Upload
dinhthien
View
217
Download
3
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Minutes of 1st CWG meeting 1
Minutes for the first meeting of the RSPO Criteria
Working Group
Grand Hyatt Hotel, Jakarta
04 October 2004
Compiled by ProForest and Andrew Ng
Introductory note
These notes have been compiled from the discussions held during the first meeting
of the RSPO Criteria Working Group on Monday 04 October 2004 and during the
discussions on the criteria held on the following day during the RT2 meeting.
As facilitators of the criteria development, ProForest has compiled these discussions
to provide:
• information and guidance for the ongoing work of the Criteria Working Group
(CWG); and
• a publicly available, non-attributable record of the important contributions made
during discussions
We have attempted to record all discussions faithfully, however, we accept
responsibility for any item missed or inadequately represented. As the primary
purpose of these records is for use by the CWG, we have organised comments and
suggestions under themes, rather than chronologically.
Minutes of 1st CWG meeting 2
Participants
Criteria Working Group (CWG) Members
Name Organisation
Producers
Simon Lord NBPOL
Jean-Charles Jacquemard SOCFINDO
Hereward Corley (Alternate for Bernard Tinkler) Consultant
Mohd Ramli Adnan FELDA
Asrul Darussamin IPOC
Marcello Brito Grupo Agropalma
Kee Khan Kiang Applied Agricultural Research
Ian Rowland (Alternate for Thomas Fairhurst) PRPOL
Joseph Tek IJM representing MPOA
Supply Chain and Investors
Ian McIntosh, Aarhus United UK
Tim Stephenson (Alternate for Ian McIntosh) Aarhus United UK
Bachtiar Karim PT Musim Mas
Manuel Davila Daabon Group
Khairuddin Hashim (Alternate for Jan van Driel) GHPB
Jenny Kau (Alternate for Doris Nichol) PORAM
Environmental
Fitrian Ardiansyah WWF Indonesia
Gan Lian Tiaong KLK
John Payne Advisor to WWF Malaysia
Social
Rudy Lumuru Sawit Watch
Marcus Colchester (Alternate for Sawit Watch) Consultant
Yanti Laksana (Alternate for Lea Borkenhagen) OXFAM Indonesia
Minutes of 1st CWG meeting 3
Facilitators
Ruth Nussbaum ProForest
Steve Jennings ProForest
Andrew Ng (Secretary) Consultant
Observers
MR Chandran MPOA (RSPO Executive Board)
Fausta Borsani Migros (RSPO Executive Board)
Jan Kees-Vis Unilever (RSPO President)
Jan-Olof Liedfelt Karlshamns
Teoh Cheng Hai RSPO Sec. Gen.
Tony Lass Cadbury Schweppes
Matthias Diemer WWF (RSPO Executive Board)
Chris Donough IOI (RSPO Executive Board)
1. Opening remarks
Outcomes must be reasonable and practical.
Job of the CWG over next 12 months is to develop some criteria for sustainable palm
oil. Work today based upon previous efforts that were presented at RT1. Though
there may be many disagreements over substance and content, there is a need to be
constructive and try to understand the views of the various stakeholders. Part of the
criteria for the composition of CWG was emphasising geographical areas and ability
to represent different interest groups.
2. Procedures for developing the Criteria
Objectives: To agree on procedures for criteria development that:
• Will be clear to all members of the CWG
• Will be publicly available so that all stakeholders know how the process is
being undertaken
• Can be utilised in practice
Minutes of 1st CWG meeting 4
Suggested process that the CWG should follow1 outlined, including composition of
the CWG, facilitation, consultation, decision-making, appeals mechanism and
maintaining public information.
2.1. Composition of CWG
CWG
Overview: RSPO Secretariat requested nominations from RSPO members, all
participants of RT1 and all members of the Technical Group involved in drafting the
Framework Criteria. Over 70 nominations received. The Executive Board of RSPO
voted on the nominations, with the final choice ensuring that: members of the CWG
have relevant expertise and experience or should be affected by oil palm
management; are able to consult with their constituent groups and represent their
views; and that the overall membership should reflect the balance of interests and
geographic scope of oil palm production.
No representation from the Indonesian producers, i.e. major Indonesian companies
themselves not being represented here. In addition, GAPKI not here.
Musim Mas is part of group.
Social and environmental groups are outnumbered against producers and
processors and some social sectors are not directly represented, notably trade
unions, smallholders, indigenous peoples and women’s groups.
More than just interest groups, some sectors are not represented (e.g. retailers,
investors). However, the suggested procedures for consultation and decision-making
may overcome some of the issues of balance of representation. If the CWG decides
that it is imperative that a particular group should be represented, then we may
need to co-opt new members.
Existing group is sufficient and public comments can take into account the other
major stakeholder groups. Concern is over the size of the group and if too big
cannot make consensus.
Important that the concerns of the other groups and stakeholders are included into
the process, so process is important. Later, mechanism for consultation with other
stakeholder groups has to be discussed.
Should make use of the role of CWG members to consult with their constituency.
Clearly there are some groups that are not strongly or directly represented here.
One suggestion would be to start with the existing CWG, and if becomes clear
1 For draft text of the suggested CWG process, see Section 4 of ‘Process for the
development of international criteria for sustainable oil palm’.
Minutes of 1st CWG meeting 5
during consultation that a group feels they are not being properly or directly
represented in the CWG, then it would be a good stage to consider additional
members.
Increased African representation must also be considered.
Role of research institutions not clear in the development of criteria. More
involvement from research institutes recommended, either through expansion of
group or consultation.
Research organisations likely to have a key role in providing technical advise to the
CWG
Over course of the CWG meeting and RT, it would provide better opportunities for
those who want to be in now
Would Sawit Watch be willing to move forward now with the present group and
consider additions later?
Agreed.
Review at end of day and take up if needed.
RT2 breakout and plenary
The environmental group of the CWG has 3 out of 5 members from WWF. How was
the CWG chosen? Is there provision to re-constitute CWG if necessary?
Do you plan to include into supply chain those companies not making palm oil or
palm kernel oil, but surfactants and detergents?
The idea is to include all possible major stakeholder groups. But the CWG felt that to
begin the process, it would be better to focus on the production first. Aware that
some parts of the whole supply chain not directly represented, and was discussed at
CWG meeting, but CWG members feel they can represent them and there is the
possibility to include more people if necessary.
Do we have good representation from each stakeholder group, and will there be
public consultation later on?
With only 5 representatives, it does not represent all stakeholders in each set, but
full public consultation will be carried out and direct inputs from any groups can be
made, with full transparency for each document and 60 day period for feedback and
comments. Once comments received a summary will be made of all comments and
CWG has to address each comment. Each comment or address of issues will be
made publicly available. A redressing mechanism is also available should
stakeholders not be satisfied with how their comments were addressed.
