A COMPARISON
OF LEADINGPALM OIL
CERTIFICATIONSTANDARDS

Summary of Key Findings

A Comparison of Leading Palm Oil Certification Standards

CONTENTS
Executive Summary – Palm Oil Comparative Study

5

Introduction

11

Background on each standard

12

Methodology

14

Summary of key findings
A. Customary Rights
B. Treatment of Smallholders
C. Social and Environmental Safeguards
D. Core Labour Standards
E. Gender and discrimination
F. Quality Assurance
G. Access to Remedy

16
16
20
22
25
28
30
34

Conclusion

36

What next? – RSPO NEXT and POIG

38

Methodology
A. Customary Rights
B. Treatment of Smallholders
C. Social and Environmental Safeguards
D. Core Labour Standards
E. Gender and Discrimination
F. Quality Assurance

39
40
41
42
44
45
46

Conclusion

47

Appendix

48

Annex 152

Annex 280

Author: Angus McInnes
Design and Layout: Olga Gusarova-Tchalenko
Cover Photo: Dico Luckyharto
Forest Peoples Programme
1c Fosseway Business Centre
Stratford Road
Moreton-in-Marsh
GL569NQ
EnglandTel: +44 (0) 1608652893
Fax: +44 (0) 1608652878
www.forestpeoples.org

Forest Peoples Programme is a company limited by guarantee (England and Wales)Reg. No. 3868836, our registered office is stated above. UK-registered Charity NO. 1082158.
It is also registered as a non-profit Stichting in the Netherlands.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This publication is freely available onlineat www.forestpeoples.org. Copyright is retained by the Forest Peoples Programme. Thisoverall copyright attribution of the publication does not overwrite the copyright attributionsof the single images inside the publication. For all the images that are not FPP originals,
the photographer and/or original source has been credited, and the copyright is with theauthors of those images/graphs.

2

A Comparison of Leading Palm Oil Certification Standards

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY –PALM OIL COMPARATIVE STUDYThis study compares the world’s principal oil palm sustainability standards(RSPO, ISCC, ISPO, MSPO, SAN, HCS and RSB) by measuring them against
a comprehensive set of over 39 social and human rights indicators withinsix different themes.

Methodology
The study is based on the requirements offered in eachof the certification schemes tested. Forest Peoples
Programme (FPP) identified a total of 39 different
indicators, across six key themes, ranging from protectionof human rights defenders to requirements pertaining
to minimum wage for workers. Depending on theprovisions of the certification standard, each one of themwas given a score between 0 and 3 based on the depth,
detail, and stringency of requirements for compliance.

Key

Strong and clear requirements

3

Theme is addressed but
requirements less clear

2

Theme is not directly addressed
and/or requirements are not clearly
defined or comparatively lenient

1

Theme is not addressed
and/or no clearly definedrequierements

0

For example, when testing the standard strength against
the indicator “Rights to water”, RSB standard scored 3
points, RSPO scored 2 points, HCS approach scored 1 point
and ISPO scored 0 points.
3 points: RSB standard, criteria 9d states “Operations
shall contribute to the enhancement or maintaining of
the quality of the surface and ground water resources”,
furthermore, it includes a number of minimum
requirements relating to this criterion including minimum

4

Pointsrequirement 6 which asserts “for existing operation,
degradation of water resources that occurred prior tocertification and for which the participating operator is
directly accountable shall be reversed. Wherever applicable,
operators shall participate in projects that aim to improvewater quality at a watershed scale”. Such detailed andclear requirements earned the RSB standard 3 points.
2 points: RSPO standard, criteria 4.4 states “Practices
maintain quality and availability of surface and ground5

Executive Summary

water, the water management plan will aim to ensure that
local communities, workers and their families have accessto adequate, clean water for drinking, cooking, bathing
and cleaning purposes.” Whilst the indicator has beenaddressed, the specific requirements put on companies isless clear. Companies should aim to provide clean water,
yet, there is no requirement to enhance the quality ofwater. As a result, the RSPO scored 2 points.
1 point: HCS approach, module 2.1 (social and baseline
study) states “Access to water, health and education
facilities and other social and economic infrastructure
shall be considered…the social baseline study shalltake into account the potential impacts of the proposeddevelopment of…water quality and availability…overthe time frame of the development”. Water rights are
only considered there is no requirement to maintainor enhance water quality, thus it is judged that therequirement is comparatively lenient and only
scores 1 point.
0 points: ISPO standard only states within it that “water
is to be monitored”. Since there are no clearly definedrequirements, the ISPO standard scores 0 points. MSPO
standard does not mention water rights either explicitly
or implicitly and as a result also scores 0 points.
Themes:Customary rights were assessed against eight different
indicators including provisions for FPIC, participatory
mapping, access to information and inclusive participationin negotiated agreements.
ISCC, SAN and RSB make little specific reference toindigenous peoples. Instead, they just refer to international
conventions as safeguards of indigenous rights. RSPO, HCS
and MSPO provisions on indigenous peoples, on the other
hand, largely focus on land acquisition and on ensuring
they are not taken advantage of in the process.
All standards require their members to demonstrate thelegal right to use land. Critically, ISPO does not require thisprogress to be documented and instead it advocates oneoff consultations with communities, making it the weakest
standard in upholding basic customary rights. RSPO, incontrast, has the most comprehensive requirements for
consultation and consent, emphasising transparency,
participatory processes and strong measures for proof

6

A Comparison of Leading Palm Oil Certification Standardsof consultation, thus respecting indigenous peoples’
right to self-determination.
Other standards fall between these two extremes. ISCC
does not require participatory mapping. SAN only requires
FPIC in critical activities when use rights are affected andnot in all communications with indigenous peoples. MSPO
lacks an explicit requirement to prevent coercion outsideof the context of FPIC. The absence of a requirement in
RSB standard for all communication with communities tobe recorded makes it weaker than RSPO standard which
provides the strongest safeguard for indigenous rights.
Treatment of smallholders was scored against four
indicators which took into account smallholders’ accessto fair credit, their ability to access markets to sell their
Fresh Fruit Bunches (FFB) and whether the standard
gives provisions to ensure smallholders are paid fair
prices for their FFB.
Much improvement is needed across the board. HCS
approach has yet to be adapted to smallholders, whilst
ISPO has no requirements at all for smallholder contracts.
MSPO is only slightly better in requiring all smallholders toreceive training to improve productivity. Meanwhile RSB
provides its own smallholder standard with its own set of
restrictions which only serve to limit their access to markets
and fair treatment. Alarmingly, none of the standards require
fair credit to smallholders, where instead credit has been
decided without involving farmers in a participatory manner.
Standards must also be reformed if smallholder palm
oil productivity is to grow while mitigating negativesocial and environmental impacts. Even though RSPO
has broader and more tightly defined requirements
on growers’ responsibilities towards smallholders, thesignificant shortfall between the costs for smallholdersof compliance with RSPO standards, their ability tosecure fair credit, and to get access to higher premium
markets creates a disincentive for smallholders to
become certified or maintain their certificates.
Social and environmental safeguards were judged
against eight indicators including participatorysocial and environmental impact assessments, rights
to water, protection of human rights defenders andwhether the standards offered conditions for providing
community development.

In terms of environmental standards, ISCC provides themost restrictive safeguards particularly when addressing
peat land conversion, while RSPO is stronger on the social
impact of oil palm. MSPO provides strict standards forplantation management while ISPO is based on existing
Indonesian regulations that pertain to palm oil cultivationand processing and is by far the weakest at reducing thenegative environmental and social impacts of oil palm.
RSPO standard, by comparison, provides some of the mostrestrictive requirements on land use rights, customary
rights, core labour standards and the rights and wellbeingof people affected by plantations. RSB standard also has
a lot of similarities with RSPO standard and is the mostprogressive in its approach to food security and water rights,
something which should be mirrored in all the standards.
It is worth noting that RSPO is the only standard
pioneering work on human rights defenders although
the resolution, passed in November 2016, requiring
the adoption of a mechanism to protect human rights
defenders has yet to be acted on.
Core Labour Standards were assessed against eightindicators including commitments to no child labour, noslavery-like practices, as well as requirements pertaining
to minimum wage, protection of migrant workers and freecollective bargaining.

discrimination and sexual harassment commitments.
ISCC, RSB, ISPO and MSPO do not have any criteria
specifically aimed at supporting women but they doinclude gender in their categories for which discrimination
is not permitted. RSPO and HCS are the only standards
that have a policy specifically aimed at protecting
women from sexual harassment in the workplace andat supporting their reproductive rights. Both standards
also state the need to have a company policy specifically
aimed at addressing gender-based abuses.
All standards have mandatory criteria prohibiting
discrimination, but definitions of what constitutes
discrimination vary widely. Whilst RSPO, ISCC and HCS
require publicly available equal opportunity policies,
ISPO and MSPO require more generic commitments fromcompanies which are requested not to engage or support
discriminatory practices (there is no mention of whether
or not these should be made public).
Quality Assurance scored certification schemes against
five indicators including requirements to provide
independent third-party verification of adherence to theschemes principles and criteria, to accredit certification
bodies and to include formal public consultations during
the audit process.

Almost all standards have strong provisions for employee
contracts that must be fair and clearly understood,
provide minimum wage requirements, support workers’
rights to form trade unions and bargain collectively.
However, overall relatively weak protections are offered tomigrant workers, something especially troubling given thehigh reliance on plantations on migrant labour.
ISPO is noticeably poor on labour standards whichraises concern about the exploitation of workers within
Indonesia particularly considering reports of forced andchild labour on plantations.1 The standard simply statesthat child labour is prohibited, but offers no further details
on the restrictions for different age groups or even until
what age one is considered a child.
Gender and discrimination looks specifically at
provisions for gender sensitive complaints procedures,the protection of reproductive rights, and no1

Amnesty International. The Great Palm Oil Scandal: Labour Abuses Behind Big Brand Names, Amnesty International (2016), London.

7

Executive Summary

A Comparison of Leading Palm Oil Certification Standards

RSB, ISCC, SAN and RSPO apply a two-tiered system
involving various certification and accreditation bodies.
SAN and ISCC, on the other hand, do not allow for public
summaries of the audit reports to be produced. ISPO andMSPO also rely upon accredited third-part certification
bodies to conduct audits, but it is the ISPO and MSPO
commissions respectively that issue certificates basedon reviews of audit reports. Both commissions maintainan elevated level of control over the entire certification
process, which does raise questions about transparency
and the independence of supply chain verification.
Audit quality remains a major challenge for manycertification systems. The level of ambiguity which arisesin the implementation of standards is deeply concerning
as well as the apparent disparity between principles andcriteria and their interpretation by certification bodies.
Another serious gap across all standards is the lack of aclear requirement to include a formal public consultation
during the audit process. It is vital that all key stakeholders
are independently interviewed during the audit process toprovide a complete picture of a company’s performance.
Access to remedy scored standards against their ability
to provide fair and transparent grievance and complaints
mechanisms, indicators included the presence of an
appeals procedure, ombudsman type processes and how
the standard addressed land disputes.
RSPO, HCS, MSPO, RSB, ISPO and ISCC have establishedcomplaints procedures. Surprisingly, SAN provides nomaterials on how this remedy can be obtained unless at
the micro- level through the farms grievance procedure.
Details of the systems and timelines for resolution vary
widely across the standards, where RSPO and ISCC offer
appeals procedures and ombudsman type processes
for mediation whilst MSPO and ISPO rely on nationallaws and bodies to deliver redress and compensation.
In terms of land disputes, all the standards except ISCC

RSPOOverall Total Score

8102

and ISPO turn to the FPIC standard to safeguard land
rights. If these two standards are to provide protection
to land rights holders this process must be integrated
into their certification schemes.

explored, with detailed and thoroughly explained
requirements for compliance, reflecting a broadconsideration of the social issues facing the industry
and communities affected by it.

or child labour. RSPO NEXT, on the other hand, tackles
the growing inequalities faced by migrant workers andoffers a forward-looking approach to eradicating gender
discrimination and harassment.

In general, the grievance mechanism is best definedwithin the RSPO system which has undergone a processof evolution based on the past decade of experienceand implementation of the standards principles andcriteria, providing on-line status updates of cases anda relatively high-level of transparency throughout
the complaints process.

The HCS Approach is not a stand-alone certification
scheme but has been included in this review as its
standard may apply to uncertified producers thatare supply companies seeking to demonstrate theircompliance with No Deforestation, No Peat, No
Exploitation commitments. HCA Approach draws heavily
on RSPO principles and criteria but to date lacks aclearly defined mechanism to ensure the calibre of social
assessments. Furthermore, the approach does not yet
provide standards on the treatment of smallholders,a shortcoming common across the certification scheme
landscape. Standards must address this core challenge
to provide credible protection and acknowledge
smallholder realities.

Both these new standards attempt to address thequestion of protecting smallholders’ rights whilst ensuringthat they also respect human rights. POIG articulates
specific guidance on smallholder support, including thedevelopment of a group certification plan, somethingechoed in the RSPO NEXT through its outreach program.
POIG crucially requires companies to develop a strategy
for smallholder inclusion in the supply chain which is apositive step forward for the development of smallholders.

Conclusion
The principal finding of the study is that the RSPO has
the most robust scheme for certification whilst the
ISPO has the weakest certification process and carries
the least requirements on social issues. Despite thestrength of elements of ISCC and SAN standards not all
the criteria are mandatory, whilst RSPO, ISPO and MSPO
require compliance with their principles and criteria tosuccessfully achieve certification. These considerations
have been taken into account when analysing the strengthof each corresponding provision.
MSPO and ISPO, whilst requiring compliance with theirrespective national legal frameworks, do not provide
the same level of protection that multi-stakeholderinternational certification schemes offer. This is mostapparent in the way in which ISPO and MSPO standards
provide very weak access to remedy compared to thecomplex multi-tiered approach of multi-stakeholders
initiatives to ensure that certification holders comply
with criteria set out in the standards.
The RSB standard has a lot of similarities with RSPO
standard, falling short on the protection of womenand migrant workers. Both standards offer the mostcomprehensive and nuanced approach to human rights
protections and social safeguards across the schemes

RSB

91

SAN

79

ISCC

68

HCS

66

MSPO

62

ISPO

34

FPP concludes that on paper the RSPO should be thestandard of choice when it comes to palm oil certification.
Building on its experience over the last ten years of
implementation, RSPO now provides the most robust
standard for palm oil certification, although as the study
reveals there are still some gaps. The main challenges
for RSPO are ensuring RSPO members actually apply thestandard in practice and the unreliability of challenge andremedy procedures when non-compliances are identified.
What next?
These differences caution against drawing conclusions
about the impact of different standards on the ground.
FPP notes that there is a significant shortfall in practiceof certification schemes upholding and enforcing theirstandards. Despite RSPO being the most outspoken on
the issue of gender, for instance, evidence from analysis
of RSPO audits and NGO investigations suggest that
abuses regarding terms and conditions of oil palm
plantation workers, including gender discrimination,
continue to be widespread.2
The RSPO NEXT, a set of ‘add on’ criteria to bolster RSPO
standard, and the development of the POIG certification
are encouraging steps forward for the industry. POIG
outlines specific requirements to strengthen foodsecurity and more detailed indicators related to workers’
rights in order to address the rising incidence of forced
2

Recommendations for RSPOIn view of the next revision in RSPO Principles and Criteria
and accompanying Certification Systems document,
which is to be concluded in 2018, FPP highlights somekey areas of needed improvement:• Audits: To avoid the current conflict of interest
experienced by auditors who are directly paid by thecompanies they are verifying, audits should be paid outof an ESCROW fund into which the companies seeking
certification pay their contributions. RSPO or a fourthparty should choose which audit teams are allocated towhich companies and arrange for them to be paid fromthe ESCROW account.
• Remedy: The provision of remedy to the communities
remains elusive for the loss of lands taken or damaged
and their resulting economic and environmental losses.
To bring itself into compliance with the norms for nonjudicial remedies set out by the UN Guiding Principles
on Business and Human Rights, a mechanism to hold
RSPO certified companied accountable for human rights
violations and other damages (even if the company
ceases to be RSPO-certified) is required. We recommend
the use of a bond. The bond would act as an agreement
between the certificate holder and RSPO to uphold thestandard’s principles and to provide remedy to a third
party in circumstances where these are violated.
• Human rights defenders: By using RSPO complaints
procedures, communities have been able to expose
land grabbing, violations of standards and humanrights abuses. This has allowed dialogues between

Amnesty International. The Great Palm Oil Scandal: Labour Abuses Behind Big Brand Names, Amnesty International (2016), London.

9

Executive Summarycompanies and the communities, but has also resulted
in the harassment and criminalisation of community
spokespersons and complainants. Proper protection
mechanisms must be put in place to avoid escalationsof violence.
• Smallholder protection: Promote the developmentof support mechanisms to reduce the barriers forsmallholders to adopt sustainable production
practices and RSPO certification.

A Comparison of Leading Palm Oil Certification Standards• RSPO governance: Indigenous people are poorly
represented in RSPO scheme’s governance, we
recommend the establishment of a Permanent
Indigenous Peoples Committee which liaises with
RSPO’s Board of Representatives to mirror similar
structures found in Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)
and the Aluminium Sustainability Initiative (ASI).

INTRODUCTION
Presented below is a structured, in-depth comparison of environmental
and social requirements of the leading palm oil certification standards.
The study highlights areas of commonality and difference, and draws
attention to noticeable gaps in each of the standards human rights
obligations. Our aim is to determine which of these standards provides
the most comprehensive coverage of social safeguards.
To make the comparison accessible, a theme-based approach has been
used, in which certification criteria are organized around 40 indicatorsreflecting priorities in terms of protection of customary rights, the fairtreatment of smallholders, core labour standards, quality assurance
and access to remedy.
The comparison has been divided into two parts. The first part compareseight different global certification standards where a quick-view, highlevel scoring of standards is provided, capturing overall features of how
the standards compare. The second part looks at two new certification
schemes RSPO NEXT and POIG which are not stand-alone standards
but build on the work of RSPO.

Disclaimer: This review has been carried out as a desk-based study of the documents that are available through thewebsites of the various schemes. Some schemes’ websites are quite hard to navigate and so this review may haveomitted reviewing some documents. We also recognise that all the schemes examined are constantly evolving, so thefindings soon go out of date. The views expressed are those of FPP and do not imply any endorsement of the findings
by other parties or by the sources cited. FPP would welcome any comments on this report. Comments should be sent to:
info@forestpeoples.org with the subject line: comparative study.

10

11

A Comparison of Leading Palm Oil Certification Standards

BACKGROUND ON EACH STANDARD
Roundtable on Sustainable
Palm Oil (RSPO)RSPO was formed in 2004 with the objective ofpromoting the growth and usage of sustainablepalm oil products through credible international
standards. It adopted its first Principles and Criteria(P&C) in 2005, revised them in 2007, and again in 2013.
They comprise of eight basic principles. The P&C’s
require compliance with key indicators (‘majors’) of all
criteria to gain RSPO certification. To claim compliancewith the P&C and achieve RSPO certification, growers
must be assessed by a third-party RSPO-accredited
certification body every five years, with an annual
audit for continued compliance.

Indonesian Sustainable
Palm Oil (ISPO)ISPO was established on 6th July 2009 to implement acertification policy system designed by the Indonesian
Ministry of Agriculture. In 2011 Indonesia’s Ministryof Agriculture decreed the mandatory Indonesian
Sustainable Palm Oil (ISPO) standard. Under ISPO, allproducers must bring operations into compliance withthe standard by 2014, or face risk of losing their license
to operate. ISPO is now part of the wider Sustainable
Palm Oil (SPO) Initiative, developed with the support of
the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).
By design, ISPO criteria are strongly aligned withexisting legal and regulatory requirements, and forthis reason it is sometimes referred to as Indonesia’s“legality standard” for palm oil. It requires fullcompliance with all criteria to gain ISPO certification.

12

Malaysian Sustainable
Palm Oil (MSPO)The Malaysian standard was published in September 2013.
MSPO provides general principles for the implementation,
establishment and improvement of the operational
practices of a sustainability system incorporated in
Malaysia to ensure the sustainable production of palmoil. Like the ISPO, the standard is strongly aligned withexisting national legal and regulatory requirements.
This standard currently covers the oil palm industry
supply chain comprising independent and organised
smallholders, plantations and oil palm mills. It requires
full compliance with all criteria to gain MSPO certification.

International Sustainability& Carbon Certification (ISCC)
ISCC is a biomass standard, it was fully financed bya government agency (German Federal Ministry ofFood, Agriculture and Consumer Protection) until
2012 when it became independent. ISCC is a systemfor certifying the biomass and bioenergy industries,
oriented towards the reduction of greenhouse gas
emissions, sustainable land use, protection of thenatural biosphere and social sustainability. We focus
on two ISCC certifications – ISCC EU and ISCC PLUS.
Only a subset of specified criteria must be met toachieve ISCC certification - It divides its criteria into
‘major’ and ‘minor’ musts, where all major and at least
60% of minor musts shall be met to achieve certification.
ISCC EU, a certification scheme developed in 2011,
was the first certification standard to demonstratecompliance with EU Renewable Energy Directive (RED)requirements1 which aims to ensure that biomass is notproduced at the expense of valuable natural habitats.
ISCC PLUS standard was published in 2012, and allows
producers under the ISCC EU to convert to certified food.
The system currently certifies over 3,000 operations
worldwide, of which at least 300 are palm related.
Both standards have been assessed and included
within the evaluation of ISCC standard.

of independent non-profit organisations that promotesocial and environmental sustainability which was formed
in 1997. Together these two organisations operate a
global system for certifying the sustainability of farms in avariety of sectors. In 2009 the Rainforest Alliance launched
its Sustainable Agriculture standard which continues
to be developed – in 2017 it published an updated
version. Only a subset of specified criteria must be met
for certification – it requires compliance with 50% of
criteria within each principle, and 80% of total applicable
criteria, except critical criteria, which must be fulfilled.

Roundtable on Sustainable
Biomaterials (RSB)
RSB was established in 2007. It launched its global
certification system in 2011 as a set of comprehensive
sustainability criteria to encourage the sustainableproduction of biofuels and other biomaterials. In 2013,
it increased its scope to include all biomaterials. It was
originally launched as a partnership between WWF
and biofuel/feedstock producers and was administeredby the University of Lausanne. RSB’s minimum
requirements require full compliance. Not all theprinciples and criteria apply equally to all operators.
RSB recognises the SAN standard which is implemented
by the Rainforest Alliance. Like ISCC, RSB certificatesare recognised by the EU’s RED initiative.

Sustainable Agriculture
Network (SAN)The Rainforest Alliance, established in 1987, aims tochange land use and business practices to reduce theirimpacts on biodiversity and local people. SAN is a coalition

1

High Carbon Stocks
Approach (HCS)The HCS Approach is a methodology designed to enable
companies to put their no deforestation commitments
into practice in their operations and supply chains. The
HCS Approach calls for the rigorous implementationof High Conservation Value (HCV) assessment, andmapping of peatland and riparian areas. It integrates
Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) processes forthe recognition of rights and interests of local communities.
The HCS Approach identifies types of HCS forest classthat require protection and prioritizes the allocationof two degraded land classes (low-carbon scrub areas
and open land) for any proposed development.
It is not conceived as a stand-alone certification systembut, as its social requirements are designed to be applied
to companies that are not part of certification schemes,
it is assessed here against the other schemes. In practice,most palm oil companies so far applying the HCSApproach in their own operations are also RSPO members.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32009L0028&from=EN

13

A Comparison of Leading Palm Oil Certification Standards

METHODOLOGYFor example, when testing the standard strength against
the indicator “Rights to water”, RSB standard scored 3
points, RSPO scored 2 points, HCS approach scored 1 point
and ISPO scored 0 points.

The study is based on a comprehensive analysis of the principles and criteria (andsupporting documentation) of nine palm oil certification schemes. FPP evaluatedthe requirements of each certification scheme’s standard, and the strength ofeach standard quality assurance.

Each standard’s strength was evaluated – therequirements that palm oil operations need to fulfil tobecome certified or recognised. This covers social andenvironmental safeguards, protections for customary
rights, provisions for smallholders to ensure fair treatment
and policies relating to discrimination and gender. The
quality assurance of each standard was considered i.e.
the rules and procedures that regulate how the standard
is implemented, assessed and governed. This includes
how the standard is audited and verified, the controlof the certification bodies, scheme governance andgrievance procedures.

FPP identified a total of 36 different indicators, across
six key themes, ranging from protection of human rights
defenders to requirements pertaining to minimum
wage for workers. Depending on the provisions of thecertification standard, each certification standard wasgiven a score between 0 and 3 based on the depth, detail,and stringency of requirements for compliance.
Treatment of each indicator was scored in accordancewith the following scoring methodology:

Key

Strong and clear requirements

3

Theme is addressed but
requirements less clear

2

Theme is not directly addressed
and/or requirements are not clearly
defined or comparatively lenient

1

Theme is not addressed
and/or no clearly definedrequierements

14

Points3 points: RSB standard, criteria 9d states “Operations
shall contribute to the enhancement or maintainingof the quality of the surface and ground water resources”,
furthermore, it includes a number of minimum requirements
relating to this criterion including minimum requirement 6
which asserts “for existing operation, degradation of water
resources that occurred prior to certification and for which
the participating operator is directly accountable shall bereversed. Wherever applicable, operators shall participate
in projects that aim to improve water quality at a watershedscale”. Such detailed and clear requirements earned the
RSB standard 3 points.
2 points: RSPO standard, criteria 4.4 states “Practices
maintain quality and availability of surface and groundwater, the water management plan will aim to ensure
local communities, workers and their families have accessto adequate, clean water for drinking, cooking, bathing
and cleaning purposes.” Whilst the indicator has beenaddressed, the specific requirements put on companies isless clear. Companies should aim to provide clean water,
yet, there is no requirement to enhance the quality ofwater. As a result, the RSPO scored 2 points.

When testing the indicator quality assurance against eachof the standards, RSPO scored 3 points, ISCC scored 2
points, ISPO scored 1 point.
3 points: Within the RSPO standard, public summaries
of audit reports are available on the RSPO website. RSPO
passed a resolution in November 2015 that committed
the organisation to ensuring the quality, oversight andcredibility of RSPO assessments by developing clear andmandatory guidelines and to improve the quality andperformance of all RSPO Certification Body’s auditorsand 3rd party assessors.
2 points: ISCC requires all six of its principles to be fulfilled
and audited. Under ISCC, compliance with the standard
is evaluated and certificates issued by accredited thirdparty certification bodies. Although in 2016, it was agreed
summaries of audit reports will be made publicly available
for each issued certificate, this has yet to come into effect.
Whilst the indicator has been addressed, the lack ofrealization of public summaries means that the standard
scores 2 points (as it does not offer the same level ofstringency as the RSPO standard).

1 point: HCS approach, module 2.1 (social and baseline
study) states “Access to water, health and education
facilities and other social and economic infrastructure
shall be considered…the social baseline study shalltake into account the potential impacts of the proposeddevelopment of…water quality and availability…overthe time frame of the development”. Water rights are only
considered there is no requirement to maintain or enhancewater quality, thus it is judged that the requirement iscomparatively lenient and only scores 1 point.

1 point: Within the ISPO framework, plantation andenvironmental management practices are assessed byindependent third-party auditors (from a government
approved certification body). ISPO audits are undertaken
in two stages, the first stage is an audit requiring
compliance with all legal plantation licences, the second
stage is a full plantation audit assessing all documentation
concerning adherence to ISPO’s Principles and Criteria.
ISPO Commission itself, not the certification bodies,issues certificates based on reviews of audit reports andrecommendations provided by the certification body.
However, there are no public summaries of these audit
reports. Whilst the indicator is addressed, it is unclear how
the audit process can undergo public scrutiny introducing
a high level of leniency to the process.

0 points: ISPO standard only states within it that “water is
to be monitored”. There are no clearly defined requirements.
MSPO standard does not mention water rights either
explicitly or implicitly and as a result also scores 0 points.

Information sources used were current standard
documents as well as publicly available information, or
accessible via standard organisation’s homepages andother relevant external organisations’ websites.

015

A Comparison of Leading Palm Oil Certification Standards

SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS
A. Customary Rights
RSPO

RSB

SAN

ISCC

HCS

MSPO

ISPO

Legality

3

3

2

3

1

3

1

Customary Rights

3

3

3

3

3

2

1

Land Tenure Study

3

2

3

3

3

3

1

Participatory Mapping

3

3

3

0

3

1

2

Free Prior Informed
Consent

3

3

3

0

3

3

0

Negotiated Agreements

3

3

3

2

3

3

1

Access to Information

3

1

3

1

2

3

1

No Coercion

3

2

2

0

2

2

0

Total Score

24

20

22

12

20

20

7

Legality
3 points: RSPO is explicit in its legal compliancerequirement. A principle is dedicated to legality
accompanied by an appendix listing social andenvironmental treaties applicable to countries that havesigned them. ISCC has a similarly all-encompassing
principle for legality, its social and labour criteria closely
mirror core ILO standards but this similarity is notmade explicit.2 RSB takes a similar approach to RSPO
explicitly stating in its first principle the legal compliancerequirement. As a regional standard, the MSPO3 does not16

offer the same level of legal compliance as RSPO, RSB and
ISCC because it is limited to the international laws ratified
by the State of Malaysia, nevertheless, the standard
requires subscribed parties to be in compliance with theapplicable local, state, national and ratified internationallaws and regulations.
2 points: SAN has a non-critical criterion for compliancewith national laws. Because it is non-critical, the criterion
is not binding for audit purposes, weakening the criterion
to a form of guidance rather than a requirement.

1 point: The development of criteria under ISPO was
driven initially by the goal to align its provision withIndonesia’s legal framework as closely as possible. Thissaid, it is not a legality standard so though compliancewith specific legal procedures are made explicit there
is no overarching principle requiring legal complianceas does the RSPO. Removal of any references to laws
or regulations that underlie many ISPO criteria has inpractice eliminated much of the detailed guidance onrequirements for complying with them. The HCS Approachturns to the UN Guiding Principles to guide companies
to comply with national laws and regulations protecting
human rights, but requirements are vague and only statethat “it is important to ground the HCS process within thesecompany obligations to respect…international laws”.
Recognition of community land rights – customary rights
3 points: RSPO, SAN, HCS, RSB and ISCC require thecompany to demonstrate a legal right to use land. RSPO,RSB and HCS have an additional provision wherebycompanies must prove absence of conflict over land
rights/use, create a map of the area displaying legal
use rights through participatory mapping, and provide
evidence that individuals with rights have had access to
information and advice, independent of the proponent,on the implications of the proposed development.
2 points: MSPO requires that where lands are encumberedby customary rights, “the company shall demonstrate thatthese rights are understood and are not being threatenedor reduced”. This said, it does not offer the same level ofprotection as other provisions and could be tightened toensure against illegal land acquisition.
1 point: ISPO does not require the land title process to
be documented and makes no reference to customary
rights allowing for certification of land grabs if the landacquisition process is not properly documented.
Land Tenure Study
3 points: RSPO, MSPO, ISCC, SAN and HCS provide strong
and clear requirements regarding land tenure and land
use assessments. SAN and ISCC include this provision

as a critical/major requirement for certification under
their respective schemes. MSPO, RSPO and HCS arecomparatively insistent on the importance of the inclusionof such provision.
2 points: RSB states that “if there are disputes about
the tenure agreement of the land among stakeholders,
operations shall not be certified”. This provision is morereactionary than premeditative in its prevention of humanrights abuses, unlike the standards detailed above.
1 point: ISPO provides no appropriate explanation in theindicator relating to land sustainability maps or soil surveys
to plan for long term suitability of the land for cultivationof oil palm. It does not detail how legal land boundaries
are to be mapped and preserved nor is there a measurable
indicator to map the status of lands in dispute.
Participatory Mapping
3 points: RSPO, RSB, HCS and SAN provide clear
guidelines on the participatory mapping process toindicate the location, boundaries and planned uses oflands and other resources over which communities havelegal, customary or use rights. RSB also states that in
the absence of participatory methodologies “satellite
images can help identify areas of cultivated land, andparticipatory mapping and transects can be undertakenwith residents to identify the spatial distribution of the
population and various land and resource uses”. It notes
the all members of the community must meaningfully
participate in the process.
2 points: ISPO follows Indonesian regulations whichrefer to the importance of the participatory approachand require participatory mapping to be conducted withaffected parties and with the involvement of the local
district office. However, details about how this process
is carried out remain ambiguous and the documentationof such a process is required in ISPO standard.
1 point: MSPO only requires maps of an appropriate scaledemonstrating the extent of recognised customary rights
to be made available. There is no indication of how these2

ISCC EU certification system requires compliance with the legal sustainability requirement specified in the RED - Renewable Energy Directive,
Directive 2009/28/EC - of the European Commission. For markets not regulated by RED or FQD (Fuel Quality Directive), ISCC PLUS requires
through an audit all farms and plantations to comply with relevant laws and regulations.

