Consultation Results Synopsis
Information to Stakeholders on the Outcome of the
consultation on
Contract Production for cocoa producers in Oceania
To
Cocoa producers and traders, Labelling Initiatives,
Producer
Networks,
FLO-CERT,
Product
Advisory
Council for cocoa, Fairtrade International staff, Producer
Services and Relations
Consultation Period
15.06.2012 – 25.07.2012
Standards Committee Meeting
19.09.2012
for Decision
Project
Manager
Contact Sarina
Details
Wiens,
Project
Manager
Standards,
[email protected]
TABLE OF CONTENT
PART 1 Introduction
2
1.1. General Introduction
2
1.2. Executive Summary
2
1.3. Way Forward
4
1.4 Abbreviations
4
PART 2 Consultation Outcomes
5
2.1. Consultation process
5
2.2. Consultation participants
5
2.3. Consultation outcome and stakeholders’ comments
5
2.4. Summary of findings
SSU Standards Consultation Results Synopsis
05.09.2012
11
-1-
PART 1 Introduction
1.1. General Introduction
Fairtrade International’s Standards Unit would like to thank all stakeholders for the time and effort they
have put into participating in the consultation on Contract Production for cocoa producers in Oceania.
The consultation concluded on the 25.07.2012 with a total of 27 participating stakeholders who gave
Fairtrade International’s Standards Unit their views and perspectives. Thanks to these replies, the
Standards Unit has gained a good understanding of critical issues and concerns including potential
solutions. Together with the results of the research carried out by the Standards Unit, this information
provides the basis for our recommendation to the Standards Committee. The Standards Committee’s
decision on the proposed scope extension standards will be taken in full knowledge of stakeholders’
comments.
This document aims to present the outcome of the consultation and the subsequent recommendations
from the Standard Unit to the Standards Committee in the most transparent way possible without
disclosing confidential stakeholder information.
Should you have any queries or remarks concerning this report, please contact the Project
Manager Sarina Wiens at: [email protected].
1.2. Executive Summary
Project objectives
In December 2009, the board of Fairtrade International commissioned a study on a possible extension
of the scope of the Contract Production (CP) Standard to all products in Asia and all products in Africa
except coffee. Initially started in 2010, the project was put on hold shortly after because no clear need
for additional supply from CP could be identified.
Currently, cocoa producers in Oceania can only become Fairtrade certified as Small Producer
Organizations (SPOs). While there are a couple of examples of certified producer groups who were
able to meet the SPO Standard through strong internal or external support, a vast majority of
producers in Oceania lacks the capacity, resources and support to obtain Fairtrade certification as
SPOs. Therefore the Fairtrade producer support division for Oceania which is based at Fairtrade
Australia and New Zealand (FANZ) flagged that there is a need for Contract Production (CP) in the
region.
As the demand for Oceania cocoa by far exceeds the available supply and potential producers have
been identified in the region that could meet this demand, FANZ requested that the project would
focus on cocoa.
The general goal of the project is to assess the possibility of applying the Fairtrade Contract
Production (CP) Standard to cocoa producers in Oceania.
The specific objectives are:
 To assess the feasibility of the CP Standard to cocoa producers in Oceania
 To study the potential impact of additional Fairtrade cocoa supply from Oceania on other
Fairtrade cocoa producers
 To provide Fairtrade benefits to currently excluded cocoa producers by applying the CP
Standard to Oceania
 To respond to a need for more Fairtrade cocoa supply from Oceania
Based on the results of the consultation, a recommendation to the Standards Committee will be
presented in September 2012.
