CDP Technical Note: Reporting progress on Deforestationand Conversion-free value chains
CDP Corporate QuestionnaireContents
1.

Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 4
1.1. About this technical note ............................................................................................................. 42.

‘No deforestation’ and ‘no conversion’ targets .......................................................................... 5
2.1

Why are ‘no deforestation’ and ‘no conversion’ targets important? ......................................... 5

2.2

How do ‘no deforestation’ and ‘no conversion’ targets relate to DF/DCF volumes? ................ 5

2.3

Additional targets that contribute to ‘no deforestation’ and ‘no conversion’ targets ................. 5

2.4

Good practice for target setting .............................................................................................. 5

3. Value chain mapping ....................................................................................................................... 6
3.1

What is value chain mapping? ............................................................................................... 6

3.2

How are value chains mapped? ............................................................................................. 6

3.3

How does this differ from traceability? ................................................................................... 6

3.4

Good practice for value chain mapping .................................................................................. 6

4. Traceability ...................................................................................................................................... 7
4.1

What is traceability? .............................................................................................................. 7

4.2

Why is traceability important? ................................................................................................ 7

4.3

Methods to trace the origin of a commodity............................................................................ 7

5. Deforestation- and conversion-free value chains .......................................................................... 8
5.1

What is DF/DCF status? ........................................................................................................ 8

5.2

Reporting DF/DCF status of commodity volumes ................................................................... 8

6. Methods to assess and determine DCF status ............................................................................ 10
Method 1: Third-party certification ................................................................................................... 10
6.1

What is certification? ........................................................................................................... 10

6.2

Good practice for certification .............................................................................................. 12

Method 2: Production unit monitoring ............................................................................................. 14
6.3

What should production unit monitoring assess? ................................................................. 14

6.4

Tools and methods for production unit monitoring ................................................................ 14

Method 3: Sourcing area monitoring................................................................................................ 14
6.5

What is risk related to sourcing areas? ................................................................................ 14

6.6

Determining the risk of sourcing areas ................................................................................. 14

7. Verification..................................................................................................................................... 16
7.1

What is verification? ............................................................................................................ 16

7.2

Differences between verification and monitoring .................................................................. 16

8.

Useful Links................................................................................................................................ 17

9.

Appendix .................................................................................................................................... 18
9.1
Example responses to questions on deforestation and conversion assessment (8.9, 8.9.1,
8.9.2, 8.9.3, 8.9.4)............................................................................................................................ 18

Page 2 of 21@cdp | www.cdp.net

Version
Version number

Release / Revision date

Revision summary

1.0

Released: February 2023

Publication of the Forests - Technical Note
‘Implementing commitments on
deforestation and ecosystem conversion’

2.0

Revised: June 2024

Sections revised to reflect changes to the2024 corporate questionnaire.

Copyright © CDP Worldwide 2024
The copyright in this document is owned by CDP Worldwide, a registered charity number
1122330 and a company limited by guarantee, registered in England number 05013650.

Page 3 of 21@cdp | www.cdp.net

1. Introduction
1.1. About this technical noteTo support disclosure through the CDP corporate questionnaire, this technical note provides an
overview of the stages and concepts related to deforestation-free (DF) and deforestation andconversion-free (DCF) value chains and outlines how the related information can be reported throughModule 8. It does so by covering the following:

Setting ‘no deforestation’ and ‘no conversion’ policies, targets, and goals;
Mapping your value chain;
Tracing your volumes to a sufficient point to assess the DF/DCF status;
Assessing and determining the deforestation-free (DF) and deforestation- and conversionfree (DCF) status of commodity volumes, is done via one of three methods:o Third-party certification;o Monitoring the production unit;o Monitoring the sourcing area;
 Verify the DCF status of volumes.
CDP works closely with the Accountability Framework Initiative (AFi) on topics related todeforestation, conversion of other natural ecosystems and ecosystem protection. The Accountability
Framework is a practical, consensus-based guide that brings together accepted international norms,
best practices, and the expectations of commodity buyers, investors, and civil society. It is a single
integrated resource for action to address the deforestation, conversion, and human rights impacts ofsupply chains.
For further support applying the Accountability Framework’s Core Principles, Operational Guidance,
and Definitions visit the AFi e-learning platform, an online training resource that consolidates all theirresources into concise learning courses.

