Minutes for the first meeting of the RSPO Criteria … 1 minutes.pdfMinutes of 1st CWG meeting 1 Minutes for the first meeting of the RSPO Criteria Working Group Grand Hyatt Hotel,

Minutes of 1st CWG meeting 1

Minutes for the first meeting of the RSPO Criteria

Working Group

Grand Hyatt Hotel, Jakarta

04 October 2004

Compiled by ProForest and Andrew Ng

Introductory note

These notes have been compiled from the discussions held during the first meeting

of the RSPO Criteria Working Group on Monday 04 October 2004 and during the

discussions on the criteria held on the following day during the RT2 meeting.

As facilitators of the criteria development, ProForest has compiled these discussions

to provide:

• information and guidance for the ongoing work of the Criteria Working Group

(CWG); and

• a publicly available, non-attributable record of the important contributions made

during discussions

We have attempted to record all discussions faithfully, however, we accept

responsibility for any item missed or inadequately represented. As the primary

purpose of these records is for use by the CWG, we have organised comments and

suggestions under themes, rather than chronologically.


Participants

Criteria Working Group (CWG) Members

Name Organisation

Producers

Simon Lord NBPOL

Jean-Charles Jacquemard SOCFINDO

Hereward Corley (Alternate for Bernard Tinkler) Consultant

Mohd Ramli Adnan FELDA

Asrul Darussamin IPOC

Marcello Brito Grupo Agropalma

Kee Khan Kiang Applied Agricultural Research

Ian Rowland (Alternate for Thomas Fairhurst) PRPOL

Joseph Tek IJM representing MPOA

Supply Chain and Investors

Ian McIntosh, Aarhus United UK

Tim Stephenson (Alternate for Ian McIntosh) Aarhus United UK

Bachtiar Karim PT Musim Mas

Manuel Davila Daabon Group

Khairuddin Hashim (Alternate for Jan van Driel) GHPB

Jenny Kau (Alternate for Doris Nichol) PORAM

Environmental

Fitrian Ardiansyah WWF Indonesia

Gan Lian Tiaong KLK

John Payne Advisor to WWF Malaysia

Social

Rudy Lumuru Sawit Watch

Marcus Colchester (Alternate for Sawit Watch) Consultant

Yanti Laksana (Alternate for Lea Borkenhagen) OXFAM Indonesia


Facilitators

Ruth Nussbaum ProForest

Steve Jennings ProForest

Andrew Ng (Secretary) Consultant

Observers

MR Chandran MPOA (RSPO Executive Board)

Fausta Borsani Migros (RSPO Executive Board)

Jan Kees-Vis Unilever (RSPO President)

Jan-Olof Liedfelt Karlshamns

Teoh Cheng Hai RSPO Sec. Gen.

Tony Lass Cadbury Schweppes

Matthias Diemer WWF (RSPO Executive Board)

Chris Donough IOI (RSPO Executive Board)

1. Opening remarks

Outcomes must be reasonable and practical.

Job of the CWG over next 12 months is to develop some criteria for sustainable palm

oil. Work today based upon previous efforts that were presented at RT1. Though

there may be many disagreements over substance and content, there is a need to be

constructive and try to understand the views of the various stakeholders. Part of the

criteria for the composition of CWG was emphasising geographical areas and ability

to represent different interest groups.

2. Procedures for developing the Criteria

Objectives: To agree on procedures for criteria development that:

• Will be clear to all members of the CWG

• Will be publicly available so that all stakeholders know how the process is

being undertaken

• Can be utilised in practice


Suggested process that the CWG should follow1 outlined, including composition of

the CWG, facilitation, consultation, decision-making, appeals mechanism and

maintaining public information.

2.1. Composition of CWG

CWG

Overview: RSPO Secretariat requested nominations from RSPO members, all

participants of RT1 and all members of the Technical Group involved in drafting the

Framework Criteria. Over 70 nominations received. The Executive Board of RSPO

voted on the nominations, with the final choice ensuring that: members of the CWG

have relevant expertise and experience or should be affected by oil palm

management; are able to consult with their constituent groups and represent their

views; and that the overall membership should reflect the balance of interests and

geographic scope of oil palm production.

No representation from the Indonesian producers, i.e. major Indonesian companies

themselves not being represented here. In addition, GAPKI not here.

Musim Mas is part of group.

Social and environmental groups are outnumbered against producers and

processors and some social sectors are not directly represented, notably trade

unions, smallholders, indigenous peoples and women’s groups.

More than just interest groups, some sectors are not represented (e.g. retailers,

investors). However, the suggested procedures for consultation and decision-making

may overcome some of the issues of balance of representation. If the CWG decides

that it is imperative that a particular group should be represented, then we may

need to co-opt new members.

Existing group is sufficient and public comments can take into account the other

major stakeholder groups. Concern is over the size of the group and if too big

cannot make consensus.

Important that the concerns of the other groups and stakeholders are included into

the process, so process is important. Later, mechanism for consultation with other

stakeholder groups has to be discussed.

Should make use of the role of CWG members to consult with their constituency.

Clearly there are some groups that are not strongly or directly represented here.

One suggestion would be to start with the existing CWG, and if becomes clear

1 For draft text of the suggested CWG process, see Section 4 of ‘Process for the

development of international criteria for sustainable oil palm’.


during consultation that a group feels they are not being properly or directly

represented in the CWG, then it would be a good stage to consider additional

members.

Increased African representation must also be considered.

Role of research institutions not clear in the development of criteria. More

involvement from research institutes recommended, either through expansion of

group or consultation.

Research organisations likely to have a key role in providing technical advise to the

CWG

Over course of the CWG meeting and RT, it would provide better opportunities for

those who want to be in now

Would Sawit Watch be willing to move forward now with the present group and

consider additions later?

Agreed.

Review at end of day and take up if needed.

RT2 breakout and plenary

The environmental group of the CWG has 3 out of 5 members from WWF. How was

the CWG chosen? Is there provision to re-constitute CWG if necessary?

Do you plan to include into supply chain those companies not making palm oil or

palm kernel oil, but surfactants and detergents?

The idea is to include all possible major stakeholder groups. But the CWG felt that to

begin the process, it would be better to focus on the production first. Aware that

some parts of the whole supply chain not directly represented, and was discussed at

CWG meeting, but CWG members feel they can represent them and there is the

possibility to include more people if necessary.

Do we have good representation from each stakeholder group, and will there be

public consultation later on?

