Reducing emissions from FLAG: an agenda for positive change

We live in a world driven by targets. Companies worldwide are setting targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from their operations as part of the global drive to mitigate climate change.

For many companies, Forest, Land and Agriculture (FLAG) emissions from land use change and land management within supply chains are their largest Scope 3 emissions. Addressing these emissions has the potential to deliver major reductions in the agriculture sector.

The Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) has developed rules for how companies set targets around their emissions, reductions and removals. Most recently it has published guidance for setting targets for FLAG emissions, prompting companies to start looking in more detail at land use change and land management emissions in their supply chains.

Of course, for Proforest this is crucial. Our work sits at the nexus of forests, agriculture and supply chains and we are all about delivering positive impacts for people, nature and climate. Addressing FLAG emissions has great potential to drive positive change in agricultural production and sourcing, but we also start to see some perverse incentives arise.

Typically, when companies seek to understand and reduce their FLAG emissions, they engage a consultant to provide a greenhouse gas inventory, identifying where their emissions occur and offering recommendations for reducing them. Often, we see recommendations to change the supply chain: supplier, region, product or formula. There is a drive to choose a supply chain that already has lower emissions.

But that doesn’t solve the problem of emissions, or lead to sectoral transformation. Switching suppliers leads to market segregation and leakage – the emissions continue but are associated with supply chains that are undiscriminating. Nothing has actually changed in overall emissions. Plus, it looks easy on paper, but it is not trivial to switch suppliers at a large scale once infrastructure, contracts and relationships are in place.

So, what do we recommend? We need to focus on reducing emissions from FLAG activities, not just excluding them from individual supply chains.

We see three ways to do this.

First, work with suppliers to change agricultural practices on the ground. Regenerative agricultural practices aim to sequester more carbon in soils and reduce emissions from agricultural practices like tilling and burning. Accounting for regenerative agriculture in a company’s Scope 3 calculations requires knowledge of the carbon benefits of farming practices, as well as traceability to production level. This works for some supply chains for large companies, which is why we see Nestlé committed to sourcing 20% of its key ingredients from regenerative agriculture by 2025 and 50% by 2030 (Nestlé Regenerative Sugarcane Handbook, 2024).

Second, companies can make sure their supply chains are deforestation and conversion-free now. Deforestation that happens now will be reflected in GHG emission values for the next 20 years, so preventing deforestation now has a huge and ongoing impact on emissions values. SBTi target-setting guidance also sets 2020 as a cut-off date for production to have been deforestation and conversion-free. This is why companies like McDonald’s and Mars have been investing in the development of the recently launched Voluntary Protocol for Monitoring of Cattle in the Cerrado, for instance.

And third, to ensure permanence of emissions reductions and long-term security of supply, we know that companies can’t work only through their existing supply chains. Factors that influence ongoing deforestation, such as land speculation, smallholder farming, public policy and production of other commodities, can only be addressed at a wider scale, through landscape and jurisdictional initiatives. At present, this kind of much-needed action at landscape level doesn’t count towards companies’ Scope 3 emissions reductions, unless fully traceable to their individual supply chain. This is disincentivising investment from those further downstream, instead of promoting cost-sharing among the supply chain actors. Allowing or even encouraging companies to shift suppliers, regions or materials without addressing the underlying problem will not have real and lasting impact.

Where does this leave us, going forward? We believe strongly that we need to change companies’ narrative away from “How do I reach my climate targets?” to “How do I leverage my climate targets to drive positive impact on the ground?” A focus on regenerative agriculture, preventing further deforestation and conversion, and seeking positive change through landscape level approaches offers a way to drive positive impacts.

And while we seek to mitigate climate emissions for the future, we also need to start adapting to the already present impacts of climate change. These three mechanisms offer opportunities to adapt our food systems to the climate impact we already see. They continue to guide Proforest’s work with companies and partners to re-focus activity and decision-making on driving real change on the ground, rather than meeting climate targets in isolation of impact.

 

---

Proforest Insights are drawn from our 25 years of practical experience in responsible sourcing and production of agricultural and forest commodities. This Insight is part of a series by Proforest’s senior leadership. The full series is available on Proforest’s website https://www.proforest.net/news-events/insights/.