, Roundtable on Sustainable Biomaterials)
WWF reviewers:
Cecelia Alcoreza Lora (Manager, Forest Sector Transformation, World Wildlife Fund)
Tjasa Bole-Rentel (Bioenergy Program Manager, World Wildlife Fund)
Gyan de Silva (Program Officer, Freshwater, World Wildlife Fund)
Adam Dixon (Senior Science Specialist, Northern Great Plains, World Wildlife Fund)
John Holler (Senior Program Officer, Climate, World Wildlife Fund)
Martha Kauffman (Vice President, Northern Great Plains, World Wildlife Fund)
Monica McBride (Director, Food and Freshwater, World Wildlife Fund)
Amelia Meadows (Manager, Forests, World Wildlife Fund)
Corey Norton (Vice President, Supply Chain Legality, World Wildlife Fund)
Anis Ragland (Senior Program Officer, Freshwater, World Wildlife Fund)
Catherine Rothacker (Program Officer, International Cooperation, World Wildlife Fund)
Brad Schallert (Director, Carbon Market Governance, World Wildlife Fund)
Morgan Schneider (Program Officer, Corporate Water Stewardship, World Wildlife Fund)
Nathalie Simoneau (Director, Gender and Social Inclusion, World Wildlife Fund)
Althea Skinner (Lead Specialist, Socially Inclusive Conservation, World Wildlife Fund)
Martha Stevenson (Senior Director, Research and Strategic Initiatives, Forests, World Wildlife Fund)
Nicole Tanner (Corporate Stewardship Manager, Food and Freshwater, World Wildlife Fund)

1i
Contents
Authors and Acknowledgments............................i
Background..........................................................1
BFA Methodology.................................................3
Assessment of Biobased Plastic Feedstock:
Exercise Information...........................................14
Executive Level Screening.................................15
Survey Level Screening......................................22
Ecosystem Services..................................22
Biodiversity................................................26
Chemical Use and Impact.........................31
GHG Emissions.........................................39
Land Use Change Impacts........................43
Soil Management.......................................46
Water Management...................................49
Food Security............................................54
Legal Production.......................................58
Local and/or Indigenous Communities......61
Occupational Health and Safety................65
Labor Rights..............................................68
Summary Scorecard.................................71

Note on Responsibly Sourced Biobased

Plastic Claims.....................................................72
Appendix A.........................................................73
Appendix B.........................................................79

2
Background
change, degrading habitats, and threatening
No Plastic in Nature communities around the world.

The Bioplastic Feedstock Alliance (BFA) aligns However, while we are working to reduce our
with World Wildlife Fund’s (WWF) vision of No use of plastic and improve our ability to recycle
Plastic in Nature by 2030. No Plastic in Nature and reuse it, we will still require some new
prioritizes the reduction of unnecessary plastic plastic to meet critical health and safety needs.
as a principal area of action, followed by But this smaller amount of new plastic doesn’t
strategies to source the plastic that is have to come from fossil fuels—responsibly
considered necessary with sustainable inputs, sourced biobased plastic can result in better
and ensure that this plastic is being reused or environmental outcomes and decouple plastic
recycled. Decreasing production of new plastic from the impacts of fossil fuels.
must be a priority, and today 99% of new plastic
is made from fossil fuels—contributing to climate Responsibly sourced biobased plastic, plastic
derived wholly or partially from biomass, can

1
play a vital role in infusing new material into a The BFA provides a community for scientists,
circular plastic system to address unavoidable companies, policy-makers, nongovernmental
material loss and degradation during recycling organizations (NGOs), and others to explore the
operations. Shifting to responsibly sourced risks and opportunities of biobased and
biobased plastic alone will not fix our broken biodegradable plastic. Through research,
material system; as with fossil-based plastic, collaboration, and education, the group strives to
biobased plastic must be collected in order to be guide the sourcing of feedstocks for biobased
a successful part of a circular system. plastic in order to establish a sustainable flow of
materials, creating lasting value for present and
As we transition to a future economy no longer future generations.
dependent on fossil-derived energy and
materials, we can reduce the carbon intensity of For an up-to-date list of BFA members, and for
materials used in packaging, textiles, the more information, visit the BFA website.
automotive industry, and a wide range of other
industrial and consumer goods applications.
However, the bioeconomy (where renewable
carbon from plants replaces fossil carbon in the
production of new materials) relies on agriculture
and forestry industries, both of which can have
serious social and environmental impacts. This
is why careful decision-making and responsible
sourcing are necessary for the production and
management of biomaterials, considering the
increasingly important issues related to food
security, land competition, water, climate
change, biodiversity loss, safe labor practices,
and overall environmental and social
performance. For WWF’s full position on
biobased plastic, see WWF Position: Biobased
and Biodegradable Plastic.

About the Bioplastic Feedstock

Alliance

Convened by WWF, the Bioplastic Feedstock

Alliance (BFA) was formed in 2013 as a
multistakeholder initiative dedicated to a
sustainable vision for biobased plastics. WWF
organizes thought leadership in the biobased
and biodegradable plastic space to support the
shift away from fossil-based plastic and toward
the increased conservation of the world’s most
precious places and species.

2
BFA
change on the feedstock and landscape;
agricultural chemical inputs; impacts on
biodiversity, soil, air, and water; and social

Methodology dynamics and issues regarding land use, labor,

and food availability. The same feedstock grown
in different regions or different feedstocks grown
A foundational objective of the BFA is to develop in the same region will provide different results
and maintain a methodology for assessing due to regional agronomic and climatic
feedstocks at the regional level in order to variations—soil type, rainfall, input use, and
secure a common understanding of responsible cultivation techniques. Focusing on a standard
sourcing considerations based on best-known set of key performance indicators will facilitate
science. understanding of the trade-offs and risks that
each feedstock may present within a given
This methodology provides guidance on how to region. What is important is that feedstocks are
assess risks associated with different types of assessed in a consistent way (for example,
feedstocks and make more transparent sourcing using this method) and production impacts are
decisions on biobased plastic feedstocks to monitored for continuous improvement.
have a more positive impact on the environment,
society, and the economy. This tool allows
brands and producers to analyze potential
biobased plastic feedstock solutions based on Connecting to Traditional Risk
clear criteria. The methodology allows users to Management Framing
(1) compare different biobased plastic feedstock
and region combinations across key criteria in In accordance with common terminology used in
terms of environmental and social performance; due diligence, the BFA Methodology supports
(2) understand what kinds of changes to users through risk identification, risk
production systems would result in better assessment, and risk mitigation. Through the
environmental and social outcomes; and (3) methodology users identify potential social and
identify opportunities for management programs environmental risks at the regional level, assess
that would track progress and improve specific risks at the local level, and explore and
sustainability outcomes over time. further develop risk mitigation plans for any
significant identified risks. Specifically, the
Due to the overall complexity of the choice of Executive Level Screening serves as a way for
feedstocks and the potential for trade-offs, users to identify potential risks; the Survey Level
there is no list of “sustainable” or “not Screening allows users to assess whether and
sustainable” feedstocks. Any such list would to what extent these identified risks exist in the
fail to account for variation in production specific supply chain. The Survey Level
practices and regional variation, and therefore Screening also allows users to explore and
would not be a useful asset. There is no simple confirm existing and planned risk mitigation
or single formula that can be applied globally to activities. Additional assessment (for example,
biobased plastic feedstocks, but there are some applying third-party standards and audits)
common indicators of performance. Using the provides additional scrutiny.
best available data, each feedstock needs to be
evaluated at the most specific regional level
possible, taking into consideration the energy
required for production; impacts from climate

3
Scope across the methodology. In order to successfully
integrate biobased plastics into the circular
The scope of this methodology is land use economy at scale, their production must support
change to initial processing, where initial climate resilience at the landscape level. This
processing includes activities that directly affect methodology is intended to drive users toward
the landscape where the feedstock is grown. sourcing decisions and practices that do more
The decisions about what material to use for a good, rather than only doing less bad as
product, how it is made, and the assessment of compared to fossil-based plastic.
its environmental and social performance can be
informed by a number of tools. This Finally, a major undertaking of the 2021 update
methodology is a tool for one piece of the was to ensure the methodology is applicable to
system and should be considered as one tool in novel feedstocks. When the methodology was
the toolbox. The BFA chose to address this first published in 2013, the questions and
piece of the system due to the need for guidance were tailored to traditional agricultural
consensus and tools for decision-making, not feedstocks, as they were the most frequently
because it was deemed more important or more used and explored biobased plastic feedstocks.
valuable in the overall impact of a product. As novel feedstocks such as algae, residues
from crop harvesting, tall oil (byproduct from the
This methodology does not take into pulp and paper industry), CO2 capture and
consideration logistics beyond the initial utilization, used cooking oil, and more become
production and processing levels. Manufacturing realistic feedstocks at scale, it is crucial that
process, use, and end of life are out of scope. these feedstocks are held to the same standards
Although biobased plastics should be carefully as traditional feedstocks. This updated version
evaluated for their end-of-life impacts in addition of the methodology is comprehensive; it can
to their sourcing implications, this methodology assess both traditional agricultural feedstocks
focuses exclusively on sourcing impacts. and novel feedstocks.

Biobased plastics must be used in appropriate

applications and paired with infrastructure
capable of effectively reusing, recycling, or BFA Guiding Principles
composting it to achieve No Plastic in Nature
and a more circular plastic system. For BFA Governance

1. Actively engage a diverse set of

stakeholders who are affected by biobased
2021 Update plastic production.

The BFA Methodology was originally developed 2. Maintain a methodology that is globally
with the intention that it would be updated adaptable and can address local conditions.
regularly as more science, tools, and guidance
became available. All indicators in the 3. Commitment to be credible and transparent.
methodology were updated in 2021 to reflect the
latest science and provide new resources 4. Be responsive, flexible, and continuously
developed since the publication of the original improve in the face of climate change.
methodology. The 2021 update also included a
major focus on adopting resilience factors 5. Provide opportunity for innovation.

4
6. Remain technology- and feedstock-neutral. Goals

For the Content of the Methodology

The below definition of “optimal biobased plastic
feedstock” provides the biobased plastic industry
7. Maintain conservation of natural resources
with an ideal for which to strive. The BFA
and biodiversity.
Methodology uses this multipronged definition to
provide goals for companies and producers to
8. Protect or enhance the health and welfare of
assess feedstocks.
farmers and their communities.

9. Protect and use nature-based solutions to

address the impacts of climate change and Goals and Indicators
other threats.
In order to explore how a feedstock in a specific
10. Use a science-based systems approach to region measures up to the definition of an
drive appropriate best practices in feedstock optimal biobased plastic feedstock (defined by
risk mitigation. five components, explored in the box below), the
BFA has identified the following 13 indicators
(see Table 1). Each indicator is explored in
detail in the Survey Level Screening portion of
the methodology.

An optimal biobased plastic feedstock is one that:

1. Is legally sourced, conforms to the 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 directly or indirectly result in destruction of critical ecosystems or loss of high
conservation value (HCV) habitats.

5. Contributes to landscape resilience and is resilient to the impacts of climate change.

5
 Table 1: Aggregated Indicator List—13 Indicators

Environmental: Social:
Ecosystem Services Food Security
Biodiversity Legal Production
Chemical Use and Impact Local and/or Indigenous Communities
Residues and Waste Management Occupational Health and Safety
GHG Emissions Labor Rights
Land Use Change Impacts
Soil Management
Water Management

Executive Level Screening (ELS)

Each of the indicators in itself is complex and
requires different assessment methods in order
to consider the potential environmental, social, When an organization begins to investigate the
and economic impacts that each feedstock could many options for biobased plastic feedstocks,
have on them. The depth to which any there is a need for an initial assessment to
interested party can assess a feedstock narrow that list to the most viable options for
depends on the amount of data they have for more in-depth assessment and decision-making.
each of these indicators. To allow for a high-level assessment of many
feedstocks, the BFA developed the Executive
Level Screening (ELS). At this tier, the user
follows the screening at a highly qualitative level
The Methods and Tiers in order to identify major risks. The primary utility
of this tier is for identifying potential risks to
To accommodate the variability in data explore further in the Survey Level
availability, the assessment tool has two tiers: Screening. The second purpose of this tier is to
Executive Level Screening and Survey Level provide a GO (move onto Survey Level
Screening. The methodology is intended to be Screening) or NO GO (feedstock is less viable)
directional and also includes guidance for further screening to help users understand whether the
assessment past Survey Level Screening. The feedstock/region combination should be
first tier requires the least amount of information prioritized for further investigation. There may be
and may be used to screen out feedstocks that other scenarios where the Executive Level
Screening is a good fit for initial assessment; for
are not viable at a high level, while the second
tier requires more in-depth analysis. example, a user may not be deciding between
different feedstocks to make a particular material
Each tier of the methodology requires a certain but instead may be exploring a single feedstock
amount of information to be available, and in option sourced in two or more different
some cases expert input may be useful. The geographies.
BFA has identified the risk level for a final
decision based exclusively on assessment at
each tier. See Table 2, which explains the
differences between each tier of the
methodology.

6
 Table 2: Screening Comparison

Executive Level Screening Survey Level Screening Additional Assessment

Format: Yes/no survey 13 indicator data sheets Provided in indicator data sheets

Who: Brands and producers Brands and producers Third parties to be determined

Required: High-level understanding of In-depth data on 13 Indicators that expose high

impacts of feedstocks indicators potential risk should be explored
more carefully with higher-quality
data and external expertise.

Gate: All Yes’s = GO Aggregate data into Survey + Additional Assessment =

scorecard and use result to Best possible information for
Any No’s = more analysis guide decision-making and decision
needed before decision need for further assessment

Risk Level: If final decision is based on If final decision is based on If final decision is based on Survey
just the Executive Level Survey Level Screening + Additional Assessment, the risk is
Screening, the risk is high results, the risk is moderate low that not all information is being
that not all information is to low that not all considered.
being considered. information is being
considered.

