Common use of Lessons learned Clause in Contracts

Lessons learned. The Farm-to-Table program begins 2011 in a much stronger position than it began 2010. This is partly due to better financial planning and more diversified funding sources, including an increase in program-generated revenue. It is also due to the organizational partnership (soon to be merger) between Food Works and CVCAC, which will in the long run increase both the financial stability, as well as the outreach and educational opportunities, of all of Food Works’ many intersecting programs. However, the strength of Farm-to-Table is also due to the commitment of the primary growers to working collaboratively on production planning and marketing strategies Reflecting on the experience of this past year, however, brings several critical issues to the fore: First and foremost, the rapid expansion of sales (and the volume of product) strained the capacity of program staff, especially in the fall months. The planned increase in work processing parties, and consequent expanded availability of “lightly processed” products, did not occur, due to limitations in capacity. Likewise, the proposed increase in statewide outreach and modeling of the program did not occur. It is becoming increasingly evident that a new staff position will soon be necessary, although the current budget does not provide for this. In concert with our new partners at CVCAC, we are actively exploring new funding sources. An unexpected outcome also occurred as a result of achieving one of the more specific proposed goals; namely, the increase in the number of community buying clubs. The creation of five new buying clubs in the summer and fall months put an enormous burden on staff and volunteers filling the orders on delivery days. An evaluation of the cost effectiveness of the current buying club pricing structure needs to be made. Between the growth of the buying clubs and the vastly increased sales to the rest of the commercial customer base (workplace and college cafeterias, etc.), it may soon be necessary to revamp the packing, delivery, and billing procedures that have been in place since the inception of the program. In short, an “upgrade” to the entire system will soon be necessary. Farm-to-Table is now at a point where its success may lead it to re-invent its processes. However, its commitment to its dual mission – to benefit the nutritionally at-risk members of the Central Vermont community by providing access to healthy local foods, while at the same time increasing the viability of local agriculture – remains as steadfast, as impassioned, and as necessary as ever. CONTACT INFORMATION ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, Farm-to-Table Coordinator, Food Works at Two Rivers Center, ▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇., ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇-▇▇▇-▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇@▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇.▇▇▇

Lessons learned. The Farmneed for GAP audits and practical food safety trainings will continue to grow as the industry requirements for increased reporting, traceability, and food safety practices expand. More producers are looking to wholesale markets to expand their operations and add new customers. Additional farms feel driven to participate in GAP audits for liability purposes. Regardless, the need to support GAP auditors and alleviate the initial costs associated with the food safety third-to-Table program begins 2011 party audits will continue to be a requirement of the produce industry. Additional distributors and retailers are pushing for GAP certification and the industry’s trend may require USDA GAP auditors to become trained in a much stronger position than it began 2010harmonized GAP audits, requiring additional travel and trainings. This is partly due will also translate into additional literacy training for growers who will need to better financial planning meet additional reporting and more diversified funding sources, including an increase in program-generated revenue. It is also due to the organizational partnership (soon to be merger) between Food Works and CVCAC, which will in the long run increase both the financial stability, as well as the outreach and educational opportunities, of all of Food Works’ many intersecting programs. However, the strength of Farm-to-Table is also due to the commitment of the primary growers to working collaboratively on production planning and marketing strategies Reflecting on the experience of this past year, however, brings several critical issues to the fore: First and foremost, the rapid expansion of sales (and the volume of product) strained the capacity of program staff, especially in the fall months. The planned increase in work processing parties, and consequent expanded availability of “lightly processed” products, did not occur, due to limitations in capacity. Likewise, the proposed increase in statewide outreach and modeling of the program did not occur. It is becoming increasingly evident that a new staff position will soon be necessary, although the current budget does not provide for this. In concert with our new partners at CVCAC, we are actively exploring new funding sources. An unexpected outcome also occurred as a result of achieving one of the more specific proposed goals; namely, the increase in the number of community buying clubs. The creation of five new buying clubs in the summer and fall months put an enormous burden on staff and volunteers filling the orders on delivery days. An evaluation of the cost effectiveness of the current buying club pricing structure needs to be made. Between the growth of the buying clubs and the vastly increased sales to the rest of the commercial customer base (workplace and college cafeterias, etc.), it may soon be necessary to revamp the packing, delivery, and billing procedures that have been in place since the inception of the program. In short, an “upgrade” to the entire system will soon be necessary. Farm-to-Table is now at a point where its success may lead it to re-invent its processes. However, its commitment to its dual mission – to benefit the nutritionally at-risk members of the Central Vermont community by providing access to healthy local foods, while at the same time increasing the viability of local agriculture – remains as steadfast, as impassioned, and as necessary as everrecord keeping requirements. CONTACT INFORMATION ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, Farm-to-Table CoordinatorLocal Foods Administrator, Food Works at Two Rivers Center, ▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇., Vermont Agency of Agriculture ▇▇▇▇▇.▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇-▇▇▇-▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇@▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇.▇▇.▇▇▇▇ PROJECT 8: Hop Production Systems Research – Previously Accepted PROJECT SUMMARY New England is home to many high-quality microbreweries. With the popularity of the local food movement reaching into the beverage market, many local breweries have expressed interest in encompassing local ingredients in their beers. As hops haven’t been commercially grown in this area for over a hundred years, the purpose of this grant was to provide high-quality local research and technical assistance to farmers looking to diversify with hops. It is projected that in the upcoming year, the number of microbreweries across the nation will increase by 25%. The craft beer industry is highly competitive and brewers are always looking for something that will give them an edge over the competition. Brewing beers with terroir is one of these ways. In these tough economic times, diversifying in agriculture is a good way to ensure economic stability. Hops sold locally have a high economic return, grossing between $10,000 and $20,000 per acre, and provide an excellent new market. However, the vast majority of hops research and outreach has been developed for the arid Pacific Northwest, where 99% of commercial hops are produced. The applicability of this research is limited in the humid Northeastern climate, fostering the need for locally relevant, high-quality research based information and a source through which that information can be distributed as it is developed. PROJECT APPROACH The objective of this program is to develop local and relevant research and outreach applicable to hops production in the Northeast. Through this project research on hops production has been initiated and numerous educational materials and programs have been delivered to stakeholders.

