Impact evaluation

1. Network of Asia and Pacific Producers (NAPP)
3307, Lippo Centre, 89 Queensway, Hong Kong
273, Thomson Road, #04-01, Novena Gardens, Singapore- 307644
Evaluating 2015: The Case for Impact
Ayan A Banerjee | CEO Harveen Kour | MEL Manager

2. AGENDA
Cross cutting across slides | Impact Evaluation; Strategic Intent
Impact Assessment
Learning
Products and Markets
Efficiency
Scope of Activities
Scope
Geographical
Scope
Budget Constraints
Growth
Programmes
Targetted Projects

3. • The financial figures and participation data is based on NAPP Finance Information
• All MEL based producer data is for external communication
• All ECERT based producer data is for internal insights
• While FLO IDs are self explanatory, for the purpose of this presentation a PO is a producer group which may
have multiple FLO IDs
• All Premium & Farmers Workers data is based on MEL data i.e. as per audits (cut-off period is 30, April 2015)
• For some specific producer organizations, since the audit did not happen this year, last year figures have been
taken for no. of farmers & workers, premium, production, sales etc.
3
PRELUDE AND CAVEATS
Key Points to Note

4. IMPACT ASSESSMENT ADVISORY
Executive Summary
Given resource constraints, NAPP needs to:
• Create concentric circles of services priorities; or,
• Leverage additional resources, revise revenue model and contribution of members
• Maximising development change from a Social Returns on Investment (SROI), framework developed
Align Fairtrade with NAPP (Tier 2 products; premium, sales and markets, and basic financing for NAPP towards producer
support)
In NAPP subsidizing/ sponsoring trade-fairs participation, we found no concrete evidence that it is creating impact
[demonstrated access to markets leading to premiums]
• NAPP needs to develop, adapt and implement SROI in decision on operating plans

5. STANDARD OPERATING PRINCIPLES & PROCEDURES: Client-centric | Lean | MEL Integrated
FOCUS IMPACT ON THE CUSTOMERS
Customer
Development
Lean OperationsBootstrapping
THROUGH CONSTANT EVOLVING, LEARNING PROCESSES
“Lean Operations” represents a synthesis of
Customer Development, and Lean practices.
Articulate Problem,
Formulate Tenable
Hypothesis
Demo: Pilot / Proof-of-
concept / Build Minimal
Viable Product
Validate Solution:
Evaluate Qualitatively,
Verify Quantitatively
Learn
LEARNING: INFLUENCING THE 2016 OPERATING PLAN
Embedding in the DNA of the organization
(The marginal farmer, the worker, the consumer!)
“Customer Development” will be used
to describe the parallel process of
building a continuous feedback loop
with customers throughout the
product/service development cycle.
“Bootstrapping” in our common context will be understood
as a collection of techniques used to minimize the amount
of external resources required – financial and non-financial.
This would be a step towards sustainability.

6. LEARNING: INFLUENCING THE 2016 OPERATING PLAN
Executive Summary
• What are the proposed changes from 2015?
• What does the 2015 analysis mean for 2016 and beyond?
1. Efficiency
2. Value for Money
3. Impact
6

7. Country Rankings
Ranking By No. Of Producer
Organizations
By No. of Farmers &
Workers
By FT Premium
Receipts
1 India India India
2 Sri Lanka Indonesia Indonesia
3 Thailand Sri Lanka Fiji
4 Indonesia Timor Leste Vietnam
5 Vietnam Fiji China
6 China Pakistan Sri Lanka
Take-away:
• Why is Premium ranking important?
• What does this mean for:
• NAPP Governance?
• Representative participation in events?
• Service Delivery and Programmes?
• Impact Assessment
• Budgetary allocation
• Ranking can also be done on
• Gender balance
• Climate Change adaptation (needs)
• Premium Utilization – impact and org. development 7

8. NAPP PROFILE
POs by type
8
Source: MEL Data 2014

9. NAPP PROFILE
POs by type
9
45 49 54 54
105
117
128
138
22
19
21
18
0
50
100
150
200
250
2012 2013 2014 2015
Change in Producer Organizations by Type- CAGR with 2012 as Base Year
HL SPO CP
TOTAL
172
TOTAL
185
TOTAL
203
TOTAL
210
Take-away:
• CAGR with 2012 as base year
comparison between CAGR 2015 &
CAGR 2014 shows that:
o Overall CAGR reduced to 7% in 2015
from 9% in 2014.
o CP CAGR reduced to -6% in 2015 from
-2% in 2014
o HL CAGR reduced to 6% in 2015
compared to10% in 2014
- Does this reflect the stagnancy in the tea
sector?
o SPO CAGR remained stable at 10%
Source: ECERT

10. NAPP PROFILE
POs by type
10
Take-away:
• If we include all multi-estates for HL, then the number of SPOs and number of these
estates almost equalizes
• How does this link to global 2016-2020 strategy?
• Where are the workers in the strategy?
• Do we have 210 or 304 producers? How would we look at this from producer
support point of view and from market support point of view?
26%
66%
8%
Percentage Share of Producer Organizations
HL SPO CP
49%
45%
6%
Percentage Share of Producer Organizations
2015 according to multi-estates
HL (including multi-estates) SPO CP
54
138
18
210
148 138
18
304
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
HL SPO CP Total
No. of Orgs as per FLO IDs in comparison to No. of
Orgs including multi-estates
No. of FLO IDs No. of Orgs including multi-estates
Source: ECERT
Source: ECERT
Source: ECERT
Since the multi-estates are only in India
& Sri Lanka, when we take them into
account:
• India’s HL sector increases from 33
organizations to 103 estates
• Sri Lanka’s HL sector increases from
13 organizations to 37 estates

