4th meeting of rspo malaysian national … of 4th myni taskforce... · 2014-07-10 · page 1 of 28...

of 28

4th MEETING OF

RSPO MALAYSIAN NATIONAL INTERPRETATION TASK FORCE (RSPO MYNI TF)

Date 25th & 26th June 2014

Venue MELIA HOTEL, KUALA LUMPUR

Present:

Day 1 (25th June 2014)

No Name Company

1. Datuk Dr. John Payne(Co-Chairperson) Borneo Rhino Alliance (BORA)

2. Pn Sabarinah Marzuky (Co-chairperson) Sime Darby Plantation Sdn. Bhd.

3. Dr. Liew Yew Ann Applied Agricultural Resources/KLK

4. En. Norazam Abdul Hameed Felda Global Ventures

5. Dr. Faizal Parish Global Environment Centre

6. Ms. Julia Lo Global Environment Centre

7. Ms. Harjinder Kler HUTAN

8. Mr. Augustine Loh Intertek

9. Mr. Too Heng Liew IOI Corporation

10. Mr. Yeap Su Jeen IOI Corporation

11. Mr. Tay Wai Chian IOI Corporation

12. Mr. William Siow IOI Corporation

13. Mr. Sin Chuan Eng Kuala Lumpur Kepong Bhd.

14. Ms. Lee Kuan Yee Kuala Lumpur Kepong Bhd.

15. Mr. Jason Foong Huey Yuan Kuala Lumpur Kepong Bhd.

16. Ms. Azmariah Muhamad Kulim (Malaysia) Berhad

17. Ms. Jaswinder Kler MPONGOC

18. Ms. Kertijah A. Kadir Nestle Malaysia

19. Mr. Edrin Moss PBB Oil Palm/Wilmar International

20. Ms. Foo Siew Theng PBB Oil Palm/Wilmar International

21. Ms. Melissa Chin RSPO Secretariat

22. Ms. Julia Majail RSPO Secretariat

23. Ms. Oi Soo Chin RSPO Secretariat

24. Mr. Dillon Sarim RSPO Secretariat

25. Mr. Bremen Yong RSPO Secretariat

26. Ms. Premalatha Karisnajunian RSPO Secretariat

27. Ms. Lee Swee Yin Sime Darby Plantation Sdn. Bhd.

28. Ms. Briony Octavia Homer Mun Sime Darby Plantation Sdn. Bhd.

29. Ms. Nadiah Mohamed Nazri Sime Darby Plantation Sdn. Bhd.

30. Ms. Cecilia Tan Siew Imm Sime Darby Plantation Sdn. Bhd.

31. Dr. Shahrakbah Yacob Sime Darby Plantation Sdn. Bhd.

32. Mr. C. Mathews United Plantations Bhd.

33. Ms. Melissa Yeoh WWF Malaysia

34. Ms. Stephanie Alau Apui WWF Malaysia

35. Ms. Nor Ashrina Abd Rahim WWF Malaysia

of 28

Day 2 (26th June 2014)

No Name Company

1. Dr. John Payne(Co-Chairperson) Borneo Rhino Alliance (BORA)

2. Pn. Sabarinah Marzuky (Co-chairperson) Sime Darby Plantation Sdn. Bhd.

3. Dr. Liew Yew Ann Applied Agricultural Resources/KLK

4. Ms. Harjinder Kler HUTAN

5. Mr. Augustine Loh Intertek

6. Mr. Yeap Su Jean IOI Corporation

7. Mr. Tay Wai Chian IOI Corporation

8. Mr. William Siow IOI Corporation

9. Ms. Lee Kuan Yee Kuala Lumpur Kepong Bhd.

10. Mr. Jason Foong Huey Yuan Kuala Lumpur Kepong Bhd.

11. Ms. Azmariah Muhamad Kulim (Malaysia) Berhad

12. Ms. Jaswinder Kler MPONGOC

13. Ms. Kertijah A. Kadir Nestle Malaysia

14. Mr. Edrin Moss PBB Oil Palm/Wilmar International

15. Ms. Foo Siew Theng PBB Oil Palm/Wilmar International

16. Ms. Julia Majail RSPO Secretariat

17. Ms. Oi Soo Chin RSPO Secretariat

18. Mr. Dillon Sarim RSPO Secretariat

19. Mr. Bremen Yong RSPO Secretariat

20. Ms. Premalatha Karisnajunian RSPO Secretariat

21. Ms. Lee Swee Yin Sime Darby Plantation Sdn. Bhd.

22. Ms. Briony Octavia Homer Mun Sime Darby Plantation Sdn. Bhd.

23. Ms. Nadiah Mohamed Nazri Sime Darby Plantation Sdn. Bhd.

24. Ms. Cecilia Tan Siew Imm Sime Darby Plantation Sdn. Bhd.

25. Mr. C. Mathews United Plantations Bhd.

26. Ms. Melissa Yeoh WWF Malaysia

27. Ms. Stephanie Alau Apui WWF Malaysia

of 28

No Subject/Discussion

1.0 Opening briefing

1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5

Opening and welcoming remarks by Pn Sabarinah M. She thanked everyone for making it to this probably last Malaysian National Interpretation (MYNI) Task Force (TF) meeting. Pn Sabarinah M mentioned that the aim for the session is to review the comments on the draft MYNI received during the 60 day public consultation period. She highlighted that first day discussion will be based on the Principle 2,4,6,7 that was brought up by the members who will not be attending the second day session. Pn. Sabarinah M. announced that TF secretariat had received 3 new comments after the public consultation period and requested consensus from all members whether to include in the meeting discussion or not. All members agreed to discuss on the three new comments. Bremen Y. thanked the co-chairs and Sime Darby for heading the TF meeting as secretariat. He informed that Salahudin Y. could not make it to the meeting due to passing of his family member. Bremen Y. also announced that once all the comments are discussed, it will then be incorporated into the MYNI draft, the final draft will then be finalised and submitted to RSPO Secretariat for further review. RSPO will give feedback to MYNI TF for further ratification and the revised version will then be submitted to Board of Governance for endorsement before it can be officially released. Any further delay will impact future certifications. Pn. Sabarinah M. highlighted that if there are any comments from RSPO Secretariat received by the MYNI TF later, it will be circulated through email and all members agreed to this.

2.0 Discussion on the feedbacks from the Public Consultation Period

Principle 1: Indicator 1.3.1 – Comment by Proforest

Discussion: 1) Sabarinah M. briefed that the comment is to add “publically available” before the word

“written policy”. 2) Dr. Liew Y.A believed all the policy will be available at annual report or companies’

website. Harjinder K. commented that this comment has been discussed in the first MYNI TF meeting.

Conclusion All agreed to keep the original wording.

Principle 2 : Specific Guidance Indicator 2.2.6 –Comment by ProForest

Discussion : 1) With regards to the comment, Faizal P. mentioned that from his understanding, the

sentence “use of auxiliary police/watchmen/RELA may be deployed” may suggest that it is okay to use these during extra-judicial intimidation and harassment. He mentioned that as we do not really use auxiliary police/watchmen/RELA to handle extra-judicial intimidation and harassment, hence suggested this sentence to be omitted and maybe added as footnote. This is to avoid any power abuse by the auxiliary police/watchmen/RELA. Edrin M. and Yeap S. J. also agreed to remove this.

2) Dr. Liew Y. A. mentioned that RELA and auxiliary police is regulated by Malaysian laws, hence no problem should arise from this. C. Mathews agreed to this. Sin C. E. also added that when auxiliary police or RELA is being sent to Estate, they will first be trained as regular policemen except that they will receive their salary from Plantation companies. They are supervised directly from special Police Inspector. Hence, it is not likely for them to abuse their power.

3) Sabarinah M. explained why that sentence was being added in the first place which was due to questions raised on the definition of judicial intimidation and harassment, therefore the definition of watchmen/RELA came into scene. She asked for consensus if

of 28

all wanted the wordings “use of auxiliary police/watchmen/RELA may be deployed” to be taken out from the draft. Initially all agreed.

4) C. Mathews then questioned why we want to take it out? It is nothing intimidating, no harm taking it out no harm leave it there. To a person who is not familiar with plantation, when they come to plantation and see an auxiliary police, they view them as policemen. Noorazam H. agreed that in Malaysia context, this is applicable, hence we want to maintain this sentence.

5) C. Mathews suggested to add “deployed to maintain peace and harmony”. Kertijah A. K. agreed to C. Mathew’s suggestion, where it tallies with the indicator 2.2.6 that mentioned “maintaining peace and order”.

6) Sin C. E. however mentioned although peace and harmony sounds valid, but there should be better wordings for dealing with law and orders.

7) Yeap S. J. suggested it is better to use sentence “employed to maintain security in the estate” rather than use the word “deployed”. Faizal P. seconded.

8) Faizal P. mentioned that this indicator talks more on violence related to disputed lands. The context of auxiliary police and watchmen are for maintaining security in the estate, we should not send any auxiliary police or watchmen to cause violence at the disputed lands at the village. C. Mathews explained that auxiliary police/watchmen/RELA employed by the estates, can only work within the boundary of their estate, and they do not have power outside of their boundaries.

9) Based on this explanation, all agreed to change the wordings to “In the Malaysian context use of auxiliary police/watchmen/RELA are employed to maintain security in the estate” to indicate their power are only bound within the Estate.

Conclusion : All agreed to change the sentence “…….In the Malaysian context use of auxiliary police/watchmen/RELA may be deployed” to “…..In the Malaysian context use of auxiliary police/watchmen/RELA are employed to maintain security in the estate.”

Guidance 2.3 – Comment by MPOA

Discussion:

1) Dr. John P. underlined that the sub-group discussion on the Guidance notes for determining validity of claims over land and natural resources by people living in areas being developed for oil palm on 26th January 2014 came out with an important output on the recognition of the traditional leadership by the local government and district level and the fact that they actually play an important role in evaluating such claims.

2) Yeap S.J. mentioned that all agreed during the sub-group meeting that the law only covers certain aspects of NCR claims but some other things like traditional hunting grounds are not covered (e.g. users rights).

3) Faizal P. opined that his understanding on the comment made by MPOA is that there are no encumbrances, yet there are claims from Sabah and Sarawak, although not fully legalised, but such claims should still be considered. So, he suggested to not take up the suggestion by MPOA.

4) Another comment by Faizal P. was on MPOA’s comment related to Annex 4, referring to “court decision-relating to claims of customary and user rights shall be taken into consideration when following the RSPO customary and use rights resolution procedure”, he mentioned that if we decided to take into consideration the comment by MPOA, we are basically throwing out the whole guidance and for growers to follow the law and courts’ order.