Lessons learned. The Farm-to-Table Farm to School pilot program begins 2011 in a much stronger position than it began 2010. This is partly due to better financial planning and more diversified funding sources, including an increase in program-generated revenue. It is also due to the organizational partnership (soon with ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Avenue Elementary School proved to be merger) between Food Works very successful. MDAC hopes to use this to further enhance the Mississippi Farm to School Program. Well over half of the posters printed, 5,176 have been distributed to schools all across the state. These posters provide a colorful representation and CVCACeducational resource of the produce grown by our state’s farmers and consumed by MS children. There have been several requests for more posters featuring other produce; hopefully, which the variety of produce available for schools will also grow and MDAC can increase educational efforts to include a broader range of MS grown fruits and vegetables. The brochures have also been a useful tool for those interested in the long run Farm to School program; they have been distributed at workshops held by MDAC, MSU, and MDE, to further increase both the financial stability, as well as the outreach voice and educational opportunities, of all of Food Works’ many intersecting programs. However, the strength of Farm-to-Table is also due to the commitment of the primary growers to working collaboratively on production planning and marketing strategies Reflecting on the experience awareness of this past year, however, brings several critical issues to the fore: First and foremost, the rapid expansion of sales (and the volume of product) strained the capacity of program staff, especially in the fall months. The planned increase in work processing parties, and consequent expanded availability of “lightly processed” products, did not occur, due to limitations in capacity. Likewise, the proposed increase in statewide outreach and modeling of the program did not occur. It is becoming increasingly evident that a new staff position will soon be necessary, although the current budget does not provide for this. In concert with our new partners at CVCAC, we are actively exploring new funding sources. An unexpected outcome also occurred as a result of achieving one of the more specific proposed goals; namely, the increase in the number of community buying clubs. The creation of five new buying clubs in the summer and fall months put an enormous burden on staff and volunteers filling the orders on delivery days. An evaluation of the cost effectiveness of the current buying club pricing structure needs to be made. Between the growth of the buying clubs and the vastly increased sales to the rest of the commercial customer base (workplace and college cafeterias, etc.), it may soon be necessary to revamp the packing, delivery, and billing procedures that have been in place since the inception of the program. In short, an “upgrade” to the entire system will soon be necessary. Farm-to-Table is now at a point where its success may lead it to re-invent its processes. However, its commitment to its dual mission – to benefit the nutritionally at-risk members of the Central Vermont community by providing access to healthy local foods, while at the same time increasing the viability of local agriculture – remains as steadfast, as impassioned, and as necessary as ever. CONTACT INFORMATION ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, Farm-to-Table Coordinator, Food Works at Two Rivers Center, ▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇., ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇, Mississippi Department of Agriculture and Commerce ▇▇▇-▇▇▇-▇▇▇▇▇ Farm to School Brochure: Farm to School Posters: The specific purpose of the project, implemented by the Mississippi Beekeepers Association was to provide educational opportunities for beekeepers. The shortages of honeybees, both wild and domestic, have been attributed to diseases and parasites. The need of educational workshops and materials are needed to increase the knowledge and support beginner beekeeping to meet pollination needs of crops across Mississippi. The public’s awareness of the decline in bee population has spurred an increase of beginner beekeeping interest to pollinate their gardens and orchards. It is pertinent that populations of honey bees be maintained as they are the most economically viable way to pollinate agricultural crops. This program allowed for the MBA to secure professional speakers of beekeeping management to maintain the quality and integrity of this workshop. The practice of beekeeping requires extensive knowledge and hands on training to master the intense management necessary to maintain viable colonies; new diseases and unknown causes of population decline (CCD) make beekeeping a challenge. This project does build upon previously funded Specialty Crop Block Grant projects, from years FY2007 and FY2009. This project is a continuation of the FY2009 SCBGP; funds for FY2009 project were allocated for educational workshops for beekeepers and proved to be a success all across the state. Demand for continuing this program prompted the submission and acceptance of this FY2010 grant project. Workshops listed in the table below show the attendance and topics discussed at each event. Five workshops were held during 2011 and one workshop was held during 2012. Due to the retirement of ▇▇▇▇@▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇, no spring or summer workshops were held in 2012 except for the annual workshop held in conjunction with the Mississippi Beekeepers Association annual convention. Several out-of state quest speakers were invited to speak at the workshops and annual meetings to ensure the quality of the program. Date/ Location Attendance Topics April 7, 2011** Jackson, MS 175 Beginners workshop. Some of the topics included: managing hives to optimize small hive beetle damage, low budget beekeeping, bee management 101, the beekeepers calendar, how and when to get bees. Field exercise topics included: the art of beekeeping, importance of honey bee population control in the hive and how to judge a colony’s strength, feeding bees, and finding queens/making splits. May 13-14, 2011** Jackson, MS 130 Some of the topics included: basic bee biology, honey plants and honey flows, getting started in beekeeping, swarm management, nucs vs. packages, keeping bees alive, managing small hive beetles, and diseases of concern. Hands-on field exercise topics included: how to work bees, types of equipment for bee hives, basics of bee rearing, and honey harvesting and processing, requeening/how to find queens, queen rearing- final steps, finding the queen and requeening. June 3-4, 2011** Verona, MS 72 Some of the topics included: basic bee biology, nectar flows and food sources for bees, getting started in beekeeping, spring management/swarm prevention, small hive management, harvesting, handling, and processing honey, honey marketing, fall/winter management, hive pest and diseases, IPM for beekeeping, and feeding/nutrition for bees. Hands-on field exercise topics included: how to work bees, types of equipment for bee hives, basics of queen rearing, making splits and requeening, how to start new hives, surveying and treating for mites, and queen rearing-final steps. June 16-17, 2011 Columbia, MS 102 Some of the topics included: basic bee biology, honey flows and food sources for bees, getting started in beekeeping, queen rearing basics, small hive management, bee compatibility plants, spring management, IPM for bees, nucs vs. packages, diseases of concern, mite control, and feeding bees. Hands-on field exercise topics included: how to work bees, types of equipment for bee hives, honey bee trapping, how to trap/treat for SHB, splitting hives, surveying and treating for mites, equipment needs for collecting bees, and finding queens an requeening. October 28-29, 2011 Gautier, MS 138 Beginners workshop. Some of the topics included: making bee equipment, living with small hive beetles, what’s involved in purchasing, picking up and/or delivering a hive of bees, a nuc, a queen, or package of bees, nucs vs. packages, and making candles, soaps, an cosmetics with honey and beeswax. October 26-27, 2012 Mississippi State University 145 Both beginning and experienced workshops. Topics included: bee colony health, nutrition, current research of reducing the levels of agricultural chemicals that accumulate in ▇▇▇▇▇ to improve colony health, controlling for pests, parasites, diseases, by using integrated pest management, economic impact of beekeeping industry, seasonal management, swarming biology and queen rearing. A management booklet titled “Small Hive Beetle,” was created and printed as a collaborative effort between MBA and MSU Extension to educate beekeepers on the growing problem of the Small Hive Beetle. This was distributed to beekeepers at workshops, local club meetings, and other events upon request. “Beekeeping in Mississippi” was a booklet created and printed to teach new beekeepers general practices in beekeeping. This educational resource is provided for participants at workshops, meetings of local bee clubs, and available upon request. A recipe book, “Golden Treasures Recipes” was developed and distributed to increase the awareness of honey and its benefits. It was distributed at the Mississippi State Fair, local club meetings, promotional events, and available upon request. In addition to workshops, MBA members also spoke to various children groups at schools and libraries to educate them on the importance of bees and beekeeping. This grant trained a total of 762 beekeepers on beekeeping basics. Since 2008, the total number of beekeepers trained from this program is 1,956. The increased average attendance at workshops indicates a continued and expanding interest in starting beekeeping in ages 10 and up. A raise of hands at the workshops continues to show that 30% to 50% of attendees do not have bee hives and want to get started. The goal to increase attendance at workshops and increase the number of beekeepers by 450 for 2011 has been achieved; this information is evidenced in the table below. 