         
For those not familiar, the RSPO is an industry-led initiative (with significant NGO involvement) to coordinate best management practice, including greater recognition of environmental and social impacts, for oil palm cultivation (www.rspo.org). This year saw the 5th Roundtable held in Kuala Lumpur, where the certification scheme's principles and criteria were nearly finalised and the promise was made of certified palm oil to be in the market very soon. As an academic researcher, watching the progress of the RSPO and its real attempt to be inclusive and multi-disciplinary was fascinating. The meeting comprised over 500 attendees from some 28 countries, representing industry, social and environmental NGOs, academia, finance/banking and to a lesser extent government. Presentations ranged from trial implementation of the certification scheme's principle and criteria in Ghana, Brazil, Malaysia and Indonesia to what would be the best way to provide certified sustainable palm oil (CSPO) to the ready market; either through a completely segregated supply chain, to one of mass balance or via a credit (book and claim) scheme. For any questions on that very complicated debate I would refer you to the report produced by Proforest on the subject, outlining the three options that the RSPO governing body has agreed, thus far, to implement in parallel. (http://www.proforest.net/publication-objects/RSPO_Discussion_paper1_final.pdf) I was involved in co-facilitating a discussion on the second day of the meeting regarding the role of research in helping to design best management practice for encouraging biodiversity. i can tell you, I was totally blown away by both the interest and the engagement by a number of plantation managers in this conversation. Basically, the RSPO principles and criteria require some assessment of forests' "high conservation values" either before plantation establishment or in the case of many once the plantation is already operating. However, the most recent document provides very little guidance as to how this should be undertaken; hence the value of coordinating a technical committee on biodiversity where academics and plantation managers can share their experiences and expertise regarding maintaining biological corridors, using less chemicals for pest control or allowing riparian reserves to remain. This kind of initiative already has some support offered by the World Bank's Biodiversity and Agricultural Commodity's Programme (BACP) (http://www.ifc.org/ifcext/enviro.nsf/Content/Biodiversity_BACP). One point that came up, which I found surprising, was the concern of plantation managers in having to protect areas they had as set asides for biodiversity from human encroachment; either through poaching or slash and burn agriculture. They were asking that this technical committee would be capable of cooperating with local authorities to encourage their support in policing these areas and educating their citizens in the reasons for this conservation. Otherwise, the reality on the ground is almost round the clock security guards with guns trying to keep the local community out of these areas. While, I did not attend the previous Roundtable, I understand that the discussion of biodiversity assessment then was much more acrimonious with the environmental perspective clashing with the industrial. This was definitely not the case this year. There were several large palm oil companies present (IOI, Synergy and CDC were some of the most vocal) that were genuinely interested in support for capacity building and advice on what would be an acceptable level of monitoring and implementation. Whether or not they would be willing to support this initiative financially remains to be seen... Blog post by amorel on Nov. 26, 2007 at 12:26 p.m.
Bookmark to: |