11. NAPP PROFILE
The NAPP Map
11

12. 85
23
21
19
17
14
8
3 3 3 3 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
2012 2013 2014 2015
NAPP PROFILE
POs by Countries
12
Source: ECERT
Take-away:
• Countries that have grown in the last 3 years are:
- India
- Sri Lanka
- Thailand
• Should our programmes be focussed in countries where the
growth is or where the producer organizations are not
growing?
• Should this data be looked at in comparison to FT sales and
FT premium?
• What does this data mean for the countries that are not
growing or have low absolute numbers of producer
organizations?
• What are the kind of push mechanisms required for other
countries? Resources and/or markets?

13. FAIRTRADE GEOGRAPHICAL SCOPE FOR ASIA PACIFIC
Central Asia & Western Asia
Countries No. of FLO
IDs
Products/Potential Products
Afghanistan 0 Nuts, Dry fruits
Iran 1 Herbs, herbal teas & spices, Saffron, Dry-fruits, Nuts
Kazakhstan 0 Cotton, Dry fruits
Kyrgyzstan 2 Seed Cotton, Dry fruits, Nuts, Vegetables (incl. pulses & potatoes)
Tajikistan 3 Seed Cotton, Dry fruits, Nuts
Turkmenistan 0 Seed Cotton, Grapes, Raisins
Uzbekistan 3 Fresh fruits, Dry fruits, Seed Cotton, Herbs, herbal teas & spices, Vegetables incl. Pulses
& Potatoes
Armenia 0 Dry fruits, Nuts, Wines
Azerbaijan 0 Fresh fruits, Herbs, Potatoes
Georgia 0 Dry fruits, Vegetables, Wines
13

14. FAIRTRADE GEOGRAPHICAL SCOPE FOR ASIA PACIFIC
South Asia
14
Take-away:
• In 2016, we will leverage project on textiles perk up presence in
Bangladesh
• In 2016, we will evaluate producers and entry into Bhutan
• In 2016, we will leverage partnerships to look into Nepal and Myanmar
Countries No. of FLO
IDs
Products/Potential Products
Bangladesh 0 Textile, Rice, Seed Cotton, Sugar
Bhutan 0 Processed fruits
India 85 Herbs, herbal teas & spices, Seed Cotton, Tea, Cocoa, Coffee, Fresh fruit, Oilseeds &
Oleaginous fruit, Dried Fruit, Rice, Nuts, Vegetables (incl. pulses & potatoes)
Maldives 0 Marine
Myanmar 0 Rice, Sugarcane
Nepal 1 Tea
Pakistan 8 Sports-balls, Seed Cotton, Rice
Sri Lanka 23 Tea, Banana, Cocoa, Fresh fruit, Nuts, Flowers & Plants, Oilseeds & Oleaginous fruit,
Herbs, herbal teas & spices, Rice

15. FAIRTRADE GEOGRAPHICAL SCOPE FOR ASIA PACIFIC
South East Asia
15
Take-away:
• Indonesia is an important country for coffee in terms of premium receipts as well.
However, what is the scope for other products there?
• Can rice and textiles both perk up Cambodia?
Countries No. of FLO
IDs
Products/Potential Products
Cambodia 0 Rice, Textiles
China 14 Nuts, Oilseeds & Oleaginous fruit, Vegetables (incl. pulses & potatoes), Tea, Honey,
Coffee, Herbs, herbal teas & spices
Indonesia 19 Coffee
North Korea 0
Laos 1 Coffee
Malaysia 0 Coconut, Rubber, Palm
Mongolia 0 Gold, Cashmere/textile
Philippines 3 Cane sugar, Oilseeds & Oleaginous fruit

16. FAIRTRADE GEOGRAPHICAL SCOPE FOR ASIA PACIFIC
Pacific
16
Cook Islands, Solomon Islands, Marshall Islands, Walis & Fatuna Islands, Palau, Micronesia, Kiribati, Nauru, Niue, Tokelau, Tuvalu,
Vanuatu – not covered by Fairtrade and NAPP
Countries No. of FLO
IDs
Products/Potential Products
Fiji 3 Cane sugar
Papua New
Guinea
3 Coffee
Samoa 1 Oilseeds & Oleaginous fruit
Tonga 1 Herbs, herbal teas & spices, Oilseeds & Oleaginous fruit

17. 1,100 1,600 1,000 0 0 0 1,100 1,600 1,000
59,500 62,400 62,500
100 0 0
59,600 62,400 62,500
76,700 74,400 80,600
99,400 103,400 104,000
176,100 177,800 184,600
19,200 19,100
19,700
0 0 0
19,200 19,100
19,700
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
2012 2013 2014 2012 2013 2014 2012 2013 2014
Central and Western Asia South-East & East Asia South Asia Pacific
NUMBERS OF FARMERS AND WORKERS
Farmers and Workers
17
Farmers in Small Producer Organizations Workers in Hired Labour Plantations Total Farmers& Workers
Source: MEL Data 2014
Note: No. of farmers and workers in SPOs includes CP
Farmers
61%
Workers
39%

