Fairtrade NAPP Impact Assessment 2015

Network of Asia and Pacific Producers (NAPP)

3307, Lippo Centre, 89 Queensway, Hong Kong

273, Thomson Road, #04-01, Novena Gardens, Singapore- 307644

Evaluating 2015: The Case for ImpactAyan A Banerjee | CEO Harveen Kour | MEL Manager

AGENDACross cutting across slides | Impact Evaluation; Strategic Intent

Impact Assessment

Learning

Products and Markets

Efficiency

Scope of Activities

Scope

Geographical

ScopeBudget Constraints

Growth

Programmes

Targetted Projects

• The financial figures and participation data is based on NAPP Finance Information

• All MEL based producer data is for external communication

• All ECERT based producer data is for internal insights

• While FLO IDs are self explanatory, for the purpose of this presentation a PO is a producer group which may

have multiple FLO IDs

• All Premium & Farmers Workers data is based on MEL data i.e. as per audits (cut-off period is 30, April 2015)

• For some specific producer organizations, since the audit did not happen this year, last year figures have been

taken for no. of farmers & workers, premium, production, sales etc.

3

PRELUDE AND CAVEATSKey Points to Note

IMPACT ASSESSMENT ADVISORYExecutive Summary

Given resource constraints, NAPP needs to:

• Create concentric circles of services priorities; or,

• Leverage additional resources, revise revenue model and contribution of members

• Maximising development change from a Social Returns on Investment (SROI), framework developed

Align Fairtrade with NAPP (Tier 2 products; premium, sales and markets, and basic financing for NAPP towards producer

support)

In NAPP subsidizing/ sponsoring trade-fairs participation, we found no concrete evidence that it is creating impact

[demonstrated access to markets leading to premiums]

• NAPP needs to develop, adapt and implement SROI in decision on operating plans

STANDARD OPERATING PRINCIPLES & PROCEDURES: Client-centric | Lean | MEL Integrated

FOCUS IMPACT ON THE CUSTOMERS

Customer Development

Lean OperationsBootstrapping

THROUGH CONSTANT EVOLVING, LEARNING PROCESSES

“Lean Operations” represents a synthesis of

Customer Development, and Lean practices.

Articulate Problem, Formulate Tenable

Hypothesis

Demo: Pilot / Proof-of-concept / Build Minimal

Viable Product

Validate Solution: Evaluate Qualitatively, Verify Quantitatively

Learn

LEARNING: INFLUENCING THE 2016 OPERATING PLANEmbedding in the DNA of the organization

(The marginal farmer, the worker, the consumer!)

“Customer Development” will be used

to describe the parallel process of

building a continuous feedback loop

with customers throughout the

product/service development cycle.

“Bootstrapping” in our common context will be understood

as a collection of techniques used to minimize the amount

of external resources required – financial and non-financial.

This would be a step towards sustainability.

LEARNING: INFLUENCING THE 2016 OPERATING PLANExecutive Summary

• What are the proposed changes from 2015?

• What does the 2015 analysis mean for 2016 and beyond?

1. Efficiency

2. Value for Money

3. Impact

6

Country Rankings

Ranking By No. Of Producer

Organizations

By No. of Farmers &

Workers

By FT Premium

Receipts

1 India India India

2 Sri Lanka Indonesia Indonesia

3 Thailand Sri Lanka Fiji

4 Indonesia Timor Leste Vietnam

5 Vietnam Fiji China

6 China Pakistan Sri Lanka

Take-away:

• Why is Premium ranking important?

• What does this mean for:

• NAPP Governance?

• Representative participation in events?

• Service Delivery and Programmes?

• Impact Assessment

• Budgetary allocation

• Ranking can also be done on

• Gender balance

• Climate Change adaptation (needs)

• Premium Utilization – impact and org. development 7

NAPP PROFILEPOs by type

8

Source: MEL Data 2014

NAPP PROFILEPOs by type

9

45 49 54 54

105117

128138

22

19

2118

0

50

100

150

200

250

2012 2013 2014 2015

Change in Producer Organizations by Type- CAGR with 2012 as Base Year

HL SPO CP

TOTAL

172

TOTAL

185

TOTAL

203

TOTAL

210

Take-away:

• CAGR with 2012 as base year

comparison between CAGR 2015 &

CAGR 2014 shows that:

o Overall CAGR reduced to 7% in 2015

from 9% in 2014.

o CP CAGR reduced to -6% in 2015 from

-2% in 2014

o HL CAGR reduced to 6% in 2015

compared to10% in 2014

- Does this reflect the stagnancy in the tea

sector?

o SPO CAGR remained stable at 10%

Source: ECERT

NAPP PROFILE POs by type

10

Take-away:

• If we include all multi-estates for HL, then the number of SPOs and number of these

estates almost equalizes

• How does this link to global 2016-2020 strategy?

• Where are the workers in the strategy?

• Do we have 210 or 304 producers? How would we look at this from producer

support point of view and from market support point of view?