5) Too H. L. however mentioned that, growers are facing dilemma between following the law and the guidance. Growers as investors have been awarded with the land legally, yet the business is caught in between when observing the requirements by RSPO. He question whether RSPO’s role whether RSPO will be the mediator or another authority where growers need to fulfil their requirements before company can cultivate oil palm. That is why MPOA is highlighting such comments. He also stressed that in Malaysia, everything is governed by the law.

of 28

6) C. Mathews also agreed that court decision is final. 7) Dr. John P. believed that this guidance does not impose any conflicts with the law. 8) Dr. Liew Y. A. mentioned that based on the annex “the results of the investigations

may be used by the committee or working group to suggest an appropriate resolution” shows that the sub-group has higher power than the court’s decision, which is not supposed to be that way.

9) Edrin M. commented on behalf of a community from Sabah. He gave example that, if a company uses court decision to take his land, he still can speak to the company and present his case out of the contexts of law, by mediation. That is why this guidance is valid.

10) Too H. L. disagreed to the example given, as the problem should be addressed to the issuing authority; in this case the state government. Edrin M. objected him and gave another example on the Sugut case, whereby the village land at that area was taken by a company without their consent. The villagers from that area could not claim the land as they do not own proper IC or any documentation.

11) Harjinder K. further suggested to Too H. L. to take this guidance as a way to protect growers. Jaswinder K. added that during the previous meeting, all agreed that we do not want to have further conflicts with community hence a guidance needs to be in place to avoid this problem. She mentioned that sometimes the lands that companies are acquiring may be a conflicted land. Dr. Liew Y. A. however stand on his opinion that for big companies, usually they will follow the regulations.

12) Dr. Liew Y. A. reminded that, not all court decision is on the growers’ side. For example KLK has withdrawn their investment in Papua New Guinea due to the court’s decision. This shows that growers honour the court’s decision.

13) Yeap S.J. then stated his opinion that the court’s decision sometimes is inadequate to cater for customary rights. He agreed to Edrin M. on the case in Sugut, that some of these people do not have enough access and education level to stand for their rights. They are not able to do anything when companies come and develop the place they live.

14) Too H. L. was firm on his opinion for the law to be regarded as the final decision. He gave example on a post in Borneo Post that stated the Chief Minister of Sabah only recognize “Temuda” land and not “Menua” land. This has become an issue especially to the Opposition party, but he stressed that there is a law process. He mentioned that the main point is to have a law process and as a grower we need a direction on how to go about this problem because the usual case is the law will mention there is no encumbrance but later, there will be claims made. Harjinder K. then mentioned that is the reason this guidance was created.

15) Edrin M. then gave clarification on what was actually discussed in the meeting on 26th January 2014. The main discussion was on land acquisition process. That the current law does not clearly state the process, especially on recognising customary rights. Under the Sabah Labour Ordinance, there is clause mentioning the criteria of customary right lands, for example the hectarage involved as well as signs of people living in the area, but again there is a process in need to identify these. So what we have now in RSPO is for members follow the process.

16) Too H. L. questioned whether growers should follow the law or the process? Edrin M. responded that we have to follow the process of the law.

17) Dr. John P. then made two points, point no 1) his opinion that in the early 80s-90s, the Government of Sabah already improperly distributed land titles without going through the process of investigating the possibility that land under valid customary tenure was issued to other parties, when there is a valid native customary right land claims and until this day valid complaints are still not being addressed and at least one is still held up at the Court some 16 years after the title was issued; it seems that claims of customary rights will not be resolved by the Court until after many of the claimants have died. Point no 2) There are some companies that still not yet solved their cases with the Court and this guidance note is drafted not to deny any court’s decision but to offer another form of guidance for palm oil plantations that continue to suffer from unresolved customary claims. We do need guidance in addition to the Court’s decision.

of 28

18) Faizal P. further stated that, it is already stated in the guidance 2.3 that “where customary rights area are unclear these should be established through participatory mapping exercises involving affected parties..”. It shows that the guidance notes is to assist in participatory mapping processes, and not to take over the law. It is a voluntary process, not mandatory, and it acts as to assist company to resolve land issues. Based on the sentence given in the additional note in annex 4-court decisions; also shows that court decision is also taken into account throughout this process. He stated that MPOA’s concerns based on their comment is if the guidance is mandatory or RSPO is trying to make a new ruling. Hence, he suggested to include a note that stated this is a voluntary mechanism for resolution and not mandatory or replacing the law.

19) Dr. Liew Y. A. suggested to take in the comment made by MPOA on annex 4. Faizal P. objected and stated that it will tear up the whole guidance note. Too H. L. agreed to Dr. Liew Y. A.

20) Jaswinder K. mentioned that in the generic P&C, it is stated that “companies should be especially careful where they are offered lands acquired from the State by its invoking the national interest….” We should also be clear that the guidance that we discussed takes into account that definition of customary rights in the current legislations does not cover all the valid claims.

21) C. Mathews agreed with Faizal P. that this guidance should be voluntary and not mandatory. Dr. Liew Y. A. sought opinion from auditor’s point of view.

22) Augustine L. mentioned that in the report by Certification Bodies (CB), CB are expected to provide evidence on the standards even it is under ‘Guidance’. Since it is voluntary, company has the option to move forward by doing something and this can be quoted as evidence or otherwise, therefore CBs will request for any evidence that is available.

23) Too H. L. shared cases that plantation companies have to face, for example a case in Sarawak which could not be solved properly despite the court’s decision that it is not NCR land, however the natives still insisted that. Julia M. mentioned that this case happened due to the absence of guidance. That mediation is preferred prior legal proceedings. She mentioned that if there is a guidance, the same kind of situation can be prevented.

24) Faizal P. suggested wordings for annex 4 under heading Procedure to add on “voluntary procedure” or “suggested procedure”. He also suggested under the heading ‘Additional Note’ to change “RSPO customary and user rights resolution procedure” to “guidance” to give more formality. No agreement yet on this.

25) Sabarinah M. then explained that the reason why there is this guidance, is basically due to the NI section in indicator 2.3 of the generic P&C stating that we are supposed to come out with guidance on any commonly encountered situation. Meaning that moving forward, this is the document we need to refer to in facing similar issues.

26) Sabarinah M. then mentioned that another commonly encountered situation that is found from this debate is on legacy issues, whereby disputed cases has been debated and prolonged for a long period of time. She sought consensus from the floor as to whether there is need to come out with another sub-group to discuss on this matter or to use this guidance in moving forward? C. Mathews suggested to use mediation, if the legacy is too bad and moving forward we can just use this document.

27) Sabarinah M. sought clarification from RSPO secretariat on RSPO customary and use rights resolution procedure, whether there is such procedure. Julia M. will have to check again on this procedure. So Sabarinah M. suggested that if there is such procedure it will be under annex 4 as well, hence there will be two guidance; one for moving forward and another one is for dealing with legacy issue. Sabarinah M. mentioned that if the procedure is not there, she suggested that RSPO Secretariat to have another sub-group to discuss on legacy issues. This is to ensure that all the commonly encountered issues are being addressed.

Conclusion:

1) Guidance 2.3 maintained. No changes.

of 28

2) Under Annex 4 Additional note: Court decisions- To omit the wording “RSPO customary and use rights resolution procedure” to “this guidance”

Action:

1) For RSPO to check on the RSPO Customary and user rights resolution procedure and update everyone.

2) For RSPO to come out with a sub-working group to discuss on Legacy issue, if the above mentioned procedure is not available.

Cri 3.1 Indicator 3.1.1 – Comment by MPOA

Discussion: 1) Dr. Liew Y.A. enquired what information is required under the business or management

plan. Sabarinah M. responded that based on what stated in the specific guidance in the generic P&C, business or management plan should comprise of Crop projection, Mill extraction rates, Cost of Production, and Forecast prices.

2) Dr. Liew Y.A. mentioned maybe what MPOA commented is valid because cost of production should be keep confidential. Augustine L. mentioned that auditors will usually not record the costs of production but will check if the figure is available.

3) Dr. Liew Y.A. explained the information will be very sensitive especially on premiums received. C. Mathews added that company may have business-to-business deals where prices are locked at fixed rate and they do not want to make it known public domain.

4) Harjinder K. recalled that Sheila S. from Wild Asia commented that they need those information to know what is the company plan e.g. on area with peat soil. Melissa Y. disagreed that this information on cost of production would contribute to the purpose mentioned.

5) Melissa Y. enquired what the original purpose of adding in those list was. Sabarinah M. briefed that the basis is to ensure the long term economic and financial viability is achievable. Melissa Y. commented that it is the company’s best interest to safeguard their profit & loss (P&L). Melissa Y. agreed that the cost of production and forecast prices should be kept confidential.

6) Bremen Y. briefed that there will be financial figures in any business plan. The purpose of all business plan is to make sure that company has plan for the next three years how they are they running the business. The financial figures is important to know whether a business is viable. On the issue on confidentiality, auditor will only look at the plan, the figure will not be disclosed in the public summary report.

7) C. Mathews commented that those figures are confidential even amongst the management. Only top management has access to it. C. Mathews suggested that a 3-year budget, expenditure, crop forecast, kernel extraction and CPO extraction can be provided.

8) Augustine L. agreed and mentioned that CPO trend is already publicly available, so it is up to the company whether they record the forecast prices to demonstrate compliance with the RSPO P&C. It does not serve auditor's interest to know if the forecast prices go up or down.

9) C. Mathews briefed that he experienced the era where the cost of production is below the price - 3 times over the past 30 years. Edrin M. added that they have an operating unit running at no profit for past 7-8 years where 70% of the area is HCV areas, and only 30% is for production.

10) Sabarinah M. mentioned that the indicator did not mention that that those information need to be made publicly available and confirmed with the growers that the concern is arising between the auditor and management, that growers would not like these to be listed down. This is to ensure that auditors do not insist the disclosure of those figure and/ or publish the figures accidentally.

11) Melissa Y. confirmed that environmental NGO like WWF has no issue if the cost of production and forecast prices are being taken out.

12) Augustine L. suggested to add the word “at a minimum” after the word “should contain”. As there could be many things in the management plan and we are not limiting it with just two.

of 28

Conclusion: All agreed to: 1) Remove “costs of production = cost per tonne of Crude Palm Oil (CPO) trends; and Forest

prices”. 2) Add the word “at a minimum” after the word “should contain”. Text amended: “The

business or management plan should contain at a minimum”.

Indicator 3.1.1 – Comment by Dr. Liew Y. A.

a) Sabarinah M. confirmed with Dr. Liew Y.A. that this is the same issue as per the comments

by MPOA. Hence, all agreed that the conclusion will be the same as above. Conclusion: Same as the above conclusion.

