How companies can take action to protect non-forest natural ecosystems

Non-forest natural ecosystems, which include grasslands, savannahs, woodlands, and open wetlands, provide essential benefits for people and the planet. They store carbon, support biodiversity, regulate water, and sustain the livelihoods and cultures of producers, Indigenous Peoples, and local communities. And, like forests, these ecosystems are threatened by agricultural expansion driven by international commodity demand.  

The Accountability Framework’s Core Principle 1 calls on companies to eliminate deforestation and conversion from their operations, supply chains, and financial investments. This includes the conversion of non-forest ecosystems. The Framework provides definitions for both conversion and natural ecosystems, and high-level guidance on applying these definitions.  

In line with the Framework, companies are increasingly committing to eliminate or address ecosystem conversion in their supply chains. In some places, tools to support rapid implementation of these commitments are already in place. In others, companies still lack the information they need to identify, monitor, and manage conversion in their commodity supply chains. Globally, but especially in regions where data is not yet available or agreed upon, there is a need for both additional guidance and stakeholder collaboration to support companies’ efforts to protect these diverse ecosystems. 

The AFi recently concluded a two-year research and engagement effort, in collaboration with the World Resources Institute (WRI), assessing both the extent of non-forest ecosystem conversion, and the availability of information to map and monitor it. Findings have been published in peer reviewed journals and on WRI’s insights blog, with further publications underway. They will also inform updates to AFi guidance over the coming year.  

Results of this work, alongside the Accountability Framework's existing guidance, can help companies more confidently set commitments to protect these ecosystems – and take action now to implement them.  

The following steps can help companies begin this process today. 

1. Prioritise action based on risk and exposure 

The Accountability Framework’s Operational Guidance on Commitments and Progress Pathways  helps companies set responsible supply chain commitments and develop practical pathways for achieving them. Recognising that companies may not be able to act across their entire business at once, the guidance describes how companies can prioritise parts of their business where environmental and social risks or impacts are greatest. For commitments to protect non-forest ecosystems, this means starting with the commodities, sourcing regions, and ecosystems for which the company is most exposed to conversion risk.  

To inform these decisions, companies can draw on several emerging data sources which indicate where commodity supply chains may be exposed to non-forest ecosystem conversion.   

For example, research led by the Senckenberg Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre, in collaboration with the AFi, WRI, and other partners, points to a set of conversion hotspots associated with both crop and livestock production. Companies can use these findings to determine which commodities, regions, and ecosystems may have higher conversion risk and should be prioritised for early engagement and investment. This research identified several regions as being at high risk of non-forest natural ecosystem loss due to agricultural commodity expansion, including Brazil’s Cerrado, South America’s Pampas and Llanos, Australia’s grasslands and shrublands, and the North American Great Plains.  

Other data sources can also help companies assess conversion risk across their sourcing regions. Global Pasture Watch’s natural and cultivated grassland maps can help companies sourcing livestock to understand conversion dynamics in grassland ecosystems. For an indicative 2020 baseline of natural ecosystems, companies can also refer to the Science Based Targets Network’s Natural Lands Map. Companies sourcing from South America can also use MapBiomas and PRODES to identify conversion risk with greater precision. In addition, WRI’s Land and Carbon Lab will soon release a global Natural Ecosystem Conversion Dataset, which will provide annual analysis of land cover change since 2020 across all ecosystem types. Early access to these data can be requested now. 

As new ecosystem maps, monitoring systems, and other datasets become available, companies should reassess their conversion risk and update their prioritisation and actions accordingly. 

Importantly, prioritising a high-risk area for action and investment does not necessarily mean that commitments will be achieved more quickly in these regions, as they may also present the greatest implementation challenges. Timelines for achieving commitments for different parts of a company’s supply chain should reflect the actions, engagement, and system improvements required in each context. 

2. Rapidly implement commitments where sufficient data are available  

Non-forest ecosystems are highly variable, differing significantly across regions, across seasonal and annual cycles, and between wet and dry years. As a result, global maps and broad indicators may not provide enough information to determine whether an area meets the  Framework’s definition of natural ecosystem—and therefore whether it should be protected from agricultural expansion  For example, many non-forest natural ecosystems co-evolved with grazing animals or are highly resilient to grazing, meaning the presence or absence of livestock alone is not a reliable indicator as to whether an ecosystem should be considered natural.   

Therefore, applying the Accountability Framework’s definitions and guidance requires both contextualised mapping products and collaboration with stakeholders to determine locally appropriate approaches. Companies need data and tools that consider this context to identify the ecosystems they aim protect, as well as to determine whether conversion has occurred.  

In some contexts, local conditions and classifications have already been incorporated into maps and monitoring products that both define which ecosystems are considered natural, and guide company protection efforts. For example, in countries covered by MapBiomas, companies can use this tool data to identify many types of non-forest natural ecosystems, and monitor land use change in relevant sourcing areas. In Brazil, PRODES provides a monitoring tool that includes non-forest natural ecosystems and has government backing. In these regions, companies can clearly identify natural ecosystems and monitor conversion, allowing them to incorporate these data into their risk assessment, supplier engagement, and monitoring systems. Companies can then take rapid action to address these impacts in their supply chains.   

