the detail of all comments received

Comentarios

Transcripción

the detail of all comments received
Falta mas info sobre el escenario de alto desempeño. Opcion de reportar acciones correctivas al EC para mantener la continuidad (auto-evaluación). Preocupación
CR producers que la posibilidad de fallar aumenta significativamente. Hay que aclarar el papel de los detalles adicionales y filtrarlos para que este factible para todos los cultivos.
Evitar la cancelación castigando el incumplimiento de un detalle adicional.
Nestle
Bangalore WS
of fire). This gives the standard lots of wiggle room in some places, whilst in others we lose sight of the outcomes the detailed prescriptions are aiming at.
criteria.
IMAFLORA
La estructura de las 2 columnas es interesante pero no queda claro si el auditor verifica la columna de la derecha para generar la no conformidad en la isquerda. O si
algun punto de la columna de la derecha no estas cumplido, es uma conformidad? Lo que son los detalles adicionales para el auditado (utiliza para la implantación?)
y como el auditor evalua ? Muchos de los criterios para seren cumplidos los posibles hallazgos de cumplimiento están a la isquerda.
IMAFLORA
Los criterios del principio Effective Planning and Management System puden tener uma pontuación más rigorosa , pero no critico, que los otros criterios de la Norma.
La busquedá por la mejora continua y inovaciones en uno sistema de gestión no si resumen a 3 años. Por la literatura y las Normas ISO un sistema para estar bien
fundamentado puede necesitar hasta 5 o 6 años. y poner un crítico en el sistema no resolve el problema. no queda claro como si llega a la contabilización de un
cumplimiento parcial de un zero cunplimiento y la relación de esos 2 puntos con la columna de derecha para si llegar a esto - dificil interpretación.
IOAS
Kolkatta WS
SAN TOC
WWF
Germany
ISEAL
UK tea sector
Nairobi
webinar
RA Ag
CR lead
auditors
RA
SAN survey
SAN survey
SAN survey
SAN survey
The wording is clear, but it needs to be clear if the right column will be binding or not. If the right column is binding, then it should be reviewed agai to leave only the
things that always apply, or it should be clear that some elements may not apply in some cases. If the right column is not binding, then the standard would be too
weak.
There should be grace periods for corrective actions during 2017 (transition from old to new standard).
- Consider moving some cattle criteria to other principles to promote a more integrated standard. The way it is right now doesn't fit with the core values of the
standard.
- Define whether right column is binding or not
WWF Germany: Keep periodic audits for high risk operations and member plantations of banana groups should be all audited individually with clear risk focus; Move
continuous improvement towards 100% goal; step-wise approach is fine.
Proforest: higher proportion of critical criteria is useful. Will SAN aim for a longterm 90% or 100% compliance level? RSPO asks for full compliance after 18 months. Second SAN draft: not same MNC in same criterion for more than 3 years.
- UK tea sector: explanation about CC+3 needs to be clearer
ISEAL Rosie: worth having a look at Better Cotton Initiative system
UK tea sector: backs up continuous improvement push
scoring system looks reasonable
Need detailed comparison of 2010 and 2016 standards; Michelle Deugd (RA): refer to points rather than % for entry level?
Costa Rican lead auditors: The additional details do give the impression that these are binding and they will be audited by auditors. Additional details need to be
moved to a separate document and additional details reviewed for global applicability in all crops.
Not clear how pesticides are reduced over time? Can still one farm failing on a CC leads to global fail? Concern (and experience from stakeholders!) that farms just
fulfill requirements for certification and do not care for further continuous improvement. Giving 3 more years is concerning too.
At least one year grace period should be there to comply with critical criteria mentioned in the draft
There is no continuous improvement of the scoring system after three years
With new SAN only 60%/75% compliance of the criteria is necessary, while with old SAN 80% were necessary
El sistema de calificación promueve el mejoramiento continuo: Se considera que esta parcialmente cubierta, debido a que no permite una mejora continua a traves
de un ciclo de tres años de certificación
The scoring system is rather confusing; it may promote continuous improvement, however, the wording needs to be changed so that everyone is able to understand
and comprehend the meaning correctly.
SAN survey
SAN survey
SAN survey
SAN survey
SAN survey
SAN survey
The scoring system has lowered the % value to be achieved from the previous one. It is motivating and achievable
Considero muy acertado el que el productor que tiene un desempeno de 90 reciba como premio invertir menos dinero en sus procesos de auditoria.
Los criterios son muy extensos, pueden quedar a la interpretación del auditor ya que no hay precisión en algunos requerimientos; por otro lado, el cumplimiento de
los criterios críticos según lo observado en campo puede no ser del todo viable, debido a que hay muchos subpuntos que por uno de ellos podría dar incumplimiento
a todo el criterio.
La cantidad de elementos incluidos por criterio puede llegar a generar confusiones.
Readability has improved a lot compared to the 2010 standard. Well done. What is still confusing is to whom specific control points apply. Several control points are
formulated completely for large farms.
Aumento en el numero de criterio críticos: Un cambio importante en la revisión de la Norma RAS 2015 que preocupa en primer lugar es el incremento importante del
numero de criterios críticos que se deben cumplir desde la primera auditoria. Según la información el numero de criterios críticos es ahora de 36 (9 de cumplimiento a
3 años) a comparación de 16 criterios en la Norma 2010. Este incremento nos parece un cambio en desacuerdo con la voluntad de ir hacia la idea de un mejoramiento
continuo pensando en el costo importante a asumir dado la estructura de pequeños productores de la caficultora colombiana. Los primeros análisis sobre el modelo
que se exigiría, incluso con el plazo a 3 años no sería suficiente para asegurar el cumplimiento de estas prácticas por parte de los caficultores. La FNC aprovecha
entonces este espacio para expresar su inquietud grande sabiendo que los criterios críticos representaran un costo muy grande a nivel de productores y
administradores.
Sugerencia de la FNC: incrementar la idea de mejoramiento continuo de los criterios críticos que significan en gran esfuerzo en términos económicos y de cambio de
prácticas.
La FNC reconoce valido la idea de incluir la idea de un plazo de 3 años (criterios CC3), pero al nivel de pequeños productores es fundamental entender que el cambio
y la adaptabilidad es un proceso largo que necesita un apoyo permanente para reconocer cada uno de los beneficios de la Norma y justificando el esfuerzo hacia el
cumplimiento, lo ideal es buscar alternativas para ampliar los beneficios de este programa de certificación en las comunidades. Lo ideal es reducir este número de
SAN survey
SAN survey
Nivel de adaptabilidad a los pequeños productores: Nos parece importante recordar en este espacio de dialogo, el hecho de la caficultora colombiana es marcada
por una gran mayoría de pequeños productores (en promedio el cultivo de café es de 2 hectáreas) que significa una capacidad de cumplir los criterios de la Norma
reducida frente a fincas grandes que ya por ser de tamaño mayor pueden pretender a aplicar un sistema de gestión, registro etc. de manera más fácil y también
adecuada a la cantidad de trabajadores a su cargo y la necesidad de organizarse.
At least one year grace period should be there to comply with critical criteria mentioned in the draft. There is need to have Local Interpretation Guideline because
there is problems with implementing complying requiremetns with small holders
CR producers
Bangalore WS
IMAFLORA
MARS
MARS
Bien, si hay material de apoyo.
Record keeping should be at group administrator level, keeping the records at producer level to the minimum, specially with smallholders.
Si fuer necesario cumplir toda la colunma de la derecha( que no esta claro en las reglas) para cumplir con el criterio critico, sugerimos no ser um criterio
critico de la Norma. Por la cantidad de información solicitada y em algunos puntos inforación nueva.
Stronger emphasis on quantitative indicators and GAP trainings and input provision is required
a) A sketch/local map may not be the most accurate planning medium to base the all baseline assessment activities on. Should consider the requiring
full GPS coordinates for calculating farm size (and farm size per farmer in ha)since the technology involved is cheap,intuitive and accessible.
Nespresso
Brazil
1.1c - How is it going to be audit? Farmer's declaration is enough or need to contract a consultant to elaborate the assessment?
RSPB
This is the only criterion in the whole standard which explicitly mentions climate change (1.1 c ) and only in reference to risks to farm productivity.
Although there are requirements to preserve natural ecosystems and optimize input efficiency which may incidentally reduce carbon emissions or be
adapative to changing climates, there is no explicit requirements to do either of these things. This omission is particularly glaring with respect to the
cattle production section and should be addressed for a credible standard on 'sustainable' agriculture.
SalvaCert
Amsterdam
Social NGOs
Aclarar que es una parcela.
Adapt to group level also. Strong focus on land/environmental issues. Strong suggestion to add content on social issues to enhance sound business.
Amsterdam
Social NGOs
To receive the right input, proper representation of relevant groups is key. In locally and culturally sensitive ways. This starts with the membership, see
below. Examples: - In 1.1, baseline, should include baseline of major assets including workers: number of workers (women, men, fixed, temp, season)
and key characteristics of their work, situation and earnings. An assessment of their situation related to living wage would be the right way to start. Also
other assets like status of financial situation, capital goods (buildings, machines) should be covered to have a good baseline.
Amsterdam
Social NGOs
Can this should be done in a locally and culturally sensitive way? It would be good if people could make use of local knowledge, and if we can avoid to
act like an outsider who knows better: describe the required output and give room for people to fill this in in their own way, rather than prescribing the
way to do it.
1.1.a 4 Abutting land use is beyond the perview of farm management -Restrict the scope with in the farm management. 1.1.b renovation stage -to be
explained /interpritted SAN/RA to avoid subjectivity of the auditor. Economic fluctuations Mapping -Need examples and evaluation -Cannot predict the
economic loss due to climate change ,Why it sholud be a critical criteria. 1.1.c Cannot be a critical criterion: Potential risks and "other unanticipated
causes of crop loss". Not practical and clear. 1.1.d - Wordings Group adminstrator is responsible should be changed to the effect of " Group
Adminstrator should provide advice "
WWF Germany SAN needs good tools, aca Lego building instructions
Greenpeace
Integrated farm management seems to be out of sync with IPM
India
Sri Lanka WS
RA markets
team
RA Ag
RA E&R
SAN Survey
SAN Survey
SAN Survey
SAN Survey
SAN Survey
Strong focus on land/environmental issues. Suggestion to add content on economical issues to enhance sound business. To receive the right input,
proper representation of relevant groups is key. In locally and culturally sensitive ways. This starts with the membership, see below. Examples: - In 1.1,
baseline, should include baseline of major assets including workers: number of workers (women, men, fixed, temp, season) and key characteristics of
their work, situation and earnings. An assessment of their situation related to living wage would be the right way to start. Also other assets like status of
financial situation, capital goods (buildings, machines) should be covered to have a good baseline. More guidance is needed on the HCV areas. What is
it, and how to recognize a HCV? How are you going to map it and map what, how to collect what kind of data, how to do inventories of species etc.?
Also for auditors this is very challenging, proper training and education is needed. Also to enhance that HCV areas are connected to enable extra value
on a larger scale instead of small separated spots.
1.1.c: difficult for a small farm to document risk
Without linkage to 1.2,this baseline becomes irrelevant
La inspección interna y el plan de acciones correctivas debería establecerse como un criterio para fincas individuales. Solamente se ha considerado a
nivel de Administrador de Grupo.
It can be very cumbersome for most small growers to follow this system.
The linkage between the effective planning criteria (1.1-1.5) and climate adaptation requirements need strengthening and cross-referencing.
Principio 1: Se debe aclarar que para certificados en grupo el administrador de grupo es el que debe establecer este ciclo de planeamiento y las fincas
implementarlo. O justificar en los casos en que deba ser así porque las fincas no están en condiciones de hacerlo (la planificación).
1.1 - crop information per plot - far too much information + time spend recording this information
Nespresso
CR producers
Oxfam
Reto de capacitar a los auditores sobre la productividad. Y de diseñar las plantillas que sean la base para la evaluación del cumplimiento.
Importante acompañar al productor en las acciones correctivas durante los primeros tres años, para que pueda volverse criterio crítico CC+3. No llegar con la sorpresa en
el año 4 con la cancelación. Plantillas y herramientas, por favor!
Would like to see more focus on profitability, instead of productivity
- Needs a template. c) is subjective (How many years of rainfall?) - a) express more clearly that quality is defined by the operation and noone else. - This criterion is
- It is key to reduce the documentation requirements in order to increase accessibility to smallholders. It takes a huge amount of time and money to prepare the
Bangalore WS documentation and it is not adding value. It has to be clear that the organization does not need a separate documentation system for each certification scheme. They
- Record keeping should be at group administrator level, keeping the records at producer level to the minimum, specially with smallholders.
- Proposal: to allow clustering the farms of a group to make the documentation system simpler and easier.
IMAFLORA
MARS
Sugerencia de no ser um criterio critico CC+3 y sin um criterio con una pontuación más rigorosa, porque no fere la esencia de la misión de la RAS
Since this is in the CC+3 criteria category, the plan needs to be utilized better and have more specific criterias. In order to have measurable outcomes and also help farms
be prepared for the 3rd year audit the following points should be considered :
- Yearly development indicators can be incorporated along with farm specific productivity targets so farmers and organizations can steward themselves and also push for
increased productivity every year
- Quantitative objectives should not be optional. The objectives do not have to be in yield/ha but every tree should be a monitored as a productive unit, and should be
well looked after. This would in the very least involve managing and assuring(i) good genetics (ii) adequate inputs and (iii) GAP. Even within agroforestry systems, trees
should be productive (target W.A. at 1.5 kg/tree/year)
Bottom line : Making quality inputs, productive plants and high skilled agriculture support is imperative to improving productivity - none of these are even mentioned
RSPB
The farm management plan should also optimize natural ecosystem conservation. Under details, a point should be added to reflect how the farm management plan
addresses natural ecocystems/ habitat management.
RA tea mgmt
labour.
Friedel HuetzHigher productivity can bring significantly higher production costs and hence lower profit. Planning therefore needs to be optimal.
Adams
UK tea sector Huge challenge for group administrators
Consider to include in the introduction to Principle 1, an outcome around CONSISTENT PRODUCT QUALITY. It is important that the planning and management process in
RA Ghana
1.1-1.5 leads to improve and consistent good quality of the product in order to trade it in the market and meet the needs of the end user. Product Quality is not explicit in
the criterion and outcome at the moment.
RA Ghana
RA E&R
Karen
Lewotsky
SAN Survey
SAN Survey
SAN Survey
SAN Survey
SAN Survey
Like 1.5, a clear cross-reference to 1.1 should be made in the "additional details".
2. Since it is the criteria that would be the basis for scoring, consider to
improve 1.2 to reflect the objective of achieving consistent product quality. Productivity without quality may be inadequate in the market and would not result in desired
outcome of profitability expected in 1.4 as net return.
c) by definition it's hard to take into account "unanticipated causes of crop loss"; d) personnel, not personal
Management plan in criterion 1.2 completely lacks any mention of proper farm management / adoption of good agricultural practices to improve productivity. Focus of
the whole standard is on large-scale farms that have no need to improve basic management practices and are using too many agro-chemical inputs. The standard will
therefore not help smallholders to improve productivity.
See above comments - too much focus on situation of large farms. Complete lack of focus on issues that are relevant to increasing productivity on smallholder farms.
Estan exigiendo adminsitración de la finca al Administrador de grupo. Pueda que pidan cantidad pero Costos. Se aleja de la razon de ser de la norma
La planeacion y los registros son importantes para que los productores alcancen una mayor productividad y eficiencia en sus cultivos.
La alfabetización financiera / empresarial es indispensable para la sostenibilidad de la producción agricola
Bangalore WS
In general, 3.10 needs more cohesion between the criterion and additional info (no spray zones vs barriers). Vegetative barriers are preferrable, but they
could be of crops (delete: non-crop). The main objective is to reduce spray drift and that needs to be clearly reflected in the criterion. Criterion 1.3.b and
3.10 may conflict. The latter is asking for the opposite, because the no-spray buffer zones sometimes act as pest reservoirs. Instead, it should say that
there have to be measures in place to prevent agrochemical runoff or drift to reach water bodies, roads, housing zones, forests, etc. Criterion 1.10 says
should focus on being optimal for avoiding drift.
smallholders.
- No spray zones should protect humans.
- Delete 3.10.b); think about
IMAFLORA
Sugerencia de no ser un critério critico de la Norma. Así como se explicó en la tabla anterior, algunos criterios del principio 1 pueden tener una pontuación
más rigorosa con el intuito de la mejora continua, como ejemplo esto critério. Si determinamos esto criterio como critico podemos perder la oportunidad
de incrementar mejoras al largo de los años en el manejo agronomico de la finca, que varia entre las fincas, así como los manejos integrados. El
establecimento de una conformidad por el auditor es dificultado y lo mismo puede optar por no dar la no conformidad mismo que haya posibilidades de
mejoras, porque falta poco para la finca, más falta. Para el sector de naranja en Brasil esto criterio excluye esto cultivo de la certificación.
RSPB
steps are taken to protect pollinators and enemies of crop pests ’ and ‘where pest risks are evident from
monitoring, combinations of management interventions are implemented avoiding reliance solely on pesticides ’. In the case of
neonicotinoid seed treatments, it could be argued that because they are prophylactic (used before it is known what the pest pressure will
be) and systemic (remain in the tissues of the plant) they contravene both of these requirements. With a spray, the farmer can avoid
spraying at certain times of day (or season) to reduce risk to pollinators. This type of mitigation is not possible with treated seeds – once
they have been planted, it is not possible to do anything to control the exposure of pollinators or other insects. The standard should clarify
whether prophylactic seed treatments are acceptable within their IPM framework. In addition, neonicintinoids should be explicitly addressed in
the appropriate Annex (e.g., Annex 2 - pesticides with limited risks to humans but which post specific risks to components of biodiversity),
with guidance developed on a review of the latest research and policy (including the work of the Global Task Force on systemic insecticides).
SalvaCert
Sri Lanka WS
SAN TOC
RA tea mgmt
cultivos o ganadería. Sugerencia de redacción: "Las plagas incluyendo las especies de vida silvestre que representan riesgo para los cultivos o ganadería,
son identificadas y monitoredas.........
c-Tea in SL is not a annual crop ;This Criteria Cannot be a critical criteria
El plan de manejo de plagas debe incluir un medio de verificación específico relacionado con la reducción de volúmenes y categorías
The IPM plan should include training for selected staff that will monitor and recommend control measures to be taken (include non-pesticide measures).
The IPM plan should include training on the IPM strategy outlined in the plan for every group member deciding on the management of the crop. All group
members should have the knowledge, skills and capacity to implement the aspects of the plan relevant for them.
The IPM plan should also include measures to monitor pesticide residues (so that they remain within the MRL of the main market).
Specific comments:
a) Pest prevention in general should be the strategy, which includes cultural methods, fertilizer applications, conservation of natural enemies, and regular
monitoring of crop, pest, natural enemies, etc.
c) Pests should be monitored at all times not only when the crop is susceptible to damage, yield loss (by a kind of guard function). And the monitoring
WWF Germany Include clear pesticide data / records for data comparisons
NABU Germany IPM is extremely important and fomenting beneficial insects also. Training will be the key of success here and investing in dedicated labor.
RA technical
Include consideration of preharvest interval
assistance
1.3c: What is the conservation benefit of making farms avoid pest-susceptible crops? Isn't it more responsible to work with those farmers to help them
RA traceability
avoid the most toxic pesticides and work to reduce them, rather than avoiding the crops completely? If we force certified farms to avoid pest-susceptible
team
crops, aren't we essentially saying "go grow those on conventional farms and dump as many pesticides on them as you want"?
