GPSNR Working Groups Update: August 2022

Share This Post

Strategy and Objectives Working Group

An important milestone of the month has been the recruitment of the Assurance Model taskforce, which will be working through the September 2022 hybrid meetings to finalise the design of the GPSNR Assurance Model. Additionally, the risk subgroup is looking for a consultant to review and revise the current Risk Analysis document. Should you know anyone fit for the job, the RFP is available here.

Smallholder Representation Working Group

In August 2022, the smallholder representation working group organised an onboarding workshop for 24 smallholders in Malaysia.. They are now preparing for the first round of focus group discussions on the smallholder policy equivalent, and will continue preparing for GPSNR-HCSA Smallholder Toolkit Field Trials as well as the Pilot Agroforestry Workshops in Indonesia and Cambodia.

Policy Toolbox Working Group

This working group has developed and finalise the template for upstream questionnaires to support the reporting of Manufacturers and End Users. They are working to finalise language for 7.1 and 7.2 of the Implementation Guidance, and to finalise the Compliance Panel Guidance. On the Reporting, the WG is preparing the ground for Year 1 Reporting Review and developing the Transparent Reporting Roadmap for Years 2 and 3. They will also liaise with the smallholder representation working group on the smallholder policy equivalent as it continues to develop.

Capacity Building Working Group

This working group has released an RFP for the development of the Knowledge Sharing Platform digital  application, while also completing a report by the Knowledge Sharing Platform Task Force on digital needs assessment for smallholders. . They are also busy in continuing to advance Capacity Building plans for Indonesia, Thailand, Ivory Coast, having advanced substantially on disease fighting and GAP coaching in Indonesia.

Shared Responsibility Working Group

The working group has completed call for volunteers for different pillars: Shared Investment; Value Transfer and Target Setting; Knowledge and Data Sharing. They will be creating subgroups for each pillar, and are calling for volunteers to co-chair each subgroup so do share your interest! 

More To Explore

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 supports the inclusion of smallholder farmers in EU natural rubber supply chains, and affirms their customary and native land use rights

Smallholder farmers are key stakeholders in natural rubber supply chains accounting for 85% of global supply, and enabling the resilience and sustainability of the value chain. However, smallholder farmers are the most vulnerable to major changes in the economic and regulatory landscape. Their vulnerability is heightened by the fact that many smallholders lack formal land documentation. Fortunately, many rubber producing countries are progressively implementing land tenure formalization programmes for smallholders but they undoubtedly will take significant amounts of time to fully implement.

The Global Platform for Sustainable Natural Rubber (GPSNR) supports the intent and implementation of the EU Regulation on Deforestation-free products (EUDR), and considers it a bold and necessary step to addressing deforestation, human rights violations, and illegality in commodity production, including natural rubber. However, it is key that its implementation ensures the continued inclusion and support of smallholders in EU supply chains.

GPSNR includes more than 200 smallholder farmers from 12 countries in its membership and has heard their concerns regarding the potential unintended consequences of the law.

As reflected in its Policy Framework, GPSNR is committed to recognise and protect the customary, traditional and communal land tenure and use rights of Indigenous People and local communities (IPLC), including smallholder farmers who have such rights, even in cases where they are not formalised yet in the legal system of the country in which they reside.

In view of supporting the inclusion of smallholders in EU supply chains, while ensuring due diligence against illegality, the GPSNR requests the European Commission provide additional EUDR guidance to competent national authorities regarding how to effectively check that operators and traders have conducted sufficient due diligence to determine the legality of commodities falling within the scope of the Regulation considering the mosaic of native and customary land rights arrangements found on smallholder farms around the world. Examples of how this could be achieved might include: 

  •  The creation of a shared information system amongst competent national authorities to assess the practical state of producing countries’ efforts to document and formalize recognition of customary land tenure arrangements for smallholder farmers;

     

  • Work with producer country governments to identify prevalence of customary tenure.

     

  • Providing practical guidance to EU competent authorities and regulated companies on:

     

    o How to robustly assess and map the customary land title claims in each country to ensure smallholders are not cut out of supply chains before formal land registries are created and protect the right to self-determination of IPLCs who do not wish to engage in land title formalisation even if it becomes available. 

    o In countries where formalization of land tenure is still under development, prioritize assessment of legality to establish that commodities placed on the market do not originate from land that has been occupied or acquired in violation of national land laws or customary tenure arrangements (i.e., through a “land grab”); through dispossession or abuse of the rights of vulnerable members of a population by elites; or which is located within prohibited areas such as national parks, wildlife reserves, or other protected areas, or from other restricted use areas.

    o Specifics on the types of documentation to collect to substantiate the rights (formal or customary) of smallholder farmers to use land parcels for the production of the relevant commodity. This could include documentation recognized by local authorities, or other evidence of locally recognized land tenure, and evidence that key regulatory bodies in producing countries have indicated general acceptance that smallholder farmers cultivating land under customary and/or communal land tenure arrangements may legally produce and sell rubber (this may be explicit – e.g., through a license – or implicit, e.g. through the provision of official extension support, credit schemes, or marketing assistance to registered smallholders);

We call the Commission and other EU and national institutions for a joint effort to enable smallholder farmer organizations to meet EUDR compliance; and proactively work with the producing countries to address potentially conflicting national laws, issues of inadequate law enforcement and corruption, and provide support to producing countries to tackle these issues and empower smallholders to maintain access to EU markets. GPSNR commits to support just transitions to secure forms of land tenure. We will collaborate with members to enhance capacity in land tenure and support programs facilitating smallholders’ access to formal land documentation where applicable.

Finally, we wish to clarify that the above proposals are in no way intended to avoid compliance by GPSNR operators and traders purchasing and selling natural rubber products covered under the scope of the Regulation. Rather, they are designed to support and enhance the position of the six million smallholders in global rubber supply chains to help realize the potential of the law, whilst themselves benefiting from it. These proposals are supported by GPSNR’s smallholder and civil society representatives, alongside industry members.

The GPSNR Executive Committee has sent this letter to the European Commission for further deliberation. 

Translate »
Scroll to Top