Forest communities must be consulted in a meaningful way for REDD to work.

Last week, Norman Jiwan of Sawit Watch, an Indonesian NGO ally concerned with the ongoing adverse social and environmental impacts of palm oil plantations, wrote an op-ed in the Jakarta Post. The op-ed entitled, Deforestation moratorium is not panacea?, stated his view on the recently signed $1 billion dollar Indonesia-Norway Letter of Intent (LoI) which is designed to reduce deforestation and related carbon emissions in Indonesia.

The LoI has received significant international attention as the latest step by governments worldwide to push Reduced Emissions through avoided Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) into the forefront of climate change mitigation techniques.

The LoI holds great promise to reduce rainforest destruction, serious and widespread land conflicts, and climate changing carbon emissions, but Jiwan said he was not alone in expressing concerns around this latest REDD initiative.

“Many environmental and social NGOs are skeptical with the moratorium commitment. Many question on whether the government can achieve the noble objective of the partnership. The palm oil industry is facing abundant dilemmas that might hamper the moratorium commitment due to an absence of a much needed system, institutions and implementing framework with strong and proper social, economic and cultural as well as environmental considerations.”

From my time in Sumatra last month, I heard similar concerns from many of the communities and NGO’s in the provinces of Riau and Aceh. To be effective in conserving forest and respecting basic human rights, it is clear that the perspectives of all stakeholders, including Indigenous and communities and civil society groups, must be fully included in the planning, implementation and evaluation of REDD projects in Indonesia.

In his op-ed, Jiwan also pointed out that a freeze on new forest concessions in Indonesia starting in 2011 is not enough:

“The moratorium must be extended to zero conversion of primary forests and other high conservation value ecosystems within the existing concessions. The government also must ensure the effective monitoring of the slash and burning policy, evaluate and revoke the certificates for oil palm in disputed areas with local communities.”

Thorough investigations into Indonesia’s forestry sector have shown a lack of compliance with Indonesian law to be common at Indonesia’s industrial logging and agriculture operations. As Jiwan stresses, “When plantation companies and mills committed illegal practices and irresponsible operations, the government must be firm in upholding the rules of the laws.”

Basic to any effort to control deforestation is a sturdy foundation for the rule of law, and until underlying issues of governance, corruption, and compliance are addressed in Indonesia, there is a chance that Norway’s billion dollars and the prospect of a just, green, and low carbon development future for Indonesia could well be captured by the same elites and corporate interest that have fueled corruption, social conflict, and environmental harm in the past.

With oil gushing in the gulf, activists locking down in boardrooms, the ball of financial reform being thrown from Wall Street to Washington and back again, and Indonesia announcing a two year freeze on the parceling out of its forests to international corporations, the world’s focus seems to be on corporations.

But in the struggle to hold onto the last of Indonesia’s rainforests – and the biodiversity, culture, livelihoods, and global climate stability these threatened forests provide – recent actions by the multilateral institutions International Finance Corporation (IFC), and the World Bank (WB) must not be ignored.

Multilateral institutions, funded by nations worldwide to implement projects, give loans, and steer ‘underperforming’ economies into globalized capitalism, are big, powerful, and active in Indonesia’s forests. The World Bank and its private investment arm, the IFC, have long seen agribusiness as a key growth sector in the tropics. In Indonesia and Papua New Guinea, both groups have given huge loans to encourage the expansion of palm oil and pulp wood plantations, to the benefit of multi-billion dollar corporations like Cargill and Wilmar.

After developing plantations with World Bank aid money, Cargill sold their PNG palm oil plantations for a profit of hundreds of millions of dollars.

Encouraged by the palm oil boom in Malaysia that created enormous wealth in that tropical country, the World Bank and IFC began giving out tens of millions of dollars to encourage the same process of industrialization in Indonesia’s forests.

But rather than work directly with Indonesia’s 30 million forest peoples and those that were concerned with the rational use of Indonesia’s natural resource wealth, the World Bank made the decision to fund some of the world’s largest agribusiness corporations, and trust that Wilmar and Cargill would act responsibly and with concern for the common good.

Today, after thirty years of World Bank and IFC’s support for the palm oil and pulp and paper industry, the social and environmental consequences of their trust in agribusiness is clear. The rich forests of Sumatra are now almost completely parceled out and in the control of corporations clear cutting the forest to produce forest commodities. The Orang Rimba, one of the world’s last truly nomadic cultures, are undergoing a mass exodus because their forest homes have been cleared for palm oil.

Gumpa, and all of the Orang Rimba, are threatened by palm oil expansion

Newly cleared forests to make way for the planting of palm oil and pulp wood burn, releasing smoke plumes that travel for thousands of miles. In Papua New Guinea social unrest and upheaval created by the first industrial monoculture plantations is threatening to tear communities apart.

After thousands of media articles, exposes, research projects, and political appeals, The Forest Peoples Programme and Sawit Watch, supported by hundreds of additional environmental, social, and development groups, convinced the World Bank and IFC to freeze all of their projects supporting oil palm plantations. The process started with the Forest Peoples Programme and Sawit Watch filing a complaint with the IFC’s own internal auditing office over the destructive and dangerous practices of the palm oil producer Wilmar, which received a loan from the IFC for expansion.

Oil palm plantations destroy globally important rainforests

The evidence of open burning and social conflict at Wilmar plantations was enough for the IFC to initiate a freeze on their support for oil palm while they carried out a review of their funding policies. Mounting evidence of the negative impacts of their oil palm plantation projects in Papua New Guinea combined with the IFC’s internal review to push the World Bank to declare their own moratorium on support for palm oil projects while they undergo their own review of the dangers of palm oil expansion.

The decision was one of the biggest wins to protect Indonesia’s forests in memory, as much for the implication on the ground for World Bank and IFC expansion projects as for the strong signal the moratorium send to private banks and agribusiness companies. The World Bank’s current moratorium serves as a warning to the private sector: the palm oil industry as a whole needs to be treated with great caution.

As the multilateral institutions proceed with consultations and internal reviews, and a final decision on palm oil funding is expected soon, almost two hundred leading Indonesian and International voices have called for the World Bank and IFC to implement significant reforms before the Bank returns to funding oil palm.

“Major reforms are needed in places like Sarawak and Indonesia to stop oil palm development doing further harm, including land tenure reforms, recognition of indigenous peoples’ rights, a halt to land-grabbing and a ban on clearance of forests and peatlands” says Marcus Colchester of the Forest Peoples Programme.

The thirty years of damage from the World Bank and the IFC’s support of the oil palm and pulp and paper sectors can not be undone, but immediately implementing needed reforms throughout the entire World Bank Group will be a positive step for Indonesia’s forests, forest peoples, and the climate.