Executive Level Screening tool considers that overall question a “Yes.” The
Instructions ELS provides users with a short research guide
to understand the high-level benefits and issues
with the feedstocks being considered and is an
The Executive Level Screening (ELS) was
important first step to building knowledge for
designed to act as a GO/NO GO tool to help
decision-making. The questions that were
users decide which feedstocks should be
answered “No” in the ELS should be explored
screened further and pursued. In this tool, use
more in depth. A user may choose to complete
the feedstocks currently under consideration and
run each one through the ELS. For best results, the Survey Level Screening for the indicators
the use of local-level information and related to the “No” answers for a deeper
scientifically based responses will guide the user understanding of these issues before moving on.
more accurately. In the Survey Level Screening,
Finally, if a question cannot be answered
some questions have a follow-up question if the
confidently at the time of the Survey Level
first response is a “No”; if the answer to the
Screening, the answer is considered “Unknown.”
follow-up question is a “Yes,” the

7
For the purpose of this methodology, if an positive response—i.e., there is low risk
answer is “Unknown,” mark “No.” “No” identified for this specific metric. “No” indicates a
responses flag the need either to obtain more potential risk. Follow-up questions will determine
information during the Survey Level Screening whether this identified risk has an identified
or to prioritize a mitigation strategy for that issue. mitigation strategy. Multiple “No” responses
Either way, an “Unknown” must be flagged for correlate with increasingly high risk that this
further exploration. If a response is considered feedstock/region combination has unmitigated
“Unknown,” provide further detail in the social and/or environmental impacts and
“Identified Risks” section. requires a strong mitigation plan to proceed. All
“No” responses require further research to
explore the probability and severity of identified
risks, and mitigation plans should be in place
Survey Level Screening before production is pursued. In the
“Justification” column, users should explain why
Once the user has identified a short list of they answered “Yes” or “No” and include the
feedstock/region combinations from the results sources of information used to reach this
of the ELS, they should move on to the Survey answer. The “Mitigation Strategy” column should
Level Screening. At this level the user runs each be filled out to document plans to reduce
feedstock/region through the 13 indicator data identified risks. Each indicator includes
sheets. These data sheets have been developed recommended next steps and resources that
to identify risks for further exploration. The data may be useful when exploring potential
sheets act as scorecards and provide the user mitigation strategies. The BFA advises that the
with the opportunity to identify potential user begin with the Ecosystem Services data
opportunities and impacts for each feedstock. sheet, as it will help identify key services
Each indicator provides a list of mitigation impacted by the new feedstock for further
activities recommended by the BFA. As this assessment in other indicators.
methodology is designed for early information
gathering as a decision-making tool, it does not As above with the Executive Level Screening, if
provide the opportunity for measuring progress a question cannot be answered confidently at
over time. It does, however, identify existing the time of assessment, the answer is
management systems, standards, and considered “Unknown.” For the purpose of this
certification programs, connecting the results methodology, if an answer is “Unknown,” mark
with existing responsible sourcing resources. “No.” “No” responses flag the need either to
obtain more information or to prioritize a
mitigation strategy for that issue. Either way, an
“Unknown” must be flagged for further
Survey Level Screening Instructions exploration. If a response is considered
“Unknown,” provide further detail in the
“Identified Risks” section.
The Survey Level Screening has been set up as
explained above in the form of 13 data sheets At the end of each indicator, the question “How
that allow the user to score each many identified issues remain without clear
feedstock/regional pairing against the 13 mitigation strategies or improvement plans?”
indicators and then aggregate the results in a is posed. This total number is indicative of the
scorecard to measure against the five goals of feedstock/region combination’s risk. Once all 13
the methodology for an ideal biobased plastic indicators are complete, the user should pull this
feedstock. If a user completes the Executive number from each indicator into the Summary
Level Screening and is confident there is low Scorecard. It is at this point that the user should
risk across some of the indicators, the user may compare the differing risks and opportunities of
choose to complete only the Survey Level the options.
Screening sections that the results from the
Executive Level Screening indicate need more
research.

Metrics in each indicator ask users questions

that elicit yes/no responses. “Yes” indicates a

8
 Table 3: Categories of Feedstocks

Category Description Examples

A Biobased feedstocks from agricultural or forestry operations Sugarcane, sugar beet, corn,
woodchips
Cultivated macroalgae
B Biobased feedstocks from marine or aquatic operations (seaweed), industrial
microalgae production

C Biobased feedstocks from biobased end-of-life products Used cooking oil

D Biobased feedstocks from agriculture or forestry residues

D1 Field residues (materials traditionally left on the field after harvesting) Corn stover, pineapple leaves

D2 Processing residues (materials left over after crop has been processed) Tall oil, sawdust

reached the end of its intended supply chain, as

it has been consumed, used, spoiled, etc.
Feedstock Categorization
“Production residue”: Material that is a
Different types of feedstocks have different secondary product of a process that is
impacts and considerations. Provided at the top inelastic in supply and that has an economic
of each indicator in the Survey Level Screening value ratio of ≤5% with respect to the sum of
is guidance on the relevance of the indicator for primary product(s), coproducts and other
different types of feedstocks. Users of this byproducts generated from the same production
methodology should focus on the indicators that process.
are relevant to the specific feedstock being
assessed. To determine which category your
feedstock falls into, see Table 3, above.
Assessment Level Review

Note: Any feedstock being assessed as C: “end- In assessing some feedstock/region

of-life product” or D (including D1 and D2): combinations, some indicators may be
“residue” should meet the Roundtable for particularly complex and important, requiring
Sustainable Biomaterials (RSB) definitions additional assessment. Recommendations for
provided by the RSB Standard for Advanced additional assessment and resources to explore
Fuels and the RSB Standard for Advanced in further detail for each of the 13 indicators are
Products, respectively. provided in the individual data sheets. Indicators
that expose high potential risk should be
explored with higher-quality data and/or local
expertise before a decision as to whether to
RSB Definitions pursue the specific feedstock/region
combination is made. By completing this
“End-of-life product”: Material with low additional level of review for indicators that have
economic value that the holder discards or exposed high risk, the user should have all the
intends or is required to discard and that was not best science and information available when
primarily produced or intended for the production proceeding forward with a biobased plastic
of advanced fuels or advanced products and has feedstock solution.

9
Production Management and Risk and ISEAL (the global membership association
for credible sustainability standards) discussion
Mitigation paper Credible Assurances at a Landscape
Scale, intended to stimulate conversation about
The BFA recommends that this methodology be what credible assurance and claims around
used in conjunction with credible responsible sustainable production processes look like at a
sourcing systems such as sustainable landscape scale.
agriculture standards.
The BFA recommends pursuing sustainability
This tool is a decision-making methodology for certifications that are ISEAL code compliant.
assessing risk and understanding the trade-offs ISEAL is a global organization that supports
across various feedstock opportunities. It is not ambitious and transparent sustainability
a certification, standard, or method for production systems. ISEAL code compliance demonstrates
management, measurement, or improvement successful adherence to ISEAL’s Standards-
over time. There are, however, many of these Setting, Impacts and Assurance Codes of Good
management programs in the forms of Practice.
certifications, roundtables, standards, and best
management practices (BMPs) for a number See below for additional resources and tools
of commonly used feedstocks. For more recommended to be used in conjunction with
information on this topic, see the 2019 WWF this methodology.

10
List of Certifications and Management Systems
Standard Bonsucro Bonsucro is a multistakeholder standard-setting organization for global sugarcane production.
for global Bonsucro’s metric-based standard does not prescribe practices to producers; however, it sets the
sugarcane bar for outcomes at the farm and milling level. Bonsucro’s production standard is recognized by
production the European Union’s Renewable Energy Directive. 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 biobased plastic feedstocks.

Standard The Round The Round Table for Responsible Soy (RTRS) is a nonprofit, global platform for dialogue on
for soy Table for responsible soy that maintains the RTRS certification Standard for Responsible Soy Production.
sourcing Responsible WWF helped establish the RTRS in 2005. For more information on soy production impacts, visit
Soy https://www.worldwildlife.org/industries/soy.
(RTRS)

Standard Forest The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) is an independent nonprofit membership organization
for tree- Stewardship cofounded by WWF in 1993 to advance forest stewardship through the certification of forest
based Council management practices and labeling of certified forest products.
products (FSC) It is built on best practices for sustainable forest management—production operations for forest-
based products should meet FSC standards to ensure forest ecosystems, water quality, wildlife
habitats, and local communities are protected.

Standard RSPO Next For palm oil, RSPO Next goes above and beyond the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil’s
for palm (RSPO) requirements and through voluntary effort exceeds the RSPO principles and criteria.
oil Third-party verification can ensure RSPO Next companies achieve additional goals categorized
into the following categories: reduction of greenhouse gases (GHGs), no deforestation, no fire, no
planting on peat, respect for human rights, and transparency. RSPO Next requires achievement in
each of these categories across the entire organization including the company’s supply base, joint
ventures, and investments.

Standard Roundtable Roundtable on Sustainable Biomaterials (RSB) also certifies the above-mentioned
for other on feedstocks. RSB certifies biomaterials made from primary biomass as well as
feedstocks Sustainable wastes/residues through all stages of the supply chain up to the manufacture of the end product,
Biomaterials enabling plastics to carry impact-based claims on their fossil displacement, climate mitigation, and
(RSB) and sustainability. Finally, RSB’s GHG Calculator allows users to calculate the supply chain GHG
RSB’s GHG emissions of a material and understand whether a biomaterial achieves a GHG reduction
Calculator compared with the fossil-based alternative.
Climate Stockholm Climate change is already directly impacting agriculture, and its impact is only
resiliency Resilience expected to be more dramatic in the future. It is increasingly important to manage for
Center change, not just persistence. 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 may effectively build resiliency into the production
system. Visit the Stockholm Resilience Center online for more information about
climate change resilience.

Climate Scenario Scenario planning is an effective method that is increasingly important to plan for
change planning climate change impacts when the future is both unknown and likely to be very
impacts different from the present. Scenarios are plausible characterizations of the future.
They differ from forecasts and predictions because they are not associated with
probabilities, but they are based on scientific evidence and must be plausible.
Scenarios should be used in three stages: (1) to identify the range of future
conditions to be considered by vulnerability assessments for feedstock production
systems, natural resources, landscapes, and/or relevant indicators; (2) to identify
potential adaptation actions to address vulnerabilities; and (3) to evaluate the
vulnerability and value of potential adaptation actions themselves. Scenario planning
is often conducted for 30-year time periods, but time frames and methods for
scenario development should be compatible with the feedstock and natural
environment. The main inputs from scenarios will likely be climate variables,
although other factors included in the scenarios (e.g., fire, floods) can certainly
contribute to evaluating vulnerability.

Water WWF’s Water Excellent water management is important for all feedstocks and regions and can be
management Risk Filter and seen in each of the five goals of the methodology. The BFA recommends the
the Alliance for following options for assessing water risk:
Water • First, WWF’s Water Risk Filter can be used to understand the level and type
Stewardship of risk in the basin where the crop production is being considered. Then,
Standard (AWS) this area should be explored under future conditions (scenarios). If
current/future projections show medium to high water risk—i.e., medium-
high overall risk, or high risk in any one category (scarcity, quality, etc.)—
further investigation and information is needed. The Water Risk Filter will
allow companies to build water risk assessments and explore various
scenarios over 10-year and 30-year time frames. The BFA recommends this
as a first step followed by full water stewardship activities to mitigate
more substantial water risk later in the process. The Water Risk Filter also
has an “operational risk” survey section that looks specifically at what risks
are incurred and perpetuated by on-site actions. After the survey is
completed, mitigation responses are generated by the Water Risk Filter.
• BFA recommends implementation of the Alliance for Water Stewardship
Standard for medium-high-risk and high-risk locations. The AWS Standard
is a stepwise approach to mitigating water risk and is designed to work in
any industry or geography. The AWS Standard overlaps with governmental
regulations, crop production standards, ISO standards, etc. It is designed to
address current and future risk for water management. See further
information on AWS in Appendix B. Water risk assessment and climate risk
assessment should be assessed in tandem.

12
Indirect Land Use Low Indirect Impact Biofuel (LIIB) Indirect land use change (iLUC) as a part of overall land
Change Methodology use change (LUC) is reviewed at a very high level in this
methodology. WWF, Ecofys, and École polytechnique
RSB Low iLUC Risk Biomass fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) have developed a
Module methodology to reduce iLUC, called the Low Indirect Impact
Biofuel (LIIB) Methodology. The LIIB methodology was
designed to distinguish biofuels that have a low risk of
causing indirect impacts but can be used for biomass
production as well. It develops concepts proposed for
mitigation of iLUC 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. RSB also has an add-on module for RSB
certifications to explore a crop’s risk of causing iLUC. The
RSB Low iLUC Risk Biomass Module provides operators
with the opportunity to voluntarily explore additional criteria
and compliance indicators to demonstrate a low risk that
their operations will displace biomass production
elsewhere.

13
Assessment of Biobased Plastic Feedstock
Exercise Information

Feedstock Evaluated

Geographical Boundary*

Level of Data/Information**
(Circle one) Local/Production Site(s) Regional National
State of Project
(Circle one) Feedstock in Production Feedstock Being Considered
Method Version
2021
Name of Reviewer

Date

*The geographical boundary is defined as the area where the feedstock is sourced. Ideally, local data and
information from an actual production site are 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
sourced—be as precise as possible given available information. Attach a map with boundaries if possible.
Users exploring nonagricultural feedstocks (e.g., feedstocks from seascapes or industrial processes)
should also report geographical information, as all biobased plastic feedstock production has the potential
for local impacts.

**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
completing the 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:

14
 Executive Level Screening
Applicable feedstock categories: A–D

Step 1: Identify feedstock and sourcing region.

Response: Yes or No
Step 2: Review each feedstock/region combination for the following questions.
Resources provided can serve as a starting point to help answer each question.
Please also add relevant notes
from your research in this
Note: Biobased plastic feedstocks may not be land-based crops. Some questions
column.
below may not be relevant for novel feedstocks (nonagricultural biobased plastic
feedstocks, wastes and residues, etc.). New questions added to this updated
A “Yes” for each of the questions
version of the methodology (2021) attempt to capture additional impacts from
indicates a higher likelihood of
novel feedstocks.
the particular feedstock as a
viable solution.

1. If this feedstock is land-based, is it already cultivated in this region? Yes or No

Yes or No
If “No”: Is the new feedstock known to be noninvasive?

Resources
• Crop production metadata is available through FAOSTAT.
• For the US: The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) National
Agricultural Statistics Service’s tool CropScape is a geospatial data set
that shows which crops are grown where through a mapping interface
with many data layers.
• Country-level ministries or departments of agriculture may publish crop
production briefs (e.g., the Brazilian Institute of Geography and
Statistics, a government agency that publishes the national Census of
Agriculture).
• Group on Earth Observations Global Agricultural Monitoring’s
(GEOGLAM) initiative Crop Monitor provides information related to crop
cultivation area and up-to-date crop conditions.
• International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Global Invasive
Species Database is a global database with information on invasive
alien species that threaten native biodiversity and natural areas.
• Global Forest Resources Assessment, provided by the Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, provides country-level
data on planted trees and plantations, as well as native vs. non-native
species under production in country. Follow-up research on
invasiveness of species is required.
• Nature Map Explorer is a global map indicating natural forest, planted
forest, and woody plantations (see “Human impact on forests” section).

15
 • Check local government information/media coverage to ensure the
feedstock is not considered an invasive species in the region.

2. Can this feedstock be legally sourced in this region? Yes or No

Check for legal issues related to sourcing this feedstock in this region. For
example: Legal challenges may include existing quotas for production of crops
in the region under consideration, issues of land rights, or the risk that
minimum wage cannot be guaranteed.

Resources
• Check local and national policy/regulations.
• Explore negative media attention for the crop/region combination.
• Refer to US Department of Labor reports (The Department of Labor’s
Findings on the Worst Forms of Child Labor, the List of Goods
Produced by Child Labor or Forced Labor, and the List of Products
Produced by Forced or Indentured Child Labor).
• Refer to Nature Economy and People Connected, Sourcing Hub:
Preferred by Nature, a sourcing hub for timber with timber legality risk
maps (country level) and accompanying risk assessments/reports per
country.

3. In the sourcing region, can you obtain this feedstock from sources that Yes or No
adhere to labor and operational health and safety (OHS) regulations?