26%

66%

8%

Percentage Share of Producer Organizations

HL SPO CP

49%

45%

6%

Percentage Share of Producer Organizations 2015 according to multi-estates

HL (including multi-estates) SPO CP

54

138

18

210

148 138

18

304

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

HL SPO CP Total

No. of Orgs as per FLO IDs in comparison to No. of Orgs including multi-estates

No. of FLO IDs No. of Orgs including multi-estates

Source: ECERT

Source: ECERT

Source: ECERT

Since the multi-estates are only in India

& Sri Lanka, when we take them into

account:

• India’s HL sector increases from 33

organizations to 103 estates

• Sri Lanka’s HL sector increases from

13 organizations to 37 estates

NAPP PROFILE The NAPP Map

11

85

2321

1917

14

8

3 3 3 3 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 00

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2012 2013 2014 2015

NAPP PROFILEPOs by Countries

12

Source: ECERT

Take-away:

• Countries that have grown in the last 3 years are:

- India

- Sri Lanka

- Thailand

• Should our programmes be focussed in countries where the

growth is or where the producer organizations are not

growing?

• Should this data be looked at in comparison to FT sales and

FT premium?

• What does this data mean for the countries that are not

growing or have low absolute numbers of producer

organizations?

• What are the kind of push mechanisms required for other

countries? Resources and/or markets?

FAIRTRADE GEOGRAPHICAL SCOPE FOR ASIA PACIFICCentral Asia & Western Asia

Countries No. of FLO

IDs

Products/Potential Products

Afghanistan 0 Nuts, Dry fruits

Iran 1 Herbs, herbal teas & spices, Saffron, Dry-fruits, Nuts

Kazakhstan 0 Cotton, Dry fruits

Kyrgyzstan 2 Seed Cotton, Dry fruits, Nuts, Vegetables (incl. pulses & potatoes)

Tajikistan 3 Seed Cotton, Dry fruits, Nuts

Turkmenistan 0 Seed Cotton, Grapes, Raisins

Uzbekistan 3 Fresh fruits, Dry fruits, Seed Cotton, Herbs, herbal teas & spices, Vegetables incl. Pulses

& Potatoes

Armenia 0 Dry fruits, Nuts, Wines

Azerbaijan 0 Fresh fruits, Herbs, Potatoes

Georgia 0 Dry fruits, Vegetables, Wines

13

FAIRTRADE GEOGRAPHICAL SCOPE FOR ASIA PACIFICSouth Asia

14

Take-away:

• In 2016, we will leverage project on textiles perk up presence in

Bangladesh

• In 2016, we will evaluate producers and entry into Bhutan

• In 2016, we will leverage partnerships to look into Nepal and Myanmar


IDs


Bangladesh 0 Textile, Rice, Seed Cotton, Sugar

Bhutan 0 Processed fruits

India 85 Herbs, herbal teas & spices, Seed Cotton, Tea, Cocoa, Coffee, Fresh fruit, Oilseeds &

Oleaginous fruit, Dried Fruit, Rice, Nuts, Vegetables (incl. pulses & potatoes)

Maldives 0 Marine

Myanmar 0 Rice, Sugarcane

Nepal 1 Tea

Pakistan 8 Sports-balls, Seed Cotton, Rice

Sri Lanka 23 Tea, Banana, Cocoa, Fresh fruit, Nuts, Flowers & Plants, Oilseeds & Oleaginous fruit,

Herbs, herbal teas & spices, Rice

FAIRTRADE GEOGRAPHICAL SCOPE FOR ASIA PACIFICSouth East Asia

15

Take-away:

• Indonesia is an important country for coffee in terms of premium receipts as well.

However, what is the scope for other products there?

• Can rice and textiles both perk up Cambodia?


IDs


Cambodia 0 Rice, Textiles

China 14 Nuts, Oilseeds & Oleaginous fruit, Vegetables (incl. pulses & potatoes), Tea, Honey,

Coffee, Herbs, herbal teas & spices

Indonesia 19 Coffee

North Korea 0

Laos 1 Coffee

Malaysia 0 Coconut, Rubber, Palm

Mongolia 0 Gold, Cashmere/textile

Philippines 3 Cane sugar, Oilseeds & Oleaginous fruit

FAIRTRADE GEOGRAPHICAL SCOPE FOR ASIA PACIFICPacific

16

Cook Islands, Solomon Islands, Marshall Islands, Walis & Fatuna Islands, Palau, Micronesia, Kiribati, Nauru, Niue, Tokelau, Tuvalu,

Vanuatu – not covered by Fairtrade and NAPP


IDs


Fiji 3 Cane sugar

Papua New

Guinea

3 Coffee

Samoa 1 Oilseeds & Oleaginous fruit

Tonga 1 Herbs, herbal teas & spices, Oilseeds & Oleaginous fruit

1,100 1,600 1,000 0 0 0 1,100 1,600 1,000

59,500 62,400 62,500

100 0 0

59,600 62,400 62,500

76,700 74,400 80,600

99,400 103,400 104,000

176,100 177,800 184,60019,200 19,100

19,700

0 0 0

19,200 19,10019,700

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

2012 2013 2014 2012 2013 2014 2012 2013 2014

Central and Western Asia South-East & East Asia South Asia Pacific

NUMBERS OF FARMERS AND WORKERSFarmers and Workers

17

Farmers in Small Producer Organizations Workers in Hired Labour Plantations Total Farmers& Workers