Indicator 4.2.1 – Comment by Proforest

Discussion:

1) C. Mathews explained that soils vary and have different underlined factors to determine the uptake of the fertilizer performance, so we can’t be so precise. That’s why scientist put “where possible”. There is Cation-exchange capacity, Carbon-Nitrogen ratio, where all these affect the uptake of the fertilizer, and shows different soil have different properties. Dr. Liew Y.A. agreed that while agronomists try their best to sustain optimal yield, in certain circumstances, the yield might drop due to weather or other reasons. Hence, “where possible” should be there to avoid any differences in opinion, for example with auditors.

2) Faizal P. suggested that the wordings “where possible” could imply that good agricultural practices only be applied at where possible, and not during other circumstances, whereby good agricultural practices should be mandatory. He mentioned that the technical problem in the sentence is actually “ensure optimal and sustained yield” where these two really depends on circumstances. So, we have to decide whether we want to separate the 2 wordings “optimal yield’ and “where possible” or to change entirely the sentence “ensure optimal and sustained yield” to avoid any confusion. Dr. Liew Y. A. agreed that the indicator is good enough, as the first sentence already indicates that the good agricultural practice shall be evident, and the “where possible” is only applied to ensuring optimal and sustained yield, not where possible to use the SOP. Faizal P. mentioned that the word “where possible” should be put at the centre of the sentence instead of at the end to avoid confusion. C. Mathews mentioned that the word ‘shall’ already show that the SOP is mandatory and must be done hence no confusion should occur for the word “where possible”.

3) Faizal P. suggested “SOP are followed to maintain soil fertility that ensure as far as possible to ensure optimal and sustained yield.”

4) Sabarinah M. then brought attention to all that the current draft is as per generic P&C, whereby the word “where possible” is originally stated in the generic P&C. Dr. Liew Y. A. suggested to follow the generic P&C.

5) When Norazam H. requested to get opinion from auditor, Augustine L. suggested that this sentence should not be a problem, as growers should already know what to do to obtain higher yield. Hence, we should not spend so much time on the wordings. Hence, all agreed to revert to the generic indicator in P&C.

Conclusion: All agreed to maintain the current sentence ; “4.2.1 There shall be evidence that good agriculture practices, as contained in the Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), are followed to manage soil fertility to a level that ensures optimal and sustained yield, where possible.”

of 28

Indicator 4.2.2, 4.23 & 4.2.4 –Comment by Proforest

Discussion:

1) Dr Liew Y. A. mentioned that the fertilizer input records are already sufficient to calculate the budget. He mentioned that it will be too much work and redundant for the estate management to compute the data for nutrient budget. The most important for estate is to maintain records of the type of fertilizers, and the inventory.

2) C. Mathews mentioned that in Plantation, under accounting system there is a system called manuring cost that includes buying, issuance and storing of fertilizer records. Hence, there should be evidence of manuring application budget and not nutrient budget. He suggested that the comments by Proforest “4.2.3 There shall be evidence of a nutrient budget” can be changed to “4.2.3 There shall be evidence of manuring application budget”.

3) Dr. Liew Y. A. suggested that indicator 4.2.2 and 4.2.3 in the current draft can be left as it is, only on indicator 4.2.4, where he suggested the last two words “after replanting” to be omitted. He stated that nutrient recycling strategy is a continuous process and does not limit to only after replanting. During normal harvesting time, we recycle the pruned fronds, and apply EFB. There must be a continuous nutrient cycle strategy to make full use of our EFB, POME and palm residues (includes prune fronds, inflorescence).

4) Sin C. E. agreed with the suggestion made by Dr. Liew Y. A. to delete “after replanting” as it gives better clarity for the nutrient recycling strategy as it is an ongoing process from the planting of the oil palm even during initial removal of desiccated fronds. The whole process will keep continue in dealing with solid biomass.

5) Hence, Melissa Y. suggested to delete the wordings “after replanting” and add on “ongoing” as for her, this is to also let the auditors or outside people know about the ongoing process. However, Augustine L. mentioned that as auditors, they are aware and understand that this process is ongoing. All agreed to take out the word “after replanting” and not add the word “ongoing”.

6) On another note, Faizal P. asked the floor whether we really want to add the new indicator on nutrient budget? All said no.

7) As for the “manuring application cost” as alternative wordings, Faizal P. suggested that there is no difference with fertilizer inputs (as in draft 4.2.2) unless all decided to recognize between organic and inorganic fertilizer, hence it is more suitable to use manuring instead of fertilizer. But C. Mathews did not agree to this as organic material such as fronds cannot be calculated. Even manuring budget does not include these information. C. Mathews and Dr. Liew Y. A. agreed with “fertiliser inputs” and suggested to just leave the three indicators as it is. The suggested wording “manuring cost” is also to be omitted. All agreed.

8) Final decision shown that all three indicators were maintained but changes made to the last indicator 4.2.4 to omit the wording “after replanting”.

Conclusion : All agreed to maintain the three indicators and to delete the wordings “after replanting” at the last indicator 4.2.4. a) Agreed on:

1. Indicator 4.2.2 Records of fertiliser inputs shall be maintained. – Maintained.

2. Indicator 4.2.3 There shall be evidence of periodic tissue and soil sampling to monitor changes in nutrient status. – Maintained. b) Amended text on:

of 28

1. Indicator 4.2.4 –A nutrient recycling strategy shall be in place, and may include use of Empty Fruit Bunches (EFB), Palm Oil Mill Effluent (POME) and palm residues after replanting- delete the word “after replanting”

Guidance 4.2 – Comment from Proforest

Discussion:

1) As referred to the suggestion given by Proforest, Dr. Liew Y. A. questioned the meaning of “mechanisms should be in place” (refer to comment). Edrin M. suggested that this may refer to the Agronomist’s Report.

2) However, from Dr. Shahrakbah’ s view, there is no specific mechanisms or template to speed up farm productivity. He asked for justification on this comment. Dr. Liew Y. A. added that fertilizer recommendation already includes all the computation on nutrients. This should be enough. Edrin M. suggested that this comment may be raised up from the visits and extra recommendation from plantation advisors (PA), agronomist and others, hence we are not solely depending on the calculation that made before the fertilizer recommendation. For example, some big companies like Wilmar, other than having fertilizer recommendation, they also refer to PA report for any extra recommendation. Sin C. E. however, strongly agreed to Dr. Shahrakbah Y. and Dr. Liew’s opinion based on their professional experience in this field, and also his own experience.

3) Too H. L. opined that mechanism in this context is to correlate foliar analysis, soil analysis result with the recommendation of the how much to correct it, supplement it or maintain it. That is the work of agronomist.

4) Sabarinah M. brought attention to all that as this is ‘Specific Guidance’, hence it should add clarity to the guidance. Sin C. E. found that there is ambiguity in this comment. Sabarinah M. later questioned whether there is any strong objection if this comment is taken out? Augustine L. commented that it is good if the guidance gives clarity to the indicator, but if the sentence gives confusion, there is no added value. Guidance should be simple and clear. Hence, all agreed to not include this comment.

Conclusion : All agreed to not take this comment in.

Guidance 4.5 – Comment from RPSO

Discussion:

1) Dr. Liew Y. A. suggested that company without SOP on IPM may follow this paper by Peter Lim as a reference.

2) Norazam H. questioned that, do we need to put specific paper or specific name in the P&C? As far as the P&C is concerned, it has to be general. Sin. C. E. mentioned that according to previous meetings, members agreed that RSPO Secretariat to come out with an IPM practices for the general reference of others but not about someone saying that we make reference to IPM practices. Planters actually have case studies of IPM, and call for our research centre to contribute to certain subjects, but if we want to put reference to such manuals, there is still no specific manuals. Hence, for growers without internal SOPs on IPM, they may refer to any reference materials. It is advisable for RSPO to re-visit this matter and to come out a compilation of such practices for sharing.

3) Bremen Y. agreed with the suggestion given by Dr Liew Y. A. for any companies without SOP to make the paper as an option for reference, but it might not be necessary to make it as guidance as growers have their own way. RSPO will look into this matter.

4) Faizal P. mentioned that if we are to make reference to everything in the annex, we will have a very thick document. It will be advisable if we just make reference to relevant expert papers on RSPO website or others. This will be a flexible approach for growers, or else they will have to refer to the same reference for the next 5 years.

of 28

Sabarinah M. agreed to this, as we do not want to limit the growers from refer to anything.

5) Dr. Liew Y. A. suggested to include MPOB as one of the references. C. Mathews suggested to add “may” so that the smallholders may refer to this reference.

6) Sabarinah M. sought clarification from RSPO Secretariat as to whether there is any papers on IPM uploaded in the RSPO website or whether this reference paper is under any working group. Bremen Y. responded that so far there is none on the website and there is also no working group on IPM.

7) All agreed that this paper by Peter Lim will be a guidance or reference for those companies without own IPM SOP. However, Sabarinah M. stressed her concerns again on the limitation within 5 year time if specific reference is cited. Sabarinah M. also mentioned that before any paper is accepted, there should be experts who verify the paper before it is being published in the website.

8) C. Mathews suggested that we should just include the reference by “RSPO, MPOB and other references”. Augustine L. reminded that if we are to put “others”, it has to be of some recognition by RSPO or MPOB. All agreed to include this.

Conclusion: All agreed to include sentence : “Companies without SOPs on IPM may refer to guidelines on best practices by RSPO, MPOB and others as reference.”

Indicator 4.6.4 –Comment by Dr. Liew Y. A.

Discussion:

1) Dr Liew Y. A. mentioned that this comment was raised due the word “eliminate”. He explained that so far, class 1A and Class 1B e.g.: Methamidophos and Monocrotophos is still the safest and most effective way to control bagworm and rhinoceros beetles outbreaks. At this juncture, it is unlikely the Class 1A and Class 1B will be eliminated as there is no substitute yet to it yet. Furthermore, the usage of these chemicals are heavily regulated and controlled by Malaysia’s legislation whereby we need to have permit to store and use the chemical. However, there is possible to minimize it. Therefore, he suggested the word “eliminate” to be taken out. C. Mathews agreed to this.

2) Dr Liew Y. A. raised concern that the plantation will be affected if the word “eliminate” is included as now bagworm outbreak is categorised as harmful. Estates found not treating their bagworm problem can be summoned by the authorities. Hence, the use of Class 1A and Class 1B shouldn’t be banned, unless there is any substitute available.

3) Edrin M. explained that in the WHO Class 1A Class 1B actually mentioned that only if we use 600mg AI (active ingredient) per litre of Methamidophos then only it is considered as hazardous, which is 60%. Our current usage now is 50%. This statement is from the Decision Guidance Document, released by UNEP (United Nation Environment Program) and FAO. He mentioned that if we use 60%, it will not be registered under the Pesticide Act. However, Dr. Liew Y. A. opined that 50% or 55% is still considered hazardous to him. He mentioned that the percentage of active ingredient can be revised anytime by the WHO which will then be difficult for growers to adhere to.