3

Both Malaysia and Indonesia have not endorsed ILO Convention 169 and thus do not offer the same level of protection to indigenous peoples
as multi-stakeholder initiatives like RSPO, HCS and RSB which cite this convention.

17

Summary of Key Findings

maps are made nor if they require a participatory process.
0 points: ISCC does not explicitly mention mapping or
participatory mapping in the standards requirements.
FPIC (Free Prior Informed Consent)
3 points: RSPO, RSB, SAN, HCS and MSPO provide
straightforward guidelines on the FPIC process.
0 points: ISPO standard does not require no land conflicts
in the development of palm oil plantations and does not
adopt the FPIC4 requirement. Despite Indonesian laws
and regulations on human rights, ISPO makes no explicit
reference to respecting these rights. ISCC makes no
explicit reference to FPIC process.
Negotiated agreements and inclusive participation
3 points: RSPO, RSB, SAN, HCS and MSPO all provide
requirements that the community may decide whether
to enter negotiations, and if negotiations do occur
between a community and a certified operator the termsof relinquishment of rights is clarified with the inclusionof the whole community. RSB states “FPIC shall form thebasis of all negotiated agreements for any compensation,acquisition or voluntary relinquishment of rights”, thisis mirrored in the other standards which provide foragreements to be documented and shared between all
relevant parties.

A Comparison of Leading Palm Oil Certification Standards

access information relevant to environmental, social andlegal issues. All three standards explicitly note that thisinformation should be in an appropriate language for
effective participation in decision-making.
2 points: HCS while allowing for ample documents to be
publicly available and sufficient time to be provided forthese to be processed and analysed by a community does
not specify the language in which the information should
be presented.
1 point: ISPO provides no indicator expressly obliging therequest and response of information to be maintained
and managed responsibly and transparently. RSB and
ISPO do not require for information to be presented in
the appropriate form or language. ISCC, while requiring
documentation of negotiations between communities
to be documented, relies on a self-declaration of goodsocial practice to provide for community access to
information, which poses problems particularly if there
is a conflict of interest.

2 points: RSB, MSPO, SAN and HCS all provide safeguards
against coercion, intimidation and duress to force
communities to alter existing land rights, however, they
do not go as far as RSPO standard in explicitly prohibiting
the use of private armies and paramilitaries.

1 point: ISPO does not recognise FPIC and does notfacilitate balanced negotiations between large plantationcompanies and local communities despite requiring
mutually agreed negotiation processes for land acquisitionand compensation within its requirements.5 ISPO fails toimprove the bargaining position of local communities innegotiation processes.6 ISPO only recognises customarycommunities if they are supported by local government
which may further induce social conflicts.7

0 points: ISPO does not require open and transparent
methods of communication and consultation between
affected parties or other interested parties. Likewise, ISCC
has no explicit safeguard against coercion. ISCC provides
for a self-declaration of good social practice where there
is a commitment to solve social conflicts but again it does
not state how this is to be achieved and whether the use offorce is to be prohibited.

18

All standards require their members to demonstrate thelegal right to use land. Critically, ISPO does not require thisprocess to be documented and instead it advocates oneoff consultations with communities, making it the weakest
standard in upholding basic land rights and customary
rights. RSPO, in contrast, has the most comprehensive
requirements for consultation and consent, emphasisingtransparency, participatory processes and strong

measures for proof of consultation, thereby seeking
to ensure respect for indigenous peoples’ right to selfdetermination.
Other standards fall between these two extremes. ISCC
does not require participatory mapping. SAN only requires
FPIC in critical activities when use rights are affected andnot in all communications with indigenous peoples. MSPO
lacks an explicit requirement to prevent coercion outsideof the context of FPIC. The absence of a requirement for allcommunications with communities to be recorded makes
the RSB standard a bit weaker than the RSPO standard.

No coercion
3 points: RSPO stands out as the only standard that
explicitly prohibits the use of mercenaries and paramilitaries where company policy should prohibit extrajudicial intimidation and harassment by contracted
security forces.

2 points: ISCC provides for a participatory social impact
assessment with two-way communication between
communities and local government through regularmeetings. This is only a minor consideration, it is notviewed as a critical requirement.

Access to information
3 points: RSPO, MSPO and SAN require that documents
are made publicly available so relevant stakeholders canand MSPO provisions on indigenous peoples, on theother hand, largely focus on land acquisition and on
requirements to ensure they are not taken advantage
of in the process.

Conclusion
ISCC, SAN and RSB make little specific reference toindigenous peoples. Instead, they quote international
conventions to safeguard indigenous rights. RSPO, HCS

4This is clearly not consistent with National Forestry Council Policy Recommendations on the implementation of FPIC and Indonesian National
REDD+ Strategy which requires a process and implementation of FPIC with communities affected by REDD+ proposed projects.

5

A NGO working with smallholders has demonstrated numerous examples where local communities did not actively participate innegotiations with companies at all, communities were unable to refuse new plantation establishments and instead had to accept thecompany’s plantations with negotiated compensation. The NGO notes that this situation did not only result from a lack of regulation about
the negotiation processes, but also from the way in which companies interpret existing ISPO regulations. For example, companies noted thatthey do follow the requirements to inform local communities, however often do not give a balanced overview of the situation (only referring
to potential positive impacts of establishing a plantation and ignoring potential negative ones) – see footnote 7.

6

Hidayat, N.K. et al, 2017. Sustainable palm oil as a public responsibility. On the governance capacity of Indonesian Standard for Sustainable
Palm Oil (ISPO).

7

Suharto, R. et al, 2015. Studi Bersama Persamaan dan Perbedaan Sistem Sertifikasi ISPO dan RSPO. Jakarta: Kementerian Pertanian Republik
Indonesia dan Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO).

19

Summary of Key Findings

A Comparison of Leading Palm Oil Certification Standards

B. Treatment of Smallholders

Fair Treatment of Smallholders

RSPO

RSB

SAN

ISCC

HCS

MSPO

ISPO

3

2

2

1

0

2

0

Fair Credit for Smallholders

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

Fair Prices for Smallholders

3

0

2

1

0

0

0

Smallholders Access to Market

1

2

0

0

0

0

0

Total Score

8

Fair treatment of Smallholders
3 points: RSPO provides the most comprehensive
protection for smallholders. Although other standards
provide standalone policies on smallholders they are notas stringent in considering smallholders’ needs. RSPO
requires fair and transparent dealings with smallholders,and smallholders to be considered in applicablemanagement planning.
2 points: RSB is one of the standards that provides a
standalone smallholder standard which requires the groupmanagement to provide that any common benefit is fairly
shared among all the group members. There is no mentionof transparency in these dealings although principles andcriteria are regularly audited. Nevertheless, it appears to
tailor the RSB global standard to the needs of smallholders
but relates more to their obligations rather than theirrights. SAN strives to ensure that certification is affordable,feasible and contributes to significant positive value tosmallholders’ farming operations. The standard provides
safeguards including freedom from discrimination, theright to organise and collectively bargain and payment ofat least the minimum wage. The standard also states that“less-advantaged group members, those in remote areas,
and those with limited literacy” will have access to training
and support to implement best practices outlined in the

20

4

4

2

0

2

0

SAN standard. To verify that each smallholder complies
with SAN standard, an internal control-system to evaluateeach member against the standard’s criteria is applied.
Under the SAN group certification approach, smallholders
are organised into groups that are managed and supported
by a group administrator. The criteria that apply to group
administrators who help smallholders achieve certification
are not deemed critical criteria, it can take up to three
years for these requirements to be addressed in which timesmallholders may face unfair treatment. MSPO requiresthat smallholders are appropriately trained, however it
offers little information on other rights i.e. that the impacts
and implication of how each scheme is managed is to bemonitored and reviewed.
1 point: ISCC is very prescriptive in the dealings withsmallholders, requiring fair and transparent contracts
to be in place. There is little mention of smallholders’rights, training schemes or benefit sharing.
0 points: To date the HCS method has not been adapted
to suit palm oil smallholders. A separate working
group has been set up to develop suitable guidance forsmallholders and HCS.8 ISPO has no specific measurable
indicator or standard for smallholders. Not all palm oil
plantations are eligible for an ISPO audit or certification

program. ISPO certification can only be filed by large
palm oil plantations. There are no specific measurable
indicators for partnerships with farmers, or that there
must be resources allocated to improve the productivity
or welfare of smallholders.
Fair Credit for Smallholders
1 point: RSPO, in its additional guidelines surrounding
smallholders’ states that “scheme smallholders while also
very diverse, are characterised as smallholders who are
structurally bound by contract, by a credit agreement orby planning to a particular mill”. It does not go into detailsurrounding these credit agreements and so cannot be
judged to be fair.
0 points: All other standards provide no information onwhether credit agreements are in place and what these
may look like.
Fair Prices for Smallholders
3 points: RSPO requires that smallholders are dealt
with fairly. Current and past prices of FFB shouldbe publicly available, contractual agreements areunderstood, payments are agreed and made in a timely
manner and any transactions made consider the roleof middlemen. Furthermore, smallholders should haveaccess to a grievance procedure if they consider they
are not receiving a fair price for FFB, whether middlemen
are involved or not.
2 points: SAN is the other standard that provides forfair prices for smallholders where a mechanism isimplemented for “the non-discriminatory calculationand distribution of revenues” to smallholders. However,this is not a critical criteria and for this reason has been
awarded only 2 points.
1 point: ISCC provides for fair and transparent
arrangements to be in place where “payments for harvest
are, calculated…and handed over to the contract farmer
for his/her record keeping. Provisions governing pricequality parameters are clearly defined in the contract”.
Further details on how this is calculated are not offeredand provide rather vague protection for smallholders.
0 points: RSB, ISPO, MSPO and HCS provide no significant
provisions that require that smallholders receive fair
prices for FFBs.
8

HCS Toolkit Version 2.0 - May 2017

Smallholder access to markets
2 points: RSB standard enables small-scale farmers
to access RSB-certified supply chains, however thesecome with their own set of restrictions – smallholders
are gathered as legal groups, with an appointed
representative.
1 point: Within RSPO, where there are scheme smallholders,
there shall be evidence that efforts and/or resources havebeen allocated to improve smallholder productivity. RSPO’s
Generic Guidance for Independent Smallholders under Group
Certification aims “to provide workable and equitable meansby which smallholders can get their produce certified sothey are not unfairly excluded from the emerging market”.
However, specific guidance on this is weak.
0 points: ISCC requires companies to offer training tosmallholders, but it is not stated whether this is specificallyto enable them better access to markets or to improve
productivity. Specific guidance on smallholder access tomarkets is missing. Similarly, SAN has made several steps toinclude smallholder in its certification standard where manyof the requirements in the SAN standard are not applicableto smallholders. However, how this specifically guarantees
fair access to emerging markets is unclear. MSPO, ISPO andHCS similarly provide little guidance on this matter.
Conclusion
Much improvement is needed across the board. HCS
approach has yet to be adapted to smallholders, whilst
ISPO has no requirements at all for smallholders. MSPO
is only slightly better in requiring all smallholders toreceive training to improve productivity. Meanwhile, RSB
provides its own smallholder standard with its own set of
restrictions which may limit their access to markets andfair treatment. Alarmingly, none of the standards offer
fair credit to smallholders who often need to replant andincrease yields to access financial support at the expenseof the environment.
Standards need to be reformed if smallholder palm oil
productivity is to grow while mitigating negative social andenvironmental impacts. Even though RSPO has broader
and more tightly defined requirements on responsibilities
towards smallholders, the significant shortfall between
RSPO compliance costs, the ability to secure fair credit, andaccess to higher premium markets creates a disincentive
for smallholders to become certified.

21

Summary of Key Findings

A Comparison of Leading Palm Oil Certification Standards

C. Social and Environmental Safeguards
RSPO

RSB

SAN

ISCC

HCS

MSPO

ISPO

Social Development

2

3

3

1

1

3

2

Protection of HRDs

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

SEIAs

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

Participatory SEIAs

3

3

3

3

3

3

1

Rights to Food

1

3

1

3

3

0

0

Rights to Water

2

3

1

3

1

0

0

Rights to a Clean Environment

2

3

1

1

1

2

1

Total Score

14

18

12

14

12

11

7

Social Development – Community benefits
3 points: RSB provides that in regions of poverty, thesocio-economic status of impacted local stakeholders
should be improved, encouraging the participationof indigenous communities in the design andimplementation of such projects. MSPO requires growers
to contribute to local development in consultation withlocal communities and SAN requires growers to support
identified needs and priorities of the community.

customary community and culture. ISPO requires 20%of a plantation area to be developed for the community,
which follows the national law, and that the company
empowers indigenous peoples, supports local business,and contributes to community development. Again,
there is no mention of consultation with the community,
opening the possibility for social development projects
to be imposed on communities rather than with theirconscious involvement.

2 points: RSPO is less forceful with its words stating
growers should only contribute to local sustainable
development where appropriate, it does not specificallymention the inclusion of the community in this process.
This said, it does provide for positive discrimination infavour of local communities. ISPO members are required
to have a program for increasing the welfare of local

1 point: ISCC approach to social development is throughincentivising employees, families and communities forwork-related performance. Other standards require
growers to support the communities where they work.
ISCC is slightly different, whilst it does require that all
children living on the farm should have access to quality
primary education, other forms of social development

22

such as the provision of health care services, social
support, or professional development training, are only
required where communities maintain responsible
relations with the grower/employer. HCS acknowledges
the developmental aspirations and options of affected
communities and local stakeholders but only through theiraccess to information as opposed to concrete measures toimprove their welfare.
Protection of human rights defenders
1 point: RSPO passed resolution 6e (2016) on the“Protection of human rights defenders, whistle-blowers,
complainants and community spokesperson”. The
resolution has yet to be put into effect. It is the only
standard currently developing a HRD protocol to protect
human rights defenders and fundamental freedoms.
0 points: All other standards have no specificrequirements protecting human rights defenders.
Social and Environmental Impact Assessments (SEIAs)
3 points: RSPO, RSB, ISCC, MSPO require that independent
environmental and social impact assessments are
conducted prior to land conversion. SAN goes one
step further and integrates SEIAs into developments
and expansion plans. HCS approach requires baseline
study reports from both socio-economic and biologicaland ecological surveys. ISPO evaluates impacts tothe environment through AMDAL, UKL, HCV and UPL
assessments. Social impacts are not evaluated separately
but are covered in the AMDAL and HCV assessments.
Participatory SEIAs
3 points: RSPO, RSB, MSPO, ISCC, SAN and HCS provide
safeguards for participatory social impact assessments
enabling meaningful stakeholder engagement.
1 point: ISPO makes to explicit requirement thatassessments are participatory but AMDAL procedures dorequire assessors to interview impacted communities.
There is no indicator to mitigate the negative impacts
on communities or indigenous groups identified byassessments or to monitor the identified impacts.
Right to food – Local Food Security
3 points: HCS, RSB and ISCC all mention food security
explicitly. HCS requires that areas, which are part ofactive subsistence food production cycles to meet the

food security needs of communities, are enclaved fromconsideration as HCS forest or plantation development.
ISCC provides safeguards to guarantee that biomass
production does not impair food security. RSB goes evenfurther, requiring assessments and mitigation plans to
reduce risks of food security in the region and locality
resulting from operations. Where assessments indicate
food security is at risk, “operations shall enhance the local
food security of the directly affected stakeholders”.
1 point: RSPO provides definitions and some guidanceon livelihoods in which it notes that this is the means inwhich communities “assure themselves and following
generations secure access to food”. Specific indicators,
however, are lacking. Livelihoods are mentioned inindicators relating to SEIAs and RSPO’s New Planting
Procedure, however, these only acknowledge potential
scarcity of food resources and do not provide instructions
to mitigate against the possible lack of access to food.
SAN, similarly, acknowledges how proposed plantation
operations can diminish community rights over landfor primary subsistence activities but only requires forcommunity members to be made aware of this fact in
the FPIC process.
0 points: ISPO and MSPO offer no indicator to assess
the food security needs of communities, nor require any
consideration of the positive and negative changes tothe source of livelihood of communities resulting fromplanned plantation activities.
Rights to water
3 points: RSB and ISCC are the only standard to explicitly
reference water rights. RSB states “operations shallcontribute to the enhancement or maintaining of thequality of the surface and ground water resources”,
furthermore, it includes a number of minimum
requirements relating to this criterion which assert“for existing operation, degradation of water resourcesthat occurred prior to certification and for which theparticipating operator is directly accountable shallbe reversed. Wherever applicable, operators shallparticipate in projects that aim to improve water quality
at a watershed scale”. ISCC requires the producer torespect existing water rights, both formal and customary,and must justify irrigation activities considering
accessibility of water for human consumption.

23

Summary of Key Findings

2 points: Although RSPO requires HCV assessments whichshould identify and protect critical ecosystem services(HCV4), the RSPO standard’s only explicit safeguard ofwater rights is the requirement that whereby “Practices
maintain quality and availability of surface and groundwater, the water management plan will aim to ensure
local communities, workers and their families have accessto adequate, clean water for drinking, cooking, bathing
and cleaning purposes”. The specific requirements put
on companies is unclear.
1 point: HCS approach states “Access to water, healthand education facilities and other social and economic
infrastructure shall be considered…the social baseline
study shall take into account the potential impactsof the proposed development of…water quality andavailability…over the time frame of the development”.
Water rights are only considered, there is no requirement
to maintain or enhance water quality. This is mirroredin the SAN standard where water rights only have to be
identified in the FPIC process, no guidance is offered on
how this should be protected.
0 points: ISPO standard only states within it that“water is to be monitored”. There are no clearly definedrequirements. MSPO standard does not mention waterrights either explicitly or implicitly.
Rights to a clean environment
3 points: RSB offers the most comprehensive protection of
the environment. RSB requires provisions for conservation
values and ecosystem functions to be maintained andenhanced. Operations shall protect, restore and create
buffer zones. Ecological corridors shall be protected andrestored and operations shall implement practices tomaintain and enhance soil conditions.
2 points: RSPO offers protection but less comprehensively
whereby the standard mitigates against any negativeenvironmental impacts, where waste is reduced,

A Comparison of Leading Palm Oil Certification Standards

recycled, re-used and disposed of in an environmentally
responsible manner. HCV habitats existing in a plantation
are identified and operations managed “to best ensure
they are maintained and/or enhanced”. MSPO provides
similar safeguards including a programme to promote thepositive impacts of environmental management whichmust be included in the continual improvement plan.
1 point: SAN, ISCC and HCS recognise the negative
impacts to the environment that operations may cause
but offer very little in guidance over how these should
be mitigated in the long term. ISPO provides indicators
to monitor environmental impacts but the details of amonitoring protocol and what constitutes best practice isabsent from the standard.
Conclusion
In terms of environmental standards, ISCC provides themost restrictive safeguards particularly when addressing
peat land conversion, while RSPO is stronger on the social
impact of palm oil. MSPO provides strict standards forplantation management while ISPO is based on existing
Indonesian regulations that pertain to palm oil cultivationand processing, and is by far the weakest at reducing thenegative environmental and social impacts of palm oil.
RSPO standard, by comparison, provides some of the mostrestrictive requirements on land use rights, customary
rights, core labour standards and the rights and wellbeingof people affected by plantations. RSB standard also
draws a lot of similarities with RSPO standard and is themost progressive in its approach to food security andwater rights, something which should be mirrored in all
the standards.
It is worth noting that RSPO is the only standard
pioneering work on human rights defenders although thedetails of the resolution, passed in November 2016, have
yet to be published.

D. Core Labour Standards
RSPO

RSB

SAN

ISCC

HCS

MSPO

ISPO

Conditions and Benefits

3

3

3

3

3

3

1

Minimum Wage

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

Free Collective Barganing

3

3

3

3

3

2

2

No Child Labour

3

3

3

3

3

2

2

No Slavery-Like Practices

3

3

3

3

2

0

0

Contracting Third Parties

2

3

2

2

2

2

2

Accessible Grievance Mechanisms

3

3

2

1

0

1

0

Protection of Migrant Labour

3

0

1

1

1

0

0

Total Score

23

21

20

19

17

13

8

Conditions and benefits
3 points: RSPO, RSB, MSPO, ISCC, SAN and HCS provide
multiple safeguards requiring safe working conditions, fair
employment conditions and social benefits. These range
from access to health and education services for family
members to the provision of safe working conditions
through training and education programs integrated into
the standard or as standalone labour policies.
1 point: ISPO only provides one criterion relating to the welfare
of workers. There is no requirement for employee contracts
to be fair, legal and transparent, the standard only states that
employees/workers must be enrolled in the government’ssocial security program, as per applicable regulations.

24

Minimum Wage
3 points: All standards provide for workers to be
paid minimum wage, many also require that certain
benefits are included in the contract. RSPO has a listof benefits that need to be accounted for (including
overtime, insurance, sick and maternity leave) in oneof its indicators but fails to provide further guidanceon these benefits. ISCC provides more specific detailon working hours but again these are ranked as “minor
musts” weakening the strength of the criteria. SAN is
the only standard to provide instruction on severance.
ISPO requires employees/workers to be enrolled in theemployee social security program as per Indonesian
regulations.9 MSPO provides for a health policy plan to25Summary of Key Findings

be documented and effectively implemented for workers
and other forms of social benefits to be offered to
employees and their families including bonus payments
and medical care. HCS and RSB turn to international
labour conventions to set out their labour best practice.
Free collective bargaining
3 points: All standards have criteria supporting theemployees/workers’ right to form trade unions andbargain collectively. RSPO, MSPO and ISPO mention thatthe company should facilitate the means for workers toestablish such unions. RSPO, ISCC, SAN, RSB and HCS allrefer to ILO Conventions to guide such policies.
2 points: ISPO and MSPO offer the weakest policies
as they both provide no details on how workers areencouraged to join unions or indicators detailing how
meetings with workers’ representatives/trade unions
are to be documented.
No child labour
3 points: SAN provides the most detailed guidance onchild labour, the safeguards provided for different age
groups and the corresponding work restrictions. RSPO,ISCC and RSB provide clear guidelines, all referring to
ILO Conventions to further define their position on childlabour. HCS has less clear guidelines but again refers tointernational law for guidance.
2 points: ISPO has a general criterion prohibiting childlabour, but it does not provide any information on age
or categories and associated restrictions. MSPO is the
only standard that does not provide a specific criterion
dedicated to child labour, but companies receiving MSPO
certificates are expected to have a separate policy banningchild labour, and companies are required to document
and record the workers’ date of birth.
No slavery-like practices
3 points: RSPO, ISCC, RSB, and SAN all have mandatory
criteria prohibiting use of forced labour.
2 points: HCS turns to international conventions toprotect workers against slavery-like practices.
0 points: ISPO makes no mention of forced labour in thestandard’s indicators. MSPO also lacks a specific criterion
and only states that “the management shall establish

26

A Comparison of Leading Palm Oil Certification Standardsa policy on good social practices regarding human rights
in respect of industrial harmony” but it is unclear what
this translates to in practice.

but this is not as watertight as those provided by RSPOand RSB and does not detail how such a system should
function and how it can be accessed by workers.

Contracting third parties
3 points: RSB requires employers to implement
mechanisms to safeguard human rights and labour
rights outlined in international conventions and thatthese are equally applied when labour is contracted
through third parties.

1 point: MSPO and ISCC require complaints forms to beavailable on site where employers can make a complaint.
Further details are not provided by MSPO. This is only
a minor consideration under ISCC.

2 points: MSPO, RSPO, ISCC, HCS and SAN all provide
protections for third party contractors but make noreference to mechanisms to guarantee they are applied.
ISCC require that any engagement with subcontractors
must fully comply with ISCC’s sustainability requirements.
HCS indicators are less binding and only solicit developers
to monitor compliance of contractors with theirrequirements. MSPO offers some level of protection wheremanagement must provide evidence of agreed contracts
with third parties who are responsible for their wellbeing(questions should be asked of the independence of sucha mechanism and the potential biases that could arise
in reporting). RSPO commits growers to ethical conductof business operations including stand-alone policies
relating to workers’ rights to be communicated with alllevels of the workforce. Nevertheless, there is very little
guidance specific to temporary workers. SAN provides
provision whereby farmers are not to “engage
in arrangements or practices designed to eliminate or
reduce pay benefits due to workers being temporary”.
No mechanism is offered as to how this will be regulated.

0 points: HCS does provide for grievance mechanisms
which aim to ensure that misunderstandings (such as
those between communities and operators) do not
escalate into disputes. Such grievance mechanisms need
to be agreed in advance to address complaints that arise
under HCS social requirements. There is not a grievancemechanism which tackles problems that may arise in theworkplace which is open to all workers and contracted
workers. Similarly, ISPO offers no grievance mechanism
for workers. The only grievance mechanism is related toland disputes and compensation. Indonesian national law
does provide protection to workers but this is not explicitly
stated in the standard.
Protection of migrant labour
3 points: RSPO offers the most comprehensive protection
for migrant and trans-migrant workers, the standard
protects their right to bargain collectively, requires
operators to have special labour policies relating
to migrants rights and obliges separate employment
agreements to be undertaken to meet immigration
requirements for foreign workers and observationof international standards.

1 point: ISCC and SAN bracket migrant workers into
the term ‘temporary worker’ where reference to theirrights are scant. They rely on the operator to be awareof its obligations under national and international law,and to act in accordance with this. HCS does include
migrant workers in their safeguards relating to collective
bargaining requirements but there is no reference toseparate employment agreements or other protection
measures.
0 points: RSB, ISPO and MSPO provide no guidance orprotection of migrant workers.
Conclusion
Almost all standards have strong provisions for employee
contracts that must be fair and clearly understood,
provide minimum wage requirements, support workers’
rights to form trade unions and bargain collectively. Thatsaid, relatively weak protection is offered to migrant
workers, something especially troubling given the highreliance of many plantations on migrant labourers.
ISPO is noticeably poor on labour standards whichraises concern about the exploitation of workers within
Indonesia particularly considering reports of forced andchild labour on plantations.10 The standard simply statesthat child labour is prohibited, but offers no further details
on the restrictions for different age groups or even until
what age one is considered a child.

0 points: ISPO standard does not contain an indicatorthat specifically defines labour policies or human rights
policies and procedures relating to temporary workers.
Although company operations are expected to be in linewith national law.
Accessible grievance mechanisms
3 points: Both RSPO and RSB provide for easily accessible
grievance mechanisms open for all workers andcontracted workers. RSPO provides a transparent systemthat this is a mutually agreed and accepted by all affectedparties where complaints can be submitted anonymously.
2 points: Under SAN standard, employers should
implement complaints and grievance mechanisms,

The Indonesian government’s mandatory employee social security program, Jamsostek, is a retirement pension fund and provides limited
employee disability, death, and medical benefits.
10
https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/asa21/5184/2016/en/
927

Summary of Key Findings

A Comparison of Leading Palm Oil Certification Standards

E. Gender and discrimination
RSPO

RSB

SAN

ISCC

HCS

MSPO

ISPO

No Discrimination

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

Protection of Women

2

0

0

0

3

0

0

No Sexual Harassment

3

2

2

0

3

2

0

Total Score

8

No discrimination
3 points: All standards have mandatory criteria
prohibiting discrimination. Each standard lists a distinct
set of grounds that could potentially serve as basis fordiscrimination, including race, religion, caste, social class,nation of origin, disability, sexual origin, disability, sexual
orientation, union membership, political affiliation, age,gender, colour, civil status or ethnic group. RSPO, HCS11
and ISCC12 standards require an equal opportunity policythat is made publicly available and which is accessible,
transparent and translated into local languages where
necessary. SAN13 provides several critical must criteria
which span this area referencing ILO Conventions 100
and 111. It states that equal pay, training and promotion
opportunities must be made available to all workers forthe same type of work. RSB14, ISPO15 and MSPO, on theother hand, offer more generic policies where companies
are requested not to engage or support any discriminatory
practices. There is no mention as to whether these policies
should be made public or not.
Gender sensitive complaints procedure/Protection of women
3 points: HCS approach provides that wherever there isa non-negligible proportion of women in the workforce,developers establish a gender committee managed by
women to address their problems.
2 points: RSPO provides a gender sensitive complaints

28

5

5

3

9

5

3

birth”, guidance on sexual harassment is less explicit,
applying to a work-related set of circumstances rather
than encompassing the broader threats women may
face on a plantation.16
0 points: ISCC makes no mention of tackling sexual
harassment or protecting reproductive rights other thanto say the person responsible for good social practice
should demonstrate awareness of national regulations
on maternity leave. ISPO is similarly lacking in indicators
relating to harassment or violence against women, again
relying on Indonesian law to act as the guide.
Conclusion
ISCC, RSB, ISPO and MSPO do not have any criteria
specifically aimed at protecting women but they

do include gender in their categories for which
discrimination is not permitted. RSPO and HCS are
the only standards that have a policy specifically
aimed at protecting women from sexual harassmentin the workplace and at supporting their reproductive
rights. Both standards also state the need to havea company policy specifically aimed at addressing
gender-based abuses.
All standards have mandatory criteria prohibiting
discrimination, but definitions of what constitutes
discrimination vary widely. Whilst RSPO, ISCC and HCS
require publicly available equal opportunity policies,
ISPO and MSPO require more generic commitments fromcompanies who are requested not to engage or support
discriminatory practices.17

mechanism in so far as the grievance mechanism respects
anonymity and protects complainants where requested.
0 points: Though RSB, ISPO, MSPO, ISCC and SAN
reference gender in their non-discrimination policies,
within their standards there is no acknowledgementof the need for specific indicators to be in place toprotect women in the workplace.
No sexual harassment/Protection of reproductive rights
3 points: RSPO and HCS offer strong safeguards against
harassment and abuse in the workplace. RSPO has
additional provisions to promote equality for womenin land rights and smallholder schemes.
2 points: RSB guarantees that work sites are safe
for women, “free from sexual harassment and otherdiscrimination and abuse” whilst promoting “access tojobs, skills training, recruitment and career development
for women to ensure more gender balance in work andcareer development”. MSPO states that “The management
shall establish a policy and provide guidelines toprevent all forms of sexual harassment and violence at
the workplace”. In both cases, reproductive rights are
not specifically mentioned. SAN is the opposite; whileproviding strong guidance on reproductive rights where“pregnant women who are active workers receive fullypaid maternity leave of at least 12 weeks before or after
birth, with at least six of these weeks being taken after

Provisions on indigenous people largely focus on land acquisition and provide requirements that indigenous people are not taken advantage
of in the process (same applies to RSPO and MSPO).
12ISCC makes little reference to indigenous people; they are included only once when defining what level of human activity defines visible
indications of human activity. Otherwise, there are a few mentions of traditional land rights and uses in criteria that require that appropriate
measures are taken to acquire land rights and soil management.
13
SAN makes no specific reference to indigenous or tribal people, but does state several ILO Conventions that were adapted to form thestandard, including ILO Conventions 87 and 98 and Convention 169 concerning indigenous and tribal people. The standard instead uses
the more all-encompassing term community.
14
RSB refers to similar international conventions as SAN to act as safeguards for indigenous peoples’ rights.
15
ISPO has provisions for specifically looking out for their welfare by providing employment and preserving local knowledge. ISPO hasa criterion that requires companies to improve the welfare of indigenous people, with indicators including a program designed andimplemented to do such, including establishment of a program to preserve local knowledge. Guidance includes providing employment
opportunities for indigenous people. ISPO also mentions indigenous people in the list of categories of people not to be discriminated against.
16“The farm does not use extortion, debt, threats or sexual abuse or harassment, or any other physical or psychological measure to force
workers to work or stay on the farm, or as a disciplinary measure.”
17
There is no mention of whether or not these should be made public.
11

29

Summary of Key Findings

A Comparison of Leading Palm Oil Certification Standards

F. Quality Assurance
RSPO

RSB

SAN

ISCC

HCS

MSPO

ISPO

Quality Assurance
Procedures

3

3

2

2

1

1

1

Independent Thirdparty Verification

3

3

3

3

0

3

3

Accreditation of
Certifiers

3

3

3

3

0

1

1

Assessor Licensing

3

2

3

2

1

1

1

Formal Public
Consultation During
Audit

3

3

1

1

0

1

1

Total Score

15

14

12

11

2

7

7

Strength of quality assurance procedures
3 points: RSPO relies on accredited outside third parties,
certification bodies, to assess compliance and issue acertificate. Accreditation of certification bodies is renewed
annually, and is carried out by an independent third
party – Accreditation Services International (ASI). RSB
has a comparable assurance system which is comprisedof an Accreditation Body (AB – again ASI), Certification
Bodies (CBs) and auditors, who are either employed or
subcontracted by CBs.

made publicly available for each issued certificate, thishas yet to come into effect. SAN also relies on accredited
third parties to lead the verification and certification
process, including determining applicability of eachcriterion to an individual farm/plantation, undertaking
audits, and issuing certificates. This is carried out bycertification bodies accredited by the International
Organic Accreditation Service (IOAS). However, SAN
does not require for the public summaries of the audit
reports making the process far less transparent.

