Implementation of social safeguards in the Western Mato Grosso Landscape

1. Internal Discussion & Literature Review:
   First, a systematic literature review of relevant publications and frameworks developed by specialised organisations on social safeguards was conducted by the Proforest team. This review included frameworks by various organisations[1].
   The review identified the best practices for designing and implementing social safeguards in the landscape initiative. It helped align these practices with the later potential risks identified as part of the WMT initiative’s interventions.

2. Risk screening with implementing partners:
   Using insights from the literature review, a workshop was held with the landscape initiatives implementing partners (Amazon Environmental Research Institute (IPAM), PCI Institute, Producing Right, and Proforest) to align understanding and identify risks to IPs & LCs associated with each intervention. The aim was to reach a shared understanding by all implementing partners on the concept of social safeguards and to start mapping how intervention planning could be adapted to integrate these social safeguards. Following the internal workshop, the partners were invited to provide input on each identified risk, specifically its likelihood, the main groups affected, and potential mitigation strategies, to help determine which types of social safeguards should be put in place and prioritised.

3. Consultation with local stakeholders:
   Proforest team members, accompanied by a socio-environmental consultancy collective with facilitation and IP & LCs’ expertise, 25 semi-structured interviews and 6 participatory local workshops, were held, with representatives of different stakeholder groups: public and private sectors’ representatives, large soy producers, representatives of Indigenous Peoples, small farmers (subsistence agriculture) and university researchers, amongst others.
   Stakeholders were asked about the potential negative consequences they would consider to be associated with the Initiatives’ interventions, and what could be done to prevent these identified potential negative consequences. In addition, the participants were asked about the potentially positive effects of this kind of program across all areas of interventions planned to improve multi-stakeholder governance, scaling sustainable production practices, natural ecosystem conservation and inclusion of local actors. The planning, delivering and analysis following these workshops took about three months.

[1]Conservation International (CI), International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), Fairtrade International, Forest Peoples Programme, GIZ, REM-MT, Global Environment Facility (GEF), IDH, Oxfam, Rainforest Foundation, SwissContact, The Nature Conservancy (TNC), WWF and REDD+ System of the State of Mato Grosso.

Based on the information collected with key actors and on the desk-based review work, the social safeguards were identified, developed and organised into five major themes for implementation:

1. Responsible Long-Term Governance; related to long-term strategy for landscape finance and benefits
2. Responsible Communications, Engagement and Transparency; related to channels of communications and effective participation of actors in interventions
3. Responsible Production in Soy Farms; related to intervention in soy farms (certification, best agricultural practices)
4. Responsible Environmental Conservation and Restoration in Soy Farms; related to native vegetation restoration and protection activities
5. Responsible Smallholder Inclusion; related to smallholders’ inclusion activities (restoration practices, PES, alternative livelihoods)

Social Safeguards consolidation

For each social safeguards theme, a ‘Technical Form’ was prepared outlining the corresponding intervention(s), identifying potential negative consequences (Risk), measures to address potential negative consequences (Risk mitigation measures = safeguards), the responsible partners entity, implementation plan with next steps, and a monitoring framework including indicators and means of verification.

Eventually, 22 measures to prevent negative consequences were developed under the five themes. 
To ensure effective implementation of social safeguards by all implementing partners, and in alignment with the ambition to establish a Monitoring, Reporting and Verification (MRV) system at the landscape level, it was essential to identify which safeguarding measures were already in place, and which ones required new efforts and action plans. This process faced challenges, particularly in ensuring that all implementers understood how safeguards are operationalised. By September 2025, the implementing partners identified that 50% of the safeguards had already been implemented (with a key responsible entity), 23% partially implemented (entity responsible still to be chosen), and 27% not yet implemented and adding them to future planning. As part of this effort, KPIs were developed to monitor the implementation of the risk mitigation measures of the social safeguards.

Examples of risk mitigation measures that have progressed following the development of the Safeguards Plan include the continued efforts to engage and increasingly involve IP&LCs and smallholders’ representatives in local Governance groups, ensuring their participation in the development of the Long-Term Strategy of the initiative and their involvement in other activities. 

In addition, technical assistance has been expanded to a greater number of producers to support the implementation of good practices on their farms, such as regenerative agriculture practices and commitments to DCF production, thereby promoting responsible soy production.

As endorsed by the Safeguards Plan, a Communication Plan was also established, with the objective of creating appropriate channels to share information about the initiative. In this context, the initiative’s website was developed. Furthermore, to still ensure responsible communication, engagement and transparency, a Grievance Mechanism is currently under development. Its corresponding policy and operational procedure will be formally published to ensure accessibility for all stakeholders.
 

The implementation and status of the social safeguards will still be monitored in coordination with the institutions that are part of the Western Mato Grosso consortium, as each risk mitigation measure is assigned to one of these institutions. To also support this process, an MRV system was developed during the first half of 2026 and is expected to be operational by June 2026. This system incorporates the indicators and data related to social safeguards and will serve as the primary tool for tracking their implementation and progress. To enable consistent measurement, reporting, and comparability across all implementing partners, the KPI metrics will be standardised into numeric variables for future assessments. Proforest, together with partner institutions, will be responsible for the regular collection, validation, and updating of KPI data within the MRV system. It is planned that the information generated through this system will be made publicly available on the initiative’s website, as well as on its page on SourceUp, to enhance transparency and accountability.