Updates from the Working Groups (Members Version)

‘’Taking the first step even when you don’t see the entire staircase’’: Amy Smith and Pierre Bois d’Enghien talk about creating a Policy Framework for sustainability and equity in natural rubber

                                                                            Bani Bains, Communications Manager, GPSNR

GPSNR offers a unique common ground, for peers to engage from across a complex supply chain. This makes it possible for us to have a more holistic perspective of each others’ challenges and aspirations for a sustainable and equitable natural rubber supply chain.

For Amy Smith and Pierre Bois d’Enghien, co-chairs of the Policy Toolbox and Implementation Guidance Working Group, the aspirations and challenges of all member categories became most apparent as they worked on putting together the GPSNR Policy Framework, which was adopted by the General Assembly in 2020. Today, all member companies must comply with the policy framework within six months of their membership into GPSNR.

As the first batch of member companies publish policies that are in line with the policy framework, Amy and Pierre had a conversation with me about the journey so far, and how the framework guides their current work around the development of different aspects of GPSNR’s assurance model.

BB: To start off, for anyone who isn’t familiar with GPSNR, could you very quickly tell us what the policy framework does and who it is for?

AS: The policy framework guides the company members at GPSNR with a common set of commitments for sustainable natural rubber. This aligns all categories in their pursuit of a sustainable supply chain and ensures we’re all headed in the same direction to uphold a specific set of environmental, social and economic values. The alignment is key in achieving GPSNR’s goals.

PB: The adoption of the policy framework across the supply chain also denotes a shared responsibility towards GPSNR’s objectives.

AS: Beyond these, there are also benefits for companies to have a policy. It can help companies to orient their actions to achieve sustainability, it can also help in engagement with their shareholders and in reflecting leadership. The next step after this, of course, is putting their policies into action, for which we are working on Implementation Guidance.

BB: If you were to go down memory lane, what was the process like of creating this policy framework from scratch? Is there any particular meeting or memory that stands out as an ‘aha’/goosebumps moment?

AS: We started with looking at the Accountability Framework for best practice guidance for developing a policy to develop the main elements of the framework: the policy components. With that in mind, we formed a drafters’ group which included some working group members including Pierre and myself, a representative from the Accountability Framework and two consultants. This group developed the first draft of the policy framework and then facilitated the incorporation of suggestions from other working group members.

What stands out for me is that it was a very, very long process – do you have anything in mind Pierre?

PB: Yes! Just to remind you, I joined the working group and the drafters’ group only in February 2020. By then, Amy and team had already taken care of a lot of work. But after I joined, I recall that it took us a long time to discuss all the components of the policy framework. Each word, each sentence, each idea had very important outcomes linked to them. It was a big feat to reach consensus, and sometimes that meant compromise among civil society and industry members. I think it took us almost one year to decide on the 37 components of the policy framework.

AS: Yes, there was painstaking detail to choose every word in the framework, and several rounds of consultation. Another challenge was the fact that we couldn’t have face to face meetings – and so reaching consensus took even longer than what we expected.

PB: Do you know the 80:20 rule? 80% of the work was completed before I joined, but the final 20% took 90% of the time. And even now, some of the language may need to be tweaked, especially as companies are now adopting these policies and are looking to move into implementation.

BB: Was the framework designed to be a ‘do no harm framework’ covering the minimum requirements from companies, or was it meant to go above and beyond that?

AS: I would consider legality as the minimum for companies to be complying with, but the actions proposed in the policy framework take quite a bit of work and go well beyond that.

Rubber supply chains are very complex, and getting visibility on the ground can be daunting, but it isn’t impossible. And that’s what civil society players are stressing upon: the fact that you need to have transparency on the ground.

BB: And was that a point of contention during the discussions leading up to the policy framework?

AS: We did a lot of discussion around clauses 7.1 and 7.2, and how to deal with the fact that the majority of rubber comes from smallholders.

I think there is another piece to this puzzle – which is that the processors, who are going to be doing a majority of the work, want some assurance from the downstream, that they’re going to be supported financially and technically in doing that work.

PB: Each conversation had a watermark of a significant question: who is going to pay for externalities? While we don’t have answers to some of these questions even now, the policy framework as it stands serves as a good starting point in a continuously evolving, complex but very exciting process.

BB: Did either of you have any non-negotiables in the policy framework that you would have not compromised on?

AS: Ah, yes! The commitment to no deforestation and having a cut-off date was important, because without that you can never define what deforestation is. We spent a lot of time on these points. And then there are others, like the commitment to human rights and free, prior and informed consent (FPIC), which we would have insisted on – but we didn’t have to because they were included straight away.

That alignment always existed across the board, because we are all committed to the principles of GPSNR. Nobody was saying those parts of the framework shouldn’t be there, though how they were framed was debated at length. This is because that would directly inform the implementation.

PB: From my side, the one non-negotiable was to use the HCV and HCS approach as the only tool to implement the zero deforestation policy. It was globally agreed among the members, but we were very cautious about the words.

BB: What can companies that have adopted the policy framework do before the implementation guidance is developed?

AS: There are several companies that have been active in this space for years now. And they’ve been contributing to the various working groups in applying their on ground knowledge to the requirements and tools. Beyond that, doing everything they can to achieve supply chain transparency is critical to be able to prioritize areas for action and to make any eventual claims about rubber’s sustainability.  You can’t have sustainability unless you know the origin of your raw material.  Companies can also refer to the Accountability Framework’s operational guidance for support regarding how to put their policies into practice while GPSNR’s Implementation Guidance is being finalized. 

