Unilever & Sustainable Agriculture

Measuring Improvement

David PendlingtonSustainable Agriculture Project Co-ordinatorUnilever NV, The Netherlands

2

3

Who is Unilever?

• Worldwide turnover - € 40.4 billion in 2004

• 223,000 employees in 100 countries

• 150 million people buy our products every day

• Foods brands account for over half our sales

4

Unilever and Agriculture

5

Lead Agriculture ProgrammesTea

Started 1999

Kenya, Tanzania and India

Palm oil

Started 1999Malaysia (sold in 2002), Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire

Tomatoes

Started 1999

Brazil and California

2005

Greece

Spinach and peas

Started 1998

UK

2000

Germany and Italy

6

3 strands

•LAPs

•Roll-out to suppliers

•Extension beyond key crops

Sustainable Agriculture Strategy

7

Measuring Improvement - 1997*

Step 0Conventional

IndicatorParameterScores

Step 1Eco-efficiency

Step 2RegenerativeTechnologies

*Based on Discussion Paper produced for Unilever

by Professor Jules Pretty - University of Essex

8

Indicators and Parameters

1. Soil Fertility Health

4. Pest Management

5. Biodiversity

6. Value Chain

11. Animal Welfare

10. Local Economy

9. Social/Human Capital

8. Water

7. Energy

2. Soil Loss

3. Nutrients

9

How...•Baseline measurements

•Field and Factory records

• Novel in field measurements

• Working with experts - NGOs,

Academics

10

What we’ve learnt…1998 - 2004

•We generated a lot of data - complexity

•Linking practice to improvement

•Supply chain driven - where’s the brandequity

• Prioritization & Pragmatism

2004 to Date:Two Tiers

Ia Ib Ic Id

A1 A2 A3

Indicators& Issues

LAPactivities

Soil healthBiodiversity

Value ChainNutrients

Soil compaction

research

Field marginprogramme

Optimisedfertilisation

strategy11

LAP response LAP statusClassification Description or explanation References Scores Total

POTENTIAL ISSUES to further info a b c

Soil Health and FertilityN.1.a Depletion of soil organic matter Not relevant Current management sufficient to maintain OM levels [1], [2] 3 2 3 3N.1.b Negative impact on soil physical quality (structure, compaction, infiltrability) Not applicable No machinery traffic on planted areas, manual harvestN.1.c Negative impact on soil chemical quality

(a) Soil nutrient depletion Managed Fertilization management [7] 3 3 3 3 (b) Soil acidification/alkalinisation Not relevant Generally not a problem, application of EFB and factory effluent raise pH [7], [15] 3 1 2 2 (c) Soil salinisation Not relevant Humid climate (tropics), positive water balance 3 2 3 3 (d) Soil chemical contamination (heavy metals, toxins) Not looked at ???

N.1.d Negative impact on soil biological quality (build-up crop pathogen potential) Managed Use Fusarium oxysporum resistant material [6] 3 3 3 3Soil Loss and Land UseN.2.a Soil loss

(a) Water erosion Managed Low risk because of closed canopy, terracing at slope >10%, OM magt. [1], [7] 1 3 3 2 (b) Wind erosion Not applicable Closed canopy and under storey vegetation (c) Soil removal with harvested product Not applicable No soil removed

N.2.b Emission of sediments into water Not relevant Terracing to reduce run-off and water erosion, 60m riparian buffer zones [7] 2 1 2 2N.2.c Consumption of natural peat or forest soil Not applicable Not used (nursery soil taken from and returned to plantation)

NutrientsN.3.a Consumption of non-renewable minerals

(a) Phosphate Managed Strive to close nutrient cycles (EFB and factory effluent recycling) [1], [2], [10] 2 1 3 2 (b) Potassium Managed Strive to close nutrient cycles (EFB and factory effluent recycling) [1], [2], [10] 2 2 3 2