Each of the 25 in CWG are not only representing their personal views but to
represent the views of their wider stakeholder group.
Minutes of 1st CWG meeting 6
Tried to get cross-section of all stakeholders. In Indonesia, there is a large
smallholder group (30% of production), but they seem to be not represented. They
are important group and represent an important way in which poverty alleviation is
being tackled.
There are many stakeholders with smallholders being one of the most important.
The social group would try to represent interest of smallholders in Indonesia and
consult with them. One important point is that criteria has to be designed with
implementation possible for smallholders, thus not demand them to have a
complicated set of criteria. With that in consideration, the criteria has to be practical
and applicable to smallholders, which is part of the objective of CWG.
2.2. Alternates
CWG
Overview: the proposed rules for Alternates are that all CWG members should
nominate an Alternate; if both CWG member and Alternate attend a physical
meeting, only the substantive member is involved in decision-making (including
voting); RSPO will provide financial support for Alternates to attend physical
meetings only when the substantive member is unable to attend.
Are alternates fixed or flexible?
There may be circumstances where changes are needed, but needs to be discussed.
Weakness in having a flexible system because of the lag in knowledge of issues and
discussions. Alternate should be fixed.
General agreement that Alternates, once named, should be permanent other than in
unavoidable circumstances.
With present group so small, who is missing?
Producers – Thomas Fairhurst (being represented today by IR); Billy Gansah (Unilever
Ghana); Bernard Tinker (represented today by HC).
Supply Chain - Jan van Driel (represented today by Khairuddin Hashim); Doris Nichol
(represented today by Jenny Kau)
Environment – Jason Clay (WWF US); Agus Winamo Boyce (Conservation International)
Social – Irene Fernandez (Tenaganita); Lea Borkenhagen (represented today by Yanti
Lacsana); Kenn Mondiai (PWM).
Minutes of 1st CWG meeting 7
2.3. Facilitation
CWG
Should more details on facilitation be publicly available, such as that facilitation is
neutral, that decisions on the organisation of the CWG are made by the facilitator?
Is there a TOR?
Not very detailed, only on objectives of CWG
Will ensure clarity in full TOR
2.4. Technical Advisors
CWG
One suggestion would be to have technical advisors selected from suggestions of
the CWG and with the approval of the Executive Board
Funding may be issue to get technical advisors
Why not appoint particular technical or research institutes on topics to maximise on
their expertise?
2.5. Decision making
CWG
Overview: The suggested process is that decisions should be made by consensus.
Where the CWG decide that consensus is not possible on a given issue, then there
will be a vote where agreement will be reached when there is a two-thirds majority in
favour from each of the four constituent groups.
Voting system proposed is now considered international good practice and allows
for no blocking or domination by a single group.
Is voting the only way for resolving contentious issues?
No single acceptable guideline for voting but some practices are having 3 rounds of
deliberations then voting in place.
Concern over whether choices are made based upon objectivity, but on “ought to
be” mentality. May be better to postpone decisions for a set time.
Postponement of a voting should be possible if CWG think that more time would be
useful.
Minutes of 1st CWG meeting 8
Danger of postponement, and how to decide when to postpone.
In other processes, deadlines often dictate the need for voting on contentious
issues. A No Vote could also be outcome and that would be sent out for public
consultation. Examples exist and RN cited another process.
Need to have time that constituent consultation is given agenda so that voting is not
a surprise to people if needed.
Facilitators would recommend voting when necessary and would put prior notice on
when a vote may be needed to allow consultation.
2.6. Appeals mechanism
CWG
Overview: some concerns over the process, facilitators, CWG, etc may crop up due to
the large number of stakeholders. There therefore needs to be in place a
transparent mechanism to deal with any dissatisfaction.
Need to have some level of reviewing regularly
Agree and in addition, suggestions on review period, how often and if changes
occur how to bring this up to CWG.
RT2 session is another avenue to further think.
The suggested process seems somewhat familiar – what international standard
setting guides were used for the formulation of suggested CWG process?
Two major documents: ISO Guide 59 and ISEAL Code of Good Practice for Setting
Social and Environmental Standards. The suggestions here come directly from these
two documents.
2.7. Maintaining public information
CWG
Overview: Progress on the criteria development will be maintained on the RSPO
website, including: copies of all procedural documents concerning criteria
development; any documents available for public comment; synopses of how issues
raised during public review have been dealt with by the CWG; six-monthly work
programmes of the CWG and records of criteria development activities.
PNG access to internet is very poor and downloading it would be very difficult. E-
mail or CD-rom to those in PNG is better.
Minutes of 1st CWG meeting 9
Can a mailing list be provided?
CWG should be directly contacted by Proforest while public consultation can be done
if requested through PDF documents. Further information on the webpage with
appendices of information also available and distributed to the group.
2.8. Objectives and scope2
CWG
Overview: The suggested description of the Objective is to produce criteria setting
out the economic, social and environmental requirements for sustainable production
of palm oil. The suggested scope is that they will be internationally applicable to oil
palm plantations and primary processing operations.
Need to reconcile with SOI, and include statement that says, “production and use of
sustainable palm oil”.
2.9. Content of criteria3
CWG
Overview: Best practise guidelines contain specific recommendations for how criteria
should be written and what should be included in terms of verifiers and indicators
and guidance for national interpretation.
Some criteria may have to wait for pilots or tests, yet some stopgap measures would
be needed, how to handle it?
Field-testing helps identify problems etc., so concurrent process of testing and
refining future drafts is the likely path to take.
Dilemma because we don’t yet know how some of the criteria are to be applied. Are
these standards going to be mandatory or voluntary? These have ramifications upon
the application, and consequences, like legal or voluntary implications.
Voluntary, with the supply chain being the main demand factors.
There is still an issue relating to this and RSPO has to be further involved in deciding
2 See Section 1 of ‘Process for the development of international criteria for
sustainable oil palm’ for draft text that was used in discussion.
3 See Section 2 of ‘Process for the development of international criteria for
sustainable oil palm’.
Minutes of 1st CWG meeting 10
if criteria would be voluntary or whether RSPO members would have to be
committed to implementing them.
Later in the day implementation of criteria should be further considered, and can
then make recommendations to the RSPO for uptake, implementation, etc.
2.10. Criteria Development Process4
CWG
Outline: Start October 2004 and last for approximately 12 months. Proposed
timeline includes two draft versions plus a final version and two physical meetings
of CWG with other communication electronic.
Would the present draft be the first one?
No, a first draft should be done in the weeks after this CWG meeting.
The 12 month timeframe is very challenging and short for developing an
international set of standards. The CWG would have to decide if an extension of
time is likely necessary to ensure a satisfactory result.
2 physical meetings could also be another constraint and should be considered.
This means more electronic communications and thus requires timely replies,
meaning a strong commitment to reply by deadline from members.
