monitoring visits, growers were requested to provide valid certificates in support of age proof and if this was not possible, to replace the children. Monitoring teams were told to advise farmers to provide age certificates or replace the doubtful cases of 14 and 15 years based on the interactions with labourers and growers in the field during monitoring visits. Growers with such problems were given one week for the production of valid certificates or replacement of the labourer. It was considered as child labour if a replacement was not made or certificate was not submitted for suggested doubtful cases before the next visit to that plot or before a certain time given. This information was reviewed on a weekly basis at a district level and monthly basis at the state level by CCP committees. Feedback was given to the field level teams to improve the situation.
Problems in sharing and review of joint field inspections data Though there was a mutually agreed procedure and deadlines for sharing the field inspection data by the companies with other stakeholders in CCP, this was not adhered to by Bayer. In the beginning of the 2006-07 crop season, the CCP state level steering committee in a meeting with both Bayer and Monsanto, agreed to maintain complete transparency and timely sharing of field monitoring visits data with all the CCP members. The procedure agreed was as follows. After joint monitoring teams (CCP field staff, company person, seed organiser, local NGOs, village representative) completed the field inspection, the data would be reviewed by the district level committee on a weekly basis and this would be forwarded to the state level office of the company. The company would share this data with the CCP state level steering committee members for their inputs within a week after it received data from the district committee. It was also agreed that at the end of the season all the data would be compiled and analysed jointly by the company and other CCP members and agreed upon as common findings. While Monsanto followed this procedure in sharing and reviewing the data there was hesitation, delays, and lack of transparency on the part of Bayer.
Field inspections by joint teams began in the month of August. In September the CCP state level steering committee noted that Bayer had shared only selected visit data. When this was pointed out Bayer stated that at field level two types of visits were going on: one was monitoring and the second was follow up visits. Both were carried out by the same teams. Bayer was found to only share monitoring visits data and not follow up visits data. The issue was discussed and it was agreed that all the visits data, whether it was a monitoring visit or a follow up visit, would be shared with the CCP state committee members. The company stated that it needed some time to share follow up visits, as the data needed to be consolidated. At the field level joint teams continued their visits and the data were shared with the company on a weekly basis. But the company continued to share only selected visits data (monitoring visits and not follow up visits; this distinction between monitoring and follow up was never agreed by the state CCP committee). In October at the state level review meeting this issue was again discussed. Bayer agreed to share this information also but requested more time. In November and December at the state CCP committee meetings this issue was again discussed. The