The Rise of Sustainability
Agriculture, like any other industry, regularly experiences an influx of new ideas and ways of doing business. The concept of sustainability has certainly been part of our cultural practices for decades, and some would argue centuries. However, within the last ten years or so, the term sustainability has become an integral part of the agricultural lexicon. It’s meaning and implications are as diverse as agriculture itself.
A number of organizations now exist to promote the economic viability and feasibility of sustainability. SureHarvest is one of the preeminent businesses committed to “sustainability from the ground up.” SureHarvest was founded in 1999 by Dr. Jeff Dlott who believes we can achieve a sustainable agrifood system by measuring and then rewarding growers for producing public benefits like cleaner water and air, job opportunities, and vibrant communities, in addition to food. SureHarvest set out to design the knowledge and technology systems needed to create a ‘sustainable currency’ to value and exchange environmental and social benefits in the agrifood marketplace.
Dr. Daniel Sonke, Senior Scientist with SureHarvest, shares his thoughts on the evolution of sustainability and the efforts SureHarvest is making to advance its mission.
What is sustainability?
Interestingly enough, it is a concept that everyone seems to understand but very few are able to define. More often than not, sustainability is discussed in terms of good examples and a known set of values – the 3 e’s. (The 3 e’s of sustainability are economy, ecology and equity and are used as the litmus test for sustainable stewardship.) In this context, sustainability is ultimately about running a profitable business that has a positive impact on the environment and society.
What has brought about the main stream interest in sustainability?
Within the global marketplace, there has been a rise in sales of organic and natural foods, as well as a general rise in public concern for the environment. At the same time investors began seeking out pro-active, socially responsible corporations. There became an awareness of best-practices that reduce risk while benefiting the bottom line and also the world at large. This demand has, in turn, led to businesses making their balanced approach an integral part of marketing and advertising efforts. This publicity, in turn, created a feedback loop, rapidly reinforcing investor and consumer interest.
The regulatory environment has also forced corporations to re-evaluate business practices and consider how to do things differently. The compliance component has been a critical piece for agriculture and one reason so many growers and producers have incorporated such practices as integrated pest management, soil management techniques, and erosion minimization. Agriculture, in general, has been engaged in holistic ecological management for some time but, unfortunately, has not always effectively told its story.
Within the past three years, agriculture has been impacted on a number of fronts. Most importantly, as retail chains have responded to the consumers’ understanding of and demand for sustainable business practices, agriculture has found itself at the center of attention. For example, retail giant Wal-Mart is in the process of requiring all suppliers to have a sustainability measurement that the store will be able to articulate back to its customers.
Wal-Mart’s demands are just one example of an increasingly complex cause-and-effect marketplace scenario. To date, there are no uniform standards for sustainability. In the absence of a single system, retailers have subsequently developed their own guidelines, creating a web of requirements that are similar but not the same. The challenge for farmers is enormous, as each producer looks to implement multiple sets of sustainability regulations to ensure his or her product will be accepted by multiple retailers.
The chaos has led to an attempt to develop uniform standards through the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). As with any process of this magnitude, there have been numerous challenges and, in some instances, set-backs towards developing a one-size-fits-all system. SureHarvest and a number of agriculture groups had concerns about how the process was initially approached. However, the effort has generated an industry-wide dialogue on a number of important fronts.
For example, as the ANSI process has grappled with understanding the complexities of sustainability, conventional and organic producers have articulated their standard practices to meet individual interpretations of the concept. Out of that information sharing has come an understanding organic farming can be seen as an approach to sustainable farming, but within both conventional and organic farming there are sustainable systems that can be implemented. For example, organic trade associations are starting to discuss how to get more areas of sustainability, such as energy and water conservation, into their programs.
While the ANSI process has focused on a national model for all crops, other organizations have created crop and/or region-specific standards, including SureHarvest. Our program, Protected Harvest, has certified almost 30,000 acres of farmland for production of winegrapes, potatoes, mushrooms, stone fruit, and citrus since 2001. In essence, our program certifies that a producer has met region and crop-specific standards as approved by its Board. Accredited third-party certification agencies audit fields and facilities according to established criteria and determine whether certification is warranted. Certification is supported by SureHarvest Sustainability Management Information System software, providing growers and auditors the ease of electronic reporting, record-keeping and verification. Certification covers growers, chain of custody, and licensing of the eco-label trademark in product packaging and point-of-sale promotional materials.
How successful has Protected Harvest and other independent certification systems been at penetrating the retail system?
In all honesty, it’s been a challenge to get recognition by retailers. It takes time and education to relay the benefits of a third-party system of certification as a means of attracting consumers. It is a new model. However, we have had some movement. For instance, a major natural foods retailer just picked up the Zeal brand of peaches, plums and nectarines certified under Protected Harvest. SYSCO, the largest food service distributor, recognizes Protected Harvest certification in place of SYSCO’s sustainability program, and Wal-Mart has done the same - its program is still in development but our certification is on an initial list of approved certifications. Ultimately, we believe that a program like Protected Harvest, because it is developed by a strong collaboration among farmers, scientists and environmental experts, is more practical for farmers - with positive conservation benefits - than a one-size-fits-all best management program. Because of our strong science and collaborative focus, we think retailers and farmers can be assured of the value of the program.
The process of creating standards seems to be incredibly time consuming. How will Protected Harvest and others be able to keep their sustainability standards current with the changes in technology and other growing practices?
The issue of time is a very real concern in the process of developing uniform sustainability standards. Once a set of practices is identified, it’s highly probable that some aspects will soon be out-of-date because business practices can change rapidly as a result of technology and other factors. For this very reason, SureHarvest has co-founded a new project called the Stewardship Index for Specialty Crops (SISC).
SISC is a multi-stakeholder initiative to develop a system for measuring sustainable performance throughout the specialty crop supply chain. The project seeks to offer a suite of outcomes-based metrics to enable operators at any point along the supply chain to benchmark, compare, and communicate their own performance. In other words, instead of focusing on the practices or activities done by farmers, measure (where possible) the direct environmental benefits or impacts of the practices. For example, rather than dictating specific irrigation technologies, a program would ask about the actual water use per acre or per unit of product.
Over thirty organizations are currently involved in SISC, representing such fields as environmental and public interest groups, growers, suppliers, buyers, and other pertinent trade associations. Ultimately, the goal with SISC will be for retailers to adopt this system based on metrics as opposed to practices or processes. This gives farmers flexibility in how they achieve sustainability in their operations, helps alleviate the issues created by production standards becoming obsolete in a short period of time, and would allow one measurement to satisfy multiple retailers or programs. Without a uniform set of metrics, we may be faced with farmers being forced to implement or document multiple sets of practices to sell to various customers – more chaos.
For more information on SureHarvest and its programs, visit www.sureharvest.com or call 831-477-7797.
Sure Harvest Sustainability Solutions brochure. Page 1. 2009.
Go back to the articles page