Source: MEL Data 2014Note: No. of farmers and workers in SPOs includes CP

Farmers61%

Workers39%

NUMBERS OF FARMERS AND WORKERS3-year Trend Analysis reveals a flat curve

18Source: MEL Data 2014

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

180000

2012 2013 2014

SPO Farmers

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

2012 2013 2014

HL Workers

1100 1600 1000

59600 62400 62500

176100 177800 184600

19200 19100 19700

256000 260900 267800

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

2012 2013 2014

Total Farmers & Workers

Central and Western Asia South-East & East Asia

South Asia Pacific

ASIA PACIFIC TOTALTake-away:

• 2012 as base year, growth (CAGR) :

• SPO Farmers: 2% (most of this growth is concentrated in South Asia

followed by Pacific)

• HL Workers: 2% (most of this growth is concentrated in South Asia)

• Average: 2% (most of the growth is concentrated in South Asia)

• Which regions should be focussed: Growing vs not

growing?

• While number of HL estates when take into account multi-

estates are almost equivalent to SPOs, farmers form 61% of

total farmers & workers; whereas workers form only 39%

of total farmers & workers

NUMBERS OF FARMERS AND WORKERSIn relation to POs across regions

19

Source: MEL Data 2014Source: ECERT

Kyrgyzstan1%

Fiji1%

Papua New Guinea1%

Philippines1%

Tajikist…

Uzbekistan1%Pakistan

4%

China7%

Vietnam8%

Indonesia9%

Thailand10%

Sri Lanka11%

India40%

Producer Organizations by Country

China1%

Lao1%

Papua New Guinea1%

Thailand2%

Pakistan5%

Fiji6%

Timor Leste8%

Sri Lanka9%

Indonesia11%

India55%

Farmers & Workers by Country

GENDER BALANCEAsia Pacific I

20

72%

28%

Farmers & Workers by Gender

Men Women

90%

10%

Farmers in Fairtrade by Gender

Men Women

45%

55%

Workers in Fairtrade by Gender

Men Women

Overall 28% of farmers & workers are women

• 55% of the workers are women (HL setups)

• 10% of the farmers are women (SPO, CP setups)

• But what women voice & representation?

• How can we strengthen that? What should be our

impact parameters?

Take-away:

• Are only 10% of women engaged in farming?

• What are the further areas to explore in regards to women

participation in farming and women as workers?

• The fact that there is a high percentage of women workers in

plantations, does that mean there is no need for gender

programme there?


21

GENDER BALANCEGlobal comparison in Fairtrade

Take-away:

• While Fairtrade Asia Pacific

has the highest percentage of

women workers in the world, it

also has the lowest

percentage of women farmers

• What lessons can be learnt

from Africa & Latin America?

• What can be the impact of

“programmes” and what

should be the proposed

outcomes on voice and

representation of farmers /

workers, given that the C-

Suite in Corporate America,

Fortune 100 Companies has

<20% women*!

*Source: McKinsey Research


3,471 15,676

147,588

28,470 56 598 1,856 171 12,223 3,944 737 39 24,440 5,277 21,558 401 1,088

267,593

10%

15%

33%

12%

0%

36%

52%

28%

7%

46%

18%

49%

24%

8%

42%

12%

28%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

Number of Individual Farmers & Workers Percentage of Women

GENDER BALANCEAsia Pacific II

22

Note: Farmers & Workers data for Tonga & Tajikistan is unavailable.

Women farmers & workers data for Laos is unavailable.


Take-away:

For programme impact and delivery,

percentage of women participation

cannot be looked at in isolation.

Consider the number of producer

organizations it represents. Look at

the disaggregated figures for farmers

& workers

Nepal: 52% women HL workers but only 1 PO. Sri Lanka: 49% women, only

24% farmers and 54% workers. Philippines: 46% women farmers.

Uzbekistan: 42% women farmers (3 producer organizations) Kyrgyzstan:

35% women farmers (2 producer organizations). India: 33% women, only 7%

are farmers, 56% are workers. Pakistan: 28% women; only 15% farmers,

45% are workers

GENDER BALANCE Comparative Analysis

23

Take-away:

• Where should our gender programmes be

focussed? Should we focus work on increasing

women membership in SPOs?

• How should we differentiate & make relevant

the gender programmes in HL setups and that

in SPOs?

• Which regions / countries should we prioritize?

Gender beyond numbers – understanding

gravity of local situation, culture and likelihood

of impact given marginal investments. Cause

of concern with Indonesia, Vietnam, Timor

Leste as they represent high percentage of

farmers and workers, POs and premium

receipts.