Product quality is not only achieved through efficient input use but it is an intrinsic value achieved through selection of planting material or varieties (1.1),
agronomic management of the crop and Pests (1.1-1.3) and Harvesting and Post-Harvest operations (which are not reflected sufficiently in the
ADDITIONAL DETAILS). So, in the additional details section of the criterion,
RA Ghana
o A1). Planned management practices for productivity increase of crops covered by the SAN certificate scope for the next crop cycle
o A2) Good harvest and post-harvest product handling protocols applied to crops covered by the SAN certificate scope for the next crop cycle
use efficiency in the standard.
SAN survey
SAN survey
1.3. should be CC (minimum IPM plan should be available at the beginning of the first year)
There are some conflicting criteria such as 1.3 (b) which talks about "preventing pest reservvoirs from developing" and having "spray free zones" in 3.10
which will create pest reservoirs!!
CR lead
Rendimiento neto: ocupa T&D. Cual sera la guia para plantaciones profesionales grandes aca?
auditors
Bangalore WS Needs a template. Bring back the element of renewable energy.
Inciso b) Especificar o aclarar a que se refiere con calidad del producto (ejem: café- prime, estricto, etc); palma (calidad de aceite). Establecer en
FIIT
algún anexo.Inciso c) a que se refiere con ingresos. Aclarar si son ingresos económicos.
We are not convinced about what benefit this control point adds to the standard. It is very private data which most farmers would not be willing
Fyffes CR
to reveal
Sugerencia de no ser um criterio critico CC+3 y sin um criterio con una pontuación más rigorosa, porque no fere la esencia de la misión de la RA.
IMAFLORA
Además es un nuevo punto de la Norma.
c)/d)/e) Would be a good idea to define a uniform process for measuring and reporting production costs and income, at least at the group
MARS
administrator level. E.g how is cost of labor for temporary family workers measured?
El Literal "b" en El Salvador este punto es difícil de cumplir ya que dependen de los beneficiadores-exportadores, que casi nunca proporcionan
SalvaCert
este dato. Nuestro comentario es porque este criterio es crítico a partir del segundo ciclo de certificación.
Sri Lanka WS Cannot be a critical criteria ,Reporting of profitability will be questionable speceacailly with small lholders
UK tea sector Huge challenge for group administrators
MARS
Improve the connection of 1.4 and 1.5 and reflect the planning cycle
CR lead
1.4.d) Define net return
auditors
Please add: records are kept for at least 3 years. And: more comprehensive monitoring for pesticides needed: bought and used when, against
RA markets
which pest, which what effects, to be able to compare over the years.
RA seal use
team
1.4b: delete "Records of obtained" so it starts with simply "Product quality", but add a bit more explanation here as to what this means. In 1.4d:
could we also ask them to estimate or calculate the premium received (if any) as a result of selling their crops as Rainforest Alliance Certified?
RA Ag
RA Ghana
1.4.e: correct 1.14 into 1.15.
Suggest changing 1.4 to "Farms keep up to date records of inputs, labor, product quality, and net return," and include the indicator/MOV "A
RA E&R
register of number of permanent and temporary workers by gender?" Nowhere in Principle 1 does it require farmers keep an inventory of
workers, which is now a requirement in audit applications.
Karen
Lewotsky
SAN Survey
Many producers consider the details of farm economics (e.g. profit,net return) personal info, and are unwilling for privacy reasons to share it with
auditors.
1.4 smallholders are often not keeping any records at all. Requiring them to keep water, labour, energy records will be very challenging.
Bangalore WS Additional guidance for criterion 1.5 is needed. How to analyze the data?
IMAFLORA
Sugerencia de no ser um criterio critico CC+3 y sin un criterio con una pontuación más rigorosa,pero no critica, porque no fere la
esencia de la misión de la RAS y aqui ubica la posibilidad del enprendimiento siempre buscar la mejora y oportunidade del auditor
instigar la mejora en el campo. Datos para cumplimiento del criterio interconectados con otros criterios mencionados en la columna de
la derecha (1.2 y 1.3)reforza la inviabilidad de ser critico.
MARS
a) Farm management plan must be more specific to generate useful performance management data and have standardized predefined KPIs for determining performance. Similarly, having some semblance of an integrated management system can allow group
administrators to generate reports that may help farmers evaluate performance and improve internal management.
b) Analyzing data annually may be too lax a requirement. Regular or seasonal data can identify and address poor management and
IPM practices and emerging risks that may hindering productivity. (Partially covered in 1.15). There is a strong argument for IT tools+B2
to support and enhance efficiency in documentation, information and process management.
SalvaCert
Sugerimos incluir en el literal "a" el criterio 1.4
Sri Lanka WS Not a critical critera
WWF
Cover pesticides also, including rodenticides, ant control, as well as pesticide use of service providers (aerial fumigation and
Germany
nematicide application)
Friedel HuetzAdams
SAN needs to generate more data to conclude about training gaps.
1.5: "analized" - analized under which aspects ? Could be specified which aspects. Each point of view has to be thought about :
SAN survey
economically, environmentally and socially
Additional guideline for minimal requirement or information mentioned in the records and documentations
SAN survey
Oxfam
The standards should support a move to more democratically organized group structures (from trader managed groups)
Bangalore WS c.= delete service provider; trainer, in general, is OK
b)Workers and group members should be trained according to the skills and competencies or their specific jobs. Not everyone will have the requisite skill
MARS
to participate in farm planning or record keeping.
c)Can spell out the kinds of trainings and skills required (Trainings in GAP, GPB, gender focused trainings etc).
RA E&R
If 1.6 is not CC then there is no incentive for farms to document and report training, which is now a requirement in audit applications.
Karen
No way to get signature or fingerprint from participants in web-based or other remote trainings (e.g. group phone call).
Lewotsky
En el criterio 1.6-C ¿cuáles son los aspectos mínimos del registro para considerarse que las capacitaciones son debidamente "documentadas"?
SAN Survey
No se solicita ninguna información sobre la experiencia del capacitador.
SAN Survey
Criterio 1.6 No es muy completo: a) Muy general, no es real. b) decir capacidades en planeamiento agrícola no es lo mismo que estar capacitados para
cumplir los otros requerimientos de la norma también necesarios y relacionados, sociales y ambientales. Entonces el enfoque de capacitaciones en su
mayoría será igual, dirigido más a temas de agroquimicos, plagas, manejo de suelos y seguridad y seguirá siendo débil en el tema ambiental y de
conservación de biodiversidad por ejemplo o en temas laborales.
SAN Survey
1.6 workers understand the SAN standard - impossible to train workers of thousands of smallholder farmers.
ICADE
Kolkatta WS
MARS
SalvaCert
RA CoC
Canada
Los compradores de banano que llegan ala planta, se consieran proveedores de servicio.
Only cover service providers, not product providers. Focus on critical criteria. Higher risk activities needs T&D.
Who will be responsible for the service providers compliance?
El Literal "e" mejorar la redacción. Sugerimos que se cambie "los límites de la finca" se cambie al "al alcance de auditoría".
Should there be some requirement for the service providers to have annual inspections by the certificate holder, as is required in CoC? Also, a binding agreement
reserving the right for the cert holder, or the certifying body, to conduct audits of the service provider.
SAN survey
Criterio 1.7: entonces si se cambia a los límites de la finca qué pasa con todo el tema de proveedores y su cumplimiento con el destino final de desechos por ejemplo
que es a lo externo de la finca, entonces no se estaría cumpliendo el objetivo. 1.7 e) No es claro a qué se refiere. Criterio 1.9 Aclarar que la trazabilidad es desde la finca,
para grupos o cuando hay más de una finca del mismo dueño y el sitio de acopio o empaque es distinto. Porque en la práctica se está asumiendo que se debe verificar
solo desde el sitio de acopio/que no necesariamente es en la finca. esto no es claro en a) porque la entrega al comprador puede darse desde el sitio de acopio y no
desde la finca. En b) no es claro colocar que se identifiquen "visualmente", esto no es consistente con c). En todo caso sería más claro colocar en c) 2. procedimientos
y registros para el control de la identificación, recepción, procesamiento..... En h) mejor colocar: es vendido o reclamado como producto certificado.
SAN survey
1.11 and 1.7 should be CC+3
CR producers
Si, tiene que ser crítico. Hay que mejorar mucho el marketplace. Actualmente, no responde a las exigencias de estos dos criterios. 1.8.h chequear traducción al
Español.
CR lead
Como quedaron los umbrales para la aceptacion de diferencias de volumenes? 1%? 5%?
auditors
Carlo Castillo Los incisos b, f, g, i se refieren a la trazabilidad del producto y el resto a su integridad de la producción, deberían ser dos criterios críticos separados.
en insiso "e"en los registros de produccion se solicitan estimaciones de rendimiento y aspectos de historial de produccion y que estos aspectos aperecen en otro
ICADE
criterio de la norma. Revizar lo expresado en criterio 1.1
La cantidad de informaciones en la columna de la derecha y principalmente em el punto i) puede inviabilizar la certificación. Algunos temas son nuevos para ser
IMAFLORA
criterio critico en el primer año.
MARS
Group level IMS will make this requirement easier to track and monitor
RA
traceability
team
MARS
RA technical
assistance
RA seal use
team
RA Ag
- Replace the text in letter a) of the right column with: "The quota is registered and validated annually, with the relevant supporting documentation to confirm it".
- Define 'quota' as: "What is feasible to produce on the production area under the scope".
- Replace the text in letter f) with: "Organizations receiving product shall ensure that the product procured has the applicable documentation to support the claim or
that this product is not mixed with products that they will sell using a claim."
Allowed cocoa volume versus farm size
What are the thresholds in terms of accepting volume differences? 1%? 100 bags?
Please change 1.8i to "Records of approvals granted by the Rainforest Alliance are obtained and maintained for the use of any of its trademarks on packaging,
signage, web pages, or other public communication and marketing materials before such materials are issued, posted, published or distributed." Also, need to add a
bullet to say essentially that the outputs sold as Rainforest Alliance Certified do not exceed the harvest volumes approved to be sold as Rainforest Alliance Certified.
They can't sell more as RAC than they produced! Another bullet could be added, or incorporated into the proposed one above, about double-selling certified
volumes in the case of producers with multiple certifications.
1.8.d: difficult to understand what is meant here. DO g, & I really apply to a farm? And overall this criteria is too long and complex, can it be simpler and shorter?
RA CoC
Canada
f) Should specify what applicable documentation is required.
h) Should be specific as to what claim information is required. i.e. do they need to specify percentage if product is blended?
I) This should include getting approval prior to use, and also the requirement for having a signed license agreement.
RA London
-Document as well who the inputs have been bought from and who the outputs are being sold to.
-Record any major loss (due to flooding for example)
-How do we account for increase in authorised volume when new members are joining the group?
CR lead
auditors
MARS
RA
traceability
team
SAN TOC
RA markets
team
RA CoC
Canada
Como quedaron los umbrales para la aceptacion de diferencias de volumenes? 1%? 5%?
Good emphasis on the kinds administrative controls and capacity required
- Letters g) and h) in the right column should be moved to the right column of criterion 1.8.
- Consider including the following: "A system shall be in place to ensure that certified and non-certified
Considerando que la cadena de custodia está en revisión y el alcance posiblemente excluya fincas y
grupos, es necesario que se asegure en este estándar una evaluación más detallada del tema. Tal como
está planteado se enfoca solo al tema de mezcla por lo tanto considero que queda incompleta la
evaluación. Se requiere abordar el tema de uso del sello a nivel de fincas y administradores para que los
OC podamos evaluarlo desde la auditoría
1.9a, please add: climate information on the suitability of crops, particular varieties of crops, their altered
Product coming from non-certified farms- this conflicts with 5.2, which states that the cattle only need to
have been on certified farms for the last 6mo of their lives. This means that the cattle does not original
from certified farms.
CR producers Definir "personas afectadas". Donde esta la definicion de conversion mayor de tierras?
CR lead
auditors
"métodos técnicamente reconocidos" necesita T&D. Eliminar la palabra "independiente" en el criterio. T&D: Infraestructura agricola nueva mayor (no:
infraestructura nueva importante de la finca). Expresar área en % del área productiva de la finca. Eliminar última frase ya que es sujeto a ley, por ejemplo
caso de drenajes.
Bangalore WS In India, ESIAs are conducted by the government. Major new farm infrastructure needs T&D. Plant rejuvenation should not be subject to this criterion.
Carlo Castillo
FIIT
IMAFLORA
MARS
Nespresso
Brazil
SalvaCert
Amsterdam
Social NGOs
La evaluación la puede realizar un "profesional competente", que puede ser de la misma empresa pues no siempre se dispone de un "independiente" por
motivos de costos o distancias.
Aclarar que es la conversion mayor (%) o como se mediria
Sugerencia de no ser un criterio critico, y sin un criterio con una pontuación más rigorosa. Nuevo tema para la norma para ser um critico critico aunce en el
primer siglo de de certificación.
If possible, define the scale/criteria for "major" land conversions, planting or new infrastructure
Take out of the criteria the word "independent"
Sugerimos modificar el término de "conversión mayor de uso de la tierra" a cambio de uso de suelo.
Strong focus on land/environmental issues. Suggestion to add content on social issues to enhance sound business
Sri Lanka WS Will be condcuted as per the country law. Defintion :Competant professional :Experianced suprintendent is the competent professional with whome a team
of EMA etc can work to develop the document as accpeted in ISO 22000
Oxfam
Suggest adding an indicator on the presence of accessible, operational-level grievance mechanisms for potentially affected communities not just for farmers
and supply chain actors. See United Nations Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights, Guiding Principle 31 for more on what this should entail.
SAN should consider making this a human rights impact assessment, not just enviro and social? And what about smaller land conversions, eg: those less than
100ha? There are problems with land acquisition of small farms too.
We also suggest adding further guidance on community engagement, particularly
they should talk to, and/or fail to seek out the voices of marginalized community members and groups. More guidance might help one suggestion is to work
with a local expert to help with the mapping process
RA Markets
team
RA Ag
RA Ghana
SAN survey
SAN survey
Strong focus on land/environmental issues. Suggestion to add content on economical issues to enhance sound business
1.10.a: "technically recognized" = not feasible nor necessary. The requirement of it to be an independent evaluation is too high a requirement
Can we not move this criterion to 1.7 so that 1.9 can become 1.10 which could potentially maintain identity with current standard? Too close to achieve similar
status as in old standard.
1.10. independent assessment for new land use, infrastructure etc: conversion of new land should be prohibited, "independence" is not always free from
corruption in SAN countries. A definition of independent institutes is necessary.
Criterio 1.10 Debe tomar en cuenta también el impacto sobre las personas que trabajan y viven en las fincas y las distancias referidas en las normas RAS con
relación a áreas de producción y áreas de actividad humana. Actualmente ya se está interpretando por los finqueros como de menor importancia porque no
es específico.
Carlo Castillo Por motivos de orden y facilitar la implementación el criterio 1.11 debería estar antes del criterio 4.19 referidos a seguridad y salud ocupacional.
No me parece lógico incluir el plan de salud y seguridad en el principio 1. De hacerlo debería entonces incluirse todos los demás planes relacionados con el manejo
SAN TOC
de recursos naturales, agua, residuos, etc
RA Ag
1.11.a: competent professional again sounds complex for a group of small producers
Criterio 1.11 No incluye medidas de prevención. Las medidas de mitigación no deberían ponerse en marcha cuando el nivel de riesgo es inaceptable sino en
SAN survey
cualquier caso, no es claro el término inaceptable. En f) colocar mejor: el plan se revisa y mejora conforme los resultados..en g) y quién lo revisa y verifica
cumplimiento y mejora, el administrador? cuando no hay capacidades en la finca por ejemplo.
SAN survey
1.11 and 1.7 should be CC+3
CR producers
Birdlife
International
TESCO
Evitar la contratacion innecesaria de consultores para definir HCVs.
supportive of move to HCV, though does not understand the concept well.
would like to see compensation mechanism for HCV converted after 2005
Cut-off date of 2005. We all know why this is necessary, but you know better than most from your FSC days that there comes a time when cut off dates
Nestle
necessary to look at the context and circumstances rather than have a hard 2005 date to follow.
As for other issues, yes it is great that SAN has now adopted HCV. The HCVRN Common Guidance documents (1 for identification and 1 for management
and monitoring) provide a good basis. However as you may well know, there has been a crisis on confidence with HCV in the wider community. 1. Cos of
poor quality control and 2. Allowing deforestation. HCS has been invented by GP to plug the latter hole but still leaves open the question of quality
Forest Peoples
control of HCS assessors who will now proliferate to fill the demand. HCVRN has now adopted an Assessor Licensing Scheme which is designed to
Programme
address problem 1 and ensure that HCV assessors have at least minimal qualitication. The ALS systems will need improving as it gets applied. So far only
RSPO is requiring the ALS and it would be good if SAN took it up too and better if SAN could also join HCVRN and help lead in developing better quality
assurance. CR lead
auditors
Consider the use of Google Earth and copy-paste of Shape files. Relate to local legislation. Most effective approach will be the research audit.
The five year rule on HCV and forest/natural ecosystem conversion needs to be adapted to palm oil rotation cycles of 25 years. It takes 4 years after
planting for palm oil plantations to start yielding, so 5 years is too short to provide a disincentive from clearing. The backward looking rule should be
Rainforest
extended to 8-10 years, with a strict prohibition going forward that the mill will not purchase from any third party supplier who is actively deforesting or
Action Network
converting natural ecosystems. For definitions of forests, see the High Carbon Stock Approach toolkit. http://highcarbonstock.org/wpcontent/uploads/2015/04/HCS-Approach-Toolkit_Full-version.pdf
El punto de discusión y evaluación debería ser la "responsabilidad", es decir las "actividades intencionales" de la dirección de la finca, pues que pasa si
Carlo Castillo ha habido destrucción de áreas de alto valor de conservación el año 2010, un nuevo dueño compra la propiedad el 2011 y empieza a implementar
agricultura sostenible y a recuperar los EAVC, ya no podría ser certificado?
What constitues destruction? Remains subject to interpretation - eg if a new road is cut through a natural forest some auditors may interpret this as
destruction of a HCV area, others may not?
ICADE
Agregar elentos o indicadors que orienten la identificacion de areas de alto valor.
IOAS
HCV concept is too complicated to understand and to evaluate. It will require very strong training to auditors and clear definitions.
Smallholders can comply with HCV conservation through list of good practices. Landscape risk analysis with WRI Forest Watch. High risk operations need
Proforest
to proof compliance via HCV assessment, e.g. > 50 ha for x crop in x region.
How will the HCV approach applied to the SAN system? This will be the big challenge. Could be via focused research audits. All farms should be GPS
WWF Germany
mapped. Communicate openly about it and ally with other NGOs.
NABU Germany EC renewable energy directive has some good definitions
Se usa el concepto oficial de Altos Valores de Conservación con mucho más claridad permitiendo que se pueda enfocar la evaluación, lo cual es bueno.
SAN TOC
Debe definirse quien asume el costo de la investigación para determinar AVCs y además establecer los mecanismos de evaluación. Mi sugerencia es que
la evaluación de este criterio siempre incluya el apoyo de especialistas y que este costo los cubra la misma auditoría.
Finlays
RA seal use
team
RA Ghana
SAN Survey
SAN Survey
SAN Survey
So we'll no longer have a hard cut-off date for deforestation, unless it's a HCV area?
How is the HCV defined in the context of the SAN for small producers? The definition in annex 4 refers to a document (SAN MoV for the Biodiversity
Conservation Principle) which is not available for analysis.
Biodiversity conservation has been well covered but the definition of HCV and the reference to another document in annex 4 is complex.
No establecen parametros generales para determinar los criterios que debe cumplir un area de alto valor de conservación; se deja a interpretación local
o lo que regule la legislación cuando esta última puede presentar deficiencias en establecer una definición local de un area de alto valor de
conservación
Criterion 2.1: Why is the reference date 2005? Wouldn´t it be more meaningful to take at least 1990 as reference date? We would support to take a longer
period.
