Assessment of the Sustainable Rice Platform: A Benchmark Analysis against the IFC Performance Standards, Good Practice for Standards Systems Assurance and Governance, and Selected Elements of Other Standards Systems

Files

Table of Contents

• Table of Contents 3
• Acronyms 3
• Executive Summary 3
• 1. Introduction 3
• 2. Comparison of the SRP Standard with the IFC PS 3
• 3. SRP Standards System Assurance 3
• 4. SRP Standards System Governance 3
• 5. Comparison of SRP with Other Agribusiness Sustainability 4
• Standards Systems 4
• 6. Conclusion 4
• References 4
• Acronyms 5
• Benchmarking the Sustainable Rice Platform SRP Standards System 6
• Executive Summary 6
• Determine Show Inform 6
• The SRP Farm Standard is aligned with the IFC Performance Standards but its requirements are less extensive 7
• Topics not covered by the SRP Farm Standard may not always be material 7
• The SRP is a farm standard and doesnt include first processing 7
• The SRP is designed to encourage continuous improvement 8
• Group verification allows smallholder access to verification 8
• Third-party verification includes in-house approval of conformity assessment bodies by the SRP 8
• Traceability and supply chain control are available throughout the supply chain 8
• As an ISEAL community member the SRP is working towards good practice on governance 9
• The SRP is a multistakeholder association with open membership 9
• There are opportunities for broader stakeholder participation in standard-setting 9
• The SRP only makes limited data on verification available to the public 10
• Compared to peers the SRP is an underfunded voluntary standard with limited market penetration 10
• 1. Introduction 13
• 1.1 Scope of this document 13
• 1.2 Scope and limitations of the SRP Standards System 13
• FARMER GROUP 14
• INDIVIDUAL FARMER MILL PROCESSING 14
• Working toward sustainable rice cultivation 14
• Sustainably cultivated rice 14
• Climate action 16
• Life on 16
• Social 16
• Resource-use 16
• Labor 16
• Improved livelihood 16
• Consumer 16
• 2. Comparison of the SRP Standard with the IFC PS 18
• 2.1 Summary of findings of IFC PS comparison 18
• 2.2 Methodology 20
• 2.3 22
• PS 1 Assessment and Management of Environmental and Social Risks and Impacts 22
• 2.4 23
• PS 2 Labor and Working Conditions 23
• 2.5 25
• PS 3 Resource Efficiency and Pollution Prevention 25
• 2.6 26
• PS 4 Community Health Safety and Security 26
• 2.7 27
• PS 5 Land Acquisition and Involuntary Resettlement 27
• 2.8 27
• PS 6 Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Natural Resource Management 27
• 2.9 28
• PS 7 Indigenous Peoples 28
• 2.10 29
• PS 8 Cultural Heritage 29
• 3. SRP Standards System Assurance 30
• 3.1 Summary of findings on assurance 30
• 3.2 Verification 31
• 3.3 Accreditation 33
• 3.4 Chain of custody 33
• 3.5 Claims 34
• 4. SRP Standards System Governance 35
• 4.1 Summary of findings on governance 35
• 4.2 ISEAL 36
• 4.3 Multistakeholder participation 37
• 4.4 Standard-setting process 39
• 4.5 Complaints and grievances 41
• 4.6 Public information 41
• 5.1 Other voluntary standards systems 42
• 5.2 Legal structure and founders 42
• 5.3 Membership categories and fees 43
• 5.4 Operating budget 46
• 5.5 Verification 47
• 6. Conclusion 49