cocoaverification.net

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What is the ICVB?

The International Cocoa Verification Board (ICVB) is a non-profit, multi-stakeholder organization that was convened by Verité in December, 2007, to ensure that certification efforts to evaluate the occurrence of child or forced adult labor in cocoa producing areas in Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana are independently verified. Verifying the soundness of the data collection methodologies and the accuracy of survey the findings helps to ensure that remediation efforts are more strategically focused on the areas and issues that are in greatest need of remediation. Reliable data informs meaningful, enduring change for cocoa producing communities in Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana. All stakeholders, from governments to civil society actors, will be able to use the results of this verification effort to strengthen their work going forward.

ICVB Vision statement

Verification is an essential step in assessing labor conditions in cocoa-growing communities in West Africa. The ICVB holds the strong conviction that accurate data will help guide strategic planning and programming to effectively address potential areas of concern, including child and forced adult labor. Properly verified data will ensure that future remediation activities are more strategic, cost-effective, targeted and synergistic. Our true stakeholders are the cocoa farmers and children and we measure our success or failure by how well their lives improve, in part, due to our work. Accurate data matters.

What is verification?

Verification is a key process through which previously collected data is independently validated. The verification exercise covers both the methodology and processes used to collect, enter and analyze data, and the results generated through initial surveys conducted by the Governments of Ghana and Cote D’Ivoire. The latter will be undertaken through a representative sample study on the ground of child and forced adult labor in both countries. Through representative sampling, studies of the survey methodology, and extensive data analysis, the independent verifiers will determine the accuracy of the reported data and will make recommendations to strengthen the process going forward. The verifiers are currently in the process of verifying both the pilot and scaled up surveys thatcover the region that produces approximately 50% of the cocoa in both producer countries.

Will the raw data be made public?

The ICVB has no control over access to the raw data. The data collected by the governments of Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana is the sole property of each sovereign nation. The raw data was transferred to the verifiers in May, 2008.

The public will have full access to the verifiers’ findings. Verification is by its very nature the mechanism that was put into place to inform the public about the strengths and weaknesses of the surveys. Raw data alone, without interviewing the enumerators, having a first-hand understanding of the local context or conducting one’s own sub-sample survey (all of which the verifiers will be doing), is insufficient for fully determining the true picture that the raw data presents.

How were the verifiers selected?

The ICVB selected the verifiers through a competitive application process. The ICVB published a Pre-Solicitation Notice and Request for Proposals and applications were reviewed and scored by the Board’s technical committee based on the applicant’s demonstrated grasp of child-centered methodologies, understanding of the cultural conditions in both Côte d'Ivoire and Ghana and capacity to carry out both field research and data analysis, among other qualifications.

Shortlisted candidates were then invited to present at the ICVB meeting on April 3-5, 2008. The ICVB selected two organizations, Fafo Institute for Applied International Studies and Khulisa Management Services, to carry out the verification activities. After a rigorous examination of the candidates’ technical and cultural knowledge, the Board chose Fafo AIS as the project leader and Khulisa as the partner organization to carry out the field research. During this process the ICVB took into consideration the recommendations made by the attendees of both December, 2007, and March 31, 2008 NGO-Industry Consultative Meeting. The selection process is detailed in the Press Release “International Cocoa Verification Board Announces Organizations to Carry Out Independent Verification of Cocoa Sector Certification”.

The ICVB believes that the complementary strengths of these two organizations will provide the most effective combination of excellence in data analysis and understanding of the local context in the producer countries, thereby ensuring a robust verification process.

How does the verification process function?

The verifiers have the technical, local and cultural capacities to conduct a rigorous verification process, which consists of:

• An assessment of the certification studies will be carried out in the two countries. This activity will include an assessment of the research objectives and outcomes, interviews with enumerators, examination of suitability of research techniques, conducting a data quality assessment (DQA) and assessment of the data analysis and output quality (results).
• A representative sample survey will be carried out in the two countries. This will include sampling design, instrument development, pilot testing, training, data collection and analysis and report writing.

Based on these two approaches, a verification report will be developed, with a particular emphasis on ways to improve future certification surveys and the remediation efforts (both in the public and private sectors) that they inform.

What is the relationship between verification and certification?