CR producers Escenario de compra de propiedades. Permitir que el nuevo dueño de finca sea certificado aunque el dueño anterior destruyó algún
ecosistema natural. Importante aclarar que cruce de ganado por río no es destrucción de ecosistema natural.
CR lead
auditors
FIIT
Finlays
Fyffes CR
Teach the producers how to implement it will be the challenge. Impossible to audit. In general, Principle 2 language needs to be
improved and lowered. Modificar T&D ecosistemas naturales: modificar punto 4. sobre otros ecosistemas. Hace falta un plan de
conservación? Tal vez dentro del Principio 1. T&D Conversion mayor de tierras (no conversion importante de las tierras. Mala
traduccion) Revisar compensación para conversión por infraestructura. Criterio 2.2 En el periodo de 5 años antes de la fecha de
solicitud inicial de certificación a la RAS no ha habido destrucción de ecosistemas naturales.
Al ir a la definición de ecosistemas naturales en el punto 4 que indica otros, se hace mención a los siguiente: extensiones cubiertas de
árboles, arbustos, pastos y páramos que se presentan en parches de la menos 1 hectárea de tamaño, que no están siendo utilizadas
para cultivo ni pastoreo cercado y que no han sido así utilizadas por al menos 5 años. Lo anterior significa que zonas en barbecho no
se podrían resembrar.Cualquier charralito no se podría convertir. Por favor revisar.
Incluir la siguiente información. Se mantiene un historial del uso de la tierra, en especial los cambios significativos de la composición
inicial.
What constitues destruction? Remains subject to interpretation - eg if a new road is cut through a natural forest some auditors may
interpret this as destruction of a HCV area, others may not?
This means that any land defined in this section, which is not been used for the farm for agriculture or enclosed grazing, cannot be used
in the future even though this land has good soils for crops.
This is a tough start. How do you determine this? Certification will be gone! The criterion needs to embrace a vision of the future and
encourage change not a look back provision. Flexible approach, please: e.g. fallow lands are used for rice paddy production. Land-use
Kolkatta WS
MARS
IPL / Fyffes
UK & CR
WWF
Germany
RA Ag
certification: not easy to audit objectively and it will discourage farms that might want to start with the certification process and that
considered as a natural ecosystem. This definition needs to be narrowed to avoid people being discouraged to enter the system.
Is it possible to distinguish between intentional and unintentional destruction of natural ecosystems. 5 years is a long time period and
there may have been instances of third party activity or poor practices which have affected ecosystems unintentionally
Where to draw the line between tacotal (shrub) and secondary forest? To decide if areas could be planted with crop.
Analyse how to include fallow land in natural ecosystem definition. Conversion needs to be justified for infrastructure purposes (e.g.
banana plantations).
Impossible to comply with specially because of the definition of ecosystems, specially point 4 which includes all pasture lands, would
basically inhibit any type of agricultural extension, this criteria receive a lot of objections from auditors in Costa Rica
RA Ag L.A.
Difference between natural ecosytem and HCV still not fuzzy, for ex magnitude of the area is not properly defined in the draft MOV doc
RA E&R
Does MOV 2.3 c (minor conversion of natural ecosystems for the purpose of supporting smallholder livelihoods or famr resilience) apply
to prior to the initial application for SAN certification also (Criterion 2.2)?
CR producers
ICADE
Kolkatta WS
OK
definir para el insiso" c" que seria una conversion menor de ecosistema naturales " como se Mide"
Aquatic ecosystems and water shed needs to be better addressed.
MARS
out(critical to productivity and livelihoods).
a) Mapping and monitoring natural ecosystems will be greatly facilitated if GPS based measurement is adopted.
c) Also define "minor" conversion
El incumplimiento de este criterio implica también incumplimiento al criterio 1.1. Sugerimos no pedir el mismo
requerimiento para ambos criterios, sólo dejarlo contemplado en el criterio 1.1.
Difficult to comply with, in line with the above observation
El criterio 2.3 y 2.4 podrían integrarse
SalvaCert
RA Ag
SAN Survey
CR producers
IMAFLORA
MARS
No esta definido lo que es un "efecto negativo". Cacería? Plaguicidas en sistemas acuáticos que llegan al manglar o mar? Analizar mas la parte de
plaguicidas.
No era um criterio critico el la versión anterior y sugestión de ser um criterio critico CC+3
Should be accompanied with specific trainings on conservation and GAP
CR producers
Mejorar la redacción enfocando a vegetación nativa de no producción. No puede ser CC+3. Tiene que ser criterio de mejoramiento continuo. Referirse a un
porcentaje optimo en vez de uno fijo de 10% o 20%.
American Bird
Concerns about going from 40% to 20 or 10. Cites critical value for birds declines sharply below 30%.
Conservancy
CR lead
No es posible en 3 años (ver Ecuador y Colombia)
auditors
Bring back the 12 tree species. Tree diversity is very important. Leaving out the requirements about shade feels as if the SAN is losing its distinctive signature,
Bangalore WS
as if it the bar was lowered and the program is becoming more mainstream
COMO FIIT NO ESTAMOS DE ACUERDO CON ESTE CRITERIO ecosistemas naturales o vegetación diversa (no cultivos): 10 % para cultivos no tolerantes a la
sombra (banano p.e.), y 20 % para ganado o cultivos tolerantes a la sombra (café, p.e.). COMO FIIT NO ESTAMOS DE ACUERDO CON ESTE CRITERIO
FIIT
Comentario: Los cultivos no tolerantes a la sombra (banano, sandía, melón, palma africana, hule, aguacate, flores) están ubicados en áreas de producción
definidos, según la capacidad de uso de la tierra. Por lo general no tienen ningún ecosistema o árboles. El 20% es demasiado alto para dichos cultivos.
Fyffes CR
In farms with not additional land for conservation will need to buy 10 % of the total size of the farm.
it is a new issue and a major change to the new standard. therefore should not be critical even in 3 years. 6 years is not enough to make such a great change in
IMAFLORA
the farm
20% or even 10% of tree/natural ecosystem coverage is not feasible in most of the plantations, especially those with monoculture systems.
IOAS
Kolkatta WS
MARS
IPL / Fyffes
UK & CR
NABU
Germany
Nairobi
webinar
Agroforestry requirements to take into consideration. The training and education will be key to learn and know what to do regarding agroforestry and tree
conservation instead of having criteria that might not even be feasible due to the lack of options.
Trees/natural ecosystems cover at least 20% of land - This is not feasible on many small farms where the land is needed to derive income. 20% of land (the
space of 200 cocoa trees per hectare) is a lot and it is not the same as 20% shade where you still have cocoa trees growing
Do you mean canopy cover or ground cover? This needs to be defined.
% could be measured by aerial photographs. 10% goes with the NABU good for nature strategy.
10% cover is impossible to achieve for tea smallholders, but feasible for tea estates
2.5 appears considerably weaker than the comparable criteria 2.8 and 2.9 in the previous SAN standard. The old 2.8 required farms in originally forested areas
to establish and/or restore a permanent agroforestry system with an overall canopy density on cultivated land of 40%, using a minimum of 12 native species,
etc.; and for farms in areas where the original natural vegetation was not forest, to dedicate at least 30% of the farm area to the conservation or restoration of
RSPB
detail) of the old 2.8 and 2.9. For example, a continuous improvement criteria could be introduced that requires the management of 30% of the farm area for
specific wildlife habitats, representative of the original natural ecosystems of the area. The continuous improvement structure means farms could still achieve
certification and not comply with this criteria, as appropriate to their situation, but it stil communicates an ambition that may be appropriate in some areas.
RA markets
team
Can we add content to enhance that connected areas and spots are created, instead counting 5 trees here and 3 bushes there, which may not mean any ecovalue for wildlife.
RA seal use
team
While 40% shade may not work for cocoa farms in Cote d'Ivoire, there is a lot of scientific evidence for the 40% level in coffee, particularly in Central America.
A reduction to 20% across the board for all shade-tolerant crops will be seen by the coffee industry - and their bloggers and critics - as a weakening in the
standard. It is a risk to the SAN and to Rainforest Alliance. Could the standard instead include a sliding scale, or crop-specific levels for shade cover? Too
many pictures of Rainforest Alliance Certified farms with only a few trees scattered here and there decreases confidence in the standard, in the SAN and in
RA, both from consumers and public-facing stakeholders. Especially since the 20% can be just in the conservation areas (around water flows etc) and not
even necessarily shading the crop. This seems contrary to our collective mission of conservation.
RA Ag
10% on none shae crops probably not feasible. Could we split this criteria in 2: 20% CC for shade crops and 20 or 10% continues improvement criteria for none
share crops? Criterion 2.5 needs a reality check based on the current certified farm portfolio. December 2014 certification report indicates that of all banana,
pineapple and palm farms, over 55% have a production area of equal or bigger than 90%. This may mean that the economic cost of scaling down operations
to comply with the criterion may drive a lot of cert farms out of the system.
RA Ag L.A.
RA Ghana
SAN Survey
If a farm or group own conservation set asides that are geographically away, how would this be audited?
1. Is there a scientific basis or experiential learning to inform the criterion?
2. The criterion should be linked to or cross-referenced to criteria 1.1-1.5 to ensure that shade management is integrated in the farm management plan to
achieve the multiply outcomes of increased productivity and profitability as well as resilience and adaptation to climate change.
3. Linking to the management plan would ensure that the degree of shading set by farms take into account the number of factors including site conditions (soil
nutrients/moisture limitations, fertility and climate); component selection (species/varieties/provenances); belowground and aboveground characteristics of the
trees and crops (including requirement of the specific crop which vary with age and site conditions, soil fertility) and management practices.
4. A minimum target of 30% shade should be required particularly when the “additional details” provides diversity of combination of factors to achieve the
canopy cover. If the outcome of the standard is to claim adaptation to climate change in shade tolerant production systems, then a 20% minimum shade is
below the threshold of sustainability. In West Africa, shade canopy is conventionally categorized as low (less than 30%), medium (30-40%) and high (more than
40%). Experience has shown that producers would aim to meet the minimum requirement which is set at 20% to be attained with a 3-year plan. So for many
producers, a 20% would be the minimum and the maximum.
5. The criterion lacks continuous improvement target to transform the production landscape. What is the best shade management practice available to be
achieved for resilience and climate adaptation in growing shade tolerant crops? The current standard had 40% shade as BMP. According to Beer J, et al.
(1998) “The upper limit of acceptable shade for coffee (a C3 plant) is considered to be between 40% and 70% (Kumar and Tieszen,1980; ICAFE, 1989b;
Muschler, 1995). A similar range may apply for cacao (Alvim, 1977).” If the SAN Standard cannot set a maximum limit, then the “additional details” section
should at least encourage a continuous improvement of shade within the framework of criterion 1.1-1.5 with clear guidance on.
I would like
to recommend a split of the criterion
a. Non-shade tolerant crops may meet their 10% through combination of (a1,2,4&5) in the additional details section as outlined by Jeff. That notwithstanding,
the 10% designate should be science-based, not only mission-driven.
b. It would be strange for a cocoa farm to claim compliance to 2.5 by demonstrating compliance through combination of (a1,2,4&5 without a3) in the additional
details. Would that be a good agroforestry system and to which definition?
c. If 2.5 is meant to achieve best practice in agroforestry management in shade tolerant crops, then let us be specific and focus on outcome that is based on
best agroforestry system that also offer economic benefit to farmers. Otherwise, we should have sound scientific basis for justifying the criterion for shade
tolerant crops.
d. Let us separate the two crops and specify their requirements accordingly.
Very disappointed - wrt Coffee - that as we encourage users to demand shade grown coffee, and it's ability to create benefical forests by continuing to make
shade grown coffee desirable that this goal will cease to be supported. Shade grown coffee also has the benefit of holding back the relentless march of coffee
rust and the borer beetle. Rainforest Alliance should continue the support for shade grown coffee; this is a war we're winning
SAN Survey
SAN Survey
SAN Survey
Colombian
banana
producer
SAN Survey
SAN Survey
SAN Survey
SAN Survey
SAN Survey
SAN Survey
One of the primary purposes of the certification is to have shade trees for coffee plants to provide habitat for birds. This version has no mention of shade trees
and now sun coffee can be rainforest certified, how does that make sense. Your label means nothing to me if you gut the shade tree requirements. I will no
longer support your program and will not by products based on your label. This watering down of the regulations is what I would expect from a corporation, sad
turn for this org.
The shade criteria seem to be diminished from requirements of past. It seems RA is lessening criteria to bring in more farms, and jeopardizing the value of
certifications.
The criterion that promoted shade cover and structural diversity has been completely changed and downgraded to the point where it is no longer ecologically
relevant to the preservation of "rainforest" or any forest.
El punto 2.5 los porcentajes atentan con la viabilidad del negocio. En banano es imposible tener la finca con el 10% con árboles. Esto se cumple solo y si
solo si la finca tiene ríos en sus linderos o sus tierras.
It is unrealistic to assume that endangered species would live in a small plot of forest next to a coffee monocrop. The point and intention of the 40% tree
coverage is to allow a diverse set of species to live among coffee trees in an integrated system.
The new flexible system re: tree/natural ecosystem coverage is concerning, as it suggests that SAN certified coffee and cocoa farms could get away with small,
fragmented natural areas - too sparse and disconnected to create meaningful biodiversity benefits relative to diverse agroforestry systems with sufficient density
and complex strata structure. Recognizing that this is now a mandatory criteria (after 3 years), while the current shade criteria for agroforestry crops is not - we
are concerned that this could move SAN further away from shade coffee/cocoa status.
Dilution of shade coverage requirements is a retrograde step.
Shade and it's associated native & natural ecosystems is a prime component of biodiversity.
Criterion 2.5: 10% tree cover of the total land area for farms producing non-shade-tolerant crops isn´t enough. When we think for example about pine apple
production such a minimal percentage still means pine apple farms with a hostile environment for mammals, birds and so on
El punto 2.5 los porcentajes atentan con la viabilidad del negocio. En banano es imposible tener la finca con el 10% con árboles. Esto se cumple solo y si
solo si la finca tiene ríos en sus linderos o sus tierras.
SAN Survey
This draft is clear, easy to read, and clearly represents a lot of deep reflection. My primary concern, as an employee of a social lender working with many coffee
and cocoa cooperatives, is that the SANstandard is continuing to move away from actively promoting diverse shade production in agroforestry-compatible
crops. As a lender, we seek to leverage certifications during our environmental and social due diligence process. This opens up some concerns for us regarding
the agroforestry credentials of SAN. That being said, the rest of the standard remains strong. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
SAN Survey
It would be great to see Rainforest Alliance (RA) work to strengthen its certification for improving biodiversity, shade, and environment, rather than what appears
to be relaxing criteria. Coffee certifications should be an important part of the product, so that consumers know what they're purchasing, but "watering" down
criteria lessens its impact and potentially eliminates the importance of certifications.
UK tea sector What about naturalized exotic species?
Sri Lanka WS Take out the " large " and it should be all native trees
This criterion prohibiting chopping down of large native trees should be critical, for several reasons. 1. Criterion 2.9 (prohibition on hunting) is critical. Large trees
have as much or more ecological value than individual animals, and should be protected to at least the same level. 2. If the standard wishes to be seen as 'zero
deforestation', then preserving individual large trees with proven ecological value should not be optional. 3. Large trees take a long time to grow. it does not make
RSPB
sense to present their conservation as part of a 'continuous improvement' criterion which can be complied with 'at a later time', as they would no longer be
standing. .
RA seal use
team
RA Ghana
SAN survey
What does point b) refer to? It is in the middle of a sentence.
e.g. could include large native trees that are identified to be host of pest and diseases
Criterion 2.6: Point (b) is formulated very unclear and undefined. The possible exceptions has to be mentioned more clearly, otherwise every farm or farm-owner is
able to find reasons to fell large native trees very easily. It is important, that criterions aren´t formulated in such an unclear way, because it results in a certification,
which isn´t able to be taken seriously.
en el insiso a numeral 1 no se tiene definido el ancho de la zona ribereña
ICADE
Sri Lanka WS Agree distance to be dsicussed with the local interpritation
RA seal use
What does point b) refer to? Again it is placed in the middle of a sentence.
team
WWF
Germany
RA tea mgmt
RA seal use
team
Karen
Lewotsky
SAN Survey
Cattle pasture species are also covered here. Could be a critical criterion for the cattle certification scope.
Strategy to reduce or control invasive species should be documented and preferably be based on use of non-chemical means.
Isn't it missing a detail about manually pulling them out or how to comply with this criterion?
Under Additional Details, add: "Management of invasive species spread on the farm is addressed in the farm's IPM plan (see criterion 1.3" or other language showing
that invasives are "pests" and are managed using IPM.
El pequeño productor puede causar igual o mas impacto en vida silvestre que una plantacion grande. Game farms son elemento importante de la sostenibilidad de
los ecosistemas de sabanas. Incluir saqueo de huevos en definicion de cacería.
FIIT
Se acepta cacería de subsistencia para pequeños productores. ¿?
WPA
Pests need to be defined better. Blurry. What is hunting?
SalvaCert
Modificar productores pequeños a grupos étnicos que utilizan la cacería como medio de subsistencia.
Sri Lanka WS OK- Not applicable to Estates
Clarify if fishing is also prohibited on-farm. Have made the point before, but allowing legal, non-commercial hunting and fishing of non-endangered species (for
RSPB
subsistence and/or last resort management purposes) is likely a more realistic criterion than no hunting or fishing at all. See also point under 2.12
RA seal use
The words "Critical Criterion" in white are missing the black box around them.
team
SAN survey
Conservación de la biodiversidad: Queda a la deriva en las restricciones en este apartado por ejemplo: Permite la cacería para cualquier grupo integrado local
SAN survey
En lo respectivo a biodiversidad falta ser más estrictos en cuanto a la caza de animales y a la extracción de plantas en peligro de extinción.
Considero que existen algunos vacíos en cuanto a las restricciones que existen de acuerdo a legislación, en el caso de la cacería se deja abierto a productores
SAN survey
pequeños pero no se mencionan regulaciones de acuerdo a alguna ley. De igual forma en conservación de recursos naturales no existen restricciones para tala,
quema lo que se consideraría un riesgo.
CR producers
SAN survey
En objetivos y resultados de este principio debe haber una mejor comprensión o alcance de a qué se refiere cuando dice:"suministrando recursos importantes o
flujos de ingresos como madera y plantas medicinales (hay algo mal con la traducción, no es muy claro) suministrando a quién? plantas medicinales? maderas? de
producción sostenible? son temas que hay que tratar con mayor cuidado por lo que implican o especificar. Por ejemplo la flora es igual de importante que la fauna, si
se prohibe la caza también se debe prohibir la tala o extracción de especies silvestres en las áreas de conservación, a menos que sea con planes de manejo siguiendo
las regulaciones, o la introducción de especies no nativas que podrían ser invasoras o dañinas y este tema no se incluye con mayor detalle como debería. El tema de
plantas medicinales es de tratamiento delicado e implica normativa específica nacional e internacional, esto debe ser mencionado si se promueve. El Criterio 2.3 es
muy general para la importancia que tiene - qué implica una conversión menor? cómo se mide? si ahora lo poco que tienen de sistemas a conservar les cuesta
conservar, con la justificación de que sería de ayuda a subsistencia menos van a conservar y eso de que favorecería la auto-recuperación no es consistente. la frase
que dice que puede ser permitida solamente con la política de RAS es demasiado general para un cambio tan importante. El criterio 2.6 hace referencia a los árboles
nativos grandes, no se entiende por qué, si son igual de importantes los más jóvenes para asegurar una regeneración y subsistencia en el tiempo. Igual en b) "si su
densidad disminuye el rendimiento de la finca, entonces estamos contradiciendo el principio y dando prioridad a la infraestructura de producción o rendimiento
frente a especies nativas que deben conservarse, el criterio debería incluir excepciones que favorezcan la conservación y no solo la producción, por ejemplo, si son
especies valiosas, o con distribución restringida o amenazadas no deberían cortarse a pesar de disminución de rendimiento...Criterio 2.9 Modificar "los fines no
comerciales" pueden incluir trofeos de caza y no necesariamente subsistencia, mientras en otros casos los fines comerciales legales y permitidos pueden contribuir a
la subsistencia de poblaciones locales o productores pequeños. Hay que mejorar los requisitos de este Criterio y el criterio en sí con una mejor asesoría sobre el tema.
