EC Contract Number ONG-PVD/2005/112- 454
Making Trade Work for the Poor Promoting Fair Trade in India - PROFIT
End of Project Evaluation February 2006 - February 2010
Submitted by: Paro Chaujar EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 3
ABOUT PROFIT ...... 5 TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE EVALUATION ...... 5 METHODOLOGY ...... 6 FEW WORDS ABOUT THIS REPORT ...... 6 1. OVERVIEW ...... 7 2. RELEVANCE...... 10 3. EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS ...... 19 4. SUSTAINABILITY ...... 36 5. LESSONS LEARNED – PRACTICES AND STRATEGIES ...... 36 6. RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 39
ANNEX 1: LIST OF RESPONDENTS ...... 44 ANNEX 2: LABEL AND LOGO ...... 45 ANNEX 3: MEDIA AND PR COVERAGE ...... 46 ANNEX 4: CERTIFIED PRODUCTS ...... 49 ANNEX 5: CERTIFIED FARMER ORGANISATIONS ...... 50 ANNEX 6: LICENSED RETAILERS / BUYERS ...... ERROR ! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED . ANNEX 7: ACHIEVEMENTS AGAINST SET OBJECTIVES AND EXPECTED RESULTS ...... 51 ANNEX 8: PROJECT MILESTONES ...... 57
Executive Summary
This is a report on the end of project evaluation of the project titled PROFIT- Making Trade Work for the Poor: Promoting Fair Trade in India – which was implemented by Traidcraft Exchange and International Resources for Fairer Trade (IRFT). The 4 - year project ended in April 2010. The field-work for this end of project evaluation was conducted between December 2009 and February 2010.
Having assessed PROFIT in its evolution over the past 4 years, it is the opinion of the evaluator that the project has proven to be a groundbreaking initiative that has laid the foundations for the promotion of fair trade in the domestic market in India.
Following are the major achievements at the end of the project:
The project has been guided and developed by multiple stakeholders and has resulted in the creation and establishment of an autonomous labeling and not for profit certification company called Shop for Change Fair Trade .
A label called Shop for Change and its certification system has been developed, tested and implemented.
A set of generic standards for agricultural supply chains have been developed and applied.
3 producer organisations and approximately 5,300 farmers producing cotton and cotton intercrops from 4 states in India have been certified ;
2 buyers/ retailers have been licensed to use the Shop for Change label and
The first sets of end products – T-shirts and high-end women’s wear - manufactured by using cotton from certified producer organisations, have been launched in the Indian markets.
The media has taken interest in and have started reporting on developments of the initiative, in particular, launch of the first set of Shop for Change certified products was widely reported.
2 celebrities have endorsed the initiative (Shop for Change) and have participated in press meet (at the product launch); one of them has traveled to the project area and profiled cotton farmers through photography and exhibited the same at a festival of arts in Mumbai.
At least 5 large retail chains have expressed interest in collaborating with the initiative and purchasing Shop for Change certified cotton.
The evolution and progress of the project has several important lessons for the fair trade sector in general and for the promoters of fair trade within markets in the developing countries, especially in the case of a country such as India with diversity in production, geography, people – producers, buyers, consumers and markets. Also, central to this project was the aim of impacting poverty- making trade work for poor. This project has a somewhat humbling effect on our visions and ambitions - in that it has demonstrated that in the first place introducing fair trade within domestic markets – establishing the basis for it – setting standards, labels, certification, mobilizing producers and buyers- takes time.
The project has demonstrated relevance to the Indian context, where there has been a gap in promoting fair trade in the domestic market and where there is tremendous scope for the same. It has been very successful in establishing an Indian set of standards and systems for labeling and certification. The first 4 years of this project should be looked upon as pilot phase, where several ideas and strategies have been discussed, developed, adopted, modified and implemented.
There have been several challenges, not the least of which arise from the fact that such an initiative is unprecedented in India. The civil society and business in India are (relatively) new to this concept and have hardly any experience with fair trade in the Indian market. The project was committed to a multidisciplinary approach, which has served well in the sense of providing overall direction. The approach has been challenging and continues to be so, given the diversity of stakeholders, interests and the continuing experimenting and learning by all involved.
As this report is being completed, the initiative, now, Shop for Change, is a label and logo displayed at over 60 retail outlets across several cities in India. A growing consumer awareness is on the anvil and business case for retailers ad producers is just about getting demonstrated. It will be a while to see the impacts of such an initiative on income and poverty levels of the producers it seeks to work with but, as this report indicates, the stage is set for achieving those objectives over the next few years.
Introduction
About PROFIT
Making Trade Work for the Poor: Promoting Fair Trade in India - PROFIT, was conceived as a multistakeholder initiative to introduce fair trade within the domestic market in India, with the objective of empowering poor farmers and artisans in the country. Conceptualised by Traidcraft Exchange, primary applicant, in partnership with local implementing partner International Resources for Fairer Trade (IRFT), the project was financed by the European Commission for a period of three years, February 2006 – February 2009. The project was subsequently granted 2 no-cost extensions and is now ending in April 2010. This end of project evaluation covers the project period February 2006 - January 2010.
The most significant outcome of PROFIT has been the establishment of an autonomous labeling and certification organization called Shop for Change Fair Trade, in July 2008 (although the organization was staffed and functioning in 2008, it was formally incorporated in January 2009). Thereafter, many activities under PROFIT were implemented by Shop for Change. This evaluation has therefore covered activities implemented by both organisations, IRFT and Shop for Change.
Terms of Reference for the Evaluation
The objectives of the end of project evaluation were:
• To assess the extent to which the project met the aims and objectives as set out in the proposal log-frame. • To evaluate the methodology and design of the project from the point of relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability. • To help Traidcraft Exchange, IRFT and SFC better understand which practices and intervention strategies work best and bring about change, so to help them learn lessons that will help achieve better impact in the future.
The focus of the evaluation was to make an objective external assessment about the:
• Relevance, • Efficiency (implementation of the project against the log-frame), • Effectiveness, • Impact and • Sustainability: What has been achieved, what hasn’t, and key factors for success or failure both through desk research and field research.
Methodology
The evaluation is based primarily on qualitative methods. Quantitative methods were applied for assessing deliverables and outcomes against baseline/ logframe indicators. Qualitative methods were applied to assess relevance, effectiveness, impact and sustainability.
Secondary data such as those available through annual reports to the EC, minutes of meetings of the various multistakeholder consultations and expenditure records were reviewed. Primary data was collected through in- depth interviews with 12 respondents (see Annex xxx for list of respondents).
Few words about this report
This report intends to serve both as an evaluation of the project against its plans as well as a process document narrating the development of the project. The latter is significant in that it is expected to facilitate learning from the project- for the implementers as well as for others who might be interested.
For a start-up project with a broad purpose of initiating a movement for fair trade, it is quite challenging to assess results and impacts within a 3-4 year project period. A lot of work has been done and a lot remains to be done before results and impacts can be demonstrated and assessed. This evaluation then, rather than make conclusive statements about how well the project has fared, has provided information and assessment of how it has progressed, what has been achieved, what have been the main challenges and what needs to be addressed as it moves on. It may be seen as an assessment in a point in the time line of this movement, for although the project grant for PROFIT has ended, the initiative, as planned and expected, is growing and moving on.
A large number of people and organisations have been involved in this project- as implementing partners and as stakeholders. The assessments and comments from a few of them are included as testimonies and are meant to serve as feedback to the project. These will be found throughout this report in text boxes. The section on recommendations and lessons learnt is almost entirely collated from what the respondents had to say – the implementing partners and stakeholders. It is hoped that these would inform the deliberations that define how this initiative moves forward.
1. Overview
Having assessed PROFIT in its evolution over the past 4 years, it is the opinion of the evaluator that the project has proven to be a groundbreaking initiative that has laid the foundations for the promotion of fair trade in the domestic market in India. Key Achievements
Following are the major achievements at the end of the project:
The project has been guided and developed by multiple stakeholders and has resulted in the creation and establishment of an autonomous labeling and not for profit certification company called Shop for Change Fair Trade .
A label called Shop for Change and its certification system has been developed, tested and implemented.
A set of generic standards for agricultural supply chains have been developed and applied.
3 producer organisations and approximately 5,300 farmers producing cotton and cotton intercrops from 4 states in India have been certified ;
2 buyers/ retailers have been licensed to use the Shop for Change label and
The first sets of end products – T-shirts and high-end women’s wear - manufactured by using cotton from certified producer organisations, have been launched in the Indian markets.
The media has taken interest in and have started reporting on developments of the initiative, in particular, launch of the first set of Shop for Change certified products was widely reported.
2 celebrities have endorsed the initiative (Shop for Change) and have participated in press meet (at the product launch); one of them has traveled to the project area and profiled cotton farmers through photography and exhibited the same at a festival of arts in Mumbai.
At least 5 large retail chains have expressed interest in collaborating with the initiative and purchasing Shop for Change certified cotton.
The standards, label and the certification system, along with willing and prepared producer organisations and buyers and growing consumer awareness campaign through celebrity endorsements, press events and advertising – together, are critical precursors to what can be expected to develop into a movement to promote fair trade in India. Key challenges
A first of its kind initiative, PROFIT has expectedly faced numerous challenges in its implementation. The project was implemented in a context where there have been very few interventions on fair trade and no intervention for promoting fair trade standards in the domestic market; where consumer/ buyer awareness about fair trade was minimal if not outright misplaced.
Selection amidst diversity: The initiative has been implemented in a country with complex diversity in and along the supply chain- people, geography, production, products, buyers and consumers. With a wide range of product sectors and products within; a wide geographic area and a vast number of poor and marginalized producers, it was a challenge to determine how product sectors, products and producer/ organisations would be selected and how from the vast sea of buyers, appropriate buyers would be selected. A lot of research, consultation, time and effort has been spent on these initial steps.
Convincing industry: While producers and producer organisations were more amenable to participating in the initiative, convincing buyers has been more challenging, especially given that at the start of this project, there was no demonstrable domestic business case for them. This challenge will continue to affect this initiative until the business case is firmly established- as was the case with fair trade initiatives in the west as well.
Working with small and marginal producers: The primary beneficiary groups for this initiative are small and marginal producers. This turned out to be one of the toughest groups to work with since they have limited capacities in meeting quantity and quality demands of the market and are uninitiated into fair trade. It would take significant efforts to prepare these producers such that they can be certified and effectively linked with markets. Two decisions had to be made: one, to work with aggregators- producer organisations so that volume demands of the market can be met and two, to pilot the initiative with producer organisations who had some experience with, and capacities to meet requirements of fair trade. The assumption was that testing standards and certification systems on producer organisations with little or no experience with fair trade would not give a fair idea about the feasibility of these systems.