Resources
• national and local OHS laws
• country-level labor department reports

4. Identify key environmental problems with the feedstock. Key problems are
List here:
those that have clear evidence of occurrence and cause a severe or major
and lasting impact on the environment. List them here or on an attached
sheet. List mitigation systems/plans for each issue.

Potential Environmental Issues

• threatens/impacts endemic species and protected areas (rare,
threatened, or endangered species and ecosystems) either directly or
indirectly (e.g., land use change)
• impacts threatened/endangered species (species may be listed at the
federal, regional, or local level)
• requires direct land use change to grow feedstock (natural habitat
conversion)
• soil erosion, compaction, and degradation
• pollutes the local water resources
• utilizes water from already or projected water-stressed area
• threatens/impacts intactness and connectedness of ecosystems

16
 • specifically threatens refugia
• cultivated on land that would otherwise be more beneficial for nature-
based climate solutions (e.g., for nonagricultural climate adaptation
strategies)

As there are many resources available to help answer this question, these are
listed in Appendix A.
Yes or No
Are the identified environmental risks addressable? Do actionable mitigation
systems exist in the region? Is there a plan for continuous improvement?

If “No” to any of these three questions, answer “No.”

5. List known social issues associated with this feedstock.

List here:
Potential Social Issues (List for Reference)
• low wages and unfair prices for farmers and laborers
• abuses of workers’ rights including unhealthy working conditions, forced
labor, child labor, discrimination
• restrictions on workers’ collective bargaining power or freedom of
association
• impacts on land ownership and control
• impacts on Indigenous communities
• impacts on water access and withdrawal rights, stable and equitable
access to water, and water quality including impairment to water used
for drinking water, sanitation, and hygiene
• livelihood activities displaced
• commodity pricing, price volatility
• impacts on health and well-being
• impacts on availability of natural resources
• impacts on natural capital or ecosystem services

See Appendix A for guidance and resources to answer this question.

Yes or No
Are there mitigation systems in place that can address these social issues? Is a
continuous improvement plan in place? If even one risk is missing a
mitigation plan or system, “No” must be marked.

6. Are vulnerability assessments available, or have you done a vulnerability

Yes or No
assessment for climate change for this feedstock in this landscape?

Is there a mitigation plan in place to address risks identified by the Yes or No

vulnerability assessment for climate change?

Vulnerability assessment should be based on climate projections and identify key

climate change impacts on (1) the feedstock itself, (2) required resources for
production, and (3) the surrounding landscape including communities and
ecosystems. If there are identified impacts in all three climate categories, the

17
feedstock and area might not be suitable for production and “No” should be
marked.

Vulnerability assessments should include the following:

• key climate risks, which may include but are not limited to temperature
changes, flood or drought risk, higher likelihood and severity of storms,
and sea level change
• evaluation of exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity of the
species, ecosystem, or ecological process. Sensitivity and adaptive
capacity are sometimes evaluated together
• analyses of observed (historical) and projected (future) climate, land
use, demography, and other important climate and non-climate factors
• evaluation of changes that have already occurred in the species,
ecosystem, or ecological process of interest (where possible,
identifying changes that are determined to be caused by either climate
or non-climate drivers)
• an objective scoring method to evaluate the relative vulnerabilities of
species, areas, or processes of interest
• estimation of uncertainties (which can be estimated using expert
knowledge or statistical variation) of projected changes in both climate
and non-climate drivers of change as well as the species or ecosystem
response
• an analysis of spatial information available for the potentially
vulnerable areas, including an evaluation of potential climate refugia
(i.e., areas of low exposure to climate change)
• narratives that describe key information sources, relevant ecological
and geographical contexts, and justifications for rankings

Global tools and existing literature can be used to answer the above questions
at a regional level. For further assessment, methodology users could explore
working with an expert on the feedstock/region under review, for example, an
academic institution with research activity in this space.

For more information on global tools and existing literature, see the Task Force
on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures’ technical supplement, a
comprehensive toolkit that provides a thorough explanation of climate
projections and scenario planning and provides links to many additional
sources.

Additional information on resilience can be found in Appendix A.

7. Are there credible feedstock management systems in these regions?

Yes or No
If “Yes”: Will you pursue the adoption of the relevant management system?
Yes or No

18
If “No”: Is there a plan to ensure production meets or exceeds the recognized
standard? Yes or No

Recommended Certifications
• Roundtable on Sustainable Biomaterials
• Bonsucro
• Forest Stewardship Council
• Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil
• Round Table on Responsible Soy
• Alliance for Water Stewardship
• Rainforest Alliance/Sustainable Agriculture Certification (WWF only
endorses this certification when an alternative WWF-endorsed standard
does not exist for a specific commodity.)
• AFi Land Management and Long-Term Protection Principle

8. Can you verify that this region is not identified on the FAO Low-Income
Food-Deficit Countries list? Yes or No

Low-Income Food-Deficit Countries (LIFDCs)—List

If “No”: Will you take specific effort to ensure the feedstock would not create
food supply disruption or affect other ecosystem services? Yes or No

9. Can you confirm that the introduction or increased production of this

Yes or No
feedstock has not been shown to increase food prices in the region?

Resources:
Although there is no single source to answer this question, it is helpful to
explore media attention and research focused on the specific geographic area
and specifically on issues raised by local agricultural production in this
geography. Search for past instances of food price increases due to new or
increased agricultural activity.

10. Does or will the cultivation of this feedstock contribute to the ability of
Yes or No
ecosystems and communities to respond to, recover from, and adapt to
climate shocks and stresses?

A production system meets this qualification if it is produced in an agroforestry

system or if it promotes nature-based solutions to help vulnerable people adapt
to climate change and reduce disaster risk in the surrounding landscape (i.e.,
ecosystem-based adaptation and ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction).
Nature-based solutions and the design of agroforestry systems must explicitly
include the role of biodiversity and address the need to help nature adapt to
climate change through climate-informed and flexible management. Refer to
vulnerability assessments collected or conducted in screening question 6 to

19
better understand the impacts of climate change on nature-based solutions and
agroforestry systems.

For more information and resources on nature-based solutions, see Resilience

Resources in Appendix A. For more information on specific qualities of
resilience for an ecosystem, see Factors of Resilience in Appendix A.

11. Is it clear that no critical ecosystems, high conservation value (HCV)

Yes or No
habitats, High Carbon Stocks, or intact forest landscapes exist in the
regions of feedstock cultivation?
Yes or No
If “No”: Is this feedstock produced or will it be produced in a way that does
not put any priority places at risk (directly and indirectly)?

Resources
• World Database of Protected Areas: This is the most comprehensive
global database of marine and terrestrial protected areas. It is updated
on a monthly basis.
• Alliance for Zero Extinction: This resource monitors the geospatially
defined last remaining habitat of threatened species.
• Important Bird Areas (IBA): A global map of IBAs is provided by
BirdLife, and a US map is provided by Audubon.
• UN Biosphere Reserves: These are areas of learning for sustainable
development. Reserves aim to reconcile biodiversity conservation and
the sustainable use of natural resources.
• IUCN Protected Area Categories: Protected areas are categorized into
specific types (strict nature reserve, wilderness area, etc.) that are
recognized by the UN and used as a global standard for defining
protected areas.
• RAMSAR Sites: These wetland sites are designated to be of
international importance under the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands.
• Global Forest Watch: This online tool to monitor global forest data in
near-real time includes an intact forest landscapes layer.
• Intact Forest Landscapes (IFLs): Mosaic of forest and naturally treeless
ecosystems within the zone of current forest extent, which exhibit no
remotely detected signs of human activity or habitat fragmentation and
are large enough to maintain all native biological diversity, including
viable populations of wide-ranging species. The maps are produced by
Greenpeace, The University of Maryland, Wildlife Conservation Society,
Transparent World, World Resources Institute, and WWF.

12. Is this feedstock of low risk to cause habitat conversion? Yes or No

The following factors may be indicative of lower risk for habitat conversion:
• The feedstock is grown on degraded land.
• The feedstock is grown on land already under agricultural production.

20
 • The feedstock is a waste or residue (RSB criteria for determining a
waste or residue comes from the RSB Standard for Advanced Fuels).
• The feedstock is produced on nonarable land (e.g., microalgae facility
located on nonarable land).
• The feedstock is grown in open water without negative impact to the
local ecosystem (e.g., open water seaweed farming).

Resources
• Accountability Framework initiative (AFi)
• WWF publications by country/priority commodities
• other commodity-specific reports covering the region, with information
about the specific land type this feedstock is being cultivated on

The ELS is designed to allow a user to identify high-level risks at a qualitative level, to aid in
decision-making, and to provide guidance on where additional due diligence is needed for
projects that move forward.

A “Yes” for each of the 12 questions indicates a higher likelihood of the particular
feedstock/region as a viable solution and indicates that the feedstock/region should move on
SCORE
to review at the BFA Survey Level Screening. A single “No” in itself may not mean the
combination of feedstock/region should not move forward, but “Yes” answers provide higher
confidence in the solution moving forward.

Total number of “No” responses: ______

21
Survey Level Screening
BFA Survey Level Screening

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES GOALS: 3

Applicable feedstock categories: A, B, D1

Context

Human beings benefit from multidimensional 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. Producing biomass for the purpose of biobased plastics may interrupt these self-
regulatory processes. Community well-being is intricately linked to the functioning of ecosystem services, and any
negative impacts to ecosystem services from biomass production systems or from climate change may have
serious issues for the community. Producing biobased plastic feedstocks should not impair the ecosystem services
of that region.

The capacity of ecosystems to continue providing ecosystem services should be evaluated based on future climate
scenarios. If only historical data is used in an assessment, the capacity of an ecosystem to provide services may be
miscalculated. Using only historical data may compromise the effectiveness of management decisions made to
conserve or provide ecosystem services.

Implementation of best practices in feedstock production to protect ecosystems can lead to improved outcomes for
the provision of ecosystem services and producers. Two examples are given below.

The 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.

The Farmable Wetlands Program (run by the CRP with the assistance of local conservation groups) works to
restore previously farmed wetlands and wetland buffers in the United States to improve the hydrology and
vegetation of the land. Farmers and ranchers in any state are eligible to participate in the Farmable Wetlands
Program, although there are restrictions for enrollment in terms of past land use practices and amount of acreage.
Healthy wetlands provide numerous ecosystem and biodiversity benefits, including reduction in downstream flood
damage potential, improved surface and groundwater quality, recharge of groundwater supplies, and reduced
nutrient (nitrogen and phosphorus) discharge to surface water.

See Appendix A for additional resources to answer these questions.

Preliminary Research

Before users explore the potential impacts of the proposed production system or feedstock on the ecosystem
services of the area, they should find out what ecosystem services (ecological processes beneficial to people) the
area currently provides and who benefits from these services, via a scientific literature search and/or by consulting
local experts. Examples of ecosystem services are water provisioning; water quality protection; soil formation; soil
retention; soil carbon storage; greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation; air quality protection; food, fuel, and fiber
production; erosion control; pollination; pest regulation; disease regulation; recreation (e.g., hunting and fishing,
wildlife viewing); biodiversity conservation; and cultural and aesthetic services. Methodologies for identifying
ecosystem services are numerous, and some initial guidance and resources can be found in Appendix A.

22
Users of this methodology should be careful to acknowledge and manage for all relevant ecosystem services
provided by this landscape; but in order to focus research, we recommend users identify the top three to five
ecosystem services provided by the landscape, as identified by local stakeholders.

Metric Result Justification Mitigation Strategy

1A. Can it be proven that the production of

this feedstock does not or will not disrupt Yes
access for communities and other
beneficiaries to ecosystem services No
identified above?

1B. Have the beneficiaries of these

ecosystem services been identified and Yes
engaged in order to identify their
concerns? No

2. Is demand for the ecosystem services

listed expected to remain stable (rather than Yes
increase) based on future climate and
demographic projections? No

3. Can it be proven that the feedstock is not

displacing or will not displace natural Yes
perennial vegetation or disrupt the ability of
an ecosystem to be resilient (based on No
migration, minimum size to provide
services, refugia, functional redundancy,
and other resilience measures)?

Note: In general, any shift of native

perennial vegetation to an exotic
monoculture results in substantial loss in
ecosystem services.

4. Is or will the feedstock be a perennial or If perennial

an annual variety, or is the feedstock or
produced in an agroforestry system? agroforestry,
answer
Note: In general, perennial crops may have “Yes.”
a less negative impact on ecosystem
services than annual monocultures. If annual,
answer “No.”

23
5. Are there existing payment for ecosystem
services (PES) schemes either in the region Yes
or for the feedstock that are relevant, and
will they be implemented or replicated? No

6. Does the project include a rigorous plan

and committed funding for the monitoring Yes
and evaluation of the effects of the
proposed feedstock production strategy on No
key target ecosystem services?

Provide details on adaptive management

and cost-effectiveness of management
decisions.

7. Does the production of this feedstock

contribute net positive benefits to the region Yes
and its inhabitants? More specifically, does
production of the feedstock contribute to the
resilience of the landscape in one or more No
of the following ways:

• Improved climate change impact

resilience: Specific qualities of a
resilient ecosystem that should be
explicitly considered in the process
of evaluating resilience include the
size of the area, refugia
characteristics, genetic diversity,
functional diversity, and functional
redundancy. Also, if an area
supports the migration of certain
species, it should be considered of
particular resilience value for
biodiversity. For additional
resources, see Appendix A.

• Physical and biological means:

These means include habitat and
crop diversification, location-based
conservation of local/indigenous
seed and germplasm diversity,
maintenance of natural enemies’
species diversity, and improved
water capture and retention.

• Sociocultural and political

means: These include
diversification of farming systems
and local economies, as well as
technical, legal and social support

24
 networks for small-scale farmers,
rural communities, and Indigenous
peoples that reduce socioeconomic
and political vulnerability and
strengthen adaptive knowledge
processes.

Calculations based on scenario modeling could be used for further assessment for this Ecosystem
Services indicator. Scenario modeling is an exercise that can be done at many levels and is important in
the resilience-building process. If this further assessment is pursued, please add results in the
“Comments” box below. For guidance on scenario modeling, see the Task Force on Climate-Related
Financial Disclosures’ technical supplement, a comprehensive toolkit that provides a thorough
explanation of climate projections and scenario planning and provides links to many additional sources.

How many questions above were answered with “No”? _____

“No” responses without identified mitigation strategies indicate moderate to

SCORING SUMMARY high risk, and further research should be performed to explore the
probability and severity of identified risks. Mitigation plans should be in
place before production is pursued.

How many identified issues remain without clear mitigation strategies

or improvement plans? _______

Identify and provide more detail for any questions answered “No.”

IDENTIFIED 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 services provision to get a more detailed
NEXT STEPS understanding of the impacts from land use change and the resultant trade-
offs to society.

Identify baseline services and known interactions with the feedstock.

25
BFA Survey Level Screening

BIODIVERSITY GOALS: 2, 4, 5
Applicable feedstock categories: A, B, D1

Context

Under no circumstances should feedstock production result in deforestation or conversion of existing natural areas
of high conservation value.