The ICVB’s primary mandate is to verify the accuracy of the certification surveys conducted by the Governments of Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana initiated under the Harkin-Engel Protocol. In this context, certification is not a product certification (such as organic or fair trade certifications) but rather it is an assessment of the current labor conditions in both countries. Verification has the dual role of monitoring the certification studies as they have been carried out in the past and recommendations for strengthening future certification and remediation efforts.

How will the verifier reports be released?

The selected organizations will conduct an independent verification of the data and methodology utilized in the surveys conducted by the Governments of Ghana and Côte d'Ivoire. After the verification process is concluded, the organizations will present their findings in an uncensored report to the public and make recommendations based on their findings to strengthen future remediation efforts. The verifiers will distribute their report electronically via email to all interested stakeholders. The report will also be simultaneously posted by Verité on the ICVB website (www.cocoaverification.net). Anyone interested in being on the ICVB mailing list should contact Alexa Roscoe at aroscoe@verite.org.

How does the Board make decisions?

The Board makes decisions on the basis of consensus to ensure that all views are adequately represented and that no one individual or constituency group (NGO, government or industry) on the board has the power to override other viewpoints or dominate the process.

How does the ICVB ensure that its processes are transparent?

The ICVB is committed to ensuring that its processes and decision making are fully transparent and credible. The initial term length for each board member was established at 3 years, with the agreement to devise a rotating membership. Each constituency group on the board replaces its own members when terms are up.

The ICVB committee structure, meeting minutes, and financial documents are available to the public and may be accessed at www.cocoaverification.net or by contacting Alexa Roscoe at aroscoe@verite.org.

What about potential conflicts of interest for NGO members who sit on the Board?

All NGO caucus board members have signed statements affirming that neither their professional nor personal affiliations/relationships places them in a position of conflict of interest vis-à-vis the work of the board. No NGO board member relies predominantly on the cocoa sector for his or her income. However, Board members are required to disclose any changes to their future income and resign from the ICVB if need be. The Board’s conflict of interest policy was based on guidelines used by Transparency International. Additional guidelines outlining the conditions under which a board member must resign are being prepared and will soon be available on the ICVB website.

Who serves on the ICVB?

The ICVB is made up of nine individuals from Africa, Europe, and the United States who representing the nongovernmental (NGO), industry, and government sectors. Biographies of the ICVB members are available on the ICVB website. Of the nine seats on the board, the NGO caucus is the largest with five seats. NGO caucus members include representatives of traditional nongovernmental organizations (both international and African) as well as representatives of academia and trade unions. The diversity of sectors, nationalities, and areas of expertise represented on the ICVB reflect the cocoa sector itself and allow the ICVB to make decisions based on the unique areas of expertise and divergent viewpoints of all three sectors.

Isabelle Adam European Cocoa Association
Mme. Acquah Government of Côte d’Ivoire
Stephan Ayidiya University of Ghana-Legon
Tony Fofie Government of Ghana
Alice Koiho-Kipre Afrique Secours et Assistance
Jeff Morgan Mars Incorporated
Diane Mull International Initiative to End Child Labor
Andrews Tagoe General Agricultural Workers Union of TUC
John Trew CARE International

Who do the ICVB members represent?

With the exception of the representatives of Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana, the members of the ICVB represent their wider constituencies, i.e. the NGO and industry community as a whole, rather than their own institutions.

ICVB members welcome feedback from any interested party and can be reached at secretariat@cocoaverification.net. This site will soon have an interactive Third Party Feedback Mechanism that will allow the global stakeholder community to share comments and suggestions with the Board. The Board welcomes input and feels that this is key element in ensuring that the verification process is transparent, effective and inclusive of varying viewpoints.

How were the initial ICVB Members chosen?

The original NGO representatives were selected by Verité following an open nominating process, a series of interviews with dozens of cocoa sector representatives and with the input of those present at the December 2007 NGO-Industry Consultative Meeting. Producer country representatives are appointed by their respective governments and industry representatives were selected by their respective sector. Future NGO representatives on the board will be selected by the current members of the NGO caucus.

Why are industry and government representatives on the board?

