GPSNR Working Groups Update: June 2023

Share This Post

Strategy and Objectives Working Group: 

The Traceability pilot field trials for the Risk Subgroup, led by consortiums Agridence and Koltiva, are now in full swing. Agridence provided a midpoint update during the June Hybrid meetings, highlighting their progress thus far.

Looking ahead, the Risk Subgroup is actively strategizing the next steps for ASI’s deliverable on the Risk Assessment Framework. This includes conducting internal piloting and aligning the tool with GPSNR commissioned studies to identify any potential gaps.

In an effort to standardize country levels within the tool, the Risk Subgroup will be issuing a Request for Proposal (RFP) to engage consultants who can contribute their expertise. Furthermore, the Risk Subgroup is in the preliminary stages of discussions with the Basel Institution, exploring a potential collaboration to address corruption risks in the supply chain. 

The Assurance Model Task force will convene to receive updates on the alignment of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and the due diligence system, ensuring that progress is being made and objectives are being met. In order to create an Assurance Manual under the Members Progress Model, an RFP will be crafted and sent to consultants. This step aims to gather the necessary input and expertise to develop a comprehensive manual.

 

Smallholders Representation and Capacity Building (SCB) Working Group: 

The Smallholders Policy-Equivalent (SPE) Taskforce has successfully presented the final recommendations to the SCB WG, marking a significant milestone in their work. They are actively working towards obtaining endorsement from the SCB WG for their final recommendations as outlined in the report.

The HCSA-HCVN Field Trials have reached an important stage, with the preliminary final report being submitted for review and assessment. The HCSA-HCVN will soon submit the final report, marking the completion of this endeavor.

In an effort to promote knowledge sharing, the digital Knowledge Sharing Platform (KSP) Taskforce organised a meeting on 24th May 2023 for SCB WG members. The objective was to facilitate a better understanding of the KSP, and the service provider has already begun developing new features for the platform.

The Indonesia National Subgroup has taken the initiative to prepare quarterly progress reports for the GAP Coaching and Disease Fighting projects, providing updates to the SCB WG.

Meanwhile, the Thailand National Subgroup is currently in the process of evaluating proposals received for the Thailand GAP Coaching project. The deadline for proposal submissions is 30th June 2023.

The Agroforestry-Income Diversification Taskforce is working to finalize the schedule of workshops planned for 2023-2024.

Lastly, the SCB WG will continue to oversee all ongoing projects.

 

Policy Toolbox Working Group: 

In order to enhance the reporting process, input has been collected from members through a survey and stakeholder-specific meetings as part of the Year 1 Reporting Review process. The feedback received will play a crucial role in informing revisions to the Reporting Matrix and disclosure requirements for Years 2 and 3, as outlined in the Transparent Reporting Roadmap (TRR). Furthermore, discussions are underway to reach an agreement on the TRR for Year 2 reporting, with the Working Group currently finalizing updates received from the OEMs. To reflect the proposed changes to the reporting matrix, the Reporting Guidance will be updated accordingly, providing clear and comprehensive guidelines for reporting.

The Working Group has carefully selected consultant Petra Westerlaan to propose a quantitative orientation for the reporting matrix. This includes conducting a crosswalk analysis with other established reporting frameworks such as CDP Forest, GRI, and ZSL-SPOTT. The integration of quantification will not only facilitate data aggregation but also simplify the evaluation of annual progress. The consultant’s proposed revisions to the reporting framework will be evaluated and decided upon, and recommendations will be made to improve the reporting process and timelines.

In parallel, the Compliance Panel Terms of Reference (TOR) and operational guidance are being finalized based on the Assurance Model, ensuring a robust framework for ensuring compliance and accountability.

 

Shared Responsibility Working Group: 

During the face-to-face meeting, the Governance and Guiding principles were presented, highlighting their importance in shaping the future direction of GPSNR. Manufacturers are now required to seek internal approval regarding the Governance Framework and subsequently provide a final version for approval to the GPSNR Executive Committee (EC) and General Assembly.

The SR WG is actively engaged in defining an inclusive shared investment framework, encompassing various forms of contribution such as in-kind support, financial contributions, and external funding. The outcomes of discussions at the Manufacturers category level will play a crucial role in shaping this framework.

Collaborating with the Secretariat and other WGs, the SR WG is committed to revamping discussions on data sharing and value transfer, recognizing their significance in achieving our objectives. These discussions will seek to optimize the sharing of data and the value derived from it.