Working with multistakeholders and through collective processes: The project was conceived as a multistakeholder initiative that would lead to the formation of an autonomous certification agency for promoting fair trade in India. All key decisions of the initiative- from selection of products to selection of methods and partners- were to be made through multistakeholder consultations. This process meant that a lot more time was spent on arriving at (collective) decisions that originally planned and often meant that the project had to introduce new activities/ modify existing activities along the way. It also necessitated changes in the originally planned management structure for the project.
The time required and challenges entailed for such a movement to develop and for it to start demonstrating impact at the level of the final beneficiaries- the farmers and artisans in India, were perhaps not adequately understood when this project was conceptualised. In particular, the challenges inherent in the multistakeholder approach taken by this project, were not fully accounted for when the project was conceptualised. Hence, it appears that the project objectives and targets were over ambitious for a 3-year project.
In addition, some activities and outcomes were modified as a result of emerging information through research, multistakeholder consultations and learning’s from facilitation of a multistakeholder approach.
The evolution and progress of the project has several important lessons for the fair trade sector in general and for the promoters of fair trade within markets in the developing countries, especially in the case of a country such as India with diversity in production, geography, people – producers, buyers, consumers and markets. Also, central to this project was the aim of impacting poverty- making trade work for poor. This project has a somewhat humbling effect on our visions and ambitions - in that it has demonstrated that in the first place introducing fair trade within domestic markets – establishing the basis for it – setting standards, labels, certification, mobilizing producers and buyers- takes time. For this initiative to have visible impacts on the poverty of producers and artisans will take longer than certainly a 3-4 year project. There are lessons here for implementers and donors alike. When we talk of a movement and of impacts on complex conditions such as poverty – we have to be realistic in expectations from a 3-year project grant.
One key question asked to respondents was – if this initiative was to be repeated or applied in another developing country, what would be the 3 most important recommendations based on lessons learned. The respondents were near unanimous in one learning in particular, promoting fair trade in domestic markets (in developing country such as India) takes time – be realistic in expectations of outcomes in a 3-year project. It will take from 5-10 years to start seeing impacts at the level of the producers in ways that poverty is addressed.
PROFIT has led to the establishment of Shop for Change – these are exciting times for the initiative. As this report is being written, Shop for Change is negotiating deals with leading garment retailers in the country and preparing for yet another launch- high-end women’s wear by designer Anita Dongre using cotton from certified producers, that will be launched simultaneously at 50 outlets across the country.
2. Relevance
2.1. Relevance to the country and context
Promoting fair trade in domestic markets in India – creating markets for small and marginal producers that respect their rights to livelihoods, decent living and control over their resources- is without doubt very relevant to the poor and marginal producers across the country. The relevance of the project is derived from the situation in India where large numbers of producers are unable to market their produce; there are few initiatives to promote market access for them and fewer still to promote trading that is fair to them- upholding their right to control over their resources and providing opportunities for decent living.
The project design was based on experiences of Traidcraft and IRFT that indicated the need for supporting producers through the domestic market in the country and their understanding that there was indeed a market and consumer base that could be mobilized for the same. The project design reflects this understanding. a. International fair trade has covered/benefitted a very small proportion of producers
International fair trade has indeed supported producers across the world in marketing their goods, accessing a niche and growing mainstream market and thereby improving their livelihoods. However, international fair trade has been able to generate these opportunities for a fairly small proportion of producers in developing countries. Large proportions of producers in India are not part of the international fair trade – for many, the prerequisites for meeting demands of export markets, international standards and meeting costs of fair trade are prohibitive. Producer organisations certified under this project have indicated that the Shop for Change standards are more relevant and easier to implement than international standards and that its certification system is cost effective.
SFC doesn’t call it ‘inspection’ but ‘audits’ and 1) is planning for peer review/ community based mechanisms for monitoring and certification for standard compliance; 2) is linked to the internal control systems and 3) sampling system (for certification) is cost effective. All this measures will reduce costs of certification and group certification will ensure that larger number of farmers can be certified.
- Certified Producer Organisation
b. Social initiatives to promote producers and artisans are limited in reach and scope
In fact, large proportions of producers are not part of any initiative that promotes their livelihood. The few exceptional initiatives that aim to bring rural producers and artisans closer to predominantly urban consumers and assure some kind of sustainable markets for their products – Fab India, Dastkar, Anokhi, Industree, government sponsored khadi and village industries and others, in a vast country like India, remain limited in outreach to producers/ artisans. c. No existing fair trade movement in India
Further, existing initiatives, despite their often explicit commitments to the principles of fair trade, are not part of any programme that can certify that fair trade principles are indeed being followed. There is little customer education on the fair trade principles except perhaps the tag line that the products are ‘handcrafted’ and sourced directly from producers. For the consumers, shopping at these outlets is not so much a matter of upholding fair trade principles but more an act of charity, if at all. There is, if any, a disparate movement for fair trade in India.
There is no awareness (among Indian consumers) of fair trade as a concept.
- Study on Fair Trade in India, Centre of Gravity
d. No domestic fair trade labeling and certification initiative
Fair trade has spread in Europe and America with the help of several fair trade intermediary organisations; this has not been sufficiently capitalized in India. Although there are now domestic labeling and certification initiatives for organic products and for handicrafts, the latter assuring that products are indeed handcrafted; there was no domestic fair trade labeling and certification initiative until PROFIT established Shop for Change. The growing awareness among urban consumers about ‘organic’ has not been replicated in the case of ‘fair trade’ since the latter has not yet been promoted in a systematic manner.
We shouldn’t have Europeans certifying us. There should be an equally strong domestic certification. Current international standards are developed outside (of India) and are imposed. Standards need to be contextualized.
All brands are now available in India, Indians are travelling abroad and so there is greater awareness about fair trade among Indian consumers today.
- Certified Producer Organisation
1.1. Relevance: stakeholder requirements
Producer and producer organisations - the stakeholders central to this initiative expect increased access for their products in the domestic market, standards and certification systems that were more relevant, easier to implement and less expensive than international systems, from this project. By focusing on these requirements, the project has remained relevant to the producers and their organisations. One of the most appreciated features of the initiative, from the point of view of producer organisations and buyers is that it looks at fair trade from the domestic lens: domestic standards, domestic evaluation systems (certification) and domestic auditing.
Relevance to business needs of producers
We want to tap domestic market for fair trade and organic cotton because exports do not provide a long-term solution for our farmers. We plan to extend our organisation to cover upto 20,000 farmers by 2014, all will be practicing fair trade and more than 50 percent of these would be converted to organic. For such a large coverage of farmers, export markets would not be sufficient and hence tapping domestic market is crucial for us.
- Certified Producer Organisation
Relevance to Indian farming context
SFC was a different initiative, with an alternate system of progressive standards (more attainable by small farmers), it was most appealing for us. For example, SFC standards don’t say there should be no children on the farms. Instead, it has taken a realistic and cultural view without compromising children’s rights by saying that as long as children were going to school and their development is not compromised, them being on the fields outside of school hours was acceptable. Other standards (FT) insist on absolute ban on children being on the farms- as a result we have a situation in the farming scene in India where there is a serious question as to whether the next generation will take up agriculture at all- who will be the farmers tomorrow if children are not exposed to farms.
- Certified Producer Organisation
Relevance due to affordability
SFC doesn’t call it ‘inspection’ but ‘audits’ and 1) is planning for peer review/ community based mechanisms for monitoring and certification for standard compliance; 2) is linked to the internal control systems and 3) sampling system (for certification) is cost effective. All this measures will reduce costs of certification and group certification will ensure that larger number of farmers can be certified.
- Certified Producer Organisation There is a long way to go however: a) the project has been able to launch only one product as of now- cotton (however, certified farmers are certified for everything they grow). As of now markets have been created for them to a limited scale – this needs to be scaled up. b) There are many producers/organisations especially those from the crafts sector who were part of the initial deliberations and processes who have not yet been covered by the project and their inclusion or plans for their progressive inclusion need to be made and shared to ensure continued relevance for wide range of producer/organisations. Some stakeholders believe that the decision to go with one product only for the launch was not right- a basket of products should have been launched. Yet another concern is that the 3 producer organisations selected for the initial launch by SFC are already organic and fair trade certified, SFC should have focused on those producers who are not yet covered by fair trade initiatives. However, Shop for Change believes, that it was important, at the pilot stage, to test the standards with producer organisations who already understood fair trade.
Also, what needs to be understood and what is perhaps an important lesson coming from this initiative is that, the extent to which the success of fair trade depends on the ‘market’ aspect must not be underestimated. Firstly, one cannot just develop standards and label and start certifying organisations without having created a market. This requires an understanding of products that have a significant market and where industry is amenable – both these activities take time, skills and effort. Secondly, one cannot start marketing products without ensuring that producers are able to comply with standard requirements, meet requirements of volume and can consistently supply.
The expectations of some stakeholders that the project should quickly expand its outreach to different products, producers and markets echoes the initial expectations of the project where indeed several product sectors and a huge target were set to be achieved. The initiative is better informed now, there is a good idea of what it takes to promote fair trade in domestic markets and hence there is good reason to revise the earlier expectations and also share with the stakeholders what is possible and by when. This sharing is critical for SFC to generate solidarity and sustain interest of producers not yet involved.
Relevance of multistakeholder process: PROFIT was conceived as a multistakeholder initiative that has led to the founding of SFC. At the time of initiation the stakeholders were expected to participate actively in defining and directing the initiative and at some point were organized into specific committees to undertake specific tasks: the core strategy committee to take decisions and steer the initiative; the marketing committee to suggest a marketing plan; the standards committee to come up with a draft of standards and a producers/products committee that never really took shape since the decision on products was not taken during the initial stages and its role was not clear. These committees and their members have worked with different intensity and with different levels of quality of outputs. They have indeed served most significantly in giving the broad framework for the initiative and taking critical decisions about the establishment of company, framework of standards, principles of the initiative and so on.
As the activities began to be implemented by SFC, the role of the sub committees has become less and less clear, as a result there have been no meetings (face to face or otherwise) of these committees for over a year. The Core Strategy Committee continued to meet until the establishment of SFC and then met as an interim board once SFC was founded (mid 2008). Subsequently some members of the CSC were invited to become members of the Board of SFC and this board has met regularly since. The Standards Committee played an integral role in developing the final standards, after which point, in a way, it dissolved. There is no role currently for this committee in the initiative. Currently, stakeholders are involved in SFC as members of the board and producer organisations have been involved through the labeling, certification and marketing processes. The producer organisations have recently been invited to join the SFC board. Other than the board therefore, there is currently no structure for the participation of other stakeholders (as was provided for with the various sub committees in the past). Of particular concern could be the lack of involvement of those representing other product sectors such as crafts and other agro products. The selection of cotton as the initial product may have necessitated closer work with cotton producers than continuing to involve stakeholders related to other sectors.
Large proportion of stakeholders gradually lost interest in Profit. Their roles should have been consistent and continuous.