SSU Standards Consultation Results Synopsis
05.09.2012
-2-
Project phases/timelines
03.2012 –

Define scope and project planning
04.2012

Contact with key stakeholders (LIs, PN) to define the
Planning
objectives of the project
04.2012 –

Desk Research
05.2012

Compilation and analysis of information

Preparation of proposals for the consultation

Consultation of stakeholders
Consultation
08.2012 –

Compilation of responses from the consultation process
Analysis
09.2012

Preparation of a final proposal for SC decision
09.2012

Final proposal presented to Fairtrade International SC for
06.2012 –
Research
07.2012
Approval
decision
10.2012

Publication of Standard with revised scope (in case of
Publication
change)
11.2012

Proposed date of validity of the new Standard (in case of
Implementation
change)
Participants and consultation process
The consultation document was sent out by email to cocoa producers and traders, LIs, PNs, the cocoa
PAC, FLO and FLO-Cert. In addition, feedback was collected at the July 2012 meeting of the Pacific
Fairtrade Sub-Network in Papua New Guinea from producers, traders and NGOs supporting
producers in the region. Feedback was provided by a total of 27 stakeholders including 7 SPOs, 6
traders, 4 NGOs, 5 LIs, 2 PSR, 1 PN as well as 1 FLO-CERT response. Another PN submitted a letter
of support for the project.
Findings
When asked their opinion about the prospect of opening the scope of the CP Standard to cocoa in
Oceania, a majority of 19 out of 24 respondents were in favour or strongly in favour, while only 4
respondents were against or strongly against. One operator had no strong opinion one way or the
other.
While those operators that work directly with producers in Oceania voted in favour, the negative voices
came exclusively from internal stakeholders, mainly European LIs. Their concerns are about CP in
general rather than specifically about the scope expansion to cocoa in Oceania. Specific areas of
concern are the empowerment impact of CP, the question of organization (becoming an SPO) and the
1
conflict of interest if the Promoting Body is also the buyer .
The arguments in favour of scope expansion vary from seeing it as the only way that FT cocoa will be
successful in Oceania because “growers lack the [capacity]to run independent cooperatives without
the right support” and acknowledging that the “Pacific is completely different than Africa and South
America” and that “Contract Production will allow […] cocoa producers to access the Fairtrade market
with a value added product, and receive capacity building support from an NGO […]” to rather market
1
Some of these concerns have been addressed in the last full review of the CP Standard in 2009 and as part of the New
Standards Framework in 2011. But the practical impact of these changes has not yet been monitored in a structural manner.
SSU Standards Consultation Results Synopsis
05.09.2012
-3-
oriented arguments such as the development of sustainable regional Fairtrade supply chains for the
Australian and New Zealand markets.
1.3. Way Forward
The Standards Unit will present the results of this consultation along with all findings and initial SU
recommendations to the Standards Committee at the meeting on September 19, 2012. The SC will
make their decision as to concrete steps and possible necessary amendments to the Standards. The
decisions of the SC will be published in the minutes following the meeting and will be available on the
Fairtrade International website.
1.4. Abbreviations
CLAC
CP
FANZ
FLO/FI
LI
LO
NAPP
NGO
PAC
PB
PN
PNG
PSR
SC
SPO
SU
Trader
Coordinadora Latinoamericana y del Caribe de Pequeños Productores de Comercio
Justo
Contract Production
Fairtrade Australia and New Zealand
Fairtrade International
Labelling initiative, Fairtrade country organizations in the consumer markets
Liaison Officer, Fairtrade International consultant working to assist producers in the
producing countries
Network of Asian and Pacific Producers
Non-Governmental Organization
Product Advisory Council
Promoting Body, a company or NGO in a Contract Production setup who holds the
certificate on behalf of the producers and supports them in becoming organized.
Producer networks, regional representative bodies of Fairtrade producers
Papua New Guinea
Producer Services and Relations, department at Fairtrade International in charge of
producer support
Fairtrade Standards Committee
Small Producer Organization
Standards Unit, department at Fairtrade International responsible for developing and
revising Fairtrade Standards
A certified Fairtrade trader describes an operator that buys, sells and/or
manufactures/processes and that has obtained product certification as per the
relevant Fairtrade Standards.
SSU Standards Consultation Results Synopsis
05.09.2012
-4-
PART 2 Consultation Outcome
2.1. Consultation process
The public consultation on Contract Production for cocoa producers in Oceania began on June 15,
2012 and ended on July 25, 2012. The initial deadline for responses was July 15, but due to a limited
number of responses at that point, the consultation period was extended by 10 days.
