Moving from risk identification and target setting to implementation

The world of agricultural production is on uncertain ground. Risks to key supply chains and crops are increasing due to climate change and geopolitical upheaval. For businesses, the opportunity to source raw ingredients from alternative regions when issues arise in strategic sourcing landscapes is diminishing. For farmers, changing policy and regulation and rapidly fluctuating costs make it difficult to plan and adapt to the future.

To date, global climate and nature frameworks and reporting requirements have driven much of the investment into supply chain action. However, businesses are becoming increasingly aware that they must act more directly to address these material risks within their supply chains. In turn, this shift in strategic and operational drivers means greater exploration of different mitigation approaches. These include strengthening supplier relationships, increasing resilience within existing supply chains, and identifying how and where to track impact to ensure risks are being adequately addressed.

At 3Keel, we see a growing trend of clients, well into the process of setting targets around climate and nature, realising the importance of also moving from targets to implementation. They have begun to recognise that achieving real impact to reduce risks and increase resilience requires more engagement with their supply chains, working on the ground with suppliers and farmers/producers.

Joined up thinking – avoiding pitfalls of ‘silo-isation’ in targets and delivery approaches

One key matter that becomes clear when moving to implementation is the importance of joined up targets and strategy. We know that actions on the ground to support positive nature and climate targets have significant overlaps. This means that implementing delivery approaches that are designed to consider both outcomes will increase efficiency and impact and reduce overall costs.

Delivering approaches for different targets in isolation also makes it more difficult for suppliers, farmers, and produces to engage. Having multiple, inconsistent asks for participation and data can weaken trust in what could be perceived as the lack of a coherent approach or plan.

Developing projects and approaches around single environmental outcomes also increases the risk of perverse incentives arising from overemphasis on a single outcome, eg carbon. A good example is a monocrop tree plantation established as a carbon offset opportunity. Considering nature alongside carbon would result in more bio-diverse landscapes and multi-species canopies, achieving multiple positive outcomes.

The importance of thoughtful supply chain engagement

Successfully engaging with suppliers and producers requires genuinely considering their perspectives and needs. Individual regional contexts, such as differences in cultural and political norms and agricultural/land policy, mean that what works in one place may not suit another. Much of our 3Keel Agriculture and Landscapes team have backgrounds in land management – lived experience that we use to ensure our work considers and incorporates the perspectives and needs of farmers.

Farmers and producers are well aware that they don’t produce food in a vacuum. Their management choices are at least in part driven by policy and market conditions, contractual terms, and land tenure arrangements. Expecting farmers to change production practices in support of supply chain targets without a parallel shift in supply chain practices and policy will be seen by many as unfair and unlikely to meet with long-term success.

We know that there are significant benefits to farmers and producers in shifting to more ‘regenerative’ production systems. However, the ‘transition gap’ means that this process can incur short-term financial penalties and capital investment costs that can act as a barrier to change. We also know that focusing on financial incentives alone is not sufficient. Amongst UK farmers not currently taking action to reduce GHG emissions, the most common barriers cited were ‘being unsure on what to do due to too many conflicting views’ and ‘lack of information’. Successful engagement requires not just some level of financial support but also a clear consideration and articulation of the benefits to farmers as well as to business.

Monitoring, reporting, and verification – it doesn’t have to be scary

To underpin action on the ground and ensure approaches are delivering benefits to actors across the supply chain, adequate monitoring and reporting is essential. There’s plenty of past experience to tell us that ‘good intentions’ do not always result in positive outcomes. Tracking and reporting the impact of your approaches ensures that you are making the progress you seek – or identifies that you are not, and that a different approach is needed. Robust monitoring and reporting is also necessary to avoid potential greenwashing.

But knowing what and how to monitor can be tricky. The frameworks governing this space are still being developed. The Greenhouse Gas Protocol’s Land Sector and Removals Guidance is still in draft form. The Science Based Targets for Nature continue to develop, with Version 1 of step 3 for Land out soon and Step 3 for Oceans, Step 3 for Biodiversity, and Steps 4 and 5 still undrafted. The technologies and methodologies available for monitoring environmental outcomes on the ground are constantly and rapidly evolving. It’s a crowded space and it can be hard to navigate which tools and approaches are the right ones for specific needs. Costs can add up quickly, as can the requirements for farmer and supplier engagement in data collection.

Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good

So how to start? We encourage our clients to begin by spending some time really thinking about metrics that matter to their organisation and to their supply chain. What’s useful information for a business will not always be the same as what’s useful to a farmer. It’s important to identify what data is already available. Whilst the ultimate aim is good, traceable primary data and robust methodology, don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. At the start, it is enough simply to understand the overall trend of the impact on the ground. Can you be confident things are moving in the right direction? You can build from there.

Collaboration and landscape-scale approaches

Food production occurs within a natural system. We know that the outcomes we seek – sustainable supply of food, climate mitigation and adaptation, healthy, resilient landscapes and communities – are interlinked and interdependent. At the same time, many supply chains are sourcing crops grown in wider rotations, where their raw material is only one piece of a complex land management puzzle. In some cases, an individual approach within a supply chain will be the best option for addressing specific needs or engaging in and building specific supply chain relationships. In others, collaboration across supply chains and/or at a landscape scale is the only way to address some of the drivers of negative environmental impact and leverage change at the scale needed. Collaboration can also reduce implementation and MRV cost, as well as make it engagement easier for farmers and producers. 3Keel’s Landscape Enterprise Networks is an example of a landscape scale initiative seeking to drive collaborative for multi-functional outcomes.

As climate change effects bite harder and directly affect agriculture all around the world more frequently, we need to double-down on collaboration, both within and across supply chains. It is no longer a ‘nice to have’ but a critical success factor in ensuring durable, scalable impact that benefits inclusively, rather than for a select few. By sharing responsibility, costs, and risks, we stand the best chance of regenerating critical landscapes to be more resilient, healthy, and productive.