Manufacturing Group Regroups
Introduction: Over the past six weeks, the Manufacturing Group has been on hold. We have developed a set of principles, but the next step involves setting standards. This is a letter that went out to the entire group in early July, 2008.
Dear Manufacturing Group:
No participant in our dialogue has ever viewed our serious approach to the manufacturing issues as coffee talk.
We developed our principles to benefit the bench worker in some small factory unknowingly breathing in fumes from hydrochloric acid or cadmium. These are not abstractions to any of us.
There is some concern among members of the Madison Dialogue as of late that Madison Dialogue forum is not the proper place to set standards. From this point of view, there needs to be a broader organization or NGO under which this type of processes take place. We agree with that point of view.
We have been offered support in our processes from Earthworks and from the Association of Responsible Mining (ARM). Patrick Schein, who is in our group, is on the board of ARM. Steve D’Esposito, the Executive Director of Earthworks, has also been following our dialogues.
In addition, Demos is deeply involved with Fair Made South Africa. Demos has offered that we could explore Fair Made South Africa as an umbrella organization for our work as well. Fair Made South Africa already is indirectly working with IFAT as they deal with Cofta, the African office of IFAT. Demos has the full support of the South African Jewellery Council. Demos is already involved in jewelry manufacturing through his organization, which is perhaps the best model for fair trade jewelry manufacturing existing.
Also, Rapaport Group, which employs Amanda, is obviously in support of our efforts. (www.diamonds.net.)
We could always be more diverse in our representation, but already our group is broadly diverse. Our forum has always been open to those who wish to make a serious contribution.
We take recent interest in our activities as a positive sign.
One of the issues raised is that groups such as ours have to follow ISEAL protocols.
In fact, in the beginning, Amanda has been in touch with an ISEAL representative. She recently contacted ISEAL again to bring them up to date.
Here are some ISEAL protocols which Cristina from ARM noted in a letter to the Madison Dialogue list serve:
“Standards will not create unnecessary barriers to trade.”
Our objective is to support trade of manufacturers
“Our standard-setting process is transparent and open to interested stakeholders.”
In fact, our standards are by far the most transparent of any working group: the dialogues are published on www.fairjewelry.org.
“The standard has clear objectives, and criteria that meet those objectives.”
Again, these can be read on the website.
“There is meaningful participation by those stakeholders that are directly affected by the implementation of the standard.”
A list of participants is posted. We have a vast and experienced network with deep experience in jewelry manufacturing.
“There is a balance of input in the discussion and in the decision-making on the standard.”
We invite anyone to critically review the posted dialogues and they will see that we have clearly meet this criteria.
We have held back for a few weeks because we wanted to make sure that we had the outside support necessary for our work to make a difference.
If doing this work as part of the Madison Dialogue is deemed not right, we do have the option to form our own association with the support of our members which do represent a broad diversity of views and organizations.
We now feel confident to continue our work to set up standards while exploring possible collaborations with interested parties.
One final thing– Vivien has joined our Steering Committee. So at this point the active steering committee consist of Vivien, Amanda and Marc.
Cheers,
Vivien, Amanda and Marc