2008 317 4 63 2009 372 4 93 2010 505 5 101 2011 617 5 121 2012 145 1 145 The goal of increasing membership in the Mississippi Beekeepers Association was also achieved. Since the onset of the block grant program, membership has doubled. Attendance for 2011 rose to 512 but fell in 2012 to 260; this however, is still greater than when the grant was initiated. Membership decline may possibly be due to the retirement of ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ and the decreased efforts of attaining new members. Educational materials for beginning beekeepers were created, printed, and distributed at workshops and meetings. MBA members also spoke to children groups at schools and libraries to reach a variety of audience members. The original proposal aimed for four workshops for years 2011-2013. After the retirement of ▇▇▇▇.▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ in 2012 and due to the popularity of the workshops, the budget was exhausted earlier than anticipated and the goals and outcomes were achieved as planned.

Lessons learned. Key insights – Positive results: • The FarmPassport program continues to be a huge success. A full redesign is anticipated in 2013 to accommodate the growing number of wineries participating and the minor tweaks received from our consumers. We continue to receive email via the Council website raving about the Passport. • The annual conference is highly valued by members. With member feedback and expanding attendance, the shift to a two-to-Table program begins 2011 in a much stronger position than it began 2010day event was very well received. This As Vermont’s grape growing and wine making industry increases, the quality of the viticulture experts we draw continues to grow with that delta. • The website is partly due an important source of traffic to better financial planning members’ individual winery websites. We are striving to improve our content, measurements and more diversified funding sourcesease of use. Key insights – Areas for improvement or change: • The Vermont Cheesemakers Festival and the Vermont Life Wine & Harvest Festival continue to be two major events worth Council support. As demand for Vermont wines expands, including the need for an increase in program-generated revenue. It is also due industry wide festival keeps bubbling to the organizational partnership (soon top of every discussion. Our all-volunteer member status remains a mild stumbling block for expanding the Council to the next step. We will continue to be merger) between Food Works judicious going forward and CVCACfocus resources on Council support of those projects and events that will be a constant in building awareness of Vermont wines with consumers, which will in the long run increase both the financial stability, as well as the outreach support sales of winery participants and educational opportunities, of all of Food Worksexpand our ‘Vermont grown’ many intersecting programs. However, the strength of Farm-to-Table is also due to the commitment of the primary growers to working collaboratively on production planning and marketing strategies Reflecting on the experience of this past year, however, brings several critical issues to the fore: First and foremost, the rapid expansion of sales (and the volume of product) strained the capacity of program staff, especially in the fall months. The planned increase in work processing parties, and consequent expanded availability of “lightly processed” products, did not occur, due to limitations in capacity. Likewise, the proposed increase in statewide outreach and modeling of the program did not occur. It is becoming increasingly evident that a new staff position will soon be necessary, although the current budget does not provide for this. In concert with our new partners at CVCAC, we are actively exploring new funding sources. An unexpected outcome also occurred as a result of achieving one of the more specific proposed goals; namely, the increase in the number of community buying clubs. The creation of five new buying clubs in the summer and fall months put an enormous burden on staff and volunteers filling the orders on delivery days. An evaluation of the cost effectiveness of the current buying club pricing structure needs to be made. Between the growth of the buying clubs and the vastly increased sales to the rest of the commercial customer base (workplace and college cafeterias, etc.), it may soon be necessary to revamp the packing, delivery, and billing procedures that have been in place since the inception of the program. In short, an “upgrade” to the entire system will soon be necessary. Farm-to-Table is now at a point where its success may lead it to re-invent its processes. However, its commitment to its dual mission – to benefit the nutritionally at-risk members of the Central Vermont community by providing access to healthy local foods, while at the same time increasing the viability of local agriculture – remains as steadfast, as impassioned, and as necessary as evergrapes. CONTACT INFORMATION PERSON ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, Farm-to-Table Coordinator, Food Works at Two Rivers Center, ▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇., ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇President, ▇▇▇-▇▇▇-▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇▇@▇▇▇▇▇.▇▇▇, ADDITIONAL INFORMATION See ▇▇▇▇://▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇.▇▇▇/ PROJECT SUMMARY The 2011 Vermont Harvest publication focused on promoting Vermont’s specialty crops direct-to- consumers. The activity was sponsored by four of Vermont’s top specialty crop producer organizations-- the Vermont Grape & Wine Council, the Vermont Maple Foundation, the Vermont Vegetable & ▇▇▇▇▇ Growers Association and the Vermont Tree Fruit Growers Association (VTFGA) - -- with the latter organization serving as the activity lead. The publication included directories of Vermont orchards, farmstands and farmers’ markets and other useful information for consumers, including recipes using Vermont specialty crop products and material on the state’s apiary industry. Direct-to-consumer sales are important to many of Vermont’s specialty crop producers, since the process allows farmers to retain a higher portion of the consumer’s dollar than with selling through wholesale channels. Vermont Harvest was created by the Vermont Agency of Agriculture a decade ago as a means of increasing important direct-to-consumer sales for Vermont food and agricultural based businesses. The Agency found that distribution of the publication as a freestanding insert (FSI) in major Vermont newspapers circumvented problems with dissemination of separate brochures for individual producer organizations. PROJECT APPROACH Partner organizations communicated via telephone and e-mail to discuss the process for publishing and distributing the 2011 publication. Partner organizations were allocated space and broad discretion for selecting articles, photography, recipes and other content. As the lead on the activity, VTFGA contracted with organizations for graphic design, printing and distribution of the publication. Drafts were presented to the Vermont Agency of Agriculture with sufficient lead-time for review and editing before printing and distribution. The Agency was also invited to submit an introductory article for page 2, as in previous issues. GOALS AND OUTCOMES ACHIEVED Surveys of the four partner organizations showed that 75 percent of members thought that Vermont Harvest remained helpful in promoting their businesses in 2011, while 25 percent of members saw no noticeable effect on their sales. Additional comments received through the survey (conducted via e-mail) included: o Very attractive, informative guide. Promotes Vermont at its best. o The Vermont maple syrup producers appreciate being part of the "2011 Vermont Harvest- Specialty Crops Edition". Opportunities like this provide an opportunity to educate consumers about how maple syrup is produced, the importance of maple syrup production in maintaining Vermont's woodlands, and how to cook and bake with an all-natural, healthy sweetener. o This is an important and effective publication that works well in promoting our business and our industry in general.