4) C. Mathews agreed to Dr. Liew Y. A. hence suggested that to add ‘and/or’ under the phrase ‘The use of such pesticides shall be minimised and eliminated as part of a plan..’ to avoid any problem if we have to eliminate the use of chemical Class 1A and Class 1B. All agreed to add on “or”.

Conclusion: All agreed to include the word “or”. Amended text:

of 28

“The use of such pesticides shall be minimised and/or eliminated as part of a plan….”

Indicator 4.8.1 & 4.8.2 - Comment by Proforest

Discussion:

1) With regards to the indicator, Dr Liew Y. A. questioned the need to train all contract workers on the RSPO P&C. Sin C. E. responded that the supervisors usually will give informal training to the workers on these subjects.

2) Sin C. E. mentioned that he did not agree with the comment to add on budgetary plan. Many of the training need not really require budget as training is usually embedded in the duty and is part of parcel of supervisors’ job, assistants, managers and that the important point is to disseminate the relevant information. Training budget hence is not necessary, as company usually have plans and budget for certain trainings, what is more important is the training needs.

3) C. Mathews suggested that we have to be specific on the indicator by putting “in house training” after “Formal” as in-house trainings are regularly conducted through morning-muster, field-day & etc.

4) Sabarinah M. mentioned that during the TF meeting in January, members agreed that the indicator does not require us to train the workers specifically on every principle or indicator. It merely means whenever there is job that requires the knowledge on RSPO, then there is in need for proper training on that topic. Muster can still be considered as formal if there is elements of training embedded. C. Mathews then suggested to insert ‘in-house’, but Sabarinah M. mention that sometimes trainings do not necessarily have to be in-house as there are companies which uses external trainers. All agreed that in-house can also be formal. Hence the original sentence in the generic P&C to be adopted.

5) Sabarinah M. sought consensus whether to include the wording “budgetary plan”. All disagreed to include as it is not necessary, and irrelevant to the training needs, hence it will not be adopted in the draft.

6) As for suggestion given to revise 4.8.2, C. Mathews suggested that there is no need to revise as all the requirements suggested are already mentioned in the 4.8.1.

Conclusion: a) All agreed to maintain the wording “formal” in “4.8.1……. A formal training programme

shall be in place…” and not include the word “in-house training”. b) All agreed to not include “budgetary plans…..” in suggested Indicator 4.8.1. c) All agreed to revert to the current wordings as in the draft MYNI - Indicator 4.8.2.

Cri 5.2 Indicator 5.2.2 – Comment by Proforest

Discussion: 1) Dr. John P. briefed the comment from Proforest that the sentence is confusing, hence

suggested to revise accordingly. 2) Jaswinder K. explained that the difference between the two sentence 5.2.2a and 5.2.2b

proposed by Proforest i.e. “Where rare, threatened or endangered (RTE) species, or HCVs, are present” and “Where rare, threatened or endangered (RTE) species, or HCVs, are affected”.

3) Dr Liew Y.A questioned if 5.2.2b proposed is better sentence compared to the original sentence. Dr Liew Y.A commented that word “are present” and “are affected” are the same.

4) Jaswinder K. commented that the sentence proposed is not strong enough. The sentence 5.2.2a only mentions “measure are expected to prevent”, no specific mentions on the “action plan” like the original sentence. Melissa Y. supported that action plan is needed.

5) Dr Liew Y.A suggested to add “only within the estate boundary” in the original text, because we can only control the area within the estate boundary, we cannot intrude into the forest reserve area even if the tiger is in the border area of the forest reserve which is next to our estate.

of 28

6) Kertijah A.K. commented that all these can be spelt out in the action plan. Melissa Y. commented that if the estate realised that there is tiger nearby, although not within the estate, growers can still put an action plan, as we will not know when the tiger will come to the estate. Kertijah A.K. commented that the action plan is to manage the plantation area and its surrounding to avoid human-wildlife conflicts.

7) C. Mathews agreed that if it is within the boundary then the estate management need to take the appropriate actions, however it happens outside the estate boundaries then the management is bound to inform the authorities.

8) Melissa emphasised the importance to maintain the word “action plan”. Conclusion: All agreed to maintain the original text as in the Draft MYNI.

Cri 5.4 Guidance for 5.4.1 – Comment by Sime Darby Plantation

Discussion: 1) Sabarinah M. mentioned that this is merely a comment from Sime Darby Plantation. 2) Dr. Liew Y.A sought permission to comment on guidance 5.4. Dr. Liew Y.A mentioned that

we need to first understand why is there a need to establish baseline and observe the trend within an appropriate timeline. Baseline value is very scientific and it should be handled by scientist rather than the estate management. He questioned why estate management need to establish baseline values. Dr. Liew Y.A added that the intention of guidance 5.4 is so that the estate management will monitor their energy use efficiency and fuel consumption. Dr. Liew Y.A suggested to simplify the wordings to “growers and millers to monitor the energy use efficiency and fuel consumption”.

3) Yeap S.J. mentioned that the fuel used will be different from estate to estate depending on the distance from each estate to the mill, and different mill capacity and different type of equipment used in the mill will have different energy requirement. This will impose additional work.

4) Sabarinah M. commented that the intention of this guidance is for to monitor energy use, knowing where we are and areas for improvement. C. Mathews commented that the amount of fuel use, electricity use, biogas produced and crop produced are available.

5) Dr. Liew Y.S. suggested to simplify the guidance to e.g. “growers and millers should determine energy use including fuel, electricity of their operations”. The records are sufficient and has trending.

6) Edrin M. enquired if growers have any problem to put up the baseline as they are now already collecting data. C. Mathews commented that the indicator is to “observe” the trend not to “meet” the trend. C. Mathews briefed that if methane harvesting facilities is available, one will observe fossil fuel usage decreasing and biogas production increase. Generally, the indicator is for millers to observe the trend and explain its fluctuation. C. Mathews mentioned that the companies can live with it.

7) Augustine L. commented that the key intention for the guidance is that ultimately there should be use of renewable energy, it is supposed to be an uptrend.

Conclusion: All agreed to maintain the original text as in the Draft MYNI.

Guidance for 5.4.1 – Comment by Dr. Faizal P.

Discussion: 1) Dr. John P. briefed that Dr. Faisal P. has submitted a comment via email to him on 25th

June 2014 and hope that it can be considered. 2) Dr. Faizal P. proposed to add the word “/or” before the word “and” to the sentence

“..feasibility of collecting and using biogas, biodiesel should be studied if possible”. Conclusion: All agreed to add the word “/or”. Text amended: The feasibility of collecting and using biogas, biodiesel and/or biofuels should be studied if possible.

of 28

Cri 5.6 Specific Guidance For 5.6.3 (GHG) – Comment by Dr. Liew Y. A.

Conclusion: All agreed that this comment will be put on hold and made reference to indicator 7.8. which is still work in progress.

Guidance 6.6 – Comment by Proforest

Discussion:

1) Dr. Liew Y. A. questioned the phrase “……to form associations and bargain collectively with their employer should be respected…” in the context of foreign workers and contract workers. He mentioned that by right foreign workers are not allowed to form union, hence the guidance should not be relevant. Sabarinah M. then explained that they can join union, but they are bound to certain restrictions.

2) Dr. Liew Y. A. suggested that to follow the Employment Act and MAPA/AMESU Agreement to safeguard the worker’s right.

3) C. Mathews shared his view that in Malaysia, there is a right for employees whether foreign or local to form trade union. The trade union has collective agreement, and they are governed by the Trade Union Act to negotiate with the employers.

4) Sabarinah M. questioned the need to include ‘Policy in Recruitment of Foreign Workers adopted in 1991’. C. Mathews mentioned that we should just follow Employment Act 1955 as it covers all employees both foreign and local.

5) Faizal P. then suggested to include the Trade Union Act as reference. This was agreed by Sin C. E. He mentioned that under the Trade Union Act, there are clauses to form trade unions. So he suggested in the Malaysian context, we should follow Labour Ordinance and the Trade Union Act. Further to Sin C. E.’s comment, Dr. Liew Y. A. suggested to rephrase the sentence to “in accordance with our local Malaysian Regulations which are the Employment Act 1955, Labour Ordinance (including Sabah Labour Ordinance and Sarawak Labour Ordinance) and the Trade Union Acts 1959” which are more relevant to the Malaysian Context compared to Conventions 87 and 98 of the International Labour Organisation (ILO).

Conclusion: a) All agreed to rephrase sentence to “……..in accordance with the Employment Act 1955,

Labour Ordinance (including Sabah Labour Ordinance & Sarawak Labour Ordinance), and Trade Unions Act 1959.

b) To omit “Conventions 87 and 98 of the International Labour Organisation (ILO)”.

Guidance 6.13.2 – Comment by Genting Plantation and Mr. Torben Venning

Discussion:

1) With regards to the suggested paragraph by Genting Plantation, Jaswinder K. stressed that the suggested sentence by Genting “…have not secured the permission from the relevant authorities to enrol into government schools…” is not exactly accurate because in actual government does not allow those children to enrol in the government school, not because there is no permission. Hence, she proposed to rephrase to “as long as children of non-Malaysian (instead of saying foreign or non-resident) plantation workers in Sabah and Sarawak are not secured a right to go to government schools,..”. Rephrasing to the original paragraph with changes to “Non-Malaysian”. Yeap S. J. then mentioned that if government schools are only available at a particular/distant area, locals can still send the children to HUMANA School. Hence, there is no need to specify “Non-Malaysian”.

2) With regards to the comment made by Tobben Venning, Harjinder K. mentioned that this statement only added for Sabah and Sarawak because during the second MYNI meeting it was recorded that no issue arises at Peninsular Malaysia.

of 28

3) Yeap S. J. suggested to include “local workers” in the statement to cater for any local children who are not able to attend government schools. Sin C. E. however explained that for local children, it is the obligation of their parents to send them to school at least up to Primary 6, by law. Therefore the standard should focus on Guest Workers (as a polite name for foreign workers in Sabah). Dr. Liew Y. A. agreed to just focus on “foreign”.

4) Jaswinder K. then agreed to change the sentence to “foreign workers” instead of “Non-Malaysia” and all suggested to change “…of Sabah and Sarawak” to “……in Sabah and Sarawak”.

5) Sin C. E. finds the wordings “not secured a right doesn’t sound good. Harjinder K. then suggested to replace the wording with “ineligible”. All agreed to use “ineligible”.

6) Dr. Liew Y. A. suggested to change “..secure the children” to “…..secure these children”.

Conclusion:

1) To change “….children of plantation workers of Sabah and Sarawak” to “….children of foreign workers in Sabah and Sarawak”

2) To change “….are not secured a right to go to..” to “….are ineligible to attend government school..”

3) To change “…the children…” to “…these children…” 4) To omit the wordings “…..of the plantation workers..”