Size of document is another issues, and docs under 200kb would be better for
downloading and re-distribution to constituents.
Would it be worthwhile sometime later on to have an e-forum for wider consultation
beyond facilitator to CWG members?
Agreed.
3. Identification of major issues in draft principles
and criteria
Objective: Identify major issues with the draft principles and draft criteria
4 See Section 3 of ‘Process for the development of international criteria for
sustainable oil palm’.
Minutes of 1st CWG meeting 11
3.1. Draft Principles5
CWG
Overview: Are the Principles in the Framework adequate, if not, what alterations
need to be made, including additional principles?
1. Compliance with applicable laws and regulations
Agreement reached that this was appropriate
2. Long-term profitability
Seems redundant since oil palm is a long-term crop and is inculcated into the
overall principles of investing in oil palm.
Feedback from first doc was that explicit need to put down this point.
Palm oil is competing against other oils and thus long-term profits is important.
Essential for this to be in, since without economic viability is fundamental and
comes first otherwise others cannot be considered. Sees economic viability is
more expressive and accurate for this principle.
Agrees with above.
Should be re-written as an activity rather than outcome.
Long-term viability to Malaysian investors abroad, are advised to ensure the
ultimate yield, and needs to be borne in mind.
Recognition that profitability is essential part of sustainability. Balance needed to
ensure this is key
Should put this principle as the underlying principle that shows profits cannot be
undermined at cost of meeting other principles.
Agrees with above.
Long-term profitability should be part of technical(?)
3. Use of appropriate best management practices in plantations and mills
Remove the word ‘management’ as there are more than just managers.
BMPs is just a common term.
Practices are more than just management, e.g. land, etc. relating to other issues
like rights, etc.
Acknowledge those but BMPs is a common terminology used and can be more
5 See page 1 of ‘Framework for Drafting Criteria for Sustainable Palm Oil’
Minutes of 1st CWG meeting 12
closely described within document.
Best practices probably more widely used than BMPs.
Decision has to be made on whether principle 3 is only for technical practices or
should also encompass other issues relating to labour, etc.
There are overlaps between principles 1,3 &5 exists and redundancy is a worry.
There are likely to be overlaps, and CWG has to work out which divisions have to
be made. There are alternatives in terms of either being more explicit on each
principle or to develop previous idea and have subsets.
Quality of oil is important and needs to be covered.
Quality should be part of the issues relating to profitability
4. Environmental responsibility and conservation of natural resources and
biodiversity
Discomfort with use of word environmental as it may be seen as missing out some
parts like biodiversity or only as brown issues. On conservation question over
whether plantations can be conservationists. Re-wording responsibility towards
environmental, natural resources and wild species.
There is more to biodiversity, and conservation, than just wild species, so diversity
has to be beyond just species.
The principle should remain, on natural resources can include in-site, as well as
outside, but key point is to ensure that there is responsibility to check on their
impacts on biodiversity and environmental impacts.
Conservation is problem, but all agriculture is at expense of conservation.
Conservation may be the wrong word.
E.g. in Indonesia there are set-aside laws for concessions functioning for water
catchments, biodiversity, etc. These areas should be considered in the planning
stage of any plantation and not to force plantations to set aside parks.
Reword to responsible use of natural resources, environment and biodiversity.
Note that the word ‘plantations’ as used in the Framework document is the land
holding of each estate, that would include planted and unplanted areas.
Biodiversity is too wide, more specific wording needed
No clarity over where land acquisition, conversion is in this scheme. Should new
plantations be featured more clearly in this in order to have more clarity over the
application of each principle.
What about a principle on new plantation developments?
New plantations should have a principle (or set of principles) that can act as
Minutes of 1st CWG meeting 13
guidelines exclusively for plantation development.
Agreement for a principle for new plantation establishment.
May be useful to look at criteria to determine some principle.
Pollution is not explicitly mentioned and if environmental responsibility is taken
out then brown issues need to be included.
5. Appropriate consideration of employees and of individuals and communities
affected by plantations and mills;
The issue of representation must be included, and the current wording of
“consideration” is weak.
Establishment of plantations has more influence outide of its areas. Replace to talk
about ‘social responsibility’
Disagree, as social responsibility starts to take a very much larger stake.
Statement too general and generic.
In meeting principle 1, many issues relating to principle 5 are already covered.
In setting international standards, variation in laws a given.
New plantaion establishment would need to cover more than just plantation and
mills already in existence. By separating existing from new it immediately
addresses concerns.
Rights of stakeholders like workers, land rights may not be necessarily covered by
national legal frameworks, so this principle needs to ensure that rights are
covered explicitly.
6. Commitment to continuous improvement in all areas of activity.
Difference to sustainability
No absolute sustainability, therefore this is a major consideration
Should the word be ‘continuous’ or ‘continual’?
3.2. Potential additional principles
Establishment of new plantations
Adherence to the production principles can be enhanced by support from use of
palm oil.
There should be more efforts to provide marketing push
Transparency and provision of information should also be included as an additional
principle.
Minutes of 1st CWG meeting 14
Transparency is important to ensure that there is some level of accountability
A statement of commitment to transparency should be inserted in the preamble to
the p&c.
Transparency would be something that would play a large role in the
implementation phase.
Need for lesson learning and information sharing when it comes to improving
environmental or social practices. With poor information flow in plantations, there is
a need to help them to get to information and practices, successes. RSPO can
promote the sharing of information.
Transparency is key to demonstrate commitment to sustainability within each
company e.g. their websites.
Transparency should apply to all the stakeholders who area involved.
Plantations vs. smallholders needs to be clearly defined. Would smallholders have to
meet the same standards, or would there be different ones for smallholders?
Wiser to address one at a time rather than for smallholders and plantations.
Smallholders must be involved. Smallholders have to be part of the equation.
Principles should be the same, but at the implementation and criteria part, there
should be interpretation for plantations vs. smallholders.
3.3. Structure of Principles and Criteria
CWG
Overview: Should the criteria be linked to specific Principles (i.e., create ‘Principles
and Criteria’) or should the Principles be stand-alone statements as they currently
are in the Framework?
From Prof. Tinker – principles are not really principles.
Agree on principle approach. Sustainability is the main goal of RSPO, as it stands,
social standards are lower than FSC P&C. Sustaining livelihoods is part of goals,
therefore the need to ensure representation of groups not present here.
International standards and principles exist. [MC and RL circulate document
containing summary of basic international Principles governing social issues]. In
own opinion, the document sets out the basic international standards and
safeguards
What is profitability defined as? Is it based upon price and profits?
Minutes of 1st CWG meeting 15
That should be determined by CWG. Asked for a round of opinions
At RT1, SOI was used and build upon it. Principles exist in that document, therefore
principles should be in.
Agree with previous comment.
Agree with above, actually underline what criteria is based upon.
