evaluating 2015: the case for impact

Network of Asia and Pacific Producers (NAPP)3307, Lippo Centre, 89 Queensway, Hong Kong

273, Thomson Road, #04-01, Novena Gardens, Singapore- 307644

Evaluating 2015: The Case for ImpactAyan A Banerjee | CEO Harveen Kour | MEL Manager

AGENDACross cutting across slides | Impact Evaluation; Strategic Intent

Impact Assessment

Monitoring

Evaluation

NAPP Profile

Learning

Social Returns on Investment

Premium Utilization

Premium Receipts

Standards

Pricing

Market Outreach

Products and Markets

RepresentationFarmer empowerment

Worker empowerment

Efficiency

Scope of Activities

Scope

Geographical ScopeBudget Constraints

Growth

Programmes

Targetted Projects

• The financial figures and participation data is based on NAPP Finance Information

• All MEL based producer data is for external communication

• All ECERT based producer data is for internal insights

• While FLO IDs are self explanatory, for the purpose of this presentation a PO is a producer group which may have multiple FLO IDs

• All Premium & Farmers Workers data is based on MEL data i.e. as per audits (cut-off period is 30, April 2015)

• For some specific producer organizations, since the audit did not happen this year, last year figures have been taken for no. of farmers & workers, premium, production, sales etc.

3

PRELUDE AND CAVEATSKey Points to Note

IMPACT ASSESSMENT ADVISORYExecutive Summary

Given resource constraints, NAPP needs to: • Create concentric circles of services priorities; or,

• Leverage additional resources, revise revenue model and contribution of members

• Maximising development change from a Social Returns on Investment (SROI), framework developed

Align Fairtrade with NAPP (Tier 2 products; premium, sales and markets, and basic financing for NAPP towards producer support)

In NAPP subsidizing/ sponsoring trade-fairs participation, we found no concrete evidence that it is creating impact [demonstrated access to markets leading to premiums]

• NAPP needs to develop, adapt and implement SROI in decision on operating plans

STANDARD OPERATING PRINCIPLES & PROCEDURES: Client-centric | Lean | MEL Integrated

FOCUS IMPACT ON THE CUSTOMERS

Customer Development

Lean OperationsBootstrapping

THROUGH CONSTANT EVOLVING, LEARNING PROCESSES

“Lean Operations” represents a synthesis of Customer Development, and Lean practices.

Articulate Problem, Formulate Tenable

Hypothesis

Demo: Pilot / Proof-of-concept / Build Minimal

Viable Product

Validate Solution: Evaluate Qualitatively, Verify Quantitatively

Learn

LEARNING: INFLUENCING THE 2016 OPERATING PLANEmbedding in the DNA of the organization

(The marginal farmer, the worker, the consumer!)

“Customer Development” will be used to describe the parallel process of building a continuous feedback loop with customers throughout the product/service development cycle.

“Bootstrapping” in our common context will be understood as a collection of techniques used to minimize the amount of external resources required – financial and non-financial. This would be a step towards sustainability.

LEARNING: INFLUENCING THE 2016 OPERATING PLANExecutive Summary

• What are the proposed changes from 2015?

• What does the 2015 analysis mean for 2016 and beyond?

1. Efficiency

2. Value for Money

3. Impact

6

NAPP PROFILEPOs by type

7Source: MEL Data 2014

NAPP PROFILEPOs by type

8

2012 2013 2014 20150

50

100

150

200

250

45 49 54 54

105117

128 138

2219

2118

Change in Producer Organizations by Type- CAGR with 2012 as Base Year

HL SPO CP

CP CAGR: -1.5%

TOTAL CAGR: 3%

HL CAGR: 3%

SPO CAGR: 3%

TOTAL 172

TOTAL 185

TOTAL 203

TOTAL 210

Take-away:• CAGR with 2012 as base year

comparison between CAGR 2015 & CAGR 2014 shows that:

o Overall CAGR reduced to 3% in 2015 from 6% in 2014.

o CP CAGR reduced to -1.5% in 2015 from -1% in 2014

o HL CAGR reduced to 3% in 2015 compared to 5% in 2014

- Does this reflect the stagnancy in the tea sector?o SPO CAGR reduced to 3% in 2015

compared to 5% in 2014

Source: ECERT

NAPP PROFILE POs by type

9

Take-away:• If we include all multi-estates for HL, then the number of SPOs and number of these

estates almost equalizes• How does this link to global 2016-2020 strategy?• Where are the workers in the strategy?• Do we have 210 or 304 producers? How would we look at this from producer support

point of view and from market support point of view?