**This blog post previously mis-characterized the nature and details of the demands put forward by Forest Peoples Program, Sawit Watch, and their allies.  These groups have never called for a permanent moratorium on World Bank funding of palm oil projects; this mis-characterization of their position was the authors mistake. The text of the blog post has been changed to more accurately reflect these groups demands.**

Below is the list of environmental and social groups that have submitted and endorsed a statement urging the IFC and World Bank to freeze the funding of oil palm:

Submitted by:

Forest Peoples Programme

Sawit Watch

Lembaga Gemawan

Scale Up

Lestari Negri, Provinsi Riau

Serikat Tani Serumpun Damai (STSD), Kabupaten Sambas, Kalimantan Barat

SAD Kelompok 113 Sungai Bahar, Kabupaten Batanghari, Provinsi Jambi

DebtWatch Indonesia

Serikat Petani Kelapa Sawit (SPKS)

Jaringan Kerja Pemetaan Partisipatif (JKPP)

ELAW Indonesia

Setara, Jambi

Yayasan PADI Indonesia, Provinsi Kalimantan Timur

Supported by:

1.      Nordin, Save Our Borneo, Provinsi Kalimantan Tengah

2.      Rivanni Noor, CAPPA

3.      Hendi Blasius Candra, WALHI Kalimantan Barat

4.      Andi Kiki, Individu

5.      Korinna Horta, Ph.D., Urgewald, Germany

6.      Nasahar, Dewan AMAN NTB

7.      Jelson Garcia, Asia Program Manager, Bank Information Center

8.      Erwin Usman, WALHI Eksekutif Nasional/Ketua Badan Pengurus Nasional Koalisi Anti Utang-KAU)

9.      Victor Mambor, Koordinator PJIK Foker LSM Papua

10.     Dadang Sudardja, Aliansi Rakyat Untuk Citarum – ARUM

11.     Rebecca Tarbotton, Executive Director (Acting), Rainforest Action Network

12.     M. Zulficar Mochtar, Destructive Fishing Watch (DFW) Indonesia

13.     Virginia Ifeadiro, Nigeria

14.     Titi Soentoro, Manila

15.     Hisma Kahman, Individu

16.     Kamardi, Direktorat Perluasan Partisipasi Politik Masyarakat Adat, AMAN

17.     Natalie Bridgeman, Accountability Counsel, USA

18.     Dedi Ratih, WALHI Eksekutif Nasional

19.     Khalid Saifullah, Direktur Eksekutif WALHI Sumatra Barat

20.     Among, KRuHA

21.     Bustar Maitar, Forest Campaign, Team Leader, GREENPEACE South-east Asia

22.     Tri Wibowo, individu

23.     Anuradha Mittal, the Oakland Institute, Oakland, CA, USA

24.     Molly Clinehens, International Accountability Project

25.     Yon Thayrun, Executive Editor, Voice of Human Right Media

26.     Kristen Genovese, Senior Attorney, Center for International Environmental Law

27.     Edy Subahani, POKKER SHK, Kalimantan Tengah

28.     Nasution Camang, Yayasan Merah Putih (YMP) Sulawesi Tengah

29.     Ibrahim A. Hafid, Institut Transformasi Lokal (INSTAL)

30.     Rizal Mahfud, Individu

31.     Sirajuddin, Ketua BPH AMAN Sulawesi Selatan

32.     Mahir Takaka, Wakil Sekretaris Jendral, AMAN

33.     Haitami, Pengurus AMAN Bengkulu

34.     Suryati Simanjuntak, KSPPM Parapat, Sumatra Utara

35.     Arifin Saleh, Pengurus AMAN

36.     Shaban Stiawan, Individu, Kalimantan Barat

37.     Fien Jarangga, Individu, Papua

38.     Frida Klasin, Individu, Papua

39.     Anike Th Sabami, Individu, Papua

40.     Bernadetha Mahuse, Individu, Papua

41.     Bata Manurun, BPH Wilayah AMAN Tana Luwu

42.     Irsyadul Halim, Kaliptra Sumatera, Riau

43.     Don K. Marut, Direktur Eksekutif INFID

44.     Arie Rompas, Walhi Kalimantan Tengah

45.     Ahmad SJA, PADI Indonesia, Balikpapan, Kalimantan Timur

46.     Thomas Wanly, Sampit, Kalimantan Tengah

47.     Datuk Usman Gumanti, Ketua BPH AMAN Wilayah Jambi

48.     Itan, Mitra Lingkungan Hidup Kalimantan Tengah

49.     Chabibullah, Serikat Tani Merdeka (SeTAM)

50.     Asmuni, Sekretaris Jendral, SPKS Paser, Kalimantan Timur

51.     Jazuri, Sekretaris Jendral, SPKS Tanjabar

52.     Lamhot Sihotang, Sekretaris Jenrdal, SPKS Rokan Hulu Riau

53.     Zuki, Sekretaris Jendral, SPKS Kabupaten Sekadau

54.     Riko Kurniawan, Perkumpulan Elang Riau

55.     Rano Rahman, Yayasan Betang Borneo, Kalimantan Tengah

56.     Risma Umar, Solidaritas Perempuan (SP), Jakarta

57.     Abdi Hayat, PERKUMPULAN SERABUT (SEKOLAH RAKYAT BUTUNI)

58.     Mohammad Djauhari, Koordinator KpSHK, Bogor

59.     Diana Gultom, Debtwatch Indonesia

60.     Suzanne Jasper, First Peoples Human Rights Coalition, United States of America.

61.     Jaya Nofyandry, Yayasan Lembaga Bantuan Hukum Lingkungan, Jambi

62.     Jason Pan, TARA-Ping Pu, Taiwan

63.     Thaifa Herizal, ST, Direktur Eksekutif, Atjeh Int’l Development

64.     Hegar Wahyu Hidayat, Eksekutif Daerah WALHI Kalimantan Selatan

65.     Fabby Tumiwa, Institute for Essential Services Reform (IeSR)

66.     Puspa Dewy, Solidaritas Perempuan

67.     Giorgio Budi Indrarto, Koordinator, Indonesia Civil Society Forum on Climate Justice

68.     The Environment and Conservation Organisations of Aotearoa/NZ

69.     Puspa Dewy, Solidaritas Perempuan

70.     Leonardus Bagus, lPPSLH purwokerto

71.     Chandra, WALHI Riau

72.     Heny Soelistyowati, Program Manager – Komunitas Indonesia untuk Demokrasi

73.     Agung Wardana, Nottingham

74.     Haryanto, Belitung

75.     M. Ali Akbar, Eknas WALHI

76.     Mardiyah Chamim, Tempo Institute

77.     Tandiono Bawor Purbaya, PHR Perkumpulan Huma

78.     Arif Munandar, WALHI Jambi

79.     Wirendro Sumargo, Forest Watch Indonesia

80.     TM Zulfikar, individu

81.     Hariansyah Usman, Direktur Eksekutif WALHI Riau

82.     Ida Zubaidah, Direktur, Wahana peduli Perempuan Jambi/WPPJ

83.     Ismet Soelaiman, Direktur, WALHI MALUT

84.     Koesnadi Wirasapoetra, Sekretaris Jendral, Sarekat Hijau Indonesia

85.     Teddy Hardiyansyah, Kabut Riau

86.     Edo Rakhman, Direktur WALHI Sulawesi Utara

87.     Asman Saelan, LBH Buton Raya

88.     Wilianita Selviana, Direktur WALHI Sulawesi Tengah

89.     R. Yando Zakaria, Lingkar Pembaruan Desa dan Agraria./KARSA, Yogyakarta

90.     Adrian Banie Lasimbang, President, Jaringan Orang Asal SeMalaysia (JOAS)/ Indigenous Peoples’ Network of Malaysia