While land conversion for feedstock production has clear and obvious risks to biodiversity, feedstock production
may threaten species and habitats through additional direct and indirect pathways. For example, species of special
concern may inhabit the project site, even if it has already been modified from its natural condition, or species may
use the site as a migration or dispersal corridor. Development of the area for feedstocks may threaten 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 to 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 through the introduction of agrochemical pollution.

Indirect impacts to protected areas in proximity to the project site or in a shared watershed may also occur. For
example, the demand for water from the production of biomass may pose threats both upstream and downstream of
the project site. All 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 direct and indirect impacts to biodiversity and nearby
protected areas.

Biodiversity is also at risk from climate change. It is important to assess the state of an ecosystem and the
biodiversity therein using climate information to understand vulnerability, exposure, and adaptive capacity of
ecosystems and biodiversity to climate change.

Metric Result Justification Mitigation Strategy

1. Is there evidence that feedstock

cultivation will not directly affect or be in Yes
proximity to (follow local legislation for
guidance, or if that is lacking, consider No
upstream and downstream or adjacent
areas) any protected areas or areas
designated as environmentally important by
national legislation or international
conventions (e.g., Ramsar, World Heritage
Sites)?

An overview of relevant international

biodiversity conventions is available here.

26
2. Is there evidence that biodiversity in the
area will not be severely impacted by Yes
climate change?
No
See Appendix A for resources.

3. Is there evidence that feedstock

cultivation does not or will not affect any Yes
areas identified as priorities for biodiversity
conservation (e.g., protected areas or No
natural environment, like forests, natural
grasslands, savannas, coastal mangroves,
etc.) or areas of cultural importance to local
community members (e.g., burial sites,
sacred forests)?

4. Is there evidence that the project does

not or will not increase access to and/or Yes
activity in areas that were previously
inaccessible or lacking infrastructure (e.g., No
by building roads, bringing trains, or
facilitating movement on river networks)?

5. Will a change in the cultivating practices

in the proposed project site improve the Yes
ability of the land to provide habitat?
No
Answer “Yes” if the land in question is
currently degraded and remediation and
cultivation could improve habitat provision
for native fauna (pollinators, birds, aquatic
species, etc.). Additionally, aquaculture
operations may also provide new habitat—
for example, a seaweed farm that provides
new nursery habitat for fish and
crustaceans.

27
6. Is there assurance the feedstock
cultivation or processing will not affect any Yes
terrestrial species of concern (critically
endangered, endangered, or vulnerable No
species per IUCN Red List); rare or
threatened habitat types; or nationally or
internationally recognized biological
priorities?

Consider the impacts of habitat conversion,

disturbance, or fragmentation, including
disruption, fragmentation, or dispersal of
migratory pathways, and introduction of
species that are non-native (invasive or
genetically modified organism (GMO)) to
the larger region.

Global threatened species are listed at

www.redlist.org; national/regional
threatened species can be found in the
country’s ministry of environment or
equivalent.

For threatened habitats, users should refer

to country-level guidance.

See Appendix A: Environmental Resources

for more information.

7. Is there evidence that feedstock

cultivation or processing will not affect any Yes
aquatic species of special concern (critically
endangered, endangered, or vulnerable No
species per IUCN Red List)?

Aquatic covers both saltwater and

freshwater species. Consider the impacts of
downstream habitat conversion,
disturbance, fragmentation, water
abstraction or water pollution, and
introduction of species that are non-native
(invasive or GMO) to the larger region (e.g.,
coral reef ecosystems).

8. Is there a plan to minimize unintended

negative consequences on natural Yes
resources (including animal species) in
surrounding areas during project
development or operation (e.g., night No
production effect on nocturnal species;
introduction of humans as predators)?

28
9. Does or will feedstock cultivation or
processing not require the draining of Yes
wetlands or altering of hydrological regimes
(e.g., peat bogs, brackish water)?
No

10. Are aquatic systems within the Yes

feedstock cultivation site adequately
buffered and protected from agricultural
activities (or will they be)? No

Provide details on buffer plans.

11. Did or will you create and implement a

management plan for biodiversity Yes
management (species and habitat) to
assure that those of special concern and
existing ecosystems are not adversely No
affected?

How many questions above were answered with “No”? _____

“No” responses without identified mitigation strategies indicate moderate to

SCORING SUMMARY high risk, and further research should be performed to explore the
probability and severity of identified risks. Mitigation plans should be in
place before production is pursued.

How many identified issues remain without clear mitigation strategies

or improvement plans? _______

29
 Identify and provide more detail for any questions answered “No.”

IDENTIFIED RISKS

Verify that the project includes a rigorous plan and committed funding for
the monitoring and evaluation of the proposed feedstock production
strategy and its impacts on biodiversity.
NEXT STEPS
The following sources are credible sources for more information on
biodiversity and agriculture/forestry:

Farming with Biodiversity, WWF

Sustainable Agriculture Overview, WWF
Responsible Forestry Overview, WWF
Biodiversity and Agriculture, FoodPrint

30
BFA Survey Level Screening

CHEMICAL USE AND IMPACT GOALS: 1, 2, 4, 5

Applicable feedstock categories: A, B, D1

Context

Agrochemical use is a factor that may have multiple impacts on the environment and the health and well-being of
the workers, as well as the local community. Agrochemicals can be properly used on site, judiciously and in a
targeted fashion using existing best practices. 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 runoff and spraying must be assessed and
managed. 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, nor should there be use of chemicals listed in
the Rotterdam Convention Annex III due to their highly hazardous nature and particular risk in developing countries
where low awareness and lack of proper labeling of chemicals put people and the environment at greater risk.
FAO’s International Code of Conduct on Pesticide Management should be followed in the use and disposal of
chemicals as a safeguard for human health and the environment. Finally, agrochemical use should not violate The
Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants.

In the case of plant nutrition, products, soil, and foliar analyses should be performed prior to any application, and a
plant nutrition expert should make the application recommendation. Excess nutrient use—in particular, excess
nitrogen and phosphorous use—is harmful to the natural environment, as an overabundance of nutrients in water
results in eutrophication, a process whereby algae rapidly accumulate in water bodies, creating toxic algal blooms.
Cyanobacteria, a group of photosynthetic bacteria, decompose the algae through an oxygen-intensive process,
which results in decreased oxygen levels and hypoxic conditions known as “dead zones.” These eutrophic
conditions and dead zones detrimentally affect aquatic ecosystems and drinking water quality.

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

Chemical use for the production of feedstocks will be affected in the coming years by climate change, which alters
the distribution and severity of pest outbreaks.

31
 Metric Result Justification Mitigation Strategy

1A. Is this feedstock produced without

synthetic nutrients in this region? Yes

Answer questions 1B and 1C only if you No

answered “No” to 1A.

1B. Are or will nutrient management Yes

systems be used for the production of this
feedstock that allow for quantitative No
monitoring?

Explain nutrient management approach and

monitoring.

1C. Are or will there be activities (crop Yes

rotation, buffer zones, no-till, replacing
chemicals with compost, etc.) to reduce the No
amount of synthetic nutrients used?

If “Yes,” list activities in comment column.

2A. Is there low future risk of increased Yes

need for synthetic nutrients or impact from
nutrient use for this area? No

Consider major climate events, soil organic

carbon content, soil structure related to
compaction, depth of the top layer of soil
related to erosion, etc.

Answer question 2B only if you

answered “No” to 2A.

2B. Will mitigation activities be put in place Yes

to reduce future risk of increased nutrient
use? No

32
3A. Are there no regulated chemicals used
for pest management on this feedstock in Yes
this region?
No
“Regulated” may signify strict requirements
for training, handling, and equipment, or it
may imply full restrictions against the
production and use of such chemicals. Use
WHO Recommended Classification of
Pesticides by Hazard, and Guidelines to
Classification, 2019 for guidance on
chemicals. This guidance document
includes restrictions on chemicals made by
the Stockholm Convention and the
Rotterdam Convention.

Answer questions 3B, 3C, and 3D only if

you answered “No” to 3A.

3B. Are pest management systems used, or

will they be, for this feedstock in this region Yes
that allow for quantitative monitoring?
No
Include historical use of pest management
chemicals—amount, timing, and method of
application per hectare.

Note: Verify that chemical quantities are not

double-counted for both nutrient and pest
management.

3C. Are there or will there be activities (pest

confirmation before application, parasitic Yes
insects, or other examples of integrated
pest management (IPM)) to reduce the No
amount of regulated pesticides used?

If “Yes,” list activities.

3D. Can you verify that none of the

pesticides being used are classified as Yes
either 1A or 1B on the World Health
Organization pesticide classification system No
in use for this feedstock and that the
production of this feedstock is compliant
with World Bank Operational Policy OP
4.09?

See Appendix B for World Bank Operational

Policy OP 4.09.

33
4A. Is there low future risk for this area that
would increase the need for or impact from Yes
regulated pesticide use?
No
Consider pesticide resistance and mutation,
new pests, the possibility for pests to be
carriers for other destructive factors, etc.

Answer question 4B only if you

answered “No” to 4A.

4B. Will mitigation activities be put in place Yes

to reduce future risk of increased pesticide
use? No

If “Yes,” explain the activities.

Refer to NEXT STEPS for tools to plan

mitigation activities.

How many questions above were answered with “No”? _____

“No” responses without identified mitigation strategies indicate moderate to

SCORING SUMMARY high risk, and further research should be performed to explore the
probability and severity of identified risks. Mitigation plans should be in
place before production is pursued.

How many identified issues remain without clear mitigation strategies

or improvement plans? _______

Identify and provide more detail for any questions answered “No.”
IDENTIFIED RISKS

34
 Verify that the project includes a rigorous plan and committed funding for
the monitoring and evaluation of the proposed feedstock production
chemical use strategy and its impacts.
NEXT STEPS
BFA recommends that the user verify that the site abides by EPA (EPCRA)
Hazardous Chemical Storage Reporting Requirements.

See Appendix B for EPCRA explanation.

35
BFA Survey Level Screening

RESIDUES AND WASTE

MANAGEMENT GOALS: 1, 2, 5
Applicable feedstock categories: A–D

Context

Feedstock processing sites generate many different types of residues, byproducts, and waste. The International
Civil Aviation Organization defines byproducts, residues, and waste (for the purposes of biofuel feedstock
production but relevant nonetheless to biobased plastic feedstock production) as follows:
• byproducts: secondary products with inelastic supply and economic value
• residues: secondary products with inelastic supply and little economic value; can include agricultural or
processing residues
• waste: products with inelastic supply and no economic value; any substance or object which the holder
discards or intends or is required to discard

Utilizing byproducts, residues, and waste can provide many environmental and economic benefits. For example,
these products can be used to generate electricity (from bagasse in sugarcane, fiber and nutshell in palm oil), as
animal feed (from waste products with high nutritional value), for further processing into chemicals and fuels, or on-
farm as soil amendments to improve structure and quality of the soil. The production of electricity from byproducts
can reduce the demand for fossil-sourced energy to generate electricity. Likewise, utilizing processing wastes as a
feedstock to produce biobased materials can displace the use of fossil resources for materials (e.g., plastic)
production.

Metric Result Justification Mitigation Strategy

1A. If the feedstock is a waste or residue,

does it meet RSB criteria? (RSB criteria for Yes
determining a waste or residue comes from
the RSB Standard for Advanced Fuels.) No

If the feedstock does not meet RSB’s N/A

criteria as a waste or residue, the feedstock (feedstock is
should be categorized in this methodology not a waste
as A or B. or residue)

1B. If the feedstock is a waste, can you Yes

confirm there is no evidence of negative
displacement impacts? (Negative No
displacement impacts may include
reallocation of waste from another use, N/A
such as animal feed or soil amendment.) (feedstock is
not a waste)

36
1C. Only answer if feedstock is in
category D1 (field residue). Yes

Is there evidence that the current or No

proposed rate of feedstock waste/residue
removal from the field or forest does not
have a negative impact on soil quality or
stability?

• Certifications (such as RSB) often

have requirements to ensure
waste/residue removal does not
have a negative impact.
• Look for evidence relevant to the
specific feedstock/region under
assessment.
• For more information on residue
removal rates and impacts, see the
following:
o Crop Residue Removal Impacts
on Soil Productivity and
Environmental Quality
o Review of the Impact of Crop
Residue Management on sSoil
Organic Carbon in Europe
o Crop Residue Removal: Impacts
on Yield
o Residue Removal and Potential
Environmental Consequences
o Crop Residue Removal for
Biomass Energy Production:
Effects on Soils and
Recommendations

2. Processing chemicals: If chemicals are Yes

used to process this feedstock, are
adequate protocols in place to ensure No
chemicals used are managed properly and
not discharged into the local area? N/A

3. Is there no risk of impact on local air Yes

quality from open burning during production
of this feedstock? No

N/A

37
 How many questions above were answered with “No”? _____

“No” responses without identified mitigation strategies indicate moderate to

SCORING SUMMARY high risk, and further research should be performed to explore the
probability and severity of identified risks. Mitigation plans should be in
place before production is pursued.

How many identified issues remain without clear mitigation strategies

or improvement plans? _______

Identify and provide more detail for any questions answered “No.”

IDENTIFIED RISKS

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

More information on wastes and residues can be found in the RSB

Standard for Advanced Fuels (waste and residues).

38
BFA Survey Level Screening

GHG EMISSIONS GOALS: 2, 5

Applicable feedstock categories: A–D

Context

One of the major advantages biobased plastic feedstocks may offer over traditional fossil feedstocks is the potential
for a reduced greenhouse gas (GHG) footprint. Traditional agriculture and forestry (and the production of some
novel feedstocks) can serve as both a source and a sink of carbon dioxide. As plants grow, they sequester
atmospheric carbon dioxide, which is then stored throughout the life of the product (and possibly longer if the
product is recycled). This carbon dioxide is then released during decomposition of the product at end of life.
However, there must be credible and consistent GHG accounting to ensure biobased plastic feedstocks do in fact
achieve GHG savings as compared to the fossil alternative. A consistent GHG accounting strategy is also
necessary for comparing different biobased plastic feedstock production systems against each other. A rigorous
and credible assessment determining the net GHG balance should be an essential aspect of all feedstock
proposals.

Potential contributors to GHG emissions from biobased plastic feedstock production vary depending on the
feedstock, land use change, and specific production process. General sources of emissions may include CO2
emitted by farm management processes, pre-harvest burning, soil tillage, irrigation (soil moisture impacts GHG
emission rates), and nitrous oxide emissions from the application of chemical pesticides and herbicides.

A methodology for GHG accounting needs to be identified and used consistently to ensure a dependable
assessment of GHG emissions, allowing for meaningful comparisons across feedstock production systems. GHG
accounting elements such as emission factors must be selected carefully to ensure that they are representative of
the specific process(es) being examined, as emissions associated with feedstock production vary significantly
across geographies and production processes, among other factors.

Overall product decisions need to be based on all life-cycle emissions, not just cradle to gate. Although this
methodology focuses only on sourcing impacts (cradle to gate), users should base final decisions on analysis of full
life-cycle emissions, including implications for the disposal of the material at end of life. Ideally a cradle-to-grave
GHG life-cycle assessment should be conducted by qualified assessors to fully document and evaluate the GHG
balance from both the production of the biomass and the downstream processing, taking into account factors such
as direct and indirect land conversion (to best scientific knowledge), agricultural inputs, energy requirements,
transportation, end use, byproduct use, and waste streams. Per guidance from the RSB, feedstocks that meet the
criteriafor waste or residue should exclude GHG impacts from cultivation.