With only 5 representatives, it does not represent all stakeholders in each set, but

full public consultation will be carried out and direct inputs from any groups can be

made, with full transparency for each document and 60 day period for feedback and

comments. Once comments received a summary will be made of all comments and

CWG has to address each comment. Each comment or address of issues will be

made publicly available. A redressing mechanism is also available should

stakeholders not be satisfied with how their comments were addressed.

Each of the 25 in CWG are not only representing their personal views but to

represent the views of their wider stakeholder group.


Tried to get cross-section of all stakeholders. In Indonesia, there is a large

smallholder group (30% of production), but they seem to be not represented. They

are important group and represent an important way in which poverty alleviation is

being tackled.

There are many stakeholders with smallholders being one of the most important.

The social group would try to represent interest of smallholders in Indonesia and

consult with them. One important point is that criteria has to be designed with

implementation possible for smallholders, thus not demand them to have a

complicated set of criteria. With that in consideration, the criteria has to be practical

and applicable to smallholders, which is part of the objective of CWG.

2.2. Alternates

CWG

Overview: the proposed rules for Alternates are that all CWG members should

nominate an Alternate; if both CWG member and Alternate attend a physical

meeting, only the substantive member is involved in decision-making (including

voting); RSPO will provide financial support for Alternates to attend physical

meetings only when the substantive member is unable to attend.

Are alternates fixed or flexible?

There may be circumstances where changes are needed, but needs to be discussed.

Weakness in having a flexible system because of the lag in knowledge of issues and

discussions. Alternate should be fixed.

General agreement that Alternates, once named, should be permanent other than in

unavoidable circumstances.

With present group so small, who is missing?

Producers – Thomas Fairhurst (being represented today by IR); Billy Gansah (Unilever

Ghana); Bernard Tinker (represented today by HC).

Supply Chain - Jan van Driel (represented today by Khairuddin Hashim); Doris Nichol

(represented today by Jenny Kau)

Environment – Jason Clay (WWF US); Agus Winamo Boyce (Conservation International)

Social – Irene Fernandez (Tenaganita); Lea Borkenhagen (represented today by Yanti

Lacsana); Kenn Mondiai (PWM).


2.3. Facilitation

CWG

Should more details on facilitation be publicly available, such as that facilitation is

neutral, that decisions on the organisation of the CWG are made by the facilitator?

Is there a TOR?

Not very detailed, only on objectives of CWG

Will ensure clarity in full TOR

2.4. Technical Advisors

CWG

One suggestion would be to have technical advisors selected from suggestions of

the CWG and with the approval of the Executive Board

Funding may be issue to get technical advisors

Why not appoint particular technical or research institutes on topics to maximise on

their expertise?

2.5. Decision making

CWG

Overview: The suggested process is that decisions should be made by consensus.

Where the CWG decide that consensus is not possible on a given issue, then there

will be a vote where agreement will be reached when there is a two-thirds majority in

favour from each of the four constituent groups.

Voting system proposed is now considered international good practice and allows

for no blocking or domination by a single group.

Is voting the only way for resolving contentious issues?

No single acceptable guideline for voting but some practices are having 3 rounds of

deliberations then voting in place.

Concern over whether choices are made based upon objectivity, but on “ought to

be” mentality. May be better to postpone decisions for a set time.

Postponement of a voting should be possible if CWG think that more time would be

useful.


Danger of postponement, and how to decide when to postpone.

In other processes, deadlines often dictate the need for voting on contentious

issues. A No Vote could also be outcome and that would be sent out for public

consultation. Examples exist and RN cited another process.

Need to have time that constituent consultation is given agenda so that voting is not

a surprise to people if needed.

Facilitators would recommend voting when necessary and would put prior notice on

when a vote may be needed to allow consultation.

2.6. Appeals mechanism

CWG

Overview: some concerns over the process, facilitators, CWG, etc may crop up due to

the large number of stakeholders. There therefore needs to be in place a

transparent mechanism to deal with any dissatisfaction.

Need to have some level of reviewing regularly

Agree and in addition, suggestions on review period, how often and if changes

occur how to bring this up to CWG.

RT2 session is another avenue to further think.

The suggested process seems somewhat familiar – what international standard

setting guides were used for the formulation of suggested CWG process?

Two major documents: ISO Guide 59 and ISEAL Code of Good Practice for Setting

Social and Environmental Standards. The suggestions here come directly from these

two documents.

2.7. Maintaining public information

CWG

Overview: Progress on the criteria development will be maintained on the RSPO

website, including: copies of all procedural documents concerning criteria

development; any documents available for public comment; synopses of how issues

raised during public review have been dealt with by the CWG; six-monthly work

programmes of the CWG and records of criteria development activities.

PNG access to internet is very poor and downloading it would be very difficult. E-

mail or CD-rom to those in PNG is better.


Can a mailing list be provided?

CWG should be directly contacted by Proforest while public consultation can be done

if requested through PDF documents. Further information on the webpage with

appendices of information also available and distributed to the group.

2.8. Objectives and scope2

CWG

Overview: The suggested description of the Objective is to produce criteria setting

out the economic, social and environmental requirements for sustainable production

of palm oil. The suggested scope is that they will be internationally applicable to oil

palm plantations and primary processing operations.

Need to reconcile with SOI, and include statement that says, “production and use of

sustainable palm oil”.

2.9. Content of criteria3

CWG

Overview: Best practise guidelines contain specific recommendations for how criteria

should be written and what should be included in terms of verifiers and indicators

and guidance for national interpretation.

Some criteria may have to wait for pilots or tests, yet some stopgap measures would

be needed, how to handle it?

Field-testing helps identify problems etc., so concurrent process of testing and

refining future drafts is the likely path to take.

Dilemma because we don’t yet know how some of the criteria are to be applied. Are

these standards going to be mandatory or voluntary? These have ramifications upon

the application, and consequences, like legal or voluntary implications.

Voluntary, with the supply chain being the main demand factors.

There is still an issue relating to this and RSPO has to be further involved in deciding

2 See Section 1 of ‘Process for the development of international criteria for

sustainable oil palm’ for draft text that was used in discussion.


sustainable oil palm’.


if criteria would be voluntary or whether RSPO members would have to be

committed to implementing them.

Later in the day implementation of criteria should be further considered, and can

then make recommendations to the RSPO for uptake, implementation, etc.

2.10. Criteria Development Process4

CWG

Outline: Start October 2004 and last for approximately 12 months. Proposed

timeline includes two draft versions plus a final version and two physical meetings

of CWG with other communication electronic.

Would the present draft be the first one?

No, a first draft should be done in the weeks after this CWG meeting.