91.     Ramananda Wangkheirakpam, North East Peoples Alliance, North East India

92.     Joan Carling, Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact, Thailand

93.     Sandra Moniaga, Jakarta, Indonesia

94.     Muliadi SE, Diretktur PETAK DANUM Kalimantan Tengah

95.     Idham Arsyad, Konsorsium Pembaruan Agraria (KPA)

96.     Mukri Friatna, Eksekutif Nasional WALHI

97.     Sanday Gauntlett, PIPEC (Pacific Indigenous Peoples Environment Coalition)

98.     Rizki Anggriana Arimbi, Deputi WALHI Sulawesi Selatan

99.     Javier M. Claparols, Director, Ecological Society of the Philippines

100.    Agustinus Agus, LBBT, Pontianak

101.    Endah Karyani, individu

102.    Happy Hendrawan, Komunitas Transformatif Kalimantan Barat

103.    Maharani Caroline, Direktur, YLBHI – LBH Manado

104.    Budi Karyawan, AMAN-NTB

105.    Taufiqul Mujib, Indonesian Human Rights Committee for Social Justice (IHCS)

106.    Giring, Perkumpulan Pancur Kasih, Pontianak, Kalimantan Barat

107.    Hironimus Pala, Yayasan Tananua Flores Ende NTT

108.    Philipus Kami, JAGAT,  NTT

109.    Nikolaus Rima, AMATT Ende, NTT

110.    Agus Sarwono,TiLe, Individu

111.    Dickson Aritonang, Yayasan Ulayat Bengkulu

112.    Mina Susana Setra, Aliansi Masyarakat Adat Nusantara (AMAN)

113.    Alma Adventa, PhD, University of Manchester, UK

114.    Marianne Klute, Watch Indonesia!, Jerman

115.    Aidil Fitri, Yayasan Wahana Bumi Hijau – Sumatera Selatan, Indonesia

116.    Anja Lillegraven, Rainforest Foundation Norway (RFN)

117.    Judith Mayer, Ph.D., Coordinator, The Borneo Project, Earth Island Institute

118.    Septer Manufandu, Forum Kerjasama  LSM di Tanah Papua

119.    Andik Hardiyanto, The Indonesian Social and Economic Rights Action Network

120.    Hartono, WALHI Sulawesi Utara

121.    Stephanie Fried, `Ulu Foundation

122.    Sarah Lery Mboik, Individu (Anggota DPD RI Daerah Pemilihan NTT)

123.    Julia Kam, Pontianak-Indonesia

124.    Jupran Abbasri, Ketua Lembage Jurai Tue-Semende

125.    Agapitus, AMAN Kalimantan Barat

126.    Sainal Abidin, Perkumpulan WALLACEA Palopo

127.    Macx Binur, Belantara Papua-Sorong

128.    Sri Hartini, Walhi Kalimantan Barat

129.    Ecologistas en Acción (Spain)

130.    Muhammad Juaini, GEMA ALAM NTB

131.    Budi Arianto, Banda Aceh, Indonesia

132.    Solihin, Individu

133.    Aylian Shiau, Kahabu Culture and Education Association of Nantou County

134.    Sultan Darampa, Sulawesi Channel

135.    Thomas Irawan Sihombing, Perkumpulan KABAN, KalBar

136.    Yohanes RJ, Sintang, Kalbar Indonesia

137.    Ranto Sibarani, Sekretaris Eksekutif, KOTIB

138.    Nikmah, INFID

139.    Ahmad, Deputy Director, ED. Walhi Sulteng

140.    Sarma Hutajulu, Koordinator, Jaringan Aktifis Perempuan/Pendukung Penguatan Pr Sumut

141.    Hamsuri, Individu, Balikpapan, Indonesia

142.    Imanche Al Rachman, Koordinator Eksekutif Komnasdesa-Sultra

143.    Asep Yunan Firdaus, HuMa

144.    Juliade, Individu, Banjarmasin, Kalimantan Selatan

145.    Arief Candra S Hut, Kelompok Studi Konservasi (KSK) HIMBA

146.    Chia Tek-khiam, Director, Takao Indigenous Kakatao Council, Taiwan

147.    Serge Marti – LifeMosaic

148.    Betty Tiominar, Bogor

149.    Rukmini Paata Toheke, AMAN

150.    Carolyn Marr, UK Coordinator, Down to Earth

151.    Yuni Riawati, Ketua BEK SP Komunitas Mataram

152.    Geert Ritsema, Coordinator International Affairs, Friends of the Earth Netherlands

153.    Gindo Nadapdap, Kelompok Pelita Sejahtera  (KPS) Medan, Sumatra Utara

154.    Eko Waskito, Lembaga Tiga Beradik Merangin, Jambi Sumatera Indonesia

155.    Haryanto Ramli, Tanjungpandan – Belitung, Provinsi Kep. Bangka Belitung

156.    Benget Silitonga, Sekretaris Eksekutif Perhimpunan BAKUMSU

157.    Yuyun Kurniawan, Yayasan Titian

158.    M. Rafli Kaitora, Ketua PD.AMAN Enggano

159.    Ronny Christianto, Sahabat Masyarakat Pantai (SAMPAN), Kalimantan Barat

The expansion of palm oil plantations is an leading driver of deforestation in Indonesia, home to rainforests of global importance.

In their statements this week, Nestle has promised to measure all their suppliers of palm oil against publicly available “Responsible Sourcing Guidelines,” a bold step and strong message to the palm oil industry.

Nestle’s commitment to avoiding palm oil connected with the destruction of large swaths of majestic lowland rainforests and peat swamps, a global hotspot for greenhouse gas emissions, puts pressure on their suppliers to stop violating Indonesian law, conserve biodiverse forests, and respect local communities.

Perhaps most impacted by Nestle’s decision this week is their key supplier Cargill. The pressure is on for Cargill to stop sourcing from Sinar Mas – another identified forest destroyer, and install needed safeguards in their purchases of palm oil from all of Southeast Asia.

Nestle can only meet their new commitments to forests and forest peoples with Cargill’s full support, but as RAN’s report released this month clearly demonstrates, Cargill is destroying rainforests at its own palm oil plantations in Borneo, and is freely purchasing huge amounts of palm oil from producers that are actively clearing the last of the world’s jungles, while in the process also destroying local livelihoods.

The last six months has seen a significant push by the world’s most important purchasers of palm oil to bring systematic change to the palm oil industry. Nestle is only the latest example. Yet USA agribusiness seems insulated from the global palm oil problem, with companies such as General Mills and Cargill doing their best to ignore their role in the problem.

So what’s next for Nestle? Only until they cancel their direct and indirect purchases of palm oil associated with the destruction of the world’s rainforests can they achieve their stated goal of a “moratorium on the destruction of rainforest.” And Cargill, as an important Nestle supplier, must immediately end their purchases of Sinar Mas palm oil and address the issue of deforestation at their own plantations.

Responding to the movements against Sinar Mas, Cargill also made an announcement on Sinar Mas last week; unfortunately Cargill chose to delay action and pass the burden of responsibility to the Roundtable of Sustainable Palm Oil rather than live up to their own corporate responsibility statements and act immediately to remove Sinar Mas’ dirty and dangerous palm oil from their supply chain.

Kraft, Unilever, and Sainsbury’s have also ended their direct palm oil contracts with Sinar Mas yet Cargill continues to stand behind their longstanding relationship with Sinar Mas. As palm oil production destroys forests, endangers forest peoples, and threatens the global climate, Cargill has met calls from Rainforest Action Network to end their support of Sinar Mas with stonewalling, inaction, and silence. The company has refused to disclose the size of their palm oil contract with the Indonesian multinational, all the while maintaining that they are committed to transparency and sustainability.

The evidence out against Sinar Mas is known, but perhaps the palm oil Cargill buys from Sinar Mas and resells in Europe and the US is just too profitable, or Cargill does not truly care about Indonesia’s forests, or they are not concerned about the underlying sustainability of the palm oil industry. Whatever the reason, Cargill’s lack of action is unacceptable and violates their own commitments to sustainable production and environmental stewardship.