Page 4 of 21@cdp | www.cdp.net

2. ‘No deforestation’ and ‘no conversion’ targets
2.1 Why are ‘no deforestation’ and ‘no conversion’ targets important?
Setting ambitious targets to eliminate deforestation and conversion of other natural ecosystems inorganizations' direct operations and value chains, in addition to implementing measures to achievethem, is fundamental to organizations fulfilling their social and environmental policies and legal
obligations. Committing to eliminate deforestation and conversion signals intent, but setting timebound and quantifiable targets sets out a pathway to achieving this commitment.

2.2 How do ‘no deforestation’ and ‘no conversion’ targets relate to DF/DCF
volumes?
For commodity volumes to be considered DCF, a cutoff date must be specified. A cutoff date is thedate after which deforestation or conversion in a given area or production unit makes it non -compliant
with the no deforestation or no conversion target. The cutoff date reported in 8.7.1 (Targets) will
provide the basis for the DCF volumes reported throughout the ‘Environmental Performance –Forests’ module.
It is important that organizations reporting on their DF/DCF assessment ensure their response isconsistent with their response to the target question. For example – if you report a ‘no conversion’target with a specified cutoff date in 8.7.1 for a commodity, then you should provide information inquestion 8.9 on how you are progressing against this target by disclosing your DCF volumes.
Whereas, if you report a no deforestation’ target with a specified cutoff date in 8.7.1. then yourresponse to 8.9 should relate to DF volumes.

2.3 Additional targets that contribute to ‘no deforestation’ and ‘no conversion’targets
Setting additional targets that contribute to ‘no deforestation’ and ‘no conversion’ targets helps todevelop a pathway of actions for achieving no conversion, and demonstrates progress being madeto investors and other data users.

2.4 Good practice for target setting ‘No deforestation’ and ‘no conversion’ targets should have a clear date for achieving thetarget and a cutoff date for after which conversion is not accepted.
 Setting a target to eliminate deforestation and conversion from commodity value chains by2025.
 Where possible, cutoff dates should be in line with sector-wide or region-wide agreements,
and no later than 2020.
 Organizations should align their targets with relevant global goals and targets, such as theKunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.
Respect for human rights in commodity value chains
Organizations have a responsibility to respect human rights, and this should be reflected in theirpolicies and targets related to the production or sourcing of commodities. Commitments to respect
and respond to potential or actual human rights impacts should include respecting all internationallyrecognised human rights and specifically the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities(including the right to Free, Prior, and Informed Consent) and workers’ rights consistent with the ILO
Declaration on the Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. Organisations can disclose theirsocial commitments in CDP’s question on environmental policies (4.6.1).

Page 5 of 21@cdp | www.cdp.net

3. Value chain mapping
3.1 What is value chain mapping?
Value chain mapping is a process where organizations identify the actors at each stage of their value
chain and the relationships between them to gather information needed to assess risk and ensurecompliance. For organizations sourcing agricultural commodities, value chain mapping focuses on
mapping the upstream value chain (i.e., supply chain) to identify commodity producers.

3.2 How are value chains mapped?
Mapping can be conducted in-house or by commercial supply chain mapping services. To establish
a more granular, comprehensive understanding of the supplier network, first-tier (direct) suppliers
may be identified initially, followed by second-tier and third-tier suppliers. Mapping may involve
collecting information such as a supplier’s location, workforce characteristics, certifications held,
dates and results of audits, and status of improvement plans.

