World Wildlife Fund Sustainability Works

This week Forum for the Future launches The Protein Challenge 2040. It is the culmination of a year of enquiry by a really unusual coalition of food companies, retailers, feed companies and NGOs into what we like to call the big protein question: How are we going to feed 9 billion people enough protein by 2040, in a way that is healthy, affordable and good for the environment?

It’s a tough question, and one that we have grappled with together over long hours reviewing past research and evidence, meetings and discussions – both in the office and over the dinner table at home.

Having worked with 200 stakeholders across the protein system and read countless research reports, it was clear that our future food security is an issue that people are very passionate about. It was also clear that polarized discussions were getting in the way of progress. Different types of protein sources were labelled ‘"good’" or "bad", effectively preventing people from finding a common way forward.

Through these conversations, we discovered organizations that were working toward more sustainable protein in different ways. Some were exploring sustainable nutrition, others were investigating which future protein sources to get behind. Realizing the complexity of the issues and the number of different protein sources – not just animal to plant, these organizations saw the benefits of joining forces for the first time – hence the formation of The Protein Challenge 2040.

Read the summary report document.

During the past year, we’ve worked hard to map the entire protein system, something that has never been done before. The issues within the system are very complex:

Balancing access to good nutrition with sustainable production

Some nutritionists we spoke to were perplexed. Protein is essential for human health, but why were some people labelling it "bad"? There are great inequalities of access, with some of us eating more than sufficient protein, with others facing a serious lack, and both sets of circumstances are associated with major health risks. And, not all sources of protein are the same in terms of how much nutrition they provide and how much impact their production has on the environment. Some sources of protein are resource-intensive and have many environmental impacts such as greenhouse gas emissions, heavy water consumption and habitat destruction.

Complex interrelationships

The protein system comprises the animal, plant and alternative protein industries and all their value chains are very deeply linked. Over 50% of good quality plant protein grown is fed to animals and a good proportion of wild-caught fish is fed to farm animals and fish. The protein system is over-dependent on soy for animal feed, and the cultivation of soy in turn drives deforestation. So it’s not simply enough to find more sustainable ways of growing a crop, it’s also about finding alternatives and tackling demand.

Changing diets

As we struggle to feed 9 billion demand for protein will only grow, and much of the demand will be for animal protein. So we do need to address consumer diets and consumption, as well as looking at the diets of those animals themselves. And, as any retailer can tell you, trying to influence consumer behavior is never easy!

The Protein Challenge 2040 steering group comprises some visionary companies that recognize this complexity and the challenges ahead. With Forum as independent facilitators of the coalition, the group worked to identify the solutions that the protein system can take collective action on now, in order to catalyze the greatest change and shift the system onto a more sustainable path.

Using future scenarios to test the system in different possible worlds and working with over 200 experts and innovators in London, New York, Rotterdam and San Francisco, we have identified six areas for innovation and action. We agree that we do need to have a better balance of proteins from plants rather than animal sources and we do need to scale game-changing alternatives to animal feed, as well as tackling the loss of protein-rich waste across the system. Most importantly, we recognize the world needs to focus on protein, now.

This isn’t a report on problems in the food system. It is an invitation for you to join us in transforming the future of protein together. If you have the expertise, knowledge and resources to drive forward the solutions in these areas, we want to hear from you. We’re beginning a new journey together looking for other businesses, entrepreneurs and experts who will help us go further and faster. Does that sound like you?

Editor's Note:

WWF is proud to be a part of Forum for the Future’s Protein Challenge. All of the issues it’s tackling are critical, and WWF-US will work with the Forum particularly closely on scaling up sustainable feed innovation. Because they require energy and nutrients just for the maintenance of their lives, food animals require more natural resources than plants to produce food for us. As the global population grows and, with it, demand for protein, we have to find ways to produce and use animal feed more efficiently, and to use nutrients that animals can convert into edible protein but otherwise go to waste today. Nothing less than our climate, the health of our forests, grasslands, and oceans, and the diversity of life on Earth are at stake.

Carlos Saviani, Vice President, Sustainable Food, World Wildlife Fund

The following is an exerpt from KPMG's recent report, Unlocking the Power of Partnership. Read the full case study by downloading the report.

Identifying shared Value

For more than 40 years, society’s demand on natural resources has surpassed what our planet can replenish. These demands include resources consumed for food, fuel and fiber, land on which we build, and forests that filter our air. A growing population and rising middle class will only exacerbate these pressures, unless we recognize that our continued prosperity depends on the natural resources sustained by a healthy planet. 

Business is increasingly realizing that they are not immune to these pressures. The supply chains of large companies depend on natural resources from all around the world. Natural resource management is more and more tied to operational and reputational risk, and ultimately, to the long-term viability of a company. Corporations therefore have a business interest in understanding how their products and the raw materials used in global operations are impacting local communities, biodiversity, and the environment. While there is a clear imperative to take action, business cannot tackle these risks alone.