The involvement of NGOs, industry and government in a multi-stakeholder initiative such as the ICVB is virtually without precedent. While there was some concern expressed originally that industry and government representatives had inherent conflicts of interest that would preclude them from fairly serving on the board, Verité’s view was that the composition of the board, and the transparency with which it operates, provided sufficient checks and balances to preclude industry or governments from unduly influencing the work of the verifiers.

It was also Verité’s view that the magnitude of this certification effort (scaling up to 100% in the future), and the economic importance of cocoa to both countries, required the full engagement of all stakeholders, and especially industry and governments, in the process. Government representation, in particular, on the board conferred sufficient legitimacy to the verification process to ensure that all levels of government (Ministries of Education, Finance, Labor, etc., as well as the Executive Branch) would participate fully in implementing the recommendations of the verifiers.

How is the ICVB funded?

As part of the Harkin-Engel Protocol, industry agreed to fund the verification effort in full for its first year (2008) and alternative sources of funding are being explored. The total industry contribution to the verification effort in 2008 is $2 million. The ICVB welcomes suggestions regarding other funding models.

How can the ICVB be independent if it is funded by industry?

Independence is achieved through the very structure of the ICVB. Industry members have only two of nine seats on the ICVB, which allows the Board to function with full autonomy and free of undue influence by industry. Further, the verifiers receive guidance only from the full ICVB, not individual board members from industry and/or government. Likewise, the verifiers’ scope of work was determined by the full Board. Verifiers’ findings and reports are completely independent and cannot be altered, influenced or in any way censored by the ICVB or any individual board member. All meeting minutes are posted on the www.cocoaverification.net and this level of transparency allows concerned stakeholders to review the minutes and determine for themselves if industry is unduly influencing the process.

What role will the ICVB play after the first round of verification?

The verification process currently undertaken by the ICVB is virtually unprecedented. Future rounds of certification and verification, including a scale-up to 100% of the cocoa producing areas, will allow verification to feed into a process of continuous improvement of the certification and remediation processes. The ICVB also recognizes the possibility of applying the ICVB model of verification to other agricultural products.

What is Verité’s role as secretariat to the ICVB?

As secretariat, Verité, an international not-for-profit social auditing, training, consulting and research organization, is charged with administering and facilitating the activities of the ICVB. Verité was originally selected by industry in June, 2007, to design the road map that would lead to credible, independent and transparent verification. The creation of the ICVB is the central outcome of the road map’s implementation. Verité is not involved in the decision-making process of the ICVB, nor does it have a seat on the board.

Where can I find more information about the ICVB?

For more information on the ICVB, or for documents related to the verification process, please visit the ICVB beta-site, www.cocoaverification.net.

You may also read more on the NGO-Industry Consultative Meetings, "A New Way Forward for Verification" and “Why Verify? Making Cocoa Verification Count.”

How can I offer my input the ICVB?

The ICVB welcomes your input! Pending the finalization of the feedback tool on our site, please contact Alexa Roscoe at aroscoe@verite.org if you have questions or feedback for the ICVB, or if you wish to join the ICVB mailing list.

How strong is the role of industry on the ICVB? Were the verification activities independent?

While the ICVB does include industry, government and civil society representation, industry did not participate in actual verification activities. The independent verification of the original certification surveys was commissioned and overseen by the multi-stakeholder ICVB. The verification was conducted by Fafo and Khulisa, both well-respected experts in their fields and known for their independence. In fact, in the case of Fafo, their accreditation as a research organization is reviewed by the Norwegian government and trade unions and their very ability to continue to work is contingent upon their full independence in all projects. Both Fafo and Khulisa work for numerous governmental agencies in the US and Europe (USAID, World Bank, ILO, etc.) and, as such, they are subjected to rigorous screening of their professional expertise and ethical procedures.

Do ICVB members have a conflict of interest? What is the ICVB’s position on transparency?

As stated in various documents, and during Verité’s presentation to the Child Labor Coalition in February, 2008, ICVB members were screened for conflicts of interest during the formation of the board. The ICVB could only implement conflict of interest policies once the board itself was formed, but the creation and implementation of such policies were one of the first orders of business. These policies were developed during the very first ICVB meeting in Brussels (January 2008). The board members later signed statements asserting their ability to serve on the ICVB and their lack of conflicts of interest. The ICVB documents repeatedly refer to need for transparency and robust conflict of interest policies.