Lessons learned. This section analyses implications for the future wording and implementation of GFAs. First, lessons learned from the case studies are considered with regard to the wording of GFAs. Chapter 3 of this report has presented a content analysis of GFAs, identifying the need to use clear and comprehensive language. The Farm-to-Table program begins 2011 case studies evaluated here support this claim and provide arguments for further strengthening of the wording in GFAs with regard to the application of the agreement to GSCs. In one case study it was reported that an MNE ceased an inquiry into workers’ rights abuses when it realized that the company was not one of its direct suppliers. This example stresses the importance of not lim- iting the application of the GFA to the direct contractors of the MNE, but to include the entire global supply chain. Moreover, the case studies document conflicts over the scope of application to subsidi- aries. The implementation group at Securitas had to deal with two cases concerning the clarification of the agreement’s scope of application to subsidiaries. This emphasizes the importance of including in the GFA a clear definition of the group represented by the MNE. Moreover, conflicts may arise with respect to subsidiaries that leave the group after a GFA has been signed. When the French MNE EDF sold subsidiaries the buyers committed to respect the provisions in the GFA for the next three years, an example indicating that the inclusion in a much stronger position than it began 2010. This is partly due to better financial planning and more diversified funding sources, including an increase in program-generated revenue. It is also due to the organizational partnership (soon to be merger) between Food Works and CVCAC, which will GFA of provisions in the long run increase both event of subsidiaries leaving the financial stability, as well as the outreach and educational opportunities, MNE could be considered. The impact of all of Food Works’ many intersecting programs. However, the strength of Farm-to-Table is also due to the commitment of the primary growers to working collaboratively on production planning and marketing strategies Reflecting a GFA on the experience of this past yearGSC does not solely depend on formulations in the agreements, however, brings several critical issues to but crucially on the fore: First and foremost, the rapid expansion of sales (and the volume of product) strained the capacity of program staff, especially in the fall monthsimplementation process. The planned increase research project “Organization and Regu- lation of Employment Relations in work processing parties, Transnational Production and consequent expanded availability of “lightly processedSupply Networks – Ensuring Core Labor Standards through International Framework Agreements?” products, did not occur, due to limitations in capacity. Likewise, the proposed increase in statewide outreach and modeling of the program did not occur. It is becoming increasingly evident that a new staff position will soon be necessary, although the current budget does not provide for this. In concert with our new partners at CVCAC, we are actively exploring new funding sources. An unexpected outcome also occurred as a result of achieving one of the more specific proposed goals; namely, the increase in the number of community buying clubs. The creation of five new buying clubs in the summer and fall months put an enormous burden on staff and volunteers filling the orders on delivery days. An evaluation of the cost effectiveness of the current buying club pricing structure needs to be made. Between the growth of the buying clubs and the vastly increased sales to the rest of the commercial customer base (workplace and college cafeterias, etc.), it may soon be necessary to revamp the packing, delivery, and billing procedures that have been in place since the inception of the program. In short, an “upgrade” to the entire system will soon be necessary. Farm-to-Table is now at a point where its success may lead it to re-invent its processes. However, its commitment to its dual mission – to benefit the nutritionally at-risk members of the Central Vermont community led by providing access to healthy local foods, while at the same time increasing the viability of local agriculture – remains as steadfast, as impassioned, and as necessary as ever. CONTACT INFORMATION ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, Farm-to-Table Coordinator, Food Works at Two Rivers Center, ▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇.▇▇▇ since 2008 includes a number of case studies at local production sites and suppliers that in- clude valuable good-practice examples of a successful implementation of the GFA in the supply chain and at local subsidiaries.17 However, according to the overall analysis, GFAs are still largely unknown among managers in MNE subsidiaries, local suppliers and local trade unions. Moreover, local actors who are aware of them seldom have much understanding of their role. Issues include wide gaps in local actors’ involvement in negotiating GFAs; inadequate communication on the outcomes of these negotiations; subsequent lack of ownership; and little or no linkage between local unions and GUFs that sign the agreements. Recommendations for implementing GFAs try to counteract the observed weaknesses. First of all, the GFA needs to be widely disseminated. A comprehensive understanding of the agreement by local actors is a necessary condition for further actions. Local ownership needs to be strengthened. The involvement of local actors throughout the GFA process, from its initiation through negotiations to implementation is crucial. Going beyond the involvement of local unions, this could also involve a co-signing of the agreement by important suppliers and subcontractors of the MNE. 17 Three of the studies examined in the present paper form part of the research project: ▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al. (2012); ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ and Stevis (2013); and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇-▇▇▇-▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇@▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ and Agtas (2013).▇▇▇

Lessons learned. This section analyses implications for the future wording and implementation of GFAs. First, lessons learned from the case studies are considered with regard to the wording of GFAs. Chapter 3 of this report has presented a content analysis of GFAs, identifying the need to use clear and comprehensive language. The Farm-to-Table program begins 2011 case studies evaluated here support this claim and provide arguments for further strengthening of the wording in GFAs with regard to the application of the agreement to GSCs. In one case study it was reported that an MNE ceased an inquiry into workers’ rights abuses when it realized that the company was not one of its direct suppliers. This example stresses the importance of not lim- iting the application of the GFA to the direct contractors of the MNE, but to include the entire global supply chain. Moreover, the case studies document conflicts over the scope of application to subsidi- aries. The implementation group at Securitas had to deal with two cases concerning the clarification of the agreement’s scope of application to subsidiaries. This emphasizes the importance of including in the GFA a clear definition of the group represented by the MNE. Moreover, conflicts may arise with respect to subsidiaries that leave the group after a GFA has been signed. When the French MNE EDF sold subsidiaries the buyers committed to respect the provisions in the GFA for the next three years, an example indicating that the inclusion in a much stronger position than it began 2010. This is partly due to better financial planning and more diversified funding sources, including an increase in program-generated revenue. It is also due to the organizational partnership (soon to be merger) between Food Works and CVCAC, which will GFA of provisions in the long run increase both event of subsidiaries leaving the financial stability, as well as the outreach and educational opportunities, MNE could be considered. The impact of all of Food Works’ many intersecting programs. However, the strength of Farm-to-Table is also due to the commitment of the primary growers to working collaboratively on production planning and marketing strategies Reflecting a GFA on the