Who Watches the Watchmen? 2

Greenwash: How the RSPO fails to uphold its own rules

Posted on

By Chris Lang

The Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil operates under the slogan, “Transforming markets to make sustainable palm oil the norm”. Created in 2004, the RSPO is supposed to reassure consumers and manufacturers that products with the RSPO label are not linked to rainforest destruction, human rights abuses, or habitat destruction of endangered species such as orangutans.

But a new report by the Environmental Investigation Agency and the Malaysian organisation Grassroots reveals that the RSPO is “effectively giving false environmental credibility to its products”. The report uncovers fraudulent auditing of oil palm plantations, primary forests cleared to make way for plantations, and community rights being violated.

RSPO is greenwashing destructive palm oil

EIA and Grassroots’ report, “Who Watches the Watchmen? 2: The continuing incompetence of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil’s assurance systems”, can be downloaded here. The report is released to coincide with the RSPO’s annual meeting in Bangkok.

EIA has produced a short film to accompany the report:

The new report is a follow up to a 2015 EIA and Grassroots report that found that auditing firms were colluding with palm oil companies to hide violations. EIA’s new report reveals that the RSPO has failed to make meaningful progress since 2015.

In a press statement, Siobhan Pearce, Forests Campaigner at EIA says,

“If the RSPO is not upholding any of its own rules and if its palm oil isn’t what it says it is on the tin, then that’s a major problem for the industry.

“Consumers should also be worried because they’re buying this certified palm oil on the understanding that it does not cause harm to the environment, that it’s not destroying wildlife or forests and that it’s not exploiting local people.

“You have to wonder whether the RSPO has any credibility at all – to a certain extent, we’re all being conned because the RSPO is not keeping to its own rules and procedures and it’s a form of greenwashing.“

A series of failures

EIA and Grassroots’ report highlights a series of RSPO failures, including the following:

  • a complaint case concerning community land rights which has been ongoing for nine-and-a-half years;
  • cases where the RSPO is aware companies have cut down primary forest but has failed to stop them, compensate communities or eject the offending companies from its membership;
  • fraudulent auditing carried out on plantations;
  • land conflicts not being identified;
  • primary forest and important habitats being degraded;
  • auditors not properly trained or not having the necessary knowledge;
  • RSPO collusion with companies to hide flagrant violations of its own standards;
  • the RSPO not following its own rules;
  • mismanagement of the entire process;
  • a system which is slow and unresponsive to active violations of its standards.

Pearce comments,

“This is a scandalous state of affairs because we raised all these issues with the RSPO four years ago and it set up a special task force which was meant to develop a comprehensive work programme to deal with them, but it hasn’t delivered.”

Assurance Task Force was disorganised, unprofessionally managed, and missed deadlines

In 2016, the RSPO formed the Assurance Task Force to act on the concerns raised in the 2015 report. But EIA and Grassroots’ new report describes the Assurance Task Force as “one of the worst-run working groups of the RSPO”. The report adds, “It has been disorganised, unprofessionally managed, and has chronically missed deadlines.”

The stated goal of the Assurance Task Force was to finish its work by October 2016, with a “final comprehensive report with full recommendations for systemic changes by 1st November 2016”. In fact, the first meeting of Assurance Task Force only took place in November 2016. The “comprehensive report” still does not exist.

The most recent report from the Assurance Task Force in dated August 2018. The report states that the Task Force has completed only 43% of its total activities.

The Assurance Task Force has now been replaced by an Assurance Standing Committee. But the RSPO did not notify Assurance Task Force members of this. The first meeting of the Assurance Standing Committee took place in September 2019. RSPO has disclosed no information about this meeting.

“Systemic and widespread” non-adherence to RSPO standards

In 2018, the RSPO adopted new Principles and Criteria. These are supposed to ensure no deforestation, no new planting on peat, the protection of human rights defenders, improved workers’ rights, and better smallholder inclusion. From November 2019, all audits will be assessed for compliance with the new Principles and Criteria.

EIA and Grassroots point out though that little has improved since their 2015 report: “Nearly all of the concerns raised originally in Who Watches the Watchmen? could easily reoccur again and have done so.”

Their new report concludes that, “Non-adherence to the RSPO’s standards is systemic and widespread, and has led to ongoing land conflicts, labour abuses and destruction of forests.”

 

3 thoughts on “Greenwash: How the RSPO fails to uphold its own rules”

  1. On 3 November 2019, RSPO responded to EIA’s report:

    RSPO RESPONDS TO EIA REPORT

    Bangkok, 3 November 2019: The RSPO has always been committed to continuous improvement and self-reflection on what’s working and what’s not. We also realise that by being transparent, the organisation is an easy target for groups that are not actively trying to solve the problem, and instead, are trying to bring down those that are. Characterising an issue or a person in a negative way is a useful way to gain attention and to get a point across. We respect and understand this. RSPO, however, is an organisation that must remain transparent and present only the facts.