The 12 month timeframe is very challenging and short for developing an

international set of standards. The CWG would have to decide if an extension of

time is likely necessary to ensure a satisfactory result.

2 physical meetings could also be another constraint and should be considered.

This means more electronic communications and thus requires timely replies,

meaning a strong commitment to reply by deadline from members.

Size of document is another issues, and docs under 200kb would be better for

downloading and re-distribution to constituents.

Would it be worthwhile sometime later on to have an e-forum for wider consultation

beyond facilitator to CWG members?

Agreed.

3. Identification of major issues in draft principles

and criteria

Objective: Identify major issues with the draft principles and draft criteria


sustainable oil palm’.


3.1. Draft Principles5

CWG

Overview: Are the Principles in the Framework adequate, if not, what alterations

need to be made, including additional principles?

1. Compliance with applicable laws and regulations

Agreement reached that this was appropriate

2. Long-term profitability

Seems redundant since oil palm is a long-term crop and is inculcated into the

overall principles of investing in oil palm.

Feedback from first doc was that explicit need to put down this point.

Palm oil is competing against other oils and thus long-term profits is important.

Essential for this to be in, since without economic viability is fundamental and

comes first otherwise others cannot be considered. Sees economic viability is

more expressive and accurate for this principle.

Agrees with above.

Should be re-written as an activity rather than outcome.

Long-term viability to Malaysian investors abroad, are advised to ensure the

ultimate yield, and needs to be borne in mind.

Recognition that profitability is essential part of sustainability. Balance needed to

ensure this is key

Should put this principle as the underlying principle that shows profits cannot be

undermined at cost of meeting other principles.

Agrees with above.

Long-term profitability should be part of technical(?)

3. Use of appropriate best management practices in plantations and mills

Remove the word ‘management’ as there are more than just managers.

BMPs is just a common term.

Practices are more than just management, e.g. land, etc. relating to other issues

like rights, etc.

Acknowledge those but BMPs is a common terminology used and can be more

5 See page 1 of ‘Framework for Drafting Criteria for Sustainable Palm Oil’


closely described within document.

Best practices probably more widely used than BMPs.

Decision has to be made on whether principle 3 is only for technical practices or

should also encompass other issues relating to labour, etc.

There are overlaps between principles 1,3 &5 exists and redundancy is a worry.

There are likely to be overlaps, and CWG has to work out which divisions have to

be made. There are alternatives in terms of either being more explicit on each

principle or to develop previous idea and have subsets.

Quality of oil is important and needs to be covered.

Quality should be part of the issues relating to profitability

4. Environmental responsibility and conservation of natural resources and

biodiversity

Discomfort with use of word environmental as it may be seen as missing out some

parts like biodiversity or only as brown issues. On conservation question over

whether plantations can be conservationists. Re-wording responsibility towards

environmental, natural resources and wild species.

There is more to biodiversity, and conservation, than just wild species, so diversity

has to be beyond just species.

The principle should remain, on natural resources can include in-site, as well as

outside, but key point is to ensure that there is responsibility to check on their

impacts on biodiversity and environmental impacts.

Conservation is problem, but all agriculture is at expense of conservation.

Conservation may be the wrong word.

E.g. in Indonesia there are set-aside laws for concessions functioning for water

catchments, biodiversity, etc. These areas should be considered in the planning

stage of any plantation and not to force plantations to set aside parks.

Reword to responsible use of natural resources, environment and biodiversity.

Note that the word ‘plantations’ as used in the Framework document is the land

holding of each estate, that would include planted and unplanted areas.

Biodiversity is too wide, more specific wording needed

No clarity over where land acquisition, conversion is in this scheme. Should new

plantations be featured more clearly in this in order to have more clarity over the

application of each principle.

What about a principle on new plantation developments?

New plantations should have a principle (or set of principles) that can act as


guidelines exclusively for plantation development.

Agreement for a principle for new plantation establishment.

May be useful to look at criteria to determine some principle.

Pollution is not explicitly mentioned and if environmental responsibility is taken

out then brown issues need to be included.

5. Appropriate consideration of employees and of individuals and communities

affected by plantations and mills;

The issue of representation must be included, and the current wording of

“consideration” is weak.

Establishment of plantations has more influence outide of its areas. Replace to talk

about ‘social responsibility’

Disagree, as social responsibility starts to take a very much larger stake.

Statement too general and generic.

In meeting principle 1, many issues relating to principle 5 are already covered.

In setting international standards, variation in laws a given.

New plantaion establishment would need to cover more than just plantation and

mills already in existence. By separating existing from new it immediately

addresses concerns.

Rights of stakeholders like workers, land rights may not be necessarily covered by

national legal frameworks, so this principle needs to ensure that rights are

covered explicitly.

6. Commitment to continuous improvement in all areas of activity.

Difference to sustainability

No absolute sustainability, therefore this is a major consideration

Should the word be ‘continuous’ or ‘continual’?

3.2. Potential additional principles

Establishment of new plantations

Adherence to the production principles can be enhanced by support from use of

palm oil.

There should be more efforts to provide marketing push

Transparency and provision of information should also be included as an additional

principle.


Transparency is important to ensure that there is some level of accountability

A statement of commitment to transparency should be inserted in the preamble to

the p&c.

Transparency would be something that would play a large role in the

implementation phase.

Need for lesson learning and information sharing when it comes to improving

environmental or social practices. With poor information flow in plantations, there is

a need to help them to get to information and practices, successes. RSPO can

promote the sharing of information.

Transparency is key to demonstrate commitment to sustainability within each

company e.g. their websites.

Transparency should apply to all the stakeholders who area involved.

Plantations vs. smallholders needs to be clearly defined. Would smallholders have to

meet the same standards, or would there be different ones for smallholders?

Wiser to address one at a time rather than for smallholders and plantations.

Smallholders must be involved. Smallholders have to be part of the equation.

Principles should be the same, but at the implementation and criteria part, there

should be interpretation for plantations vs. smallholders.

3.3. Structure of Principles and Criteria

CWG

Overview: Should the criteria be linked to specific Principles (i.e., create ‘Principles

and Criteria’) or should the Principles be stand-alone statements as they currently

are in the Framework?

From Prof. Tinker – principles are not really principles.

Agree on principle approach. Sustainability is the main goal of RSPO, as it stands,

social standards are lower than FSC P&C. Sustaining livelihoods is part of goals,

therefore the need to ensure representation of groups not present here.

International standards and principles exist. [MC and RL circulate document

containing summary of basic international Principles governing social issues]. In

own opinion, the document sets out the basic international standards and

safeguards

What is profitability defined as? Is it based upon price and profits?