The consultation document was sent out by email. Feedback was received in the form of completed
consultation documents returned by email. Some stakeholders did not fill in the questionnaire, but
expressed their views in emails to the project team. At a meeting of the Pacific Fairtrade Sub-Network
in Papua New Guinea at the end of July, responses were collected directly from certified producer
groups, traders and NGOs supporting cocoa producers in Oceania.
All answers were collated and detailed responses were categorized according to stakeholder group
and point of view. Besides collecting information regarding types and volumes of cocoa being traded,
stakeholders were also requested to identify hindrances to growth in Fairtrade cocoa production in
Oceania.
The key focus of the consultation regards the opinion of stakeholders on the issue of expanding the
scope of the Contract Production Standard to allow cocoa producers in Oceania to become certified
as CP.
2.2. Consultation participants
The consultation document was sent out to all cocoa producers in Africa, Asia/Oceania and Latin
America, to FLO staff, PNs, LIs, LOs who work with cocoa producers, to cocoa traders in Asia and
Oceania and to each cocoa PAC member.
To avoid consultation fatigue among traders, the SU deliberately decided not to send the consultation
document directly to cocoa traders in LI countries, but to let each LI decide if they thought the project
was relevant to traders in their countries. A number of LIs decided not to forward the document, but 5
sent their own views regarding the potential scope expansion. This led to a relatively low response
rate on behalf of traders; six traders responded, all of which are based in Australia, New Zealand or
Oceania.
On the producer side, the response rate is distributed more globally. Seven producer groups
representing three different regions, Latin America (1), Africa (3) and Oceania (3) completed the
questionnaire. In addition, the NAPP consulted with certified cocoa producers in India and Sri Lanka
and provided one consolidated response on their behalf. Fairtrade Africa did not respond to the
questionnaire itself, but submitted a formal letter of support for the scope expansion to the project
team. The Latin American producer network CLAC did not participate in the consultation.
Four NGOs who provide support to small producers in Oceania shared their views as well as PSR
Oceania and one LO working with cocoa producers in West Africa. In addition, FLO-Cert Africa
provided feedback as well.
2.3. Consultation outcome and stakeholders’ comments
The questionnaire was divided into five sections:
Section 9.1 was intended for Fairtrade certified cocoa producers;
Section 9.2 was intended for cocoa producers who are not yet Fairtrade certified;
Section 9.3 was intended for traders, including importers, exporters, processors,
manufacturers and retailers sourcing Fairtrade certified cocoa from Oceania;
SSU Standards Consultation Results Synopsis
05.09.2012
-5-
Section 9.4 was intended for traders who are not sourcing Fairtrade certified cocoa from
Oceania; and
Section 9.5 was intended for all stakeholders and addresses stakeholder
views on scope expansion.
This synopsis document provides a summary of all answers given in each section. Comments have
been included that represent key arguments both in favour and against scope expansion, and have
been edited in order to maintain anonymity of the respondents.
Section 9.1: Producers who are FAIRTRADE CERTIFIED
If you produce Fairtrade cocoa as part of a FAIRTRADE CERTIFIED producer organization,
please answer the following.
Respondents in this section included SPOs in PNG, Ivory Coast and the Dominican Republic as well
as an NGO who supports a certified cocoa SPO in PNG.
1. What volume of dried cocoa beans does your organization produce annually? (metric
tonnes)
Responses ranged from “none at the moment” and 45 MT to a maximum of 12000 MT per year, with
the lowest volumes coming from PNG and the highest from Latin America. African volumes were in
the middle.
2. What percentage of its total cocoa does your organization sell as Fairtrade?
The Fairtrade volume ranges from 30% to 100% with the highest Fairtrade percentages in Oceania
and most respondents selling at least 79% as Fairtrade.
3. Which variety of cocoa does your organization produce?
All respondents to this question produce a hybrid variety.
4. Does your producer organization receive outside assistance from a support organization (for
example, a trader, government commodity board, or non-governmental organization) for the
management of your producer organization?
Four respondents, two of which are from PNG, do receive external support, whereas three, two of
which are from Ivory Coast, are not supported by an external party.
4.1 If you answered ‘yes’ to the above question, in which areas has your producer organization
received support?