experience of this past yearGSC does not solely depend on formulations in the agreements, however, brings several critical issues to but crucially on the fore: First and foremost, the rapid expansion of sales (and the volume of product) strained the capacity of program staff, especially in the fall monthsimplementation process. The planned increase research project “Organization and Regu- lation of Employment Relations in work processing parties, Transnational Production and consequent expanded availability of “lightly processedSupply Networks – Ensuring Core Labor Standards through International Framework Agreements?” products, did not occur, due to limitations in capacity. Likewise, the proposed increase in statewide outreach and modeling of the program did not occur. It is becoming increasingly evident that a new staff position will soon be necessary, although the current budget does not provide for this. In concert with our new partners at CVCAC, we are actively exploring new funding sources. An unexpected outcome also occurred as a result of achieving one of the more specific proposed goals; namely, the increase in the number of community buying clubs. The creation of five new buying clubs in the summer and fall months put an enormous burden on staff and volunteers filling the orders on delivery days. An evaluation of the cost effectiveness of the current buying club pricing structure needs to be made. Between the growth of the buying clubs and the vastly increased sales to the rest of the commercial customer base (workplace and college cafeterias, etc.), it may soon be necessary to revamp the packing, delivery, and billing procedures that have been in place since the inception of the program. In short, an “upgrade” to the entire system will soon be necessary. Farm-to-Table is now at a point where its success may lead it to re-invent its processes. However, its commitment to its dual mission – to benefit the nutritionally at-risk members of the Central Vermont community led by providing access to healthy local foods, while at the same time increasing the viability of local agriculture – remains as steadfast, as impassioned, and as necessary as ever. CONTACT INFORMATION ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, Farm-to-Table Coordinator, Food Works at Two Rivers Center, ▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ since 2008 includes a number of case studies at local production sites and suppliers that in- clude valuable good-practice examples of a successful implementation of the GFA in the supply chain and at local subsidiaries.17 However, according to the overall analysis, GFAs are still largely unknown among managers in MNE subsidiaries, local suppliers and local trade unions. Moreover, local actors who are aware of them seldom have much understanding of their role. Issues include wide gaps in local actors’ involvement in negotiating GFAs; inadequate communication on the outcomes of these negotiations; subsequent lack of ownership; and little or no linkage between local unions and GUFs that sign the agreements. Recommendations for implementing GFAs try to counteract the observed weaknesses. First of all, the GFA needs to be widely disseminated. A comprehensive understanding of the agreement by local actors is a necessary condition for further actions. Local ownership needs to be strengthened. The involvement of local actors throughout the GFA process, from its initiation through negotiations to implementation is crucial. Going beyond the involvement of local unions, this could also involve a co-signing of the agreement by important suppliers and subcontractors of the MNE. 17 Three of the studies examined in the present paper form part of the research project: ▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al. (2012); ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ and Stevis (2013); and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇ and Agtas (2013). 6 Evolution of global framework agreements: A way forward GFAs have evolved over the last fifteen years. This results from GUFs having reviewed their strategy and having demanded a second generation of GFAs that involve stronger implementation, monitoring and dispute resolution procedures and that facilitate unionization rather than simply consent to it. (see for example International Metalworkers’ Federation, 2006; UNI, 2007). Moreover, recent GFAs are becoming increasingly complex and detailed. This chapter lays emphasis on the evolution of refer- ences in GFAs to the supply chains of MNEs. 6.1 Evolution of global framework agreements Chapter 2 compared GFAs signed between 2009 and May 2015 with agreements signed earlier. The comparison between these two groups shows that an increasing share of GFAs make explicit refer- ences to international frameworks such as the MNE Declaration, the OECD Guidelines and the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. At the same time, the ways in which GFAs address supply chains have evolved. Chapter 3 introduced four different ways in which GFAs address GSCs. Build- ing on these four groups, this section compares references in GFAs to the global supply chain evolved over time. The results of the present author’s evaluation of the 54 GFAs negotiated between 2009 and May 2015 are compared to the results in a report prepared by ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇-▇▇▇-▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇@et al. (2009) containing an evaluation of the 68 GFAs existing between 1989 and summer 2008. The same number of GFAs dur- ing that period is reported in Welz (2011). The first clearly visible trend is that newer GFAs are more likely to address the application of the agreement to the supply chain. While ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al. (2009) reported that 31 per cent of GFAs did not mention suppliers and subcontractors at all, this number has fallen to 20 per cent in the evalua- tion of GFAs concluded or renewed between 2009 and May 2015. This trend indicates a growing need for more effective social regulation in global supply chains, as well as the added value GFAs and labour relations can have in this field. The second trend is that a larger part of the more recent GFAs treat the respect of their provisions as a criterion for establishing or continuing business relations with suppliers and subcontractors. These agreements mention some form of consequences in the case of continuous violations. The number of agreements that fall into this category has more than doubled, from 14 to 30 per cent in the more recent GFAs. Only a small fraction of GFAs explicitly address the entire supply chain. Figure 5 Inclusion of suppliers and subcontractors in GFAs (percentages) Source: ▇▇▇▇▇▇.▇▇▇▇ et al. (2009), p. 32, for 1989–2008; author’s evaluation of GFAs negotiated between 2009 and 2015 (number = 54). 6.2 A way forward For the next generation of GFAs beyond 2015 it is important to further improve the quality of the agreements and to monitor their implementation. The agreements should be based on cross-border labour relations and involve local unions on the ground. They should promote collective bargaining at the local or national level and develop cross-border recruitment and organizing campaigns by using union networks in MNEs.18 The suggestions for a way forward in this report focus on what can be learned from the content analysis and the evaluation of the case studies for the drafting and implemen- tation of future agreements. Following this, recommendations for future research are briefly dis- cussed. The content analysis of the 54 most recent GFAs has shown that there is great variation in how an agreement makes reference to the GSC. Chapter 3 quotes several examples of texts taken from 18 See for example IndustriALL’s revised GFA Guidelines, adopted by IndustriALL’s Executive Committee in Tunis in December 2014. GFAs and identifies good-practice examples to promote freedom of association and collective bar- gaining at suppliers and subcontractors of MNEs. Generally, the bargaining partners should strive to: • include a reference to the entire supply chain of the MNE; • include the duty of the MNE to treat respect for provisions in the GFA as a determin- ing criterion for establishing or continuing business relationships with suppliers and subcontractors; • include a clear and comprehensive definition of the group of companies that is repre- sented by the MNE; • include the duty of the MNE to use its influence