That should be determined by CWG. Asked for a round of opinions

At RT1, SOI was used and build upon it. Principles exist in that document, therefore

principles should be in.

Agree with previous comment.

Agree with above, actually underline what criteria is based upon.

Support principle approach, but the lack of matching is confusing.

Is anyone opposed to a ‘P&C approach?

Has to be clarity as principles may be too generic. E.g. Principle 4.

Would have to work up from criteria to meet the principles, i.e. criteria has to build

up to fulfil principle

The criterion is more now for production only. The linkages to use of palm oil also

need to be considered.

Should be considered

The use also as important and was already embedded into the SOI.

Is there a need to address to make explicit points that those downstream of

producers that binds them to be committed to buying sustainable palm oil?

Agrees with previous comments, and emphasised the need to have the demand for

sustainable palm oil.

From supply chain perspective, at present there is no mainstream sustainable palm

oil market or products, dialogue with users. Believes that need to demonstrate there

is sustainable palm oil now existing in market and then get commitment from

consumers. The criteria are presently focussed on production of sustainable palm

oil.

Embedded into the six principles of adherence or adoption of the principles by

buyers and consumers.

Is use of sustainable palm oil being questioned? It was agreed in RT1 and should be

worded into this document.

FSC was to provide markets for timber. RSPO members are part of a group that are

raising the standards for production of palm oil “raising the floor”.

2 options, one to demonstrate progress at RT3 and then gain commitments or

follow suggestion regarding commitment to use sustainable palm oil.

Agrees with above.


3.4. Draft Criteria

Note: the CWG formed four breakout groups (producers, supply chain and investors,

environmental interests and social interests) and discussed the criteria that directly

related to their own constituent groups before reporting back to the entire CWG

group.

3.4.1. General comments


Structure and language

For the clarity of the criteria and avoid confusion as well as misunderstanding and

interpretation of the component it is important to have clear definition of various

terms and concepts used in the criteria, including “appropriate”, “requirement”,

“adequate”, “fairly”, “customary rights”, “local people/communities”, “smallholders”,

“nucleus farmers/plasma plantation (in Indonesia operation)”, “whenever possible”,

plus standard guideline to be used and the legal framework to be used as guidance

– local, national or international.

Many criteria are interconnected or overlapping. Cross referencing of criteria would

be very useful.

Recommendation that ISO language i.e. use of should, shall & may to distinguish

between requirements versus other levels of need to meet criteria

Criteria has to be simple yet comprehensive and clear for all to follow.

The issue of mandatory and voluntary needs to be discussed further.

Monitoring and evaluation need to be inherent part to ensure that the criteria

followed and applied.


What has happened to the supply chain in the criteria?

There are currently no specific criteria now for the supply chain, although this issue

is raised in the Framework document..

On title of Criteria document, palm oil and oil palm is being used interchangeably.

Should be sustainable palm oil

Page 1, Item 1.1 From RT1 it was sustainable palm oil production and use, while

only production is mentioned here. Wants to see it changed to reflect it.

Smallholders

Structuring of criteria for smallholders interest is presently inadequate

Trying to make distinction between big and small plantations, and smallholders

caution. Using a 50ha average as benchmark for smallholders, their annual earnings

are above the national average. Smallholders are exempted from some of the

pressures that larger companies are subjected to, while they are collectively holding

about 4 million ha in Indonesian and contributes to a large amount of CPO. Believes

that there will be high standards for new plantations, low standards for existing

plantations and no standards for smallholders. With a new plasma type scheme in

existence, where the smallholders repay their land investment by selling to the main

companies. Standards should not be too high or low.

There is a need to balance out the number of criteria out but does not agree that it

penalises new plantations more. Smallholder discussion is that application of criteria

needs distinctively different guidelines for some criteria to suit their conditions and

ensure that they would be able to meet those standards.

In Malaysian scenario, with cess payment levied upon industry and smallholders.

The cess is used to provide support to smallholders and industry to improve

production, etc. Questions feasibility of having primary producers and millers to

provide training of smallholders. Malaysia has MPOB, NASH that takes care of

interests of smallholders. There is a need for it to make things work.

Within RSPO, the key characteristics are that a constructive approach that would

provide a universal application to the whole industry eventually. On smallholders,

constructive engagement with them by large companies and also from RSPO has to

happen.

Responding to this, there is a seat in the EB reserved for smallholders.

Endorsement of Framework as a starting point

Did the breakout group leaders get the feeling from the groups that the present

Framework is workable and a suitable starting point for criteria development

No criteria were ultimately rejected but definitions and wording needed to be more


precise and clear. Very positive air in the group session and gives confidence to

move forward.

Echoed what Simon said. All criteria were in general agreed, but need for

clarification and refinement was called for.

Almost all comments were for corrections or clarifications, but few major concerns.

One extra area was an extra criterion for the role of government, but may not be

suitable because of the B-to-B nature of RSPO.

Still a lot of work to be done, from CWG to other stakeholders at large to get

feedback. In responding to John’s government point, believes that involvement of

government is still needed but question of when to put that into the process.

There is recognition by the EB that the role of government is key. There are common

areas of concern from all groups over the use of language and definition. Role of

smallholders also being raised, how they fit in. Monitoring also raised. Voluntary or

mandatory approach? Market forces and how they would or could decide the price.

But within the scope of sustainability the three pillars are key issues. Issues like

productivity can be looked into as part of the economic sustainability

3.4.2. Discussion of Legal Criteria

Criterion 1.1 There is compliance with all applicable local, national and international

laws and regulations

CWG

Minor change – should be ‘ratified’ international laws and regulations’


Issues: need inventories of applicable laws, assessment of how these differ between

countries, smallholders should be taken into account, and how compliance will be

assessed or controlled.

Criterion 1.2 The right to use the land can be demonstrated and does not diminish

the legal or customary rights of other users

CWG

Should be split in two because customary rights is a separate issue from

demonstration of the right to use land:

Criterion 1.2 The right to use the land can be demonstrated


Criterion 1.3 The right to use the land does not diminish the legal or customary

rights of other users.


Should include compensation rather than talking about diminishing rights of others

How would CWG handle land rights issues? It is an issue for not just Indonesia but

prevalent in all countries with oil palm?

On issue of plantation establishment, land acquisition would directly address the

issues related to land rights, with an emphasis on an equitable approach. It would

be explicitly addressed in the CWG.

