Final_poverty_impacts_ISEAL Alliance

ISEAL & Impacts:

Working Together to Demonstrate & Improve Poverty Impacts

ISEAL Alliance | May 2013

ISEAL & Impacts

The ISEAL Alliance is committed to improving the effectiveness and increasing the impacts of

sustainability standards. An important instrument for achieving this goal is the ISEAL Impacts Code.

The Impacts Code is one of three Codes of Good Practice that sustainability standards must implement

as conditions of ISEAL membership.

The Impacts Code requires sustainability standards to create a monitoring and evaluation (M&E)

system that will enable them to track short and medium-term change and to understand how this

contributes to generating the long-term sustainability impacts they seek. Since ISEAL launched the

Impacts Code in 2010, ISEAL members have made a clear commitment to M&E; staff time dedicated to

M&E has increased substantially–some organisations have tripled their human resources.

The ISEAL Secretariat actively supports members in implementing the Impacts Code and in establishing

high quality and effective M&E systems. The core of this support is the coordination of a peer learning

and support group that unites M&E staff from ISEAL member organisations. ISEAL also provides

capacity building, one-on-one technical support, guidance notes, and webinars for its members.

Measuring and demonstrating performance and impacts is an important step, but the end goal is using

that information to make improvements and make a difference. Evidence in hand, ISEAL will work with

members to identify approaches to addressing identified weaknesses and possibilities for joint action

to improve impacts.

The Demonstrating & Improving Poverty Impacts Project Team

Project Funded By

Photos: Nathalie Bertrams, Fairtrade Intl (cover); UTZ Certified.

3 Working Together to Demonstrate & Improve Poverty Impacts

1 The Demonstrating & Improving Poverty Impacts Project

Sustainability standards that are members of the ISEAL

Alliance address social justice, human rights, and

environmental sustainability across a range of sectors. While

each member is unique and has its own specific

sustainability goals, ISEAL members are united in their

recognition of the importance of understanding and

communicating the impacts of their programmes.

All sustainability standards in the ISEAL Alliance are committed to

tracking performance against their sustainability objectives,

evaluating their impacts, and using that knowledge to improve the

effectiveness of their programmes. Through support from the Ford

Foundation, the ISEAL Secretariat and six ISEAL Alliance members,

representing agriculture and forestry sectors, are currently working

together to demonstrate and improve the contribution that

sustainability standards make to one particular sustainability goal:

reducing poverty and improving livelihoods in developing countries.

Learning together is at the heart of our work with ISEAL members.

The Demonstrating and Improving Poverty Impacts project is a good

example of how the project team put this principle into practice

around a particular sustainability goal.

The long-term goal of this Ford Foundation-funded project has been

to work together to:

Demonstrate the contribution that certification systems can

make to poverty alleviation and pro-poor development; and,

Drive poverty alleviation and improved livelihoods for those

working in agriculture and forestry, through improved

impacts of certification.

The project's approach to achieving these goals is based on two core

tenets. The first is that having strong monitoring and evaluation

systems will empower ISEAL members to track their contribution to

pro-poor development and learn how to improve. To achieve this

goal, the project began with supporting participating members in

building their M&E systems and with developing a strong culture of

shared learning among the M&E staff members of ISEAL member

organisations. Together the participants in ISEAL's impacts working

group have identified key challenges in building M&E systems and

the Secretariat worked to develop general advice and detailed

A core tenet of this project is the idea that ISEAL members can learn more–and learn more quickly–about impacts by coordinating and harmonising their approaches to monitoring and evaluation.


guidance notes for addressing these challenges and building robust

and practical M&E systems.

A second core tenet of this project is the idea that ISEAL members

can learn more–and learn more quickly–about impacts by

coordinating and harmonising their approaches to monitoring and

evaluation. To that end, the project team embraced a collaborative

approach that has generated a shared vision and direction and

shared indicators to be used in ISEAL members' M&E systems and

future collaborative studies of the impacts of sustainability standards

on the poor.

2 Shared Vision & Direction

2.1 Conceptual Framework

More than half of the population in the developing world

live in rural areas. A large majority of these people are poor;

their livelihoods frequently depend on agricultural and

natural resource-based products. Many work as small-scale

farmers, forest operators, and labourers who often rely on

unsustainable production practices that threaten their

livelihoods and have long-term economic, social, and

environmental consequences.