While a full life-cycle emissions assessment is an important part of due diligence before final decision-
making, project approval, and any public claims, it is out of scope for this methodology—the focus of this
methodology is limited to cradle to gate in order to be consistent with the goal of providing a relatively simple
assessment that identifies areas that need further investigation. When the full life-cycle emissions assessment is
conducted, the end-of-life considerations of the product or packaging must be carefully considered. (E.g., will this
design change or the switch to this material compared to the status quo result in an item that was commonly
recycled now going to landfill, compost, etc.? Consider not just what is technically possible, but also the prevalence
of availability of collection and processing for each possible outcome in the relevant geography. This will affect the
item’s GHG performance across its full life cycle.)

Direct and Indirect Land Use Change

Both LUC and iLUC are typically significant determinants of the GHG impact associated with biobased plastic
feedstock production and must be accounted for to ensure comprehensive assessment of emissions associated
with feedstock production. While tools to measure the GHG impacts of land use change are still emerging (see
references in “Metric” below), these impacts can be significant and should be accounted for in assessing the GHG
impacts associated with feedstocks. GHGs emitted during cradle to gate fall under two general categories: land

39
occupation and land transformation (LUC) and indirect land use change (iLUC). Land occupation includes all land
use activities such as soil management, tillage, fertilizer, and other impacts. For LUC and iLUC, WWF and World
Resources Institute (WRI) are developing new guidance on corporate GHG accounting for LUC and identifying
mitigation pathways for the agriculture, forestry, and other land use (AFOLU) sector. This new guidance from the
Greenhouse Gas Protocol—to be published in 2022—on corporate land use and removals accounting for land-
based emissions will provide support in consistent and credible measurement approaches in this area, and once
released should be used to estimate these emissions.

Metric

Note: BFA recommends the use of existing GHG accounting tools for this indicator. Examples of credible tools are
listed below. After assessing the feedstock under consideration with a recommended tool, answer the two questions
posed below and the “Scoring Summary” question.

Scope: For the rest of the Methodology, the scope for assessment is land use change to initial processing, where
initial processing includes activities that directly affect the landscape where the feedstock is grown. However, for this
metric, the scope must be expanded slightly to compare the GHG emissions of the biobased plastic feedstock to the
fossil alternative. For this indicator, we recommend that the system boundary be cradle to factory gate (i.e., the
system boundary extends past the farm boundary to include the chemical and mechanical transformation of the
feedstock into the final form of the plastic product). Expanding the system boundary for this one indicator allows for a
more accurate comparison of the full production GHG impacts of the material being assessed with the full production
GHG impacts of the fossil alternative.

Biogenic CO2 uptake and emissions should be accounted for and reported separately from non-biogenic uptake and
emissions as per the GHG Protocol and ISO 14067 standard in a transparent and well-documented manner. Whether
using the GHG Protocol 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 transparently report assumptions used. In
certain cases, this will lead to “negative” biogenic 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.

At this tier of the methodology, for emission factors, it is acceptable to use industry average data—for fertilizers, fuels,
etc. For electricity emission factors, data should be country specific. For input data, it is important to strive for
production location (or at least feedstock and region) specificity—i.e., fertilizer input amounts should ideally be based
on actual farm usage, or, at minimum, an average for the specific feedstock in the region should be used. When
possible, use site-specific data as opposed to general proxy data to improve the accuracy of the assessment.

Tools that can aid in estimating the GHG impacts of feedstock production include the RSB’s GHG Calculator to
calculate the supply chain GHG emissions of a material; WWF’s Biogenic Carbon Footprint Calculator to calculate
biogenic emissions for a variety of forest-based products; the Cool Farm Alliance’s Cool Farm Tool to support
estimating greenhouse gas metrics for feedstock production; IPCC’s 2019 Land Use, Land-Use Change, and
Forestry(LULUCF) guidance; and reference values to the IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories.

In accounting for GHG emissions associated with feedstock production, the Greenhouse Gas Protocol’s guidance for
land emissions and removals—to be published in 2022—should be used. While this guidance for land sector
emissions is under development, we recommend the following guidance documents in the interim: from the GHG
Protocol: GHG Protocol Corporate Standard, Scope 3 Standard, Product Standard, Agriculture Guidance, LULUCF
project guidelines, Brazil forestry tool; from IPCC: Guidelines for National GHG Inventories, Good Practice Guidance
for LULUCF; from ISO: ISO 14064–1:2018; from Quantis: Accounting for Natural Climate Solutions Guidance; and

40
from Gold Standard: Value Change Initiative, Value Chain (Scope 3) Interventions Guidance, and Soil Organic
Carbon Guidance.

Justification
Metric Result Document tools and data Mitigation Strategy
used for evaluating GHG
performance

1. After evaluating, are the biogenic GHG

emissions for this feedstock negative, Negative
neutral, or positive at the farm gate?
Neutral

Positive

2. After evaluating, are the non-biogenic

GHG emissions for this material greater Less
than, equal to (within margin of error), or
less than the fossil alternative at the factory Equal to
gate?
Greater
Consider fossil emissions from cultivation
equipment, agricultural chemicals,
processing, etc.

Use existing emission factors or previously

conducted life-cycle assessments (LCAs)
for comparison to fossil alternatives. Refer
to ISO 14067:2018.

After evaluation, is there evidence that this feedstock results in less GHG
SCORING SUMMARY emissions than the fossil alternative?

YES NO

Note: In order to be in line with a limit of 1.5°C global warming above preindustrial levels, biomaterials will need to
offer reduced GHG emissions as compared to the fossil alternative. The RSB Advanced Products Standard offers the
following guidance for GHG reductions: “Whenever certified final products are intended to replace fossil derived
products, these certified final products shall achieve at least 10% lower lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions
calculated on a cradle-to-grave basis relative to the lifecycle.”

Due to the scope of the BFA Methodology, GHG impacts for this assessment are only explored from cradle to factory
gate. Additional assessment should be used to explore the GHG impacts of the product past the factory gate.

41
 If any of the metrics above highlight a risk, it should be identified here.

IDENTIFIED 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
NEXT STEPS information produced by this GHG cradle-to-gate assessment should be
included and refined to contribute to the overall life-cycle assessment of the
biobased plastic product in consideration.

For further assessment of a product’s (not just feedstock’s) carbon footprint,

see ISO 14067: 2018 Greenhouse gases — Carbon footprint of products —
Requirements and guidelines for quantification.

42
BFA Survey Level Screening

LAND USE CHANGE IMPACTS GOALS: 1, 2, 4, 5

Applicable feedstock categories: A, B, D1

Context

According to the IPCC, “Land use change refers to a change in the use or management of land by humans, which
may lead to a change in land cover.” Land use can be either beneficial or harmful to nature. At the nexus between
agriculture and conservation, land use change may refer to the conversion of natural ecosystems into agricultural
land, including pastureland. Direct land use change (DLUC) occurs when existing ecosystems are replaced by a
new land use. Indirect land use change (iLUC) occurs when existing feedstocks are used for a new purpose (for
example, biofuel or biobased plastic) that triggers ecosystem destruction elsewhere to make new room for
agriculture (Beard and Grillo, 2015)1. Land use change can lead to habitat loss and fragmentation, biodiversity loss,
and the disruption of ecosystem services such as climate regulation, pollination, water cycling, and soil formation.

Globally, biobased plastics are not currently a significant user of land and are not predicted to become so in the
near future. In 2019, 0.79 million hectares, accounting for only .016% of total global agricultural area, was estimated
to be used for biobased plastic production (European Bioplastics, 2020)2. Still, any industry that uses land as an
input must be held accountable for its impact on global land use change. Analyzing the land use of biobased
plastics will remain important as new technologies, applications, and biocomposites are developed and as total
biobased plastic production increases.

Land use can have a significant impact on the ability of biobased plastic production to meet climate goals as well as
on the minimization of environmental and biodiversity impacts. Given the expansion of agricultural land use to meet
biofuel, food, and fiber production, enormous pressure has been placed on areas rich in biodiversity and of
conservation value. The project site must not include the conversion of any natural ecosystems such as forests,
grasslands, peatlands, or other wetlands as part of the production area.

Wastes and residues may also have significantly lower land use impacts compared to other feedstocks, as they are,
by definition, byproducts of existing production. In using waste and residues there must be strong assurance that
these materials are truly waste and not being displaced from other uses, for example, residues that were intended
to be left on the field to prevent erosion and reduce nutrient loss.

Often, feedstock productivity (measured by feedstock yield in a given area) can be increased by combining food,
feed, and/or fiber production with biobased plastic feedstock production through intercropping, rotational cropping,
or integrated agroforestry systems.

Tools and certifying bodies exist to evaluate and minimize the impacts of biobased plastic feedstocks and their
impacts on land use. Sustainable biomass certifications can ensure environmental and social damage are avoided
and detrimental land use change (for example, deforestation or grassland conversion) does not occur.

Note on iLUC: While there are many methods for measuring and assessing iLUC, there is no globally agreed-upon
method. Because the risk of iLUC should not be ignored, a qualitative assessment of iLUC is included under the
Land Use Change Impacts indicator.

1
Beard, James and Rafael A Grillo Avila. “Airlines’ Biofuel Ambitions Must Not Increase Emissions.” WWF, World
Wildlife Fund, Environmental Defense Fund, May 1, 2015, https://www.worldwildlife.org/blogs/sustainability-
works/posts/airlines-biofuel-ambitions-must-not-increase-emissions.

2
“Bioplastics Market Data.” European Bioplastics E.V., Jan. 5, 2022, https://www.european-bioplastics.org/market/.

43
For more information from BFA on land use, see BFA’s Fact Sheet on Land Use (2020).

Metric Result Justification Mitigation Strategy

1. Is there evidence that the establishment

of this feedstock will not require the Yes
conversion of natural ecosystems or carbon
sinks (e.g., forests, peatlands, wetlands, No
grasslands) to cropland?

2. Does or will the production of this Yes

feedstock maintain the current use of the
land? No

Does the production of this feedstock

represent an improved use of that land
(e.g., using marginal or degraded lands,
cover cropping, inter/rotation cropping,
integrated agroforestry systems, etc.)?

The use of degraded land may be more

favorable (and may contribute to landscape
resilience) because it is less likely to result
in indirect land use change (as the use of
productive agricultural land will create
demand for productive agricultural land,
which must be satisfied elsewhere). This
RSB module speaks to this in detail: RSB
Low iLUC Risk Biomass Criteria and
Compliance Indicators

3. If demand increases for this feedstock in Yes

the future (or supply decreases due to
climate change impacts), is there a low No
likelihood additional land will be converted
to production?

4. Does or will the post-change land use Yes

add net long-term social or environmental
value to the community that was not No
available previously?

Identify added value.

44
 How many questions above were answered with “No”? _____

“No” responses without identified mitigation strategies indicate moderate to

SCORING SUMMARY high risk, and further research should be performed to explore the
probability and severity of identified risks. Mitigation plans should be in
place before production is pursued.

How many identified issues remain without clear mitigation strategies

or improvement plans? _______

Identify and provide more detail for any questions answered “No.”

IDENTIFIED RISKS

Verify that the project includes a rigorous plan and committed funding for
the monitoring and evaluation of the proposed feedstock production
strategy and its impacts on land use change.
NEXT STEPS
The Roundtable on Sustainable Biomaterials has developed an add-on
certification to other RSB certifications, the RSB Low iLUC Risk Biomass
Criteria and Compliance Indicators (which may not be used as a stand-
alone certification), to enable producers to demonstrate low indirect land
use change risk. While intended for alternative fuel producers, this addition
to a certification can be pursued by nonfuel producers using the Advanced
Products Standard as well. In addition, the EU has just released a draft
implementing act to give requirements on how a crop can be certified as
low iLUC risk (to be published).

45
 BFA Survey Level Screening

SOIL MANAGEMENT GOALS: 2, 3, 4, 5

Applicable feedstock categories: A, D1

Context

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 Justification Mitigation Strategy

1. Explore the current soil condition for the

region in question. Yes

Are there net benefits to the soil from the No

project under evaluation?

Answer “Yes” if soil, whether underutilized,

degraded, or healthy, will be maintained or
improved by this project. Answer “No” if the
soil quality/quantity is at risk as a result of
this project.

Resources:
FAO Soils Portal
ISRIC Soil Geographic Database

2A. Will soil management practices be

utilized in this region for production of this Yes
feedstock (e.g., no till, soil amendments,
frequency of soil tests, use of compost)? No

Detail the practices.

Answer question 2B only if you

answered Yes to 2A.

46
2B. Is there a certification or standard in
place that incentivizes adherence to these Yes
soil management practices?
No

3A. Do the local producers have access to

soil best management practices and Yes
expertise for that region?
No
Answer question 3B only if you
answered “No” to 3A.

3B. If local practices or expertise is not

available, can and will you take steps to Yes
increase access to best practice information
and engage producers on good soil No
management practices?

4. Is there evidence that this

feedstock/region combination could Yes
increase carbon stored, soil health, or soil
retention? No

How many questions above were answered with “No”? _____

“No” responses without identified mitigation strategies indicate moderate to

SCORING SUMMARY high risk, and further research should be performed to explore the
probability and severity of identified risks. Mitigation plans should be in
place before production is pursued.

How many identified issues remain without clear mitigation strategies

or improvement plans? _______

Identify and provide more detail for any questions answered “No.”
IDENTIFIED RISKS

47
 Verify that the project includes a rigorous plan and committed funding for
the monitoring and evaluation of the proposed feedstock production
NEXT STEPS strategy for soil management.

Find more information on soil management here:

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/soils/health/

48
BFA Survey Level Screening

WATER MANAGEMENT GOALS: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Applicable feedstock categories: A, B, D1

Context

Agriculture is responsible for about 70% of the global freshwater withdrawn (rivers, lakes, groundwater) and used
by human populations. Expansion of the agricultural landscape will add pressure to this finite resource.
Nonagricultural commodities such as forest products from tree plantations or algae production facilities also have
their own water demands. Novel feedstocks may also bring new water considerations; for example, seaweed may
improve water quality by extracting excess nutrients and pollution from seawater. The questions in this indicator
should be answered with respect to water used for cultivation as well as processing if such initial processing occurs
in the landscape under consideration (e.g., for seaweed or microalgae, the user should consider freshwater used to
process seaweed into biochemicals at the local site).

Impacts of climate change are particularly felt through water; increasing frequency of drought, extreme weather
events, and variability in weather patterns will be felt through water in agriculture, in communities, and by
ecosystems. The efficiency of water use in agriculture is highly variable and subject to waste due to inadequate or
nonexistent management systems and inefficient irrigation systems. A complete assessment of water resource
requirements should be conducted, taking into consideration feedstock needs, soil field capacity, hydrological
conditions, precipitation distribution, downstream human and environmental needs and uses, impacts of climate
change on water availability, and impacts water use will have on the watershed and regional ecology. Impacts of
climate change on surface and seasonal water availability as well as groundwater recharge need to be expressly
taken into account. This assessment needs to be conducted regardless of water source: groundwater (blue),
surface water (blue), or rainwater (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.