All four respondents who answered yes to the previous question indicated that they receive support in
the formation of the producer organisation. The two respondents from PNG also receive assistance in
record keeping and marketing.
5. In your opinion, in which way would an extension of the Contract Production Standard for
cocoa producers in Oceania affect your organization?
Three producer organizations, two of which are based in PNG, and one NGO felt that a scope
expansion would positively affect their organisations, while two producer organizations were unsure
and one did not respond to this particular question.
Section 9.2: Producers who are NOT YET FAIRTRADE certified
If you are wishing to gain Fairtrade certification as a cocoa producer and are NOT CURRENTLY
FAIRTRADE CERTIFIED, please answer the following.
One NGO who supports cocoa producers in Oceania that are not yet Fairtrade certified responded to
this section on behalf of the producers they work with.
6. How did you find out about Fairtrade?
The NGO informed the producers about Fairtrade.
SSU Standards Consultation Results Synopsis
05.09.2012
-6-
7. What volume of dried cocoa beans does your organization produce annually? (metric
tonnes)
The farmers they support produce 300 MT of dried cocoa beans per year.
8. Which variety of cocoa does your organization produce?
The farmers also produce a hybrid variety, mostly from Criollo and Forastero beans.
9. Does your producer organization receive outside assistance from a support organization (for
example, a trader, government commodity board, or non-governmental organization) for the
management of your producer organization?
The NGO supports the farmers in marketing and productivity and facilitates trade for them.
10. In which way will an extension of the Contract Production Standard to cocoa producers in
Oceania affect your organization?
The NGO is working with farmers in one particular country in Oceania, which cannot be mentioned
here due to confidentiality. As the cocoa producers in this country are currently unable to comply with
Fairtrade Standards, a scope expansion would positively affect them with CP as an intermediary
structure to build their capacity and help the producers perform independently.
Section 9.3: Processors/manufacturers, exporters, importers, retailers sourcing
Fairtrade certified cocoa from Oceania
One trader provided answers to the questions below.
11. Why do you buy cocoa from Oceania?
The reason given was the specific quality provided by cocoa farmers in PNG.
12. What quantity of Fairtrade certified cocoa do you buy from Oceania? (metric tonnes)
In 2011, the quantity of Fairtrade cocoa amounted to 3 MT. This year, there seems to be a supply
issue due to the lack of capacity of the certified SPO that they are sourcing from, which may lead to an
even smaller quantity.
13. What percentage of your total cocoa from Oceania do you purchase as Fairtrade?
The operator was not even able to source 1% of its total volume as Fairtrade due to a lack of supply
from Oceania. They would like to source 24% of their total volume from Oceania as Fairtrade, but
have not been able to do so due to governance issues and defaulting of SPOs.
14. Where do you sell the Fairtrade cocoa that you buy in Oceania? Please list all countries.
The trader sells the Fairtrade cocoa from Oceania to European markets.
15. To what extent can you purchase the amount of Fairtrade certified cocoa from Oceania to
meet your demand, i.e. is there sufficient supply?
The respondent clearly stated that there was never enough supply because generally speaking
producers in Oceania have difficulties meeting the SPO Standard. And the two certified SPOs do not
grow sufficient quantity.
16. Would you be interested in increasing the amount of Fairtrade cocoa that you buy from
Oceania?
The operator would be interested in increasing their amount of Fairtrade cocoa from Oceania to 2000
MT of dried cocoa beans.
Section 9.4: Processors/manufacturers, exporters, importers, retailers NOT sourcing
Fairtrade certified cocoa from Oceania
Three traders and one NGO who is assisting cocoa producers to help them build their own chocolate
factory answered the questions in this section.
SSU Standards Consultation Results Synopsis
05.09.2012
-7-
17. Please select the options that apply to your company.
The four respondents to this question covered all three possible answers, which were:
 My company sources Fairtrade certified cocoa from other regions (not from Oceania).
 My company does not source Fairtrade certified cocoa from anywhere in the world.
 My company sources non-Fairtrade cocoa from Oceania.
