Responsible soy

Many consumers and companies working with soy have wondered this. However, this question is not easy to answer because there is simply no simple solution to this complex problem. As a conservation organisation, IUCN NL works together with NGOs, trade unions, companies and governments to make the soy sector more sustainable. Working together is necessary because there is no simple solution where one approach works completely and the other does not work at all. A mix of measures is needed to ensure deforestation-free and sustainable soy.

Many organisations see EU legislation against deforestation as the solution to making the soy value chain deforestation-free, for example. Legislation can certainly help by making deforestation-free imports mandatory. But by combining legislation with sustainability standards like RTRS, we achieve much more in a shorter time. Certification standards are not a panacea, but they are an important ingredient in a broad approach against deforestation and abuses in the chain.

Standards alone will not solve the deforestation problem, but they do have an important role to play in combination with other approaches. Robust standards can:

1. Serve as a model for setting criteria in legislation and company policies, as well as in monitoring and verification systems.
2. Be used as a tool for implementing and monitoring these criteria. They can provide data and serve as evidence for producing deforestation- and conversion-free production.
3. Provide a higher price or other benefits to the farmer, so that the farmer is rewarded and appreciated for efforts to become more sustainable.

Now, far too little certified soy is sourced globally to make the entire market deforestation-free and responsibly produced. This is not the fault of a relatively good standard like RTRS, as it cannot improve the world on its own. Legislation and additional conservation measures at the landscape level are desperately needed to make certification like with RTRS precisely free of non-commitment and small-scale. Indeed, directly supporting deforestation-free responsible production remains essential, especially in at-risk landscapes in Latin America. In the end, the most important thing remains: nature conservation and responsible production locally, on whichever plate the product ends up on: in the Netherlands, Denmark or China.

The Collaborative Soy Initiative (CSI), an international partnership for conversion-free responsible soy, in collaboration with Proforest, has developed a model showing the complementarity of 6 approaches. The 6 approaches should collectively achieve 9 objectives. CSI sees the following benefits in the 6 approaches:

(1) Robust certification standards can (a) serve as models for criteria to apply in government and company policies. Then, (b) they are tools to implement and monitor these criteria, serving as proof of responsible behavior as well as data providers on deforestation free and responsible production. Furthermore, (c) if with sufficient premium or other benefit, they can also serve as incentives for producers and traders to step on board the sustainability journey. They, however, have not gained sufficient scale and effect on conversion frontiers so far, and combination with other approaches can increase their effectiveness.

A (2) biome-wide moratorium, such as in the Amazon, can help clearly put an end to soy-driven deforestation or conversion, especially if accompanied by a strong verification mechanism. Then, to avoid leakage to other landscapes and markets, a relatively new

(3) clean supplier approach seeks to address all conversion by requiring suppliers to only source conversion-free wherever and for whatever destination. The three mentioned approaches may have best effect if combined with ambitious

(4) landscape level/jurisdictional initiatives, reaching out to producers at all levels of sustainability, and adding additional landscape conservation or restoration measures.

(5) Pre-competitive initiatives can then level the playing field and create volume and impact by having the same requirements and adding combined resources.

The (6) Carbon Footprint Framework as such – with its current 20 year cut-off date – may not be a direct approach to attain sustainability, but carbon has a central role to play as a driver for companies to avoid conversion, and promote resource efficiency (including in protein diets) within planetary boundaries.

On top of these 6, EU Regulation on Deforestation is meant to ensure legal compliance and helps to unravel supply chain complexity to ensure deforestation free production. While the responsibility for compliance remains with the traders, they also can make use of standard systems within their information and verification toolkit. If the EU rolls out additional landscape level partnerships with producer countries, it can also provide incentives to farmers and suppliers.

Incentives for suppliers, both sticks (such as legal compliance) and carrots (such as financial incentives) are a current challenge, but crucial to making these combinations work.

To elaborate, please visit the Collaborative Soy Initiative website.

The European Soy Monitor reports by IDH show that the Dutch consumption of soy in animal feed has been covered by RTRS credits for about 50-60% in recent years. The Dutch feed industry indicates that this covers Dutch consumption of meat, dairy and eggs. However, the Netherlands also produces meat, dairy and eggs for export. But for the part of Dutch production intended for export, RTRS credits only cover soy used by the dairy industry.