Potential Intervention for Impact for creating Gender Balance

Country Number of Women Total Percentage Ranking*

Iran 0 56 0% 16

Papua New Guinea 287 3944 7% 15

India (farmers) 4674 69527 7% 14

Timor Leste 1725 21588 8% 13

China 338 3471 10% 12

Vietnam 127 1088 12% 11

Indonesia 3434 28470 12% 11

Pakistan (farmers) 2445 5389 15% 10

Fiji 2421 15675 15% 10

* 16 countries; data not available for 4

24

FAIRTRADE PREMIUM Asia Pacific Overview

Take-away:

• The reported Fairtrade Premium revenues to producers in Asia Pacific grew marginally by only 2.7% from 2013 levels i.e. from

10.5 million to 10.8 million Euros . The growth was marginal within all producer set ups in Asia Pacific. In contrast, the average

global premium receipts have grown by 13% from 2013 levels i.e. from 95 million Euros (approx.). Obviously, not equally accruing

to 1.5 million farmers and workers to 108 million Euros (approx.) accruing to 1.6 million farmers and workers.


• FT premium per producer organization in Asia Pacific: 57,830 Euros p.a.

• FT Premium per farmer/worker is 40.41 Euros p.a. FT premium per worker is 15 Euros and FT premium per

farmer is 56 Euros!! With marginal increase in FT premium for Asia Pacific, is there merit in expansion of producer

organizations?

25

FAIRTRADE PREMIUMComparision with NAPP

Take-away:

• Africa and the Middle East represents the highest % of the FT farmers and workers but receives only 22% of the FT premium

• Latin America & the Caribbean represents only 20% of the farmers and workers and receives the highest % of the FT premium

• What are the reasons for higher sales from Latin America? What are the influencing factors?

• Is it because of quality? Is it because of demand of specific FT products? Is it how FT is branded in the markets?

• What can our producers learn from their experience? What are the best practices?

• Is there scope for any South-South engagements that can prove beneficial for our producers in the long run?

LATIN AMERICA & THE CARRIBBEANAFRICA & THE MIDDLE EAST


26

GLOBAL COMPARISONFairtrade premium

• Asia Pacific farmers have the highest FT Premium per farmer

as compared to its counterparts in Africa and Latin America

• However, Asia Pacific workers have the lowest FT Premium per

worker compared to its counterparts. The Pacific, Indonesian,

Chinese and Vietnam have higher FT premium per farmer/worker

than rest of Asia Pacific

FT PREMIUM

PER YEAR

FT Premium Per

Farmer/Worker

FT Premium

Per Farmer

FT Premium

Per Worker

Asia Pacific 40.41 56 15

Africa and the

Middle East

22 17 80

Latin America &

The Caribbean

219 17 555


The global average does not capture the extreme differences in impact and FT Premium per

farmer and FT Premium per workers?

How will the 2016-2020 Strategy create greater Fairtrade Impact and reduce disparity?

FAIRTRADE PREMIUM DISTRIBUTIONBy product for Asia pacific

Take-away:

• Coffee still forms the highest share of the Fairtrade

premium revenues {marginally reduced from 45% in 2012-

2013 to 41% in 2013-2014}

• Share of cane sugar & tea remained stable at 23% and

21% respectively. How will this change in 2017 esp. for

Fijian producers?

• Fairtrade cotton marginal increase in premium revenues

from 5% to 8%. What is the impact that FSP will make?

• The choice of three products – Coffee, Cocoa and Banalan

and not a strategy for Tier 2 (which is Tier 1 for Asia) - how

does one create alignment?

• How do these statistics relate to Fairtrade 2016-2020

strategy?

• What does this mean for budgets? Investments?

• What does this mean for Impact Evaluations?

• Which are the products where we can foresee growth and

demand?

27


FAIRTRADE PREMIUM DISTRIBUTIONBy product

28


Take-away:

• Coffee, Banana, Cocoa receive the highest premium share

globally.

• How does this relate to FT 2016-2020 strategy?

• What does this mean for Asia Pacific in respect to pushing

these Tier 1 products?

• What does this mean for Asia Pacific in respect to role of

markets for tier II products which are core for NAPP like

tea, sugar, cotton?

FAIRTRADE PREMIUM DISTRIBUTION Premium usage BY SPOs


Take-away:

• More than 50% of the investments in Producer

Organizations is in HR & admin Is this a

cause of concern? How can FT influence this

in any way?

• Education and Health form bulk of Premium

use, followed by being used for community

infrastructure.

• Agricultural tools and inputs, implementation of

farm best practices form more than 50% of the

services rendered to farmer members from FT

premium.

• Are there any areas that need a push?