To provide clarity and transparency, the WG aims to define the value and benefits associated with each category within GPSNR, ensuring that all stakeholders are aware of the advantages and opportunities available.

Furthermore, the WG, in collaboration with the Capacity Building WG, is working on developing a protocol to filter and evaluate proposals based on the Equity definition and the stakeholders identified by the EC. This process will ensure fair and comprehensive evaluation of proposals.

Lastly, an open co-chair position is available, and volunteers are welcomed to contribute their expertise and leadership to drive the WG forward. If you are interested in taking on this role, please step forward and join us in this important endeavor.

By establishing effective governance, inclusive investment frameworks, and clear protocols, we are working towards a sustainable and equitable future for the natural rubber industry. Your participation and engagement are vital to our collective success.

More To Explore
Members

Seeing Through to a Solution: Traceability and Transparency Tools and Technology Studies (Members Version)

Deforestation, land grabbing, and human and labour rights violations have been associated with the production of natural rubber. In order to transform the global natural rubber supply chain into a fair, equitable and environmentally sound one, it is crucial that we work to reduce such social and environmental risks. This is by no means an easy feat with about 6 million smallholder farmers producing around 85% of the world’s natural rubber; the complexities of the supply chain make it difficult for buyers to ensure that sustainable practices are employed for rubber cultivation and processing. Recognizing the importance of enhancing traceability and transparency in the natural rubber supply chain to support the identification and mitigation of social and environmental risks, GPSNR established the Traceability and Transparency Working Group.

Over the past few months, the Working Group has commissioned two studies around traceability and transparency tools and technology. The reports were submitted by the consultants at the end of October 2020. The findings from each report are summarized below.

Spatial Data & Mapping Tools for Detecting Deforestation and Threats to HCVS Areas in Rubber Production Landscapes

Report developed by Zoological Society of London (ZSL)

This report reviews a variety of spatial mapping tools and approaches which may be employed by GPSNR and its members to address deforestation and degradation risk in rubber supply chains.

The key recommendations from this study are that GPSNR members should pool resources to collectively commission landscape-level HCV and HCS screening for key rubber-producing countries and these should be updated periodically. Spatial data maps from this process should be made publicly available to encourage cross-sectoral collaboration on tackling deforestation.

HCV/S datasets may then be integrated into satellite monitoring platforms and combined with near-real time monitoring of deforestation and forest degradation. This will allow accurate spatial analysis of the impacts of rubber production in key forested landscapes. GPSNR members may select different satellite monitoring tools or service providers, based on their own needs and budget. For upstream actors closer to the source, satellite monitoring may allow for preventative measures to be taken at the early stages of deforestation.

The full Executive Summary can be viewed here.

GPSNR members can read the entire report here.

Review of Transparency & Traceability Tools and Solutions

Report prepared by e-Audit Hong-Kong Ltd

This report presents options on supply chain transparency and/ or product traceability solutions that GPSNR may consider as well as recommendations to select the most suitable transparency/traceability solutions for the GPSNR initiative.

A range of solutions currently implemented in commodity industries similar to the natural rubber industry were reviewed and evaluated, resulting in the identification of several key elements that will need to be considered to select the most suitable and cost-efficient solution.

The report also considers three potential infrastructure options (centralized, hybrid and decentralized) that should be considered as they have profound implications on the range of supply chain transparency and product/batch traceability solution(s) that GPSNR may consider to adopt.

This report concludes that the technology currently available makes it possible for all GPSNR key requirements to be integrated into one single solution. However, such a centralized solution may be costly and cumbersome to implement. At this stage of development of the GPSNR initiative it is recommended that GPSNR starts implementing a more flexible hybrid solution, with a centralized infrastructure/ data hub focused on reporting and monitoring of clearly defined performance KPIs, that can be connected through APIs to existing field level risk assessment, risk mapping and traceability solutions currently implemented by GPSNR members.

The full Executive Summary can be viewed here.

GPSNR members can read the entire report here.

GPSNR Staff January 27, 2021
News

Amy Smith and Pierre Bois d’Enghien talk about creating a Policy Framework for sustainability and equity in natural rubber

‘’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.

GPSNR Staff September 29, 2021

© 2022 All rights reserved

Global Platform for Sustainable Natural Rubber

Scroll to Top