3.4.3. Discussion of Technical criteria

Criterion 2.1 Management planning aims at long-term financial and economic

viability for plantations and mills

CWG

Long-term financial viability is not only in the hands of producers, but also depends

on global markets and economy. Should change to ‘Financial plans should take into

account the need for continual improvement in productivity, economic,

environmental and social performance’


Issues affecting long-term financial planning include inflation, disrupted loan

projects etc.

Criterion 2.2 High productivity and quality of produce is achieved on planted land

through appropriate agronomic and management practices

CWG

Change ‘high’ to ‘optimal’ productivity.

Productivity is related to yield

Change from ‘BMPs’ to ‘Better Practices’


How does this apply to smallholders?

Food safety would have to be somewhere as a component.


Criterion 2.3 Plantation and mill operating procedures are appropriately

documented

CWG

Should add ‘and followed through consistently’

Include a provision to spell out the differences for smallholders.


How does this apply to smallholders?

How will this be audited?

Criterion 3.1 Practices must be adequate to maintain, and if appropriate, improve,

long-term soil fertility

CWG

Can delete the phrase ‘long-term’

Why take out ‘long-term’?

Long-term or short term is same thing. Soil fertility should be constant.


What are the cost implications of this?

Criterion 3.2 Practices must be adequate to minimise and control erosion

CWG

Should there be a slope limit? No explicit mentioning of terracing as measures.

Should add “and degradation”


For smallholders, intercropping practises often cause erosion, but are vital to the

smallholders

Inter-cropping: this is too general and not all crops are causes of erosion.


Criterion 3.3 Practices must be adequate to maintain the quality and quantity of

fresh water

CWG

Should be explicit in stating “surface and ground water”

Should introduce the notions of efficiency of use/renewability of source.

Criterion 4.1 Pests, diseases and weeds are effectively managed whilst pesticide use

is minimised

CWG

Have a minimum standard e.g. from PAN for guidelines


Should mention IPM and control of invasive introduced species

Criterion 4.2 Herbicides and pesticides in WHO classes 1A and 1B or banned by

national legislation shall not be used and any other herbicides and pesticides

should be used in a way that minimises health and environmental risks

CWG

Should delete mention of WHO classes and focus on using pesticides in a way that

does not endanger health or environment.

Can remove the word ‘herbicides’ as herbicides are pesticides.

Concern over wording: there may be some countries where there are chemicals not

banned.

Guidance on this is presented in the paper on basic social principles presented

earlier.

Tried to incorporate this consideration but main objective was to remove WHO

standards because they only look at toxicity without addressing environmental

issues or use of these chemicals.

Stockholm convention only covers POPs.

Did the group looking at the technical criteria discuss smallholders issues – how

different would the technical components be for smallholders?


Not enough time for a conclusive discussion

Criteria the same but guidance to meet them different.

Would transparency be implanted into this area?


‘Minimise’ should refer to using as per instructions on the label.

The section should be ‘Pest and disease control’

Add “occupational” health

Criterion 5.1 Planting material should be of the highest quality available

Criterion 5.2 Nurseries should avoid the use of forest topsoil, be sustainable in

water-use and minimise chemical control of pests and diseases

CWG

These criteria should be placed as guidance under Criterion 2.2 rather than being

criteria in their own right.

The issue of topsoil from virgin forests for nursery use which is specific to nurseries

only and should be dealt with separately


Not just forest topsoil – should include all soil from important areas (e.g. soil from

any High Conservation Forest Area)

Need to list contentious areas

3.4.4. Discussion of environmental criteria

Criterion 6.1 The on and off-site impacts of the plantation and mill management

activities should be adequately assessed and managed

CWG

Not clear what this relates to: is it specifically to existing or new plantations …

presumably this just relates to existing plantations.

Clarity over environmental assessment, whether it means formal or informal

assessment


In international natural resource standards it is common to deliberately leave it

vague so as to allow for smaller plantations and smallholders to carry out informal

assessments

Expansion of new planting area could be moved to criteria 15 for new plantations.

De-link it from ISO 14000 standards as it would complicated matters.


Take out the word “Adequate” or define adequate using indicators present in the

pre-text.

Proposed to add ‘ and monitor’ explicitly.

Criterion 7.1 An understanding of the plant and animal species and habitats that

exist inside and around the plantation shall be established

CWG

Concern over expertise in plantations to carry out some of the biodiversity work.

Plantations should be aware of some of the species, as not practical for plantations

Suggestion to combine both 7.1 and 7.2 but no resolution. There was a point that

they cold actually be a continuous criterion.

It is common practice to engage universities to do biodiversity work as projects.


The term “around” is not clear

Ecological understanding can go beyond concession boundaries, but the ‘plan’ to

conserve and ‘enhance’ biodiversity cannot.

GHPB is undertaking a long-term study on Carrey Island’s biodiversity and would like

to offer it to RSPO as potential study site. This will help clarify what sort of

understanding is appropriate.

Clarification over whether it applies to existing or new plantations.

For elephants and other species that move, what is role of national bodies?

Criterion 7.2 A plan to conserve and restore biodiversity in and around the

plantation shall be developed and implemented


CWG

Concern over expertise in plantations to carry out some of the biodiversity work.

Plantations should be aware of some of the species, as not practical for plantations

‘Biodiversity’ is too large a terminology.

Concern over restoring and increasing biodiversity. Help also needed to help in

riparian reserves, etc. In PNG, experts to assist in these exercises are required by

law for new plantations.

Is it meant for existing plantations as well?

Only use ISO to monitor impacts of existing ones.

Smallholders would not have capacity to address some of the larger biodiversity

related issues.


The term “around” is not clear

The term ‘restore’ is not clear. Restore to what? Cannot restore a plantation into a

virgin forest, but enough to ‘enhance’ the natural biodiversity.

Should not use ‘protect’ as we should not protect what is remaining from what has

been lost.

The HCVF definition too long and open-ended. Need to be redefined to be clear to

all stakeholders

Definition of “around” needed.

Plan on biodiversity restoration needs to be clarified, e.g. if it was lalang, would that

mean restoring to lalang or to forest?

Restoration is one issue still needs clarification.

Criterion 8.1 Waste from the plantation and the mill is minimised and any waste

produced is disposed of in an environmentally and socially responsible manner

CWG

No major change required


The term of ‘socially responsible’ manner has to have a clear/definite definition.

The term ‘minimise’ proposed to be changed with ‘recycled, reused and reduced’.


This is more in line with current best practise and is positive in intent.