2 points: ISCC has a similar assurance system tothat of RSPO and RSB, comprising of a two-tiered
system involving various certification bodies and an
accreditation body, ANSI (American National Standards
Institute), which renews CBs licences. The ISCC standard
has strong links to other European Commission
Standards and has a strong focus on a cross-compliance
control system. ISCC requires all six of its principles tobe fulfilled and audited. Under ISCC, compliance withthe standard is evaluated and certificates issued byaccredited third-party certification bodies. Although in
2016, it was agreed summaries of audit reports will be

1 point: ISPO relies upon accredited third-party
certification bodies to conduct audits, but the ISPO
Commission18 itself (not the CB) issues certificates basedon reviews of audit reports and recommendations
provided by the CB. MSPO carries out a similar system
whereby MSPO-approved auditors verify assessments
through physical inspection if required. Auditors areaccredited by MSPO Commission. In both cases the ISPO
and MSPO commission maintains a high level of control
over the entire certification process, from standardsetting through to certification decisions raisingquestions surrounding independence. In both cases,

30

there are no public summaries of audit reports. Whilst
the indicator is addressed, it is unclear how the audit
process can undergo public scrutiny introducing thethreat of leniency to the process. HCS system is slightly
different, whereby the concession-holder submits theassessment to the HCS Approach Secretariat to organise
peer review. This itself poses its own ethical problems.
The concession-holder pays the Secretariat the quality
review fee, but does not hire the reviewers directly. The
Secretariat selects the Peer Review Panel, a group of 2-3
people with expertise in image analysis, forestry andsocial issues/community rights. Potential conflicts ofinterest with panel members should be avoided but are
not ruled out.
Independent third-party verification
3 points: RSPO, RSB, ISPO, MSPO, ISCC and SAN all
require accredited experienced external third parties,
certification bodies, to provide assessment, verificationand certification against each standard.
0 points: HCS is not a certification scheme per se, so
it does not have a process of independent third-party
verification by accredited certification bodies.
Accreditation of certifiers
3 points: RSPO and RSB are accredited by ASI. ISCC
is accredited by ANSI. SAN is accredited by IOAS.19
1 point: ISPO requires that the Certification Body
has implemented ISPO 17021-2011 concerning therequirements for certification bodies providing auditing
and certification of management systems and/or ISPO/
IEC 17065 concerning the requirements for certifying
products, processes, and services. The distinction
is in the organisation that gives the approval. ISPO
Certification Bodies are accredited directly by ISPO
Commission. MSPO certification bodies are similarly
accredited directly by MSPO Commission. These
commissions are not independent of ISPO/MSPO, thus

giving both standards an elevated level of control overthe entire certification process from standard setting
through to certification decisions.
0 point: HCS Approach’s long-term goal is to have the HCSApproach incorporated into relevant certification systemstandards (such as RSPO). Meanwhile, assessors carryingout combined HCS/HCV assessment are subject to the
HCV Resource Network’s Assessor Licensing Scheme.20
Quality assurance of assessor (assessor licencing)
3 points: RSPO uses the HCV Resource Network’s Assessor
Licensing Scheme (ALS) which evaluates the qualityof HCV assessment reports produced by teams led by
an ALS-licensed assessors. RSPO will require licenced
assessors for all HCV assessment carried out in the context
of new planting procedures. A full HCV assessor licence isobtained after leading two assessments and submitting
two adequate HCV assessment reports. To maintain a fulllicence, the assessor is required to submit the reports ofall HCV assessments to the ALS Quality Panel (failure to
do so can result in suspension or revocation of licence) –A Quality Manager reviews applications and a Quality
Panel evaluates reports for compliance with ALS
procedures – stakeholders also have access to public
summary. In 2016, SAN also became a full member of
HCV Resource Network. In October 2017 the Rainforest
Alliance became the sole owner and operator of the
SAN certification scheme.
2 points: Within ISCC standard auditors should
comply with the requirements of the ISAE 300021
when performing an ISCC audit. The requirements
and regulations for CBs are specified in internal
documentation.22 It also provides for ISCC Integrity
Assessments which are planned randomly or on a risk
basis after risk evaluations, complaints or reports of nonconformity or fraud. Integrity Assessments are conductedby ISCC Integrity Auditors and can take place in any
country where CBs carry out activities and audits in the

The ISPO commission consist of members of the highest level of the central administrative structure (ESELON I) from the Ministries ofAgriculture, Environment and Forestry, and Agrarian and Spatial Planning.
19
The accreditation bodies (ABs) which monitor the activities of the certification bodies and companies’ compliance of RSPO (ASI), RSB(ASI), ISCC (ANSI) and SAN (IOAS) standards all demonstrate ISO/IEC 17011 compliance. ANSI and IOAS are signatories to the International
Accreditation Forum (IAF) and ASI is a full member of the ISEAL Alliance.
20
HCV Assessor Licensing Scheme - https://www.hcvnetwork.org/als/home
21
ISAE 3000 is the standard for assurance over no-financial information issued by the International Federation of Accountants. The standard
consists of guidelines for the ethical behaviours, quality management and performance of ISAE 3000 engagement.
22
Specified documents include ISCC Plus 251 and ISCC Plus 252.
18

31

Summary of Key Findings

A Comparison of Leading Palm Oil Certification Standards

framework of ISCC. ISCC Integrity Auditors must
be independent and free of any conflicts of interest.
The ISCC Integrity Auditor carries out an evaluation of
the conformity of the certified system user based on theapplicable ISCC procedure documents. The results of thisassessment are then compared with the CB’s audit reportfrom the last regular certification audit. RSB assurance
system is carried out by auditors who are either
employed or contracted by certification bodies,
they must comply with RSB Procedure for Certification
Bodies and Auditors.

a certification body. The NPP notifications are postedon the RSPO website to enable stakeholders to provide
comments during a 30-day consultation period. After the
consultation period, companies start clearing land. RSPO
places responsibility for sharing assessment summaries
at the local level with companies. This effectively mean
local stakeholder consultation is done by the party witha vested interest and is not fully independent. Publiccomments submitted during the consultation period arereferred to the plantation company even where there isevidence of substantial violations.

1 point: ISPO audit teams23 should consist of auditors who
understand licensing requirements, palm oil plantations,
good management practices, occupational health andsafety systems, have an awareness of environmental,social and economic issues. They should speakIndonesian, and understand ISO 19011 on managing audit
systems. ISPO auditors must also pass a training courseorganised by the ISPO Commission and run by a training
institution approved by ISPO Commission. MSPO auditors
undergo a similar process, they will carry out an annual
surveillance audit each year which is peer reviewed.
The HCS Approach Steering Group now requires all new
HCS Approach assessments to be combined with HCV
assessments. All lead assessors carrying out combined
HCS/HCV assessment are subject to the HCV Resource
Network’s Assessor Licensing Scheme.

1 point: A requirement under Indonesian law involves“public consultation with the relevant stakeholders”.24
According to Law Number 32 of 2009 concerning theProtection and Management of the Environment, for land
larger than 3,000 hectares, it is compulsory to have anenvironmental Impact Assessment (AMDAL) and Social
Impact Assessment, something which ISPO standard
adheres to. This said, it is a one-off consultation and does
not require formal public consultations at each audit. If
land conflicts do arise, it is up to the National Land Board
to manage land issues and community related conflicts.
MSPO also has stakeholder consultation but unlike ISPO
this is during the certification process, following theStage 1 of the audit process. It is a one-off consultation,although stakeholders are notified 30 days prior to thefield visit, there are seven further stages of the audit
process that occur before certification.25 All certified
premises are subject to one annual surveillance audit,
these require public consultation only in case of minor
or major non-conformities raised by stakeholders. Within
ISCC audit process, operators are assessed in compliancewith the standards six principles, interviews with relevant
stakeholders “should be implemented as far as possible”
in relation to compliance with collective agreements. SAN
standards, like MSPO only requires public consultation
with all relevant stakeholders if there has been a minor or
major non-conformance raised.

Formal public consultation required during audit process
3 points: RSB standard requires that the audit teamconducts a stakeholder consultation for all certification
and re-certification audits. Certification bodies should
keep records of stakeholder consultation conductedduring the audit process. The lead auditor conducts
a stakeholder consultation appropriate to the certification
scope, risk class and screening results. Stakeholder
consultations are designed to solicit direct, factual
observations with regard to compliance of the operator
with the RSB standard. RSPO allows for public stakeholder
consultation at the compliance stage of the certification
process. If a member meets the criteria, Certification
Bodies can issue a certificate, they assess Corrective
Action Requests on an annual basis through surveillance
audits. The assessments required by RSPO’s New Plantings
Procedure are carried out by independent consultancies
or other technical service organisations. They are thensubmitted to RSPO following a desk-based review by

32

0 points: Within the HCS approach, the Quality
Assurance Working Group is discussing how informationfrom local stakeholders can be incorporated into themonitoring of ICLUP implementation, in particular
the social considerations. Stakeholders could accessand potentially upload information about possible
problems with communities or land use change withinconservation areas.

Conclusion
RSB, ISCC, SAN and RSPO apply a two-tiered system
involving various certification and accreditation bodies.
SAN and ISCC, on the other hand, do not require for public
summaries of the audit reports to be produced. ISPO andMSPO also rely upon accredited third-party certification
bodies to conduct audits, but it is the ISPO and MSPO
commissions respectively that issue certificates basedon reviews of audit reports. Both commissions maintainan elevated level of control over the entire certification
process, which does raise transparency issues andquestions surrounding the independence of supply
chain verification.

Audit quality remains a big issue for many certification
systems. The level of ambiguity which arises in theimplementation of standards is deeply concerning aswell as the apparent disparity between principles andcriteria and their interpretation by certification bodies.
Another worrying gap across most standards is lackof a requirement to hold a formal public consultation
during the audit process. It is vital that all key stakeholders
are interviewed during the audit process to provide
a complete picture of a company’s performance.

The ISPO assessment team consists of government officials, ESELON II, which is lower than ESELON I (see footnote 18) in the organisational
structure from the same ministries as the ISPO commission.
24
Agrarian Minister/Head of the National Land Agency Regulation Number 2 of 1999, article 6, states: (i) Dissemination of information on theinvestment and development plans to be implemented, the scope of impact, and any land acquisition plans, as well as solving any problems
related to land acquisition.
25
Stage 2 Audit, Findings from Stage 2 audit, Draft Audit Report, Peer Review, Client’s Comments, Final Report, Approval by the Certification
Panel, Issuance of Certificate.
23

33

Summary of Key Findings

A Comparison of Leading Palm Oil Certification Standards

G. Access to Remedy
RSPO

RSB

SAN

ISCC

HCS

MSPO

ISPO

Grievance Mechanism

3

3

1

2

3

2

1

Land Disputes

3

3

3

1

3

2

1

Appeal Procedure

3

3

0

3

0

0

0

Ombudsman-Type
Process

1

0

0

1

0

0

0

Multy-stakeholder
Governance0

Total Score

10

Grievance procedures and mechanisms
3 points: RSPO, HCS and RSB provide a mutuallyagreed upon, transparent and documented system
for addressing complaints and grievances accessible
to all affected parties.
2 points: MSPO standard requires a complaints andgrievance mechanism for employees and communities to be
documented, timely and appropriate. Though employees
and surrounding communities should be made aware thatcomplaints can be made at any time, they are not involvedin the formation of the mechanism. ISCC provides for
a complaints procedure to be available on the farm where
employees and affected communities can make a complaint.
This is regarded as a minor must. They also provide forcomplaints to be made directly to ISCC management.
1 point: ISPO does offer a complaints system, whereby
complaints and grievances can be addressed to theSecretariat of ISPO Commission but documentation andresults of the process are not published. SAN requires
farm management to develop a system to receive,
respond to, and document the resolution of complaints

34

0

9

0

4

0

7

0

6

0

4

0

2

from communities. This criterion is only Level B, 90% of
which isn’t minimally required until year 6. There is no
mention of a standard-wide complaints system, nothingis listed beyond authorised certification bodies andsubcontracted authorised auditors.
Land Disputes
3 points: RSPO requires that the right to use the landis demonstrated and not legitimately contested by
local people who can demonstrate that they have legal,
customary or use rights. Furthermore, a mutually agreed
and documented system for dealing with any complaints
or grievances which may arise is required. RSB similarlystates that land under legitimate dispute cannot be
used for operations until such time as they have been
settled through FPIC and negotiated agreements. HCS
provides mechanism for resolution of any grievancesand disputes that arrive in community agreements,
again turning to FPIC to safeguard land disputes that
may arise. SAN within its FPIC processes guide requires
the farm management and group administrator tocommunicate openly with local communities to identify
community concerns and interests related to the farmor group administrator’s operations. A mechanism toreceive, respond to, and document the resolution ofcomplaints from communities should be implemented,
such a mechanism should allow communities to raisegrievances in any circumstance.
2 points: Within MSPO principles, where there havebeen disputes, documented proof of legal acquisitionof land title and fair compensation made to previous
occupants must be made available linked with due FPIC
processes. This said, MSPO does not offer a standalone
grievance mechanism which is mutually agreed withall stakeholders, instead grievances relating to land
disputes should be brought first to the certificate holder
who may have a conflict of interest in the matter.
1 point: ISCC offers weak protection regarding land
conflicts, only stating that mediation should be available
in case of social conflict, but this is categorised as a minor
requirement. ISPO requires that dispute resolution
mechanism are documented and26 complaints relating toland disputes are coordinated by the Deputy of the Land
Dispute and Conflict Assessment and Handling Department
within the National Land Agency. This process does not
require FPIC processes to be adhered to.
Appeals procedure
3 points: RSPO allows for complaints to be re-submitted
once within 4 weeks of original submissions. New
submissions are allowed in case of new evidence.
RSB allows appeals to be submitted to the organisation
overseeing the activities of the Accountable Organization
with which the grievance was originally filed – there arethree possible accountable organisations: the certifying
body, the accreditation body and RSB Secretariat – only
one appeal is allowed – the outcome of the appeals
process is final. If new evidence is presented it is theequivalent to a new complaint. ISCC allows appeals
to be submitted to ISCC management.
0 points: HCS, SAN, ISPO and MSPO do not make explicit
reference to an appeal process within their grievancemechanisms.

Ombudsman-type process for meditation
1 point: RSPO Complaints Panel may appoint experts foradvice or verification of the complaint. In addition, once
complaints have been adjudicated by the Complaints
Panel they may be passed to the RSPO’s Dispute
Settlement Facility which can provide mediators, subject
to the agreement of both parties. ISCC arbitration board
will consult an independent expert but only in undefined‘critical cases’.27
0 points: RSB, SAN, MSPO, ISPO and HCS make no
explicit reference to ombudsman-type processes forresolving complaints.
Multi-stakeholder governance0 points: In none of the standards examined wereindigenous peoples or communities represented in thestandards’ governance structures.
Conclusion
RSPO, HCS, MSPO, RSB, ISPO and ISCC have establishedcomplaints procedures. Surprisingly, SAN provides nomaterials on how remedy can be obtained unless at the
micro- level through the farms’ grievance procedure.
Details of the systems and timelines for resolution vary
widely across the standards, where RSPO and ISCC offer
appeals procedures and ombudsman-type processes formediation whilst MSPO and ISPO rely on national laws
and bodies to deliver redress and compensation.
In terms of land disputes, all the standards except ISCC
and ISPO turn to the FPIC principle to safeguard land
rights. If these two standards are to provide protection
to land rights holders this process must be integrated
into their certification schemes.
In general, grievance mechanism is best defined within the
RSPO system which has undergone a process of evolution
based on the past decade of experience and implementationof the standards principles and criteria, providing
on-line status updates of cases and a relatively high levelof transparency throughout the complaints process.

ISPO requires that plantation managers seek to have the land they manage free from disputes with communities and surrounding farmers.
When disputes arise, an agreement must be reached in accordance with applicable state laws or customary regulations. If an agreement
cannot be reached, then legal action should be taken to settle the matter.
27
ISCC, Complaints, Appeals and Arbitration p.6 https://www.iscc-system.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/ISCC_DE_253_Complaints-appeals-and-arbitration.pdf
26

35

A Comparison of Leading Palm Oil Certification Standards

CONCLUSION
Total Score of Palm Oil Certification Standards
RSPO
Overall Total Score

102

Key findings
From the results of the comparative study, FPP have foundthat the RSPO standard provides the most comprehensive
human rights safeguards whilst ISPO has the least clearly
defined requirements. As a national standard MSPO hasaddressed many of the key indicators and provides a more
rigorous certification scheme to that of its neighbour,nevertheless, there is a lot of room for improvement in its
quality assurance mechanisms. MSPO and ISPO, whilst
requiring compliance with their respective national legal
frameworks, do not provide the same level of protectionthat multi-stakeholder international certification schemes
offer. This is most apparent in the way in which ISPO andMSPO standards provide very weak access to remedy
compared to multi-stakeholder initiatives with theircomplex multi-tiered approaches designed to ensurethat certification holders comply with criteria set out inthe standards. However, the strength of these grievancemechanisms to deliver remedy or resolution on the
ground has been questioned.28
The HCS approach, largely based on RSPO principles andcriteria does offer several similar provisions to that of theleading certification standard but again its lack of a clearly
defined criteria to ensure the calibre of its assessments
has weakened the approaches credibility. Furthermore,
the approach provides little guidance on the treatmentof smallholders, a theme which is common across thecertification scheme landscape. Standards must address
this core theme to provide credible protection andacknowledge smallholder realities.
SAN and ISCC performed well in comparison to thenational standards (ISPO and MSPO). This said, ISCC
must provide stronger guidelines on community consent

36

RSB

91

SAN

79

ISCC

68

HCS

66

MSPO

62

ISPO

34

and land acquisition, an emphasis must be placed ontransparency and the right to have a clear, comprehensive
understanding of the implication of the proposeddevelopment, the ability to make decisions according
to customary decision-making systems and, the rightto say “no” – all inherent in the FPIC process. Similarly,
SAN should take a leaf out of RSB’s book and provide
clearer definitions on rights to food, water and a clear
environment. In an age of growing concerns over climatechange, it is paramount that standards provide clearly
defined safeguards over food and water security.
The RSB standard draws a lot of similarities with RSPO
standard, falling short on the protection of women andits protection of migrant workers. Both standards offer
the most comprehensive and nuanced approach tohuman rights protections and social safeguards acrossthe themes explored, detailing worded and thoroughly
explained requirements for compliance reflecting broadconsideration of social issues facing the industry andcommunities affected by it.
FPP asserts that RSPO should be the standard of choice
when it comes to palm oil certification. Heavily guided
by experience over the last ten years of implementation,
RSPO provides the most robust scheme for palm oil
certification, although as the study has proven there
are still many gaps and rooms for improvement in thestandard’s principles and criteria and with its realisationon the ground.
Further considerations
In making this comparative study, it is important to statethat there are some key differences among standards
concerning minimum requirements for compliance toachieve certification. Only RSPO, ISPO and MSPO require
full compliance with all criteria to be certified, or an
approved time-bound plan for addressing minor noncompliances.
These differences caution against drawing conclusions
about the impact of different standards on the ground,when not all provisions are mandatory under all
schemes. This is most apparent when it comes todrawing comparisons on fair labour standards where the
RSPO standard provides clear and relatively ambitious
mandatory targets for companies seeking certificationwhilst ISCC and SAN standards provide detailed guidanceon matters relating to employment conditions. Theirweakness is that not all of the criteria are mandatory,
making it difficult to compare them against the mandatory
standards. SAN requires compliance with 50% of criteria
within each principle, and 80% of total applicable criteria,
except for critical criteria, which must be fulfilled. ISCC
divides its criteria into major and minor musts, where all
major and at least 60% of minor musts shall be met toachieve certification.
Criteria are the heart of the standards, with ISPO having
the fewest, 28, and SAN the most, 100. As with principles,
the number of criteria is partly a result of presentation, but
it also reflects differences in the level of detail embodiedin each standard, with SAN having numerous, very detailed
criteria, and ISPO generally providing fewer, less detailed
criteria. It could be argued that the lack of clear guidance
makes ISPO considerably weaker than its counterparts.
Recommendations to RSPOIn view of the next revision in RSPO Principles and Criteria
which is scheduled for 2018, FPP has highlighted some key
areas of improvement:• Audits: To avoid the current conflict of interest
experienced by auditors who are directly paid by thecompanies they are verifying, audits should be paid out

28of an ESCROW fund into which the companies seeking
certification pay their contributions. RSPO or a fourthparty should choose which audit teams are allocated towhich companies and arrange for them to be paid fromthe ESCROW account.
• Remedy: The provision of remedy to the communities
remains elusive for the loss of lands taken or damaged
and their resulting economic and environmental losses.
To bring itself into compliance with the norms for nonjudicial remedies set out by the UN Guiding Principles
on Business and Human Rights, a mechanism to hold
RSPO certified companies accountable for human rights
violations and other damages (even if the company
ceases to be RSPO-certified) is required. We recommend
the use of a bond. The bond would act as an agreement
between the certificate holder and RSPO to uphold thestandard’s principles and to provide remedy to a third
party in circumstances where these are violated.
• Human rights defenders: By using RSPO complaints
procedures, communities have been able to expose land
grabbing, violations of standards and human rights.
This has allowed dialogues between companies and thecommunities, but has also resulted in the harassment
and criminalisation of community spokespersons andcomplainants. Proper protection mechanisms must be
put in place to avoid escalations of violence.
• Smallholder protection: Promote the development of
support mechanisms to reduce barriers for smallholders
to adopt sustainable production practices and RSPO
certification.
• RSPO governance: Indigenous peoples are poorly
represented in RSPO scheme’s governance, we
recommend the establishment of a Permanent
Indigenous Peoples Committee which liaises with
RSPO’s Board of Representatives to mirror similar
structures found in FSC and ASI.

EIA, 2014, Who watches the watchmen? Auditors and the breakdown of oversight in RSPO, London; Tom Lomax, 2015, Asserting
community land rights using RSPO complaint procedures in Indonesia and Liberia, IIED and FPP; Marcus Colchester, 2016,
Do commodity certification schemes uphold indigenous peoples’ rights? Lessons from the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm
Oil and Forest Stewardship Council, Policy Matters.

37

A Comparison of Leading Palm Oil Certification Standards

WHAT NEXT? – RSPO NEXT AND POIGMETHODOLOGYWhen the revised RSPO P&C were adopted in 2013, there
was considerable, voiced dissatisfaction with the newstandard by some NGOs, some growers and many global
brands which expressed the view that the standard did not
go far enough, especially with regard to deforestation, peat
and also some human rights provisions. Two efforts were
therefore undertaken to raise the bar and satisfy the higher
expectations of the market. The first was an enhanced
standard open to certification adopted by a group of NGOs,
growers and traders called the Palm Oil Innovators Group.
Three years later, RSPO responded with its own enhanced
standard called RSPO Next which comprised of a voluntary
add-on to its existing Principles & Critieria (P&C). Bothsystems rely on the RSPO’s verification procedures but
require auditors to also check company compliance withthe additional higher standards.

As illustrated from the findings from the comparative
study, RSPO offers the most comprehensive set of criteria
and principles. Although not complete, they offer themost stringent and robust human rights safeguards
among the competing schemes. As a result, othercertification schemes have set to build on the workof RSPO. The tables below offer a comparison of two
standards attempting to enhance the current RSPO
standards – RSPO NEXT and POIG. Each certification

Palm Oil Innovation Group (POIG)
POIG is an initiative between environmental and civilsociety organisations and industry companies that aims
to build upon the RSPO P&C and existing company
commitments – especially on issues of deforestation,
carbon stocks, biodiversity, greenhouse gas (GHG)

38emissions, pesticide use and social relations. It was
launched at the Tropical Forest Alliance meeting in 2013.
In 2014 POIG released its first ‘Charter Indicators’ list,
which stipulates the specific conditions to be met
regarding issues such as peat development, HCV and HCS
management, FPIC and labour standards, among others.
RSPO NEXTRSPO NEXT has been developed to recognise the efforts
of RSPO members which are exceeding the requirementsof the generic RSPO P&Cs. It was drawn up by RSPO at
the end of 2015 and launched in February 2016. It is anadditional voluntary commitment put forth in addition
to the existing P&Cs and incorporates more stringent
assessment standards, with additional requirements on
deforestation, fire, peat, human rights and landscapeapproaches, among other issues. These are measured
through a combination of reviewing company policies andon-the-ground verification. This additional assessment
gives member companies the opportunity to go beyond
the requirements of the RSPO and demonstrate a stronger
commitment to environmental and social responsibility.
The first RSPO Next certification was issued in April 2017.

standard is given a score of 1 or 2 in the themes in which
it enhances the current RSPO P&C. No points are given(0) if there is no reference or significant difference
between the standard and RSPO P&C’s. (1) point is given
if there is a minor difference in degree between thestandard and the P&C’s. (2) points are given if there isa difference in substance between the standard and the
RSPO P&Cs. A more comprehensive break down of how
the score was deduced is provided in Annex 2.

Key

PointsDifference in substance – NEXT or POIG makesubstantially different requirements. Someparts may be included in RSPO Principles
and Criteria

2

Difference in degree – Principles and Criteria
includes requirement in guidance. RSPONEXT and/or POIG make a minor difference
in requirements

1

Not referenced or no significant differencein guidance to RSPO guidance

039What next? – RSPO NEXT and POIGA Comparison of Leading Palm Oil Certification Standards

A. Customary Rights

B. Treatment of Smallholders
NEXT

POIG

FPIC

1

2

Negotiated Agreements

10

Access to Information

1

1

Total Score

3

3

FPIC
2 points: POIG also states FPIC is a long-term, two-way
process where communities must be informed thatthey have the right to say no to development and are
not constrained by local legal frameworks. POIG makes
more specific requirements to provide resourced accessto independent advice and to redress any lack of FPIC
on newly acquired plantations. Where companies are
required to identify and seek to resolve inconsistencies
between FPIC and legislation.29

and gender groups, affirming “communication andconsultation processes established in consensual
agreement with assurances for vulnerable groups” whilst
the RSPO P&Cs only goes as far as to state “mechanisms
should be designed in collaboration with…and take
into account access to information” rather than assure
vulnerable groups will be consulted. NEXT requires
certificate holders to consult vulnerable minority andgender groups and that consensual agreements arereached with these stakeholders.

1 point: NEXT strengthens some of RSPO’s P&C inrequiring the grower to demonstrate evidence of action
to resolve any conflicts arising relating to customaryland rights. It stipulates that FPIC is a long-term,
two-way process which requires planning to beadaptive and allow for yearly or more consultations
with affected stakeholders.

Access to information
1 point: NEXT requires a documented Standard Operating
Procedure (SOP) for responding constructively to
stakeholder requests for information, including a specifictimeframe to respond to enquiries, whilst for RSPO P&Cs
this is guidance only where the timeframe is open to thegrower or miller’s decision. NEXT requires this timeframe
to be specified. POIG requires more comprehensive
public reporting on some areas – particularly progress
reporting and monitoring reports, and social, labour andenvironmental performance.

Negotiated agreements
1 point: NEXT provides stronger wording, especiallyregarding consultation with vulnerable minority

29

NEXT

POIG

Treatment of Smallholders

22Access to Market

1

1

Total Score

3

3

Treatment of smallholders
2 points: NEXT requires certificate holders todevelop outreach programs of support directed at all
smallholders (irrespective of type) in the supply basethat will enhance and support their competencies andmarket access. Programs shall cover sustainability issues
as well as yields and productivity support, hazardous
material trainings, fiscal management and budgeting,logistics of processing and market access and educatingsmallholders on their rights. This is a significant movefrom RSPO P&Cs as the outreach program covers all
smallholders in their supply chain not only scheme
smallholders. POIG also requires a smallholder support
programme which is to be documented and monitored,
which includes “measures to increase the productivity ofsmallholders to a comparable benchmark of productivity
for the region, and a target of reaching the same
productivity level as company estates; support relating
to financial management and budgeting; and support

relating to logistics, FFB processing and improved market
access”. Progress of the programmes implementation
is to be included in public reporting. In comparison,
RSPO P&Cs provide limited requirements on support
for smallholder development as part of local sustainable
development and only applies to scheme smallholders.
Both the new standards require companies to develop
more proactive strategies for smallholder inclusion in
the supply chain.
NB POIG and NEXT both make provisions support financial
management and budgeting, however, more specificdetails on what constitutes fair credit is lacking.
Access to market for smallholders
1 point: NEXT states outreach programmes will “support[smallholder] competencies and market access”. POIG
states programmes should “improve market accessthrough group certification”.

RSPO P&Cs have no requirement to resource advisers or legal counsel, only that communities can choose their own advisors, and there is
no retrospective requirement to redress potential financial resource inequalities of the community.

40

41

What next? – RSPO NEXT and POIGA Comparison of Leading Palm Oil Certification Standards

C. Social and Environmental Safeguards
NEXT

POIG

Social Development

11Participatory SEIAs

1

0

Right to Food

1

2

Right to Water

0

1

Right to a Clean Environment

1

1

Total Score

45Social development
1 points: NEXT states “Positive social impacts ofplantation development shall be actively promoted”,
including … preference shall be given to hiring fromlocal communities…understanding and supporting
existing alternative livelihoods and ensuring they are
not threatened or reduced…the provision of health andeducational facilities where these are lacking or notavailable within accessible distance”. POIG requires
a comprehensive social programme to “to ensure palm
oil production does not result in human rights violations,trigger social conflicts, or produce ‘land grabbing’ andaddresses key social equity issues including housing,healthcare and the empowerment of women”.
Participatory Social and Environmental Impact
Assessments (SEIA)
1 point: NEXT requires companies to show evidence
that they are managing and protecting areas deemed
unsuitable for palm oil development in areas under
their control because of the magnitude of potential
environmental and/or social negative impacts. This also
applies to the resolution of any conflict on such land.

42

assessing additional impacts that palm oil production
operations may have on water rights.
Rights to clean environment
1 point: NEXT takes a wider landscape approach to
HCV management and monitoring, requiring plansat the landscape level and action and collaboration

with a variety of stakeholders on the management of
HCVs outside of the management unit. POIG requires
certificate holders (CH) to make a “positive contribution”
to the survival of rare, threatened and endangered
species outside of the CH’s management unit and forcomprehensive biodiversity surveys to be conducted to
identify HCV 1-3.

Right to food – local food security
2 points: POIG provides a standalone requirement onfood security, whereby the parameters of food security
are defined by three factors “1) Availability and stability:a. Stability of food price and supply b. household foodproduction c. food crop diversity (2) Access: a. Sufficiencyof household food consumption b. Number of meals taken
in a day c. Household dietary diversity (3) Utilisation a.
Degree of access to utilities and services (water, energy,
health, sanitisation)”. The standard specifies areas of landthat should be left to meet food security needs, requires
evidence that measures are implemented and effective
and which specify the length of the planning cycle.
1 point: NEXT requires that the food security of local
communities, including those not in the immediate
vicinity of the project, to be addressed within theparticipatory SEIAs, whereby food security should beguaranteed through participatory land use planning.
Rights to water
1 point: Within the proposed additional POIG indicators,
the scope of the food security assessment shall include

43

What next? – RSPO NEXT and POIGA Comparison of Leading Palm Oil Certification Standards

D. Core Labour Standards

E. Gender and Discrimination
NEXT

POIG

NEXT

POIG

Minimum Wage

1

1

No Discrimination

20Free Collective Bargaining

1

0

Protection of Women

20

No Child Labour

10

No Sexual Harassment

10

No Slavery-Like Practices

02

Total Score

50

Total Score

3

3

No discrimination
2 points: RSPO P&Cs include no gender requirementsfor planning processes, NEXT includes a provision
whereby “both the planning as well as the plans shalltake a gender-inclusive approach, considering thedifferent roles that men and women have in relation
to e.g. landownership, use, food crop or cash crop
production, markets and credit”.