    Since the first “Watch the Watchmen” report came out, the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) has evolved to incorporate much of what was suggested in the report. And while there are some failings as highlighted in the second report that the RSPO is continuously seeking to improve upon, there are also some glaring inaccuracies in this report. For example:

    • Assurance Services International (ASI) instituted changes to manage and control audits including improvements in quality assurance, such as additional guidance on Free Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) during the New Planting Procedure (NPP), certification body training, and performance monitoring;

    • The last Assurance Task Force progress report (December 2018) identified that 55% of agreed actions were still outstanding. This was part of what has lead the RSPO to form the Assurance Standing Committee, as it was an issue we already identified and are working to address;

    • At one point, Grassroots, an author of this report, was hired by the Assurance Task Force (ATF) as a consultant to design and deliver a Social, Environmental Impact Assessment (SEIA) module which they failed to deliver. In the end the ATF hired AideEnvironment to finish the report;

    • The new Complaints and Appeals Procedure – a much improved and faster process – is only used for cases brought up after it was adopted. The legacy cases can use this process retroactively;

    • Releasing all of the Complaints Panel records is a reckless recommendation and could make complainants, whistleblowers and human rights defenders susceptible to retaliation;

    • To suggest that the organisation is a failure is a misjustice. Before the RSPO, there was no Malaysian Sustainable Palm Oil (MSPO) or Indonesian Sustainable Palm Oil (ISPO). There was no Palm Oil Innovation Group (POIG). The organisation exists because civil society and business came together to fill a void that was not being filled by others. And we would argue it is still the best system globally, despite the need for continuous improvement, to tackle the issues in the areas of the world where oil palm is grown;

    • To insinuate that droves of RSPO members withdraw from the organisation due to an ongoing complaint is false. There have been at most, two cases, and this issue is currently being addressed by a Resolution adopted by the membership in 2018. The Resolution calls for RSPO to explore ways to discourage members subject to an active complaint from divesting or withdrawing, which in itself is groundbreaking for a voluntary membership organisation; and

    • To accuse the Investigation & Monitoring Unit (IMU) of not being transparent with investigating public domain cases and hotspot monitoring is nonsensical. The IMU works directly with the CEO with regard to membership violations, and in close collaboration with the Complaints Panel. This is squarely in line with the provisions outlined in the RSPO Statutes, according both entities the power to sanction members accordingly.

    The IMU has a robust hotspot monitoring and fire alert system, where 2 million ha of RSPO members area are tracked daily via satellite technology. In 2019, at the height of the fire season in South East Asia, the IMU detected 278 hotspots in RSPO members concessions out of the 73,508 total RSPO concessions in the area, comprising 0.4% from the total hotspots. Being a member of ISEAL, a global membership association for credible sustainability standards, RSPO is recognised to have the most comprehensive GIS technologies uptake among the members and ISEAL communities. To date, no other sustainability standard regulator uses extensive GIS technology to monitor geographic and environmental risks such as deforestation, extensive fire incident and illegal land clearing.

    Despite the accusations in this report that the RSPO has actively colluded with companies to hide violations of the RSPO Standards, the RSPO Complaints Panel have investigated violations and complaints that they found to be valid. As a result, the RSPO has taken action by suspending or removing RSPO members that have not achieved remediation for their violations.

    We have only just seen the report, on the eve of our annual conference that is largely focused on gathering stakeholders to continue improving the RSPO. Therefore, It may take a while for us to digest all of this report. In the meantime, our stakeholders can take comfort knowing that RSPO continues to be informed by scores of credible research organisations who conduct independent research on the impacts of RSPO. The RSPO continues to receive input and support from a wide range of experts from leading civil society organisations and were recently featured as a solution for saving rainforests in Sir David Attenborough’s Seven Worlds, One Planet series on BBC.

  2. On 4 November 2019, EIA replied to RSPO’s response:

    Open letter to the RSPO following criticisms of ‘Who Watches the Watchmen? 2’ report

    To: Darrel Webber
    Chief Executive Officer
    Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO)

    SIR, We welcome and appreciate the RSPO’s response to our report. We do not accept that there were any ‘glaring inaccuracies’ in it.

    We have already recognised throughout the report the positive role of Assurance Services International (ASI) and that guidance, monitoring and training has been happening to an extent.

    Similarly, our report recognised that the RSPO had introduced a new complaints process and the improved RSPO Principles and Criteria standard. Our concerns in the report are focused on the implementation of that standard, particularly the failings of the Assurance Task Force, and how the RSPO is robustly ensuring its standard is adhered to. Similar to other RSPO workgroups, the Assurance Task Force was hampered by inconsistent and unsatisfactory work and poor management by the RSPO Secretariat and the Task Force itself.