Se puede proteger especies amenazadas con actividades de zoocría y comerciales legales y bien manejadas. a) los animales amenazados o protegidos por
legislaciones locales e internacionales - el rango de amenaza global de una especie no se mide solo a nivel de amenaza local o nacional sino mundial, es decir, al o
largo de toda su área de distribución mundial. Se toma en cuenta también la convención CITES por ejemplo y listas rojas de UICN además de lo nacional. Criterio 2.10
Si están en buenas condiciones en la finca y lo permite la legislación nacional/local. Criterio 2.11. se puede permitir la recolección silvestre siempre que lo permita la
legislación nacional y con plan de manejo. Ahora hay estándares nacionales o internacionales que permiten el uso o recolección sostenible de plantas silvestres,
incluso con fines comerciales, incluyendo especies amenazadas. esto también puede verse como un incentivo de conservación. Todo tipo de recolección, sea con
fines comerciales legales y sostenibles o con fines de investigación deben ser con la respectiva autorización del gobierno. Criterio 2.12 Las especies silvestres son
plantas y animales silvestres, lo propuesto debe ser solo bajo una justificación estricta y demostrando que es la última opción luego de haber consultado y realizado
las evaluaciones respectivas con autoridades y especialistas y en cumplimiento con la legislación nacional o internacional relacionada dependiendo de la especie en
cuestión.
Finlays
WPA
Does not provide for programs involved in breeding for repatriation into the wild of endangered species. Eg Bongo
Should be a critical criterion. a.) needs means of verification. Phase-out is a good way to go. Minimum welfare
criteria? (expected lifespan for some species)
Finlays
SAN Survey
a 1) - I suggest you add " providing such harvesting is not detrimental to the plant's long term health"
becomes a critical criterion.
Bangalore WS Hedges and barriers decrease the visibility for spotting elephants, bisons, etc or for road visibility.
How will auditors/operations be trained? "Measure of a last resort" is subjective. Use of chili for
WPA
repelling
elephants from
crops.
2.12
b. 3. contradicts
the prohibition
on hunting in 2.9 as lethal control (i.e., hunting) is permitted as a
last resort 'management option'.
RSPB
Survey on 3rd draft of SAN Sustainable Agriculture Standard
The new restricted use pesticide concept with its risk management criteria together with
a shorter prohibited pesticide list lead to a reduced environmental and human impact of
pesticides, while enabling economically feasible productivity scenarios for tropical
agriculture
Answer Options
Disagree / En desacuerdo
Partially agree / Parcialmente de
Fully agree / Totalmente de acuerdo
Don't have information to respond / Sin
Comments / Comentarios
Response
Percent
7.8%
39.1%
43.8%
9.4%
answered question
skipped question
Number
The new restricted use pesticide concept with its risk management criteria
together with a shorter prohibited pesticide list lead to a reduced
environmental and human impact of pesticides, while enabling economically
feasible productivity scenarios for tr
9.4%
7.8%
Disagree / En desacuerdo
Response Count
Partially agree / Parcialmente de
acuerdo
5
25
28
6
24
39.1%
Fully agree / Totalmente de acuerdo
43.8%
64
1
Don't have information to respond /
Sin información para responder
Comments /
Comentarios
May 1, 2015 5:14 PM It is not logical for a shorter list of prohibited pesticides to reduce environmental and human impact. Many effective organic pesticides and fertilizers are available.
The clarity on IPM is helpful. I remain concerned about the fact that paraquat is not on the prohibited list, due to the documented health hazards - and the fact that its use remains so
May 1, 2015 2:20 AM
widespread in many tropical regions.
Response Date
1
2
3
May
4
Apr
5
6
Apr
Apr
7
8
está comprobado que los criterios de manejo de riesgo y el manejo en sí depende mucho del conocimiento y capacidad de las fincas para realizar un real análisis y monitoreo y mejora
que abarque todos los aspectos del uso de estas sustancias, tanto en términos de salud como ambientales. Me parece que están priorizando de este modo los negocios y escenarios
económicos por encima de los derechos humanos y de la seguridad en salud ambiental y humana. Reducir la lista de plaguicidas prohibidos definitivamente no apunta a una reducción del
impacto. Sobre todo con tantas alternativas que hay hoy en día y que tienen las fincas para un manejo de sustancias naturales y que está comprobado que sí se puede reducir y que se
debe invertir más bien en estos escenarios que sí son factibles. Criterio 3.2 a1) a veces las recomendaciones de las autoridades no van de la mano con la protección del ambiente o de las
1, 2015 12:06 AM personas, está comprobado que hay campañas donde se regalan a las comunidades tipos de sustancias que son dañinas, mejorar la redacción de esa frase para que quede más claro a
qué se refiere o enfoca o para prevenir riesgos. Criterio 3.4 e) Se identifican y cumplen...Criterio 3.7 varios de los pesticidas registrados legalmente en ciertos países ya han sido
prohibidos en otros por tener más investigaciones sobre los impactos en la salud humana sobre todo.Entonces es perverso permitirlos, se debe tomar la medida más estricta en este tema
que es mejor como estaba en la versión actual. Todas las listas relacionadas. El tema de derecho humano de convenios internacionales, prima por sobre cualquier regulación nacional.
Criterio 3.9 c) no es totalmente compatible con 2.7. Entonces 3.10 debe ser crítico también que es lo que menos se cumple. Criterio 3.15 b) entonces hay que modificar el tema de
proveedores que hacen esto fuera de la finca para volver a colocar que cumplen con los requisitos de la RAS también fuera de la finca
La base del MIP permite el uso de plaguicidas por lo que tener algunas herramientas autorizadas puede llegar a controlar problemas fitosanitarios graves en donde se deben tomar
30, 2015 9:23 PM medidas de choque para reducir impactos significativos sobre los sistemas productivos.
El manejo adecuado de los plaguicidas es la clave.
De acuerdo en tener como referencia los estandares internacionales para construir el listado.
30, 2015 2:55 PM Don't forget to put Glyphosate in the new list of Restricted pesticides (yet WHO Class II)
30, 2015 3:12 AM This is like the logic of providing an antidote to Ebola that will enable people eat monkeys for protein; how about providing alternative protein
I applaud your efforts to have a more realistic approach to risk management. I wonder though how group administrators can implement this realistically with large smallholder groups. Kindly
develop a good training programme for group administrators on this topic. The removal of much-used pesticides, such as Paraquat, Permethrin and Carbofuran, from the prohibited
Apr 28, 2015 3:50 PM pesticide list is difficult. It completely undermines the position a group administrator has in a community: first prohibiting group members to use a specific product and then now allowing it.
This creates the impression that the group administrator - and SAN - have no idea what they are talking about (first something is too dangerous to use and then it isn't). It completely
undermines the implementation of the new IPM approach.
Apr 28, 2015 3:45 PM I'm not as familiar with specific pesticides.
9
10
11
Under 3.10 Crop barriers must be allowed as otherwise it is next to impossible to create effective non crop barriers which maintain their foliage all around the year and are permeable to
airflow!!
Apr 28, 2015 4:21 AM Similarly under 3.11 (d) the wind speed concept for application of liquid agrochemicals must be done away with as it is highly impractical and will cause delays in spraying which will make
following of Safety Harbest Intervals in order to meet the pesticide MRLs impossible as there my be long periods of heavy winds. Instead workers must be trained to spry with the wind and
with proper use of PPEs.
Criterion 3.2.: According to our knowledge and know-how (especially concerning agriculture of pine apple) it is absolutely necessary, that this criterion becomes critical, otherwise
pesticides will still be floated away with every daily rainforest rain and will contaminate waterbodies durable.
Criterion 3.9 and 3.10.: The aerial application has to be reduced and it has to be regimented more strictly. It is absolutely essential, to ensure that human accommodations, organic
Apr 23, 2015 2:42 PM
agriculture and the natural areas aren´t affected negatively by drifted pesticides.
Criterion 3.12: Point (d) has to become a critical criterion. It isn´t overcharged, to place warning signs to prevent unauthorized persons from accessing pesticide affected areas.
Criterion 3.17: This criterion has to become a critical criterion, because the re-using of former pesticide containers for other uses is very dangerous.
Apr 23, 2015 10:30 AM just need also to address the fact that some pesticides may not be allowed to be used in open fields but can be used in enclosed areas and such like scenarios.
12
Apr 21, 2015 1:56 PM
13
Apr 20, 2015 10:22 PM
14
Apr 20, 2015 9:15 AM
15
Apr 17, 2015 11:53 PM
16
Apr 17, 2015 11:52 PM
17
Apr 17, 2015 11:23 PM
18
Apr 17, 2015 11:08 PM
19
20
Mar 16, 2015 7:35 AM
Mar 10, 2015 11:57 PM
21
Mar 5, 2015 3:15 PM
22
Mar 4, 2015 10:18 PM
23
Mar 3, 2015 9:45 PM
24
Mar 3, 2015 7:56 PM
hazard based approach for the assessment of all pesticides is necessary
for the management of the remaining (non forbidden) pesticides, a risk based approach can be applied
Annex 2 pesticides should be prohibited, too (no exceptions for use should be given)! WHO acute 2 should be included in Annex 2, too.
All Pesticides that are CMR class Ia Ib and 2 should be prohibited.
Paraquat has to be included in prohibited pesticides.
How does the monitoring of the compliance of the pesticide criteria work? Regular pesticide analysis should be conducted minimum once per year!
The monitoring has to be independent by SAN or external evaluator
A restriction to fumigation has to be included in the new Standard (according to old standard)
3.11. should be CC !!
3.12. should be CC !!
4.21. should be CC
La reducción del numero de sustancias prohibidas facilita la implementación del criterio crítico, sin embargo, en México existen sustancias que siguen utuilizandose y que estan descritas
en el cuadro 2.
No additional comments
La nueva norma reduce la lista de productos prohibidos y adicionalmente incluye plaguicidas restringidos; deja deficiencias cuando no se tiene una regulación legislativa en la prohibición
o restricción de producto prohibidos o cuando existe pero es deficiente la legislación. En este sentido no hay una reducción significativa entre el impacto ambiental y de la salud humana
en la aplicación de plaguicidas
esta nueva norma reduce la lista de productos prohibidos e incluye una lista de productos restringidos, deja deficiencias si la legislación local no es muy estricta en cuanto al uso de
productos prohibidos a nivel internacional. En este sentido no reducirían el uso de plaguicidas sino aumentaría.
Se reduce la lista de productos prohibidos e incluye plaguicidas restringidos. A mi parecer aumenta el riesgo de uso ya que no existe regulación legislativa.El riesgo aumenta para la salud
humana y ambiental al dejar tan abierto el uso de agroquímicos.
La nueva norma reduce la lista de productos prohibidos y adicionalmente incluye plaguicidas restringidos; deja deficiencias cuando no se tiene una regulación legislativa en la prohibición
o restricción de producto prohibidos o cuando existe pero es deficiente la legislación. En este sentido no hay una reducción significativa entre el impacto ambiental y de la salud humana
en la aplicación de plaguicidas
It is going to up scale the adoption rate for IPM and hopefully gradually decrease the use of pesticides
Sería mejor aplicar el concepto agroecológico, aplicando los conocimientos indígenas, donde los plaguicidas sean totalmente restringidos
en nuestra empresa hemos trabajado mucho en que nuestros productores no utilicen ningún tipo de químicos, y que y que usen otros métodos mas eficientes para el control de malezas,
plagas y enfermedades. pero la parte de la lista de sustancias prohibidas que establece la norma seria de gran ayuda si le agregan una casilla extra don lleve ademas del componente
activo también que lleve el nombre comercial con el cual esta en el mercado el producto.
Adicionalmente considero que la nueva propuesta facilitara la transparencia del productor hacia el auditor.
I agree somewhat with the statement but I am missing two elements:
1) an overall objective to reduce the sheer amount of chemical load/Ha/year
2) the current methodology is focused on reducing usage of (high-) risk Active Ingredients. This is of course valid; in addition to reduce the amount of "medium-risk" products, a 'preference
list' of low-impact (on human health, environment, biodiversity) Active Ingredients could be promoted with the objective of increasing the share of low-impact pesticides within the overall
pest control program
No veo suficiente relación, de restricción de uso de plaguicidas con los escenarios económicamente factibles. Se requiere mas claridad en este campo.
FIIT
Revisar el listado de agroquímicos prohibidos por la RAS. Se sugiere incluir un solo listado para evitar que los criterios 3.11, 3.12, 4.19, 4.20, 4.21, 4.22,
4.23 de mejora continua pasen a ser evaluados en categoría de criterio crítico. Entonces el número de criterios críticos se incrementa a 34.
CR producers Idea buena. Anexo 2 final hay que someterlo a consulta.
FIIT
Syngenta
Diapositiva 1, inciso 2, cómo podemos saber qué productos utilizaban antes de la certificación. Los productores estarían en el derecho
de no querer informar al respecto. Adicional, si el riesgo es mayor habiendo cambiado de producto a raíz de la certificación, qué
sucede? Pueden seguir utilizando el producto anterior? Si por ejemplo, utilizaban antes paraquat y luego utilizan glifosato, y les
funcionaba mejor el paraquat, pueden volver a utilizar paraquat? Hace falta definir a qué tipo de riesgo se refieren. Es a la salud
humana, es al ambiente, a la plantación?? Definir esto, sería de gran utilidad para poder interpretar de mejor manera el criterio.
Correct the pollinator reference, please, in Annex 2.
To me it remains very unclear how this listing will actually lead to a reduction in the use of these pesticides. How is the list to be used?
What are concrete steps to be taken to select the use of these pesticides?
RA tea mgmt
For example, when it can be demonstrated that no alternatives are available or they are clearly inferior in result. This should be
included in the IPM plan. And there should be a strategy to have introduced an alternative after 3 years.
CR producers
Nestle
3.1.d) no factible en piña. Renovación de cafetales: plantas taladas se aprovechan como barrera muerta, pero no como
abono. Residuos vegetales SOBRANTES. Detalle c.) falta mejorarlo.
There is also no mention of soil water. I attach a document that we put together for our own use and based upon the
SAI Platform guidelines. It might give some ideas on water conservation, and especially for water stressed areas (which I
suggest that you are more explicit about).
IMAFLORA
very wide criterion to be critical even in 3 years. High risk of minor non-conformance. If it is critical, auditors may tend
to give full compliance instead of partial non compliance due to areas that should be improved. In such case of a very
important but wide criterion we suggest to change from critical (now or +3) to criteria with higher weight than others.
Greenpeace
India
Biomass addition is a critical component for soil health improvement. This needs to be implemented to improve soil
microbial activity, improve nutrient levels and plant health, as a result of which use of agro-chemicals is minimised,
water retention is high, carbon storage is high. a) Holistic soil health testing for physical, chemical and biological
properties should be mandatory prior to obtaining of the certificate and at the time of renewal.
b) Based on nutrient requirement, addition of biomass should be mandatory. At least 50 per cent of the nutrient
requirement should be met by the addition of biomass. This should be done on an annual basis.
c) Biomass should be bought from locally available sources such as segregated urban/rural waste, areca nut, which is
rich in potash should be used where available etc.
d) Native trees should be planted along the periphery of the field/plantation. Suggested criteria for
monitoring/evaluation
1. Increase in the carbon content in the soil.
2. Measuring microbial activity in the soil.
3. Measuring organic matter in the soil
4. Measuring water tables over a span of time.
5. Check for changes in nutrient levels in the soil.
MARS
c)Use of GPS will better facilitate the identification and monitoring of high risk erosion areas compared to hand drawn
maps
d)Composting is not entirely necessary. It is labor intensive and if organic material is simply left in the field, the effect
will be the same. Requiring systems for the collection of organic material for composting is more important (3.14 d)
Nairobi
webinar
SalvaCert
Cannot be a critical criterion for smallholder groups
RA Tea mgmt
Plant residues can only be composted or used as mulch. What about direct incorporation in the soil without first
composting (e.g, what is often done in case of green manure crops)?
RA seal use
team
The sub-points for b)-e) are not aligned with the corresponding letters (format issue?)
RA climate
program
One of the fundamental aspects necessary to reduce climate risk and vulnerability and increase the resilience of
farming systems is through soil conservation and enhancement of soil fertility. Another fundamental aspect is water
conservation, management and storage. YET - there are no outcomes related to climate resilience or CSA vis a vis soil
and water conservation stated within the Principle 3 intro language. This should be improved. This is a critical place to
state the relationships inherent in the standards and resilience to climate change. If SAN doesn't state it, no one will
view these standards as relevant to climate.
SAN survey
Regarding soil conversation, has there been any work to look outside traditional fertilizers and/or organic soil
amendments such as compost? I'm from the International Biochar Initiative and have recently completed research on
biochar use as a soil amendment strategy (and overall sustainability strategy to include energy production, waste
management, etc) for coffee farms. I understand biochar use would not be included in prescriptive standards but would
be interested if there is room for suggested alternative product use for increased on-farm agricultural sustainability.
Nestle
Connected to the above point, I would like to see more emphasis in the standard on helping farmers become more resilient. This is of course an
outcome of various actions, but the standard could frame its requirements thinking more of resilience. Resilience to climate change is one aspect
that I think is not immediately obvious as a desired outcome. Soils and water management, (together with shade trees for some crops) are crucial
here.
Finlays
For perennial crops that achieve canopy cover it is not possible to incorporate fertilizer into the soil. This needs to be re-worded to reflect this.
Baseline assessment (1.1) and Farm management plan (1.2)should include an assessment of soil health and pH and identify opportunities for
promoting soil health. Trainings that teach methods to identify/determine if a tree or farm area is fertiliser ready are also important in ensuring
effective and safe fertilizer use.
MARS
NABU
Germany
Greenpeace
India
Sri Lanka WS
RA seal use
team
a) Fertilizer application criteria is unclear and there is a conflict between point a2 and a3 .Slow release fertilizer needs to be applied a long time
before the nutrients are needed.
b)Requiring mineral fertilizer to be incorporated into the soil does not align well with a strong agronomic rationale. More over, it requires a lot
more labor hours and there is no clear benefit to the farmer. Converting farmers from broadcasting to in-soil incorporation will be difficult and
perhaps an realistic ask.
Cap a maximum fertilizer application? N for groundwater / atmosphere?
Soil fertilization criteria can be much stronger
B 1-add- "where possible" after incorporated into the soil.
What does point b) refer to? Again it is placed in the middle of a sentence.
FIIT
ICADE
IMAFLORA
Nairobi
webinar
se debe identificar en que cultivos debe ser aplicable este criterio
consider changing to critical to make clear that ordinary fire is not accepted. It would mean ordinary fire is critical.
Fire use should be seasonal for smallholders instead of 10%
RA Ag
Overall I do not agree with the permission of fire, so do not agree with this. Should only be allowed for IPM purposes, the way this is defined leaves open a lot
of permissions for burning. Upon burning 90% of the N present in the burned vegetative material disappears in the form of gas, and huge amount of K and P
run-off with the ashes as soon as the rain starts.
3.3.d the word "close to ecosystems" leaves too much room for interpretation
RA Ghana
Karen
Lewotsky
SAN Survey
Consider the wording. The criterion is not clear.
Why is fire allowed here, but disallowed unless part of the natural cycle in 5.19? With pollution and health threats from smoke and GHG/climate change
issues associated with combustion of any sort, this is hard for me to accept as a good practice, even if it arguably reduces agrochemical use.