Sinar Mas has the world's largest landbank for palm oil production - much of it threatened rainforests

Kraft, Nestle, and Unilever are all Cargill customers, and until Cargill removes Sinar Mas palm oil from their supply chain, these companies will not be able to live up to their very public commitments to disassociate with Sinar Mas. Under significant pressure from this powerful group of companies, Cargill last week finally made an announcement regarding Sinar Mas:

“If the RSPO validates the allegations of improper land conversion or illegal planting in deep peat land as alleged in the Greenpeace report and Sinar Mas does not take corrective action, we will delist them.”

This public statement was long overdue, but falls far short of the actions of Cargill’s customers and peers. Rather than cancel with a dirty and dangerous supplier, Cargill has passed the burden of responsibility to a powerless, controversial, and politically compromised Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) – an initiative of palm oil producers, traders, buyers, and NGOs.

Unlike other companies that took unilateral action, Cargill is hoping to hide behind the decisions of the RSPO, who have up to this point been unable to hold their members accountable for unsustainable and destructive production practices.  And then the clause ‘Corrective Action’ – Sinar Mas has been destroying rainforests for at least 20 years, and their wood pulp arm, Asia Pulp and Paper, is such an egregious rainforest destroyer that almost all the major US outlets of paper and cardboard have canceled their contracts with Sinar Mas (Office Depot, Unisource, Target, etc). Unilever conducted an expensive audit of Sinar Mas’ impacts, a publicly available document of Sinar Mas’ destruction, and NGOs have released countless reports documenting Sinar Mas’ actions on the ground.

Are we to believe, as Cargill tells us, that the allegations against Sinar Mas are still unproven and that Sinar Mas can take corrective action to gain back Cargill’s and their customers’ trust?

The time is now for Cargill to face up to their responsibility as a major palm oil producer, trader, and supplier and eliminate Sinar Mas palm oil from their supply chain and chain of custody. Today. Without statements passing on responsibility to powerless trade groups, and without any if’s, but’s, or when’s.

A string of reports have shown that Sinar Mas is actively clear cutting Indonesia’s forests, home to the endangered Orangutan, Sumatran Tiger, and Elephant, in violation of Indonesian law. Not only is Sinar Mas’ palm oil dirty and dangerous, it is also illegal.

Sinar Mas is clearing rainforests in Borneo without proper government approval

With the world’s major buyers of palm oil, including Uniliver, Kraft, Sainsbury and now Nestle cutting  ties with Sinar Mas, Cargill’s support of Sinar Mas’ rainforest destruction and  chain of illegalities has become all the more unacceptable.

The world’s CEOs, environmental groups, and local Indonesian communities all agree: Sinar Mas is a critical threat to the world’s forests, forest peoples, and the climate. Those companies who buy from Sinar Mas have acted, and Sinar Mas is reeling from tens of millions of dollars of contract cancellations.

Sinar Mas built this logging road in primary rainforest without government approval, violating Indonesian law. PT WKS, Riau, Sumatra

Yet Cargill continues to stand by Sinar Mas. The Minnesota based agribusiness giant sells Sinar Mas palm oil worldwide, turning a profit as Sinar Mas illegally burns carbon rich peat forests and forcibly evicts local communities to make way for palm oil. Cargill has repeatedly refused to disclose the size of their palm oil contracts with Sinar Mas subsidiaries and affiliates, contracts  insiders believe Cargill pays Sinar Mas tens of millions of dollars a year for their dangerous palm oil.

Although Kraft and Nestle have canceled their contracts with Sinar Mas, these companies are still not free of Sinar Mas’ palm oil in their global supply chains. Both Kraft and Nestle are large buyers of palm oil from Cargill, and Cargill continues to supply palm oil to the global market from Sinar Mas. Until Cargill cancels with Sinar Mas, Nestle, Kraft, and USA companies such as General Mills, will be forced to support Sinar Mas’ untenable palm oil operations in Indonesia.

Business as usual has become unacceptable for buyers of palm oil. The top management of Unliver, Kraft, and Nestle have all acknowledged that systemic change is needed in Indonesia’s palm oil sector. But Cargill, with their business based on unsustainable clearing and burning of rainforests, refuses to act on the demands of their customers.

Over the past months, Cargill has repeatedly told RAN that they will change their ways if they ‘hear it from our customers’. Well, Cargill’s customers have spoken, and Cargill management must disassociate themselves with Sinar Mas, other worst-of-the-worst palm oil producers, and put an immediate end to deforestation at their own palm oil plantations, or risk being the next palm oil supplier that Uniliver, Kraft, and Nestle cut all ties with.

David Gilbert is a forest program research associate with RAN. He has lived and worked in the forests of the Amazon and Indonesia. He has a special focus on Indigenous rights and tropical forest conservation.

He can be reached at davidgilbert AT ran DOT org

Cargill’s oil palm operations in PNG destroyed rainforests – Photo by Greenpeace PNG

Just three months ago RAN released a case study, based on original field research carried out by RAN and the International Accountability Project, on Cargill’s palm oil operations in PNG.  Commodity Colonialism reports that serious environmental and social issues threaten the sustainability of Cargill’s plantations there, with a special focus on the dangers of converting once independent and self sufficient Papuan farmers into indebted laborers through Cargill’s use of share cropping contracts.

After five years of operations in PNG, Cargill is turning their palm oil plantations over to New Britain Palm Oil, along with a range of unfilled commitments to the people and government of PNG.

It is unclear what will become of the thousands of indebted Papuans who remain bound under contract to exclusively produced oil palm for Cargill at prices set by the company, of the polluted rivers and watersheds Cargill is leaving behind, or the roads Cargill made a commitment to build and maintain in the rugged interior.

Cargill did not release any official comments but insiders point to the strong criticisms of Cargill’s unsustainable palm oil production by customers and the media as a likely reason Cargill decided to exit the country. Recent contract cancellations against the Indonesian palm oil producer Sinar Mas, Cargill’s single-largest palm oil supplier, have led to questions of Cargill’s support of, and profits from, rainforest destruction in neighboring Indonesia.

Cargill’s Oro Bay palm oil plantation – Photo by Greenpeace PNG

Back in PNG, local communities have spoken out on the damaging effects palm oil production has on the farms, forests, and rivers they have depended on for tens of thousands of years for survival. The lack of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) in Cargill’s sharecropping agreements, the lack of training to use dangerous pesticides, and the use of child labor are also among the most serious concerns expressed by locals living at Cargill’s three PNG plantations.

Cargill’s entrance into palm oil production in PNG gave rise to concerns that the company would use its financial and political influence to undermine the strict protections the constitution of PNG provides to community forests and farms through the recognition of communities’ customary land rights. It appears that these strict constitutional protections, which prevented Cargill from rapidly expanding it’s PNG plantations, played a significant role in Cargill’s decision to stop producing oil palm in PNG. A World Bank social impact report that noted increases of debt, prostitution, alcohol, and violence at PNG’s palm oil plantation communities,  providing additional reasons for Cargill to disassociate themselves with PNG palm oil.

New Britain Palm Oil’s Togulo palm oil operations in PNG replaced natural rainforest in 1979.  – Photo by Greenpeace PNG

New Britain Palm Oil (NBPO) is a long-time producer of palm oil in Papua New Guinea with a reputation for respecting local communities and a cautious approach to oil palm expansion, but NBPO’s plans for Cargill’s holdings are unknown. One this is for certain though, NBPO will now have to clean up Cargill’s palm oil mess in PNG.

David Gilbert is a Research Fellow at RAN. He has worked in the tropical forests of the Amazon and Indonesia, with a special focus on forest conservation and indigenous rights.