Investment in producer organization

s48%

Other2%

Services to communitie

s21%

Services to farmer memb…

Facilities & infrastructure

44%HR & admin

53%

Training & capacity of board committees

3%

Investment in Producer Organizations

Community infrastructure

10%

Education33%

Environment3%

Gender equality0%

Health25%

Other24%

Socio-Economic

5%

Service to Communities

Credit & finance4%

Education 1%

Farmer training in agri & business practices

8%

Health3%

Implementation of farm best practices

21%

Other15%

Payments to members

17%

Agricultural tools & inputs

30%

Support for hired workers

on farms1%

Service to Farmer Members


Other2%

Services for workers & their

families38%

Services to communities

57%

Training & empowerment

of workers3%

Education12% Finance &

credit1%

Health10%

Investment in worker housing

20%

Other54%

Payments 3%

Services for Workers & their Families

Community infrastructure

48%

Education10%

Environment0%

Gender equality

0%

Health 31%

Socio-economic services

11%

Services to Communities

Joint Body & committee

running costs89%

Support for workers

organizations9%

Trainings for workers

2%

Training & Empowerment of Workers

Take-away:

• Majority of the premium has been used for

services to communities followed by services for

workers & their families

• Community infrastructure receives highest

percentage investment in terms of services to

communities

• In terms of services for workers & their families it

is not clear what ‘Other’ stands for as more than

50% of the premium used for that, followed by

investments in worker housing and education

• Training and empowerment of workers seems

synonymous with training of Joint Body

Committee running costs

• What are the issues in this mode of premium use?

FAIRTRADE PREMIUM DISTRIBUTION Premium usage By HL setups

FAIRTRADE PREMIUM DISTRIBUTIONProducts premium distribution among countries

31

Producer Organizations as per premium receipts:

FLO ID Producer organization name Country

3499 Tunas Indah Coffee Farmers Cooperative Indonesia

5416 Koperasi Baitul Qiradh Baburrayyan (KBQB) Indonesia

6589 Permata Gayo Cooperative Indonesia

930 Cooperativa Café Timor - CCT Timor-Leste

2897

Highland Organic Agriculture Cooperative -

HOAC Papua New Guinea

19646

Aso. des Groupements de Prod de Café du

Plateau des Bolovens Laos

27501

KOPERASI PEDAGANG KOPI (KOPEPI)