Minimum wage
1 points: NEXT offers provision for a Decent Living
Wage where “the company shall document a process ofcollective bargaining with the workforce to establish andimplement a mutually agreed upon total compensation
package that provides a decent living which shall include
at least the minimum wage”. POIG provides detailed,prescriptive list of labour requirements that specify how
workers’ pay and conditions should meet minimum
standards. These standards require: permanent, full-time
employment for all core work; all workers are paid ontime, directly, in legal tender; wage advances, etc are legal,
recorded and do not result in debt bondage; all workers
receive legally prescribed compensation and benefits;
specify maximum normal working week and time off; andrecords to be kept of hours worked.
Free collective bargaining
1 point: NEXT clarifies that it is a requirement for all
workers to be able to join an association. Where the RSPO
P&Cs mentions migrant, trans-migrant and contracted

44

workers in its supporting guidance where personnel
have the rights to form trade unions, NEXT is more
specific in detailing that there should be “no evidenceof employees, including migrant, trans-migrant workers
and/or contracted workers being prevented from forming
or joining associations and/or participating in collective
bargaining”.
No child labour
1 point: NEXT requires that no hazardous work is carriedout by children whereby hazardous work is prohibited forunder 18s and tasks which are not to be undertaken byminors are specified.

No sexual harassment – Reproductive rights protected
1 point: NEXT requires cases of harassment to be
documented, monitored and targets introduced toreduce the number of harassment or abuse cases.

Gender sensitive complaints procedure –Protection of women
2 points: NEXT requires a gender committee to beestablished specifically to address areas of concern towomen where management representatives responsible forcommunication with the gender committee shall be female.

No slavery-like practices
2 points: POIG prohibits charging fees or costs to workers
for recruitment or employment services. It prohibits theretention of ID or valuables by employers or recruiters andrequires risk assessment of FFB supply chain to address
risk of forced labour, trafficking and child labour.

45

What next? – RSPO NEXT and POIGA Comparison of Leading Palm Oil Certification Standards

CONCLUSION

F. Quality AssuranceNEXT
Social Development

2

POIG

Total Score of standards based on the seven themes

Quality assurance
2 points: NEXT requires “the HCV Assessment of all new
plantings shall be led by an Independent Assessor who
is licensed under the HCV Resource Network Assessor
Licensing Scheme (ALS)”. RSPO P&Cs state that NPP

46

2

POIG

20

14

0

Overall Total Score
Total Score

NEXT

0

requires licensed assessors for plantings after 2010. For
plantings between 2005 and 2010, there is no requirement
to have a licensed HVC ALS assessor. RSPO P&Cs only
require appropriate training and expertise for HCV
assessment.

These two progressive standards are steps in theright direction for palm oil standards. Both provide
innovations to the way in which sustainable palm oil
is certified. On the one hand POIG outlines specificrequirements for the maintenance or strengtheningof communities’ food security and includes detailed
indicators relating to workers’ rights, including specificprovisions to protect the rights of temporary, contract
and migrant workers, and more specific provisions onhours and leave, remuneration, child labour, forced
labour and human trafficking. POIG also articulates
specific guidance on smallholder support, including
developing a group certification plan. Something whichis also addressed in the RSPO NEXT standard.

One of the strengths of POIGs counter-part, RSPO
NEXT, is that it provides improved quality assurance ofassessors, strengthening the licensing system within
RSPO. RSPO NEXT makes a very forward-looking
approach to addressing cases of gender discriminationand harassment as well as the growing inequalities facedby migrant workers. Putting the burden of proof on thecertification holder to demonstrate evidence of action
taken to resolve conflicts puts the standard in a stronger
position than that of the POIG Charter.

47

A Comparison of Leading Palm Oil Certification Standards

APPENDIX
Ainie Kuntom, Malaysian Sustainable Palm Oil, POD, No.60, June 2014 –http://mspo.mpob.gov.my/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/POD-60-june.pdf

ISCC, Complaints, Appeals and Arbitration, 2017 www.iscc-system.org/wpcontent/uploads/2017/02/ISCC_DE_253_Complaints-appeals-and-arbitration.pdf

Amnesty International. The Great Palm Oil Scandal: Labour Abuses Behind
Big Brand Names, Amnesty International (2016), London
www.amnesty.org/en/documents/asa21/5184/2016/en/

ISCC EU sustainability requirements, 2017 – https://www.iscc-system.org/wpcontent/uploads/2017/02/ISCC_202_Sustainability_Requirements_3.0.pdf

Daemeter, A comparison of Leading Palm Oil Certification Standards Appliedin Indonesia: Towards Defining Emerging Norms of Good Practice, May 2014
– http://daemeter.org/new/uploads/20140505064302.Daemeter_Comparison_of_Palm_Oil_Certification_Standards_FullReport_Eng.pdf
Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the council of 23 April
2009 on the promotion of renewable sources and amending and subsequently
repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32009L0028&from=EN
EIA, Who Watches the Watchmen? Auditors and the breakdown of oversight in
the RSPO, 2014 https://eia-international.org/wp-content/uploads/EIA-WhoWatches-the-Watchmen-FINAL.pdf

ISCC Plus sustainability requirements, 2017 – www.iscc-system.org/wpcontent/uploads/2017/02/ISCC_PLUS_202_Sustainability-Requirements.pdf
Malaysian Sustainable Palm Oil Scheme – http://mspo.mpob.gov.my/wpcontent/uploads/2015/04/MSPO-Certification-System-Document.pdf
Malaysian Sustainable Palm Oil Standard, 2015 – http://mspo.mpob.gov.my/
wp-content/uploads/2015/04/03-MSPO-PART-3-ENGLISH.pdf
Marcus Colchester, Policy Matters 21: Do commodity certification schemes
uphold indigenous peoples’ rights? Lessons from the Roundtable on
Sustainable Palm Oil and Forest Stewardship Council, 2016www.iucn.org/sites/dev/files/policy_matters_21_chapter_10_do_commodity_
certification_systems_uphold_indigenous_peoples_rights_lessons_from_the_roundtable_on_sustainable_palm_oil_and_forest_stewardship_council.pdf

Guidelines for Certification of Malaysian Sustainable Palm Oil (MSPO)
www.sirim-qas.com.my/sirim/core-files/uploads/2015/03/DOC-39-03Guidelines-for-Certification-of-MSPO-Iss-2-Rev-0-May-2017.pdf

Palm Oil Innovations Group Charter, November 2013 –http://poig.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/POIG-Charter-v1.pdf

The HCS Approach Toolkit, The High Carbon Stock Approach: No deforestationin practice, March 2015 – http://highcarbonstock.org/wp-content/
uploads/2014/12/HCS_TK_2015_SNG_AW1.pdf

Palm Oil Innovation Group Charter Pilot Indicators, April 2014 –http://www.agropalma.com.br/arquivos/arquivos/POIG/POIG%20
indicators%20April%202014.pdf

The HCS Approach Toolkit Version 2.0, Module 2, May 2017 –http://highcarbonstock.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/HCSA-Toolkit-V2.0Module-2-Social-requirements_020517.pdf

RSB Principles and Criteria, November 2016 – http://rsb.org/wp-content/
uploads/2017/03/RSB-STD-01-001_Principles_and_Criteria.pdf

HCV Assessor Licensing Scheme –https://www.hcvnetwork.org/resources/2016_annual_report
Hidayat, N.K., Offermans A. and Glasbergen P. Sustainable palm oil asa public responsibility. On the governance capacity of IndonesianStandard for Sustainable Palm Oil (ISPO), 2017https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs10460-017-9816-6.pdf
ISCC, Checklist for the Control of Sustainability Requirements for the
Production of Biomass, 2015 http://agriculturaconsciente.com.br/wp-content/
uploads/2015/07/ISCC_EU_202_Sustainability_Requirements_for_the_
Production_of_Biomass_2.4_EN.pdf

48

RSB Procedure for Certification Bodies and Auditors, 2017 http://rsb.org/
wp-content/uploads/2017/07/RSB-PRO-70-001-vers-3.3-Requirements-forCertification-Bodies-and-Auditors.pdf
RSPO, RSPO Certification Systems: Final document approved
by RSPO Executive Board –www.rspo.org/sites/default/files/RSPOcertification-systems.pdf
RSPO NEXT, Final Draft, August 2015 –www.rspo.org/articles/download/7e7167fbaf26ec6
Suharto, R., K. Husein, E. Sartono, D. Kusumadewi, A. Darussamin, D.
Nedyasari, D. Riskanto, P. Hariyadi, A. Rahman, T. Uno, P. Gillespie, C. Arianto,49Appendix

A Comparison of Leading Palm Oil Certification Standards

and R. Prasojo. Studi Bersama Persamaan dan Perbedaan Sistem Sertifikasi
ISPO dan RSPO. Jakarta: Kementerian Pertanian Republik Indonesia dan
Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), 2015
Sustainable Palm Oil Manifesto (SPOM) –http://www.apicalgroup.com/index.php/sustainable-palm-oil-manifesto
Sustainable Agriculture Network Standard, 2017www.san.ag/biblioteca/docs/ SAN-Standard-2017_24-3-2017.pdf
Tom Lomax (IIED and FPP), Asserting community land rights using RSPO
complaint procedures in Indonesia and Liberia, 2015
http://pubs.iied.org/ pdfs/12584IIED.pdf
UNDP, Joint Study on the Similarities and Differences of the ISPO and RSPO
Certification http://www.undp.org/content/dam/gp-commodities/docs/ISPORSPO%20Joint%20Study_English_N%208%20for%20screen.pdf?download.
ZSL, Sustainable Palm Oil Transparency Toolkit (SPOTT) –www.sustainablepalmoil.org/standards/

50

51

A Comparison of Leading Palm Oil Certification Standards

ANNEX 1Roundtable on Sustainable
Palm Oil (RSPO)

Roundtable on Sustainable
Biomaterials (RSB)

Indonesian Sustainable Palm Oil (ISPO)

Malaysian Sustainable Palm Oil (MSPO)International Sustainability and Carbon
Certification (ISCC)

Rainforest Alliance/Sustainable
Agriculture Network (SAN)The High Carbon Stock (HCS) Approach

Legality

Principle 2 - Compliance with applicablelaws and regulations. Criterion 2.1 - There iscompliance with all applicable local, nationaland ratified international laws and regulations. RSPO requires full compliance withall criteria in order to be certified, or an
approved time-bound plan for addressing
minor non-compliances.

Principle 1 - Operations shall comply with allapplicable laws and regulations of the country in which the operation occurs and with
relevant international laws and agreements.

Principle 1 - Licensing system and plantation
management: This principle outlines sequential legal steps in the licensing process thata company must follow and demonstratecompliance. Various criteria in Principles 2-4
also require compliance with applicable laws
and regulations relating to the individual
criteria. This would require compliance withlocal and national laws and regulations, but
compliance with international treaties is notstated, implying it may be understood to beoutside of the scope of ISPO.

Principle 3 - Compliance to legal requirement - Premises subscribing to MSPO
requirements shall abide to all regulatory
requirements, legal land-use rights andcustomary rights. Indicator 1 - All operations
are in complaince with the applicable local,
state, national and ratified international laws
and regulations.

Principle 5 - Biomass production shall takeplace in compliance with all applicableregional and national laws and shall follow
relevant international treaties. Criterion 5.2- There is awareness of, and compliance with,all applicable regional and national laws andratified international treaties (major).

Principle 4 - SAN supports the UN Guiding
Principles on Business and Human Rights,
and workers’ rights are not just as recognisedby the SAN standard but are protected innational and international law. On certified
farms, workers’ rights are protected,
including essential ones as defined by
ILO core conventions. Criterion 1.6 Management commitment for SAN Standard
implementation and compliance withapplicable law. Applicable law: Includes
local, county, province, state or nationallaw and that law which has been integrated
into or legally deemed to be superior tonational law by a state's signing of aninternational treaty.

The UN’s Guiding Principles on Business andHuman Rights note that the responsibilityof business enterprises to respect humanrights exists independently of states’ abilities
and/or willingness to fulfil their own humanrights obligations, and exists over andabove compliance with national laws andregulations protecting human rights. These
company obligations are also spelled out
in several different sustainability standards
and certification programs. Because the High
Carbon Stock Forest assessment process
has been developed as a practical tool forcompanies to use in land use planning forforest concessions, it is important to groundthe HCS process within these company
obligations to respect customary use, humanrights, and international laws.

Recognition of community land rights –Customary Rights

Criterion 2.2 - The right to use the landis demonstrated, and is not legitimately
contested by local people who can demonstrate that they have legal, customaryor user rights. Criterion 2.3 - Use of theland for oil palm does not diminish thelegal, customary or user rights of otherusers without their free, prior and informed
consent. Criterion 7.5 - No new plantingsare established on local peoples’ land where
it can be demonstrated that there are legal,
customary or user rights, without their free,prior and informed consent. This is dealt withthrough a documented system that enables
these and other stakeholders to express
their views through their own representative
institutions. Criterion 7.6.1 - Documented
identification and assessment of demonstrable legal, customary and user rights shallbe available.

Criteria 12a. - Existing land rights and landuse rights, both formal and informal, shallbe assessed, documented, and established.
The right to use land for the operations shallbe established only when these rights are
determined.

Criterion 1.1 - Licensing and certification:
Plantation managers must obtain permits
and land titles, this process is not documented. ISPO relies on Indonesian laws
and regulations to provide further detailon standard requirements (but its final
published version does not provide directreference to laws and regulations relevant
to each principle or criterion)

Principle 3, Criterion 2 - Land use rights,
Indicator 1 - The management shall ensurethat their palm oil cultivation activities do
not diminish the land-use rights of otherusers. Criterion 3 - Customary rights,
Indicator 1 - Where lands are encumbered bycustomary rights, the company shall demonstrate that these rights are understood andare not being threatened or reduced.

Principle 4 - Biomass production shall not
violate human rights, labour rights or land
rights. Criterion 5.1 - The producer can
prove that the land is used legitimately
and that traditional land rights havebeen secured (major). Documents show
legal ownership or lease, history of land
tenure and the actual use of the land. The
producer must identify and respect exsiting land rights. The rights of indigneous
peoples is respected. Criterion 5.2. - Thereis an awareness of, and complaince with, allapplicable regional and national laws andratified international treaties. The producer
can demonstrate an awareness of his responsibilties according to the applicable laws.
Criterion 4.8 - All impacts for surrounding
communities, users and land owners taken
into account and sufficiently compensatedfor (minor).

Criterion 4.19 - Critical Legitimate right touse the land is demonstrated by ownership,leasehold, or other legal documents or by
documentation of traditional or community use rights. Right to use the land is notlegitimately disputed by current or former
local residents or communities, including
in relation to past dispossession or forced
abandonment. In the event of land conflict,legitimate right may be demonstrated if a
conflict resolution process has been implemented, documented, and accepted by theaffected parties.

2.3 - Recognising land rights as a basis for
ensuring just land acquisition. Before developers can start acquiring land, they must also
understand who already has rights to which
land as owners and users, including thosewith statuatory rights, those with customary
rights and those with informal rights. Developers are required to identify and respect bothcollective and individual rights to lands andresources. Among indigenous peoples andlocal communities that maintain collective
right to land, it is common that they recognise
individual rights as nested within collective
rights and subject to the oversight or authority of the collective. Customary rights exist
independent of land (and often prior to) thestate or the developers’ permit. Customary
law often prohibits individuals from transferring lands out of the collective. Especially infrontier areas, where land markets have not
emerged, the implications of land sales, leases
or rents may be unfamiliar to local communities. Developers shall respect these customarylaws and ensure that customary owners or informal land users are properly infomed of thelegal, environmental and social implicationsof any land deals before they agree to them.
Acceptance by companies that, in line with international law, customary communities haverights to the lands, territories and resourcesthat they have traditionally owned, occupiedor otherwise used and have the right to give or
withhold their FPIC as expressed through theirown representative institutions, requires somequite fundamental changes in the way they go
about land acquisition.

Land Tenure Study

Criterion 2.1 - Indicator 2.2.1 - Documents
showing legal ownership or lease, history ofland tenure and the actual legal use of theland shall be available.

Criteria 12a.1 - Where the screening exerciseof the RSB impact assessment process
reveals a negative impact to exisiting land
rights and land-use rights by the operations,the operator shall conduct a Land Rights
Assessment - this may include a detailed
regulatory review of the types of formal
land tenure and land occupancy...and legal
recognition of customary tenure. Criteria
12b.9 - If there are disputes about the tenure
agreements of the land among stake-holders,
operations shall not be certified. Reactionary
rather than premedatative.

Crterion 1.3.5 - There is no explanation inindicator relating to land sustainability maps
or soil surveys appropriate to plan for longterm suitability of the land for cultivationof plantation must be provided and taken
into account in planning and operating aplantation. Criterion 1.1 ISPO lacks indicators which oblige how legal land boundaries
are mapped and preserved. There is no
measurable indicator to map the status of
the land in dispute - nor is there reference toparticpatory mapping.

Principle 3, Criterion 2 - Indicator 2 - The
managament shall provide documents showing legal ownership or lease, history of land
tenure and the actual use of the land.

Criterion 5.1 - The producer can provethat the land is used legitimately and thattraditional land rights have been secured(major). Instruction 5.1 - Documents show
legal ownership or lease, history of land
tenure and the actual legal use of the land.
The producer must identify existing land rights
and does respect them (see Principle 1).

Criterion 4.19 - Critical Legitimate right touse the land is demonstrated by ownership,leasehold, or other legal documents or by
documentation of traditional or community use rights. Right to use the land is notlegitimately disputed by current or former
local residents or communities, including
in relation to past dispossession or forced
abandonment. In the event of land conflict,legitimate right may be demonstrated if a
conflict resolution process has been implemented, documented, and accepted by theaffected parties.

2.3 - Recognising land rights as a basis for
ensuring just land acquistion. A participatory land tenure and land use assessment
is carried out to clarify the way customary
rights are allocated and lands used by thepeople concerned.

5253

Annex 1

A Comparison of Leading Palm Oil Certification Standards

Roundtable on Sustainable
Palm Oil (RSPO)

Roundtable on Sustainable
Biomaterials (RSB)

Indonesian Sustainable Palm Oil (ISPO)

Malaysian Sustainable Palm Oil (MSPO)International Sustainability and Carbon
Certification (ISCC)

Rainforest Alliance/Sustainable
Agriculture Network (SAN)The High Carbon Stock (HCS) Approach

Participatory Mapping

Criterion 2.3.1 - Maps of an appropriate
scale showing the extent of recognised legal,
customary or user rights shall be developed
through participatory mapping involving theaffected parties. Criterion 2.2.5 - For any
conflict or dispute over the land, the extent
of the disputed area shall be mapped out
in a participatory way with involvement ofaffected parties (including neighbouringcommunities where applicable). Criterion
6.1 - Aspects of plantation and mill management that have social impacts, including
replanting, are identified in a participatory
way, and plans to mitigate the negative
impacts and promote the positive ones are
made, implemented and monitored,
to demonstrate continual improvement.

Criteria 2b.6 - Participatory methodologies
described in the RSB Impact Assessment
Guidelines shall be used to ensure meaningful stakeholder engagement - establishmentof baseline conditions "in the absence of this,satellite images can help identify areas ofcultivated land, and participatory mapping
and transects can be undertaken with local
residents to identify the spatial distribution of
the population and various land and resource
uses.". Special attention shall be made toensure that women, youth, elders,indigenous
and vulnerable people can participate meaningfully in meetings and negotiations - this is
all related to the social impact assessments.

Indonesian regulations refer to the importance of a participatory approach and requireparticipatory mapping be conducted with affected parties and with involvement of the local district land office. The local governmentis involved because land that is controlled bya plantation remains state land. Again theprocess does not have to be documented.

Principle 3, Criterion 3 - Indicator 2 Maps of an appropriate scale showing
extent of recognised customary rights
shall be made available.

No mention participatory or otherwise.
Only stating that documents show legal
ownership or lease, history of land tenure
and the actual legal use of the land. Mapsof fragile soils must be available.

Criterion 4.20 - Critical Activities diminishing
the land or resource use rights or collective
interests of communities are conducted only
after having received the communities’ free,prior and informed consent (FPIC). The farmmanagement and group administrator implement complaints or grievance mechanisms
to protect community members’ rights. If the
farm management and group administrator
diminish communities’ land or resource use
rights, mutually agreed compensation commensurate with the loss of use is negotiatedwith and provided to communities as partof the FPIC process. The farm management
and group administrator fully document the
FPIC process, including maps developed
through the participatory process thatindicate the location, boundaries, andplanned uses of lands and other resources
over which communities have legal, customary, or user rights.SAN guide for FPIC
processes - Conduct participatory mappingof land and natural resource use.

2.1 Social baseline studies - Participatory
mapping is undertaken jointly to plot the full
extent of customary rights and uses including
farmlands, forest fallows, hunting, fishingand gathering areas, reserves, sacred sites
and collective territories.

Free Prior Informed Consent (FPIC)

Criterion 2.2.3 - Where there are or havebeen disputes, additional proof of legal
acquisition of title and evidence that faircompensation has been made to previous
owners and occupants shall be available,
and that these have been accepted with
FPIC. Criterion 7.5 - No new plantings are
established on local peoples’ land where it
can be demonstrated that there are legal,
customary or user rights, without their free,prior and informed consent. This is dealt withthrough a documented system that enables
these and other stakeholders to express
their views through their own representative
institutions.

Criteria 2b - FPIC shall form the basis for theprocess to be followed during all stakeholder
consultation, which shall be gender sensitiveand result in consensus driven negotiatedagreements

There is no explicit mention of the application of FPIC provisions adopted from UNDRIP.
The ISPO P&C's do not require no land
conflicts in the development of palm oil plantations, and does not adopt the FPIC UNDRIP
concept to help facilitate conflict resolution.
This is clearly not consistenet with National
Forestry Council Policy Recommendations on
the implementation of FPIC and Indonesian
National REDD+ Strategy which requires aprocess and implementation of FPIC with
communities affected by REDD+ proposed
projects. Indonesia has laws and regulations on human rights but ISPO makes
no explicit reference to respecting theserights.

Principle 3, Criterion3, Indicator 3 - Negotiation and FPIC shall be recorded and copies
of negotiated agreements should be madeavailable. Principle 3, Criterion 2, Indicator
4 - Where there are, or have been, disputes,
documented proof of legal acquisition ofland title and fair compensation that havebeen or are being made to previous owners
and occupants shall be made available andthat these should have been accepted with
free, prior and informed consent (FPIC).

No explicit mention of FPIC.

Criterion 4.20 - Critical Activities diminishing
the land or resource use rights or collective
interests of communities are conducted only
after having received the communities’ free,prior and informed consent (FPIC). The farmmanagement and group administrator implement complaints or grievance mechanisms
to protect community members’ rights. If the
farm management and group administrator
diminish communities’ land or resource use
rights, mutually agreed compensation commensurate with the loss of use is negotiatedwith and provided to communities as part of
the FPIC process. The farm management andgroup administrator fully document the FPIC
process, including maps developed throughthe participatory process that indicate the location, boundaries, and planned uses of lands
and other resources over which communities
have legal, customary, or user rights. Criterion 4.19 - Legitimate right to use the landis demonstrated by ownership, leasehold, orother legal documents or by documentationof traditional or community use rights. Right
to use the land is not legitimately disputed bycurrent or former local residents or communities, including in relation to past dispossession
or forced abandonment. In the event of land
conflict, legitimate right may be demonstrated
if a conflict resolution process has been
implemented, documented, and accepted by
the affected parties.

2.7 Free Prior Informed Consent Operators inform communities of their
proposal to develop an area and explain
the communities’ entitlement to FPIC andto control what happens on their lands.
Communities decide if they want to consider
the company proposal and if so, how theywant to be represented in engaging withthe operator, with discussions about how
the interests of women, children, youth,
marginalised castes, classes and land users
will be taken into account. The procedureand steps for an iterative FPIC process ofengagement between the communities
and the operator is mutually agreed, taking
account of all the steps noted below and thecommunities’ own norms and proposals.
This includes clarifying how the process
will be documented and validated, and theform that information will take to ensure it isaccessible to communities.

Negotiated agreements and inclusive
participation

Criterion 7.5.1 - Evidence shall be available
that affected local peoples understandthey have the right to say no to operations
planned on their lands before and during initial discussions, during the stage of information gathering and associated consultations,
during negotiations, and up until the agreement with the grower/miller is signed andratified by these local peoples. Criterion 6.2 There are open and transparent methods forcommunication and consultation between
growers and/or millers, local communities
and other affected or interested parties.

Criteria 12.b - FPIC shall form the basis of allnegotiated agreements for any compensation, acquisition, or voluntary relinquishment of rights by land users or owners for
operations.

Indicator 1.5.4 - Requires mutually agreed
negotiation process for land acquisition andcompensation but without the opportunity
for communities or land owners to say noor if no alternative measure to follow fairnegotiation process like that offered through
FPIC, if there is any differences in opinion
then they have to be resolved through theappropriate legal channels.

Principle 3, Criterion3, Indicator 3 Negotiation and FPIC shall be recorded andcopies of negotiated agreements should
be made available Principle 2, Criterion 2
Transparent method of communication andconsultation. Indicator 1 - Procedures shallbe established for consultation and communication with the relevant stakeholders.
Indicator 2 - A management official should
be nominated to be responsible for issues
related to Indicator 1 at each operating unit.
Indicator 3 - List of stakeholders, recordsof all consultation and communication
and records of action taken in response to
input from stakeholders should be properly
maintained.

Principle 4 - Biomass production shall not
violate human rights labour rights or land
rights. It shall promote responsible labour
conditions and workers’ health, safety andwelfare and shall be based on responsible
community relations. Criterion 4.1.2 All negative environmental, social, economic andcultural impacts are avoided. Documentsof regular meetings with communities (withtwo-way communication) and local government with listed risks and/or impacts andevidence of minuted negotiations or resoltution processes are compitled. Criterion 4.8
All impacts for surrounding communities, users and land owners taken into account andsufficiently compensated for (minor). A participatory social impact assessment has been
conducted, and the report is publicly available in appropriate language to surrounding
communities. On the basis of that SIA reporta continued dialogue with surrounding communities is in place. Documents of regularmeetings with communities (with two-way
communication) and local government withlisted risks and/or impacts and evidence ofminuted negotiations or resolution processes
are compiled. N.B. Crterion 4.8 and 4.1.2 areonly a minor considerations

Criterion 4.20 - Critical Activities diminishing
the land or resource use rights or collective
interests of communities are conducted only
after having received the communities’ free,prior and informed consent (FPIC). The farmmanagement and group administrator implement complaints or grievance mechanisms
to protect community members’ rights. If the
farm management and group administrator
diminish communities’ land or resource use
rights, mutually agreed compensation commensurate with the loss of use is negotiatedwith and provided to communities as part of
the FPIC process. The farm management andgroup administrator fully document the FPIC
process, including maps developed throughthe participatory process that indicate the location, boundaries, and planned uses of lands
and other resources over which communities
have legal, customary, or user rights. Criterion
4.46 - The farm management and group
administrator communicate openly with local
communities to identify community concerns
and interests related to the farm’s or group
administrator’s operations. The farm management and group administrator develop andimplement a system to receive, respond to,and document the resolution of

If the community decides to enter into
negotiations, negotiations then occur
between the communities’ representatives
and the operator to clarify the terms of any
relinquishment of rights. Time and scopemust be given for community meetings toreview interim offers and develop counterproposals for further rounds of negotiation.
If agreement is reached in principle thenland deals can be finalised with associatedprovisions for land use, conservation andmanagement, enclaving areas (from bothdevelopment and conservation) for foodproduction, benefit sharing, mitigation,
grievance mechanisms, etc. Identify andagree on the mechanism and tools toestablish and manage conservation areas
such as conservation agreements and comanagement, as well as fair compensation
for any loss of use of conservation areas.
Legalise or notarise agreement.

54

55

Annex 1

A Comparison of Leading Palm Oil Certification Standards

Roundtable on Sustainable
Palm Oil (RSPO)

Roundtable on Sustainable
Biomaterials (RSB)

Indonesian Sustainable Palm Oil (ISPO)

Malaysian Sustainable Palm Oil (MSPO)International Sustainability and Carbon
Certification (ISCC)

Rainforest Alliance/Sustainable
Agriculture Network (SAN)The High Carbon Stock (HCS) Approachcomplaints from communities. SAN guidefor FPIC processes - Allow the community toconsult internally regarding the acceptabilityof the proposed project; consult if the community will still consider the project (STOP /GO decision). Facilitate access to legal advice
for communities, if necessary. Legal advice
and access to independent parties should
be available to communities throughout the
FPIC process, but especially in the negotiation phase; if the community is amenable
to the project, negotiate terms of agreement
for proceeding, including benefits, compensation, or mitigation to the community,commensurate with the loss of use of landor resources; develop a plan for participatory
monitoring and conflict resolution.
Access to Information

Criterion 1.1 - Growers and millers provide
adequate information to relevant stakeholders on environmental, social and legal issues
relevant to RSPO Criteria, in appropriate
languages and forms to allow for effective
participation in decision making. Criterion
1.2 - Management Documents are publicly
available, except where this is prevented bycomercial confidentiality or where disclosureof information would result in negativeenvironmental or social outcomes. Criterion
2.3.3 - All relevant information shall be available in appropriate forms and languages,
including assessments of impacts, proposed
benefit sharing, and legal arrangements.
Criterion 7.6.6 - Evidence shall be available
that the affected communities and rights
holders have access to information andadvice that is independent of the project
proponent, concerning the legal, economic,
environmental and social implications of the
proposed operations on their lands.

Criteria 2b. Minimum requirement 8 Management documents shall be publicly
available, except where this is prevented bycommercial confidentiality, of a proprietarynature or where disclosure of information
would result in negative environmental orsocial outcomes. Criteria 11a, Minimum
requirement 2 - The operator shall disclosetechnologies with hazardous or potentiallyhazardous effects when such technology isused, and make this information available tothe public upon request.

Criterion 1.9 - Provision of information to
relevant agencies according to applicableregulations and other stakeholders, with the
exception of information concerning things
that should be kept confidential. Criterion
1.1, 3.1, 3.2 - There is no requirement for
the use of the correct form and language
for relevant information sharing, including
information on impact analysis, proposed
profit sharing, and legal arrangements. No
measurable ISPO indicators expressly require
management documents to be available
to the public to be assessed - such as HGU/
Location licence, K3, AMDAL, NKT, UKL/UPL,
details of complaint/grievance, negotiation
provedures, continuous improvement plans,
and the public summary of the certification report. Criterion 1.9 - No Indicator isexpressly obliging the request and response
information must be maintained and managed responsibly and transparently.

No Coercion - No para-militaries,
No private armies

Criterion 2.2.6 - To avoid escalation of conflict, there shall be no evidence that palm oil
operations have instigated violence in maintaining peace and order in their current andplanned operations. Specific Guidance 2.2.6- Company policy should prohibit the useof mercenaries and para-militaries in theiroperations. Company policy should prohibit
extra-judicial intimidation and harassment
by contracted security forces.

Criteria 12b.7 - Coercion to alter exisiting
land rights or land use rights shall not beallowed in operations

ISPO does not require open and transparent
methods of communication and consultation
between affected parties or other interested
parties.

Fair treatment of small holders

Criteria 6.10 - Growers and millers deal fairly
and transparently with smallholders andother local businesses Specific Guidance
2.2.2 Plantation operations should cease on
land planted beyond the legally determinedarea and there should be specific plans inplace to address such issues for associatedsmallholders. Indicator 3.1.1 A business or
management plan (minimum three years)
shall be documented that includes, whereappropriate a business case for scheme
smallholders. - Consideration of smallholders
should be inherent in all management planning where applicable. Principle 4.8 All staff, workers, smallholders and contract
workers are appropriately trained. Specific
Guidance 6.4.2 - Companies shuold makebest efforts to ensure that equal opportunities have been provided to both female andmale heads of households to hold land titles
in smallholder schemes. Additional guidance is offered for smallholder production
in “Guidance for Independent Smallholders under Group Certification’, June 2010”and “Guidance on Schemes Smallholders’,
July 2009”

Smallholder standard 1.1.10 The groupmanagement shall ensure that any common
benefit is fairly shared among all the groupmembers. No mention of transparency. The
standard consists of principles, criterion andrequirments. The requirements are to be
implemented at group or member level andits compliance evaluated through audits.
The standard tailors RSB global standard to
the needs of smallholders but relates moreto their obligation rather than smallholders
rights.

There are no specific measurable indicators
to show that resources have been allocatedto improve the productivity of small farmers.
A standard for smallholders has not yet beendeveloped. Not all palm oil plantations are
eligible for an ISPO audit or certification
program. ISPO certification can only be filed
by large palm oil plantations (class i,ii and
iii). There is no specific measurable indicators
for partnerships with farmers, or that there
must be resources allocated to improve theproductivity of small farmers.

