Workshop 2

Notes and materials from the second workshop hosted on September 5, 2024
Modified

September 12, 2024

Important

Access the feedback form via this link: https://forms.office.com/r/5k4Atwj2TD. The feedback form will remain open until October 15, 2024 (EOD); however, please let us know if your organization needs more time. If you were not able to attend the workshop, we highly recommend watching the recording before completing the feedback form.

Materials

Zoom Meeting Recording

Please contact Eric Coronel () to obtain the recording link and password.

Sentiment Check Survey Results

During the workshop, we asked participants to provide a sentiment check on how they were feeling about the biodiversity indicators being proposed. Here are the results from the 22 responses we received:

Questions Positive Feeling (Yes / Could Work) Negative Feeling (No / Unsure)
Do you see any potential on using the ratio of natural/semi-natural area to cropland as an entry-level biodiversity indicator? 64% 36%
Do you see any potential on adding the temporal component (acre-months) to the ratio of natural/semi-natural area to cropland? 73% 27%
Should we plan to add the ratio of natural/semi-natural area to cropland for testing next year without retiring the current model of choice (Habitat Potential Index)? 68% 32%
Should we continue working on a more comprehensive biodiversity indicator over a longer timeline with expert collaborators? 86% 14%
Do you see any potential on reframing the Biodiversity Metric as a Natural Resource Concerns Indicator to let growers and projects work on what is appropriate for their region? 73% 27%

Meeting Summary and Notes

  • Attendees: 28 (not including FTM staff). This is comparable attendance to the first workshop held on July 31, 2024, which had an attendance of 34 individuals.
  • Collective time invested during this meeting: 39.4 hours (not including FTM staff time)

Quick recap

Field to Market led a meeting where the group discussed refining the biodiversity metric. The group explored the challenges of measuring and tracking biodiversity and Field to Market proposed several new indicators assessing the balance between cropland and natural/semi-natural features on a grower’s cropland and adjacent areas. The group discussed incorporating a temporal component into Field to Market’s biodiversity metric and the potential of incorporating an entry-level biodiversity indicator in the short term while continuing to work on a more comprehensive indicator with external expertise.

Next steps

  • Field to Market staff to summarize feedback from today’s workshop and share initial summary next week.
  • Field to Market staff to send out full feedback form for members to complete over the next month.
  • Field to Market staff to analyze feedback and determine if a third workshop is needed.
  • Field to Market staff to publish comprehensive report detailing past biodiversity work since 2013.
  • Field to Market to seek funding in collaboration with members and recruit expertise to develop a more comprehensive biodiversity indicator.
  • Members to complete full feedback form, either anonymously or identified, within the next month.
  • Field to Market to provide full debrief on feedback form results after the feedback form closes.

Summary

Addressing Technical Issues and Proposing Solutions

Eric led the meeting, addressing technical issues and outlining the agenda. He emphasized the importance of respecting everyone’s time and mentioned that the meeting would be recorded. Eric also highlighted that they had processed a great deal of feedback from the previous meeting and were ready to propose two ways forward. He mentioned that they would be accepting feedback over the next month and would provide a quick overview of the schedule, including the completion of the previous meeting on July 31st. Eric also noted that they would propose two indicators and collect feedback on them.

Refining Biodiversity Metric and Pilot Indicator

Eric led a discussion on refining the biodiversity metric, acknowledging the need for consensus and for individuals to share their perspectives. Eric discussed the challenges of measuring and tracking biodiversity, emphasizing the need for an indirect indicator or metric due to the impracticality of direct measures. He proposed piloting an entry-level indicator while seeking funding for a more comprehensive indicator and suggested a two-step approach to allow growers or projects to select between an easy or more comprehensive indicator.

Eric also proposed a new indicator assessing the balance between cropland and natural features on a grower’s land, the ratio of natural/semi-natural features to cropland. However, concerns were raised about potential misuse of such metric. The team also discussed limitations of using publicly available geospatial datasets to classify land use due to pixel size constraints and the importance of regional aspects like field size.

Acre Months and Land Use Potential Discussion

Eric discussed the concept of acre months as a measure of cropland and adjacent area use potential as habitat, suggesting that land can serve multiple purposes over a year. He proposed using the ratio of acre months to assess the potential of land to serve as habitat, while distinguishing the difference between seasonal and permanent habitat. The team also discussed the idea of giving credit to growers for using cover crops as a form of seasonal habitat, with a member raising concerns about potential misuse of the temporal component. Two more members agreed on the importance of timing and context in practices like cover crop termination and flooded fields.