He can be reached at davidgilbert@ran.org

Under intense pressure from Greenpeace and allies, Unilever has canceled their 33 Million dollar a year palm oil contract with the dirty, destructive, and dangerous palm oil producer Sinar Mas. Sinar Mas is Indonesia’s largest palm oil producer and also owns Indonesia’s largest timber company Asia Pulp and Paper.

Pressured by Greenpeace in the UK and Europe back in 2008 to clean up their palm oil supply chain, Unilever took the positive steps of calling for an moratorium on palm expansion in Indonesia, taking a leadership role in the Round Table on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), and commissioning a third party audit of their oil palm suppliers world-wide.

The results of the audit have not been made public, but allies report that they uncovered bomb-proof evidence of palm oil producers in Indonesia illegally destroying biodiverse primary rainforests, draining and burning carbon-rich peat forests, using intimidation and violence to subdue local indigenous communities, and partaking in corruption to obtain illegal land permits to establish new oil palm plantations.

Two days ago Greenpeace released a detailed dossier of illegalities and rainforest destruction committed by Sinar Mas in West Kalimantan on Indonesia’s province on the island of Borneo. In the statement released by Unilever they referred to the impact of Greepeace’s investigations:

Here in the US Cargill is the largest importer of palm oil into the country, and is also the largest exporter of palm oil from Indonesia into the US. They trade palm oil from Indonesia and Malaysia with at least 20 companies. Although they are a private company and do not release contract information, RAN has strong reason to believe Cargill is the largest US buyer of palm oil from Sinar Mas.

The case is clear. Sinar Mas uses corruption and political muscle to destroy rainforests, forest peoples, and the climate. Europe’s largest importer of palm oil finally showed some leadership and canceled their contract with this nasty corporation. Will Cargill?

RAN calls for Cargill to follow Unilever’s lead and publicly cancel their contract with Sinar Mas.  Cargill is not living up to their own commitments to sustainable palm oil and is a major player in one of the most environmentally destructive industries on earth. Local communities reject their palm oil plantations in Indonesian and Papua New Guinea, and Cargill recently refused to meet with impacted community members at this year’s RSPO. It is time for Cargill to take a step in the right direction. Cargill, are you ready? Or will you continue to force forest peoples to become de facto bonded laborers, clear forests, and violate RSPO criteria? The choice is your.

David Gilbert is a Research Fellow at RAN. He has worked in the tropical forests of the Amazon and Indonesia, with a special focus on forest conservation and indigenous rights. He can be reached at davidgilbert@ran.org

Talking to allies in Riau, Sumatra, where Asia Pulp and Paper (APP) is logging tropical forests, it is clear that APP engages in corruption and utilizes a complete lack of transparency to profit at the sake of forests and local communities. But hard facts are incredibly hard to pin down on this kind of illegal activity; indeed, one of the main points of ‘Wild Money’ is that there is a complete lack of information pertaining to Indonesia’s forestry sector – it appears that not even Indonesia’s Department of Forestry has any clear idea of how much forest is being destroyed or how much money is being made.

The report complies financial data to make a conservative estimate of $2 Billion USD of lost revenue annually from timber companies evading taxes, receiving under-the-table subsidies, and logging without the proper permits.

To put this number in perspective, the report states that the World Bank has estimated with $2 Billion, Indonesia could provide health care to 100 million of its poor for almost 2 years.

‘Wild Money’ points to a historic case prosecuted by Indonesia’s Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK by its Indonesian abbreviation) in Indonesian Borneo’s West Kalimantan Province as an example of the worst of Indonesian forestry. In 2006, the KPK revealed their long running investigation into a illegal logging ring, and arrested the heads of the provincial police and forestry departments, as well as some high ranking military brass. Increadibly, the annual revenue from the illegal logs was estimated to be greater than that of the entire yearly budget of the province:

One informant who had been following the operation for its duration estimated that the actual value of the illegal logs was closer to seven times the province’s budget, or about $3 Billion USD.

Taking great risks to personal security, many of the sources and one of the authors of  ‘Wild Money’ remain anonymous. Most likely, it is because of these very real threats , that the report chooses to not name the corporations, such as Asia Pulp and Paper (APP) or their competitor APRIL, who are driving this system of corruption.

It is painfully clear that Indonesia’s forestry sector needs immediate and deep reform, and that until investors, buyers, and the public puts pressure on the Indonesian Government, individuals and corporations will continue to destroy Indonesia’s rainforests at the expense of the Indonesian people and the environment.

‘Wild Money’ also addresses issues of human rights abuses and carbon trading in this report, more to come on Understory about those key issues.

David Gilbert is a Research Fellow at RAN. He has worked in the tropical forests of the Amazon and Indonesia, with a special focus on forest conservation and indigenous rights. He can be reached at davidgilbert@ran.org

Two days of 4×4 travel over dirt roads brought my team to PT Wirakarya Sakti (WKS). There, I spoke to members of the Orang Rimba, a nomadic indigenous group, who have been marginalized by Asia Pulp and Paper at WKS, sleeping along side logging roads in increasingly degraded remnant patches of forest.

Asia Pulp and Paper logging truck passing through the degraded lands of PT WKS – Photo by David Gilbert

APP security was tight; We passed through 3 checkpoints, slowly working our way deeper into the forest concession. Finally, when we arrived to the edge of WKS bordering Bukit Tigapuluh National Park, private security forces turned us away. Just beyond the gates, biodiverse lowland rainforests are being illegally logged by Asia Pulp and Paper. On rough estimate, 100 trucks carrying giant felled hardwoods emerged from this forest in one day, headed to the nearby APP pulp and paper factory.

This week, a broad coalition of Indonesian social and environmental NGO’s released a statement condemning Asia Pulp and Paper for their unsustainable practices at PT Wirakarya Sakti (WKS). The statement was triggered by the recent certification of WKS by Lembaga Ekolabel Indonesia (LEI) as a sustainable forest plantation.

The groups called the certification “inappropriate” and Diki Kurniawan of Warsi said “This certification is not credible and transparent, because inputs by NGOs and affected communities were ignored.”

The groups cite the massive destruction of natural forests ongoing in the Asia Pulp and Paper concession WKS. More than 48,000 hectares (59%) of the WKS forest was cleared from 2007 to 2008. WKS currently holds an industrial timber plantation permit (HTI) from the government of Indonesia, which strictly prevents Asia Pulp and Paper from clearing natural forest. HTI operations, by law, must only be established on degraded land. Peatlands are protected by presidential decree in Indonesia,  but Asia Pulp and Paper’s WKS has cleared 70% of the peatlands encompassed in their concession between 2007-2008. The rapid and large scale conversion of natural forests outside of Indonesian law led Indonesian civil society to question the validity of LEI’s certification and Asia Pulp and Paper’s operations in general.

PT WKS is home to 10,000 Indonesians, about 500 of which are members of the Orang Rimba indigenous group who still practice a nomadic lifestyle in the forests of Sumatra. Many local farmers have lost their lands to WKS, and the Orang Rimba are increasingly marginalized. Many conflicts have take place, from arrests to burnings of company equipment by local people. LEI certification is specifically required to account for social impacts of Asia Pulp and Paper operations; the high levels of social conflict at WKS are anything except sustainable and raise serious questions regarding the validity of APP’s LEI certification.

David Gilbert is a Research Fellow at RAN. He has worked in the tropical forests of the Amazon and Indonesia, with a special focus on forest conservation and indigenous rights.

