Resource Center Newsletter
Dear reader,
You took part in the online questionnaire on a shared resource center. Thank you again for your commitment, your time and for sharing your ideas.
You indicated being interested in receiving newsletters on further developments of the Sustainable Standards Resource Center, please find our newsletter below. In case you receive this letter without pictures, please read the letter online at: http://fa2q.nl/newsletter-1/
Response to online questionnaire
The initiators of the Sustainable Standards Resource Center have set out an online questionnaire to measure interest and receive ideas from a broad range of stakeholders world wide. The inivtation to join was set out via various networks (Utz Certified, 4C Association, SCAN, FLO) and direct mailling. Response to the questionnaire showed a big enthusiasm: In total 104 reactions came from different types of organisations, and from all over the world, see the table below:
Additional to the questionnaire, 26 semi-structured interviews were held with different organisations.
Commitment
There is a solid commitment to a Sustainable Standards Resource Center: 71 respondents to the online questionnaire said yes when asked if they would support the creation of the Center. There were 2 no’s.
This trend was confirmed by the interviews. IDH for instance indicated: “Yes there is a clear need for (neutral) information on standards, on training modules, on standards and easy access to trainers.” A representative of 4C Association gave a similar comment: “4C sees a joint resource center as a good tool for up-scaling. Industry is committed; we need to be able to answer their questions!”
Others would say “Yes, but…” like: “In case the platform is open to producer organizations directly I think it has a great added value. In case it is only open to third organizations that provide technical assistance and capacity building services to the producer organizations, I think it has fewer added values. In what I see from producer organizations, many members of the CLAC, is that they have different certifications, not only FLO. It would be very interesting to them to find information on all these different standard setters in one single place in an organized way.”
31 respondents did not tick this box and are gathered under ‘no answer’.
Services of the Center
Services like a library and portal (links to existing websites in the table) receive a high score in all stakeholder groups and so do the upload service and the yellow pages.
These outcomes are supported by the interviews. Especially networks or associations like ISEAL are clear about the services: “As ISEAL we notice that large businesses approach us for information on standards. That is a relevant service to give, but also a very time consuming one. If we could link our website to the Resource Center and direct businesses there, that would be useful. Also the connection to training programs, a training calendar and service providers for instance, is of interest to us and probably also to the businesses or government officials that approach us.”
IDH: “If the library – as part of the resource center – could support the standardization of wording for instance through the indexation of documents and training modules available in the library – it could work as a catalyst for the standard setters to follow that logic.”
Utz Certified: “Unlocking training materials, with a clear indexation on type of modules and target group, in combination with access to qualified and experienced trainers, service providers, would be an added value.”
4C Association “sees a joint resource center as a good tool for up-scaling. Industry is committed; we need to be able to answer their questions.”
Content needs and interests
To measure content needs, the online questionnaire asked two questions:
- What do you think are the 2 most important capacity building topics for producer groups/agribusinesses? (tick maximum 2 options), and;
- What training materials is your organization working with?
The questionnaire outcome gives a top 2 for most important capacity building topics, being business planning (19%) and production techniques (13%). Topics like financial systems (12%), management skills and certification requirements (both 11%) are strong followers.
Several interviews give further explanations on the choices made. For instance the Junta Nacional de Café Peru says: “Productivity is a very important theme and it has not yet been fully integrated in the different standards. It is a necessity in the near future. So we might as well take it into account straight away.”
Finlays: “The focus needs to be about quality management and then standard compliance comes as a given. Too often the focus is on standard compliance (passing the audit) and not on operating good business practice as the foundation for sustainable operation.”
Twin: “Special focus would be needed on advice and support to improve their financial administration, learn how to manage risks, support to strategic planning, but surely also quality management and quality control.”
The top 2 of topics people are currently working with shows a slightly different order. Here certification requirements and production techniques come first, closely followed by product quality, quality management and business planning.