Support principle approach, but the lack of matching is confusing.
Is anyone opposed to a ‘P&C approach?
Has to be clarity as principles may be too generic. E.g. Principle 4.
Would have to work up from criteria to meet the principles, i.e. criteria has to build
up to fulfil principle
The criterion is more now for production only. The linkages to use of palm oil also
need to be considered.
Should be considered
The use also as important and was already embedded into the SOI.
Is there a need to address to make explicit points that those downstream of
producers that binds them to be committed to buying sustainable palm oil?
Agrees with previous comments, and emphasised the need to have the demand for
sustainable palm oil.
From supply chain perspective, at present there is no mainstream sustainable palm
oil market or products, dialogue with users. Believes that need to demonstrate there
is sustainable palm oil now existing in market and then get commitment from
consumers. The criteria are presently focussed on production of sustainable palm
oil.
Embedded into the six principles of adherence or adoption of the principles by
buyers and consumers.
Is use of sustainable palm oil being questioned? It was agreed in RT1 and should be
worded into this document.
FSC was to provide markets for timber. RSPO members are part of a group that are
raising the standards for production of palm oil “raising the floor”.
2 options, one to demonstrate progress at RT3 and then gain commitments or
follow suggestion regarding commitment to use sustainable palm oil.
Agrees with above.
Minutes of 1st CWG meeting 16
3.4. Draft Criteria
Note: the CWG formed four breakout groups (producers, supply chain and investors,
environmental interests and social interests) and discussed the criteria that directly
related to their own constituent groups before reporting back to the entire CWG
group.
3.4.1. General comments
RT2 breakout and plenary
Structure and language
For the clarity of the criteria and avoid confusion as well as misunderstanding and
interpretation of the component it is important to have clear definition of various
terms and concepts used in the criteria, including “appropriate”, “requirement”,
“adequate”, “fairly”, “customary rights”, “local people/communities”, “smallholders”,
“nucleus farmers/plasma plantation (in Indonesia operation)”, “whenever possible”,
plus standard guideline to be used and the legal framework to be used as guidance
– local, national or international.
Many criteria are interconnected or overlapping. Cross referencing of criteria would
be very useful.
Recommendation that ISO language i.e. use of should, shall & may to distinguish
between requirements versus other levels of need to meet criteria
Criteria has to be simple yet comprehensive and clear for all to follow.
The issue of mandatory and voluntary needs to be discussed further.
Monitoring and evaluation need to be inherent part to ensure that the criteria
followed and applied.
Minutes of 1st CWG meeting 17
What has happened to the supply chain in the criteria?
There are currently no specific criteria now for the supply chain, although this issue
is raised in the Framework document..
On title of Criteria document, palm oil and oil palm is being used interchangeably.
Should be sustainable palm oil
Page 1, Item 1.1 From RT1 it was sustainable palm oil production and use, while
only production is mentioned here. Wants to see it changed to reflect it.
Smallholders
Structuring of criteria for smallholders interest is presently inadequate
Trying to make distinction between big and small plantations, and smallholders
caution. Using a 50ha average as benchmark for smallholders, their annual earnings
are above the national average. Smallholders are exempted from some of the
pressures that larger companies are subjected to, while they are collectively holding
about 4 million ha in Indonesian and contributes to a large amount of CPO. Believes
that there will be high standards for new plantations, low standards for existing
plantations and no standards for smallholders. With a new plasma type scheme in
existence, where the smallholders repay their land investment by selling to the main
companies. Standards should not be too high or low.
There is a need to balance out the number of criteria out but does not agree that it
penalises new plantations more. Smallholder discussion is that application of criteria
needs distinctively different guidelines for some criteria to suit their conditions and
ensure that they would be able to meet those standards.
In Malaysian scenario, with cess payment levied upon industry and smallholders.
The cess is used to provide support to smallholders and industry to improve
production, etc. Questions feasibility of having primary producers and millers to
provide training of smallholders. Malaysia has MPOB, NASH that takes care of
interests of smallholders. There is a need for it to make things work.
Within RSPO, the key characteristics are that a constructive approach that would
provide a universal application to the whole industry eventually. On smallholders,
constructive engagement with them by large companies and also from RSPO has to
happen.
Responding to this, there is a seat in the EB reserved for smallholders.
Endorsement of Framework as a starting point
Did the breakout group leaders get the feeling from the groups that the present
Framework is workable and a suitable starting point for criteria development
No criteria were ultimately rejected but definitions and wording needed to be more
Minutes of 1st CWG meeting 18
precise and clear. Very positive air in the group session and gives confidence to
move forward.
Echoed what Simon said. All criteria were in general agreed, but need for
clarification and refinement was called for.
Almost all comments were for corrections or clarifications, but few major concerns.
One extra area was an extra criterion for the role of government, but may not be
suitable because of the B-to-B nature of RSPO.
Still a lot of work to be done, from CWG to other stakeholders at large to get
feedback. In responding to John’s government point, believes that involvement of
government is still needed but question of when to put that into the process.
There is recognition by the EB that the role of government is key. There are common
areas of concern from all groups over the use of language and definition. Role of
smallholders also being raised, how they fit in. Monitoring also raised. Voluntary or
mandatory approach? Market forces and how they would or could decide the price.
But within the scope of sustainability the three pillars are key issues. Issues like
productivity can be looked into as part of the economic sustainability
3.4.2. Discussion of Legal Criteria
Criterion 1.1 There is compliance with all applicable local, national and international
laws and regulations
CWG
Minor change – should be ‘ratified’ international laws and regulations’
RT2 breakout and plenary
Issues: need inventories of applicable laws, assessment of how these differ between
countries, smallholders should be taken into account, and how compliance will be
assessed or controlled.
Criterion 1.2 The right to use the land can be demonstrated and does not diminish
the legal or customary rights of other users
CWG
Should be split in two because customary rights is a separate issue from
demonstration of the right to use land:
Criterion 1.2 The right to use the land can be demonstrated
Minutes of 1st CWG meeting 19
Criterion 1.3 The right to use the land does not diminish the legal or customary
rights of other users.
RT2 breakout and plenary
Should include compensation rather than talking about diminishing rights of others
How would CWG handle land rights issues? It is an issue for not just Indonesia but
prevalent in all countries with oil palm?
On issue of plantation establishment, land acquisition would directly address the
issues related to land rights, with an emphasis on an equitable approach. It would
be explicitly addressed in the CWG.
3.4.3. Discussion of Technical criteria
Criterion 2.1 Management planning aims at long-term financial and economic
viability for plantations and mills
CWG
Long-term financial viability is not only in the hands of producers, but also depends
on global markets and economy. Should change to ‘Financial plans should take into
account the need for continual improvement in productivity, economic,
environmental and social performance’
RT2 breakout and plenary
Issues affecting long-term financial planning include inflation, disrupted loan
projects etc.