One respondent falls into two of the suggested categories. They do not source Fairtrade cocoa from
anywhere in the world and they source non-Fairtrade cocoa from Oceania.
18. If you source non-Fairtrade cocoa from Oceania, what are the reasons? Please tick all
answers that apply.
The following reasons were given: specific quality (organic trinitario), secure supply base, long-term
trading relationship, geographical proximity to consumer markets and, for one country in particular that
there are no major ethical, social or political issues, such as forced labour.
19. Where do you sell the non-Fairtrade cocoa that you purchase in Oceania? Please list all
countries.
The countries named the most are Australia and New Zealand. Japan and Singapore were also
mentioned and one operator is also planning to develop new markets.
20. If you do not source Fairtrade certified cocoa from Oceania, what are the reasons? Please
tick all answers that apply.
The two main reasons given by the four respondents are that producers in Oceania have difficulties in
complying with the SPO Standard and that there is not sufficient Fairtrade cocoa available. One
operator also indicated that some producers in Oceania do not produce the variety/quality they need
and that there are currently no Fairtrade certified producers in certain countries in Oceania.
21. If you buy non-Fairtrade cocoa from Oceania, what is the quantity? (metric tonnes)
Among the three respondents that buy non-Fairtrade cocoa from Oceania, the quantities ranged from
10 to 300 MT.
22. What percentage of your total non Fairtrade cocoa do you purchase from Oceania?
One operator sources 10% from Oceania, while two others source all their cocoa from Oceania.
23. If you purchase Fairtrade certified cocoa from other regions, to what extent can you
purchase the volume to meet your demand, i.e. is there sufficient supply?
Among the two respondents who fall into this category, one indicated that there is always sufficient
supply of Fairtrade certified cocoa from other regions, while the other one would like to be able to
increase the overall volume of Fairtrade cocoa.
24. Would you consider sourcing Fairtrade certified cocoa from Oceania if there were more
supply available?
All four respondents would be interested in sourcing Fairtrade certified cocoa from Oceania if more
supply were available, which becomes clear in the following quote: “We would like to be able to
develop local sustainable supply chains for cocoa and in the process support regional growers and
local economy.”
Section 9.5: All Stakeholders
All stakeholders were asked to respond to the questions in this section. As some preferred to share
their thoughts on the project in an email rather than respond to the questionnaire, the number of
responses included in this section is lower than the total number of responses.
25. What do you see as the potential benefits of an extension of the Contract Production
Standard to cocoa producers in Oceania?
15 stakeholders identified benefits of the suggested scope extension. The following are some
examples that represent the overall response:
SSU Standards Consultation Results Synopsis
05.09.2012
-8-
“This would help producers in [the region] to benefit from Fairtrade whilst they transition to an
organised group.”
“It integrates better with current cultural paradigms in the Pacific. It empowers individuals and supports
them to improve. It enables exporters to work with farmers who actively seek out certification. We may
actually get marketable volumes of Fairtrade certified cocoa from the region.”
“With CP producers will receive more support from a partner, and cocoa producers in this region are in
need of that. There will be more representation of cocoa producers in the region and in the Fairtrade
system. It could lead to more demand for Pacific cocoa. It could encourage support organisations to
deliver more services to producers.”
“The traditional lifestyles of Island people do not allow SPO type organizational structure. Market
opportunities exist for cocoa, but Fairtrade benefits can't be extended without CP”
“This makes Fairtrade certification more accessible for farmers in rural areas. The biggest challenge
for these types of farmers is documentation. In the Oceania region, the ability to comply and the
documentation of business activities in rural farming areas is difficult because the businesses being
run by small holder farmers are either subsistent or semi commercial. Farmers measure their
performance based on the sale of crop and their ability to implement their household development
plans. CP suits the current farming, cultural and traditional systems in the region. The independent
organization holds the certificate, runs the ICS and monitors the implementation of standards, allowing
them to have the support of the PB to manage their businesses and their FT certification while they
develop the capacity to do it themselves.”
“The Pacific is completely different than Africa and South America. Contract Production will allow […]
cocoa producers [in Oceania] to access the Fairtrade market with a value added product, and receive
capacity building support from an NGO like [ours].”