3.3 How does this differ from traceability?
Value chain mapping and traceability are parallel concepts often used interchangeably but, in fact,
differ. The critical difference between the two concepts is that value chain mapping focuses on theactors in the value chain, while traceability pertains to specific volumes of commodities.
Establishing if a product or material is DCF necessitates organizations conduct activities that linksuppliers in particular locations to batches of commodity volumes.

3.4 Good practice for value chain mapping Acquire direct and indirect supplier information needed for risk assessment by engaging
direct suppliers (engage beyond first-tier suppliers if further details are needed to assessrisk).
 Create value chain maps for each material/product supplier.
 Where there is a higher known risk of illegality or non-compliance mapping should be moredetailed. For instance, if risks of illegal harvesting and trade differ between forest concessions
or subnational regions, it is good practice to go beyond the sourci ng area level to identify
all links in your value chain back to the production unit (i.e., manufacturers, traders,
distributors, mills, processors, logging companies, and forest management units).
 Reassess value chain maps annually or whenever changes to your value chain occur andimplement requirements that suppliers report relevant changes.

Page 6 of 21@cdp | www.cdp.net

4. Traceability
4.1 What is traceability?
Traceability refers to the ability to follow a product or its material components from one stage of thevalue chain to another, i.e. from production through processing, manufacturing, and distribution (seeAFi’s operational guidance on supply chain management, 2020).

4.2 Why is traceability important?
Traceability to origin is a vital tool for determining how and where commodities are produced. It is,therefore, an essential step in confirming whether deforestation or conversion of other natural
ecosystems has occurred at the production unit of origin after a designated cutoff date.
AFi operational guidance on supply chain management, states that buyers in any value chain
position should establish an adequate level of traceability to: Determine the DF or DCF status of sourced commodity volumes; Assess compliance with their policies and environmental requirements;
 Engage suppliers on issues of non-compliance.

4.3 Methods to trace the origin of a commodity
There are several approaches to tracing the origin of a commodity. Organizations can:
 Trace back to the production units of origin; Trace back to an intermediate supplier that has effective control mechanisms in place toguarantee traceability to origin and can provide sufficient evidence of this to the buyer; Use credible assurance systems (e.g., credible certification systems) that reliably tie raw
material supplies to compliant production units;
 Trace materials to landscapes or jurisdictions where performance on social or environmental
issue(s) is demonstrably compliant with buyer's ethical sourcing commitments.
The approach, or combination of approaches, employed may vary depending on an organization's
position in the value chain and its suppliers' existing control mechanisms.
Note that some regulatory environments have specific traceability requirements, such as the EU
Deforestation Due Diligence Regulation, which requires evidence of geolocation to demonstratecompliance. In this case, certification may not include sufficient traceability systems to gather thenecessary information.

Page 7 of 21@cdp | www.cdp.net

5. Deforestation- and conversion-free value chains
5.1 What is DF/DCF status?
To be considered deforestation-free (DF), commodity production, sourcing, or financial investments
must not cause or contribute to deforestation.
To be considered deforestation- and conversion-free (DCF), it must not cause or contribute to theconversion of any natural ecosystems (AFi, 2024).
Organizations should only report volumes as DF or DCF after assessing and determining the statusthrough one of the following three methods:
 Credible third-party certification through a scheme providing full DF/DCF assurance;
 Monitoring the production unit and verification;
 Monitoring the sourcing area and verification.

5.2 Reporting DF/DCF status of commodity volumes
Step 1

8.2

Provide your disclosure volume

Step 2

8.7.1

Provide your organization's definition of deforestation or conversion and thecutoff date you are using when setting targets and assessing DF or DCF
statusStep 3

8.8

Provide the proportion of your disclosure volume that is traceable to the
production unit or sourcing area

Step 4

8.9

Provide the proportion of your disclosure volume assessed and determined aseither DF or DCF

Step 58.9.1, Provide the proportion of your disclosure volume determined as DF/DCF
8.9.2, through each method.
8.9.3,
8.9.4
8.11
Provide details of any actions taken to increase production and sourcing of
DF/DCF volumes