18. NUMBERS OF FARMERS AND WORKERS
3-year Trend Analysis reveals a flat curve
18Source: MEL Data 2014
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
160000
180000
2012 2013 2014
SPO Farmers
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
2012 2013 2014
HL Workers
1100 1600 1000
59600 62400 62500
176100 177800 184600
19200 19100 19700
256000 260900 267800
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
2012 2013 2014
Total Farmers & Workers
Central and Western Asia South-East & East Asia
South Asia Pacific
ASIA PACIFIC TOTAL
Take-away:
• 2012 as base year, growth (CAGR) :
• SPO Farmers: 2% (most of this growth is concentrated in South Asia
followed by Pacific)
• HL Workers: 2% (most of this growth is concentrated in South Asia)
• Average: 2% (most of the growth is concentrated in South Asia)
• Which regions should be focussed: Growing vs not
growing?
• While number of HL estates when take into account multi-
estates are almost equivalent to SPOs, farmers form 61% of
total farmers & workers; whereas workers form only 39%
of total farmers & workers

19. NUMBERS OF FARMERS AND WORKERS
In relation to POs across regions
19
Source: MEL Data 2014Source: ECERT
Kyrgyzstan
1%
Fiji
1%
Papua New Guinea
1%
Philippines
1%
Tajikist…
Uzbekistan
1%Pakistan
4%
China
7%
Vietnam
8%
Indonesia
9%
Thailand
10%
Sri Lanka
11%
India
40%
Producer Organizations by Country
China
1%
Lao
1%
Papua New Guinea
1%
Thailand
2%
Pakistan
5%
Fiji
6%
Timor Leste
8%
Sri Lanka
9%
Indonesia
11%
India
55%
Farmers & Workers by Country

20. GENDER BALANCE
Asia Pacific I
20
72%
28%
Farmers & Workers by Gender
Men Women
90%
10%
Farmers in Fairtrade by Gender
Men Women
45%
55%
Workers in Fairtrade by Gender
Men Women
Overall 28% of farmers & workers are women
• 55% of the workers are women (HL setups)
• 10% of the farmers are women (SPO, CP setups)
• But what women voice & representation?
• How can we strengthen that? What should be our
impact parameters?
Take-away:
• Are only 10% of women engaged in farming?
• What are the further areas to explore in regards to women
participation in farming and women as workers?
• The fact that there is a high percentage of women workers in
plantations, does that mean there is no need for gender
programme there?
Source: MEL Data 2014

21. 21
GENDER BALANCE
Global comparison in Fairtrade
Take-away:
• While Fairtrade Asia Pacific
has the highest percentage of
women workers in the world, it
also has the lowest
percentage of women farmers
• What lessons can be learnt
from Africa & Latin America?
• What can be the impact of
“programmes” and what
should be the proposed
outcomes on voice and
representation of farmers /
workers, given that the C-
Suite in Corporate America,
Fortune 100 Companies has
<20% women*!
*Source: McKinsey Research
Source: MEL Data 2014

22. 3,471 15,676
147,588
28,470 56 598 1,856 171 12,223 3,944 737 39 24,440 5,277 21,558 401 1,088
267,593
10%
15%
33%
12%
0%
36%
52%
28%
7%
46%
18%
49%
24%
8%
42%
12%
28%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
Number of Individual Farmers & Workers Percentage of Women
GENDER BALANCE
Asia Pacific II
22
Note: Farmers & Workers data for Tonga & Tajikistan is unavailable.
Women farmers & workers data for Laos is unavailable.
Source: MEL Data 2014
Take-away:
For programme impact and delivery,
percentage of women participation
cannot be looked at in isolation.
Consider the number of producer
organizations it represents. Look at
the disaggregated figures for farmers
& workers
Nepal: 52% women HL workers but only 1 PO. Sri Lanka: 49% women, only
24% farmers and 54% workers. Philippines: 46% women farmers.
Uzbekistan: 42% women farmers (3 producer organizations) Kyrgyzstan:
35% women farmers (2 producer organizations). India: 33% women, only 7%
are farmers, 56% are workers. Pakistan: 28% women; only 15% farmers,
45% are workers

23. GENDER BALANCE
Comparative Analysis
23
Take-away:
• Where should our gender programmes be
focussed? Should we focus work on increasing
women membership in SPOs?
• How should we differentiate & make relevant
the gender programmes in HL setups and that
in SPOs?
• Which regions / countries should we prioritize?
Gender beyond numbers – understanding
gravity of local situation, culture and likelihood
of impact given marginal investments. Cause
of concern with Indonesia, Vietnam, Timor
Leste as they represent high percentage of
farmers and workers, POs and premium
receipts.
Potential Intervention for Impact for creating Gender Balance
Country Number of Women Total Percentage Ranking*
Iran 0 56 0% 16
Papua New Guinea 287 3944 7% 15
India (farmers) 4674 69527 7% 14
Timor Leste 1725 21588 8% 13
China 338 3471 10% 12
Vietnam 127 1088 12% 11
Indonesia 3434 28470 12% 11
Pakistan (farmers) 2445 5389 15% 10
Fiji 2421 15675 15% 10
* 16 countries; data not available for 4