Criterion 8.2 The efficiency of energy use should be maximised whilst minimising

fossil fuel use and all emissions, including greenhouse gases

CWG

Referring to the guidance, it is quite impractical to monitor all the gas emissions

Remove greenhouse gases in criterion, and to have its own separate from energy

use.

Assessment of energy balance needs to be clarified.

Need to re-look into it but minimisation of fossil fuels would cover this issue.


Criterion is clear

Criterion 8.3 Use of fire for land clearing and waste disposal is avoided except in

exceptional circumstances

CWG

What are ‘exceptional’ circumstances?

Forest fires related to land clearing. Large companies are responsible for some of

the forest fires but smallholders have been widely blamed. Some stronger

mechanisms to deter burning needed.


Use of “exception circumstances” has to be elaborated.

There is duplication between criteria 8.3 and 17.1 relating to use of fire for land

clearing. Recommendation that it is taken out of criterion 17.1

Criterion 8.4 Strategies to reduce pollution should be developed and implemented

CWG

No major changes required



Proposed to add “and monitored”

Monitoring results should be made publicly available

Replace “strategy” with “plans”: strategy is a rather grand term, particularly for

smallholders and medium-sized plantations

3.4.5. Discussion of social criteria

Criterion 9.1 An assessment of the social impacts of proposed operations is carried

out and the results are taken into account in management planning and operational

procedures

CWG

Consider major change – there need to be separate criterion for plantation

establishment, existing and new ones. The emphasis of the current criterion is very

much on existing plantation.

Need to consider the whole issue of both positive and negative impact, the whole

issue of land rights, term and conditions in land acquisition, representation of

community using the standard of Free, Prior and Informed Consent for decision that

may affect local people (including indigenous peoples, transmigrants)


In general agree with the CWG view with the following emphasis:

• Different countries have different regulations/rules for land acquisition which

need to be taken into account.

• Need to be clearly defined what laws to be used in the issue of land acquisition

for example, whether it would be state or customary laws;

• Social impact assessment (SIA) beyond the plantation/environmental impact

should be defined further.

• Terms and condition for land acquisition should be clearly defined for the

people affected by the plantation establishment.

• In case of nucleus plantation scheme involving the smallholding planters a clear

profit sharing mechanism should be clearly defined prior to the establishment

of partnership with big corporations/companies.

• There is proposition that the social criteria in the new establishment component

should be put under this social component since the issue is more relevant.

This will need further review and discussion.


Criterion 9.2 There is an effective method for communication and consultation with

local communities and other affected or interested parties

CWG

Consider minor change that has major implication – need to reflect principles of

transparency and openness and participation of local people through two ways

interactive communication not only from companies to community but vice versa,

consider the existence/formation of multi-stake holders forum.

Paper presented earlier suggests voluntary adoption of the standards set out in the

conventions.

Should have a clause to say that in absence of national laws then, the international

conventions would be the guide for standards.


In general the RT2 breakout group was in agreement with the CWG’s view. Specific

propositions include:

• CSR should be clearly defined in SAI.

• Proposed to use similar forum developed by Malaysian growers as means for

communication – Joint Consultative Committee that could be useful for carrying

out the SIA.

• Communication should be conducted effectively with local people/community (in

the principle of transparency and openness) considering the psychological

factors of the community, especially in the establishment of new plantation but

also in the operation of the existing ones.

Criterion 9.3 There is a documented system for dealing with complaints and

grievances which is implemented and effective

CWG

Consider major changes – it should base on collective voice that reflects that the

right to organize and documents not only complaints but also the issue of

negotiation and bargaining in the whole stage of establishment. Should be

consistent with international conventions on issues relating to rights to organise, for

groups like indigenous groups, etc.

Important to harmonise the standards to avoid double standards, etc.


Concern over social issues as it cannot be compared between EU and developing

world. Pesticides use is example. Standards for developing world need to be

different. The use of ILO, Codex standards should be acceptable as they are

international standards.

National definitions would be able to cater for differences within countries.


General agreement on CWG views. Guidance keys for further consideration and

development of criteria:

• Adopt the “musyawarah” (consensus – Indonesian term) mechanism

• May be able to deal with complaints within Joint Consultation Committees (JCC).

Grievances may be internal (employees) or external. Complaints need to be

clearly documented.

• JCC can be used to spell out the procedures to be followed involving employees,

smallholders, interest groups and community outside the plantation.

• Need to define the term of “local people” (whether it applies to smallholders,

people around the plantation, indigenous peoples, transmigrant, etc.)

• Looking at the possibility to use the existing local mechanism, such as village

cooperative in Indonesia case to negotiate and bargain and file complaints over

compensation and other terms affected the community.

Criterion 10.1 All workers have acceptable pay and conditions

CWG

Consider major revision – Define acceptable pay and conditions, more emphasis on

the concept of a living wage instead of minimum standard of wage, refer to ILO

convention on Plantation Workers. This issue need to be clarified further.

Respect the right to organize and collective bargaining. Consider the whole issues

of non-discriminative principle and equal remuneration, just employment for

migrant workers, no forced labour – all these may well be placed into the new

criterion for this component. (10.3?)

Seeking clarification of living wage definition

Living wage covers not only food, but also other basic necessities, incl. Housing,

health, etc.

How is that determined, and who decides?


Nationally determined through government agencies, and often higher than

minimum wage levels.

Aware of existence of many standards, and can cause confusion. Should keep to

minimum wage.

Minimum wage does not reflect full basic needs.


There is general agreement on CWG views – specific proposition includes:

• The criterion need to be separated each for pay and condition because it will lay

out a significant guidance that have different terms and may cover the wider

range of issues. This is in line with CWG proposition to have another criterion

added.

• Agree that the issue of wage needs to be clarified – clearly both Malaysian and

Indonesian planters differ in looking at the basic standard for payment. Living

wage may well be more acceptable than regional/local minimum wage standard

but need to be explored further how applicable this would be and whether there

is legal framework that can be used as reference.

• Pay should be negotiated by collective agreement.

Criterion 10.2 Child labour is not used unless children are involved as part of small

family owned and run enterprises and under adult supervision or an integrated

education programme

CWG

No change to the statement in principle but need to make sure that the minimum

age clearly defined whether it follows the ILO convention (not less than 15-18 years)

and also adhere to the convention of children rights. Minimum age needs to be

defined and be sector specific.


Agree with CWG view with the following emphasis -

• Need to have a clear guidance to protect children working in the palm oil

business; proposed to add more to the criterion clarifies clear minimum age

range and definite working hours.

• Difficult to implement law on child labour especially in harvesting where workers

bring children to collect loose fruits and also assisted pollination

• Elaboration of terms and condition for children working in the company – refer


to the existing laws and international convention.