Small-scale producers are normally engaged in subsistence

production or connected to local markets. Access to global markets is

often constrained by geography, transportation and infrastructure

costs, lack of affordable credit, and product quantity. As a result,

transaction costs can be high, economies of scale low, and bargaining

power weak, especially within the context of markets that experience

volatile price fluctuations. In addition, buyers, producers, and retail

companies secure much of the value in the supply chain and can

even constrain opportunities for small-scale producers to access

markets.

Sustainability standards are one important strategy for addressing

these barriers to using export-oriented production for pro-poor

development. How could sustainability standards systems help small-

scale farmers and forestry operators move out of poverty? How do

they intend to make a difference for workers employed by

plantations and enterprises? Each standard is unique and emphasises

a different approach to reducing poverty and promoting sustainable

livelihoods, and yet there are many common elements in their

approaches and goals.


These common elements are captured in the conceptual framework

(p. 6, Figure 1) developed by the Demonstrating and Improving

Poverty Impacts project team. The framework offers a generalised

picture of how standard systems work at the primary production

level to improve human well-being. This framework does not

correspond to the strategy of any one sustainability standard, but

rather reflects a shared vision.

The conceptual framework’s end goal, represented at the bottom of

the figure, is significant and sustained improvement in human well-

being at the household level. Human well-being is multi-dimensional

and includes economic, environmental, human, social, and political

dimensions. Higher incomes are part of the picture, but equally

important are living conditions, education, empowerment, and

control over natural resources.

Sustainability standards employ numerous strategies aimed at

achieving this end goal. The strategies–the standard, organisational

development, technical training, certification and assurance–appear

as tags at the top and in the middle of the figure. The core of the

sustainability standard is the standard itself, which establishes

practice or performance requirements, e.g., good agricultural

practices for farmers, sustainable harvesting rates for forestry

operations, or wage and contract requirements for plantations or

enterprises with hired labour. Sustainability standards support the

implementation of the standard by providing technical training. They

also develop or strengthen organisations that group small-scale

producers or operators who could not be certified on their own.

Once basic requirements of a sustainability standard are met,

enterprises and producers may opt for certification (see the centre of

Figure 1) and for the market access and higher prices that this opens

up. Sustainability standards operate or supervise assurance

programmes (e.g., audits) that check compliance with the standard.

Together, these strategies are intended to induce change in

enterprises (forest management enterprises, plantations) and

producers (individual farms or producer groups). For sustainability

standards to contribute to poverty reduction and pro-poor livelihood

development, the changes made by these entities must trickle down,

via the pathways shown in Figure 1, and result in improvements for

farmers, workers, and their families. Whether sustainability

standards ultimately succeed in generating improvements at the

household level depends both on the effectiveness of their strategies

and on many other factors outside of their direct control.

The conceptual framework offers a generalised picture of how standard systems work at the primary production level to improve human-well being


Figure 1


At the top of each of these pathways are the direct, short-term

outputs of standards systems activities (e.g., trained and

knowledgeable farmers and workers, newly formed producer groups,

adoption of required practices, or new business systems). If effective,

these outputs should then lead to farm and enterprise-level

outcomes like better management of natural resources, increased

and higher quality production, higher and more stable revenues,

more accountable producer groups, better working conditions, more

voice and participation, and new services and infrastructure for

communities. For each pathway, here is how outcomes are expected

to produce impacts at the household level:

Improved natural resource management helps ensure a sustainable

resource base to support livelihoods of families that depend on

farming, forestry, or wild harvesting as their principle source of

income, or as a supplement to other activities.

Improved production practices can boost productivity and quality,

leaving farmers and enterprises with more to sell and/or a higher

quality product that can fetch a higher price.

Better business practices, record keeping, and more negotiating

power in setting contracts and prices all boost business resilience,

which ultimately means higher profits for farmers or more potential

to invest and raise wages in enterprises and plantations that depend

on wage labour.

Creating and strengthening producer groups helps secure market

access for small-scale farmers that could not achieve certification or

access export markets on their own. Strong producer groups are

likewise important vehicles for delivering credit, inputs, and training

that farmers need to continue improving their production and

business practices.

Enforcement of labour rights, wage requirements, and health and

safety standards protects workers and reduces accidents and

accident-related income losses.

Greater and more meaningful participation of farmers in producer

groups, and of workers in negotiations with plantations and

enterprises, helps boost transparency, generate trust, and ultimately

ensure that farmers and workers share in the benefits that come

from certification.

Standard requirements around informed consent, use of premiums,

and investments in community infrastructure support community

development where farmers and workers live, and increase or

protect the livelihood options and services available to farmers,

workers, and their families.


