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

Share This Post

‘’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.

More To Explore

Members

GPSNR Working Groups Update: January 2021 (Members Version)

Strategy and Objectives Working Group

In our December update, we reported that the Working Group would be conducting interviews with the shortlisted candidates who had responded to the Request for Proposal for a study on environmental impacts, and risks, in the natural rubber value chain. The Working Group has since completed their interviews and will soon be making a decision on who to award the contract to.

The refinement of GPSNR’s Theory of Change is also underway, with a planning call having taken place on Monday this week. The call involved nominated representatives  from across all GPSNR’s Working Groups, working to chart the plan for a collaborative effort to refine the Platform’s Theory of Change.

In other news, several Thai smallholders have been onboarded into the Working Group and, after an introductory call with the Co-Chairs,  are now participating in the Working Group calls.

As the Equity Sub-Group prepares to present the living income studies to GPSNR members, more details will be conveyed to members nearer the date. 

‘Policy Toolbox’ Working Group

Following the approval of the GPSNR Policy Framework, the Policy Toolbox Working Group will develop Implementation Guidance and future Reporting Requirements as they pertain to the specific policy components in the framework.  

In order to achieve this, a Request for Proposal (RFP) has been posted for a fixed term consultancy to facilitate the development of the Implementation Guidance and Reporting Requirements for each of the three stakeholder categories: natural rubber producers/processors and traders, tire makers and other natural rubber product manufacturers, and auto makers and other end users.  GPSNR members are invited to circulate the RFP to any relevant contacts who might be interested in submitting proposals for this work. The deadline for submission of proposals is 5 February 2021.

The Implementation Guidance and Reporting Requirements will vary depending on where a member company sits within the natural rubber supply chain. As such, GPSNR will invite the creation of category focus groups to enable broader participation of members from the three stakeholder categories (although focus groups can also include members from other stakeholder categories). The details on recruitment for these focus groups will be announced sometime next month.

Apart from facilitating the development of category-specific Implementation Guidance by reviewing guidance and requirements from other initiatives, the consultant will also facilitate discussion sessions with the focus groups to finalize the implementation guidance for each stakeholder category.

‘Capacity Building’ Working Group

In 2020, the Working Group proposed national capacity building strategies for four countries as a starting point. Following the Executive Committee’s endorsement of the strategies, the Working Group is embarking on the next step of putting these plans into action on-the-ground. The Working Group is looking for interested members to form National Sub-Groups mandated to oversee, guide and implement the strategies. The Working Group will conduct a webinar on 17 February to share the strategies with GPSNR members. Check out our article, ‘From Strategy to Implementation: Next Steps for Capacity Building’ for more on this story.

‘Traceability and Transparency’ Working Group

The two studies around traceability and transparency tools and technology commissioned in 2020 by the Working Group are ready to be shared with GPSNR members. Read our article, ‘Seeing Through to a Solution: Traceability and Transparency Tools and Technology Studies’ for more on this topic.

Smallholder Representation Working Group

The Working Group’s revised Terms of Reference (ToR) was approved by the Executive Committee during its monthly call in January. Under the revised ToR, the Smallholder Representation Working Group has identified two main objectives for its work moving forward: the first, to support the creation of an active smallholder community within GPSNR and the second, to extend the on-boarding of smallholders from rubber producing countries. The Working Group will be planning its activities for the year head, ensuring that they support and contribute towards achieving these new objectives. 

As a start, the Working Group will be looking to onboard smallholder members into the group, as well as facilitate the organization of the next Smallholder Category Call.

News

Addressing the Impact of COVID-19 on Natural Rubber Smallholders

Many are calling these “unprecedented times”, and undeniably so. The COVID-19 pandemic has brought the world many firsts – from the closing of international borders to country-wide lockdowns and quarantines, and extreme social distancing measures applied to everyday activities such as exercising and grocery shopping. In this sense, many of the impacts of COVID-19 have been unprecedented. 

‘Unprecedented’, however, does not necessarily translate into ‘unexpected’. This is especially true for a significant link of the natural rubber value chain: the millions of smallholders and farm workers that supply the world with around 85% of its natural rubber. These smallholders, seasonal workers and their families are some of the most vulnerable people within the natural rubber sector, living in poverty and without adequate access to social services. Poor diversification of farmers’ incomes means that farmers are solely dependent on tapping rubber trees to make a living. When a pandemic occurs and global demand for natural rubber falls, it comes as no surprise that smallholders are the hardest hit. 

The Equity sub-Working Group was formed to look into the issue of equity in the natural rubber value chain and to define what GPSNR’s role will be in promoting equity along the supply chain. It is chaired by Robert Meyer (Halcyon Agri) and co-chaired by Hendrike Braun-Issa (GIZ). The sub-Group has, in its first few calls, recognized the importance of addressing the impact that COVID-19 has on the supply chain, in particular the natural rubber smallholders. In view of this, discussions have been centered around producing a set of short-term recommendations to counter the impact of the COVID-19 crisis. These recommendations are particularly aimed at supporting small-scale natural rubber farmers and their families.

The International Rubber Study Group (IRSG), represented by Secretary-General Salvatore Pinizzotto, is also participating in the sub-Group discussions to provide advice in the area of cooperation with Governments. 

Along with the short-term recommendations, the sub-Group is also looking at long-term efforts to address the underlying systemic issues, and are carrying out a study to inform the Platform on the subjects of Living Wage and Living Income.

Improving the capacity and livelihoods of smallholders is just one of the strategies undertaken by GPSNR. It is equally important for the other players in the industry to advance GPSNR’s vision of a sustainable natural rubber value chain. The Policy Toolbox Working Group continues to finalize the proposed member policy requirements and reporting requirements, with consultation from all member categories. Meanwhile, the Traceability and Transparency Working Group is focused on acquiring a better understanding of tools to achieve greater traceability and transparency within supply chains. Both groups will be aligning on key issues such as supply chain risk assessment.

Scroll to Top