TNFD for Food and Agriculture: Commodities, Water, Soil, Pollination and Traceability

Educational practitioner material. Illustrative scenarios and wording require adaptation to the organisation’s facts, materiality approach, sector, locations and reporting context.

Food and agriculture are both highly dependent on nature and major drivers of change in nature. A procurement ledger may show supplier, spend and product, but it rarely shows the farm, water basin, ecosystem condition or production practice that determines the dependency or impact. A useful TNFD assessment therefore translates commercial categories into commodities, activities and locations.

The same commodity can have different nature-related issues depending on production system and place. Irrigated almonds, rain-fed wheat, pasture-based dairy and feedlot cattle rely on different ecosystem services and create different land, water, pollution and climate pathways. Global averages can support screening, but they should not erase these differences in priority decisions, targets or claims.

Figure 1. Traceability and dependency ladder for food and agriculture. Organisations can begin with the best available origin and progressively improve granularity for priority commodities.

Dependency analysis should not replace impact analysis. Food value chains can contribute to land and freshwater use change, deforestation and conversion, water depletion, nutrient and pesticide pollution, greenhouse-gas emissions, waste, overexploitation and invasive-species pathways. The assessment should connect the pressure to the location and to changes in ecosystem extent, condition or species where evidence allows.

Traceability is not simply present or absent. A company may know the direct supplier but not the farm; a trader may know the procurement point but not every plot; a certification system may provide chain-of-custody information at one level but not precise ecological evidence. The register should show the best available granularity for each material commodity and the decision that the level can support.

How to use certifications carefully

Certification can provide a policy, chain-of-custody, practice or audit evidence layer and can be useful while traceability improves. The buyer should record the scheme, scope, commodity, certificate holder, sites or mass-balance model covered, validity period, audit status and known exclusions. It should avoid converting certification into a blanket statement that the commodity is deforestation-free, water-resilient, biodiversity-positive or free from community impact unless the specific claim is supported.

1. Map products to commodities. Translate ingredients and materials into agricultural commodities and production activities.

2. Prioritise commodity-origin combinations. Use dependency and impact potential, volume, strategic importance, sensitive locations, regulation and data gaps.

3. Assign the best available location. Use farm data where available; otherwise country, region, basin, procurement point or supply shed with a confidence label.

4. Evaluate dependencies and impacts. Assess water, soil, pollination, agrobiodiversity and relevant impact drivers using primary, secondary and modelled evidence.

5. Create DIRO pathways. Connect nature conditions and stakeholder concerns to supply, cost, quality, revenue, liability, finance and opportunity.

6. Segment suppliers. Differentiate strategic high-risk suppliers, capable data providers, SMEs needing support and low-priority suppliers.

7. Request proportionate evidence. Use a short core questionnaire and enhanced modules for priority commodities and locations.

8. Agree improvement plans. Set traceability, practice, verification and outcome milestones with realistic dates and support.

9. Set location-relevant targets. Link targets to material pressure, commodity, baseline, geography, method, owner and outcome.

10. Retain limitations and review triggers. Update for supplier changes, crop shifts, new origin evidence, incidents, ecosystem decline and policy change.

Illustrative scenario. A confectionery company buys cocoa through two traders. It knows supplier and country but not all farms. Screening identifies conversion, soil condition, water and community concerns in selected sourcing regions. The company uses procurement points to define provisional supply sheds, overlays them with land-cover and water information, and assigns a medium confidence rating. It does not claim farm-level traceability.

The company then requests cooperative and farm lists for high-priority supply sheds, checks certification scope, engages traders on data rights, pilots field evidence and supports smallholders with agronomy and traceability. Targets distinguish traceability coverage, verified no-conversion evidence, soil-management practice and landscape outcome. Public wording explains the proxy basis and the timetable for improving farm-level coverage.