Thursday, 10 December 2020

Leading Global Experts Call Land Rights for Indigenous Peoples Affordable, Effective, Untapped Solution to Deforestation, Biodiversity Loss & Pandemic Risk

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Leading Global Experts Call Land Rights for Indigenous Peoples Affordable, Effective, Untapped Solution to Deforestation, Biodiversity Loss & Pandemic Risk Indigenous leaders, researchers  warn of massive destruction to rainforests from mining, agriculture, major infrastructure projects; cite urgent need to strengthen land tenure for tropical forest communities to defend ecosystems, protect traditional knowledge EDITOR’S NOTE: Click here for a recording of today’s event and here for a virtual newsroom, with links to the research cited in this release. NEW YORK--Experts on deforestation, biodiversity loss and emerging disease presented findings today suggesting Indigenous Peoples and conservation-minded local communities must be central to efforts to slow forest loss and climate change and cut the odds of new pandemics. Convened by the Earth Institute at Columbia University, the virtual panel focused on evidence suggesting that major conservation goals could more easily be achieved if pacts like the Paris Agreement encouraged the scaling up of land rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities. Doing so could safeguard traditional knowledge and much of the world’s remaining biodiversity, estimated to be worth US$44 trillion to the global economic sector. “Protecting the land rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities has the potential to save people’s lives everywhere on the planet,” said Peter Daszak, president of the EcoAlliance and an author of the recent report on pandemic risk from the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). “The degradation of ecosystems feeds into climate change. Deforestation feeds into climate change So, if we can invest in protection of the remaining wild areas on the planet—those that are managed by indigenous and local communities around the world, we can get an incredible return on investment.” Streaming live just days before the five-year anniversary of the historic and ambitious 2015 Paris climate accord, the panel of Indigenous leaders and researchers met as deforestation continues unabated in tropical forest countries; a recent assessment concluded, “Forests are under threat from an ever-increasing demand for natural resources and different land uses, fueled by global markets, power imbalances, weak governance.” The experts meeting today sought to raise the visibility of evidence that has yet to influence policies aimed at addressing deforestation and other crises linked to the destruction of vulnerable ecosystems.  “Part of the problem is that we have asked individuals to take on these problems, when we need structural change,” said Pamela McElwee, Associate Professor in the Department of Human Ecology in the School of Environmental and Biological Sciences at Rutgers University and and a lead author on high-level reports on land use and biodiversity loss published by IPBES and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). “Evidence cited in our reports for the IPBES and the IPCC is very clear that indigenous peoples play a key role in preventing biodiversity loss and deforestation. In my opinion, structural recognition of rights should be fundamental to the Paris Agreement and to the Convention on Biodiversity. “I want to see Indigenous Peoples and local communities represented as rights holders at the main events and not just at side events during global climate and biodiversity summits,” McElwee said. Research by the World Resources Institute, the Rights and Resources Initiative and other institutions reveals that Indigenous Peoples and other local communities across every continent except Antarctica occupy more than 50% of the world's land, said Peter Veit, director of the Land and Resource Rights (LRR) initiative at the World Resources Institute. Land rights are cited in reports released by the IPBES and the IPCC, but the obstacles are significant; only 10% of land is recognized as belonging to communities, with another 8%designated for their use. Today’s panel was held during a week-long initiative to raise awareness of land rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities. “We know from our research that procedures for registering and titling lands are complicated, costly and can take decades to get,” Veit said. “It’s a travesty that companies are granted concessions—often to the same lands—in far less time. And when communities do have rights, it may not be for the trees, the water or the wildlife on their land. And governments often reserve for themselves the right to grant concessions to minerals under the soil. So, we need to streamline recognition of rights so that they are meaningful.” Norman Jiwan, a Kerambai Dayak from West Kalimantan (Indonesian Borneo) reported on a series of case studies about Borneo that illustrated the impact of a massive infrastructure project on forests and forest peoples, funded by Chinese and Asian development banks. “We have a very simple solution to climate change: Give us our rights to our lands and we will keep the forests standing,” said Jiwan. “Investors and industry coming into our country need to stop doing business as usual. These plans for the island of Borneo are not the answer to climate change and do not represent the climate justice that we are calling for.” The projects introduced by the governments of Indonesia and Malaysia bring in outsiders to serve as labor, Jiwan said. The changes are beginning already to undermine the local communities’ abilities to protect the island, 60% of which remains covered in primary forests. “Worldwide, throughout modern history, Indigenous Peoples and local communities have had their lands wrested from them, whether we look at the Amazon or Borneo,” said Columbia University Professor Jeffrey Sachs, director of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network and convener of the Science Panel for the Amazon. “There seems no stopping this relentless greedy corrupt system. Until now. We have a very big year ahead, with the oceans summit in Portugal and the meeting of the Convention on Biodiversity and the climate COP in November. We are at the end of planetary survival. Can we protect the rights of Indigenous Peoples and the juggernaut that is putting us all at risk?” Mina Susana Setra, an indigenous Dayak Pompakng from from West Kalimantan, Indonesia, described her frustration after 13 years of attending global climate conferences, where she and other indigenous leaders advocated for rights as a solution to the deforestation that is now contributing significantly to carbon emissions, particularly in countries such as Brazil and Indonesia. “For so many years, negotiators at the COPs have been focusing on city-based solutions,” said Setra, an expert on environment, and climate policy at Indonesia’s Indigenous Peoples’ Alliance of the Archipelago (AMAN). “It is clear from what we have heard here today that we need to find community-based solutions and that is not we are doing. The solutions to climate change and biodiversity loss exist already, but we are not using them. And our governments have opened a highway to new investments, so our rights are even more at risk.” Peter Daszak concluded by calling on citizens of rich nations and their leaders to recognize the impact their behaviors are having on vulnerable ecosystems and the Indigenous Peoples and local communities that protect them. “We hear a lot of doom and gloom, but if we realize who is causing these problems, we have to recognize it is us, and we have the power to stop it,” Daszak said “Get involved. Not just in fighting climate change, but in supporting Indigenous Peoples’ rights around the world. This is how we can protect ourselves against future pandemics that kill our loved ones and our neighbors and crush our economies. And don’t stop. We need to focus on the outrageous abuses of land rights, year after year. And we need to speak up.” ### SUSTAIN WHAT hosted by environment journalist Andrew Revkin, is a global conversation identifying solutions to the complicated, shape-shifting and epic challenges attending humanity’s Anthropocene environmental surge. A prime focus is making sense of, and getting the most out of, the planet's fast-forward information environment—the one Earth System changing faster than the actual environment. This webcast is produced and hosted by Andrew Revkin, founding director of the Earth Institute's new Initiative on Communication and Sustainability. For the time being, these sessions are focused on mitigating the unfolding societal disruption and devastation driven by the global spread ofCoronavirus Disease 19, best known today as COVID-19. But we are also focusing on ways to build more resilient, inclusive and sustainable communities in the years ahead. The webcasts stream live at our Earth Institute Facebook page and on Revkin's LinkedIn,YouTube and Periscope accounts. Watch all archived segments on this YouTube playlist and on Periscope.
 Coimbra Sirica +13019433287