24. 24
FAIRTRADE PREMIUM
Asia Pacific Overview
Take-away:
• The reported Fairtrade Premium revenues to producers in Asia Pacific grew marginally by only 2.7% from 2013 levels i.e. from
10.5 million to 10.8 million Euros . The growth was marginal within all producer set ups in Asia Pacific. In contrast, the average
global premium receipts have grown by 13% from 2013 levels i.e. from 95 million Euros (approx.). Obviously, not equally accruing
to 1.5 million farmers and workers to 108 million Euros (approx.) accruing to 1.6 million farmers and workers.
Source: MEL Data 2014
• FT premium per producer organization in Asia Pacific: 57,830 Euros p.a.
• FT Premium per farmer/worker is 40.41 Euros p.a. FT premium per worker is 15 Euros and FT premium per
farmer is 56 Euros!! With marginal increase in FT premium for Asia Pacific, is there merit in expansion of producer
organizations?

25. 25
FAIRTRADE PREMIUM
Comparision with NAPP
Take-away:
• Africa and the Middle East represents the highest % of the FT farmers and workers but receives only 22% of the FT premium
• Latin America & the Caribbean represents only 20% of the farmers and workers and receives the highest % of the FT premium
• What are the reasons for higher sales from Latin America? What are the influencing factors?
• Is it because of quality? Is it because of demand of specific FT products? Is it how FT is branded in the markets?
• What can our producers learn from their experience? What are the best practices?
• Is there scope for any South-South engagements that can prove beneficial for our producers in the long run?
LATIN AMERICA & THE CARRIBBEANAFRICA & THE MIDDLE EAST
Source: MEL Data 2014

26. 26
GLOBAL COMPARISON
Fairtrade premium
• Asia Pacific farmers have the highest FT Premium per farmer
as compared to its counterparts in Africa and Latin America
• However, Asia Pacific workers have the lowest FT Premium per
worker compared to its counterparts. The Pacific, Indonesian,
Chinese and Vietnam have higher FT premium per farmer/worker
than rest of Asia Pacific
FT PREMIUM
PER YEAR
FT Premium Per
Farmer/Worker
FT Premium
Per Farmer
FT Premium
Per Worker
Asia Pacific 40.41 56 15
Africa and the
Middle East
22 17 80
Latin America &
The Caribbean
219 17 555
Source: MEL Data 2014
The global average does not capture the extreme differences in impact and FT Premium per
farmer and FT Premium per workers?
How will the 2016-2020 Strategy create greater Fairtrade Impact and reduce disparity?

27. FAIRTRADE PREMIUM DISTRIBUTION
By product for Asia pacific
Take-away:
• Coffee still forms the highest share of the Fairtrade
premium revenues {marginally reduced from 45% in 2012-
2013 to 41% in 2013-2014}
• Share of cane sugar & tea remained stable at 23% and
21% respectively. How will this change in 2017 esp. for
Fijian producers?
• Fairtrade cotton marginal increase in premium revenues
from 5% to 8%. What is the impact that FSP will make?
• The choice of three products – Coffee, Cocoa and Banalan
and not a strategy for Tier 2 (which is Tier 1 for Asia) - how
does one create alignment?
• How do these statistics relate to Fairtrade 2016-2020
strategy?
• What does this mean for budgets? Investments?
• What does this mean for Impact Evaluations?
• Which are the products where we can foresee growth and
demand?
27
Source: MEL Data 2014

28. FAIRTRADE PREMIUM DISTRIBUTION
By product
28
Source: MEL Data 2014
Take-away:
• Coffee, Banana, Cocoa receive the highest premium share
globally.
• How does this relate to FT 2016-2020 strategy?
• What does this mean for Asia Pacific in respect to pushing
these Tier 1 products?
• What does this mean for Asia Pacific in respect to role of
markets for tier II products which are core for NAPP like
tea, sugar, cotton?

29. FAIRTRADE PREMIUM DISTRIBUTION
Premium usage BY SPOs
29
Source: MEL Data 2014
Take-away:
• More than 50% of the investments in Producer
Organizations is in HR & admin Is this a
cause of concern? How can FT influence this
in any way?
• Education and Health form bulk of Premium
use, followed by being used for community
infrastructure.
• Agricultural tools and inputs, implementation of
farm best practices form more than 50% of the
services rendered to farmer members from FT
premium.
• Are there any areas that need a push?
Investment
in producer
organization
s
48%
Other
2%
Services to
communitie
s
21%
Services
to farmer
memb…
Facilities &
infrastructure
44%
HR & admin
53%
Training & capacity of board
committees
3%
Investment in Producer Organizations
Community
infrastructure
10%
Education
33%
Environment
3%
Gender equality
0%
Health
25%
Other
24%
Socio-
Economic
5%
Service to Communities
Credit & finance
4%
Education
1%
Farmer training in agri &
business practices
8%
Health
3%
Implementation of
farm best
practices
21%
Other
Payments to
members
17%
Agricultural
tools & inputs
30%
Support for
hired workers
on farms
1%
Service to Farmer Members

