Appendix G
Submissions to the Workshop

Prior to the meeting, experts from a variety of organizations were invited to submit comments on the framework. Several submissions were received and they are reproduced here.

  1. As You Sow

  2. Cadbury

  3. Monique Oxender, Global Manager, Supply Chain Sustainability, AIAG Sustainability Loan, Ford Motor Company

  4. Chisara Ehiemere, Transfair, USA

  5. CREA, Inc.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 108
Appendix G Submissions to the Workshop Prior to the meeting, experts from a variety of organizations were invited to submit comments on the framework. Several submissions were received and they are reproduced here. 1. As You Sow 2. Cadbury 3. Monique Oxender, Global Manager, Supply Chain Sustainability, AIAG Sustainability Loan, Ford Motor Company 4. Chisara Ehiemere, Transfair, USA 5. CREA, Inc. 108

OCR for page 108
APPENDIX G 109 1. As You Sow

OCR for page 108
110 APPENDIX G

OCR for page 108
APPENDIX G 111

OCR for page 108
112 APPENDIX G

OCR for page 108
APPENDIX G 113

OCR for page 108
114 APPENDIX G

OCR for page 108
APPENDIX G 115 2. Cadbury Version 5 CADBURY COCOA PARTNERSHIP VISION INTO ACTION - GLOBAL 24/06/08 Thriving rural communities that support Vision a sustainable cocoa supply chain Cocoa-growing communities empowered to take leadership in: Governing Meeting their long-term goals and delivering sustainable cocoa production Objective Our approach puts the community first, works through partnerships and builds local capacity, promoting Delivery community-centred activities delivered at scale through policy advocacy and reform, innovation and Approach research Biodiversity Key Household Capacity of Productivity Livelihood Indicator and Reduced Health income in key local and Communities in target opportunities Deforestation and Basic target national empowered Scorecard communities for rural Rates Education communities institutions youth Outcomes SUSTAINABLE SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY INSTITUTIONAL Strategic LIVELIHOODS FROM LIVELIHOODS FROM CENTRED ENGAGEMENT Themes COCOA OTHER MEANS DEVELOPMENT 1. Institutional 1. Alternative income 1. Farmer organisation 1. Community synergy sources (local and mobilisation leading 2. Advocacy with other Key Activities (traditional, external markets) to community stakeholders to district, national - research into mg’mt and planning support cocoa and int’l) options farming 2. Maintain/enhance - agro-processing 2. Identify/work to natural 3. Farmer training strengthen 2. Skills training environment weak including financial 4. Access to extension Access to: institutions and entrepreneurial services skills 3. Education 3. Organization 5. Improved farming and individual 3. Access to credit and and processing 4. Healthcare capacity rural banking techniques 5. Energy sources building and 4. Youth engagement 6. Improved clarification of 6. Potable water productivity and roles and farm efficiency 7. Community services responsibilities and technology of respective 7. Improved farmer institutions incomes Addressing HIV Addressing Gender, Discrimination and Diversity Issues Cross cutting Addressing the worst forms of child labour and trafficking themes Biodiversity Conservation and Environmental sustainability

OCR for page 108
116 APPENDIX G 3. Monique Oxender, Global Manager, Supply Chain Sustainability, AIAG Sustainability Loan, Ford Motor Company • Questions around impact and relevance need to take into consideration whether the project began with a root cause analysis including the entire system contributing to the abusive situation. Consequently, did action result in a change to the system contributing to the abuses rather than a band-aid? Reduction of these labor abuses is not easy to measure and should not be a single point in time measurement. Also included should be a rate of recurrence over x amount of time to account for cyclical behaviors. Take the example of forced labor in Brazil. One out of every 10 temporary work opportunities may result in a forced labor situation but due to the need for employment and income, lack of education as well as lack of interest in more permanent employment, laborers are willing to take that chance. And this cycle plays out over a period of months to years. • I am unclear as to how program/practice effectiveness differs from impact. • Sustainability questions should specifically require consideration of funding and stakeholder involvement. Actually, no where do I see stakeholders mentioned and I think this is an essential aspect to understand with projects such as this - both who is involved and how. Hope this helps. Looking forward to the discussion.