Criterion 2.2 High productivity and quality of produce is achieved on planted land
through appropriate agronomic and management practices
CWG
Change ‘high’ to ‘optimal’ productivity.
Productivity is related to yield
Change from ‘BMPs’ to ‘Better Practices’
RT2 breakout and plenary
How does this apply to smallholders?
Food safety would have to be somewhere as a component.
Minutes of 1st CWG meeting 20
Criterion 2.3 Plantation and mill operating procedures are appropriately
documented
CWG
Should add ‘and followed through consistently’
Include a provision to spell out the differences for smallholders.
RT2 breakout and plenary
How does this apply to smallholders?
How will this be audited?
Criterion 3.1 Practices must be adequate to maintain, and if appropriate, improve,
long-term soil fertility
CWG
Can delete the phrase ‘long-term’
Why take out ‘long-term’?
Long-term or short term is same thing. Soil fertility should be constant.
RT2 breakout and plenary
What are the cost implications of this?
Criterion 3.2 Practices must be adequate to minimise and control erosion
CWG
Should there be a slope limit? No explicit mentioning of terracing as measures.
Should add “and degradation”
RT2 breakout and plenary
For smallholders, intercropping practises often cause erosion, but are vital to the
smallholders
Inter-cropping: this is too general and not all crops are causes of erosion.
Minutes of 1st CWG meeting 21
Criterion 3.3 Practices must be adequate to maintain the quality and quantity of
fresh water
CWG
Should be explicit in stating “surface and ground water”
Should introduce the notions of efficiency of use/renewability of source.
Criterion 4.1 Pests, diseases and weeds are effectively managed whilst pesticide use
is minimised
CWG
Have a minimum standard e.g. from PAN for guidelines
RT2 breakout and plenary
Should mention IPM and control of invasive introduced species
Criterion 4.2 Herbicides and pesticides in WHO classes 1A and 1B or banned by
national legislation shall not be used and any other herbicides and pesticides
should be used in a way that minimises health and environmental risks
CWG
Should delete mention of WHO classes and focus on using pesticides in a way that
does not endanger health or environment.
Can remove the word ‘herbicides’ as herbicides are pesticides.
Concern over wording: there may be some countries where there are chemicals not
banned.
Guidance on this is presented in the paper on basic social principles presented
earlier.
Tried to incorporate this consideration but main objective was to remove WHO
standards because they only look at toxicity without addressing environmental
issues or use of these chemicals.
Stockholm convention only covers POPs.
Did the group looking at the technical criteria discuss smallholders issues – how
different would the technical components be for smallholders?
Minutes of 1st CWG meeting 22
Not enough time for a conclusive discussion
Criteria the same but guidance to meet them different.
Would transparency be implanted into this area?
RT2 breakout and plenary
‘Minimise’ should refer to using as per instructions on the label.
The section should be ‘Pest and disease control’
Add “occupational” health
Criterion 5.1 Planting material should be of the highest quality available
Criterion 5.2 Nurseries should avoid the use of forest topsoil, be sustainable in
water-use and minimise chemical control of pests and diseases
CWG
These criteria should be placed as guidance under Criterion 2.2 rather than being
criteria in their own right.
The issue of topsoil from virgin forests for nursery use which is specific to nurseries
only and should be dealt with separately
RT2 breakout and plenary
Not just forest topsoil – should include all soil from important areas (e.g. soil from
any High Conservation Forest Area)
Need to list contentious areas
3.4.4. Discussion of environmental criteria
Criterion 6.1 The on and off-site impacts of the plantation and mill management
activities should be adequately assessed and managed
CWG
Not clear what this relates to: is it specifically to existing or new plantations …
presumably this just relates to existing plantations.
Clarity over environmental assessment, whether it means formal or informal
assessment
Minutes of 1st CWG meeting 23
In international natural resource standards it is common to deliberately leave it
vague so as to allow for smaller plantations and smallholders to carry out informal
assessments
Expansion of new planting area could be moved to criteria 15 for new plantations.
De-link it from ISO 14000 standards as it would complicated matters.
RT2 breakout and plenary
Take out the word “Adequate” or define adequate using indicators present in the
pre-text.
Proposed to add ‘ and monitor’ explicitly.
Criterion 7.1 An understanding of the plant and animal species and habitats that
exist inside and around the plantation shall be established
CWG
Concern over expertise in plantations to carry out some of the biodiversity work.
Plantations should be aware of some of the species, as not practical for plantations
Suggestion to combine both 7.1 and 7.2 but no resolution. There was a point that
they cold actually be a continuous criterion.
It is common practice to engage universities to do biodiversity work as projects.
RT2 breakout and plenary
The term “around” is not clear
Ecological understanding can go beyond concession boundaries, but the ‘plan’ to
conserve and ‘enhance’ biodiversity cannot.
GHPB is undertaking a long-term study on Carrey Island’s biodiversity and would like
to offer it to RSPO as potential study site. This will help clarify what sort of
understanding is appropriate.
Clarification over whether it applies to existing or new plantations.
For elephants and other species that move, what is role of national bodies?
Criterion 7.2 A plan to conserve and restore biodiversity in and around the
plantation shall be developed and implemented
Minutes of 1st CWG meeting 24
CWG
Concern over expertise in plantations to carry out some of the biodiversity work.
Plantations should be aware of some of the species, as not practical for plantations
‘Biodiversity’ is too large a terminology.
Concern over restoring and increasing biodiversity. Help also needed to help in
riparian reserves, etc. In PNG, experts to assist in these exercises are required by
law for new plantations.
Is it meant for existing plantations as well?
Only use ISO to monitor impacts of existing ones.
Smallholders would not have capacity to address some of the larger biodiversity
related issues.
RT2 breakout and plenary
The term “around” is not clear
The term ‘restore’ is not clear. Restore to what? Cannot restore a plantation into a
virgin forest, but enough to ‘enhance’ the natural biodiversity.
Should not use ‘protect’ as we should not protect what is remaining from what has
been lost.
The HCVF definition too long and open-ended. Need to be redefined to be clear to
all stakeholders
Definition of “around” needed.
Plan on biodiversity restoration needs to be clarified, e.g. if it was lalang, would that
mean restoring to lalang or to forest?
Restoration is one issue still needs clarification.
Criterion 8.1 Waste from the plantation and the mill is minimised and any waste
produced is disposed of in an environmentally and socially responsible manner
CWG
No major change required
RT2 breakout and plenary
The term of ‘socially responsible’ manner has to have a clear/definite definition.
The term ‘minimise’ proposed to be changed with ‘recycled, reused and reduced’.
Minutes of 1st CWG meeting 25
This is more in line with current best practise and is positive in intent.