The interviews give further details.
IDH: “Clear information on the content and scope of the different standards would be helpful. The same can be said about new initiatives like GSCP or networks set up by retailers or others. Information on topics dealt with, a who is who and what is there mandate, would also help businesses and producers to determine which platform to join, or which initiative to follow.”
ISEAL: “As ISEAL we notice that large businesses approach us for information on standards. That is a relevant service, but also a very time consuming one. If we could link our website to the Resource Centre and direct businesses there, that would be useful. Also the connection to training programs, a training calendar and service providers for instance, is of interest to us and probably also to the businesses or government officials that approach us.”
Cafenica: “The added value I see would be one or several new training modules on standards, quality management and others in the Cla@se platform, to be publically available.”
Quality management and Standard compliance
One of the assumptions is that quality management and standard compliance are closely linked, and management skills should be a focal point for capacity building. A large majority of respondents agree with the quality management focus.
IDH: “In general we support the idea that looking at and improving of management skills is important. That it is often a more neglected aspect of training programs.”
Hosting and governance of the Centre
Regarding hosting the Centre the responses indicates a slight preference for ISEAL over the NGO sector or an independent host. The questionnaire indicates 24 votes for a completely independent host as well as for ISEAL being the host (also 24), with development NGO’s as a good third (22). If you look at the ‘possibly’ answers than the preference goes to ISEAL or the NGO sector over the independent party.
The interviews indicate a similar preference with the additional suggestion that the technical host could be separate from the governance structure.
Regarding the governance structure there was a clear preference for a multi-stakeholder approach to make sure that ownership is taken by the user groups and oversight could be given by (original) funders.
Finlays: “It is important that an initiative such as this is inclusive of all those involved in such activity or in need of further capacity building.”
Willingness to share material
The questionnaire shows clear commitment to share and upload materials. However, if you split the responses per stakeholder group and combine their comments with some of the interviews, the picture gets more shades. 
NGO’s and certification bodies are confident in sharing materials as several of them claim that their material in practice is already public. UTZ certified for instance indicates “We are surely willing to upload our materials as they are already quite public.” Commercial parties like agribusinesses or financial institutions that created training materials are more hesitant.
Finlays: “On sharing material: Maybe is the true answer, these are the product of our own commercial activity and although in principle we would be willing to share, producing these materials has a cost which has to be recovered. If we made it available to all they can benefit and undercut our prices putting our trade at risk.”
Twin: “Twin most likely would not have a problem uploading bulletins or studies, but training material maybe not. Mentioning what kind of training modules is available and how people can access them, probably. Tools are partly made available via Cla@se for free to producers who are member of CLAC and partly used when Twin is hired as a BDS. More likely to create link to Cla@se and want to be mentioned as service provider in the Yellow Pages. The same is probably true for Root Capital as some of the materials made by them are now part of the Cla@se library.”
Conclusions and decisions
Research shows sufficient interest in and commitment to the creation of a Sustainability Standards Resource Center as long as the Center is clearly linked to specific content and services. Highest scores are for a one-stop library and links to existing websites, closely followed by an upload service and the yellow pages.
The initiators therefore decided to continue with the second part of the feasibility study.
In preparation for the actual launch of a Sustainability Standards Resource Center, the research team of FAQ and FSAS will look at:
- Suitable ICT options/hosting, a possible structure of the web platform and guidelines on the information architecture;
- Institutional / operational setups of the centre (implementation, hosting, legal status, governance, contractual relations), and their pro’s and cons;
- To outline a realistic financial setup that allows the centre to cover its costs;
- Strategies to ensure visibility so that the most important stakeholders are aware of the centre and its propositions;
- The Terms of Reference for project implementation, including a budget
The second phase of the feasibility should be ready by mid March 2012. We will keep you updated.
For comments, questions or additional comments, please contact FAQ, Michiel Schoenmakers at michiel.schoenmakers@gmail.com