This does not mean that other production is not covered by any standard. Exported meat is fully covered by other standards recommended by FEFAC. Those other standards meet FEFAC minimum criteria but may also have higher requirements. However, they are not as strong as RTRS.

IUCN NL expects companies in Dutch soy chains to choose standards that guarantee deforestation-free production. Read more about this on our website.

Unlike RTRS, the 2015 FSSG had insufficient criteria for the protection of forests, wetlands and biodiversity. In doing so, the 2015 FSSG called for less monitoring and verification of compliance with the criteria. For example, RTRS is the only party that requires the independent verifier to involve stakeholders during certification. Moreover, RTRS offers the option of buying physically segregated soy instead of certificates, so that sustainable soy does not necessarily end up lumped together with less responsibly produced soy. This is more difficult to implement, more expensive and companies have hardly opted for it so far.

Comparing RTRS (sustainability standard) with FEFAC (guidelines & benchmark system) is comparing apples and pears. But if we look at the level of ambition in FEFAC-SSG versus the level of ambition of RTRS, we do see differences. What is important here is that there is a difference between the criteria themselves (e.g. human rights, chemicals, deforestation) and the way they are monitored (how often are they monitored, how many years are you certified, etc.).

RTRS goes beyond FEFAC’s criteria when it comes to the following issues:

• Deforestation & land conversion (between 2008 and 2016 protection of almost all biomes and from 2016 protection of absolutely all biomes).
• Far-reaching biodiversity protection
• Monitoring soil and water quality
• Protecting indigenous peoples
• Use of certified/registered seeds
• Use of fertilisers
• Protecting different types of employees (temporary workers, seasonal workers)
• Fostering good relations with local communities
• Ensuring ‘continuous improvement’ in key sustainability areas (soil, chemicals, etc.)
• Encouraging careful record-keeping in order to learn and improve as a company
• Commitment to integrated pest management

In the old and new version of the FEFAC Guidelines, ‘legal compliance’ for deforestation and land conversion is (still) the criterion. However, because FEFAC did recognise that not including land conversion and deforestation (beyond ‘legal compliance’) is problematic in today’s market (especially in Western Europe), a tool has been developed in which all standards addressing land conversion and deforestation can be seen. This tool can be found here. Note that there is a lot of difference between the standards that prohibit land conversion and deforestation, with differences in the so-called ‘cut-off date’ (from when deforestation/conversion is no longer allowed) and the exact biomes included.

Difference in control (verification)

If we look at the method of verification (verification), we see that the FEFAC SSG allows for various ways of verification, from internal control systems to certification by an independent certifying body. RTRS opts for the latter (actually the strictest way), where individual farmers are visited by an independent verifier. It is also important to note that RTRS is the only soy standard that is ISEAL member. This says something about the excellent quality of the certification system. It is also important to note that RTRS is the only (FEFAC compliant) soy scheme that communicates transparently about the farmers who are certified and the companies that bought the certified soy.

Are RTRS and other standards now failures or redundant?

No. Robust certification standards like RTRS play an important role in making soy production more sustainable; they check for deforestation and conversion-free production, as well as other sustainability aspects. They also have a role to play within mandatory measures.

RTRS and ProTerra are now the most widely used standards for European imports.

RTRS is one of the schemes that was found to be ‘FEFAC compliant’ both in 2015 and recently, but in fact goes far beyond those minimum requirements.

The Fédération Européenne des Fabricants d’Aliments Composés (FEFAC) is the trade association of the European feed industry. On behalf of the Dutch animal feed sector, the industry organisation Nevedi is a member of FEFAC. The FEFAC Soy Sourcing Guidelines (FEFAC SSG) are voluntary guidelines (or a professional recommendation) for feed companies to source responsible soy. The FEFAC SSG were first published in 2015 and revised in 2021. The FEFAC Soy Sourcing Guidelines are not themselves a sustainability standard. No farmer is ‘FEFAC certified’. Instead, existing soy standards have been held up to the FEFAC Guidelines’ “measuring rod” (in technical terms, “benchmarked”). All soybean standards containing all the criteria from the FEFAC SSG were positively benchmarked and thus ‘FEFAC SSG compliant’. There are 19 soybean standards positively benchmarked against the first version of the FEFAC SSG (from 2015), and currently the benchmarking against the new 2021 SSG is ongoing.