56

4.2 Criterion 1 - Transparency of information and documents relevant to MSPO
requirements. Indicator 1 - The management shall communicate the information
requested by the relevant stakeholders in
the appropriate languages and forms, except
those limited by commercial confidentiality
or disclosure that could result in negativeenvironmental or social outcomes. Indicator
2 - Management documents shall be publicly
available, except where this is prevented bycommercial confidentiality or where disclosure of information would result in negativeenvironmental or social outcomes.

4.1.2 All negative environmental,social and economic cultural impacts are
avoided. Documents of regular meetings
with communities and local government
with listed risks and/or impacts and evidenceof minuted negotiations or resolution
processes. 4.1.1 - A self-declaration on goodsocial practice regarding human rights has
been communicated to the workers. The farmmanagement and the workers representative
have signed and displayed a self-declaration
assuring good social practice and humanrights of all workers. The self-declarationmust be in language appropriate to workers
and surrounding communities. This declaration contains commitment to the ILO corelabour standards, respect for living wage,
respect for the social environment, respect
for legal land titles, sufficient compensation
for communities, commitment to solve social
conflicts, fair contract farming arrangements

Criterion 4.46 The farm management andgroup administrator communicate openly
with local communities to identify community concerns and interests related to thefarm’s or group administrator’s operations.
The farm management and group administrator develop and implement a system
to receive, respond to, and document theresolution of complaints from communities.
SAN guide for FPIC processes Provide community representatives with a descriptionof project activities, benefits, and impacts,
presented in a manner that is accessible andappropriate to community representatives’education levels and to the cultural context.
Facilitate access to legal advice for communities, if necessary. Legal advice and access toindependent parties should be available tocommunities throughout the FPIC process,but especially in the negotiation phase;

Communities choose who they want to act
as their legal or other advisors and as independent observers. Funds are secured to pay
for these costs and help ensure communities
are adequately informed. Once all theseelements are in place, time is given for communities to access information on alternative
development options and what managementof HCS forest areas for conservation means,assess all the information provided, discuss
the implications among themselves and with
their self-chosen advisors, and decide if theywant to undertake negotiations. Does not
specify language or extent of information
offered – broad guidelines.

Not explicitly mentioned outside of FPICNo explicit reference to coercion other thanin the self-declaration of good social practicewhere there is a commitment to solve social
conflicts but it does not state how this is tobe achieved and whether the use of force is
to be prohibited.

SAN guide for FPIC processes Requirement for FPIC defined by SAN sustainable
Agriculture Standard 2017 as the right ofindigenous peoples and other local communities to make free and informed choices
about the use or development of their lands
and resources. FPIC is implemented througha participatory process involving all affectedgroups that is carried out prior to the finalisation or implementation of any development
plans. An FPIC process ensures that communities are not coerced or intimidated; thatdecisions are reached through communities’
own chosen institutions or representatives;that communities’ consent is sought andfreely given prior to the authorisation or startof any activities; that communities have full
information about the scope of any proposeddevelopment and its likely impacts on theirlands, livelihoods and environment; and that
ultimately their choices to give or withhold
consent are respected.

2.7 Free Prior Informed Consent Operators
inform communities of their proposal todevelop an area and explain the communities’ entitlements to FPIC and to control what
happens on their lands. Communities decide
if they want to consider the company proposal
and if so, how they want to be represented inengaging with the operator, with discussions
about how the interests of women, children,
youth, marginalised castes, classes and land
users will be taken into account. The procedure and steps for an iterative FPIC processof engagement between the communities
and the operator is mutually agreed, taking
account of all the steps noted below and thecommunities’ own norms and proposals. This
includes clarifying how the process will be
documented and validated, and the form that
information will take to ensure it is accessible
to communities. In any process towards anagreement, the communities feel free fromany complulsion, coercion or duress.

P4, Criterion 6 Training and competency,
Indicator 1 - All employees, contractors
and relevant smallholders are appropriately
trained. A training programme (appropriate
to the scale of the organisation) that includes
regular assessment of training needs anddocumentation, including records of training
shall be kept. P7, Criterion 3 - SEIA, Indicator 4 - Where the development includes
smallholder schemes of above 500ha in total
or small estates, the impacts and implications of how each scheme or small estate is
to be managed should be documented anda plan to manage the impacts developed,
implemented, monitored and reviewed.

Fair and transparent contract farming
arrangements are in place Essential indicators are: (1) The contracts are on paper in
the appropriate language and co-signed
copies are available with both parties. In
case of cooperative contract arrangements,
all members have a copy. (2) Payments for
harvest are, in calculated form, done on paper and signed and handed over to contract
farmer for his/her own record keeping. (3)Provisions governing price-quality parameters are clearly defined in the contract. (4)The contract contains clear provisions on exit
arrangements, buy-out possibilities, handing
over of property deeds (when appropriate),and compensation measures in case of bankruptcy of the mother company when legallyrequired. (5) There are minutes of meetings
providing evidence of regular discussions or
negotiations between Mother Company andcontract farmers' representatives.

Criterion 1.15 The group administrator documents and implements a group
governance structure including decisionmaking procedures, group member slection
critieria, and membership rules. The group
governance structure, member selection,and membership rules avoid all types of
discrimination. The group administrator does
not restrict its members from associating or
affiliating. Criterion 1.17 The GA develops
and implements a plan for training and othersupport activities based on group members’
needs identified through the group governance structure through the farm planning
process. Training activities are appropriate
to members’ education levels and to thecultural context and are offered to all members. Support activites include facilitating
members’ access to farm inputs, high quality
planting materials, or financial services. The
group administrator makes particular efforts
to offer training to potentially less-advantaged group members, those in remote areas,
and those with limited literacy. Progress,
opportunities and challenges of the groups
training plan are analysied by the group.

To date the HCS method has not been
adapted to suit oil palm smallholders,another key set of stakeholders, including
those attached directly to plantations andindependent smallholders. A separate
working group has been set up to develop
suitable guidance for smallholders and
HCS, so that they are not excluded from‘zero deforestation’ supply chains, as iscurrently the case. Accordingly, this draft
document has not been adjusted to suitsmallholder realities. (HCS Toolkit Version
2.0 - May 2017)57

Annex 1

A Comparison of Leading Palm Oil Certification Standards

Roundtable on Sustainable
Palm Oil (RSPO)

Roundtable on Sustainable
Biomaterials (RSB)

Indonesian Sustainable Palm Oil (ISPO)

Malaysian Sustainable Palm Oil (MSPO)International Sustainability and Carbon
Certification (ISCC)

Rainforest Alliance/Sustainable
Agriculture Network (SAN)The High Carbon Stock (HCS) Approachadministrator, and results shared with groupmembers and used to improve training design
and implementation. Criterion 1.18 The GA
develops, documents and implements mechanism for non-discriminatory calculation anddistributino revenues to its group members.
The GA communicates transparently about the
distribution of revenues to its group members.
Criterion 1.19 Where public health or eduction
services are not available, the GA develops andimplements a plan to provide access to healthcare and basic education to its members.
Criterion 1.20 The GA facilites the planting
process for its members through training,
standardised formats for data collection andanalysis, and support to analyse progressand revise farm plans accordingly. NB These
criteria are not critical but level C, 90% of level
C criteria are to be addressed by year 3.
Fair treatment of small holders - Fair credit

The additional guidelines state that“scheme smallholders while also very
diverse, are characterised as smallholders
who are structually bound by contract,
by a credit agreement or by planning to aparticular mill” it does not go into detailsurrounding fair credit agreements.

Not mentioned.

No additional guidance on smallholders
is provided. Best practice is offered tothe certification holder but smallholders
are not mentioned in the business andmanagement plan.

No additional guidance on smallholders
is provided. Best Practice is offered to
the Certification Holder but smallholders
are not mentioned in the business or
management plan.

No mention of smallholders in ISCC
sustainability requirements.

Not mentioned.

To date the HCS method has not been adapted to suit oil palm smallholders, another key
set of stakeholders, including those attacheddirectly to plantations and independent
smallholders. A separate working group has
been set up to develop suitable guidance forsmallholders and HCS, so that they are notexcluded from ‘zero deforestation’ supply
chains, as is currently the case. Accordingly,
this draft document has not been adjusted
to suit smallholder realities. (HCS Toolkit
Version 2.0 - May 2017)

Fair treatment of small holders - Fair prices

Criteria 6.10 - Growers and milllers deal fairly
and transparently with smallholders and otherlocal businesses. Indicator 6.10.1 Current andpast prices paid for Fresh Fruit Bunches (FFB)
shall be publicly available. 6.10.2 Evidence
shall be available that growers/millers have
explained FFB pricing, and pricing mechanisms for FFB and inputs/services shall be
documented (where these are under the control of the mill or plantation). 6.10.3 Evidence
shall be available that all parties understandthe contractual agreements they enter into,
and that contracts are fair, legal and transparent. 6.10.4 Agreed payments shall be madein a timely manner. Guidance: Transactions
with smallholders should consider issues
such as the role of middle men, transport andstorage of FFB, quality and grading. The needto recycle the nutrients in FFB (see Criterion
4.2) should also be considered; where it is notpracticable to recycle wastes to smallholders,compensation for the value of the nutrientsexported can be made through the FFB
price. Smallholders should have access to
the grievance procedure under Criterion 6.3
if they consider that they are not receiving afair price for FFB, whether or not middle men
are involved

Not mentioned.

No additional guidance on smallholders
is provided. Best practice is offered to thecertification holder but smallholders are
not mentioned in the business andmanagement plan.

No additional guidance on smallholders
is provided. Best practice is offered to thecertification holder but smallholders are
not mentioned in the business andmanagement plan.

Fair and transparent contract farming
arrangements are in place. Essential
indicators are: (1) The contracts are on paperin the appropriate language and co-signed
copies are available with both parties. In
case of cooperative contract arrangements,
all members have a copy. (2) Payments
for harvest are, in calculated form, doneon paper and signed and handed over tocontract farmer for his/her own record
keeping. (3) Provisions governing pricequality parameters are clearly defined in
the contract. (4) The contract contains clear
provisions on exit arrangements, buy-out
possibilities, handing over of property deeds(when appropriate), and compensation
measures in case of bankruptcy of themother company when legally required. (5)There are minutes of meetings providing
evidence of regular discussions or
negotiations between Mother Company andcontract farmers’ representatives.

Criterion 1.17 The GA develops and implements a plan for training and other support
activities based on group members’ needs
identified through the group governancestructure through the farm planning process.
Training activities are appropriate to members’ education levels and to the culturalcontext and are offered to all members. Support activites include facilitating members’
access to farm inputs, high quality planting
materials, or financial services. The group administrator makes particular efforts to offer
trainign to potentially less-advantaged groupmembers, those in remote areas, and thosewith limited literacy. Progress, opportunities
and challenges of the groups training plan
are analysied by the group administrator,
and results shared with group members andused to improve training design and implementation. Criterion 1.18 The GA develops,
docuements and implements mechanism fornon-discriminatory calculation and distributino revenues to its group members. The GA
communicates transparently about the distribution of revenues to its group members.

To date the HCS method has not been adapted to suit oil palm smallholders, another key
set of stakeholders, including those attacheddirectly to plantations and independent
smallholders. A separate working group has
been set up to develop suitable guidance forsmallholders and HCS, so that they are notexcluded from ‘zero deforestation’ supply
chains, as is currently the case. Accordingly,
this draft document has not been adjusted
to suit smallholder realities. (HCS Toolkit
Version 2.0 - May 2017)

Fair treatment of small holders Access to markets

Indicator 6.11.2 - Where there are scheme
smallholders, there shall be evidence thatefforts and/or resources have been allocatedto improve smallholder productivity. RSPO's
Generic Guidance for Independent Smallholders under Group Certification aims "toprovide workable and equitable means bywhich smallholders can get their produce
certified so they are not unfairly excluded
fromt he emerging market" however
specific guidance is weak

Smallholder standard - enables small-scale
farmers to access RSB-certified supply chains
however these come with their own set of
restrictions - smallholders are gathered aslegal groups, with an appointed representative. The Group Certifcation Standard
describes the requirements with regard togroup management. Largely based upon the
ISEAL Alliance Common Requirements for
Certification Requirements for the Certification of Producer Groups, it defines the rules
for group management, group membership,
internal management, internal inspections,continuous improvement, record keeping,chain of custody requirements and communication and claims. It includes a risk
based internal inspection system - it should
be noted that this guidance was preparedprincipally for feedstock producers.

No additional guidance on smallholders
is provided. Best practice is offered to thecertification holder but smallholders are
not mentioned in the business andmanagement plan.

No additional guidance on smallholders
is provided. Best practice is offered to thecertification holder but smallholders are
not mentioned in the business andmanagement plan.

3.1.1 Records are kept for training activities
and attendees Staff members responsible
for certain tasks within the company should
particpate in training activities. If applicable,
local population or small farms or plantations
may particpate in training programs. 4.1.4
Fair and transparent contract farming
arrangements are in place Essential indicators are: (1) The contracts are on paper in theappropriate language and co-signed copies
are available with both parties. In case of cooperative contract arrangements, all members
have a copy. (2) Payments for harvest are, in
calculated form, done on paper and signed
and handed over to contract farmer for his/her
own record keeping. (3) Provisions governing
price-quality parameters are clearly definedin the contract. (4) The contract contains clear
provisions on exit arrangements, buy-out
possibilities, handing over of property deeds(when appropriate), and compensation
measures in case of bankruptcy of the mothercompany when legally required. (5) There areminutes of meetings providing evidence ofregular discussions or negotiations between
Mother Company and contract farmers’
representatives.

N.B SAN has made several steps to include
smallholder in its certification standard
including: Many requirements are not applicable to smallholders. Stepwise approachallows easy access to scheme for smallholders. Clear, easy to understand language tohelp smallholders who may not have formal
education.

To date the HCS method has not been adapted to suit oil palm smallholders, another key
set of stakeholders, including those attacheddirectly to plantations and independent
smallholders. A separate working group has
been set up to develop suitable guidance forsmallholders and HCS, so that they are notexcluded from ‘zero deforestation’ supply
chains, as is currently the case. Accordingly,
this draft document has not been adjusted
to suit smallholder realities. (HCS Toolkit
Version 2.0 - May 2017)

58

59

Annex 1

A Comparison of Leading Palm Oil Certification Standards

Roundtable on Sustainable
Palm Oil (RSPO)

Roundtable on Sustainable
Biomaterials (RSB)

Indonesian Sustainable Palm Oil (ISPO)

Malaysian Sustainable Palm Oil (MSPO)International Sustainability and Carbon
Certification (ISCC)

Rainforest Alliance/Sustainable
Agriculture Network (SAN)The High Carbon Stock (HCS) Approach

Community benefits - Social Development

Criteria 6.11 - Growers and millers contribute to local sustainable development whereappropriate. Guidance - Where candidates
for employment are of equal merit, preference should always be given to members of
local communities. Positive discrimination
should not be recognised as conflictingwith Criterion 6.8. Efforts should be madeto identify independent smallholders inthe supply base. Where sourcing of fruit isfrom identified independent smallholders,efforts should be made to contribute to theimprovement of their farming practices. No
mention of involvement of the community.

Criteria 5a - In regions of poverty, thesocioeconomic status of local stakeholders
impacted by the operations shall be improved.
5a.5 Skills training shall be provided by theoperator if necessary to ensure the implementation of this criterion. Cultural sensitivity
and respect for existing social structures shallbe applied in the development of options forcompliance with this criterion. 5a.6 At least
one measure to significantly optimise thebenefits to local stake-holders shall be implemented within a three-year period of the startof the operations, for instance: a) Creationof year-round and/or long-term jobs (b) The
establishment of governance structures that
support empowerment of small-scale farmers
and rural communities such as co-operatives
and micro-credit schemes (c) Use of the locally produced bio-energy to provide modern
energy services to local poor communities(d) Shareholding options, local ownership,
joint ventures and partnerships with the local
communities (e) Social benefits for the local
community such as the building or servicing ofclinics, homes, hospitals and schools. Criteria
5b - In regions of poverty, special measuresthat benefit and encourage the participationof women, youth, indigenous communities
and the vulnerable in the operations shall be
designed and implemented.

ISPO members are required to have aprogram for increasing the welfare of local
customary community and culture. ISPO
requires 20% of a plantation area to be
developed for the community, which follows
the national law, and that the company
empowerss indigenous peoples, supports local business, and contributes to community
development (with guidance identifying
education, health, infrastructure, small businesses, sports, are, religion, etc. as a meansof doing so). No mention of consultation
with community.

P4, Criterion 3 - Commitment to contributeto local sustainable devlopment, Indicator
1 - Growers should contribute to local
development in consultation with the local
communities. P7, Criterion 6 - Customaryland, Indicator 8: Communities that havelost access and rights to land for plantation
expansion should be given opportunities tobenefit from the plantation development.

4.20 Other forms of social benefits are offered by the employer to employees, theirfamilies and/or community incentives including incentives for good working performance,
bonus payment, support of professional development, family friendliness, medical care/health provisions, improvement of social
surroundings. The workers are encouraged toget health insurance by creating awarenessand providing information about available
insurances. Health insurance can include
long term compensation in case of disability
and payment of medical costs. If appropriate,
the employer makes opportunities of employment known locally. NB Criterion 4.1.7 isonly a minor consideration

Criterion 4.47 The farm management andgroup administrator implement and document activities to support identified needs
and priorities of the community, such assupport for local schools or otherinstitutions, environmental education, or
collaboration on emergency preparedness.

2.1 Social Baseline Study - The developmental
aspirations and options of affected
communities and local stakeholders should
also be considered, including possible
alternatives to palm oil where relevant.
These elements all contribute to ensuring
land use decisions are fully informed. Module
2:3 Social Requirements - Recognisingland rights as a basis for ensuring justland acquisition - In engaging with the landowners and users, developers shall recognise
and respect all these rights and uses. They
then negotiate for access, use or restrictions
on the use of these lands, including the lands
to be set aside as HCV management areas,and HCS areas. Developers shall fully inform
communities of the legal implications ofaccepting such proposed developments andset-asides and explore options for tenure,management and monitoring. Developers
shall also clarify what restrictions andcompensatory benefits would apply tocommunities’ livelihoods and land use
options as a result of areas being classed
as HCV and HCS set-asides or otherwise
managed to maintain or enhance thesevalues.

Protection of Human Rights Defenders(HRDs)

Resolution 6.e passed on “Protection Human
Rights Defenders, Whistle-blowers, Complainants and Community Spokespersons”

Not mentioned.

Not mentioned.

Not mentioned.

Not mentioned.

Not mentioned.

Not mentioned.

Social and Environmental Impact
Assessments (SEIA)

Criterion 6.1 - Aspects of plantation and millmanagement that have social impacts, including replanting, are identified in a participatory way, and plans to mitigate the negative impacts and promote the positive ones
are made, implemented, and monitored, todemonstrate continual improvement.
NB: RSPO does not rely on HCV for social
aspects of its standard, but they are covered
under the HCV process required by RSPO in
Criteria 5.2 and 7.3

Criteria 2a. Operations shall undertake an
impact assessment process to assess impact
and risks and ensure sustainability throughthe development of effective and efficient
implementation, mitigation, monitoring andevaluation plans.

Criterion 3.2 - Responsibilities related to environmental impact assessment AMDAL, UKL
and UPL: Plantation management must fulfill
their obligations regarding AMDAL, UKL and
UPL in accordance with applicable legislation. (Note: An AMDAL covers social impacts.)
Criterion 3.5 - Identification and protectionof HCV areas: Plantation managers must
identify HCV areas that consist of areasthat have a primary function of protecting
environmental sustainability that includes
natural resources, man-made resources, andnational historical or cultural value and notconvert these areas to oil palm.

Principle 4, Criterion 1 - Social impact
assessment - Social impacts should be
identified and plans implemented to mitigate
negative impacts and promote positive ones.
P7 Criterion 3 - SEIA Indicator 2 - SEIAs
shall include previous land use or history
and involve independent consultation as
per national and state regulations, viaparticipatory methodology which includes
external stakeholders. Indicator 3 - The
results of the SEIA shall be incorporated
into an appropriate management planand operational procedures developed,
implemented, monitored and reviewed.

Criterion 4.1.2 Negative environmental,social, economic and cultural impacts are
avoided. All environmental, social, economic
and cultural impacts for surrounding areas,
communities, users and land-owners are taken
into account. Local historical, cultural andspiritual properties and sites are protected.
A participatory social impact assessment isconducted, where all relevant stakeholders
including local communities and indigenous
people are engaged. The report is publicly
available in appropriate languages to surrounding communities. On the basis of that report anaction plan to address identified social impacts
and a continued dialogue with surrounding
communities is in place. Negative impacts
must be avoided or, if not possible, minimised,
restored and/or compensated. Documents ofregular meetings with communities (with twoway communication) and local government
with listed risks and/or impacts and evidence ofminuted negotiations or resolution processes
are compiled. Criterion 4.8 All impacts for surrounding areas, communities, users, and landowners are taken into account and sufficiently
compensated for (Minor). A participatory social
impact assessment has been conducted, andthe report is publicly available in appropriate
languages to surrounding communities.
On the basis of that SIA report, a continued
dialogue with surrounding communities is inplace. Documents of regular meetings with
communities (with two-way communication)and local government with listed risks and/or
impacts and evidence of minuted negotiations
or resolution processes are compiled.

Criterion 1.4 An independent environmental
and social impact assessment (ESIA) is conducted prior to land conversion or the development or expansion of farm infrastructure
when required by applicable law or whenthese proposed changes will exceed SAN ESIA
parameters. The ESIA includes written plansand procedures for minimising and mitigating any negative impacts and enhancing
positive impacts. The farm management andgroup administrator implements and monitors ESIA plans during the installation andoperation phases of the new development.

Module 3.4 - Participatory field assessment- This step in the assessment process isoften carried out simultaneously and in fullcollaboration with the Environmental andSocial Impact Assessment (ESIA), as requiredby both national legislation and manycertification standards. This step has two key
outputs: • Baseline study reports from bothsocioeconomic and biological/ecologicalsurveys. • Maps, including community tenure
and resource maps, vegetation/ecosystemmaps, biomass/ carbon maps, peat maps,
maps of survey locations and species
occurrence maps (where data is available).

P7 Criterion 3 - SEIA Indicator 1: A comprehensive and participatory social andenvironmental impact assessment shall be
conducted prior to establishing new plantings or operations.

4.4.8 All impacts for surrounding communities, users and land owners taken into
account and sufficiently compensated for(Minor). A participatory social impact assessment has been conducted, and the report ispublicly available in appropriate language
to surrounding communities. On the basisof that SIA report a continued dialogue withsurrounding communities is in place. Documents of regular meetings with communities(with two-way communication) and local
government with listed risks and/or impacts
and evidence of minuted negotiations or
resolution processes are compiled.

SAN guide for Environmental and Social
Impact Assessments In cases when the
proposed project could diminish the landor resource use rights or collective interestsof communities, it is required to seek Free,
Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC – Critical
Criterion 4.20). In such cases, the ESIA andFPIC processes shall be conducted as one
integrated process (see SAN Guide for FPIC
Processes SAN - G - SP - 2 - V1 for more information). Potentially affected communities
shall be engaged in all five ESIA steps, and– in the event that the affected communities
agree for the project to proceed – the negotiated outcomes of the FPIC process shall bereflected in steps 4 and 5.

Participatory Social and Environmental
Impacts and High Conservation Value
Assessments are undertaken, as well asHigh Carbon Stock forest stratification andanalysis. Together these assessments clarify
which areas the company seeks to acquire
for planting, which areas it is proposed be
managed for conservation and which areas
will remain unaffected for communities tomaintain their livelihoods.

(NB: Depending on the HCV approach
used, this should also cover social issues
that overlap with an SIA.). A social impact
analysis is not required separately but thisis included in the AMDAL activities andreports. Evidence is not required that anindicator of SIA assessment has been carriedout with the participation of the parties
affected.

Participatory SEIAs

60

Criterion 7.1 - A comprehensive and participatory independent social and environmental impact assessment is undertaken prior
to establishing new plantings or operations,or expanding existing ones, and the results
incorporated into planning, management andoperations. Indicators: 7.1.1 An independentsocial and environmental impact assessment(SEIA), undertaken through a participatory
methodology including the relevant affectedstakeholders, shall be documented. 7.1.2 Appropriate management planning and operational
procedures shall be developed and implemented to avoid or mitigate identified potential
negative impacts. 7.1.3 Where the development
includes an outgrower scheme, the impacts ofthe scheme and the implications of the way it ismanaged shall be given particular attention.

Criteria 2b. Minimum requirement 6 Participatory methodologies described in the
RSB Impact Assessment Guidelines shall be
used to ensure meaningful stakeholder engagement. Special attention shall be made toensure that women, youth, elders,indigenous
and vulnerable people can participate
meaningfully in meetings and negotiations.
Where the need is identified by the impact
assessment facilitator, there shall be informal
workshops to build local understanding in
the community of the processes that may
impact them directly to aid meaningful
engagement.

ISPO makes the explicit requirement thatassessments be participatory but AMDAL
procedures do require assessors to interview
impacted communities. There is no indicator
to mitigate the negative impacts on communities or indigenous groups identified
by assessments or to monitor the identified
impacts.

61

Annex 1

A Comparison of Leading Palm Oil Certification Standards

Roundtable on Sustainable
Palm Oil (RSPO)

Roundtable on Sustainable
Biomaterials (RSB)

Indonesian Sustainable Palm Oil (ISPO)

Malaysian Sustainable Palm Oil (MSPO)International Sustainability and Carbon
Certification (ISCC)

Rainforest Alliance/Sustainable
Agriculture Network (SAN)The High Carbon Stock (HCS) Approach

Local food security, right to foodIn the definitions provided in the GuidanceLivelihood is defined as a person’s or agroup’s way of making a living, from theirenvironment or in the economy, including
how they provision their basic needs and assure themselves and following generations
secure access to food, clean water, health,education, housing and the materials
needed for their life and comfort either
through their own direct use of natural
resources or through exchange, barter, tradeor engagement in the market. Livelihoods
are then only mentioned in 3 criteria: 5.2(HCV areas) which notes “Operators need toconsider a variety of land management andtenure options to secure HCV management
areas in ways that also secure local peoples’
rights and livelihoods”; 7.1 (Particpatory
SEIAs) guidance notes “Assessment ofpotential social impacts on surrounding
communities of a plantation, including ananalysis of potential effects on livelihoods,
and differential effects on women versus
men, ethnic communities, and migrantversus long-term residents”; and 7.3 (NPP)
Indicator 7.3.5 notes “Areas required byaffected communities to meet their basic
needs, taking into account potential positive
and negative changes in livelihood resulting
from proposed operations, shall be identified in consultation with the communities
and incorporated into HCV assessments andmanagement plans”. BUT THERE IS NO
EXPLICIT REFERENCE TO FOOD OR
WATER RIGHTS.

Criteria 6a - Operations shall assess risks
to food security in the region and locality
and shall mitigate any negative impacts
that result from their operations. Minimum
requirements 1 - Where the screening
exercise of the RSB impact assessment
process reveals a direct impact on foodsecurity in food-insecure regions, Participating Operators shall conduct a food security
assessment in accordance with the RSB Food
Security Assessment Guidelines. Minimum
requirements 2 - The scope of the foodsecurity assessment shall include additional
impacts that the operations may have on
cross-cutting requirements for food security
including land, water, labour, and infrastructure. Minimum requirements 3 - If the foodsecurity assessment indicates a food security
risk as a result of the operations, a mitigation
plan shall be developed and implemented.
Criteria 6b - In food insecure regions, operations shall enhance the local food security ofthe directly affected stakeholders. Minimum
requirements 1 - In regions where foodsecurity is an ongoing risk and concern,
operations shall enhance food securityof the locally affected community by, forinstance, setting aside land for food growing,
increasing yields, providing opportunities forworkers to carry out household-level foodproduction, sponsoring agricultural support
programmes and activities, and/or making
value-added food by-products available tothe local market.

ISPO does not have an indicator to assess
the needs of the community, taking into
account the positive and negative changes
to the source of livelihood of communities
as a result of the planned plantation
activities.

Not mentioned - either explicitly or
implicitly.

Criterion 4.23 The biomass production
does not impair food security. The biomass
production shall not replace stable crops
and does not impair the local food security.
Local food prices do not rise as a direct effectof biomass production. Instruction 2.4.5
The use of agricultural by-products does
not jeopardise the function of local uses ofthe byproducts, soil organic matter or soil
nutrients balance. The use of by-products
does not occur at the expense of the soil
nutrient balance, soil organic matter balanceor important traditional uses (such as fodder,natural fertiliser, material, local fuel) unlessdocumentation is available that similar or
better alternatives are available and areapplied. (Major)

SAN guide for FPIC processes Identify
whether the proposed activity, project, or
expansion may diminish the rights, claims,
or interests identified in Step 1 - b. This is
the case in circumstances including, but notnecessarily limited to, the following: i. Land
currently used by communities, or membersof a community, for primary subsistence activities would no longer be available to thesepeople for these activities. For instance, if
smallholder farm plots growing mainly crops
for family subsistence or local consumption
are proposed to be converted to plantation agriculture, or if traditional pastoral
grazing lands are proposed to be enclosed
for intensified cattle production and madeunavailable to their former pastoralist users.
ii. Communities, or members of a community, would cease to have access, or would
have diminished access, to natural resources
used for local consumption or subsistence.
For instance, if: ‒ Access to streams or otherwater bodies for communities’ drinking
water, washing, or livestock watering is tobe eliminated or diminished; ‒ Access to
traditional hunting or fishing areas is to beeliminated or diminished; ‒ Access to, orrights to extract, plants or plant parts suchas firewood, medicinal plants, or fruits iseliminated or diminished; ‒ Statutory or
customary allocation of resources, such as
permissions to withdraw water from local
rivers, would change in a way that diminishes
communities’ allocation or use of theseresources.

HCS Decision Tree - Ensure that areas
which are part of an active subsistence foodproduction cycle to meet the food security
needs of local customary communities are
enclaved from consideration as HCS forest(or for plantation development). Community
land use planning - To help communities plan
viable long-term livelihoods and ensure local
food security, information must be generated
from the participatory mapping and HCV andHCS zoning, to clarify the location and extent
of areas: 1) currently allocated to various
community uses 2)to be conserved for HCV
and which of these areas will restrict current
uses 3) proposed to be conserved for HCS
forest and which of these areas will restrict
current uses 4) that will remain for various
community uses, including the needs of future generations, if all these other allocations
are acceded to.

Rights to water

Criteria 4.4 - Practices maintain the quality
and availability of surface and groundwater - The water management plan will:
Aim to ensure local communities, workers
and their families have access to adequate,
clean water for drinking, cooking, bathing
and cleaning purposes.

Criteria 9d - Operations shall contributeto the enhancement or maintaining of thequality of the surface and ground-water
resources. Minimum requirements 4 - Bufferzones shall be set between the operationsite and surface or groundwater resources.
Minimum requirements 6 - For existing
operations, degradation of water resourcesthat occurred prior to certification and forwhich the Participating Operator is directly
accountable shall be reversed. Whereverapplicable, operators (except small-scale
operators) shall participate in projects that
aim to improve water quality at a watershedscale. Minimum requirements 7 - Wastewater or runoff that contains potential organicand mineral contaminants shall be treated or
recycled to prevent any negative impact onhumans, wildlife, and natural compartments(water, soil).

Not mentioned. Water monitoring is
mentioned in one indicator.

Not mentioned - either explicitly or
implicitly.

Criterion 2.9.1 The producer can justify
the irrigation in the context of social andenvironmental sustainability. The producer
respects existing water rights, both formal andcustomary (including those of local communities and indigenous people) and can justify
the irrigation in light of accessibility of water
for human consumption. Adverse effects fordownstream users must be prevented. If the
farm or plantation irrigates or treats wateron-site, it has to be ensured that the water use
is in compliance with applicable regulations
and local legislation. 2.6.8 Restrictions on
the use of sewage sludge Treated sewage
sludge may only be applied to soils in a waythat does not adversely affect communities
water or soil quality, the pH of the soil or thenutritional needs of crops. The impacts ofapplying organic manure, treated sludge andsludge water and/or industrial waste residues
shall be kept to a minimum. Where relevant,this might include an assessment on the pollution of ground and surface water, health risks
to workers and surrounding communities andan assessment of heavy metals.

SAN guide for FPIC processes Identify any
rights or claims of these communities
to land or resources (e.g., water rights,
water access points, or rights to hunt or
extract forest products) that overlap orare adjacent to the site(s) or area(s) of the
proposed activity, project, or expansion.