Hopes of stakeholders from different product sectors were raised in the initial consultations where they were given to understand that PROFIT/ SFC was not sector specific but will include all. The response to these stakeholders should be quick now or we could lose their confidence.
Only if stakeholders can be involved continuously should they be involved at all.
- Local implementing organisation
In the current context, SFC needs to assess the relevance of stakeholders’ involvement, especially to assess whether the multistakeholder nature of the project is adequately preserved and pursued. Perhaps begin with assessing the purpose of a commitment to multistakeholder processes (or ownership); what is required to meet this purpose – whether any structures are required or not.
2.2. Relevance of design and methodology The project design and methodology were largely relevant to the needs and requirements assessed. The project was right in its assessment of the need for creating markets, creating Indian standards and so on but weak in its assessment of what can be achieved over the grant period. However, it is to the project’s credit that it was able to respect and respond to the decisions arrived at through the multistakeholder consultations, even if it meant introducing activities that were not previously envisaged. For instance, the initial design of the project did not expect to have a label introduced, rather it focused on promoting the concept of fair trade. But it is the multistakeholder process that in fact pushed the case for introducing a label.
Both, the design of the project and its methodology evolved with the decisions taken by the multistakeholder consultations.
Multistakeholder processes were central to the planned methodology of the project. It was envisaged that multistakeholder consultations would provide platform for developing collective ideas and informing the implementation of the programme and the local implementing partner would carry out the actual implementation. However, mid way through the project it was realised that the local implementing partner was overstretched and unable to carry out all the decisions of the multistakeholder consultations. A dedicated team was required; hence it was decided to set up a Secretariat. Although the secretariat was not envisaged in the initial plans, the setting up of an autonomous company for certification was part of the plans and the secretariat fitted into this scheme by serving as an intermediary organizational set up. It was eventually registered as an autonomous certification company - Shop for Change Fair Trade, registered under the Indian Company’s Act. See the time line in Annex xxx to see the development of the project over time.
One important lesson derived from the experience of this project is that a commitment to the multistakeholder process requires commitment to being flexible in adopting decisions made thereby. Relevance of Target Groups
The project set out to benefit over 40,000 small and marginalized producers through their organized set ups- producer organisations/ enterprises. While the out reach of the project has not covered the set target, it has remained true to the target group by working with 3 pro poor producer organisations that have a minimum of 60 percent membership of small producers.
There has been some criticism of the choice of partners- mainly to do with the fact that these are already established producer organisations, certified by FLO and already participating in the fair trade export market. The project’s justification for these partners is that 1) these producer organisations work with small producers; 2) are looking for access to domestic markets since they produce far more than they export and 3) the initiative felt the need to start out with more experienced producer organisations that had the capacity to meet fair trade demands. Working with producers completely new to fair trade would have made the testing of the standards and certification system more challenging. The initiative had prioritized launch of certified products as a prerequisite for consumer awareness, creating market demand and needed to work with producers who could deliver accordingly. Once the standards and certification systems are tested and proven workable, more partners will be included and their capacities to meet fair trade demands will be addressed.
The initiative evolved such that one product launch was considered more feasible (than a multiple product launch) and such that standards could be developed only in the agricultural supply chains and cotton was researched as the most appropriate product for the launch. While the initial plans envisaged partnerships with producers and enterprises from a wide range of sectors, the evolution of the project- selection of cotton as the initial product- led to partnerships with cotton producer organisations only and plans for other sectors were essentially put on hold. Only recently (during the course of this evaluation) has the SFC board decided to certify other producer organisations on a basket of agro products. SFC remains committed to expand the initiative (standards, label and certification) to crafts and other agro-products. This is important for SFC to ensure relevant to the large and diverse producers/ enterprise sectors in India. More partners, more producers should benefit from this labeling initiative in cotton and the labeling initiative should expand to cover other sectors as well.
2.3. Relevance of Partners
The project was envisaged with a partnership between Traidcraft and IRFT (local implementing partner) and strategic partnerships with Fair Trade Forum- India. It was also envisaged that Indian members of WFTO (World Fair Trade Organisation, previously IFAT) and FLO (Fairtrade Labeling Organization) would be partners in solidarity. Over the course of the project, Shop for Change Fair Trade was established and many project activities have since, been implemented by Shop for Change.
2.3.1. IRFT and Shop for Change
Given IRFT’s role as a support organization for producers and given their long term partnership with Traidcraft, IRFT was seen as the most appropriate choice as the local implementing partner for this project. However, as the project progressed, the Core Strategy Committee and Traidcraft realised that IRFT was unable to carry out the decisions of the CSC and various sub committees, due to the scale of work required, and a dedicated team was required for the same. Hence, a secretariat was envisaged and separate funds from ICCO were mobilized for financing human resources for the same. There were delays in the establishment of the secretariat and in the meantime the decision had been made for launching an autonomous certification organization (Shop for Change Fair Trade) and it is this newly formed organization that then (June 2008 onwards) took on many activities under this initiative. The extent and range of activities that were involved in the project were perhaps not fully realized at the start of the project. The implementing organization (IRFT) with its existing roles and ongoing projects, could not have undertaken the entire range of activities that had to be implemented in the project. There were delays in implementation of the activities and by the time the need for an autonomous organization was realized and by the time Shop for Change was set up, a large number of project activities, had accumulated. SFC had to play multiple roles concurrently (not necessarily always in logical sequence). SFC was at the same time, work on - standards setting, development of certification systems, identification and negotiation with producers, developing markets, organizing awareness campaigns and above all this, establishing itself as a legal and independent entity, all of this with limited staff capacity.
As the project stands now, there is broad agreement among all participating organisations (IRFT, Traidcraft, SFC, producer organisations and buyers) that SFC role needs to be more focused and all activities that will not be part of its focus should be outsourced and /or be undertaken in partnership with other relevant organisations. During the course of this evaluation, the SFC board has re-assessed the role of SFC and agreed that some of the activities can be outsourced, in particular, the capacity building of producers and audits. In the meantime, there have been leadership changes within IRFT and they too are now poised to take on their role as a support organization.
SFC was envisaged and set up as an ‘autonomous’ organization, with a clear commitment from both partner organisations- Traidcraft and IRFT that they will not control it. The Board of SFC was formed of the initial members of the multistakeholder consultations who spearheaded the process as members of the Core Strategic Committee (CSC). The CSC in turn decided that membership to the SFC board will be offered to individuals rather than organisations, except in the case of producer organisations who would have organizational membership. This decision was based on their experience with the various sub committees and the core strategic committee where it was found that individuals who took personal interest in the initiative tended to participate consistently and meaningfully contributed to the initiative rather than those who were simply representing their organisations.
While SFC addresses any issues related to its governance, it is critical that attention be paid to its autonomy from all implementing and partnering organisations, including Traidcraft and IRFT. SFC is meant to be accountable to a multistakeholder board and this board needs to represent interests of producer organisations and concerns of other stakeholders. There is perhaps a need for discussions among the board and partner organisations to generate more clarity on this subject to ensure autonomy of SFC and at the same time clarify its accountability, such that all participating organisations and other partners are in agreement with the purpose of these decisions. 2.3.2. Fair Trade Forum-India
Fair Trade Forum-India (FTFI), a national network for promoting fair trade in India and representing Indian members of the WFTO, was planned as a key stakeholder in the project. The initial targets set out in the project were based on the outreach of FTFI- at the start of the project FTFI membership included 35 producer organisations, most of who were engaged in handicrafts. PROFIT worked out its targets based on the outreach of FTFI (35 organisations, 575 enterprises and 40,000 producers/artisans). FTFI was part of initial stakeholder meetings, members of the core strategy committee and were also invitees on the first, albeit informal, meeting of the board of SFC.
Over the course of the project partnership FTFI has run into trouble on issues of role sharing between SFC, FTFI and IRFT in the context of fair trade promotion in India. FTFI is also keen on an organizational membership to SFC. Although FTFI has lauded the initiative and expressed interest in working together with SFC, there seem to be a perceived conflict of interest with FTFI perceiving SFC as a challenge to its own existence and as creating unhealthy competition among fair trade organisations within India. FTFI seems to find SFC standards as a competing initiative that they consider detrimental to the promotion of fair trade in India.
From SFC point of view, their standards are in fact an effort to improve upon the existing systems, including those set up by the FLO, in order that the new system is more applicable to the local context. The argument that multiple standards initiatives being detrimental to promotion of fair trade in India seems without foundation. In fact, some stakeholders commented that, the more labeling initiatives, the better it would be for producers and consumers alike. Of course, there could be a case for harmonizing standards for the benefit of producers and consumers alike and that will need to be a studied and careful intervention in any case. Also, for now, this discussion is speculative- when FLO or any other organization does venture into labeling and certification for fair trade in domestic markets, it will be sensible for all concerned to work in solidarity.
3. Efficiency and Effectiveness
The project that was initially planned for a 36-month period was extended twice and finally completed over a period of 50 months. An assessment of the progress of the project indicates that the project has largely moved in the direction of its plans. The overall and specific objectives are yet to be achieved; some expected results are coming through and almost all planned activities have been carried out.
3.1. Achievement of Objectives
The objectives conceived for this initiative seem to be somewhat overambitious given the short time frame of the grant. Even though overall objectives are meant more as statement of purpose to be achieved over a longer period of time, poverty reduction as an objective, for an initiative that is a first step towards establishing fair trade in domestic markets, is overambitious.
Having said that, there is reasonable evidence from global experience to expect that such an initiative will have an impact on increasing income and improving livelihoods of producers that are brought within its folds. This initiative is an ongoing movement and may well go on to achieve this objective, albeit in the next 5-10 years. The interventions and preparations required before poor and marginalized producers can begin to benefit from fair trade takes time, as indeed has been demonstrated by this initiative.
Of the 40,000 small and marginalized producers who were the initial target of this project, approximately 5,300 small producers were certified by the end of this project. SFC has been directly responsible for the sale of approximately 19 tons of cotton fibre, sold at some of the highest prices paid in the country. These numbers are expected to grow as markets for certified products begin to expand and new products get included.
In light of the above and in the absence of statistical evidence, this evaluation can provide only a sense of the achievement against objectives of the initiative and perhaps treated as the pilot phase. Below is an attempt to describe the achievements in progressive terms, assuming that the initiative is on the way to realizing the objectives.
Objectives Achievements
Overall Objective To reduce poverty amongst poor and 20 marginalized producers in See below India (especially in Orissa, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat (Kutch region), Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Tamil Nadu).