30. 30
Source: MEL Data 2014
Other
2%
Services for
workers & their
families
38%
Services to
communities
57%
Training &
empowerment
of workers
3%
Education
12% Finance &
credit
1%
Health
10%
Investment in
worker
housing
20%
Other
54%
Payments
3%
Services for Workers & their Families
Community
infrastructure
48%
Education
10%
Environment
0%
Gender
equality
0%
Health
31%
Socio-
economic
services
11%
Services to Communities
Joint Body &
committee
running costs
89%
Support for
workers
organizations
9%
Trainings for
workers
2%
Training & Empowerment of Workers
Take-away:
• Majority of the premium has been used for
services to communities followed by services for
workers & their families
• Community infrastructure receives highest
percentage investment in terms of services to
communities
• In terms of services for workers & their families it
is not clear what ‘Other’ stands for as more than
50% of the premium used for that, followed by
investments in worker housing and education
• Training and empowerment of workers seems
synonymous with training of Joint Body
Committee running costs
• What are the issues in this mode of premium use?
FAIRTRADE PREMIUM DISTRIBUTION
Premium usage By HL setups

31. FAIRTRADE PREMIUM DISTRIBUTION
Products premium distribution among countries
31
Producer Organizations as per premium receipts:
FLO ID Producer organization name Country
3499 Tunas Indah Coffee Farmers Cooperative Indonesia
5416 Koperasi Baitul Qiradh Baburrayyan (KBQB) Indonesia
6589 Permata Gayo Cooperative Indonesia
930 Cooperativa Café Timor - CCT Timor-Leste
2897
Highland Organic Agriculture Cooperative -
HOAC Papua New Guinea
19646
Aso. des Groupements de Prod de Café du
Plateau des Bolovens Laos
27501
KOPERASI PEDAGANG KOPI (KOPEPI)
KETIARA Indonesia
18296 KSU Arinagata Indonesia
18722 KSU Adil Wiladah Mabrur Indonesia
21093 Cudliemnong Fair Agriculture Cooperative Vietnam
18009 Koperasi Kopi Gayo Organic Indonesia
21094 Eakiet Fair Agriculture Service Cooperative Vietnam
21473
To Hop Tac San Xuat Ca Phe Sach Vi Suc
Khoe Cong Dong Vietnam
28651 Thuan An Fairtrade Agricultural Co-operative Vietnam
Note: Only producer organizations earning above 100 Thousand Euros
Source: MEL Data 2014
2,755,581, 69%
568,962, 14%
337,342, 9%
211,149, 5%
78,864, 2% 39,531, 1%
Coffee Premium Distribution
Indonesia Timor Leste Papua New Guinea Lao India Thailand

32. FAIRTRADE PREMIUM DISTRIBUTION
Products premium distribution among countries
32
FLO ID Producer organization name Country
25351Labasa Cane Producers Association Fiji
28108Lautoka Cane Producers Association Fiji
28109Rarawai & Penang Cane Producers Association Fiji
23805Kadrolli Primary Agriculture Credit Co-operative Bank Ltd. India
23894
Devarshigihalli Primary Agriculture Credit Co-operative
Sangha Niyamit India
29041
Dama Farm Workers Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries
Association Philippines
1482Negros Organic and Fairtrade Association Philippines
29161Nakalang Padilla Workers Association Philippines
29155
ASOSASYON SANG MAMUMUGON SANG NOLAN (
AMANO) Philippines
27787
Primary Agriculture Credit Co-operative Sangha Niyamit,
Neginahal India
27788
Arvatagi Primary Agriculture Credit Co-operative Sangha
Niyamit India
27789Primary Agriculture Credit Co-operative Society Niyamit India
26921Pranburi Fairtrade Sugar Cane Group Thailand
27790
Primary Agriculture Credit Co-operative Sangha Niyamit,
New Kadrolli India
27791
Primary Agriculture Credit Co-operative Sangha Niyamit,
Itagi India
Producer Organizations as per premium receipts:
Note: Only producer organizations earning above 100 Thousand Euros
Source: MEL Data 2014
2,192,551, 89%
190,338, 8%
65,890, 3% 2,560, 0%
Cane Sugar Premium Distribution
Fiji India Philippines Thailand

33. FAIRTRADE PREMIUM DISTRIBUTION
Products premium distribution among countries
33
FLO ID Producer organization name Country
1562 The Bombay Burmah Trading Corp. Ltd. India
18013 McLeod Russel India Limited India
558 Small Organic Farmers' Association SOFA Sri Lanka
560 Jiangxi Wuyuan Dazhangshan Organic Tea Farmer Association China
4440 Xuan En Yisheng Tea Cooperative China
508 The United Nilgiri Tea Estates Co. Ltd. India
22701 Coonoor Tea Estates Co. Ltd. India
1567 Chamong Tee Exports Pvt. Ltd. (Chamong Tea Group) India
25759 Marginalized Organic Producers' Associations Sri Lanka
18519 Thiashola Plantations Private Limited (Thiashola Estate) India
DATA
UNAVAIL
ABLE
29907
West Jalinga Tea Estate (K. Manibhai & Co.) India
Producer Organizations as per premium receipts:
Note: Only producer organizations earning above 100 Thousand Euros
Source: MEL Data 2014
1,402,919, 62%
425,143, 19%
391,847, 18%
30,658, 1%
Tea Premium Distribution
India China Sri Lanka Vietnam Indonesia Nepal

