Based on Clay's suggestions in email to me, here is my proposal for where the money should go:
1. Funds that are traceable to produce from a specific farmer should go directly to that farmer in total (the whole 5%)
2. All commissions, organisation expenses etc should be paid for from either donations, or funds that can't be traced to a specific farmer
3. Remaining funds that can't be traced should be put toward the following projects (starting, where possible, with the communities of growers who are recipients of 5%):
- Grower education in farming practices like soil improvement, crop quality etc using sustainable, organic practices
- Child education
- Improved sanitation through devices like composting toilets which can feed nutrients back into farms and reticulated water
- Communications resource (mobile phones, Internet access etc)
Agreed. 100% of the traceable funds are returned to the farmer.
I would like to see as much of the operating costs as possible be covered from licensing fees and donations instead of being taken from the "untraceable" funds.
I agree with the four areas of concentration for the use of the "untraceable" funds, and we should emphasize, where possible, distributing those funds in the communities of the "traceable" growers. Why? This should provide incentive to improve traceability to the farmer.
I would like to add another use: a micro-finance reserve that is used to fund capital improvements. This reserve is spent through a grants program.
Regarding licensing fees, I think I covered this somewhat in anther post, I would very much like to keep the fees low if possible. The aim being to make it easy for small companies to get on board. If donations could be attracted and administration costs kept low, then that may also be possible.
Regarding distribution of untraceable funds: I agree that sending the money to communities of traceable farmers is the right way to go.
Adding micro-finance to the target projects: sorry, I should have included this. I agree that it is a worth inclusion