26%

66%

9%

Percentage Share of Producer Organizations

HL SPO CP

49%

45%

6%

Percentage Share of Producer Organizations 2015 according to multi-estates

HL (including multi-estates) SPO CP

HL SPO CP Total0

50100150200250300350

54

138

18

210

148 138

18

304

No. of Orgs as per FLO IDs in comparison to No. of Orgs including multi-estates

No. of FLO IDsNo. of Orgs including multi-estates

Source: ECERTSource: ECERT

Source: ECERT

Since the multi-estates are only in India & Sri Lanka, when we take them into account:• India’s HL sector increases from 33

organizations to 103 estates• Sri Lanka’s HL sector increases from

13 organizations to 37 estates

NAPP PROFILE The NAPP Map

10

India

Sri Lan

ka

Thaila

nd

Indon

esia

Vietna

mChin

a

Pakist

an Fiji

Papua

New

Guin

ea

Philipp

ines

Tajikis

tan

Uzbek

istan

Kyrgyz

stan

East T

imor Ira

nLa

oNep

al

Samoa

Tonga

Afghan

istan

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

9085

23 21 19 1714

83 3 3 3 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 0

2012 2013 2014 2015

NAPP PROFILEPOs by Countries

11

Source: ECERT

Take-away:

• Countries that have grown in the last 3 years are:- India- Sri Lanka- Thailand

• Should our programmes be focussed in countries where the growth is or where the producer organizations are not growing?

• Should this data be looked at in comparison to FT sales and FT premium?

• What does this data mean for the countries that are not growing or have low absolute numbers of producer organizations?

• What are the kind of push mechanisms required for other countries? Resources and/or markets?

FAIRTRADE GEOGRAPHICAL SCOPE FOR ASIA PACIFICCentral Asia & Western Asia

Countries No. of FLO IDs

Products/Potential Products

Afghanistan 0 Nuts, Dry fruitsIran 1 Herbs, herbal teas & spices, Saffron, Dry-fruits, NutsKazakhstan 0 Cotton, Dry fruitsKyrgyzstan 2 Seed Cotton, Dry fruits, Nuts, Vegetables (incl. pulses & potatoes)Tajikistan 3 Seed Cotton, Dry fruits, Nuts Turkmenistan 0 Seed Cotton, Grapes, RaisinsUzbekistan 3 Fresh fruits, Dry fruits, Seed Cotton, Herbs, herbal teas & spices, Vegetables incl. Pulses

& PotatoesArmenia 0 Dry fruits, Nuts, WinesAzerbaijan 0 Fresh fruits, Herbs, PotatoesGeorgia 0 Dry fruits, Vegetables, Wines

12

FAIRTRADE GEOGRAPHICAL SCOPE FOR ASIA PACIFICSouth Asia

13

Take-away:• In 2016, we will leverage project on textiles perk up presence in Bangladesh• In 2016, we will evaluate producers and entry into Bhutan• In 2016, we will leverage partnerships to look into Nepal and Myanmar



Bangladesh 0 Textile, Rice, Seed Cotton, SugarBhutan 0 Processed fruitsIndia 85 Herbs, herbal teas & spices, Seed Cotton, Tea, Cocoa, Coffee, Fresh fruit, Oilseeds &

Oleaginous fruit, Dried Fruit, Rice, Nuts, Vegetables (incl. pulses & potatoes)Maldives 0 MarineMyanmar 0 Rice, SugarcaneNepal 1 TeaPakistan 8 Sports-balls, Seed Cotton, RiceSri Lanka 23 Tea, Banana, Cocoa, Fresh fruit, Nuts, Flowers & Plants, Oilseeds & Oleaginous fruit,

Herbs, herbal teas & spices, Rice

FAIRTRADE GEOGRAPHICAL SCOPE FOR ASIA PACIFICSouth East Asia

14

Take-away:• Indonesia is an important country for coffee in terms of premium receipts as well.

However, what is the scope for other products there?• Can rice and textiles both perk up Cambodia?



Cambodia 0 Rice, TextilesChina 14 Nuts, Oilseeds & Oleaginous fruit, Vegetables (incl. pulses & potatoes), Tea, Honey,

Coffee, Herbs, herbal teas & spicesIndonesia 19 CoffeeNorth Korea 0Laos 1 CoffeeMalaysia 0 Coconut, Rubber, PalmMongolia 0 Gold, Cashmere/textilePhilippines 3 Cane sugar, Oilseeds & Oleaginous fruit

FAIRTRADE GEOGRAPHICAL SCOPE FOR ASIA PACIFICPacific

15

Cook Islands, Solomon Islands, Marshall Islands, Walis & Fatuna Islands, Palau, Micronesia, Kiribati, Nauru, Niue, Tokelau, Tuvalu, Vanuatu – not covered by Fairtrade and NAPP



Fiji 3 Cane sugarPapua New Guinea

3 Coffee

Samoa 1 Oilseeds & Oleaginous fruitTonga 1 Herbs, herbal teas & spices, Oilseeds & Oleaginous fruit

2012 2013 2014 2012 2013 2014 2012 2013 20140

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

1,100 1,600 1,000 0 0 0 1,100 1,600 1,000

59,500 62,400 62,500

100 0 0

59,600 62,400 62,500

76,700 74,400 80,600

99,400 103,400 104,000

176,100 177,800 184,60019,200 19,100 19,700

0 0 0

19,200 19,100 19,700

Central and Western Asia South-East & East Asia South Asia Pacific

NUMBERS OF FARMERS AND WORKERSFarmers and Workers

16

Farmers in Small Producer Organizations Workers in Hired Labour Plantations Total Farmers& Workers