KETIARA Indonesia

18296 KSU Arinagata Indonesia

18722 KSU Adil Wiladah Mabrur Indonesia

21093 Cudliemnong Fair Agriculture Cooperative Vietnam

18009 Koperasi Kopi Gayo Organic Indonesia

21094 Eakiet Fair Agriculture Service Cooperative Vietnam

21473

To Hop Tac San Xuat Ca Phe Sach Vi Suc

Khoe Cong Dong Vietnam

28651 Thuan An Fairtrade Agricultural Co-operative Vietnam

Note: Only producer organizations earning above 100 Thousand Euros


2,755,581, 69%

568,962, 14%

337,342, 9%

211,149, 5%

78,864, 2% 39,531, 1%

Coffee Premium Distribution

Indonesia Timor Leste Papua New Guinea Lao India Thailand


32


25351Labasa Cane Producers Association Fiji

28108Lautoka Cane Producers Association Fiji

28109Rarawai & Penang Cane Producers Association Fiji

23805Kadrolli Primary Agriculture Credit Co-operative Bank Ltd. India

23894

Devarshigihalli Primary Agriculture Credit Co-operative

Sangha Niyamit India

29041

Dama Farm Workers Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries

Association Philippines

1482Negros Organic and Fairtrade Association Philippines

29161Nakalang Padilla Workers Association Philippines

29155

ASOSASYON SANG MAMUMUGON SANG NOLAN (

AMANO) Philippines

27787

Primary Agriculture Credit Co-operative Sangha Niyamit,

Neginahal India

27788

Arvatagi Primary Agriculture Credit Co-operative Sangha

Niyamit India

27789Primary Agriculture Credit Co-operative Society Niyamit India

26921Pranburi Fairtrade Sugar Cane Group Thailand

27790


New Kadrolli India

27791


Itagi India




2,192,551, 89%

190,338, 8%

65,890, 3% 2,560, 0%

Cane Sugar Premium Distribution

Fiji India Philippines Thailand


33


1562 The Bombay Burmah Trading Corp. Ltd. India

18013 McLeod Russel India Limited India

558 Small Organic Farmers' Association SOFA Sri Lanka

560 Jiangxi Wuyuan Dazhangshan Organic Tea Farmer Association China

4440 Xuan En Yisheng Tea Cooperative China

508 The United Nilgiri Tea Estates Co. Ltd. India

22701 Coonoor Tea Estates Co. Ltd. India

1567 Chamong Tee Exports Pvt. Ltd. (Chamong Tea Group) India

25759 Marginalized Organic Producers' Associations Sri Lanka

18519 Thiashola Plantations Private Limited (Thiashola Estate) India

DATA

UNAVAIL

ABLE

29907

West Jalinga Tea Estate (K. Manibhai & Co.) India




1,402,919, 62%

425,143, 19%

391,847, 18%

30,658, 1%

Tea Premium Distribution

India China Sri Lanka Vietnam Indonesia Nepal


34


25683 Noble Ecotech India

18612

Suminter Organic Farmers Association (earlier:Gujarat

Sustainable & Organic Farmers Association) India

19221

Pratima Agro & Paper PVT.LTD. Pratima Organic Grower

Group. India

26204 OM ORGANIC COTTON PVT. LTD. India

18470

Jaydurga Ginning mills pvt ltd and Jai Maa Dwarsini

Krushak Shang, Kantabanji India

4531 Pratibha-Vasudha Jaivik Krishi Kalyan Samiti India

20294

Bio Farmer Agricultural Commodity and Service

Cooperative

Kyrgyzst

an

4018

Chetna Organic Agriculture Producer Company Limited

(COAPCL) India

4073 Agrocel Pure and Fair Cotton Growers Association-Rapar India

18491 Sunstar Overseas and Group of Small Cotton Farmers India

4784 Agrocel Pure and Fair Cotton Growers Association-Orissa India

(DATA

UNAVAILABL

E)18862 Agrocel Pure & Fair Cotton Growers Assn. - Sankeshwar India




811,389, 96%

36,446, 4%

Seed Cotton Premium Distribution

India Kyrgyztan

PRODUCER PARTICIPATION Trade-fairs and market related efforts: Activities

• NAPP supported producer participation in 7 events out of 8 mentioned above

• At BioFach India & BioFach Germany, NAPP had a producer stall

• 56 out of 210 FLO IDs i.e. 27% were supported during the year

• They represented only 43 unique producer organizations

• Wherein 56 (51 unique) representatives participated only 9 of whom were

women i.e. 16%

• 6 out of 10 products i.e. 60% & 8 out of 20 countries represented i.e. 40%35

PRODUCT ACTIVITY

PRODUCER

FEEDBACK

NO OF FLO

IDs

NO OF

MEMBERS

NO. OF

WOMEN HL CP SPO COUNTRY

FRUITFruit Logistica Neutral 6 6 0 6 India, Sri Lanka

BioFach America Neutral 1 1 1 1 Vietnam

SPICES BioFach America Neutral 2 2 0 2 India

COTTONTextile Exchange Positive 7 7 0 5 2 India, Kyrgyzstan

BioFach America Neutral 2 2 0 2 India

COFFEEBioFach America Neutral 2 2 0 2 Laos, Vietnam

SCAA Positive 13 13 4 13

India, Indonesia,

Vietnam

RICEBioFach America Neutral 3 3 0 3 India

BioFach Germany Positive 6 6 1 5 1 India Thailand

TEATeam Up Positive 8 8 1 7 1

India, Sri Lanka,

China

BioFach Shanghai Positive 2 2 1 2 China

BioFach America Neutral 4 4 1 4 China, Vietnam

TEA, RICE, COFFEE,

SPICES, COTTON, FRUITS* BioFach India Negative

20 producer organizations with almost 60 participants funded themselves

and set up stalls at this forum. India

TOTAL 56 56 9 7 15 34

Note: Includes only NAPP anchored events i.e. excluding PSR/Pacific/Producer funded events

Take-away:

• Why were product focussed events conducted?

• Why have we decided not to fund this anymore?

• Are there some useful events where we can support producers in

any way?

• Is their merit in setting up NAPP stalls in any of these or other

external forums?

• What is the value add?

• Can we support through producers through ready materials?

PRODUCER PARTICIPATION Trade-fairs and market related efforts: RoI Framework

36

Curbside debrief (2015)

Date Event Name Location Products

NAPP Participation

2015 Producer feedback

Plan 2016

Date

2016

Location

Location

Advantage

Product-

Regions

priority

Target

market

Expected

Footfalls

NAPP

Producer

Countries

Budget

(K EUR)

# of

producer

participan

ts

Equitable

Index

Follow-up

Action/

Improvement

NAPP mgmt /

Executives

Participation

Post- Event review(by CMO)

Business value generated in Euro # of Business enquiries MC(High/Medium/Low) ROI%Producer feedback VFM Future participation Y/N

PRODUCER PARTICIPATIONIn product oriented trainings

PRODUCT ACTIVITYNO OF FLO

IDs

NO OF

MEMBERS

NO. OF

WOMENHL CP SPO COUNTRY

TEA

Tea Garden Exchange 9 10 3 9 1 India, Sri Lanka

GPM Meeting North India 5 5 0 5 India

GPM Meeting South India 7 7 0 7 India

Tea Network Meeting 16 17 6 14 3

Sri Lanka, India,

China

FT Standards 6 20 0 6 India

RICEProductivity-Rice Workshop,

Pantnagar 7 12 0 7 India

COTTONTextile Standards Workshop 9 18 0 8 1 India

Cotton Network Meeting-Governance 8 9 0 7 1 India

SUGAR

Standards Consultation 8 22 1 8 India

Producer Exchange Visit 6 6 0 6 India, Fiji

Productivity-Training, Dharwad 7 140 12 7 India

Sugar Consultation FI 8 40 1 8 India

TOTAL 96 306 23 41 22 35

37

• 12 workshops/meetings

• 96 out of 210 POs i.e. 46%

• Represented 65 unique producer organizations i.e. 31%

• Wherein 306 representatives participated.