He can be reached at davidgilbert@ran.org

Today, on the way to a meeting with the local NGO Elang, I passed villagers from the Kampar Peninsula, a carbon-rich and biodiverse ecoystem that is under attack by Sinar Mas’ oil palm operations and their timber division Asia Pulp and Paper (APP), on a hunger strike.

In front of the provincial parliament building, a group of men and women from the village of Kijang Kejo have set up a plastic tarp and banner, announcing to Riau’s elected officials that they will not eat until the oil palm plantation PT Arindo Tri Sejahtera, who stole their land and then paid thugs to kill three of their family members, is brought to justice.

10 days into their hunger strike, the villagers are pale and weak, sleeping while motor bikes and buses fly by them on the road. They told me they have not been able to meet with any members of the provincial government, and were not sure how much longer they could last without food.

The group that owns this particular plantation, Surya Dumai, might be on the nastier end of the scale of dirty, dangerous, and destructive oil palm and timber companies, but this is how the resource extraction game is played here in Riau, Sumatra; buy the military, government, and media and trample any local people that dare to stand up for their rights.

APP and Sinar Mas have been shown to violate Indonesian law and human rights, but with the authorities in their pocket, it is us, the consumers of timber and palm oil, that must demand  producers respect forests and the people who inhabit them.

David Gilbert is a Research Fellow at RAN. He has worked in the tropical forests of the Amazon and Indonesia, with a special focus on forest conservation and indigenous rights. He can be reached at davidgilbert@ran.org

Exhausted from the canoe rides, bad roads, the concrete maze of Jakarta, and the foreign environment of a Kuala Lumpor convention hall, I found Pak Jamaluddin on the second day of the RSPO outside, sitting cross legged on the sidewalk. He waved me over, and I sat with him. He leaned over to me as he whispered: “It is over. Our forest is gone. Duta Palma has flattened the last of it. We are finished.”

A few months before, I visited with Pak Jamaluddin in his village of Semunying Jaya. Deep in the interior of Borneo, his village had become a hotspot of rainforest destruction and human rights abuse at the hands of the palm oil producer Duta Palma.

A Dayak community, Semunying Jaya’s residents had survived for centuries hunting forest pigs and gathering valuable honey, resins, and rattan, which they sold to Malaysian traders that would visit their village.

When I arrived in July, Pak Jamalludin was outspoken, angry, and in the midst of a brutal struggle to hold on to the last of his community’s traditional forest. Almost all of the rainforest surrounding Semunying Jaya had been flattened and burned by Duta Palma. Targeted by the company, Pak Jamalludin was jailed for his efforts to present his community’s case to the company and government. But the remaining rainforest gave Pak Jamaluddin hope, and he tirelessly tried to save it. Motivated by his struggle, I wrote a case study about his community’s case and shot a short film.

Pak Jamaluddin had traveled to the annual meeting of the RSPO in Kuala Lumpor to meet with Duta Palma, and ask for them to respect his community’s right to Free, Informed, and Prior consent, and compensate Semunying Jaya for the destruction of their culture, livelihood, and future. But, reflective of their complete disrespect of RSPO member responsibilities,  Duta Palma did not send a representative to the meeting.

Sitting on the cement, with no Duta Palma representatives at the RSPO and the last of his community’s forest destroyed for oil palm, Pak Jamaluddin did not have any struggle left in him.

David Gilbert is a Research Fellow at RAN. He has worked in the tropical forests of the Amazon and Indonesia, with a special focus on forest conservation and indigenous rights. He can be reached at davidgilbert@ran.org

Early on, the RSPO identified accountability and transparency as key criteria to reduce the palm oil industry’s corrupt, dirty, and dangerous practices. Reflecting such, the first criteria for joining the RSPO are commitments to transparency.

But even a basic level of transparency is too much to ask from the USA’s largest producer and trader of palm oil, Cargill. Cargill was quick to sign up for the RSPO and to claim their support for the RSPO’s criteria. But when it comes to actually following the RSPO’s criteria for sustainable palm oil, Cargill is a non-starter. Hiring a questionable audit firm, Cargill has managed to pay its way into RSPO certification without living up to RSPO criteria.

This week, I attended the RSPO’s annual conference with two victims of Cargill’s oil palm operations in Indonesia. These community members, one of them the head of his small Indonesian village, traveled thousands of miles to meet Cargill face to face, to fight for the land Cargill has taken away from them.

Interested in their plight, one of the top-ranking members of the RSPO’s Executive Board agreed to help set up a meeting with Cargill. But William Griffiths, one of Cargill’s key managers based in Singapore, refused to meet with these effected community members. Cargill’s reply: “It is better we do not meet.”

William Griffiths had the time to travel from Singapore to Kuala Lumpur, to spend multiple days at the RSPO, meeting with buyers and other palm oil producers, but he did not find 30 minutes to listen to representatives from his own plantations express their concerns about Cargill’s dirty, dangerous, and neo-colonial practices in Indonesia.

Palm oil production in Indonesia, where Cargill is a major player, is killing the last of the world’s wild orangutans, bringing poverty to forest peoples,  and causing global warming. The first step in addressing these issues is to bring access and accountability to these companies. As William Griffiths made painfully clear at the RSPO, Cargill has no interest in improving their negative practices, no interest in the welfare of local communities at their plantations, and has repeatedly failed to live up to their own commitments to the RSPO.

MORE on Cargill’s legacy of destruction and neo-colonial practices in Indonesia.

Just minutes ago, the Round Table on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) passed a resolution, introduced by the Sumatran Orangutan Society (SOS), to expel any member who clears portions of the Bukit Tigapuluh ecosystem, which has been found to contain large numbers of High Conservation Value Forests (HCVFs).

This is the sole bright spot of what has been a depressing RSPO, where oil palm producers have failed to address previous complaints against the worst of the worst oil palm producers like Duta Palma, and blocked any criteria limiting Green House Gas Emissions.

Pak Daud, one of Sinar Mas’ top managers, stood up to try and block the resolution: “There is no clarity on this, we need better data, this is a grey area.” He then tried to avoid responsibility by claiming that because a subsidiary of Sinar Mas is doing the clearing, the RSPO has no power to limit Sinar Mas’ actions. His plea met with boos from the crowd.

This surprising development at the RSPO puts some serious pressure on Sinar Mas to immediately stop all destruction of the only reintroduction site in Sumatra for orangutans, one of the largest habitats for the Sumatran tiger, and the territory of some of the most traditional hunter gathers in the world.

It is also a call for the RSPO to live up to their own criteria and take action against Sinar Mas if they continue their dirty and dangerous operations at Bukit Tigapuluh. This will be a new test for the RSPO.  For the sake of the world’s forests, forest peoples, and climate, I hope this deeply trouble palm oil group is up to the task.

David Gilbert is a Research Fellow at RAN. He has worked in the tropical forests of the Amazon and Indonesia, with a special focus on forest conservation and indigenous rights.

He can be reached at davidgilbert@ran.org

At the core of the controversy has been the effort to include a commitment by all members of the RSPO to reduce their Green House Gas (GHG) emissions. After two years of meetings, the Malaysian and Indonesian producers managed to block any such commitment. It was a disappointing moment for the RSPO, and a lost opportunity to address one of the most serious issues of oil palm production.

Supporters of the new criteria made lots of concessions, Tim Killeen of Conservation International and a member of the GHG working group told me. His main focus was to include a criteria that would effectively protect peat lands, the most carbon rich habitat in the world, from oil palm expansion. But even this was too much for the producers to stomach. It is clear that anything that would change ‘business as usual’ – which is the massive destruction of peat lands, burning forests, and significant contributions to climate chaos -  is unacceptable for producers.