Step 6

Page 8 of 21@cdp | www.cdp.net

Page 9 of 21@cdp | www.cdp.net

6. Methods to assess and determine DCF status
Method 1: Third-party certification
6.1 What is certification?
Commodity certification is a control system that organizations use to assess and manage raw
materials or products at their origin and/or as they move through a supply chain.
 Certification is not one single operation but a process. A certification scheme is the generalterm used to refer to the overall structure, within which several institutions perform distinct
functions (Figure 3). In general, the structure is as follows: An independent standard-setting
body develops the certification standard.
 A separate accreditation body evaluates the competence of the certification body andlicenses it to operate.
 The independent, accredited certification body conducts audits of production units and/or
the chain of custody of raw materials, to verify compliance with the certification standard.
 Product labelling bodies issue organizations a license authorizing the use of environmental
labels on their products to indicate compliance with standards.

Figure 1: Certification scheme structure (adapted from iied, 2001).

Page 10 of 21@cdp | www.cdp.net

The relevant types of certifications for assessing DF/DCF status are:1) Forest management/sustainable production certification: verifies the sustainability ofpractices at the production unit where the forest risk commodities originate. This type of
certification relates to produced volumes.
2) Chain-of-custody certification: verifies traceability claims that can link raw materials or
products with their origin. This type of certification relates to sourced volumes.
What is ‘Chain-of-custody’?
Chain-of-custody (CoC) is the sequence of ownership that occurs as a material or product travels
through the value chain from origin to end use. Often CoC and traceability are usedinterchangeably; however, they can be distinguished in that traceability is the process oractivity through which organizations can demonstrate CoC.
Types of ‘chain-of-custody’ models
CoC models are systems used to track the movement of products between organizations in the
supply chain. They vary in their approach to establishing traceability and mixing certified andnon-certified products (Figure 4). There are four main types of models: segregated, identitypreserved, mass-balance, and credit trading.
 Segregated or identity-preserved models are more robust because they prohibit the mixingof certified and non-certified materials, enabling, to varying degrees, the tracing of certified
material inside end products back to a certified forest.
 Mass-balance and credit trading approaches demonstrate that an organization has sold thesame amount of certified material it bought within a specified period. These approaches allow
for the mixing of certified and non-certified materials, and the proportions of each are notalways controlled or recorded. Although companies use credit trading, like a CoC certification,
to make sustainability claims and meet sourcing targets, it is technically not a CoC model as
end products do not contain any known certified product, and there is no physical traceability
to the origin.
How do I determine which chain of custody model applies to my commodity?
The decision of which CoC model to adopt depends on several factors. Organizations shouldlook to industry standards, relevant legislation, and operational guidance from initiatives such as
AFi when choosing an appropriate model for their commodity.

Page 11 of 21@cdp | www.cdp.net

Table 1: Chain of Custody models (adapted from ISEAL, 2016)

Identity of
product/
component
origin known

Accepts mixing ofcertified and noncertified content

Physical traceabilityof content

Traceability
linked to volume
reconciliation overa set period

Volumes ofcertified material
sold equal to thatboughtIdentitypreservation(‘hard IP’ or‘track andtrace’)

Segregation(‘bulkcommodity’ or‘soft IP’)

Batch levelmass balance(‘percentage
blending’,‘batch blending)Site levelmass balance(‘controlled
blending’,‘factory gate
mass balance)

Group levelmass balance(‘multi-site’)Not as specific as
IP

Depends(Lost with physical
Blending)

Depends(Lost with physical
Blending)

Depends(Lost with physical
Blending)

Only to point of
blending

Depends

Certificate
Trading(Book-andclaim or ‘credit
trading’)

6.2 Good practice for certification
Good practice for certification depends, to some extent, on organizations’ supply chain position (seefigure 5), the commodities they produce/source, and their operating context. Actors at different
supply chain stages may need to obtain specific certifications and/or engage with their suppliers tocollect evidence of certificates held. Where legislation requires verification that standards have beenmet, companies should consider whether the certification scheme allows them to demonstrate legal
compliance.