Specific Objective To increase the ability of pro-poor micro and small enterprises See below (MSEs) and their producers to benefit equitably from trade
At this stage in the project, the foundations have been set for increasing income for producers through 1) certification of cotton farmers to sell any crop they produce as SFC certified and 2) market access for fair trade products, for cotton as of now (as indicated earlier, with the new decision of the Board, more products will be added over the next 12 months). Producers have participated in the initiative and provided cotton for two buyers and over the next few months more buyers will be purchasing directly from fair trade certified producer organisations. As the network of buyers purchasing form certified producers increases, incomes of producers can be expected to improve.
As far as the specific objective is concerned, even though it is expected to be achieved during the project period, it remains underachieved and a work in progress:
There is an increased access to domestic markets for certified producer organisations, albeit small in scale at this stage. The 3 certified producer organisations have been linked to and have provided cotton to 2 buyers. It is expected to grow over the next few months.
In terms of increased and sustained sales and income, it is too early to assess this since there have been just 2 brands so far. It is expected to increase over the next couple of months.
In terms of increased ability of fair trade certified producer organisations, currently the project is working with already experienced and capable producer organisations- who have been delivering against demand for fair trade products in the export market. Recently, Shop for Change has undertaken an assessment of the challenges and bottlenecks faced by these 3 producer organizations in complying with standards and certification requirements. The findings of this study suggest a two-pronged approach – helping producers meet the standards and making the certification system more user-friendly.
3.2. Results so far
As the case with objectives, expected results too seem to have been overambitious, although the initiative has moved in the direction of achieving these. An indication of the progress against expected results is provided below.
Expected Results Achievements
1. Increased understanding and awareness of fair trade (amongst See below all stakeholders in India – producers, MSEs consumers, buyers, media, government etc) and what this means in an Indian context 2. Increased demand for fair trade products (from consumers, See below buyers and retailers) in India 3. Increased capacity of MSEs to develop fair trade products (in See below two selected product sectors) and meet fair trade standards 4. Increased capacity of local organisations to lobby on behalf of See below pro-poor fair trade MSEs 5. Increased support for fair trade from key policy/decision See below makers in India 6. Increased interest from other countries (in Asia and See below Internationally) to use the learning from this project to develop further national initiatives 7. Project effectively implemented according to budget and time- See below plan
Expected Result 1: Increased understanding and awareness of fair trade (amongst all stakeholders in India – producers, MSEs consumers, buyers, media, government etc) and what this means in an Indian context
There has certainly been an increased understanding and awareness of what promoting fair trade in India entails, among the participating organisations- IRFT/ Shop for Change, Traidcraft, producer organisations and buyers. This can be deduced from the various modifications and changes (from the original plan) introduced in the project. For instance, the original plan was to promote the sectors or tea and textiles however over the course of the project it was agreed to begin with one product sector- agriculture and within it, to start with one product- cotton. These changes were made based on an improved understanding of the market, products, producer (capacities) that was generated through research and consultations. It was in these consultations that it was agreed to pilot the whole supply chain in one sector, before rolling the system out to the other sectors. It is the strength of this project that it based its decisions on information generated through research and /or through the various multistakeholder consultations. Initial researches on fair trade in the EU and fair trade in India indicated the broad directions this initiative could consider (label, product, consumer awareness and so on). Subsequent researches on consumer awareness and understanding of fair trade in India, market research for products that can be launched and the current research on training needs of producer organisations are all evidence that the project has actively sought to improve the understanding of fair trade promotion in India for the implementers as well as stakeholders.
Similarly, the various multistakeholder consultations held over the first 2 years, have provided platform for sharing concepts, ideas, perspectives among buyers and producers, media, corporate and other organisations committed to fair trade. Some deliberations led to concrete decisions and some deliberations were without outcome. An important outcome of the deliberations was the agreement to launch a label in India and to set up an autonomous labeling organisation – Shop for Change Fair Trade.
Not all stakeholders ended up with the same views on how fair trade should be promoted in India and some dropped out of participating in the initiative but many decided to agree and participate. This is understandable since consensus building is a challenge in multistakeholder engagement, especially where a new concept (fair trade) is being introduced and a new initiative is being developed.
Expected Result 2: Increased demand for fair trade products (from consumers, buyers and retailers) in India
At this stage in the project there is an increase in interest and demand from buyers and retailers but at the level of consumers this increase is yet to be seen. From an earlier situation of no demand for fair trade certified products for the domestic market, there has been a shift to some demand as indicated by the orders placed by buyers.
The project has succeeded in enlisting brands and producers to participate in the programme- 3 brands have already participated by purchasing cotton from certified producers and launching final products- Rina Dhaka, Mother Earth and AND (Anita Dongre). The first of these launches was a trial set of 400 T-shirts by Mother Earth across 4 outlets in the metros across the country (January 2010). This was followed by a launch of high end women’s designer wear made from SFC certified cotton by Anita Dongre at 60 outlets across the country (April 2010). So far the market of high-end women’s wear – has been targeted and has shown interest in investing in the initiative. These outcomes have replaced the original project target of 20 retailers in Mumbai and Hyderabad setting up fair trade counters in their stores.
Consumer awareness campaigns have been initiated and are expected to have an impact over the next few months. In terms of consumer awareness, this will take more time- an important learning for (and from) the project was that enlisting retailer support and putting products out in the market needs to precede consumer awareness. It is hard to build consumer awareness until the products are available in the market. Since certified products have only recently been introduced in the markets, the consumer awareness campaigns have also been recent and hence it is too early to measure any increase in demand from consumers.
A press launch was organized as a focal point for the fair trade festival. Together with celebrity endorsements, the press launch received reasonably good media coverage. Similar press meets and celebrity endorsements followed the launch with Anita Dongre brand. Hence 3 producer organisations, 5300 farmers had increased the sale of their fair trade cotton in the domestic market in India. This has replaced the initial target of 875 fair trade MSEs increasing their sales to local fair trade markets.
Expected Result 3: Increased capacity of MSEs to develop fair trade products (in two selected product sectors) and meet fair trade standards
This result is yet to be worked towards and the project has just about initiated a training needs assessment of producer organizations to understand their needs and accordingly plan for addressing them. This is expected to happen over the next few months. As of now the focus will be on only one selected product.
As of now the project has worked with 3 already experienced producer organisations that already had the capacities for developing fair trade (and organic cotton) certified products.
At the time of this evaluation, producer organizations were supported in the area of one product sector – cotton, and decision had been made to expand to a basket of agricultural product over the next 12 months.
Expected Result 4: Increased capacity of local organisations to lobby on behalf of pro-poor fair trade MSEs
There is certainly an increased understanding of the kind of lobbying that would be required to promote pro-poor fair trade in India- not only with government, consumers, and producers but also with other organisations committed to fair trade but not yet participating with this initiative. However there have only been few lobbying initiatives.
The various multistakeholder consultations and the negotiations with various organisations for partnerships- producer organisations, buyers, media – seem to have provided a better understanding of the issues affecting fair trade in India among IRFT and Traidcraft Exchange as well as participating producers, buyers/ retailers.
Shop for Change has made and continues to make efforts with FLO, WFTO and the FTFI and although joint partnership projects have been planned with FTFI, several issues remain contentious about how fair trade will be promoted in India (as has been the experience in the west and is to be expected). The key challenge will be achieving synergies between the systems of the three organisations – WFTO, FLO and SFC (see 2.4 for more)
Expected Result 5: Increased support for fair trade from key policy/decision makers in India
While government representatives have attended the workshops, there has not been as yet any active policy advocacy work or initiation of partnership with the government. SFC will need to assess what roles the government can play and assess the current policy frameworks for developing their advocacy programme.
Expected Result 6: Increased interest from other countries (in Asia and internationally) to use the learning from this project to develop further national initiatives
As of now, there has been no specific intervention with other countries and the initiative has just about established itself- so it is too early to see any interest from other countries. Initial interest has been shown from Philippines (via Traidcraft network) and there are plans to share the project experiences with other countries that are experimenting with similar projects on promoting fair trade in domestic market (Philippines, Mexico, Brazil and South Africa). There is regular sharing of project developments through website, mailers, and international conferences.
The Network of Asian Producers, representing producer organisations from several Asian countries, did attend the initial workshops but there has been no specific intervention to promote other countries participation.
Expected Result 7: Project effectively implemented according to budget and time- plan
The project has faced challenges in implementing activities as per the original time plan and that has affected the budget as well. The delays in the project can be attributed in part to the longer time it took in the multistakeholder processes- getting a wide range of people from across the country together at one time and eliciting consistent participation over a long time. In part the challenges in implementing specific activities affected their timely completion: the process of setting standards took much longer than expected since there was lack of clarity in the beginning and then there were delays in getting feedback; the formal processes for legal registration of the autonomous institution took much longer than expected and so on. In part the delays are attributable to the inability of the local implementing partner to carrying on with implementation while they faced a leadership crisis- between the leaving of one CEO and the joining of a new one.
The project has been granted 2 no-cost extensions totaling about 14 months more than what was initially planned- this was largely due to the unexpected time taken in carrying out specific activities (finalisation of standards, setting up of the autonomous company, its registration process).
The budget has been modified within acceptable parameters (as per EC guidelines) to suit the newly emerging conditions and decisions.
Three internal audits were carried out by Traidcraft Exchange and accounts have been found in order. The EC has also undertaken one On-the Spot Monitoring Mission to look at the financial systems within IRFT.
3.3. Activities – Planned Vs Achieved
There were a total of 13 activities planned under this project and almost all have been implemented or are currently being completed:
Planned Activities Status
Project set-up, Management and Administration Completed Research on Fair Trade in Europe and India Completed National Workshop Completed Fair Trade Standards & Systems for Monitoring & Completed Certification
Independent body for fair trade certification Completed Interactive website Completed Distribution and retail network for fair trade products Ongoing Training, Mentoring and Support programme for pro-poor Adapted for current needs MSEs
Consumer Campaign Ongoing Fair trade festival Completed (Modified) Final Evaluation and dissemination Ongoing National Workshop 2 Completed (Modified) Finalisation & Publication of Report Ongoing
3.3.1. Research on Fair Trade in Europe and India
2 planned researches were completed in the first year of the project: a. Research on Fair Trade in Europe: This research aimed at understanding experiences of fair trade in Europe and deriving important lessons to guide development of fair trade promotion programme in India. The various initiatives from across the world were discussed and lessons learned shared. The study concluded with raising few critical issues that the project should consider, such as the issue of pricing of products, development of standards and labels, certification systems and so on. b. Research on Fair Trade in India: This research was aimed at increasing understanding on the possibilities of promoting fair trade in tea and textiles in India. It included surveys with consumers, brands, corporate, retailers and other organizations to assess the awareness around fair trade; the feasibility of introducing fair trade in the 2 selected sectors and the possible marketing strategies for the same. The research concluded with suggestions for 2 broad routes for promoting fair trade in India – 1) by improving fairness in existing trade through certification or 2) by launching and promoting fair trade products. Both researchers were presented at the National Workshop 1 and guided the ensuing deliberations.