Source: MEL Data 2014 Note: No. of farmers and workers in SPOs includes CP

Farmers61%

Workers39%

NUMBERS OF FARMERS AND WORKERS3-year Trend Analysis reveals a flat curve


2012 2013 20140

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

180000

SPO Farmers

2012 2013 20140

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

HL Workers

2012 2013 20140

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

1100 1600 1000

59600 62400 62500

176100 177800 184600

19200 19100 19700

256000 260900 267800

Total Farmers & Workers

Central and Western Asia South-East & East AsiaSouth Asia Pacific ASIA PACIFIC TOTALTake-away:

• 2012 as base year, growth (CAGR) :• SPO Farmers: 2% (most of this growth is concentrated in South Asia

followed by Pacific)• HL Workers: 2% (most of this growth is concentrated in South Asia)• Average: 2% (most of the growth is concentrated in South Asia)• Which regions should be focussed: Growing vs not growing?• While number of HL estates when take into account multi-

estates are almost equivalent to SPOs, farmers form 61% of total farmers & workers; whereas workers form only 39% of total farmers & workers

NUMBERS OF FARMERS AND WORKERSIn relation to POs across regions

18

Source: MEL Data 2014Source: ECERT

Kyrgyzstan1%

Fiji1%

Papua New Guinea1%

Philippines1%

Tajikistan1%

Uzbekistan1%Pakistan

4%China

7%

Vietnam8%

Indonesia9%

Thailand10%Sri Lanka

11%

India40%

Producer Organizations by CountryChina

1%Lao1%

Papua New Guinea1%

Thailand2%

Pakistan5%

Fiji6%

Timor Leste8%

Sri Lanka9%

Indonesia11%

India55%

Farmers & Workers by Country

GENDER BALANCEAsia Pacific I

19

72%

28%

Farmers & Workers by Gender

Men Women

90%

10%

Farmers in Fairtrade by Gender

Men Women

45%

55%

Workers in Fairtrade by Gender

Men Women

Overall 28% of farmers & workers are women• 55% of the workers are women (HL setups) • 10% of the farmers are women (SPO, CP setups)

• But what women voice & representation?• How can we strengthen that? What should be our

impact parameters?

Take-away:• Are only 10% of women engaged in farming?• What are the further areas to explore in regards to women

participation in farming and women as workers?• The fact that there is a high percentage of women workers in

plantations, does that mean there is no need for gender programme there?

Source: MEL Data 2014

20

GENDER BALANCEGlobal comparison in Fairtrade

Take-away:• While Fairtrade Asia Pacific

has the highest percentage of women workers in the world, it also has the lowest percentage of women farmers

• What lessons can be learnt from Africa & Latin America?

• What can be the impact of “programmes” and what should be the proposed outcomes on voice and representation of farmers / workers, given that the C-Suite in Corporate America, Fortune 100 Companies has <20% women*!

*Source: McKinsey Research


Women participation

21

2015 ANALYSIS

Number of POs 2015 CP SPO HL

No. of Individual Farmers & Workers

No. of Women

% of Women

No. of Farmers

No. of Women Farmers

% of Women Farmers

No. of Workers

No. of Women Workers

% of Women Workers

Afghanistan 0 China 14 14 3471 338 10%Fiji 3 3 15676 2421 15%India 85 17 35 33 147588 48678 33% 69527 4674 7% 78061 44004 56%Indonesia 19 19 28470 3434 12%Iran 1 1 56 0 0%Kyrgyzstan 2 2 598 218 36%Lao 1 1 1856 NA NANepal 1 1 171 89 52%Pakistan 8 1 7 12223 3470 28% 6834 1025 15% 5389 2445 45%Papua New Guinea 3

1 3944 287 7%

Philippines 3 3 737 338 46%Samoa 1 1 39 7 18%Sri Lanka 23 10 13 24440 11962 49% 4085 979 24% 20355 10983 54%Tajikistan 3 3 Thailand 21 21 5277 1241 24%Timor Leste 1 1 21558 1725 8%Tonga 1 1 Uzbekistan 3 3 401 170 42%Vietnam 17 17 1088 127 12%Total 210 18 138 54 267593 74505 28%• Overall only 28% of farmers & workers in Asia Pacific are women• While 55% of the workers are women, only 10% of the farmers are women

China Fiji

India

Indon

esia Ira

n

Kyrgyz

stan

Lao

Nepal

Pakist

an

Papua

New

Guin

ea

Philipp

ines

Samoa

Sri Lan

ka

Tajikis

tan

Thaila

nd

Timor

Leste

Tonga

Uzbek

istan

Vietna

mTota

l0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

3,471 15,676

147,588

28,47056 598 1,856 171 12,223 3,944 737 39

24,440 5,277 21,558 401 1,088

267,593

10%

15%

33%

12%

0%

36%

52%

28%

7%

46%

18%

49%

24%

8%

42%

12%

28%

Number of Individual Farmers & Workers Percentage of Women

GENDER BALANCEAsia Pacific II

22

Note: Farmers & Workers data for Tonga & Tajikistan is unavailable. Women farmers & workers data for Laos is unavailable.


Take-away:For programme impact and delivery, percentage of women participation cannot be looked at in isolation. Consider the number of producer organizations it represents. Look at the disaggregated figures for farmers & workers

Nepal: 52% women HL workers but only 1 PO. Sri Lanka: 49% women, only 24% farmers and 54% workers. Philippines: 46% women farmers. Uzbekistan: 42% women farmers (3 producer organizations) Kyrgyzstan: 35% women farmers (2 producer organizations). India: 33% women, only 7% are farmers, 56% are workers. Pakistan: 28% women; only 15% farmers, 45% are workers

GENDER BALANCE Comparative Analysis

23

Take-away:• Where should our gender programmes be

focussed? Should we focus work on increasing women membership in SPOs?