“Allows more growers to become certified in our region. This in turn gives more opportunities to
Australian and New Zealand businesses (licensees) to develop regional partnerships with Fairtrade
Certified growers and promote their "Pacific Partners" products.”
26. What do you see as the potential risks of an extension of the Contract Production Standard
to cocoa producers in Oceania?
A majority of the potential risks that were identified are risks of Contract Production in general rather
than of an expansion of the scope to cocoa from Oceania. A few representative comments are listed
below:
“The only risk I see is the same with all Fairtrade certified SPOs, it is important that premiums are
used transparently.”
“Current CP-approach is not credible as measured by Fairtrade’s empowerment goal. Expansion to
another product category increases not only the credibility risk. It would bind additional scarce (!)
resources of FLO notably in a product category where many certified SPOs since years are
desperately hoping for significant increase in sales opportunities.”
“If there are more certified cocoa producers located in close proximity it could be competition for us,
but we understand the situation in our region and the importance of CP.”
“The majority of cocoa is currently being sourced from West Africa where the SPO Standard is being
stringently enforced. Contract production set-ups are being denied at application phase. One such
group appealed the decision and was again denied the appeal. The group is a well-functioning model
of contract production. There is a risk of creating an unfair market entry point if producers in Oceania
can enter the system as contract production and yet we are denying this in West Africa.”
SSU Standards Consultation Results Synopsis
05.09.2012
-9-
“There could be the risk of the Trader/Exporter treating the small holders on unequal terms, but this
could be controlled and monitored through meeting minutes etc.”
“There is a risk that small holders could miss out if the trader has a non-compliance (when the trader
holds the certificate for the small holders).”
27. Would you be in favour of expanding the scope of the Contract Production Standard to
cocoa producers in Oceania?
When asked their opinion about the prospect of expanding the Contract Production Standard to cocoa
in Oceania:
A majority of 19 respondents were in favour or strongly in favour;
4 participants were against or strongly against;
and one respondent had no opinion.
Three participants did not respond directly to this question, but made relevant comments in the form of
emails. One of them was rather positive towards scope expansion acknowledging that CP could be an
effective mechanism to prepare small farmers in Oceania for future SPO membership if closely
managed and monitored. Another one expressed concerns regarding scope expansion assuming that,
in most cases, CP has not led to increased producer capacity and organization in the past and that
there was no timeline to SPO compliance in the current CP Standard2. One of the three respondents
indicated that they had limited knowledge about the general effectiveness of CP.
Producer
Trader
NGO
LI
Strongly
in favour
3
4
4
1
In favour
3
Not sure
Against
Strongly
against
1
PN
2
2
1
FLOCERT/
PSR
All
respondents
1
13
1
6
1
3
1
1
Participants in favour or strongly in favour stated:
“Yes, because in Oceania in particular PNG, SPOs lack capacity to administer the FT certification at
their own. This is due to high illiteracy level, poor governance, lack of democracy, cultural beliefs and
settings and of course financial capacity.”
“There is absolutely no rational reason why Fairtrade should not be extended to farmers who are poor
and marginalized, but bound by their own unique cultural & traditional systems of agricultural pursuits
(producing commodities that can be FT certified).”
“Weighing the benefits against the risks, we believe the potential benefits are greater. The ANZ market
is facing many challenges in the cocoa market from other certifiers - an additional incentive for
companies to source FT cocoa from the region.”
“I strongly recommend the implementation of the Contract Production Standards for Cocoa in the
Oceania region as it will allow support organisations like [ours] to train and improve capacity of
producer organisations over time, which is what [we are] already doing, so these standards would
recognise that that approach is necessary, and incentivise producers to improve over time.
2 Clarification from the SU: In 2011, however, a timeline for organization was introduced to the CP Standard as part of the New
Standards Framework.
SSU Standards Consultation Results Synopsis
05.09.2012
- 10 -
The current SPO certification limits the potential for FT growth in the region as there are relatively few
producer groups who will meet these standards. Anything that can open up opportunities for Pacific
producers and considers the real conditions of the region with regard to size, lack of political
organisation/interest (in the democratic cooperative model sense); geographic dispersion; etc etc is
worth trying.”