Module 2.1 - Social Baseline Study - The
study is based on a desk survey and fieldwork and covers all relevant social, economic
and political dynamics in the target area.
These include food security, livelihoods andthe local economy more broadly, including
distribution and equity considerations. The
study assesses existing community practices
in relation to livelihoods and conservation,
including usage patterns of areas to be proposed as conservation set-asides, whether
economic, social or cultural. Access to water,
health and education facilities and othersocial and economic infrastructure arealso considered....The Social Baseline study
shall take into account the potential impactsof the proposed development on land use
patterns, water quality and availability,
labour, infrastructure, and on agricultural
production and the local food economy, over
the time frame of the development

Rights to clean environment

Principle 5 - Environmental Responsibility
and Conservation of Natural Resources andBiodiversity. 5.1 Aspects of plantation andmill management, including replanting, thathave environmental impacts are identified,and plans to mitigate the negative impacts
and promote the positive ones are made,
implemented and monitored, to demonstrate continual improvement. 5.2 The
status of rare, threatened or endangered
species and other High Conservation Value
habitats, if any, that exist in the plantation orthat could be affected by plantation or millmanagement, shall be identified and operations managed to best ensure that they are
maintained and/or enhanced. 5.3 Waste is
reduced, recycled, re-used and disposed of in
an environmentally and socially responsible
manner.

Criteria 7a - Conservation values of local,
regional or global importance within the potential or existing area of operation shall bemaintained or enhanced. Minimum requirement 8 - Hunting, fishing, ensnaring, poisoning and exploitation of rare, threatened,
endangered and legally protected species
shall not occur on the operation site. Criteria
7b - Ecosystem functions and services thatare directly affected by the operation shall bemaintained or enhanced. Criteria 7c - Operations shall protect, restore or create bufferzones. Criteria 7d - Ecological corridors
shall be protected, restored or created tominimise fragmentation of habitats. Criteria
7e - Operations shall prevent invasive species
from invading areas outside the operationsite. Criteria 8a - Operators shall implement
practices to maintain or enhance soil’s physical, chemical, and biological conditions.

ISPO does not refer specifically to rare,threatened and endangered species(although this may be considered in HCV
assessments). ISPO indicators monitor fires,factory waste, planting, water quality andenvironmental lmanagement but there is
no guidance on how this should be carriedout, what is best practice or the provisionof a monitoring protocol to mitigate againstchanges in the environment. There isn’t
an indicator which takes into account the
management plan to avoid areas with carbon
stocks.

P5, Criterion 1 - Environmental management plan, Indicator 1 - An environmental
policy and management plan in compliancewith the relevant country and state environmental laws shall be developed, effectively
communicated and implemented. Indicator
2 - The environmental management plan
shall cover the following: a) An environmental policy and objectives; b) The aspects andimpacts analysis of all operations. Indicator
3 - An environmental improvement plan tomitigate the negative impacts and to promote the positive ones, shall be developed,
effectively implemented and monitored.
Indicator 4 - A programme to promote thepositive impacts should be included in thecontinual improvement plan.

4.9 All negative environmental, social,economic and cultural impacts are avoided
All environmental, social, economic andcultural impacts for surrounding areas, communities, users and land-owners are taken
into account. Local historical, cultural andspiritual properties and sites are protected.
A participatory social impact assessment isconducted, where all relevant stakeholders
including local communities and indigenous
people are engaged. The report is publicly
available in appropriate language to surrounding communities. On the basis of thatreport an action plan to address identifiedsocial impacts and a continued dialogue withsurrounding communities is in place. Negative impacts must be avoided or, if not possible, minimised, restored and/or compensated. Documents of regular meetings with
communities (with two-way communication)and local government with listed risks and/or impacts and evidence of minuted negotiations or resolution processes are compiled.
This is only a minor consideration.

SAN guide for FPIC processes Identify any
rights or claims of these communities to landor resources (e.g., water rights, water accesspoints, or rights to hunt or extract forest
products) that overlap or are adjacent to thesite(s) or area(s) of the proposed activity,
project, or expansion.

The purpose of social and environmental
impact and land use planning tools is to mitigate the negative impacts of development
and ensure that essential social and environmental values and services are maintainedor enhanced. 2.1.2 Applying HCS to exisiting
operations. The developer and the communities shall then renegotiate agreements overlands, land use plans for management andmonitoring, including developing mutuallyagreed plans on how to restore, compensate
for, maintain and enhance lost social andenvironmental values.

62

63Annex 1

Core Labour Standards Conditions and benefits

64

A Comparison of Leading Palm Oil Certification Standards

Roundtable on Sustainable
Palm Oil (RSPO)

Roundtable on Sustainable
Biomaterials (RSB)

Indonesian Sustainable Palm Oil (ISPO)

Malaysian Sustainable Palm Oil (MSPO)International Sustainability and Carbon
Certification (ISCC)

Rainforest Alliance/Sustainable
Agriculture Network (SAN)The High Carbon Stock (HCS) Approach

Criterion 6.5 Pay and conditions for
employees and for employees of contractors always meet at least legal or industry
minimum standards and are sufficient toprovide decent living wages. Indicators:• Documentation of pay and conditions. •Labour laws, union agreements or directcontracts of employment detailing payments
and conditions of employment (e.g., working hours, deductions, overtime, sickness,
holiday entitlement, maternity leave, reasonsfor dismissal, period of notice, etc) areavailable in the languages understood by theworkers or explained carefully to them by amanagement official. • Growers and millers
provide adequate housing, water supplies,
medical, educational and welfare amenities
to national standard or above, where no such
public facilities are available or accessible(not applicable to smallholders). Guidance:
Where temporary or migrant workers are
employed, a special labour policy shouldbe established. This labour policy would
state the non discriminatory practices; nocontract substitution; post arrival orientation
program to focus especially on language,
safety, labour laws, cultural practices etc;
decent living conditions to be provided.
Migrant workers are legalised, and a separate
employment agreement should be drawn up
to meet immigration requirements for foreign
workers, and international standards. Deductions do not jeopardise a decent living wage.
Principle 6 - Responsible consideration of
employees and individuals and communities
affected by growers and millers. Criterion
6.10 - Growers and millers deal fairly andtransparently with smallholders and otherlocal businesses. Indicators: Indicators: •Current and past prices paid for FFB shall be
publicly available. • Pricing mechanisms for
FFB and inputs/services shall be documented(where these are under the control of the millor plantation) • Evidence shall be available
that all parties understand the contractual agreements they enter into, and that
contracts are fair, legal and transparent. •Agreed payments shall be made in a timely
manner. Criterion 6.11 - Growers and millers
contribute to local sustainable development
where appropriate.

Principal 4 - Human and Labour Rights.
Biofuel operations shall not violate humanrights or labour rights, and shall promote
decent work and the well-being of workers. Criteria 4e - Workers’ wages and working conditions shall respect all applicablelaws and international conventions, as well
as all relevant collective agreements. Wherea government regulated minimum wage isin place in a given country and applies tothe specific industry sector, this shall beobserved. Where a minimum wage is absent,
the wage paid for a particular activity shallbe negotiated and agreed on an annual
basis with the worker. Men and women shallreceive equal remuneration for work of equalvalue. Criteria 4f - Conditions of occupational safety and health for workers shall follow
internationally recognised standards.

Criterion 4.2 - Welfare and capacity building
for workers/laborers. ISPO does not requirethat there is evidence available that all parties understand the contractual agreements
and that contracts are fair, legal and transparent. ISPO does not have a requirement
for empoyee contracts and only states that
employees/workers must be enrolled in thegovernment's social security program, as per
applicable regulations.

Criterion 5 - Employment conditions: Indicator 1 - The management shall establish policy on good social practices regarding humanrights in respect of industrial harmony. The
policy shall be signed by the top management and effectively communicated to theemployees. Indicator 2 - The management
shall not engage in or support discriminatory
practices and shall provide equal opportunity
and treatment regardless of race, colour, sex,
religion, political opinion, nationality, social
origin or any other distinguishing characteristics. Indicator 3 - Management shall ensurethat employees' pay and conditions meetlegal or industry minimum standards as per
agreed Collective Agreements. Indicator 4 Management should ensure employees ofcontractors are paid based on legal or industry minimum standards according to theemployment contract agreed between thecontractor and his employee. Indicator 6 All employees shall be provided with faircontracts signed by both employee andemployer. A copy of employment contract isavailable for each employee indicated in theemployment records. Indicator 10 - Other
forms of social benefits should be offered by
the employer to employees, their families orthe community such as incentives of goodwork perfomance, bonus payment, professional development, medical care and healthprovisions. P4: Criterion 4, indicator 1 - An
occupational safety and health policy andplan shall be documented, effectively communicated and implemented.

Principle 3 Safe working conditions throughtraining and education, use of protective
clothing and proper and timely assistancein the event of accidents Criterion 4.9. The
management does hold regular two-way communication meetings with their employees
where issues affecting the business or related
to worker health, safety and welfare can be
discussed openly (minor) Criterion 4.10.
There are at least one worker or a workers'
council elected freely and democratically
who represent the interests of the staff to the
management (minor) Criterion 4.12 All children living on the farm have access to quality
primary school education Instruction 4.12 All
children at primary schooling age (according
to national legislation) living on the farm musthave access to primary school education,either through provided transport to a public
primary school or through adequate onsite
schooling. This is in accordance with the International Covenant on Economic, Social andCultural Rights, Art. 13 Criterion 4.15 All employees are provided with fair legal contracts.
Copies of working contracts can be shownfor every employee indicated in the records.
These have been signed by both the employee
and the employer Criterion 4.16 There is atime recording system that shows daily working time and overtime on a daily basis for all
employees. (Minor) Instruction 4.16 There isa time recording system that makes working
hours and overtime transparent for employees
and employer. Working times of all employees
during the last 24 months are documented.
Criterion 4.17 The working hours and breaksof the individual worker are indicated in thetime records comply with legal regulations
and/or collective bargaining agreements(minor) Instruction 4.17 Documented working
hours, breaks and rest days are in line withlegal regulations and/or collective bargaining
agreements. Records indicate that regular
weekly working hours do not exceed 48 hours.
This is N/A for supervisors or management.
Rest breaks/days are also documented during
peak season. Overtime shall be voluntary andshall always be compensated at a premium
rate Criterion 4.18 Pay slips document theconformity of payment with at least legal
regulations and/or collective bargaining
agreements (minor) Criterion 4.19 Other
forms of social benefits are offered by theemployer to employees, their families and/or
community Criterion 4.21 Provisions are inplace to compensate impact on workers andland (ecosystem quality) on exit or bankruptcy
of farm operations.

Criterion 4.8 Critical. The farm management
and group administrator do not engage
in arrangements or practices designed toeliminate or reduce pay and benefits due
to workers such as employing contract or
temporary workers for permanent or ongoingtasks. Criterion 4.10 Critical Regular working
hours of all workers do not exceed 48 hours
per week, with at least one full day of rest forevery six consecutive days worked. Workers
receive one meal period break for every six
hours worked. Criterion 4.11 Critical All
overtime is voluntary. Overtime does not result in a work week exceeding 60 total hours,
except under extraordinary circumstances.
All overtime is paid at the rate required byapplicable law or as collectively negotiated,whichever is higher. In absence of applicablelaw for higher overtime pay, overtime is paid
at 1.5 times the regular wage level. Criterion
4.12 Critical Farmers, workers, and theirfamilies are afforded access to potable water.
Criterion 4.13 Critical When the farm management and group administrator provide
housing to workers and their families Criterion 4.14 Critical The farm management andgroup administrator develop and implement
an Occupational Health and Safety (OHS)
plan. The OHS plan is based on a risk analysis
developed by a competent professional ororganisation and identifies and characterizes
biological, physical and chemical hazards
by job types or physically demanding tasks.
The OHS plan describes and rates risks interms of the frequency of potential occurrence and the potential danger or impact,
and indicates the communication, training,equipment, or procedures, including medical
exams and first aid, needed to prevent or
reduce those risks rated as high to worker
health or the health of other people on thefarm or group administrator facilities. The
farm management and group administrator
designate a qualified OHS officer responsible
for ensuring the implementation of the
OHS plan. Criterion 4.15 Critical Functional
Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) inaccordance with the product’s MSDS, safety
tag or other instructions, whichever are more
stringent, is provided free of cost to workers.
All persons who mix or handle pesticides,
fertilisers hazardous materials, or otherchemical substances or natural pest control
substances with possible dermatological or
microbiological risks use PPE. Substances
listed in the SAN List of Pesticides for Use
with Risk Mitigation as having inhalation
risks may be used only if restricted entry
intervals are enforced and respirators with anorganic vapor (OV) cartridge or canister with
any N, R, P, or 100 series prefilter are used,
and only if all application sites are flagged
to indicate inhalation risks to bystanders.
Criterion 4.16 Critical The farm management
trains all workers and the group administrator trains all group members or theirrepresentatives that handle or come into
contact with pesticides or other substances
posing potential health risks. Training is
conducted by a competent professional.
Criterion 4.21 The farm management’s andgroup administrator’s payment procedures
guarantee the complete payment to workers
of all of their wages due, including for overtime work. Payments are made on the date,in the place, and with the frequency specified

Module 2.11 Protecting labour rights Developers accord full labour rights to all
their workers in relation to compensation,
working conditions, and freedom of association. These rights are set out clearly in thedevelopers’ labour policy from the start ofthe development and apply to all workers
regardless of status. Developers respect
the international conventions that set out
these labour rights and their prohibitions onchild, forced and compulsory labour. Labour
standards, expectations and commitments
should be established early as part ofnegotiations. Developers provide safe andfair working conditions for their workers.
This includes the total prohibition of contact
with hazardous materials for workers under
18 years of age and pregnant women, theprovision of adequate safety equipment for
all others, and the avoidance of some specified substances altogether. Developers also
provide fair methods of payment, hours ofwork and overtime arrangements, and leave
entitlements.

65

Annex 1

A Comparison of Leading Palm Oil Certification Standards

Roundtable on Sustainable
Palm Oil (RSPO)

Roundtable on Sustainable
Biomaterials (RSB)

Indonesian Sustainable Palm Oil (ISPO)

Malaysian Sustainable Palm Oil (MSPO)International Sustainability and Carbon
Certification (ISCC)

Rainforest Alliance/Sustainable
Agriculture Network (SAN)The High Carbon Stock (HCS) Approachby collectively negotiated agreements orworker contracts. Criterion 4.22 The farmmanagement and group administrator
inform all workers offered employment intheir native language about all terms ofwork, covering labour policies, procedures,
rules and conditions either as stated in acollective bargaining agreement (where
implemented) or as contained in theemployer’s proposed labour agreement.
Criterion 4.23 All workers receive at least
two weeks of paid vacation leave per year
(10 days based on a five-day work week or
12 days based on a six-day work week) with
pro-rating for part-time or seasonal workers.
Criterion 4.28 When the farm management
and group administrator provide housing
to workers, or workers with their families.
Criterion 4.30 When the farm management
and group administrator provide housing
to workers, or workers with their families,
Criterion 4.31 The farm management
and group administrator provide accessto health care and basic education to all
workers. Criterion 4.32 When the farm management and group administrator provide
housing to workers, or workers with theirfamilies, they provide areas for recreationand drying clothes. For permanent workers
residing with their family, housing provides
at least one toilet, one shower, and one
laundry sink per family. Non-family worker
housing provides at least one toilet for every
six persons.
Core Labour standards - Minimum wage

66

Criteria 6.5 - Pay and conditions for employees and for contract workers always meet atleast legal or industry minimum standards
and are sufficient to provide decent living
wages. Indicators - 6.5.1 Documentation of
pay and conditions shall be available. 6.5.2
Labour laws, union agreements or directcontracts of employment detailing payments
and conditions of employment (e.g. working hours, deductions, overtime, sickness,
holiday entitlement, maternity leave, reasonsfor dismissal, period of notice, etc.) shall beavailable in the languages understood by theworkers or explained carefully to them by amanagement official. 6.5.3 Growers and millers shall provide adequate housing, watersupplies, medical, educational and welfare
amenities to national standards or above,
where no such public facilities are available
or accessible. 6.5.4 Growers and millers shallmake demonstrable efforts to monitor andimprove workers’ access to adequate, sufficient and affordable food.

Criteria 4e - Workers’ wages and working
conditions shall respect all applicable laws
and international conventions, as well as all
relevant collective agreements. Where a government-regulated minimum wage is in place
in a given country and applies to the specificindustry sector, this shall be observed. Wherea minimum wage is absent, the wage paid fora particular activity shall be negotiated andagreed on an annual basis with the worker.
Men and women shall receive equal remuneration for work of equal value. Criteria
4f - Conditions of occupational safety andhealth for workers shall follow internationallyrecognised standards.

ISPO does have requirements for minimum
wage and payroll system. Indicator 4.2 (1)Implementation of minimum wage regulations. Indicator 4.2 (2) A standard payroll
system has been established. Guidance 4.2(a) Minimum wages are paid in accordancewith the relevant local minimum wage.

P4, Criterion 5 Employment conditions,Indicator 3 Management shall ensure that
employees’ pay and conditions meet legal
or industry minimum standards and as per
agreed Collective Agreements. The living
wage should be sufficient to meet basic
needs and provide some discretionary
income based on minimum wage.

Criterion 4.6/4.2.8 The farm does paya living wage which meets at least legal
or industry minimum standards (major)
Instruction 4.7 The company's pay slips
demonstrate that living wages meet at least
legal or industry minimum standards and are
sufficient to meet basic needs of personnel
and to provide some discretionary income.
Criterion 4.18 Pay slips document theconformity of payment with at least legal
regulations and/or collective bargaining
agreements. (Minor) Instruction 4.18 Wages
and overtime payment documented on thepay slips are in line with legal regulations(minimum wages) and/or collective bargaining agreements (if applicable). If payment iscalculated per unit, employees (on average)
shall be able to gain the legal minimum wage
within regular working hours.

Criterion 4.5 critical criteria All workers
receive no less than the legal minimum
wage or wages negotiated collectively,
whichever is higher. For production, quota
or piece work, the established pay rate
allows workers to earn at least a minimum
wage compared to a 48-hour standard
working week of a similar task. If underthese conditions, the piecework rate does
not meet the minimum wage, then the wage
level is upgraded to at least the minimum
wage. No more than 30% of the required
minimum wage is paid in-kind. If wages arenegotiated voluntarily between employers
and workers' organisations, those negotiated wage amount(s) apply to all workers
covered under the negotiated agreement.
Management-required training takes place
during normal working hours and is fullycompensated. Workers are not charged, nor
is pay deducted, to cover the cost of tools,
equipment or gear required for performanceof worker duties. Criterion 4.27 The farmmanagement and group administrator
increase inflation-adjusted cash wages atleast annually. Criterion 4.29 If a living wage
benchmark is provided, the farm management and group administrator document
and implement a living wage plan, toprogress towards payment of living wage.
In absence of a living wage benchmark, thefarm management and group administrator
assess current access of workers and theirfamilies to health care and basic educationand develop and implement a plan forproviding access to these services.

Module 2.11 Protecting labour rights Labour standards, expectations and commitments should be established early as part ofnegotiations. Developers shall pay workers
at least the legal minimum wage, or a ‘decent
living wage’, as defined and determined using
accepted methods (RSPO Principles and Criteria, Criterion 6.5). The total compensation
package is mutually agreed with workers
through a documented and transparent
process.

67Annex 1

A Comparison of Leading Palm Oil Certification Standards

Roundtable on Sustainable
Palm Oil (RSPO)

Roundtable on Sustainable
Biomaterials (RSB)

Indonesian Sustainable Palm Oil (ISPO)

Malaysian Sustainable Palm Oil (MSPO)International Sustainability and Carbon
Certification (ISCC)

Rainforest Alliance/Sustainable
Agriculture Network (SAN)The High Carbon Stock (HCS) ApproachCore Labour standards - Free Collective
Bargaining

Criteria 6.6 - The employer respects therights of all personnel to form and jointrade unions of their choice and to bargain
collectively. Where the right to freedom of
association and collective bargaining are
restricted under law, the employer facilitatesparallel means of independent and free association and bargaining for all such personnel.
Indicators - 6.6.1 A published statement inlocal languages recognising freedom of association shall be available. 6.6.2 Minutes ofmeetings with main trade unions or workers
representatives shall be documented.

Criteria 4a - Workers shall enjoy freedom of
association, the right to organise, and theright to bargain collectively.

4.4 Establishment of Unions ISPO requires
plantation mangement to facilitate theformation of unions - there are no details on
how workers are encouraged to join unions
or indicators detailing how meetings withtrade unions or workers representatives will
be documented.

Indicator 3 - Management shall ensure that
employees’ pay and conditions meet legal orindustry minimum standards as per agreed
Collective Agreements. Indicator 13 - The
management shall respect the right of all
employees to form or join trade unions andallow workers own representative(s) to facilitate collective bargaining in accordance withapplicable laws and regulations. Employees
shall be given the freedom to join a tradeunion relevant to the industry or to organise
themselves for collective bargaining.
Employees shall have the right to organise
and negotiate their work conditions.
Employees exercising this right should
not be discriminated against or suffer
reprecussions.

4.6 Labour organisations and collective
bargaining for negotiating working conditions All workers are free to establish and tojoin labour organisations of their own choiceor organize themselves to perform collective
bargaining. Workers must have the right toorganize and negotiate their working conditions. There is evidence (workers' interviews
with selfselected/anonymous workers) thatthe employer supports the establishment
or at least does not block the effectivefunctioning of worker-committees where
the workers elect representatives. There isevidence of acceptance of collective bargaining agreements. Trade union members areguaranteed the possibility to fulfil their tasks
at least outside of the regular working hours.
Workers exercising this right should not be
discriminated against or suffer repercussions.
The employment conditions regarding freedom of association and collective bargaining
are in accordance with all national and local
legislation and ILO Conventions 87 and 98.

Criterion 4.4 critical criteria Workers havethe right to establish and join worker organizations of their own free choice without influenceor interference by farm management,
owners or group administrators. Worker
organizations operate without interference
or influence by farm management, owners
or group administrators. Workers have theright to collectively negotiate the elements of
their employment conditions into a collective
bargaining agreement. Workers are fully
protected against acts of discrimination orretaliation for reasons of affiliation.

Module 2.11 Protecting labour rights Developers ensure both that workers are able
freely to organise and represent themselves
for the purposes of collective bargaining andnegotiation, and that they are fully informedof their rights in this regard. This includes
migrant workers who may not be aware of
their rights to trade union membership andrepresentation.

Core Labour Standards - No Child Labour

Criteria 6.7 - Children are not employed or
exploited. Indicators: 6.7.1 There shall be
documentary evidence that minimum age
requirements are met.

Criteria 4c - No child labour shall occur,
except on family farms and then only whenwork does not interfere with the child’s
schooling and does not put his or her healthat risk.

4.3 The use of child labour and discrimination against workers. ISPO prohibits employment of children with a minimum age
according to regulations but does not requirethat there must be documentary evidence
that minimum age requirement is met.

Although there is no specific criteria dedicated to this - companies receiving MSPO
certification are expected to have a separate
policy on child labour - they are also required
to document and record the workers’ dateof birth.

Criterion 4.14 No minors are employed on
the farm (major) Instruction 4.14 The minimum age complies with all local and national
legislation as well as with ILO Convention
138 and 182. Documents include recordingof workers’ date of birth and documented
evidence that the employer is aware of prevailing legislation. Children within the age ofcompulsory schooling must not be employedduring school hours. Young workers (15-18)
must not undertake hazardous work thatjeopardises their health, safety or morals. Allforms of slavery or practices similar to slavery, forced or compulsory labour of children
is prohibited.

Criterion 4.6 critical criteria The worst formsof child labor are prohibited, including: •Work harmful to children; • Any type of paidor unpaid work by a child under the age of 15
years old, except tasks that are traditional forchildren in the location and are undertaken
for the purpose of encouraging the family’sor local culture; • Young workers’ work during
legally compulsory school hours; • Youngworkers’ work of more than eight hours per
day and more than 48 hours per week; •Young workers’ work schedule not permitting
minimum consecutive period of 12 hours'
overnight rest, and at least one full day of restfor every six consecutive days worked; • All
forms of forced, compulsory, or slave laboror discrimination; • Sale and trafficking ofchildren; • Use, procuring or offering of a childfor prostitution, for the production of pornography or for pornographic performances; and• Use, procuring or offering of a child for otherillicit activities. Criterion 4.7 critical criteria
If young workers are contracted, records foreach young worker are kept, including: Firstand last name; reliable proof of date of birth;parent(s) or legal guardian(s) first and last
name and domicile or place of contact; young
worker’s permanent residence; school registration and attendance statuses; parent(s) orlegal guardian(s) consent and authorisation
for the young worker’s employment; type ofassigned work or tasks; and number of daily
and weekly working hours. Criterion 4.24
The farm management and group administrator develop and implement a child labor prevention and monitoring plan after considering
the results of consultations with community
members and minors.

Module 2.11 Protecting labour rights Developers take active measures to comply
fully with the provisions of international
conventions on forced or compulsory labourand child labour, ensuring and demonstrating that no child labour or forced or traffickedlabour is used in their operations.

Core Labour Standards - No Slavery-likepractices

Criteria 6.12 - No forms of forced ortrafficked labour are used - Indicators 6.12.1
There shall be evidence that no forms offorced or trafficked labour are used. 6.12.2
Where applicable, it shall be demonstrated
that no contract substitution has occurred.
6.12.3 Where temporary or migrant workers
are employed, a special labour policy
and procedures shall be established andimplemented.

Criteria 4b - No slave labour or forced labour
shall occur. The participating operator shallnot be engaged in or support the use offorced, compulsory, bonded, trafficked orotherwise involuntary labour as defined in
ILO Convention 29.

ISPO does not have specific criteria thatprohibit the use of any form of forced labouror human trafficking.

Although there is not a specific criteria
dedicated to this - companies receiving the
MSPO standard should be expected to havea separate policy on no forced labour - thetext can be taken from the standard Criterion
5 Indicator 1 which states "the management
shall establish a policy on good social
practices regarding human rights in respectof industrial harmony".

Criterion 4.4. There is no forced labour at thefarm (major) Instruction 4.4 There must be nouse of forced, bonded or involuntary labour
as meant in ILO Convention 29 and 105.
Criterion 4.13 There are records that provide
an accurate overview of all employees (including seasonal workers and subcontracted
workers on the farm) and indicate full names,a job description, date of birth, date of entry,
wage and the period of employment. (minor)
Instruction 4.14 All forms of slavery or practices similar to slavery, forced or compulsory
labour of children is prohibited. Criterion
4.15 All employees are provided with fairlegal contracts. Copies of working contracts
can be shown for every employee indicatedin the records. These have been signed byboth the employee and the employer. (minor)

Criterion 4.1 critical criteria All forms offorced, compulsory, or slave labor are prohibited, including use of trafficked and bonded
labor, labor by prisoners or soldiers, or theuse of extortion, debt, threats, monetaryfines or penalties. According to ILO Forced
Labor Convention (No. 29) and Abolition ofForced Labor Convention (No. 105)

Module 2.11 Protecting labour rights Developers take active measures to comply
fully with the provisions of international
conventions on forced or compulsory labourand child labour, ensuring and demonstrating that no child labour or forced or traffickedlabour is used in their operations.

68

69

Annex 1

A Comparison of Leading Palm Oil Certification Standards

Roundtable on Sustainable
Palm Oil (RSPO)

Roundtable on Sustainable
Biomaterials (RSB)

Indonesian Sustainable Palm Oil (ISPO)

Malaysian Sustainable Palm Oil (MSPO)International Sustainability and Carbon
Certification (ISCC)

Rainforest Alliance/Sustainable
Agriculture Network (SAN)The High Carbon Stock (HCS) ApproachCore Labour Standards Contracting third parties

Criteria 1.3 Growers and millers commit toethical conduct in all business operations
and transactions. Indincator 1.3.1 There
shall be a written policy committing to acode of ethical conduct and integrity in all
operations and transactions, which shall be
documented and communicated to all levelsof the workforce and operations. Guidance
All levels of the operations will include
contracted third parties (e.g. those involved
in security). Criteria 6.1.3 Growers andmillers respect human rights Guidance Alllevels of operations will include contracted
third parties.

Criteria 4g - Operators shall implement amechanism to ensure the human rights andlabour rights outlined in this principle apply
equally when labour is contracted throughthird parties.

ISPO standard does not contain an indicatorthat specifically defines labour policies,
human rights policies and procedures
relating to temporary workers. Althoughcompany operations are expected to be inline with national law which does provide
some provisions on this.

P6 - Criterion 4 - Contractor - Indicator 1 Where contractors are engaged, they shallunderstand the MSPO requirements and shallprovide the required documentation andinformation. Indicator 2 -The management
shall provide evidence of agreed contracts
with the contractor. Indicator 4 - The
management shall be responsible for theobservance of the control points applicableto the tasks performed by the contractor,
by checking and signing the assessmentof the contractor for each task and season
contracted.

Criterion 4.22 Fair and transparent contract
farming arrangements are in place. 6.2.4
Subcontractors must fully comply with ISCC
sustainability requirements.

Criterion 4.8 The farm management andgroup administrator do not engage inarrangements or practices designed toe liminate or reduce pay and benefits due to workers such as employing contract or temporary
workers for permanent or ongoing tasks.

Module 2.11 Protecting labour rights - Developers should employ as high a proportion
as possible of their workforce as permanentrather than temporary or casual workers, as
the latter are far more likely to experience
non-fulfilment or abuse of their rights. Where
contract workers are employed during particular phases of the operation, developers
monitor the compliance of contractors withthese requirements.

Core Labour Standards Accessible grievance mechanism

Criteria 6.3 - There is a mutually agreed
and documented system for dealing
with complaints and grievances, which
is implemented and accepted by allaffected parties. Indicators: 6.3.1 The
system, open to all affected parties, shallresolve disputes in an effective, timely andappropriate manner, ensuring anonymity
of complainants and whistleblowers, where
requested. 6.3.2 Documentation of both theprocess by which a dispute was resolved andthe outcome shall be available.

Criteria 4h - Operators shall implement andmaintain a transparent and easily accessible
grievance mechanism, open for all workers
and contracted workers

No grievance mechanism for workers isprovided. The only grievance mechanism
related to land disputes and compensation.
Indonesian national law does provide
protection to workers but this is not
explicitly stated in the standard.

4.3 A complaint form should be available on
the premises where employees or other affected stakeholders can make a complaint.

Criterion 4.12 There is a complaint form and/or procedure available on the farm, where
employees and affected communities canmake a complaint. They shall be made awareof its existence and complaints or suggestions can be made at any time. Complaints
are dealt with in a timely manner. Complaints
and their solutions from the last 24 months
are documented and accessible. (this is only
a minor consideration). N.B. no further detailof complaints procedure given

Criterion 4.9 critical The farm management
and group administrator implement complaints or grievance mechanisms to protect
workers’ rights. Workers also have the rightto object to their received payment and havetheir objections reviewed and decided withdecisions being documented. Workers are
not subject to employment termination,
retribution, or threats as a consequenceof utilising the complaint or grievancemechanism. The farm management andgroup administrator inform workers of theright to access external complaint and grievance mechanisms, including SAN accredited
Certification Bodies, SAN secretariat or local
authorities.

Grievance and redress procedures for social
requirements of HCS - Developers shallestablish an effective and pro active system
to address any grievances or complaints thatarise under the HCS Social Requirements. Thissystem shall be mutually agreed, balanced
and accountable. All elements of the process
shall be fully documented and accessible toall stakeholders, including translation into
local languages where necessary. Developers
shall ensure that complainants can accessindependent legal and technical advice of
their choice to support them, and provide theoption of third party mediation. This grievance mechanism doesnt relate specificallyto workers - instead relating to other social
incidents.

Core Labour Standards Protection of Migrant Labour

Criteria 6.6 Guidance - The right of
employees, including migrant andtransmigrant workers and contract workers,
to form associations and bargain collectively
with their employer should be respected, in
accordance with Conventions 87 and 98 of
the International Labour Organisation (ILO).
Indicator 6.12.3 - 6.12.3 Where temporary
or migrant workers are employed, a special
labour policy and procedures shall beestablished and implemented. - Guidance
Migrant workers should be legalised, and aseparate employment agreement should be
drawn up to meet immigration requirements
for foreign workers and international
standards. Any deductions made should notjeopardise a decent living wage. Passports
should only be voluntarily surrendered.
There should be evidence of due diligence inapplying this to all sub-contract workers andsuppliers. National guidance should be usedon contract substitution.

No indicators specifically defined andapplied in the case of migrant workers.

No indicators specifically defined andapplied in the case of migrant workers.

No indicators specifically defined andapplied in the case of migrant workers.

