RTRS General Assembly , Sao Paulo, Brazil. May 8, 2007 Dawn Robinson and Anders Lindhe ProForest

1. Developing Standards for Responsible Soy: Lessons from other criteria and indicator development processes RTRS General Assembly , Sao Paulo, Brazil. May 8, 2007 Dawn Robinson and Anders Lindhe ProForest

2. RTRS Objective: “ a forum for developing and promoting principles, criteria, indicators, and verification tools for responsible soy production, processing and trading” “ Responsible soy is economically viable, socially beneficial, and environmentally appropriate” (RTRS statutes, Nov 2006) Lessons can be learned from other, similar initiatives.

3. Sources of Practical Lessons • Palm Oil Sector • Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) • Forestry Sector • Forest certification schemes [e.g. Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC)] • Agricultural Certification • Sustainable Agriculture Network, EUREPGAP • Organic Certification • Eg. IFOAM • Fairtrade schemes • Eg. FLO • Coffee • 4 Cs (common code for coffee community), Utz coffee • Associations of voluntary verification schemes • International Social and Environmental Accreditation and Labelling (ISEAL Alliance). Eg. Code Good Practice in standard setting. • International Standards Setting bodies • e.g. ISO Guide 59

4. Key questions in developing credible schemes • What is ‘sustainable’ or ‘responsible’ production? (definition) • Who decides? (participation) • Is a producer implementing ‘sustainable’/ ‘responsible’ production practices? (verification/certification) • Is what I am buying coming from a producer implementing sustainable/ responsible practices? (product tracing)

5. What are the components of a credible scheme? • Standards or set of criteria and indicators • Independent certification or verification • Product traceability • Accreditation

6. Why standards are necessary • Provide clear definition of sustainability (or responsibility) • Provides a means of measuring improvements, performance • Provides credibility for the sector and those involved

7. What makes a credible standard setting process? • Adequately addressing key sustainability issues: • Economic • Social • Environmental • Implementable in practice • Development through a transparent and consultative process • Acceptability to whole range of interested parties

8. Developing the standards or criteria -First step in achieving credibility -Foundation of any future verification system

9. Standard-setting group • Participation • Involving key stakeholders • Decision making • Clear mechanism for making decisions ensuring: • no single interest can dominate • no single interest over-ruled • Should operate transparently • Should consult widely

10. Standard Setting: The Experience of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil Transparent and consultative process Criteria working group 10- Producers 5-Supply chain 5-Env & 5Soc NGOs Balancing interest groups Defining sustainability Developing standards Review drafts Stakeholder consultation Finalisation & Adoption Implementation

11. Defining policy and practice: The experience of the FSC Plantation Working Group Balanced working group across chambers and regions Selected by chamber members. Representatives not necessarily FSC members 4 environmental chamber (2 north/2 south) 4 social chamber (2 north/2 south) 4 economic chamber (2 north/2 south) System for decision making agreed up front. All decisions taken by consensus, except 1, where voting used. 1st meeting 6 months from concept (define how and select group) 1.5 years to achieve recommendations

12. Standards development: Lessons learned (1) Formation of a Working group • adequate participation • Geographical spread • production/processor/consumption regions • Broad range of opinions • Representation • Either bring expertise, or directly affected by production • the right individuals • represent other stakeholders • willing to commit to the process. Openess • Experience in standards helpful • Clear process is important for legitimacy

13. Standards development: Lessons learned (2) Working group dynamics • Common understandings - training on standards development • Time committment. Outside of meetings • Draw on technical expertise at relevant points • External facilitators ease process • decision making processes • Determine and document at start • No single group should be able to dominate. • No single group should be dominated. Content • Keep in mind practical implementability of standards • Use specialist sub-groups and expert advisors

14. Standards development: Lessons learned (3) Stakeholder input and credibility Ensure opportunities for participation: • Allow enough time for consultation on drafts. • Respect different realities of time to input. • Ensure translation of key documents into relevant languages.

15. Standards development: Lessons learned (4) Planning • Agree realistic timelines, including • time for translation • public consultation periods (rec. 60 days) • Ensure adequate resources • Face to face meetings • Translation / interpretation • Professional facilitation • Publishing of drafts on internet

16. dawn@proforest.net anders@saperda.se