The Manufacturing Group of the Madison Dialogue has determined principals and now begins the process of setting standards.
Catalina writes, 
“We do not think the Madison Dialogue list should be developing standards. It should continue to do what it was set up to do, that is to serve as a forum for discussion, including feedback on standards that are currently being developed by standard setting organizations such as ARM for small scale mining and IRMA for large scale mining.”
She points out the necessity that this next process take place within a larger international community where all stakeholders are represented.
This post was on the Madison Dialogue list serve. Special thanks to Catalina for permission to reprint her post.
****************************************************
The MD list serve, meetings and working groups represent a great opportunity for discussion and debate on ethical sourcing, trading and manufacturing of minerals. The Association for Responsible Mining, ARM, joined the MD with an understanding that this was “a cross-sector initiative established to promote communication and collaboration among companies, civil society groups and others seeking to encourage –
Best practices,
Sustainable economic development,
- and verified sources of responsible gold, diamonds and other minerals”
Over the past weeks we have been concerned with the growing expectation on some of the working groups that somehow the Madison Dialogue is an appropriate space to develop standards and accompanying verification systems.
We do not think the Madison Dialogue list should be developing standards. It should continue to do what it was set up to do, that is to serve as a forum for discussion, including feedback on standards that are currently being developed by standard setting organizations such as ARM for small scale mining and IRMA for large scale mining.
The MD is not an organization; we believe it does not have the capacity or the governance structure to lead a legitimate standard setting process. We are of the view that organizations and institutions need to take responsibility for standards setting to ensure legitimacy and accountability.
We would like to invite you read the ISEAL Code of Good Practice for Setting Social and Environmental Standards, which clearly describes procedures to ensure that standard-setting practices are credible and effective.
In very general terms, compliance with the code means:
The standard will not create unnecessary barriers to trade;
The standard-setting process is transparent and open to interested stakeholders;
The standard has clear objectives, and criteria that meet those objectives;
There is meaningful participation by those stakeholders that are directly affected by the implementation of the standard; and
There is a balance of input in the discussion and in the decision-making on the standard.
In accordance with this code, we believe the questions that one must ask in determining the appropriateness of a body to set standards and develop verification systems includes the following:
What are the procedures?
What is the decision making process?
Who will lead the consultation processes?
Who will respond to complains or questions?
Are the interested parties represented?
Are the miners represented?
How will we ensure the participation of interested groups who do not have access to Internet or who do not speak English?
Who will test the standards on the ground?
Who will implement them?
We would recommend that the Madison Dialogue might be a useful place to have this discussion and perhaps reach some agreements as to the appropriate methods and approaches to standard setting and implementation. We welcome this space for consultation, sharing information and discussion and will continue to participate under such philosophy.
Tags: by Marc Choyt
No Comments »