N.3.b Emission of eutrophying substances (a) Nitrate Managed Monitoring river water, terracing to reduce run-off, 60m riparian buffer zone [11], [12] 1 1 3 2 (b) Phosphate Managed Monitoring river water, terracing to reduce run-off, 60m riparian buffer zone [11], [12] 1 2 3 2 (c) Gaseous N (NH3, NOx) Managed Investigate composting of effluent (reduce gaseous N emissions from ponds) [2] 2 1 1 1

N.3.c Inefficient nutrient use / cycling Managed Organic waste recycling (EFB, effluent; composting of fibre tested) [2], [10] 2 2 1 2Pest Management ("pesticides": all biocides, incl. fungicides and herbicides)N.4.a Exposure of non-target organisms/areas to pesticides / decay products

(a) Aquatic ecosystems Managed Low PPP use (mainly nursery), IPM, 60m uncropped riparian buffer zone [6], [7], [12] 2 2 3 2 (b) Terrestrial ecosystems Managed Low PPP use, IPM, search for alternative Leaf Miner control [6], [7] 2 2 2 2

N.4.b Lacking user protection and training Managed Operational health and safety procedures, trained users, protective equipment [6], [7], [8] 3 3 3 3N.4.c Unsafe storage Managed Locked storage with limited and controlled access [6], [7], [8] 3 3 3 3N.4.d Point losses of pesticides (faulty/maladjusted technical equipment,

application errors, during filling and cleaning) Managed Trained operators, handling and application procedures [6], [7], [8] 2 2 3 2N.4.e Build-up of pesticide resistance Managed Search for alternative Leaf Miner control, variety selection [6] 2 2 2 2

Output

12

(1) List of potential sustainability issues (by Indicator)

(2) Classification of LAP response to issue (Not applicable/relevant, Managed, No action, Not looked at)

(6) Colour code depending on Profiling Scores

(3) Short prose description of LAP response(4) Reference to detailed description (Tier 2)(5) Scores for three Profiling Criteria (anchored scales); set of criteria used depend on Classification (Column 2)

Flowchart guiding through process

Output

13

LAP response LAP statusClassification Description or explanation References Scores Total

POTENTIAL ISSUES to further info a b c

*

5

Colour coding

4

Classification Classification Profiling criteriaDescription / explanation

31 2

"Do something!"

Not applicable' only if an issue does obviously not apply. Examples: Soil loss with harvest products in leafy vegetable; irrigation water consumption in rainfed crops; spill over from GM crops if no GM crop used.

Key to colour codes"Excellent, no need to worry"

"Ok, but keep an eye on it"

Issue appli-cable* within LAP context?

Can the issue be proven

irrelevant?

Not applicable*

IrrelevantGive evidence

(add references if available)

Is there a reason for inaction?

No actionExplain why

(add references if available)

Is the issue managed?

ManagedDescribe how

(add references if available)

State reasonNo

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

Not looked at State reason

Quality of evidence:a) Quality of theoretical modelb) Quality of empirical datac) Degree of acceptance

Quality of justification:a) Social and economic barriersb) Manageabilityc) Low priority/risk

Quality of management action:a) Quality of conceptual basis/science

b) Suitability to resolve the issuec) Stage of implementation

Not profiled

Not profiled

depending on profiling scores

depending on profiling scores

depending on profiling scores

Show progress

Classifi-cation 2004

POTENTIAL ISSUES 2000 2004Soil Health and FertilityN.1.a Depletion of soil organic matter Managed 1 2N.1.b Negative impact on soil physical quality (structure, compaction, infiltrability) Managed ... 1 2N.1.c Negative impact on soil chemical quality

(a) Soil nutrient depletion Managed ... 3 3 (b) Soil acidification/alkalinisation Managed ... 3 3 (c) Soil salinisation Not relevant ... 3 3 (d) Soil chemical contamination (heavy metals, toxins) No action ... 1 1

N.1.d Negative impact on soil biological quality (build-up crop pathogen potential) Managed ... 2 2Soil Loss and Land UseN.2.a Soil loss

(a) Water erosion Managed ... 1 3 (b) Wind erosion Not relevant ... 2 2 (c) Soil removal with harvested product Not applicable ...