NGOs are uniquely qualified to build cross-sector partnerships that address complex challenges affecting both global and local stakeholders. NGOs are consistently ranked as the most trusted type of institution by t he Edelman Trust Barometer, an annual survey measuring stakeholder perceptions across 27 markets worldwide. In addition to bringing a foundation of trust to cross-sector partnerships, international NGOs leverage their global networks, technical credibility, and convening power to collaborate with companies in ways that meet the needs of people and nature.

[Continue reading...]

The Markets Institute at WWF identifies global issues, trends, and tools around the most pressing challenges of our time. Each year we release a list of what we see as the top emerging industry developments that may not be apparent to help stakeholders stay ahead of the curve and to help us all shift faster.

The list for 2016 was identified through interviews of more than 50 C-suite executives and then narrowed down by our own Thought Leader Group. Here are the top trends identified for 2016:

ISSUES

The need to move the middle
Current efforts to improve food production focus on the best – or most progressive—producers or companies, with the notion that this will inspire movement in the rest. Yet this strategy is not likely to move the worst producers much less entire sectors. The biggest impacts will be achieved by focusing on the middle, or even the least effective producers, or those having the worst impacts and poorest productivity. Governments will probably be the most effective at changing the performance of those at the bottom, but it is not clear that governments have the appetite to do that. Still, we can’t achieve scale if we don’t at least move the middle and most likely the bottom as well.

Chasing Water
Water use has been growing exponentially, but water shortages are also on the rise. The potential economic impacts of water shortage are devastating if you consider that for human use: 70% to produce food, 20% for other industries like manufacturing and energy, and the rest is for personal consumption and use. Companies with foresight have a water risk and contingency plan, others do not. Investing in solutions that use water more efficiently can have positive impacts on both people and the planet. The question is, do governments and businesses want to invest in water now or chase it later?

Planetary boundaries
It should go without saying that Earth’s systems are finite. Yet business’ focus continues, for the most part, to be on constant growth. The concept of ‘planetary boundaries’ is starting to gain awareness – the idea of what natural systems are necessary for life to be able to continue. Yet many companies are already feeling the impact of resource constraints, water shortages, climate-associated changes, land-use change and degradation, and more. We need to much more quickly consider and shift to work within these boundaries if we are to continue to exist – through tactics including rehabilitation of degraded lands, better land use planning, and more.

Financing the food system
The U.S. SEC is starting to take seriously the question of sustainability in business practices by proposing that companies must disclose risks in climate change, water scarcity, human rights, and other risks to companies and investors. Investors are seeing the advantages of such sustainable practices, and there is a growing interest in direct investment in farm-level agriculture and venture funding in ag-tech. However, governments currently provide nearly $500B of agricultural subsidies in the top 21 food-producing countries, and these subsidies have been blamed for accelerating deforestation, excessive water use, market distortions, and the inability to transition to true-cost accounting. What is needed is capital to fund growth, innovation, climate adaptation, and reducing loss and waste. Could subsidies be shifted to cover these costs and make production more resilient at the same time? Or, the capital could take the form of long-term contracts that will buy down the risk of investing in more sustainable production.

Smallholders need capital
Smallholders have been an integral part of the global food landscape since the dawn of agriculture. However, global changes currently underway bring into question the future of smallholder agriculture – population and food demand is rising, meaning significant changes in the food system will be necessary to either put more land into production or greatly enhance productivity and efficiency per hectare. The global discourse is very strongly in favor of improving the livelihoods and efficiency of the hundreds of millions of people who make their livings from small plots of land. Yet this may not be the best choice for companies, countries or even the people themselves for without great care such programs do more to maintain poverty than to alleviate it.

TRENDS

Calling for the return of government
Recent decades have seen a withdrawal of government across the development and management of soft commodity industries, replaced by businesses. Companies are responding more rapidly and at scale than governments to global issues and problems. Governments have abnegated their roles in many contexts, hoping that companies would assume these functions. This is not working, and governments need to return to a more active role in the marketplace, creating the enabling conditions and enforcing mechanisms needed to be more sustainable and businesses to succeed. In the food arena alone governments need to shape the development of agricultural finance, create and apply tax incentives, foster agricultural development and innovation, take greater risks in funding, manage common pool resources, enforce laws on illegality, take steps to control food loss and waste, and create regulations to address changing technology, products, market opportunities, and environmental conditions.

Controversial topics: Science vs. Beliefs
Food is one of the most discussed – yet often one of the most polarizing – topics in the world. Controversy permeates from production practices across the value chain to marketing. What one eats—or won’t eat, organic vs. conventional, GMO vs. non-GMO, labeling and naming, nutritional guidelines, environmental impacts climate change, ag-biotech, just to name a few. The data and the science behind these issues are often unclear or contested. This is occurring at a time when the public is increasingly skeptical about science, and the media covers all sides equally, NGOs often fan these flames, taking values-based positions that are presented as science-based positions. Business, meanwhile, is retreating from public discussions of these issues.