In addition to these researches, some other studies were carried out to meet the information requirements of the project: c. Product Survey 1 (2007): Was conducted to aid in the selection of products that would be launched. Based on the first research on fair trade in India (above) and deliberations at the multistakeholder consultations, 6 products were shortlisted for a detailed product survey: Cotton, Rice, Tea, Coffee, Mango & Pineapple. d. Product Survey 2 (December 2008): Conducted by marketing research organization IMRB, this product survey was more conclusive in its findings and suggested that cotton textile and apparel would be the most appropriate segment to focus for the initial launch of the Fair Trade label promoted under this project. Other products considered were Tea and Fruit Juices.
An important feature of the project has been its commitment to studied decisions. Given the dearth of information that could direct the project, studies were undertaken and their findings discussed and fed into the decisions. However, there is need to ensure that researches have clearly defined outcomes and selected researchers have the capacity to deliver as expected. Perhaps a more structured or stringent terms of reference and rigorous selection of the researcher/s could have lead to the selection of the product in the first survey itself. 3.3.2. Fair Trade Standards & Systems for Monitoring & Certification
Since the Shop for Change standards and certification systems have just recently been established and put to practice, it is too early to comment on their relevance, efficiency and effectiveness. For now, this evaluation is focusing on the processes by which the standards were developed.
Standards
This has perhaps been one of the most challenging and potentially celebrated outcomes of the project. A set of generic standards for agricultural supply chains have been developed and applied.
The standards were to be developed over a period of 3 months but the entire process took over 2 years with significant gaps in between (see management challenges on delays). A standards committee formed out of the larger multistakeholder group (National Core Group), comprising 6 members was entrusted with the task of developing draft standards. 2 members in particular, representatives from ECOCERT and AIACA, worked on developing the first draft of agro-product and craft standards respectively, and integrated the two bits together. This document however was incomplete and needed further development (including details of process, indicators for compliance, certification process, and capacity building of producers). This further work was not undertaken until the Shop for Change was established in mid June 2008. By this time, the Core Strategy Committee had decided that instead of organizational standards they would introduce both, product and organizational standards. At the same time they had understood that the complexity of the supply chains and innumerable product lines involved in crafts, made standard development in crafts sector rather complex (this has also been the experience of FLO and WFTO). Hence, eventually it was decided that SFC would proceed with standards development for agricultural products and then move to crafts. SFC undertook a research on existing standards before drafting the current set of standards. This draft was sent to key stakeholders for feedback, some stakeholders met at a workshop to discuss and finalise some difficult areas and based on the feedback, the drafts was finalized and submitted to the board. The draft were then made available to the general public through their website for comments/ feedback and finally approved by the SFC Board and published in July 2009.
The current version of the SFC standards is limited to producers, producer organisations and first and final buyers within the SFC agricultural supply chain. In 2 years since these standards were published, SFC plans to collect feedback to improve the standards, as per internationally accepted norms for periodic review and stakeholder feedback on standards.
Covering entire supply chain: Issues
Right now SFC is handful with certification and marketing. Covering the entire supply chain needs to be assessed (wait and see)- need to assess capacities at SFC to cover entire supply chain and willingness along the supply chain. The first focus of SFC is to demonstrate value (of SFC label, in terms of sales returns) only then wills the supply chain be interested.
- Implementing organisation
Certification systems The certification systems were developed alongside the standards development. The systems are work in progress- the audit templates have been developed, tested and applied in the audits of the 3 producer organisations. Certifying organisations are being identified, with the first set of audits being outsourced to IRFT. The 3 participating producer organisations and 2500 producers working with them were certified against the producer and producer organization standards. Toward the end of the project period an additional 2000-2500 producers were certified with the assistance of a new auditing organization – ONECERT. Annual audits are planned for all certified producer organisations.
As for the buyers, SFC inspects the final buyer against the buyer standards, based on which the brand is certified and they sign a licensing agreement with SFC to use the label. Currently licensing agreement is with Mother Earth and Anita Dongre.
As of now, as an incentive to producers, SFC has absorbed the cost of their certification but eventually it is expected that producer organisations will bear the cost of their certification (once SCF demonstrates business case). SFC expects to lower the current costs of certification as they move ahead.
The 2 buyers have also been included in the certification – licensing agreement was signed with Mother Earth and their audit is due by mid 2010. Similarly license agreement will be signed with new buyer (Anita Dongre).
Why one product for initial launch and why cotton?
Initial discussions in multistakeholder consultations were about having a basket of goods that would be labelled and launched. SFC suggested they start with one product otherwise there was danger of spreading too thin. The challenge is not consumers but companies- getting companies to agree. Therefore there was need to choose product where companies were amenable and the product would get sold. SFC is a small organization. To work with companies and all along the supply chain requires focus and therefore going with too many products would require a bigger institutional set up than SFC.
There was a list of 6 shortlisted products based on discussions at consultations, of these tea, cotton and fruit juices were shortlisted- only agricultural products since those were the only standards that were developed.
Then IMRB was commissioned to conduct the research on these 3 products and that study recommended that cotton should be taken as the first product. One important reason being that cotton had organized retail.
- Implementing Organisation
3.3.3. Independent body for fair trade certification
Shop for Change Fair Trade was set up in mid 2008 as a not for profit company to promote social standards and product label. Formal registration as a company under India’s Company Act took a long time (9 months) and was finally granted in January 2009. Subsequently SFC has applied for registration of their tax identification number, exemption from income tax as a charitable organization and for permission (certificate) for receiving foreign funds directly from donors. The formal procedures for establishment of the company are tedious and did take significant time from the staff of SFC such that other activities were affected. These organizational hurdles were not anticipated in the original project design.
In addition to applying for and obtaining the various requirements of setting up an autonomous organization, SFC is also required to register its label (Shop for Change) with the government trademark authorities. The process of label development entailed research with the market, the first label developed was found incompatible with printing requirements and subsequently the current label was developed and approved by the SFC board (see Annex xxx for logo and label). The process of registration of the label in India includes search for conflicting marks and submission of a detailed registration application, both of which were misguided by the previous legal counsel who was hired. A new counsel had to be hired to undertake this activity and the registration process is now currently underway. A trademark registration takes approximately 3 years to complete.
The company Shop for Change Fair Trade is partly financed by the EU under project PROFIT and partly financed by ICCO and Belgian Technical Cooperation. For its work beyond the PROFIT grant, SFC has been able to mobilise new donors and grants. It is currently staffed by 3 professionals: A CEO with expansive experience in fair trade; A Standards Officer and a Marketing Officer. During the course of this evaluation a VP Operations has been hired to manage the larger administrative and financial aspects of the work. By April 2010, SFC moved out of its shared space with IRFT into a new (and separate) office space.
SFC is a labeling and certification agency and its roles have been defined as threefold: 1) setting fair trade standards and certification system; 2) create network of informed consumers and 3) work with other organizations to build producers capacities to meet demands of standards and quality.
All three roles require substantial time and effort, as has been demonstrated in the nearly 18 months of SFC’s existence. The work on building producer organisations has been the least addressed so far. In the light of the evolving programme, SFC roles have been recently revisited and there is an agreement on outsourcing auditing and capacity building activities.
3.3.4. Interactive website
Two interactive websites were developed under the project, the first at the beginning of the project to serve as platform for sharing developments with all stakeholders (under the url PROFIT). This website contained all project information and reports of the various consultations. Once SFC was founded, another website was developed (under the url Shop for Change). The website contains information about SFC, standards and certification, producer organisations and provides links to press coverage. It is also linked to a blog where regular updates are shared. Regular e-newsletters are circulated every month and at the end of this evaluation, the SFC newsletter had a subscription of over 900 members. The website also links readers to SFC accounts on Facebook and Twitter and to coverage on YouTube.
3.3.5. Distribution and retail network for fair trade products
The initial plan aimed to bring in 15 retailers in each of the two focus cities (Mumbai and Hyderabad) to commit to setting up fair trade ‘counters’ in their stores. However, as the project evolved, it was understood that certified products had to be available for mobilizing retailers’ interest. The mobilization of retailers was undertaken once the product was finalized and producer organisations were on board. It is hence, a recent activity and the involvement of retailers in the initial multistakeholder consultations were beneficial in identifying which retailers could be approached. In January 2010, Mother Earth launched the first set of products made with SFC certified cotton and in April 2010 Anita Dongre launched high-end women’s fashion wear. In total as of end of project evaluation, 19 tonnes of cotton from SFC certified producer organisations had been sold to these brands and products thus made had been widely circulated across the country (4 outlets for Mother Earth and 60 stores for AND)
Discussions are ongoing with 5 major retailers that have outlets across the country. Despite the initial delays in the project and the excessive time taken by registration formalities, SFC seems to have progressed at an impressive speed given that within 18 months of its establishment, the first set of certified products was launched in the market and yet another launch is planned for March 2010.
3.3.6. Consumer Campaign
Most of the anticipated work around consumer campaigns was not undertaken until much later in the project since it made sense only once products were ready for marketing – one could not expect to bring consumers to the market without first having a product. The product selection happened only towards end of year 3 of the project. However, some initial work was done, including research on consumer’s behaviour and for generating general awareness around fair trade such as the development of an animated video explaining the concept of fair trade, which is uploaded on the SFC website. SFC has also optimized Internet for connecting with stakeholders and consumers – there are links on social networking websites such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, in addition to the blog, updating and sharing information regularly. Currently, SFC has a fan following of 1,300 members of Facebook and 200 members of Twitter.
The subcommittee on marketing also worked on what was supposed to be a marketing plan but turned out to be a note on how to position/brand SFC. This note was developed prior to the decision on the product(s) that were to be launched and did not outline strategies for marketing as a result, this document could not be meaningfully utilised. A marketing plan and strategy for each of the products that will be launched needs to be developed and this could be a priority area for SFC over the next couple of months as their products begin to be launched in the market.
Once SFC developed, a PR firm was hired on a retainer basis to identify and execute appropriate media campaigns. This includes the coverage of SFC presence at a Fashion Show in Mumbai, coverage of SFC endorsement by leading fashion designed Rina Dhaka and the eventual planning and execution of the
The popular Kala Ghoda Festival features a special photo exhibition by actor and photographer Parvin Dabas this year. The actor, who supports Shop for Change Fair Trade, visited farmers in Kutch to capture the human element behind cotton and understand how Shop for Change helps improve their lives.
- Press release, Shop for Change February 2010. press event to launch the first set of certified products. Celebrities, including actor cum professional photographer and an actor cum model traveled with the SFC team to meet the farmers. The former profiled them in photographs that were exhibited at the Kala Ghoda Festival in Mumbai, India.
A drawback of the initiative has been the lack of direct consumer awareness programmes, which are currently being planned. The low consumer turnout at the Mother Earth stores is perhaps an indication of low consumer awareness. Perhaps the marketing plan can include strategies for direct consumer awareness as well.