Amended text : “6.13.2 As long as children of foreign workers in Sabah and Sarawak are ineligible to attend government school, the plantation companies should engage in a process to secure these children access to education as a moral obligation.”

Indicator 7.1 – Comment by Dr. Liew Y. A.

Conclusion: Refer to outcome of Indicator 7.8.1 as below.

Guidance for 7.3 – Comment by Sabah Forestry Department and Yayasan Sabah

1) Dr. John P. briefed that Sabah Forestry Department and Yayasan Sabah has a long history

of logging concession since 1970s and a company owned by Yayasan Sabah having oil palm plantings in Forest Reserves, is a RSPO member. Sabah Forestry Department and Yayasan Sabah have requested for special provision for the plantings and a number of justifications are given on why they should be allowed to continue to convert land in Forest Reserves to oil palm in Sabah. The gross area involved are about 200,000 hectares. Besides that, Yayasan Sabah has also employed other company or joint-venture for the expansion. NGOs in Sabah are 50/50 on this as they can see the pros and cons of this oil palm development under Yayasan Sabah.

2) Yeap S.J. feels the threats where Forest Reserves are being de-gazetted for oil palm. Yeap S.J. mentioned that Sabah Government may say that there is 50% forest cover in Sabah but we should really look into the type of forest, and what the actual situation on the ground. He understood that much of the Forest Reserves in Sabah is badly degraded, and big portion of the 50% forest cover are in different range i.e. upper Montane Forest, Kinabatangan range etc., and very little is area critical for biodiversity – i.e. lowland dipterocarp forest.

3) Melissa Y. highlighted that WWF disagreed with the word “agroforestry” used by the Sabah Forestry Department. Oil palm plantations in Forest Reserves cannot be considered as 'agroforestry' - agro-forestry happens in agricultural landscapes where forestry practices are added to existing croplands. Melissa Y. commented that it should not be classified as “agroforestry” but another term maybe e.g. ‘forest-agriculture”.

4) Dr. Faisal P. mentioned that there are two requests raised. He understood that Sabah wanted special exemption, but if that is granted, then what if other States also request

of 28

for special exemptions. The second request is to allow the new planting up to 600m elevation from the 300m set in revised draft MYNI 2014. Dr. Faisal P. briefed it was agreed in the previous MYNI Taskforce meeting that it will be kept at 300m, if Sabah proposes to double that to 600m, there could be implication to the MYNI. Dr. Faisal P. stated that assuming exemption is considered because income generated from oil palm is needed to support Sabah’s conservation and rehabilitation; and that if this request is not agreed then they will de-gazette the Forest Reserves; in view of this, a stringent condition should be set so that there will be no surprises where suddenly a big area of Sabah is converted to oil palm creating any unwanted precedence. Otherwise, it will affect RSPO negatively, that RSPO allows forest below 600m to be converted even forest reserves. From the environmental NGO’s perspective, it is in their best interest to say no to the request for exemption.

5) Harjinder K. wanted to know the growers’ opinions. Yeap S.J. commented that higher tax is imposed for oil palm industry in Sabah, companies are charged with 20% sale taxes and those extra tax can be used for conservation.

6) Dr. Liew Y.A. is concerned if de-gazetting of the Forest Reserves will take place if the special provision requested is not granted. Dr. Liew Y.A. suggested to stay with the current guidance. Dr. Faisal P. agreed that terms that can dilute RSPO’s reputation and invite criticisms should not be allowed. Although Sabah could de-gazette the Forest Reserves, but at least, plantations seeking RSPO certification will still need to do it in accordance to the proper process like every other RSPO member.

7) Dr. Faisal P. mentioned that the wording “Forest Reserve” is mentioned twice. It should be just “gazetted Forest Reserve” and delete “under the Forest Reserve”.

8) Dr. Faisal P. suggested to add “and respective states’ Structure Plan” because in addition to Peninsular Malaysia’s National Physical Plan (NPP), there are also other States that have their own State Structure Plans on Environmentally Sensitive Area.

9) Sabarinah M. briefed that RSPO has earlier approved the company owned by Yayasan Sabah to become a RSPO member, and MYNI 2008 allows conversion of oil palm in Forest Reserves for that company, therefore it is unfair if RSPO were to tell that company after they have developed the land half way, that they are now not qualified to be RSPO certified because of the changes in the revised MYNI 2014. Also, it is quite certain that the affected company may receive complaints against them for planting in Forest Reserves, based on the revised MYNI 2014.

10) Yeap S.J. briefed that if not mistaken, clearing has already started at Bonggaya Forest Reserve. Based on the comment from Sabah Forestry Department: ‘Bonggaya Forest Reserve is a degraded area slotted for excision in 1984 and the removal of girth; limits in 1986; and concession holdings of Sabah Foundation.’

11) Sabarinah M. reminded that when the company applied to become a member of RSPO, application was posted on the RSPO website for 2 weeks.

12) Dr. Liew Y.A. questioned if the company be considered for RSPO membership if they have planted on the de-gazetted Forest Reserves. C. Mathews thinks that it is beyond our control if government wanted to de-gazette Forest Reserves for oil palm development. Dr. Liew Y.A. suggested to stay with the existing guidance.

13) Melissa Y. stressed that WWF’s decision is to maintain the existing wordings in the revised draft MYNI 2014 and not to allow exemption for Sabah otherwise other States will request for similar exemptions.

14) Dr. John P. concluded the two options discussed, either to maintain the wordings in the current revised draft MYNI2014 or to refine the wordings to make the guidance clearer.

15) Dr. Faisal P. explained that the word “Forest Reserves” used in the revised draft MYNI 2014 is only introduced in P&C 2013. As such, those area in Forest Reserves that is not under Forest Management Unit (FMU), which was developed prior to 2014 and in compliance with previous MYNI, could be allowed for certification. If exemption was to be given, Dr. Faisal P. suggested to add in the guidance that “for any existing area which was developed in the Forest Reserve or outside Sabah Forest Management License Agreement (SFMLA) areas then they are valid under previous MYNI”. Dr. Faisal P. mentioned that it is stated clearly in the MYNI 2008 that no conversion of areas to oil palm as per FMU under SFMLA.

of 28

16) Melissa Y., Liew Y.A. disagreed and Harjinder. K. was worried on the wordings. Yeap S.J. is concerned that there could be other Forest Reserves not bound under SFMLA which will then be opened up.

17) Dr. John P. summarised that in principle we do not endorse oil palm in Forest Reserve, but we need to word it e.g. for cases where oil palm is planted or agreed for planting prior to this MYNI 2014, if they are done legally, they should be allowed to be certified. Suggested to reword the indicator, to ensure we do not endorse further conversion of oil palm in Forest Reserves.

Conclusion: Agreed to add “and respective states’ Structure Plan” and delete “under the forest reserve”.

An additional clause has been added to provide clarity for certification of areas planted within Forest Reserves prior to the implementation of the MYNI 2014 i.e. “For existing plantation developments within the degraded sites of gazetted Forest Reserves, with prior approval from the relevant State authorities and in full compliance to all other RSPO Provisions and Protocols prior to the implementation of this revised MYNI 2014 may seek for certification.”

Guidance for 7.3 – Comment by Proforest

Discussion: 1) Yeap S.J understand from Sabah context, "Totally Protected Areas" covers natural

reserves, Sabah Parks and wildlife sanctuaries. Production forest will not come under Totally Protected Areas. If TF were to adopt Proforest’s suggestion in using the term “protected area” then that could be problem as what have been discussed just now. Agreed by Harjinder K.

2) Dr. John P. asked if there is other objection from members. 3) Augustine L. commented that no harm to put “gazetted”. Supported by Melissa Y. 4) C. Mathews questioned the difference between “Gazetted Forest Reserve” “gazetted

forest reserve”? 5) Augustine L. commented that only state authorities can gazette forests. ‘Forest reserve’

is understood as gazetted. Adding the word ‘gazetted’ is for clarity. 6) Kertijah A.K. suggested to change the word “Gazetted” to “gazetted”. The small capital

“gazetted” applies to any forest reserve that is gazetted, if with capital ‘G’ then it may refer to a special forest reserve that is gazetted.

Conclusion 1) Agreed to maintain the text “Totally Protected Areas (TPA)”. 2) Changed the “Gazetted Forest Reserves” to “gazetted Forest Reserves”.

Guidance for 7.3 – Comment by Dr. Liew Y. A.

Discussion: 1) Dr. Liew Y.A. commented that as a responsible sustainable organisation, pushing the

development towards degraded land is not right. Suggested to rephrase the sentence. 2) Dr. Liew Y.A. mentioned that degraded land can be abandoned land that has inherent low

fertility. Investors will need to pump in more money and it may not be economically sustainable. Development cost for degraded land require much higher inputs such as fertilizers etc., and great resources. Smallholders and plantation companies operating in these areas without adequate resources and knowledge could be subjected to criticism that the plantation is managed unsustainably.

3) Dr Liew Y.A reckoned that the aim of this guidance is to avoid pressure on forest, he suggested to delete the first sentence - “Developments should actively seek to utilise previously cleared and/or degraded land on mineral soil” and maintain “Plantation development should not put indirect pressure on forests through the use of all available agricultural land in an area”. Dr Liew Y.A added that it sound self-contradictory to pushing

of 28

the plantation development to degraded land – not economic sustainable, and calling ourselves sustainable organisation.

4) Sabarinah M. confirmed that the clause is not from the MYNI 2008. 5) Kertijah A.K. suggested to add “direct/” before the text “indirect”. Conclusion: 1) Agreed to delete “Developments should actively seek to utilise previously cleared and/or

degraded land on mineral soil”. 2) Add the word “direct/” before the text “indirect”. Text amended: “Plantation

development should not put direct/indirect pressure on forests through the use of all available agricultural land in an area”.

Cri 7.3 Guidance for 7.3: No new plantings on floodplains (reference to be made to State DID) – Comment by Dr. Liew Y. A.

Discussion: 1) Dr. Liew Y.A. mentioned the word floodplains is too general and suggested to reword it

to be more specific. A rice farm which is flooded can also be classified as floodplains and he gave an example of a company converting rice farm to oil palm. Dr. Liew Y.A suggested to change the wordings to “no new planting on gazetted wetland or mangrove reserve (reference to be made to State DID)”.

2) Yeap S.J briefed that this guidance is cited in the MYNI 2008, indicator 7.3.3. 3) C. Mathews commented that the ‘floodplains’ referred to in this guidance is more specific

to no new planting on wetlands and mangrove reserves. 4) Dr. John P. enquired if there is any oil palm in mangrove area and if there is any indication

where more mangrove will be converted to oil palm plantation in future? Yeap S.J responded that he does not know, because some of the mangrove areas, if not gazetted, may be converted into oil palm plantation by smallholders. Dr. John P. suggested to either leave the sentence as it is or delete it. Harjinder K. suggested to maintain it since the guidance is already in MYNI 2008 and there is no issues thus far.