Criterion 8.2 The efficiency of energy use should be maximised whilst minimising
fossil fuel use and all emissions, including greenhouse gases
CWG
Referring to the guidance, it is quite impractical to monitor all the gas emissions
Remove greenhouse gases in criterion, and to have its own separate from energy
use.
Assessment of energy balance needs to be clarified.
Need to re-look into it but minimisation of fossil fuels would cover this issue.
RT2 breakout and plenary
Criterion is clear
Criterion 8.3 Use of fire for land clearing and waste disposal is avoided except in
exceptional circumstances
CWG
What are ‘exceptional’ circumstances?
Forest fires related to land clearing. Large companies are responsible for some of
the forest fires but smallholders have been widely blamed. Some stronger
mechanisms to deter burning needed.
RT2 breakout and plenary
Use of “exception circumstances” has to be elaborated.
There is duplication between criteria 8.3 and 17.1 relating to use of fire for land
clearing. Recommendation that it is taken out of criterion 17.1
Criterion 8.4 Strategies to reduce pollution should be developed and implemented
CWG
No major changes required
RT2 breakout and plenary
Minutes of 1st CWG meeting 26
Proposed to add “and monitored”
Monitoring results should be made publicly available
Replace “strategy” with “plans”: strategy is a rather grand term, particularly for
smallholders and medium-sized plantations
3.4.5. Discussion of social criteria
Criterion 9.1 An assessment of the social impacts of proposed operations is carried
out and the results are taken into account in management planning and operational
procedures
CWG
Consider major change – there need to be separate criterion for plantation
establishment, existing and new ones. The emphasis of the current criterion is very
much on existing plantation.
Need to consider the whole issue of both positive and negative impact, the whole
issue of land rights, term and conditions in land acquisition, representation of
community using the standard of Free, Prior and Informed Consent for decision that
may affect local people (including indigenous peoples, transmigrants)
RT2 breakout and plenary
In general agree with the CWG view with the following emphasis:
• Different countries have different regulations/rules for land acquisition which
need to be taken into account.
• Need to be clearly defined what laws to be used in the issue of land acquisition
for example, whether it would be state or customary laws;
• Social impact assessment (SIA) beyond the plantation/environmental impact
should be defined further.
• Terms and condition for land acquisition should be clearly defined for the
people affected by the plantation establishment.
• In case of nucleus plantation scheme involving the smallholding planters a clear
profit sharing mechanism should be clearly defined prior to the establishment
of partnership with big corporations/companies.
• There is proposition that the social criteria in the new establishment component
should be put under this social component since the issue is more relevant.
This will need further review and discussion.
Minutes of 1st CWG meeting 27
Criterion 9.2 There is an effective method for communication and consultation with
local communities and other affected or interested parties
CWG
Consider minor change that has major implication – need to reflect principles of
transparency and openness and participation of local people through two ways
interactive communication not only from companies to community but vice versa,
consider the existence/formation of multi-stake holders forum.
Paper presented earlier suggests voluntary adoption of the standards set out in the
conventions.
Should have a clause to say that in absence of national laws then, the international
conventions would be the guide for standards.
RT2 breakout and plenary
In general the RT2 breakout group was in agreement with the CWG’s view. Specific
propositions include:
• CSR should be clearly defined in SAI.
• Proposed to use similar forum developed by Malaysian growers as means for
communication – Joint Consultative Committee that could be useful for carrying
out the SIA.
• Communication should be conducted effectively with local people/community (in
the principle of transparency and openness) considering the psychological
factors of the community, especially in the establishment of new plantation but
also in the operation of the existing ones.
Criterion 9.3 There is a documented system for dealing with complaints and
grievances which is implemented and effective
CWG
Consider major changes – it should base on collective voice that reflects that the
right to organize and documents not only complaints but also the issue of
negotiation and bargaining in the whole stage of establishment. Should be
consistent with international conventions on issues relating to rights to organise, for
groups like indigenous groups, etc.
Important to harmonise the standards to avoid double standards, etc.
Minutes of 1st CWG meeting 28
Concern over social issues as it cannot be compared between EU and developing
world. Pesticides use is example. Standards for developing world need to be
different. The use of ILO, Codex standards should be acceptable as they are
international standards.
National definitions would be able to cater for differences within countries.
RT2 breakout and plenary
General agreement on CWG views. Guidance keys for further consideration and
development of criteria:
• Adopt the “musyawarah” (consensus – Indonesian term) mechanism
• May be able to deal with complaints within Joint Consultation Committees (JCC).
Grievances may be internal (employees) or external. Complaints need to be
clearly documented.
• JCC can be used to spell out the procedures to be followed involving employees,
smallholders, interest groups and community outside the plantation.
• Need to define the term of “local people” (whether it applies to smallholders,
people around the plantation, indigenous peoples, transmigrant, etc.)
• Looking at the possibility to use the existing local mechanism, such as village
cooperative in Indonesia case to negotiate and bargain and file complaints over
compensation and other terms affected the community.
Criterion 10.1 All workers have acceptable pay and conditions
CWG
Consider major revision – Define acceptable pay and conditions, more emphasis on
the concept of a living wage instead of minimum standard of wage, refer to ILO
convention on Plantation Workers. This issue need to be clarified further.
Respect the right to organize and collective bargaining. Consider the whole issues
of non-discriminative principle and equal remuneration, just employment for
migrant workers, no forced labour – all these may well be placed into the new
criterion for this component. (10.3?)
Seeking clarification of living wage definition
Living wage covers not only food, but also other basic necessities, incl. Housing,
health, etc.
How is that determined, and who decides?
Minutes of 1st CWG meeting 29
Nationally determined through government agencies, and often higher than
minimum wage levels.
Aware of existence of many standards, and can cause confusion. Should keep to
minimum wage.
Minimum wage does not reflect full basic needs.
RT2 breakout and plenary
There is general agreement on CWG views – specific proposition includes:
• The criterion need to be separated each for pay and condition because it will lay
out a significant guidance that have different terms and may cover the wider
range of issues. This is in line with CWG proposition to have another criterion
added.
• Agree that the issue of wage needs to be clarified – clearly both Malaysian and
Indonesian planters differ in looking at the basic standard for payment. Living
wage may well be more acceptable than regional/local minimum wage standard
but need to be explored further how applicable this would be and whether there
is legal framework that can be used as reference.
• Pay should be negotiated by collective agreement.
Criterion 10.2 Child labour is not used unless children are involved as part of small
family owned and run enterprises and under adult supervision or an integrated
education programme
CWG
No change to the statement in principle but need to make sure that the minimum
age clearly defined whether it follows the ILO convention (not less than 15-18 years)
and also adhere to the convention of children rights. Minimum age needs to be
defined and be sector specific.
RT2 breakout and plenary
Agree with CWG view with the following emphasis -
• Need to have a clear guidance to protect children working in the palm oil
business; proposed to add more to the criterion clarifies clear minimum age
range and definite working hours.
