How do High Conservation Value (HCV) approaches and High Carbon Stock (HCS) assessments for  mitigating impacts differ? Gary Paoli suggests they are complementary and should be combined into a  single assessment tool.

The last two years have seen a rapid proliferation of sustainability commitments in palm oil. This includes  support to established certification schemes, such as RSPO, as well as commitments outside certification  by leading supply chain actors to source “No deforestation, No peat, No exploitation” palm oil. On the on  hand, this is a positive development, a clear sign that sustainability norms are shifting and business is  responding to demands for change. On the other hand, it has been observed these trends risk causing  confusion, and possibly loss of momentum, as producers and governments ponder which ‘form’ of  sustainability they should pursue. The emergence of High Carbon Stock (HCS) assessment as a  complement to High Conservation Value (HCV) approaches for mitigating impacts illustrates the

challenges and opportunities presented by recent trends. How do HCS and HCV differ? Are they  alternatives or complementary tools? How does committing to one effectively safeguard the other?

Here, I argue that HCS and HCV share more in common than they differ, and that over time HCS and HCV  should be combined into a single, integrated, transparent assessment tool for mitigating impacts of palm  oil.

Since 2007, HCV has served as the key provision for protecting forests and high biodiversity areas under  the RSPO standard. HCV is governed by the multi-stakeholder HCV Resource Network  (www.hcvnetwork.org), and RSPO maintains a list of ‘approved’ HCV assessors that members can draw  upon to meet certification requirements. Where robustly applied under RSPO, HCV has markedly reduced  impacts of certified plantations, preventing intact forest clearance and peat land development for new  plantations. In some cases, however, HCV assessors have recommended large-scale deforestation and  peatland development, despite clear indications of severe impacts likely to result. High profile cases of this  have led some groups to lose faith in HCV as a tool for achieving sustainability, and push instead for  adoption of HCS, a newer concept that offers stricter, more explicit forest protections.

HCS and HCV are often portrayed as alternatives, but this overlooks that both tools share much in  common. Both require mapping of current forest cover and condition, ground surveys to verify mapping  and record social and environmental values, and direct consultation with local stakeholders to determine  go and no-go areas for development. Because HCS management decisions are aimed at protecting forest,  and HCV decisions aim to maintain critical values, the no-go recommendations they make will sometimes  differ. But even so, final decisions for no-go areas under the HCS approach require cross-referencing to  HCV, and a process of reconciliation once both assessments are completed. The two concepts are,  therefore, in principle and in practice closely interrelated, suggesting they should be combined into single,  integrated, comprehensive assessment tool. How can this be achieved?

HCV and HCS: Key steps toward Integration? 

At a process level, HCS could be integrated within the HCV framework, either under the banner of  Environmental Services (HCV4), or as a robust preparatory step in land cover mapping for HCV field  assessment planning.

For example, HCS mapping could become the standard land cover mapping approach required for HCV  assessment to achieve RSPO certification or other commitments. Once HCS mapping is completed, field  surveys for HCV mapping and HCS verification could be combined, improving data quality and reducing  costs. HCS and HCV considerations could then be combined for delineation of go and no-go areas, an  approach already being trialed by producers that have committed to HCS and HCV protection.

A further benefit of uniting HCS and HCV is that both tools can be governed within the established HCV  Resource Network to formalize definitions and rules for decision-making, lay out standard methodologies,  issue licenses for qualified assessors and ensure transparency in reporting. This is a significant undertaking  of time and resources that will require expanding the HCV Network, but it would be duplicated entirely if  HCS were to stand alone.

A further benefit of combining HCS and HCV is that RSPO’s revised standard already requires members to  measure GHG emissions arising from land cover change and make efforts to reduce them. As such, HCS  mapping as a preliminary step to HCV assessment would addresses an existing RSPO requirement, not  introduce a new one.

To assure all stakeholder groups that improved HCV, strengthened by HCS, will perform better than HCV in  the past, RSPO could increase transparency by requiring disclosure of HCS and HCV maps as part of the  New Plantings Procedure (NPP) postings. Increasing availability of online platforms to monitoring  deforestation will make it easier to track assessment results and draw attention to questionable practices  with smaller time lags than before.

The challenge ahead for integrating HCS and HCV is more political than technical, as different stakeholders  groups have promoted the two concepts. HCS developed as part of campaigns for Zero Deforestation

supply chains as an alternative to certification. HCV on the other hand is linked fundamentally to  certification, which some groups argue has failed. This means uniting HCS and HCV into a single,  comprehensive tool requires putting aside differences on certification vs supply chain approaches to  reform, and working together with the shared aim of mainstreaming robust, transparent and credible  assessment tools demanded by the market.

The integration of HCS within HCV may be a challenging process, but it must be pursued to eliminate  duplication, avoid confusion and capitalize on growing momentum to achieve reform.

The article was first published in the betterpalmoilupdate.org. Picture is courtesy of the Center for  International Forestry Research (CIFOR).