Friday, 2 October 2020

UK approach to legislation on deforestation poses risks to forest peoples’ rights and the forests they call home UK legislative plans for tackling commodity-driven deforestation are welcome, but the government’s current approach to supply chain regulation is seriously flawed as it: - Would not require UK companies to address human rights impacts and risks - Would only require UK businesses to ensure compliance with legal rules in producer countries, where national laws often fail to adequately protect forest peoples’ rights and the forests they call home Effective due diligence regulations must include international sustainability and human rights laws as the benchmark for legal compliance, and establish a duty of corporate conduct that requires businesses to undertake combined environmental and human rights due diligence on forest risk commodities. This includes close attention to protecting community tenure rights and respecting the core standard of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC). A failure to require human rights due diligence to address rights impacts and risks of abuse associated with deforestation would significantly undermine the usefulness of the UK’s regulatory initiative and be contrary to its obligations and commitments to uphold human rights. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Leaving British businesses to only comply with 'local laws' in producer countries will end with these businesses causing massive deforestation, polluting the environment and abusing the rights of many local people and surely allow companies to walk away with impunity." - Mina Beyan, Program Director of Social Entrepreneurs for Sustainable Development (SESDev) in Liberia. Earlier this year the British government announced that tackling deforestation and curbing climate emissions linked to global commodity production and trade is one of its strategic priorities, and that the UK will push the matter to be top of the agenda of the UN climate summit to be hosted in Scotland in 2021. The well documented association between deforestation and human rights violations [1] coupled with the current global pandemic, increased attacks on human rights and environmental defenders, the rise in food insecurity, increasing numbers of land grabbers acting with impunity and the raging forest fires in the Amazon- are core reasons why human rights must be at the heart of the UK’s environmental and climate initiatives. Crucially, evidence shows that securing forest peoples’ tenure rights is vital precondition for effective measures to slow deforestation and curb land use GHG emissions. [2] In August, the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) launched a public consultation on its plans to put a new law on the statute books that requires UK businesses to eliminate “illegal” commodities associated with deforestation from their supply chains. This legislation would require companies to report publicly on the actions taken, through their environmental due diligence, to abide by the new law and impose fines on those failing to comply. Effective mandatory regulation of the UK commodity trade to reduce the UK’s environmental and social footprint abroad is much needed and long overdue, but without a due diligence approach that demands respect for human rights and remedies for violations caused by UK businesses overseas, the proposal in its current form raises serious concerns on a number of fronts. First, DEFRA has made clear that human rights are ‘beyond scope’ regardless of the final form of the legislation and does not propose to include proper deterrent sanctions and liability provisions that would enable potential remedy for indigenous peoples and local communities. This approach fails indigenous peoples and local communities on multiple fronts because fundamental human rights outlined in the International Bill of Human Rights and the UK’s other international human rights and environmental law obligations will not be the standard to which companies are held to. The legislative proposals have not taken consideration of successive calls from indigenous peoples and local communities who have urged States to tackle the root cause of both the threats and violence towards them and the destruction of their forests, often caused by a failure to recognise their land rights, and who have called for legally binding human rights and environmental due diligence (HREDD) to support reform of corporate supply chains. [3] It disregards a large body of evidence built up over decades that shows that insecure customary land tenure is a key underlying driver of deforestation. It also fails to respond adequately to the government’s own independent expert task force on sustainable commodity supply chains. Important information on the details of the legislative proposal are also not yet available: the size of potential fines, which companies will fall under scope of the law and even which commodities will need to be disclosed in supply chain transparency measures have not be outlined. It is also of concern that UK investors, financiers and public procurement appear to be missing from the current proposals. The bare minimum is not enough Defra’s initial proposal and the scope of the consultation adopts a flawed ‘local’ legality approach, a low bar that would require British businesses only to comply with a small number of forest and land laws in producer countries, which typically fail to adequately uphold forest peoples’ rights and lack effective protections for community forests. The emphasis on national-level law needs to be replaced with all applicable law expressly including international human rights and environmental law. Recent legal roll-backs in forest-rich countries such as Brazil and Indonesia exemplify why international standards must be part of the basis for defining sustainability norms and regulations. If progress is to be made in protecting forests and forest peoples’ rights, and if the UK is to be a world leader in sustainable trade, then it is essential that international standards are included in the benchmark for sustainability in any UK law on supply chain regulation. Reliance only on producer country national laws and local (national) commodity certification schemes must be abandoned in this UK legislative proposal otherwise it will run a serious risk of failing to meet its objectives. Worse still, such an approach risks demanding compliance with only a subset of applicable laws that are often outdated, discriminatory and unsustainable which would leave forests and forest peoples vulnerable to harm. Restrictions on the regulatory scope of the law means that it would only apply to UK companies and traders that import and place goods on the UK market, without due attention to British business investments and commodity supply to other countries and external markets. The current DEFRA proposal does not address these critical matters and leaves a large loophole for unsustainable UK business in other countries and markets. This is because supply chains in which UK companies and financiers are involved extend well beyond the UK, and involve supply to markets across the world. To prevent harmful leakage of unsustainable commodities outside the UK, it is critical that any legislation on forest risk commodities obligates a company to conduct due diligence applies also to UK businesses supplying and supporting commodity production for both UK markets and markets worldwide. This broader scope for the regulation of British businesses offers genuine potential for reducing the UKs environmental footprint overseas and building momentum for global supply chain reform. “This [current plan] is equal to no plan at all as most countries in Africa, who are frontiers for forest risk commodities, have weak regulatory frameworks to tackle deforestation, human rights and other environmental violations. Besides, most countries in Africa do not have laws that protect the security of community tenure rights, The few that have some level of safeguards for tenure rights are facing massive challenges with implementation and compliance. For instance, Liberia has a progressive land rights law enacted in 2018 but struggling as at now to implement this law to fully secure the tenure rights of local communities yet there are businesses operating with new ones coming in." "I urge the UK government to adopt the GRI recommendations and come out with a robust legislation that covers human rights and environmental due diligence for British businesses.” Mina Beyan, Program Director of Social Entrepreneurs for Sustainable Development (SESDev), Liberia] The UK Government must respond fully to the GRI recommendations and upgrade its approach to address human rights The legislative proposal from Defra comes in response to recommendations made by multi-stakeholder expert taskforce, known as the Global Resources Initiative (GRI), which was set up in 2019 to advise the UK government on actions needed to address commodity-driven deforestation. The GRI, composed of high level experts drawn from big business, civil society and the scientific community, delivered its final report that advised the UK Government on actions it must take on supply chain reform in March. In addition to proposing that the UK lead a “global call for action on deforestation and sustainable supply chains”, it recommended that the UK “urgently introduce” a mandatory obligation on companies dealing in forest-risk commodities, which should require them “…to analyse the presence of environmental and human rights risks and impacts within their supply chains, take action to prevent or mitigate those risks, and publicly report on actions taken and planned (emphasis added).”[1] Defra’s proposal falls far short of this proposal to combine human rights and environmental due diligence needed to tackle embodied deforestation and associated human rights abuse, reform UK business and supply chains and strengthen accountability of British companies to forest-dependent communities and citizens in the UK and overseas. “…The UK must put sustainability and advancement of human rights as its top priority in its planned regulations for supply chains. Leaving companies solely to comply with national laws and regulations will sustain further human rights violations and ecological damages. It is now up to the government of UK to make sure its policies are consistent with international standards and principles.” - Edisutrisno, Executive Director of TuK INDONESIA In order to be effective, the UK government needs to ensure that human rights are integrated into its current proposals for a deforestation-risk commodity law, and that the legal instrument will address the gaps identified above; including through the inclusion of specific provisions to safeguard the customary tenure rights of forest-dependent communities in producer countries. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] See, especially, FPP (2018) Closing the Gap: rights based solutions for tackling deforestation at pages 14-15 [2] See, for example, Blackman, A et al (2017) “Titling indigenous communities protects forests in the Peruvian Amazon” PNAS 114(16)(2017):4123–412; Davis A and Kandel S (2016) Conservation and Community Rights: Lessons from Mesoamerica RF-US, Clark University and PRISMA; Ding H, Veit P, Gray E, Reytar K, Altamirano J C, Blackman A and Hodgdon B (2016) Climate Benefits, Tenure Costs: The Economic Case For Securing Indigenous Land Rights in the Amazon WRI, Washington DC; Vergara-Asenjo G and Potvin C (2014) “Forest protection and tenure status: The key role of indigenous peoples and protected areas in Panama” Global Environmental Change 28 (September 2014): 205-215; Persha L, Agrawal A and Chhatre A (2011) “Social and ecological synergy: local rulemaking, forest livelihoods, and biodiversity conservation” Science 331(6024)(2011):1606-8. doi: 10.1126/science.1199343; Ricketts T H et al (2010) “Indigenous Lands, Protected Areas, and Slowing Climate Change” PloS Biology, March 2010; Sobrevilla, C (2008) The Role of Indigenous Peoples in Biodiversity Conservation: The Natural but Often Forgotten Partners World Bank, Washington DC; Hayes, T M and Murtinho, F (2008) “Are indigenous forest reserves sustainable? An analysis of present and future land-use trends in Bosawas, Nicaragua” International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 15(6)(2008): 497-511; Nepstad, D., Schwartzman, S, Bamberger, B., Santilli M, Ray, D., Schlesinger, P., Lefebvre, P., Alencar, A., Prinz, E., Fiske, G., and Rolla, A (2006) “Inhibition of Amazon Deforestation and Fire by Parks and Indigenous Lands” Conservation Biology 20(1)(2006): 65–73 [3] See, for example, the Palangka Raya Declaration (2014)

Monday, 22 June 2020

Forest advocates present asset managers with essential principles for forest and human rights protections June 22, 2020 In the wake of lackluster voting in proxy season, Friends of the Earth, Amazon Watch, and BlackRock’s Big Problem take proactive action to direct financial firms San Francisco — Today, long-time advocates for the protection of earth’s remaining tropical forest lands and the people, including Indigenous communities who live in them, presented a set of essential principles asset managers must follow if they are to claim they are taking into account the survival of forests and human rights. The principles were presented after a critical shareholder season in which BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, failed to live up to its own promise to center climate in its investment decision making. Concerned that BlackRock’s performance on climate voting–as well as its own dismal record in voting against forest devastation–suggested the firm is not serious about its own promises, advocates proactively offered these principles to guide asset managers ahead of future decisions. The principles laid out have been enshrined in numerous global conventions through consultative processes with civil society, Indigenous Peoples, and peasant farmers’ organizations, and have been adopted in various forms by most multilateral development finance institutions. The principles do not represent new or experimental ideas. Instead they represent international norms of forest protection, human and land use rights, and upholding the rights of Indigenous communities. Norman Jiwan, Supervisory Board member, Tuk Indonesia, said: “Asset managers like BlackRock and Vanguard have had countless opportunities to show they understand what it means to center sustainability, respect the rights and dignity of Indigenous people, and not be party to the devastation of forests. And countless times, they have failed. These principles are not just words–they represent the standards that people who live in the world’s forests and people who advocate for them agree upon. If BlackRock wishes to be respected as a leader on sustainability, it can begin by respecting these basic standards.” Luiz Eloy, a lawyer with the Association of Indigenous People of Brazil (APIB) and member of the Terena people, said: “BlackRock has done very expensive P.R. saying that it is ready to respect Indigenous people and to stop destroying forests. But so far it has changed absolutely nothing to alter its investment strategy, which pours money into the very companies that brutalize us and take down forests on an industrial scale. Talk means nothing to us, not after so many of us have died and lost our homes. If BlackRock wants credit as a leader, it needs to start by listening to those of us with something at stake, those of us who have been doing this work for generations.” Following its January 2020 announcement on climate, BlackRock released a statement on its engagement with agribusiness companies. The statement acknowledged important risks associated with agribusiness, including greenhouse gas emissions, illegal deforestation, and biodiversity loss. But the statement failed to explain how BlackRock will measure companies’ management of these risks, what standards it will use to gauge companies’ progress in mitigating risks, and what consequences companies can expect if they continue to drive deforestation, biodiversity loss, land grabbing and broader human rights violations. Neither State Street nor Vanguard, the other two of the Big Three asset managers, have such a policy. The principles therefore offer asset managers interested in developing substantive policies guidance on: Indigenous Peoples’ Rights, Land Rights and Self-Determination Consultation and Consent Accountability Zero Tolerance for Attacks Against Land Defenders No Deforestation Scope 3 Emissions Water and Soil Communications contacts: Jason Schwartz, +1-347-452-3752, Erin Jensen (Friends of the Earth), 202-222-0722,

Tuesday, 31 March 2020

Indigenous peoples and local communities welcome proposals to require UK companies to address human rights and environmental impacts abroad

London, 31 March 2020

In these extraordinary and difficult times, FPP welcomes the UK Government’s launch of an important report prepared by the Global Resources Initiative (GRI).[1] The report, developed with input from over 200 representatives from British businesses, financiers, civil society organisations and government over the course of 18 months, charts a strategic pathway and a package of measures intended to reduce the global footprint on deforestation and land conversion associated with the UK’s commodity imports and domestic consumption.