5) Dr. Liew Y.A mentioned that he was not present in the previous MYNI 2008 thus he is highlighting his concern in this MYNI taskforce meeting. Auditor may question plantings located few meter next to the river because it is considered as floodplains.

6) Augustine L. responded that the guideline is very much on the riparian area or buffer zones only, as long as the requirement of DID is followed, then it does not matter whether it is called floodplains or likewise. Yeap S.J. added that riparian is different from floodplain, effectively the ‘floodplains’ will limit a lot of new plantings. Dr. Liew Y.A. added that growers wanted to avoid the risk of being caught where NGOs perceive a certain area as floodplains and request that the planted area to be restored, he gave examples where river buffer zones have been demarcated, and even with the construction of bunds, water may flow into areas eligible for planting beyond/outside the river buffer zone. Yeap S.J. also mentioned that flood does not happened all time but on seasonal or once a year.

7) Harjinder K. suggested to take out the word “gazetted” as no one will be able to be certified if planting oil palm in gazetted wetland or protected areas such as wetlands. Sensitive wetland is protected as HCV.

8) Edrin M. explained before the land title is issued, there is a land committee where DID also sits in. If there is no objection from DID, i.e. no floodplains, not wetlands and etc. then the land committee will issue the land title.

9) C. Mathews suggested to leave the guidance as it is and to refer DID should problem arises.

10) Yeap S.J. highlighted that the clause “no new planting” is a very strong statement. Augustine L. mentioned that the Kinabatangan basin has many floodplains and there are planting going on in the floodplains. Clarification is needed to ensure no contradiction for audit purposes.

11) Kertijah A.K. stated that the spirit is trying to avoid more new clearing at floodplain areas. 12) Dr. Liew Y.A suggested to insert “protected” wetland. Harjinder K. disagreed and

mentioned that not all wetland are protected. There might be new people who is not

of 28

familiar on sustainable practices and this will be guidance to new RSPO member to help them make the right decision.

13) Sabarinah M. briefed that this clause was actually an Indicator in the in the MYNI 2008 but now it has been changed to guidance. She recalled that the issues has been debated before and then it was downgraded as guidance.

Conclusion Agreed to remain with “No new plantings on floodplains (reference to be made to State DID)”

Guidance 7.3- comment by WWF

Comments 1) Melissa Y. has on 25th June 2014 during the discussion on comment by Sabah Forestry

Department and Yayasan Sabah pertaining to Guidance 7.3, stated that WWF’s decision is to maintain the existing wordings in the revised draft MYNI 2014 and not to give exemption to Sabah.

Note: Please refer to the notes on discussion on comment by Sabah Forestry Department and Yayasan Sabah on Guidance 7.3 for the final conclusion.

Indicator 7.4.1 – Comment by Sabah Forestry Department

Discussion: 1) Sabah Forestry Department suggested to change the requirements of new planting from

300m above sea level to 600m for Sabah. 2) Edrin M. commented that the existing indicator is good enough. 3) Harjinder K. mentioned that they have checked with the Environmental Protection

Department of Sabah and they have informed SEPA that they do not have such guidelines (as in the comments by Sabah Forestry Department).

4) C. Mathews highlighted that there is a caveat in the indicator mentioning “unless specified by local legislation”, hence, auditors shall check with the local government when conducting audit if there is a different/special provision specified in local legislations for plantings 300m above sea level.

Conclusion All agreed to maintain the original sentence as in the Draft MYNI 2014.

Criterion 7.4 – Comment by Yayasan Sabah

Discussion: 1) Dr. John P. commented that to ensure oil palm development is undertaken sustainably,

RSPO Certification is seen as a necessity. The restriction on planting in Forest Reserves and at high elevation in the RSPO MYNI draft (Criteria 7.3 & 7.4) will prevent those companies developing oil plam in such areas from seeking RSPO Certification.

Conclusion No changes to the draft MYNI 2014.

Cri 7.4 Indicator 7.4.1 – Comment by Yayasan Sabah

Discussion: 1) Dr. John P. briefed that this is same comment with the comment submitted by Sabah

Forestry Department on Indicator 7.4.1, which have been discussed by the MYNI TF as above.

Conclusion No changes to the draft MYNI 2014.

Indicator 7.4.1 – Comment by WWF

Conclusion

of 28

1) Melissa Y. highlighted the comment submitted by WWF, during the discussion on

Guidance for 7.3, commented by Sabah Forestry Department and Yayasan Sabah. 2) The term ‘agroforestry’ is not adopted in the draft MYNI 2014.

Criterion 7.8 – Comment by Dr. Lim Meng Tsai

Discussion:

1) Faizal P. mentioned that technically the comment is correct, however for comment no 1, he explained that the Emission Reduction Working Group (ERWG) is working on looking into other Green House Gases (GHG).

2) However, in relation to comment no 2, which is about the definition of HCS and LCS, he somewhat did not agree to the comment. If looking at the definition given, Dr. Lim pointed that for HCS, it can be about 200t of carbon/ha. Whereas, in our definition, 100t/ha Carbon stock is considered HCS. Faizal P. mentioned that during the last discussion on this matter, TF have agreed to give flexibility in determining HCS and LCS. As for LCS, in the current definition, it is equivalent to the stock of oil palm plantation at an average of about 40t of Carbon/ha. From the comment, it showed that Dr. Lim wanted us to be accurate and no flexibility. If there is no flexibility, when we discourage HCS development and develop LCS, company has to spend so much money and time to measure this exactly and also to avoid any non- conformity during the audit. That is why the ERWG is working on allowing flexibility in the definition. He also mentioned that the ERWG will come out with written guideline and procedures to assist companies. Hence, he suggested to drop the comments by Dr. Lim Meng Tsai in bringing the two bands, HCS and LCS together, unless growers agree to do extra work and to be more detailed.

3) Faizal P. clarified that the requirement for this indicator is to minimize net greenhouse gas emissions, and how the company reaches the target is up to the company. Hence, ERWG is coming out with guidelines and procedure to help the company to reach their target, but it is meant to be flexible.

4) Yeap S. J. questioned whether an area can be developed if there is an average of 99t of carbon/ha. Faizal P. mentioned that the point is not to look for average, but more towards the portion of the land, hence those area still needs to be avoided, and to focus more on other areas, e.g.; “lalang” or cleared area. The idea is not to look into the average carbon stock values, but to focus on area with lower carbon stock.

5) Dr. Liew Y. A. suggested in that case to just mention any area with high carbon stock or 50% of the primary forest to be of no new planting. However, Faizal P. stressed that in the ERWG meeting, there is already some flexibility discussed and agreed.

6) C. Mathews raised concerns that GHG emission tools and carbon assessment tools have not really been tested and proven, and the tools are still in their juvenile stage where we are still in the learning curve, hence putting figures can only be detrimental. So he suggested that the scientists work on the tools first. Faizal P. then responded that as the tools have yet to be tested, this is why RSPO set up the ERWG and any results or material submitted to this group will not be publically available and only to be shared within the group.. The data will be used over the next 3 years to further refine the guidance by 2016.

7) Dr. Liew Y. A. then suggested to just hold back the requirement until 2016. But Faizal P. stated that the decision to ensure the company do this, and announcement that data to only be shared internally within RSPO and not publically available have already been made. Dr. Liew Y. A. stressed that it is not right to push growers to conduct this assessment when the tools provided are not yet scientifically tested.

8) Sin. C. E. mentioned that both tool kits, the GHG assessment tool and carbon assessment tool have been made available for pilot testing, but both have not been tested. No one have submitted their figures for the pilot testing. It is of great concern that growers have to submit figures for an assessment tool that have yet to be tested. It is also important for RSPO to ensure that the data growers have to submit for both GHG assessment and carbon assessment by August 2014 is only for RSPO consumption and not be made publically available. Sin C. E. stressed that it is important for RSPO to ensure this data is strictly confidential for the working group

of 28

only as there are external pressure for RSPO to release those data for their scrutiny. Melissa C. ensured that this submission is only confined for ERWG members, unless the company allows the information to be disclosed. Faizal P. confirmed that the data is for new planting.

9) Sin C. E. agreed that growers have to cater to this requirement and submit the data for the pilot testing, but he reiterated that RSPO to make sure the information that is submitted is kept confidential and requested representatives from RSPO present that day to bring back the message to RSPO Secretariat that this information is only for RSPO’s use and is strictly confidential.

10) Dr. Liew Y. A. questioned Faizal P. whether EFB is accounted or removed in the definition on carbon stock in oil palm which is at an average of 40t of carbon/ha with 80t of carbon/ha biomass. Faizal P. responded that the calculation only takes into account the carbon stock and further clarified that there are 2 types of carbon that is looked into, which is the stock and the flux. Carbon stock is the fixed carbon amount which is from soil and trunks, whereas flux is carbon that is moving e.g. from the leaves/fronds falling down, empty bunches recycled and others, which are not considered as standing stock. It is more complicated to calculate the flux hence the focus is on the stock. He was concerned if everything needs to be tracked, a life cycle analysis needs to be done, which will cost more. Therefore, for plantation, the focus is on carbon stock.

11) Dr. Shahrakbah Y. made clear that based on the discussion, 3 issues can be found; 1) the timeframe to try the carbon assessment tool and the toolkit until Dec 2016, and growers agreed before that cut off period, the report will just be confined within RSPO ERWG and should not be leaked out or unofficially given out to any third party, if such cases happen then it shall be the responsibility of the RSPO, 2) In terms of the definition of HCS and LCS provided by Dr. Lim Meng Tsai, whereby at the moment the growers feel that it is very premature to accept any threshold level, as now there are two concerted efforts to try to define the HCS and LCS, by the ERWG and a scientific panel commissioned (by those who sign the manifesto). He found that we will not be doing justice for both parties to accept any threshold at present, and suggested to leave it as it is without committing to any threshold, 3) commitment for growers to submit HCS mapping or carbon reporting being “the new NPP”, because it seems a unilateral decision by RSPO to include the submission of high carbon stock mapping in the new planting procedure. As far as Dr Shahrakbah recalled as a member of the NPP working group in 2010, there should be a review of the current NPP if we want to include the HCV historical analysis and high carbon stock mapping. Currently there is no official notification saying that the NPP now need to include the HCV historical assessment and high carbon stock mapping.

12) Dr. Shahrakbah read out an email that stated the RSPO Board of Governors (BOG) approved 2 new elements. The cut-off date to submit all the data from GHG assessment and the carbon assessment is by August 2014. He stressed the fact that there is no notification to growers.