• How should we differentiate & make relevant the gender programmes in HL setups and that in SPOs?

• Which regions / countries should we prioritize? Gender beyond numbers – understanding gravity of local situation, culture and likelihood of impact given marginal investments. Cause of concern with Indonesia, Vietnam, Timor Leste as they represent high percentage of farmers and workers, POs and premium receipts.

Potential Intervention for Impact for creating Gender Balance

Country Number of Women Total Percentage Ranking*

Iran 0 56 0% 16

Papua New Guinea 287 3944 7% 15

India (farmers) 4674 69527 7% 14

Timor Leste 1725 21588 8% 13

China 338 3471 10% 12

Vietnam 127 1088 12% 11

Indonesia 3434 28470 12% 11

Pakistan (farmers) 2445 5389 15% 10

Fiji 2421 15675 15% 10

* 16 countries; data not available for 4

24

FAIRTRADE PREMIUM Asia Pacific Overview

Take-away:• The reported Fairtrade Premium revenues to producers in Asia Pacific grew marginally by only 2.7% from 2013 levels i.e. from

10.5 million to 10.8 million Euros . The growth was marginal within all producer set ups in Asia Pacific. In contrast, the average global premium receipts have grown by 13% from 2013 levels i.e. from 95 million Euros (approx.). Obviously, not equally accruing to 1.5 million farmers and workers to 108 million Euros (approx.) accruing to 1.6 million farmers and workers.


• FT premium per producer organization in Asia Pacific: 57,830 Euros p.a. • FT Premium per farmer/worker is 40.41 Euros p.a. FT premium per worker is 15 Euros and FT premium per

farmer is 56 Euros!! With marginal increase in FT premium for Asia Pacific, is there merit in expansion of producer organizations?

25

FAIRTRADE PREMIUM Comparision with NAPP

Take-away:• Africa and the Middle East represents the highest % of the FT farmers and workers but receives only 22% of the FT premium• Latin America & the Caribbean represents only 20% of the farmers and workers and receives the highest % of the FT premium• What are the reasons for higher sales from Latin America? What are the influencing factors?• Is it because of quality? Is it because of demand of specific FT products? Is it how FT is branded in the markets?• What can our producers learn from their experience? What are the best practices?• Is there scope for any South-South engagements that can prove beneficial for our producers in the long run?

LATIN AMERICA & THE CARRIBBEANAFRICA & THE MIDDLE EAST


26

GLOBAL COMPARISONFairtrade premium

• Asia Pacific farmers have the highest FT Premium per farmer

as compared to its counterparts in Africa and Latin America• However, Asia Pacific workers have the lowest FT Premium per

worker compared to its counterparts. The Pacific, Indonesian, Chinese and Vietnam have higher FT premium per farmer/worker than rest of Asia Pacific

FT PREMIUM PER YEAR

FT Premium Per Farmer/Worker

FT Premium Per Farmer

FT Premium Per Worker

Asia Pacific 40.41 56 15

Africa and the Middle East

22 17 80

Latin America & The Caribbean

219 17 555


The global average does not capture the extreme differences in impact and FT Premium per farmer and FT Premium per workers?

How will the 2016-2020 Strategy create greater Fairtrade Impact and reduce disparity?

FAIRTRADE PREMIUM DISTRIBUTIONBy product for Asia pacific

Take-away:• Coffee still forms the highest share of the Fairtrade

premium revenues {marginally reduced from 45% in 2012-2013 to 41% in 2013-2014}

• Share of cane sugar & tea remained stable at 23% and 21% respectively. How will this change in 2017 esp. for Fijian producers?

• Fairtrade cotton marginal increase in premium revenues from 5% to 8%. What is the impact that FSP will make?

• The choice of three products – Coffee, Cocoa and Banalan and not a strategy for Tier 2 (which is Tier 1 for Asia) - how does one create alignment?

• How do these statistics relate to Fairtrade 2016-2020 strategy?

• What does this mean for budgets? Investments? • What does this mean for Impact Evaluations?• Which are the products where we can foresee growth and

demand?

27


FAIRTRADE PREMIUM DISTRIBUTIONBy product

28


Take-away:• Coffee, Banana, Cocoa receive the highest premium share

globally. • How does this relate to FT 2016-2020 strategy?• What does this mean for Asia Pacific in respect to pushing

these Tier 1 products?• What does this mean for Asia Pacific in respect to role of

markets for tier II products which are core for NAPP like tea, sugar, cotton?

FAIRTRADE PREMIUM DISTRIBUTION Premium usage BY SPOs


Take-away:• More than 50% of the investments in Producer

Organizations is in HR & admin Is this a cause of concern? How can FT influence this in any way?

• Education and Health form bulk of Premium use, followed by being used for community infrastructure.

• Agricultural tools and inputs, implementation of farm best practices form more than 50% of the services rendered to farmer members from FT premium.

• Are there any areas that need a push?