Agriculture is also a major source of water pollution in the form of sedimentation, nutrients, and pesticides. Water
quality should be evaluated in order to make sure the water is not contaminated and is of sufficient quality for crop
needs and continued human consumption. 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 monitored in order to evaluate impacts the cultivation may
have on downstream water quality. Discharge water quality should meet, at a minimum, local legal standards and
be consistent with the World Bank Pollution Prevention 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.

Agricultural water impacts should be examined in the context of the watershed’s most pressing issues. Priority
issues may include affordable and sustainable access to drinking water and to water used for sanitation and
hygiene (water quantity and quality), flood risk, and reputational risk. For all water management data, users should
consult the best available information, including climate information and peer-reviewed work (e.g., Water Footprint
Network data or peer-reviewed sources at a more granular level for specific feedstocks in specific regions). To
identify priority watershed issues, the Water Risk Filter should be used in tandem with local assessments such as
Basin Health Report Cards.

Note on using the Water Footprint Network’s (WFN) Water Footprint Assessment and World Wildlife Fund’s Water
Risk Filter: WWF recommends the use of both the Water Footprint Assessment and the Water Risk Filter to assess

49
 the water impacts of a particular feedstock in a particular region. The footprint gives an indication of how much
water is used/impacted, and the risk filter adds to the geographic context. A footprint without context is not
particularly useful because a large water footprint is not necessarily unsustainable—additional context informs
whether a high/low footprint is particularly risky. Context without a footprint does not provide a user with the level of
detail needed to understand the extent to which feedstock production impacts water risks in a region. For this
reason, the metrics below require users to engage with both tools.

Metric Result Justification Mitigation Strategy

Identify Watershed

Quantity and Governance

1. According to the Water Footprint

Network, what is the freshwater footprint Amount: Informing on final
(m3/ton) of this feedstock? overall—not scored

See definitions at the end of this data sheet.

Use regional-specific location, not country

level.

2. According to the Water Risk Filter, is Yes

scarcity risk low in this region (e.g., water
depletion, baseline water stress, blue water No
scarcity, drought risk, etc.)?

3. Does the feedstock’s growing season not Yes

overlap with the region’s blue water
stressed months? No

Use Water Footprint Network Water

Scarcity Maps (see Appendix A).

4. According to the Water Risk Filter Yes

scenario planning function, is this
watershed at low risk for decreased No
availability in the future (e.g., risks such as
decreased rainfall, increased consumption,
increased chance of drought)?

50
5. Is the site not contributing to disruption of Yes
local water balance (e.g., increased floods
and/or droughts), often perpetuated by land No
conversion and reduced soil health?

6. Are there regulatory agencies (e.g., a Yes

government’s “inspection branch”) that
address and enforce water management in No
the area for quantity and quality on a holistic
level (surface and groundwater)?

7. Are you participating collectively with Yes

other water users in the management of
water at a watershed level and/or linking No
your water management into the watershed-
level plan goals?

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.

Water Quality and Access to Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene

8. Does this watershed have low water Yes

stress due to pollution? Refer to Water Risk
Filter “Water Quality Risk.” No

9. Is there evidence that the cultivation of Yes

this feedstock has not caused water
pollution impacts in the past (eutrophication, No
acidification, ecotoxicity, salinity)?

51
10. Using the WHO/UNICEF Joint Yes
Monitoring Programme (JMP) for Water
Supply and Sanitation Tool to make a No
determination: Is there adequate access to
both drinking water and sanitation in the
country of production?

See Appendix A for details.

11. Will or does the cultivation of this Yes

feedstock maintain or improve the local
community’s access to water? No

How many questions above were answered with “No”? _____

“No” responses without identified mitigation strategies indicate moderate to

SCORING SUMMARY high risk, and further research should be performed to explore the
probability and severity of identified risks. Mitigation plans should be in
place before production is pursued.

How many identified issues remain without clear mitigation strategies

or improvement plans? _______

Identify and provide more detail for any questions answered “No.”

IDENTIFIED RISKS

52
 Verify that the project includes a rigorous plan and committed funding for
the monitoring and evaluation of the proposed feedstock production
strategy for water management.
NEXT STEPS
General guidance for addressing water management and risk mitigation:
First, employ mitigation responses suggested in WWF’s Water Risk Filter by
inputting data into the tool, which will identify mitigation responses that will
correspond to the specific feedstock and basin risk.

Second, engage with the AWS Standard. The AWS standard is a stepwise
approach to mitigating water risk and is designed to work in any industry or
geography. This framework helps water users understand their own use
and impacts; it is intended to help improve water management across
social, environmental, and economic dimensions. See Appendix A for more
resources on water.

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 water 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-upon
water quality standards.

53
BFA Survey Level Screening
FOOD SECURITY GOALS: 3
Applicable feedstock categories: A–D

Context

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 that is linked to health through malnutrition but also to
sustainable economic development, environment, and trade.

Today, the most widely used raw materials to produce biobased plastics are sugar and starch from crops such as
sugarcane, corn, cassava, and sugar beet. These feedstocks are sometimes referred to as “first generation.”
“Second-generation” feedstocks are generally considered cellulosic residues, and “third-generation” references
novel feedstocks such as wastes, CO2 capture and utilization, algae, and more.

When biobased plastics are produced from crops traditionally used for food and feed, controversy can arise
because there may be concern that the best application for these crops is as calories for human consumption.
However, the bigger picture is not the specific issue of whether food or nonfood crops are being used to produce
biomaterials but rather the integration of any feedstock for biomaterials production into a landscape and its social,
environmental, and pricing effects there.

First-generation feedstocks have been optimized for maximum efficiency over decades of selective breeding. They
consistently provide high yields with relatively lower inputs than other feedstocks. A feedstock that can be used for
food should not be ruled out as a feedstock for biobased plastics simply because it has diverse applications; this is
just an indication that this feedstock is an efficient user of land, nutrients, and water. For more on this topic, see the
nova-Institute paper Food or non-food: Which agricultural feedstocks are best for industrial uses?.

There are many overlapping factors related to biobased plastic production and food security: global food prices,
climate change, poverty, nutritional security, resilience of local farmers, land use change, and governmental policies
for agriculture. The impact of biobased plastic production on each of these factors varies widely depending on the
feedstock, the method of production, and regional circumstances. It is necessary to ensure that any biobased
plastic production (regardless of the generation) avoids competition with food crops and avoids negative impacts to
food security across all domains.

Food security of different geographies is and will be impacted by climatic changes, as climate change impacts
human migration, resource availability, and feedstock suitability on local scales. And the places already most
impacted by food insecurity are also those suffering from the most pervasive forms of poverty, environmental
vulnerability, and impacts of climate change. Climate change has already been linked to changing patterns of
agricultural pests and diseases, saltwater intrusion from sea level rise, and the decline of nutritional quality in
plants. It is critically important to assess the impacts of climate change on food security at regional and local scales
to identify impact hotspots—i.e., where social conflict may arise due to food or resource shortage as well as
opportunities for biobased plastic feedstock production to potentially build the resilience of a particular population to
food displacement due to climate change.

54
 Users of the methodology should strive for a strong understanding of the food security dynamics in the region under
consideration to ensure there are no negative impacts to people’s livelihoods or to subsistence agriculture if there
are to be changes to the existing land use practices for biobased plastic feedstock production.

Additional Reading

Colwill, J. A., et al. “Bio-Plastics in the Context of Competing Demands on Agricultural Land in 2050.” International
Journal of Sustainable Engineering, vol. 5, no. 1, July 25, 2011, pp. 3–16.,
https://doi.org/10.1080/19397038.2011.602439.

FAO, et al. “Transforming food systems for food security, improved nutrition and affordable healthy diets for all.” The
State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2021. FAO, Rome, Italy, 2021, pp. 1–240.

Holt-Giménez, Eric, et al. “We Already Grow Enough Food for 10 Billion People … and Still Can’t End Hunger.” Journal
of Sustainable Agriculture, vol. 36, no. 6, July 24, 2012, pp. 595–598, https://doi.org/10.1080/10440046.2012.695331.

Smith, Matthew R., and Samuel S. Myers. “Impact of Anthropogenic CO2 Emissions on Global Human Nutrition.”
Nature Climate Change, vol. 8, no. 9, 2018, pp. 834–839., https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0253-3.

Research Steps

Exploring the food security situation in an area, and further, exploring the specific impacts of biobased plastic
feedstock production on food security in a region require significant research and understanding of the local
context. Many interconnected variables contribute to the overall food security of a place, and food security may
differ significantly from one place to another within a region. Given the complex nature of food security, for this
indicator the methodology avoids yes/no questions and instead guides users through three major research prompts
that can help users understand the food security status of an area and the potential risks and benefits of feedstock
production. Resources are provided for each question, and the intention of this indicator is for users to dig into
important questions at the most specific level possible (e.g., farm-level data is preferred over local data, which is
preferred over national data).

1. Identify major food security issues in the area under consideration. This can include local, national,
or regional data, with more specific data preferred.

a. Context: Exploring a country’s food security status includes many unique dimensions including food
availability, access, stability, and nutrition. Nutrition security considers more than caloric needs, taking
into account essential nutrients to ensure good health. This considers not only access to nutritious food
but also care and feeding practices, as well as issues of sanitation and health such as safe water and
health care. A wide range of challenges such as poverty, climate change, food waste, rapid population
growth, infrastructure, education, and degraded land and water resources contribute to food insecurity
and nutritional insecurity. To start building an understanding of a place’s food security and the existing
challenges, the following sources can be used to explore national trends.

b. Resources
• The FAO Low-Income Food-Deficit Countries list should be checked to understand whether or not the
country of production is classified as having both low income and food deficit; this classification
means that based on the latest annual data this country lacks the necessary resources to import food
and domestically produce sufficient food. If a country is included on the list, it is considered food
insecure and especially susceptible to shocks in the food system.
• FAO’s IPC Acute Food Insecurity Reference Table for Area Classification helps users analyze food
insecurity at the household level using international standards and thresholds. Both outcomes and
contributing factors are integrated into this assessment.

55
 • The Global Food Security Index developed by the Economist Intelligence Unit is an annually updated
model that integrates issues across several categories: food quality and safety, food affordability, and
food availability across 113 countries. The model incorporates 59 unique indicators, and the 2020
edition of the model includes a new “Natural Resources and Resilience” category, which integrates
information such as a country’s susceptibility to natural resource risks, the country’s ability to adapt to
these risks, and the country’s potential exposure to climate change impacts. The data included in the
Global Food Security Index is rich and comprehensive—exploring a country’s profile carefully will
provide a solid start to food security research. In addition, global rankings, trends, and findings are
publicly published on the Global Food Security Index website and can help users understand
underlying drivers of food insecurity around the world.

2. How does the production of this feedstock affect food security? Take into consideration land use
change and specific methods of production.

a. Context: Feedstock production can affect food security in a number of ways (for example, impacts to
food prices, local nutritional security, and land use impacts). Although there is potential for production of
biobased plastic feedstocks to pose risks to food security, there is also an opportunity for production to
improve food security. For example, growing food crops for biobased plastic production can allow for
flexible allocation of crops in times of crisis. Food crops used for biobased plastic production can also
improve global market stability by increasing the availability of food crops around the world, reducing the
risk of shortages and speculation peaks.

b. Considerations: The following may be important considerations for your feedstock/region combination.
Explore each.
• Does the feedstock contribute to diversification of food and income sources?
• Is the feedstock a dietary staple in the region, and/or is it a particularly nutritious food source?
• Are agricultural workers in the region experiencing food insecurity, and how does production of this
feedstock affect that dynamic?
• Explore whether households in this region grow this feedstock for economic purposes versus for
subsistence. If producers lose a source of income, they may not have the means to purchase more
nutrient-dense foods, affecting their food and nutrition security.
• Finally, to better understand the food security status in the region and the effect of this feedstock on
food security, consider regional social dynamics related to human rights, rights to land, Indigenous
peoples’ rights, and gender equity.

c. Resources
• Consult FAOSTAT, FAO Country Profiles, and resources available at the regional level.
• Engage with local research institutions (governmental or nongovernmental) to better understand
conditions in the region and how this feedstock affects food security, including but not limited to
health-related institutions (related to nutrition, hygiene, and safety), agricultural research institutions,
economic institutions, and universities.

3. How can you mitigate the risks and increase the benefits?
• Given the wide range of impacts biobased plastic feedstock production can have on food security, the
goal should be to mitigate risks and increase benefits as much as possible. Based on findings from the
two research questions above, identify next steps to mitigate risk and increase benefits to promote food
security, including experts or organizations to engage locally.

56
 Record the identified issues that remain without clear mitigation
strategies or improvement plans.

SCORING SUMMARY

Although there is often data on how food systems perform at the national
level, accessing quality subnational data on food security is significantly
more challenging. To adequately understand the local context and potential
NEXT STEPS implications of biobased plastic feedstock production on a local level, more
sophisticated engagement with the producer (on the farm level) may be
necessary.

Partnering with a credible research institution may help users achieve

better understanding of food security implications for a specific supply
chain. Research institutions often undertake projects in which they map out
supply chains and food environments to achieve higher-resolution data.
These types of projects can produce useful geospatial maps as well as
maps of stakeholder engagement to understand impacts across all involved
groups regardless of power.

Whether additional research with an outside organization or institution is

pursued or the methodology user works closely and diligently with the
stakeholders at the farm level, it is absolutely essential that elements of
food security are explored before final project approval, not retroactively
after impacts are being felt. Early identification of potential risks and
benefits can ensure producers and purchasers of biobased plastic
feedstocks implement a rigorous plan and committed funding to ensure the
maximization of benefits and minimization of risks.

57
BFA Survey Level Screening

LEGAL PRODUCTION GOALS: 1

Applicable feedstock categories: A–D

Context

Cultivating feedstocks for biobased plastic requires land and labor, which may potentially pose legal issues. In the
case of agricultural feedstocks, the land being used may not be intended for agricultural production, and therefore
may not be 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 feedstocks could also involve land acquisition. This process
must have general consensus from all the stakeholders, like the local government, nearby farmers, and people from
the local community. Business or agricultural practices should not continue with major disapproval from any of the
stakeholders even if the practices per se comply with the local and national laws and plans.

Potential legality issues in regard to labor practices also need to be taken into consideration. Issues in sourcing,
minority rights, and appropriate resettlement and economic displacement policies exist in many countries,
especially developing countries.

This is a complicated issue. The variation in business and agricultural practices along with regionally specific legal
concerns make it essential to research land and labor issues before undertaking a project. 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. A third-party assessment of legal production in consultation
with local stakeholders will help ensure credibility and accuracy in understanding the local legal context.

Metric Result Justification Mitigation Strategy

1. Is or will the feedstock production be Yes

compliant with international and local laws,
regarding zoning and land use plans? No

2. Is or will the feedstock production be Yes

compliant with international and local laws
regarding water, air, and soil use, No
extraction, and/or emissions?

3. Is or will the feedstock production be Yes

compliant with the World Bank resettlement
and economic displacement policies, No
including Operational Policy on Indigenous
People 4.10 and Involuntary Resettlement
4.12? See Appendix B for regulatory
definitions and further guidance.