13) Melissa C. explained to all that the cut-off date started at the RSPO ERWG and was captured in the meeting minutes. During the meeting, there was concern raised pertaining to the new elements in Principle 7, whereby this new element is not captured in the New Planting Procedure. In Criterion 7.8 there was no discussion to conduct carbon assessment retrospectively for plantation that have done land clearing. This will cause problem to new plantation that has done clearing, to comply with the new requirement as no carbon assessment was done.

14) Melissa C. added that RSPO will not be penalising these companies as they have already follow the NPP but at the same time, they are not complying to the new P&C requirements as these 2 documents do not jive. The revision of the NPP is needed for carbon stock results to be obtained and reported to the ERWG, but the revision of NPP will be a long process, in parallel ERWG has to work within a tight schedule before Dec 2016. So, as a result of this, ERWG proposed to the board to endorse a cut-off date for C7.8 so that companies that have submitted/complied with the NPP can be exempted for having to do retrospective carbon assessment. But once a company surpass the cut-off date, the company will need to show compliance to C7.8. The 2016 date is about reporting, not complying, so that was why 1st August

of 28

2014 was suggested as the cut-off date. Melissa C. stressed that the NPP is public submission but the carbon stock assessment will only go to the secretariat and will not be uploaded in the RSPO Website.

15) C. Mathews raised his concerns as there is no accredited carbon stock assessors and no approved methodology at the moment, hence why come out with cut-off date of 1st August 2014? He opined that this is not fair.

16) Faizal P. then agreed that this is the RSPO BOG’s decision on the cut-off date and requested the RSPO Secretariat to look into this detail. He also finally stated that he agreed with Dr. Shahrakbah Y. suggestion to not include the comment by Dr. Lim Meng Tsai at the moment, and leave it as it is as this is work in progress and the ERWG will share the progress in due course. Hence, there will be no changes made.

17) Dr. John P. then concluded that the TF will not include the comment made by Dr. Lim Meng Tsai.

Conclusion: All agreed to not adopt the comment.

Specific guidance 7.8.2 – Comment by MPOA

Discussion:

1) With regards to the statement for all new mills obtaining MPOB licenses to have methane capture or methane avoidance facilities, Dr. Liew Y. A. stated that there is no need to mention as it is already a requirement by the law.

2) However, Augustine L. opined that from the auditors’ point of view it may be helpful. Faizal P. suggested to use the wordings by the MPOA to replace the current wording in the draft.

3) Sabarinah M. concurred with Dr Liew Y.A. that complying with the legal requirement is a must and it is redundant to put it in the text as millers still have to comply with it under Principle 2.

Conclusion: To delete the sentence; “That all new mills obtaining MPOB licensing will be required to have methane capture facilities.”

Members agreed to add the following clause under Annex 3 - Related laws, regulations & guidelines used in Malaysian palm oil industry:

“7.8 That all new mills obtaining MPOB licensing will be required to have methane capture facilities. For increase of capacity for existing mills, methane capture or methane avoidance is compulsory. For existing mills, there are no requirements enforced yet.” It was also agreed that the related regulation shall be confirmed by the RSPO Secretariat.

Specific Guidance 7.8.2 – Comment by Sime Darby Plantation

Conclusion: Decision is the same as the above comment by MPOA.

Indicator 7.8.2- comment by Dr. Liew Y. A.

Discussion:

of 28

1) Dr. Liew Y. A. suggested to keep in view this comment, until the definition of HCS and LCS is finalised by the working group and the scientific committee.

2) Faizal P. mentioned that the TF has agreed to not include any figure. However, Dr. Liew Y. A. did not agree to include any percentage in the text under the clause “….logged/degraded forest with at least 50% of the stock compared to primary forest…”

3) C. Mathews agreed to Dr. Liew’s stand that growers are not going to commit to any figures until the ERWG has come out with the suggestion.

4) While growers’ side did not agree to commit to any figure, Faizal P. mentioned that arbitrary figures are needed to enable plantations start their planning.

5) Dr. John P. suggested to leave this comment aside. Conclusion: Members agreed that this comment will refer to the outcome of discussion on C7.8 i.e. ‘For definition of HCS and LCS, there are ongoing works in Malaysia and other parts of the world to further clarify this, as well as under the RSPO ERWG to provide the definitions of HCS and LCS. The RSPO ERWG will provide guidance to growers for implementation.’

Guidance for Cri 7.8 – Comment by Sime Darby Plantation and MPOA

Discussion: 1) Dr. John P. briefed that there are two comments submitted by SDP and MPOA

respectively. MPOA is suggesting to use the figure mentioned in Annex 1 where “Planting on peat areas with 3m or more is not allowed within a new development.” Instead of the figure indicated in the Guidance “…land on peat (50cm or more)...”

2) Dr. Liew Y.A. supported that it should be 3m. Dr. Faisal P. briefed that RSPO has defined peat to have at least 50cm organic layer in thickness, and that 50cm thickness of organic layer will have a carbon stock of 250t carbon/ha.

3) Dr. Liew Y.A. commented that when 50 cm peat is compressed, it will become 5cm/10% in thickness and the bulk density will be 0.1 or less. Dr. Liew Y.A. added that 90% of the peat is water. Dr. Faisal P. added that peat with 1 meter depth has carbon stock of 495 tonnes/ha.

4) Dr. John P. asked if any of Malaysia RSPO member is affected by this clause. 5) Dr. Liew Y.A commented that it may not be an issue for the existing RSPO members but

if we restrict it to 50cm, we are curbing potential members to join RSPO as they are unable to comply with this requirement. Dr. Liew Y.A briefed that we can set it at 50cm, but question that whether we are promoting sustainability?

6) Dr. Liew Y.A. made the point that if we can agree in Principle 4 that 3 meter is the cut-off point, why should the TF restrict to 50cm under Principle 7 for new plantings?

7) Dr. John P. commented that using 3m as the threshold may send message to people overseas that MYNI permits continuous expansion on peat land.

8) Kertijah A.K. commented that maybe this is to stop the development in peat definitely. Yeap S.J. mentioned what about poor natives who do not have anything else except peat land. Kertijah A.K. mentioned that will come under smallholders’ standard. This MYNI is for big plantation/growers.

9) Dr. Faisal P. briefed that the 3m mentioned under Principle 4 has different context on new development of peat, while Principle 7 is about identifying HCS and LCS area. It does not prohibit development on high carbon stock area but recommends to develop the land in such a way that the development is maximised at the LCS area and minimised at the HCS area. There is room for flexibility in this criterion. Dr. Faisal P. stated that 3m of peat has carbon stock of 1500 tonnes/ha, which is incredibly high. Dr. Faisal P. suggested that if 50cm is not acceptable, perhaps for flexibility, it can be set at 1m, although scientifically the carbon stock of 500 tonnes/ha is still considered high or equivalent to carbon stock of a forest. Dr Faisal P. added that it is not credible in international communication to say that development of peat with 3m depth with carbon stock of 1500 tonnes/ha is not considered as HCS. Even though not all the peat will be completely loss. Unlike when we clear a primary forest, we usually conclude that the carbon stock is completely lost.

of 28

10) Dr Liew Y.A. mentioned that when peat is compacted, the consolidation is more than 1m in the first year but the carbon is not lost. Dr. Faisal P. responded that this is not regarding to loss due to compaction but carbon stock within the peat and the carbon which is released when the peat land is being developed. Dr Faisal P. explained the 1m peat land will diminish in 20 years when company drained it to develop oil palm plantation. It is not loss because of the consolidation but loss to the atmosphere.

11) Dr Liew Y.A stressed that losing of 1 meter peat is resulting from the consolidation but not because of the emission. However, Dr. Faisal P. explained that once the peat is drained, the peat is lost forever.

12) C. Mathews commented that with new technologies and best management practices peat can be well managed within certain level. Dr. Faisal P. briefed that after two years of work, the peatland working group found that we are still losing a minimum of 40 tonne of CO2 per ha per year due to drainage. The group, together with the grower representatives concluded that it is impossible to stop the breakdown of peat once one drain it and one can only reduction by maintaining high water level. RSPO will be criticised if we ignore those facts. With years of study and best management practices, one cannot ignore the science and reality that when we develop on peat, we are losing the carbon, it is being emitted as carbon dioxide and will contribute to global warming. It has been agreed many years ago that we should limit the development on peat through guidance documents, and this is being addressed under the HCS definition, where avoidance is being done in a flexible manner. Dr. Faisal P. mentioned that he has suggested some flexibility which is 1m, however, if we want to just ignore everything, we will be left to vulnerable situation like RSPO where we will be opened to criticism from outside world.

13) Julia L. agreed with Dr. Liew Y.A that peat land is 90% water and 10% peat. Julia L. clarified that in order to develop on peat land, we must drain the water. She agreed with Dr. Liew Y.A. on compaction where there is no losing of physical volume. Normally the water is holding the peat particles. So when peat is drained, gravity will take place and when one does the compaction mechanically, the peat will go down, there is no losing of peat or carbon. But when one releases the water, another process kicks in – oxidation. The reason why the peat accumulate is because of the presence of water hence decomposition rate is lower. When water is removed, oxidation will take its course, so when peat land is compacted over time peat is lost and the fact is that there is still emission.

14) Julia L. made a general statement that it is common knowledge that development on peatland contributes to greenhouse gas emission. The point here is to minimise development on peat.

15) C. Mathews asked RSPO Secretariat who the members are attending the special group meeting at Pullman Hotel before the 3rd MYNI Taskforce meeting to discuss on the definition of HCS and LCS. Melissa C. responded that the member attended are Dr. Faisal P., Dr. Liew Y.A, Sabarinah M., Lanash T. and Harjinder K. Dr Liew Y.A stated that there is no consensus reached from the meeting itself.

16) Dr. John P. came out with two options. The first one is to totally delete the guidance on the definition of HCS, then the implication will be everything is considered as HCS, because the low carbon stock is defined; the second option is to change the figure e.g. to 1m or 3m.

17) C. Mathews suggested that if that is regarding threshold for HCS, it should be left until end 2016 when the figure is determined by the ERWG or the on-going works in Malaysia. At the meantime, we will do our own study and will submit the figure to RSPO ERWG confidentially for their study, but not for public consumption.

18) Dr. Faisal P. commented that pragmatically, guidance is needed so that work can be carried out systematically for the period until 2016 to get the results. If we start with blank page and leave company to do whatever they want, then we will never get to the proper guidance by 2016. One of the options is that ERWG to develop a guidance for Malaysia, Indonesia, Africa and etc., then companies shall use the guidance and provide results for ERWG to modify the guidance should there be problem faced by companies. If appropriate, Dr. Faisal P. suggested that we can leave the guidance on HCS and LCS and state that the guidance on this will be given by ERWG.

19) Dr. John P. concluded that the MYNI need to decide whether to delete the guidance on definition of HCS and LCS or to change the figure on the depth of peat.

of 28

20) C. Mathews suggested to delete the guidance.