• Only 23 of which were women i.e. 8%

• 4 / 10 products i.e. 40%

Note: Includes only NAPP anchored trainings i.e. excluding PSR/Pacific/Producer funded programmes

Take-away:

• With budgetary limitations, which types of trainings

are more relevant?

• Should productivity enhancement and quality

focussed trainings as a series be the approach

forward?

MARKET OUTREACH THROUGH PRODUCT NETWORKS Resources Utilization

38

32%

29%

18%

7%

7%

4% 3%

Product Networks

Rice Tea Coffee All Products Cotton Fruit Sugar

Take-away:

Programme expenditure has been distributed in the following

manner:

o Rice – 32% (14% spent on a productivity workshop, rest for

marketing events)

o Tea – 29% (all on marketing events)

o Coffee – 18% (all on marketing events)

o Cotton – 7% (69% of which spent on cotton network meeting

(representation), rest on attending marketing events)

o Fruit – 4% (all on marketing events)

o Sugar – 3% (all of which was spent in workshops focused on

productivity, producer exchange and consultation)

Given constraints, how does not choose pririties between KPIs?

What type of programmes can be concerned as the most

effective use of limited resources?

REPRESENTATION THROUGH NATIONAL NETWORKS Resources Utilization

39

Take-away:

• 69% of resources spent on national networks is for

governance and representation related meetings

• 31% invested in any thematic areas training

14% SPO Development

8% product specific

4% climate change

3% Social Compliance (Workers Rights, Child

Labour)

2% Agricultural practices

69%

14%

8%

4%3%

2%

National Networks

National NW Governance Thematic Area- SPO Development

Thematic Area-Climate Change Tea

Thematic Area-Agricultural Practices Thematic Area-Social Compliance

WHAT MARKETS WANTInformation Needs of “top”NFOs

40

Importance of Primary Product for the Markets Type of Information Required

Source: NFO Information Needs Survey 2015

41

Product Producer Organization Country

Cotton Pratibha India

Cotton Chetna India

Cotton Farmer Agricultural Commodity and Service Cooperative Kyrgyztan

Cereals Sunstar India

Cereals Riceland Foods Thailand

Cereals Green Net Coop Thailand

Cereals OJRPG Thailand

Tea SOFA Sri Lanka

Tea Bogawantalawa Sri Lanka

Tea FTAK India

Coffee PPKGO-Persatuan Petani Kopi Gayo Organic Indonesia

Coffee Permata Gayo Cooperative Indonesia

Coffee Cudliemnong Vietnam

Coffee Highland Organic Agriculture Cooperative (HOAC) Papua New Guinea

WHAT FAIRTRADE MARKETS WANTInformation Needs of “top”NFOs

Source: NFO Information Needs Survey 2015

Take-away:

• Information need around premium usage has

received highest rating.

• Other information requirement includes benefits

of FT, challenges faced by PO, socio economic

profile, insightful stories, history of producers etc.

• How are our plans addressing this need?

• Are producer profiles enough?

NAPP KPIsPerformance

42

Objectives Role Definition

Indicator

…OutcomesSystem

wide KPI# PN KPI 2014 Result 2015 Result

1. Deliver relevant valued

services to FT farmers

and workers

We deliver relevant,

participatory,

empowering and

evidence based,

support programs to

PO´s. We provide this

through both in-house

expertise in programme

development, alliances

and partnerships. Our

focus is on cost

effective market driven

service delivery.

Stronger and resilience

Producer and workers

organizations

empowered.

members

satisfaction

index

1 members satisfaction index;

75% (rating

3,4,5);

63% (rating

93% (rating

36% (rating 4,5)

2

# of PO´s that received training from

the PN (disagregated in % of women

and youth participation in training,

where possible/in future);

155 247

Participants 4902

Women participants 626

% of women participants 13%

3average # of contacts per PO (field

visits, phone calls, email) 4

Workers and producers

know the roles,

responsibilities and

rights.

4 # of PO´s per staff member in PN 61 9Take-away:

• Are there some KPIs that need to be modified?

• What would you want to measure to deepen impact in Asia Pacific?

• How can we streamline KPI data collection?

• How does your work contribute to the KPIs?


43

Objectives Role Definition…Outcomes

System


2. Building, securing and

sustaining access to

market for members

PN´s supports their

members in securing

and sustaining market

access through

Technical Assistance

and networking.

Fairtrade market

access ensures that

PO´s earn Fairtrade

Minimum Prices and

Premiums that they

democratically invest in

their communities.

Stronger, resilient, and

more competitive

organizations.Premium

received per

producer/work

er; <5%/5-50/>

50% of the

volume is sold

as FT

5 # GAP trainings; 5 20

Increased incomes

(individual or shared) of

producers and workers. 6

# of PO´s that received TA in market

access, productivity or product quality105 23


44


System


3. Advocacy. Means:

Influencing better

governance policies.