34. FAIRTRADE PREMIUM DISTRIBUTION
Products premium distribution among countries
34
FLO ID Producer organization name Country
25683 Noble Ecotech India
18612
Suminter Organic Farmers Association (earlier:Gujarat
Sustainable & Organic Farmers Association) India
19221
Pratima Agro & Paper PVT.LTD. Pratima Organic Grower
Group. India
26204 OM ORGANIC COTTON PVT. LTD. India
18470
Jaydurga Ginning mills pvt ltd and Jai Maa Dwarsini
Krushak Shang, Kantabanji India
4531 Pratibha-Vasudha Jaivik Krishi Kalyan Samiti India
20294
Bio Farmer Agricultural Commodity and Service
Cooperative
Kyrgyzst
an
4018
Chetna Organic Agriculture Producer Company Limited
(COAPCL) India
4073 Agrocel Pure and Fair Cotton Growers Association-Rapar India
18491 Sunstar Overseas and Group of Small Cotton Farmers India
4784 Agrocel Pure and Fair Cotton Growers Association-Orissa India
(DATA
UNAVAILABL
E)18862 Agrocel Pure & Fair Cotton Growers Assn. - Sankeshwar India
Producer Organizations as per premium receipts:
Note: Only producer organizations earning above 100 Thousand Euros
Source: MEL Data 2014
811,389, 96%
36,446, 4%
Seed Cotton Premium Distribution
India Kyrgyztan

35. PRODUCER PARTICIPATION
Trade-fairs and market related efforts: Activities
• NAPP supported producer participation in 7 events out of 8 mentioned above
• At BioFach India & BioFach Germany, NAPP had a producer stall
• 56 out of 210 FLO IDs i.e. 27% were supported during the year
• They represented only 43 unique producer organizations
• Wherein 56 (51 unique) representatives participated only 9 of whom were
women i.e. 16%
• 6 out of 10 products i.e. 60% & 8 out of 20 countries represented i.e. 40%
35
PRODUCT ACTIVITY
PRODUCER
FEEDBACK
NO OF FLO
IDs
NO OF
MEMBERS
NO. OF
WOMEN HL CP SPO COUNTRY
FRUIT
Fruit Logistica Neutral 6 6 0 6 India, Sri Lanka
BioFach America Neutral 1 1 1 1 Vietnam
SPICES BioFach America Neutral 2 2 0 2 India
COTTON
Textile Exchange Positive 7 7 0 5 2 India, Kyrgyzstan
BioFach America Neutral 2 2 0 2 India
COFFEE
BioFach America Neutral 2 2 0 2 Laos, Vietnam
SCAA Positive 13 13 4 13
India, Indonesia,
Vietnam
RICE
BioFach America Neutral 3 3 0 3 India
BioFach Germany Positive 6 6 1 5 1 India Thailand
TEA
Team Up Positive 8 8 1 7 1
India, Sri Lanka,
China
BioFach Shanghai Positive 2 2 1 2 China
BioFach America Neutral 4 4 1 4 China, Vietnam
TEA, RICE, COFFEE,
SPICES, COTTON, FRUITS* BioFach India Negative
20 producer organizations with almost 60 participants funded themselves
and set up stalls at this forum. India
TOTAL 56 56 9 7 15 34
Note: Includes only NAPP anchored events i.e. excluding PSR/Pacific/Producer funded events
Take-away:
• Why were product focussed events conducted?
• Why have we decided not to fund this anymore?
• Are there some useful events where we can support producers in
any way?
• Is their merit in setting up NAPP stalls in any of these or other
external forums?
• What is the value add?

36. PRODUCER PARTICIPATION
Trade-fairs and market related efforts: RoI Framework
36
Curbside debrief (2015)
Date Event Name Location Products
NAPP Participation
2015 Producer feedback
Plan 2016
Date
2016
Location
Location
Advantage
Product-
Regions
priority
Target
market
Expected
Footfalls
NAPP
Producer
Countries
Budget
(K EUR)
# of
producer
participan
ts
Equitable
Index
Follow-up
Action/
Improvement
NAPP mgmt /
Executives
Participation
Post- Event review(by CMO)
Business value generated in Euro # of Business enquiries MC(High/Medium/Low) ROI%Producer feedback VFM Future participation Y/N

37. PRODUCER PARTICIPATION
In product oriented trainings
PRODUCT ACTIVITY
NO OF FLO
IDs
NO OF
MEMBERS
NO. OF
WOMEN
HL CP SPO COUNTRY
TEA
Tea Garden Exchange 9 10 3 9 1 India, Sri Lanka
GPM Meeting North India 5 5 0 5 India
GPM Meeting South India 7 7 0 7 India
Tea Network Meeting 16 17 6 14 3
Sri Lanka, India,
China
FT Standards 6 20 0 6 India
RICE
Productivity-Rice Workshop,
Pantnagar 7 12 0 7 India
COTTON
Textile Standards Workshop 9 18 0 8 1 India
Cotton Network Meeting-Governance 8 9 0 7 1 India
SUGAR
Standards Consultation 8 22 1 8 India
Producer Exchange Visit 6 6 0 6 India, Fiji
Productivity-Training, Dharwad 7 140 12 7 India
Sugar Consultation FI 8 40 1 8 India
TOTAL 96 306 23 41 22 35
37
• 12 workshops/meetings
• 96 out of 210 POs i.e. 46%
• Represented 65 unique producer organizations i.e. 31%
• Wherein 306 representatives participated.
• Only 23 of which were women i.e. 8%
• 4 / 10 products i.e. 40%
Note: Includes only NAPP anchored trainings i.e. excluding PSR/Pacific/Producer funded programmes
Take-away:
• With budgetary limitations, which types of trainings
are more relevant?
• Should productivity enhancement and quality
focussed trainings as a series be the approach
forward?