While there are clearly immediate serious challenges for UK policy and action at home and abroad – providing food, health care and broader support to populations hit by Covid-19 – this report proposes progressive measures which the British government can support to enable a much needed transition towards sustainable and equitable trade and supply chains going forward.

Among its 14 recommendations, the report proposes that the UK government “urgently introduces a mandatory due diligence[2] obligation for companies that place commodities and derived products that contribute to deforestation on the UK market and to take action to ensure similar principles are applied to the finance industry” – a proposal that has been cautiously welcomed by representatives of indigenous peoples, local communities and civil society representatives in tropical countries who are on the frontline of deforestation and rights abuses driven by harmful commodity production.

Commenting on the proposal, Norman Jiwan of TuK INDONESIA, a Jakarta-based national association concerned with social and ecological justice, and the human rights impacts of policies and developments in Indonesia, said:

"We welcome the GRI proposal to create due diligence requirements throughout the global supply chains of UK companies. It is vital that UK regulation targets not only deforestation, but also addresses land grabbing, land disputes, and the criminalisation of indigenous, peasant and environmental defenders affected by the production of deforestation-risk commodities.

"Regulation should create a duty of care and provide remedies for continuing and future human rights violations. It must also promote shared responsibility between UK businesses and the suppliers they work with in producer countries, to ensure we see real change on the ground,” he added.

In recent years, several countries have taken legislative steps to encourage or require businesses to undertake due diligence processes in respect of human rights or environmental issues, including the UK (through the Modern Slavery Act 2015), France (through its 2017 Law on a Duty of Vigilance) and the Netherlands (through its 2019 Child Labour Law) – a reflection of the fact that voluntary measures by companies have not been effective, as originally hoped.

“Current voluntary incentives for human rights and environmental due diligence by large companies have not worked in the case of Liberia,” said Program Director of Social Entrepreneurs for Sustainable Development (SESDev) in Liberia, Mina Beyan.

“Mandatory due diligence is needed for all UK companies (small, medium and large) whose activities are linked to human rights violations and environmental damage. UK rules that include real opportunities for enforcement of such regulations and remedies for the victims of human rights infringements would be welcome news,” she said.

The sentiment was echoed by a leader of the Afro-descendant communities in Cauca and representative of the Black Community Process (PCN) (who cannot be identified due to threats to his security) said, “It is positive that the UK is looking at stronger safeguards for the impacts of its trade and investment on communities and our territories in Colombia and other countries. UK regulation is surely needed: it must guarantee that UK companies and financiers do not harm the social fabric and fundamental rights of our peoples”.

Helen Tugendhat of Forest Peoples Programme, who participated in the GRI process, noted “Due diligence legislation must encompass all commodity production linked, directly or indirectly, with UK businesses and its finance sector, regardless of the location of the ultimate importers or consumers.”

She added: “As we emerge from this time of difficulty and look to the future, investing in sustainable and responsible food systems and building positive changes in supply chains will be of paramount importance. The GRI report recognises the importance of social and environmental protections being built within future UK trade deals. FPP views this as crucial to underpinning sustained changes in the way we all behave, protecting us all, including peoples and forests at risk.”

This GRI report will be an important resource for rebuilding a more resilient, sustainable and just economic and social system in the aftermath of the damage caused to societies around the globe by Covid-19. Promoting sustainable production and consumption must be an urgent priority for governments and intergovernmental agendas as they review and put in place new policies and measures following this global crisis.

For more information contact:

Helen Tugendhat, Forest Peoples Programme:

Norman Jiwan: or

Tel: +6285691353429 or +6281315613536

Tom Dixon, Communications Manager, Forest Peoples Programme:

[1] The Global Resource Initiative is a multi-stakeholder dialogue process and taskforce established by the UK government in late 2018 in order to make recommendations for how the British government could reduce the climate and environmental footprint of key UK commodity supply chains. Dialogues took place over a period of 18 months, and included more than 200 representatives of business, finance, government and civil society, culminating in a report launched on 30 March 2020.

[2] Corporate human rights and environmental due diligence is a concept promoted by the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, and also supported by OECD’s Guidance on the Responsible Conduct of Business. It requires companies to identify and assess the impacts on human rights and the environment of their business, take steps to prevent and mitigate these risks, and provide a remedy where its activities cause negative human rights or environmental impacts.

Related link
Global Resource Initiative Taskforce: Final recommendations report 2020

Friday, 7 February 2020




7 February 2020
Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia

We, Indigenous Peoples and Non-Governmental Organisations from palm oil-producing countries in Latin America, Africa and South East Asia demand the right to expose the realities we face in our communities about the impacts of the palm oil sector.

We have gathered here, from Peru, Ecuador, Colombia, Guatemala, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Ghana, Cameroon, Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines, in Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia to share our experiences with the palm oil sector and its impacts on our communities, territories and peoples. Together, we want to explore potential reforms in our countries and the industry internationally so that palm oil production brings genuine development and not exploitation, deforestation, land-grabbing and impoverishment.

Yet, while we are gathered here, we witness representatives of the palm oil industry labelling us in the media as ‘toxic entities’[1] and condemning our efforts to expose our realities as a ‘black campaign’. We, representatives of environmental justice, human rights, women’s, youth and indigenous peoples’ organisations, categorically condemn these statements.

‘We are citizens of our countries and we have a constitutional right to speak out and seek justice for our communities’ said Wisdom Adjawlo from Youth Volunteers for the Environment in Ghana. ‘This attempt to restrict our activities and muzzle our voices is not only an abuse of our right to freedom of expression but will lead to worse outcomes for all.’

‘Since when were people protecting their traditional forests, lands and the environment “toxic?”’ asks Andrew Aeria from the Non-Timber Forest Products Exchange Program, Malaysia. ‘Planting oil palm without the Free, Prior and Informed Consent of indigenous peoples is toxic to them, their forests and their lands. It’s the pesticides the companies use that are toxic!’

‘Palm oil companies are destroying our forests and grabbing our lands with the complicity of government agencies’ said Miguel Guimaraes from the Shipibo people in Peru. ‘We have sought justice through the local courts, by appeals to government and filing complaints with the RSPO. Yet, palm oil produced by deforesting our stolen lands is being sold into the international market by RSPO-member companies, even after our complaints were found to be valid. ’

‘In Indonesia, deforestation, peatland clearance and forest fires, much of it caused by oil palm expansion, has made our country the sixth largest emitter of greenhouse gases worldwide – that is the scale of the impact. Local communities cannot accept that this environmental destruction continues’ says Triana Wardani of the Indonesian women’s mass organisation SERUNI. ‘Palm oil has meant that women have lost control over their land and natural resources, forcing them and their families into hardship.’

‘Women are the custodians of our culture and our lands. Our indigenous women are marching in defence of our lands and for our right to maintain our ways of life which are being destroyed by multiple industries including palm oil production’ notes Hernan Payaguaje from the Secoya people of the Ecuadorean Amazon.

‘In Cameroon, loss of access to land and forests that are taken over by palm oil companies forces women into underpaid employment on the oil palm estates, where they are subjected to sexual harassment and violence. Women labourers don’t even have time for basic childcare. Local languages and traditions are being lost, and with them the knowledge of how to live in prosperity in the tropical forests’ reports Carrele Mawamba from Green Development Advocates in Cameroon. ‘The arrival of the oil palm plantations has brought sexual harassment, underage marriage and worse’.

‘In Guatemala, the indigenous Q’eqchi people have already lost much of their lands and now face problems of pollution and diversion of streams and rivers that deprives them of drinking water’, explains Geisselle Sanchez Monge from the local chapter of Action Aid. ‘We want that peoples’ rights are respected and that companies respect the law and their obligations’.

‘Palm Oil is destroying our entire way of life’ says Krissusandi Gunui of Institute Dayakologi from Indonesian Borneo. ‘It has not just taken our customary lands but the very basis for our identities and ways of life. There should be no further expansion so long as palm oil means land grabbing and dispossession’.

‘Land conflicts are rife in Indonesia’ affirms Andi Muttaqien from the Indonesian human rights group ELSAM. ‘These disputes are getting worse as land scarcity increases. Many communities are now forced into stealing palm fruits and even re-occupying small parcels of land within the plantations to grow vegetables for sale in the local markets.’

‘Migrant workers, who are the mainstay of the palm oil industry in Malaysia, face huge problems of exploitation, informal work without contracts or documentation, sub-standard living conditions and even forced labour’ notes Lanash Thanda of the Sabah Environmental Protection Association.

‘Companies should respect labour rights. Providing decent work and decent wages is mandatory to ensure the quality of life for labourers and their families’, adds a representative of trade union OPPUK-SERBUNDO.

‘Companies are not criticised for securing investment from foreign banks, selling their product to foreign markets, or sending their profits overseas, but international NGOs are vilified for standing in solidarity with us’, says Geofani from the environmental justice NGO, Link-AR Borneo. ‘The development and production of biofuels often intersects with environmental problems, the burning of forests, and the loss of land, which is financed internationally. The playing field is skewed against us, so international solidarity is a must. We welcome global efforts to amplify our voices’.