Criterion 4.3. There is no discrimination (distinction, exclusion or preference)practiced that denies or impairs equality ofopportunity, conditions or treatment basedon individual characteristics and groupmembership or association. For example, on
the basis of: race, caste, nationality, religion,
disability, gender, sexual orientation, union
membership, political affiliation, age,marital status, working status (i.e. temporary,migrant, seasonal), HIV/AIDS (major). 5.2
There is an awareness of, and compliancewith, all applicable regional and nationallaws and ratified international treaties. The
producer can demonstrate awareness of his
responsibilities according to the applicablelaws. Applicable laws should be compliedwith. They apply to: rights of permanent andtemporary workers.

Criterion 4.8 The farm management andgroup administrator do not engage in arrangements or practices designed to eliminate or
reduce pay and benefits due to workers suchas employing contract or temporary workers
for permanent or ongoing tasks. Worker: Any
person who works on a farm or for a group
administrator and is paid for his or her work.
Encompasses all types of workers, including permanent, temporary, documented,
undocumented, migrant, and transitory, andalso persons temporarily absent from a job
or enterprise at which they recently worked
for illness, parental leave, holiday, training,or industrial dispute. Temporary Worker:
Employees who are not permanently hired but
contracted just for limited periods of time. The
relevant labor contract is of limited or unspecified duration with no guarantee of continuation. Workers that conduct short-term harvest
work on a farm and voluntarily move to otherfarms are not subject to contracts between
the farm or group administrator and the temporary worker. The designation of "short term
workers" may not be made for the purpose of
avoiding legal minimum wage or legal benefit
schemes that include these workers.

Module 2.11 Protecting labour rights Developers ensure both that workers are able
freely to organise and represent themselves
for the purposes of collective bargaining andnegotiation, and that they are fully informedof their rights in this regard. This includes
migrant workers who may not be aware of
their rights to trade union membership andrepresentation. These standards shall apply
to the entire workforce, whether casual,
temporary or permanent workers, employed
directly or via contractors, and whether migrants or nationals. Further specific actions
are necessary to ensure that migrant workers’ rights are also protected, including theirright to retain their documents and valuables
and their right not to be charged excessive
recruitment fees.

No Discrimination

Criteria 6.8 - Any form of discrimination
based on race, caste, national origin, religion,
disability, gender, sexual orientation,
union membership, political affiliation,or age, is prohibited. Indicators: 6.8.1 A
publicly available equal opportunities
policy including identification of relevant/affected groups in the local environment
shall be documented. 6.8.2 Evidence shallbe provided that employees and groups
including local communities, women, andmigrant workers have not been discriminatedagainst. 6.8.3 It shall be demonstrated that
recruitment selection, hiring and promotion
are based on skills, capabilities, qualities,
and medical fitness necessary for the jobs
available.

Criteria 4d. Workers shall be free of
discrimination of any kind, whether in
employment or opportunity, with respect togender, age, wages, working conditions, andsocial benefits.

ISPO offers generic policies where companies
are requested not to engage or support
any discrimnatory practices. These policies
do not have to be made public. ISPO only
recognises indigenous communities if they
are supported by a district government
regulation.

P4, Criterion 5 Employment conditions,Indicator 2 - The management should not
engage in or support discriminatoy practices
and shall provide equal opportunitiy andtreatment regardless of race, colour, sex,
religion, political opinion, nationality, social
origin or any other distinguishing characteristics.

4.2.4 Employment conditions comply withequity principles - The management shallnot engage in or support discriminatory
practices and shall provide equal opportunity
and treatment regardless of race, colour, sex,
religion, political opinion, nationality, social
origin or any other distinguishing characteristics. 4.2.3 There is no discrimination at
the farm or plantation There is no indicationof discrimination (distinction, exclusion or
preference) practiced that denies or impairsequlaity of opportunity, conditions or treatment based on individual characteristics
and group membership or association. For
example on the base of: race, caste, nationality, region, disability, gender etc. A publicly
available equal opportunities policy including identification of relevant/affected groups
in the local environment exists.

Criterion 1.12 The farm management andgroup administrator support equality andempowerment of women, including participation in training and education and equal accessto products and services. Criterion 4.2 critical
criteria Workers are treated respectfully andare never subjected to threats, intimidation,
sexual abuse or harassment, or verbal, physicalor psychological mistreatment. Criterion 4.3
critical criteria All forms of discrimination inlabor, hiring, training, task assignment, laborbenefits, promotion policies and procedures,and other opportunities for better conditions,pay, or advancement are prohibited, including
any distinction, exclusion or preference toinvalidate or harm equality of opportunity or
treatment in employment; and different pay16
to men and women for work of equal value.
According to ILO Conventions 100 and 111.
Criterion 4.4 critical criteria Workers have theright to establish and join worker organisationsof their own free choice without influence orinterference by farm management, owners orgroup administrators. Worker organisations
operate without interference or influence byfarm management, owners or group administrators. Workers have the right to collectively

Module 2.12 Ensuring non-discrimination In keeping with well-established international
principles of non-discrimination, developers
shall ensure that they treat all parties andstakeholders equally and fairly whatever theirreligion, race, ethnicity, nationality, gender,
age, sexual orientation or political affiliation.
Developers shall ensure non-discriminationin relation to all, their communicationand consultative processes with affected
communities. These processes shall include
representation from minority, marginalised
and vulnerable groups of all kinds in orderto establish effective and transparent
relationships and processes (see box). These
processes shall be accessible and transparent,
and translated into local languages where
necessary. Developers shall also demonstrate
a fair and non-discriminatory approach intheir complaints procedures, including by
taking account of differences in the ability
to claim rights in relation to land ownership
claims. Developers shall put into place SOPs
that set out in detail policies in all theseareas, with time frames of implementation,
allocation of responsibility and monitoring
and verification indicators.

70

71Annex 1

A Comparison of Leading Palm Oil Certification Standards

Roundtable on Sustainable
Palm Oil (RSPO)

Roundtable on Sustainable
Biomaterials (RSB)

Indonesian Sustainable Palm Oil (ISPO)

Malaysian Sustainable Palm Oil (MSPO)International Sustainability and Carbon
Certification (ISCC)

Rainforest Alliance/Sustainable
Agriculture Network (SAN)The High Carbon Stock (HCS) Approachnegotiate the elements of their employment
conditions into a collective bargaining
agreement. Workers are fully protected against
acts of discrimination or retaliation for reasonsof affiliation. Criterion 4.37 When workers are
diagnosed with temporary health conditionsor have short-term disabilities that impair
their ability to carry out their job, the farmmanagement and group administrator reassign
these workers for the length of the disability
period to a different work task without penalty
or a decrease in compensation.
No Discrimination - Gender Sensitive
Complaints Procedure/Protectionof Women

Criteria 6.9 - There is no harassment orabuse in the work place, and reproductive
rights are protected. Indicator - 6.9.3 A
specific grievance mechanism which respects
anonymity and protects complainants
where requested shall be established,
implemented, and communicated to alllevels of the workforce.

Not mentioned.

Not mentioned - either explicitly or
implicitly

Not mentioned - either explicitly or implicitly

3.2.1 The health, safety and hygiene policy
shall also include specific health and saftey
issues of women.

Criterion 4.3 Toilets are designed tomaximise safety for women and children,
including good sight lines to latrines, privacy
structures with locks and well-lit toilet areas;
and N.B no mention of gender sensitivity incomplaints procedure.

Module 2.12 Ensuring non-discrimination- In keeping with well-establishedinternational principles of nondiscrimination, developers shall ensurethat they treat all parties and stakeholders
equally and fairly whatever their religion,
race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, age,sexual orientation or political affiliation.
Wherever there is a non- negligible
proportion of women in the workforce,developers establish a gender committee
managed by women in order to address
their particular issues.

No discrimination No sexual harassment/Reproductive
Rights protected

Criteria 6.9 - There is no harassment orabuse in the work place, and reproductive
rights are protected. Indicators - 6.9.1
A policy to prevent sexual and all otherforms of harassment and violence shall be
implemented and communicated to all levelsof the workforce. 6.9.2 A policy to protect
the reproductive rights of all, especiallyof women, shall be implemented andcommunicated to all levels of the workforce.

4d.3 - Work sites shall be safe for women;
free from sexual harassment and otherdiscrimination and abuse; and promote
access to jobs, skills training, recruitment
and career development for women to
ensure more gender balance in work andcareer development. Reproductive rights are
not mentioned.

ISPO does not expressly prohibit any formof harassment or violence in the workplace.
ISPO does not consider the protection of
reproductive rights.

Criterion 5, Indicator 12 - The management
shall establish a policy and provide
guidelines to prevent all forms of sexual
harrassment and violence at the workplace.

No mention of tackling sexual harrassment
or protecting reproductive rights other thanto say the person responsible for good social
practice should demonstrate awareness ofnational regulations on maternity leave.

Criterion 4.18 Women who are pregnant,nursing or have recently given birth are notassigned to activities that pose risk to thewoman’s, fetus’s or infant’s health. In casesof job reassignment, there is no reduction
in remuneration. Criterion 4.25 Pregnant
women who are active workers receive
fully-paid maternity leave of at least 12 weeks
before or after birth, with at least six of theseweeks being taken after birth. Criterion
4.26 The farm management and group
administrators offer women who are pregnant,nursing or have recently given birth flexible
working schedules or work site arrangements.
N.B no mention of tackling sexual harassment
except in specific circumstances 5.10 The farm
does not use extortion, debt, threats or sexual
abuse or harassment, or any other physicalor psychological measures to force workers towork or stay on the farm, or as a disciplinary
measure.

Module 2.12 Ensuring non-discrimination- They shall also ensure that there is no
harassment or abuse in the workplace andthat reproductive rights are protected.

Quality Assurance

Public summaries of audit reports available
on RSPO website. In November 2015 RSPO
passed a resolution that committed theorganisation to ensuring the quality, oversight and credibility of RSPO assessments bydeveloping clear and mandatory guidelines
and to improve the quality of HCV, HCS, SEIA
and FPIC review in NPP assessments, as wellas to monitor the quality, independence andperformance of all RSPO CB auditors and 3rdparty assessors - this was in direct response
to issues raised by a number of complaints
reportoing on the quality, independence andcredibility of some assessments and audits.
The prerequisities for RSPO certification arethat the company must be registered as amember of the RSPO; a public announcement must be made 30 days prior to theaudit of the intention to be RSPO certified
requesting any input from interested parties of this intention and; that there is no
significant conflicts between key stakeholders (related to social and environmental
aspects), including their subsidiaries, in theevent the company is registered as a memberof the RSPO as a parent company.

RSB assurance system is comprised of : RSB
Accreditation Body (AB), Certification Bodies(CBs) and auditors, who are either employedor subcontracted by CBs.

The classification system ensures that
operators are employing proper plantationand environmental management practices
prior to the assessment by an independent
thrid party auditor (a government approved
certification body). No public summaries ofaudit reports. The ISPO audit is undertaken
in two stages, the first stage is a compliance
audit of the requisite legal plantation
licences and required completed businessdocumentation. The second stage is a fullplantation audit assessing all documentation
concerning adherenece to IPSO P+C's
in the plantation and in the mill. The
certification body must extend a publicannouncement via the ISPO Secretariat atleast 30 days before the second stage of theauditing process so as to receive any input
or complaints from any interested party
concerning the plantation in question.

Principle 6, Criterion 4 - Contractor,
Indicator 3 - The management shallaccept MSPO approved auditors to verify
assessments through a pyhsical inspection
if required.

The ISCC standard have strong links toother European Commission Standards
and has a strong focus on a crosscompliance control systems. Summaries
of audit reports will be made publicallyavailable for each issued certificate. N.B.
Agreed 2016 but not yet come into effect.

SAN also relies on accredited third parties
to lead the verification and certification
process, including determining applicability of each criterion to an individual farm/
plantation, undertaking audits, and issuingcertificates. This is carried out by certification
bodies accredited by the International Organic Accreditation Service (IOAS). No public
summaries of audit reports.

Module 7 - The concession-holder fills
out the summary report and submits theassessment to the HCS Approach Secretariat
to organise peer review. The concessionholder pays the Secretariat the quality review
fee, but does not hire the reviewers directly.
The Secretariat select s the Peer Review
Panel, a group of 2-3 people with expertisein image analysis, forestry and social issues/
community rights. Potential conflicts ofinterest with panel members should be
avoided. The Peer Review Panel sends its
findings to the company, which can thensubmit new information or correct mistakes
for further review by the panel.

Quality Assurance Independent Third Party Verification

Yes. As a standard setting body and amember of ISEAL, the RSPO relies on otherparties known as Certification Bodies andassessors to provide assessment, verificationand certificiation against its standards.
Third -party Certidfication Body auditors
and assessors are employed to assure basic
complaince to RSPO P+C’s.

Yes. Relies on certification bodies to perform
audits of RSB participating operators, issue
RSB certificates and ensure continuous
monitoring of RSB Participating operators.

Yes. There is 1) An assessment of complianceby an independent approved accreditor. 2) A
certification body that has been accereditedby the Accreditation Board 3) A certification
and/or association that undertakes auditing
is officially registered in Indonesia according
to national regulations. A certification bodymust obtain the approval of accreditation by
National Accreditation Committee (KAN).

BSI auditors can provide MSPO assessment
for independent verification on theimplementation of the requirements
agains the MSPO criteria.

Yes. Annual audits. Accredited by experienced
external third parties. General requirements
listed in ISCC EU 251 - Requirements on
Certification Bodies.

Yes. Audits checked by independentcertification bodies.

Module 7 - Once completed, an HCS
assessment must be reviewed to make surethat it followed the HCS toolkit methodology.
While the HCS Approach Steering Group has
not ruled out the possibility of third party
verification.

72

73

Annex 1

A Comparison of Leading Palm Oil Certification Standards

Roundtable on Sustainable
Palm Oil (RSPO)

Roundtable on Sustainable
Biomaterials (RSB)

Indonesian Sustainable Palm Oil (ISPO)

Malaysian Sustainable Palm Oil (MSPO)International Sustainability and Carbon
Certification (ISCC)

Rainforest Alliance/Sustainable
Agriculture Network (SAN)The High Carbon Stock (HCS) Approach

Quality Assurance - Accreditationof Certifiers

Accredited by Accreditation Services
International (ASI) which provides a service
to RSPO to assure the quality of its CBs
through accreditation. Similarly the scheme
is relying on independent 3rd parties to
conduct assessment on environmental,socia, high conservation values and carbon
stock. In the case of HCV, the scheme
requires the assessor to be licenced under
HCV Resource Network. For example: Criteria
7.1 - A comprehensive and participatory
independent social and environmental
impact assessment is undertaken prior toestablishing new plantings or operations
or expanding existing ones, and the results
incorporated into planning, management
and operations - Guidance - The terms ofreference should be defined and impact
assessment should be carried out by
accredited independent experts, in orderto ensure an objective process. Bothshould not be done by the same body.
A participatory methodology including
external stakeholder groups is essential tothe identification of impacts, particularlysocial impacts. Stakeholders such as local
communities, government departments andNGOs should be involved through the use ofinterviews and meetings, and by reviewing
findings and plans for mitigation.

The RSB Accreditation Body (AB) - ASI (Accreditation Services International) provides
services to RSB to assure the quality of its
CBs through accreditation.

ISPO Certification Bodies are accredited
directly by the ISPO Commision. (not independent of ISPO) - the ISPO maintains a highlevel of control over the entire certifcaiton
process from standard setting through tocertification decisions.

Accredition by MSPO Commision (not independent of MSPO).

Accredited by experienced external third
parties. General requirements listed in ISCC
EU 251 - Requirements on Certification
Bodies. American National Standards
Institute (ANSI) works as an independent
third-party program to accredit the ISCC's
certification bodies. The accreditation
verifies that the certification bodyies comply
with international standards as well as with
the ISCC system, including conformance with
ISO/IEC 17065.

Accredited by SAN authorised certification
bodies and subcontracted authorised
auditors. SAN's certification bodies areaccredted by the International Organic
Accreditation System (IOAS).

continued from above...the long-term goal
is to have the HCS Approach incorporated
into relevant certification system standards(e.g. RSPO and FSC), and to collaborate withother initiatives, such as the HCV Resource
Network, in order to ensure good quality.

Quality Assurance - Quality Assuranceof assessor (assessor licensing)

RSPO will require licenced assessors for all
HCV assessment carried out in the context
of new planting procedures (NPP) - A full
HCV assessor licence is obtained after
leading two assessments and submitting
two adequate HCV assessmnet reports.
To maintain a full licence, the assessor isrequired to submit the reports of all HCV
assessmnets to the ALS Quality Panel(failure to do so can result in suspension or
revocation of licence) - A Quality Manager
reviews applications and a Qaluity Panelevaluates reports for compliance with ALS
procedures - stakeholder also have access topublic summary.

ASI is a full member of the ISEAL Allianceand operates a quality management system
based on ISO/IEC 17011:2004 requirements
for accreditation bodies. The RSB model isverified by thrid party RSB certification - "theprimary use of the RSB standard is a certification system involving independent 3rd party
certification bodies". RSB assurance system
is carried out by auditors who are either
employed or contracted by certification bodies, they must comply with RSB Procedure for
Certification Bodies and Auditors.

ISPO audit teams should consist of auditors
who understand licensing requirements,
palm oil plantations, good management
practices, occupational health and safetysystems, have an awareness of environmental, social and economic issues. They should
speak Indonesian, and understand ISO 19011
on managing audit systems. ISPO auditors
must also pass a training course organised by
the ISPO Commission and run by a training
institution approved by ISPO commission.

MSPO audit teams should consist of auditors
who understand licensing requirements,
palm oil plantations, good management
practices, occupational health and safety systems, have an awareness of environmental,social and economic issues. They will carryout an annual surveillance audit each year
which is peer reviewed.

The ANSI is a signatory to the International
Accreditiation Forum (IAF) MLA, which
demonstrates ISO/IEC 17011 compliance
via peer assessments and the Multilateral
Recognition Arrangement for Product
Certification operated by PacificAccreditation Cooperative (PAC). Multilateral
Recognition Arrangements for Productcertification (under ISO/IEC 17065),
Greenhouse Gas Validation/Verification(under ISO 14065) and Personnel Certfication(under ISO/IEC 17024). ISCC Integrity
Assessments are planned randomly or on arisk basis after risk evaluations, complaints
or reports of non-conformity or fraud.
Integrity Assessments are conducted by
ISCC Integrity Auditors and can take place inany country where CBs carry out activities
and audits in the framework of ISCC. ISCC
Integrity Auditors must be independent andfree of any conflicts of interest. The ISCC
Integrity Auditor carries out an evaluationof the conformity of the certified systemuser on the basis of the applicable ISCC
procedure documents. The results of thisassessment are then compared with the CB’s
audit report from the last regular certification
audit. ISCC does not charge any costs tothe participants. Annually, more than thesquare root of all ISCC system users and theirCBs are controlled within the frameworkof the ISCC Integrity Program. The Integrity
Assessments take place additionally to theannual certification audits of the ISCC systemusers conducted by the CBs and additionallyto the controls or “witness audits” conductedby the bodies responsible for the recognitionor accreditation of the CBs. This ensureshighest integrity of the certification schemeand the claims made under the scheme.
The participation of ISCC system users ina scheduled ISCC Integrity Assessment is
mandatory. Refusal to participate may beconsidered a serious non-conformity with the
ISCC requirements and will be sanctioned.

The IOAS is a signatory to the International
Accreditation Forum (IAF) MLA, which
demonstrates ISO/IEC 17011 compliance
via peer assessments and the Multilateral
Recognition Arrangement for Product
Certification operated by Pacific Accreditation
Cooperative (PAC). In 2016, SAN also becamea full member of HCV Resource Network,in October 2017 the Rainforest Alliancebecame the sole owner and operator of thecertification scheme.

The HCS Approach Steering Group now requires all new HCS Approach assessments tobe combined with HCV assessments. All leadassessors carrying out combined HCS/HCV
assessment are subject to the HCV Resource
Network’s Assessor Licensing Scheme.

7475

Annex 1

A Comparison of Leading Palm Oil Certification Standards

Roundtable on Sustainable
Palm Oil (RSPO)

Roundtable on Sustainable
Biomaterials (RSB)

Indonesian Sustainable Palm Oil (ISPO)

Malaysian Sustainable Palm Oil (MSPO)International Sustainability and Carbon
Certification (ISCC)

Rainforest Alliance/Sustainable
Agriculture Network (SAN)The High Carbon Stock (HCS) Approach

Quality Assurance - Formal Public
consultations required during audit
process

RSPO allows for public stakeholder
consultation at the compliance stage ofthe certification process. If a member
meets the criteria, Certification Bodies
can issue a certificate, they assess
Corrective Action Requests on an annual
basis through surveillance audits. For
NPP assessments, commonly they arecarried out by independent consultants or
smaller organisations. If they are accepted
as accurate they are submitted to RSPO
following a desk-based review by thecertification body. The NPP notifications
are posted on the RSPO website to enable
stakeholders to provide comments during
a 30-day consultation period. After the
consultation period, companies start clearing
land. RSPO places responsibility for sharing
assessment summaries at the local levelwith companies. This effectively mean local
stakeholder consultation is done by the
party with vested interest and is not fully
independent. Public comments submitted
during the consultation period are referred tothe plantation company even where there isevidence of substantive violations.

Whenever the audit includes an evaluation
against the RSB P+C's, the CB shall ensurethat the audit team conducts a stakeholder
consultation for all certification and re-certification audits. RSB standard which ensuresthat the audit team conducts a stakeholder
consultation for all certification and re-certification audits. Certification bodies should
keep records of stakeholder consultation
conducted during the audit process. The
lead auditor shall conduct a stakeholder
consultation appropriate to the certification scope, risk class and screening results.
Stakeholder consultation shall be designed
to solicit direct, factual observations withregard to compliance of the operator with the
RSB standard.

A requirement under Indonesian law involves“public consultation with the relevant stakeholders” . According to Law Number 32 of2009 concerning the Protection and Management of the Environment, for land larger than
3,000 hectares, it is compulsory to have anenvironmental Impact Assessment (AMDAL)
and Social Impact Assessment, somethingwhich ISPO standard adheres to. This said, it
is a one-off consultation and does not require
formal public consultations at each audit. If
land conflicts do arise, it is up to the National
Land Board to manage land issues and community related conflicts.

MSPO also has stakeholder consultation but
like ISPO this is only during the certification
process, following the Stage 1 of the audit
process. It is a one-off consultation, althoughstakeholders are notified 30 days prior to thefield visit, there are seven further stages of
the audit process that occur before certification . All certified premises are subject toone annual surveillance audit, these do not
require public consultation only in case ofminor or major non-conformities raised bystakeholders.

Within ISCC audit process, operators areassessed in compliance with the standards
six principles, interviews with relevant
stakeholders “should be implemented as far
as possible” in relation to compliance withcollective agreements.

No; only in standards development anddecision-making .SAN standard in audit process only requires public consultation withall relevant stakeholders if there has been aminor or major non-conformance raised.

Module 7 - The Quality Assurance
Working Group is also discussing how
information from local stakeholders can beincorporated into the monitoring of ICLUP
implementation, in particular the social
considerations. Stakeholders could accessand potentially upload information about
possible problems with communities or land
use change within conservation areas.

Remedy - Grievance procedure/mechanism

Criterion 6.3 There is a mutually agreed
and documented system for dealing
with complaints and grievances which is
implemented and accepted by all affectedparties. Indicators: 6.3.1 The system, open to
all affected parties, shall resolve disputes inan effective, timely and appropriate manner,ensuring anonymity of complainants andwhistleblowers, where requested. 6.3.2
Documentation of both the process by whicha dispute was resolved and the outcome shallbe available. Guidance: Dispute resolution
mechanisms should be established throughopen and consensual agreements with
relevant affected parties. Complaints should
be dealt with by mechanisms such as Joint
Consultative Committees (JCC), with gender
representation as necessary. Grievances may
be internal (employees) or external. Where aresolution is not found mutually, complaints
can be brought to the attention of the RSPO
Complaints System. Specific Guidance: The
system should aim to reduce the risks ofreprisal.

Criteria 2c - Operators shall implement andmaintain a transparent and easily accessible
grievance mechanism for directly affected
local communities. 2c.1 - The grievancemechanism shall be a documented systemfor dealing with complaints and grievances,and which has the following characteristics:- The mechanism is communicated andmade easily accessible to directly affected
local communities. - Any grievances shallbe acknowledged and dealt with in a timely
manner. - The dispute-resolution mechanism
shall be based on negotiation between
affected parties and decisions shall be madeon consensus.- Records of all grievances are
kept, including how they were dealt with andthe outcome of the process.

There is a complaint System, complaints
and grievances can be addressed to theSecretariat of the ISPO Commission but ISPO
does not provide a measures indicator thatprovides documentation of the grievanceprocess when the dispute was results andwhere the results shall be available. ISPO has
no system indicators applicable for identifying people entitled to compensation. ISPO
does not have an indicator that there shallbe a system for calculating and distributing
fair compensation. There is no time-line forfollow-up nor is a mechanism for independent investigation mentioned. To solve land
related conflicts, the National Land Board
has a Land Dispute and Conflict Assessment
and Handling department.

Criterion 4 - Complaints and grievances,
Indicator 1 - A system for dealing withcomplaints and grievances shall beestablished and documented. Indicator 2 The system shall be able to resolve disputes
in an effective, timely and appropriatemanner that is accepted by all parties.
Indicator 3 - A complaint form should bemade available at the premises, where
employees and affected stakeholders canmake a complaint, Indicator 4 - Employees
and the surounding communities should bemade aware that complaints or suggestions
can be made any time. Indicator 5 Complaints and resolutions for the last 24
months shall be documented and madeavailable to affected stakeholders uponrequest.

Criterion 4.11 There is a complaint
form and/or procedure available onthefarm, where employees and affected
communities can make a complaint (minor).
Complaints can also be made directly to
ISCC. The ISCC management decides on
accepting the validity of the complaints
or appeals submitted based on the formal
requirements (9.1). The complainant will be
informed immediately about the receipt of
their complaint or appeal, the acceptanceof the complaint or appeal and whatfurther actions will be taken. Complaints
and appeals will be analysed, investigatedand decided on by the ISCC management
on a case by case basis. In the course ofinvestigating the conflict or reason forthe complaint or appeal, ISCC is entitled
to contact the parties and stakeholders
affected and to ask for supporting evidence,
documentation or statements in order toattain a sufficient understanding of thesituation. ISCC may schedule an independent
assessment in the framework of the ISCC
Integrity Program if required. If necessary,
the ISCC Board will be involved in the process
in order to bring it to a conclusion. ISCC aims
to resolve conflicts in a timely manner. Any
result and decision will be communicated tothe complainant by the ISCC management
without delay.

Criterion 4.46 The farm management
and group administrator communicate
openly with local communities to identify
community concerns and interests related
to the farm’s or group administrator’soperations. The farm management andgroup administrator develop and implementa system to receive, respond to, anddocument the resolution of complaints from
communities. SAN guide for FPIC processes
including a mechanism for the community
and its members to raise grievances andhave these grievances duly considered andresolved. NB This criteria is Level B. 90%of which isn't minimally required until
year 6. There is no mention of a standard
wide complaints system, nothing is listed
beyond authorised certification bodies
and subcontracted authorised auditors.

Module 2 - To ensure that misunderstandings(e.g. between communities and operators) do
not escalate into disputes, grievance mechanisms need to be agreed in advance with corresponding procedures to investigate complaints
and act on them. Procedures also need to bein place for implementing recommendations
from monitoring and grievance processes toadjust management practices, land allocations
and responsibilities. In cases of serious dissent,
agreements may need to be revisited and revised. If grievance mechanism is activated theflow chart just returns to negotiations with
community members it does not offer appeals procedure or ombudsman type process.
Module 10 - Grievance and redress proceduresfor social requirements of HCS - Developers
shall establish an effective and pro active system to address any grievances or complaints
that arise under the HCS Social Requirements.
This system shall be mutually agreed, balanced
and accountable. All elements of the process
shall be fully documented and accessible toall stakeholders, including translation into
local languages where necessary. Developers
shall ensure that complainants can accessindependent legal and technical advice of theirchoice to support them, and provide the optionof third party mediation. All procedures shallbe established through consultative processes
that are agreed and understood by all, with full
representation of all those affected, and all parties fully informed of all developments. Where
grievances or conflicts arise, whether in relation
to land use or land acquisition processes, harassment or abuses in the workplace, or otherfactors, developers shall take action to resolve
them and provide documentary evidence of
this. Procedures shall be clear and known,
with time frames also specified, and outcomesshall meet internationally recognised humanrights standards. Compensation procedures
shall equally be documented and accessible
and shall be mutually agreed through an
inclusive consultative process. They shall also
be non-discriminatory and take into accountany differences in the ability to claim rights
due to gender, ethnicity, nationality etc., thatarise from national legal regulations. As part oftheir procedures for addressing grievances andcomplaints, developers shall explicitly address
any contradictions between national legal
regulations and requirements based on international human rights standards. Developers
shall also address any grievances arising fromflawed past social engagement processes. They
shall provide redress for any issues arising frominadequate FPIC in situations of replanting
or acquisition of an existing plantation, withretroactive identification of HCVs 4, 5 and 6 thatexisted before conversion, where necessary(see also Section 13).

N.B. No details on remedy available after
a complaint has been made.

76

77

Annex 1

A Comparison of Leading Palm Oil Certification Standards

Roundtable on Sustainable
Palm Oil (RSPO)

Roundtable on Sustainable
Biomaterials (RSB)

Indonesian Sustainable Palm Oil (ISPO)

Malaysian Sustainable Palm Oil (MSPO)International Sustainability and Carbon
Certification (ISCC)

Rainforest Alliance/Sustainable
Agriculture Network (SAN)The High Carbon Stock (HCS) Approach

Criterion 2.2 - The right to use the land isdemonstrated, and is not legitimately contested by local people who can demonstratethat they have legal, customary or user
rights. Criterion 6.3 There is a mutuallyagreed and documented system for dealing
with complaints and grievances which is
implemented and accepted by all affectedparties. Indicators: 6.3.1 The system, open to
all affected parties, shall resolve disputes inan effective, timely and appropriate manner,ensuring anonymity of complainants andwhistleblowers, where requested. 6.3.2
Documentation of both the process by whicha dispute was resolved and the outcome shallbe available.

12a.2 Land under legitimate dispute shallnot be used for operations until any legitimate disputes have been settled throughFree, Prior and Informed Consent and negotiated agreements with affected land user.
12b.8 Where the rule of law is not adequately
applied, international and regional legal
bodies shall be consulted for rulings andinformation on disputes. 12b.9 If there aredisputes about the tenure agreements of theland among stake-holders, operations shallnot be certified. Criteria 4h Operators shall
implement and maintain a transparent andeasily accessible grievance mechanism, open
for all workers and contracted workers. 4h.1
The grievance mechanism shall be a documented system for dealing with complaints
and grievances which has the following characteristics: - The mechanism is communicated and made easily accessible to workers andcontracted workers. - Any grievances shallbe acknowledged and dealt with in a timely
manner. - Records of all grievances are kept,
including how they were dealt with and theoutcome of the process.

If there is a conflcit within the area allocatedfor plantation development, regulations
allow for this land to be enclaved and development may proceed whilst the landowner's
complaint can be addressed and resolved
through a process of consultation, mediationand discussion. ISPO indicators require
the dispute resolution mechanism to be
documented, a map of land disputes, notesof the agreements reached, and record of the
progress of the dispute settlement negotiations without specifying an indicator thatshows the FPIC process has been accepted by
the public or affected parties. Land disputes
and compensation mechanisms document
land disputes, land dispute maps, a copyof the agreed settlement, dispute resolution
and progress notes clearly maintained
without requiring FPIC based processes.
No indicators show understood agreement.
There is no indicator for whether a plantation
or factory have to respect the affected communities decision. There is no evidence thatthe indicators show the legal implications,
economic, environmental and social plantations business permits (legal status of HGU)
are understood and accepted by the affected
communities. ISPO does not require indicators to avoid escalation of the conflict.

Principle 3, Criterion 2 - Land use rights,
Indicator 4 - Where there are, or havebeen, disputes, documented proof of legal
acquistion of land title and fair compensation that have been or are being made toprevious owners and occupants; shall bemade available and that these should havebeen accepted with FPIC. - grievance system
is not mutually agreed, MSPO offers nocomplaints mechanism of its own andrelies instead on those of its members(which may have a conflict of interest withthe complainant).

Criterion 4.11 There is a complaint form
and/or procedure available on the farm,where employees and affected communities
can make a complaint. Criterion 4.20 - Mediation is available in case of social conflict(Minor).

Criterion 4.46 The farm management andgroup administrator communicate openly
with local communities to identify community concerns and interests related to thefarm’s or group administrator’s operations.
The farm management and group administrator develop and implement a system
to receive, respond to, and document theresolution of complaints from communities.
SAN guide for FPIC processes including
a mechanism for the community and its
members to raise grievances and have thesegrievances duly considered and resolved.