• For component 10 – the proposition is to make it into 3 criteria: 10.1. Workers

pay; 10.2. Workers condition; 10.3. Child labour

Criterion 11.1 There is appropriate implementation of health and safety

requirements

CWG

Consider major changes/revision - needs amplifying of “appropriate” and

“requirements” especially related to safety and health in agriculture. What

constitutes appropriate implementation? What standards we use? What

requirements? Need to be specified and spelled out clearly to avoid confusion and

vague ambiguous interpretation.

There is a big question on how the producers ensure that this issue of H&S can be

monitored up and down the line concerning responsible advertisement and

marketing of products/equipment promoted by suppliers – be it technology or

chemical compounds.

This may be beyond the reach of primary producers.

Disagrees because pesticide company would need to meet the standards of

plantation companies too.


General agreement on CWG views with the following suggestions -

• Proposed to use “occupational” health and safety instead of just H&S. Some

countries such as Malaysia has comprehensive guidance on OHS in agriculture.

Seriousness of commitment is a major issue.

• Issues raised by supplier on their accountability related to H&S emphasized the

main responsibility of the growers to make sure that all precautions attached to

the products observed and applied to the workers properly.

• Refer to guide keys: Adoption of Agrochemical Code of Conduct (FAO Code of

Conduct for the sale and distribution of agrochemical products 2002, revision)

• It is important to have a proper training and education pre, during and post

events in the plantation to minimize the hazardous impact

Criterion 12.1 Plantations and mills deal fairly with smallholders and other local


businesses

CWG

Consider major revision – clarify “FAIRLY”. Need to consider strongly how

smallholders protected in ‘free market’, ensuring that they have access of

information, access to mills and storage, fair price/purchasing schemes that

observes grading flexibility and quality unevenness, tenure security, equal treatment

for women involved in supply chain, respect the right to organize and

representation in bargaining, support the transportation, etc. Major discussion

required for this particular criteria.


In general all participants agree with CWG views on criterion.

Issues for further discussion:

• Transparency is very important; plantations and mills have to deal with

smallholders and local business in transparent manner, open space for

negotiation and agreement over terms and conditions.

• Agree that grading flexibility need to be developed to ensure that smallholders

still benefit from partnership.

• The demand for good quality product should not deter companies to invest in

capacity building. Responsible and good plantation companies do assist

communities, workers and smallholders – such practices need to be elaborated

and shared to support the good criterion. How much the company can afford to

support will very much on how high the standard they demand from the

smallholders and local businesses.

Criterion 12.2 Plantations and mills contribute to local development wherever

possible

CWG

Consider major change – Need to clarify “WHENEVER POSSIBLE”, what does it means?

Have to adhere to the principles of transparency, openness and participation. Local

communities should have a right to negotiate and identify their own priorities and

needs based as well on the different needs of men and women. Have to refer to the

economic, social and cultural rights where both parties base decision for the most

appropriate intervention to support local development.

The guidelines are not clear enough.



Participants are in general agreement with CWG view.

• The only argument raised by Malaysian company derived from misunderstanding

on local development concept whether it is supporting government or

communities.

• Need to define local communities and stakeholders.

• Need to be simple and fair. Also need to consider financial sustainability – how

much support can be afforded – there is so much to do

Criterion 13.1 All staff and workers are adequately trained and competent

CWG

Minor revision required – need to include smallholders. If companies expect

smallholders to adhere to standard quality they need to invest in the efforts for

improving smallholders’ capacity.


Participants are in agreement with the CWG views.

Change of word? Competent or qualified/capable?

A suggested way to include smallholders would be to add a criterion such as “Mills

purchasing fruit from third-party suppliers (small holders or other plantations)

should (have an obligation to?) provide training (guidance?) to help (encourage?)

those suppliers to meet the sustainability criteria”

The proposed additional criterion would be much too costly.

3.4.6. Discussion of Plantation Establishment criteria

Criterion 14.1 Surveys and site planning should be conducted prior to the

establishment of plantations and the results of these should be incorporated into

plans and operations

CWG

Minor change: re-word to “Soil and topographic surveys and site …”

Include climate data (i.e. rainfall, etc.)

Would this criterion apply to smallholders?



Specify who should do actual surveys

Change existing site-based approach to a larger landscape approach to consider

wider footprint of plantation

Reword soil and topographic surveys to include biodiversity components

Criterion 15.1 A comprehensive assessment of impacts or formal environmental

impact assessment shall be undertaken prior to establishing new plantations or

expanding existing ones and the results incorporated into plans and operations

CWG

Concern over specificity of guidance.

Should be a minimum size requirement (for smallholders)

Consider national requirements

Norm in other sectors is to have participatory environmental assessments,

recommended here also.

Criterion 15.2 Primary forest, High Conservation Value Forest and other natural

ecosystems of outstanding conservation value must not be converted to plantation

CWG

Usage of term HCVF as already defined under FSC; with main contention whether to

adopt the FSC terminology.

Minor changes: remove “Primary Forest” and replace “must not” with “should not”

Other issues:

Stronger guidelines and definition of HCVF required. Should also include other

important other natural ecosystems – should not be limited to “primary forest.”

Suggestion: “Forest which contain HCVs.” Include other ecosystems (i.e. wetlands,

mangroves, sea grasses, watersheds, etc.)

With massive expansion of oil palm, forest areas would be part of area cleared for

future. In areas that were recently deforested, there has to be a realistic statement

to take into consideration that new areas would be opened for oil palm.

The terminology “must not” would have to be re-considered.


“Must not” should remain.


There is no criterion dealing with a cut off date for deforestation. This means that

companies could potentially continue unsustainable practices and then adopt the

criteria when it is in their interests.

Proposes extra criterion: Retrospectivity of plantation establishment (see Framework

4.3) should be incorporated into the criteria for plantation establishment.

Criterion 15.3 Extensive planting on marginal and fragile soils is avoided

CWG

No major changes needed. Need to define what ‘extensive’, ‘marginal’ and ‘fragile’

are.

Identified this criterion as one needing more work, specifically regarding peat soils.

Criterion 16.1 A comprehensive social impact assessment is carried out for all new

plantings and the results are incorporated into all planning and operations

Criterion 16.2 Customary rights and sacred sites are recognised and respected

Criterion 16.3 Local people are fairly compensated for land acquisitions

CWG

Land acquisition needs more attention. Can be inserted into new principle on new

plantations.

16.3 needs to be defined clearly, as the word “fairly” is vague.