    In line with our recommendations in the report we would encourage the RSPO to:

    • determine what actions have and have not been completed by the Assurance Task Force through an independent review, given that at the last update 55 per cent of actions had not been completed, address its disorganised running and ensure the newly formed Assurance Standing Committee completes the outstanding actions, recommendations and objectives, learning from the shortcomings of the Assurance Task Force;

    • publish documents on the case tracker relating to complaints cases, recognising that it would of course be inappropriate and insensitive to release documents where this would reveal complainants who have chosen to remain confidential or similar, but also recognising that the RSPO has not published documents on numerous complaint cases where documents have not been not confidential and where documents are already shared among stakeholders and/or made publicly available elsewhere;

    • verify that the spatial data submitted by companies includes all its concessions, so that it can comprehensively monitor and verify hotspots proactively, HCV areas and land clearing in members’ concessions and identify where there are non-compliances, raising them to the IMU or the complaints system;

    • improve its complaints system to ensure it takes timely action, discloses all relevant information from complainants and respondents, as well as investigations on complaints, and provides regular updates to complainants. The fact that the RSPO has passed a resolution to stop members divesting when there is an open complaint suggests it does perceive this to be an issue.

    We note that while Grassroots agreed to develop SEIA guidance for the RSPO in late 2016, in the same way as other NGOs in the Task Force agreed to take on certain tasks to help the RSPO, it lacked the capacity to deliver this and in 2017 recommended Aidenvironment and cooperated with the organisation to complete this work.

    While research organisations, such as the IUCN, have identified the RSPO’s P&C as one of the best standards and systems for palm oil, independent research on the impacts of the RSPO on the ground to date have been underwhelming, such as no significant difference being found between certified and non-certified plantations for any of the sustainability metrics investigated – again, as outlined in our report. This continues to raise concerns on how well the RSPO is implementing its standard and assurance processes. Any sustainability standard stands or falls on the credibility of the system it uses to verify its implementation. We would welcome continuous improvements from the RSPO.

    EIA recognises, more than anyone, how information can be dangerous to complainants, whistleblowers and human rights defenders vulnerable to criminals operating in forests and within this sector. However, to use that as a reason not to release even basic information where sensitive reporting can be redacted shows the lack of understanding and will for the urgency to be as transparent as possible.

    The RSPO cannot afford to miss opportunities to address the credibility of its system for certification and assessments further or it will be irrelevant.

    If the Assurance Standing Committee indeed signals the RSPO Board’s serious intent to rectify the matter, it must support RSPO Resolution 6b and incorporate the second Watchmen report’s findings and recommendations into a structured and clear action plan with measurable results.

    Yours sincerely

    Siobhan Pearce
    Forests Campaigner
    Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA)

  3. EIA put out a press release today:

    PRESS RELEASE

    WEDNESDAY, 6 NOVEMBER 2019 – FOR IMMEDIATE USE

    FIFTEEN ENVIRONMENTAL NGOs DEMAND THAT SUSTAINABLE PALM OIL WATCHDOG DOES ITS JOB

    BANGKOK: As members of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), the world’s largest palm oil certification system, meet in Bangkok for their 17th annual meeting, the world is in the midst of a climate, biodiversity and human rights emergency.

    Global citizens have watched in horror and outrage over the past months as some of the largest remaining forested areas on the planet – from the Amazon to Indonesia – have been on fire.

    And the role of palm oil companies and consumer brands — including many RSPO members — in this crisis is no secret.

    Last year, RSPO members approved a new set of Principles and Criteria that align with the global ‘No Deforestation, No Peat and No Exploitation’ policies of many of its members.

    But the RSPO’s new standard will only be meaningful if it is upheld in a thorough, comprehensive and competent way. The new report Who Watches the Watchmen? 2’, released by the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) and Grassroots this week, exposes the RSPO’s inability to assure consumers and the public that its members can uphold its standard.

    A coalition of 15 NGOs released the following statement as the RSPO meeting entered its final day:

    “As the world faces a climate, deforestation and human rights crisis, we call on the RSPO and its members to fulfill their promise of sustainability and commitment to ending deforestation, peatland destruction and violation of human rights in the production and procurement of palm oil among its member companies.

    “Violations of the RSPO’s standard and procedures remain systemic and widespread and there is little evidence that RSPO members are truly implementing the Principles & Criteria. To the contrary, research has shown no significant difference between certified and non-certified plantations and fire, peatland loss and human and labour rights violations have been repeatedly exposed on RSPO-certified plantations.

    “The planet, affected communities, workers and global citizens can no longer afford to wait for the RSPO to slowly nudge member companies in the right direction, while allowing them to do continual harm both to the environment and people.

    “To remain relevant in today’s world, the RSPO must urgently strengthen its assurance systems and make the entire process – certification, monitoring, audits, complaints and enforcement – credible and robust.

    “We call on all RSPO members to take up this call to action with the necessary urgency.”

    Signatories

    awasMIFEE

    Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA)

    Friends of the Earth Japan

    Grassroots

    Greenpeace

    HUTAN Group

    IAR Indonesia Foundation (YIARI)

    Japan Tropical Forest Action Network (JATAN)

    Kaoem Telapak

    Organisasi Penguatan dan Pengembangan Usaha-Usaha Kerakyatan (OPPUK)

    Rainforest Action Network

    Sarawak Dayak Iban Association (SADIA)

    SumOfUs

    Verité Southeast Asia

    Yayasan Pusaka Bentala Rakyat

Leave a Reply