Comitato ambiente di produzione standard: 5° Principio: Sustainable Social Development
Introduzione:
Questa è una documentazione in corso di una serie di finestre di dialogo fra persone del nostro gruppo Manufacturing, con il compito di sviluppare degli standard eccezionali per la produzione di gioielli. Segui questo link, https://fairjewelry.org/madison-dialogue-manufacturing-committee for full review of past discussions, including the entire principles and standards document that we are reviewing.
After reviewing this principle, I proposed that we delete it. The concepts within this principle and standard were contained in other parts of the document. Sezione 5.1 is going to be moved to our principle and standard on legality.
Read on to learn about why the concept of “sostenibilità” does not work.
~ Marc Choyt, Editore
Marc Choyt wrote:
Let us now review the 5th principle, Sustainable Social Development. I’ve heard concerns that crafts marketed under “commercio equo e solidale” is not actually making a difference to the producer communities. Some producers would actually prefer not to deal with “commercio equo e solidale” companies because of the additional burdens imposed. I want our impact to be more along the lines of the Alliance for Responsible Mining, who are working in collaboration with FLO International to market fair trade gold.
Qui, producer communities are supported in engaging in best practices and they are given international market support. We too want to assure that those employed by manufacturers in our program actually see their lives improved by their efforts.
Please review the propose standard below. Thank you once again for your ongoing consideration.
5. Sustainable Social Development
Introductory Comments:
Fair made jewelry must make a difference in the quality of life for all producers as well as the community in which they live. Production activities must be formalized. Taxes must be paid so that local governments can use revenues for the common good.
Principle:
Manufacturing activities will contribute to the sustainable human development of the communities in which they take place, improving the quality of men and women workers and their families.
Standards:
Minimum Requirements
5.1: The fair made manufacturing company must pay all taxes, fees and royalties as applicable by law.
5.2: The manufacturing company should improve the quality of life of its workers, including but not limited to health, housing and education for children.
Mari Lee wrote:
I would like to point out that this should be a participative process, where the workers can communicate their needs, and a bottom up participatory development model is followed, and not a top down one manner (i.e. this is what we the company will provide model) pushed from the companies side. Community engagement and needs analysis in this process is critical to achieve real long term sustainability. Without proper needs analysis, many companies spend Social Development money into a big black hole, not addressing the real social needs, but rather a “fashionable” o “western” approach to development they support.
Marc Choyt wrote:
I totally agree with your viewpoint. Participatory projects developed from the grass roots work are the most effective way to go. In an extreme way, I learned this in Haiti, where I was a volunteer working in clinics and running an orphanage 84-86. When Baby Doc Dulvalier fled the country, and there was total chaos and bloodshed around me, all the aid projects were ransacked– except for those that had broad community participation and buy in. Those projects that lasted were built upon the strength of human connection and trusted relationship, not just money being thrown around. Of course, there are countless other examples of your point, including what you are doing in SA, and the whole micro-load approach.
I am not, at this point, satisfied with what is proposed, but it is a starting point. So the question is, how would you frame this in terms of a principle and standard?
Mari Lee wrote:
This probably deserve some more thought, and thank you for also sharing your experience of the power of development communication! It really touched me…
Katherine DalPra wrote:
Per Mari’s perspective…and thank you Mari for that contribution….I’m not sure if this is too “Western” a concept….
But I noticed that under the last quality of life statement that financial security and/or opportunity for growth is excluded. Now I understand that many of these workers will value resources over money…but is there any reason you can think of that we would want to consider accounting for their financial well-being? Or is this duplicated through an earlier principle? Or completely irrelevant to this principle?
Martin Rizzi Wrote:
Hello everybody, again I find myself somewhat outside this discussion because the item in discussion pertains to an employer-employee model along the lines of the admirable South African example that has been cited where the jewelry-makers enjoy labor unions and collective bargaining agreements.
My experience has always been with cottage industry production where the many artisans and silversmiths must compete against each other in a rude free market “tianguis” environment. Even though I don’t know anything, really, about how such a relationship works in practice I won’t hesitate to put in my two cents. For the past few decades, about since the last great world war, the European Anglo-Americans have presumed to guide the Third World in its course of development. and to explain the Third World to itself. A good example of what I mean is contained in the word “democracy”.
It almost seems as if democracy means that the group or nation should open itself up to the influence of money. If one is the buyer, the imposition of terms, conditions and prices is a foregone conclusion, and the real intention of the buyer is to control these factors to the greatest extent possible, o, really, to control these factors absolutely. In this financial environment, what does the artisan get from democracy only giving the buyer a way to get hooks in to the community, by buying of individuals to take power and represent their interests in the commercial situations?
D'altronde, I will cite an example of the traditional Mexican system of cuahtequitl, of voluntary communal labor and a range of cooperative communal activities, from processions and elaborate saints day celebrations, to street paving. Mexican expressions of communalism begins thousands of continuous years into history – and they do not involve voting or anything resembling the presumably common Anglo-American interpretation of what is meant by the word democracy.