Page 12 of 21@cdp | www.cdp.net

Figure 2: Certification in the supply chain (adapted from GREENBLUE, 2023)

Robust certification schemes use standards equivalent to AFi’s 12 core principles. They, forexample, prohibit deforestation/conversion in supply chains and include AFi-aligned definitions, cutoff dates and human and labour rights protections. Organizations should also consider if theirchosen certification body: Is a legal entity, with a defined organizational structure.
 Aligns with relevant standards for independent assurance, e.g., ISEAL, ISO/IEC 170211:2015, ISO/IEC 17065:2012, ISO 9001, and the Institute of Internal Auditors Global(IIA Global).
 Includes a quality assurance programme with a complaint procedure.
 Has no conflicts of interest.
For CoC certification, schemes requiring traceability systems that link product volumes to theperformance of the production unit (i.e., segregated or identity-preserved) are considered goodpractice because they provide visibility of origin and assurance of whether deforestation/ conversion
occurred during production.
Mass-balance or credit trading models contribute to organizations’ fulfilment of ethical sourcing
commitments. However, they do not demonstrate traceability to origin and require additional due
diligence to confirm whether non-certified volumes in the value chain are deforestation-free ordeforestation—and/or conversion-free.
CDP incentivizes using certification schemes that include a DCF requirement and additional
measures to control uncertified volumes. Additionally, independent, third-party verification from anaccredited certification body is deemed the most credible approach to confirm commodities meet therelevant sustainability standards.
How do I certify different commodities?
The topical scope of certification standards and criteria may vary between commodities, dependingon the specific ecological and human rights concerns associated with its production. However,
implementing commitments on deforestation and ecosystem protection, irrespective of commodity,
involves following the good practice outlined in section 6.2.
The approach to controlling non-certified volumes varies for different commodities. For instance,
timber certifications which allow the mixing of certified and non-certified materials, often require noncertified batches to comply with a form of 'controlled wood' standard, i.e., material must be from aknown source, where risk has been evaluated and judged not to conflict with environmental andsocial commitments. In contrast, similar 'mass-balance' approaches used for other commodities do
not always specify requirements for the non-certified volumes. Therefore, not all models that allow
mixing are equivalent in the level of assurance they provide.
Page 13 of 21@cdp | www.cdp.net

Different industries face varying challenges around demonstrating traceability to origin. Separating
certified and non-certified materials can be highly costly and labour-intensive for commodities suchas cocoa and palm oil. Some companies use a 'mass-balance' model in this context. Increasingly
legislation and companies' DCF commitments demand full traceability to origin. As a result, industry
leaders across all sectors strive to overcome these challenges and adopt segregated, and identity preserved models for the commodities in their supply chains.

Method 2: Production unit monitoring
6.3 What should production unit monitoring assess?
Monitoring of deforestation and conversion at the scale of the production unit may be used todetermine DF/DCF status. At the production unit, AFi recommends that the following arequantified: The amount of land converted from forest or other natural ecosystem (in-line with therelevant definitions) since a specified cutoff date.
 How much land is being set aside and effectively managed to maintain its conservation
values, and how much of the conservation values have been, or are at risk of being, lost.
 How the boundaries of the production areas have changed, and what their recent or prioruse was.

6.4 Tools and methods for production unit monitoring
Deciding which methods or tools to use when monitoring deforestation/conversion at the production
unit level depends on the commodity in question, the scale of production, type of production system,
and which monitoring tools are contextually suited. The use of remote sensing and other satellite based monitoring tools is encouraged.
More information on production unit monitoring, including the scope, methods, and appropriate tools
can be found in AFi’s Operational Guidance on Monitoring and Verification.