Investment in producer orga-

nizations48%

Other2%

Services to communities

21%

Services to farmer members

29%

Facilities & infrastructure

44%HR & admin

53%

Training & capacity of

board committees

3%

Investment in Producer Organizations

Community infrastruc-

ture10%

Education33%

Envi-ronment

4%Gender equality

0%

Health25%

Other24%

Socio-Economic

5%

Service to Communities

Credit & finance

4%

Education 1% Farmer

training in agri &

business practices

8%Health3%Implemen-

tation of farm best practices

21%Other15%

Payments to mem-

bers17%

Agricul-tural tools & inputs

30%

Support for hired

workers on farms

1%

Service to Farmer Members


Other2%

Services for workers & their

families38%

Services to communities

57%

Training & em-powerment of

workers3%

Education12% Finance &

credit1%

Health10%

Investment in worker housing

20%

Other54%

Payments 3%

Services for Workers & their Families

Commu-nity in-

frastruc-ture48%

Education10%

Envi-ronment

0%

Gender equality

0%

Health 31%

Socio-economic services

11%

Services to Communities

Joint Body & com-mittee

running costs89%

Sup-port for work-ers or-ganiza-

tions9%

Train-ings for work-ers2%

Training & Empowerment of Workers

Take-away:• Majority of the premium has been used for

services to communities followed by services for workers & their families

• Community infrastructure receives highest percentage investment in terms of services to communities

• In terms of services for workers & their families it is not clear what ‘Other’ stands for as more than 50% of the premium used for that, followed by investments in worker housing and education

• Training and empowerment of workers seems synonymous with training of Joint Body Committee running costs

• What are the issues in this mode of premium use?

FAIRTRADE PREMIUM DISTRIBUTION Premium usage By HL setups

FAIRTRADE PREMIUM DISTRIBUTIONProducts premium distribution among countries

31

Producer Organizations as per premium receipts:

FLO ID Producer organization name Country

3499 Tunas Indah Coffee Farmers Cooperative Indonesia

5416 Koperasi Baitul Qiradh Baburrayyan (KBQB) Indonesia

6589 Permata Gayo Cooperative Indonesia

930 Cooperativa Café Timor - CCT Timor-Leste

2897Highland Organic Agriculture Cooperative - HOAC Papua New Guinea

19646Aso. des Groupements de Prod de Café du Plateau des Bolovens Laos

27501KOPERASI PEDAGANG KOPI (KOPEPI) KETIARA Indonesia

18296 KSU Arinagata Indonesia18722 KSU Adil Wiladah Mabrur Indonesia

21093 Cudliemnong Fair Agriculture Cooperative Vietnam18009 Koperasi Kopi Gayo Organic Indonesia

21094 Eakiet Fair Agriculture Service Cooperative Vietnam

21473To Hop Tac San Xuat Ca Phe Sach Vi Suc Khoe Cong Dong Vietnam

28651 Thuan An Fairtrade Agricultural Co-operative Vietnam

Note: Only producer organizations earning above 100 Thousand Euros


2755581; 69%

568962; 14%

337342; 8%

211149; 5%

78864; 2% 39531; 1%

Coffee Premium Distribution

Indonesia Timor Leste Papua New GuineaLao India Thailand


32

FLO ID Producer organization name Country25351Labasa Cane Producers Association Fiji28108Lautoka Cane Producers Association Fiji

28109Rarawai & Penang Cane Producers Association Fiji

23805Kadrolli Primary Agriculture Credit Co-operative Bank Ltd. India

23894Devarshigihalli Primary Agriculture Credit Co-operative Sangha Niyamit India

29041Dama Farm Workers Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Association Philippines

1482Negros Organic and Fairtrade Association Philippines29161Nakalang Padilla Workers Association Philippines

29155ASOSASYON SANG MAMUMUGON SANG NOLAN ( AMANO) Philippines

27787Primary Agriculture Credit Co-operative Sangha Niyamit, Neginahal India

27788Arvatagi Primary Agriculture Credit Co-operative Sangha Niyamit India

27789Primary Agriculture Credit Co-operative Society Niyamit India26921Pranburi Fairtrade Sugar Cane Group Thailand

27790Primary Agriculture Credit Co-operative Sangha Niyamit, New Kadrolli India

27791Primary Agriculture Credit Co-operative Sangha Niyamit, Itagi India




2192551; 89%

190338; 8%

65890; 3% 2560; 0%

Cane Sugar Premium Distribution

Fiji India Philippines Thailand


33

FLO ID Producer organization name Country

1562 The Bombay Burmah Trading Corp. Ltd. India

18013 McLeod Russel India Limited India558 Small Organic Farmers' Association SOFA Sri Lanka560 Jiangxi Wuyuan Dazhangshan Organic Tea Farmer Association China

4440 Xuan En Yisheng Tea Cooperative China

508 The United Nilgiri Tea Estates Co. Ltd. India

22701 Coonoor Tea Estates Co. Ltd. India

1567 Chamong Tee Exports Pvt. Ltd. (Chamong Tea Group) India

25759 Marginalized Organic Producers' Associations Sri Lanka

18519 Thiashola Plantations Private Limited (Thiashola Estate) IndiaDATA UNAVAILABLE 29907

West Jalinga Tea Estate (K. Manibhai & Co.) India




1402919; 62%425143; 19%

391847; 17%

30658; 1%

Tea Premium Distribution

India China Sri Lanka Vietnam Indonesia Nepal


34

FLO ID Producer organization name Country25683 Noble Ecotech India

18612Suminter Organic Farmers Association (earlier:Gujarat Sustainable & Organic Farmers Association) India