The other lesson is that consumers will see value in Shop for change only once they are made aware and educated well with all aspects. There is no real demand from consumers and marketing has a very large role to play. - Participant Multistakeholder Consultation
3.3.7. Fair trade festival
This activity was envisaged along with the idea that this project would launch multiple products and would have mobilized a significant number and range of producers and artisans. The fair trade festival was expected to provide a platform for the producers and artisans to display their products and access buyers directly. However, since a lot of time went into the preparatory phase of setting up of the standards, label, certification system and the project moved from the idea of multiple products to single product launch (based on the assessment of what was feasible), this activity had to be modified.
A set of various press and celebrity endorsement programmes, along with press launches have been organized with the aim of generating media and mass awareness. All events have received reasonable media coverage (print and television) (see Annex xxx for examples of press coverage).
As of April 28, 2010 men’s and women’s T-shirts under the brand Mother Earth were available at all its 4 retail outlets across the 4 metropolitan cities; and 21 styles at AND outlets and select Shoppers Stops, Lifestyles, Pantaloons, and Centrals (names of stores) were available. Something to be noted for future such events is that they could be accompanied by aggressive direct consumer campaigns. Also, this could have been a good opportunity for building solidarity for fair trade among other organisations (NGOs, FTFI, FLO). Although 2 of the 3 producer organisations, as well as, IRFT and Traidcraft were present at the AND launch other organisations and stakeholders did not attend this event. For future such events SFC could consider using this opportunity for building solidarity as well and see how stakeholder involvement at such events can be increased.
3.3.8. The Second National Workshop
This activity has been modified as well. In December 2009, IRFT organised a one- day workshop for key stakeholders to provide information and an update on the initiative so far. This workshop was poorly attended and except for certified producer organisations and current buyers, the other stakeholders did not participate. This could be partly do with poor planning of such an event and partly a reflection of lower involvement and interest among those who are not currently associated with the project. As suggested elsewhere, SFC needs to assess the purpose and scope of involvement of stakeholders and make effective strategies for the same. The support and involvement of stakeholders remains critical to ensure that SFC continues in the direction of creating a movement for fair trade in domestic market in India.
3.3.9. Final Evaluation and dissemination
The final evaluation was conducted over the period December – February 2010, and updated and finalized in June 2010.
3.3.10. Finalisation & Publication of Report
This will done by October 2010 3.3.11. Training, Mentoring and Support programme for pro poor MSEs:
As the project evolved and priority was given to establishment of standards and certification systems, establishment of autonomous organization and identification of product, producers and buyers to test the initiative, the activity related to capacity building seemed to have been postponed. The delays in the completion of all the other activities left no time for capacity building work to be carried out and it was dropped from the current project. However, this remains critical to the objectives of the initiative and Shop for Change is committed to undertaking this in the coming months/ years. For now, as a first step towards capacity building, an assessment of all three currently certified producer organisations is being carried out to understand challenges they face in meeting standard and certification requirements. Based on its results, appropriate interventions for training and mentoring are expected.
3.4. Challenges
Since the project has only recently achieved some of its outcomes, it’s early to comment on its effectiveness. The delays (efficiency challenges) have affected the project’s ability to be effective. Having said that, the project is moving in the direction of demonstrating results at the level of the primary beneficiaries. Some challenges to the efficiency and effectiveness of the project are outlined below:
Overambitious plan
The project was conceptu alised as the start of a long-term programme to develop fair trade markets in India. For a groundbreaking, first of its kind initiative, it was surprisingly ambitious in its objective and target setting. There are however no surprises in the modifications that were made along the way and the setting of more realistic and achievable targets and objectives. Almost all participants in the project, who responded to the evaluation, agree that the project was over ambitious in its initial plan, that they were not aware of the challenges and constraints they would be faced with and that ideally the original objectives and targets should have been planned for a minimum period of 5 years.
Labelling initiatives are challenging especially if producers are the focus. T he first 2 years of establishing such an initiative are difficult and were for SfC. Decisions on product to focus, market research, consumers/ buyers’ patterns/ research in a country like India is difficult (given the diversity, scope, range). Very little work had been done in terms of consumer issues/research in India.
- Certified Producer Organisation
What we didn’t realize was the degree to which marketability of a product, advertising, selling a new concept, the business side of the initiative would be important (taking time and effort)
We also learnt that small producers cannot deliver immediately. Hence the launch/ pilot could not be undertaken with small producer/ organisations but with those that had the capacity to respond quicker to orders and those that had some experience with compliance and certification.
- Implementing Organisation
Time taken to ascertain the product category to enter the market with has been fairly long and it seems that not enough learning were available from the international counterparts to aid the decision process
- Participant Multistakeholde r Consultation
Management
Some of the delays in the project implementation are attributable to management challenges particularly related to the initial leadership at the local implementing organization- IRFT and how they delivered on the role they played in the project. Even as the project was conceptualised as a multistakeholder initiative, which was expected to evolve from collective participation and leadership, IRFT was responsible for facilitation and implementation of activities. Various respondents have shared their critique of the previous leadership at IRFT (for the first 2 years of the project) and how it affected the evolution of the project. The criticism ranges from:
• lack of leadership commitment to follow through on participatory nature of the project and the emerging discontent among participants, affecting multistakeholder processes and people’s involvement in them;
• lack of clarity on part of IRFT on how fair trade should be promoted. This being a new initiative, there were expectations that the implementing organization will be able to provide some kind of leadership and direction to the multistakeholder processes. It appears that the processes at various multistakeholder consultations and sub committees were not steered through informed facilitation but simply allowed to ‘flow’.
Multistakeholder approach
The multistakeholder approach has been both a boon and a challenge for the efficiency and effectiveness of the project.
It has been advantageous in terms of getting a large and diverse group of stakeholders together on one platform and mobilising their commitment to support the initiative. It has been useful in providing a framework for the implementation of the project. The various sub committees have served as reference groups for guiding specific activities (such as development of standards, marketing strategy, etc), providing inputs and feedback.
It has been a challenge owing to the complex nature of multistakeholder processes and in part due to its poor management in the beginning of the project. The very nature of the multistakeholder process is an important factor that affected its efficiency, ability of the project to deliver against planned activities on time. Two aspects in the multistakeholder approach have impacted the efficiency of the project: 1) managing an initiative that depends on the consistent and active participation of a wide range of stakeholders with often varied interests (and sometimes conflict of interests) is bound to take time; and 2) the commitment to pursue multistakeholder dialogues and collective decision- making also entails a commitment to modifying original plans as per collective processes. Both these aspects have affected the efficiency of this project in terms of implementation of originally planned activities and the original time frame. In terms of the management of the multistakeholder process, there are divergent views. While some participants have complimented the management of the multistakeholder process, others have strongly criticized it. It is plausible that just as management challenges affected the efficiency of the project (discussed in the previous section), its effectiveness was partly compromised by lack of effective facilitating of multistakeholder processes in the initial years of the project. This is especially relevant since the initial years were when multistakeholder consultations were organized with the view of facilitating collective directions for the project. In the absence of effective leadership by implementing organization, the multistakeholder process may have suffered.
Multistakeholder initiatives are a good idea but challenging to implement- India is very segmented/ fragmented. It’s good for getting people together to share/ exchange but it is difficult to get people to consistently participate. At the end of it, decisions were being made (by certain people) and the stakeholders were simply endorsing it. The process took longer, dragged on, there were too many committees, management of the process became difficult, as to be expected.
- Certified Buyer
4. Sustainability
The project has already demonstrated sustainability beyond project period by expanding its financial resource base. Several donors have committed grants and funds towards SFC and its numerous activities.
As the initiatives grows and expands and as business case is demonstrated, it is expected that producer organisations will begin to bear the cost of their certification, lending sustainability to the certification process.
Also, as more and more buyers get certified and realize the business case from fair trade, an increase in licensing fees and number of licensees is expected to lend sustainability to the initiative.
Similarly, over a period of time, premium for fair trade is expected to cover significant costs for capacity building.
5. Lessons Learned – Practices and Strategies
PROFIT/ Shop for Change has emerged as a very bold and brave initiative, ground-breaking in many ways, in introducing fair trade in domestic markets in India. It was conceived and implemented at a time when there was dearth of information on fair trade in India- there was no research/ information to start with- no information on consumers, products, and no previous initiatives to learn from. In fact, by being pioneers in this field, this initiative has generated information that can serve as lessons for similar such work elsewhere. In order to collate lessons learned, respondents to this evaluation were asked: if this initiative were to be done all over again or replicated in another developing country, how should it be done differently and what advice would they give? Here is a compilation of lessons shared by respondents and existing studies and documents related to the project.
Objective and target setting
By and large, all respondents agreed that the objective and targets for this project were over ambitious and suggest that for completely new initiatives, it is even more important to have realistic objectives and targets. One suggestion was that the aims and objectives of the initiative should be related to establishment/ testing of systems rather than at the impact levels of poverty. Targets setting should be realistic as well, for instance, instead of setting a target for x number of producers having increased income, a more achievable target, given the short project period and complexity of the project, could have been that x number of producers will be certified. Respondents suggest an assessment of existing access to producers at the start of the project before setting target for outreach and an accounting of the access challenges and the time required for the same, in the project plan. .
Importance of research
Basing project directions on good quality research was recognised as a strength of the project by most respondents. Similar to the experience of this project, they recommend, for instance, research before selection of a product; research on markets, especially to understand the preparedness and concerns of the buyers, retailers and match that with the product search.
A gap in the current project, research on existing standards and systems before the development of a new set of standards, was recommended by some respondents for any similar initiatives elsewhere - if there is a felt/ expressed need to develop new sets of standards - different to international standards- more relevant to the producers, easier for them to implement and for new certification systems that are more cost effective - begin with a search to ascertain gaps in the existing standards and systems and the challenges producers are facing. The drafting of new set of standards should begin with a clear understanding of the gaps and challenges in existing initiatives.
Products, producer organisations and buyers
An important lesson that this project can share is that in addition to product selection being well researched, market/ industry preparedness as well as your own preparedness for launching multiple products should be assessed. Multiple products, more so from different products sectors (ex, agri and non agri) entails different supply chains, different markets, require different expertise. Assess these before deciding on multiple products.
As there is no immediate business case for producer organisations and companies to get involved in fair trade, in the initial period, certification costs, product launches and other related costs need to be subsidized. For the same reason, there is need to work with more established producer organisations in the beginning.
Another lesson taught by this project is that any initiatives to promote fair trade will be industry driven and consumer supported in the initial stages. Industries need convincing. There is first a need to get foothold in the industries to develop critical mass in industry interest and consumer demand.