2.2 Research Agenda

The purpose of the research agenda is to articulate the

questions related to the poverty impacts of sustainability

standards that the project team most wants to see

answered. The research agenda will guide ISEAL members’

own monitoring and evaluation work, and serve as a

discussion document that encourages independent research

on questions of interest to ISEAL members.

A first set of questions in the research agenda is derived directly from

the conceptual framework: How effective are sustainability standards

at inducing the hypothesised changes along the seven pathways of

the conceptual framework? And, do these pathways ultimately lead

to significant and sustained improvements in human well-being? For

example,

Do we see improved resource management, production,

and business resilience at the farm, producer group, or

enterprise level as a result of involvement in a standard

system?

Are producer groups strengthened by certification, and do

strengthened producer groups more successfully support

smallholder farmers and their families?

Do standard systems protect labour rights and support

increased wages?

Does increased participation increase voice and control?

What are the broader effects of standard systems on

communities?

Do these changes support higher incomes, asset building,

better educational outcomes, higher quality of living, and

more choice, influence and control over their work and

livelihoods, for workers and farmers?

A second set of questions explores the extent and nature of

involvement of smallholders and workers in standard systems. If

sustainability standards do not reach or retain the poor, then they

will not be effective strategies for pro-poor development.

To what extent are sustainability standards currently

reaching poor and marginalised farmers, enterprises, and

workers?

What is the timing of the costs and benefits of standards

and certification to smallholders?

The shared conceptual framework feeds a research agenda about poverty reduction impacts. This research agenda is intended to guide ISEAL members’ own M&E work, and to encourage coordination of research by ISEAL members and independent researchers.


To what extent is the value of engaging with sustainability

standards dependent on subsidies?

What is the turnover rate of smallholder participation in

sustainability standard systems? What drives decisions to

enter or leave?

Finally, a third set of questions explores the added value of the

different strategies employed by sustainability standards. For

example,

What benefits does the certification process unlock for

producers, enterprises, and workers that would not

materialise with technical training alone?

Does the link with standards and certification increase the

appeal, effectiveness, or success rate of training

programmes and other initiatives?

Are relative benefits of different components of a

sustainability standard different for different types of

producers or enterprises? What is of most value to the

poor or to smallholders?


What do we currently know about standard systems and the poor?

What do we know about the impacts of certification on pro-poor development? Existing

literature on the impacts of sustainability standards has much to say about this broad topic, but

how does it measure up against the questions of interest to ISEAL members? A review of existing

literature on the impacts of sustainability standards helped the project team identify:

- what questions of interest have been taken up by the research community?

- which questions remain under-researched or unclear?

- where are the research gaps?

A total of 15 publications–published between 2008 and 2012–were selected for review. Of these,

11 were compilation reports (bringing together the results of numerous individual studies) and

four were single studies. Two of these studies were peer reviewed; the remainder was grey

literature. The selected studies covered 30 commodities and processed products, and

represented 17 standards systems from around the world. Christine Carey of Carey Research

and Consulting conducted the review.

In general, the existing literature about impacts of sustainability standards on the poor is highly

skewed towards coffee and forestry, and towards studies of the Fairtrade and Forest

Stewardship Council (FSC) systems. The evidence gap for other commodities and systems is

much larger.

Within that context, Carey found evidence that the expected changes along some of the

pathways in the conceptual framework do materialise. Sustainability standards can lead to

improved environmental performance, improvements in yields, increased quality, increased

productivity, and greater access to credit. There is also broad agreement in the studies reviewed

that certification has improved working conditions, including communication, hygiene, provision

and use of safety equipment, and safety training in forestry and agriculture. Four out of five

studies identified positive benefits for farmers and workers. However, evidence shows there are

concerns about the distribution of these benefits, and Carey found little evidence on the link

between better natural resource management and social impacts.

Carey also found that one of the most frequently studied questions was about the costs and

benefits of standards and certification and their effect on the poor. Of the studies identified, half

concluded that the social and economic benefits outweighed the immediate economic costs.

Fewer studies examined the precise timing of the costs and benefits of participating in a

sustainability standard and whether this poses a barrier to entry for smallholders and small

enterprises.

There is surprisingly little information available about the extent of poor and marginalised

smallholder participation across all sustainability standard systems or about the extent or effect

of multiple certification. Carey found no studies that compared the benefits to farmers or forest

operators of obtaining certification (and thus also market access) to the benefits of technical

training and capacity building alone.