Incorporating Temporal Component Into Biodiversity Metric

Several members continued the discussion about incorporating a temporal component into the biodiversity metric. A member emphasized the need for a nuanced, regional approach due to varying migratory species patterns. Two options were considered, with the team planning to vote on them after the discussion.

As another potential indicator, Eric suggested broadening and reframing the biodiversity metric to become a Natural Resource Concerns Indicator to encompass various natural resource concerns, such as soil and water, plants, wildlife habitat, and air quality. The Natural Resource Concerns Indicator would borrow the language and categories used by USDA NRCS. A member suggested reframing the term “natural resource concerns” to a more positive language. Another member raised a question about whether the new option would only capture the things they’re implementing based on the concerns or if it would also capture inherent concerns of the property or farm.

The team agreed that they need to hear more feedback and seek funding to obtain the necessary expertise to address the gaps in the proposed options. Several members indicated that the Natural Resource Concerns Indicator would duplicate metrics already offered by Field to Market, such as soil conservation, water quality, and soil carbon. Members suggested narrowing the natural resources concerns to those that affect cropland biodiversity and not including categories already part of the suite of metrics offered by Field to Market.

Survey Results, Metrics, and Future Plans Discussed

Eric discussed the results of a survey taken by the team, expressing a need for more comprehensive metrics and a potential reframing of the biodiversity metric. He proposed summarizing the feedback from today’s meeting and possibly organizing another workshop if there’s good alignment among members. Eric also mentioned plans to publish a comprehensive report detailing the team’s work in the biodiversity space since 2013. Eric also discussed the feedback form and encouraged participants to submit their initial thoughts, which could be followed up with a more complete response within a month.

Responses from Feedback Form

After the second workshop, Field to Market opened an online poll to allow attendees to provide post-event feedback on all the topics discussed. Attendees were sent several reminders. Below are the responses we received from eight organizations. Responses are presented as submitted and no edits were made to fix typos or grammatical errors.

What are your initial thoughts about implementing an entry-level indicator: ratio of natural/semi-natural area to cropland?

Responses
The denominator at the moment masks the potential of any landscape. You could select a field with low acreage then automatically you have a higher “indicator”. Conversely, if you have a farm with much larger field sizes, you will have a low “indicator” … It really doesn’t mean much I feel like…
I think something is better than nothing
I have difficulty understanding how this provides any meaningful information about what is being accomplishedplished in the natural/semi-natural areas to promote biodiversity. I think the concerns about this being used as a measure of a grower’s biodiversity accomplishments by retailers outweigh any advantages for using this as a “quick fix.”
As a initial thought, I don’t this is a bad idea. I agree it might be something temporal before going to something more specific while hiring some expert on the topic. I had a concern about it though. After thinking what was discussed in the workshop, I understood that this indicator will be at the field level, but I am confused about it. There are usually natural areas in the farm that don’t belong to a specific field, i.e a forest area that is close to the fields, but how can we divide that area and say XX acres belong to this field and YY acres belong to that field? For me, that index only makes sense to the farm level, i.e. counting the acres under cropland and the areas under natural in the whole farm. I might be missing something here.
“Natural” land does not necessarily mean land that is widely used or even usable for wildlife. What land is nearby? Is there good connectivity with other natural areas?
This indicator is too general to be used as a ‘biodiversity’ tool. We understand that the intended purpose of this indicator is to allow corporates to report information in line with several different standard setting organizations, namely, improved ecological integrity (WBCSD), no conversion of natural ecosystem (SBTN), enhancement of biodiversity in agriculture (CBD), and cropland with natural vegetation (TNFD). Of these, CBD is the only one specifically focused on biodiversity. That said, this indicator may be useful for addressing certain, specific needs. However, to do so, the need must be better specified. The indicator is potentially like a hammer: a great tool for placing and removing nails, but not appropriate for cutting wood and sanding. When considering biodiversity and conservation, the needs are similarly diverse. There is no indicator that is suitable for all challenges, although some individual indicators may be great for some specific challenges. So if the individual challenge was clearly specified, then it would be possible to evaluate whether this indicator was the correct tool for the job.
We feel that on its own this indicator is far too broad and potentially misleading. For one, the presence of natural or semi-natural landscapes does not guarantee biodiversity, especially when considering the adverse effects outside of land-use change that agriculture may have on an ecosystem. For example, due to the ill-effects of chemical or other runoffs, a farm integrated with or surrounded by a heavily forested landscapes that uses excessive agro-chemicals may have a lower biodiversity index than a farmland with less forested/natural area that uses less chemicals. In combination with other metrics related to potential pressures (and efforts to address them) e.g. cover cropping, no-till, other in-field practices there is more potential for this to work – however this would best be framed as a Biodiversity Support metric (rather than a biodiversity metric) if there is no biodiversity measurement is occurring to demonstrate actual outcomes. Overall we support Option 2 instead, which also enables recording the ratio of natural/semi-natural cropland in a more context-specific and relatively rigorous approach. Another issue that may be difficult to resolve is that this metric is treating pure farmland as essentially ecological dead zones. In many cases, crop rows will serve as ecological habitats for a variety of biological communities. For certain species, such as insectivorous grassland birds, they may spend more time foraging or socializing in cropland rather than neighboring forested areas. The challenge here is that some crops have more biodiversity benefits / value as habitat for others, and some species benefit more than others, and as a result it is difficult to take this into consideration without penalizing producers for the type of crop they grow. To address this, the metric could enable counterbalancing of potentially less beneficial crops by incorporating more beneficial in-field and edge of field practices. This requires farms to be treated under different assessment scenarios. Ultimately, more adjustment would be required to adapt this metric to ensure it is fit for use.
The metric is too basic to be useful in terms of actions a farmer could take to improve biodiversity outcomes. The metric output is also challenging to compare and potentially improve upon as a meaningful threshold will vary based on location and landscape level constraints.

