Good practices
Key points for
Good practices in Monitoring
The GTFI Good practices take into account several premises, such as respect for the TAC and other commitments by the sector, flexibility in light of the realities of the chain and its actors, data analysis at the property level, and definition of viable, simple, efficient and robust criteria.
Reference date for monitoring
STARTING DATE SUGGESTED BY PRODES 2020, AUGUST 1, 2019.
The date of the agreement (2019) was defined to ensure the viability of implementing the Good Practices.
The reference date is aligned with the Accountability Framework initiative (AFi), according to its main recommendations, such as: sectorial approach, time of year aligned with the official monitoring system (Prodes) and cut-off date not later than the date on which the pact is agreed.
Minimum
property size
EXCLUde all properties under 100 ha from MONITORING
Reduces the number of suppliers who need to be monitored without losing quality / impact, and avoids impact on family-owned properties.
Flexibility
each supplier is allowed one indirect level with DEFORESTATION per year
Monitoring and traceability of indirect suppliers at scale has never been done previously and because of that the GTFI recognizes that a zero-tolerance approach would be unfeasible and unfair to the interested parties.
Therefore, the GTFI has agreed on the need of some degree of flexibility, especially at the initial stages of this activity.
Good Practices revised periodically
INCLUding provisions to be developed to enable producers to return into compliance
The Good Practices will be revised based on practical results seen in the inclusion of indirect suppliers in meatpacker monitoring systems and in additional initiatives, such as projects for requalifying producers, as these are being established.
The Good Practices for Implementing Monitoring Systems of Indirect Suppliers in the Ranching Chain were widely discussed in bilateral meetings with meat-packing plants, supermarkets and other stakeholders and were approved in a plenary session during the VII Meeting of the GTFI, held on March 27, 2019.
How the Good Practices
were developed
In 2019, after 4 years dedicated to researching and developing tools that will enable the monitoring of indirect suppliers in the cattle chain, the GTFI decided that it was time to establish the basic points to be included in monitoring procedures. That would allow meatpackers and retailers to begin monitoring indirect suppliers through a predefined baseline common to all parties, the so-called “Good Practices”.
Seeking a technical grounding, the group developed a study focusing on the states of Pará and Mato Grosso, through an analysis of data from CAR and the GTA. After analyzing multiple scenarios, it was possible to reach several conclusions that were vital to the process of constructing the Good Practices for the GTFI, these being:
Reference date for monitoring
By having the guarantee of the viability of the implementation of the Good Practices as a premise, the group found that applying the same cutoff date as the TAC (2009) might lead to a large number of non-compliances, rendering the implementation of the Good Practices in monitoring indirect suppliers by the sector unfeasible and reducing its potential for decreasing deforestation. It was thus agreed that the best strategy would be to establish the year in which Good Practices were agreed on as the cutoff date, and not to allow deforestation after that date.
Minimum property size
The GTFI is focused on providing solutions for the cattle supply chain. In that regard, when examining the panorama of indirect suppliers in the Amazon, the Group noted that if the industry were to consider only Tier 1 indirect suppliers with properties above 100 ha in size, it would be possible to more than double the reach of monitoring. Those conditions create a practical and positive path for companies to begin including indirect suppliers in existing monitoring systems using commercial criteria.
Flexibility
Research also identified that only a very small percentage of direct suppliers presented more than one indirect supplier with deforestation. The group thus concluded that they could allow each direct supplier a tolerance of 1 indirect with this problem, since the total number of non-compliant suppliers admitted would be minimal. That flexibility was mainly designed for situations in which a direct supplier maintains commercial relations with many indirect suppliers.
Good Practices revised periodically
Additionally, the group recognized the need for periodically revising the Good Practices, mainly providing opportunities for incorporating new mechanisms that can enable readjustment and reinsertion of blocked producers into the chain. This point is extremely important for guaranteeing the long-term sustainability of monitoring indirect suppliers.