19221Pratima Agro & Paper PVT.LTD. Pratima Organic Grower Group. India

26204 OM ORGANIC COTTON PVT. LTD. India

18470Jaydurga Ginning mills pvt ltd and Jai Maa Dwarsini Krushak Shang, Kantabanji India

4531 Pratibha-Vasudha Jaivik Krishi Kalyan Samiti India

20294Bio Farmer Agricultural Commodity and Service Cooperative

Kyrgyzstan

4018Chetna Organic Agriculture Producer Company Limited (COAPCL) India

4073 Agrocel Pure and Fair Cotton Growers Association-Rapar India

18491 Sunstar Overseas and Group of Small Cotton Farmers India

4784 Agrocel Pure and Fair Cotton Growers Association-Orissa India(DATA UNAVAILABLE)18862 Agrocel Pure & Fair Cotton Growers Assn. - Sankeshwar India




811389; 96%

36446; 4%

Seed Cotton Premium Distribution

India Kyrgyztan

PRODUCER PARTICIPATION Trade-fairs and market related efforts: Activities

• NAPP supported producer participation in 7 events out of 8 mentioned above • At BioFach India & BioFach Germany, NAPP had a producer stall • 56 out of 210 FLO IDs i.e. 27% were supported during the year• They represented only 43 unique producer organizations • Wherein 56 (51 unique) representatives participated only 9 of whom were

women i.e. 16% • 6 out of 10 products i.e. 60% & 8 out of 20 countries represented i.e. 40%

35

PRODUCT ACTIVITYPRODUCER FEEDBACK

NO OF FLO IDs

NO OF MEMBERS

NO. OF WOMEN HL CP SPO COUNTRY

FRUIT Fruit Logistica Neutral 6 6 0 6 India, Sri LankaBioFach America Neutral 1 1 1 1 Vietnam

SPICES BioFach America Neutral 2 2 0 2 India

COTTON Textile Exchange Positive 7 7 0 5 2 India, KyrgyzstanBioFach America Neutral 2 2 0 2 India

COFFEEBioFach America Neutral 2 2 0 2 Laos, Vietnam

SCAA Positive 13 13 4 13India, Indonesia, Vietnam

RICE BioFach America Neutral 3 3 0 3 IndiaBioFach Germany Positive 6 6 1 5 1 India Thailand

TEA Team Up Positive 8 8 1 7 1India, Sri Lanka, China

BioFach Shanghai Positive 2 2 1 2 ChinaBioFach America Neutral 4 4 1 4 China, Vietnam

TEA, RICE, COFFEE, SPICES, COTTON, FRUITS* BioFach India Negative

20 producer organizations with almost 60 participants funded themselves and set up stalls at this forum. India

TOTAL 56 56 9 7 15 34

Note: Includes only NAPP anchored events i.e. excluding PSR/Pacific/Producer funded events

Take-away:• Why were product focussed events conducted?• Why have we decided not to fund this anymore?• Are there some useful events where we can support producers in

any way?• Is their merit in setting up NAPP stalls in any of these or other

external forums?• What is the value add?• Can we support through producers through ready materials?

PRODUCER PARTICIPATION Trade-fairs and market related efforts: RoI Framework

36

Curbside debrief (2015)

Date Event Name Location ProductsNAPP Participation 2015 Producer feedback

Plan 2016

Date2016 Location

Location Advantage

Product-Regions priority

Target market

Expected Footfalls

NAPP Producer Countries

Budget (K EUR)

# of producer participants

Equitable Index

Follow-up Action/ Improvement

NAPP mgmt / Executives Participation

Post- Event review(by CMO)Business value generated in Euro # of Business enquiries MC(High/Medium/Low) ROI%Producer feedback VFM Future participation Y/N

PRODUCER PARTICIPATIONIn product oriented trainings

PRODUCT ACTIVITY NO OF FLO IDs

NO OF MEMBERS

NO. OF WOMEN HL CP SPO COUNTRY

TEA

Tea Garden Exchange 9 10 3 9 1 India, Sri LankaGPM Meeting North India 5 5 0 5 IndiaGPM Meeting South India 7 7 0 7 India

Tea Network Meeting 16 17 6 14 3Sri Lanka, India, China

FT Standards 6 20 0 6 India

RICE Productivity-Rice Workshop, Pantnagar 7 12 0 7 India

COTTONTextile Standards Workshop 9 18 0 8 1 IndiaCotton Network Meeting-Governance 8 9 0 7 1 India

SUGAR

Standards Consultation 8 22 1 8 IndiaProducer Exchange Visit 6 6 0 6 India, FijiProductivity-Training, Dharwad 7 140 12 7 IndiaSugar Consultation FI 8 40 1 8 IndiaTOTAL 96 306 23 41 22 35

37

• 12 workshops/meetings• 96 out of 210 POs i.e. 46%• Represented 65 unique producer organizations i.e. 31%• Wherein 306 representatives participated. • Only 23 of which were women i.e. 8%• 4 / 10 products i.e. 40% Note: Includes only NAPP anchored trainings i.e. excluding PSR/Pacific/Producer funded programmes

Take-away:• With budgetary limitations, which types of trainings

are more relevant?• Should productivity enhancement and quality

focussed trainings as a series be the approach forward?