• Difficult to implement law on child labour especially in harvesting where workers
bring children to collect loose fruits and also assisted pollination
• Elaboration of terms and condition for children working in the company – refer
Minutes of 1st CWG meeting 30
to the existing laws and international convention.
• For component 10 – the proposition is to make it into 3 criteria: 10.1. Workers
pay; 10.2. Workers condition; 10.3. Child labour
Criterion 11.1 There is appropriate implementation of health and safety
requirements
CWG
Consider major changes/revision - needs amplifying of “appropriate” and
“requirements” especially related to safety and health in agriculture. What
constitutes appropriate implementation? What standards we use? What
requirements? Need to be specified and spelled out clearly to avoid confusion and
vague ambiguous interpretation.
There is a big question on how the producers ensure that this issue of H&S can be
monitored up and down the line concerning responsible advertisement and
marketing of products/equipment promoted by suppliers – be it technology or
chemical compounds.
This may be beyond the reach of primary producers.
Disagrees because pesticide company would need to meet the standards of
plantation companies too.
RT2 breakout and plenary
General agreement on CWG views with the following suggestions -
• Proposed to use “occupational” health and safety instead of just H&S. Some
countries such as Malaysia has comprehensive guidance on OHS in agriculture.
Seriousness of commitment is a major issue.
• Issues raised by supplier on their accountability related to H&S emphasized the
main responsibility of the growers to make sure that all precautions attached to
the products observed and applied to the workers properly.
• Refer to guide keys: Adoption of Agrochemical Code of Conduct (FAO Code of
Conduct for the sale and distribution of agrochemical products 2002, revision)
• It is important to have a proper training and education pre, during and post
events in the plantation to minimize the hazardous impact
Criterion 12.1 Plantations and mills deal fairly with smallholders and other local
Minutes of 1st CWG meeting 31
businesses
CWG
Consider major revision – clarify “FAIRLY”. Need to consider strongly how
smallholders protected in ‘free market’, ensuring that they have access of
information, access to mills and storage, fair price/purchasing schemes that
observes grading flexibility and quality unevenness, tenure security, equal treatment
for women involved in supply chain, respect the right to organize and
representation in bargaining, support the transportation, etc. Major discussion
required for this particular criteria.
RT2 breakout and plenary
In general all participants agree with CWG views on criterion.
Issues for further discussion:
• Transparency is very important; plantations and mills have to deal with
smallholders and local business in transparent manner, open space for
negotiation and agreement over terms and conditions.
• Agree that grading flexibility need to be developed to ensure that smallholders
still benefit from partnership.
• The demand for good quality product should not deter companies to invest in
capacity building. Responsible and good plantation companies do assist
communities, workers and smallholders – such practices need to be elaborated
and shared to support the good criterion. How much the company can afford to
support will very much on how high the standard they demand from the
smallholders and local businesses.
Criterion 12.2 Plantations and mills contribute to local development wherever
possible
CWG
Consider major change – Need to clarify “WHENEVER POSSIBLE”, what does it means?
Have to adhere to the principles of transparency, openness and participation. Local
communities should have a right to negotiate and identify their own priorities and
needs based as well on the different needs of men and women. Have to refer to the
economic, social and cultural rights where both parties base decision for the most
appropriate intervention to support local development.
The guidelines are not clear enough.
RT2 breakout and plenary
Minutes of 1st CWG meeting 32
Participants are in general agreement with CWG view.
• The only argument raised by Malaysian company derived from misunderstanding
on local development concept whether it is supporting government or
communities.
• Need to define local communities and stakeholders.
• Need to be simple and fair. Also need to consider financial sustainability – how
much support can be afforded – there is so much to do
Criterion 13.1 All staff and workers are adequately trained and competent
CWG
Minor revision required – need to include smallholders. If companies expect
smallholders to adhere to standard quality they need to invest in the efforts for
improving smallholders’ capacity.
RT2 breakout and plenary
Participants are in agreement with the CWG views.
Change of word? Competent or qualified/capable?
A suggested way to include smallholders would be to add a criterion such as “Mills
purchasing fruit from third-party suppliers (small holders or other plantations)
should (have an obligation to?) provide training (guidance?) to help (encourage?)
those suppliers to meet the sustainability criteria”
The proposed additional criterion would be much too costly.
3.4.6. Discussion of Plantation Establishment criteria
Criterion 14.1 Surveys and site planning should be conducted prior to the
establishment of plantations and the results of these should be incorporated into
plans and operations
CWG
Minor change: re-word to “Soil and topographic surveys and site …”
Include climate data (i.e. rainfall, etc.)
Would this criterion apply to smallholders?
Minutes of 1st CWG meeting 33
RT2 breakout and plenary
Specify who should do actual surveys
Change existing site-based approach to a larger landscape approach to consider
wider footprint of plantation
Reword soil and topographic surveys to include biodiversity components
Criterion 15.1 A comprehensive assessment of impacts or formal environmental
impact assessment shall be undertaken prior to establishing new plantations or
expanding existing ones and the results incorporated into plans and operations
CWG
Concern over specificity of guidance.
Should be a minimum size requirement (for smallholders)
Consider national requirements
Norm in other sectors is to have participatory environmental assessments,
recommended here also.
Criterion 15.2 Primary forest, High Conservation Value Forest and other natural
ecosystems of outstanding conservation value must not be converted to plantation
CWG
Usage of term HCVF as already defined under FSC; with main contention whether to
adopt the FSC terminology.
Minor changes: remove “Primary Forest” and replace “must not” with “should not”
Other issues:
Stronger guidelines and definition of HCVF required. Should also include other
important other natural ecosystems – should not be limited to “primary forest.”
Suggestion: “Forest which contain HCVs.” Include other ecosystems (i.e. wetlands,
mangroves, sea grasses, watersheds, etc.)
With massive expansion of oil palm, forest areas would be part of area cleared for
future. In areas that were recently deforested, there has to be a realistic statement
to take into consideration that new areas would be opened for oil palm.
The terminology “must not” would have to be re-considered.
Minutes of 1st CWG meeting 34
“Must not” should remain.
RT2 breakout and plenary
There is no criterion dealing with a cut off date for deforestation. This means that
companies could potentially continue unsustainable practices and then adopt the
criteria when it is in their interests.
Proposes extra criterion: Retrospectivity of plantation establishment (see Framework
4.3) should be incorporated into the criteria for plantation establishment.
Criterion 15.3 Extensive planting on marginal and fragile soils is avoided
CWG
No major changes needed. Need to define what ‘extensive’, ‘marginal’ and ‘fragile’
are.
Identified this criterion as one needing more work, specifically regarding peat soils.
Criterion 16.1 A comprehensive social impact assessment is carried out for all new
plantings and the results are incorporated into all planning and operations
Criterion 16.2 Customary rights and sacred sites are recognised and respected
Criterion 16.3 Local people are fairly compensated for land acquisitions
CWG
Land acquisition needs more attention. Can be inserted into new principle on new
plantations.