3.3 Allowing fire use!! I can't believe what I'm reading. Fire use is sooo damaging to the ecosystem. How can SAN allow this??? It undermines the standard.
CR producers Falta la conexión con el plan de producción 1.2 para justificar un eventual aumento en el consumo del agua. Detalle e.) identificar y CUMPLIR! Importante aclarar
atrasos por las autoridades.
same as 3.1 not critical even +3. change weight.
IMAFLORA
SalvaCert
Especificar en el criterio que el análisis de consumo de agua debe ser en la producción y procesamiento.
SAN TOC
Sugiero dejar separado en un criterio el tema de riego o ampliar los medios de verificación
Guidance for small producers and Group Administrators required. Calculating water consumption for domestic and hygiene needs in rural setting with no
RA Ghana
automated water billing system.
Karen
b)3)Surface water storage can have negative impacts on the hydrology of an area/region, e.g. the impounded water is not available for aquatic species during
Lewotsky
reproductive periods where species require certain water temperatures or levels in streams/rivers
CR producers T&D de agua residual INDUSTRIAL.
does it also apply to other waste water than processing plant, like from machinery washing? Should apply, but should not be critical.
IMAFLORA
SalvaCert
SAN TOC
RA Ag
SAN survey
- Es clave incluir un criterio que exija el establecimiento de tratamiento para todas las aguas residuales.
- Solo se consideran aguas industriales no domésticas. Es importante mejorar la redacción indicando que si las aguas son vertidas a un cauce (después de
tratamiento) cumplan con los requisitos de ley o la norma. Tal como esta escrito sugiere que todo vertimiento, independientemente de donde se disponga debe
cumplir con los parametros y en el caso nuestro la ley solo establece valores cuando la descraga es a un cauce o alcantarillado
some words are missing here: industrial waters DISCHARGED IN NATURAL WATERWAYS
El punto 3.5 Las aguas residuales industriales no debe ser critico- Debe aceptar los parametros de cada pais. Estos parametros que contempla la norma son mas
rigidos que la legislación colombiana.
SAN survey
el criterio 3.5 no se si lo entendí bien pero se dice que hay que cumplir con la ley o con parámetros de la RAS, o lo mas estricto. Lo mas estricto en un 90% de los
casos en el mundo va a ser los 50mg/l de DBO, esto es casi que imposible en la mayoría de las operaciones de café y no es rentable para una operación llegar a tener
un tratamiento de agua residual que arroje esos parámetros.
SAN survey
El Criterio 3.5 no es claro en cuanto a la aplicabilidad, los casos en los que se debe evaluar el criterio.
El criterio 1.10 que habla acerca de Evaluación de Impacto social y ambiental, según la realidad del país para pequeños productores es difícil de cumplir si no tienen
guía o asesoría.
CR producers Canales de desague no son ecosistema natural.
Bangalore WS
Kolkatta WS Domestic wastewater is an auditor training challenge!
RA Ghana
was not appropriately disposed of into waste water soak pits. Water from the bathroom of these famers was found running through some the walking areas of the
criterion from CRITICAL to continuous improvement and provide clarity in the wording.
CR producers
Birdlife
International
CR lead
auditors
Bayer
Rainforest
Action
Network
De acuerdo con el criterio y el Anexo 1
Initial support for risk based approach
La seccion deberia empezar con un criterio sobre MIP
PIC is being converted into a politically motivated list. Consider for future lists.
Paraquat should be added to the list of prohibited pesticides for use in the palm oil sector (and generally). This is a longstanding pesticide of global concern, and
is associated with a high number of health risks where it is still allowed. http://www.panap.net/sites/default/files/monograph_paraquat.pdf Failure to do so will
create reputational risk for the SAN certification system.
Greenpeace
India
1. The vision for IPM is in the very spirit of the IPM approach as first formulated by the FAO wherein use of pesticides would be as a last resort. But in the details
given this does not seem to be the case. The focus is on localization and use but there is no mention absolutely of using biological and mechanical methods of
control as a first step. There are also other practices including shade regulation and cropping practices which could be mandated for pest control. We would
appreciate a slightly larger emphasis on that front.
2. Removal of the US EPA and the EU lists from the list of restricted pesticides: We believe the US EPA and the EU lists should be continue to be included with at
most specific exceptions put in regions wherever it is not immediately feasible.
Kolkatta WS
also to do research to find and communicate solutions for pest control (such as fungal disease as well as sucking and leaf-eating pests in tea).
compromising economic sustainability.
RA Sweden
IPL / Fyffes
WWF
Germany
NABU
Germany
Syngenta
TOTAL
Fluides
Greenpeace
India
RA tea mgmt
At the webinar the new pesticides approach was presented as technical not political. Dropping the EU-list is a very very dangerous thing to do. The majority of
RAC products ends up in the EU. And this market is political. Dropping the EU-list will hurt us immensely, regardless of our reason. Would it be possible to find a
middle way with the same approach as FSC has on their chemicals? Where farmers can be given an exemption for using prohibited substances as long as the
farmer can
1) justify the use
2) provide information from previous years how much the use has been reduced
3) provide a decommissioning plan which describes how to either self develops new methods or driving the development of other options.
Cheap counterfeit products and fake substances should be covered also.
WHO Class Ia and Ib should also be prohibited. A hazard approach should be applied for highly toxic substances as far as possible. ON SECOND WEBINAR:
appreciate SAN progress to analyze phase-out of WHO class I substances. Need to know how the risk-based system will be effectively implemented on certified
farms. Would agree with 3-tier system: prohibited / phase-out / risk managed.
Make a early warning system about use of HHPs binding, as well as mandatory data register (When? How much? Why?)
Syngenta doesn't produce WHO class I pesticides.
Check the PBT framework (Persistant, Bioaccumulative, Toxic)
When eliminating class I nematicides, soil health will improve.
Add that pesticides prohibited or not registered at national level are also prohibited by SAN.
RA markets
team
The proposed system is 1) too difficult to implement to be robust, and 2) disqualifies SAN from EU markets. Current SAN, Plus WHO 1 and 2, and PAN have to be
obligatory. Stakeholders are very outspoken on this too. At the April 16 webinar the new pesticides approach was presented as technical not political. Dropping
the EU-list is a very very dangerous thing to do. The majority of RAC products ends up in the EU. And this market is political. Dropping the EU-list will hurt us
immensely, regardless of our reason. Would it be possible to find a middle way with the same approach as FSC has on their chemicals? Where farmers can be
given an exemption for using prohibited substances as long as the farmer can 1) justify the use 2) provide information from previous years how much the use has
been reduced 3) provide a decommissioning plan which describes how to either self develops new methods or driving the development of other options.
RA seal use
team
The list of prohibited pesticides MUST include those prohibited by the European Union. The reason is that about 60% of all products from certified farms are sold
in Europe, and if these products use any of the pesticides prohibited by the EU they may end up at a competitive disadvantage, both for commercial purchases as
well as public procurement.
RA UK
In terms of winning Public Procurements in the EU, the use of pesticides banned by the EU will be a deal-braker.
It would be very helpful to make an analysis of the pesticides currently prohibited and restricted by the SAN compared to the ones banned by the EU and, if need
be, either revise the lists published by the SAN or prepare any strong argument as to why some EU banned pesticides are authorized by the SAN.
List of prohibited pesticides does not cover enough p's to be prohibited, e.g. EU regulation is not sufficiently covered.
RA
This will cause problems in importing to EU from those farms. That does not help the farmers to market their products in EU. Even worse, regulations from certain
communicatio
retailers like REWE (and LIDL and others might follow over the time) even have stricter regulations than this, RAC farms will not cover!
ns Germany
Paraquat is a no-go in EU! We cannot hold our position here, and get smashed by NGOs, retail, stakeholders, politics.
Idea buena. Plantilla tiene que incluir el concepto tecnico final (comentario de Rudy Amador), falta la plantilla para el MIP. Solo edad minima de 21 años y referirse a la
ley local. Anexo 2. Inconsistente. Lista diquat pero no paraquat siendo el segundo de mayor toxicidad a humanos. El diquat es un sustituto para paraquat para algunos
CR producers usos. No esta claro si para ingredientes como el paraquat y el carbaryl (los que no estan listados) requieren la justificacion anexo 3 o no. Ademas, se menciona que la
lista va ir evolucionando en el tiempo? 3.8 d) Limitacion de edad muy restrictiva; hay productores pequeños de mayor edad que hacen sus propias aplicaciones; existen
empleados que perderian empleo o se limitaría la flexibilidad de la operación. En general de acuerdo con exclusion de mujeres para evitar exposicion ... pero es un tema
que entra en conflicto con leyes de discriminación sexual.
The new risk-based approach to agrochemicals may not be feasible multi-certification scenarios. It is important to sell this same idea to other schemes. - TrustTea has
Bangalore WS changed several things of its plant protection plan to align with SAN, such as the prohibition of paraquat. The mere use of Glyphosate is creating weed resistance. The
concept also needs to cover pregnant or breastfeeding women.
3.8.d.) age limitations are impossible for Africa and Latin America. Delete this clause.
Bayer
Carlos
Ambos criterios 3.8 y 3.9 tienen el mismo objetivo, creo que pueden agruparse en un solo criterio, tomando en conjunto todos los indicadores.
Costilla
letter d - change to adult male. Very complicated to audit and for the farm to control ages. And what if women use all PPE? And can they apply other products out of
IMAFLORA
annex2?
Excessive use should be avoided, in general. Training on risk management for smallholders is a huge challenge! The tea industry is facing a critical period due to MRL
Kolkatta WS
Nespresso
Brasil
ISEAL
IPL / Fyffes
Syngenta
Fyffes CR
TOTAL
Fluides
Costa Rica
lead auditors
RSPB
SalvaCert
RA seal use
team
RA Ag
SAN survey
SAN survey
method than manual weeding, which is very costly.
Criteria 4.23 should not be included as critical, in the mentioned list of 3.8
How does the proposed SAN system compare with EU REACH?
Consult trade unions on paraquat. Additional risk management element: A/B zoning for aerial fumigation. Label instructions are VERY important.
Training for trainers and outreach to more producers needs to be improved. Look at the GlobalGAP training platform, for instance.
3.8.d) is irrealistic. 3.8.b): look at the GlobalGAP pesticide applicator training.
Reference European risk management (REACH) in Annex 2 (LD50 only applies to substances soluble in water)
Apply CERO tolerance for failures in EPP use
3.8.d. The restriction of handling of certain pesticides to male workers between 21 and 50 is problematic. What is the justification? The rationale should be made explicit ,
particularly as the requirement may be ineffective, unrealistic and discriminatory in some contexts. For example, if this restriction is based on potential fertility impacts, a
number of chemicals (e.g., endocrine disrupters) affect male fertility as well as female; in addition, the restriction would apply in a discriminatory fashion to male farmers
over 50 or women farmers of any age who are already infertile, have chosen not to have children, or are done having children. Please spell out the justification,
otherwise this seems open to challenge on a number of fronts (including contradiction with criteria 4.3; note that 4.8 provides for a much more specific and
understandable contingency for pregnant women in regard to pestcide exposure).
Consideramos que no debe ser crítico y que no se convierta en crítico el resto de los criterios que se mencionan.
3.8d is discriminatory against women. Yes, a woman might be pregnant and not know it, but the impact of pesticides on all humans can start prior to conception, and
both sperm and eggs are vulnerable. The SAN standard should protect both genders equally, not restrict the jobs that women can take on a farm. Conflicts with criterion
4.3 and is excessively patronizing for a Critical Criterion.
4.20 IS ALREADY CRITICAL, should probably be 4.21 through 4.24? Please add paraquat to annex 2
in 3.8 who are the SAN recognized instructors or programmes, it will be good to list them in the annex.
3.8 Respirator details - what if these are just not available on the market?
CR producers
hacia el uso de una sustancia en particular. 3.9.b.1: No indica distancia. Para mochila no se deberia establecer distancia por ser aplicacion muy bien dirigida.
The new risk-based approach to agrochemicals may not be feasible multi-certification scenarios. It is important to sell this same idea to other schemes. - TrustTea
Bangalore WS has changed several things of its plant protection plan to align with SAN, such as the prohibition of paraquat. Match 3.9.b) with 3.10. 3.9.d) is not realistic - link it to
3.10
Bayer
FIIT
Fyffes CR
Kolkatta WS
Restricted use pesticides could rather be called responsible use pesticides or similar, since the term might suggest negative characteristics of the relevant
substances. Other arguments in favor of the restricted use concept are less probability to build up resistance. Also, new molecule development takes a lot of time
in terms of making new alternatives available.
Como auditor, cómo cerciorarse eficientemente, a parte de los registros que en plantaciones con fumigacion aerea se cumpla con los 40 metros, en
documentación se puede falsificar los mapas.
b) This means that farms with natural terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems have to reduce a lot of the planted area in order to comply with this criterion
e) Is it OK or acceptable to apply the products (H) when there is no activity (at night) of bees?; in order to mitigate any impact. 3.9.b.4) reduce 40 m to 30 m
Flexibility of spraying during high infestation periods must be there.
RSPB
terrestrial wildlife are not used at times or places where domesticated animals or wildlife that are known to be susceptible to this chemical have access to the crop
SalvaCert
RA tea mgmt
Sugerimos que se considere como un criterio de mejora continua.
Besides bees and other pollinators, natural enemies (parasites and predators) should be considered. Pesticides should also be classified according to their toxicity
on these organisms.
This is somewhat addressed in Annex 2 but criteria 3.9 lacks specific measures to reduce the impact on natural enemies. The best way to reduce impact is to bring
pesticide use down to its lowest level possible.
Points d) and e) require high level of knowledge. I would suggest to not allow the use of these chemicals unless it can be demonstrated that there is no risk.
species.
Sri Lanka WS ok-One swath width- width of a lawn mover -Acceptable
Not clear how those risks will be eliminated. 3.9.b.4 NOT clear, 40 m of what?? 3.9.d: subjective and difficult to control.
RA Ag
May conflict with criterion 1.3.b. The no-spray buffer zones sometimes act as pest reservoirs. Instead, it should say that there have to be measures in place to prevent
Bangalore WS agrochemical runoff or drift to reach water bodies, roads, housing zones, forests, etc. Criterion 1.10 says vegetative barriers OR spray-free zone, but if the farm has one
Fyffes CR
RSPB
This means that farms with natural terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems within the farm have to reduce a lot of the planted area in order to comply with this criterion.
Streams cannot be excluded by aerial fumigation
The no-spray zone requirements at 3.9 and 3.10 are confusing. Clarify "swath width" (not in Annex definitions) and whether the requirements at 3.9 additional to those
Sri Lanka WS
Vegetative Barreirs -All the buffer Zones done with the previous audit standard will be accepeted .However the hieght of the 1.5 times higher than the buffer Zone is
not acccepted. Clarification of " What is human activity " -Preference is given to natives species but we will follow the TRI recommendations
RA markets
team
Request to make this critical, as we hear now it is often violated in practice
CR producers 3.11.b. No se entiende. Hay que especificar. 3.11.d. No debe haber minimo en cuanto a viento (4 km/hra). El maximo de 15 kph es elevado. 3.11.e. Considerar que
equipos con cabina pueden utilizarse durante todo el dia si cuentan con condiciones ambientales comodos para el trabajador.
Bangalore WS It is not feasible to measure windspeed. Substitute by "don't spray against the wind".
It doesn't explicitly requires reducing the volume of agrochemicals used
IOAS
RA tea mgmt Excessive use by itself should be limited, not only the effect of excessive use.
3.11.a: Spanish version please rephrase
RA Ag
SAN Survey
3.11 - spray shields - what if these are not available on the market? I've never seen them in Africa for backpack sprayers
CR producers 3.12.e Para el caso de productores pequeños considerar la implementacion de este criterio mediante comunicaciones entre administradores de grupo
(cooperativas), productores, y las comunidades a los cuales estos pertencen.
CR producers De acuerdo con el no uso de OGM.
Nespresso
Where are the Additional Details of this criteria?
Brasil
GMO should not be used at all on certified farms. If GMO crops are not sustainable why allow them on other parts of a certified farm? All parts of the farm are
RA tea mgmt
interlinked and the selection of inputs in the crops not in the scope of the certification will have an effect on the certified crops.
Karen
I do not agree with the complete prohibition on GMOs. although I realize that we do not have an option on this one. This technology is maturing, and may have much
Lewotsky
more to offer than the 1st generation of products with their unintended consequences (e.g. "Round-Up Ready" or cross-species genetic splicing).
MARS
SAN TOC
SAN survey
SAN survey
a) What indicators will be used to measure waste reductions(through changes in farm management etc) especially since it will have an impact on sales?
Debe incluirse un criterio relacionado con la quema de residuos/desechos/basuras
Principio 3, manejo de desechos - hacer referencia a residuos peligrosos. Está de manera muy general, se menciona como desechos.
3.14 - Assumption: farms produce a lot of waste. What about smallholders who have hardly any waste, but will start having more waste as they start improving their
RSPB
3.15.a. Impacts consdidered should include those on "areas of human activity" (not just workers), and water. 3.15 b. Suggest this requirement should apply to any
means of waste disposal (burying, discharging,in addition to burning) e.g., "waste should be disposed in faciltities technically designed for the specific waste and that
comply with legal requirements".
Bangalore WS c) permit soak pits for pesticide wash water
Modificar o agregar a la redacción del criterio en el inciso c): Las aguas residuales con componentes tóxicos, como las aguas de lavado de equipo de aplicación de
FIIT
plaguicidas, residuos de mezcla, son tratadas en sistema de lechos biológicos (biobed).
SalvaCert
Eliminar el literal "c" ó aclarar cómo deben ser tratadas. Actualmente se utilizan fosas de filtración para dar cumplimiento a la norma vigente
Karen
Add something about regular inspections and maintenance
Lewotsky
Bayer
Oxfam
SAN TOC
SAN Survey
A difference must be made between Product Label Recommendations (instruction for the end-user) and Material Safety Data Sheets.
The technical provisions are generally OK (generally stronger than other sections, reflecting SAN expertise, but again workers are not treated as participants. The
standard should follow the ILO Convention on Safety & Health in Agriculture, which states Section 8 that workers should be informed and consulted about the
hazards to which they may be exposed, and elect representatives to the safety committee, and have the right not to undertake hazardous work.
Considero que la redacción es muy general y da pocos elementos para evaluar. Sugiero tomar como referencia la norma actual a fin de precisar algunos aspectos
mínimos a tener en cuenta especialmente para plaguicidas y combustibles o hacer referencia al requisito de legislación que aplique en cada país.
4.19 - storage facility requirements are impossible for smallholders
CR producers Definir maquinaria de peligro. Escenario de tractores de cabinas para aplicación de sprayboom. Aplica tambien para desparasitantes en ganado.
CR lead
Se debe practicar CERO tolerancia para uso de PPE en el caso de sustancias de uso restringido.
auditors
Bangalore WS
Bayer
Kolkatta WS
Nespresso
Brazil
- Rules for women applying should be improved, or the SAN to decide whether women may or may not apply pesticides.
Avoid simplistic use it all EPP. EPP must be specific to substance AND task. With regard to the operator, exposure calculations and some intrinsic properties of the
compound (e.g. eye irritant) result in the recommendations for the operator on personal protective equipment to be used. These recommendations are given on the
label. These recommendations are based on specific studies determining the exposure rate during different use phases.
MSDS is indeed useful for attending accidents, e.g. during transportation. SAN should issue recommendations for categories/classes of substances and create general
tools. Specific challenge of spraying teams working for smallholder groups.
The text from the criteria should be changed: PPE should be available, but if you leave it like is written, PPE use is mandatory, leaving no option to the auditors during
a certification audit, in case a worker or farmer is not using the PPE during any audit, even if the equipment is available and the farmer/manager has a system to
reinforce its use. PPE use should be included in other criteria, but not a critical one.