PB: They might know more than they think they do! When I start to write a sustainability report for a company, they don’t always have all the data or figures in one place. Most of the time, they have the information, but sometimes don’t know where to find it.

BB: If you had the opportunity to say something to members who may still be hesitant to comply with the policy framework, what would you say?

PB: I can understand fears around implementation and commitment to some components for members who are quite far from the field. But, we still have to find a commitment to reach the desired state. The policy is simply a part of the journey to sustainability, as are the challenges. We are not looking to blame anyone for non-compliance, but encourage intention to comply. So, just be fair, be honest, and do your best. And if you find some challenges in the implementation, bring them to us.

AS: The benefits of having a policy are numerous, including but not limited to: sending a signal internally and externally that the issues covered by the policy are important to the company and that resources and capacity will be dedicated to its implementation; providing clarity on a company’s goals and facilitating the roll-out of company commitments to suppliers upstream and buyers downstream; enabling the effective monitoring and measuring of progress; and supporting a company’s compliance with existing and emerging legislation on avoiding deforestation and upholding human and labor rights.

I think there is a misunderstanding that after a policy is adopted, companies have to be in full compliance with it from day one. That’s not a realistic expectation  for any company; first companies need to understand where they are at as a baseline and from there, they will need to demonstrate continuous improvement. As responsible GPSNR members, companies will have to submit their action plans that outline how they will implement the different parts of their policies. They will also track progress and show continuous improvement through submission of annual reporting to GPSNR.  The working group is currently developing the tools they’ll need to do this – the Implementation Guidance that’s designed to help orient companies on their sustainability journey, and the reporting requirements that are a key element of GPSNR’s assurance model.  We still have a lot of work to do to finalize these two bodies of work, but fortunately, the Policy Framework provides a solid foundation from which to develop them.    

In a complex supply chain historically burdened by social, economic and environmental inequality, the policy framework Pierre and Amy speak of serves as a guiding document for a hopeful future. As GPSNR members take this first step, even though the entire staircase isn’t fully visible just yet, their commitment towards transforming an entire supply chain is commendable.If you’re a GPSNR member looking for support around aligning with the policy framework, please reach out to us at info@gpsnr.org.

In driving forward the progress on the Theory of Change (ToC) and Desired State, the Chairs of the Strategy and Objectives Working Group are expected to lead discussions with the other Working Group Chairs. These discussions will focus on mapping the areas of work currently undertaken by the respective groups to the relevant sections of the ToC. Pulling together the detailed thinking within each group will enable the Working Group to flesh out the elements of each strategy and the linkage between each individual component. To package the ToC in a more user-friendly format, the Secretariat has developed a visual representation of the ToC, which gives a broad overview of the concept while allowing for a deeper dive into the details. The Working Group has reviewed the first draft of this document, and will be working with the Secretariat to finetune it. 

Following the initial survey that had gone out, consultant James Griffiths has started interviewing stakeholders on social risks priorities and mitigation solutions as part of the study on Human Rights and Labour Rights’ risk mapping in the global natural rubber value chain. 

The Equity sub-Group had their inaugural meeting this week. The members of the group agreed on the need to work with urgency and consider the approach of having a different work plan, one which would enable a move towards recommendations on a rapid basis. The importance of engaging governments was also highlighted in the discussion. The sub-Group will be meeting again next week to continue the conversation on equity.  

‘Policy Toolbox’ Working Group

The policy components and baseline reporting requirements are being circulated for comments among the various membership categories. The Producers, Processors and Traders had a teleconference organized by Socfin and Southland Global, and will also be collecting comments via email. The Tire Makers are submitting their inputs through an online survey and emails. The OEM members have also discussed the documents in a call and have consolidated their comments. Civil Society Organization members are engaged in discussions on these elements as well. The Working Group anticipates that it will be able to submit the deliverables to the Executive Committee for approval in May.

‘Capacity Building’ Working Group

In recognition of the need to prioritize an inclusive and pragmatic approach towards capacity building, the Working Group has decided to establish several regional sub-Working Groups, each of which will be responsible for developing country-specific capacity building objectives. The Working Group is exploring getting smallholders involved in some of these regional sub-Working Groups, which would be the first instance of smallholder participation at the working group level, and would be informative in the ongoing discussions on ways to integrate smallholders into the activities of GPSNR. The terms of reference for the regional sub-Working Groups are in the process of being finalised. 

The Working Group hopes to achieve greater alignment with the Theory of Change (ToC) developed by the Strategy and Objectives Working Group, through the establishment of ToCs at the working group and sub-working group level. This would allow each working group to contribute to the design of GPSNR’s ToC, with the aim to achieve the Desired State. Working groups can delve into more precise levels of identifying capacity building objectives and developing implementation plans to address the gaps in various target groups within a specific country.

‘Traceability and Transparency’ Working Group

After consulting with the Policy Toolbox Working Group on areas of risk, the finalized terms of reference for the two pilot proposals are being circulated for final feedback within the Traceability and Transparency Working Group.

The pilot study on satellite mapping and machine learning aims to make use of historical and current data and new technology to determine the risk of potential deforestation, along with other social and environmental risks that are the result of deforestation.

The traceability and transparency tool comparison study will assess, among others, the ability of the tool to identify risk and/or contribute to a risk assessment in the social, environmental and legal categories. 

The proposals will be submitted to the Executive Committee for approval in April. Moving forward, the Traceability and Transparency and Policy Toolbox Working Groups will work closely together on understanding risks in the natural rubber supply chain..