Conclusion: a) Agreed to delete the whole paragraph in the box. b) Maintain the first paragraph in the box with amendments. Text amended: “For definition

of HCS and LCS, there are ongoing works in Malaysia and other parts of the world to further clarify this, as well as under the RSPO ERWG to provide the definitions of HCS and LCS. The RSPO ERWG will provide guidance to growers for implementation.”

Cri 7.8 Indicator 7.8.1 – comments by Dr Liew Y.A

Discussion: a) Dr. Liew Y.A commented that if we agree that the guidance for 7.8 will be discussed under

ERWG, then indicator 7.8.1 should be treated the same. b) Sabarinah M. clarified that definition of HCS and LCS (that was written in the box) was

adopted from the ERWG, and little was discussed during the 3rd MYNI TF meeting. The TF did not come to a consensus on the definition of HCS and LCS, therefore it was agreed that the text proposed by ERWG (with minor changes made) to be put up for public consultation. Considering that, Sabarinah M. enquired if thecomment can be dropped.

c) Dr. Liew Y.A rejected and briefed that if we want to estimate the carbon stock of the proposed development area then it will tie back to HCS and LCS definitions. Sabarinah M. mentioned that it was agreed the day before that the definition of HCS and LCS will be put on hold. Dr. Liew Y.A suggested that this comment be also put on hold.

Conclusion a) Agreed to put on hold this comment and this indicator for review again once the on-going

works in Malaysia and by RSPO ERWG and other to address the definition on HCS/LCS have been completed.

ANNEX ANNEX 1 – Comment by RSPO

Conclusion This is the same comment by RSPO for Guidance 4.5., hence the same conclusion is adopted.

ANNEX 2 – Comment by Genting Plantation

Discussion on comment submitted by Genting Plantation: a) Genting Plantation suggested to include the list of international laws and conventions

ratified by Malaysia as Annex 2 (instead of Annex 2 showing the list of the international laws in the Draft MYNI etc.). All the suggested text is highlighted in red.

b) C. Mathews commented that as this MYNI is for Malaysia hence the list should encompass what Malaysia has ratified.

c) Harjinder K. recalled that the MYNI Taskforce had a long discussion on the technical issues on what Malaysia have signed up for and what has been subscribed. It was agreed in the last meeting to include all because there are some grey areas.

d) Dr Liew Y.S. agreed that all highlighted is acceptable except for page 2, under the headings UN CERD Committee and UN Committee on Social Cultural and Economic Rights? Dr Liew Y.S. questioned if the two items can still be put up as annex if there is no specific provisions?

Principles International Standards Key Provisions

Fair Representation and Participation of Indigenous and Tribal

Peoples

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD)

UN CERD Committee

(No specific provision?)

International Covenant on

Economic, Social, and Cultural

Rights (ICESR)

UN Committee on Social Cultural and Economic Rights (No specific provision?)

e) Sabarinah M. briefed that the list needs to be verified and requested members who have the knowledge on these Conventions/International Covenant to confirm if there is no

of 28

specific provisions for the two international standards highlighted. C. Mathews suggested for Annex 2 to be vetted by a legal entity such as the legal team of RSPO Secretariat. Dr Liew Y.A suggested to maintain the two key provisions highlighted: “UN CERD Committee and UN Committee on Social Cultural and Economic Rights” and for a legal advisory to verify. Bremen Y. responded that the taskforce can submit the request to RSPO for legal review and verification.

Conclusion: Agreed to adopt the text proposed and submit Annex 2 together with the provisions on UN CERD Committee and UN Committee on Social Cultural and Economic Rights to RSPO for legal review and verification. Action agreed: MYNI Taskforce Secretariat to submit a request for Request for RSPO Secretariat’s to Conduct Legal Review and Verification of Annex 2.

Annex 3 – 5.2 – Comment by Proforest

Discussion on comment no. 34 submitted by Proforest: a) Sabarinah M. briefed that Proforest suggested to add another few regulations to Annex

3 under C5.2, i.e.:

National Parks Act 1980

State Forestry Enactments (particularly section 10 on protection forests)

National Parks (Johor) Corporation Enactment 1989

Perak State Parks Corporation Enactment 2001

Parks Enactment (Sabah) 1984

National Parks and Nature Parks Ordinance (Sarawak) 1998 b) All agreed that MYNI should adopt the applicable laws. To ensure validity, Dr. Liew Y.A

suggested for RSPO to also conduct legal review and verification on the regulations listed in Annex 3 together with Annex 2.

Conclusion: All agreed to adopted all six regulations proposed and for Annex 3 to be submitted to RSPO for legal review and verification. Action agreed: MYNI Taskforce Secretariat to submit a request for Request for RSPO Secretariat’s to Conduct Legal Review and Verification Annex 3 (and Annex 2).

Annex 4 – Comment by MPOA

Discussion:

1) Dr. John P. suggested a new title for Annex 4 in emphasizing that this procedure is voluntary (not obligatory) to help growers facing persisting/prolonged issues in existing plantations in a constructive way. It was noted that the discussion which led to this guidance note was not intended for new plantings; Suggestion of titles ie. 1) “Guidance notes for determining validity of claims over land and natural resources by people living in existing and future oil palm plantations”, The next suggestion also by Dr. Liew Y. A. is to insert the word ”voluntary” within the text to stress that this procedure is voluntary and not in any way replacing the law/local regulations.

2) Yeap S. J. highlighted that this can be a mandatory procedure for new plantings/future cases as growers will also be complying/applying this procedure if the RSPO New Planting Procedure is strictly adhered to.

3) Dr. Liew Y. A. opined that it is more appropriate for this procedure to be made mandatory for new plantings (before issues arise).

4) Dr John P. concurred and suggested that the wording for the title to be relooked and to re-emphasize that this procedure should be voluntary. C. Mathews suggested to put it in the Preamble and all agreed to include “voluntary” and “mandatory” in the Preamble.

of 28

5) Dr. Shahrakbah Y. then mentioned that it is already mandatory for new planting as it is part of the FPIC process, hence there is no need to emphasize on the word mandatory. Agreed by all.

6) The floor came to consensus to add the text “This guidance should be voluntary for existing plantations, and is part of the RSPO New Planting Procedure. Further to this, Dr. Liew Y. A. proposed that the word “existing” to be omitted in the next sentences i.e. “….customary and user rights that have been made in existing plantation” and in the second paragraph “….following RSPO Criteria which touch on customary and user rights in existing plantations”. Another insertion was made under the Preamble of Paragraph 1 i.e.“The main purpose if this guidance is to assist plantation managers to determine which claims of customary or user rights that affect existing plantations are valid”.

7) Dr. John P. mentioned that since the word voluntary has been mentioned in the Preamble, there is no need to have the title “Voluntary Procedure” anymore in the sub-heading “Procedure” as suggested by Faizal P. in the previous discussion on guidance 2.3. Hence, the title remains as “Procedure”.

8) In relation to the text in Additional note, C. Mathews suggested to change “consideration’ to “cognisance” as to draw attention on the court’s decision, rather than just ‘taking into consideration’.

Conclusion:

1) All agreed to add on text “This guidance should be voluntary for existing plantations, and is part of the RSPO New Planting Procedure” in Preamble, Para 1.

2) All agreed to delete the word “existing” in; -Preamble, Para 1 “The main purpose of this Guidance is to assist plantation managers to determine which claims of customary or user rights that affect existing plantations are valid” -Preamble, Para 1 “…..customary and user rights that have been made in existing plantation” -Preamble, Para 2 “…….following RSPO Criteria which touch on customary and user rights in Plantations”.

3) All agreed to change ‘consideration” to “cognisance” in sentence “…..claims of customary or user rights shall be taken into consideration when following…”.

4) Sub-heading “Procedure” remained as it is. Amended text:

a) Preamble – -Para 1: “The main purpose of this Guidance is to assist plantation managers to determine which claims of customary or user rights that affect plantations are valid, and which are not. This guidance should be voluntary for existing plantations, and is part of the RSPO New Planting Procedure. Only once this has been determined can progress be made on addressing customary and user rights that have been made in plantations”. -Para 2: “This (draft) Guidance may be used in conjunction with addressing the following RSPO Criteria which touch on customary and user rights in plantations.”

b) Additional notes – -“Court decisions (including - -where relevant – native court, district court, high court, federal court and court of appeal) relating to claims of customary or user rights shall be taken into cognisance when following this guidance.”

The previous comments from WWF & GEC

a) Sabarinah M. briefed that there were previous comments received from WWF and GEC that yet to be discussed.

b) Melissa Y. confirmed that all the comments submitted earlier have been discussed and addressed throughout the MYNI Taskforce Meeting.

of 28

c) Dr John P. briefed that Dr. Faizal P. has reverted through SMS that he have gone through all the comments submitted earlier and confirmed no further discussion is required.

Next Steps

a) Sabarinah M. summarised that the MYNI TF has covered all the comments received during and after the public consultation period and have come to agreement on all comments. The agreed version will be distributed to everyone for review if there any grammatical error. It was emphasised that changes in content of the document is not allowed.

b) From the discussion, the MYNI TF members have agreed to submit a request to RSPO Secretariat to check on the legality and validity of Annex 2 & 3 including MPOB’s mill licensing on methane capture (for new mills).

c) Sabarinah M. requested all members to confirm their name and affiliation in the Draft MYNI.

d) The Taskforce agreed that i. The revised draft MYNI will be first circulated to members who attended the 4th

MYNI Taskforce meeting on 30th June 2014; then ii. The revised draft together with the minutes of meeting will be circulated to all

MYNI Taskforce members on 4th July 2014; iii. Members to revert their comments by 8th July 2014 iv. The finalised MYNI 2014 will be sent to RSPO on 11th July, then the technical team

of RSPO will call for an internal meeting, for submission of the Draft MYNI to RSPO Board of Governance (BoG). It was noted that the approval will be either via physical or electronic meeting. RSPO will make an announcement once the MYNI 2014 has been approved by the BoG, then a workshop for CB will be organised. If there is amendment or action required resulting from the review from RSPO Secretariat, MYNI Taskforce secretariat will be informed and a physical meeting will be called if required.

e) Yeap S.J sought clarification from RSPO if the certified units can continue using the MYNI 2008 until the revised MYNI is being approved. Bremen Y. responded that there was an announcement made in RSPO website. For new certification, all the audits have to be conducted using the generic P&C 2013. For existing certifications, the certified units are given 2 options, i.e. to carry out audits using P&C 2013 or using existing NI. If existing NI is used, then another audit against the new NI is required to demonstrate compliance on the new NI prior to May 2015.

Closure of Meeting

The meeting adjourned on 26th June 2014 at 2.45pm.

4th meeting of rspo malaysian national … of 4th myni taskforce... · 2014-07-10 · page 1 of 28...

Documents