While a wider examination of the literature on the impacts of standard systems would

undoubtedly reveal more studies, these points are all gaps that future research could address. To

help sustainability standards better understand how they might improve their impacts, it will be

important for future research to carefully investigate evidence that connects changes along the

pathways in the conceptual framework with desired changes at the household level.


3 Shared Indicators

The conceptual framework and research agenda form a solid

platform of shared understanding to guide the next steps of

the project team's work to demonstrate and improve

poverty impacts of certification. A core activity has been to

identify a set of shared, or common, indicators that ISEAL

members can use to track and better understand their

contributions to poverty reduction, and begin to answer

questions in the research agenda.

The common indicators (see Annex) are designed to capture the

profile of farms, enterprises, producer groups, and households when

they enter the sustainability standard system, and to capture change

that these entities undergo during the period they are certified. The

indicators are built on a set of metrics (what is measured) that

directly relates to the conceptual framework and research agenda.

The majority of indicators that were selected come from indicators

already in use by ISEAL members, or already employed by other

organisations that have promoted harmonisation of indicators and

data protocols, e.g., Committee on Sustainability Assessment (COSA),

State of Sustainability Initiative (SSI), Finance Alliance for Sustainable

Trade (FAST), and Impact Reporting and Investment Standards (IRIS).

There are four main groups of indicators with associated metrics:

Reach: This set examines the reach of ISEAL member systems: how

many and what type of farmers, enterprises, and workers are

covered by the standard system. This includes differentiating

between male and female workers and identifying how many

smallholders and community-based enterprises are covered by the

systems. A metric regarding the number and type of certifications

held by each certificate holder will help us examine the collective

reach of ISEAL member systems without double counting.

Training and practice adoption: A second set examines a small

number of short-term outputs and outcomes of the standard

systems: provision of training and adoption of good agricultural,

health, and safety standards.

Outcomes along pathways: The third and largest set examines

expected outcomes along the seven pathways in the strategic

plan. Some of the outcome metrics relate to the certificate holder

(e.g. single certified farm, forest enterprise, producer group), while

others are specifically related to outcomes for individual smallholder

By reporting on the same set of indicators, and using common definitions and protocols wherever possible, ISEAL will be able to combine data and learning from various systems and studies.


farms or other small-scale operations that are grouped for the

purpose of certification.

Household-level impacts: The fourth and final set relates to the

household. These metrics cover the economic, human,

environmental, political, and social dimensions of well-being.

As ISEAL members move forward in building these common

indicators into their M&E systems and evaluation studies, we will be

able to pool information and data to get a picture of ISEAL’s

collective outreach to poor producers and workers. In addition, this

information will support discussions among members and their

implementation partners about how to improve the involvement of

and benefits for marginalised producers.

4 Next Steps In the upcoming years ISEAL and its members will put their

vision, direction, and indicators to work by undertaking

studies that measure the contribution of certification to pro-

poor development. ISEAL will commission three outcome

and impact evaluation studies that will be implemented by

independent research partners.

The objective of these studies is two-fold. First, they will provide

evidence about the contribution of sustainability standards to

poverty reduction. Second, they will allow standards systems to test

methodologies and promote consistency and coordination in the

approaches that ISEAL members use in assessing the poverty and

livelihood outcomes and impacts of their systems.

These longitudinal studies will take place in East Africa, Indonesia,

and the Andes and will track progress over two to three years. Their

focus will be on the early costs and benefits of certification. The goal

will be to understand how and whether the process of being trained

in and then certified to a standard leads to improvements in well-

being at the household level. We will specifically investigate:

Changes along the pathways in the conceptual

framework, and

Resulting increases in household income, asset building,

and choice, influence, and/or control over production

decisions and livelihood strategies.

We will use the information and understanding generated from

members’ monitoring systems, the three commissioned studies, and


other existing literature to foster debate and collaboration between

certification systems, their stakeholders, and other development

practitioners about how to improve the effectiveness of certification

in bringing about pro-poor development.

The project team will also continue to encourage engaged learning

and sharing among ISEAL members and the greater research

community that investigates the impacts of sustainability standards

systems. To that end, the ISEAL Secretariat has already created a

listserv for researchers, now numbering over 200 participants, and

organized a first workshop for researchers. These efforts will

strengthen and expand in the coming years.

Final_poverty_impacts_ISEAL Alliance

Documents

Transcript of Final_poverty_impacts_ISEAL Alliance