‘Palm oil is a global commodity. Until those who have been impacted can get justice nationally and through local courts, we have to make recourse to international forums to get redress. We welcome the fact that buyers and manufacturers are now refusing to buy palm oil that comes from land-grabbing, deforestation and exploitation’ says Nikodemus Ale of WALHI Kalimantan Barat.

‘All such matters need to be exposed and addressed by the companies and not brushed under the carpet’ says Leili Khainur of the grassroots women’s organisation Serumpun in West Kalimantan. ‘The only ‘black campaign’ in the palm oil sector comes from those who are trying to shut down public debate. Monocultures have diminished local economic options. Our focus now is on rebuilding the diversity of local economies, especially through working with women. They are the real drivers of local development – they farm rice paddies, tap rubber, grow vegetables, gather forest products and raise the future generation.’

Listening to the voices of local communities and smallholders will improve the global industry and the outcomes for local people. ‘To produce sustainable palm oil, companies and governments should not just rely on industry standards, but they should focus on building local smallholders’ capacities and ensure that they are not excluded from the benefits of palm oil production by the powerful large-scale producers’, notes Nurbaya Zulhakim from Setara JAMBI from Sumatra, Indonesia.

We also note that the situation is not all negative, and some companies are making an effort to address these issues. We note that the RSPO and some certified companies are working to address corruption. However, it is a systemic problem and is often ignored or avoided.

Nevertheless, ‘the RSPO standard is very relevant for our communities and smallholders in Colombia, as we lack appropriate national laws for the palm oil sector’, shares Leonardo Gonsalez Perafan from Indepaz, Colombia. ‘We can use the RSPO to push for better behaviour by the companies which are otherwise violating peoples’ rights. The right to Free, Prior and Informed Consent is vital to protect otherwise vulnerable communities.’

‘These voluntary standards are not a solution by themselves’ adds Linda Rosalina from TuK INDONESIA, which tracks investment in the palm oil sector. ‘We also need national legal reforms to uphold rights, provide access to justice and regulate developers and investors. Especially since policies and regulations from our governments often benefit the companies rather than our people’.

‘In Liberia, a new Land Rights Act now promises land security to indigenous peoples, which is a great step forward, but the problems remain for the communities living in the millions of hectares whose lands have already been allocated to companies for 50 years or more’ reports Sampson Williams of the Sustainable Development Institute. ‘Where national laws are weak, we need alternatives at the international level and in consumer countries.’

Representatives of some of the biggest palm oil companies in the world call us unfriendly and toxic for exposing the realities we face in our communities. They want to hide the impacts of their business on local communities, local environments, our forests, rivers, cultures, territories and our planet. We stand firm in our right to expose the reality of the global palm oil industry. We call on all palm oil companies to uphold their duty to respect environmental limits and human rights, including our right to freedom of expression.

Together, we remind our governments that their first obligation is to respect, protect and promote the rights of their people. They should not remain insensitive to the plight of local communities struggling to survive the impacts of the palm oil industry, and they should not become complicit in human rights abuses for the sake of palm oil profits. We call on our governments to endorse the enactment of a binding treaty on business and human rights.

We are not against palm oil, but we do not accept the reckless environmental destruction and rampant human rights abuses that accompanies palm oil production. Neither should the global palm oil industry, consumers or the governments of palm oil producing and importing countries.

Instead of name-calling and censorship, we welcome genuine, good-faith discussions with governments and palm oil companies who take their environmental and human rights obligations seriously.

Green Development Advocates, Cameroon
Instituto de estudios para el desarrollo y la paz (Indepaz), Colombia
Alianza Ceibo, Ecuador
Young Volunteers for the Environment, Ghana
Action Aid, Guatemala
ELSAM, Indonesia
Link-AR Borneo, Indonesia
Setara JAMBI, Indonesia
Institut Dayakology, Indonesia
Sarumpun, Indonesia
TuK INDONESIA, Indonesia
Ecoton, Indonesia
Auriga, Indonesia
SERUNI, Indonesia
WALHI Kalimantan Barat, Indonesia
Yayasan Masyarakat Kehutanan Lestari, Indonesia
Yayasan Pusaka, Indonesia
Sustainable Development Institute, Liberia
Sabah Environment Protection Association, Malaysia
Non-Timber Forest Products Exchange Programme, Malaysia
Federacion de Comunidades Nativas De Ucayali y Afluentes – FECONAU, Peru
National Movement for Justice and Development, Sierra Leone

With support and solidarity from:
Both ENDS, the Netherlands
Forest Peoples Programme, the United Kingdom

[1] ‘Malaysian palm oil bosses urge action against ‘toxic’ environment groups’, Reuters, 4 February 2020:

Wednesday, 20 November 2019

9th Conference on Human Rights and Business in Southeast Asia

9th Conference: on Renewable Energy, Gender and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
October, 2019 in Bata’an, Philippines

Bata’an Statement

1. Between 27-30 October 2019, 63 participants from 9 countries gathered in Subic Bay, Bata’an Province, the Philippines, to discuss and review human rights issues related to the expansion of business investments and activities in Southeast Asia. The 9th Conference on Business and Human Rights was convened in the Subic Bay area, previously a US military base operating for 99 years until the end of their presence in 1992. Participants in the conference represented National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs), indigenous peoples’ organisations and civil society organisations.

2. The conference was convened by the Commission on Human Rights in the Philippines (CHRP), the Forest Peoples Programme, the Philippines Association for Intercultural Development, and the Indigenous Peoples’ International Centre for Policy Research and Education (Tebtebba), with the support of the Stockholm Environment Institute, the Rights and Resources Initiative and the Samdhana Institute.

3. We acknowledge the hospitality of the Pastolan and Kanawan communities who opened their homes and their communities to us. We respect the many years of hard work that resulted in the Ancestral Domain titles achieved by both communities.

4. The Conference reviewed and discussed national situations in countries in Southeast Asia, hearing from NHRIs in Myanmar, Thailand, the Philippines, Timor Leste, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Nepal, and indigenous peoples and civil society organisations from Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, Myanmar, Lao PDR and the Philippines. The Conference participants also shared experiences from indigenous peoples, civil society organisations and NHRIs on issues including the impacts of Special Economic Zones (SEZs), the risks and opportunities of renewable energy transitions, and the gendered impacts of land rights struggles. Common themes were heard, summarised here.

5. Active engagement by NHRIs in Southeast Asia with business and human rights was noted. The first ever National Inquiry launched by the National Commission on Human Rights in Indonesia (Komnas HAM) was on ‘Indigenous Peoples’ Rights on their Territories in the Forest Zone’, the Malaysian Human Rights Commission (SUHAKAM) similarly conducted a National Inquiry into the Rights of Indigenous Peoples which recommended, among others, the establishment of a National Commission on Indigenous Peoples. NHRI representatives noted the investigation and research mandates could be used to good effect (Timor Leste, Thailand, Philippines). Engagement on business and human rights issues was noted by all presenting NHRIs, through investigations and interventions on specific cases, and on awareness raising.

6. However, implementation of the recommendations of NHRIs to governments remain slow in many countries. NHRIs also remain in a limited number in the region, with Cambodia, Vietnam and Lao PDR still not having established these bodies. Funding independent from political interference continues to be a challenge, and most NHRIs lack a clear mandate to investigate and address trans-boundary issues.

7. Experience of direct negotiation between indigenous peoples and businesses continues to be relatively limited, and businesses operating in Southeast Asia continue, largely, to misunderstand and disrespect the human rights of different rights holders, including the rights of indigenous peoples. This includes the right to give or withhold free, prior and informed consent to proposed activities affecting their rights and interests. Business-established grievance mechanisms need to be established where there are none and made more effective and accessible to affected peoples.

8. The conference heard about increasing momentum behind efforts to make human rights due diligence a requirement of companies operating in Southeast Asia, reflecting an academic assessment of the activities of Southeast Asian businesses against the requirements of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights which showed clear weaknesses in implementing due diligence.

9. The establishment of SEZs to promote business investment is seen across the region, including in Timor Leste where resettled communities were promised compensation and construction materials. Experiences from the host country, the Philippines, were widespread and mixed, from the development of the Aurora Pacific Economic Zone and Freeport (APECO), where there was no free, prior and informed consent in the declaration of the Zone and persistent problems, to the SBMA where negotiation relationships exist and Ancestral Domain is recognised. The selective waiving of certain standard regulations and laws in SEZ’s to promote investment was noted.

10. Concerns with the status of land laws were raised. Participants from Indonesia noted the stalled negotiations on the draft law on the Recognition and Protection of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in Indonesia. While land is a State matter in Malaysia, the Federal Court in 2016 held that the Dayak indigenous peoples of Sarawak cannot rely on their native customary rights to claim title over virgin forests as their territorial domains and communal forest reserves. They can now only claim lands limited to farmed land cleared before 1958. At the same time the Federal Malaysian government is suing the State government in Kelatan to force recognition of native customary title. In Myanmar the legal situation has taken a backwards step, with the Vacant, Fallow and Virgin Land Law being amended in September 2018, effectively turning all unregistered land into ‘vacant’ land and denying unregistered land rights.

11. Land ownership also remains, in too many places, opaque or confused. Overlapping jurisdictions, even where indigenous lands are recognised (Philippines) and where they are not (Thailand, Myanmar, Indonesia), exist in many countries. Participants from Thailand, Indonesia and the Philippines noted overlaps with conservation and/or forest areas, in Myanmar overlaps between national and regional land governance systems remain. In a rush for resources, such confusion undermines communities’ ability to resist incursions.

12. Specific cases were raised where indigenous peoples and communities have experienced human rights-related challenges, including the Omkoi mine in Karen areas in Thailand impacting thousands of Karen living in affected communities, and Philippine cases – from the proposed Kaliwa dam where the Dumagat are challenging the outcome of a distorted FPIC process, an open-pit gold mine on Masbate Island affecting local communities, and the contested extension of the OceanaGold mine in Didipio affecting the Ikalahan indigenous people.