If you disagree with using the ratio of natural/semi-natural areas to cropland, please offer alternatives for a biodiversity measurement

Responses
I think you’d need to add some additional factors to consider in the metric. Some up front evaluation would be needed to determine the potential of the landscape first, then using that number as the denominator would make alot more sense.
I think growers are better served with the current deficient HPI than by replacing it with a more flawed ration indicator.
I would offer an amended version that would offer a weighted multiplier based on connectivity to other natural areas. This multiplier would be on a scale from 0.00 to 1.00, with 1.00 for natural areas with high connectivity.
Given the complexities surrounding biodiversity, we feel that an indicator focused on solving a specific problem or issue would be best, rather than using a single indicator to represent overall biodiversity.
If this ratio is to be used, some caveats need to be put in place. To address the two issues above, first, there would need to be some initial form of site verification into farm practices. It’s not enough to assume natural vs. non-natural as an indicator for biodiversity, farms should be assessed for their activities that may affect both on-farm and off-farm ecosystems. Thus, the metric should also incorporate pressure-related aspects. Second, the issue of whether cropland area could count as habitat within the calculation of the metric, even if it isn’t extensive, a preliminary survey could be done to determine presence of key indicator species using croplands, with the regional context being incorporated based on what programs like Working Lands for Wetlands Initiative identify as indicator species for a particular landscape (e.g. sage-grouse, prairie-chickens). This could be done using readily available citizen science apps including iNaturalist which provides verification of photo or sound evidence, as well as Merlin which can confirm species by acoustic identification using a cell phone. This will allow adjustments to the ratio to account for any species using fields as habitats. However, demonstrating presence of species alone cannot be used to assess whether there is a positive biodiversity outcome from farm practices (which would require baselining and reference sites). Ideally a “biodiversity metric” would include a mechanism to capture these changes in actual state of biodiversity over time beyond habitat alone but this is costly and difficult to implement at scale.
Some type of quality check would be useful to get more confidence on the effectiveness of the habitat measures. Potential minimum requirement: habitat measures are aligned with (local) expert knowledge and contribute to a (local) biodiversity target. This could be linked to the Natural Resource Concerns - particularly those related to “Wildlife Habitat”.

What are your initial thoughts about adding the temporal component (acre-months) to the ratio of natural/semi-natural area to cropland?