38. MARKET OUTREACH THROUGH PRODUCT NETWORKS
Resources Utilization
38
32%
29%
18%
7%
7%
4% 3%
Product Networks
Rice Tea Coffee All Products Cotton Fruit Sugar
Take-away:
Programme expenditure has been distributed in the following
manner:
o Rice – 32% (14% spent on a productivity workshop, rest for
marketing events)
o Tea – 29% (all on marketing events)
o Coffee – 18% (all on marketing events)
o Cotton – 7% (69% of which spent on cotton network meeting
(representation), rest on attending marketing events)
o Fruit – 4% (all on marketing events)
o Sugar – 3% (all of which was spent in workshops focused on
productivity, producer exchange and consultation)
Given constraints, how does not choose pririties between KPIs?
What type of programmes can be concerned as the most
effective use of limited resources?

39. REPRESENTATION THROUGH NATIONAL NETWORKS
Resources Utilization
39
Take-away:
• 69% of resources spent on national networks is for
governance and representation related meetings
• 31% invested in any thematic areas training
14% SPO Development
8% product specific
4% climate change
3% Social Compliance (Workers Rights, Child
Labour)
2% Agricultural practices
69%
14%
8%
4%
3%
2%
National Networks
National NW Governance Thematic Area- SPO Development
Thematic Area-Climate Change Tea
Thematic Area-Agricultural Practices Thematic Area-Social Compliance

40. WHAT MARKETS WANT
Information Needs of “top”NFOs
40
Importance of Primary Product for the Markets Type of Information Required
Source: NFO Information Needs Survey 2015

41. 41
Product Producer Organization Country
Cotton Pratibha India
Cotton Chetna India
Cotton Farmer Agricultural Commodity and Service Cooperative Kyrgyztan
Cereals Sunstar India
Cereals Riceland Foods Thailand
Cereals Green Net Coop Thailand
Cereals OJRPG Thailand
Tea SOFA Sri Lanka
Tea Bogawantalawa Sri Lanka
Tea FTAK India
Coffee PPKGO-Persatuan Petani Kopi Gayo Organic Indonesia
Coffee Permata Gayo Cooperative Indonesia
Coffee Cudliemnong Vietnam
Coffee Highland Organic Agriculture Cooperative (HOAC) Papua New Guinea
WHAT FAIRTRADE MARKETS WANT
Information Needs of “top”NFOs
Source: NFO Information Needs Survey 2015
Take-away:
• Information need around premium usage has
received highest rating.
• Other information requirement includes benefits
of FT, challenges faced by PO, socio economic
profile, insightful stories, history of producers etc.
• How are our plans addressing this need?
• Are producer profiles enough?

42. NAPP KPIs
Performance
42
Objectives Role Definition
Indicator
…Outcomes
System
wide KPI
# PN KPI 2014 Result 2015 Result
1. Deliver relevant valued
services to FT farmers
and workers
We deliver relevant,
participatory,
empowering and
evidence based,
support programs to
PO´s. We provide this
through both in-house
expertise in programme
development, alliances
and partnerships. Our
focus is on cost
effective market driven
service delivery.
Stronger and resilience
Producer and workers
organizations
empowered.
members
satisfaction
index
1 members satisfaction index;
75% (rating
3,4,5);
63% (rating
93% (rating
36% (rating 4,5)
2
# of PO´s that received training from
the PN (disagregated in % of women
and youth participation in training,
where possible/in future);
155 247
Participants 4902
Women participants 626
% of women participants 13%
3
average # of contacts per PO (field
visits, phone calls, email)
4
Workers and producers
know the roles,
responsibilities and
rights.
4 # of PO´s per staff member in PN 61 9
Take-away:
• Are there some KPIs that need to be modified?
• What would you want to measure to deepen impact in Asia Pacific?
• How can we streamline KPI data collection?
• How does your work contribute to the KPIs?

43. NAPP KPIs
Performance
43
Objectives Role Definition
…Outcomes
System
wide KPI
# PN KPI 2014 Result 2015 Result
2. Building, securing and
sustaining access to
market for members
PN´s supports their
members in securing
and sustaining market
access through
Technical Assistance
and networking.
Fairtrade market
access ensures that
PO´s earn Fairtrade
Minimum Prices and
Premiums that they
democratically invest in
their communities.
Stronger, resilient, and
more competitive
organizations.
Premium
received per
producer/work
er; <5%/5-50/>
50% of the
volume is sold
as FT
5 # GAP trainings; 5 20
Increased incomes
(individual or shared) of
producers and workers.
6
# of PO´s that received TA in market
access, productivity or product quality
105 23