In 2019, research firm Profundo did a benchmark of soybean standards that complied with the FEFAC Soy Sourcing Guidelines (FSSG) 2015.

The FEFAC Soy Sourcing Guidelines were updated in 2021, so the comparison is no longer fully up to date. However, we did identify where RTRS goes further than FEFAC’s 2021 criteria

Also in the 2021 FSSG, it is not mandatory for standards to prevent legal conversion of natural grasslands. Unlike the 2015 version, however, it is now a ‘desired criterion’ to counter conversion after 2020.

Conversion-free refers to a production method used for a certain crop that does not involve nature being converted to agricultural land. Deforestation is not required for conversion-free soy, and other vegetation, such as wetlands and grasslands are also spared. Therefore, conversion-free goes a step further than deforestation-free.

Yes. The new EU legislation against deforestation is very good. The bill makes companies responsible for complying with laws and regulations and preventing deforestation in their value chains. The verification of this must be done by companies themselves, according to so-called due diligence systems. Importing companies have to record step by step which farm their product comes from. Until now, Europe had no legislation against deforestation. This is therefore a big step forward. However, the proposal also has an important limitation: other fragile ecosystems, such as grasslands and peatlands threatened by agricultural production, are not protected by the bill. The bill should not only rid the EU market of deforestation, but also actually protect natural areas. It is therefore important that the EU and producers in other countries work together to make all production sustainable, so that deforestation-related products are not simply sold to other markets.

Unfortunately, it is an illusion that this law is going to completely prevent deforestation and land conversion. The law does not cover all trade and not all relevant natural areas. Sustainability standards play an important role in monitoring responsible production, in the chain to Europe but also at landscape level. They check not only deforestation and local compliance with the law, as the new EU law will require, but several aspects of sustainable production. Best standards require not only deforestation-free production, but also protection of other ecosystems, such as grasslands and peatlands, and respect for labour and human rights, especially the rights of local communities. The new EU bill states that no deforestation must have taken place after 2020, while best soy standards such as RTRS and Proterra declared deforestation taboo much earlier.

Segregated flows of sustainable soy have been used for years in trade chains demanding GMO-free soy. This allows soy to be tracked from plantation to plate. This method will now also become mandatory under the new EU bill. This may exclude the most-used certification options:

• the ‘book and claim’ model, where the feed company, food company or supermarket buys a certificate from a certified farmer. The farmer gets extra money from the buyer for producing soy sustainably. Here, there is no physical connection between the farm and the soy processed by the feed company.
• The ‘mass balance’ model, in which soy from different farms is mixed in storage and/or during transport. It is accurately tracked what percentage of the mix was produced to a standard. Because the responsible soy is mixed with the non-responsible soy, it is not possible to say that the sustainable soy paid for by the buyer is actually processed by this buyer. As with the ‘book and claim’ model, the farmer does certainly receive a premium for his sustainable production.

Although with these models it cannot be claimed that the soy a buyer processes is deforestation-free, the buyer can claim to have paid for verification of responsible soy on a farm. This contributes to responsible production in areas where the risk of conversion of natural areas is high. Moreover, these models can serve as temporary stepping stones for scaling up responsible production.

Like GMO-free chains, RTRS offers the option of buying physically segregated soy instead of certificates, so that responsible soy does not necessarily end up lumped together with less responsibly produced soy. This is more difficult to implement, more expensive and companies have hardly opted for it so far. However, it is a solid way to meet the due diligence obligations in the new EU law.

Standards by themselves do not solve the deforestation problem, but they do have an important role to play in combination with other approaches. Robust standards can:

• Serve as a model for setting criteria in legislation and company policies, as well as in monitoring and verification systems.
• Be used as a tool for implementing and monitoring these criteria. They can provide data and serve as evidence for producing deforestation- and conversion-free production.
• Provide a higher price or other benefits to the farmer, so that the farmer is rewarded and appreciated for efforts to become more sustainable.

See also IUCN NL’s views on the new EU legislation.