Had GHG emissions standards been included, there might have been a chance that some of the dirtiest producers of oil palm would have pulled out, but the core of the RSPO was never in jeopardy. It is clear, the RSPO would rather be a diluted certification standard that includes everyone that wants to join rather than a true step towards palm oil that does not harm people, forests, and the climate.

So then, what relevance does the term “sustainable” have for the Round Table on Sustainable Palm Oil? In my opinion, which is shared by many of the social and environmental groups here, the short answer is none.

There is nothing sustainable about the social conflict, forest destruction, and climate change caused by RSPO members. In a visit to one of the worst of the worst palm oil producers, Duta Palma, this past summer, I witnessed the massive burning of primary forests and the use of force to evict a traditional community from their ancestral lands, all to produce a tasteless vegetable oil.  The actions of Duta Palma, which violates just about every criteria of the RSPO but who is still a RSPO member, have been subject to a complaint filed to the RSPO by a broad range of Indonesian NGOs. After four months,  the RSPO has still not responded to this complaint.

This is a critical moment for the RSPO. With no action on GHG emissions and multiple complaints filed to the RSPO regarding criteria violations, it is time for the RSPO to live up to their use of the word sustainable or risk becoming an irrelevant group of stakeholders that can not seem to agree on anything.

David Gilbert is a Research Fellow at RAN. He has worked in the tropical forests of the Amazon and Indonesia, with a special focus on forest conservation and indigenous rights.

He can be reached at davidgilbert@ran.org

“They say oil palm is development. They say Malaysia has cars and big cities because of oil palm. But it is not oil palm, it is from other things, like our oil and our logging. Giant companies, most of them Malaysian, ignore customary land rights and take our land out from under us. They develop it into oil palm. They use only foreign workers, or people from Kuala Lumpur to drive the trucks and run the offices. For the day laborers, they will not even hire us local people, because we are Malaysians and have some basic rights. So they hire Indonesians who have come here illegally and have no rights, no one to protect them from the bad working conditions and horrible pay. The Malay people, who live near us, they all get a few hectares of land from the Company to have their own oil palm, but rather than work that land they too hire Indonesians. The government, using their oil and gas and timber money gives these Malay government jobs too, so even though they live in the countryside they can buy cars. The owners of the Company get rich, so rich. Then they take that money and invest it in oil palm in Indonesia and Papua New Guinea, where they can do whatever they want, there are no laws there. And they get even richer.

But us, us people from the forest, who live in the longhouses, what are we left with? Nothing. And the Malay people, who have cars, is this a sustainable economy, that depends on illegal labor and government jobs to support the common man? I think not.

Oil palm does not lead to the development of a country. Wealth, contained in the natural resources of the our forests and controlled by us,  is flattened and burned, and then collected by the world’s rich, from Companies like Sinar Mas, Cargill, IOI, and Duta Palma. Oil palm does not bring wealth to the poor, it takes it away. Oil palm development, like so many neo-colonial trading systems, makes the poor poorer and the rich richer.

Supporting this argument, so powerfully and simply laid out by a man from the last of Borneo’s almost extinct forests with no formal education but a lifetime of wisdom,  is a year long research project. One I hope to complete some day. But for now, lets just take his word for it, as a man who has lost his livelihood, way of life, and future so one of the world’s largest companies, Wilmar, can become a little bit richer.

David Gilbert is a Research Fellow at RAN. He has worked in the tropical forests of the Amazon and Indonesia, with a special focus on forest conservation and indigenous rights. He can be reached at davidgilbert@ran.org

Papua New Guinea (PNG) is a nation that does not easily fit with our society’s dominant ideas of development, property, and conservation. Many Papuans have little interaction with the cash economy; although categorized by development indexes as poor, these Papuans have never known food scarcity or landless poverty.  Individual land holdings are rare – most land is held in communal agreements based on complex family, tribal, and political ties – but the nation has seemed to avoid the everyman for themselves, tragedy-of-the-commons dynamic Western thinkers have predicted for such communal agreements. For generations, PNG did not have a single national park or government protected conservation area, but the country has resisted the devastating rates of forest destruction that has plagued other tropical nations.

PNG’s unique geography, people, and ecosystems just do not fit very well into Western models of just about anything. But, in a trend seen all over the world, that is not stopping the World Bank and multinational agribusiness giant Cargill from forcing PNG to accept their investment-extraction-profit model.

After multiple rounds of multi-million dollar investment, and the creation of three massive oil palm estates, observers in Papua are beginning to see the effects of imposing a foreign model of development on PNG: increases in deforestation, heightened land conflicts, alcohol abuse, AIDS, and the emergence of landless poverty, a once unknown phenomenon.

After a month of detailed research, drawing from anthropological studies, societal and environmental impact assessments by the World Bank, and courageous field work carried out by the International Accountability Project, RAN has  just released a case study on Cargill’s oil palm operations in PNG: Commodity Colonialism: A case study on Cargill’s oil palm operations in Papua New Guinea, laying out the truly dangerous effects of oil palm on this unique nation.

RAN is committed to providing impacted communities a voice at the table. A few weeks ago we sponsored a trip for Matilda Pilacapio, a PNG environmental activist and landowner from Cargill’s Milne Bay plantation, to come and dialogue with Cargill management in Minnesota.

An article on Matilda was featured over on Mongabay, a number of speaking events, and in a video interview right here on the Understory.

Supporting this belief, a new study by researchers at U of Illinois and U of Michigan has added to the growing body of evidence that indigenous peoples are better protectors of their forests than governments or industry. In a review of 80 forests in 10 tropical countries, the study showed that when indigenous and local communities own their forests, they effectively conserve their forest resources over the long term.

Reflecting the growing momentum behind viewing rainforests as carbon sinks that can either exacerbate or reduce climate change, the researchers measured the carbon emissions from forests under community and government control. The New Scientist recently ran an interview with the authors of this research, who said “our findings show that we can increase carbon sequestration simply by transferring ownership of forests from governments to communities.” This is a bold assertion, but one that is supported by their research.

However, the idea that indigenous peoples are the best protectors of rainforests is considered controversial by some, who usually argue that forests should be protected by governments, following the National Parks model of conservation pioneered by the USA.

In this model, forests are enclosed in conservation areas and put off-limits, supposedly to be protected from loggers and commercial agribusiness by government agencies. This rational has been used to move control of forests away from indigenous peoples and into the hands of the government in many tropical nations. In an article cited by hundreds, researchers highlighted the  problems with this approach in Indonesian Borneo, where conservation areas lost over half of their forest cover in the period from 1985 to 2001.  These supposedly protected areas have become increasingly fragmented, degraded, and isolated, greatly decreasing ecosystem functions.

Another compelling piece of evidence supporting indigenous peoples’ ability to protect forests comes from Brazilian Amazonia. In a study published in Conservation Biology, researchers showed that many indigenous lands prevent deforestation completely even though there are high  rates of forest destruction directly outside their borders. In a compelling statement for the value of the protections indigenous peoples give to forests, the researchers claim that indigenous lands are the most important barrier to deforestation in the Amazon.

As usual, the research is racing to catch up with what indigenous peoples around the world have known for hundreds of years: indigenous people’s are the most effective protectors of tropical forests.

David Gilbert is a Research Fellow at RAN. He has worked in the tropical forests of the Amazon and Indonesia, with a special focus on forest conservation and indigenous rights.

He can be reached at davidgilbert@ran.org

Cargill has a total of five oil palm plantations in Southeast Asia, divided into more than twenty estates that have been carved out of the world’s most diverse and  carbon rich rainforests.