Method 3: Sourcing area monitoring
In some cases, monitoring deforestation and conversion at the scale of a sourcing area may be used
to determine the risk levels within that sourcing area. Details on the circumstances in which it isacceptable to monitor at the scale of the sourcing area can be found in AFi’s Operational Guidanceon Monitoring and Verification.

6.5 What is risk related to sourcing areas?
The CDP modules on dependencies, impacts, risks and opportunities collect data on environmental
risks across the value chain which have had or are anticipated to have substantive effects on theorganization.
In the context of commodity value chains, risks related to sourcing areas refers to the likelihood thatmaterial produced in, or sourced from, an area is non-compliant with an organization’s ‘nodeforestation’ or ‘no conversion’ targets.

6.6 Determining the risk of sourcing areas
Commodity volumes can be claimed to be DF or DCF if they originate in sourcing areas where there
is no or negligible risk of deforestation/conversion. Defining no or negligible risk should becontextually specific to the geographic location and commodities of the sourcing area. Organizations
Page 14 of 21@cdp | www.cdp.net

should not assume similarities between sourcing the same commodity from different regions, ordifferent commodities from the same region.
Information on tools and approaches to monitoring deforestation and conversion risk at the sourcing
area level can be found in AFi’s Operational Guidance on Monitoring and Verification. Sources suchas the Accountability Framework ‘Deforestation Risk Toolset’ comprising three publicly available
resources (Global Forest Watch, Trase and the Accountability Framework) also provide detailed
guidance on assessing risk, mapping supply chains and monitoring results.

Page 15 of 21@cdp | www.cdp.net

7. Verification
7.1 What is verification?
Verification is used to assess compliance and performance of forest management units or supply
chain controls against a defined set of requirements, to validate the fulfilment of stated commitments,
standards, or targets. This process usually comprises audits of forest management units andprocessing facilities, including field inspections, and reviews of documentation and management
systems.
First, second and third-party verification
There are several levels of verification available to organizations, each with potential value toorganization processes. While any combination of the three can be used to implement commitments
on deforestation and ecosystem protection, third-party verification is the most credible and reliable.
First-party verification

Second-party verification

Third-party verification

Conducted by theorganization itself but carriedout by personnel not involvedin the design or
implementation of theoperations being verified.

Conducted by a related entity withinterest in the organization oroperation being assessed, such as
the business customer of a
production/ processing operation ora contractor that also provides
services other than verification.

Conducted by an independent
entity that does not provide otherservices to the organization.
Accredited certification bodies canprovide third-party verification

Sometimes referred to as an internal audit.

Referred to as external
assurance.

Results of such audits are often used internally by the company toguide its decision-making.

Output of third-party verification
usually includes public disclosureof the verification methodology
and results.

7.2 Differences between verification and monitoring
Verification and monitoring are related processes that together form a system through whichorganizations can deliver credible and consistent information to buyers, investors, and civil society.
Monitoring, in this context, refers to continuous and systematic data collection on specific indicators
to record and evaluate the status of policies, practices, systems, and other elements in an
organization's supply chain. Verification then utilizes monitoring data and other information sources
to validate compliance and performance levels and provide independent assurance in the case ofthird-party verification.

Page 16 of 21@cdp | www.cdp.net

8. Useful Links
 AFi: Definitions, 2024.
 AFi, GHG Protocol, SBTi: Deforestation- and conversion-free supply chains and land
use change emissions: A guide to aligning corporate targets, accounting, and disclosure,2022.
 AFi: Operational Guidance: Applying the Definitions Related to Deforestation, Conversion
 AFi: Operational Guidance on Monitoring and Verification, 2020.
 AFi: Topic summary on Supply Chain Due Diligence, 2019.
 AFi: Operational Guidance on Supply Chain Management, 2020.
 EU Deforestation Regulation implementation, 2024.
 Preferred by nature: ‘What is controlled wood?’, 2023..
 Proforest: Verified Deforestation and Conversion Free (V-DCF) Generic methodology andapproach, 2022.