Market
A critical lesson learned during this project was that fair trade needs to rely on Public Relations to compete with mainstream markets and their mainstream advertising. Accordingly this was included in the project activities later. This is an important aspect that any future / similar initiatives should recognise and plan for from beforehand
Also, the project demonstrates that consumer awareness cannot precede product selection. In planning similar projects, consumer awareness programmes should be planned for after the products have been identified and are ready to hit the markets.
Multistakeholder approach
On the experience with the multistakeholder, several lessons were drawn and suggested:
If multistakeholder approach is central to a project, make sure that the facilitating organisation is committed to the process, and has the capacity to provide support with information, direction and has the relevant skills and capacities in specific subject areas (standards, markets, products, certification, setting up companies, etc).
Managing an initiative that depends on the consistent and active participation of a wide range of stakeholders with often varied interests (and sometimes conflict of interests) is bound to take time; and the commitment to pursue multistakeholder dialogues and collective decision-making also entails a commitment to modifying original plans as per collective processes. Both these aspects have affected the efficiency of this project in terms of implementation of originally planned activities and the original time frame. One cannot have control on multistakeholder processes, since depending on who participates; the process can get as broad or as narrow as the dominant group decides to make it.
Have realistic expectations of what a multistakeholder consultation can achieve- what is realistic to expect of honorary time commitment from people.
Management
Some lessons pertaining to management of such initiatives were drawn and suggested by respondents: Promoting fair trade entails interventions with multiple highly specialized areas: producers and production; entire supply chain, marketing- industry, buyers, consumers; standards setting and certification; and so on. Specialized skill sets are required to understand and intervene in all these areas. Unlikely that one organization can have all these capacities- these capacities will need to be sourced through partnerships, outsourced, etc. Initiatives must assess existing capacities and plan for the same.
Systems should be in place to ensure continuity of projects despite staff turnover, leadership change.
Setting up new organisations, especially certification companies have tedious administrative requirements. Research these requirements, be informed about how long such processes take and account for in project plans. Ditto for registration of label, logo. Each country has specific rules and regulations for these. Hire efficient and experienced legal counsel to support with procedures.
6. Recommendations
A key recommendation from this evaluation is for the initiative, now Shop for Change Fair Trade, to review and assess its objectives - long and short term- especially those related to impacting on poverty. The targets, similarly, need to be assessed based on all the experience generated so far and realistic targets for short and long term should be specified. Finally, plans and systems for achieving these needs to be put in place, so that in a few years from now, an impact assessment can be made. Perhaps a blue print for the next 5 years will be useful.
A related recommendation is for reviewing and assessing roles of implementing partners and stakeholders – who will do what – along with an assessment of capacities and plans for building capacities, as required.
The fair trade standards developed under this initiative were expected to be more relevant to the Indian context and the certification systems more affordable. Over the next two years, SFC should begin documenting producer/ organisations experience with the standards and certification, make an assessment of whether the original expectations have been met and what further needs to be done.
Recommendations from respondents:
All respondents to this evaluation were asked to make recommendations for the future of this initiative. Below is a collation of these.
Most respondents have shown faith in the positioning and ability of Shop for Change to achieve the original objectives of the project, albeit within a longer time frame. There is greater clarity on what can realistically be achieved and what the next steps need to be.
Of all the recommendations, the most resonating one is that related to expansion of the initiative- expansion in coverage of producers, product sectors and markets. At the same time SFC is encouraged to consolidate its efforts- outsource some activities.
Future role of SFC:
• SFC can dedicate more time and efforts towards promotion of the label and establishing the marketing network.
• Certification should be outsourced to certification agencies that SFC should accredit. (This comment was made before the official decision by the SFC board to do the same).
• Capacity building should be done by other organisations. SFC should identify and partner with appropriate organisations for this.(This comment was made prior to the decision of the SFC board to outsource capacity building work)
• SFC shouldn’t focus on capacity building of farmer organisations. Should only focus on marketing . There are many initiatives focusing on farmer training and capacity building. SFC has a niche and that is creating a label and access of domestic market for farmers and SFC should focus on that. Getting into capacity building will dilute the initiative.
• Assess, review objectives against time period
• Impact that SFC should strive for should be about consumer awareness . SFC should create a buzz around fair trade; make fair trade fashionable, make fair trade retailers hip. Fair trade retailers should be able to survive. Poverty is a long-term impact and cannot be impact that SFC should be measured against- rather SFC to be measured against consumer awareness, retail, etc.
• Careful selection of staff at SFC. Require good mix of skills in management/ marketing plus beliefs in fair trade and Organic. Control staff turnover (like the problem at IRFT).
• SFC team size is too small and lacks local knowledge of marketing and product launch. They need help on developing a supporter’s network among buyers and industry groups that are well placed in the industry.
• Fair trade needs networking within the country. SFC is just one way to make it happen. The vision of SFC is to create a movement through network. SFC is not simply about bringing products to the market, it’s more about creating a brand called fair trade.
• Have a reach as large as possible. Reach out to as many producer organisations and as many retailers.
• Focus on creating awareness among consumers . The consumers should recognise what fair trade denotes and should be aware of the principles of fair trade.
Future of SFC Standards, Labelling and Certification
• Need to ensure more partners, more producers benefit from its labelling initiative in cotton and that the labeling initiative expands to cover other sectors as well.
• Producer organisations would like to see how SFC could grow as a label and get more buyers. FLO doesn’t do any publicity so producers are unaware of how they sell and how they get buyers. SFC is creating some consumer awareness but a lot more needs to be done.
• Move towards certifying along the entire supply chain
Marketing
• Use product launch events to build solidarity and support from other stakeholders (other product sectors), NGOs, other organisations, companies.
• SFC shouldn’t just focus on big brands (buyers) but get into mainstream market (multiple channels) - not just focus on the fashion sector that can only absorb limited amounts of cotton. Only if SFC mainstreams can poverty be addressed.
• SFC needs a better plan for harnessing the competencies of large producer organisations that can cater to large demands. As of now, producer organisations are supplying much less than their capacity to supply. Hence a larger market base will support growing volumes.
• Research is required at the manufacturer level to understand how their mindsets can be addressed. Mainstream manufacturers need to be addressed for faster commercialization.
• Marketing needs to be boosted very strongly. Need to create enough awareness and merit for the initiative with consumers else will not taste success.
• Need to market to corporates and retail in a big way. Suggest a familiarization meet/ workshop or exposure to international fair-trade for industry representatives.
Products
• Get hold of products they can launch- high impact products such as T Shirts – they are not expensive, have messages and thus high impact.
• Incubate enterprises that can produce these high impact products and aim to get to TANTRA level.
• Other products: Tea in a boutique fashion, Toys (kids are influential), Crafts (Metal, ceramics, etc), look at Café Coffee Day- they haven’t launched organic coffee yet… could be ideal for launching tea.
• Make crafts happen. Connect with the export of AAICA in hand woven products. Crafts sector has far more reach in terms of numbers of farmers and artisans.
Stakeholders’ involvement
• Revisit purpose and scope of multistakeholder involvement, make appropriate structures for enabling multistakeholder participation, identify participants keeping in mind purpose scope and expectations of such involvement.
• Question multistakeholder approach – understand what is reasonable to expect from multistakeholder consultations and how it should be done differently
Annex 1: List of Respondents
Implementing organisations: Mrs. Gaynor Pais, Executive Director, IRFT (from 2009)
Mr. Nirav Shah, Programme Manager, IRFT
Mr. Seth Petchers, CEO, Shop for Change Ms. Vinita Singh, Board of Directors, Shop for Change (she was Chair of the Core Strategy Committee before Shop for Change Company came into existence)
Ms. Maveen Soares Pereira, Head South Asia Programmes, Traidcraft Exchange
Beneficiaries (producer organisations)
Mr. Arun Ambatipudi, Chetna Organic
Mrs. Preeti Shroff, Agrocel Industries
Buyers
Mrs. Neelam Chibber, Founder, Mother Earth
Other stakeholders
Mr. Binod Mohan, Chairperson Network of Asian Producers and representative FLO India office, participant multistakeholder consultation,
Mr. Mallikarjun, Executive Director, Fair Trade Forum India (FTFI), participant multistakeholder consultation,
Ms. Betsy Vincent, ex-staff, IRFT & Shop for Change Company.
Mrs. Uma Talreja, participant multistakeholder consultation, previously Shoppers Stop (retail outlet)
Annex 2: Label and Logo
Annex 3: Media and PR Coverage
Examples of PR for Shop for Change
Shop for Change’s friend Parvin Dabas – actor and award-winning photographer – traveled to Kutch, Gujarat to photograph cotton farmers for a collection of images. Four of Parvin’s photos will be debuted at this year’s Kala Ghoda Arts festival in Mumbai from February 6 -14th. Seen above, one of the 4 photographs displayed at the festival. Example of Press Coverage for Shop for Change Launch
Annex 4: Certified Products
The first set of certified products, cotton T Shirts, that were launched in 4 Mother earth outlets in Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkatta and Bangalore:
SFC Hang Tags used in these products:
Annex 5: Certified Farmer Organisations
Chetna Organic Farmers Association
Chetna, a farmers support organization (COFA) and a producers company (COAPCL), currently reaches out to 7100 farmers in the states of Andhra Pradesh, Orissa, Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra. 68-69 per cent of these are small and marginal farmers. The producers company COAPCL aims at providing the member farmers with a fair business alternative so as to enable them to i) get the best possible price for their produce and; ii) enjoy the benefits of a fair and transparent transaction.
Chetna focuses on small and marginal tribal farmers from the rain-fed regions of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana), Maharashtra (Vidarbha) and Western Orissa (Kalahandi & Bolangir) to adapt agrarian systems which are more sustainable and more profitable, by minimizing their dependence on external factors.
Zameen Organic
Zameen Organic is a pioneering farmer-owned marketing company for fair trade, organic and pesticide-free cotton. Zameen works with 5,000 marginalised cotton farmers in two states in India, Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh. They have focused their work among tribal’s and in areas that have been the centre of farmer suicide tragedies. Their work centres around improving livelihoods by increasing efficiencies, lowering input costs and raising incomes through certification.
Zameen’s farmers are the largest shareholders in Zameen and play a big part in shaping their policies as well as benefiting from shareholder dividends. Zameen is also a supply chain management company, seeking out partnerships with likeminded companies to more evenly distribute profits along the value chain so that their farmers get a ‘fairer’ slice of the pie.
Agrocel Industries Ltd .
Agrocel Industries was founded in 1988, with a mission to make all possible agricultural inputs and marketing support available to farmers at the right time and at a reasonable cost with all necessary technical assistance and guidance under one roof so that farm productivity and incomes increase along with national productivity- all through fair deals.