Module 3.8 Community agreement- Provisions will need to be agreed forparticipatory management and monitoring,as well as a mechanism for resolution of
any grievances and disputes between theparties. Implementation will need to be
in conformity with, inter alia, the law, theprocesses agreed in the ICLUP and social
contract, any certification standard (e.g.
the RSPO New Planting Procedure), as wellas the implementation processes set out inthe HCV, HCS and FPIC approaches. Module
5c Management and Monitoring of HCS
Forest-HCV Conservatino Areas - HCS
forests and HCV areas within plantation
developments are conservation areas thatmust be actively managed and monitoredby the company and/or the community andshould neither be neglected nor excised.
There are a number of key steps to befollowed: A simple grievance mechanism(so that any disagreements over the status
and management objectives of conservation
areas in the ICLUP are resolved).

Remedy - Appeals procedure

Complaints can be re-submitted (onlyone attempt within 4 weeks of originalsubmissions). New submissions are allowedin case of new evidence.

Appeals may be submitted to the organization overseeing the activities of the Accountable Organization with which the grievancewas originally filed - there are three possible
accountable organisations: the certifying body, the accreditation body and RSB
Secretariat - only one appeal is allowed - theoutcome of the appeals process is final. If
new evidence is presented it is the equivalent
to a new complaint.

ISPO requires plantation managers tonegotitate directly with the customary landowners for land acquisition and compensation. Avenues for complainant as a result arevery limited. Furthermore, the compensation
process, claims or results need to be documented or open to the public.

Not mentioned - either explicitly or implicitly

ISCC does provide for an appeals process relating to activities performed by ISCC System
Users affecting local or regional stakeholders,
including alleged noncompliances with ISCC
requirements of ISCC System Users or CBs
are resolved. The ISCC management decides
on accepting the validity of the complaints orappeals submitted based on the formal requirements: 1) The reason for the complaint
or appeal is substantiated and not negligible.
2) Addressee of the complaint or appeal is
the ISCC management.
3) Complaints and appeals must be submitted in written form and must containbasic information about the complainant including name and organisation. In
case the complainant intends to maintainanonymous throughout the further process,the complainant must declare this at thetime of submission and provide a reasonable
explanation for the request. 4)The complaint
or appeal submitted must be accompanied
by documents specifying the circumstancesof the situation in a way that any impartial
person or party can attain a clear idea and an
unambiguous understanding of the situation
at hand. The supporting documentation
should include a summary of the issues andthe relevant stakeholders/parties affected.

Not explicitly mentioned

Not offered

Remedy - Ombudsman type process,for mediation

RSPO Complaints Panel may appoint experts
for advice or verification of the complaint.

Not mentioned - either explicitly
or implicitly

Not mentioned - either explicitly
or implicitly

Not mentioned - either explicitly
or implicitly

Only in ‘critical cases’ will the arbitration
board consult an independent expert.

Grievance mechanism functioning is notdetailed.

Not offered

Multistakeholder Scheme Governance Are IPs/local communities represented

Not mentioned - either explicitly
or implicitly

Not mentioned - either explicitly
or implicitly

Not mentioned - either explicitly
or implicitly

Not mentioned - either explicitly
or implicitly

Not mentioned - either explicitly or
implicitly

IPs and local communities are notrepresented

Not within governance scheme but as
an integral part of the converged HCS
method, a multi-stakeholder groupshould compile a text setting out theSocial Requirements for HCS…including
downstream users

Conflict Resolution (Land disputes)

78

N.B. Only a minor consideration and nodetails on mediation available is given.

79

A Comparison of Leading Palm Oil Certification Standards

ANNEX 2Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO)RSPO NEXT

Palm Oil Innovation Group (POIG)

Recognition of community land rights - Customary Rights

Criterion 2.2 - The right to use the land is demonstrated, and is not legitimately contested by
local people who can demonstrate that they have legal, customary or user rights. Criterion
2.3 - Use of the land for oil palm does not diminish the legal, customary or user rights of otherusers without their free, prior and informed consent. Criterion 7.5 - No new plantings are
established on local peoples’ land where it can be demonstrated that there are legal, customary or user rights, without their free, prior and informed consent. This is dealt with through adocumented system that enables these and other stakeholders to express their views throughtheir own representative institutions. Criterion 7.6.1 - Documented identification and assessment of demonstrable legal, customary and user rights shall be available

HR 3.3 Where there is a conflict over land use the grower shall, through their mechanism toresolve conflicts, show evidence that the necessary action to resolve the conflict with relevant
parties has been or is being taken. COMPARISON: NEXT strengthens some P&C guidanceas requirements. Requires the grower to demonstrate evidence of action taken to resolve
conflict. P&C: guidance, not a requirement. HR 3.1 Growers and millers shall adhere to the
RSPO approved FPIC guidance. Company policy shall prohibit intimidation and harassment.
The company shall respect a decision by a community/communities to refuse planned development. Recognising that social values are dynamic, and that communities are free to maketheir own choices, the company shall ensure that the process of consultation and of planningis adaptive and allows for yearly (or more frequent, as needed) consultations during thedevelopment of the project. COMPARISON - NEXT require long term two-way process; NEXTrequires planning to be adaptive and allow for yearly or more consultations.

2.1 FPIC of indigenous peoples and local communities: Comprehensive FPIC is obtained
for all oil palm development including in particular: full respect for their legal and customary
rights to their lands and resources via local communities own representative institutions.
“Comprehensive FPIC is obtained for all oil palm development ... through a long-term
two-way process of consultation and negotiation where the communities are informed andunderstand that saying no to development is an option, and not constrained by local legal
frameworks. COMPARISON - POIG require longterm two-way process. POIG: communities
must be informed that they have a right to say no to development and are not constrained by
local legal frameworks [See also P&C 2.3]

Free Prior Informed Consent (FPIC)

Criterion 2.2.3 - Where there are or have been disputes, additional proof of legal acquisitionof title and evidence that fair compensation has been made to previous owners and occupants shall be available, and that these have been accepted with FPIC. Criterion 7.5 - No newplantings are established on local peoples’ land where it can be demonstrated that there arelegal, customary or user rights, without their free, prior and informed consent. This is dealt
with through a documented system that enables these and other stakeholders to express
their views through their own representative institutions.

HR 1.3 - The company shall respect the decision by some communities to refuse, before it isstarted, the planned development. Recognising that social values are dynamic, and that communities are free to make their own choices, the company shall ensure that the process of
consultation and of planning is adaptive and allows for yearly (or more frequent, as needed)
consultations during the development of the project. HR 4.2 - Companies shall respect land
rights and FPIC even if the State fails in its duty to protect land rights, notably by invoking
the national interest (also known as ‘eminent domain’) Plantation operations shall cease on
land planted beyond the legally determined area and there shall be specific plans in place toaddress such issues for the full supply base. HR 3.1 Growers and millers shall adhere to the
RSPO approved FPIC guidance. Company policy shall prohibit intimidation and harassment.
The company shall respect a decision by a community/communities to refuse planned development. Recognising that social values are dynamic, and that communities are free to maketheir own choices, the company shall ensure that the process of consultation and of planningis adaptive and allows for yearly (or more frequent, as needed) consultations during thedevelopment of the project. COMPARISON - NEXT require on-going consultation and negotiation processes, NEXT: goes beyond P&C in requiring adaptive consultation and planning, withyearly or more consultation.

2.1 FPIC of indigenous peoples and local communities: As part of the process for identifying
legal, customary or user rights and impacts on rights holders for new and existing operations,
resources access to independent expert advice shall be offered at each stage of an FPIC or
conflict resolution process to affected communities. Land shall not be acquired throughexpropriations in the national interest (eminent domain). Newly acquired already planted
plantation areas shall redress any lack of proper FPIC when the plantations were established.
Lands will not be acquired through expropriations in the national interest. Comprehensive
FPIC is obtained for all oil palm development including in particular: full respect for theirlegal and customary rights to their territories, lands and resources via local communities own
representative institutions, with all the relevant information and documents made available,with resourced access to independent advice, through a documented process, through a longterm two-way process of consultation and negotiation where the communities are informed
and understand that saying no to development is an option, and not constrained by local
legal frameworks. Newly acquired already planted plantation areas shall redress any lackof proper FPIC when the plantations were established. Lands will not be acquired throughexpropriations in the national interest (‘eminent domain’). COMPARISON - POIG require ongoing consultation and negotiation processes. It makes more specific requirements to provide
resourced access to independent advice; and to redress any lack of FPIC on newly acquired
plantations. P&C: no requirement to resource advisers or legal counsel; only that communities
can choose their own; no retrospective requirement to redress lack of proper FPIC.

Negotiated agreements and inclusive
participation

Criterion 7.5.1 - Evidence shall be available that affected local peoples understand they havethe right to say ‘no’ to operations planned on their lands before and during initial discussions,
during the stage of information gathering and associated consultations, during negotiations, and up until the agreement with the grower/miller is signed and ratified by these
local peoples. Criterion 6.2 - There are open and transparent methods for communicationand consultation between growers and/or millers, local communities and other affected orinterested parties.

HR 2.1 - Communication and consultation procedures, including FPIC and dispute resolution
mechanisms for individual cases, shall be established in consensual agreement with affectedstakeholders, including local communities, with particular assurance that vulnerable, minority and gender groups shall be consulted. COMPARISON - NEXT wording is stronger, esecially
wrt consultation with vulnerable, minority and gender groups NEXT: communication andconsultation processes established in consensual agreement with assurances for vulnerable
groups. P&C: …mechanisms should be designed in collaboration with .. And take into accountaccess to information, rather than assure vulnerable groups will be consulted.

2.1 FPIC of indigenous peoples and local communities: [decisions should be reached]through a long-term two-way process of consultation and negotiation where the communities are informed and understand that saying no to development is an option, and notconstrained by local legal frameworks.

Access to Information

Criterion 1.1 - Growers and millers provide adequate information to relevant stakeholders on
environmental, socia and legal issues relevant to RSPO Criteria, in appropriate languages andforms to allow for effective participation in decision making. Criterion 1.2 Management Documents are publicly available, except where this is prevented by commercial confidentiality or
where disclosure of information would result in negative environmental or social outcomes
Criterion 2.3.3 - All relevant information shall be available in appropriate forms and languages, including assessments of impacts, proposed benefit sharing, and legal arrangements.
Criterion 7.6.6 - Evidence shall be available that the affected communities and rights holders
have access to information and advice that is independent of the project proponent, concernign the legal, economic, environmental and social implications of the proposed operations
on their lands.

TR1.1 There shall be a documented Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for responding
constructively to stakeholder requests for information, including a specific timeframe to respond to enquiries. - COMPARISON: NEXT: requirement for SOP with specific timeframe P&C:
Guidance only; timeframe is open to grower/miller decision.

2.1 FPIC of indigenous peoples and local communities - All the relevant information anddocuments made available, with resourced access to independent advice, through a documented process. 3.3 Report on Social, Labour and Environmental Performance - Discloseon the company social, labour and environmental performace including the elements of the
POIG Charter, and how the organisation demonstrates good governance of its sustainablity
system using the guidance of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) or equivalent approach.
COMPARISON: POIG requires more comprehensive public reporting on some areas – particularly progress reporting and monitoring reports, and social, labour and environmental
performance. P&C requirement is left more open.

No Coercion - No para-militaries,
No private armies

Criterion 2.2.6 - To avoid escalation of conflict, there shall be no evidence that palm oil operations have instigated violence in maintaining peace and order in their current and planned
operations. Specific Guidance 2.2.6 - Company policy should prohibit the use of mercenaries
and para-militaries in their operations. Company policy should prohibit extra-judicial intimidation and harassment by contracted security forces.

HR 4.1 - Growers and millers shall adhere to the RSPO approved FPIC guidance. Company
policy shall prohibit intimidation and harassment.

Not mentioned explicitly - 2.4 A comprehensive social programme with regular monitoring is
in operation to ensure palm oil production does not result in human rights violations, trigger
social conflicts, or produce 'land grabbing'.

Fair treatment of small holders

Criteria 6.10 - Growers and millers deal fairly and transparently with smallholders and otherlocal businesses Specific Guidance 2.2.2 Plantation operations should cease on land planted
beyond the legally determined area and there should be specific plans in place to address
such issues for associated smallholders. Indicator 3.1.1 A business or management plan(minimum three years) shall be documented that includes, where appropriate a businesscase for scheme smallholders. - Consideration of smallholders should be inherent in all
management planning where applicable. Principle 4.8 - All staff, workers, smallholders andcontract workers are appropriately trained. Specific Guidance 6.4.2 - Companies shouldmake best efforts to ensure that equal opportunities have been provided to both female andmale heads of households to hold land titles in smallholder schemes. Additional guidance
is offered for smallholder production in "Guidance for Independent Smallholders underGroup Certification', June 2010" and "Guidance on Schemes Smallholders', July 2009"

HR2.1 Growers and millers shall have and implement a plan to ensure that the smallholder
supply base meets RSPO requirements. Plans SHALL consider technical, financial and training support for practices relevant to all other P&Cs, particularly soil management practices,chemical and fertiliser use and storage, use of seedlings, the identification, management
and monitoring of HCV, HCS and peatland,the reduction of emissions, the resolution of land
conflict, the promotion of staff/workers welfare and sustainable development. HR 1.1 - Companies shall develop outreach programs of support directed at all smallholders (irrespectiveof type) in the supply base that will enhance and support their competencies and market
access. Programs shall cover sustainability issues as well as yields & productivity support,
hazardous material trainings, financial management & budgeting, logistics of processing andmarket access and educating smallholders on their rights. COMPARISON - NEXT: Requires
outreach program of support to cover all smallholders in their supply base (not only scheme
smallholders).

2.6 Support Palm Oil Small Holders: Contracts with smallholders are based on a fair,transparent and accountable partnership. A grievance mechanism is accessible to smallholders. - Proposed additional POIG indicators: A smallholder support programme shall be
documented and monitored, which includes: measures to increase the productivity of smallholders to a comparable benchmark of productivity for the region, and a target of reaching
the same productivity level as company estates; support relating to financial management
and budgeting; and support relating to logistics, FFB processing and improved market access.
Progress in implementation of the smallholder support programme shall be included in public
reporting. COMPARISON - POIG: requires smallholder support programme; and developmentof a group certification plan for smallholder suppliers P&C: Limited requirements on support
for smallholder development as part of local sustainable development. Only applies toscheme smallholders.

Fair treatment of small holders Access to markets

Indicator - 6.11.2 Where there are scheme smallholders, there shall be evidence that efforts
and/or resources have been allocated to improve smallholder productivity. RSPO's Generic
Guidance for Independent Smallholders under Group Certification aims "to provide
workable and equitable means by which smallholders can get their produce certified
so they are not unfairly excluded fromt he emerging market" however specificguidance is weak.

HR 1.1 Companies shall develop outreach programs of support directed at all smallholders(irrespective of type) in the supply base that will enhance and support their competencies
and market access.

2.6 Support Palm Oil Small Holders: Small holders are supported to improve economic, socialand environmental outcomes including: increase productivity to a comparable benchmark
of productivity for the region and a target of having the same productivity as the company
nucleus plantation. The productivity gains shall be achieved without expansion that threatens
local community food security or additional environmental impact, and support should
include financial management and budgeting, logistics and FFB processing, and improved
market access such as through group certification. Companies shall report on the support
they have provided to smallholders.

8081Annex 2

A Comparison of Leading Palm Oil Certification Standards

Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO)RSPO NEXT

Palm Oil Innovation Group (POIG)

Community benefits - Social Development

Criteria 6.11 - Growers and millers contribute to local sustainable development whereappropriate. Guidance - Where candidates for employment are of equal merit, preference
should always be given to members of local communities. Positive discrimination should not
be recognised as conflicting with Criterion 6.8. Efforts should be made to identify independent
smallholders in the supply base. Where sourcing of fruit is from identified independent smallholders, efforts should be made to contribute to the improvement of their farming practices.

HR1.4 Positive social impacts of plantation development shall be actively promoted,
including but not limited to: - Where candidates for employment are of equal merit,
preference shall be given to hiring from local communities.
- Understanding and supporting existing alternative livelihoods and ensuring they are
not threatened or reduced - Provision of health and educational facilities where these arelacking or not available within accessible distance.

2.4 Social Conditions: A comprehensive social programme with regular monitoring is inoperation to ensure palm oil production does not result in human rights violations, trigger
social conflicts, or produce 'land grabbing' and addresses key social equity issues including
housing, healthcare and the empowerment of women.

Participatory SEIAs

Criterion 7.1 - A comprehensive and participatory independent social and environmental impact assessment is undertaken prior to establishing new plantings or operations, or expanding existing ones, and the results incorporated into planning, management and operations.
Indicators: 7.1.1 An independent social and environmental impact assessment (SEIA), undertaken through a participatory methodology including the relevant affected stakeholders, shallbe documented. 7.1.2 Appropriate management planning and operational procedures shallbe developed and implemented to avoid or mitigate identified potential negative impacts.
7.1.3 Where the development includes an outgrower scheme, the impacts of the scheme andthe implications of the way it is managed shall be given particular attention.

HR3.5 NEXT requires companies to show evidence that they are managing and protecting
areas deemed unsuitable for oil palm development in areas under their control because of
the magnitude of potential environmental and/or social negative impacts. This also applies
to the resolution of any conflict on such land. NDF3.3 The company shall use independentand participatory SEIA to develop management & monitoring plans to identify, minimise &mitigate the negative and promote the positive indirect or secondary impacts of the development before and throughout development phases. Measures shall be in place to mitigate andreduce indirect pressure on forests and/or Natural Habitats that would result from plantation
development. COMPARISON - NEXT requires independent and participatory SEIA.

SIAs and/or HCV assessments and participatory land use planning shall include analysis offood security issues for indigenous and local communities affected by the plantation operations. (proposed additional POIG indicators - social impact assessments and plans for the
avoidance or mitigation of impacts shall incorporate the issues of potential human rights
violations, social conflicts and land grabbing. Social impact assessments and plans for avoidance or mitigation of impacts shall address key equity issues, including housing, healthcare,education, and empowerment of women. 2.4 A comprehensive social programme with regularmonitoring is in operation to ensure palm oil production does not result in human rights
violations, trigger social conflicts, or produce ‘land grabbing’, and addresses key social equity
issues including housing, healthcare, education and empowerment of women. COMPARISON- requires comprehensive social programme and focuses on avoiding human rights violations,conflict; and addressing social equity; food security should be addressed.

Local food security, right to foodIn the definitions provided in the Guidance Livelihood is defined as a person's or a group’s
way of making a living, from their environment or in the economy, including how they provision their basic needs and assure themselves and following generations secure accessto food, clean water, health, education, housing and the materials needed for their life andcomfort either through their own direct use of natural resources or through exchange, barter,
trade or engagement in the market. Livelihoods are then only mentioned in 3 criteria:
5.2 (HCV areas) which notes "Operators need to consider a variety of land management
and tenure options to secure HCV management areas in ways that also secure local peoples’
rights and livelihoods" ; 7.1 (Particpatory SEIAs) guidance notes " Assessment of potentialsocial impacts on surrounding communities of a plantation, including an analysis of potential
effects on livelihoods, and differential effects on women versus men, ethnic communities, andmigrant versus long-term residents;"; and 7.3 (NPP) Indicator 7.3.5 notes "Areas requiredby affected communities to meet their basic needs, taking into account potential positive
and negative changes in livelihood resulting from proposed operations, shall be identified inconsultation with the communities and incorporated into HCV assessments and management
plans". BUT THERE IS NO EXPLICIT REFERENCE TO FOOD OR WATER RIGHTS.

HR1.1 The company shall use independent and participatory SEIA to develop plans to mitigate the negative and promote the positive indirect or secondary impacts of the plantation
development. Negative indirect/secondary impacts can be (without being limited to) : foodsecurity issues for local communities (including communities not in the immediate vicinity ofthe project), increased land pressure on natural/protected habitats and land conflicts causedby reduced land availability. HR1.2 The company shall demonstrate it has taken negative
indirect secondary impacts into consideration and has, for example, refrained from developing areas that will be used by the communities for current and future subsistence and otherland needs. The initial planning shall cover at least the first cycle of the oil palm development.
Further consultations with affected stakeholders and identified relevent third parties shall be
carried out to review the plans, before and throughout development phases. Planned land
allocation to various activities shall be shared during such consultations

2.2 Food Security - As part of FPIC process, participatory social impact assessments andparticpatory land use planning with indigenous and local communities, food security is
maintained or strengthened in order to maintain their land use choice and future foodsecurity options. This will include not undermining local control of and diversity of foodproduction systems. There is transparency of the land allocation process. - The parametersof food security that need to be taken into account in assessments are generally (FAO): 1)
Availablity and stability: a. Stability of food price and supply b. household food production(total and gendered - it looks at food availabilty) c. food crop diversity (2) Access:a. Sufficiency of household food consumption b. Number of meals taken in a dayc. Household dietary diversity (3) Utilisation a. Degree of access to utilities and services(water, energy, health, sanitisation)

Rights to water

Criteria 4.4 - Practices maintain the quality and availability of surface and groudn water The water management plan will: Aim to ensure local communities, workers and their families
have access to adequate, clean water for drinking, cooking, bathing and cleaning purposes.

No explicit reference to this indicator

1.7 Water accountability - The quality and quantity of water is maintained with responsible
water management adopted including minimization and disclosure of water use, pollution
elimination, equity with other users, and consideration of catchment level impacts of irrigation. (proposed additional POIG indicators - the scope of the food security assessment shall
include additional impacts that oil palm production operations may have on relevant requirements including land, water, labour and infrastructure as well as sustainability between
income generation for food purchase and subsistence food production).

Rights to clean environment

Principle 5 - Environmental Responsibility and Conservation of Natural Resources andBiodiversity. 5.1 Aspects of plantation and mill management, including replanting, thathave environmental impacts are identified, and plans to mitigate the negative impacts andpromote the positive ones are made, implemented and monitored, to demonstrate continual
improvement 5.2 The status of rare, threatened or endangered species and other High
Conservation Value habitats, if any, that exist in the plantation or that could be affected byplantation or mill management, shall be identified and operations managed to best ensurethat they are maintained and/or enhanced. 5.3 Waste is reduced, recycled, re-used anddisposed of in an environmentally and socially responsible manner.

NDF3.3 Measures shall be in place to mitigate and reduce indirect pressure on forests and/or Natural Habitats that would result from plantation development. NDF3.4 Companies shallshow evidence that they are managing and protecting areas deemed unsuitable for oil palm
development in areas under their control because of the magnitude of potential negative impacts. They shall not initiate excision of such land from their Management Units unless they
can assure the long term conservation of any HCV’s present on such land. NDF1.1 Company
has a public policy of no deforestation. The policy includes a commitment to not develop on
areas of high carbon stock ​OR​a moratorium on new development until an RSPO endorsed
definition of HCS is agreed upon. NDF 3.2 - The company shall have HCV management &monitoring plans at a landscape level; with particular attention to defining 'area of influence';
the management and monitoring plans are to be developed in collaboration with other stakeholders active in that landscape before and during the project implementation. COMPARISON- NEXT takes a wider landscape approach to HCV management and monitoring.

1.1 Environmental Responsibility - Breaking the link between Palm Oil Expansion andDeforestation: Forest Protection - Conserving and Restoring HCV and HCS Areas: The link
between oil palm expansion and deforestation will be broken through undertaking a HCS
approach in addition to a HCV assessment, and a process of obtaining FPIC to use land.
The approach combines biodiversity and carbon conservation, as well as social consideration(including community needs). 1.8 Protect and conserve wildlife - Following comprehensive
biodiversity surveys to identify HCV 1-3, in addition to ensuring the protection and survivalof all rare, threatened or endangered species within their concession land, concession
holders also make a positively contribution to their survival in the wild in areas beyong theconcession. COMPARISON - POIG: requires 'positive contribution' to survival of RTEs outside
management unit.

Core Labour standards - Minimum wage

Criteria 6.5 - Pay and conditions for employees and for contract workers always meet atleast legal or industry minimum standards and are sufficient to provide decent living wages.
Indicators - 6.5.1 Documentation of pay and conditions shall be available. 6.5.2 Labour laws,
union agreements or direct contracts of employment detailing payments and conditions of
employment (e.g. working hours, deductions, overtime, sickness, holiday entitlement, maternity leave, reasons for dismissal, period of notice, etc.) shall be available in the languages
understood by the workers or explained carefully to them by a management official. 6.5.3
Growers and millers shall provide adequate housing, water supplies, medical, educational
and welfare amenities to national standards or above, where no such public facilities areavailable or accessible. 6.5.4 Growers and millers shall make demonstrable efforts to monitor
and improve workers’ access to adequate, sufficient and affordable food.

HR 4.1 - If there is no RSPO National Interpretation definition of a Decent Living Wage, thecompany shall document a process of collective bargaining with the workforce to establish
and implement a mutually agreed upon total compensation package that provides a decent
living which shall include at least the minimum wage. COMPARISON - NEXT: Focuses on
Decent Living Wage.

2.5 Palm Oil producers shall respect worker's rights including the ILO requirements for'decent work' and core conventions on child labour, forced and compulsory labour, freedomof association and elimination of discrimination. ILO Conventions 87,98, 29, 105, 138, 182, 100,
11, 155, 161, 181, ILO Multilateral Framework on Labour Migration, Non-binding Principles andGuidelines for a Rights-based Approach to Labour Migration (2005), the ILO Declaration on theFundamental Principles and Rights at Work, and the UN Palermo Protocol. COMPARISON POIG provides detailed, prescriptive list of labour requirements that specify how workers' pay
and conditions should meet minimum standards. P&C: employers must meet legal or industry
minimum standards (ILO conventions referenced individually elsewhere). Less comprehensive
requirements for pay and conditions than POIG.

Core Labour standards - Free Collective Bargaining

Criteria 6.6 - The employer respects the rights of all personnel to form and join trade unionsof their choice and to bargain collectively. Where the right to freedom of association and collective bargaining are restricted under law, the employer facilitates parallel means of independent and free association and bargaining for all such personnel. Indicators - 6.6.1 A publishedstatement in local languages recognising freedom of association shall be available. 6.6.2
Minutes of meetings with main trade unions or workers representatives shall be documented.

HR 4.2 - There shall be no evidence of employees, including migrant, transmigrant workers
and/or contracted workers being prevented from forming or joining associations and/or
participating in collective bargaining, within the limits of national legislation. COMPARISON NEXT includes 'migrant, transmigrant and contracted workers' P&C mentions same groups inGuidance; in Criterion 'personnel' are specified as having the right to form trade unions.

2.5 Palm Oil producers shall respect worker's rights including the ILO requirements for'decent work' and core conventions on child labour, forced and compulsory labour, freedomof association and elimination of discrimination. ILO Conventions 87,98, 29, 105, 138, 182,
100, 11, 155, 161, 181, ILO Multilateral Framework on Labour Migration, Non-binding
Principles and Guidelines for a Rights-based Approach to Labour Migration (2005), theILO Declaration on the Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, and the UN Palermo
Protocol.

Core Labour Standards - No Child Labour

Criteria 6.7 - Children are not employed or exploited. Indicators: 6.7.1 There shall be
documentary evidence that minimum age requirements are met.

HR5.4 No hazardous work (as defined by the ILO) shall be carried out by anyone under theage of 18. COMPARISON - NEXT: requirement that children do not carry out hazardous work.

2.5 Palm Oil producers shall respect worker's rights including the ILO requirements for'decent work' and core conventions on child labour, forced and compulsory labour, feedom of
association and elimination of discrimination. ILO Conventions 87,98, 29, 105, 138, 182, 100,
11, 155, 161, 181, ILO Multilateral Framework on Labour Migration, Non-binding Principles andGuidelines for a Rights-based Approach to Labour Migration (2005), the ILO Declaration on
the Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, and the UN Palermo Protocol. A clear policy
and compliance system is in place that prohibits child labour and its worst forms and sets theminimum age for employment consistent with applicable law. COMPARISON - POIG: requires
policy and compliance system to prohibit child labour P&C: Prohibits child employment andrequires evidence that legal requirements are met. Guidance only regarding hazardous work

82

83

Annex 2

A Comparison of Leading Palm Oil Certification Standards

Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO)RSPO NEXT

Palm Oil Innovation Group (POIG)

Core Labour Standards - No Slavery-like practices

Criteria 6.12 - No forms of forced or trafficked labour are used - Indicators 6.12.1 There shallbe evidence that no forms of forced or trafficked labour are used. 6.12.2 Where applicable, it
shall be demonstrated that no contract substitution has occurred. 6.12.3 Where temporary or
migrant workers are employed, a special labour policy and procedures shall be establishedand implemented.

No explicit reference to this indicator

2.5.13 - The retention of passports, other government-issued identification and any personalvaluables by the employer or third party recruitment or employment agency is strictly prohibited in policy and monitored in practice. COMPARISON - POIG: No fees or costs can be charged
to workers for recruitment. Retention of ID or valuables is prohibited in policy and monitored
P&C: Guidance only: Passports only voluntarily surrended.

No Discrimination

Criteria 6.8 - Any form of discrimination based on race, caste, national origin, religion, disability, gender, sexual orientation, union membership, political affiliation, or age, is prohibited.
Indicators: 6.8.1 A publicly available equal opportunities policy including identification of
relevant/affected groups in the local environment shall be documented. 6.8.2 Evidence shallbe provided that employees and groups including local communities, women, and migrant
workers have not been discriminated against. 6.8.3 It shall be demonstrated that recruitment
selection, hiring and promotion are based on skills, capabilities, qualities, and medical fitness
necessary for the jobs available.

NDF 3.4 Both the planning as well as the plans shall take a gender inclusive approach,considering the different roles that men and women have in relation to e.g. landownership,use, food crop or cash crop production, markets and credit. COMPARISON - P&C: No gender
requirements for planning processes or plans.

2.5 Palm Oil producers shall respect worker's rights including the ILO requirements for'decent work' and core conventions on child labour, forced and compulsory labour, freedomof association and elimination of discrimination. ILO Conventions 87,98, 29, 105, 138, 182,
100, 11, 155, 161, 181, ILO Multilateral Framework on Labour Migration, Non-binding
Principles and Guidelines for a Rights-based Approach to Labour Migration (2005), theILO Declaration on the Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, and the UN Palermo
Protocol.

No Discrimination - Gender Sensitive Complaints Procedure/Protection of Women

Criteria 6.9 - There is no harassment or abuse in the work place, and reproductive rights
are protected. Indicator - 6.9.3 A specific grievance mechanism which respects anonymity
and protects complainants where requested shall be established, implemented, andcommunicated to all levels of the workforce.

HR 4.7 A gender committee shall be established specifically to address areas of concern towomen. (Management representatives responsible for communication with the gender committee shall be female). COMPARISON - NEXT: committee required and can address all areasof concern to women P&C: Included in guidance, but phrased as a requirement. Relates to C&I
about harassment, voilence and reproductive rights. No requirement for female management
representative.

No specific reference

No discrimination - No sexual harassment/reproductive Rights protected

Criteria 6.9 - There is no harassment or abuse in the work place, and reproductive rights areprotected. Indicators - 6.9.1 A policy to prevent sexual and all other forms of harassment andviolence shall be implemented and communicated to all levels of the workforce. 6.9.2 A policy
to protect the reproductive rights of all, especially of women, shall be implemented andcommunicated to all levels of the workforce.

HR5.7 All complaints/grievances of harassment or abuse shall be documented andresponses & actions monitored. There shall be time bound targets for reducing thenumber of harassment or abuse cases.

No specific reference

Quality Assurance - Quality Assurance of assessor (assessor licensing)

RSPO will require licenced assessors for all HCV assessment carried out in the context of
new planting procedures (NPP) - A full HCV assessor licence is obtained after leading two
assessments and submitting two adequate HCV assessmnet reports. To maintain a full licence,
the assessor is required to submit the reports of all HCV assessmnets to the ALS Quality Panel(failure to do so can result in suspension or revocation of licence) - A Quality Manager reviews
applications and a Qaluity Panel evaluates reports for compliance with ALS procedures stakeholder also have access to public summary.

NDF 3.1 The HCV Assessment of all new plantings shall be led by an Independent Assessor who is licensed under the HCV Resource Network Assessor Licensing Scheme (ALS) .
COMPARISON - NEXT requires HCVRN licensed HCV assessor for all new plantings. P&C: NPP
requires licend assessors for plantings after 2010. For plantings between 2005 and 2010, there
is no requirement to have a licensed HVC ALS assessor. Requires ‘appropriate training andexpertise’ for HCV assessment.

No specific reference8485