The purported benefits of accreditation would still get delivered. 

This seems false to me, without the RSPCA's brand behind it, consumers would be less willing to pay a premium for the products, and supermarkets would be less keen to stock them.

This looks like the second time in two months you posted harsh but inaccurate criticism of a group based on confusing them with a different group. I suggest in the future you put more effort into understanding the people you are criticizing.

Is there much reason for this to be an app as opposed to a website, or an LLM?

Thanks for clarifying!

Is WHO cost-effectiveness similar to US GHD spending?

At this point I think we are reading tea leaves that the OP could easily clarify, but FWIW my interpritation was they invested more than they would have otherwise, e.g. in less specific training, because they thought this training was a secondary route to impact.

It sounds like if his org had expected mass emigration they'd have spent less time making other human capital investments as well though. 

Yes and no -- the only concrete thing I see @WillieG having done was "sign[ing] letters of recommendation for each employee, which I later found out were used to pad visa applications." 

Sounds like they did more than this, though the description is vague:

We invested a lot of time and money into training these employees, with the expectation that they (as members of the college-educated elite) would help lead human rights reform in the country long after our project disbanded.

Thanks for providing this summary!

A possible comparison is to dollar-a-year men, successful business leaders who go to work for the government for basically zero.