Page 17 of 21@cdp | www.cdp.net

9. Appendix
9.1 Example responses to questions on deforestation and conversion assessment (8.9, 8.9.1, 8.9.2, 8.9.3, 8.9.4)
Example 1: scenario in which an organization uses a certification that does not provide full assurance but uses sourcing area monitoring as an additional
control method.
8.9
Commodity

Timber products

DF/DCF status assessed for % of disclosure volume % of disclosure volume
this commodity
determined as DF/DCF in determined as DF/DCF
the reporting year
through a third-party
certification scheme
providing full DF/DCF
assurance
Yes, deforestation- and50
0conversion-free (DCF) statusassessed% of disclosure volume
determined as DF/DCF
through monitoring ofproduction unit

% of disclosure volume
determined as DF/DCF
through monitoring ofsourcing area

050

Is a proportion of yourdisclosure volume
certified through ascheme not providing
full DF/DCF
assurance?
Yes

8.9.1 – This question only appears if you report any value other than “0” in response to column “% of disclosure volume determined as DF/DCF through athird-party certification scheme providing full DF/DCF assurance” of 8.9.
8.9.2
Commodity

Third-party certification % of disclosure volume Additional control methods in place to determine Comment
scheme not providing certified through
DF/DCF status of volumes certified throughfull DF/DCF assurance scheme not providing scheme not providing full DF/DCF assurance
full DF/DCF assurance

Certification
documentation

Timber products

SURE – Mass balance

Certificate ofOrganization Z
Timber Volumes

70

Sourcing area monitoring

8.9.3 – This question is only shown if you report a value other than ‘0’ in column “% of disclosure volume determined as DF/DCF through monitoring ofproduction unit” of 8.9.

Page 18 of 21@cdp | www.cdp.net

8.9.4
Commodity % of disclosure volume
determined as DF/DCF
through monitoring of
deforestation andconversion within thesourcing area
Timber50
products

Monitoring approach used Description of approach, including frequency of assessment Countries/areas Sourcing areas
for determining thatof originsourcing areas have no or
negligible risk of
deforestation or conversion• Ground-based monitoring• Remote sensing or othergeospatial data

Our organization uses InSAR remote sensing techniques toFinlandassess changes in canopy cover (in relation to our baseline datataken at the cutoff date of March 2019) within the sourcing area innear real-time. This monitoring is backed up by quarterlyinterviews with local community members and government
officials, and through assessing grievances put to our suppliers.
We define “no or negligible risk” when conversion accounts forless than 1% of the sourcing area and no more than a few
hectares.

DF/DCFstatus isverified

X landscape within Yes
the municipality of
Hattula in theprovince of Southern
FinlandType of% of your disclosure
Explain the process of verifying DF/DCF status
Attachment of Use of risk classification
Attachment
verification volume that is bothverification
indicating risk
determined as DF/DCF(optional)
classification forthrough sourcing area
each sourcing area
monitoring and is(optional)
verified as DF/DCF
Third-party 50
Our monitoring of deforestation and conversion within Verification of Our organization takes a conservative approach to risk
Sourcing area risk
the sourcing area is verified by Company X who have methodology management, and so deforestation/conversion
classification
over 15 years’ experience in monitoring conversion risk document
determined within our sourcing areas leads us to prioritize document
within value chains. They provide no other services toincreasing traceability/definition within our monitoring forour organization. They assess our ground-basedthat particular sourcing area, along with increased
methodology, including reviewing the interview
supplier engagement to address and/or mitigate the risk.
templates and sample interviews on an annual basis.
They have confirmed our remote sensing techniques
are appropriate for the context and also perform theirown sample analysis on the sourcing area using similar
remote sensing techniques to verify our findings.