44. NAPP KPIs
Performance
44
Objectives Role Definition
…Outcomes
System
wide KPI
# PN KPI 2014 Result 2015 Result
3. Advocacy. Means:
Influencing better
governance policies.
We are diligent in
increasing awareness
and visibility of
Fairtrade to members
and stakeholders in the
respective regions. Our
primary targets for
strong visibility are:
The Fair Trade
Principles, Values and
Practices and our
respective
Organizations (PNs).
Changes (public policies,
environmental, economic
and social) that benefit
producers and workers
in the different regions
and countries.
7
Nr of local, regional and international
events where the PN has participated
in;
8
9 international,
8 local,
2 regional
8
# of advocacy initiatives agreed and
delivered at local, national and regional
level. 0 3
9
An advocacy policy is in place (Y/N)
N
Yes, paper is
available. Not
approved. Work
in progress.
10
Nr of trainings on FT values and
principles and nr of producers/workers
reached
7 trainings
126 trainings
2042 farmers
workers

45. NAPP KPIs
Performance
45
Objectives Role Definition
…Outcomes
System
wide KPI
# PN KPI 2014 Result 2015 Result
4. Building a strong,
settled, Producer
Network as part of a
global system.
Our members and
partners expect our
continuity and
sustainability. We
therefore take
initiatives in ensuring
the constant and
adequate flow of
financial resources. We
ensure full
accountability of all
financial resources. We
demonstrate social
impact and aim for
programmatic
sustainability through
in-house expertise,
strategic partnerships
and addressing
crosscutting thematic
areas.
PNs are Strengthened,
sustainable,
accountable, able to
deliver services &
programs, and able to
influence to the FT
system.
Nr of
agreements
per year and
nr of renewed
agreements;
% of non-FT
funding; zero
based financial
result; Average
Cash balance
11
Nr of exisiting agreements with patners
and or donors in place (how many of
them have been renewed)
1
12
% of non-FT funding (the proportion of
funds not generated via license fee)
0
13
Financial result (profit/ loss) by the end
of the financial year
-85000 Euros
14 Audited accounts in place (y/n) Y
15
Average Cash balance (level of cash
reserve in weeks of expenditure)
0

46. NAPP KPIs
Performance
46
Objectives Role Definition
…Outcomes
System
wide KPI
# PN KPI 2014 Result 2015 Result
4. Building a strong,
settled, Producer
Network as part of a
global system.
Good corporate
governance is a priority
to us. we believe that
in order to achieve the
goals and objective, we
must have solid and
relevant organizational
structures. Leadership
strategies that are
relevant, innovative
and offer effective
governance. Policies,
systems and
procedures that are
driven by members´
needs, are developed
to meet the growing
requirements of the
organization, as well as
ensuring conformity to
the national statutory
requirements in the
regions and countries
where we are based.
PNs are Strengthened,
sustainable,
accountable, able to
deliver services &
programs, and able to
influence to the FT
system.
Number of
FTE
16
Number of FTE (full time equivalents) /
# of consultants
3 8
Staff
satisfaction
index based
on 5 global
questions
17
Staff satisfaction index based on 5
global questions,
Individually
submitted by
staff on survey
monkey

47. 47
155
247
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2014 2015
#POs received Training and
Support
5
20
0
5
10
15
20
25
2014 2015
# GAP trainings
8
19
0
5
10
15
20
2014 2015
#POs facilitated in participating in
local, regional and international
events
105
23
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
2014 2015
# POs received Technical
Assistance in market
access, productivity or
product quality
7
126
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
2014 2015
# trainings on Fairtrade values
and principles
68
99
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
NAPP CLAC
Benchmarking Employment
Satisfaction Index
NAPP KPIs
Performance (Charts)

48. MEMBER SATISFACTION INDEX
NAPP and other PNs
48
75%
93%
80%
85%
82%
88%
80%
87%
63%
36%
71%
55%
72%
61%
70%
54%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
NAPP 2014
NAPP 2015
FTA 2014
FTA 2015
CLAC 2014
CLAC 2015
GLOBAL 2014
GLOBAL 2015
Member satisfaction index (Rating 4,5) Member satisfaction index (Rating: 3,4,5)

49. End of Presentation
The information in this presentation is not directed to any person in any jurisdiction where (by reason of that person's nationality, residence or otherwise) the publication or availability of
the information is prohibited. Persons in respect of whom such prohibitions apply must not access this document.
The contents of this document have been prepared to provide you with general information only. Information provided on and available from this document does not constitute any
investment recommendation. In preparing the information, we have not taken into account your objectives, financial situation or needs. Before making an investment decision, you need
to consider whether this information is appropriate to your objectives, financial situation and needs.
The information contained herein has been obtained from sources that we believe to be reliable, but its accuracy and completeness are not guaranteed. Examples shown in this
document are illustrative and have been included for demonstrational purposes only. We will try to update this document as soon as practicable and as necessary.
Nothing in the document should be construed as an offer or invitation to anyone in any jurisdiction to invest in any product or use any service where such offer or invitation is not lawful,
or in which the person making such offer or invitation is not qualified to do so, nor has it been prepared in connection with any such offer or invitation.
The information on this document is published by Network of Asia and Pacific Producers (NAPP). For further information about the contents of this site, please contact us. We reserve the
right at any time and without notice to change, amend, or cease publication of the information.
Copyright © Network of Asia and Pacific Producers. All rights reserved. This material is proprietary and may not be reproduced, transferred, or distributed in any form without prior
written permission from NAPP. It is delivered on an "as is" basis without warranty.