Delaying hampers trust and credibility

This text is strictly not for citation!
===================================

Bogor, 17 June 2010

Dear Ganapathy Ramasamy,

Apologies for the delay response to your 3/6/2010 email communication.

What is reality that mentions in it appears that when UP first acquired PT Surya Sawit Sejati (SSS) UP paid all compensation. For Sawit Watch and complainants, to make it objective, it is still important to show that there mechanism and procedure in place which clarified all individuals entitled to compensation, on person in charge of SSS assigned to do the compensation, to whom, and under what conditions that must be in line with the principle of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC).

With regard to Bapak Syaridan and his legitimate case, there should be compelling reason to not allowing such action to happen in the future whilst at the same time this case should have not been used to annul legitimate rights of collective entity of concerned Runtu Lama communities. It would be objective to say if every individual and any collective compensation has been settled and must be properly documented based on mutually agreed process and terms by parties concerned with respect of the free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) of Runtu Lama communities. This is one of objective ways of achieving an agreement without further creating divisive and non-conducive situations that could and (already) result distrust and potential future internal conflicts within Runtu Lama communities.

It would be objective when the statement made with regard to 'no' jungle, primary forest, and conservation value be based on credible and independent report of third party assessment. HCV, primary forest and jungle are also important sources of livelihoods and ecosystem/environmental services, social and cultural identity critical to indigenous peoples and local communities.

This is one of good objective examples from the grounds that without impact assessment and proper assessment of HCV, field operations and land clearing already taken place yet remedial actions and restoration only done when external consultant found something wrong. It is objective to say that this is not a good example of continuous improvement and 'learning curve' whilst justifying unintended, repeatedly and persistent actions to be addressed later on with remedial actions and compensation whenever possible. How many times and how long there must be persistent remedial actions of wrong operations could be accepted? Until there is evident and no forest and three left? We believe that RSPO standard is already in the right direction – promoting best ever safeguard and precautionary consideration through mitigating and preventing conversion and clearance of HCVs in particular HCV5 and HCV6.

You have had repeatedly stated very clear that development of highly degraded land, logged over forestlands, or secondary jungle is not illegal or in violation with Indonesia law. It is objectively justifiable, when and only if, you have objective evident in hand on what is the legal status of the lands and forest including evident proper land acquisition with FPIC in place.

Suspension is not punishment. It is objective to say that instead of letting the situation uncertain or even getting worse thus suspension correct measure to be in place whilst everyone is in learning curve guides everyone rights and sufficient times with plans with remedial whilst maintaining principle of doing things right since the outset.

Compensation is partial objective evident of an agreement dealt with compensating lost of access, rights, opportunity,resources and livelihoods from land and forest. Sawit Watch much appreciates the achieved process and would have been objective for a credible and transparent evident with free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) of people concerned of Runtu Lama communities is in place as well.

Sawit Watch and complainants concerned in the way you were interpreted that Indonesian governance system is quite bureaucratic before any objective evident is in place. Is this the correct way and objective approach to verify, consider and justify whether principle 2 criteria 1, 2 and 3 have been adhered to where oil palm plantation companies are operating within the national jurisdiction? Sawit Watch believes that all legal and procedural provisions including required from authorities still strong and compelling reason to have confirmation with regard to claimed to be uncontested operations and activities in any regions in Indonesia.

Sawit Watch and other complainants much appreciate the progress made with reviewing accreditation mechanism and system. Therefore, all case at hand in particular issues in the complaint must be properly addressed with suspension measure while the review process is in place.

It would be objective suggestion to conclude whether an operation has met minimum criteria for partial certification set out in section 4.2.4, when and only if, the complaint is properly addressed under the grievance procedure and case closed in a transparent and credible manner.
It is also in the spirit of transparency that CUC should have made inclusive and proper consultation with right stakeholder and concerned local communities in Central Kalimantan. The Greenpeace's report shown that undetected social problems and environmental realities are objective evident that objective transparency is through website and internet with efforts by certification body to reach out legitimate stakeholder and concerned communities.

Sawit Watch is in the position that suspension is not punishment – neither such objective. It is objective to say that gaps are rules (standard and system). With RSPO accreditation process and system is reviewed by ASI, it is an obviously important measure that should be consistent with precautionary principle, and followed by a measure of suspension in place without unnecessary delay.

Complainants concerned that external stakeholders would have (or might) considered that RSPO has taken inconsistent actions of reviewing a legitimately contested certification body without suspension until the complaint is properly addressed under RSPO Grievance Procedure.
Sawit Watch and other complainants are unsatisfied with CUC complaint mechanism that failed to address substantive issues of the complaint thus complainants lodged the complaint under RSPO Grievance Procedure.

Complainants are deeply concerned in the way the complaint is handled – delaying activation of grievance process would further undermine substantive unaddressed issues in the complaint.
Complainants urge RSPO without further delay must activate Grievance Procedure since the complainants lodged the complaint on the 23 December 2009 without further and unnecessary delay.