13. Serious issues were raised and shared regarding the targeting of individuals and communities defending their rights. Specific targeting of those involved in defending lands and resources through labelling them as ‘terrorists’, ‘anti-State’ and/or ‘anti-development’ was cited in the Philippines, Indonesia and other parts of Asia. In Indonesia, stories of criminalisation, intimidation, threats and violence were shared. In Palawan, Philippines, indigenous representatives spoke of the division in their community and destruction of their forests caused by the massive coconut plantation of the Lionheart Farms Philippines. Militarisation of project zones in Myanmar and the Philippines was linked directly to increased threats and violence. Criminalisation of traditional livelihoods was noted in Thailand and other countries. In too many cases, such intimidation, criminalisation and violence lead to killings of community leaders and individuals, including extra-judicial killings.

14. Specific impacts on women in situations of such violence were raised, as were the strong roles that women have played in defending themselves and their communities against violence. Action to address threats against individuals, communities and peoples were also noted, in particular the United Nations Environment Programme’s ‘Environmental Rights Initiative’ which was welcomed by the conference. The innovative investigatory role of the newly declared Indigenous Peoples Observatory established in partnership with the Commission on Human Rights in the Philippines was also noted as an example for potential replication in the region.

15. Renewable energy was a key theme in the conference discussions, which addressed both the opportunities and risks of the rising investment levels into these forms of energy production. All ASEAN nations have endorsed the Paris Agreement which states that all climate actions must protect uphold and protect human rights, and such commitments support a move towards more renewable forms of energy. Global initiatives by indigenous peoples were also noted, specifically the Right Energies Partnership initiated by the Indigenous Peoples Major Group on the SDGs, which promotes partnerships to support indigenous peoples own initiatives for renewable energy projects.

16. The promotion of biofuels as a form of green energy raises risks for indigenous peoples, with increased pressure on land for expanding fuel production. Government subsidies in Indonesia only heighten demand, where available land resources are scarce. Large renewable energy projects such as solar, hydropower and geothermal can, when implemented without FPIC, increase development aggression in indigenous lands as illustrated by the rush for resources in the Cordillera, Philippines. Where indigenous peoples enter into agreements to host renewable energy projects, often limited information on long-term impacts and equitable benefit sharing arrangements is provided.

17. Renewable energy was also noted as including a very broad range of possible projects and actions, from hydropower and geothermal projects, to biofuel production, wind and solar energy, among others. Potential impacts of these different forms of renewable energy differ. Indigenous organisations from the Philippines and Malaysia shared significant work done in developing community-based or led renewable energy projects, while noting the importance of linking such projects with wider self-determined development priorities and livelihood projects. The high need for technical and financial support to sustain and expand such initiatives was noted, while also noting the importance of community management of such initiatives.

18. In a panel on gender and land rights, gender was understood as addressing unequal power relations within human societies, with a focus on women’s rights and empowerment stemming from relative marginalisation from power in many cases. For indigenous women, multiple forms of discrimination and marginalisation are experienced, from socio-economic to racial and identity based. Women also face specific forms of vulnerability in situations of militarisation and conflict. The strong roles and leadership shown by indigenous women was also noted and celebrated. Challenges noted included the lack of disaggregated data about impacts on women, and a lack and visibility of women’s voices in research and in participation levels generally.

19. On the basis of these discussions, the conference formulated recommendations for action:


1. We support the calls of the Aeta in Kanawan and Pastolan for the SBMA and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources to recognise their governance over their ancestral domains. We support equitable benefit sharing as mandated by law between SBMA and the Pastolan community.

For Governments
2. We continue to call on governments to take urgent steps to recognise indigenous peoples in Southeast Asia, and to recognise their associated collective rights to their lands, waters, territories and resources. This includes free, prior and informed consent as an element of the right to self-determination
3. We call on governments to prioritise the effective implementation of positive laws and policies related to the rights of indigenous peoples and other land-dependent communities with customary rights to resources, and repeat our call on Southeast Asian governments to advance reforms in national and state laws and policies to align with international standards on the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities. This includes trans-boundary cooperation where indigenous peoples are found across national borders, and cooperation within the Asia region.
4. We encourage all governments in Southeast Asia to continue to support and widen the work of NHRIs in the region, including through work to establish NHRIs where they do not yet exist, and where they do, promote the strengthening of existing mandates. This may include also collaboration with NHRIs throughout Asia and beyond.

On National Human Rights Institutions:
5. We further call for sufficient and secure funding to be allocated to NHRIs to allow them to carry out their work effectively.
6. We take note of, encourage and support collaborative action between NHRIs, particularly in cases where companies registered in one country are active in another. We take particular note of the regional haze problems linked to burning and recommend a role for NHRIs in Malaysia and Indonesia in joint research and recommendations highlighting ownership, investment in, and responsibilities of the companies linked to these activities.
7. We commit to, and call for, further strengthening of collaborative work between civil society, indigenous peoples and NHRIs. We note the potential of trans-boundary collaboration in this regard.
8. We call on businesses to fulfil their independent responsibilities to respect human rights, as outlined in the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), including by recognising the status and associated rights of indigenous peoples and promoting gender inclusion as provided for in the formal guidelines to UNGPs.
9. We continue to urge all businesses to align their business activities to international standards, including the UNGPs, and provide affected communities access to effective remedy in cases where rights violations are alleged. This is particularly critical in countries and areas with weak governance and rule of law, where local administrative and judicial channels are effectively closed.
10. We note the responsibility of businesses to respect the right of access to information, and call for improved transparency and sharing of information to support accountability of the business sector and state-owned enterprises
11. Business should not proceed with projects without the free, prior and informed consent of affected indigenous peoples, noting that the integrity of the FPIC process must be ensured. FPIC includes the right to say no, must be based on respect for indigenous peoples’ own decision-making processes and must ensure representation of all members of the community, including women and youth.
12. We call on businesses to ensure the effective and meaningful participation of indigenous peoples and local communities in all stages of development planning, including in SEZs where certain standard regulations and legal requirements are often waived.
13. We call on businesses in the region to incorporate human rights protections and comprehensive assessment of social and environmental impacts – often called ‘due diligence’ – at all stages of project conception, planning, development and realisation.
14. We encourage business to adopt and implement zero tolerance approaches to end violence, criminalisation, intimidation and killings linked to business activities.
15. We recognise the potential for collaboration with private sector actors and call on business to collaborate with all rights-holders and stakeholders in the region to advance positive outcomes for communities and peoples.

On human rights defenders:
16. We note the increasing use of litigation, intimidation and the threat of violence as a chilling strategy impacting indigenous peoples, and with distinct impacts on women as human rights defenders, and call on all parties to adopt zero tolerance for such tactics
17. We recognise the need for, and call on State agencies to provide, tailored mechanisms to protect and support human rights defenders, particularly for indigenous communities and women defenders
18. We recognise the work of the Commission on Human Rights in the Philippines in its current National Inquiry on Human Rights Defenders, and call on NHRIs to cooperate at regional level to develop guidelines for the effective protection of human rights defenders

On renewable energy:
19. We recommend the strengthening and expansion of existing platforms of knowledge sharing within the region on renewable energy policy and practice
20. We recommend that indigenous-led initiatives on renewable energy projects are fully supported, both financially and technically.
21. We call for ASEAN governments to review ASEAN investment priorities to reduce the focus on mega-infrastructure projects and invest instead on community-based smaller scale renewable energy systems, linked to sustained livelihoods.
22. We note the expanding market for biofuels is, in some cases, driving further expansion of palm oil and related crops, at times with renewable energy subsidies. We recommend a moratorium on new oil palm permits on forest, peat and livelihood areas until land rights concerns have been fully addressed.
23. In accordance with one of the key commitments of the ‘Beijing Platform for Action’ to develop gender-sensitive data collection in collaboration with academics and local women researchers, we recommend governments institutionalise tools such as Feminist Participatory Action Research as a legitimate source of knowledge among women and the communities.
24. We further recommend government (and other) funding be dedicated to providing platforms for women, indigenous peoples and local communities, developing and implementing gender programmes, along with support for capacity building and knowledge sharing among and between indigenous communities including women
25. We call on all parties to adopt the deliberate and conscious participation of women in all decision-making processes with regards to the utilisation of land and waters and to conduct gender impact assessments for their business activities.
26. The development priorities in SEZs (present and future) should be aligned with and incorporate the self-determined priorities of indigenous peoples
27. Indigenous peoples should meaningfully and effectively in participate the governance of SEZs, where their rights and interests are affected
28. We commit to continued collaboration and support for these recommendations and to working together, across borders and throughout Asia, to advance our common interests in securing respect for human rights in Southeast Asia.

30 October 2019

Sunday, 15 September 2019

Citation [Cambridge University Press] accessed 15 Sept 2019



3 - The Political Ecology of the Indonesian Palm Oil Industry

By Norman Jiwan, Head of Department for Social and Environmental
Publisher: ISEAS–Yusof Ishak Institute
pp 48-75

Export citation

This chapter is based on direct interactions and experiences of social and environmental issues pertaining to oil palm plantations in Indonesia. The information has been compiled from various sources from different regions in seventeen provinces, including case investigations, documentations, testimonies, dialogues, legal and policy interventions, and extensive village meetings that were undertaken by Sawit Watch. Sawit Watch is an Indonesian non-government organization (NGO) concerned with adverse negative social and environmental impacts of oil palm plantation development in Indonesia, which seeks to promote sustainable social justice mandates through human rights based approaches in its activities and interventions. It is active in seventeen provinces and networks in related districts where oil palm plantations are now being developed in Indonesia. Since 1998 our focus has been on vulnerable and affected groups of indigenous peoples, oil palm farmers, and plantation workers.