Agrocel markets agricultural products including cotton, rice and wheat and promotes sustainable production, organic farming and fair trade practices with 20,000 farmers across six states in India. It pays a sustainable price with premiums for organic and fair trade cotton. Annex 7: Achievements against set objectives and expected results
LOGICAL FRAMEWORK
Objectively verifiable indicators of Intervention logic achievement Status at the end of Project
Overall To reduce poverty amongst poor and marginalised Increased and more sustainable income At this stage in the project, the foundations objective producers in India (especially in Orissa, Rajasthan, and employment for producers employed have been set for increasing income for Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat (Kutch region), Andhra by fair trade MSEs producers through market access for fair Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Tamil Nadu). trade products (only cotton as of now). Producers have participated in the programme and provided cotton for one buyer and over the next few months more buyers will be purchasing directly from fair trade certified producer organisations. Specific To increase the ability of pro-poor micro and small Increased access to domestic markets for There is an increased access to domestic objective enterprises (MSEs) and their producers to benefit fair trade MSEs markets for certified producer equitably from trade organisations, albeit small in scale at this stage. It is expected to grow over the next Increased and more sustainable sales and few months and can then be measured. income for fair trade MSEs In terms of increased and sustained sales and income, it is too early to assess this Increased ability of fair trade MSEs to meet since there have been 3 buyers so far. It is demand for fair trade products expected to increase over the next couple of months.
In terms of increased ability of fair trade certified producer organisations, currently the project is working with already experienced and capable producer organisations- who have been delivering against demand for fair trade products in the export market. The future plans of Shop for Change are indeed to work with producer organisations that need capacity building in the area of fair trade.
Expected Increased understanding and awareness of fair Report on fair trade in India and Europe Both the researches on fair trade in India results trade (amongst all stakeholders in India – completed and Europe have been completed and their producers, MSEs consumers, buyers, media, findings disseminated at the government etc) and what this means in an Indian Research and project results disseminated multistakeholder consultations. context to all key stakeholders Over the first 2 years of the project a series Communication strategy developed of multistakeholder consultations, involving producers, producer Consumer campaign implemented organisations, buyers, media and government representatives have been Increased awareness amongst consumers held where several concepts and ideas and media related to promotion of fair trade in The Fair Trade Festival attracts a lot of domestic market were deliberated upon interest from consumers, buyers, retailers and led to the decision for and finally the and media establishment of a labeling initiative- Shop For Change.
Among the participants of the multistakeholder processes, there is an increased awareness about what fair trade in domestic market in India entails.
Increased demand for fair trade products (from Increased demand for fairly traded The project has succeeded in enlisting consumers, buyers and retailers) in India products in India retailers to participate in the programme- 3 brands have already participated and more retailers are currently been Retailers show an increasing interest in negotiated with. 5 select retailers – so far stocking fair trade products high-end women’s wear – have shown interest in investing in the initiative.
At least 20 retailers in Mumbai and Consumer awareness campaigns have Hyderabad set up fair trade counters in been initiated and are expected to have an their stores impact over the next few months. In terms of consumer awareness, this will take more time- one learning from the project Fair trade MSEs are able to sell their was that without first enlisting retailer products at the Fair Trade Festival support and putting products out in the market, consumer awareness cannot be created. It is only very recent in the project 875 fair trade MSEs increase their sales to that certified products are beginning to be local fair trade markets introduced in the markets.
Press meets accompanying product launches have drawn consumer attention and created new market for the producers. Increased capacity of MSEs to develop fair trade At least 30 MSEs receive training and As of now the project has worked with 3 products (in two selected product sectors) and mentoring to develop products for local already experienced producer meet fair trade standards fair trade market organisations that already had the capacities for developing fair trade (and organic cotton) certified products. At least 875 MSEs receive a handbook on how to conform to Indian fair trade Currently, a training needs assessment of standards other producer organizations is being conducted to understand their training needs and addressing them. This is At least 30 MSEs implements Indian fair expected to happen over the next few trade standards months.
The activity to develop a handbook has not Monitoring and Evaluation of at least 30 been developed yet/ dropped from the MSEs completed plans. As per the information generated in the needs assessment an appropriate tool could be developed.
Increased capacity of local organisations to lobby IRFT, India Fair Trade Forum and other There seems to be a better understanding on behalf of pro-poor fair trade MSEs local organisations better understand the of the issues affecting fair trade in India issues affecting fair trade MSEs. IRFT, India among IRFT and Traidcraft Exchange. Fair Trade Forum and other local While dialogues are on with other organisations are better able to lobby and organisations FTFI, as yet the lobbying campaign on behalf of fair trade MSEs activities have not been initiated.
Increased support for fair trade from key Research and project results disseminated While government representatives have policy/decision makers in India to all key policy/decision makers attended the workshops, there has not been as yet any active policy advocacy work or initiation of partnership with the Key policy/decision makers express a government. willingness to support the project
Key policy/decision makers attend National Workshops
Government resources or infrastructure made available for project expansion
Increased interest from other countries (in Asia and Research and project results disseminated As of now, there has been no specific Internationally) to use the learning from this to all key stakeholders intervention with other countries. project to develop further national initiatives Project research ad results are widely At least one other country agrees to disseminated through internet and in explore domestic markets for fair trade on conferences and meetings. Philippines has the basis of the learning from this project shown interest.
The Network of Asian Producers, representing producer organisations from several Asian countries, did attend the initial workshops but there has been no specific intervention to promote other countries participation. Project effectively implemented according to Budget managed effectively and efficiently The project has been granted 2 no costs budget and time-plan extensions totaling about 14 months more than what was initially planned- this was largely due to the unexpected time taken in carrying out specific activities- finalisation of standards, setting up of the autonomous company, its registration process and changes in leadership at the local implementing organisation. The budget has been modified within acceptable parameters (as per EC guidelines) to suit the newly emerging conditions and decisions.
Three internal audits were carried out by Traidcraft Exchange and accounts have been found in order.
Annex 8: Project Milestones
Time Main Activities/ Major Milestones
February 2006 Start Date of PROFIT
March 2006 Project Planning Workshop
• ToRs for Research on Fair Trade in India and Fair Trade in EU • Planning for First Multistakeholder Workshop- list of participant invitees April – October 2006 Researches on:
• Fair Trade in India • Fair Trade in EU • Products • Consumer awareness November 2006 First Multistakeholder Consultation
• 57 participants, including 4 international organisations • Agreement on the need for a label- that would be Indian and national in scope • Consensus to set ‘Indianised’ standards in consultation with producers and in alignment with the global Fair Trade world • Consensus to harmonise with other Indian initiatives –to bring people together and create alliances • Agreement on the need to develop awareness and build capacity from the grass roots level upwards • Agreement on more research for making business case / rationale for each product (selected) • Role of National Core Group for first 2 years will largely be advisory; Traidcraft and IRFT will be driving the project till then. • After 2 years National Core Group could become a national body and three years down the line ownership of the project to be passed to an independent body that will manage certification, promotion, empowerment. • IRFT and Traidcraft to nominate members for National Core Group. January 2007 First National Working Group Meeting:
• Varied opinions on standards, decision to form a sub committee on standards -to submit draft within 3 months • Agreed that standards/label should optimize costs maximize benefits • Label to be progressive and standards to be ‘Indianised’ • Launching of brand/certification mark considered • Structure of secretariat discussed with long term perspective, for continuing after end of project. Consensus on registering as a company. • Nominations for members for core strategic committee and sub committees on standards, product and marketing April 2007 1st Core Strategy Committee Meeting:
• Secretariat to implement decisions of various sub committees, until secretariat established IRFT to implement • Launch of first product(s) on Jan 1, 2008 • Consensus that the Domestic Fair trade process has to be driven by a label. • Name Shop for Change suggested for label (by COG) and approved by committee August 2007 2nd Core Strategy Committee Meeting:
• Profit is a movement to benefit the producers through consumer action • Build ground for more fair trade labels to come in (hopefully collaborating) • PR firm and Advertising agency to be hired on retainership. • Shop for Change to be registered as a trademark • Logo of Shop for Change approved (first logo) • Decision to launch label with big producer groups with large membership of producers, capacity to sell volumes and meet standards requirements for the market, consolidate / aggregate consignments, and meet market demand. • Plan for getting smaller groups on board from year 2. • Secretariat to be staffed with consultants to begin with, IRFT to invite applications and CSC to conduct interviews and select. Appointments to be completed by November 2007. • Secretariat to be housed in IRFT till company is registered. August 2007 First draft of standards developed by Standards Committee and handed over to IRFT/ secretariat for further work
November 2007 3rd Core Strategy Committee Meeting:
• Decision to register SFC as a trademark • SFC logo approved • Product research shared, 3 products shortlisted: premium tea, natural fruit juices, and high-end cotton textiles • Consumer research on selected products commissioned • Decision on not charging premium and not to sell below cost of production • Producers and buyers will not be charged for certification/label in the beginning. • Agreement that certification/trade audits will be outsourced • Independent body for fair trade certification will be a Company to be registered before logo is registered • 3 possible names for the company (registration) shortlisted- Shop for Change Fair Trade Company- top.
March 2008 4th Core Strategy Committee Meeting:
• No comments received from CSC members on draft standards, no progress on standards finalisation • Agreed that governance structure of SFC will include a Board and an Advisory Committee. • Current members of CSC would serve as Advisory Committee to SFC after its registration • First directors of the company will be Mr. Girish Sohani, Mr. Stan Thekaekara and Mr. Ram Bajekal. • Finally, Board will have 9 members, 4 representing producers organisations and the rest from other stakeholders • Agreed that SFC will promote the label and create awareness amongst consumers. • Need to have partnership with 59 organized retail chains like Shoppers Shop • Agreed to use a mix of self-assessment, peer review and third party audit. • Discussion on delay in recruitment for secretariat, decision on all 3 positions made • Decision that SFC will own the label and IRFT will conduct the certification against SFC standards March 2008 1st Producer Committee Meeting: • Discussions on standards, products. No clear outcomes. More suggestions and concerns were raised. • This was the first and last meeting of the producer group. June 2008 Shop for Change set up as secretariat and future independent organization. Office and human resource costs financed by ICCO. SFC staff begins work. Oct 2008 – Jan 2009 Consumer research by IMRB - led to selection of cotton August 2008 Structure of standards finalised
June 2009 SFC Label, Logo redesigned, new label/logo approved by SFC Board.
January 2009 Shop for Change gets independent legal status as Company registration under Indian Company Law received First meeting of the Board of Shop for Change January 2009 Decision on cotton based on IMRB study July 2009 Final Standards published after feedback from stakeholders and approval by Board June 2009 Selection of first 3 producer organisations to be certified July -September 2009 Certification of 3 producer organisations and 2500 farmers
December 2009 Licensing Agreement with first buyer: Mother Earth
January 2010 Launch of first set of products from certified producer organisations and licensed buyer
February 2010 Certification of additional 2000-2500 farmers
April 2010 Second Launch: Buyer Anita Dongre retails high-end women’s wear manufactured using SFC certified cotton, across 50+ outlets in India.