Nairobi
webinar
PPE for smallholders is a challenge (sprayteams)
Oxfam
ILO Section 8: Workers in agriculture shall have the right: a to be informed and consulted on safety and health matters including risks from new
technologies; b to participate in the application and review of safety and health measures and, in accordance with national law and practice, to select
safety and health representatives and representatives in safety and health committees; and c to remove themselves from danger resulting from their
work activity when they have reasonable justification to believe there is an imminent and serious risk to their safety and health and so inform their
supervisor immediately. They shall not be placed at any disadvantage as a result of these actions. The ILO Convention also defines the need/right for
workers and their representatives to receive appropriate training
SAN TOC
SAN Survey
Sería mejor dejar separado el epp de plaguicidas porque cualquier incumplimiento en otros elementos de protección daría para no cumplimiento y es crítico. Es decir
el nivel de crítico debería ser para las actividades de mayor riesgo. Sugiero dejar dos criterios relacionados uno crítico y otro de mejoramiento continuo.
criterio 4.20 debería de decir, "toda persona" que manipula o mezcla ........
Bayer
Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS): The Safety Data Sheet (SDS) is an internationally agreed form sheet for intrinsic hazard communication of products. It contains
no exposure element and thus is not risk based. The proposed personal protective equipment in the SDS is tailor-made for the industrial use of the compounds /
products, e.g. during transport or use in production facilities with the handling of large quantities of undiluted product. These are not covering the requirements for
recommendations are based on a risk assessment. A SDS is not an appropriate document to assess risk to humans, be it operator, bystander, homeowner as the
potential exposure towards primary /secondary is not part of it.
FIIT
Agregar a la redacción del criterio en el inciso b) que se debe realizar en un período máximo de 6 meses.
Letter a) in the right column is not feasible. Toilets would be destroyed by elephants. Which walking speed? Auditor's? Worker's?. Interviews will provide the evidence.
Combine or reallocate with lunch breaks!
En el inciso a) se solicitan servicios sanitarios a menos de 15 minutos de caminata o en todos los sitios de trabajo. En el caso de pequeños productores saldrian
FIIT
afectados a menos que se acepte sanitarios tipo letrina o pozo ciego.
Sri Lanka WS Not practical to have 15 minutes distance
SAN TOC
El agua a que hace referencia este indicador es para consumo o para aseo personal? O las dos. Considero prudente aclara.
SAN survey
4.23 - toilets within 15 min. walking -> impossible for smallholder farms
Bangalore WS
Bangalore WS
- Setting rules related to the premium is important - Smallholders need to have an incentive to become certified, because the premium is not coming
back to them at all.
- It needs to be clearer which group requirements may not apply to certain group models. - e) does not apply to corporatively managed farms
- f) is
an auditor training challenge
Amsterdam
social NGOs
Strong suggestion to add a criterion on the tracking of the certification premium, so that its distribution is transparent within the farm group. Really
important for farmer empowerment.
ICADE
inciso f que los acuerdos firmados con miembros del grupo se establezca que la vigencia del acuerdo sea en base a la duracion del ciclo de certificacion
IOAS
Nairobi
webinar
Friedel Huetz Adams
MARS
Please include a requirement about having clear rules about communicating and paying any premium, when applicable.
Frequency of internal inspections need to be realistic for big smallholder groups
Trader managed groups don't have democratic decision-making structure. The latter needs to be demanded by SAN criteria.
Foster group transparency (group administrator towards group members)
RA markets
team
Registration should be looked at with regard to men and women. When looking at small holders, if one person per household is registered this will in
many situations be the man, making it much more difficult for women to be involved in training and decision making. In smallholder situations, ask for
registration of both persons in a couple, (or of all adults doing large parts of the work, or differently). Avoid the situation that only men, or land owners,
or other smaller groups are involved. This starts with membership registration. Strong suggestion to add a criterion on the tracking of the certification
premium, so that its distribution is transparent within the farm group. Really important for farmer empowerment.
RA sealuse
team
Could we add a bullet about group administrators being disclosing how any premium price collected because of the certification will be distributed to
group members? Anecdotally I've heard that farmers in group certificates often have no idea how much they've gained (in price premiums) as a result of
getting certified, or they think they haven't gotten any premium at all (or in some cases actually have never received part of the premiums). We should
require the distribution of premium prices be more transparent from the group administrators to the individual farmers.
RA general
How does the standard support that small holders are given more power? And avoid too large trader's power? If we want the market to work, we should
foster independence of farmer organisations from a trader. Acknowledging that in some cases traders play a positive role and enhance access to
fertilizer, finance, other assets, we should grow towards more farmer independency. For instance by ensuring that clear contracts (written or non written)
are made with clear expectations (quantity, quality) for both sides and commitment to a long term relation, and that the farmers are free to sell the
surplus of production to anyone they choose. Smallholder sensitive solutions for this exist.
Sri Lanka WS
OK but not for the small holders
Bangalore WS Clearer rules regarding the periodicity of internal inspections are needed.
MARS
In addition to having a plan to improve member compliance,administrators should have a defined strategy to improve productivity
RA sealuse
team
In section 1, either all the criteria from the Chain of Custody standard need to be incorporated (I think many or most of them are, but not
necessarily all and not worded the same), or the CoC standard could be referred to as applicable for all producer groups, at least if they
There is no language related to group administrators digitizing internal inspection data, which is a key IMS component. "Recorded" could
just mean sitting as a pile of paper surveys in the group administrator's office. Suggest we require that records for all members include
compliance scores and this data is also kept using the specific SAN electronic template. Recommend new language "Compliance scores
are maintained for each group member using the SAN electronic template." This isn't feasible as CC so can we suggest only this
RA E&R team indicator/MOV as CC+3 under 1.13, or alternatively create a new criterion (CC+3) for these more advanced IMS objectives? 1.13a. Suggest
the requirement of the group member registry include more. "Records of all group members, their member name, contact information,
gender, location, crop(s) produced, total farm area, total production area, production volume for each 12-month period, date of entry to
the group, and a unique and permanent farm ID code assigned by the the group administrator are kept using the specific SAN electronic
template"
Sri Lanka WS OK but not for the small holders
Bangalore WS
RA Ghana
RA E&R team
Sri Lanka WS
Less advantaged members" should include women
Same issue as for 1.13. If 1.14 is not CC then there is no incentive to document and report training, which is now a
requirement in audit applications.
OK but not for the small holders
Amsterdam
Social NGOs
RA E&R
Sri Lanka WS
'Facilitate' is weak language. And: would this be the role of the administrator? Make sure: meetings are held, notes are made. Identify locally
common/applicable/suitable ways to do this. With appropriate representation or the relevant groups. How does the standard support that small
holders are given more power? And avoid too large trader's power? If we want the market to work, we should foster independence of farmer
organisations from a trader. Acknowledging that in some cases traders play a positive role and enhance access to fertilizer, finance, other assets,
we should grow towards more farmer independency. For instance by ensuring that clear contracts (written or non written) are made with clear
expectations (quantity, quality) for both sides and commitment to a long term relation, and that the farmers are free to sell the surplus of
production to anyone they choose. Smallholder sensitive solutions for this exist.
OK but not for the small holders
CR producers Escenario de empleadas femeninas en sector ganadero. Demostrar procedimientos en favor de la transparencia - reglas claras.
Oxfam
Does not believe our standards are aligned with the UN Guiding Principles on Businesses and Human Rights
Auret van
Heerden
Turning to Principle 4 you state that farms “protect workers’ rights, as defined by ILO core conventions” and you go on to list the conventions in a
footnote. This may cause some confusion in that those conventions are binding on states and contain articles that set out the state duty to
protect the right. One can infer or deduce the actions that a non-state actor should take to respect the rights but that is difficult for a lay person
to do so I would suggest that you clearly list those actions in a guidance document (if you have not already done so). This is all the more
important in relation to those rights which are negatively defined since many employers do not appreciate the positive steps that they should
take to avoid a violation. Discrimination is a good example of a negative right where the employer has a tendency to focus on avoiding
discrimination rather than promoting equality. Freedom of Association is even more subtle. It is far easier to explain what a violation looks like
than to describe compliance. What positive action is an employer expected to take? Not many codes answer that question.
Rainforest
Action
Network
SAN should audit labor conditions using standards that conform to Free and Fair Palm Oil Labor standards. http://www.humanityunited.org/new-principlesand-guidance-for-responsible-palm-oil-production-2/
Amsterdam
Social NGOs
Separate criteria for migrant workers is needed
Para la evaluación de los criterios sociales, gran parte de las evidencias para cumplimiento o no cumplimiento estan em la colunma de la derecha y de esta
forma es importante evaluar lo que buscamos em cada columna de la Norma.
Writing, posting and communicating labor policies may not be sufficient, especially for vulnerable groups like children and women. Farmers and their families
MARS
should receive training on responsible labour practices, local labour policies, including practices considered as worst forms of child labour.
UK tea sector Separate grievance mechanism from policies
This should align to the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business & Human Rights criteria for Grievance Mechanisms. See page 33, section 3.1
Oxfam UK
http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/GuidingPrinciplesBusinessHR_EN.pdf
IMAFLORA
Apart from 4.15 and 4.16 which seeks to guarantee health care and access to education for smallholders and their children respectively, the focus of principle 4
is on workers. This makes the sub-theme "essential needs for farmers, workers, and their families" and its introductory preamble misleading. The principle also
fails to appreciate the challenge of farmers and their families to get out of poverty; let alone achieve the minimum and living wages themselves.
Sri Lanka WS OK
Debe incluirse un criterio que evalúe el pago de seguridad social y prestaciones a los trabajadores
SAN TOC
RA Ghana
SAN survey
Apart from 4.15 and 4.16 which seeks to guarantee health care and access to education for smallholders and their children respectively, the focus of principle 4
is on workers, not producers. This makes the sub-theme "essential needs for farmers, workers, and their families" and its introductory preamble misleading.
The principle also fails to appreciate the challenge of farmers and their families to get out of poverty and achieve the minimum and living wages themselves;
let alone guarantee them for their workers, where applicable.
certified farms may use forced labour and discriminate. Forced labor is listed as a critical criterion so this should be rephrased to refer to all farms covered by the
SAN program. I am also not sure why these two rights are grouped together? In this paragraph you only mention three of the four ILO fundamental rights - forced
labor, discrimination and child labor. Freedom of association is conspicuously absent and I would recommend that you either mention all four or stick with the
reference to ILO core labor standards.
Auret van
Heerden
for this is not immediately apparent. Is this intended to mean that such harassment cannot be used to force people to work? In that case the link should be made
more explicit, but you run the risk of reducing the anti-harassment scope of the code to the forced labour, whereas it should apply to all aspects of the employment
relationship.
Prohibiting prison labor (4.2 e) is a controversial requirement since as the document notes this may be legal under local regulations and it may also be beneficial for
the prisoners. I know that many stakeholders don't want to deal with the complications of determining whether the prison labor is acceptable or not but frankly the
and basic needs, for example, are a lot more complicated than the issue of prison labor but I know that buyers in particular have a knee-jerk reaction to this.
Carlos
Costilla
"peores formas" es un tanto subjetivo, podría ser especificado como "formas degradantes" o "formas que atentan contra la diginidad, salud y seguridad del menor".
El indicador "esclavitud" debería ser incluído mas bién en el criterio 4.2, pues la esclavitud es un trabajo forzado que no es aceptable ni para menores ni para
mayores de edad.
Amsterdam
Social NGOs
please cover also bonded labour. And add to explanatory text: prohibit debt at recruitment.
Oxfam UK
This section should also cover explicitly bonded labour. It needs explanatory text that debts incurred at recruitment (very common with migrant workers) are
prohibited, as a potential and very real cause of bonded labour. Also sexual harassment should fall under discrimination.
RA sealuse
team
workers who aren't good at their jobs or actively break rules and policies? It sounds like we're preventing the farms from firing people for not doing their jobs well.
And if one of those employees dumped waste into the local watershed?
Sri Lanka WS OK
CR producers Escenario de empleadas femeninas en sector ganadero.
Auret van
Heerden
provision is likely to run into problems in jurisdictions such as the USA which vigorously protect freedom of speech. In the USA the employers freedom of speech
extends to making anti-union comments provided that they are not libellous or contain inducements or threats. In addition to the legal difficulties that this prohibition
means and when the actions of an employer or manager
contravene the rights of a worker. If I am a farmer am I allowed to wear a cap or a T-shirt that bears the name of a political party or candidate? May I
make anti-government comments? What benchmark will auditors apply when trying to determine compliance? I would therefore recommend that you
qualify the term “influence” by with “unduly” or “unfairly” or better still prohibit “interference by the farmer in the workers freedom of expression, religion,
association etc” or “actions by the farmer that may have the effect of restricting the workers freedom of expression, religion, association etc”.
Bangalore WS f) clarify objective of pregnancy tests for allocation in low-risk jobs (test is for the benefit of female workers).
Amsterdam
A procedure has to be included to deal with cases of sexual harassment, also in discrimination criterion. terms of discrination, terms on sexual harassment. In e, add:
Social NGOs No pregnancy or HIV tests during hiring
MARS
The group administrator should be required to keep updated farm level information on who is performing labour at the farm dissagregated by gender, including family
members, non-family members paid and unpaid.
Similarly, all training records should be dissagregated by gender and capture attendance of farmers who are members of the group as well as non-members that are
responsible for farm activities.
Nespresso
Should take out from the critical criteria the part of the same task, or limit the interpretation from the auditors to the Brazilian classification during the certification
Brazil
audits
Friedel HuetzCover social hierarchies (see India) and ethnicities (Kenya)
Adams
Oxfam UK
Insert the prohibition on sexual harassment here and specify that during recruitment farms must not carry out pregnancy or HIV tests. The standard would be stronger
if it required the company to take action towards removing discrimination, where it is endemic within a sector or region. See Fairtrade Hired Labour Standard. This
section should explicitly promote measures to eliminate sexual harassment; the grievance procedure should include a procedure for cases of sexual harassment.
possible and with direct access to the chief executive. Point H in guidance: there should be an addition include supervisory positions, not just management positions.
Sri Lanka WS OK
SAN survey
Derechos laborales de las mujeres protegidas y lugar de trabajo seguro y garantizado
Pregnancy checks for women at the time of recruitment are essential not to deny them employment but to ensure that proper pre and ante natal care can be provided
SAN survey
to such women and they are deployed for works which do not cause any risks to their of the unborn child's health.
Oxfam
the standards should further support workers involvement in farm's operations
Turning to criterion 4.4 on freedom of association there are a number of points to be made. In 4.4 (b) you mention the right of workers to organisations to join
international workers organisations. What about national ones? Did you mean to exclude them or was it an oversight?
Auret van
Heerden
Amsterdam
Social NGOs
Finlays
unreasonable for the employer to place certain restrictions on when and where worker representatives may enter the premises and hold consultations.
Criterion 4.4 (d) is worded in a tautological fashion. It states that voluntary negotiation between workers organisation and the employer is enabled by collective
agreement whereas the collective agreement would be the outcome of the negotiations. It needs to be rephrased altogether.
The Additional Details for Criterion 4.4 could be more logically ordered. I am specifically referring to (c) and (f) which should come before (b).
The criterion on Freedom of Association and collective bargaining should be more stringent to promote FoA. Workers have the right to join the union of their choice,
employers should not support one union over another. This should be guaranteed. Sign protocol. Unions should have free access to the workplace. Workers have the
right to form trade unions. Workers get paid time off for union work. Workers are able to convene within working hours for union work. Workers have regulare
meetings with management. Information about unions is distributed to the workers. FT works with a separate protocol for Freedom of Association. Looking at the
importance of this subject and at the number of details required, this could be a good idea for SAN as well. not only hired workers, but also smallholders should also
have the same opportunities and facilitation! Look at global definitions: ILO rural and agricultural workers. In a lot of labour rights this is relevant.
that "prior notice of 2 days is given"
employers and workers organisation"??
d) "Voluntary negotiation between workers and worker organizations is ........." - This should read "between
Friedel HuetzAuditors need to talk to trade union members.
Adams
This section of the standard would be more effective if it described proactive steps a company can take to promote (and at the same time demonstrate respect for)
Oxfam UK
along the lines of the HLS. Both should be communicated to workers in appropriate ways and languages.Farms should be obliged to respect the right of all workers
to form or join trade unions, rather than workers organizations.
→ Employers should allow access by trade unions to their workforce;
→ there should be a duty to bargain in good faith with unions (The existing wording of item d) in respect of collective bargaining is particularly unclear);
→ union/worker organisation representatives should be given paid time off for union duties, and facilities to meet with workers and represent them, for example in
complaints and grievance procedures.
Sri Lanka WS OK
CR producers Como manejar errores aislados de pago que se corrijan de inmediato. Detalle d.), si la ley lo prohibe, pues no es posible el pago en especie. Bien, la opcion si el
trabajador no esta de acuerdo con el pago en especie.
Auret van
Heerden
intent is to avoid workers negotiating a wage that is below the legal minimum wage then you should refocus the article to say that.
intent is to avoid workers negotiating a wage that is below the legal minimum wage then you should refocus the article to say that.
Amsterdam
Social NGOs
Amsterdam
Social NGOs
Kolkatta WS
Oxfam UK
Look carefully at areas where no minimum wage exists. Piecework description is not good enough: 'average' means half do not reach this. In the UK this example is
used: the average worker can do 20% more. (E.g. see FT 2014 standards: 3.5.4) In case of remuneration (wages and benefits) for regular working weeks do not
meeting living wage levels as established by RA yearly wage increases that are agreed and negociated with workers and/or their representatives are required with
the inflation correction as a minimum to close the gap. If wages are set at a regional or sector level in such a way that the gap with living wage is not closed by regular
increments, the employer can satisfy this requirement by increasing other forms of remuneration as long as this is agreed by elected worker representatives. Note: of
course other formulations with the same scope are possible but it is essential that there is reference to the need to pay living wages in this critical criterion and
preferably a between 4.5 and 4.10 & 4.11 as well.
The parts about wages are still starting from the minimum wage, which is often not enough. LW is in the essential needs now, why not incorporate this? Example: the
minimum wage for piece work should refer to living wage, not minimum wage. (E.g. see FT 2014 standards: 3.5.4) In case of remuneration (wages and benefits) for
regular working weeks do not meeting living wage levels as established by RA yearly wage increases that are agreed and negociated with workers and/or their
representatives are required with the inflation correction as a minimum to close the gap. If wages are set at a regional or sector level in such a way that the gap with
living wage is not closed by regular increments, the employer can satisfy this requirement by increasing other forms of remuneration as long as this is agreed by
elected worker representatives. Note: of course other formulations with the same scope are possible but it is essential that there is reference to the need to pay living
wages in this critical criterion and preferably a between 4.5 and 4.10 & 4.11 as well.
essential needs. The tea sector is spending approximately 230 Rps per worker per day in total. Production costs in Assam have been going up by 30%. Union and tea
industry agreements are defined every three years.