The expansion of palm oil in Indonesia is driven by the cooperation between large corporations and the Indonesian state, which offers “enabling conditions” in its promotion of palm oil. Currently the Indonesian palm oil Industry produces around 21 million tonnes of crude palm oil (CPO) on over 9 million hectares of plantations (Sawit Watch 2010). The Government of Indonesia has set a production target of 40 million tonnes CPO by 2020 (Krisnamurti 2009). There are already 26.7 million hectares under permits for further oil palm plantation expansion. Moreover, the emerging feedstock demand of agrofuels from the European Union markets and the national biofuel mandatory target are leading to an additional 10–12 million hectares of plantations for biofuel production, of which 65 per cent is slated for export (Krisnamurti 2009).

This chapter argues that the particular political ecology of this palm oil expansion is leading to negative environmental consequences, i.e., forest conversion, peatland conversion, agrochemicals, and pollution connected to the waste from palm oil mills (palm oil mill effluent, or POME). Current research suggests that approximately 18 million hectares of tropical rainforests have been cleared and commercially logged in Indonesia (Colchester et al. 2006).

Thursday, 21 March 2019

Press Release: Unsustainable Sime Darby, Buyers and Financiers Must Stop Their Business Relations

This article was originally posted by our partners TuK Indonesia in: Bahasa Indonesian and English

Jakarta, 21 March 2019 – Dayak Hibun indigenous peoples from Kerunang hamlet and Entapang hamlet, Bonti Sub-district, Sanggau District, West Kalimantan express their deep objection with regards to the sale of PT Mitra Austral Sejahtera (PT MAS) by Sime Darby Plantation, a Malaysian corporate entity.

PT MAS, a subsidiary of Sime Darby plantation has broken promises and abused Indonesian rules and regulations, international laws, RSPO voluntary international best practice standards, and OECD Guidelines on Multinational Enterprises.
Sime Darby Plantation looted Dayak Hibun indigenous peoples’ land in Kerunang hamlet and Entapang hamlet by converting indigenous peoples land for PT MAS oil palm plantation concession area (HGU). PT MAS broke the initial promises of socialisation in 1995 that the company only borrowed community land to establish oil palm plantation for only 25-year. However, without information and consent of the community, PT MAS made community land as a business right (HGU).

“Sime Darby and the management of PT MAS do not run away from the responsibility of resolving land conflict that has had dragged on since 1999. The Government of Indonesia must not allow and authorise the sale of PT MAS, until the HGU land conflict with the communities fully resolved. “The customary land that was seized by PT MAS about 1,462 hectares must be returned to the communities of Kerunang and Entapang,” said Redatus Musa, spokesperson of the Dayak Hibun indigenous people from Kerunang – Entapang Hamlet.

Sime Darby Plantations, the largest Malaysian palm oil company in the world is a prominent founder and member of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO). The divestment of PT MAS constituted an act of arrogant, illegal and arbitrary because Sime Darby was without good-faith ignored deliberations and denied consensus with the Dayak Hibun indigenous peoples before selling PT MAS.

Even within the norms of production and governance of the global palm oil industry, the sale of PT MAS by Sime Darby Group is not in accordance with the spirit and commitment of the RSPO code of ethical business conducts. The divestment of PT MAS is not transparent, in violation of the principle of propriety and compliance with the norms of international law and human rights.
“Sime Darby’s act of divesting PT MAS shows obviously that there has been something wrong with RSPO certification for failures in providing respect, protect and remedy human rights as required by RSPO Principles and Criteria. Since 2012 the RSPO has issued sustainable palm oil certificates for dozen of Sime Darby’s Indonesian mills and oil palm plantations despite the unresolved conflict from land grabbing by HGU in PT MAS. This is violates RSPO ethical and appropriate business conducts, legal compliance, human rights and FPIC as well as responsibility to provide remedies for impacts on human rights by multinational enterprises of the OECD member countries. RSPO General Assembly passed in November 2018 discouraged its members from selling or divesting operations either mills or plantations that are subject to unresolved conflicts,” said Norman Jiwan former social NGO’s RSPO Executive Board.

Sime Darby’s palm oil financiers and buyers also need to take a stand in addressing the said land conflict. From 2012-2018, Sime Darby received financial supports from prominent financial institutions including Maybank, HSBC, Standard Chartered, Deutsche Bank, Credit Suisse and the Norwegian Pension Fund Institution. Some palm oil buyers such as Cargill, Musim Mas, Unilever, and Wilmar International are bound by RSPO policies and their own No Deforestation, No Peat and No Exploitation (NDPE) policies also purchased palm oil from Sime Darby subsidiaries.

“To the financiers, banks, investors, shareholders, and buyers of Sime Darby Group palm oil immediately stopped their business relations with Sime Darby Group. It is appropriate for any business relations to be stopped because since 2012 Sime Darby Group failed to resolve the HGU land conflicts with the Kerunang and Entapang communities as required by the RSPO Principles and Criteria. The RSPO has even proven to have failed to encourage Sime Darby to restore the community’s customary land rights, “said Edi Sutrisno, Executive Director of TuK INDONESIA.

Marcus Colchester of Forest Peoples Programme said:

As an international human rights organisation and member of RSPO, FPP is deeply disappointed that Sime Darby has ignored the Resolution passed by the RSPO in November 2018 which called on members not to divest operations which were the subject of complaints. Sime Darby’s action is bound to be viewed by other RSPO members as an expression of bad faith. The Dayak Hibun have been deprived of their customary rights to their lands by PT MAS without their free, prior and informed consent. This constitutes a clear violation of one of the key provisions of the RSPO standard designed to avoid land grabbing and land conflicts. The Dayak Hibun are requesting the return of their land, as is their right under international law and international human rights treaties ratified by the Government of Indonesia. Unfortunately the RSPO Complaints Panel has been extremely slow over several years in following up on this complaint, to such an extent that the case was taken to the OECD. Now, just as the OECD was beginning to convene meetings to restart the process of conflict resolution, Sime Darby has decided to sell up.

With the outstanding land conflict has deprived of customary land rights caused by HGU land title in PT MAS, Dayak Hibun indigenous peoples of Kerunang and Entapang landowners and heirs call on the Government of Indonesia, OECD-National Contact Point Swiss (Swiss NCP), RSPO, bank, investor, shareholders, and palm oil buyers jointly urge Sime Darby to immediately return back the community’s customary land.

“We are also reminding the company that will be acquiring that until now PT MAS HGU land is still in dispute and having plenty of problems,” close Redatus Musa.

Contact Person:
Mubarok – TuK INDONESIA (0813-1109-8787)

Wednesday, 6 February 2019

PRESS RELEASE: Palm Oil Giant Golden Agri-Resources Removed from Dow Jones Sustainability Index after Bribery and Corruption Scandal – so what next for ‘sustainable’ palm oil?

The Dow Jones Sustainability Index has removed the world’s second largest palm oil company, Golden Agri-Resources (GAR), from its list of sustainable companies, reported Friends of the Earth (FoE) this week.

“Golden Agri-Resources’ operations in Indonesia and Liberia have generated years of controversy, including consistent and well-documented allegations of deforestation, land grabbing and human rights violations,” said FoE in a statement on its website.

The human rights violations and environmental record highlight GAR’s failure to live up to its human rights and sustainability commitments. In 2018, GAR and its subsidiaries were accused of clearing protected forest, establishing shadow companies to continue destructive operations, and disregarding the recommendations of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO).

The RSPO has been under pressure for years to rule against GAR’s continuing violations of human rights and its slow action to make remedy in palm oil areas.

“It is ironic that the Dow Jones Sustainability Index is more responsive to evidence of GAR’s misdeeds than the Complaints Panel of the RSPO itself,” said Marcus Colchester of Forest Peoples Programme, a UK-based human rights organisation and member of the RSPO.

Gaurav Madan, senior forests and lands campaigner for Friends of the Earth U.S. said “The removal of Golden Agri-Resources from the Dow Jones Sustainability Index is an important step in holding the company accountable for its consistent abuses. Companies that have caused widespread environmental destruction have no place being greenwashed as sustainable.”

Although this news is welcomed, there are many questions which must be answered if sustainable palm oil can be claimed as such, not least around human rights abuses.

“It is ironic that the Dow Jones Sustainability Index is more responsive to evidence of GAR’s misdeeds than the Complaints Panel of the RSPO itself.” Marcus Colchester, Forest Peoples Programme

Land grabs and palm oil
Land grabs for palm oil plantations in Indonesia form a key tenet of human rights abuses associated with its production.

“Here, in Bengkayang, Indonesia, there are a lot of outstanding and unresolved problems due to palm oil land grabs,” said Niko Andasputra, Chair of AMAN-Bengsibas, a local organisation representing community members affected by palm plantations.

“Now that GAR is delisted from Dow Jones’ list of sustainable companies, what will it do to provide remedies to those who have outstanding problems and how long will that take?” he said.

What next for GAR and ‘sustainable’ palm oil?
Local Indonesian organisations welcomed the news that GAR has been delisted but added a note of caution about what action is taken next.

“The delisting of GAR is good news as it recognises the complexities of the problems in the palm oil sector,” said Norman Jiwan, advocacy lead for AMAN-Bengsibas, a local chapter in Indonesian Borneo of the National Alliance of Indigenous Peoples.

“But international voluntary standards must respect the human rights of affected indigenous peoples and local communities and provide proper remedies for past abuses,” he added.

Rahmawati Retno Winarni, Director of TuK Indonesia, a Jakarta-based NGO advocating corporate accountability said, “[the delisting] should lead to a more robust due diligence of investment decisions so that these decisions respect the rights of the affected communities and do not harm nature.”

Winarni also called upon a similar decisions to be made by the Sustainable and Responsible Investment Index in Indonesia. “Financial services wrongdoing is not a victimless act,” she said.