Funding for innovation
Innovation has been the buzzword of the last year or so. But innovation must be more than innovation for its own sake; to be effective, it needs to be directed towards the major problems facing both people and the planet. In 2016 several major governments and multilaterals launched innovation funding to support agricultural innovation or technologies to improve global food production and security. Business investors in the US have “discovered” food as a place to innovate and invest. The launch of new food and ag funding sources including crowdfunding, accelerators, impact investment funds, corporate incubators will likely double in the coming year. But these efforts must be targeted and well-deployed if they are to change practices or reduce key impacts of production and along product chains.

Growing global inequality
The richest 1% of people now have more wealth than the rest of the world’s population. There is growing inequality not just between individuals but between countries, and this is especially so when it comes to food. The U.S. population spends an average of 6.9% of its income on food while Angolans spends up to 80% of income on food. Due to limitations of access and distribution some 2.3 billion people in developing countries consume under 2.500 kcal/day while 1.9 billion in developed countries are consuming more than 3,000 kcal/day with a growing problem of obesity. Food inequality will only increase in the years ahead with climate change, land scarcity, and water scarcity. Population growth and unequal increased incomes will lead to greater targeted food demand. All of these trends will result in increased pressure on the land, higher and more volatile food prices, increased likelihood of price shocks, and the persistence of malnutrition and stunting.

TOOLS

Certification programs
Many efforts of the past few decades to address the environmental and social impacts of food production have focused on the development and implementation of third-party voluntary certification standards. While share of certified products has grown rapidly for certain soft commodities (palm, sugar, cocoa, cotton) it still represents a small percentage of the main commodity supply chains and other commodities have seen slow uptake, limited market penetration, and confusion created by competing labels. There is a growing need for and interest in assessing the effectiveness of this tool, and we face the potential need to redefine how they are deployed, whether they measurably reduce impacts and the underlying theories of change.

---

Stay tuned for what else we see this year, and help us keep an eye on the horizon.

If you haven't already, sign up for our weekly update to see how these trends evolve.

The green Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) logo on a product means the most responsible forest management practices were used to make the product. Smaller trees were not harmed when harvesting larger trees, the rights of people living in or near the forest were respected, wildlife habitat was not degraded, and more.

Many forest operators know this or are learning about it. That’s huge progress. But taking action to get the FSC certification is another story. Often, they think the cost of FSC will have a negative impact on their bottom line.

A WWF study published today dispels this belief.

We recently sat down with Bob Langert, McDonald's vice president of sustainability, to learn more about how environmental stewardship is playing a part in the company's decision making.

The world has never seen economic growth at a rate currently happening in China. Having surpassed Japan in 2011, it’s quickly become the world’s second largest economy and its GDP continues to expand (though ebbing in recent years).

I’m just back from a 10-day visit to China and can attest to this growth. Industrial cranes fill the skylines from Beijing to Dalian to Wuhan, construction vehicles clog traffic patterns, pollution billows into the air. So much that China is responsible for a quarter of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions.

We’ve all heard stories about the foolish rich guy who blew his fortune on outlandish cars, homes and yachts. They usually follow a predictable path: He experiences a windfall of cash, spends beyond his means and inevitably plummets into bankruptcy.

This story is being played out on the biggest stage of all: Planet Earth. On the whole, humanity is currently on a natural resource spending binge. At the same time, more than a billion people go to bed hungry every night. Until we balance these inequities, we’ll all suffer the consequences – from the price we pay for food to access to clean water.

Maybe it’s all the recent droughts, or severe storms, or basic supply/demand dynamics, but there's a lot of buzz about water risk these days. Alexis Morgan, a global water expert at WWF, is most concerned with the latter issue. Alexis and executives from PepsiCo and Calvert take to the “Wet & Wild: Assessing & Managing Agricultural Water Risks” panel session at today’s Ceres Conference, where they’ll discuss strategies to bring water use back into balance with nature.

Being green in our material world can be exhasuting. Our global economic engine runs on consumer spending. But the more we spend, the more we consume, the more our planet struggles to sustain itself. If we continue gobbling up resources at the current rate, by 2030 we will need the equivalent of two planets to maintain life as we know it.

Reconciling this conundrum may seem impossible. But fear not my material friends, balance can be achieved.

Forget what you know about corporate sustainability. It’s probably all wrong.

Gone are the days of PR spin and shallow words. The new sustainability is about strategic management of natural resources, which are increasingly hard to come by. It has evolved from a reputational strategy to a business imperative. Don’t take my word for it; take the word of the biggest companies in the world.