in minority shareholdings to promote respect for the provisions in the GFA and to consider selling its shares in case of con- tinuous violations; • phrase the obligations of the MNE with regard to the supply chain not as an objective to be reached but as compulsory; and • include in the breadth of the scope of application to the supply chain all vital provi- sions of the GFA. The text analyses in Chapter 3 also show that there are several examples of good practice for further collaboration between MNEs and trade unions, such as on local and global reviews and train- ing programmes as well as measures to enable local trade unions to monitor the GFA at suppliers and subcontractors. Nevertheless, only a few general trends have emerged so far in GSCs with regard to these examples. To further strengthen the implementation of GFAs along the supply chain it will be important to strive for an inclusion of the following points: • wide dissemination of the GFA to suppliers and subcontractors as well as local trade un- ions; • joint training measures at suppliers and subcontractors on labour relations and in apply- ing ILO standards; • joint monitoring and reviews of the GFA as well as site visits by the implementation group at local suppliers and subcontractors to ensure the implementation of the agree- ment; • disclosure of information with regard to the companies in the GSC of the MNE; • integration of the GFA in the procurement practices of the MNE and in commercial con- tracts with suppliers and subcontractors; • inclusion in the list of regular topics at the continuous consultation meetings of working conditions at suppliers and subcontractors; and • the duty of the MNE to insist on the continued application of the GFA in subsidiaries which leave the group, at least for a transition period. The evaluation of 29 case studies on the implementation of GFAs shows that it is crucial to strengthen local ownership. In the past, GFAs had overall only a limited impact on suppliers and sub- contractors because they were largely unknown among managers in MNE subsidiaries and local sup- pliers, and also within the ranks of local trade unions. Moreover, local actors who are aware of them seldom have much understanding of their role. Good-practice examples in the case studies provide evidence for the significant role that GFAs and GUFs can potentially play to ensure workers’ rights along the global supply chain of MNEs and in bringing suppliers, subcontractors and subsidiaries under the GFA umbrella. However, looking to the future, the involvement of local actors throughout the GFA process needs to be strengthened from its initiation through negotiations to implementation. GFAs work best when they are integrated in local labour relations. To better implement them, the involvement of local actors could go beyond local trade unions and involve the management from local subsidiaries or even a co-signing of the agreement by important suppliers and subcontractors of the MNE. Many case studies focus on the implementation process of the GFA in the MNE and its sub- sidiaries. Further research is needed that focuses on the local implementation of GFAs at suppliers and subcontractors, with an emphasis on the potential of GFAs to enable local trade unions to engage in industrial relations and organize campaigns along the supply chains of MNEs. It will be important to analyse differences between industry sectors to better understand the dynamics of supply chain relationships and how these have an impact on workers’ rights. Depending on the governance struc- ture of the supply chain, MNEs will be better or worse equipped to influence suppliers and promote decent working conditions. The structure of the supply chain should therefore be taken into considera- tion when drafting references and procedures in GFAs to regulate the GSC. Moreover, an increasing number of agreements make reference to mediation or arbitration procedures, which indicates a need for GUFs and MNEs to strengthen the conflict resolution mechanisms in GFAs and to develop new ways for social dialogue to take place at the global level. Further research and recommendations are necessary to strengthen the dispute resolution mechanisms in GFAs in order to go beyond purely vol- untary commitments and give the bargaining partners a framework to use when they cannot find a common solution. The last chapter of this report is dedicated to a discussion of how the ILO can sup- port the bargaining partners in GFAs by developing a new framework for conflict resolution mecha- nisms. 7 Global framework agreements and the role of the ILO In his 2013 annual report to the International Labour Conference, the ILO Director-General pointed out that “private actors are the drivers of the constantly shifting supply chains or production net- works” which indicates that “there are additional opportunities for the ILO to promote decent work in their [MNEs’] operations” (ILO, 2013, p. 14). Among such opportunities are GFAs, of which the large majority make explicit reference to ILO standards, particularly those relating to fundamental rights. GFAs’ aim to promote fundamental labour rights and social dialogue is a goal in line with two strategic objectives of the ILO’s Decent Work Agenda. These agreements are an instrument to regu- late supply chains through labour relations and have developed without any direct assistance from States or international organizations. Yet this global social dialogue is still only emerging and its con- tinuing growth might well depend on the ability of state actors and international organizations to ade- quately support this private regulatory initiative. This report therefore puts forward suggestions on revising the ILO’s Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning Multinational Enterprises and So- cial Policy in order to create an optional framework for companies and workers’ representatives in their attempts to further develop global social dialogue. In addition to revising the MNE Declaration, the report suggests opportunities for the ILO to engage in creating an enabling environment for GFAs. 7.1 Revising the MNE Declaration Adopted in 1977, the MNE Declaration has been amended twice, in 2000 and 2006. It provides prin- ciples related to employment, training, conditions of work and life and industrial relations, which all the parties involved (i.e. governments, employers’ and workers’ organizations and multinational en- terprises) should observe on a voluntary basis. The MNE Declaration is the only international instru- ment so far designed to guide private initiatives, such as GFAs, codes of conduct, and industry-wide initiatives in the promotion of social dialogue, that has the full backing of workers, employers and governments. This tripartite origin makes it both highly credible and yet sensitive to the concerns of enterprises facing tough competition. This report has shown (Chapter 2) that an increasing number of GFAs include a reference to the MNE Declaration. While only 8 per cent of the agreements signed up to 2007 include such a reference, this number rose to 23 per cent of all GFAs concluded between 2009 and May 2015; this indicates a growing interest on the part of the bargaining partners in the Declara- tion and constitutes a further argument in favour of updating it. These references in GFAs to the MNE Declaration give the ILO the opportunity to support GFA bargaining partners. A revised and updated MNE Declaration should be able to reflect the challenges that have af- fected production models and the development of GSCs in recent decades. This report envisions a revised MNE Declaration that offers an instrument to further strengthen global social dialogue. GUFs and MNEs could be inspired by the revised MNE Declaration in the design, delivery and evaluation of GFAs as well as in improving their effectiveness through new conflict resolution mechanisms. The following subsections recommend possible revisions to the MNE Declaration. 7.1.1 Extend the application to supply chains In its current version the MNE Declaration does not hold MNEs responsible for rights and safety in their global supply chains. However, the evidently growing importance of GSCs seems to make it almost a necessity to extend the application of the MNE Declaration to supply chains. Furthermore, an extension to supply chains seems to be in line with the interest of the social partners. Chapter 3 of this report has shown that an increasing number of GFAs make reference to