16.3 needs to be defined clearly, as the word “fairly” is vague.
Change it from compensate to purchase
Compensate is better – land is bought from government but may be used by locals.
RT2 breakout and plenary
Change from customary rights to land rights is problematic in some areas where
there are legal implications.
Criterion 17.1 Use of fire in the preparation of new plantations is avoided other than
Minutes of 1st CWG meeting 35
in specific situations
CWG
Why have provision to burn in any circumstance?
One of the members of the Technical Group that provided input into this document
pointed out that in Africa, and particularly for smallholders, there is not many other
options but to burn, but this is controlled by government licences.
ASEAN zero burn guidelines can be universally applied as they include very clear
specific guides for controlled burning.
ASEAN guidelines allow for some burning, especially for smallholders. Zero burn has
many beneficial points that would eventually gain wider acceptance.
The single most important question raised by consumers in the west is whether
there is a zero burn blanket policy from suppliers of palm oil. The RSPO Criteria
need to be very clear on this issue, e.g., either ‘no burning at all’ or ‘burning only
allowed in specified circumstances’.
There are two options, one is to get wide adoption of ASEAN zero burn guidelines
the second is to develop very clear and specific RSPO criteria that can be used
effectively by producers and also as for external communication.
Minutes of 1st CWG meeting 36
4. Drafting consultee lists
Objective: Start developing consultation strategies for each CWG member
Note: the CWG formed breakout groups to start developing consultee lists. These are
still in the process of development.
CWG
Overview: Three types of consultation:
1. Active – responsibility of each CWG member to identify and actively consult with
key stakeholders from the constituent group that they represent
2. Public – responsibility of facilitator to co-ordinate with support from CWG and
Secretariat to implement.
3. Technical advisors – used when the CWG thinks that expert technical advise is
needed on a specific issue, advisors to be approved by Executive Board
CWG members should:
• develop lists of key stakeholders within their constituent group and
geographical range
• should reflect the balance of interests within the constituent group and
geographical range of each CWG member.
• consideration will be given to gaining input of small and medium-sized
enterprises and other groups who would otherwise find it difficult to engage
in the process.
• be responsible for actively canvassing opinion on the criteria from these
organisations and individuals as well as consulting with other stakeholders
who express interest in the process.
There are no retailers or financiers in the supply chain group …
Retailers in EU would not be in a position or prioritise RSPO CWG. Believes that this
group would not be useful in providing constructive comments on the criteria. So,
no financiers or retailers not in.
In the Environmental group, it will be difficult to consult with stakeholders in
Africa and PNG
Communications to others in different languages will be important. Is there any
provision to translate the criteria? Key RSPO documents should be issued in
Spanish and French to ensure the effective participation of concerned parties in
Latin America and Francophone Africa.
If seen as important, then will need to fund-raise
Minutes of 1st CWG meeting 37
If it proves too difficult to translate the criteria, then we could at least aim to
translate briefing notes. We could look to some of the CWG group to help in
supporting this.
5. Discussion of criteria implementation
Objective: Begin discussions of how the criteria will be implemented
CWG
Overview: The ‘Draft criteria for sustainable palm oil’ raised issues of criteria
implementation including: development of global and national criteria; separate
criteria for smallholders; phased implementation; guidelines for auditing; linking
plantations to product.
We will not be able to resolve these issues today, but could agree on a statement
controlling use of the draft criteria for the time being. We suggest: “No public
claims should be made regarding compliance with the RSPO Criteria for
Sustainable Palm Oil pending official publication of the rules governing their use
by the RSPO Executive Board.”
How tight is the timeframes vis-à-vis the need to get things going and completed
We’ll cover that later
Need to develop guidelines for auditing, control and transparency
RT2 breakout and plenary
Will the working group take recommendations on who can certify using the
standards and if the certifiers will be accredited, and by who?
Not decided whether there will be a formal certification process or tool as outcome
but there is a strong call for the process to follow international best practice for
facilitating such a process. One of the three formal activities of the CWG is to
develop rules for implementation and claims made about it are credible,
transparent and meets international best practice.
From observation and other groups are that cost neutrality may be questionable,
on the part of the producers, the costs would likely to remain as criteria for
sustainable palm would also change.
Clarify that market prices would prevail and premiums meeting sustainability
standards would gradually erode.
Minutes of 1st CWG meeting 38
Would a mandatory approach for sustainability become the norm, and would a
more regulatory approach be needed to ensure long-term sustainability, since
higher costs for higher performance cannot be matched by increases in earnings?
Ultimately market will decide whether it will operate at a sustainable level. RSPO
can only act on a voluntary basis, but only governments can take more regulatory
role.
Certain large companies now have some initiatives on other commodities like
coffee, etc. Once large companies are involved into this, then there would be a
trickle down effect that would directly influence producers. There is an urgency
that this needs to be done quickly, i.e. a timeframe.
Timeframe is an important issue and requires pragmatic approach that minimises
long, drawn out negotiations.
Proforest has a difficult role in trying to bring out a timely document. There is
some calls already that actions can take place now.
Marketing of product – change from crude palm oil to another acronym.
Need to consider the costs and risks of not being sustainable, i.e. the risk of a
competitor beating the palm oil industry to standards or being tarnished or
implicated (rightly or wrongly) with the destruction of much of the last remaining
lowland forests.
Basic issue for primary commodity producers has many welfare benefits, but the
use of taxes, subsidies and benefits that distort trade exist. One of the greatest
handicaps for food crops is the subsidies for US and EU agricultural sector that
distorts markets vs. palm oil production for palm oil in Malaysia and Indonesia.
RSPO criteria would increase costs, and it makes palm oil producers at a
disadvantage. Wants to know if there is a way that such issues can be addressed
through RSPO.
Minutes of 1st CWG meeting 39
6. Next steps
CWG
Overview: (handing round paper) – this is a proposed timetable for the criteria
development. We should aim to complete the criteria, with 2 phases of public
consultation, within the next 12 months. We suggest that the first public
consultation starts this December. ProForest will send round draft criteria and
draft procedures documents within the next few weeks, modified on the basis of
today’s discussions. You can then all comment on these before the draft criteria
go into public consultation.
Need further clarification on the final date. Proposal to have a hard deadline so as
to make a document that handles to key issues.
Recommendation that if a document is not covering some of the less agreeable
items, then it does not become credible.
Aim for a completion date by given date, but should be realistic about ability
stakeholder consultations and achieving concensus.
Should the existing Framework document be used?
It would be better to incorporate today’s findings.
The additional criteria that were proposed under Section 4.3 in Framework criteria
doc should be kept in mind during the discussion.
The extras would be incorporated into the next draft.