In one sense, each board member – including civil society representatives – has an ‘interest’ in the cocoa sector of Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire. However, the ICVB conflict of interest policy clearly expresses that each board member must have no “conflict of interest” that would prevent them from carrying out the work of the board. The ICVB adopted standard conflict of interest definitions that are currently considered “best practice” by organizations like Transparency International.

Verité, as the Secretariat, had no interest in the sector.

The ICVB has adopted a policy of transparency, publishing all minutes and agreements on www.cocoaverification.net.

Did the verifiers (Fafo and Khulisa) have conflicts of interest? Were they screened for such conflicts?

The importance of such conflict of interest policies is even more significant for the verifiers themselves (as it is their work, and not that of the ICVB) that is central to the credibility of the certification surveys. The verifiers were screened for conflicts of interest and standard disclosure requirements were an integral part of the contracting process. Neither Khulisa nor Fafo had substantial interests in the sector that would have precluded them from conducting the verification.

Whose responsibility is it to implement the recommendations of the verifiers? Will the ICVB implement the verifiers’ recommendations?

As sovereign nations, the governments of Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire are ultimately responsible for reviewing and implementing the verifiers’ recommendations (and they have already implemented several of them). The ICVB is not an implementing partner, and therefore makes no claims to implement the verifiers’ recommendations. The ICVB has, however, overseen the implementation of several key recommendations (proper weighting, etc.) and will continue to make recommendations in 2010 regarding strategies to ensure that this verified data continues to improve conditions on the ground.

Has the verification process led to commitments to remove children from Worst Forms of Child Labor?

Both Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire are implementing remediation plans based on the results of their surveys. Ghana, for example, is in the process of implementing Community Child Labor Monitoring Systems, which targets the sensitization of over 22,000 students and families, will offer school support for 13,000 children, pilot literacy improvement clubs, and the formation of 110 Child Protection Communities, with 410 to be established in 2010. Further, since the completion of certification activities in Ghana, remediation activities are now targeted to scale up to cover 36 additional districts, 415 communities. Additional NGOs are being recruited to implement interventions.

In Côte d’Ivoire, 30 villages have been selected as ‘Self-Help Villages” to promote community mobilization, awareness raising activities, creation of health and community education centers, and promotion of complementary income generating activities. Implementation of activities in these villages is underway. Since the completion of the certification activities 3,668 children have been removed from farms and 669 officers have been trained to fight human trafficking, leading to the interception of 321 children.

Has the ICVB endorsed any recommendations for remediation of child labor in the cocoa sector?

In April 2009 Resolutions available at www.cocoaverification.net, the ICVB noted “the need for all stakeholders to ensure that their activities addressing WFCL and FAL in the cocoa sector are in line with, and contribute effectively to, the National Plans of Action and other relevant legislation of both governments,” as well as for further research into forced adult labor and trafficking. The board plans to publish more specific recommendations in spring 2010.

It has been said that the ICVB is making policy recommendations aligned with “those [the interests] of the major chocolate companies.” Is this accurate?

This makes the false assumption that there is a zero sum situation pitting the interests of the chocolate companies against the interests of other stakeholders, when in fact, all stakeholders – including industry – have publically committed to eliminating the worst forms of child labor in cocoa. Industry, as the sole funder of the verification effort, and numerous remediation programs has clearly demonstrated that it shares the same goals as the governments and civil society stakeholders: the improvement of the lives of cocoa farmers and their children.

How has the data collected in the verification activities been used to end worst forms of child labor?

Accurate, independently verified, data has informed and improved remediation decisions, empowering partners on the ground to better design and implement programs. This concept of fact based decision making was the vision of the ICVB, and based on the emergence of the CCLMS in Ghana and the Self-Help villages in Côte d’Ivoire, it was an important step along the way to improving conditions. That being said, there is no nation that can claim to have “ended” WFCL.

A great deal of work remains to be done in both Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire to ensure that children are educated, safe, and healthy and that their rights are respected. However, unlike almost all other nations, these governments have fully investigated the nature of conditions in the industrial sector that is one of their largest sources of revenue. Those same results were then independently verified. Finally, and most remarkably, all survey and verification results are publicly available on the web. This level of transparency and the high levels of cooperation amongst stakeholders that it took to reach this critical milestone are virtually without precedent.