PREMIUM RECEIPTSCountry Rankings

Ranking No. Of Producer Organizations No. of Farmers & Workers FT Premium Receipts1 India India India

2 Sri Lanka Indonesia Indonesia

3 Thailand Sri Lanka Fiji

4 Indonesia Timor Leste Vietnam

5 Vietnam Fiji China

6 China Pakistan Sri Lanka

Take-away:• Why is Premium ranking important?• What does this mean for:

• NAPP Governance?• Representative participation in events?• Service Delivery and Programmes?• Impact Assessment • Budgetary allocation

• Ranking can also be done on• Gender balance• Climate Change adaptation (needs)• Premium Utilization – impact and org. development

7

MARKET OUTREACH THROUGH PRODUCT NETWORKS Resources Utilization

39

32%

29%

19%

7%

7%4% 3%

Product Networks

Rice Tea Coffee All Products Cotton Fruit Sugar

Take-away:

Programme expenditure has been distributed in the following manner: o Rice – 32% (14% spent on a productivity workshop, rest for

marketing events)o Tea – 29% (all on marketing events)o Coffee – 18% (all on marketing events)o Cotton – 7% (69% of which spent on cotton network meeting

(representation), rest on attending marketing events)o Fruit – 4% (all on marketing events)o Sugar – 3% (all of which was spent in workshops focused on

productivity, producer exchange and consultation)

Given constraints, how does not choose pririties between KPIs?

What type of programmes can be concerned as the most effective use of limited resources?

REPRESENTATION THROUGH NATIONAL NETWORKS Resources Utilization

40

Take-away:

• 69% of resources spent on national networks is for governance and representation related meetings

• 31% invested in any thematic areas training14% SPO Development8% product specific4% climate change3% Social Compliance (Workers Rights, Child Labour)2% Agricultural practices

69%

14%

8%

4% 3%2%

National Networks

National NW Governance Thematic Area- SPO Development

Thematic Area-Climate Change Tea

Thematic Area-Agricultural Practices Thematic Area-Social Compliance

WHAT MARKETS WANTInformation Needs of “top”NFOs

41

Importance of Primary Product for the Markets Type of Information Required

Source: NFO Information Needs Survey 2015

42

Product Producer Organization Country

Cotton Pratibha India

Cotton Chetna India

Cotton Farmer Agricultural Commodity and Service Cooperative Kyrgyztan

Cereals Sunstar India

Cereals Riceland Foods Thailand

Cereals Green Net Coop Thailand

Cereals OJRPG Thailand

Tea SOFA Sri Lanka

Tea Bogawantalawa Sri Lanka

Tea FTAK India

Coffee PPKGO-Persatuan Petani Kopi Gayo Organic Indonesia

Coffee Permata Gayo Cooperative Indonesia

Coffee Cudliemnong Vietnam

Coffee Highland Organic Agriculture Cooperative (HOAC) Papua New Guinea

WHAT FAIRTRADE MARKETS WANTInformation Needs of “top”NFOs

Source: NFO Information Needs Survey 2015

Take-away:

• Information need around premium usage has received highest rating.

• Other information requirement includes benefits of FT, challenges faced by PO, socio economic profile, insightful stories, history of producers etc.

• How are our plans addressing this need?• Are producer profiles enough?

NAPP KPIsPerformance

43

Objectives Role Definition Indicator

…Outcomes System wide KPI # PN KPI 2014 Result 2015 Result

1. Deliver relevant valued services to FT farmers and workers

We deliver relevant, participatory,

empowering and evidence based,

support programs to PO´s. We provide this through both in-house

expertise in programme

development, alliances and partnerships. Our

focus is on cost effective market driven

service delivery.

Stronger and resilience Producer and workers

organizations empowered.

members satisfaction

index

1 members satisfaction index; 75% (rating 3,4,5);63% (rating 4,5)

93% (rating 3,4,5); 36% (rating 4,5)

2

# of PO´s that received training from the PN (disagregated in % of women

and youth participation in training, where possible/in future);

155 247

Participants 4902 Women participants 626 % of women participants 13%

3 average # of contacts per PO (field visits, phone calls, email) 4

Workers and producers know the roles,

responsibilities and rights.

4 # of PO´s per staff member in PN 61 9

Take-away:• Are there some KPIs that need to be modified?• What would you want to measure to deepen impact in Asia Pacific?• How can we streamline KPI data collection?• How does your work contribute to the KPIs?


44

Objectives Role Definition…Outcomes System wide

KPI # PN KPI 2014 Result 2015 Result

2. Building, securing and sustaining access to market for members

PN´s supports their members in securing and sustaining market

access through Technical Assistance

and networking. Fairtrade market

access ensures that PO´s earn Fairtrade Minimum Prices and Premiums that they

democratically invest in their communities.