Responses
I think this could be a multiplier to be added to the ratio concept in addition to my answer to question 2. As it was proposed in the workshop wouldn’t work though as it provides way too much weight to that practice change (cover crops).
This could be a great incentive for in-field practices (winter flooding, residue management practices, cover crops). Special considerations should be given to the timing and regional appropriateness of the practices.
I think this is an improvement over the simple ration, but it still is a very superficial indicator and provides no certainty that improvements in biodiversity or habitat are occuring.
I definitely agree. Rice fields are a good example.
This is an intriguing idea, but perhaps unnecessarily overcomplicates the equation. How does one even begin to place disturbance within a binary of no disturbance and therefore acre-months added or disturbance and no acre-months added? If this temporal component is used, we need to be sure to define disturbance (or whatever disqualifying factor) as explicitly as possible so that acre-months will be counted consistently.
Aside from the concerns listed above, we support using acre-months, as this would allow for a temporal component necessary for any approach.
While this does address questions of temporal variability, it doesn’t tackle other concerns about the metric. This should also incorporate crop and practice changes as well. In some instances, this may be appropriate (e.g. flooding fields to support migratory birds could be considered temporary semi-natural area) however in other circumstances natural habitats take significant time to recover / establish, e.g. hedgerow or edge of field corridors, since potential long-term benefits for habitat and connectivity would have extremely limited biodiversity benefit and could be more detrimental over all for many species if natural substrates are placed temporarily then removed.
Agree with the approach to adding the acre-months. We support the WBCSD recommendation to calculate crop diversity (acre-month and Shannon diversity Index) - maybe this could be integrated into the concept. Knowing that crop diversity is not the most effective biodiversity measure, different crops at least provide habitat for different species associated with the crop.

If you disagree with the concept of acre-months, please offer alternatives to add a temporal component to the biodiversity indicator

Responses
The concerns raised today about crops providing temporary habitat were valid. Also, the geographical context of the land should be taken into account.
Acre-months are fine. Other temporal approaches to consider include acres per growing season or crop cycle, or acres per management cycle (rotations, corn-soy, etc). Any of these are fine as long as the temporal component is captured.
A temporal component would need to be limited to very specific types of practices, habitat, and situations such as the flooding example above, and should be based on well-understood temporal ecological needs.

What are your thoughts about adding the ratio of natural/semi-natural area to cropland for testing next year without retiring the current model of choice (Habitat Potential Index)?

Responses
Would need to be regional components incldued to allow for users of the data to understand that a score of “1” may not necessarily be worse than a score of “8” somewhere in a completely different part of the US. It needs to be crop and region specific if at all included.
I am in favor if acre/months are included. On top of edge-of-field NSN we need in-field incentives to benefit biodiversity and work with producers on high quality ag ground.
I think we could investigate this although it does not eliminate my concerns about the use of the ratio.I
I agree with it, as a testing period.
It could be worth testing out, but I am not sold on it.
Our preference would be to retire the HPI.
As it exists now, it is too simplified to properly act as a biodiversity indicator. Ideally, it would be preferred to have a set of multiple indicators that adequately assess the broader context, drivers of biodiversity loss, dependencies on nature/biodiversity, and current state of biodiversity/ecosystems. It could be helpful to pilot how this ratio could complement other data that is already collected by Field to Market as part of a more holistic approach to biodiversity, rather than having this metric exist in isolation. That said, preferably the recommendations above could be incorporated before any piloting or roll-out, if Field to Market does move in this direction. Specifically, in addition to the Habitat Potential Index, additional details around practices should be included alongside whether the land is degraded or restored, would be better than using the natural/semi-natural ratio in isolation. However, this approach (HPI + ratio) would still fail to capture the broader context.
Since FTM has limited resources, I would reocmmend focusing on building out the second option versus trialing this option that doesn’t have as much promise.

What are your thoughts about working on a more comprehensive indicator over a longer timeline with expert collaborators?

Responses
I think this would be a good idea. Consdiering the SBTN and other emerging areas of focus out there we should make sure any indicator we come up with is useful to the stakeholders.
I think this could be most useful if we can get to a finer scale that would give growers credit for all the activities/practices they adopt.
I think this is probably a good approach especially given the concerns expressed by the FTM staff about lack of expertise in this area. However, please have a discussion about the work that was initially attempted with a previous contractor and with NC State University to develop a biodiversity index. This work preceded the development of the HPI. The conclusion was that it was not a feasible approach to attempt to measure species on farms. I am not sure that there is now an improved basis (data and measurements) for such an approach.
I definitely agree. Having expert collaborators to create a more comprehensive indicator makes sense, but I know that will be time consuming
A more comprehensive indicator should certainly be pursued. We do need a new indicator, but we have yet to agree on a set of ideas to achieve it.
This approach is seriously worth considering, and could be most effective if paired to a specific biodiversity outcome rather than a comprehensive biodiversity indicator.
Agree. Funding should be acquired to support participation of expert collaborators to ensure time can be dedicated to this effort.
I think it is important to work towards a biodiversity target, which can be very region specific. Biodiversity metrics should be able to monitor the progress made towards this target. But as commented by others, targets for natural conncerns around soil health, water, energy or air quality will not have huge impacts on species diversity or abundance.

