GPSNR Working Groups Update: March 2021

Share This Post


Strategy and Objectives Working Group

The S&O Working Group has received inputs to the platform Theory of Change from the Smallholders Representation, Capacity Building, and Traceability and Transparency Working Groups. A task team from the S&O Working Group will now work to synthesize these different contributions into a single document. This compiled Theory of Change template will then be developed into the platform Theory of Change through a workshop which will involve representatives from all the working groups.

The Equity Sub-Working Group completed a summary of the Living Income studies that the platform commissioned in 2021 and presented the summary through a webinar. The Equity Sub-Working Group will now work to develop recommendations on how GPSNR can address priority risks and boost equity in the value chain.

‘Policy Toolbox’ Working Group

The Policy Toolbox Working Group has selected a combined consultant team of Proforest and Are We There Yet to lead the development of the Implementation Guidance for GPSNR. The development is expected to be a consultative process that concludes with a set of draft guidance that will be ready by July 2021.

To facilitate consultation on the Implementation Guidance, the Working Group will set up category-specific focus groups that members are encouraged to join. The focus groups will meet twice to review the draft guidance and provide feedback and inputs to improve the document. Each focus group is only expected to meet twice and members are only required to spend a few hours before each meeting reviewing the draft documents. The focus groups will be set up in the following manner:

Focus Group 1
Growers
Traders of Raw Materials

Focus Group 2
Processors
Traders of Processed material

Focus Group 3
Tire makers and other manufacturers

Focus Group 4
End users (incl. car makers and other downstream stakeholders).

In line with the assessment of policy documents against the policy framework, the Secretariat has collated company policy documents that were submitted and will proceed to review the policy documents submitted for review. The Secretariat has received responses from all 29 ordinary member companies that were required to submit documents and will spend the next month assessing the submissions.

‘Capacity Building’ Working Group

The Capacity Building Working Group has created three separate task forces that will work on working group tasks. The first task force will focus on developing mechanisms to measure impacts of capacity building activities, the second task force will develop a strategy to attract and recognize GPSNR members’ funding of capacity building activities, and the final task force will develop systems to ensure that the national sub-groups tasked with implementing capacity building activities in each country remain aligned with the broader working group. In addition to the Good Agricultural Practices Task Force, the Working Group now has four Task Forces that will work to deliver on their tasks in the coming months.

‘Traceability and Transparency’ Working Group

The Traceability and Transparency Working Group will continue to meet in its sub-groups to develop recommendations on minimum benchmarks for traceability tools and data sharing in the platform. With the submission of the Working Group’s input to the Theory of Change, the Working Group is pleased to announce that its first sub-group has completed the assigned tasking and will no longer meet.

Smallholder Representation Working Group

The Smallholder Representation Working Group has now onboarded smallholders from Indonesia and Vietnam into the Working Group. The Working Group has also divided into two groups within the working group. The first sub-working group will work to develop a strategy to onboard smallholders from countries that are not represented in GPSNR yet. The second group will work to deepen engagement with smallholders who are already members of the platform and also develop strategies to improve representation among minority groups in countries that are already represented in GPSNR

More To Explore

News

Member Consultation on proposed GPSNR Policy Components and Baseline Reporting Requirements

Natural rubber faces a similar set of environmental, social and economic issues as other agricultural commodities such as palm oil, but the spotlight on sustainability has only been recently turned towards this key raw material, 70% of which goes into tire production. The launch of GPSNR marked a significant step towards developing sustainable standards for natural rubber, with member organizations making a commitment to 12 Sustainable Natural Rubber Principles. 

The Policy Toolbox Working Group was established to develop a guiding framework for GPSNR members to implement policies and practices that align with the 12 Principles. Two key documents, the Policy Components and Baseline Reporting Requirements, have emerged after a year of discussion and drafting. 

The Policy Components outline specific commitments that GPSNR company members should include in their sustainable natural rubber policies, while the  Baseline Reporting Requirements indicate qualitative and quantitative sustainability data to be reported to the Secretariat for the first year of reporting.

A members webinar was held on 16 June, where the Co-Chairs of the Policy Toolbox Working Group explained the purpose, process and next steps surrounding the two documents. 

Several members have volunteered to participate in an ongoing pilot testing of the Baseline Reporting Requirements. The goal of the pilot is to refine and finalize the Baseline Reporting Requirements based on company feedback.

The proposed Policy Components and Baseline Reporting Requirements are now open for member consultation until 3 July 2020.

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.

Scroll to Top