Stronger, resilient, and more competitive

organizations.Premium

received per producer/worker; <5%/5-50/>

50% of the volume is sold

as FT

5 # GAP trainings; 5 20

Increased incomes (individual or shared) of producers and workers.

6 # of PO´s that received TA in market access, productivity or product quality 105 23


45



3. Advocacy. Means: Influencing better

governance policies.

We are diligent in increasing awareness

and visibility of Fairtrade to members

and stakeholders in the respective regions. Our

primary targets for strong visibility are:

The Fair Trade Principles, Values and

Practices and our respective

Organizations (PNs).

Changes (public policies, environmental, economic and social) that benefit producers and workers in the different regions

and countries.

7Nr of local, regional and international events where the PN has participated

in;8

9 international, 8 local,

2 regional

8

# of advocacy initiatives agreed and delivered at local, national and regional

level. 0 3

9 An advocacy policy is in place (Y/N) N

Yes, paper is available. Not yet approved. Work in

progress.

10 Nr of trainings on FT values and

principles and nr of producers/workers reached

7 trainings 126 trainings with 2042 farmers and

workers


46



4. Building a strong, settled, Producer

Network as part of a global system.

Our members and partners expect our

continuity and sustainability. We

therefore take initiatives in ensuring

the constant and adequate flow of

financial resources. We ensure full

accountability of all financial resources. We

demonstrate social impact and aim for

programmatic sustainability through in-house expertise,

strategic partnerships and addressing

crosscutting thematic areas.

PNs are Strengthened, sustainable,

accountable, able to deliver services &

programs, and able to influence to the FT

system.

Nr of agreements per year and nr of renewed agreements; % of non-FT funding; zero

based financial

result; Average Cash balance

11Nr of exisiting agreements with patners and or donors in place (how many of

them have been renewed) 1

12 % of non-FT funding (the proportion of funds not generated via license fee) 0

13 Financial result (profit/ loss) by the end of the financial year -85000 Euros

14 Audited accounts in place (y/n) Y

15 Average Cash balance (level of cash reserve in weeks of expenditure) 0


47



4. Building a strong, settled, Producer

Network as part of a global system.

Good corporate governance is a priority to us. we believe that in order to achieve the goals and objective, we must have solid

and relevant organizational

structures. Leadership strategies that are

relevant, innovative and offer effective

governance. Policies, systems and

procedures that are driven by members´

needs, are developed to meet the growing requirements of the organization, as well

as ensuring conformity to the national

statutory requirements in the regions and

countries where we are based.

PNs are Strengthened, sustainable,

accountable, able to deliver services &

programs, and able to influence to the FT

system.

Number of FTE 16 Number of FTE (full time equivalents) /

# of consultants 3 8

Staff satisfaction index based on 5 global questions

17 Staff satisfaction index based on 5 global questions,

Individually submitted by staff on survey

monkey

48

2014 20150

50

100

150

200

250

300

155

247

#POs received Training and Support

2014 20150

5

10

15

20

25

5

20

# GAP trainings

2014 20150

5

10

15

20

8

19

#POs facilitated in participating in local, regional and interna-

tional events

2014 20150

20406080

100120 105

23

# POs received Technical Assistance in market ac-

cess, productivity or product quality

2014 20150

20406080

100120140

7

126

# trainings on Fairtrade values and principles

NAPP CLAC0

20

40

60

80

100

120

68

99

Benchmarking Employment Satisfaction Index

NAPP KPIsPerformance (Charts)

MEMBER SATISFACTION INDEXNAPP and other PNs

49

NAPP 2014

NAPP 2015

FTA 2014

FTA 2015

CLAC 2014

CLAC 2015

GLOBAL 2014

GLOBAL 2015

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

75%

93%

80%

85%

82%

88%

80%

87%

63%

36%

71%

55%

72%

61%

70%

54%

Member satisfaction index (Rating 4,5) Member satisfaction index (Rating: 3,4,5)

End of Presentation

Thank youQ&A

The information in this presentation is not directed to any person in any jurisdiction where (by reason of that person's nationality, residence or otherwise) the publication or availability of the information is prohibited. Persons in respect of whom such prohibitions apply must not access this document.

The contents of this document have been prepared to provide you with general information only. Information provided on and available from this document does not constitute any investment recommendation. In preparing the information, we have not taken into account your objectives, financial situation or needs. Before making an investment decision, you need to consider whether this information is appropriate to your objectives, financial situation and needs.

The information contained herein has been obtained from sources that we believe to be reliable, but its accuracy and completeness are not guaranteed. Examples shown in this document are illustrative and have been included for demonstrational purposes only. We will try to update this document as soon as practicable and as necessary.

Nothing in the document should be construed as an offer or invitation to anyone in any jurisdiction to invest in any product or use any service where such offer or invitation is not lawful, or in which the person making such offer or invitation is not qualified to do so, nor has it been prepared in connection with any such offer or invitation.

The information on this document is published by Network of Asia and Pacific Producers (NAPP). For further information about the contents of this site, please contact us. We reserve the right at any time and without notice to change, amend, or cease publication of the information.

Copyright © Network of Asia and Pacific Producers. All rights reserved. This material is proprietary and may not be reproduced, transferred, or distributed in any form without prior written permission from NAPP. It is delivered on an "as is" basis without warranty.