The standard fails to address countries and sectors which have no minimum wage, or where it has been set at an inadequate level , for example in the Assam Tea
Industry where workers live in Extreme Poverty. The greater clarity around piece-rates which are equivalent to a minimum wage is welcome; these should specify
that piece rates should be set so that it is possible to earn the daily minimum wage in an 8 hour day. Also if the test is that an average piece-rate worker can earn a
minimum wage, by mathematical definition half the workforce so paid will earn less than the minimum wage. For this reason the UK National Minimum Wage
Regulations stipulate that piece rates should be set at a level where the average worker can earn 20% over the minimum wage. The right of workers to insist on
payment in cash, and not in-kind payments is a useful addition. The wording of item d) is confusing, and would be better expressed thus: Paying wages in part
through in-kind payments is only allowed if permitted by law and with the agreement of the worker. The local market value shall be used in calculating the value of
any in-kind payments. There should be a requirement for a pay-slip or other documentation explaining wages, deductions etc. Payment of workers during training
merits a separate section. See below
RA sealuse
Replace with "no less than" with "minimum". The sub-points for b)-f) are not aligned with the corresponding letters (format issue?)
team
Sri Lanka WS OK
SAN Survey
El principio dice que se protege la salud y bienestar de todos los trabajadores jóvenes cuando debería ser de TODOS los trabajadores. Criterio 4.2 y 4.7 Se debería
aumentar algo sobre la prohibición de incentivos perversos por ejemplo el pago de horas extra en las horas de almuerzo o descanso que deberían ser obligatorias
para todos los trabajadores. obviamente si ganan más por trabajar más horas van a preferir hacerlo a cualquier hora. las horas extra voluntarias no deben ser en las
horas de almuerzo o descanso, eso ocasiona problemas de salud Criterio 4.5 Los pagos se deben realizan en horas laborales, no en horas de almuerzo.4.23 Los
servicios sanitarios no solamente están accesibles sino en buenas condiciones, los períodos para comer y descansar son obligatorios. este debería ser crítico.y estar
acompañado por requisitos de capacitación y sanciones en caso de no mantener las buenas condiciones de servicio por los trabajadores.
IPL / Fyffes
Should be critical criterion
Oxfam UK
Ok, except for item f, about migrant workers, which merits its own section, as employment of, and discrimination against migrant workers is very common on farms.
Sri Lanka WS OK
SAN Survey
Comments: 4.1: How are the workers protected from retaliation? Is there a competent and independent inspector?
Comments 4.3: How will it be controlled? Is there a competent and independent inspector?
Comments 4.6: How will it be guaranteed, that al facts of the documents are explained correctly?
Comments 4.6 + 4.7 + 4.8: The Criterions for payment, working hours and the arrangements for pregnant women should be a critical criterion.
Auret van
Heerden
Criterion 4.7 on hours of work and overtime does not make any provision for peak periods or critical events and since those are highly likely to occur it would be
better to issues specific guidelines for how to handle those. Most collective agreements in the agricultural value chain do that by acknowledging that overtime may
be required at certain times. Those agreements then go on to list protections or limits to avoid abuse of the flexibility so provided. Protections include many of
those that the SAN standard already mentions, namely that it must be voluntary, paid at a premium and not continuous, but some agreements go even further to
require consultations with the trade union or workers representatives and notice periods. Some agreements do accept that overtime may be required of workers
but they insist that the worker consent to that at the time of hire.
MARS
How and how often will this be monitored?
Oxfam UK
The ETI Base Code recommends that overtime be paid at a premium of at least 25 percent above regular wages, and the Fairtrade HLS stipulate a minimum
premium of 50 percent. The SAN code is the weakest of the three codes in not defining a minimum premium payment. Surely SAN should demonstrate good
practice ie follow non-binding ILO Recommendations. The revised ETI Base Code requires regular hours that is those hours which are guaranteed and above which
overtime is normally paid to be defined in the employment contract.
RA Ghana
Sri Lanka WS OK
Amsterdam
Social NGOs
IMAFLORA
Oxfam UK
add: and nursing is facilitated, with a suitable place. maternity leave should be at full pay for the full 12 weeks.
Poner o de acuerdo con la legislación nacional - para el Brasil son 4 meses el minimo
This is a positive advance in the provisions of the SAN code. However the wording is open to interpretation and would be better worded: maternity leave at full pay is
provided for at least 12 weeks.
RA climate
It's fantastic to see the SAN stepping forward and aspiring for paid maternity leave that is longer than many developed countries' norms!!
program
Sri Lanka WS OK
CR producers Aclarar escenarios de trabajo permanente versus parcial, por ejemplo en ganado o en café. Distinguir aca de la parte de proveedores de servicio.
Auret van
Heerden
Article 4.9 (b) states that temporary workers shall be provided with legally mandated labor benefits. What exactly does that mean? The benefits that temps are
entitled to, or is it meant to suggest that temps should get the same benefits as regular workers? If the latter will you recognise any vesting periods or proportional
allocations depending on length of service. You may also be faced by temporary workers refusal to be enrolled in benefits programs because they fear that they
will not be able to claim those benefits later and would prefer to be paid gross.
4.9 still gives room to hire and fire workers. Regular work should be put in regular contracts. There are nice versions of this in other standards. For contract
arrangements FT is better. 3.5.6 and 3.5.7, 2014 version
This clause does not take cognizance of the fact that some 'permanent' tasks may be seasonal in nature. For example, tea harvesting in Kenya takes place all year
Finlays
round, however, for significant periods of the year the crop of offer is half of what is on offer during peak periods.
Sugerencia de no ser un criterio critico. No era critico en la versión anterior de la Norma. Pude generar interpretación de que son los beneficios obligatorios por la
IMAFLORA
legislacion. La legislación em Brasil es extensa.
This is a useful clause. However as pointed out in previous submissions using wording which implies intent could complicate implementation. If workers are in
precarious employment, do they have to prove that they were not given employment contracts in order to avoid national insurance contributions? The net
effect of the revision is to weaken the Standard, which previously regulated contract workers. The relevant section of the 2010 standard below should be
maintained. The farm must directly hire its workforce, except when a contractor is able to provide specialized or temporary services under the same
environmental, social and labor conditions required by this standard. The farm must not establish relations or contracts with third parties, form or directly
participate in employee owned companies, or use other mechanisms to avoid the direct hiring of workers and the obligations normally associated with labor
contracts. The provision that temporary workers are provided with legally mandated labor benefits is particularly disingenuous. Poor mandatory protection
under law for temporary workers is a major global problem in agriculture. To avoid discrimination, temporary workers should enjoy equivalent benefits to
permanent workers so far as possible. The section would be clearer and less open to interpretation if it were phrased in terms of positive actions. Workers shall
be given a written employment contract. Permanent functions will be carried out by permanent employees, directly employed by the farm. Any sub-contractor
Oxfam UK
providing labour or other services must adhere to the environmental social and labour conditions of this standard. Arrangements or practices which avoid legally
mandated pay and benefit obligations are prohibited. The Fairtrade HLS are more robustly worded and should be adopted or followed more closely the HLS
States Your company must have a legally binding written contract of employment with all permanent workers, signed by worker and employer that includes at
least the following job description, working hours, pay rate, overtime regulation, social benefits entitlements and deductions, annual paid leave, protection of the
worker from loss of pay in the case of illness, disability or accident, and a notice period for termination that is the same as the notice period for the employer.
Your company must provide legal social security for all workers. All regular work must be undertaken by permanent workers. Time limited contracts and
subcontracting are permitted during peak periods, in the case of special tasks and under special circumstances. Your company must not use production, quotas
and piecework employment as a means to avoid time bound contracts. Fairtrade Hired Labour Standards 2014 3 5 6 There should be a specific limit on the length
of time for example a single 3 month period that someone can be employed on a temporary contract before it is made permanent see Fairtrade Hired Labour
Standards 2014 3 5 7
Sri Lanka WS Cannot be critical
SAN TOC
Debe incluirse el tema de contratación a través de terceros
Amsterdam
Social NGOs
Oxfam
SAN should use LW and not essential needs. Would also like to see us addressing living income
The new living wage methodology is an admirable and highly rigorous attempt to define and calculate a living wage. I wonder however if auditors will be able to
Auret van
Heerden
auditors will still need to assess the value of housing, water etc on a particular farm and a farmer would need to be able to calculate the value or those elements in
order to manage wages in a compliant manner, or am I missing something? Will you provide a generic set of values for each basic need that farmers and auditors
can use, a little like the life cycle analysts do? Verifying whether remedial actions have gone far enough could also involve a lot of complicated estimates and
calculations and I wonder how you intend to handle that, especially if the farmer questions the auditors findings?
Bangalore WS LW needs two separate calculations for Southern versus Northern India. Publish the Anker methodology, please!
SOMO
The Living Wage content FT currently has, is more elaborate than SAN. See above for LW. In addition: FT provision for piece rates 3.5.3 is more clear and stringent;
4.15 should be made mandatory; Provisions for Prohibiting exposure to agrochemicals applied by others and the Right of workers to be removed from imminent
danger should be added; From 4.10 it now is not fully clear who is responsible for calculatting and comparing wages with living wage levels. If companies are
responsible adequate guidance and minimum requirements should be set;
Amsterdam
Social NGOs
Really important to enhance that locally specific solutions are sought for. There is a lot of local knowledge. This is valid for how to reach at living wage, and also for
other issues (like membership and representation in decision making). This text does not seem to work. In many cases an assessment will be needed anyhow to
evaluate if the wage covers the essential needs. Suggestion: if it is not clear if the minimum wage pays for all these essential needs. In the LW discussion, workers
need to be consulted. Their organisations have to be consulted too. This should be made part of collective bargaining. Also temporal and seasonal workers should
be covered in LW. LW should cover all essential needs.
FIIT
Salario Decente de ideal: Remuneración recibida por un trabajador para una semana laboral…. Habría que indicar que esto es independiente al sistema de pago
que manejen, que puede ser quincenal, mensual u otro. Fincas y administradores de grupo, deben conocer las necesidades de los trabajadores e implementar
planes para cubrir a futuro las necesidades no cubiertas aún. Ok. Aplica para fincas y administradores de grupo. Solo para estar claros, en el caso de que haya
intercambio de trabajo, por ejemplo entre parientes o amigos, esto no aplica?.
Finlays
Transport to and from the work place - this needs to be qualified by adding "where the worker is not housed near to the place of work"
Friedel HuetzPlease, insert strong message in introduction: Decent income is only possible with juster price structures
Adams
UK tea sector Check the Fairwagenetwork and Living Wage Foundation
The extension of the standard to cover not just minimum wages, is positive. However other standards are phrased in terms of Living Wage. Living Wage
benchmarks should cover not just basic necessities as contemplated in the SAN standard, but also allow for savings and or discretionary expenditure. Oxfam is
deeply disappointed that there is no time frame by which certified operators must increase wages and this is cause for concern given the severity of this human
rights issue. This concern, that operators would not need to make wage increases, despite living wage featuring in the standard, was verified by Andre when we
met with him in Oxford. He responded by saying that he thought the Fairtrade Hired Labour Standards did not have a time bound requirement for wage increases,
but this is incorrect. Please see Fairtrade Hired Labour Standard 3.5.4. In addition, there is an over-reliance of in kind benefits here without consulting workers on
whether or not living wage should be paid through by in kind benefits. Unions and labour rights organisations have consistently laid down minimum criteria for a
credible implementation of the Living Wage LW, including that workers are consulted about what they consider to be a Living Wage. The Living Wage should also
Oxfam UK
apply equally to temporary and seasonal workers the majority of the agricultural workforce world wide who often do not receive the in-kind benefits which are
described in the standard. Does this mean that temporary workers will be paid more than permanent workers? Also healthcare and schooling provided by farmowners often under post-colonial legislation is often of an inadequate standard. The over-reliance on in-kind benefits in the Standard to meet the basic needs of
workers and their families undermines its sustainability. There is a disconnect between the standard and public statements made by RA and SAN, which questions
the integrity of the process. Once again the HLS offer a more useful and practical model If remuneration wages and benefits is below living wage benchmarks as
established by Fairtrade International, your company must ensure that real wages are increased annually to continuously close the gap with living wage. Wage
increments must be negotiated with elected worker representatives considering the living wage. Fairtrade Hired Labour Standards 2014 3.5.4
4.10; 4.11; 4.13; 4.15; 4.16: why not have this and also all 8 Living Wage essentials as a critical criteria? At least as CC+3? This is only covered with water (4.12 [CC] and
RA
housing 4.14 [CC+3]).
communicati How does this non-critical status of at least 6 essential needs fit into the efforts for the Living Wage Project we (only claim to?) support? Not having at least a CC+3
ons Germany here, could or even will attract some criticism and challenge the seriousness of our efforts in LW at all. Criticism that could easily been avoided, and by making this
and following criteria at least CC+3, it would underline our engagement not only for nature and ecosystems but also for workers and their livelihood.
RA Ag
RA Ghana
SalvaCert
Sri Lanka WS
SAN survey
4.10 b difficult for auditors to audit and difficult for farmers to understand wheter they comply. Only applies to workers? (would be my recommendation too)
4.10. Additional local requirement per country and relevant to small producers required.
Sugerimos eliminar este criterio
OK
Se debe aclarar en 4.10 y 4.11 si los trabajadores de que se habla son los que viven en la finca.
SAN survey
On large farms yes, but many control points do not apply to smallholder groups in their current formulation.
4.10 / 4.11 - I'm still very unclear on how this can be implemented for Group Administrators. Control points should only apply to workers of the group administrators
not to all workers that are used by thousands of smallholder farmers. The control points should also take into account financial possibilities of the employers.
Depending on world market prices, profit margins can be minimal for farms. Living wage idea is very idealistic, but may not work practically in many countries.
4.5 - Worker registry is impossible to implement for (illiterate) smallholders
4.2 - "preventing them from continuing to work, including for poor performance or violating company rules" => Employers do no longer have the right to dismiss nonperforming staff / workers??
SAN survey
If employee ownership is good for us, then why not increase the 4 cents a pound "coffee" pays farmers instead of palliatives on how we're going to maintain the
working animals in the zoo
SAN survey
The Minimum Wages declared by various State Governments take into account all parameters of cost of living in a place and therefore complying with the Minimum
Wage declared by the laws of the land should be sufficient in ensuring that workers are able to live comfortably. Having an alternate "Living Wage" calculation will
complicate matters and will become impractical to follow
Oxfam
Auret van
Heerden
Believe Fair Trade's approach to LW is stronger than ours, given that their criterion is mandatory
without evaluating them? Would the farmer rely on wage studies done by the Anker’s?
Would SAN provide that information? I have studied the reports prepared by the Anker’s and while well done, they are very complicated
and I am not at all sure that farmers will be able to make the necessary evaluations and comparisons and keep records to demonstrate
compliance. Secondly there may be some elements that are relatively very expensive because of drought, location, conflict, scarcity or
other factor beyond the control of either the farmer or the worker. Is the farmer expected to absorb that exceptional cost or is the worker?
The wage is normally determined by labor market factors such as supply and demand, skill, experience, productivity, years of service etc.
With that wage the worker then has to cope with the cost of living. The wage is not determined by the cost of living, although that is an
element to be taken into account, especially when making adjustments. If farmers have to keep raising the wage to match the increasing
costs of certain basic needs they will drive inflation and price themselves out of the market, two outcomes I know you do not want to see.
Bangalore WS Goals will have to be homogeneously for all of India.
Amsterdam
In the essential needs parts: Cover smallholders! The livelihood calculation has to be covering these 95% smallholders!
Social NGOs
MARS
Who will be responsible for covering the 8 essential needs of the workers? How will this criteria differ in the case of smallholders and poorer eployers?
Nespresso
This criteria is difficult to implement in the field.
Brazil
Friedel Huetz- Essential needs concept is too vague. Adjust outcomes/objectives section (more sustainable instead of sustainable). Challenge is that current product prices and
Adams
SAN/RA system don't pay for living wages.
IPL / Fyffes
A plan with set goals should be critical within 3 years
UK tea sector How are you going to measure progress? Define the intermediate steps of the plan.
RA Ghana
4.11. Guidance is needed to define essential needs or living wage in the local context
SalvaCert
Sugerimos eliminar este criterio
Sri Lanka WS OK
CR producers Determinar que hay que comprobar que el agua es potable por medio de los análisis que comprueban el cumplimiento de la definición. Reto en áreas ganaderas.
Amsterdam
Suggestion to add remark about methods for quick and cheap testing of drinking water quality
Social NGOs
Sugerencia de no ser un criterio critico. No era critico en la versión anterior de la Norma. Lleva tiempo para la inplementación y conscientización . Em Brasil para
IMAFLORA
garantizar la potabilidad necesitan de muchis indicadores y no solamente lo que pide el crieterio. Sugerencia de ser um CC+3.
Nespresso
What is safe drinking water? How is it going to be audited? Criteria still needs definition and indicators
Brazil
UK tea sector Ask for drinking water analysis
4.12. If the goal is to provide safe drinking water, then the "additional details" to GA to train members about effective drinking water treatment systems is not
RA Ghana
sufficiently addressing the goal. Consider dropping the status from CRITICAL CRITERION to continous improvement criterion
SalvaCert
Cambiar el término de agua potable por agua apta para el consumo humano.
Sri Lanka WS Cannot be critical - Page 43 last Note -Developing Countries -Local surviliance -SLSI -614 Part 1 and 2 follow up
SAN TOC
SAN Survey
Si el concepto es agua potable, no debe ser crítico porque el acceso a agua potable es muy difícil.
Debe revisar la redacción, creo que el requisito es que se garantice el acceso a potable en cantidad suficiente. Sin embargo, considero que una mejora de la norma
sería reemplazar agua potable por agua segura (esta última es más factible de cumplir en la mayoría de fincas)
El aspecto relacionado con "agua potable" es un ideal en Colombia, debido a que en pocas zonas del país, mediante análisis físico químicos y microbiológico se
cuenta con agua potable; es un criterio muy difícil de cumplir, y es importante adicionar la definición que para la RAS tiene, agua potable.
IPL / Fyffes
Should be critical criterion
Sri Lanka WS OK
Critères 2.1 et 2.2 : ces critères critiques sont toujours problématiques : pourquoi un producteur qui a détruit des écosystèmes naturels il y a 10 ans peut être certifié
Critère 4.13 : Ce critère est impossible à appliquer pour un groupe de petits producteurs dans le Sambirano.
a.Dans le cas de plantations familiales : il faut former tous les membres aux premiers soins.
b.La majorité des parcelles sont éparpillées et situées à plus de 15 minutes de marche. Il faut donc une trousse de premiers soins dans chaque parcelle ou portée par
SAN Survey
Critère 4.23 : irréalisable dans le cadre de petits producteurs de cacao malgaches.
CR producers Distinguir responsabilidad de la finca de la responsabilidad del habitante con respecto al mantenimiento de la vivienda.
Needs guidance for housing for harvest or temporary workers
CR auditors
FIIT
ubicación. Qué pasa si la finca provee vivienda, agua, luz, etc.? Por ejemplo, bananeros en Costa Sur.
Finlays
"Housing is not overcrowded" - This needs further qualification. If an employee chooses to have 10 children, is it really the employers responsibility to provide several
houses to accommodate them?? Suggest the wording refers to employees specifically, thus excluding dependants.
SAN
Housing needs a more specific T&D
secretariat
Nespresso
Must be evaluated careful to avoid cases where the houses are damaged by the workers, could create awkward situations during certification audits.
Brazil
UK tea sector Housing covered by national LW studies
This should be a critical criteria where housing is provided. There should be provisions following ILO Recommendation on Worker Housing for the a reasonable period
Oxfam UK
of continued occupancy or fair compensation for a worker or his family when he leaves employment.
RA sealuse
This just describes how any housing provided must be; it neglects to indicate WHEN housing must be provided. Could a farm pass this criterion by forcing its workers
team
to sleep in tents that they provide themselves, or even without tents if the workers don't provide themselves anything?
Sri Lanka WS Cannot be critical
Es importante precisar en los medios de verificación el número mínimo de unidades sanitarias y límites para considerar cuando hay hacinamiento. De esta manera se
SAN TOC
evita la subjetividad.
SAN Survey
El criterio 4.14 al considerarse crítico CC+3 podría generar que algunas fincas no puedan continuar con la certificación si sus costos de mejoras de viviendas son muy
altos (cuando existen muchas viviendas). Considero que si establecen una proyección de mejora, algunos no logren cubrirlo en un lapso de 3 años. Está bien el
criterio, pero valorar si debería dejarse como crítico.