For some commodities, third-party certification programmes may also assess the conversion of non-forest ecosystems and provide assurance that conversion has not occurred on farms that produce commodities that a company purchases. For example, the Rainforest Alliance Sustainable Agriculture Standard certifies that farms have not converted natural ecosystems after the established cutoff date, in line with the Accountability Framework. Companies can use these certification programmes to support their commitments, though should be sure to clearly understand which ecosystems are (and are not) considered under the standards they use, as some do not align with the Accountability Framework definitions. 

3. Develop action plans to address gaps and barriers where more data is needed 

Although the data, tools, and consensus needed to implement no-conversion commitments are still developing in many regions and commodity contexts, companies can still work towards protecting non-forest ecosystems for these parts of their business. Commitments should lead to action, but that action can involve working with partners to build the systems and capacity needed to achieve those commitments over time. 

To establish these timelines and activities for different parts of their business, the Framework describes how companies can develop and publish action plans to lay out the key measures they plan to take to achieve their goals. These can help identify the most significant barriers in a company’s efforts to avoid and address conversion of natural ecosystems. Action plans also provide a roadmap and accountability for efforts to overcome identified barriers. This may include identifying specific implementation mechanisms, tools, methodologies, or partners that the company intends to use to help fulfil its commitments.  

For targets related to protecting non-forest ecosystems, the lack of appropriate maps and data can be a barrier to identifying natural ecosystems and their conversion. Initial action plans describing commitment implementation may therefore focus on identifying where non-forest natural ecosystems may be present and at risk within sourcing areas. These plans can also help determine which available datasets can support land use classification and monitoring.  

Where consistent data necessary for accurate identification and monitoring of ecosystem conversion are lacking, action plans may focus on engagement with local stakeholders, including governments, landowners, and data providers. This helps build consensus and capacity to support ecosystem protection and to help address information gaps.

Action plans can lay out the steps a company will take to: 

• work with stakeholders to apply local knowledge to delineate natural ecosystems and assess locally appropriate approaches for identifying conversion;
• improve the quality, coverage, and interoperability of ecosystem maps, land use datasets, and monitoring systems; and
• establish processes for responding when potential conversion is identified.

For example, in the United States, the LUCI project is supporting the development and publication of maps that can help identify and assess risk of grassland conversion.  

This industry-led work brings together companies, industry groups, researchers, and NGOs. In relevant contexts, engagement in such collaborative activities may be a key component of action plans, helping to improve data and support consistent definitions and monitoring programmes.  

4. Tailor implementation to the ecosystem and land use context 

Companies should also develop strategies to implement their commitments based on the ecosystem type and land use context of the regions from which they source. 

Recent work led by the AFi and WRI can help determine how commitments may be applied in different contexts. The AFi-WRI team completed an analysis of land use dynamics, which is currently submitted for publication. It distinguishes between definitive parameters of conversion (which can generally be detected using existing land-cover data derived from remote sensing) and conditional parameters (which may indicate conversion but require further assessment using contextualised data and information).  

Definitive parameters include the presence of row or tree crops, ploughing and tilling, planted pasture dominated by exotic or limited native species, as well as animal feedlots. By identifying these parameters in their sourcing areas, companies may be able to advance more quickly towards implementing their commitments using existing data. This may inform their sequencing and the prioritisation of actions and fulfilment of their targets. 

Conditional parameters may indicate conversion, but impacts depend on ecosystem type, land use history, climate, and management intensity and duration. These parameters include increased bare ground, drainage, agricultural input application, and exotic species invasion. If these parameters are prevalent within a sourcing area, companies may initially focus the implementation of their commitments on better understanding land use change dynamics and exploring appropriate data sources. Implementation may also include ground-based data collection and engagement with landowners or local governments.  

This stepwise approach can help companies make use of existing monitoring tools while identifying where additional data, local knowledge, or more detailed assessment is needed. 

Building better systems while protecting ecosystems today  

Corporate commitments to eliminate conversion of natural ecosystems communicate an intention to build supply chains that protect diverse grasslands, savannahs, woodlands, and wetlands. Achieving this goal across supply chains and sourcing areas will require continued advances and innovation in both consensus building and data production. 

But companies do not need to choose between taking action now and waiting for better tools to become available in the future. In sourcing regions where reliable monitoring tools already exist, companies can identify and address agricultural expansion into natural ecosystems. In sourcing areas where conversion risk is present, but tools and data are not, companies can engage stakeholders to address data gaps and support the development of better monitoring systems where needed. 

The challenge is not simply to develop better maps, but rather to use all available information to strengthen company commitments, guide sourcing decisions, engage suppliers and other stakeholders, and ultimately help protect the ecosystems on which people and nature depend. 

By taking immediate action to address ecosystem conversion where the tools to do so exist, while investing in stakeholder engagement and data development where they do not, companies can confidently and transparently set and implement policies to protect all natural ecosystems.