Lessons learned. Over the past six years in Mozambique, TechnoServe has also learned some important lessons regarding both what works and what does not work in rural enterprise development. ▪ Scale of operations and size of transactions matter. In cashew and oilseed processing, we have learned that the minimum plant capacity to capture economies of scale (and justify the cost of experienced management) is approximately 1,000 tons per annum. For this reason, smaller plants such as Oleos Cuti, Oleos Ribaue and QualiCaju have shut down or struggled. TechnoServe has thus shifted its focus to assisting those plants – such as Optima - willing and able to reach this minimum capacity and replicating their success elsewhere. ▪ Private enterprises can play a key role in extension. The Farmsuccess of our rural processing clients depends, to a certain extent, on the availability of high quality raw material. And TechnoServe has focused on empowering its clients to play an important role in ensuring the highest quality material. For example, cashew processors have a significant incentive to help families understand how to grow high quality cashew trees, and our clients are playing a critical role in helping them intercrop with groundnuts in order to improve the soil quality. We believe that private sector-toled extension is a real, sustainable option for those sub sectors which have reached a certain level of development, such as cashew processing. ▪ Focusing on a single sub-Table program begins 2011 sector without understanding its links to broader value chains can limit enterprise growth. For the past three years, TNS has been assisting oilseed processors to start up and expand in the Beira and Nacala Corridors. While 2,500 families benefited, the impact would have been greater if the companies had diversified into feed production or if assistance had also been given to start-ups in the animal feed business. These experiences have helped us understand that opportunities for rural oilseed processors must be evaluated in the context of the entire value chain. ▪ Pilots are the first step to building a much stronger position than it began 2010competitive sub sector. This is partly due One reason for TechnoServe’s success in cashew processing has been its approach: focusing first on a single pilot (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇), digesting and applying learnings from this experience, and replicating the model for new entrants. As a result, we focus significant resources on a small number of enterprises (as opposed to better financial planning working with 10-15 companies in each sub sector and more diversified funding sources, including an increase in program-generated revenuehoping that a few of them succeed). It We have found that this approach is also due a good way to encourage more Mozambican participation in enterprise development. By proving the organizational partnership (soon concept, we have been able to be merger) between Food Works and CVCACconvince more risk-averse Mozambican nationals to invest in similar enterprises. ▪ Successful enterprise development requires a delicate balance of resources, which will in the long run increase both the financial stability, as well as the outreach and educational opportunities, of all of Food Works’ many intersecting programs. However, the strength of Farm-to-Table is also due to the commitment of the primary growers to working collaboratively on production planning and marketing strategies Reflecting on the experience of this past year, however, brings several critical issues to the fore: First and foremost, the rapid expansion of sales (and the volume of product) strained the capacity of program staff, especially in the fall months. The planned increase in work processing partiessub sector growth, and consequent expanded availability of “lightly processed” products, did not occur, due to limitations industry expertise. TechnoServe invests significantly in capacity. Likewise, hiring the proposed increase country’s best experts in statewide outreach and modeling of the program did not occur. It is becoming increasingly evident that a new staff position will soon be necessary, although the current budget does not provide for this. In concert with our new partners at CVCAC, we are actively exploring new funding sources. An unexpected outcome also occurred target sub sectors (such as a result of achieving one of the more specific proposed goals; namely, the increase in the number of community buying clubs. The creation of five new buying clubs in the summer and fall months put an enormous burden on staff and volunteers filling the orders on delivery days. An evaluation of the cost effectiveness of the current buying club pricing structure needs to be made. Between the growth of the buying clubs and the vastly increased sales to the rest of the commercial customer base (workplace and college cafeterias, etc.), it may soon be necessary to revamp the packing, delivery, and billing procedures that have been in place since the inception of the program. In short, an “upgrade” to the entire system will soon be necessary. Farm-to-Table is now at a point where its success may lead it to re-invent its processes. However, its commitment to its dual mission – to benefit the nutritionally at-risk members of the Central Vermont community by providing access to healthy local foods, while at the same time increasing the viability of local agriculture – remains as steadfast, as impassioned, and as necessary as ever. CONTACT INFORMATION ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ A’▇▇▇▇, Farm-to-Table Coordinator, Food Works at Two Rivers Center, ▇ in horticulture and ▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇ in cashew). Such resources are expensive and are most effective when the sub sector is poised for rapid growth. In horticulture and confectionary nuts, we have achieved the right balance of good people and resources. However, in oilseeds, we found that the slower growth of the sub sector did not necessarily merit our hiring a full-time oilseed advisor. But now that we are shifting our focus to the entire value chain of oilseeds – animal feed – livestock, we find that the potential does merit a full-time advisor in order to help realize the potential in Mozambique., ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇-▇▇▇-▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇@▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇.▇▇▇

Lessons learned. The Farmproject was very successful at fulfilling the scope of the work – advancing the marketing skills for specialty crop producers in Vermont. The workshops were well attended, and the evaluations were positive. The evaluations were helpful because we learned what other educational opportunities participants are seeking. What we learned is that there is a growing disconnect between the sophistication of consumers at markets, and the market management that is not keeping pace with growing consumer needs. For example, consumers are seeking convenience, one-to-Table program begins 2011 in a much stronger position than it began 2010stop shopping, and are increasingly relying on social media for information about purchasing options. This is partly due to better financial planning Farmers selling at direct markets, and more diversified funding sources, including the managers who play an increase in program-generated revenue. It is also due to the organizational partnership (soon to be merger) between Food Works and CVCAC, which will important role in the long run success of those markets, have not all kept pace with this new consumer. Many of the participants answering a question on the evaluation about “the biggest challenge they face” responded about the need to “keep current at website updates,” “need to get our face and message out there, just producing good crops is not enough anymore,” “lack of time to maintain Facebook, website, blog and Twitter…and still keep up with face to face marketing.” Of course, there are many customers who shop at farmers’ markets, participate in CSAs and shop at farm stands because they are seeking the kind of shopping experience that is down to earth, and perhaps a step removed from electronics for a period of time; but since the markets all want to increase both customer traffic, they need to reach the financial stability97% of consumers who are currently not shopping at direct markets. The other lesson we learned is that specialty crop producers need