N.2.b Emission of sediments into water Not relevant ... 2 2N.2.c Consumption of natural peat or forest soil Not applicable ...

NutrientsN.3.a Consumption of non-renewable minerals

(a) Phosphate Not applicable ... (b) Potassium No action ... 2 2

N.3.b Emission of eutrophying substances (a) Nitrate Managed ... (b) Phosphate Managed ... (c) Gaseous N (NH3, NOx) Managed ...

N.3.c Inefficient nutrient use / cycling Managed ...Pest Management ("pesticides": all biocides, incl. fungicides and herbicides)

N.4.a Exposure of non-target organisms/areas to pesticides / decay products

Total LAP Status

14

15

Healthcare, Education and Social Services for Estate Staff andthe Local CommunityBilly Ghansah 1*, Gail Smith 2, Christof Walter 2

1 Unilever Ghana Ltd, Accra, Ghana2 Unilever R&D Colworth, Sharnbrook, UK

Activity Report 4OP/GH, version draft; date 24 Sept 2004

Relevant Tier 1 Checklist items: N.9.a, b, c; P.9.a – f, h; P.10.a, d.

Plan finished, next update: 2007

1. Introduction and contextUnilever’s commitment to social responsibilitya.

Ghana: Developing country with aims of becoming a middle income economy by 2020.

Estates in very remote rural areas with little infrastructure

• Severe shortage of hospital beds and doctors, HIV/AIDS prevalence rate apparently stable and slightlybelow the critical point of 5%.

• Access to adequate housing, clean drinking water and electricity limited.

• Schooling rate for primary education (six years, age 6 to 11) relatively high and rising, but low forsecondary education.

2. Improvement Plan description

Purpose, process, products, personnel and partnersThe Ghanaian oil palm estates engage in a range of programmes aiming at provision of above averagequality health care, schooling, housing, education, social services and support to the local communities.All of these programmes are voluntary contributions that go beyond legal requirements

Health care and HIV/AIDS: Basic healthcare is provided for free to estate employees and their dependants.Also, Unilever companies in sub-Saharan Africa have developed a HIV/AIDS programmeb, whichaddresses the needs of individuals at key stages of prevention and treatment. At the Ghanaian oil palmestates, the programme started in 2002 and also receives support from the Ghana AIDS foundation. Itcomprises• An annual AIDS day around education and information• Voluntary testing and counselling• A network of volunteer peer educators among employees, meeting once a month• A commitment to fully pay for the available treatment of employees in case of infection.

Housing: Free housing is provided for the estate employees. Free high quality drinking water and refusedisposal are provided by the company as well as heavily subsidised electricity. Further more the oil palmestates provide facilities and support for social activities as sports and clubs.

Schooling and education: The Ghanaian oil palm estates provide schools for their employees’ children,comprising six years of primary and three years of secondary education (ages 6 – 15). For further threeyears of secondary education as well as for higher education (including post-graduate studies) scholarshipsare available via the Ghana Unilever Foundation for Education and Development, that took up work in1999c. The teachers at the estate schools are government paid, but Unilever tops up their salaries. Thecompany also provide the buildings and facilities [???]

Community support: According to the Unilever Code of Business Principlesd, the Ghanaian oil palmestates actively engage with the local communities. They support local farmers by providing training,advice and planting material for oil palm cultivation. They also engage in building and maintaininginfrastructure (ambulances [I READ THAT THE UNILEVER FOUNDATAION HAS BUILD 3

* Corresponding author. Estate Manager, tel. +233 208176814, e-mail Billy.Ghansah@unilever.com.

Activity Reports

Highly detailed information

• Measurements and Parameters

• Methodological and technical information

• Environmental, social and business context

16

Where next...

•Further prioritization:•Using our 2 tier approach•Review in 2006•Fewer, but truly performance based indicators

•Not forgetting our Tier 1 checklist!

17

www.unilever.com/ourvalues/environmentandsociety/sustainability/agriculture

Thanks for your attention