Amsterdam
Social NGOs
In the essential needs section, in relation to savings for emergencies, would it be possible to do something with basic insurances, for instance in relation to sick leave?
FIIT
Acceso a servicios de salud y educación Si no hay establecimientos educativos públicos, la empresa debe proveer recurso humano, equipo e infraestructura. El tema
aquí sería, qué pasa con pequeños productores u operaciones muy pequeñas que manejan poco personal? Una alternativa podría ser que ellos busquen opciones de
alfabetización o sistemas de radio o tv, por ejemplo, y que velen porque el personal o los hijos de los trabajadores se eduquen. Necesidades esenciales, cómo calcular
beneficios en especie y medir su calidad dentro de la metodología Anker de salario decente.
RA Ag
Provided by whom? The group administrator? Please clarify
Sri Lanka WS Cannot be critical :- to be dsicussed at LIG -Housing of non workers
SAN Survey
Completely UNREALISTIC in SMALLHOLDER GROUPS. You can't expect group administrators to take on the responsibilities of government in terms of service delivery
on health care and access to education!!!!!
4.15 - access to health care to workers and smallholders => A group administrator can not provide basic health care for thousands of smallholders PLUS their workers.
4.16 - access to education - same thing
4.13 - access to first aid => A group administrator can not provide first aid for thousands of smallholders. That would mean having hundreds of first aid sets that need to
be re-filled on a weekly basis......
4.22 Workers are provided with medical exams => The current definition of workers implies that Group administrators have to provide medical exams to its own
workers (okay), its thousands of smallholder farmers PLUS the thousands of workers of the smallholder farmers (who might just work 1-2 days in a year on a farm).
Completely impossible!!!!
MARS
RA Ag
SalvaCert
Sri Lanka WS
SAN survey
The group administrator should keep updated information on the number of children of certified workers and smallholders, their age and enrollment status
Provided by whom? The group administrator? Please clarify
Que se entiende como acceso. En lo posible citar ejemplos de los que puede considerarse como acceso.
Responsibilty
should
be taken
outposition:
by the group
-but can be "providing the guidance"
Education
needs
to have
a higher
CC+3administrator
!!!
And should be thought about as well in the Management-Principle
Amsterdam
Social NGOs
Child labour and remediation: Child labour remediation is missing. Look at FT, they have a good way to do this. The draft CEN/ISO text is as follows (p. 12, 6.6.9) The
organisation shall implement child labour identification, prevention, monitoring and remediation activities. There are differences between child work and child labour. The
terms are used inconsistently. Please check terminology. Pay attention to conditional (depending on national legislation) and unconditional forms of child labour. Pay
attention to conditional (depending on national legislation) and unconditional forms of child labour. Needs to reference local legislation. Reference ILO convention 182 (see
T&D children). 4.17.b).1: or their organs / body parts
A monitoring and remediation mechanism is required
MARS
UK tea sector Check ETI base code
The Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention 1999 and the Minimum Age Convention 1973 define a child who should be protected from the worst forms of child labour as
Oxfam UK
someone under the age of 18. This is not clear from the current wording. Listing issues e.g. pornography which are not relevant to agriculture is distracting and unhelpful. It
would be more useful to highlight child labour risk factors e.g. presence of children unrelated to the smallholder.
RA sealuse
team
The words "Critical Criterion" in white are missing the black box around them. Also, the sub-points for b)-e) are not aligned with the corresponding letters. Next, please put
a period after "international treaties" and start the next paragraph "Any type of paid or unpaid work by a child under 12..." on the next line, unless this is actually meant as
part of the definition of slavery. Last but not least, consider deleting "(if legally subject to compulsory schooling)" because the SAN standard should be higher than legal
requirements in most cases, and this is definitely one of them.
Sri Lanka WS Cannot be critical
Es necesario definir la edad límite para trabajar.
SAN TOC
¿qué es un trabajador jóven?
El criterio debe ser vinculante a la legislaciòn local.
CR producers ELIMINAR y si no lo hace durante el horario escolar obligatorio por ley. Ya esta cubierto por el 4.17.e)
Amsterdam
Social NGOs
There are very positive and proactive approaches to child labour. Working with youth, apprenticeships. Check with CEN text: p.12, 6.7, 1-3: 1 The organisation shall ensure
that there is no obstruction to / 2 shall encourage / 3 shall undertake an opportunity assessment for: youth above the minimum working age to enter vocational training,
apprenticeship and employment (excluding hazardous tasks) in agriculture.
Excellent! Will this information be aggregated at the group level and part of group reporting requirements?
Under the Minimum Age Convention there is also a provision that workers be above the compulsory school age.
MARS
Oxfam UK
RA sealuse
As with 4.17, please consider deleting "legally compulsory" in relation to school hours. Teens should be in school as long as it is available to them.
team
Sri Lanka WS Cannot be critical
MARS
Oxfam UK
Legitimate ownership of land or permission to use shared community land without disputes should be established at the baseline phase
Suggest that if there is no documentation, the company must provide evidence that it asked communities based on stakeholder mapping to confirm the absence of
RA Ag
Can this be CC+3? Getting all the paperwork might take some time
Sri Lanka WS c)- Not applicable and practical for SL as the land is given on leased agreement with the government
CR producers DEFINIR Las actividades que disminuyen los derechos sobre el uso de la tierra, o de los recursos. DEFINIR de acuerdo con las directrices internacionales. (4.26.b.)
1. Nearly all the FPIC Guides are tailored to fit specific certification systems: the best guide in our humble view is the RSPO Guide (attached) but the FSC Guide is also
quite good and has really good back up materials. The one we did for RSB is pretty good but framed by really awkward P&C. The Guide we did for FAO while more
broadly focused on Government compliance has the advantage of not being limited by P&Cs.
Forest People However: Note
Programme
Bangalore WS
IMAFLORA
MARS
Nespresso
Brazil
Tema nuevo para la norma de la RAS y que no deberia ser critico. La complejidad y entendimiento para la inplementación de la FPIC lleva tiempo y es compleja para
una finca porque muchos fatores externos a la finca pueden hacer parte del analisis.
Specify which international guidelines. Also, what is the process if activities conform to local law?
This should not be a critical criteria. FPIC processes are difficult to implement at farm level or in coffee regions. Most of these areas don't count on organizations to
provide a good level of governance to implement this kind of consultant process. Too much to demand from coffee farmers. This criteria should be taken out from this
standard. If any of these descripted cases happen, the entity will not be able to aply for certification as it will be a NC with critical criteria 2.1 or 2.3.
usage rights in addition to customary tenure rights . Also ssuggest adding language about providing remedy such
as
fair
compensation
for
past
land
rights
violations.
4.26
c gets close, but it just references compensation during the FPIC process. This is important, but there could be
Oxfam UK
a need for a company to provide access to remedy for past violations outside the FPIC process. Suggest adding language about seeing evidence that companies
pursued all other business models before moving forward with large-scale land acquisitions
RA Ag
Can this be CC+3? Getting all the paperwork might take some time
RA Ghana
Additional details should clarify the applicability of the criterion to small farms.
Cannot be Critical - Totally Disagree : Should discuss at LIG ;The commercial land given by the government to RPC need to have the authority to do what land
Sri Lanka WS
should be best utilised for
Bangalore WS Please clarify that it only applies to NEW activities that could have a significant, negative impact on such communities. Delete a): farm activities (new farm activities).
Sri Lanka WS Cannot be critical
CR producers 4.28.b) se presta a violar criterio de discriminación. Transparencia y claridad de procedimientos de contratación.
Sri Lanka WS OK
RA
traceability
team
IMAFLORA
delete number 1 of letter b of aditional details. Once the animal enters a farm it looses its previous codes. Therefore, number 1 cannot be critical
CR lead
auditors
Option to only grant seal use for those animals that have spent minimum 6 months on a certified farm
La situación del tercer borrador en la que el criterio 5.2 se establece que los animales que han permanecido en una finca bajo las normas de la RAS durante 3
meses y previo a eso han vivido por mínimo 3 meses en una finca que demuestra ausencia de destrucción de áreas de alto valor para la Conservación a partir del
CR cattle lead 1 de nov 2005(2.1); Trabajo infantil(4.18 y 4.19),Trabajo forzado (4.2) y Discriminación (4.3) permitiría que en la normativa RAS exista un componente de bienestar
animal en únicamente los últimos tres meses de vida del animal. La UE tiene serios lineamientos en el tema de bienestar animal y ya incluso existen diversos
auditor
convenios bilaterales con algunos países en los que se el componente animal es clave para poder exportar.Etapas muy vulnerables de la vida de los bovinos se dan
en las edades más tempranas que es en la que ocurre castración, descorne, marcaje etc. La norma de la RAS, según este tercer borrador, estaría dejando a la libre
el maltrato animal en los primeros 2 años de vida de los animales que dan carne certificada. O Sistema Brasileiro de Identificação e Certificação de Bovinos e Bubalinos - SISBOV é utilizado para a identificação individual de bovinos e bubalinos em
propriedades rurais que têm interesse em vender animais que serão utilizados para produção de carne para atender mercados que exigem identificação individual
Grupo
(http://www.agricultura.gov.br/animal/rastreabilidade/sisbov).
Fazendas São A exigência de permanência, para que o gado comprado de propriedades de fora do SISBOV seja considerado certificado, é de noventa dias*. Esse modelo é
Marcelo LTDA validado e aceito pelos mercados internacionais mais exigentes e considera os riscos envolvidos na aquisição desses animais (como sanitário, nutricional, etc.)
*caso necessário, encaminho este arquivo também
Having a standard that only takes the animals last 6 month in to the account is simply not worth having. We will be heavily critized by all stakeholders and we could
RA Sweden
RA Markets
team
At the webinar difficulty in tacking the animals was given as the reason for this solution. There are systems available to track individual animals from birth to the
counter in the shop. A friend of mine is CEO of one of those companies and he would be more than willing to help out. Any arguments that it is difficult to
implement will be shot down. I rather see us dropping the cattle standard completely than having the 6 month approach. My recommendation, if the 6 month
approach should be maintained is not to promote nor communicate our cattle program in Sweden/EU.
The time animals stay on a RAC farm is very short, and seems to be strongly given in by the Brazilian situation. Is this indeed the most important country to base the
standard on? This criterion makes the standard and credibility weak! As Marcus phrases it: Having a standard that only takes the animals last 6 month in to the
I do not see this as being in line with our mission. Neither would our critics.My recommendation, if the 6 month approach should be maintained is not to promote
nor communicate our cattle program in Sweden/EU.
they could have been born and raised on recently-deforested lands, even in the Amazon basin. It makes any claim about the seal on cattle essentially meaningless.
RA seal use
team
any company using the seal based on certified cattle products . I consulted our VP of Communications Diane Jukofsky, as well as our European Comms Director
Stuart Singleton-White, and they also agree with this decision. Rainforest Alliance simply cannot approve these claims for companies if the 6-month clause is
allowed on the certified cattle farms. It would not be a credible claim.
To be at all effective, 5.2 must be strengthened to include the entire life of each cow, at least as described in 5.2b to avoid the destruction of HCV forests, child
the last 6 months on a SAN/RAC farm and any time prior to that either on a SAN/RAC farm or one compliant with the current 5.2b components (though even point b
doesn't prohibit deforestation). Can we add a prohibition against destruction of natural ecosystems into 5.2b if we're going to use it?
On that same point, do we know how farms can demonstrate compliance with 5.2b? If the other farms are not certified to the SAN Standard, how will they be
points in 5.2b, we should simply require that the cows live their entire lives on SAN/RAC farms. Period. That may require some cooperation or coordination
between farms in Brazil, or they may always end up in non-conformity with this criterion. But the criterion should be sufficiently strong nonetheless since the
approved claims are based on the standard requirements.
-I think this criteria looks like we are giving away the certification. Last 6 months of a cattle life seems really low. This can be perceived as green washing - and the
3 months even more.
-I understand that the lifespan of cattle used for its meat is lower than the one of dairy cows, so it could be worth differentiating the 2 as well.
RA London
-The farm where the cattle grew up before getting to a RAC farm should also apply strict controls in terms of chemicals used (hormones, antibiotics, GMO feed,
team member
etc.)
-I would apply the control of the previous farm also to the cows that have spent only 6 months on a RAC farm.
-Does this mean that the previous farm will be audited as well?
This lacks credibility for ensuring "sustainable" cattle production. Often the last 6 months of an animal's life is spent wholy or in large part in a feed lot. That means
Karen
Lewotsky
length/nature of the birth-to-death supply chain in Brazil and other tropical countries;
2. meet the implied or explicit expectations/desires of the market for birth-to-death traceability (related to food safety and other concerns in addition to zerodeforestation); and
3. meet the new CoC/traceability policies, which I understand to mean that even if not all producers in the supply chain are certified or fall under the standard, the
certified producer buying cattle must provide proof of traceability/origin for the cattle she buys and intends to sell as RA Certified.
I would think that grazing would be that stage. I know that in the United States, many cattle spend the last 6 months of their lives being fattened up on a grain diet
RA web mgmt
accomplishing our mission, it will severely damage the integrity of our certification system as a whole, and the seal will become synonymous with greenwashing.
RA CoC
Canada
This conflicts with 1.9: product originating from certified farms vs last 6mo of their lives. This means that the cattle does not original from certified farms.
RA Ag
Proposed period of stay at RAC farm does not ensure use of sustainable practices
RSPB
This proposed criteria does not provide assurance on whether any cattle product is sustainably produced, has not caused destruction of HCVs or other natural
ecossytems, 'deforestation free', etc.. It is inconsistent with SAN principles of traceability and system/product integrity as articulated in the CoC standard and
further expressed in the farm standard under criterion 1.9. We understand there are practical obstacles to guaranteeing traceability of cattle from birth to slaughter
in some farming contexts (although full traceability is achievable in others). In the former cases, rather than accepting 3/6 month traecability, SAN should introduce
a step-wise approach and technical support for producers towards achieving full traceability that (a) is clearly time bound (as it is, for example, in the Grasslands
Alliance sustainable beef protocol) and (b) does not permit cattle products which are not fully traceable to birth to achieve the RA seal.
I am reaching out regarding the cattle production systems, as the next generation of the SAN standard does not take measures for ensuring supply chains for RAC
cattle products are deforestation-free, not to mention slave and child labor free. The standard proposes to audit compliance with critical criteria for the last six
RA markets
US
This is, perhaps, acceptable from a land management/ranch level sustainability point of view, but it is not acceptable for Rainforest Alliance Certified value chains.
Even Marfrig and JBS are providing this form of traceability and assurance that value chains for beef and leather are deforestation free. RA has been promoting
RAC /SAN as the only certification providing assurance for deforestation-free value chains.
seems like an unacceptable risk to our brand equity and credibility, and has implication for brands engaging with us.
Brands such as H&M and IKEA, who we are currently in discussion with, will require assurance there is no illegal or unsavory activity in the value chains for leather
products promoted as RAC.
I am escalating this issue to the exec office given the immediacy of addressing this with the conservation community and certified beef companies. See
communication below from NWF.
National
Wildlife
Federation
It would be great if we could talk some time because I misunderstood the new SAN draft standards. I've been in touch with Eduardo but am concerned that they
only consider the last 6 months of a cow's life. Marfrig is already tracing indirects and several others are making a big push on this, so we're very keen to ensure SAN
remains the gold standard. I realize it's hard to require full traceability but there are several steps along the way or is there a way to include in some other areaanyhow, having it ignore all deforestation that is not in the last 6 months of a cow's life would not be something all others could get behind.
Nestle
RA seal use
team
Karen
Lewotsky
The section on animal welfare is weak and needs to be tightened up. One example being that it specifically mentions hot iron process as being
acceptable. It is not. I attach our animal welfare commitment that may give some ideas. Let me know if you would like me to connect you to
World Animal Protection who we work with on this.
The sub-points for c)-k) are not aligned with the corresponding letters
There is nothing here about physical alterations, such as tail docking, ear-notching, or wattling (a relatively uncommon practice, but still).
These are out-dated practices and of concern to animal welfare folks.
RA seal use
team
Add here or in 5.6: Sick, injured, disabled and dying animals are provided adequate food, water and shelter.
RA seal use
team
The sub-points for b)-d) are not aligned with the corresponding letters
IMAFLORA
requires sophisticated analysis of all water offered to cattle. Very expensive. Needs to be reviewed although we agree with the concept
of water provided in quantity and quality. Cannot be critical with the concept quality of consumable water.
RSPB
The quantity of water consumed by cattle, relative to the quantity locally available and competing uses, should also be considered. Eg. Water sources
are protected from damage, pollution, and/or overuse.
RSPB
There appear to be no restrictions or consideration of the indirect impacts of off-farm cattle feed production on natural ecosystems, biodviersity,
etc.. Off-farm feed production should meet basic SAN criteria otherwise impacts may simply be displaced from cattle farms to feed farms. Other
sustainability standards for livestock production (e.g., organic) contain detailed restrictions on livestock feed which should be considered here.
IMAFLORA
remove antibiotics and hormones because they already included in 5.12. and it adds more work for the audit because being in this criterion asks to check the
contecnt of all feed.
ovulação sincronizada das vacas.
Grupo
De acordo com a regulamentação brasileira*, alguns dos principais aditivos que estão comercialmente disponíveis podem ser classificados como antibióticos ou
Fazendas São melhoradores de desempenho (como os ionóforos, por exemplo). Independentemente da sua classificação, eles atuam diretamente reduzindo a emissão de
Marcelo LTDA metano entérico, produzidos durante a fermentação do alimento pela microbiota ruminal do gado.
Assim, não está claro sob a liberação desses produtos para a utilização na dieta animal.
*caso necessário, encaminho este arquivo também.
WWF
Germany +
Switzerland
These organizations don't support GMO feed for cattle. Go for Proterra/RTRS non GMO certified feed.
NABU
Germany
Limit the use of additional feed concentrates
RA markets
team
Referring to animal fodder: deforestation, and deforestation for fodder are considered a big issue in Europe, and is not clearly addressed. This will hamper market
access for RAC beef in Europe, while we have been working for years now to make this market introduction happen. Secondly, European consumers (companies
commonly are still non transparent on that, but this is starting to change !) reject GMO, which is expected to become more important for feeding (Most Soy meal is
GMO). What about the use of GMO crops for feeding? Should this also be prohibited?
RSPB
see comment under 5.10. This criteria could be expanded to prohibit feeding cattle feed crops that come from farms which do not meet basic SAN criteria (e.g.,
recent deforestation, destruction of HCVs, etc..).
Birdlife
Would like to see Dicoflenac prohibited by SAN. Cause of major impact on vulture populations in Africa and Asia
International
IMAFLORA
RSPB
what would be a non-conformance for this criterion? What if the producer decides to use not the most appropriate breed for a certain
region? Better to modify and transform in one new element of the right side of 5.17
The climate change impacts of cattle production are not mentioned anywhere in this section, although feed choices, breeds, and stocking
densities/ number of cattle, may all be relevant tools for addressing carbon emissions. See also comment under P1.
RA seal use
team
RSPB
Wasn't there previously a point about using feed that reduces cows' production of methane, in cases where they cannot always be
pastured? Can we add that back here?
There appear to be no restrictions or consideration of the indirect impacts of off-farm cattle feed production on natural ecosystems,
biodviersity, etc.. Off-farm feed production should meet basic SAN criteria otherwise impacts may simply be displaced from cattle
farms to feed farms. Other sustainability standards for livestock production (e.g., organic) contain detailed restrictions on livestock feed
which should be considered here.
Karen
Lewotsky
In the case of commercial confinement operations, e.g. dairy or feedlot operations, manure storage and management is more complicated
than this -- storage must protect water and air quality, if used as on-farm nutient, must not overload nurtient cycling system, if exported
off-farm, must be transported to avoid environmental contamination, e.g. leaky trucks, etc.

Documentos relacionados