additional information about food safety, as well as many states are increasing regulations, clamping down on product sampling at markets, and markets are transitioning from seasonal events to year-round markets and may have to meet the outreach stricter requirements of retail stores. When we asked what additional workshops participants would like to attend in the future, several respondents said “events at markets and educational opportunitiesfood safety – from on-site to carry-out,” and “updates in current state health regulations.” Finally, we heard from a lot of all of Food Works’ many intersecting programsparticipants about there on-going challenge to increase access to low-income customers. However, the strength of Farm-to-Table is also due to the commitment Although half of the primary growers to working collaboratively on production planning and marketing strategies Reflecting on the experience of this past year, however, brings several critical issues to the fore: First and foremost, the rapid expansion of sales (and the volume of product) strained the capacity of program staff, especially markets in the fall months. The planned increase in work processing partiesVermont have EBT machines, and consequent expanded availability several offer incentives to double the value of their electronic benefits, a lot of farmers want help in “lightly processedreaching non-traditional customers for my farm and market.” products, did not occur, due to limitations in capacity. Likewise, the proposed increase in statewide outreach and modeling of the program did not occur. It is becoming increasingly evident that a new staff position will soon be necessary, although the current budget does not provide for this. In concert with our new partners at CVCAC, we are actively exploring new funding sources. An unexpected outcome also occurred as a result of achieving one of the more specific proposed goals; namely, the increase in the number of community buying clubs. The creation of five new buying clubs in the summer and fall months put an enormous burden on staff and volunteers filling the orders on delivery days. An evaluation of the cost effectiveness of the current buying club pricing structure needs to be made. Between the growth of the buying clubs and the vastly increased sales to the rest of the commercial customer base (workplace and college cafeterias, etc.), it may soon be necessary to revamp the packing, delivery, and billing procedures that have been in place since the inception of the program. In short, an “upgrade” to the entire system will soon be necessary. Farm-to-Table is now at a point where its success may lead it to re-invent its processes. However, its commitment to its dual mission – to benefit the nutritionally at-risk members of the Central Vermont community by providing access to healthy local foods, while at the same time increasing the viability of local agriculture – remains as steadfast, as impassioned, and as necessary as ever. CONTACT INFORMATION PERSON ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, Farm-to-Table Coordinator, Food Works at Two Rivers Center, ▇▇ (▇▇▇▇ ▇▇., ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇, ) ▇▇▇-▇▇▇-▇ ▇▇▇▇, ; ▇▇▇▇@▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇.▇▇▇

Lessons learned. The Farmoutputs of this project have been used in virus-toindexing program at Northwest Grape Foundation Service at WSU-Table program begins 2011 IAREC, Prosser, for the supply of ‘clean’ planting materials to promote sustainability of the wine grape industry in a much stronger position than it began 2010the region. This The science-based knowledge on grapevine viruses generated during the project period has been disseminated to different stakeholders (Regulatory agencies like WSDA, Certified Nurseries, growers, Crop Consultants, Researchers and Extension professionals) through presentations at grower- sponsored annual meetings and national scientific meetings. The project has generated science-based knowledge on the occurrence of grapevine fanleaf disease and other economically important virus diseases of wine grape varieties in Washington State. The results of the project helped to realize the sanitary status of vineyards in the state and formulate appropriate strategies to mitigate their negative impacts on the sustainability of wine grape industry. The information generated from this project underscores the need for continued monitoring of vineyards and Certified Nurseries for different viruses to ensure preventing their spread to new vineyards through planting materials for sustainable growth of wine grape industry in the state. The outputs of this research have been extended to the Northwest Grape Foundation Service at WSU-IAREC, Prosser, WA and Certified Nurseries in the Pacific Northwest for maintaining virus-free certified mother blocks. With the information generated during the project period, the testing carried out in the clean plant programs is partly due more likely to better financial planning detect different grapevine viruses and more diversified funding sourcesthus, including an increase in program-generated revenueprovide higher quality clean planting materials for growers for planting new vineyards. It is also due has been shown that agricultural research and development has high rates of economic returns that average more than 50 percent. Science-based information generated during this project period will help Grape Clean Plant programs to the organizational partnership (soon provide virus-tested planting materials to be merger) between Food Works and CVCAC, which will wine grape growers in the long run increase both the financial stability, as well as the outreach and educational opportunities, of all of Food Works’ many intersecting programs. However, the strength of Farm-to-Table is also due to the commitment of the primary growers to working collaboratively on production planning and marketing strategies Reflecting on the experience of this past year, however, brings several critical issues to the fore: First and foremost, the rapid expansion of sales (and the volume of product) strained the capacity of program staff, especially in the fall monthsWashington State. The planned increase in work processing partiesoutreach programs increased awareness of grapevine virus diseases among researchers, extension educators, growers, consultants and consequent expanded availability of “lightly processed” products, did not occur, due industry stakeholders to limitations in capacity. Likewise, the proposed increase in statewide outreach and modeling of the program did not occur. It is becoming increasingly evident that a new staff position will soon be necessary, although the current budget does not provide for this. In concert with our new partners at CVCAC, we are actively exploring new funding sources. An unexpected outcome also occurred as a result of achieving one of the more specific proposed goals; namely, the increase in the number of community buying clubs. The creation of five new buying clubs in the summer and fall months put an enormous burden on staff and volunteers filling the orders on delivery days. An evaluation of the cost effectiveness of the current buying club pricing structure needs to be made. Between the growth of the buying clubs and the vastly increased sales to the rest of the commercial customer base (workplace and college cafeterias, etc.), it may soon be necessary to revamp the packing, delivery, and billing procedures that have been in place since the inception of the program. In short, an “upgrade” to the entire system will soon be necessary. Farm-to-Table is now at a point where its success may lead it to re-invent its processes. However, its commitment to its dual mission – to benefit the nutritionally at-risk members of the Central Vermont community by providing access to healthy local foods, while at the same time increasing the viability of local agriculture – remains as steadfast, as impassioned, and as necessary as ever. CONTACT INFORMATION ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, Farm-to-Table Coordinator, Food Works at Two Rivers Center, ▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇the sustainability of wine grape industry and increase the national (and global) market share for wine grape producers in the state., ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇-▇▇▇-▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇@▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇.▇▇▇