58
4. Is local governance of feedstock Yes
production in accordance with Minority
Rights in International Law? No

Note: Answering this question will require

an understanding of the local context. It is
recommended that users of this
methodology conduct additional due
diligence, including by consulting local
stakeholders and partnering with institutions
with a high level of local knowledge and
experience. See Appendix B for regulatory
definitions.

5. Do you have internal company processes Yes

in place to address future changes in the
legal and regulatory landscape and a No
mechanism to audit the supplier to ensure
continued compliance?

How many questions above were answered with “No”? _____

“No” responses without identified mitigation strategies indicate moderate to

SCORING SUMMARY high risk, and further research should be performed to explore the
probability and severity of identified risks. Mitigation plans should be in
place before production is pursued.

How many identified issues remain without clear mitigation strategies

or improvement plans? _______

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

IDENTIFIED RISKS

59
 Verify that the project includes a rigorous plan and committed funding for
NEXT STEPS the monitoring and evaluation of the proposed feedstock production
strategy and its impacts on legality.

It is recommended to look as close to production-site level as possible for

compliance and to work with producers to include audits or third-party
review.

60
BFA Survey Level Screening
LOCAL AND/OR INDIGENOUS
COMMUNITIES GOALS: 3, 4
Applicable feedstock categories: A–D

Context

Local and/or Indigenous communities describes the people who live in the areas where the feedstock is being
produced. Sometimes when commercial production of a feedstock 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 feedstocks may deprive the local community from using it as a drinking source. In addition, developing
land for feedstocks may displace other traditional cultural uses or spiritual values to which Indigenous or traditional
people have rights. As excerpted from WWF’s 2050 Criteria, a guide to responsible investment in agricultural,
forest, and seafood commodities, “The rights of local people are respected, which can be assessed by:
demonstrated and non-contested rights to utilize the land and recognition of and respect for other legal or
customary rights; negotiations with Indigenous people based on Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC); 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 feedstocks, the rights of local communities and Indigenous peoples, landholders,
and subsistence farmers are at greater risk of being violated. In order to ensure the well-being of Indigenous
peoples and/or local communities, the land acquisition process must include free, prior, and informed consent with
participation and support by all stakeholders involved, including those with customary rights or overlapping resource
claims. Ongoing conflict or uncertainty over land and resource tenure can seriously undermine the viability and,
therefore, the sustainability of the project, as well as its 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 or if there are
unresolved disputes over the land or embedded resources, the project should not be approved.

Additionally, local communities are also impacted by climate change, altering their livelihoods, resource use, and
migration. For more guidance on respecting the rights of local and/or Indigenous communities, see Accountability
Framework’s overview on this topic and WWF’s Standard on Indigenous Peoples.

Metric Result Justification Mitigation Strategy

1. Does or could the production of this

feedstock maintain or improve the access to Yes
material (e.g., physical resources) or
immaterial (e.g., sense of community, No
innovation, intellectual capital) resources for
local and/or Indigenous communities,
explicitly considering climate change
projections for resource availability?

61
2. Can you confirm the feedstock cultivation
will not affect any areas identified as having Yes
cultural importance to local community
members (e.g., burial sites, sacred No
forests)?

3. Can you confirm the production of this

feedstock will not result in delocalization or Yes
migration for local and/or Indigenous
communities? No

Delocalization: To remove from a native or

usual locality. See IUCN Standard on
Involuntary Resettlement and Access
Restrictions.

4. Is there evidence that the production of

this feedstock will not have negative impact Yes
on the cultural heritage or respect of
Indigenous rights for local and/or No
Indigenous communities?

5. Does or could the production of this

feedstock provide local employment or Yes
income-generating opportunities for local
and/or Indigenous communities? No

FPIC would help determine whether this

type of income-generating opportunity
would be suitable for the community’s
needs and aspirations. It should not be
assumed that the potential for employment
with this project is necessarily satisfactory
for the community’s traditional and cultural
norms. If the project negatively affects
people’s livelihoods, these negative impacts
need to be mitigated or compensated for.

6. Does or could the production of this

feedstock maintain or improve the living Yes
conditions for local women and men,
including Indigenous communities? No

Consider the potential for the project to

exacerbate or contribute to gender-based
violence in the region.

62
7. Does or could the production of this Yes
feedstock maintain fair market prices for
local crops? No

The project should protect, support, and

restore the human rights and sustainable
livelihoods of women and girls and of men
and boys—a crucial step toward eliminating
hunger and poverty and ensuring the safety
and dignity of all people and communities.

8. Is there no evidence of production Yes

impacts that negatively affect the safe and
healthy living conditions for local and/or No
Indigenous communities (e.g., effluent, air
emissions and pollution, drinking water)?
List potential impacts.

See WWF’s Standard on Community

Health, Safety and Security for additional
context on these risks and potential
mitigation measures.

9. Was there or will there be FPIC in Yes

changing the use of this land? (Whether or
not it is specifically called FPIC, this is the No
principle that a community has the right to
give or withhold its consent to proposed
projects through participation and influence
on decisions that may affect the lands they
customarily own, occupy, or otherwise
use.)

For more information on FPIC, see the

WWF page Indigenous Peoples and Free,
Prior, and Informed Consent.

10. Does or could the production site meet Yes

ILO Convention 169—Indigenous and Tribal
Peoples Convention, Convention No
concerning Indigenous and tribal peoples in
Independent Countries? Or is the Unknown
production site in a country that is a

63
signatory to other conventions and/or
declarations of importance to Indigenous
communities and human, women’s, and
peasant rights, such as United Nations
Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and
Other People Working in Rural Areas, that
supplement ILO 169?

See Appendix B for ILO Convention 169.

How many questions above were answered with “No”? _____

“No” responses without identified mitigation strategies indicate moderate to

SCORING SUMMARY high risk, and further research should be performed to explore the
probability and severity of identified risks. Mitigation plans should be in
place before production is pursued.

How many identified issues remain without clear mitigation strategies

or improvement plans? _______

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

IDENTIFIED RISKS

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

64
BFA Survey Level Screening

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
AND SAFETY GOALS: 1
Applicable feedstock categories: A–D

Context

Agriculture ranks as one of the most hazardous industries. Workers can be exposed to toxic chemicals or have
accidents with heavy machinery, and the work itself is not only physically demanding but also often located in
regions hit hard by the impacts of climate change, such as increasing temperatures. 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 feedstocks—and the precautions taken to train and protect
workers from their negative impacts—are important factors to consider for occupational health and safety. See
WWF’s Standard on Pest Management for guidance for minimizing and mitigating the risks associated with
chemical pest management.

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 cumulative
physical impact of these repetitive practices on the human body over time.

In situations where the instability of the local political environment threatens the health and safety of the workers, it
is especially important that businesses and agricultural entities have a careful and thorough plan to ensure worker
health and safety. It is possible that the cultivation of feedstock may have the potential to stabilize the local
community through increased employment and local infrastructure; all social impacts, both positive and negative,
should be considered.

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
conducting risk assessments, investigating causes of accidents, and seeking worker and labor representatives’
input into process improvements that reduce worker risk. A third-party assessment of occupational health and
safety in consultation with local stakeholders will help ensure credibility and accuracy in understanding the local
context.

Metric Result Justification Mitigation Strategy

1. Can you confirm the production of this

feedstock does not pose any of the Yes
following potential worker safety issues?
• high agrochemical use No
• inadequate storage of or training in
the use of pesticides
• manual or unregulated harvesting
practices that pose health risks

65
 • long working hours
• long hours in areas with exposure
to sunlight, ultraviolet radiation,
and/or excessive heat
• work at high elevations
• work with complex or dangerous
machinery
• lack of training in emergency
scenarios and evacuations
• lack of availability of appropriate
personal protective equipment
(PPE)
• lack of training in use of PPE or
health and safety processes
• other unsafe working conditions

See both Appendix A: Resources—Social

Resources and Appendix B: Regulation and
Policy to help answer this question.

2. Can you confirm the following are not of Yes

concern in this region?
• active political unrest or political No
violence at the local, regional, or
national level
• lack of government oversight
• exploitation by cartels or gangs

See the World Bank’s List of Fragile and

Conflict-Affected Situations for evaluation of
political unrest at the country level.

3. Is basic medical care equitable and Yes

accessible to the workforce in this region?
No

4. Will or does production comply with ILO Yes

Conventions (regarding Safety and Health
in Agriculture, Safety and Health in Forestry No
Work, etc.)?

ILO guidance on social impacts of

aquaculture has not yet been established;
for guidance on social impacts of
aquaculture, see Principle 3 of the ASC.

See Appendix B for regulatory definitions.

66
 How many questions above were answered with “No”? _____

“No” responses without identified mitigation strategies indicate moderate to

SCORING SUMMARY high risk, and further research should be performed to explore the
probability and severity of identified risks. Mitigation plans should be in
place before production is pursued.

How many identified issues remain without clear mitigation strategies

or improvement plans? _______

Identify and provide more detail for any questions answered “No.”

IDENTIFIED RISKS

It is recommended to require a site-level comprehensive health and safety

program that not only trains workers on the health and safety aspects of
NEXT STEPS their jobs but also proactively seeks to reduce accident risk through
conducting risk assessments, investigating causes of accidents, and
seeking worker and labor representatives’ input into process improvements
that reduce worker risk.

67
BFA Survey Level Screening
LABOR RIGHTS GOALS: 1
Applicable feedstock categories: A–D

Context

Feedstock production labor requirements, depending on the region and feedstock, may vary considerably, from
having labor needs on a full-year basis to having intensive seasonal needs for a short period, such as during
harvest. Human rights abuses related to child labor and forced and bonded labor can be more frequent in the case
of agriculture work due to the vulnerability and informality of such sectors with relatively low requirements for
workers’ education and skill levels.

In the case of high seasonal needs and low local labor availability, feedstock operation managers will sometimes
bring in migrant workers from other regions. This requires the provision of adequate housing, health facilities,
training, etc. When these needs are not met, substandard living conditions may result for workers and their families.
For more information on agriculture-related seasonal migration, see Seasonal Migration and Child Labour in
Agriculture (FAO) and Migrant Workers in Commercial Agriculture (ILO).

At a minimum, the long-term sustainability of any agricultural venture must contemplate full compliance with local
labor law, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and
Human Rights, and other ILO conventions noted below. 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 reflect larger social and economic trends at a national or regional level. Local, national, and regional labor
and human rights NGOs should be consulted, as they can provide valuable input into this assessment; these
experts can help highlight key labor rights concerns that need to be addressed in setting workplace practices in a
particular region or industry.

Because many of these issues are complicated, seeking appropriate guidance is recommended. Additionally, a
third-party assessment of labor conditions would help ensure credibility and accuracy in understanding the local
context. Finally, labor rights coverage should extend through all supply chain operations; this methodology focuses
exclusively on operations from cradle to gate, but users should be aware that processing and subsequent supply
chain operations may require significant manual labor and expose workers to labor rights risks—users of this
methodology are expected to perform due diligence across all supply chain operations.

Metric Result Justification Mitigation Strategy

1. Explore the following labor risks for this

feedstock/region combination. Describe
results of
Sources for exploring these risks can be research
found in Appendix B: here.
• use of migrant labor
• level of FOA present/legal
landscape
• difference in manager
nationality/race/religion
• use of apprenticeship programs
• female worker/male management
• use of piece rate payment systems

68
 • use of third-party labor providers
• use of prison labor
• seasonality of crop
• company-provided accommodation
• chance of children working with
parents
• government or company unions
• culture of bribery

2. Does or will the production of this

feedstock meet the following labor rights Yes
standards?

a. Child Labor: ILO Conventions 138 No

and 182, Recommendation 146
b. United Nations Convention on
Rights of the Child
c. Slave and Bonded Labor: ILO
Conventions 29 and 105
d. Freedom of Association: ILO
Conventions 87, 11, and 98
e. Equal Pay and Discrimination: ILO
Conventions 100 and 111
f. Universal Declaration on Human
Rights

Note: If this is for new production, score for

likelihood of new site to comply.

See Appendix B for regulatory definitions.

3. Do or will all workers, including those Yes

employed by subcontractors, have
contracts? Answer “Yes” if there is No
substantial evidence to ensure the quality,
content, and rights secured by these
contracts are lawfully adequate (under local
and national laws) and are respected.

4. Will or does the cultivation of the Yes

feedstock accommodate worker
composition by either supporting local labor
when available or enabling a migrant No
workforce if necessary?

69
5. Is the local social infrastructure sufficient Yes
to address the needs of the labor force
(health care, education, housing, etc.)?
Additionally, consider how the producing No
company is contributing positively (or
negatively) to building social infrastructure
(e.g., facilities that support social services)
for their employees and for the wider local
community.

How many questions above were answered with “No”? _____

“No” responses without identified mitigation strategies indicate moderate to

SCORING SUMMARY high risk, and further research should be performed to explore the
probability and severity of identified risks. Mitigation plans should be in
place before production is pursued.

How many identified issues remain without clear mitigation strategies

or improvement plans? _______

Identify and provide more detail for any questions answered “No.”

IDENTIFIED RISKS

It is recommended to seek information specific to the production site and to

work with producers to include audit or third-party review of relevant labor
codes, such as through the SA8000 certification.
NEXT STEPS
Recognizing the need for customization based on the specific region and/or
feedstock type, listed here are potential third-party organizations to partner
with in verifying labor standard practices: Fair Labor Association, Human
Rights Watch, International Labour Conference’s Committee 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.

70
 SUMMARY SCORECARD

Number of identified issues Provide additional details and/or next steps for
Indicator without clear mitigation issues without clear mitigation strategies or
strategies or improvement improvement plans
plans

Ecosystem Services

Biodiversity

Chemical Use and

Impact

Residues and Waste

Management

GHG Emissions

Land Use Change

Impacts

Soil Management

Water Management

Food Security

Legal Production

Local and/or Indigenous

Communities

Occupational Health and

Safety

Labor Rights

71
Note on Responsibly Sourced Biobased Plastic Claims
If the Methodology for the Assessment of Bioplastic Feedstocks (2021) is used, the scoring system is
such that “No” responses from the Survey Level Screening indicate potential environmental or social risk.
There should be clear mitigation strategies or improvement plans in place for any “No” response. If all
“No” responses in the Survey Level Screening have mitigation or improvement plans established for the
feedstock/region combination, this is a promising indication that strong sourcing safeguards are in place.
Use of this method does not imply endorsement or validation of sourcing practices from any
organization.

The information provided for this assessment is self-reported, and ultimately it is the user’s decision how
to proceed. Certification by credible standards remains the best approach to ensure responsible sourcing.
See WWF Principles for Standards and Certification Schemes and the section “Production Management
and Risk Mitigation” on page 7 of the methodology for more information.

Photo Credits
Cover photo credit: © Kari Schnellmann/WWF-Switzerland
“Contents” photo credit: © Yoon S. Byun/WWF-US
Page 1 photo credit: © Emily Vandenbosch/WWF-US
Page 2 photo credit: © Yoon S. Byun/WWF-US
Page 13 photo credit: © Andrew Parkinson/WWF-UK

72
Appendix A
Resources

The following high-level resources can help guide responses to Executive Level Screening and
Survey Level Screening questions on environmental risks, social risks, and resilience.