Change it from compensate to purchase

Compensate is better – land is bought from government but may be used by locals.


Change from customary rights to land rights is problematic in some areas where

there are legal implications.

Criterion 17.1 Use of fire in the preparation of new plantations is avoided other than


in specific situations

CWG

Why have provision to burn in any circumstance?

One of the members of the Technical Group that provided input into this document

pointed out that in Africa, and particularly for smallholders, there is not many other

options but to burn, but this is controlled by government licences.

ASEAN zero burn guidelines can be universally applied as they include very clear

specific guides for controlled burning.

ASEAN guidelines allow for some burning, especially for smallholders. Zero burn has

many beneficial points that would eventually gain wider acceptance.

The single most important question raised by consumers in the west is whether

there is a zero burn blanket policy from suppliers of palm oil. The RSPO Criteria

need to be very clear on this issue, e.g., either ‘no burning at all’ or ‘burning only

allowed in specified circumstances’.

There are two options, one is to get wide adoption of ASEAN zero burn guidelines

the second is to develop very clear and specific RSPO criteria that can be used

effectively by producers and also as for external communication.


4. Drafting consultee lists

Objective: Start developing consultation strategies for each CWG member

Note: the CWG formed breakout groups to start developing consultee lists. These are

still in the process of development.

CWG

Overview: Three types of consultation:

1. Active – responsibility of each CWG member to identify and actively consult with

key stakeholders from the constituent group that they represent

2. Public – responsibility of facilitator to co-ordinate with support from CWG and

Secretariat to implement.

3. Technical advisors – used when the CWG thinks that expert technical advise is

needed on a specific issue, advisors to be approved by Executive Board

CWG members should:

• develop lists of key stakeholders within their constituent group and

geographical range

• should reflect the balance of interests within the constituent group and

geographical range of each CWG member.

• consideration will be given to gaining input of small and medium-sized

enterprises and other groups who would otherwise find it difficult to engage

in the process.

• be responsible for actively canvassing opinion on the criteria from these

organisations and individuals as well as consulting with other stakeholders

who express interest in the process.

There are no retailers or financiers in the supply chain group …

Retailers in EU would not be in a position or prioritise RSPO CWG. Believes that this

group would not be useful in providing constructive comments on the criteria. So,

no financiers or retailers not in.

In the Environmental group, it will be difficult to consult with stakeholders in

Africa and PNG

Communications to others in different languages will be important. Is there any

provision to translate the criteria? Key RSPO documents should be issued in

Spanish and French to ensure the effective participation of concerned parties in

Latin America and Francophone Africa.

If seen as important, then will need to fund-raise


If it proves too difficult to translate the criteria, then we could at least aim to

translate briefing notes. We could look to some of the CWG group to help in

supporting this.

5. Discussion of criteria implementation

Objective: Begin discussions of how the criteria will be implemented

CWG

Overview: The ‘Draft criteria for sustainable palm oil’ raised issues of criteria

implementation including: development of global and national criteria; separate

criteria for smallholders; phased implementation; guidelines for auditing; linking

plantations to product.

We will not be able to resolve these issues today, but could agree on a statement

controlling use of the draft criteria for the time being. We suggest: “No public

claims should be made regarding compliance with the RSPO Criteria for

Sustainable Palm Oil pending official publication of the rules governing their use

by the RSPO Executive Board.”

How tight is the timeframes vis-à-vis the need to get things going and completed

We’ll cover that later

Need to develop guidelines for auditing, control and transparency


Will the working group take recommendations on who can certify using the

standards and if the certifiers will be accredited, and by who?

Not decided whether there will be a formal certification process or tool as outcome

but there is a strong call for the process to follow international best practice for

facilitating such a process. One of the three formal activities of the CWG is to

develop rules for implementation and claims made about it are credible,

transparent and meets international best practice.

From observation and other groups are that cost neutrality may be questionable,

on the part of the producers, the costs would likely to remain as criteria for

sustainable palm would also change.

Clarify that market prices would prevail and premiums meeting sustainability

standards would gradually erode.


Would a mandatory approach for sustainability become the norm, and would a

more regulatory approach be needed to ensure long-term sustainability, since

higher costs for higher performance cannot be matched by increases in earnings?

Ultimately market will decide whether it will operate at a sustainable level. RSPO

can only act on a voluntary basis, but only governments can take more regulatory

role.

Certain large companies now have some initiatives on other commodities like

coffee, etc. Once large companies are involved into this, then there would be a

trickle down effect that would directly influence producers. There is an urgency

that this needs to be done quickly, i.e. a timeframe.

Timeframe is an important issue and requires pragmatic approach that minimises

long, drawn out negotiations.

Proforest has a difficult role in trying to bring out a timely document. There is

some calls already that actions can take place now.

Marketing of product – change from crude palm oil to another acronym.

Need to consider the costs and risks of not being sustainable, i.e. the risk of a

competitor beating the palm oil industry to standards or being tarnished or

implicated (rightly or wrongly) with the destruction of much of the last remaining

lowland forests.

Basic issue for primary commodity producers has many welfare benefits, but the

use of taxes, subsidies and benefits that distort trade exist. One of the greatest

handicaps for food crops is the subsidies for US and EU agricultural sector that

distorts markets vs. palm oil production for palm oil in Malaysia and Indonesia.

RSPO criteria would increase costs, and it makes palm oil producers at a

disadvantage. Wants to know if there is a way that such issues can be addressed

through RSPO.


6. Next steps

CWG

Overview: (handing round paper) – this is a proposed timetable for the criteria

development. We should aim to complete the criteria, with 2 phases of public

consultation, within the next 12 months. We suggest that the first public

consultation starts this December. ProForest will send round draft criteria and

draft procedures documents within the next few weeks, modified on the basis of

today’s discussions. You can then all comment on these before the draft criteria

go into public consultation.

Need further clarification on the final date. Proposal to have a hard deadline so as

to make a document that handles to key issues.

Recommendation that if a document is not covering some of the less agreeable

items, then it does not become credible.

Aim for a completion date by given date, but should be realistic about ability

stakeholder consultations and achieving concensus.

Should the existing Framework document be used?

It would be better to incorporate today’s findings.

The additional criteria that were proposed under Section 4.3 in Framework criteria

doc should be kept in mind during the discussion.

The extras would be incorporated into the next draft.

Documents

Minutes for the first meeting of the RSPO Criteria … 1 minutes.pdfMinutes of 1st CWG meeting 1 Minutes for the first meeting of the RSPO Criteria Working Group Grand Hyatt Hotel,