What are your initial thoughts on reframing the Biodiversity Metric as a Natural Resource Concerns Indicator to let growers and projects work on what is appropriate for the region?

Responses
I think you could use the “Natural Resource Concern Indicator” set of concerns and reframe it to be something we develop completely. We would need to call it something else and explain that it was based on those.
I think this is fitting if it sticks to biodiversity (plats, animal, wildlife, invasive species/pest), I also hope this is also measured across the farm. I would want to avoid a situation where the system is taken advantage of (e.g. Positive metrics for bats on one side of the farm while clearing native habitat on the other).
I think this approach may be more workable for all members across the supply chain and should be explored in more detail. We need to focus on what actions growers can make on their farms that will actually have positive impact on habitat improvement, development, and connectivity and thus ensure more biodiversity. This approach will lend itself to concerns about diversity of plants and animal species but also to improvement of habitat and species by implementing management practices/actions that achieve this.
I like the idea, but I guess this is compatible with the idea about a comprehensive indicator (previous question), i.e. we should work to get something more comprehensive with the experts feedback (that might also include other indicatiors). Some higlights about comments in the call: I think that the biodiversity component shoudln’t be lost, so it should be included among the other indicators. i.e. the index might be broader but it should still include the biodiversity component. Also, I agree that we should avoid duplicated scores, i.e. having a water quality indicator would’t make sense if it is already as a individual metric in the platform, becuase that will create confusion and there might be disagreement between the 2 methods.
I like this idea of tailoring needs by region and by farm.
We prefer this approach because it reframes the discussion away from ‘biodiversity’ and toward a regionally appropriate Natural Resource Concerns indicator.
This is a better option of the two, though some questions remain. We prefer this approach but it may not always result in a biodiversity improvement or measured outcome, so appropriate framing of the objectives of this metric is required. Is there a defined set of project methodologies for growers to choose from? To ensure progress specific to biodiversity related concerns and couched in landscape-level context, these methodologies should be linked to existing initiatives related to key concerns for a local landscape (e.g. water stress, endangered species concerns, agro-chemical pollutants, land use change, land abandonment). If the methodologies are to be built from ground up based on grower concerns, this will be difficult to validate or standardize, and it’s possible that grower concerns may not reflect those of the broader landscape. Further guidance around who will design these and how scientific validity will be assured needs to be provided. The former idea of more consolidated alignment around appropriate action for a region or farm is preferred. This could enable companies to report that they have invested $X in projects addressing priority Natural Resource Concerns (e.g. based on a score about threshold of some kind). This method would also need to take into account that ultimately land managers need to optimize for multiple environmental outcomes simultaneously.
Same comments as 6

Please provide any other comments and feedback not covered by the questions above

Responses
Thanks for hosting the workshop and considering our feedback. Well done.
Before we discard the HPI and WILD, perhaps we should look at the individual components of each and determine what works and what needs improving. I think the combination of the different variable in each might need to be re-configured, so that the index is more meaningful and representative. Perhaps we are trying to add too many variables into one index. We might be better served to have a series of indices representing the different components. I would like to discuss this further with FTM staff.

If you think we are heading in the wrong direction, what do you suggest we must do to refocus our efforts?

Responses
Definitely need to have something but I really don’t think the ratio idea does much other than buy us more time to make something more useful and better. However, as you pointed out if that is something required to certain reporting frameworks then by all means we should be capturing that information. I still think something more comprehensive is needed long term.
I think we have some basic components that could be transformed into a workable metric. I think these workshops have been very helpful for me to focus on this issue. The document summarizing your efforts to date could be most helpful. Then hiring some additional expertise that FTM currently does not have on staff could help move us forward.
I think you are in the right direction. I appreciate your efforts on this and I think it will just take time of putting all the pieces together but everything you brought goes in a right direction from my perspective
We believe that flexibility is the right path given the complexity of biodiversity and conservation objectives , with metrics and goals tied to a specific context (i.e. waterbird conservation). For instance, successful conservation actions such as the banning of DDT, preservation of the greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, and recovery of some whale populations all shared the characteristic of having specific, measurable goals. Also, tying successes to financial outcomes (i.e. IPM) would be valuable for farmer engagement.
It sounds like FtM is at a decision point on which direction to take and hopefully this and other stakeholder consultation will help provide clarity into which avenues to explore further. In any case we recommend a clear piloting / beta period for any methodology to ensure robustness and applicability.