OCR for page 108
APPENDIX G 117 4. Chisara Ehiemere, Transfair, USA Fair Trade Certification includes compliance criteria related to child and forced labor for both small farmers and hired labor situations, an addition to numerous other criteria for social, socioeconomic, and environmental development. As such, any impact, or goals of the program would not be limited to child labor or forced labor elimination, but to a much broader set of goals. That said, this is an important part of the standards, and discovery could lead to suspension or decertification. The standards are written to both recognize that small farmers may have their children perform some tasks on the farm, but these must be limited, and cannot interfere with schooling. For hired labor situations, discovery of child or forced labor cannot simply be “fixed” by ceasing employment, but also trying to ensure that these workers are not forced into worst forms of labor situations. In terms of replicability, the compliance criteria that are used are the same world- wide. Replicability can best be achieved by figuring out what types of labor situations a program wants to work with (small farms, cooperatives, large farms, small factories, large factories etc), and different levels of pervasiveness of these types of labor situations, and working out a compliance criteria for each type. For example, Auditor training materials and audit methodology may vary slightly by country/region based on local practices, and the type of labor set-up being reviewed. For Fair Trade certification, the practices must continue in order to retain the certificate. I would imagine that now that sensitivity and awareness to the issues exists, there may be some that would continue to comply, but in most cases, audit and certification is necessary to ensure that responsible choices continue to be made. Cost effectiveness is difficult to separate out because the audit is a comprehensive review of all compliance criteria, not just criteria related to child/forced labor. I imagine, however, that one might look at verification methods that include, for cooperative structures, internal control systems and scientific sampling techniques. For 100% certainty, you would almost have to have an auditor on the ground 100% of the time, but there are sampling techniques that can give a high level of certainty.

OCR for page 108
118 APPENDIX G 5. CREA, Inc. CRE CREA Inc. P.O. Box 2507 A Hartford, CT 06146-2507 TEL: 860.527.0455 FAX: 860.216.1072 e-mail: crea-inc@crea-inc.org Web site: www.crea-inc.org CREA Center for Reflection, Education and Action, Inc. May 1, 2009 Draft Criteria – with suggested revisions I. Establishing baseline information 1. How was the baseline information collected? 2. How did you measure reliability of the baseline data? 3. What was the geographic area for the baseline data? a. What is regional? b. National? c. Local? D. How recent was the data collection? E. Did the data collection distinguish between child labor and forced labor? F. Did the data collection distinguish by gender? II. What are the specific program goals? A. How were the goals established B. Are they measurable a. Quantitatively b. Qualitatively C. How often will progress on program goals be measured? D. By whom will the progress be measured? III. What are the specific program components? A. How were the components designed? B. How distinguishable were the separate components in terms of measurability? C. How are/were the effects of each component measured? IV. Relevance – at start of project A. Is there a set of assumptions about how activities will lead to outcomes? B. Do you understand why the program works?

OCR for page 108
APPENDIX G 119 C. Is there a logical connection between the inputs, activities and expected outcomes? V. Consequences A. How are you distinguishing between impacts and consequences? B. What were the direct consequences of the program? C. What were the indirect consequences of the program? D. How did you measure the consequences? 1. Quantitatively? 2. Qualitatively? E. What were the unintended consequences of the program? F. What were the direct impacts of the program? G. What were the indirect impacts of the program? H. How did you measure the impacts? 1. Quantitatively 2. Qualitatively VI. Impact(s) A. Did the overall program reduce child labor? B. Did the overall program reduce forced labor? C. Did the program benefit child laborers? D. Did the program benefit forced laborers? E. What were these specific benefits? F. How were they documented? G. How were they measured? VII. Did the program achieve its goals? A. How was this determined 1. Qualitatively 2. Qualitatively B. Could the program sustain its goals over time? VIII. Relevance – at completion of project A. Were the starting assumptions about how activities would lead to outcomes met? B. Do you understand why the program worked? C. Is there a logical connection between the inputs, activities and expected outcomes? Can these be documented? IX. Sustainability A. Is the practice likely to continue (as needed)? Why or why not? B. Is the benefit likely to continue effectively? C Does the institutional capacity necessary to sustain the benefits and/or exist? D. Does the will to sustain these practices exist?

OCR for page 108
120 APPENDIX G E. What is necessary for local ownership of the program or practices to continue? X. Replicability A. Could the practice be implemented with modest adaptation in other settings? B. What factors limit replicability? C. What factors encourage replicability? XI. Cost effectiveness A. How is cost effectiveness measured? B. Were the benefits sufficient to warrant the cost in terms of money and time? C. Were the benefits adequate in relation to likely benefits from comparable investments? D. How was cost effectiveness measured? E. Can the business case be made for the project or work as a means of encouraging others to do the same work?