We are diligent in

increasing awareness

and visibility of

Fairtrade to members

and stakeholders in the

respective regions. Our

primary targets for

strong visibility are:

The Fair Trade

Principles, Values and

Practices and our

respective

Organizations (PNs).

Changes (public policies,

environmental, economic

and social) that benefit

producers and workers

in the different regions

and countries.

7

Nr of local, regional and international

events where the PN has participated

in;8

9 international,

8 local,

2 regional

8

# of advocacy initiatives agreed and

delivered at local, national and regional

level. 0 3

9An advocacy policy is in place (Y/N)

N

Yes, paper is

available. Not

approved. Work

in progress.

10

Nr of trainings on FT values and

principles and nr of producers/workers

reached7 trainings

126 trainings

2042 farmers

workers


45


System


4. Building a strong,

settled, Producer

Network as part of a

global system.

Our members and

partners expect our

continuity and

sustainability. We

therefore take

initiatives in ensuring

the constant and

adequate flow of

financial resources. We

ensure full

accountability of all

financial resources. We

demonstrate social

impact and aim for

programmatic

sustainability through

in-house expertise,

strategic partnerships

and addressing

crosscutting thematic

areas.

PNs are Strengthened,

sustainable,

accountable, able to

deliver services &

programs, and able to

influence to the FT

system.

Nr of

agreements

per year and

nr of renewed

agreements;

% of non-FT

funding; zero

based financial

result; Average

Cash balance

11

Nr of exisiting agreements with patners

and or donors in place (how many of

them have been renewed) 1

12% of non-FT funding (the proportion of

funds not generated via license fee) 0

13Financial result (profit/ loss) by the end

of the financial year -85000 Euros

14 Audited accounts in place (y/n) Y

15Average Cash balance (level of cash

reserve in weeks of expenditure)0


46


System


4. Building a strong,

settled, Producer

Network as part of a

global system.

Good corporate

governance is a priority

to us. we believe that

in order to achieve the

goals and objective, we

must have solid and

relevant organizational

structures. Leadership

strategies that are

relevant, innovative

and offer effective

governance. Policies,

systems and

procedures that are

driven by members´

needs, are developed

to meet the growing

requirements of the

organization, as well as

ensuring conformity to

the national statutory

requirements in the

regions and countries

where we are based.

PNs are Strengthened,

sustainable,

accountable, able to

deliver services &

programs, and able to

influence to the FT

system.

Number of

FTE 16

Number of FTE (full time equivalents) /

# of consultants 3 8

Staff

satisfaction

index based

on 5 global

questions

17Staff satisfaction index based on 5

global questions,

Individually

submitted by

staff on survey

monkey

47

155

247

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2014 2015

#POs received Training and Support

5

20

0

5

10

15

20

25

2014 2015

# GAP trainings

8

19

0

5

10

15

20

2014 2015

#POs facilitated in participating in local, regional and international

events

105

23

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2014 2015

# POs received Technical Assistance in market access, productivity or

product quality

7

126

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

2014 2015

# trainings on Fairtrade values and principles

68

99

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

NAPP CLAC

Benchmarking Employment Satisfaction Index

NAPP KPIsPerformance (Charts)

MEMBER SATISFACTION INDEXNAPP and other PNs

48

75%

93%

80%

85%

82%

88%

80%

87%

63%

36%

71%

55%

72%

61%

70%

54%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

NAPP 2014

NAPP 2015

FTA 2014

FTA 2015

CLAC 2014

CLAC 2015

GLOBAL 2014

GLOBAL 2015

Member satisfaction index (Rating 4,5) Member satisfaction index (Rating: 3,4,5)

End of Presentation

The information in this presentation is not directed to any person in any jurisdiction where (by reason of that person's nati onality, residence or otherwise) the publication or availability of

the information is prohibited. Persons in respect of whom such prohibitions apply must not access this document.

The contents of this document have been prepared to provide you with general information only. Information provided on and available from this document does not constitute any

investment recommendation. In preparing the information, we have not taken into account your objectives, financial situation or needs. Before making an investment decision, you need

to consider whether this information is appropriate to your objectives, financial situation and needs.

The information contained herein has been obtained from sources that we believe to be reliable, but its accuracy and completeness are not guaranteed. Examples shown in this

document are illustrative and have been included for demonstrational purposes only. We will try to update this document as soon as practicable and as necessary.

Nothing in the document should be construed as an offer or invitation to anyone in any jurisdiction to invest in any product or use any service where such offer or invitation is not lawful,

or in which the person making such offer or invitation is not qualified to do so, nor has it been prepared in connection with any such offer or invitation.

The information on this document is published by Network of Asia and Pacific Producers (NAPP). For further information about the contents of this site, please contact us. We reserve the

right at any time and without notice to change, amend, or cease publication of the information.

Copyright © Network of Asia and Pacific Producers. All rights reserved. This material is proprietary and may not be reproduced, transferred, or distributed in any form without prior

written permission from NAPP. It is delivered on an "as is" basis without warranty.

Fairtrade NAPP Impact Assessment 2015

Business

Transcript of Fairtrade NAPP Impact Assessment 2015