|
|||||||||
| |
|||||||||
Dear all, To respond to Duncan's questions on standards in the first summary: Yes, there are examples of a successful participatory approach to their development. One we have come across is the work of the Sustainable Agriculture Network and Rainforest Alliance in Central America. This work started with the banana industry in Costa Rica. Teams comprising NGO representatives, government agencies, banana companies, farmers, community leaders and researchers were formed to investigate the social and environmental issues in banana production. The teams made recommendations for concrete standards, which were then tested on farms and used as a basis for the Rainforest Alliance certification programme. The programme has brought considerable benefits for local populations. Please see the document 'A Brief History of the Evolution of the Sustainable Agriculture Network and Rainforest Alliance Certified', prepared by Chris Wille of Rainforest Alliance for more detail. DFID would do well to build on such examples and collaborate with these organisations to learn from their experience. A more participatory approach to other standards and official import regulations is also needed. Andy Parnell pointed to this in his contribution. Standards bodies have been criticised as dominated by first world industries. DFID should examine the scope for increasing participation by representatives of developing country farmers in these bodies, and build the capacity of farmers to meet agreed standards. Another area for DFID to look into when working on standards is recognition of equivalence of voluntary standards (e.g. those for organic production, multinationals' own codes). Farmers that are successful in getting their products certified or produced according to standards set by food corporations sometimes have excess production that they have to sell at world market prices because the certification or standards are not accepted in other markets (e.g. a farmer selling coffee complying with organics standards for Germany might not be able to sell excess production as organic in Canada, because of a slight difference in requirements). This could be changed quite easily if there was a recognition of standards among the various groups. Similarly, food corporations apply stringent standards that could be harmonised or recognised as equivalent amongst all companies. This would facilitate compliance for farmers and allow their produce meet the requirements of a wider group of potential buyers. There are a number of initiatives working on the issue of equivalence in standards, and it was an important part of the discussion at the IISD and UNCTAD workshop on sustainability in the coffee sector last December. Participants at the workshop felt there was good potential for coordination and various forms of mutual recognition among and for Southern-based certifiers. Support for the development of shared indicators and pilot projects among existing standards systems (and stakeholders) was suggested as a possible means for creating greater clarity and cooperation in the short term, and this seems one potential area for DFID support. Other initiatives working on equivalence can provide valuable lessons for DFID. Consider the work of the Social Accountability in Sustainable Agriculture project (<http://www.isealalliance.org/sasa/>), which has been looking at the possibilities for synergy between social and environmental standards. The GTZ Common Codes for the Coffee Community is also relevant (see http://www.sustainable-coffee.net/index.html), and the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) have also worked on this (see <http://www.cec.org/files/pdf/ECONOMY/Terra-e_EN.pdf> for their report 'Environmental and other labeling of coffee: The role of mutual recognition'). Concerning Vinay's suggestion about marketing tools, we agree that they can be very useful for farmers in selling their products. A good example is the farmers' group "Union de Ejidos de la Selva" from Chiapas in Mexico, which for their coffee has created the "Cafe de la Selva" brand. This coffee is sold through a network of the group's own shops (17 in Mexico, one in Atlanta, USA, and one in Barcelona, Spain), which sells the coffee directly to the consumer. Although the coffee is also certified as organic, it is the branding and the direct sale that has made it so successful in their own country and which has created an important source of revenue form farmers at a moment when coffee prices are low. Duncan asks about priorities for DFID, and Peter's suggestion of stopping programmes leading to overproduction. We also need to look at ending programmes that are not environmentally sustainable, and in part these two priorities overlap - projects involving higher yields often employ unsustainable production methods or expansion of the production area with associated environmental degradation. DFID should conduct an immediate environmental audit of all the projects and programmes it supports and find ways to ensure their sustainability, upon which their long-term economic viability depends. Vertical diversification is, as Peter suggests, one important use for the money saved in ending unsustainable programmes, but increased support for conservation and sustainable production practices is also essential. DFID's money is public money, and it should be spent directly on environmental and social benefits. Andy Parnell makes useful suggestions. Government procurement is a valuable tool. But please can we ensure that this considers environmental principles as well as those of Fair Trade. Environmental protection is not an optional extra, it's a basic building block for long-term poverty reduction. We all know this, but too often it is forgotten and overlooked in development programmes. The same applies to Andy's suggestion for more support to Fair Trade programmes. These initiatives have great value, but support is also needed to help more producers employ sustainable methods and to access the benefits that this can bring in the market place. There are links between this and support for eco-labeling and harmonisation of standards. Kate Gooding and Alex Gonzalez-Calatayud Trade Policy and Development Team Environmental Policy Department RSPB, The Lodge, Sandy, Bedfordshire, SG19 2DL, UK Tel: +44 (0)1767 680551 www.rspb.org.uk ... ============================================================= To send a reply to this message that goes to all list members, make sure that you send your reply to <address removed> To unsubscribe from this list, send an email to "<address removed>", with the message body: unsubscribe global-trade <your-email-address>
Please visit dfid-agriculture-consultation.nri.org.