In Liberia, this view was echoed by civil society organisations, regarding local palm oil giant Golden Veroleum Liberia (GVL)*.

“Golden Agri-Resources is the financial backbone for GVL; GAR should be equally accountable for forest destruction and human rights violations occurring in GVL operations in Liberia,” said Daniel Krakue of Social Entrepreneurs for Sustainable Development (SESDev), a local organisation based in Liberia.

In addition to environmental and human rights issues, GVL faces questions around workers’ rights.

“The failure of GVL to address the safety and protection of workers in their factories are all indication of the company’s failure to respect the rights of human beings working for the company,” said James Otto of the Sustainable Development Institute (SDI), Liberia.

Otto added “GVL needs to reconsider its approach to ensuring that the rights of people are respected and protected at all times – these rights must extend to the movement of civil society organizations working to support the rights of local communities impacted by the company’s operations.”


*Golden Veroleum is owned by the U.S.-based Verdant Fund LP, whose sole investor is Singapore-listed palm oil giant Golden Agri-Resources, the world’s second-largest palm oil plantation company.

GVL tried to self-suspend its membership of the RSPO certification scheme in 2018 after the RSPO Complaints Panel upheld complaints that the company was violating its sustainability commitments. However, the RSPO Board ruled that self-suspension is not an option for members. Members must either adhere to the membership requirements or withdraw from RSPO altogether.

More information:
Dr Marcus Colchester, Senior Policy Advisor, Forest Peoples Programme +441608 652893 |
Tom Dixon, Media Manager, Forest Peoples Programme, +44 1608 690760 | +44 7876 397915 |

Friday, 18 January 2019

Borneo’s forests under threat from road-building and infra-structure projects, claims new report

Tropical forests in Borneo are under major threat from deforestation from planned infra-structure development, says a new report published today.

The report by academics from Australia and Indonesia, highlights the massive risks to global biodiversity and climate posed by new road and infrastructure projects in Borneo, threatening some of the world's most pristine forest.

"You’d be hard-pressed to identify a scarier threat to biodiversity anywhere on Earth,” said Dr Mohammed Alamgir from James Cook University in Australia, lead author of the study.

“Borneo’s forests and rare wildlife have already been hit hard, but planned roads and railways will shred much of what remains, slicing across the largest remaining forest blocks,” said Professor Jatna Supriatna of the University of Indonesia.

In addition to the environmental risks, the social implications of these developments are very worrying, posing a real threat to indigenous peoples in the region.

"Given the current absence of adequate legal protection of the indigenous Dayak peoples’ land rights and the exclusion of Dayak communities from having a say over the handout of logging, pulpwood and oil palm plantations on their customary lands, the planned expansion of roads throughout Borneo poses a major threat to these peoples’ survival," said Marcus Colchester, Senior Policy Advisor of the Forest Peoples Programme.

"The government needs to urgently pass and implement laws protecting indigenous peoples’ rights, and reconsider its top-down approach to development," he said.

A local Dayak activist, Norman Jiwan from Sanggau, West Kalimantan, said "Our rights are protected under international human rights laws that the government of Indonesia has ratified."

"But despite promises to pass national laws recognising our rights nothing has been done."

"Our national indigenous peoples’ organisation, AMAN, has repeatedly brought this lack of protection of our rights to the attention of the United Nations and its Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD)," Jiwan added.

"AMAN has called on our government to protect our rights. The longer the government delays, the more problems we have. There must be no roads without rights!"


This video highlights findings from the report:
See Press Release and research report, below
Contact: Marcus Colchester, Forest Peoples Programme:
Press enquiries: Tom Dixon, / +44 7876 397915

Monday, 27 August 2018

Press Statement: Indonesia’s largest palm oil company, Golden Agri Resources on the ropes


Indonesian, Liberian and International NGOs have just filed five new complaints (attached below) against Indonesia’s largest palm oil company, Golden Agri Resources (GAR). GAR which is part of the huge Sinar Mas (Golden Rays) conglomerate run by the Widjaja family with interests ranging from palm oil and pulpwood to real estate and banking, is failing to comply with the RSPO’s standards, claim the NGOs.

Both GAR and its subsidiary in Liberia – Golden Veroleum Liberia (GVL) – angered NGOs when they recently withdrew GVL’s membership of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), thus dodging a demand from RSPO that it halt development of its palm oil mill on contested lands.

Mina Beyan of the Liberian NGO Social Entrepreneurs for Sustainable Development (SESDev) said:

We have been helping the local communities impacted by GVL to complain about the unfair way that GVL has been acquiring their lands, since 2012. Finally, earlier this year the RSPO Complaints Panel agreed - after a detailed independent investigation - that the complaints were valid. GVL was told to stop the land grab, but they refused. And now they have walked out of the RSPO. This delinquent behaviour challenges the very fabric of RSPO. Are RSPO standards only to be observed in the breach?

According to Liberian NGOs, GVL was pushing ahead with its development despite the refusal of the Blogbo community to cede their lands to the company, despite their complaints to the RSPO, despite their complaints being upheld by the RSPO Complaints Panel and despite the Panel upholding the stop work order it had issued, after overruling an appeal by GVL against the Panel’s decision.

This is a blatant attempt by GVL and GAR to evade their obligations to the RSPO. They use their RSPO membership to attract investment and to market their palm oil but when their bluff is called they just walk away from their responsibilities, said James Otto of the Monrovia-based NGO Sustainable Development Institute (SDI).

Another complaint alleges that GAR is in violation of Indonesian laws which prohibit companies and corporate groups from holding more than 100,000 hectares of land. GAR publicly admits to holding more than four times that amount. Compliance with the law is a core principle of the RSPO standard but the RSPO Complaints Panel has avoided making a ruling on this matter for more than three years.

GAR has also delayed providing promised smallholdings to local Dayak and Malay communities from whom it acquired lands in 2007-2009 in the centre of Borneo, despite being required to do so by the RSPO Complaints Panel more than three years ago after a complaint from Forest Peoples Programme (FPP).

Indonesia says it welcomes investment in palm oil plantations to help alleviate poverty and bring development, says Rahmawati Winarni, Executive Director of the Indonesian NGO Transformation to Justice (TUK), but GAR is just taking peoples’ lands and then wilfully delaying compensating them for it. Why should poor landowners be forced cede their lands and then wait decades for promised smallholdings, while these huge companies reap their profits? Actually, it is the Indonesian government that should be stopping this kind of abuse not just the RSPO, she added.

In 2013, investigations by TUK and Forest Peoples Programme had revealed that GAR was cheating people out of their lands in violation of the RSPO standards - which require members to respect customary rights and only take their lands with their free, prior and informed consent.[1] This led to a detailed complaint to the RSPO, which the complaints panel (CP) upheld in 2015, requiring GAR to make remedy for the lands it had taken without consent. RSPO CP froze all expansion and land acquisition by GAR in all 18 of GAR’s operations that were the subject of the complaint.

Since then GAR has refused to renegotiate these unfair land deals, despite an RSPO ruling that it must make remedy for taking lands without communities’ free, prior and informed consent, notes Marcus Colchester, Senior Policy Advisor for Forest Peoples Programme. ‘Justice delayed is justice denied’ is an apt saying.

The delays have led the NGOs to file the fourth complaint.

As an RSPO member we are active on the standard-setting committees trying to make the system credible and in line with human rights law, Marcus added, but if RSPO members are allowed to get away with violations for years on end, then this all seems a bit pointless. The Complaints Panel must enforce its own decisions.

In a fifth complaint the same NGOs have also called on RSPO CP to investigate what they allege are ‘shadow companies’ owned by Sinar Mas but which GAR has not declared are under its control. This follows a similar disclosure, earlier this year, that GAR’s sister company, the pulpwood giant Asian Pulp and Paper, was hiding Sinar Mas group’s ownership of several timber estates which were caught deforesting contrary to APP’s pledges to halt such.[2] The exposure led to the suspension of APP’s efforts to re-associate with the Forest Stewardship Council with the aim of certifying its huge pulp wood estate.

The credibility of certification systems depends on transparency and verification. If RSPO members are hiding their ownership of non-compliant subsidiaries or are wilfully taking them out of RSPO when they get caught, the RSPO must investigate speedily and uphold its standards, said Norman Jiwan a Dayak human rights activist working with FPP.

The NGOs have called for GAR’s certificates to be suspended, for GAR to be suspended from the RSPO Board of Governors, for GAR to be sanctioned for repeated non-compliance and for the Complaints Panel to investigate GAR’s exceeding the land ceiling and hiding its ownership of majority-owned subsidiaries.


For further information, contact:
James Otto, Sustainable Development Institute (Liberia)
Dr Marcus Colchester, Forest Peoples Programme (UK)


Thursday, 25 January 2018

Kalimantan Villagers File Complaint Against RSPO in Switzerland

An Indonesian community rights group filed a complaint against the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) on Tuesday (23/01) for failing to address complaints by residents of two West Kalimantan villages. (Photo courtesy of Greenpeace/Ulet Ifansasti)

By : Dames Alexander Sinaga | on 1:23 PM January 24, 2018
Category : News, Environment, Human Rights
Jakarta. An Indonesian community rights group filed a complaint against the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, or OECD, on Tuesday (23/01) for failing to address complaints by residents of two West Kalimantan villages.

The indigenous Dayak community in Kerunang and Entapang villages are accusing Malaysian palm oil giant Sime Darby – a member of the RSPO – of stealing tribal land.

Norman Jiwan, a consultant with rights group Transformation for Justice (TuK Indonesia), said the complaint was filed after the community sent a request urging the RSPO to convince Sime Darby to return the tribal lands.

The RSPO allegedly failed to respond to their request.

"Today, we will submit the complaint," said Norman, who serves as a legal consultant for the affected indigenous communities.

He added that the RSPO has failed to meet its obligations under the OECD Guidelines on Multinational Enterprises.

