Re: Econ CDSC draft criteria, indicators, and performance levels attached, with thoughts on follow-up -- Re: MANY THANKS from LEO

[jesse.s...@mchsi.com]

Don-

This looks good to me. A lot of work! I am especially glad to hear that the group-

"(1) at the charrette we dropped criteria 6.6 and 6.7 in the table on assigning dollar value to farm-level externalities as infeasible at this time"

I agree with this deletion. Assigning a dollar value to externalities is worthy goal but not achievable right now and could negatively impact perceptions of the whole standard.

I like the idea of encouraging reporting and using GRI standards that incorporate the idea of "sustainability context."  In my opinion that is what we need to ask of ag operators in the near term: an understanding of how their operations affect the larger systems in which they operate.

Thanks for all your work.

Jesse


----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Hodge" <Hodg...@epamail.epa.gov>
To: "Jennifer Trucks" <Jenn...@leonardoacademy.org>
Cc: "ben...@illinois.edu" <ben...@illinois.edu>, "scs001economic criteria" <scs001econo...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2012 9:29:40 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
Subject: Econ CDSC draft criteria, indicators, and performance levels attached, with thoughts on follow-up -- Re: MANY THANKS from LEO

Hi, Jennifer.  I'm attaching all our files from the writing charrette
and today's revision of the first file.  Please note that the criteria
and indicators will need renumbering because (1) at the charrette we
dropped criteria 6.6 and 6.7 in the table on assigning dollar value to
farm-level externalities as infeasible at this time, and (2) today I
combined criterion 6.5 into 6.1.

As for general feedback, I'll note that we should specify the
requirements of the GRI reporting levels A, B, and C in indicator 6.1.2,
rather than including them by reference, if we find time, and that we
still need to consult with Env. and Social on reasonable performance
levels for social environmental risk management indicators 6.11.1 and
6.12.1, respectively.  Also, at one point I thought I saw some product
quality indicators in Env. that seem better placed in Econ, so we should
consult on that also.  For now, Econ has one food safety indicator under
a product quality criterion.

For S&P, the critical question seems to be what method to use for
tiering, either accumulated points or percentages of "musts", as we will
find it hard to make much more progress until we resolve that.  Also, it
seems that someone, maybe S&P, should determine what material should go
into the "overarching" section 3.

I'll cc the Econ CDSC to give them members who weren't there a chance to
review and comment.  We made a lot of progress in Madison and I hope we
can make a bit more before the DC meeting.  Thanks for all your support
and hospitality.  Regards,

Don

Writing charrette work product:

(See attached file: 2012-03-03 LEO Ag Standard ECON Criteria
6.1-6.5_v1.docx)(See attached file: 2012-03-03 LEO Ag Standard ECON
Criteria 6_8-6_13 Risk and Resilience Mgmt.docx)(See attached file:
2012-03-03 LEO Ag Standard ECON Criteria 6.14-6.15_v1.docx)(See attached
file: 2012-03-03 LEO Ag Standard ECON Criteria 6.16_v1.docx)


Today's revision:
(See attached file: 2012-03-03 LEO Ag Standard ECON Criteria
6.1-6.4_v2.docx)

_________________________________
(Embedded image moved to file: pic20103.gif)
   Don Hodge  |  Agriculture Program
   Region 9  |  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
   75 Hawthorne Street  (AIR-6)  |  San Francisco, CA 94105
   (415) 972-3240  |  hodg...@epa.gov


                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
   MANY THANKS from LEO                                                  
                                                                        
                                                                        
   Jennifer Trucks                                                      
                  to:                                                    
                     Don Hodge, 'ben...@illinois.edu'                  
                                                     03/08/2012 11:44 AM
                                                                        
                                                                        





Hi Don and Bryan,
I hope you returned home safely. We worked hard and had some good times,
too.
I cannot thank you enough and say how essential your attendance, willing
spirit and rigor helped along the process for the Economic arm of the
sustainable ag standard. It would have been a bit behind the others if
you hadn’t have come, so we are grateful.

Whenever you are ready, please send me your draft and any associated
docs. If you already sent it, my apologies, I can’t find it. Also, if
you have any brief proposals to bring before S&P next week, and other
general documentation, feedback, etc, please send those, too. Thanks!
Warm regards,
Jennifer

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sustainable Ag Standard Economic Sustainability Criteria Development Subcommittee" group.
To post to this group, send email to scs001econo...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to scs001economic_cr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/scs001economic_criteria?hl=en.



--