Page 19 of 21@cdp | www.cdp.net

Example 2: scenario in which an organization is using certifications that provide full assurance that volumes are DF/DCF, along with production unit monitoring
and certifications that do not provide full assurance of DF/DCF
8.9
Commodity

Timber products

Palm oil

DF/DCF status assessed % of disclosure volume % of disclosure volume
for this commodity
determined as DF/DCF determined as DF/DCF
through a third-party
in the reporting year
certification scheme
providing full DF/DCF
assurance
Yes, deforestation- and98
80
conversion-free (DCF)
status assessed% of disclosure volume
determined as DF/DCF
through monitoring ofproduction unit

% of disclosure volume
determined as DF/DCF
through monitoring ofsourcing area

Is a proportion of yourdisclosure volume
certified through ascheme not providing
full DF/DCF assurance?

28

0

No

Yes, deforestation-free(DF) status assessed

60

0

Yes

60

20

8.9.1
Commodity

Third-party certification scheme
providing full DF/DCF assurance

Timber products

FSC Recycled Certification

Timber products

Palm oilPalm oil% of disclosure volume determined Comment
as DF/DCF through certification
scheme providing full DF/DCF
assurance
70

Certification documentation(optional)

FSC Chain-of-Custody certification(any type)10

FSC C-o-C 100% certification
document

RSPO supply chain certification –Identity Preserved
RSPO supply chain certification –Segregated

15

FSC recycled certification documentof Organization Z timber volumes

We use FSC chain-of-custodycertification, specifically the FSC
100% certification.

5

8.9.2
Commodity

Third-party certification scheme not % of disclosure volume Additional control methods in place to determine Comment
providing full DF/DCF assurance
certified through
DF/DCF status of volumes certified throughscheme not providing scheme not providing full DF/DCF assurance
full DF/DCF assurance

Page 20 of 21@cdp | www.cdp.net

Certification
documentation(optional)

Palm oil

ProTerra certification – Mass balance 30

Production unit monitoring

Palm oil

SURE – Mass balance

Production unit monitoring

10

ProTerra certificateof Organization Z
Palm Oil Volumes
SURE certificate ofOrganization Z
Palm Oil Volumes

8.9.3
Commodity % of disclosure Production unit Description of production unit
DF/DCF Type ofvolumemonitoring
monitoring approachstatus verification
determined as approachverified
DF/DCFthroughmonitoring ofproduction unit
28
We monitor the areas of production
Yes
Second party
Timber• Geospatial
productsmonitoring or using satellite data at a resolution of
remote sensing 30m per pixel, conducting geospatialand spectral analysis to monitor forest
tool
health and tree cover loss on aplatform that provides near real time
data and alerts.

Palm oil60• Geospatial

We source much of our palm oil
Yesmonitoring or volumes from direct suppliers who
remote sensing conduct ground-based andcommunity-based monitoring,tool• Ground-based including monthly site-based
assessments and transects, interviews
monitoringand surveys with local community
systemmembers to confirm that the sites on• Communitywhich it is produced are free frombased
deforestation. The findings from thismonitoring
monitoring are provided to us via
monthly reports. We also monitor theareas of production using LiDAR
based remote sensing to further
confirm that the production units arefree from deforestation.

Page 21 of 21

Second party% of your disclosure Explain the process of verifying
Attachment
volume that is both DF/DCF statusofdetermined asverification
DF/DCF through(optional)
monitoring ofproduction unit and isverified as DF/DCF
28
Our geospatial monitoring is verified by Methodology
Company Y, a contractor that we use verification
for a variety of services across the
document
business, including in assessing andverifying our ESG compliance. They
inspect our methodology on a quarterly
basis and perform their own analysis
using similar geospatial techniques tovalidate our findings.
60
Our geospatial, ground-based, andMethodology
community-based monitoring is verified verification
by Company Y, a contractor that we use document
for a variety of services across thebusiness, including in assessing andverifying our ESG compliance. They
inspect our suppliers’ methodology on aquarterly basis, reviewing themethodology and findings from the sitebased assessments, the interview andsurvey templates, survey responses,
and random samples of completedinterviews. They also review ourgeospatial methodology and performtheir own analysis using similar
geospatial techniques to validate ourfindings.

@cdp | www.cdp.net