Indeed all the Mexican individualism is balanced by its communalism which is the way in which people get input into the society. In order to avoid open contention – which is *always* avoided whenever possible – the issues are decided by consensus in a process that is entirely informal and private. This form of democracy is not only time-honored, it is more realistic than the formal mechanistic and cynical ideal of democracy the Fair Trade buyers encourage the 3W artisans to adopt
Just my 2cents, folks
Marc Choyt wrote:
I would like to propose that we eliminate this principle. To me it is implicit in Community Consent and Worker Rights. I would propose adding this requirement to Principle 7, which has to do specifically with Legality.
5.1: The fair made manufacturing company must pay all taxes, fees, royalties as applicable by law.
I personally do not like the term “sustainable.” At this point, companies such as Rio Tinto and BP market themselves as “sustainable.” The word is overused and does not hold the weight it did when it was less fashionable to use.
But even more than that, I feel that this principle is an added weight that is not needed.
I’m not absolutely set in my view here. Some interesting and valuable points have been made. But it also feels to me that we are stuck.
Is there support for my view? If not, does anyone have a concrete counter proposal? Or, is there a consensus that we should just keep things as they are?
Thanks for your consideration.
Greg Valerio wrote:
Agreed.
Flavia Aarden-Kilger wrote:
Agreed as well.
Melinda Nugent wrote:
I agree also.
Martin Rizzi wrote:
As in art, the more one gets rid of the better.
Steve Metcalf wrote:
I agree that the term “sostenibile” has been diluted to the point of uselessness, but I wonder in any case, if there should be some advocacy for insuring that the institutions receiving the FT premium (distributers/wholesalers, manufacturers or cooperatives?) disburse the money in ways that benefit the people at the bottom of the power structures. I think ARM did something with this (Patrick?).
How the money is spent should be a local decision, but I am leery of systems that build institutions/businesses at the expense of the workers. Is the essence of this concern already in the previous principals? (It might now be good to see a collated version of where we have left everything as we have moved forward).
I am in favor of not burdening the text with redundancy. Detto, and not wanting to “beat a dead horse”, I continue to believe that the final text for #4 is unnecessary, as Martin pointed out so eloquently.
*4.1: *Within reasonable limits, fair made manufacturing companies must give allowance for family traditions and cultural events.
*4.2* Manufacturers create an annual time line of cultural events in order to plan production schedules so as not to disrupt operations.
Patrick Schein wrote:
As we did mention in our explanatory document available at:
http://communitymining.org/attachments/034_Explanatory%20doc%20Gold%20Standard%20Mar%202010%20EN.pdf
“The benefit of selling in the Fairtrade system is not only about having a Fairtrade Minimum Price as a safety net for Fairtrade products, it is also about receiving an extra amount called the Fairtrade Premium. It is meant to invest in the lives of small producers, workers, their families and communities by working towards the development objectives as identified in the development plan.”
Fairtrade and Fairmined does not prescribe any specific use of the Premium. It believes that producers are best able to decide themselves on the most appropriate way to use the Premium. Tuttavia, Fairtrade & Fairmined standards do require that this decision-making and the management of the Premium be accountable, transparent and inclusive of the organization’s membership.
For more details on the subject FLO you can read FLO’s “EXPLANATORY DOCUMENT FOR THE FAIRTRADE PREMIUM IN SMALL PRODUCERS’ ORGANIZATIONS” which applies in analogy for all producers and operators of Fairtrade and Fairmined Artisanal Gold.
Martin Rizzi wrote:
Questions:
Does historical documentation exist as to the various amounts of these “Fair Trade Premiums” in relation to the payments for sales and to the final wholesale and retail selling prices of the products?
E, is there a documentary record of how these funds were ultimately spent?
Patrick Schein wrote:
For Gold there is no track record because there is no premium paid yet. Gold is not launched for the moment.
Here are the Gold standards requirements on the FT & FM premium that are explicit. As the use of the premium is approved by the AGM and within 3 years a development plan is in place, the benefit of the premium can be assessed.
Regarding the Fairtrade experience on the impact of the premiums I invite you to browse through this link: www.fairtrade.net/impact_studies.html
Marc Choyt wrote:
In our working document, we have a special provision in regard to minority opinion (page 4). I mention this in context to Steve’s views:
“Recognizing that consensus may not always be possible, it was decided that a two thirds vote would be sufficient to move forward with a decision. In the case that participants had a strong minority opinion, that minority view would also be published.”
I’ve always considered the minority view important. If Steve anyone at any point of this process has a strong minority view, you can email me a paragraph summary and I will included in our final document.
Nel frattempo, are there any other comments in regard to the proposal to eliminate standard 5? It seems to me like we have agreement. Se è così, I’ll introduce the next standard in a few days.
