Claims that palm oil producer Smart has been clearing rainforest and orang-utan habitat in Indonesia were meant to be put to rest by an independent auditor’s report.
 |
Instead, the report kicked off a very public mêlée between the British Standards Institute (BSI), Greenpeace and Smart.
The episode came to a head last week, with the BSI issuing a statement saying the results of its verification report had been “misreported and misrepresented”.
The BSI was commissioned by Smart (which is also known by its brand name, Sinar Mas) to investigate allegations in a series of Greenpeace reports, which set out evidence to support claims about the firm’s activities in West Kalimantan and Central Kalimantan, including illegal logging, use of controversial burning techniques to clear rainforest and destruction of possible orang-utan habitat.
On 10 August, Smart issued a press release saying that BSI’s independent verification exercise (IVEX) team confirmed the company “showed that Smart operates responsibly and within the laws and regulations set out by the Indonesian government”. Greenpeace International swiftly contested this and accused Smart of spinning the verifier’s conclusions.
BSI responded with a statement of its own, saying “there have been elements of the report that have been misreported as it has been published and presented”.
Bustar Maitar, Greenpeace South East Asia forest team leader, said: “Not only did Sinar Mas need to backtrack on its false claims about Greenpeace reports, but this statement confirms that it broke Indonesian law and cleared many forest areas before assessing their conservation value, including potential orang-utan habitat.”
However, Daud Dharsono, president and director of Smart, said: “We have always emphasised that the IVEX report be shared in an open and transparent manner and that is exactly what we have done. The IVEX report was published in full to the public leaving no room for our stakeholders to be misled.”
BSI’s statement of clarification sets out a summary of Greenpeace’s allegations and the IVEX team’s findings (see box below). Smart has clarified that, in Central Kalimantan, it developed all six of its concessions before the environmental impact assessment was complete, “which is not [in] compliance” with the law.
Clearing of rainforest from peatland and clearing of forest before environmental permits were given did occur, Smart concedes, but “not to the extent as Greenpeace has made it to be”.
Smart is “reinstating” forests cleared from deep peatland, the firm said, and committed to wait until environmental permits are approved before land is cleared in future.
Jess McCabe
BSI clarification in full
Point 1 – Sinar Mas Group had cleared and planted on peatland with a depth of more than three metres and are therefore deemed to have violated Indonesian law. IVEX Team conclusion – Planting on peat lands and deep peat were found but not as extensively as claimed in the reports. There was planting on deep peat (>3 m) in two estates from 2005–2008, which is in breach of the presidential decree with regards to deep peat issued in 1990. This also contravened Smart’s own operating instructions. Point 2 – Sinar Mas Group had destroyed rainforests and orang-utan habitat. IVEX Team conclusion – All the land in the 11 concessions examined comprised of secondary forests, degraded and shrub land and were no longer primary forests before Smart started land clearing and planting. This suggests that the degradation process of forest areas that were habitats for Bornean orang-utan happened before Smart took over the lands. While the above findings indicate that it is highly unlikely that there are High Conservation Value (HCV) forests left in the concession areas in Central and West Kalimantan, 21% (37,698 Ha) of the total 182,528 Ha was opened before independent HCV assessment. This potentially contravenes Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) Principles and Criteria and SMART would need to propose a compensation or exclusion process when these plantations enter into the certification process. Point 3 – Sinar Mas Group had performed forest land clearance/logging without obtaining Timber Utilization Permit-IPK or prior to obtaining approval of Environmental Impact Assesment (EIA). IVEX Team conclusion – In West Kalimantan, all except two concessions examined had the necessary EIA (AMDAL) prior to land clearance activities. In Central Kalimantan, all concessions examined were found to have carried out land clearance before the EIA was approved. Point 4 – Sinar Mas Group had conducted land clearance/preparation by means of burning. IVEX Team conclusion – Field verification could not find evidence of burning in land clearing and preparation. Point 5 – Sinar Mas Group had caused social conflicts including land rights and resource conflicts through plantation expansion. IVEX Team conclusion – While the team found no evidence of negative social impact from the planting of oil palm in the concessions, it has noted weaknesses in Smart’s documentation of its engagement process with land owners during the land compensation dialogue. Separate research needs to be done and recommends that Smart embarks on this. Point 6 – Sinar Mas Group had used the RSPO membership rules by making two companies under Golden Agri-Resources Ltd (GAR) – Smart and PT Ivo Mas Tunggal – members of RSPO to ‘greenwash’ and create an impression that GAR is committed to sustainability through RSPO membership. IVEX Team conclusion – It would appear that the literal reading of the RSPO membership rules may not sufficiently address organisations with complex legal and management structures who may use this loophole to ‘greenwash’. In GAR’s case, it is clear that GAR is not a RSPO member and therefore it cannot claim or give the impression that GAR and all its subsidiaries are in the process of obtaining RSPO certification. |
Places for Environmental Bonds 2012 are filling up rapidly. Join the impressive line-up of speakers in London on 15 February to review the growing interest in this market. Book NOW to avoid disappointment! More..
.gif)
.jpg)