“The only way that FT cocoa will be successful in PNG is to acknowledge that growers lack the
[capacity] to run independent cooperatives without the right support.”
“A risk area for us is that whilst [one of our chocolate products] is FT certified the other 90% of our
sales aren’t, therefore we need more available FT sourcing.”
“We are very happy to pilot a CP project for cocoa producers in [one particular country in Oceania], it
would be perfect for our producers.”
“Oceania cocoa producers tell us that a set-up like CP is more reflective of their cultural context. There
are numerous producers with an interest in Fairtrade but who currently cannot access
[Fairtrade]because they lack the capacity to meet the requirements for an independent SPO. They
would be able to develop their organisations and capacity through the CP standards.”
“Hope this project will lead as an example to showcase to the world about the need and effectiveness
of Contract Production.”
Stakeholders who are against or strongly against argued:
“Fairtrade with its CP-pilot projects has NOT yet proven that the goal of empowerment has been
achieved
–
therefore
it
must
not
be
expanded
into
new
products/regions.”
“The requirements of the current CP standard are NOT able to ensure realisation of Fairtrade key
empowerment goals. The regulations regarding the partnership of the involved actors are NOT driving
the process stringent and with clear time lines. The producers depend fully from their (powerful)
marketing partner and its benevolence. Supporting the small producers to build their own and
independent organisation goes fundamentally against the economic interests of the “Promoting Body”.
Therefore we will always find good will but no real empowerment impact.”
“Before some key requirements of the CP-standard are not changed we are strongly against
expansion of the scope of the CP-Standard. To name some of the most essential changes to be
made:
The small producers should from the beginning be the certificate holder. There must be clear
timeframes to
set
up
the
own
organisation
and market
the
own
product.
The small producers should be supported by an independent third party on their process to become a
SPO. This organisation should be able and keen to protect the interests of the small producers. (The
business partner still has an important role in the improvement of production and quality skills.)
The small producers must not be scattered in a vast area but live in near distance to one another in
order to be able to develop a locale SPO without dependence on costly (and maybe hardly available)
transport. We are open to extend the CP scope but only after Fairtrade has done the homework –
systematically evaluate the experiences from the past 10 years and implement the learning into the
3
standards and field practice .”
“The CP standards have been implemented in 2005 like a pilot with the aim to assess the feasibility of
producer empowerment if producer organizations do not exist. They have been presented like a
transitional model which should allow producers to become organized and to be certified as SPO. That
3 Clarification from the SU:
In 2011 a timeline for organization was introduced to the CP Standard as part of the New Standards Framework.
Since 2010 the CP Standard requires an independent party to support the producers if they do not reach
organizational goals
If dispersed, several SPOs can come out of CP project. The CP standard does not require that only one producer
organization is created.
SSU Standards Consultation Results Synopsis
05.09.2012
- 11 -
is why it is necessary to assess the current situation and to analyze what are the impediments and the
drivers before deciding to extend the scope."
“The SPO model is being enforced in West Africa in often extremely difficult and complex contexts.
Expanding the scope of contract production to cocoa producers in Oceania does not afford equal
opportunity to producers globally to enter the FT system. In order to ensure a level playing field within
FT cocoa we would recommend that efforts are spent on assisting more small producers in Oceania to
form organisations rather than extending the scope of the standard.”
2.4 Summary of Findings
The vast majority of respondents is in favour of the proposal to extend the scope of CP to cocoa from
Oceania. The four stakeholders that are against the scope expansion are Fairtrade internal, mainly
LIs. Their concerns regard CP in general rather than the scope expansion to cocoa in Oceania in
particular. All stakeholders who work directly with producers in Oceania, internal as well as external,
are in favour or strongly in favour of allowing CP in that region. All of the producers, producer networks
and PSR representatives who responded from three different regions are also in favour or strongly in
favour with one abstention. The SU will analyse these findings carefully and make a recommendation
to the SC that is based on the consultation outcome.
SSU Standards Consultation Results Synopsis
05.09.2012
- 12 -