"The complaint against the RSPO is submitted through the OECD's national contact point in Switzerland, where the RSPO is legally constituted," Norman said.

TuK Indonesia said Sime Darby, through its West Kalimantan subsidiary Mitra Austral Sejahtera (MAS), has been operating on indigenous lands for more than 20 years without free, prior and informed consent.

MAS allegedly approached local communities in 1995 and promised that the plasma plantation development would be followed by electrification, infrastructure developments, housing, hospitals, schools and employment opportunities for residents of Kerunang and Entapang. These promises resulted in an agreement to lease the land until 2022.

Despite no formal contract with the communities, MAS obtained cultivation permits and a land-use contract valid until 2030. The Kerunang and Entapang communities were not aware of these developments.

Since 2007, when Sime Darby acquired MAS, the two villages have been urging the company to prove its right to cultivate the land.

Sime Darby's Response

Sime Darby said in a statement in December last year that the land dispute has been discussed at the RSPO's annual meetings since 2012.

"Throughout this period, RSPO's complaint manager also visited the communities four times. As of December 2017, SDP [Sime Darby Plantation] management has held 25 meetings with the communities surrounding MAS to earnestly resolve the outstanding issues," the statement said.

The Malaysian palm oil giant said it is fully aware of the situation and it sympathizes with the communities of Kerunang and Entapang.

"However, we are unable at this point to unilaterally accede to the community's demands over the main contention areas ... as to do so would result in a breach of Sime Darby Plantation's terms of the concessions agreement signed with the government of Indonesia," the company said.

Sime Darby added that it is ready to assist in dialogue with the relevant government officials to find an equitable and legal solution for all stakeholders.

"The company looks forward to the cooperation of the communities towards ensuring that the eventual return of their land is socially, environmentally and economically viable," Sime Darby said.

The company added that it is also committed to the principles of sustainable development, and that it will continue to work to resolve the situation and fully cooperate with the RSPO's complaints panel.

Press Release: Indigenous Community files complaint against the RSPO at the OECD

24 January 2018/in Press Release /by Mubarok Khalid

Jakarta, January 24, 2018 – The Dayak Hibun Indigenous People from Kerunang hamlet and Entapang hamlet, Bonti Subdistrict in the Sanggau District in West Kalimantan, today filed a complaint against the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) under the OECD’s special complaint mechanism. The community filed its complaint through the OECD’s National Contact Point (NCP) in Switzerland, as the RSPO is legally registered in that country.

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) is an intergovernmental economic organization, with the aim of promoting economic development and cooperation. Its’ members are mostly developed countries. As a way to promote fair and sustainable development that guarantees the protection of human and environmental rights, the OECD has published the OECD Guidelines on Multinational Enterprises. These Guidelines are the only multilaterally agreed and comprehensive code of responsible business conduct that governments have committed to promoting.

The community is of the opinion that the RSPO has failed to comply with the RSPO’s own rules and procedures, and that as a result of these failures, the RSPO has failed to protect the community’s rights and it has failed to comply with the OECD Guidelines on Multinational Enterprises.

The community declares that the RSPO has failed to comply with Chapter IV (3) of the OECD Guidelines, which is to “seek ways to prevent or mitigate adverse human rights impacts that are directly linked to their business operations, products or services by a business relationship, even if they do not contribute to those impacts”; and it has failed to comply with Chapter IV (5) to “carry out human rights due diligence as appropriate to [its] size, the nature and context of [its] operations and the severity of the risks of adverse human rights impacts”.

The conflict that originated this complaint is caused by PT Mitra Austral Sejahtera (“PT MAS”), a wholly owned subsidiary of a Malaysian Multinational palm oil Company called Sime Darby Berhad (“Sime Darby”), who is a founding member of the RSPO. The communities accuse PT MAS and Sime Darby from unlawfully excluding the community from 1,462ha of their customary land. As a result, the community has had their fundamental human rights denied.

The RSPO is a multi-stakeholder forum for the production of sustainable palm oil. It is registered in Switzerland and therefore legally bound to the OECD Guidelines on Multinational Enterprises. According to the RSPO standards, the production of sustainable palm oil includes respecting human rights, customary rights and other rights and comply with Free, Prior and Informed Consent Procedures. The RSPO’s Principles and Criteria document for palm oil producing companies, states in criteria 6.13 that “A policy to respect human rights shall be documented and communicated to all levels of the workforce and operation.


Since 2007, Sime Darby and PT MAS have failed to comply with Criteria 2.1, which is to provide evidence of compliance with relevant legal requirements. It has also failed to comply with Criteria 2.2, which is to demonstrate that the right to use the land is not legitimately contested by local people who can demonstrate that they have legal, customary or user rights over it. This is not the case, as the communities of Kerunang hamlet and Entapang hamlet claim their customary land, which is being used by PT MAS. Furthermore, the company has not adopted and implemented a conflict resolution process acceptable and agreed by the Community to resolve “land conflicts” (Criterion 2.2.4); it has failed to obtain Community FPIC (Criterion 2.3); and it has failed to provide evidence that a plan has been developed through consultation and discussion with all affected groups in the communities, it has failed to inform the communities about the legal implications of their use of the disputed land and in particular they failed to inform the communities on the implications of the legal status of community land upon the expiration of the concession or corporate HGU (Criterion 2.3 .2 (c)).

In October 2012, the community submitted a complaint to the RSPO regarding land conflicts involving PT Mitra Austral Sejahtera, a subsidiary of Sime Darby Plantation. The complaint contained 14 demands related to land rights, partnership issues and company promises. In the complaint, the community proposed a roadmap to solve the community’s demands. The first step was that the RSPO Complaints Panel should decide that Sime Darby Plantation should return the community land. Secondly, the Dispute Settlement Facility (DSF) should facilitate a dialogue to solve partnership issues, corporate promises and smallholder (plasma) production rearrangements.

Unfortunately, until 2017 the RSPO Complaints Panel has not responded and has not succeeded in making a written decision regarding the community demand. The Dispute Settlement Facility did not succeed in solving the community problems either. The community is disappointed and frustrated by the RSPO’s handling of their complaint and the lack of action to solve the conflict with PT MAS, a subsidiary of Sime Darby Plantation, a member of the RSPO.

 The communities and TuK INDONESIA see that Chapter IV (3) of the OECD Guidelines clearly applies to the RSPO with the following considerations:
First, the issue or refusal of certificates is a “business operation”. So is the operation of a complaints mechanism;

Secondly, the issue of a certificate to a member despite its failure to respect the human rights of a community affected by its project will be “directly linked” to an adverse human rights impact on the community, because it will encourage the member to think that it can ignore those rights without risk of sanction; if it is still able to sell certified product, its incentive to prevent or mitigate an adverse impact will largely disappear. A failure to operate the complaints mechanism properly will have a very similar effect as long as the failure persists.

Thirdly, by the same token if the RSPO fails to suspend or withdraw the certificate of a non-compliant member until it mends its ways, or to investigate a community complaint in a proper and timely manner, it fails to “seek a way to mitigate” the adverse impact of the member’s conduct.;

Fourthly, the RSPO is clearly in a “business relationship” with Sime Darby, a member which has agreed to pay and to abide by the RSPO rules in exchange for the benefits of membership.

The community has formulated a “Proposal for Solution” for Sime Darby Plantation. The proposal contains steps to return the customary land to the communities of Kerunang and Entapang. Unfortunately, the RSPO has failed to assist and convince Sime Darby Plantation to accept the offer of community solutions.

The community is ready to submit solutions to the Swiss NCP on how the RSPO should implement responsible, sustainable and equitable human rights mechanisms.

As a member of the OECD, the Swiss National Contact Point can facilitate, assist communities and the RSPO to restore the rights of Dayak Hibun indigenous peoples from Kerunang and Entapang hamlets, in accordance with the spirit of the United Nations Guide on Business and Human Rights and the OECD Guidance on Multinational Enterprises .

The communities believe the Swiss NCP is committed, professional and accountable in formulating best practices of human rights remedial measures in the implementation and advancement of the OECD Guidelines policy and in harmony with the spirit of sustainable development and Human Rights.

Media Contact:

Redatus Musa +62 81380663822, Head of Dusun Entapang Community

Edisutrisno +62 81315849153, Deputy Director, TuK INDONESIA

Rini Kusnadi +62 82260152595, Media Relation Officer, TuK INDONESIA

Tags: Kerunang-Entapang, OECD complaint, PT MAS, RSPO, Sime Darby

About Me

Born 8th May 1977, Mabah village of Dayak Kerambai tribe, West Kalimantan, Borneo island. He was trained at pedagogy and education faculty on English teaching at Tanjungpura University, Pontianak, West Kalimantan. Holding certificates on environmental leadership program, research, journalist, fire prevention, teaching, human rights & indigenous peoples in the international system, sustainable forest management, and sustainable palm oil. Co-author published domestic and international books. Experience speaker and resource person in seminars, conferences, workshops, and symposium both regional and international fora including in Brazil, Cambodia, Finland, France, Japan, Germany, Malaysia, Netherlands, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Philippines, United States, and Vietnam. Active member of Executive Board of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil represents Sawit Watch (2008-2012). Currently he lives in Bogor. Volunteer and activist works with WALHI Kalbar (2002-2004) and Sawit Watch (2004-2012). June 2013-2016, Executive Director of TuK INDONESIA. Consultant for Forest Peoples Programme (2013), MFP-III (2015), and ELSAM (2017).


This blog is intended exclusively for the author own purposes. It may contain confidential and personal information. No rights can be derived from this blog’s messages. Views or opinions presented in this blog do not necessarily represent those of organisation of the author of this blog. Author accepts no liability for damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent to the electronic transmission of messages, nor is Author responsible for the proper and complete transmission of any improper use of the information from the blog.