Because Cargill is both the largest supplier of palm oil to the US from Indonesia and the largest importer of palm oil into the US, we at RAN have a strong position to push the multinational to clean up their actions and adopt a global forest policy. Our impact over the past few months has been seen in the company agreeing to a series of three meetings with RAN running up to the Round Table on Sustainable Palm Oil in November.

But as with all the world’s natural resources, China has increasingly become the most dominant oil palm consumer nation. Too cold and dry to produce the crop on their own soil, Chinese business and government has turned to Indonesia to feed their demand for the cheap cooking oil and input for processed foods with so many ecological and social consequences.

Sime Sarby, the Malaysia palm oil processor, has just announced new plans to expand their factories in China in response to rapidly increasing demand, and their CEO expect Chinese demand to increase 100 percent over the next decade.

Efforts to increase the uptake of less harmful palm oil are finally beginning to show some market impact. Since 2008, 19 percent of crude palm oil sold on the global market carried the label of ‘sustainable palm oil’ from the RSPO, the foremost certification criteria for palm oil.

Granted, there are real concerns over the RSPO being used as no more than ‘greenwashing’ of dirty palm oil. Case in point is the recent announcement by New Britain Palm Oil,  an oil palm poducer with serious negative ecological and social impacts in Papua New Guinea, that they will sell $100 million of “sustainable oil palm” to the producer of Nutella.

But I would still argue that this 19 percent uptake of certified palm oil is at least a very small, and vary incremental step, in the right direction for the oil palm industry.

But Chinese importers and oil palm producers have shown little interest in increasing the sustainability of their oil palm, and Chinese consumers have not yet placed any demands on their domestic marketplace.

Since 2005, Chinese oil palm companies have been lobbying to create a massive palm oil development in the heart of Borneo’s last remaining tropical forests. Intense criticism from environmental and community rights groups has limited Borneo’s ‘Oil Palm Mega Project’, but the threat remains.

Its clear, to effectively slow forest destruction in Indonesia, new policy and advocacy strategies are needed to push China’s oil palm lobby towards a future of responsible oil palm development and engage Chinese consumers.

David Gilbert is a Research Fellow at RAN. He has worked in the tropical forests of the Amazon and Indonesia, with a special focus on forest conservation and indigenous rights.

He can be reached at davidgilbert@ran.org

Dr. Basiron is been working closely with the agricultural ministries of Malaysia and Indonesia, pushing for more tropical forest to be flattened and burned to make way for oil palm expansion. The Indonesian Ministry of Agriculture has recently announced a plan to double Indonesia’s crude palm oil production by 2020.

The negative environmental and social impacts of palm oil have gained major international attention in recent years, and while the evidence has emerged that oil palm is a danger to the world’s tropical forests and forest peoples, Dr. Basiron has continued to be a high-profile defender of the oil palm industry.

He is a colorful character known for his willingness to say just about anything. Here is a roundup of some of his uglier and more inaccurate statements, with referenced responses:

Basiron Fiction 1:

“Orang utans living near oil palm plantations were observed to regularly visit the plantations to feed on loose oil palm fruitlets and benefit from an all year round availability of a healthy food source which is naturally rich in vitamin A and E, giving the orang utans a healthy shining coat.”

Fact:

The United Nations Environment Program has called oil palm plantations a critical threat to orangutan populations, destroying the endangered primate’s already reduced forest habitats. Orangutans are commonly killed as pests in oil palm plantations; moving and graphic depictions of orangutans killed by oil palm plantations are in the free and download-able film ‘Green’.

Basiron Fiction 2:

“Oil palm plantations have an indirect land use effect of saving ten times more forest area in the importing countries when they import their palm oil from Malaysia. This is referred to as the deforestation avoidance effect.”

Fact:

No such ‘deforestation avoidance effect’ has ever been demonstrated. What has been demonstrated in peer reviewed journal articles is that the majority of oil palm development occurs on deforested tropical forests, with serious impacts on biodiversity, ecological function, forest peoples, and climate/

Basiron Fiction 3:

“With oil palm as their main crop, farmers in Malaysia and Indonesia are earning US $20 per day presently as compared to US$ 2 per day 30 years ago when oil palm was not a major crop.”

Fact:

I have personally spoken with hundreds of laborers in Indonesian palm oil plantations, all of whom made no more than USD 2 per day.  Thus, after oil palm plantations kick farmers off their land, they pay the farmers poverty wages to work the land they once owned.

Dr. Basiron’s refusal to acknowledge the negative impacts of the industry he represents reminds me of the last efforts tobacco CEO’s made to censor the impacts of their industry on public health. As long as the oil palm industry is allowed to hide from the truth of their actions, they will not act to reduce oil palm’s impacts and increase it’s sustainability. I will continue to follow up on the many statements Dr. Basiron has made regarding palm oil that are full of misinformation and attacks on the vibrant and flourishing NGO movement, both internationally and locally in Indonesia and Malaysia.

So the meeting of conservation groups and palm oil companies this week in the Malaysian province of Sabah was not a surprise.  The oil palm industry is a giant in both Malaysia and Indonesia, and forest conservation groups believe they can make big gains in forest and wildlife protections if they convince the industry as a whole to adapt forest and forest people friendly policies.

After two days of meetings, conservation groups are touting a big gain in forest protection with the palm oil industry adopting a new policy to construct forest zones 100m from major rivers, and corridors to connect fragmented forests.

The WWF and the Nature Conservancy both proclaimed victory, and called for additional collaborations between conservation groups and the oil palm industry.

Surly, there are always positives to be gained when the representatives of two sides of an issues sit down at the table. But in this case, there are serious signs that WWF and the Nature Conservancy are being naïve in proclaiming progress.

Comments from oil palm representatives at the meeting in Sabah continued the industry’s dogged refusal to acknowledge the serious impacts of their oil palm operations; Malaysia’s Minister of Plantation Industries and Commodities claimed that oil palm does not cause deforestation, destroy biodiversity, or displace orangutans.  And the meeting was organized by the Malaysian Palm Oil Council, who’s CEO still maintains that oil palm plantations are good for orangutans and their ‘shiny coats’. But all scientists who study orangutans have testified to their negative impacts on orangutan populations.

Looking at the bigger picture, Indonesia’s efforts to expand to 10 million hectares of oil palm makes David Dellatore’s NGO’s efforts to convince two oil palm companies to pay for the reforestation of 150 hectares of Gunung Leuser National Park look questionable.

And when you consider that laws already exist to protect all forest within 50 meters of rivers on oil palm plantations, the new oil palm industry policy to protect an additional 50 meters of forest along rivers does not seem to be much of a compromise. And those forest corridors? Forest corridors are indeed important to conserve the ecological function of Indonesia’s tropical forests, but what good will forest corridors be if there is no forest left?

I wonder if these tiny advances, claimed to be victories in the protection of forests by major conservation groups, only serve to distract from the fact that the oil palm industry is destroying hundreds of thousands of hectares of primary tropical forest each year, and hundreds of thousands of hectares more of ecologically and economically important agro-forests, orchards, and small-scale farms are flattened.

The oil palm industry must be held to a non-negotiable and surprisingly simple commitment: no more oil palm plantation expansion in tropical forests.  Rather than spend our time developing complex conservation plans and negotiating over tiny policy changes with oil palm plantations, lets support local people’s ability to refuse oil palm plantations on their lands, and act as watchdogs over the oil palm industry to ensure they do not flatten any more tropical forests.