Environmental Resources
• IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, for the most comprehensive list of conservation statuses
for plant and animal species.
• Integrated Biodiversity Assessment Tool by UN Environment World Conservation Monitoring
Centre, for geographic information about global biodiversity.
• Global Forest Watch Interactive Map provides geospatial forest information (tree cover
gain/loss).
• The State of the World’s Land and Water Resources for Food and Agriculture from FAO provides
information on the status of land and water resources around the world as well as existing and
predicted opportunities and challenges related to these resources.
• Land cover maps from NASA and the European Space Agency can be used to explore
deforestation trends.
• Global Assessment of Human-induced Soil Degradation (GLASOD) provides a world map of
human-induced soil degradation.
• Trends.Earth from Conservation International for monitoring land change including productivity,
land cover, and soil organic carbon.
• World Database of Protected Areas provides the most comprehensive global database of marine
and terrestrial protected areas, updated on a monthly basis.
• Alliance for Zero Extinction: Geospatially defined last remaining habitat of threatened species.
• Important Bird Areas: Global map of IBAs from BirdLife, Audubon map of IBAs in the US.
• UN Biosphere Reserves: Areas of learning for sustainable development. Reserves aim to
reconcile biodiversity conservation and the sustainable use of natural resources.
• IUCN Protected Area Categories: Protected areas categorized into specific types (strict nature
reserve, wilderness area, etc.), recognized by the UN and used as a global standard for defining
protected areas.
• RAMSAR Sites: Wetland sites designated to be of international importance under the Ramsar
Convention on Wetlands.
• Global Forest Watch: Online tool to monitor global forest data in near-real time, includes an intact
forest landscapes layer.
• Country-level soil health maps.
• Media attention to explore individual, local environmental challenges and reputational risks to
sourcing.

Ecosystem Services Tools

• Natural Capital Coalition’s The ESII (Ecosystem Services Identification & Inventory) Tool: Free
online tool that can be used in site planning, impact assessments, and cost/benefit analyses, or to
compare alternatives.
• Guide to Selecting Ecosystem Services Models for Decision Making: Lessons from Sub-Saharan
Africa: Guide to help advisors select an ecosystem services model(s) best suited to their needs.
• Ecosystem Services Assessment Support Tool: A tool to help break down the ecosystem
services assessment process into a logical sequence of steps.
• Guidance for Key Biodiversity Areas, Natural World Heritage Sites, and Protected Areas provides
guidance on existing ecosystem assessment tools that can be applied to measure or model
ecosystem services provided by important sites for biodiversity and nature conservation.

73
Water Management Tools
• WWF Water Risk Filter is an online tool to explore, assess, respond to, and value water risk.
• Alliance for Water Stewardship standard guidance: Fully online, interactive version of AWS
Standard 2.0 and related guidance. AWS provides a global framework to help water users
understand their water use and the associated impacts. Use of the AWS framework can help
identify water risks and opportunities at the catchment level. AWS offers a stepwise approach to
mitigating water risk that is designed to work in any industry or geography.
• RAMSAR key biodiversity area sites: RAMSAR sites are wetland areas designated to be of
international importance under the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands. Geographic information
related to these as well as key biodiversity areas should be taken into account in analyzing the
potential impacts of growing a biofeedstock in a specific geographic area.
• UN-Water has developed seven indicator reports that track progress toward the various targets
set out by Sustainable Development Goal 6: Ensure access to water and sanitation for all. These
reports highlight challenges and opportunities across six unique water indicators and identify best
practices moving forward. Reports are based on country-level data.
• WFN Water Scarcity Maps.
• WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP) for Water Supply: Water, Sanitation, and
Hygiene tool.
• World Resource Institute’s Aqueduct tools to identify and evaluate water risk.

Relevant Resources by Potential Risk

Potential Risk Relevant resources from list above

Media attention can be used for all risks to explore individual, local
environmental challenges to a geography/feedstock combination and
reputational risks to sourcing.

Threatens/impacts • World Database of Protected Areas

protected areas either
directly or indirectly • Alliance for Zero Extinction
(e.g., land use change) • Global map of IBAs from BirdLife
• Audubon map of IBAs in the US
• UN Biosphere Reserves
• IUCN Protected Area Categories
• RAMSAR Sites
• Global Forest Watch
• Trends.Earth
• Land cover maps from NASA and the European Space Agency
• Global Forest Watch Interactive Map
• State of the World’s Land and Water Resources for Food and
Agriculture

Impacts to • IUCN Red List of Threatened Species

threatened/endangered • Integrated Biodiversity Assessment Tool
species in the area; • Alliance for Zero Extinction
impacts to endemic • Global map of IBAs from BirdLife
species • Audubon map of IBAs in the US

74
 Requires direct land • Trends.Earth
use change to grow • Land cover maps from NASA and the European Space Agency
feedstock (natural • Global Forest Watch Interactive Map
habitat conversion) • State of the World’s Land and Water Resources for Food and
Agriculture

Soil erosion, • Country-level soil health maps

compaction, and • Global Assessment of Human-induced Soil Degradation (GLASOD)
degradation

Pollutes the local water • All water management tools listed above
resources; utilizes
water from already or
projected water-
stressed area

Threatens/impacts • Assessing Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems: Workbook for

intactness and Practitioners
connectedness of
ecosystems;
specifically threatens
refugia

Cultivated on land that • Nature-based Solutions Initiative, University of Oxford

would otherwise be • Nature-based Solutions, International Union for Conservation of
more beneficial for Nature
nature-based solutions • IUCN Global Standard for Nature-based Solutions, International
for adaptation Union for Conservation of Nature
• Nature-based Solutions for Climate Change, World Wildlife Fund

For Further Analysis—Comprehensive Environmental Tools for Decision-Making

The tools below can help map and quantify biological and physical changes and the economic impacts of
such changes in ecosystem services provisioning to get a more detailed understanding of the impacts
from land use change and the resulting trade-offs to society. They can also help identify potential
deforestation hotspots. These tools are complex and may be better suited for detailed analysis after the
ELS has been completed and further investigation into a feedstock/region combination is needed.

• InVEST tool: InVEST (Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs) is a suite of
models used to map and value the goods and services from nature that sustain and fulfill human
life. It helps explore how changes in ecosystems can lead to changes in the flows of many
different benefits to people.

• Earth Genome Project offers a number of tools and services to help users translate big
environmental data into insight for decision-making.

75
Social Resources
• Global Map of Environmental and Social Risks in Agro-Commodity (GMAP): Six of the 10
indicators specifically focus on social factors.
• US Department of State Country Reports on Human Rights Practices.
• Media attention, country profiles from departments of state, NGO white papers on social issues.
• Global Forest Watch, map layers on Indigenous and Community Lands.
• Roundtable for Product Social Metrics, 2020 Handbook for Product Social Impact Assessment:
Guides assessment of the positive and negative social impacts of products and services on four
stakeholder groups: workers, local communities, small-scale entrepreneurs, and users.
• Accountability Framework’s Operational Guidance on Respecting the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples and Local Communities.
• Social Accountability International is a global nongovernmental organization committed to
advancing human rights at workplaces. The SAI website provides comprehensive information on
the services provided by SAI and ongoing programs including industry collaborations and
research.
• The SAI 8000 Standard and Certification System is an industry-leading social certification
program.
• WWF-Specific Safeguard Standards (guidance and social policies): These standards may provide
some additional information and guidance to methodology users that could be useful in ensuring
decisions made around biobased plastic feedstock sourcing reflect sound social analysis and
WWF’s values (below).

Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities

• WWF’s Standard on Community Stakeholder Engagement

• WWF’s Standard on Disclosure
• WWF’s Standard on Indigenous Peoples
• WWF’s Standard on Cultural Resources
• WWF Policy Statement on Human Rights
• WWF Policy Statement on Gender Equality
• WWF Standard on Pest Management

Some social indicator responses will rely on similar information across a country. For example, issues
such as freedom of association and collective bargaining, wages, and use of seasonal, casual, and
migrant labor may all rely on information about the agriculture sector more generally in the region if
feedstock-specific data is not available. However, data/research collected from as close to the production
site as possible and with input from local stakeholders is preferred whenever possible.

Resilience Resources
• Local community vulnerability assessments (e.g., Climate Vulnerability and Capacity Analysis
Handbook (CVCA) by the Care Climate Change and Resilience Information Center or the
Participatory Capacity and Vulnerability Analysis (PCVA) by Oxfam)
• Local adaptation planning documents
• National Adaptation Plans (NAPs)
• National vulnerability assessments
• National hydrology and meteorology service
• Internet-based interactive IPCC scenario mapping tools
• Internal Geospatial Information Services (GIS) staff (or consultants, depending on organizational
capacity)
• National government forestry, soil and watershed, or agriculture services
• District- or state-level government office annual reports

76
 • National planning agency annual reports
• Peer-reviewed studies and gray literature on economic trends
• Local-level Climate Vulnerability and Capacity Analyses or other community-based assessments
• The World Bank online data portal

Factors of Resilience

Connectivity or The degree to which the landscape facilitates or impedes movement of resources
Fragmentation or species.

Example: A river with multiple dams has low connectivity because water and
species migration pathways are obstructed.

Natural The degree to which a given system is accustomed to, or adapted to, variability in
Variability the frequency of occurrence of natural hazards (e.g., floods, droughts, and fires)
and resource availability.

Example: A forest with naturally occurring fires will be more resilient to an increase
in fires than a forest that never experiences them because it is composed of
species that have evolved to be successful under fire regimes.

Refugia The existence and quality of places within a system that are less exposed to
climate and environmental variability and thereby help in maintaining ecosystem
services during broader regional environmental change. The greater the number
and quality of these refugia, the less sensitive the ecosystem may be.

Example: Deep depressions in a stream or riverbed that provide refuge for some
fish during the dry season also have the potential to protect species from rising
temperatures and increasing drought-related reductions in stream flow.

Functional The degree of duplication and/or overlap of key functions or services in a system
Redundancy where greater overlap translates to greater resilience.

Example: In the 1980s in the Caribbean, overfishing reduced abundances of

herbivorous fish, which was followed by mass mortality of herbivorous sea urchins;
this is commonly thought to have resulted in the change from coral-dominated
reefs to algae-dominated reefs. If only one herbivorous species had been lost, the
function of algae control would have been left intact. Instead the redundancy in the
system was lost.

Biodiversity Biodiversity is defined as the variety and composition of living organisms. Greater
variability in species composition helps ensure that the impact of a particular
hazard is not felt uniformly throughout an entire ecosystem, and thus reduces
overall sensitivity, as key functions are maintained.

Example (ecosystem): A forest primarily made up of one tree species will inherently
be more sensitive to disease than one that is made up of multiple species (some of
which may be resistant to the blight).

77
Natural The rate of generation of an ecosystem’s biomass. Slower generation rates
Productivity contribute to higher sensitivity, as a portion of a system would not be able to
regenerate quickly after a shock, thus causing more long-term disruption, and
lower resilience, in the ecosystem as a whole.

Example: Corals take years to grow to maturity. If a large portion of coral is lost,
then that reef system could suffer for a prolonged period of time. If enough damage
is done to the reef and it bleaches in its entirety, that could result in years of impact
on the coastal systems and fisheries that rely on it.

78
Appendix B:
Regulation and Policy Definitions

Biodiversity

IUCN Red List of Threatened Species List

Chemical Use

World Bank OP 4.09—Pest Management

World Bank policy on pest management, including supporting strategies to reduce reliance on
synthetic chemical pesticides.

WHO Recommended Classification of Pesticides by Hazard

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
US EPA regulation that establishes safety rules around hazardous chemicals used or stored in
the workplace, including annual public reporting requirements.

Food Security

FAO Low-Income Food-Deficit Countries List

FAO Food and Agriculture Database

IPC Acute Food Insecurity Reference Table for Household Groups

GHG Emissions

ISO 14044:2006 Environment Management—Life-Cycle Assessment—Requirements and

Guidelines
ISO 14044:2006 is a guideline that provides requirements and recommendations that an
individual should utilize through each phase of developing a life-cycle assessment (LCA).

ISO/DIS 14067.2 Carbon Footprint of Products—Requirements and Guidelines for

Quantification and Communication

Labor Rights

Child Labor: ILO Conventions 138 and 182, Recommendation 146

ILO Convention 182 Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, 1999

79
 A child is anyone under the age of 18. This recommendation summarizes what activities are
deemed the worst forms of child labor, including (but not limited to) slavery, child trafficking and
prostitution, and life endangering work.

ILO Convention 138 Minimum Age Convention, 1973

Convention concerning Minimum Age for Admission to Employment

ILO Recommendation 146 Minimum Age Recommendation, 1973

Recommendation of a minimum age of employment for children and measures to safeguard a
child’s mental and physical health during employment.

United Nations Convention on Rights of the Child

Declaration and articles that list the rights of every child and focus on protecting children from
exploitation.

Slave and Bonded Labor: ILO Conventions 29 and 105

ILO Convention 105 Abolition of Forced Labor Convention, 1957
Basis of #105: Convention concerning the abolition of forced labor

ILO Convention 29 Forced Labor Convention, 1930

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
Workers shall enjoy adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of
their employment.

ILO Convention 87 Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize

Convention, 1948
And/or
ILO Convention 11 Right of Association (Agriculture) Convention, 1921

Equal Pay and Discrimination: ILO Conventions 100 and 111

ILO Convention 100 Equal Remuneration Convention, 1951
Men and women will be paid equal value for equal work, without discrimination based on sex.
ILO Convention 111 Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958
Defines discrimination in occupation and employment.
Universal Declaration on Human Rights
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason
and conscience and should act toward one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Additional Resources
International Labor Organization (ILO) Website

Social Accountability International SA8000 Standard

Standard that provides recommendations on workers rights and employment, including guidance
on number of working hours, equitable payment and disciplinary practices, collective bargaining,
health and safety, etc.

Legal Production

80
 Minority Rights: International Standards and Guidance for Implementation
This United Nations’ policy pays attention to issues such as the recognition of minorities’
existence, their rights to nondiscrimination and equality, the promotion of multicultural and
intercultural education, the promotion of their participation in all aspects of public life, etc.

Operational Manual—Involuntary Resettlement 4.12

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.

Operational Manual—Indigenous People 4.10

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.

Local and Indigenous Communities

ILO Convention 169 Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989
Convention concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries

Guidelines on Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC)

Indigenous people’s right to free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) has been recognized by the
United Nations. Based on these 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

World Wildlife Fund (WWF) developed these criteria to address the widespread insufficiency of
food, fiber, and bioenergy to meet the needs of human society. Providing distilled guidance based
on leading industry practice, The 2050 Criteria should serve as a field guide for investors to
access mainstream agricultural, forest, and seafood commodities in a responsible manner.

Occupational Health and Safety

ILO Convention 184—Safety and Health in Agriculture Convention
This series of manuals has been developed by the International Labor Organization to help
unions representing agricultural workers tackle health, safety, and environmental (HS&E)
problems.

81
bioplasticfeedstockalliance.org